From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: In My Humbel Opinion?
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 18 Nov 92  09:41:08

1: watson@sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson)
ID: watson.721755779@space.sce.carleton.ca
 
>>JJL> "The local chapter of Ambassadors for Christ [...]
 
DR> "Since He refuses to come Himself. But then, since He never
DR> existed, He has a good excuse.               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
.   ^^^^^^^^ 
 
SW> "David, kindly support this assertion, or else qualify it with
SW> an "IMHO".
 
That stands for "In My Humble Opinion." Me, humble?! (SMILE!)
I will, however, qualify it below.
 
SW> "It does not appear unreasonable (given the available
SW> documentation) to believe that there was a first-century Jew
SW> named "Yeshua", who led some sort of religious movement in
SW> Roman-occupied Palestine."
 
Look at line four above. It reads "Christ," not "a Jew named
Yeshua." You added your knee-jerk biases and concluded that
"Christ" equals some long-dead Jew that people call Jesus. I
submit that Einstein, and Pasture, and Mm Curie, were Christ.
 
SW> It even seems reasonable (given the dislike of imperialists for
SW> those who cause, shall we say, excessive excitement among their
SW> subjects) that he was "crucified under Pontius Pilate", as
SW> the Creed says. His paternity, the exact content of his teachings
SW> (and whether they were added to by later generations), and his
SW> alleged deeds AFTER the curcifixion are, of course, questions
SW> open to a somewhat higher level of skepticism or faith."
 
In the newsgroup sci.skeptic there is two threads that discuss
the issue ("What did Judas Betray?" and "The cruci-fiction").
There are compelling reasons to believe that if the events in
the various bibles were true, Jesus would have been STONED to
death, not crucified--- Talmudic tradition says Jesus was stoned,
at any rate, and the story was changed to "cruci-fiction" to make
it meet some peoples' ideas of psychic biblical predictions.
 
I -did not- say Jesus never existed. I said Christ never existed.
Do you understand the distinction?
 
[words by James and Stephen, which soundly beat me into the ground
deleted as I would rather not repeat them]
 
The issue of "Christ" or "Jesus" or other like occultism is better
discussed in some theology newsgroup, except when addressing
origins (*IMHO*). Jesus has nothing to do with origins any more
than He had anything to do with Godhood, any more than Jesus had
anything to do with Christ. It is well and good for theists to use
smoke and mirrors to distract from the issue of origins here, but
surely they should be called on the carpet to explain their claims?
Occultism is counter-productive and anti-Commonwealth.
 
SW> "Steve Watson: watson@sce.carleton.ca===Carleton University
 
David Rice, the Evangelical Atheist.
 
       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Is Not! Is Not! Ain't So!   |
      |                           Liar! Liar! Read the book!  |
      |                           Is Not! Is Not! Is Not,     |
      |                           Ain't So! Too Improbable!   |
      |                                                       |
      |   Satan's propagandaline, 666 south damnation alley,  |
      |               hell.university.underworld              |
       -------------------------------------------------------