|
 |
nemesis nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/12/11 00:49:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraz net> wrote:
>> Its almost a sign
>> of fundamental insanity for someone to suggest that this *hasn't*
>> distorted both the interpretation of historical facts that *are* in
>> evidence, and to strongly imply why some people would much rather
>> imagine ones that have *never* been in evidence, rather than admit that,
>> once again, the churches interpretation is the one that is badly out of
>> sync of reality.
>
> are all atheists really this boring? That last sentence was pretty long, just
> as the hundreds of them before. I had to skip and lost track. sorry...
I'm not an atheist, but I don't beleive that there is a "God".
>
> you sound like Fox Mulder. you know: "I want to believe". Because you're
> obsessed in trying to find physical proofs of Jesus existence.
>
> forget it: he came as a humble man, too insignificant for the ones in power,
> but sufficiently of an agitator to receive death penalty... nothing too shabby
> to figure in official records...
Acording to the Nativity, Jesus was born during a Roman census, the IVth or Vth
census, the others been to off the date of year I AD. So, he MUST be registered
in one of those two census. In ALL Roman census, every resident of the Empire
war obligated to register himself as well as any child, spouse and slave under
his autority. Joseph was in Bethlem precisely, and uniquely, for the census.
There are still traces from all Roman census. Aparently, Jesus don't figure in
those census...
The first of the two was held around 50BC and the second around 12 AD. That mean
that the monk who set the year 1 was wrong.
>
> though I find it funny you don't mention the James Cameron documentary about
> Jesus tomb...
>
>
It should be noted that the name "Jesus" was a prety common one in that time.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
If you're ever about to be mugged by a couple of clowns, don't hesitate - go for
the juggler.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
