Re: Christianity and Sexual Assault

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 01:34:26 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>A Jesus that is exactly as described in the Gospels would be impossible (as
>there is conflicting details).

A Jesus that was as close to the one described in the Gospels so as to
be relevant to Christianity would be just as impossible.
 
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:epn72316o5ngarjee91kfjslgfm5u0ufq4@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:57:49 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:00r5239o162buhi93luuisoo2ngc1fr73h@4ax.com...
>>> Which is why opinion is worthless. Only evidence counts, and the
>>> evidence is not only that there is none that Jesus existed
>>
>>I'd agree that there is no (historically credible) evidence for Jesus
>>existing.
>>
>>There is evidence of christians who appeared to follow a christ or a
>>Jesus,
>>which does not imply that such a person existed, of course.
>>
>>> but that
>>> there is evidence that he didn't exist.
>>
>>I don't believe there is any evidence that he did not exist .. what would
>>such evidence be?
>
> Evidence that a man named Yeshua who was born in the early first
> century and came from Nazareth didn't exist? There was no town called
> Nazareth in the early first century.

That is only evidence that he was not born in the town climed by the
fictional birth narratives.

Not evidence that Jesus did not exist

> Evidence that the parents of a man named Yeshua who was born in the
> early first century and had to return to their place of birth for a
> Roman census didn't exist? The Romans required people to return to
> their place of residence for a census.

That is only evidence that he was not born in the town climed by the
fictional birth narratives.

Not evidence that Jesus did not exist

> And many, many other claims of fact in the story that are false.

Yes .. I acknowledge that there is a LOT of fictious elements there .. but
your logic is like saying because Sherlock holmes is a fictional character,
that london does not exist.

> As I said to Pramer, there's no doubt that MANY men named Yeshua lived
> in Jerusalem in the early first century, but there's plenty of
> evidence that the one claimed in the Bible didn't.

No .. there is only evidence that the events depcited (in particular the
description of his birth and death) are fictional. Quite likely many of the
major events have been invented or exagerated (eg his preaching to
multitudes may havebeen just to a small group of people).

I agree totally that there is lots of fiction in the Gospels etc .. but that
does not necessaril indicate that there was not an historical (as opposed to
biblcal) Jesus upon which the stories are based

>>Certainly the lack of contemporary evidence where we would expect to find
>>it
>>strongly suggests that the miraculous Jesus described in the Gospels did
>>not
>>exist. But whether or not a purely human Jesus, who may have had some
>>followers
>
> The SOLE "evidence" of this is a contested passage in Josephus.

Yes .. I'm very familiar with that. that is why I said there is a lcak of
contmporary evidence (a total lack actually)

There are other documents that people quote as evidence that are probably
not totally fictional like the Josephus passage .. but they are really only
evidence for the existence of christians, not for jesus

>>and some of whose words (or close to it) may have been recorded
>>by those followers
>
> The most important of them, to Christians, would never have been
> uttered by a practicing Jew, which Christianity claims ITS Jesus was.

People can utter all sorts of things. And you'll note that according to the
stories, the jews were not happy with the things Jesus uttered. Really ..
saying that Jesus cannot exist because he is reported to have said things
that a Jew sjhould not say is not a valid agument at all.

>>is not beyond belief, and I doubt very much if that could be disproved.
>
> Proved? Of course not.

Exactly

> Is it likely that a practicing Jew of the
> time would claim that the Bible (the only one at the time) was no
> longer to be followed?

Jesus didn't claim that.

And not everyhintg attributed to jesus in the stories written long after his
death are going to be exactly what he said. Ceratinly there are strong
views that Jesus 'words' on baptism were altered by the chruch in order to
support the idea of trinitarianism.

> That's Paulism, not anything a Jew of the time
> would have done.

Again , ,that is not in any way evidence that Jesus did not exist .. only
that the stories written about him (especially those of Paul who never even
met Jesus)

>>Unless there is solid evidence that the Gospel stories are COMPELTE
>>fabrications (rather than major embellishments on what would otherwise be
>>a
>>fairly dull story).
>
> What we need is solid evidence that they're COMPLETE TRUTH.

I don't suggest they are

> No one is
> burdened to disprove an assertion. And that's all the Bible is - an
> assertion that doesn't hold together.

Yes .. the Bible is self contradictory in points of histroy, science nad
theology.

But that does not mean it is ENTIRELY untrue, and that there are not
elements of historical fact. It does not mean that there was not an
historical Jesus.

>>That doesn't mean that there was not a man that was called Jesus, who was
>>born somewhere around the galille region (ignoring the fictional virgin
>>birth in bethlehem etc).
>
> We KNOW that there were MANY men called Jesus (Yeshua) born there at
> that approximate time. That has nothing to do with Christianity.

I didn't say it was .. I'm just saying that the stories in the Gospel can
easily be based around a real person.

> It's
> proof that the name Yeshua was used in that place at that time, which
> is not the Christian claim at all. Nor is it even questioned, let
> alone refuted, by anyone.

Yes .. lots of Yeshua's. That does not mean there was not a particular
Yeshua (or maybe even someone not called Yeshua, or maybe a couple of
people) upon which the Gospel stories were based (and then embellished).

>>Really ,we cannot say for sure whether or not there was an historical
>>Jesus
>>at this time.
>
> We're not discussing some guy named Yeshua, we're discussing the
> Biblical Jesus. And we can say for pretty sure that THAT Jesus didn't
> exist.

If you are replying to me, thne that IS what we are discussing . .the
possibility of an historical Jesus (not one that exactly fits the impossibly
contradictory and unrealsitic Gospel descriptions)

>>But an ordinary historical Jesus that lived, taught some followers, and
>>died
>>(though far removed form the embellished mythology of the Gospel storied)
>>does make some sense.
>
> And is totally irrelevant to Christianity.

To christianity as it is today .. yes. If there was a Jesus who taught (at
least) some of the things that he is reported to have taught in the gospels,
then it is really todays christianity that is irrelevant to the 'real'
teachings of Jesus.

> (Although why we should
> assume that some man named Yeshua had anything to do with the
> Chreestos cult, other than being a member of the cult, is beyond me.
> Just to pick a name at non-random?)

He probably had nothing to do with the cult itself .. the "chreestos" cult
developed afterwards (that would have most likely been based on Paul's
teachings that put forward the idea of a 'christ'.).
 
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:9jo723h3k8gsrr6oojjsh24me4fgeila73@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 01:34:26 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>>A Jesus that is exactly as described in the Gospels would be impossible
>>(as
>>there is conflicting details).
>
> A Jesus that was as close to the one described in the Gospels so as to
> be relevant to Christianity would be just as impossible.

Yes .. I'm not said any different. Buts its more the other way around ,.,
Christianity is irrelevant to the teaching of an historical Jesus (if he did
exist) .. What we have today as Christianity is based on the myths and
fables.
 
You might want to know that Al Klein is a troll who is endlessly
willing to assert as fact things that he knows that he doesn't know.
Atheism apparently has this effect on some people. As such he really
isn't worth your time.

On 16 Apr, 21:38, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> On 16 Apr 2007 07:30:20 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"
>
> <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote:
> >> Wrong word. It's not as easy. In fact, it's totally beyond your
> >> capability, since you can't read the source materials.
> >The best I can do is the original translations into the Greek.
>
> You're fluent in ancient Greek? I'm impressed. Then you ARE aware of
> the later total screw-up of the Greek word 'alma'. Just more evidence
> that the story is made up.

Al knows no Greek.

> >> You assume that the Biblical Jesus existed,
> >Again, no, I made no such assumtion. You are deliberately distorting
> >my words.
>
> "It is, in my opinion, more logical to assume that a man with that
> name existed ... than to assume that he never existed."
>
> Again, if you're claiming that some man named Yeshua lived in
> Jerusalem in the first century, I guarantee that you're correct. We
> have proof that MANY such men existed. That has nothing to do with
> the Bible. Paul invented a spirit, an aspect of his god, and named it
> Yeshua. You're saying that's because he based it on some particular
> man? Probably not. Yeshua was a VERY common name. Is "John Doe"
> based on some actual man named John Doe?
>
> If that's your entire argument, that some man named Yeshua lived in
> Jerusalem in the early first century, no one in his right mind would
> argue with you. But so what? That's as important as "some man named
> Joe lived in NYC in the early 20th century". Who cares? Neither one
> has the slightest connection to Christianity. Or to this discussion.

Note how Al is trying to get you to run around to prove, what no
sensible person denies, that Jesus of Nazareth lived.

> >> >There are many writings about a man called Jesus of Nazareth.
> >> Proof that they're not accurate, since the location now called
> >> Nazareth (and called Nazareth then) was a cemetery when Jesus was
> >> supposedly born, and for decades after. It only exists because a
> >> mistranslation made it seem as if Jesus came from a town called
> >> Nazareth.
> >Yes, and Jesus' original name was not pronounced the way we pronounce
> >it and so on and so on. You are straining out a gnat.
>
> There's a difference between a change in pronunciation and a claim
> that Jews lived in a cemetery. The latter never happened, even though
> "Jesus of Nazareth" is exactly that claim.

Note the certainty with which Al asserts things about Nazareth which,
in fact, are merely hearsay (and stupid hearsay).

> > What sort of evidence do you require?
>
> Something extra-biblical from someone who had no positive axe to
> grind. Roman records. A diatribe by an enemy of his. Something
> written DURING HIS LIFETIME by someone who wasn't a Christian that
> mentioned him by name, and by enough description of his actions that
> we know he wasn't talking about some other Yeshua.
> Things like what we have about other historic, and known real, people.

Al has no idea what sort of evidence there is for people living in
Judaea in the reign of Tiberius, but that doesn't stop him trying to
suggest otherwise.

> >Written records from Romans?
>
> Since they kept meticulous records of everything, why didn't they even
> mention Jesus? Not a single mention in over 3 decades.

Ditto. Al doesn't know what "Roman records" exist between AD 30 and
60.

> The Romans conducted censuses - not a single mention of Jesus of the
> Bible.

Ditto. Al doesn't know what census records survive.

> No mention of him AT ALL until over 100 years after he supposedly
> died. Would you believe that Abraham Lincoln had actually existed if
> the first mention of him in writing was from last month?

Note the omission of all the sources that DO mention him.

> >> and actual
> >> evidence that he didn't,
> >What is that evidence?
>
> The census claim. The Nazareth claim. The "darkness" claim (a solar
> eclipse when there was none). The Magi claim (following a star is
> nonsense - stars don't have fixed locations relative to the surface of
> Earth). The birth date claim (the flocks weren't in the fields in
> winter). The impossibility of the events on the morning of the
> resurrection (construct a single time line for that morning). The
> dual claims of Judas' cause of death (as if it was made up by two
> different people, who never compared notes). And on and on and ...

None of it relevant to the claim.

> >> it's more logical to assume that he didn't
> >> exist. Your statement just proves your bias.
> >> >> >There is mention of him in the Bible
> >> >> The Bible can't be used as evidence to support the Bible.
> >> >I am making no such claim.
> >> You just presented the Bible as evidence that the mention of Jesus in
> >> the Bible is evidentiary!
> >By your standard, we must discount the existence of many Greek
> >historical figures also, because the only place they were mentioned
> >was in Greek history.
>
> They were mentioned in MANY CONTEMPORANEOUS writings and many of them
> left their own writings.

Al doesn't know any of this. Ask for examples of people living in 1st
century Judaea ca 30 for whom this is correct.

Our best sources for all first century history are Tacitus, Suetonius
and Cassius Dio, with Josephus for Jewish sources.

> >> > I am using the mention of a charismatic man
> >> >in many sources
> >> You said "in the Bible". That's one book, and it can't verify itself.
>
> >No. The Bible is a compilation of many sources
>
> Comprising one work we call "the Bible".

Ask him to prove it.

> And you can't use that compilation to verify itself. If you understood what
> "canon" meant, you'd understand why. Canon text can not be used to
> verify canon text, because if it contradicted canon text it wouldn't be canon text.

Evidently Al doesn't understand the meaning of 'canon' himself.

> The Bible verifies its own claims not because they're true, but
> because that's what canon means. (And the Bible contradicts itself -
> they weren't even good liars atNicea.)

Here Al repeats his standard lie about the bible being compiled at
Nicaea -- it wasn't, and he knows it.

Note how he contradicts himself -- canon can't involve contradictions,
but it does (he says).

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html

> >> What we don't have is a SINGLE contemporaneous non-Biblical document
> >> mentioning a man named Jesus who performed miracles or who was
> >> crucified.
> >Nor do we have any record of most of the people of that era. Non-
> >Biblical evidence is sparse indeed.
>
> That's not my problem. (bluster snipped)

Which sort of tells the whole story. Al doesn't know any history, and
doesn't care. All he's doing is trotting out excuses. If we
seriously doubted the existence of Jesus, we could only expect the
same kind of evidence as for most people of the period.

> But we don't claim that Mithras was real. We don't claim that Horus
> was real. We claim that the Caesars, for whom we have actual
> evidence, were real. We claim Alexander, for whom we have actual
> evidence, was real. We have no actual evidence that the Jesus of the
> Bible was real.

This rhetoric has no factual content. Al knows nothing about any of
these people. Note how he cunningly compares Jesus, a rural peasant,
to emperors and people who issued coins and built huge extant
buildings; hardly the same kind of evidence available for 99% of
people in antiquity!

(More dishonest word-twisting snipped)

It is one evidence that Christianity is true, when people like Al
Klein can only resort to determined lying as their only means to
attack it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
 
"Roger Pearse" <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1176794394.190825.268780@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> No mention of him AT ALL until over 100 years after he supposedly
>> died. Would you believe that Abraham Lincoln had actually existed if
>> the first mention of him in writing was from last month?
> Note the omission of all the sources that DO mention him.

What early 1st century sources?

> Al doesn't know any of this. Ask for examples of people living in 1st
> century Judaea ca 30 for whom this is correct.

I'm pretty sure we have records of Pilate, and of the various pharasees etc,
And I think John the Babptist is documented (but I'm not sure how
contemporary it was)

> Our best sources for all first century history are Tacitus, Suetonius
> and Cassius Dio, with Josephus for Jewish sources.

But again, they are not contemporary .. and as I recall only the highly
suspect addition to Josephus mentions Jesus .. other source mention the
'christians', not Jesus himself.

>> >No. The Bible is a compilation of many sources
>> Comprising one work we call "the Bible".
> Ask him to prove it.

Are you saying the bible is NOT a compilation of many sources ?

> This rhetoric has no factual content. Al knows nothing about any of
> these people. Note how he cunningly compares Jesus, a rural peasant,
> to emperors and people who issued coins and built huge extant
> buildings; hardly the same kind of evidence available for 99% of
> people in antiquity!

So Jesus was unimportant and did nothing noteworth in his lifetime?
 
On Apr 16, 2:38 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> On 16 Apr 2007 07:30:20 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"
>
> <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote:
> >> Wrong word. It's not as easy. In fact, it's totally beyond your
> >> capability, since you can't read the source materials.
> >The best I can do is the original translations into the Greek.
>
> You're fluent in ancient Greek?

Fluent? No.

> I'm impressed. Then you ARE aware of
> the later total screw-up of the Greek word 'alma'. Just more evidence
> that the story is made up.

No, mistranslations are mistranslations, not evidence of trickery.

> > Very few can read the original sources, which, in any case, you discount.
>
> Not at all. I discount hundreds-of-years-after-the-fact translations.
> I only discount the originals if someone tries to use them as proof
> that they're accurate. As in "if it's in the Bible it's correct,
> because the Bible says that what's in it is correct".

You pretend that is what I am doing, yet all that I claim is that the
mention of a person in the Bible is evidence that that person may have
existed. I am using the Bible as an instance of historical record,
not an authority based on divine authorship. It is the same as using
any set of old writings to try to reconstruct a true historical
record. Mention of Jesus in the Bible is just that -- mention of a man
in a set of old documents.

That is very different from claiming that he must have existed,
because the Bible says so.

> I'm just against claiming that someone's interpretation of a statement
> is the statement. It's not, it's just the interpreter's
> interpretation.

That is a reasonable statement.

> >> >> > That is a completely different approach than that taken by
> >> >> >the literalists.
> >> >> It's EXACTLY the same approach. The interpret, based on exactly the
> >> >> same reasoning that you use, that the Bible is to be taken literally.
> >No. I never made any such statement.
>
> THEY do. They interpret what they see their way, you interpret what
> you see your way. You say their way is incorrect, they say that your
> way is incorrect.

Nonetheless, my statement was correct, that I never said the Bible was
to be taken literally. Your claim that I take the Bible literally is
false, and you know it. Be honest.

> There's no difference to an outsider.
>
> >> You assume that the Biblical Jesus existed,
> >Again, no, I made no such assumtion. You are deliberately distorting
> >my words.
>
> "It is, in my opinion, more logical to assume that a man with that
> name existed ... than to assume that he never existed."

I'm right and you agree with me below.

> Again, if you're claiming that some man named Yeshua lived in
> Jerusalem in the first century, I guarantee that you're correct. We
> have proof that MANY such men existed.

Indeed.

> That has nothing to do with
> the Bible. Paul invented a spirit, an aspect of his god, and named it
> Yeshua. You're saying that's because he based it on some particular
> man? Probably not. Yeshua was a VERY common name. Is "John Doe"
> based on some actual man named John Doe?
>
> If that's your entire argument, that some man named Yeshua lived in
> Jerusalem in the early first century, no one in his right mind would
> argue with you.

It is not my entire argument. My claim is that the Jesus who is the
subject of the New Testament is most probably based on a charismatic
man of that name, sort of a mini-cult leader, whose disciples
subsequently built him up to be larger than life.

> >> >There are many writings about a man called Jesus of Nazareth.
> >> Proof that they're not accurate, since the location now called
> >> Nazareth (and called Nazareth then) was a cemetery when Jesus was
> >> supposedly born, and for decades after. It only exists because a
> >> mistranslation made it seem as if Jesus came from a town called
> >> Nazareth.
> >Yes, and Jesus' original name was not pronounced the way we pronounce
> >it and so on and so on. You are straining out a gnat.
>
> There's a difference between a change in pronunciation and a claim
> that Jews lived in a cemetery. The latter never happened, even though
> "Jesus of Nazareth" is exactly that claim.

He may have been called the Nazarene, or some similar thing. Things
get bungled in translation all the time. You are making a mountain out
of a molehill.

> >> >It is, in my opinion, more logical to assume that a man with that name
> >> >existed and all the mythology grew up around him than to assume that
> >> >he never existed.
>
> >> When there's no actual evidence that a character existed,
>
> >Stories from several sources are evidence.
>
> Stories ALL tracing back to a SINGLE source - the books of the Bible,
> which can't be used as evidence that what's in the books of the Bible
> is true.

Sorry, that is not a single source. It is a compilation of several
sources. Now you may claim that they all had to come from the mouth of
a single liar, but then it is up to you to prove that.

> > What sort of evidence do you require?
>
> Something extra-biblical from someone who had no positive axe to
> grind. Roman records. A diatribe by an enemy of his. Something
> written DURING HIS LIFETIME by someone who wasn't a Christian that
> mentioned him by name, and by enough description of his actions that
> we know he wasn't talking about some other Yeshua.

As far as we know, there are no such records. All we have is writings
by several different sources favorable to their subject. Big deal. I
suspect you know of and believe in the existence of several people
only through sources that mention them favorably.

> Things like what we have about other historic, and known real, people.
>
> >Written records from Romans?
>
> Since they kept meticulous records of everything, why didn't they even
> mention Jesus? Not a single mention in over 3 decades. Pilate was
> scared that the "King of the Jews" was being born, but there's not a
> single mention of any of the things he supposedly did about it. The
> Romans conducted censuses - not a single mention of Jesus of the
> Bible.

I thought you said that there are records of many Yeshuas.


> >> and actual
> >> evidence that he didn't,
> >What is that evidence?
>
> The census claim. The Nazareth claim. The "darkness" claim (a solar
> eclipse when there was none). The Magi claim (following a star is
> nonsense - stars don't have fixed locations relative to the surface of
> Earth). The birth date claim (the flocks weren't in the fields in
> winter). The impossibility of the events on the morning of the
> resurrection (construct a single time line for that morning). The
> dual claims of Judas' cause of death (as if it was made up by two
> different people, who never compared notes). And on and on and ...

Again, no. You are deliberately distorting my position, and you know
it. You are being dishonest.

I claimed that the stories were probably based on a real person, not
that the stories were true.

> >Oh, here you are really stretching. Because his place or origin was
> >mistranslated, you claim he could not have existed.
>
> Because the entire story is INCORRECT factually.

So you claim. If the New Testament Jesus was based on a real man,
and there was evidence enough to convince you, then it would be highly
probable that some of the story was true (say, Jesus traveled to
such and such a place). In that case some of the story would be
factually correct.

But note how you have claimed that the ENTIRE story is INCORRECT. You
are as sure of this as is a fundamentalist that your view MUST be
correct. Now that's religious fervor!

> But we don't claim that Mithras was real. We don't claim that Horus
> was real.

They don't count. They are gods. I am talking about a man.

> So either mention in a story is enough to believe that the person
> mentioned is real, or it's not. Both for Jesus and for Superman. (And
> there's absolutely NO incorrect factual evidence in Superman stories,

Sure there is. He does impossible things all the time. The physics is
wrong.

> >> >It certainly is, as evidenced by the fact that people still do these
> >> >kinds of things.
> >> So you're in favor of religious law? (Careful - that would have YOU
> >> stoned to death for violation of hundreds of Levitical laws.)
> >Gee, when did I ever say anything like that?
>
> Why raise it as a point in favor of your argument if it's a point
> against your argument?

It is not a point against my argument. It is a point against your
argument. You are arguing from emotion here. I am merely pointing out
that barbarism is still common practice, while you claim it has no
place in the modern world. You may not like it, but it certainly
exists and is part of law in many countries.

Baldin Lee Pramer
 
On Apr 16, 2:55 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 01:34:26 +1000, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
> >A Jesus that is exactly as described in the Gospels would be impossible (as
> >there is conflicting details).
>
> A Jesus that was as close to the one described in the Gospels so as to
> be relevant to Christianity would be just as impossible.


Again, BFD. Your argument that there was no historical character
around which the New Testament Jesus stories grew is so strained that
it borders on religious belief.

Baldin Lee Pramer
 
On 17 Apr 2007 07:56:31 -0700, Baldin Lee Pramer
<BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote:

>On Apr 16, 2:38 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> On 16 Apr 2007 07:30:20 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"
>>
>> <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote:
>> >> Wrong word. It's not as easy. In fact, it's totally beyond your
>> >> capability, since you can't read the source materials.
>> >The best I can do is the original translations into the Greek.
>>
>> You're fluent in ancient Greek?
>
>Fluent? No.
>
>> I'm impressed. Then you ARE aware of
>> the later total screw-up of the Greek word 'alma'. Just more evidence
>> that the story is made up.
>
>No, mistranslations are mistranslations, not evidence of trickery.

They why did then need to invent a virgin birth? Apart from the fact
that they were tailoring the new religion for Greeks who expected it
of their hero figures - and searched Greek translations of the OT
looking for it.

>> > Very few can read the original sources, which, in any case, you discount.
>>
>> Not at all. I discount hundreds-of-years-after-the-fact translations.
>> I only discount the originals if someone tries to use them as proof
>> that they're accurate. As in "if it's in the Bible it's correct,
>> because the Bible says that what's in it is correct".
>
>You pretend that is what I am doing, yet all that I claim is that the
>mention of a person in the Bible is evidence that that person may have
>existed. I am using the Bible as an instance of historical record,
>not an authority based on divine authorship. It is the same as using
>any set of old writings to try to reconstruct a true historical
>record. Mention of Jesus in the Bible is just that -- mention of a man
>in a set of old documents.

It's not even evidence - especially as the Gospels were written after
the alleged events and are re-telling of earlier Mediterranean legends
in the setting of first century Palestine. Describing things that
didn't happen.

As it stands, it's no different than the mention of Hercules in a set
of old documents.

While the OT is a better historical record than the NT, even that is a
collection of history, religion, legend etc. All with their spin. The
archives of a long dead people.

But the NT isn't even that, it is a work of religious propaganda in
the same league as the Koran, the Book of Mormon, the Hindu scriptures
etc. It describes what members of the religion are supposed to
believe.

As a "historical source", both the OT and the NT require
corroboration. For example it turns out that Jericho was already
abandoned, and that Nazareth didn't exist at the time.

>That is very different from claiming that he must have existed,
>because the Bible says so.
>
>> I'm just against claiming that someone's interpretation of a statement
>> is the statement. It's not, it's just the interpreter's
>> interpretation.
>
>That is a reasonable statement.
>
>> >> >> > That is a completely different approach than that taken by
>> >> >> >the literalists.
>> >> >> It's EXACTLY the same approach. The interpret, based on exactly the
>> >> >> same reasoning that you use, that the Bible is to be taken literally.
>> >No. I never made any such statement.
>>
>> THEY do. They interpret what they see their way, you interpret what
>> you see your way. You say their way is incorrect, they say that your
>> way is incorrect.
>
>Nonetheless, my statement was correct, that I never said the Bible was
>to be taken literally. Your claim that I take the Bible literally is
>false, and you know it. Be honest.
>
>> There's no difference to an outsider.
>>
>> >> You assume that the Biblical Jesus existed,
>> >Again, no, I made no such assumtion. You are deliberately distorting
>> >my words.
>>
>> "It is, in my opinion, more logical to assume that a man with that
>> name existed ... than to assume that he never existed."
>
>I'm right and you agree with me below.
>
>> Again, if you're claiming that some man named Yeshua lived in
>> Jerusalem in the first century, I guarantee that you're correct. We
>> have proof that MANY such men existed.
>
>Indeed.
>
>> That has nothing to do with
>> the Bible. Paul invented a spirit, an aspect of his god, and named it
>> Yeshua. You're saying that's because he based it on some particular
>> man? Probably not. Yeshua was a VERY common name. Is "John Doe"
>> based on some actual man named John Doe?
>>
>> If that's your entire argument, that some man named Yeshua lived in
>> Jerusalem in the early first century, no one in his right mind would
>> argue with you.
>
>It is not my entire argument. My claim is that the Jesus who is the
>subject of the New Testament is most probably based on a charismatic
>man of that name, sort of a mini-cult leader, whose disciples
>subsequently built him up to be larger than life.
>
>> >> >There are many writings about a man called Jesus of Nazareth.
>> >> Proof that they're not accurate, since the location now called
>> >> Nazareth (and called Nazareth then) was a cemetery when Jesus was
>> >> supposedly born, and for decades after. It only exists because a
>> >> mistranslation made it seem as if Jesus came from a town called
>> >> Nazareth.
>> >Yes, and Jesus' original name was not pronounced the way we pronounce
>> >it and so on and so on. You are straining out a gnat.
>>
>> There's a difference between a change in pronunciation and a claim
>> that Jews lived in a cemetery. The latter never happened, even though
>> "Jesus of Nazareth" is exactly that claim.
>
>He may have been called the Nazarene, or some similar thing. Things
>get bungled in translation all the time. You are making a mountain out
>of a molehill.
>
>> >> >It is, in my opinion, more logical to assume that a man with that name
>> >> >existed and all the mythology grew up around him than to assume that
>> >> >he never existed.
>>
>> >> When there's no actual evidence that a character existed,
>>
>> >Stories from several sources are evidence.
>>
>> Stories ALL tracing back to a SINGLE source - the books of the Bible,
>> which can't be used as evidence that what's in the books of the Bible
>> is true.
>
>Sorry, that is not a single source. It is a compilation of several
>sources. Now you may claim that they all had to come from the mouth of
>a single liar, but then it is up to you to prove that.
>
>> > What sort of evidence do you require?
>>
>> Something extra-biblical from someone who had no positive axe to
>> grind. Roman records. A diatribe by an enemy of his. Something
>> written DURING HIS LIFETIME by someone who wasn't a Christian that
>> mentioned him by name, and by enough description of his actions that
>> we know he wasn't talking about some other Yeshua.
>
>As far as we know, there are no such records. All we have is writings
>by several different sources favorable to their subject. Big deal. I
>suspect you know of and believe in the existence of several people
>only through sources that mention them favorably.
>
>> Things like what we have about other historic, and known real, people.
>>
>> >Written records from Romans?
>>
>> Since they kept meticulous records of everything, why didn't they even
>> mention Jesus? Not a single mention in over 3 decades. Pilate was
>> scared that the "King of the Jews" was being born, but there's not a
>> single mention of any of the things he supposedly did about it. The
>> Romans conducted censuses - not a single mention of Jesus of the
>> Bible.
>
>I thought you said that there are records of many Yeshuas.
>
>
>> >> and actual
>> >> evidence that he didn't,
>> >What is that evidence?
>>
>> The census claim. The Nazareth claim. The "darkness" claim (a solar
>> eclipse when there was none). The Magi claim (following a star is
>> nonsense - stars don't have fixed locations relative to the surface of
>> Earth). The birth date claim (the flocks weren't in the fields in
>> winter). The impossibility of the events on the morning of the
>> resurrection (construct a single time line for that morning). The
>> dual claims of Judas' cause of death (as if it was made up by two
>> different people, who never compared notes). And on and on and ...
>
>Again, no. You are deliberately distorting my position, and you know
>it. You are being dishonest.
>
>I claimed that the stories were probably based on a real person, not
>that the stories were true.
>
>> >Oh, here you are really stretching. Because his place or origin was
>> >mistranslated, you claim he could not have existed.
>>
>> Because the entire story is INCORRECT factually.
>
>So you claim. If the New Testament Jesus was based on a real man,
>and there was evidence enough to convince you, then it would be highly
>probable that some of the story was true (say, Jesus traveled to
>such and such a place). In that case some of the story would be
>factually correct.
>
>But note how you have claimed that the ENTIRE story is INCORRECT. You
>are as sure of this as is a fundamentalist that your view MUST be
>correct. Now that's religious fervor!
>
>> But we don't claim that Mithras was real. We don't claim that Horus
>> was real.
>
>They don't count. They are gods. I am talking about a man.
>
>> So either mention in a story is enough to believe that the person
>> mentioned is real, or it's not. Both for Jesus and for Superman. (And
>> there's absolutely NO incorrect factual evidence in Superman stories,
>
>Sure there is. He does impossible things all the time. The physics is
>wrong.
>
>> >> >It certainly is, as evidenced by the fact that people still do these
>> >> >kinds of things.
>> >> So you're in favor of religious law? (Careful - that would have YOU
>> >> stoned to death for violation of hundreds of Levitical laws.)
>> >Gee, when did I ever say anything like that?
>>
>> Why raise it as a point in favor of your argument if it's a point
>> against your argument?
>
>It is not a point against my argument. It is a point against your
>argument. You are arguing from emotion here. I am merely pointing out
>that barbarism is still common practice, while you claim it has no
>place in the modern world. You may not like it, but it certainly
>exists and is part of law in many countries.
>
>Baldin Lee Pramer
 
On 17 Apr, 08:46, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> "Roger Pearse" <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:1176794394.190825.268780@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> No mention of him AT ALL until over 100 years after he supposedly
> >> died. Would you believe that Abraham Lincoln had actually existed if
> >> the first mention of him in writing was from last month?
> > Note the omission of all the sources that DO mention him.
>
> What early 1st century sources?

Surely you mean "what early first century sources with video-
footage"?

> > Al doesn't know any of this. Ask for examples of people living in 1st
> > century Judaea ca 30 for whom this is correct.
>
> I'm pretty sure we have records of Pilate, and of the various pharasees etc,

I would suggest finding out.

> And I think John the Babptist is documented (but I'm not sure how
> contemporary it was)

Indeed.

> > Our best sources for all first century history are Tacitus, Suetonius
> > and Cassius Dio, with Josephus for Jewish sources.
>
> But again, they are not contemporary ..

They are what exists, tho. If the policies of emperors -- masters of
the whole world -- are known from such sources, in what sense is it
meaningful to demand more for minor figures?

But in a sense this is detail. The general point is that any event in
antiquity must be documented from what evidence exists, to the
standard that evidence exists for other things. This stuff about
'contemporary' is borrowed from modern history (where there is so much
data that it is used as a rule of thumb to exclude duplicate info); in
ancient history it's irrelevant, since we frequently have no such
thing. Our only knowledge of events in Britain in 396, for instance,
is Zosimus who lives ca. 530 AD, well after Roman Britain has ceased
to exist.

> and as I recall only the highly suspect addition to Josephus mentions
> Jesus .. other source mention the 'christians', not Jesus himself.

You are doubtless aware that there are two passages in Josephus. The
second has never been seriously questioned; today the first is
generally thought corrupt, rather than interpolated as was thought a
century ago.

But in a sense Josephus is irrelevant. From where comes this huge
movement? Such things always start with a man on a soapbox saying
"follow me". The whole "Jesus myth" idea consists of obscurantism of
one kind or another, by which I mean, just finding excuses to ignore
data in order to argue from a manufactured silence. This is why
scholars reject it without consideration.

> >> >No. The Bible is a compilation of many sources
> >> Comprising one work we call "the Bible".
> > Ask him to prove it.
>
> Are you saying the bible is NOT a compilation of many sources ?

No, that's Al's argument. It seemed worth challenging.

> > This rhetoric has no factual content. Al knows nothing about any of
> > these people. Note how he cunningly compares Jesus, a rural peasant,
> > to emperors and people who issued coins and built huge extant
> > buildings; hardly the same kind of evidence available for 99% of
> > people in antiquity!
>
> So Jesus was unimportant and did nothing noteworth in his lifetime?

To a Roman historian? Certainly. No-one in the Roman world takes any
real notice of Christ and Christians until the 3rd century.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
 
On Apr 16, 1:46 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> On 15 Apr 2007 20:35:32 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"
>
> <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 15, 3:33 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 14 Apr 2007 20:35:12 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"
>
> >> > If so, why does this make
> >> >more sense to you than that of a larger than life character based on a
> >> >real person?
>
> >> Because, again, there's no evidence that such a person actually
> >> existed. And LOADS of evidence that Jesus, as described in the Bible,
> >> didn't, and couldn't, have existed.
>
> >I assume your "couldn't have existed" is based on the impossibility of
> >the miracles attributed to him.
>
> It's based on the fact that someone can't come from a place that
> didn't exist.

That is a very weak argument. Desperately weak, in fact. Someone
mistranslates a place in an oral account, and you claim this proves
the subject of the story therefore must not have existed?

BLP
 
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:58:00 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>news:epn72316o5ngarjee91kfjslgfm5u0ufq4@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:57:49 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>>>news:00r5239o162buhi93luuisoo2ngc1fr73h@4ax.com...
>>>> Which is why opinion is worthless. Only evidence counts, and the
>>>> evidence is not only that there is none that Jesus existed
>>>
>>>I'd agree that there is no (historically credible) evidence for Jesus
>>>existing.
>>>
>>>There is evidence of christians who appeared to follow a christ or a
>>>Jesus,
>>>which does not imply that such a person existed, of course.
>>>
>>>> but that
>>>> there is evidence that he didn't exist.
>>>
>>>I don't believe there is any evidence that he did not exist .. what would
>>>such evidence be?
>>
>> Evidence that a man named Yeshua who was born in the early first
>> century and came from Nazareth didn't exist? There was no town called
>> Nazareth in the early first century.
>
>That is only evidence that he was not born in the town climed by the
>fictional birth narratives.
>
>Not evidence that Jesus did not exist

That's shifting the burden. There's no evidence (other than
assertion) that he DID exist.

>Yes .. I acknowledge that there is a LOT of fictious elements there .. but
>your logic is like saying because Sherlock holmes is a fictional character,
>that london does not exist.

No, it's like saying that since London doesn't exist (if it didn't), a
detective who "lived" there couldn't be a real person.

>> As I said to Pramer, there's no doubt that MANY men named Yeshua lived
>> in Jerusalem in the early first century, but there's plenty of
>> evidence that the one claimed in the Bible didn't.

>No .. there is only evidence that the events depcited (in particular the
>description of his birth and death) are fictional.

Solar eclipse during the full moon? There's PLENTY of evidence that
it never happened.

Sheep in the meadows overnight in December? Plenty of evidence it
never happened.

A man being hanged to death, then falling to his death?

>I agree totally that there is lots of fiction in the Gospels etc .. but that
>does not necessaril indicate that there was not an historical (as opposed to
>biblcal) Jesus upon which the stories are based

As I said, it's a certainty that many men named Yeshua lived in that
place at that time. We're discussing the Biblical Jesus, not some
carpenter or fisherman or stone cutter.

>There are other documents that people quote as evidence that are probably
>not totally fictional like the Josephus passage

That one passage is not something a Jew would have written. The rest
of Josephus doesn't mention Jesus.

> .. but they are really only
>evidence for the existence of christians, not for jesus

Evidence of the Chreestos cult - which was a Jewish sect and had
nothing to do with a savior. The Chreestos (the anointed ones) were
the members of the sect.

Christianity has appropriated much - Oestre, Mithras' birthday, the
virgin birth ... and a cult that "followed Jesus".

Oestre had nothing to do with the resurrection.

Jesus, if he was born when the shepherds had their flocks in the
meadows, had nothing to do with someone born on December 25th.

>> The most important of them, to Christians, would never have been
>> uttered by a practicing Jew, which Christianity claims ITS Jesus was.

>People can utter all sorts of things.

While it's possible that the Pope could say, "Jesus is a fake", I
wouldn't bet anything on it ever happening.

There are just some things some people wouldn't say.

> And you'll note that according to the
>stories, the jews were not happy with the things Jesus uttered. Really ..
>saying that Jesus cannot exist because he is reported to have said things
>that a Jew sjhould not say is not a valid agument at all.

You misunderstood. The only thing Josephus ever said that might
have sounded like Jesus existed is something a Jew would never have
said.

>> Is it likely that a practicing Jew of the
>> time would claim that the Bible (the only one at the time) was no
>> longer to be followed?

>Jesus didn't claim that.

He certainly did. Christianity claims a "new covenant" - at a time
when the ONLY "Bible" was the Tanach. The earliest parts of the NT
were still being written.

>And not everyhintg attributed to jesus in the stories written long after his
>death are going to be exactly what he said.

If he didn't exactly say that it was now the NT that was to be
followed, instead of the OT, then Christianity is Judaism. There's no
peace-loving savior in the OT.

>>>Unless there is solid evidence that the Gospel stories are COMPELTE
>>>fabrications (rather than major embellishments on what would otherwise be
>>>a fairly dull story).

>> What we need is solid evidence that they're COMPLETE TRUTH.

>I don't suggest they are

If the parts that are the bedrock of Christianity aren't, there's no
reason for Christianity.

>Yes .. the Bible is self contradictory in points of histroy, science nad
>theology.

>But that does not mean it is ENTIRELY untrue

The assumption is that unproven claims are just that, unproven claims.
Especially from a book that's wrong on almost every point that can be
checked. But they're certainly not to be assumed true until proven
false.

>It does not mean that there was not an historical Jesus.

Until there's actual evidence that there was, the assumption is that
claims about him are just claims.
>
>>>That doesn't mean that there was not a man that was called Jesus, who was
>>>born somewhere around the galille region (ignoring the fictional virgin
>>>birth in bethlehem etc).
>>
>> We KNOW that there were MANY men called Jesus (Yeshua) born there at
>> that approximate time. That has nothing to do with Christianity.
>
>I didn't say it was .. I'm just saying that the stories in the Gospel can
>easily be based around a real person.

The "stories" (one, actually) written by someone who was supposedly
close to the actual occurrences is that "Jesus" is a spiritual aspect
of God, not a man. If the claims about him as a man, which didn't
start until about 140 years later, are based on an actual person, it
would be miraculous. Remember, no newspapers, no memoirs, nothing in
writing for the most part, except the Tanach. 140 years later someone
remembers an itinerant preacher? Without looking it up (they had
nowhere to look, and the odds are that there were no more written
mentions of Jesus in the late second century, from the early first
century, than there are now), tell me who was President 140 years ago.

>Yes .. lots of Yeshua's. That does not mean there was not a particular
>Yeshua (or maybe even someone not called Yeshua, or maybe a couple of
>people) upon which the Gospel stories were based (and then embellished).

The time frame, and the record keeping of current events, argues
against it.

>If you are replying to me, thne that IS what we are discussing . .the
>possibility of an historical Jesus (not one that exactly fits the impossibly
>contradictory and unrealsitic Gospel descriptions)

Then what? Some guy named Yeshua? 140 years back then, to the Jews,
was forever. If they had picked someone to tell stories about it
would have been someone alive or someone who had died recently, not
someone who died 6 generations before and was so unremarkable while he
lived that no one at the time noticed enough to include him in a
census.

>>>But an ordinary historical Jesus that lived, taught some followers, and died
>>>(though far removed form the embellished mythology of the Gospel storied)
>>>does make some sense.

>> And is totally irrelevant to Christianity.

>To christianity as it is today .. yes. If there was a Jesus who taught (at
>least) some of the things that he is reported to have taught in the gospels,
>then it is really todays christianity that is irrelevant to the 'real'
>teachings of Jesus.

Maybe, maybe not. Since he wasn't mentioned in writing until 140
years after he supposedly died, we'll never know what he taught, if
there was a real Jesus. He may have just 'taught' Judaism, for all we
know.

>> (Although why we should
>> assume that some man named Yeshua had anything to do with the
>> Chreestos cult, other than being a member of the cult, is beyond me.
>> Just to pick a name at non-random?)

>He probably had nothing to do with the cult itself .. the "chreestos" cult
>developed afterwards

The Chreestos cult developed before the first century. Christians
took it over (like they took a lot of Judaism over) and made it
theirs. But it has nothing to do with a savior until Christianity
remade it.

(that would have most likely been based on Paul's
>teachings that put forward the idea of a 'christ'.).
>
 
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:59:58 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>news:9jo723h3k8gsrr6oojjsh24me4fgeila73@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 01:34:26 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>A Jesus that is exactly as described in the Gospels would be impossible
>>>(as
>>>there is conflicting details).
>>
>> A Jesus that was as close to the one described in the Gospels so as to
>> be relevant to Christianity would be just as impossible.
>
>Yes .. I'm not said any different. Buts its more the other way around ,.,
>Christianity is irrelevant to the teaching of an historical Jesus (if he did
>exist) .. What we have today as Christianity is based on the myths and
>fables.

And we have even less of an historical Jesus, so why presume one?
 
On 17 Apr 2007 07:56:31 -0700, Baldin Lee Pramer
<BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote:

>On Apr 16, 2:38 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> On 16 Apr 2007 07:30:20 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"
>>
>> <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote:
>> >> Wrong word. It's not as easy. In fact, it's totally beyond your
>> >> capability, since you can't read the source materials.
>> >The best I can do is the original translations into the Greek.
>>
>> You're fluent in ancient Greek?
>
>Fluent? No.
>
>> I'm impressed. Then you ARE aware of
>> the later total screw-up of the Greek word 'alma'. Just more evidence
>> that the story is made up.
>
>No, mistranslations are mistranslations, not evidence of trickery.

The claim that Mary was a virgin is a mistranslation and you slough it
off? It's one of the "facts" Christianity is based on. Without that,
Jesus is pretty much just another guy.

>You pretend that is what I am doing, yet all that I claim is that the
>mention of a person in the Bible is evidence that that person may have
>existed.

It's not. An assertion isn't evidence that the assertion "may be
true".

>I am using the Bible as an instance of historical record

Why, when it's consistently incorrect? Superman Comics is MUCH more
historically accurate, but you don't base a claim that Superman may
exist on that.

>It is the same as using
>any set of old writings to try to reconstruct a true historical
>record.

Assertions only build assertions, not "a true historical record".
Assuming your conclusion is a logical fallacy, not a valid method of
historical research.

> Mention of Jesus in the Bible is just that -- mention of a man
>in a set of old documents.

In documents written generations after the setting.

>That is very different from claiming that he must have existed,
>because the Bible says so.

There's no reason to consider his existence unless there's evidence -
not assertion, evidence - that he existed. Unless you already believe
it, of course.

>> >> >> > That is a completely different approach than that taken by
>> >> >> >the literalists.

>> >> >> It's EXACTLY the same approach. The interpret, based on exactly the
>> >> >> same reasoning that you use, that the Bible is to be taken literally.

>> >No. I never made any such statement.

>> THEY do. They interpret what they see their way, you interpret what
>> you see your way. You say their way is incorrect, they say that your
>> way is incorrect.
>
>Nonetheless, my statement was correct, that I never said the Bible was
>to be taken literally.

They say it is. You say that your opinion is more valid. They say
that theirs is. To an impartial outsider, there's no difference.

> Your claim that I take the Bible literally is false

I never made the claim. I said that your claim and the claim of the
literalists is the same thing to an outsider. It's, "I'm right and
they're wrong". And that's ALL it is to us.

>> >> You assume that the Biblical Jesus existed,

>> >Again, no, I made no such assumtion. You are deliberately distorting
>> >my words.

>> "It is, in my opinion, more logical to assume that a man with that
>> name existed ... than to assume that he never existed."

>I'm right

That's a claim that you assume that Jesus existed. If all you're
claiming is that some man named Yeshua existed in Jerusalem in the
first century, no one is arguing with you, and it has nothing to do
with Christianity, regardless of what his name was. There were tens
of thousands of men living around there at that time. So one of them
had the very common name Yeshua. So what?

>> If that's your entire argument, that some man named Yeshua lived in
>> Jerusalem in the early first century, no one in his right mind would
>> argue with you.

>It is not my entire argument. My claim is that the Jesus who is the
>subject of the New Testament is most probably based on a charismatic
>man of that name

There no reason to even make a decision about that, since there's no
evidence to lead one to make such a decision, unless you already
believe that the Bible is factual.

>sort of a mini-cult leader

What cult? He wasn't even mentioned until 6 generations after the
fact.

>whose disciples

The Chreestos weren't "disciples of the Christ", THEY, THEMSELVES,
were the anointed ones. Just another "mistranslation".

> subsequently built him up to be larger than life.

The people who "subsequently built him up" did so 6 GENERATIONS after
he was supposed to have died. Some "disciples".

>> There's a difference between a change in pronunciation and a claim
>> that Jews lived in a cemetery. The latter never happened, even though
>> "Jesus of Nazareth" is exactly that claim.

>He may have been called the Nazarene, or some similar thing.

He was called, in the Bible, A Nazorite. I thought you said you
read the original Greek. (Nazorite isn't "some similar thing" to
Nazarene, which you'd know if you were as familiar with the subject as
you claim to be.)

> Things get bungled in translation all the time.

Which is why, of course, George Washington is called the First Queen
of the US. (That's more accurate than the difference between Nazorite
and Nazarene.)

> You are making a mountain out of a molehill.

I'm making a speed bump out of the Himalayas. There's not a single
claim about Jesus that can be verified that turns out to be correct.
NOT ONE. That's not a molehill, and it's not "bungled in
translation", it's "made of whole cloth".

>> Stories ALL tracing back to a SINGLE source - the books of the Bible,
>> which can't be used as evidence that what's in the books of the Bible
>> is true.

>Sorry, that is not a single source.

The canon is ONE source, put together by ONE BODY of people.

> It is a compilation of several sources.

Learn what "canon" means. One thing it DOESN'T mean is "true".

>> > What sort of evidence do you require?

>> Something extra-biblical from someone who had no positive axe to
>> grind. Roman records. A diatribe by an enemy of his. Something
>> written DURING HIS LIFETIME by someone who wasn't a Christian that
>> mentioned him by name, and by enough description of his actions that
>> we know he wasn't talking about some other Yeshua.
>
>As far as we know, there are no such records.

Then there's nothing but a single body of assertion, 6 generations
after the fact. Not very convincing.

> All we have is writings by several different sources favorable to their subject.

All we have is all the favorable sources having been chosen to be the
body of assertion. The fact that 10 people all claimed that an
eleventh is telling the truth isn't evidence, it's hearsay. Make that
3 people claiming that a 4th is true and it's even less.

Luke 1:1 eliminates Luke as evidence from the first word, so we're
left with 2 people claiming that a third is true. Hearsay that
hearsay is true. Nothing to base a National Enquirer story on.

>I suspect you know of and believe in the existence of several people
>only through sources that mention them favorably.

Contemporaneous sources. People about whom there are unfavorable
sources also. People who are claimed to have done perfectly normal
things.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there no
evidence at all. One piece of so-called evidence even states that it
isn't.

>> Things like what we have about other historic, and known real, people.

>> >Written records from Romans?

>> Since they kept meticulous records of everything, why didn't they even
>> mention Jesus? Not a single mention in over 3 decades. Pilate was
>> scared that the "King of the Jews" was being born, but there's not a
>> single mention of any of the things he supposedly did about it. The
>> Romans conducted censuses - not a single mention of Jesus of the
>> Bible.

>I thought you said that there are records of many Yeshuas.

None of them having anything to do with a preacher, let alone the only
begotten son of God. No "King of the Jews". No savior. No
crucifixion that occurred on a day in which there was a total solar
eclipse during the full moon.

As much "evidence" of the Biblical Jesus as the fact that there are
many men named Joe in the US right now. And as relevant to
Christianity.

>> >> and actual
>> >> evidence that he didn't,

>> >What is that evidence?

>> The census claim. The Nazareth claim. The "darkness" claim (a solar
>> eclipse when there was none). The Magi claim (following a star is
>> nonsense - stars don't have fixed locations relative to the surface of
>> Earth). The birth date claim (the flocks weren't in the fields in
>> winter). The impossibility of the events on the morning of the
>> resurrection (construct a single time line for that morning). The
>> dual claims of Judas' cause of death (as if it was made up by two
>> different people, who never compared notes). And on and on and ...

>Again, no. You are deliberately distorting my position

Your position is that there's a reason to consider that the Bible
stories may have been based on a real person who had more going for
him than that he had a very common name. If that's all you're
claiming, it has nothing to do with Christianity, so why discuss it?
Sure there were men in Jerusalem in the early first century named
Yeshua. That has nothing to do with a story invented in the late
second century.

>I claimed that the stories were probably based on a real person

Which 1) is nonsense (140 years later, back then?) and 2) totally
irrelevant to Christianity.

>> >Oh, here you are really stretching. Because his place or origin was
>> >mistranslated, you claim he could not have existed.

>> Because the entire story is INCORRECT factually.

>So you claim.

So I posted a few paragraphs above.

> If the New Testament Jesus was based on a real man,
>and there was evidence enough to convince you, then it would be highly
>probable that some of the story was true (say, Jesus traveled to
>such and such a place).

So the fact that Superman traveled to Los Angeles means that Superman
is probably based on a real person? Get real.

> In that case some of the story would be factually correct.

Any of the assertions that can be verified are false. Using Jesus'
travel to a real place as evidence that Jesus existed is assuming your
conclusion.

>But note how you have claimed that the ENTIRE story is INCORRECT.

ALL parts of it that can be verified are.

>> But we don't claim that Mithras was real. We don't claim that Horus
>> was real.

>They don't count. They are gods. I am talking about a man.

If all Jesus was, was some man, he's totally irrelevant to
Christianity. Christianity isn't based on "a man".

>> So either mention in a story is enough to believe that the person
>> mentioned is real, or it's not. Both for Jesus and for Superman. (And
>> there's absolutely NO incorrect factual evidence in Superman stories,
>
>Sure there is. He does impossible things all the time. The physics is
>wrong.

Miracles are wrong too, so I guess that eliminates Christianity.

You don't get to have one set of rules for what you want to be true
and another for what you want to not be true.

>It is not a point against my argument. It is a point against your
>argument. You are arguing from emotion here. I am merely pointing out
>that barbarism is still common practice, while you claim it has no
>place in the modern world. You may not like it, but it certainly
>exists and is part of law in many countries.

Which doesn't mean that it has a place in the modern world. You're
arguing that what is should be. Why should it?
 
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 11:15:12 -0400, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:

>But the NT isn't even that, it is a work of religious propaganda in
>the same league as the Koran, the Book of Mormon, the Hindu scriptures
>etc. It describes what members of the religion are supposed to
>believe.

Luke 1:1, "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order
a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us"

Not "known". Not "witnessed". "Believed". There goes 1/4 of the
Gospel (and anything deriving from it) as evidence.

>As a "historical source", both the OT and the NT require
>corroboration. For example it turns out that Jericho was already
>abandoned

And that walled cities hadn't been invented yet.
 
On 17 Apr 2007 08:04:00 -0700, Baldin Lee Pramer
<BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote:

>On Apr 16, 2:55 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 01:34:26 +1000, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >A Jesus that is exactly as described in the Gospels would be impossible (as
>> >there is conflicting details).
>>
>> A Jesus that was as close to the one described in the Gospels so as to
>> be relevant to Christianity would be just as impossible.
>
>
>Again, BFD. Your argument that there was no historical character
>around which the New Testament Jesus stories grew

No one who would have been relevant to Christianity and, considering
that the story was invented 140 years after the supposed "historical
character" was dead, unbelievable, considering the time. Don't look
it up - who was president 140 years ago?
 
On 17 Apr 2007 10:02:19 -0700, Baldin Lee Pramer
<BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote:

>On Apr 16, 1:46 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> On 15 Apr 2007 20:35:32 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"
>>
>> <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote:
>> >On Apr 15, 3:33 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> >> On 14 Apr 2007 20:35:12 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"
>>
>> >> > If so, why does this make
>> >> >more sense to you than that of a larger than life character based on a
>> >> >real person?
>>
>> >> Because, again, there's no evidence that such a person actually
>> >> existed. And LOADS of evidence that Jesus, as described in the Bible,
>> >> didn't, and couldn't, have existed.
>>
>> >I assume your "couldn't have existed" is based on the impossibility of
>> >the miracles attributed to him.
>>
>> It's based on the fact that someone can't come from a place that
>> didn't exist.
>
>That is a very weak argument. Desperately weak, in fact. Someone
>mistranslates a place in an oral account

No, he "mistranslates" a way of life for a place in a written account.

> and you claim this proves
>the subject of the story therefore must not have existed?

A man who came from Nazareth when Nazareth didn't exist couldn't have
existed. Or can't you understand that? Add all the other
"mistranslations" and you have NOT ONE SINGLE verifiable claim that
isn't false. Not one.
 
On Apr 17, 9:25 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> On 17 Apr 2007 10:02:19 -0700, Baldin Lee Pramer
>
>
>
> <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 16, 1:46 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 15 Apr 2007 20:35:32 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"
>
> >> <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote:
> >> >On Apr 15, 3:33 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> On 14 Apr 2007 20:35:12 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"
>
> >> >> > If so, why does this make
> >> >> >more sense to you than that of a larger than life character based on a
> >> >> >real person?
>
> >> >> Because, again, there's no evidence that such a person actually
> >> >> existed. And LOADS of evidence that Jesus, as described in the Bible,
> >> >> didn't, and couldn't, have existed.
>
> >> >I assume your "couldn't have existed" is based on the impossibility of
> >> >the miracles attributed to him.
>
> >> It's based on the fact that someone can't come from a place that
> >> didn't exist.
>
> >That is a very weak argument. Desperately weak, in fact. Someone
> >mistranslates a place in an oral account
>
> No, he "mistranslates" a way of life for a place in a written account.
>
> > and you claim this proves
> >the subject of the story therefore must not have existed?
>
> A man who came from Nazareth when Nazareth didn't exist couldn't have
> existed. Or can't you understand that?

Someone could have heard wrong, or some mistranslation could have
occurred... there are many other possibilities other than your
conspiracy theory.

Baldin Lee Pramer
 
"Roger Pearse" <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1176825055.111301.205640@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On 17 Apr, 08:46, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> "Roger Pearse" <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:1176794394.190825.268780@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> >> No mention of him AT ALL until over 100 years after he supposedly
>> >> died. Would you believe that Abraham Lincoln had actually existed if
>> >> the first mention of him in writing was from last month?
>> > Note the omission of all the sources that DO mention him.
>> What early 1st century sources?
> Surely you mean "what early first century sources with video-
> footage"?

So .. does your facecious remark, rather than acutally mentioning any
sources, mean that you do not know of any?

>> > Al doesn't know any of this. Ask for examples of people living in 1st
>> > century Judaea ca 30 for whom this is correct.
>> I'm pretty sure we have records of Pilate, and of the various pharasees
>> etc,
> I would suggest finding out.

Why .. don't you know?

>> > Our best sources for all first century history are Tacitus, Suetonius
>> > and Cassius Dio, with Josephus for Jewish sources.
>> But again, they are not contemporary ..
> They are what exists, tho.

Yes .. but unfortunately not contemporary .. and they say little at all
about Jesus himself ..only that christians exists and that they had a
leader, and about what christains claim to believe.

> If the policies of emperors -- masters of
> the whole world -- are known from such sources, in what sense is it
> meaningful to demand more for minor figures?

They are also known from contemporary sources .. that non-contemporary
sources corroborate that evidence is a bonus. And there is VERY little
information on Jesus even in the sources you claim.

I would love there to be some contemporary evidence ofJesus life .. then one
could look at the later works (including the Gospels etc), and compare them
with the information contains and see if it is consistent and what
additional information can be drawn from that.

> But in a sense this is detail. The general point is that any event in
> antiquity must be documented from what evidence exists, to the
> standard that evidence exists for other things. This stuff about
> 'contemporary' is borrowed from modern history (where there is so much
> data that it is used as a rule of thumb to exclude duplicate info); in
> ancient history it's irrelevant, since we frequently have no such
> thing. Our only knowledge of events in Britain in 396, for instance,
> is Zosimus who lives ca. 530 AD, well after Roman Britain has ceased
> to exist.
>
>> and as I recall only the highly suspect addition to Josephus mentions
>> Jesus .. other source mention the 'christians', not Jesus himself.
>
> You are doubtless aware that there are two passages in Josephus. The
> second has never been seriously questioned; today the first is
> generally thought corrupt, rather than interpolated as was thought a
> century ago.

Yeup

> But in a sense Josephus is irrelevant. From where comes this huge
> movement? Such things always start with a man on a soapbox saying
> "follow me". The whole "Jesus myth" idea consists of obscurantism of
> one kind or another, by which I mean, just finding excuses to ignore
> data in order to argue from a manufactured silence. This is why
> scholars reject it without consideration.

Sorry.. I don't follwo the point you're triyng to make above

>> >> >No. The Bible is a compilation of many sources
>> >> Comprising one work we call "the Bible".
>> > Ask him to prove it.
>> Are you saying the bible is NOT a compilation of many sources ?
> No, that's Al's argument. It seemed worth challenging.

On what grounds? Unless you disagree with it .. why challenege it?

>> > This rhetoric has no factual content. Al knows nothing about any of
>> > these people. Note how he cunningly compares Jesus, a rural peasant,
>> > to emperors and people who issued coins and built huge extant
>> > buildings; hardly the same kind of evidence available for 99% of
>> > people in antiquity!
>>
>> So Jesus was unimportant and did nothing noteworth in his lifetime?
> To a Roman historian? Certainly. No-one in the Roman world takes any
> real notice of Christ and Christians until the 3rd century.

That's pretty much my opinion as well.
 
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:rhg923hkai8haejogst3qtt6s6ndsom11u@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:58:00 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>>>>I don't believe there is any evidence that he did not exist .. what
>>>>would
>>>>such evidence be?
>>>
>>> Evidence that a man named Yeshua who was born in the early first
>>> century and came from Nazareth didn't exist? There was no town called
>>> Nazareth in the early first century.
>>
>>That is only evidence that he was not born in the town climed by the
>>fictional birth narratives.
>>
>>Not evidence that Jesus did not exist
>
> That's shifting the burden. There's no evidence (other than
> assertion) that he DID exist.

It is not shifting anything .. you claimed to have evidence Jesus did not
exist .. and you've not provided any.

Only evidence that certain events or anecdotes about him are not correct.

However, It is ceratinly true that the presence of obviosuly fictional
elements in a story makes one suspciuos of the truth of all the other
elements of the story whose truth we cannot directly deterine.

>>Yes .. I acknowledge that there is a LOT of fictious elements there .. but
>>your logic is like saying because Sherlock holmes is a fictional
>>character,
>>that london does not exist.
>
> No, it's like saying that since London doesn't exist (if it didn't), a
> detective who "lived" there couldn't be a real person.

Just because someone made up a story about where Jesus was born doesn't mean
Jesus wasn't born at all.

That is not a logical conclusion.

>>> As I said to Pramer, there's no doubt that MANY men named Yeshua lived
>>> in Jerusalem in the early first century, but there's plenty of
>>> evidence that the one claimed in the Bible didn't.
>>No .. there is only evidence that the events depcited (in particular the
>>description of his birth and death) are fictional.
> Solar eclipse during the full moon? There's PLENTY of evidence that
> it never happened.
> Sheep in the meadows overnight in December? Plenty of evidence it
> never happened.
> A man being hanged to death, then falling to his death?

Yes .. I've not said otherwise .. indeed , I just said they are fictional.
So I take it you are just providing supporting examples for what I was
saying .. thanks.

>>I agree totally that there is lots of fiction in the Gospels etc .. but
>>that
>>does not necessaril indicate that there was not an historical (as opposed
>>to
>>biblcal) Jesus upon which the stories are based
> As I said, it's a certainty that many men named Yeshua lived in that
> place at that time. We're discussing the Biblical Jesus, not some
> carpenter or fisherman or stone cutter.

That maybe what you are discussing (or wanting to discuss). . but I was
clearly NOT discussing that,

>>There are other documents that people quote as evidence that are probably
>>not totally fictional like the Josephus passage
> That one passage is not something a Jew would have written. The rest
> of Josephus doesn't mention Jesus.

Yes .. I've not said otherwise .. indeed , I just said those parts of
Josephus are fictional. So I take it you are just providing supporting
examples for what I was saying .. thanks.

>> .. but they are really only
>>evidence for the existence of christians, not for jesus
>
> Evidence of the Chreestos cult - which was a Jewish sect and had
> nothing to do with a savior. The Chreestos (the anointed ones) were
> the members of the sect.

Yes .. I've not said otherwise .. So I take it you are just providing
supporting examples for what I was saying .. thanks.

> Christianity has appropriated much - Oestre, Mithras' birthday, the
> virgin birth ... and a cult that "followed Jesus".
> Oestre had nothing to do with the resurrection.

Yeup.

> Jesus, if he was born when the shepherds had their flocks in the
> meadows, had nothing to do with someone born on December 25th.

The date of December 25 is not in the bible .. it was (mis)calcalated later

>>> The most important of them, to Christians, would never have been
>>> uttered by a practicing Jew, which Christianity claims ITS Jesus was.
>>People can utter all sorts of things.
>
> While it's possible that the Pope could say, "Jesus is a fake", I
> wouldn't bet anything on it ever happening.
> There are just some things some people wouldn't say.

If Jesus was out and about preaching new ideas, then I don't see why some of
those ideas would not be things a jew would not usually say

>> And you'll note that according to the
>>stories, the jews were not happy with the things Jesus uttered. Really ..
>>saying that Jesus cannot exist because he is reported to have said things
>>that a Jew sjhould not say is not a valid agument at all.
>
> You misunderstood. The only thing Josephus ever said that might
> have sounded like Jesus existed is something a Jew would never have
> said.

Hang on .. from the context you were clearly talking about things JESUS said
... not Josephus .. why are you bringing up Josephus again when both of us
are discrediting him as a source already?

>>> Is it likely that a practicing Jew of the
>>> time would claim that the Bible (the only one at the time) was no
>>> longer to be followed?
>>Jesus didn't claim that.
>
> He certainly did. Christianity claims a "new covenant" - at a time
> when the ONLY "Bible" was the Tanach. The earliest parts of the NT
> were still being written.

He said the the existing law and sciprture was to remain and was to be
followed.

Of course .. the bible is fulll of contradictions .

>>And not everyhintg attributed to jesus in the stories written long after
>>his
>>death are going to be exactly what he said.
> If he didn't exactly say that it was now the NT that was to be
> followed

There was no NT when Jesus was supposedly around .. that came later

> instead of the OT, then Christianity is Judaism.

Yes .. Jesus was not a christian (there was no such thing until much later)
he was a Jew, and his mission was to Jews (and if the stories are true,
initially only to the Jews). Much of what he taught was in line with
previous Jewish scholars, some of it different interpreations, or new views.

> There's no
> peace-loving savior in the OT.

There's very little peaceful about the OT at all :)

>>>>Unless there is solid evidence that the Gospel stories are COMPELTE
>>>>fabrications (rather than major embellishments on what would otherwise
>>>>be
>>>>a fairly dull story).
>>> What we need is solid evidence that they're COMPLETE TRUTH.
>>I don't suggest they are
> If the parts that are the bedrock of Christianity aren't, there's no
> reason for Christianity.

Yeup. I didn't say there was. But, if there was an historical Jesus (upon
whom the gospel stories were based) then I would love to be able to read
what he really DID teach and what things really DID happen. If he did
exists, by the time the stories were written down (in the forms we have) the
stories were embelished and edited to the point that its very difficult (if
not impossible) to determine the truth.

>>Yes .. the Bible is self contradictory in points of histroy, science nad
>>theology.
>>But that does not mean it is ENTIRELY untrue
>
> The assumption is that unproven claims are just that, unproven claims.

I have not said otherwise

> Especially from a book that's wrong on almost every point that can be
> checked. But they're certainly not to be assumed true until proven
> false.

I have not said they should be

>>It does not mean that there was not an historical Jesus.
>
> Until there's actual evidence that there was, the assumption is that
> claims about him are just claims.

Exactly . .claims that he exists and claims that he doesn't .. we don't
really know

>>>>That doesn't mean that there was not a man that was called Jesus, who
>>>>was
>>>>born somewhere around the galille region (ignoring the fictional virgin
>>>>birth in bethlehem etc).
>>> We KNOW that there were MANY men called Jesus (Yeshua) born there at
>>> that approximate time. That has nothing to do with Christianity.
>>I didn't say it was .. I'm just saying that the stories in the Gospel can
>>easily be based around a real person.
>
> The "stories" (one, actually)

four books .. four stories. And quite possibly a common source for the
synoptics, as well as much copying of earlier stories in later gospels, and
each with its own little variations and embellishments. Many of the
sub-stories in the gospels are unique to one gospel only.

> written by someone who was supposedly
> close to the actual occurrences

They are almost ceratinly not written by disiples of Jesus

> is that "Jesus" is a spiritual aspect
> of God, not a man.

That sounds like you're talking about John, which is the latest of the four
gospels .. and probably the furthest from the truth and the one that has
much mor e'theolgy' rahter than narrative and appears influences most by
Pauline teachings.

> If the claims about him as a man, which didn't
> start until about 140 years later

The earliset gospels are generally dated to end of the first centurey ..
though almost certainly not written by jesus disciples.

> are based on an actual person, it
> would be miraculous.

Why?

> Remember, no newspapers, no memoirs, nothing in
> writing for the most part, except the Tanach.

People did write things down, and oral traiditons were strong. And just
because we do not have earlier writings does not mean they could not
possibly have existed. It doesn't need to be a miracle.

> 140 years later someone
> remembers an itinerant preacher? Without looking it up (they had
> nowhere to look, and the odds are that there were no more written
> mentions of Jesus in the late second century, from the early first
> century, than there are now), tell me who was President 140 years ago.

I don't care .. I'm not a follower of presidents. But if I was a follower
of Jesus, then I'd remember who he was.

>>Yes .. lots of Yeshua's. That does not mean there was not a particular
>>Yeshua (or maybe even someone not called Yeshua, or maybe a couple of
>>people) upon which the Gospel stories were based (and then embellished).
> The time frame, and the record keeping of current events, argues
> against it.

In what way?

>>If you are replying to me, thne that IS what we are discussing . .the
>>possibility of an historical Jesus (not one that exactly fits the
>>impossibly
>>contradictory and unrealsitic Gospel descriptions)
>
> Then what? Some guy named Yeshua? 140 years back then, to the Jews,
> was forever. If they had picked someone to tell stories about it
> would have been someone alive or someone who had died recently, not
> someone who died 6 generations before and was so unremarkable while he
> lived that no one at the time noticed enough to include him in a
> census.

Your argument is based on generally unaccepted late datings for the gospels.

>>>>But an ordinary historical Jesus that lived, taught some followers, and
>>>>died
>>>>(though far removed form the embellished mythology of the Gospel
>>>>storied)
>>>>does make some sense.
>>> And is totally irrelevant to Christianity.
>>To christianity as it is today .. yes. If there was a Jesus who taught
>>(at
>>least) some of the things that he is reported to have taught in the
>>gospels,
>>then it is really todays christianity that is irrelevant to the 'real'
>>teachings of Jesus.
>
> Maybe, maybe not. Since he wasn't mentioned in writing until 140
> years after he supposedly died,

I doulbt you have convincing proof of this, as the genreally accepted dating
is end of the first century.

> we'll never know what he taught, if
> there was a real Jesus.

Andeven if we do happen to have some genuine quotes .. in the most part we
cannot tell them from forgeries.

If Jesus did exists, and if there was anything contmporary recorded about
him and his teachings .. its a shame we don't have it. I would love to read
what Jesus REALLY said and did (if indeed he lived)

> He may have just 'taught' Judaism, for all we
> know.

Yeup

>>> (Although why we should
>>> assume that some man named Yeshua had anything to do with the
>>> Chreestos cult, other than being a member of the cult, is beyond me.
>>> Just to pick a name at non-random?)
>>He probably had nothing to do with the cult itself .. the "chreestos" cult
>>developed afterwards
> The Chreestos cult developed before the first century. Christians
> took it over (like they took a lot of Judaism over) and made it
> theirs. But it has nothing to do with a savior until Christianity
> remade it.

Yeup

>> (that would have most likely been based on Paul's
>>teachings that put forward the idea of a 'christ'.).
 
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:7n3b23pam5df15pshgc35d5arm1urdf05p@4ax.com...
> On 17 Apr 2007 08:04:00 -0700, Baldin Lee Pramer
> <BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>On Apr 16, 2:55 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 01:34:26 +1000, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >A Jesus that is exactly as described in the Gospels would be impossible
>>> >(as
>>> >there is conflicting details).
>>>
>>> A Jesus that was as close to the one described in the Gospels so as to
>>> be relevant to Christianity would be just as impossible.
>>
>>
>>Again, BFD. Your argument that there was no historical character
>>around which the New Testament Jesus stories grew
>
> No one who would have been relevant to Christianity and, considering
> that the story was invented 140 years after the supposed "historical
> character" was dead, unbelievable, considering the time. Don't look
> it up - who was president 140 years ago?

Who cares
 

Similar threads

A
Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life, philosophical/religious facts, theories etc.
Replies
0
Views
343
avyea
A
A
The Higher-Self Alignment 2024 Calendar
Replies
0
Views
63
Andrewimmix
A
A
The Higher-Self Alignment 2024 Calendar
Replies
0
Views
25
Andrewimmix
A
M
XEvil 6.0 [Beta-8]: the best application for ReCaptcha and hCaptcha solving is available !
Replies
0
Views
206
MaryIntork2556
M
M
XEVIL 6: the best software for captcha solving is available !!
Replies
0
Views
125
MaryIntork0176
M
Back
Top