On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 11:16:45 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:iu3cp3hmhcmcqn21oa9ci6eoujars657bd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:20:47 -0600, Midwinter
>> <midwinter_m@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>>"Jeckyl" <noone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said :
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>Personally, I have no problem with the idea of Jesus existing
>>>historically as a man. That doesn't stretch credulity or bend any
known
>>>physical laws. And as we know from the likes of Elvis, or Diana,
>>>Princess of Wales, people can become popular legends very quickly
indeed.
>>>What we're told about Jesus even a few decades after the fact might
bear
>>>no resemblance at all to the man himself or what he might actually have
>>>said and done.
>>
>> Feel free to provide as much evidence as there is for Elvis, Diana
>> etc.
>>
>> Until you do it is just a rationalisation because there isn't any.
For an historical Jesus, moron.
>There is a *lot* of contem****ary evidence for those people. You
pretending
>otherwise just makes you look like a fool. But, if that's how you want
to
>appear, that's fine with me .. we have the evidence now that you are.
Are you really this stupid or just being nasty for effect?
|
