Even some scientists give lip service to fairy tales.

That's pretty sad. I didn't say you are a fool, i simply said that you make yourself look a fool when you use a source which you cannot properly cite. Did that wound you deeply in your self love? Is it an insult to you that someone point out to your your errors? No one is to "condescend" to you, as you have it, and if they do, that authorizes the most invidious remarks on your part? How very thin-skinned you are.

Dr. Feldman certainly is an expert. Once again, you show a deplorable inability to read and comprehend. I quoted him from an article he wrote on a Flavius Josephus bibliography, an exercise in which he demonstrates his expertise. I then pointed out, in response to your hysterical response and nasty personal reflections on the man, that in such an exercise, he does not give his opinion. That neither lessens his claim to expertise, nor does it indicate that he possesses no opinion on the subject.

It is a complete mystery to me how you would assume that a statement to the effect that there is a questioning of a passage in F. Josephus constitutes "back dating" Christianity. That makes no sense at all. So your continued insistence on it is quixotic at best. The question is not one of when the cult was established, it is one of whether or not there is reliable historical evidence for the existence of the putative founder. I know of none, and you have provided evidence of none. There is absolutely no reason to speak of "back dating" anything.

My argument is that there is no reliable evidence of the existence of the putative Jesus. That is not a statement that no one can prove he existed, it is simply an historiographical statement, and it's a very simple statement--although one which apparently rises above your ability to comprehend. You seem to be confused about several other things, as well. Calling the cultist Christians before the term was in use is a willful anachronism on the part of our age. Pointing out that they did not use the term in the first century does not change the basis upon which the anachronism is applied. It does not suggest that the cult did not exist at that time. Nothing in what i have written implies that they did not exist at that time, simply that they were not called Christians at that time, and did not refer to themselves as Christians at that time. In fact, they may have referred to themselves so, but there is no historical evidence to that effect. Pointing these things out does not constitute a categorical statement to the effect that Jesus did not exist, nor that Christians (as we now see it) did not exist.

I despair of your reading comprehension skills. I have abandoned the notion altogether that you have a sufficient grounding in historiography to reasonably judge claims based upon historical documentation. As Intrepid has inferentially pointed out in responding to the remark about the Pilate inscription, such historical evidence might be forthcoming in the future. But there is certainly no such evidence currently available. Citing Flavius Josephus and the "gospels" may be a reference to putative historical evidence, but it is not reliable historical evidence. That is the departure point for your hysterical rants, and it is obvious now that you still have not come to terms with the use of the word reliable, and that you lack reasonable standards to judge what is or isn't reliable in the way of historical evidence.

This is truly laughable. Even coming from you. Clear to you maybe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the reason given for the start of one majority cult by the name of Scientology in my lifetime. I see little likelihood that the Jesus cult was not started for similar reasons two thousands years ago.


http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/scientology/start.a.religion.html

-- Sam Merwin, then the editor of the Thrilling SF magazines: quoted in Bare Faced Messiah p.133 from 1986 interview. Winter of 1946/47.

"Around this time he was invited to address a science fiction group in Newark hosted by the writer, Sam Moskowitz. `Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous,' he told the meeting. `If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way to do it would be start his own religion.'
-- Bare Faced Messiah p.148. Reference given to LA Times, 27 Aug 78. Supposed to have happened in spring 1949.

"Science fiction editor and author Sam Moscowitz tells of the occasion when Hubbard spoke before the Eastern Science Fiction Association in Newark, New Jersey in 1947: `Hubbard spoke ... I don't recall his exact words; but in effect, he told us that writing science fiction for about a penny a word was no way to make a living. If you really want to make a million, he said, the quickest way is to start your own religion.'"
-- Messiah or Madman, p.45. No reference given. Yes, the spelling of Sam's name differs: this book got it wrong, it has a "k". I don't know why the two books disagree by two years.
(Oddly, the same misspelling occurs in Eisenberg. From this and other similarities, it seems likely that Corydon is quoting the Eisenberg article, rather than quoting Moskowitz directly.)


The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction lists Sam Moskowitz as the first good historian of science fiction [among other things]. In 1994 Moskowitz wrote an affidavit which states:

"After speaking for about an hour at the meeting, Mr. Hubbard answered questions from the audience. He made the following statement in response to a question about making money from writing: `You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion.'"
The affidavit states that this was the 7 Nov 1948 meeting of the Eastern Science Fiction Association, of which Moskowitz was the director.

Now, there is a problem with the three Moskowitz reports. Specifically, the Church obtained affidavits in 1993 from David A. Kyle and Jay Kay Klein. Both names are well-known in science fiction, and both say that they went to the 7 Nov 1948 talk by Hubbard. Both say that they didn't hear any such statement. Puzzling.

I believe that these dueling affidavits have met in court. Stern, a German magazine, was sued by the Church, and the suit was thrown out of court after they obtained the Moskowitz affidavit.

On 9apr94, [email protected] (Mike Jittlov) posted (about a conversation with Theodore Sturgeon):

Back in the 1940's, L. Ron Hubbard was a member of the Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society (when its old clubhouse was just north of Wilshire Blvd). Ted vividly recalled being a few yards from Hubbard, when he became testy with someone there and retorted, "Y'know, we're all wasting our time writing this hack science fiction! You wanta make _real_ money, you gotta start a _religion_!
Though I didn't ask, I think Ted would've mentioned it if the second person was Heinlein or another author of note. He had an extremely accurate memory, and I'd trust Sturgeon over anyone else's account.

Reportedly Sturgeon also told this story to others. Theodore Sturgeon was one of the truly great science fiction writers, and someone whose word and memories were trusted. (John W. Campbell commented that Sturgeon should have written the definitive history of SF fandom.) Mike Jittlov is a respected Hollywood filmmaker and stopmotion actor, and can be found on the net at "alt.fan.mike-jittlov".

Lloyd Arthur Eshbach was a science fiction writer and publisher between 1929 and 1957. His autobiography, says on pages 125 and 126 (about the events of 1948 and 1949):

I think of the time while in New York I took John W. Campbell, Marty Greenberg, and L. Ron Hubbard to lunch. Someone suggested a Swedish smorgasbord, and I had my first--and last--taste of kidney. Yuck! Afterward we wound up in my hotel room for related conversation.
The incident is stamped indelibly in my mind because of one statement that Ron Hubbard made. What led him to say what he did I can't recall--but in so many words Hubbard said:

"I'd like to start a religion. That's where the money is!"

Eshbach based his autobiography on detailed records and dated diary entries, and is therefore likely to be quite accurate on this point.

Harlan Ellison is a science fiction author and movie scriptwriter. In an interview, he has said such things as "I was there the night L. Ron Hubbard invented [Dianetics]". In a 1999 telephone interview, Mr. Ellison gave more details. In 1950, when he was 15, Ellison attended meetings of the Hydra Club. This was a New York club of science fiction writers, and he remembers Hubbard taking part in a discussion of how well a religion would pay. Ellison quoted the phrase as "what you need to do is start a religion", but did not claim to have remembered it word-for-word after 49 years.

Reportedly, a Vonnegut biography mentions the Hubbard quote. If anyone can find an exact reference, I would appreciate email. Randall Garrett also supposedly talked about this. Again, I would appreciate email.

To summarize: we have nine witnesses: Neison Himmel, Sam Merwin, Sam Moskowitz, Theodore Sturgeon, Lloyd Arthur Eshbach, Harlan Ellison, and the three unnamed witnesses of Robert Vaughn Young. There is some confusion and doubt about one of them (Sam Moskowitz). Two are reported via Russel Miller: one is reported via Mike Jittlov: one reported in his autobiography; one reported in an affidavit; and one reported to me in person. The reports describe different events, meaning that Hubbard said it perhaps six times, in six different venues - definitely not just once. And the Church's official disclaimer is now reportedly a flat lie.

Conclusion: He definitely said it more than once.

The entire problems with Josephus began with his passages on Massada in his "History...". It became quite obvious from a cursory forensic exam of a "questioned document" that he was never at Massada and that several other items he uses as first hand accounts, reflected certain artifacts that came much after the time he claimed that he was there.

That began a look-see at several major points of evidence that he purports as personal information.

However, since the Gospels are not considered forensic in nature, we look for other examples of references of the "Christ' and Josephus is the key. With several of Josephus points in question, his references of the ministry of Christ are also less than forensic.

I always looked at the Christ as a sort of Galillean "Paul Bunyan", there were several of the historical rabbis whod have loved to maintain a Messiah legend that would fullfill the Old TEstament Historical Prophecies, all in front of the oppressive Roman presence.
A Christ would have come in real handy.

No one is under an obligation to prove that a cult leader by the name of Jesus existed in the flesh or not.

There is however an obligation for those who claimed he did existed to prove it by at least the same standards of proof we now used in our civil courts IE more likely then not.

I see nothing that come near such a level of proof.

Given that many historical figures living long before this cult was form can indeed be proven to had existed by the standard of beyond any reasonable question, only the most religion driven persons can in good faith argue the case of his proven existed, in my opinion.

Tell me you understood more than that and you are only a desperate old man trying to be right...because if that is the extent of your understanding of what I said then I think you could have done the same without reading it.

Read what you write and highlight all the extraneous emotive words essential to build up your case. You know you are wrong and cant handle the shame of it. You have tried to intimidate me and now you are pleading "Oh, but I am a lovely person, you Ionus must be hysterical ..."

To cite an expert who has no opinion is so you can benefit from his "expertise" whilst the coward can hide. He has no opinion so leave him out.
Pretending to be stupid wont get you any sympathy. I dont suppose it occurred to someone of your degree of brainwashing that IF Josephus has been amended it may have said the exact same thing before, but someone thought they were improving it ?

Your argument is an academic hallucination. Someone exists or they dont. If you choose one, you have to be prepared for where that leaves you with your options.

You have not given a reasonable answer to anything except to moan that I dont believe you. Hard bikkies ! I dont believe you are stupid, I believe you are an egotistical fool who suffers enormous personal hardship if someone disagrees with him.

You havent fooled anyone with your bullshit. Save your typing finger old man, you will need it to ring for nursey.

Ionus is a religion driven man and no argument or logic is going to effect such a mind poison by childhood trainings so in my opinion Setanta you are wasting your time on him and as he stated wearing out your typing fingers for no good cause or benefit.

Ionus and Set are ahving a disagreement at a much higher level than you are able to comprehend you old fool. Why dont ya go and suck down a Jeraboam of Insure.

Once again, it seems the best weapon in your arsenal is personal invective. Stating that the Josephus passage is very likely an interpolation has absolutely no bearing on the time of the foundation of the cult which we now call Christianity. None of the terms i have used are "emotive," either there is historical evidence, or there is not. If there is an allegation of historical evidence, either it is reliable, or it is not. The entire field of historiography is given over the bases upon which the reliability of evidence is determined.

The content of Antiquities of the Jews is not a determinate for the dating of the establishment of the cult. Loopy comments about "back dating" have absolutely no relevance to a discussion of the reliability of the text or any portion of the text.

I have at no time attempted to intimidate you. If you think so, you must be as fearful as you are apparently thin-skinned. I cited Dr. Feldman from an article on a Josephus bibliography. I have not stated that he has no opinion, and you have no reason to assume that he doesn't. He simply does not offer an opinion in a bibliographical review, which is completely reasonable. That does not constitute evidence that he has no opinion.

I have not argued at any point whether or not your boy Jesus existed. My statement at the outset, which i continue to sustain, is that there is no reliable historical evidence that he existed. That doesn't mean that he didn't exist, nor is taking notice of that fact acknowledging that he did exist. I have already stated my position on the matter, but you seem to have been incapable of reading and understanding that. I therefore see no reason to repeat myself on the subject.

Again, you sink into nasty invective. You are the one who has been filling your pants since you were disagreed with. You wrote of the historical evidence for the putative Jesus, and i stated that that was bullshit, that there is no such reliable historical evidence. You have become increasingly hysterical about being disagreed with. I have provided both the logical explanation for my position, and cogent objections to claims about the reliability of the "gospels" as historical evidence, and the use of Antiquities of the Jews as evidence specifically for the historicity of Jesus. I have also pointed out to you a contradiction in the gospels which you have not addressed. I have pointed out historical inaccuracies in the gospels which you have not addressed. I have pointed out why the passage in Josephus is disputed, and you have not addressed that.

Confronted not only with disagreement, but cogent reasons to disagree with your position, your only response had been invidious remarks about the one who has the temerity to disagree with you. You have also attempted to project your manic resentment on to me. Your performance is pathetic.

Ionus and Set are ahving a disagreement at a much higher level than you are able to comprehend you old fool. Why dont ya go and suck down a Jeraboam of Insure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My my my nice of you Farmerman to interject your opinion and at such a high high level of intellectual discourse.

You are right I could never match your proven ability to reach the heart of any issue with a few well-chosen words.

And both you and Ionus reaching for personal insults are surely the mark of true genius.

You are surely my intellectual superior<LOL>

Certainly no one here will disagree with that statement. Jesus, Bill, in all this time you've never learned how to use the quote function?

Knowing how to use a build in function does not place you under an obligation to used that function that I am aware of.

Assuming that someone who does not use a function is not able to do so seem below your intellectual level.

But then your willingness to keep hitting your head on the hard wall of our friend religion driven positions long after he had fallen back on personal insults also show poor judgment at best.

Love you guys <LOL>

It would also help, Bill, if you learned to express yourself properly in what one sadly must assume is your native language.

Listen I am sorry your mother raised you in a whore house but you have to get over it. Perhaps if you left there your command of the english language that you learnt there, you might be more liked. At least your english might be better understood…though now that senility has set in..maybe not. Do you remember the following or has Oldtimers disease taken over....

you just make yourself look a fool
Care to retract your bullshit?
Ludicrous
historical bullshit
clearly bullshit
absurd
Bullshit
You don't know ****
bright boy
drivel
obvious ignorance
bullshit you are peddling
I suspect you'll believe just about anything that some more clever than you (which is quite a large number, apparently) claims to be history.
apparently desperate fool
so don't piss your pants and whine
You wouldn't make it out of high school history
absurdities
ranting
more drivel
bullshit
pathetic
pathetic
inability to understand English
incredibly delusional
more foolish
foolishness.
deplorable inability to read and comprehend
your hysterical response
above your ability to comprehend
hysterical rants
you lack reasonable standards
Loopy comments
You are the one who has been filling your pants
bullshit
increasingly hysterical
manic resentment
Your performance is pathetic.


You are the most self absorbed, dumbest cloth cock I have ever run into…do you have any idea what a dick you look like ?

By the way, if you think I am scared of you..it is just wishful thinking on your part…but on an unrelated matter, where do you live ?

Ionus and Set are ahving a disagreement at a much higher level than you are able to comprehend you old fool
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh second comment telling the person we started this thread that he should not post on it is not nice even for you.

But perhaps you are right that I can not reach or match the high level of personal insults that Ionus had turn to of late.

As I said I love you guys even if you are all about half as bright as you think you are.

i don't believe i'm a 1/4 as bright as i think i am, but i would never let that stop me from telling most folks i meet they're idiots

the average citizen seems to be only about 1/32 as bright as they believe them selves to be

Ionus quote
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listen I am sorry your mother raised you in a whore house but you have to get over it. Perhaps if you left there your command of the english language that you learnt there, you might be more liked. At least your english might be better understood…though now that senility has set in..maybe not. Do you remember the following or has Oldtimers disease taken over....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes Setanta I can not express myself in the clear english of your friend here.

Love you guys and I am reducing my guess to all of you being about 1/4 of the intellectuals that you feel you are.

Perhaps that will prove to be too high a guess only time will tell.

Coming from you that is hilarious.

Djjd61 one of my best memories is my father telling me that my high school guided councilor had informed him that his son was nowhere near as bright as he thinks he is and is in fact an overachiever.

This comment was in connection to the fact that I was in all the advance science and mathematic classes my high school offer and was getting As in all of them.

Only being a so-so student in all others areas.

Somehow, I get the impression that this thread is full of such overachievers with very high level of self-esteems that on the surface does not seem to had been earned.

You might be right Bill. Especially about me. But I will not tolerate bullies. I didnt defend human rights for most of my life to be pushed around by ineffectuals who spent their time with their head up the arse of a book. If dickhead wants to discuss it, then he can apologise and I will discuss it.

i had the exact opposite experience, i was informed by a guidance counselor that i was much brighter than i even believed and was in fact underachieving, if by doing this he believed it would spur me on to greater things he was sadly mistaken, instead i said, hey i'm bright i don't need to worry

i found the education system to be a drag, and realized i didn't have the discipline to pursue independent study (ie college or university) but i love to learn new things and still try to improve my mind wherever possible