Jesus was a Torah observant Jew as is made clear in the passage in
Matthew Chapter 5 starting at verse 17.  Jesus told his audience to obey
the laws of the Torah.

Paul started a movement which had remarkably little to do with what
Jesus had taught and said that the law of the Torah no longer applied. 
The very human Jesus became the supernatural Christ with fairy story
additions culled from the mystery religions.

The recently published book   'How Jesus became Christian'  by Barrie
Wilson is well worth reading if you are interested in the origins of
Christianity.

-- 
********
David WG
********

On May 5, 7:50 am, David Wynne-Griffiths  wrote:
> Jesus was a Torah observant Jew as is made clear in the passage in
> Matthew Chapter 5 starting at verse 17.  Jesus told his audience to obey> the laws of the Torah.
>
> Paul started a movement which had remarkably little to do with what
> Jesus had taught and said that the law of the Torah no longer applied.
> The very human Jesus became the supernatural Christ with fairy story
> additions culled from the mystery religions.
>
> The recently published book   'How Jesus became Christian'  by Barrie
> Wilson is well worth reading if you are interested in the origins of
> Christianity.
>
> --
> ********
> David WG
> ********

REPLY: Again, you have a misconception of The Bible and the Christian
Faith because you do not understand.  The Old Testament Laws were to
be obeyed but Christ fulfilled those Laws and provided a new covenant
for people to accept ; that being, righteousness found thru FAITH
alone and not by trying to live out the Old Testament Laws which no
one could keep. It was his sacrifice at Calvary that initiated this
new Covenant . Paul did in fact teach what Jesus taught and to say
otherwise is really pretty ridiculous since Christ himself ordained
Paul in the book of Acts. Pauls mission was teaching primarily to the
Gentiles whereas Peter was to the Jews , but both carried forth the
Gospel Message of Christ that complete forgiveness and reconciliation
to God can be had by faith in Christs sufficient atonement for sins.
Instead of putting trust in a Critics axe to grind book, why not get
the historical and scientific evidences for Christ (his life, death,
and ressurection) ""IF"" you are willing to honestly look at the
evidence without a closed mind :
http://www.impactapologetics.com/product.asp?P_ID=455&numRecordPosition=2&strPageHistory=cat&strKeywords=&strSearchCriteria=&PT_ID=105

It is amusing what rubbish fundies will drag up to defend their curious views.
Far from being ordained by Jesus Paul never even met him.

We often forget the undeniable fact that Jesus was Jewish. He lived and
died a Jew, teaching the religion of his forbears and living by the
Torah. After his death there was a 'Jesus movement' led by Jesus's
brother James in Jerusalem and a 'Christ movement' led by Paul (who
never met Jesus) in the Diaspora. The beliefs and practices of the Jesus
movement have become clearer to us from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The Christ movement deliberately sought to replace and destroy the Jesus
movement, later aided by such masterpieces of spin as 'The Acts of the
Apostles' and the New Testament Gospels. At the same time the battles of
the Jewish community against the Romans, and the chaos after the
destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in AD 70, helped Paul and his
party to seduce Jesus's followers away from the strictures of Judaism.
Having killed off the historical Jesus, the new Christians turned the
religion away from a traditional emphasis on behaviour into the most
successful personality cult in recorded history.

From  'How Jesus became Christian' by Barrie Wilson.

On May 5, 7:38 am, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com"  wrote:
http://www.impactapologetics.com/product.asp?P_ID=455&numRecordPositi...

Message sent was as follows:
"This isn't technically Spam, but sure comes close when a link to a
"buy this book" site is posted"

In article ,
 David Wynne-Griffiths  wrote:

> Jesus was a Torah observant Jew as is made clear in the passage in
> Matthew Chapter 5 starting at verse 17.  Jesus told his audience to obey
> the laws of the Torah.
> 
> Paul started a movement which had remarkably little to do with what
> Jesus had taught and said that the law of the Torah no longer applied. 
> The very human Jesus became the supernatural Christ with fairy story
> additions culled from the mystery religions.
> 
> The recently published book   'How Jesus became Christian'  by Barrie
> Wilson is well worth reading if you are interested in the origins of
> Christianity.

I haven't read this book, but I've read similar ones by Geza Vermes and 
Hyam Maccoby, both of whom happen to be Jewish. I believe Wilson also 
draws on the rather fanciful ideas of Robert Eisenman about James the 
brother of Jesus, who is supposed to figure in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

If you look at Mark's gospel, which is generally thought to be the 
earliest, it is far from clear that the Jesus portrayed there was the 
orthodox, Torah-observing Jew beloved of Vermes and Wilson; these 
authors depend far more on Matthew's rewriting and expanding of Mark 
with a decidedly more Judaizing slant.

I concur with early 20th-century scholars like Albert Schweizer and 
Rudolf Bultmann that we really cannot know anything about the historical 
Jesus and am sympathetic to people like Earl Doherty, who argue that 
Jesus in fact never existed as a historical person and that the 
epistolary writings of the New Testament are in full confirmation of 
this.

In article ,
 David Wynne-Griffiths  wrote:
> 
> The beliefs and practices of the Jesus
> movement have become clearer to us from the Dead Sea Scrolls.

This is totally wrong; almost every serious scholar dates the Dead Sea 
Scrolls and more particularly the Damascus Document as predating Jesus 
by around a hundred years; any connection with early Christian figures 
like James and Paul are pure speculation and mainly due to Robert 
Eisenman and his followers.

On Mon, 05 May 2008 17:20:29 +0100, Alwyn  wrote:

>In article ,
> David Wynne-Griffiths  wrote:
>> 
>> The beliefs and practices of the Jesus
>> movement have become clearer to us from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
>
>This is totally wrong; almost every serious scholar dates the Dead Sea 
>Scrolls and more particularly the Damascus Document as predating Jesus 
>by around a hundred years; any connection with early Christian figures 
>like James and Paul are pure speculation and mainly due to Robert 
>Eisenman and his followers.

The problem is that there is no real evidence for an historical Jesus.

But all these things can be taken as beliefs which evolved and fused
over time into what we know as Christianity.

From several different sources.

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:
> On May 5, 7:50 am, David Wynne-Griffiths  wrote:
>> Jesus was a Torah observant Jew as is made clear in the passage in
>> Matthew Chapter 5 starting at verse 17. Jesus told his audience to
>> obey the laws of the Torah.
>>
>> Paul started a movement which had remarkably little to do with what
>> Jesus had taught and said that the law of the Torah no longer
>> applied. The very human Jesus became the supernatural Christ with
>> fairy story additions culled from the mystery religions.
>>
>> The recently published book 'How Jesus became Christian' by Barrie
>> Wilson is well worth reading if you are interested in the origins of
>> Christianity.
>>
>> --
>> ********
>> David WG
>> ********
>
Isn't it amazing and sad that someone who stands for an alternative view; 
namely one of religion, in an Atheist NG, can do nothing but prove their own 
lack of education, ignorance of the subject that they are preaching, and 
blatant dishonesty both with themselves and with others: I'm speaking, of 
course, about the resident troll DiLV, who repeatedly demonstartes his 
woeful lack of education even with regard to his own faith. Let's look at 
his reply to the OP and investigate further:

> REPLY: Again, you have a misconception of The Bible and the Christian
> Faith because you do not understand.

Ah, is that right? -And you do understand yes?

>  The Old Testament Laws were to
> be obeyed but Christ fulfilled those Laws and provided a new covenant
> for people to accept ; that being, righteousness found thru FAITH
> alone and not by trying to live out the Old Testament Laws which no
> one could keep.

Fair comment to a point: Jesus reputedly did say; according to the Gospel 
accounts, "I bring to you a new set of commandments: - That you love one 
another...and that you love the LORD your God..."

> It was his sacrifice at Calvary that initiated this
> new Covenant .

Ignoring the question as to whether or not he actually did die and the 
validity of the claims nade about his alleged death; was it actually his 
death that initiated this? He said to do thie former before he had been 
captured and before he had died.

> Paul did in fact teach what Jesus taught and to say
> otherwise is really pretty ridiculous since

It is crystal clear from scripture that Paul was a cheauvanistic bigot who 
had his own agenda. In a style similar to DiLV he took the words of Jesus 
and tristed/manipulated them to fit that personal agenda.

> Christ himself ordained
> Paul in the book of Acts.

As has already been pointed out; Paul never even met Jesus; Jesus was long 
dead when Paul lived.

> Pauls mission was teaching primarily to the
> Gentiles whereas Peter was to the Jews , but both carried forth the
> Gospel Message of Christ that complete forgiveness and reconciliation
> to God can be had by faith in Christs sufficient atonement for sins.

True to a point; but notice that they both used their own individualistic 
styles in doing so; and whereas Peter stuck pretty much to the script; Paul 
used a massive amount of improvisation and artistic licence.

Another thing is that Jesus got it wrong when he told Peter that "upon this 
rock [Peter] I will build my church.". - Yet history clearly shows that paul 
had a major role in shaping Christianity; whereas Peter's contribution can 
be described at most as insignificant.

> Instead of putting trust in a Critics axe to grind book, why not get
> the historical and scientific evidences for Christ (his life, death,
> and ressurection) ""IF"" you are willing to honestly look at the
> evidence without a closed mind :
> http://www.impactapologetics.com/product.asp?P_ID=455&numRecordPosition=2&strPageHistory=cat&strKeywords=&strSearchCriteria=&PT_ID=105

And that link is spam in asking you to buy a 3rd party account tainted with 
a Christofacist modern political agenda by some equally uneducated sources.

I thought you believed in the Bible Dave; not Impactapologeticity? This is 
just another fragmentation of already-corrupt religionism into another sect. 
Is it any wonder that Atheism can be a much more sensible choice than 
Christianity - In whatever form that "Christianity" appears?

(If it appears in the form of DiLV then the only sensible choices left are 
Paganism or Atheism - DiLV is enough to put even the Pope off Christianity 
for life!))

The message 
from Alwyn  contains these words:

> I haven't read this book, but I've read similar ones by Geza Vermes and 
> Hyam Maccoby, both of whom happen to be Jewish. I believe Wilson also 
> draws on the rather fanciful ideas of Robert Eisenman about James the 
> brother of Jesus, who is supposed to figure in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

You are wrong! he doesn't.   

> This is totally wrong; almost every serious scholar dates the Dead Sea 
> Scrolls and more particularly the Damascus Document as predating Jesus 
> by around a hundred years; any connection with early Christian figures 
> like James and Paul are pure speculation and mainly due to Robert 
> Eisenman and his followers.

Yet again you are wrong as Wilson does not make any connection to James,
Paul or any other figure from either movement. You might understand if
you saw the context, but it would be tedious to quote the whole passage,
so I suggest you read the book before commenting further. 

Of course the Dead Sea scrolls were earlier and their value is what they
reveal about the beliefs and practices of the Essenes.   

-- 
********
David WG
********

In article ,
 "Dr.Hal0nf1r£$" <femail@nospam.kustomkomputa.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> 
> It is crystal clear from scripture that Paul was a cheauvanistic bigot who 
> had his own agenda. In a style similar to DiLV he took the words of Jesus 
> and tristed/manipulated them to fit that personal agenda.

A. N. Wilson in his biography says that Paul was quite liberal for his 
time.

As for taking the words of Jesus, the question is: Did he know any? 
Since it is usually acknowledged that he never met Jesus and never 
quotes verbatim any sayings attributed to him in the Gospels, the 
balance of probability is rather strongly in the negative.

It is also worth noting that the contradictions in the writings 
attributed to Paul and their general disjointed nature has led many, 
starting with the Dutch Radicals of the nineteenth century, to question 
whether there is a single hand behind any of them. According to this 
view, Paul is just as nebulous a figure as Jesus and may or may not be 
based on a historical person.

On 5 May, 18:48, Alwyn  wrote:
> In article ,
>
>  "Dr.Hal0nf1r£$" <fem...@nospam.kustomkomputa.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
> > It is crystal clear from scripture that Paul was a chauvinistic bigot who
> > had his own agenda. In a style similar to DiLV he took the words of Jesus
> > and twisted/manipulated them to fit that personal agenda.
>
> A. N. Wilson in his biography says that Paul was quite liberal for his
> time.
>
> As for taking the words of Jesus, the question is: Did he know any?
> Since it is usually acknowledged that he never met Jesus and never
> quotes verbatim any sayings attributed to him in the Gospels, the
> balance of probability is rather strongly in the negative.
>
> It is also worth noting that the contradictions in the writings
> attributed to Paul and their general disjointed nature has led many,
> starting with the Dutch Radicals of the nineteenth century, to question
> whether there is a single hand behind any of them. According to this
> view, Paul is just as nebulous a figure as Jesus and may or may not be
> based on a historical person.

Paul does not appear to have had much interest in a historical Jesus.
He was more concerned with his invention of the supernatural Christ.

DavidWG

In article ,
 David Wynne-Griffiths  wrote:

> The message 
> from Alwyn  contains these words:
> 
> > I haven't read this book, but I've read similar ones by Geza Vermes and 
> > Hyam Maccoby, both of whom happen to be Jewish. I believe Wilson also 
> > draws on the rather fanciful ideas of Robert Eisenman about James the 
> > brother of Jesus, who is supposed to figure in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
> 
> You are wrong! he doesn't.   

Well, not having read the book, I take my cue from the blurb on 
amazon.com:

'Taking up where Robert Eisenman left off in James, the Brother of 
Jesus, Wilson calls his argument the Jesus Cover-Up Thesis and claims 
that the religion of Paul displaced the teachings of Jesus so that 
Paul's preaching about a divine gentile Christ covered up the human 
Jewish Jesus. Wilson helpfully surveys the political, social and 
religious contexts of ancient Palestine, demonstrating that the religion 
of James, the brother of Jesus, was much closer to the religious 
practice of Jesus himself, but that the followers of Paul suppressed 
Jesus' teachings in favor of their own leader.'

So did Publisher's Weekly get it wrong?

> > This is totally wrong; almost every serious scholar dates the Dead Sea 
> > Scrolls and more particularly the Damascus Document as predating Jesus 
> > by around a hundred years; any connection with early Christian figures 
> > like James and Paul are pure speculation and mainly due to Robert 
> > Eisenman and his followers.
> 
> Yet again you are wrong as Wilson does not make any connection to James,
> Paul or any other figure from either movement. You might understand if
> you saw the context, but it would be tedious to quote the whole passage,
> so I suggest you read the book before commenting further. 

I have yet to be persuaded the book is worth reading.

> Of course the Dead Sea scrolls were earlier and their value is what they
> reveal about the beliefs and practices of the Essenes.

Well, we agree on that at least!

On Mon, 05 May 2008 18:57:14 +0100, Alwyn  wrote:

>In article ,
> David Wynne-Griffiths  wrote:
>
>> The message 
>> from Alwyn  contains these words:
>> 
>> > I haven't read this book, but I've read similar ones by Geza Vermes and 
>> > Hyam Maccoby, both of whom happen to be Jewish. I believe Wilson also 
>> > draws on the rather fanciful ideas of Robert Eisenman about James the 
>> > brother of Jesus, who is supposed to figure in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
>> 
>> You are wrong! he doesn't.   
>
>Well, not having read the book, I take my cue from the blurb on 
>amazon.com:
>
>'Taking up where Robert Eisenman left off in James, the Brother of 
>Jesus, Wilson calls his argument the Jesus Cover-Up Thesis and claims 
>that the religion of Paul displaced the teachings of Jesus so that 
>Paul's preaching about a divine gentile Christ covered up the human 
>Jewish Jesus. Wilson helpfully surveys the political, social and 
>religious contexts of ancient Palestine, demonstrating that the religion 
>of James, the brother of Jesus, was much closer to the religious 
>practice of Jesus himself, but that the followers of Paul suppressed 
>Jesus' teachings in favor of their own leader.'

In your own words, it's only a claim.

However given that there is no evidence outside the Christian
tradition for an historical Jesus, it  is hard to see where he got the
idea that Paul "superceded the teachings of Jesus" or "suppressed"
them.

Especially when the Gospels came after the epistles chronologically.

Showing the evolution of Christian belief.

The message 
from Alwyn  contains these words:

> Taking up where Robert Eisenman left off in James, the Brother of 
> Jesus, Wilson calls his argument the Jesus Cover-Up Thesis and claims 
> that the religion of Paul displaced the teachings of Jesus so that 
> Paul's preaching about a divine gentile Christ covered up the human 
> Jewish Jesus. Wilson helpfully surveys the political, social and 
> religious contexts of ancient Palestine, demonstrating that the religion 
> of James, the brother of Jesus, was much closer to the religious 
> practice of Jesus himself, but that the followers of Paul suppressed 
> Jesus' teachings in favor of their own leader.'

> So did Publisher's Weekly get it wrong?

I have no knowledge of what Eisenman said or what and where he left off.
 The rest is a correct summary.

-- 
********
David WG
********

On 5 May, 19:11, Christopher A. Lee  wrote:
> On Mon, 05 May 2008 18:57:14 퍝, Alwyn  wrote:
> >In article ,
> > David Wynne-Griffiths  wrote:
>
> >> The message 
> >> from Alwyn  contains these words:
>
> >> > I haven't read this book, but I've read similar ones by Geza Vermes and
> >> > Hyam Maccoby, both of whom happen to be Jewish. I believe Wilson also> >> > draws on the rather fanciful ideas of Robert Eisenman about James the> >> > brother of Jesus, who is supposed to figure in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
>
> >> You are wrong! he doesn't.  
>
> >Well, not having read the book, I take my cue from the blurb on
> >amazon.com:
>
> >'Taking up where Robert Eisenman left off in James, the Brother of
> >Jesus, Wilson calls his argument the Jesus Cover-Up Thesis and claims
> >that the religion of Paul displaced the teachings of Jesus so that
> >Paul's preaching about a divine gentile Christ covered up the human
> >Jewish Jesus. Wilson helpfully surveys the political, social and
> >religious contexts of ancient Palestine, demonstrating that the religion
> >of James, the brother of Jesus, was much closer to the religious
> >practice of Jesus himself, but that the followers of Paul suppressed
> >Jesus' teachings in favor of their own leader.'
>
> In your own words, it's only a claim.
>
> However given that there is no evidence outside the Christian
> tradition for an historical Jesus, it  is hard to see where he got the
> idea that Paul "superceded the teachings of Jesus" or "suppressed"
> them.
>
> Especially when the Gospels came after the epistles chronologically.
>
> Showing the evolution of Christian belief.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Wilson makes his case with plenty of evidence to support it and there
is no doubt that there were two movements.  Acts was written to try
and connect them but as Wilson shows it was mainly a work of fiction.

DavidWG

"Christopher A. Lee"  wrote in message 
news:nddu14hrapgo7qihdmb20g8hjn7eus8g8d@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 05 May 2008 17:20:29 +0100, Alwyn  wrote:
>
>>In article ,
>> David Wynne-Griffiths  wrote:
>>>
>>> The beliefs and practices of the Jesus
>>> movement have become clearer to us from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
>>
>>This is totally wrong; almost every serious scholar dates the Dead Sea
>>Scrolls and more particularly the Damascus Document as predating Jesus
>>by around a hundred years; any connection with early Christian figures
>>like James and Paul are pure speculation and mainly due to Robert
>>Eisenman and his followers.
>
> The problem is that there is no real evidence for an historical Jesus.
>

That is not 'the problem' because of course there is such evidence.  You 
might prefer to disbelieve evidence or to merely resort to the stupid 
response 'that doesn't prove it' but you should not write untrue things to 
try to propogate your belief.

In article ,
 David Wynne-Griffiths  wrote:
> 
> I have no knowledge of what Eisenman said or what and where he left off.
>  The rest is a correct summary.

Thanks. Here is a useful (and quite sympathetic) review of Eisenman's 
book by Robert M. Price:
<http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/rpeisman.html>

As a high-profile and scholarly convert from Christian fundamentalism to 
atheism, I would hope that Price needs no introduction.

On Mon, 5 May 2008 11:17:14 -0700 (PDT), davidwg
 wrote:

>On 5 May, 19:11, Christopher A. Lee  wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 May 2008 18:57:14 +0100, Alwyn  wrote:
>> >In article ,
>> > David Wynne-Griffiths  wrote:
>>
>> >> The message 
>> >> from Alwyn  contains these words:
>>
>> >> > I haven't read this book, but I've read similar ones by Geza Vermes and
>> >> > Hyam Maccoby, both of whom happen to be Jewish. I believe Wilson also
>> >> > draws on the rather fanciful ideas of Robert Eisenman about James the
>> >> > brother of Jesus, who is supposed to figure in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
>>
>> >> You are wrong! he doesn't.  
>>
>> >Well, not having read the book, I take my cue from the blurb on
>> >amazon.com:
>>
>> >'Taking up where Robert Eisenman left off in James, the Brother of
>> >Jesus, Wilson calls his argument the Jesus Cover-Up Thesis and claims
>> >that the religion of Paul displaced the teachings of Jesus so that
>> >Paul's preaching about a divine gentile Christ covered up the human
>> >Jewish Jesus. Wilson helpfully surveys the political, social and
>> >religious contexts of ancient Palestine, demonstrating that the religion
>> >of James, the brother of Jesus, was much closer to the religious
>> >practice of Jesus himself, but that the followers of Paul suppressed
>> >Jesus' teachings in favor of their own leader.'
>>
>> In your own words, it's only a claim.
>>
>> However given that there is no evidence outside the Christian
>> tradition for an historical Jesus, it  is hard to see where he got the
>> idea that Paul "superceded the teachings of Jesus" or "suppressed"
>> them.
>>
>> Especially when the Gospels came after the epistles chronologically.
>>
>> Showing the evolution of Christian belief.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Wilson makes his case with plenty of evidence to support it and there
>is no doubt that there were two movements.  Acts was written to try
>and connect them but as Wilson shows it was mainly a work of fiction.

Yet believers never give this evidence. 

I have no doubt there were several movements. Not just two.

For example one of the roots would appear to be Philo's attempts to
harmonise Jewish and Greek philosophy, which is where the Logos came
from.

And there were earlier Essene beliefs, the teacher of righteousness
etc.

All of which seem to have fused together and evolved into what became
Christianity.

>DavidWG

On Mon, 5 May 2008 19:23:17 +0100, "John Brockbank"
 wrote:

>
>"Christopher A. Lee"  wrote in message 
>news:nddu14hrapgo7qihdmb20g8hjn7eus8g8d@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 05 May 2008 17:20:29 +0100, Alwyn  wrote:
>>
>>>In article ,
>>> David Wynne-Griffiths  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The beliefs and practices of the Jesus
>>>> movement have become clearer to us from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
>>>
>>>This is totally wrong; almost every serious scholar dates the Dead Sea
>>>Scrolls and more particularly the Damascus Document as predating Jesus
>>>by around a hundred years; any connection with early Christian figures
>>>like James and Paul are pure speculation and mainly due to Robert
>>>Eisenman and his followers.
>>
>> The problem is that there is no real evidence for an historical Jesus0
>>
>
>That is not 'the problem' because of course there is such evidence.  You 

So provide it.

All that ever gets offered is the obvious forgery in Josephus. If
Christians actually had any they would offer it instead.

And stuff that mentions Christians as followers of Christ but never
makes the connection between Christ and Jesus that Christians do with
the "benefit" of the hindsight of Christian tradition.

>might prefer to disbelieve evidence or to merely resort to the stupid 
>response 'that doesn't prove it' but you should not write untrue things to 
>try to propogate your belief.

The only stupidity so far is yours.

And instead of resorting to personal lies you should provide this
alleged evidence.

>

In article <481f508a$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
 "John Brockbank"  wrote:

> "Christopher A. Lee"  wrote in message 
> news:nddu14hrapgo7qihdmb20g8hjn7eus8g8d@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 05 May 2008 17:20:29 +0100, Alwyn  wrote:
> >
> >>In article ,
> >> David Wynne-Griffiths  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The beliefs and practices of the Jesus
> >>> movement have become clearer to us from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
> >>
> >>This is totally wrong; almost every serious scholar dates the Dead Sea
> >>Scrolls and more particularly the Damascus Document as predating Jesus
> >>by around a hundred years; any connection with early Christian figures
> >>like James and Paul are pure speculation and mainly due to Robert
> >>Eisenman and his followers.
> >
> > The problem is that there is no real evidence for an historical Jesus.
> >
> 
> That is not 'the problem' because of course there is such evidence.

I think Chris is broadly right, actually, and so are you. There may be 
'evidence', but the question is whether it stands up to impartial 
scrutiny. I would say that the balance of probability is that Jesus is a 
euhemerized mythical figure; however, it has to be said that Prof. G. A. 
Wells, for many decades the leading exponent of the mythicist case, now 
seems to have come to the view that a proto-Jesus as cynic sage existed 
in accordance with the 'Q' theory of Burton Mack.

The message 
from Alwyn  contains these words:

> Thanks. Here is a useful (and quite sympathetic) review of Eisenman's 
> book by Robert M. Price:
> <http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/rpeisman.html>

Many thanks.   

-- 
********
David WG
********

The message 
from David Wynne-Griffiths  contains these words:

> Here is a useful (and quite sympathetic) review of Eisenman's 
> > book by Robert M. Price:
> > <http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/rpeisman.html>

Indeed very interesting and shows that it would be very foolish to place
any reliance on any part of the scriptures.  All the many movements,
sects and cults  claim that their's is the only true belief whereas in
truth they are all equally bogus.   If there were a god I am sure it
would have made a better fist in getting its story over!

-- 
********
David WG
********

The message <481f508a$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>
from "John Brockbank"  contains these words:

> That is not 'the problem' because of course there is such evidence.  You 
> might prefer to disbelieve evidence or to merely resort to the stupid 
> response 'that doesn't prove it' but you should not write untrue things to 
> try to propogate your belief.

Is there any credible evidence?   I have yet to see any.   The
remarkable aspect of Christianity is that the life and death of Jesus
which is so important to its beliefs gave rise to no contemporary
accounts.
-- 
********
David WG
********

On Mon, 05 May 2008 19:56:47 +0100, Alwyn  wrote:

>In article <481f508a$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
> "John Brockbank"  wrote:
>
>> "Christopher A. Lee"  wrote in message 
>> news:nddu14hrapgo7qihdmb20g8hjn7eus8g8d@4ax.com...
>> > On Mon, 05 May 2008 17:20:29 +0100, Alwyn  wrote:
>> >
>> >>In article ,
>> >> David Wynne-Griffiths  wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> The beliefs and practices of the Jesus
>> >>> movement have become clearer to us from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
>> >>
>> >>This is totally wrong; almost every serious scholar dates the Dead Sea
>> >>Scrolls and more particularly the Damascus Document as predating Jesus
>> >>by around a hundred years; any connection with early Christian figures
>> >>like James and Paul are pure speculation and mainly due to Robert
>> >>Eisenman and his followers.
>> >
>> > The problem is that there is no real evidence for an historical Jesus.
>> >
>> 
>> That is not 'the problem' because of course there is such evidence.
>
>I think Chris is broadly right, actually, and so are you. There may be 
>'evidence', but the question is whether it stands up to impartial 
>scrutiny. I would say that the balance of probability is that Jesus is a 
>euhemerized mythical figure; however, it has to be said that Prof. G. A. 
>Wells, for many decades the leading exponent of the mythicist case, now 
>seems to have come to the view that a proto-Jesus as cynic sage existed 
>in accordance with the 'Q' theory of Burton Mack.

They talk about "the evidence" which they don't provide "because we
would dismiss it" for various ad hominem "reasons". And when they do
offer something it's stuff that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, like the
Christian insertion in Josephus or Roman writers who mention
Christians as followers of Christ without mentioning Jesus let alone
making a connection.

The conclusion is obvious, as well as falsifiable.

The Essenes had a "teacher of righteousness" who was crucified a
century earlier. Whether or not he actually existed doesn't really
matter - the belief was there. 

As were other different beliefs, for example Philo of Alexandria who
attempted to fuse Greek and Judaic philosophy, and introduced the
Logos, the Word. He never became a Christian but he influenced early
Christian thought.

He was a VIP in the Jewish community in Alexandria, related by
marriage to both the Ptolemies and Herod Agrippa with whom he also had
a business relationship. So he was at the heart of events but he makes
no mention of any of it.

Neither do any of the other writers of the day.

On 6 May, 00:48, Christopher A. Lee  wrote:
> On Mon, 05 May 2008 19:56:47 +0100, Alwyn  wrote:
> >In article <481f508a$...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
> > "John Brockbank"  wrote:
> They talk about "the evidence" which they don't provide "because we
> would dismiss it" for various ad hominem "reasons". And when they do
> offer something it's stuff that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, like the
> Christian insertion in Josephus or Roman writers who mention
> Christians as followers of Christ without mentioning Jesus let alone
> making a connection.
>
> The conclusion is obvious, as well as falsifiable.
>
> The Essenes had a "teacher of righteousness" who was crucified a
> century earlier. Whether or not he actually existed doesn't really
> matter - the belief was there.
>
> As were other different beliefs, for example Philo of Alexandria who
> attempted to fuse Greek and Judaic philosophy, and introduced the
> Logos, the Word. He never became a Christian but he influenced early
> Christian thought.

Wilson distinguishes between Jesus, who was a charismatic teacher, and
the Christ figure which seems to have been Paul's invention.  However,
as you say there is no credible contemporary evidence to prove that
Jesus ever existed and he may well have been created from an amalgam
of similar claimants.

David WG

On May 5, 9:58 am, David Wynne-Griffiths  wrote:
> It is amusing what rubbish fundies will drag up to defend their curious views.
> Far from being ordained by Jesus Paul never even met him.

REPLY:  Once again, you speak presumptuously and are ignorant .  Paul
was met by the ressurected Christ as he was travelling on a road . It
is all right there in Acts chapter 9 .  If youre going to be a willful
Critic , then at least study The Bible and learn it instead of
shooting from the hip.

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:
> On May 5, 9:58 am, David Wynne-Griffiths  wrote:
>> It is amusing what rubbish fundies will drag up to defend their
>> curious views. Far from being ordained by Jesus Paul never even met
>> him.
>
> REPLY:  Once again, you speak presumptuously and are ignorant .

Says the troll who speaks presumptuously and is ignorant.

>  Paul
> was met by the ressurected Christ as he was travelling on a road . It
> is all right there in Acts chapter 9 .

David W G is dealing with reality rather than fairy stories.

>  If youre going to be a willful
> Critic , then at least study The Bible and learn it instead of
> shooting from the hip.


Did Charles Darwin appear to Aldous Huxley and Adolf Hitler in a similar 
manner within your tiny mind?

(I refer to several of Dimwit's posts from a few years ago in a different 
NG; though I am unable to quote precisely as I can't be bothered to find 
them online. Maybe Ken has them on record?)

On May 5, 9:58 am, David Wynne-Griffiths  wrote:
> It is amusing what rubbish fundies will drag up to defend their curious views.
> Far from being ordained by Jesus Paul never even met him.

REPLY:  If you were really an authority on the Bible, youd know that
Paul met Jesus in Acts chapter 9.   Why are you appealing to the Bible
when , as an 'atheist', you hate it because it exposes the charade of
'atheism' ???  This is very ironic !   You should be holding up the
Humanist Manifesto 1 and 2  , so, whats going on here DWG ??!

If the sermon on the mount is to be taken seriously it is an injunction
directly from Jesus to obey the law of the torah.   Paul's epistles
predate the gospels so the author of Matthew did not take Paul's views
very seriously!

Paul never met Jesus! and he does not claim to have done so.   He
claimed to have had revelations from the resurrected Christ which was
entirely his invention.   About as credible as claiming that he had met
the flying spaghetti monster. He probably also heard voices!  Nowadays
he would be sectioned.

As most people have realised Acts is largely a work of fiction and the
whole New Testament is about as reliable as Old Moore's Almanac!   The
fundies need to grasp that their whole religion is just a man made
invention and utterly bogus.

Atheists do not hate god or want to deny the existence of a creator in
order to have a hedonistic life style but simply because with good
reason they do not believe  that there ever was a god or a creator.  

It is easy to see why man has invented gods and there is not even one
god never mind thousands of them.  The reason there has never been any
credible evidence of the existence of any god is because they are just
human inventions.  Religion is just childish nonsense, and as Steve
says, a comfort blanket for those that can't cope with life on their
own.

-- 
********
David WG
********

"Christopher A. Lee"  wrote in message 
news:kkku14tc7nahe5c83iaqet03506dfce735@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 5 May 2008 19:23:17 +0100, "John Brockbank"
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>"Christopher A. Lee"  wrote in message
>>news:nddu14hrapgo7qihdmb20g8hjn7eus8g8d@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 05 May 2008 17:20:29 +0100, Alwyn  wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article ,
>>>> David Wynne-Griffiths  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The beliefs and practices of the Jesus
>>>>> movement have become clearer to us from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
>>>>
>>>>This is totally wrong; almost every serious scholar dates the Dead Sea
>>>>Scrolls and more particularly the Damascus Document as predating Jesus
>>>>by around a hundred years; any connection with early Christian figures
>>>>like James and Paul are pure speculation and mainly due to Robert
>>>>Eisenman and his followers.
>>>
>>> The problem is that there is no real evidence for an historical Jesus0
>>>
>>
>>That is not 'the problem' because of course there is such evidence.  You
>
> So provide it.
>
> All that ever gets offered is the obvious forgery in Josephus. If
> Christians actually had any they would offer it instead.
>
> And stuff that mentions Christians as followers of Christ but never
> makes the connection between Christ and Jesus that Christians do with
> the "benefit" of the hindsight of Christian tradition.
>
>>might prefer to disbelieve evidence or to merely resort to the stupid
>>response 'that doesn't prove it' but you should not write untrue things to
>>try to propogate your belief.
>
> The only stupidity so far is yours.
>
> And instead of resorting to personal lies you should provide this
> alleged evidence.
>
>>

Your message  is only just short of too rude and offensive to merit a reply.

Remember that you wrote that there is no real evidence for an historical 
Jesus.

First, of course we know that Jesus was not an uncommon name.  It is 
extremely likely that there was a man named Jesus, and it is ludicrous to 
suppose that there wasn't.

Secondly, what is the earliest completely undeniable evidence that there 
were Christians, followers of Jesus some of who most probably have 
personally known him?

Bear in mind what I said and you said, about 'evidence'.  We are not talking 
about proof we are talking about  you saying there is no evidence.

The great fire of Rome was blamed on Christians at the time.  This was only 
about 30 years after Jesus is thought by Christians to have been alive and 
is very interesting, the earliest, and undeniably evidence.  It is also 
real.

"davidwg"  wrote in message 
news:ad8a5957-3b67-4c18-9b1b-

>  However,
> as you say there is no credible contemporary evidence to prove that
> Jesus ever existed and he may well have been created from an amalgam
> of similar claimants.
>
> David WG

Credible merely means I suppose that you and many others don't accept it as 
conclusive.  You write as though it follows that no evidence means that he 
may well have been .....

That is not logical.  Even if there is evidence of the existence of Jesus, 
or if there isn't,  it is still bloomin obvious that myths and amalgams and 
so on have occurred.  Unless of course you accept that, for example, he 
could stand on a mountain and see the whole world and after dying he was 
seen to float up to heaven with choirs singing.

That has no bearing on whether there was a person about whom those stories 
arose.

I notice that also, you switch in the same sentence between evidence and 
proof.  Evidence does not prove things.  So of course your statement that 
'there is no credible contemporary evidence that proves' is strictly correct 
grammatically but it says nothing.

There were, almost undeniably, widespread Christians about 30 years after 
the time that Christians nowadays say he died and it is therefore almost 
certain that some of those Christians personally knew him.  Of course 
'almost undeniably, and 'almost certain' are not proof, but they are 
evidence.

Just because you are not convinced by the evidence does not mean that you 
can honestly say that the evidence does not exist.

In article <48208641$1_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
 "John Brockbank"  wrote:
> 
> The great fire of Rome was blamed on Christians at the time.  This was only 
> about 30 years after Jesus is thought by Christians to have been alive and 
> is very interesting, the earliest, and undeniably evidence.  It is also 
> real. 

That is disputed. Some suspect the passage in Tacitus's Annals is a much 
later christian interpolation.
<http://users.drew.edu/ddoughty/christianorigins/persecutions/tacitus.htm
l>

On Tue, 6 May 2008 17:24:45 +0100, "John Brockbank"
 wrote:

>
>"Christopher A. Lee"  wrote in message 
>news:kkku14tc7nahe5c83iaqet03506dfce735@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 5 May 2008 19:23:17 +0100, "John Brockbank"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Christopher A. Lee"  wrote in message
>>>news:nddu14hrapgo7qihdmb20g8hjn7eus8g8d@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 05 May 2008 17:20:29 +0100, Alwyn  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>> David Wynne-Griffiths  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The beliefs and practices of the Jesus
>>>>>> movement have become clearer to us from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
>>>>>
>>>>>This is totally wrong; almost every serious scholar dates the Dead Sea
>>>>>Scrolls and more particularly the Damascus Document as predating Jesus
>>>>>by around a hundred years; any connection with early Christian figures
>>>>>like James and Paul are pure speculation and mainly due to Robert
>>>>>Eisenman and his followers.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that there is no real evidence for an historical Jesus0
>>>
>>>That is not 'the problem' because of course there is such evidence.  You
>>
>> So provide it.

Why didn't you?

>> All that ever gets offered is the obvious forgery in Josephus. If
>> Christians actually had any they would offer it instead.

Well?

>> And stuff that mentions Christians as followers of Christ but never
>> makes the connection between Christ and Jesus that Christians do with
>> the "benefit" of the hindsight of Christian tradition.

Couldn't answer this either?

>>>might prefer to disbelieve evidence or to merely resort to the stupid
>>>response 'that doesn't prove it' but you should not write untrue things to
>>>try to propogate your belief.
>>
>> The only stupidity so far is yours.
>>
>> And instead of resorting to personal lies you should provide this
>> alleged evidence.
>
>Your message  is only just short of too rude and offensive to merit a reply.

And yours wasn't rude and offensive, whining hypocrite?

Was it some other personally nasty liar also called John Brockbank who
wrote "might prefer to disbelieve evidence or to merely resort to the
stupid response 'that doesn't prove it' but you should not write
untrue things to try to propagate your belief".

Get that beam out of your own eye and stop resorting to personal lies.

And dishonestly using the reaction to these as an excuse to ignore
points made.

>Remember that you wrote that there is no real evidence for an historical 
>Jesus.

There isn't.

It's a falsifiable conclusion.

Feel free to falsify it.

>First, of course we know that Jesus was not an uncommon name.  It is 
>extremely likely that there was a man named Jesus, and it is ludicrous to 
>suppose that there wasn't.

So which one of these was the Jesus of the Gospels?

Do you honestly not understand the difference between evidence and
worthless rationalisation?

>Secondly, what is the earliest completely undeniable evidence that there 
>were Christians, followers of Jesus some of who most probably have 
>personally known him?

That's not evidence unless and until you show they did. It's merely a
rationalisation.

Because none of the early secular writers equate Christ with Jesus,
apart from the obvious tampering in Josephus which makes it
unreliable.

But that is all that gets offered.

Which is why we *conclude* there is nothing: if there were it would
have been given instead.

All it would take is one piece that stands up to scrutiny.

Not a whole list that doesn't.

Let alone rationalisations.

Do you apply the same criteria to all the other religions?

>Bear in mind what I said and you said, about 'evidence'.  We are not talking 
>about proof we are talking about  you saying there is no evidence.

So provide some.

>The great fire of Rome was blamed on Christians at the time.  This was only 
>about 30 years after Jesus is thought by Christians to have been alive and 
>is very interesting, the earliest, and undeniably evidence.  It is also 
>real. 

All the early writers who mention anything, talk about Christians as
followers of Christ - and make no connection with Jesus.

But in any case, Christians were considered a Jewish sect. The Roman
writers couldn't tell the difference making things like that a likely
later insertion. 

For instance Tacitus would not have said "we executed the anointed
one" or "we executed the Messiah". It would have been something along
the lines of "we executed Yeshua bin Yussuf".

At best he is simply describing what Christians believed. Even though
the Christians of the time were considered Jews by the Romans. This
and other things like getting Pilate's office wrong, raise suspicion.

"John Brockbank"  a écrit dans le message de news: 
48208cbe$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>
> "davidwg"  wrote in message 
> news:ad8a5957-3b67-4c18-9b1b-
>
>>  However,
>> as you say there is no credible contemporary evidence to prove that
>> Jesus ever existed and he may well have been created from an amalgam
>> of similar claimants.
>>
>> David WG
>
> Credible merely means I suppose that you and many others don't accept it 
> as conclusive.  You write as though it follows that no evidence means that 
> he may well have been .....
>
> That is not logical.  Even if there is evidence of the existence of Jesus, 
> or if there isn't,  it is still bloomin obvious that myths and amalgams 
> and so on have occurred.  Unless of course you accept that, for example, 
> he could stand on a mountain and see the whole world and after dying he 
> was seen to float up to heaven with choirs singing.
>
> That has no bearing on whether there was a person about whom those stories 
> arose.
>
> I notice that also, you switch in the same sentence between evidence and 
> proof.  Evidence does not prove things.  So of course your statement that 
> 'there is no credible contemporary evidence that proves' is strictly 
> correct grammatically but it says nothing.
>
> There were, almost undeniably, widespread Christians about 30 years after 
> the time that Christians nowadays say he died and it is therefore almost 
> certain that some of those Christians personally knew him.  Of course 
> 'almost undeniably, and 'almost certain' are not proof, but they are 
> evidence.
>
> Just because you are not convinced by the evidence does not mean that you 
> can honestly say that the evidence does not exist.

Nonetheless it all seems more than a trifle vague, and such argument smacks 
more than a little of desperation, to me. An entire belief system, a 
complete moral framework, built on the assumption that a few people MAY have 
known this Jesus personally AND hopefully reported his words and actions at 
least a little accurately, that they may be passed down a generation or 
three (or more) before being written up, AND hopefully not distorted too 
greatly by those who potentially had any number of an assortment of other 
agendas in interpreting these events that allegedly took place many years 
before. Some evidence!

pga

On Tue, 6 May 2008 20:47:02 +0200, "PG" 
wrote:

>
>"John Brockbank"  a écrit dans le message de news: 
>48208cbe$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>>
>> "davidwg"  wrote in message 
>> news:ad8a5957-3b67-4c18-9b1b-
>>
>>>  However,
>>> as you say there is no credible contemporary evidence to prove that
>>> Jesus ever existed and he may well have been created from an amalgam
>>> of similar claimants.
>>>
>>> David WG
>>
>> Credible merely means I suppose that you and many others don't accept it 
>> as conclusive.  You write as though it follows that no evidence means that 
>> he may well have been .....
>>
>> That is not logical.  Even if there is evidence of the existence of Jesus, 
>> or if there isn't,  it is still bloomin obvious that myths and amalgams 
>> and so on have occurred.  Unless of course you accept that, for example, 
>> he could stand on a mountain and see the whole world and after dying he 
>> was seen to float up to heaven with choirs singing.
>>
>> That has no bearing on whether there was a person about whom those stories 
>> arose.
>>
>> I notice that also, you switch in the same sentence between evidence and 
>> proof.  Evidence does not prove things.  So of course your statement that 
>> 'there is no credible contemporary evidence that proves' is strictly 
>> correct grammatically but it says nothing.
>>
>> There were, almost undeniably, widespread Christians about 30 years after 
>> the time that Christians nowadays say he died and it is therefore almost 
>> certain that some of those Christians personally knew him.  Of course 
>> 'almost undeniably, and 'almost certain' are not proof, but they are 
>> evidence.
>>
>> Just because you are not convinced by the evidence does not mean that you 
>> can honestly say that the evidence does not exist.

1. What evidence?
     
    They talk about "the evidence", never provide it and resort to
    falsehoods rather than provide it.
      
    When none has been provided there isn't anything to "be not
    convinced by".
           
2. I can honestly say there is none because it's an obvious
    falsifiable conclusion.
     
>Nonetheless it all seems more than a trifle vague, and such argument smacks 
>more than a little of desperation, to me. An entire belief system, a 
>complete moral framework, built on the assumption that a few people MAY have 
>known this Jesus personally AND hopefully reported his words and actions at 
>least a little accurately, that they may be passed down a generation or 
>three (or more) before being written up, AND hopefully not distorted too 
>greatly by those who potentially had any number of an assortment of other 
>agendas in interpreting these events that allegedly took place many years 
>before. Some evidence!

It's rationalisation based on the unjustified presumption that there
actually was an historical Jesus.

Which begs the very question he refuses to answer.

>pga 
>

"Christopher A. Lee"  a écrit dans le message de news: 
d3a1241b12an1hm8bgkl0u3iv1c986md63@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 6 May 2008 20:47:02 +0200, "PG" 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"John Brockbank"  a écrit dans le message de news:
>>48208cbe$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>>>
>>> "davidwg"  wrote in message
>>> news:ad8a5957-3b67-4c18-9b1b-
>>>
>>>>  However,
>>>> as you say there is no credible contemporary evidence to prove that
>>>> Jesus ever existed and he may well have been created from an amalgam
>>>> of similar claimants.
>>>>
>>>> David WG
>>>
>>> Credible merely means I suppose that you and many others don't accept it
>>> as conclusive.  You write as though it follows that no evidence means 
>>> that
>>> he may well have been .....
>>>
>>> That is not logical.  Even if there is evidence of the existence of 
>>> Jesus,
>>> or if there isn't,  it is still bloomin obvious that myths and amalgams
>>> and so on have occurred.  Unless of course you accept that, for example,
>>> he could stand on a mountain and see the whole world and after dying he
>>> was seen to float up to heaven with choirs singing.
>>>
>>> That has no bearing on whether there was a person about whom those 
>>> stories
>>> arose.
>>>
>>> I notice that also, you switch in the same sentence between evidence and
>>> proof.  Evidence does not prove things.  So of course your statement 
>>> that
>>> 'there is no credible contemporary evidence that proves' is strictly
>>> correct grammatically but it says nothing.
>>>
>>> There were, almost undeniably, widespread Christians about 30 years 
>>> after
>>> the time that Christians nowadays say he died and it is therefore almost
>>> certain that some of those Christians personally knew him.  Of course
>>> 'almost undeniably, and 'almost certain' are not proof, but they are
>>> evidence.
>>>
>>> Just because you are not convinced by the evidence does not mean that 
>>> you
>>> can honestly say that the evidence does not exist.
>
> 1. What evidence?
>
>    They talk about "the evidence", never provide it and resort to
>    falsehoods rather than provide it.
>
>    When none has been provided there isn't anything to "be not
>    convinced by".
>
> 2. I can honestly say there is none because it's an obvious
>    falsifiable conclusion.
>
>>Nonetheless it all seems more than a trifle vague, and such argument 
>>smacks
>>more than a little of desperation, to me. An entire belief system, a
>>complete moral framework, built on the assumption that a few people MAY 
>>have
>>known this Jesus personally AND hopefully reported his words and actions 
>>at
>>least a little accurately, that they may be passed down a generation or
>>three (or more) before being written up, AND hopefully not distorted too
>>greatly by those who potentially had any number of an assortment of other
>>agendas in interpreting these events that allegedly took place many years
>>before. Some evidence!
>
> It's rationalisation based on the unjustified presumption that there
> actually was an historical Jesus.
>
> Which begs the very question he refuses to answer.

After all, where's the problem for an allegedly atemporal divine being 
popping back for a repeat performance in front of the world's media, given 
all the uncertainties and lack of concrete evidence from ancient times? Doh.

pga

IlBeBauck@gmail.com  wrote:
> On May 5, 9:58 am, David Wynne-Griffiths  wrote:
>> It is amusing what rubbish fundies will drag up to defend their curious views.
>> Far from being ordained by Jesus Paul never even met him.
> 
> REPLY:  Once again, you speak presumptuously and are ignorant .  Paul
> was met by the ressurected Christ as he was travelling on a road . It
> is all right there in Acts chapter 9 .  If youre going to be a willful
> Critic , then at least study The Bible and learn it instead of
> shooting from the hip.

But where is the disinterested, independent witness.  The christian bible is
the work of man and there have been many versions over the years.  It lacks
any value as evidence.  It even contradicts itself in many places.

-- 
Clarence Darrow:I don't believe in God because I don't
                believe in Mother Goose.

The message <48208cbe$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>
from No Name contains these words:

> I notice that also, you switch in the same sentence between evidence and 
> proof.  Evidence does not prove things.  So of course your statement that 
> 'there is no credible contemporary evidence that proves' is strictly
> correct 
> grammatically but it says nothing.

I am by profession a lawyer and we commonly seek to prove by means of
evidence.   In this case

The message 
from Geoff Lane  contains these words:

> But where is the disinterested, independent witness.  The christian bible is
> the work of man and there have been many versions over the years.  It lacks
> any value as evidence.  It even contradicts itself in many places.

There do not appear to be any independent witnesses and there are no
contemporary accounts.  I would agree that the bible has not any value
as evidence as it was written to support the claims made many decades
later.   

That there were people later described as Christians also means very
little.  While the members of the Jesus movement in Jerusalem might have
had knowledge of a historical Jesus it is unlikely that the Christians
who were part of the Pauline movement had any such knowledge.  Paul
seemed to have little interest in a historical Jesus and was concerned
with his invention of the resurrected Christ.

-- 
********
David WG
********

On 6 May, 17:24, "John Brockbank"  wrote:
> "Christopher A. Lee"  wrote in messagenews:kkku14tc7nahe5c83iaqet03506dfce735@4ax.com...
> > The only stupidity so far is yours.
>
> > And instead of resorting to personal lies you should provide this
> > alleged evidence.
>
> Your message  is only just short of too rude and offensive to merit a reply.

You might want to know that the poster you are responding to is not
merely abusive, but is also intentionally dishonest.*  Nothing that he
says is more than hearsay; often deliberately distorted hearsay.
Trust no statement that he makes without verification.

* A rare low point, even among atheists.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

On 6 May, 18:12, Alwyn  wrote:
> In article <48208641$...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
>  "John Brockbank"  wrote:
>
>
>
> > The great fire of Rome was blamed on Christians at the time.  This was only
> > about 30 years after Jesus is thought by Christians to have been alive and
> > is very interesting, the earliest, and undeniably evidence.  It is also
> > real.
>
> That is disputed. Some suspect the passage in Tacitus's Annals is a much
> later christian interpolation.
> <http://users.drew.edu/ddoughty/christianorigins/persecutions/tacitus.htm
> l>

No classical scholar thinks so, however.  The idea belongs purely to
the wilder reaches of the atheist loony fringe.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

On Wed, 7 May 2008 08:11:33 -0700 (PDT), Roger Pearse
 wrote:

>On 6 May, 17:24, "John Brockbank"  wrote:
>> "Christopher A. Lee"  wrote in messagenews:kkku14tc7nahe5c83iaqet03506dfce735@4ax.com...
>> > The only stupidity so far is yours.
>>
>> > And instead of resorting to personal lies you should provide this
>> > alleged evidence.
>>
>> Your message  is only just short of too rude and offensive to merit a reply.

[Brockbank's own nastiness snipped for some reason]

>You might want to know that the poster you are responding to is not
>merely abusive, but is also intentionally dishonest.*  Nothing that he
>says is more than hearsay; often deliberately distorted hearsay.
>Trust no statement that he makes without verification.

Pearse, you are a disgusting, dishonest, nasty serial liar.

And what is worse, you know you are all these.

When are you ever going to address the Josephus problems you keep
running away from like the craven coward you are?

They won't go away no matter how often you refuse to address them. 

Why would a Jew who never converted call Christianity "the truth? 

"Scholars think it's genuine". 

Why would a Jew have called the coming of the Messiah a misfortune for
the Jews? 

"Scholars think it's genuine" 

Why would a Jew who believes the OT prophesies referred to earlier 
more mundane events, think Jesus was 'as the Divine Prophets 
foretold'?" 

"Scholars think it's genuine" 

Why would a Jew have called Jesus the Messiah and not converted if he 
believed it? 

"Scholars think it's genuine" 

Why does he say "about the same time" when describing events circa 19 
CE, for something 14 years later? This would be like saying that Gary 
Powers was shot down about the same tine as the Pearl Harbour attack. 

"Scholars think it's genuine" 

What do you imagine that this tells us about both you and these 
so-called "scholars"? 

Hint: that neither you nor they can answer the obvious. 

Confirming that it is the obvious Christian insertion. 

>* A rare low point, even among atheists.

Whereas Pearse is an all too typical in-denial fundamentalist who
resorts to personal and other lies rather than ever address anything.

And too stupid to grasp these problems would never get pointed out if
stupid fundamentalists had the sense to keep their beliefs inside
their religion. And had the sense not to offer Josephus as "evidence"
in support of their bullshit.

It's pathetic really, because it's all they've got.

>All the best,
>
>Roger Pearse

On Wed, 7 May 2008 08:12:31 -0700 (PDT), Roger Pearse
 wrote:

>On 6 May, 18:12, Alwyn  wrote:
>> In article <48208641$...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
>>  "John Brockbank"  wrote:
>>
>> > The great fire of Rome was blamed on Christians at the time.  This was only
>> > about 30 years after Jesus is thought by Christians to have been alive and
>> > is very interesting, the earliest, and undeniably evidence.  It is also
>> > real.
>>
>> That is disputed. Some suspect the passage in Tacitus's Annals is a much
>> later christian interpolation.
>> <http://users.drew.edu/ddoughty/christianorigins/persecutions/tacitus.htm
>> l>

Alwyn is right. But in Pearse's deluded imagination the only scholars
are fundamentalists with an axe to grind.

>No classical scholar thinks so, however.  The idea belongs purely to
>the wilder reaches of the atheist loony fringe.

The deliberate, serial liar knows he is lying about scholars, and that
he never explains whey they are supposed to think the way he does.

It's all about "scholars  think this" - never why they do.

Which is worthless.

He never addresses the problems with what is offered as "evidence" and
instead resorts to personal nastiness about those less gullible,
stupid and ignorant than he is.

He is a member if the only loony fringe here" fundamentalist believers
clutching at anything they can rationalise as "evidence" to support
what nobody would give a toss about if they had the sense to keep it
inside their religion.

When are you going to address the Josephus problems that won't vanish
no matter how you keep running away from  them?

Why would a Jew who never converted call Christianity "the truth? 

"Scholars think it's genuine". 

Why would a Jew have called the coming of the Messiah a misfortune for
the Jews? 

"Scholars think it's genuine" 

Why would a Jew who believes the OT prophesies referred to earlier 
more mundane events, think Jesus was 'as the Divine Prophets 
foretold'?" 

"Scholars think it's genuine" 

Why would a Jew have called Jesus the Messiah and not converted if he 
believed it? 

"Scholars think it's genuine" 

Why does he say "about the same time" when describing events circa 19 
CE, for something 14 years later? This would be like saying that Gary 
Powers was shot down about the same tine as the Pearl Harbour attack. 

"Scholars think it's genuine" 

What do you imagine that this tells us about both you and these 
so-called "scholars"? 

Hint: that neither you nor they can answer the obvious. 

Confirming that it is the obvious Christian insertion. 

>All the best,
>
>Roger Pearse

In article 
,
 Roger Pearse  wrote:

> On 6 May, 18:12, Alwyn  wrote:
> > In article <48208641$...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
> >  "John Brockbank"  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > The great fire of Rome was blamed on Christians at the time.  This was 
> > > only
> > > about 30 years after Jesus is thought by Christians to have been alive 
> > > and
> > > is very interesting, the earliest, and undeniably evidence.  It is also
> > > real.
> >
> > That is disputed. Some suspect the passage in Tacitus's Annals is a much
> > later christian interpolation.
> > <http://users.drew.edu/ddoughty/christianorigins/persecutions/tacitus.htm
> > l>
> 
> No classical scholar thinks so, however.  The idea belongs purely to
> the wilder reaches of the atheist loony fringe.

The author of the above Web page is Darrell J. Doughty, Professor of New 
Testament at Drew University. You don't get to be a professor of New 
Testament without a certain degree of classical learning, and whether or 
not he is an atheist is quite irrelevant to the point at issue: Does he 
make a persuasive argument for his case? If you can find fault with his 
scholarship beyond making argumenta ad verecundiam and ad hominem, I 
would be delighted to read your response.

On 7 May, 18:19, Alwyn  wrote:
> In article
> ,
>  Roger Pearse wrote:
>
> > On 6 May, 18:12, Alwyn  wrote:
> > > In article <48208641$...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
> > >  "John Brockbank"  wrote:
>
> > > > The great fire of Rome was blamed on Christians at the time.  This was
> > > > only
> > > > about 30 years after Jesus is thought by Christians to have been alive
> > > > and
> > > > is very interesting, the earliest, and undeniably evidence.  It is also
> > > > real.
>
> > > That is disputed. Some suspect the passage in Tacitus's Annals is a much
> > > later christian interpolation.
> > > <http://users.drew.edu/ddoughty/christianorigins/persecutions/tacitus.htm
> > > l>
>
> > No classical scholar thinks so, however.  The idea belongs purely to
> > the wilder reaches of the atheist loony fringe.
>
> The author of the above Web page is Darrell J. Doughty, Professor of New
> Testament at Drew University. You don't get to be a professor of New
> Testament ... (etc)

Well, we could both check what he has to say, surely?  Here are a few
comments.

I first note the lack of any footnotes.  This is not a piece of
scholarly writing, thus.

The article starts with this:

'...there are not a few textual variations in the mss tradition
(e.g., "Christianos" or "Chrestianos" or even "Christianus"? -
"Christus" or "Chrestos"?) -- which at least reflects the fact that
this text has been worked over.'

Now the manuscript tradition consists of a single manuscript
(Florence, Mediceo-Laurenziana 68.2, siglum M2), from which all the
others are copies.  So there are NOT "not a few" variants; there are
NO variants.  That's what having one manuscript means, unless Dr
Doughty imagines that renaissance copies of an extant medieval copy
have independent value?!?

(If so, he needs to do a course on textual criticism and stemmatics --
the process of establishing a tree of copying so as to eliminate
unnecessary codices, and which goes back to Lachmann).

Next the same bit asserts that, if there were variants, this would
demonstrate a 'fact' that "this text has been worked over".  But the
existence of variants in a manuscript tradition is not evidence of
anything of the kind.  It merely indicates scribal error most of the
time.  Again, this is textual criticism 101.

Thus far, the article has committed two cardinal crimes.  The facts
are wrong, and the article seems ignorant of textual criticism.  How
can this be, if this Doughty is the author, has researched the subject
and is what he claims?

The next bit also raises a question:

"But the real question concerns the historical reliability of this
information -- i.e., whether we have to do here with a later Christian
insertion. When I consider a question such as this, the first question
to ask is whether it is conceivable ..."

Um, hang on.  Isn't the *first* question, the *very* first question to
ask, "what is the evidence"?

Sure, we could ask: "could the filthy Jews have faked it, because of
course it's just like those dirty little liars?"  (Sorry, replace
'Jew' with 'Christian', but keep the intonation). But... is that
really our first question?  Conspiracy theory, rather than what the
facts are?

I've not read much further.  I see appeals to absence of evidence
(classic fallacy, surely?), speculation treated as fact... um.

I suspect that this is some paper for discussion, not a serious
expression of his views.  At least, I hope so!  I'm slightly tempted
to write and enquire!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

"PG"  wrote in message news:fvq8ts$qc2$1@aioe.org...
>
> "John Brockbank"  a écrit dans le message de news: 
> 48208cbe$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>>
>> "davidwg"  wrote in message 
>> news:ad8a5957-3b67-4c18-9b1b-
>>
>>>  However,
>>> as you say there is no credible contemporary evidence to prove that
>>> Jesus ever existed and he may well have been created from an amalgam
>>> of similar claimants.
>>>
>>> David WG
>>
>> Credible merely means I suppose that you and many others don't accept it 
>> as conclusive.  You write as though it follows that no evidence means 
>> that he may well have been .....
>>
>> That is not logical.  Even if there is evidence of the existence of 
>> Jesus, or if there isn't,  it is still bloomin obvious that myths and 
>> amalgams and so on have occurred.  Unless of course you accept that, for 
>> example, he could stand on a mountain and see the whole world and after 
>> dying he was seen to float up to heaven with choirs singing.
>>
>> That has no bearing on whether there was a person about whom those 
>> stories arose.
>>
>> I notice that also, you switch in the same sentence between evidence and 
>> proof.  Evidence does not prove things.  So of course your statement that 
>> 'there is no credible contemporary evidence that proves' is strictly 
>> correct grammatically but it says nothing.
>>
>> There were, almost undeniably, widespread Christians about 30 years after 
>> the time that Christians nowadays say he died and it is therefore almost 
>> certain that some of those Christians personally knew him.  Of course 
>> 'almost undeniably, and 'almost certain' are not proof, but they are 
>> evidence.
>>
>> Just because you are not convinced by the evidence does not mean that you 
>> can honestly say that the evidence does not exist.
>
> Nonetheless it all seems more than a trifle vague, and such argument 
> smacks more than a little of desperation, to me. An entire belief system, 
> a complete moral framework, built on the assumption that a few people MAY 
> have known this Jesus personally AND hopefully reported his words and 
> actions at least a little accurately, that they may be passed down a 
> generation or three (or more) before being written up, AND hopefully not 
> distorted too greatly by those who potentially had any number of an 
> assortment of other agendas in interpreting these events that allegedly 
> took place many years before. Some evidence!
>
> pga
>

Sorry to be quite blunt but that is completely beside the point at issue, 
which was the oft repeated incorrect statement that there is no evidence 
that Jesus was a real man.

Merely saying that the stories about him might not be true is rather 
pathetic.  For goodness' sake, the Reverend Lumsden, who taught me Religious 
lessons at school many years ago said that it was clear that stories about 
people get distorted and embellished every day in the newspapers and so much 
of what we are told about biblical figures must be viewed with that in mind.

"Christopher A. Lee"  wrote in message st.
>
> 1. What evidence?
>
>    They talk about "the evidence", never provide it and resort to
>    falsehoods rather than provide it.
>

I hope that by 'they' you don't mean me, because of course while I did not 
actually provide evidence for the Great Fire of Rome I did point to it 
because I thought it was sufficiently well known for most educated people to 
have heard of but who might not have perhaps made the fairly obvious 
connection to what we are talking about here.

However if you do mean me, and you regard the Great Fire of Rome as a 
falsehood then I apologise for intruding on your musings.


>    When none has been provided there isn't anything to "be not
>    convinced by".
>
> 2. I can honestly say there is none because it's an obvious
>    falsifiable conclusion.
>

Same answer.

> It's rationalisation based on the unjustified presumption that there
> actually was an historical Jesus.
>
> Which begs the very question he refuses to answer.
>

If by 'he' you mean myself, then I will ignore the 'begs the question' 
howler because that is nowadays so common that it is forgivable, and stick 
to the point.  (I rather expect that you will not undertand that, so I will 
mention that rather than refusing to answer, I have written several messages 
about the question and I am the one who actually raised it.  I am 
questioning the point that there is no evidence for the actual existence of 
the Biblical Jesus.)

There is certainly in my own thinking absolutely no conclusion at all that 
the Jesus of the Bible was an actual historic person.  That is not the point 
at issue.

"Alwyn"  wrote in message 
news:alwyn-031393.18124306052008@news.virginmedia.com...
> In article <48208641$1_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
> "John Brockbank"  wrote:
>>
>> The great fire of Rome was blamed on Christians at the time.  This was 
>> only
>> about 30 years after Jesus is thought by Christians to have been alive 
>> and
>> is very interesting, the earliest, and undeniably evidence.  It is also
>> real.
>
> That is disputed. Some suspect the passage in Tacitus's Annals is a much
> later christian interpolation.
> <http://users.drew.edu/ddoughty/christianorigins/persecutions/tacitus.htm
> l>

I have not read the link, because merely stating that what I mention is 
disputed is absolute agreement that it is evidence.

On Wed, 7 May 2008 20:29:14 +0100, "John Brockbank"
 wrote:

>
>"Alwyn"  wrote in message 
>news:alwyn-031393.18124306052008@news.virginmedia.com...
>> In article <48208641$1_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
>> "John Brockbank"  wrote:
>>>
>>> The great fire of Rome was blamed on Christians at the time.  This was 
>>> only
>>> about 30 years after Jesus is thought by Christians to have been alive 
>>> and
>>> is very interesting, the earliest, and undeniably evidence.  It is also
>>> real.
>>
>> That is disputed. Some suspect the passage in Tacitus's Annals is a much
>> later christian interpolation.
>> <http://users.drew.edu/ddoughty/christianorigins/persecutions/tacitus.htm
>> l>
>
>I have not read the link, because merely stating that what I mention is 
>disputed is absolute agreement that it is evidence. 

You need to learn that just saying something is evidence does not make
it so, because it has to lead to the conclusion.

In article 
,
 Roger Pearse  wrote:

> On 7 May, 18:19, Alwyn  wrote:
> > In article
> > ,
> >  Roger Pearse wrote:
> >
> > > On 6 May, 18:12, Alwyn  wrote:
> > > > In article <48208641$...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
> > > >  "John Brockbank"  wrote:
> >
> > > > > The great fire of Rome was blamed on Christians at the time.  This 
> > > > > was
> > > > > only
> > > > > about 30 years after Jesus is thought by Christians to have been 
> > > > > alive
> > > > > and
> > > > > is very interesting, the earliest, and undeniably evidence.  It is 
> > > > > also
> > > > > real.
> >
> > > > That is disputed. Some suspect the passage in Tacitus's Annals is a 
> > > > much
> > > > later christian interpolation.
> > > > <http://users.drew.edu/ddoughty/christianorigins/persecutions/tacitus.ht
> > > > m
> > > > l>
> >
> > > No classical scholar thinks so, however.  The idea belongs purely to
> > > the wilder reaches of the atheist loony fringe.
> >
> > The author of the above Web page is Darrell J. Doughty, Professor of New
> > Testament at Drew University. You don't get to be a professor of New
> > Testament ... (etc)
> 
> Well, we could both check what he has to say, surely?

Which is exactly what I suggested in the bit you so cunningly snipped.

>  Here are a few comments.
> 
> I first note the lack of any footnotes.  This is not a piece of
> scholarly writing, thus.

A cursory glance would have made it evident to you that this is course 
material. It is far to informal in style to pretend to be a contribution 
to a learned journal.

> The article starts with this:
> 
> '...there are not a few textual variations in the mss tradition
> (e.g., "Christianos" or "Chrestianos" or even "Christianus"? -
> "Christus" or "Chrestos"?) -- which at least reflects the fact that
> this text has been worked over.'
> 
> Now the manuscript tradition consists of a single manuscript
> (Florence, Mediceo-Laurenziana 68.2, siglum M2), from which all the
> others are copies.  So there are NOT "not a few" variants; there are
> NO variants.  That's what having one manuscript means, unless Dr
> Doughty imagines that renaissance copies of an extant medieval copy
> have independent value?!?

It is not quite as simple as you try to make out. Here is Mr Andrew 
Criddle's opinion on the matter, which it would surprise me you were not 
familiar with:
<http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=114548>

> (If so, he needs to do a course on textual criticism and stemmatics --
> the process of establishing a tree of copying so as to eliminate
> unnecessary codices, and which goes back to Lachmann).
> 
> Next the same bit asserts that, if there were variants, this would
> demonstrate a 'fact' that "this text has been worked over".  But the
> existence of variants in a manuscript tradition is not evidence of
> anything of the kind.  It merely indicates scribal error most of the
> time.  Again, this is textual criticism 101.

Criddle writes:

'Given the numerous differences between the text of the 15th century 
manuscripts and the text of the '2nd Medicean' a number of scholars have 
argued that some of these derive not from the '2nd Medicean' itself but 
independently from the ancestor of that manuscript. However, most 
scholars have not accepted these claims. The majority position is that 
although a number of the readings in the later manuscripts are almost 
certainly preferable to the '2nd Medicean' these readings are clever 
emendations by 14th and 15th century humanists and are not evidence of 
an independent textual tradition.'

That Doughty does not subscribe to the majority position as described by 
Criddle does not necessarily indicate incompetence.

> Thus far, the article has committed two cardinal crimes.  The facts
> are wrong, and the article seems ignorant of textual criticism.  How
> can this be, if this Doughty is the author, has researched the subject
> and is what he claims?

Again, it needs to be repeated that this is not a learned article, it is 
material aimed at instructing undergraduates in early Christian history.

> The next bit also raises a question:
> 
> "But the real question concerns the historical reliability of this
> information -- i.e., whether we have to do here with a later Christian
> insertion. When I consider a question such as this, the first question
> to ask is whether it is conceivable ..."
> 
> Um, hang on.  Isn't the *first* question, the *very* first question to
> ask, "what is the evidence"?

First of all, you ask yourself whether there is room for doubt. Then you 
start considering the evidence.

> Sure, we could ask: "could the filthy Jews have faked it, because of
> course it's just like those dirty little liars?"  (Sorry, replace
> 'Jew' with 'Christian', but keep the intonation). But... is that
> really our first question?  Conspiracy theory, rather than what the
> facts are?

We ask what hypothesis best fits the facts.

> I've not read much further.  I see appeals to absence of evidence
> (classic fallacy, surely?), speculation treated as fact... um.

Oh, I think you would do well to read further. The strength of an 
argument from silence depends, as you should know, on how easy it is to 
explain away the silence. If the silence is easily accounted for, then 
the appeal to it isn't worth much. You cannot dismiss all arguments from 
silence as you attempt to do above.

I do see speculation in the piece, but I can't see that it is treated as 
fact. Would you care to enlighten us?

> I suspect that this is some paper for discussion, not a serious
> expression of his views.  At least, I hope so!  I'm slightly tempted
> to write and enquire!

What a pity you did not pay more attention while reading it!

On 7 May, 20:09, "John Brockbank"  wrote:
> "PG"  wrote in messagenews:fvq8ts$qc2$1@aioe.org..> Merely saying that the stories about him might not be true is rather
> pathetic.  For goodness' sake, the Reverend Lumsden, who taught me Religious
> lessons at school many years ago said that it was clear that stories about> people get distorted and embellished every day in the newspapers and so much
> of what we are told about biblical figures must be viewed with that in mind.- Hide quoted text -

Newspapers routinely distort and embellish the stories they report and
very often get the facts wrong.  This happens over a span of