Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 10:56:52 +0100 (BST) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?ninetyone=20andy?= <andy_91_2000-AT-yahoo.co.uk> Subject: RE: yippi yi eh (god is with us) Cheers Dave. They've re-arranged yahoo-mail so the peply to everyone is a drag down and I missed it. Co-ordination isn't what it was... Andy --- Dave Coull <coull-AT-onetel.net.uk> wrote: > > 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005