Ben Zwycky

I donÔÇÖt like to ruffle feathers, but I donÔÇÖt think those two pics fit so well together, and thereÔÇÖs still the question of the Defence/Defense logo, the one I did fits even less well with ZaneÔÇÖs fleet logo (they have no common elements at all). Zane (I suspect) created his fleet logo versions so that they would fit in with his CIOPS logo idea, though those who expressed an opinion preferred the CIOPS logo I did. My work is a complete set, my fleet logo has half its elements from my Defence Logo and half from CIOPS, plus a version of the original ISS starburst which is a must in every ISS logo in my opinion, since that dates back to the start of the fleet and Gareth DeSylva, the founder of the fleet and originator of battlecruiser roleplay. Out of respect for him and for the sake of fleet continuity I cannot throw that emblem away. I created the animations to highlight how interconnected the logos are, and I tried to do that in an original and creative way, avoiding boring peelbacks, frameslides or crossfades, quite successfully imho. With the disappearance of Intel, I added the daggers to CIOPS, meaning it now has more than half of the elements in the fleet logo, with no leftovers. Otherwise the two wing logos are the same as when I first made them 4 years ago. ZaneÔÇÖs work is also a set (though incomplete at the moment) ÔÇô based around his shield border/earth emblem ÔÇô they fit together well and will no doubt animate well from one to the other. I do not deny his ability as a graphic artist or web designer, and I am glad he is so enthusiastic about his role as head of CIOPS. However, in my opinion the two sets donÔÇÖt mix well, it should be either all ZaneÔÇÖs set or all mine, otherwise itÔÇÖs going to look a little disjointed and messy. If itÔÇÖs going to be ZaneÔÇÖs set, then someoneÔÇÖs going to have to come up with a new Defense logo (and new CIOPS logo if people are still unhappy with the one heÔÇÖs done) and then animate them (though Zane says that wonÔÇÖt be a problem since he has a copy of Flash) While I admit that my animations are not perfect (there are a couple of places that could do with smoothing out, and if the wonderful world of Flash can help there, IÔÇÖll be the happiest of all) but I feel I must ask: Is my fleet logo really so unacceptable that all my work (except for one pic done 4 years ago) should be discarded and the whole process started again almost from scratch? You guys really have no idea how much work this took to do. I feel I must respectfully ask our fleet commander to reconsider his decision. Again I apologise - I donÔÇÖt like saying these things, but I donÔÇÖt want us to end up with something that doesnÔÇÖt fit together, or something lower quality than what I have already presented.

I apologise for the delay in posting, I was busy (and not too well) last week. These dates would not be so uncertain to historians during the first few centuries AD, since the official roman records would have been available for dating the census precisely. It is only since the loss of the official roman archives due to repeated barbarian invasions that historians have to put these pieces together as they are found. Still, this is not to say that Luke is always so vague in his language or use of terminology. There are a large number of points in which many liberal scholars thought Luke was hopelessly wrong, but archaeologists later found him to be correct. (From that same interview with John Mcray, Chapter 5 of ÔÇÿThe Case for ChristÔÇÖ by Lee Strobel, a legal journalist and an atheist while conducting this interview, but later became a Christian) For example, in chapter 3 verse 1 when Luke wrote that Lysanius was tetrarch of Abilene, many scholars pointed to this place as a prime example that Luke didnÔÇÖt know what he was talking about, since Lysanius wasnÔÇÖt a tetrarch, but a ruler of Chaldea half a century earlier. Then an inscription was found dating from the reign of Tiberias Casear (14-37 AD) in which Lysanius is mentioned as the tetrarch of Abilene, just like Luke recorded. There were two ruling officials named Lysanius. Another is in Acts chapter 17 verse 6, Luke uses the greek word politarch to refer to the city authorities/officials. This word wasnÔÇÖt found anywhere else in Greek literature, so scholars said he must simply be wrong. Then came the discovery of an inscription on an arch that began ÔÇ£During the time of the politarchÔǪÔÇØ(This old find is currently kept in the British Museum). Since then, archaeologists have found 35 inscriptions concerning the politarch, some of which were found in Thessalonica, dating from the period Luke was writing about. Also, there is the ÔÇÿcontradictionÔÇÖ between Mark 10:46 and Luke 18:35, where in Luke Jesus is approaching Jericho and in Mark he is leaving Jericho when he meets and heals a blind man. The city of Jericho was destroyed and rebuilt many times, over time being located in 4 different places, without the older locations being completely abandoned, so Jesus could easily have been moving from the ÔÇÿold cityÔÇÖ to the ÔÇÿnew cityÔÇÖ, or the other way round, and both accounts would be correct. One leading archaeologist investigated in detail carefully scrutinized LukeÔÇÖs references to 32 countries, 45 cities and 9 islands and didnÔÇÖt find a single mistake. If Luke was so careful and precise in his recording of all these secondary details, why should we think he was any less careful on the events that were much more important to him and his readers? Similar accusations (of lack of knowledge of local geography) have been levelled against John, since he is ÔÇÿobviouslyÔÇÖ the weakest link, being written later than the other gospels and with the biggest difference in content from the other three. (Un)fortunately for those accusations a number of archaeological finds have confirmed details recorded in JohnÔÇÖs account. These include: The pool at Bethsaida having five porches (John 5:2) (this was also used as an example of JohnÔÇÖs imprecision by skeptics until the pool was discovered) The pool at Siloam (9:7) JacobÔÇÖs well (4:12) the probable location of the ÔÇÿStone PavementÔÇÖ or Gabbatha where Pilate sat on the judgement seat and brought Jesus out before the crowd (19:13) While weÔÇÖre on the subject of Jesus before the crowd, this was not a prisoner exchange, it was the release of a political prisoner at a festival, where a crowd got to choose which one. While it is true that we donÔÇÖt have any record of a custom of releasing prisoners on a Palestinian holiday, we do know that political prisoners were released for various reasons (as recorded by Josephus and Livy) and that Roman officials appear to have granted mass amnesty at other regular feasts (in other regions) and to have occasionally aquitted prisoners in response to crowds. So, it is not that hard to believe the biblical account of BarrabasÔÇÖ release, especially since it is recorded in all four gospels and the book of acts as part of PeterÔÇÖs sermon in Acts 3:14. All of these sources record the trial of Jesus/release of Barabbas in an independent fashion (same basics, different details) except for Matthew and Mark, whose accounts are very similar. This makes the historical reliability of their combined witness very strong.

well, you've got my adress, haven't you ?

It'll be tough for me that late in the day, and on top of that this week I'm not so well, so this time I can't make it.

Don't worry about me, I'm not feeling too well this week

Orbital is the designation for ground forces (Prime has 1st Space Marine Battalion and 1st Orbital Marine Battalion) though I'm not sure what category marines stationed onboard vessels fall under.

I made a little miscalculation. 10pm GMT is midnight where I am. Couldn't it be a little earlier? If not, I couldn't really stay for long if I make it at all.

oh, if this is purely prime and insurgents then I take my offer of prescence.

That's what the 52nd Elite Force Squadron is. Personally I feel more comfortable with Orbital than Shock, less pretencious (sp?) and it has a precedent

The flight groups should disappearand be replaced with Defence, leaving: Defence Wing CIOPS (Wing) 7th Elite Force Battalion 52nd Elite Force Squadron though I would suggest changing the marine battalion's name to 7th Orbital Marine Battalion (like Prime's 1st Orbital Marine Battalion), since that reflects their ground-based role, and encompasses more than just Elite Force Marines. Another alternative would be the DeSylva's old rp nomenclature of 7th Shock Battalion, designating their elite status and rapid response capability, and encompassing every possible kind of marine and every possible theatre of deployment. Zane referred to them as groundpounders in his emails with me, and I think that could be a good nickname for them (if it isn't taken by another fleet's marine contingent) What do people think?

That's a bit late for my end of the world (11.00 PM with little boys who get me up between 4-5.30 AM), but I'll try to make it.

welcome back, sir! As you can see, we need your input on a couple of things before we can proceed.

I had the same problem when I was at school (I didn't mind), but not where I am now. Over here, people only ever call their dog Ben.

The following three pieces of evidence I have from a Czech translation of an interview with John McRay, a leading archaeologist, so I apologise if my wording does not match his, or if I have made any spelling mistakes. Another piece of evidence concerning Quirinius is the discovery of a coin inscribed with very small (micrographic) lettering. According to that coin, Quirinius was proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 BC until the death of Herod the Great. Scholars are divided as to whether this is a different Quirinius or the same one, since there was elsewhere discovered an official inscription stating that someone was in office over Syria twice (or in office twice, the second time being over Syria). This enables other dates favoured by scholars, such as 11 BC or 7-5 BC (around the due time of the regular taxation census every 14 years). None of these options would be incompatible with LukeÔÇÖs account of the census. Also concerning the census was the objection that the roman authorities never ordered people to return to their hometown as part of the census-taking procedure. an official government directive dated to 104 AD: ÔÇ£Gaius Vibius Maximus, prefect of Egypt [declares]: In view of the fact that the time has come for counting the people from house to house, it is necessary to compel everyone, who for whatever reason reside outside the bounds of their province, to return to their homes, not only for carrying out the regular population census, but also that they would diligently devote themselves to cultivating their land.ÔÇØ Another papyrus dated to 48 AD also indicates that a census applied to whole families.

As regards the census recorded in Luke, I found an article on the subject with a quote from Chronos, Kairos, Christos: Nativity and Chronological Studies, pages 89-90: "Historians have not been able to find any empire-wide census or registration in the years 7-5 B.C., but there is a reference to such a registration of all the Roman people not long before 5 February 2 B.C. written by Caesar Augustus himself: "While I was administering my thirteenth consulship [2 B.C.] the senate and the equestrian order and the entire Roman people gave me the title Father of my Country" (Res Gestae 35, italics added). This award was given to Augustus on 5 February 2 B.C., therefore the registration of citizen approval must have taken place in 3 B.C. Orosius, in the fifth century, also said that Roman records of his time revealed that a census was indeed held when Augustus was made "the first of men"--an apt description of his award "Father of the Country"--at a time when all the great nations gave an oath of obedience to Augustus (6:22, 7:2). Orosius dated the census to 3 B.C. And besides that, Josephus substantiates that an oath of obedience to Augustus was required in Judea not long before the death of Herod (Antiquities I7:4I-45). This agrees nicely in a chronological sense with what Luke records. But more than that, an inscription found in Paphlagonia (eastern Turkey), also dated to 3 B.C., mentions an "oath sworn by all the people in the land at the altars of Augustus in the temples of Augustus in the various districts." And dovetailing precisely with this inscription, the early (fifth century) Armenian historian, Moses of Khoren, said the census that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem was conducted by Roman agents in Armenia where they set up "the image of Augustus Caesar in every temple.''. The similarity of this language is strikingly akin to the wording on the Paphlagonian inscription describing the oath taken in 3 B.C. These indications can allow us to reasonably conclude that the oath (of Josephus, the Paphlagonian inscription, and Orosius) and the census (mentioned by Luke, Orosius, and Moses of Khoren) were one and the same. All of these things happened in 3 B.C." Now, IÔÇÖm not sure how the astronomical data fits this date (because I only have this passage, no doubt it is mentioned elsewhere in the book), but this would seem to be very strong evidence of the empire-wide census as Luke recorded it (complete with the correct dating relative to HerodÔÇÖs death from the Josephus quote.) If the objection centres around QuiriniusÔÇÖ part in the census (since he became governor of Syria in 6 AD), LukeÔÇÖs wording in 2.2 is kinda ambiguous. The word translated as ÔÇÿgovernorÔÇÖ is a very general term, used of all manner of authoritative positions, ranging from prefects, procurators, provincial governors, general ÔÇÿrulersÔÇÖ, even to Caesar himself. This positional description would have applied to Quirinius at many points in his political career. Justin Martyr (writing in the second century, specified that he was only a procurator (Apology 1:34) Also the time structure translated ÔÇÿfirst whileÔÇÖ could also (and according to many recent scholars should rather) be translated ÔÇÿbeforeÔÇÖ, meaning that the census in Luke was the one before Quirinius was governor of Syria. IÔÇÖm not saying this is the only theory historians have or the only date suggested for LukeÔÇÖs census, but its case seems strong to me.

here

Sorry I couldn't make it, but I should be able to make the next one for an hour or two at least (had a discussion with my wife about it) any problem with working on a 56k connection?

Like I said, I won't vote, 'cause I'm biased. If the vote ends up even, however, then I may make a casting vote (and you know which way that'll be)

OK, thank you. We're moving the computer upstairs and rearranging lots of furniture tomorrow (and the next day knowing us - setting up an office at home) and we have a lot of translation work on at the moment, which is what has been slowing things down somewhat and will continue to do so for the next few weeks, so we'll see when I can put together my next post. (I hope sometime in the middle of next week, but I make no promises.) Later,

IÔÇÖm afraid I am unable to comment on JagÔÇÖs sources in France, since I donÔÇÖt have access to them or any of their supporting evidence, or any scholarly work that looks at them. I will rely on his intellectual integrity to assess for himself how well they perform on the reliability tests above. If he at some point feels confident enough to present the evidence supporting their accuracy, then he is welcome to. In the meantime I will have to leave that issue and move on to assessing the reliability of the New Testament Gospels. Since the word ÔÇÿNazareneÔÇÖ and the historical existence/non-existence of Nazareth seems to have been presented as an important issue, we will look at that now. First, the evidence for the existence of Nazareth as an established Jewish Community in the first Century AD Paul Barnett, Behind the Scenes of the New Testament, IVP:1990, p.42: "Despite the Hellenization of the general region and the probability that Greek was known to many people it seems likely that Nazareth remained a conservative Jewish village. After the Jewish war with the Romans from AD 66-70 it was necessary to re-settle Jewish priests and their families. Such groups would only settle in unmixed towns, that is towns without Gentile inhabitants. According to an inscription discovered in 1962 in Caesarea Maritima the priests of the order of Elkalir made their home in Nazareth. This, by the way, is the sole known reference to Nazareth in antiquity, apart from written Christian sources... (next paragraph) Some scholars had even believed that Nazareth was a fictitious invention of the early Christians; the inscription from Caesarea Maritima proves otherwise." (emphasis mine) The need to resettle the priestly families was obvious- the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70. This meant there was now very little for the priests to do (their religious duties revolved around the temple- even after retirement), and now no centralised mechanism for providing for their needs (also done through the daily operation of the temple). The highlighted text shows that Nazareth had to have been an existing, established, purely Jewish community, since priests were ÔÇÿholyÔÇÖ that is ÔÇÿset apartÔÇÖ for God, and so forbidden from mixing with pagans. Further, we have archaeological digs that found grave sites around the edge of Nazareth containing artefacts (vases, lamps, etc) dating from the first, third and fourth centuries. Like any good Jewish settlement, graves had to be outside the town. This enables archaeologists to determine the overall area covered by Nazareth at the time to be roughly 60 acres and the population less than 500. So it was a very small place, of no great importance to anyone, nothing much of note happened there (hence its lack of specific mention in the Old Testament, Talmud or contemporary historianÔÇÖs publications) but among archaeologists, any serious doubt or debate about its existence in the first century petered out decades ago. It was also a place whose inhabitants had a poor reputation, hence the reaction of Nathanael Philip found Nathanael and told him, "We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote--Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." "Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?" Nathanael asked John 1:46 (NIV) Nathanael was himself from Cana, also in Galilee, which as a region was regarded as good-for-nothing, as ÔÇ£of the GentilesÔÇØ, as a whole ÔÇÿpollutedÔÇÖ by pagan immigrants who arrived during the exile in Assyria, and despised by the purer-blooded Jews in the south of Israel (hence the reaction of the Pharisees in John 7): They replied, "Are you from Galilee, too? Look into it, and you will find that a prophet does not come out of Galilee." John 7:52 (NIV) So this adds strength to NathanaelÔÇÖs statement, Nazareth was regarded as worthless by those living in a region regarded as no good, it was the ÔÇÿworst of a bad lotÔÇÖ. The above quote from John 1 shows that Nazarene was very clearly understood to mean ÔÇÿof NazarethÔÇÖ in this context at least. The possible alternative meaning of Netser-ene (ÔÇ£branchÔÇØ, a play on the messianic title found in numerous places in the Old Testament) does not fit here, even less so the remote possibility of Nazirite (having taken a (temporary or permanent) vow to abstain from all products of the vine (wine, grapes), not cut your hair or touch a dead body e.g. Samson, John the Baptist). This also explains why the word Nazarene was used by JesusÔÇÖ (and his followersÔÇÖ) Jewish opponents to refer to them in a derogatory way. ÔÇÿThe sect of the NazarenesÔÇÖ (from Acts 24) or ÔÇÿNazarenesÔÇÖ in the Jewish liturgical prayer curse that was instigated just before the end of the first century. ÔÇÿThese heretics have as their leader a Nazarene, of all people!ÔÇÖ. JesusÔÇÖ followers never referred to themselves in this way. They usually called themselves ÔÇÿthe churchÔÇÖ or sometimes ÔÇÿfollowers of the WayÔÇÖ (ÔÇÿChristianÔÇÖ was the term used by Gentiles to designate the church). The ÔÇÿsect of the NazarenesÔÇÖ was referring to the church being a sect within Judaism, not a sect within JesusÔÇÖ followers. The earliest mention of ÔÇÿNazarenesÔÇÖ by name as a distinct group within Christianity comes in the fourth century AD, referring to a group of Jewish descent who had pretty mainstream Christian theology, but observed the laws of Moses as well (without objecting to Gentile Christians or requiring Gentiles to also follow Mosaic Law). They were not regarded as heretics by the church, except when they were confused with another Jewish group claiming to be Christian, but with very different beliefs, known as the Ebionites. I donÔÇÖt know about you, but I fail to see anything worldview-shattering here, unless IÔÇÖm missing something big. Again, IÔÇÖm summarising for readability. If I have been unclear or too brief somewhere, please let me know and I will try and elaborate.

Come on guys, make a choice! I won't vote 'cause I'm biased. We should probably start another thread (in general fleet discussions) about the galcom medal idea.

Now, having established that Thomas was written significantly later than the biblical gospels (Most scholars (except for the extreme left-wingers in the Jesus Seminar) would give its earliest possible date as 140-180AD, for a number of reasons) and that it used the biblical gospels as sources (as well as other documents) letÔÇÖs take a look at how the author of Thomas used these sources in particular. Typical of second-century writings and especially of Gnostic works, the author of Thomas radically rearranges sayings from his sources, grouping together things said in completely different contexts based around themes or catchwords (though there are times when the biblical order shows through. He also removes anything that would indicate the context in which they were said, or what was specifically meant, transforming clear, public and well-known statements of Jesus as recorded in the biblical gospels into vague and mysterious ÔÇÿsecretÔÇÖ sayings (as the author claims them to be in his introduction). These ÔÇÿmore flexibleÔÇÖ sayings are often then combined with Gnostic teachings that flatly contradict what we find in the biblical gospels (pantheism, salvation through self-knowledge, the physical world being evil and the spiritual world good, women being ÔÇÿunworthy of LifeÔÇÖ) Also edited out of the biblical sources are any of the material that indicates JesusÔÇÖ or GodÔÇÖs activity in history, or JesusÔÇÖ descriptions of the way salvation works - these parts are not compatible with Gnostic theology. So, as regards sources, the author is either a. extremely na├»ve or b. deliberately manipulative for theological reasons to the point of almost totally losing/distorting the original meaning. It doesnÔÇÖt really come as a surprise to me that the majority of scholars do not regard the gospel of Thomas as a useful historical source. Again, thereÔÇÖs more I could say, but I think the point is clear enough.

So the decision is, Zane's fleet and CIOPS logos or the ones I did (Zane's can also be animated in some way). As part of our discussion, I also suggested a third option- That of using my work as the fleet and wing logos and Zane's work (or derivatives of it) as some fleet medals to be awarded to individual commanders for oustanding performance in mp or rp or something.

LetÔÇÖs first look at the dating of the Gospel of Thomas, as that affects every other issue. According to the Jesus Seminar, (and people who rely on their conclusions) the Gospel of Thomas was written in about AD 50 and was earlier than all four Gospels found in the Bible, but for this dating (among other things) they received severe criticism from scholars of all persuasions. Why is that? When you compare Thomas with the four biblical Gospels, certain parallels appear, as well as fundamental differences, but for this post, I will concern myself with the parrallels, as those would seem to indicate who was dependant on who. The lists below are not by any means exhaustive, but enough to show dependance imho. You can check them for yourself if you like The following are passages only occur in MatthewÔÇÖs gospel account (technically known as ÔÇÿspecial M'), but find very close equivalents in Thomas. Matt 6.3--GTh 62 Matt 7.6--GTh 93 Matt 10.16--GTh 39 Matt 11.30--GTh 90 Matt 13.24-30--GTh 57 This indicates the author of Thomas was very familiar with MatthewÔÇÖs oral tradition at least. The following are passages only occur in LukeÔÇÖs gospel account (technically known as ÔÇÿspecial L'), but also find very close equivalents in Thomas. Luke 11.27-28 + 23:29--GTh 79 Luke 12.13-14--GTh 72 Luke 17.20-21--GTh 113 This indicates the author of Thomas was similarly familiar with LukeÔÇÖs oral tradition. Then we have parallelÔÇÖs with JohnÔÇÖs account, that donÔÇÖt appear in any other Gospel. John 1.14--GTh 28a John 7:34ÔÇöGTh 38b John 8.12; 9.5--GTh 77a John 8:51 ÔÇô GTh 1 This indicates the author of Thomas was familiar with JohnÔÇÖs account. Then we have last-minute changes to word-order, authorÔÇÖs variant paraphrasing of what was said, which indicate access to the final written version of a gospel account With Matthew GTh 99 uses Matthew's wording in Matt 12.50 (instead of Mark's (Mark 3:35)or LukeÔÇÖs (Luke 8:21)) in the Triple-Tradition passage (on who are Jesus true mother and brothers) GTh 33 uses Matthew's precise wording (Matt 10:26) of a tradition from Mark (Mark 4:22) or Q (if you believe in the existence of the theoretical ÔÇÿQÔÇÖ sayings source) (Luke 12:2-3) (on preaching from housetops) Luke 8.17 slightly rewords Mark 4.22, and LukeÔÇÖs final form shows up in GTh 5 and 6, with the Greek parallel matching Luke's exactly. GTh 14 influenced by Luke 10.8-9 (rather than Mark 6:10 or Matt 10:11). GTh 16 influenced by LukeÔÇÖs version of family division (Luke 12.51-53) rather than MatthewÔÇÖs (Matt 10:34-36). GTh 55 is much closer to LukeÔÇÖs version (Luke 14:26-27) than MatthewÔÇÖs (Matt 10:37-38), as is Gth 101a. To quote Craig Blomberg (a biblical scholar of high renown) on the subject, ÔÇ£Parallels emerged in Thomas to every one of the four Gospels and to every "layer" of the Gospel tradition--that is, to material common to all three Synoptic Gospels, information from "Q"..., and traditions unique to each of the four Gospels. It seems unlikely that every Gospel and every Gospel source would independently use Thomas at an early date; rather, it is far more probable that Thomas knew and relied upon the later fourfold Gospel collection.ÔÇØ ThereÔÇÖs more that I could say, but I think thatÔÇÖs enough to prove the point, donÔÇÖt you think? Later,