The Historical Popeye

The Historical Popeye

Joined: May 4th, 2005, 1:31 pm

December 15th, 2010, 6:13 pm #1

This was a comment was in the letters section of the blog Exploring Our Matrix

There was an actual person behind the Popeye traditions.

So Popeye existed, according to mainstream Biblical historian criteria, as the character of Popeye was based on a real person.

Nobody would seriously doubt that Popeye was based on a real sailor who liked to get into a fight, if they studied history properly.

And , according to mainstream Biblical historical criteria, Sherlock Holmes existed, as the character in the stories was based on a real person.

All you need for somebody to exist is for that person to be based on a real historical person.

This is mainstream history, and mythicists should go to school and learn this.

So Popeye and Sherlock Holmes existed, according to all the criteria of mainstream Biblical history.

Of course, Olive Oyl and Dr. Watson may not have existed, just like Judas and Lazarus may not have existed, but that is simply not relevant to the historically certain facts that Popeye and Sherlock Holmes were based on real historically attested figures.

However, when people say 'Jesus' existed, they really want something more than a historical person behind the story.

They want Jesus to have more of an existence than Popeye or Sherlock Holmes.

So the mere statement that 'Jesus' was based on a real person no more convinces mythicists that Jesus existed than claiming that Popeye was based on a real person is evidence that Popeye existed.

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 4th, 2005, 1:31 pm

December 15th, 2010, 6:44 pm #2

Sunday, December 12, 2010
Christmas: The Christian "War on Solstice"
~ Dr. James F. McGrath - Clarence L. Goodwin Chair in New Testament Language and Literature at Butler University, Indianapolis

Today in my Sunday school class I decided to turn our attention to seasonal matters. Soon, the topic of being wished "Happy Holidays" as opposed to "Merry Christmas" came up. And so I took that opportunity to talk about what I consider one of the great Christmas miracles: the fact that long ago Christians managed to "hijack" the already-existing solstice festival, and turn it into a Christian celebration so thoroughly and so effectively that, more than a millennium and a half later, cultural Christians can complain about the "hijacking" or "secularization" of Christmas without any sense of irony.

The New Testament doesn't provide a date for Jesus' birth (although some have surmised that, if one takes the reference to shepherds watching their flocks by night as historical, it would probably have been during the lambing season and thus in the Spring). It also says nothing about celebrating it annually, or indeed at all. The celebration of Christmas on December 25th is a result of taking an already-existing festive occasion - the winter solstice - and transforming it into a Christian holiday.

And so I find the complaining of cultural Christians in the United States about their beleaguered or persecuted status at Christmas time not only ironic, but tedious and even offensive. The earliest Christians lived in a world where the issue was not the failure of salespeople to wish them a merry Christmas, but rather their own failure to participate in dominant cultural and religious rituals. The issue for the earliest Christians was not whether one could display a nativity scene on government property, but that every city where Christianity spread featured prominent displays of deities whom the Christians would refuse to worship, sometimes at the cost of their lives. That was persecution, not the fact that someone wishes you "Happy Holidays" - especially when that person would probably not be considered a true Christian anyway by born-again believers.

Since when are committed Christians committed to encouraging those without a deep personal faith to maintain an outward veneer of Christianity and to self-identify as Christians? In fact, born again Christians will happily, on other occasions, explain to those individuals whom they criticize at Christmas for not offering them Christian greetings that they aren't, from their perspective, actually Christians. But once again the irony of their demanding that such people wish them a "Merry Christmas" rather than "Happy Holidays" seems to go unnoticed.

I recently quoted Joseph Hoffmann as saying that To be a fundamentalist, you have to have a book. And you have to forget the book has a history. I think one could also say about this time of year To be a fundamentalist, you have to have a holiday. And you have to forget the holiday has a history.

So to those who are Christians I recommend ceasing the ridiculous habit of complaining about what others do or do not wish you, and appreciating instead that, for all our multi-cultural context today, Christmas still has Christian associations that will provide you with an opportunity to talk about your faith and what this holiday means to you. Very few people will take offense at you if you wish them a Merry Christmas. And if they do, that is their prerogative, just as it is yours to express your own faith as you see fit.

HT Jim Linville
But the truth is that the Christmas holiday features services that focus on Christian doctrine and stories, but what the holiday means in practice for American Christians is otherwise the same thing it means for everyone else - time off work, time spent with family, and giving of gifts. While many American Christians complain about what the store employees wish them, they are there in the stores alongside everyone else, engaging in a practice that has no real Biblical roots, making purchases in the spirit of our contemporary materialistic age.

If your Christian faith is about what you wish others and what you demand that they wish you, and not also about what you spend and what you spend your money on, then I would suggest that you have only a veneer of Christianity spread over cultural values that are not specifically Christian, and which you share with most other people in your historical and national context.

So to those in the English-speaking world who consider themselves Christians, my recommendation is this: stop complaining about the "de-Christianization" of a holiday that we ourselves stole (sorry, borrowed) from others and successfully hijacked for more than a thousand years. And instead delight in the fact that, even in our changed and changing context, you can express your Christian faith, and have at least as much of an opportunity to take already-existing holidays and customs and fill them with distinctively Christian values - for yourself and as an opportunity to share your faith with others - as Christians in bygone eras did. If you feel you are not up to that challenge, then perhaps instead of complaining about the greetings of others, you would do well to ask whether you faith lacks the depth, vibrancy and creativity that Christianity has demonstrated at other times in history.

###
Quote
Like
Share

Tim
Tim

December 16th, 2010, 2:17 am #3

This was a comment was in the letters section of the blog Exploring Our Matrix

There was an actual person behind the Popeye traditions.

So Popeye existed, according to mainstream Biblical historian criteria, as the character of Popeye was based on a real person.

Nobody would seriously doubt that Popeye was based on a real sailor who liked to get into a fight, if they studied history properly.

And , according to mainstream Biblical historical criteria, Sherlock Holmes existed, as the character in the stories was based on a real person.

All you need for somebody to exist is for that person to be based on a real historical person.

This is mainstream history, and mythicists should go to school and learn this.

So Popeye and Sherlock Holmes existed, according to all the criteria of mainstream Biblical history.

Of course, Olive Oyl and Dr. Watson may not have existed, just like Judas and Lazarus may not have existed, but that is simply not relevant to the historically certain facts that Popeye and Sherlock Holmes were based on real historically attested figures.

However, when people say 'Jesus' existed, they really want something more than a historical person behind the story.

They want Jesus to have more of an existence than Popeye or Sherlock Holmes.

So the mere statement that 'Jesus' was based on a real person no more convinces mythicists that Jesus existed than claiming that Popeye was based on a real person is evidence that Popeye existed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p7qFG6D2No


Humans are made up of a certain number of chromosomes (46). You get 23 from each parent, right? Well, this blood was very unique. It was identified as human blood for sure but there was a difference. This blood only had 24 chromosomes! What this means is that there was 23 from one parent (Mary) and one additional "y" chromosone gene to make Him a him! Sounds confusing but think about it and it should help you to understand. You can hear the story for yourself in a video from Ron's archeology group called "Ark of the Covenant Update" ; www.prophecyclub.com has it also. This finding disproves all the non believers who claimed Mary was impregnated by the high priest Gabriel at the Temple School before being handed over to Joseph in marriage. This DOES prove the immaculate conception and that Jesus WAS fathered by the holy spirit.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=57378
Quote
Share

JVH
Joined: July 20th, 2009, 1:33 pm

December 16th, 2010, 4:40 am #4


<img alt="garland.gif" src="http://www.webweaver.nu/clipart/img/hol ... arland.gif">... of the (intrinsic) nature and value of evidence that is circumstantial?

<img alt="christmas_animated_gifs_26.gif" src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc31 ... ifs_26.gif">


- truth is something that can be demonstrated to be fact and fact is something that can be demonstrated to be true -

New!! Improved!! Now With T-Formula!!
Quote
Like
Share

Tim
Tim

December 16th, 2010, 5:15 am #5

And what do you offer JVH that is not circumstantial?

What you offer JVH is your rebellion against the Catholic church, and I agree JVH the Catholic church is bullshit, and full of it. So get over it and move on, and don't let the RCC control you for the rest of your life my friend.
Your war is not against the Holy Bible JVH, its against the RCC.
And the RCC is against the Holy Bible, so go figure.

JVH, you can't generalize who the enemy is according to claims of the RCC.
The RCC is nothing more the an Italian Mafia, wolves in sheep's clothing.

Stop letting the RCC control your mind JVH.
If you think you've abandoned them your wrong. They still control your mind, and I can see that as plain a day. Or why fight something you've already abandoned?.... Why is the struggle still happening in you JVH? Because you never let it go, and your still pissed at the RCC.

JVH, you won the battle, the RCC is an embarrassment to earth.
So move on my friend, to the freedom of the Truth, "The Truth shall set you free"

What thinkest thou?

Quote
Share

JVH
Joined: July 20th, 2009, 1:33 pm

December 16th, 2010, 5:53 am #6


<img alt="garland.gif" src="http://www.webweaver.nu/clipart/img/hol ... and.gif">I thinkest thou didn'st answer ye question poseth.

<img alt="christmas_animated_gifs_26.gif" src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc31 ... ifs_26.gif">The nature of an answer is such that it actually addresses -the intrinsic value of- what the question entails.


- truth is something that can be demonstrated to be fact and fact is something that can be demonstrated to be true -

New!! Improved!! Now With T-Formula!!
<img alt="[linked image]" src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc31 ... tworks.gif">
Last edited by JVH on December 16th, 2010, 6:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Tim
Tim

December 16th, 2010, 6:07 am #7

Yes I did you silly church mouse you
Quote
Share

JVH
Joined: July 20th, 2009, 1:33 pm

December 16th, 2010, 6:14 am #8


<img alt="garland.gif" src="http://www.webweaver.nu/clipart/img/hol ... arland.gif">.... is such that it actually addresses -the intrinsic value of- what the question entails.

Question: Tim, are you aware of the (intrinsic) nature and value of evidence that is circumstantial? 

http://www.network54.com/Forum/272761/m ... 292474436/

<img alt="christmas_animated_gifs_26.gif" src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc31 ... ifs_26.gif">


- truth is something that can be demonstrated to be fact and fact is something that can be demonstrated to be true -

New!! Improved!! Now With T-Formula!!
<img alt="[linked image]" src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc31 ... tworks.gif">
Last edited by JVH on December 16th, 2010, 6:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Tim
Tim

December 16th, 2010, 6:45 am #9

And my answer was, what do you have to show that is not circumstantial JVH?
Quote
Share

JVH
Joined: July 20th, 2009, 1:33 pm

December 16th, 2010, 7:09 am #10


<img alt="garland.gif" src="http://www.webweaver.nu/clipart/img/hol ... arland.gif">.... that it actually addresses -the intrinsic value of- what the question entails. When an alleged answer does no such thing, it's a response and does not qualify as an answer.

 

When something happens once, it might be an occurence.

When that something happens twice, it might be a coincidence.

When that something happen thrice, it's neither a mere occurence nor a coincidence, it's structural/intentional.

Ergo, you structurally/intentionally do not actually answer a question asked, which, of course, paints you a certain colour, of your own making, since your reponses imply you either cannot, will not or dare not answer the question asked.

<img alt="christmas_animated_gifs_26.gif" src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc31 ... ifs_26.gif">it's not what you manage to utter that matters, it's what you manage to show true that does


- truth is something that can be demonstrated to be fact and fact is something that can be demonstrated to be true -

New!! Improved!! Now With T-Formula!!
<img alt="[linked image]" src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc31 ... tworks.gif">
Last edited by JVH on December 16th, 2010, 7:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share