From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu ()
Subject: Re: Jesus?
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 03:15:46 GMT
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <92280.21878.J024330@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J024330@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:

>>Look, this is my post, Semhaza posted it for me, get the story straight..
>
>Yup, I thought it was a little rude for Semhaza style.  Sorry "S" you have
>a lot more class than this.

Not when I'm pissed off & sleep deprived.


>>Unless god ordains it (see xian crimes bible quotes)
>
>Tell me where to look.

Old Testament.

>Caananites worshiped Baal?  As you said David was punished.  The son born out
>of that relationship died.  Scott, I don't know if you have any kids or not

Er, unless I'm terribly mistaken, the next one lived & became the next king
(don't have my doorstop/bible with me)

>but if you ever do, and you ever live longer than one of your children, you
>may know then know the anguish David felt when his son died.  Oh, but this
>is the Bible.  It's untrue!  Scott, when you have a kid, kill it, and see what
>the mother says.

David had thousands of kids. I doubt he noticed.

>>>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
>>>od'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)
>
>I'll accept that, can you name one (in context).

1 The world is flat (taken directly from the book of genesis)
2 god flooded the whole earth
3 in the old days people lived longer (Adam's age > 700yrs)
4 there were giants
5 the israelites were egyptian captives
6 moses parted the red sea
I could go on all day... (this is only the first couple books)

>>>ebrew, Aramaic and Greek.  It deals in hundreds of controversial topics. Yet,
>>>he biblical authors spoke in harmony and continuity from Genesis to Revala-
>>>ion.  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.
>
>Care to give some supporting evidence?  Are you familiar with how the books
>were canonized?  What church fathers are you referring to?  Certainly not
>the Roman Catholic church I hope.

I believe two differing geneaologies are given for JC. 
Like it or not the early church _was_ the RC church. These are the people 
who compiled the bible.
>
>>I believe Mao Tse Tung's book has been read by more people; see the book of
>>lists.
>
>Tung's book is no longer in use.  The Bible is.

As usual you are grossly mistaken. Ask a chinese refugee (like my roomie).

>>>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
>
>What are your sources?  This figure includes 15000 copies of the Latin Vulgate.
>Subtract the Latin Vulgate and you're right, there's a substantial reduction in
>number, but still a lot more than the Illiad.

The earliest copies of the New testament are from the 4th century. There are 
_not_ anywhere near 24000 of them. More like 2/3. If you would use your head
for something other than a hatrack you would realize what a ridiculous figure
24000 copies is for that time.
Think: at 125 a.d. there _might_ have been 24000 christians; this is an
extremely generous figure. Even assuming an order of magnitude more (10X)
this is one manuscript for 10 xtians. How many scribes working how long
do you think it would take to produce these manuscripts? How would these
10 xtains afford it? If you want the read figures consult the latest FAQ
(which I will post again [it was under an incorrect heading last time]) 
under the "reading list" section. The refs are there

>> Also misleading. The Illiad was much more famous in its time than the NT.
>>
>
>Tom Sawyer was more famous than Catcher in the Rye when CITR was released.
>Based on the time line, I can accept your statement.  Gee, I guess I'm not
>as closed minded after all.  However, today the Bible is more famous than
>the Illiad (or should I say more widely circulated).

Too bad; the Illiad is a better read.

>>>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 is much historical data, including chroniclers of the times who mention
>the people of the bible.  Your words.  About biblical writings until 300AD?

No, your words; produce the data. I suspect you got these figures from the 
Jehova's witness publication; "The Watchtower"
Incidentally, the only real writings we have, (there may have been a passing 
reference to his execution bythe Romans), that corroborate the existance
of Jesus in any way (besides the Bible) are the "Dead Sea Scrolls"

>What about the book of Isaiah discovered in Qumram 1?  Did some monk place it
>there?  Gee, which Caesar was on the throne during 100-44BC?

Nope, Isaiah is Kosher. The NT is not. For example; the romans were careful 
administrators & chroniclers. If Jesus had made half the impression on the Jews
(thousands gathering to hear him) as the NT says, than there must have been 
some record of his activities. Many of the Zealot insurgents were recorded
in their annals. If you read the history of jewish religion & writing of the
time, you would realize the NT is one great allegory...

>Thanks for the compliment.  This shows the care undertaken in the transcribing.
>A lot of folks (Mormons) debunk the Bible citing ,"It's accurate only as long
>as it's translated properly."  Well, I don"t think the LDS Church fathers ever
>took a course in Hermanutics.  In addition their "scripture" is riddled with
>word changes that change meanings.  The bible has been consistant.

Atheists say this as well. Its true. Many phrases in other languages have
dual & more meanings. Some are hidden jokes. Many are totally untranslatable.
You must be a scholar of ancient languages to decide for yourself the true 
meanings.

>>This is nice. I supose you didn't read the scrolls description of early
>>Christianity? Shocking they were...
>
>Send me a copy.  PO BOX 23081, San Jose, CA  95153-3081.  BTW, if I were
>"closed minded" I wouldn't make the request.

Go to the library. Look under the heading "Dead Sea Scrolls" or "Christianity,
origins" or merely look up the books I reccommend in the FAQ.

>The Moabite Stone discovered in 1868 dates to c. 850BC.  It was erected by
>Mesha, king of Moab, and is often styled the Mesha Stone.  It tells of the
>wars of Mesha of Moab with Omri, King of Isreal, and Omri's Successors.  It
>also tells of wars with the Edomites.  The material recorded on the Moabite
>Stone parallels biblical history recorded in Second Kings, Chapters 1 and 3.

A trivial thing. Find some extensive Roman references to JC & we will be 
getting somewhere. 
>
>>>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?
>
>>o, 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.
>
>Dare I list Isaiah prophecies and the fulfillments in Christ?  Hmmm, could be
>a long post (isn't this long enough already?)  Tell ya what, I'll see if my
>buddy Ed will do it.  Then you'll have another individual to flame.

I don't care. I do not accept the historical validity of the NT. It has too
much of a pro-roman bias (render unto caeser & etc.) to be an authentic
jewish document (as one example of internal inconsistancies). Jesus would
have been offed by the Zealots had he spewed such nonsense; especially if he
claimed to be the messiah, who the Zealots beleived would free them from Rome.
This pro-roman slant would be expected for a document written after the fact,
by a _Roman_ christian (/catholic) compiler.

>>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_!
>
>Humm, well, let's see.  Matthew addressed the Jews who were very legalistic
>when it came to birthright.  The crown of Judah had to pass through Solomon
>Since Joseph (as you admit above) was descended from Solomon, he, through
>the lineage was entitled to the birthright of the throne of Judah.  In Matthew
>we are told that Joseph found out Mary was pregnant, but not by him.  He
>could have had her stoned, but chose not to.  But, you're right, this doesn't

Also unlikely. Any red-blooded jew of the time would have killed her. Face it
they were fooling around. Incidentally, the language used in the NT (ie "son
of god") is explained in that Joseph & Mary were Essenes. Essene women are
always referred to as "virgins" and certain Essene men were considered to
be incarnations of angels, all this is in the Dead sea scrolls.
 
>prove Jesus is a blood line to David.  Joseph accepted Jesus as his *legal*
>son although He was not his *natural* son.  Well, how does the blood line

Didn't work that way. No legal mechanism. Bastards were killed or remained
bastards.

>of Jesus trace back to David?  Let's look at Mary's geneology.  Notice, in
>Matthew, Jesus *legal* grandfather is Jacob, yet in Luke 3:23 we see Jesus'
>grandfather as Heli (Eli), who was Mary's father.  Luke was a doctor who
>was interested in Mary's geneology.  Mary's lineage is traced to Nathan,
>David's other son, so Jesus is the bloodline of David, and claims *legal*
>right to the throne through his adoption by Joseph.

Bzzzzt! Kings ancestries are traced through the Father side, unless you belong
to certain mongol or indian tribes.

>>a doubt a few things about them youdidn't know.
>>For instance; Good old George Washington grew & smoked _marijuana_!
>
>Prove they existed.  BTW, you need to apply the same rules you apply to the
>Bible.  You can't use writings of his contemporaries.  You can't use paintings

I never said you couldn't use contemporary writings, in the NT case therre
are none; What we have (dead sea scrolls) don't agree with the NT.
 I never said Jesus (Joshua) didn't exist. I said the NT is grossly innacurate.

>etchings, wood block carvings.  You can't use photographs (as in the ficticious
>Lincoln's case).  You can't use alleged diaries, they are probably forgeries.
>Forget the remains in the graves of people whose headstones bear the name
>Washington and Lincoln.  All they prove is Washington and Lincoln is written
>on the head stone.  The remains in the graves prove someone is buried there
>Forget any archeological artifacts.  They could have been orchestrated by
>the Timothy Leary, Rush Limbaugh, and Ted Kennedy.

If we had any of these things I might believe. All we have is the NT and lots
of historical data that disagrees. In fact _most_ of the historical data
disagrees.

[irrelevant biblical qoutes deleted]

"be not ye lost among the precepts of order" -the book of the Uterus
"Hey boy; ain't you got no 'lectrical current runnin yo brain?"-Foghorn Leghorn

in Cthulhu's hyphae...
-Scott