From: labelle@intelhf.hf.intel.com (George La Belle)
Subject: Re: Evidence
Organization: Development Tools Operation, Intel Corp., Hillsboro  OR
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 06:19:32 GMT

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>labelle@intelhf.hf.intel.com (George La Belle) writes:

>>		1) The gospels were written by 4 unknown persons - the names
>>		Matthew, Mark Luke and John being added later.
>But not much later.  Tradition ascribed authorship of the books to men by
>these names from the beginning.  This is not to say that these people
                      ^^^^^^^^^ What "beginning"? The New Testament wasn't
 compiled until around 236 ad!

>acutally wrote the books, but authorship was assigned by the early (2nd
>century) church.

	So, the actual authorship of the *ONLY* "eyewitness" "evidence" we
	have of the "divinity" of the so-called "son of god" are writings
	unsigned and "ascribed" 200 years later by an organization of
	believers wishing to break with Jewish and Roman traditions! Pretty
	weak, if you ask me!

	As mentioned in "Jesus the Evidence" (by Ian Wilson), no where in
	the gospels does Jesus say "Make sure you put this down" or "get
	this parable as I dictate"! If Jesus was god - or if god was god,
	for that matter - don't you think they would do a better job of
	conveying this extremely important message to *everyone*?
	(And Pleeease, don't give me that tired excuse about "testing us")
	Especially so that it would be accepted thousands of years later - and
	not brought under scrutiny.


>>		of "eyewitness" testimony is this?
>First of all, the LATEST date of any of the Gospels is aprox 100AD, making
>it no more than 70 years after.  Early dates for Mark put is around 50, but
>not much later than 70AD.  So the real range is 20-70 years.  As for
>eyewitnesses, clearly 'Luke' makes no claim to be an eyewitness, but to

	What is your point? It is well established, and you have now collabor-
	ated, that the gospels were not even written at the time the so-called
	eyewitness "evidence" was accounted! This is the whole point for
	discrediting this "testimony" that makes up the basis for Christianity!

>>		4) They are rife with contradictions and plain mistakes (forj
>>		example in geographic locations). BTW where is "Calgary"?
>'Calvary' you mean?  There are alternate sites.  So what?  As for
>geographic misqueus, this would be easily understood if the authors are who
>we think they are - John Mark, for example, was writing outside of the
>area, and had not travelled with Christ.  His Gospel appears to be straight
>from Peter's preaching.  I doubt he consulted a map when he put together

	Why make excuses for him? Why not question the inaccuracies? Isn't
	the authenticity of these documents important to you? If so, how
	do you authenticate them? (hint: check for evidence outside this
	book that might collaborate the evidence presented therein, and
	check for contradictions in the document that might discredit it, or
	at least shed doubt upon it)

>>		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.
>Yes, there are.  But they were not accepted by the early church.  They are
>avaiable if you want them.  All 'canon' does is establish a yardstick by
>which documents are included or excluded from the main collection.  The
>canon varied over the years, and the Protestant, Roman Catholic and
>Orthodox bibles all differ in canon.

	Again, what is your point? Do you personally know these people who
	decided a thousand years ago, what should be believed and what should
	be rejected? Can you not choose for yourself? I submit that they
	accepted that which followed their "party line" and rejected that
	which might have weakend the case for Christianity. How did they
	determine what was accurate and what was not? (I know - they were
	"inspired". Why then does "god" not inspire the legitimate doubters?)
	
		If I were forming this religion, I would not have allowed
	"protestants" in the first place! I would have "smote" them all as
	I did  in the past. I mean, after all, they are getting WAY off the
	beaten path! Martin Luther, who started it all - did so out of LUST!
	Boy, would I have sent him a lightning bolt!


>>		6) Why should I accept these accounts as accurate when the Jews
>>		that were there at the time did not? 
>Faith...that's the only answer!

	"faith"? You mean "wanna believe in this". (motivation - eternal bliss)
	Blind faith, at that. 

	Why not have "faith" in reincarnation? You could come back as a Michael
	Jackson and make zillions - later BECOMING GOD HIMSELF. I'd rather
	have faith in this, given a choice!
	But, I prefer to have faith in those things that are at least somewhat
	probable.


>>		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.

>Perhaps, but there is no conclusive proof.  Hyam Maccoby built a house of
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>cards on simple conjecture and some assumptions that are not necesarily
>true.  I read "The Mythmaker" and found it to be very weak, and would
>collapse under scrutiny.

	Yeah, but the fact that Christians believe in a weak source (the
	Bible, as we know it) as "evidence" for a "god", "son of god"
	and a person that supposedly rose from the dead *IS NOT WEAK*,
	and dosen't collapse under scrutiny???? Talk about a house of cards!

	Bottom line: The New Testament was compiled at least 200 years
	after the fact, with poor documentation, because it was needed to
	support the formation, of yet, another religion. It contains many
	contradictions and questionable facts and testimony written way
	after the recorded events, and yet people base their lives on it.

	The *only* thing that can compell an otherwise intelligent person,
	to believe that the evidence contained within the New Testament
	is an accurate description of "god's" plan for "man's" destiny
	is "faith" as you stated. This "faith" seems to be a betrayal
	of logic!

===============================================================================
			George S. La Belle

Software Engineer			(503) 696-2149
Intel Corp.				ccm!george_labelle@intelhf.intel.com
Hillsboro, Oregon			WB6YZZ
ARRL, NARAL, ACLU, CSICOP, NTH, ABC
"The worst day fishing is better than the best day working"
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins