Re: Christianity and Sexual Assault

April 16, 2007

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:22:54 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>

wrote:

>

>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message

>news:l36523lmiqndr7doquqec8r74av1cpahlt@4ax.com...

>> On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 23:32:40 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>

>> wrote:

>>

>>>"Baldin Lee Pramer" <BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote in message

>>>news:1176608012.275028.108310@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

>>>> On Apr 14, 8:23 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:

>>>>> On 14 Apr 2007 11:13:51 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"

>>

>>>>>b) that your interpretation makes any sense (it doesn't -

>>>>> an act isn't the same as thinking about that act)

>>

>>>> Why does my interpretation not make sense?

>>

>>>I can't comment, I don't know what he means.

>>

>> His claim that the Bible says that the thought is equivalent to the

>> act. It doesn't make sense, since the thought isn't equivalent to the

>> act.

>

>Good point. Is that part of his interpretation?

That IS his interpretation.

April 16, 2007

On 15 Apr 2007 19:37:40 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"

<BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote:

>On Apr 15, 7:07 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:

>> On 14 Apr 2007 23:26:34 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"

>

>> >> Is your interpretation going to carry any more weight than the literalist

>> >> interpretation?

>> >Yes, of course. A literalist begins with the assumption that the Bible

>> >is the revealed word of God.

>>

>> MANY literalists begin with the assumption that they can find the

>> truth by interpreting the evidence, and end with the conclusion that

>> the Bible is literally true.

>

>Then they are not interpreting the evidence honestly.

According to YOUR definition of "honest". According to their

definition, YOU'RE not interpreting it honestly.

Which is why the ONLY way to determine anything is with evidence, not

with interpretation, which is just unevidenced opinion.

>> YOU begin with the assumption that the Bible is at least partially

>> true and, Lo! and behold, you arrive at the "conclusion" that the

>> Bible is partially true. Clearly a case of assuming your conclusion.

>No. I begin with the assumption that it is more reasonable to assume a

>man called Jesus existed

Thereby assuming your conclusion. The ONLY honest thing to do is to

assume that you'll go where the actual evidence leads. And, so far,

the evidence leads to the conclusion that the Biblical Jesus was made

up in the late second century.

>> >> Or anyone else's interpretation?

>> >It depends on who is making the argument.

>>

>> Evidence doesn't depend on who, it depends on what. Einstein's theory

>> of Special Relativity would be just as valid if it were Jones' theory

>> of Special Relativity.

>

>Evidence is different from argument. If someone argues from a position

>that the Bible is the literal word of God, their argument is based on

>an unjustifiable assumption, no matter what evidence subsequently

>appears in the argument.

And if someone argues from the position that the Biblical Jesus

existed, their argument is based on an unjustifiable assumption, no

matter what evidence subsequently appears in the argument. Especially

when, as is the case, the only actual evidence points to the Biblical

Jesus being a fictional character made up in the late second century.

IOW, your position is logically exactly the same as the Biblical

literalists - and just as dishonest and wrong.

April 16, 2007

On Apr 15, 9:22 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:

> Thereby assuming your conclusion. The ONLY honest thing to do is to

> assume that you'll go where the actual evidence leads. And, so far,

> the evidence leads to the conclusion that the Biblical Jesus was made

> up in the late second century.

You mean the Jesus exactly as described by some literalist, or a man

called Jesus?

Baldin Lee Pramer

April 16, 2007

On Apr 15, 3:33 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:

> On 14 Apr 2007 20:35:12 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"

> > If so, why does this make

> >more sense to you than that of a larger than life character based on a

> >real person?

>

> Because, again, there's no evidence that such a person actually

> existed. And LOADS of evidence that Jesus, as described in the Bible,

> didn't, and couldn't, have existed.

I assume your "couldn't have existed" is based on the impossibility of

the miracles attributed to him.

Baldin Lee Pramer

April 16, 2007

Personally, I find little evidence to support the assertion that there was

no historical Jesus. And very little to support the assertion that there

was.

However, there is strong evidence to suggest that most of the events

described in the gospels are fictional embellishments.

If the events had happened as described, then the dozens of contemporary

scholars would have made some mention of them.

Of course, the lack of evidence is not proof .. but when it is not just a

single contemporary document that has no record, but many .. then it does

make a very strong suggestion to that effect. The lack of evidence, and

that Jesus followers were allowed to live and were not also crucified with

Jesus (if that indeed happened) suggests that Jesus was , at the time, not

of any great significance. The significance of a Jesus figure was not until

later, and whether or not there was a real Jesus is immaterial to how

Christianity developed.

My position on the truth or otherwise of the bible is not really influenced

by any presupposition that Jesus existed. If he did, then it may be that

some of the things Jesus is reported to have said may be (close to) things

that an actual person said .. but I don't see that makes much real

difference whether it was said by one person at one time or written by

another at a later time.

I certainly would not be shocked (and indeed would be pleasantly surprised)

if some physical evidence of an historical Jesus was found. But unless that

was accompanied by proof that the various 'miracles' (like virgin birth)

really happened, then it would not change my opinions of bible truth.

My personal opinion is that there was a person called Jesus, who was fully

human, who probably became a follower of John the Baptist (of who we do have

some evidence AFAIK) and who then left and started his own teachings and had

followers. I think it possible that he may have done something to bring him

to the attention of Pilate who, being a cruel and ruthless ruler, would have

little hesitation in putting a possibly subversive leader to death, though

not important enough to require finding Jesus followers and killing them as

well .. with the leader gone, Pilate may well have assumed the potential of

trouble was averted, and the appropriate message sent to other potential

troublemakers.

April 16, 2007

On 16 Apr, 02:12, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:

> On 14 Apr 2007 23:08:21 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"

>

> <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote:

> >On Apr 14, 11:32 pm, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote:

> >> There's mention of thousands of other god in other sacred writings, that are

> >> "Historical records of sorts". Do you credit them with the same authority?

> >The Jesus in the Bible is a man who is credited with miracles, not a

> >god in the same sense as Greek or Norse gods, for instance.

>

> That would make him even less believable. It would make people want

> to believe more, but that would weaken the case, not strengthen it.

>

> >> Are you willing to make the same claim concerning Thor, or Zeus, or Ra?

> >Of course not. They appear in a completely different context. Jesus,

> >Buddha, Mohammed and other historical figures appear in a different

> >context than Thor, Zeus and Ra.

>

> Mithrasappears in the same context as Jesus. In fact, Jesus shares

> MANY characteristics withMithras- born on December 25th, of a

> virgin, their followers had to eat of their flesh and drink of their

> blood, etc.

No trace of any of these ideas is found in antiquity:

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras

They appear to belong to modern atheist story-telling. Quite how

making up false stories about Christian origins justifies living by

unexamined societal mores is never explained, tho.

> Are you willing to acceptMithrasas being as real as Jesus?

Certainly as real as the values and ideas for which you proselytise

but which you are unable to discuss.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

April 16, 2007

On Apr 16, 6:42 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:

> On 15 Apr 2007 15:47:00 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"

> Only evidence counts, and the

> evidence is not only that there is none that Jesus existed, but that

> there is evidence that he didn't exist.

What is that evidence?

> >> They just interpret the "facts" differently

> >> than you do. That's what's wrong with interpretation - anyone can

> >> interpret anything to mean anything. Try just reading the words.

> >The words are different in each translation

>

> Wrong word. It's not as easy. In fact, it's totally beyond your

> capability, since you can't read the source materials.

The best I can do is the original translations into the Greek. Very

few can read the original sources, which, in any case, you discount.

> >> > That is a completely different approach than that taken by

> >> >the literalists.

>

> >> It's EXACTLY the same approach. The interpret, based on exactly the

> >> same reasoning that you use, that the Bible is to be taken literally.

No. I never made any such statement.

> You assume that the Biblical Jesus existed,

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

my words.

> >There are many writings about a man called Jesus of Nazareth.

>

> Proof that they're not accurate, since the location now called

> Nazareth (and called Nazareth then) was a cemetery when Jesus was

> supposedly born, and for decades after. It only exists because a

> mistranslation made it seem as if Jesus came from a town called

> Nazareth.

Yes, and Jesus' original name was not pronounced the way we pronounce

it and so on and so on. You are straining out a gnat.

> >It is, in my opinion, more logical to assume that a man with that name

> >existed and all the mythology grew up around him than to assume that

> >he never existed.

>

> When there's no actual evidence that a character existed,

Stories from several sources are evidence. What sort of evidence do

you require? A photograph? Written records from Romans?

> and actual

> evidence that he didn't,

What is that evidence?

> it's more logical to assume that he didn't

> exist. Your statement just proves your bias.

>

> >> >There is mention of him in the Bible

> >> The Bible can't be used as evidence to support the Bible.

> >I am making no such claim.

>

> You just presented the Bible as evidence that the mention of Jesus in

> the Bible is evidentiary!

By your standard, we must discount the existence of many Greek

historical figures also, because the only place they were mentioned

was in Greek history.

> > I am using the mention of a charismatic man

> >in many sources

>

> You said "in the Bible". That's one book, and it can't verify itself.

No. The Bible is a compilation of many sources, and many of these

mention Jesus.

> >Iagree that many of the details are probably wrong.

>

> And ALL of them point to Jesus not being a real person. People

> normally come from places that exist. Only fictional characters come

> from places that don't exist.

Oh, here you are really stretching. Because his place or origin was

mistranslated, you claim he could not have existed.

> What we don't have is a SINGLE contemporaneous non-Biblical document

> mentioning a man named Jesus who performed miracles or who was

> crucified.

Nor do we have any record of most of the people of that era. Non-

Biblical evidence is sparse indeed.

> >I'm glad you are interested in scholarship. There are many

> >mistranslations. It does not matter whether they got a name or two

> >wrong.

>

> It does matter that they have a person being born in a place that

> didn't exist. It shows that the person who wrote it had no knowledge

> of the area or the time - internal evidence that the book was written

> long after the event was supposed to have taken place, by someone from

> somewhere else. IOW, a made-up story.

>

> > The particulars are not so important as the fact that they

> >mention an interesting and charismatic man.

>

> So the particulars of Superman aren't as important as the fact that

> they mention someone who can fly?

Funny.

> >It certainly is, as evidenced by the fact that people still do these

> >kinds of things.

>

> So you're in favor of religious law? (Careful - that would have YOU

> stoned to death for violation of hundreds of Levitical laws.)

Gee, when did I ever say anything like that?

Baldin Lee Pramer

April 16, 2007

On 16 Apr 2007 07:30:20 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"

<BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote:

>> When there's no actual evidence that a character existed,

>

>Stories from several sources are evidence. What sort of evidence do

>you require? A photograph? Written records from Romans?

Not our problem. Something, anything that stands up to scrutiny, which

means it has to be outside the Christian tradition.

But you have nothing. Just a forgery in Josephus, And a few mentions

of Christians and what they believed.

April 16, 2007

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message

news:00r5239o162buhi93luuisoo2ngc1fr73h@4ax.com...

> Which is why opinion is worthless. Only evidence counts, and the

> evidence is not only that there is none that Jesus existed

I'd agree that there is no (historically credible) evidence for Jesus

existing.

There is evidence of christians who appeared to follow a christ or a Jesus,

which does not imply that such a person existed, of course.

> but that

> there is evidence that he didn't exist.

I don't believe there is any evidence that he did not exist .. what would

such evidence be?

Certainly the lack of contemporary evidence where we would expect to find it

strongly suggests that the miraculous Jesus described in the Gospels did not

exist. But whether or not a purely human Jesus, who may have had some

followers, and some of whose words (or close to it) may have been recorded

by those followers, is not beyond belief, and I doubt very much if that

could be disproved.

Unless there is solid evidence that the Gospel stories are COMPELTE

fabrications (rather than major embellishments on what would otherwise be a

fairly dull story).

>>There are many writings about a man called Jesus of Nazareth.

>

> Proof that they're not accurate, since the location now called

> Nazareth (and called Nazareth then) was a cemetery when Jesus was

> supposedly born, and for decades after. It only exists because a

> mistranslation made it seem as if Jesus came from a town called

> Nazareth.

That doesn't mean that there was not a man that was called Jesus, who was

born somewhere around the galille region (ignoring the fictional virgin

birth in bethlehem etc).

>>It is, in my opinion, more logical to assume that a man with that name

>>existed and all the mythology grew up around him than to assume that

>>he never existed.

>

> When there's no actual evidence that a character existed, and actual

> evidence that he didn't, it's more logical to assume that he didn't

> exist. Your statement just proves your bias.

Really ,we cannot say for sure whether or not there was an historical Jesus

at this time. If he did exists, and was important enough at the time (which

is unlikely), then something may one day be uncovered (eg some roman record

of his excution etc). Until then, we just don't know.

But an ordinary historical Jesus that lived, taught some followers, and died

(though far removed form the embellished mythology of the Gospel storied)

does make some sense.

April 16, 2007

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:57:49 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

wrote:

>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message

>news:00r5239o162buhi93luuisoo2ngc1fr73h@4ax.com...

>> Which is why opinion is worthless. Only evidence counts, and the

>> evidence is not only that there is none that Jesus existed

>

>I'd agree that there is no (historically credible) evidence for Jesus

>existing.

>

>There is evidence of christians who appeared to follow a christ or a Jesus,

>which does not imply that such a person existed, of course.

>

>> but that

>> there is evidence that he didn't exist.

>

>I don't believe there is any evidence that he did not exist .. what would

>such evidence be?

The Jesus of the gospels certainly didn't - it is a re-telling of

earlier Greek and other Mediterranean legends in a first century

Palestine situation.

April 16, 2007

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

news:4n3723tggi8vcuked0mu1n3que2rgtp5m6@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:57:49 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

> wrote:

>

>>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message

>>news:00r5239o162buhi93luuisoo2ngc1fr73h@4ax.com...

>>> Which is why opinion is worthless. Only evidence counts, and the

>>> evidence is not only that there is none that Jesus existed

>>

>>I'd agree that there is no (historically credible) evidence for Jesus

>>existing.

>>

>>There is evidence of christians who appeared to follow a christ or a

>>Jesus,

>>which does not imply that such a person existed, of course.

>>

>>> but that

>>> there is evidence that he didn't exist.

>>

>>I don't believe there is any evidence that he did not exist .. what would

>>such evidence be?

>

> The Jesus of the gospels certainly didn't - it is a re-telling of

> earlier Greek and other Mediterranean legends in a first century

> Palestine situation.

Yes .. lots were added in .. like all of the birth stories, miracles,

gathering of multitudes etc. Those sort of 'extras' give Jesus more

importance than what he actually had (if he did actually live).

Embellishing stories is not uncommon, nor is basing fictional stories around

(some) facts or real people.

A Jesus that is exactly as described in the Gospels would be impossible (as

there is conflicting details).

April 16, 2007

On 15 Apr 2007 20:33:59 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"

<BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote:

>On Apr 15, 9:22 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:

>

>> Thereby assuming your conclusion. The ONLY honest thing to do is to

>> assume that you'll go where the actual evidence leads. And, so far,

>> the evidence leads to the conclusion that the Biblical Jesus was made

>> up in the late second century.

>

>You mean the Jesus exactly as described by some literalist, or a man

>called Jesus?

That there was a man named Yeshua living in Jerusalem in the first

century isn't open to question - it's a certainty. If your basing

your argument on that, you might as well base it on the claim that

someone named Joe was born in NYC in the 20th century.

That the Biblical Jesus - as a person, not as a spirit - was even

written about before the second century is HIGHLY doubtful.

April 16, 2007

On 15 Apr 2007 20:35:32 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"

<BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote:

>On Apr 15, 3:33 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:

>> On 14 Apr 2007 20:35:12 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"

>

>> > If so, why does this make

>> >more sense to you than that of a larger than life character based on a

>> >real person?

>>

>> Because, again, there's no evidence that such a person actually

>> existed. And LOADS of evidence that Jesus, as described in the Bible,

>> didn't, and couldn't, have existed.

>

>I assume your "couldn't have existed" is based on the impossibility of

>the miracles attributed to him.

It's based on the fact that someone can't come from a place that

didn't exist. On the fact that "Chreestos", in the first century,

referred not to a man but to a sect. On the fact that most of the

FACTUAL claims (those that could be facts if they were correct) are

incorrect.

Even assuming that all the miracles attributed to him are possible,

most of the mundane things attributed to him are just plain wrong.

AND the fact that there's not the slightest contemporaneous mention of

him speaks volumes.

April 16, 2007

On 16 Apr 2007 07:30:20 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"

<BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote:

>> Wrong word. It's not as easy. In fact, it's totally beyond your

>> capability, since you can't read the source materials.

>The best I can do is the original translations into the Greek.

You're fluent in ancient Greek? I'm impressed. Then you ARE aware of

the later total screw-up of the Greek word 'alma'. Just more evidence

that the story is made up.

> Very few can read the original sources, which, in any case, you discount.

Not at all. I discount hundreds-of-years-after-the-fact translations.

I only discount the originals if someone tries to use them as proof

that they're accurate. As in "if it's in the Bible it's correct,

because the Bible says that what's in it is correct".

I'm just against claiming that someone's interpretation of a statement

is the statement. It's not, it's just the interpreter's

interpretation.

>> >> > That is a completely different approach than that taken by

>> >> >the literalists.

>> >> It's EXACTLY the same approach. The interpret, based on exactly the

>> >> same reasoning that you use, that the Bible is to be taken literally.

>No. I never made any such statement.

THEY do. They interpret what they see their way, you interpret what

you see your way. You say their way is incorrect, they say that your

way is incorrect.

There's no difference to an outsider.

>> You assume that the Biblical Jesus existed,

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

>my words.

"It is, in my opinion, more logical to assume that a man with that

name existed ... than to assume that he never existed."

Again, if you're claiming that some man named Yeshua lived in

Jerusalem in the first century, I guarantee that you're correct. We

have proof that MANY such men existed. That has nothing to do with

the Bible. Paul invented a spirit, an aspect of his god, and named it

Yeshua. You're saying that's because he based it on some particular

man? Probably not. Yeshua was a VERY common name. Is "John Doe"

based on some actual man named John Doe?

If that's your entire argument, that some man named Yeshua lived in

Jerusalem in the early first century, no one in his right mind would

argue with you. But so what? That's as important as "some man named

Joe lived in NYC in the early 20th century". Who cares? Neither one

has the slightest connection to Christianity. Or to this discussion.

>> >There are many writings about a man called Jesus of Nazareth.

>> Proof that they're not accurate, since the location now called

>> Nazareth (and called Nazareth then) was a cemetery when Jesus was

>> supposedly born, and for decades after. It only exists because a

>> mistranslation made it seem as if Jesus came from a town called

>> Nazareth.

>Yes, and Jesus' original name was not pronounced the way we pronounce

>it and so on and so on. You are straining out a gnat.

There's a difference between a change in pronunciation and a claim

that Jews lived in a cemetery. The latter never happened, even though

"Jesus of Nazareth" is exactly that claim.

>> >It is, in my opinion, more logical to assume that a man with that name

>> >existed and all the mythology grew up around him than to assume that

>> >he never existed.

>>

>> When there's no actual evidence that a character existed,

>

>Stories from several sources are evidence.

Stories ALL tracing back to a SINGLE source - the books of the Bible,

which can't be used as evidence that what's in the books of the Bible

is true.

> What sort of evidence do you require?

Something extra-biblical from someone who had no positive axe to

grind. Roman records. A diatribe by an enemy of his. Something

written DURING HIS LIFETIME by someone who wasn't a Christian that

mentioned him by name, and by enough description of his actions that

we know he wasn't talking about some other Yeshua.

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

>Written records from Romans?

Since they kept meticulous records of everything, why didn't they even

mention Jesus? Not a single mention in over 3 decades. Pilate was

scared that the "King of the Jews" was being born, but there's not a

single mention of any of the things he supposedly did about it. The

Romans conducted censuses - not a single mention of Jesus of the

Bible.

No mention of him AT ALL until over 100 years after he supposedly

died. Would you believe that Abraham Lincoln had actually existed if

the first mention of him in writing was from last month?

Yes, some written Roman records would be nice.

>> and actual

>> evidence that he didn't,

>What is that evidence?

The census claim. The Nazareth claim. The "darkness" claim (a solar

eclipse when there was none). The Magi claim (following a star is

nonsense - stars don't have fixed locations relative to the surface of

Earth). The birth date claim (the flocks weren't in the fields in

winter). The impossibility of the events on the morning of the

resurrection (construct a single time line for that morning). The

dual claims of Judas' cause of death (as if it was made up by two

different people, who never compared notes). And on and on and ...

>> it's more logical to assume that he didn't

>> exist. Your statement just proves your bias.

>> >> >There is mention of him in the Bible

>> >> The Bible can't be used as evidence to support the Bible.

>> >I am making no such claim.

>> You just presented the Bible as evidence that the mention of Jesus in

>> the Bible is evidentiary!

>By your standard, we must discount the existence of many Greek

>historical figures also, because the only place they were mentioned

>was in Greek history.

They were mentioned in MANY CONTEMPORANEOUS writings and many of them

left their own writings. The SOLE primary source for a Biblical Jesus

is the Bible. There's not a SINGLE other primary source. (Josephus

is a forgery. Tacitus is talking about the Jewish Chreestos sect. And

they're not contemporaneous.)

>> > I am using the mention of a charismatic man

>> >in many sources

>> You said "in the Bible". That's one book, and it can't verify itself.

>

>No. The Bible is a compilation of many sources

Comprising one work we call "the Bible". And you can't use that

compilation to verify itself. If you understood what "canon" meant,

you'd understand why. Canon text can not be used to verify canon

text, because if it contradicted canon text it wouldn't be canon text.

The Bible verifies its own claims not because they're true, but

because that's what canon means. (And the Bible contradicts itself -

they weren't even good liars at Nicea.)

>> >Iagree that many of the details are probably wrong.

>> And ALL of them point to Jesus not being a real person. People

>> normally come from places that exist. Only fictional characters come

>> from places that don't exist.

>Oh, here you are really stretching. Because his place or origin was

>mistranslated, you claim he could not have existed.

Because the entire story is INCORRECT factually.

There was a total solar eclipse - at the time of the full moon. Even

allowing for miracles, that's like making 5 less than 3. It's

nonsense. That the Bible claims it is proof absolute that whoever

wrote the Bible didn't even know what caused an eclipse, let alone had

"divine inspiration". (Maybe a bit of "spiritual" inspiration, if we

read Revelation.)

>> What we don't have is a SINGLE contemporaneous non-Biblical document

>> mentioning a man named Jesus who performed miracles or who was

>> crucified.

>Nor do we have any record of most of the people of that era. Non-

>Biblical evidence is sparse indeed.

That's not my problem. If you choose to attack a problem for which

there's no solution, that doesn't force me to accept a made-up

solution as factual. It just means that you can't prove your

assertion. Accept it and move on. Don't make another unprovable

assertion as "proof" that the first unprovable assertion is correct.

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

was real. We claim that the Caesars, for whom we have actual

evidence, were real. We claim Alexander, for whom we have actual

evidence, was real. We have no actual evidence that the Jesus of the

Bible was real.

>> >I'm glad you are interested in scholarship. There are many

>> >mistranslations. It does not matter whether they got a name or two

>> >wrong.

>>

>> It does matter that they have a person being born in a place that

>> didn't exist. It shows that the person who wrote it had no knowledge

>> of the area or the time - internal evidence that the book was written

>> long after the event was supposed to have taken place, by someone from

>> somewhere else. IOW, a made-up story.

>>

>> > The particulars are not so important as the fact that they

>> >mention an interesting and charismatic man.

>>

>> So the particulars of Superman aren't as important as the fact that

>> they mention someone who can fly?

>

>Funny.

Exactly what you said. The particulars aren't as important as the

fact that the story mentions an interesting (to you) and charismatic

(to you) man.

Sorry, but your Jesus doesn't get any more of a free pass than

Superman does. If you want to set a standard, I can use it for any

character, not just the one you want to use it for.

So either mention in a story is enough to believe that the person

mentioned is real, or it's not. Both for Jesus and for Superman. (And

there's absolutely NO incorrect factual evidence in Superman stories,

as there is all over the Bible.)

>> >It certainly is, as evidenced by the fact that people still do these

>> >kinds of things.

>> So you're in favor of religious law? (Careful - that would have YOU

>> stoned to death for violation of hundreds of Levitical laws.)

>Gee, when did I ever say anything like that?

Why raise it as a point in favor of your argument if it's a point

against your argument? Destroying your own argument isn't a very

profitable tactic, is it?

April 16, 2007

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:57:49 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

wrote:

>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message

>news:00r5239o162buhi93luuisoo2ngc1fr73h@4ax.com...

>> Which is why opinion is worthless. Only evidence counts, and the

>> evidence is not only that there is none that Jesus existed

>

>I'd agree that there is no (historically credible) evidence for Jesus

>existing.

>

>There is evidence of christians who appeared to follow a christ or a Jesus,

>which does not imply that such a person existed, of course.

>

>> but that

>> there is evidence that he didn't exist.

>

>I don't believe there is any evidence that he did not exist .. what would

>such evidence be?

Evidence that a man named Yeshua who was born in the early first

century and came from Nazareth didn't exist? There was no town called

Nazareth in the early first century.

Evidence that the parents of a man named Yeshua who was born in the

early first century and had to return to their place of birth for a

Roman census didn't exist? The Romans required people to return to

their place of residence for a census.

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

As I said to Pramer, there's no doubt that MANY men named Yeshua lived

in Jerusalem in the early first century, but there's plenty of

evidence that the one claimed in the Bible didn't.

>

>Certainly the lack of contemporary evidence where we would expect to find it

>strongly suggests that the miraculous Jesus described in the Gospels did not

>exist. But whether or not a purely human Jesus, who may have had some

>followers

The SOLE "evidence" of this is a contested passage in Josephus.

>and some of whose words (or close to it) may have been recorded

>by those followers

The most important of them, to Christians, would never have been

uttered by a practicing Jew, which Christianity claims ITS Jesus was.

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

Proved? Of course not. Is it likely that a practicing Jew of the

time would claim that the Bible (the only one at the time) was no

longer to be followed? That's Paulism, not anything a Jew of the time

would have done.

>Unless there is solid evidence that the Gospel stories are COMPELTE

>fabrications (rather than major embellishments on what would otherwise be a

>fairly dull story).

What we need is solid evidence that they're COMPLETE TRUTH. No one is

burdened to disprove an assertion. And that's all the Bible is - an

assertion that doesn't hold together.

>That doesn't mean that there was not a man that was called Jesus, who was

>born somewhere around the galille region (ignoring the fictional virgin

>birth in bethlehem etc).

We KNOW that there were MANY men called Jesus (Yeshua) born there at

that approximate time. That has nothing to do with Christianity. It's

proof that the name Yeshua was used in that place at that time, which

is not the Christian claim at all. Nor is it even questioned, let

alone refuted, by anyone.

>Really ,we cannot say for sure whether or not there was an historical Jesus

>at this time.

We're not discussing some guy named Yeshua, we're discussing the

Biblical Jesus. And we can say for pretty sure that THAT Jesus didn't

exist.

>But an ordinary historical Jesus that lived, taught some followers, and died

>(though far removed form the embellished mythology of the Gospel storied)

>does make some sense.

And is totally irrelevant to Christianity. (Although why we should

assume that some man named Yeshua had anything to do with the

Chreestos cult, other than being a member of the cult, is beyond me.

Just to pick a name at non-random?)

April 16, 2007

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

wrote:

>A Jesus that is exactly as described in the Gospels would be impossible (as

>there is conflicting details).

A Jesus that was as close to the one described in the Gospels so as to

be relevant to Christianity would be just as impossible.

April 17, 2007

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message

news:epn72316o5ngarjee91kfjslgfm5u0ufq4@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:57:49 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

> wrote:

>

>>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message

>>news:00r5239o162buhi93luuisoo2ngc1fr73h@4ax.com...

>>> Which is why opinion is worthless. Only evidence counts, and the

>>> evidence is not only that there is none that Jesus existed

>>

>>I'd agree that there is no (historically credible) evidence for Jesus

>>existing.

>>

>>There is evidence of christians who appeared to follow a christ or a

>>Jesus,

>>which does not imply that such a person existed, of course.

>>

>>> but that

>>> there is evidence that he didn't exist.

>>

>>I don't believe there is any evidence that he did not exist .. what would

>>such evidence be?

>

> Evidence that a man named Yeshua who was born in the early first

> century and came from Nazareth didn't exist? There was no town called

> Nazareth in the early first century.

That is only evidence that he was not born in the town climed by the

fictional birth narratives.

Not evidence that Jesus did not exist

> Evidence that the parents of a man named Yeshua who was born in the

> early first century and had to return to their place of birth for a

> Roman census didn't exist? The Romans required people to return to

> their place of residence for a census.

That is only evidence that he was not born in the town climed by the

fictional birth narratives.

Not evidence that Jesus did not exist

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

Yes .. I acknowledge that there is a LOT of fictious elements there .. but

your logic is like saying because Sherlock holmes is a fictional character,

that london does not exist.

> As I said to Pramer, there's no doubt that MANY men named Yeshua lived

> in Jerusalem in the early first century, but there's plenty of

> evidence that the one claimed in the Bible didn't.

No .. there is only evidence that the events depcited (in particular the

description of his birth and death) are fictional. Quite likely many of the

major events have been invented or exagerated (eg his preaching to

multitudes may havebeen just to a small group of people).

I agree totally that there is lots of fiction in the Gospels etc .. but that

does not necessaril indicate that there was not an historical (as opposed to

biblcal) Jesus upon which the stories are based

>>Certainly the lack of contemporary evidence where we would expect to find

>>it

>>strongly suggests that the miraculous Jesus described in the Gospels did

>>not

>>exist. But whether or not a purely human Jesus, who may have had some

>>followers

>

> The SOLE "evidence" of this is a contested passage in Josephus.

Yes .. I'm very familiar with that. that is why I said there is a lcak of

contmporary evidence (a total lack actually)

There are other documents that people quote as evidence that are probably

not totally fictional like the Josephus passage .. but they are really only

evidence for the existence of christians, not for jesus

>>and some of whose words (or close to it) may have been recorded

>>by those followers

>

> The most important of them, to Christians, would never have been

> uttered by a practicing Jew, which Christianity claims ITS Jesus was.

People can utter all sorts of things. And you'll note that according to the

stories, the jews were not happy with the things Jesus uttered. Really ..

saying that Jesus cannot exist because he is reported to have said things

that a Jew sjhould not say is not a valid agument at all.

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

>

> Proved? Of course not.

Exactly

> Is it likely that a practicing Jew of the

> time would claim that the Bible (the only one at the time) was no

> longer to be followed?

Jesus didn't claim that.

And not everyhintg attributed to jesus in the stories written long after his

death are going to be exactly what he said. Ceratinly there are strong

views that Jesus 'words' on baptism were altered by the chruch in order to

support the idea of trinitarianism.

> That's Paulism, not anything a Jew of the time

> would have done.

Again , ,that is not in any way evidence that Jesus did not exist .. only

that the stories written about him (especially those of Paul who never even

met Jesus)

>>Unless there is solid evidence that the Gospel stories are COMPELTE

>>fabrications (rather than major embellishments on what would otherwise be

>>a

>>fairly dull story).

>

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

I don't suggest they are

> No one is

> burdened to disprove an assertion. And that's all the Bible is - an

> assertion that doesn't hold together.

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

theology.

But that does not mean it is ENTIRELY untrue, and that there are not

elements of historical fact. It does not mean that there was not an

historical Jesus.

>>That doesn't mean that there was not a man that was called Jesus, who was

>>born somewhere around the galille region (ignoring the fictional virgin

>>birth in bethlehem etc).

>

> We KNOW that there were MANY men called Jesus (Yeshua) born there at

> that approximate time. That has nothing to do with Christianity.

I didn't say it was .. I'm just saying that the stories in the Gospel can

easily be based around a real person.

> It's

> proof that the name Yeshua was used in that place at that time, which

> is not the Christian claim at all. Nor is it even questioned, let

> alone refuted, by anyone.

Yes .. lots of Yeshua's. That does not mean there was not a particular

Yeshua (or maybe even someone not called Yeshua, or maybe a couple of

people) upon which the Gospel stories were based (and then embellished).

>>Really ,we cannot say for sure whether or not there was an historical

>>Jesus

>>at this time.

>

> We're not discussing some guy named Yeshua, we're discussing the

> Biblical Jesus. And we can say for pretty sure that THAT Jesus didn't

> exist.

If you are replying to me, thne that IS what we are discussing . .the

possibility of an historical Jesus (not one that exactly fits the impossibly

contradictory and unrealsitic Gospel descriptions)

>>But an ordinary historical Jesus that lived, taught some followers, and

>>died

>>(though far removed form the embellished mythology of the Gospel storied)

>>does make some sense.

>

> And is totally irrelevant to Christianity.

To christianity as it is today .. yes. If there was a Jesus who taught (at

least) some of the things that he is reported to have taught in the gospels,

then it is really todays christianity that is irrelevant to the 'real'

teachings of Jesus.

> (Although why we should

> assume that some man named Yeshua had anything to do with the

> Chreestos cult, other than being a member of the cult, is beyond me.

> Just to pick a name at non-random?)

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

developed afterwards (that would have most likely been based on Paul's

teachings that put forward the idea of a 'christ'.).

April 17, 2007

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message

news:9jo723h3k8gsrr6oojjsh24me4fgeila73@4ax.com...

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

> wrote:

>

>>A Jesus that is exactly as described in the Gospels would be impossible

>>(as

>>there is conflicting details).

>

> A Jesus that was as close to the one described in the Gospels so as to

> be relevant to Christianity would be just as impossible.

Yes .. I'm not said any different. Buts its more the other way around ,.,

Christianity is irrelevant to the teaching of an historical Jesus (if he did

exist) .. What we have today as Christianity is based on the myths and

fables.

April 17, 2007

You might want to know that Al Klein is a troll who is endlessly

willing to assert as fact things that he knows that he doesn't know.

Atheism apparently has this effect on some people. As such he really

isn't worth your time.

On 16 Apr, 21:38, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:

> On 16 Apr 2007 07:30:20 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"

>

> <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote:

> >> Wrong word. It's not as easy. In fact, it's totally beyond your

> >> capability, since you can't read the source materials.

> >The best I can do is the original translations into the Greek.

>

> You're fluent in ancient Greek? I'm impressed. Then you ARE aware of

> the later total screw-up of the Greek word 'alma'. Just more evidence

> that the story is made up.

Al knows no Greek.

> >> You assume that the Biblical Jesus existed,

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

> >my words.

>

> "It is, in my opinion, more logical to assume that a man with that

> name existed ... than to assume that he never existed."

>

> Again, if you're claiming that some man named Yeshua lived in

> Jerusalem in the first century, I guarantee that you're correct. We

> have proof that MANY such men existed. That has nothing to do with

> the Bible. Paul invented a spirit, an aspect of his god, and named it

> Yeshua. You're saying that's because he based it on some particular

> man? Probably not. Yeshua was a VERY common name. Is "John Doe"

> based on some actual man named John Doe?

>

> If that's your entire argument, that some man named Yeshua lived in

> Jerusalem in the early first century, no one in his right mind would

> argue with you. But so what? That's as important as "some man named

> Joe lived in NYC in the early 20th century". Who cares? Neither one

> has the slightest connection to Christianity. Or to this discussion.

Note how Al is trying to get you to run around to prove, what no

sensible person denies, that Jesus of Nazareth lived.

> >> >There are many writings about a man called Jesus of Nazareth.

> >> Proof that they're not accurate, since the location now called

> >> Nazareth (and called Nazareth then) was a cemetery when Jesus was

> >> supposedly born, and for decades after. It only exists because a

> >> mistranslation made it seem as if Jesus came from a town called

> >> Nazareth.

> >Yes, and Jesus' original name was not pronounced the way we pronounce

> >it and so on and so on. You are straining out a gnat.

>

> There's a difference between a change in pronunciation and a claim

> that Jews lived in a cemetery. The latter never happened, even though

> "Jesus of Nazareth" is exactly that claim.

Note the certainty with which Al asserts things about Nazareth which,

in fact, are merely hearsay (and stupid hearsay).

> > What sort of evidence do you require?

>

> Something extra-biblical from someone who had no positive axe to

> grind. Roman records. A diatribe by an enemy of his. Something

> written DURING HIS LIFETIME by someone who wasn't a Christian that

> mentioned him by name, and by enough description of his actions that

> we know he wasn't talking about some other Yeshua.

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

Al has no idea what sort of evidence there is for people living in

Judaea in the reign of Tiberius, but that doesn't stop him trying to

suggest otherwise.

> >Written records from Romans?

>

> Since they kept meticulous records of everything, why didn't they even

> mention Jesus? Not a single mention in over 3 decades.

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

60.

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

> Bible.

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

> No mention of him AT ALL until over 100 years after he supposedly

> died. Would you believe that Abraham Lincoln had actually existed if

> the first mention of him in writing was from last month?

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

> >> and actual

> >> evidence that he didn't,

> >What is that evidence?

>

> The census claim. The Nazareth claim. The "darkness" claim (a solar

> eclipse when there was none). The Magi claim (following a star is

> nonsense - stars don't have fixed locations relative to the surface of

> Earth). The birth date claim (the flocks weren't in the fields in

> winter). The impossibility of the events on the morning of the

> resurrection (construct a single time line for that morning). The

> dual claims of Judas' cause of death (as if it was made up by two

> different people, who never compared notes). And on and on and ...

None of it relevant to the claim.

> >> it's more logical to assume that he didn't

> >> exist. Your statement just proves your bias.

> >> >> >There is mention of him in the Bible

> >> >> The Bible can't be used as evidence to support the Bible.

> >> >I am making no such claim.

> >> You just presented the Bible as evidence that the mention of Jesus in

> >> the Bible is evidentiary!

> >By your standard, we must discount the existence of many Greek

> >historical figures also, because the only place they were mentioned

> >was in Greek history.

>

> They were mentioned in MANY CONTEMPORANEOUS writings and many of them

> left their own writings.

Al doesn't know any of this. Ask for examples of people living in 1st

century Judaea ca 30 for whom this is correct.

Our best sources for all first century history are Tacitus, Suetonius

and Cassius Dio, with Josephus for Jewish sources.

> >> > I am using the mention of a charismatic man

> >> >in many sources

> >> You said "in the Bible". That's one book, and it can't verify itself.

>

> >No. The Bible is a compilation of many sources

>

> Comprising one work we call "the Bible".

Ask him to prove it.

> And you can't use that compilation to verify itself. If you understood what

> "canon" meant, you'd understand why. Canon text can not be used to

> verify canon text, because if it contradicted canon text it wouldn't be canon text.

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

> The Bible verifies its own claims not because they're true, but

> because that's what canon means. (And the Bible contradicts itself -

> they weren't even good liars atNicea.)

Here Al repeats his standard lie about the bible being compiled at

Nicaea -- it wasn't, and he knows it.

Note how he contradicts himself -- canon can't involve contradictions,

but it does (he says).

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

> >> What we don't have is a SINGLE contemporaneous non-Biblical document

> >> mentioning a man named Jesus who performed miracles or who was

> >> crucified.

> >Nor do we have any record of most of the people of that era. Non-

> >Biblical evidence is sparse indeed.

>

> That's not my problem. (bluster snipped)

Which sort of tells the whole story. Al doesn't know any history, and

doesn't care. All he's doing is trotting out excuses. If we

seriously doubted the existence of Jesus, we could only expect the

same kind of evidence as for most people of the period.

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

> was real. We claim that the Caesars, for whom we have actual

> evidence, were real. We claim Alexander, for whom we have actual

> evidence, was real. We have no actual evidence that the Jesus of the

> Bible was real.

This rhetoric has no factual content. Al knows nothing about any of

these people. Note how he cunningly compares Jesus, a rural peasant,

to emperors and people who issued coins and built huge extant

buildings; hardly the same kind of evidence available for 99% of

people in antiquity!

(More dishonest word-twisting snipped)

It is one evidence that Christianity is true, when people like Al

Klein can only resort to determined lying as their only means to

attack it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

April 17, 2007

"Roger Pearse" <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

news:1176794394.190825.268780@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

>> No mention of him AT ALL until over 100 years after he supposedly

>> died. Would you believe that Abraham Lincoln had actually existed if

>> the first mention of him in writing was from last month?

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

What early 1st century sources?

> Al doesn't know any of this. Ask for examples of people living in 1st

> century Judaea ca 30 for whom this is correct.

I'm pretty sure we have records of Pilate, and of the various pharasees etc,

And I think John the Babptist is documented (but I'm not sure how

contemporary it was)

> Our best sources for all first century history are Tacitus, Suetonius

> and Cassius Dio, with Josephus for Jewish sources.

But again, they are not contemporary .. and as I recall only the highly

suspect addition to Josephus mentions Jesus .. other source mention the

'christians', not Jesus himself.

>> >No. The Bible is a compilation of many sources

>> Comprising one work we call "the Bible".

> Ask him to prove it.

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

> This rhetoric has no factual content. Al knows nothing about any of

> these people. Note how he cunningly compares Jesus, a rural peasant,

> to emperors and people who issued coins and built huge extant

> buildings; hardly the same kind of evidence available for 99% of

> people in antiquity!

So Jesus was unimportant and did nothing noteworth in his lifetime?

April 17, 2007

On Apr 16, 2:38 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:

> On 16 Apr 2007 07:30:20 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"

>

> <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote:

> >> Wrong word. It's not as easy. In fact, it's totally beyond your

> >> capability, since you can't read the source materials.

> >The best I can do is the original translations into the Greek.

>

> You're fluent in ancient Greek?

Fluent? No.

> I'm impressed. Then you ARE aware of

> the later total screw-up of the Greek word 'alma'. Just more evidence

> that the story is made up.

No, mistranslations are mistranslations, not evidence of trickery.

> > Very few can read the original sources, which, in any case, you discount.

>

> Not at all. I discount hundreds-of-years-after-the-fact translations.

> I only discount the originals if someone tries to use them as proof

> that they're accurate. As in "if it's in the Bible it's correct,

> because the Bible says that what's in it is correct".

You pretend that is what I am doing, yet all that I claim is that the

mention of a person in the Bible is evidence that that person may have

existed. I am using the Bible as an instance of historical record,

not an authority based on divine authorship. It is the same as using

any set of old writings to try to reconstruct a true historical

record. Mention of Jesus in the Bible is just that -- mention of a man

in a set of old documents.

That is very different from claiming that he must have existed,

because the Bible says so.

> I'm just against claiming that someone's interpretation of a statement

> is the statement. It's not, it's just the interpreter's

> interpretation.

That is a reasonable statement.

> >> >> > That is a completely different approach than that taken by

> >> >> >the literalists.

> >> >> It's EXACTLY the same approach. The interpret, based on exactly the

> >> >> same reasoning that you use, that the Bible is to be taken literally.

> >No. I never made any such statement.

>

> THEY do. They interpret what they see their way, you interpret what

> you see your way. You say their way is incorrect, they say that your

> way is incorrect.

Nonetheless, my statement was correct, that I never said the Bible was

to be taken literally. Your claim that I take the Bible literally is

false, and you know it. Be honest.

> There's no difference to an outsider.

>

> >> You assume that the Biblical Jesus existed,

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

> >my words.

>

> "It is, in my opinion, more logical to assume that a man with that

> name existed ... than to assume that he never existed."

I'm right and you agree with me below.

> Again, if you're claiming that some man named Yeshua lived in

> Jerusalem in the first century, I guarantee that you're correct. We

> have proof that MANY such men existed.

Indeed.

> That has nothing to do with

> the Bible. Paul invented a spirit, an aspect of his god, and named it

> Yeshua. You're saying that's because he based it on some particular

> man? Probably not. Yeshua was a VERY common name. Is "John Doe"

> based on some actual man named John Doe?

>

> If that's your entire argument, that some man named Yeshua lived in

> Jerusalem in the early first century, no one in his right mind would

> argue with you.

It is not my entire argument. My claim is that the Jesus who is the

subject of the New Testament is most probably based on a charismatic

man of that name, sort of a mini-cult leader, whose disciples

subsequently built him up to be larger than life.

> >> >There are many writings about a man called Jesus of Nazareth.

> >> Proof that they're not accurate, since the location now called

> >> Nazareth (and called Nazareth then) was a cemetery when Jesus was

> >> supposedly born, and for decades after. It only exists because a

> >> mistranslation made it seem as if Jesus came from a town called

> >> Nazareth.

> >Yes, and Jesus' original name was not pronounced the way we pronounce

> >it and so on and so on. You are straining out a gnat.

>

> There's a difference between a change in pronunciation and a claim

> that Jews lived in a cemetery. The latter never happened, even though

> "Jesus of Nazareth" is exactly that claim.

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

get bungled in translation all the time. You are making a mountain out

of a molehill.

> >> >It is, in my opinion, more logical to assume that a man with that name

> >> >existed and all the mythology grew up around him than to assume that

> >> >he never existed.

>

> >> When there's no actual evidence that a character existed,

>

> >Stories from several sources are evidence.

>

> Stories ALL tracing back to a SINGLE source - the books of the Bible,

> which can't be used as evidence that what's in the books of the Bible

> is true.

Sorry, that is not a single source. It is a compilation of several

sources. Now you may claim that they all had to come from the mouth of

a single liar, but then it is up to you to prove that.

> > What sort of evidence do you require?

>

> Something extra-biblical from someone who had no positive axe to

> grind. Roman records. A diatribe by an enemy of his. Something

> written DURING HIS LIFETIME by someone who wasn't a Christian that

> mentioned him by name, and by enough description of his actions that

> we know he wasn't talking about some other Yeshua.

As far as we know, there are no such records. All we have is writings

by several different sources favorable to their subject. Big deal. I

suspect you know of and believe in the existence of several people

only through sources that mention them favorably.

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

>

> >Written records from Romans?

>

> Since they kept meticulous records of everything, why didn't they even

> mention Jesus? Not a single mention in over 3 decades. Pilate was

> scared that the "King of the Jews" was being born, but there's not a

> single mention of any of the things he supposedly did about it. The

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

> Bible.

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