Jesus was a fictional character

12 views
Skip to first unread message

John P. Boatwright

unread,
Apr 28, 2002, 8:19:34 PM4/28/02
to
David wrote:
>
> Jesus was a fictional character.
>
> The character Jesus was not based upon any living person.

No, Josephus wrote about Jesus as well as recording
a number of other events of the time. There were also
witnesses that wrote of him.

You lose.

God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.

Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)

Mirror site at: http://For-God.net

Eric Gill

unread,
Apr 28, 2002, 8:28:54 PM4/28/02
to
"John P. Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net> wrote in news:3CCC8FBF.314C@For-
God.net:

> David wrote:
>>
>> Jesus was a fictional character.
>>
>> The character Jesus was not based upon any living person.
>
> No, Josephus wrote about Jesus as well as recording
> a number of other events of the time.

Josephus was born after the Jesus allegedly died, John.

You're so "special."

And it's interesting that "Jospehus" alludes to Jesus' twin dying instead
of him, like several of the Gnostic traditions claimed.

Hmmm- I seem to recall Josephus being an orthodox Jew, not a Christian
Gnostic.

I wonder just where those passages came from?

> There were also
> witnesses that wrote of him.

Well, that's what the mythology claims.

Two witnesses, that is.

Maybe.

And exactly zero besides believers that witnessed the events such as the
earthquake and eclipse, despite how hard it would to cover them up.

Funny, that. Like most of your "special" ramblings.

> You lose.

Now, now, John- don't get all worked up. The nurse will be right along
with your meds and a change for your diaper.

Jesus Christ

unread,
Apr 28, 2002, 10:00:54 PM4/28/02
to
Verily, verily, "John P. Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net> sayeth unto us:

> David wrote:
> >
> > Jesus was a fictional character.
> >
> > The character Jesus was not based upon any living person.
>
> No, Josephus wrote about Jesus as well as recording
> a number of other events of the time. There were also
> witnesses that wrote of him.

Where does Josephus write about Herod's order to slaughter all the infants?

--
___ _ ___ , , __ _ ______
/\ / (_) ()(_| | () / (_)/| |/|/ \ | | ()(_) |
| | \__ /\ | | /\ | |___| |___/ | | /\ |
| | / / \ | | / \ | | |\| \ _ |/ / \ _ |
\_|/\___//(__/ \__/\_//(__/ \___/ | |/| \_/\_/\//(__/(_/
/|
\| FALSE CHRISTIANS (failed the Luke 6:30 test):
Pastor Frank
M. Clark

----------------

Otho

unread,
Apr 28, 2002, 10:31:19 PM4/28/02
to

"Jesus Christ" <Je...@christ.hvn> wrote in message
news:aai9gl$31v$1...@astroconsulting.databasix.com...

> Verily, verily, "John P. Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net> sayeth unto us:
>
> > David wrote:
> > >
> > > Jesus was a fictional character.
> > >
> > > The character Jesus was not based upon any living person.
> >
> > No, Josephus wrote about Jesus as well as recording
> > a number of other events of the time. There were also
> > witnesses that wrote of him.
>
> Where does Josephus write about Herod's order to slaughter all the
infants?
>
He does not but that is no proof that Jesus did not exist.

"There was no annunciation of the angel Gabriel to the Virgin Mary. There
was no star that shone in the sky to announce Jesus' birth. There were no
wise men who followed that star. There were no gifts of gold, frankincense,
or myrrh. There was no murder of innocent male babies by the wicked King
Herod. There was no tax enrollment ordered by Quirinius, the governor of
Syria, and thus no journey of Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem. There was no
manger. There was no heavenly messenger who proclaimed the birth of this
Jesus to hillside shepherds, no angelic chorus that sang "Glory to God the
highest." There was no journey to the Temple in Jerusalem at age 12. All of
these are storytelling creations of the Jewish mind, seeking to explain in a
thoroughly Jewish way the experience that people had with the adult Jesus.
If it is history that we desire, then let me state that the overwhelming
probability is that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem but in Nazareth of
Galilee. The whole Bethlehem tradition was quite clearly a much later
attempt to interpret Jesus as the heir of David and thus the anticipated
messianic figure who would arise out of the line of David, and whose
prophesied birthplace would be Bethlehem."

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/59/story_5924_2.html

Jesus Christ

unread,
Apr 28, 2002, 11:03:52 PM4/28/02
to
Verily, verily, "Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu> sayeth unto us:

>
> "Jesus Christ" <Je...@christ.hvn> wrote in message
> news:aai9gl$31v$1...@astroconsulting.databasix.com...
> > Verily, verily, "John P. Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net> sayeth unto
> > us:
> >
> > > David wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Jesus was a fictional character.
> > > >
> > > > The character Jesus was not based upon any living person.
> > >
> > > No, Josephus wrote about Jesus as well as recording
> > > a number of other events of the time. There were also
> > > witnesses that wrote of him.
> >
> > Where does Josephus write about Herod's order to slaughter all the
> infants?
> >
> He does not but that is no proof that Jesus did not exist.

It questions the reliance on using Josephus. If Josephus is an accurate
historian, then Herod never ordered the slaughter and the bible is errant;
if Josephus isn't an accurate historian, then you can't entirely trust his
(already suspect) account on Jesus.

Michael Painter

unread,
Apr 28, 2002, 11:01:52 PM4/28/02
to

"Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu> wrote in message
news:Xi2z8.1933$sh6.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...

>
> He does not but that is no proof that Jesus did not exist.
>
> "There was no annunciation of the angel Gabriel to the Virgin Mary. There
> was no star that shone in the sky to announce Jesus' birth. There were no
> wise men who followed that star. There were no gifts of gold,
frankincense,
> or myrrh. There was no murder of innocent male babies by the wicked King
> Herod. There was no tax enrollment ordered by Quirinius, the governor of
> Syria, and thus no journey of Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem. There was no
> manger. There was no heavenly messenger who proclaimed the birth of this
> Jesus to hillside shepherds, no angelic chorus that sang "Glory to God the
> highest." There was no journey to the Temple in Jerusalem at age 12. All
of
> these are storytelling creations of the Jewish mind, seeking to explain in
a
> thoroughly Jewish way the experience that people had with the adult Jesus.
> If it is history that we desire, then let me state that the overwhelming
> probability is that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem but in Nazareth of
> Galilee. The whole Bethlehem tradition was quite clearly a much later
> attempt to interpret Jesus as the heir of David and thus the anticipated
> messianic figure who would arise out of the line of David, and whose
> prophesied birthplace would be Bethlehem."
>
> http://www.beliefnet.com/story/59/story_5924_2.html
>
http://www.americanatheist.org/win96-7/T2/ozjesus.html points out that there
is no evidence that anything called Nazareth existed at the time.


Otho

unread,
Apr 28, 2002, 11:24:38 PM4/28/02
to

"Michael Painter" <m.pa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:AI2z8.56295$QC1.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
How can it be proven that Nazareth did not exist at the time of Jesus'
birth?
The assertion that Jesus is not a historical figure or that he did not live
in the early 1st century CE is held by a small number of academics.
>


Mussi...@cxl.aa

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 12:15:20 AM4/29/02
to
"Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu> opined:
>
>"Jesus Christ" <Je...@christ.hvn> wrote in message
>news:aai9gl$31v$1...@astroconsulting.databasix.com...
>> Verily, verily, "John P. Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net> sayeth unto us:
>>
>> > David wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Jesus was a fictional character.
>> >
>> > No, Josephus wrote about Jesus as well as recording
>> > a number of other events of the time. There were also
>> > witnesses that wrote of him.
>>
>> Where does Josephus write about Herod's order to slaughter all the
> >infants?
>>
>He does not but that is no proof that Jesus did not exist.
>
The New Testament remains the only place where we hear of Herod's order to
slaughter all the infants. Neither the Romans nor the Jews have any
record or memory of it, AFAIK. One would expect the Jews to
save some special badmouthing for Herod, but I haven't heard it.

And the preposterous fabrication, that Mary and Joseph would have
had to return to Bethlehem to pay a tax, could only arise in the
imagination of the politically and historically naive...say
the addled follower of a cult religion, a hundred or so years later.


--
Of the three Popes, John the Twenty-third was the first
victim: he fled and was brought back a prisoner: the
most scandalous charges were suppressed: the Vicar of
Christ was only accused of piracy, murder, rape, sodomy,
and incest. _Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire_, Gibbon

Otho

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 12:05:39 AM4/29/02
to

"Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu> wrote in message news:...

>
> "Jesus Christ" <Je...@christ.hvn> wrote in message
> news:aaid6n$qic$1...@astroconsulting.databasix.com...

> > Verily, verily, "Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu> sayeth unto us:
> >
> > >
> > > "Jesus Christ" <Je...@christ.hvn> wrote in message
> > > news:aai9gl$31v$1...@astroconsulting.databasix.com...
> > > > Verily, verily, "John P. Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net> sayeth unto
> > > > us:
> > > >
> > > > > David wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jesus was a fictional character.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The character Jesus was not based upon any living person.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, Josephus wrote about Jesus as well as recording
> > > > > a number of other events of the time. There were also
> > > > > witnesses that wrote of him.
> > > >
> > > > Where does Josephus write about Herod's order to slaughter all the
> > > infants?
> > > >
> > > He does not but that is no proof that Jesus did not exist.
> >
> > It questions the reliance on using Josephus. If Josephus is an accurate
> > historian, then Herod never ordered the slaughter and the bible is
errant;
> > if Josephus isn't an accurate historian, then you can't entirely trust
his
> > (already suspect) account on Jesus.
> > --
> Before Masada was discovered Jews believed that Josephus was a liar and a
> traitor and so did we. You couldn't even find the writings of Josephus.
Why
> this change of mind on the parts of Jews and Christians? It is certainly
not
> only because Masada has became a tourist attraction. We were told lies.
> Archeology is proving that Josephus is a reliable historical source.
>
> http://www.centuryone.com/josephus.html
>
The writings of Josephus about John the Baptist are never questioned.
Was John the Baptist beheaded? Most likely not.
Was Aretas beheaded? No.

Flavius Josephus, Jewish antiquities 18.109-119
"About this time Aretas, the king of the Arabian city Petra, and Herod
Antipas had a quarrel. Herod the tetrarch had married the daughter of Aretas
[called Phasaelis], and had lived with her a great while. But when he was
once at Rome, he lodged with Herod, who was his brother indeed, but not by
the same mother (this Herod was the son of the high priest Sireoh's
daughter). Here, he fell in love with Herodias, this other Herod's wife, who
was the daughter of Aristobulus their brother, and the sister of Agrippa the
Great. Antipas ventured to talk to her about a marriage between them; when
she admitted, an agreement was made for her to change her habitation, and
come to him as soon as he should return from Rome: one article of this
marriage also was that he should divorce Aretas's daughter.
So Antipas made this agreement and returned home again. But his wife had
discovered the agreement he had made before he had been able to tell her
about it. She asked him to send her to Macherus, which is a place in the
borders of the dominions of Aretas and Herod, without informing him of her
intentions. So, Herod sent her thither, unaware that his wife had perceived
something.

Earlier, she had sent to Macherus, and all things necessary for her journey
were made already prepared for her by a general of Aretas's army.
Consequently, she soon arrived in Arabia, under the conduct of several
generals, who carried her from one to another successively. She met her
father, and told him of Herod's intentions. So Aretas made this the first
occasion of the enmity between him and Herod, who had also some quarrel with
him about their limits near Gamala.

So both sides raised armies, prepared for war, and sent their generals to
fight. When they joined battle, Herod's army was completely destroyed by the
treachery of some fugitives, who, though they were from the tetrarchy of
Philip, had joined Aretas's army. So Herod wrote about these affairs to the
emperor Tiberius, who became very angry at the attempt made by Aretas, and
wrote to Vitellius, the governor of Syria, to make war upon him, and either
to take him alive and bring him to him in bonds, or to kill him and send him
his head. This was the charge that Tiberius gave to the governor of Syria.


Judaea and its neigbors
(click on thumbnail to see
full scale map)
Arabia Petraea is in
the southeast
Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from
God as a just punishment of what Herod had done against John, who was called
the Baptist. For Herod had killed this good man, who had commanded the Jews
to exercise virtue, righteousness towards one another and piety towards God.
For only thus, in John's opinion, would the baptism he administered be
acceptable to God, namely, if they used it to obtain not pardon for some
sins but rather the cleansing of their bodies, inasmuch as it was taken for
granted that their souls had already been purified by justice.
Coin of Herod Antipas
(click on thumbnail to see
full scale picture)
Now many people came in crowds to him, for they were greatly moved by his
words. Herod, who feared that the great influence John had over the masses
might put them into his power and enable him to raise a rebellion (for they
seemed ready to do anything he should advise), thought it best to put him
to death. In this way, he might prevent any mischief John might cause, and
not bring himself into difficulties by sparing a man who might make him
repent of it when it would be too late.
Accordingly John was sent as a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper,
to Macherus, the castle I already mentioned, and was put to death. Now the
Jews thought that the destruction of his army was sent as a punishment upon
Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure with him."


>
>
>
>


Otho

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 12:12:58 AM4/29/02
to
Sorry, forgot to include the website URL.
Re: Flavius Josephus, Jewish antiquities 18.109-119

http://www.livius.org/jo-jz/josephus/fj02.html

"Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu> wrote in message

news:SH3z8.6857$5e6.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...

Otho

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 12:40:50 AM4/29/02
to

<Mussi...@CXL.aa> wrote in message
news:sN3z8.249002$GF1.35...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...

> "Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu> opined:
> >
> >"Jesus Christ" <Je...@christ.hvn> wrote in message
> >news:aai9gl$31v$1...@astroconsulting.databasix.com...
> >> Verily, verily, "John P. Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net> sayeth unto us:
> >>
> >> > David wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Jesus was a fictional character.
> >> >
> >> > No, Josephus wrote about Jesus as well as recording
> >> > a number of other events of the time. There were also
> >> > witnesses that wrote of him.
> >>
> >> Where does Josephus write about Herod's order to slaughter all the
> > >infants?
> >>
> >He does not but that is no proof that Jesus did not exist.
> >
> The New Testament remains the only place where we hear of Herod's order to
> slaughter all the infants. Neither the Romans nor the Jews have any
> record or memory of it, AFAIK. One would expect the Jews to
> save some special badmouthing for Herod, but I haven't heard it.

Maybe you should read Josephus and find out more about the relation between
Jews and Herod the Great. It was not a love affair, I can assure you that
much.


>
> And the preposterous fabrication, that Mary and Joseph would have
> had to return to Bethlehem to pay a tax, could only arise in the
> imagination of the politically and historically naive...say
> the addled follower of a cult religion, a hundred or so years later.
>

You need to change your approach. The Bible is not a history book. The
narratives in it are religious and theological. They have a meaning. "...
preposterous fabrication, politically and historically naive" ? I think you
are the one that is being preposterous, politically and historically naive.
Storytelling in the Gospels as well as in the Tanach was a creation of the
Jewish mind, you should know that. Why should the authors of the New
Testament writings have used a different genre of literature? You read
biblical narratives and you conclude that those who wrote them were
"politically and historically naive". I don't buy that. I think they rather
were intelligent. I can't say that of you though. You should know better.


Biomes/Mark

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 1:10:32 AM4/29/02
to

Otho wrote:

I agree with you, but you must understand that readers of this newsgroup are
constantly bombarded by clueless people like boatwright and others, who
honestly beleive the bible is inerrant. For these people the bible is a
history book. Thus the approach you refer to has almost become default.
Mark

Dan Fake

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 1:20:36 AM4/29/02
to
"Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu> wrote in message news:d53z8.4488$kq1.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...

>
> The assertion that Jesus is not a historical figure or that he did not live
> in the early 1st century CE is held by a small number of academics.

Using historically reliable information, tell us who this
Jesus is you are referring to. There are no contempor-
aneous writings about a Jesus, the gospels are full
of myths (and it isn't even known who wrote those
documents and theories abound as to the reasons
the documents were written and what the source
for the material was), Paul's christ is a heavenly figure,
scarcely mentioning an earthly Jesus, and the scant
non-gospel writings about a Jesus are understandable
as a result of the following ...

Jesus: Fact or Fiction?
http://www.atheist-community.org/jesus_fact_or_fiction.htm

---
Dan Fake, Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://danfake.home.att.net
---


Dan Fake

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 1:34:16 AM4/29/02
to
"Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu> wrote in message news:cj3z8.4524$kq1.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...

>
> Archeology is proving that Josephus is a reliable historical source.

Josephus is a reliable source in many areas but some of
the writings of Josephus have suffered from christian
interpolations, per the opinion of a substantial segment
of the scholarly community ...

As for scholarship of the first 4 centuries, in general:

Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Jewish scho-
lars have a vested interest in supporting religion (in
general) and in going along with religious tradition
(in general), varying widely in the methodologies by
which religious traditions are dealt with but, never-
theless, the disputation of Jesus as actually existing
would unsettle all faith, for all that's left is the big sky
daddy and Jesus is present/prominent in the christian
religion (2 billion strong) as well as being treated as
a prophet man by the religion of islam (over 1 billion
strong).

---
Review of "The Jesus Puzzle" (a book by Earl
Doherty) pertaining to areas pertinent to Josephus,
christian apologist Minucius Felix, and other
christian apologists
http://www.truthbeknown.com/jesuspuzzle.htm
---

- - - begin excerpts - - -

... Considering that, repeatedly over the centuries, the
notorious passage in the writings of the Jewish histor-
ian Josephus, the "Testimonium Flavianum," basically
has been proved to be a "rank forgery," it is a pity that
Doherty needs to spend so much effort debunking it
once again, but he does it well and thoroughly.

Likewise he does away with the other "evidence" found
in Josephus, i.e., the passage about James, the "brother
of the Lord, called Christ."

Regarding the Testimonium Flavianum, or "TF," the
constant regurgitation by Christian apologists of this
spurious passage, as essentially the only non-biblical
"evidence" of the existence of the great wonderworker
Jesus Christ, shows how desperate is their plight.

In actuality, it takes little time for the trained and critical
eye to know that the Testimonium Flavianum is a Chris-
tian interpolation, i.e., a forgery.

In dissecting the Josephus passage, Doherty writes:

" . . . the startling fact is that during the first two
centuries when such a passage is claimed to have
existed in all manuscripts of the Antiquities of the
Jews, not a single Christian commentator refers to
it in any surviving work." (208)

The logical conclusion for this absence of reference to
the TF in the abundant writings of the Christian fathers
of the second and third centuries is that the TF was not
originally in Josephus but was likely forged in the fourth
century by Church historian Eusebius, who is the first
to mention it.

The apologist claim that the TF must be authentic because
there are no extant copies of Josephus without it, is sim-
plistic and specious. In the first place, up to the 16th cen-
tury there evidently was at least one copy of the Antiquities
that did not contain the TF, in the possession of one
Vossius. Secondly, the lack of extant copies without the
TF can be explained easily by the endless destruction of
texts by Church authorities over hundreds of years.

On pp. 220-221 of The Jesus Puzzle, Doherty springs a
sublime trap. First he leads the reader through a discus-
sion regarding a purported "lost reference" in Josephus,
as alleged by Church fathers Origen and Eusebius, sup-
posedly reflecting that the historian "believed that the
calamity of the Jewish War (66-70) and the fall of Jer-
usalem was visited upon the Jews by God because of
their murder of James the Just."

Next, Doherty states:

"Origen brings up the 'lost reference' to criticize
Josephus for not saying that it was because of the
death of Jesus, rather than of James, that God
visited upon the Jews the destruction of Jerusalem.
But more than half a century earlier, the Christian
Hegesippus had said the same thing. As preserved
in Eusebius, Hegesippus witnesses to a Christian
view of his time (mid-second century) that it was
indeed the death of James the Just which had
prompted God's punishment of the Jews."

"But," Doherty continues, "there is a very telling corollary
to this. Why did those earlier Christians not impute the
calamity to God's punishment for the death of Jesus, since
to the later Origen – as well as to us – this seemed obvious?

"The explanation is simple. The need to interpret
the destruction of Jerusalem would likely have
developed early, even before Hegesippus. At such
a time, an historical Jesus and historical crucifixion
had not yet been invented, or at least would not
have been widely disseminated beyond a few early
Gospel communities."

Proceeding to the second century Christian apologists, Do-
herty also reveals that the majority of them writing before
the year 180, such as Theophilus, Athenagoras and Tatian,
do not speak of a historical Jesus. These three writers, for
example, refer to a disincarnate, non-historical "Son of
God" or "Logos."

Says Doherty:

". . . Theophilus never mentions Christ, or Jesus, at
all. He makes no reference to a founder-teacher; in-
stead, Christians have their doctrines and knowledge
of God through the Holy Spirit. . . .

". . . the names Jesus and Christ never appear in
Athenagoras. . . .

"In [Apology to the Greeks], Tatian uses neither
'Jesus' nor 'Christ,' nor even the name 'Christian.' . . .

"In fact, the apologists as a group profess a faith
which is nothing so much as a Logos religion. It is
in essence Platonism carried to its fullest religious
implications and wedded with Jewish theology and
ethics." (278-81)

Although Doherty is hesitant to date the gospels to this late a
period, Charles Waite in History of the Christian Religion to
the Year Two Thousand makes an essentially incontestable
case that the four canonical gospels were composed between
170 and 180, which would explain why none of these writers
refers to them prior to 180.

Doherty also unearths a "smoking gun" in the Christian apol-
ogist Minucius Felix's Octavius, likely written in the middle
of the second century. In addressing the untoward charges
against Christians, such as the killing of babies and worship
of the priest's genitals, Minucius fervently denies that the
Christians worship "a criminal and his cross." Felix also ridi-
cules the Pagan ideas of a god becoming incarnate and of a
god begetting a son. Says he:

"Men who have died cannot become gods, because
a god cannot die; nor can men who are born (become
gods). . . . Why, I pray, are gods not born today, if
such have ever been born?" (289)

Regarding Minucius's reaction to the charge of worshipping
a "crucified criminal," Doherty remarks:

"Those who will allow historical documents to say
what they seem to be saying will recognize that Minu-
cius Felix is a true 'smoking gun' pointing to a Chris-
tian denial of the historical Jesus.

"To the dispassionate eye, Minucius Felix is one
Christian who will have nothing to do with those, in
other circles of his religion, who profess worship of
a Jesus who was crucified in Judea under the gover-
norship of Pontius Pilate, rumors of which have
reached pagan ears and elicited much scorn and
condemnation." (290)

In establishing his thesis, Doherty also explains the need for
making Jesus a historical character: In the early Christian
communities, in which there was a "riotous diversity" of
doctrine, there were too many pipelines to the spiritual Jesus.

Thus, it became necessary to create one divine person to
say all the things that the "prophets" and brotherhood mem-
bers were espousing, the same role played by Yahweh in the
Old Testament.

An excellent effort that will certainly have an impact on main-
stream scholarship, The Jesus Puzzle provides a scientific
and convincing analysis of Christianity's formative centuries,
essentially proving that Jesus Christ started out as an allegor-
ical and mythical entity, carnalized and historicized during
the second century. ...

- - - end excerpts - - -

---
Updated links to "The Jesus Puzzle" website:
http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/jesus.html
www.jesuspuzzle.com
www.jesuspuzzle.org
---

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Dan Fake, Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://danfake.home.att.net

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

p.s. Further reference:

The Jesus Doubt File (022801)
http://danfake.home.att.net/disbelief/jesus_doubt_file.htm
"For consideration of the likelihood that Jesus
was a mythical creation -or- an overly ambitious
series of creative extrapolations pertaining to
a human who, if he even existed, had neither
divine nor extraordinary attributes anywhere
near those credited to him in the gospels,
review the following ... "


Otho

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 1:36:05 AM4/29/02
to

"Biomes/Mark" <bio...@riconnect.com> wrote in message
news:3CCCD5C1...@riconnect.com...
I understand. The literalist fringe is a dying race, I hope. Sooner or later
they, the literalists, will have to admit that the human mind exists.


Otho

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 1:54:50 AM4/29/02
to

"Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:sX4z8.52237$Rw2.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
But Atheists, Agnostics and Sceptics have a problem. They can't prove that
Josephus' "Testimonium Flavianum," is an addition or a forgery.
When you read Acts, there seem to be similarities between some narratives in
Acts and those in Josephus, who copied who or is it just coincidence?

The assertion that Jesus is not a historical figure or that he did not live
in the early 1st century CE is held by a small number of academics.
What does that tell you? It simply means that the majority of academics do
believe he existed. Take it up with them.
Because there are more websites which proclaim that Jesus did not exist than
there are of those that proclaim he did simply means that the atheists are
more active in this domain than Christians. LOL.

1Ki 2:22 -
King Shlomo answered his mother, Why do you ask Avishag the Shunammite for
Adoniyahu? ask for him the kingdom also; for he is my elder brother; even
for him, and for Avyatar the Kohen, and for Yo'av the son of Tzeru'yah.

Is the US treasurer a virgin?
>


Otho

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 2:04:01 AM4/29/02
to

"Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:EK4z8.52226$Rw2.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

> "Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu> wrote in message
news:d53z8.4488$kq1.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >
> > The assertion that Jesus is not a historical figure or that he did not
live
> > in the early 1st century CE is held by a small number of academics.
>
> Using historically reliable information, tell us who this
> Jesus is you are referring to. There are no contempor-
> aneous writings about a Jesus, the gospels are full
> of myths (and it isn't even known who wrote those
> documents and theories abound as to the reasons
> the documents were written and what the source
> for the material was), Paul's christ is a heavenly figure,
> scarcely mentioning an earthly Jesus, and the scant
> non-gospel writings about a Jesus are understandable
> as a result of the following ...
>

I don't have to prove anything to you, do I?
Why should I.
Read again.


"The assertion that Jesus is not a historical figure or that he did not live

in the early 1st century CE is held by a SMALL number of academics."

True or not?

Jesus Christ

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 2:44:57 AM4/29/02
to
Verily, verily, "Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu> sayeth unto us:

> > I agree with you, but you must understand that readers of this


> > newsgroup
> are
> > constantly bombarded by clueless people like boatwright and others,
> > who honestly beleive the bible is inerrant. For these people the
> > bible is a history book. Thus the approach you refer to has almost
> > become default. Mark
> >
> I understand. The literalist fringe is a dying race, I hope. Sooner or
> later they, the literalists, will have to admit that the human mind
> exists.

They'll admit it once they have proof the human mind exists, and they're
certainly not looking for or using one. :)

Dan Fake

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 2:53:59 AM4/29/02
to
"Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu> wrote in message news:vp5z8.8475$5e6.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...

>
> I don't have to prove anything to you, do I?
> Why should I.
> Read again.
> "The assertion that Jesus is not a historical figure or that he did not live
> in the early 1st century CE is held by a SMALL number of academics."
>
> True or not?

You made the statement, and scholarship promoting
christianity is quite well-seasoned, you know, being
that christianity ruled the western world for the better
part of over 1,000 years 'til the age of reason finally
unburdened the inquisitive nature of humankind and
freed us, in large measure, from the submission to
faith as the be-all / end-all of life. The key question
regarding your statement - is the scholarship you refer
to impartial and objective -or- is it, instead, a result of
over 1,000 years of church rule and a plethora of scho-
lars trained by the church to promote the theology of
the church, in varying ways?

How many independent non-churchified academics
are there relative to those disinclined from objectivity,
the theofiles? Probably mates perfectly to your state-
ment, don't you think?

As previously stated ...

Using historically reliable information, tell us who this
Jesus is you are referring to. There are no contempor-
aneous writings about a Jesus, the gospels are full
of myths (and it isn't even known who wrote those
documents and theories abound as to the reasons
the documents were written and what the source
for the material was), Paul's christ is a heavenly figure,
scarcely mentioning an earthly Jesus, and the scant
non-gospel writings about a Jesus are understandable
as a result of the following ...

Jesus: Fact or Fiction?

Dan Fake

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 3:12:50 AM4/29/02
to
"Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu> wrote in message news:Xg5z8.8340$5e6.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...

The evidence clearly indicates the passage is an
interpolation. Almost all of those who have addressed
the issue, of faith and apart from faith, agree that it has
been "massaged", the disagreement is only in the area
of to what extent and by whom.

---


Dan Fake, Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://danfake.home.att.net

---


Tiger

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 3:44:06 AM4/29/02
to
"Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:Sn6z8.56589$QC1.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:


>> But Atheists, Agnostics and Sceptics have a problem.
>> They can't prove that Josephus' "Testimonium Flavianum," is an
>> addition or a forgery.
>
> The evidence clearly indicates the passage is an
> interpolation. Almost all of those who have addressed
> the issue, of faith and apart from faith, agree that it has
> been "massaged", the disagreement is only in the area
> of to what extent and by whom.
>
> ---
> Dan Fake, Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
> http://danfake.home.att.net
> ---

What the *majority* of *Jewish* scholars think about the "Testimonium
Flavianum:"

"About this time, there lived Jesus, a wise man..." - authentic

"...if indeed one ought to call him a man." - interpolation

"For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such
people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of
the Greeks." - authentic

"He was the Christ." - interpolation

"When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing
among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first
place come to love him did not give up their affection for him."
- authentic

"On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the
prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous
things about him." - interpolation

"And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this
day not disappeared." - authentic

All based on grammar and syntax. Clearly, Jesus existed.

--
Tiger

*Remove yourclothes. to reply via email

John P. Boatwright

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 4:34:38 AM4/29/02
to
Mussi...@CXL.aa wrote:
>
> "Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu> opined:
> >
> >"Jesus Christ" <Je...@christ.hvn> wrote in message
> >news:aai9gl$31v$1...@astroconsulting.databasix.com...
> >> Verily, verily, "John P. Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net> sayeth unto us:
> >>
> >> > David wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Jesus was a fictional character.
> >> >
> >> > No, Josephus wrote about Jesus as well as recording
> >> > a number of other events of the time. There were also
> >> > witnesses that wrote of him.
> >>
> >> Where does Josephus write about Herod's order to slaughter all the
> > >infants?
> >>
> >He does not but that is no proof that Jesus did not exist.
> >
> The New Testament remains the only place where we hear of Herod's order to
> slaughter all the infants. Neither the Romans nor the Jews have any
> record or memory of it, AFAIK. One would expect the Jews to
> save some special badmouthing for Herod, but I haven't heard it.

The Palestinians claim they have NO order to
slaughter their own kids. Arafat seems to be
quite reluctant to say that he's ordered it.

Yet he did claim MILLIONS of "martyrs" should go off
and kill themselves at Jerusalem... and that he wanted
to die a "martyr"... I wonder if anyone will ever
remember that through history?

???

Anyway, the Jews have no record of it either, no
record where they claim Palestinians told their kids
to blow themselves up.

Seems like the documentation about it is rather sparse
yet it happens once a week or more.

The main news medias claim they have no record of anyone
ordering it.

Yet there was a couple of photos out recently where a
guy was holding his kid with mock bombs attached to
them... I believe it was over in Egypt where the photos
were taken.

With all the kids blowing up over there, you'd think
someone would have a record of it being said to be
done...

Huh...

Oh!!! I remember now.

Hamas said they ordered it.

Yep, they said they order it... yet there's no record
of it other than some phone calls where they claim they
ordered it... nothing in writing... or is there?

Will it all get lost over decades? When it's all
"blown over", will they ALL lose the info about it?

Will all that "explosive" stuff going on over there
become a myth?

All those people blowing up... a myth??? Did it ever
really happen???

Can you prove anyone ever ordered it?

How will you or anyone else ever prove anyone ever
ordered it? What if they were all just suicidal and
did it on their own for no reason?

Again, can you EVER prove that anyone ordered it?

Didn't think so.

> And the preposterous fabrication, that Mary and Joseph would have
> had to return to Bethlehem to pay a tax, could only arise in the
> imagination of the politically and historically naive...say
> the addled follower of a cult religion, a hundred or so years later.

Mary and Joseph fled to protect Jesus from being
taken and killed.

Christopher A. Lee

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 4:40:13 AM4/29/02
to
On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 07:44:06 GMT, Tiger <j...@yourclothes.sc.rr.com>
wrote:

>"Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
>news:Sn6z8.56589$QC1.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
>
>>> But Atheists, Agnostics and Sceptics have a problem.
>>> They can't prove that Josephus' "Testimonium Flavianum," is an
>>> addition or a forgery.
>>
>> The evidence clearly indicates the passage is an
>> interpolation. Almost all of those who have addressed
>> the issue, of faith and apart from faith, agree that it has
>> been "massaged", the disagreement is only in the area
>> of to what extent and by whom.
>>
>> ---
>> Dan Fake, Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
>> http://danfake.home.att.net
>> ---
>
>What the *majority* of *Jewish* scholars think about the "Testimonium
>Flavianum:"

Except that there is no way to show that any of this is authentic.
Which renders the whole thing worthless.

>"About this time, there lived Jesus, a wise man..." - authentic

Demonstrate that this bit was genuine.

>"...if indeed one ought to call him a man." - interpolation
>
>"For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such
>people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of
>the Greeks." - authentic

Demonstrate that this bit was genuine.

>"He was the Christ." - interpolation
>
>"When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing
>among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first
>place come to love him did not give up their affection for him."
>- authentic

Demonstrate that this bit was genuine.

>"On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the
>prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous
>things about him." - interpolation
>
>"And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this
>day not disappeared." - authentic

And this bit obviously isn't ("to this day").

The Great Hairy One

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 4:50:10 AM4/29/02
to
Otho wrote:

Gidday Otho,

> How can it be proven that Nazareth did not exist at the time of Jesus'
> birth?

By archaeological finds, historical records and so on. The usual
methods.

> The assertion that Jesus is not a historical figure or that he did not live
> in the early 1st century CE is held by a small number of academics.

Not true. First of all most atheists will assert this, along with many
people who follow non-christian religions. Secondly, define 'small
number'. If you mean >75%, then you'd be right, I reckon. People who
study ancient history and archaeology are constantly *not* finding
evidence of the biblical Jesus. If the boy actually did half the things
he was meant to, you'd think someone would have noticed! But it's
looking like no one did... Which implies he never was.

--
The Great Hairy One,

Squire of BAAWA
I'm totally SMASHed!

====================================
CEO EAC Roleplaying Division
The essentials of roleplaying - two
10-sided dice and a strap on.

(Remove spam block to email)

Otho

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 5:06:34 AM4/29/02
to

"Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Sn6z8.56589$QC1.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

> "Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu> wrote in message
news:Xg5z8.8340$5e6.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > But Atheists, Agnostics and Sceptics have a problem.
> > They can't prove that Josephus' "Testimonium Flavianum,"
> > is an addition or a forgery.
>
> The evidence clearly indicates the passage is an
> interpolation. Almost all of those who have addressed
> the issue, of faith and apart from faith, agree that it has
> been "massaged", the disagreement is only in the area
> of to what extent and by whom.
>
Agree but it will never be proven until an original or a very old version of
one of Josephus' original manuscripts is found.

Otho

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 5:01:17 AM4/29/02
to

"Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:b66z8.52277$Rw2.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Again I will repeat my answer to your previous post.

I don't have to prove anything to you, do I?
Why should I.
Read again.
"The assertion that Jesus is not a historical figure or that he did not live
in the early 1st century CE is held by a SMALL number of academics."

I know you are looking for an argument and you are just not going to have
that argument with me. Do I make myself clear?

>


PMD

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 5:50:12 AM4/29/02
to
On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 05:01:17 -0400, "Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu> was
seen to type in talk.atheism:

If you claimed that Jesus existed as a person then the onus os on you
to demonstrate that, and, as you were asked, using historically
reliable information.

As has been pointed out to you on several occasions there IS no
historically _reliable_ information. The vast majority is second hand
ta best and third or fourth hand as a matter of course. Josephus is
disputed and thus cannot be deemed _reliable_.

>Why should I.

Because you made the claim?

>Read again.
>"The assertion that Jesus is not a historical figure or that he did not live
>in the early 1st century CE is held by a SMALL number of academics."

And read what was written to you again. How many of that number have a
self-interest in claiming that he existed due to them being believers?
That you don't even want to address this point speaks volumes in
itself.

>I know you are looking for an argument and you are just not going to have
>that argument with me. Do I make myself clear?

Perfectly. We are quite aware that you have no argument and that your
claim - that Jesus existed - in not demonstrable with any known
reliable contemporary document.

I really don't know how people like you manage to do it - that is run
around in circles with your head buried in the ground. Would make a
great movie though....

--
>> PMD aa#167
--
Jeremiah 4:6-7; Proverbs 15:1; Romans 3:10 : Matthew 5:44; Luke 19:27
http://www.hornetsnest.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk (opening soon)
>God is a solipsist >> civility = my_view*your_view/my_certainty^2
I know how the universe was created but according to my calculations
I will die before I can tell anyo..... NO CARRIER

Christopher A. Lee

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 5:42:12 AM4/29/02
to
On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 01:54:50 -0400, "Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu>
wrote:

>But Atheists, Agnostics and Sceptics have a problem. They can't prove that
>Josephus' "Testimonium Flavianum," is an addition or a forgery.

We don't have to - nobody would give a toss about Jesus if Christians
didn't rub our faces in their beliefs. And nobody would give a toss
about Josephus if they didn't use it to try and prove Jesus. But they
have to explain (not rationalise) exactly why a Jewish writer would
use later Christian phrasing for a paragraph and then revert to his
original Jewish style.

>When you read Acts, there seem to be similarities between some narratives in
>Acts and those in Josephus, who copied who or is it just coincidence?
>The assertion that Jesus is not a historical figure or that he did not live
>in the early 1st century CE is held by a small number of academics.
>What does that tell you? It simply means that the majority of academics do
>believe he existed. Take it up with them.

We're talking with you, not them. Your copout is noted.

>Because there are more websites which proclaim that Jesus did not exist than
>there are of those that proclaim he did simply means that the atheists are
>more active in this domain than Christians. LOL.

Bullshit.

Otho

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 5:41:32 AM4/29/02
to

"Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Sn6z8.56589$QC1.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

> "Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu> wrote in message
news:Xg5z8.8340$5e6.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > But Atheists, Agnostics and Sceptics have a problem.
> > They can't prove that Josephus' "Testimonium Flavianum,"
> > is an addition or a forgery.
>
> The evidence clearly indicates the passage is an
> interpolation. Almost all of those who have addressed
> the issue, of faith and apart from faith, agree that it has
> been "massaged", the disagreement is only in the area
> of to what extent and by whom.
>

In Against Apion, Josephus quoted from Dius he identified as a Phoenician
historian to prove to Greek historians that Solomon existed or was it to
prove Solomon built the original temple of Jebus, Salem, Jerusalem,
whatever.
Was that quotation in Dius' "Histories of the Phoenicians" a Jewish
interpolation?
Does it prove that Solomon existed, that Solomon built that temple?
LOL.
1Ki 1:15 -
Bat-Sheva went in to the king into the chamber: and the king was very old;
and Avishag the Shunammite was ministering to the king. :-)

Against Apion,
17. "I will now, therefore, pass from these records, and come to
those that belong to the Phoenicians, and concern our nation, and
shall produce attestations to what I have said out of them. There
are then records among the Tyrians that take in the history of
many years, and these are public writings, and are kept with
great exactness, and include accounts of the facts done among
them, and such as concern their transactions with other nations
also, those I mean which were worth remembering. Therein it was
recorded that the temple was built by king Solomon at Jerusalem,
one hundred forty-three years and eight months before the Tyrians
built Carthage; and in their annals the building of our temple is
related; for Hirom, the king of Tyre, was the friend of Solomon
our king, and had such friendship transmitted down to him from
his forefathers. He thereupon was ambitious to contribute to the
splendor of this edifice of Solomon, and made him a present of
one hundred and twenty talents of gold. He also cut down the most
excellent timber out of that mountain which is called Libanus,
and sent it to him for adorning its roof. Solomon also not only
made him many other presents, by way of requital, but gave him a
country in Galilee also, that was called Chabulon. (13) But there
was another passion, a philosophic inclination of theirs, which
cemented the friendship that was betwixt them; for they sent
mutual problems to one another, with a desire to have them
unriddled by each other; wherein Solomon was superior to Hirom,
as he was wiser than he in other respects: and many of the
epistles that passed between them are still preserved among the
Tyrians. Now, that this may not depend on my bare word, I will
produce for a witness Dius, one that is believed to have written
the Phoenician History after an accurate manner. This Dius,
therefore, writes thus, in his Histories of the Phoenicians:
"Upon the death of Abibalus, his son Hirom took the kingdom. This
king raised banks at the eastern parts of the city, and enlarged
it; he also joined the temple of Jupiter Olympius, which stood
before in an island by itself, to the city, by raising a causeway
between them, and adorned that temple with donations of gold. He
moreover went up to Libanus, and had timber cut down for the
building of temples. They say further, that Solomon, when he was
king of Jerusalem, sent problems to Hirom to be solved, and
desired he would send others back for him to solve, and that he
who could not solve the problems proposed to him should pay money
to him that solved them. And when Hirom had agreed to the
proposals, but was not able to solve the problems, he was obliged
to pay a great deal of money, as a penalty for the same. As also
they relate, that oneśAbdemon, a man of Tyre, did solve the
problems, and propose others which Solomon could not solve, upon
which he was obliged to repay a great deal of money to Hirom."
These things are attested to by Dius, and confirm what we have
said upon the same subjects before.

Tiger

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 6:22:40 AM4/29/02
to
Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in
news:di1qcu8pik8t8ah4k...@4ax.com:

LOL.


>
>>All based on grammar and syntax. Clearly, Jesus existed.
>
>

All authentic based on syntax and grammar. The interpolations were
clear. The statements marked "authentic" above are identical in
syntax and vocabulary to the pattern established by Josephus in the
remainder of his works.

Otho

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 7:21:04 AM4/29/02
to

"PMD" <pd015c1974@SPAMNOT_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ke5qcuc6lij51tdjc...@4ax.com...

Now just one second you idiots. In this thread, I did not claim Jesus
existed. I made a statement and that statement reads:


"The assertion that Jesus is not a historical figure or that he did not live
in the early 1st century CE is held by a SMALL number of academics."

Now that to me is plain english.
I can repost that in french if you can't understand english.
Smarten up.

>
> I really don't know how people like you manage to do it - that is run
> around in circles with your head buried in the ground. Would make a
> great movie though....
>

Bullshit. Follow the thread. Search Google.

Otho

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 7:29:35 AM4/29/02
to

"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:g11qcu8pm4g0ka182...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 01:54:50 -0400, "Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >But Atheists, Agnostics and Sceptics have a problem. They can't prove
that
> >Josephus' "Testimonium Flavianum," is an addition or a forgery.
>
> We don't have to - nobody would give a toss about Jesus if Christians
> didn't rub our faces in their beliefs. And nobody would give a toss
> about Josephus if they didn't use it to try and prove Jesus. But they
> have to explain (not rationalise) exactly why a Jewish writer would
> use later Christian phrasing for a paragraph and then revert to his
> original Jewish style.
>
Too nice to be true, too confessional to be impartial and too Christian to
be Jewish. Heard that one before.


Christopher A. Lee

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 8:12:45 AM4/29/02
to
On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 07:29:35 -0400, "Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu>
wrote:

Then you should be able to give a good explanation.

xofpi

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 10:33:17 AM4/29/02
to
In article <3CCC8F...@For-God.net>, John P. Boatwright says...

>
>David wrote:
>>
>> Jesus was a fictional character.
>>
>> The character Jesus was not based upon any living person.
>
>No, Josephus wrote about Jesus as well as recording
>a number of other events of the time. There were also
>witnesses that wrote of him.


The quote in Josephus reads suspiciously like a Christian interpolation, and, in
fact, even many honest Christian scholars see it as such. It is unlikely that a
Jew who was trying to get on the good side of the Romans would have made it
sound as though he believed Jesus was the son of God.

Which other witnesses are you talking about, besides the "apostles?" Why is Paul
silent on the "facts" of Jesus's "life?"


>You lose.

Mussi...@cxl.aa

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 11:13:28 AM4/29/02
to
"Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu> opined:
>
>
><Mussi...@CXL.aa> wrote in message
>news:sN3z8.249002$GF1.35...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
>> "Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu> opined:
>> >
>> >"Jesus Christ" <Je...@christ.hvn> wrote in message
>> >news:aai9gl$31v$1...@astroconsulting.databasix.com...
>> >> Verily, verily, "John P. Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net> sayeth unto us:
>> >>
>> >> > David wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Jesus was a fictional character.
>> >> >
>> >> > No, Josephus wrote about Jesus as well as recording
>> >> > a number of other events of the time. There were also
>> >> > witnesses that wrote of him.
>> >>
>> >> Where does Josephus write about Herod's order to slaughter all the
>> > >infants?
>> >>
>> >He does not but that is no proof that Jesus did not exist.
>> >
>> The New Testament remains the only place where we hear of Herod's order to
>> slaughter all the infants. Neither the Romans nor the Jews have any
>> record or memory of it, AFAIK. One would expect the Jews to
>> save some special badmouthing for Herod, but I haven't heard it.
>
>Maybe you should read Josephus and find out more about the relation between
>Jews and Herod the Great. It was not a love affair, I can assure you that
>much.
>>

Nowhere does Josephus mention Herod's order to slaughter infants. It
never happened. The Romans would have thought nothing of recording
it, but they didn't, and neither did Josephus. I made no claim that
the Jews liked Herod; Herod might have treated them badly, but no
Moses/YHVH-I style murder of infants took place.

>> And the preposterous fabrication, that Mary and Joseph would have
>> had to return to Bethlehem to pay a tax, could only arise in the
>> imagination of the politically and historically naive...say
>> the addled follower of a cult religion, a hundred or so years later.
>>
>You need to change your approach. The Bible is not a history book. The

This agrees with the point of the thread. My approach treats the Bible
as anything but a history book, especially the New Testament. Perhaps
you are somehow confused about what I wrote?

>narratives in it are religious and theological. They have a meaning. "...
>preposterous fabrication, politically and historically naive" ? I think you
>are the one that is being preposterous, politically and historically naive.

How so? I pointed out that two significant historical claims of
the New Testament have no basis in fact. The tax fable is indeed
preposterous.

>Storytelling in the Gospels as well as in the Tanach was a creation of the
>Jewish mind, you should know that. Why should the authors of the New
>Testament writings have used a different genre of literature? You read
>biblical narratives and you conclude that those who wrote them were
>"politically and historically naive". I don't buy that. I think they rather
>were intelligent. I can't say that of you though. You should know better.
>

I never claimed they were stupid, merely uninformed. The
ever-practical Romans would have never uprooted the population
in a paroxysm of administrative tax collecting, and to suggest
otherwise indicates political naivete. Intelligent of or not, the
New Testament writers knew little of the life and times of Herod's
world, and were not overly familiar with messianic prophesies,
either; they got the big sacrifice wrong, for example. Jesus would
have been the Ram of God, not the Lamb of God. Perhaps "naive"
is too mild a word. "Ignorant" would have been more to the point.

--
Of the three Popes, John the Twenty-third was the first
victim: he fled and was brought back a prisoner: the
most scandalous charges were suppressed: the Vicar of
Christ was only accused of piracy, murder, rape, sodomy,
and incest. _Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire_, Gibbon

Jorgens

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 11:26:49 AM4/29/02
to
> > > > > > David wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jesus was a fictional character.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The character Jesus was not based upon any living person.

See ... http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/fiction.html

And ... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusMysteries/

Dan Fake

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 12:02:51 PM4/29/02
to
"Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu> wrote in message news:Q2az8.4855$kq1.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...

> "The assertion that Jesus is not a historical figure or that he did not live
> in the early 1st century CE is held by a SMALL number of academics."

The assertion at issue is that Jesus existed. Can
you provide evidence regarding that assertion?
The gospels, being religious documents full of
myth combined with some places and people
actually around at the time the documents refer
to, are not considered historical, by any legiti-
mate (i.e., non-churchified) academics. So, what
else might they be using, do you think, and how
reliable is it, do you think?

You've already been provided a short list and rea-
sons why that list does not substantiate a Jesus as
ever living. You've already been shown the inade-
quacy of the Josephus scant comments on a Jesus
and the controversy regarding the interpolations
likely inherent therein.

Care to share what those academics have to say
on the matter? Do you think Jesus existed? If you
do, why do you, what is your core reason for thinking
Jesus existed, if indeed you do think Jesus existed?

Do you think it's probable and evidential that the gos-
pel stories were based substantially on an assemblage
of religions and christs from other religions, and that
a Jesus (or multiple Jesus types) is irrelevant to the key
issue at hand, that being the faith of christianity based
on a god existing, a son of a god existing, and that son
of a god mating the combination of myths and events
expressed in the gospels?

If you do think Jesus existed, what do you think he
did, where was he born, where did he live, how did
he die, and why do you think he was combined with
a plethora of myths to form the orthodox christian
faith endorsed by Constantine almost 300 years after
he died, had he ever really lived?

Be sure to use historically valid information in your
reply, if you care to address the issue. Also, while
you're at it, list some doubts the academics you
cite have regarding the Jesus character as ever existing,
doubts which they would have to overcome (by guess
or leap of faith) in order to assert that the character
existed and what the character was.

Academics (even churchified ones) have often stated
that they cannot find the historical Jesus. Do you agree
that there is no historical Jesus to be found, that there
is nothing but a mention of a Jesus and point in fact
those mentions could easily be explained by the nature
of the christ mythos present in gnosticism, paganism,
and other religions popular for centuries prior to the
writing of the gospel stories?

Vast volumes have been written about this Jesus - how
much of it is educated guess and how much mere fabri-
cation, and how much of it applies to a validated histor-
ical figure and how much to a caricature of what a
savior-type might have been like based on educated
guesses, do you think? If there is a lot of historical
guessing going on regarding this Jesus, why do you
think that is?

Might it have something to do with the mysterious
academics you mention *wanting* a Jesus to exist,
rather than using historically valid methods to make
a convincing case that a Jesus actually existed?

After all, once a myth seeps deeply into a society,
isn't it tempting to go along with it rather than critically
address the lack of evidence for the myth being any-
thing other than a myth?

See muslim societies for reference on bowing to Mecca
5 times per day without one iota of evidence that allah
is anything but myth. It's even written into law and deeply
entwined with the law, this worship of allah thing, in muslim
societies. Try bringing up doubt regarding allah or moham-
med's existence in many muslim societies and it may cost
you your life or your freedom ...

... Hearken back to the way it was in the western world
regarding a Jesus, for over 1,000 years, disbelieve (or
believe in the 'wrong' way) and it might cost you your
life or your freedom, and therein resides the seeds for
the deceit that undergirds the Jesus myth machine that
keeps pushing the notion that doubt regarding a Jesus
man is just not de rigueur, regardless of the dearth of
evidence that anyone remotely resembling the Jesus of
the gospels ever existed as anything but an assemblage
of myths placed on an imaginary religious figure and
the events going on in the day and age the imaginary
religious figure would have existed, where he anything
other than imaginary.

Dies Irae

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 12:28:15 PM4/29/02
to

"John P. Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net> wrote
> You lose.

both of you lose...i'm pretty sure there was a jesus (i read a proof on it
once) but the fact that he was a nutcase claiming to be 1/3 of the patriarch
of the human race seems to escape people

if i pushed the fact that i was "the son of god" i would be put into a loony
bin, just as he should've


Dan Fake

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 12:45:58 PM4/29/02
to
"Dies Irae" <gtg...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote in message news:aajsbh$10t$1...@news-int.gatech.edu...

>
> "John P. Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net> wrote
> > You lose.
>
> both of you lose...i'm pretty sure there was a jesus (i read a proof
> on it once)

Proof of Jesus? Please locate that for us, as I would
be most interested in such a proof ... there is plenty
of doubt, but I've never seen anyone prove a Jesus
man existed in any way other than as a deference to
a supposed gospel figure treated as real rather than
imaginary, based on claim rather than historical fact.

Even the epistle Paul (a christian proponent prior to
the writing of the gospels) didn't seem to know (or
care) hardly anything about a Jesus man - you'd think
that would be a hot topic with an early promoter of
faith in a Jesus man as son of god, if he was actually
a man rather than merely a heavenly christ icon ...

---
Dan Fake, Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://danfake.home.att.net
---

> but the fact that he was a nutcase claiming to be 1/3 of the patriarch

xofpi

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 1:17:09 PM4/29/02
to
In article <aajsbh$10t$1...@news-int.gatech.edu>, Dies Irae says...

What are the salient characteristics of the Jesus we all know and love or love
to hate? By far most of them are the items you have to take on faith (the virgin
birth, the miracles, the genetic relation to god, the resurrection). Assume
there was a Jesus that the Biblical one was based on: if he lived in the
universe that I live, his life was nothing like the Biblical Jesus's. He could
not have been born of a virgin. He could not have performed miracles. He could
not in any conventional sense have been genetically related to God. He could not
possibly have risen from the dead. The salient parts of Jesus' character are
pure fiction.


Dies Irae

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 1:48:32 PM4/29/02
to

"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote

>his life was nothing like the Biblical Jesus's.

i agree completely, i never said any part of it was true, just that it's not
impossible that such a lunatic could have existed (not by biblical standards
though)


Otho

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 2:43:29 PM4/29/02
to

<Mussi...@CXL.aa> wrote in message
news:sqdz8.254157$GF1.35...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
Sorry. Read Josephus and then maybe we can talk of Herod the Great.


xofpi

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 3:49:58 PM4/29/02
to
In article <aak122$4is$1...@news-int.gatech.edu>, Dies Irae says...

Okay, but my point is that if the fictional Jesus is nothing like the "original"
Jesus, then the original Jesus is essentially irrelevant. It's the fictional
Jesus that people worship and that has had an impact on history and culture,
just as the "original" King Arthur, if there was one, or the original Agamemnon
could not approach either of their fictional counterparts in their effects on
human thought down through the ages. When speaking of King Arthur, we assume
we're talking about the fictional one. It's the same with Agamemnon, but for
some reason people are unable or unwilling to admit they're talking about a
fictional character when they're talking about Jesus.


Otho

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 3:44:51 PM4/29/02
to

"Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:L8ez8.56912$QC1.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

> "Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu> wrote in message
news:Q2az8.4855$kq1.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > "The assertion that Jesus is not a historical figure or that he did not
live
> > in the early 1st century CE is held by a SMALL number of academics."
>
> The assertion at issue is that Jesus existed. Can
> you provide evidence regarding that assertion?
> The gospels, being religious documents full of
> myth combined with some places and people
> actually around at the time the documents refer
> to, are not considered historical, by any legiti-
> mate (i.e., non-churchified) academics. So, what
> else might they be using, do you think, and how
> reliable is it, do you think?

The Gospels are indeed religious and theological Christian documents. What
else is new? The Old Testament is a religious and theological Jewish
document. Neither are history books.


>
> You've already been provided a short list and rea-
> sons why that list does not substantiate a Jesus as
> ever living. You've already been shown the inade-
> quacy of the Josephus scant comments on a Jesus
> and the controversy regarding the interpolations
> likely inherent therein.

I'm quite familiar with the writings of Josephus. I mentioned that you
cannot prove that Josephus' "Testimonium Flavianum" is a Christian insertion
in Josephus' writings, an interpolation, whatever.


>
> Care to share what those academics have to say
> on the matter? Do you think Jesus existed? If you
> do, why do you, what is your core reason for thinking
> Jesus existed, if indeed you do think Jesus existed?
>

I believe Jesus existed. So what?
Why ask me to share what academics have to say on the matter? Search the
web.

> Do you think it's probable and evidential that the gos-
> pel stories were based substantially on an assemblage
> of religions and christs from other religions, and that
> a Jesus (or multiple Jesus types) is irrelevant to the key
> issue at hand, that being the faith of christianity based
> on a god existing, a son of a god existing, and that son
> of a god mating the combination of myths and events
> expressed in the gospels?

Read the story of Abram. It is said that he first believed the sun was God,
ended up being called Abraham. I believe in evolution. Do I believe
Abram/Abraham existed? No.


>
> If you do think Jesus existed, what do you think he
> did, where was he born, where did he live, how did
> he die, and why do you think he was combined with
> a plethora of myths to form the orthodox christian
> faith endorsed by Constantine almost 300 years after
> he died, had he ever really lived?

Does it matter where Jesus was born? Why ask me how he died, what he did, if
you don't believe he existed?


>
> Be sure to use historically valid information in your
> reply, if you care to address the issue. Also, while
> you're at it, list some doubts the academics you
> cite have regarding the Jesus character as ever existing,
> doubts which they would have to overcome (by guess
> or leap of faith) in order to assert that the character
> existed and what the character was.

Like I said before, I don't have to prove you anything. My statement was
quite clear. Majority of academics assert that Jesus existed. Prove my
statement wrong.


>
> Academics (even churchified ones) have often stated
> that they cannot find the historical Jesus. Do you agree
> that there is no historical Jesus to be found, that there
> is nothing but a mention of a Jesus and point in fact
> those mentions could easily be explained by the nature
> of the christ mythos present in gnosticism, paganism,
> and other religions popular for centuries prior to the
> writing of the gospel stories?

Why should it worry you? You believe that Jesus was a creation of the mind,
I don't. You can speculate as much you want, do you really think it matters?
To me it don't.


>
> Vast volumes have been written about this Jesus - how
> much of it is educated guess and how much mere fabri-
> cation, and how much of it applies to a validated histor-
> ical figure and how much to a caricature of what a
> savior-type might have been like based on educated
> guesses, do you think? If there is a lot of historical
> guessing going on regarding this Jesus, why do you
> think that is?

Why ask, why should it interest you?


>
> Might it have something to do with the mysterious
> academics you mention *wanting* a Jesus to exist,
> rather than using historically valid methods to make
> a convincing case that a Jesus actually existed?

Why do you wish he had not existed?


>
> After all, once a myth seeps deeply into a society,
> isn't it tempting to go along with it rather than critically
> address the lack of evidence for the myth being any-
> thing other than a myth?

You can't prove Jesus is a myth. If you were that certain Jesus was a myth,
you would not be asking questions would you?

>
> See muslim societies for reference on bowing to Mecca
> 5 times per day without one iota of evidence that allah
> is anything but myth. It's even written into law and deeply
> entwined with the law, this worship of allah thing, in muslim
> societies. Try bringing up doubt regarding allah or moham-
> med's existence in many muslim societies and it may cost
> you your life or your freedom ...

Why? Do you doubt that Allah in the minds of Muslims is not God, the God of
Christians and Jews? Try bringing up doubt regarding Napoleon and the French
will laugh at you. It might cost you your freedom but mental institutions
don't generally kill people do they?


>
> ... Hearken back to the way it was in the western world
> regarding a Jesus, for over 1,000 years, disbelieve (or
> believe in the 'wrong' way) and it might cost you your
> life or your freedom, and therein resides the seeds for
> the deceit that undergirds the Jesus myth machine that
> keeps pushing the notion that doubt regarding a Jesus
> man is just not de rigueur, regardless of the dearth of
> evidence that anyone remotely resembling the Jesus of
> the gospels ever existed as anything but an assemblage
> of myths placed on an imaginary religious figure and
> the events going on in the day and age the imaginary
> religious figure would have existed, where he anything
> other than imaginary.

You is pushing you? Believe what you may. Do you think I care?

Otho

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 4:52:24 PM4/29/02
to
Read your post. You made up your mind that Jesus did not exist. Should I be
surprised?

"Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:L8ez8.56912$QC1.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

Dies Irae

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 5:09:18 PM4/29/02
to

"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote

> Okay, but my point is that if the fictional Jesus is nothing like the
"original"
> Jesus, then the original Jesus is essentially irrelevant. It's the
fictional
> Jesus that people worship and that has had an impact on history and
culture,
> just as the "original" King Arthur, if there was one, or the original
Agamemnon
> could not approach either of their fictional counterparts in their effects
on
> human thought down through the ages. When speaking of King Arthur, we
assume
> we're talking about the fictional one. It's the same with Agamemnon, but
for
> some reason people are unable or unwilling to admit they're talking about
a
> fictional character when they're talking about Jesus.

ok...that's what i've said twice now


JonJones

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 6:25:35 PM4/29/02
to
In article <Jqiz8.9421$5e6.8...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
Ot...@netcrawlers.edu says...

> Read your post. You made up your mind that Jesus did not exist. Should I be
> surprised?

I would be surprised if you ever trimmed your quotes.

Hal9000

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 7:22:24 PM4/29/02
to
"John P. Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3CCC8F...@For-God.net...

> David wrote:
> No, Josephus wrote about Jesus as well as recording
> a number of other events of the time. There were also
> witnesses that wrote of him.

WHERE Giuseppe Flavio did wrote about a "Jesus"? Did you meant perhaps the
Testimonium Flavianum, that WELL RENOWED post-nicean fake? GF never spake
about any "Jesus" either Bellum Judaicum or in Antiquitates Judaica, you
nerd....

> You lose.

You too; all the innings ahead.

> God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.

Wonder how a "perfect" god needs to send anyone in order to save men from a
sin which he cannot avoid....

> Proof God described the planet density profile
> BEFORE science did:
> http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
> (see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)

Proof that god never invented the brain; read your post again....

> Mirror site at: http://For-God.net

Mirror site; www.kook-o'-the-year.koo....

Hal.
_______________________________
"I'm god thy god, thou will have no
other god before me".
Hal9000, second law of kookology.


Hal9000

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 7:28:39 PM4/29/02
to
"Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:d53z8.4488$kq1.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...

> How can it be proven that Nazareth did not exist at the time of Jesus'
> birth?

Because no historical records, either archaeological or literary, has been
found about a "Nazareth".... The most ancient findings in the current site
identified as Nazareth (allegedy el-Nasirah) date at most from the 3d
century in this era.... Neither Giuseppe Flavio, who named all the cities of
both Judea and Galilee never put a word about Nazareth; to say the least,
that's very weird for such an important city....

> The assertion that Jesus is not a historical figure or that he did not
live

> in the early 1st century CE is held by a small number of academics.

Oh yeah, only those who got no support from the church....

Hal.
_______________________________
"Often a kook becomes a normal guy
once people finds a new one to game".
Hal9000, third law of kookology.


Hal9000

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 7:32:36 PM4/29/02
to
"Jesus Christ" <Je...@christ.hvn> ha scritto nel messaggio

news:aai9gl$31v$1...@astroconsulting.databasix.com...
> Verily, verily, "John P. Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net> sayeth unto us:
> Where does Josephus write about Herod's order to slaughter all the
infants?

Nowhere.

Hal9000

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 7:32:38 PM4/29/02
to
"Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:Q2az8.4855$kq1.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...

> Now just one second you idiots.

That's perfect for believers to show something of the charitable grace and
patience which their god (pardon, semi-god....) lightened in them with his
"theachings"....

Hal.
_______________________________
"I'm go thy god, a jealous god".
Hal9000, fourth law of kookology.


Hal9000

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 7:49:18 PM4/29/02
to
"Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:Vc4z8.7371$5e6.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...

> Maybe you should read Josephus and find out more about the relation
between
> Jews and Herod the Great. It was not a love affair, I can assure you that
> much.

WHICH jews are you talking of? Maybe the integralist jahwěsts, who hated the
attempt of Herod to establish a post-alexandrinist system of life, the
pharisees either, the followers of Judas the Galilee or perhaps the
post-maccabite agit-props? No wonder the only evangelist who wrote about the
"slaughter" was Mattew, which gospel was the canvas for the ebionites' one
(a filo-pharisean sect.... Herod killed many pharisees; that is the
"slaughter"....).... Herod was no much bad than many other kings of the
past, nay, he was a builder, mantained the order at any costs, defeated the
brigands and gave this people many of his landmarks, but someone needed a
symbol which to put onto all the political bias they needed to put on.

> You need to change your approach. The Bible is not a history book. The

As the Gospel isn't at all historic; it is a MYTH modeled upon the edomite
religions mixed with very scarce (and lamely rendered) historical facts.

Snipped the rest.

Hal.
________________
Too bored to quote.


Dan Fake

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 7:54:31 PM4/29/02
to
"Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu> wrote in message
news:Jqiz8.9421$5e6.8...@news20.bellglobal.com...

> Read your post. You made up your mind that Jesus did
> not exist. Should I be surprised?

Read the evidence regarding reasons to doubt that
the Jesus as proposed by the christian faith actually
existed in any manner resembling that portrayed in
the gospels, if you're interested. ... if you're not inter-
ested, perhaps your interest in verity falls far short of
your devotion to belief in the Jesus of the gospels
for a promised immortality or else you'll suffer a
hellacious torment, at worst, -or- judgment / oblivion
via a toss in the lake of fire, which is christianity
in a nutshell ... believe or to hell with you (the words
of christians and the theo-philosophy of the new
testamyth) ...

xofpi

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 10:51:34 PM4/29/02
to
In article <aakcqg$dhd$1...@news-int.gatech.edu>, Dies Irae says...

Sorry for being dense, then.


xofpi

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 10:55:52 PM4/29/02
to
In article <aak122$4is$1...@news-int.gatech.edu>, Dies Irae says...
>
>


I hear you now. It can't be said often enough, though. My personal opinion is
that Jesus is as purely mythological as you can get for a major religious
figure, and that there probably never was anyone anything like him. His name
alone is suspicious. It's like the holy version of Snidely Whiplash.


Otho

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 10:48:10 PM4/29/02
to

"Hal9000" <nuntenefr...@cazvuo.viaspam> wrote in message
news:ZDkz8.115283$SR5.2...@twister1.libero.it...

> "Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:d53z8.4488$kq1.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> > How can it be proven that Nazareth did not exist at the time of Jesus'
> > birth?
>
> Because no historical records, either archaeological or literary, has been
> found about a "Nazareth".... The most ancient findings in the current site
> identified as Nazareth (allegedy el-Nasirah) date at most from the 3d
> century in this era.... Neither Giuseppe Flavio, who named all the cities
of
> both Judea and Galilee never put a word about Nazareth; to say the least,
> that's very weird for such an important city....
>
> > The assertion that Jesus is not a historical figure or that he did not
> live
> > in the early 1st century CE is held by a small number of academics.
>
> Oh yeah, only those who got no support from the church....
>
Nazareth is not mentioned in the OT, Josephus, or rabbinic writings. Not
surprisingly, Jesus' Nazareth origins are held up to scorn by those
skeptical of his mission.
John 1:46
Natan'el said to him, "Can any good thing come out of Natzeret?" Pilipos
said to him, "Come and see."

By the way, Flavius Josephus or Giuseppe Flavio's real name was YOSIPPOS.

Otho

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 10:51:56 PM4/29/02
to

"Hal9000" <nuntenefr...@cazvuo.viaspam> wrote in message
news:IHkz8.115292$SR5.2...@twister1.libero.it...

> "Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:Q2az8.4855$kq1.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > Now just one second you idiots.
>
> That's perfect for believers to show something of the charitable grace and
> patience which their god (pardon, semi-god....) lightened in them with his
> "theachings"....
>
"We are here to kill people and not doing it is getting kind of tedious"
(A British marine in Afghanistan.) LOL

Otho

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 11:21:06 PM4/29/02
to

"Hal9000" <nuntenefr...@cazvuo.viaspam> wrote in message
news:kXkz8.115330$SR5.2...@twister1.libero.it...

> "Otho" <Ot...@netcrawlers.edu> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:Vc4z8.7371$5e6.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > Maybe you should read Josephus and find out more about the relation
> between
> > Jews and Herod the Great. It was not a love affair, I can assure you
that
> > much.
>
> WHICH jews are you talking of? Maybe the integralist jahwěsts, who hated
the
> attempt of Herod to establish a post-alexandrinist system of life, the
> pharisees either, the followers of Judas the Galilee or perhaps the
> post-maccabite agit-props? No wonder the only evangelist who wrote about
the
> "slaughter" was Mattew, which gospel was the canvas for the ebionites' one
> (a filo-pharisean sect.... Herod killed many pharisees; that is the
> "slaughter"....).... Herod was no much bad than many other kings of the
> past, nay, he was a builder, mantained the order at any costs, defeated
the
> brigands and gave this people many of his landmarks, but someone needed a
> symbol which to put onto all the political bias they needed to put on.
>
Who were those Jews? The Jerusalem Jewish establishment.
I don't think you can teach me anything about Herod the Great.

> > You need to change your approach. The Bible is not a history book. The
>
> As the Gospel isn't at all historic; it is a MYTH modeled upon the edomite
> religions mixed with very scarce (and lamely rendered) historical facts.

Oh. So you are an expert in Edomite religions? Care to tell us what the
Edomite religions were? You must be joking.

Herod the Great's father was an Idumaean and his mother a Nabataean.

Otho

unread,
Apr 29, 2002, 11:33:18 PM4/29/02
to

"Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:X2lz8.53319$Rw2.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
What convoluted excuse do you have to dismiss the testimony of Tacitus? :-)

"But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that
the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to
the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have
ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he
falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for
their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by
Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the
pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only
through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome
also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world
find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made
of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense
multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of
hatred against mankind"
(Cornelius Tacitus-Annals)

"At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good,
and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other
nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified, and to
die. But those who had become 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 reported wonders. And the tribe
of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day"
(Yosippos-Antiquities)

Jesus Christ

unread,
Apr 30, 2002, 12:36:32 AM4/30/02
to
Verily, verily, "Hal9000" <nuntenefr...@cazvuo.viaspam> sayeth unto
us:

> "Jesus Christ" <Je...@christ.hvn> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:aai9gl$31v$1...@astroconsulting.databasix.com...
> > Verily, verily, "John P. Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net> sayeth unto us:
> > Where does Josephus write about Herod's order to slaughter all the
> infants?
>
> Nowhere.

Exactly. I'm trying to trap John, though. He can't accept both the bible
and Josephus as reliable if one contradicts the other.

--
___ _ ___ , , __ _ ______
/\ / (_) ()(_| | () / (_)/| |/|/ \ | | ()(_) |
| | \__ /\ | | /\ | |___| |___/ | | /\ |
| | / / \ | | / \ | | |\| \ _ |/ / \ _ |
\_|/\___//(__/ \__/\_//(__/ \___/ | |/| \_/\_/\//(__/(_/
/|
\| FALSE CHRISTIANS (failed the Luke 6:30 test):
Pastor Frank
M. Clark

----------------

PMD

unread,
Apr 30, 2002, 5:47:23 AM4/30/02