tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24006920.post114884535158530060..comments2023-10-15T06:36:17.734-05:00Comments on Truth Be Known News | Blog of Acharya S: Pope asks where was God?Acharya Shttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03091289754963053674noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24006920.post-1149044478007612202006-05-30T22:01:00.000-05:002006-05-30T22:01:00.000-05:00I am well aware of Gardner's and Kimball's take on...I am well aware of Gardner's and <A HREF="http://www.truthbeknown.com/kimball.htm" REL="nofollow">Kimball's</A> take on Jesus. Obviously, I don't agree. It's too bad Noory is <I>so</I> unwilling to entertain my work, as he assuredly knows about it but assidously avoids it. The fact that Gardner would even feel compelled to bring up bogus and irrelevant "references" shows something. Because he has so much vested in it, he will cling to it for dear life. As concerns Kimball's assertion, baloney. That "fragment" has never been proved to have been from the canonical Gospel of Mark. It consists of a few words, only one of which is even fully legible. Once again, the purveyors of pabulum wave their hands and magically make the science go away.Acharya Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03091289754963053674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24006920.post-1149041658922643022006-05-30T21:14:00.000-05:002006-05-30T21:14:00.000-05:00Acharya,If I may, I just want to follow-up on your...Acharya,<BR/><BR/>If I may, I just want to follow-up on your excellent 'Da Vinci Code' post below. George Noory had a "round table" discussion on last night's show, which was actually pretty interesting. Only a few psychotic Christians called in at the end.<BR/>Sir Laurence Gardner had basically the attitude that you expressed--that it's all benign fun. Though he shocked me at one point by referring to two historical references to Jesus-Josephus + the Jewish Talmudic mention-- as being authentic!<BR/>But another guest, a Glenn Kimball, stated that a fragment of the gospel of Mark was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which would have dated Mark to at least 50 AD.<BR/><BR/>It didn't sound kosher. What's your take? If anyone would know it would be you. Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com