Since you ask ...

Well, this is my saecond attempt to post regarding my book, Dark Resurrection, What do you think of my Spotlight page?

 

http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/Jesus_the_Vampire

 

 

It is not "historical."

Comments

  • Okay, I'm sure that it's a tongue-in-cheek story line... Insert the roll of the eyes...

     

    The largest problem is that it's completely backwards. It's like having Moby Dick ride a motorcycle across North America searching for Cap'n Ahab.

     

    If you must go with such a plotline, then Jesus of Nazareth would have to be an un-vampire. He does not seek to drink the blood of others, but rather gives others His blood to drink. The blood does not doom one to an undead state of eternal darkness, but rather calls one out of twilight darkness and half-life into the full and abundant life in the Light. Instead of spreading a curse, He lifts a curse.

     

    True, like a vampire, He must be invited in, and the key fact about Him is that He did not remain dead. But that came as no surprise to Him.

     

    Also, aside from the most lurid of fiction, no one ever considers Mary Magdalene to be His "consort." But you did say that you were throwing historical accuracy out the window...

     

    I'd ask when you changed your name, but be that as it may...

     

    As there is no content to be read aside from the blurb, I have no comment on content.

  • I'd have to agree with Skoob. But with all things aside....the cover is interesting, maybe different color font for the title. Not sure about the interior as there's no way to sample it yet.

  • I think the cover needs to be rethought.

     

    I really don't see anything that suggests what the book is about or what its themes may be. From the title and art alone (at least judging from the thumbnail, which is the only version available) there are a hundred ways it could relate to Jesus or religion. 

     

    If nothing else, the cover needs some focus. Every element at the moment has equal interest with the result that the eye doesn't rest anywhere. If nothing else, enlarge the moon (which is just floating off in a corner right now) until the hill and crosses are silhouetted against it. That would not only make what is now a pretty dark cover much brighter, it would also create a center of interest. 

     

    You should also think about including some additional visual element that conveys the specific theme of the book.

    __________________________________________
    Black Cat Studios http://www.black-cat-studios.com/
  • Kevin,

     

    You have a great title. You will sell if you have an insanely fabulous cover.

     

    Post some ideas and different options here. You will get feedback and help. Upload also your raw pictures. Others can play with them too. Many minds and skills.

     A citizen of the world.

  • Just KevinJust Kevin Lulu Genius

    Skoob_Ym wrote:

    Okay, I'm sure that it's a tongue-in-cheek story line... Insert the roll of the eyes...

     

    I am not sure it is, but the reason I said it's not historical is because Jesus etc., was not a vampire ... therefore it is fantasy. (Notice I did not say Jesus did not exist because Roman records of the time do mention him, but not in great detail).

     

    The largest problem is that it's completely backwards. It's like having Moby Dick ride a motorcycle across North America searching for Cap'n Ahab.

     

    Yes, I agree, that's just stupid. It would have to have been on a horse.

     

    If you must go with such a plotline, then Jesus of Nazareth would have to be an un-vampire. He does not seek to drink the blood of others, but rather gives others His blood to drink.

     

    That was just a metaphor using wine, but no one is sure that's actually true.

     

    The blood does not doom one to an undead state of eternal darkness, but rather calls one out of twilight darkness and half-life into the full and abundant life in the Light. Instead of spreading a curse, He lifts a curse.

     

    There's dozens of versions of what that metaphor means.

     

    True, like a vampire, He must be invited in,

     

    I forget which work of fiction started that idea off, was it Buffy? but very few vampire stories follow it, none of the early ones do.

     

    and the key fact about Him is that He did not remain dead.

     

    Was there not only one witness to that? And others only found an empty grave? But if he was a vampire he would not have transcended to Heaven would he? For a start, vampires have no soul and are un-dead, not resurrected, and evil usually. If this story wants us to believe he was a vampire then I do not see how it would work, because as a vampire would he still not wander the earth? perhaps seen by many? Not just vanish?

     

    But that came as no surprise to Him.

     

    I think the surprise is that he resurrected as, or because of becoming, a vampire.

     

    It may have been a surprise to discover a huge boulder blocking his way. Smiley Happy

     

    Also, aside from the most lurid of fiction, no one ever considers Mary Magdalene to be His "consort."

     

    But in fact there's a lot of proof that she was his wife and they even had children, and there's a lot of recent reasoning behind that, and it is even said in the scripts Romans eventually edited out a few 100 years later.

     

    But you did say that you were throwing historical accuracy out the window...

     

    Indeed! That's why it cannot really be called Historical.

     

    I'd ask when you changed your name, but be that as it may...

     

    Who what?

     

    As there is no content to be read aside from the blurb, I have no comment on content.

     

    It is a real shame there's no Preview.


     

  • Just KevinJust Kevin Lulu Genius

    I think the cover needs to be rethought.

     

    Indeed it does.

     

    I really don't see anything that suggests what the book is about or what its themes may be.

     

    The cover does not give much away, but the blurb says it all.

     

    From the title and art alone (at least judging from the thumbnail, which is the only version available) there are a hundred ways it could relate to Jesus or religion.

     

    The three crosses on a hill are a well known symbolic representation of the crucifixion of Jesus, but from there it could lead to anywhere, even all the way to today.

     

    If nothing else, the cover needs some focus. Every element at the moment has equal interest with the result that the eye doesn't rest anywhere. If nothing else, enlarge the moon (which is just floating off in a corner right now) until the hill and crosses are silhouetted against it. That would not only make what is now a pretty dark cover much brighter, it would also create a center of interest.

     

    It is very dull is it not? But seeing as the crosses are empty one would assume it to be dawn, the time of the Resurrection, so not dark at all, but vampires do not like the light much do they? The hill was never that close to the tomb was it? Actually I feel sure I have seen that image before, but with out the moon and text, and even heard of the story before.

     

    You should also think about including some additional visual element that conveys the specific theme of the book.

     

    A red sky and bats?  Smiley Very Happy

  • Just KevinJust Kevin Lulu Genius

    Em_Press wrote:

    Kevin,

     

    You have a great title.

     

    Me? It's not my book. You think I would spell second like that and then question my own book's validity? Gosh. The ones I do that with never reach being published  Smiley Wink

     

    I copied and pasted that posting from Shameless, because it included >>  "What do you think of my Spotlight page?" Hence the title of my posting.

     

    You will sell if you have an insanely fabulous cover.

     

    Mine normally do.  Smiley TongueThey still do not sell insanely well, though. Smiley Frustrated  One day I may promote them.

     

    Post some ideas and different options here. You will get feedback and help. Upload also your raw pictures. Others can play with them too. Many minds and skills.

     

    I am very distressed that you think I need to.  Smiley Frustrated  I think I may now wander away and cry in to a mug of Bovril.

     


     

  • ok, sorry again... Smiley Happy

     

    Really truly. Gosh, I keep doing that. I take everything back.

     

     

     A citizen of the world.


  • kevinlomas wrote:

    Skoob_Ym wrote:

    Okay, I'm sure that it's a tongue-in-cheek story line... Insert the roll of the eyes...

     

    I am not sure it is, but the reason I said it's not historical is because Jesus etc., was not a vampire ... therefore it is fantasy. (Notice I did not say Jesus did not exist because Roman records of the time do mention him, but not in great detail).

     

    The largest problem is that it's completely backwards. It's like having Moby Dick ride a motorcycle across North America searching for Cap'n Ahab.

     

    Yes, I agree, that's just stupid. It would have to have been on a horse.

     

    Skoob_Ym wrote: Don't be silly. A whale can't ride a horse.

     

    If you must go with such a plotline, then Jesus of Nazareth would have to be an un-vampire. He does not seek to drink the blood of others, but rather gives others His blood to drink.

     

    That was just a metaphor using wine, but no one is sure that's actually true.

     

    Skoob_Ym wrote: And one might argue that vampirism is a metphor, as well.

     

    The blood does not doom one to an undead state of eternal darkness, but rather calls one out of twilight darkness and half-life into the full and abundant life in the Light. Instead of spreading a curse, He lifts a curse.

     

    There's dozens of versions of what that metaphor means.

     

    Skoob_Ym wrote: But only one endorsed by the person who stated the metaphor.

     

    True, like a vampire, He must be invited in,

     

    I forget which work of fiction started that idea off, was it Buffy? but very few vampire stories follow it, none of the early ones do.

     

    Skoob_Ym wrote: I could be wrong, as unlikely as that would be, but I think Bram Stoker started it.

     

    and the key fact about Him is that He did not remain dead.

     

    Was there not only one witness to that? And others only found an empty grave? But if he was a vampire he would not have transcended to Heaven would he? For a start, vampires have no soul and are un-dead, not resurrected, and evil usually. If this story wants us to believe he was a vampire then I do not see how it would work, because as a vampire would he still not wander the earth? perhaps seen by many? Not just vanish?

     

    Skoob_Ym wrote: Above 500 at one time, in the first recorded accounts (Pauline epistles) which even the skeptics date to circa 55 AD (20 years after the events, give or take). Exemplia Gratia: 1 Cor. 15:1-5, Paul's statement of his doctrinal basis. Keep in mind that after only 20  years, there would ahve been many alive who could have "swift-boated" Paul if he were making it up.

     

    But that came as no surprise to Him.

     

    I think the surprise is that he resurrected as, or because of becoming, a vampire.

     

    It may have been a surprise to discover a huge boulder blocking his way. Smiley Happy

     

    Also, aside from the most lurid of fiction, no one ever considers Mary Magdalene to be His "consort."

     

    But in fact there's a lot of proof that she was his wife and they even had children, and there's a lot of recent reasoning behind that, and it is even said in the scripts Romans eventually edited out a few 100 years later.

     

    Skoob_Ym wrote: I know I shouldn't, but I'll bite: What historical "proof" aside from "the most lurid of fiction" suggests that Christ married Mary of Magdala and had children?

     

    But you did say that you were throwing historical accuracy out the window...

     

    Indeed! That's why it cannot really be called Historical.

     

    I'd ask when you changed your name, but be that as it may...

     

    Who what?

     

    Skoob_Ym wrote: The statement in the post says "This is my secoand post regarding my book, Dark Ressurection." [sic]

     

    From the possessive pronoun, and the fact that the author's name is "Frederick Preston" (which is not "Kevin Lomas...") 

     

    As there is no content to be read aside from the blurb, I have no comment on content.

     

    It is a real shame there's no Preview.

     

    Skoob_Ym wrote: Is it then not your book?


     


     

  • Just KevinJust Kevin Lulu Genius

    Skoob_Ym wrote:

    kevinlomas wrote:

    Skoob_Ym wrote:

    Okay, I'm sure that it's a tongue-in-cheek story line... Insert the roll of the eyes...

     

    I am not sure it is, but the reason I said it's not historical is because Jesus etc., was not a vampire ... therefore it is fantasy. (Notice I did not say Jesus did not exist because Roman records of the time do mention him, but not in great detail).

     

    The largest problem is that it's completely backwards. It's like having Moby Dick ride a motorcycle across North America searching for Cap'n Ahab.

     

    Yes, I agree, that's just stupid. It would have to have been on a horse.

     

    Skoob_Ym wrote: Don't be silly. A whale can't ride a horse.

     

    Apparently fish can, and they cannot even breath out of water.

     

    a_fish_needs_a_bicycle.jpg (415×301)

     

    If you must go with such a plotline, then Jesus of Nazareth would have to be an un-vampire. He does not seek to drink the blood of others, but rather gives others His blood to drink.

     

    That was just a metaphor using wine, but no one is sure that's actually true.

     

    Skoob_Ym wrote: And one might argue that vampirism is a metphor, as well.

     

    Not as such. It is based on people in the past known to have drunk their enemy's  blood. Count Vlad for example.

     

    The blood does not doom one to an undead state of eternal darkness, but rather calls one out of twilight darkness and half-life into the full and abundant life in the Light. Instead of spreading a curse, He lifts a curse.

     

    There's dozens of versions of what that metaphor means.

     

    Skoob_Ym wrote: But only one endorsed by the person who stated the metaphor.

     

    Who would that be then?

     

    True, like a vampire, He must be invited in,

     

    I forget which work of fiction started that idea off, was it Buffy? but very few vampire stories follow it, none of the early ones do.

     

    Skoob_Ym wrote: I could be wrong, as unlikely as that would be, but I think Bram Stoker started it.

     

    That Count Drac did not need an invite.

     

    and the key fact about Him is that He did not remain dead.

     

    Was there not only one witness to that? And others only found an empty grave? But if he was a vampire he would not have transcended to Heaven would he? For a start, vampires have no soul and are un-dead, not resurrected, and evil usually. If this story wants us to believe he was a vampire then I do not see how it would work, because as a vampire would he still not wander the earth? perhaps seen by many? Not just vanish?

     

    Skoob_Ym wrote: Above 500 at one time, in the first recorded accounts (Pauline epistles) which even the skeptics date to circa 55 AD (20 years after the events, give or take). Exemplia Gratia: 1 Cor. 15:1-5, Paul's statement of his doctrinal basis. Keep in mind that after only 20  years, there would ahve been many alive who could have "swift-boated" Paul if he were making it up.

     

    It was easy to make stuff up in those days and not be found out because there were no newspapers etc to publicise events in over vast areas and most people rarely travelled far. They could have seen any chap in a beard said to be Jesus just to fulfil prophecies. Many, including some scholars not long after the event, have said that most of those letters were fakes. Just useful PR. I guess it depends on if one wants to believe or looks at what has been discovered.

    I read a short SF story about a time traveller who wanted to meet Jesus and went back and could find no trace of him. He wandered all over the area asking about him and describing his achievements and teachings. Still no one had heard of him, but a rumour started to spread about an amazing chap. Eventually the time traveller was crucified as a trouble maker, but the legend he had created grew and grew.

     

    Anyway, we digress.

     

    But that came as no surprise to Him.

     

    I think the surprise is that he resurrected as, or because of becoming, a vampire.

     

    It may have been a surprise to discover a huge boulder blocking his way. Smiley Happy

     

    Also, aside from the most lurid of fiction, no one ever considers Mary Magdalene to be His "consort."

     

    But in fact there's a lot of proof that she was his wife and they even had children, and there's a lot of recent reasoning behind that, and it is even said in the scripts Romans eventually edited out a few 100 years later.

     

    Skoob_Ym wrote: I know I shouldn't, but I'll bite: What historical "proof" aside from "the most lurid of fiction" suggests that Christ married Mary of Magdala and had children?

     

    Ermm, obviously the stuff you have not seen or read discovered over many years by historians, theologians, archaeologists, translators, some of those people actually high up within the 'church', etc etc etc. Even some who want to believe and do it as a living do their best to find out if what they believe in is the actual full truth. And no, I even mean predating Facebook.

     

    But you did say that you were throwing historical accuracy out the window...

     

    Indeed! That's why it cannot really be called Historical.

     

    I'd ask when you changed your name, but be that as it may...

     

    Who what?

     

    Skoob_Ym wrote: The statement in the post says "This is my secoand post regarding my book, Dark Ressurection." [sic]

     

    And you also read the title of my posting?

     

    From the possessive pronoun, and the fact that the author's name is "Frederick Preston" (which is not "Kevin Lomas...") 

     

    Well spotted!

     

    Am I the only one who bothers to look in Shameless?

     

    As there is no content to be read aside from the blurb, I have no comment on content.

     

    It is a real shame there's no Preview.

     

    Skoob_Ym wrote: Is it then not your book?

     

    If it was, why would I now be asking for opinions after using Lulu for years? It's not even a story I would consider,  writing or reading, although I have done a vampire story.

     

    http://www.lulu.com/shop/kevin-lomas/houze-keeper-vanted/paperback/product-22665444.html


     


     


     

  • ................

    ...

     

    Skoob_Ym wrote: Above 500 at one time, in the first recorded accounts (Pauline epistles) which even the skeptics date to circa 55 AD (20 years after the events, give or take). Exemplia Gratia: 1 Cor. 15:1-5, Paul's statement of his doctrinal basis. Keep in mind that after only 20  years, there would ahve been many alive who could have "swift-boated" Paul if he were making it up.

     

    It was easy to make stuff up in those days and not be found out because there were no newspapers etc to publicise events in over vast areas and most people rarely travelled far. They could have seen any chap in a beard said to be Jesus just to fulfil prophecies. Many, including some scholars not long after the event, have said that most of those letters were fakes. Just useful PR. I guess it depends on if one wants to believe or looks at what has been discovered.

    I read a short SF story about a time traveller who wanted to meet Jesus and went back and could find no trace of him. He wandered all over the area asking about him and describing his achievements and teachings. Still no one had heard of him, but a rumour started to spread about an amazing chap. Eventually the time traveller was crucified as a trouble maker, but the legend he had created grew and grew.

     

    Anyway, we digress.

     

    Skoob further wrote:   Paul would have been found out rather quickly. He restricted his travels to locations in which there were substantial Jewish populations that were very familiar with Jewish Law and that had contact with Jerusalem. Even in his high water mark, at Rome, he found a Jewish population in which to begin teaching.

     

    The other apostles would ahve had even more trouble making stuff up, since they spent their time in and around Jerusalem, where it all happened. Hard to stand up in the town square and shout "There was an earthquake here yesterday" if the folks in the square keep shouting back, "No there wasn't, you idiot!"

     

    But of course, folks who haven't read anything serious about theology always want to think it was a game of Chinese Whispers. Quite simplistic, but there you go...

     

    But that came as no surprise to Him.

     

    I think the surprise is that he resurrected as, or because of becoming, a vampire.

     

    It may have been a surprise to discover a huge boulder blocking his way. Smiley Happy

     

    Also, aside from the most lurid of fiction, no one ever considers Mary Magdalene to be His "consort."

     

    But in fact there's a lot of proof that she was his wife and they even had children, and there's a lot of recent reasoning behind that, and it is even said in the scripts Romans eventually edited out a few 100 years later.

     

    Skoob_Ym wrote: I know I shouldn't, but I'll bite: What historical "proof" aside from "the most lurid of fiction" suggests that Christ married Mary of Magdala and had children?

     

    Ermm, obviously the stuff you have not seen or read discovered over many years by historians, theologians, archaeologists, translators, some of those people actually high up within the 'church', etc etc etc. Even some who want to believe and do it as a living do their best to find out if what they believe in is the actual full truth. And no, I even mean predating Facebook.

     

    Skoob further wrote: So in other words, you've got no source at all, and you're relying on the "Well, everyone knows" method. I see. If you want to read the skeptics, even Ehrman concedes that the gospel taught by Paul (Jesus was God, died for sins of mankind, rose again) was formed within a month of the death of Christ.

     

    If you're in a mood to improve your education on the topic, I could recommend some books...

    ...............................................................................

  •  


    kevinlomas wrote:


    Skoob_Ym wrote:

     

    The largest problem is that it's completely backwards. It's like having Moby Dick ride a motorcycle across North America searching for Cap'n Ahab.

     

    Yes, I agree, that's just stupid. It would have to have been on a horse.

     

    Skoob_Ym wrote: Don't be silly. A whale can't ride a horse.

     

    Apparently fish can, and they cannot even breath out of water.

     

    a_fish_needs_a_bicycle.jpg (415×301)

     

    Skoob further wrote: That, my friend, is not a horse. It is a bicycle. And it is closer akin to a motorcycle than it is to a horse, so my point stands.

     

     

  • Just KevinJust Kevin Lulu Genius

    Skoob further wrote:   Paul would have been found out rather quickly.

     

    Apparently he was later on. Did I not say that?

     

    He restricted his travels to locations in which there were substantial Jewish populations that were very familiar with Jewish Law and that had contact with Jerusalem. Even in his high water mark, at Rome, he found a Jewish population in which to begin teaching.

     

    Oh, you mean people who want to believe? It's very much like all the made up news on line. People will believe anything they want to without checking if it is true, and that is on line where it is easy to do so.

     

    The other apostles would ahve had even more trouble making stuff up, since they spent their time in and around Jerusalem, where it all happened.

     

    Embroidered is the correct work. You are aware that the miracles attributed to Jesus were 'borrowed' from other older beliefs? From pagan religions? The fruition of a prophecy had to be proven, and at a time the Jews were under the thumbs of the Romans.

     

    Hard to stand up in the town square and shout "There was an earthquake here yesterday" if the folks in the square keep shouting back, "No there wasn't, you idiot!"

     

    No but it is easy to say, "yesterday I heard from a man who heard from a man that he had heard that some chap walked on water". Now if Jesus could cause earthquakes that would be impressive and the causes felt all over the place. There would have to be one though ...

     

    But of course, folks who haven't read anything serious about theology always want to think it was a game of Chinese Whispers.

     

    But that is more or less what serious research in to it says is exactly what happened. It is in fact historical and can be traced back. And it took 100s of years, not just a few.

     

    Quite simplistic, but there you go...

     

    It can be simplistic of the writers of such books only use the same type of books as reference. Ones written by people who wish to believe, in otherwords.

     

    But that came as no surprise to Him.

     

    I think the surprise is that he resurrected as, or because of becoming, a vampire.

     

    It may have been a surprise to discover a huge boulder blocking his way. Smiley Happy

     

    Also, aside from the most lurid of fiction, no one ever considers Mary Magdalene to be His "consort."

     

    But in fact there's a lot of proof that she was his wife and they even had children, and there's a lot of recent reasoning behind that, and it is even said in the scripts Romans eventually edited out a few 100 years later.

     

    Skoob_Ym wrote: I know I shouldn't, but I'll bite: What historical "proof" aside from "the most lurid of fiction" suggests that Christ married Mary of Magdala and had children?

     

    Ermm, obviously the stuff you have not seen or read discovered over many years by historians, theologians, archaeologists, translators, some of those people actually high up within the 'church', etc etc etc. Even some who want to believe and do it as a living do their best to find out if what they believe in is the actual full truth. And no, I even mean predating Facebook.

     

    Skoob further wrote: So in other words, you've got no source at all, and you're relying on the "Well, everyone knows" method. I see.

     

    That is far from what I replied. But concidering that half the churches have closed down in Europe, perhaps they do.  Smiley Happy

     

    If you want to read the skeptics, even Ehrman concedes that the gospel taught by Paul (Jesus was God, died for sins of mankind, rose again) was formed within a month of the death of Christ.

     

    It really is not my fault if you do not read all the books, watch all the documentries, put together by modern research techniques by the type of experts I mentioned, those with enquiring minds not just relying in Faith. Look them up. The BBC do good ones. It is like expecting me to proove to you that the Earth is round and how I know that it is.

     

    If you're in a mood to improve your education on the topic, I could recommend some books...

     

    That's very insulting.

  • ______________________

    It really is not my fault if you do not read all the books, watch all the documentries, put together by modern research techniques by the type of experts I mentioned, those with enquiring minds not just relying in Faith. Look them up. The BBC do good ones. It is like expecting me to proove to you that the Earth is round and how I know that it is.

    ______________________

     

    Kevin, I'm going to end off on this. The BBC doing a documentary is not research. It's pablum for the masses who want to think that it's scholarly. Nothing that you've seen on The History Channel or NatGeo Channel is in any way "Expert" discussion.

     

    Have you read The Lessons of History, by Will and Ariel Durant? I have.

    Have you read Will Durant's The Story of Civilization, volume III, Caesar and Christ.? I have.

    Have you read Edward Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire? I have.

     

    THOSE are scholarly works that touch on this period of history and on this topic. "Enquiring minds not just relying on faith?" THOSE books are the ones.

     

    Have you read Flavius Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews? I have.

     

    That work, along with his The Jewish War, are the definitive contemporary histories of First Century Judea.

     

    I'd go on, but I hate to brag.

     

    So I have to ask, What book is it that I haven't read? Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code? As I said, lurid fiction (and I did read it, and laughed at it).

     

    If you want an education on the topic -- and I have over half a century studying Theology and Christian Apologetics -- I'd be glad to teach you something. If you'd prefer to take the contrarian view that whatever you were taught as a child must therefore be wrong, then feel free to believe what you wish to believe.

     

    Hence my earlier statement:

    _________________________________

     

    I wrote:

    If you're in a mood to improve your education on the topic, I could recommend some books...

     

     You wrote:

    That's very insulting.

     

    No, Kevin; for that to be an insult one would have to believe that your education was absolutely flawless, and I'm certain that not even you can rise to that degree of arrogance.

     

    I'm making a generous offer here: To educate you in an area where you seem to have a lack. For example, you hold that the BBC produces "Documentaries" that tell you all you need to know.

     

    If I've misjudged your education, and you hold, say, a Doctrate in Divinity, or perhaps you can cite a few books you're read on the subject that hold slightly more intellectual rigor than Dan Brown's comic books, then I'll gladly apologize.

     

  • Just KevinJust Kevin Lulu Genius

    Kevin, I'm going to end off on this. The BBC doing a documentary is not research. It's pablum for the masses who want to think that it's scholarly.

     

    Ermm, who do you think makes them? It's experts in their fields, often famous ones, but I have already said that twice, not some hack reporter. Do you actually know what the BBC is?

     

    Nothing that you've seen on The History Channel or NatGeo Channel is in any way "Expert" discussion.

     

    Don't be silly. I will repeat, Who do you think makes them? And who mentioned discussion? Discussions  are not documentaries. Anyhow, did you mean the US History Channel or the UK one? The latter one shows repeats from BBC.          http://www.historyextra.com/search/apachesolr_search/jesus  I do agree about many US channels that insist on dramatising everything being annoying and often partially nonsense.

     

    Have you read The Lessons of History, by Will and Ariel Durant? I have

     

    You mean the one written in 1968? Gosh, that's very up to date.

     

    Have you read Will Durant's The Story of Civilization, volume III, Caesar and Christ.? I have.

     

    written in 1944! Do you not read or view new research?

     

    Have you read Edward Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire? I have.

     

    That's even more up to date ...  the last one was published in 1789. Although I am sure it was also a fictional film years ago. Ah, here we are (very historic ...)    https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fall_of_the_roman_empire/

     

    THOSE are scholarly works that touch on this period of history and on this topic. "Enquiring minds not just relying on faith?" THOSE books are the ones.

     

    You are joking, right? Where's the relevance? Research and knowledge moves on.

     

     

    Have you read Flavius Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews? I have.

     

    Which one? the original or the dozens of translations? I think the last translation was done in the 1920s. It hardly mentions Jesus. Few dispute that there was once a rabbi teacher called Jesus, just what was claimed about him may not have been true.

     

    That work, along with his The Jewish War, are the definitive contemporary histories of First Century Judea.

     

    I think the last time an English version of that was published was in 1984. These books are not exactly based on new research, are they? Most of what Josephus wrote down must have come from hearsay, anyway, well well after the events, because not much was written down for him to go off.

     

    I'd go on, but I hate to brag.

     

    About reading books well out of date? But I am glad you made a list of them, I just read things, not list them.

     

    So I have to ask, What book is it that I haven't read?

     

    I have no idea. Would you like to make a wish list?

     

    Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code? As I said, lurid fiction (and I did read it, and laughed at it).

     

    Odd, I thought that was fiction, which brings us back to > do you think it a good idea to write fiction depicting Jesus as a vampire? And at the same time calling it historical? I am sure that was my original point.

     

    If you want an education on the topic

     

    Oh dear, another insult.

     

    Let us step back a bit to what some things I read and watch are often based on, and the type of people involved in the making of them.  This is just a tiny example I can point you at. Are this man's credentials good enough?  http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/jesus_1.shtml

    Oh, I am sorry, that's not an ancient book but part of the BBC's educational remit. Sorry.

     

    -- and I have over half a century studying Theology and Christian Apologetics -- I'd be glad to teach you something. If you'd prefer to take the contrarian view that whatever you were taught as a child must therefore be wrong,

     

    Huh? What do you mean by that? However, that was over 55 years ago and a lot has proven to be wrong. Anyway, if you would like to read about the first Christian Apologetics, try here >>   http://www.bethinking.org/apologetics/an-introduction-to-christian-apologetics

     

    then feel free to believe what you wish to believe.

     

    Oh I do, I have spent decades looking at everything from many sides and keeping up with fresh things about them. But come daylight I will be sacrificing a goat. Babies are often missed.

  • I should think a goat might be missed as well.

     

    Alright, I was a bit harsh with you there, Kevin. Let's put it another way: This is a topic in which I have invested considerable time and study. I have written two books on the topic of Apologetics; one non-fiction and one in the form of a fictional debate between atheists and Christians. I think that they speak for themselves.

     

    A side note: Since about 1534, every version of Antiquities of the Jews has been based on the same Latin mss., and thus minor variations (i.e. a translation done today versus two hundred years ago) will be trivial.

     

    In pointing out publication dates, you seem to take the view that newer thought REPLACES older thought. Todays research may illuminate yesterday's, but it does not replace it. A book does not lose its authority because it was written forty or fifty years ago, even though a newer book may add to what is known (or detract from it, in some cases).

     

    For most Greeks of the Fifth century BC, the writings of Herodotus were their first inkling of Egyptology. Today we know far mroe than Herodotus did about Ancient Egypt. But that does not change the fact that he wrote a contemporary historical view of Egypt in the 5th century BC. He is still a primary source and an authority on the topic. By contrast, a modern writer, around 1973 or so, proposed that the similarity between Egyptian and Meso-American Pyramids proved that there were extra-terrestrial visitors who had touched down in both places.

     

    This latter view is of course absurd; The prevalance of pyramids in early cultures is due to the weight of the materials relative to their bearing strength. For a taller building, a larger footprint was needed. Thus the modern writer is now discredited, while the ancient writer is still honored and lauded.

     

    To summarize: Newer does not mean Better.

     

    This brings us to the topic of expertise. Consider this: If I were to try to tell you what London's Fleet Street looks like, despite the fact that I have never been to London -- or England, or anywhere in Europe -- and know only what I have seen in books, on television, and through the internet, you would be fully justified in dismissing my silly theories and my ignorant remarks as just that.

     

    Am I wrong? Wouldn't you, as a native Englishman, who has no doubt visited London, be far more of an expert than I am?

     

    By the same token, I suggest to you that my studies in Christian Apologetics give me far more authority than something you saw on the BBC -- and isn't that pretty much the same thing?

     

    Oh, yes, you claim that the BBC program was composed by "Experts."

     

    Well, I could tell you that the TV shows I've seen about London were done by "Experts." Wouldn't you still be more of an expert than I am on London?

     

    And if you offered to teach me about London, should I see that as an insult, given that I've never even been in the same time zone with any location in Europe (well, okay, I might have been in a time zone that could be shared by the Ukraine; I'd have to check a map...)?

     

    So it's not an insult to offer to teach you Apologetics, is it?

  • Just KevinJust Kevin Lulu Genius

    To be honest, I am not really that interested nowadays.   Smiley LOL I will reply to this though.

     


    Skoob_Ym wrote:

    I should think a goat might be missed as well.

     

    Not really. People breed them for meat and milk.

     

    Alright, I was a bit harsh with you there, Kevin. Let's put it another way: This is a topic in which I have invested considerable time and study. I have written two books on the topic of Apologetics; one non-fiction and one in the form of a fictional debate between atheists and Christians. I think that they speak for themselves.

     

    I hope you used contemporary research.

     

    A side note: Since about 1534, every version of Antiquities of the Jews has been based on the same Latin mss., and thus minor variations (i.e. a translation done today versus two hundred years ago) will be trivial.

     

    Is that not what I said? It is ancient, and hardly had the advantage of modern day discoveries or technology.

     

    In pointing out publication dates, you seem to take the view that newer thought REPLACES older thought. Todays research may illuminate yesterday's, but it does not replace it.

     

    Thoughts, perhaps, but facts are often updated if not fully replaced. As one example, the Dead Sea Scrolls were not discovered until 1946, which would have been a disadvantage to previous experts would you not think? And as they are slowly being translated they are filling in many missing gaps and correcting things that the Romans messed around with.

     

    A book does not lose its authority because it was written forty or fifty years ago, even though a newer book may add to what is known (or detract from it, in some cases).

     

    It depends on the subject matter and what has been discovered since. Technology is racing ahead more and more each year and aiding archaeology and historical research like never before.

     

    For most Greeks of the Fifth century BC, the writings of Herodotus were their first inkling of Egyptology.

     

    Indeed, the Greeks learned a great deal from the Ancient Egyptians, because they were in fact still around and kept vast records. I am not sure what Egypt called itself because apparently the word is Greek.

     

    Today we know far mroe than Herodotus did about Ancient Egypt.

     

    Possibly only more about the archaeology of the place. We had to learn how to translate a language he no doubt could speak before we got very far with it. The Rossetta stone helped greatly also, because prior to that we could not translate some forms of Greek.

     

    But that does not change the fact that he wrote a contemporary historical view of Egypt in the 5th century BC.

     

    Yes? And? I don't recall you mentioning him or the place previously. It is another subject predating Jesus.

     

    He is still a primary source and an authority on the topic.

     

    Of the time. Not that I recall that he wrote about rains of frogs and rivers of blood and escaping Jews. One would have thought that would feature greatly in Egyptian history.

     

    By contrast, a modern writer, around 1973 or so, proposed that the similarity between Egyptian and Meso-American Pyramids proved that there were extra-terrestrial visitors who had touched down in both places.

     

    And you are comparing that with sensible research? What's your point? 

     

    This latter view is of course absurd;

     

    Indeed, whereas that the two civilisations could have had early contact it not so absurd. Then again they have also recently been discovered in China and Russia, oh and the US and Canada. Seems everyone was at it! Although it's no more ridiculous than what some famous Greek philosophers thought.

     

    The prevalance of pyramids in early cultures is due to the weight of the materials relative to their bearing strength.

     

    Indeed. Not to mention getting them eventually to the top. It would have been a real chore if they had been cubed.

     

    For a taller building, a larger footprint was needed. Thus the modern writer is now discredited, while the ancient writer is still honored and lauded.

     

    What? are you saying that the Greeks published plans on how to build a pyramid? So why are engineers still arguing about the methods?

     

    To summarize: Newer does not mean Better.

     

    Well, in most cases it does. Historians of even a few decades ago would have killed for the number crunching speed of modern translation software/computers, and archaeologists would have died for LADAR. Not to mention being allowed to use it in now 'friendlier' countries.

     

    This brings us to the topic of expertise. Consider this: If I were to try to tell you what London's Fleet Street looks like, despite the fact that I have never been to London -- or England, or anywhere in Europe -- and know only what I have seen in books, on television, and through the internet, you would be fully justified in dismissing my silly theories and my ignorant remarks as just that.

     

    Err, why would I? Then again it would depend on what you said. And never forget the advantage of Google Street View.

     

    Am I wrong? Wouldn't you, as a native Englishman, who has no doubt visited London, be far more of an expert than I am?

     

    Not really, The UK is not as small as some people think. I have been to London 3 times and never to Fleet Street (it's not a tourist area.) I live near to Manchester, 190 miles from London. One would have to live there to fully know it.

     

    By the same token, I suggest to you that my studies in Christian Apologetics give me far more authority than something you saw on the BBC -- and isn't that pretty much the same thing?

     

    Not really Part 2. The BBC have been churning educational stuff out since 1920 and have run the Open University since 1965. The BBC is unique.

     

    Oh, yes, you claim that the BBC program was composed by "Experts."

     

    What? just one program? They all are. Would you like to see some of the History books and DVDs?    https://store.bbc.com/factual/history

     

    Well, I could tell you that the TV shows I've seen about London were done by "Experts." Wouldn't you still be more of an expert than I am on London?

     

    No, why should I be? But then again, I have no idea what you know about the place. But that was not the point. You said that documentaries are not made by experts when in fact they are. It's simply modern media and even does have books to go with it, and always have, for those who later wish to read about what they viewed. I have no idea what you have against experts who use media other than books. I would suspect that you have learned by reading have you not? (But perhaps not TV or internet content   Smiley Tongue   )   

     

    And if you offered to teach me about London, should I see that as an insult, given that I've never even been in the same time zone with any location in Europe (well, okay, I might have been in a time zone that could be shared by the Ukraine; I'd have to check a map...)?

     

    So it's not an insult to offer to teach you Apologetics, is it?

     

    Yes, because you are ignoring everything I say or saying that it is not valid. That's not a good attitude for a teacher.

     

    But as I said at the start, I have lost interest and often only reply out of politeness. Some would say its the Christian thing to do.  Smiley Wink


     

Sign In or Register to comment.