From: ineffable-AT-comcast.net
Subject: Re: yippi yi eh (god is with us)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 22:01:10 +0000


hey goat,

dave mason band, right?  wow, but that's an oldie.

roger
> There aint no good guys,
> there ain't no bad guys,
> there's only you and me
> and we just disagree.
> 
> Goat
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Dave Coull" <coull-AT-onetel.net.uk>
> To: <anarchy-list-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 08:55
> Subject: RE: yippi yi eh (god is with us)
> 
> 
> > 
> > Andy wrote (in a post which came to me personally, 
> > but which I think he may have intended to send 
> > to the list  -  as you know if you just hit "reply"
> > on the anarchy-list it only goes to a particular 
> > individual, rather than to the list as a whole) 
> > 
> > 
> > > On all that, Dave, how certain are we about JC's
> > > existence, evidentially speaking. I know there's
> > > mention in Tacitus which was 100ish years later 
> > > and Pliny c 60 years later plus Josephus. What's 
> > > the odds on his non-existence if any?
> > 
> > 
> > Josephus seems to me to be pretty conclusive, since
> > he was not a Christian himself, was writing at a very

> > early date, and states the historical existence of
> > Jesus as commonly known fact; and when you add Tacitus, 
> > Pliny, plus of course the different gospels really 
> > were written by different people (as can be shown 
> > from their different styles) it seems pretty certain 
> > that there was indeed a historical person on whom 
> > all this is based. Having said that, there is a possibility 
> > that stories about more than one person may have got 
> > mixed together. Nevertheless it seems to me to be pretty 
> > conclusive that there was indeed a historical Jesus. 
> > In fact there is rather more evidence for his existence
> > than there is for a lot of other figures of the ancient
> > world who get mentioned in history books without any
> > doubt of their historical reality being expressed. 
> > I think any sceptic who tries to argue otherwise 
> > is barking up the wrong tree. What they ought 
> > to be doing instead is saying "okay, so this 
> > guy existed, but the stories about him are 

> > either made up or greatly exaggerated". 
> > 
> > Anyway, returning to the original point, from 
> > a Christian fundamentalist point of view of
> > course the Second Coming  _could_  have happened
> > in the year 2000, but there was no particular reason
> > to expect it to happen then than in any other year.
> > As for suicide cults, it is okay for a Christian
> > to be martyred in fighting the good fight, 
> > but suicide as such is always a mortal sin. 
> > So Kevin expecting that "just about every 
> > imaginable kind of millenarian suicide cult"
> > would "come out of the woodwork in the last 
> > week of December 1999" was based on confusing
> > Christian fundamentalism with other forms
> > of religious fundamentalism, as well as on
> > misunderstanding the obviously random nature
> > of the anniversary in question. By the way,
> > many biblical scholars and historians are 
> > in agreement that the actual 2000th anniversary
> > of Jesus's birth passed without anybody
> > noticing somewhere around 1994 (in 

> > other words, he was born around 6 BC...) 
> > 
> > Dave C
> > 
> > 
> 
>