historicity of Jesus of Nazareth



 Religions > Atheism > historicity of Jesus of Nazareth

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 2

1

 

2

 
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: ""
Date: 25 Dec 2005 11:30:04 PM
Object: historicity of Jesus of Nazareth
On this Christmas Day 2005, I'm curious if any athiests on this list
think that a person named Jesus (Yeshua) of Nazareth never existed.
Last year on the "100 Huntley Street" telecast (Mar 30/04) Dr.Paul L.
Maier (expert in first-century Near Eastern history, Western Michigan
University) was conversing with host David Mainse about Tom Harpur,
author of "The Pagan Christ":
http://www.crossroads.ca/archives/maier_harpur.htm
[snip]
Paul: Well, I was shocked. He devotes a whole chapter to questioning
this. And you realize that 99.9% of scholars across the world will
acknowledge that Jesus is an historical person. They may not say that
Jesus is the Son of God, but they will say there was an historical
figure named Jesus of Nazareth. But Tom has very grave doubts about
this, so he claims. Now that floored me right there, because we have
copious evidence for Jesus' existence. If you don't like the Gospels,
go to the Roman historian, Tacitus, who talks about the great fire of
Rome and how Nero got blamed for it. To save himself, he blames the
Christians. This Roman historian says that the Christians are named
for a Christus, who was crucified by one of our governors, Pontius
Pilate. What more do you need? That quote alone would establish the
historicity of Jesus. Suetonius mentions Christ in connection with a
riot of those for or against Jesus across the Tiber in Rome. Pliny
the Younger, Governor of Asia Minor, says that these Christians get up
early on Sunday morning and "sing hymns to Christ as to a God." The
Jewish rabbinic traditions mention Jesus of Nazareth in their own
language. What more do we need of witnesses? Josephus mentions Jesus
twice. I want to point out that Christian faith is based upon fact
and not on fiction. The problem nowadays is that so many people are
trying to turn fiction into fact.
.

User: "Robibnikoff"

Title: Re: historicity of Jesus of Nazareth 26 Dec 2005 08:31:12 AM
<dabuckna@direct.ca> wrote in message
news:1135575004.659853.62550@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

On this Christmas Day 2005, I'm curious if any athiests on this list
think that a person named Jesus (Yeshua) of Nazareth never existed.

I think there's a good chance he existed. However, that whole son of a god
thing is *****.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.

User: "Mike Painter"

Title: Re: historicity of Jesus of Nazareth 29 Dec 2005 03:10:44 AM
wrote:


http://www.crossroads.ca/archives/maier_harpur.htm

[snip]

Paul: Well, I was shocked. He devotes a whole chapter to questioning
this. And you realize that 99.9% of scholars across the world will
acknowledge that Jesus is an historical person. They may not say that
Jesus is the Son of God, but they will say there was an historical
figure named Jesus of Nazareth. But Tom has very grave doubts about
this, so he claims. Now that floored me right there, because we have
copious evidence for Jesus' existence. If you don't like the Gospels,

The Gospels are the only place the man is mentioned and some scholars note
that *NONE* of the works mentioned in the Gospels are mentioned in the
epistles, yet they were written earlier.

go to the Roman historian, Tacitus, who talks about the great fire of
Rome and how Nero got blamed for it. To save himself, he blames the
Christians. This Roman historian says that the Christians are named
for a Christus, who was crucified by one of our governors, Pontius
Pilate. What more do you need? That quote alone would establish the
historicity of Jesus.

At best it establishes that a person with such a name was executed. The
Romans however left records of other "messiahs" of the time who were
executed by them. In all of those cases the Romans killed the man and all
his followers because it was treason. No such thing happened with the
alleged followers of this Jesus. Why would the Romans not follow their own
law unless this man did not have a following and did not claim to be a
messiah?
Suetonius mentions Christ in connection with a

riot of those for or against Jesus across the Tiber in Rome. Pliny
the Younger, Governor of Asia Minor, says that these Christians get up
early on Sunday morning and "sing hymns to Christ as to a God." The
Jewish rabbinic traditions mention Jesus of Nazareth in their own
language. What more do we need of witnesses? Josephus mentions Jesus
twice. I want to point out that Christian faith is based upon fact
and not on fiction. The problem nowadays is that so many people are
trying to turn fiction into fact.

Few scholars accept what Josephus said and most say it was added later.
As to the others mentioning a group that sings songs, that is hardly
evidence.
But you have part of it right. "The problem nowadays is that so many people
are trying to turn fiction into fact."
But the educated scholars are demonstrating that most of the bible is at
best very poor historical fiction.
.

User: "Santolina chamaecyparissus"

Title: Re: historicity of Jesus of Nazareth 25 Dec 2005 11:36:20 PM
wrote:

On this Christmas Day 2005, I'm curious if any athiests on this list
think that a person named Jesus (Yeshua) of Nazareth never existed.

It doesn't matter. Whatever historical Jesus existed was certainly
nothing like the mythical one, hence of little interest.
.

User: "bob young"

Title: Re: historicity of Jesus of Nazareth 26 Dec 2005 05:07:06 AM
wrote:

On this Christmas Day 2005, I'm curious if any athiests on this list
think that a person named Jesus (Yeshua) of Nazareth never existed.

Last year on the "100 Huntley Street" telecast (Mar 30/04) Dr.Paul L.
Maier (expert in first-century Near Eastern history, Western Michigan
University) was conversing with host David Mainse about Tom Harpur,
author of "The Pagan Christ":

http://www.crossroads.ca/archives/maier_harpur.htm

[snip]

Paul: Well, I was shocked. He devotes a whole chapter to questioning
this. And you realize that 99.9% of scholars across the world will
acknowledge that Jesus is an historical person. They may not say that
Jesus is the Son of God, but they will say there was an historical
figure named Jesus of Nazareth.

It is possible and more than likely that at around 1.4 generations later
the priests of the time noticed a flagging of interest in their invisible
god until someone suggested using 'that old 'Jesus of Nazareath story to
wake the flock up a bit'. Trouble is, in their hurry, they completely
forgot to cover the first twenty years of their 'Son of a God' from the
cradle upwards.
The truth always catches up with fable writers, do you not agree?
Bob
Humanist Brit.
"People fashion their God after their own understanding. They make their
God first and worship him afterwards."
[Oscar Wilde]
"God is a thought who makes crooked all that is straight. "
[Friedrich Nietzsche]
"The Ethiop gods have Ethiop lips, Bronze cheeks, and woolly hair; The
Grecian gods are like the Greeks, As keen-eyed, cold and fair."
[Walter Bagehot]

But Tom has very grave doubts about
this, so he claims. Now that floored me right there, because we have
copious evidence for Jesus' existence. If you don't like the Gospels,
go to the Roman historian, Tacitus, who talks about the great fire of
Rome and how Nero got blamed for it. To save himself, he blames the
Christians. This Roman historian says that the Christians are named
for a Christus, who was crucified by one of our governors, Pontius
Pilate. What more do you need? That quote alone would establish the
historicity of Jesus. Suetonius mentions Christ in connection with a
riot of those for or against Jesus across the Tiber in Rome. Pliny
the Younger, Governor of Asia Minor, says that these Christians get up
early on Sunday morning and "sing hymns to Christ as to a God." The
Jewish rabbinic traditions mention Jesus of Nazareth in their own
language. What more do we need of witnesses? Josephus mentions Jesus
twice. I want to point out that Christian faith is based upon fact
and not on fiction. The problem nowadays is that so many people are
trying to turn fiction into fact.

.

User: "George Dance"

Title: Re: historicity of Jesus of Nazareth 27 Dec 2005 06:35:50 AM
wrote:

On this Christmas Day 2005, I'm curious if any athiests on this list
think that a person named Jesus (Yeshua) of Nazareth never existed.

Last year on the "100 Huntley Street" telecast (Mar 30/04) Dr.Paul L.
Maier (expert in first-century Near Eastern history, Western Michigan
University) was conversing with host David Mainse about Tom Harpur,
author of "The Pagan Christ":

http://www.crossroads.ca/archives/maier_harpur.htm

[snip]

Paul: Well, I was shocked. He devotes a whole chapter to questioning
this. And you realize that 99.9% of scholars across the world will
acknowledge that Jesus is an historical person. They may not say that
Jesus is the Son of God, but they will say there was an historical
figure named Jesus of Nazareth. But Tom has very grave doubts about
this, so he claims. Now that floored me right there, because we have
copious evidence for Jesus' existence. If you don't like the Gospels,
go to the Roman historian, Tacitus, who talks about the great fire of
Rome and how Nero got blamed for it. To save himself, he blames the
Christians. This Roman historian says that the Christians are named
for a Christus, who was crucified by one of our governors, Pontius
Pilate. What more do you need? That quote alone would establish the
historicity of Jesus. Suetonius mentions Christ in connection with a
riot of those for or against Jesus across the Tiber in Rome. Pliny
the Younger, Governor of Asia Minor, says that these Christians get up
early on Sunday morning and "sing hymns to Christ as to a God." The
Jewish rabbinic traditions mention Jesus of Nazareth in their own
language. What more do we need of witnesses?

All of this is evidence that Christians existed, not that Jesus himself
existed. However, ever if there were such evidence, so what? It's a
non-controversial fact that the Rev. Sun Moon exists, or that Jim Jones
existed; but no one concludes from those facts that either one was
divine.

Josephus mentions Jesus
twice. I want to point out that Christian faith is based upon fact
and not on fiction. The problem nowadays is that so many people are
trying to turn fiction into fact.

.

User: "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian"

Title: Re: historicity of Jesus of Nazareth 26 Dec 2005 12:06:22 AM
wrote:

On this Christmas Day 2005, I'm curious if any athiests on this list
think that a person named Jesus (Yeshua) of Nazareth never existed.

A radical wandering preacher called Jesus may well have existed... and been
unimportant, a mere footnote to history. What would matter is whether that
preacher was anything more than just a preacher... which is, to be nice,
quite unlikely.

Paul: Well, I was shocked. He devotes a whole chapter to questioning
this. And you realize that 99.9% of scholars across the world will
acknowledge that Jesus is an historical person.

Yeah, because of exaggerated PC. As I'm right now fed up again with the
so-called "scientific" examinations of the question "Did Jesus really
live?", I can tell from my own experience that - while normally scientists
ask "is there evidence for X being true?" in the case of jebus they
suddenly ask "COULD it have been true?" and then list the usual stuff which
COULD explain this and that part of the jebus fairy tale. At least that's
the case with those "scientists" featured in all those reports like "was
the star of Bethlehem a conjunction of planets?".
All that stuff is nice to watch, but once you've run into some fundie
babble, you start to realize that these popular reports suffer from exactly
the same fallacies as the standard fundie myths. The existence of jebus is
already taken for granted and the reports then go on to explain how this
and that detail of the myth could have been true.
Kind of like a report examining what the clothes of the tooth fairy could
look like.
[list of other ***** claims - PRATTs - deleted]
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove,
And gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer,
And fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
Why I am not a christian:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus/nojebus
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"

Title: Re: historicity of Jesus of Nazareth 26 Dec 2005 12:24:27 AM
In <1135575004.659853.62550@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
dabuckna@direct.ca wrote:

On this Christmas Day 2005, I'm curious if any athiests on this list think
that a person named Jesus (Yeshua) of Nazareth never existed.

Last year on the "100 Huntley Street" telecast (Mar 30/04) Dr.Paul L.
Maier (expert in first-century Near Eastern history, Western Michigan
University) was conversing with host David Mainse about Tom Harpur, author
of "The Pagan Christ":


http://www.crossroads.ca/archives/maier_harpur.htm

[snip]

Paul: Well, I was shocked. He devotes a whole chapter to questioning
this. And you realize that 99.9% of scholars across the world will
acknowledge that Jesus is an historical person.

That "pop" you heard was Paul pulling a number out of his *****!

They may not say that
Jesus is the Son of God, but they will say there was an historical figure
named Jesus of Nazareth. But Tom has very grave doubts about this, so he
claims. Now that floored me right there, because we have copious evidence
for Jesus' existence. If you don't like the Gospels, go to the Roman
historian, Tacitus, who talks about the great fire of Rome and how Nero
got blamed for it. To save himself, he blames the Christians.

That there were Christians isn't evidence there was a historical Jesus.

This Roman
historian says that the Christians are named for a Christus, who was
crucified by one of our governors, Pontius Pilate. What more do you need?

Hard evidence would be nice.

That quote alone would establish the historicity of Jesus.

No, it would only "establish" that one person believed Nero blamed
*Christians for the fire.

Suetonius
mentions Christ in connection with a riot of those for or against Jesus
across the Tiber in Rome. Pliny the Younger, Governor of Asia Minor, says
that these Christians get up early on Sunday morning and "sing hymns to
Christ as to a God." The Jewish rabbinic traditions mention Jesus of
Nazareth in their own language. What more do we need of witnesses?

Still talking about evidence that there were *believers I see. We already
*knew there were believers. We even know there *are believers.
And?

Josephus mentions Jesus twice.

Or the passages were forged.
Even if you take them at face value, again, Josephus is only providing
evidence there were Christians, not evidence there was a Jesus.

I want to point out that Christian faith
is based upon fact and not on fiction. The problem nowadays is that so
many people are trying to turn fiction into fact.

Yes, you folks are...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
So much for that "storm of the century" excuse
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A3992495C
NO held hostage by oil corporations,
ANWR demanded as ransom
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J5C92195C
White House balks at spending on US citizens,
needs more billions for Iraq!
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D93595C
(Tell me again how much we spent bailing out the S&Ls?)
http://www.nola.com
.
User: "Christopher A. Lee"

Title: Re: historicity of Jesus of Nazareth 27 Dec 2005 02:24:43 AM
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 00:24:27 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:

In <1135575004.659853.62550@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
dabuckna@direct.ca wrote:

On this Christmas Day 2005, I'm curious if any athiests on this list think
that a person named Jesus (Yeshua) of Nazareth never existed.

Last year on the "100 Huntley Street" telecast (Mar 30/04) Dr.Paul L.
Maier (expert in first-century Near Eastern history, Western Michigan
University) was conversing with host David Mainse about Tom Harpur, author
of "The Pagan Christ":


http://www.crossroads.ca/archives/maier_harpur.htm

[snip]

Paul: Well, I was shocked. He devotes a whole chapter to questioning
this. And you realize that 99.9% of scholars across the world will
acknowledge that Jesus is an historical person.


That "pop" you heard was Paul pulling a number out of his *****!

They may not say that
Jesus is the Son of God, but they will say there was an historical figure
named Jesus of Nazareth. But Tom has very grave doubts about this, so he
claims. Now that floored me right there, because we have copious evidence
for Jesus' existence. If you don't like the Gospels, go to the Roman
historian, Tacitus, who talks about the great fire of Rome and how Nero
got blamed for it. To save himself, he blames the Christians.

Why don't these idiots check this alleged "copious evidence" actually
is before showing us just how stupid they are?
They hear it from the pulpit, bullshat by either liars or idiots.
Dan Barker describes how in his course to be a minister, they spent
about an afternoon listening to the standard list but never gave it a
thought.
Yet they're trying to convince those who are neither as ignorant,
gullible or stupid. Anybody with more than two neurons to rub
together, would at least look at the items in the list rather than the
list itself.
The _only_ early mention is the tampered passage in Josephus, which
doesn't appear until Eusebius "discovered" it.

That there were Christians isn't evidence there was a historical Jesus.

It basically says what he has been told Christians believe.

This Roman
historian says that the Christians are named for a Christus, who was
crucified by one of our governors, Pontius Pilate. What more do you need?

Doesn't it say procurator not governor?

Hard evidence would be nice.

Most versions say Chrestus, which is a name not a title. They don't
equate Jesus (another name) with Chrestus, or with the title Christ.
If it's considered evidence, it's evidence against an historical
Jesus. Because Chrestus was a common slave name, this makes
Christianity founded by a Roman slave.

That quote alone would establish the historicity of Jesus.

How so?
They seem to imagine that the merest mention of the name Tacitus is
somehow evidence for an historical Jesus.
Without even knowing what Tacitus wrote.
And then they're cornered and paraphrase this bit. If only they had
the common sense and intelligence to read it first.


No, it would only "establish" that one person believed Nero blamed
*Christians for the fire.

Suetonius
mentions Christ in connection with a riot of those for or against Jesus
across the Tiber in Rome. Pliny the Younger, Governor of Asia Minor, says
that these Christians get up early on Sunday morning and "sing hymns to
Christ as to a God." The Jewish rabbinic traditions mention Jesus of
Nazareth in their own language. What more do we need of witnesses?


Still talking about evidence that there were *believers I see. We already
*knew there were believers. We even know there *are believers.

And?

Josephus mentions Jesus twice.


Or the passages were forged.

Even if you take them at face value, again, Josephus is only providing
evidence there were Christians, not evidence there was a Jesus.

I want to point out that Christian faith
is based upon fact and not on fiction. The problem nowadays is that so
many people are trying to turn fiction into fact.


Yes, you folks are...

.

User: ""

Title: Re: historicity of Jesus of Nazareth 26 Dec 2005 12:30:12 AM
http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/maier2.htm
http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/maier3.htm
http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/maier4.htm
.
User: "Mark K. Bilbo"

Title: Re: historicity of Jesus of Nazareth 26 Dec 2005 12:46:39 PM
In <1135578612.339160.102540@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
dabuckna@direct.ca wrote:
Cute. Stupid but cute.

http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/maier2.htm

"Mythical personalities and events are not open to questions involving
time. One does not seriously ask, for example, 'In what year did Zeus and
Hera get married?'"
Fiction can give all kinds of specific dates for people and events that
never existed. Shrug.
"Jesus of Nazareth is a case in point. Since the chronologies of the
Herods, the Roman emperors and the governors within the time frames of the
Gospels are firm..."
That's actually funny. You know there's no evidence the bit about Herod
killing the first born happened? In fact, there's no evidence Herod had
any clue at all anything of import was happening at the time.
And I see your buddy ignores the problem of Quirinius who wasn't governor
of Syria before Herod died. The NT account places them in office at the
same time.

http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/maier3.htm

Relying on the alleged writings of Josephus is foolish. Even if we
ignore--for now--the evidence that the writings have been tampered with,
fact is Josephus was *not contemporary to the events. The passages in
question were written decades after the alleged events. For example,
Antiquities is dated to 93 CE. Sixty years after the events in question.
Let's see, sixty years. I bet you could find all *kinds of inaccurate and
unverifiable stories about events in WWII from "eye witnesses." Why don't
you try?
And, do tell, why is it that nobody seemed to be aware of these passages
until Eusebius "found" them in the 4th century?
Finally, the archeology "argument" is flat out stupid. The works of Anne
Rice are so accurate in descriptions of New Orleans that fans can locate
houses, graveyards, and even one apparently significant TREE by reading
her books.
Therefore, Lestat the vampire really exists?

http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/maier4.htm

This one is thin as tissue paper. He comments:
"Again, however, in reaching out to non-Christians, the non-Biblical
evidence regarding the first Easter is especially helpful."
Then he offers such as:
"Clear evidence that Christianity developed because of the resurrection
comes also from the Jewish historian Josephus. In his famous earlier
passage on Jesus, he states that the apostles '...reported that [Jesus]
had appeared to them three days after His crucifixion and that he was
alive.'" (Antiquities 18:63).
Even if we ignore the possibility of tampering with the text, the only
thing the above tells us is some people *believed this happened. And?
Then there is:
"The Roman pagan historian, Cornelius Tacitus, referring to Jesus' death
(and probably His resurrection), states that the Christian 'superstition
was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in
Judaea, the home of the disease, but in the capital [Rome] itself....'"
(Annals 15:44).
Now, *that is pathetic on its face. Tacitus does *not refer to such death
nor resurrection in the passage quoted! What's wrong with this author that
he asserts things that aren't in the passages he quotes?
You folks are grasping at straws. You know Annals was written about 109 CE
right? Two thousand years of scrounging and you haven't produced any
contemporary documents that back up the NT account. Hell, the NT itself
doesn't necessarily back up the Gospels. Paul seems quite often oblivious
to the Gospel account. Why is that?
Such as the institution of communion:
"In 1 Corinthians 11:23 the apostle Paul writes, 'For I received from the
Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night
in which He was betrayed took bread...' Here Paul claims that he got the
instructions for the Lord's Supper directly from Jesus (evidently from one
of his many revelations). Paul writes these words about twenty years after
Jesus' death, and had the church already been celebrating the Lord's
Supper he certainly would have been aware of it and would have had no need
to receive it from the Lord."
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html
You'd think that Paul would have relied a great deal more on the Gospel
accounts in his writings. The fact that the accounts were written *later
makes one wonder if they weren't fitted to what Paul wrote...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
So much for that "storm of the century" excuse
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A3992495C
NO held hostage by oil corporations,
ANWR demanded as ransom
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J5C92195C
White House balks at spending on US citizens,
needs more billions for Iraq!
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D93595C
(Tell me again how much we spent bailing out the S&Ls?)
http://www.nola.com
.



User: "Liz"

Title: Re: historicity of Jesus of Nazareth 26 Dec 2005 08:12:43 AM
On 25 Dec 2005 21:30:04 -0800,
in news message
<1135575004.659853.62550@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:

On this Christmas Day 2005, I'm curious if any athiests on this list
think that a person named Jesus (Yeshua) of Nazareth never existed.

Last year on the "100 Huntley Street" telecast (Mar 30/04) Dr.Paul L.
Maier (expert in first-century Near Eastern history, Western Michigan
University) was conversing with host David Mainse about Tom Harpur,
author of "The Pagan Christ":


http://www.crossroads.ca/archives/maier_harpur.htm

[snip]

Paul: Well, I was shocked. He devotes a whole chapter to questioning
this. And you realize that 99.9% of scholars across the world will
acknowledge that Jesus is an historical person.

Did you know that 95.8% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

They may not say that
Jesus is the Son of God, but they will say there was an historical
figure named Jesus of Nazareth.

Then the existence of such a person is trivial.
I think that it is probable that a man named Jesus about whom mythical
stories were later told lived in Israel at the time period in
question. I also know that Astarte, who was identified with the
planet Venus (which does exist), was worshiped as a fertility goddess
in the ancient Middle East. I do not deny the existence of either
Astarte or Jesus, but I lack a belief in the divinity of either one of
them based on the lack of verifiable evidence for these claims.
If you wish your claim to be more important than the claim that my
father lived and died in Ohio during the 20th century, then you'll
need to provide extraordinary evidence to support the extraordinary
claim of godhood.
Liz #658 BAAWA
I find it absolutely incredible that a creator god and his savior son
would, instead of coming down to earth and handing us their message
personally, choose to communicate with mankind through cheese sandwiches.
- Vic Sagerquist
.
User: "Mark K. Bilbo"

Title: Re: historicity of Jesus of Nazareth 26 Dec 2005 12:48:57 PM
In <6rtvq1hohbvkltlop7csqg0jsg35ou7n42@4ax.com>, Liz
<ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:

On 25 Dec 2005 21:30:04 -0800,

in news message
<1135575004.659853.62550@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:

On this Christmas Day 2005, I'm curious if any athiests on this list
think that a person named Jesus (Yeshua) of Nazareth never existed.

Last year on the "100 Huntley Street" telecast (Mar 30/04) Dr.Paul L.
Maier (expert in first-century Near Eastern history, Western Michigan
University) was conversing with host David Mainse about Tom Harpur,
author of "The Pagan Christ":


http://www.crossroads.ca/archives/maier_harpur.htm

[snip]

Paul: Well, I was shocked. He devotes a whole chapter to questioning
this. And you realize that 99.9% of scholars across the world will
acknowledge that Jesus is an historical person.



Did you know that 95.8% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

63% agreed. 32% disagreed. 3% slapped the pollster. 2% barked and wagged
their tails.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
So much for that "storm of the century" excuse
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A3992495C
NO held hostage by oil corporations,
ANWR demanded as ransom
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J5C92195C
White House balks at spending on US citizens,
needs more billions for Iraq!
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D93595C
(Tell me again how much we spent bailing out the S&Ls?)
http://www.nola.com
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"

Title: Re: historicity of Jesus of Nazareth 27 Dec 2005 10:23:06 AM
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 14:12:43 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:

On 25 Dec 2005 21:30:04 -0800,

in news message
<1135575004.659853.62550@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:

On this Christmas Day 2005, I'm curious if any athiests on this list
think that a person named Jesus (Yeshua) of Nazareth never existed.


He doesn't wonder. And he's just being stupid. Why do thesed morons
imaging that not giving it a thought, and having zero reason to think
he did, is the same as his emotionally prejudicial strawman?

Last year on the "100 Huntley Street" telecast (Mar 30/04) Dr.Paul L.
Maier (expert in first-century Near Eastern history, Western Michigan
University) was conversing with host David Mainse about Tom Harpur,
author of "The Pagan Christ":


http://www.crossroads.ca/archives/maier_harpur.htm

[snip]

Paul: Well, I was shocked. He devotes a whole chapter to questioning
this. And you realize that 99.9% of scholars across the world will
acknowledge that Jesus is an historical person.

No. They don't. The objective ones, as well as liberal Christians
accept that they take it on faith because there is no evidecne.

Did you know that 95.8% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

They may not say that
Jesus is the Son of God, but they will say there was an historical
figure named Jesus of Nazareth.


Then the existence of such a person is trivial.

Let Buckna provide the evidence they use to reach this conclusion. I
doubt he can because there isn't any outside the Christian tradition.
There is nothing contemporary. The closest is a passage in Josephus
who obvious tampering makes it untrustworthy.

I think that it is probable that a man named Jesus about whom mythical
stories were later told lived in Israel at the time period in
question. I also know that Astarte, who was identified with the
planet Venus (which does exist), was worshiped as a fertility goddess
in the ancient Middle East. I do not deny the existence of either
Astarte or Jesus, but I lack a belief in the divinity of either one of
them based on the lack of verifiable evidence for these claims.

?

If you wish your claim to be more important than the claim that my
father lived and died in Ohio during the 20th century, then you'll
need to provide extraordinary evidence to support the extraordinary
claim of godhood.

They can't. They have nothing but won't admit it.
I'm perfectly happy for them to simply beieve it.
But I'm not happy about their rubbing it in our faces at every
opportunity. Demands for proof are only to get them to shut up when
they finally realise they have none.



Liz #658 BAAWA

I find it absolutely incredible that a creator god and his savior son
would, instead of coming down to earth and handing us their message
personally, choose to communicate with mankind through cheese sandwiches.
- Vic Sagerquist

.


User: "Sanitys little helper"

Title: Re: historicity of Jesus of Nazareth 26 Dec 2005 06:44:03 AM
On 25 Dec 2005 21:30:04 -0800,
wrote:

This Roman historian says that the Christians are named
for a Christus, who was crucified by one of our governors, Pontius
Pilate. What more do you need?

Bwaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
--
Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow, we eat, drink and be merry.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.

User: "MarkA"

Title: Re: historicity of Jesus of Nazareth 26 Dec 2005 09:12:30 AM
On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 21:30:04 -0800, dabuckna wrote:

On this Christmas Day 2005, I'm curious if any athiests on this list
think that a person named Jesus (Yeshua) of Nazareth never existed.

Uh, OK...a prophet shows up, claiming to be the Messiah. Nothing new
about that. But THIS one performs MIRACLES: changing water to wine,
healing lepers, restoring sight to the blind, raising the dead, walking on
water, killing fig trees....OK, he really IS the Messiah, the one everyone
has been waiting for for thousands of years. Now, he has some things to
say, about the "new covenant", and how the old Jewish laws are to be
changed.
Don't you think SOMEBODY would think to write it down?? I realize that
they weren't living in the "Information Age", and probably weren't up to
their asses in lawyers wanting a paper trail for everything, but STILL...
We're talking about the SON OF GOD, GIVING LESSONS ON WHAT GOD WANTS OF
YOU, and the first people to produce a written account come at least 70
years later? Get real!
Try this for a little more likely: Messiahs were as common as flies on
*****. Most of their fledgling cults died out when the leader died. For
some combination of random events, the Christ cults managed to survive the
death of their founder, and eventually began to flourish. Years later,
the founder is imbued with all sorts of magical attributes to confirm the
fact that he was, in fact, the "one true one."
It is true that his message was a good one: stop treating each other like
*****, respect the dignity of everyone, even if they don't have power over
you. But then, that would make you a secular humanist if you didn't throw
some God power in there, eh?
--
MarkA
(this space accidentally filled in)
.

User: "Uncle Vic"

Title: Re: historicity of Jesus of Nazareth 26 Dec 2005 12:07:51 AM
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet (dabuckna@direct.ca) made the
light shine upon us with this:

Paul: Well, I was shocked. He devotes a whole chapter to questioning
this. And you realize that 99.9% of...

....lemme guess, biblical...

...scholars across the world will
acknowledge that Jesus is an historical person.

--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
-----
Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is for survivors of
a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving God while this same
God drowned infants in their cribs. - Sam Harris
.

User: "Uncle Vic"

Title: Re: historicity of Jesus of Nazareth 26 Dec 2005 12:10:42 AM
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet (dabuckna@direct.ca) made the
light shine upon us with this:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/surfeit.htm
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
-----
Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is for survivors of
a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving God while this same
God drowned infants in their cribs. - Sam Harris
.
User: ""

Title: Re: historicity of Jesus of Nazareth 26 Dec 2005 01:09:54 AM
The historical person known as Jesus, in fact, lived from April 6, 4
B.C. until April 7, 30 A.D., when he was crucified under Pontius Pilate
of Roman Judea. That Jesus lived and died is not in dispute. What is in
dispute, however, is whether or not he physically arose from the dead.
I can attest to Jesus of Nazareth having been not only a REAL person,
but a very efficient orator as well. In a former incarnation in
Galilee, I met Jesus first at Capernaum, a fishing village near the
shore.
Jesus stood approximately 5 feet, 10 inches tall and spoke in fluent
Aramaic, Greek and Latin. Additionally, Jesus could read and write
Coptic. He was skilled with his hands, having crafted various tables,
chairs, bowls and even spoons. Jesus had hair about shoulder length,
which was amber in color. His eyes were not blue but slightly greyish.
Some people who saw his eyes confused them at first with light blue.
My travels with Jesus began around 28 A.D. (during the spring). I
followed Jesus for much of his journey, as we stayed in shanty towns
and villages. The Roman Empire, in those days, was the divide between
the super rich and the super poor. There was very little stratification
across socio-economic boundaries.
I should also mention here that Jesus seldom laughed nor smiled. He was
almost always serious. He was seen weeping in prayer on numerous
occasions while off by himself. Whatever burden he carried, it was
heavy.
The Romans basically ignored Jesus for much of his ministry. At times
they, too, would follow him if he aroused their curiosity. But it was
usually to see where he was going and whether or not he was a malfactor
to Rome. Overall, most Romans did not see Jesus in such a light.
Jesus had a core group of approximately 12 to 15 disciples. These
misfits often squabbled about petty things (e.g. like food, etc.).
Jesus was always the one to calm them down. He also had a female
follower named Mary (not his mother). Jesus and Mary were especially
close. She appeared to be his companion, although whether she was his
wife or not was not known to me.
Eventually, and probably expectantly, the Jewish religious authorities
sought Jesus out. They questioned his teachings and became scornful.
When he, in turn, questioned them, they became fully enraged and had
him arrested while within the Garden of Gethsemane.
Jesus was taken before Caiaphas, who accused Jesus of Blasphemy. Jesus
was silent to these charges, until Caiaphas again questioned him. He
remarked that he was, indeed, the Messiah. Caiaphas ordered Jesus taken
to the Romans to be executed (according to Jewish laws at that time,
Jesus could have been stoned; however, Caiaphas wished to humiliate
Jesus as much as possible...hence he knew that crucifixion would be the
worst death imaginable).
Pontius Pilate, who detested the Jewish populace he "served,"
nevertheless detested them even more for bringing one of their very own
to him for judgment. Pilate wanted to humiliate the Jews, so he ordered
Jesus released. When they refused, he asked them to judge him according
to their own laws. Jesus was then taken before Caiaphas a second time,
who repeated the verdict of his death by execution.
Jesus was again presented to Pilate, who was by now enraged at the
Jewish elders before him. He ordered Jesus chastized, which is to say,
scorged. Jesus was scorged for the better part of half an hour before
he nearly bled to death. He was returned to Pilate, who, as brutal a
man as he was, was nonetheless stunned by his appearance.
Pilate angrily screamed, "Ecce Homo! Ecce Homo!" in order to mock the
Jewish populace before him. His intention was to humiliate the Jewish
elders by showing them their bloodied "king." This, however, backfired.
The elders wanted Jesus dead.
Reluctant to have Jesus crucified -- if only to spite the Jewish elders
-- Pilate presented Barbaras, a notorious villian. He informed them
that he could release one prisoner per year (as was generally custom at
that time). When they chose Barbaras, however, Pilate washed his hands
of the affair and ordered Jesus crucified.
But in a final act of humiliation to a group he so hated, Pontius
Pilate erected a sign on the cross of Jesus (which read): "Iesus
Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum."
Jesus stayed up on the cross for over three hours. Present at his
crucifixion were two women and a man. One was presumed by this man to
be his mother (the other, his wife). The lone man was the youngest of
the disciples. He mostly stood in silence.The women wept.
When Jesus had not yet expired, he cried out,"Eli, Eli, lama
sabachthani?" Only the man and the two women understood what this
meant. The Roman soldiers present paid no attention to his words. A few
minutes later, Jesus died.
To ensure his death, a Roman centurion speared him. A mixture of water
and blood spilled out of a wound near his heart. After this was done,
an older man (of whom I was not aquainted) demanded the body of Jesus.
When the Romans present refused, he left for a time but then came back.
They exchanged brief words, and then the man was allowed to retrieve
the body of Jesus.
Although I was not present (three days later) when Jesus arose from the
tomb, I nonetheless heard remarkable stories about it from a few of his
nearest friends. These I took with a grain of salt, for I did not know
the men personally. Nevertheless, within three years I was fully active
within the infant Jesus movement later known as Christianity.
I passed away in 52 A.D. My name was Matthew (but not the biblical
Matthew).
I, too, was crucified for my belief. I still have the scars upon both
my wrists,. however faint they may be.
Judge me as you will, but I knew the historical Jesus. He was no fairy
tale. He was real.
Paul
.
User: "johac"

Title: Re: historicity of Jesus of Nazareth 27 Dec 2005 01:58:11 AM
In article <1135580994.567919.200100@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:

The historical person known as Jesus, in fact, lived from April 6, 4
B.C. until April 7, 30 A.D., when he was crucified under Pontius Pilate
of Roman Judea. That Jesus lived and died is not in dispute. What is in
dispute, however, is whether or not he physically arose from the dead.

I can attest to Jesus of Nazareth having been not only a REAL person,
but a very efficient orator as well. In a former incarnation in
Galilee, I met Jesus first at Capernaum, a fishing village near the
shore.

Jesus stood approximately 5 feet, 10 inches tall and spoke in fluent
Aramaic, Greek and Latin. Additionally, Jesus could read and write
Coptic. He was skilled with his hands, having crafted various tables,
chairs, bowls and even spoons. Jesus had hair about shoulder length,
which was amber in color. His eyes were not blue but slightly greyish.
Some people who saw his eyes confused them at first with light blue.

My travels with Jesus began around 28 A.D. (during the spring). I
followed Jesus for much of his journey, as we stayed in shanty towns
and villages. The Roman Empire, in those days, was the divide between
the super rich and the super poor. There was very little stratification
across socio-economic boundaries.

I should also mention here that Jesus seldom laughed nor smiled. He was
almost always serious. He was seen weeping in prayer on numerous
occasions while off by himself. Whatever burden he carried, it was
heavy.

The Romans basically ignored Jesus for much of his ministry. At times
they, too, would follow him if he aroused their curiosity. But it was
usually to see where he was going and whether or not he was a malfactor
to Rome. Overall, most Romans did not see Jesus in such a light.

Jesus had a core group of approximately 12 to 15 disciples. These
misfits often squabbled about petty things (e.g. like food, etc.).
Jesus was always the one to calm them down. He also had a female
follower named Mary (not his mother). Jesus and Mary were especially
close. She appeared to be his companion, although whether she was his
wife or not was not known to me.

Eventually, and probably expectantly, the Jewish religious authorities
sought Jesus out. They questioned his teachings and became scornful.
When he, in turn, questioned them, they became fully enraged and had
him arrested while within the Garden of Gethsemane.

Jesus was taken before Caiaphas, who accused Jesus of Blasphemy. Jesus
was silent to these charges, until Caiaphas again questioned him. He
remarked that he was, indeed, the Messiah. Caiaphas ordered Jesus taken
to the Romans to be executed (according to Jewish laws at that time,
Jesus could have been stoned; however, Caiaphas wished to humiliate
Jesus as much as possible...hence he knew that crucifixion would be the
worst death imaginable).

Pontius Pilate, who detested the Jewish populace he "served,"
nevertheless detested them even more for bringing one of their very own
to him for judgment. Pilate wanted to humiliate the Jews, so he ordered
Jesus released. When they refused, he asked them to judge him according
to their own laws. Jesus was then taken before Caiaphas a second time,
who repeated the verdict of his death by execution.

Jesus was again presented to Pilate, who was by now enraged at the
Jewish elders before him. He ordered Jesus chastized, which is to say,
scorged. Jesus was scorged for the better part of half an hour before
he nearly bled to death. He was returned to Pilate, who, as brutal a
man as he was, was nonetheless stunned by his appearance.

Pilate angrily screamed, "Ecce Homo! Ecce Homo!" in order to mock the
Jewish populace before him. His intention was to humiliate the Jewish
elders by showing them their bloodied "king." This, however, backfired.
The elders wanted Jesus dead.

Reluctant to have Jesus crucified -- if only to spite the Jewish elders
-- Pilate presented Barbaras, a notorious villian. He informed them
that he could release one prisoner per year (as was generally custom at
that time). When they chose Barbaras, however, Pilate washed his hands
of the affair and ordered Jesus crucified.

But in a final act of humiliation to a group he so hated, Pontius
Pilate erected a sign on the cross of Jesus (which read): "Iesus
Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum."

Jesus stayed up on the cross for over three hours. Present at his
crucifixion were two women and a man. One was presumed by this man to
be his mother (the other, his wife). The lone man was the youngest of
the disciples. He mostly stood in silence.The women wept.

When Jesus had not yet expired, he cried out,"Eli, Eli, lama
sabachthani?" Only the man and the two women understood what this
meant. The Roman soldiers present paid no attention to his words. A few
minutes later, Jesus died.

To ensure his death, a Roman centurion speared him. A mixture of water
and blood spilled out of a wound near his heart. After this was done,
an older man (of whom I was not aquainted) demanded the body of Jesus.
When the Romans present refused, he left for a time but then came back.
They exchanged brief words, and then the man was allowed to retrieve
the body of Jesus.

Although I was not present (three days later) when Jesus arose from the
tomb, I nonetheless heard remarkable stories about it from a few of his
nearest friends. These I took with a grain of salt, for I did not know
the men personally. Nevertheless, within three years I was fully active
within the infant Jesus movement later known as Christianity.

I passed away in 52 A.D. My name was Matthew (but not the biblical
Matthew).

I, too, was crucified for my belief. I still have the scars upon both
my wrists,. however faint they may be.

Judge me as you will, but I knew the historical Jesus. He was no fairy
tale. He was real.

Paul

You are insane. Get help.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.

User: "Jacques Pelletier"

Title: Re: historicity of Jesus of Nazareth 26 Dec 2005 08:35:04 AM
On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 23:09:54 -0800, dunric wrote:

The historical person known as Jesus, in fact, lived from April 6, 4 B.C.
until April 7, 30 A.D., when he was crucified under Pontius Pilate of
Roman Judea. That Jesus lived and died is not in dispute. What is in
dispute, however, is whether or not he physically arose from the dead.

I can attest to Jesus of Nazareth having been not only a REAL person, but
a very efficient orator as well. In a former incarnation in Galilee, I met
Jesus first at Capernaum, a fishing village near the shore.

How did you know that about your former incarnation? Did you have other
incarnations as well?
<snip>
Your description of Jesus has no signifiant details worth of attention.
Maybe you can answer some questions about obsure details of the bible.
I'll leave that to others to ask these questions.

Although I was not present (three days later) when Jesus arose from the
tomb, I nonetheless heard remarkable stories about it from a few of his
nearest friends. These I took with a grain of salt, for I did not know
the men personally. Nevertheless, within three years I was fully active
within the infant Jesus movement later known as Christianity.

So, even in that former incarnation, you didn't see Jesus
resurrected?


I passed away in 52 A.D. My name was Matthew (but not the biblical
Matthew).

I, too, was crucified for my belief. I still have the scars upon both my
wrists,. however faint they may be.

Judge me as you will, but I knew the historical Jesus. He was no fairy
tale. He was real.

Paul

JP
.

User: "Uncle Vic"

Title: Re: historicity of Jesus of Nazareth 26 Dec 2005 02:05:31 AM
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet (dunric@yahoo.com) made the
light shine upon us with this:

The historical person known as Jesus, in fact, lived from April 6, 4
B.C. until April 7, 30 A.D., when he was crucified under Pontius Pilate
of Roman Judea. That Jesus lived and died is not in dispute. What is in
dispute, however, is whether or not he physically arose from the dead.

I can attest to Jesus of Nazareth having been not only a REAL person,
but a very efficient orator as well. In a former incarnation in
Galilee, I met Jesus first at Capernaum, a fishing village near the
shore.

Jesus stood approximately 5 feet, 10 inches tall and spoke in fluent
Aramaic, Greek and Latin. Additionally, Jesus could read and write
Coptic. He was skilled with his hands, having crafted various tables,
chairs, bowls and even spoons. Jesus had hair about shoulder length,
which was amber in color. His eyes were not blue but slightly greyish.
Some people who saw his eyes confused them at first with light blue.

My travels with Jesus began around 28 A.D. (during the spring). I
followed Jesus for much of his journey, as we stayed in shanty towns
and villages. The Roman Empire, in those days, was the divide between
the super rich and the super poor. There was very little stratification
across socio-economic boundaries.

I should also mention here that Jesus seldom laughed nor smiled. He was
almost always serious. He was seen weeping in prayer on numerous
occasions while off by himself. Whatever burden he carried, it was
heavy.

The Romans basically ignored Jesus for much of his ministry. At times
they, too, would follow him if he aroused their curiosity. But it was
usually to see where he was going and whether or not he was a malfactor
to Rome. Overall, most Romans did not see Jesus in such a light.

Jesus had a core group of approximately 12 to 15 disciples. These
misfits often squabbled about petty things (e.g. like food, etc.).
Jesus was always the one to calm them down. He also had a female
follower named Mary (not his mother). Jesus and Mary were especially
close. She appeared to be his companion, although whether she was his
wife or not was not known to me.

Eventually, and probably expectantly, the Jewish religious authorities
sought Jesus out. They questioned his teachings and became scornful.
When he, in turn, questioned them, they became fully enraged and had
him arrested while within the Garden of Gethsemane.

Jesus was taken before Caiaphas, who accused Jesus of Blasphemy. Jesus
was silent to these charges, until Caiaphas again questioned him. He
remarked that he was, indeed, the Messiah. Caiaphas ordered Jesus taken
to the Romans to be executed (according to Jewish laws at that time,
Jesus could have been stoned; however, Caiaphas wished to humiliate
Jesus as much as possible...hence he knew that crucifixion would be the
worst death imaginable).

Pontius Pilate, who detested the Jewish populace he "served,"
nevertheless detested them even more for bringing one of their very own
to him for judgment. Pilate wanted to humiliate the Jews, so he ordered
Jesus released. When they refused, he asked them to judge him according
to their own laws. Jesus was then taken before Caiaphas a second time,
who repeated the verdict of his death by execution.

Jesus was again presented to Pilate, who was by now enraged at the
Jewish elders before him. He ordered Jesus chastized, which is to say,
scorged. Jesus was scorged for the better part of half an hour before
he nearly bled to death. He was returned to Pilate, who, as brutal a
man as he was, was nonetheless stunned by his appearance.

Pilate angrily screamed, "Ecce Homo! Ecce Homo!" in order to mock the
Jewish populace before him. His intention was to humiliate the Jewish
elders by showing them their bloodied "king." This, however, backfired.
The elders wanted Jesus dead.

Reluctant to have Jesus crucified -- if only to spite the Jewish elders
-- Pilate presented Barbaras, a notorious villian. He informed them
that he could release one prisoner per year (as was generally custom at
that time). When they chose Barbaras, however, Pilate washed his hands
of the affair and ordered Jesus crucified.

But in a final act of humiliation to a group he so hated, Pontius
Pilate erected a sign on the cross of Jesus (which read): "Iesus
Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum."

Jesus stayed up on the cross for over three hours. Present at his
crucifixion were two women and a man. One was presumed by this man to
be his mother (the other, his wife). The lone man was the youngest of
the disciples. He mostly stood in silence.The women wept.

When Jesus had not yet expired, he cried out,"Eli, Eli, lama
sabachthani?" Only the man and the two women understood what this
meant. The Roman soldiers present paid no attention to his words. A few
minutes later, Jesus died.

To ensure his death, a Roman centurion speared him. A mixture of water
and blood spilled out of a wound near his heart. After this was done,
an older man (of whom I was not aquainted) demanded the body of Jesus.
When the Romans present refused, he left for a time but then came back.
They exchanged brief words, and then the man was allowed to retrieve
the body of Jesus.

Although I was not present (three days later) when Jesus arose from the
tomb, I nonetheless heard remarkable stories about it from a few of his
nearest friends. These I took with a grain of salt, for I did not know
the men personally. Nevertheless, within three years I was fully active
within the infant Jesus movement later known as Christianity.

I passed away in 52 A.D. My name was Matthew (but not the biblical
Matthew).

I, too, was crucified for my belief. I still have the scars upon both
my wrists,. however faint they may be.

Judge me as you will, but I knew the historical Jesus. He was no fairy
tale. He was real.

Paul


You *are* a loony.
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
-----
Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is for survivors
of a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving God while this
same God drowned infants in their cribs. - Sam Harris
.
User: ""

Title: Re: historicity of Jesus of Nazareth 26 Dec 2005 02:06:50 AM
I still have scars from my crucifixion as Matthew in the year A.D. 52
(by the Romans, who else?). I had refused loyalty to Rome, and when
they learned I was a Christian, they immediately crucified me without
trial.
Crucifixion is the worst death imaginable. In previous lifetimes, I
have been shot, stabbed, drowned, burned and decapitated, but nothing
was as extruciating as being slowly asphyxiated...by my own body
weight.
They put nails through my wrists (causing me incredible pain), my feet
(furthering my agony) and then proceeded to crucify me while mocking
me. "Where's your savior now, Jew?" they remarked. The Romans were
always quite creative in how they crucified people. They often drove
nails through other parts of the body besides the wrists and
feet...sometimes, if they particularly hated a person, they drove
nail(s) through their private parts (and not necessarily to further
fasten them to the wood).
The Romans, when angered, where a cruel and barbaric people. They made
Genghis Khan look like a pacifist.
Paul
.
User: "Robibnikoff"

Title: Re: historicity of Jesus of Nazareth 26 Dec 2005 08:31:59 AM
<dunric@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135584410.750885.33930@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

I still have scars from my crucifixion as Matthew in the year A.D. 52
(by the Romans, who else?). I had refused loyalty to Rome, and when
they learned I was a Christian, they immediately crucified me without
trial.

Crucifixion is the worst death imaginable. In previous lifetimes, I
have been shot, stabbed, drowned, burned and decapitated, but nothing
was as extruciating as being slowly asphyxiated...by my own body
weight.

You, sir, are fucking nuts.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
User: "Mark K. Bilbo"

Title: Re: historicity of Jesus of Nazareth 26 Dec 2005 12:50:15 PM
In <41ad6sF1e5rngU1@individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:


<dunric@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135584410.750885.33930@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

I still have scars from my crucifixion as Matthew in the year A.D. 52
(by the Romans, who else?). I had refused loyalty to Rome, and when they
learned I was a Christian, they immediately crucified me without trial.

Crucifixion is the worst death imaginable. In previous lifetimes, I have
been shot, stabbed, drowned, burned and decapitated, but nothing was as
extruciating as being slowly asphyxiated...by my own body weight.


You, sir, are fucking nuts.

Which is probably better than eating vegetables.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
So much for that "storm of the century" excuse
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A3992495C
NO held hostage by oil corporations,
ANWR demanded as ransom
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J5C92195C
White House balks at spending on US citizens,
needs more billions for Iraq!
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D93595C
(Tell me again how much we spent bailing out the S&Ls?)
http://www.nola.com
.
User: "Robibnikoff"

Title: Re: historicity of Jesus of Nazareth 27 Dec 2005 10:59:52 AM
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:c5CdnUmwjcTApi3eRVn-tA@megapath.net...

In <41ad6sF1e5rngU1@individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:


<dunric@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135584410.750885.33930@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

I still have scars from my crucifixion as Matthew in the year A.D. 52
(by the Romans, who else?). I had refused loyalty to Rome, and when they
learned I was a Christian, they immediately crucified me without trial.

Crucifixion is the worst death imaginable. In previous lifetimes, I have
been shot, stabbed, drowned, burned and decapitated, but nothing was as
extruciating as being slowly asphyxiated...by my own body weight.


You, sir, are fucking nuts.


Which is probably better than eating vegetables.

D'oh! :)
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.



User: "George Dance"

Title: Re: historicity of Jesus of Nazareth 26 Dec 2005 08:10:08 AM
wrote:

I still have scars from my crucifixion as Matthew in the year A.D. 52
(by the Romans, who else?). I had refused loyalty to Rome, and when
they learned I was a Christian, they immediately crucified me without
trial.

But don't you have a different body now? So why would you still have
scars from the old one?


Crucifixion is the worst death imaginable. In previous lifetimes, I
have been shot, stabbed, drowned, burned and decapitated, but nothing
was as extruciating as being slowly asphyxiated...by my own body
weight.

Does your body also show the physical effects of these shootings,
stabbings, drownings, burnings, and decapitations?

They put nails through my wrists (causing me incredible pain), my feet
(furthering my agony) and then proceeded to crucify me while mocking
me. "Where's your savior now, Jew?" they remarked. The Romans were
always quite creative in how they crucified people. They often drove
nails through other parts of the body besides the wrists and
feet...sometimes, if they particularly hated a person, they drove
nail(s) through their private parts (and not necessarily to further
fasten them to the wood).

The Romans, when angered, where a cruel and barbaric people. They made
Genghis Khan look like a pacifist.

Paul

.

User: "Liz"

Title: Re: historicity of Jesus of Nazareth 26 Dec 2005 08:22:15 AM
On 26 Dec 2005 00:06:50 -0800,
in news message
<1135584410.750885.33930@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:


The Romans, when angered, where a cruel and barbaric people. They made
Genghis Khan look like a pacifist.

Were you acquainted with G. Khan, too?
Liz #658 BAAWA
Liz, you like most people do not want to have faith in
things which have no basis in reality. -- josalt
.
User: "Robibnikoff"

Title: Re: historicity of Jesus of Nazareth 26 Dec 2005 08:32:23 AM
"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:lquvq15dfnpg5o3dt6p8vilr7c79ndvvlr@4ax.com...

On 26 Dec 2005 00:06:50 -0800,

in news message
<1135584410.750885.33930@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:


The Romans, when angered, where a cruel and barbaric people. They made
Genghis Khan look like a pacifist.



Were you acquainted with G. Khan, too?

Is it true he was a good dancer?
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.

User: "wbarwell"

Title: Re: historicity of Jesus of Nazareth 26 Dec 2005 04:01:15 PM
Liz wrote:

On 26 Dec 2005 00:06:50 -0800,

in news message
<1135584410.750885.33930@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:


The Romans, when angered, where a cruel and barbaric people. They
made Genghis Khan look like a pacifist.



Were you acquainted with G. Khan, too?

I thought Dore was Jesus in a past life.
--
Wassail, Happy Holidays, Merry Solstice, Happy
Saturnalia, mull the wine and pass the eggnog.
Cheerful Charlie
.
User: "Liz"

Title: Re: historicity of Jesus of Nazareth 26 Dec 2005 04:27:14 PM
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 16:01:15 -0600, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
in news message <11r0ptvf8e85h62@corp.supernews.com> wrote:

Liz wrote:

On 26 Dec 2005 00:06:50 -0800,

in news message
<1135584410.750885.33930@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:


The Romans, when angered, where a cruel and barbaric people. They
made Genghis Khan look like a pacifist.



Were you acquainted with G. Khan, too?



I thought Dore was Jesus in a past life.

It is so difficult to keep the crazies (and their past lives) straight
without a program.
Liz #658 BAAWA
I find it absolutely incredible that a creator god and his savior son
would, instead of coming down to earth and handing us their message
personally, choose to communicate with mankind through cheese sandwiches.
- Vic Sagerquist
.








  Page 1 of 2

1

 

2

 


Related Articles
 

NEWER