-Caveat Lector-
In a message dated 6/20/99 6:24:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I am simply commenting that the Jews do not recognize Jesus' divinity
> [except for Christian Jews]. As I said, each individual is free to
> decide the question of Jesus' divinity for himself. My point is
> wherever the original comment came from about Jesus' "invention," that
> is not historically accurate. There is too much HARD evidence that He
> was REAL. I hope you understood better this time. If you wanted to
> take offence at something, it should have been the comment about
> "Liberals!"
>
> Nevertheless, as always...
>
> Love & Godspeed!
> The OUTLAWLADY
>
>
The facts are that there is little "hard" evidence that a person named Jesus
ever lived. There may be some historical evidence, which is subjective and
unproveable, that he lived, but there is none to support the contention that
he was THE son of God or that he rose from the dead. The only source for
these ideas is in the Bible which as anyone would readily admit is biased.
NOW, having said that, you are absolutely correct in observing that this
issue of deity and godhood is one which is a matter of faith and belief which
is between the individual and God. That is unassailable in any relevant way.
BTW I don't NECESSARILY discount that Jesus lived, or that he died or even
that he rose from the dead, BUT we must all face the facts that there is
scant "hard" evidence to support such conjectures. The story outlined, that
you are commenting about has as much historical "truth" as anything in the
New Testament, so who is to say which history is true and which is not? We
must always be willing to see every option and accept when our position is
weak, in a concrete way. THUS, for someone to believe that Jesus is Lord and
the Son of God, and have faith in him is all well and good, but it cannot be
based upon the historical FACT of the New Testament which is just a bunch of
stories (however true they may be is something that we cannot PROVE).
Therefore issues of faith and belief are not the issue since you, and I, and
anyone else is free to believe anything they want no matter if it is
irrational, or even stupid, or foolhardy. The issue is that stating that
ones position relies upon proven historical FACT, verifiable proof, from and
unbiased source and documentable in several ways, when in fact that "proof"
is not so proven as one makes out, is not an intellectually hones way to
proceed.
Just MO.
Teo1000
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
