In article <1993Apr15.225657.17804@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes: >|> >|>  >|> However, one highly biased account (as well as possibly internally  >|> inconsistent) written over 2 mellenia ago, in a dead language, by fanatic >|> devotees of the creature in question which is not supported by other more  >|> objective sources and isnt  even accepted by those who's messiah this creature  >|> was supposed to be, doesn't convince me in the slightest, especially when many >|> of the current day devotees appear brainwashed into believing this pile of  >|> guano... > >       Since you have referred to the Messiah, I assume you are referring >        to the New Testament.  Please detail your complaints or e-mail if >        you don't want to post.  First-century Greek is well-known and >        well-understood.  Have you considered Josephus, the Jewish Historian, >        who also wrote of Jesus?  In addition, the four gospel accounts >        are very much in harmony.    Bill, I have taken the time to explain that biblical scholars consider the Josephus reference to be an early Christian insert.  By biblical scholar I mean an expert who, in the course of his or her research, is willing to let the chips fall where they may.  This excludes literalists, who may otherwise be defined as biblical apologists.  They find what they want to find.  They are not trustworthy by scholarly standards (and others).  Why an insert?  Read it - I have, a number of times.  The passage is glaringly out of context, and Josephus, a superb writer, had no such problem elsewhere  in his work.  The passage has *nothing* to do with the subject matter in which  it lies.  It suddenly appears and then just as quickly disappears.  Until you can demonstrate how and why the scholarly community is wrong about the Josephus insert, your "proof" is meaningless and it should not be repeated here.  What's more, even if Josephus happened to be legitimate, it would "prove" nothing.  Scholars speak of the "weight of evidence."  Far more independent evidence would be required to validate your claim.  Until forthcoming, your belief is based on faith.  That's OK, but you exceed your rights when you pass faith off as fact.  As for the gospels, there are parallels, but there are also glaring inconsistencies and contradictions.  Shouldn't a perfect canon be perfect?  Shouldn't there be absolutely no room for debate?  I suggest you read _Gospel  Fictions_ by Randel Helms, and _The Unauthorized Version_ by Robin Fox (for  Herb Huston, no known kinship or familial relationship, but we do indeed share  an evolutionary ancestry).  The fact that there are inconsistencies, gaps and contradictions does not deny your position.  On the other hand, neither do the gospels "prove" your faith.  Independent evidence is necessary, and I know of none (which we have already discussed, and so far you have not provided any).  Until then, its faith.  Moreover, you have committed a fundamental error in logic.  You have attempted to "prove" your claim with that which you want to prove.  Its no different than saying "I am right because I say so."    Your logic is full of circles.  It reminds me a bit of the 1910 Presbyterian  General Assembly.  The assembly defined five fundamentals (this is where "fundamentalist" came from) of orthodox Protestant Christianity, to wit: 1) Jesus performed miracles, 2) Jesus was born of a virgin, 3) Jesus was bodily resurrected, 4) Jesus' crucifixion atoned for human sin, and - here is the clincher - 5) the bible is the inerrant word of God.  Presbyterians construe "inerrant" broadly as spritually inerrant.  Fundamentalists take the first four as literally true, and then validate them with a literally inerrant bible, which contains the first four, and which is the only thing known to  contain the first four.    Smoke and mirrors and wands and hand waving if ever there was!  Its faith, Bill.  You don't have any more or better truths than anyone else.  Whatever works for you.  Just don't foist it on others.   Regards,