From: labelle@intelhf.hf.intel.com (George La Belle)
Subject: Re: Evidence
Organization: Development Tools Operation, Intel Corp., Hillsboro  OR
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 15:11:37 GMT

sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:

>George La Belle writes:

>>	2) (preface: I never said a person named Jesus, never made an 
>>	appearance.) The claim that Jesus is/was a "god" holds no water. Not

>  if you can believe through those texts that jesus made an appearance [if you
>actually do believe so], why can you not accept the testimony of those same
>texts that claim he is the son of god?

	If it were not for evidence of Jesus *outside* of the Bible, that
	too might have been in question.

	It is one thing to chronicle the life of someone, and quite another to
	embellish it with miracles, as was done in the 4 gospels. That Jesus
	actually was a person appears to be rather well established; that he
	performed miracles or was a god has yet to be well established. The
	evidence that these outlandish claims are based upon come soley from
	the 4 gospels. The origin, compilation and translation (including lots
	of material that was left out - the "Lost Gospels" for example) has
	already been hashed over here again and again. Just to summarize once
	more:

		1) The gospels were written by 4 unknown persons - the names
		Matthew, Mark Luke and John being added later.
		2) The gospels were written by apparant uneducated persons as
		there was no punctuation or paragraph separations.
		3) They were written 50-100 years *AFTER* Jesus died! What kind
		of "eyewitness" testimony is this?
		4) They are rife with contradictions and plain mistakes (forj
		example in geographic locations). BTW where is "Calgary"?
		5) The 4 that were included in the "official" Bible are not all
		the accounts we have - the others from Jewish and Egyptian
		sources show an even different account of Jesus's life and
		personality.
		6) Why should I accept these accounts as accurate when the Jews
		that were there at the time did not? 
		7) There is good reason and evidence to support the fact that
		Paul was indeed the real founder of Christianity and responsible
		for much of the myth and folklore surrounding the real Jesus.


>>	The concept of a *person* - "god" - who made everything and loves
>>	human beings and used to smite and destroy citys and people and who
>>	is "testing" our love for an eternity of pain or bliss seems absurd
>>	to me. 

>  well i see god as purely good, purely just [which means he must punish sin;
>the punishment being death [originally enacted on us by god sending us out
>of the garden of eden so we could not retain our immortality by having access
>to the tree of life]], and all loving to the point where he sent his only
>son to bear the consequences [death] of all our sins so that we may come
>back to god.  is it the biblical notion of god's justice that seems absurd
>to you?

	Absolutely. And I see by your response that you believe there was a
	"garden of eden" too? Myths such as these were floating around way
	before the Hebrews grabbed on to them.

	Another thing I neglected here was the connection between the Old
	Testament and New. Check out the so called prophecies of Jesus's
	coming and what he was supposed to be like and compare them to reality.
	I'm afraid the connection really isn't there at all.