It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Jesus Conspiracy

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 05:54 AM
link   

God makes no errors, and he would not accept errors transmitted in his name. It is as simple as that.


I think the biggest problem for most fundamentalists is they do not know their Creator, which they claim they do, personally. They do not know where he resides, they do not know his form. They hold on to their bible as if it were him in the flesh, after all, Jesus is the "word of God" right? But to me, this is just a hidden form of idolotry.

You must know his flesh, not just his spirit. You must comprehend where he resides, not just believe he lives in your heart.

The truth is on one hand very hard to find, and yet on another, as easy to find as a little child searching. You hinted to his fleshly existence when you mentioned "mother earth". Here's a clue...

Jeremiah31:22 How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.

You are a truth-seeker, like me. He promises to show you the truth if you seek him with all your heart. (29:13).


[edit on 7-2-2005 by Plumbo]




posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Plumbo

God makes no errors, and he would not accept errors transmitted in his name. It is as simple as that.


I think the biggest problem for most fundamentalists is they do not know their Creator, which they claim they do, personally. They do not know where he resides, they do not know his form. They hold on to their bible as if it were him in the flesh, after all, Jesus is the "word of God" right? But to me, this is just a hidden form of idolotry.

You must know his flesh, not just his spirit. You must comprehend where he resides, not just believe he lives in your heart.

The truth is on one hand very hard to find, and yet on another, as easy to find as a little child searching. You hinted to his fleshly existence when you mentioned "mother earth". Here's a clue...

Jeremiah31:22 How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.

You are a truth-seeker, like me. He promises to show you the truth if you seek him with all your heart. (29:13).


[edit on 7-2-2005 by Plumbo]







HERE HERE, I think it never said better , very good now could you say this in the other 3 threads I have been in they all need this said.



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Steve,

We can reasonably conclude that the Bible is the inspired word of Yahweh based on the history, logic, and fulfilled prophecy it contains.

How can you reasonably conclude this? Please give some examples of the subtantiated history, logic, and fulfilled prophecy you allege are contained in the Bible.


No one seems to consider the possibility that those "earlier" stories are based on scripture and not the other way around.

And the reason no one considers it is that there is no reliable historical evidence to support such a theory.


If the Bible is true

Dost I detect a chink in thine armor of belief?

----------

DrBryan,

Flavius Josephus did say that there existed a man named Jesus in the context of Jesus was a wise man and as a teacher wrought with surprising feats was able to win over many greeks and jews.

Flavius Josephus was born after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus. He was not a firsthand witness to the existence of Jesus. And, to head you off at the pass, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and Suetonius were all born after the alleged crucifixion.

I'll say it again, not a single historian, philosopher, scribe or follower who lived before or during the alleged time of Jesus ever mentions him!
Take, for example, the works of Philo Judaeus who's birth occurred in 20 B.C.E. and died 50 C.E. He lived as the greatest Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher and historian of the time and lived in the area of Jerusalem during the alleged life of Jesus. He wrote detailed accounts of the Jewish events that occurred in the surrounding area. Yet not once, in all of his volumes of writings, do we read a single account of a Jesus "the Christ." Nor do we find any mention of Jesus in Seneca's (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) writings, nor from the historian Pliny the Elder (23? - 79 C.E.).

What one believes and what one can demonstrate historically are usually two different things. - Robert J. Miller, Bible scholar, (Bible Review, December 1993, Vol. IX, Number 6, p. 9)

The Gospel authors were Jews writing within the "midrashic" tradition and intended their stories to be read as interpretive narratives, not historical accounts. - Bishop Shelby Spong, Liberating the Gospels

Jesus is a mythical figure in the tradition of pagan mythology and almost nothing in all of ancient literature would lead one to believe otherwise. Anyone wanting to believe Jesus lived and walked as a real live human being must do so despite the evidence, not because of it. - C. Dennis McKinsey, Bible critic (The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy)

The gospels are not eyewitness accounts. - Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School

Lastly, meaning no offense, your posts are quite difficult to read as your sentences run on and on and you express more than one thought in each one.

----------

To Seraphim,
If I may ask, are you originally from Germany? The reason I ask is that, in English, we do not capitalize all our nouns. It makes your posts hard to read.

----------

To all who continue to argue that there was a historical, living, human Jesus,
None of you has presented any evidence to support your viewpoint. Further, when challenged on historical evidence, you all fall back on platitudes and faith, because you cannot challenge the historical evidence that Jesus never existed.

I would respect each and every one of you if you would come forward and say, "You're right, there's no historical evidence of Jesus. However, I still believe that he existed and was the Son of God. I don't need proof; I have faith in spite of the evidence." I doubt that will happen, as you all continue to insist that there's historical evidence when there's not.



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by LunaNik
DrBryan,

Flavius Josephus did say that there existed a man named Jesus in the context of Jesus was a wise man and as a teacher wrought with surprising feats was able to win over many greeks and jews.

Flavius Josephus was born after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus. He was not a firsthand witness to the existence of Jesus. And, to head you off at the pass, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and Suetonius were all born after the alleged crucifixion.

I'll say it again, not a single historian, philosopher, scribe or follower who lived before or during the alleged time of Jesus ever mentions him!


well beside the fact Flavious lived closer to that time then most historians I imagine we can find more if a historian that close to the erra is on record their has to be more for this historian did take information and evidence from somewhere to prove his point right.



Take, for example, the works of Philo Judaeus who's birth occurred in 20 B.C.E. and died 50 C.E. He lived as the greatest Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher and historian of the time and lived in the area of Jerusalem during the alleged life of Jesus. He wrote detailed accounts of the Jewish events that occurred in the surrounding area. Yet not once, in all of his volumes of writings, do we read a single account of a Jesus "the Christ." Nor do we find any mention of Jesus in Seneca's (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) writings, nor from the historian Pliny the Elder (23? - 79 C.E.).



That does not mean he is the end all be all of the evidence, after all people back then where heavily swayed to the intimidation of heracy charges, and Flavious most certainly did read this persons works and found other works that where out there and contradicted Philo enough to sway the facts away from Philo being the best authority, and given the times would have been hard pressed to do so without the goverment killing or imprisioning Flavious for crimes of heracy and or treason.




What one believes and what one can demonstrate historically are usually two different things. - Robert J. Miller, Bible scholar, (Bible Review, December 1993, Vol. IX, Number 6, p. 9)


Thats why I think Flavious is a good source of the totall assemilation of information from multiple sources rather than the evidence you are going with which is from one person Philo in particular.



The Gospel authors were Jews writing within the "midrashic" tradition and intended their stories to be read as interpretive narratives, not historical accounts. - Bishop Shelby Spong, Liberating the Gospels


Not totally true some where born from outside jewish belief and latter converted not all where of the jews originally, you state a few famous or outstanding anyway what about folk accountings for which these conclusions are derived as evidence, somewhere there was non JEWISH influence in all cases.




Lastly, meaning no offense, your posts are quite difficult to read as your sentences run on and on and you express more than one thought in each one.


I have been trying to work on that somethimes it still happens during statements of inspration and passion. I let go gramatical structure sometimes, It was hard for me in school as well often I had to have someone proof for me in school as well. I find it to be a fact that is improving though now I attempt to make paragraphs I didnt before.

Im sorry I hope tolerance and understanding are some of your most freely given virtues , please dont think me ignorant just frustrated and learning still.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 07:48 AM
link   
DrBryan, I don't think that you're ignorant! And I'm enjoying our debate. And, please understand, I'm not saying that Jesus never existed. Just that there's no historical evidence he did.

Historians do not consider the writings of Flavius Josephus as evidence in this matter, simply because he was not even born until after the alleged Jesus died. Whether he was told of Jesus is irrelevant. Considering Josephus' writings as evidence would be like stating as fact that Charles Manson was the Messiah just because Squeaky, Patti, Leslie, et alia told you so.

In addition to Philo not mentioning Jesus, neither does Seneca or Pliny the Elder, nor does any other person who lived during the alleged lifetime of Jesus. I might add that nowhere else in history has the existence of a person been so difficult to prove.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by LunaNik
DrBryan, I don't think that you're ignorant! And I'm enjoying our debate. And, please understand, I'm not saying that Jesus never existed. Just that there's no historical evidence he did.

Historians do not consider the writings of Flavius Josephus as evidence in this matter, simply because he was not even born until after the alleged Jesus died. Whether he was told of Jesus is irrelevant. Considering Josephus' writings as evidence would be like stating as fact that Charles Manson was the Messiah just because Squeaky, Patti, Leslie, et alia told you so.


That is what I was saying Flavious like most historians that you believe dont except him for this time displacement in relation to Jesus death, I ask you this though........Then why believe any historian after the death of Flavious and mind you we learn from their findings and accept then daily as fact. Would it not be a flawed way of thinking that this person didnt mearly compile examine and write according the findings of the persons that proceeded him.




In addition to Philo not mentioning Jesus, neither does Seneca or Pliny the Elder, nor does any other person who lived during the alleged lifetime of Jesus. I might add that nowhere else in history has the existence of a person been so difficult to prove.



I would say that I can probably find people in counter to this but what would be the point the obvious factor in all these historian accounts is their personal beliefs may have influenced and by that what was more interesting to then , Jesus or the finding of new lands, or the battle of the day won, It is not definative , but more a flight of fancy that often incurages people to search for the truths they are looking for.

I mean really ask a dinasour relice hunter if he would rather hunt the truth of Jesus or the facts of a 30 ft tall animal with a brain the size of a walnut, and Ill bet you that the dinasour hunter goes for the animal every time.
We should therefore in our own respect to our own responsibilities decide which is the common ground not deny based on limited info of one direction , talk the good evidence the negative evidence and find a common truth for even in points of denial you will find acceptance.





By the way dont think me offended to the extream I may come across, I have a defensibility about myself, because I am the first in my family to get an education beyond a 2 year college diploma and my family being 98% uneducated beyond High School, has brought an opinion from most who know us as a family as all uneducated Swamp babies from the back waters of Louisiana and the hills of Kentucky, and I realize that sometimes that defensiveness shows through when it's not intended but more out of reaction by instinct, sorry if I came across harsh.











[edit on 11/2/2005 by drbryankkruta]



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by LunaNik
And, please understand, I'm not saying that Jesus never existed. Just that there's no historical evidence he did.


How do you explain Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians (followers of Christus) for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64 as notated by Cornelius Tacitus?



Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD), "the greatest historian" of ancient Rome:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."


This account verifies the account of Christus (Christ in Latin) and his torture and death at the hands of Pontius Pilatus.

What about the Jewish Talmud which accounts the "hanging" (in reference to hanging on a cross) of Yeshu on the eve of Passover?



The Jewish Talmud, compiled between 70 and 200 AD:

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover."

[Another early reference in the Talmud speaks of five of Jesus's disciples and recounts their standing before judges who make individual decisions about each one, deciding that they should be executed. However, no actual deaths are recorded.]


And of course there is the accounts from Josephus (which you seem to want to ignore, but shouldn't)



Flavius Josephus (37-97 AD), court historian for Emperor Vespasian:

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." (Arabic translation)


Above quotes can also be found at www.westarkchurchofchrist.org...

Then there is the recently discovered Bone Box that belonged to James, the brother of Jesus. The box is dated about 63AD and has "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" inscribed on it in Aramaic.



Now, to say there is no evidence of hte life of Jesus is just ignorrance. There is plenty of "Evidence". Whether you are willing to accept the evidence as "Proof" is a whole other issue.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 04:49 PM
link   
The ossuary box fake... Jospeus ...altered by early Christians to add "authenticity"

Jimmy's Bone Box ?Josephus revisited



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 04:59 PM
link   
What's crazy is how many of us have interpreted or received such varying information. For example, I've read here in this post about how the NT was written largely after 100 AD, but I've read elsewhere that it has recently been discovered that the NT in it's entirety had to have been written no later then 80 A.D.. William Albright said "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D.80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament crtitics of today".
As for the claims of forgery, boy those forgerers pulled off the greatest bit of writing in all antiquity, if true. I don't even see how that could even be possible coming from an obvious liar that a forgerer would be. You sure you really want to give someone like that that kind of credit?
I do believe Jesus lived, and that He was the son of God. Why would 11 of the apostles die martyrs' deaths if they didn't see miracles and proof from Jesus that He was who He said He was? Keep in mind, they were crucified and such AFTER Jesus. You think a liar would let that happen to themselves? You believe Jesus deceived them to that point? I don't think so. I believe they saw what I wish we all could see so we wouldn't have to argue or ever be in doubt of the truth.

[edit on 11-2-2005 by livenlearn]



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Y' know who cares if he was an actual person or not ??? Nobody can prove yes or no... if you believe then believe wholeheartedly... If you dont then dont sweat it.. cause nobody really know's .. and if they could prove it , someone will come along to debunk it.. was there an Adam ? or was there a fish that walked out of the sea? we'll never know.. so dont even think about quoting tha' Bible.. been re-written too many times.. by too many kings, scribes , and so called holy men. live your own life ,leave the other man's beliefs to him, cause who knows the truth ?? Nobody in 2005 does..



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Greetings all,


How do you explain Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians (followers of Christus) for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64 as notated by Cornelius Tacitus?


There are serious problems with this passage, see some details here:
www.courses.drew.edu...


Iasion



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Greetings again,


What about the Jewish Talmud which accounts the "hanging" (in reference to hanging on a cross) of Yeshu on the eve of Passover?


This is not correct.
You have confused the Talmud with the Mishnah.

The Talmud consists of two parts -
* the earlier Mishnah (closed about 212CE.)
* the later Gemaras (commentaries) finished in 4th or 5th centuries.

The passage you cited is from centuries after the alleged events.

There is NO reference to Jesus in the Mishnah.

Jewish references to Jesus are all CENTURIES afterwards.

Iasion



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Greetings again,


And of course there is the accounts from Josephus (which you seem to want to ignore, but shouldn't)


The T.F. is a hotly debated issue in N.T. studies.

Scholars are split whether it is :
* a complete forgery by later Christians,
* corrupted by later Christians.

This passage is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus - yet at best its been tampered with, at worst its a complete fake.

The fact that this suspect passage is the best evidence should give readers pause to consider just how POOR the alleged "evidence" really is.


Iasion



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Greetings again,


Then there is the recently discovered Bone Box that belonged to James, the brother of Jesus. The box is dated about 63AD and has "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" inscribed on it in Aramaic.


The ossuary is a FORGERY.

Golan has been indicted and faces court for it.


Iasion



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Greetings mpeake,


Now, to say there is no evidence of hte life of Jesus is just ignorrance. There is plenty of "Evidence". Whether you are willing to accept the evidence as "Proof" is a whole other issue


Well mpeake,
you cited 4 pieces of "evidence".


You claimed that the Talmud mentioned Jesus in the period "70-200" - it doesn't.

You cited the ossuary - but didn't know its a forgery.

You cited Josephus - but don't seem to know it is probably forged, or at least tampered with.

You cited Tacitus - but don't seem to know this passage has serious problems.


Where is the "ignorrance" [sic] ?


Iasion



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Iasion:


You cited Josephus - but don't seem to know it is probably forged, or at least tampered with.

Links to your verified academic/theological sources indicating thus?



You cited Tacitus - but don't seem to know this passage has serious problems.

And again, links to your verified academic/theological sources indicating thus?




seekerof

[edit on 11-2-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Greetings,


Originally posted by livenlearn
What's crazy is how many of us have interpreted or received such varying information. For example, I've read here in this post about how the NT was written largely after 100 AD, but I've read elsewhere that it has recently been discovered that the NT in it's entirety had to have been written no later then 80 A.D.. William Albright said "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D.80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament crtitics of today".


Albright is an apologist from about a century ago.
His views are not considered reliable by modern scholars.

Here are the dates straight from Peter Kirby :

50-60 1 Thessalonians
50-60 Philippians
50-60 Galatians
50-60 1 Corinthians
50-60 2 Corinthians
50-60 Romans
50-60 Philemon
50-80 Colossians
50-95 Book of Hebrews
65-80 Gospel of Mark
70-100 Epistle of James
80-100 2 Thessalonians
80-100 Ephesians
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-110 1 Peter
80-130 Gospel of Luke
80-130 Acts of the Apostles
90-95 Apocalypse of John
90-120 Gospel of John
90-120 1 John
90-120 2 John
90-120 3 John
90-120 Epistle of Jude
100-150 1 Timothy
100-150 2 Timothy
100-150 Titus
100-160 2 Peter

I encourage readers to consult Peter Kirby's site :
www.earlychristianwritings.com...

It is the premier site for N.T. sources (i.e. it is a masterpiece of mainstream scholarship, not my fave weirdo site :-)




As for the claims of forgery, boy those forgerers pulled off the greatest bit of writing in all antiquity, if true. I don't even see how that could even be possible coming from an obvious liar that a forgerer would be. You sure you really want to give someone like that that kind of credit?


Pardon?
Are you really unaware that the majority of the NT epistles are considered pseudographs by the consensus of mainstream scholars?

Peter, James, Jude, John - all written by someone else.


Eric Eve writes: "Despite 1 Peter 1:1, the author is unlikely to have been the apostle Peter. " (The Oxford Bible Commentary, p. 1263)

Udo Schnelle also argues against the authenticity of James (The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, pp. 385-386): "Nonetheless, there are weighty arguments against James the Lord's brother as author of the Letter of James."

Norman Perrin writes the following on Jude (The New Testament: An Introduction, p. 260): "The letter is pseudonymous, as is all the literature of emergent catholicism in the New Testament."


According to modern scholars, NOT ONE of the N.T. writings was written by anyone who ever met a historical Jesus.



I do believe Jesus lived, and that He was the son of God. Why would 11 of the apostles die martyrs' deaths if they didn't see miracles and proof from Jesus that He was who He said He was? Keep in mind, they were crucified and such AFTER Jesus.


There is no evidence any apostle died a martyrs death.
These are merely stories from later tradition.

Even IF someone was martyred for belief in Jesus - so what?

People die for their beliefs all the time :

Suicide bombers do - will you therefore follow them?

The Heaven's Gate cult killed themselves for their beliefs - will you be doing the same to catch a ride on that spaceship behind Hale Bopp?

So,
a CLAIM from ancient religious legends that some religious people died for their beliefs is no evidence of anything.



You think a liar would let that happen to themselves? You believe Jesus deceived them to that point? I don't think so. I believe they saw what I wish we all could see so we wouldn't have to argue or ever be in doubt of the truth.


The apostles are part of the STORY.

You are trying to use people from IN the story to try and prove the story - that is circular reasoning.

There is no evidence for Jesus, or the Gospel stories until a CENTURY after the events.

Then,
the STORIES of the martyrs come from even LATER centuries.


There is no contemporary evidence for
* Jesus
* the Gospel stories
* the martyrs


Iasion



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Greetings seekerof,



Links to your verified academic/theological sources indicating thus?


Josephus is possibly the single hottest topic in modern N.T. studies, here are some sites discussing the problems involved :

pages.ca.inter.net...

www.earlychristianwritings.com...

www.bede.org.uk...





And again, links to your verified academic/theological sources indicating thus?



Tacitus is another hot topic, not hard to find references.
I did gave a link in my higher post, here it is again :
www.courses.drew.edu...

And some more:
www.earlychristianwritings.com...

www.infidels.org...


Iasion



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Despite the assertions being fact or fiction....

My, my Iasion, you get around spreading this information, don't you?
No contemporary evidence for Jesus of Nazareth

Btw, did you ever accept that debate challenge you were offered concerning what you have been and continuing to spread? If you did, could you provide a link to that, as well?

Dern, you get around, huh?
Topic Index for Iasion

Same like topics responded and commented to?
Eyewitness To Jesus? The Gospel Authors

In short, these are but a few links that I have found with the very same information that you are now spreading, and in some form, copy-n-pasting from there to here, within this forum. More can be provided. if necessary.

The point is that you appear, for all intents and purposes, as an intelligent individual and not necessarily meaning no harm or ill intents, BUT you need to heed and bear this (below) in mind, as you continue to post, if you are indeed doing such as described below:


6.) You will not post any copyrighted material, material belonging to another person, nor link to any copyrighted material (with the exception of publicly available sites and pages that the legal owners of the copyrights have created to make that material freely available to the general public), unless that copyright is owned by you or by this website. You will not cross-post content from other discussion boards (unless you receive my advance permission). You will not post-by-proxy the material of banned members or other individuals who are not members, but have written a response to content within a thread on these forums.

Terms And Conditions Of Use

Thank you for your future compliance, if applicable.



seekerof

[edit on 11-2-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Greetings seekerof,

(Answering the locked post.)


Provide some links for the above, Iasion, before someone thinks you simply copy-n-pasted from your original thread, among other places.
the Jesus Myth and apologist's claims


Links?

Have you ever heard of a library?
Perseus? Google?

I gave a list of BOOKS which anyone can check.

I have many of them on shelf - over the past few days I opened them in my hands and read what I saw with my eyes and posted the results.

You can find many of these works in a good library, or even online.

But,
instead of checking the evidence, you moan about my not providing links.

You even have the gall to falsely excuse me of copy-and-paste !

IF you had actually read my posts, you would see that I have not copied and pasted at all - I have made several lengthy posts, related in subject, but all covering differing aspects.

In other words - you didn't even READ what I wrote, let alone answer the arguments and evidence I produced.

Instead you look for a reason to attack, any ol' reason, no matter how silly.


So, seekerof -
* you provide no argument or evidence,
* you ignore my evidence,
* you don't actually read what I write,
* you don't check the evidence I adduce,
* you make false claims about my posts.


It appears I have offended your faith - I am sorry for that.


But I thought this forum would be for people who wanted to know the facts for themselves, who wanted to check and research the evidence. People who wanted to know the real story behind the legends.

There ARE some people here like that :-)
But seekerof does not seem to be one of them :-(


Iasion




top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join