![]() |
THE |
a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining
to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects. |
To: a.bsu.religion,alt.chrisnet,alt.christnet.hypocrisy,alt.christnet.philosophy,alt.fan.jesus-christ,alt.recovery.religion,alt.religion.christian,talk.religion.misc,uk.religion,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.atheism,alt.satanism,alt.evil,alt.magick.virtual From: jasonp@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason Posey ) Subject: Re: AOLimousine: Theology: A Rebuttal Date: 1 Apr 1996 00:19:14 GMT In article <4jmvq1$mt7@news.corpcomm.net>, Joseph S. Holtwrote: > >>Given that pretty much everything in the New Testament has been shown by >>scholars to have not been written by the people who are supposed to have >>written them, that they contradict each other, that there is no evidence >>whatsoever that any man named Jesus or Yeshua ever lived, preached, and >>was crucified, one has to say yes, Christianity is based not merely on >>blind faith but on conscious self-deceit. > >Dear Mr. Abomination: > >It is generally considered wise to investigate one's facts >before one spouts off at the mouth too much. Take your own advice. There are >very few secular scholars that still debate the question of >Christ's existance. You could start there. You're wrong. As to the authorship of the New >Testament, you need to wake up and smell the coffee. It is >of course true that some of the books are of questionable >authorship, but most are not. Actually, dear, ALL of them are. NONE of the Gospels could have been written by the fictitious characters whose names are given to them; at least some and quite possibly ALL of Paul's epistles were not written by him. Revelation was written by a fellow whose position in the Church is not known by Church historians themselves. Most of the books were >accepted into the church at the moment they were received >from the authors,authors that, I might point out, were >members of these churches at the time. As the Chruch did not develop an official canon until several centuries after most of the books in the Protestant NT were written, and then chose to reject a number of books for largely political reasons, your claim that the church accepted them at the moment they were received is an outright, bald-faced, pathetic lie. The literary and >documented evidence of all these things are both >substantial and of quality. Really? If so, then someone on alt.christnet needs to provide some examples, as there are folks here on alt.satanism who can provide plenty of well-researched scholarly essays to the contrary. The Christian Bible is the >most discussed, studied, researched, investigated, and >scrutinized document in ancient history. Undoubtedly true. Unfortunately, most of the debate has not been based on scholarly knowledge of the facts. >As to the apparent contradictions, there are a few scribal >errors (less than in the works handed down by Shakespeare, >but of more certain authorship.) There are also some >differences in the Gospel accounts. These, however, are of >more value then harm. The Gospels are eyewitness accounts >and if they agreed completely, they would have very little >credibility. One might think they were contrived. One might judge, given that they give quite different accounts of things as important as the crucifixion and the resurrection of Lazarus, and of Jesus' lineage, that they were probably stories based on old folk tales being invented by people with different agendas. >In short Mr. Abomination: DO YOUR HOMEWORK FIRST, TALK >SECOND. LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE. Oh, there's the Devil quoting Scripture again. Of course, when a Christian is confronted with a passage of their Bible which doesn't accord with that Christian's views, the Christian will automatically accuse the non-christian of "twisting" it. I've done plenty of homework on the subject, little boy. Actually, I'm a Religious and Near Eastern Studies major, so I've done a LOT of homework on the matter. I know what I'm talking about. You Christians, as always, do not. >Joe > >Don't just quote your Bible, read it. Don't just read it, find out the truth behind it. It ain't God, that much is certain. -- -------------------------------------------------- <<<< >>>>
![]() |
The Arcane Archive is copyright by the authors cited.
Send comments to the Arcane Archivist: tyaginator@arcane-archive.org. |
Did you like what you read here? Find it useful?
Then please click on the Paypal Secure Server logo and make a small donation to the site maintainer for the creation and upkeep of this site. |
![]() |
The ARCANE ARCHIVE is a large domain,
organized into a number of sub-directories, each dealing with a different branch of religion, mysticism, occultism, or esoteric knowledge. Here are the major ARCANE ARCHIVE directories you can visit: |
interdisciplinary:
geometry, natural proportion, ratio, archaeoastronomy
mysticism: enlightenment, self-realization, trance, meditation, consciousness occultism: divination, hermeticism, amulets, sigils, magick, witchcraft, spells religion: buddhism, christianity, hinduism, islam, judaism, taoism, wicca, voodoo societies and fraternal orders: freemasonry, golden dawn, rosicrucians, etc. |
SEARCH THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
There are thousands of web pages at the ARCANE ARCHIVE. You can use ATOMZ.COM
to search for a single word (like witchcraft, hoodoo, pagan, or magic) or an
exact phrase (like Kwan Yin, golden ratio, or book of shadows):
OTHER ESOTERIC AND OCCULT SITES OF INTEREST
Southern
Spirits: 19th and 20th century accounts of hoodoo,
including slave narratives & interviews
|