The Christian bible are the words of the Christian gods, inerrant and perfect. The gods dictate that the "Jesus" god was hung on a tree, not a cross -- and who am I to argue against the inerrant, perfect words of the gods?

Fredric Rice
fr> Nonsense. The Jesus wasn't a Roman citizen, Mike. He was Jewish.
fr> The Christian mythologies specifically states that he was killed
fr> and then hung in a tree -- just as the Jewish Toldoth states.

Bruce Alderman
ba> Please quote the Jewish Toldoth -and- the "Christian mythologies"
ba> which "specifically states" that Jesus was "killed and then hung
ba> in a tree".

Fredric Rice
Are you stating publicly that you don't know the Christian mythologies? Why is it that the non-believer always knows the Christian mythologies better than the ignorants who worship them?

Remember the fictional construct called 'Peter,' Bruce? In the myths, he was supposed to be a witness to the execution of the so-called 'Jesus' mythos. Peter says that the Jesus was hung on a tree.

For your education (which I'm sure you'll ignore:)

    Acts 5:30      "Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree"
    Acts 10:39     "whom they slew and hanged on a tree"
    Acts 13:29     "they took him down from the tree"
    1 Peter 2:24   "who his own self bare our sins in his
                   own body on the tree"
    Galatians 3:13 "Christ... being made a curse upon us...
                   Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree"

Under Rabbinic Law, criminals are to be stoned (John 8:3-11.) The 'Jesus' mythos was stoned to death and then hung on a tree -- which is what the Christian mythologies say.

fr> The cross is a later addition which has been soundly debunked.

Bruce Alderman
ba> Only in your imagination.

Fredric Rice
No rational person still clings to the belief that the 'Jesus' mythos was hung on the Roman cross. It was a fiction which was added in the year 367. It is amazing that ignorants still cling to the myth.

fr> No rational person who's investigated the story still believes in it.

Bruce Alderman
ba> Isaac Asimov, in "Asimov's Guide to the Bible" says that Jesus was
ba> crucified. Are you saying that Asimov was not a rational person, or
ba> that he did not investigate the "story" ?

Fredric Rice
It would be difficult to ask Asimov what his reasons were for advancing the later versions of the Christian myths seeing as how he died a couple of years ago. The most likely reason why he didn't underscore the previous versions is because the religion he covered had undergone many revisions and he chose to deal with the contemporary occultism as opposed to the previous incarnations.

There are fine scholarly works which delve into the origins of the Christian mythologies. Asimov would be adding to the findings of the better educated his opinions and views of the motives which prompted the many revisions. One such work is Robert Sheaffer's "The Making of the Messiah: Christianity and Resentment."

Bruce Alderman
ba> Robin Lane Fox, a highly respected historian, includes the crucifixion
ba> in his "secure minimum" list of facts about Jesus which are historical
ba> certainties.

Fredric Rice
Fox is beyond a doubt mistaken. The Roman crucifixion is a fictional add-on which came upon the stage for political reasons. The so-called "virgin birth" myth was also a very late addition to the Christian mythologies. Lastly, the resurrection of the Jesus mythos came some 70 years after yet were included in the canonized book of myths some 300 years later.

Bruce Alderman
ba> Why would these two men, both scholars and atheists,
ba> believe something which has been "soundly debunked" ?

Fredric Rice
Why don't you ask Fox why he still feels that the crucifixion myth has justification in his eyes? You doubtless don't actually want an answer since you're asking the wrong person.

Bruce Alderman
ba> Debunked by whom?

Fredric Rice
Pick anyone rational, Bruce.

Bruce Alderman
ba> Please name even one reputable scholar
ba> who denies that Jesus was crucified.

Fredric Rice
So you can have me do _your_ work for you? So you can ignore all of the hurtful truth and claim you never saw it? Just like all other fundies without an iota of shame?

• g.a. wells, "did jesus exist?" (london 1975); "the historical evidence for jesus.

• eusebius, ecclesiastical history 1:7 3:20

• gibbon, "the decline and fall of the roman empire" chapter 21 (new york: modern library edition n.d.)

• james m. robinson, "a new quest of the historical jesus" (philadelphia fortress press, 1983)

• bruce manning metzger (1978)

• frank zimmerman "the aramic origins of the four gospels" (new york; ktav publishing house, 1979)

No. Don't thank me. If you just read one book written by someone educated and ignore the occult masters who program you, you will have taken that first big step to escape your self-imposed ignorance and slavery to men.

To start with, pick up anything by Robert Sheaffer and use the references he offers. You could also stand a reading of the actual Christian mythologies for a change instead of having your masters tell you what they say.

---
* Origin: Behold the gods of hatred: Luke 14:26 (1:102/890.666)