text:
Jesus, the brother of James, son of Damneus
Recently, I have posted a defence of the partial authenticity of Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum and the complete authenticity of the so-called "James passage." — Even though, at least to my knowledge, I dealt with the relevant objections to their authenticity there is at least one more objection which I decided to cover here. — It has to do with the James passage.
It is an indesputable fact that the majority of scholarly opinion supports the authenticity of the clause "Jesus, who was called Christ" in the James passage. But there is one more objection that, all though I have never taken it seriously except for this blog post, should be cleared up.
Kenneth Humphreys, while mentioning this passage, mentions in passing that in the same paragraph there is another man named Jesus, the son of Damneus and then indicates that this man is James' brother, not the Jesus of the Bible. (Antiquities 20: 200) Though Humphreys does not go into much detail on this, one other Atheist I communicated with did.
Metro State Atheist, an Atheist blog I occasionally visit, refers to this objection and makes some points that should be answered. — After quoting the entire paragraph in which James and the two Jesuses are mentioned Joel Guttormson the webmaster of the blog goes on to say,
James mentioned in the line in question, which is italicized and underlined in the text above, is the bother of the Jesus mentioned in the bolded line. Context dictates this since they are not separated explicitly (ie Josephus didn't say that Jesus, the son of Damneus is not the same as Jesus brother of James who they called Christ). Also, there exists no break in the story such that anyone could assert they are different people in the context.
The argument of context needs to be addressed. He saying that because there is "no break in the story" that the brother of James and the son of Damneus are therefore likely the same person. This is not necessarily true. Jesus was an extremely common name, so common that in order to prevent confusion for the readers of his history it would only be logical to identify two different men with the same name with differing means of Identification. This would only become all the more necessary if these two men were mentioned within only a few sentences of eachother and if the context did not change.
The reason why there is no break in the context is that the execution of James lead to all the events that followed in the paragraph (i.e., the deposition of the High Priest Ananus and his replacement by "the son of Damneus.") This does not prove or even indicate that the brother of James and the son of Damneus are the same person.
Also, even though Joel is correct that Josephus does not say point blank that Jesus and James were not Damnes' sons, Josephus' own writing style dictates that they be positively identified as such. Usually, when Josephus first introduced a historical person he gave him the proper introduction the first time that he is mentioned by naming the person's father (or known relative), hometown or their office.
Here are some examples of Josephus' first time introductions:
- Antiquities 17: 271: "There was also Judas, the son of that Ezekias who had been head of the robbers."
- Antiquities 17: 273: "There was also Simon, who had been a slave of Herod the king."
- Antiquities 18: 4: "Yet was there one Judas, a Gaulonite, of a city whose name was Gamala."
- Wars 5: 335: "They intended to have Zacharias the son of Baruch, one of the most eminent of the citizens, slain."
The list of examples of Josephus' goes on. When he first names a new person, this is how he he introduced them, the first time he mentions them. This isn't to say that he never re-introduces anyone in the same manner a second time, but it is characteristic for him to do it the first time as did many other ancient writers. Normally Josephus would not have procrastinated only to give the customary introduction later on.
Assuming that James' brother and the son of Damneus are the same person, and taking into account Josephus' normal writing style, by all rights the James passage should say "James, brother of Jesus, the son of Damneus."But this is not the case. — Josephus usually gave this identification without delay, and yet he does not follow up in this passage. If Josephus indeed meant that James' brother and the son of Damneus were the same person, then it's pretty odd that he didn't follow the norm of identification. That he did not certainly makes sense if they are not the same person.
Another argument that Joe makes that I think deserves to be examined is his claim that the son of Damneus can also be called "Christ,"
Furthermore, Christ is Greek means nothing more than "the anointed one". Literally, this means that one would be blessed with or covered in [holy] oil. It wouldn't be out of the question, as far I know, that a "high priest" such as "Jesus, the son Damneus" was, would be called a Christ, an anointed one.
Actually, it would be out of the question because "Christ" had huge political implications, and it is unlikely the Romans would have allowed him to have been seated as high preist if he bore such a title. But let's not even consider that fact as part of the evidence. — It is accurate to say that the Greek word "Χριστος" is translated as "anointed." And considering that the son of Damneus would have been "annointed" when he was appointed as High Priest, Joe's argument does seem plausable. But there is one major problem with this assumption:
Josephus indicates that Jesus already was known as "Christ" during the early High Priesthood of Ananus, that is to say before the anointment of the son of Damneus to be the next High Priest. Because every High Priest was logically "anointed" at his appointment to the High-Priesthood, it is highly unlikely that the son of Damneus would have been known as the "anointed anything" until after Ananus' term.
Furthermore, as mentioned in my previous post on this subject, the Greek term "λεγόμενος" which Josephus uses for the clause "Was called Christ" is being used neutrally by neither affirming or denying Jesus' Messiaship, which is a reason why it is widely accepted as authentic.
This neutrality would be understandable if Josephus wanted to at least avoid bashing Christianity. However, if he indeed has the son of Damneus in mind then it would have definitely been pretty odd and un-called-for because the appointment (or anointment) of the son of Damnues was not in doubt at all. It would have been like saying "Some people call him the high priest, but I don't want to take sides." Such reasoning, however, would have been considered absurd by a dedicated Jew like Josephus.
— So as it turns out, a major basis for accepting the authenticity of the "James Passage" (i.e., the neutrality of Josephus' terminology) can also be used to argue against the identification of Jesus, James' brother with the son of Damneus.
After this, Joe seems to imply that Josephus was probably the source used by Christians to determine that Jesus had a brother named James. But to be fair, probably means that this could have been Mark's own personal knowledge of Jesus son of Demneus. — He then goes on to say,
Although the earliest possible date for the first Gospel, of what would become the New Testament, is 70ad; the earliest, physical, dated Gospel of Mark dates, approximately, to around the year 90ad. This would give ample time to the author of the Gospel of Mark to construct his Jesus character based on the high priest, Jesus, the son of Damneus.
I'm bringing this up because Mark, the first Gospel which mentions James, is usually dated in the 70s AD which is contemperary with Josephus' Wars of the Jews and also pre-dates his Antiquities of the Jews by around twenty to thirty years. But Joe places it in a date which apparently is to make all of Josephus' works pre-date Mark, thus making it unusable to show as a pre-Josephus. — This part Joe's argument here, like the rest of the Jesus-Damneus argument only presupposes what it sets out to prove. There is no evidence given that Mark should be dated later than the usual date it is thought to be written.
As a matter of fact, most scholarship disagrees with dating Mark so late in 90 AD. — What my impartial sources show is that,
"Most scholars [ . . . ] would be hesitant to assign a date later than 70-73 CE, the latter being when Jerusalem was finally and fully sacked."
So the fact is that the latest accepted date for Mark is much earlier than the date that Joe is proposing. — Now here is the interesting detail: Even if he were right that Mark should be dated to 90 AD, this would still pre-date the completion of Josephus' twentieth (and last book) which mentions James and the son of Damneus. Josephus completed his twenty books of the Antiquities in 93 AD, after the alleged late date of Mark. (Source)
— This is enough to refute the implication that Josephus was probably what Christians used Josephus to conclude Jesus had a brother named James because, apparently which ever composition date you prefer for Mark's gospel, Mark's mention of James still came first (Mark 6: 3 )
The bottom line is that even though I have known about the skeptic argument that Jesus, the brother of James is the same as the other Jesus who was the son of Damneus, with the exception of this blog response to the argument, I don't take it seriously. My problem with it is that it starts with a foregone conclusion and then works off of it assuring that the desired conclusion will be reached. It then presupposes that because Josephus mentions a Jesus a few sentences before another that they therefore have to be the same person even though they are identified by different means.
As said before, to assume that the brother of James is the same as the son of Damneus is to assume that Josephus broke with the methodology of identifying a person by his father, relative, hometown, or position the first timehe introduced them, not waiting until later which is what would have to be assumed if the two Jesuses are the same person. — The suggestion that Josephus called the son of Damneus "Christ" because of his "anointment" to the office of High Priest doesn't work when one realizes that Josephus indicates that this was Jesus' title during the High Priesthood of Ananus because the son of Damneus wasn't anointed until after Ananus' term in office.
Also, Josephus' usage of the clause "Was called Christ" is agreed to be a completely neutral way of using the title "Christ" without either confirming or denying Jesus' messiaship. — As said before, this wold make complete sense if Josephus wanted to avoid Christian-bashing while at the same time not accept Jesus as the Messiah. But it certainly wouldn't make sense to use such a neutral clause with the High Priest. Using this neutral clause with Jesus, son of Damnues would make no sense, unless Josephus neither wanted to confirm or deny his priesthood because it was never in doubt from anyone.
In conclusion, to make a long story short, there is no credible evidence to conclusively say that the "Christ" mentioned by Josephus is the same as Jesus-Damneus, and there are enough arguments to the contrary because it opens the door to inconsistencies.
The Parallels Between Jesus and Horus — A Refutation of Acharya S
The Egyptian god Horus was the sky god and the son of Isis and Osiris. Accorging to Egyptian mythology, his father was murdered by Seth who was his "perpetual antagonist" and was cut into 14 pieces which were scattered all over Egypt. Later Horus, who was raised by his mother in the swamps of the Nile Delta, when he grew to manhood took it upon himself to take revenge on Seth for the murder of his father and after killing him he bacame the king of the unified Egypt.
In ancient Egypt he was was often represented as a falcon and considered the prince of the gods, the patron of young men as well as the protector of the Pharaoh who was believed to be his avatar on earth while alive. Horus is also said to continue his battle with Seth on a daily basis to ensure the world's safety.
After making claims that Buddha is basically a prototype of Jesus (which are refuted here) D.M. Murdock goes on to claim that there are similar parallels between Jesus and Horus which have been widely repeated by many "Jesus-Mythers" such as the filmakers of Zeitgeist as well as others. — Ms. Murdock's claims are in bold while my answers are in regular font.
The first claim she makes is that,
Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger, with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.
The idea that Horus' mother was a virgin at the time of his birth is not found in Egyptian mythology. — What happened was that after Osiris was murdered an cut into pieces by Seth, the goddess Isis traveled though Egypt and was able to find his pieces she then impregnated herself with her husbands phallus (or penis) after which she conceived her son Horus.
The fact that she was Osiris' wife argues against the idea that Isis was a virgin and undoubtedly their marriage would have been consummated. Also, even if that were not the case, the description of Horus' conception is miraculous, but it is definitely sexual and therefore does not qualify as a virgin birth.
As for the claim of Horus being born in a manger or a cave, the Encyclopedia Mythica points out that after Isis impregnated herself on her husband's dead body and conceived her son, she then "gave birth to Horus in the swamps of Khemnis in the Nile Delta," showing that Ms. Murdock's claim is completely false.
Not only is the date of December 25th of no importance to Christianity, it so happens that Horus was not even born on that date. His birth was on the second of the five "Epagomenal Days" which actually corresponds from July 31st to August 24th.
There is no Egyptian reference confirming that Horus' mother "Isis-Meri." She is simply called Isis. — Also, there is no evidence that Horus' birth was "announced by a star" or that three wise-men attended his birth. Besides in the gospel of Matthew the wise men are not numbered, so even if this were true about Horus it certainly would be irrelevant about Jesus.
He was a child teacher in the Temple and was baptized when he was 30 years old.
I cannot find any confirmation that Horus ever was depicted as a child teacher or that he was even baptized. For this claim in her footnotes Ms. Murdock does not cite any primary or credible source. She qoutes Massey and Mead who have no credibility.
Horus was also baptized by "Anup the Baptizer," who becomes "John the Baptist."
I have just mentioned that there is no evidence that Horus was ever baptized. — Besides this fact, "Anup" was just another name for god Anubis who was an embalmer, not a Baptizer like John the Baptist.
He had 12 disciples.
No he didn't, at least, not as far as any evidence from Egyptian sources indicate. The Egyptologists apparantly have no knowledge of Horus having twelve disciples, so if anyone knows of any evidence that he did then they should contact them right away. — Ms. Murdock just simply throws out this allegation without giving any reference to support this claim in her footnotes.
He performed miracles and raised one man, El-Azar-us, from the dead.
Miracles are an expectation from most gods so even if Horus did perform any miraculous deeds this would not indicate any causation of Christian theology. Besides, I cannot find any reference to any figure named Al-Azar-us in Egyptian mythology.
He walked on water.
Again, there is no evidence of this from any Egyptian or Encyclopedic sources.
Horus was transfigured on the Mount.
No supporting evidence for this claim. Ms. Murdock cites no sources in her footnotes for this supposed claim, whether it be reliable or unreliable.
He was killed, buried in a tomb and resurrected.
The one reference that I could find that describes his death is seeminly unrelated to the Passion of Jesus. Horus was stung him to death by a scorpion. When Isis found him dead she is said to have become "distraught and frantic with grief, and was inconsolable." – Thoth, who had helped her to revive her husband Osiris, heard her and came down to answer her. Isis was then supplied with incantations and then was able to revive her son. (See: "The Cippi of Horus")
In short, even in this account, Horus' death way to different from Jesus' to insist that one account influenced the other. Besides Horus was not said to have been buried in a tomb.
He was also the "Way, the Truth, the Light, the Messiah, God's Anointed Son, the Son of Man, the Good Shepherd, the Lamb of God, the Word" etc.
Besides the fact that Ms. Murdock does not cite any sources for this claim the term "Messiah" as one of Horus' titles is suspicious because it is rooted in Hebrew, not the Egyptian language. The title "God's Anointed Son" is basically a translation of the Hebrew "Messiah" which means "The Annointed" so Ms. Murdock is using two titles for the price of one. — The title "Son of Man" is also suspect because Horus, unlike Jesus, didn't have an earthly father.
He was "the Fisher," and was associated with the Lamb, Lion and Fish ("Ichthys").
Murdock's source for this claim is Massey cited in a footnote. Massey himself does not even show his own sources and I have not been able to confirm these titles. There is also no Biblical passage with Jesus ever being called "the fisher" or "Lion and fish" so even if these titles were associated with Horus (which they are not) it would still be irrelevant to Christianity. — Besides, "Ichtys" is Greek, not Egyptian.
Horus's personal epithet was "Iusa," the "ever-becoming son" of "Ptah," the "Father."
There is no evidence of these claims either. — Besides the fact that Jesus Christ is never spoken about as having a "personal epithet," the term "Iusa" isn't even a real word. Perhaps it is a mispronunciation of the Greek "Iesous" which is the Greek transliteration for Jesus' own name. Considering that it is Greek, not Egyptian, this only makes this claim all the more suspect.
Horus (or Osiris) was called "the KRST," long before the Christians duplicated the story.
Not only it "KRST" not an Egyptian title, the attempt to compare it to Jesus' title as "the Christ" is only based on word games because "Christ" (or Kristos) is Greek which is not closely related (if at all) to the Egyptian language. Anyone who has studied a foreign language realizes that from time to time one finds words that are similar to those of their native languages which have completely different meanings. — In Greek, "the Christ" means "the anointed" while "KRST" is the Egyptian word for "burial." (Text Link)
Before listing her main claims, Ms. Murdock claims that Osiris and Horus (father and son) were ever seen as interchangeable and then implies that Christians see Jesus and his Father in the same way. — Not only have I been unable to confirm that Egyptian mythology taught this, but also Ms. Murdock, by implying that this would be a relevant parallel to Jesus the Son and God the father, shows her ignorance and misunderstanding of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity which is that the one God is made up by three separate persons who are not interchangeable.
The bottom line is that the claims that Ms. Murdock advances to show parallels between Jesus and Horus are only rehashings of unreliable and easily refuted Bull-crap. So until any reliable evidence comes to light that can confirm these alleged parallels between Horus and Jesus, it has to be assumed that they do not exist.
A look at her footnotes shows that she does not cite one reliable reputable source. Her only sources are fellow "Jesus-Mythers" whose claims she uncritically repeats. — As I have pointed out in a previous post, it is unusual for someone like Murdock who claims to be a well trained expert of comparative religion and mythology to resort to such tactics to prove her point.
The Parallels Between Jesus and Buddha — A Refutation of Acharya S
Between the years 563 to 483 BC, there was a man in India named Siddhārtha Gautama better known as the Buddha. He was a man who taught principles for peace, harmony as well as love. He was raised in luxury by his father Shuddodana who was determined to not allow his son to see anything unpleasant. This was to keep the fact that there was ugliness and suffering in the world away from him.
One day when Siddhārtha was twenty-nine, he asked his father if he could visit a neighboring city. His father decided to allow him, but also attempted to have the entire city cleaned before his son should arrive. This tactic worked at first, but Siddhārtha strayed away from the rout that his father was counting on him taking and then he saw four different men on which the "four signs" were based: One was old, one was ill, one was dead and the fourth was a beggar. And frm this he came to the realization that even he would grow old and die and he began wondering what was the point of life if one was going to die. From then on he renounced his life of ease to begin a life of begging on the streets.
— By the age of 35, he had supposedly gained great insight of the causes of pain and suffering and how to eliminate it and later he ban to teach. Among his teachings, he taught the "four noble truths" which claim that 1) all life is suffering, 2) that desire causes suffering, 3) one can overcome suffering, and 4) that is would be overcome by following the Eight Fold Path.
Several in the "Jesus Myth" crowd have attempted to tie the Buddha to Jesus Christ by mentioning several apparent similarities between the two. — D.M. Murdock, otherwise known as Acharya S, has been one of many of the mythers that do this. Following, her claims are placed in bold while my responses are in regular font.
Buddha was born of the virgin Maya, who was considered the "Queen of Heaven."
It is certainly true that the birth of Siddhārtha Gautama was miraculous in itself, however the claim that his mother Maya was a virgin is unsubstantiated and isn't found in Buddhist writings. The fact is that Buddhist tradition points out that Maya and her husband King Suddhodhana were already married for twenty years before their son was born which argues all out against Queen Maya's virginity. Most certainly, their marraige would have been consumated long before Siddhārtha Gautama's birth. (Text link)
If Ms. Murdock's mention of Maya being the "Queen of Heaven" is an attempt to link her to the virgin Mary, then it should also be mentioned that the idea of such a title for Mary is purely Roman Catholic and has no Biblical basis. Protestant Christianity, which is more based on the Bible than Catholicism does not recognize Mary in any such way.
He was of royal descent.
This is true for both Jesus and Buddha, however it is also incidental with absolutely no relevance at all. Arguing that this is a relevant parallel is like saying that since Queen Elizabeth I of England and Nero, the Roman Emperor were both of royal descent that they are therefore connected. Such reasoning just doesn't work.
He crushed a serpent's head.
I cannot find any evidence that this was said about Buddha. Even if it was, it certainly is not said about Jesus in any of the four Gospels or (as far as I know) in the New Testament at all. — The crushing of the serpent's head (which is considered a Messianic prophesy) actually comes from Genesis 3: 15 which was written is at least 1397 BC over 800 before the Buddha was born. This pretty much means that even if such a thing was ever said about Buddha the Hebrew Bible had the saying many centuries before Buddhism ever had existed and therefore Jesus being a Jew would not have had to imitate Buddhism for this one detail.
The fact of the matter is that "crushing a serpent's head" is actually out of the Buddha's character because he had resolved not to harm a single creature. As a matter of fact there is a story of him protecting a serpent. (The Story of Buddha, page 7)
Sakyamuni Buddha had 12 disciples.
This is most definitely not true. — At first the Buddha, after his renunciation, had five companions (The Story of Buddha, Pages 40 & 41). Later on, not counting the Buddha's immediate family or royal patrons, he had a total of eleven male disciples, nine female disciples, and five lay disciples making a total of twenty-five, more than double. (Click here)
In her footnotes Ms. Murdock cites a Travel Guide page as proof of "the motif of Buddha and the 12." The page she refers to mentions a large statue of Buddha accompanied by twelve smaller Buddhas. — The problem here is that this imagery comes from the Chinese Yuan Dynasty which is dated from the 13th and 14th centuries AD. So even if this was a reflection of Jesus' twelve disciples, it's from a period way too late to have affected Christianity. Buddhist tradition shows, however, that the Buddha had more than twelve followers.
Besides, her source suggests that this particular scene is the "Nirvana." If this interpretation is correct then I must point out that Buddhist tradition says that the Buddha at the time was surrounded by 500 arachants who committed to memory his teachings. (The Story of Buddha, Page 93) If this is the case then the only reason that the Buddhist relief she refers to shows twelve men is because it is much easier than depicting 500.
He performed miracles and wonders, healed the sick, fed 500 men from a "small basket of cakes," and walked on water.
It is true that the Buddha is associated with miracles. But this hardly proves anything because it goes without saying that miracle-workers are an expectation in any religion and therefore this alone does not imply any imitation on Jesus' part.
Even though it is true that the Buddha did care for the sick, he used a much different method than Jesus who healed with a touch and even over long distances. Buddha would treat his patients with hot water and would bathe them. There were various patients that Buddha treated that didn't regain their health and even died, which is not the case with Jesus. (Text Link)
I can't find any Buddhist or Encyclopedic sources that show that Buddha fed 500 people with a "small basket of cakes." Besides, it should be mentioned that Jesus didn't use cakes, but rather five loaves of bread and two fish. — And as for the last claim of walking on water, this one is true. But it is also true that this parallel has its differences because the Buddha is said to have accomplished this by "levitating over a stream" to convert a non-believer to Buddhism. Jesus didn't levitate, he just walked. And he didn't do it to convert anyone. (Text Link)
He abolished idolatry, was a "sower of the word," and preached "the establishment of a kingdom of righteousness."
It would be a true statement to say that Buddha "asked his followers not to create images of him when he died," though this doesn't seem to be an actual command. But this really is not an issue because Buddhism is a "Non-Theistic" religion. (Click here) Buddhist do bow to Buddha which, at least from a Christian perspective, is defined as Idolatry. — It should be mentioned that Jesus did not "abolish Idolatry," nor did he need to because it was already legally prohibited by Jewish law. (Exodus 20: 4)
As for the last two claims that Buddha was a "sower of the word" and preached "the establishment of the kingdom of righteousness" — I can find absolutely no reference to them.
He taught chastity, temperance, tolerance, compassion, love, and the equality of all.
Okay, and so did Gandhi, Seneca and many others. These are very common ideas, way too common to just assume that Jesus copied them from Buddha. Though these ideas are held in common between both Christianity and Buddhism, the truth is that there are differences between the two. The philosophical foundations of the two religions are actually quite different. (Text Link)
He was transfigured on a mount.
This is not true. He was transformed into the Buddha while he sat under a tree in a region in Northern India known as Bodhgaya. (Text Link) — I have been informed in an E-Mail correspondance by Eyal Aviv of George Washington University that this area is not even a mountain region.
Sakya Buddha was crucified in a sin-atonement, suffered for three days in hell, and was resurrected.
Again, this is completely false. Buddha did not die of crucifixion or even as a "sin-atonement." He became ill and died at age eighty after eating a large meal of "soft pork" which, according to a diagnosis of his sickness, was too large for his digestive system. (Click here) Also, he was not raised from the dead, rather his body was cremated after death. (Source)
As for suffering in hell for three days in hell, this is not true of either Buddha or Jesus.
He ascended to Nirvana or "heaven."
Here, Ms. Murdock is showing blatant ignorance of the concept of "Nirvana." — Nirvana is not a place, and it certainly isn't "heaven." It is to live on earth in a state of enlightenment which ends the cursed cycle of reincarnation for a Buddhist. (Click here)
Buddha was considered the "Good Shepherd", the "Carpenter", the "Infinite and Everlasting."
There is no evidence that Buddha was ever called the "good Shepherd or even the "Carpenter." — It is true that one sect of Buddhism (Mahayana) contains the idea of an "everlasting Buddha." But this is virtually a meaningless parallel between Jesus and Buddha considering the number of debunked parallel claims between the two made by Ms. Murdock.
He was called the "Savior of the World" and the "Light of the World."
For once, there is truth to this. After Siddhārtha was born, a sage names Asita told his parents that if he renounced a life of luxury at the court he would indeed become the "savior of the world." (Text Link) I cannot find a mention of Buddha being "the light of the world." But even if it exists, it would not prove anyone did any copying.
After making these debunked claims, Ms. Murdock cites Dr. Christian Lindtner to further prove her point that Jesus was copied from Buddhism. — Even though Dr. Lindtner is recognized in the field, he is also a noted "Jesus-Myther." Many of the claims Ms. Murdock quotes him as saying have already been debunked such as the alleged "crucifixion" of Buddha and the "twelve disciples," so I'm not going into too much detail. The fact that he is willing to make such easily refuted claims shows blatant dishonesty on his part.
Interestingly, he lists the "last supper" as a parallel between Jesus and Buddha. Though it is true that they had a "last supper," the details of the two are completely different. Buddha simply ate his meal, got sick and died. — In Jesus' case, the event was used to declare that he would be betrayed, killed and resurrected. This is way too different to assume that one account influenced the other.
He then repeats the claim that Buddha was resurrected but he leaves out the fact that if this were true then that would mean he never attained "Nirvana," the point of which was to prevent resurrection or reincarnation. But no dedicated Buddhist would accept this because this would mean that Buddha was not actually a Buddha. — Considering that he is recognized in this field and that his claims are so easily disproved, I unfortunately have to question his honesty.
As I was researching for this blog post, I e-mailed Ms. Murdock's claims of Jesus-Buddha parallels to several professors of Buddhism and I received a response from Eyal Aviv, Assistant Professor of the Department of Religion at George Washington University who said,
Generally, the claims made in the website you read are historically so problematic that I can simply say that they are not true [ . . . ] I would recommend you to be cautious with Web sources and rely on authoritative scholars or religious writers from within the respective traditions you are interested in.
The truth is that even though there is what could be construed as evidence of Buddhist influence on Christianity, it is basically inconclusive. And just because there are certain similarities, this does not indicate beyond doubt that the similarities between them are a result of Buddhist influence on Christianity. (Text Link)
— So in conclusion, the claims that are made by Ms. Murdock (a.k.a., Acharya S) about parallels between Jesus and Buddha are mostly untrue. The claims that are true are so few in number and therefore can be assumed to be coincidence. Not to mention, in her list of parallels, she jumps to certain conclusions that lead her to misunderstand basic teachings of Buddhism. Considering the fact that Ms. Murdock claims to be an expert in comparative religion, this is pretty odd.
Josephus and Jesus "who was called Christ" — Refuting Acharya S
Joseph ben Matthias, better known as Flavius Josephus, was the son of a priest born in the year 37 AD. — During the first part of the Jewish revolt he was a reluctant military commander that fought the Romans. Later in 67 AD, when many of his allies had committed suicide rather than surrender he surrendered to the Romans for uncertain reasons and provided them with information and then was released two years later in 69 AD. As a result, he has been called a traitor and a pro-Roman propagandist, though he tried to fix the Jewish image in Rome's point of view.
The works of Flavius Josephus are an important compilation of history that, in many cases, would be otherwise unknown to us had he not written it. He is the basic source from which we learn about many important historical figures and events. He wrote extensively about King Herod the Great, the Jewish revolt of 66 AD which lead to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, and about the census of Quirinius of 6 AD which caused the rebellion of Judas of Galilee. — These are all mentioned in the New Testament, but not to the great detail that Josephus had described them.
Many Christians have appealed to this Jewish historian for confirmation of several biblical events and personalities such as the existence of the historical Jesus. One of the most secular historical references is known as the Testimonium Flavianum which is attributed to him. The other is usually called "the James Passage" which only mentions Jesus in passing.
This passage known as the Testimonium Flavianum occurs when Josephus is giving a historical account of the Roman Prefect of Judea Pontius Pilate,
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. (Antiquities 18: 63-64)
The passage not only acknowledges that Jesus had indeed existed, it also affirms that "he was the Christ" and was resurrected after the third day of his death, there in lies the problem. Josephus was a devout Jew, not a Christian. It is practically impossible that Josephus had acknowledged Jesus as the true Messiah (or Christ). Therefore he would not have believed that Jesus was resurrected after being crucified.
Not surprisingly the "Jesus Myth" crowd calls the authenticity of the Josephus passages into question calling the passage into question, Acharya S (a.k.a. Dorthy M. Murdock), being very prominent among them.
Ms. Murdock, in her statements about the Testimonium, in an attempt to prove that it is a forgery mentions that early Christians such as Justin Martyr and Theophilus don't cite it and therefore this silence indicates that they did not know anything about it. The problem with her argument is that her logic only leads her to a conclusion that was already presupposed.
— She is assuming that early Christian apologists, to defend their faith, would have cited theTestimonium to show that Jesus existed if indeed they knew about it. The fact is that citing the Testimonium would have been practically pointless because it only would have only served to confirm Jesus' existence which was actually never questioned by early skeptics of Christianity.
Another argument that Ms. Murdock uses is that if Josephus truly knew about Jesus he would have written more about him,
Josephus goes into long detail about the lives of numerous personages of relatively little import, including several Jesuses. It is inconceivable that he would devote only a few sentences to someone even remotely resembling the character found in the New Testament. If the gospel tale constituted "history." [ . . . ] Moreover, the TF refers to Jesus as a "wise man"–this phrase is used by Josephus in regard to only two other people, out of hundreds, i.e., the patriarchs Joseph and Solomon. If Josephus had thought so highly of an historical Jesus, he surely would have written more extensively about him. Yet, he does not.
This argument proves nothing except that Acharya S has likely not read a lot of Josephus' works. Josephus mentions others that were well-known in first century Judea and yet wrote little about them. His mention of John the Baptist is only a paragraph long. Josephus calls him "a good man" who taught righteousness (Antiquities 18: 116) — Also, there was another holy man which he mentions (again in only a single paragraph) called Zacharias, son of Baruch who was murdered without just cause. (Wars of the Jews 4: 334-344)
These two men were well known at the time of Josephus and yet he only dedicates a single paragraph to each. So in my opinion this refutes the assumption that just because Josephus didn't write more extensively about Jesus that therefore he wasn't known to him.
Also, as mentioned, Josephus speaks in high regard about John the Baptist and Zacharias but does not go into greater detail about them. — This in itself can be used to show that Ms. Murdock's argument that if Josephus thought highly of Jesus then he would necessarily have written a longer history about Jesus is incorrect. As a matter of fact, her two arguments here can be turned around to argue for the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum because it follows the pattern of the one paragraph accounts of well-known good (or holy) men that Josephus both wrote about and respected.
Ms. Murdock complains that the Testimonium "interrupts the flow of the primary material" meaning that it is out of context. Even if it was out of context this wouldn't indicate it is an interpolation because such digressions were much more common in Greek and Roman writings than in modern literature. Today, we would place such breaks in footnotes which wasn't done 2,000 years ago. (Greek and Roman Historians, page 53)
She makes the claim that the consensus among scholars is that the passage is a complete forgery. To back her up she quotes several writters from the 19th century. — Interestingly enough, one of her experts that she cites is Gordon Stein who she quotes as saying that most scholars since the late 1800's believe the Testimonium to be a forgery. However, on his paper (which is found here) which she cites there is a disclaimer inserted by an editor before the text which says that things have changed since Stein wrote his essay in 1982,
While there is no doubt among the majority of scholars that the Testimonium has been tampered with (and thus the entire passage cannot be authentic), a decent number of scholars believe the Testimonium is based upon an authentic core. In other words, on their view, Josephus really did write a passage referring to Jesus. (Italics mine)
I do not know if this disclaimer was already added to Gordon Stein's paper by Infidels.org by the time Acharya S decided to use it as a source, but it certainly is enough to refute her claim that the Testimonium is seen as a fake by the scholarly community.
The indication (from the disclaimer) is that even though it is true that at one point (at least until 1982) the Testimonium was seen as a forgery, this is no longer the case. — The vast majority of Acharya S' sources come from the late 19th to the early 20th centuries. These facts mean that she is using outdated sources to prove her case because the scholarly opinion has shifted.
The late David Flusser, Professor of early Christianity and Judaism and Orthodox Jew, while commenting on the Testimonium says,
Although it is generally recognized that the passage concerning Jesus in the extant Greek manuscripts of his Jewish Antiquities (18:63-64) was distorted by later Christian hands "the most probable view seems to be that our text represents substantially what Josephus wrote,but that some alterations have been made by a Christian interpolator." (The Sage from Galilee – Rediscovering Jesus Genius, page 12)
So basically, Ms. Murdock's claims that the vast majority of scholars believe the Testimonium is a Christian forgery is not only out dated. It is completely wrong. It is true that there are certain statements in it that more than likely were not written by Josephus such as "if it be lawful to call him a man" and "he was the Christ," but that doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that it is a complete forgery "in toto" as Murdock puts it.
The second Josephus passage that mentions Jesus is not quite as lengthy as the Testimonium. As a matter of fact, it isn't even about Jesus,
Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still upon the road. So Ananus assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of that Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some of his companions. And when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned. (Antiquities 20, 200)
The basic objection that the "Jesus Myth" crowd brings up is that Josephus uses the term "was called Christ" in association with Jesus. — Ms. Murdock on her page only mentions this passage in passing and doesn't go into detail about it. One of her listed sources on her page is the 19th century Christ-Myther John E. Remsberg who claims,
This passage is probably genuine with the exception of the clause, "who was called Christ," which is undoubtedly an interpolation, and is generally regarded as such.
He goes on to claim that believing that the James mentioned in the passage is in fact Jesus Christ's brother "accepted history of the primitive church" which says he was killed in 69 AD, not in 62 AD. To this point all I can say is that one should not confuse folklorewith true history.
As for his claim that the entire passage except for the clause "was called Christ" is authentic — Considering that the names Jesus and James were very common in the first century AD, if the means of identification were to be erased, as Remsberg apparently believed should be done, then the passage would become pretty unclear and ambiguous. It would simply be a mention of a "Jesus, brother of James." Anyone reading the passage in the first century would likely have thought "Ok. Which ones? I know a million of them."
Also, near the end of the paragraph, Josephus mentions another Jesus called the son of Damneus who became the high priest. (Antiquities 20: 203) This is all the more reason for Josephus to identify Jesus Christ in order to distinguish the two to avoid confusion.
Also, it is not true that the clause "was called Christ" is "generally regarded" as an interpolation. — Leading Josephus Scholar Louis Feldman says,
That, indeed, Josephus did say something about Jesus is indicated, above all, by the passage — the authenticity of which has been almost universally acknowledged — about James, who is termed (A XX, 200) the brother of the "aforementioned Christ." (Josephus, Judaism and Christianity, page 56)
Feldman on the same page goes on to answer a charge that the passage was interpolated because of an apparent contradiction between this passage and another mention of the priest Ananus in Wars of the Jews,
As to the recent suggestion Tessa Rajak that the passage about James is a Christian interpolation because it has a derogatory view of Ananus the high priest (Josephus elsewhere praises him), we may remark that there are a number of instances in the Antiquities where Josephus contradicts what he says in the War. In any case, it would seem more likely that a forger would have been more careful than to contradict outright what Josephus says elsewhere.
Other scholars point out that the "James Passage" fits the context and that a Christian interpolator would have used "laudatory language" different than what Josephus used to describe James and especially Jesus. -A Christian would have called James "the brother of the Lord" much like the Apostle Paul does.
They also point out that the term "λεγόμενος" (pronounced as "legomenos") used by Josephus for the clause "was called Christ" is way too neutral for any Christian interpolator to have inserted. A Christian would have used the term in a more absolute way leaving no room for doubt that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. Josephus' language, however, neither denies or affirms Jesus' Messiaship. (Jesus Outside the New Testament, pages 83, 84)
Finally, Ms. Murdock claims that,
Even if the Josephus passage were authentic [ . . . ], it nevertheless would represent not an eyewitness account but rather a tradition passed along for at least six decades, long after the purported events. Hence, the TF would possess little if any value in establishing an "historical" Jesus.
She claims, basically, that even if the Testimonium were indeed authentic it would not prove anything because it is not a first hand account due to the fact that Josephus was born a few short years after the death of Jesus. — This is a popular argument among the "Jesus-Myth" crowd, but it is one that makes absolutely no sense.
Josephus wrote about many people decades and even centuries after they existed. — He wrote extensively on the life of King Herod the Great, the Deposition of Archelaus from Judea, and even on the Census of 6 AD. He even wrote about the invasion of of Jerusalem by the Roman General Pompey over a century after the fact. The fact is that Josephus' life was much further removed from these historical accounts he wrote about then he was from the life of Jesus. So if these "Jesus-Mythers" were to hold these historical accounts to the same standard that they do with the Testimonium then we would end up throwing out most of Josephus' valuable works. But no prominent scholar or historian would ever even consider such a thing.
The same goes for several other historians such as Tacitus, Herodotus, Xenophon, Plutarch, and others who wrote several decades or centuries after the events the report on and are still believed useful by modern historians and scholars. So the fact is that a historian writing about an event decades after the fact does not invalidate the historicity of what he reports. It does not have to be a first hand eyewitness account to be historically relevant.
Another fact is that though Josephus was born in 37 AD, about six years after the death of Jesus, he was alive when the event he covers in his "James passage" was happening. He was writing about the stoning of James which historians believe happened in 62 AD, when Josephus would have been twenty-five years of age. (After Jesus: The Triumph of Christianity, page 53) There is therefore no reason why Josephus wouldn't have had good first hand information about this event about a man known as the brother of Jesus. – If the name and family of the man was known, then almost certainly so was the man himself.
Before I conclude, a word should be said about Ms. Murdock's sources. — As mentioned before, most of her sources which she uses to back up the claim that the Testimonium Flavianum is a complete forgery come from the late 19th century and considering that the scholarly opinion has completely shifted since then they are therefore outdated and irrelevant.
Also, several of her listed sources who she doesn't necessarily quote outright are early "Jesus-Mythers" such as Hayyim ben Yehoshua and John Remsburg. Neither of these 19th century "Jesus-Mythers" even had the qualifications of a scholar in the necessary field. Ms. Murdock also lists a paper among her sources from Infidels.org contributed by Scott Orser. But a quick look at his bio once again shows that he is not an expert in this particular field either.
It really strikes me as odd that someone who claims to be an expert in the fields of history, religion and archaeology like Ms. Murdock would resort to citing non-experts in order to prove her point. If I may say so, many amateurs have been known to use much better tactics than her in their own personal research. — I'm not trying to demean her, but honestly —
In conclusion, the arguments that D.M. Murdock uses to prove her case for the Testimonium Flavianum being a complete forgery are mostly al moot. Many scholars, despite her claims to the contrary, do in fact believe that the Testimonium is partially authentic, though not entirely. Her claims that Josephus would have written much more of Jesus if he in fact knew about him are also irrelevant because there are other well-known men that he writes about and yet only gives them a paragraph each. Also the claim that the Testimonium is out of context is irrelevant because, even if true, it was common practice to insert such digressions 2,000 years ago. — It does not help matters for Ms. Murdock that her many of her authorities are outdated and, in many cases, not even authorities at all.
The James Passage is almost universally considered authentic so even if it were true the Testimonium was thought by experts to be a complete forgery, it would still be believed that Josephus indeed gives secular first century proof of Jesus' existence. — Also, as for claims that he didn't have firsthand knowledge of Jesus and therefore his short mentions of him are not relevant, this is to undermine Josephus' known accuracy as a capable historian because it is unlikely that Josephus would have been fooled into writing about a man that was said to have lived so close to his time that did not exist.
Zeitgeist Challenge Exposes Acharya S and Zeitgeist
Recently I wrote a short refutation of AcharyaS' defence of Zeitgeist. For anyone who would like a better refutation, I am posting a video refutation which was produced by the webmasters of Zeitgeist Challenge which goes into better detail that I do.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
The Myth of Jesus: A Refutation of the Zeitgeist — The Conclusion
After making its list of unsubstantiated claims that Christianity was copied from other Pagan religions it Zeitgeist then accuses it of fraud and of demanding blind obedience,
Christianity, along with all other theistic belief systems, is the fraud of the age. It served to detach the species from the natural world, and likewise, each other. It supports blind submission to authority. It reduces human responsibility to the effect that "God" controls everything, and in turn awful crimes can be justified in the name of Divine Pursuit. And most importantly, it empowers those who know the truth but use the myth to manipulate and control societies.
These are very popular anti-Christian claims which are also completely false. — The claim that Christianity is "the fraud of the age" is a very daring statement, but one that Zeitgeist has been unable to prove. I cannot prove that Christianity is the one true religion, but since I have been able to refute virtually all of the claims made in Zeitgeist against the origins of Christianity here, there is a much stronger case against Zeitgeist as the real fraud.
The claim that Christianity "blind authority to authority" is a popular (but false) stereotype among Atheists and "Christ-Mythers." — It is true that Jesus Christs want obedience, but it is by no means "blind submission." In John 14: 15, Jesus himself says "If you love me, you will obey what I command." Since he told us why then by definition, submission to Christ is not "blind." He wants obedience out of our love for him, not out of blindness. Zeitgeist is completely misrepresenting the definition of Christian submission.
Its claim that Christianity justifies crimes in the name of the name of "Divine Persuit" is disproven by the very obvious fact that Jesus and Paul taught love and not violence. There is no truly Christian justification for any crime against humanity.
Contrary to what it claims, the crucifixion of Jesus is unique to Christianity alone. Hardly any other gods that Zeitgeist mentions, with the exception of Attis, were born of virgins. Attis' case, yet, is so different from Jesus' that it is naive to claim a connection. Research in neutral sources is enough to disprove most (if not all) of Zeitgeist's claims.
My final conclusion of Zeitgeist, the Movie, in its representation (or rather misrepresentation) of the origins of Christianity and of other religions makes it guilty of fraud and deliberate distortion of the facts in order to advance its anti-Religion agenda.
The Myth of Jesus: A Refutation of the Zeitgeist — Part 14
After making the unsubtantiated as well as refutable claim that Jesus never existed (refuted here), Zeitgeist then repeats a very popular claim in the "Jesus Myth" crowd about the so-called Council of Nicea (or Nicaea),
It was the political establishment that sought to historize the Jesus figure for social control. By 325 a.d. in Rome, emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicea. It was during this meeting that the politically motivated Christian Doctrines were established and thus began a long history of Christian bloodshed and spiritual fraud. And for the next 1600 years, the Vatican maintained a political stranglehold on all of Europe, leading to such joyous periods as the Dark Ages, along with enlightening events such as the Crusades, and the Inquisition.
Zeitgeist claims that the Council of Nicea was was convened for two reasons: 1) for social control and 2) to establish the Christian doctrines. The problem with the first claim is that there is little or no evidence to support the charge that the council was for social control. — And as for the second claim, there were no doctrines established at the council of Nicea.
The Encyclopedia of the Orient says that the main purpose for the Council was the concern caused by the Heretic Arius who questioned the already Christian belief that Jesus was equal to God the father. He believed that Jesus was more than a man, but that he was created by God therefore making him inferior to the Father God, not quite human or divine.
The Catholic Encyclopedia points out that the vast majority of Bishops present at the council were believers in the equality of Jesus to the father so this particular doctrine was not "established" at the council as Zeitgeist would have us believe. More accurately, it was affirmed.
Other than dealing with the deity of Jesus Christ, there were other less important issues that were dealt with such as the establishment of Easter and the prohibition of self castration. — None of these are "doctrines," but rather side-issues. So it turns out that the assertions that Zeitgeist makes are just more examples of "garbage in, garbage out."
Next, Zeitgeist blames the Vatican for the "Dark Ages" and dates the start of that period from the year of the council of Nicea (325 AD) and claims it lasted for 1,600 years. — This claim shows how uninformed the film makers are. First of all, if the Dark Ages lasted for that long from 325 AD, then they would have ended in about 1925. Obviously this is not true.
The truth is the Dark Ages (or the Early Middle Ages) are actually dated from the 5th century to the late eleventh century, around 600 years . Zeitgeist is not even close. Also, contrary to the film's claims, the Vatican cannot be blamed for the Dark Ages. — The History Channel points out that,
No one definitive event marks the end of antiquity and the beginning of the Middle Ages. Neither the sack of Rome by the Goths under Alaric I in 410 nor the deposition in 476 of Romulus Augustulus, the last Roman emperor in the West, impressed their contemporaries as epoch-making catastrophes.
It goes on to describe other causes such as the invasion of Rome by Germanic tribes, severe economic problems, and the 300 years of primitive culture in the European society. Christianity and the Vatican cannot be fully blamed for the Dark Ages, much less the Council of Nicea.
As for blaming Christianity itself for the Crusades, it should be emphasized that what happened then actually goes against Christian ethics. But a major and little known fact is that Christians do not deserve all (or even most) of the blame for the Crusades. — Thomas F. Madden, Associate Professor of History at Saint Louis University in his essay about the Crusades points out that there are a lot of misconceptions about what happened in the Crusades,
For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands. Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them.
Why doesn't Zeitgeist mention this? Because it doesn't fit with the film maker's agenda to prove Christianity is evil. The fact is that neither Christianity or Catholicism can be completely blamed for the "Holy Crusades." They certainly were innocent of the provocation, in the first place any way.
As for the Inquisition, it goes completely against Christian teaching. Jesus himself would never have condoned such a thing. There is no justification (or anything that can be construed as a justification) in the New Testament for the persecution of non-Christians and heretics. There is no question that the images of Jesus and the Cross have been abused in history, but that is no reason to judge Christianity in such a negative way.


text:
Before reading this blog check out 1 John 3:4-10 (ESV)
4Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. 5You know that [Jesus]appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. 6No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. 7Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. 8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. 9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. 10By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.
In my class this week we have been looking at this passage of Scripture. I can't help but think of my own denomination (Southern Baptist) as I read this passage of scripture. This passage makes me think of the millions of people the country that are a "member" of a Southern Baptist church, but are not present but maybe once every few years (if that).
We MUST wake up and let the Bible (instead of our emotions or egos) dictate how we view salvation. Salvation is a permanent change in a person's life. Do I believe in the eternal security of the believer (once saved always saved)? YES! AMEN! But, as Southern Baptists we've taken that to an extreme. Maybe our phrase should be "Once you walk an aisle, always saved"! See, I think we've let ourselves focus on the "permanent" more than we have the "change". The Bible clearly states that those who are children of God practice righteousness, and those who are children of the devil practice sin.
Can a saved person sin? YES! Does a save person sin? YES! As long as we live in these bodies on this earth, sin will have a constant presence all around us. So what does this passage of Scripture mean? It means that those who make a practice of sinning are not children of God.
Ok, so can a person on a church role that's not been to church in years, and lives a life of sin, actually be saved? I think it could be possible, BUT I caution those in the ministry to approach this person as if he or she were lost based on this passage of scripture. If they really were saved and you approached them as if they were lost, what have you hurt? Maybe their feelings, but that's more the convicting work of the Holy Spirit.
You see in this whole passage John is going back and forth about sin and righteousness, and Jesus and the Devil…But then in verse 10 it's almost like he just adds in "nor is the one who does not love his brother." What John is doing here is helping us to define what "unrighteousness" is. Check out 1 John 3:14-
14 If we love our Christian brothers and sisters, it proves that we have passed from death to life. But a person who has no love is still dead.
Now, how do we love our brothers and sisters in Christ? Well, one way is by attending corporate worship with them! Praying together, giving together, helping each others needs together, furthering the Gospel together, etc. etc. etc.
The whole point is that the Word of God gives us clear insight on how to tell if a person is saved or lost. Obviously we as men and women can be fooled on both sides (i.e. a person we think is saved may be lost, and a person we think is lost may be saved). However, I think this applies practically because we as Southern Baptist believe in regenerate church membership! Our goal is to have every person who is a member of our church to actually be saved…This helps us greatly to go about the work of the Lord. I'm not saying call a special business meeting sunday to purge your role of the sinners! BUT, it's time that we may need to go out and call those who have gone astray back home (cf. James 5:19-20)…
And it may just be that in the process we will win "new" converts to Christ.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The Family Way - Part 2
Roberta and Nora
Sabrina S. and Sean O'Hare
"Roberta! How dare you make such a show of yerself by wearing them daft clothes outside of t'house," boomed Nora, as she saw her sister walking up the street. "If nothing else you'll catch your death of cold if you go oop t'Dales."
The rechristened Bob - at least in her own mind - thought that it wasn't quite the time to say that indeed she had been on the Dales. With her mind confused by recent events, nor did she consider it appropriate to discuss her parting of the ways with her childhood sweetheart Albert and the arrival of George upon the scene.
"Mebbe you're Nora but ah did buy 'em to wear. I want to be more modern," she said in a slightly conciliatory tone.
"Course I'm right. And 'ow did thy manage to get that daft, little 'at on thy nice hair Ah put oop f'or yer this morning? It must be - aaarggghhh!!"
Without thinking Roberta had removed her cloche hat to reveal her freshly bobbed hair and expose the severely clippered nape. Nora was having a major fit and was struggling to get out the words to express her feelings over the desecration of her sister's thick, long hair.
Roberta was looking in the hall mirror, and unnecessarily patting the smooth, glossy cap of hair into shape and running the palm of her hand over the denuded nape. Her hair fell perfectly, even after being trapped under the hat. Out of the corner of her eye she watched Nora going redder and redder in the face, for once lost for words. "Do you like it our Nora?" she ventured.
"Your hair -" Nora replied, somewhat uselessly.
"Yes, Ah've got t'bob. Tis tha fashion thy knows."
"Fashion? Fashion! But it's - it's all gone -" Nora stated, ever the one to voice the obvious.
"It's ma new look. And Ah loove it," Roberta declared, although inside her nerves were increasing how the rest of her family and the people of Glumsby would react to her alien appearance.
Slightly calmer, Nora asked, "OK which of your friends did this to you? Ah'm gonna get t'bottom of this and 'ave a word with her mam."
"I went t'barber," Roberta replied.
"Barber!" Nora boomed. "Men's barber? On Inkerman Street?" Roberta nodded. "Right, get thy 'at on. Ah'm gonna get t'bottom of this, you see if I don't."
Without thinking she jammed her own hat on and placed Roberta's similar one on her head. Without the mounds of hair upon her head it slipped on easily and, rather comically, slipped past her eyes. Roberta struggled to stifle a giggle.
"Thy reckons 'tis funny do you. Yer right, you'll be a laughing stock all over Glumsby." With a sniff of disapproval, Nora replaced the now redundant flowery hat on her sister's head with the new cloche hat and she marched out of the house dragging her sister along behind.
They walked quickly but, like fugitives, Nora attempted to avoid bumping in to anyone they knew by taking a circuitous route, popping into doorways and crossing the street. Roberta tried to dissuade her sister from this mission but she refused to discuss it and was clearly resolute on her course of action.
At one point Nora spied Mrs Batty, a good friend of their mother, walking briskly towards them and they ducked down behind the large shire horse, pulling the milkman's cart. The sound of munching caused Roberta to raise her eyes upwards to see Dobbin munching away at the array of flowers and sundry ornaments perched upon her sister's hat. The crop of vegetation was disappearing down the throat of Dobbin - or should he now be called Bobbin - Nora's getting an Eaten Crop she thought, trying to stifle her giggles. "Sssshhh!" demanded her sister, oblivious to the destruction of her hat.
Eventually they arrived outside the barbershop which was of course shut for the day. Nora banged loudly on the door. A window slid open above and Roberta heard George call out, "What dosta want? Ah'm closed. Come back t'morrow."
The sisters stepped back and looked up. "Bob!" George exclaimed, both pleased and surprised.
"Aye, and tha cut it," Nora boomed with a scowl on her face, not used to her sister's abbreviated name. "Ah wanna word with you. Get down 'ere. Now!"
Not knowing what to do under this onslaught, he nodded and a short time later opened the door of the shop. Nora marched in with her sister following, directing a coy smile at George.
"What does tha mean by dragging my sister in this place and cuttin' off all her hair. Ah'll 'ave the law on you, you see if Ah don't. Well?"
"George dinna drag me in our Nora. Ah asked him to cut it," she tried to explain for the umpteenth time. "Tis what Ah wanted."
"George is it? Well Master George," she said, treating him like a boy although he was probably older than she, "Ah'm not 'appy, Ah'm not 'appy at all. This is a right t'do and no mistake."
"Well, tis done now," he stated emphatically. "What do thy say Ah makes us all a nice pot of tea and we can talk proper like."
Not used to being addressed this way, but starting to fall under the charm of George, Nora pursed her lips and nodded. As he busied himself upstairs, Nora occupied herself by walking around the previously closed doors, handling the various cutting implements and even sitting in the barber's chair occupied earlier that day by her sister. Roberta kept quiet, but noticed the frequent glances from her sister towards her new hairstyle - now that she had had a chance to calm down, her expression had changed more from disapproval to one of interest.
"Tha looks right comfy there Miss," said George as he returned, carrying a tray laid out with the tea things, including some nice looking biscuits laid out on a plate. Nora sat up with an undisguised "Hmmph!" but then nodded approvingly at the young man's attention to culinary detail.
George placed the tea things on the counter before Nora, and pulled up two of the less rickety chairs for himself and Roberta. They sipped their tea, and Nora forced them to revisit the situation. But it became increasingly clear that Nora was mellowing.
"Aye, well it does look very smart Ah s'pose. And Ah'll save loads of time not 'aving ter put oop all thy hair every morning. And practical too - nay chance of it falling down into machinery at t'mill."
There was a pause after what appeared to be the resolution of the situation. As Nora drained her second cuppa and appeared to be making ready to leave her sister ventured softly, "Why don't you 'ave bob too our Nora?"
"What? Me? Nay, Ah couldn't -" Nora replied, clearly shocked but apparently not upset by the suggestion.
Roberta jumped up and stood behind the barber's chair, yanked off her sister's hat and proceeded to dismantle her hair. Nora was speechless - it was unusual for her to be out of control in any situation. George just looked on with a wry smile upon his face. Roberta began to play with her sister's hair, pulling it forward at chin level and curling it under to emulate her own new style. "Aye, yer'll look right smart with bob, our Nora. Right champion yer'll look."
"Aye, ah can see what thy mean, but ah really don't know -" stuttered Nora.
"Thy'll look right smashin' our Nora. George, please would yer bob our Nora' s hair too."
George got up smiling, and then he nodded. "Aye, if that's what she wants," he stated, and Roberta watched as he once more gathered together the necessary cutting implements.
Roberta was almost as surprised by the turn of events as Nora and George. But a strange feeling had come over her as she saw her sister perched on the barber's chair that she had sat in earlier. The butterflies she had experienced earlier at the thought of her own haircut, had returned as she imagined her sister's long hair being cut short. There was an undefinable strong urge within her to watch it happen.
"Aye that's what she wants. Thy wants to look right smart eh our Nora?" she asked enthusiastically.
Loss for words again, she merely gave a small nod. Nora felt that things were getting - most unusually for her - out of her control, but strangely enough she was willing to let it happen....just this once.
Perhaps as eager to see Nora cropped as her sister George dispensed with the need for the cape and, with scissors in one hand, quickly gathered up the hair that streamed down the back of the chair and held it firmly in a ponytail at the back of her head.
Unused to her hair being handled in this way by a man, Nora stared straight ahead into the mirror and let out a mild exclamation of "Oh ma goodness!"
There was a loud crunch as the large scissors bit efficiently and effectively into the tightly drawn mass of hair. The severed lengths began to swing forward on to her cheekbones and around her neck. "Oh my goodness, that tickles," she stated with a distinct lightness to her tone.
Roberta couldn't fathom her own feelings as she watched the scissors gnaw through her sister's thick hair. She could barely contain her excitement.
With a final flourish, George severed the ponytail and handed nearly three feet of thick and surprisingly heavy hair to Nora. She didn't know whether to look at that or the roughly cut bob that stopped abruptly at her chin.
Her choice was reduced as George threw a cape over Nora and silently began to carefully fashion a slightly longer bob than he had given her sister. It fell sharply on to her cheeks, just like Roberta's favourite actress, Louise Brookes. Nora was now silent, without even an 'oh ma goodness' coming from her lips.
As the style took shape, Roberta was delighted to note that the line of the bob at the back was cut above the hairline. Not as high as hers perhaps, but still exposing a significant proportion of her sister's nape. Well it would, once the hair still remaining there was removed.
Roberta became excited as George exchanged the scissors for the hand operated hairclippers. She couldn't resist saying, "George is now going to clipper your nape short like mine our Nora. Keep very still!"
Already still, she appeared to become even more rigid at this warning. He eased her head slowly forward and as the cold clippers touched her nape she was unable to suppress a low "Oh ... oh MA goodness gracious."
Roberta watched, fascinated, as the clippers nibbled into the short lengths of hair remaining on her sister's nape and watching it transformed into a velvet pelt like her own.
George took a small brush and flicked it over Nora's neck and cheeks to remove the small snippets that had attached themselves to her, and then he pulled away the cape.
"There Nora, tha's all done and yer look as smashin' as thy sister if yer don't mind mah saying so," George almost cooed.
Ignoring the unseemly familiarity of using her first name on such short acquaintance, Nora gazed for a long, long moment at her reflection in the mirror. A younger looking, fashionable woman gazed back at her. Finally she replied "Why, thank 'ee George, it IS smashin' innit. It's right champion is that." And a broad grin swept across her face.
"Aye, 'tis that," Roberta added, still glowing from her good fortune at watching this transformation.
"Well, we need to be a goin' now George. Ah have to say you're a very nice young man, isn't he our Bob?"
"Aye, he is that," Roberta replied, acknowledging the wink from George. A wink lost to Nora as she wondered what to do with her hat, remembering what happened with Roberta earlier. She was also a bit puzzled by the loss of some of its ornamentation which looked like it had been munched off by a horse.
"P'raps you'd take tea with us on Sunday George. I think our Bob would like that, wouldn't you?"
"Aye I would that," added Roberta.
"Aye, thank 'ee, that'd be champion," confirmed George.
As they walked back down Inkerman Road, Nora said, "I wonder what our mam's gonna say about all this our Bob."
"Well 'tis not much she can say now our Nora. 'Tis all gone. We need to sort you out with a new outfit to go with thy new haircut when we get back t'house."
She nodded as she took in her sister's clothes with a revised admiration. "Aye, but all this is not t'family way our Bob,"
"Mebbe, but 'tis tha NEW family way our Nora," Roberta stated, rather mischievously, and was surprised to see Nora smile in agreement.
The kitchen light shone a warm yellow glow, and through the gap in the net curtain they could see their Mam busying herself at the stove, her long greying hair caught up in its usual bun with wispy bits hanging down all over.
"She needs a bob too!" whispered Bob, and both girls giggled. Ready for the onslaught, for the howls of grief at the fate of their feminine hair, Roberta and Nora locked arms and, as one, marched into the house.
To Be Continued
© Copyright 2001 Sabrina S and Sean O'Hare.
Comments welcome email@example.com or email@example.com


text:
What's the value of
your home?
Use our tools
to find out
Community reports
Powered by realtor.com®
Enter a ZIP code to create a report. Enter a second ZIP to compare two communities.
View statistics on population, education, housing, transporation, income, employment, net worth, cost of living and climate.
Compare amenities such as public services, places of worship, recreation and leisure facilitles, shopping and restaurants.Get a report
How big is an acre? What is an option?
Do I need hazard insurance?
Take a look at our real estate glossary to learn definitions of common words and phrases used in the industry.
Making Green Housing Choices
Would you like a green home? I'm not talking about a residence painted the shade of a lime. I mean green as in environmentally friendly.
These days, many people consider the environment when making purchases. Just look at the popularity of hybrid vehicles, alternative fuels, locally grown produce, and a host of other products designed to use fewer resources and reduce pollution and waste. You can add housing to the list.
What pollutes more — a car or a house?
You don't think of houses being responsible for carbon emissions, but they are — a significant amount. The energy you use for heating, cooling, appliances and lighting most likely comes from a source that produces carbon emissions. Other factors, like water use and building materials used to construct or remodel a home, also can significantly affect the environment.
You might think the best way to "go green" in housing is to start from scratch. And it's true. If you're building a new, custom home, you can make decisions that will greatly increase energy and water efficiency. You can also select the most environmentally friendly building materials and construction methods. But if you're not building a new home, there's no need to throw up your hands. There's still plenty you can do to make a difference.
How low can you go?
When looking to purchase an existing house, it's possible to assess some aspects of its energy use. How old is the air-conditioning unit? Does the landscaping utilize native plants? You might even be able to get energy bills from the current owner to take a look at electricity and water usage (but keep in mind that your usage may vary considerably).
You also can hire a professional to more thoroughly determine just how energy-efficient — or not — a home is.
Whether purchasing a home or wanting to make the best of the house you have lived in for years, there are many steps you can take to improve energy efficiency. Here are a few examples:
Install rain barrels to collect roof runoff and use that water for irrigation.
Replace water-thirsty plants with landscaping that requires little additional irrigation.
Replace old windows with energy-efficient windows.
Seal air leaks around windows, doors, and other areas that may have gaps.
Seal air ducts.
Install additional installation.
Replace appliances with newer models that have earned the EPA's Energy Star designation.
Replace heating and cooling units.
Replace the water heater with a more efficient model.
Change out incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescents.
You probably know that efforts like these offer benefits beyond helping the environment. They also save you money. Yes, you pay more on the front end to make improvements such as those listed above, but every one of them reduces your expenses — often paying for themselves in short order. As energy costs continue to rise, the more you can do to cut back your consumption, the more it pays off.
Get informed
You can find information online about how to reduce your energy consumption and make wise environmental choices in housing. The EPA's Energy Star Web site, EnergyStar.gov, offers resources and tips about new homes, home improvements, and more. You can find advice, calculators, and other helpful tools on other sites as well.
Source: Texas Association of REALTORS®
Reprinted with permission


text:
Watercolor Artists Past and Present
Over the years I have found a number of watercolor artists whose work I quite admire, so I thought I would list some for you.
Joseph Mallord William Turner
A total master, even many of his oils had a watercolor look to them and his watercolor work was generations ahead of his time. A real inspiration for anyone trying to get that extra something out of their watercolor painting.
Joseph Zbukvic
Joseph paints with tremendous freedom, letting the water help him create beautiful atmospheric and mood filled effects. He has published an excellent book entitled " Mastering Atmosphere & Mood in Watercolor" which unfortunately is out of print (and no you can't have mine)!
His work is in great demand as are his workshops.
Web Site: http://jzbukvic.com/
John Singer Sargent
What can I say, Sargent was a master and has no doubt been an inspiration of countless watercolor artists over the years. If you would like to see a collection of his watercolors the book "The Watercolors of John Singer Sargent" by Carl Little is good value.
Web Site: http://www.johnsingersargent.org/
Alex Powers
Alex Powers paints evocative watercolor paintings of people. I have his book " Painting People in Watercolor by Alex Powers" in my library and find it a great inspiration.
Web site: http://www.alexpowersart.com/
Alvaro Castagnet
Alvaro's bold paintings are in great demand as are his workshops. His watercolors show you how you should not be afraid to use strong and bright colors when painting with watercolor.
I have his book "Watercolor Painting with Passion! by Alvaro Castagnet" in my library and found it to be useful, especially for more experienced artists.
Web Site: http://www.alvarocastagnet.net/


text:
Valentines 'Metallic Red Hearts and Flowers' decoration.
'Metallic Red Hearts and Flowers'.
I love this series of metallic flip flop acrylic colours. You look at it one way and see one colour, slightly move your head and it flips! Simply delicious! This heart could be used for Christmas to hang on your tree, around your house. It would make an excellent stocking filler or as a thoughtful gift to a loved one. It's also excellent for a Valentines gift!
This is a heart within a heart with petals added on each side. The heart is a flip flop metallic red/pink acrylic with red/pink glitter mixed with a soft violet purple metallic acrylic ink on the petals.
It measures 10 x 10cm and comes with a matching violet cord thread to hang it by.
It will be posted first class and packaged to ensure safe delivery. If you live outside England please email me and I will do my best to accommodate you with a quote. If you want more than one item then please email me to discuss grouping the postage.
Whilst I have done my best to photograph this piece there may be some variation dependant on monitor settings.
The love of hearts, flowers and glitter!
Shipping & delivery
This item will be posted to you by Seven Hands within 3 days of receiving payment.
|Shipping destination
|Additional items
|United Kingdom
Returns Policy
You have 14 days, from receipt, to notify the seller if you wish to cancel your order or exchange an item.
Unless faulty, the following types of items are non-refundable: items that are personalised, bespoke or made-to-order to your specific requirements; items which deteriorate quickly (e.g. food), personal items sold with a hygiene seal (cosmetics, underwear) in instances where the seal is broken.


text:
Separation Agreements or court orders following marriage breakdown may include a clause requiring one former spouse to maintain a life insurance policy on his or her life, naming the other as the beneficiary. Life insurance is a good way to either secure spousal or child support payments, or to replace the payments, in case the former spouse required to pay support dies. But what happens if, contrary to the agreement or court order, the party required to maintain the life insurance cancels the policy or changes the beneficiary?
The Supreme Court of British Columbia recently considered this issue in Milne Estate v. Milne 2014 BCSC 2112. Following the breakdown of their relationship, Scott Milne agreed to maintain his $500,000 life insurance with Sherry Milne as the beneficiary for so long as he was required to pay child or spousal support to Ms. Milne. Mr. and Ms. Milne agreed to include this term in a consent court order. In breach of the order, Mr. Milne changed the beneficiary to his new partner, Albertina Vincente. Mr. Milne died on August 4, 2013, while still obligated to pay child support to Ms. Milne for their son.
Ms. Milne claimed that she was entitled to the insurance proceeds because Mr. Milne was in breach of the consent order. If she wasn't entitled to the proceeds, then she claimed that she was entitled to the $500,000 she would have received if Mr. Milne had not changed the beneficiary out of his estate.
Madam Justice Fleming held that Ms.Vincente was entitled to retain the insurance proceeds, but that Ms. Milne was entitled to receive the $500,000 from Mr. Milne's estate.
In denying Ms. Milne's claim to the insurance proceeds, Madam Justice Fleming rejected her argument that because Mr. Milne was in breach of the consent order when he made Ms. Vincente his beneficiary, it would be against good conscience for Ms. Vincente to retain the proceeds, and that the court may impose a remedial constructive trust on the proceeds in favour of Ms. Milne.
Madam Justice Fleming found that the conditions set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Soulos v. Korkontzilas, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 217, for a court to impose a constructive trust on the basis that it would be against good conscience to allow a party to retain property were not met. Those conditions are set out by Madam Justice McLachlin (now Chief Justice) at paragraph 45 of the judgment:
(1) The defendant must have been under an equitable obligation, that is, an obligation of the type that courts of equity have enforced, in relation to the activities giving rise to the assets in his hands;
(2) The assets in the hands of the defendant must be shown to have resulted from deemed or actual agency activities of the defendant in breach of his equitable obligation to the plaintiff;
(3) The plaintiff must show a legitimate reason for seeking a proprietary remedy, either personal or related to the need to ensure that others like the defendant remain faithful to their duties and;
(4) There must be no factors which would render imposition of a constructive trust unjust in all the circumstances of the case; e.g., the interests of intervening creditors must be protected.
Madam Justice Fleming found that Mr. Milne's relationship with Ms. Milne following the consent order was not of such a nature that the law imposes a high duty of loyalty on Mr. Milne to protect Ms. Milne. He was not a trustee or other fiduciary. That being the case, there was no basis for the Court to impose a good conscience constructive trust on the insurance proceeds.
Ms. Milne was successful in her claim against Mr. Milne's estate, and Madam Justice Fleming awarded her $500,000 out of the estate to compensate her for Mr. Milne's breach of the consent court order.
Although the reasons for judgment do not state the value of Mr. Milne's estate, it appears that there will likely be substantial assets for Ms. Milne to recover the $500,000 judgement. But in other circumstances, a former spouse relying on support payments or life insurance proceeds in lieu of support if the payor former spouse dies, could be left with nothing if the courts will not impose a constructive trust on insurance proceeds. This will happen if the former spouse whose obligation it was to keep the other former spouse as the beneficiary dies leaving little or no estate from which to pay any judgement for failing to maintain the life insurance beneficiary designation. This may occur even if the now deceased had substantial assets, but structured his or her affairs so that they pass outside of the estate, such as by holding a residence and investment accounts in joint tenancies with a new partner.
Madam Justice Fleming was careful to leave open the possibility that the court might find that a separated or divorced spouse may have fiduciary duties to the other, but she found that the facts in this case did not warrant such a finding.
This decision is consistent with the Court of Appeal decision in Ladner v. Wolfson, 2011 BCCA 370, which Madam Justice Fleming applied in reaching her decision. But are
British Columbia courts taking too narrow of
a view when a constructive trust is available as a remedy?
The context in which the remedy of constructive trust s most often applied is unjust enrichment, which involves one party being enriched to another's detriment, without any requirement that the enriched party had fiduciary duties to the other. In a case where there are insufficient assets in the estate to compensate the former spouse for the deceased's wrongful conduct in changing a beneficiary of the life insurance, it seems to me that as between the wronged former spouse and the new beneficiary, the equities favour the former spouse. Settlements are the product of negotiations and trade-offs. Almost invariably the spouse for whose benefit the life insurance is to be maintained has given up something in return, while the proceeds are likely to be a pure gift to the new beneficiary. It may be that the former spouse has a claim in unjust enrichment, but even if not, surely the law is flexible enough for the courts to impose a constructive trust in these cases by analogy to both unjust enrichment and good conscience constructive trusts.
In practice, a separated spouse might own the life insurance on the other's life and pay the premiums so that she or he can ensure that the life insurance is maintained for her or his benefit. Any spousal support or division of property could be adjusted to reflect the costs of the insurance.


text:
More or less people are diligent in their hectic life. They have no spare to time to pay a visit to the gym. Maybe because they are too busy or tired. Gym is not the only way we can exercise and lose weight. There is other Idiosyncrasy in which we can work out even without attending the gym. Following Five Ways to Workout without Gym
1. Jogging
The secret to a slim and sexy body is to engage as many muscles as possible for moving quickly from one exercise to the next and keep your heart beat rate high. It energetically increases muscle mass and helps to decreases body fat by engaging more muscle fibers. This burns tons of calories during a short period of time. Morning or evening jogging is a better workout than attending the gym. It refreshes the mind as you can see the surrounding view. But view in a gym can be monotonous. Besides walking to your work place or office can help to burn some of your calories and keep you active throughout the day. Washing dishes, cleaning the home, washing clothes or cooking for the family is also a kind of workout. Household chores help a significant role in keeping you super active while it teaches you various kinds of things that is required in your daily life.
2. Jumping Jacks
Another time of work out is jumping jacks. Continue this workout at least for two minutes. This is one of the best workout apps. Fast feet workout can help you avoid gyms. If you want to know how to do the work, it's simple. Step quickly backward and forward over a stretched-out jump rope. Also continue this method for minimum 2 minutes. You can also try out another workout, known as the roll over workout. This workout is known by many, so I'm not giving any further details.
3. Planting
All ages of people like planting. Make planting a hobby. Take care of the plants, water them regularly. Plant it in a better soil and cut leaves to give it a shape. Planting trees can a better workout, knocking out the gym.
4. Yoga
According to me, yoga is such a kind of workout that kicks the gym's derriere on every level, and you can kick your own. Yoga is, of a kind, everything that a body needs to function at its absolute best level.
5. Pomodoro Method
Lastly, another type of best workout is the pomodoro method. For many of them it's a new term. Basically it is a simple method. You do work for 25 minutes then makes 5 minutes break. Continue this process consecutively for 4 times then you can go for a 15 minutes break. This is what pomodoro is. Can the question arises, how does it help?
The answer is also simple. Taking frequent breaks keep your mind fresh and focused. You must have noticed that working continuously may make you feel bored or take your attraction away from the work. This is another category of the workout as you can get up from you sit and take a short work. In these 5 minutes, you can even say "hello" to your friend that can keep your mind active and refresh you once again.
Preventing gym and working this and that can contribute to losing weight. But by another advice is to control your diet. Keep a track of whatever you are eating and make sure you are more into vegetables. Avoid oily foods which can add up your calories.


text:
Verify Email
Photo Gallery
Press Release
Welcome Guest. Already registered?
Please Login
Submit a New Blog
Efficient and low-energy equipment
Blog Submitted by
on 08/10/2017 at 4:12 AM
Report Blog
For those who do not know the
Construction Waste Crusher
industry, to be familiar with some mining equipment, it is probably the way to search the data.However, the authoritative information of the information is not supported by a solid background, and opinions vary widely.As a senior mine equipment practitioner, I will be able to explain the mine equipment to you in the future in accordance with my own personal contact and understanding of the equipment. Today we will introduce one of the equipment: straight-through mill.
Straight through mill, also known as centrifugal direct
Construction Waste Crusher
. The straight-through centrifugal pulverizer adopts the principle of pressing and pressing in medium speed. The material is free falling from top to bottom, and the grinding roller grinding ring, middle and lower parts of the grinding roller are more and more uniform.Ingenious design makes iron bolt, iron into the grindability materials such as will not cause damage to the machine, and timely to these materials may be grinding discharge machine, to avoid damage to the machine.
In modern society, the more things the more professional segment, in the same way, in general
SCM Ultrafine Mill
industries such as common building materials, chemical industry, ceramic, will need to use a lot of fine materials such as thermal power, so investors can put business opportunities in the fine material above, therefore, straight through the centrifugal mill series was born.Speaking of fine material, have to mention the development of flour milling industry, the root of the mill can be traced back to the 1850 s, the original is Raymond mill, as the changes of The Times, flour variant more professional, more and more segmentation, coarse grinding, fine grinding and the micro powder grinding meet different actual requirements, in all of the grinder, straight through the centrifugal mill when machine belongs to the star, compared with the traditional mill, the unique internal design greatly reduces the energy loss, but also improves the production efficiency, at the same time, cover an area of an area small can greatly reduce the cost of investors, in fact, it covers an area of only 50% of the Raymond mill.
So where to buy this quality machine? We are a company specializing in the production of flour milling machine manufacturer, ZTM straight through the centrifugal mill is their best selling goods, has been proven in many places, the outstanding performance to make it have a lot of fans, from the feedback of investors learned that just because the machine performance is stable, more thoughtful and professional service will win so many customers, broken mill manufacturers lack in China is the like this always put customer interests as the first spirit.Believe that after the change of the social various, in the near future, through the development of the centrifugal mill will be more humane, more accord with investors to use habits, we will focus on research more convenient mill to adapt to the changes from all walks of life.
Blog Reply
You must be logged in to Post a Reply.
Not a member. Register
Already registered?
Please Login
If you have a website and would like to set up a forum here at HoseHeadForums.com
please contact us by using the contact link at the top of the page.
© 2019 HoseHeadForums.com
Privacy Policy


text:
The Deep Vault
Nestled between the deep still southern ocean and the endless northern desert lies the Kingdom of Endless Light in all it's glory and peace. You are given only a brief dossier of the Kingdom, and put on the train toward Andlosa, the brimming capitol of the Kingdom.
Campaign Presets:
*Your characters are contracted "ambassadors" to other countries and kingdoms who are called on from time to time to trade with, investigate, steal from, and generally handle relations with other cultures, cities, kingdoms, empires, and the like. Your background besides that is up to you. Perhaps you are in it for the money, or the excitement, or the chance to travel. Perhaps you use the opportunity to search for something or someone, perhaps you do it out of duty to your country. Perhaps you do it simply because it provides an outlet to help people. Or hurt them. The reasons are yours to choose.
*You may choose any race. The authority who calls to you values each and every race for their unique and varied abilities.
*You may choose any class. There is no niche too big or too small to be utilized to it's fullest potential by the authority.
*You start at level 12. Your characters have seen many places in the world and have had each their fair share of tackling difficult situations, but there's plenty they still don't know.
House Ruled:
*The first thing to notice is that each character will not have an alignment. I'll be using a Wizards approved alternative style to deal with alignment (or lack thereof, in this case). This is to increase roleplaying flexibility; I don't anyone to feel like they can't do something because their alignment says not to.
*The second difference, and perhaps the biggest, is that players will start out with a certain level of Sanity. I'm taking cues from Call of Cthulhu for this, and I think it will be a welcome addition to the storyline and roleplaying. Click the link to learn more.
*Your characters are contracted by a group, therefore, your starting budget is 9000 gold.
*Your characters have been on missions before. You will have the choice to start with either a magical item from a previous journey worth no more than 2000g, or an extra 100 XP.
* Experience Points will be utilized in this campaign, but in an alternative way.


text:
Photo Vault , Hide Pictures And Videos -KeepSecret
Tools | 2.4MB | Update: 2018-07-31 | Version: 1.1.2 | Requires: Android4.0 or later
Tools | 2.4MB | Update: 2018-07-31 | Version: 1.1.2 | Requires: Android4.0 or later
Sorry, this app is now not available to download. Download 9Apps to find more similar apps and amazing coupon information.
Are you looking for some free apps? 20,000+ users downloaded Photo Vault , Hide Pictures And Videos -KeepSecret latest version on 9Apps for free every week! The app is superior that can be used with any of the mobile type. This hot app was released on 2018-07-31. Here are some guides of this app:
KeepSecret is a fantastic privacy protection app to easily hide your photos, videos that you do not want others to see.
You can import your private images and videos in KeepSecret. What's more, KeepSecret has the beautiful design, it provides you the smooth and amazing media browse experience.
Highlight features:
• Hide photos, hide videos
• The hidden files are all encrypted
• The beautiful, smooth and elegant user experience
Perhaps it is time to have a fresh look at the size of Application installation package. This top Tools app is just 2.4M. This app also performs well on small phone that are not high standard configuration. 9Apps also provides other hot Tools apps(games) for android mobile phone. Download and enjoy this amazing app now.