Posted by Rusty Lee on August 20, 1999 at 17:16:29:
In Reply to: one more posted by rpcman on August 20, 1999 at 10:33:51:
So the rules are such that the claims about Jesus and the claims he made of himself are inadmissable, that is, all the documentation we have available to us.
I'm not convinced the letters written by G W are his. I've never seen one. Is there some indisputable proof they are his? Certainly something like that could be faked, though I beleve we haven't been given good reason to believe that.
As far as contemporaries are concerned, the writings we have of Jesus are of his contemporaries, those who actually lived with him and those who knew the people that lived with him. By what criteria are G W's contemporaries writings admissable and the "synoptic gospels" less as proof?
I don't see why pictures/agreement-of-artists is proof. I'm sure I could apply that logic to many people in history and would come away wanting.
It seems that there would be a better way to prove the existance of someone that would apply to all times in history. I still sense that maybe one would be more confident of G W's existence based on the feeling that not near as much time has elapsed as is the case with Jesus.
I'm sorry if this seems tedious (sigh). I find it fascinating.
Bye, for now...
: Jesus's place of burial is also a product of mere speculation.
: Washington on the other hand...