|
|
Posted by Harry K on 06/10/06 02:17
Brian Cryer wrote:
> "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.
Which has what to do with the point under discussion? I have no
problem with spelling variations. I do have a problem with a reference
to "King of the Jews" and thus assumed that it was jesus to mention
only one of many very weak attempts to twist recorded historly.
>
> > 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.
Since all attempts such as my present one to bring some light into the
closed minds of the 'true believers' fail...
"beyond doubt" - Someone wrote "faith, the ability to believe what one
knows to be false".
> > 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 would accept any historical reference to jesus, christos or
variations therefored that was contemporary with his life, not many,
many years later.
"...your own religion (presumably aethiest or some other evolution
based faith)"
That is an extremely poor attempt to excuse your "faith". It does not
take "faith" to accept things that have pile of scientific evidence.
By your definition, I have to have "faith" that gravity exists, that
the earth goes around the sun, and yes, that evolution is true.
"Faith" does not enter into scientific matters.
> > 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
Harry K
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|