#I don’t know anything about 17 CE Rome

[mooseonahunt]

Screaming crying shaking please,, stop asking me super obscure questions about the past,,, I don’t know,,, I’m a history major but I don’t know man,,,

[betweenthetimeandsound]

Three Minutes to Eternity: My ESC 250 (#180-171)

#180: Fernando Tordo -- Tourada (Portugal 1973)

“Entram guizos, chocas e capotes, E mantilhas pretas, Entram espadas, chifres e derrotes, E alguns poetas, Entram bravos, cravos e dichotes, Porque tudo mais são tretas,”

“Bells, cowbells and capes are coming in, And black mantillas Swords, big horns and defeats are coming in And some poets Brave people, carnations and swear words are coming in Because it's a wheeze at most”

Despite the title ("tourada" translates to bullfight in Portuguese), it's actually a portrait of a revolution in the making. The lyrics were so clever that the censors at the RTP didn’t notice these lyrics were reflecting the current regime.

That’s enough for a 250 appearance for me, but there’s more that makes the song so memorable.

The build with the brass and percussion sets the stage for something important to happen. Sometimes, I do forget I like this song, but listening to it like right now is an experience, like one entering the battlefield.

The last line, "And the intelligent man says that songs are over..." still amuses me, though it's quite cynical in that the intellectuals would eventually not believe in the movement.

Personal ranking: 5th/17 Actual ranking: 10th/17 in Luxembourg

#179: France Gall -- Poupée de cire, poupée de son (Luxembourg 1965)

“Suis-je meilleure, suis-je pire qu’une poupée de salon? Je vois la vie en rose bonbon Poupée de cire, poupée de son”

“Am I better, am I worse than a fashion doll? I see life through bright rosy-tinted glasses Wax doll, sawdust doll”

One of the game-changing songs of Eurovision, in that the general mood shifts from slow-tempo songs to a little bit of pop. The first ten contests had their share of good songs, but seem to blur into each other at points. Afterwards, the song quality rose, and they were better suited to the times.

Beyond the happy orchestral sound is something quite sad—a pretty girl who sings songs without experiencing what they mean. Gainsbourg was quite the songwriter, but it led to a falling out between him and France later on, because of the double meanings of the songs he wrote for her.

The drama related to France Gall and the contest didn't stop there. Kathy Kirby, the runner-up that year, slapped France when she won. Then her boyfriend broke up with her shortly after, and wrote a song that would be the basis of "My Way".

Quite interesting I must say, though I don’t come back to this song often.

Personal and actual ranking: 1st/18 in Naples

#178: Ajda Pekkan -- Petr'oil (Turkey 1980)

"Öyle gururlusun gidemem yanına Girmişsin kim bilir kaç aşığın kanına Dolardan, marktan başka laf çıkmaz dilinden Neler, neler çekiyorum senin elinden"

"You are so proud, I can’t come close to you I wonder who else suffers from your love You speak of nothing but dollars and marks I am so suffering because of you"

My 1980 winner is not only quite groovy and seductive, but also clever.

The 1970s had two major oil crises--one in 1973, and another in 1979. The first one was when OPEC withheld their oil from countries who supported Israel during the Yom Kippur, and the second one when oil production stopped during the Iranian Revolution, resulting in higher prices per barrel. Both resulted in low supply and increased gas prices in the United States; those who grew up during the era were less likely to drive as a result.

Petr'oil takes this issue and anthromorphizes it, as Ajda sings about the troubles of relying oil as a resource and as a partner. The belly-dance music also emphasizes the tension. combined with the percussion and strings on this piece.

While Ajda has since distanced herself from the song, I embrace it in all its charms. Plus it was heavily underrated in its year.

Personal ranking: 1st/19 Actual ranking: 15th/19 in Den Haag

Final Impressions on 1980: This year stands out a bit, for it had a number of songs dealing with a huge number of topics (including Belgium's "Euro-Vision", which made the contest go meta, haha). Alongside it, the production was a bit bare-bones, because of the Netherlands hosting it four years earlier, but it featured quirks such as a representative announcing their country's song, Morocco competing for the only time, and a steel band for the interval!

#177: The Allisons -- Are you sure? (United Kingdom 1961)

“Are you sure you won’t be sorry? Comes tomorrow, you won’t want me Back again to hold you tightly?”

The lyrics are quite smug, in that the Allisons warn the girl who plans to break up with them she might be sorry and alone. Not unlike with "If I Were Sorry", though there's a bit more charm and teasing towards their soon-to-be ex-, whereas the latter feels a bit more arrogant.

That said, it’s upbeat and almost lines up to the musical scene at the time (comparisons to Buddy Holly are not uncommon), and the musical run time just goes by so quickly (in comparison to other entries of the same era)! It's just a breeze.

Personal ranking: 1st/16 Actual ranking: 2nd/16 in Cannes

#176: Vicky Leandros: L'amour est bleu (Luxembourg 1967)

“Bleu, bleu, l'amour est bleu, Berce mon cœur, mon cœur amoureux, Bleu, bleu, l'amour est bleu, Bleu comme le ciel qui joue dans tes yeux.”

“Blue, blue, love is blue, Cradle my heart, my loving heart Blue, blue, love is blue Blue like the sky which play in your eyes."”

I think I first heard this in the intro to Eurovision 2006's semi-final. While the harp motif stood out, I didn't know where it came from. It was until when I watched the contest this song was in, which is strange because it was notable for having a Paul Mauriat cover which became a hit.

One of many classics which featured in 1960s contests, I like the innocence shown through the lyrics, which uses color and imagery to tell about the different cycles of love. The orchestration along the bridge was especially spectacular, as it provided a cinematic feel towards . Vicky’s accent sometimes gets in the way, but she sings this well and should’ve gotten a podium position.

Personal ranking: 2nd/17 Actual ranking: 4th/17 in Vienna

#175: Kaija -- Ullu joy Hullu yö (Finland 1991)

"En edes halunnut sua omistaa En edes leikisti rakastaa Kaksi kulkijaa yhteen osuttiin Yksi yhteinen hetki jaettiin"

"I didn’t even want to own you I didn’t even want to love you We two travellers came across each other Shared one common moment together"

While I was watching Eurovision 1991, I liked the mysterious verses of Hullu yo, but I found the chorus a bit off, because it was punchier and more energetic. It also had that "minor-verse/major chorus" thing going on, which also made me uneasy with the song. With a few listens, I grew to like a bit more, because of its unique sound. It definitely sounds better with the studio cut versus the live, which shows off the failures of RAI's orchestra.

Another thing about the song, beyond its lyrics about a one-night-stand turned into longing feelings, was the choice choreography. Playing out the turmoiled relationship, it's funny to see how provocative it is, and that's after Toto's hilarious pronunciation of the song.

Elements of the live performance aside, it's still a jam which deserved better. Maybe it would've done so in the televote era.

Personal ranking: 7th/22 Actual ranking: 20th/22 in Rome

#174: Francoise Hardy -- L'amour s'en va (Monaco 1963)

“Si ce n’est toi Ce sera moi qui m’en irai L’amour s’en va Et nous n’y pourrons rien changer"

"If it isn’t you It will be me who will go away Love goes away And we can’t change anything about that"

I was happily surprised hearing this for the first time. It was very melancholic, with an interesting structure between the verses and the chorus. The percussion also helps with the latter, and adds a bit of character to the song.

The fact Francoise wrote this classic gem also warmed me up more to the song, especially because she was from the ye-ye generation of singers (which are known for being young and upbeat). Yet she stands and sings her own composition in a serious, almost bored tone, without taking the substance of the song away

(That being said, I really need to listen to more of her songs; I've found a couple a month ago, though there's obviously more...)

Personal ranking: 2nd/16 Actual ranking: 5th/16 in London

#173: ABBA -- Waterloo (Sweden 1974)

“The history book on the shelf is always repeating itself...”

You don’t need me to tell about this, do you? It’s fun and timeless pop, with some cool costumes to boot.

For more interesting stuff for both, the song Waterloo was an actual risk for the contest--they actually had another song for consideration, the folk-influenced Hasta Manana, but turned to this instead. And it worked, of course!

For the clothes, ABBA apparently chose these glam-rock inspired costumes because in Sweden, one wouldn't have to pay additional fees if the costumes won't be used for normal wear. Both Anni-frid and Agnetha look great, nevertheless.

And as of the moment, my favorite ABBA song is "Knowing Me, Knowing You". Despite the poppy tone, it has a moody vibe throughout, and one knows the relationship is going to end on a bad note.

Personal ranking: 2nd/17 Actual ranking: 1st/17 in Brighton

#172: Gigliola Cinquetti -- Si (Italy 1974)

“Sì, dolcemente dissi sì, Per provare un'emozione, Che non ho avuto mai,”

“Yes, I softly said yes, To feel an emotion That I've never had before”

My friend told me an interesting story about the lyrics—whereas the song Gigliola won with tells of a girl waiting to grow older to find true love, Si talks of the girl growing up and taking the plunge. So she interprets Si as a sequel of sorts.

So why does this beat Waterloo, in my opinion?

I like how the song starts—quietly, but with an interesting guitar part. The instrumentation builds well towards the "Si...", at which it gently but certainly blooms towards Gigliola's certainty on going with the man she loves.

The interesting part of it was how the song was censored in Italy because it was seen as "subliminal messaging" for a campaign on a divorce referendum that May. "Si" sounds like an endorsement for the "no" campaign, as it embraces being in love, even if it requires the death of another relationship.

Personal ranking: 1st/17 Actual ranking: 2nd/17 in Brighton

Final Impressions on 1974: Definitely one of the most memorable years in the contest, if only for who won. The rest was a tale of two halves, with the first half being particularly good, and the other half bad (except for Si, as you can tell). And there were Wombles in the interval act, hehe.

#171: Eugent Bushpepa -- Mall (Albania 2018)

“Lot i patharë ndriçojë këtë natë Sonte kumbo prej shpirtit pa fjalë Vetëm një çast dhimbja të më ndalë”

“Lingering tear, light up this night Find your way out, to soothe my soul Just for one day make this pain subside”

Aren’t the lyrics to this so beautiful? They convey Eugent’s desire to be with his loved one so well, in both its pain and beauty.

The music really helps too--while the pre-vamped version was a whole minute longer, it also has a rockier edge to it. The revamped version cuts it down and cleans up the production, but it's still maintains the overall feel throughout.

Eugent is also a talented talented singer, which proved initial odds wrong and got Albania one of its best results! The bridge between the second verse and chorus has a great chord progression (which was given more space in the revamp), and he deserved qualification for that alone. And those high notes.

(Also, he's probably the best dressed guy of his year...good job Eugent, good job.)

Personal ranking: 7th/43 Actual ranking: 11th/26 GF in Lisbon

[jeannereames]

Hi i have a follow up question to your latest ask. I tried looking through your asks if you had answered something similar but only found a post about your book which is also good but not exactly what i was looking for haha. Anyway, so I was wondering what sources we have showing or referencing the historical alexanders relationship to achilles? And maybe his mothers too. Is it just in later authors works? Is it based on lost sources from alexanders time? Are there coins or anything? Thanks (:

TL;DR version: we don’t have anything from Alexander’s own day that firmly connects him to Achilles. His coins all show Herakles, and then later himself “Heraklized.”

IF the armor in Tomb II at Vergina is his (e.g., it’s his half-brother Arrhidaios in there, not Philip II), then we may have an artistic reference on the magnificent shield recovered and reconstructed via archaeological magic. The shield’s central boss shows Achilles killing Penthesileia. Is that the “Shield of Achilles” Alexander supposedly picked up at Troy, and then carried in battle like a standard? Maybe. But, either way, it’s a reference to Achilles.

Otherwise, Achilles just doesn’t show up in Macedonian artwork. As he was supposedly from Epiros next door west, that may not be a big surprise, whereas Herakles (who’s all over the place) was believed to be the ancestor of the Argead clan. Alexander’s claim to Achilles came through Mommy, Olympias.

So virtually ALL our references to Alex and Achilles are from literary sources. And those are also ALL later. Which brings us to our source problem….

—————————————

The sources for Alexander are a regular Gordion Knot. We’re gonna get into the weeds here. Stay with me. And you may want to bookmark this for yourself if you need a handy (if saucy) later reference on the Alexander sources.

I’m not sure how much the asker already knows, but let me lay out some basics for everyone, including common terminology. You can probably suss out a lot from context, but just to be clear:

“Primary” evidence means documents and materials from the time period under consideration, and “secondary” evidence means modern authors assembling/editing and writing about those sources. When we look at the ancient world, primary evidence refers to documents (writings, including inscriptions), artwork (vases, sculptures, mosaics, etc.), and material evidence (e.g., “stuff” unearthed by archaeologists).

Obviously, only a fraction of what once existed has survived. Sometimes we know of writings that are no longer “extant.” Extant means a document we still have, or at least have most of. We hear about a lot more via “testamonia” and “fragmenta.” Testamonia are mention of a document (or author) found in another document. And fragmenta are pieces of a lost work (typically) embedded as quotes in somebody else’s work. Unfortunately, ancient authors don’t always admit where they get their information. “Citing” wasn’t a thing, back then.

Now, that out of the way, let’s take a look at Alexander sources in particular.

We have 5 extant histories/biographies for Alexander, more than virtually any other ancient figure. That’s great!

Problem. Not a single one was written by anyone who knew him, saw him, or even lived when he did. Two of them aren’t even in Greek; they’re in Latin. I’ve listed them below from earliest to latest, with approximate dates, and a bit of info about the author. (While I prefer Greek transliterations, I’m using the most common spelling of the names for familiarity.)

Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, specifically books 16 (Philip), 17 (Alexander), 18-20 (Successors). As “world histories,” they do talk about events in other places, including Syracuse, Athens, Sparta, and Rome. As his name suggests, Diodorus was from Sicily, and died c. 30 BCE, just as the Roman Republic was morphing into Empire. We have only books 1-5 and 11-20 of a total of 40. Books 18-20 are incomplete (fragments).

THIS IS OUR EARLIEST EXTANT SOURCE: a guy who lived in the first century BCE and was born almost 300 years after Philip of Macedon.

Let that sink in a moment.

Curtius Rufus, Historiae Alexandri Magni, is the better known of our two Latin histories. The author is a mystery, which complicates dating it. He lived under the empire, while the Parthians existed. A consul suffectus in late 43 CE (Claudius) has been proposed as him, but speculation abounds he might have used a nom de plume—not unlike a fanfiction author. 😊 The best study of Curtius’s work is by Elizabeth Baynam. He probably belongs to the first century, just a little earlier than Plutarch, and his work bears all the hallmarks of the Latin Silver Age.

Plutarch of Chaironeia wrote a lot, including his collection, Lives of Famous Greeks and Romans, which includes Alexander (as well as some Successors) + a massive number of essays collected under the general title Moralia. These include The Fortune of Alexander the Great, and Sayings of Kings and Commanders. Plutarch was a Dionysian priest from central Greece (Boeotia) who lived in the late first century CE, and died c. 120…that’s when HADRIAN was emperor. He belongs to a group of writers typically called the Second Sophistic.

Arrian of Nicomedia, The Anabasis and Indica, written in two different dialects of Greek (Attic and Ionic); he also wrote some philosophic stuff. We know a decent amount about him. He was an Asian Greek from modern Bithynia (the home province of Hadrian’s boyfriend Antinoos), a military man, a senator, a friend of Hadrian, a consul suffectus, and later, an archon of Athens, but most famously, governor (legate) of Cappadocia under Hadrian. He died in Athens c. 160 CE. He liked to call himself the New Xenophon and naming his work on Alexander the Anabasis (after Xenophon’s famous history) is pointed. Although Greek, he was strongly Romanized.

Justin, wrote an epitome of Pompeius Trogus’s expansive Liber Historiarum Philippicarum, which was a history of the Macedonian kingdom, written when Augustus was Empror. An “epitome” is a digest, or shortened version. Trogus’s work was 44 books. Justin’s is much, much smaller, but it’s not a true digest in that he collected what he considered the more interesting titbits rather than trying to summarize the whole thing. We do not know when he lived, precisely, and dates have been thrown out from shortly after Pompeius Trogus all the way to 390 CE! His Latin matches the second century or perhaps early third. This one doesn’t have a Loeb edition, so get the translation by John Yardley with Waldemar Heckel’s commentary on Justin.

In addition, information and stories about Alexander can be found scattered in other ancient sources, notably:

Athenaeus of Naucratus (Greece), Supper Party (Deipnosophistae), which is a weird collection of stories about famous people and food, told at a fictional dinner banguet. It’s long, and fairly entertaining reading, if you’re interested in Greek (and Roman) dining customs. Athenaeus lived in the late 2nd/early 3rd century CE, so he’s even later than most of our historians. Athenaeus used a lot of now-missing sources.

Polyaenus, Strategems. Military handbook from another late author—2nd century CE—but he’s of special interest as he’s Macedonian, our sole extant ancient source from a Macedonian, but keep in mind 500+ years passed between Alexander’s day and his. The Strategems is broken down by leader, which include Archelaus, Philip, and Alexander, plus some of the Successors, too. Until recently, there wasn’t a really good translation (the last was done in the 1800s), but it was finally updated by Krentz and Wheeler for Ares Press.

In addition, he’s mentioned in passing by sources from Strabo to Pliny the Elder to Aelian.

This gives you a good idea of what we do have, and the nature of our problem. It may also help explain what I (or other historians) mean when we talk about the danger of “Romanizing,” even with Greek authors. By the time any of them were writing, even Diodorus, Rome dominated the Mediterranean, and most of them really knew only the imperial period.

Besides the obvious problem of the distance in time, some also had axes to grind. Plutarch is probably the most obvious, as he admits he’s not writing history, but this new thing (he invented) called “Lives” (e.g., biography). More to the point, he’s writing moral tales. Ergo, his bio of Alex is really a long discourse in the old saw, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Likewise, Curtius had a lesson about the evils of Roman imperial debauchery, especially as influenced by Eastern Ways pulling good men away from Roman discipline and clemency.

So what about our now-missing historians who were used by the guys above, and lived closer to ATG’s time? Some of the more important include:

The Ephemerides, or Royal Journal: a daily account of the king’s activities similar to other Ancient Near Eastern traditions, kept by Eumenes, Alexander’s personal secretary. You’ll see them referred to chiefly when talking about Alexander’s last days, as they (supposedly) give an account of his deterioration and death. But they may (and probably were) “doctored” later. Ed Anson has an article about them: important reading.

Callisthenes, Aristotle’s nephew, the official Royal Historian…at least until he got himself in trouble with the Page’s Conspiracy and ATG had him executed (or caged, accounts differ). His history was noted even in antiquity for being flowery and effusive, despite his personal claims to be a philosopher and pretense of austerity. If Alexander wanted a Homer, it wasn’t Callisthenes. Among his failings, he attempted to write about ATG’s battles…badly (so Polybius). Still, this was the official record up till Baktria, used by all the historians still extant. Don’t confuse it with Pseudo-Callisthenes which is the chief source of the Alexander Romance.

Marsyas: Macedonian literati who went to school with the prince, and not only wrote about his childhood (his Education of Alexander was modeled on Xenophon’s Education of Cyrus) and career, but also wrote a work about Macedonian customs that I’d simply LOVE to have. If I could ask for one work from antiquity to be discovered tomorrow, that would be it.

Ptolemy I, of Egypt: Alexander’s general, the guy who stole his body and stole Egypt too in the Successor wars that followed. He was one of Arrian’s main sources when writing his histories. Despite Arrian’s declaration that Ptolemy could be trusted because it would be bad for a king to lie, we can’t trust him. Among other things, he set out to smear the name of his Successor-era rival Perdikkas, and also, apparently, made himself sound more important than he really was. 😉

Nearchus of Crete/Amphipolis, Alexander’s chief admiral and a player in the later Successor wars, wrote an account of his naval trip from India, et al., used chiefly by Arrian.

Aristobulus of Cassandreia: Arrian’s other chief source, he was an engineer, architect, and friend of the king; his main problem seems to have been a tendency to whitewash or explain away critiques of Alexander. It’s Aristobulus who claims ATG didn’t drink heavily, just sat long over his wine for the conversation (uh…I’m sure Kleitos agrees with that). It’s also from him that we get the alternative story that Alexander didn’t cut the Gordion Knot, just pulled the pin out of the yoke and untied it from inside (he didn’t cheat!). Hmmm.

Chares of Mytilene, Alexander’s chamberlain, wrote a 10-book history of Alexander that focused largely on his personal affairs. Boy, wouldn’t that be a fun read? Arrian uses him sometimes, as does Plutarch, et al. Chares is one of the chief sources on the Proskenysis Affair.

Cleitarchus, History of Alexander. Probably the best-known ancient “pop history” of Alexander, but given the ancient equivalent of 2-stars even by historians of his time. His father was a historian too, but apparently, he got more ambition than ability, and was accused of flat making up shit. He lived at Ptolemy’s court later, we think, and a recent fragment tells us he was a tutor. His date is in dispute as late 4th or middle 3rd, and he probably never actually met Alexander. Kleitarchos’s account was used heavily by Plutarch, Curtius, Diodorus, and Pompeius Trogus (Justin’s source). Even Arrian uses him occasionally.

Onesicritus, a Cynic philosopher who studied under Diogenes and later traveled with Alexander. Despite that, his reputation for honesty was even worse than Kleitarchos; Lysimakhos famously called him out publicly, and Strabo considered him a joke. It’s from Onesicritus we hear about Alexander’s sexual servicing of the Amazon Queen to give her a daughter (that’s what Lysimakhos made fun of him for: “Where was I when that happened?”).

These are the main ancient sources you’ll see mentioned, although parts of Alexander’s life are covered in smaller essays, e.g., On the Death (and Funeral) of Alexander and Hephaistion by Euphippus, which is unashamedly hostile to both men. All our fragments from Euphippos come from Athenaeus’s Supper Party, mentioned above.

We also have the Alexander Romance, but that’s a whole ‘nother kettle of fish and not my bailiwick. I refer folks to the work by Richard Stoneman.

There you go! Your handy-dandy potted summary of the ancient authors. To learn more about them, please see Lionel Pearson’s The Lost Historians of Alexander the Great, Scholar’s Press, 1983. There have been articles and material about them in other commentaries and sources, but Pearson remains useful, if somewhat dated, simply for collecting it all in one place, including mention of some minor sources I didn’t cover here.

Finally, I’m including a flowchart I’ve made for my ATG class that lists all the known sources (including several not discussed above); it is copyrighted to me, but may be used for educational purposes. Yes, yes, it really is as crazy as this chart makes it look. And keep in mind, some dependencies are speculative rather than internally confirmed. E.g., as I mentioned earlier, not all ancient sources say what/who they consulted because, againg, citing wasn’t a thing, back then.

[motorcyclegear101]

Best Motorcycle Touring Boots – Guaranteed

Welcome to our touring and commuting boots gear guide. Listed below are our top five picks for the best motorcycle touring boots available today. This is me based on our riding, our research, and our expert opinion to address the specific needs that a touring and commuting rider has.

We know that you need a boot that’s going to protect you in the event of a crash but you also need to be protected from the elements and you need all the comfort for an all-day ride.

Whether you’re tackling long distances over a short amount of time, or you’re simply riding back and forth to the office and you’re going to be wearing these boots all day long it’s got to work for your style of riding.

What we have on the table in a variety of different boots for you to choose from, whether you’re just starting out into your adventure as a motorcyclist, or you’re a returning rider that’s looking to replace that old pair of your favorites in your closet. We’ve got offerings to discuss for both of you.

Tour Master Solution

Alpinestars Roam 2 WP

Alpinestars Web GTX

Dainese TRQ Tour Gore-tex Boots

Daytona Road Star GTX

Remember this any part of a larger guide series at Motorcycle Gear 101 from boots, jackets, helmets, gloves. We’ve got 17 different gear guides to help you navigate your journey through all the new apparel, as well as the returning favorites from previous years at Motorcycle Gear 101.

Tour Master Solution

iFrame is not supported!

These are coming in around the $130 dollar price point and these are your classic American touring boots from Tour Master. What you have is a full hypora waterproof liner with leather construction and t is an air version available.

The air version will give you increased mesh but you’re still getting the waterproof liner in both versions of this.

The real story with the Tour Master boot is that it’s available in a wide option, so if you’re looking at all the European boots and you’re thinking those are just too narrow for my wider foot you can go with the wide option from Tour Master which bumps you up to a double E width.

If you want to take a look at something else in Tour Master or take a step up in Tour Master consider the Epic Out dry. The epic out dry will give you the out dry laminated waterproof protection as well as it’s will get you up into a CE rated boot. You’re getting increases in both protection from an impact standpoint, as well as from the elements.

.

Read More ▼

The solution 2.0 and the original tourmaster solution boots have been some of the most popular waterproof boot styles that we’ve sold at Motorcycle Gear 101. The Tour Master solution 2.0 has been out for a little while now we’ve had a chance to really put it through its paces. Try it on, see how it fits, how it feels, how long it lasts and we’ve been really impressed. The best thing about them is the price. These boots are not going to break the bank, they retail for a hundred and nineteen bucks. They’re a really really valuable boot for the money, definitely very impressed. The other thing that’s really attractive about solution 2.0 is it will work for such a huge variety of riders. Whether you’re a commuter that’s on the bike every day, or if you’re planning a longer trip w you don’t know what kind of weather you’re going to encounter the Tour Master Solution 2.0 is going to work just great. Even this style of boot can work well for a sportbike guy if you’re not looking for the ultimate protection and not going to the track all the time the solution 2.0 is a great option for you. One thing that I really like about it, obviously it has a built-in high-pora membrane that is waterproof, that’s the key feature for it. If you open the boot up you’ll see t’s a velcro flap that covers the main zipper. Ther’s a Velcro on the end of the zipper as well, just kind of holds the zipper pull up in place. Then you will see the internal waterproof membrane, the gusset underneath the zipper extends pretty much all the way to the top of the boot. What that does for you is it prevents water from coming in behind the zipper and even if you were to ride through some big puddles w water is washing up over your feet as long as that water doesn’t get over the top of the boot and run down inside these are going to do a great job keeping your feet dry. High pora has some really neat properties, it not only keeps water out it’s also a fairly breathable material. So for those warmer days when your feet might be getting a little hotter it does a fairly good job breathing and allowing your foot to breathe so it’s not super hot. I will say with any waterproof boot if it’s 90 degrees out in the middle of summer your feet are probably going to get a little toasty. But you know, the flip side of that is if you do get caught in the rain they’re going to keep your feet nice and dry. In cold weather obviously it helps block a bit more wind and keep your feet nice and warm inside the boot. The inside is lined with a nice soft material, they do have what they call their techno DI thermoplastic heel cup and toe counter. You’ve got a heel cup around the back that is inside the boot for some protection. The toe box is reinforced as well, it’s going to keep it nice and comfortable when you’re shifting but also add some protection if you were to go down and tumble and hit the front of your foot on something, that’s going to help reinforce that area. It has some built-in armor on over the ankle bones, that’s important for not only impact protection but for abrasion resistance. Obviously the leather does a good job but if you were to go down it’s going to help prevent any wear or damage to your ankle and your foot. The sole of the boot you have some nice tread design. I really like the sole of the solution tubes because they’re really comfortable off the bike. If you’re like me and you ride some events, or whether it’s a bike night or some kind of open house or a charity fundraiser type of event when you’re riding and then you’re off the bike and you’re walking around for hours, the last thing you need is a really stiff uncomfortable boot that’s really hurting your feet all day long. These boots are going to give you really sure footing but they’re also fairly flexible so you can walk around in comfort. The footbed that that use inside these is orthopedic, has some arch support in it and also absorbs the vibration. So if your bike has a little bit of buzz and the foot pecks or anything these are going to help absorb that. It’s a very comfortable boot, as far as sizing goes I pretty much always wear a size 10 or a 44, no different with the solution 2. They are just right I would say if you’re kind of in-between sizes, especially if you have a slightly wide foot you probably want to go up a size. I typically take a size 10 sometimes I have to go up to a 10 and a half in tennis shoes depending on the width but on these particular ones I find that I can wear the size 10 and they fit just right. They are very comfortable as far as flexibility goes, you can walk around as all day long in comfort in the solution 2.0, and again you can’t beat that price for under $120 bucks you’re getting a fully-featured waterproof motorcycle boot.

Check Out Todays Best Deals

Alpinestars Roam 2 WP

iFrame is not supported!

Getting up into our first CE rated boot is the Alpinestars Rome 2 Air and WP

You have two different offerings, you’ve got the air version or the WP version at around the $170 to $180 price point. The real story is for you touring riders that don’t want a waterproof boot, this is the only available boot on the table for a nonwaterproof version.

If you go with the air version the Rome twos completely open, you get masses amounts of air pushing through or you can go with the waterproof version. At around the hundred and seven hundred eighty dollar price point, this is your three-quarter touring commuter boot from Alpinestars, and it’s getting you up into that world of CE rated protection.

.

Read More ▼

Classic Italian style with touring and waterproof functionality, this is the Alpinestars Roam 2. Since the previous update to the Alpinestars Roam 2, you’re going to clearly notice the style has become a bit more contemporary. Still classic, still three to four seasons, still waterproof again you have some accent stitching, the elastication and the bellows have changed. They are a little bit higher in the back, it might be a little bit more comfortable but again big TPR up top adding to a more contemporary style. I like the fact that they have not changed the price, I like the fact it’s still CE rated from Alpinestars, real meat and potatoes within their touring boot line. Again the fact it’s a little sporty means it maybe expands the range to an American audience that rides a multitude of different bikes. It still has microfiber in it’s upper it’s going to do a lot of things really well and again get a quick peek at it this is the original Rome only some minor style changes since 2014. If we look at it and you bring it back in what I’m going to show you is the profile of the foot and the profile of the foot is really going to be more of an American footbed. Again staying in line with what Alpine stars typically do. Size-wise you don’t have to worry about it they’re going to fit an American last again they’ve been doing it for a long time. Remember we talked about the elasticated bellows for comfort, notice dual recess shift panel on the inside to interface on both sides with the controls On your bike. We already talked about some of the accent stitching they add it to the boot. Two buckles design up on the left or velcro and now you have a big TPR pull and notice when I open this up you’re going to see ‘s my gator that’s w my waterproofing stops so the waterproofing is going to come up about two-thirds of the way again step in those puddles ride all day you should be pretty good to go as long as you have a good interface with your pants. Again you rotate to the back you can see more accent stitching a nice big heel counter and again those elasticated bellows that go all the way up. They also redesigned the reflectivity a little bit giving you the Alpinestars logo, again tying everything together. You do have ankle support, you do have a heel cockpit which is beefy. I would love to see them beefier up but again under $200 you really have to make some trade-offs at some point. For me it’s been debated on the insert inside of the office I think the toe got a little bit more low-profile, other folks think that it’s a little bit more of the same but again it’s Alpinestars taking steps forward to try to improve their product again going from the Roam boot to the Roam 2. It has the same soles last year, it’s the same sole we’ve seen it’s a high grip anti-slip sole. Again really no reason to change it and it’s going to have that same stiffness scale of about seven and a half to eight, really for more long-distance multi-season touring riding.

Check Out Todays Best Deals

Alpinestars Web GTX

iFrame is not supported!

The Alpinestars Web GTX boot is your entry-level gore-tex boot European styling but really around the $250 dollar price point, you’re now getting into gore-tex. If you’re not familiar gore-tex it is guaranteed waterproof, but that’s only half the story.

The real magic with gore-tex is its breathability so if you’re riding this in the warmer months your feet are sweating all that moisture on the inside is whipped out and that is what you’re getting when you get that bump into gore-tex.

You’re still getting full European style with this, CE protection from the boot and this boot is are available in a size up to a size 50 so you have a larger range of sizes from a European-style boot.

The last two boots that we have in the table, this is getting you up in the world of premium offerings. First, we had the Dainese TRQ Tour gore-tex boots.

.

Read More ▼

This is the new web GTX CE rated touring commuting gore-tex around that $300 mark. We saw them refine the web GTX over last year’s model, the key WITH theme is protection and comfort so again you’re going to see a more refined style from the previous version. A little bit more contemporary when you compare the old version to the new but the three big call-outs areas as such. First, on the previous version of the Web GTX, you can see the profile the toe box is a little bit high, folks we’re having a tougher time depending on your bike getting it under your controls. They’ve streamlined it on this Web GTX new version, what they’ve also done is they’ve given you flex now on the backside of the boot. What you’re going to see are elasticated bellows that go all the way up compared to the previous version and they even give you a wider cutaway at the top if you have a beefier calf, again all about ergonomics. The last thing from comfort is the ease of entry and exit. If we look at the inside of the boot they’re both medial entry and exit points, remember, it’s a gore-tex booth waterproof breathable. Guaranteed for life with full gore-tex lining which is the top of the food chain. On the new version, you’re going to see how it’s a full stretch panel that goes all the way down with this zip, so depending on the width of your foot or your soccer your ankle it is easier to get on and off. It is still a YKK zip and they’ve also given you a three notch cutaway versus a single notch cutaway and that’s going to ease and flex when you’re walking around on the boot. The price went up a little bit but for the new version it is more functional it is easier on yet they made some changes that look a little different now. The style factor may or may not be your cup of tea, I like they went a little bit more contemporary with it, but again, in the food chain, you’re looking at a big step up over something like the Newland but again that mono fuse is going to be that more aggressive step up. We get back into the boot itself let’s talk about sizing. American cut from Alpinestars no surprises, it is plenty wide enough for the American footbed. You will notice it has a little bit more of a shine to it, this year when it was matt on the previous version. Classic but contemporary, stitching on the lateral side just from a style standpoint. They changed the TPU dual recess. again the same coverage. It doesn’t have the A-star logo a little bit more muted, a little bit more mature. Moving back on the side you’re going to see exposed angle protection. TPU in the ankle on the medial and lateral side, nice reinforcement at the toe box and then the heels is still very stiff and strong with a nice big heel counter that comes up from this vulcanized rubber sole. The sole on the web GTX has not changed, they didn’t screw with it, it worked last time and they’re sticking to their guns. Notice if we go on the flex scale it is about a seven, seven and a half out of ten. I look at it as a great touring and commuter boot because I think it’s beefy enough to support you on your bike but you really don’t want to walk around in it all day it’s not going to be that whole put it under jeans and wear it at work all day kind of boot. The sole is an anti-slip sole from Alpinestars. Vulcanized rubber reinforced and again no heel count or toe counter on this boot. Maybe they beefed it up on the next version of the web. We talked about the gore-tex side of things, gore-tex, waterproof, breathable and guaranteed for life. They invented the waterproof membrane, what that means is that mother nature can’t get any water in you’re not going to get wet and if you sweat a lot. All that sweat evaporates out from the full-grain leather exterior out through the boot and it’s going to give you the best chance to stay comfortable versus getting clammy or getting overly sweaty. Notice that Gator comes all the way up and it is a microfiber mesh toward the top, again to wick sweat away along your calf. They even give you a seal that comes around just kind of creating a full closure at the top of the boot. Remember the Newland is the baby brother to this boot, the mono fuse is the more tech-inspired aggressive step up, again slight increase in price is the new web GTX gore-tex from Alpinestars. A staple of their collection just under that $300 mark.

Check Out Todays Best Deals

Dainese TRQ Tour Gore-tex Boots

iFrame is not supported!

These are probably my personal favorite, this is your euro tech offering on the table. What you have is all the DNA of a sport boot but with the creature comforts, you’d expect from a touring boot.

Full gore-tex lining, rear entry easy and easy out adjustability of the calves to create a better fit better comfort but you’re getting all the DNA of Dainese sport boot. You’re getting lateral protection down the side with a hinge system.

You’ve got full bracing, TPU reinforcements at the heel and then a reinforced toe box. Again it’s that combination of touring as well as sport for around the $330 dollar price point. That’s going to set the Dainese TRQ’s apart and this is probably my favorite personal pick on the table.

.

Read More ▼

New in the Dainese collection is the Dainese TRQ Tour Gore-tex boot. Gore-tex, what does that mean? Gore-tex is lifetime guaranteed waterproof and breathable and gore-tex is the most breathable of any of the waterproof-breathable fabrics. Dainese has D-dry, some of the other manufacturers have their proprietary waterproof breathable material, Gore-tex invented it 50 years ago and gore-tex has perfected it. They set the standards something like nine billion pores per square inch, what does that mean? No amount of water or precipitation or snow or rain can get in from the outside when your foot sweats in longer distance riding scenarios your foot can breathe. That perspiration will evaporate out through those tiny pores, they are one-way pores and that water vapor will escape without any water molecules being able to come in. You’ll notice before I jump into some of the other features that the perforation schemes along the cowhide leather are not going to flow air directly to your foot It vents directly to that built-in gore-tex liner to allow for water vapor to escape. But just because they have this light perforation it’s going to lie your foot to breathe better but it’s not going to add the ability for any outside water to get. Let’s look at the outer construction. As I mentioned this touring boot has full-grain cowhide, you’re going to get Dainese D-stone material which is an extremely abrasion-resistant ballistic woven nylon fabric that has stretch built into it. They make a D-stone jacket, UCD stones showing up in some of their high-end garments, gloves, boots again it’s in an area for comfort but it’s just as strong as any of the abrasion-resistant to the leather. The other thing you’re going to notice the inside and outside of this boot have thermoplastic. This is called the D-axial system, the D-axial system is a race level feature that you see on all of the race boots. Whether it’s an inside or outside boot it’s on the TRQ Tour and what it does is it creates this hinge, it protects your ankle they’re sliders on the outside of the boot but having this hinge that goes all the way up the shin it creates an anti-torsion zone. What that does is keeps your foot from twisting. It’s going to keep you from having that radial or spiral break if you get into a crash situation and your ankle basically to twist without your leg twisting. It’s going to give you extra protection. It and makes sense to talk about shin protection. You have a shin hard part that wraps all the way around. It’s thermoplastic, it is reinforced, it is soft behind it and it’s reflective. One of the most common injuries in a crash situation is your foot slipping off the footpeg and your footpeg smashing into your tibia and breaking your shin. This is going to give you that extra level protection from the high boot. As you move down the front you have an elasticated panel for comfort we also talked about this perforation which doesn’t flow air but it allows the gore-tex membrane to breathe. The top of the shift pad is nylon and it wraps all the way around. It’s stylized, it’s texturized, again, it just ties in really nicely with the detail level it Dainese puts and everything. This is a lot of boot for the price tag, I would venture to say this boot is probably best suited for long-distance, multi-season touring scenarios but with the amount of external protection you could probably stretch this boot onto a track day even though it doesn’t have some of the sliders on the toe As you move to the inside you’re going to see you know the D-axial system comes down,. you have more thermoplastic that wraps around. It creates this great ankle cup, heel cup that wraps around the back to the eventual heel counter which is in a double reinforced hard part to guard against crushing from the back. I want to talk about this thermoplastic element that’s on the back of the boot. If you looked at it you would notice it has a different texture to it. It’s a non-scratch grip area to allow you to grip the inside of your bike, it’s really a control feature that’s built-in. As we move to the back we talked about the Dainese logo on the heel counter. You will notice it’s the main connection zipper, it goes all the way down the back with a stretch D-stone gusset. Behind this gusset this is gore-tex as well, we all know that zippers create weak points for waterproofing. You will notice you have this big Gator behind it that lives behind the weak point zipper. The other thing I want to talk about is the adjustability factor. A lot of guys have different size calves, I have thin calves, some guys have these huge ham hock legs that go all the way down. They’re always worried about getting into their gray suit or getting in and out of boots. Once you set the settings on these boots the zipper allows you to get it in and out quickly, but what I want to show you is its adjustability built-in on both sides. So if you’re a guy that has really big calves you’re going to set it on both sides and give yourself that extra room. That’s going to create a larger diameter for entry to the boot at the midpoint of your calf. To get in and out you’re still using that to make the boot loose and get right out of it but what you’re going to do is if you’re a guy like me let’s thinner cast I can come in and I can really tighten this guy up all the way around the back of my calf and shorten the diameter. Its adjustability factor is a key factor and the whole thing you have to remember when a boot is designed for long-distance touring it really needs to be comfortable. The inside of this boot is a mixture of a fleece lining as well as the jersey lining which creates air pockets, it keeps you cool, it wicks moisture away, it traps a barrier of air to keep you cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter. This truly is a four-season boot. At the bottom, you’re going to notice a skywalk sole. It’s a non-slip anti-oil sole that has a high degree of grip, it’s very security it’s also very comfortable and it does a great deal of shock absorption. The skywalk is a third party sole manufacturer that’s all they do, it’s the Rolls-Royce of souls within the motorcycle or boot world and Dainese has partnered with them for some of their boots. The skywalk is the best option for comfort and durability in the longer term. As we look at the outside boot again the D-axial system comes down with the slider with another hard part slider on the outside of the ankle. So all in for around the $299 priced point, you have a gore-tex touring boot with a lot of extra functionality and a lot of protection, it has the beauty and the style and the RNDthat goes into all Dainese products. I’m a fan of this guy and I think it’s going to stay on toe-to-toe with a lot of things that we recommend at Motorcycle Gear 101 that are going to be geared towards your high-end sport or sport touring crowd.

Check Out Todays Best Deals

Daytona Road Star GTX

iFrame is not supported!

Last but not least we have the Daytona Road star GTX. This is your super euro premium offering around the $450 price point, this is maximum comfort with maximum protection. Dual entry along the side dual cuff for extra comfort, you’ve got adjustability at the back of the calf, full leather construction with full gore-tex.

You’ve got a lug sole with this, it is very comfortable to walk around in all day but it’s still going to be rigid enough to give you maximum feedback when you’re on the bike.

The final note with these is they are available in the wider width, much like the Tour Masters. If you have a wider footbed you can consider the wider options from Daytona in the premium world if the rest of the offerings are just too narrow for you.

if you’re looking at the Daytona and you’re thinking I like this I just don’t want the full height option, they have introduced the Aero sports GTX which is all the same DNA just in a shorter boot.

.

Read More ▼

You’ve waited for it and we have it these are the Daytona Road star GTX. Top of the food chain apex predator from a gore-tex multi-season touring boot fashion. Handmade in Bavaria, family-owned company and all they do is make boots. This is a multi-season boot that’s a four-season boot that has the gore-tex waterproof breathable liner baked in nonremovable so you’re getting the best breathability along with the best waterproofing from Mother Nature and you’re getting a premium level of protection. I’m going to walk through all the features and break this down from the inside out in a bit but keep in mind this is a boot using full-grain leather, gore-tex, aramid or kevlar reinforcements and it even has kangaroo leather in the elasticated panels. Again, phenomenal top of the food chain close to that $500. mark I’ll tell you what this boot won’t do so full season really designed as a road touring boots. But when you think about it, there’s a lot of protection baked in but you don’t see some of the overarching external hard parts that you’d get from a true off-road boot. So guys do some light dual sporting but if you’re really going to start pushing it off-road I think that t’s more off-road oriented boots or what I would consider adventure-oriented boots that have more external protection for you so keep that in mind. Let’s talk briefly about fit and then I’ll dive into some of the nuances. I find the fit of Daytona in the smaller size to run a little bit large and they start to even up as you go through the mix. don’t assume that you’re a 43 in your size boots and you’re going to be a 43 in Daytona’s. I actually am about a nine and a half shoe, I tend to wear a 43 and something like an Alpinestars or a CD in Daytona I was a 42 and 42 homes right in our 9 and 1/2 so use that size chart. I will tell you they’re extremely comfortable, they also come in wide sizes so yes this is that one of the few boots that come in that I believe Triple E or double E wide size for you guys that have a wider footbed. Very comfortable, very anatomical, they also make that M-star version which has the raised heel It’s going to be a normal footbed from a sizing standpoint on Daytona and remember you should be fine just use the size chart. Thinking through it I will tell you that my riding experience in these, I liked how they feel from a control and feedback standpoint. I find them not to be the stiffest boots I’ve worn I give them about a seven and a half on the stiffness scale but I find them to be very comfortable in the footbed and as you walk. Remember there is a ladies version girls called the lady star GTX, very similar feature set. The outer shell is going to be hydrophobic full-grain cowhide, remember cowhide goes with gore-tex because it breathes better hydrophobic means it’s anti-water so water will repel right off of the treatment that’s that DWR on the outer shell. It will need to be replaced over time but remember the waterproof breathability is the gore-tex liner that is baked in. Some of the other features include dual reinforced shift panel, no surprises there. A low-profile toe with a lot of TPU, that’s built-in there to give you great crush support in the toe. Moving on our way back you’re going to see an additional layer of textile for abrasion resistance in the heel and the ankle cockpit. Moving up TPU baked in on the inside, you don’t see it from the outside because it is a classically styled boot. On the lateral side on the outside, a medial side, on the inside and it has a huge shin panel. TPU baked in very comfortable behind it has nice padding but again to protect your shin and against impact from a footpeg. I did mention it earlier. Kangaroo leather, supple kangaroo level leather for stretch in the instep. It is also on the backside as well with that nice reflective paneling and look at the way the back heel comes up still low-profile heel but a nice big counter there as well. If we look at it ther’s a different zipper configuration that you’re used to seeing in Daytona and that ties in with kind of the fitment scheme. Now if you look at it on the front the reason that this is curved is that a curved zipper has a tendency to stop in a crash situation, it’s not going to go down all the way it gives you a better chance for it staying up. Again the MSTAR for men is going to have a fully covered zipper but it is a big coiled YKK zipper that goes all the way up. On the inside you’re going to see a short zipper, again you’d use both zippers at the same time to get in and out but I find that you could probably get away with just using one but my commentary on this is that this zipper is really the second zipper when you’re putting them on you use. Do the tougher zipper first and use this straight shot zipper straight up from the backside or from the inside rather on the medial side to get in and out. The nice part that you can’t see as we finish off the outer shell of this bad boy is thers going to be Kevlar and aramid reinforced panels in the toe as well as the low and lateral side of the heel and around towards the inside. Heat transfer an additional abrasion resistance you can take a bad spill at 90 miles an hour skid on the side of these bad boys and you’re not going to get that heat transferred to your foot you’re going to do the additional abrasion resistance of the Kevlar which adds to the slide ability of this boot. Again, that’s the thought process in a handmade boot from Bavaria, from a boot company that just makes boots again I think they made 80 thousand powers of boots last year for the entire world and that’s it. Top of the food chain Rolls Royce touring boots. Moving into the guts let’s talk about why you’d use these two zippers but let’s go in one step further. Let’s fold this inside down you can see the padded backside of your shift panel now I have an inner bootie design now it’s not a removable inner bootie but it afords you some flexibility. The first thing you’re going to notice is that it’s suede across the top, it’s extremely comfortable whether you’re wearing a high sock or a short sock if this touches your skin is beautiful and your gore-tex liner with the gator that goes all the way up and has a nice stretch to it here’s your waterproofing. It’s completely double-walled from the outside. The cool part about this is think about your textile touring pants that might have an internal Gator or a waterproof liner. You could put that inside and put the outer boot over it then put your main pant leg down along the outside essentially creating four walls of protection from water getting in in really nasty weather climates. What they do this a lot in Europe is you could wear a leather touring Road pant inside the boot and then you could put the outer shell of the boot up outside of it, again creating that double gator design. The other cool part is that you have the elasticated bellows. We haven’t seen many manufacturers do this, but what you have in the back are these wings along the Achilles tendon. What it allows you to do when you put the leather of your pant inside the boot, whether you have a really beefy muscular calf or whether you’re putting a gator of your textile pant you have the ability to do it through the velcro and adjust how many circumferences you have for your leg. You can really adjust the way this is set up so that not only is it comfortable but you have plenty of room to get either your pant or a bigger more muscular calf inside the boot which is a really nice touch. If I look inside you’re going to notice thers wicking gore-tex liner, again soft at the top, soft throughout and that’s going to have a very basic shock absorbing footbed. I haven’t really hit on steel reinforced sole, I talked about it was a seven and a half on the stiff scale so it really doesn’t take much to break in it’s not an overly stiff boot but provides you with great feedback and it’s low profile enough. Reinforced composite sole with that steel shank and there’s a latex shock absorbing layer that goes all the way around the entire footbed and has two purposes, The first is it’s going to create vibration dampening so it’s a shock-absorbing when you’re walking on the boot and you’re sitting on the pegs. The other thing is that late that latex layer on the bottom allows for an additional layer of waterproofing between the sole the insole and the gore-tex liner so that’s going to get again give you another additional layer of protection from the outside elements. Remember you’re buying a boot like this that overtime is going to hold up, it’s an heirloom product it’s really widely regarded as a multi-season product that should last you season after season after season one cared for properly. To finishing things off you’re going to see on the bottom, it is a touring non-slip style oil-resistant stole from Daytona. Low-profile design but it has a great grip on it. Notice thers a little bit of an instep cut away to interface with your footpegs as well. I talked about the inner liner which you could always add your upgraded shock absorbing DR. Scholl’s to it if you really want to go that way, it’s very basic but again it’s very much reinforced. There’s a TPU liner for shock absorbing and with steel reinforcement, if you look hard on the inside of the boot. From a care and maintenance standpoint remember you never want to dry a wet boot from a direct heat source and I talked about the DWR on the outside like a nick wax that you could apply at a later date. If it starts to wear off but the gore-tex will always be waterproof. Again don’t use an oil, you’re never going to want to oil these because oil can clog the gore-tex membrane. Your best bet is that if it’s wet on the inside stuff it with newspaper, let it dry at room temperature and if it’s caked with mud on the outside give it a quick rinse and let it air dry. That’s the best way to care for a super premium high-end boots such as this using full grain leather from Daytona. And that my friends is going to conclude our touring and commuter boots gear guide. But remember, this is only the start of your journey.

Check Out Todays Best Deals

The post Best Motorcycle Touring Boots – Guaranteed appeared first on Motorcycle Gear 101.

[brightly-painted-canvas]

Francesco Gabbani - Italia 21 (translation and explanation)

So, this song was deleted from YT last week and I was very upset, since it’s one of those older songs from Francesco that made me instantly like him. I knew that it needed both a translation and a ‘paraphrase’ (like you would with a Latin version in high school LOL) to fully understand it and that took me SO LONG. It was very hard and I believe it’s still not complete yet: there’s something I still don’t get. But! The most is done and I hope you’ll like it!

This is “Italia 21″ (Italy 21).

I’m not sure if this song was already traslated, I’m just gonna post my version :D I’m not a professional translator so there might be some mistakes. I just hope to convey the message of the song to non-Italian speakers.

Uno. Pane e vino certo non ci manca Due. Neanche il sole in quest’Italia santa Tre. Una penisola col tacco a spillo Quattro. Tutti parlano, ci manca solamente il grillo One. We surely don’t lack bread and wine Two. Nor we lack the sun, in this holy Italy Three. A peninsula wearing an high heel Four. Everybody talks, last thing we need is the cricket

Notes:

- Bread, wine and sun are what Italy is known for in the entire world. So it’s religion, that’s why the ‘holy’ adjective. - Italy is said to be shaped like a boot. We also call the southern regions in Apulia “tacco” (heel). I believe the “high heel” reference is related to fashion, another thing we are known for worldwide. - We have a common saying: “Il paese è piccolo, la gente mormora” (it’s a small town, people talk) which means that basically in small communities everyone knows everything and always voices their opinions. Italy is pretty much like a big “small town” and everyone always likes to talk. We’re very good at talking and having all kind of opinions. - The “grillo” (cricket) reference is what made me instantly fall in love with this song right during the first listening. It’s pure genius. It has a double meaning: the first is related to the Jiminy Cricket (or Talking Cricket), a character from famous Italian author Carlo Collodi’s book “Pinocchio”. It basically says that since everybody likes to talk already, we really don’t need to hear from the Talking Cricket, known for being Pinocchio’s conscience and dispenser of good advices, but never listened to. The second reference I believe it’s about Beppe Grillo, infamous ex-comedian and now leader of political movement “Movimento Cinque Stelle” (the links lead to Wikipedia, if you’re curious about them). The most interesting thing is noticing how Francesco made a subtle criticism of this (known for being loud and obnoxious) politician by using a word play and a very ironic and cultured reference.

Cinque. San Gennaro, grazie che ci Sei! Sette. Senza di te che numeri giocherei? Otto. La nazione piscia controvento Nove. Ma noi siamo tutti fieri del Risorgimento Five. St. Januarius, thanks for exSIXting! Seven. Without you, which numbers would I bet? Eight. The nation pisses upwind Nine. But we are all proud of our Risorgimento Notes:

- St. Januarius is a very important saint in the Italian culture, especially in the Neapolitan area. The “number betting” thing is related to another popular tradition (mainly in Naples, I believe) consisting in praying the Saint to suggestions about which numbers to play at the Lottery. - Number six of this list is the “sei” at the end of the first line. Once again a word play: the word “six” is written and pronounced exactly like the second person singular of the “be” (essere) verb. - Another saying: “Chi piscia controvento si bagna i pantaloni” (who pisses upwind wets his own pants), which means “never take challenges too big for you”. Related to Italy I believe it may mean that we consider our nation much bigger and more influential than how it actually is and we take challenges way bigger than our real potential. Why is that? - Because we are conditioned by our long, rich history and heroical past. One example above all might have been Ancient Rome or the Reinaissance period, but Francesco wisely chose the Risorgimento: when Italy was reunited under the same flag and monarchy after a series of wars, battles and campaigns against foreign occupation. Why is that? Maybe once again to be very ironical about Italians being actually proud of being united in one country, since there are still a lot of differences and fights between North and South.

Dieci. Chi svolta il mese con il contagocce Undici. A chi la polpa e a chi le bucce Dodici. Per fortuna arriva il 1° maggio Tredici. Abbiamo tante, tante fave ma non c’è il formaggio

Ten. Those who turn the month in dribs and drabs Eleven. Some get the pulp and some the peels Twelve. Luckily, the 1st of May always arrives Thirteen. We’ve got lots and lots of beans but we haven’t got the cheese

Notes:

- “Svoltare il mese con il contagocce” (turning the month with the tear dropper) and “a chi la polpa e a chi le bucce” are there to express how the economy has a lot of flaws in Italy, especially in the relation between riches (who has got the “pulp”, the money and wellness) and poors (the ones having difficulties gaining enough to live by, month after month). - The 1st of May is International Work Day and it’s an holiday. It’s also sometimes used as a “middle point” during the working year. - Fave e pecorino (broad beans and sheep cheese) is a typical dish of Central Italy and Rome in particular. It’s a 1st of May tradition to eat them together, especially because since it’s an holiday and it’s Spring, people used to go have trips and pic-nics in the countryside, where they bought beans and cheese directly from the farmers. Francesco is using the dish as another way of saying we’ve got the side dish (vegetable or beans), the theories and good words, but we haven’t got the main course (the cheese), what matters.

Quattordici. C’è chi magna e non fa una piega Quindici. Ma alla fine cosa ce ne frega? Sedici. Tutti fermi, inizia la partita Diciassette porta sfiga. Il corno in terra, cazzo! E’ già finita

Fourteen. There’s who eats and doesn’t bat an eye Fifteen. But in the end who cares? Sixteen. Everyone stay still, the game is on Seventeen brings bad luck. The lucky horn on the floor, fuck! It’s already over

Notes:

- I am having some difficulties pin-pointing where the first sentence is from. It looks like another saying (”magna” is generally the dialect version of “mangia” and it’s mostly associated with Roman dialect) but I’ve never heard anything similar (it might be because I am from Northern Italy, tho). Anyway “non fare una piega” litterally translates to “don’t make a wrinkle” and it’s used both to say that something makes complete sense or that someone has absolute no reaction to something. So basically who eats (presumably those rich people from the previous verse?) doesn’t care about anything/anyone else and/or no one questions it. - “Cosa ce ne frega” is, imho, the best way to describe the Italian attitude toward problems. It basically means “what do WE care?” with a very personal connotation. How do you solve unsolvable (or very hard) problems? Whatever, who cares anyway... not our business. - Italians love football and that’s common knowledge. To quote Winston Churchill: “Italians lose wars as if they were football matches, and football matches as if they were wars.” So true, Winston. - We are also very supertitious. The cornetto is one of the many objects believed to be lucky charms. I have no idea why you have to put it on the ground, tho? (Neapolitans, explain please!). The number 17 is also believed to be very unlucky (that’s why you need a corno to nullify its powers. But while you complete the rituals, you get distracted and the match ends!)

Diciotto. Viva l’Italia col microfono in mano Diciannove. Canto anch’io che sono un italiano Venti. Un bel bicchiere di rosso e due pennette Ventuno. Due cazzeggi all’osteria e un Tressette (Osteria numero sette! *paraponzi ponzi pò* Il salame piace a fette dammela a me, biondina dammela a me, biondà!)

Eighteen. Long live Italy with a microphone in the hand Nineteen. I sing I’m an Italian as well Twenty. One fine glass of red (wine) and some penne Twentyone. Some messing around at the pub and a round of Tressette (Pub number seven! *paraponzi ponzi pò* Salami is good cut in slices give it to me, pretty blonde girl give it to me, blondie!)

Notes:

- Pretty sure the “Italia con il microfono in mano” is a reference to Sanremo, the most famous singing competition in Italy. It may also mean in general everything that has to do with Italian music, tho. Something along the line of “long live Italian music!”, even though his relationship with the industry at the time wasn’t the best and he had struggles surfacing as an artist. Would he ever imagine, at the time, that he would win Sanremo two years in a row? Bless you, Francesco. - A quote from the famous “L’italiano” song by Toto Cutugno. Just like “Italia 21″ that song too was an attempt to describe Italy and the Italians from within. Another fun fact: Toto is the last Italian singer who won the Eurovision Song Contest. Is this a lot of foreshadowing or not? (Maybe too much!) - A glass of wine and pasta. What’s better? Here’s a quick and easy prescription to happiness, by every Italian ever. - “Cazzeggio” is litterally “a thing done with one’s dick” and means messing around, having fun with friends by basically doing nothing. Tressette is a popular card game in Italy. - What follows is something we call stornello, a type of folk song which basically has a standard melody and ever changing lyrics. They are usually very funny, irreverent and sexual. “La canzone delle osterie” is famous everywhere and Francesco used it to end the song in the most carefree way. - He rhymed “sette” with “fette” but I really don’t know how to explain if “salami is good cut in slices” is a sexual reference. Salami can definitely be associated with something sexual (c’mon...) but I have no clue about the rest. I’m an innocent soul XD - “Give it to me” is DEFINITELY sexual. Especially referred to a pretty blonde girl XD That too is usually part of the standard stornello lyrics ;)

Wow, this took SO LONG. I hope it helped understand this song in depth, even though something is still obscure even to me, after translating and spending a lot of time looking things up on the internet. Have fun find other interpretations, maybe? ;)

[one-of-us-blog]

The Fires of Pompeii (Doctor Who S04E02)

Today Jon is forced to watch and recap “The Fires of Pompeii”, the second episode of Doctor Who’s fourth series. Donna’s officially a companion now, but how will she feel about her latest romp through time and space? Will she be able to stand the heat, or will she get out of the kitchen?

Keep reading to find out…

Eli, no worries about being a little late! I’ve been there, believe me! And I loved your recap! Count Bessie made a huge impression on me, and I loved seeing Angela again, too! I’m glad you liked this one, and I’m already looking forward to your next recap!

For now, though, onward to Who!

Episode directed by Colin Teague and written by James Moran

We start things off in Ancient Rome, circa 79 CE. So I guess it’s not technically Ancient yet? Anyway, Rome! Donna’s psyched, and is quickly so overcome with emotion that she gives the Doctor a hug. But, wait a second, she sees a sign that’s clearly written in English! What the what! Is the Doc pulling her leg? No, of course not. He gives her a brief summary of the whole “the TARDIS translates stuff for us” plot device, but Donna’s too curious to just accept that. What happens if she actually speaks Latin to one of these jabronies? She gives it a shot, but the shopkeep only hears Celtic. Donna’s observed by a white-faced woman in a bright red robe who follows her and the Doc as they make their way through the streets of Rome. Only, just kidding, this isn’t Rome. Rome’s got seven hills, but Donna notes that this place just has one big hill. The ground suddenly begins to shake, and the mountain in the distance begins to emit smoke. That’s no mountain, it’s Mount Vesuvius! And this isn’t Rome, it’s Pompeii!

Aw, shiiit!

Onto the opening credits!

The red-robed woman runs to a temple and asks to speak with the High Priestess of the Sibylline. She’s not allowed to see the High Priestess, but she tells her fellow red-robed women that it’s come: as foretold by prophecy, the Blue Box has arrived. Actually, according to modern color theory, at least, she probably shouldn’t even know that blue is a thing, since cultures develop words for that color last (which is why Homer says the sky is bronze-colored in the Illiad). Anyway, speaking of the big, bronze box, the Doctor is ready to get right the hell out of Pompeii. Unfortunately, by the time he and Donna get back to where they parked the TARDIS, it’s gone. Whaaat? The shopkeep Donna got all Celtic with earlier explains he sold the box to a guy named Caecilius earlier. If the Doc wants it back, he’ll have to speak with that guy.

The Doc decides to do just that! Turns out Caecilius (Peter Capaldi, which is a name you should remember for later) thinks the TARDIS is modern art. I mean, why not, right? Old timey people were dumb, they’d probably love staring at a box which is covered in a color they don’t have a proper name for yet. Caecilius is eager to make a big impression on some high society folks that are stopping by later, but his wife, Metella, thinks the TARDIS is an eyesore. Their daughter, Evelina, is preparing to be elevated, and their son, Quintus, is basically a piece of shit. He makes some off-colored remarks and anger the gods, causing the house to be rocked with tremors. He apologizes to the household gods while Evelina gets down with some consumption. She inhales smoke from a vent inside the household, and says sometimes she sees a face of stone within the smoke. Evelina is destined to become a seer, but she doesn’t understand the things she’s seeing.

Meanwhile, the Doctor’s figured out where Caecilius lives, but Donna’s got other plans. She’s ready to start evacuating the people of Pompeii before Vesuvius erupts. The Doc says they’ve got time to save everyone, but they’re not going to. Pompeii is a fixed point in history, meaning what happens here is meant to happen and no one can go meddling with it. Donna calls bullshit on this, and says she’s going to warn people whether the Doc likes it or not. The pair is still being observed by one of the Sibylline Sisterhood, and she reports back to the temple. Another Sister finds the prophecy regarding the blue box in their records, but those prophecies say the box will show up right before a time of death and destruction. The High Priestess says the prophecy is wrong, which goes against everything the Sisterhood stands for, and that Pompeii is on the verge of an age of prosperity and might. If the Doc or Donna try to go against this, they’ll just have to die. Another convenient tremor arrives, and the Sisters take this as a sign that the gods approve of the High Priestess’ message.

Donna and the Doctor arrive at Caecilius’ joint and introduce themselves as Spartacus and Spartacus, some relation. Turns out Caecilius deals in marble, which gives the Doc an excuse to pose as a marble inspector. The Doc’s ready to take the TARDIS and run, but Donna wants to warn Caecilius and his family to get out of Pompeii. She tries, but, turns out, they don’t know what a volcano is just yet. The Doc drags Donna away and tells her to zip it, but she’s not having that. He might be able to boss around teenagers and medical students, but ain’t nobody telling grown ass Donna Noble to shut up. She points out that Quintus is, in addition to being utterly useless, only a teenager himself. Is the Doctor going to leave him to burn to death? Yeah, says the Doc, he is. The town’s augur, Lucius Petrus Dextrus, arrives to interrupt this.

Caecilius and Metella fawn over Lucius, who begins spouting nonsense that these people interpret as wise. The Doc gives him a run for his money by spouting some more old timey philosophy and is ready to drag Donna back to the TARDIS when Caecilius unveils the marble statue he made for Lucius. That gets the Doc’s attention, as it looks like part of a circuit. Lucius says he dreamt up the design and the Doc explains to Donna that Lucius is paid by the city of Pompeii to tell the future. Evelina arrives and knows the Doctor’s talking shit. She’s also looking super not well. Lucius thinks Evelina and the Sibylline Sisterhood, which she’s been pledged to join, are full of it, as only men have the capacity for true prophecy. Have you figured out that this guy is the episode’s asshole yet? Because he totally is.

Anyway, Evelina appears to have a true gift. She knows the Doctor is really called the Doctor and that Donna’s last name is Noble. Not to be out stunted, Lucius identifies the Doc as a man of Gallifrey. He knows Gallifrey was destroyed, and he knows Donna’s from London. Donna’s nice and freaked out at this point, but Lucius isn’t done yet. He tells the Doctor that ‘she’ is returning, and he tells Donna that she has something on her back. Evelina wants her turn, and points out that Doctor isn’t the Doctor’s real name and identifies him as a Lord of Time. Evelina finally passes out as the Vesuvius continues to rumble.

Metella tends to Evelina, and Donna notices that a patch of skin on her arm has begun to turn to stone. We learn that the vent in the house is part of the city’s heating system, which was devised by the soothsayers after a big earthquake 17 years ago. There’s a noise coming from the vent, and Caecilius says it happens all the time. He also lets the Doc know that after the big earthquake, all the soothsayers in town started actually saying sooth. Their prophecies are precise and always come true, and they all get their abilities by inhaling vapors coming from the vents. Also worth noting, none of them have said anything about tomorrow, when the volcano will erupt. The Doc inspects the vent and realizes that the soothsayers are all inhaling bits of rock from Vesuvius while they’re consuming.

The Doc bribes Quintus, who’s still contributing absolutely nothing to the household, into showing him where Lucius lives. Inside the soothsayer’s pad, they find dozens of marble circuits that have been made by marblesmiths all over town. Trouble is, it’s hard to sneak up on a soothsayer. Lucius arrives and informs the Doc that he’s building the future. Back at the Caecilius family abode, Donna’s trying on some local fashion and bonding with Evelina. Turns out Evelina doesn’t really get to have a lot of fun; she was chosen by the Sisterhood without her input being asked for, and her entire life revolves around it. Donna asks if she can see anything happening tomorrow, but she can’t. Donna’s ready to finally spill the tea about Vesuvius, but Evelina rats her out and links up with the other Sisters so they overhear Donna telling her that the mountain is going to explode tomorrow. Donna pleads with her to leave Pompeii with her family, but Evelina rejects this as false prophecy. The High Priestess informs the Sisterhood that the false prophet must die.

Meanwhile, the Doc rearranges Lucius’ slabs until the circuits come together to form a super analog energy converter. The Doctor tries to get Lucius to tell him who gave him the instructions to build the converter, but Lucius declares this is sacrilege and sends his guards after the Doctor and Quintus. Before he can be killed he rips off Lucius’ arm, which has been turned completely to stone. That causes enough of a distraction for the Doc and Quintus to get away, but Lucius summons the Lord of the Mountain to stop them. The Lord of the Mountain listens, erupting out of the vent in Caecilius’ house just as the Doc and Quintus make it back. Evelina and the crew think they’re being visited by a god, until the Lord of the Mountain straight up roasts a dude right in front of them. Donna runs to get water as the Doctor tries to start up a dialogue. Donna gets snatched by the Sisterhood before she can return with the water, but Evelina sees the abduction take place.

The Doc’s about to get fried, but then Quintus, as uselessly as possible, throws some water on the big fiery dude and causes it to break apart. Donna, meanwhile, is about to get sacrificed by the Sisterhood. She’s not going quietly, naturally, and she talks long enough for the Doc to arrive. He’s able to use the sonic screwdriver to unbind the sacrificial Donna, and then schools the Sisterhood about spreading the message of Sybil, who’s the prophet they’re named after and an old sort of flame of the Doc’s. The Sisterhood’s ready to kill the Doc, but the High Priestess calls to see him and Donna. The Doc’s allowed to see the High Priestess, and we learn that she’s almost completely turned to stone. Everyone in the Sisterhood has patches of skin that have turned to stone, just like Evelina and Lucius. The Doctor demands a conversation with the being that’s living inside the High Priestess. After a good old shouting match the entity reveals the name of its species: they are the Pyrovile. The Pyrovile are creatures of stone that crashed onto Earth and were reduced to dust thousands of years ago. The earthquake 17 years ago woke them up, and now they’re using human bodies to reconstitute themselves. The Doc tries to figure out how the Pyrovile were able to give the human hosts the gift of prophecy, but the Sisterhood chase him and Donna into the temple’s vent before he can get an answer.

The High Priestess declares that the prophecy must advance, and Lucius agrees. He calls for the Cult of Vulcan to be gathered at Vesuvius. Back at Caecilius’ house, Evelina sees that someone’s going to have to make a really tough choice today. In the heart of Vesuvius, Donna’s still trying to figure out the difference between events that are in flux, like the Doctor saving her back in “The Runaway Bride”, and events that are fixed, like Pompeii. The Doctor explains that as a Time Lord he can see what is, what was, what could be and what must not. Whatever that means. Donna’s still refusing to accept all this and demands to know if the Doctor can see all 20,000 citizens of Pompeii dying. Lucius brings the circuits to Vesuvius, where an adult Pyrovile collects them.

Donna and the Doctor reach the heart of Vesuvius, and see that the volcano is full of Pyrovile. The Doc spots the original Pyrovile craft which brought them to Earth. The two are discovered by Lucius and the Pyrovile begin to give chase. The Doc asks what the Pyrovile are planning, and Lucius says they’re going to build an empire so grand it will topple even Rome. Donna asks why the Pyrovile don’t just go home since they have the tech to now, but Lucius says Pyrovillia is gone. Wait a second, that’s two episodes in a row that involved a missing planet! First the Adiposian breeding planet, now Pyrovillia! Can’t anyone keep track of their things anymore? Anyway, there’s enough heat within Earth to keep the new race of Pyrovile going, which means they plan to take over the whole planet.

The Doctor and Donna run inside the old Pyrovile craft, and the Doctor has a horrible revelation. Vesuvius isn’t going to erupt, which is why the soothsayers couldn’t see it happening. The Pyrovile are using all of the mountain’s power to fuel their machines, which will allow them to take over the world. The only way to stop them is to invert the systems and cause Vesuvius to erupt. That’s the choice Evelina saw: the Doctor must decide to spare Pompeii or save the world. And, since the Doctor and Donna are inside the volcano, they’ll die if it erupts. Donna understands this, but she doesn’t care about that right now. The Doctor is ready to invert the system, but he’s paralyzed by the thought of being responsible for the deaths of 20,000 people. Donna puts her hands on his and together they press the lever, triggering the eruption of Vesuvius.

The craft, with Donna and the Doctor inside, is thrown clear of the mountain and the two make their way back to town as the people of Pompeii begin to panic. The Sibylline Sisterhood calls out the High Priestess for lying to them as they accept their fate. Donna begins frantically warning people not to go to the beach, where they’re sure to die, but everyone’s in such a panic that no one listens to her. The Doc takes her back to the TARDIS, where they find Caecilius cowering with his family. Caecilius begs the Doctor to save them, but he runs to the TARDIS instead. Donna’s hot on his heels, though, and begs him to save someone. She understands he can’t save everyone, but he has to save someone.

The TARDIS reappears in Caecilius’ family home in time to save the whole fam from dying with the rest of the town. On a hill overlooking Pompeii the family watches lava spread over everything they’ve ever known while the Doc assures them that Pompeii will never be forgotten. Evelina’s visions have gone, and the Doc explains that the explosion of Vesuvius cracked open a rift in time, which is what gave the soothsayers their temporary prophetic abilities. Caecilius, meanwhile, assumes this is all the work of the great god Vulcan, who must be, just, super pissed right now. Everything is so… volcanic. Like some sort of… volcano. The family breaks down as they process all the death happening below them, and Donna and the Doctor take their leave. Donna thanks the Doc for saving them, and he tells her she was right. Sometimes he does need someone with him. They set off on another adventure, while we get a shot of the Caecilius brood in Rome six months later. Caecilius is about to make a big deal involving Alexandria, Evelina has a boyfriend and killer new wardrobe and Quintus, while still being useless, has gone on to become a student of the physical sciences. Meaning, in time, he’ll be a doctor. He gives thanks to the family gods, which now resemble Donna and the Doctor.

The End

~~~~~

Man, what an emotional episode! I’m honestly not sure if Rose or even Martha could handle the emotional strain that Donna had to carry throughout this episode, and I think Catherine Tate is already killing it as a companion. I liked the twist in the end and that Donna and the Doctor were actually the ones responsible for the eruption, and it was fun to see Peter Capaldi in action so early in Who.

I give “Partners in Crime” QQQQ on the Five Q Scale.

Be sure to stop by again on Friday when Eli will be shaking things up in the next episode of The Golden Girls, “Whose Face Is This, Anyway?”, and then I’ll be back on Saturday to keep trucking through series four of Doctor Who with the next episode: “Planet of the Ood”.

Until then, thanks for reading, thanks for erupting and thanks for being One of Us!

[morganh1066-blog]

why the historicity of the jesus character is poor

did the jesus character really exist?

keep in mind that i'm not saying that this character 100% didn't exist. i'm saying that it's extremely unlikely due to the lack of credible evidence. it is fallacious to say that because something is possible that it is therefore probable. i'll answer this in multiple posts, and they will be a bit long, but give it some patience, and i'll describe it in as much depth as i can.

historically the question on the historicity isn't anything new, there have been a number of people who have doubted the credibility of the proposed data. the scholarly research into the idea that the jesus character wasn't real goes back to the 1700s with Volney and Dupuis. There's also Bauer, Remsberg, W.B. Smith, Arthur Drews, Couchoud, Bolland, Allegro, GA Wells, Richard Carrier, Robert Price, Thomas Brodie, and Doherty

the main point is that *there is absolutely no direct evidence or primary sources for the character. * it never wrote anything, no one who met the character wrote anything about it, thus all of the proposed evidence is secondary at best and hearsay.

the people i have communicated with have brought up a number of people's writing as "proof." in particular:

Mara Bar Serapion (prisoner awaiting execution), Clement of Rome, 2 Clement4, Ignatius, Josephus  (Jewish historian), Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Didache, Barnabas,  Shepherd of Hermas,  Fragments of Papias,  Tacitus (Roman historian),  Lucian  (Greek satirist), Justin Martyr,  Aristides,  Athenagoras,  Theophilus of Antioch,  Quadratus,  Aristo of Pella, Phlegon (freed slave who wrote histories), Melito of Sardis, Diognetus, Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, Epistula Apostolorum, Celsus  (Roman philosopher), Pliny the Younger (Roman politician), Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, Treatise, Suetonius, Thallus, gospels: Matt, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and the reference to tiberius

first off, the gospels themselves are not valid forms of biography.

_"Paul did not write the letters to Timothy to Titus or several others published under his name; and it is unlikely that the apostles Matthew, James, Jude, Peter and John had anything to do with the canonical books ascribed to them."_ -- Michael D. Coogan, Professor of religious studies at Stonehill College (Bible Review, June 1994)

_"The Gospel authors were Jews writing within the midrashic tradition and intended their stories to be read as interpretive narratives, not historical accounts."_ -- Bishop Shelby Spong, Liberating the Gospels

_"Other scholars have concluded that the Bible is the product of a purely human endeavor, that the identity of the authors is forever lost and that their work has been largely obliterated by centuries of translation and editing."_ -- Jeffery L. Sheler, “Who Wrote the Bible,” (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)

_"Yet today, there are few Biblical scholars– from liberal skeptics to conservative evangelicals- who believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John actually wrote the Gospels. Nowhere do the writers of the texts identify themselves by name or claim unambiguously to have known or traveled with Jesus."_ -- Jeffery L. Sheler, “The Four Gospels,” (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)

_"The bottom line is we really don’t know for sure who wrote the Gospels."_ -- Jerome Neyrey, of the Weston School of Theology, Cambridge, Mass. in “The Four Gospels,” (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)

_"So unreliable were the Gospel accounts that 'we can now know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus.' "_ -- Rudolf Bultmann, University of Marburg, the foremost Protestant scholar in the field in 1926

_"The gospels are very peculiar types of literature. They’re not biographies."_ -- Paula Fredriksen, Professor and historian of early Christianity, Boston University (in the PBS documentary, From Jesus to Christ, aired in 1998)

_"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts."_ -- Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School

the other very important fact is that there is no contemporaneous historical account of the jesus character. there are first century historians that never mention the jesus character at all:

*seneca*: 4bce-65ce *pliny the elder*: 23-79 *quintilian*: 39-96 *epictetus*: 55-135 *martial*: 38-103 *juvenal*: 55-127 *plutarch*: 46-119 *philo-judaeus*: 15bce-50ce

some of the dead sea scrolls were contemporaneous and they don't mention the character either.

next i’ll discuss the books of the new testament.

================================

here is the list of the books in the new testament:

_*writer       book*_ *matt*       matt *mark*      mark *luke*       luke                   acts *john*       john                   I john                   II john                   III john                   revelation *peter*     I peter                   II peter *james*    james *jude*       jude *paul*       romans                   philipians                   I timothy                   II timothy                   I corinthians                   II corinthians                   colossians                   titus                   I thessalonians                   II thessalonians                   philemon                   galatians                   ephesians *undetermined*    hebrews

note that paul appears to have written pretty much half of these books and according to *galatians 1:11-12* he clearly states that he didn't get this information from a man, but rather from revelation.

*matt*: not able to confirm author. _written in the 80s_. (ehrman, lost christianities: the battles for scripture and the faiths we never knew [oup2003], p235) no original manuscripts are in existence. could not have been an eyewitness as written far after the supposed death (einar thomassen, " 'forgery' in the new testament," in the invention of sacred tradition, ed. james r lewis and olav hammer [cambridge: cambridge university press, 2007], p141)

*mark*: not able to confirm author. _written 70-75._  no original manuscripts are in existence. not an eyewitness as per matt reference

*luke, acts*: not able to confirm author. _written in the 80s._ no original manuscripts are in existence.not an eyewitness as per matt reference

*john, I john, II john, III john, revelation*: not able to confirm author. however it is the only gospel that gives a clue that the actual author could have been john (john 21:20-24). _written in the 90s._ no original manuscripts are in existence. not an eyewitness as per matt reference.

*I peter, II peter*: not able to confirm author. _written about 80-90_ [Stanton, Graham. Eerdmans Commentary of the Bible. Wm.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 2003.]  considered to be "wisdom literature."  Many scholars are convinced that Peter was not the author. (Achtemeier, Paul. Peter 1 Hermeneia. Fortress Press. 1996)  authorship of 1 Peter remains contested. (Travis B. Williams (1 November 2012). Persecution in 1 Peter: Differentiating and Contextualizing Early Christian Suffering. BRILL. pp. 28–. ISBN 978-90-04-24189-3. Retrieved 1 April 2013.)

*james*: not able to confirm author, considered to be pseudonymous. considered to be written in the last 1st and first 2nd century ("Epistle of James". Early Christian Writings. Retrieved 16 May 2012.) _The earliest extant manuscripts of James usually date to the mid-to-late third century._ (McCartney, Dan G (2009). Robert W Yarbrough and Robert H Stein, ed. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: James. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.)

*jude*: _written at the end of the 1st century_. Although some scholars consider the letter a pseudonymous work written between the end of the 1st century and the first quarter of the 2nd century, arguing from the references to the apostles (jude 17&18), and tradition (jude 3). and the book's competent Greek style, conservative scholars date it between 66 to 90 (Norman Perrin, (1974) The New Testament: An Introduction, p. 260 and Bauckham,RJ (1986), Word Biblical Commentary, Vol.50, Word (UK) Ltd. p.16-17)

*attributed to paul*: romans, philipians,  I timothy,  II timothy, I corinthians, II corinthians, colossians, titus, I thessalonians, II thessalonians, philemon, galatians, ephesians. thessalonians is usually dated to 49 ce, but later ones are mid 60s. paul, by his own witness was not an eye-witness of the jesus character as stated in galatians 1:11-12. no originals are in existence. the earliest are some from 200 (Ehrman, Bart (2005) Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, Harper SanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-073817-0. page 60)

*hebrews*: author unknown. _written around 80_. no original manuscript is in existence.

bruze metzger wrote: *"none of the original documents is extant, and the existing copies differ from one another."* (Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 1992) the earliest manuscripts date back to 125 to 400, and none of those are originals.

incidentally, bart ehrman considers that  11 or more books out of the 27 books of the new testament were written as forgeries and that the "New Testament books attributed to Jesus’ disciples could not have been written by them because they were illiterate." the article continues to say that ehrman believes that _"Many of the New Testament’s forgeries were manufactured by early Christian leaders trying to settle theological feuds."_ (*"Half of New Testament forged, Bible scholar says".* CNN. 2011. retrieved 1 25 14)

ehrman continues to say that these are the forged books: Acts of the Apostles, First Epistle of Peter, Second Epistle of Peter, Epistle of James, Epistle of Jude, First Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians, First Epistle of Paul to Timothy, Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy, Epistle of Paul to Titus, Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians, and the Epistle of Paul to the Colossians.

thus from this information, with no original documents in existence, none of the manuscripts is a primary source for the sole purpose of evaluating the historicity of the jesus character.

next, i'll show the "proofs" outside of the bible

==========================

now regarding the "proofs" outside of the bible that people have frequently presented to me:

1    Mara Bar Serapion (prisoner awaiting execution) 2    Clement of Rome 3    2 Clement4 4    Ignatius 5    Josephus  (Jewish historian) 6    Polycarp 7    Martyrdom of Polycarp 8    Didache 9    Barnabas 10    Shepherd of Hermas 11    Fragments of Papias 12    Tacitus (Roman historian) 13    Lucian  (Greek satirist) 14    Justin Martyr 15    Aristides 16    Athenagoras 17    Theophilus of Antioch 18    Quadratus 19    Aristo of Pella 20    Phlegon (freed slave who wrote histories) 21    Melito of Sardis 22    Diognetus 23    Gospel of Peter 24    Apocalypse of Peter 25    Epistula Apostolorum 26    Celsus  (Roman philosopher) 27    Pliny the Younger (Roman politician) 28    Gospel of Thomas 29    Gospel of Truth 30    Apocryphon of John 31    Treatise. 32    Suetonius 33    Thallus

gospels: 34    Matt 35    Mark 36    Luke 37    John 38    Paul

39    reference to tiberius

what's also important is to not fall into the fallacy of mistaking *quantity over quality.* this is akin to two wrongs making a right. it needs to be *quality over quantity.*

so let's start with #39, tiberius:

that someone says another person lived during the time of the supposed character but that the person never wrote about the character is not proof. you have to have the writing about the character for there to actually be contemporaneous evidence. until then it's just claimed contemporaneous _*existence.*_  NOT evidence.

and let's go to 34-38. the gospels. and paul.

These are a few of the quotes regarding the gospels as non-historical accounts like i had mentioned before:

_"The Gospel authors were Jews writing within the midrashic tradition and intended their stories to be read as interpretive narratives, not historical accounts."_ -- Bishop Shelby Spong, Liberating the Gospels

_"The gospels are very peculiar types of literature. They’re not biographies."_ -- Paula Fredriksen, Professor and historian of early Christianity, Boston University (in the PBS documentary, From Jesus to Christ, aired in 1998)

_"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts."_ -- Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School

_"the gospels are very peculiar types of literature. they're not biographies. I mean, there are all sorts of details about jesus that they're simply not interested in giving us. they are a kind of religious advertisement. what they do is proclaim their individual author's interpretation of the christian message through the device of using jesus of nazareth as a spokesperson for the evangelists's position"_ -- religious scholar and historian (paula fredriksen, pbs, "paula fredriksen: religious advertisements," accessed 2/4/12)

gospel "proof":

#34: *matt*: not able to confirm author. _written in the 80s_. (ehrman, lost christianities: the battles for scripture and the faiths we never knew [oup2003], p235) no original manuscripts are in existence. could not have been an eyewitness as written far after the supposed death (einar thomassen, " 'forgery' in the new testament," in the invention of sacred tradition, ed. james r lewis and olav hammer [cambridge: cambridge university press, 2007], p141)

#35: *mark*: not able to confirm author. _written 70-75._  no original manuscripts are in existence. not an eyewitness as per matt reference

#36: *luke, acts*: not able to confirm author. _written in the 80s._ no original manuscripts are in existence.not an eyewitness as per matt reference

#37: *john, I john, II john, III john, revelation*: not able to confirm author. however it is the only gospel that gives a clue that the actual author could have been john (john 21:20-24). _written in the 90s._ no original manuscripts are in existence. not an eyewitness as per matt reference.

#38: *attributed to paul*: romans, philipians,  I timothy,  II timothy, I corinthians, II corinthians, colossians, titus, I thessalonians, II thessalonians, philemon, galatians, ephesians. thessalonians is usually dated to 49 ce, but later ones are mid 60s. paul, by his own witness was not an eye-witness of the jesus character as stated in galatians 1:11-12. no originals are in existence. the earliest are some from 200 (Ehrman, Bart (2005) Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, Harper SanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-073817-0. page 60)

the gospels make no mention that the name of the gospel was written by that person. these are written far after the death of the jesus character, and thus is hearsay. none of these people ever met the jesus character.

hearsay is not credible evidence.

and now on to #1-#33 non-biblical "proofs:"

*#1:* Mara Bar Serapion (prisoner awaiting execution).  the reference to the "crucifixion" was written 73 AD does not show direct evidence but just proves that people talked about it. he could have been talking about santa claus, but that doesn't mean it would be true.

*#2:* Clement of Rome. his papacy was between 92-99. he never met the character.

*#3:* 2 Clement4. this character is in the new testament. modern scholars believe 2 clement is written around 95-140 by an anonymous author.

*#4:* Ignatius. never met the jesus character. (from 98 to 117)

*#5:* Josephus  (Jewish historian). born after the supposed death of the characer. never met the jesus character. this only confirms that christians existed. this is not direct evidence; it is hearsay

*#6:* Polycarp. was a 2nd-century Christian bishop of Smyrna. never met the character.

*#7:* Martyrdom of Polycarp. from 155-160. this is well outside the life of the supposed jesus character. it just proves that christians existed.

*#8:* Didache.  late first and early 2nd century.

*#9:* Barnabas. never anywhere does it say that barnabas met the jesus character. and amusingly, there's another book called, the "gospel of barnabas" which is a post-medieval manuscript that says that the jesus character wasn't even the son of god and that it never died on the cross. dating on it is disputed, but it's post-medieval

*#10:* Shepherd of Hermas.  first or second century. in the document it never states that the character ever met the jesus character.

*#11:* Fragments of Papias. who died in AD 155. never met the jesus character.

*#12:* Tacitus (Roman historian) 56-133. born after the supposed death of the characer. never met the jesus character. this only again confirms that christians existed. this is not direct evidence; it is hearsay. rafael lataster writes, _"it is interesting that the name 'jesus', 'jesus son of joseph' or 'jesus of nazareth' is never used, and that this is tacitus' only supposed reference to jesus."_  he continues, _"though 'Annals' covers the period of rome's history from around 14ce to 66ce no other mention is made of 'jesus christ'."_ ehrman references this as well in "did jesus exist, p54. lataster, p61.

Tacitus writes in annals, book 15, chapter 44, *written 116 ad:* _“Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.”_

*most importantly tacitus was born 20 years after the supposed death of the character and lived 2000 miles away and wrote the passage in 116. So as for the two sentences attributed to tacitus' to be a source to without a doubt to clinch it for the jesus character to actually exist, it's not going to be with tacitus.*

notice also that it was *written 116 ad.* this is almost 100 years after the supposed death of the jesus character. We have no primary sources for Tacitus only *copies or copies* that were *written centuries later.* To suggest that these are word for word copies of the original are absurd considering the considerable christian forgeries during that time.

This passage is also not any different or a more credible source for the jesus character than for me writing in 2014 on Mormonism, "the great golden plates were delivered unto joseph smith as told by moroni" just because i went to school 23.5 miles away from palmyra new york doesn't make it any more plausible.

johannes weiss, the german theologian wrote, _*“Assuredly there were the general lines of even a purely fictitious Christian tradition already laid down about the year 100; Tacitus may therefore draw upon this tradition” *_

german theologian david strauss wrote that the earliest christian communities reworded the gospels to suit local prejudices. hegel noted that christian doctrine kept changing to suit power hierarchy. forgery in the early church was rampant and nothing new.

the contradictions are rampant with regard to the completely missing mention of christianity in book 5 chapters 8 through 10 of the annals that describe judea at the supposed time of the jesus character. *they make no mention of the crucifiction of the jesus character as described in the dubious book 15 chapter 44 two sentences.*

What's more is in the annals of chapters 8-10 makes not even a mention of christians, christianity or the jesus character at all.  and all of these references are from writings that are not primary sources as the originals are no longer extant and all we have are copies of copies.

In the tacitus' histories book 5.2-5 he rationalies the greek-roman myths by believing that zeus and kronos were kings. So we're not particularly dealing with someone who could separate fact from fiction.

and with these glaring contradictions, we can thoroughly question the credibility of the claim that the *mere two sentences* attributed to tacitus in any way corroborates anything about the life of a jesus figure's historicity.

We still have no contemporary sources for the existence of the jesus character, nothing written by the character, and especially nothing written about the tons of people that flocked to the character whether or not the character was miraculous or not.

*we want evidence; distinct, obvious, uncompromised evidence.* That is a reasonable request. we want evidence not based on hearsay accounts or ambiguous and slightly dubious sources. Evidence that is not just being argued to fit a narrative that is devoid of any contemporary evidence. then I will change my opinion. but until then, it doesn't matter at all how many times you bang the drum of an appeal to authority or populace or through abusive ad hom call those that require unabiguous evidence "delusional."

*#13:* Lucian  (Greek satirist). *lucian (Greek satirist)* -- 125-180. born after the supposed death of the characer. never met the jesus character. this once again only confirms that christians existed. this is not direct evidence; it is hearsay.

*#14:* Justin Martyr. 100 – 165 Ad. he never met the jesus character.

*#15:* Aristides. do you mean "aristides the athenian"  who was born in the 2nd century ad or do you mean aelius aristides (117-181)? neither of these people met the jesus character.

*#16:* Athenagoras.  born 133 ad in greece. never met the character.

*#17:* Theophilus of Antioch. died around 183-185. never met the jesus character.

*#18:* Quadratus. again, born way late in the first century, and died 129. never met the jesus character. *#19:* Aristo of Pella.  from 100-160, who is only known because of a mention by eusebius.

*#20:* Phlegon (freed slave who wrote histories).  who lived in the 2nd century AD. born after the supposed death of the characer. never met the jesus character.

*#21:* Melito of Sardis. mid 2nd century.

*#22:* Diognetus. late 2nd century.

*#23:* Gospel of Peter.  this is actually in the bible, so it's not, "outside the new testament." *I peter, II peter*: not able to confirm author. _written about 80-90_ [Stanton, Graham. Eerdmans Commentary of the Bible. Wm.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 2003.]  considered to be "wisdom literature."  Many scholars are convinced that Peter was not the author. (Achtemeier, Paul. Peter 1 Hermeneia. Fortress Press. 1996)  authorship of 1 Peter remains contested. (Travis B. Williams (1 November 2012). Persecution in 1 Peter: Differentiating and Contextualizing Early Christian Suffering. BRILL. pp. 28–. ISBN 978-90-04-24189-3. Retrieved 1 April 2013.)

*#24:* Apocalypse of Peter.  this is from the 2nd century. way after the death of the supposed character. this does not corroborate anything.

*#25:* Epistula Apostolorum. also from the 2nd century.

*#26:* Celsus  (Roman philosopher). 2nd-century Greek philosopher. born after the supposed death of the character. never met the jesus character. this is not direct evidence; it is hearsay

*#27:* Pliny the Younger (Roman politician). 61-112 born after the supposed death of the character. never met the jesus character. this is not direct evidence; it is hearsay.

*#28:* Gospel of Thomas. Heretical Writings Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, and Treatise on resurrection. this is very nice, but most scholars state that thomas was written in the second century.

*#29:* Gospel of Truth. Was written in greek probably between 140 and 180 by valentinian gnostics. (Attridge, Harold W. and MacRae, George W. "The Gospel of Truth (Introduction and Translation)". The Nag Hammadi Library, James M. Robinson (ed.), pp. 38-51.)  the text puts "error" in personified form. and says that the jesus character was sent down by god to remove ignorance. error grew angry that the jesus character confounded scribes and teachers and nailed the jesus character to a tree. bit of a different story there.

*#30:* Apocryphon of John. written in 185. it was referred to by irenaeus in "adversus haereses" and stated that teachers in the 2nd century were producing an "an indescribable number of secret and illegitimate writings, which they themselves have forged, to bewilder the minds of foolish people, who are ignorant of the true scriptures" (adversus haereses 1.20.1 and Pagels 2003:96)

*#31:* Treatise. not exactly sure what this is referring to. the book of acts refers to the gospel of luke as "the former treatise." if this is the case, it is not non-biblical. luke and acts do not have a confirmed author. _written in the 80s._ no original manuscripts are in existence.not an eyewitness as per matt reference.

*#32:* Suetonius.  aside from seutonius not being a contemporary of the jesus character, only wrote, "since the jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of chrestus, he expelled them from rome." (seutonius and jc rolfe, the lives of the caesars, vol 2[london: heinemann, 1914, life of claudius 25.4]) chrestus is a greek name, meaning "the good," so does not necessarily have to refer to the jesus character. note that christians are also not specified, though many early christians were undoubtedly jews. this passage offers little to no information about the jesus of nazareth character.

*#33:* Thallus. lived in the third century. born after the supposed death of the character. never met the jesus character. it's just a reference that 9th century christian chronologer george syncellus wrote, "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse of the Sun in the third book of his Histories."  this is ultimately not non-christian reference as syncellus wrote it.

nothing in the dead sea scrolls, btw, which actually was contemporaneous!

and lastly the talmud which some christians reference:  there are a number of reference to various character called "jesus" (specifically from the "gemara") which may or may not reference the jesus character of nazareth. the gemara is actually from the 5th or 6th century which is 400-500 years after the death of the supposed character. there are other jesuses refered to in josephus as well, such as , "jesus ben pandira," jesus bar phabet,” and “jesus bar gamaliel." the name “jesus” was a very common name. nothing to directly connect to the jesus of nazareth character.

there is no additive truths here, that the more fractional truths add up to an actual truth. you can have a bunch of people pretending that santa claus was real and the more people saying it's true doesn't make it any more true due the the fallacy of appealing to populace.  don't mistake quantity over quality and make two wrongs make a right.

and that something must have been amazing to cause people to write so much after the fact is not evidence either. it just made it an ad hoc popular idea. and evidence from silence is still silence not evidence.

there's also a quote from historian robert wilken:

_"when christianity gained control of the roman empire it suppressed the writings of its critics and even cast them into flames."_ (robert louis wilken, the christians as the romans saw them, [new haven, ct: yale university press, 2003] p xvi)

so there's some censorship for ya of critics of christianity. what they complained about we'll never know either.

next i will discuss the problem of the jesus character not fullfilling the prophecies. these are not at all related to proofs for the historical existence of the jesus character but internal criticism (relating just within the bible itself).

=============================

this is the last post of why the evidence (or lack of evidence) suggest that the jesus character very likely didn't exist. these are not at all related to proofs for the historical existence of the jesus character but internal criticism (relating just within the bible itself).

as for if the character even fulfilled the prophecies that's another problem and let's go over that, too:

and according to the jews, the jesus character doesn't fulfill the prophecies. specifically, the bible says he will:    Build the Third Temple -- *Ezekiel 37:26-28*    Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel -- *Isaiah 43:5-6*    Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." -- *Isaiah 2:4*    Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world ― on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" -- *Zechariah 14:9*

If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be the Messiah. none of these has been fulfilled.

and that this deity which cannot support any burden of proof of itself either sends this message of a mortal son to illiterate bronze age idiots instead of people who could actually make written testimony of it like china for example.

Sin is an imaginary disease that was invented to sell you an imaginary cure. it's the essence of marketing. and the outlandish cures are snake oil cures.

even the old testament doesn't allow for the scapegoat: Deut 24:16 states "Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin."

Exodus 32:30-34 shows that the deity refuses to make a scapegoat of moses:  The next day Moses said to the people, “You have committed a great sin. But now I will go up to the Lord; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin.” So Moses went back to the Lord and said, “Oh, what a great sin these people have committed! They have made themselves gods of gold. But now, please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written.” The Lord replied to Moses, “Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book. Now go, lead the people to the place I spoke of, and my angel will go before you. However, when the time comes for me to punish, I will punish them for their sin.”

ezekiel 18:1-4 shows that the deity refuses to make scapegoats, each shall take responsibility for their actions:  "guilty he word of the Lord came to me:  “What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel: ‘The parents eat sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge’? “As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child—both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die."

and then of course there's the point that the jesus character was a total commie, " sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven." *luke 18:22, mark 10:21, matt 19:21. *

horrible family values of the jesus character: _"... i have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother in law and one's foes will be members of one's own household"_ -- matt 10:35-36; luke 12:52-53

more horrible family values of the jesus character: _"whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me"_ -- matt 10:37

and even more bad family values of leaving one's own family: _"another said, 'i will follow you lord; but let me first say farewell to those at home.' jesus said to him 'no one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of god"_ -- luke 9:61-62

we all are a better example of this so-called savior who wants people to abandon their family.

and great forgotten teachings that no one follows: _".. anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery"_ -- matt 5:32; 19:9; mark 10:11-12; luke 16:18

this immoral character is not only not likely to be real, but is an horrible example of any kind of idol one should ever follow.

and after all of that, 1 cor 15:14, _"... if christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."_