X-No-Archive: yes


What undoubtable evidence exists for the assertion that jesus christ 
existed,  and was the son of god..??
If there is none are we to believe that jesus christ WAS god on earth...?
In a recent thread it is claimed that god *showed* his face in the form of 
jesus christ.....   what possible evidence exists for such a claim..?
If god exists and is not physical - pretty much the accepted christian 
doctrine - how does god intervene in causality...??
How does something outside of physicality become.... well, er, physical..?


Mark

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 23:13:01 +0100, "mark" 
wrote:

>X-No-Archive: yes
>
>
>What undoubtable evidence exists for the assertion that jesus christ 
>existed,  and was the son of god..??

Not outside the Christian tradition that stands up to  the slightest
scrutiny.

What little actual evidence there is, is actually against.

All they have is obvious forgeries in Josephus.

mark wrote:
> X-No-Archive: yes
> 
> 
> What undoubtable evidence exists for the assertion that jesus christ 
> existed,  and was the son of god..??
> 
There is none.

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 18:55:39 +0100, The Magpie
 wrote:

>mark wrote:
>> X-No-Archive: yes
>> 
>> 
>> What undoubtable evidence exists for the assertion that jesus christ 
>> existed,  and was the son of god..??
>> 
>There is none.

In fact what little evidence there is, is against it.

No contemporary writers from the area mention any of the events. The
closest would be the forgery in Josephus if it were genuine.

Paul's epistles which are the earliest Christian writings describe a
spiritual Christ. He knows nothing of the Jesus of the Gospels, which
were written later.

On Jun 8, 5:13 pm, "mark"  wrote:
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> What undoubtable evidence exists for the assertion that jesus christ
> existed,  and was the son of god..??
> If there is none are we to believe that jesus christ WAS god on earth...?
> In a recent thread it is claimed that god *showed* his face in the form of> jesus christ.....   what possible evidence exists for such a claim..?
> If god exists and is not physical - pretty much the accepted christian
> doctrine - how does god intervene in causality...??
> How does something outside of physicality become.... well, er, physical..?> Mark

REPLY: Contrary to popular atheist opinion...there is a huge amount of
historical evidence for the existence of Christ, who he claimed and
proved to be,  for the ressurrection, and for him being God the
Creator.  I sense you are truly a genuine Seeker of truth, so, Im
going to highly recommend the vast amount of evidence for your sincere
questions can be found in an inexpensive large booklet called :'The 12
Points that Prove Christianity'  as well as in the last half of the
book :'I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist' , both available at
www.impactapologetics.com   . Both of these sources are very scholarly
yet easy to understand, and you will be utterly amazed at credibility
for The Christian Faith...so much so...that,  countless highly
intelligent people thruout history have decided to become Christ
Followers based on the concrete historical evidence --- the same
historical standards which all ancient events are based on.   Think
for a moment the implications for Christ being real and dying for
mankinds sins / people who desire to reject him (without so much as a
feeble attempt at looking at the evidence which is readily available
for all).  Many many Scientists, Cosmologists, Doctors,  Presidents,
Generals, Philosophers , Historians, Archeologists.... have sought out
the evidence and found it compelling enough to surrender thier earthly
lives to him.   This is the natural honest  response because its
evidence that demands a verdict.  Regards.

On Jun 9, 1:03 pm, Christopher A. Lee  wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 18:55:39 퍝, The Magpie
>
>  wrote:
> >mark wrote:
> >> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> >> What undoubtable evidence exists for the assertion that jesus christ
> >> existed,  and was the son of god..??
>
> >There is none.
>
> In fact what little evidence there is, is against it.
>
> No contemporary writers from the area mention any of the events. The
> closest would be the forgery in Josephus if it were genuine.
>
> Paul's  epistles which are the earliest Christian writings describe a
> spiritual Christ. He knows nothing of the Jesus of the Gospels, which
> were written later.

REPLY:  In afraid you havent researched it , I can tell.  There are
quite a few historians from the 1st and 2nd century who have written
about the historical Jesus.  Do a google under Scholar : Gary
Habermas  ;  the evidence he presented  Former Atheist Dr. Anothy
Flew  caused  Flew to fly out of the atheist nest !  There is even a
vhs video available between the two and i have a copy.

In article 
,
 "IlBeBauck@gmail.com"  wrote:
> 
> REPLY: Contrary to popular atheist opinion...there is a huge amount of
> historical evidence for the existence of Christ, who he claimed and
> proved to be,  for the ressurrection, and for him being God the
> Creator.

When Christian apologists run out of evidence, which is often, they 
resort to barefaced lying. There is absolutely no reliable contemporary 
or near-contemporary historical evidence for Jesus; the question is 
discussed at length by G. A. Wells and others.

> I sense you are truly a genuine Seeker of truth, so, Im
> going to highly recommend the vast amount of evidence for your sincere
> questions can be found in an inexpensive large booklet called :'The 12
> Points that Prove Christianity'

If Christianity were proved, then everybody would believe it, and you 
would have no need to troll this forum.

> as well as in the last half of the
> book :'I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist'

every point of which is thoroughly demolished by Kyle Williams at:
<http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2008/03/i-dont-have-enough-faith-to-b
e.html>

> , both available at
> www.impactapologetics.com   .
> Both of these sources are very scholarly

Scholarly? You wouldn't know the meaning of the word!

> yet easy to understand, and you will be utterly amazed at credibility
> for The Christian Faith...so much so...that,  countless highly
> intelligent people thruout history have decided to become Christ
> Followers based on the concrete historical evidence

Yes, just like Dave in Lake Villa, in fact.

> --- the same
> historical standards which all ancient events are based on. 

As I said above, there just isn't any.

> Think
> for a moment the implications for Christ being real and dying for
> mankinds sins / people who desire to reject him (without so much as a
> feeble attempt at looking at the evidence which is readily available
> for all).  Many many Scientists, Cosmologists, Doctors,  Presidents,
> Generals, Philosophers , Historians, Archeologists.... have sought out
> the evidence and found it compelling enough to surrender thier earthly
> lives to him.   This is the natural honest  response because its
> evidence that demands a verdict.  Regards.

'Natural, honest response' is precisely what this isn't. Your message is 
a lie from start to finish. Have you no shame?

Alwyn

Despite the assertions of the idiot there is absolutely no evidence
whatsoever that Jesus was the son of god or became part of the trinity. 
That is all down to faith not fact.  There is also no contemporary
evidence for a historical Jesus and the myth was invented much later.

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

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 23:01:45 +0100, David Wynne-Griffiths
 wrote:

>Despite the assertions of the idiot there is absolutely no evidence
>whatsoever that Jesus was the son of god or became part of the trinity. 
>That is all down to faith not fact.  There is also no contemporary
>evidence for a historical Jesus and the myth was invented much later.

They get offended by this, but we wouldn't need to point this out
nearly every day if they had the common sense and courtesy to keep it
to themselves.

On Jun 9, 5:01 pm, David Wynne-Griffiths  wrote:
> Despite the assertions of the idiot there is absolutely no evidence
> whatsoever that Jesus was the son of god or became part of the trinity.
> That is all down to faith not fact.  There is also no contemporary
> evidence for a historical Jesus and the myth was invented much later.
>
> --
> ********
> David WG
> ********

REPLY:  You are ignorant of the evidence because you dont want to look
into it David.  You would rather listen to atheist websites who have a
biased axe to grind and that is really too bad.  You need to be an
honest Seeker instead of someone who thinks random accidents (ad
nauseum) is the answer to everything .  There is more historical
manuscript evidence for the New Testament which directly involves eye
witnesses and contemporaries of Christs life , than ANY other event in
ancient history. This includes all of the manuscripts of Plato and
Aristotle , Ceasers Gallic Wars,  The Illiad, and other works.  Do a
simple google under :  Historical Evidence for Jesus Christ.   You
want to be brought up to date on this issue dont you David (?)

On Jun 9, 5:18 pm, Christopher A. Lee  wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 23:01:45 퍝, David Wynne-Griffiths
>
>  wrote:
> >Despite the assertions of the idiot there is absolutely no evidence
> >whatsoever that Jesus was the son of god or became part of the trinity.
> >That is all down to faith not fact.  There is also no contemporary
> >evidence for a historical Jesus and the myth was invented much later.
>
> They get offended by this, but we wouldn't need to point this out
> nearly every day if they had the common sense and courtesy to keep it
> to themselves.

REPLY:  Christians dont keep it to themselves. But they also are not
to 'throw pearls before swine' either as the Bible says.  Its never
been easier than this modern era to get information, so,  Ill let you
do a google under Historical Evidence for Jesus Christ...if the topic
interests you Chris.

>Do a simple google under  did a historical Jesus exist?

Historical Evidence for Jesus Christ.     by Jim Walker

Amazingly, the question of an actual historical Jesus rarely confronts
the religious believer. The power of faith has so forcefully driven the
minds of most believers, and even apologetic scholars, that the question
of reliable evidence gets obscured by tradition, religious subterfuge,
and outrageous claims. The following gives a brief outlook about the
claims of a historical Jesus and why the evidence the Christians present
us cannot serve as justification for reliable evidence for a historical
Jesus.  Read the rest at  www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

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

"David Wynne-Griffiths"  wrote in message 
news:3130303031303439484DF62B20@zetnet.co.uk...
> >Do a simple google under  did a historical Jesus exist?
>
> Historical Evidence for Jesus Christ.     by Jim Walker
>
> Amazingly, the question of an actual historical Jesus rarely confronts
> the religious believer. The power of faith has so forcefully driven the
> minds of most believers, and even apologetic scholars, that the question
> of reliable evidence gets obscured by tradition, religious subterfuge,
> and outrageous claims. The following gives a brief outlook about the
> claims of a historical Jesus and why the evidence the Christians present
> us cannot serve as justification for reliable evidence for a historical
> Jesus.  Read the rest at  www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
>
> -- 
ISTR that Albert Schweitzer said that there was no evidence!
Graham

I am inclined to think that there may have been a historical Joshua who
was a charismatic preacher in the first part of the first century.  A
book of his sayings seems to have circulated for many years after his
death.

That Joshua or Jesus was an orthodox Torah observant Jew and he probably
met his death because he got involved with the Zealots.  This modest
basis was built into the myth of yet another saviour god in the
tradition of the mystery religions so common at the time.

Paul who wrote only 20 or so years after Jesus seems to have little
interest in a historical Jesus and was only concerned with a spiritual
one.  The gospels were written at least a further 20 to 100 years later
for the purpose of establishing a new religion around the figure of
Jesus.   They are essentially sales promotion material and incorporated
as many as possible of the Old Testament prophecies in an attempt to
give the story some credibility.

Of course a huge tradition was established as Christianity gradually
became the official religion of the Roman Empire and much was written
because such writings had a ready sale.    Exactly similar developments
are common to most religions.

It may be very difficult for some to accept but it is a fact that there
is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for important aspects of the myth. 
There is no evidence to show that Jesus was the son of any god, that he
was born of a virgin or resurrected after death.  These are all matters
of faith and rely on the ability to believe in the myth.

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

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:

> 
> REPLY: Contrary to popular atheist opinion...there is a huge amount of
> historical evidence for the existence of Christ, who he claimed and
> proved to be,  for the ressurrection, and for him being God the
> Creator.  I sense you are truly a genuine Seeker of truth, so, Im
> going to highly recommend the vast amount of evidence for your sincere
> questions can be found in an inexpensive large booklet called :'The 12
> Points that Prove Christianity'  as well as in the last half of the
> book :'I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist'

I downloaded the presentation that went with it.

It is absolute nonsense. You can even see from the title - "I Don't 
Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" that it is more of the old 
argument from ignorance/incredulity which has no logical validity.

It presents absolutely no evidence whatsoever for your deity - none, 
just the old "How else could it all have happened?" and then assumes 
your mythical deity is the answer without providing any evidence.

Neither have you, despite being asked repeatedly.

regards, Ian

"David Wynne-Griffiths"  wrote in message 
news:3130303031303439484DF62B20@zetnet.co.uk...
> >Do a simple google under  did a historical Jesus exist?
>
> Historical Evidence for Jesus Christ.     by Jim Walker
>
> Amazingly, the question of an actual historical Jesus rarely confronts
> the religious believer. The power of faith has so forcefully driven the
> minds of most believers, and even apologetic scholars, that the question
> of reliable evidence gets obscured by tradition, religious subterfuge,
> and outrageous claims. The following gives a brief outlook about the
> claims of a historical Jesus and why the evidence the Christians present
> us cannot serve as justification for reliable evidence for a historical
> Jesus.  Read the rest at  www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
>
> -- 
> ********
> David WG
> ********

That page is an absolute standard evangelical atheist rant, deliberately 
omitting dates and giving generalised 'not during the lifetime' type 
comments, and getting deliberately convoluted and mixed up between 
'historical evidence for the existence' and imagined evidence of nonsenses 
such as the high mountain overlooking the whole world and resurrection and 
miracles.

As for 'evidence that Jesus was the son of God', gimme a break.  It is just 
fundamentalist baloney from both sides of the argument.

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:34:31 +0100, "John Brockbank"
 wrote:

>
>"David Wynne-Griffiths"  wrote in message 
>news:3130303031303439484DF62B20@zetnet.co.uk...
>> >Do a simple google under  did a historical Jesus exist?
>>
>> Historical Evidence for Jesus Christ.     by Jim Walker
>>
>> Amazingly, the question of an actual historical Jesus rarely confronts
>> the religious believer. The power of faith has so forcefully driven the
>> minds of most believers, and even apologetic scholars, that the question
>> of reliable evidence gets obscured by tradition, religious subterfuge,
>> and outrageous claims. The following gives a brief outlook about the
>> claims of a historical Jesus and why the evidence the Christians present
>> us cannot serve as justification for reliable evidence for a historical
>> Jesus.  Read the rest at  www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
>>
>> -- 
>> ********
>> David WG
>> ********
>
>That page is an absolute standard evangelical atheist rant, 

There  is no such thing, liar, AND YOU KNOW IT.

You know perfectly well that we wouldn't give a flying fuck about the
hero figure from somebody else's religion if only they had the sense
to keep it there.

>                                                                                                  deliberately 
>omitting dates and giving generalised 'not during the lifetime' type 

Liar.

There is simply no evidence for an historical Jesus.

Period.

And no amount of lying about motives people don't have, will change
that.

If you think there is, why not provide some instead of lying about
those who realise there isn't?

Hint: the NT is no more evidence for Jesus than Hindu scriptures are
evidence for Krishna. 

>comments, and getting deliberately convoluted and mixed up between 

Why do you liars hide behind inventing motives for other people where
there are none? 

Like your lies about "deliberate" when people wouldn't give a toss
about it if only Christians kept their beliefs inside their religion?

>'historical evidence for the existence' 

There is none.

If there actually were it would have been provided long ago. A
crusading conversion religion like Christianity could not have kept it
to themselves.

If they actually had any it would have been offered instead of the
obvious Christian insertion in Josephus, which places doubt  on the
other minor mention there (even if that one stood up which it doesn't
but this is less obvious).

If they actually had anything better they would have offered it.

Or the other supposed early mentions (even if genuine which is also in
doubt) which only mention Christians as followers of Christ. Not
Jesus. Christians make a connection that the writers didn't, with the
"benefit" of the hindsight of Christian tradition - which the writers
didn't have. 

Christ at that time was Paul's spiritual belief, not a human Jesus.
That came later.

>                                                              and imagined evidence of nonsenses 
>such as the high mountain overlooking the whole world and resurrection and 
>miracles.

Tell that to Christians.

>As for 'evidence that Jesus was the son of God', gimme a break.  It is just 
>fundamentalist baloney from both sides of the argument. 

Why do you feel the need to lie about atheists?

It not "both sides" of everything. Just Christians who won't shut up
and when asked to put up, offer the same old debunked bullshit.

They don't seem to grasp that this does, is confirm they have nothing.

Why do you feel the need to invent non-existent motivations for those
who realise this?

Well?

The message <484e9f09$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>
from "John Brockbank"  contains these words:

> That page is an absolute standard evangelical atheist rant, deliberately 
> omitting dates and giving generalised 'not during the lifetime' type 
> comments, and getting deliberately convoluted and mixed up between 
> 'historical evidence for the existence' and imagined evidence of nonsenses 
> such as the high mountain overlooking the whole world and resurrection and 
> miracles.

> As for 'evidence that Jesus was the son of God', gimme a break.  It is just 
> fundamentalist baloney from both sides of the argument.

I am not sure to what page you refer!  Walker's article is many pages
long and rehearses the lack of any contemporary evidence for a
historical Jesus in some detail.   I think the references to mountains
and resurrection come from the gospels and not Walker.    However,  I
would agree that claims that Jesus was the son of a god,  the result of
a virgin birth and resurrected after death are sheer fantasy.

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

"Christopher A. Lee"  wrote in message

Loads of abuse and four letter words.

"David Wynne-Griffiths"  wrote in message 
news:3130303031303439484ED56351@zetnet.co.uk...
> The message <484e9f09$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>
> from "John Brockbank"  contains these words:
>
>> That page is an absolute standard evangelical atheist rant, deliberately
>> omitting dates and giving generalised 'not during the lifetime' type
>> comments, and getting deliberately convoluted and mixed up between
>> 'historical evidence for the existence' and imagined evidence of 
>> nonsenses
>> such as the high mountain overlooking the whole world and resurrection 
>> and
>> miracles.
>
>> As for 'evidence that Jesus was the son of God', gimme a break.  It is 
>> just
>> fundamentalist baloney from both sides of the argument.
>
> I am not sure to what page you refer!  Walker's article is many pages
> long and rehearses the lack of any contemporary evidence for a
> historical Jesus in some detail.   I think the references to mountains
> and resurrection come from the gospels and not Walker.    However,  I
> would agree that claims that Jesus was the son of a god,  the result of
> a virgin birth and resurrected after death are sheer fantasy.
>
> -- 
> ********
> David WG
> ********

Being a computer pro, I was using the word 'page' in the World Wide Web 
sense.  Is it really so that one still needs to prefix it with 'web' these 
days?

X-No-Archive: yes

"John Brockbank"  wrote in message 
news:4852d002$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>
> "David Wynne-Griffiths"  wrote in message 
> news:3130303031303439484ED56351@zetnet.co.uk...
>> The message <484e9f09$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>
>> from "John Brockbank"  contains these words:
>>
>>> That page is an absolute standard evangelical atheist rant, deliberately
>>> omitting dates and giving generalised 'not during the lifetime' type
>>> comments, and getting deliberately convoluted and mixed up between
>>> 'historical evidence for the existence' and imagined evidence of 
>>> nonsenses
>>> such as the high mountain overlooking the whole world and resurrection 
>>> and
>>> miracles.
>>
>>> As for 'evidence that Jesus was the son of God', gimme a break.  It is 
>>> just
>>> fundamentalist baloney from both sides of the argument.
>>
>> I am not sure to what page you refer!  Walker's article is many pages
>> long and rehearses the lack of any contemporary evidence for a
>> historical Jesus in some detail.   I think the references to mountains
>> and resurrection come from the gospels and not Walker.    However,  I
>> would agree that claims that Jesus was the son of a god,  the result of
>> a virgin birth and resurrected after death are sheer fantasy.


> Being a computer pro, I was using the word 'page' in the World Wide Web 
> sense.

What absolute tosh....
If you were at a symposium of IT pro's then perhaps you *might* get away 
with that assumption.
In a general forum the word, in the context you used, is ambiguous.


> Is it really so that one still needs to prefix it with 'web' these days?

If, as in this case, it is not clear........ then clearly, yes.




Mark

On 8 Jun, 23:13, "mark"  wrote:
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> What undoubtable evidence exists for the assertion that jesus christ
> existed,  and was the son of god..??
> If there is none are we to believe that jesus christ WAS god on earth...?
> In a recent thread it is claimed that god *showed* his face in the form of> jesus christ.....   what possible evidence exists for such a claim..?
> If god exists and is not physical - pretty much the accepted christian
> doctrine - how does god intervene in causality...??
> How does something outside of physicality become.... well, er, physical..?> Mark

Jesus did exist, and some of his followers (or followers of his
followers) believed he was the son of God.
That doesn't actually mean that he was.

What is more likely is that he was living his life as an attempt to
fulfil certain prophecies and expectations of the Jewish messiah, then
later his followers embelished the story.

Christianity has thrived because it is synchretistic and tends to take
in and adapt very well to different cultures.
e.g. it had similarities to the cults of Mithras and Isis which helped
it to spread through the Roman world.

Its a social phenomenon rather than a faith.


On Josephus, I don't think its forged, just added to, the earliest
versions still say that a Jesus existed, whether its the same one is
of course not certain, but I think we can be as certain that Jesus of
Nazareth existed as we can about any of the other religious figures of
his day.

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 04:18:20 -0700 (PDT), Gordon Hudson
 wrote:

>On 8 Jun, 23:13, "mark"  wrote:
>> X-No-Archive: yes
>>
>> What undoubtable evidence exists for the assertion that jesus christ
>> existed,  and was the son of god..??
>> If there is none are we to believe that jesus christ WAS god on earth...?
>> In a recent thread it is claimed that god *showed* his face in the form of
>> jesus christ.....   what possible evidence exists for such a claim..?
>> If god exists and is not physical - pretty much the accepted christian
>> doctrine - how does god intervene in causality...??
>> How does something outside of physicality become.... well, er, physical..?
>>
>> Mark
>
>Jesus did exist, and some of his followers (or followers of his
>followers) believed he was the son of God.
>That doesn't actually mean that he was.

Evidecne that he was real?

X-No-Archive: yes


"Christopher A. Lee"  wrote in message 
news:mhd754pk5f3o3i4ulpdv0dri4hujk1skim@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 04:18:20 -0700 (PDT), Gordon Hudson
>  wrote:
>
>>On 8 Jun, 23:13, "mark"  wrote:
>>> X-No-Archive: yes
>>>
>>> What undoubtable evidence exists for the assertion that jesus christ
>>> existed, and was the son of god..??
>>> If there is none are we to believe that jesus christ WAS god on 
>>> earth...?
>>> In a recent thread it is claimed that god *showed* his face in the form 
>>> of
>>> jesus christ..... what possible evidence exists for such a claim..?
>>> If god exists and is not physical - pretty much the accepted christian
>>> doctrine - how does god intervene in causality...??
>>> How does something outside of physicality become.... well, er, 
>>> physical..?
>>>
>>> Mark
>>
>>Jesus did exist, and some of his followers (or followers of his
>>followers) believed he was the son of God.
>>That doesn't actually mean that he was.
>
> Evidecne that he was real?


Well yes...  my thoughts too..
But mainly evidence that *he* was the son of god....
OR...  some indication *he* was god on earth..

  The bible is not sufficient for such evidence for innumerable reasons.. 
there has to be some indication from historical record that these things are 
so...
Jesus is not enough - a too common name, in any event the translation of 
jahweh from judaism... it's just not sufficient to use biblical reference. 
The bible being able to be contested in great part that nullifies the 
ability to accept, without question, much/most/all contained therein..
And if we discount the bible.....  how would a christian become, or maintain 
being, a christian..?
However, the problem still exists in that a god who exists outside of 
physicality [..in other words.. a spiritual entity] cannot be physical - 
otherwise he is well.. physical not spiritual,  and therefore cannot 
intervene in causality..  the very moment such god intervenes he has become, 
by definition, physical...
Yet, for the most part, christian belief accepts god as a spiritual entity - 
yet prays for physical intervention..!
So, can physicality ever be spiritual...??
or, conversely, can spirituality ever be physical...

Intriguing...



Mark

"mark"  wrote in message 
news:5Jydncg_PdoyQ8_VnZ2dnUVZ8t3inZ2d@bt.com...
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> "John Brockbank"  wrote in message 
> news:4852d002$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>>
>> "David Wynne-Griffiths"  wrote in message 
>> news:3130303031303439484ED56351@zetnet.co.uk...
>>> The message <484e9f09$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>
>>> from "John Brockbank"  contains these words:
>>>
>>>> That page is an absolute standard evangelical atheist rant, 
>>>> deliberately
>>>> omitting dates and giving generalised 'not during the lifetime' type
>>>> comments, and getting deliberately convoluted and mixed up between
>>>> 'historical evidence for the existence' and imagined evidence of 
>>>> nonsenses
>>>> such as the high mountain overlooking the whole world and resurrection 
>>>> and
>>>> miracles.
>>>
>>>> As for 'evidence that Jesus was the son of God', gimme a break.  It is 
>>>> just
>>>> fundamentalist baloney from both sides of the argument.
>>>
>>> I am not sure to what page you refer!  Walker's article is many pages
>>> long and rehearses the lack of any contemporary evidence for a
>>> historical Jesus in some detail.   I think the references to mountains
>>> and resurrection come from the gospels and not Walker.    However,  I
>>> would agree that claims that Jesus was the son of a god,  the result of
>>> a virgin birth and resurrected after death are sheer fantasy.
>
>
>> Being a computer pro, I was using the word 'page' in the World Wide Web 
>> sense.
>
> What absolute tosh....
> If you were at a symposium of IT pro's then perhaps you *might* get away 
> with that assumption.
> In a general forum the word, in the context you used, is ambiguous.
>
>
>> Is it really so that one still needs to prefix it with 'web' these days?
>
> If, as in this case, it is not clear........ then clearly, yes.
>
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
>

OK, I take what you say in the general sense, but of course you have omitted 
to recognise that I was replying originally to a recommendation to read a 
web page which allegedly had a definitive approach to the question of the 
actual existence of Jesus as a particular person about whom all the stories 
arose.  I replied to the effect that the page was in fact rather a long way 
from being even sensible.  To omit the original reference and then claim 
that it was unclear to what I was referring and then admit that it was 
actually clear including  saying it was several pages long and then when I 
explain that I refer to 'pages' all the time in normal discussions, to even 
moan about that, is I am afraid bordering on the dishonest and a bit silly.

I do not mean to be rude of course, just telling you how it is.  I try hard 
never to write what you refer to as 'tosh' which is of course a great deal 
ruder than I would ever be, because it is extremely stupid being rude to 
strangers and shows a psychological weakness which is rather common, 
particularly on Usenet.

Incidentally, some members of my family are very far from being IT experts 
but they understand very well what us others are talking about, so I am not 
sure that you are correct.

Just because you don't understand things does not mean that they are 
incomprehensible.