Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed The Bible

February 17, 2007

On Feb 16, 7:02 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

wrote:

> codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:

> > On Feb 15, 1:57 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

> > wrote:

>

> >>codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:

>

> >>>On Feb 14, 12:40 am, Christopher A.Lee <c...@optonline.net> wrote:

>

> >>>>On 13 Feb 2007 20:59:03 -0800, "Snowman" <jkel...@zoomnet.net> wrote:

>

> >>>>>On Feb 12, 3:06 pm, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:

>

> >>>>>http://www.jesusneverexisted.com

> >>>>>--

> >>>>>Try showing that site to an actual historian.

> >>>>>See how hard you get laughed at.

>

> >>>>Try finding a real historian who can provide any evidence outside the

> >>>>Christian tradition to corroborate Christian claims of an historic

> >>>>Jesus.

>

> >>> There would not be Christians without Christ/Messiah

> >>> And since it is prophecised that in this world Christ

> >>> would be born,

>

> >>===>NOWHERE is any such thing "prophecised". -- L.

>

> >>then Christ was born in the form of Jesus.

>

> > You are such a prentious little asshole...

> > Are you a Scibe versed in Moses Law? No

> > Are you a Doctor of the Law? No

> > Now you may think that anybody who can read and write

> > should give his opnion on what the Law of Moses says

> > and that opinion should become authoritative, it ain't so,

> > Otherwise the whole Israel should turn into the

> > land of lawyers and Scribes.

> > The same way people are trained to explain the American

> > Constitution, the same way there were people in Israel

> > trained to read the Law of Moses and interprete it.

> > You are not ONE of them, so why should I care about

> > your PRIVATE OPINION.

> > You are not a good Historian either, otherwise you would

> > have baked your opinion up with something authorritative from the

> > distant

> > past. I went back 2000 years in time and quoted what

> > Paul said about Deuteronomy 18:15 and how it applied to

> > Jesus,

>

> ===>So, what?

> Rabbi Akiba declared it was Bar Kochba!

> Flavius Josephus dclared it was the Roman Emperor Vespasian!

>

> In fact there never was and never will be any such person.

>

> Your attempted historicizing is just pure nonsense.

> Ridiculous.

>

> I also quoted the Qur'an to support my opinion.

>

> ===>The Qur'an?

>

> ===>In fact Muslims claim that passage refers to MOHAMMED!

> "From amongst their brethren" refers to the Ishmaelites.

>

> You pile one laughable argumant on top of another.

>

> > Apparently If you were a good historian you should do the same.

> > Go back to first Century Jerusalem and quote a Scribe or

> > a doctor of the Mosaic Law who ever said that Deuteronomy

> > 18:15 never was about a Messiah/Christ, therefore the Apostle

> > cheated.

>

> ===>That is very easy.

> "The traditional Jewish interpretation is that

> While, on the surface, Deuteronomy 18:9-22 might appear to be speaking

> about a prophet, in reality it concerns the establishment of the Office

> of the Prophet, a position filled by 50 Jewish prophets after Moses.

> The Office of the Prophet is established via the expression "all that I

All what I asked you is to post something going back

to the time of the apostles.

There was a time when the Apostles grounding their

preaching on Moses preach that Jesus was the Messiah/Christ

Quote me a Rabbi of the same time frame who ever said

that Deuteronomy 18:15 was not about Messiah/Christ

and this debate will be over. Don't tell me about any modern

revisionist

February 17, 2007

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

> "weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>>"Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote

>>> Jeckyl wrote:

>>>>>===>Thsoe "Apostles" are ALSO fictional

>>>>> characters, just like the main protagonist "Jesus". -- L.

>>>>

>>>> I must disagree there .. there is real historical evidence

>>>> for the existence of the apostles, just as there is for John

>>>> the Baptist.

>>>

>>> ===>Really?

>>> Would you please cite some reference to your

>>> "evidence"??? -- L.

>

> They talk about its existence, but never provide it. The

> conclusion is obvious.

>

>> Early Christianity was not big enough to draw the attention

>> of many people, so we shouldn't expect much historical

>> evidence for any of the apostle. After Acts 1, most of the

>> apostles are never heard of again anyway.

>>

>>The letters of Paul appear to be historically accurate,

>> therefore we can safely assume that he lived. Those

>> letters confirm the existence of an early church in

>> Jerusalem, and in Galatians 1:18 Paul says that he went to

>> Jerusalem "to visit Cephas and get information from him."

>> From further references in 1 Colossians 9:10 and 15:5 it is

>> reasonable to assume that "Cephas" is a reference to the

>> apostle Peter.

>

> And his Christ is an ethereal, spiritual one. He knows

> nothing of an historical Jesus let alone the Jesus of the

> gospels.

Here we are differentiating between "Christ", and the "historical Jesus".

That is an important distinction to make. Paul's "Christ" was a combination

of the Jewish "Messiah" with Mithric and Greek beliefs.

However, the existence of a first century leader named Jesus who proclaimed

himself the messiah, and who was consequently executed for treason by the

Romans is very much within the whelm of possibility, and he probably did

live.

Under the distortions of the Pauline "Christ", I believe that the historical

Jesus can be found in the gospels.

>>Unfortunately, we can't do better than that. Papias is

>>often cited, but historically, he is unreliable.

--Wax

February 17, 2007

On 17 Feb 2007 08:36:15 -0800, in alt.atheism

"codebreaker@bigsecret.com" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in

<1171730175.642139.49880@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>:

>On Feb 16, 3:05 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>> On 16 Feb 2007 11:34:31 -0800, in alt.atheism

>> "codebrea...@bigsecret.com" <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote in

>> <1171654471.205453.30...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>:

>>

>> >On Feb 16, 1:52 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

>> >wrote:

>> >> codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:

>> >> > On Feb 15, 2:01 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

>> >> > wrote:

>>

>> >> >>codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:

>>

>> >> >>>On Feb 14, 11:20 am, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:

>>

>> >> >>>>"codebrea...@bigsecret.com" <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote innews:1171458165.012872.319100@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>>

>> >> >>>>>On Feb 14, 12:40 am, Christopher A.Lee <c...@optonline.net> wrote:

>>

>> >> >>>>>>On 13 Feb 2007 20:59:03 -0800, "Snowman" <jkel...@zoomnet.net> wrote:

>>

>> >> >>>>>>>On Feb 12, 3:06 pm, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:

>>

>> >> >>>>>>>http://www.jesusneverexisted.com

>> >> >>>>>>>--

>> >> >>>>>>>Try showing that site to an actual historian.

>> >> >>>>>>>See how hard you get laughed at.

>>

>> >> >>>>>>Try finding a real historian who can provide any evidence outside the

>> >> >>>>>>Christian tradition to corroborate Christian claims of an historic

>> >> >>>>>>Jesus.

>>

>> >> >>>>>There would not be Christians without Christ/Messiah

>>

>> >> >>>>There would be no Christians without the religion, which is a BELIEF in

>> >> >>>>Christ/Messiah myth.

>>

>> >> >>>>>And since it is prophecised that in this world Christ

>> >> >>>>>would be born, then Christ was born in the form of Jesus.

>>

>> >> >>>>Circular argument. See if you can find evidence of an historic Jesus

>> >> >>>>outside of the bible or the religion.

>>

>> >> >>>I don't think this is what evidence means. It is like asking

>> >> >>>If we can find a record of Darwin of evolution outside the

>> >> >>>Origin of the species by Darwin...

>> >> >>>Yours is indeed a circular reasoning.

>>

>> >> >>===>That is STUPID!

>>

>> >> >>We know Darwin WROTE that book, we have his PICTURES,

>> >> >>even pictures of his father and sister.

>>

>> >> > YOU KNOW IT FROM WHO? NOT FROM DARWIN HIMSELF.

>> >> > You have his picture? How do you know If it is Darwin?

>> >> > Did you meet him in person before.

>> >> > You see again, somewhere you decide to trust someone who

>> >> > reported who Darwin was and wrote. We all depend

>> >> > on hearsay

>>

>> >> ===>What inane questions you hide behind!

>> >> Only an idiot would think there is any comparison between

>> >> evidence for Darwin and evidence for "Jesus". -- L.- Hide quoted text -

>>

>> >> - Show quoted text -

>>

>> >Of course there is no comparison at all

>>

>> We agree on that.

>>

>> >Christ was foretold, Darwin not

>>

>> There is no evidence that He was foretold.

>>

>> >Christ resurrected, Darwin not

>>

>> There is no evidence that He resurrected.

>

> Say you are clueless as how this kind of evidence would work

I know exactly how evidence works.

> Supernatural evidence: Jesus is the Christ.

That is not evidence of any sort. That is an assertion.

>Before resurrection he was Jesus of Nazereth

>After resurrection, everybody including you addresses him

>as CHRIST. supernatural evidence

There is no evidence of any sort that he did resurrect. You want it to

be true so you call it supernatural evidence because you know there is

no actual evidence.

Reality does not adjust to your prejudices.

February 17, 2007

On 17 Feb 2007 08:31:52 -0800, in alt.atheism

"codebreaker@bigsecret.com" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in

<1171729912.538876.184750@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:

>On Feb 16, 1:38 pm, panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:

>> On Feb 15, 11:01 pm, "codebrea...@bigsecret.com"

>>

>> <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:

>> > On Feb 15, 9:29 pm, panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:

>>

>> > > On Feb 15, 8:42 pm, "codebrea...@bigsecret.com"

>>

>> > > <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:

>> > this will help:

>o be born into the world according to the Jewish

>> > Scriptures.

>>

>> And the Jewish scriptures are just as fictional as the Christian ones.

>>

>

> Then It is a miracle that the fictional scriptures hit its target.

What miracle. If I write a novel that claims to have fulfilled the

predictions of a prior novel, what target was hit?

> It is time your to believe in miracle. It happened.

Provide some evidence to support your assertion. So far, no one has. I

don't mind when people believe religious doctrines, but I don't see any

reason to accommodate their lies when they assert without any or even

contrary to the evidence that their doctrines are facts.

> But I guess your mother was too busy sleeping around that she did not

> teach history. You are a NIGGER and as a Nigger you would die

Jesus, of course, made it quite clear that he had no use for racists and

bigots. Apparently you never read any of His parables or sermons.

February 17, 2007

On Feb 16, 7:02 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

wrote:

> codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:

> > On Feb 15, 1:57 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

> > wrote:

>

> >>codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:

>

> >>>On Feb 14, 12:40 am, Christopher A.Lee <c...@optonline.net> wrote:

>

> >>>>On 13 Feb 2007 20:59:03 -0800, "Snowman" <jkel...@zoomnet.net> wrote:

>

> >>>>>On Feb 12, 3:06 pm, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:

>

> >>>>>http://www.jesusneverexisted.com

> >>>>>--

> >>>>>Try showing that site to an actual historian.

> >>>>>See how hard you get laughed at.

>

> >>>>Try finding a real historian who can provide any evidence outside the

> >>>>Christian tradition to corroborate Christian claims of an historic

> >>>>Jesus.

>

> >>> There would not be Christians without Christ/Messiah

> >>> And since it is prophecised that in this world Christ

> >>> would be born,

>

> >>===>NOWHERE is any such thing "prophecised". -- L.

>

> >>then Christ was born in the form of Jesus.

>

> > You are such a prentious little asshole...

> > Are you a Scibe versed in Moses Law? No

> > Are you a Doctor of the Law? No

> > Now you may think that anybody who can read and write

> > should give his opnion on what the Law of Moses says

> > and that opinion should become authoritative, it ain't so,

> > Otherwise the whole Israel should turn into the

> > land of lawyers and Scribes.

> > The same way people are trained to explain the American

> > Constitution, the same way there were people in Israel

> > trained to read the Law of Moses and interprete it.

> > You are not ONE of them, so why should I care about

> > your PRIVATE OPINION.

> > You are not a good Historian either, otherwise you would

> > have baked your opinion up with something authorritative from the

> > distant

> > past. I went back 2000 years in time and quoted what

> > Paul said about Deuteronomy 18:15 and how it applied to

> > Jesus,

>

> ===>So, what?

> Rabbi Akiba declared it was Bar Kochba!

Rabbi Akiba declared based on this text that Bar Khobah

was the Messiah????

Now why do you say that the text is not about Messiah/Christ.

You are making my point that no contemporary of the

Apostles ever objected to the fact that the text was predicting

the Messiah/Christ. They just did not agree on the person

who filled the description the best.

Now in your own words Rabbi Akiba agree with me that

Messiah/Christ is to be read in the text.

> Flavius Josephus dclared it was the Roman Emperor Vespasian!

>

> In fact there never was and never will be any such person.

>

> Your attempted historicizing is just pure nonsense.

> Ridiculous.

>

> I also quoted the Qur'an to support my opinion.

>

> ===>The Qur'an?

>

> ===>In fact Muslims claim that passage refers to MOHAMMED!

> "From amongst their brethren" refers to the Ishmaelites.

I already went through this with you sometime ago. I refer

you to my post but apparently you never read it therefore

you can get rid of your misconceptions.

The text indeed refers to Mohammad, but Mohammad

as used in the Qur'an is a euphemism for Messiah/Christ

So If you want to know more about it Check this post:

The Making of the Arabian Messiah, A Prophet like Moses

>

> You pile one laughable argumant on top of another.

>

> > Apparently If you were a good historian you should do the same.

> > Go back to first Century Jerusalem and quote a Scribe or

> > a doctor of the Mosaic Law who ever said that Deuteronomy

> > 18:15 never was about a Messiah/Christ, therefore the Apostle

> > cheated.

>

> ===>That is very easy.

> "The traditional Jewish interpretation is that

> While, on the surface, Deuteronomy 18:9-22 might appear to be speaking

> about a prophet, in reality it concerns the establishment of the Office

> of the Prophet, a position filled by 50 Jewish prophets after Moses.

> The Office of the Prophet is established via the expression "all that I

> shall command him". If, for the sake of argument, one were to assume

> that the prophet being described here is to be only one special future

> prophet, then it follows that all prophets who came after Moses, except

> for Moses and this particular prophet, were false prophets. And, one

> must not ignore the warning found in Deuteronomy 18:20 concerning the

> fate of a false prophet. This is, of course, absurd - a false

> conclusion that would result from a false assumption.

>

OK, let us post the text itself and see If you make sense. Here is

Deut 18:14-19

14 The nations you will dispossess listen to those who

practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the LORD

your God has not permitted you to do so.

15 The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet

like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him.

16 For this is what you asked of the LORD your God

at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said,

"Let us not hear the voice of the LORD our God nor

see this great fire anymore, or we will die."

17 The LORD said to me: "What they say is good.

18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from

among their brothers; I will put my words in his

mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him.

19 If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet

speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account.

This is what we will end up with following your kind of Nonsense:

14 The nations you will dispossess listen to those who

practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the LORD

your God has not permitted you to do so.

15 The LORD your God will raise up for you an OFFICE

OF 50 prophets

like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to HIM.

16 For this is what you asked of the LORD your God

at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said,

"Let us not hear the voice of the LORD our God nor

see this great fire anymore, or we will die."

17 The LORD said to me: "What they say is good.

18 I will raise up for them an OFFICE OF 50 prophets like you from

among their brothers; I will put my words in HIS

mouth, and HE will tell them everything I command HIM.

19 If anyone does not listen to my words that the OFFICE OF 50

prophets

speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account.

Hmmmmmmmmmm...

I am sure you don't believe in this craps of your own...

You know it makes nosense. You have to ignore even the rule

of grammar just to believe that.

The trouble with your interpretation is that the word Him

indicates that it is not plural and it is not the office either

otherwise He would have said,"You must listen to it" that

is to say the office.Yet, he said, I will put my words in HIS mouth

and not in ITS MOUTH as IN the mouth of the office nor did he

say I will put my words in THEIR MOUTHS as to suggest many

prophets, but Him that is to say One prophet and that prophet will

be in the likeness of Moses.

If you say to the Prophet Daniel that he was in the likeness

of Moses, he would order you be stoned for blasphem.

Now here is my interpretation and I will let the readers

decide who makes more sense.

14 The nations you will dispossess listen to those who

practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the LORD

your God has not permitted you to do so.

15 The LORD your God will raise up for you The Messiah/Christ,

a prophet like me from among your own brothers.

You must listen to him.

16 For this is what you asked of the LORD your God

at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said,

"Let us not hear the voice of the LORD our God nor

see this great fire anymore, or we will die."

17 The LORD said to me: "What they say is good.

18 I will raise up for them Christ/Messiah,a prophet like you Moses

from among their brothers; I will put my words in his/Messiah

mouth, and he/CRIST will tell them everything I command him.

19 If anyone does not listen to my words that the Messiah, the prophet

speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account.

Again when Jesus said to the crowd," If you believe

Moses, you would believe me for He wrote about me."

this is the text He was alluding to.

The same Deut 18:15 is commented in the Qur'an as

a text fortelling the advend of the Messiah/Christ.

The Author of the Qur'an went even further by suggesting

that accepting the Messiah/Christ was a covenant binding between

the Children of Israel and God. Here is the text;

Behold! Allah took the Covenant of the Prophets,

saying: "I give you a Book and Wisdom; then comes

to you a Messenger/Christ, confirming what is with you;

do you believe him and render him help." Allah said:

"Do ye agree, and take this my Covenant as binding on you?"

They said: "We agree." He said:

"Then bear witness, and I am with you among the witnesses." 3:81.

You are displaying a demoniac spirit which pushes you to denial,but

you are not opposing me, you are opposing Jesus himself, because

Whetever comes from his mouth is infailible, and this indeed comes

from his mouth ...

YOU ARE WASTING AWAY YOUR TIME and your life.

But you know what? This text has already hit

its target. This is not something in the distant

past that you can not verify like the evolving of

a monkey into a human, this is indeed current

event. You always will have time to verify it. So let us say

What is going on there in Jerusalem between the

Jews and the Arabs is grounded on this text Deut 18:15

and on the Mosaic pronouncement that he would make

the children of Israel jealous through a stupid nation.

And indeed Israel is jealous to the point of building a wall

of separation because it finds itself living

in the same land with nation that it used to call its

people snakes. But this was done in purpose so that Israel

may reread his own text. In the text of its

enemies, the Arabs, Jesus is referred to as the

Christ/Messiah...the fulfillement of Moses

BE CAREFUL JERK

February 17, 2007

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 18:36:38 GMT, "weatherwax"

<weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>

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

>> "weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>>>"Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote

>>>> Jeckyl wrote:

>>>>>>===>Thsoe "Apostles" are ALSO fictional

>>>>>> characters, just like the main protagonist "Jesus". -- L.

>>>>>

>>>>> I must disagree there .. there is real historical evidence

>>>>> for the existence of the apostles, just as there is for John

>>>>> the Baptist.

>>>>

>>>> ===>Really?

>>>> Would you please cite some reference to your

>>>> "evidence"??? -- L.

>>

>> They talk about its existence, but never provide it. The

>> conclusion is obvious.

>>

>>> Early Christianity was not big enough to draw the attention

>>> of many people, so we shouldn't expect much historical

>>> evidence for any of the apostle. After Acts 1, most of the

>>> apostles are never heard of again anyway.

>>>

>>>The letters of Paul appear to be historically accurate,

>>> therefore we can safely assume that he lived. Those

>>> letters confirm the existence of an early church in

>>> Jerusalem, and in Galatians 1:18 Paul says that he went to

>>> Jerusalem "to visit Cephas and get information from him."

>>> From further references in 1 Colossians 9:10 and 15:5 it is

>>> reasonable to assume that "Cephas" is a reference to the

>>> apostle Peter.

>>

>> And his Christ is an ethereal, spiritual one. He knows

>> nothing of an historical Jesus let alone the Jesus of the

>> gospels.

>

>Here we are differentiating between "Christ", and the "historical Jesus".

>That is an important distinction to make. Paul's "Christ" was a combination

>of the Jewish "Messiah" with Mithric and Greek beliefs.

Yes.

>However, the existence of a first century leader named Jesus who proclaimed

>himself the messiah, and who was consequently executed for treason by the

>Romans is very much within the whelm of possibility, and he probably did

>live.

The trouble is that there is no evidence, just rationalisation.

>Under the distortions of the Pauline "Christ", I believe that the historical

>Jesus can be found in the gospels.

Which came later and are a mish-mash of legends about earlier

pre-Christian heroes, also describing things that can't happen.

And this is why they need the secular corroboration which simply ism't

there.

>>>Unfortunately, we can't do better than that. Papias is

>>>often cited, but historically, he is unreliable.

>

>--Wax

>

February 17, 2007

On Feb 16, 8:16 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

wrote:

> codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:

>

> ===>EXACTLY.

> CHRIST is Fantasy/FICTION.

> DARWIN not.

This is the opinion of someone at a loss as where to get the clues

for a sound investigation. So you resort to easy ways.

>

February 17, 2007

On Feb 16, 9:00 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> > How do you know it is his? Someone claimed it

> > How do you know it is ORIGINAL ? Someone told you so

> > You had no way to know

> > and this take us back to where we were. It take a trust

> > in someone no matter what to believe something. We all depends

> > on hearsay.

> > Don't get confused. Hearsay can be done in writing.

> > The claim that something is written down therefore it is not

> > a hearsay is bogus. Now If you can believe all that Hoopla

> > about Darwin, why do you demand a different standard for Jesus

> > and his trusted apostles?

>

> Your lack of knowledge on what constitutes historical evidence is appalling,

> and your ramblings here are a nonsense. You think that trying to discredit

> viable evidence for Darwin somehow makes up for the lack of credible

> contemporary historical evidence for Jesus. . On the contrary, it highlights

> it, and makes you look foolish in the process.

There are more evidence for Jesus than you have for Darwin.

The History of Monotheism during

those past 2000 years is the history of Jesus.

The culture that his name shaped is another evidence for Him

the Law than nations enacted based on his Gospel

his evidence for Jesus.

All these fine cathedrals which have been around the

world is an evidence of his existence.

Thousands internal and theological evidence

and thousands outside evidences all confirm one man Jesus

February 17, 2007

On Feb 16, 7:06 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

wrote:

> totally discreditiung himself,

>

> codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:

>

> [sNIPALOT]

>

> > How do you decide this is credible and this is not?

> > Just because something meets your fantazy does not make it credible.

>

> That is EXACTLY what "codebreaker" is doing, but unfortunately

> he's too blinded by doctrinal prejudice to begin to think and

> realize he's talking about himself and his kind.

>

> However, he must be warned:

>

> THINKING CAN BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR FAITH! -- L.

I am not applying double standard. You have one standard one

Jesus and another standard for Darwin and his monkey-man

which evolved 3 billions years ago. This is ridicule for something

that is not even historical

February 17, 2007

On Feb 16, 7:19 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

wrote:

> codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:

> > On Feb 15, 8:12 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

> > wrote:

>

> >>codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:

>

> >>>On Feb 15, 2:01 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

> >>>wrote:

>

> >>>>codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:

>

> >>>>>On Feb 14, 11:20 am, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:

>

> >>>>>>"codebrea...@bigsecret.com" <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote innews:1171458165.012872.319100@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>

> >>>>>>>On Feb 14, 12:40 am, Christopher A.Lee <c...@optonline.net> wrote:

>

> >>>>>>>>On 13 Feb 2007 20:59:03 -0800, "Snowman" <jkel...@zoomnet.net> wrote:

>

> >>>>>>>>>On Feb 12, 3:06 pm, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:

>

> >>>>>>>>>http://www.jesusneverexisted.com

> >>>>>>>>>--

> >>>>>>>>>Try showing that site to an actual historian.

> >>>>>>>>>See how hard you get laughed at.

>

> >>>>>>>>Try finding a real historian who can provide any evidence outside the

> >>>>>>>>Christian tradition to corroborate Christian claims of an historic

> >>>>>>>>Jesus.

>

> >>>>>>>There would not be Christians without Christ/Messiah

>

> >>>>>>There would be no Christians without the religion, which is a BELIEF in

> >>>>>>Christ/Messiah myth.

>

> >>>>>>>And since it is prophecised that in this world Christ

> >>>>>>>would be born, then Christ was born in the form of Jesus.

>

> >>>>>>Circular argument. See if you can find evidence of an historic Jesus

> >>>>>>outside of the bible or the religion.

>

> >>>>>I don't think this is what evidence means. It is like asking

> >>>>>If we can find a record of Darwin of evolution outside the

> >>>>>Origin of the species by Darwin...

> >>>>>Yours is indeed a circular reasoning.

>

> >>>>===>That is STUPID!

>

> >>>>We know Darwin WROTE that book, we have his PICTURES,

> >>>>even pictures of his father and sister.

>

> >>>>The stories (Gospels) about "Christ" are pure fiction

> >>>>written by some unknown Christian authors. -- L.- Hide quoted text -

>

> >>>Let us wait 2000 years later and see If his books, his sisters, father

> >>>existence would not be questioned.

>

> >>===>What an inane response!

>

> > Hey Historian, post your source from a first century Jerusalem

> > authority

> > who ever questioned Jesus existence.

>

> ===>No one in the first century ever heard of the "Jesus"

> character of Gospel fiction.

>

> > The Talmud did not question it. It had interest in doing so.

> > The Jewish Council of Jamnia did not question it.

> > It had interst in doing so.

>

> ===>They only made fun of the ridiculous claims of

> the Pauline Christos Cult.

> "For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing"

> "we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles

> foolishness"

>

> In fact it was pure craziness to all thinking, intelligent, educated

> people since the first century!

>

> THINKING CAN BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR FAITH! -- L.- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

The Talmud talks about Jesus' trial in their own words

Trial for someone who never existed is ridiculous.

But of course you always twist or pick and choose

any source to fit your prejudice.

What do you think Paul is saying? He is just rewording

the usual jewish oppositon. A Crucified Messia/Christ

how is this possible? The Jews did not think that the Messiah

could be crucified. But they are not saying that Jesus was not

crucified. I am not sure If you will ever be able to see

the nuance. Jesus crucifixion made him unlikely to be the

Messiah/Christ according to the Jews understanding

of Moses prophecy.

Notice that they did not object to the fact that Deut 18:15

was about Messiah. Yet Deuteronomy 18:15 is not

about the Messiah/Christ is the point you have been

trying to get across. I am not sure how the council

of Jamnia making fun of Paul helps your case.

February 17, 2007

On Feb 16, 7:23 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

wrote:

> codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:

> > On Feb 15, 10:16 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>

> >>>Why do you think they accepted a list of prophets

> >>>like a Isaiah, Jeremy, Daniel, Habbakuk, Zakkariah and j'en passe

> >>>and even compiled their books into a canonical writing, yet rejected

> >>>Jesus?

> >>>What rational explanation can you come up with?

>

> >>He didn't exist.

>

> > How do you insult someone who never existed.

> > Read the Talmud in its pages where Jesus and his mother are

> > mentioned. It is even stupid to get angry at something which

> > not real.

>

> ===>The Pauline Christos Cult was ridiculed.

> "we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles

> foolishness".

> And that was before they began to claim there was a real PERSON who

> was that "Christos". -- L.- Hide quoted text -

I thought you said Rabbi Akkiba accepted Bar Khobba

as the Messiah.

And I know through History that Bar Khobba based his claim

on Deuteronomy 18:15.

How on earth can you believe one thing and the opposite

at the same time. Sometime one needs to be coherent

with one's premise.

It seems to me that your knowledge is just sparse and not

connnected. You put things side by side without unity.

The man who quoted a text about Rabbi Akiba accepting

Bar Khobba as the Messiah of Israel should know

that this is indeed based on Moses.

Now what do you believe exactly regarding

Deuteronomy 18:15

If you think it is not about Messiah why do you quote

Rabbi Akkiba to make your point knowing that

Rabbi Akkiba interpreted Deut 18:15 to mean Bar Khobba?

Do you really make sense or you are just trying to

show off your knowledge without susbstance?

I think you need help

>

> - Show quoted text -

February 17, 2007

On Feb 16, 7:23 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

wrote:

> codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:

> > On Feb 15, 10:16 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>

> >>>Why do you think they accepted a list of prophets

> >>>like a Isaiah, Jeremy, Daniel, Habbakuk, Zakkariah and j'en passe

> >>>and even compiled their books into a canonical writing, yet rejected

> >>>Jesus?

> >>>What rational explanation can you come up with?

>

> >>He didn't exist.

>

> > How do you insult someone who never existed.

> > Read the Talmud in its pages where Jesus and his mother are

> > mentioned. It is even stupid to get angry at something which

> > not real.

>

> ===>The Pauline Christos Cult was ridiculed.

> "we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles

> foolishness".

> And that was before they began to claim there was a real PERSON who

> was that "Christos". -- L.- Hide quoted text -

Moses never foretold a Christ would have been the appropriate

response to, Paul don't you think?

And that was before "they"... Who they?????

What hell are you talking about.

We are talking whether or not the Jews agree

with the Apostles that Moses Deuteronomy 18:15

was about the Messiah or not... and here you are

talking about unrelated topic. What have you been smoking?

You easily forget your premise... How would you be

able to reach a sound conclusion in that case?

>

> - Show quoted text -

February 17, 2007

On Feb 17, 2:45 pm, "codebrea...@bigsecret.com"

<Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:

> On Feb 16, 8:16 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

> wrote:

>

> > codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:

>

> > ===>EXACTLY.

> > CHRIST is Fantasy/FICTION.

> > DARWIN not.

>

> This is the opinion of someone at a loss as where to get the clues

> for a sound investigation. So you resort to easy ways.

>

One Jesus can be proven to exist: Screw-Top Jesus

http://theviewfromherenow.blogspot.com/2007/02/screw-top-jesus.html

February 17, 2007

On Feb 16, 7:20 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

wrote:

> codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:

> > On Feb 15, 8:19 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

> > wrote:

>

> >>codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:

>

> >>>On Feb 15, 1:57 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

> >>>wrote:

>

> >>>>codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:

>

> >>>>>On Feb 14, 12:40 am, Christopher A.Lee <c...@optonline.net> wrote:

>

> >>>>>>On 13 Feb 2007 20:59:03 -0800, "Snowman" <jkel...@zoomnet.net> wrote:

>

> >>>>>>>On Feb 12, 3:06 pm, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:

>

> >>>>>>>http://www.jesusneverexisted.com

> >>>>>>>--

> >>>>>>>Try showing that site to an actual historian.

> >>>>>>>See how hard you get laughed at.

>

> >>>>>>Try finding a real historian who can provide any evidence outside the

> >>>>>>Christian tradition to corroborate Christian claims of an historic

> >>>>>>Jesus.

>

> >>>>> There would not be Christians without Christ/Messiah

> >>>>> And since it is prophecised that in this world Christ

> >>>>> would be born,

>

> >>>>===>NOWHERE is any such thing "prophecised". -- L.

>

> >>>>then Christ was born in the form of Jesus.

>

> >>>I will believe that If the Jewish Council Of Jamnia claimed it.

> >>>They are the gardiens and authority on this Jewish Scriptures.

> >>>And since their goal was to stop the spread of Christianity,

> >>>the system of belief grounded on Christ/Messiah, since their

> >>>agenda was to stop it, "Moses never said such thing"

> >>>would have been easier for them.

>

> >>===>Is it that much easier for you to just LIE than to tell

> >>us WHERE "it is prophecised that in this world Christ

> >>would be born"? -- L.- Hide quoted text -

>

> > You are not a good historian. You take your opinion as history.

> > I quoted text from first century Christians. You quoted nothing

> > to support your view.

> > What is the official opinion of the children of Israel

> > on Jesus?

> > If you say he was a prophet. My question is this?

> > Why do you think they accepted a list of prophets

> > like a Isaiah, Jeremy, Daniel, Habbakuk, Zakkariah and j'en passe

> > and even compiled their books into a canonical writing, yet rejected

> > Jesus?

>

> ===>Because ther was no such person. -- L.- Hide quoted text -

Yet they described in their Talmud how Jesus was TRIALED

Does this make sense If there were no such person?

What the point of describing in detail how someone

who never existed was caught and how witnesses

were brought in during HIS TRIAL.

YOU ARE A CRACKPOT HISTORIAN

>

> - Show quoted text -

February 17, 2007

On Feb 16, 7:26 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

wrote:

> Jeckyl wrote:

> >>You are such a prentious little asshole...

>

> > Charming.

>

> >>The same way people are trained to explain the American

> >>Constitution, the same way there were people in Israel

> >>trained to read the Law of Moses and interprete it.

> >>You are not ONE of them, so why should I care about

> >>your PRIVATE OPINION.

>

> > So are you saying that the Jewish faith recognises Jesus as the messiah ?

>

> >>You are not a good Historian either

>

> > You ceratinly aren't .. you've not given one single bit of historial

> > evidence. Only hearsay from people who never new jesus when he was

> > supposedly alive.

>

> >>Go back to first Century Jerusalem and quote a Scribe or

> >>a doctor of the Mosaic Law who ever said that Deuteronomy

> >>18:15 never was about a Messiah/Christ

>

> > Whether or not the Jews where expecting a promised messiah is beside the

> > point. The issue is whether jesus was that messiah. The old testament and

> > jewish scripture do not say that.

>

> >>Do you think that being historian mean reading the works

> >>by some Historians?

> >>Being historian means being able to investigate and find the cause

> >>and effect.

>

> > Exactly .. obviosuly not something you have done, otherwise you would cite

> > the credible contemporary evidence of Jesus existence.

>

> >>Hey it looks like History does not support your viewpoint.

>

> > It certainly does not support yours.

>

> >>JESUS IS THE CHRIST, NO JESUS, NO CHRIST

>

> > Shame that.

>

> ===>In fact the Gospel writers invented "Jesus" to strengthen

> the Pauline claims about "Christ".

It is easy to claim it, now you must prove it.

Given the fact that you believe that Rabbi Akkiba accepted

Bar Khobba as the Messiah of Israel.

Given the fact that any Jewish claim about the Messiah is always

based on Deuteronomy 18:14-19.

Given the fact Jesus TRIAL is mentioned in the Talmuld a book

by Jesus enemies.

Given the fact that the Gospel writers could not write the Talmud

It is safe to believe that Jesus existed as a historical

figure and that Deuteronomy 18:14-19 in the words of

Rabbi Akiva is about the Messiah/Christ that Paul

did not invent.

All your other thesis fall flat on the ground.

You are a poor thinker

Codebreaker@bigsecret.com

>

> It is as if some new sect decided it was Don Quixote.

> No Don Quixote, No Christ. -- L.- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

February 17, 2007

On Feb 16, 7:28 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

wrote:

> Jeckyl wrote:

> >>None of the Apostles contemporaries ever question Jesus existence.

>

> > That shows a lack of critical thinking on their part.

>

> > Of course, they didn't have the standard of historical evidence we have now,

> > nor the tools to research it. So one really can't blame them for accepting

> > what was told to them.

>

> ===>Thsoe "Apostles" are ALSO fictional characters, just like

> the main protagonist "Jesus". -- L.

You like the easy way don't you.

Anything you can't comprehend and explain in a fiction for you.

codebreaker@bigsecret

February 17, 2007

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 18:36:38 GMT, "weatherwax"

<weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

- Refer: <WWHBh.75714$2m6.15940@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>

>

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

>> "weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>>>"Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote

>>>> Jeckyl wrote:

>>>>>>===>Thsoe "Apostles" are ALSO fictional

>>>>>> characters, just like the main protagonist "Jesus". -- L.

>>>>>

>>>>> I must disagree there .. there is real historical evidence

>>>>> for the existence of the apostles, just as there is for John

>>>>> the Baptist.

>>>>

>>>> ===>Really?

>>>> Would you please cite some reference to your

>>>> "evidence"??? -- L.

>>

>> They talk about its existence, but never provide it. The

>> conclusion is obvious.

>>

>>> Early Christianity was not big enough to draw the attention

>>> of many people, so we shouldn't expect much historical

>>> evidence for any of the apostle. After Acts 1, most of the

>>> apostles are never heard of again anyway.

>>>

>>>The letters of Paul appear to be historically accurate,

>>> therefore we can safely assume that he lived. Those

>>> letters confirm the existence of an early church in

>>> Jerusalem, and in Galatians 1:18 Paul says that he went to

>>> Jerusalem "to visit Cephas and get information from him."

>>> From further references in 1 Colossians 9:10 and 15:5 it is

>>> reasonable to assume that "Cephas" is a reference to the

>>> apostle Peter.

>>

>> And his Christ is an ethereal, spiritual one. He knows

>> nothing of an historical Jesus let alone the Jesus of the

>> gospels.

>

>Here we are differentiating between "Christ", and the "historical Jesus".

>That is an important distinction to make. Paul's "Christ" was a combination

>of the Jewish "Messiah" with Mithric and Greek beliefs.

>

>However, the existence of a first century leader named Jesus who proclaimed

>himself the messiah, and who was consequently executed for treason by the

>Romans is very much within the whelm of possibility, and he probably did

>live.

Where on earth is even a scrap of evidence to support that estimate of

probability?

I have looked high and low, and am quite unable to find any.

>Under the distortions of the Pauline "Christ", I believe that the historical

>Jesus can be found in the gospels.

And no-where else.

And these "gospels" are most likely fabrications.

>>>Unfortunately, we can't do better than that. Papias is

>>>often cited, but historically, he is unreliable.

>

>--Wax

>

--

February 17, 2007

<Tohu.Bohu@hotmail.com> wrote

> Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:

>> codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:

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

>>

>>>>> Why do you think they accepted a list of prophets

>>>>> like a Isaiah, Jeremy, Daniel, Habbakuk, Zakkariah

>>>>> and j'en passe and even compiled their books into a

>>>>> canonical writing, yet rejected Jesus?

>>>>>What rational explanation can you come up with?

>>

>> >>He didn't exist.

>>

>>> How do you insult someone who never existed.

Batman, quit bugging Robbin.

There. I have just insulted somebody who does not exist.

>>> Read the Talmud in its pages where Jesus and his mother are

>>> mentioned. It is even stupid to get angry at something which

>>> not real.

>>

>> ===>The Pauline Christos Cult was ridiculed.

>> "we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block

>> and to Gentiles foolishness".

>> And that was before they began to claim there was a real

>> PERSON who was that "Christos". -- L.- Hide quoted text -

>

> I thought you said Rabbi Akkiba accepted Bar Khobba

> as the Messiah.

> And I know through History that Bar Khobba based his claim

> on Deuteronomy 18:15.

> How on earth can you believe one thing and the opposite

> at the same time. Sometime one needs to be coherent

> with one's premise.

> It seems to me that your knowledge is just sparse and not

> connnected. You put things side by side without unity.

> The man who quoted a text about Rabbi Akiba accepting

> Bar Khobba as the Messiah of Israel should know

> that this is indeed based on Moses.

> Now what do you believe exactly regarding

> Deuteronomy 18:15

> If you think it is not about Messiah why do you quote

> Rabbi Akkiba to make your point knowing that

> Rabbi Akkiba interpreted Deut 18:15 to mean Bar Khobba?

> Do you really make sense or you are just trying to

> show off your knowledge without susbstance?

> I think you need help

By taking Deuteronomy 18:15 out of context, Peter was able to claim that

Jesus was the messiah. By taking Deuteronomy out of context, Mohammad was

able to claim to be the messiah. By taking Deuteronomy 18:15 out of context

Bar Khobba was able to claim to be the messiah.

By taking text out of context, there is no limit to what can be claimed.

That was a common practice at the time of Jesus, and is still a common

practice among Jew, Christians and Moslems today.

Have you tried looking at Deuteronomy 18:15 in context? You better, because

unless you can show that 18:15 referred to a messiah you have no argument.

--Wax

February 17, 2007

Tohu.Bohu@hotmail.com wrote:

> On Feb 16, 7:26 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

> wrote:

>

>>Jeckyl wrote:

>>

>>>>You are such a prentious little asshole...

>>

>>>Charming.

>>

>>>>The same way people are trained to explain the American

>>>>Constitution, the same way there were people in Israel

>>>>trained to read the Law of Moses and interprete it.

>>>>You are not ONE of them, so why should I care about

>>>>your PRIVATE OPINION.

>>

>>>So are you saying that the Jewish faith recognises Jesus as the messiah ?

>>

>>>>You are not a good Historian either

>>

>>>You ceratinly aren't .. you've not given one single bit of historial

>>>evidence. Only hearsay from people who never new jesus when he was

>>>supposedly alive.

>>

>>>>Go back to first Century Jerusalem and quote a Scribe or

>>>>a doctor of the Mosaic Law who ever said that Deuteronomy

>>>>18:15 never was about a Messiah/Christ

>>

>>>Whether or not the Jews where expecting a promised messiah is beside the

>>>point. The issue is whether jesus was that messiah. The old testament and

>>>jewish scripture do not say that.

>>

>>>>Do you think that being historian mean reading the works

>>>>by some Historians?

>>>>Being historian means being able to investigate and find the cause

>>>>and effect.

>>

>>>Exactly .. obviosuly not something you have done, otherwise you would cite

>>>the credible contemporary evidence of Jesus existence.

>>

>>>>Hey it looks like History does not support your viewpoint.

>>

>>>It certainly does not support yours.

>>

>>>>JESUS IS THE CHRIST, NO JESUS, NO CHRIST

>>

>>>Shame that.

>>

>>===>In fact the Gospel writers invented "Jesus" to strengthen

>>the Pauline claims about "Christ".

>

> It is easy to claim it, now you must prove it.

> Given the fact that you believe that Rabbi Akkiba accepted

> Bar Khobba as the Messiah of Israel.

===>I don't "believe" it.

I KNOW it.

> Given the fact that any Jewish claim about the Messiah is always

> based on Deuteronomy 18:14-19.

===>FALSE ASSertiom you keep repeating.

> Given the fact Jesus TRIAL is mentioned in the Talmuld a book

> by Jesus enemies.

===>Not the "Jesus" of the NT!

> Given the fact that the Gospel writers could not write the Talmud

===>Irrelevant.

> It is safe to believe that Jesus existed as a historical

> figure

===>NON SEQUITUR, based on false premises.

and that Deuteronomy 18:14-19 in the words of

> Rabbi Akiva is about the Messiah/Christ that Paul

> did not invent.

===>FALSE ASSertion,

FALSE CONCLUSION. -- L.

February 17, 2007

<Tohu.Bohu@hotmail.com> wrote

> Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:

>

> It is easy to claim it, now you must prove it.

Prove somebody's non-existence? That is like proving Superman does not

exist. Could you prove that there was no Superman?

> Given the fact that you believe that Rabbi Akkiba accepted

> Bar Khobba as the Messiah of Israel.

> Given the fact that any Jewish claim about the Messiah is always

> based on Deuteronomy 18:14-19.

Deuteronomy 18:14-16 doesn't even refer to a messiah.

> Given the fact Jesus TRIAL is mentioned in the Talmuld a

> book by Jesus enemies.

The Talmud was written hundreds of years after Jesus. Therefore it is not a

good historical source.

> Given the fact that the Gospel writers could not write the

> Talmud

> It is safe to believe that Jesus existed as a historical

> figure and that Deuteronomy 18:14-19 in the words of

> Rabbi Akiva is about the Messiah/Christ that Paul

> did not invent.

> All your other thesis fall flat on the ground.

>

> You are a poor thinker

I would expect you to come up with better arguments than that.

--Wax

February 17, 2007

> Note also that biblical

> scholars no longer belief all the letters supposedly written by one

> called Paul were written by the same person.

I understand and am well aware of that. Only some of the letters supposedly

by him are accepted as being by the same author (who is gnerally assumed to

be called 'Paul')

However, even though there is more evidence on Paul than Jesus, it is still

possible (as your link indicates) to take legitimate issue with his

existence. Makes claims of Jesus existence seem even less likely.

February 17, 2007

> Here we are differentiating between "Christ", and the "historical Jesus".

> That is an important distinction to make. Paul's "Christ" was a

> combination of the Jewish "Messiah" with Mithric and Greek beliefs.

>

> However, the existence of a first century leader named Jesus who

> proclaimed himself the messiah, and who was consequently executed for

> treason by the Romans is very much within the whelm of possibility, and he

> probably did live.

> Under the distortions of the Pauline "Christ", I believe that the

> historical Jesus can be found in the gospels.

That is close to what I believe as well. The reason for the lack of

evidence is that the events and actions of Jesus life are either exaggerated

or invented to basically make it a good story. To paraphrase Twain, the

rumors of Jesus death are greatly exaggerated.. I think he just wasn't

important enough at the time to enough people (or at least the people who

were keeping records of the day) to warrant being written about. To those

that followed him, of course, he was very important, and his teaching ended

up as the basis for what Christianity was (and probably should be) .. before

it became distorted by Pauline teaching, and Rome's involvement and the many

other factors the have influenced the church.

February 17, 2007

> There are more evidence for Jesus than you have for Darwin.

> The History of Monotheism during

> those past 2000 years is the history of Jesus.

No .. its the history of the Christian religion .. you really see mto have

difficulty in differentiating between evidence for the Chruch and evidence

for Jesus.

> The culture that his name shaped is another evidence for Him

Again, only evidence of the Chruch. and that the name Jesus is associated

with it.

> the Law than nations enacted based on his Gospel

> his evidence for Jesus.

Again, only evidence of the Chruch.

> All these fine cathedrals which have been around the

> world is an evidence of his existence.

Again, only evidence of the Chruch.

> Thousands internal and theological evidence

> and thousands outside evidences all confirm one man Jesus

Again, only evidence of the Church.

If you are going to quote things as evidence for something, please make sure

they are evidence for the actual claim you are making, otherwise it makes

you look a little silly.

February 17, 2007

> I am not applying double standard. You have one standard one

> Jesus and another standard for Darwin

Not at all .. its the same standard

February 18, 2007

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 10:40:02 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

wrote:

>> Here we are differentiating between "Christ", and the "historical Jesus".

>> That is an important distinction to make. Paul's "Christ" was a

>> combination of the Jewish "Messiah" with Mithric and Greek beliefs.

>>

>> However, the existence of a first century leader named Jesus who

>> proclaimed himself the messiah, and who was consequently executed for

>> treason by the Romans is very much within the whelm of possibility, and he

>> probably did live.

>> Under the distortions of the Pauline "Christ", I believe that the

>> historical Jesus can be found in the gospels.

>

>That is close to what I believe as well. The reason for the lack of

>evidence is that the events and actions of Jesus life are either exaggerated

>or invented to basically make it a good story.

No. The reason for the lack of evidence is that there is nothing

outside the Christian tradition.

> To paraphrase Twain, the

>rumors of Jesus death are greatly exaggerated.. I think he just wasn't

>important enough at the time to enough people (or at least the people who

>were keeping records of the day) to warrant being written about. To those

>that followed him, of course, he was very important, and his teaching ended

>up as the basis for what Christianity was (and probably should be) .. before

>it became distorted by Pauline teaching, and Rome's involvement and the many

>other factors the have influenced the church.

That rationalisation is as bad as the Christians'.

>

Sign In

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed The Bible

Recommended Posts

Guest codebreaker@bigsecret.com

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Guest weatherwax

Guest Free Lunch

Guest Free Lunch

Guest codebreaker@bigsecret.com

Guest Christopher A.Lee

Guest codebreaker@bigsecret.com

Guest codebreaker@bigsecret.com

Guest codebreaker@bigsecret.com

Guest codebreaker@bigsecret.com

Guest Tohu.Bohu@hotmail.com

Guest Tohu.Bohu@hotmail.com

Guest JHood

Guest Tohu.Bohu@hotmail.com

Guest Tohu.Bohu@hotmail.com

Guest Tohu.Bohu@hotmail.com

Guest Michael Gray

Guest weatherwax

Guest Libertarius

Guest weatherwax

Guest Jeckyl

Guest Jeckyl

Guest Jeckyl

Guest Jeckyl

Guest Christopher A.Lee

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity

Support