GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-07 > 1090321422
From: (Roger Pearse)
Subject: Re: Jesus
Date: 20 Jul 2004 04:03:42 -0700
Oh. I see. You don't want to know, you just want to fight. Kindly
find someone else. Twit.
All the best,
wrote in message news:<>...
> Surely you jest. Monks? Anachronistic a bit?
> If you can tell me the year that "monks" first came into existence I can show the fraud in your statement.
> In a message dated 7/19/2004 12:31:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, (Roger Pearse) writes:
> > wrote in message news:<>...
> >> In a message dated 7/17/2004 5:02:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> >> writes:
> >> > As others have written, if you reject the evidence of four gospels, all
> >> > written and agreeing on the same individual, most before about 70 AD, still in
> >> > the lifetime of his immediate disciples, plus the writings of Paul [about
> >> > 50AD+] and the Acts by Luke, who both give accounts of the local followers of the
> >> > same singular person, you need to come up with some contemporary documents
> >> > that fudge the issue- that present SOME alternative historical figures as
> >> > convincing candidates.
> >> Of course it's a little disengenious to claim that this are original
> >> documents. In the example of some genealogical sources, when we have a document that
> >> is a copy, we state, that this is or appears to be a copy from an earlier
> >> work. This is in order to alert readers to the issue that transcribing brings in.
> >> Similarly in this case. How many times was the Gospel of Luke copied before
> >> the earliest copies we now have came into existence? How much were the
> >> gospels reconciled to each other? That's the problem.
> >> Will
> >This is not a problem for the gospels specially, tho. This is the
> >process whereby all ancient texts are transmitted to us. The answers
> >are the same for all such texts. If it is asserted that we don't
> >really know what the original texts said, then we have to resign
> >ourselves that all ancient literary texts have perished. This is
> >because the text of the NT is better attested than any secular text
> >(because the monks who copied every text from antiquity copied bibles
> >more than anything else, of course -- obvious, but trivial). Such a
> >dismal conclusion would be obscurantist, of course.
> >All the best,
> >Roger Pearse