"Steve Hayes" <hayesmstw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:8sobp3de7mvuq1jkkgfm4spfeuoiv29jli@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On 19 Jan 2008 23:19:01 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>duke wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:03:52 -0800 (PST), SkyEyes <skyeyes9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >There is *no* empirical or historical evidence that Jesus is anything
>>> >other than a fictional character (probably an amalgam created from
the
>>> >personas of several itinerant first-century Jewish preachers).
>>>
>>> He's historical. As evidenced by scripture and the many writings of
>>> others from
>>> the time period.
>>
>>These writings were done hundreds of years later than the claimed time,
>>excatly
>>when, is unknown.
>>
>>The first Bible of the kind you rely on possibly appeared around 1400.
>>
>>Words from such a book are NOT evidence
>
> And since the entity shown in the from line as "bob young" (whether it
> exists
> or not) is the sole arbiter and evaluator of evidence, there shall be no
> further discussion.
So the evidence you claim for Jesus existing is stories that were written
(at best) many decades (if not centuries) afterward his supposed death by
those with an obvious agenda to promote such stories as true. And there
are
actually no contem****ary works which even mention him, certainly none that
have any credibility at all, despite there being many such works known
that
*could* have done so (or even *would* have, if he existed and done the
things claimed in the later stories).
Hmm .. doesn't sound very convincing. You got anything concrete? Any
artefacts? Any records from the time of the dead rising from their graves
(as was claimed)? Any multitudes being mysteriously fed? Any
mass-killing
of first-borns around the time of Jesus supposed birth? Surely such
events
would have been recorded by someone at the time they happened? No?
|
