In article <v7n1o117teqmqnbdnclrsh7k5rcs7pn9fm@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 12:02:53 -0800, in alt.atheism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-2011051202530001@pm4-broad-38.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:

In article <k9i1o1t9hl1so7kpr659ugle77f6rjnrsg@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 10:33:08 -0800, in alt.atheism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-2011051033080001@pm4-broad-35.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:

In article <ble1o1pe6vq320k8nf0p4ivt6i4mp1vnin@4ax.com>, Jim07D5
<Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:

jason@nospam.com (Jason) said:

<...>

...it's my opinion that the Bible is the best source
related to the birth of Jesus. The Monks made sure
the Bible was preserved. I doubt if the Monks or anyone
else spent that much effort in preserving
documents other than the Bible.
Jason

You can bet they didn't! Don't you ever wonder why documents having
contrary views to those selected for inclusion in the NT (apparently
settled upon in Carthage in 397AD, when Revelation was added) are not
as likely to have survived?

Could it just possibly be that when such a text was found, it was
treated just like a biology book covering evolution and not
creationism might be treated, if certain people get their way?

There is nothing new under the sun.
--- Jim07D5

Jim,
Let's not make use of historical revisionism. The monks were
excellent Christians and their mission in life was to preserve
the Bible for future generations. They succeeded. They did
not even care about preserving other records. It's my
opinion that they did not spend any of their time reading
all of the non-Bible records that were available to them.

Preserving what was written does not mean that what was written was
correct.

That's a valid point--but what was written could have been correct.
I'm sure that the Monks believed that the Bible was correct or they
would not have
spent most of their lives preserving it for future generations.

But this isn't Peter Pan. Things don't become true just because you
believe in them.

Things are either true or false--not because we believe in them. For
example, the Bible could be true--even if you and I both believed that it
was false.

If the Bible was true--even if everyone in the world believed that it was
false--the Bible would remain to be true.
If the Bible was false--even if everyone in the world believed that it was
true, the Bible would remain to be false.

In article <gih1o1pgk3vok62amf6c1oei8rvfipvnjb@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 09:57:39 -0800,

In article <9081o19dqfm84ieino4ajrhghta4sl2n9s@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 07:56:27 -0800,

In article <lfi0o11q61eqevjivglpkjfamsinf9v272@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 21:07:22 -0800,

In article <te7vn1131iqo4j4irvbsniftlesc1jkvg1@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 13:44:47 -0800,

In article <g86vn19m6279dptipsm6rbdt0lhv1rhchg@4ax.com>, David

Jensen

<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 13:11:47 -0800, in alt.atheism

In article <nu2vn1lvacj96fj57deqs70nqhpsjcmrk7@4ax.com>, David

Jensen

<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 10:40:30 -0800, in alt.atheism

In article <06qdnavUQ_kW8-LeRVn-qQ@comcast.com>, "Bear"
<bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net> wrote:

"Jason" wrote
: Do you have any proof that Jesus was NOT born in

Bethlehem?

That's lame even for you Jason!

People demand that I produce evidence or proof when I post
certain information (eg Skinner's baby box) so don't you
think that I should be able to ask for proof when someone
claims that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem.

No, that's not how the burden of providing evidence works. You

support

the positive claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, it's up to

you to

provide evidence that supports that claim if you want it to be
considered historically correct.

For example, If I stated that Skinner wrote a book entitled,
"Let's Keep Babies in Enclosed Boxes"
would you demand that I provide proof such as the
name of the publisher and date of publication?

Yes.

Double standard.

Same standard. You make a positive claim, it is up to you to

support it.

You make two positive claims: Jesus was born in Bethlehem,

Skinner wrote

"Let's Keep Babies in Enclosed Boxes". It is up to you to

support both

claims with evidence.

If you made the claim "Jesus was not born in Bethlehem"--it's up

to you to

support your claim with evidence? Otherwise, it's a double standard.

Yes I agree, all we can say is that the Bible claims he was born in
Bethlehem but that is not supported by other evidence and it is
doubtful for several reasons. I cited the unlikely census claimed
in the Bible, as an argument that it was dubious, since there is no
record of such any such a census taking place or any extant census
records from the period recording births. Did they have the

bureacracy

for such things? Why would Romanan's care to record stuff like
that. Did they do it for none Romans? All questions that beg to
be answered.

If people were required to return to their birthplace to be counted
then this implies births were recorded, otherwise how could they
check? Where is the birth entry for Jesus? I seriously doubt they did
record births that early - and so I seriously doubt the

requirement to

return to place of birth as the author of the Bible claims.

How am I able to say this why is it not just my opinion? No such
claims from Christians that's why for starters If there were such
records they would make sure everybody knew of them. Christs birth
entry would be kept behind bullet proof glass in the centre of

shrine

built to house such a precious relic. People would make pilgrimages
to pray before it. Mecca would pale into insignificance as a shrine
before any contemporary evidence helping to prove he exists.
Clearly there are none, only Gospels written long after he
supposedly died on the cruci-fiction cross.

Every single written reference to Shakespeare's existence is kept
safe and some take pride of place in our museums, and he was only a
playwright!

Of course it does not really matter where Jesus was born - except
to the Bethlehem tourist industry - what matter is that he was
(or was not) born.

Another point of course is how does the author of the nativity
accounts know what he claims to know? Was he there, who did he
learn these details from? Was it heard second hand, third hand what?
This stuff is seriously dubious. But no I do not claim it was fiction
but it certainly looks like it.

Of course all this will do a 'fly-by' as far as you are concerned
since belief trumps evidence everytime.

Not to us sunshine, not to us. Only to a closed mind, eyes
tight shut, man of blind faith.


Les Hellawell

Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County

Les,
I once took a history class where "oral tradition" was discussed.
I learned from the class that many American Indian Tribes relied
on "oral tradition" to pass the history from one generation to
the next generation. It's my guess that "oral tradition" was
used by the authors of some of those books in the Bible. The
story related to the birth of Jesus was probably the result
of writing down the "oral tradition".

And you still think the Bible is a source to be trusted knowing
this?

What is your opinion based on my comments re the census?
Do you believe, even have evidence that they really required
everybody to return to the places of their birth (maybe just
men) and that they had the bureacracy and desire to check?

If so, what do you think has happened to these records and
why the records fror the birth of Jesus is not kept in some
shrine somewhere?

The Gospels also have a transcript of the then King ordering
all first born to be killed which would seriously hamper
his Kingdom and likely cause a rebellion amongst his
subjects. Certainly none of his soldiers, officers, officials,
hugh ranking members of society would take kindly to
their sons and daughter being murdered. So how was
this verbatim record made and how was it passed down
to Gospel writers who were probably writing in Greece
anyway and not in contact with the ancestors of any
courtiers who were present at the event? These are
serious question that need answering if these Bible
accounts are to be taken as reliable (Where does 'first
born' end anyway, the Pharoh of Egypt was first born of
his father why did he not die during the Passover?)



Les Hellawell

Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County

Les,
I conducted some genealogical research related to my family
tree several years ago. I even compiled a book related to
my research efforts. It was fairly easy to locate the records
that I needed that were less than 100 years old. We ran into
all sorts of problems related to records that were more than
100 years old. We found out that various court houses had
burned down and that some counties actually distroyed all
records that were more than 100 years old. The reason was
because those records had "deteriourated" due to the age
of the documents. My point is that if 100 year old records
have deteriourated--imagine what happened to records that
are over 2000 years old.

The Roman kept many records on clay tablets and soldiers
abroad wrote home using them, and received post from home.
A hoard was uncovered near Hadrian's wall a few years ago
just as left and a lot of information is being gleaned from them.

To date there has been no such tablets uncovered of soldiers
writing home of the extraordinary events that supposedly
occurred in Jerusalem nor, as far as I know, no official records
anywhere. The Romans did have historians who left us a
good record of life in Rome and of the priciple characters. We
have cesars Commentaries and detail of his visit to Brittanica
yet none of them mention the any of the life of Jesus not even in
passing.

You probably already know that the
monks done a great job of preserving the Bible records. You
may also know about the Dead Sea Scrolls. I have more trust
in the Bible than I have in 2000 year old records. Just
because researchers can't find records related to some of
issues (that you mentioned) does NOT mean that those events
mentioned in the Bible
related to the birth of Jesus did not happen.

The Bible reports extraordinary events having taking place in
Jesusalem.Big crowds gathering, Palms beings trewn the
Governor of the entire province of Judea involving himself in petty
crime by a non Roman where a minor official would normal preside,
crowds lining the route, the body being then down from the
cruci-fiction cross after only three days when he may still be alive
but weak when normal practise was to leave bodies on crosses until
they were skeletons, the supposed rebirth and then the crucher the
ascension. I would expect that events like this would tend to be
recorded. Unless of course the mass crowds were half a dozen
fantatical supporters with the rest of Jerusalem even unaware
the Jesus ever existed. Yes records do get lost but absolutely
nothing at all when there aught to be something in the Bible
is to be believed. No Roman letters, no account by the Governor
of Judea to the Emperor, no Roman histories mentioning it,
no accounts by the priests, nothing at all. A bit suspicious don't you
think?

What about the verbatim account of the Hebrew Court. Why
no rebellion when the King ordered all first born slain. What
extant accounts mentions this happening? We know of the
lives of this Kings so something is recorded somwhere. What
do you have to say about this?

Why was Jesus taken down from the cross after only three days?
Knowing death on the cross is more due to starvation than
injury don't you think a fit young man like Jesus may well
have still been alive? Did they perhaps bribe Roman soldiers
to turn a blind eye? How likely do you think that they quietly
sneaked him a way into hiding somewhere so he could be
nursed back to health?

Maybe th ascention was merely a cover story for quietly
getting him 'out of town' into hiding?

How likely do you think all this nonesense about him being
a son of god and divine was invented and added after the
event as the magnificence of this, possibly real story of
a minor vagabond being summarily dealt with by minor
officials rather than a man who was second only cesar
not being interested (seen by zealots therefore of 'washing
his hands') in what to the Roman's were petty affairs
was magnified out of all proportion? That happens when
religions are invented.

Matthew, Luke
and Mark wrote about those events that you mentioned. They
were able to interview Mary and the half brother of Jesus.
They were also able to interview Jesus. Joseph and Mary
probably discussed the story of the birth of Jesus with
him (Jesus) and his half brother many times.

Where do you get this information from? AFAIAK they
wrote long after Jesus died and never met the guy. Maybe
he dictated in life story in hiding after he disappears from
Bible accounts magnifying it and his self-importance as he did
halve crazed and paranoid after his persecuction. He would
be bund to have the typical persecution complex that
Christians have.

Actually that's an interesting line, I had never thought of
that before. He does clearly recover from his ordeal on
the cross and then disappear (he may have been so weak he
eventually succumbed of course). Obviously this divinity
crap is made up and his ressurrection, that's the stuff of fairy
stories for little children, so there has to be a more sensible
explanation of what really happened. Certainly that is the
first thing any sensible person so look for. Clearly the likes
of Paul lived in some kind of fantasy world and aught to be
treated as yet more examples of religious fruitcake to be
taken with a large slice of gorgonzola and salt. Do people
actually believe all this nonesense without question and
never consider a more rational view of what happened?
Clearly not!


Les Hellawell

Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County

Les,
You can choose to believe that all (or most all) of the
records from over 2000 years ago have been saved. '

You insult me when you think I am stupid enough to
believe virtually all records are saved. There is no need
for insults and assumptions about what other people
believe is there?

Sheesh, is this the low that this thread had got to now?

Les Hellawell

Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County

Les,
I should note that you are the one that was posted various
messages related to historical data related to the birth of
Jesus. The implication was that lots of data from that time
period has been preserved.

David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> said:

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 07:56:27 -0800, in alt.atheism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-2011050756270001@pm4-broad-26.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:
...

Matthew, Luke
and Mark wrote about those events that you mentioned. They
were able to interview Mary and the half brother of Jesus.

What evidence do you have to support this claim?

They were also able to interview Jesus.

What evidence do you have to support the claim that the evangelists ever
met Jesus?

Haven't you seen Jesus Christ Superstar? Clearly, Jesus was
interviewed:

"Tell me Christ how you feel tonight
Do you plan to put up a fight?
Do you feel that you've had the breaks?
What would you say were your big mistakes?
Do you think that you may retire?
Did you think you would get much higher?
How do you view your coming trial?
Have your men proved all worthwhile?"

http://www.lyricsdepot.com/JESUS-CHRIST-SUPERSTAR/the-arrest.html
--- Jim07D5

In article <ita1o190ni0nav688upqi73838tiqg5ath@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 07:56:27 -0800, in alt.atheism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-2011050756270001@pm4-broad-26.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:
...

Les,
I conducted some genealogical research related to my family
tree several years ago. I even compiled a book related to
my research efforts. It was fairly easy to locate the records
that I needed that were less than 100 years old. We ran into
all sorts of problems related to records that were more than
100 years old. We found out that various court houses had
burned down and that some counties actually distroyed all
records that were more than 100 years old. The reason was
because those records had "deteriourated" due to the age
of the documents. My point is that if 100 year old records
have deteriourated--imagine what happened to records that
are over 2000 years old.

What do you know about recordkeeping from the Roman Empire that allows
you to draw that conclusion?

You probably already know that the
monks done a great job of preserving the Bible records. You
may also know about the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Are those identical with the Bible?

I have more trust
in the Bible than I have in 2000 year old records. Just
because researchers can't find records related to some of
issues (that you mentioned) does NOT mean that those events
mentioned in the Bible
related to the birth of Jesus did not happen. Matthew, Luke
and Mark wrote about those events that you mentioned. They
were able to interview Mary and the half brother of Jesus.

What evidence do you have to support this claim?

They were also able to interview Jesus.

What evidence do you have to support the claim that the evangelists ever
met Jesus?

Joseph and Mary
probably discussed the story of the birth of Jesus with
him (Jesus) and his half brother many times.

Hello,
Common sense and the Bible. If you choose not to
believe the Bible--that is your choice. I know that
some colleges in the 1980's had a course entitled,
"The Bible as History" or "Bible History".
I don't know why they would teach such a class
if historians don't believe what the Bible
states in regard to history. I don't know whether
or not colleges still offer such a class.