Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed The Bible

February 22, 2007

"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message

news:j2ast2l8s5n0r9fmf1pgj708uo9skc68eg@4ax.com...

>>You haven't yet demonstrated that he existed to do that. The problem

>>is that you can't. You have nothing trustworthy in the real world

>>outside Christianity. Even inside Christianity the earliest stuff is

>>Paul's, which even you have admitted shows no knowledge of an

>>historical Jesus.

>

> You cannot "push" someone like this into learning.

I am learning

> He has started from the wrong end of the forensic trail

Not at all. I am not making any assumptions as fact. For example, some

take the assumption that Jesus did not exists as fact, despite there being

no evidence for that conclusion. I do not dothat. I do not claim as fact

that jesus existed as a person or that he did not. I am willing to look at

arguments based on either hypothesis, if they are logically presented.

I would, however, put more weight on the one of two equally plausible

theories if that one is also consistent with the gospels. To make out a

theory as suprerior because is is inconsitent with other documents is not

rational.

> example, that there has been a murder, not because he has a body, but

> in spite of the lack; based on ancient and utterly unsubstantiated

> rumours from agressively biased sources, and then proceeds to pick,

> choose and fabricate clues to point to a murder, and reject those that

> do not, including evidence that SHOULD be there, but is entirely

> absent. (Which is ignored for the sake of the 'case')

An interesting example, but not really applicable. If iwas one of the

nuttes here who accepts everything written in the bible just because it is

written in the bible, that would be justified. But I don't.

> If he were to start from the other end; the way that all detectives

> do, and work back from current evidence, researching it's provenance

> until the trail dries up, or is revealed to be fraudulent, he would be

> educable.

That is what I do, as much as is possible.

> This much is both elementary, and vital.

Yes

> Regrettfully, I have plonked the guy

Your loss, not mine

> as he seems genuinely unwilling to vary from this perverse course

Not at all .. if there is valid reasoning shown, I will accept it.

If others chose to use discredit a proposition without proof or logic, then

i will say so

> instead of listening to knowledge, becomes combative and

> self-protecting of his ignorance.

That is completely untrue.. I am probably one of the least combative of any

that I've read here. I will, however, defend myself against baseless and

incorrect allegations about me, and will not accept rejection of what I have

to say that are not based on sound logic and reasoning and evidence.

February 23, 2007

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:53:38 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

wrote:

>"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message

>news:7tart2litl6d8rpe1ub7g3plej96akqr1v@4ax.com...

>>>It doesn't mean anything about the order or writing forthe Gospels or the

>>>epistels. That is just sometihng you are incorrectlyreading into it

>>>somehow.

>> It means you have some source of knowledge denied to the rest of us,

>> that tells us what no historical documents mention.

>

>You have a theory with no suporting evidence that is inconsistent with the

>gospels.

Do I? That's news to me.

When people insist there is an historical Jesus I simply point out

that given the complete lack of evidence that stands up to the

slightest scrutiny, there is no reason to assume there was.

Please try to understand the difference.

>I offered an alternative theory, also with no supporting evidence, but that

>IS consistent with the gospels.

Which you know are worthless in the real world outside Christianity.

>You dismiss my theory simply because it contradicts your theory and demand

>proof of mine while not supplying proof of your theory (that you use to

>discredit my alternative).

Bullshit.

February 23, 2007

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:05:36 +1030, Michael Gray

<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:51:45 -0500, Christopher A.Lee

><calee@optonline.net> wrote:

> - Refer: <7tart2litl6d8rpe1ub7g3plej96akqr1v@4ax.com>

>>On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 00:40:35 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

>>wrote:

>

>>>It was a change in emphasis from what Jesus and his followers were teaching,

>>>because it did not involve what Jesus said etc, but only about Jesus being

>>>crucified and raised again.

>>

>>You haven't yet demonstrated that he existed to do that. The problem

>>is that you can't. You have nothing trustworthy in the real world

>>outside Christianity. Even inside Christianity the earliest stuff is

>>Paul's, which even you have admitted shows no knowledge of an

>>historical Jesus.

>

>You cannot "push" someone like this into learning.

I've realised that.

There is nothing before Paul because those are the earliest writings.

No information from which to make the determination he is claiming.

>He has started from the wrong end of the forensic trail: assuming, for

>example, that there has been a murder, not because he has a body, but

>in spite of the lack; based on ancient and utterly unsubstantiated

>rumours from agressively biased sources, and then proceeds to pick,

>choose and fabricate clues to point to a murder, and reject those that

>do not, including evidence that SHOULD be there, but is entirely

>absent. (Which is ignored for the sake of the 'case')

He's starting from the unjustified presumption of an historical Jesus,

and rationalising subsequent things which aren't there to fit using

more unjustified inventions.

He also seems to have difficulty reading for comprehension.

>If he were to start from the other end; the way that all detectives

>do, and work back from current evidence, researching it's provenance

>until the trail dries up, or is revealed to be fraudulent, he would be

>educable.

Without making any un-necessary assumptions. Just like my job in

computer diagnostics.

Time for the probability explanation of Ockham's razor: things that

aren't in evidence or aren't provable always have a probability less

than one; things for which there is no justification have a much

smaller probability. Each new one that is introduced has (on its own)

a similar probability. But these probabilities are multiplied, and it

doesn't take too many before the result gets very small.

You don't even have to know the exact probability. Just that

multiplying fractions always gives a smaller result.

If you do have to use these "could haves" you limit it to one and then

determine whether it actually happened before going too far down that

route.

>This much is both elementary, and vital.

Yep.

>Regrettfully, I have plonked the guy, as he seems genuinely unwilling

>to vary from this perverse course, is indisposed to listen to those

>who have actually done 'the hard yards' in Biblical research; and

>instead of listening to knowledge, becomes combative and

>self-protecting of his ignorance.

You don't even need the hard yards. I'm just treating it as an

abstract logic exercise, based on what he claims.

In spite of the "theory" he seems to think I have, which is his own

straw man.

>I'm sure that this has not escaped your attention!

It hasn't.

February 23, 2007

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:52:24 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

wrote:

>"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message

>news:j2ast2l8s5n0r9fmf1pgj708uo9skc68eg@4ax.com...

>>>You haven't yet demonstrated that he existed to do that. The problem

>>>is that you can't. You have nothing trustworthy in the real world

>>>outside Christianity. Even inside Christianity the earliest stuff is

>>>Paul's, which even you have admitted shows no knowledge of an

>>>historical Jesus.

>>

>> You cannot "push" someone like this into learning.

>

>I am learning

>

>> He has started from the wrong end of the forensic trail

>

>Not at all. I am not making any assumptions as fact. For example, some

>take the assumption that Jesus did not exists as fact, despite there being

>no evidence for that conclusion.

Once again you misrepresent what has been explained so often it is no

longer funny.

> I do not dothat. I do not claim as fact

>that jesus existed as a person or that he did not. I am willing to look at

Please learn the difference between having no reason to assume he did,

based on the total lack of evidence, and your strawman.

>arguments based on either hypothesis, if they are logically presented.

Yet you presume his existence.

>I would, however, put more weight on the one of two equally plausible

>theories if that one is also consistent with the gospels. To make out a

Even though they are worthless?

>theory as suprerior because is is inconsitent with other documents is not

>rational.

The only "theory" is yours, and it's not even a the theory in the

strict sense of the word.

>> example, that there has been a murder, not because he has a body, but

>> in spite of the lack; based on ancient and utterly unsubstantiated

>> rumours from agressively biased sources, and then proceeds to pick,

>> choose and fabricate clues to point to a murder, and reject those that

>> do not, including evidence that SHOULD be there, but is entirely

>> absent. (Which is ignored for the sake of the 'case')

>

>An interesting example, but not really applicable. If iwas one of the

>nuttes here who accepts everything written in the bible just because it is

>written in the bible, that would be justified. But I don't.

Yet you accept the gospels?

>> If he were to start from the other end; the way that all detectives

>> do, and work back from current evidence, researching it's provenance

>> until the trail dries up, or is revealed to be fraudulent, he would be

>> educable.

>

>That is what I do, as much as is possible.

It doesn't show.

>> This much is both elementary, and vital.

>

>Yes

>

>> Regrettfully, I have plonked the guy

>

>Your loss, not mine

>

>> as he seems genuinely unwilling to vary from this perverse course

>

>Not at all .. if there is valid reasoning shown, I will accept it.

>

>If others chose to use discredit a proposition without proof or logic, then

>i will say so

>

>> instead of listening to knowledge, becomes combative and

>> self-protecting of his ignorance.

>

>That is completely untrue.. I am probably one of the least combative of any

>that I've read here. I will, however, defend myself against baseless and

>incorrect allegations about me, and will not accept rejection of what I have

>to say that are not based on sound logic and reasoning and evidence.

>

February 23, 2007

>>You have a theory with no suporting evidence that is inconsistent with the

>>gospels.

> Do I? That's news to me.

Please present it, if yu have it.

> When people insist there is an historical Jesus

I don't. I only says that it is not implausible that he did .. unless you

have some evidence that there was not an actual jesus.

> I simply point out

> that given the complete lack of evidence that stands up to the

> slightest scrutiny, there is no reason to assume there was.

And none to assume there isn't.

> Please try to understand the difference.

I do.

>>You dismiss my theory simply because it contradicts your theory and demand

>>proof of mine while not supplying proof of your theory (that you use to

>>discredit my alternative).

> Bullshit.

Then on what grounds do you dismiss, except on the basis that you believe

jesus did not exist at all, because we have no conclusive historical

evidence that he did.

February 23, 2007

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 11:54:59 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

wrote:

>>>You have a theory with no suporting evidence that is inconsistent with the

>>>gospels.

>> Do I? That's news to me.

>

>Please present it, if yu have it.

For fuck's sake.

>> When people insist there is an historical Jesus

>

>I don't. I only says that it is not implausible that he did .. unless you

>have some evidence that there was not an actual jesus.

Then provide the evidence for one - not the rationalisations which are

all you have offered.

>> I simply point out

>> that given the complete lack of evidence that stands up to the

>> slightest scrutiny, there is no reason to assume there was.

>

>And none to assume there isn't.

Eventhough that's the working default pending the evidence that is

never forthcoming.

>> Please try to understand the difference.

>

>I do.

It doesn't show.

>>>You dismiss my theory simply because it contradicts your theory and demand

>>>proof of mine while not supplying proof of your theory (that you use to

>>>discredit my alternative).

>> Bullshit.

>

>Then on what grounds do you dismiss, except on the basis that you believe

>jesus did not exist at all, because we have no conclusive historical

>evidence that he did.

Learn to read instead of inventing a position I don't have.

February 23, 2007

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:v4dst2pvom5bcecsksqj791ndt4p9fn2pf@4ax.com...

> I've realised that.

> There is nothing before Paul because those are the earliest writings.

Yes

> No information from which to make the determination he is claiming.

I am offering it as an alternative.

Also the fact that the Gospels were written later that Paul does not mean

they did not (in part) talk about an actual person.

All we can say is that Paul didn't talk about the life of the man Jesus.

But he does talk about meeting with other disciples who did.

> He's starting from the unjustified presumption of an historical Jesus,

> and rationalising subsequent things which aren't there to fit using

> more unjustified inventions.

You are starting from the assumption that there was no Jesus. Neither is

supportable by evidence.

All we can do is start with an hypothesis and then see what logical

conclusions must be drawn from it. If there is anything concluded that is

inconsistent with fact, then we have to reject the hypothesis.

> He also seems to have difficulty reading for comprehension.

Really?

> Time for the probability explanation of Ockham's razor: things that

> aren't in evidence or aren't provable always have a probability less

> than one; things for which there is no justification have a much

> smaller probability. Each new one that is introduced has (on its own)

> a similar probability. But these probabilities are multiplied, and it

> doesn't take too many before the result gets very small.

Yeup .. and if anything, the assertion that Jesus didn't exists would

actually have lower probablilty by that logic, as it then means one has to

reject every early document that say he did, and that describes his

disciples and their follower.

Now, I'm not saying that those documents offer conclusive historical proof

of Jesus existing (they don't). But, as you point out, the probabilities

multiply.

> You don't even have to know the exact probability. Just that

> multiplying fractions always gives a smaller result.

Exactly.

> If you do have to use these "could haves" you limit it to one and then

> determine whether it actually happened before going too far down that

> route.

Yes. That how you go about proving an hypothesis.

> You don't even need the hard yards. I'm just treating it as an

> abstract logic exercise, based on what he claims.

> In spite of the "theory" he seems to think I have, which is his own

> straw man.

So what exactly is your theory.. What you've stated so far is that you claim

there was no historical jesus, that Paul does not mention a real Jesus, that

jesus was invented when the fictional gospels were written. Is that

correct. if not, could you please summarise your position.

Basically, whether or not Jesus existed has no bearing on what Paul wrote

about (as he wrote about the Jesus of his visions), nor any bearing on the

Gospels being written after Paul. Saying he doesn't however, then means you

have to dismiss the claims that Paul was persecuting Jesus followers, and

dismiss the claims the Paul met with Jesus disciples etc.

February 23, 2007

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:n7est2tk3q6mhurr00h2rtke3ije6oobhv@4ax.com...

>> I do not dothat. I do not claim as fact

>> that jesus existed as a person or that he did not. I am willing to look

>> at

> Please learn the difference between having no reason to assume he did,

> based on the total lack of evidence, and your strawman.

What's this nonsense about a strawman?

I only claim that there is no reason to assume Jesus did exist any more or

less than to claim he didn't. There is not enough evidence. I am perfectly

willing to look at evidence that others may present.

All we can do is suggest an hypotheis and see what it explains and what it

doesn't.

If there are indeed verifiable facts that are at odds with Jesus existing,

then we can reject that hypothesis.

>>arguments based on either hypothesis, if they are logically presented.

> Yet you presume his existence.

No . I'm not presuming anything. I presented an alternative hypothesis

starting from the premise the jesus existed that explained the same things

that you claimed were because he didn't.

> The only "theory" is yours, and it's not even a the theory in the

> strict sense of the word.

Its not just mine.

>>An interesting example, but not really applicable. If iwas one of the

>>nuttes here who accepts everything written in the bible just because it is

>>written in the bible, that would be justified. But I don't.

> Yet you accept the gospels?

No .. I have not claimed that.

February 23, 2007

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 12:08:31 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

wrote:

>"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message

>news:v4dst2pvom5bcecsksqj791ndt4p9fn2pf@4ax.com...

>> I've realised that.

>> There is nothing before Paul because those are the earliest writings.

>

>Yes

>

>> No information from which to make the determination he is claiming.

>

>I am offering it as an alternative.

Without any justification.

>Also the fact that the Gospels were written later that Paul does not mean

>they did not (in part) talk about an actual person.

"Also the fact that there is no evidence for a teapot in orbit around

Pluto does not meanthere isn't one"

>All we can say is that Paul didn't talk about the life of the man Jesus.

>But he does talk about meeting with other disciples who did.

You have yet to demonstrate that this is the Jesus described in the

Gospels.

>> He's starting from the unjustified presumption of an historical Jesus,

>> and rationalising subsequent things which aren't there to fit using

>> more unjustified inventions.

>

>You are starting from the assumption that there was no Jesus. Neither is

>supportable by evidence.

I'm doing no such thing. Learn to read for comprehension.

>All we can do is start with an hypothesis and then see what logical

>conclusions must be drawn from it. If there is anything concluded that is

>inconsistent with fact, then we have to reject the hypothesis.

The hypothesis has to be based on evidence, otherwise there is no

reason to make it.

>> He also seems to have difficulty reading for comprehension.

>

>Really?

For example your invention of "theories" I don't make.

>> Time for the probability explanation of Ockham's razor: things that

>> aren't in evidence or aren't provable always have a probability less

>> than one; things for which there is no justification have a much

>> smaller probability. Each new one that is introduced has (on its own)

>> a similar probability. But these probabilities are multiplied, and it

>> doesn't take too many before the result gets very small.

>

>Yeup .. and if anything, the assertion that Jesus didn't exists would

>actually have lower probablilty by that logic, as it then means one has to

>reject every early document that say he did, and that describes his

>disciples and their follower.

WHAT "ASSERTION THAT JESUS DIDN'T EXIST"?

Please, pretty please learn to read for comprehension instead of

inventing things that weren't said.

>Now, I'm not saying that those documents offer conclusive historical proof

>of Jesus existing (they don't). But, as you point out, the probabilities

>multiply.

They don't offer ANY "proof of Jesus exiosting".

>> You don't even have to know the exact probability. Just that

>> multiplying fractions always gives a smaller result.

>

>Exactly.

>

>> If you do have to use these "could haves" you limit it to one and then

>> determine whether it actually happened before going too far down that

>> route.

>

>Yes. That how you go about proving an hypothesis.

>

>> You don't even need the hard yards. I'm just treating it as an

>> abstract logic exercise, based on what he claims.

>> In spite of the "theory" he seems to think I have, which is his own

>> straw man.

>

>So what exactly is your theory.. What you've stated so far is that you claim

>there was no historical jesus, that Paul does not mention a real Jesus, that

>jesus was invented when the fictional gospels were written. Is that

>correct. if not, could you please summarise your position.

WHAT "THEORY", MORON?

I've told you my position but you keep twisting it into things that

were never said.

>Basically, whether or not Jesus existed has no bearing on what Paul wrote

>about (as he wrote about the Jesus of his visions), nor any bearing on the

>Gospels being written after Paul. Saying he doesn't however, then means you

>have to dismiss the claims that Paul was persecuting Jesus followers, and

>dismiss the claims the Paul met with Jesus disciples etc.

Sigh.

February 23, 2007

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:1afst2d6r72qs637mgh67d7o1dp5v3lao2@4ax.com...

>>I don't. I only says that it is not implausible that he did .. unless you

>>have some evidence that there was not an actual jesus.

> Then provide the evidence for one - not the rationalisations which are

> all you have offered.

Evidence of what .. I've never claimed any evidence for jesus existing.

I've said consistently that there is no verifiable historical evidence for

it. I've seen plenty of evidence that is at odds with many of the events in

the gospels, and so I reject those. However, I've yet to see any that would

mean that Jesus did not exist at all.

February 23, 2007

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:cufst21etafl3pgemen1eu2ahuure57oa0@4ax.com...

>>Also the fact that the Gospels were written later that Paul does not mean

>>they did not (in part) talk about an actual person.

> "Also the fact that there is no evidence for a teapot in orbit around

> Pluto does not meanthere isn't one"

The logic of your statement is unrelated to the one of mine you are

attempting to ridicule. The dates the gospels were written relative to Paul

do not change their subject matter, nor whether it was based on an actual

person or not. Of course, their late date relative to when Jesus was

supposed to have lived means that the Gospels can be discounted as credible

historical evidence for Jesus.

>>All we can say is that Paul didn't talk about the life of the man Jesus.

>>But he does talk about meeting with other disciples who did.

> You have yet to demonstrate that this is the Jesus described in the

> Gospels.

Why would it not be .. do you need to invent even more Jesus's to support

what you are saying ?

So what is it you take issue with here. Are you saying Paul did not meet

the disciples of Jesus he claimed to, or that the disciples of Jesus he met

were not disciples of the same Jesus that they are described as being

disciples of in the gospels? Are you saying Paul existed, but the disciples

he met didn't because Jesus didn't?

>>> He's starting from the unjustified presumption of an historical Jesus,

>>> and rationalising subsequent things which aren't there to fit using

>>> more unjustified inventions.

>>You are starting from the assumption that there was no Jesus. Neither is

>>supportable by evidence.

> I'm doing no such thing. Learn to read for comprehension.

So are you saying there is an historical Jesus or not? You ceratinly seemed

to be claiming that the jesus of the gospels was an invention, not a real

person.

>>All we can do is start with an hypothesis and then see what logical

>>conclusions must be drawn from it. If there is anything concluded that is

>>inconsistent with fact, then we have to reject the hypothesis.

> The hypothesis has to be based on evidence, otherwise there is no

> reason to make it.

No .. hypothesis does not need to be based on anything in particular, but it

does need to be able to be tested in order to be proved or disproved.

>>> He also seems to have difficulty reading for comprehension.

>>Really?

> For example your invention of "theories" I don't make.

You seem to be making plenty of assumptions and inventions about what I say.

Please state the theory you are putting forward.

>>Yeup .. and if anything, the assertion that Jesus didn't exists would

>>actually have lower probablilty by that logic, as it then means one has to

>>reject every early document that say he did, and that describes his

>>disciples and their follower.

> WHAT "ASSERTION THAT JESUS DIDN'T EXIST"?

You claimed jesus was an invention made when the gospels were written, and

Paul did not speak of a real Jesus, but a spiritual one.

> Please, pretty please learn to read for comprehension instead of

> inventing things that weren't said.

Likewise

>>Now, I'm not saying that those documents offer conclusive historical proof

>>of Jesus existing (they don't). But, as you point out, the probabilities

>>multiply.

> They don't offer ANY "proof of Jesus exiosting".

I didn't say they did.. Can't you read?

>>So what exactly is your theory.. What you've stated so far is that you

>>claim

>>there was no historical jesus, that Paul does not mention a real Jesus,

>>that

>>jesus was invented when the fictional gospels were written. Is that

>>correct. if not, could you please summarise your position.

> WHAT "THEORY", MORON?

Aha.. so you don't have one?

> I've told you my position but you keep twisting it into things that

> were never said.

>

>>Basically, whether or not Jesus existed has no bearing on what Paul wrote

>>about (as he wrote about the Jesus of his visions), nor any bearing on the

>>Gospels being written after Paul. Saying he doesn't however, then means

>>you

>>have to dismiss the claims that Paul was persecuting Jesus followers, and

>>dismiss the claims the Paul met with Jesus disciples etc.

> Sigh.

Why the sigh .. what is incorrect in my above statement?

February 23, 2007

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 12:18:49 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

wrote:

>"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message

>news:n7est2tk3q6mhurr00h2rtke3ije6oobhv@4ax.com...

>>> I do not dothat. I do not claim as fact

>>> that jesus existed as a person or that he did not. I am willing to look

>>> at

>> Please learn the difference between having no reason to assume he did,

>> based on the total lack of evidence, and your strawman.

>

>What's this nonsense about a strawman?

What "nonsense"? You do it again below.

>I only claim that there is no reason to assume Jesus did exist any more or

>less than to claim he didn't. There is not enough evidence. I am perfectly

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That's one of your straw men.

You're twisting "there is no reason to assume he did" into "claim he

didn't".

>willing to look at evidence that others may present.

>

>All we can do is suggest an hypotheis and see what it explains and what it

>doesn't.

Except that there is no justification for your "hypothesis".

>If there are indeed verifiable facts that are at odds with Jesus existing,

>then we can reject that hypothesis.

Sigh.

>>>arguments based on either hypothesis, if they are logically presented.

>> Yet you presume his existence.

>

>No . I'm not presuming anything. I presented an alternative hypothesis

>starting from the premise the jesus existed that explained the same things

>that you claimed were because he didn't.

The unjustified premise.

>> The only "theory" is yours, and it's not even a the theory in the

>> strict sense of the word.

>

>Its not just mine.

And it's still not a theory in the strict sense of the word.

>>>An interesting example, but not really applicable. If iwas one of the

>>>nuttes here who accepts everything written in the bible just because it is

>>>written in the bible, that would be justified. But I don't.

>> Yet you accept the gospels?

>

>No .. I have not claimed that.

Then why do you presume their veracity in your "hypothesis"?

February 23, 2007

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 12:23:02 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

wrote:

>"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message

>news:1afst2d6r72qs637mgh67d7o1dp5v3lao2@4ax.com...

>

>>>I don't. I only says that it is not implausible that he did .. unless you

>>>have some evidence that there was not an actual jesus.

>> Then provide the evidence for one - not the rationalisations which are

>> all you have offered.

>

>Evidence of what .. I've never claimed any evidence for jesus existing.

Yet your "theory" presumes he did.

>I've said consistently that there is no verifiable historical evidence for

>it. I've seen plenty of evidence that is at odds with many of the events in

>the gospels, and so I reject those. However, I've yet to see any that would

>mean that Jesus did not exist at all.

Sigh.

February 23, 2007

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 12:50:04 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

wrote:

>"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message

>news:cufst21etafl3pgemen1eu2ahuure57oa0@4ax.com...

>>>Also the fact that the Gospels were written later that Paul does not mean

>>>they did not (in part) talk about an actual person.

>> "Also the fact that there is no evidence for a teapot in orbit around

>> Pluto does not meanthere isn't one"

>

>The logic of your statement is unrelated to the one of mine you are

>attempting to ridicule.

In terms of evidence, justification etc they are the same.

> The dates the gospels were written relative to Paul

>do not change their subject matter, nor whether it was based on an actual

>person or not. Of course, their late date relative to when Jesus was

>supposed to have lived means that the Gospels can be discounted as credible

>historical evidence for Jesus.

Yet your "theory" rests on them .

>>>All we can say is that Paul didn't talk about the life of the man Jesus.

>>>But he does talk about meeting with other disciples who did.

>> You have yet to demonstrate that this is the Jesus described in the

>> Gospels.

>

>Why would it not be .. do you need to invent even more Jesus's to support

>what you are saying ?

>

>So what is it you take issue with here. Are you saying Paul did not meet

>the disciples of Jesus he claimed to, or that the disciples of Jesus he met

>were not disciples of the same Jesus that they are described as being

>disciples of in the gospels? Are you saying Paul existed, but the disciples

>he met didn't because Jesus didn't?

>

>>>> He's starting from the unjustified presumption of an historical Jesus,

>>>> and rationalising subsequent things which aren't there to fit using

>>>> more unjustified inventions.

>>>You are starting from the assumption that there was no Jesus. Neither is

>>>supportable by evidence.

>> I'm doing no such thing. Learn to read for comprehension.

>

>So are you saying there is an historical Jesus or not? You ceratinly seemed

>to be claiming that the jesus of the gospels was an invention, not a real

>person.

>

>>>All we can do is start with an hypothesis and then see what logical

>>>conclusions must be drawn from it. If there is anything concluded that is

>>>inconsistent with fact, then we have to reject the hypothesis.

>> The hypothesis has to be based on evidence, otherwise there is no

>> reason to make it.

>

>No .. hypothesis does not need to be based on anything in particular, but it

>does need to be able to be tested in order to be proved or disproved.

>

>>>> He also seems to have difficulty reading for comprehension.

>>>Really?

>> For example your invention of "theories" I don't make.

>

>You seem to be making plenty of assumptions and inventions about what I say.

>Please state the theory you are putting forward.

>

>>>Yeup .. and if anything, the assertion that Jesus didn't exists would

>>>actually have lower probablilty by that logic, as it then means one has to

>>>reject every early document that say he did, and that describes his

>>>disciples and their follower.

>> WHAT "ASSERTION THAT JESUS DIDN'T EXIST"?

>

>You claimed jesus was an invention made when the gospels were written, and

>Paul did not speak of a real Jesus, but a spiritual one.

>

>> Please, pretty please learn to read for comprehension instead of

>> inventing things that weren't said.

>

>Likewise

>

>>>Now, I'm not saying that those documents offer conclusive historical proof

>>>of Jesus existing (they don't). But, as you point out, the probabilities

>>>multiply.

>> They don't offer ANY "proof of Jesus exiosting".

>

>I didn't say they did.. Can't you read?

>

>>>So what exactly is your theory.. What you've stated so far is that you

>>>claim

>>>there was no historical jesus, that Paul does not mention a real Jesus,

>>>that

>>>jesus was invented when the fictional gospels were written. Is that

>>>correct. if not, could you please summarise your position.

>> WHAT "THEORY", MORON?

>

>Aha.. so you don't have one?

>

>> I've told you my position but you keep twisting it into things that

>> were never said.

>>

>>>Basically, whether or not Jesus existed has no bearing on what Paul wrote

>>>about (as he wrote about the Jesus of his visions), nor any bearing on the

>>>Gospels being written after Paul. Saying he doesn't however, then means

>>>you

>>>have to dismiss the claims that Paul was persecuting Jesus followers, and

>>>dismiss the claims the Paul met with Jesus disciples etc.

>> Sigh.

>

>Why the sigh .. what is incorrect in my above statement?

>

February 23, 2007

>>>>Also the fact that the Gospels were written later that Paul does not

>>>>mean

>>>>they did not (in part) talk about an actual person.

>>> "Also the fact that there is no evidence for a teapot in orbit around

>>> Pluto does not meanthere isn't one"

>>The logic of your statement is unrelated to the one of mine you are

>>attempting to ridicule.

> In terms of evidence, justification etc they are the same.

Not at all .. I am saying that logic equivalent to:

"1 + 1 = 2, therefore there is a teapot in orbit around pluto"

Is nonsense .. and that appeared to be the basis for you logic .. that

because the gospels were written after paul that mean that there was no

jesus before paul.

The timing of the Gospels relative to Paul is irrelevant regarding whether

or not they were describing an embellished story based on an acutal person

or not.

If they were written before Paul, that would make them any more or less

based on a real Jesus or not. However, if they were written earlier, by

people who actually claim to have know Jesus first hand, then they would be

a step closer to being historical evidence (but not quite making it).

> Yet your "theory" rests on them .

No, it simply doesn't contradict them.

You asked why, if Jesus had existed, Paul did not write about him. I

provided an explanation for that which is supported by what the epistles and

acts said. Then you reject is on the grounds the Jesus does not exist (the

very condition that formed part of your question). Its circular 'logic'.

Its the same logic as you asking "if x = 1, then what is x+1" and me

replying "2", then you rejecting my answer because you say x <> 1.

February 23, 2007

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 13:57:26 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

wrote:

>>>>>Also the fact that the Gospels were written later that Paul does not

>>>>>mean

>>>>>they did not (in part) talk about an actual person.

>>>> "Also the fact that there is no evidence for a teapot in orbit around

>>>> Pluto does not meanthere isn't one"

>>>The logic of your statement is unrelated to the one of mine you are

>>>attempting to ridicule.

>> In terms of evidence, justification etc they are the same.

>

>Not at all .. I am saying that logic equivalent to:

>

>"1 + 1 = 2, therefore there is a teapot in orbit around pluto"

>

>Is nonsense .. and that appeared to be the basis for you logic .. that

Hardly, idiot.

>because the gospels were written after paul that mean that there was no

>jesus before paul.

Learn to read for comprehension instead of inventing things I didn't

say.

>The timing of the Gospels relative to Paul is irrelevant regarding whether

>or not they were describing an embellished story based on an acutal person

>or not.

Except that you are trying to use them as "justification" for some of

your statements.

>If they were written before Paul, that would make them any more or less

>based on a real Jesus or not. However, if they were written earlier, by

>people who actually claim to have know Jesus first hand, then they would be

>a step closer to being historical evidence (but not quite making it).

You're still trying to generate information where there isn't any.

>> Yet your "theory" rests on them .

>

>No, it simply doesn't contradict them.

Then there is no reason for you even to have your "theory"

>You asked why, if Jesus had existed, Paul did not write about him. I

>provided an explanation for that which is supported by what the epistles and

>acts said. Then you reject is on the grounds the Jesus does not exist (the

>very condition that formed part of your question). Its circular 'logic'.

Why do you keep putting words in my mouth you know I didn't say?

It's your "logic" not mine.

>Its the same logic as you asking "if x = 1, then what is x+1" and me

>replying "2", then you rejecting my answer because you say x <> 1.

AND IT'S YOUR FRIKKING STRAW MAN.

>

February 23, 2007

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:05:36 +1030, Michael Gray

<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:51:45 -0500, Christopher A.Lee

><calee@optonline.net> wrote:

> - Refer: <7tart2litl6d8rpe1ub7g3plej96akqr1v@4ax.com>

>>On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 00:40:35 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

>>wrote:

>

>:

>

>>>It was a change in emphasis from what Jesus and his followers were teaching,

>>>because it did not involve what Jesus said etc, but only about Jesus being

>>>crucified and raised again.

>>

>>You haven't yet demonstrated that he existed to do that. The problem

>>is that you can't. You have nothing trustworthy in the real world

>>outside Christianity. Even inside Christianity the earliest stuff is

>>Paul's, which even you have admitted shows no knowledge of an

>>historical Jesus.

>

>You cannot "push" someone like this into learning.

>

>He has started from the wrong end of the forensic trail: assuming, for

>example, that there has been a murder, not because he has a body, but

>in spite of the lack; based on ancient and utterly unsubstantiated

>rumours from agressively biased sources, and then proceeds to pick,

>choose and fabricate clues to point to a murder, and reject those that

>do not, including evidence that SHOULD be there, but is entirely

>absent. (Which is ignored for the sake of the 'case')

He also thinks that saying there is no reason to think something, is

the same as thinking the opposite.

That's the only reason I can come up with, for his repeatedly twisting

what I say into the opposite of what he says.

February 23, 2007

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:k1mst2lvm4r8abed0gvr5oufirhjtb3rl9@4ax.com...

>>The timing of the Gospels relative to Paul is irrelevant regarding whether

>>or not they were describing an embellished story based on an acutal person

>>or not.

> Except that you are trying to use them as "justification" for some of

> your statements.

Even if I was, a different timing of when they were written would not be

required for what I was suggesting. Indeed, an earlier timing for the

Gospels would be worse for what I was suggesting, not better.

>>If they were written before Paul, that would make them any more or less

>>based on a real Jesus or not. However, if they were written earlier, by

>>people who actually claim to have know Jesus first hand, then they would

>>be

>>a step closer to being historical evidence (but not quite making it).

> You're still trying to generate information where there isn't any.

I'm not trying to generate anything. All I am saying is IF (see that .. IF)

the Gospels were written early enough to have been written by people claming

to know Jesus first hand, then that would remove SOME (see the .. SOME) of

the objections to them being credible historical evidence. I did not say

the were credible evidence, nor that an earlier date would make them

credible.

>>> Yet your "theory" rests on them .

>>No, it simply doesn't contradict them.

> Then there is no reason for you even to have your "theory"

My theory / hypothesis was/is that IF Jesus existed (of which I repeatedly

say I am not convinced, due to lack of evidence), then the Paul would have

not described Jesus because:

1) there is no evidence that Paul ever met Jesus (the man, not the vision)

2) there is no evidence that Paul had details of what Jesus taught (he

certainly didn't have access to the as-yet unwritten Gospels)

3) Paul's claimed authority to be an apostle was based solely on his vision

and because he had not learned it from elsewhere.

I also proposed that even IF Jesus existed, and was a teacher, then Paul's

teachings were different.

I also agreed with you that Paul was not teaching about Jesus the man.

And agreed with you that the Gospels present a different Jesus to Paul

I find it amusing that you jump on what I was saying for claiming Jesus

definitely did exist and was the same Jesus Paul saw in his vision. Yet

biblebeliver jumps on my same post as saying the exact opposite. Its

amazing what one can read into another's words

February 23, 2007

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:ccmst25j0c9fiec243dbgopj32nc3o2rjb@4ax.com...

> He also thinks that saying there is no reason to think something, is

> the same as thinking the opposite.

No .. I don't. That is the opposite of what I say.

> That's the only reason I can come up with, for his repeatedly twisting

> what I say into the opposite of what he says.

Funny.. that's what I thought you were doing.

February 23, 2007

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote

>"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:

>

>>>> Paul never knew an historical Jesus and didn't change

>>>> any emphasis.

>>> Paul did not personally know Jesus, but Paul knew of Jesus

>>> through the followers whom Paul persecuted. Therefore

>>> Paul's "Christ" was based upon an actual person.

>

> And your evidence for these so far baseless assertions, is?

The existence of the New Testament itself. No proof, but evidence.

It has been shown that many legendary heroes, such as Ulysses and King

Author, were based upon real people. Therefore it does not make sense for

you to claim that Jesus could not have existed simply because there is no

proof.

If you do not accept even the possibility that Christ was based upon a

historical person, then you should at least suggest another explanation for

the existence of the gospels and letters.

--Wax

February 23, 2007

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 21:13:15 -0500, Christopher A.Lee

<calee@optonline.net> wrote:

- Refer: <dcjst2l5pqgp8eqd3fjbm027iag46n6oan@4ax.com>

>On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 12:23:02 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

>wrote:

>

>>"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message

>>news:1afst2d6r72qs637mgh67d7o1dp5v3lao2@4ax.com...

>>

>>>>I don't. I only says that it is not implausible that he did .. unless you

>>>>have some evidence that there was not an actual jesus.

>>> Then provide the evidence for one - not the rationalisations which are

>>> all you have offered.

>>

>>Evidence of what .. I've never claimed any evidence for jesus existing.

>

>Yet your "theory" presumes he did.

>

>>I've said consistently that there is no verifiable historical evidence for

>>it. I've seen plenty of evidence that is at odds with many of the events in

>>the gospels, and so I reject those. However, I've yet to see any that would

>>mean that Jesus did not exist at all.

>

>Sigh.

He has yet to see any that would mean that Sherlock Holmes did not

exists at all!

He is tackling it completely arse backwards.

--

February 23, 2007

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:47:55 -0500, Christopher A.Lee

<calee@optonline.net> wrote:

- Refer: <n7est2tk3q6mhurr00h2rtke3ije6oobhv@4ax.com>

>On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:52:24 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

>wrote:

>

>>"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message

>>news:j2ast2l8s5n0r9fmf1pgj708uo9skc68eg@4ax.com...

>>>>You haven't yet demonstrated that he existed to do that. The problem

>>>>is that you can't. You have nothing trustworthy in the real world

>>>>outside Christianity. Even inside Christianity the earliest stuff is

>>>>Paul's, which even you have admitted shows no knowledge of an

>>>>historical Jesus.

>>>

>>> You cannot "push" someone like this into learning.

>>

>>I am learning

>>

>>> He has started from the wrong end of the forensic trail

>>

>>Not at all. I am not making any assumptions as fact. For example, some

>>take the assumption that Jesus did not exists as fact, despite there being

>>no evidence for that conclusion.

>

>Once again you misrepresent what has been explained so often it is no

>longer funny.

>

>> I do not dothat. I do not claim as fact

>>that jesus existed as a person or that he did not. I am willing to look at

>

>Please learn the difference between having no reason to assume he did,

>based on the total lack of evidence, and your strawman.

>

>>arguments based on either hypothesis, if they are logically presented.

>

>Yet you presume his existence.

>

>>I would, however, put more weight on the one of two equally plausible

>>theories if that one is also consistent with the gospels. To make out a

>

>Even though they are worthless?

>

>>theory as suprerior because is is inconsitent with other documents is not

>>rational.

>

>The only "theory" is yours, and it's not even a the theory in the

>strict sense of the word.

>

>>> example, that there has been a murder, not because he has a body, but

>>> in spite of the lack; based on ancient and utterly unsubstantiated

>>> rumours from agressively biased sources, and then proceeds to pick,

>>> choose and fabricate clues to point to a murder, and reject those that

>>> do not, including evidence that SHOULD be there, but is entirely

>>> absent. (Which is ignored for the sake of the 'case')

>>

>>An interesting example, but not really applicable. If iwas one of the

>>nuttes here who accepts everything written in the bible just because it is

>>written in the bible, that would be justified. But I don't.

>

>Yet you accept the gospels?

>

>>> If he were to start from the other end; the way that all detectives

>>> do, and work back from current evidence, researching it's provenance

>>> until the trail dries up, or is revealed to be fraudulent, he would be

>>> educable.

>>

>>That is what I do, as much as is possible.

>

>It doesn't show.

>

>>> This much is both elementary, and vital.

>>

>>Yes

>>

>>> Regrettfully, I have plonked the guy

>>

>>Your loss, not mine

>>

>>> as he seems genuinely unwilling to vary from this perverse course

>>

>>Not at all .. if there is valid reasoning shown, I will accept it.

>>

>>If others chose to use discredit a proposition without proof or logic, then

>>i will say so

>>

>>> instead of listening to knowledge, becomes combative and

>>> self-protecting of his ignorance.

>>

>>That is completely untrue.. I am probably one of the least combative of any

>>that I've read here. I will, however, defend myself against baseless and

>>incorrect allegations about me, and will not accept rejection of what I have

>>to say that are not based on sound logic and reasoning and evidence.

>>

On that basis, he should believe implicitly and without question the

reality of Sherlock Holmes, AND Harry Potter.

He is either genuine and very dim, or normal and a sneaky liar.

His choice.

--

February 23, 2007

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:05:39 -0500, Christopher A.Lee

<calee@optonline.net> wrote:

- Refer: <ccmst25j0c9fiec243dbgopj32nc3o2rjb@4ax.com>

>On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:05:36 +1030, Michael Gray

><mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:

>

>>On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:51:45 -0500, Christopher A.Lee

>><calee@optonline.net> wrote:

>> - Refer: <7tart2litl6d8rpe1ub7g3plej96akqr1v@4ax.com>

>>>On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 00:40:35 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

>>>wrote:

>>

>>:

>>

>>>>It was a change in emphasis from what Jesus and his followers were teaching,

>>>>because it did not involve what Jesus said etc, but only about Jesus being

>>>>crucified and raised again.

>>>

>>>You haven't yet demonstrated that he existed to do that. The problem

>>>is that you can't. You have nothing trustworthy in the real world

>>>outside Christianity. Even inside Christianity the earliest stuff is

>>>Paul's, which even you have admitted shows no knowledge of an

>>>historical Jesus.

>>

>>You cannot "push" someone like this into learning.

>>

>>He has started from the wrong end of the forensic trail: assuming, for

>>example, that there has been a murder, not because he has a body, but

>>in spite of the lack; based on ancient and utterly unsubstantiated

>>rumours from agressively biased sources, and then proceeds to pick,

>>choose and fabricate clues to point to a murder, and reject those that

>>do not, including evidence that SHOULD be there, but is entirely

>>absent. (Which is ignored for the sake of the 'case')

>

>He also thinks that saying there is no reason to think something, is

>the same as thinking the opposite.

>

>That's the only reason I can come up with, for his repeatedly twisting

>what I say into the opposite of what he says.

As I have said previously, the guy is either genuine and sodding dim,

or a devious fraud.

--

February 23, 2007

"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message

news:ujvst25l8hj1jpfv53j7kq15pd183vk16u@4ax.com...

>>>I've said consistently that there is no verifiable historical evidence

>>>for

>>>it. I've seen plenty of evidence that is at odds with many of the events

>>>in

>>>the gospels, and so I reject those. However, I've yet to see any that

>>>would

>>>mean that Jesus did not exist at all.

>>Sigh.

> He has yet to see any that would mean that Sherlock Holmes did not

> exists at all!

Poor example .. we have evidence that Sherlock Holmes was a ficitonal

character. There are no serious works claiming the Holmes was real.

> He is tackling it completely arse backwards.

Not at all. I make no claim that Jesus existed, only that it is possible.

I am simply open to the possibility; given that there is no evidence to the

contrary, and given that assumption based on Jesus existing do not create

any contradictions with existing evidence. If you claim someone could not

possibly exist because we have no evidence that they did, then you have to

reject the existence of the bulk of humanity

February 23, 2007

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:00:17 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

wrote:

>"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message

>news:k1mst2lvm4r8abed0gvr5oufirhjtb3rl9@4ax.com...

>>>The timing of the Gospels relative to Paul is irrelevant regarding whether

>>>or not they were describing an embellished story based on an acutal person

>>>or not.

>> Except that you are trying to use them as "justification" for some of

>> your statements.

>

>Even if I was, a different timing of when they were written would not be

>required for what I was suggesting. Indeed, an earlier timing for the

>Gospels would be worse for what I was suggesting, not better.

The problem is that your "suggestions" are unjustified.

>>>If they were written before Paul, that would make them any more or less

>>>based on a real Jesus or not. However, if they were written earlier, by

>>>people who actually claim to have know Jesus first hand, then they would

>>>be

>>>a step closer to being historical evidence (but not quite making it).

>> You're still trying to generate information where there isn't any.

>

>I'm not trying to generate anything. All I am saying is IF (see that .. IF)

>the Gospels were written early enough to have been written by people claming

>to know Jesus first hand, then that would remove SOME (see the .. SOME) of

>the objections to them being credible historical evidence. I did not say

>the were credible evidence, nor that an earlier date would make them

>credible.

Yes you are, because there is no information from which to derive your

suggestions. They are plucked out of nothing.

Sign In

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed The Bible

Recommended Posts

Guest Jeckyl

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Guest Christopher A.Lee

Guest Christopher A.Lee

Guest Christopher A.Lee

Guest Jeckyl

Guest Christopher A.Lee

Guest Jeckyl

Guest Jeckyl

Guest Christopher A.Lee

Guest Jeckyl

Guest Jeckyl

Guest Christopher A.Lee

Guest Christopher A.Lee

Guest Christopher A.Lee

Guest Jeckyl

Guest Christopher A.Lee

Guest Christopher A.Lee

Guest Jeckyl

Guest Jeckyl

Guest weatherwax

Guest Michael Gray

Guest Michael Gray

Guest Michael Gray

Guest Jeckyl

Guest Christopher A.Lee

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity

Support