Re: Christianity and Sexual Assault

[Jeckyl]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:462783F3.73A1@armory.com...
> Jeckyl wrote:
>>
>> "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:4nte235s8ue5mmlqaktgjc4d4im9am0je2@4ax.com...
>> > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:02:04 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>> >>news:jpld23d00c2eguucb8i55gafnnqcdv2nfd@4ax.com...
>> >>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:52:11 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>> >>>>news:gq3b2354pcd25vm9rou0vsmfekb68gku1g@4ax.com...
>> >>>>> 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.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Just because something is not verifiable does not mean it is false.
>> >>>
>> >>> Christianity invented Jesus
>> >>
>> >>unfounded assertion
>> >
>> > It's the only actual evidence we have so far.
>>
>> Its not evidence, its an assertion.
>>
>> > Not a single mention in
>> > any document we currently can age until around 170 AD.
>> > That would be
>> > inventing a character.
>>
>> No .. that would be saying we don't have enough evidence to prove Jesus
>> did
>> exist .. not that we have evidence that he didn't
> -------------------
> Same thing. You're just posturing.

Got to have a good posture you know

 

[Mike Smith]

Roger Pearse <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>(Reiteration snipped unread)

How do you know it was reiteration if you didn't
read it? Psychic ability?
__________________________________________

 

[stumper]

R. Steve Walz wrote:
> stumper wrote:
>> Al Klein wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:52:11 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:gq3b2354pcd25vm9rou0vsmfekb68gku1g@4ax.com...
>>>>> 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.
>>>> Just because something is not verifiable does not mean it is false.
>>> Christianity invented Jesus and wrote about him, which is evidence
>>> that the invented Jesus might have been based on a real person who
>>> lived when the invented Jesus was supposed to have.
>>>
>>> Uh-huh.
>> Your certainty is troubling.
>>
>> Think for a while.
>> Is the Golden Rule falsifiable?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity
>>
>> --
>> ~Stumper
> --------------------
> If we're supposed to do unto others as we'd have them do to us,
> then there are lots of women I want to molest, because if I were
> a woman I'd want lots of men to molest me. How's that?
> Steve

Try the negative one.

--
~Stumper

 

[Al Klein]

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:30:29 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>news:hgld239n87sn95hqggoiahlut9njq3nm4n@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:50:40 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>>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.
>>
>> Evidence that ALL the assertions about him that can be verified turn
>> out to be false.
>
>Although that does make a case for Jesus not existing

Shifting the burden again. The only case that needs to be made for
"no Jesus" is "there's no evidence for the case of "yes Jesus".

>> When every single verifiable claim is false, it's a logical conclusion
>> that the claims were made up.
>
>Its a conclusion, but based on fallacious logical arguments

You have to prove that a real Jesus existed, I don't have to prove
that your assertion is wrong. THAT'S a fallacious argument.

>> It's also a logical conclusion to not
>> accept the non-verifiable claims without actual evidence.
>
>Yes

And that's all I'm doing - rejecting your claim because you can't back
it up with actual evidence. The fact that there's so much evidence
against any real Jesus is just another reason I'm rejecting it.

>So you say noone ever preaches doctrines or ideas different from orthodoxy ?
>There are never any new ideas .. never anything even midly radical or
>different?

Would Falwell start preaching the "new Christian doctrine" of
pro-choice? That's about the equivalent of a first-century Jew
teaching that there's a new covenant between man and God.

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

>> Really? Then what's that Christian stuff about the NT laws no longer
>> being in effect because Jesus "fulfilled" them?

>I think you mean OT

My typo.

> .. can you cite the biblical verse that suport that
>view? If not then it is irrelevant.

How can a tenet of Christianity be irrelevant to Christianity?

>> That's the whole point - the only "evidence" that they were based on
>> an actual first century man is the need people have for the stories to
>> be true.

>We have the stories of his teachings and of his disciples. Of course, they
>are not very reliabl evidence .. but there is more "evidence' than wishful
>thinking.

The stories are evidence that the stories are true? Sorry, but all we
have are the stories, and they AREN'T self-evidential.

>>>Exactly . .claims that he exists and claims that he doesn't

>> Shifting the burden again.

>No

"claims that he doesn't [exist" is shifting the burden. The burden
being to prove that he (the Biblical Jesus or the real Jesus the Bible
stories were based on) existed.

> .. as there is no good evidence either way

Shifting the burden again. There's no evidence at all that either
Jesus - the Biblical one or the real one that the Bible stories are
based on - existed. No one has to produce evidence that they didn't
exist.

> there is nothing provable.

About their existence, so there's no reason to believe that they
existed. Lack of evidence of an existentially negative assertion is
the expected state.

>>>> The "stories" (one, actually)
>>>four books .. four stories.

>> Many more books. The number depends on who you ask. Catholic.
>> Protestant. Gnostic.

>Only four christian gospels

Gnostic Christians would disagree.

But at least two of the Gospels are out of the running as far as being
evidence of anything goes. "What we believe" is renouncing any claim
to being evidence.

>>>> written by someone who was supposedly
>>>> close to the actual occurrences
>>>> is that "Jesus" is a spiritual aspect
>>>> of God, not a man.

>>>That sounds like you're talking about John

>> Paul.

>So you're now not talking about the gospels stories of Jesus .. you keep
>chaing subjects so much

The subject is the Biblical claims of the Biblical Jesus. Your subset
of that is whether the Bible stories were based on a real Jesus.

>>>> 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

>> The earliest fragment of a Gospel we have dates from around 120, and
>> it consists of about a dozen words. But Jesus the man wasn't
>> mentioned until about 170.

>That generally accepted datings are almost a century before that.

There is NO accurately dated document that early that makes any
claim to be part of the NT. "Acceptable datings" are just assertions,
not evidence. I thought we were talking about evidence of a real
Jesus.

>> If there had
>> been an itinerant preacher who died around 35 AD, no one in 170 AD
>> would know about him, unless he was so well known that no one would
>> forget about him for 140 years.

>You're assuming it was a not until 170 AD that anything was written.

That's all the actual evidence we have.

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

>>>People did write things down

>> When a piece of parchment costs about what you spend on food for your
>> family for a week, you don't waste one on writing about someone about
>> whom no one else thought enough to write.

>But if YOU thought it was important enough, you would.

If I were a first century tradesman? Probably not. Writing things
down wasn't for the common person. If you thought it was important,
would you have a large stone monument erected to mark some event?

In the first century you didn't just run down to the corner store and
buy a spiral notebook for a buck.

>>>And just because we do not have earlier writings does not mean they could
>>>not
>>>possibly have existed.

>> No earlier writings, no references to earlier writings

>As I said .. just because we don't have them doesn't mean that it was
>impossible for them to exist

We're talking about evidence. No reason to think there might have
been earlier writings about Jesus other than the need for there to
have been.

>>>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.

>> Not if no one had heard of him for 140 years.

>That's your asssertion .. but we do not know that.

That's the evidence. No evidence that anyone heard of him until 140
years after he supposedly died.

>[snip same assumptions that are contrary to accepted datings]

Are we talking about evidence or "accepted datings"? If the latter,
there was a supernatural Jesus who performed miracles, was killed and
rose on the third day.

You can't have it both ways. "Accepted datings" or evidence?

>> It's also "generally accepted" that he was the only begotten son of
>> God, and it's also "generally accepted" that he's still alive. But
>> there's no actual evidence of any of the three "generally accepted"
>> claims.

>Not generally .. only by christians

What you call "generally accepted" is only generally accepted by
Christians, so either we're talking about the "Facts" that are
generally accepted or we're talking about evidence. There's no
evidence of a human Jesus prior to 170, and it's generally accepted,
by those who generally accept that any Jesus existed - Christians -
that Jesus was a supernatural being.

Pick one.

> .. so that is not a valid argument

It's your choice - either "generally accepted" - by Christians - or
it's "we have evidence". Stop with the salad bar atheism.

>>>> 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.

>> Sure we can. The ones in the Bible are forgeries.

>We do not know that

We know that every single assertion that matters that we can verify is
false.

>Unless we ever do get any solid evidence that the
>gospel stories were completly works of fiction with no basis on fact

Shifting the burden again. The burden of proof is on those who claim
there's something other than make-believe there.

>>>If Jesus did exist

>> There's no actual evidence that would lead to even making such a
>> conjecture, other than the desire of people for it to be true.
>> Starting with the assumption that Jesus, or Heracles, or Neptune, may
>> have been based on a real person is religion.

>Only if you attribute god-like attributes to him

There's no actual evidence of any particular Yeshua in Jerusalem in
the first century other than people who had no evidenced connection to
the cult we now call Christianity.

 

[Al Klein]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:34:46 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>news:4nte235s8ue5mmlqaktgjc4d4im9am0je2@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:02:04 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>>>news:jpld23d00c2eguucb8i55gafnnqcdv2nfd@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:52:11 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>news:gq3b2354pcd25vm9rou0vsmfekb68gku1g@4ax.com...
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>Just because something is not verifiable does not mean it is false.
>>>>
>>>> Christianity invented Jesus
>>>
>>>unfounded assertion
>>
>> It's the only actual evidence we have so far.
>
>Its not evidence, its an assertion.

A document is evidence. There's nothing earlier.

>> Not a single mention in
>> any document we currently can age until around 170 AD.
>> That would be
>> inventing a character.

>No .. that would be saying we don't have enough evidence to prove Jesus did
>exist

No reason to even begin to entertain the notion, other than the need
of some people for it to be true.

 

[Al Klein]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 01:30:07 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
>news:462783A6.7764@armory.com...
>> Jeckyl wrote:
>>>
>>> "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:jpld23d00c2eguucb8i55gafnnqcdv2nfd@4ax.com...
>>> > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:52:11 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>>> >>news:gq3b2354pcd25vm9rou0vsmfekb68gku1g@4ax.com...
>>> >>> 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.
>>> >>
>>> >>Just because something is not verifiable does not mean it is false.
>>> > Christianity invented Jesus
>>> unfounded assertion
>> ------------------------
>> No, it's MUCH more founded than the invented Jesus.
>
>It is certainly possible Jesus is purely fictional.
>
>But oscam's razor rejects

Occam's Razor rejects the whole Jesus story - especially the parts we
KNOW are false.

> it as it results in too many 'conspiracy theories'

One man writes about a 'Jesus'. No conspiracy. We've even seen it
happen - how many tens of thousands believe in Dianetics and
Scientology? Something we KNOW was wholly invented.

>and too many unanswered questions.

>Eg. one problem is, if before Paul's "vision", who was he persecuting and
>why?

No one.

> Why is he recorded as having met disciples of Jesus if there was no
>Jesus to have disciples?

Why was superman recorded as having met Lex Luthor? Why did any
fictional character do anything? Because that's what the author
wrote.

>Why are there three synoptic gospels that have
>some sections copied almost verbatim, and other areas different .. why not
>just the one invented story?

Totally unimportant. The Gospels have gone through so many revisions
that we have no idea which copied which - we can only make educated
guesses.

>How does one explain the later
>non-contemporary 'evidence' of Christians and reports of Jesus crucifixion?

It's not evidence, it's assertion.

>Why were the gospels written?

Who cares?

>Maybe you have a simple explanation and timeline that ties up all the loose
>ends and answers all the questions.

It's fiction - get over it.

>Just saying "Jesus is fictional" doesn't really address the questions.

Sure it does - with a single answer. "Because that's the way the
author wrote it."

>Until then, the simplest solution is that there was an historical non-divine
>not-particularly-important-at-the-time person, whom the gospels called
>'Jesus', who had some followers, and who was crucified (as were many
>people).

No, the SIMPLEST explanation is that someone made up a story, the same
way the Greeks made up their gods, the Romans made up their gods and
the Mithraics made up their god. Why is Christianity any different?

> Its not suggesting anything particularly mind-blowing or
>remarkable, and an historical Jesus shouldn't upset any atheists (as such a
>figure would not be God, just a man) .. but it probably would upset the
>theists a little

An historical Zeus ... An historical Odin ... An historical Jove ...

No, the only one you think is historical is Jesus. Why? He's as much
a myth as all the other gods and god-men. Do you REALLY think the
stories about Thor were based on a real man?

 

[Jeckyl]

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:1pte23dfplppk24shj876ivgiu4f1sftgu@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:30:29 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:hgld239n87sn95hqggoiahlut9njq3nm4n@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:50:40 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>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.
>>>
>>> Evidence that ALL the assertions about him that can be verified turn
>>> out to be false.
>>
>>Although that does make a case for Jesus not existing
>
> Shifting the burden again. The only case that needs to be made for
> "no Jesus" is "there's no evidence for the case of "yes Jesus".

I'm not shifting anythings .. I'm agreeing with you and you argue with me.
it appears your sole purpose here is to invent things for you to think
people are saying simply so youcan argue with them

>>> When every single verifiable claim is false, it's a logical conclusion
>>> that the claims were made up.
>>
>>Its a conclusion, but based on fallacious logical arguments
>
> You have to prove that a real Jesus existed, I don't have to prove
> that your assertion is wrong. THAT'S a fallacious argument.
>
>>> It's also a logical conclusion to not
>>> accept the non-verifiable claims without actual evidence.
>>
>>Yes
>
> And that's all I'm doing - rejecting your claim

What claim?

> because you can't back
> it up with actual evidence. The fact that there's so much evidence
> against any real Jesus is just another reason I'm rejecting it.

There is NO evidence against a real Jesus. There is lack of good evidence
FOR a real jesus

>>So you say noone ever preaches doctrines or ideas different from orthodoxy
>>?
>>There are never any new ideas .. never anything even midly radical or
>>different?
>
> Would Falwell start preaching the "new Christian doctrine" of
> pro-choice?

Irrelevant .. and I've no idea who this Falwell is .. not someone of
importance where I live obviously.

> That's about the equivalent of a first-century Jew
> teaching that there's a new covenant between man and God.

So .. it is imposibble for a jew to come up with any ideas that are
different to what Judaism was currently believed to be.

This sounds like you're using a 'no true scotsman' fallacy here. If a jew
(lets call him Jesus for sake of argument) comes up with something that is
different to jewish doctrine, he cannot then be a true jew and so that means
he does not exist.

That is the essence of your argument there .. and that is not valid

>>>>He said the the existing law and sciprture was to remain and was to be
>>>>followed.
>>> Really? Then what's that Christian stuff about the NT laws no longer
>>> being in effect because Jesus "fulfilled" them?
>>I think you mean OT
> My typo.

Thought so

>> .. can you cite the biblical verse that suport that
>>view? If not then it is irrelevant.
> How can a tenet of Christianity be irrelevant to Christianity?

Strawman attack .. I did not say that

So .. I take it that means you cannot cite a biblical verse where Jesus says
that the OT teachings no longer apply.

If not, the your argument is irrelevant, as what Christians may have later
believed has no bearing on what Jesus himself said (if he did exist).

You seem to confuse the biblical embellishments and fictions, and later
theological beliefs with the notion of a real human person that was a basis
for the gospel stories (just like galilee and jerusalem were real places
that were the settings for the stories)

>>> That's the whole point - the only "evidence" that they were based on
>>> an actual first century man is the need people have for the stories to
>>> be true.
>>We have the stories of his teachings and of his disciples. Of course,
>>they
>>are not very reliabl evidence .. but there is more "evidence' than wishful
>>thinking.
> The stories are evidence that the stories are true?

I did not say that. I said the stories are very unreliable evidence for the
existence of a Jesus.

I did not claim they were evidence for themselves.

> Sorry, but all we
> have are the stories, and they AREN'T self-evidential.

I never said they were .. you are making very blatant strawman attacks here

>>>>Exactly . .claims that he exists and claims that he doesn't
>>> Shifting the burden again.
>>No
>
> "claims that he doesn't [exist" is shifting the burden. The burden
> being to prove that he (the Biblical Jesus or the real Jesus the Bible
> stories were based on) existed.

I'm not shifting the burden .. I am saying that we cannot know. If i was
shifting the burden then i'd be saying Jesus deifnitely existed .. and I am
not saying that at all. I am saying that it is a possible explanation .. a
conjeture.

>> .. as there is no good evidence either way
>
> Shifting the burden again.

you really have this thing about burden shifting, when I am not shifting it.

>> there is nothing provable.
>
> About their existence, so there's no reason to believe that they
> existed. Lack of evidence of an existentially negative assertion is
> the expected state.

Yes.. one can assume or presume lack of existence .. but it is not proof ..
it is just an assumption for practical purposes.

>>>>> The "stories" (one, actually)
>>>>four books .. four stories.
>>> Many more books. The number depends on who you ask. Catholic.
>>> Protestant. Gnostic.
>>Only four christian gospels
> Gnostic Christians would disagree.

Indeed

> But at least two of the Gospels are out of the running as far as being
> evidence of anything goes. "What we believe" is renouncing any claim
> to being evidence.

No .. it is not .. belief does not mean there is no evidence .. it means
that the statements are held to be true. Indeed belief often implies that
there is strong evidence to support it.

You're playing word games here .. and that is not proof

>>>>> written by someone who was supposedly
>>>>> close to the actual occurrences
>>>>> is that "Jesus" is a spiritual aspect
>>>>> of God, not a man.
>>>>That sounds like you're talking about John
>>> Paul.
>>So you're now not talking about the gospels stories of Jesus .. you keep
>>chaing subjects so much
> The subject is the Biblical claims of the Biblical Jesus. Your subset
> of that is whether the Bible stories were based on a real Jesus.

Yes.

>>>>> 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
>>> The earliest fragment of a Gospel we have dates from around 120, and
>>> it consists of about a dozen words. But Jesus the man wasn't
>>> mentioned until about 170.
>>That generally accepted datings are almost a century before that.
> There is NO accurately dated document that early that makes any
> claim to be part of the NT. "Acceptable datings" are just assertions,
> not evidence. I thought we were talking about evidence of a real
> Jesus.

So .. all we have is a no-later-than date then .. and an implicit
no-earlier-than-date that they weren't written before they happened (or
maybe they were )

You cannot use a no-later-than date in an argument where what you need is a
no-earlier-than date

its not a logical argument

[snip arguments that are invalid due to lack of evidence]

>>But if YOU thought it was important enough, you would.
>
> If I were a first century tradesman? Probably not. Writing things
> down wasn't for the common person. If you thought it was important,
> would you have a large stone monument erected to mark some event?

Only if you could afford one, and had a place to put it.

> In the first century you didn't just run down to the corner store and
> buy a spiral notebook for a buck.

Irrelevant silliness

>>>>And just because we do not have earlier writings does not mean they
>>>>could
>>>>not
>>>>possibly have existed.
>>> No earlier writings, no references to earlier writings
>>As I said .. just because we don't have them doesn't mean that it was
>>impossible for them to exist
>
> We're talking about evidence. No reason to think there might have
> been earlier writings about Jesus other than the need for there to
> have been.

No reaons to assume there were not and then base your arguments on that. it
is not logical

>>>>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.
>>> Not if no one had heard of him for 140 years.
>>That's your asssertion .. but we do not know that.
> That's the evidence.

No .. there is no evidence of that. There is only a lack of evidence

> No evidence that anyone heard of him until 140
> years after he supposedly died.

Exactly .. NO evidence.

>>[snip same assumptions that are contrary to accepted datings]
> Are we talking about evidence or "accepted datings"? If the latter,
> there was a supernatural Jesus who performed miracles, was killed and
> rose on the third day.

Strawman argument. Using accepted datings does NOT imply believing
christian myths.

> You can't have it both ways. "Accepted datings" or evidence?

Yes .. You can have accepted datings and evidence.

>>> It's also "generally accepted" that he was the only begotten son of
>>> God, and it's also "generally accepted" that he's still alive. But
>>> there's no actual evidence of any of the three "generally accepted"
>>> claims.
>>Not generally .. only by christians
>
> What you call "generally accepted" is only generally accepted by
> Christians

No

> so either we're talking about the "Facts" that are
> generally accepted or

Yes.. that's what I'm talking about. Although in this case it is the
educated opinions of historians and scholars, not definitely proven facts.

The only facts we have is a latest possible date for the writing that comes
from the physical evidence of actual texts

> we're talking about evidence. There's no
> evidence of a human Jesus prior to 170, and it's generally accepted,
> by those who generally accept that any Jesus existed - Christians -
> that Jesus was a supernatural being.

Just because someone claims something else about jesus does not invalidate
my claims. You are making completely illogical and fallacious arugments
here

> Pick one.

No

>> .. so that is not a valid argument
>
> It's your choice - either "generally accepted" - by Christians

No .. i am not saying to accept what christains say about Jesus.

I am saying that we cannot make an exact dating based only on a
no-later-than date. And especially when the accepted dating by historians
is earlier (note christian do not accept the "generally accepted" dates
either, they insist they are much earlier .. I am not suggesting we accept
the dates claimed by Christians)

> - or
> it's "we have evidence". Stop with the salad bar atheism.

Stop with your straw men and no sequitars and loaded questions. I would
think you could do better than that

>>>>> 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.
>>> Sure we can. The ones in the Bible are forgeries.
>>We do not know that
> We know that every single assertion that matters that we can verify is
> false.

I didn't say otherwise .. but that does not mean then that everything is
false .. only that the things proven false are false. You're really not
very good at logical argument

>>Unless we ever do get any solid evidence that the
>>gospel stories were completly works of fiction with no basis on fact
> Shifting the burden again.

you keep saying that .. and I'm not shifting anything.

> The burden of proof is on those who claim
> there's something other than make-believe there.

I am not claiming it .. I am saying there is no evidence that shows it is
incorrect, and it is a posisbility that is not contrary to the known
evidence, and that it is a possible scenario that does neatly explain what
we do know.

I am not saying Jesus definitely existed.
I am not saying that Jesus existence can be proved.
I am not saying that lack of evidence means Jesus must exist.

I am saying that many of the events in the gospels andother jesus stories
are ficticious.
I am saying that there is no good contemporary evidence for Jesus
I am saying that the lack of evidence does not rule out Jesus existing.

 

[Jeckyl]

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:sn4g239q57d3sr83q0fp99sdqs7ij92j6u@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:34:46 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:4nte235s8ue5mmlqaktgjc4d4im9am0je2@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:02:04 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>news:jpld23d00c2eguucb8i55gafnnqcdv2nfd@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:52:11 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:gq3b2354pcd25vm9rou0vsmfekb68gku1g@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>Just because something is not verifiable does not mean it is false.
>>>>> Christianity invented Jesus
>>>>unfounded assertion
>>> It's the only actual evidence we have so far.
>>Its not evidence, its an assertion.
> A document is evidence. There's nothing earlier.

A document is evidence only that it was not written later than the document.

It says nothing about the document being the original version.

As if it is not the original version, then the original version must be
older.

>>> Not a single mention in
>>> any document we currently can age until around 170 AD.
>>> That would be
>>> inventing a character.
>>No .. that would be saying we don't have enough evidence to prove Jesus
>>did
>>exist
> No reason to even begin to entertain the notion, other than the need
> of some people for it to be true.

Your mind being closed to even considering alternative explanations, and
whether or not they are consistent with known facts, and how well they
explain them, says quite a bit about you.

 

[Jeckyl]

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:7r4g23h4lt00kk51n05vq6fqohub1a9324@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 01:30:07 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
>>news:462783A6.7764@armory.com...
>>> Jeckyl wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:jpld23d00c2eguucb8i55gafnnqcdv2nfd@4ax.com...
>>>> > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:52:11 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> >>news:gq3b2354pcd25vm9rou0vsmfekb68gku1g@4ax.com...
>>>> >>> 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.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Just because something is not verifiable does not mean it is false.
>>>> > Christianity invented Jesus
>>>> unfounded assertion
>>> ------------------------
>>> No, it's MUCH more founded than the invented Jesus.
>>
>>It is certainly possible Jesus is purely fictional.
>>
>>But oscam's razor rejects
>
> Occam's Razor rejects the whole Jesus story - especially the parts we
> KNOW are false.

No .. it shaves off the bits that are known to be false. And it can shave
off quite a bit more. What is left, though, is plausible

>> it as it results in too many 'conspiracy theories'
>
> One man writes about a 'Jesus'. No conspiracy. We've even seen it
> happen - how many tens of thousands believe in Dianetics and
> Scientology? Something we KNOW was wholly invented.

More than one person wrote abut Jesus

>>and too many unanswered questions.
>
>>Eg. one problem is, if before Paul's "vision", who was he persecuting and
>>why?

[snip the explanation that nobody existed and everybody is fictional]

 

[Al Klein]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 01:43:09 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
>news:4627865B.B0B@armory.com...
>> Jeckyl wrote:
>>> "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:hgld239n87sn95hqggoiahlut9njq3nm4n@4ax.com...
>>> > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:50:40 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>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
>>> > Jews of the day wouldn't be preaching non=Jewish ideas. Would you
>>> > expect Pat Robertson to lead a pro-choice demonstration? Or Phelps to
>>> > come out in favor of teaching sexual diversity in schools?
>>> So you say noone ever preaches doctrines or ideas different from
>>> orthodoxy ?
>>> There are never any new ideas .. never anything even midly radical or
>>> different?
>> -------------------------
>> The many cults of Xtianity prove that people disagree and then lie
>> to cover.
>
>How does that address the point I was raising that Jesus (if he existed)
>could say things contrary to what Jews of the day said.
>
>And regardless, it appears Al was talking about Josephus and not Jesus
>anyway, so the point is moot.

No, you're conflating two things.

Josephus is clearly a forgery, because the part that speaks of Jesus
speaks as a Christian.

The story of Jesus telling his followers that there's a new covenant
with God is clearly made up because no Jew of the time would have said
that, any more than a fundamentalist Christian today would be
pro-choice.

>And there are other text that mention a Christos (which many assume if Jesus)

The Chreestos cult was totally Jewish, it had nothing to do with a
savior. Christianity merely took the name as theirs, like they took
the name Oestre as theirs.

>> Their origin is so suspicious as to be laughable. Anything that was
>> actual would have other referents in the non-religious history.

>It depends on whether it was important enough at the time to be recorded by
>those whose records we do have

We have NO contemporaneous records that mention such mundane things
as the dead rising from their graves, a preacher who could raise the
dead, someone being crucified and coming back to life - all those
normal things that happen every day.

>>> No .. as there is no good evidence either way there is nothing provable.
>>> its something we may just never truly 'know'.

>> Meaning none of it is trustable.

>Yeup. Or at least .. if there are bits that could be trusted, the problem
>is we don't know which bits.

Not ONE SINGLE BIT that makes any difference, and can be verified,
can be trusted, since it's all known to be false. The ONLY parts that
aren't known false are those parts that are inconsequential or those
that can't be verified.

>There are ceratinly lots of elements that we KNOW are ficticious

EVERY relevant one that can be verified.

>>> > The earliest fragment of a Gospel we have dates from around 120, and
>>> > it consists of about a dozen words. But Jesus the man wasn't
>>> > mentioned until about 170.

>>> That generally accepted datings are almost a century before that.

>> No.

>Yes.

Irrelevant. The earliest actual evidence is from around 120.
"Generally accepted wisdom" is that Jesus was a supernatural being.
You don't get to pick and choose. Either evidence or "accepted
wisdom", not some from column A and some from column B.

>>> As I said .. just because we don't have them doesn't mean that it was
>>> impossible for them to exist

>> It means that they are not trustable.

>How do we know if we don't have them?

How can you trust something you don't have?

>> The presence of a lie only proves
>> that someone was motivated to lie, not that the lie may be true.

>I didn't say a lie may be true.

If all you're claiming is that the reason the stories use the name
Yeshua is that there was a Yeshua in the early first century, who
cares?

If you're claiming that the stories were based on actual events,
there's no evidence to back it up.

>>> > It's also "generally accepted" that he was the only begotten son of
>>> > God, and it's also "generally accepted" that he's still alive. But
>>> We do not know that .. that is your assertion. How many, if any, are
>>> authentic (or at least paraphrased from what had been records) we will
>>> probably never know. Unless we ever do get any solid evidence that the
>>> gospel stories were completly works of fiction with no basis on fact

>> That would leave us victim of every piece of disingenuous fiction.

>That depends on the situation.

ALL fiction for which there's no actual evidence is fiction for which
there's no actual evidence - Jesus is no different than Mithras, Isis
or Ba'al. That you want him to be based on an actual person has no
bearing at all on anything.

 

[Jeckyl]

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:9g5g2312q17huama0mcrln0qoshbkeqirk@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 01:43:09 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
>>news:4627865B.B0B@armory.com...
>>> Jeckyl wrote:
>>>> "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:hgld239n87sn95hqggoiahlut9njq3nm4n@4ax.com...
>>>> > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:50:40 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >>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
>>>> > Jews of the day wouldn't be preaching non=Jewish ideas. Would you
>>>> > expect Pat Robertson to lead a pro-choice demonstration? Or Phelps
>>>> > to
>>>> > come out in favor of teaching sexual diversity in schools?
>>>> So you say noone ever preaches doctrines or ideas different from
>>>> orthodoxy ?
>>>> There are never any new ideas .. never anything even midly radical or
>>>> different?
>>> -------------------------
>>> The many cults of Xtianity prove that people disagree and then lie
>>> to cover.
>>
>>How does that address the point I was raising that Jesus (if he existed)
>>could say things contrary to what Jews of the day said.
>>
>>And regardless, it appears Al was talking about Josephus and not Jesus
>>anyway, so the point is moot.
>
> No, you're conflating two things.

I wasn't conflating things .. your coments were simply misleading as to
wheterh you were referring to what Jesus was saying or what Josephus had
supposedly written.

That is cleared up now (you were talkinag about Josephus) so there is really
no need to discuss it further . We are all in agreement about the section in
question in Josephus. None of us has taken an opposing view

> The story of Jesus telling his followers that there's a new covenant
> with God is clearly made up

So you mean the story in that forged Josephus section. yes

> because no Jew of the time would have said
> that, any more than a fundamentalist Christian today would be
> pro-choice.

Yes .. the story in Josephus would not have been written by him. Noone here
is arguing against that (well ,ceratinly not no me)

So .. we've not typed a lot more andgotten no further than agreeing with
what we had both agreed on sseveral posts ago.

>>And there are other text that mention a Christos (which many assume if
>>Jesus)
> The Chreestos cult was totally Jewish

(On the assumption that he existsed for the momet) Jesus was jewish ,the
followers of Jesus were jewish, Jesus taught jews.

> it had nothing to do with a savior.

So what is it the Christos cult was about?

What evidenec do you ahve that the Christos cult was not about a savior?

> Christianity merely took the name as theirs, like they took
> the name Oestre as theirs.

Yes.. The gospel writers used a lot of rehashing of old testament stories
(like the supposed flight to egypt), and invented things so they could
supposedly be shown to fulfil prophecies (and often prohecies that the
author apparently mis understodd or did not exist). The mythical god-man
concept is mirrored in many ealier religions and mythologies .. it was
nothing new.

However, whether those myths and fictions were imposed on a story of an
actual purely human Jesus or not is something we cannot prove or disprove
currently.

>>> Their origin is so suspicious as to be laughable. Anything that was
>>> actual would have other referents in the non-religious history.
>>It depends on whether it was important enough at the time to be recorded
>>by
>>those whose records we do have
>
> We have NO contemporaneous records that mention such mundane things
> as the dead rising from their graves, a preacher who could raise the
> dead, someone being crucified and coming back to life - all those
> normal things that happen every day.

That is true .. we have no such records ..which is strongly suggest that the
events described did not happen. But that is irrelevant to the question of
wheterh there was a real historic Jesus upon whom the stories were based and
then ficticious elements added to make him appear god-like and miraculous.

Why you are bothering ot 'prove' to me that the events you describe above
did not happen is a mystery, as i have all along said that they are
ficticious. All you are doing is agreeing with what I said

>>>> No .. as there is no good evidence either way there is nothing
>>>> provable.
>>>> its something we may just never truly 'know'.
>>> Meaning none of it is trustable.
>>Yeup. Or at least .. if there are bits that could be trusted, the problem
>>is we don't know which bits.
>
> Not ONE SINGLE BIT that makes any difference, and can be verified,
> can be trusted, since it's all known to be false.

It is not all known to be false. All we can say is that many of the things
that are possible to verify are false. Some things (like the existence of
Jerusalem, there being a roman called Pilate, crucificiotns being common,
etc etc are not proven false). There is still a very large amount that is
not verifiable and is not proven false.

> The ONLY parts that
> aren't known false are those parts that are inconsequential

You mean like whether there was a person called Jesus .. that is not
inconcequatntial .. it is what we are arguing about. It appears you are
easily distracted

> or those
> that can't be verified.
>
>>There are ceratinly lots of elements that we KNOW are ficticious
> EVERY relevant one that can be verified.

No

>>>> > The earliest fragment of a Gospel we have dates from around 120, and
>>>> > it consists of about a dozen words. But Jesus the man wasn't
>>>> > mentioned until about 170.
>>>> That generally accepted datings are almost a century before that.
>>> No.
>>Yes.
> Irrelevant. The earliest actual evidence is from around 120.
> "Generally accepted wisdom" is that Jesus was a supernatural being.
> You don't get to pick and choose. Either evidence or "accepted
> wisdom", not some from column A and some from column B.

Irrelevant. All we know is that latest possible date. We only know that
they must have been written no later than the earliest manuscript we have.

That cannot be used as a basis for an arugment that relies on the dates
being no earlier than that date

>>>> As I said .. just because we don't have them doesn't mean that it was
>>>> impossible for them to exist
>>> It means that they are not trustable.
>>How do we know if we don't have them?
> How can you trust something you don't have?

I did not say to trust them .. I said we do not have them, and so we cannot
test them.

>>> The presence of a lie only proves
>>> that someone was motivated to lie, not that the lie may be true.
>>I didn't say a lie may be true.
> If all you're claiming is that the reason the stories use the name
> Yeshua is that there was a Yeshua in the early first century, who
> cares?

Obviously you do, as you have wasted so much time on it

> If you're claiming that the stories were based on actual events,
> there's no evidence to back it up.

And none to discredit it .. It is still possible.

> ALL fiction for which there's no actual evidence is fiction for which
> there's no actual evidence - Jesus is no different than Mithras, Isis
> or Ba'al. That you want him to be based on an actual person has no
> bearing at all on anything.

So .. why don't you just go away and leave it as a conjecture. One that we
can neither prove nor disprove, with the current evidence. If an when new
evidence emerges, then it can be re-evaluated.

 

[stumper]

Al Klein wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 01:30:07 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
>> news:462783A6.7764@armory.com...
>>> Jeckyl wrote:
>>>> "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:jpld23d00c2eguucb8i55gafnnqcdv2nfd@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:52:11 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:gq3b2354pcd25vm9rou0vsmfekb68gku1g@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> Just because something is not verifiable does not mean it is false.
>>>>> Christianity invented Jesus
>>>> unfounded assertion
>>> ------------------------
>>> No, it's MUCH more founded than the invented Jesus.
>> It is certainly possible Jesus is purely fictional.
>>
>> But oscam's razor rejects
>
> Occam's Razor rejects the whole Jesus story - especially the parts we
> KNOW are false.
>
>> it as it results in too many 'conspiracy theories'
>
> One man writes about a 'Jesus'. No conspiracy. We've even seen it
> happen - how many tens of thousands believe in Dianetics and
> Scientology? Something we KNOW was wholly invented.
>
>> and too many unanswered questions.
>
>> Eg. one problem is, if before Paul's "vision", who was he persecuting and
>> why?
>
> No one.
>
>> Why is he recorded as having met disciples of Jesus if there was no
>> Jesus to have disciples?
>
> Why was superman recorded as having met Lex Luthor? Why did any
> fictional character do anything? Because that's what the author
> wrote.
>
>> Why are there three synoptic gospels that have
>> some sections copied almost verbatim, and other areas different .. why not
>> just the one invented story?
>
> Totally unimportant. The Gospels have gone through so many revisions
> that we have no idea which copied which - we can only make educated
> guesses.
>
>> How does one explain the later
>> non-contemporary 'evidence' of Christians and reports of Jesus crucifixion?
>
> It's not evidence, it's assertion.
>
>> Why were the gospels written?
>
> Who cares?
>
>> Maybe you have a simple explanation and timeline that ties up all the loose
>> ends and answers all the questions.
>
> It's fiction - get over it.
>
>> Just saying "Jesus is fictional" doesn't really address the questions.
>
> Sure it does - with a single answer. "Because that's the way the
> author wrote it."
>
>> Until then, the simplest solution is that there was an historical non-divine
>> not-particularly-important-at-the-time person, whom the gospels called
>> 'Jesus', who had some followers, and who was crucified (as were many
>> people).
>
> No, the SIMPLEST explanation is that someone made up a story, the same
> way the Greeks made up their gods, the Romans made up their gods and
> the Mithraics made up their god. Why is Christianity any different?
>
>> Its not suggesting anything particularly mind-blowing or
>> remarkable, and an historical Jesus shouldn't upset any atheists (as such a
>> figure would not be God, just a man) .. but it probably would upset the
>> theists a little
>
> An historical Zeus ... An historical Odin ... An historical Jove ...
>
> No, the only one you think is historical is Jesus. Why? He's as much
> a myth as all the other gods and god-men. Do you REALLY think the
> stories about Thor were based on a real man?


You naive ontology sounds too painful.
Look into God as the ultimate reality.

--
~Stumper

 

[stumper]

Jeckyl wrote:
> "Al Klein" wrote:
>
>> The burden of proof is on those who claim
>> there's something other than make-believe there.
>
> I am not claiming it .. I am saying there is no evidence that shows it is
> incorrect, and it is a posisbility that is not contrary to the known
> evidence, and that it is a possible scenario that does neatly explain what
> we do know.
>
> I am not saying Jesus definitely existed.
> I am not saying that Jesus existence can be proved.
> I am not saying that lack of evidence means Jesus must exist.
>
> I am saying that many of the events in the gospels andother jesus stories
> are ficticious.
> I am saying that there is no good contemporary evidence for Jesus
> I am saying that the lack of evidence does not rule out Jesus existing.
>

You sound reasonable.
That means he will never get it.

--
~Stumper

 

[stumper]

Jeckyl wrote:
> "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
> news:sn4g239q57d3sr83q0fp99sdqs7ij92j6u@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:34:46 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:4nte235s8ue5mmlqaktgjc4d4im9am0je2@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:02:04 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>> news:jpld23d00c2eguucb8i55gafnnqcdv2nfd@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:52:11 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:gq3b2354pcd25vm9rou0vsmfekb68gku1g@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>> Just because something is not verifiable does not mean it is false.
>>>>>> Christianity invented Jesus
>>>>> unfounded assertion
>>>> It's the only actual evidence we have so far.
>>> Its not evidence, its an assertion.
>> A document is evidence. There's nothing earlier.
>
> A document is evidence only that it was not written later than the document.
>
> It says nothing about the document being the original version.
>
> As if it is not the original version, then the original version must be
> older.
>
>>>> Not a single mention in
>>>> any document we currently can age until around 170 AD.
>>>> That would be
>>>> inventing a character.
>>> No .. that would be saying we don't have enough evidence to prove Jesus
>>> did
>>> exist
>> No reason to even begin to entertain the notion, other than the need
>> of some people for it to be true.
>
> Your mind being closed to even considering alternative explanations, and
> whether or not they are consistent with known facts, and how well they
> explain them, says quite a bit about you.
>

Now you understand how atheism can be a blind faith.

--
~Stumper

 

[cybacaT]

> >> > > Text: Matthew 5:27-32
>
> >> > > 27 "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28 But
> >> > > I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already
> >> > > committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes
> >> > > you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to
> >> > > lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into
> >> > > hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and
> >> > > throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body
> >> > > than
> >> > > for your whole body to go into hell.


I can't believe this "discussion" has been running so long...

When Jesus referred to "the body", as he did many times in the Bible - he was referring to the entire church. The people, the congregations, around the world make up the body. Work from there, and you might get a clue what he was talking about...


I agree with the point that it's intellectually dishonest for some christians and non-christians to take selected quotes from the Bible out of context - deliberately - to make some sort of point. We know the Old Testament does not serve as a set of instructions for how Christians are to live their lives. The majority of it is to provide context for the New Testament. eg. we don't know why christ came, or how significant that was unless we've read and understood what life was like pre-Christ.

As for sexual assault, or any form of assault - Christ covered this repeatedly and clearly in his teachings and his example. He was an extreme pacifist through his teachings, and used his life as an example.

 

[stumper]

Al Klein wrote:
> Jeckyl wrote:
>
>> That depends on the situation.
>
> ALL fiction for which there's no actual evidence is fiction for which
> there's no actual evidence - Jesus is no different than Mithras, Isis
> or Ba'al. That you want him to be based on an actual person has no
> bearing at all on anything.


What a faith you have!

--
~Stumper

 

[stumper]

Jeckyl wrote:
> Al Klein wrote:
>
>> ALL fiction for which there's no actual evidence is fiction for which
>> there's no actual evidence - Jesus is no different than Mithras, Isis
>> or Ba'al. That you want him to be based on an actual person has no
>> bearing at all on anything.
>
> So .. why don't you just go away and leave it as a conjecture. One that we
> can neither prove nor disprove, with the current evidence. If an when new
> evidence emerges, then it can be re-evaluated.
>

If you don't mind,
I find his blind faith fascinating.

--
~Stumper

 

[Roger Pearse]

On 19 Apr, 21:15, Mike Smith <mikesm...@godisdead.com> wrote:
> Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> How do you know it was reiteration if you didn't
> read it? Psychic ability?

No answer? I thought not.

Try to post more honestly next time.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[Mike Smith]

Roger Pearse <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Mike Smith wrote:
>> Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>> >>(Reiteration snipped unread)
>>
>> How do you know it was reiteration if you didn't
>> read it? Psychic ability?
>
>No answer? I thought not.
>Try to post more honestly next time.

I asked _you_ the question, Einstein.
__________________________________________

 

[Roger Pearse]

On 19 Apr, 14:59, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> "Roger Pearse" <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:1176988257.997568.312650@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 19 Apr, 08:43, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> "Roger Pearse" <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1176965775.123952.68500@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >> > On 18 Apr, 16:13, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> >> "Roger Pearse" <roger_pea...@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?
>
> >> > It means that I noticed you shifting your demands for evidence in
> >> > something you don't want to believe higher still (you'd believe
> >> > anything if it suited you, of course), and pointed it out courteously.
>
> >> I made no change .. as I didn't ask before.
> >> So .. the question then remains ..
> > (Reiteration snipped unread)
>
> Obviosuly you are unable to argue against the points I made and so
> dishonestly snipped them. Typical christian

Obviously you are unable to argue against the points that I made, so
try to change the subject, pick a fight, taunt, jeer, and generally
behave like an atheist.

> > No video footage? Pah!
>
> WTF are you on about video footage for ..

Illiteracy noted.

Piss off, you dishonest little *****.

Roger Pearse