On Sep 9, 1:32 pm, duke
cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 10:59:17 -0700, skyeyes
dakotacom.net> wrote:>>> And do you actually think that the city features around the events in Jesus'
>>> life are not historical? Jesus was buried in a cave 2000 years ago, and when he
>>> walked out, that cave has been visited and venerated for 2000 years now. It
>>> doesn't need a deed with a name to be historically accurate.
>>Actually, there are more than one cave that people claim is Jesus'
>>burial cave. The one you're talking about was made famous by
>>Constantine's mother, not "for 2000 now." The provenance of the cave
>>is rather sketchy.
>
> Oh, does this mean that you think the massive growth in Christianity in the
> first 300 years forgot where he was buried until momma came along?
I don't think the "massive growth" of christianity had a damn thing to
do with whether Jesus existed or not. The Jesus cult was invented by
Saul of Tarsus, as a jewish version of a Greek mystery cult. And when
Helena came tramping through in circa 300 AD looking for True Crosses
and burial tombs, why, somebody very conveniently provided her with
reasonable facimilies of the articles she was looking for.
>>Puke, I've lived and traveled in Greece and parts of Asia Minor, and
>>let me tell you something: people there will tell you *anything* is
>>true, or can be obtained, or verified, if they think there's money or
>>social aggrandizement in it for them.
>
> But it's the Christian Church in this case.
And your point is...? Money and aggrandizement have *always*
motivated church leaders. Not to mention power, the greatest
motivator of all.
>>I wouldn't give two shits for the chances of what Helena found -
>>Jesus' burial cave or the so-called true cross - being authentic. I
>>know how things work in that part of the world. Apparently you don't.
>
> I know how the Chruch works. You're dealing with individuals and will bite on
> anything.
Oh, I know how the church works as well, pukey. I used to be a
christian myself, back in the day. What's more, I've been both a
christian fundy *and* a catlick, and I know how *both* sides of the
aisle are arranged.
>>>>The bible has *no* such evidence,puke, and I know that because I've
>>>>read it - several times.
>>> And after reading it, you're still don't know that the bible, especially the NT,
>>> is an assemblage of books which are themselves eye witness and contemporary
>>> writings and accounts of the people of the times.
>>But that's the point,puke: they're *NOT* eyewitness accounts at
>>all.
>
> Oh, sorry you don't understand. For instance, there were 500+ disciples with
> Jesus after his resurrection.
Really? Name them. You don't even have to name all 500. I'll be
satisfied if you can name, oh, 75-80 of them.
> They wrote and scribbled and conversed with many
> more, much of it eventually being formerly recorded as Gospels by MML&J. Then
> those stories were spread through out the region and eventually to the world. So
> it's sorta like your average history book written by people that definitely were
> not present at the events they write about.
Or a more parsimonious explanation: that the Jesus cult was a
successful attempt by a Hellenized jew to invent a jewish mystery
cult, and the central mythic figure of the cult was a demi-god born to
a virgin around the time of the winter solstice (as are many other
central figures of mystery cults). The mystery cult became popular and
lots of people made up "biographies" of the central figure, which came
to be known as "gospels."
>> This is what we keep trying to tell you, and every time we do,
>>you put your fingers in your ears and shout "LALALALALALALALAAAA" as
>>loud as you can to keep from hearing the facts. None of the gospels
>>were written by the people whose names are on them,
>
> Right.
Finally, your head pops out of your ass long enough for you to be in
agreement on a fact. Amazing. Next thing you know, pigs will be
buzzing my third-floor window.
>
>> and no manuscript
>>from the NT dates before 200 AD.
>
> Actually, AD65 to as early as AD40, a mere 8 years after Christ's death on the
> cross.
Which manuscript(s) would that be? Please be specific, so that I can
check them out myself.
>> The gospels are contradictory in
>>many places, and are quite clearly amalgamations of stories gleaned
>>from other sources and cobbled together.
>
> Actually they are not contradictory in the least when it comes to God's word.
> Now whether Joe and Mary went from A to B to C or from A to C then to B and back
> to C is of no consequence.
It is if your book is supposedly inspired by an all-knowing being.
Your god is supposed to be omnipotent. Making the text of four books
about his son agree would be a dead-simple thing for such a being to
do, if it existed; as well as being a good way to indicate that said
books are, indeed, divine messages. The fact they disagree says to
any logical person that those books are *not*, in fact, inspired by an
onmipotent, omniscient being.
> There are no contradictions.
>> What's more, there were
>>*other* gospels purposefully excluded from the cannon which are even
>>*more* wildly different. The whole thing smells like, looks like, and
>>sounds like a put-up job.
>
> No, after should biblical research for 300 years, the Church biblical scholars
> determined them to either be in error or already covered re God's word.
Or, as is more likely, they're all just-so stories, but the designers
of what came to be the catlick church liked some better than others
because they fit in better with the designers' agenda.
>>>> The bible says that many people witnessed
>>>>the dead coming out of their graves when Jesus was crucified, yet we
>>>>have *not one single account* by an eye witness of that happening, and
>>>>the bible doesn't provide one single witness's name for us to mull
>>>>over.
>>> I think you're flowing smoke on that one. Can you quote chapter and verse on
>>> that?
>>You bet your ignorant ass I can:
>>Matthew 27:51-53
>> "51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from
>>the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
>> 52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which
>>slept arose,
>> 53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into
>>the holy city, and appeared unto many."
>>See that? They "appeared unto many," but it wasn't important enough
>>for anybody to have made a record of it.
>>Face it,puke: you're not up to this discussion. You're too friggin'
>>ignorant.
>
> Sorry, sky, but here's your lesson for today.
Sorry, puke, but your little diversion won't work. I gave you the
chapter-and-verse you asked for. Now you tell me why, if it actually
happened, nobody bothered to make a note of the fact that the dead got
out of their graves and walked around when Jesus supposedly was
resurrected?
> When Jesus the man died, a whole new covenant came into being to replace the old
> covenant. The veil tearing revealed the ARK of the Old Covenant being exposed
> as old and out of date whereas only the Jewish priests could view it previously.
> Until Jesus died on the cross, there was no salvation of souls. The reference
> to the graves opening is a release of the souls of the saints (died in the grace
> of God but no salvation until Jesus died) rising to the Father in Heaven (the
> HolyCity).
Oh, horsepucky. I don't give a crap what fancy theological spin you
want to put on the whole thing, the point was this: HOW COME NOBODY
ELSE NOTICED THAT THE DEAD CAME OUT OF THEIR GRAVES AND WALKED AROUND?
Notice that the verse doesn't speak of them rising to heaven. The
verse specifically says, "And came out of the graves after his
resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."
They "went into the holy city," that is to say, Jerusalem, and
"appeared unto many." Only a tool would try to make that mean that
the dead went to heaven.
*You* are the one claiming the bible is history. Therefore, it's
incumbent upon *you* to show why this singular event has absolutely no
independent confirmation.
> Every Christian in the world understands that verse. You are likely the only
> person in the world too stupid to realize that verse says.
Oh, I fully understand what you christians *claim* that it says, I'm
just not buying. The questions is why, if the bible is history and
the events it speaks of actually happened, NOBODY NOTICED THAT DEAD
PEOPLE GOT OUT OF THEIR GRAVES AND WALKED AROUND.
>>Face it,puke: these things are just myth and propaganda with nothing
>>to indicate they ever really happened.
>
> We all stand laughing at you.
All one of you?
>
>>> The bible IS a historical record, along with the eye witnessing of others passed
>>> on by word of mouth for the last 2000 years, and including the writings of the
>>> early Chruch Fathers of the first 500 years or so.
>>No, it isn't. It's a factually incorrect book of mythology with no
>>independent means of verification. Hearsay isn't evidence, and
>>hearsay is all you've been able to marshall as an argument.
>
> You don't even know what I'm talking about with my reference to the "early
> Church Fathers". I'll give you a clue. It's learned and historical writings of
> many individuals of the Church that ARE NOT in the bible.
Oh, I know what you're talking about. The problem is that it can't be
demonstrated that they were doing anything other than passing on and
elaborating the myth started by Saul of Tarsus. There's no
independent verification (notice that word "independent"?) *from the
time that Jesus was supposed to have existed* that Jesus actually
existed. What the early church fathers passed along doesn't qualify
as "independent" evidence - they were selling the product and were
therefore obliged to vouch for its provenance. They had a vested
interest in seeing that the institution they were forming was
perceived as divine; after all, it was their power that was at stake.
>>>> George Washington wasn't one of the signers of the DOI,
>>>>dipshit:
>>> But how about Samuel Adams?
>>How about him?
>
> Haahaahaahaa. He signed the Declaration of Independence. Haahaahaahaa.
Yes, puke, Samuel Adams signing the DOI is
funny. Very, very funny....
> Oops, or was that his farm foreman that signed it for him?
They men who knew him, and who were in the room with him when he
signed, said it was him. There's no reason to think that anyone else
signed for him.
>> We *know* he existed, we have things he's written, we
>>know property that he owned, and we have letters to, from, and about
>>him written by/for other people. That's *way* more than we have to
>>support the existence of Jesus.
>
> No, we have the entire NT about Jesus including all the early Chruch Fathers.
The problem is that you have nothing outside the bible or the
organization perpetuating the myth of Jesus' existence to support his
existence. The early church fathers had an axe to grind; they're not
even close to being impartial or independent.
>>> Of course, by how do you validate "joe" is the same "joe" that
>>> wrote.............?
>>You validate them as being the same joe at the point when the evidence
>>becomes overwhelming,puke.
>
> Ok, did Samual or his foreman sign the DofI?
By the accounts of eyewitnesses - other men who were there signing it
at the same time - Samual Adams did the signing.
>
>>Look up the word "obtuse"puke. It was invented to describe you. You
>>are not a good advertisement for what your cult does to people.
>
> We educate them. When God passed around the intelligence, you left the line.
You're free to believe any silly crap you want, puke. Just be aware
that what you believe has *no basis in fact*.
> You better stick to conversations with your cats.
Conversations with my cats are more intellectually challenging than
conversations with you tend to be, I'll say that much for them.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
