From: J024330@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Jesus?
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 17:55:30 GMT

In article: <1992Oct6.003915.19125@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> Scott Locklin writes:

>In article <92279.25559.J024330@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J024330@LMSC5.IS.LM
>>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 the
>>>are sick & tired of closed minded morons like Marshall, Colvin & presumably
>>>yourself trying to convert us to their obnoxious belief systems.
>>
>>ee Semhaza, lighten up.  I tried to send this response to your e-mail, but as

In my previous post, I used "Kate."  It was a typo.  Kate, one of my co-workers
came into my office at the time.  She was a little miffed to see her name in
print.

>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.

>The fact is, this is alt.satanism. You ask for everything you get here.

Not necessarily.

>>>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.

Oh well....... :-), somebody asked.

>
>>t 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)

Tell me where to look.

>>relavent today.  "You shall not steal" is relavent today.  This is the reader'
>>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
>aananites, 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
>crew his wife. This was Israel's best king (oh yes, but he was punished {hah})

Why do you suppose the land was given to the Isrealites?  Was it because the
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
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.
>
>>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).

>>t 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?

So what are you saying here?  "The Hunt For Red October" was translated into
different languages.  Does that make it any less than the author's work?

>>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.

>any other book in history.

>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.

>>
>>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.

>>Homer (Illiad)      900BC            400BC          500yrs.       643
>                                      ^^^^^
> 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).

>>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?
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?

>>
>>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...

eeexxxxcuse me.  OOPS!   Typo  150BC should read 150AD

>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.

>ll 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...

Read on.

>>he 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.

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.

>>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
>>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...

Send me a copy.  PO BOX 23081, San Jose, CA  95153-3081.  BTW, if I were
"closed minded" I wouldn't make the request.

>>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...

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.

>>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.

>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
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
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.

>>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.

>>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.
>
>ope, 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_!

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,
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.

>Scott (the Servant of the Great Old ones) Locklin

It looks like we're getting into a bit of a pissing contest, so let me leave
you with this:

1 COR 2:14 - But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God;
for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they
are spiritually appraised.

1 COR 1:18 - For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolish-
ness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

1 COR 1:22 - For indeed Jews ask for signs, and Greeks search for wisdom;
(think you search for wisdom and there's nothing wrong with that).

Scott or anybody for that matter, what evidence do you require in order to
believe the Bible?

Now, for those who would consider me closed minded the following challenge
is issued:

JER 29:12-13  Then you will call upon Me and come and pray to Me, and I will
listen to you.  And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with
your heart.

If you flame me for JER 29:12-13, then I cannot be the only one accused of
having a closed mind.
Newsgroups: alt.satanism