| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Black-Phoenix-Night" |
| Date: |
04 Oct 2006 06:31:19 PM |
| Object: |
The historical Jesus |
Yet, strangely, some say that Jesus never lived-that he is, in
effect, a creation of some first-century men. Answering such skeptics,
the respected historian Will Durant argued: "That a few simple men
should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a
personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human
brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded
in the Gospels."
Ask yourself: Could a person who never lived have affected human
history so remarkably? The reference work The Historians' History of
the World observed: "The historical result of [Jesus'] activities
was more momentous, even from a strictly secular standpoint, than the
deeds of any other character of history. A new era, recognised by the
chief civilisations of the world, dates from his birth."
Yes, think about it. Even calendars today are based on the year that
Jesus was thought to have been born. "Dates before that year are
listed as B.C., or before Christ," explains The World Book
Encyclopedia. "Dates after that year are listed as A.D., or anno
Domini (in the year of our Lord)."
Critics, nevertheless, point out that all that we really know about
Jesus is found in the Bible. No other contemporary records concerning
him exist, they say. Even H. G. Wells wrote: "The old Roman
historians ignored Jesus entirely; he left no impress on the historical
records of his time." But is this true?
Although references to Jesus Christ by early secular historians are
meager, such references do exist. Cornelius Tacitus, a respected
first-century Roman historian, wrote: "The name [Christian] is
derived from Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed
in the reign of Tiberius." Suetonius and Pliny the Younger, other
Roman writers of the time, also referred to Christ. In addition,
Flavius Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, wrote of James,
whom he identified as "the brother of Jesus, who was called
Christ."
The New Encyclop=E6dia Britannica thus concludes: "These independent
accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity
never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the
first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the
19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."
Essentially, however, all that is known about Jesus was recorded by his
first-century followers. Their reports have been preserved in the
Gospels-Bible books written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. What do
these accounts say regarding the identity of Jesus?
.
|
|
| User: "Bill M" |
|
| Title: Re: The historical Jesus |
04 Oct 2006 06:47:37 PM |
|
|
"Black-Phoenix-Night" <Xabriol@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159986679.306485.277210@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Yet, strangely, some say that Jesus never lived-that he is, in
effect, a creation of some first-century men. Answering such skeptics,
the respected historian Will Durant argued: "That a few simple men
should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a
personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human
brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded
in the Gospels."
Amazingly, Christians almost never question the authenticity of Jesus and
the Bibles, yet the very foundation of their faith is based on their
authenticity.
The vast majority of the public are unaware of the fact that 'Jesus the
Christ' was not even mentioned in historical documents until after the third
century long after the claimed crucifixion of Christ. Many have claimed that
one sentence in first century documents from Jewish author Flavious Josephus
mentioned Jesus proved his existence in the first century. Subsequent
studies have shown that this statement was a third century forgery probably
by Bishop Eusebius in the third century.
Eusebius was known to use lies and fabrications to support church doctrines.
The Bibles are the literature of 'faith', not of scientific observation or
historical fact or demonstration. Numerous versions of the Bible have been
found with a magnitude of literary differences
If religion was based on facts instead of pure faith the followers would be
called knowers instead of followers. Why are there thousands of different
"one true faiths"?
If religion was supported by any real 'evidence', 'faith' would be totally
unnecessary. It is only unsupportable assertions that require the suspension
of reason, and unsupportable ideas require belief based on 'faith'.
It is believed that the foundation of the Christian religion, civilization
and morality is the Good Book. This is patently ridiculous because the
Bibles are nothing more than books of myths, fables, contradictions, human
and animal sacrifices, genocide, slaveholding, misogyny, destruction,
barbarisms, forgeries and impossible tales by authors of totally unknown
veracity. There are NO NADA originals in existence. All that is available
are hand copies of copies by church leaders wanting to impress their flocks.
The 66 books of the Bible had 42 or more independent authors living in 7
different countries during a time span of 750 or more years.
They are not accurate history and certainly are not the words of any god
unless he is an insane and totally untrustworthy monster. They are not even
good fiction.
No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no
artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. No
contemporary Roman records show Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus.
Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing
that mentions Jesus. All documents ( the Bibles )about Jesus were written
long after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors,
people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or
allegorical writings. It is reasonable to assume that these ancient
documents were doctored and altered to enhance the power of the clerics of
the time. Many of these writings come from fraud, interpolations and
hearsay.
The documents included in the Bible were selected by the church leaders to
support and enhance their power. The rest have been destroyed by church
leaders.
There is also the matter of the Biblical canon itself. After all, ancient
Israel and the early church knew of many more religious books than the ones
that now constitute the Bible. For example, there were 50 gospels in
circulation at the time the New Testaments were chosen by church leaders,
yet only four
made it into the New Testament. Who decided which of the books would
become part of the Christian scriptures, and again, "Why?" Who decided,
"This book belongs... this book doesn't..."? What were their reasons?
What were their motives? How do we know if ANY of them were authentic?
In addition there is evidence that the Bibles were altered by church leaders
to support their personal motives and ambitions..
The fact is, there are no clear records available which document the
church's process of determining which books were acceptable and which books
were unacceptable and why. The general consensus of opinion among scholars
is that the decision was based on whether or not the book agreed with the
prevailing theological thought and motives at the time. In other words, the
only books accepted were the ones that agreed with the opinions, desires and
motives of the church leadership at the time
The earliest part of New Testament was written more than 70 years after the
claimed death of Jesus Christ and the Old Testaments were just a collection
of various regional stories from older civilizations. Some Biblical scholars
claim the earliest versions of the Bible were not in existence until 150
years after the Christ tale.
Why are there NO contemporary documents created while Jesus was claimed to
be on earth? Could it be that Jesus is just a fable created by church
leaders to enhance their power? There are NO originals of any of the Old or
New testaments. They are all hand copies of copies of copies with
alterations to suite the copiers.
It is interesting to note that NONE of the Bibles were written during Jesus'
claimed life time. Time needed to pass to permit the creation of tales and
the embellishment of history.
The Bibles contain both historical and scientific errors. They contain
manifest absurdities, unfulfilled prophesies, immoralities, indecencies,
obscenities, atrocities, barbarities, myths, folklore and legends. They are
mostly nonsense and hearsay.
Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a
witness' own knowledge. Courts of law do not allow hearsay as testimony, and
nor does honest modern scholarship.
We live in a world where many people believe in demons, UFOs, ghosts, or
monsters, and an innumerable number of fantasies that are believed as fact
are taken from nothing but belief and hearsay. Humans are known to lie and
exaggerate to benefit themselves or express their delusions.
Valid historian's do not just tell unsubstantiated stories, but cite their
articles with sources that trace to the subject themselves, or to
eyewitnesses and physical artifacts.
The most claimed "authoritative" accounts of a historical Jesus come from
the four canonical Gospels of the Bible. Note that these Gospels did not
come into the Bible as original and authoritative documents from the authors
themselves, but rather from copies selected and influenced by early church
leaders, especially the most influential of them all: Irenaeus of Lyon who
lived in the middle of the second century. Many heretical gospels were
written by that time, but Irenaeus selected only four of them, out of almost
fifty, for mystical reasons.
The four gospels (Mark, Luke, Matthew and John) then became Church cannon
for the orthodox faith. Most of the other claimed gospel writings were
burned, destroyed, or lost.
Although the gospels of the New Testament-- like those discovered at Nag
Hammadi-- are attributed to Jesus' followers, no one knows who actually
wrote any of them. Not only do we not know who wrote them, consider that
NONE of the Gospels were contemporarily written during the alleged life of
Jesus, nor do the unknown authors make the claim to have met an earthly
Jesus. Add to this that NONE of the ORIGINAL gospel manuscripts exist; we
only have copies of copies etc. from unknown copiers! ( The printing press
was not invented until 1400 years AFTER the last Bible was claimed to have
been written. )
Why would any REAL GOD permit the destruction of his words and the
distortion of his history???
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Andrewartha" |
|
| Title: Re: The historical Jesus |
05 Oct 2006 12:30:41 AM |
|
|
Black-Phoenix-Night wrote:
Yet, strangely, some say that Jesus never lived-that he is, in
effect, a creation of some first-century men.
I see no problem in conceding that there was a Jewish priest called
Jesus of Nazareth, and that many people (including himself) laboured
under the belief that he was the Messiah of Jewish prophecy.
This is in no way inconsistent with my belief that he was an ordinary man.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The historical Jesus |
11 Oct 2006 04:17:46 PM |
|
|
Steve Andrewartha wrote:
Black-Phoenix-Night wrote:
Yet, strangely, some say that Jesus never lived-that he is, in
effect, a creation of some first-century men.
I see no problem in conceding that there was a Jewish priest called
Jesus of Nazareth, and that many people (including himself) laboured
under the belief that he was the Messiah of Jewish prophecy.
First Jesus was never a priest. According to the written accounts he
was not a member of the Religious Order of his day. He was just an
ordinary carpenter.
This is in no way inconsistent with my belief that he was an ordinary man.
Second, I like the fact you recognize that this is a belief. Some
people have trouble knowing the difference between fact and conviction.
Jimmy Boy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The historical Jesus |
12 Oct 2006 12:17:51 AM |
|
|
On 11 Oct 2006 09:17:46 -0700, wrote:
Second, I like the fact you recognize that this is a belief. Some
people have trouble knowing the difference between fact and conviction.
And some have something against irony meters.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the
one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected.
-- H. L. Mencken
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: The historical Jesus |
13 Oct 2006 04:24:01 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:17:51 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On 11 Oct 2006 09:17:46 -0700, wrote:
Second, I like the fact you recognize that this is a belief. Some
people have trouble knowing the difference between fact and conviction.
And some have something against irony meters.
Against Jim's *kind* irony meters haven't the chance of a snow ball
lofted into a pit of molten lava.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: The historical Jesus |
13 Oct 2006 06:04:30 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:24:01 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:17:51 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On 11 Oct 2006 09:17:46 -0700, wrote:
Second, I like the fact you recognize that this is a belief. Some
people have trouble knowing the difference between fact and conviction.
And some have something against irony meters.
Against Jim's *kind* irony meters haven't the chance of a snow ball
lofted into a pit of molten lava.
I think he gets his "facts" from MacDowell - he claimed the early
martyrs "prove" a historical Jesus. I was waiting for him to claim
they wouldn't die for a lie, so it must be true.
Which "proves" Hamas suicide bombers were right, WW2 Japanese kamikaze
pilots, and all the martyrs from all the other religions.
But it's an authority who supports him - which is all he needs.
Like the rest of them, he gives the same list of debunked cites
without having ever bothered to read them to check them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: The historical Jesus |
14 Oct 2006 05:25:10 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:04:30 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:24:01 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:17:51 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On 11 Oct 2006 09:17:46 -0700, wrote:
Second, I like the fact you recognize that this is a belief. Some
people have trouble knowing the difference between fact and conviction.
And some have something against irony meters.
Against Jim's *kind* irony meters haven't the chance of a snow ball
lofted into a pit of molten lava.
I think he gets his "facts" from MacDowell - he claimed the early
martyrs "prove" a historical Jesus. I was waiting for him to claim
they wouldn't die for a lie, so it must be true.
Could be, I've never read his drivel.
Which "proves" Hamas suicide bombers were right, WW2 Japanese kamikaze
pilots, and all the martyrs from all the other religions.
But it's an authority who supports him - which is all he needs.
Like the rest of them, he gives the same list of debunked cites
without having ever bothered to read them to check them.
And ignores the corrections.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: The historical Jesus |
14 Oct 2006 10:33:47 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:25:10 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <4a72j21pnfdvotp79fu2uchulh1a894tep@4ax.com>
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:04:30 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:24:01 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:17:51 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On 11 Oct 2006 09:17:46 -0700, wrote:
Second, I like the fact you recognize that this is a belief. Some
people have trouble knowing the difference between fact and conviction.
And some have something against irony meters.
Against Jim's *kind* irony meters haven't the chance of a snow ball
lofted into a pit of molten lava.
I think he gets his "facts" from MacDowell - he claimed the early
martyrs "prove" a historical Jesus. I was waiting for him to claim
they wouldn't die for a lie, so it must be true.
Could be, I've never read his drivel.
Which "proves" Hamas suicide bombers were right, WW2 Japanese kamikaze
pilots, and all the martyrs from all the other religions.
But it's an authority who supports him - which is all he needs.
Like the rest of them, he gives the same list of debunked cites
without having ever bothered to read them to check them.
And ignores the corrections.
His behaviour fits neatly with his explicitly stated goal:
that he will continue to believe NO MATTER WHAT evidence is piled up
in front of him.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: The historical Jesus |
15 Oct 2006 05:09:08 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 08:03:47 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:25:10 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <4a72j21pnfdvotp79fu2uchulh1a894tep@4ax.com>
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:04:30 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:24:01 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:17:51 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On 11 Oct 2006 09:17:46 -0700, wrote:
Second, I like the fact you recognize that this is a belief. Some
people have trouble knowing the difference between fact and conviction.
And some have something against irony meters.
Against Jim's *kind* irony meters haven't the chance of a snow ball
lofted into a pit of molten lava.
I think he gets his "facts" from MacDowell - he claimed the early
martyrs "prove" a historical Jesus. I was waiting for him to claim
they wouldn't die for a lie, so it must be true.
Could be, I've never read his drivel.
Which "proves" Hamas suicide bombers were right, WW2 Japanese kamikaze
pilots, and all the martyrs from all the other religions.
But it's an authority who supports him - which is all he needs.
Like the rest of them, he gives the same list of debunked cites
without having ever bothered to read them to check them.
And ignores the corrections.
His behaviour fits neatly with his explicitly stated goal:
that he will continue to believe NO MATTER WHAT evidence is piled up
in front of him.
Mental toddlers. The same tactics as young children and Santa Claus.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: The historical Jesus |
16 Oct 2006 01:05:44 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 10:09:08 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <8mq4j2d82le3rrni4n3u6cm2kdeu0alm0u@4ax.com>
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 08:03:47 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:25:10 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <4a72j21pnfdvotp79fu2uchulh1a894tep@4ax.com>
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:04:30 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:24:01 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:17:51 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On 11 Oct 2006 09:17:46 -0700, wrote:
Second, I like the fact you recognize that this is a belief. Some
people have trouble knowing the difference between fact and conviction.
And some have something against irony meters.
Against Jim's *kind* irony meters haven't the chance of a snow ball
lofted into a pit of molten lava.
I think he gets his "facts" from MacDowell - he claimed the early
martyrs "prove" a historical Jesus. I was waiting for him to claim
they wouldn't die for a lie, so it must be true.
Could be, I've never read his drivel.
Which "proves" Hamas suicide bombers were right, WW2 Japanese kamikaze
pilots, and all the martyrs from all the other religions.
But it's an authority who supports him - which is all he needs.
Like the rest of them, he gives the same list of debunked cites
without having ever bothered to read them to check them.
And ignores the corrections.
His behaviour fits neatly with his explicitly stated goal:
that he will continue to believe NO MATTER WHAT evidence is piled up
in front of him.
Mental toddlers. The same tactics as young children and Santa Claus.
But they rank way above this deluded arsehole in rational ability.
Toddlers have tangible physical evidence for the existence of Santa.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: The historical Jesus |
18 Oct 2006 01:11:08 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:35:44 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 10:09:08 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <8mq4j2d82le3rrni4n3u6cm2kdeu0alm0u@4ax.com>
[]
On 11 Oct 2006 09:17:46 -0700, wrote:
Second, I like the fact you recognize that this is a belief. Some
people have trouble knowing the difference between fact and conviction.
And some have something against irony meters.
Against Jim's *kind* irony meters haven't the chance of a snow ball
lofted into a pit of molten lava.
I think he gets his "facts" from MacDowell - he claimed the early
martyrs "prove" a historical Jesus. I was waiting for him to claim
they wouldn't die for a lie, so it must be true.
Could be, I've never read his drivel.
Which "proves" Hamas suicide bombers were right, WW2 Japanese kamikaze
pilots, and all the martyrs from all the other religions.
But it's an authority who supports him - which is all he needs.
Like the rest of them, he gives the same list of debunked cites
without having ever bothered to read them to check them.
And ignores the corrections.
His behaviour fits neatly with his explicitly stated goal:
that he will continue to believe NO MATTER WHAT evidence is piled up
in front of him.
Mental toddlers. The same tactics as young children and Santa Claus.
But they rank way above this deluded arsehole in rational ability.
Toddlers have tangible physical evidence for the existence of Santa.
That they do, multiple avenues of physical evidence.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The historical Jesus |
15 Oct 2006 02:43:45 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 08:03:47 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:
His behaviour fits neatly with his explicitly stated goal:
that he will continue to believe NO MATTER WHAT evidence is piled up
in front of him.
I missed that one. Unfortunately he's wrong about that too. <eg>
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is
human concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind
cannot begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an
old religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and
never has been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent in
its simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of
madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: The historical Jesus |
14 Oct 2006 06:04:18 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:25:10 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:04:30 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:24:01 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:17:51 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On 11 Oct 2006 09:17:46 -0700, wrote:
Second, I like the fact you recognize that this is a belief. Some
people have trouble knowing the difference between fact and conviction.
And some have something against irony meters.
Against Jim's *kind* irony meters haven't the chance of a snow ball
lofted into a pit of molten lava.
I think he gets his "facts" from MacDowell - he claimed the early
martyrs "prove" a historical Jesus. I was waiting for him to claim
they wouldn't die for a lie, so it must be true.
Could be, I've never read his drivel.
Which "proves" Hamas suicide bombers were right, WW2 Japanese kamikaze
pilots, and all the martyrs from all the other religions.
But it's an authority who supports him - which is all he needs.
Like the rest of them, he gives the same list of debunked cites
without having ever bothered to read them to check them.
And ignores the corrections.
Worse than that - after being corrected and instead of addressing the
objections to his so-called evidence he lies to our faces about
"choose to discount it" and a whole slew other attacks on our
intellectual integrity.
And they go ape ***** when they get treated as the nasty, personal
liars they show themselves to be.
But it's typical of the ones we get here.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: The historical Jesus |
15 Oct 2006 04:52:13 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 14:04:18 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:25:10 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:04:30 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:24:01 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:17:51 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On 11 Oct 2006 09:17:46 -0700, wrote:
Second, I like the fact you recognize that this is a belief. Some
people have trouble knowing the difference between fact and conviction.
And some have something against irony meters.
Against Jim's *kind* irony meters haven't the chance of a snow ball
lofted into a pit of molten lava.
I think he gets his "facts" from MacDowell - he claimed the early
martyrs "prove" a historical Jesus. I was waiting for him to claim
they wouldn't die for a lie, so it must be true.
Could be, I've never read his drivel.
Which "proves" Hamas suicide bombers were right, WW2 Japanese kamikaze
pilots, and all the martyrs from all the other religions.
But it's an authority who supports him - which is all he needs.
Like the rest of them, he gives the same list of debunked cites
without having ever bothered to read them to check them.
And ignores the corrections.
Worse than that - after being corrected and instead of addressing the
objections to his so-called evidence he lies to our faces about
"choose to discount it" and a whole slew other attacks on our
intellectual integrity.
Certainly.
And they go ape ***** when they get treated as the nasty, personal
liars they show themselves to be.
But it's typical of the ones we get here.
They sure do love comitting metaphorical suicide, ad nauseum.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: The historical Jesus |
14 Oct 2006 10:35:11 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 14:04:18 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
- Refer: <ea92j2pep6d6a55iue1s09uceei6v6l6ph@4ax.com>
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:25:10 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:04:30 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:24:01 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:17:51 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On 11 Oct 2006 09:17:46 -0700, wrote:
Second, I like the fact you recognize that this is a belief. Some
people have trouble knowing the difference between fact and conviction.
And some have something against irony meters.
Against Jim's *kind* irony meters haven't the chance of a snow ball
lofted into a pit of molten lava.
I think he gets his "facts" from MacDowell - he claimed the early
martyrs "prove" a historical Jesus. I was waiting for him to claim
they wouldn't die for a lie, so it must be true.
Could be, I've never read his drivel.
Which "proves" Hamas suicide bombers were right, WW2 Japanese kamikaze
pilots, and all the martyrs from all the other religions.
But it's an authority who supports him - which is all he needs.
Like the rest of them, he gives the same list of debunked cites
without having ever bothered to read them to check them.
And ignores the corrections.
Worse than that - after being corrected and instead of addressing the
objections to his so-called evidence he lies to our faces about
"choose to discount it" and a whole slew other attacks on our
intellectual integrity.
And they go ape ***** when they get treated as the nasty, personal
liars they show themselves to be.
But it's typical of the ones we get here.
But a slightly better speller than most of the servile simpletons.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The historical Jesus |
13 Oct 2006 06:25:52 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:04:30 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:24:01 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:17:51 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On 11 Oct 2006 09:17:46 -0700, wrote:
Second, I like the fact you recognize that this is a belief. Some
people have trouble knowing the difference between fact and conviction.
And some have something against irony meters.
Against Jim's *kind* irony meters haven't the chance of a snow ball
lofted into a pit of molten lava.
I think he gets his "facts" from MacDowell
For a minute I thought you said McDonald's. He'd get better facts
from them.
Like the rest of them, he gives the same list of debunked cites
without having ever bothered to read them to check them.
Or he actually thinks the existence of Christianity at a given point
in time proves the existence of the concept of a man named Jesus at
that point in time. they can't seem to separate "anointed" from
"Yeshua". The two words are so close, it's no wonder.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"For aught we know a priori, matter may contain the source, or spring, of order
originating within itself, as well as the mind does."
- David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: The historical Jesus |
13 Oct 2006 08:26:41 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:25:52 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:04:30 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:24:01 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:17:51 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On 11 Oct 2006 09:17:46 -0700, wrote:
Second, I like the fact you recognize that this is a belief. Some
people have trouble knowing the difference between fact and conviction.
And some have something against irony meters.
Against Jim's *kind* irony meters haven't the chance of a snow ball
lofted into a pit of molten lava.
I think he gets his "facts" from MacDowell
For a minute I thought you said McDonald's. He'd get better facts
from them.
Like the rest of them, he gives the same list of debunked cites
without having ever bothered to read them to check them.
Or he actually thinks the existence of Christianity at a given point
in time proves the existence of the concept of a man named Jesus at
That's what the early stuff is in MacDowell's list, apart from
Josephus.
that point in time. they can't seem to separate "anointed" from
"Yeshua". The two words are so close, it's no wonder.
Do they honestly imagine a non-Christian Roman would have said "we
executed the anointed one"?
And they wonder why they get treated like idiots.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The historical Jesus |
13 Oct 2006 10:55:34 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:26:41 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
Do they honestly imagine a non-Christian Roman would have said "we
executed the anointed one"?
And they wonder why they get treated like idiots.
Considering that "the anointed one*S*" were the congregation.
There's so much in early Christianity that, if transported to modern
times, would sound totally ludicrous. Crucifying a thief? That would
be like lethal injection for illegal parking. Returning to your place
of birth for a census? We have Roman documents. They didn't do that.
Jesus the Nazarene? If doesn't say that - even in Greek early
Christian Apologia.
But they insist that traffic violations merited the death penalty in
the US in the early 21st century, or the Biblical equivalent.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the
type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his
physical death is also beyond my comprehension,...; such notions are for the fears or
absurd egoism of feeble souls."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: The historical Jesus |
14 Oct 2006 12:13:55 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:55:34 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
- Refer: <l260j2dumbb13t4fdd9njs2d2beve5oae4@4ax.com>
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:26:41 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
Do they honestly imagine a non-Christian Roman would have said "we
executed the anointed one"?
And they wonder why they get treated like idiots.
Considering that "the anointed one*S*" were the congregation.
There's so much in early Christianity that, if transported to modern
times, would sound totally ludicrous. Crucifying a thief? That would
be like lethal injection for illegal parking. Returning to your place
of birth for a census? We have Roman documents. They didn't do that.
Jesus the Nazarene? If doesn't say that - even in Greek early
Christian Apologia.
But they insist that traffic violations merited the death penalty in
the US in the early 21st century, or the Biblical equivalent.
That sounds entirely reasonable to me, at least for those able-bodied
jerks who park in spots reserved for the disabled.
Bring back crucifixion, I say!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The historical Jesus |
14 Oct 2006 01:27:35 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:43:55 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:
That sounds entirely reasonable to me, at least for those able-bodied
jerks who park in spots reserved for the disabled.
Bring back crucifixion, I say!
Why? They're disabled. It's just that mental disabilities don't
usually show.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds
are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her
tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the
existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of
the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
- Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: The historical Jesus |
14 Oct 2006 05:26:29 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:55:34 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:26:41 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
Do they honestly imagine a non-Christian Roman would have said "we
executed the anointed one"?
And they wonder why they get treated like idiots.
Considering that "the anointed one*S*" were the congregation.
There's so much in early Christianity that, if transported to modern
times, would sound totally ludicrous. Crucifying a thief? That would
be like lethal injection for illegal parking. Returning to your place
of birth for a census? We have Roman documents. They didn't do that.
Jesus the Nazarene? If doesn't say that - even in Greek early
Christian Apologia.
But they insist that traffic violations merited the death penalty in
the US in the early 21st century, or the Biblical equivalent.
Only to others. They themselves are exempt.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: The historical Jesus |
14 Oct 2006 10:32:26 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:26:29 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <dd72j2tkpdof98lg1j9ng63ptql4rqr0pb@4ax.com>
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:55:34 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:26:41 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
Do they honestly imagine a non-Christian Roman would have said "we
executed the anointed one"?
And they wonder why they get treated like idiots.
Considering that "the anointed one*S*" were the congregation.
There's so much in early Christianity that, if transported to modern
times, would sound totally ludicrous. Crucifying a thief? That would
be like lethal injection for illegal parking. Returning to your place
of birth for a census? We have Roman documents. They didn't do that.
Jesus the Nazarene? If doesn't say that - even in Greek early
Christian Apologia.
But they insist that traffic violations merited the death penalty in
the US in the early 21st century, or the Biblical equivalent.
Only to others. They themselves are exempt.
That's what *they* think!
.
|
|
|
| User: "OK" |
|
| Title: Re: The historical Jesus |
26 Oct 2006 05:36:27 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:26:29 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <dd72j2tkpdof98lg1j9ng63ptql4rqr0pb@4ax.com>
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:55:34 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:26:41 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
Do they honestly imagine a non-Christian Roman would have said "we
executed the anointed one"?
And they wonder why they get treated like idiots.
Considering that "the anointed one*S*" were the congregation.
There's so much in early Christianity that, if transported to modern
times, would sound totally ludicrous. Crucifying a thief? That would
be like lethal injection for illegal parking. Returning to your place
of birth for a census? We have Roman documents. They didn't do that.
Jesus the Nazarene? If doesn't say that - even in Greek early
Christian Apologia.
why not?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The historical Jesus |
26 Oct 2006 12:32:04 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 05:36:27 GMT, OK <OK@nospamsnet.net> wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:26:29 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <dd72j2tkpdof98lg1j9ng63ptql4rqr0pb@4ax.com>
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:55:34 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
Jesus the Nazarene? If doesn't say that - even in Greek early
Christian Apologia.
why not?
Ask whoever wrote it. Most likely because there was no place called
Nazareth when it was written.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Damn. Looks like all of usenet agrees that you don't have the logical
faculties to prove the statement 'dogshit is not peanut butter' if we
gave you a jar of each and a box of crackers" - John Hattan to Tichy
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "OK" |
|
| Title: Re: The historical Jesus |
28 Oct 2006 09:08:55 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 05:36:27 GMT, OK <OK@nospamsnet.net> wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:26:29 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <dd72j2tkpdof98lg1j9ng63ptql4rqr0pb@4ax.com>
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:55:34 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
Jesus the Nazarene? If doesn't say that - even in Greek early
Christian Apologia.
why not?
Ask whoever wrote it. Most likely because there was no place called
Nazareth when it was written.
when did you get this idea?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The historical Jesus |
29 Oct 2006 03:37:13 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 21:08:55 GMT, OK <OK@nospamsnet.net> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
Ask whoever wrote it. Most likely because there was no place called
Nazareth when it was written.
when did you get this idea?
When I read an archaeological report saying so.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Creationists are the best evidence we have that there is no intelligent design."
-Josef Balluch
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "OK" |
|
| Title: Re: The historical Jesus |
29 Oct 2006 03:41:00 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 21:08:55 GMT, OK <OK@nospamsnet.net> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
Ask whoever wrote it. Most likely because there was no place called
Nazareth when it was written.
when did you get this idea?
When I read an archaeological report saying so.
may i see that please?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark D J. Mark D" |
|
| Title: Re: The historical Jesus |
29 Oct 2006 07:32:42 PM |
|
|
"OK" <OK@nospamsnet.net> wrote in message news:gpV0h.
Ask whoever wrote it. Most likely because there was no place called
Nazareth when it was written.
when did you get this idea?
When I read an archaeological report saying so.
may i see that please?
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html
M.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The historical Jesus |
29 Oct 2006 08:52:57 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 03:41:00 GMT, OK <OK@nospamsnet.net> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
Ask whoever wrote it. Most likely because there was no place called
Nazareth when it was written.
when did you get this idea?
When I read an archaeological report saying so.
may i see that please?
NYC Library, 5th Avenue and 42nd St.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"We should do unto others as we would want them to do unto us. If I were an unborn
fetus I would want others to use force to protect me, therefore using force against
abortionists is *justifiable homocide*."
- "Pro-Life" doctor killer and corpse Paul Hill
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: The historical Jesus |
15 Oct 2006 04:51:05 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 08:02:26 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:26:29 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <dd72j2tkpdof98lg1j9ng63ptql4rqr0pb@4ax.com>
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:55:34 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:26:41 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
Do they honestly imagine a non-Christian Roman would have said "we
executed the anointed one"?
And they wonder why they get treated like idiots.
Considering that "the anointed one*S*" were the congregation.
There's so much in early Christianity that, if transported to modern
times, would sound totally ludicrous. Crucifying a thief? That would
be like lethal injection for illegal parking. Returning to your place
of birth for a census? We have Roman documents. They didn't do that.
Jesus the Nazarene? If doesn't say that - even in Greek early
Christian Apologia.
But they insist that traffic violations merited the death penalty in
the US in the early 21st century, or the Biblical equivalent.
Only to others. They themselves are exempt.
That's what *they* think!
The problem is they don't think.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
