In article <web.475c6523922777eb22e9f4040@news.povray.org>, 
nomail@nomail says...
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
> > Sorry, but I call bullshit.
> > It is precisely
> > what the Romans who adopted the religion **wanted** everyone to think,
> > so as to more easily remove all the annoying priests that where not
> > *conveniently* members of their own families. The first Roman family to
> > officially adopt the religion was the Flavians, and the second official
> > pope, considered second *only* because he claimed that was made such by
> > Paul, was *also* a Flavian and a close relative to *ding ding ding*, th
e
> > new Emperor, who thought it would be a real neat idea to adopt
> > Christianity as his families religion. Odd that... lol
> Odd that historians know about nothing about the second pope, Linus, and 
you
> know everything. Can you cite a paper?
> 
That would kind of depend on which history you are reading. The second 
Pope was, officially considered to be Pope Clement Flavius. Mind you, 
the suggestion that he was a Flavian was first suggested in "Acts of 
Saints Nereus and Achilles", in roughly the 5th or 6th century. It 
implies that Clement was in fact the *son* of Titus Flavius. Its hardly 
my fault that you only read the histories from people that *want* your 
version of history to be true, and not the numerous other works around 
them.

But that wouldn't matter anyway. I am sure you can do a google and find 
plenty of modern historians, many of them *specifically* studying 
Biblical history, that are uncertain, or actively disbelieve, that 
Jesus, as described in the Bible, ever existed. Its practically common 
knowledge that they hold this view.

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message