XPost: alt.religion.wicca, alt.arts.poetry.comments, alt.writing   
   XPost: alt.magick   
   From: shez@oldcity.f2s.com   
      
   In article ,   
   joerevskelton@bellsouth.net writes   
   >   
   >"Shez"  wrote in message   
   >news:O4$$TAD4ulJCFwpp@oldcity.f2s.com...   
   >> In article , Karla   
   >>  writes   
   >> >On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 15:45:09 -0600, Dale Houstman    
   >wrote:   
   >> >   
   >> >>   
   >> >>   
   >> >>Karla wrote:   
   >> >>   
   >> >>>>P   
   >> >>>   
   >> >>>   
   >> >>> I agree that Jesus, using the Word, heals(ed) bodies, souls and minds,   
   >gave,   
   >> >>> and still gives purpose to lives, and stands ready to do the same   
   >today.   
   >> >>> Several witnesses wrote down accountings of these magic moments.  The   
   >> >>> accountings have been reprinted for hundreds of years.   
   >> >>   
   >> >>Actually, quite untrue. There are NO written accounts by any witness to   
   >> >>these supposed miracles, and the earliest accounts even of Jesus as a   
   >> >>person come long after his supposed death.   
   >> >   
   >> >I will assume, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that you disqualify   
   >the   
   >> >Bible, primarily, the New Testament, as a written account by witnesses.   
   >> >However, holders of the Christian faith as well as non-Christians   
   >recognize   
   >> >these "testaments".  The line they draw, of course, has to do with   
   >divinity   
   >> >and miracles.  Some hold that accounts were written by cultic followers   
   >or   
   >> >crazy men and women.  Be that as it may, I disagree with your statement   
   >that   
   >> >there are "NO written accounts by any witness.."   
   >> >   
   >> >Luke, a companion of Jesus wrote to Theophilus (I use the King James but   
   >I can   
   >> >use other English translations or a direct translation from the Greek):   
   >> >   
   >> >"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration   
   >of   
   >> >those things which are most surely believed among us,   
   >> >Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were   
   >> >eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;   
   >> >It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things   
   >from   
   >> >the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,   
   >> >That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast   
   >been   
   >> >instructed."   
   >> >   
   >> >Luke then proceeds to record what he witnessed, including miracles.   
   >> >   
   >> >Papias, affirms Mark's association with Christ and the accuracy of Mark's   
   >> >accounts.  He relies on oral tradition confirming what he heard from the   
   >> >disciples as well as the words the disciples handed down.  Eusebius was   
   >able   
   >> >to preserve some of the writings of Eusebius which led to the   
   >confirmation of   
   >> >Mark as the author of the second testament.   
   >> >   
   >> >Saul, later Paul, repeatedly gives testament to his eye witness accounts.   
   >> >   
   >> >These accounts, like depositions or answers to interrogatories, stand.   
   >> >   
   >> >One may call them liars or find fault with the translations, however   
   >their   
   >> >accounts have stood the test of time.   
   >> >   
   >> >   
   >> >>It is strange in fact how   
   >> >>there is nothing written AT ALL about this supposedly startling being   
   >> >>during his lifetime. No Roman mentions him, no Greek, and nothing else   
   >> >>until the spurious mention of him quite a while after by Josephus.   
   >> >   
   >> >You slight oral tradition.  You also don't seem to grasp the time.  Jesus   
   >> >causes this stir.  He is killed.  His companions witness his death and   
   >his   
   >> >resurrection.  His companions hit the road to tell everyone.  Later, when   
   >> >they're imprisoned or ill, they have time to set it down in writing.  You   
   >> >don't mean to tell me that you decide nothing ever happened because it   
   >lacked   
   >> >a contemporaneous account of it?   Remember, the oral tradition was very   
   >much   
   >> >alive.  Luke's sound account is dated around A.D. 59-63.  Luke was a   
   >> >physician, a learned man of that time and therefore most likely to write   
   >down   
   >> >his eye witness accounts.   
   >> >   
   >> >>There's been more written about Dracula and Santa Calus. And "Jesus"   
   >> >>doesn't give meaning to lives, the "idea" of Jesus sometimes does, but   
   >> >>the blood that's been spilled in his Name seems to have rather equalled   
   >> >>the score Good/Evil wise.   
   >> >   
   >> >Personal testimony?   
   >> >   
   >> >>> Also, zealots, perverting such Words have begun wars, eradicated   
   >millions of   
   >> >>> people and caused the extinction of many life forms.  You don't   
   >consider that   
   >> >>> the work of a magician and his apprentices?   
   >> >>   
   >> >>If slaughter were proof of magic, then Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and   
   >> >>quite a number of U.S. Presidents (not to mention Charles Manson) must   
   >> >>secretly own pointed hats, starry robes, and magic wands.   
   >> >>   
   >> >>dmh   
   >> >   
   >> >Aw, c'mon, Dale, everyone blames wars, pogroms, genecide, etc. on Jesus.   
   >I   
   >> >thought I could count on you!   
   >> >   
   >> >Karla   
   >> >   
   >>   
   >> I think your a little confused on your time lines their, most of the so   
   >> called testaments were written sometimes a century after the so called   
   >> death of Christ and were written by third party's.   
   >   
   >The apparent date of Christ's death would be somewhere around 30 CE The   
   >gospels date from no earlier than the early 50's CE and probably nearer 60CE   
   >(Mark's) to no later than the 90's CE (John's). The gospel attributed to   
   >Luke and the gospel attributed to John both claim to be eyewitness accounts.   
   >Since "writing" in the sense of physically putting pen to paper was done   
   >almost entirely by scribes it is true that it is unlikley that the   
   >individuals to whom the gospels are attributed actually "wrote" them in this   
   >sense.   
   >   
   >> Saul or Paul was not alive in the time of Christ..   
   >   
   >Unless he was remarkably precocious, he was almost certianly alive by the   
   >time of Christ's death, though he may well have been a teenager, or even a   
   >child. He was likley still in Tarsus at the time of Jesus death.   
      
      
   The problem with the story of Jesus is that most of the so called eye   
   witness were dead when their writings were put on paper, by scribes and   
   by the time that they were ready to be put on paper most of the apostles   
   had died, and the story's they had told and the things they said were   
   being tied together by people who wanted a coherent story to put   
   together... the fact that most of the apostles never wrote their   
   testaments they were written by others years afterwards douse leave a   
   lot of room for conjecture. The council of Nice also took anything from   
   the various testaments that did not fit into the story as they wanted it   
   to be, so it was edited, expanded, and even had huge parts cut out   
   altogether where their might be a problem for the fledgling church.   
      
   I personally looked at what the council of necea did out of curiosity,   
   and was amazed by how much they took out altogether and how much they   
   changed. If they had not done that if all the testimony had been   
   included it would have been a very different book indeed.   
   >   
   > He was converted on   
   >> the road to Damascus. Not one of my favourite new testament characters,   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)