The historicity of Jesus

[baby tuckoo]

Me, too. Thanks, Kush.

[solicitr]

Thanks, Kushana, I had always been under the (apparently mistaken) impression that James and 1 Peter were legit, and 1 John by the author of the Fourth Gospel (whoever that was).

[anthriel]

I sw00n for Kushana.

Just sayin'.





baby t, if you have a double post, and no one has posted after you, you can delete your second post. Just hit "edit post", and choose "delete this post". FYI!

[Kushana]

Tell us how the movie was!

-Kushana

[Primula Baggins]

It was Harry Potter, of course, and it was . . . good. I wish I could be a little more enthusiastic. It's not my favorite of the books, and the movie couldn't really fix that. Some great moments and some really good performances, though (especially the main villain).

[Kushana]

Primula Baggins, thank you for the review! (I am reluctant to see it because the book was so angry and dark: I imagine both qualities would be all the more vivid on film.)

Me, too. Thanks, Kush.

'Kushana', if you please: I do not wish to be thought of as a furry rubber ball. (Or as a country south of Egypt, as flattering as that may be.)

You're welcome.

/K. hands Anthriel a fan and goes to smartly open a window

(There, now -- I usually don't put people to sleep *that* quickly.)

-Kushana
P.S. I John and Rev -- there are enough similarities that most scholars believe there was a Johannine school of early Christian literature (unfortunately the Gnostic texts attributed to John have yet to be thoroughly digested in this context.)

[Frelga]

It was Harry Potter, of course, and it was . . . good. I wish I could be a little more enthusiastic. It's not my favorite of the books, and the movie couldn't really fix that. Some great moments and some really good performances, though (especially the main villain).

Just had a shot of weird when I opened the thread called Historicity of Jesus and the first thing I read was "It was Harry Potter"

Kushana, thank you, that was very interesting.

[Kushana]

Just had a shot of weird when I opened the thread called Historicity of Jesus and the first thing I read was "It was Harry Potter"

My, that would change a few things...

Kushana, thank you, that was very interesting.

You're welcome. I find it helpful, too: my field tends to divine subjects into discrete categories, and answering questions forces me to collate what I know. (For instance, dialects of Aramaic in my era are mutually intelligible -- if you know the grammar of one, apply a bit of linguistic common sense, and learn other alphabets, you can read most of the rest. Yet, professionally, readers of the Aramaic sections of the Hebrew Bible (and in the Dead Sea Scrolls and related finds), historians puzzling over the brief blips of Aramaic in the New Testament, specialists in Syriac, and students of Mandaeism have little contact with each other -- unless they're making a very narrow study that tracks some grammatical feature of the language. I don't know if anyone has tried to sit down and sort out of those literatures, taken together, have anything cohesive to say ... especially since knowing a language is a passport into everything it was ever used to write.)

-Kushana

[WampusCat]

Before that they're quite catywhampus (and indeed they undergo changes after that time ...

Fascinating and useful post, Kushana. Thank you. I would like to add, though, that it is much better to be WampusCatty than catywhampus.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Fascinating and useful post, Kushana. Thank you. I would like to add, though, that it is much better to be WampusCatty than catywhampus.

Count me as another big fan, Kushana! But then, you knew that already.

[Kushana]

Fascinating and useful post, Kushana. Thank you. I would like to add, though, that it is much better to be WampusCatty than catywhampus.

I quite agree!

-Kushana