"Precision" <precision@usenet.com> wrote in message
news:1153283590_62799@sp6iad.superfeed.net...

Some posters have challenged the very existence of the historical
personage whom Christians know and love, Jesus Christ.

Although I believe that even carbon dated scrolls or genetic evidence from
dried blood would not satisfy some skeptics BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO
BELIEVE JESUS CHRIST EXISTED -- due to the implications such knowledge
would have in their lives

The historical existence of a character called Jesus wouldn't have any
implications in the lives of an atheist at all, any more than the historical
evidence of the existence of King Arthur would have any impact on your
life.

If I could prove to you that King Arthur existed, would that automatically
prove that he had a magic sword, or that any of the fantasical stories
associated with him were real?
Same thing applies to Jesus.
Try applying some logic and thought to the question.

"Precision" <precision@usenet.com> wrote in message
news:1153283590_62799@sp6iad.superfeed.net...

Some posters have challenged the very existence of the
historical personage whom Christians know and love, Jesus
Christ.

Although I believe that even carbon dated scrolls or
genetic evidence from dried blood would not satisfy some
skeptics BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE JESUS CHRIST
EXISTED -- due to the implications such knowledge would
have in their lives -

Such as?  Why would anyone's life change if it was proved
that a Jesus once existed?  What difference would it make
to anyone?

Greetings all,


Precision:
"there is the testimony of the early Talmudical writings. "

TALMUD (3rd C. and later)
-------------------------
There are some possible references in the Talmud, but:
* these references are from 3rd century or later, and seem to be
(unfriendly) Jewish responses to Christian claims.
* the references are highly variant, have many cryptic names for Jesus,
and very different to the Gospel stories (e.g. one story has "Jesus"
born about 100BC.)
So,
the Talmud contains NO evidence for Jesus,
the Talmud merely has much later Jewish responses to the Gospel
stories.

Precision:
"There are also two references to Jesus in the works of Josephus,"

JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)
-----------------
The famous Testamonium Flavianum in the Antiquities of the Jews is
considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some
serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ
as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the Jew Josephus
(who remained a Jew and refused to call anyone "messiah" in his book
which was partly about how false messiahs kept leading Israel astray.),
* The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages,
* The T.F. was not mentioned by any of the early CHurch fathers were
reviewed Josephus. Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the
Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.
* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still
absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
* (The other tiny passage in Josephus is probably a later
interpolation.)
An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/supp10.htm

(The 2nd reference may be to ANOTHER Jesus.)

In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a
corrupt form of a lost original.)
But, yes,
it COULD just be actual evidence for Jesus - late, corrupt,
controversial but just POSSIBLY real historical evidence.


Precision:
"Tacitus"

TACITUS (c.112CE)
-----------------
Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war)
Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this
passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not
correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not
possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph"
or similar.)
* Tacitus accepts the recent advent of Christianity, which was against
Roman practice (to only allow ancient and accepted cults and
religions.)
* This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century
without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into
Tacitus from this work.

This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories
circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/ToC/0067.php


Precision:
"Pliny the Younger, Seneca and Juvenal"

PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)
---------------------------
About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the
war) Pliny referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god,
but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.
So,
Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/pliny.html

Seneca does not mention Jesus, nor his followers AFAIK. (But there is a
FORGED correspondance between him and Paul.) Nor does Juvenal.

I think you meant Lucian.

LUCIAN (c.170CE)
----------------
Nearly one-and-a-half CENTURIES after the alleged events, Lucian
satirised Christians, but :
* this was several generations later,
* Lucian does NOT even mention Jesus or Christ by name.
So,
Lucian is no evidence for a historical Jesus, merely late 2nd century
lampooning of Christians.


Quentin

Precision:
"There are also two references to Jesus in the works of Josephus,"

JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)
-----------------
The famous Testamonium Flavianum in the Antiquities of the Jews is
considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some
serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ
as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the Jew Josephus

* The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages,

* The T.F. was not mentioned by any of the early Church fathers were
reviewed Josephus. Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the
Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.

* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still
absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.

* (The other tiny passage in Josephus is probably a later
interpolation.)

An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/supp10.htm
From someone who can profess with a straight face that Jesus never

(The 2nd reference may be to ANOTHER Jesus.)

In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a
corrupt form of a lost original.)

But, yes,
it COULD just be actual evidence for Jesus - late, corrupt,
controversial but just POSSIBLY real historical evidence.

* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not
possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph"
or similar.)

* Tacitus accepts the recent advent of Christianity, which was against
Roman practice (to only allow ancient and accepted cults and
religions.)

* This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century
without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into
Tacitus from this work.

This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories
circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)

So, this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.

Precision:
"Pliny the Younger, Seneca and Juvenal"

PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)
---------------------------
About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the
war) Pliny referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god,
but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.

So, Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth,

Seneca does not mention Jesus, nor his followers AFAIK. (But there is a
FORGED correspondance between him and Paul.) Nor does Juvenal.

I think you meant Lucian.

LUCIAN (c.170CE)
----------------
Nearly one-and-a-half CENTURIES after the alleged events, Lucian
satirised Christians, but :
* this was several generations later,

* Lucian does NOT even mention Jesus or Christ by name.

So, Lucian is no evidence for a historical Jesus, merely late 2nd century
lampooning of Christians.

In article <1153283590_62799@sp6iad.superfeed.net>,

he article "Jesus Christ--A Historical Personage" appeared in a Christian
publication on April 15, 1975. On pages 249-251 of the Watchtower
magazine

BWAHAHAHAHAHA. I've wiped my ***** on publications better than your
BotchTower "magazine". I knew you were a Duh-hovah's Witless. And
you're quoting us an article from 1975. You've got to be fucking kidding
me. It probably should have been printed on April 1st, the honorary
birthday of your fictional messiah.

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:42:08 -0700, "Precision" <precision@usenet.com>
wrote:

Some posters have challenged the very existence of the historical
personage
whom Christians know and love, Jesus Christ.

What "historical personage"?

Although I believe that even carbon dated scrolls or genetic evidence from
dried blood would not satisfy some skeptics BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO
BELIEVE JESUS CHRIST EXISTED -- due to the implications such knowledge
would
have in their lives -- I would like to share an excellent article for the
interest of those who are seeking the truth or wish to learn more
information to defend the Christian faith.

Why not provide it instead of lying about those less gullible than you
are, liar?

The article "Jesus Christ--A Historical Personage" appeared in a Christian
publication on April 15, 1975. On pages 249-251 of the Watchtower magazine
(published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, New York) we are
given
compelling scholarly evidence that Jesus Christ was indeed an historical
personage and not a legend like Hercules of Greek mythology (mentioned by
Plato and other writers).

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha......... The Watchtower. When have they
even been "Scholarly and compelling", liar?

The article states:

<ARTICLE>
Jesus Christ-A Historical Personage

MANY are the books written questioning the authenticity and genuineness of
the things recorded in the Bible. A special target of doubting critics is
the Gospel accounts of the life of Jesus. What are we to believe? Did
Jesus
actually live? Is the picture of him as presented in the Gospels
authentic?

Many critics are of much the same opinion as that expressed by the late
Albert Schweitzer. According to him, the kind of Jesus presented in the
Gospels, one who claimed to be the Messiah, preached the kingdom of God
and
died to give his work its final consecration, is "a literary fiction of
the
earliest Evangelists." Schweitzer would have us believe that Jesus was a
religious fanatic preaching the imminent destruction of the universe and
that there is no knowing him as a "concrete historical personality."
Reaching such a conclusion, Schweitzer quit his career as clergyman and
professor of theology, went back to school, studied medicine and became a
physician.

The skepticism of some critics includes denying that such a person as
Jesus
ever existed. So what evidence is there that Jesus did actually live?

None.

I bet you just give the standard, debunked crap that your clones do.

JEWISH TESTIMONY

To begin with, there is the testimony of the early Talmudical writings.
The
noted Jewish scholar Joseph Klausner, after thoroughly investigating their
testimony, reports that the "early Talmudical accounts" of Jesus confirm
'both the existence and the general character of Jesus.'-Jesus of
Nazareth,
p. 20.

Which are a religious response by a different religion.

There are also two references to Jesus in the works of Josephus, a
first-century Jewish historian. One of these is often questioned because
it
makes Josephus sound like a Christian. (Antiquities of the Jews, Book
XVIII,
Chap. III, par. 3) But, as Klausner and other scholars point out, it is
unreasonable to conclude that Josephus would have made no reference to
Jesus'
ministry when he dealt at length with that of John the Baptist. Besides,
in
a later reference, Josephus tells that "the sanhedri[n] of judges [had]
brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose
name
was James." (Antiquities of the Jews, Book XX, Chap. IX, par. 1) Rightly,
these scholars hold that this quotation intimates that something had been
previously said about Jesus, otherwise why identify an unknown James as
being his brother? They therefore hold that Josephus did tell about Jesus'
ministry but that some other, later hand embellished the account.

The obvious forgery which even non-fundamentalist Christian scholars
doubt.
[rest of this stupidity snipped]

Face it, this kind of stupidity confirms you have none.

Why else would you need to resort to lying about us if you actually
had any?