The Gospels—History or Myth?

[Iasion]

Greetings MW,

*************
M*W: It's good to see you back! I've been missing your exceptional posts! Do you believe Jesus actually existed? Do you follow the astro-theological view of the Jesus story? Do you believe it's an allegory or the literal truth?

Thanks for your kind words
I still drop by from time to time...

I take the view that Jesus did not exist except as a spiritual being.

I think Paul saw "Christ" as somewhat like our concept of "soul" - a part of God which is in all of us, and gives us life.

I think Mark wrote a great piece of literature which draw from the literature and myths and religions of the day.

I think G.Mark was so popular and influential that it was copied many times.

I think eventually, after the war(s), people started beleiving Jesus was historical.

I do not think astro-theology plays a big part in the myth - some certainly, but it's the OT and pagan writings that Mark got most of his ideas. We are having a discussion with Acharya S herself over here :
http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=234405

I do not think "allegory" is quite right - it's part literature, part myth, part midrash perhaps.


Iasion

 

[Iasion]

Greetings,

Realy?!
Curious, I didn't ignore anyone but Myles.
What I saw that you posted was theory. Perhaps I miss understood. I've been wrong before so I'll go back and review.

False.

You ignored the fact that Revolver's list was NOT from the 1st C. I see you continue to ignore this.

You ignored the fact that Revolver's cites did NOT vindicate the Bible. I see you continue to ignore this.

Ah...
I wouldn't have knonw the difference. I'm not quite as well read on this subject. History is a subject I'm getting stronger at.

Right, so you don't know the facts, but you refuse to go check!

You don't check the facts before posting, then when shown wrong, you again fail to check the facts.

Why don't you go check the facts before answering?

All I saw that he was pointing out is that they do not contest Jesus existence, this in the face of those that propose that few historians recognize him.

That's all you saw ?!

So, you closed your eyes to the claim that the list was 1st C. ?

And, when I pointed it out to you more than once, you closed your eyes again?

Are your eyes open or closed now?
Can you see this :

Revolver claimed the list was 1st C.
Revolver was wrong.


And -
you closed your eyes to the claim that the cites vindicated the Bible ?

And you kept them closed when I pointed out more than once that they do NOT vindicate the Bible.

Are your eyes open or closed now?
Can you see this :

Revolver claimed his list vindicated the the Bible stories.
Revolver was wrong.

I didn't ignore this I just didn't see any facts.

Of course not.
You keep your eyes closed when facts that disagree with you appear.

The facts are clear :

* Josephus is forged or corrupt
You closed your eyes to that fact.

* Suetonius is NOT about Jesus
You closed your eyes to that fact too.

* The Talmud does NOT vindicate the Bible accounts.
You closed your eyes to that fact also.

I require explicity not commentary. Now the former statement does not follow for all your points. Some of your points seem to point out irrelevancies to Revolvr's subject points. Again if this is not the case then I require explicity when I take in new information not summary or commentary.

I gave explicit facts which can be checked.
You ignore the facts.

Tell us Saquist - have you ever checked what Josephus wrote re. Jesus ? What scholars argue about it ?

Have you ever checked what Suetonius wrote?
Pliny? Tacitus? Lucian?

I have.
I have checked the facts, and I presented them here.
You ignored them all.

I specifically gave specific facts about those authors.
You did not address any of them. You just waved it all away with hyperbole.

The question is not the justification for some act or belief, Iasion. This is a question concerning the state of acknolwedgement, credit, and approval. Thus the answer is yes this indivdual does seem to acknowledge the exisitence of Jesus Christ. I appreciate your attention to detail but I would draw your attention to devoting some accuracy toward the subject point than as opposed to focusing on general objections and contradictions between the works in question.

What individual ? The Talmud is not an individual !
It is a collection of writings by many people over several centuries long after Jesus.

Then you talk about accuracy?
What a joke !

You have no knowledge of this subject at all, you have never checked the facts, you keep making glaring errors and refusing to acknowledge it.

I see. There is a need to clarify then. The Gospel accounts present themselves as historical accounts of events concerning Jesus ministry.

No they do not.
No-where does any Gospel say they are historical accounts.
That's just what faithful believers faithfully believe.

If YOU believe that, then YOU should post where in the Gospels they "present themselves as historical accounts".

At no point is there a departure from historicity to legendary exaggeration.

Such as the saints all rising from their graves to walk the streets of Jerusalem?

You actually BELIEVE that happened, Saquist?

You actually BELIEVE that is an accurate historical account?

Even though it violates everything we know?
Even though no other Gospel mentions it?
Even though no other early Christian writer mentions it?
Even though no historian mentions it?

If you DONT believe it, how can you call the Gospels historical? Hmmm?

These accounts themselves do not make any mention of having a direct relation to events between the Jesus and the writer before their initial encounter.

Yup,
modern NT scholars agree that not one book of the NT was written by anyone who met any Jesus.

It is safe to assume this information is not eye witness but first person retelling of the events that may have come from Jesus, his parents, Mary Magedalene or others that were present.

False.
It is a completely false assumption only made by believers.

This obviously gives weight to the intention that these events were meant to be passed on to future generations.

Scientology is meant to be passed on to future generations - so what?

Infact do to the lack of Fictional Jewish works that I can find I can not summarily rule these accounts as fictional. There would seem to be no common frame of refrence to base such a conclusion.

You've never even looked, have you?
How about these Jewish books -
Apocalypse of Abraham
Eupolemus
3 Maccabees
Testament of Abraham
Pseudo-Eupolemus
4 Maccabees
Apocalypse of Adam
Apocryphon of Ezekiel
5 Maccabees
Testament of Adam
Ezekiel the Tragedian
Syriac Menander
Life of Adam and Eve
Greek Apocalypse of Ezra
Testament of Moses
Ahiqar
Questions of Ezra
Book of Noah
Letter of Aristeas
Revelation of Ezra
Orphica
Aristeas the Exegete
Vision of Ezra
Philo the Epic Poet
Aristobulus
Fragments of Pseudo-Greek Poets
Pseudo-Philo
Artapanus
Pseudo-Hecataeus
Pseudo-Phocylides
2 Baruch
Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers
The Lives of the Prophets
3 Baruch
Testament of Isaac
History of the Rechabites
4 Baruch
Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah
Apocalypse of Sedrach
Cleodemus Malchus
Ladder of Jacob
Treatise of Shem
Apocalypse of Daniel
Prayer of Jacob
Sibylline Oracles
More Psalms of David
Testament of Jacob
Odes of Solomon
Demetrius the Chronographer
Jannes and Jambres
Psalms of Solomon
Eldad and Modad
Testament of Job
Testament of Solomon
Apocalypse of Elijah
Joseph and Aseneth
Thallus
1 Enoch
History of Joseph
Theodotus
2 Enoch
Prayer of Joseph
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
3 Enoch
Jubilees
Apocalypse of Zephaniah

Books that Saquist was not even aware of, did not even bother to look for.

Then after totally FAILING to even LOOK for references Saquist claims there is "no common" reference !

There is a vast body of Jewish writings that are variously fiction, myth, midrash or literature; and which throw much light on the development of the Gospels and Christian legends. Saquist won't even look at it.


Saquist -
it's one thing to be un-informed and ignorant about a subject.

It's quite another to REFUSE to become informed, to refuse to look at the facts, AND THEN try to make an argument based on your own ignorance.


Iasion

 

[Saquist]

That's a very full answer to the points I made, as anyone who reads it will know.

REALLY?!
That's incredible...How did you glean a full answer to your points when I never address one of them?

Don't forget to berate all the others who fail to understand your position. It must be painful to know one's view is right but to fail to persuade others. This site is full of idiots who are too stubborn to seee things your way.

I will "forget" to berate all the others who fail to understand my position. That particular bit of smack was specificly for you, my dear Myles. Specificly for you.

Lastly may I say that calling someone an idiot doesn't make them so,other from your quirky point of view.To me, an idiot is someone who believes the star of Bethlehem stood still, meaning that the earth stopped rotating on its axis.

So very astute. Infact the most honest thing you've said without your particular agenda based twist you seem to allow seep into most of your postings.

CYA....

 

[iceaura]

You're proposing these events verifiy myth.

No, saquist. I am not doing that, or any of the things you state that I am doing in the leads to your various evasions.

My responses to you normally have to begin with corrections of your assertions about what I posted previously . Why is that?

I posted that the accounts in the Bible resembled myth and legend. I gave examples. The resemblance is a fact, easily verifiable. Sometimes the specific legends and myths they resemble can be juxtaposed and matched item by item, sometimes the resemblance is more general, but it is not hidden or difficult to see. If you wish to deny the resemblance otherwise so obvious, you must present an argument, say why the obvious is not likely or indicative.

Labeling the observation a matter of perception or belief does not argue anything. It's a perception, but the point here is the accuracy of it. And the larger issue is the implications of that accuracy.

Nor is it factual to state these events did not occur simply based on incredulity. That is perception. That is indeed subjective to belief.

Whatever "subjective to belief" means, no one is basing anything here on incredulity, or credulity, except you. We are basing incredulity on arguments involving observation and evidence. What are you basing credulity on ?

 

[Saquist]

Greetings,



False.

You ignored the fact that Revolver's list was NOT from the 1st C. I see you continue to ignore this.

You ignored the fact that Revolver's cites did NOT vindicate the Bible. I see you continue to ignore this.




Right, so you don't know the facts, but you refuse to go check!

You don't check the facts before posting, then when shown wrong, you again fail to check the facts.

Why don't you go check the facts before answering?




That's all you saw ?!

So, you closed your eyes to the claim that the list was 1st C. ?

And, when I pointed it out to you more than once, you closed your eyes again?

Are your eyes open or closed now?
Can you see this :

Revolver claimed the list was 1st C.
Revolver was wrong.


And -
you closed your eyes to the claim that the cites vindicated the Bible ?

And you kept them closed when I pointed out more than once that they do NOT vindicate the Bible.

Are your eyes open or closed now?
Can you see this :

Revolver claimed his list vindicated the the Bible stories.
Revolver was wrong.

I've solidly answered to the accusations above. Whatever error you're seeing is perceptual. If this is not true then I would suggest appreciating my answers as I have given them and not interpreting them.

Of course not.
You keep your eyes closed when facts that disagree with you appear.

Negative. My eyes are open.

The facts are clear :

* Josephus is forged or corrupt
You closed your eyes to that fact.

* Suetonius is NOT about Jesus
You closed your eyes to that fact too.

* * The Talmud does NOT vindicate the Bible accounts.
You closed your eyes to that fact also..

This has not been factually detailed. I will not appologize for not taking your word for it.

I gave explicit facts which can be checked.
You ignore the facts.

You gave no such thing. I saw no explicity, only the implicit. As far as checking...yes..I will.

Tell us Saquist - have you ever checked what Josephus wrote re. Jesus ? What scholars argue about it ?

Not entirely. I'm am loosly versed in his writings of Jesus...I can not claim to be an authority nor can I claim that I soon will be.

Have you ever checked what Suetonius wrote?
Pliny? Tacitus? Lucian?

I have read much of what Josephus has to say. I am uncertain as to the actual amount.
Since I have openly revealed in previous post my of amatuer status it would seem it is not worthy of repeating unless you didn't see it the first time.

I have.
I have checked the facts, and I presented them here.
You ignored them all.

I appreciate your perspective Iasion, yet I have ignored nothing. I have merely listened and observed. I'm in not position to contend with you on these subjects which you have advantage over me.

I specifically gave specific facts about those authors.
You did not address any of them. You just waved it all away with hyperbole.

You mean the preceptioins of historians? Yes...I regard them all as just that preceptions whether fore against. Yes that was a wave. It placed them in there propper places, opinions and speculations.
And yet there was no links but nore did I ask you for any. I would have been taking your word for it...as Indeed...I am and as I did for Revolvr aswell. But you haven't backed them up.

What individual ? The Talmud is not an individual !
It is a collection of writings by many people over several centuries long after Jesus.

Then you talk about accuracy?
What a joke !

No. Not a Joke Iasion. A disadvantage of knowledge.

You have no knowledge of this subject at all, you have never checked the facts, you keep making glaring errors and refusing to acknowledge it.

Not all. But if is indeed limited. Hopefully you've understood now.
I have almost no common refrence for anyone other than Tacticus and Josephus. Don't act so surprised as though you'ver revealed an incredible new discovery. This is nothing new. Patting yourself on the back for what I've already revealed about my own cache of knowledge is stupid.

No they do not.
No-where does any Gospel say they are historical accounts.
That's just what faithful believers faithfully believe.

If YOU believe that, then YOU should post where in the Gospels they "present themselves as historical accounts".

I will give you detailed information of what I mean later and reitterate the post from before concerning "presenting themselves as historical accounts."

Such as the saints all rising from their graves to walk the streets of Jerusalem?

You actually BELIEVE that happened, Saquist?

You actually BELIEVE that is an accurate historical account?

Even though it violates everything we know?
Even though no other Gospel mentions it?
Even though no other early Christian writer mentions it?
Even though no historian mentions it?

If you DONT believe it, how can you call the Gospels historical? Hmmm?

Belief is not inquestion, Iasion. It is historicity which you question?
Violations are completely irrelevant to this discussion. Omission is irrelevant. Lets deal with the facts not vaguries of perception.

False.
It is a completely false assumption only made by believers.

So is evolution...and it too is only made by believers. This isn't true reasoning nor is it factually established as falise.

Scientology is meant to be passed on to future generations - so what?

Completely Irrelevant.

You've never even looked, have you?

yes I have...

How about these Jewish books -
Apocalypse of Abraham
Eupolemus
3 Maccabees
Testament of Abraham
Pseudo-Eupolemus
4 Maccabees
Apocalypse of Adam
Apocryphon of Ezekiel
5 Maccabees
Testament of Adam
Ezekiel the Tragedian
Syriac Menander
Life of Adam and Eve
Greek Apocalypse of Ezra
Testament of Moses
Ahiqar
Questions of Ezra
Book of Noah
Letter of Aristeas
Revelation of Ezra
Orphica
Aristeas the Exegete
Vision of Ezra
Philo the Epic Poet
Aristobulus
Fragments of Pseudo-Greek Poets
Pseudo-Philo
Artapanus
Pseudo-Hecataeus
Pseudo-Phocylides
2 Baruch
Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers
The Lives of the Prophets
3 Baruch
Testament of Isaac
History of the Rechabites
4 Baruch
Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah
Apocalypse of Sedrach
Cleodemus Malchus
Ladder of Jacob
Treatise of Shem
Apocalypse of Daniel
Prayer of Jacob
Sibylline Oracles
More Psalms of David
Testament of Jacob
Odes of Solomon
Demetrius the Chronographer
Jannes and Jambres
Psalms of Solomon
Eldad and Modad
Testament of Job
Testament of Solomon
Apocalypse of Elijah
Joseph and Aseneth
Thallus
1 Enoch
History of Joseph
Theodotus
2 Enoch
Prayer of Joseph
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
3 Enoch
Jubilees
Apocalypse of Zephaniah

Books that Saquist was not even aware of, did not even bother to look for.

Then after totally FAILING to even LOOK for references Saquist claims there is "no common" reference !

There is a vast body of Jewish writings that are variously fiction, myth, midrash or literature; and which throw much light on the development of the Gospels and Christian legends. Saquist won't even look at it.


Saquist -
it's one thing to be un-informed and ignorant about a subject.

It's quite another to REFUSE to become informed, to refuse to look at the facts, AND THEN try to make an argument based on your own ignorance.


Iasion

I will quote you on these statements if even just one of these books is not verified as an actual legend or fictional story for the purpose of mere entertainment I will make it a point of contention. I won't tolerate disingenuousness of any kind.

If it is your intent to identify me as refusing to become informed I suggest you find a quote which makes this statement and you use it every time you post in reply.

Yet I know you can't because no such post exist. I suggest you calm yourself and attempt to think clearly before making unfounded accusations. It's just a suggestion and it couldn't possibly hurt.

Your information is presented. I require only your knowledge not your indignity. You have made your claim. I search for information for or against these issues because I'm searching for the truth and nothing but the truth...please do not proppose to represent my thinking or my position however "blind" and "ignorant" you may see it as. I will maintain my dedication to objectivity and to naked facts as I recieve them.

From my perspective I don't feel you're listening skills or comprehension have been true to term, but rather heavily seated in your own persepctive. So hold your represssing analogies for someone whom they'll be more effective against. Stay your beligerent questioning for those that will wither and grovel before your knowledge and slink away silently offering you self agrandizement. Believe me I know how that feels. It does strokes the ego but it also chafes the intellect.

I will begin with your VERIFIED list of jewish fiction. I feel since I could not come by them on my own during the search of the internet that these titles and names will assist me in becoming familar with the particulars of the arguements and allow for a propper association and common frame of refrence from which to relate the gospels.

 

[Saquist]

No, saquist. I am not doing that, or any of the things you state that I am doing in the leads to your various evasions.

My responses to you normally have to begin with corrections of your assertions about what I posted previously . Why is that?

I posted that the accounts in the Bible resembled myth and legend. I gave examples. The resemblance is a fact, easily verifiable. Sometimes the specific legends and myths they resemble can be juxtaposed and matched item by item, sometimes the resemblance is more general, but it is not hidden or difficult to see. If you wish to deny the resemblance otherwise so obvious, you must present an argument, say why the obvious is not likely or indicative.

Labeling the observation a matter of perception or belief does not argue anything. It's a perception, but the point here is the accuracy of it. And the larger issue is the implications of that accuracy.

Whatever "subjective to belief" means, no one is basing anything here on incredulity, or credulity, except you. We are basing incredulity on arguments involving observation and evidence. What are you basing credulity on ?

Sorry Iceaura, I'd love to go twelve rounds with you on this one but I've gotten a more stimulating challenge to which I would like focus my attention toward. Posturing flexes the muscle but knowledge flexes the brain.
I'll get back to your post later...

 

[Myles]

REALLY?!
That's incredible...How did you glean a full answer to your points when I never address one of them?




I will "forget" to berate all the others who fail to understand my position. That particular bit of smack was specificly for you, my dear Myles. Specificly for you.




So very astute. Infact the most honest thing you've said without your particular agenda based twist you seem to allow seep into most of your postings.

CYA....

You must be the most stupid person I have spoken to on here. Not only do you not understand how to debate, you don't even recognize irony. As to the smack. would you like me to turn the other cheek ? Or we going to move on to stoning so you can demonstrate God's love ? With the angels on your side you cannot lose. Pity the angels cannot engage in rational debate, or is it that they speak in tongues which you cannot understand.

 

[Myles]

REALLY?!
That's incredible...How did you glean a full answer to your points when I never address one of them?




I will "forget" to berate all the others who fail to understand my position. That particular bit of smack was specificly for you, my dear Myles. Specificly for you.




So very astute. Infact the most honest thing you've said without your particular agenda based twist you seem to allow seep into most of your postings.

CYA....

You must be the most stupid person I have spoken to on here. Not only do you not understand how to debate, you don't even recognize irony. As to the smack. would you like me to turn the other cheek ? Or we going to move on to stoning so you can demonstrate God's love ? With the angels on your side you cannot lose. Pity the angels cannot engage in rational debate, or is it that they speak in tongues which you cannot understand.

 

[Myles]

Deleted duplicate

 

[Myles]

Delete

 

[Myles]

Delete

 

[Saquist]

By Iasion, No they do not.
No-where does any Gospel say they are historical accounts.
That's just what faithful believers faithfully believe.

If YOU believe that, then YOU should post where in the Gospels they "present themselves as historical accounts".

So...I'm attempting to place this statement of yours in it's propper place. I will summarize by restating that you have said "No-where does any Gospel say they are historical accounts. That's-just-just-what-faithful-believers-faithfully believe."

Correct me if I'm wrong but you've flat out denied that the Gospels identify themselves as history? I hope I've misunderstood you somehow as I look upon the first verse of Matthew.

Matthew Chapther 1 Verse 1
The book of history of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham

Luke Chapter One Verse One
Whereas many have undertaken to compile a statement of facts that are given full credence among us.

I'm going to have to identify this as a clear testimony from the gospels, the "defendant" if you will, that it is indeed... historical and factual. I am beyond words, Iasion. Clearly you've misrepresented yourself right from the start. You've discredited yourself grossly to say the least. Does not these two scriptures alone of the gospel identify themselves as HISTORICAL AND FACTUAL? How many more false statements will I find you've made throughout your post on this thread? You have instantly taught me not to trust you at all. I must ascribe you as duplicitous and hostile to the very nature of the argument. I may be getting back to Icearua MUCH MUCH sooner than I thought! Will I find that you've suppose-ed every assertion you've made? Have you set eyes on Christian Greek Scriptures we're discussing, ever?!

I require an immediate explantion.
I have copied and stored your post for future refrence in the event you make attempt to edit out your claims.

 

[Saquist]

You must be the most stupid person I have spoken to on here. Not only do you not understand how to debate, you don't even recognize irony. As to the smack. would you like me to turn the other cheek ? Or we going to move on to stoning so you can demonstrate God's love ? With the angels on your side you cannot lose. Pity the angels cannot engage in rational debate, or is it that they speak in tongues which you cannot understand.

I must intrigue you to no end to have arrested so much of your attention. Infact you posted the same reply four times, How many times did you click the "submit reply"? I sense an emotional response, Myles
Good. Emotion blinds and makes a soft brain even more pliable.
But the time for flattery has passed.

 

[Myles]

I must intrigue you to no end to have arrested so much of your attention. Infact you posted the same reply four times, How many times did you click the "submit reply"? I sense an emotional response, Myles
Good. Emotion blinds and makes a soft brain even more pliable.
But the time for flattery has passed.

How typical ofyour pettry mind to pick on something like that. The computer went into a loop. You are long on quotation but short on facts. You reject evolutionary theory, which means you are not one of the brightest. It's not something you cam learn by rote. It is necessary to engage with the text and THINK, which as you keep showing us is not your forte. You see yourself as a victim because nobody agrees with you. But I know you'll show them .

And Saquist's vengence was terrible and he did smite them even unto the last thread. And verily I say unto ye believe gods's messanger or ye too shall be smitten and thrown into a lake of fire. Eugenics 14. 9.

And posts shall be copied onto tablets of stone to thwart cheating. Thus saith Saquist. Pandemics 15. 8

 

[Saquist]

No, saquist. I am not doing that, or any of the things you state that I am doing in the leads to your various evasions.

My responses to you normally have to begin with corrections of your assertions about what I posted previously . Why is that?

I posted that the accounts in the Bible resembled myth and legend. I gave examples. The resemblance is a fact, easily verifiable. Sometimes the specific legends and myths they resemble can be juxtaposed and matched item by item, sometimes the resemblance is more general, but it is not hidden or difficult to see. If you wish to deny the resemblance otherwise so obvious, you must present an argument, say why the obvious is not likely or indicative.

Labeling the observation a matter of perception or belief does not argue anything. It's a perception, but the point here is the accuracy of it. And the larger issue is the implications of that accuracy.

Whatever "subjective to belief" means, no one is basing anything here on incredulity, or credulity, except you. We are basing incredulity on arguments involving observation and evidence. What are you basing credulity on ?

Amending my previous repy:


There is no evasion here Icearua, If you're not attempting to verify myth through a comparison of events and details from other myths and legends then I have no contention.

I understand what you're to saying. I do not understand why you're drawing comparisons from other myths and legends. I've jumped to the assumption that you are attempting to verify a status of myth based on resemblence.

Clarify your agenda.

I will clarify mine.
I am looking for factual ground as concerns the charge of myth and legend applied to the gospels. However you or anyone else percieves the events is a matter of peception of the incredible. That is the essence of increduility which is a state of belief. So far... Iasion and Sarkus have present "extraordinary" events or inother words "incredible events" as some sort of proof of myth.

Yet you deny this is your assertion. Even more so you say no one has made this assertion. That is clearly not so in the case of Iasion and Sarkus just off the top of my head.. That is a misrepresentation.

So...the meaning of "subjective to belief":
It is a means of classifying events according to the enviormental present in order to establish reality. I have identified your statements as a classifcation process of verification of myth or history. Which is of course what the thread is about. I have made inferences as to your intents. Considering your comments those inferences were not baseless.

 

[Saquist]

How typical ofyour pettry mind to pick on something like that. The computer went into a loop. You are long on quotation but short on facts. You reject evolutionary theory, which means you are not one of the brightest. It's not something you cam learn by rote. It is necessary to engage with the text and THINK, which as you keep showing us is not your forte. You see yourself as a victim because nobody agrees with you. But I know you'll show them .

What's a "pettry" mind? Do you feel the need to recieve affirmation on what to think from your fellow forum goers? Do you need that affirmation from me?

And posts shall be copied onto tablets of stone to thwart cheating. Thus saith Saquist. Pandemics 15. 8

I like it "Thus Saith Saquist." Lets not be so archaic though nothing but the best for you my stalwart disciple clinging to my every word and please don't hesitate to bow when the mood hits you.

 

[Myles]

A pettry mind is one that latches onto a typo and can't resist commenting on it. I think it evolved from petty but you would say it was created

 

[Saquist]

It took you the better part of an hour to come up with that?
(yawn)

 

[Myles]

It took you the better part of an hour to come up with that?
(yawn)

You are right as usual. My breakfast was more important to me than responding to you. I really enjoyed my loaves and fishes washed down with water which turned to wine

 

[Saquist]

You had to WAIT to make that response?!
That was second on your list of MUST DO priorities?!

wow.