(October 1, 2014 at 11:08 am)Drich Wrote: Wow, this is awesome. Not your failed facts, but the fact that you provided a list of things you have not researched, which is what you blindly accused me of.

Quote: Today the Bible is widely available in a single volume, easy to use and often small enough to slip into a pocket. We do not realize what an advantage we have in comparison with people of the first century. The normal form of the book then was the scroll; a book with pages, the codex, was used at that time mainly for note taking. It developed to become the normal book form over the next two or three centuries. This means that a Jew who owned a Bible in Jesus’s time would have had an armful of scrolls. Since every copy was made by hand, books were not cheap, although we should not exaggerate their cost; a copy of a lengthy book like Isaiah might take a professional scribe three days or so to make, so the price would be his wages and the cost of the materials. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that many individual Jews would own a complete set of the Scriptures, but according to Luke 4, a small town like Nazareth had a copy of Isaiah in its synagogue, so undoubtedly it held rolls of the Torah and, it is likely, the rest of the Hebrew Bible.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Millard_Jesus.shtml

Yeah, if you paid a scribe to write it for you. If you did it yourself it wouldn't be very expensive. Papyrus costs about $1/sheet (from Egypt) which is about 100x the cost of modern wood-pulp paper is less than 1c/sheet. The production would have been a little less than optimal with the lower technology in ancient times, so the price then may have been more (even $2/sheet etc). So it is much more expensive (about 100x more expensive), however it is still readily available to anyone at that price just not in the quantities you can get wood-pulp for.

It's not generally worth paying a scribe just to do a $1 sheet of papyrus for you (although Paul did for his letters), but you'd use one if you were using parchment. In any case, the cost was not prohibitive and anyone who was literate could make copies (in part or whole) if they wanted to.

Quote:Actually according to Luke 2 @ age 12 he already had a profound understanding of God's word. considering His father's profession at the time He would not have been able to read or write by conventional means.

His father was a builder and builders were very well paid.

[Edit - never mind, erroneous post. Don't read this.]

I don't see how anybody on either side can realistically argue this subject at all. Especially atheists who don't believe in a historical Jesus at all.

(October 1, 2014 at 11:45 am)Stimbo Wrote: [Edit - never mind, erroneous post. Don't read this.]

Don't tell me what to do! I read the shit out of that!

How rude of you - I was polite enough not to read yours.

(October 1, 2014 at 9:53 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(October 1, 2014 at 9:27 am)Drich Wrote: Those who believe Jesus was a spirit are not Christian as to be a believer of Christ we must all believe He was Born of woman, therefore he was coporeal, and not just a spirit.

(October 1, 2014 at 9:27 am)Drich Wrote: Your entitled to build any picture you need to. Further more I believe God will support you where you are right and forgive you where you are wrong, just as He supports me where I am right and give me forgiveness where I am wrong. God has given us the freedom to both be wrong, so long as we both keep seeking the truth, and do not become luke warm in our beliefs.

Ultimatly what makes one 'Christian' is whether or not God Judges you saved.

I worship the God of the bible and not the god of popular christianity. I have constructed a vision of the God of the bible by only using what the bible says He is like. In some areas we agree and in others we do not.

Does it make me more Christian and someone else less? No not at all.

Drich's split personality disorder (or as they probably call it in his household, his "inner holy trinity") would seem to be the only way to make sense of this. Christians were never instructed by God to limit their understanding of him through the Bible alone (that would be the demands of the Church, which Drich also submits to the Bible without hint of irony) nor does the Bible offer a single clear interpretation from which to reach a decisive conclusion about the nature of God and Jesus, as hordes of Christians make hilariously obvious.

Sorry for the confusion. The simple answer is that one can not be a Christian if he does not follow The teachings of Christ. While God is the ultimate and final judge over which of us are indeed Christian, Christ Himself says we shall know each other by judging the 'fruit' we produce. To judge 'Fruit' is to use the bible as a standard, as the bible indentifies the Fruit of the Holy Spirit. (The only evidence of a Christian.) If one does not adhear to scripture then one can not be a follower of the God of the bible.

(October 1, 2014 at 12:56 pm)Drich Wrote: The simple answer is that one can not be a Christian if he does not follow The teachings of Christ.

The Teachings of Christ™? Plenty of other genuinely believing and honest Christians believe wildly different things than you. Do you have the right Teachings of Christ™?

(October 1, 2014 at 12:56 pm)Drich Wrote: Sorry for the confusion. The simple answer is that one can not be a Christian if he does not follow The teachings of Christ. If one does not adhear to scripture then one can not be a follower of the God of the bible.

So, like the Catholics you love to criticize for placing supreme authority in Popes and Church councils, you yourself in fact place ultimate authority in the Church's determination of Canonical scripture and then judge Christians by their adherence to the Church council's ruling by whether or not they follow the Canon. You do recall what Christ allegedly taught about hypocrites, right?

And in whom does authority lie for interpreting the meaning of whatever scripture you arbitrarily accept? The High Drich?

(October 1, 2014 at 11:43 am)Aractus Wrote: Yeah, if you paid a scribe to write it for you. If you did it yourself it wouldn't be very expensive. Papyrus costs about $1/sheet (from Egypt) which is about 100x the cost of modern wood-pulp paper is less than 1c/sheet. The production would have been a little less than optimal with the lower technology in ancient times, so the price then may have been more (even $2/sheet etc). So it is much more expensive (about 100x more expensive), however it is still readily available to anyone at that price just not in the quantities you can get wood-pulp for.

Ah, no. not even close.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/261854?seq=3
as per the artical referenced above:
for the common man
One day's wage=one denarius
One Denarius=10 Asses
One sheet of papyrus=6 asses.

To Put it in terms you can understand. Let's say you make 10 dollars an hour, 100 dollars aday. Out of that $100 it takes 60 dollars to buy one sheet of paper. Then you have to pay a 'scribe' (per line) to write on it.

Now tell me some more about how affordable this was to the common man.

Before you do, know you need to either back up your numbers/your version or admit that you are wrong here. You opened your first post to me stating I could not support my claims. What is good for the goose is good for the gander

Quote:It's not generally worth paying a scribe just to do a $1 sheet of papyrus for you (although Paul did for his letters), but you'd use one if you were using parchment. In any case, the cost was not prohibitive and anyone who was literate could make copies (in part or whole) if they wanted to.

Paul used a scribe for everything, as it was said he had failing eyesight.

Quote:His father was a builder and builders were very well paid.

the word that describes Joseph's profession, describes both a skilled and unskilled laborer. Couple this with where Jesus grew up (Jesus grew up in Nazerath a military garrison town.) it is most likly that Joseph was probably poor. A great craftsman would do better in a larger city or a port town.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...5045&t=KJV

---

(October 1, 2014 at 12:58 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(October 1, 2014 at 12:56 pm)Drich Wrote: The simple answer is that one can not be a Christian if he does not follow The teachings of Christ.

The Teachings of Christ™? Plenty of other genuinely believing and honest Christians believe wildly different things than you. Do you have the right Teachings of Christ™?

If they believe what they do based soley on the same bible then we are both good, no matter what we believe.

(October 1, 2014 at 2:24 pm)Drich Wrote: If they believe what they do based soley on the same bible then we are both good, no matter what we believe.

Huh? How can you both be right if you have contradictory answers for the same question?