"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