Xref: utzoo soc.singles:12533 talk.religion.misc:4014 alt.flame:1157
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!ptsfa!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!jade!garnet.berkeley.edu!markxx
From: markxx@garnet.berkeley.edu (,,,,MG59)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,talk.religion.misc,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Christmas parties
Summary: Intolerance, ignorance etc.
Keywords: Jesus, history, blindness
Message-ID: <6442@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 4 Jan 88 18:45:10 GMT
References: <8712231623.AA24882@decwrl.dec.com> <1340@vaxwaller.UUCP> <14173@oddjob.UChicago.EDU> <207@sp7040.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@jade.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: markxx@garnet.berkeley.edu (Mark Ritchie)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 71

In article <207@sp7040.UUCP> dale@sp7040.UUCP (Dale Clark) writes:
>
>Take the example of Christna [sic?] beliefs.  Here was a demi-god born 1200
>years before the Christian Jesus of a virgin mother who performed miracles
>and was eventually put to death on a cross.  Sound familiar?  There have been
>16 different sons-of-God, most of them males born of virgins.  But there is
>no secular evidence that Jesus ever existed.  The Roman's never noted his
>presence.  

     The Roman's never noted his presence???  There is no secular evidence that
he ever existed???  Come on, have you ever read any history books???  
There are many Roman accounts of the existance of a person named Jesus, and all
the trouble that his band of followers was causing down in Palistine. 
     But don't just take my word on it... I was able to hear a lecture
by a historian from Oxford (England)  on just this subject, and he said that 
the evidence that such a person existed is incontrovertable.  Now, as he has
a Ph.D. in history and is a fellow/professor  at Oxford of long and
distinguished standing, he may be totally wrong... But I doubt it.  (And yes,
just because someone said it and I qoute them doesn't make it true, but the
evidence is there IF you open your eyes to look.)   

>Even the Bible contradicts itself not only about the time the alleged "Jesus"
>was born, but also about his name, and the fact that he was born of a virgin.
>You want the exact citations? - I'll quote them for you.  

     Please do. I would be interested in seeing how you have taken the citations
out of context. This is a common fallacy, commited as much by Christians (esp.
fundamentalists), anti-Christians and Talk show hosts as anyone.  What is the
context? The context of a statement is important, and as anyone who has every
been interviewed can tell you, without proper context anyone can be made to
say anything.
     Which translation are you reading?  Some translations (notably the King
James) are well known for errors in translations and politically motivated
mistranslation (ie. a word which means "to make fully wet" [in greek, baptizo]
was transliterated into "baptise" so as not to offend the king, who's church
sprinkled, rather than immersed.)
     Are you using 20th century concepts and assumptions to interpret writings
from the 1st century?  This is an important point, as the way text was written
then was very different than the way text is written today.  There are many
different types of literature that were used, from narrative (often NOT linear)
to poetry etc.  These forms were also sometimes mixed, and the nuances of the
words (in greek or aramaic) would aid the reader in understanding what the type
of literature is.  Obviously those nuances are lost in english. In addition, the
expectations of the assumed reader was different than those that we, in post 
enlightenment late 20th century, have.
     Have you investigated thoses areas where there appears to be contradiction,
gone back to the earliest manuscripts possible, and examined the words used to 
understand their meaning in that historical context, and then drawn conclusions
about what, at that point, would appear, or not appear, to be a contradiction?
This is important to do, IF you are a historian, and IF you want to take the
time to understand what you are reading, not just attack it, OR blindly accept
what others tell you it means. (This last points goes equally for Christians
and non-Christians.)

>                                                            But all this is
>irrelevant to those persons who view the world through rose-colored glasses.
  
    Irrelevance depends upon what you are referring to.  As those "facts" that
you assert do not exist, this statement falls flat.  However, it seems 
that there are things, like good scholarship and historical accuracy, which
you are quite willing to ignore.  Having a belief, and then setting out to
"prove" it is hardly open minded.

>!{ihnp4!hpda!seismo!utah-cs!uplherc}!sp7040!dale
>                                  "The agony of my soul found vent in one loud,
>                                   long and final scream of despair."     --POE

     A historian specializing in the 1st century would probably do the same upon
reading your posting.

						-Mark Ritchie