for those religious dudes who cant stand criticism leave now

i am talking about the historical jesus. first point is the 4 gospels of the new testament: matthew mark luke and john. they tell the story of jesus right? Note,that we dont know anything about those four dudes except that they wrote about the life of jesus christ but the gospels do not seem to be written by matthew mark luke and john because it does not say: the gospel of matthew, the gospel of luke but the gospel according to mike etc. Nobody knows who wrote the gospels. nobody knows when they were written.

according to biblical scholars the gospel of matthew is the oldest. but they also say that the gospel of mark is not the original one.in the same way that the writers of matthew and luke copied and enlarged the gospel of mark, mark copied and enlarged an earlier document which is called the "original mark. what it was, when it was written no one knows. christian scholars admitted that the gospel of john is not an historical document but an interpretation of jesus's life.it gives us an picture of what jesus was supposed to be like and also that it is based on greek philosophy. the gospels of mark matthew and luke give different views on what christ was supposed to be like. the difference between the gospels of matthew mark and luke and the gospel of john is so clear that every critic agrees, that if jesus taught matthew mark and luke, he could not have taught john. why? simply because in the first three gospels we meet an entirely different christ then in the gospel of christ. they all give a different view on jesus, mark says that christ was a man, matthew and luke sya he was a demi god, and john claimed he was god.


the gospels were all written in a different time. how can gospels which were not written until a hundred and fifty years after christ is supposed to have died, and which do not rest on any trustworthy testimony, have the slightest value as evidence that he really lived? these books are usually called a romance.

christ was a jew right? and his disciples to, that means that there language was Aramaic. But the gospels were written in greek. Every christian scholar said that they were originally greek(Erasmus) This proves they were not written by christs disciples, they were jewish fisherman, they cloud not have learned greek. 90 % of the population in hose days were busy surviving nly the rich were leadin a good life. also all the gospels are based on a earleir copy of the original gospels. so we have a copy of a copy of a copy like a rumor always changing.

there were many gospels in those days, a large number of them were fakes and stories.Everybody wrote gospels and attached christian names on them to make it look important and holy and stuff. from all this literature, the church chose a bunch of men and let them wrote a book inspired by god. if christ was real why was it neccessary to forge documents to prove his existence?

everybody who lives must have been born.(for young users ask you parents)(my apologies to those who were born in an egg) when was jesus born? matthew says that jesus was born when herod was king of judea. luke says something else. again they contradict eachother.

where was jesus born? betlehem or nazareth? again the gospels tell something else. Nazareth never even existed as a city. the encyclopedia biblica, a work written by theologians, the greatest biblical reference work in the English language, says: "we cannot perhaps venture to assert positively that there was a city of nazareth in jesus' time

after the birth of christ he vanishes. we know nothing about him only when he grows up. if the gospels know about christs life why dont we hear anything from his early years. clearly he was always the son of god and not only when he got older?

Christ was seen many times in jerusalem. he was followed by his disciples and his believers. they even sung for christ on the streets in jerusalem i hear. why was it neccesary for a priest to bribe one of his disciples to betray him? only a man in disguise or some one who is hiding is betrayed but jesus was on the streets of jerusalem all the time. they could have arrested him like that.

the crucifixion is a true fairy tale. teh civilization of rome was the highest in the world. there courts were a model of fairness. the law ruled the roman empire and everybody followed it. no innocent man would get arrested for no reason. but jesus did. Are we to believe that an innocent man was brought before a roman court? The judge declared him innocent and the crowd yelled crucify him crucify him and the judged suddenly changed his mind and let him be crucified. this is real fiction

I have more but i need sleep Post will be continued

[quote=Hotoke,Dec 11 2004, 03:47 PM]
for those religious dudes who cant stand criticism leave now

I have more but i need sleep Post will be continued

Hotoke: Sleep on this. Shouldn't you first load your guns before writing such sentences. Wouldn't want you to embarrass yourself.

when one is faced with facts and defeat one tends to attack the person on grammar looks etc




english is not my first language so call 555- bite me if you dont like my gramar

First of all, the bible says that there aren't enough books in the world that can contain all the works of Jesus. Is it possible that John wrote about things that the other three didn't? All three gospels aren't about the exact same events at the exact same time. Different events, different times. John saw things Matthew wasn't around for, and so on. Jesus died in AD 33 and the first gospel account was written I believe in AD 62, but the ACTS and such were written long before that by Paul. What do we know about the disciples? No just that they wrote the gospels. We know their professions, some were fisherman, Matthew was a doctor and Mark was a tax collector. We know around the time when they wrote the gospels, where they traveled, who they spoke to and even how and when they died. We know a lot of information about them that you don't realize. If you have Matthew, a written book by Matthew, that would be the original Matthew. Jewish scholars re-write the scrolls with accuracy (I mean ACCURACY! If a single word was missing, they re-wrote the whole document). Isn't it obvious that if you have a copy, you don't have the original copy? Who said that the Jews had to know only aramaic and only that? It's possible that they could've known greek or Hebrew or any other language. Don't just assume such things.

When Jesus was born, from Bethlehem, we know he went to Egypt for a time because Herod was killing all the children to try and kill the messiah. It was also prophesied that Jesus would go to Egypt. After Herod's death they went and lived in Nazareth. Nazareth didn't exist? I guess the writers just pulled that name out of a hat. Archeologists proved that a Nazareth did exist, but was a small town, a town of no importance. Up until age 30, we know Jesus grew in knowledge and stature. He got smart, he grew large and he did some carpenter work, obviously. He must've worked with Joseph, his legal father, who was also a carpenter.

The romans were fair? I don't think so. The romans were experts on human torture and death. The crucifixion was a torture device created to hang people in the air and slowly suffocate them for hours, even days! They often beat and whipped and flogged their prisoners. They crucified people near city entrances as means to scare them and remind them on how brutal they were. They were immoral and evil and ugly people. They threw people into the colosseam (sorry, can't spell) for no reason often time. It's also historical proof that the romans never punished severely their own people...the romans. Crucifixion and such flogging and torture was only reserved for those who weren't Roman. Jesus was jewish and was a great teacher and prophet. Many people loved him. He posed a threat to the High Priests. They plotted to kill him several times and even rose up to try and stone him because he spoke blasheme words according to them. Pilate never gave order to kill Jesus. After the high priests brought Jesus to him, then to Herod, then back to Pilate, Pilate feared an uprising and told the high priests, he would flog him, but not kill him. After the flogging, the high priests weren't happy so they went back to pilate and again fearing an uprising, he told them to do what they want with Jesus. Pilate even offered to give up Barrabas in exchange for Jesus' life. Pilate didn't want to kill the innocent man, but his hands were tied.

Just a tad off there saucy. Matthew was a tax collector for the Roman Gov. He also wrote Logia in Aramaic.

Mark came from money, and most likely got most of his info from Peter.

Luke was a doctor.

John served Jesus as a pillar of the new church and lived until sometime after 98AD. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Theophilus of Antioch, and Origen all say John wrote The Gospel According to John.

All of these men were educated, and Greek was to their world as English is to ours.

On the theory that Christ was crucified, how shall we explain the fact that during the first eight centuries of the evolution of Christianity, Christian art represented a lamb, and not a man, as suffering on the cross for the salvation of the world? Neither the paintings in the Catacombs nor the sculptures on Christian tombs pictured a human figure on the cross. Everywhere a lamb was shown as the Christian symbol -- a lamb carrying a cross, a lamb at the foot of a cross, a lamb on a cross. Some figures showed the lamb with a human head, shoulders and arms, holding a cross in his hands -- the lamb of God in process of assuming the human form -- the crucifixion myth becoming realistic

But if Christ was actually crucified, why was his place on the cross so long usurped by a lamb? In the light of history and reason, and in view of a lamb on the cross, why should we believe in the Crucifixion?

if Christ performed the miracles the New Testament describes, if he gave sight to blind men's eyes, if his magic touch brought youthful vigor to the palsied frame, if the putrefying dead at his command returned to life and love again -- why did the people want him crucified? Is it not amazing that a civilized people -- for the Jews of that age were civilized -- were so filled with murderous hate towards a kind and loving man who went about doing good, who preached forgiveness, cleansed the leprous, and raised the dead -- that they could not be appeased until they had crucified the noblest benefactor of mankind? Again I ask -- is this history, or is it fiction

miraculous element in the Gospels is proof that they were written by men, who did not know how to write history, or who were not particular as to the truth of what they wrote. The miracles of the Gospels were invented by credulity or cunning, and if the miracles were invented, how can we know that the whole history of Christ was not woven of the warp and woof of the imagination?

If Christ lived, if he was a reformer, if he performed wonderful works that attracted the attention of the multitude, if he came in conflict with the authorities and was crucified -- how shall we explain the fact that history has not even recorded his name? The age in which he is said to have lived was an age of scholars and thinkers. In Greece, Rome and Palestine, there were philosophers, historians, poets, orators, jurists and statesmen. Every fact of importance was noted by interested and inquiring minds.Some of the greatest writers the Jewish race has produced lived in that age. And yet, in all the writings of that period, there is not one line, not one word, not one letter, about Jesus

Philo, one of the most renowned writers the Jewish race has produced, was born before the beginning of the Christian Era, and lived for many years after the time at which Jesus is supposed to have died. His home was in or near Jerusalem, where Jesus is said to have preached, to have performed miracles, to have been crucified, and to have risen from the dead. Had Jesus done these things, the writings of Philo would certainly contain some record of his life. Yet this philosopher, who must have been familiar with Herod's massacre of the innocents, and with the preaching, miracles and death of Jesus, had these things occurred; who wrote an account of the Jews, covering this period, and discussed the very questions that are said to have been near to Christ's heart, never once mentioned the name of, or any deed connected with, the reputed Savior of the world

the Gospels themselves do not claim to have been written by these men. They are not called "The Gospel of Matthew," or "The Gospel of Mark," but "The Gospel According to Matthew," "The Gospel According to Mark," "The Gospel According to Luke," and "The Gospel According to John. Biblical scholarship has established the fact that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest of the four.The Gospel of Mark knows nothing of the virgin birth, of the Sermon on the Mount, of the Lord's prayer, or of other important facts of the supposed life of Christ. These features were added by Matthew and Luke.They also describe a different christ.There is not the smallest fragment of trustworthy evidence to show that any of the Gospels were in existence, in their present form, earlier than a hundred years after the time at which Christ is supposed to have died. They could never have learned Greek. Learning was something for the rich and monks. they were the only ones educated. all lowerclass people like matthew mark luke and john could not have learned greek. they were busy survivin like al the other lower class people in those days.




Matthew says he was born when Herod was King of Judea. Luke says he was born when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria. He could not have been born during the administration of these tow rulers for Herod died in the year 4 B.C., and Cyrenius, who, in Roman history is Quirinius, did not become Governor of Syria until ten years later. Herod and Quirinius are separated by the whole reign of Archelaus, Herod's son. Between Matthew and Luke, there is, therefore, a contradiction of at least ten years, as to the time of Christ's birth




Their courts were models of order and fairness. A man was not condemned without a trial; he was not handed to the executioner before being found guilty. And yet we are asked to believe that an innocent man was brought before a Roman court, where Pontius Pilate was Judge; that no charge of wrongdoing having been brought against him, the Judge declared that he found him innocent; that the mob shouted, "Crucify him; crucify him!" and that to please the rabble, Pilate commanded that the man who had done no wrong and whom he had found innocent, should be scourged, and then delivered him to the executioners to be crucified! Is it thinkable that the master of a Roman court in the days of Tiberius Caesar, having found a man innocent and declared him so, and having made efforts to save his life, tortured him of his own accord, and then handed him over to a howling mob to be nailed to a cross? A Roman court finding a man innocent and then crucifying him?

no one interested in reading this?

i read it....i just didnt feel like i had anything to input as i agree with what you wrote

Hotoke, it amazes me that in 181 posts, I'm only just coming into contact with you...you strike me as having researched this very thoroughly, almost to the point of going through it all with a fine comb, and well done to you for it

If only the people who buy the bible mythology would do the same, it wouldn't take the humble minority to do all the leg work for them

In the years immediately following Christ's death and resurrection(for believers anyway) persecution were so intense and christians has to resolve to using symbols to identify each other if they did not want to be totally wiped out. When a christian meet another person supposed to be christian, he/she will will use his/her toe to draw a fish shape on the floor. Besides the lamb, which obviously represent the lamb of God, the fish was the most common icon of Christ, as in their language(aramic?) fish use the same alphabets with jesus (iesus or somthing like that).

I am doubtful that historical evidence (or the lack of it) will convert anyone's beliefs so let keep this cool and at least we can have an educational discussion .

The people who put the bible together put in Matthew's gospel and called it the "Gospel According to Matthew" because it's his version of what he saw. It's not Matthew's gospel specificially, but the gospel according to Matthew. Same goes with the other three.

Ok, the part about the lamb. Jesus was said to be the 'sacrificial lamb'. The symbol used was also the Fish, which symbolized Pisces (sacrifice). It didn't imply that He never lived.

As for the disciples speaking other languages it was said that the Holy Spirit came down and gave them the knowledge to 'different tongues' as in languages.

As far as Jesus being crucified, why would you think this wopuldn't be possible? Innocent people are put to death with the death penalty even TODAY on a supposedly 'fair' system. The threat was Ceasar, who was higher than Pilate, and he had to save face.

so why, when the disciples speak in tongue, its the holy spirit. and if anyone else does, its the work of the devil??/

I`m not one that mocks the BIBLE or anyones religion but i still find it hard to believe that so many people world wide mock ufo`s ,paranormal activites, cryptozoology etc but still live there lives around something or someone of which there is no proof

jesus had done nothing wrong at all. he was innocent. is it realistic that civilised rome put an innocent man to death?



these people are 90% of the time framed and the other 10% are mistakes from investigations. Human made errors

None of the writers notated wrote prior to 160 CE. Scholars have placed the date of John’s gospel at no earlier than 120CE. In 154 CE the gospels were first mentioned (but not by name) and author names were assigned around 180 CE (at about the time these writers were doing the most of their work!

No Saucy, they didn’t name it until 180 CE and then they gave the four acceptable gospels names of “Apostles” to give them validity!

During the Roman occupation, there were numerous rebels by the name of Jesus that were crucified ranging from the Essene “Great Teacher” Jesus bar Abbas (Son of the Father), thru “The Egyptian”(name Jesus, family name lost to history) to Jesus ben Panthera (supposedly born of a Jewish woman named Mary, who was married to a carpenter named Joseph. Jesus was a result an affair of Mary with a Roman solider named Panthera. Jesus was stoned and then “hung on a tree”). Those were the “historical” Jesuses and probably were “smushed” together (gee don’t you love my scientific terms) to make the biblical Jesus. So, it wouldn’t be possible for Jesus to be crucified in that he never existed!

The same can be said about UFOlogists, Cryptozoologists, Ghost Investigators etc. Why believe all that and not in Religion?

Indeed. Why not be skeptical about those too. I am. And honestly, thats a very poor argument. It shows that you have nothing to say on the subject, so you search for things exterior to the subject in an effort to catch one or two non religious people who believe in one of the above mentionned subjects.

Actually its a very fair arguement. Why indeed believe in UFO's etc (with no proof) and yet doubt Jesus whose life has been documented!?

Its a fair argument, but it brings us offtopic. The topic is about jesus. Whether someone else who believes or shouldnt believe in aliens from the future comming and abducting him doesnt change a thing in this topic.

I didnt see it that way I saw it as a valid arguement to a point/counter point but then now we are off topic lol

Actually Jesus can't be documented either, not with contemporary secular documentation. Paul's letters are the first documentation, followed by the gospels and other books. Paul wrote a quarter of a century after the fact, never gave any details and seemed to be writing about only a spiritual Jesus. The gospels and other books came several decades and generations later. There is no documentation for Jesus except the bible! Not acceptable as proof, there is no documentation for Superman except DC Comics - same difference!

You know what is funny about Jesus...?

It does not matter if he was an incarnated God.
It does not matter if he was a Messiah.
It does not matter if he was a Space Alien.
It does not matter if he was Superman.
It does not matter if he existed.

What matters is that...
He was an innocent man... He did no wrong and harmed nobody... And they killed him for it... They tortured and killed him for it... He was crucified for nothing, just for the benefit of some corrupt priests.

They killed him for nothing...

Understand...?



Damn the foolishness of humanity!!!!

Thomas the Skeptic!

Allow me to transcribe the touching story of a wounded soldier written by Mr. Mario Roso de Luna, the ingenious Theosophical writer.

This story is found in "The Book That Kills Death", or "The Book of the Jinn" which is a fine piece of work by Mr. de Luna. The story is as follows:

"Strange news came to us when we were in the ditch at war....certain rumours were spreading along the stretch from Switzerland to the sea, yet their origin or authenticity were unknown. Word came and went quickly and I remember the moment in which my partner George Casay looked at me strangely with his blue eyes and asked me if I had seen the friend of the wounded ones. He then told me what he knew in respect to the rumour that was circulating. He told me that after many violent battles, a man dressed in white had been seen bending over the wounded soldiers as bullets were fired all around him and grenades fell at his feet. However, nothing had the power to harm him. He was a hero superior to all heroes or something greater still.

"This mysterious person to whom the French call the Comrade dressed in white seemed to be everywhere at the same time. In Nancy, Argona, in Soissons, in Ypres and everywhere all men spoke of him with their voices lowered. However, some of them smiled and said that the ditch was affecting their nerves.
"I was frequently being careless with my words and I exclaimed that I must see in order to believe, and that I needed the German knife to wound me so that I may fall to the ground.

"The following day, we were at battle at the Front, the canons were roaring from morning till night and began again the following day. At midday we received the command to move in and take over at the Front which was two hundred yards from our position. As we were advancing we realized that our canons had failed to fire at the moment of attack. We needed hearts of steel in order to march on. None of us thought, we only acted and we continued to march on.

"We had advanced 150 yards when we realized that we had acted poorly. Our captain commanded us to take cover, and precisely at that moment both of my legs were wounded and by divine mercy I fell into a hole. I must have fainted because when I opened my eyes I was alone. The pain was excruciating, however, I remained motionless for I was in fear that the Germans would see me being only 50 yards away from them. I was hoping that someone would have pity on me. Soon I realized that there were men near by that would have considered themselves in danger within the obscurity of the night if they had known that a comrade was still alive.

"I felt relieved as nightfall grew nearer. The night fell and I suddenly heard footsteps that were not weak but firm and strong, as if neither obscurity nor death could have altered their movement. I never would have guessed who was approaching. Even having seen the clarity of the white cloth within the obscurity I assumed that it was a farmer wearing a shirt and it even occurred to me to be an insane woman. But suddenly, with amazement -whether of happiness or terror, I do not know- I realized that he was the comrade dressed in white and at that precise moment the German rifles began to fire. The bullets could not have missed such a target because he raised his arms begging them to stop. He then retracted his arms and remained in the form of a cross, as the crosses that are frequently seen along side the roads of France. He then spoke. His words were very familiar. I remember only the beginning of his words, 'If you have known', and the end, 'But now they are hidden to your eyes.' Then he bent over and took me into his arms, I, the heaviest man of my group. He carried me as if I were a child. I suppose that I fell asleep because when I awoke that childlike feeling was gone. I was a man wishing to know what I could do in order to serve and help my friend.

"He was looking towards the stream holding his hands together as if he were praying. I then saw that he too was wounded. I believe that I saw a deep wound on his hand and as he prayed a drop of blood fell from his wound to the ground. I screamed without control because the wound appeared to me to be more terrifying than any of the wounds that I had seen throughout that bitter war.

"'You are also wounded' I said with humbleness. I do not know whether he heard me or whether he saw it in my expression but he answered with gentleness, 'This is an ancient wound but it has been bothering me lately.' I then noticed that the same cruel mark appeared on his feet.

"Amazingly enough, I did not realize who he was until I saw his feet. I then recognized him as the living Christ. I had heard the Capelin speak of Him a few weeks before but now I understood that He had come towards me, towards I who had removed Him from my life in the ardent fever of my youth. I wished to speak with Him and give Him thanks but I could not find the words. He then stood and said, 'Remain close to the water today and I will come for you tomorrow, I have a duty for you to do for me.' Moments later He was gone.

"As I waited for Him I wrote this in order not to forget this experience. I feel weak and lonely and my pain increases but I have His promise and I know that He will come for me tomorrow."

This is the story of the soldier written by Mr. Mario Roso de Luna in his book "The Book That Kills Death". This concrete fact infallibly demonstrates that Jesus still lives with the same physical body the He used in the Holy Land.

It is a great story really but it has nothing to do with the question if jesus existed.

Mario roso de luna 1872-1931 credibilty falls

in the time jesus was supposed to live there were great jewish philosophers, historians, poets etc and every interesting fact or any fact of importance was noted by the great historians of that time but none of them mentions jesus. Philo was one of the most reowned writers the jewish race has ever known and he lived near jerusalem, during the time jesus was supposed to be alive and performing all those miracles and praying in jerusalem. if any of that was true surely philo would have mentioned jesus. Philo wrote about the jews in this period

Hotoke wrote:


Falls for you and many skeptics, but not for me and thousands of Mystics who had been physically in contact with Jesus and many other Jinn Masters and who indeed are helping this suffering humanity, despite the swats given by that Beast (Atheism) whose kabbalistic number is 666!

religion has caused more hate then atheism. If everyone was a atheist we could walk in the middle east without fear, you could walk in black clothes without being called a satanist, there would be less hate.

1+1= 2 that is not something you could believe in it is a fact like science

1+1=2---> science
1+1=4---> religion

blindly follow what other people say, facts do not exist. How can you not believe in logics?

My friend I use my Objective Reasoning which is developed upon scientific facts. Objective Science has no conflict with Religion. Science and religion are one for Objective Reasoning and this has nothing to do with nonsensical theories, dogmas and beliefs.

Theories, dogmas and beliefs belong to Subjective Science and religious fanaticism; both are based upon Subjective Reasoning.

Subjective Reasoning develops my means of the data obtained through the five senses, whereas Objective Reasoning develops my means of the data obtained through the five senses and the seven inner-ultra-senses of the psyche that one develops by means of Alchemical Procedures.

Religious people in the Middle East are blind fanatics who use the secret scriptures as their battle horse and interpret their scriptures by their own whim, but they ignore that they ignore the real meaning of their holy books. They are like the children in kindergarten that try to understand a book of Chemistry without knowing chemical symbolism.

We only have the word of the NT writers that he was innocent, the church destroyed all records of that period after they took over the Roman government! Pontius Pilate had a reputation of not giving in to the Jews, not a rep for caving. In fact he was recalled in disgrace for being too hard on the Jews and committing atrocities! The NT stories don't really hold water, other sources have hinted that ol' JC was executed for rebellion, a common Roman method of executuion for rebellion was crucifixion (can you spell Spartacus?), execution for other crimes would be other than crucifixion. So before you start that "he was innocent" stuff, show me some contemporary evidence that he was (sorry the NT was written too late to be contemporary).

I think your missing the point or contradicting everything just for the sake of it.
It is still wrong to kill a man for his or his disciples teachings!

He was preaching and instructing to cause a rebellion... (for example being tricked into telling the Jewish people not to pay taxes to the caesar) But it was more of a peaceful rebellion (refer to "live by the sword, die by the sword" teaching which does not go in effect for Genghis Khan or Timur the Lame who died of old age) and a serious demand for a change in lifestyle than a spartacus style rebellion... Still an injust reason to be tortured and executed.
The corrupt materialists still had to get their way so they got rid of the Jesus problem permanantly.

So what if the NT states the good and innocent things Jesus has done or taught...? (do not forget the temple outburst, we all get angry) Is that not the point of the teachings? Jesus gave a great example on how we should live as humans...

You seem very pessimistic about religious teachings and spiritual laws. You should try to enjoy life and humanity more... And by that I do not mean frying your butt on a beach or gambling in a casino, But shedding tears of joy when you see a beautiful sky or landscape.

Good to see people discussing this topic and not going off-topic

That sure is a huge clutter of a quote just for that sentence of gratitude Hotoke...

No, I am trying to show that we don't have unbiased information (actually we do, but Xians won't accept it) that Jesus was peacefully trying to rebel (I can't see how cleaning out a temple with a whip is peaceful, but hey - your opinion). Either way, the Romans brooked no rebellion, peaceful or otherwise. Essene writings seem to indicate that Jesus was one of their "Great Teachers" whose job was to bring about the establishment of "God's Kingdom", if this is so then it would have formented violent revolution. A little historical research might help.

Jesus, as portrayed in the bible, wasnt an innocent man. He was undermining authority actually. Whether that was a good reason to kill him or not is another story though...

ORANGE - Hotoke BLACK - atrueoriginall BLUE - Outside Source

Hotoke,Dec 11 2004, 03:47 PM]
Quote: Hotoke
“when one is faced with facts and defeat one tends to attack the person on grammar looks etc english is not my first language so call 555- bite me if you dont like my gramar

atrueoriginall
I was not speaking of your grammar or English what so ever. I see nothing wrong with either. But, what I do see........................

Quote: Hotoke
“according to biblical scholars the gospel of matthew is the oldest. but they also say that the gospel of mark is not the original one.in the same way that the writers of matthew and luke copied and enlarged the gospel of mark, mark copied and enlarged an earlier document which is called the "original mark. what it was, when it was written no one knows. christian scholars admitted that the gospel of john is not an historical document but an interpretation of jesus's life.it gives us an picture of what jesus was supposed to be like and also that it is based on greek philosophy. the gospels of mark matthew and luke give different views on what christ was supposed to be like. the difference between the gospels of matthew mark and luke and the gospel of john is so clear that every critic agrees, that if jesus taught matthew mark and luke, he could not have taught john. why? simply because in the first three gospels we meet an entirely different christ then in the gospel of christ. they all give a different view on jesus, mark says that christ was a man, matthew and luke sya he was a demi god, and john claimed he was god.”

atrueoriginall
You are speaking of the work of Papias, not that of Christian scholars.

Quote: Source - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0125.htm
About 130 CE Papias was bishop of Hierapolis in SE Asia Minor, just a few miles NE of Colossae & Laodicea. Other than that, little is known about the personal history of the man who is responsible for establishing the traditions that Mark records the testimony of Peter.

Quote: Source - http://religion.rutgers.edu/nt/primer/papias.html
Papias' work is among the many texts known to ancient Christians that are now lost. But from the mid-2nd to the mid-4th c. CE it was used by church leaders from Palestine to Gaul. Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 180 CE) & Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 320 CE) cite Papias, although Eusebius expressed these reservations about the caliber of Papias' intellect:

Quote: Eusebius of Caesarea - source http://religion.rutgers.edu/nt/primer/papias.html
“I guess he got these ideas from a misinterpretation of the apostolic accounts. For he did not understand what they said mystically & in figurative language. For he obviously was a man of very little intelligence, as one can tell judging from his sayings. Nevertheless, it was due to him that so many churchmen after him adopted a similar opinion, basing their position on the fact that he was a man of the earliest era. (Eccles. Hist. 3.39.12-13).”

Quote: Hotoke
“the gospels were all written in a different time. how can gospels which were not written until a hundred and fifty years after christ is supposed to have died, and which do not rest on any trustworthy testimony, have the slightest value as evidence that he really lived? these books are usually called a romance.”

atureoriginall
I believe here Hotoke, that you may have confused the dates of the original works of the Bible with the Apocrypha, which are very notably, nonbiblical Christian writings of the early years of the “church’s” life, not Jesus‘ life. I came to this conclusion as soon as I read where you said, “gospels which were not written until a hundred and fifty years after christ”. The 150 years caught my eye.

A list of the Apocrypha in question are listed below. The numbers on the left are for their estimated range of dating.
150-200 Acts of Peter
150-200 Acts of John
150-200 Acts of Paul
150-225 Acts of Peter and the Twelve

Once again, in respect to the writings of Mark and Matthew, these statements are based on the works of Papias, dated around 130 and not the work of the Christian scholars themselves as mentioned in the first part of this post.

The following, however, are the actual dates for the true written works of the Bible. These are as well, an estimated range in respect to the dates. One thing you did say in your last quote was most certainly true; the Bible is to the Christian, most undoubtedly a book of romance. Mahatma Gandhi was born 135 years ago. How many know of Gandhi today. The answer is multitudes of millions. Timeframes may sometimes appear long when they are rather normal.

65-80 Gospel of Mark
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-130 Gospel of Luke
80-130 Acts of the Apostles
90-120 Gospel of John

Quote: Hotoke
“christ was a jew right? and his disciples to, that means that there language was Aramaic. But the gospels were written in greek. Every christian scholar said that they were originally greek(Erasmus) This proves they were not written by christs disciples, they were jewish fisherman, they cloud not have learned greek. 90 % of the population in hose days were busy surviving nly the rich were leadin a good life. also all the gospels are based on a earleir copy of the original gospels. so we have a copy of a copy of a copy like a rumor always changing.”

atrueoriginall
Both Saucy and Witch Hunter gave you a better understand in that regard. They certainly were not all fishermen. For that matter, Peter was wealthy at the time he walked with Jesus. He was a ship builder, not a fisherman. On that note, I have a feeling that you have never read the Bible. I wonder now why I am responding to this post. Oh well, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and continue on here.

Quote: Hotoke
“there were many gospels in those days, a large number of them were fakes and stories. Everybody wrote gospels and attached christian names on them to make it look important and holy and stuff”

atrueoriginall
An explanation as to who wrote what when has everything to do with who walked with Jesus and who lived long enough to tell about it and to who did they tell it. There are many good documents on this subject, which describes how thoroughly writings were researched in respect to the assembly of the New Testament. Can you imagine the numbers of writings that did not enter the New Testament for just those reasons?

Quote: Hotoke
“matthew says that jesus was born when herod was king of judea. luke says something else. again they contradict eachother.”

Matthew 2:1
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem,

Luke 1:5
There was in the days of Herod, king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abijah: and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. Elisabeth was the mother of John the Baptist. Jesus and John were born around the same year as one another.

Quote: Hotoke
“where was jesus born? betlehem or nazareth?”

atrueoriginall
Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Mary and Joseph had to go to Bethlehem (from Nazareth) for the census. It was mandatory to do so. Jesus was born while they were in Bethlehem. Went to Egypt after the census in hiding and then returned to Nazareth where he was raised.

Quote: Hotoke
“the encyclopedia biblica, a work written by theologians, the greatest biblical reference work in the English language, says: "we cannot perhaps venture to assert positively that there was a city of nazareth in jesus' time”

Quote: Source - http://www.ancientroute.com/cities/Nazareth.htm
There have been many Jewish tombs and caves found near Nazareth, indicating the site was inhabited as early as the Bronze Age. Along with silos, cisterns, oil presses and other agricultural equipment show that there is ample evidence that Nazareth was occupied from the early days of the Israelite occupation of the 12th century BCE

Quote: Source -
http://www.wujs.org.il/activist/programmes...appendix2.shtml
The Romans devastated Nazareth during the Jewish Revolt. After the collapse of Bar Kochba's rebellion, the city became a Jewish town made up of many refugees from Judaea. The Revolt lasted from 132 BC to 35 AD.


The Moslems destroyed the city but the churches were rebuilt by the Crusaders. Nazareth was completely devastated by Sultan Beibars in 1263 and lay desolate for some 400 years. Thereafter the Franciscans returned under the tolerant rule of the Druze ruler, Fakhr al-Din.

The town is not mentioned once in the Old Testament, an insignificant village, too small to be noted in the list of settlements of the tribe of Zebulon. It was not expected to have a prophet, a king, or priest to ever come out of Nazareth. This prompted the response of Nathaniel in John 1:46 "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" Nazareth was isolated in ancient times because no trade routes ran through the city therefore had no economical value.

Quote: Hotoke
“after the birth of christ he vanishes. we know nothing about him only when he grows up. if the gospels know about christs life why dont we hear anything from his early years. ”

Luke 2:41
And his parents went every year to Jerusalem at the feast of the passover. 42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up after the custom of the feast; 43 and when they had fulfilled the days, as they were returning, the boy Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and his parents knew it not; 44 but supposing him to be in the company, they went a day's journey; and they sought for him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance: 45 and when they found him not, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking for him. 46 And it came to pass, after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both hearing them, and asking them questions: 47 and all that heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers. 48 And when they saw him, they were astonished; and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I sought thee sorrowing. 49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? knew ye not that I must be in my Father's house? 50 And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them. 51 And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth; and he was subject unto them: and his mother kept all these sayings in her heart. 52 And Jesus advanced in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.

Quote: Hotoke:
“why was it neccesary for a priest to bribe one of his disciples to betray him? only a man in disguise or some one who is hiding is betrayed but jesus was on the streets of jerusalem all the time. they could have arrested him like that.”

atrueoriginall
Because it was prophecy from the Torah that had to take place in the Messiah’s day. Jesus had to die and he had to be betrayed. This was the cup Jesus had to drink from, knowing already what was going to happen to him.

Quote: Hotoke
“the crucifixion is a true fairy tale. teh civilization of rome was the highest in the world. there courts were a model of fairness. no innocent man would get arrested for no reason. but jesus did. Are we to believe that an innocent man was brought before a roman court?”

Matthew 27:11
“Now Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest. 12 And when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing. 13 Then saith Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee? 14 And he gave him no answer, not even to one word: insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly. 15 Now at the feast the governor was wont to release unto the multitude one prisoner, whom they would. 16 And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas. 17 When therefore they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ? 18 For he knew that for envy they had delivered him up. 19 And while he was sitting on the judgment-seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that righteous man; for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him. 20 Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the multitudes that they should ask for Barabbas, and destroy Jesus. 21 But the governor answered and said unto them, Which of the two will ye that I release unto you? And they said, Barabbas.”

December 13
Today is St. Lucy’s day
“The Festival of Lights”

In remembrance of St. Lucy, I thought it fitting to repeat a few words said in another site, since it has much to do with the light of the body, which is the eye. More importantly, it has to do with what we put in the body from the eye in respect to writers and authors. The site was written by my mom and so certainly I have her permission. By the way, the “O” is the Omega in this story.

Quote: Squweekie “It’s All About The “O”
The symbols of St. Lucy are two eyeballs on a dish, hitched to a yoke of oxen and a cord she wears around her garment. St. Lucy is the Patron Saint of authors, writers, photographers, the blind and those with poor eyesight.

These are the eyes of those you are more familiar with. Not that of the disabled, who are legally blind, but rather those who cannot see as we see and so live with darkness inside. St. Lucy’s association with authors, writers and photographers is representative as a “light” since it is them, the writers, authors and photographers who place the candle above our heads (the blind) as to see, learn, understand and comprehend knowledge.

Job 18
5 Yea, the light of the wicked shall be put out, and the spark of his fire shall not shine. 6 The light shall be dark in his tabernacle, and his candle [2] shall be put out with him. 7 The steps of his strength shall be
straitened, and his own counsel shall cast him down. 8 For he is cast into a net by his own feet, and he walketh upon a snare.

atrueoriginall
You are always requiring evidence from us, but you give us none. Our best evidence is scripture, which you never accept. Just the same, our evidence will always be scripture. I do not have the need to defend my faith. It is unchanging.

Please though, read the Bible and research the Internet before you come in to spar with a Christian. It’s not fair for them to have to sort out so many messes if you don’t research first and define your sources.

I believe that the greatest man who ever lived this century was Mahatma Gandhi. He was quite moved by the Sermon on the Mount where he was delighted by the passage where Jesus said, ‘But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man take away thy coat let him have thy cloak also.“ Difficult words to live by, but Gandhi, though a Hindu, would spend his life illustrating how these love-principles could work to effect change. When Gandhi ignored the soldiers’ warnings, and insisted that he was within his rights, he was brutally beaten. In a second instance, he demonstrated what Jesus meant by “turning the other cheek.”

Quote: Hotoke
“I have more but i need sleep Post will be continued “

atrueoriginall
Not, I. I am not going to continue picking apart such lengthy posts of yours any longer. I am going to turn the left cheek and let you hit it too and many will follow with that thought in mind.

[quote=Hotoke,Dec 11 2004, 04:03 PM]
when one is faced with facts and defeat one tends to attack the person on grammar looks etc
english is not my first language so call 555- bite me if you dont like my gramar

I didn't mention anything at all about your grammar. It's easy to misinterpret someones words on the posts when you can't hear their tone of voice. A computer has no emotion. It happens all the time. The only thing that we see in the post is the persons nature in the avatar they choose. Take Stellar's avatar for instance. Angry, bitter, frowning, looks like he lost his best Yugio cards to some friend in a bad trade. Who knows. Maybe we should ask him if this is him. As for me, you can't see Jack diddly squwat. In your's I see a facination for ET. Anyway, what I mean to say is that while you guys are reading, I'm just typing the best I can without anger or frustration. Sometimes you just think I am being mean or sarcastic. I'm not. When I am mad, I'll type a word that looks like this. This is what it comes to. A misunderstanding that sets off a slew of misplaced thoughts. Snowball effect, so to speak. When I told you to load your guns, it means do your homework first. You didn't. I got out my gun and I killed you. Later.

You remember the good old days when people would use quotes, and not some kind of tripping mass of different coloured text, that made the read want to give up half way through?

[quote] starts like this...and end, when you're done, you have another [quote] with a / before the q...

It is not, in fact, very difficult.

If this post were not entitled "spirituality and skepticism", I would actually have something to say--in fact, I did have something to say; but when I went to post this long train of thought that I had going-- much to my surprise-- I found that, indeed, I was in the aforementioned room. A room to present one's own dissident view on spirituality/religion; and even question Jesus' actual existence. All I can say now is: rooms like this are just for inane disputation; and little amounts from this kind of argumentation. So, anyone who had the misfortune of reading this post: I apologize for wasting your time--you'd better get back to your age-old verbal, cyclical, jousting match!

ah the good ol days

Other than the NT no other sources confirms the existence of Nazareth prior to about 400 CE. It is not mentioned in the entire OT, not even once, even tho Joshua 19:1-16 records 12 towns and 6 villages. The Talmud names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature. Paul knows nothing of Nazareth, his epistles mention Jesus 221 times but never once mentions Nazareth. No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It’s first mention, as I stated before, is early 4th Century CE. The Jewish historian, Josephus, has a lot to say about Galilee (after all it barely covers 900 square miles – Texas has larger counties). Josephus lead a military campaign back and forth over the tiny province. He mentions 45 cities and villages of Galilee, but not Nazareth! Look at a topographical map of the region and you will see that present day Nazareth sits at the back of a valley, bounded on three sides by hills. Natural acces to this valley is from the southwest, or at the location of the village of Yafa. Before the 1st Jewish war, Yafa was a good-sized village, with a synagogue (destroyed by the Romans in 67 CE). Trajan’s troops massacred the villagers (15000 killed, 2150 enslaved) ending the existence of the village. Nazareth was the “burial ground” or cemetery for Yafa, up until it’s destruction. Jesus was a member of the Essene sub-sect of the Nazarenes (meaning the branch), whence came the title, later corrupted to the name of a town!

Hmmm we doubt Nazareth existed when there is documentation it did Bible for one yet many on this very same site are chasing Alantisis!

Documentation means a bit more than simply being written down somewhere. Documentation is factual or substantial support for a statement or a hypothesis. It implies exact references to authoritative supporting information. The bible is not considered documentation, because it is not considered an authoritative account of history, but rather a highly biased and somewhat inaacurate subjective record of it, similar to the Egyptian records of war.

That is debateable (no I am not going to) since much of what has been written in Bible has been proven to be historical fact. Neverless my point was proven BY YOU there is no REAL documentation of Atalntsis either yet all over this very site many claim it as real!

[QUOTE]You are speaking of the work of Papias, not that of Christian scholars.[/QUOTE]


No i am not. I am talking about Luke john etc


[QUOTE]I believe here Hotoke, that you may have confused the dates of the original works of the Bible with the Apocrypha, which are very notably, nonbiblical Christian writings of the early years of the “church’s” life, not Jesus‘ life. I came to this conclusion as soon as I read where you said, “gospels which were not written until a hundred and fifty years after christ”. The 150 years caught my eye[/QUOTE]


We are told that Mark was written some time after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John not earlier than 140 A.D. Let me impress upon you that these dates are conjectural, and that they are made as early as possible. The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, was made by the Christian Father, St. Irenaeus, about the year 190 A.D. The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by Theopholis of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D.



[QUOTE]An explanation as to who wrote what when has everything to do with who walked with Jesus and who lived long enough to tell about it and to who did they tell it. There are many good documents on this subject, which describes how thoroughly writings were researched in respect to the assembly of the New Testament. Can you imagine the numbers of writings that did not enter the New Testament for just those reasons?[/QUOTE]


There were many Gospels in circulation in the early centuries, and a large number of them were forgeries. Among these were the "Gospel of Paul," the Gospel of Bartholomew," the "Gospel of Judas Iscariot," the "Gospel of the Egyptians," the "Gospel or Recollections of Peter," the "Oracles or Sayings of Christ," and scores of other pious productions, a collection of which may still be read in "The Apocryphal New Testament." Obscure men wrote Gospels and attached the names of prominent Christian characters to them, to give them the appearance of importance. Works were forged in the names of the apostles, and even in the name of Christ. The greatest Christian teachers taught that it was a virtue to deceive and lie for the glory of the faith. Dean Milman, the standard Christian historian, says: "Pious fraud was admitted and avowed." The Rev. Dr. Giles writes: "There can be no doubt that great numbers of books were then written with no other view than to deceive." Professor Robertson Smith says: "There was an enormous floating mass of spurious literature created to suit party views." The early church was flooded with spurious religious writings. From this mass of literature, our Gospels were selected by priests and called the inspired word of God. Were these Gospels also forged? There is no certainty that they were not. But let me ask: If Christ was an historical character, why was it necessary to forge documents to prove his existence? Did anybody ever think of forging documents to prove the existence of any person who was really known to have lived? The early Christian forgeries are a tremendous testimony to the weakness of the Christian cause



[QUOTE]Matthew 2:1
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem,

Luke 1:5
There was in the days of Herod, king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abijah: and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. Elisabeth was the mother of John the Baptist. Jesus and John were born around the same year as one another[/QUOTE]



Quote: Source - http://www.ancientroute.com/cities/Nazareth.htm
There have been many Jewish tombs and caves found near Nazareth, indicating the site was inhabited as early as the Bronze Age. Along with silos, cisterns, oil presses and other agricultural equipment show that there is ample evidence that Nazareth was occupied from the early days of the Israelite occupation of the 12th century BCE[/QUOTE]




Matthew says he was born when Herod was King of Judea. Luke says he was born when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria. He could not have been born during the administration of these tow rulers for Herod died in the year 4 B.C., and Cyrenius, who, in Roman history is Quirinius, did not become Governor of Syria until ten years later. Herod and Quirinius are separated by the whole reign of Archelaus, Herod's son. Between Matthew and Luke, there is, therefore, a contradiction of at least ten years, as to the time of Christ's birth. The fact is that the early Christians had absolutely no knowledge as to when Christ was born. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says: "Christians count one hundred and thirty-three contrary opinions of different authorities concerning the year the Messiah appeared on earth." Think of it -- one hundred and thirty-three different years, each one of which is held to be the year in which Christ came into the world. What magnificent certainty
Good way to ignore the contradiction Matthew and luke have. explain that


[QUOTE]Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Mary and Joseph had to go to Bethlehem (from Nazareth) for the census. It was mandatory to do so. Jesus was born while they were in Bethlehem. Went to Egypt after the census in hiding and then returned to Nazareth where he was raised.[/QUOTE]

Where was Christ born? According to the Gospels, he was habitually called "Jesus of Nazareth." The New Testament writers have endeavored to leave the impression that Nazareth of Galilee was his home town. The Synoptic Gospels represent that thirty years of his life were spent there. Notwithstanding this, Matthew declares that he was born in Bethlehem in fulfillment of a prophecy in the Book of Micah. But the prophecy of Micah has nothing whatever to do with Jesus; it prophesies the coming of a military leader, not a divine teacher. Matthew's application of this prophecy to Christ strengthens the suspicion that his Gospel is not history, but romance. Luke has it that his birth occurred at Bethlehem, whither his mother had gone with her husband, to make the enrollment called for by Augustus Caesar. Of the general census mentioned by Luke, nothing is known in Roman history. But suppose such a census was taken. The Roman custom, when an enrollment was made, was that every man was to report at his place of residence. The head of the family alone made report. In no case was his wife, or any dependent, required to be with him. In the face of this established custom, Luke declares that Joseph left his home in Nazareth and crossed two provinces to go Bethlehem for the enrollment; and not only this, but that he had to be accompanied by his wife, Mary, who was on the very eve of becoming a mother. This surely is not history, but fable. The story that Christ was born at Bethlehem was a necessary part of the program which made him the Messiah, and the descendant of King David. The Messiah had to be born in Bethlehem, the city of David; and by what Renan calls a roundabout way, his birth was made to take place there. The story of his birth in the royal city is plainly fictitious

give historical evidenece for the existence of christ. the bible is as believable as alien vs predator. I made another thread how the myth jesus was copied of other sons of god.

In history there were people who are claimed to be enlightened and the descendent of god: we have Jesus, Buddha , Krishna, Horus. Mithra of persia and prometheus of greece. i already wrote about the existence of christ and its many tales that were copied and made up of other sons of god. The legend of jesus is almost identical to the krishna mythos and the horus tale. Only difference is the time it was written. the tales of jesus has elements of other stories.

Jesus buddha Krishna Horus Mithra and prometeus have a lot in common with eachother

look at buddha: he was also born of a virgin
buddha performed miracles and wonders, he healed the sick and fed 500 humans from a small basket of cake and walked on water.
he never wanted to be worshipped and spoke of a righteousness(sounds familiar right?)

Buddha was considered the good shepherd the carpenter and more.
a lot of similarities with jesus. actually it should be the other way around seeing that buddha is older then jesus

Move on to Horus
horus was born of a virgin
he had 12 disciples
also performed miracles and raised a man from the death
he also walked on water
he was associated with a lamb

Mithra sungod of persia
ALso born of a virgin
12 disciples
performed miracles
he was buried in a tomb and was resurrected
His sacred day was sunday
Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter, at which time he was resurrected

Krishna
he was born of a virgin
his father was a carpenter
His birth was attended by angels, wise men and shepherds, and he was presented with gold
also performed miracles
he raised the dead and healed lepers, the deaf and the blind
he rose from the dead
his disciples bestowed upon him the title "jezeus," meaning "pure essence

prometheus
prometheus descended from heaven as god incarnate as man, to save mankind.
he was crucified, suffered and rose from the dead

so the myth of jesus is a myth based on other myths. these facts just say it all

believing something without facts might as well think 1+1=90999 or god causes lightning when he is mad

No my avatar is just an reptile's eye nothing else.





now that is just sad.... you judge to quickly. and you call youself a christian? hypocrite. look at you avatar. an eye. Maybe you are a monster who wants a human eye




selfproclaimed victory yet so many questions are still left unanswered. your posts did not mean anything at all

Actually very little written in the bible has been proven to be historical fact. The first archaeologists into the "Holy Land" were Christian scholars who worked with "a shovel in one hand and the bible in the other". In other words they had already arrived at a conclusion and skewed their findings to reflect their belief. That is the old "Maximalist" school...the Minamalist school has called over 98% of their findings into question. They (the Maximalists) had dated strata wrongly, called things by names such as "Solomon's Gate", when the preponderance of corresponding finds were imperial Egyptian of a much earlier period and no Jewish finds at all. Holy land archaeology is being rewritten, even many of the main Jewish archaeologists are coming over to Minamalism, even tho their people have the most to lose! Only the die-hard Christian Maximalists are refusing to budge! This coupled with the fact that the OT was not actually written until 600 BCE, upon the "return from exile", so all previous "history" seems (due to lack of archaeological evidence of any type) be made up to support the Temple State imposed by the Persian Emperor to control the unruly inhabitants of the area! The bible historically accurate, hardly!

[quote=Consummate Deist,Dec 14 2004, 09:15 AM]
[quote]

I see the second writer again along with you Hotoke. Maybe they should introduce themself.

Let the second writer write a paragraph here in the post about a subject outside of this one. Anything, but a good paragraph or I'll copy and paste to this post my e-mail I sent you.