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

"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.

Bob I gotta admit that unless the Powerball comes up with my number tonight
I just can't afford to be liberal. With an average annual salary in the
'high fives' I'm not rich enough.

But I liked the quotes.

M.

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
ink.net...
Who said these:

"Again and again I was surprised at the courage of simple men, how they
performed heroic acts as a matter of course. Only liberals remain
cowards,
even in battle.
Their world ends with their skin. Therefore they are afraid of
losing their skins. They cannot conceive of anything greater and more
significant than their skin. They do not believe in sacrifice.
Patriotism
is a superstition to them. So they tremble for their dear little selves.
They are the dead end of each culture, the drones of civilization. The
sooner they are eliminated, the healthier for a nation."

"For almost 2000 years the Gospel of Christ has been preached, for 2000
years the sense of community has been taught: love one another, care for
one
another, respect and help one another! But today, at the end of these
2000
years, economic liberalism flourishes as never before."

"The world idea of the liberal era invites the international idea of
Marxist
socialism as its successor, and this leads to anarchical chaos or
communist
dictatorship."

"We must strike off the egg-shell of liberalism, which unconsciously we
still carry on our backs. This is difficult for many of us. We have
gathered ideas from every branch and twig by the wayside of life, and no
longer know their origin."

"To pour doubts into an ordinary man's mind has a similar effect to
pouring
arsenic into the coffee of a liberal. Only while the one effect is highly
desirable, the other one is not. "

"It imprisons the mind. As yet, almost everyone is imprisoned in the
liberalistic attitude."

Amen!

Bob Crantz