File spoon-archives/anarchy-list.archive/anarchy-list_2004/anarchy-list.0404, message 62


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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005