African Children Denounced As "Witches" By Christian Pastors

[Phenomanul]

Just in case it got missed, let's go down the other line of reasoning, to yet another uncomfortable conclusion for you.



That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

It gets tossed because it is unverifiable, and indistinguishable from any other book with self-proclaimed truth.

Show me how sin makes me mortal. This is a pretty testable claim.

First let's define terms.

Define "sin".


edit:

Going to be hard to get out of this one:



This is where the "supernatural" schtick begins to breakdown.

Your "supernatural" claim becomes measurable and testable when "supernatural" starts having effects on the natural.

I'll have to address this post later in the week or perhaps not til the weekend RG.

[Th'Pusher]

"LOVE your neighbor as thyself" / "Treat others in a manner as you would also like to be treated" (which is not consistent with the endorsement of slavery).

These statements are perfectly consistent with an endorsement of slavery if you consider slaves as property.

[Phenomanul]

So you would treat others as property if you want to be treated as property yourself...? It's quite the stretch.

[Th'Pusher]

So you would treat others as property if you want to be treated as property yourself...? It's quite the stretch.

Slaves aren't others. Slaves are property and I can treat my own property however I want.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I’m not arguing against signals and stochastics. Or about your experience in telecom – your continued attempt at ‘sleight of hand’ noted.

I’m arguing against the premise that your ‘telecom observations’ apply to a period that they, BY DEFINITION cannot be applied to (especially when you imply values of time < zero). You bring up stochastics - which when applied to cosmology inherently try to ‘make sense’ of the vastness of the cosmological fields by reducing several of the asymptotic tensors to usable terms using deterministic methods and probabilities (random even). Stochastic processes are intrinsically mathematical tools, and while most modern cosmological models are generated by said methods – cosmological solutions, however, are still very real, the parameters are still very real: time remains a discrete term, the cosmological constant remains a discrete term, critical energies remain discrete terms, etc… yet you keep wanting to justify imaginary solutions for cosmological models as valid answers – at their most critical point, no less (t=0). The use of stochastics in other applied fields is not the same as using stochastics in cosmology where over 46 physical constants must be satisfied.

It’s worse than backpedaling when you keep trying to state the same thing over and over again, after being told of its absurdness.



Newtonian construct...??? You must be out of your damn mind.

Transfinite arithmetic leads to inherent contradictions which is why physicists are generally forbidden from using it. In math, the idea of an actual infinity is just conceptual. Working within certain rules, mathematicians can deal with infinite quan ies and infinite numbers in the conceptual realm. However – and here’s the point – it’s not descriptive of what can happen in the real world....

The universe indicates a finite beginning because it has one; that the mathematical expressions for the various cosmological models currently fail to ‘unify everything,’ including some discrete quantum effects and other phenomena is irrelevant in light of the fact that a beginning IS still indicated by most of the models. In fact, the finiteness of the cosmological constant itself appears to be a necessary condition for the stability of models which undergo an exponentially expanding state (as currently observed in our universe). The finiteness of the cosmological constant, in turn, is dependent of the finiteness of time. So again, a “t=0 premise” is completely defensible because one can’t assume an infinite number of past events for time, and then traversing the infinite to get to the moment of the big bang singularity. It would be as if someone had managed to count down all of the negative numbers to arrive at zero, the ‘origins moment’... Such a task is intuitively nonsense. For that mathematical reason alone physicists can conclude that there must have been a beginning to the universe. So IF time marks the beginning (i.e. time began), and IF one can’t traverse an infinite past to get to point zero THEN the universe did not exist prior to t=0.

In the big picture: Nothing……….. “BOOM”…… Everything. You wanting to believe the ‘unreal’ nature of other models for the sake of avoiding that ramification is your prerogative alone but ultimately why we don’t see eye to eye on the viability of solutions.



LOL

Who are you trying to convince..?? Yourself? The delusion that you have to gauge your intelligence against anyone else’s on this board only speaks to your own insecurities.

AND I don’t have to show you anything. The last time I listed my degrees on this forum (over 10 years ago) I was lambasted and accused of trying to ‘show off,’ of being ‘arrogant’. Again, no matter what I do… you all criticize it as ‘wrong’. The hate will keep coming simply because you all don’t agree with my beliefs. Just imagine… Since that time frame I’ve added three more degrees to my wall – 2 in the last year alone.

What’s annoying is that you all get so caught up on semantics and harp on my word choices (neglecting the arguments themselves) – but English was not even my primary language as I didn’t start learning it until the age of 12.



What part of “I’ll be back Monday” was difficult for you to understand….? I have really busy work days on most days. It’s rare when I can mul ask and weave in forum participation. Unlike you, I’m also trying to address like 5 other simultaneous posts that are lost in the flow of any semblance of true discourse... You have it easy. You can focus all of your brain power on having to counter-address only my posts… Unfortunately for you, your rebuttals never amount to nothing more than your opinions and assertions, or get this, fallacious comparisons (i.e.” telecom observations apply to the framework of the big bang singularity”). That you keep pressing with said argument is still laughable.

You keep saying your argument is correct, but FUNDAMENTALLY it is WRONG.



And your schtick is claiming to be smarter than anyone else to the point of smug and cynical dismissiveness.

How else do you want me to talk about cosmology if you also want me to reduce my responses down to one liners? You can’t have it both ways. Some concepts in cosmology – the whole point of stochastics actually – need to be framed in relatively simplified constructs (expressions) to be described at all in a practical sense.

So you google them and describe them as tools trying to demonstrate you can address what I am talking about. You at some point going to try and address what I am talking about the topology of zero as not an endpoint, the transverse axis along the complex conjugate? Modern real constructs are built on said principles.

The universe indicates at least one apparent beginning due to the expansion pattern we can observe. There is no direct evidence to even the very best singularity theorem and they still do not know how to account for the quantum effect because the mechanics are not yet defined.

Time is not discrete particularly at those types of extremes for your creation story. Einstein's relativity of time is what it is. You can keep on insisting on your Newtonian construct to describe reality at those conditions but that debate was settled a century ago. Descartes coordinates from a source are more intuitive to reality. Euler did that much better with his complex analysis and actually matches all observations. All are real and fundamental.

All you are doing is trying to justify your creation story for your magic sky person. It's been very common throughout history to attribute the unknown to their God.

My schtick is that I am smarter than you. That is it. Your compensation are these walls of texts. Your schtick is to get people to talk to you however you can.

[Blake]

Kinda the definition of 'Supernatural'...

Yeah like Zeus and Santa Claus

[boutons_deux]

An atheist was seated next to a little girl on an airplane and he turned
to her and said, "Do you want to talk? Flights go quicker if you strike
up a conversation with your fellow passenger."

The little girl, who had just started to read her book, replid to the total
stranger, "What would you want to talk about?"

"Oh, I don't know," said the atheist. "How about why there is no God,
or no Heaven or , or no life after death?" as he smiled smugly.

"Okay," she said. "Those could be interesting topics but let me ask
you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same
stuff - grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns
out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?"

The atheist, visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence,
thinks about it and says, "Hmmm, I have no idea." To which
the little girl replies, "Do you really feel qualified to discuss
God, Heaven and , or life after death, when you don't know ?"

And then she went back to reading her book.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

IF they're so easily verifiable how come you never provided any evidence...?

Subject those sites to the same level of scrutiny.

I don't feel the need to cite my claim that Constantine ordered the councils that chose the books to put in what became known as the Bible. I don't feel the need to cite that he did it as part of declaring his state religion.

Anyone can google Constantine and check for themselves. We also both know if you could dispute a point of fact you would go reductio ad absurdum and try to make it all about my mistake.

If you want to believe that book is binding then go ahead.

[Phenomanul]

So you google them and describe them as tools trying to demonstrate you can address what I am talking about. You at some point going to try and address what I am talking about the topology of zero as not an endpoint, the transverse axis along the complex conjugate? Modern real constructs are built on said principles.

The universe indicates at least one apparent beginning due to the expansion pattern we can observe. There is no direct evidence to even the very best singularity theorem and they still do not know how to account for the quantum effect because the mechanics are not yet defined.

Time is not discrete particularly at those types of extremes for your creation story. Einstein's relativity of time is what it is. You can keep on insisting on your Newtonian construct to describe reality at those conditions but that debate was settled a century ago. Descartes coordinates from a source are more intuitive to reality. Euler did that much better with his complex analysis and actually matches all observations. All are real and fundamental.

All you are doing is trying to justify your creation story for your magic sky person. It's been very common throughout history to attribute the unknown to their God.

My schtick is that I am smarter than you. That is it. Your compensation are these walls of texts. Your schtick is to get people to talk to you however you can.

Euler himself was a devout Christian, perhaps the greatest mathematician ever... to use his methods to suggest that you can claim an imaginary or a non-real beginning to this universe is laughable. In the bigger picture that's what all of your fuss is about. You wanting to avoid the ramifications of a finite, discrete beginning. The worse part is that you keep insisting on obfuscating the larger issue with irrelevant minutiae (that are inherent to the complexity of cosmology) as if somehow your side-bar tangents with the mention of said complexity validates your position. It doesn't. It's a ploy that might work in your dealings with other folks, "razzle and dazzle" with buzzwords.... but it doesn't work on me.

If I have to re-explain your own terms to you it's because you insist on misapplying them.

What part of "your observations from telecom cannot be fully applied to a period when all physical laws break down..." don't you understand???

I did not realize your lab could generate temperatures to replicate the Planck epoch (over a billion degrees Kelvin). Much less the higher temperatures required to simulate a closer approximation to the singularity itself.

It's absurd.

It's idiotic.

Yet you insist.

I'll keep it short so that you quit trying to dodge it, in your 'supreme' intelligence.

[Phenomanul]

I don't feel the need to cite my claim that Constantine ordered the councils that chose the books to put in what became known as the Bible. I don't feel the need to cite that he did it as part of declaring his state religion.

Anyone can google Constantine and check for themselves. We also both know if you could dispute a point of fact you would go reductio ad absurdum and try to make it all about my mistake.

If you want to believe that book is binding then go ahead.

Those two statements are verifiable. I don’t have a beef with either of them. They, however, were not the speculative assertions that I was arguing with you about over the course of the thread. More sleight of hand on your part. That’s your shtick…

You implied that ‘Constantine and his cronies’ tampered with pre-existing 1st writings to change the overall gospel message. That Constantine reinvented JESUS; his deity.

You later backpedaled when I pointed out that belief in JESUS' deity pre-dated the 4th century… “well… yes, yes… but Constantine made that the ONLY official belief…” Good grief.

You still have not shown the gospels or the writings of 'Paul' from before the 4th century.

I pointed to 48 different manuscripts that exist in collections all over the world, which of course you rejected.

as if that invalidates my point that Constantine and his cronies embellished and excluded when he made the Bible.

An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… embellished how? Where? To what extent? Proof?

I just think the contrivances like the genealogy that the NT starts with are obvious. The context is the actual story of what jesus did without the miracles and who Constantine was and his background over 3.5 centuries later.

An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… who contrived the genealogy? When (what year)? Proof?

(1) Constantine made christianity into his own image. the first few chapters of the NT.

An unsubstantiated assertion on your part and some added dismissiveness for emphasis… it’s an opinion. Nothing more. Proof?

(2) Joseph was a refugee from Herod. [prior to jesus’ birth]

An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? Per scripture Joseph was indeed fleeing from Herod, not because he was a political refugee but because Herod wanted to kill all infants in Bethlehem...

(3) Mary was impregnated while a refugee in Cairo.

An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof?

(4) Jesus was born before the Pharisee tribe Joseph came from could sanctify him

An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? Joseph was a carpenter by trade, not a Pharisee…

(5) He left and went to the river where he met John the Baptist who was running a counter culture of ritual bathing for absolution as opposed to the barbeque in the city.

An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? JESUS wasn’t a disciple of John the Baptist… [LOL re-writing the entire gospel narrative in a manner that suits your phony allegations…]

(6) When the Pharisees had John imprisoned John and the rest fled north to Galilee where Jesus met and converted Simon and Peter.

An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? Jesus fled?

I do think that all organized religions are intellectually bankrupt. I also think that is the crux of why you dislike me so much. I question your faith in reasonable terms and you don't want to lose it.

Another assertion (I don’t dislike you – I find you annoying)… this one alleging to describe my motives. And I would hardly call your methods ‘reasonable’; they’re dishonest and morally bankrupt [i.e. no integrity].

(7) When Christianity is termed a slave's religion, I mean it literally. [I translate most of the OT in terms of former Egyptian slaves and the slavemaster dynamic that we know existed in Ptolemaic Egypt from which they escaped.]

An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? Here you are throwing all of Judaism away basically saying Moses made up the Torah.

(8) Jesus overturns dovecotes and harrangues the pharisees practicing leviticus for demanding sacrifice for salvation.

An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? JESUS fought the established religious authorities of His day because of their inherent hypocrisy… because of their lack of understanding of the scriptures themselves….

(9) You do understand that your Holy Book was put together by men named Constantine, Cyril, and Nestor? Your God did not make that book. Men did.

This is closer to your initial statement in the post above. It could do without the smugness. But the assertion that ‘compiling works’ and ‘making a book’ is the same as ‘reinventing’ it…well, that right there is the unsubstantiated lie...

(10) That is what gave the pharisees probable cause with the romans to go after Jesus. [overturn the dovecotes and moneychangers table]

An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof?

(11)It's Roman property law over wrecking the temple that sees him crucified.

An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? Scripture specifically says that “no one could accuse JESUS of any wrongdoing”.

(12) That is the story that took over the mediterranean. That and him telling everyone to give up judgment and find absolution through him.

An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? A belief system spreads over the Mediterranean even though said beliefs were subject to penalty of death and persecution? Doesn’t really sound convincing unless there was more to said beliefs - your trite oversimplification, notwithstanding.

(13) Then they had the second council where they took the torah, the gospels. a bunch of sales guides from early church leaders whose opinions the Romans liked which are no more valid then what you and I are talking about today then the prophecy that predicted Jesus appearance to corroborate the stuff in John and called it the word of God.

A slew of unsubstantiated assertions on your part… Proof? LOL “sales guides”

(14) Much of the New Testament is so contrived as to be upsetting. The genealogy it starts off with irritates me from the go. For the Jesus story to make any sense, he has to be a bas outside the social order of Nazareth. If he's not then he is the son of a builder and goes to work with his father. His disdain for the pharisees actually makes sense if that geneology is not true. Nevermind that God was the one it says knocked up Mary to gloss over any uncertainty.

Another set of unsubstantiated assertions on your part… Proof?

At which point the allegation that the NT message was entirely contrived is supported strictly by assertions without any proof. Again, why do you hold the credibility of writings which discredit the Gospel message in higher regard? Because it suits you. It’s convenient for you to keep framing up a position that is based on an interpretation of history which is highly speculative. Your only ‘evidences’ are vague references to do ents which wish to discredit known narratives and somehow I doubt you prescribe the same sort of scrutiny to the legitimacy of said do ents.

And yet you portend to speak of credibility.

[Blake]

It's a ploy that might work in your dealings with other folks, "razzle and dazzle" with buzzwords.... but it doesn't work on me.*

Lol

[Blake]

Those two statements are verifiable. I don’t have a beef with either of them. They, however, were not the speculative assertions that I was arguing with you about over the course of the thread. More sleight of hand on your part. That’s your shtick…

You implied that ‘Constantine and his cronies’ tampered with pre-existing 1st writings to change the overall gospel message. That Constantine reinvented JESUS; his deity.

You later backpedaled when I pointed out that belief in JESUS' deity pre-dated the 4th century… “well… yes, yes… but Constantine made that the ONLY official belief…” Good grief.


I pointed to 48 different manuscripts that exist in collections all over the world, which of course you rejected.


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… embellished how? Where? To what extent? Proof?


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… who contrived the genealogy? When (what year)? Proof?


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part and some added dismissiveness for emphasis… it’s an opinion. Nothing more. Proof?


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? Per scripture Joseph was indeed fleeing from Herod, not because he was a political refugee but because Herod wanted to kill all infants in Bethlehem...


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof?


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? Joseph was a carpenter by trade, not a Pharisee…


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? JESUS wasn’t a disciple of John the Baptist… [LOL re-writing the entire gospel narrative in a manner that suits your phony allegations…]


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? Jesus fled?


Another assertion (I don’t dislike you – I find you annoying)… this one alleging to describe my motives. And I would hardly call your methods ‘reasonable’; they’re dishonest and morally bankrupt [i.e. no integrity].


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? Here you are throwing all of Judaism away basically saying Moses made up the Torah.


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? JESUS fought the established religious authorities of His day because of their inherent hypocrisy… because of their lack of understanding of the scriptures themselves….


This is closer to your initial statement in the post above. It could do without the smugness. But the assertion that ‘compiling works’ and ‘making a book’ is the same as ‘reinventing’ it…well, that right there is the unsubstantiated lie...


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof?


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? Scripture specifically says that “no one could accuse JESUS of any wrongdoing”.


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? A belief system spreads over the Mediterranean even though said beliefs were subject to penalty of death and persecution? Doesn’t really sound convincing unless there was more to said beliefs - your trite oversimplification, notwithstanding.


A slew of unsubstantiated assertions on your part… Proof? LOL “sales guides”


Another set of unsubstantiated assertions on your part… Proof?

At which point the allegation that the NT message was entirely contrived is supported strictly by assertions without any proof. Again, why do you hold the credibility of writings which discredit the Gospel message in higher regard? Because it suits you. It’s convenient for you to keep framing up a position that is based on an interpretation of history which is highly speculative. Your only ‘evidences’ are vague references to do ents which wish to discredit known narratives and somehow I doubt you prescribe the same sort of scrutiny to the legitimacy of said do ents.

And yet you portend to speak of credibility.

Any proof of Jesus walking on water?

[Phenomanul]

Slaves aren't others. Slaves are property and I can treat my own property however I want.

Talk about a semantical dodge.

It's a shame JESUS didn't overthrow the Roman empire to drive that point home. ...

[Phenomanul]

Any proof of Jesus walking on water?

You're missing the point. Typical sophist.

Fuzzy is crying that somehow I misrepresented his position. That the counter-narrative he's stated against scriptural credibility is backed by mountains of evidence he's not presenting but "readily available".

His counter narrative is comprised of unsubstantiated allegations... I just rounded them up for him.

You come in saying... "ooooh ooooh ooooh but prove that Jesus walked on water".

That's not my argument at all.

I've told you (repeatedly at this juncture) that I believe the credibility of Scripture on grounds of faith. I do believe its legitimacy and authenticity as a volume of works from ancient antiquity. I believe in the authenticity of NT as providing first hand narratives detailing the life of JESUS. That said, I don't have to prove its content. That's a wholly different battle.

But thanks for jumping in all out of context, like always.

[Phenomanul]

Later peeps.

[Blake]

You're missing the point. Typical sophist.

Fuzzy is crying that somehow I misrepresented his position. That the counter-narrative he's stated against scriptural credibility is backed by mountains of evidence he's not presenting but "readily available".

His counter narrative is comprised of unsubstantiated allegations... I just rounded them up for him.

You come in saying... "ooooh ooooh ooooh but prove that Jesus walked on water".

That's not my argument at all.

I've told you (repeatedly at this juncture) that I believe the credibility of Scripture on grounds of faith. I do believe its legitimacy and authenticity as a volume of works from ancient antiquity. I believe in the authenticity of NT as providing first hand narratives detailing the life of JESUS. That said, I don't have to prove its content. That's a wholly different battle.

But thanks for jumping in all out of context, like always.

I don't really care what your trivial point is. The ultimate point is that it's all on you to validate bible god's existence.

Bible god just does not get to be talked about regarding origins of the universe. Tough .

[Blake]

Later peeps.

Tell god to text me. I lost some keys and I need him to find them

[I. Hustle]

You have to prove yourself to me and Blake. We don't care what your beliefs are or respect them. We will continue to belittle you and mock your beliefs because they conflict with our views!!!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Those two statements are verifiable. I don’t have a beef with either of them. They, however, were not the speculative assertions that I was arguing with you about over the course of the thread. More sleight of hand on your part. That’s your shtick…

You implied that ‘Constantine and his cronies’ tampered with pre-existing 1st writings to change the overall gospel message. That Constantine reinvented JESUS; his deity.

You later backpedaled when I pointed out that belief in JESUS' deity pre-dated the 4th century… “well… yes, yes… but Constantine made that the ONLY official belief…” Good grief.


I pointed to 48 different manuscripts that exist in collections all over the world, which of course you rejected.


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… embellished how? Where? To what extent? Proof?


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… who contrived the genealogy? When (what year)? Proof?


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part and some added dismissiveness for emphasis… it’s an opinion. Nothing more. Proof?


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? Per scripture Joseph was indeed fleeing from Herod, not because he was a political refugee but because Herod wanted to kill all infants in Bethlehem...


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof?


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? Joseph was a carpenter by trade, not a Pharisee…


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? JESUS wasn’t a disciple of John the Baptist… [LOL re-writing the entire gospel narrative in a manner that suits your phony allegations…]


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? Jesus fled?


Another assertion (I don’t dislike you – I find you annoying)… this one alleging to describe my motives. And I would hardly call your methods ‘reasonable’; they’re dishonest and morally bankrupt [i.e. no integrity].


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? Here you are throwing all of Judaism away basically saying Moses made up the Torah.


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? JESUS fought the established religious authorities of His day because of their inherent hypocrisy… because of their lack of understanding of the scriptures themselves….


This is closer to your initial statement in the post above. It could do without the smugness. But the assertion that ‘compiling works’ and ‘making a book’ is the same as ‘reinventing’ it…well, that right there is the unsubstantiated lie...


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof?


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? Scripture specifically says that “no one could accuse JESUS of any wrongdoing”.


An unsubstantiated assertion on your part… Proof? A belief system spreads over the Mediterranean even though said beliefs were subject to penalty of death and persecution? Doesn’t really sound convincing unless there was more to said beliefs - your trite oversimplification, notwithstanding.


A slew of unsubstantiated assertions on your part… Proof? LOL “sales guides”


Another set of unsubstantiated assertions on your part… Proof?

At which point the allegation that the NT message was entirely contrived is supported strictly by assertions without any proof. Again, why do you hold the credibility of writings which discredit the Gospel message in higher regard? Because it suits you. It’s convenient for you to keep framing up a position that is based on an interpretation of history which is highly speculative. Your only ‘evidences’ are vague references to do ents which wish to discredit known narratives and somehow I doubt you prescribe the same sort of scrutiny to the legitimacy of said do ents.

And yet you portend to speak of credibility.

TLDR.

You proved that they did when you brought up the Chronicle of Nicodemus. Remember the 2nd century complaining about all the blasphemy and it not appearing in the stuff out of Nicaea?

You argued no point of fact there either. Just demand citation.

My point about Roman property law comes from reading Summa Theologica. In it Aquinas talks about his stance of God's law and natural law. In it he pulls the Pandect which is Justinian's legal journal. From there I pulled what are known as the Twelve Tablets from Roman law which were from antiquity.

Here is the actual statute. When Jesus destroyed Temple property he incurred a debt.

"When a debt has been acknowledged or a judgment has been pronounced in court, 30 days must be the legitimate grace period. Thereafter, arrest of the debtor may be made by the laying on of hands. Bring him into court. If he does not satisfy the judgment (or no one in court offers himself as surety on his behalf) the creditor may take the debtor with him. He may bind him either in stocks or fetters, with a weight of no less than 15 lbs. (or more if he desires)." [After 60 days in custody, the case is returned to the court, and if the debt is not then paid, the debtor can be sold abroad as a slave, or put to death.]

http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/12tables.html

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Think of the term ball and chain. Ultimately fettering him with the instrument of execution was the final act. Think Jesus carrying his cross up the hill.

Also look at the time periods involved. Think about how people act and realize that his is a time before radio, television, film, or literature. The movement was already in Judea and Galilee. People would have talked about it incessantly. Jesus followers included people with boats. They ritually bathed after all.

The scene with his family and followers would have been recorded by the prelate. We come back to the whole Pilate discussion where the church very obviously ed with the do ents.

Roman law and traditions changed significantly following the crucifixion. All free people in the empire became citizens. Augustine was a beneficiary of said change.

[Blake]

You have to prove yourself to me and Blake. We don't care what your beliefs are or respect them. We will continue to belittle you and mock your beliefs because they conflict with our views!!!

So you showed up on page 12 just to mock and run. That's cool.

[I. Hustle]

So you showed up on page 12 just to mock and run. That's cool.

Thanks, amigo. You know how we do. We be slayin' them left and right. Hustle and Blake. Shake and Bake.

[Blake]

Thanks, amigo. You know how we do. We be slayin' them left and right. Hustle and Blake. Shake and Bake.

You're an idiot

[I. Hustle]

You're an idiot

And you're a moron.

I love the way we banter back and forth. Are you going to be at the meeting tonight? I'm bringing hot wings.

Shake and Bake!

[Blake]

Your shtick is idiotic too. The concerted effort to go after me is kinda amusing tho