From: n5ppm264 (Charlie Board)
Subject: Re: Evidence
Organization: bnr
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 01:02:34 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.151137.1857@intelhf.hf.intel.com>, labelle@intelhf.hf.intel.com (George La Belle) writes:
> 
> 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.

Hmm. I'm curious what evidence you're talking about. Is there ANY mention
of Jesus in any non-christian writings within a century of his death?
(Other than the 2 spurious mentions in Josephus). I think G.A. Wells makes
a very good case for the idea that Jesus did not exist (at least not in
the first century). [see his book "The Historical Evidence For Jesus"]
> 
> 	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?

See above.

> 		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. 
> 
>