NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/sci/skeptic/20111

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-23 | 3.5 KB

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:20111 alt.messianic:3494
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic
Path: sparky!uunet!psinntp!bony1!billg
From: [e-mail] (Bill Gripp)
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: LA&W RR
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 16:02:59 GMT
Lines: 62

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>3. Even if it is the same Yeshua, according to the Talmud, as you mentioned,
>   he was clearly NOT crucified but stoned and hanged. Now the cross being such
>   a powerful and significant symbol in Christianity, and the crucifixion act
>   itself, even more so - must then be a LATTER INSERTION by somebody to the
>   New Testament. If this is the case - then you agree that AT LEAST in one
>   instance (and a VERY important one) the New Testament was revised !!!

What would be the motivation to change the description of the method of
death from stoning to crucifiction?



>   Just for comparison sake, the Jewish Bible, even though written MANY centuries
>   before, and going through many hardships was NEVER revised. The proof is
>   (Gerry Roston, are you listening ?) in the Dead Sea Scrolls:
>   A document discovered about 30+ years ago, in the Dead Sea, Judea desert
>   in Southern Israel. These scrolls were written AT LEAST 2,000 years ago, and
>   that's acceptable BY ALL archeologists and historians who worked with it.
>   And yet, when compared WORD FOR WORD with the same documents Modern Jews have
>   today (for example the scroll of the Book of Issiah which is the best
>   preserved and thus easier to read and decipher) it checks out a 100% match
>   in every word !!!  Now that's an UN-revisable, One version Only, as it was
>   written, authentic document !!!


Prove that the old testament was not revised before the Dead Sea
Scrolls.  If it were revised around say 1000 B.C., any changes would be
propegated into later copies such as the Dead Sea Scrolls.  Your example
only serves to prove no revisions by a certain date, not that no
revisions have never occured.


>   Now for comparison:
>
>>>only one (out of the 4 gospels authors) who actually LIVED in his time. All the
>>>3 other gospels authors did NOT know Jesus personally and lived years afterwards
>>>(some as late as 120-150 years later!) and are thus NOT acceptable witnesses !!
>>
>>ALL of the four Canonical gospels were composed by the year 100, or very
>>soon thereafter.
>
> So, 4 gosples written or composed years after Jesus' death, at least 3 out of 4
> by authors (and possibly 4 out of 4) who NEVER personally met Jesus, and thus
> could NOT possibly be eyewitnesses, and they all contradict each other, and we
> know that at least the story of the crucifixion is completely inaccuarte.
> Should I say more ?  its completely uncredible.

You are completely uncredible.  I posted a week ago or so that 2 of the
gospel writers were eye witnesses, and that at least one of the others
wrote the account of Peter, another eyewitness.  So at least 3 of the 4
are eyewitness accounts.

Also, Robert Schaffer, one of the resident skeptics here, posted that
the manuscripts were written and fixed by the first century A.D.  While
I don't agree with Rob's oppinions, at least I respect his methodology.
You on the other hand seem to ignore things you have no answer for and
just keep repeating the same tired drible.  I guess you are one of those
who likes to hear themselves speak.