Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed The Bible

[Guest Christopher A.Lee]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 10:43:15 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

wrote:

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

>> Jesus and another standard for Darwin

>

>Not at all .. its the same standard

 

We have the writings of Darwin. We have his descendents. He is part of

recent history.

 

Evidence points to him. Nobody starts off by "believing in" Darwin and

then looking for something that can be rationalised as "proof".

>

[Guest Jeckyl]

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

> outside the Christian tradition.

 

Exactly. Or rather, that the 'evidence' that is outside is non-contemporary

and/or of duibious validity.

>> 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'.

 

Not at all, it perfectly sensible. That is the same reason why there is no

historical evidence about the overwhelming majority of individual that

existed .. they just weren't important enough for someone else to document.

I'm sure you're not going to say that there were only a handful of human

beings that existed because we don't have evidence of the existence of each

individual. That a relatively insignificant person (at the time) called

Jesus existed (but not fully as described in the bible) is a rational and

sensible explanation of the non-conclusive hearsay 'evidence' that many

claim as proof.

 

Notice that I did not claim that there was any proof (on the contrary). I

am simply stating what I believe to be likely and a reasonable explanation.

It is no less reasonable than the assertion that he never existed at all.

 

As there is no conclusive evidence for or against the existence of Jesus at

all, it becomes a matter of personal belief and what one judges to best fit

what information we do have. However, there is fairly strong evidence that

many of the things said about him were untrue ... in particular the

contradictory accounts of his birth that do not make sense, for example.

[Guest Jeckyl]

>>Not at all .. its the same standard

> We have the writings of Darwin. We have his descendents. He is part of

> recent history.

>

> Evidence points to him. Nobody starts off by "believing in" Darwin and

> then looking for something that can be rationalised as "proof".

 

I'm also pretty sure we have actual records of his birth, his death, his

education, his expeditions, his journals, contemporary writings about him

(in particular ones refuting his claims, which hold more weight than ones

that are in support).

[Guest Jeckyl]

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

> by Jesus enemies.

 

Can you please quote the reference to it.

 

And the esteimate date it was written (if it was non-contemporary, then it

is not really proof, just a reteeling of a story.

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

 

No.. but those who wrote the Talmub could well have been influence by the

bible stories.

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

> figure

 

But not to prove it.

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

> Rabbi Akiva is about the Messiah/Christ that Paul

> did not invent.

 

I ceratinly don't dispute that the old testament has many references to a

forthcoming prophet / messiah / christ.

 

That doesn't mean Jesus was that person, and that person was not someone

else or is yet to come.

> All your other thesis fall flat on the ground.

> You are a poor thinker

 

The only one showing poor thinking so far has been you.

[Guest Jeckyl]

>> >Christ resurrected, Darwin not

>> There is no evidence that He resurrected.

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

> Supernatural evidence: Jesus is the Christ.

> Before resurrection he was Jesus of Nazereth

> After resurrection, everybody including you addresses him

> as CHRIST. supernatural evidence

 

That is not evidence in any way at all. You really are grasping at straws

here.

[Guest Christopher A.Lee]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 11:52:25 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

wrote:

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

>> outside the Christian tradition.

>

>Exactly. Or rather, that the 'evidence' that is outside is non-contemporary

>and/or of duibious validity.

>

>>> 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'.

>

>Not at all, it perfectly sensible. That is the same reason why there is no

>historical evidence about the overwhelming majority of individual that

>existed .. they just weren't important enough for someone else to document.

>I'm sure you're not going to say that there were only a handful of human

>beings that existed because we don't have evidence of the existence of each

>individual.

 

Now you're just being silly. Those we know about are conclusions not

presumptions.

> That a relatively insignificant person (at the time) called

>Jesus existed (but not fully as described in the bible) is a rational and

>sensible explanation of the non-conclusive hearsay 'evidence' that many

>claim as proof.

 

Why is it? There is no evidence. The religion exists, but its founder

knew nothing of the Jesus of the gospels, which is a mish-mash of

stories about earlier hero figures. All there is, is rationalisation.

>Notice that I did not claim that there was any proof (on the contrary). I

>am simply stating what I believe to be likely and a reasonable explanation.

>It is no less reasonable than the assertion that he never existed at all.

 

It's a rationalisation.

 

And please learn the difference between "the assertion that he never

existed at all", and "no reason to believe he existed".

having

>As there is no conclusive evidence for or against the existence of Jesus at

>all, it becomes a matter of personal belief and what one judges to best fit

>what information we do have. However, there is fairly strong evidence that

>many of the things said about him were untrue ... in particular the

>contradictory accounts of his birth that do not make sense, for example.

 

As there is none for, there is no reasonto assume he did.

[Guest Jeckyl]

>> ===>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.

 

A sound investigation would show no evidence for Jesus .. it would show

substantial evidence for Darwin.

[Guest Jeckyl]

> The Talmud talks about Jesus' trial in their own words

 

Its not contemporary evidence.

> Trial for someone who never existed is ridiculous.

 

There is no evidence of the trial, only talk about it in a document hundreds

of years later

> But of course you always twist or pick and choose

> any source to fit your prejudice.

 

There is no credible contemporary source. If there is, please present it ..

I would be very happyto see it.

> 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.

 

Anything paul says on jesus (which is very little about him as a person) is

hearsay, as he never claimed to have met jesus as a person (only in a

vision, when he was blind).

[Guest Christopher A.Lee]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 11:57:58 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

wrote:

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

>> by Jesus enemies.

>

>Can you please quote the reference to it.

 

It seems to be a later response to what Christians said. But all I

know of this comes from a book by Frank Zindler, The Jesus the Jews

Never Knew.

[Guest Jeckyl]

> Yet they described in their Talmud how Jesus was TRIALED

 

Please provide a quoted dated (approximately) reference to this

> Does this make sense If there were no such person?

 

If hundreds of years later there were stories about it, then possibly.

Please provide a quote in context so we can see.

[Guest weatherwax]

"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. 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.

 

Basically, the 1st century Jews were expecting a king who would sit on the

throne of David and restore the kingdom of Israel. This is reflected in the

gosples themselves:

 

Luke: 24:21

But we had hoped that he was the one who was going

to redeem Israel.

 

That is what Bar Kochba attempted to do when he proclaimed himself the

messiah, and some Jews even believed that Herod the Great was the promised

messiah. The belief that the messiah was to be a god was foreign to Jewish

thought and is not in the old testament.

 

--Wax

[Guest weatherwax]

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

> "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.

>>

>>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.

 

I assume that you have a more probable theory. I am interested to hear

your proof that Paul did not exist, and if Christianity did not start with

Paul, who started it, and when did it begin?

 

--Wax

[Guest Darrell Stec]

After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 16 February 2007 9:08 pm

Jeckyl perhaps from noone@nowhere.com 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.

>

> One may not agree with their teaching, or claim that they had no basis

> in fact, but claiming those particular figures did not exist is not

> justified.

>

> To do so gives a point of attack to people like codebreaker who will

> then start quoting evidence for the existence of the apostles, and

> then conclude (illogically) that if you were wrong about the Apostle,

> you were wrong about

> Jesus. I don't think you want to give him any more ammunition for his

> baseless claims.

 

There is no to little evidence of John the Baptist and even less for any

apostles. Josephus is the closest to John the B. and even he is not

contemporary. In fact John if he actually existed could have lived a

century or two early or a century later than the designated lifetime of

Jesus.

 

There is nothing but nothing contemporary written about John the Baptist

nor any apostle.

 

Codebreaker can no more provide evidence that John the Baptist nor any

apostle existed any more than he could for Joshua ben Joseph.

Incidently the name Joshua/Jesus was chosen for a reason -- it was one

of the most popular names among the Jewish population and was used the

same way we use John Doe today. Some estimates say Joshua was a name

held by one in four males, and Joseph one in ten. I personally think

that is on the high side but there is no debate that the name was

chosen for its generic usage and popularity. Besides it was also

suggestive of the original Joshua.

 

--

Later,

Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

 

Webpage Sorcery

http://webpagesorcery.com

We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

[Guest Michael Gray]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 02:19:35 GMT, "weatherwax"

<weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

- Refer: <WIOBh.19783$5j1.12126@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>

>

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

>> "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.

>>>

>>>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.

>

>I assume that you have a more probable theory.

 

I do.

Jesus never existed.

I assume by your reply that you have ZERO EVIDENCE for your outrageous

estimate of probability??

Yes, I thought so.

> I am interested to hear

>your proof that Paul did not exist,

 

Non sequitur!!!

Read what I wrote.

I was referring to Jesus, as were you!

>and if Christianity did not start with

>Paul, who started it, and when did it begin?

 

You are conflating my personally not being able to name the con-men

that started the scam, with proof that Jesus and Paul really existed!!

Where did your brain go on holiday too?

 

Fuck me, you are as bad as the worst theist kooks.

 

--

[Guest Michael Gray]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 11:52:25 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

wrote:

- Refer: <12tf8qdh0fnjdee@corp.supernews.com>

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

>> outside the Christian tradition.

>

>Exactly. Or rather, that the 'evidence' that is outside is non-contemporary

>and/or of duibious validity.

 

There is NO extant contemporary evidence whatsoever.

Dubious or not.

>>> 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'.

>

>Not at all, it perfectly sensible. That is the same reason why there is no

>historical evidence about the overwhelming majority of individual that

>existed .. they just weren't important enough for someone else to document.

>I'm sure you're not going to say that there were only a handful of human

>beings that existed because we don't have evidence of the existence of each

>individual. That a relatively insignificant person (at the time) called

>Jesus existed (but not fully as described in the bible) is a rational and

>sensible explanation of the non-conclusive hearsay 'evidence' that many

>claim as proof.

>

>Notice that I did not claim that there was any proof (on the contrary). I

>am simply stating what I believe to be likely and a reasonable explanation.

>It is no less reasonable than the assertion that he never existed at all.

>

>As there is no conclusive evidence for or against the existence of Jesus at

>all, it becomes a matter of personal belief and what one judges to best fit

>what information we do have. However, there is fairly strong evidence that

>many of the things said about him were untrue ... in particular the

>contradictory accounts of his birth that do not make sense, for example.

>

 

--

[Guest weatherwax]

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

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

>>

>>I assume that you have a more probable theory.

>

> I do.

> Jesus never existed.

> I assume by your reply that you have ZERO EVIDENCE for

> your outrageous estimate of probability??

> Yes, I thought so.

>

>> I am interested to hear

>>your proof that Paul did not exist,

>

> Non sequitur!!!

> Read what I wrote.

> I was referring to Jesus, as were you!

>

>>and if Christianity did not start with

>>Paul, who started it, and when did it begin?

>

> You are conflating my personally not being able to name the

> con-men that started the scam, with proof that Jesus and Paul

> really existed!!

> Where did your brain go on holiday too?

>

> Fuck me, you are as bad as the worst theist kooks.

 

In other words: You have no credible theory.

 

--Wax

[Guest Michael Gray]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 08:15:24 GMT, "weatherwax"

<weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

- Refer: <wWTBh.81767$2m6.25209@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>

>

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

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

>

>>>

>>>I assume that you have a more probable theory.

>>

>> I do.

>> Jesus never existed.

>> I assume by your reply that you have ZERO EVIDENCE for

>> your outrageous estimate of probability??

>> Yes, I thought so.

>>

>>> I am interested to hear

>>>your proof that Paul did not exist,

>>

>> Non sequitur!!!

>> Read what I wrote.

>> I was referring to Jesus, as were you!

>>

>>>and if Christianity did not start with

>>>Paul, who started it, and when did it begin?

>>

>> You are conflating my personally not being able to name the

>> con-men that started the scam, with proof that Jesus and Paul

>> really existed!!

>> Where did your brain go on holiday too?

>>

>> Fuck me, you are as bad as the worst theist kooks.

>

>In other words: You have no credible theory.

 

I don't believe it!

Are you deliberately acting stupid?

 

You plainly did not read what I wrote.

 

I have the very plausible theory that most of the Christian fairy tale

was invented by humans with a vested interest in power.

 

That is far more credible than anything that delusional apologists

have arrived at, and far exceeds the non-existent plausiblility of

your baseless guesses on the subject.

 

You never did answer me as to where you brain is currently holidaying.

 

--

[Guest Jeckyl]

>> That a relatively insignificant person (at the time)

>> called

>>Jesus existed (but not fully as described in the bible) is a rational and

>>sensible explanation of the non-conclusive hearsay 'evidence' that many

>>claim as proof.

> Why is it?

Why is it not? It is not unreasonable, and it would explain things that

otherwise we need to invent reasons for.

 

Why is it so irrational and sensible to believe that there was a person

called Jesus at that time? It was a common name .. there were probably

hundreds of Jesus's around. Why is it irrational to suggest that the

stories in the gospels may be partly based on a real person from that time,

who may well have been part of the sect that eventually spawned the gospels

and Christianity.

 

It does not mean one beleives Jesus was God, or a Messiah, or that what he

taught was correct, or that the Gospels are correct in everything that they

said etc etc.

 

However, the existence of such a person does neatly explain the various

non-conclusive stories based on (or mentioning) the life and sayings of a

figure call Jesus. It explains why the stories are all set at the same

time. It explains why the stories are so imperfect. For example, the

claim that Jesus birth satisfied a scripture about Emmanuel .. if the story

was completly fictional, why not name the character Emmanuel? Why choose a

different and fairly common name (ie would be like claiming today that the

religious leader was called Fred)? Why have Jesus stated goals change

during the story? Why have him make mistakes?

> The religion exists, but its founder

 

What founder is that? Are you talking about Paul?

> knew nothing of the Jesus of the gospels, which is a mish-mash of

> stories about earlier hero figures. All there is, is rationalisation.

 

Yes . .there is a great deal in the story that is based on other myths and

legends and has been constructed to appear to fulfil scriptures.

>>Notice that I did not claim that there was any proof (on the contrary). I

>>am simply stating what I believe to be likely and a reasonable

>>explanation.

>>It is no less reasonable than the assertion that he never existed at all.

> It's a rationalisation.

 

So is saying no such person exists. We have no conclusive proof either way

... but there is non-conclusive 'evidence' (in the bible and elsewhere).

> And please learn the difference between "the assertion that he never

> existed at all", and "no reason to believe he existed".

 

Exactly my point .. perhaps you are missing it. There is no historically

conclusive evidence for an historical Jesus. That does not mean it is

irational or illogical to personally believe that there was such a person,

as long as that believe does not contradict any evidence we do have.

> As there is none for, there is no reason to assume he did.

 

And none to assume he didn't. It works both ways.

 

However, there is strong evidence against many of the events that were

supposed to take place concerning Jesus. This evidence does cast doubt on

the bible accounts (and therefore on the existence of Jesus). But there are

other observations that are better explained by an historical Jesus.

 

Do you have an explanation of the various new testament bible books and

letters (and the early non-canonical works such as the Gospel of Thomas, the

Egerton Gospel), and their chronology .. who wrote what and upon what

previous book it may have been based etc?

[Guest Jeckyl]

> Basically, the 1st century Jews were expecting a king who would sit on the

> throne of David and restore the kingdom of Israel. This is reflected in

> the gosples themselves:

>

> Luke: 24:21

> But we had hoped that he was the one who was going

> to redeem Israel.

>

> That is what Bar Kochba attempted to do when he proclaimed himself the

> messiah, and some Jews even believed that Herod the Great was the promised

> messiah. The belief that the messiah was to be a god was foreign to

> Jewish thought and is not in the old testament.

 

Well said.

[Guest Bible Believer]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 22:46:23 +1100, "Jeckyl"

<noone@nowhere.com> claimed:

 

>> knew nothing of the Jesus of the gospels, which is a mish-mash of

>> stories about earlier hero figures. All there is, is rationalisation.

>

>Yes . .there is a great deal in the story that is based on other myths and

>legends and has been constructed to appear to fulfil scriptures.

 

It is the other way around.

 

>So is saying no such person exists. We have no conclusive proof either way

>.. but there is non-conclusive 'evidence' (in the bible and elsewhere).

 

The science of textual criticism states that we accept

a text as true, until it is proved false. Especially one

that is historically accurate and the Bible texts are.

 

>> And please learn the difference between "the assertion that he never

>> existed at all", and "no reason to believe he existed".

>

>Exactly my point .. perhaps you are missing it. There is no historically

>conclusive evidence for an historical Jesus. That does not mean it is

>irational or illogical to personally believe that there was such a person,

>as long as that believe does not contradict any evidence we do have.

 

See above. The fact is, that you don't question the existence

of many historical figures, even though their existence is

based on a copy of single text, by a third party much later.

 

And it's not about "extraordinary claims requiring

extraordinary evidence", because Caesar claimed to be,

"God above all gods" and yet, even with only a small

amount of textual evidence, his existence is not questioned.

This is hypocrisy!

 

>> As there is none for, there is no reason to assume he did.

>

>And none to assume he didn't. It works both ways.

>

>However, there is strong evidence against many of the events that were

>supposed to take place concerning Jesus.

 

That's not true.

 

>Do you have an explanation of the various new testament bible books and

>letters (and the early non-canonical works such as the Gospel of Thomas, the

>Egerton Gospel), and their chronology .. who wrote what and upon what

>previous book it may have been based etc?

 

Try to place on equal footing, texts that were not written

by the people whose names appear on them and were

actually written one to two centuries later, is disingenuous.

 

What critics try to do, is use the date of a council in the

4th century and demand to know why certain books

were excluded, without ever asking when the books were

written and wondering if that's the reason they were excluded.

 

Hello???

 

 

--

 

Hope for a physical kingdom is to deny Christ's words.

He dispelled that idea in Luke 17:20-21 and He never

said, "But later it will be", nor can Jesus be quoted

anywhere in Scripture saying that it will be physical.

Reading other passages that you think say it will be,

is not to refute this statement, but rather, it is to

pit the Bible against itself and an Apostle against

his Lord, since it would be a contradiction!

 

I would not want to be in that position!

 

The Bible is the inerrant word of the living God!

If you don't believe the Bible, don't tell me that

you are a Christian. I won't believe you. To make

that claim, is to be a heretic who does not know God.

[Guest codebreaker@bigsecret.com]

On Feb 17, 5:04 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

wrote:

> Tohu.B...@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.

 

Did not you say that Rabbi Akiva believe Bar-Khobba

was the Messiah/Christ.

We are reading the same source about Bar-Khobbah's

claim, so If you can't connect the DOTS

we can help you connect them. But before anything let me

ask you some:

Bar-Khobbah claimed that he was the Messiah. Where

do you think that he based his claim on?

Rabbi Akiva anointed Bar-Khobba thinking he was the

Messiah/Christ, though he changed his mind later,

where do you think he based his claim on?.

 

Now as you see. Bar Khobba, Rabbi Akiva

Jesus, Paul, Peter, Appolos, Stephen, the author

of the Qur'an, The Ebionites

and thousand of Rabbis who later

converted into Islam all agree on one thing:

in Deuteronomy 18:15 Moses fortold the Messiah.

And this is what we have been saying.

 

Reading historical material is useless If you can't connect

the dots

 

>

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

> > by Jesus enemies.

>

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

 

 

How many Jesuses broke Moses Law on SABBATH day

when Pontius Pilatius was Governor of Judea?

How many Jesuses did Caiphas trialed, you son of a bitch?

>

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

>

> ===>Irrelevant.

 

Irrelevant to you because it caught you off guard.

Talmud was not written by Luke or Mark or Matthew

yet it mentions a trial of a man named Jesus who was later

put to death

 

>

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

> > figure

>

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

 

What is my premises here. Please tell me If you have

any clue

 

 

>

> 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.- Hide quoted text -

 

You are not ashamed of yourself yet?

A fictional character invented by Paul would not

be applied to Bar Khobba. Yet Bar Kobba and

his Rabbi thought he was the Messiah/Christ. therefore

Paul did not invent him.

Rabbi Paul and Rabbi Akiva are reading the same

source, the Torah of Moses. AS SIMPLE AS THAT

 

 

>

> - Show quoted text -

[Guest cactus]

codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote:

> On Feb 17, 5:04 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

> wrote:

>> Tohu.B...@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.

>

> Did not you say that Rabbi Akiva believe Bar-Khobba

> was the Messiah/Christ.

 

He goofed, and he paid the price.

> We are reading the same source about Bar-Khobbah's

> claim, so If you can't connect the DOTS

> we can help you connect them. But before anything let me

> ask you some:

> Bar-Khobbah claimed that he was the Messiah. Where

> do you think that he based his claim on?

> Rabbi Akiva anointed Bar-Khobba thinking he was the

> Messiah/Christ, though he changed his mind later,

> where do you think he based his claim on?.

>

> Now as you see. Bar Khobba, Rabbi Akiva

> Jesus, Paul, Peter, Appolos, Stephen, the author

> of the Qur'an, The Ebionites

> and thousand of Rabbis who later

> converted into Islam all agree on one thing:

> in Deuteronomy 18:15 Moses fortold the Messiah.

> And this is what we have been saying.

 

 

It doesn't. All it does is mention Prophets, and Nevi'im contains lots

of Prophets. End of story. Another example of Christians invoking the

"post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy using texts from Tanach. Now you

simply drag in Muslims as well. Christians and Muslims carry no

theological weight for the Jews.

>

> Reading historical material is useless If you can't connect

> the dots

 

And misinterpreting it is equally useless.

>

>

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

>>> by Jesus enemies.

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

>

>

> How many Jesuses broke Moses Law on SABBATH day

> when Pontius Pilatius was Governor of Judea?

> How many Jesuses did Caiphas trialed, you son of a bitch?

>

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

>> ===>Irrelevant.

>

> Irrelevant to you because it caught you off guard.

> Talmud was not written by Luke or Mark or Matthew

> yet it mentions a trial of a man named Jesus who was later

> put to death

>

>

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

>>> figure

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

>

> What is my premises here. Please tell me If you have

> any clue

>

>

>

>> 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.- Hide quoted text -

>

> You are not ashamed of yourself yet?

> A fictional character invented by Paul would not

> be applied to Bar Khobba. Yet Bar Kobba and

> his Rabbi thought he was the Messiah/Christ. therefore

> Paul did not invent him.

> Rabbi Paul and Rabbi Akiva are reading the same

> source, the Torah of Moses. AS SIMPLE AS THAT

>

>

>

>> - Show quoted text -

>

>

[Guest codebreaker@bigsecret.com]

On Feb 18, 1:33 pm, cactus <b...@nonespam.com> wrote:

> codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:

> > On Feb 17, 5:04 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

> > wrote:

> >> Tohu.B...@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.

>

> > Did not you say that Rabbi Akiva believe Bar-Khobba

> > was the Messiah/Christ.

>

> He goofed, and he paid the price.

>

>

>

>

>

> > We are reading the same source about Bar-Khobbah's

> > claim, so If you can't connect the DOTS

> > we can help you connect them. But before anything let me

> > ask you some:

> > Bar-Khobbah claimed that he was the Messiah. Where

> > do you think that he based his claim on?

> > Rabbi Akiva anointed Bar-Khobba thinking he was the

> > Messiah/Christ, though he changed his mind later,

> > where do you think he based his claim on?.

>

> > Now as you see. Bar Khobba, Rabbi Akiva

> > Jesus, Paul, Peter, Appolos, Stephen, the author

> > of the Qur'an, The Ebionites

> > and thousand of Rabbis who later

> > converted into Islam all agree on one thing:

> > in Deuteronomy 18:15 Moses fortold the Messiah.

> > And this is what we have been saying.

>

> It doesn't. All it does is mention Prophets, and Nevi'im contains lots

> of Prophets. End of story. Another example of Christians invoking the

> "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy using texts from Tanach. Now you

> simply drag in Muslims as well. Christians and Muslims carry no

> theological weight for the Jews.

 

Hey Dhimmi, like it or not, Messiah/Christ is the prophet like Moses

is the reading of Deuteronomy 18:14-19.

Paul says so I believe it that settle it.

The Qur'an says so, I believe it that settle it

 

 

>

>

>

> > Reading historical material is useless If you can't connect

> > the dots

>

> And misinterpreting it is equally useless.

>

>

>

>

>

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

> >>> by Jesus enemies.

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

>

> > How many Jesuses broke Moses Law on SABBATH day

> > when Pontius Pilatius was Governor of Judea?

> > How many Jesuses did Caiphas trialed, you son of a bitch?

>

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

> >> ===>Irrelevant.

>

> > Irrelevant to you because it caught you off guard.

> > Talmud was not written by Luke or Mark or Matthew

> > yet it mentions a trial of a man named Jesus who was later

> > put to death

>

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

> >>> figure

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

>

> > What is my premises here. Please tell me If you have

> > any clue

>

> >> 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.- Hide quoted text -

>

> > You are not ashamed of yourself yet?

> > A fictional character invented by Paul would not

> > be applied to Bar Khobba. Yet Bar Kobba and

> > his Rabbi thought he was the Messiah/Christ. therefore

> > Paul did not invent him.

> > Rabbi Paul and Rabbi Akiva are reading the same

> > source, the Torah of Moses. AS SIMPLE AS THAT

>

> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

[Guest codebreaker@bigsecret.com]

On Feb 18, 1:33 pm, cactus <b...@nonespam.com> wrote:

> codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:

> > On Feb 17, 5:04 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

> > wrote:

> >> Tohu.B...@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.

>

> > Did not you say that Rabbi Akiva believe Bar-Khobba

> > was the Messiah/Christ.

>

> He goofed, and he paid the price.

>

>

>

>

>

> > We are reading the same source about Bar-Khobbah's

> > claim, so If you can't connect the DOTS

> > we can help you connect them. But before anything let me

> > ask you some:

> > Bar-Khobbah claimed that he was the Messiah. Where

> > do you think that he based his claim on?

> > Rabbi Akiva anointed Bar-Khobba thinking he was the

> > Messiah/Christ, though he changed his mind later,

> > where do you think he based his claim on?.

>

> > Now as you see. Bar Khobba, Rabbi Akiva

> > Jesus, Paul, Peter, Appolos, Stephen, the author

> > of the Qur'an, The Ebionites

> > and thousand of Rabbis who later

> > converted into Islam all agree on one thing:

> > in Deuteronomy 18:15 Moses fortold the Messiah.

> > And this is what we have been saying.

>

> It doesn't. All it does is mention Prophets, and Nevi'im contains lots

> of Prophets.

 

The text say, you shall listen to HIM and not to THEM.

So it does not matter how many prophets arose in Israel

here we are concerned with only one particular prophet

like Moses and that is the Messiah/Christ.

LITTLE COMMON SENSE IS WHAT YOU NEED SON

OF A JEWISH WHORE

 

>End of story. Another example of Christians invoking the

> "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy using texts from Tanach. Now you

> simply drag in Muslims as well. Christians and Muslims carry no

> theological weight for the Jews.

>

>

>

> > Reading historical material is useless If you can't connect

> > the dots

>

> And misinterpreting it is equally useless.

>

>

>

>

>

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

> >>> by Jesus enemies.

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

>

> > How many Jesuses broke Moses Law on SABBATH day

> > when Pontius Pilatius was Governor of Judea?

> > How many Jesuses did Caiphas trialed, you son of a bitch?

>

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

> >> ===>Irrelevant.

>

> > Irrelevant to you because it caught you off guard.

> > Talmud was not written by Luke or Mark or Matthew

> > yet it mentions a trial of a man named Jesus who was later

> > put to death

>

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

> >>> figure

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

>

> > What is my premises here. Please tell me If you have

> > any clue

>

> >> 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.- Hide quoted text -

>

> > You are not ashamed of yourself yet?

> > A fictional character invented by Paul would not

> > be applied to Bar Khobba. Yet Bar Kobba and

> > his Rabbi thought he was the Messiah/Christ. therefore

> > Paul did not invent him.

> > Rabbi Paul and Rabbi Akiva are reading the same

> > source, the Torah of Moses. AS SIMPLE AS THAT

>

> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

[Guest weatherwax]

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

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

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

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

>>

>>>>

>>>>I assume that you have a more probable theory.

>>>

>>> I do.

>>> Jesus never existed.

>>> I assume by your reply that you have ZERO EVIDENCE for

>>> your outrageous estimate of probability??

>>> Yes, I thought so.

>>>

>>>> I am interested to hear

>>>>your proof that Paul did not exist,

>>>

>>> Non sequitur!!!

>>> Read what I wrote.

>>> I was referring to Jesus, as were you!

>>>

>>>>and if Christianity did not start with

>>>>Paul, who started it, and when did it begin?

>>>

>>> You are conflating my personally not being able to name the

>>> con-men that started the scam, with proof that Jesus and

>>> Paul really existed!!

>>> Where did your brain go on holiday too?

>>>

>>> Fuck me, you are as bad as the worst theist kooks.

>>

>>In other words: You have no credible theory.

>

> I don't believe it!

> Are you deliberately acting stupid?

>

> You plainly did not read what I wrote.

>

> I have the very plausible theory that most of the Christian fairy

> tale was invented by humans with a vested interest in power.

>

> That is far more credible than anything that delusional apologists

> have arrived at, and far exceeds the non-existent plausiblility of

> your baseless guesses on the subject.

>

> You never did answer me as to where you brain is currently

> holidaying.

 

So you have a conspiracy theory. Those are easy to make up, and sound

convincing, but are less than worthless.

 

--Wax