Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I suggest you read more History and look for what is accepted as History 
> and Jesus is, not the Biblical one but the actual carpenter who married 
> Mary Magdalene, yeah, Jesus never existed is just so convenient, finally 
> is just the same you as any another Materialist only find safety in 
> material stuff, any doubt will give you the perfect excuse to deny it.
> 
> Man, is up to you, spiritual things because of you POV will never be as 
> a sign of anything, to start understanding you need to broader it and 
> focus it in the direction of: maybe there is something spiritual that is 
> not clear but it has it's own world of existence that intersects with 
> ours in a blurred way for some reason, because this is apparently the 
> truth about it.
> 
> Also, looks like you have seen documentaries that support your material 
> POV, not the ones that look truly to clear as much as possible spiritual 
> mysteries.
Sigh.. And I suggest you stop reading stuff published by total hacks and 
liars, which ****none of the scholars and historians agree with***. 
Nearly everything in the book was made up. This has been proven by 
"real" historians. The only people disputing that are people who all 
wrote books since the movie came out, and based it on made up BS. Its 
not more factually correct than the claims made, almost daily, by some 
people, about all the fake documents and statements they "claim" 
actually exist, from the founders. Its well documented as to who, when, 
and how all of it was made up, and **none** of it comes from a time 
period even **close** to when Jesus was supposed to exist. Some of it 
may be few centuries old, but no where near 2,000+, and is no more 
believable, as historical evidence of anything other than its use to 
promote some political positions by a few royal lines, than the legends 
of Dracula represent an accurate version of the history of Vlad the 
Impaler. History doesn't work like that. If you want evidence that X 
person married Y person, you find evidence from ***when they lived***, 
not some obscure reference, which was politically convenient for 
someone, 1,000 years later. At best, it might be true, if you can 
provide proof the people existed at all, which you can't. At worst, it 
may be, as is nearly everything ever done by royals in the last 2,000 
years, playing on the story, but not based on a damn thing that is 
actually true.

You have to have a plausible grounds to consider it fact, not made up, 
and that still goes to, "Where is the proof from his own time?" There 
isn't any.

Oh, and worse than all of that. What fragments do exist are not 
connected to each other in any plausible way, by any line of evidence, 
to suggest they at all support each other, **unless** you take the book 
as a valid explanation. In other words, you might as well be arguing for 
the existence of an historical King Arthur, based on the same sort of 
evidence - Commonality of some places in the story, a few references to 
people with similar names, and some stuff placed here and that, 
centuries later, by people trying to promote the legend, none of them 
rising to the level of "historically provable fact".

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message