Mark's version of "Jesus"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-07-2015, 10:52 PM
RE: Mark's version of "Jesus"
(31-07-2015 10:49 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(31-07-2015 10:28 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Yes...thanks...um...where is it?

Not necessarily. Can be "an" if historian is pronounced with a silent "h" as is often the case.

Is it published in America or England? If you're dropping the H like Andy Capp then by all means keep it. But if you're an American and will have predominately American readers, lose the an. It's not more common to be silent.

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2015, 11:24 PM
RE: Mark's version of "Jesus"
(31-07-2015 10:41 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(31-07-2015 10:29 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I don't know much about Buddhism, but I think there's no connection.

I have read of links. Was Jesus a Buddhist?

Your article states

"The link between Buddhism and Jesus appears to be primarily the Essenes, perhaps also the Mandeans, Mithraites, and probably other sects generally known as Gnostics. While the members of these splinter groups were Jews, they rejected the worldly, rationalist, optimistic faith of Jewish mainline thinking in the Torah or Old Testament."

If we assume A) Jesus existed B) he was a Nazarene, he certainly wasn't a Buddhist, because the Nazarenes were strict followers of the Torah.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2015, 11:27 PM
RE: Mark's version of "Jesus"
(31-07-2015 10:52 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  
(31-07-2015 10:49 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Not necessarily. Can be "an" if historian is pronounced with a silent "h" as is often the case.

Is it published in America or England? If you're dropping the H like Andy Capp then by all means keep it. But if you're an American and will have predominately American readers, lose the an. It's not more common to be silent.

Published in America. Don't worry though, no one is reading it LOL.

ps... thanks
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
31-07-2015, 11:35 PM
RE: Mark's version of "Jesus"
(31-07-2015 11:24 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(31-07-2015 10:41 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I have read of links. Was Jesus a Buddhist?

Your article states

"The link between Buddhism and Jesus appears to be primarily the Essenes, perhaps also the Mandeans, Mithraites, and probably other sects generally known as Gnostics. While the members of these splinter groups were Jews, they rejected the worldly, rationalist, optimistic faith of Jewish mainline thinking in the Torah or Old Testament."

If we assume A) Jesus existed B) he was a Nazarene, he certainly wasn't a Buddhist, because the Nazarenes were strict followers of the Torah.

My read is the connection to Buddhism was John "Where the fuck did I leave my head" the Baptist was an Essene.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
31-07-2015, 11:48 PM (This post was last modified: 01-08-2015 12:12 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark's version of "Jesus"
(31-07-2015 10:50 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  
(31-07-2015 10:28 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Yes...thanks...um...where is it?

Right at the beginning of the chapter, just a few graphs down.

There also is a sentence missing a period, it starts with Pliny the Younger and is a few paragraphs below the "an historian" sentence.

The chapter is kinda long so I haven't read it all yet.

It's cool, and I feel like I've read this before because I have read all of your posts over the years.

One thing that stands out as a red flag to me is, I've only read a little bit so far and already you keep making these sweeping statements about how some historians and people feel about certain topics/facts but there is nothing cited to back up these things. Writing, especially this kind, is so much stronger when you can either have your sources quoted to make your point or, if you say it yourself, that you have footnotes to verify the facts. I know you know this, I just wonder if you don't realize some of your prose takes some things for granted and isn't attributed.

I know you attributed a lot and quoted a lot, but I think there are a lot of times where you say something like, "many scholars claim" instead of just saying, Biblical scholar Bart Erhman's studies led him to believe X. "I found that X is true because when I was there I saw X," Ehrman wrote in his peer-reviewed book on Jeebus.

It's just stronger and I'm trying to help.

I've been an editor and publisher of non-fiction for nearly three decades.

Ok...I hear you...I do have more references....I'll put them in now....gimme an hour...um I gotta go out...will do in a few hours...bugger....
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2015, 01:31 AM
RE: Mark's version of "Jesus"
(31-07-2015 10:50 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  
(31-07-2015 10:28 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Yes...thanks...um...where is it?

Right at the beginning of the chapter, just a few graphs down.

There also is a sentence missing a period, it starts with Pliny the Younger and is a few paragraphs below the "an historian" sentence.

The chapter is kinda long so I haven't read it all yet.

It's cool, and I feel like I've read this before because I have read all of your posts over the years.

One thing that stands out as a red flag to me is, I've only read a little bit so far and already you keep making these sweeping statements about how some historians and people feel about certain topics/facts but there is nothing cited to back up these things. Writing, especially this kind, is so much stronger when you can either have your sources quoted to make your point or, if you say it yourself, that you have footnotes to verify the facts. I know you know this, I just wonder if you don't realize some of your prose takes some things for granted and isn't attributed.

I know you attributed a lot and quoted a lot, but I think there are a lot of times where you say something like, "many scholars claim" instead of just saying, Biblical scholar Bart Erhman's studies led him to believe X. "I found that X is true because when I was there I saw X," Ehrman wrote in his peer-reviewed book on Jeebus.

It's just stronger and I'm trying to help.

I've been an editor and publisher of non-fiction for nearly three decades.

Thanks. You're right. Yet it's now published.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2015, 04:31 AM
RE: Mark's version of "Jesus"
(31-07-2015 10:28 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(31-07-2015 10:25 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  It's "a historian" not "an historian." Can you fix that?

Yes...thanks...um...where is it?

I don't think it's a necessary correction. Obviously in English, we use the indefinite article ‘a’ before words that begin with consonants and ‘an’ before words that begin with vowel sounds. ‘However, h’,’ is a very weak consonant. When it’s the first letter of a word, sometimes we pronounce it (as in ‘happy’) and sometimes we don’t (as in ‘honor’ or ‘hour’), so sometimes it takes ‘a’ and sometimes it takes ‘an’.

In the case of ‘historian’ and related words (‘history’, ‘historical’), we technically pronounce the ‘h’. If you say the word aloud all on its own, the ‘h’ is clearly there. However, the accent in ‘historian’ is on the second syllable, not the first, so there’s a tendency to de-emphasize the ‘h’ and say something a little closer to ‘istorian’. So when the ‘h’ starts to disappear, ‘an’ starts to be more acceptable.

In the 18th and 19th century, the standard rule was to say ‘an historian’, but over the course of the 20th century, American English has tended to shift away from that and say ‘a historian’. But British English still tends to say ‘an historian’. Seeing that Mr. Fulton lives on an island of ex-brits Wink I'm sure this use is just fine.

**Crickets** -- God
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tonechaser77's post
01-08-2015, 07:44 AM
RE: Mark's version of "Jesus"
I don't want to distract from Mark's post with this historian discussion any further so I'll bite my tongue here. ... or should I say bite my tongue 'ere?

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WillHopp's post
01-08-2015, 10:18 AM
RE: Mark's version of "Jesus"
I totally agree with the advice on citations ... that would make it much more reader friendly. Thumbsup

But meh, I use "an historian" and I'm in podunk Kansas. Yes, I'm weird... is that a problem? Shy

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2015, 10:25 AM
RE: Mark's version of "Jesus"
Out-freaking-standing.

Well done, I endorse this wholeheartedly (like that means anything) but well researched and broken down into layman's terms for the average non theologian to be able to absorb. Nicely done. Bowing

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: