|
|
Posted by Harry K on 06/11/06 02:25
Brian Cryer wrote:
> "Harry K" <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1149905829.062493.136490@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > 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.
>
> The point was that Jesus had many titles. The King of the Jews was one of
> them.
>
> > > > 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...
>
> Odd, I was going to say the same of you.
>
> > "beyond doubt" - Someone wrote "faith, the ability to believe what one
> > knows to be false".
>
> Was that you? There is a logical inconsistency in your statement.
>
> > > 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.
>
> But you've already said that you won't accept "any historical reference to
> jesus, christos or variations ...". Because if you would accept variations
> on the name then you would know you were wrong. You won't accept them
> because it flys in the face of your own faith.
>
> > "...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.
>
> You have already demonstrated that faith can enter into any matter. There is
> no such thing as an unbiased observer (or scientist) much as we all like to
> think there is. You and I both have the same facts available to us regarding
> whether or not Jesus lived. You choose to disregard them, I choose to
> believe them because I believe that to be the rationali choice. Someone who
> comes out with new reasons not to believe or new criteria (as you are doing)
> is someone who has already made up their mind and is refusing to change
> their position regardless of the facts. That is prejudice. Be honest and
> think about why you refuse to accept Jesus.
>
> "and yes, that evolution is true" its not first April is it? Oh dear, you
> are on very weak ground there. Most people confuse evolution with natural
> selection, for which evidence abounds. Every so called "evidence" that I was
> presented with at school (evolution of the horse, vestigal organs,
> recapitulation theory, the peppered moth, etc) or have later heard on the
> news have all been disproved. All thats left is the emporers new clothes,
> people believe it because everyone else does. Its a good example of faith.
> (To be honest its really an example of people being kept in ignorance.) Try
> finding one piece of evidence that has not been disproved or discredited. To
> save me the time dealing with your response, if you think you've found
> something then please spend the time researching it.
> --
> Brian Cryer
> www.cryer.co.uk/brian
Would you care to explain what, in your understanding, the difference
is between evolution and natural selection? Natural selection is part
of evolution, really one of the basic mechanisms driving evolution.
If you think that those 'evidences' that you mentioned have been
disproven I invite you over to the group talk.origins to debate it.
And before you begin:
Yes, we are descended from a common ancestor with the great apes
(actually we are a member of the great apes) and that ancestore came
from a common ancestor with the 'monkeys'. Our nearest cousin is the
Bonobos.
I see no point in continuing as your 'faith' prevents you from
considering anything other than what you have learned in your church.
Harry K
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|