Schencki.
I can state that with authority because I have the God Given Ability to read links. 
It was kind of odd. Time travel, yes; an historically identifiable Jesus, no.
Seemed rather a case of straining at a gnat but swallowing a camel, to quote someone prr would deny said it.
Regards,
Shodan
I think she’s saying it would be a shame to waste a perfectly good opportunity to vent one’s true feelings about prr, so please don’t let her down.
:smack:
Yes, thank you that’s exactly what I’m saying. My dear friend prr wouldn’t want anything less. Don’t let me down. Don’t let him down. Don’t let yourself down.
Don’t let Jesus down. Don’t let AMERICA down!
What the hey - this is the latest from the original thread:
You’re right! So??
I mean, JC, assuming he lived, lived 2000 years ago, and the earliest accounts of his life were written ~40 years after his death. OF COURSE they’re going to be 100% accurate!
Because, you know, they lived thousands of years ago, assuming they lived, and the people who wrote about them were writing a good while later. No matter how real the subjects, to expect 100% accuracy from the Evangelists, or Homer, or Malory, or whoever, is absurd.
Oh, if it’s YOU who has to come up with those errors, I’m good, no problem. I can come up with a very exact description that YOU can’t disprove.
I thought we were talking about the powerful, time-traveling, all-knowing entity who would judge the factual accuracy of my list. But if we’re only talking about you, I could pretend this muffin was Jesus, and you’d be SOL.
And I’m starting to think you’re a waste of carbon.
As a Christian, I’m certain that he’s God. As a rational person, I quite realize that while may well have said, for instance, that he who humbles himself will be exalted and he who exalts himself will be humbled, there’s always a decent chance that he may not have said that particular thing.
But as long as the essence of the Gospel story is right, that’s what matters, rather than whether I can pick out six or seven facts that identify Jesus and only Jesus, that all happened.
I mean, who are you to say what should determine, for me, whether my belief in Jesus is on a sound footing? I have my reasons for believing; you have your reasons for not believing. Oddly enough, they’re not the same, and we’re not even using the same standards.
And prr, I find your continued unwillingness to intellectually justify your standards pretty compelling.
All you do is assert the truth of your value system. IOW, you’re indistinguishable, in this regard, from a religious fundamentalist.
Or my wife.
Y’know, if you all pooled your allowances and paper route money, you can pay him to go away. There’s precedent.
Thank you that was most helpful. And here the whole time I thought he’d just typo’d rubber twice. Not that that would make any more sense.
Those little salamanders are very cute!
Bri2k
I’m glad you found it helpful. To clarify, just in case, my “really, really red” line was a lame joke. The way species naming ends up with three names, one of which is repeated, is like this. Someone finds a specimen of a species that has not yet been described. He names it. The first name is the genus and is capitalized, and the second name is the species and is lower case. So, someone found a red salamander that wasn’t in the books and called it Pseudotriton ruber. Then someone found some more red salamanders that were a lot like Pseudotriton ruber, but were different enough to justify being called a subspecies. Lets say the new specimens were named by or for someone named Schenk (see my head-slap above). That would make the new subspecies Pseudotriton ruber schenki, and the first-named species would become Pseudotriton ruber ruber.
Huh. And all this time I thought that Gerbillus gerbillus had a funny double name just because somebody thought gerbils were cute.
True story time: when I was a kid I saw an aquarium full of gerbils (the Mongolian type favoured as pets) at the Agrignon Zoo (as it was then known). The various adults and juveniles were clustered in the corners, except for one completely pink and hairless newborn in the exact center, who was flailing his tiny limbs in an effort to roll off his back and get to his feet. No sooner had he succeeded when an adult casually hopped up to him and shoved him over again.
This strangely formative memory has been with me for well over 30 years, now.
Wait a minute, you went to a pet store where they were drowning gerbils?
Well, there are at least two things wrong with this question…
Well, I know that it’s kind of weird to refer to a zoo as a pet store, but what’s the other thing wrong?
Gerbil Drowning™ is a reference to…two…too…er, best not to say. But it’s not good…not good at all…
-XT
Okay, fine, I used the word “aquarium” as a generic term to describe a parallelapiped container with glass or glass-like walls. As far as I know there’s no requirement that it actually be filled with water (as opposed to gerbils).
I chuckled at elucidator’s unexpected response, though.
At all of the pet stores I’ve been to, the piranhas tear the gerbils to shreds before they get a chance to drown.
Except for like, the aqua part. Other than that, sure. I understand your thinking though. One time I went to a planetarium and it was actually a shark tank! Boy you should have seen the look on my face.