re albert sabin in article apr rambo atlanta dg com wpr atlanta dg com bill rawlins writes however one highly biased account as well as possibly internally inconsistent written over mellenia ago in a dead language by fanatic devotees of the creature in question which is not supported by other more objective sources and isnt even accepted by those who s messiah this creature was supposed to be doesn t convince me in the slightest especially when many of the current day devotees appear brainwashed into believing this pile of guano since you have referred to the messiah i assume you are referring to the new testament please detail your complaints or e mail if you don t want to post first century greek is well known and well understood have you considered josephus the jewish historian who also wrote of jesus in addition the four gospel accounts are very much in harmony bill i have taken the time to explain that biblical scholars consider the josephus reference to be an early christian insert by biblical scholar i mean an expert who in the course of his or her research is willing to let the chips fall where they may this excludes literalists who may otherwise be defined as biblical apologists they find what they want to find they are not trustworthy by scholarly standards and others why an insert read it i have a number of times the passage is glaringly out of context and josephus a superb writer had no such problem elsewhere in his work the passage has nothing to do with the subject matter in which it lies it suddenly appears and then just as quickly disappears until you can demonstrate how and why the scholarly community is wrong about the josephus insert your proof is meaningless and it should not be repeated here what s more even if josephus happened to be legitimate it would prove nothing scholars speak of the weight of evidence far more independent evidence would be required to validate your claim until forthcoming your belief is based on faith that s ok but you exceed your rights when you pass faith off as fact as for the gospels there are parallels but there are also glaring inconsistencies and contradictions shouldn t a perfect canon be perfect shouldn t there be absolutely no room for debate i suggest you read gospel fictions by randel helms and the unauthorized version by robin fox for herb huston no known kinship or familial relationship but we do indeed share an evolutionary ancestry the fact that there are inconsistencies gaps and contradictions does not deny your position on the other hand neither do the gospels prove your faith independent evidence is necessary and i know of none which we have already discussed and so far you have not provided any until then its faith moreover you have committed a fundamental error in logic you have attempted to prove your claim with that which you want to prove its no different than saying i am right because i say so your logic is full of circles it reminds me a bit of the presbyterian general assembly the assembly defined five fundamentals this is where fundamentalist came from of orthodox protestant christianity to wit jesus performed miracles jesus was born of a virgin jesus was bodily resurrected jesus crucifixion atoned for human sin and here is the clincher the bible is the inerrant word of god presbyterians construe inerrant broadly as spritually inerrant fundamentalists take the first four as literally true and then validate them with a literally inerrant bible which contains the first four and which is the only thing known to contain the first four smoke and mirrors and wands and hand waving if ever there was its faith bill you don t have any more or better truths than anyone else whatever works for you just don t foist it on others regards rich fox anthro usouthdakota
