| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Snubis" |
| Date: |
23 Feb 2004 10:22:16 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Jesus was gay? |
On Mon 23 Feb 2004 10:51:23a, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
news:ga8k30lisfj2k3qn5964848n68b0f6ocv2@4ax.com:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:07:27 -0500, "Rev. Donald Spitz"
<Glory2Jesus@ArmyofGod.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<c_7_b.7654$rd2.3354@lakeread05> wrote:
Only a sick sex perverted homo would even suggest that. Sorry for you
when you stand before His throne to give an account of your life and He
plays back your sick blasphemy to you. I hope you repent and get saved
soon.
I fail to see how it can be determined if he was straight or gay when
it can't even be determined if he ever existed.
I'm sure you have no problem believing that Mohammed or Buddha existed yet
you ignore eyewitness testimony to Jesus' existence.
--
€
.
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was gay? |
23 Feb 2004 12:42:43 PM |
|
|
On 23 Feb 2004 16:22:16 GMT, Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> in alt.abortion
with message-id <c1d9bn$1hnhna$1@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon 23 Feb 2004 10:51:23a, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
news:ga8k30lisfj2k3qn5964848n68b0f6ocv2@4ax.com:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:07:27 -0500, "Rev. Donald Spitz"
<Glory2Jesus@ArmyofGod.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<c_7_b.7654$rd2.3354@lakeread05> wrote:
Only a sick sex perverted homo would even suggest that. Sorry for you
when you stand before His throne to give an account of your life and He
plays back your sick blasphemy to you. I hope you repent and get saved
soon.
I fail to see how it can be determined if he was straight or gay when
it can't even be determined if he ever existed.
I'm sure you have no problem believing that Mohammed or Buddha existed yet
you ignore eyewitness testimony to Jesus' existence.
There is no objective evidence that any Jesus ever existed, and
especially no evidence he did any of the things he is supposed to have
done. All such ''evidence" comes from the bible, which has no
evidence to show it is anything but pure fiction.
Some parts of it are impossible and other parts contradictory.
As for Mohammed or Buddha I honestly do not know if any independent
verification of their existence exists. I do know there is no
verification of any of the mystical parts of their existence or that
they were anything but simply men.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rgeorge" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was gay? |
24 Feb 2004 02:05:05 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:h3ik30pj4934gs6ta2o2m7moda36ktffk1@4ax.com...
On 23 Feb 2004 16:22:16 GMT, Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> in alt.abortion
with message-id <c1d9bn$1hnhna$1@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon 23 Feb 2004 10:51:23a, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
news:ga8k30lisfj2k3qn5964848n68b0f6ocv2@4ax.com:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:07:27 -0500, "Rev. Donald Spitz"
<Glory2Jesus@ArmyofGod.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<c_7_b.7654$rd2.3354@lakeread05> wrote:
Only a sick sex perverted homo would even suggest that. Sorry for you
when you stand before His throne to give an account of your life and
He
plays back your sick blasphemy to you. I hope you repent and get saved
soon.
I fail to see how it can be determined if he was straight or gay when
it can't even be determined if he ever existed.
I'm sure you have no problem believing that Mohammed or Buddha existed
yet
you ignore eyewitness testimony to Jesus' existence.
There is no objective evidence that any Jesus ever existed, and
especially no evidence he did any of the things he is supposed to have
done. All such ''evidence" comes from the bible, which has no
evidence to show it is anything but pure fiction.
Some parts of it are impossible and other parts contradictory.
As for Mohammed or Buddha I honestly do not know if any independent
verification of their existence exists. I do know there is no
verification of any of the mystical parts of their existence or that
they were anything but simply men.
CAN any man unquestionably be called the greatest man who ever lived? How do
you measure a man's greatness? By his military genius? his physical
strength? his mental prowess?
The historian H. G. Wells said that a man's greatness can be measured by
'what he leaves to grow, and whether he started others to think along fresh
lines with a vigor that persisted after him.' Wells, although not claiming
to be a Christian, acknowledged: "By this test Jesus stands first."
Alexander the Great, Charlemagne (styled "the Great" even in his own
lifetime), and Napoleon Bonaparte were powerful rulers. By their formidable
presence, they wielded great influence over those they commanded. Yet,
Napoleon is reported to have said: "Jesus Christ has influenced and
commanded His subjects without His visible bodily presence."
By his dynamic teachings and by the way he lived in harmony with them, Jesus
has powerfully affected the lives of people for nearly two thousand years.
As one writer aptly expressed it: "All the armies that ever marched, and all
the navies that ever were built, and all the parliaments that ever sat, all
the kings that ever reigned, put together have not affected the life of man
upon this earth as powerfully."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was gay? |
24 Feb 2004 02:59:41 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:05:05 GMT, "rgeorge" <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au>
in alt.abortion with message-id <403bae71@news.comindico.com.au>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:h3ik30pj4934gs6ta2o2m7moda36ktffk1@4ax.com...
On 23 Feb 2004 16:22:16 GMT, Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> in alt.abortion
with message-id <c1d9bn$1hnhna$1@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon 23 Feb 2004 10:51:23a, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
news:ga8k30lisfj2k3qn5964848n68b0f6ocv2@4ax.com:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:07:27 -0500, "Rev. Donald Spitz"
<Glory2Jesus@ArmyofGod.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<c_7_b.7654$rd2.3354@lakeread05> wrote:
Only a sick sex perverted homo would even suggest that. Sorry for you
when you stand before His throne to give an account of your life and
He
plays back your sick blasphemy to you. I hope you repent and get saved
soon.
I fail to see how it can be determined if he was straight or gay when
it can't even be determined if he ever existed.
I'm sure you have no problem believing that Mohammed or Buddha existed
yet
you ignore eyewitness testimony to Jesus' existence.
There is no objective evidence that any Jesus ever existed, and
especially no evidence he did any of the things he is supposed to have
done. All such ''evidence" comes from the bible, which has no
evidence to show it is anything but pure fiction.
Some parts of it are impossible and other parts contradictory.
As for Mohammed or Buddha I honestly do not know if any independent
verification of their existence exists. I do know there is no
verification of any of the mystical parts of their existence or that
they were anything but simply men.
CAN any man unquestionably be called the greatest man who ever lived? How do
you measure a man's greatness? By his military genius? his physical
strength? his mental prowess?
Those would all be separate measurement categories. It would only be
reasonable to expect someone to have been the greatest in any category
you name but whether that person could ever be identified is another
question. It is possible the greatest general in history never led an
army. Or the smartest man in history was born and died in a cave.
The historian H. G. Wells said that a man's greatness can be measured by
'what he leaves to grow, and whether he started others to think along fresh
lines with a vigor that persisted after him.' Wells, although not claiming
to be a Christian, acknowledged: "By this test Jesus stands first."
Good for him. This, however, does absolutely zero to prove any such
person ever existed or did any of the things attributed to him. It is
quite possible this is simply an example of a myth grown large over
the years. Perhaps a few men sitting around a couple of thousand
years ago decided to start a new religion for the profits they could
make and succeeded beyond their wildest expectations.
Alexander the Great, Charlemagne (styled "the Great" even in his own
lifetime), and Napoleon Bonaparte were powerful rulers. By their formidable
presence, they wielded great influence over those they commanded. Yet,
Napoleon is reported to have said: "Jesus Christ has influenced and
commanded His subjects without His visible bodily presence."
Which proves nothing.
By his dynamic teachings and by the way he lived in harmony with them, Jesus
has powerfully affected the lives of people for nearly two thousand years.
As one writer aptly expressed it: "All the armies that ever marched, and all
the navies that ever were built, and all the parliaments that ever sat, all
the kings that ever reigned, put together have not affected the life of man
upon this earth as powerfully."
But none of this proves anything. Much the same can be said of
Muhammad.
There is still no objective evidence to support any religion,
including yours.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rgeorge" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was gay? |
24 Feb 2004 04:30:23 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:49en30tnf62mq8aei8uuaaamui6auunk3a@4ax.com...
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:05:05 GMT, "rgeorge" <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au>
in alt.abortion with message-id <403bae71@news.comindico.com.au>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:h3ik30pj4934gs6ta2o2m7moda36ktffk1@4ax.com...
On 23 Feb 2004 16:22:16 GMT, Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> in alt.abortion
with message-id <c1d9bn$1hnhna$1@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon 23 Feb 2004 10:51:23a, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
news:ga8k30lisfj2k3qn5964848n68b0f6ocv2@4ax.com:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:07:27 -0500, "Rev. Donald Spitz"
<Glory2Jesus@ArmyofGod.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<c_7_b.7654$rd2.3354@lakeread05> wrote:
Only a sick sex perverted homo would even suggest that. Sorry for
you
when you stand before His throne to give an account of your life
and
He
plays back your sick blasphemy to you. I hope you repent and get
saved
soon.
I fail to see how it can be determined if he was straight or gay
when
it can't even be determined if he ever existed.
I'm sure you have no problem believing that Mohammed or Buddha existed
yet
you ignore eyewitness testimony to Jesus' existence.
There is no objective evidence that any Jesus ever existed, and
especially no evidence he did any of the things he is supposed to have
done. All such ''evidence" comes from the bible, which has no
evidence to show it is anything but pure fiction.
Some parts of it are impossible and other parts contradictory.
As for Mohammed or Buddha I honestly do not know if any independent
verification of their existence exists. I do know there is no
verification of any of the mystical parts of their existence or that
they were anything but simply men.
CAN any man unquestionably be called the greatest man who ever lived? How
do
you measure a man's greatness? By his military genius? his physical
strength? his mental prowess?
Those would all be separate measurement categories. It would only be
reasonable to expect someone to have been the greatest in any category
you name but whether that person could ever be identified is another
question. It is possible the greatest general in history never led an
army. Or the smartest man in history was born and died in a cave.
The historian H. G. Wells said that a man's greatness can be measured by
'what he leaves to grow, and whether he started others to think along
fresh
lines with a vigor that persisted after him.' Wells, although not
claiming
to be a Christian, acknowledged: "By this test Jesus stands first."
Good for him. This, however, does absolutely zero to prove any such
person ever existed or did any of the things attributed to him. It is
quite possible this is simply an example of a myth grown large over
the years. Perhaps a few men sitting around a couple of thousand
years ago decided to start a new religion for the profits they could
make and succeeded beyond their wildest expectations.
Alexander the Great, Charlemagne (styled "the Great" even in his own
lifetime), and Napoleon Bonaparte were powerful rulers. By their
formidable
presence, they wielded great influence over those they commanded. Yet,
Napoleon is reported to have said: "Jesus Christ has influenced and
commanded His subjects without His visible bodily presence."
Which proves nothing.
By his dynamic teachings and by the way he lived in harmony with them,
Jesus
has powerfully affected the lives of people for nearly two thousand
years.
As one writer aptly expressed it: "All the armies that ever marched, and
all
the navies that ever were built, and all the parliaments that ever sat,
all
the kings that ever reigned, put together have not affected the life of
man
upon this earth as powerfully."
But none of this proves anything. Much the same can be said of
Muhammad.
There is still no objective evidence to support any religion,
including yours.
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 Encyclopædia 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: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was gay? |
24 Feb 2004 07:10:48 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 22:30:23 GMT, "rgeorge" <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au>
in alt.abortion with message-id <403bd07e@news.comindico.com.au>
wrote:
But none of this proves anything. Much the same can be said of
Muhammad.
There is still no objective evidence to support any religion,
including yours.
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."
Yet the same thing can be said of Buddha and Mohammed. They are both
central figures of major religions who have had as big an impact on
their culture and history as your central figure. Not to mention the
Hindu gods. Perhaps there are a whole of gods?
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)."
The modern nomenclature is CE and BCE. The calendar results from the
spread of the Catholic church throughout Europe, and Europe did most
of the exploring and colonization of a large part of the remainder of
the world. The seven day week, 24 hour day, 360 degree circle, 12
month calendar, and the names of the days and the months certainly
have no roots in your religion yet they are used a lot more often than
simply counting years.
The RCC is the longest lived and most successful organization in
history. This does nothing to prove it has any validity.
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 Encyclopædia 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."
Yet any such accounts are vague, lacking in much detail, and refer to
what was actually not an uncommon name of the period. Someone by that
name probably did live at some time but there is no evidence that the
person described in your religious tract ever existed.
Yet the Romans recorded details of their everyday lived in painful
detail. Somehow the seem to have missed any occurrences related to
your religion.
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?
Who cares? They have no independent verification and exist as
translations and revisions made over a two thousand year period by
people with a vested interest in keeping the entire idea alive and
viable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rgeorge" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was gay? |
24 Feb 2004 07:46:47 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:0osn30lurqhsf8kqbp35n90lgbsdquqc63@4ax.com...
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 22:30:23 GMT, "rgeorge" <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au>
in alt.abortion with message-id <403bd07e@news.comindico.com.au>
wrote:
But none of this proves anything. Much the same can be said of
Muhammad.
There is still no objective evidence to support any religion,
including yours.
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."
Yet the same thing can be said of Buddha and Mohammed. They are both
central figures of major religions who have had as big an impact on
their culture and history as your central figure. Not to mention the
Hindu gods. Perhaps there are a whole of gods?
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)."
The modern nomenclature is CE and BCE. The calendar results from the
spread of the Catholic church throughout Europe, and Europe did most
of the exploring and colonization of a large part of the remainder of
the world. The seven day week, 24 hour day, 360 degree circle, 12
month calendar, and the names of the days and the months certainly
have no roots in your religion yet they are used a lot more often than
simply counting years.
The RCC is the longest lived and most successful organization in
history. This does nothing to prove it has any validity.
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 Encyclopædia 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."
Yet any such accounts are vague, lacking in much detail, and refer to
what was actually not an uncommon name of the period. Someone by that
name probably did live at some time but there is no evidence that the
person described in your religious tract ever existed.
Yet the Romans recorded details of their everyday lived in painful
detail. Somehow the seem to have missed any occurrences related to
your religion.
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?
Who cares? They have no independent verification and exist as
translations and revisions made over a two thousand year period by
people with a vested interest in keeping the entire idea alive and
viable.
HISTORIANS often ask, How and why did certain events happen? For example,
history tells us that the Roman Empire fell. But why did it fall? Was it
because of corruption or pleasure-seeking? Had the empire become too
unwieldy and its armies too costly? Were Rome's enemies simply becoming too
many and too powerful?
How do historians check the accuracy of older writings? They compare these
with such things as old tax records, law codes, advertisements for slave
auctions, business and private letters and records, inscriptions on pottery
shards, ships' logs, and items found in tombs and graves. This miscellany
often sheds additional or different light on official writings. Where gaps
or uncertainties remain, good historians will usually say so, even though
they might offer their own theories to fill the gaps. In any case, wise
readers consult more than one reference if they seek a balanced
interpretation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was gay? |
24 Feb 2004 08:36:14 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 01:46:47 GMT, "rgeorge" <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au>
in alt.abortion with message-id <403bfe86@news.comindico.com.au>
wrote:
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?
Who cares? They have no independent verification and exist as
translations and revisions made over a two thousand year period by
people with a vested interest in keeping the entire idea alive and
viable.
HISTORIANS often ask, How and why did certain events happen? For example,
history tells us that the Roman Empire fell. But why did it fall? Was it
because of corruption or pleasure-seeking? Had the empire become too
unwieldy and its armies too costly? Were Rome's enemies simply becoming too
many and too powerful?
How do historians check the accuracy of older writings? They compare these
with such things as old tax records, law codes, advertisements for slave
auctions, business and private letters and records, inscriptions on pottery
shards, ships' logs, and items found in tombs and graves. This miscellany
often sheds additional or different light on official writings. Where gaps
or uncertainties remain, good historians will usually say so, even though
they might offer their own theories to fill the gaps. In any case, wise
readers consult more than one reference if they seek a balanced
interpretation.
Isn't it too bad there is no such documentation to support your
religion?
.
|
|
|
| User: "rgeorge" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was gay? |
25 Feb 2004 03:17:03 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:se2o30d5s4ijvvobel7o0f2tfv9gt8kte3@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 01:46:47 GMT, "rgeorge" <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au>
in alt.abortion with message-id <403bfe86@news.comindico.com.au>
wrote:
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?
Who cares? They have no independent verification and exist as
translations and revisions made over a two thousand year period by
people with a vested interest in keeping the entire idea alive and
viable.
HISTORIANS often ask, How and why did certain events happen? For example,
history tells us that the Roman Empire fell. But why did it fall? Was it
because of corruption or pleasure-seeking? Had the empire become too
unwieldy and its armies too costly? Were Rome's enemies simply becoming
too
many and too powerful?
How do historians check the accuracy of older writings? They compare
these
with such things as old tax records, law codes, advertisements for slave
auctions, business and private letters and records, inscriptions on
pottery
shards, ships' logs, and items found in tombs and graves. This miscellany
often sheds additional or different light on official writings. Where
gaps
or uncertainties remain, good historians will usually say so, even though
they might offer their own theories to fill the gaps. In any case, wise
readers consult more than one reference if they seek a balanced
interpretation.
Isn't it too bad there is no such documentation to support your
religion?
Abingdon Dictionary of Living Religions, K. Crim, editor, 1981.
Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, J. B. Pritchard,
editor, 1969.
Ancient Sun Kingdoms of the Americas, The, V. W. von Hagen, 1961.
Archeology of World Religions, The, J. Finegan, 1952.
Bible of the World, The, Robert O. Ballou, editor, 1939.
Buddhism, Richard A. Gard, editor, 1961.
Crucible of Christianity, The, A. Toynbee, editor, 1975.
Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1973.
Encyclopedia of Eastern Philosophy and Religion, The, 1989.
Encyclopedia of World Faiths, The, P. Bishop and M. Darton, editors, 1988.
Great Asian Religions, C. George Fry and others, 1984.
Great Voices of the Reformation, Harry Emerson Fosdick, editor, 1952.
Here I Stand, Roland Bainton, 1950.
Hinduism, Louis Renou, 1961.
Hindu Mythology, W. J. Wilkins, 1988.
History of the Arabs, Philip K. Hitti, 1943.
Insight on the Scriptures, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of N.Y., Inc.,
1988.
Islam, John Alden Williams, editor, 1961.
Judaism, Arthur Hertzberg, 1961.
Kodansha Encyclopedia of Japan, 1983.
Lao Tsu, Tao Te Ching, A New Translation, Gia-fu Feng and J. English, 1972.
Man's Religions, John B. Noss, 1980.
Manual of Buddhism, A, Narada Thera, 1949.
Mixture of Shintoism and Buddhism, The, Hidenori Tsuji, 1986.
Mythology-An Illustrated Encyclopedia, R. Cavendish, editor, 1980.
New Encyclopædia Britannica, The, 1987.
New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology, 1984.
Oxford Dictionary of Popes, The, J. N. D. Kelly, 1986.
Philosophy of Confucius, The, J. Legge, translator.
Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, The, Roland Bainton, 1965.
Search for the Christian Doctrine, The, R. P. C. Hanson, 1988.
Servetus and Calvin, R. Willis, 1877.
Sources of Modern Atheism, The, Marcel Neusch, 1982.
South American Mythology, H. Osborne, 1983.
Story of Civilization, The, W. and A. Durant, 1954-75.
Story of the Reformation, The, William Stevenson, 1959.
Symbolism of Hindu Gods and Rituals, The, A. Parthasarathy, 1985.
Twelve Caesars, The, Suetonius, translated by R. Graves, 1986.
Wisdom of Confucius, The, Lin Yutang, editor, 1938.
World Religions-From Ancient History to the Present, G. Parrinder, editor,
1983.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was gay? |
25 Feb 2004 05:10:04 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:17:03 GMT, "rgeorge" <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au>
in alt.abortion with message-id <403d10ce@news.comindico.com.au>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:se2o30d5s4ijvvobel7o0f2tfv9gt8kte3@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 01:46:47 GMT, "rgeorge" <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au>
in alt.abortion with message-id <403bfe86@news.comindico.com.au>
wrote:
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?
Who cares? They have no independent verification and exist as
translations and revisions made over a two thousand year period by
people with a vested interest in keeping the entire idea alive and
viable.
HISTORIANS often ask, How and why did certain events happen? For example,
history tells us that the Roman Empire fell. But why did it fall? Was it
because of corruption or pleasure-seeking? Had the empire become too
unwieldy and its armies too costly? Were Rome's enemies simply becoming
too
many and too powerful?
How do historians check the accuracy of older writings? They compare
these
with such things as old tax records, law codes, advertisements for slave
auctions, business and private letters and records, inscriptions on
pottery
shards, ships' logs, and items found in tombs and graves. This miscellany
often sheds additional or different light on official writings. Where
gaps
or uncertainties remain, good historians will usually say so, even though
they might offer their own theories to fill the gaps. In any case, wise
readers consult more than one reference if they seek a balanced
interpretation.
Isn't it too bad there is no such documentation to support your
religion?
Abingdon Dictionary of Living Religions, K. Crim, editor, 1981.
Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, J. B. Pritchard,
editor, 1969.
Ancient Sun Kingdoms of the Americas, The, V. W. von Hagen, 1961.
Archeology of World Religions, The, J. Finegan, 1952.
Bible of the World, The, Robert O. Ballou, editor, 1939.
Buddhism, Richard A. Gard, editor, 1961.
Crucible of Christianity, The, A. Toynbee, editor, 1975.
Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1973.
Encyclopedia of Eastern Philosophy and Religion, The, 1989.
Encyclopedia of World Faiths, The, P. Bishop and M. Darton, editors, 1988.
Great Asian Religions, C. George Fry and others, 1984.
Great Voices of the Reformation, Harry Emerson Fosdick, editor, 1952.
Here I Stand, Roland Bainton, 1950.
Hinduism, Louis Renou, 1961.
Hindu Mythology, W. J. Wilkins, 1988.
History of the Arabs, Philip K. Hitti, 1943.
Insight on the Scriptures, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of N.Y., Inc.,
1988.
Islam, John Alden Williams, editor, 1961.
Judaism, Arthur Hertzberg, 1961.
Kodansha Encyclopedia of Japan, 1983.
Lao Tsu, Tao Te Ching, A New Translation, Gia-fu Feng and J. English, 1972.
Man's Religions, John B. Noss, 1980.
Manual of Buddhism, A, Narada Thera, 1949.
Mixture of Shintoism and Buddhism, The, Hidenori Tsuji, 1986.
Mythology-An Illustrated Encyclopedia, R. Cavendish, editor, 1980.
New Encyclopædia Britannica, The, 1987.
New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology, 1984.
Oxford Dictionary of Popes, The, J. N. D. Kelly, 1986.
Philosophy of Confucius, The, J. Legge, translator.
Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, The, Roland Bainton, 1965.
Search for the Christian Doctrine, The, R. P. C. Hanson, 1988.
Servetus and Calvin, R. Willis, 1877.
Sources of Modern Atheism, The, Marcel Neusch, 1982.
South American Mythology, H. Osborne, 1983.
Story of Civilization, The, W. and A. Durant, 1954-75.
Story of the Reformation, The, William Stevenson, 1959.
Symbolism of Hindu Gods and Rituals, The, A. Parthasarathy, 1985.
Twelve Caesars, The, Suetonius, translated by R. Graves, 1986.
Wisdom of Confucius, The, Lin Yutang, editor, 1938.
World Religions-From Ancient History to the Present, G. Parrinder, editor,
1983.
You can post all the sources you like but they will all come down to a
few types. Mostly some kind of logical or philosophical analysis or
works based upon the religious writings which serve as the basis of
the religion. There is no independent evidence at all to validate any
religion, and no evidence at all which proves objectively that any of
them contain any truth.
It just doesn't exist.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Snubis" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was gay? |
24 Feb 2004 07:24:21 PM |
|
|
On Tue 24 Feb 2004 08:10:48p, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
news:0osn30lurqhsf8kqbp35n90lgbsdquqc63@4ax.com:
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)."
The modern nomenclature is CE and BCE.
Yet the numbered years are still centered around Jesus' birth.
The calendar results from the
spread of the Catholic church throughout Europe, and Europe did most
of the exploring and colonization of a large part of the remainder of
the world. The seven day week, 24 hour day, 360 degree circle, 12
month calendar, and the names of the days and the months certainly
have no roots in your religion
The seven day week does have its roots in Christianity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was gay? |
24 Feb 2004 08:34:29 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 01:24:21 GMT, Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<01b8a0875c22a27ae69807354fb895af@news.teranews.com> wrote:
On Tue 24 Feb 2004 08:10:48p, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
news:0osn30lurqhsf8kqbp35n90lgbsdquqc63@4ax.com:
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)."
The modern nomenclature is CE and BCE.
Yet the numbered years are still centered around Jesus' birth.
Because it would serve no purpose to make such a drastic change. I do
not dispute the role such superstition has played in the past, but
hopefully it will continue having less of an impact in the future.
People now realize there is no evidence to support it.
The calendar results from the
spread of the Catholic church throughout Europe, and Europe did most
of the exploring and colonization of a large part of the remainder of
the world. The seven day week, 24 hour day, 360 degree circle, 12
month calendar, and the names of the days and the months certainly
have no roots in your religion
The seven day week does have its roots in Christianity.
Which stole it from an earlier pagan religion. Your christianity did
that a lot. Christmas and easter for example.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "nenslo" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was gay? |
25 Feb 2004 01:36:12 AM |
|
|
Snubis wrote:
On Tue 24 Feb 2004 08:10:48p, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
news:0osn30lurqhsf8kqbp35n90lgbsdquqc63@4ax.com:
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)."
The modern nomenclature is CE and BCE.
Yet the numbered years are still centered around Jesus' birth.
That's because the calendar we use was designed by christians some 300
years later and dated retroactively. You are probably too damn ignorant
to know that many other calendars exist and are still in use right now.
The calendar results from the
spread of the Catholic church throughout Europe, and Europe did most
of the exploring and colonization of a large part of the remainder of
the world. The seven day week, 24 hour day, 360 degree circle, 12
month calendar, and the names of the days and the months certainly
have no roots in your religion
The seven day week does have its roots in Christianity.
The seven day week was created by Babylonians, hundreds of years before
the alleged birth of christ. I suppose you imagine that the pantheistic
babylonians were christians long before there was an alleged christ.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Snubis" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was gay? |
25 Feb 2004 09:17:24 AM |
|
|
On Wed 25 Feb 2004 02:36:12a, nenslo <nenslo@yahoox.com> wrote in
news:403C506A.5F1D7008@yahoox.com:
Snubis wrote:
On Tue 24 Feb 2004 08:10:48p, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
news:0osn30lurqhsf8kqbp35n90lgbsdquqc63@4ax.com:
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)."
The modern nomenclature is CE and BCE.
Yet the numbered years are still centered around Jesus' birth.
That's because the calendar we use was designed by christians some 300
years later and dated retroactively. You are probably too damn ignorant
to know that many other calendars exist and are still in use right now.
Of course I know that. But the calendar we use is the only universal one.
The calendar results from the
spread of the Catholic church throughout Europe, and Europe did most
of the exploring and colonization of a large part of the remainder of
the world. The seven day week, 24 hour day, 360 degree circle, 12
month calendar, and the names of the days and the months certainly
have no roots in your religion
The seven day week does have its roots in Christianity.
The seven day week was created by Babylonians, hundreds of years before
the alleged birth of christ. I suppose you imagine that the pantheistic
babylonians were christians long before there was an alleged christ.
And Judaism, Christianity's parent religion, existed long before Babylon.
--
€
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Geoman" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was gay? |
23 Feb 2004 11:25:37 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:h3ik30pj4934gs6ta2o2m7moda36ktffk1@4ax.com...
On 23 Feb 2004 16:22:16 GMT, Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> in alt.abortion
with message-id <c1d9bn$1hnhna$1@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon 23 Feb 2004 10:51:23a, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
news:ga8k30lisfj2k3qn5964848n68b0f6ocv2@4ax.com:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:07:27 -0500, "Rev. Donald Spitz"
<Glory2Jesus@ArmyofGod.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<c_7_b.7654$rd2.3354@lakeread05> wrote:
Only a sick sex perverted homo would even suggest that. Sorry for you
when you stand before His throne to give an account of your life and He
plays back your sick blasphemy to you. I hope you repent and get saved
soon.
I fail to see how it can be determined if he was straight or gay when
it can't even be determined if he ever existed.
I'm sure you have no problem believing that Mohammed or Buddha existed yet
you ignore eyewitness testimony to Jesus' existence.
There is no objective evidence that any Jesus ever existed, and
especially no evidence he did any of the things he is supposed to have
done. All such ''evidence" comes from the bible, which has no
evidence to show it is anything but pure fiction.
Some parts of it are impossible and other parts contradictory.
As for Mohammed or Buddha I honestly do not know if any independent
verification of their existence exists. I do know there is no
verification of any of the mystical parts of their existence or that
they were anything but simply men.
You speak as if the Bible was written by one man. It has many authors, therefore, there
were many witnesses.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nenslo" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was gay? |
25 Feb 2004 01:30:22 AM |
|
|
Geoman wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:h3ik30pj4934gs6ta2o2m7moda36ktffk1@4ax.com...
On 23 Feb 2004 16:22:16 GMT, Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> in alt.abortion
with message-id <c1d9bn$1hnhna$1@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon 23 Feb 2004 10:51:23a, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
news:ga8k30lisfj2k3qn5964848n68b0f6ocv2@4ax.com:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:07:27 -0500, "Rev. Donald Spitz"
<Glory2Jesus@ArmyofGod.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<c_7_b.7654$rd2.3354@lakeread05> wrote:
Only a sick sex perverted homo would even suggest that. Sorry for you
when you stand before His throne to give an account of your life and He
plays back your sick blasphemy to you. I hope you repent and get saved
soon.
I fail to see how it can be determined if he was straight or gay when
it can't even be determined if he ever existed.
I'm sure you have no problem believing that Mohammed or Buddha existed yet
you ignore eyewitness testimony to Jesus' existence.
There is no objective evidence that any Jesus ever existed, and
especially no evidence he did any of the things he is supposed to have
done. All such ''evidence" comes from the bible, which has no
evidence to show it is anything but pure fiction.
Some parts of it are impossible and other parts contradictory.
As for Mohammed or Buddha I honestly do not know if any independent
verification of their existence exists. I do know there is no
verification of any of the mystical parts of their existence or that
they were anything but simply men.
You speak as if the Bible was written by one man. It has many authors, therefore, there
were many witnesses.
Only four of those authors are alleged to have ever seen the guy.
Anybody who died hundreds of years before an event is said to have
occurred is not a reliable witness of that event.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was gay? |
24 Feb 2004 06:47:56 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 00:25:37 -0500, "Geoman" <Geomaan@yaaho.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <NeKdnVE7qdHUfafdRVn-gQ@adelphia.com>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:h3ik30pj4934gs6ta2o2m7moda36ktffk1@4ax.com...
On 23 Feb 2004 16:22:16 GMT, Snubis <snubis@wp.pl> in alt.abortion
with message-id <c1d9bn$1hnhna$1@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon 23 Feb 2004 10:51:23a, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
news:ga8k30lisfj2k3qn5964848n68b0f6ocv2@4ax.com:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:07:27 -0500, "Rev. Donald Spitz"
<Glory2Jesus@ArmyofGod.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<c_7_b.7654$rd2.3354@lakeread05> wrote:
Only a sick sex perverted homo would even suggest that. Sorry for you
when you stand before His throne to give an account of your life and He
plays back your sick blasphemy to you. I hope you repent and get saved
soon.
I fail to see how it can be determined if he was straight or gay when
it can't even be determined if he ever existed.
I'm sure you have no problem believing that Mohammed or Buddha existed yet
you ignore eyewitness testimony to Jesus' existence.
There is no objective evidence that any Jesus ever existed, and
especially no evidence he did any of the things he is supposed to have
done. All such ''evidence" comes from the bible, which has no
evidence to show it is anything but pure fiction.
Some parts of it are impossible and other parts contradictory.
As for Mohammed or Buddha I honestly do not know if any independent
verification of their existence exists. I do know there is no
verification of any of the mystical parts of their existence or that
they were anything but simply men.
You speak as if the Bible was written by one man. It has many authors, therefore, there
were many witnesses.
Nonsense. The best estimates of when the first portions were written
puts the date close to 100 years after the fact, therefore any
'eyewitnesses' would be long dead. Then the accounts were translated,
edited, and revised for the next two thousand years by men who had a
vested interest in keeping the subject alive and viable.
And there is still no independent evidence outside of your bible that
any of it ever happened. The level of proof that exists can be used
to prove Gone With The Wind is an exact and truthful depiction of the
American Civil War. Some of the locations and some of the people
mentioned can be verified but the central characters cannot, and the
more improbable events have no support at all.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "nenslo" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus was gay? |
25 Feb 2004 01:27:52 AM |
|
|
Snubis wrote:
On Mon 23 Feb 2004 10:51:23a, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
news:ga8k30lisfj2k3qn5964848n68b0f6ocv2@4ax.com:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:07:27 -0500, "Rev. Donald Spitz"
<Glory2Jesus@ArmyofGod.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<c_7_b.7654$rd2.3354@lakeread05> wrote:
Only a sick sex perverted homo would even suggest that. Sorry for you
when you stand before His throne to give an account of your life and He
plays back your sick blasphemy to you. I hope you repent and get saved
soon.
I fail to see how it can be determined if he was straight or gay when
it can't even be determined if he ever existed.
I'm sure you have no problem believing that Mohammed or Buddha existed yet
you ignore eyewitness testimony to Jesus' existence.
Jesus was a fag that died of aids that he got from buttfucking corpses.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
