Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic,alt.religion.christian,alt.politics.correct,alt.christnet,talk.religion.misc,rec.arts.sf.written,alt.fan.heinlein,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.folklore.urban,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.christnet.bible,talk.abortion,alt.blasphemy,alt.postmodern,sci.lang,alt.catastrophism,alt.fan.publius,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,talk.atheism,alt.philosophy.debate
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!news.graphics.cornell.edu!hookup!solaris.cc.vt.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!iglou!news
From: gnewman@iglou.com (Greg 'Bonz' Newman)
Subject: Re: Noah & other bible myths
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: dp1-014.ppp.iglou.com
Message-ID: <Dur819.9Hx@iglou.com>
Sender: news@iglou.com (News Administrator)
Reply-To: gnewman@iglou.com
Organization: Wormsby Works
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
References: <4s9otl$1pt@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <705.6771T494T2133@gulf.net> <4sghi4$k77@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <4sgnnj$dj3@atlas.xylogics.com> <DupCHD.n4D@iglou.com> <4sk0t7$pvc@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 19:42:38 GMT
Lines: 40
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:190371 sci.lang:57679

On 18 Jul 1996 00:35:51 GMT, attila1@ix.netcom.com(Libertarius)
wrote:

>In <DupCHD.n4D@iglou.com> gnewman@iglou.com (Greg 'Bonz' Newman)
>writes: 
>>
>>On 16 Jul 1996 18:40:51 GMT, jking@alnitak.xylogics.com (Jack
>>King) wrote:
>>
>>>Libertarius (attila1@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>>
>>>:A person called Daniel never existed, neither before
>>>: nor after the Dead Sea Scrolls. However, The Book of Daniel, which
>>>: purports to predict things that had happened centuries before, was
>>>: written long after the events it was supposed to predict, at the
>time
>>>: of the Maccabees, in 165 or 164 BC. Its author attributed his book
>to a
>>>: "Daniel", a fictitious character named in Ezekiel (14:14) along
>with
>>>: Noah and Job. 
>>
>>>I see.  Daniel never existed.  Isn't it strange that Jesus himself
>>>refers to Daniel as a prophet (Math 24:15).  But I suppose you have
>>>a better source?
>>
>> Uh.. what does THAT have to do with anything? If Jesus said
>>that, he was wrong. Is that so hard to figure out?

>    More than likely, like many other statements, that quote was
>attributed to Jesus after the fact of the destruction of Jerusalem.
>Mark and Luke do not mention anything about Daniel.

>    Libertarius

  Hence the 'if' in my answer. Jesus MAY have said some of the
things attributed to him in the Gospels; or he may not have.



