|>Look the bible has to be fatally flawed - If Jesus was Jewish, how did he
|>end up with a Mexican name?
|The real funny thing is that everyone seems to assume that
|Jesus existed.
>There are at least 50 known historical, non-"scripture" references from
>the early first century AD, that document the existence of a Jesus Ben Joseph,
>from the town of Nazareth. He was a political and religious activist of
>that time and area. The "historical Jesus" was arrested on 6 April, AD 30
>in Jerusalem, and was tried by a Jewish council on blasphemy charges.
>He was later handed over to Roman authorities and executed on 30 April, AD 30.
Yes this is not the place for such a debate. however what you post is actually
wrong. It is not even clear from the available evidence that Nazareth even
existed in the 1st century AD. I am not arguing for one second that Jesus
did not exist. Of course he did, but you would do well to do some research on
such matters. Try "Jesus" by Guigenbert, "Quest of the historical Jesus"
by Schweitzer, "Jesus the Jew" by Geza Vermes, "Jesus: the Evidence"
by Ian Wilson. There is a competent defence of the historical reliability
of the gospels in "The historical reliability of the gospels" by Craig Blomberg,(although this one skates over a few difficult issues such as the Governorship
of Quirinius and the conflicting geneologies of Luke and Mathew). You might
also try the Oxford Classical dictionary as a useful source.
Basically there are not 50 extra-biblical references to Jesus from the
early first century. In fact in pagan Latin, there is only one reference
to Jesus and his death at the hands of Pilate. That is in Tactitus' Annals
in the section dealing with the great fire of Rome in AD64. The Annals date
from around AD 115.
Over the years there have been a number of supposed references to Jesus
from the time you mention. However they have all proven to be apocoryphal.
The best known example is from Josephus' Jewish War, which has clearly
been tampered with.
There I have said it. I will not continue in this thread since it has little
to do with sex.
>The big question is whether or not he was The Messaiah. These newsgroups
