Roger Pearse wrote:
On 29 Apr, 08:19, none ""doug\"@(none)" wrote:
George Hammond wrote:
("4-demigods") Matt, Mark, Luke and John.
These last four are the books chosen by the council ofNicea
to be in the New Testament.

The Council of Nicaea did not determine the content of scripture. The
4 gospels are considered canonical by all the ante-Nicene fathers,
right back as far as it goes.
Luke and John were written in Turkey 100-200 years after Matthew and
Mark so that is not quite correct.


I heard this story about the bible and the council some years ago and
got suspicious. It sounded wrong, based on what I knew of Tertullian
and the ante-Nicene fathers. So I went out and hunted down all the
primary sources on the council. You can consult them he

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html

I also looked in Metzger on the Canon of the NT, just to check I
hadn't missed any.

The council also voted as to whether women were humans.

What a curious idea; impossible for any Christian council to do such a
thing. Someone is pulling your leg, my friend.
This is an interesting assumption. Why would you insult them to suggest
this? Women had been treated as property by the primitive religions
and upgrading their status to that of men was a good thing to do.


The point of the council was to try to unify the various christian sects

No, I'm afraid it was not. Christianity was not split into sects at
that date. Rather it was to decide whether the Second person of the
Trinity was of the same substance (homoousios) as the First person, or
of like substance; and to reach an agreed date on which to celebrate
Easter.
No, there were some severe differences. And the sects still do not
agree on the date for easter for example. They also decided to not
include other groups texts such as the gosphel of thomas. Someone
had to go through and select among the texts from various groups
and then edit them to make them somewhat more consistent.

This is not unique to the new testament. Genesis has two different
creation stories in it which were sort of melded into one account.
Exodus would have a person believe that the christian god is so
anal retentive that he would spend many pages describing exactly how
big of a table for the ark of the covenant and where it goes in the
tabernacle and the exact size of the tablernacle and the position
of the door. This was clearly added later by a priest who was one
who cared about such things.


... and so it accepted the texts from various ones even though there
are terrible discrepancies between them.

This sounds like a confused memory of the fact that the last few books
(2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Hebrews, Revelation) were not geographically
spread over the same areas, and harmonisation gradually happened after
the church became legal when it was easier to hold councils.

Matthew for instance, is the jewish book as it plays to jewish
tradition. It attempts to portray Jesus as the jewish messiah. That is
why Jesus had to be from Bethlehem since the messiah had to be from
the house of David. In fact, Matthew starts out with a tracing of
the ancestry of Jesus back to David and Adam. But note that this
tracing is done through his father Joseph. There is no attempt in the
main story to portray any holy ancestry as that would not have been
accepted in a messiah. Ancestry on the mother's
side was not important. See the comment above about the vote about
women. Various later editing patched in some parts of the side story.
Also, the story of Herod and the first born make children and
the flight in Egypt is also to draw a parallel with Moses and add to
the authority of Jesus. You will also note that chapter 10.5 has
Jesus telling his apostles to not go to the gentiles or the samaratans
but only to the jews. This does not show up in the later texts from
Turkey since there was not a jewish presence there.

The other books have a different story of why he was in Bethlehem
because it was not important to the nonjewish audience. The later
books get more into the miracles as well. Revelation is a rant
against Rome and has no place in a bible so it is clear that that
had some other reason for being there like politics.

All this probably has no direct relevance on your thread, but don't we
all want to have the right raw *data*? I know that I do. I hope that
helps.

You are correct that it has no relevance and that George has no clue
about the connection he is trying to draw with his word salad between
science and religion.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

George Hammond wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:06:01 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:


SNIP RANT

[Hammond]
You claim to be a physicist but refuse to post your CV,
your real name, or any verification.
From the low intellectual quality of your posts I
concludeare a fraudulent crackpot with possibly a charity
degree in some lamebrain Natural Science field, at best.

You are wrong on this too. My PhD does not require your
approval.

You have not posted ONE SCIENTIFIC COMMENT to this
thread, merely an endless stream of aggravated amateur
speculation. Get off this thread.

The last time I looked, you were not in charge of the internet.

=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

George Hammond wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:29:12 -0700 (PDT), Roger Pearse
wrote:

On 30 Apr, 22:49, George Hammond wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:42:57 -0700 (PDT),Roger Pearse



wrote:

On 29 Apr, 08:19, none ""doug\"@(none)" wrote:
George Hammond wrote:
("4-demigods") Matt, Mark, Luke and John.
[Roger Pearse]
These last four are the books chosen by the council ofNicea
to be in the New Testament.
The Council of Nicaea did not determine the content of scripture. The
4 gospels are considered canonical by all the ante-Nicene fathers,
right back as far as it goes.
[Hammond]
The 4-Gospel canon "emerged" from hitory thru wide
circulation as a "popular convention"; true Ireanus, Bishop
of Lyon put the final stamp of approval on it when he edited
the NT:

"But it is not possible that the Gospels can be either
more or fewer in number than they are. For since there
are four zones of the world in which we live, and four
principal winds, while the church has been scattered
throughout the world, and since the "pillar and ground"
of the church is the Gospel and the spirit of life, it is
fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing
incorruption on every side, and vivifying human afresh.
(Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon ca. 150ad)

In fairness, we don't actually *know* for certain how the 4 gospels
came to be generally accepted during the late first/early second
century; we just find that they are, as soon as the subject comes up.
Irenaeus takes it for granted, and we should remember he was taught by
the apostle John's disciple Polycarp, so knew a whole lot more about
the apostles than we do.

All the best,

Roger Pearse



[Hammond]
In all fairness, what you have stated is prevailing
wisdom as of 2008 ad.
However, unbeknownst to either you or the Religious
community, in fact Physics has discovered (and published)
the world's first scientific proof of God (Hammond 2003).
This proof demonstrates clearly that the 4-gospel Canon is
NOT an arbitrary convention, but in fact originates in the
axiomatic existence of a 4-eigenvector symmetry in
theoretical Physics and Psychometry. This has been
overwhelmingly experimentally confirmed.
Therefore, in all scientific fairness, it is now accurate
to say that:

The 4-Gospel Canon is based
on an axiomatic law of Physics

You have now outdone yourself in humor, delusion and ego.
I am impressed that you could make this unbelievable leap
away from reason.


I'm sure Irenaeus would be overjoyed to find out that his
historic conclusion 1900 years ago was in fact correct!
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

On Thu, 01 May 2008 08:40:51 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:



SNIP RANT


[Hammond]
You claim to be a physicist but refuse to post your CV,
your real name, or any verification.
From the low intellectual quality of your posts I
conclude you are a fraudulent crackpot with possibly a
charity degree in some lamebrain applied Science field, at
best.
You have not posted ONE SCIENTIFIC COMMENT to this
thread, merely an endless stream of aggravated incompetent
remarks. Get off this thread.
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

On Thu, 01 May 2008 08:35:24 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:



SNIP RANT


[Hammond]
You claim to be a physicist but refuse to post your CV,
your real name, or any verification.
From the low intellectual quality of your posts I
conclude you are a fraudulent crackpot with possibly a
charity degree in some lamebrain applied Science field, at
best.
You have not posted ONE SCIENTIFIC COMMENT to this
thread, merely an endless stream of aggravated incompetent
remarks. Get off this thread.
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

On Thu, 1 May 2008 13:03:39 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

none ""doug\"@(none)" writes:


We're discussing the scientific method, not your CV. Do you even know
what the scientific method is?

Are you ****tin me Moroney..?

CURRICULUM VITAE

[snip]

If you cannot answer the question, just say so. He asked
a question and you posted your CV. He did not ask for your
CV, he asked if you understood the scientific method. It
was, however, a rhetorical question since it is clear you
do not understand it. Hints: bluster and swearing are not
part of it. You can look up the rest.


[Hammond]
Since anyone who is certified as having two graduate
degrees in Physics obviously knows what the scientific
method is, your post is nothing but atheistic heckling. Get
off this thread. My CV is a matter of public record and has
been posted many times on this thread and is conspicously
posted on my website.
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================
..

On Thu, 1 May 2008 12:55:51 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:33:58 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:53:59 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

2. I'm a graduate physicist.

I would certainly hope you'd know what the Scientific Method is, if this
was actually true.

[snip irrelevant CV]

We're discussing the scientific method, not your CV. Do you even know
what the scientific method is?

Are you ****tin me Moroney..?

I take that non-answer as "no, I don't." Which is what I thought.


[Hammond]
Since anyone who is certified as having two graduate
degrees in Physics obviously knows what the scientific
method is, your post is nothing but atheistic heckling. Get
off this thread. My CV is a matter of public record and has
been posted many times on this thread and is conspicously
posted on my website.
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================
..

On Thu, 01 May 2008 08:38:37 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:



SNIP RANT


[Hammond]
You claim to be a physicist but refuse to post your CV,
your real name, or any verification.
From the low intellectual quality of your posts I
conclude you are a fraudulent crackpot with possibly a
charity degree in some lamebrain applied Science field, at
best.
You have not posted ONE SCIENTIFIC COMMENT to this
thread, merely an endless stream of aggravated incompetent
remarks. Get off this thread.
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

On Thu, 1 May 2008 06:42:17 -0700 (PDT), Roger Pearse
wrote:

On 1 May, 08:51, George Hammond wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:29:12 -0700 (PDT),Roger Pearse
wrote:
On 30 Apr, 22:49, George Hammond wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:42:57 -0700 (PDT),Roger Pearse

wrote:

On 29 Apr, 08:19, none ""doug\"@(none)" wrote:

George Hammond wrote:
("4-demigods") Matt, Mark, Luke and John.

[Roger Pearse]
These last four are the books chosen by the council ofNicea
to be in the New Testament. *

The Council of Nicaea did not determine the content of scripture. *The
4 gospels are considered canonical by all the ante-Nicene fathers,
right back as far as it goes.

[Hammond]
* *The 4-Gospel canon "emerged" from hitory thru wide
circulation as a "popular convention"; true Ireanus, Bishop
of Lyon put the final stamp of approval on it when he edited
the NT:

* "But it is not possible that the Gospels can be either
* *more or fewer in number than they are. For since there
* *are four zones of the world in which we live, and four
* *principal winds, while the church has been scattered
* *throughout the world, and since the "pillar and ground"
* *of the church is the Gospel and the spirit of life, it is
* *fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing
* *incorruption on every side, and vivifying human afresh.
* * * * * * * * (Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon ca. 150ad)

In fairness, we don't actually *know* for certain how the 4 gospels
came to be generally accepted during the late first/early second
century; we just find that they are, as soon as the subject comes up.
Irenaeus takes it for granted, and we should remember he was taught by
the apostle John's disciple Polycarp, so knew a whole lot more about
the apostles than we do.

[Hammond]
* *In all fairness, what you have stated is prevailing
wisdom as of 2008 ad.


[Roger Pearse]
I believe so.


[Hammond]
Actually I was being charitable, having forgot that on
Usenet to give them an inch is to give them a mile.
To be quite accurate, the history of the emergence of the
4-Gospel Canon is quite well known and not considered a
mystery as you suggest, so that your statement:

"....we don't actually *know* for certain how
the 4 gospels came to be generally accepted
during the late first/early second century..."

is actually an erroneous gloss. Fact is, it is well known
how the 4-Gospels came into being in 1-2 ad since Irenaeus
has left a 2nd century account of the matter in his famous
book _Against Heresies_, (c 180).



[Roger Pearse]
As you rightly note, this is tangential to the point
that you are making, on which, of course, I have nothing special to
contribute.


[Hammond]
The existence of the 4-Gospel Canon is hardly
"tangential" to the scientific proof of God that I have
published, since said proof now shows that the quadrature
structure of the Canon is in fact ordained by an axiomatic
law of Physics
I will however grant you without debate the fact that you
have no competence or responsibility in this area.


All the best,

Roger Pearse


[Hammond]
Likewise I'm sure.
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

George Hammond writes:

On Thu, 1 May 2008 12:55:51 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:33:58 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

We're discussing the scientific method, not your CV. Do you even know
what the scientific method is?

Are you ****tin me Moroney..?

I take that non-answer as "no, I don't." Which is what I thought.

Since anyone who is certified as having two graduate
degrees in Physics obviously knows what the scientific
method is, your post is nothing but atheistic heckling. Get
off this thread. My CV is a matter of public record and has
been posted many times on this thread and is conspicously
posted on my website.

So why are you completely unable to use it or even explain it? Why
not apply it to your so-called "research" into SPOG? You and I both
know that no *real* scientist would *ever* claim to have a scientific
proof of anything without verifying the process with the scientific
method. No scientist would ever hope to get their work published in
a peer-reviewed publication without showing use of the scientific method.