On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 11:12:17 -0600, Midwinter
<midwinter_m@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Christopher A.Lee <calee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said :
>
>> You're assuming that something for which there is no evidence
>> whatsoever, has a 50-50 chance of being real.
>
>All right - it's time for you to do some work for a change. You're
always
Hypocrite.
>demanding this and that and picking holes in the answers people give you.
>Let's see you put in a bit of effort for once.
Condescending nastiness from somebody who hasn't been bothered to read
what has been posted several times.
>Why do YOU believe that you're able to claim so firmly that a man - not a
>god - called Jesus *could not have existed* at about the relevant time,
in
>the relevant place?
Where do I do that, liar?
Please learn to read for comprehension.
Then address what I _did_ say instead of putting words in my mouth.
It's not really that difficult. Move your lips if it makes it easier.
What I have been saying is that in the absence of any reason to
believe something, one doesn't.
Do you honestly imagine this is the same as the words you put in my
mouth?
There is no evidence outside the Christian tradition that stands up to
any scrutiny. All they have is the Josephus forgery. And we wouldn't
have known this if they hadn't offered it as "evidence" after begging
the question.
And that what little evidence there is at all, is against. For example
even within Christianity Paul's Christ is a divine one. He knows
nothing of a human Jesus in what are the earliest Christian writings,
describing the earliest Christian beliefs.
Couple that with none of the contem****ary authors mentioning him.
Especially Philo and Justus Tiberias who were close to the centre of
Palestinian politics, rule etc. Philo's nephew married the daughter of
Herod Agrippa. He financed him. And makes no mention of it at all.
|
