>
> "Libertarius" wrote in message
> news:47e81119$0$27883$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...

>> Suzanne wrote:
>>

>>> "Frank Mayhar" exit.com> wrote in message
>>> news:jsiib5-ldo2.ln1@tinker.exit.com...
>>>

>>>>On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 20:38:07 -0500, Suzanne wrote:
>>>>
>>>>

>>>>>"Frank Mayhar" exit.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:hj0gb5-4d32.ln1@tinker.exit.com...
>>>>>

>>>>>>There you go again with your "it coulda happened that way"
>>>>>>rationalizations. Just because it _could have_ happened that way
>>>>>>doesn't mean it _did_. And your analogy is fatally flawed since what
>>>>>>you "learned" about Elvis was learned while the man was still alive,
>>>>>>in
>>>>>>fact just immediately after the fact, not twenty-odd years later.
>>>>>>Forty years ago there was already mass media and electronic
>>>>>>communication, which certainly did _not_ exist in the first century.
>>>>>>You already knew who Presley was and why you should be interested in
>>>>>>him, knowledge that a first-century individual would simply not have
>>>>>>possessed. So even your "it coulda happened that way" simply isn't
>>>>>>true. Your rationalization fails.
>>>>>>

>>>>>
>>>>>My point was, that I didn't know all the things about Elvis that I
>>>>>learned from what the soldiers told me that the camp said about him.
>>>>>I'm
>>>>>writing about it now. This is 2008 and then it was in about 1958. The
>>>>>soldiers were all so surprised that this rock and roll star was such a
>>>>>gentleman, and such a kind person to everyone. They were very impressed
>>>>>with his manners and the respect that he showed to people. A point had
>>>>>been made that Josephus might not have been able to report on Jesus
>>>>>because he would not have known him. That's nonsense. Easily he would
>>>>>know thngs from those in his environment that had either known Jesus,
>>>>>or
>>>>>that had known of him.

>>>>
>>>>You just aren't very smart, _and_ you ignore stuff that you don't like.
>>>>Did you even bother to read what I wrote, or did you just not understand
>>>>it?
>>>>
>>>>Your analogy fails for the reasons I gave. When you learned about Elvis
>>>>he was still alive and the information was fresh. You already knew who
>>>>he was and why you should be interested. Neither would have been true
>>>>for Josephus. But this is all irrelevant because the passage _was_
>>>>forged. Just because "it coulda happened that way" (and it in fact
>>>>could
>>>>_not_ have "happened that way" even if there _had_ been an historical
>>>>Jesus) doesn't mean that it _did_ happen that way.
>>>>
>>>>

>>>>>>Further, for your assumptions to be true, there would have to be
>>>>>>_other_ references to an historical Jesus than the single one,
>>>>>>otherwise _how_ would Josephus "have heard about it?" In fact there
>>>>>>are no other references. In fact, there are no references to _any_ of
>>>>>>the events depicted in the Gospels. Not one.

>>>>>
>>>>>Jerusalem was razed in A.D. 72. What kind of reference do you think
>>>>>woule be there? Josephus, being a historian, did not need reference
>>>>>books, when he had tons of people to talk to abouit Jesus who were
>>>>>contemporary with him.

>>>>
>>>>And all these "tons of people" never wrote anything down anywhere. At
>>>>all. Ever. Nothing about Jesus, nothing about the murder of the
>>>>innocents, nothing about the darkness during the day (oh, and there was
>>>>no solar eclipse in that area at any time around the period in question,
>>>>so that's out), nothing about the dead walking, nothing about the
>>>>earthquake. Nothing. At. All. Even in the Roman records of the time,
>>>>and the Romans were _meticulous_ record keepers. Doesn't matter that
>>>>Jerusalem was razed, the Romans didn't keep their record there.
>>>>
>>>>And, ultimately, any mention of Jesus by Josephus would, even if genuine
>>>>(and it's not), be hearsay at best. Did you know that hearsay is not
>>>>considered evidence and is not admitted in a court of law? There's a
>>>>good reason for this.
>>>>
>>>>

>>>>>Mary, the daughter of Heli is mentioned in the Jewish records.

>>>>
>>>>Non sequitur, as usual.
>>>>
>>>>

>>>>>>A single reference, even if possibly genuine, is not sufficient to
>>>>>>prove truth. It helps but it is not sufficient. And the passage
>>>>>>purportedly from Josephus is clearly not genuine.

>>>>>
>>>>>It's pretty silly for you to try to demand that Jesus was never a real
>>>>>person when the calendar itself was changed because of his existence.

>>>>
>>>>No it wasn't. It was changed in the 6th century by Dionysius Exiguus.
>>>>From http://www.exovedate.com/a_history_of_the_calendar.html,
>>>>
>>>> Exiguus was concerned, as were other theological scholars of his day,
>>>> with the correct date of Easter. Also, in his day, years were often
>>>> cited as A.D., meaning after the emperor Diocletian. Dionysius
>>>> desired to change this fact, as Diocletian was a notorious persecutor
>>>> of Christians during his rule from 284 to 305 CE.
>>>>
>>>>In other words, Exiguus didn't like the fact that years were numbered
>>>>from the reign of Roman emperor Diocletian so he changed the year
>>>>numbering according to his religion. It had nothing to do with whether
>>>>or not there was an historical Jesus and everything to do with the
>>>>dominant religion at the time. In fact, Exiguus didn't change the
>>>>details of the year, just the year numbering.
>>>>
>>>>No one is disputing the existence of Christianity itself. It was
>>>>because
>>>>of the _religion_ that the year numbering was changed, not because of
>>>>the
>>>>existence of an historical "Jesus."
>>>>
>>>>

>>>>>Not only was it changed, but even the past time was changed to A.D. to
>>>>>do the count-down to when Jesus was on the earth. We are living in A.D.
>>>>>2008.
>>>>>

>>>>>>It's not just the skeptics that argue that the passage is a forgery,
>>>>>>Suzanne, it's your own coreligionists. Christians. There is strong
>>>>>>evidence that it's a forgery and no evidence whatsoever that it is
>>>>>>genuine. There is even evidence that it was Eusebius that was the
>>>>>>forger.
>>>>>>

>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, I do have evidence.

>>>>
>>>>No you do not.
>>>>
>>>>

>>>>>The evidence is that the skeptics have had a
>>>>>field day for years, and one by one they have been proved wrong, by
>>>>>such
>>>>>great finds as the Dead Sea Scrolls being found, and by archaeological
>>>>>science. The kind of claim you are making is the same as all the others
>>>>>against biblical events and people and the writings. The skeptical
>>>>>ideas
>>>>>don't have a very good track record.

>>>>
>>>>This isn't evidence. This is assertion. You're basing your whole
>>>>"argument" (such as it is, and it ain't much) on the Dead Sea Scrolls
>>>>having been found. But you don't even know what's _in_ those scrolls,
>>>>do
>>>>you? Quite a lot of it doesn't match what you've been spoon-fed. They
>>>>don't support your argument and, of course, their existence or
>>>>nonexistence has simply _nothing_ to do in any way with whether or not
>>>>the passage in Josephus was forged.
>>>>
>>>>You're entire argument is that it's genuine because you say so.
>>>>
>>>>

>>>>>>So your rationalizations fail twice, first in your analogy and second
>>>>>>in your assumption that the passage is genuine. Of course, that
>>>>>>doesn't matter to you, you'll still cling to them and condemn me for
>>>>>>being "skeptical."

>>>>>
>>>>>My words do not fail even though you have tried to beat them, and crow
>>>>>loudly.

>>>>
>>>>The only one "crowing" here is, as it happens, _you_.
>>>>
>>>>

>>>>>>Suzanne, did you know that "gullible" isn't in the dictionary?

>>>>>
>>>>>Yes it is.

>>>>
>>>>(And guess what? She quotes the dictionary.)
>>>>
>>>>Suzanne, did you know that there's a picture of _you_ beside that
>>>>definition?
>>>>

>>>
>>> You are so not logical. Someone says "gullible is not in the
>>> dictionary." So someone posts the definition that they said
>>> was not in the dictionary. Then you say. "You posted the
>>> definition.". Then they say my picture is by that definition
>>> in the dictionary. You seem to be living in a world where
>>> you have peers of only your type who never post straight
>>> words, but always they mena hidden things. Things that
>>> if someone is really groovy they will just know. Then you
>>> laugh at people who do not think deviously like you and
>>> your peers, and you think you are normal and that the
>>> people who talk kindly and innocently and without all
>>> the hidden motives are the strange ones.
>>>
>>> People give you evidence. The Bible is part of the
>>> evidence. You deem it not evidence.

>>
>> ===>It is evidence, like the Egyption BOOK OF THE DEAD or
>> the Sumerian EPIC OF GILGAMESH
>> of the fact that people were doing creative writings
>> way back then. -- L.
>>

> Those things you are speaking of are not evidence of
> Jesus Christ, Lib. The Bible is the greatest evidence of
> who Jesus is.

>>

> Suzanne
>