E G M wrote:
>
> So, what do you want?
>
> If you don't believe the ressurection is a fact, why bother?
Why bother what?
EGM> Is there in you some intrinsic animosity with that claim? If this
is
> the case I would ask myself why I should feel that way.
I feel no animosity toward the claim, per se. I am somewhat annoyed by
people who try to convince people to follow their religion by telling
them stories about resurrection, heaven and hell with the same
conviction that I would show in persuading someone who slept all day
that the sun rose this morning!
EGM>According to
> your reasoning evolution did not happen because some pepole deny it,
Not at all. When the same proportion of theologians from all faiths and
cultures are as consistently behind a single religious creed, as
scientists of all faiths and cultures are behind evolution, then I might
take that creed seriously.
EGM> in fact some people deny man has been on the moon.
Mostly flat-earth Christian and Muslim fundamentalists, I believe?
EGM> Please, search
> independently of the scriptures in Jesus rose from the dead.
EGM> Do you believe that Ceasar existed ?
I believe that more than one Caesar existed.
EGM> Well, there is more documentation on
> Jesus resurrection thqan on Ceasar's existance.
Perhaps if you spell it "Caesar", you might find more documentation. :-)
But any old documentation isn't enough. To be credible, there needs to
be lots of independently written, contemporary accounts that all recount
much the same data, whether or not they differ in the interpretation of
that data. The earliest available documentation on the events
surrounding Jesus' resurrection, the Gospel according to Mark, was
written around 70 AD, more than 30 years after the events described.
Then (or even before Mark was written) came the Roman destruction of
Jerusalem which effectively destroyed any possibility of reliably
checking events of 30-40 years previously. This was followed by the
Gospel according to Matthew and Luke between 70 and 80 AD, and John
after 90 AD.
Now, I am not denying that Jesus was crucified, nor am I denying that he
was seen alive after the crucifixion. What I am suggesting is that *if*
he really was alive after the crucifixion, then the most credible
explanation is that he didn't *really* die. On the other hand, if he was
not *really* seen alive after the crucifixion, then the whole basis of
supernatural Christianity rests on Luke's account (never mentioned by
Paul) of Paul's "road to Damascus" event.
Sorry, it's all much too incredible.
Regards,
Derek
--------------9D998DDDA5C823B1541A3A32
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Derek McLarnen
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard
fn: Derek McLarnen
n: McLarnen;Derek
adr: ;;;Melba;ACT;2615;Australia
email;internet: dmclarne@pcug.org.au
title: Mr
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
end: vcard
--------------9D998DDDA5C823B1541A3A32--