GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-07 > 1089983531
From: Peter Stewart <>
Subject: Re: Jesus
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 13:12:11 GMT
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
marshall kirk wrote:
> wrote in message news:<>...
>>...Just a quickie to say that, isn't there NO firm evidence that our Jesus
>>existed except possibly, and this is under scrutiny, a bit like Robin Hood, as a
>>composite of various individuals??!!
> IIRC, it was taf who took me to task, some months ago, for alluding to
> the pagan mythological roots of Genesis. Whoever it was, he was quite
> right to do so. This sort of thing usually goes from bad to worse, as
> the subject is vehemently emotionally charged for many, many people.
> Debate over the historicity and doings of King Arthur is contentious
> enough without turning to a topic seething with religious feeling (pro
> or con). Besides, y'aint gonna settle it, nohow.
> For the record, and altho' I may already have said so, I'm an
Whatever personal manifesto or non-belief system you feel moved to share
with us, you should be more careful not to imply similarities between
doubts about the historicity of Jesus and King Arthur.
The former individual is as well attested as many a Roman aristocrat or
Jewish hierarch from whom modern lineages are speculated: the latter is not.
Happily, Barbara Thiering hasn't been quoted yet, and with luck we can
yet avoid the baleful influence of her crankery on the newsgroup.
And, of course, you are perfectly right about the futility of airing
these questions on SGM. One thing we know for sure is that they _cannot_
be resolved by the proselytising of enthusiasts, for or against.
|Re: Jesus by Peter Stewart <>|