"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Vito wrote:
... Fact is nobody named Jesus Christ ever existed 2000 years ago

Of course not. His *name* was Jesus. If there was ever need for further
ID he would have been called ben Joseph (Josephson), carpenter, of
Nazareth.

"Christ" was a title derived from Greek (a language which Jesus did not
speak) and tagged on at least a generation later.

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


Jesus Christ is as well documented a historical figure as almost anybody
except perhaps Alexander III of Macedon ("the Great"). Many people who
knew him wrote about him... much of this material was incorporated into
the New Testament as gospel, others such as the writings & teachings of
his brother, were supressed as you say (although not with quite as
clear-cut a nefarious motive as you claim). Check out the Septateuch.

On the contrary. Much of what is written was penned by people who had never
seen the man relying on word of mouth stories. 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 have a Pentateuch, where do I find a Septateuch?

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

Nawww...

.... 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 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?

Regards
Doug King

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!

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

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