From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 01:56:43 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <70319@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> |You know, if there was a white bearded man that rose people from the dead,
> |at least National Inquirer and a couple of TV shows would report it 
> |immediately. Such events are real news! As there are no such stuff
> |mentioned in the Roman and Jewish scriptures, it's clear that we didn't
> 
> The communication age is more recent than the time of Christ.  I do
> believe if it had happened to day, the Inquirer and such would have
> been there.

So you frankly believe people were not that keen to listen and hear
on gossip and fantastic events 2000 years ago? C'mon, you know quite
well that even if we didn't have newspapers, the cultures had all kinds
of other channels they used to distribute information. Not to speak
about all the historical recordings people wrote. It's a known problem
that for a man that was such a special being, there's hardly anything
recorded.
 
> Again, Jesus rose from the grave and never died again.  Name another
> that never died again, even it you claim they rose from the dead - many
> rose from the dead at the hand of Jesus and at his resurrection, but
> Jesus stands above them all - he ascended into heaven - he is alive and
> with the Father today.

Well, Osiris rose from the dead, Mitras died weekly in the Mitras cult
rituals, and the worshippers ate his body and drank his blood. Buddha
didn't die. What's so special with this religion, really. Is the
justification
that someone didn't die the key? If so I must inform you that resurrection
is an early religious idea. Actually it's even a requirement so the
worshipped entity will get followers.

> Evidence - Luke says that Jesus was "the son of Joseph, SO IT WAS THOUGHT."

So they didn't even have enough information, and continue speculating
about Jesus' ancestory. Doesn't that look really pathetic, you don't
know who was the father, but you have to continue with the ancestory 
line. How sad.

> He didn't say Jesus was Joseph's son.  Luke starts with Jesus and goes
> backwards - each of the names could be seen to be an ancestor of Jesus
> and not of Joseph.  Matthew starts at Adam and says that the names were
> begat (which I believe means father or direct ancestor) the next name.
> Matthew ends with Joseph, as the end of the line, who was the husband of
> Mary, who begat Jesus.  Note Mary begat Jesus and Joseph was her husband
> but not Jesus' father.  (The NIV puts it Joseph the husband of Mary, to
> whom was born Jesus.)

I'm confused. You say that each of the names seen to be an ancestor
of Jesus. But he didn't have an earthly father. Matthew ends with 
Joseph, but Luke doesn't. Why all the contradictions, didn't they
even have simple facts like Jesus family figured out? Who would 
believe me if I presented to confusing ancestory lines from my 
family side. Not even me myself, I would go back and double check
my references!

Kent

	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc