On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 22:51:49 -0400, ogrowup@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Padraigh
ProAmerica) wrote:
[snip]
==> I have yet to find but a very few legitimate historians who deny the
==>existance of Jesus.
It is not necessary to "deny the existence" of
Jesus, since there isn't an iota of proof of his
existence in the first place.
==>Outside of the New Testament, He is mentioned in the Jewish Talmud;
Nope. There is no consensus among historians whether
Jesus is mentioned in the Talmud at all.
==> the
==>Holy Qu'ran of Islam,
The Q'uran was written almost 700 years AFTER Jesus
supposedly died, and nothing in it can be considered
evidence of Jesus's historicity.
==>and the detailed histories of Josephus and
==>Tacitus, among others.
"Detailed histories," my ass.
Josephus was born in 37 C.E. -- some four years AFTER
Jesus supposedly died.
Tacitus was born in 56 C.E. -- some 23 years AFTER
Jesus supposedly died.
Obviously, neither man could have been a witness to
the supposed existence of Jesus.
Any mention of Jesus in their writings would of
necessity have been hearsay, rumour or folk tale.
Besides that, the one supposed mention of Jesus
in Josephus's work, Testimonium Flavianum, is
almost universally regarded as a forgery inserted
later by Christians trying to fake evidence of Jesus's
historicity.
Nice try, Christians, but no ceegar.
[snip]
==>THe Gospel of Luke contains many descriptions of places; to date, not
==>ONE of these desciptions has been proven wrong. In fact, many of his
==>descriptions once thought wrong have been shown to be right. IF he got
==>that right dosn't that lend credence to the rest of his gospel?
Not a bit. The accurate recording of names and
descriptions of places does not in any way confer
authenticity to claims of miraculous events and
supernatural phenomena.
Also, there may be something called the Book of
Luke, but there is no evidence that there really WAS
a Luke, or that if there was, he actually wrote what
was later ascribed to him.
The fact, which you won't want to acknowledge but
is true nonetheless, is that not a single piece of
writing that mentions Jesus has been traced to his own
time. That's because everything about him was MADE
UP later, by members of the sect that formed around
him.
In the total absence of any evidence of Jesus
historicity, it is not unreasonable to assume that
the legend of Jesus is just myth.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com
**
|
