NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/messiani/4130

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-24 | 1.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!news.ysu.edu!psuvm!cunyvm!rohvm1!rbnxhs
Organization: Rohm and Haas Company
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 11:47:56 EST
From: <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Getting the facts!
References:  <[e-mail]>
Lines: 22

I agree with 'Newport' on the matter of lack of historical proof about Jesus,
his birth-date, his so-called crucifixion, and surely about what he said and
preached. The whole history about these important pieces are either missing,
or are of dubious origin, knowing very well how these have been distorted or
corrupted by zealous evangelists to make a god out of a human being. Out of
this mess, as Newport rightly mentioned, the gospel accounts are anything but
trustworthy, and that is why, there are so much inconsistencies between the
various narrations, from birth to so-called ascension of Jesus. All these
writings about Jesus in the NT cannot be considered to be inerrant word of
God, or inspired by God, when they contradict each other on essential details.
There are other writings about Jesus, which are considered to be Apocryphal
by christian clergy, and which has survived, which provide quite a different
understanding about the teachings of Jesus, and about his life. Which one
to believe in - is it these pseudepigraphic books which now form the canonical
books of NT or the Apocryphal books (e.g., Gospel of Barnabas, and the Second
Treatise of the Great Seth. The first is available through American Trust Publi
cations, and includes comments by M.A. Yusseff.)?

I have posted a reply to Vijay's mathematical proof in the talk.religion.misc.

---
Siddiqui.