In a message dated 01/11/00 06:45:45 GMT Standard Time, ccogan@telepath.com
writes:
Chris
I do want to comment at this point that the "evidence" for the existence of
Jesus appears, as far as I've been able to find out from Christians,
consists exclusively of the New Testament and claims of other people
*after* the relevant stories that ended up in the New Testament were
written. I think the evidence shows, almost *conclusively*, that Jesus did
*not* exist and do the things he is claimed to have done.
Paul Robson:
Yes and no. IMO it is not that "Jesus" did not exist ; he probably did as
the Jesus of 'Q' or the Seminar. The Jesus that "did not exist" is the
Jesus of the Gospels, for whom there is no evidence at all beyond the
"Holy Book" despite that book commenting of Jesus's actions being
well known. Theists, please don't quote Suetonius/Tacitus/Thallus/
Josephus at me. I know what they say, they either provide evidence
for the existence of the non-Christ Jesus, or the existence of Christians.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 01 2000 - 05:24:41 EST