|
|
Posted by Brian Cryer on 06/09/06 15:42
"Harry K" <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149863768.802358.42040@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Brian Cryer wrote:
>> "Harry K" <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1149779459.670144.80070@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> > Brian Cryer wrote:
>> <snip>
>> > > Secondly, regardless of whether the 13th century crusaders got lost
>> > > (they
>> > > might have done for all I know they seem to have been the "yobs" of
>> > > their
>> > > time, just our for a fight), there has never been any dispute about
>> > > whether
>> > > Nazareth existed or where it is. Ditto, there is no doubt that Jesus
>> > > (of
>> > > the
>> > > Bible) existed, live a while, died on the cross and rose from the
>> > > dead -
>> > > or
>> > > as put in John 3:16 [KJV] "For God so loved the world, that he gave
>> > > is
>> > > only
>> > > begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but
>> > > have
>> > > everlasting life."
>> >
>> > Would you care to try to prove that he existed? No, no, you can't use
>> > the bible to do it and that is the only place he is referred to. All
>> > other references only trace back to the bible. One would think that
>> > with all the uproar he supposedly caused there would be at least a few
>> > refences to him in documents from that time.
>>
>> Even without the Bible there are many documented historical records
>> clearly
>> demonstrating the existence of Jesus. You should try googling before you
>> try
>> posting.
>>
>> I googled on "historical records of jesus" (without the quotes). The
>> first
>> three hits (as far as I've looked) were:
>> www.scripturessay.com/cev1.html
>
> Well I plowed through this one and it is just as I expected. In every
> contemporary case, all supposed references to him are based on assuming
> he existed to begin with, no direct references by name. e.g. King of
> the Jews, not Jesus or variations thereof the assumption was that
> King... meant Jesus - poor scholarship.
Try reading it again. That someone is referred to by different (but similar)
names (or titles) is quite common. Shakespear (writer of dubious quality who
most school children in England are forced to study at some point during
their education) himself spelt his name 16 different ways and I believe
there were about 400 different spellings of his name, but no one disputes
that he existed. Even in the Bible Jesus has many different titles
(including King of the Jews). At least one of the refererences quoted on
that page quote Jesus by name. The one I'm looking at now is quoting
"Josephus", a Jewish writer.
> All references to Christus or variations that I had the stomach enough
> to read far enough (quite a ways) appear to be after his supposed death
> and from Roman references in Rome. Not surprising that there would be
> references to Christians after the sect arose. It does not go to
> proving he ever existed.
Interesting point. Although at the time of the early church if Jesus hadn't
existed then it would have been an easy way for Rome or the Jews to
discredit Christianity. Why didn't they? because it was beyond doubt.
> Sorry those references to him are a bunch of assumptions piled on
> wishful thinking.
What would you consider evidence? You've discounted the Bible (which was
written by many different people from the time of Jesus), and you are
unwilling to accept written accounts from others dating from those times. I
suspect the issue is that you are unwilling to abandon your own religion
(presumably aethiest or some other evolution based faith) and as such
disregard the evidence that does not fit in with your world viewpoint.
That's your choice.
> I won't bother with the other two as I can see by teh url they are more
> religious writings of the same ilk.
>
>> http://www.missiontoamerica.com/history.html
>> http://www.sonic.net/sentinel/naij3.html
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|