From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Re: Jesus?
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:39:15 GMT
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <92279.25559.J024330@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J024330@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes in
>Message-ID: <1992Oct4.010921.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>
>
>>Look you dimwit, this is alt.satanism; if anyone is hostile it is because they
>>are sick & tired of closed minded morons like Marshall, Colvin & presumably
>>yourself trying to convert us to their obnoxious belief systems.
>
>Gee Semhaza, lighten up.  I tried to send this response to your e-mail, but as
>usual, it got bounced.  Considering the path I traveled to get to where I got
>to today, I really don't think closed mindedness fits my profile.  You know
>where I have been, we've discussed it in the past.

Look, this is my post, Semhaza posted it for me, get the story straight..

>>The real issue is that fundie morons like Colvin, MArshall & presumably
>>yourself should find another place to self-flagellate.
>
>No, I think the real issue here is, when individuals post something not gen-
>erally accepted in alt.satanism, the response is to flame them into Prodigy :-)
The fact is, this is alt.satanism. You ask for everything you get here.

>>What do you think the damn fool quotes are a parody of!?!?! WHat makes the
>>bible so different?
>
>You asked:

No I did not ask, I was repeating what the other person said. 
>
>It is relavent today.  For instance, "You shall not murder" is relavent today.
>"You shall not steal" is relavent today.  "You shall not commit adultry" is

Unless god ordains it (see xian crimes bible quotes)

>relavent today.  "You shall not steal" is relavent today.  This is the reader's
>digest version.  If you don't think principals of the Bible are relavent today,
>go rob a bank, or give your spouse, or boyfriend or girlfriend to have sexual
>relations with your best friend.  Better yet, let your best friend rape then
>murder your SO, then talk about the irrelavency of the above.

Hey, why the hell not? The Israelites stole all the riches & lands of the 
Caananites, after exterminating them; but this was god's will so it don't count
right? Then we have David, ancester of Jesus, who had a man killed so he could
screw his wife. This was Israel's best king (oh yes, but he was punished {hah})
>
>In order for it to be reliable, it must be transmitted accurately through time.
>Must be correct when dealing with historical personages and events.  If it is
>God's word, it should be without sany scientific absurdities that would betray
>that it came from mere human authorship.

Indeed if it _was_ "god's" word I would presume this. It is rife with 
absurdities; of course the xtian can always say the bible was speaking 
metaphorically on whatever absurd point SHe dislikes (even though for 1000 
years before xtians had taken that passage literally)

>It is unique.  Written over 1500 year time span. Over 40 authors (Bible is not
>one book, but several). Written on 3 continents. Written in three languages

I thought it was god's book?

>Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.  It deals in hundreds of controversial topics. Yet,
>the biblical authors spoke in harmony and continuity from Genesis to Revala-
>tion.  It has been read by more people and published in more languages than

Harmoniously? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!! You do have a sense of humor. What 
little internal consistancy it has is due to the pickings & choosings of books
that seem to fit by the early church fathers.

>any other book in history.

I believe Mao Tse Tung's book has been read by more people; see the book of 
lists.

>
>A brief comparison of historical manuscripts:
>
>
>WORK              When Written   Earliest Copy    Timespan  No.of Copies
>============================================================================
>New Testement      40-100AD          125AD           25yrs.     over 24,000
,                                      ^^^^
           this date is woefully incorrect. The 24000 figure is about
24001 too high. There were _no_ copies in existance at that date, unless
Mr Colvin has one in his basement

>Homer (Illiad)      900BC            400BC          500yrs.       643
                                      ^^^^^
 Also misleading. The Illiad was much more famous in its time than the NT.
>
>AUTHOR            When Written   Earliest Copy    Timespan     No. of Copies
>============================================================================
>Caesar               100-44BC       900AD           1,000yrs.      10
>Plato(Tetralogies)  427-347BC       900AD           1200 yrs.      7
>Aristotle           384-322BC       1100AD          1,400 yrs.     49

Same with these figures. Which Ceasar & what book pray tell? Aristotle was
taught for thousands of years before this. There is much historical data, 
including chroniclers of the times who mention these thinkers. 
There is little historical mention of biblical writings untill @300 AD

>There's alot more that can be cited.

I doubt it, its a poor metaphor anyway...
>
>Manuscript reliability is supported by different versions.  Syraic and Latin
>versions of the NT date to 150BC, and are supported by the older Greek texts.
                            ^^^^^
Oh, so now the NT was written _before_ Jesus' birth. Sounds about right for a
fictional charachter...

>In addition all 24,000 manuscripts, with the exception of 40 lines are ac-
>curate transmissions from the older Greek texts.  There are 764 lines in doubt
>in Homer's Illiad.

All 24000 manuscripts huh? What if, say, all 24000 were copied from each other?
This is how things were done in the old days of Monk/scribes...

>The Talmudists (100AD-500AD) had a strict code for transcribing the Bible.  It
>dealt with word placement on the page, as well as preparation of the medium
>that would be used.  If only one word were out of place, the manuscript could
>not be authenticated and used for later transcriptions.  It also dictated the
>color and consistancy of the ink.  Nothing could be written from memory.

This sounds accurate. So what? This is about 700-4000 years after the alleged
events took place.
>
>The Massoretes (500AD-900AD) treated the scriptures with the same reverence.
>In addition, they numbered the verses to assure transcription correctness.

Again; so what?

>When the Isaiah scroll was discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea
>Of the 166 words in Isaiah 53, there are only 17 letters in question.  10 of
>these are simply a matter of spelling.  4 were minor stylistic changes such
>as conjunctions.  The remaining comprise the word light which does not change
>the meaning of the text.  In addition, this word is supported by the LXX
>(Septuagint) transcription.

This is nice. I supose you didn't read the scrolls description of early
Christianity? Shocking they were...

>This is the Reader's Digest version of what makes the Bible so "different."
>There's more such as archeological digs that support places of the Bible.

Like? I have an example. They dug up Jericho. Indeed the walls did fall down
& the place was sacked. there was also something like 3 more layers of city
above this layer, with the same culture. This implies that the bible did get
some of the facts correct, but of course changed lots to suit the victors...

>Isaiah spoke of the comming of the Christ.  It used to be, "Gee, the oldest
>manuscript of Isaiah is 900AD.  Who's to say they didn't alter the manuscript
>to 'fortel' the coming of Jesus?"  Now we have a manuscript that predates
>Jesus.  How do we handle that?

No, the book of Isaiah predicts a Messiah. The Jews still hold this prophecy as
relevant; it really has nothing to do with Jesus per se; its just that a 
certain group of people happened to interpret this a certain way.
Here's an interesting fact for you to chew on;
If Jesus is the son of god, and as per the Isaiah prophecy, a descendant of
King David, then why the hell does the book of Matthew trace his bloodline
to David through _JOSEPH_?
Guess it wasn't a virgin birth eh guys? The bible _blatantly_ says Jesus was
illegitamate; a _bastard_!

>Does the above prove the Bible is the word of God?  Not necessarily.  It
>is just a statement about the "difference" of the Bible.  If you want proof
>that it is the word of God, take your questions to E-Mail.

BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If your proofs on that subject are anywhere near as weak as these are (I 
suspect they will be weaker- better minds that yours have tried & failed)
_Someone_ is in for a good laugh...

>After months of reading the group, it can be concluded that the participants,
>using the logic they currently use, could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt
>that George Washington, and Abraham Lincoln did not exist.

Nope, too much evidence for that. I certainly _could_ proove beyond a shadow of
a doubt a few things about them youdidn't know.
For instance; Good old George Washington grew & smoked _marijuana_!

>As a former pagan, athiest, agnostic, roman catholic, I set out to prove the
>Bible was false.  The proof is not there.

Nice to see you've found the truth Mr C. Its _your_ truth; keep it to yourself.

>Chris (the closed minded moron) Colvin

No argument here...

Scott (the Servant of the Great Old ones) Locklin