Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (15073)	5/31/2001 11:30:39 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

OK, I'll try and get through... as generally reliable documents Uh-huh. As reliable as any other collection of myths assembled by people who believed them, only with more contradictions than most. As history, the gospels are somewhat less reliable than the Iliad. the four gospels bear witness to a miracle working Jesus Christ. Well, they would, wouldn't they. They're the holy myth in the first place. They no more prove the existence of Jesus than 'Le Morte D'Artur' proves the existence of Merlin. His enemies did not deny it His contemporaries didn't, surely. Then again, the gospels didn't exist then to be denied. And since the precept is that Jesus did not exist anyway, as a historical figure, he'd have no enemies to deny him. The Venerable Bede (a real and reasonably accurate historian) did not 'deny' the existence of Merlin. Why would he...? More to the point, genuine, attested, non-controversial, non-miraculous contemporaries do not even mention Jesus (Josephus? Tacitus? the Younger Pliny??). BTW, plenty of people deny it now... every living Muslim, for starters <g> our contemporaries have no arguments against it ??? I've seen some here within the last week. This is just not true. If he means 'no arguments which we credit', then it's him dismissing anything he doesn't like... based, presumably, on his belief that the bible, if contradicted, must be right and the criticism wrong. In this case, it's an easy claim. Actually, I haven't seen any arguments to say that Merlin didn't exist... since His status as a divinely certified messenger is established, his testimonies must be true. But it isn't... only by the NT, and other related writings of people considerably later who (presumably) believed it to be true. This is NOT proof. Merlin has had plenty of books written about him, and they all say he was capable of mighty magic. So, is he a 'certified' immortal magician? No one but no one denies that He believed that the Bible was the word of God. What does it matter what a fictional character may or may not have believed? Further, I don't deny that you believe the Bible is the word of God... but that is not proof. No one denies that Merlin believed Arthur should be be King of all Britain. So... The 'Le Morte D'Artur' bears witness to a powerful and wise magician, called Merlin. His enemies did not deny it, and our contemporaries have no arguments against it. since His status as a powerful magician is established, his testimonies must be true. Therefore Arthur should be the King of All Britain, because Merlin says so. Would you believe that? Do you even comprehend the analogy I draw?