I don’t know why, but for the last several mornings I’ve been writing the alphabet with my left hand, which is my non-dominant hand. Both my parents were left-handed, yet I’m a righty.
While listening to sports radio the other day I learned some interesting facts about the legendary Jessie Owens – The Ohio State University student has a plaque at arch rival Michigan’s campus commemorating him breaking four world records in 45 minutes, all done with a bad back. I decided to look up that event to read up about it and found two interesting articles. This one from Sports Illustrated talks about the feat, and speaking of feet, I can’t get past looking at Owens’ right foot because it looks so weird and I cant figure out why. It’s like there’s a big open gap in the top middle portion, like a hidden Mickey or something, probably just a flap on the shoe. And then I found this article about a ten-year-old Jessie Owens who recently qualified for state track meet. That’s one heck of a name to live up to, related or not.
Speaking of Alice Cooper, I remember one time I used him as a central character in a presentation I was giving while I was working on my MBA. It was one of those things where I could have used anyone as an example, but I thought the pop-culture reference would be a little funny and keep the class’ attention. The class was such that your grade depending on the critique of your peers, and this one peer was from Nigeria, with challenging English skills, who had no idea who Alice Cooper was. He gave me bad marks because he said I kept using “he” in reference to Alice Cooper and that was wrong be OBVIOUSLY Alice was a girl. All that to say, know your audience.
So if you like to travel but like to sleep in, then Crack of Noon Tours may just be for you.
Maybe BP should have sent Joe the Plumber to fix that leak?
I read that Obama will not be at Arlington National Cemetery on Memorial Day, but will be at the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery outside of Chicago. But before the Right gets all bent out of shape, Reagan skipped a year, George H.W. Bush never went on Memorial Day, and George W. missed several years as well.
Here’s an interesting article and the first sentence will grab your attention: Here’s a dirty little secret about the little pills you pop: nearly 99.9 percent of the tablet is useless. Only a thousandth of a pill contains the active ingredients that are supposed to make you feel better.
Stephen Baldwin, the Baldwin brother that loves to talk about Jesus, just posed nearly naked for the UK version of Cosmo. You can see his pic here with other almost naked men. Too bad he’s not wearing a WWJD bracelet.
I hear people like Bag of Randomness, but I wonder if any of you feel cheated when I end up putting a lot of links as opposed to personal stuff.
I had several people tell me that I was the first person they thought of after viewing the LOST finale. I find that intriguing.
I recently heard about the Q document and found it pretty interesting – basically it’s a possible reference document that existed that referenced a lot of Jesus’ quotes and teachings and was used to write the Gospels. There’s a lot of reasons against its existence, but the supporting like to reference the striking similarity of familiar text found in the different books. I’m not saying it ever existed or not, but that it’s interesting. But I will predict a future Dan Brown book about the document.
I’m not a follower of Richard Dawkins, but this quote made me think: I may refrain from insulting you. I may refrain from publishing a cartoon of your prophet. But it’s becuse I fear you. Don’t think for one minute that it’s because I respect you.
that is a strange picture of Jessie Owens' foot…i went and looked at several pictures of him and his foot seems normal…now i'm bugged why that picture is like that…LOL
i do like bag of randomness…and the very title makes the links you include cool…i don't click on them all but i click on several usually.
i don't watch lost but yes, i agree, you are who i first think of when lost is mentioned…and i think i'm going to watch from the beginning (i confess i didn't read your Lost posts too closely at all)
I had a professor in Seminary that thought that the "Q" material was better explained by Jesus repeating sermons from time to time and the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) all remembering the most common ones. John had a different perspective being a central disciple (being one of the trio that Jesus often took aside and being "the disciple that Jesus loved" so he wrote different stuff than Matthew (minor disciple), Mark (who was taught by Paul not Jesus), and Luke (who tried to approach the gospel as a historian, in the ancient sense).
Q works, but it's not the only explanation. The biggest problem is that no one has ever found a fragment of Q that wasn't a piece of one of the gospels.
I'm inclined to the view that Matthew added what we call "Q" and that Luke copied from Matthew (the Farrer position). However, we really don't know what happened. That's why I hope that additional discoveries will be made of old texts from the first and second century. Wouldn't that be a huge boost to our understanding?
Regarding the "Q" Document: I went to a Catholic high school and university and we rarely delved into the New Testament, other to read small sections of it during mass. I decided to independently learn more about who wrote it, when and how it became to be written. I've read a dozen or so books analyzing the creation of the New Testament and every historical critic I could find believes there was a "Q" document used by Luke and Matthew. Their reasoning makes sense to me and if it were found I don't think it would be controversial, merely a book of sayings. [After 2000 years it should have disintegrated by now]. What was more startling to me was that it wasn't until the 1700's that bible historians [Germans] actually compared the four gospels side-by-side to analyze where they borrowed from each other and where they contradicted each other. I think the Germans came up with the "Q" theory. Why did it take 1600 years before someond did this? I've wondered whether Catholics shied away from relying too heavily on the New Testament because of the conflicts and contradictions between the different gospels?
What is more interesting to me is that in @ 300 A.D. Christians leaders got together and debated what books would go into the New Testament and which to throw out. A large number of books that existed between the time of Jesus and 300 A.D. were thrown out as a result vigorous and blistering bebate, similar to congress trying to pass a controversial law. I think Revelation was only accepted only as part of some sort of horse-trading compromise. There are a number of gospels that exist from the earliest times that were rejected, including, I think, a Gospel of St Peter [?].
While listening to sports radio the other day I learned some interesting facts about the legendary Jessie Owens – The Ohio State University student has a plaque at arch rival Michigan’s campus commemorating him breaking four world records in 45 minutes, all done with a bad back. I decided to look up that event to read up about it and found two interesting articles. This one from Sports Illustrated talks about the feat, and speaking of feet, I can’t get past looking at Owens’ right foot because it looks so weird and I cant figure out why. It’s like there’s a big open gap in the top middle portion, like a hidden Mickey or something, probably just a flap on the shoe. And then I found this article about a ten-year-old Jessie Owens who recently qualified for state track meet. That’s one heck of a name to live up to, related or not.
Stephen Baldwin, the Baldwin brother that loves to talk about Jesus, just posed nearly naked for the UK version of Cosmo. You can see his pic here with other almost naked men. Too bad he’s not wearing a WWJD bracelet.
that is a strange picture of Jessie Owens' foot…i went and looked at several pictures of him and his foot seems normal…now i'm bugged why that picture is like that…LOL
i do like bag of randomness…and the very title makes the links you include cool…i don't click on them all but i click on several usually.
i don't watch lost but yes, i agree, you are who i first think of when lost is mentioned…and i think i'm going to watch from the beginning (i confess i didn't read your Lost posts too closely at all)
I had a professor in Seminary that thought that the "Q" material was better explained by Jesus repeating sermons from time to time and the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) all remembering the most common ones. John had a different perspective being a central disciple (being one of the trio that Jesus often took aside and being "the disciple that Jesus loved" so he wrote different stuff than Matthew (minor disciple), Mark (who was taught by Paul not Jesus), and Luke (who tried to approach the gospel as a historian, in the ancient sense).
Q works, but it's not the only explanation. The biggest problem is that no one has ever found a fragment of Q that wasn't a piece of one of the gospels.
Paul
I'm inclined to the view that Matthew added what we call "Q" and that Luke copied from Matthew (the Farrer position). However, we really don't know what happened. That's why I hope that additional discoveries will be made of old texts from the first and second century. Wouldn't that be a huge boost to our understanding?
Regarding the "Q" Document: I went to a Catholic high school and university and we rarely delved into the New Testament, other to read small sections of it during mass. I decided to independently learn more about who wrote it, when and how it became to be written. I've read a dozen or so books analyzing the creation of the New Testament and every historical critic I could find believes there was a "Q" document used by Luke and Matthew. Their reasoning makes sense to me and if it were found I don't think it would be controversial, merely a book of sayings. [After 2000 years it should have disintegrated by now]. What was more startling to me was that it wasn't until the 1700's that bible historians [Germans] actually compared the four gospels side-by-side to analyze where they borrowed from each other and where they contradicted each other. I think the Germans came up with the "Q" theory. Why did it take 1600 years before someond did this? I've wondered whether Catholics shied away from relying too heavily on the New Testament because of the conflicts and contradictions between the different gospels?
Q Document [continued]
What is more interesting to me is that in @ 300 A.D. Christians leaders got together and debated what books would go into the New Testament and which to throw out. A large number of books that existed between the time of Jesus and 300 A.D. were thrown out as a result vigorous and blistering bebate, similar to congress trying to pass a controversial law. I think Revelation was only accepted only as part of some sort of horse-trading compromise. There are a number of gospels that exist from the earliest times that were rejected, including, I think, a Gospel of St Peter [?].