Re: What Atheists Can't Answer

"The prophet to Hibernia" <g.j.bailey@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
message news:cb8v93t8uvhp181horkfh89phjqktvjl84@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:15:11 +0100, "Wesmessiah"
> <westprog@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >Whether or not the real JBJ has any connection with the biblical JBJ is
> >unknown, and at this stage unknowable.
>
> It's still a reasonable historical assertion to accept there was a
> historical JBJ.  There is evidence outside the NT of that.

And even if there weren't, it seems unlikely that they'd make one up. We
can
see a similar effect today with people like princess Diana, who has
achieved
a form of secular wor****p. In pagan times, I'd expect her to be a goddess
by
now.

> >Whether the NT is the perfect
> >divinely-inspired truth about the life of the son of God, or a cynical
> >post-mortem rewrite hagiography designed to draw in a whole new market,
it's
> >really all we have.

> It may be the first; it certainly is the second, and the evidence for
> that comes from the NT itself, an principally the division between
> Paul and James.  Meanwhile, there are other sources - such as Josephus
> and Suetonius, never mind the archaeology [insert James Cameron
> reference joke].

I don't think the other sources really give us much of a personality
though.

--

J/

SOTW: "Panic" - The Puppini Sisters

http://www.thepuppinisisters.com/
http://www.azcars.eu/wdfdi/