Bushbadee wrote:
> I think that the book is not a fringe position.

I notice that you have yet to attempt to cite support for the "pagan
origins" conspiracy theory amongst serious scholarly journals dedicated
to the subject of NT studies or early Christian history. Maybe you
might wish to cite a favorable review of "The Jesus Mysteries" from a
serious scholarly source?

> The NT was certainly not written by Jews

So claims you, but as Charles Hedrick has already noted, this is not
the position held currently by scholars. On the contrary, much of the
NT is treated as very Jewish in nature.

> > since *YOU* are the one who has positively asserted that the above
is
> > the fact of the matter, I would like you to cite some evidence.
>
> That was a citation taken from the aforemention book.
> They, in the book, give their sources for these bubba meinsers.

You claim to have the book. Would you like to cite their sources (since
you're the positive claimant)?

> But as you state, you, a Christian, I assume, are well aware of the
> three of them, then they must be reasonable well attested to or you
> would not know who they were. So you really did not need my proof
> of who they were or what they wrote or did.

You still misunderstand the point of this conversation. You positively
asserted that Jesus is not a well attested first century figure, hence
the reason you are sympathetic to the position that there might not
have been any historical Jesus. So I asked you to name a first century
figure that you consider well attested, and *WHY* you feel so. The
point was to get an idea of what you consider evidence, what you
consider good attestation, which is necessary before engaging you in
any discussion on whether there is evience for the historical Jesus.
You gave three names, yet you have failed to explain why you,
personally, consider these three individuals well-attested.

> I have answered that by publishing their names here.
> If they were not well attested to, then we would not know of them
now.

This is simply fallacious. By the same logic, we know the name of Jesus
(Y'shua), thus he too is well attested, right? If not, then you're
going to have to give a better reason why you, personally, consider one
of these people to be a well attested first century figure.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 1/10/05 8:09:34 PM