partypooper's Comments

Yep, that's me. A little ball of rage. Grrrr so mad. The title is massively misleading simply because it is so definitive in its claim. Like I said, nothing to support that claim other than the crucifixion may have fallen within the 10 year span.

No one who matters, I'm not certain what you're saying about Polycarp and Papias. I can say, however, that most scholars believe Matthew to be written around 80-90 AD (so really it's more like 50-60 yrs after the earthquake). Matthew was written to address the dissolving community of Jews and Jewish-Christians after the destruction of their collective identity and the text clearly demonstrates this. Moreover, the author of Matthew used the Gospel of Mark as a source text (as did the author of Luke) and Mark was written no earlier than 70 AD.

As for the Magdalen papyrus fragment, you're referring to a redating of the fragment by Carsten Thiede which gained a lot of publicity, but is considered by most biblical scholars to be inaccurate. Most would date the fragment to around the end of the 2nd century, middle of the 2nd century at the earliest.

I don't mean to be a dick, if that's how this is being interpreted. I just love discussing this stuff.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I sincerely doubt atheists are the most intolerant group on the internet. After all it is the internet we're talking about.

Massively misleading title to this post. It is interesting to hear of the confirmation of an earthquake set within time constraints of the Gospel of Matthew. Nevertheless, that means all of nothing. There's nothing else other than a 10 year window of time connecting this to the crucifixion. Also the Gospel of Matthew contained information that indicates it was written after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem and so was written in the late 1st century. That's AT LEAST 45 years after this major, major earthquake. It's not out of the question, in fact it's likely, that the author of Matthew incorporated this real event in to his gospel for portent's sake. The author of Matthew had a message (pro-Jewish) to convey and was exceptionally capable of using subtle touches of language, symbols, and history to do so.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
The bird is fine. The bird is asleep so clearly it's not terribly distressed. Seriously, don't throw the word torture around. Certainly don't immediately assume that these researchers would kill the bird. Why would they?

"Well, good work team! We learned a lot about the oxygen intake of Heliangelus amethysticollis. *neck snap* C'mon Eduardo let us grab cervezas." (Translated from original spanish)

They're not sadists, they're not even unkind. They're ornithologists so if anything that means they like birds way more than you cathy.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Hooray, for scientific research and medical progress! Horray, for fully functional prosthesis for HUMAN amputees! Sometimes the price of medical progress can look barbaric, but modern practices are incredibly humane. Especially when compared to how we came upon early medical discoveries, with HUMAN subjects.

http://uploads3.wikipaintings.org/images/william-hogarth/the-reward-of-cruelty-1751.jpg

We're thankful for the "cruelty" of past scientists, even dependent on the outcome of that cruelty, but wholly ungrateful to those continuing the work under far more humane conditions and without human subjects. These scientists are trying to do good for amputees, trying to make a world of difference in their life. To call them sick torturers because they sedated a monkey and used a device to read its brain impulses is to be without any sense. Get a grip.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Neatorama, you should just stop posting animal articles because inevitably there will be ridiculous claims of animal cruelty. This guy made something interesting, dare I say neat, out of a worthless piece of taxidermy that would have just been gathering dust. At least he put it to use. This isn't torture, nor abuse, nor deranged. To say it is, is beyond hyperbole, get some perspective.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Injecting star wars into something doesn't it make it better or in anyway more interesting. The original was an hilarious ad, laughed my ass off, but this? Pretty lousy.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.


Page 1 of 2       next

Profile for partypooper

  • Member Since 2012/08/04


Statistics

Comments

  • Threads Started 22
  • Replies Posted 0
  • Likes Received 0
  • Abuse Flags 0
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
 
Learn More