Page 3 of 4

RE: BRB CD ranking (proposal)

PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2003 3:21 am
by ricochet
Seems like we have pretty well diverted from that line of discussion.

That James Ossuary is an interesting find. I've just seen the mass media reports.

RE: BRB CD ranking (proposal)

PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2003 4:59 am
by bluesmcgoo
I thought the James Ossuary had been disproved. No?

RE: BRB CD ranking (proposal)

PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2003 8:50 am
by stumblin
[updated:LAST EDITED ON Nov-20-03 AT 05:28 AM (EST)]James Ossuary?
Has all the hallmarks of a practical joke, cruelly aimed at vulnerable people whose reasoning is clouded by already-held beliefs.*
I should treat any such "finds" with extreme scepticism. Especially in this case, as the "official report" doesn't say where they found it. Provenance is highly important, stratigraphy and context are crucial, and it is important to establish whether the object was retrieved from a secure or potentially disturbed context. The absence of these data (amongst others) from the "official report" is highly suspect.
Let's face it, someone's playing tricks here.

PS. * eg: Think about this with reference to the recent " 'That's no Robert', 'Aye it is', 'No it's no' " posts regarding the recently "discovered" RJ pics.

RE: BRB CD ranking (proposal)

PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2003 1:23 pm
by badfinger
The continuing process first started by Constantine's mum, way back around 3CE...


bf

RE: BRB CD ranking (proposal)

PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2003 3:20 pm
by jeffl
The report just released from some Brit arch.society called it a forgery. The guy who turned it up in his shop(It didn't get discovered at a dig, it showed up) was charged with another forgery that hasn't gone to court yet. But, it does make for nice controversy, cuz' it would be a big one, if it was the real deal. As it is, it probably won't be long before they have the technology to absolutely refute the thing, based on the patina of the inscription. They're real close now- close enough for alotta scholars. The motive was money for nuthin'.

RE: BRB CD ranking (proposal)

PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2003 4:22 pm
by ricochet
Wasn't selling enough Holy Grails or "splinters of the cross," I suppose.

RE: BRB CD ranking (proposal)

PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2003 4:32 pm
by badfinger
It was estimated (God knows by whom) that by the end of the C16th, there were some 14,500 foreskins, ex-Jesus, in monastries and churches of Europe...

Iincidentally, in my last post "3CE" should've had "C" in front of it, ie, "C3CE".

bf

RE: BRB CD ranking (proposal)

PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2003 6:19 pm
by ricochet
Thought old Augustine's mama must have had him at a ripe old age.

RE: BRB CD ranking (proposal)

PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2003 10:10 pm
by badfinger
Often seen wanderin' round the Glasgow streets, bottle in hand, singing,

"I'm a Roman, in the gloamin',
Wi' Cleopatra by my side..."

bf

RE: BRB CD ranking (proposal)

PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2003 5:40 am
by rustyslide
I really find the CE and BCE terminalogy annoying and slightly offensive.

Our method of numbering years is the Christian one; regardless of whether we use BCE/CE or BC/AD, it's centered around the apparent birth year of Christ. Saying that this marked the beginning of the "Common-Era" just seems ludicrous. We need a year of reference, as 15 billion, four hundred million and sixty-three thousand and eight (or whatever) would get really old; so we might as well go with a date relavent to a major religion, but it should be labelled as such.


rant rant rant
I got rantin' on my mind.

[a href="http://www.geocities.com/hocmaximesugit/" title="my portfolio" target="_BLANK" style="text-decoration:none"]hoc maxime sugit[/a]

RE: BRB CD ranking (proposal)

PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2003 8:23 am
by stumblin
[updated:LAST EDITED ON Nov-21-03 AT 03:30 AM (EST)]Rusty,
Such a system already exists.
BP (before present) is a convention sometimes used in archaeology. We don't really need an AP for our purposes!
It doesn't match your politically-correct criteria perfectly, being based on the time-honoured BC/AD system.
Essentially, "present" is taken to mean 1950 AD, so the year 1050 AD would be 900BP etc. It works better for really big (and usually approximate) dates.
I'm not sure how this system was devised or why, but there you have it.

RE: BRB CD ranking (proposal)

PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2003 10:52 am
by badfinger
While it is essential to have an accepted, universal dating system, there are (collectively) more Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, Janes, Sikhs.... (ad wherever) than Christians involved in every walk of life, including archaeology, history, paleontology, anthropology, geology...

"BP" satisfies many requirements, but not all. We could do a 'Dicky 2' and declare a new situation of "immemoriality", but for most activities the common use of CE and BCE works - without offending any but those who might find neutrality offensive.

bf

RE: BRB CD ranking (proposal)

PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2003 11:03 am
by stumblin
[updated:LAST EDITED ON Nov-21-03 AT 06:03 AM (EST)]It's quite a while now since I wandered the dusty halls of academe.
I am unfamiliar with the CE and BCE system, maybe it is a recent innovation. Mousey's better half might be able to shed some light on this, herself being an academic archaeologist. I'll try to remember to ask her.
I remember being very confused by the two BC/AD systems, one upper-case (BC/AD), one lower (bc/ad). I think one relates to radio-carbon (C14) calibrations, but it's all lost in the mists of time I'm afraid.

RE: BRB CD ranking (proposal)

PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2003 4:20 pm
by david
Even here in the hinterlands of the Bible belt I regularly deal with folks who adhere to a different brandname religion, and the use of BCE is thus much less hegemonic than BC. I worry about folks who feel comfortable assuming their cultural traditions should be adopted without question by the rest of the world.

Of course, I do get the occassional student through my classes that attended a small private Bible school where the outside influences of science, much less other cultures, were not allowed to distort the world view of the tender young minds.

Even after all these years it still stuns me when I encounter a student who tells me that dinosaurs could not have existed because the Bible doesn't go back that far.

I guess these are the folks who insist that Jesus was born in the year "0" and hence time itself is divided into before and after.

Think what it would be like trying to deal with people who had been educated exclusively in a Talaban school. Apart from the brand name, what would be the difference? Intolerance of other cultures is intolerance.

Of course, I live in a society where you can be "accused" of being a "free thinker" (gasp!) and my government is holding people in secret without being charged with anything, and on the formal justification that they had "ideological links" to al Queda.

Yes, I will insist my students use the BCE designation and I will carefully explain to them why.

(If I suddenly disappear, I bet Mr. Ashcroft won't let me play the blues from my kennel.)


;;

RE: BRB CD ranking (proposal)

PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2003 4:55 pm
by stumblin
[updated:LAST EDITED ON Nov-21-03 AT 11:56 AM (EST)]Yes, it's incredible but true, some people want to keep the population in an educational dark age. Probably because stupid people are easier to rule.
Here's the text of a warning label from Alabama:
http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/1995/ ... tbook.html
This religious campaign is just irritatingly moronic:
http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=faq&specific=12
This kind of metaphysical stupidity is likely to take root here too, unless we consciously try to prevent it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1896164.stm
Here are some well thought-out responses to backwardness of this variety:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articl ... EC588EEDF&