Breaking News per MSRNC "rocket hit...... birthplace of Jesus"

[truebrit71]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/

My God this is amazing....those filthy Arabs/Palestinians/Terrorists are trying to destroy the birthplace of our Lord.....

Who fucking cares who was born (allegedly) there or not? How about the poor bastards that just got killed?

I FUCKING HATE THE MEDIA!!!!! :grr:

On edit: they changed it to 'hometown' of Jesus from 'birthplace'.....He had a "hometown"? :eyes:

[benburch]

1. If I believed that he were God...

...I would still not believe that the place of his birth was in any way special!

[DanCa]

11. This is the punishment for passing hr. 810

This is why the chimp has too veto the bill. :sarcasm:

[benburch]

24. I can just hear Hannity saying that now.

:puke:

[Cronus Protagonist]

191. Maybe, but perhaps it's the ACLU, NOW, homosexuals and liberals fault

Let's ask Marian "Pat" Robertson.

:sarcasm:



Educate Your Local Freepers!
Flaunt Your Opinions With Buttons, Stickers and Magnets from BrainButtons.com
>

[cantstandbush]

188. What was Bethlehem? Makes the "inerrant word" not so inerrant.

Anybody here read the Bible?

[KAT119]

195. Google" Errors of the New Testament" =Nazareth did NOT EXIST when XT born

Nor was there Ever a real person named Jesus/Yeshua historically. He was created from ancient mythologies part sun god, part saviour, part hero to satisfy the Catholic Church's need for a god. Constantine, Roman Emperor in 4th century raised the myth-only found in the edited many times NT-to a state religion in order to control the populace. Most Christians have no idea re early years of 'christianity' and how it was created....

[rasputin1952]

206. Not necessarily...There have been written accounts of Jesus in

historical records, to include a report from Pilate, Prelate at the time, about crucifying Jesus.

There are also two Talmudic references to Jesus, who was "hanged" rather than being stoned as Caiaphas was wont to do. "Hanged" can also mean crucified, and since the stoning was not carried out by the Jews of the time, it is shown that the Romans intervened and condemned Jesus to death by crucifixion.

[IselaB]

208. That's just silly

I'm not a Christian, but obviously Jesus was an actual historical figure. Yes, the myth of Jesus as the Son of God was influenced by a lot of older and contemporary ideas, but the man still existed.

How do I know? Well, if he didn't, explain one thing to me: Why is he depicted in the New Testament as a Gallilean? One thing everybody knew at the time was that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, far from Gallilei. There was no way around that. The prophecies were clear. So what we find in the Gospels is a couple of elaborate stories to explain why a man who everybody knew was from way up north in Gallilei was somehow born in Bethlehem. If Jesus were simply a fiction, they simply would have said he was from Bethlehem and grew up in Bethlehem. But because there was a real man they had to reconcile the prophecies to, they had to invent stories about how he was born in Bethlehem even though he grew up in Gallilei, and everybody knew he and most of his disciples were from Gallilei.

[5X]

2. Same thing on CNN,

along with other assorted headlines pointing towards
the end times.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

[theHandpuppet]

18. Anchor on CNN called it the "Holy City"

I'm just waiting for them to call Beirut the "modern-day Sodom".

[Avalux]

3. They got that way wrong then.

Hometown Nazareth, birthplace Bethlehem. So says the bible anyway.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

7. Dunno what it said before...

...but it says "Hometown" now.

[Critters2]

115. I actually believe Jesus was born in Nazereth,

which makes it difficult to preach come Christmastime.

[KamaAina]

153. Our reverend says the whole "Nazarene" thing is a misunderstanding.

We had a class on Mary Magdalene, timed to coincide with a certain movie release. Supposedly Nazareth did not develop as a town until several centuries after Christ; in his day, it would have contained mostly cemeteries.

Where the "Nazarene" thing comes in, he said, is that Jesus belonged to an Essene-like sect called the "Nazoreans", and that over time, "Nazorean" was corrupted to, or confused with, "Nazarene".

Goodness, that'd give the Church of the Nazarene fits, wouldn't it? :shrug:

[Ian David]

4. They're sending The Apocalypse message to Bush's base. n/t

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

88. That's "Chimpocalypse"

[smirkymonkey]

205. ROFL!

:rofl:

[kentuck]

5. Well, that settles it!

If they are going to bomb the birthplace of Jesus, it is OK to kill 'em all. I was on the fence but this has convinced me they all must die.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

174. you too?

yep, only thing that makes sense really. Jesus would want it that way.

[DanCa]

6. I thought the birth palce of Jesus was in Crawford?

"The eastern world it is exploding violence flarering bullets floating. Your old enough to kill but not for voting you don't believe in war or that gun your toting and even the Jordan River has bodies floating and you tell me, over and over, and over again my freind, you don't believe were on the Eve of Destruction," Eve of Destruction by Barry Mcguire.

[MindPilot]

8. No, Crawford is where god was born again

Jesus was born in Juarez; he has a green card.

That song has been in my head for a few days now--along with "Monster".

[DanCa]

15. Jesus in immigrant say it aint so

Where's the minute men when you need them.

[Voltaire99]

214. Has Cindy had the Son of God, then?

Bloody hell, that's going to ruin all SORTS of masturbation fantasies.

[tocqueville]

9. OMG THEY TARGETED THE MANGER !!!

Ass among casualties, sheperds evacuated

[DanCa]

10. Will they charge for the evacuation?

[SlavesandBulldozers]

175. 2 wise men unaccounted for.

[Joanne98]

181. The donkey is dead! What will Mary ride?

[bdamomma]

12. the are whipping the radial right into believing

the end times are here. sorry, too much religion can make a person stupid.

[malaise]

13. I saw that

Sickening. Rita is really getting carried away here.

Edit add.

[flyingfysh]

14. Moslems honor Jesus as a prophet

So they would not target such a site deliberately.

[halobeam]

26. hey, no fair throwing facts into the mix....

what WERE you thinking?

[MorningGlow]

73. Au contraire

Haven't you heard? Them brown people hate the baby Jesus... :cry:

In case it's necessary: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[Frank Cannon]

158. There ya go, making sense and stating facts again

Don't you know that the Bushbots in this country don't care about either?

I just heard the "birthplace of Jesus" line on CNN radio news. Looks like Karl Rove's fax machine is in overdrive.

[calico1]

16. How many times do I have to explain this?

Jesus was born in the Bronx, NY. I know because I went to school with him. Okay? :silly:

[Saphire]

42. hey, Jesus was born in Mexico and works here....

[HamdenRice]

218. I knew that guy in high school! You mean Jesus Rodriguez

from the Grand Concourse, right?

[leesa]

17. But this isn't the Crusades, oh no...this is disgusting

Specifically designed to get the Fundy wackadoodles all steamed up.

[malaise]

33. Wrong

This is the crusades.

[debbierlus]

19. Deliberate attempt to stir up anti-muslim feeling for the coming World War

Maybe, a bit paranoid.

But, very plausible.

[roguevalley]

190. and then again, they related a fact attributed to Nazareth. If a bomb

had landed on Muhammed's hometown, the same thing would have been related. Nothing here to see.

[Karmakaze]

20. Un-fucking -believable!

How could MSNBC call Nazareth Jesus' birthplace? I mean seriously??? Ok if it was an Asian news sopurce I could understand it but you seriously cant tell me that a media organisation from a supposedly "Christian" country can not get such a simple fact correct.

[Igel]

62. They can't.

In a lot of places people have never read any of the Bible, apart from what they needed to read in a world literature class in college. They don't understand allusions to the Bible.

For them, Christmas is a day off on which it's ok to get drunk and get laid. Piece to men of good swill.

[cgrindley]

21. What's the big deal?

They corrected it to hometown quick enough. Jesus, and I'm an absolute atheist here, was a real historical figure. He's revered by Muslims, Christians, and a wide variety of philosophical types including a fairly substantial number of people who identify themselves as being Secular Humanists (Vonnegut, for example, calls himself a "Christ loving atheist." Jesus is also dead famous. Why shouldn't the new media identify the town's claim to fame?

How about this? If a rocket was fired into Linz, Austria, how do you think the press would describe the town?

[truebrit71]

23. Um, as a town in Austria.....One assumes you're referring to Hitler..??

..and that the press would make reference to that? Hitler actually lived afterall.......

My point is the obvious attempt by the Whore Media to foment anger and stir hatred....

[cgrindley]

34. How so?

No one, absolutely no one, doubts that Jesus lived, or was during his time at least a minor rabble-rousing pacificistic philosopher. Many people look the philosophies routinely attributed to Jesus with at least a stray recognition of basic value. The 7 works of corporeal mercy for example, (feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, visiting those in prison, donating clothes to the needy, providing water to the thirsty, giving shelter to the homeless, and burying the dead) would have been good suggestions even if Hitler came up with them. I guess you also have to remember that regardless of all of the awful shit done in his name, Jesus was a fairly hard core pacifist who'd be crazy sick if he knew what the various christian churches had done over the years.

I don't think you can read more into this than the media saying "hey, a rocket hit a famous place" and "irony".

[truebrit71]

44. "No-one doubts that He lived"...Oh, really?

You have the proof? Could you show it to us?

Contrary to your assertion there are MANY that doubt He lived.....

IMHO the headline was a deliberate attmpt to inflame the hatred of the "christians" that exhibit and diplay NONE of the characteristics nor follow ANY of His teachings against Muslims and other non-descript 'brown-skinned' folk....

[cgrindley]

48. What?

I have to prove the historical existence of a man (not a god, but a man) who like three educated people on earth think didn't exist? How about this, you give me citations to one dozen refereed academic journal articles conclusively stating that Jesus was a composite mythological construct.

[truebrit71]

59. You were the one that said "no-one believes he didn't exist"...

...so YOU prove your statement. Please show me HISTORICAL, VERIFIABLE PROOF that He lived, then prove that "no-one believes he didn't exist", and after that I'll get you your articles...

[cgrindley]

63. Oh dear

give me verifiable proof that *you* exist. For all I know, you could be some debatebot released on the site to speed up an otherwise slow morning.

[truebrit71]

67. Oh dear, you have no proof do you?

You know, verifiable proof.....

Nice non-answer though.

YOU made the statement. YOU back it up.

[cgrindley]

75. Arguing with you is pointless

I don't precisely know what you mean by proof, although I'm pretty certain that you do not hold a PhD in history or anything like that, so it's really hard to argue with you as you seem to have some strange notion of "verifiable proof." Nothing, you know, is "verifiable" per se except, I guess, so a priori math stuff or something, but certainly not the historical record (hence all those idiots who think that the moon landing was faked... go ahead, prove we went to the moon).

I have a feeling that giving you quotations from the non-Christian writers Tacitus, Seutonius, Pliny the Younger and Josephus, are not going to impress you, nor would a variety of Gnostic texts and the New Testament itself. Sadly, you won't be influenced by the nearly uniform position of everyone who has ever done serious academic work on the subject. That a historical Jesus existed is pretty much a given.

But since it's sort of pointless to argue with you, I'm not going to bother.

[truebrit71]

76. You can't back up your assertions so you run away...

...Fine...

...Just as I thought...

[cgrindley]

81. How am I running away?

I just gave you Suetonius, Tactitus, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, the Gnostic Gospels, the New Testament and the bulk of academic research on the historicity of Jesus. What more do you want? DNA? Photographs?

This argument doesn't make any sense at all.

[truebrit71]

84. Using your example...Adolph Hitler...we have PROOF that he existed...

...verifiable PROOF...As for your guy......???

You also haven't proven your assertion that "no-one doubts he existed"....says who?

You made the statement, YOU back it up....

And (not coincidentally back on topic) the whole point of this thread was to point out the complicity of the Whore Media in fomenting anti-Arab, pro-christian sentiments...

Apparently you think that everyone KNOWS that Jesus existed, when in fact there is no proof whatsoever that that is the case, and furthermore there is no proof that "no-one doubts" he existed....Shit, until I was 7 years old I KNEW that Father Christmas was real, and so did all of my friends....Tell me who is more delusional....the 7-year old child believing in a mythical mish-mash of many different people, or the adult that proclaims that no-one doubts that Jesus a) existed and b) was one, single, individual person.

[cgrindley]

86. What?

1. by your rules, which seem vague and illogical, prove the existence of Hitler

2. perform your own database search of for refereed scholarly articles using the keywords "historicity" and "Jesus" and tell me how many articles have been written taking the purely mythological view of christ since say 1975 (which is as far back as Academic Search Premier goes by the way). The answer is zero. No refereed article takes this opinion.

3. Other than two dudes that no one really follows (which they admit), give me the name of any other scholar who agrees with them.

4. By "no one" by the way, I mean "no one with a valid opinion". Sure that sort of limits debate to the scholarly set, but, frankly, I really don't care what a non academic thinks about the historicity of Jesus. It's just not appropriate. It's not important.

5. Oddly enough, there is also no doubt that St Nicholas of Myra was also a historical figure. Much like the historical Jesus was a real person who became, over time, one third of the Trinitarian deity, St Nicholas of Myra got all fucked up into Santa Claus.

Your last argument sort of leads me to believe that either a) you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about or b) you're just taking the piss.

[truebrit71]

90. Fine, just as soon as you back up your original assertion...

..."no one with a valid opinion"...Aaah, I see, YOU get to decide who has a "valid" opinion and who doesn't....:eyes:

I think it is YOU who have absolutely no idea what you are talking about (or at least no idea how to back it up), and I am definitely NOT taking the piss....

This argument is becoming tedious and circular.

The bottom line is this: The whore media is using the mythical birthplace of a mythical religious figure to stir up anti-Arab sentiment...

[IselaB]

209. I can offer logical proof that he existed

(this is the same thing I posted far above, but it seems more relevant here)

I'm not a Christian, but obviously Jesus was an actual historical figure. Yes, the myth of Jesus as the Son of God was influenced by a lot of older and contemporary ideas, but the man still existed.

How do I know? Well, if he didn't, explain one thing to me: Why is he depicted in the New Testament as a Gallilean? One thing everybody knew at the time was that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, far from Gallilei. There was no way around that. The prophecies were clear. So what we find in the Gospels is a couple of elaborate stories to explain why a man who everybody knew was from way up north in Gallilei was somehow born in Bethlehem. If Jesus were simply a fiction, they simply would have said he was from Bethlehem and grew up in Bethlehem. But because there was a real man they had to reconcile the prophecies to, they had to invent stories about how he was born in Bethlehem even though he grew up in Gallilei, and everybody knew he and most of his disciples were from Gallilei.

So, if he never existed, give me just one reason they would have said he was from Gallilei.

[BeTheChange]

92. Dude... so not worth the time..

Wether you believe in the man or not as the son of God, only hardheaded to the point of fanatical anti-religious persons debate his existance. It is just as pointles wasting your time on them as it is to try to convince fanatical right wing Christians that gay marriage isnt going to unleash the apocalypse.


Welcome to DU.. and I think you make wonderful posts.

[cgrindley]

97. Thanks

I like it here.

[RaleighNCDUer]

94. All of those writings, without exception, are at least one generation

removed from the date of the supposed Jesus' death. Many are from 100+ years after. That's not exactly eyewitness accounts.

That makes them, by definition, myth. Stories passed down, or created to explain or teach the next generation.

BTW, the Josephus reference (written at the time of the Jewish rebellion, 40 years after the 'fact') has been pretty well determined to be a 3nd century forgery, planted to bolster the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity -- two references of a different writing style inserted into passages with virtually no connection to those passages, an inexcusable breach of narrative style for a classical historian.

But I'm sure you've already heard that, since you are so familiar with the subject.

[mzteris]

127. Thanks

I've had a migraine off and on since Friday night - and I am so fuzzy-headed I can't type straight much less think straight enough to mount a cogent argument (AND locate the references) . . .

(This damn heat is about to kill me!)

[mzteris]

125. those guys existed

HOW long after Jesus "lived"?

[ChiciB1]

186. And I BELIEVE YOU Are Correct!

I'm sure there are thousands and thousands who don't believe in Jesus! Anymore, I'm getting to a point where I DON'T know what I believe!!!

[RaleighNCDUer]

Wrong. I doubt it, very strongly.

There may have been a man, possibly several different men, who were templates for the stories, but there is no more empirical evidence for the existance of Jesus the Man than there is for Arthur the King or Robin the Hood.

I contend he is entirely mythical.

[cgrindley]

56. On what grounds?

Let's see some refereed scholarly articles supporting your view.

Price himself, one of approximately two scholars who are even remotely into the idea of a mythological Jesus (a third, Wells, has since clarified his position), confesses that his is a minority position, unsupported by virtually anyone working in the field.

I'm a medievalist and I can tell you that pretty much no serious scholar has *ever* supported the idea that Arthur really did pull a sword out of a stone, but I can assure you that you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in the business who felt that Arthur was a purely mythological figure not distantly based on some real although incredibly minor historical figure. Most of us are probably willing to say that he was probably a minor warlord who fought a series of unsuccessful minor battles against the incoming Anglo Saxons.

Same thing with Jesus. I can guarantee you he didn't walk on water, but I'm convinced that he lived and had some shit to say about how to treat the disadvantaged.

[mzteris]

83. just to get you started......

Historically, it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about Him." Bertrand Russell, "Why I am not a Christian."


****

". . . a group of French philosophers during the French Revolution in the late 18th century who first suggested that Jesus was a mythical character. 1 Bruno Bauer, a mid-19th century German theologian agreed. In part of his 4 volume set "Critique of the Gospels and History of Their Origin," he claimed that Jesus did not exist. 18 A subsequent next major skeptic was the English theologian John M. Robertson who wrote two books in the very early 20th century. 12, 20 More recent books on this topic date from 1957 to 1991 and were written by perhaps a half dozen authors. 21 G.A. Wells, a former professor of German at the University of London was one of the most prominent. He wrote a series of five books on this topic, arguing that Paul and other 1st century Christian leaders believed that Jesus had lived in their distant past, perhaps in the 2nd or 3rd century BCE.

Michael Martin discussed Jesus' existence in his 1991 book: "The case against Christianity," 18 He is a professor of philosophy from Boston University who examined the major beliefs of Christianity. He concluded that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Jesus existed. Earl Doherty, writing in the Humanist in Canada magazine 1 believes that early Christian leaders saw Jesus as the Son of God who was a spiritual, not human being. He writes: "If Jesus was a 'social reformer' whose teachings began the Christian movement, as today's liberal scholars now style him, how can such a Jesus be utterly lacking in all the New Testament epistles, while only a cosmic Christ is to be found?" He wrote a book: "The Jesus Puzzle. Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ?" 22 If Doherty's assessment is true, then Christianity would have many points of similarity to other contemporary religions in the Roman Empire - particularly Mithraism who also viewed their founder Mithra as spiritual rather than as an actual historical human being. "

1. Earl Doherty, "The Jesus Puzzle: Was there no historical Jesus?" Journal of Higher Criticism at: http://pages.ca.inter.net/

12. J.M. Robertson, "Christianity and Mythology," 2nd edition, (1910)

18. Michael Martin, "The case against Christianity," Temple University Press, (1993) Read reviews or order this book safely from Amazon.com online book store.

20. J.M. Robertson, "Pagan Christs," 2nd edition, Barns & Noble, (1911; reprinted)

21. Michael Martin 18 lists the following books which are skeptical of Jesus' existence: W.B. Smith, "The Birth of the Gospels," (1957)
Prosper Alfaric, "Origines Social du Christianisme," (1959)
Guy Fau, "Le Fable de Jesus Christ," 3rd edition (1967)
John Allegro, "The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross," (1970)
G.A. Wells, "The Historical Evidence for Jesus," Prometheus, (1982)
G.A. Wells, "Did Jesus Exist?", Revised edition, (1986)


22. Earl Doherty, "The Jesus Puzzle. Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ?: Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus," Canadian Humanist Publications, (1999). Read reviews or order this book safely from Amazon.com online book store.


http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm



*****

Whether considered as the God made human, or as man made divine, this character never existed as a person.

-Gerald Massey, Egyptologist and historical scholar (Gerald Massey's Lectures: Gnostic and Historic Christianity, 1900)


******

Some hoped to penetrate the various accounts and to discover the "historical Jesus". . . and that sorting out "authentic" material in the gospels was virtually impossible in the absence of independent evidence." -Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University


We can recreate dimensions of the world in which he lived, but outside of the Christian scriptures, we cannot locate him historically within that world. -Gerald A. Larue (The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read)


What one believes and what one can demonstrate historically are usually two different things.
-Robert J. Miller, Bible scholar, (Bible Review, December 1993, Vol. IX, Number 6, p. 9)


When it comes to the historical question about the Gospels, I adopt a mediating position-- that is, these are religious records, close to the sources, but they are not in accordance with modern historiographic requirements or professional standards. -David Noel Freedman, Bible scholar and general editor of the Anchor Bible series (Bible Review, December 1993, Vol. IX, Number 6, p.34)



Even if there was a historical Jesus lying back of the gospel Christ, he can never be recovered. If there ever was a historical Jesus, there isn't one any more. All attempts to recover him turn out to be just modern remythologizings of Jesus. Every "historical Jesus" is a Christ of faith, of somebody's faith. So the "historical Jesus" of modern scholarship is no less a fiction. -Robert M. Price, "Jesus: Fact or Fiction, A Dialogue With Dr. Robert Price and Rev. John Rankin," Opening Statement

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[truebrit71]

91. Or you could just provide proof that Jesus existed.

Thanks!

[mzteris]

93. excuse me -

I didn't know you were the scholar police....

And while WIKI has references to scholary sources, fyi.... I did not use them as a reference. I'm not sure where you're getting that. That they may have also used some of the same things I quoted is evidence of the wide-spread nature of the information.

"NO ONE" supports Price or . . . well - no one YOU know, I'm sure.

And the other half dozen or so listed? What's their problem? (I'm sure there must be some if they disagree with your stance.)

BTW - What ARE your credentials again?

And, I think we're all still awaiting YOUR references.

[cgrindley]

98. Yes I am Scholar Police

I'm wearing my badge right now as a matter of fact. And you're under arrest for failure to listen to reason.

[truebrit71]

101. And you have been proven to be incapable of backing up anything you say..

...thanks, I'll learn to ignore your "scholarly" posts in the future...

[cgrindley]

114. Why do you keep saying that?

I nailed your argument into a pine box and buried it at sea.

I gave you a bunch of ancient pagan sources that mention Jesus as a historical figure. I also referred you to the Gnostic Gospels, the Old Testament, and I could add the Babylonian Talmud to that. I could also point out that no contemporaneous source ever seriously doubted the temporal existence of Jesus. And I did point out that no rational scholar has ever doubted the historicity of Jesus, that the irrational people who have doubted it, have either recanted or been utterly discredited. I also pointed out that no one has published *anything* in a reputable source doubting Jesus's historical existence for like 35 years. What the hell else am I supposed to do? I have checked all the relevant academic databases. Nothing. But what do you want me to do? Build a time machine and give you a video?

PS the website you quoted, www.religioustolerance.org is utterly without any conceivable value in an academic argument. Worthless. Without value. Written by dim laypeople. Lacking in credentials.

Just admit you are wrong.

[truebrit71]

120. When did I quote a website?

Another factual inaccuracy on your part, or an admission that you are wrong...again...

[cgrindley]

131. my bad

that was mzteris or whatever. You, on the other hand, have added nothing at all to the discussion to repeat "show me proof". It's ridiculous and pointless.

[mzteris]

133. or whatever. lol

Religioutolerance may not be "reputable" - but how about the references THEY quoted.

You pooh-poohed some people you apparently don't like for some reason and ignored the other 24 references. (Ok - maybe not 24 - I dunno but there were quite a FEW more peoples referenced.)

[cgrindley]

139. I explained this once already

Wells recanted. Miller uses Wells 50% of the time. The others are dwarves, trolls, faeries, furries, dwaggins and otherkin. No one in the academic world holds this position. It's actually widely considered to be unworthy of refutation. It's that bad. Really.

[mzteris]

149. ROFLMAO n/t

[Joanne98]

182. You must be an authoritarian type. Like in John Dean's book.

[truebrit71]

141. Show me the post where I directly quoted a website...

Thanks!

Then, after you can't be sure to acknowledge your factual inaccuracy.

[cgrindley]

145. You didn't

that other poster did. You, on the other hand, haven't refuted anything, nor have you even defined what you mean by "proof". Arguing with you is like repeatedly slamming a door.

[truebrit71]

151. I didn't. So that would mean you are wrong. Right?

It's okay professor, everyone saw it, it's okay to admit you were wrong...go ahead, the ego deflation might help with increasing your civility skills.....

[cgrindley]

156. Not even close

I actually thought that you made an argument. You didn't make an argument. You have yet to make one. You just keep saying "concrete proof" over and over again, without even explaining or defining what you mean by "concrete proof". It doesn't make sense.

[Zodiak]

121. dim laypeople

Please tell me that my life in academia will never make me so shallow as to utter this uncaring, elitist phrase.

[cgrindley]

135. So what should I do?

I'm not about to acknowledge the validity of an opinion that is simply put not valid. That'd be like a mathematician agreeing to disagree with a non-mathematician over the value of pi. If a person is going to hold a position that is simply illogical, then why shouldn't they be called on it? Not all opinions are valid and you know it.

[JuniperLea]

146. One man's logic is another man's folly

The thought that the Earth was round was once considered not only illogical, but saying it out loud was punishable by death.

[cgrindley]

155. No it wasn't...

What the heck? We have been able to prove that the earth was spherical since Eratosthenes in the third century BC. Isidore, Bede, Aquinas, Dante, Boethius, Aristotle, Pythagoras etc. Even Augustine didn't deny it.

I think that you got this from School House Rock's version of Columbus, which comes from Washington Irving (I think).

[JuniperLea]

160. Tell it to Copernicus...

Don't assume where I get my information... you know what they say about assumptions.

[cgrindley]

164. I asked Copernicus... he laughed until he snorted milk out his nose

Copernicus died of old age in 1543. He was never punished or threatened for anything by anyone. Matter of fact, a Cardinal once wrote to Copernicus asking him to hurry up and publish his findings.

[Joanne98]

184. How old are you?

[onenote]

180. saying the world is flat today isn't punishable by death, but its wrong

so exactly what is your point. Not all opinions are equally valid, unless you want to take the position that those who still believe the earth is flat have a "valid" opinion.

[JuniperLea]

189. I'm sorry, you misunderstood

I said, "The thought that the Earth was round WAS ONCE considered not only illogical, but saying it out loud was punishable by death."

The difference here being that we know without question that the Earth is round, unlike the days of yore when a person would be thought a raving loon if there were to suggest such a thing.

No, not all opinions are valid, but people have the right to their opinions regardless.

To date, there are many things that have not been proved within reason; they remain theory at best. To claim another person is an idiot based on an opinion that goes against a theory one holds is, well, idiotic.

[cgrindley]

196. But you're wrong

You wrote:

I said, "The thought that the Earth was round WAS ONCE considered not only illogical, but saying it out loud was punishable by death."

The difference here being that we know without question that the Earth is round, unlike the days of yore when a person would be thought a raving loon if there were to suggest such a thing.

No, not all opinions are valid, but people have the right to their opinions regardless.



But you're wrong. No one was ever considered to be a loon for thinking that the earth was round. No one was ever punished for thinking that the earth was round. No one. Since 240 BC, we've been able to prove and haven proven repeatedly to within 2% of its actual size, the circumference of the earth. Everyone from Aquinas to Dante to Boethius etc *knew* the earth was round. The idea that people in the past somehow thought that the world was flat is a nineteenth century distortion (and a feature of a school house rock episode on Columbus).

[mzteris]

198. you have a curious view of history

**A committee of consultants declared to the Inquisition that the Copernican proposition that the Sun is the center of the universe was a heresy. Because Galileo supported the Copernican system, he was warned by Cardinal Bellarmine, under order of Pope Paul V, that he should not discuss or defend Copernican theories. In 1624, Galileo was assured by Pope Urban VIII that he could write about Copernican theory as long as he treated it as a mathematical proposition. However, with the printing of Galileo's book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Galileo was called to Rome in 1633 to face the Inquisition again. Galileo was found guilty of heresy for his Dialogue, and was sent to his home near Florence where he was to be under house arrest for the remainder of his life. In 1638, the Inquisition allowed Galileo to move to his home in Florence, so that he could be closer to his doctors. By that time he was totally blind. In 1642, Galileo died at his home outside Florence. **

http://galileo.rice.edu/bio/narrative_7.html

[cgrindley]

216. Are you doing this on purpose?

1. Galileo is NOT Copernicus

2. the geocentric model of the cosmos and the heliocentric model of the solar system have NOTHING to do with a FLAT EARTH

Your posts were specifically about Copernicus and flat earth theory.

[mzteris]

220. and you are completely confused

I didn't say anything about Copernicus and "flat earth".

[cgrindley]

221. Is this an Ator?

I didn't even reply to you, if you follow the thread, I replied to juniperwhatever.

[mzteris]

222. check msg #

cgrindley (112 posts) Thu Jul-20-06 07:30 AM Response to Reply #198

216. Are you doing this on purpose?

[Zodiak]

163. What should you do? You should be nice (and professional).

If you are an academic, then you do not do your field any kind of credit by using your non-laymanship as a mallet to hit others over the head.

Calling an opinion invalid is very different than referring to those outside of your field as "dim laypeople." Stick with non-derogatory statements, and also stick with the argument at hand. I did not question the "rightness" of you calling an opinion invalid, so do not set up strawmen, please.

And if you are not an academic, then you should not be using that term at all.

Just some advice. Take it or leave it.

[cgrindley]

169. You're right

I'll show more decorum.

It's just that I'm arguing with people who think that pi = 17.2 and they're demanding that I produce the names and addresses of everyone who specifically denies that pi = 17.2. It's an absurd Alice-in-Wonderland argument that is absolutely beyond baffling and impervious to reasoned debate, scholarly evidence, or logic.

[mzteris]

193. well - there are academics

and there are academics.

And just because one may be an academic, doesn't necessarily mean that A) one is an academic in the field being discussed; or B) is competent.

There are plenty of "academics" who teach at Bob Jones and Liberty University, but I'm not about to take much of anything they say at face value, either.

[mzteris]

123. I'd like to see your

credentials, please.

[datasuspect]

128. the posts speak for themselves

pretty apparent, actually.

that is, credentials? maybe a "101st fighting keyboardist" merit badge.
but actual academic credentials? not so much.

[mzteris]

132. Not in the way you seem to think.

Anyone can CLAIM to be anything on the net these days so I suppose you could make up anything you wanted to.

Around here, though, we tend to take people at their word until proven otherwise.

Why are you so reluctant to say you hold XYZ degree in such a such a study, etc. . .

Unless this "but actual academic credentials? not so much" means you don't have them?

Which in itself doesn't really mean much either - other than the fact that I seem to remember (and I'll double check) you're holding yourself out as some sort of "expert" making mock of those whom you think are *not*.

[datasuspect]

134. actually i agree with you

and less with the bombast from the other interlocutor.

won't name names here.

on edit, there is more i'd LIKE to say, but i don't want to be outright hostile to that person.

i restrain myself way too much around here.

[mzteris]

143. oops -

I thought I was talking to someone else. :blush:

[Freedom_Aflaim]

119. When you are dealing with anti-thiest

(as opposed to reasoable atheist/agnostics), you are wasting your time.

Anti-thiest are to Athiest as Fundamentalist are to Christians.

[coalition_unwilling]

129. Jesus of Nazareth actually lived. Whether he was resurrected after 3 days

is still open to debate :)

[mzteris]

130. some scholars

have said that "Nazareth" was a mistranslation in itself. That it may have been Nazarite.

[coalition_unwilling]

140. It's not my area of expertise, but I do recall from a History of the

Bible class (secular-based) that the figure of Jesus actually earns mention in a couple of contemporaneous Roman sources, aka, "primary sources." I'll defer to you on question of Nazareth vs. Nazarite.

My point is that, just as Hitler actually lived, a person known in his time as Jesus of . . . actually lived also, if we can trust the Roman sources.

[mzteris]

148. define

*contemporaneous* (Roman sources)

There were NO contemporaneous references to Jesus. Most Roman sources came quite some time *after* Jesus' time. And many of those have proven to be ambiguous and/or suspect, at best by historical scholars.

[coalition_unwilling]

157. Oh, gosh, I attended college over 20 years ago, and I haven't

stayed up on the scholarship much. (My area of expertise was Modern European.) I recall that a couple Roman historians mention Jesus, but I don't remember now who they were or when their accounts were created.

I think you may actually be right about those Roman sources coming after Jesus' death (which technically would make them "secondary sources," I suppose). I did not think, however, that those sources had been ruled "suspect" and thought there was fairly wide-spread agreement among historians of the time that a historical figure named "Jesus" actually lived. But I just don't know enough on the subject and will defer to you.

[mzteris]

30. ummmmm.

"was a real historical figure"

There's no hard proof of that. In fact, most historians think "he" may be a construct of more than one person of the time.

[cgrindley]

46. That's a curious use of the word "most"

There are 1500 or so universities and colleges in the United States. If we assume that each school only has one resident historian, can you name 750 history PhDs who believe that Jesus was some sort of chimera of Gnostic philosophy and Egyptian mythology/Platonism? Do you even have any idea how many refereed articles on the historicity of Jesus have been published since say, 1975? Well, only 31. The majority of stuff published on the topic is mainstream stuff--worthless in the world of academia. Do you know how many serious academics have tried to argue such an indefensible point of view? Well, almost none. It's a minority opinion, even among Secular Humanists such as myself.

[cgrindley]

49. By the way

The current debate (albeit a slow and dull one stretching 31 articles from 1975 onwards) concerns whether or not:

1. the historical Jesus claimed to be the Jewish messiah
2. the historical Jesus forwarded any eschatology

and the debate also attempts to determine which features of Christianity are part of the philosophies of Jesus and which features are later add ons by his followers.

Books published by popular presses are not worth anything in the academy even if their authors are university professors. Books by lay people on such topics are without any value.

[mzteris]

55. how about *some*.....

and more all the time, from what I gather.

You certainly seem to be "pro-Jesus" for a non-believing Secularist. Heck, I'm nominally a Methodist and even I believe he's a construct.



edit changing OH to HOW in subject line. Brain's all fuzzy from migraines since Friday due to heat.

[cgrindley]

61. Why shouldn't I be pro-Jesus?

I'm in good company:

""How do humanists feel about Jesus? I say of Jesus, as all humanists do, 'If what he said is good, and so much of it is absolutely beautiful, what does it matter if he was God or not?

"But if Christ hadn't delivered the Sermon on the Mount, with its message of mercy and pity, I wouldn't want to be a human being.

"I'd just as soon be a rattlesnake."


That's Kurt Vonnegut, honorary president of the Secular Humanists. I guess I could also quote Eugene Debs for you, too. There's nothing wrong with being a pro-Jesus atheistic Socialist. Matter of fact, there's quite a tradition of it.


I don't believe in god. I certainly don't believe that Jesus was god. I don't even believe in the possibility of gods. Any of them. None of them exist.

[mzteris]

72. so you reject entirely that

Jesus may have been a construct? You think he was "a" guy - (seriously misunderstood and grossly distorted by Paul, and the ensuing "Catholic" church?)

[truebrit71]

77. Sure he does, he's already stated that "no-one doubts he ..."

....existed"....He just has a problem backing that up...

[cgrindley]

78. Yep

That's my position. Jesus was a guy, just like Buddha was a guy, just like Mohammed was a guy, just like FDR and Lincoln and Jefferson were guys. There's really nothing that suggests that he wasn't and there's a bunch of stuff that suggests he was. I don't see how it hurts to concede the obvious. You don't need to believe in some mythical god in order to think that Jesus had some good basic philosophies (and remember, I am not about to quote chapter or verse as there is a long distance from Q and the Sayings and the Passion narrative (all lost) to the historical figure. Anyone who quotes a Bible at anyone is only quoting a Bible and certainly not Jesus. The base philosophies are the important parts... love your neighbor as yourself, forgive your enemies, care for the sick and so on. That's the good stuff.

[JuniperLea]

117. There is zero historical evidence that Jesus lived n/t

[Zodiak]

124. From what I understand, that is not true

There is evidence, but the validity of the evidence is up for reasonable debate. I am afraid this issue will never get resolved unless Jesus descends from heaven and tell us all that he does, indeed, exist. Failing that, we will be debating this issue for centuries (or longer).

Perhaps you should have said "there is zero concrete historical evidence...", which is true.

I know, I'm being a nit-picker. I apologize that my nitpick urge landed on your post. (seriously, I don't want to get your hackles up)

[JuniperLea]

144. Ok, zero concrete, irrefutable historical evidence

That's what I meant... no hackles needed:)

[cgrindley]

147. Define what you mean by concrete and irrefutable

It's not a great set of words to use when one is discussing any historical event. There is NOTHING concrete and irrefutable in the field. For all intents and purposes, we can't prove that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare's plays, but HE DID. According to Descartes, you can't even prove you're a breathing bag of blood and flesh. And so on.

With Jesus--and I'm not even religious--we have Seutonius, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Josephus, the Babylonian Talmud, the Gnostic Gospels, the Christian New Testament, the historical and early lack of incredulity and so on. No one's saying he walked on water, or was the son of god (who doesn't exist at all), but people do say that we have a historical figure who lived and breathed.

The idea that there wasn't a historical Jesus, that Jesus is some composite figure made out of Roman/Gnostic and Egyptian philosophies is so far off of the mainstream as to be laughable. It's the theological equivalent of a 9/11 conspiracy or Holocaust Denial. In academic circles, it isn't even worthy of response.

[JuniperLea]

159. Gee, you sure hold yourself above a hell of a lot of experts

Show me one "academic circle" that supports what you say... I see others have already posted much evidence that pretty much negates all that you've said here.

Oh, and there has been discussion as to whether or not Shakespeare wrote all those plays.

Why do you bring up walking on water? If it were ever to be proved he existed, I don't think it a far stretch that the possibility exists that he did walk on water.

[cgrindley]

162. What are you talking about

I've already demonstrated that the standard scholarly databases of refereed journal articles fails to turn up a single article on the subject since 1978. I've already dismissed the mythical Jesus argument as having no support among real acadmics. The circle that I would bring to the debate would include every single historian of note other than the handful of elves mentioned by the mythical Jesus people.

No one has posted any evidence--not even one post--dismissing Seutonius, Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny, the Babylonian Talmud, the New Testament, the Gnostic Gospels and so on. Not one post. No argument at all. Nothing. Nada.

Anyone who believes that Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare's plays is an idiot. That's akin to being a Flat Earther or a Moon Landing Conspiracy Theorist. It's crazy. It's irrational.

Your final point makes no sense. The argument we are having revolves around the historicity of Jesus, not his divinity. The discussion centers on whether or not a historical figure lived and died. Obviously, he didn't do any miracles, because miracles don't exist.

[JuniperLea]

167. Idiots, huh?

Ok then...

*slowly and carefully walks away, backwards*

[Zodiak]

168. A breakdown.

I've already demonstrated that the standard scholarly databases of refereed journal articles fails to turn up a single article on the subject since 1978.

(no, you asserted it)



I've already dismissed the mythical Jesus argument as having no support among real acadmics.

(you asserted it)

The circle that I would bring to the debate would include every single historian of note other than the handful of elves mentioned by the mythical Jesus people.

(elves? does this argument bolster your position?)

No one has posted any evidence--not even one post--dismissing Seutonius, Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny, the Babylonian Talmud, the New Testament, the Gnostic Gospels and so on. Not one post. No argument at all. Nothing. Nada.

(Talmuds, Testaments, and Gospels are hardly "the historical record"..I guess that is an argument.)

Anyone who believes that Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare's plays is an idiot. That's akin to being a Flat Earther or a Moon Landing Conspiracy Theorist. It's crazy. It's irrational.

(assertions once again. All opinion)

Obviously, he didn't do any miracles, because miracles don't exist.

(again, an assertion, and an opinion.)

The purpose of this exercise was simply to show how empty your arguments are. If you want a meatier way to debate, go short on the opinions, assertions, and ridicule and go large on the facts, links, and moderation of tone.

[JuniperLea]

171. Nicely done n/t

[cgrindley]

172. Why are you patting his back, he didn't do anything

1. There are no scholarly articles arguing for a non-historicity of Jesus on the standard search engines. there are 81 articles catalogued by Wilson's Humanities Index and 38 catalogued by EBSCO. None deal with the subject. Do the search yourself. Read the abstracts.

2. The collective accounts of Seutonius, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger and Josephus, not to mention the accounts in the New Testament itself, the Babylonian Talmud and the Gnostic Gospels provide more than enough historical record--historical records are, by the way, old texts, nothing more--to demonstrate that there was a historical figure who we now as Jesus.

3. It really *is* idiocy to doubt the authorship of Shakespeare's plays. This isn't my opinion, it's fact.

4. The "scholars" cited as proponents of the mythical Jesus hypothesis are not great scholars--one really did recant his views and one based half of his research on the dude who recanted. The other figures mentioned really are minor.

5. This is the historical equivalent of arguing that pi = 87.23. It just doesn't. Get used to it.

I don't want to have this ridiculous argument any more.

Keep in mind, people, this isn't an argument over the existence of a god. Everyone in this little spat are atheists. This argument is over whether or not there was a historical figure we know as Jesus.

[JuniperLea]

173. Opine away

You have no facts.

[Zodiak]

177. You're right...I didn't do anything

I suspect that beneath all of the bluster that you do have something to say. I just want you to be heard. That last post was much better.

In response:

1. I am uncomfortable with counting references as a form of argumentation. Ann Coulter does that. I would also ask if EBSCO and Wilsons' contains all of the references in Archaeological, Anthropological, and Theological scholarly texts,as well. Just asking because I do not know reference databases outside of my field.

2. The religious books were not meant to be a historical text from the beginning. They are prone to far more exaggeration than let's say...a census. As far as Josephus and the others you cite, I do not know of these writings, so I cannot judge. All I have is the juxtaposition of these writings with religious texts, which as stated, I do not take as a historical record (admittedly by my own criteria).

3. No, it is not, even if you say it REALLY convincingly. "Idiocy" is always intangible and varible in requirement, unless you mean the old definitions of the term which have to do with genetic defects (which is doubtful).

4. You just cannot make these judgements without something to back it up. How is "great" defined? How is minor defined?

5. Why? Asserting it once again doesn't make it so. Surely you must admit that math is a far more hard science than history.

Once again, I am not doing anything. I freely admit I have no dog in this race. I happen to know that Roman records from the time do mention a Jesus of Nazereth (recollected form an article I read some time ago), so I suppose that a histical Jesus can be argued from tha fact alone. However, how does one define whether or not it is enough Jesus to be considered THE Jesus, I cannot know. Did he start an insurrection? Did he preach these teachings? Did he hang out with Mary Magdelane Was he crucified?

If he did all of these things, then yes, I suppose there would be a historical Jesus. But if this was some guy who had two daughters and herded sheep, then I would say no, this is not the "historical" Jesus. I honestly do not know the answer to this question.

This whole conversation would be far more enlightening if this kind of evidence were used.

[datasuspect]

213. no, you got spanked

pretty damn funny.

[cgrindley]

217. If by spanked you mean

won the argument defeating people who are apparently impervious to reason and unable to muster together enough mental horsepower to understand simple concepts, then I suppose you're right.

[datasuspect]

219. GAWD

george bush school of reality tip no. 1: keep repeating the same nonsense over and over and it will be true.

[RaleighNCDUer]

226. Support your position.

1. got links?

2. Every one of these was written at least a generation after the third decade of that century. Josephus and Pliny the Younger were born the year the supposedly historical Jesus died. Nobody, including Tacitus and Seutonius, wrote anything about the Christians until the time of the jewish rebellion @ 70AD. Even the Gnostic Gospels which porport to be contemperaneous are 3rd century copies - there is no way to authenticate them. The New Testament books are known to have been written between 40 year and 140 years after the supposedly historical Jesus died, and they are hardly unbiased sources in any case. I admit i don't know about the Talmud, but since there were 2-bit messiahs popping up all over the place at that time it would be surprising if there was no mention of a hereitc Yesua who was stirring up the masses -- in fact, those reference could apply equally to this 'Jesus', or to 'John the Baptist', who might have been another Essenne radical (if not the same one). It would be like saying "And in 1940, a man named Smith came out of Oklahoma, preaching the word of the Lord." No kidding.

3. At least 2 of Shakespeare's plays are questionable, at least in part. Not that it has anything to do with this.

4. You are the only one fixated on these 'disproved' scholars. I didn't see anyone else mention them.

5. I suppose you know how to calculate pi, so i won't bother with this one.

You've made unsupportable arguements that "nobody believes he didn't exist", which were immediately disproved by many of us saying "I don't believe". There would be no arguement here if you had only said "almost" nobody.

A light touch goes a long way.

[mzteris]

227. in re: Talmud

see my post (just next after yours or this link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1672295&mesg_id=1678252 )

that has info about that topic.

Note lack of response to said post. :P


edit typo

[RaleighNCDUer]

230. Yeah, I noticed.

BTW, I also noticed that Pliny the Younger was born in 62CE, not 32CE - I must have misread my reference. Thanks - that puts him even further away from the scene of the crime.

[mzteris]

197. you did?

**I've already demonstrated that the standard scholarly databases of refereed journal articles fails to turn up a single article on the subject since 1978.**

Where, how, exactly. Give us the details.

**The circle that I would bring to the debate**

What circle? Who are these round people? What are THEIR credentials. (Since you decline to offer yours.)

I thought it was fairly common knowledge that most of those "ROMAN experts" you're listing are at the very least questionable. NONE of them were contemporary of Jesus.

SEUTONIUS: refers to somone named Chrestus. Note the date.

"Seutonius was a court official and annalist under Hadrian around 120 A.D., who wrote:

"As the Jews were making constant disturbance at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome." Life of Claudius, 25.4"


TACITUS: mentions someone referred to as CHRISTOS - not JESUS. Note time period.

Cornelius Tacitus was a Roman Historian who lived c.55-A.D. c.117. He writes of "Christus" in his ANNALS Book XV, Chapter 44:

"Nero looked around for a scapegoat, and inflicted the most fiendish tortures on a group of persons already hated by the people for their crimes. This was the sect known as Christians. Their founder, one Christus, had been put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. This checked the abominable superstition for a while, but it broke out again and spread, not merely through Judea, where it originated, but even to Rome itself, the great reservoir and collecting ground for every kind of depravity and filth. Those who confessed to being Christians were at once arrested, but on their testimony a great crowd of people were convicted, not so much on the charge of arson, but of hatred of the entire human race."


JOSEPHUS: born 37 C.E.; wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after first gospels written. Hardly an "eyewitness", either. His Tesimonium Flavianum is pretty well considered to have been "tampered with"

"Many Biblical scholars reject the entire Testimonium Flavianum as a later Christian insertion. However, some maintain that Josephus's work originally did refer to Jesus, but that Christian copyists later expanded and made the text more favorable to Jesus.

For further info on Josephus, please see: Bruce, F. F. Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament. Eerdmans, 1974. Charlesworth, James H. Jesus Within Judaism. Doubleday (Anchor Books) 1988. France, Richard T. The Evidence for Jesus. Intervarsity Press, 1986.


"Was Josephus always correct? Certainly not. His inaccuracies range from vagueness to blatant exaggeration. Shaye Cohen accuses him of "inveterate sloppiness".19 The index to Cohen's book goes so far as actually to include entries for "exaggeration", "inconsistency and sloppiness" and "corrupt transmission of names and numbers".20 Indeed, even if it is accepted that copyists were responsible for not a few of his mistakes (some of which have been hinted at already), it still cannot be denied that he was by nature somewhat negligent.21 The list of scholars who have deprecated his errors is long22 but suffice it to mention here the accusations of two eminent archaeologists alone, since archaeology is the central theme of the present discussion. Albright remarks on "how inaccurate Josephus generally was in details . . ."23 Vincent goes even further. "Il serait superflu", he maintains, "d'accentuer de nouveau la futilite de toute evaluation fondee sur les chiffres de Josephe."24 However, a remark on the previous page, to the effect that a particular item of information is an "excellente approsimation",25 reflects the reaction typical of scholars investigating Josephus' data."


PLINY: born 62 C.E.; based his writing on letters from early Christians. There were Christians, yes, but still no eye-witness "testimony" to the existence of one Jesus.


BABYLONIAN TALMUD: "references to Yashua" Baraitha Bab. Sanhedrin 43a, were probably written in the second century. (Note date.) & what was written:

(Yeah - this IS from WIKI:) "Despite the numerous mentions of Edom which may refer to Christendom, the Talmud makes little mention of Jesus directly or the early Christians. There are a number of quotes about individuals named Yeshu that once existed in editions of the Talmud; these quotes were long ago removed from the main text due to accusations that they referred to Jesus, and are no longer used in Talmud study. However, these removed quotes were preserved through rare printings of lists of errata, known as Hashmatot Hashass ("Omissions of the Talmud"). Some modern editions of the Talmud contain some or all of this material, either at the back of the book, in the margin, or in alternate print. These passages do not necessarily refer to a single individual and many of the stories are far removed from anything written in the New Testament. Many scholars are convinced that these people cannot be identified as the Christian Jesus."



NEW TESTAMENT: Oh good lord. (Pardon the pun.) These are totally riddled with insertions and changes and "manuscript copying errors" and translation "freedoms"..... NOT - not even CLOSE - to being a "reliable source!" Gimme a break.


GNOSTIC GOSPELS: um - WHEN were these written again??


****

You seem to confuse "commonly accepted" with proven fact. Or even demonstrably credible sources.

[Zodiak]

201. Thanks for the info

On the ancient scholars. The last two sources were obviously not historical, but religious texts.

Wasn't there a Roman record of a Jesus of Nazereth taken in a census? Something I read once. Still, it doesn't say one thing about his profession or whether he matches up to THE Jesus or not. Not everyone had a unique name.

[mzteris]

207. interesting info I found about "census"

(Personally making no claim as to veracity or the "credentials" of cited sites... lol)

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/maugcensus.html

http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/jesus/quirinius.htm

[LouisianaLiberal]

212. A good summary, but one point:

In their effort to make Jesus an historical figure, the early church fathers, Tertullian, Origen, Justin Martyr, et. al., would have shouted Tacitus's mention of Christ if it had been included in contemporary copies of Tacitus. They didn't. When Tacitus's Annals surfaced in Italy in the fourteenth century this fairly clumsy passage was included, and some scholars believe it was added at that time.

There's a lot more to the Pliny issue, but your point stands.

An excellent book to read is Early Documents of the Christian Church, which includes every extent mention of Jesus for the first few hundred years of the church. I'm going to find my copy tomorrow and reread about this issue.

It sounds as if the author to whom you responded is quoting from a book by Josh McDowell, who is not exactly an impartial scholar.

[mzteris]

223. I didn't go to too much

effort - as I figure Jesus Christ himself could descend from the clouds and tell him so and he'd not believe it. :rofl: (sorry, I just couldn't resist.)

The funny thing IS - I'm inclined to the theory that there probably was "a" guy or at least a more prominent guy - with *maybe* some minor guys thrown into the mix (you know how this story and that one get mixed up and then mushed together, embellished, changed, and exaggerated, etc....) but more than likely there was probably one guy in particular who was the guy they called "Jesus". (And then Paul did his thing and screwed up the whole message. But what do you expect from a guy who grew up with the legends of Tammuz and Mithras, eh?)

I just hate one-sided references and an "automatic dismissal" of anything that doesn't fit one's pet theory du jour.

Thanks for the reference to "Early Documents" - it sounds like it would be interesting reading. I'd like to try and find it - do you have the author/publisher/editor? There's a great used book store near here that used to be connected to the seminary so they have several thousand "religious reference books".

[LouisianaLiberal]

225. Found it.

I was wrong about the title - "Documents of the Christian Church", published by Oxford Univ Press. Selected and edited by Henry Bettenson. My copy is a 1978 reprint of the '63 edition. It was apparently originally published in the 1943 edition of "The World's Classics".

It is an amazing book - it contains original letters and writings that argue about how the church should be organized, about heresies, bulls, proofs, and on and on. Mine is paperback, about 350 pages. I hope you find it - I'm sure you will enjoy it.

[mzteris]

228. Thanks!

I'll look for it next visit to the bookstore.

[mzteris]

194. Criss Angel walked on water....... n/t

[Zodiak]

165. In science, we have the 95% confidence interval.

It is true that nothing is irrefutable, but surely historians have some kind of measure as to what is "significantly" concrete.

[mzteris]

199. It depends on the Historian, I think.

Who are you going to believe when you read about America's history?

David Barton (Wallbuilders) or Howard Zinn?


or some guy who isn't even an historian at all?

[magellan]

22. Let the Crusades begin in earnest!!

And let me know how it goes. I'll be watching "Life of Brian".

Reg: If you want to join the People's Front of Judea, you have to really hate the Romans.
Brian: I do!
Reg: Oh yeah, how much?
Brian: A lot!
Reg: Right, you're in.

[walldude]

100. I thought we were the Judean Peoples Front! n/t

[magellan]

170. Fuck off! We're the Peoples Front of Judea! (nt)

[Zodiak]

202. hmmph..

People's Front of Judea. (rolls eyes)

[lonestarnot]

25. Jesus wasn't born in Nazareth; He was born in Bethlehem.

He was a homeboy of Nazareth.

[sinkingfeeling]

27. Starting wars is not a good plan for historic preservation.

[MoseyWalker]

28. deep throat on MSNBC

just said birthplace again, and they mentioned that jesus' parents were likely from there also.

[WinkyDink]

29. Sacred sites are sacred sites. Any one person's individual beliefs

are completely irrelevant. Not being a Buddhist, I nonetheless was appalled at the destruction of that ancient large Buddha statue.

Oh, wait; That was perpetrated by Muslims, too, wasn't it? Kind of like the foiled attack on Strasbourg Cathedral and the suicide bombing of a Tunisian synagogue. I detect a motif.

[mzteris]

31. fundies are fundies

of whatever flavor.

[WinkyDink]

39. "Fundie" Jews aren't going AROUND THE WORLD destroying

deliberately the holy sites/relics of others.

[RaleighNCDUer]

47. Well, the Al Aqsa mosque is still standing -

despite at least two thwarted plots by jewish fundies to blow it up because it contaminates the Temple Mount, and the Great Temple cannot be rebuilt until it is gone.

Just waiting for some stray missle to accidentally knock it down.

[mzteris]

54. What are they doing?

"There are also a variety of Jewish fundamentalist groups that use violence in some cases and politics in other cases to push their religious agenda. Two extremist Israeli groups have used violence to pursue their goals of expanding Jewish rule across the West Bank in Israel and expelling the Palestinians. These groups are known as Kach, Hebrew for “only thus,” and Kahane Chai, “Kahane Lives.” These groups’ goals are to restore the biblical state of Israel. Both groups were declared terrorist organizations by the Israeli and United States governments.13 “Both groups grew out of the anti-Arab teaching of Rabbi Meir Kahane, an American-born extremist who founded and led Kach until he was assassinated in New York in 1990.”14 These groups have used terrorist attacks to accomplish their mission. In February of 1994 a Brooklyn, New York born doctor and Kach supporter opened fire with a machine gun inside a mosque in Hebron, Israel killing 29 people and wounding dozens.15

Rabbi Meir Kahane established the Jewish Defense League (JDL) in 1968 “for the declared purpose of protecting Jews by whatever means necessary.”16 JDL is still in existence today and has used violence since its establishment. Its followers have conducted numerous bombings, takeovers and other forms of harassment against mosques, Arabs and Arab sympathizers, all of which were conducted in the United States. Recently in December of 2001, two JDL leaders in California were charged with planning bomb attacks on a mosque, a Muslim advocacy organization and the offices of an Arab-American congressman.17 There are many other forms of fundamentalism in Israel also. Irving Moskowitz, a Miami-based millionaire helped finance the move of 11 Jewish settlers into an 11,000-member Arab district to prevent it from being turned over to Palestinian rule in a final peace settlement.18 The belief that those lands are rightfully the lands of the Jewish people leads to actions like this one. " http://gbgm-umc.org/global_news/full_article.cfm?articleid=2191

(FYI - they go on to delineate the Muslim extremist groups, too - but you seem to already know about those....)



********


". . . In 1994, Baruch Goldstein, armed with an assault rifle, stormed a mosque in Hebron, killing 29 Muslim worshippers and wounded 150. Goldstein, a member of terrorist Kach movement, was beaten to death, but was hailed as a martyr by militant Zionists. This was not an isolated act. Yigal Amir later assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin in an effort to thwart the peace process. Fundamentalist Jews continue to oppose the peace process that could result in their being expelled from their illegal settlements in the West Bank and Gaza.

. . .

Religious fundamentalists are united by fear. Whether they are Christian, Muslim, or Jew, fear is the common denominator. They fear change, modernization and loss of influence. They fear that the young will abandon the churches, mosques and synagogues for physical and material gratification. They fear the influence of mass media and its ability to subvert the young with song, dance, fashion, alcohol, drugs, sex and freedom. They especially fear education if it undermines the teachings of their religion. They fear a future they can’t control, or even comprehend. . . .According to their interpretation of the Torah, Jewish Fundamentalists, the Jews are the chosen people, a special group, selected by God. Aviner argues that divine commandments to the Jewish people "transcend human notions of national rights." He explains that while God requires other, normal nations to abide by abstract codes of "justice and righteousness," such laws do not apply to Jews.

The Jews were granted unalienable rights to the entire Land of Israel. The Palestinians have absolutely no legitimate claim to nationhood or to any part of the country. They have experienced no real suffering, and have drawn together as an entity only out of opposition to the Jews. Theirs is a "suicidal" struggle for the elimination of the state and people of Israel. As such, Israel must recognize the Palestinians as the most destructive and dangerous emanation of Arab hostility, and stand ready to destroy them as they seek to fulfill their collective "death wish." 13 Their belief is that the Palestinians, or Canaanites have three choices: flee, accept Jewish rule, or fight.

http://www.flashpoints.info/issue_briefings/Analysis%20&%20Commentary/Analysis-Religion_main.htm


*****

Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel by Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky

". . . Jewish opposition in Israel to Jewish fundamentalism greatly increased after a Jewish, fundamentalist, religious fanatic, Yigal Amir, who insisted that he was acting in accordance with dictates in Judaism, shot and killed Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. That numerous groups of religious Jews after the assassination supported this murder in the name of the "true" Jewish religion aroused interest in Israel in past killings by Jews of other Jews who were alleged to be heretics or sinners. In our book we cite present and past investigations by Israeli scholars documenting that for centuries prior to the rise of the modern nation state, Jews, believing they were acting in accordance with God's word and thus preparing themselves for eternal paradise, punished or killed heretics and/or religious sinners. Contemporary Jewish fundamentalism is an attempt to revive a situation that often existed in Jewish communities before the influence of modernity. The basic principles of Jewish fundamentalism are the same as those found in other religions: restoration and survival of the "pure" and pious religious community that presumably existed in the past.

. . .This is a political book about Jewish fundamentalism in Israel. It includes some original scholarly research but is based to a great extent upon the scholarly research of others. Hopefully, this book is analytical." http://www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/jewish_fundamentalism.html

*****

Oread Daily: Fundamentalist Jew Attacks Gay Pride Marchers in Jerusalem
Friday, July 01 2005 @ 10:54 AM PDT
Contributed by: Oread Daily
Views: 170
The call it The City of Peace. They call it The Holy City. Well, you’d never guess it by what goes down there.

An Ultra-Orthodox (read fundamentalist) Jewish man stabbed three participants in a gay pride parade in Jerusalem yesterday. Two men and one woman were attacked by the man who ran into the midst of the parade.


*******

[mzteris]

69. found this site

that might be of interest.....

http://www.templemountfaithful.org/obj.htm


Personal question: Do you believe GOD gave land to any one in particular?

[DanCa]

35. If the sites are so sacred why hasn't our Christian President

Done anything about this situation. I am laughing at the hypocrisy of this situation. I deplore any loss of life or property destruction

[WinkyDink]

40. Because he's a moron? Just guessing, here.

[DanCa]

41. Lol right on target :D

:hug: Don't let this thread get to you. People are blowing off steam. It's better than blowing up building.

[ikri]

32. I bet

That they didn't give a shit when the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem was under Israeli siege for 5 weeks back in 2002.

[WinkyDink]

37. It was TAKEN HOSTAGE by MUSLIMS.

"Taking clergy hostage at gunpoint in a church is a war crime and violation of international law. This is exactly what Palestinian terrorists have done at the Church of Nativity in Bethlehem, one of Christianity's holiest sites. Over 50 gunmen took 200 hostages and locked them up, half-starving, in the sprawling church complex. Instead of decrying this act of barbarity, church representatives and spokesmen from a number of foreign ministries around the world blamed Israel.
On April 2, leaders of Palestinian terrorist organizations, which are on the U.S. Department of State "wanted" list, fought their way into the Church of the Nativity. Hamas leaders include Ibrahim Abayat, a senior operative and recruiter; Aziz Jubran, a notorious bomb builder; and Jihad Jaara, a weapons dealer. All of these terrorists have murdered innocent civilians."
http://christianactionforisrael.org/isreport/apr02/nativity.html

[ikri]

82. A slightly biased report?

Try A view from inside the church (Your browser might corrupt the link, if it does try this one instead http://tinyurl.com/s3u62)

Or Another insider's view

You might find out why the people inside were "half-starving".

**edit** problematic link

[WinkyDink]

224. Why were Muslims inside in the first place?

Or are pro-Muslim reports UNbiased?

[Javaman]

36. Jesus was the first homie...

So I guess they had to change it to hometown because, honestly, does anyone know where that manger really existed?

I would so love to go on that tour...

guide: this is the birthplace of our lord and savior jesus christ...

me: it's a barn.

guide: pardon me? this is the birth place of christ!

me: actually, it's not even a barn, it's just a pile of hay with some rotting timbers overhead...

guide: who are you!!! how did you get on this tour!!!

me: I paid my 15 bucks, which by the way is a complete rip off...

guide: get out of here!!

me: will I get my money back? or do you actually give it to the poor? That's a pretty snazzy tour guide jacket your wearing there! what did that run you? 60...70 bucks?

guide: guards!! get this heathen out of here!!

me: a pile of twigs for 15 bucks!! a pile of twigs for 15 bucks!!

[Botany]

38. Good thing that the J man was @ his Dad's house at the time

Then damn brown people trying to kill our God.

WW III hype

[Gormy Cuss]

43. There goes the manger. n/t

[dogday]

45. Looked like it hit the Mazda dealership

not the manger.... :shrug:

[xultar]

52. Well. I have owned a Mazda. I say Good Fuckin Aim!

[WinkyDink]

60. The car WAS named after the Persian deity........

[leftofthedial]

50. yeah. he played on the football team

and worked down at the malt shop

[obreaslan]

51. THIS JUST IN: TOOTH-FAIRY SHOT DOWN OVER EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN...

FILM AT 11:00.

:)

[ProfessorGAC]

53. Prove It!

That's all i'm asking MSNBC to do. Prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
The Professor

[Clark2008]

57. Bethlehem is controlled by Palestinians - not Israelis.

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/media/storage/paper410/news/2003/07/01/WorldNation/Israel.Agrees.To.Turn.Over.Bethlehem-493042.shtml?norewrite200607191155&sourcedomain=www.dailytexanonline.com

But, of course, The Sheeple don't know this.

Edited to add: I posted this before I read the story. So it hit Nazareth, not Bethlehem. When I saw "Jesus' birthplace, I automatically assumed Bethlehem. I should have know that if it was in the corporate media, there was a chance it wasn't correct. :eyes:

[Recursion]

154. It surprised me too

Because Bethlehem is way the hell to the south, and controlled by the PA.

[Rosemary2205]

58. This kind of thread makes me want to leave DU.

Any mention of Christianity sends too many DUers into wingnut territory. IMHO. I find that whole attitude that all US Christians are fundies to be offensive. I find the whole attitude that all US Christians are dangerous warmongering hateful jerks to be offensive. Actually, all those broad brush statements are beneath progressives - IMHO.

Funny, when it comes to Islam, I'm betting the same folks bend over backward to make a distinction between Islamic terrorists and Islam in general. Yet Christianity is not afforded the same?


And add to that -- I don't know how much MSNBC changed the story, but IMHO only a jackass would read that story and claim MSNBC is trying to whip up Bush's 30%.

[truebrit71]

64. I'm the "jackass" that initially read the story...

..and I firmly believe that the ONLY reason they threw the name of a mythical historical/religious figure and his alleged link to that area was SPECIFICALLY meant to inflame the 30% of the chimperor's base.

No-one said that all US Christians are fundies, methinks you need to back-off the persecution dial a little....

[Clark2008]

70. But you COULD be a bit less trite.

Jesus is NOT mythical to more people than think he is mythical.

Even Muslims believe Jesus walked the earth.

Therefore, you should, out of tolerance for those of us who aren't fundie-nut Christians, say "they threw in a name of an historical/religious figure...". Leave the mythical part out.

Liberalism should equal tolerence, lest we sound like the fundie nuts who have none.

[truebrit71]

74. Screw tolerance. Tolerance gave us Bush/The Iraq War/ Alito-Roberts

..the new bankruptcy law, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and the current Christo-Fascists running this country into the abyss...

Screw Tolerance....

[Bake]

95. Wrong, "tolerance" didn't give us those things

The Pukes who control all three branches of government gave us those things. A little "tolerance" for people who may have different beliefs than yours, but who are still on the same side politically, IS in order.

This exact scenario plays out all too often on DU. ANY reference to Christianity, or to religion, brings out someone who immediately hijacks the thread, usually with inflammatory references such as "Imaginary Cloud Being" (although in fairness you haven't done THAT - yet). We DUers who follow the teachings of Jesus tolerate YOU and do not denigrate YOU, so why don't you extend to us the same courtesy?

It must be great to be so superior. You wear it well.

Bake

[cgrindley]

96. The crazy thing I don't get

Is that all sorts of poorly educated buffoons are attempting to argue "non-existent cloud being" even with people like me, and I'm a first rate atheist. It's beyond nuts and it really reflects poorly on some pretty core values that all of us should embrace. It makes us all look bad.

[truebrit71]

99. Then just back up your assertions and we'll be so much better off...

:eyes:

I'm poorly educated? According to whom, YOU? :puke:

[Bake]

105. I think you made your point.

Even those of us with theological education recognize there is scant (not "no" but "scant") historical record for the life of Jesus. We also recognize that the Gospels do not purport to be "historical" records per se.

So you made your point, and now you just want to be argumentative. That's really productive, and will win you lots of points.

Bake

[truebrit71]

106. I am not being argumentative, just pointing out to a newbie..

..that if you are going to assert something as all encompassing as that which was been made here, that you had bloody well better be ready to back it up....

[cgrindley]

118. Dude, I killed your argument

I drove a stake through its heart, cut off its head and buried the damn thing at the local crossroads. It's over. It's done. It's not about to come back. In a thousand years, no one's even going to find bones.

The claim was: there was a historical man we know today as Jesus. (ps not the son of god as god does not exist)

Proof: well, nothing in the realm of history really can be "proven" in the sort of lame ass mathematical way you want, but I'll give you Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, the Gnostics, the New Testament and the Bablyonian Talmud among a host of other things. If you don't want to buy it, that's fine, but pretty much every single "educated" person does buy it. Everyone you tried to cite through some idiotic website doesn't really have the respect of anyone (a lot of whome are, like me, pretty hard core atheists).

And at what university precisely, have *you* taught theology?

[truebrit71]

126. There is NO proof that he existed. Simply stories and fables...

..passed down from one generation to another....Pretty much every "educated" person buys the fact that Christians "BELIEVE" that He existed, that is NOT the same thing as saying that they then also agree to that fact and go around and state that He was in fact real...I have cited no website (idiotic or otherwise)...you must be getting confused from all of your exertions murdering words and then burying them....:eyes:

[bloom]

137. You know - I don't care what you believe or not

but your remarks - including, "all sorts of poorly educated buffoons" - just make you sound like an asshole.

If you are an atheist - you are making atheists look bad. If you are a Christian - you are just ridiculous. If anyone is beyond nuts - it's you.

If you have any core values - they are not being expressed through your blatant arrogance.

[DURHAM D]

178. Thanks for your post - couldn't agree more. I was reading

through all his arrogant tripe and forming a response - you wrote it for me. Thanks again.

[truebrit71]

104. The Dems "tolerated" having 2 successive elections stolen..

..and "tolerated" having the Constitution and the Bill of Rights shredded right in front of them. They must have, afterall, if they didn't "tolerate" it they would have done something about it, they would have protested, they would have...oh, never mind, I'm talking about Democrats here...

BTW how can I hijack my own thread.....:confuse:

I try my best to follow the teachings of Jesus, I think he was waaaaaaaay ahead of his time and had some truly wonderful ideas (which are a million miles from the way they are actually preached and practiced in modern times), but I have no PROOF that he existed. That's why it's called F-A-I-T-H. I haven't denigrated anyone, least of all YOU...But thanks for the attempted smackdown....

[Bake]

107. Hijacked the subject.

I agree that the point of the headline was to inflame the fundies and bolster support for Israel. I thought THAT was the subject of the thread, not an argument over historical evidence of the existence of Jesus.

Bake

[truebrit71]

110. Everything was going along just fine until...

...some ass-half had to jump in making assertions that were incorrect and unverifiable....

[Bake]

116. No need for name-calling.

That'll just get the thread locked down and the original point will be lost.

It's also not necessary to be "right" every time, or to challenge every supposed factual inaccuracy. Only the ones that matter to the point actually being made. Just sayin' ...

Peace,

Bake

[Rosemary2205]

71. Have you seen the current version of the story?

Appearantly they have made some pretty massive changes to the story because there's no way on earth the story as currently printed is intended to do anything other than report.

[Pathwalker]

66. Um, did you forget what the Democratic symbol is?

Just in case you did:
:dem:
:kick:

[progressivebydesign]

68. hard to be neutral when it was the "fundies" who elected that bastard. n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

85. You mean the same MSNBC that was asking the other day

"Is This Armageddon?"

Of course, to be fair and balanced, for the secularists they were asking

"Is This WWIII?"

Yes, I did see both those tags above the crawl a couple days ago.

They whip up hysteria, you decide.

[jonnyblitz]

102. then LEAVE

one less whiney persecuted christian to deal with. :eyes:

[Dem2theMax]

211. Rosemary, you aren't alone. In fact, this thread just helped me make up

my mind - no more money to DU till the powers that be stop this kind of behavior on the board. The last time I said that, my post was deleted. We'll see how long the 'tolerance' lasts tonight.
I will NEVER, for the life of me, understand how people who are supposed to be tolerant of each other, can bash Christians day after day, and it's not only OK to do so, it seems to be encouraged here, as no one EVER does anything about it. Shame on DU.

[Igel]

65. Almost certainly killed Israeli Arabs. n/t

[in_cog_ni_to]

113. They did. 3 Israeli Arabs. 2 children...3 and 6 years old.

:(.

[Nikki Stone 1]

79. Birthplace: Bethlehem Hometown: (allegedly) Nazareth

But maps of the time do not have anyplace called Nazareth mentioned. Nazareth seems to have been settled/named well after the crucifixion.

[elehhhhna]

80. THEY BOMBED JESUS? That's just naughty.

[RedStateShame]

87. Dammit, now he'll NEVER come back!!!

:sarcasm:

[walldude]

103. Just stopped in, but by the time I got to the bottom of the thread

I needed some :popcorn: :popcorn:

[truebrit71]

108. LOL!

:rofl:

Man oh man, I start a thread pointing out the MSM's attempt to stir up trouble and it devolves into theological dissertations and acrimonious accusations of intellectual dishonesty....

Blimey!!

[datasuspect]

109. they bombed nazareth?

i hope Dan McCafferty, Manny Charlton, Pete Agnew, and Darrell Sweet are okay.

[in_cog_ni_to]

111. Rita Cosby must have siad "The Birthplace of Jesus Christ" 1000 times

in 5 minutes. SHE WAS RIDICULOUS! Unfortunately, that rocket the hit Nazareth killed 3 Arabs. 2 were children. A 3 year old and a 6 year old I think. Nazareth is highly populated by Arabs. Why would Hezbollah aim in THAT direction? I thought they were trying to save the Arabs from the Israelis? The Palestinians aren't a part of THIS picture. That would be Hamas. This was HEZBOLLAH. They are based in Lebanon, not Gaza. Hezbollah is the group firing these rockets.

[Theres-a]

138. Her voice is perfect for that sort of end times porn.nt

[DemoTex]

112. Dog shat today .. near birthplace of Savior Bu$h (New Haven)

Good dog!

[Freedom_Aflaim]

122. Why not report it?

Muslims went gaga over the bombing of their holy shrines in Iraq.

If I recall is was a very big deal when the graveyard of some 3rd cousin, half sister blah blah of Mohammed was bombed, there was a huge stink about it.

If that is news then why isnt the bombing of Christian holy places relevant?

The bombing of 2,000 year old Holy places is newsworthy, and I suspect that the Israeli response to it will be newsworthy as well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4738874.stm

[Beelzebud]

136. Hey WAIT!! I THOUGHT JAYZUSS WAS AMURIKKKAN?!?!?!?!

[bloom]

142. It is funny that MSRNC wouldn't know the difference

between their supposed "Saviour's" birthplace and hometown.

You would think that people who worship someone would get that straight.

[Warren DeMontague]

150. Check his driver's license.

That ought to clear it up.

[Balbus]

152. I wonder if they'd say the same thing if a rocket hit Juarez

:hide:

[Clarkie1]

161. Off topic, but I like that avatar you have there...nt

[H2O Man]

166. Who owns this problem? n/t

[my_pet_wolf]

176. Must be the war on Christmas taking an ugly turn! n/t

[SlavesandBulldozers]

187. lol. you might have a point

[many a good man]

179. They're gonna piss him off !!!

[katinmn]

185. To 176 & 179: LOL in a sad, sick in the pit of the stomach sort of way.

:-)

[SlavesandBulldozers]

192. lol

[katinmn]

183. Pure Propaganda. How many antiquities has the US destroyed in

the birthplace of CIVILIZATION?

How many antiquities destroyed and looted? Countless.

[The Backlash Cometh]

200. The blonde bimbo from MSNBC started this shit.*

They're bombing the birthplace of our Lord and Saviour, Lord Jesus Christ. (Not quite that bad, but she must have said it six times in ten minutes.

*The Bush Administration have reclassified the words, "shit" and "fuck", and now consider them acceptable words to be used in ordinary conversation.

[sam sarrha]

203. jesus had a hometown.. he is my Homey..'flash gang sign of christ'

i can only see this steam roller of death and distruction till we Impeach that Rat B*stard in the white house.. and all the puke NeoCons along with him..

[superconnected]

204. Since the Jews don't believe Christ is the prophet they're waiting for

I think the islamics would be making a mistake in targeting Christs heritage. So it's likely a random event.

If they did start bombing Jewish religious places they be taking out Islamic places too.

'til the blue mosque area starts getting bombed by either side, I'm not worried about it.

[kevinbgoode]

210. OMG...I thought it must have hit the stable and the manger

and then we'd have every legislature in the U.S. immediately passing laws requiring replicas be constructed on every street corner in the country. . .of course, using a little WHITE baby Jesus.

[Swamp Rat]

215. Breaking: Snoopy's House Was Strafed by the Red Baron!

:eyes:

[Zhade]

229. I think they mean "purported birthplace of Jesus, who may have existed".

(Biblical scholars find the Josephus "quote" to be a later forgery, so don't BOTHER with that argument, btw.)