Re: Two 'literal translation' Bibles..tell me it isn't true.

[The Chief Castrator Of The Jews]

On Nov 10, 9:39 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 16:20:26 -0800, Pete <d...@kn.app> wrote:
> >On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 15:33:14 -0800 (PST), Michael Christ wrote:
>
> >> (KJV)
> >> Act 9:4  And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him,
> >> Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
> >> Act 9:5  And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am
> >> Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the
> >> pricks.
> >> Act 9:6  And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou
> >> have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the
> >> city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
>
> >> (NIV)
> >> Acts 9:4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul,
> >> Saul, why do you persecute me?"
> >> Acts 9:5 "Who are you Lord?" Saul asked.  "I am Jesus whom you are
> >> persecuting," he replied.
> >> Acts 9:6 "Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what
> >> you must do."
>
> >> No mention of Paul's willingness to surrender to the Lord (what you
> >> must needs be) in that moment, "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?"
>
> >> No mention of 'trembling and astonished' (fear of the Lord brings
> >> quickness of understanding and wisdom).
>
> >> 10 words that Jesus said have been removed, 10 words you could write
> >> 10 books on regarding the hard-heartedness and the like of man to kick
> >> against the will of God (i.e. the prick of the truth) in their lives.
>
> >> Now, more than ever, do you need to be led by the Spirit of God as
> >> this world drifts more and more away from any thought of God in His
> >> true image, and into the sacred cow of man's morality and humanistic
> >> standards.
>
> >> Michael Christ
>
> >Mistake the same with NASB, ESV, LEB, and a couple others, most "new"
> >stuff.
>
> Pete, you're truly an ignorant guy believing that the kjv is all that great.


AS IF JESUS SPOKE ENGLISH. I think there is a wisdom
in banning certain types of people to read the Bible


>
> The dukester, American - American
> ********************************************
> You can't fix stupid.
> ********************************************

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

Which Bible? [Paperback]
David O. Fuller (Editor)


Book Description
Publication Date: June 1975 | ISBN-10: 082542612X | ISBN-13:
978-0825426124 | Edition: 5th
Originally published in 1970 by Grand Rapids International
Publications, this book is now in its 13th printing and currently is
published by the Institute for Biblical Textual Studies (IBTS). "Which
Bible?" is now one of three of a trilogy of edited works by Dr. David
Otis Fuller, Sr. in defense of the King James Version of the Bible.
"True or False" and "Counterfeit or Genuine" were published as
sequels.
"Which Bible?" asks the question regarding the over 100 contemporary
English bibles and translations, which is the most accurate, most
trustworthy, most literary, most time honored bible of every
generation for the past nearly 4 Centuries? Dr. Fuller excerpts
extensive articles by over 11 writers to answer the question
affirmatively in favor of the historic King James Version.

Fuller's collection of academic, yet easily understood essays and
excerpts provides us with Biblical and historic reason and logic. It
affirms the position that translation is not an inherent boundary to
verbal preservation. The breath of God, product and not process,
conveyed by translation from the immediately inspired language copies
of Scripture into any providentially prepared receptor language will
impart to that translation infallible authority and doctrinally
inerrancy inherent in the original language copies. A tremendously
useful book for the thinking Christian.

About the Author
David Otis Fuller, Sr. was born in Brooklyn, NY in 1903. He graduated
from Wheaton College in 1925. He received his Th.D from Princeton
Theological Seminary in 1928 and was awarded a D.D. from Dallas
Theological Seminary. In 1929 he was ordained in the First Baptist
Church of New York City, NY.
In 1934 he was called to the pastorate of Wealthy Street Baptist
Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan where he served as it's pastor until
his retirement in 1974.

Dr. Fuller authored 16 books and is best known for abridging and
editing the works of the famous 19th Century Baptist minister Charles
Haddon Spurgeon. The book that perhaps best speaks of his own
character is his book "Treasury of Evangelical Writings" currently
published again by IBTS, but originally published titled: "Valiant for
the Truth". Dr. Fuller was ever valiant for the truth and God's word.


The authenticity of the King James Bible By A Customer
Format:PaperbackThis book provides an exhaustive review of where and
how the King James (KJV) Bible came into being. It reviews the
manuscripts (the Received Text) from which the KJV originated. Also
Fuller exposes and compares the Received Text with the Westscott-Hort
Text. Biblical proofs and apologetics are examined concerning the KJV.
It is perhaps the best book that I have read concerning the topic of
which bible should I use for my spiritual guidance. The information is
very informative and rewarding to the bible student.

http://www.amazon.com/Which-Bible-David-O-Fuller/dp/082542612X

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism The Chief Castrator Of The Jews <Codeb...@bigsecret.com> wrote:

<snip>

> AS IF JESUS SPOKE ENGLISH. I think there is a wisdom

> in banning people to read the Bible

Fixed that for you.

>> The dukester, American - American
>> ********************************************
>> You can't fix stupid.
>> ********************************************

But I can't fix you, as dupe points out.

--
__ _ | Knowledge: noun. The small part of ignorance that we
(_ |_) | arrange and classify.
__)|_) | -- Ambrose Bierce. "The Devil's Dictionary"

[Terry Cross]

On Nov 21, 11:11 am, The Chief Castrator Of The Jews

Of course Jesus spoke Greek. Jerusalem threw open its gates to the
conquering Macedonians in about 333 BC. The Greeks occupied Palestine
for about 270 years before the Roman Pompey was welcomed as the new
conqueror in about 63 BC.

270 years is a very long time in the life of a small nation. That is
more than 15 generations. Many people here argue that the
Palestinians preserved their primitive Hebrew or Aramaic language, but
it is not likely. Only the priests retained the Hebrew tongue. The
Jews refer to that period as the "Helenization" of Israel. The
influence of Greece was so profound that many Jews had surgical
procedures to reverse their circumcisions.

TCross

[Terry Cross]

On Nov 21, 6:19 pm, Pete <d...@kn.app> wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:08:40 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross wrote:
> >   The
> > influence of Greece was so profound that many Jews had surgical
> > procedures to reverse their circumcisions.
>
> > TCross
>

> I don't know that it was possible in that day, but if it was they then
> renounced a covenant with God and all that He IS.


Do you really image you could "make a deal" with God? That is
bizarre. Sexual mutilation is a truly barbaric practice, far worse
than African tattooing, scarring, and facial feature stretching. It
ranks right down there with castration.

TCross

[Terry Cross]

On Nov 21, 6:19 pm, Pete <d...@kn.app> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:08:40 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross wrote:

> >   The
> > influence of Greece was so profound that many Jews had surgical
> > procedures to reverse their circumcisions.
>
> > TCross
>

> I don't know that it was possible in that day, but if it was they then
> renounced a covenant with God and all that He IS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin_restoration#History

TCross

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:19:53 -0800, Pete <d...@kn.app> wrote:

>On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:08:40 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross wrote:
>

>> The
>> influence of Greece was so profound that many Jews had surgical
>> procedures to reverse their circumcisions.
>>
>> TCross
>

>I don't know that it was possible in that day, but if it was they then
>renounced a covenant with God and all that He IS.

Idiot.

[Olrik]

Le 2012-11-21 21:08, Terry Cross a écrit :
> On Nov 21, 11:11 am, The Chief Castrator Of The Jews

> The influence of Greece was so profound that many Jews had surgical
> procedures to reverse their circumcisions.

Oh please tell us more about that.

With sources.

> TCross
>

[Terry Cross]

On Nov 21, 9:40 pm, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Le 2012-11-21 21:08, Terry Cross a crit :

>
> > On Nov 21, 11:11 am, The Chief Castrator Of The Jews
> > The influence of Greece was so profound that many Jews had surgical
> > procedures to reverse their circumcisions.
>
> Oh please tell us more about that.
>
> With sources.

Already did, but here it is again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin_restoration#History

The source quoted is Rubin JP. Celsus's Decircumcision Operation.
Urology. 1980;16(1):121-4. doi:10.1016/0090-4295(80)90354-4. PMID
6994325.

TCross

[Terry Cross]

On Nov 21, 11:37 pm, Pete <d...@kn.app> wrote:

> Looks to me like you jumped to conclusions.

Is that what you think?

"A form of foreskin restoration, historically known as epispasm, was
practiced among some Jews in Hellenistic and Roman societies." - Rubin

JP. Celsus's Decircumcision Operation. Urology. 1980;16(1):121-4.

See also: http://www.cirp.org/library/restoration/hall1/

An unusual challenge to circumcision developed, however, in the
Hellenistic period (after about 133 B.C.E*). Hellenistic and Roman
societies widely practiced public nakedness. But they abhorred baring
the tip of the penis, called the glans. To expose the glans was
considered vulgarly humorous, indecent or both. This combination of
attitudes could be—and often was—devastating for circumcised Jews.
Enjoying oneself in a Greek gymnasium or Roman bath, where nudity was
de rigueur, was a popular and stylish pastime. Here politics was
discussed and business deals concluded. Athletic contests and
exhibitions were also conducted in the nude. Participation in
athletics was often a prerequisite for social advancement. Yet a
circumcised penis effectively precluded this participation.

Consequently, for hundreds of years some Jews underwent a surgical
procedure known as epispasm—an operation that "corrected" a
circumcised penis. Some might call it circumcision in reverse. From
references and allusions to the procedure in classical and rabbinical
literature, it appears that epispasm [CIRP Note: επισπασμοσ,
epispasmos] reached its peak of popularity in the first century C.E.

The New Testament reveals bitter conflicts over circumcision among the
followers of Jesus, conflicts expressed also in attitudes towards
epispasm practiced by Jews. Paul, who thinks circumcision useless,
nevertheless forbids epispasm: "Was any one at the time of his call
already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of
circumcision," he advises the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 7:18).

Numerous written sources from the second century B.C.E. to the early
sixth century C.E. speak about epispasm and attitudes toward it.

During these centuries, foreskins assumed an importance they have
rarely had before or since. The Roman emperor Hadrian (117-138 C.E.)
loathed circumcision as much as castration—both were unnatural, an
offense against the Greek idea of natural beauty of the human body—and
outlawed both.1

Males who wished to conceal an exposed glans had several options.
Dioscorides, a first century C.E. physician to Nero's troops and
master of herbal lore, helped those who, though not circumcised, had a
defectively short foreskin.

TCross

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 23:45:08 -0800, Pete <d...@kn.app> wrote:

>God

Idiot.

Not for believing it, but for stupidly presuming it in two of the four
newsgroups you're posting to.

> makes deals with men all the time, they are called covenants. In this

Prove it.

>case it was between God

Idiot.

> and Abraham, only those that opted in were
>circumcised where in and all that did were called Hebrews from that day on.

Bullshit.

>The Bible

Idiot.

> cautions against man making a deal with God.

Idiot.

> He expects them to
>hold up there end of the bargain as He does.

Idiot.

[thomas p.]

"Pete" <d...@kn.app> skrev i meddelelsen
news:aKkrs.15726$fF5....@newsfe01.iad...

> God makes deals with men all the time, they are called covenants. In this
> case it was between God and Abraham, only those that opted in were

> circumcised where in and all that did were called Hebrews from that day
> on.
>

> The Bible cautions against man making a deal with God. He expects them to

> hold up there end of the bargain as He does.

You should also be careful when making deals with leprechauns. It is
written that they are very tricky. You have been warned.

>
>
> --
> Peter
> A living Stone
> A Disciple of The Lord Jesus Christ
> Joh 13:34-35 KJV Pray for MC



--
thomas p

Ignorance is the mother of devotion.

David Hume

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <k8kdt1$2ua$2...@dont-email.me>, Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

It must have happened somewhere for James Michener to have used a
similar incident in The Source.

It did not end well.

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[linuxgal]

Pete wrote:
> God makes deals with men all the time, they are called covenants. In this
> case it was between God and Abraham, only those that opted in were
> circumcised where in and all that did were called Hebrews from that day on.

Actually, Hebrew is from a Semitic word for immigrant. In Genesis 14:13
Abraham is referred to as a Hebrew, long before the covenant with
circumcision took place (Genesis 17), when he was 99 and the father of
his first son Ishmael.

"And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; for he
dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eschol, and brother
of Aner: and these were confederate with Abram."

Don't go toe-to-toe with an atheist about the contents of your Bible, we
actually read it, not just spit out talking points.

--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0

[Alex W.]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:08:40 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross wrote:

> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Path: uni-berlin.de!fu-berlin.de!kr7no10556742pbb.0!news-out.google.com!6ni3208pbd.1!nntp.google.com!kr7no10556734pbb.0!postnews.google.com!i7g2000pbf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> Newsgroups: alt.messianic,alt.christnet.christianlife,alt.atheism,alt.history
> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:08:40 -0800 (PST)
> Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
> Injection-Info: i7g2000pbf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=131.107.192.1; posting-account=jlGsIwkAAAAEOsUA8VGc-c3dtKzolUft
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 131.107.192.1
> References: <5368bee3-d3cf-410b...@v9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com> <h5hns.1$7Z...@newsfe04.iad> <jops98pi0qmcsb3m7...@4ax.com> <39184fd4-2b49-4017...@s14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Firefox/16.0 SeaMonkey/2.13.2,gzip(gfe)
> Message-ID: <9706543e-b5a1-4c79...@i7g2000pbf.googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Two 'literal translation' Bibles..tell me it isn't true.
> From: Terry Cross <tcro...@hotmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 02:08:40 +0000
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Lines: 68
> Xref: uni-berlin.de alt.messianic:886769 alt.christnet.christianlife:1005922 alt.atheism:6875758 alt.history:31090

Having had rabbinical training, he would almost certainly also
have spoken Hebrew.

Secondly, as a native of the North, he must have had a practical
knowledge of the local language: Aramaic. This is supported by
the fact that even on the cross, in his last moments before
death, he spoke not greek or hebrew but Aramaic.

Just because foreign rulers impose alien trading and bureaucratic
languages (Latin and Greek) does not in any way indicate their
adoption by the population at large and in daily use. Africa and
India spent centuries under foreign rule, but even though
knowledge of English French and Spanish are still widespread the
locals still very much speak their own native languages. There
is no reason to suppose that the situation in Palestine was any
different.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:06:05 -0800, Pete <d...@kn.app> wrote:

>On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 23:50:06 -0800, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 23:45:08 -0800, Pete <d...@kn.app> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:30:06 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Nov 21, 6:19 pm, Pete <d...@kn.app> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:08:40 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross wrote:
>>>>>>   The
>>>>>> influence of Greece was so profound that many Jews had surgical
>>>>>> procedures to reverse their circumcisions.
>>>>>
>>>>>> TCross
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know that it was possible in that day, but if it was they then
>>>>> renounced a covenant with God and all that He IS.
>>>>
>>>> Do you really image you could "make a deal" with God? That is
>>>> bizarre. Sexual mutilation is a truly barbaric practice, far worse
>>>> than African tattooing, scarring, and facial feature stretching. It
>>>> ranks right down there with castration.
>>>>
>>>> TCross
>>>
>>>God
>>
>> Idiot.
>>
>> Not for believing it, but for stupidly presuming it in two of the four
>> newsgroups you're posting to.

How many words in that sentence, imbecile?

>>> makes deals with men all the time, they are called covenants. In this
>>
>> Prove it.
>>
>>>case it was between God
>>
>> Idiot.
>>
>>> and Abraham, only those that opted in were
>>>circumcised where in and all that did were called Hebrews from that day on.
>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>>>The Bible
>>
>> Idiot.
>>
>>> cautions against man making a deal with God.
>>
>> Idiot.
>>
>>> He expects them to
>>>hold up there end of the bargain as He does.
>>
>> Idiot.
>

>The idiot is the one who actually believes someone is going thru the NGs'
>to modify them and miss the original poster. The idiot is amplified when
>they think a post is directed to them personally.
>
>Especially someone whose vocabulary is limited to that one word.

I'm not the idiot who cross-posted this question-begging stupidity to
newsgroups where it is off-topic, inappropriate, rude and stupid.

The most suitable word for somebody who talks about his god as if it
were real, outside his religion to an audience that doesn't share his
religious belief, is "idiot".

If you don't like it, have the commonsense and courtesy not to do
that.

And when you reap what you sow, don't be such a whining hypocrite.

[Linda Lee]

On Nov 22, 12:58 pm, "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:08:40 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross wrote:
> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > Path: uni-berlin.de!fu-berlin.de!kr7no10556742pbb.0!news-out.google.com!6ni3208pbd.1!nntp.google.com!kr7no10556734pbb.0!postnews.google.com!i7g2000pbf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> > Newsgroups: alt.messianic,alt.christnet.christianlife,alt.atheism,alt.history
> > Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:08:40 -0800 (PST)

> > Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com

> > Injection-Info: i7g2000pbf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=131.107.192.1; posting-account=jlGsIwkAAAAEOsUA8VGc-c3dtKzolUft
> > NNTP-Posting-Host: 131.107.192.1

> > References: <5368bee3-d3cf-410b-94bb-cf42771c2...@v9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com> <h5hns.1$7Z...@newsfe04.iad> <jops98pi0qmcsb3m7iimi5t0j88gj27...@4ax.com> <39184fd4-2b49-4017-b170-093c8e235...@s14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>

> > User-Agent: G2/1.0
> > X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Firefox/16.0 SeaMonkey/2.13.2,gzip(gfe)

> > Message-ID: <9706543e-b5a1-4c79-bd70-d22827768...@i7g2000pbf.googlegroups.com>

> > Subject: Re: Two 'literal translation' Bibles..tell me it isn't true.

> > From: Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com>

I am not saying he could not speak Hebrew, but there is no evidence
Christ had "rabbinical training". He taught in the synagogues from the
time he was a child, and that is why his disciples called him Rabbi.

>
> Secondly, as a native of the North, he must have had a practical
> knowledge of the local language: Aramaic.  This is supported by
> the fact that even on the cross, in his last moments before
> death, he spoke not greek or hebrew but Aramaic.

He spoke both Hebrew and Aramaic then, and the Jewish crowd couldn't
understand him because, being Hellenized Jews, they spoke Greek, and
so they thought he called for Elias (Eliyah).

Mat 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice,
saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God,
why hast thou forsaken me?
Mat 27:47 Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said,
This man calleth for Elias.

Eli, Eli, lama - Hebrew; sabachthani - Aramaic.

Elias - Greek for Eliyah (Elijah).

>
> Just because foreign rulers impose alien trading and bureaucratic
> languages (Latin and Greek) does not in any way indicate their
> adoption by the population at large and in daily use.  Africa and
> India spent centuries under foreign rule, but even though
> knowledge of English French and Spanish are still widespread the
> locals still very much speak their own native languages.  There
> is no reason to suppose that the situation in Palestine was any
> different.

The Messiah had no problems in speaking to people who spoke many
languages, but the crowd who watched him be crucified could not
understand Aramaic or Hebrew.

["understand.-"]

"The Messiah had no problems in speaking to people who spoke many
languages, but the crowd who watched him be crucified could not understand
Aramaic or Hebrew."

I would not jump to such a conclusion based on that alone. In both
accounts at the cross we don't know who and how many were what is
apparently the source used in both gospels. We can not generalize from
what might have been only one witness used by the source to all jews in
palistine. We do not know the makeup of the crowd at the cross except for
those specifically mentioned.

The language landscape of palistine at that time is known independently of
the gospels. Aramaic was the dailyy street language and had been so for
some time. Elsewhere jews as did others used greek as the common language.
It was also known in palistine by the literate jews.

[Linda Lee]

On Nov 22, 8:55 pm, "understand.-" wrote:
> "The Messiah had no problems in speaking to people who spoke many
> languages, but the crowd who watched him be crucified could not understand
> Aramaic or Hebrew."
>
> I would not jump to such a conclusion based on that alone.

Okay, some.

> In both
> accounts at the cross we don't know who and how many were what is
> apparently the source used in both gospels.  We can not generalize from
> what might have been only one witness used by the source to all jews in
> palistine.  We do not know the makeup of the crowd at the cross except for
> those specifically mentioned.

Jews were mentioned.

Mat 27:36 And sitting down they watched him there;
Mat 27:37 And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS
JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Mat 27:38 Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the
right hand, and another on the left.
Mat 27:39 And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads,
Mat 27:40 And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest
it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down
from the cross.
Mat 27:41 Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the
scribes and elders, said,
Mat 27:42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King
of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe
him.

[Terry Cross]

I disagree. Jesus amazed the rabbis with his "understanding and
answers" when he was young. This being a synagogue, "all that heard
him [and] were astonished" must have included Pharisees, who are
astonished at nothing except their own Talmud. Later when he was
grown, Jesus showed his knowledge of Talmud, both the doctrines and
the techniques of debate, such that the Pharisees were again
astonished.

> > Secondly, as a native of the North, he must have had a practical
> > knowledge of the local language: Aramaic. This is supported by
> > the fact that even on the cross, in his last moments before
> > death, he spoke not greek or hebrew but Aramaic.
>
> He spoke both Hebrew and Aramaic then, and the Jewish crowd couldn't
> understand him because, being Hellenized Jews, they spoke Greek, and
> so they thought he called for Elias (Eliyah).
>
> Mat 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice,
> saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God,
> why hast thou forsaken me?
> Mat 27:47 Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said,
> This man calleth for Elias.
>
> Eli, Eli, lama - Hebrew; sabachthani - Aramaic.
>
> Elias - Greek for Eliyah (Elijah).

Good point.

> > Just because foreign rulers impose alien trading and bureaucratic
> > languages (Latin and Greek) does not in any way indicate their
> > adoption by the population at large and in daily use. Africa and
> > India spent centuries under foreign rule, but even though
> > knowledge of English French and Spanish are still widespread the
> > locals still very much speak their own native languages. There
> > is no reason to suppose that the situation in Palestine was any
> > different.
>
> The Messiah had no problems in speaking to people who spoke many
> languages, but the crowd who watched him be crucified could not
> understand Aramaic or Hebrew.

Some of them. It is inconclusive.

TCross

[Terry Cross]

On Nov 22, 11:02 am, Pete <d...@kn.app> wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 23:46:04 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross wrote:
> > On Nov 21, 11:37 pm, Pete <d...@kn.app> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:33:02 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross wrote:
> >>> On Nov 21, 6:19 pm, Pete <d...@kn.app> wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:08:40 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross wrote:
> >>>>> The
> >>>>> influence of Greece was so profound that many Jews had surgical
> >>>>> procedures to reverse their circumcisions.
>
> >>>>> TCross
>
> >>>> I don't know that it was possible in that day, but if it was they then
> >>>> renounced a covenant with God and all that He IS.
>
> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin_restoration#History
>
> >>> TCross
>
> >> Looks to me like you jumped to conclusions.
>
> > Is that what you think?
>
> > "A form of foreskin restoration, historically known as epispasm, was
> > practiced among some Jews in Hellenistic and Roman societies." - Rubin
> > JP. Celsus's Decircumcision Operation. Urology. 1980;16(1):121-4.
>
> > See also:http://www.cirp.org/library/restoration/hall1/
>

> See what an epispasm is. Surgery it is not. You might call it a Penis on a
> free standing rack. Tie a string around it and hook it up to some rocks.
>
> A stretcher is not surgery or gravity is the free normal surgery for womens
> boobs.

OK. The issue is not worth the argument and it is totally off the
point. Let us change the statement to this:

"The influence of Greece was so profound that many Jews had procedures
to reverse their circumcisions."

Now address the subject.

TCross

[Terry Cross]

On Nov 22, 11:51 am, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net>
wrote:

Sounds like a whole lot of whining from "Christopher Lee," whoever
that is. No doubt he lives in a multi-story concrete prison some
place in urban America and never meets anyone outside his own belief
system.

TCross

[Terry Cross]

On Nov 22, 11:17 pm, Pete <d...@kn.app> wrote:

> Which brings us right back to the point that they by attempting to reverse
> the circumcision renouncing their inherited covenant with God Almighty.

The original point is given above, just as I repeated here. I did not
"jump to conclusions."


> Gen 17:14  And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is
> not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken
> my covenant.

Jesus had no words for the Hebrews' precious "covenant." Jesus kicked
it to the curb along with the rest of Judaism.


> A good deal of the Hebrews that left Egypt were not circumcised. They left
> God for other gods.

You are not making sense. The captivity allegedly lasted 300 years.
None of these who went into captivity left with Moses. A slave does
not choose her religion. The Hebrews did not "leave" the religion of
Jacob/Israel.


> Tell me, is not theology a study of all gods and God without distinction or
> judgment? Is there a bottom line to theology, and outcome to be expected or
> are all gods on a level playing field?


Who cares? The dictionary will satisfy the curious.

TCross

["understand.-"]

> "The Messiah had no problems in speaking to people who spoke many
> languages, but the crowd who watched him be crucified could not

understan=

d
> Aramaic or Hebrew."
>
> I would not jump to such a conclusion based on that alone.

Okay, some.

>=A0In both

> accounts at the cross we don't know who and how many were what is

> apparently the source used in both gospels. =A0We can not generalize from

> what might have been only one witness used by the source to all jews in

> palistine. =A0We do not know the makeup of the crowd at the cross except
=

for
> those specifically mentioned.

"Jews were mentioned."

Yes but the language usage of them is not known. Literate jews would
likely have had greek in addition to the daily aramaic. And we don't know
the language of the source recording the event and/or if any witnesses had
one language or another. The only one all would have is aramaic.

[Linda Lee]

When Mary and Joseph found Christ in the synagogue, HE was giving THEM
(the rabbis and scribes) "understanding and answers"; it means nothing
in regard to proof he had been taught by them when it says he was
"both hearing them, and asking them questions" (Luke 2:46) because
that is how Christ ALWAYS TAUGHT. That was Christ's method of
teaching; Christ heard what the scribes and priests had to say,
questioned them about it, and THEN provided them the proper
understanding. His comprehension was so much better than theirs that
they were astonished. He did not need to learn from them. If he had
learned from them, he would have not understood any better than they
did.

Luk 2:42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem
after the custom of the feast.
Luk 2:43 And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the
child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother
knew not of it.
Luk 2:44 But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a
day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and
acquaintance.
Luk 2:45 And when they found him not, they turned back again to
Jerusalem, seeking him.
Luk 2:46 And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in
the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, BOTH HEARING THEM,
AND ASKING THEM QUESTIONS.
Luk 2:47 And all that heard him were astonished at his UNDERSTANDING
AND _ANSWERS._
Luk 2:48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said
unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father
and I have sought thee sorrowing.
Luk 2:49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye
not that I must be about my Father's business?


Luk 4:14 And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee:
and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about.
Luk 4:15 And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all.
Luk 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and,
as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and
stood up for to read.
Luk 4:17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet
Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it
was written,
Luk 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed
me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the
brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering
of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
Luk 4:19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
Luk 4:20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the
minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the
synagogue were fastened on him.
Luk 4:21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture
fulfilled in your ears.
Luk 4:22 And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words
which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's
son?
Luk 4:23 And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this
proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in
Capernaum, do also here in thy country.
Luk 4:24 And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted
in his own country.
Luk 4:25 But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the
days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months,
when great famine was throughout all the land;
Luk 4:26 But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a
city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow.
Luk 4:27 And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the
prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.
Luk 4:28 And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things,
were filled with wrath,
Luk 4:29 And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him
unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they
might cast him down headlong.
Luk 4:30 But he passing through the midst of them went his way,
Luk 4:31 And came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and taught
them on the sabbath days.
Luk 4:32 And they were astonished at his doctrine: for his word was
with power.



Him teaching in the synagogues does NOT not mean other rabbis trained
him (that he had "rabbinical training"). In fact, they were
"astonished at his doctrine" because he understood the Scriptures
better than they did.

This was immediately following the Messiah calling Simon (Peter),
Andrew, James, and John as apostles, and it says he did not teach what
the scribes (the supposed experts on the Scriptures) taught:
Mar 1:21 And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath
day he entered into the synagogue, and taught.
Mar 1:22 And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them
as one that had authority, and NOT as the scribes.


Mar 11:15 And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple,
and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and
overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that
sold doves;
Mar 11:16 And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel
through the temple.
Mar 11:17 And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My
house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have
made it a den of thieves.
Mar 11:18 And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how
they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people
was astonished at his doctrine.

Since he bestowed an Aramaic name (Cephas) on Simon, he likely spoke
Aramaic to the apostles. But he must have spoken Greek to the crowds;
otherwise, the Hellenized Jews could not have understood him.

And he was called "Jesus of Galilee" because he had resided in
"Galilee of the Gentiles" (Matt. 4:15), another indication he would
know Greek.

Mat 4:14 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the
prophet, saying,
Mat 4:15 The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way
of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles;
Mat 4:16 The people which SAT IN DARKNESS saw great light; and to
them which SAT IN THE REGION AND SHADOW OF DEATH light is sprung up.
Mat 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent:
for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

It was the Gentiles who "sat in darkness", not knowing of God, and who
"sat in the region and shadow of death", in danger of damnation, to
whom the true Light (the Messiah) and the light of the Gospel came.

["known.-"]

"Since he bestowed an Aramaic name (Cephas) on Simon, he likely spoke
Aramaic to the apostles. But he must have spoken Greek to the crowds;
otherwise, the Hellenized Jews could not have understood him.

In fact quite the oppisite was likely the reality. Aramaic was common to
all jews of palistine, the greek literate jews were fewer in number and
more likely urban and of the upper classes. When Christ traveled and spoke
to thousands of local
people aramaic was the common language to use.

"And he was called "Jesus of Galilee" because he had resided in "Galilee of
the Gentiles" (Matt. 4:15), another indication he would know Greek."

A better indication of Christ being literate in greek is that He read from
the torah. It was for most jews the one used in greek translation.

It is often problematical to make such inferrences from the scriptures. It
assumes it is exaustive as to being representative of culture of palistine
of the time.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 09:51:46 -0600, Robert Parker
<robpa...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Ever consider that the entire life of Jesus was a complete fabrication like
>Paul Bunyon?

Their minds switch off at the idea.

[Terry Cross]

On Nov 23, 8:03 am, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net>
wrote:

Ever consider that the neutron might be romantic fiction, just like
the brontosaurus?

TCross

[Alex W.]

On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 09:51:46 -0600, Robert Parker wrote:



>
> Ever consider that the entire life of Jesus was a complete fabrication like
> Paul Bunyon?

That may be, but the historicity or not of Jesus does not detract
from the importance of the languages used. Even if one views the
bible strictly as a source for a system of philosophy and
morality, the interplay between three languages over several
centuries is of massive import.

["cares.-"]

>> Tell me, is not theology a study of all gods and God without distinction
or
>> judgment? Is there a bottom line to theology, and outcome to be expected
or
>> are all gods on a level playing field?
>
> Who cares? The dictionary will satisfy the curious.
>

"Huh? Only the minds of dullards."

Hmmm, an interesting comment from mr. dictionary himself, no?

["understand.-"]

>The language landscape of palistine at that time is known independently of
>the gospels. Aramaic was the dailyy street language and had been so for
>some time. Elsewhere jews as did others used greek as the common
language.
>It was also known in palistine by the literate jews.

"Ever consider that the entire life of Jesus was a complete fabrication
like Paul Bunyon?"

Sure, and some 100 years ago or so a tiny minority of scholars proposed the
idea. The current consensus among scholars of all kinds is that Christ is
a historiccal figure.

[linuxgal]

Terry Cross wrote:
> Ever consider that the neutron might be romantic fiction, just like
> the brontosaurus?

Yeah, a real bodice ripper, "The Neutron & the Brontosaurus".

[Christopher A. Lee]

No.

Was Albert Schweitzer part of that consensus?

You know, the scholar who spent decades searching for historical
evidence and finding none?

There is no evidence outside Christian tradition.

If there were you would have pointed to it instead of hiding behind
anonymous "scholars" whom you claim say there is but don't say how
they reach that conclusion.

And if there were, do you honestly think a conversion religion like
Christianity could have kept it to itself when it would have been
their silver bullet?

[Mike Painter]

On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 08:58:04 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>Ever consider that the neutron might be romantic fiction, just like
>the brontosaurus?

We have physical evidence for both of them.
There is none for a Jesus Christ as mentioned in the gospels.
There is a body of evidence against such a person.

If it was a god and gave a rats ass about people you would think that
it would have left behind some evidence.
We have more evidence for the existence of Roman soldiers than of this
thing with the compassion of a spider.
--
"When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion." ~ Robert Pirsig

["body.-"]

>Ever consider that the neutron might be romantic fiction, just like
>the brontosaurus?

"We have physical evidence for both of them. There is none for a Jesus
Christ as mentioned in the gospels. There is a body of evidence against
such a person."

Do we have physical evidence for socrates or alexander the great?

What "body of evidence" to which you refer?

[Terry Cross]

On Nov 23, 10:17 am, Mike Painter <mddotpain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 08:58:04 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross
>

> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Ever consider that the neutron might be romantic fiction, just like
> >the brontosaurus?
>
> We have physical evidence for both of them.

Heh! Are YOU ever behind! Your cardinals have decided the
brontosaurus never existed. It was created a century ago by mounting
the wrong skull on skeleton. How could you "have evidence" for
something that never existed?

A few years ago scientists were admitting the mistake. Now even the
mistake has been edited out of history.

> There is none for a Jesus Christ as mentioned in the gospels.

The gospels themselves are evidence, just as other literature is
evidence of the existence of historical figures. Pythagoras, for
example.

> There is a body of evidence against such a person.

Only in the minds of Christian-hating rabbis, who would quickly create
a dead body out of Jesus all over again, if they could get their hands
on him.

TCross

[Terry Cross]

On Nov 23, 10:11 am, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> On 23 Nov 2012 17:44:03 GMT, "understand.-" wrote:
>
>
>
> >>The language landscape of palistine at that time is known independently of
> >>the gospels.  Aramaic was the dailyy street language and had been so for
> >>some time.  Elsewhere jews as did others used greek as the common
> >language.
> >>It was also known in palistine by the literate jews.
>
> >"Ever consider that the entire life of Jesus was a complete fabrication
> >like Paul Bunyon?"
>
> >Sure, and some 100 years ago or so a tiny minority of scholars proposed the
> >idea.  The current consensus among scholars of all kinds is that Christ is
> >a historiccal figure.
>
> No.
>
> Was Albert Schweitzer part of that consensus?
>
> You know, the scholar who spent decades searching for historical
> evidence and finding none?
>
> There is no evidence outside Christian tradition.

The Talmud also contains stories of Jesus -- hateful and
discreditable, but still they exist. Why do you deny it?

TCross

["sure.-"]

>"Ever consider that the entire life of Jesus was a complete fabrication
>like Paul Bunyon?"
>
>Sure, and some 100 years ago or so a tiny minority of scholars proposed
the
>idea. The current consensus among scholars of all kinds is that Christ is
>a historiccal figure.

"No.

Was Albert Schweitzer part of that consensus?"

No, but he was part of the tiny minority mentioned 100 or so years ago.

"You know, the scholar who spent decades searching for historical evidence
and finding none?

There is no evidence outside Christian tradition.

If there were you would have pointed to it instead of hiding behind
anonymous "scholars" whom you claim say there is but don't say how they
reach that conclusion."

Then do your own follow up with the reference pointers given here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus
existed,^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] and biblical scholars and classical historians
regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.^[5]^[6]^[7]

[Christopher A. Lee]

BUT NEITHER YOU NOR THEY SAY WHY THEY REACH THIS CONCLUSION.

NOTHING HAS EVER BEEN PROVIDED THAT STANDS UP TO THE SLIGHTEST
SCRUTINY.

MOST OF IT DOESN'T EVEN MENTION JESUS, JUST CHRISTIANS AS FOLLOWERS OF
SOME VARIANT OF CHRESTUS.

THE *O*N*L*Y* THING REMOTELY MENTIONING HIM IS THE OBVIOUS CHRISTIAN
FORGERY IN JOSEPHUS.

Now, instead of pointing us to a web site and expecting us to find
something you imagine supports your claims that there actually is
evidence, why not give one piece that you find convincing.

And be prep eared to defend it.

Here's a clue - we've been to the web sites you laughingly imagine
provide evidence.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Dishonest analogy time.

If you had provided as much evidence for Jesus as there is for
Alexander, then you might have had a point.

But you didn't, and you haven't.

Alexander - a conclusion from the historical process, from multiple
independent sources, for whom there was nothing out of the ordinary:
generals exist and have their conquests remembered.

Jesus - a pre-existing belief for which believers have no evidence but
desperately rationalise things which don't stand up to the slightest
scrutiny and attack those who point this out

["sure.-"]

>>"Ever consider that the entire life of Jesus was a complete fabrication
>>like Paul Bunyon?"
>>
>>Sure, and some 100 years ago or so a tiny minority of scholars proposed
>the
>>idea. The current consensus among scholars of all kinds is that Christ
is
>>a historiccal figure.
>
>"No.
>
>Was Albert Schweitzer part of that consensus?"
>
>No, but he was part of the tiny minority mentioned 100 or so years ago.
>
>"You know, the scholar who spent decades searching for historical evidence
>and finding none?
>
>There is no evidence outside Christian tradition.
>
>If there were you would have pointed to it instead of hiding behind
>anonymous "scholars" whom you claim say there is but don't say how they
>reach that conclusion."
>
>Then do your own follow up with the reference pointers given here:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
>
>Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus
>existed,^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] and biblical scholars and classical historians
>regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.^[5]^[6]^[7]

"BUT NEITHER YOU NOR THEY SAY WHY THEY REACH THIS CONCLUSION."

Ah, so in the few minutes since the above was posted you did the follow up
for all the scholars listed, including reading the books etc. they did?

Then comes the strawmen hand waving and foot stomping:

"NOTHING HAS EVER BEEN PROVIDED THAT STANDS UP TO THE SLIGHTEST SCRUTINY.

MOST OF IT DOESN'T EVEN MENTION JESUS, JUST CHRISTIANS AS FOLLOWERS OF SOME
VARIANT OF CHRESTUS.

THE *O*N*L*Y* THING REMOTELY MENTIONING HIM IS THE OBVIOUS CHRISTIAN
FORGERY IN JOSEPHUS.

Now, instead of pointing us to a web site and expecting us to find
something you imagine supports your claims that there actually is evidence,
why not give one piece that you find convincing.

And be prep eared to defend it.

Here's a clue - we've been to the web sites you laughingly imagine"

Sorry,, the burden is your's to refute the several scholars given as
pointers in the above link. You will notice several of them are not
believers.

As for the strawmen examples alluded to, none are from me so they are
irrelevant, no?

So much hand waving and stomping of feet, so little scholarship, sigh.

[Terry Cross]

On Nov 23, 11:31 am, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> On 23 Nov 2012 18:41:31 GMT, "body.-" wrote:
>
> >>Ever consider that the neutron might be romantic fiction, just like
> >>the brontosaurus?
>
> >"We have physical evidence for both of them. There is none for a Jesus
> >Christ as mentioned in the gospels. There is a body of evidence against
> >such a person."
>
> >Do we have physical evidence for socrates or alexander the great?
>
> >What "body of evidence" to which you refer?
>
> Dishonest analogy time.
>
> If you had provided as much evidence for Jesus as there is for
> Alexander, then you might have had a point.
>
> But you didn't, and you haven't.
>
> Alexander - a conclusion from the historical process, from multiple
> independent sources, for whom there was nothing out of the ordinary:
> generals exist and have their conquests remembered.
>
> Jesus - a pre-existing belief

You are saying people believed in Jesus before he was born? Wow.
That sounds positively Einstinian.

TCross

[Christopher A. Lee]

On 23 Nov 2012 19:38:34 GMT, "sure.-" wrote:

Why can't you use proper Usenet attribution standards?

Hint: what you think the ">" are for?

>>>"Ever consider that the entire life of Jesus was a complete fabrication
>>>like Paul Bunyon?"
>>>
>>>Sure, and some 100 years ago or so a tiny minority of scholars proposed
>>the
>>>idea. The current consensus among scholars of all kinds is that Christ
>is
>>>a historiccal figure.
>>
>>"No.
>>
>>Was Albert Schweitzer part of that consensus?"
>>
>>No, but he was part of the tiny minority mentioned 100 or so years ago.
>>
>>"You know, the scholar who spent decades searching for historical evidence
>>and finding none?
>>
>>There is no evidence outside Christian tradition.
>>
>>If there were you would have pointed to it instead of hiding behind
>>anonymous "scholars" whom you claim say there is but don't say how they
>>reach that conclusion."
>>
>>Then do your own follow up with the reference pointers given here:
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
>>
>>Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus
>>existed,^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] and biblical scholars and classical historians
>>regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.^[5]^[6]^[7]
>
>"BUT NEITHER YOU NOR THEY SAY WHY THEY REACH THIS CONCLUSION."
>
>Ah, so in the few minutes since the above was posted you did the follow up
>for all the scholars listed, including reading the books etc. they did?

Idiot.

Do you really imagine you're the first to go down this path?

>Then comes the strawmen hand waving and foot stomping:

Lie noted. But thank you for your tacit admission that you have
nothing.

>"NOTHING HAS EVER BEEN PROVIDED THAT STANDS UP TO THE SLIGHTEST SCRUTINY.

It hasn't, imbecile.

>MOST OF IT DOESN'T EVEN MENTION JESUS, JUST CHRISTIANS AS FOLLOWERS OF SOME
>VARIANT OF CHRESTUS.
>
>THE *O*N*L*Y* THING REMOTELY MENTIONING HIM IS THE OBVIOUS CHRISTIAN
>FORGERY IN JOSEPHUS.

Well, moron?

>Now, instead of pointing us to a web site and expecting us to find
>something you imagine supports your claims that there actually is evidence,
>why not give one piece that you find convincing.
>

>And be prepared to defend it.

Tacit admission that you can't, noted.

>Here's a clue - we've been to the web sites you laughingly imagine"
>
>Sorry,, the burden is your's to refute the several scholars given as
>pointers in the above link. You will notice several of them are not
>believers.

Done over and over again, imbecile.

They do not provide anything new, and they fail to adders's the
obvious points.

They have no actual evidence, just rationalisations for what they
believe.

But instead of dishonestly going from providing the evidence you
obviously haven't got, to hiding behind "scholars believe" without
saying why, why don't *Y*O*U* provide what you consider to be the best
they have?

Instead of providing a whole slew of stuff that isn't the evidence
dishonest apologists and gullible, unthinking believers imagine?

>As for the strawmen examples alluded to, none are from me so they are
>irrelevant, no?

Was this meant to make any sense, imbecile?

>So much hand waving and stomping of feet, so little scholarship, sigh.

Lies and projection noted.

Why not try to the defend the commonly offered "evidence"?

Why not explain how Josephus isn't an obvious Christian forgery
because no Jew would call Christianity "the truth", would regard the
coming of the Messiah as a "misfortune for the Jews", would have
thought Jesus was the Messiah without becoming a follower, etc?

Why not show where Tacitus and the others make the connection between
the Christ that Christians followed and the Jesus that his readers
wouldn't have heard of but Christians think are the same with the
benefit of Christian hindsight?

We know you've got nothing from when you used your stupid analogy with
Alexander the Great, to attack us instead of providing anything.

Do you honestly imagine your transparent copouts and other dishonesty
fool anybody?

[Father Haskell]

Tell that to the folks in Hiroshima.

["sure.-"]

>
>Do we have physical evidence for socrates or alexander the great?
>
>What "body of evidence" to which you refer?

"Dishonest analogy time.

If you had provided as much evidence for Jesus as there is for Alexander,
then you might have had a point.

But you didn't, and you haven't."

I posed a question only to another poster, this is empty hand waving and
foot stomping, no?

"Alexander - a conclusion from the historical process, from multiple
independent sources, for whom there was nothing out of the ordinary:
generals exist and have their conquests remembered.

Jesus - a pre-existing belief for which believers have no evidence but
desperately rationalise things which don't stand up to the slightest
scrutiny and attack those who point this out"

Smile, then you really don't know the sources of evidence for alexander do
you?

Here is the starting place for alexander, there were 4 original primary
sources, all are lost to history except by reference. Then it gets worse
from there.

As for Christ, for which there are 4 primary sources of which multiple
secondary copies exist.

Best you did not take up socrates as your example.

["sure.-"]

>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
>>
>>Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus
>>existed,^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] and biblical scholars and classical historians
>>regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.^[5]^[6]^[7]
>
>"BUT NEITHER YOU NOR THEY SAY WHY THEY REACH THIS CONCLUSION."
>
>Ah, so in the few minutes since the above was posted you did the follow up
>for all the scholars listed, including reading the books etc. they did?

"Idiot."

Smile, I made a prediction to myself this would be soon in response, and
terrific scholarship it is too, no?

>So much hand waving and stomping of feet, so little scholarship, sigh.

"Lies and projection noted."

"Lies", a common term in scholarship of this kind, some people are just so
predictible, no?

"Why not try to the defend the commonly offered "evidence"?

Why not explain how Josephus isn't an obvious Christian forgery because no
Jew would call Christianity "the truth", would regard the coming of the
Messiah as a "misfortune for the Jews", would have thought Jesus was the
Messiah without becoming a follower, etc?

Why not show where Tacitus and the others make the connection between the
Christ that Christians followed and the Jesus that his readers wouldn't
have heard of but Christians think are the same with the benefit of
Christian hindsight?"

For the obvious reason they are not questions on the table, only offered as
strawman diversion. The only question on the table is with regard to the
consensus of current scholarship on the question did Christ exist, as
pointed to in the link above.

"We know you've got nothing from when you used your stupid analogy with
Alexander the Great, to attack us instead of providing anything."

Smile, still smarting from that are we? It was not an analogy, it was a
comparison of the kinds of evidence for Christ and alexander. From which
the obvious conclusion was made that if we accept Christ then we have to
accept alexander on the same basis.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On 23 Nov 2012 20:22:32 GMT, "sure.-" wrote:

GET YOUR FUCKING ATTRIBUTES SORTED OUT.

>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
>>>
>>>Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus
>>>existed,^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] and biblical scholars and classical historians
>>>regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.^[5]^[6]^[7]
>>
>>"BUT NEITHER YOU NOR THEY SAY WHY THEY REACH THIS CONCLUSION."
>>
>>Ah, so in the few minutes since the above was posted you did the follow up
>>for all the scholars listed, including reading the books etc. they did?
>
>"Idiot."
>
>Smile, I made a prediction to myself this would be soon in response, and
>terrific scholarship it is too, no?

It was a self-fulfilling prophecy - perhaps you should at least have
tried not to be one.

Why not provide some of the alleged evidence, and the reasons these
anonymous scholars concluded an historical Jesus?

>>So much hand waving and stomping of feet, so little scholarship, sigh.
>
>"Lies and projection noted."
>
>"Lies", a common term in scholarship of this kind, some people are just so
>predictible, no?

Another self-fulfilling prophecy.

You lied.

And these lies only projected yourself.

Why not provide some of the alleged evidence, and the reasons these
anonymous scholars concluded an historical Jesus?

>"Why not try to the defend the commonly offered "evidence"?
>
>Why not explain how Josephus isn't an obvious Christian forgery because no
>Jew would call Christianity "the truth", would regard the coming of the
>Messiah as a "misfortune for the Jews", would have thought Jesus was the
>Messiah without becoming a follower, etc?

Well?

>Why not show where Tacitus and the others make the connection between the
>Christ that Christians followed and the Jesus that his readers wouldn't
>have heard of but Christians think are the same with the benefit of
>Christian hindsight?"
>
>For the obvious reason they are not questions on the table, only offered as
>strawman diversion. The only question on the table is with regard to the
>consensus of current scholarship on the question did Christ exist, as
>pointed to in the link above.

Lies noted.

You turned it into that.

>"We know you've got nothing from when you used your stupid analogy with
>Alexander the Great, to attack us instead of providing anything."
>
>Smile, still smarting from that are we?

Lie noted.

> It was not an analogy,

Lie noted.

> it was a
>comparison of the kinds of evidence for Christ and alexander.

By using Alexander as an analogy.

Which failed for the reasons given.

But don't worry your pointy little head about it, it is a standard
dishonest tactic that theists use, which introduces something in
evidence and undisputed as somehow equivalent to your disputed and
unevidenced Jesus.

> From which
>the obvious conclusion was made that if we accept Christ then we have to
>accept alexander on the same basis.

Only if you had provided as much evidence for Jesus as there is for
Alexander.

The latter is a conclusion from the historical process resulting from
multiple corroborating sources.

The former is a pre-existing religious belief with nothing outside
Christian tradition. The only source is a work of propaganda telling
Christians what to believe, which repeats earlier Mediterranean hero
myths in a first century Judean setting as well as describing events
that simple never happened as well as other supposedly
Earth-shattering events that no contemporary historian mentions.

Now, how about showing some honesty for a change?

["sure.-"]

[Christopher A. Lee]

On 23 Nov 2012 20:34:29 GMT, "sure.-" wrote:

GET YOUR FREAKING ATTRIBUTIONS RIGHT.

>>Do we have physical evidence for socrates or alexander the great?
>>
>>What "body of evidence" to which you refer?
>
>"Dishonest analogy time.
>
>If you had provided as much evidence for Jesus as there is for Alexander,
>then you might have had a point.
>
>But you didn't, and you haven't."
>
>I posed a question only to another poster, this is empty hand waving and
>foot stomping, no?

Lie noted.

It shows what was wrong with your analogy.

>"Alexander - a conclusion from the historical process, from multiple
>independent sources, for whom there was nothing out of the ordinary:
>generals exist and have their conquests remembered.
>
>Jesus - a pre-existing belief for which believers have no evidence but
>desperately rationalise things which don't stand up to the slightest
>scrutiny and attack those who point this out"
>
>Smile, then you really don't know the sources of evidence for alexander do
>you?

Lie noted.

Provide as much evidence for an historical Jesus as there is for
Alexander, and you might have a point.

But in any case it doesn't matter whether the general and conqueror
was actually called Alexander or Fred.

But your hypothetical Jesus is supposed to be Jesus and no-one else.

>Here is the starting place for alexander, there were 4 original primary
>sources, all are lost to history except by reference. Then it gets worse
>from there.

Apart from the records of the battles as far as Northern India - where
he became known as Sikander. The contemporary statues, coins etc.

But in any case, nobody insists I have to treat him as the important
person ever.

>As for Christ, for which there are 4 primary sources of which multiple
>secondary copies exist.

And these are?

>Best you did not take up socrates as your example.

YOUR example, imbecile, not mine.

Heck, even though there is not very much, he is still a conclusion.

You don't seem to understand that the more evidence from independent
sources, the more confidence there is. And people don't use books that
describe events that never happened, repeat earlier myths and legends,
get basic historical and geographical details wrong, etc.

And unlike your Jesus, it is his ideas that are important. They could
just as easily have come from someone called Fred.

It is another dishonest analogy.

[Linda Lee]

On Nov 23, 8:36 am, "known.-" wrote:
> "Since he bestowed an Aramaic name (Cephas) on Simon, he likely spoke
> Aramaic to the apostles. But he must have spoken Greek to the crowds;
> otherwise, the Hellenized Jews could not have understood him.
>
> In fact quite the oppisite was likely the reality.  Aramaic was common to
> all jews of palistine, the greek literate jews were fewer in number and
> more likely urban and of the upper classes.  When Christ traveled and spoke
> to thousands of local
> people aramaic was the common language to use.

Please provide some proof of that.

>
> "And he was called "Jesus of Galilee" because he had resided in "Galilee of
> the Gentiles" (Matt. 4:15), another indication he would know Greek."
>
> A better indication of Christ being literate in greek is that He read from
> the torah.  It was for most jews the one used in greek translation.

Yes, the original Septuagint, so why wouldn't Greek have been commonly
known by most Jews since it was the Greek language Septuagint that was
used in the synagogues at that time?

>
> It is often problematical to make such inferrences from the scriptures.  It
> assumes it is exaustive as to being representative of culture of palistine
> of the time.

["sure...-"]

>>Do we have physical evidence for socrates or alexander the great?
>>
>>What "body of evidence" to which you refer?
>
>"Dishonest analogy time.
>
>If you had provided as much evidence for Jesus as there is for Alexander,
>then you might have had a point.
>
>But you didn't, and you haven't."
>
>I posed a question only to another poster, this is empty hand waving and
>foot stomping, no?

"Lie noted."

Smile, diversion attempt noted.

"It shows what was wrong with your analogy."

How so? It goes to the point of how to evaluate historical people based on
the evidence to hand, including alexander.

>"Alexander - a conclusion from the historical process, from multiple
>independent sources, for whom there was nothing out of the ordinary:
>generals exist and have their conquests remembered.
>
>Jesus - a pre-existing belief for which believers have no evidence but
>desperately rationalise things which don't stand up to the slightest
>scrutiny and attack those who point this out"
>
>Smile, then you really don't know the sources of evidence for alexander
do
>you?

"Lie noted."

Smile, diversion attempt noted.

"Provide as much evidence for an historical Jesus as there is for
Alexander, and you might have a point."

We are getting to that, we are leading you slowly into the evidence for
alexander.

"But in any case it doesn't matter whether the general and conqueror was
actually called Alexander or Fred."

Relevancy?

"But your hypothetical Jesus is supposed to be Jesus and no-one else."

Relevancy?

>Here is the starting place for alexander, there were 4 original primary
>sources, all are lost to history except by reference. Then it gets worse
>from there.

"Apart from the records of the battles as far as Northern India - where he
became known as Sikander. The contemporary statues, coins etc."

The original 4 sources are lost, that is the source of what you mention.
Then there were 4 sources who made those references, alas they too are now
lost except by yet other later references. Many gods had coins and art
devoted to them. Could alexander be a god?

"But in any case, nobody insists I have to treat him as the important
person ever."

Smile, diversion attempt noted.

>As for Christ, for which there are 4 primary sources of which multiple
>secondary copies exist.

"And these are?"

The 4 gospels, not to mention other works of the same time period of people
who are said to have known Him.

>Best you did not take up socrates as your example.

"YOUR example, imbecile, not mine."

It was included in the question to the original poster, who is not you.

"Heck, even though there is not very much, he is still a conclusion."

Only plato wrote anything to suggest he even existed. On that basis, if we
accept Christ then we have to accept him also out of historical charity,
no?

"You don't seem to understand that the more evidence from independent
sources, the more confidence there is. And people don't use books that
describe events that never happened, repeat earlier myths and legends, get
basic historical and geographical details wrong, etc."

Sure, that is why we are giving alexander a chance to help himself based on
the same kinds of evidence.

"And unlike your Jesus, it is his ideas that are important. They could just
as easily have come from someone called Fred."

What are the sources for this fred, we must give him an equal chance in
this, no?

"It is another dishonest analogy."

It is only fair, if we accept Christ then we should accept alexander and
socrates and this new fella fred if the evidence is there.

["understand.-"]

> "Since he bestowed an Aramaic name (Cephas) on Simon, he likely spoke
> Aramaic to the apostles. But he must have spoken Greek to the crowds;
> otherwise, the Hellenized Jews could not have understood him.
>

> In fact quite the oppisite was likely the reality. =A0Aramaic was common
=

to
> all jews of palistine, the greek literate jews were fewer in number and

> more likely urban and of the upper classes. =A0When Christ traveled and
s=

poke
> to thousands of local
> people aramaic was the common language to use.

"Please provide some proof of that."

Here bout palistine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Palestinian_Aramaic

Here about Aramaic as used in the entire middle east region::

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_language

> "And he was called "Jesus of Galilee" because he had resided in "Galilee
of
> the Gentiles" (Matt. 4:15), another indication he would know Greek."

The first link above has mention of the situation in Galilee", which had
its own variation of Aramaic.

> A better indication of Christ being literate in greek is that He read
from
> the torah. It was for most jews the one used in greek translation.

"Yes, the original Septuagint, so why wouldn't Greek have been commonly
known by most Jews since it was the Greek language Septuagint that was used
in the synagogues at that time?"

Most jews in palistine were not literate in any language. Many did not use
greek in the palistine area as per the links above.

The shift from hebrew to Aramaic also saw sources in Aramaic. These came
into existance during the time in excile when Aramaic instead of hebrew was
used. A hebrew reader would have an Aramaic translater at his side to
provide summerization for those present. In time these were written down
for those who could read Aramaic.

Read about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targum

["understand.-"]

>"Since he bestowed an Aramaic name (Cephas) on Simon, he likely spoke
>Aramaic to the apostles. But he must have spoken Greek to the crowds;
>otherwise, the Hellenized Jews could not have understood him.
>

>In fact quite the oppisite was likely the reality. Aramaic was common to

>all jews of palistine, the greek literate jews were fewer in number and

>more likely urban and of the upper classes. When Christ traveled and
spoke

>to thousands of local
>people aramaic was the common language to use.
>

>"And he was called "Jesus of Galilee" because he had resided in "Galilee
of
>the Gentiles" (Matt. 4:15), another indication he would know Greek."
>

>A better indication of Christ being literate in greek is that He read from
>the torah. It was for most jews the one used in greek translation.
>

>It is often problematical to make such inferrences from the scriptures.
It
>assumes it is exaustive as to being representative of culture of palistine
>of the time.

"More likely to be a pure fabrication of the early Christian priest con "

Within the context of the language question of this thread, how so? men.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On 23 Nov 2012 21:55:41 GMT, "sure...-" wrote:

>>>Do we have physical evidence for socrates or alexander the great?
>>>
>>>What "body of evidence" to which you refer?
>>
>>"Dishonest analogy time.
>>
>>If you had provided as much evidence for Jesus as there is for Alexander,
>>then you might have had a point.
>>
>>But you didn't, and you haven't."
>>
>>I posed a question only to another poster, this is empty hand waving and
>>foot stomping, no?
>
>"Lie noted."
>
>Smile, diversion attempt noted.

Another lie noted.

You posted this question in a public atheist forum.

And instead of addressing the reply, you lied about hand-waving and
foot-stomping.

Which was a tacit admission on your part, that you couldn't but needed
to say something.

>"It shows what was wrong with your analogy."
>
>How so? It goes to the point of how to evaluate historical people based on
>the evidence to hand, including alexander.

Asked and answered several times now...

Alexander is a conclusion. Do you understand what that word means?
Derived from multiple corroborating evidence and therefore with a high
degree of confidence. The battles he fought, the conquests he made,
the statues, coins etc.

It doesn't matter whether it was somebody called Alexander or anything
else - the battles and conquests happened.

You have nothing like that for Jesus. The belief came before the
attempts to find evidence.

Do you honestly not understand the difference?

Or the fact that there is nothing remotely resembling the evidence for
Alexander, for Jesus?

The only source for is the NT.

And you can't use that to "prove" itself.

Especially when the bits claimed to be biographical repeat earlier
Mediterranean myths and legends in a Judean setting. Eg virgin births,
coming back to life after dying and finally being raised to the
heavens were a dime a dozen.

As well as describing events which simply never happened as well as
ones so important they would have been mentioned by contemporary
historians but weren't.

The only early secular mention of Jesus, if genuine, would be the
obvious forgery in Josephus.

>>"Alexander - a conclusion from the historical process, from multiple
>>independent sources, for whom there was nothing out of the ordinary:
>>generals exist and have their conquests remembered.
>>
>>Jesus - a pre-existing belief for which believers have no evidence but
>>desperately rationalise things which don't stand up to the slightest
>>scrutiny and attack those who point this out"
>>
>>Smile, then you really don't know the sources of evidence for alexander
>do
>>you?
>
>"Lie noted."
>
>Smile, diversion attempt noted.

What "diversion" were you lying about?

Why don't you actually address what should only need to have been
pointed out once?

>"Provide as much evidence for an historical Jesus as there is for
>Alexander, and you might have a point."
>
>We are getting to that, we are leading you slowly into the evidence for
>alexander.

You should have done so already.

But you didn't.

The conclusion is obvious.

>"But in any case it doesn't matter whether the general and conqueror was
>actually called Alexander or Fred."
>
>Relevancy?
>
>"But your hypothetical Jesus is supposed to be Jesus and no-one else."
>
>Relevancy?

Idiot.

>>Here is the starting place for alexander, there were 4 original primary
>>sources, all are lost to history except by reference. Then it gets worse
>>from there.
>
>"Apart from the records of the battles as far as Northern India - where he
>became known as Sikander. The contemporary statues, coins etc."
>
>The original 4 sources are lost, that is the source of what you mention.
>Then there were 4 sources who made those references, alas they too are now
>lost except by yet other later references. Many gods had coins and art
>devoted to them. Could alexander be a god?

No, liar.

It is NOT the source of what I mention.

On one hand we have a conclusion from multiple independent
corroborating sources, about somebody fairly ordinary - after all, we
know conquerors and generals exist.

And on the other hand we have a character in a work of religious
propaganda for whom there is no corroborating evidence.

For whom the closest thing to corroborating evidence would be the
obvious Christian insertion in Josephus, if it were genuine.

>"But in any case, nobody insists I have to treat him as the important
>person ever."
>
>Smile, diversion attempt noted.

Lie noted.

>>As for Christ, for which there are 4 primary sources of which multiple
>>secondary copies exist.
>
>"And these are?"
>
>The 4 gospels, not to mention other works of the same time period of people
>who are said to have known Him.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha....

The gospels were written after the events by people who never knew
him. They contain obviously made up fiction about events that never
happened as well as repeating common Mediterranean myths in a first
century Jude an setting.

They were written to tell early Christians what to believe when the
religion was being transformed from a minor Jewish sect into a
religion for the gentiles - because that's the sort of thing the
Mediterraneans people expected of their hero figures.

And you can't use the NT to "prove" itself.

Although you can use it to disprove itself - eg the epistles generally
considered to be original, which pre-date the Gospels, even if they
weren't written by Paul only show a spiritual, ethereal Christ not the
Jesus of the Gospels.

You should have cited what these "other sources" were and what they
said.

>>Best you did not take up socrates as your example.
>
>"YOUR example, imbecile, not mine."
>
>It was included in the question to the original poster, who is not you.

In a public forum, imbecile.

>"Heck, even though there is not very much, he is still a conclusion."
>
>Only plato wrote anything to suggest he even existed.

And Xenophon. And Aristophanes.

None of whom have an axe to grind.

But historians admit he is an enigmatic figure about whom very little
is known.

Once again, it's all about confidence - the amount of evidence. There
is not much evidence for Socrates compared with YOUR original example
of Alexander, and historians admit that he may or may not have
existed. He might as well have been a character in a work by Plato.

But it doesn't matter because it is the ideas that count.

Rather like it doesn't matter whether or not Shakespeare's plays were
written by the Bard himself, Bacon or any of the others people have
speculated about. The plays are what are important, not the man.

But it is still more than there is for Jesus.

> On that basis, if we
>accept Christ then we have to accept him also out of historical charity,
>no?

No, moron.

>"You don't seem to understand that the more evidence from independent
>sources, the more confidence there is. And people don't use books that
>describe events that never happened, repeat earlier myths and legends, get
>basic historical and geographical details wrong, etc."
>
>Sure, that is why we are giving alexander a chance to help himself based on
>the same kinds of evidence.

You mean like contemporary reports of his battles, conquests etc? His
statues, coins etc?

>"And unlike your Jesus, it is his ideas that are important. They could just
>as easily have come from someone called Fred."
>
>What are the sources for this fred, we must give him an equal chance in
>this, no?

Idiot.

>"It is another dishonest analogy."
>
>It is only fair, if we accept Christ then we should accept alexander and
>socrates and this new fella fred if the evidence is there.

Why should we accept this hypothetical Christ of yours, imbecile?

["sure.-"]

>>>Do we have physical evidence for socrates or alexander the great?
>>>
>>>What "body of evidence" to which you refer?
>>
>>"Dishonest analogy time.
>>
>>If you had provided as much evidence for Jesus as there is for Alexander,
>>then you might have had a point.
>>
>>But you didn't, and you haven't."
>>
>>I posed a question only to another poster, this is empty hand waving and
>>foot stomping, no?

"You posted this question in a public atheist forum."

You bet, and it was a multiple cross posted thread long before I posed the
question. And here you are, posting in christian newsgroups, who wouda
thunk?

"And instead of addressing the reply, you lied about hand-waving and
foot-stomping."

Sorry charlie, we are now about answering your "response" if it can be
called that.

>How so? It goes to the point of how to evaluate historical people based
on
>the evidence to hand, including alexander.

"Asked and answered several times now..."

What, no answer given, we are now in the process of educating you about the
kind of evidence for alexander.

"Alexander is a conclusion. Do you understand what that word means? Derived
from multiple corroborating evidence and therefore with a high degree of
confidence. The battles he fought, the conquests he made, the statues,
coins etc."

Yup, a conclusion from evidence, which we are now evaluating and bringing
you up to speed.

"It doesn't matter whether it was somebody called Alexander or anything
else - the battles and conquests happened.

You have nothing like that for Jesus. The belief came before the attempts
to find evidence."

Hmm, do you propose Christ fought battles etc. too? Or did he do other
things?

"Do you honestly not understand the difference?"

You bet, and it is so simple minded that you should even bring it up.

"Or the fact that there is nothing remotely resembling the evidence for

Alexander, for Jesus?The only source for is the NT."

And you can't use that to "prove" itself."

Hmmm, here is the evidence for alexander. 4 primary sources, now lost
except by reference in later sources. Those later sources also lost and
known only by reference in later sources. The sources used now were of a
time soon after Christ. How many steps is that removed?

No mention of proving the NT by itself. We have copies of the primary
sources for Christ contained in it. They were written by those who knew
Him or those who did. They came a few decades after Him.

The time depth for the copies for both is of a similar period.

Based on that alone, if we accept Christ, we must out of scholarly charity
accept alexander too.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On 23 Nov 2012 23:21:52 GMT, "sure.-" wrote:

>>>>Do we have physical evidence for socrates or alexander the great?
>>>>
>>>>What "body of evidence" to which you refer?
>>>
>>>"Dishonest analogy time.
>>>
>>>If you had provided as much evidence for Jesus as there is for Alexander,
>>>then you might have had a point.
>>>
>>>But you didn't, and you haven't."
>>>
>>>I posed a question only to another poster, this is empty hand waving and
>>>foot stomping, no?
>
>"You posted this question in a public atheist forum."
>
>You bet, and it was a multiple cross posted thread long before I posed the
>question. And here you are, posting in christian newsgroups, who wouda
>thunk?

And I'm responding to question-begging made in an atheist newsgroup.

It doesn't actually matter which newsgroup it is in - it is all about
using concepts accepted by your audience.

>"And instead of addressing the reply, you lied about hand-waving and
>foot-stomping."
>
>Sorry charlie, we are now about answering your "response" if it can be
>called that.

Another lie noted.

It would have been easier actually to address the points instead of
doing this.

If you could.

>>How so? It goes to the point of how to evaluate historical people based
>on
>>the evidence to hand, including alexander.
>
>"Asked and answered several times now..."
>
>What, no answer given, we are now in the process of educating you about the
>kind of evidence for alexander.

More of the same lies.

>"Alexander is a conclusion. Do you understand what that word means? Derived
>from multiple corroborating evidence and therefore with a high degree of
>confidence. The battles he fought, the conquests he made, the statues,
>coins etc."
>
>Yup, a conclusion from evidence, which we are now evaluating and bringing
>you up to speed.

Project much?

>"It doesn't matter whether it was somebody called Alexander or anything
>else - the battles and conquests happened.
>
>You have nothing like that for Jesus. The belief came before the attempts
>to find evidence."
>
>Hmm, do you propose Christ fought battles etc. too? Or did he do other
>things?

Where did you demonstrate his existence outside Christian mythology,
to do anything?

>"Do you honestly not understand the difference?"
>
>You bet, and it is so simple minded that you should even bring it up.

So why did YOU bring it up, then?

>"Or the fact that there is nothing remotely resembling the evidence for
>Alexander, for Jesus?The only source for is the NT."
>
>And you can't use that to "prove" itself."
>
>Hmmm, here is the evidence for alexander. 4 primary sources, now lost
>except by reference in later sources. Those later sources also lost and
>known only by reference in later sources. The sources used now were of a
>time soon after Christ. How many steps is that removed?

Only if you ignore the reports of his battles,conquests etc which
certainly happened. Or the statues, coins and other things which are
typical of rulers, generals etc.

>No mention of proving the NT by itself. We have copies of the primary
>sources for Christ contained in it. They were written by those who knew
>Him or those who did. They came a few decades after Him.

No, you don't.

For reasons already given.

>The time depth for the copies for both is of a similar period.

Copies of obvious fiction vs copies of something ordinary.

>Based on that alone, if we accept Christ, we must out of scholarly charity
>accept alexander too.

That puts the cart before the horse.

Step aside from your pre-existing belief in Christianity and that the
Bible is an accurate record when it obviously isn't.

Then provide evidence that leads one to conclude Jesus.

And be prepared to defend it when it is cross-examined.

If you can, you'll be the first.

Ever.

Because that's how Alexander was concluded.

["sure.-"]

>Hmmm, here is the evidence for alexander. 4 primary sources, now lost
>except by reference in later sources. Those later sources also lost and
>known only by reference in later sources. The sources used now were of a
>time soon after Christ. How many steps is that removed?

"Only if you ignore the reports of his battles,conquests etc which
certainly happened. Or the statues, coins and other things which are
typical of rulers, generals etc."

No problem we know of them by the now lost 4 primary sources known only
partially and only in reference as outlined above. Gods had statues and
coins, was he a god? The sources say he was divine who did supernatural
acts and he is reported to say he was a god.

>No mention of proving the NT by itself. We have copies of the primary
>sources for Christ contained in it. They were written by those who knew
>Him or those who did. They came a few decades after Him.

"No, you don't.

For reasons already given."

Smile, for presumptive conclusions held based on religious grounds is the
better observation. If you are gonna do real history that has to go.

>The time depth for the copies for both is of a similar period.

"Copies of obvious fiction vs copies of something ordinary."

Smile, there you go again, trying to pull that presumptive religious stuff
on us. Alexander had his supernatural bits but we don't need to evaluate
the evidence based on whatever you might think of it.

>Based on that alone, if we accept Christ, we must out of scholarly charity
>accept alexander too.

"That puts the cart before the horse.

Step aside from your pre-existing belief in Christianity and that the Bible
is an accurate record when it obviously isn't.

Then provide evidence that leads one to conclude Jesus.

And be prepared to defend it when it is cross-examined."

You bet, the very thing we are trying to get you to do regarding your
presumptive religious views as not being relevant to the question. Just
the evidence madam, just the evidence if you please.

"If you can, you'll be the first."

Hmmm, I don't pretend to be the first. The scholars given you previously
have been saying it for a long time. Many of thim like you don't believe
in Christ as divine. But they don't let their religious views get in the
way of doing good history based on the evidence.

If we accept Christ based on similar evidence, then we must accept
alexander too. I don't know about that fred fella, he is a bit fishy if
you ask me.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On 23 Nov 2012 23:56:08 GMT, "sure.-" wrote:

>>Hmmm, here is the evidence for alexander. 4 primary sources, now lost
>>except by reference in later sources. Those later sources also lost and
>>known only by reference in later sources. The sources used now were of a
>>time soon after Christ. How many steps is that removed?
>
>"Only if you ignore the reports of his battles,conquests etc which
>certainly happened. Or the statues, coins and other things which are
>typical of rulers, generals etc."
>
>No problem we know of them by the now lost 4 primary sources known only
>partially and only in reference as outlined above.

COINS, STATUES AND OTHER THINGS THAT ARE TYPICAL OF RULERS, GENERALS
ETC.

> Gods had statues and
>coins, was he a god? The sources say he was divine who did supernatural
>acts and he is reported to say he was a god.

And does that mean he actually was?

Caesars, Pharaohs etc were also described as gods.

But that side of it gets taken with a pinch of salt for obvious
reasons.

>>No mention of proving the NT by itself. We have copies of the primary
>>sources for Christ contained in it.

No, you don't.

If you did have they would have been provided long ago.

> They were written by those who knew
>>Him or those who did. They came a few decades after Him.
>
>"No, you don't.
>
>For reasons already given."
>
>Smile, for presumptive conclusions held based on religious grounds is the
>better observation. If you are gonna do real history that has to go.

That's all you've got.

So why not take your own advice?

Hint: 4rthe only people with that kind of bias are those Christians
who can't think outside the box.

>>The time depth for the copies for both is of a similar period.
>
>"Copies of obvious fiction vs copies of something ordinary."
>
>Smile, there you go again, trying to pull that presumptive religious stuff
>on us. Alexander had his supernatural bits but we don't need to evaluate
>the evidence based on whatever you might think of it.

Fact, liar.

For example, the whole nativity story. The Romans didn't make people
travel long distances to be counted in a census. Especially during the
worst time of the year to travel at walking pace. The region would
have ground to a halt.

>>Based on that alone, if we accept Christ, we must out of scholarly charity
>>accept alexander too.
>
>"That puts the cart before the horse.
>
>Step aside from your pre-existing belief in Christianity and that the Bible
>is an accurate record when it obviously isn't.
>
>Then provide evidence that leads one to conclude Jesus.
>
>And be prepared to defend it when it is cross-examined."
>
>You bet, the very thing we are trying to get you to do regarding your
>presumptive religious views as not being relevant to the question. Just
>the evidence madam, just the evidence if you please.

What "my presumptive religious views" are you lying about?

>"If you can, you'll be the first."
>
>Hmmm, I don't pretend to be the first. The scholars given you previously
>have been saying it for a long time. Many of thim like you don't believe
>in Christ as divine. But they don't let their religious views get in the
>way of doing good history based on the evidence.

What "good history based on evidence", imbecile?

You have provided none.

Just argument from authorities without ever explaining how they reach
their conclusion.

>If we accept Christ based on similar evidence, then we must accept
>alexander too. I don't know about that fred fella, he is a bit fishy if
>you ask me.

What "evidence" for this as yet hypothetical Christ?

Why not actually respond to points that should only need to have been
made once instead of repeating what they addressed?

["sure.-"]

>Step aside from your pre-existing belief in Christianity and that the
Bible
>is an accurate record when it obviously isn't.
>
>Then provide evidence that leads one to conclude Jesus.
>
>And be prepared to defend it when it is cross-examined."
>
>You bet, the very thing we are trying to get you to do regarding your
>presumptive religious views as not being relevant to the question. Just
>the evidence madam, just the evidence if you please.

"What "my presumptive religious views" are you lying about?"

Read above again your very words. Just reverse the point of reference of
the first statement and it applies fully in that capacity.

>"If you can, you'll be the first."
>
>Hmmm, I don't pretend to be the first. The scholars given you previously
>have been saying it for a long time. Many of thim like you don't believe
>in Christ as divine. But they don't let their religious views get in the
>way of doing good history based on the evidence.

"What "good history based on evidence", imbecile?"

Theirs. They put aside their individual religious views and approached the
question entirely as though just another historical question. And they did
so on the same grounds as would be done for alexander using similar sources
as outlined for you.

And I'm going to put aside the supernatural bits that go with the alexander
material because it is not relevant to the question of his existence.

"You have provided none.

Just argument from authorities without ever explaining how they reach their
conclusion."

That is really a seperate question then the one now before us. It is up to
you to follow up on that question as to their methods if you want to see
how scholars in that area work. To my knowledge I have no idea how they
evaluate alexander.

The info outlined for you for Christ and alexander were chosen to be of a
similar nature,ie. the content of written sources from a similar time
period. We can compare them as to how direct they were as to original
sources.

>If we accept Christ based on similar evidence, then we must accept
>alexander too. I don't know about that fred fella, he is a bit fishy if
>you ask me.

"What "evidence" for this as yet hypothetical Christ?"

Written material from a similar time period as that of alexander and
provided you previously.

"Why not actually respond to points that should only need to have been made
once instead of repeating what they addressed?"

Hmmm, some people need repetition to get the point of the nature of the
sources? Some spend so much time inserting strawman diversions that would
be better spent thinking about the question solely as a historian would/do.

If we accept Christ then it is only fair to accept alexander given similar
kinds of information.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On 24 Nov 2012 01:00:56 GMT, "sure.-" wrote:

>>Step aside from your pre-existing belief in Christianity and that the
>Bible
>>is an accurate record when it obviously isn't.
>>
>>Then provide evidence that leads one to conclude Jesus.
>>
>>And be prepared to defend it when it is cross-examined."
>>
>>You bet, the very thing we are trying to get you to do regarding your
>>presumptive religious views as not being relevant to the question. Just
>>the evidence madam, just the evidence if you please.
>
>"What "my presumptive religious views" are you lying about?"
>
>Read above again your very words. Just reverse the point of reference of
>the first statement and it applies fully in that capacity.

Show me where they have any religious presumptions at all, liar.

>>"If you can, you'll be the first."
>>
>>Hmmm, I don't pretend to be the first. The scholars given you previously
>>have been saying it for a long time. Many of thim like you don't believe
>>in Christ as divine. But they don't let their religious views get in the
>>way of doing good history based on the evidence.
>
>"What "good history based on evidence", imbecile?"
>
>Theirs. They put aside their individual religious views and approached the
>question entirely as though just another historical question. And they did
>so on the same grounds as would be done for alexander using similar sources
>as outlined for you.

No, liar.

Because whatever you imagine, nothing remotely resembling evidence
has ever been provided.

The conclusion is obvious.

And you don't falsify it by hiding behind anonymous scholars without
ever explaining what this evidence is, and why it is.

>And I'm going to put aside the supernatural bits that go with the alexander
>material because it is not relevant to the question of his existence.
>
>"You have provided none.
>
>Just argument from authorities without ever explaining how they reach their
>conclusion."
>
>That is really a seperate question then the one now before us. It is up to
>you to follow up on that question as to their methods if you want to see
>how scholars in that area work. To my knowledge I have no idea how they
>evaluate alexander.

No, liar.

It is your problem, not mine.

You introduced him as an analogy and turned that into a red herring.

Now provide some of this claimed historical evidence for Jesus and be
prepared to defend it under cross examination.

Just the piece you have got that you think should be the most
convincing.

And that you can defend.

After all, we're talking to you, not anonymous authorities who might
believe it but it is never explained how they reach their conclusion.

>The info outlined for you for Christ and alexander were chosen to be of a
>similar nature,ie. the content of written sources from a similar time
>period. We can compare them as to how direct they were as to original
>sources.

On one hand, you have multiple independent contemporary sources
writing about ordinary events, backed up by statues, coins, records of
battles and conquests etc.

And on the other you have a work of religious propaganda that is the
only source, written a longtime after the alleged events, which
repeats Mediterranean myths and legends, describes claimed events
which never happened as well as others for which there is no
historical corroboration let alone from contemporary historians like
Philo who was at the heart of events, that gets basic historical and
geographic details wrong, etc.

Leave these and the supernatural bits out and there is nothing.

Leave the bits out of Alexander that talk about the supernatural and
you have plenty left that is corroborated, Just like the various
Caesars that were described as gods.

The historical process leaves out the magic bits.

>>If we accept Christ based on similar evidence, then we must accept
>>alexander too. I don't know about that fred fella, he is a bit fishy if
>>you ask me.
>
>"What "evidence" for this as yet hypothetical Christ?"
>
>Written material from a similar time period as that of alexander and
>provided you previously.

Where did you provide anything from a similar time period?

All you have offered are the Gospels, which are hardly a reliable
source, and in the real world are little different from the scriptures
from all the other religions out there including modern Hinduism, the
ancient Mediterranean religion now called the Greek Myths etc.

>"Why not actually respond to points that should only need to have been made
>once instead of repeating what they addressed?"
>
>Hmmm, some people need repetition to get the point of the nature of the
>sources? Some spend so much time inserting strawman diversions that would
>be better spent thinking about the question solely as a historian would/do.

Project much?

>If we accept Christ then it is only fair to accept alexander given similar
>kinds of information.

Idiot.

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html

Question: "Did Jesus really exist? Is there any historical evidence of
Jesus Christ?"

Answer: Typically, when this question is asked, the person asking
qualifies the question with “outside of the Bible.” We do not grant
this idea that the Bible cannot be considered a source of evidence for
the existence of Jesus. The New Testament contains hundreds of
references to Jesus Christ. There are those who date the writing of
the Gospels to the second century A.D., more than 100 years after
Jesus' death. Even if this were the case (which we strongly dispute),
in terms of ancient evidences, writings less than 200 years after
events took place are considered very reliable evidences. Further, the
vast majority of scholars (Christian and non-Christian) will grant
that the Epistles of Paul (at least some of them) were in fact written
by Paul in the middle of the first century A.D., less than 40 years
after Jesus' death. In terms of ancient manuscript evidence, this is
extraordinarily strong proof of the existence of a man named Jesus in
Israel in the early first century A.D.

It is also important to recognize that in A.D. 70, the Romans invaded
and destroyed Jerusalem and most of Israel, slaughtering its
inhabitants. Entire cities were literally burned to the ground. We
should not be surprised, then, if much evidence of Jesus' existence
was destroyed. Many of the eyewitnesses of Jesus would have been
killed. These facts likely limited the amount of surviving eyewitness
testimony of Jesus.

Considering that Jesus' ministry was largely confined to a relatively
unimportant area in a small corner of the Roman Empire, a surprising
amount of information about Jesus can be drawn from secular historical
sources. Some of the more important historical evidences of Jesus
include the following:

The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more
accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious
“Christians” (from Christus, which is Latin for Christ), who suffered
under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief
secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named
Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals
15.44).

Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his
Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called
Christ.” There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says, “Now there
was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a
man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats....He was [the]
Christ...he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine
prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things
concerning him.” One version reads, “At this time there was a wise man
named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous.
And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his
disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those
who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They
reported that he had appeared to them three days after his
crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the
Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.”

Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the
darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings,
18).

Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship
practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God
and were very ethical, and he includes a reference to the love feast
and Lord’s Supper.

The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on
the eve of Passover and the accusations against Christ of practicing
sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.

Lucian of Samosata was a second-century Greek writer who admits that
Jesus was worshiped by Christians, introduced new teachings, and was
crucified for them. He said that Jesus' teachings included the
brotherhood of believers, the importance of conversion, and the
importance of denying other gods. Christians lived according to Jesus’
laws, believed themselves to be immortal, and were characterized by
contempt for death, voluntary self-devotion, and renunciation of
material goods.

Mara Bar-Serapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and
virtuous man, was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put
to death by the Jews, and lived on in the teachings of His followers.

Then we have all the Gnostic writings (The Gospel of Truth, The
Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on
Resurrection, etc.) that all mention Jesus.

In fact, we can almost reconstruct the gospel just from early non-
Christian sources: Jesus was called the Christ (Josephus), did
“magic,” led Israel into new teachings, and was hanged on Passover for
them (Babylonian Talmud) in Judea (Tacitus), but claimed to be God and
would return (Eliezar), which his followers believed, worshipping Him
as God (Pliny the Younger).

There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both
in secular and biblical history. Perhaps the greatest evidence that
Jesus did exist is the fact that literally thousands of Christians in
the first century A.D., including the twelve apostles, were willing to
give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ. People will die for what
they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be
a lie.

[Olrik]

Le 2012-11-23 13:41, "body.-" a écrit :
>> Ever consider that the neutron might be romantic fiction, just like
>> the brontosaurus?
>

> "We have physical evidence for both of them. There is none for a Jesus
> Christ as mentioned in the gospels. There is a body of evidence against
> such a person."
>

> Do we have physical evidence for socrates or alexander the great?

It doesn't matter. Nobody pretends they were the sons of «gods», and
nobody asks you to worship them.

[Terry Cross]

On Nov 23, 9:45 pm, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Le 2012-11-23 13:41, "body.-" a crit :

>
> >> Ever consider that the neutron might be romantic fiction, just like
> >> the brontosaurus?
>
> > "We have physical evidence for both of them. There is none for a Jesus
> > Christ as mentioned in the gospels. There is a body of evidence against
> > such a person."
>
> > Do we have physical evidence for socrates or alexander the great?
>
> It doesn't matter.

Of course it matters. It disproves your concerns. You are
prejudicial in the application of your judgment.

> Nobody pretends they were the sons of gods , and
> nobody asks you to worship them.

You are asked to give money to beggars, to buy detergent, to root for
the Dodgers, to save for your old age, and to join the Rosicrucians.
None of it is required of you, and no facts become fictions upon the
asking.

TCross

[SkyEyes]

On Nov 23, 11:41 am, "body.-" wrote:
> >Ever consider that the neutron might be romantic fiction, just like
> >the brontosaurus?
>
> "We have physical evidence for both of them. There is none for a Jesus
> Christ as mentioned in the gospels. There is a body of evidence against
> such a person."
>
> Do we have physical evidence for socrates or alexander the great?

For Socrates, very little. Quite a bit for Alexander. None for
Jesus.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[SkyEyes]

Jesus, as a single character, never existed. Saul of Tarsus, a
Hellenized Jew who desperately wanted a Jewish mystery cult like the
Greeks had, made up the figure of Christ. The gospels were written
decades afterwards, to invent a biography of a guy called "Jesus" (a
common name at the time) who was conflated with "Christ."

[SkyEyes]

Interestingly enough, they have found the cremated bones of
Alexander's father, Phillip of Macedon, and those of his second wife,
Euridice.

That serves to underscore the reality of Alexander. Not to mention
the fact that his face appears in coins that date *from his reign* in
multiple countries.

[SkyEyes]

You don't seem to grok the concept that "extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence." What Alexander did was pretty ordinary; he
was simply quite prolific and good at his job. We know that armies
conquer other armies, and that in the past, the leaders of conquering
armies were elevated to high status. Therefore, it's no great stretch
to believe that Alexander existed - we've got hard evidence that his
family, in particular his father, Phillip of Macedon, existed during
the time they were said to have existed, and therefore no stretch to
think that he had a son named Alexander, as is given in the histories.

The figure of Jesus is quite another matter: he is supposed to have
don quite extraordinary things, and therefore an extraordinary degree
of evidence is required. Unfortunately, there *is* none. "Jesus"
seems to have been a character invented to be Saul of Tarsus' "Christ"
figure - Saul's character was invented long before any of the
supposedly biographical material about "Jesus" was ever written.

[SkyEyes]

On Nov 23, 5:19 pm, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net>
wrote:

Not to mention the fact that there were *no* censuses taken during the
reign of Cesar Agustus.

Oh: and shepherds don't keep their sheep outside during the winter,
not even in Palestine, which has a climate similar to the one I enjoy
in southern Arizona. Sheep are kept outside during *lambing season*,
which is in the spring.

So, if there was a Jesus, he wasn't born during a census and he wasn't
born in December.

So what other things are christians wrong about?

Probably a *lot*.

[SkyEyes]

On Nov 23, 6:00 pm, "sure.-" wrote:

> "What "evidence" for this as yet hypothetical Christ?"
>
> Written material from a similar time period as that of alexander and
> provided you previously.

Your problem is that the written material all comes from *within* the
religious tradition, and is, therefore, to be taken with a grain of
salt. There is no independent, non-christian documentation of the
life of Jesus. That's a real problem for you.

Alexander, on the other hand, is documented in writings by people who
liked him, by people who *didn't* like him, and by people who didn't
care one way or the other about him. There are also coins that date
*from his lifetime* with his picture on him, statues that date *from
his lifetime* bearing his likeness, and the small matter of the bones
of his father and stepmother having been discovered in Macedonia,
IIRC, about 15-20 years ago. Given the weight of the physical
evidence alone, not believing in Alexander the Great would be
perverse.

No such evidence for any Yeshua bar Yussef from the Galillee, sad to
say. Only religious writing which are not objective because they're
pushing an agenda. No coins with his likeness dating from the time he
actually is supposed to have lived. No statues made from his likeness
in life. No independent, non-christian documentation of any of the
doings in the NT.

And *then* there's the problem of the existence of a god - any god.
Nobody has any evidence supporting *that* contention, either.

I say the whole thing's a put-up job, designed to reign in the sheep.

[Terry Cross]

On Nov 23, 5:22 pm, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net>
wrote:

Your hostility to the existence of Jesus is noted. Your hostility is
far beyond rational. The memmoires of the people who lived with Jesus
are historical records of his existence. And from the Talmud, we have
the institutional hatred of Jesus carried on for generations of
Pharisees, still frothing about what they would do the Jesus if they
found him alive again.

This level of evidence is accepted about many persons as historical
evidence. It is the same we have for Pythagoras, Socrates, and many
others whose historicity is accepted by historians.

It is tragic that you are so hostile to Jesus, but your condition can
be addressed. You might begin by questioning the training you had on
the subject. Maybe there was some person you trusted who has strong
emotions on the subject ...?

TCross

[Terry Cross]

You are welcome to your ideas. If it makes you feel better when you
close your eyes, by all means disbelieve it with all your heart. You
can keep your disbelief in Jesus in the same precious box of faiths
with your belief in Quarks, neutrons, brontosaurs -- and the eternal
vigilance of your ancestors, if that is your cultural heritage.

TCross

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<8bc478ad-02f7-4944...@uk1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

Terry Cross <tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 5:22 pm, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net>
> wrote:


> > Now provide some of this claimed historical evidence for Jesus and be
> > prepared to defend it under cross examination.
>
> Your hostility to the existence of Jesus is noted.

Please point out to me in those 2 lines where the hostility lives.

Obviously, you can't believe that asking for evidence that someone or
something exists is hostile? Can you?

Nah. You couldn't. Believing that would be a sure sign of brain damage.
Obviously caused by a lifetime of brainwashing.

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<8bc478ad-02f7-4944...@uk1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
Terry Cross <tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Your hostility to the existence of Jesus is noted. Your hostility is
> far beyond rational. The memmoires of the people who lived with Jesus
> are historical records of his existence. And from the Talmud, we have
> the institutional hatred of Jesus carried on for generations of
> Pharisees, still frothing about what they would do the Jesus if they
> found him alive again.

I'd like to see some samples of this frothing. Please.

> This level of evidence is accepted about many persons as historical
> evidence. It is the same we have for Pythagoras, Socrates, and many
> others whose historicity is accepted by historians.

Nope. You're wrong. We have far more evidence their their existence than
there is for any single person named Jesus. The Gospels were written
decades after Jesus was alleged to have lived and died. None of them
was written by the person whose name is on them, so they are all nothing
but hearsay (and please don't insult me, or yourself, by bringing up
Josephus because we all know that those passages were added years later.

> It is tragic that you are so hostile to Jesus, but your condition can
> be addressed. You might begin by questioning the training you had on
> the subject. Maybe there was some person you trusted who has strong
> emotions on the subject ...?

Wow, that paragraph is a fine example of passive aggression. I applaud
your effort.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<6a30a856-67b9-4487...@kt16g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

Except that nobody BELIEVES in quarks (why did you capitalize the
word?), neutrons, nor brontosaurs, so your conclusion is fatally flawed.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 23:17:35 -0800 (PST), SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net>
wrote:

>On Nov 23, 6:00 pm, "sure.-" wrote:
>
>> "What "evidence" for this as yet hypothetical Christ?"
>>
>> Written material from a similar time period as that of alexander and
>> provided you previously.
>
>Your problem is that the written material all comes from *within* the
>religious tradition, and is, therefore, to be taken with a grain of
>salt. There is no independent, non-christian documentation of the
>life of Jesus. That's a real problem for you.

He's had this explained about a dozen times in this very thread.

>Alexander, on the other hand, is documented in writings by people who
>liked him, by people who *didn't* like him, and by people who didn't
>care one way or the other about him. There are also coins that date
>*from his lifetime* with his picture on him, statues that date *from
>his lifetime* bearing his likeness, and the small matter of the bones
>of his father and stepmother having been discovered in Macedonia,
>IIRC, about 15-20 years ago. Given the weight of the physical
>evidence alone, not believing in Alexander the Great would be
>perverse.

And this too.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 01:48:54 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>In article
><8bc478ad-02f7-4944...@uk1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
> Terry Cross <tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Your hostility to the existence of Jesus is noted. Your hostility is
>> far beyond rational. The memmoires of the people who lived with Jesus
>> are historical records of his existence. And from the Talmud, we have
>> the institutional hatred of Jesus carried on for generations of
>> Pharisees, still frothing about what they would do the Jesus if they
>> found him alive again.
>
>I'd like to see some samples of this frothing. Please.

And with lies this they pretend they don't understand why "all
atheists do is call theists liars".

But they're very revealing.

If they actually had anything to say on the subject they wouldn't need
them.

She amateur-psychologises hostility rather than address points that
wouldn't even have been made if theists kept their beliefs where they
belong, ie inside their religion.

She makes up non-existent "facts" and claims these are evidence.
The stuff in the Talmud is a reaction to Christian claims and made
long after the alleged events.

She pretends that there are me moires written by people who were with
him.

The "institutional hatred for Jesus by Pharisees over generations", is
a paranoid fabrication.

>> This level of evidence is accepted about many persons as historical
>> evidence. It is the same we have for Pythagoras, Socrates, and many
>> others whose historicity is accepted by historians.
>
>Nope. You're wrong. We have far more evidence their their existence than
>there is for any single person named Jesus. The Gospels were written
>decades after Jesus was alleged to have lived and died. None of them
>was written by the person whose name is on them, so they are all nothing
>but hearsay (and please don't insult me, or yourself, by bringing up
>Josephus because we all know that those passages were added years later.

And now she uses the standard dishonest analogies that turn into red
herrings where she equates the unevidenced and disputed with the
evidenced and undisputed.

>> It is tragic that you are so hostile to Jesus, but your condition can
>> be addressed. You might begin by questioning the training you had on
>> the subject. Maybe there was some person you trusted who has strong
>> emotions on the subject ...?
>
>Wow, that paragraph is a fine example of passive aggression. I applaud
>your effort.

Basically, she is a typically nasty theist lying through her teeth.

Anything to avoid addressing points raised.

Any lie, any diversion, any transparent dishonesty.

She's here off and on for years.

Can anybody ever remember any honesty or human decency from her?

[Christopher A. Lee]

It's just another stupid, dishonest theist lying about those with a
better understanding of reality.

[walksalone]

"sure.-" wrote in news:50afe555$0$12886$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu:

Follow up set to only group I read.

>>Do we have physical evidence for socrates or alexander the great?
>>
>>What "body of evidence" to which you refer?
>
> "Dishonest analogy time.

& you are the professor giving the lecture?

> If you had provided as much evidence for Jesus as there is for
> Alexander, then you might have had a point.

Historically & from reliable sources, there is no evidence for a Jesus the
Christ. Which I am assuming is the one you are referring to.

> But you didn't, and you haven't."

According to you. Not having followed your less than stellar career on the
atheist newsgroup, I don't know what evidence has been provided. But this
I do know, extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence.
Or do you accept there is a thirty-five ton red dragon siting in my lap? I
hope not.

> I posed a question only to another poster, this is empty hand waving
> and foot stomping, no?

& you are good at it, I admit.

> "Alexander - a conclusion from the historical process, from multiple
> independent sources, for whom there was nothing out of the ordinary:
> generals exist and have their conquests remembered.

Oh but there was. He conquered the entire Medeterainian basin & left his
mark in India. Reminds me of Koresh[sp]. Another great & the only messiah
of the Jewish faith to this date. You see, theirs is not the xian
imitation. Theirs will arrive with a case of whup ass & take back Israel,
which was never theirs to start with.[1] Wait, Ben Gurion already did
that, but he failed the other requirements. No messiah him.

> Jesus - a pre-existing belief for which believers have no evidence but

Not even that. The Jesus of the xian & Islamic myth never was a messiah by
Jewish standards. & can't be.
You see, he failed every prediction, & that is a big nono for that is the
acid test.
Maybe one of these messiahs will be more to your likeing?

Theudas
Menahem ben Judah
Simon bar Kokhba (died c. 135) - defeated in the Second Jewish War
Moses of Crete (5th century)
Is?a? ben Ya'?ub Obadiah Abu 'Isa al-Isfahani of Ispahan
Yudghan
Serene (Sherini, Sheria, Serenus, Zonoria, Saüra) (c. 720)
David Alroy or Alrui (c. 1160)
Abraham Abulafia (b. 1240)
Nissim ben Abraham
David Reuveni
Shlomo Molkho (or, Solomon Molko)
Isaac Luria (or, Yitzhak Luria)
Hayim Vital
Moses Botarel of Cisneros
Asher Lemmlein
Sabbatai Zevi (Alternative spellings: Shabbetai, Sabbetai; Tvi, Tzvi)
Jacob Querido
Barukhia Russo (Osman Baba)
Miguel (Abraham) Cardoso (b. 1630)
Mordecai Mokia? ("the Rebuker") of Eisenstadt
Löbele Prossnitz
Jacob Joseph Frank (1726 - 1791) - Founder of the Frankist movement
R. Nachman of Bratslav
J. Krishnamurti (1895 - 1986)
Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902 - 1994)
Georges-Emest Roux (1903 - 1981), the Christ de Montfavet, founder of the
Eglise Chrétienne Universelle
Sun Myung Moon (born 1920) - Founder of the Unification Church
Sathya Sai Baba (born 1926 or 1929)
David Icke (born 1952), the British former footballer and football
commentator who became famous in the early 1990s for claiming to be the Son
of God.
David Koresh (1959-1993)
Maria Devi Christos (born 1960) - Founder of the "Great White Brotherhood"


& as to the requirements your bubba failed to meet?

Descendant of David

"See, a time is coming -- declares the Lord -- when I will raise up a true
branch of David's line. He shall reign as king and shall prosper, and he
shall do what is just and right in the land." -- Jeremiah 23:5 (See also
Ezekiel 34:23-24, 37:21-28; Isaiah 11:1-9; Jeremiah 30:7-10; Jeremiah
33:14-16; Hosea 3:4-5)

Insert:
According to his Geneologies, he is not a son of Joesph [who may not be a
son of any descendent of David], & there are at least two conflicting
geneologies involved. Does anyone know of one for Mary?


Preceded by Elijah

"Lo, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before the coming of the awesome
[the messiah], fearful day of the Lord. He shall reconcile parents with
children and children with their parents, so that, when I come, I do not
strike the whole land with utter destruction." -- Malachi 3:23-24

World Peace

"And he [the messiah] shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many
people; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears
into pruning hooks. Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither
shall they learn war any more." -- Isaiah 2:4

"He [the messiah] will destroy death forever." -- Isaiah 25:8

"Then the inhabitants of the cities of Israel will go out and make fire and
feed them with the weapons -- shields and bucklers, bows and arrows, clubs
and spears; they shall use them as fuel for seven years." -- Ezekiel 39:9

Universal Knowledge of G-d

"For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters
cover the sea." -- Isaiah 11:9

"And no longer shall one teach his neighbor or shall one teach his brother,
saying, 'Know the Lord, for they shall all know Me, from their smallest to
their greatest' says the Lord." -- Jeremiah 31:33

"All who survive of all those nations that came up against Jerusalem shall
make a pilgrimage year by year to bow low to the King Lord of Hosts and to
observe the feasts." -- Zechariah 14:16

"And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be
one Lord, and His name one." -- Zechariah 14:9

"Thus said the Lord of Hosts: 'In those days, ten men from nations of every
tongue will take hold -- they will take hold of every Jew by a corner of
his cloak and say, 'Let us go with you, for we have heard that G-d is with
you'." -- Zechariah 8.23

Building of the Third Temple

"And I will set My sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore. My temple
also shall be with them. Yes, I will be their G-d and they shall be My
people. And the heathen shall know that I the Lord do sanctify Israel, when
My sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore." -- Ezekiel 37:26-
28 (See also Ezekiel 40-48; Isaiah 33:20)

Death Will Cease

"He [the messiah] will swallow up death forever." -- Isaiah 25:8

Resurrection of the Dead

"Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise.
Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust, for thy dew is as the dew of herbs,
and the earth shall cast out the dead." -- Isaiah 26:19

"And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to
everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." -- Daniel
12:2

"Therefore, prophecy and say to them, 'So says the Lord G-d: Lo! I open
your graves and cause you to come up out of your graves as My people, and
bring you home to the land of Israel. Then you shall know that I am the
Lord, when I open your graves and lead you up out of your graves as My
people'." -- Ezekiel 37:12-13

Ingathering of Israel

"I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather you from the west. I will
say to the north, 'Give up', and to the south, 'Keep not back, bring My
sons from far, and My daughter from the ends of the earth'." -- Isaiah
43:5-6. (See also Jeremiah 16:15; 23:3; Isaiah 11:12; Zechariah 10:6;
Ezekiel 37:21-22)

The Nations Will Help the Jews Materially

"Then you shall see and be radiant, and your heart shall fear and expand;
because the abundance of the sea shall be overturned upon you, the wealth
of the nations shall come to you." -- Isaiah 60:5

"Foreigners shall build up your walls, and their kings shall minister to
you. Men shall bring you the wealth of the nations with their kings led in
procession. For the nation and kingdom that will not serve you shall
perish; those nations shall be utterly laid waste." -- Isaiah 60:10-12

"But you shall be called 'priests of the Lord', men shall say of you,
'ministers of our G-d'; you shall eat the wealth of the nations, and in
their riches you shall glory." -- Isaiah 61:6

Eternal Joy and Gladness Will Characterize the Jewish Nation

"And the redeemed of the Lord shall return, and come to Zion in song;
everlasting joy shall be upon their head; they shall obtain joy and
gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee." -- Isaiah 51:11

The Jews Will Be Sought For Spiritual Guidance

"Thus says the Lord of hosts: 'In those days ten men out of all the
languages of the nations shall take hold and seize the robe of a Jew,
saying: 'Let us go with you, for we have heard that G-d is with you'." --
Zechariah 8:23

All Weapons Of War Will Be Destroyed

"Then those who dwell in the cities of Israel will go forth and set fire to
the weapons and burn them, shields and bucklers, bows and arrows,
handspikes and spears, and they will make fires of them for seven
years." -- Ezekiel 39:9

The Enemy Dead Will Be Buried

"For seven months the House of Israel will be burying them, in order to
cleanse the land." -- Ezekiel 39:12

The Egyptian River Will Run Dry

"And the Lord will utterly destroy the tongue of the sea of Egypt and wave
His hand over the river with His scorching wind, and smite it into seven
channels, and make men cross dryshod." -- Isaiah 11:15

Trees Will Yield New Fruit Monthly in Israel

"And on both sides of the bank of the stream, all trees for food will grow;
their leaves will not wither nor will their fruit fail, but they will bear
fresh fruit every month, because their waters flow from the Sanctuary;
their fruit will be for food, and their leaves for medicine." -- Ezekiel
47:12

Each Tribe of Israel Will Receive It's Inheritance

"Thus says the Lord, G-d: 'These are the boundaries by which you shall
divide the land for inheritance among the twelve tribes of Israel: Joseph
shall have two portions. And you shall divide equally that which I swore to
give your fathers, and this land shall fall to you as your
inheritance'." -- Ezekiel 47:13-14

All Warfare Will Cease

"And He shall judge among the nations and decide for many peoples; and they
shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning
hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they
learn war anymore." -- Isaiah 2:4


Now xians like to peretend the above requirements are just not so, or fall
back on the pretension that they are under a new covenent, but according to
the Hebrew bible, their big daddy with the fuzzy nuts does not change his
mind. & for better or it, they are his chosen. Weird I know, but there it
is.

> desperately rationalise things which don't stand up to the slightest
> scrutiny and attack those who point this out"

Are you on a poor me kick, or have you earned it?

> Smile, then you really don't know the sources of evidence for
> alexander do you?

Personally, other than coinage & the appearance of Greek names for
locations that never had had them, no. Aware does not of necessity mean
know, like you are trying to use it. Why, do you do anything but pretend
on the atheist news group, which you are cross posting to?

> Here is the starting place for alexander, there were 4 original
> primary sources, all are lost to history except by reference. Then it
> gets worse from there.

Your pretensious claim does not match the evidence on the ground. What are
the primary sources? Coinage, still aropund. Place names, still around.
Left over military equipment, still around. Greek philosophy suddenly
being common in places like Judea, evidence still around.
Archaeology, still around.

Whether his name was Alexander or not, I fess I don't know. But I do know
this, had a historical Jesus as claimed by xianity been around, there would
be evidence for it.

> As for Christ, for which there are 4 primary sources of which multiple
> secondary copies exist.

Four original gospels then, & they are no doubt complete & pristene as well
as agreeing with later versions? I doubt that very much. But then, I have
an unfair advantage, I don't have to believe in bubba JC & the dirty dozen.
BTW, why 12 apostles. Couldn't be for symbolism, could it? Of course,
numerology was in vouge in Judea & the Hellenized world, so a zodialogical
reference? After all, the heavens were the abodes of the gods.

> Best you did not take up socrates as your example.

Best you learn of what you speak, for all you are doing is mumbling your
lines & failing to be very amusing.

You may be a master of Agent news but not so good at doing anything but
pretending to know things. Things you can't show.

walksalone who may not be a historian, but can read in context. & the
evidence says that atheists are not the deluded ones.

[1] There is no archaelogical evidence for a united kingdom as claimed in
the Hebrew Bible. There is evidence for a golden age myth.
One such reference,
The Bible unearthed. Check your local library, unless you are in the
babble belt.


If a man would register all his opinions upon love, politics, religion,
learning, etc., beginning from his youth and so go on to old age, what a
bundle of inconsistencies and contradictions would appear at last!
-Jonathan Swift, satirist (1667-1745)

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 01:42:07 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>In article
><8bc478ad-02f7-4944...@uk1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
> Terry Cross <tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 23, 5:22 pm, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>
>
>> > Now provide some of this claimed historical evidence for Jesus and be
>> > prepared to defend it under cross examination.
>>
>> Your hostility to the existence of Jesus is noted.
>
>Please point out to me in those 2 lines where the hostility lives.
>
>Obviously, you can't believe that asking for evidence that someone or
>something exists is hostile? Can you?

It's a standard theist lie - she can't allow anybody to have honest
reasons not to believe, and therefore pointing out that there is no
evidence has to be amateur-psychologised rather than addressed.

She's just doing what cornered Christians who have put themselves on
the defensive, so.

>Nah. You couldn't. Believing that would be a sure sign of brain damage.
>Obviously caused by a lifetime of brainwashing.

It's impossible to hold any kind of discussion with theists like her,
and far too many others both on and off the net.

They are so wrong you don't know where to start, and then they
introduce more that is just plain wrong but they expect it to be
treated as undisputed fact.

After which they resort to personal lies as ad hominems.

[Sam Taylor]

"understand.-" wrote in message
news:50af6efb$0$12886$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu...


> "The Messiah had no problems in speaking to people who spoke many
> languages, but the crowd who watched him be crucified could not
understan=
d
> Aramaic or Hebrew."
>
> I would not jump to such a conclusion based on that alone.

Okay, some.


>=A0In both
> accounts at the cross we don't know who and how many were what is
> apparently the source used in both gospels. =A0We can not generalize from
> what might have been only one witness used by the source to all jews in
> palistine. =A0We do not know the makeup of the crowd at the cross except
=
for
> those specifically mentioned.

"Jews were mentioned."

Yes but the language usage of them is not known. Literate jews would
likely have had greek in addition to the daily aramaic. And we don't know
the language of the source recording the event and/or if any witnesses had
one language or another. The only one all would have is aramaic.

Hebrew, and Aramaic are related languages, of which Hebrew is
considered a "Dialect" of the syriatic languages, and b Hebrew
another "Dialect" of the same
Sam

["sure.-"]

"Where did you provide anything from a similar time period?

All you have offered are the Gospels, which are hardly a reliable source,
and in the real world are little different from the scriptures from all the
other religions out there including modern Hinduism, the ancient
Mediterranean religion now called the Greek Myths etc."

The gospels and the other authors of the NT are witness to or knew those
who were witnesses to the actual person of Christ.

Once you put aside your religious perspectivd, as a real historian
would/does, then the material can be approached as any other historical
material.

This is the exact approach of the link given you as to the current almost
complete consensus as to Christ being a historical person. That includes
people who are not believers.

>"Why not actually respond to points that should only need to have been
made
>once instead of repeating what they addressed?"
>
>Hmmm, some people need repetition to get the point of the nature of the
>sources? Some spend so much time inserting strawman diversions that would
>be better spent thinking about the question solely as a historian
would/do.

"Project much?"

Let's hold that thought.

>If we accept Christ then it is only fair to accept alexander given similar
>kinds of information.

"Idiot."

There it is, projection.

If we accept Christ then in all academic fairness we must accetp alexander
too.

That even though the latter material sources are so distant and of 4th hand
derivation with two levels of sources lost and known only in reference.
That too even though those sources speak of alexander as divine, which he
conffirmed about himself, and was said to have performed supernatural acts.
We can overlook all those deficiences in his historical record.

["sure.-"]

> "You don't seem to understand that the more evidence from independent
> sources, the more confidence there is. And people don't use books that
> describe events that never happened, repeat earlier myths and legends,

ge=

t
> basic historical and geographical details wrong, etc."
>
> Sure, that is why we are giving alexander a chance to help himself based

=

on
> the same kinds of evidence.

"Interestingly enough, they have found the cremated bones of Alexander's
father, Phillip of Macedon, and those of his second wife, Euridice."

Hmmm, but alexander is said to claim his father was a god, which is his
claim to divinity.

"That serves to underscore the reality of Alexander. Not to mention the
fact that his face appears in coins that date *from his reign* in multiple
countries."

You bet, the face of gods appeared all over the place in the classical
world. Look's like his claim to divinty has some merit?

If we accept Christ on a similar basis as that of alexander, it is only
fair to say the latter existed too.

["sure.-"]

"You don't seem to grok the concept that "extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence." What Alexander did was pretty ordinary; he
was simply quite prolific and good at his job. We know that armies
conquer other armies, and that in the past, the leaders of conquering
armies were elevated to high status. Therefore, it's no great stretch
to believe that Alexander existed - we've got hard evidence that his
family, in particular his father, Phillip of Macedon, existed during
the time they were said to have existed, and therefore no stretch to
think that he had a son named Alexander, as is given in the histories.

The figure of Jesus is quite another matter: he is supposed to have
don quite extraordinary things, and therefore an extraordinary degree
of evidence is required. Unfortunately, there *is* none. "Jesus"
seems to have been a character invented to be Saul of Tarsus' "Christ"
figure - Saul's character was invented long before any of the
supposedly biographical material about "Jesus" was ever written."

You don't seem to krep that religious figures can in the historically
ordinary sense have a great impact. We know this from multiple examples
all over the globe in history. We have hard evidence those leaders gave
rise to social/cultural movements that have a lasting historical impact.

You don't seem to klep that alexander made extraordinary claims about his
divinity as to being the son of a god and of the reports of his doing
supernatural acts.

If we accept Christ on the ordinary grounds of social/cultural/historical
impact, as is the practice of historians, then we must accept alexander on
the same grounds.

["sure.-"]

"Your problem is that the written material all comes from *within* the
religious tradition, and is, therefore, to be taken with a grain of salt.
There is no independent, non-christian documentation of the life of Jesus.
That's a real problem for you."

Not in the least, many people known in history are from a religious
tradition. You need to abandone your presumptive religious ideas if you
want to do real history.

"Alexander, on the other hand, is documented in writings by people who
liked him, by people who *didn't* like him, and by people who didn't care
one way or the other about him. There are also coins that date *from his
lifetime* with his picture on him, statues that date *from his lifetime*
bearing his likeness, and the small matter of the bones of his father and
stepmother having been discovered in Macedonia, IIRC, about 15-20 years
ago. Given the weight of the physical evidence alone, not believing in
Alexander the Great would be perverse."

Those primary writings are lost, only later references to it. Those later
writings are also lost and known from later references. The sources used
are from a period soon after the time of Christ. Now there is much much
room in there for the various perspectives about alexander to bloom and
flourish based on ignorance in the realsense and of the bias of the 4th
hand material, no?

Do we reject all historical figures if coins and art isn't present? Gods
were on coins and in art, alexander said he was a god because he was the
son of a god.

"No such evidence for any Yeshua bar Yussef from the Galillee, sad to say.
Only religious writing which are not objective because they're pushing an
agenda. No coins with his likeness dating from the time he actually is
supposed to have lived. No statues made from his likeness in life. No
independent, non-christian documentation of any of the doings in the NT."

Addressed above. The actual kinds of material we have for accepted
historical figures is in no way the same, nor is there need to be so.

And your observations must then also be rejected for your religious agenda?

"And *then* there's the problem of the existence of a god - any god. Nobody

has any evidence supporting *that* contention, either." " Yup, there goes
alexander; poof. And along with him all those historical figures making
similar claims; poof.

"I say the whole thing's a put-up job, designed to reign in the sheep.""

Every one can own an opinion, but they cann't own the facts. And the
consensus of scholars who study the question say Christ did exist. And
they are from multiple academic areas and of various and/or no faith.

One would conclude also that they would agree that if we accept Christ on
similar kinds of normal historical evidence then we must accept alexander
too. They as real historians having put aside their various presumptive
religious views.

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

Let me give you a quick summation. There must
have been an epicenter for Christianity. In a court
of law independent witnesses that are in basic
agreement are considered poof of truth. Both
Irenaeus of Lyons and Tertullian of Carthage from
opposite areas of the Roman Empire pointed out
all the Apostolic Churches had the same four Gospels
in the late second century, this was over one
hundred years before the Edict of Milan 313 A.D. that
made Christianity legal. There was no group in
the late 2 century A.D. that could have evforced
that unity. Q.E.D. The basic agreement of the
four witnesses proves they are truthful.


You can check this out by going to your
local Bible Society and check out the ancient
versions of the Aramaic. Greek, Coptic, Vetus
Latin, and other ancient churches.


You are quoting scholars from the 20th century. Lets quote
an author from the 2nd who heard Polycarp in his youth and
Polycarp knew the Apostle John, Irenaeus of Lyons.


"So Matthew ... issued a writting of the gospel...Peter and Paul
were preaching the gospel at Rome...after their decease, Mark, the
disciple
and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writting what
Peter


had preached. Then Luke, the follower of Paul, recorded in a book
the gospel as it was preached by him. Finally John, the disciple of
the


Lord,
who had also lain on his breast, himself published the Gospel,
while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia."


"Early Christian Fathers", Cyril C. Richardson, P 370


Let me give a quote by Terullian circa 200 A.D.


"run over [to] the Apostolic Churches, in which the very thrones
of the Apostles are still pre-emminent in their places, in which
their own authentic writings (autheniticae) are read, uttering the
voice and representing the face of them severally . Achaia is very
near you, (in which) you find Corinth. Since you are not far from
Macedonia, you have Philippi;; (and there too) you have the
Thessalononians. Since you are able to cross to Asia[minor], you
get Ephesus. Since, morever, you are close upon Italy, you have
Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very
authority
(of the Apostles themselves).


Prescription against Heretics, p 36, Voll III, "The Ante-Nicene
Fathers"


Jim


Ac 1:3 - To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by
many
infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the
things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

[Terry Cross]

On Nov 24, 1:51 am, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <6a30a856-67b9-4487-8e38-80ee96955...@kt16g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

What a strange statement. I am guessing you didn't know what to deny,
so you just started anywhere at random.

TCross

[Terry Cross]

On Nov 24, 2:31 am, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 01:51:07 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >In article
> ><6a30a856-67b9-4487-8e38-80ee96955...@kt16g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

Let me guess -- you don't believe in what you call reality. Am I
right?

TCross

[Terry Cross]

On Nov 24, 1:48 am, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> In article

> <8bc478ad-02f7-4944-a102-9cbb9a749...@uk1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

>  Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Your hostility to the existence of Jesus is noted.  Your hostility is

> > far beyond rational.  The memoirs of the people who lived with Jesus

> > are historical records of his existence.  And from the Talmud, we have
> > the institutional hatred of Jesus carried on for generations of
> > Pharisees, still frothing about what they would do the Jesus if they
> > found him alive again.
>
> I'd like to see some samples of this frothing. Please.

AND A HERALD PRECEDES HIM etc. This implies, only immediately before
[the execution], but not previous thereto.33 [In contradiction to
this] it was taught: On the eve of the Passover Yeshu the Nasarean34
was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald
went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has
practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Any one who can say
anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.'
But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on
the eve of the Passover!35 — Ulla retorted: 'Do you suppose that he
was one for whom a defence could be made? Was he not a Mesith
[enticer], concerning whom Scripture says, Neither shalt thou spare,
neither shalt thou conceal him?36 With Yeshu however it was
different, for he was connected with the government [or royalty, i.e.,
influential].'

Our Rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Nezer,
Buni and Todah. When Matthai was brought [before the court] he said to
them [the judges], Shall Matthai be executed? Is it not written,
Matthai [when] shall I come and appear before God?37 Thereupon they
retorted; Yes, Matthai shall be executed, since it is written, When
Matthai [when] shall [he] die and his name perish.38 When Nakai was
brought in he said to them; Shall Nakai be executed? It is not
written, Naki [the innocent] and the righteous slay thou not?39 Yes,
was the answer, Nakai shall be executed, since it is written, in
secret places does Naki40 [the innocent] slay.41 When Nezer was
brought in, he said; Shall Nezer be executed? Is it not written, And
Nezer [a twig] shall grow forth out of his roots.42 Yes, they said,
Nezer shall be executed, since it is written, But thou art cast forth
away from thy grave like Nezer [an abhorred offshoot].43 When Buni was
brought in, he said: Shall Buni be executed? Is it not written, Beni
[my son], my first born?44 Yes, they said, Buni shall be executed,
since it is written, Behold I will slay Bine-ka [thy son] thy first
born.45 And when Todah was brought in, he said to them; Shall Todah be
executed? Is it not written, A psalm for Todah [thanksgiving]?46 Yes,
they answered, Todah shall be executed, since it is written, Whoso
offereth the sacrifice of Todah [thanksgiving] honoured me.47

http://come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_44.html#E48

TCross

[Mike Painter]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 01:03:26 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>The memmoires of the people who lived with Jesus
>are historical records of his existence.

Most of those people were dead by the time the first Gospel was
written.
Memories change over time and few people are reliable witnesses to
start with.

And some of it *must* be fiction.
The agony in the garden is one such.
His words are written done even though the only people who might have
heard them were asleep.
Matthew 26: 39-45

Note Matthew 27:8 "Wherefore that field was called, The field of
blood, unto this day. "

Unto this day is more internal evidence that a long time passed
between the alleged events and the writing of the story.
--
"When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion." ~ Robert Pirsig