DSK wrote:
Vito wrote:

His name was Yeshuah (phonetially) but that doesn't decline in Latin so
Romans called him Jesus as you say.


It's a matter of pronunciation, which is shaped by local culture, and
spelling, which varies widely even within the same language.

Without building a time machine and going back to Judea circa 20CE,
there is no way to tell for sure how Jesus' name was pronounced. But the
different ways it is transcribed gives a clue good enough to go on.


... Most wrongly believe his full name was
Jesus Christ.


Sure. Most people don't read.



Jesus Christ is as well documented a historical figure as almost anybody
except perhaps Alexander III of Macedon ("the Great").




On the contrary. Much of what is written was penned by people who had
never
seen the man relying on word of mouth stories.


Wrong. The compilers of the Gospel had a large amount of material to go
on, and while what they included in the New Testament was certainly
screened for politically correct content, they did not destroy much of
what they did *not* include. The material survives, a lot has been
translated into English multiple times, and is available.

... Hence much is less than
factual. For example most secular scholors suspect that Matthew describes
another man, Yeshuah ben Pendara who lived a generation earlier and was
crucified on a tree and stoned to death before the man we call Jesus was
born.


I never heard of that.

... I have a Pentateuch, where do I find a Septateuch?


The Septateuch ("Seven Books") is sort of the expanded, unabridged
version of the Gospels. It includes a lot of the material about Jesus'
life & teachings, written by his Disciples and others who knew him
personally including his brother James, that contradicted later Catholic
doctrine and was excluded from the New Testament Bibles published for
popular consumption.

Go to Amazon.com and type in Septateuch, you'll find several dozens at
least to choose from.


Actually you'd probably get more out of http://tinyurl.com/5q97v



Nawww...


Why not? Unless you're afraid to substitute the real thing for that
pseudo-historic nonsense you're so fond of.


.... knowledge causes
one to doubt dogma, Christian and otherwise.


Knowledge, and observation of fact. The latter is actually more
important.
"Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?"


Agree.


Vito, I suspect that you an I agree on quite a lot, but I am offended by
the farcical anti-history you keep spouting. Making up weird **** can be
a lot of fun, and it takes some intellect & creativity. But claiming
it's true makes you either a con man or a lunatic. Which?



pot...black


Cheers

DSK wrote:

Vito wrote:

His name was Yeshuah (phonetially) but that doesn't decline in Latin so
Romans called him Jesus as you say.


It's a matter of pronunciation, which is shaped by local culture, and
spelling, which varies widely even within the same language.

Without building a time machine and going back to Judea circa 20CE,
there is no way to tell for sure how Jesus' name was pronounced. But the
different ways it is transcribed gives a clue good enough to go on.


... Most wrongly believe his full name was
Jesus Christ.


Sure. Most people don't read.



Jesus Christ is as well documented a historical figure as almost anybody
except perhaps Alexander III of Macedon ("the Great").




On the contrary. Much of what is written was penned by people who had
never
seen the man relying on word of mouth stories.


Wrong. The compilers of the Gospel had a large amount of material to go
on, and while what they included in the New Testament was certainly
screened for politically correct content, they did not destroy much of
what they did *not* include. The material survives, a lot has been
translated into English multiple times, and is available.



I think he's right. Can you point to single document describing "Jesus"
dated around 1 AD?

Cheers

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 09:43:30 +1300, Nav wrote
this crap:

I think he's right. Can you point to single document describing "Jesus"
dated around 1 AD?


That *would* be a good trick, considering most scholars agree that
Jesus was born in 4 AD.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Hey I'll take any documented reference from 1 AD to 50 AD...

I'm waiting...

Cheers


Horvath wrote:

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 09:43:30 +1300, Nav wrote
this crap:


I think he's right. Can you point to single document describing "Jesus"
dated around 1 AD?



That *would* be a good trick, considering most scholars agree that
Jesus was born in 4 AD.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Nav wrote:
I think he's right. Can you point to single document describing "Jesus"
dated around 1 AD?

Not in English. Guess that means it's phony, huh.

DSK

Didn't say English did I?

Cheers

DSK wrote:

Nav wrote:

I think he's right. Can you point to single document describing
"Jesus" dated around 1 AD?


Not in English. Guess that means it's phony, huh.

DSK

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:45:26 +1300, Nav wrote
this crap:

Hey I'll take any documented reference from 1 AD to 50 AD...

I'm waiting...

Cheers


Just read "The Annuls of Imperial Rome" by Tacitus. Chapter 14.



Horvath wrote:

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 09:43:30 +1300, Nav wrote
this crap:


I think he's right. Can you point to single document describing "Jesus"
dated around 1 AD?



That *would* be a good trick, considering most scholars agree that
Jesus was born in 4 AD.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!



Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Nav wrote:
Hey I'll take any documented reference from 1 AD to 50 AD...

I'm waiting...



Horvath wrote:
Just read "The Annuls of Imperial Rome" by Tacitus. Chapter 14.

That should be Chapter XIV. Don't they teach retired military officers
anything?

If you want historical references to Jesus, Tacitus (as mentioned above,
not sure about the chapter), Seutonius, Josephus... there are at least a
dozen writers who have not been incorporated into the Bible because
their references were entirely secular, and usually rather vague.

OTOH the people who knew Jesus personally and wrote about him were
mostly incorporated into the Bible. That doesn't make them false;
although I have seen it claimed that the Gospels were cooked up in Rome
in the 100 ~ 200 AD era, or variously 250~300 in Byzantium, as a
political ploy. This is not consistent with other known historical facts
IMHO.

*If* you are interested (an unlikely assumption), the Isaac Asimov tome
is probably the best & most inclusive study in one book... and it's only
about 1200 pages.

DSK

"DSK" wrote
Vito, I suspect that you an I agree on quite a lot, but I am offended by
the farcical anti-history you keep spouting. Making up weird **** can be
a lot of fun, and it takes some intellect & creativity. But claiming
it's true makes you either a con man or a lunatic. Which?

Neither and I'm sorry truth offends you. Unlike churchmen I have nothing to
gain by 'conning' anybody. I offer the facts I have discovered in a lifetime
of studying religious history for free, with no hope of profit. The only
thing that might make one call me a lunatic is my belief that folks with
overactive VMAT2 genes will believe any of it. You are obviously well read
but your research has been focused on proving that your own preconceptions
and beliefs are correct. I've simply taken an open mind.

In high school circa mid 50s I discovered that books written in Latin were
uncensored so I studied far harder than needed to get 'A's in Latin classes
and began ordering and reading everything I could find. Later I added such
Jewish literature as I could find in English and cultivated Jewish scholars
to help me. A round-robin website of true biblical scholars flourished for
over a year til it was discovered by the religious right and trashed out of
existence. There has even been a lot of open minded features on the History
and Discovery channels.

I discovered a lot of "weird ****" during these studies - weird but factual.
One of the things I discovered was a report of a Centurion saving Saul of
Tarsus, a Roman citizen, from a gang trying to stone him for heresy. The
mob? Why Jesus' disciples led by brother James. The heresy? That Jesus was
the son of God. Saul got deported from Judea for causing the riot but kept
preaching his heresy to non-Jews so James sent a hit team led by Peter to
whack him, but he got away, changed his name to Paul and built up a new
religion just as J Elron Hubbard did more recently with Scientology. Any
resemblance between Paul's Jesus and the man himself is, as they say, purely
coincidental. Everybody grin knows Hercules was God's son not Jesus.

Altho I am no longer fluent in Latin (other interests and nobody to talk to)
I still read whatever I find on the subject. Recent improvements in
archeology and dating, discovery of older unredacted versions of documents,
genetic (DNA) research, et al, have put biblical myths where they belong - a
group of fairy tales with little historical validity. That's why, with all
due respect for the man, I'll not rush to read Asimov's version as it is
perforce dated. Someday maybe but not today.

Last I looked a bit over half the NT was written by the "heretic" Saul
turned Paul and except for the parts ascribed to Peter was written by men
who'd never seen or heard Jesus. eg JC died about 30 AD but Matthew wasn't
written til about 100 AD. Given that there is no detailed Roman record of
Jesus' travels and messages, and that Pauls desciples and Jesus' desiples
didn't get along, then where did Paul's people come up with all those
details of who said what when? Why out of thin air of course! Same way
Clements got all the info on Huck Finn. But theirs is fact and the info I've
gleaned is farscial? There goes your gene again.

This is getting far too long for an OT subject ... CU later.

Vito wrote:
Neither and I'm sorry truth offends you.

Now *that* was funny.

Did you grow up believing that Bugs Bunny cartoons were real?


... I offer the facts I have discovered in a lifetime
of studying religious history for free, with no hope of profit.

Like what? Let's hear about some of the many religious history books
you've read.

DSK