The Silly Season of the Supernatural

I would have loved to have talked to Paine and Jefferson about their beliefs. I do disagree with you however, concerning the difference between free thinkers and atheists. If a person doesn't accept the bible as truth, that person is a free thinker. A free thinker isn't dependent on the bible, therefore the free thinker is an atheist. By the way, an agnostic is an atheist too. Free thinker and agnostic are evolutionary terms for atheism. Unfortunately its still not safe to be an atheist today, so I can't sign my name. I guess we need a word that sits between agnostic and atheist.

Susan Jacoby seems to me like a nut without a meat, walking the middle road blathering nonsense. "Freethinker" is a label. So is "Christian," so is "atheist." Our human predilection to put people into categories is a basis for bigotry and fuel for intolerance, not to mention a red flag for ignorance.

What we believe doesn't matter, not even when we gather to worship our gods and idols. Ultimately, what we do is what matters. Tell me Susan, what exactly is the difference between the bible and fiction by Dan Brown or Lewis Carroll or Mark Twain? (So sorry, did you miss the word fiction?) Trying to perceive beyond anthropomorphism is very difficult, isn’t it?

No one can prove the existence or nonexistence of any god (including the semi-god Jesus). Perhaps in the future that will change, but in the meanwhile all anyone can do is place their bet and wait for the dice to roll. Some place their bet on no bones will be found, some bet snake-eyes. What amuses me is the tone of fear between the lines when Christian apologists spew their opinions.

I am surprised the forum asked such a pointless question. One could easily predict people’s answers simply based on their religious preferences, so all we get is more pointless blather.

achiever duality spall nonabstention tchai alebench sanguinification hyposternum
http://home.no.net/site/delpyweb/ >Julie Delpy Tribute Site
http://www.ipass.net/teara/vin.html

There is some real un-Christian behavior going on here. Where is the other cheek? Where is the Love? Meekness? Hardly much of that here. Maybe the brainwashing wasn't thorough enough.

I sense mostly lip service being paid to the notion of being an unworthy sinner. I sense Pride in being human, even though that's one of the seven deadly sins. All reasons to believe there is hope yet. If you won't put up with your beliefs being denigrated in the public forum, why accept personal denigration from any organized intermediary between you and God? I've never understood that.

Kenneth_42: "Nonsense" is, thank goodness, simply your opinion. And I'd call it a humble one. Something that doesn't appear to be true of you yourself.

"By the way, are you as relieved as I am that the Number One Pointy Hat has told us that we can stop worrying about Limbo?"

Can people disagree while being courteous? It's abundantly clear you find no reason for hiding your sarcastic contempt not just for ideas with which you disagree, but for people. Does it occur to you that you do nothing to advance your viewpoint among others by speaking in such an arrogant, belittling way? Maybe you don't care about influencing opinion. Maybe you think others (who don't happen to agree with you) are so stupid that we don't deserve a civil tongue.

Have you ever considered changing your tone? If you do, I hope others respond favorably to your intelligent, inquiring mind. But I won't be wasting my precious time listening to your insults. I'm hereby throwing the baby out with the bathwater. See ya! (Kinda hope not).

I only condemn non-sense.

*** "...contagion was killing people long before germ theory emerged. Does this mean
*** that germs, then, had no place in understanding of human disease? Please! They
*** did once there were detected."

This is a perfect example of scientific inquiry dispelling the need for a supernatural explanation for illness. Man learned that it isn't demon possession or being held in disfavor by the Gods. The meaning of the word "natural" was confirmed by this discovery, not "expanded" as you would have it.

*** "Just because you don't or can't perceive or measure something now, doesn't mean
*** it isn't natural."

We know that there is much to be discovered. There is every reason to expect that beyond the current horizon of our knowledge will lie more of the same natural phenomena and cause and effect we have always experienced. As there has never in history been a confirmed and proven supernatural event, there is no reason to think we will encounter anything like that in the future.

*** "...re: "continuum?" Do you imagine that all the words and concepts you use have
*** crystal-clear meanings?

Certainly not. That's why I have a dictionary and other natural knowledge sources such as yourself to draw on. There is no reason to turn to supernatural speculation.

Kenneth_42: "What would be plug into our math equations?" Please! Plug away. And I'll try not to be as insulting as some of the atheists here are by telling you in a derisive way what unimaginative, "inside-the-box" thinking I think your response represents.

I have no respect for your undisciminatng accusing of Christians for sophistry and fuzzy thinking meant to muddy the issues. And how can you judge who's "honest" and who isn't? Don't you see you come off as just as close-minded and arrogant as those you condemn?

Oh, and you were there when the word "horizon" was defined? It's a pity you seem to understand it only in a literal sense.

Please don't lump me into the category of KKK "Chrisitans" (an oxymoron) or those who participated in the Crusades.

Things that can't be measured are of no use in understanding the natural universe? Don't use see that it may be possible to expand the meaning of the word "natural?" Just because you don't or can't perceive or measure something now, doesn't mean it isn't natural. As I said in another thread, contagion was killing people long before germ theory emerged. Does this mean that germs, then, had no place in understanding of human disease? Please! They did once there were detected.

"Why blur its meaning" re: "continuum?" Do you imagine that all the words and concepts you use have crystal-clear meanings? There's no blurring here...Just recognition of what's real.

Of your post, I would respectfully say, "there's nothing profound here." Mostly bigotry, which you can keep.

Atheist Bias? My experience has been that atheists, being a small and vulnerable minority, are far more likely to be respectful of other people and their "soap box" rights than are "believers". Most of the horrors visited on the human race have been imposed by people on a mission from God. From the Crusades to the KKK. Organized religious dogma and myth passed off as history or as a rational construct of reality is what doesn't deserve respect.

*** "... the distinction between the "natural" and the "supernatural" -- an essential point
*** being argued here -- might be considered a construct of limited human minds"

Of course it is. It is a perfectly logical distinction to include in our definitions of reality based on everyday experience and common-sense. Things that can't be perceived or measured are of no use in understanding the Universe. A claim that God created it in one way or another just begs the question. If God is part of the natural world, what symbol and value do we plug into our math equations?

*** "...Has anyone heard the saying, 'An horizon is nothing save the limit of our sight?'
*** Just because our perceptive capacities don't allow sight beyond a horizon, doesn't
*** mean there's nothing there."

Nothing profound here. We knew that there is something beyond the horizon when we defined the word as we did.

Frankly, I think that Christians are the worst for sophistry. They constantly try to fuzzy-up definitions and distinctions to cloak their non-rational argument with "logic". The honest ones I've known don't claim more than their "faith".

*** "Why should it be so hard, then, to view total reality as a kind of continuum -- some
*** of it governed by principles men and women can observe and measure, and some of
*** it not? Might such an understanding give many of us some kind of common ground?"

Any kind of continuum is something that can be measured. Why blur it's meaning? What common ground? A shared belief that the supernatural can be included as part of a rational scheme of things?

Surely you didn't think it would be that easy?

Some of the exchanges here are thoughtful, helpful and stimulating. Some are eye-popping. I can see where many of us (especially those of us who hold Christian or some other faith) would be intially drawn in to these discussions and then become really turned off. Not because we are afraid of our faith being destroyed by "evidence" submitted by atheists...Our repugnance for atheist bias, which can be just as strong as the bias exhibited by fundamentalists of any religious tradition...But due to the lack of basic respect some of this dialogue shows. And realizing that, amongst many of us, there's little way to bridge our differences.

I am not a Biblical scholar. I am not a scientist. I am ignorant by many standards here. I do wonder, though, if it's occurred to many of us that the distinction between the "natural" and the "supernatural" -- an essential point being argued here -- might be considered a construct of limited human minds. Has anyone heard the saying, "An horizon is nothing save the limit of our sight?" Just because our perceptive capacities don't allow sight beyond a horizon, doesn't mean there's nothing there. Contagion was killing people long before germ theory emerged.

Why should it be so hard, then, to view total reality as a kind of continuum -- some of it governed by principles men and women can observe and measure, and some of it not? Might such an understanding give many of us some kind of common ground?

Maybe I'm naive. Maybe I'm needy ("why can't we all just get along?")...God forbid such a stance in our society! Some of the talk here reminds me of something of a very good, and very smart, minister said in a sermon at Washington Cathedral when I was a teenager: "How we cherish our enemies."

I'd like to address the comment that Ms. Jacoby made on Rand.

I don't think that she could be classified as a social Darwinist; while she did believe that society would ultimately become the best it could be with a laissez-faire approach, I think that social issues were incidental to her main idea of individual freedom. The Objectivist ethics aren't about forging an uncaring Darwinist society. They are about people not controlling other people.

*** "...The Church teaches that one can believe that evolution happened, provided
*** that we remember that, at some time, God elevated primative Man, creating
*** him with a soul."

Evolution occurs when an organism acquires a trait that helps it better adapt to its environment.
Is the Church saying that a soul came about as a result of natural selection? We came to have one and the other great apes did not? What are the advantages that would cause a soul to be a useful mutation? Is there a "soul" gene that is passed along to our offspring?

As evidenced by my numerous posts, I'm not afraid of an argument. Don't plant the flag when you haven't taken the hill. I have responded to almost all of your questions(some are too silly). I saw the futility of trying to talk sense to you after reading that you wouldn't want to spend you eternity with Love Itself, the only true, God (the other, FYI, are stone, etc.) who created you to be with Him in Heaven (the only alternative for everyone is Hell.) . Sadly, I'm not surprised that you have claimed, and most likely will continue to claim, victory. Back to reality.

I see no reason to conceal my sarcastic contempt and lack of respect for nonsense. One advantage of this attitude is that allows for a quick exit of those who need to claim personal affront in order to avoid defending a weak , circular argument. Which is understandable. None of us wants to waste any of the precious time that we have left.

Sainthood or Bust!
http://www.amazon.com/Missionary-Position-Mother-Teresa-Practice/dp/185984054X

By the way, are you as relieved as I am that the Number One Pointy Hat has told us that we can stop worrying about Limbo?

You are truly a hateful man, who is obsessed with conspiracy theories, who is woefully ignorant of history, and woefully ignorant of the teachings and the beliefs of the Catholic Church. You obviously aren't a real atheist. You don't mind pagan worship, but despise Jesus Christ and his Church.

Your despicable ranting about mother thesesa (which are rationally baseless) and the Supreme court justices ( men who are highly regarded by the peers) is stunning. And yet, I'm to believe that atheists aren't hateful, self-important people. You've been superb example of self-deception, and self-worship. Godspeed.

*** "...He became man to save us from eternal separation from him"

Or else!

What point could there be to an eternal bond with God? What causes you to think that would be something desirable?

*** "...the most charitable group in the U.S. is Conservative Christians"

I wonder why? Any insights into what might be motivating them. What percent of their charity is going to organized religion?

***"...Michelanglo. Leonardo. Thomas More. Mother Theresa..."

Mother Theresa was a fraud. A pittance was spent on the hospice care that they provided. The young Nuns complained that rather than focusing on their wards, they were sent out onto the street to put on a dog and pony show of begging money, when the real money rolled in by the millions from all over the world.

The art and music is impressive, but was produced by talented people who would have done good work anyway. I think of the time wasted over the centuries by people on their knees talking to God, when they could have been up and about doing good for themselves and their fellow man.

The fact that organized religion has permeated our culture, society and institutions doesn't mean it's a good thing. Look at how the Catholic church controls Poland, bleeding it's treasury like a leech. Look at the direction the five Catholic Fascists on our Supreme Court are taking the country in their interference in our individual and family privacy rights.

And I don't like them buggering the children.

*** "I expected better, even from an atheist."

Surely you meant to say, "I expected better, especially from an atheist."

Is a God that wishes to be worshiped, worthy of same?

Would you worship the following hypothetical God?

He concedes that there are other gods and that he himself is jealous, one of the most petty of human traits. Yet he threatens your family for generations to come unless you choose to worship him. He demands that you pay him for your freedom from slavery. You've learned that he's wrathful, one of the Seven Deadly Sins among humans. He claims to love you but it's like the love of an earthly father who is a manic-depressive gangster.

Would you not want to see what the other gods have to offer?

"Cavemen were grunting around the campfire using the Socratic Method,as are we, long before that old fraud came along and took credit for it."

Uh huh. I don't want to know how you developed that opinion. I supposed it had to do with your grunting around your own place.

"As for the condescension; you're welcome."

I expected better, even from an atheist.

Kenneth,

This will probably be my last post, because this conversation has gone on MUCH longer than I was willing to participate.

"If man is a sinner and is nonetheless being provided for by God, he would probably feel that God held him in great esteem and found him no more unworthy than is a child. "

Slightly incorrect. God Does love man, so much so that He became man to save us from eternal separation from him. But we, of our own merits, are unworthy of him. IT is he who makes us worthy.

Unless you can show me photos of animal designing war machines, you haven't proven that they are rational.

"Doesn't stupidity worry you?"

Yes. But Catholicism isn't stupid.

"It's the cupidity and moral depravity of organized religion that I worry about. "

Such as? The efforts of Catholic Charites in third Countries is extremely beneficial. You may recall that a recent study showed that the most charitable group in the U.S. is Conservative Christians.

"Christianity is the bane of Western civilization."

Yeah. Michelanglo. Leonardo. Thomas More. Mother Theresa. These people were the bane of western civization. oh, wait a minute. They contributed to it. Western Civilization was founded on the ideals of Christianity. "The prinipal of Subsidiary" is a term which was coined by Leo XIII. You may not know, but the Electoral College, which ensures that the majority cannot trample upon the rights of the minority, is based upon the structure of the College of Cardinals, which elects the Pope. There are countless other examples.

"Optional question out of idle curiosity about your take on Genesis: Did Adam and Eve have bellybuttons?"

The Church teaches that one can believe that evolution happened, provided that we remember that, at some time, God elevated primative Man, creating him with a soul.

I think that there is nothing to be gained, on either side, from further discussion. You obviously have a deep-seated problem with Christianity, and must find a way to overcome your distaste for it.

Goodbye and God Bless.

*** "...seems arrogant of you to dismiss thousands of years of philosophy from the likes of
*** Socrates..."

*** "...You've only ingored my answers to you, and attacked religious people as
*** irrational (even evil), and condescendingly told me time and again that you
*** want to save me from me stupidity"

Cavemen were grunting around the campfire using the Socratic Method, as are we, long before that old fraud came along and took credit for it. As for the condescension; you're welcome.

If man is a sinner and is nonetheless being provided for by God, he would probably feel that God held him in great esteem and found him no more unworthy than is a child. Why think any differently? Organized religion lays on the guilt trip in order to defraud the suckers of as much of God's bounty as it can. Ten percent minimum.

*** "...Are you blaming nature for murderers?"

Who made Hitler? I don't confuse sin and law-breaking.

In your opinion, can a non-theist live a noble and ethical life observing widely accepted moral precepts and be left alone after he dies, or must he be brought to God's judgment?

*** "...If they did [contemplate the concept of payback], don't you think that they would've
*** rebelled against us?"

Have you noticed in the news all the berserk elephants killing their handlers? Remember Moby Dick?

http://www.amazon.com/Loss-Essex-Whale-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140437967
"Book Description
In 1820, the Nantucket whaleship Essex, thousands of miles from home in the South Pacific, was rammed by an angry sperm whale. The Essex sank, leaving twenty crew members floating in three small boats for ninety days. The incident was the Titanic story of its day, and provided the inspiration for Melville's Moby-Dick. The Narrative of the Wreck of the Whaleship Essex, by the ship's first mate, Owen Chase, has long been the fundamental account of the Essex's doomed voyage. But in 1980, a new account of the disaster was discovered, penned by Thomas Nickerson, the fifteen-year-old cabin boy who was steering the ship when the whale attacked. Now, Nickerson's harrowing tale can be read alongside Chase's in one authoritative edition, which includes more than a dozen other accounts from articles and newspapers, many of which have never appeared in book form."

*** "...If you think that Christianity is so stupid, why are you so worried about it? Perhaps you
*** don't really think it is."

Doesn't stupidity worry you? It's the cupidity and moral depravity of organized religion that I worry about. Christianity is the bane of Western civilization. We have barely advanced more than the poor Arabs and Indonesians, mired in the Middle Ages under the yoke of Islam.

Optional question out of idle curiosity about your take on Genesis: Did Adam and Eve have bellybuttons?

"*** "The mere fact that man seeks out God shows that he is inately spiritual."

"It shows that he is curious. God is a metaphor for "All that is Unknown". "

That is silly. curiousity doesn't cause one to believe in God. Great thinkers have believed in him, and wern't convinced of his existence because of curiousity. You are naive to think that curiousity caused belief in God. Is seems arrogant of you to dismiss thousands of years of philosophy from the likes of Socrates, etc, and hold your own wisdom in such high regard. Do you think that you have discovered the truth, when brilliant men who devoted their lives to learning the truth came to believe in God?

You really haven't given answers to my arguments. You've only ingored my answers to you, and attacked religious people as irrational (even evil), and condescendingly told me time and again that you want to save me from me stupidity. If you think that Christianity is so stupid, why are you so worried about it? Perhaps you don't really think it is.

God Bless you.

"If God were a part of the natural world he could be measured as anything else in our world can be."

he isn't prat of the world. He is out side of it. He created it. being natural isn't being created.

"If this all seems rather silly, remember it's your premise."

It's your misinterpretation of my words.

"How do you know that whales and elephants don't have abstract thoughts? How do you know they don't hold to a concept of justice in which God will someday punish Man for his predation?"

Let's see. If they did, don't you think that they would've rebelled against us? Don't you think that researchers would've seen monkees praying by now? Really, some of this is very amusing to me.

" Gorillas can be taught to use our language machines to talk to us."

Gorillas can's design or build bridges. They cannot imagine abstract thing. they base their lives only on what they can see, kinda like you ;)While machines can talk to us, they are incapable of willing anything, or of choosing to do something which they haven't learned from man.

"... what logic would cause a believer to think he is unworthy of what God has provided?"

Men are unworthy of God because men are sinners. If you don't believe in sin or in sinners, what do you think Hitler did and Hitler was? If we are just highly intelligent animals, then we will always operate according to our nature. It is not natural to murder, but thousands (if not millions) have done so. Are you blaming nature for murderers?

"This is not necessarily true but so what if it is for some? "

You say that only arrogant people believe in God. I say that only humble people can truly believe in God, and that only arrogant people can truly not believe in Him, and thereby hail themselves as the highest intelligence.

This conversation has been stimulating, but no matter what evidence I present, both logical and philosophical, I cannot force someone to accept what I know to be true. God Bless you, and keep you.

If God were a part of the natural world he could be measured as anything else in our world can be. Since the natural world began with the Big Bang, your argument would imply that God did not exist until that event occurred. If such a God existed prior to the Big Bang as a natural part of a material world, what was he composed of? It couldn't be the stuff of the material world since that is not yet created. If this all seems rather silly, remember it's your premise.

How do you know that whales and elephants don't have abstract thoughts? How do you know they don't hold to a concept of justice in which God will someday punish Man for his predation? They manifest love. Gorillas can be taught to use our language machines to talk to us. If a monkey was praying, how would you tell? Maybe they are praying for success when they use tools to catch ants to eat.

You shouldn't mix your dogma and your logic. Except for brainwashing by organized religious cults, what logic would cause a believer to think he is unworthy of what God has provided? The cults are like the Army or Communists; they must break down the recruit and convince him that he can only be rehabilitated through them.

*** "The mere fact that man seeks out God shows that he is inately spiritual."

It shows that he is curious. God is a metaphor for "All that is Unknown".

*** "Those who refused to believe in a power higher than themselves, in a wisdom greater than their own, are prideful.".

This is not necessarily true but so what if it is for some?

Kenneth,

"you grasp the supernatural solution, which is the least likely based on our experience. "

I have not experienced death. Yet it happens. It is not a supernatural solution. It is natural. You seem to think the believers are a bunch of failures who seek to comfort themselves with the thought of an afterlife.

Infinite regress, such as "Z was caused by X was caused by Y was caused by W", presents an infinite line of zeros. None of these has existence of itself. They must have recieved existence from a being who IS existence. This is NOT a supernatural explanation. God is a natural Being.

Even the inanimate universe exists. The mere fact that man seeks out God shows that he is inately spiritual. Animals can't consider the abstract. Yet man can. All creatures operate according to their nature. Have you ever seen a monkey pray?

"In part, man created God because of his own inflated opinion of himself. "If someone as smart as I can't explain things, then it must be the work of Gods." "

Believing in God is NOT prideful. Those who do must admit that they have received EVERYTHING from him, and are unworthy of it.

Those who refused to believe in a power higher than themselves, in a wisdom greater than their own, are prideful.

Nonsensical answers for nonsensical questions.

The fundamental problem with your logic is that when faced with a question that our body of human knowledge can't yet answer, you grasp the supernatural solution, which is the least likely based on our experience. Less and less a God is needed to explain things. Thunder and lightning for example.

There simply is no evidence to support your claim that life can only have a supernatural origin. Your claim that "...If life exist today, then it always existed..." is easily refuted. Life did not exist in the early universe because it's needed elements had not yet been synthesized in supernova and other processes. It arose through a process that is not yet fully understood. But we learn more every day.

The claim that the proof that God created life is the life itself is circular and absurd on the face of it. If you include a supernatural domino you ultimately have to explain where it came from.

In part, man created God because of his own inflated opinion of himself. "If someone as smart as I can't explain things, then it must be the work of Gods."

Correction: if one were to assume that every thing was caused by something else, [and thereby] exclude the possibility of a Supreme Being, then one would have to believe in an endless domino effect, and an unceasing, yet (according to you) uncaused evolution."

"Existence from non-existence? Sure, non-existence is where babies come from."

Babies rise from the life of the father and the mother. It is impossible for a baby to mature inside a dead woman, or be concieved by a dead man.

""Is it possible for causation not to be put into 'motion' by an uncaused Cause?" Certainly. It was the state of affairs until infinite time and quantum mechanics combined to yield the Big Bang."

There is no such thing as 'infinite time.' It is contradictory. Time has a beginning and an end.
Matter and anti-matter didn't always exist. No scientist will tell you that. Therfore, it was brought into being.

"If you are reaching the conclusion that a supernatural supreme being exists based on faith rather than evidence,"

The evidence is the existence of life. If life exist today, then it always existed. It once there was no life, then there would be no possibility for life to ever be. Therefore, A self-existing Being who is uncreated Life itself, the source of all other life, MUST exist.

"All life that adapts to it's environment is intelligent. Can sentient live evolve? Yes, it clearly has."

That doesn't deny that an intelligent being caused the evolution. In the beginning, evolution had a cause. This is indisputable. if one were to assume that every thing was caused by something else, but exclude the possibility of a Supreme Being, then one would have to believe in an endless domino effect, and an unceasing, yet (according to you) uncaused evolution. It makes no sense.

*** "You are essentially saying that as long as I believe in a Supreme Being, I am irrational."

If you are reaching the conclusion that a supernatural supreme being exists based on faith rather than evidence, then yes, your belief is not based on reason and is by definition as irrational as buying land in Florida sight unseen.

The insult is that you seem to think that an adult unbeliever might be gullible enough to accept such untestable nonsense with a straight face.

Existence from non-existence? Sure, non-existence is where babies come from.

Life rise from nothing? I doubt it. I do think it's likely to evolve almost anywhere that warm water is found in the Universe .

"Is it possible for causation not to be put into 'motion' by an uncaused Cause?" Certainly. It was the state of affairs until infinite time and quantum mechanics combined to yield the Big Bang.

All life that adapts to it's environment is intelligent. Can sentient live evolve? Yes, it clearly has.

Kenneth,

"Even assuming a coherent reason for eternal life to exist, would it not eventually become a source of unrelenting torture, no end to the pointlessness? A hell in and of itself. "

You think of Eternity as in a time continuem. Eternal Means outside of time. Unchanging. One can't be bored outside of a series of 'time-bound', chronological events.

"My only goal is to help the rational person inside you de-program your mind of that self-serving supernaturalistic nonsense that has you in its grip."

You are essentially saying that as long as I believe in a Supreme Being, I am irrational. Don't you think that's sounds insulting? Where did you get the idea that one can persaude another to agree with him by immediately saying his idea is logically backrupt? At least be respectful.

I'd like you to asnwer this questions: can existence rise from non-existence? Can life come rise from nothing? Is it possible for causation not to be put into 'motion' by an uncaused Cause?
Can intelligent life rise from life that was unintelligent? (even in Evolution, God would be the original intelligence which caused the evolution of an unintelligent life into intelligent life)

See, you've got me spouting self-contradictory drivel..."Even assuming a coherent reason for eternal life to exist, would it not eventually become a source of unrelenting torture, no end to the pointlessness?"

That should say: I've never heard a coherent argument for eternal life.

DAVID B., I try to avoid ad hominem attacks for the usual reasons. It's usually an indicator of a weak argument on the issue at hand. It invites retaliation, and I live in a glass house.

I do judge your arguments and beliefs but I'd never presume to pass judgment on you personally.
My only goal is to help the rational person inside you de-program your mind of that self-serving supernaturalistic nonsense that has you in its grip. Even assuming a coherent reason for eternal life to exist, would it not eventually become a source of unrelenting torture, no end to the pointlessness? A hell in and of itself.

Might you rephrase your comment about non-believers fear to take responsibility for their actions? I can't figure out what you mean by that.

And now it comes. I was glad to see that you, unlike many others, were not engaging in personal attacks. You can't judge me. You don't know that my belief in God comes from fear of destruction. I love Jesus Christ. Why shouldn't I? He became man, (though he could've saved men in may other ways) suffered humiliation and death, and grants Eternal life to those who know, love, and serve him. What did I do to deserve that? Nothing. I sinned against him, wounded myself and others, and often rejected his grace. I do not serve God out of fear of hell. I serve Him out of love for Him. I think that many (I'm not judging you) who disbelieve God's existance are afraid of taking responibility for their actions.

The number of historians who dispute the existence of Jesus Christ or the historicity of the Gospels are in the extreme minority. But for some, no amount of evidence will suffice.

ANONYMOUS, you and so many others have been the victims of an elaborate con game. It was conceived originally by the earliest shamans and has changed little in its iterations over the millenia.

"Con" is short for "confidence". Some victims of a con game have put so much faith and trust in the con man that they refuse to accept that they have been duped, even though their pockets have been emptied.

Con men coined the phrase, "you can't cheat an honest man". That's because the con only works on the greedy. Greedy for money usually, but greed for salvation makes it work even better. In that case, the old saying among the con-man priests is, "you can't cheat a rational man".

And the con works the very best when it's run on children. But any frightened person looking for something as pointless and irrational as immortality makes a good mark.

David B.:

"I'd like those who point to books written by 'learned' men, who say that Jesus didn't exist..."

Take a deep breath, pal. Saying there is no historical evidence that Christ existed is not the same thing as saying he didn't exist.

Of course, when the lack of evidence keeps piling up....

Sorry. Try this for Josephus on Jesus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Neither Josephus or Tacitus were contemporaries of Jesus. At best it can only be argued that they are reporting the claims of late 1st and early 2nd Chrisians who never knew Jesus. They are unreliable. Read on in wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimonium_Flavianum.

Your fractured logic concerning the implications of similarities between pre-existing God-man myth and the "Jesus" story is hilarious. The early "Christian Fathers" attributed it to a mischievous dirty trick by the Devil.

Doesn't it bother you that you can't find a shred of hard evidence?

Kenneth_42,

"What do you make of the fact that the Vatican sits atop the Temple of Mithra, granted to The RC church by the Emperor around 300 ad."

I think it was a nice.

" Are you aware that Mithra is a Persian god worshipped thousands of years before Jesus who has the same biography as this most recent iteration of the God-man myth?"

That merely illustrates who the idea of God becoming man wasn't foreign or unimaginable(though only Jesus ever claimed to save men for thier sins). It actually makes the case for Jesus existence. Jesus Claimed to be God. Unlike the pagan gods, he existed and proved that he is God.

Since you trust Wikipedia, I, too, shall quote from the website:

"Flavius Josephus (c. 37–c. 100), a Jew and Roman citizen who worked under the patronage of the Flavians, wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in 93. In it, Jesus is mentioned twice. In the second very brief mentioning, Josephus calls James, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ".[33] This is considered by the majority of scholars to be authentic,[34] though a few have raised doubts.[35]

"More notably, in the Testimonium Flavianum, it is written:

"About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease [to follow him], for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day."

More:

"Tacitus (c. 56–c. 117), writing c. 116, included in his Annals a mention of Christianity and Christ. In describing Nero's persecution of Christians following the Great Fire of Rome c. 64, he wrote:

"Nero fastened the guilt [of starting the blaze] and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius [14-37] at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman summarized the historical importance of this passage:

"Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius's reign. We learn nothing, however, about the reason for this execution, or about Jesus' life and teachings." "

CHIP, you said, "...My mom is an excellent example of someone I consider to be a typical religious person. She enjoys comparing beliefs with me but when I raise logical inconsistencies, biblical contradictions, questions of historicity, ethical considerations, and so on, they are invariably things she's never considered before...."

It was the same with my mom until one day she looked at me and said matter-of-factly, "Don't destroy my faith." We never spoke of it again.

She was a well adjusted person who enjoyed life but I believe the organized religion thing (Protestant) increased her death anxiety rather than mitigating it. Deep down she knew, as do most, I think, that she was choosing to believe in an Adult Santa Clause world. Her normal ego and sense of self-worth and uniqueness convinced her that the death without immortality of such a special creature would be an unthinkable tragedy. Her intelligence and rationally that she routinely used in all other matters tried to give her the truth but she repressed them. The conflict created anxiety. She was less able to just relax and enjoy the magic for as long as it lasts. And that is the real tragedy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catacombs_of_Rome
"The first large-scale catacombs were excavated from the 2nd century onwards" - wikipedia.

What do you make of the fact that the Vatican sits atop the Temple of Mithra, granted to The RC church by the Emperor around 300 ad. Are you aware that Mithra is a Persian god worshipped thousands of years before Jesus who has the same biography as this most recent iteration of the God-man myth? Virgin birth on the Winter Solstice, twelve disciples, same mission, executed and arisen three days later. Check out the biographical details of the other ancient God-men, Horus, Isis-Osiris, Budda, Vishnu, et al. If you've been thinking that "Jesus" was the first God-man with that story, then I'd suggest you be sitting down when you inform yourself.

You didn't answer the question. Without playing "Dueling Scholars", are you aware of any direct evidence?

You said, "The writings of the time indicate that persecution of the followers of Jesus continued after his death". What writings?

"who tortured the hundreds? When, where? Romans? Where are the interrogation records? Where are stories the Roman soldiers carried home and wrote into their memoirs? "

I did not mean to say that all of the first disciples were martyred. St. Paul was martyred, and all but one of the apostles (John) were slain. I can't believe you seriously doubt the facts of the matter. The Persecution of the Christians started immediately upon their appearance. The writings of the time indicate that persecution of the followers of Jesus continued after his death. This is not disputed.

"How is it that none of the hundreds built a shrine, inscribed odes on pottery, wrote a song or left any evidence whatsoever that such an unusual and noteworthy event occurred?"

The catacombs in Rome have many depictions of Christ which go back 2,000 Years.

"Have you aware of ANY piece of archeological evidence of Jesus, his mother, his father or any of the twelve disciples? "

You ARE kidding, right? Virtually NO reputable scholar disputes tha Jesus existed here on earth.

In addition, ANONYMOUS, who tortured the hundreds? When, where? Romans? Where are the interrogation records? Where are stories the Roman soldiers carried home and wrote into their memoirs?

ANONYMOUS,

*** ..."How could twelve men (most of whom who were uneducated) invent such a Man as
*** Jesus?"

The same pagan stories had been around for millenia. What was there to invent?

*** ..."Secondly, how, (if in the extreme case that they did lie) could it be that
*** not ONE of the hundreds who said that they saw Jesus after the Resurrection
*** did NOT cave under torture and death threats, and reveal the truth?

How is it that none of the hundreds built a shrine, inscribed odes on pottery, wrote a song or left any evidence whatsoever that such an unusual and noteworthy event occurred?

Have you aware of ANY piece of archeological evidence of Jesus, his mother, his father or any of the twelve disciples?

Questioning the truthfulness of writings does go both ways. I'd like those who point to books written by 'learned' men, who say that Jesus didn't exist (respectable scholars don't say such things), or that Jesus didn't rise from dead, to please assure me that these men aren't lying. (the only way to be sure it to martyr them. Thankfully, that is illegal.)

"Regardless of whether one views Jesus as a good teacher and a historical figure (as I do); "

As C.S. lewis pointed out, this is a silly statement. Jesus proclaimed Himself the Son of God. If this isn't true, then he was either a deceiver(and therefore wicked. But how could such wisdom, Love, and knowledge be convincingly taught by an evil man?)or a lunatic (which isn't possible. Lunatics aren't effective preachers. Their insanity shows through).

Therefore, the only possibility for those who wish to deny Jesus' Divinity MUST be that the apostles were liars. Think about this for a moment: How could twelve men (most of whom who were uneducated) invent such a Man as Jesus? Secondly, how, (if in the extreme case that they did lie) could it be that not ONE of the hundreds who said that they saw Jesus after the Resurrection did NOT cave under torture and death threats, and reveal the truth?

I will let you give the answer.

"The Pope was offended because the idea of a married Jesus vitiates the Catholic Church's defense of a celibate priesthood. If Jesus was married, it surely follows that it is all right for priests to marry as well."

That isn't the only reason he was 'upset.' By virtue of the Hypostatic Union, every fiber of Jesus' body is part of His Divine Nature. Therefore, if he had fathered a child, the child would have been "part" Divine and "part" human, which is logically impossible.

" Perhaps that dates back to the beginning, maybe because his followers were shocked that he was reported to die such a horrible death -- so much so that they had to invent a resurrection story to reassure themselves. "

Bull. They didn't believe he rose even when mary told them. Suppose, for a moment, that they DID. Wouldn't ONE of them 'wake up' and tell the truth?

Just thought I would pitch something in here. First off the word Virgin in the time period of the bible specifically referred to an unwed or unattached woman, so YES Mary was a Virgin for the birth of Jesus. Secondly, I thought that one had to be married in order to become a Jewish Rabbi at that time. If that was the case, and I believe (not positive) that Jesus was a Rabbi, then he was married. If I am wrong please let me know and give me the references that show this. I myself am not Christian but I enjoy the study of faith and am working on a Degree therein. Peace to All.

BTW: I know that my First point is a FACT. It is the second I am unsure about.

Oops. My thanks go to EFavorite, not to Chip. Thanks, E.

Chip:

"[I]n 41-65AD I'm pretty sure the terms Christian wasn't used - they were Jews who were followers of Jesus."

You're probably right. Thanks.

My post: "realm of Tiberius" should have been "reign of Tiberius."

My theory is that Mary was abducted by beings of higher intelligence from another world. Her insemination could explain the virgin birth and her son Jesus could have inheritied his higher powers from the paternal side of his gene pool.
In any case, this man or the legend of this man who is/was the best teacher has made a major positive impact on the world and it is sad that there are now those like Robertson, Dobson, Falwell et. al. who now use his name to spew their exclusion and hatred.

Chip - I'll be looking for you.

John Connolly - thanks for the run-down on mentions of Jesus. One thing though, in 41-65AD I'm pretty sure the terms Christian wasn't used - they were Jews who were followers of Jesus. Apparently it was common for Jews to be influenced by various messiahs who were about in those times.

I don't have a specific reference for this - learned it in a NT class a while back and also remember reading about it somewhere.

E Favorite writes "Hey, Chip - the beltway atheists are meeting tomorrow at 6 for happy hour at the Potomac Grill, 1093 Rockville Pike, Rockville MD 20852

http://atheists.meetup.com/530/calendar/5526533/t/nr1_nr"

Thanks for the heads up, E. I may try and make that. It's not too far away from me. If for no other reason than because Jeff Wismer needs a good smack upside the head ;)

"Chrestus"

Oh, now I'm on track. It was Suetonius who referred to Chrestus. He said the Jews were "rioting at the instigation of Chrestus." (Source at hand, Johnson, Paul, _A History of Christianity_, Atheneum, 1976) And that's all he said. Who, pray tell, was Chrestus? Was it Christ? Couldn't be. He wasn't alive at the time (reign of Claudius, 41-54 AD). And anyway, he was talking about Jews, not Christians. The citation seems to be a garbled story about something he wasn't well familiar with, or else it had nothing to do with Christians and Christ.

To sum up:

References in Flavius Josephus were inserted later by Christians.

The reference in Tacitus was not contemporary, seems to be hearsay, and was possibly inserted later.

The reference in Suetonius cannot be made heads or tails of.

The reference in Pliny the Younger was not contemporary (written 112 AD about current events).

References in the Talmud were not contemporary (2nd to 5th century).

References in Thallus are not extant. We have to take the word of Christians that he wrote them. Seem not to have been contemporary.

No reference in Cassius Dio, because I checked books 57 and 58, on the realm of Tiberius.

And there is no reference in Velleius Paterculus, because I bloody well checked the whole document.

Ergo: No history of Christ not written by Christians, ergo, no history of Christ that can be considered objective.

Case closed.

Anonymous:

"[A] site that has "infidels" in the title makes one wonder about its objectivity. Wouldn't you say?"

Not at all. They're nonbelievers. They accept the terminology of the religious to describe themselves. Makes for efficient communication. How is that non-objective? Because they don't agree with you?

Chip,

Ok..Ok..I guess my ultimate point is that it's important to maintain mutual respect on these boards. You seem like someone that would want to do that. There are too many 'jacobs' and 'bgones' on this site and it's up to all of us to keep the standard high. Maybe I was a little too put off by being compared to a mindless, slipper-footed, redneck waiting for Ed McMahon to send the big check (sorry rednecks...it takes one to say that :-)

But you have to admit the comparison is a little degrading.

If you've read many of my posts, hopefully you see I'm trying to maintain a level of healthy, respectful debate.

Peace.

Hey, Chip - the beltway atheists are meeting tomorrow at 6 for happy hour at the Potomac Grill, 1093 Rockville Pike, Rockville MD 20852

http://atheists.meetup.com/530/calendar/5526533/t/nr1_nr

Shawn, perhaps you noticed the "I" in that sentence? That's how I personally view it and one of the reasons why religious faith doesn't appeal to me, and why I find people who insist that it's true rather baffling. I also find your assertion that my having and expressing that opinion somehow makes me condescending to be rather baffling, and perhaps even a tad condescending. But seeing as I also feel that you, as an adult type person, are fully entitled to your opinion, I'll let it slide.

Sorry Chip...I think I'm accurate based on your statement below...

"I put religion in the same category as I do the "you may already be a winner" blurb on the sweepstakes envelopes that come in the mail."

Shawn, expressing a detailed opinion that you don't happen to like isn't automatically condescension. Condescension would have been me expressing my opinion while patting you on the head and saying "There there now Shawn. It's going to be okay." I can do that if you prefer.

Shawn
If you had ever seen my shape,
you would realize
that it is much too portly to be bendable.

Besides, such bending would be much too much exertion for the likes of me.

But thank you for your concern.

Henry,

Don't get all bent out of shape. Hey, if you want to be condescending that's great. At least you have statistics to support it. An informed condescending intellectual is, after all, better than an uninformed one.

Shawn, My Dear (condescenion intended)

You accuse my friend Chip and me of making unwarrented generalizations.
I made the generalization that many people are uncertain of what they believe. The below is from a recent Harris Poll, supporting my "generalization." Shawn, some generalizations are accurate.
(here is the Harris data)
While Most U.S. Adults Believe in God, Only 58 Percent are "Absolutely Certain"

There is no consensus on God’s gender, form or degree of control over events on earth

Multinational surveys have often reported that Americans are much more likely to believe in God than people in most other developed countries, particularly in Europe. However, a new Harris Poll finds that 42 percent of all U.S. adults say they are not "absolutely certain" there is a God, including 15 percent who are "somewhat certain," 11 percent who think there is probably no God and 16 percent who are not sure.

HENRY again: visiting the site will give you much more data on belief uncertainly/lack of clarity.
People don't often know WHAT THEY BELIEVE.

Well as long as you know that's fine. I was just worried you were ignorant of the fact.

Shawn
I know exactly how condescending I sound.

Faith in the Virgin Birth has
Nothing to do with *thinking.*

Such a belief is, by definition, 'non-thinking."

I am America's greatest novelist and literary critic, and therefore am completely aware of my tone.

Chip and Henry,

I wish you could hear how condescending you both sound. Really. To group large quantities of people into herds of "non-thinking" sheep is demeaning.

People Usually Don't Know What they Believe

Chip is right
Most people choose a church because their parents went there.
Then it gets to convenience, which people you want to be associated with (the Jews or the Episcopalians).

The great majority don't care about theological niceties.
The "believe in God"
but they often aren't sure if "he"
created the world
is all-powerful,
hears their prayers REALLY
knows what I'm thinking
has a body.

The resurrection is a nice story, but they'd rather not think too much about whether it really happened.

I make no claim that objective skepticism will inevitably lead to atheism (though I do personally believe that to be the case if it isn't overruled by a personal desire to receive the things religion promises to deliver, like immortality and being reunited with lost loved ones). I'm only saying that among atheists, objective skepticism is far more common than among religious people, a majority of whom keep the same religious beliefs throughout their lives, and that their objective skepticism is more often than not what led them to atheism in the first place.

My mom is an excellent example of someone I consider to be a typical religious person. She enjoys comparing beliefs with me but when I raise logical inconsistencies, biblical contradictions, questions of historicity, ethical considerations, and so on, they are invariably things she's never considered before. She may not agree with my conclusions, but that she's never before considered the questions is telling. She's been through several Christian denominations in her lifetime but the choice to switch congregations was always related to where she lived, what was convenient, and the other people within the congregation. It was never due to any deep questioning of theology. I don't think she's in any way atypical.

Chip,

I think you're overstating your case. I know plenty of non-believers who are just, well, non-believers. Their position has nothing to do with skeptical or objective evaluation of a religion.

Also, many people born being exposed to a particular religion may "claim" it but not "practice" it. I believe this is actually more of the case. I know many non-practicing catholics, muslims, buddhists, etc.

That said, I understand your position and agree with it to some extent. You're premise though that "objective, skeptical" evaluation will typically lead to unbelief is not justified.

Shawn B, yes, it is a generalization, and as with all things there are exceptions to the rule, but it does fit the general trends. If it didn't then the geographical location in which a person is born wouldn't be the strongest determining factor in what religious faith they're most likely to practice. It is the strongest determining factor, and that's because of the reasons I stated previously. Most people accept what they're born into. Not all people, but most. I too know many adults who have changed faiths or who came to their faith later in life. I also know many many more who practice the same faith as their parents.

sorry...the post 2 previous was mine.

To Chip,

You say, "However, most people come to adopt religious faith because it's what they were raised with, which doesn't necessarily lead to any skeptical or objective evaluation of it."

respectfully I disagree with you because I have several friends from Somalia and Suddan who were Muslims and now are Christians.

I too changed from being hateful to being compassionate and caring. People do indeed change. Some for better and some for worse!

Have a good day.

John Conolley:

John Conolley wrote: "What do you think bias means?"

Well John, not to be caustic, but a site that has "infidels" in the title makes one wonder about its objectivity. Wouldn't you say?

Chip wrote..."Yes, of course it does. However, most people come to adopt religious faith because it's what they were raised with, which doesn't necessarily lead to any skeptical or objective evaluation of it. Non-believers, on the other hand, tend to have come to their disbelief as a direct result of carefully studying the available information, having come from a religious tradition that they left behind."

This is a generalization. I point you to C.S. Lewis as a well known believer who came to faith as an @dult. An Oxford don none-the-less. A person who believed on Christ after "carefully studying the available information, having come from a" postion of disbelief which he chose to leave behind.

I sometimes use Wikipedia to refresh my memory, but it certainly isn't my main source, and I verify anything that strikes me as fishy. I actually have quite a sizeable library on the history of Christianity.

My main sources on my Tacitus post was Martin, Michael, _The Case Against Christianity_, Temple, 1991, and my memory, bolstered by Wikipedia.

Shawn B "I agree...the atheists judgement can be clouded by their desire for God to not exist. If they've decided this is true how can they be objective. It works both ways."

Yes, of course it does. However, most people come to adopt religious faith because it's what they were raised with, which doesn't necessarily lead to any skeptical or objective evaluation of it. Non-believers, on the other hand, tend to have come to their disbelief as a direct result of carefully studying the available information, having come from a religious tradition that they left behind.

Why would atheists not want god to exist? I think most people think that getting an afterlife would be pretty groovy. For me personally, I just don't find wanting something to be true to be a sufficient justification for believing it when it's not supported by the evidence.

I put religion in the same category as I do the "you may already be a winner" blurb on the sweepstakes envelopes that come in the mail. Winning those millions would be great! But the odds are actually too minuscule to consider seriously. Sometimes when I'm debating with religious people I feel like they've all received that same sweepstakes entry and are insisting that they've won with nothing to back the assertion but that same blurb on the envelope and a whole lot of hope. I can certainly understand the hope, but it's simply not in any way a corollary to the atheist line of reasoning.

John Conolley:

Did you get your info in Wikipedia looking up Christian topics or Greek historian topics? Wikipedia gets a lot of its info from "guest" input, which many times on matters of "misinformation" in Christianity comes from..... you guessed it, Dominic Crossan (gee, what a surprise). It doesn't even bother to cross-reference him all the time any more, since he was editing so often. Now they most often simply put a disclaimer somewhere in their listing saying that not everyone agrees with everything written there, etc., etc....

Oh, and by the way, the piece in Wikipedia about Tacitus that I read said "Tacitus is remembered first and foremost as Rome's greatest historian."

Good point.

I would like to add something about Darwin and social Darwinism. It is commonly thought Darwinism believes in the survival of the fittest. No, Darwin specifically rejected this. He said he believed in survival of the most adaptive. These are 2 entirely different propositions. So social Darwinism should believe that the most adaptive will flourish in our society. In our age rampant globalization, the rise of Asia, and technological change, this makes perfect sense. Look at Microsoft and Google. Bill Gates, in his memo on the internet tidal wave, argued that MSFT must adapt to it or perish. Google adapted to the internet and look at its success. In sports, Bear Bryant saw that the future of college football depended on integration, so he integrated the Crimson Tide to avoid more of the blowouts John McCay inflicted on Bear's all-white team at Legion Field with an integrated Trojan team. Bear adapted, and survived. So don't think of survival of the fittest, look to survival of the most adaptive.

Shawn B:

"Nothing biased about that site (?!)"

What do you think bias means?

I think it means arriving at an opinion through emotion, then refusing to look at the facts. I think Carrier sets forth the facts very cleary and arrives at the most likely conclusion. That's not bias.

If, on the other hand, you think bias means someone who doesn't agree with you and is ready to argue his opinion, then you're going to find bias everywhere you look.

Shawn B, you say: "...atheists judgement can be clouded by their desire for God to not exist. If they've decided this is true how can they be objective."

Many atheists were raised as church-goers. Some on this forum have said they had been "born again." It was only after much thinking, and reading and research that they made their determination.

John Conolly wrote: " His most likely date: early 2nd century. For more information, go here: ://ww.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/thallus.html"

Nothing biased about that site (?!)

Atheists can be objective because they're always willing to listen if you think you have proof that God exists.

Chip wrote:

"Perhaps a bad analogy but I used it to illustrate how badly people's judgment can be clouded by their desire for something to be true. If someone has already decided that something is true before evaluating the evidence how can they possibly be objective?"

I agree...the atheists judgement can be clouded by their desire for God to not exist. If they've decided this is true how can they be objective. It works both ways.

"I read somewhere that they've captured bigfoot....."

Anon,

I don't believe we read the same publications ;)

Mortal wrote:
"to John Conolley:

"Thank you for pointing me to Justin Martyr. I couldn't believe that I would have been the first to come up with the idea that pagan myths were a reflection of Christian reality. I'm glad to see that it dates all the way back to the Church Fathers. You've strengthened my suspicion (conviction?) that I was on the right track."

Dear Mortal -

You've provided us with an excellent example of the hoops that Xians will jump through to support their beliefs.

Start by asking yourself a very simple question: on the face of it, which proposition is more likely to be true:

a) that the Jesus story is simply an amalgam of the various stories of personages from ancient mythology (Mithras, Dyonisis, etc), cobbled together in a way that presents a new version of ancient myths, even down to preserving the salient features of those myths (ie: virgin birth, 12 disciples, communion feast, execution, 3 days in hell, resurrection, ascent to heaven to rule with god). The Jesus myth is, therefore, a logical and expected continuation of a mythos that had been in existence for thousands of years, a mythos based on familiar archetypes and situations that were common among many religions of ancient times,

OR,

b) the ancient myths are the work of Satan, unleashed on the world milleniae before the birth of Jesus as a pre-emptive strike in the hope that said pagan myths would somehow be rediscovered at a later date for the sole purpose of misleading the Xian faithful. Satan knew in advance what would happen to Jesus when he came to Earth, right down to the number of disciples he would have, so - thousands of years before Jesus even lived his life - he added all of Jesus' yet-to-come life details to the ancient myths so guys like Mr Mark would have their faith challenged in the 20th century.

So, on the face of it, which is it, "a" or "b?"

BTW - Justin Martyr = the patron saint of the world's plagarists. The next time a plagarist is accused of their crime, they can simply roll out the Justin Martyr defense: "I didn't steal those words, it was Satan whole stole my words before I wrote them and placed them in that other fellow's book so that other fellow could accuse me of plagarism when my book finally came out!"

Anonymous:

"These speak not only of the existance of Jesus, but of his death and miracles."

Not so much. There is no mention of Jesus, just Christus (I'm actually used to seeing the spelling given as "Chrestus"). Christus was a title, not a name. And I don't see how it speaks of miracles at all.

A couple of other considerations: Tacitus clearly had not checked Roman records, because he refers to Pilate as a procurator. Pilate was a prefect. Tacitus likely got his information from the Christians of the day.

Tactitus says "an immense multitude (of Christians) was convicted." There would not have been immense multitudes of Christians in Rome at the time. Again, likely a story from the Christians, rather than Roman records.

Many scholars (no, not all) consider this section of Tacitus to be a later interpolation. Wikipedia says, "This is supported by the fact that no early Christian writers refer to Tacitus even when discussing the subject of Nero and Christian persecution. Tertullian, Lactantius, Sulpicius Severus, Eusebius and Augustine of Hippo make no reference to Tacitus when discussing Christian persecution by Nero. Additionally, widespread Christian persecution as described in the passage is not mentioned by Paul in Acts."

Even if it isn't an interpolation, the quotation has too many questions about it to be offered as unequivocable proof of the existence of Jesus.

Observer – I’m not as witty, clever or close-minded as you give me credit for being. A biblical scholar can be a Christian without being a Christian apologist, just as a surgeon can be a doctor without assuming surgery is the most appropriate medical treatment for every problem. Whether medicine or biblical studies, the accurate answer is based on an objective analysis of the data at hand, not personal preferences (e.g., to get a surgery patient; to bolster the case for Jesus).

Just as a good doctor diagnoses a medical problem with an open mind, a scholar in any field does the same. They study and analyze the data. Biblical scholars have analyzed the data and determined that the first Gospel, Mark, was written about 70AD and the others were written later than that. They’ve determined that they were written anonymously. Considering that the earliest was 40 years after Jesus’ death and the average life span was about 50 in those days, and most people were illiterate, and the style of writing is not expository, scholars determined that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses.

Happy Easter to you. He is risen – at least metaphorically.

E Favorite,

"Please name a biblical scholar - a PhD in Biblical Studies who is not a Christian apologist, who thinks the gospels are written by eyewitnesses."

I admire your wit. I'm sure you realize that your request is an oxymoron, which is why you posted it. A person with a PhD in Biblical Studies who thinks that the gospels are written by eyewitnesses will in turn believe the claims of the Bible. Thus, they become a Christian, and will seek to defend the validity of the Bible against criticisms, which fits the definition of a Christian apologist.

So in essence you are saying, "I'm not willing to listen to anybody who defends the Bible."

Here's the thing: would you allow only those surgeons who didn't believe that a particular surgery (which you actually needed) would help you to operate on you? Would you seek legal advice from only attorneys who think the legal system is a joke? Only attributing credibility to (and therefore listening to) only those biblical scholars who do not believe the gospels are eyewitness accounts is just about as absurd. Am I saying that you should only listen to those who claim that the gospels are eyewitness accounts? No, but I am saying that you should be willing to listen to and examine both sides of the argument. However, based upon previous discussions, I find that you are unwilling to do that. All I can say in response is that I pray that God opens your eyes to at least consider both sides of the argument.

Have a great weekend everyone! He is risen!

"Could the atheists desire for God to not exist possibly cloud their judgement? It's a serious question...not intended to be caustic."

Absolutely. It's a fair question. I think it largely depends on how people came to be atheists. Most people are raised in a religious tradition and only come to atheism after much contemplation, and very much against the grain of their family and community. I don't think it's something most people choose lightly. On the other hand, religion is largely indoctrinated during childhood with the majority of believers holding the same beliefs as their parents and grandparents. Both of those are generalizations of course but fit the general trends.

Since I started engaging in religious discussion and debates I've found that more often than not the atheists tend to be better informed about the religions they criticize than the believers who defend them. Again that's a generalization, but it's been my personal experience.

Atheism isn't a faith, generally speaking. Someone being an atheist indicates only that they're unconvinced and find insufficient justification for belief. There's a huge difference between someone who states "I don't believe there's a god" and someone who states "I know there isn't a god." While there are certainly atheists who fit the latter category, the former represents the vast majority (myself included). For believers it's the opposite I think. Those who would claim they "know" there's a god make up a much larger percentage. I imagine it's hard to convince yourself that you have a personal relationship with something that you're open to changing your opinion on.

Shawn, judging by the number of phds employed by the Discovery Institute who state openly that they obtained their degrees for the sole purpose of being able to challenge evolution and support creationism with more scientific street cred, I'm not so sure. Their minds were made up before they ever went to school. Earning a degree only takes discipline. It doesn't necessarily teach someone to think objectively if that's not something they had any intention of learning.

Could the atheists desire for God to not exist possibly cloud their judgement? It's a serious question...not intended to be caustic.

I understand where you are coming from. But unless their phd is of the "mail-order" type, hopefully they've learned some critical thinking and research skills and are academically honest. Most phd programs I'm aware of are pretty diligent about these things.

Perhaps a bad analogy but I used it to illustrate how badly people's judgment can be clouded by their desire for something to be true. If someone has already decided that something is true before evaluating the evidence how can they possibly be objective?

Andrea said: "I read somewhere or was told that early Christianity borrowed details (dates, tales, etc) from the different pagen religions (Roman, Greek, Norse, etc) that were around then to make it easier to convert the locals."

I read somewhere that they've captured bigfoot.....

Hmmmmm....phd scholars from ivy league, oxford, and aberdeen universities equated with Branch Davidians. Interesting.

Basically, you're saying that there's bias among educated people; even with the highest of degrees. I would agree with that on both sides. The athiest phd will also have a bias towards discrediting Scripture. But, I'll do some research and post them anyway.

"I'll research and post some names. But, why can't the PHD holder be a Christian apologist?"

For the same reason that a Branch Davidian from Waco wouldn't have been a good source for objective views about David Koresh.

E Favorite,

I'll research and post some names. But, why can't the PHD holder be a Christian apologist?

Thanks

Anonymous, you stated "There weren't a boatload of historians writing stuff back then. These are the historians of those times. Who else would you like to have seen writing about Him? We have people from that time writing about Him; their writings were put into the Bible. The other other people of that era who wrote historically have been mentioned. There were no other historical writers at that time."

There were nine historians alive at the time and only Josephus mentions such a figure. His references are considered interpolations. One would expect all of them to reference such a person who performed miracles and who would have been such an amazing figure. But they don't.

Hello Shawn and Observer -- please name a biblical scholar - a PhD in Biblical Studies who is not a Christian apologist, who thinks the gospels are written by eyewitnesses.

Thanks

E. Favorite,

We meet again! Good to talk with you. As you may recall from last week's discussion on John Shelby Spong's thread, we established that not all "biblical scholars" hold to the viewpoint that you hold. Thus, there are plenty of biblical scholars who believe that the gospels were eyewitness accounts.

E favorite:

You're basing your conclusion an a few exceptions. The MAJORITY (by far) of biblical scholars do believe that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts. There's always the "minority" opinion, but it doesn't rule the day.

Come on...a few people believe in aliens too...

Jesus a good man?

According to what he said, he's either much more than that or a liar. As C.S. Lewis pointed out he's liar, lunatic or Lord. His claims preclude him from being just a good man.

SOME biblical scholars do not accept the gospels as eyewitness accounts, not all. I don't know where else you would expect to see reference to him, when there is already reference in all the major historical references of that time.

Anon - you and others may "accept" the Gospels as eyewitness accounts but biblical scholars do not, nor do they think the gospels were written by the apostles. Where did you get that information?

Also, consider that another reason that "there are only a few references to Jesus by the Roman and Jewish historians" is that they hadn't heard much about him.

I, and many others, accept the gospels of Mark, Matthew and John as eyewitness accounts. No, the NT was not written immediately after these things took place. It was not the job of these men to be historians. Their job was to spread the gospel. Later, as time permitted, they were able to write some of what happened for us before they were killed.

It is also no wonder that there are only a few references to Jesus by the Roman and Jewish historians of that time. He was deeply hated by both, and they would not have wanted to show Him any more importance than necessary.

I'm not a historian, but it's my understanding that what's looked for in ancient texts when evaluating their historicity is first hand eyewitness testimony written at the time of the events in question and corroborated by multiple sources. No such evidence exists for Jesus. It's all hearsay written long after the events were supposed to have happened. The case is weakened further by the fact that the different accounts of the resurrection in the Bible itself contradict each other. All that the available evidence proves is that the "story" of Jesus was spreading during those times and that Christians existed. Since I'm responding to one right now I don't think that's ever been in doubt. :)

Jesus lived His public life in the land of Palestine under the Roman rule of Tiberius (ad 14-37). There are four possible Roman historical sources for his reign: Tacitus (55-117), Suetonius (70-160), Velleius Paterculus (a contemporary), and Dio Cassius (3rd century). There are two Jewish historical resources that describe events of this period: Josephus (37-100?), writing in Greek, and the Rabbinical Writings (written in Hebrew after 200, but much of which would have been in oral form prior to that time). There are also sources (non-historians) writing about the Christians, in which possible mentions are made (e.g., Lucian, Galen).

Of these writings, we would NOT expect Velleius to have a reference to Jesus (i.e. the events were just happening OUTSIDE of Velleius' home area), and Dio Cassius is OUTSIDE of our time window of pre-3rd century. Of the remaining Roman writers--Tacitus and Suetonius--we have apparent references to Jesus, even though the main section in Tacitus covering the period 29-32ad is missing from the manuscript tradition. If these are genuine and trustworthy 'mentions' of Jesus, then we have an amazing fact--ALL the relevant non-Jewish historical sources mention Jesus. (Notice that this is the OPPOSITE situation than is commonly assumed--"If Jesus was so important, why didn't more historians write about Him?" In this case, THEY ALL DID.).

Of the Jewish resources--Josephus and the Rabbinical writings (e.g. Talmud, Midrash)--BOTH make clear references to the existence of Jesus. So ALL the Jewish sources refer to Him.

There weren't a boatload of historians writing stuff back then. These are the historians of those times. Who else would you like to have seen writing about Him? We have people from that time writing about Him; their writings were put into the Bible. The other other people of that era who wrote historically have been mentioned. There were no other historical writers at that time.

Anonymous: Neither of those two are particularly persuasive. The Talmud dates to 200 CE (some of it to 500 CE) and Tacitus wasn't even born until 56 CE and his earliest works (that have been discovered) date to 98 CE at the earliest.

So you're correct that they're not "good enough" to establish the historicity of Jesus or his supposed acts.

Aside from other historical, non-biblical evidence which has already been cited in this forum (but obviously not considered good enough), here is some more...

There is the following, from the Talmud:

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.""

And this, from the Roman historian Tacitus:

"Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . ."

These speak not only of the existance of Jesus, but of his death and miracles.

OK, I've read through these comments. What was the original post about again?
Kate- That pornographic piece on Mary Magdalene appears on another thread as well. It doesn't seem like there is much moderating going on. (See also "JOVEZX" or however it's spelled.)
Other sites, including PostGlobal, have an option to report a post as offensive which seems like a good way to let a group self-moderate without too much interference from editors. My guess is that the subjects here are can be touchy for many people for lots of different reasons, so they may have feared being bombarded with complaints. As a result, you occasionally encounter nonsensical and genuinely offensive comments, as well as a surprising amount of spam.

The Call of Wisdom
20Wisdom cries aloud in the street,
in the markets she raises her voice;
21at the head of the noisy streets she cries out;
at the entrance of the city gates she speaks:
22"How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple?
How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing
and fools hate knowledge?
23If you turn at my reproof,[a]
behold, I will pour out my spirit to you;
I will make my words known to you.
24Because I have called and you refused to listen,
have stretched out my hand and no one has heeded,
25because you have ignored all my counsel
and would have none of my reproof,
26I also will laugh at your calamity;
I will mock when terror strikes you,
27when terror strikes you like a storm
and your calamity comes like a whirlwind,
when distress and anguish come upon you.
28Then they will call upon me, but I will not answer;
they will seek me diligently but will not find me.
29Because they hated knowledge
and did not choose the fear of the LORD,
30would have none of my counsel
and despised all my reproof,
31therefore they shall eat the fruit of their way,
and have their fill of their own devices.
32For the simple are killed by their turning away,
and the complacency of fools destroys them;
33but whoever listens to me will dwell secure
and will be at ease, without dread of disaster."

"Non-Biblical references"

OK, let's go back. You sucked me into a loose way of speaking. I Clement, Barnabas, etc. etc. etc. are not in the Bible. They do not differ in kind, however, from the books that are in the Bible. Let me amend my statement to say, "there are no non-partisan references."

Anonymous,

"are non-biblical references to Jesus and miracles being performed."

There are, to the best of my knowledge, and my knowledge is fairly extensive, no solid non-Biblical references to Jesus, and no non-Biblical references of any kind, solid or otherwise, to miracles being performed. You don't have any business making such wild assertions. Unless you know something I don't. In which case, give us the references.

The above comment was from me.

Concerned the Christian etc.,

"The weight of evidence, then, strongly suggests that Josephus mentioned Jesus in both passages."

The weight of the evidence suggests no such thing.

1: the Testimonium Flavium comes in the middle of a discussion of another subject. When removed, the text flows smoothly without it.

2: Flavius Josephus was a Pharisaic Jew, and the passage reads like the work of a Christian.

3: Origen was acquainted with the work of Josephus, but never mentions the Testimonium, even though he would have had good cause to. Indeed, the first independent reference to the Testimonium was by Eusebius, in _Antiquities_, circa 324.

4: Josephus elsewhere makes fun of all the tinpot Messiahs, because he was convinced the Messiah had come, and his name was Vespasian.

5: Paul Maier is a high-ranking Lutheran and very much a Christian apologist, so his opinions cannot be considered objective.

As for Crossan's "independent attestations," those are all from early Christian documents, and are thus not independent attestations at all. They're the opposite of independent attestations. They're partisan assertions. They do nothing to establish the historicity of Christ.

I guess I'd have to know what you'd accept as supporting evidence. There are non-biblical references to Jesus and miracles being performed. As for the gospels being written "decades" after his death, the issue is with how many decades.

If we have writings, from that time period, that would normally be considered "evidence", but are not because "someone" has determined them to be unbelievable, then what else can we do? We can point to the other historical writings, but we are told they aren't enough. There are also a number of people who started out with all intentions of disproving the Bible, and ended up becoming very faithful Christians after their years of investigations and study.

Anon, "It all depends on what you want to believe"

That's just it. I'm not operating based on "wants." Didn't I say that all we really have are people's opinions? You obviously very much want to believe that the Bible is true. I have no such horse in the race and so have the luxury of looking at it dispassionately.

Am I incorrect in asserting that the majority of biblical scholars agree that the bible was written decades after the death of Jesus? As a general rule, I am distrustful of Christian scholars who have an obvious agenda of trying to prove the Bible true, rather than trying to look at the available evidence without any particular bias. There's simply insufficient evidence to definitively declare anything one way or the other, but since we're talking about extraordinary claims, I think belief can only be supported by wanting to believe. That's the essence of faith, yes? That's all well and good, but faith makes a lousy foundation for the objective evaluation of evidence, and the evidence simply isn't there to support those extraordinary claims. If such evidence ever surfaces I'll reevaluate at that time, but for now I will continue to view it all with skepticism, including whether or not Jesus actually existed.

Chip,

We apparently evaluate evidence differently. The "fact" that none of the NT was written by people who personally witnessed any of the events they describe? You know that's a fact, do you? That's quite interesting. What tangible piece of evidence do you have of that? I am sure that for every "fact" you find somewhere, I can find one contrary to it that you will not believe. It all depends on what you want to believe.

Anon, no doubt there are many who believe that, but what proof do they offer other than personal opinion? Lay aside your desire for it to be true and look at it objectively. Which is more likely - that Jesus was the Amazing Kreskin or that the Bible authors wrote their tale to bolster their claims of his divinity? The fact that none of the NT was written by people who personally witnessed any of the events they describe it would require some pretty remarkable evidence to support any of the claims being made. Barring extraordinary evidence (of which there currently is none), I have to go with theory number two, that the bible authors wrote their tale with an agenda quite beyond simply recounting objective history, but then I'm not looking to justify what I've already decided to be true. I'm just evaluating the available evidence as I see it.

Chip,

There are more than a few NT scholars who believe the Gospel of Matthew was written before the year 70.

This prophecy in its totality actually gives evidence of being written before 70.

"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation', spoken of through the prophet Daniel--let the reader understand--then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains". It's difficult to accept that this last phrase 'flee to the mountains' was written with reference to actual events, since the mountains of Judea were in fact already in enemy hands at the end of 67 AD. Also, the Christians did not flee to the mountains, but left Jerusalem before the outbreak of the war in 66 and went to the town of Pella in the Transjordan. Matthew wouldn't have written "flee to the mountains" after the fact if it never happened.

In light of such an extremely simplistic and absolute statement- it seems the author is still claiming to know what god knows or does not know.

It is more difficult to construct a paradigm that falls more in the middle.

CCNL,

Wow, I actually agree with part of your post! I never thought that could happen! Seriously though, what I wanted to say is that I think there are different levels of "knowing". Knowing that the idiots of this world will eventually incinerate this world with a raging nuclear destruction is different than knowing what color socks I'm going to wear tomorrow. So no, I do not believe that life is pre-determined; we all have free will. But I do believe that there is a "big picture" that we don't see that we somehow fit into; and that there are people who have been given glimpses at big things that will happen within that big picture. It's hard to explain, but so is God and the universe and quantum physics.

Look at "prophecies" from the standpoint of Father Edward Schillebeekx, the famous contemporary Catholic theologian: from his book, Church: The Human Story of God,
Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)

"Christians must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history" . "Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices. Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

Bottom line: With just four sentences of profound common sense, Schillebeeckx vitiates all OT, NT, Mormon and Koranic prophecies. i.e. God does not the Future so Isaiah, Jesus, Joe Smith and Mohammed surely did not.

Anonymous, the historicity of the events depicted in the NT is highly suspect. I highly recommend you expand your research beyond Christian apologetics. Statements like "rejection of the story of Christ happens in the face of overwhelming historical data. It is simply undeniable that Christ lived, died and was believed to be resurrected" are just embarrassing, and are not in any way supported by fact. There are well established criteria for determining the historicity of ancient texts and the NT fares extremely poorly when held to those standards. There is, in fact, no evidence that Jesus existed that meets or exceeds established standards of historicity used outside the arena of Christian apologists.

Also, using fulfilled prophecy as an argument is problematic. Here's an example: Jesus says that the temple of Solomon will be destroyed and "not one stone left unturned." That prediction isn't exactly a brilliant prophecy when you consider that the section of the Bible containing it is widely believed to have been written after the temple had already been destroyed by the Romans.

to John Conolley:

Thank you for pointing me to Justin Martyr. I couldn't believe that I would have been the first to come up with the idea that pagan myths were a reflection of Christian reality. I'm glad to see that it dates all the way back to the Church Fathers. You've strengthened my suspicion (conviction?) that I was on the right track.

"It is simply undeniable that Christ lived, died and was believed to be resurrected."

Anonymous, I don't contest that sentence as written. My point is that the belief may be factually incorrect. Whether Jesus actually lived is less important than what he means to Christians. The only reason I question the claim of the Resurrection is because that claim is used to justify claims about people, such as original sin and eternal damnation and judgment and so forth. If it weren't for all those, the beliefs of Christians would be largely irrelevant to me.

JSS,

Your quote again:
"No Other Religion is founded on fulfilled prophecies given hundreds of years before the life of the religious leader"

I am comparing prophecies to prophecies. You claimed no other religion is founded on fulfilled prophecies. I gave you examples. Followers of those religious believe some or all of their prophecies have been fulfilled. Your quickness to belittle them amuses me, just as my apparent "condescension" of your research amuses you.

Mike,

The writers of the NT were not experts on the OT, and did not know of all of the prophecies. They did write about the ones that they knew, but it took scholars studying years later to find all that had been prophecied and fulfilled.

Tonio, Mike and E-favorite,

That is precisely my point. Do you realize the magnitude of documents (26,000 plus)? Is there anything, anywhere in history that comes anywhere close by which we might compare and contrast the historical record of Christianity? No. Nothing comes close.

Might there be some historical innacuracies. Perhaps, you are still dealing with a ratio of 1 to 2600 copies compared with the closest historical document.

Believe what you want. Just know that rejection of the story of Christ happens in the face of overwhelming historical data. It is simply undeniable that Christ lived, died and was believed to be resurrected.

Finally, all sources that could be quoted (ALL) are biased. They ALL have come to some conclusion, whether for Christ or against. Writing off those who have concluded, after careful due diligence, that Christ was the Son of God risen from the dead is simply disingenuous.

The research done by F.F. Bruce, Sir Frederick Kenyon, Isaac Newton, etc. was very valid.

Andrea,

Your condescension about my research is humorous due to the fact that Judaism's prophecies are what Christ claims to fulfill; while Islam has only one book, the Koran, written by one man, with no prophecies that have been fulfilled. Buddhism and Hinduism only prophesy reincarnated enlightened ones, and in such a general manner that verification of details is simply unnecessary. Zoroaster is probably the most unique of your recommended research topics. However, Zoroastrianism hardly rises to the level of Major World Religion. Certainly, it has its followers, but no nation in the world has come close to basing its worldview on it.

Have you done your research? I am sure you have. However, none of those religions have over 300 prophecies fulfilled in one man with 27 of those fulfilled on the day of his death.

If you want to make logical and compelling arguments then you must be prepared to compare apples to apples instead of grapes to sushi.

"The prophecies weren't as "generally" known as they apparently are now; especially not so many of them, and not among the illiterate. The people as a whole would have known about the prophecy of a messiah, and a few other details, but not the myriad other prophecies that are found in the OT. And most, if not all, of the apostles were ordinary, uneducated guys, who were not experts in the OT."

But none of that has anything to do with the writers of the gospels and the rest of the NT, who clearly were literate and even reference the prophecies. I think it's clear the writers knew of them.

Tonio,

The prophecies weren't as "generally" known as they apparently are now; especially not so many of them, and not among the illiterate. The people as a whole would have known about the prophecy of a messiah, and a few other details, but not the myriad other prophecies that are found in the OT. And most, if not all, of the apostles were ordinary, uneducated guys, who were not experts in the OT.

Professor Crossan's to the point summary about the NT:

"Prophecy turned into history rather than history remembered."

Anonymous in response to Ambassador....Sorry to dissapoint you, but Hinduism does not have any claims as far as resurrection goes like the resurrection of Jesus.

JSS - no one is disputing that the "books of the NT" exist. The question is about the factuality of the contents.

JSS - no one is saying that Jesus is a con-man. The number of copies of a book, any book, says nothing about the veracity of its contents.

Regarding Christ fulfilling ancient prophesies, please consider that the writers of the NT, already knowing the prophesies, could have written them into the story.

JSS: F.F. Bruce is hardly a neutral source. He was a Christian apologetic, as was Hort. Of course their conclusions are in support of the historicity of the Christian Bible. Their conclusions aren't convincing to non-Christians.

JSS, putting aside the supernatural events in the Gospels, it's very possible that some of the historical details are wrong. It's been suggested that the authors of the Gospels rewrote the details of his life to fit the prophecies, or that Jesus himself was consciously trying to fulfill the prophecies. Personally, I've never bought into the idea of prophecy, especially when the prophecies are generally known.

JSS,

You wrote:
"No Other Religion is founded on fulfilled prophecies given hundreds of years before the life of the religious leader"

However, each of the world's major religions contain Messianic prophecies (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, the Zoroastrian religion and even the Native American religions). If I may make a suggestion, do some research before you make such outrageous claims.

JSS:
You really think a book endorsing Christ and Christianity is really gonna throw in a line or two that says the guy never existed? Or that he and his band of "merry" men were just a bunch of conmen? Yea right........when has that ever happened?

No Other Religion is founded on fulfilled prophecies given hundreds of years before the life of the religious leader. Christ fulfilled over 300 prophecies (spoken by different voices over 500 years) including 29 major prophecies fulfilled in a single day. If Christ was such a clever con-man then how did he fulfill the prophecy about his birth place. Was he able to con his mother into moving to Bethlehem while he was still in the womb? What about prophecies about Herod's attempt to kill all children 2 years and under thereby requiring a move to Egypt to escape. Did Jesus as a barely speaking 2 year old convince his parents to choose Egypt?

It is absurd to think that Jesus was just a con-man. It is equally absurd to think that we have over 26,000 copies of the New Testament dated to within 300 years of being written and NOT ONE that says Jesus never existed or that he was a liar or that his followers were con-men.

There are over 5000 Greek manuscripts; over ten thousand Latin manuscripts and 9300 other manuscripts, as well as over thirty-six thousand citings in the writings of the early church fathers. As one of the greatest textual critics every, F.J.A. Hort, said, "In the variety and fullness of the evidence on which it rests, the test of the New Testament stands absolutely and unapproachably alone among ancient prose writings."

F.F. Bruce summarizes the evidence by quoting Sir Frederic Kenyon, a leading scholar in this area: "The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foudnation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the autheniticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."

If a bomb goes off it leaves evidence in a thousand different ways. If Christ's resurrection was really false, then this idea that a Catholic purge of historical documents has covered that up requires massive amounts of faith to believe.

Consider these historical documents. I will list the data for each in this order:
Work; When Written; Earliest copies; time span between writing and current copies; no. of copies

Herodotus; written 488-428 BC; earliest copy 900 AD; 1300 years between; 8 copies

Thucydides; written 460-400 BC; earliest copy 900 AD; 1300 years between; 8 copies

Tacitus; written 100 AD; earliest copy 1100 AD; 1000 years between; 20 copies

Caesar's Gallic War; written 58-50 BC; earliest copy 900 AD; 950 years between; 9-10 copies

Livy's Roman History; written 59 BC-17 AD; earliest copy 900 AD; time between 900 years; 20 copies

New Testament; written 40-100 AD; earliest copy 130 AD (full manuscript 350 AD); time between 30-300 years; 26,300 copies

...all I am saying is that the evidence for the authenticity of the documents related to the New Testament is overwhelming compared to other documents that NO ONE disputes.

Resurrected:

So the text basically says Jesus came back to life by receiving a hummer?

I could see that. I know a good one would wake me in the middle of the night.

I don't know if/how this pertains to this particular discussion, but I found this article very interesting if anyone wants to check it out:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/04/04/neurotheology/index.html

"She wouldnt have much of a career without christian windmills to tilt at."

Right - and think of all the people who would be out of business if the bible were not considered to be the word of God, or if the Koran had not been dictated by God.

Not to mention all the people who would be out of work if computers hadn't been invented, etc. etc.

Even if there was solid historical evidence that Jesus lived and that he was crucified, that wouldn't constitute proof of the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection. Crucifixion was a common Roman punishment of the time, used to execute Spartacus and many of his followers.

Professor Crossan however also note this about atonement theology (from his book, Who is Jesus?)

"Moreover, an atonement theology that says God sacrifices his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but it is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us."

"Traditionally, Christians have said, 'See how Christ's passion was foretold by the prophets." Actually, it was the other way around. The Hebrew prophets did not predict the events of Jesus' last week; rather, many of those Christian stories were created to fit the ancient prophecies in order to show that Jesus, despite his execution, was still and always held in the hands of God."

"In terms of divine consistency, I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time, including Jesus, brings dead people back to life."

ms jacoby certainly seems to take great pleasure in mocking and deriding believers-

also what an incredible arrogance to think the the term freethinker enjoyed a resurgence form her book-

my mother called herself a freethinker years before ms jacoby was a gleam in her daddys eyes.

she wouldnt have much of a career without christian windmills to tilt at.

Professor Crossan's list of independent attestations for the crucifixion of Jesus:

5+. Crucifixion of Jesus:(1) 1 Cor 15:3b; (2a) Gos. Pet. 4:10-5:16,18-20; 6:22; (2b) Mark 15:22-38 = Matt 27:33-51a = Luke 23:32-46; (2c) John 19:17b-25a,28-36; (3) Barn. 7:3-5; (4a) 1 Clem. 16:3-4 (=Isaiah 53:1-12); (4b) 1 Clem. 16.15-16 (=Psalm 22:6-8); (5a) Ign. Mag. 11; (5b) Ign. Trall. 9:1b; (5c) Ign. Smyrn. 1.2. Conclusion- the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth was historical.

http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb005.html

To see Josephus' publications along with a large number of commentaries about said publications, see http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.html

And from Paul Maier, Josephus: The Essential Works, 1994, Kregal Publications Grand Rapids, MI 49501.

"The weight of evidence, then, strongly suggests that Josephus mentioned Jesus in both passages (Antiquities 18:63 and 20:200) . He did so in a manner totally congruent with the New Testatment portrait of Jesus, and his description, from the vantage point of a non-Christian, seems remarkably fair, particularly in view of his known proclivity of roasting false messiahs as the sorts who misled the people and brought on the Romans."

A couple of other points I wanted to touch on:

The idea that stories of other god-men rising from the dead were copycats of the Christ story from before it happened goes back to Justin Martyr, who was put on the spot by pagans who pointed out that the story of Jesus was stolen from Greek mystery religions. The copycats-in-advance ploy is what we moderns would call a desperation move, which takes total leave of reality. It was silly then and hasn't improved with age.

As for the Talmud recognizing Christ's miracles, there is nothing in the Talmud before the 2nd century, and what's there was likely written as a response to the new Christian mythology that was growing up.

Ambassador for Christ:

To answer your question, no, there is no other religion that claims its god-man died to save them from their sins. There is also no other religion that claims sinners burn in Hell forever.

As for the history of slain and risen gods, see _The Jesus Mystery_ by Freke and Gandy. This is a popular treatment that shoves a lot in a small book, so there's a certain amount of handwaving, but there are more footnotes than you can shake a stick at, so you can check on them yourself.

On the Testimonium Flavium: The Jesus quotes in Flavius Josephus are more than somewhat suspect. There are two: a large one (testimonium Flavium), which is almost universally regarded by Biblical scholars as being an interpolation, and a small one, on which the consensus (last I heard) is fifty-fifty.

The references in Tacitus and Seutonius are nothing solid, and there is no record of Pilate crucifying any Jesus or Christ. And those records were very thorough. To boil it down: there is no historical proof that Christ ever existed. As for Thallus, virtually nothing is known of him, including the date he wrote. The only mention we have of him is by 2nd century Christian apologists. His most likely date: early 2nd century. For more information, go here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/thallus.html

Mencken & Rand: I've read both of them extensively, and I don't think either can be characterized as a social Darwinist. I seem to recall that Rand specifically denied being any such thing. I think Florence King got it right: they were misanthropes. This means that, while they valued certain individuals, the had low opinions of the human race in general. I can sympathize with this attitude, except I'm more optimistic. I believe the human race is gradually but steadily smartening up. I have high hope for the future, though possibly not the near future.

Hi, again, Concerned Christian,

Beware of EWTN translations and selection of texts from larger texts.

In his Summa theologica in the question "Whether Perfection of the Body is Necessary for Happiness?" Aquinas comes down strongly in favor of the unity of body and soul for perfect happiness (i.e., Heaven). True, for Thomas the ultimate element in perfect happiness is seeing and loving God face to face. But he says also,

"But speaking of perfect Happiness, some have maintained that ... it is necessary for the body to be entirely separated from the body. . . . But this is unreasonable. For since it is natural to the soul to be united to the body; it is not possible for the perfection of the soul to exclude it natural perfection." (I=II, Question 4, article 6)

(Ya gotta watch them super-conservative RCs :-)

Ann O.

Iran is not a Super Power. And someone on this thread said that . "..For the 1st time....Russia & China backed-off on Security Councils..." [Similar].
So, Mr. Lame Duck PreZ G.W. Bush is not talking "QUACK" with Iran. nor Paper Tiger language.

You need to see that Our Navy is in their "Back Yard" which is indeed, not just an eye soar but a very sobering sight for the average Iranian there, neighbors, to see. et al.
So Don't mess with "Jim Beam," and friends, O.K Iran, Hezbullys, Hasmats, Fartah, ? Etc. :=)/ Ya MON!

Ms. Jacoby's book is available at the DC Public Library: 211.4097 J179

http://www.dclibrary.org

Andrea,

You can take a Da Vinci Code tour AND drink wine along the way

No need to choose between them. The best of both worlds. And there are plenty of courtyards along the tour route, where you can pause, rest, and have another glass.

You should do it!

I see that no one has yet challenged Anon’s Josephus quote, so I will. First off, Josephus was born about the time Jesus died, so his information was hearsay, not eyewitness. His very mention of Jesus is somewhat suspect, as it’s found in some copies of his histories, but not others. Plus, there is well-known evidence of much later Christian interpolations. Here’s the quote I have, (google yourselves and see) with the suspect additions in caps. It’s thought that Josephus, as a Jew, would not make Christian-like claims about Jesus. And in fact, this type of writing was not at all typical of Josephus extensive works.
“And there arose about this time Jesus, a wise man, if INDEED WE SHOULD CALL HIM A MAN; for he was a doer of marvelous deeds, a teacher of men who receive the truth with pleasure. He led away many Jews, and also many of the Greeks. THIS MAN WAS THE CHRIST. AND when Pilate had condemned him to the cross on his impeachment by the chief men among us, those who had loved him at first did not cease; for HE APPEARED TO THEM ON THE THIRD DAY ALIVE AGAIN, THE DIVINE PROPHETS HAVING SPOKEN THESE AND THOUSANDS OF OTHER WONDERFUL THINGS ABOUT HIM: and even now the tribe of Christians, so named after him, has not yet died out.”

resurrected: I can't believe you got past the moderator with that one.

Jacob/Yacub: Are you high? I can't even follow that as a rant or blank verse.

Since folks were talking about the similarities of the Jesus story with other mythical figures I thought you might enjoy Lord Raglan's Scale.

Anon, I've no idea how the author arrived at a score of 19 for Jesus. I'd probably make it 15 myself, but if you consider that Jesus and Moses are both from the same story and combine their scores, then add in some other Biblical characters like David, the Bible is about as archetypal as it gets. When you also consider that much of the Bible came along after most of the other heroes in the list, it makes a strong argument for the bible authors borrowing heavily from existing archetypes.

Andrea, love that second bit you quoted.

The Resurrection

Mary Magdalene plays a prominent role in the resurrection, having first found Christ arisen (though not exactly, since the tomb was actually empty). According to some readings of the gospels, she was a prostitute who had her demons cast out by Jesus and became his closest companion. Some scholars suggest she was his lover, as in Luke 8:2, mentioned as one of the women who "ministered to Him [Jesus] of their substance". There are even writings attributed to a gospel of Mary. One of the latest of those writings found recounts a different resurrection story. It follows here.

The Mary, who bound most closely to Jesus, attended him on the cross as she had in life, soothing and uplifting him, taking him away from his agony. Following his death and entombment, she went to him to anoint him with spices, to purify his body of the stench of putrification; at least that is what she told the other disciples. When she arrived, she found the tomb essentially empty of him, though the body was there in the burying cloth, lifeless and stinking. However, his precious essence was no longer prominent, but was flaccid and limp, while the rest of the body was rigid in rigor. She looked on in utter despair. Her dream of one last union with The Son appeared beyond her grasp. But grasp it she did, and then wailing in grief, she began stroking it insistently in her sorrow, mourning for his return. Her wails subsided. For a long time she sat there sobbing, slowly fondling him, rubbing sweet smelling ointment into his essence, trying desperately to bring him back to life. Finally she bent to kiss it in tender affection and fond remembrance, gently placing it in her mouth as she had often done after his strenuous exertion, while his breathing slowed. Those were her happiest moments and they were forever gone, for he breathed no more. Her inconsolable grief returned, and with it a sense of urgency in which she frantically stroked and sucked, willing him back, back to his former glory, restoring him to rigorous vigor. Suddenly, he was newly risen. Overcome with joy, she happily hopped on, then slowly lowered herself onto him with a shudder of pleasure, again in union with her lord, now fully resurrected.

ANN O,

"In three controversial Wednesday Audiences, Pope John Paul II pointed out that the essential characteristic of heaven, hell or purgatory is that they are states of being of a spirit (angel/demon) or human soul, rather than places, as commonly perceived and represented in human language. This language of place is, according to the Pope, inadequate to describe the realities involved, since it is tied to the temporal order in which this world and we exist. In this he is applying the philosophical categories used by the Church in her theology and saying what St. Thomas Aquinas said long before him."

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2HEAVN.HTM

I believe the Vatican theologians "barfed" a bit after hearing those words and used a lot of "Vatican" speak to cover their tracks.

While there are a couple of good, thoughtful posters on this section the majority are facist-like atheists who spout hate and misunderstanding on a constant basis.

The Post should shut this useless forum down!

PS - you have already lost.

To Jaclyn: I hope this answers your question. Have an awesome day.

Priestly celibacy is a disciplinary practice of the Catholic Church by no means is it dogmatic or infallible practise.

1579 All the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven."70 Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to "the affairs of the Lord,"71 they give themselves entirely to God and to men. Celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church's minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God.72

1580 In the Eastern Churches a different discipline has been in force for many centuries: while bishops are chosen solely from among celibates, married men can be ordained as deacons and priests. This practice has long been considered legitimate; these priests exercise a fruitful ministry within their communities.73 Moreover, priestly celibacy is held in great honor in the Eastern Churches and many priests have freely chosen it for the sake of the Kingdom of God.

Chip,

I don't see where Jesus is coming out with a 19 on that scale, unless some of those are worth more than one point. He doesn't fit into most of those...

Andrea, thanks for expanding on the point I was trying to make earlier. There have been instances where writers deliberately attempted to fashion heroes to bolster patriotism, such as Virgil with "The Aeneid" and Washington Irving with his hagiography of George Washington. (Irving invented the cherry tree story.)

hoax-buster.org = the ravings of a madman....

please don't read it; you will slowly go insane.

CONCERNED CHRISTIAN tells us: Heaven is a spirit state as per Aquinas. No bodies exist there. Therefore the body of Jesus (and Mary) even in a glory state cannot be there

ANN O. replies: On the contrary, for Aquinas if there is no resurrection of the body there will be no state of blessedness. Yes, for him Heaven is a state of blessedness, but not only of human souls but of our bodies (which will exist in a superior state to this state which is subject to death), and, indeed, the whole of creation will be reconciled. Aquinas did not despise bodily things as did some medievals. For him, all things are good because they all things in some way image their creator, and Heaven will include our even better bodies.

Ann O.

Ann O.

I heart Google.

Chip,

If the Hero scored more than six:
This means that the Hero most likely does not closely represent a historical figure, as it is unusual for a historical personage to score above six. This does not mean that the Hero is entirely fictious, but does indicate that many aspects of the life of the Hero have either been lost or replaced by those of the archetype.

Why do the stories of heros get altered to conform to the archetype?
There is a human desire to make the hero into a larger than life figure, and to shroud the various aspects of their life in meaning. Since chances are, in a society that passes stories along by oral tradition, there is a value placed on the creativity of a story teller, otherwise mundane aspects of life are likely to be embellished, especially if the true details of that aspect of a life have been lost. Beyond that, I do not know but I welcome any and all speculation in this area.

Chip:

What's with the scorecard? I like it........almost makes sense in a way.

LMAO!!!!!!

A dumb, nasty religious cult based on a zombie myth!

And if that isn't bad enough...in the 21st century morons still believe such a joke!!!
And worse they try to rule us and, with the other religious freaks, still try to drag us into countless conflicts based on this zombie garbage!!

At least George A Romero knows HIS zombies are a fantasy!

LORD RAGLAN'S SCALE

1. The hero's mother is a royal virgin
2. His father is a king and
3. often a near relative of the mother, but
4. the circumstances of his conception are unusual, and
5. he is also reputed to be the son of a god
6. at birth an attempt is made, usually by his father or maternal grandfather, to kill him, but
7. He is spirited away, and
8. Reared by foster-parents in a far country
9. We are told nothing of his childhood, but
10. On reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future kingdom.
11. After a victory over the king and or giant, dragon, or wild beast
12. He marries a princess, often the daughter of his predecessor and
13. becomes king
14. For a time he reigns uneventfully and
15. Prescribes laws but
16. later loses favor with the gods and or his people and
17. Is driven from from the throne and the city after which
18. He meets with a mysterious death
19. often at the top of a hill.
20. his children, if any, do not succeed him.
21. his body is not buried, but nevertheless
22. he has one or more holy sepulchres.

* Oedipus scores 21
* Theseus scores 20
* Moses scores 20
* Dionysus scores 19
* Jesus scores 19
* Romulus scores 18
* Perseus scores 18
* Hercules scores 17
* Llew Llaw Gyffes scores 17
* Bellerophon scores 16
* Jason scores 15
* Mwindo scores 14
* Robin Hood scores 13
* Pelops scores 13
* Apollo scores 11
* Sigurd scores 11.

What you said, "the mortal remains of the crucified Jesus are never going to be found by mortal men" should say "admitted" to be found. Turns out the remains of the real Jesus, Amenophis IV have been found but not identified.

DNA would show that the mother of a female found in a mutulted casket were the issue of the body of queen Tiye but that would show that Amenophis IV was really a woman and that's not allowed by those in charge today. Tomorrow?

Amenophis IV and Jesus did identical things and, by the record nothing more or less. The easy one to understand that is agreed on by all is that both chased the money changers out of the temple of God. That's unique in the historical record.

Bottom line, there so much money involved in religion that it can buy secrecy as required. Will the Internet change that with sites like, http://www.hoax-buster.org Is there legislation in the offing to regulate Internet content?

Ambassador for christ:

Thanks for posting the versus for all here is clarity on the issue of John 1:1:

1. It is imperative that the serious student of the Bible come to a basic understanding of logos, which is translated as “Word” in John 1:1. Most Trinitarians believe that the word logos refers directly to Jesus Christ, so in most versions of John logos is capitalized and translated “Word” (some versions even write “Jesus Christ” in John 1:1). However, a study of the Greek word logos shows that it occurs more than 300 times in the New Testament, and in both the NIV and the KJV it is capitalized only 7 times (and even those versions disagree on exactly when to capitalize it). When a word that occurs more than 300 times is capitalized fewer than 10 times, it is obvious that when to capitalize and when not to capitalize is a translators’ decision based on their particular understanding of Scripture.

As it is used throughout Scripture, logos has a very wide range of meanings along two basic lines of thought. One is the mind and products of the mind like “reason,” (thus “logic” is related to logos) and the other is the expression of that reason as a “word,” “saying,” “command” etc. The Bible itself demonstrates the wide range of meaning logos has, and some of the ways it is translated in Scripture are: account, appearance, book, command, conversation, eloquence, flattery, grievance, heard, instruction, matter, message, ministry, news, proposal, question, reason, reasonable, reply, report, rule, rumor, said, say, saying, sentence, speaker, speaking, speech, stories, story, talk, talking, teaching, testimony, thing, things, this, truths, what, why, word and words

The renowned Trinitarian scholar, John Lightfoot, writes:

The word logos then, denoting both “reason” and “speech,” was a philosophical term adopted by Alexandrian Judaism before St. Paul wrote, to express the manifestation of the Unseen God in the creation and government of the World. It included all modes by which God makes Himself known to man. As His reason, it denoted His purpose or design; as His speech, it implied His revelation. Christian teachers, when they adopted this term, exalted and fixed its meaning by attaching to it two precise and definite ideas: (1) “The Word is a Divine Person,” (2) “The Word became incarnate in Jesus Christ.” It is obvious that these two propositions must have altered materially the significance of all the subordinate terms connected with the idea of the logos

It is important to note that it was “Christian teachers” who attached the idea of a “divine person” to the word logos. It is certainly true that when the word logos came to be understood as being Jesus Christ, the understanding of John 1:1 was altered substantially. Lightfoot correctly understands that the early meaning of logos concerned reason and speech, not “Jesus Christ.” Norton develops the concept of logos as “reason” and writes:

There is no word in English answering to the Greek word logos, as used here [in John 1:1]. It was employed to denote a mode of conception concerning the Deity, familiar at the time when St. John wrote and intimately blended with the philosophy of his age, but long since obsolete, and so foreign from our habits of thinking that it is not easy for us to conform our minds to its apprehension. The Greek word logos, in one of its primary senses, answered nearly to our word Reason. The logos of God was regarded, not in its strictest sense, as merely the Reason of God; but, under certain aspects, as the Wisdom, the Mind, the Intellect of God (p. 307).

jACOB THE iGNORANT:

iF ONLY YOU HAD a clue you would know who supplies everybody weapons

The United States supplied arms or military technology to more than 92% of the conflicts under way in 1999.The costs to the families and communities afflicted by this violence is immeasurable. But to most arms dealers, the profit accumulated outweighs the lives lost. In the period from 1998-2001, over 68% of world arms deliveries were sold or given to developing nations, where lingering conflicts or societal violence can scare away potential investors.

Of course, a loss of investment opportunities is not the only way Americans are impacted by the weapons trade. In addition to paying billions of dollars every year to support weapons exports, Americans may also feel the impact of increasing instability overseas. The United States military has had to face troops previously trained by its own military or supplied with U.S. weaponry in Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, and now in Afghanistan. Due to the advanced capabilities these militaries have acquired from past U.S. training and sales, the U.S. had to invest much more money and manpower in these conflicts than would have otherwise been needed.

In the words of Dr. Evil....

"rrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiggghht."

Here's the full text of John 1:1-18: (I'm using the English Standard Version)

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.

The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John bore witness about him, and cried out, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.'") And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known."

Who else would this be referring to as the Word? It is obvious that is referring to Jesus.

What Anonymous said

HUH? ? ? ?

Ambassador,

You wrote: "It is obvious that the Word is the Son of God, Jesus Christ. Hence, Jesus is God incarnate."

How is what you cited an 'obvious' statement?

huh?

To Russel D.,

I did check my timetables. In fact, your point is one of the things that brought me to this conclusion. The reflections of the Incarnation should be visible both forward and backward in time. Time, like space, is an attribute of this universe, and an artifact of Creation. So, just as prophecy can occur prior to an event, so can a mythic reflection.

Infidel57,

That's a cop-out. There should be SOMETHING like that out there.

There are non-biblical, historical writings pointing to Jesus being real, and more than just a man:

Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, a member of a priestly family and who became a Pharisee at the age of 19, became the court historian for Emperor Vespasian. In the Antiquities, he wrote about many persons and events of first century Palestine. He makes two references to Jesus. The first reference is believed associated with the Apostle James. "...he brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." He also wrote, "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive, accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

Before Tacitus, Suetonius or Josephus, Thallus wrote about the crucifixion of Jesus. His writing date to circa 52 A.D. and the passage on Jesus was contained in Thallus' work on the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to 52 A.D. Thallus noted that darkness fell on the land at the time of the crucifixion. He wrote that such a phenomenon was caused by an eclipse. Though Christ was not proclaimed a deity until the fourth century, Pliny the Younger, a Roman author and administrator who served as the governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, wrote in 112 A.D., two hundred years before the "deity" proclamation, that Christians in Bithynia worshipped Christ.

Two references have been made to a report by Pontius Pilate. The references include Justin Martyr (150 A..D.) and Tetullian (200 A.D.). Both references correspond with the fact that there was an official document in Rome from Pilate. The Pilate report detailed the crucifixion but also reported acts of miracles. Emperor Tiberius acted on Pilate's report, according to Tertullian, to the Roman Senate. "Tiberius accordingly, in whose days the Christian name made its entry into the world, having himself received intelligence from Palestine of events which had clearly shown the truth of Christ's divinity, brought the matter before the senate, with his own decision in favor of Christ. The senate, because it had not given the approval itself, rejected his proposal. Caesar held to his opinion, threatening wrath against all accusers of the Christians."

Dear Anon,

Thanks for the comments.

You said, "But no verse makes the exact statement “Jesus is the Son of God and as such he is divine or God."

See John 1:1-18. Specifically, John 1:1 states, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the WORD WAS GOD." The next 17 verses expand upon this idea. It is obvious that the Word is the Son of God, Jesus Christ. Hence, Jesus is God incarnate.

John 10:30: "I and the Father are one."

"I'm talking about what was written most specifically by people who were there, or during the time when people who were around then were still alive and able to dispute it."

Ehrman addresses that question in detail in his horribly titled book, "Misquoting Jesus."

You could also throw this one in there Ask:

Beware the anger of a patient man.

A hot-tempered man stirs up dissention,
but a patient man calms a quarrel. Proverbs 15:18

A hot-tempered man must pay the penalty, if you rescue him, you will have to do it again. Prov.19:19

Do not make friends with a hot-tempered man, do not associate with one easily angered, or you may learn his ways and get yourself ensnarled. Prov.22:24

An angry man stirs up dissention and a hot-tempered one commits many sins. Prov.29:22

A wise man fears the lord and shuns evil, but a fool is hotheaded and reckless. Proverbs 14:16

"wake up, O sleeper,
and rise from the dead,
and Christ will shine on you." Ephesians. 5:14

Do not judge or you too will be judged. Matt.7

The evil deeds of a wicked man ensare him; the cords of his sin hold him fast.
He will die for the lack of discipline, led astray by his own great folly. Prov.5:23-23

Any human alive can benefit from the bible's keen advise. If more men were to walk like Jesus, and serve God, not money, or themselves, there would be a greater peace on earth.

Doubt the size of the earth is no match for faith the size of a mustard seed. It is all you need to begin your journey twards God. There is no anger here, no judgement. There is love. Compassion. Life.

Man is afraid to hear because if he hears and sees thus gains the knowlddge and wisdom, then how can he deny? In ignorace it is simple to deny.

Christians,

Gospel of John(least authentic of them all) contains the greatest number of references to “son of God.”
Jesus, speaking in the third person talked about the “Son of God” in John 3:17

John 5:24
John 11:4
John 11:27

Martha, one of the followers, calls Jesus, “The Messiah, the Son of God”
John 20:31 he is called “The Messiah, the Son of God.”

But no verse makes the exact statement “Jesus is the Son of God and as such he is divine or God.”

Luke 3:36
“Enos was the son of Seth, and Seth was the son of Adam, and Adam was the son of God.”

HOW MANY SONS DOES YOUR MYTHOCAL GOD HAVE

Hebrews 1:5
“You are my Son; today I have begotten you.”

Does this support the case the doctrine that Jesus, peace be upon him, is the ‘begotten Son of God?”

Old Testament BIBLE
Psalms 2:7 David is stating what God has proclaimed regarding David’s relationship to God
“I will proclaim the decree of the Lord: he said to me, ‘you are my Son; this day have I begotten you.”

Note: the New International Version says the verse could be translated either as “become your Father” or as “begotten you” into English or Greek

Yo Mortal:

You're argument has no weight my friend. The Egyptian stories and Greek stories were around long before the Jesus stories....check your timeline dude.

If the remains of Jesus had been Definitively found,
First part of question,seems to me that is impossible.Nobody knows.SHALL YOU TEST DNA OF GOD?

Who was Jesus?
Son of God,Lamb of God,Word of God,Saver,Shepherd of sheep,Teacher of chosen,Prince of Peace,Separater(He will separate the sheep from the goats,such as written Matthew 25.32)
He shall come back and save those who baptised.
His last words,My God,why have you forsaken me,Mark 15.34
Book of God says,never will God leave you Hebrew 13.5

History,2000 years ago when the world was flat,jewish woman Virgin Mary had bred a baby.
Son of jew said 'I am Son of God' and only 12 men believed that.
2000 years later the world got round and revolving.Approximately one billion eight hundred million people believing Him.Persecuter Saul(St.Paul) and homosexual John(Reference,Wikipedia John the Apostle page) wrote the Book of God.
It is controversial if Jesus had lived or not.
So,if I sum up,Jewish woman bred Son of God and jewish man wrote Book of God.This is Christianity.Biggest religion on the earth.
Christianity has three importent confessions.
Protestant,first class christian.
Catholic,second class christian.
Orthodox,third class christian.

How would that change view of Christianity?
Nothing changes.
Jesus also has a representetive(vicar) on the earth.That is Pope.
Pharaoh was the representetive of god Amom Ra.

Resurrection is a Sumerian belief indeed 4000 BC.
Damu,god of rebirth,son of god Enki(Lord of earth) had resurrected in the beginning of spring each year.
Ancient greeks had adopted this sumerian belief as Epiphany that means resurrection of god in human form.
Nativity celebrated on December 25 by christians was an ancient greek belief based on sumerian god Damu indeed.

Conclusion,nobody knows where the remains of Jesus are and nothing changes view of Christianity.

Why not pose questions like before passover or ramadan such as:

"Were the Jewish people really delivered by God out of slavery?"

"Is the Seder legitimate?"

"Was Mohammed really a prophet?

Anomymous wrote: "Was there anything written, at exactly the same time as the Gospels and the Epistles, that says "Don't listen to what these guys are saying, they're a bunch of liars. This stuff didn't happen. They're yankin' your chain. Jesus came back to life, then hundreds of people saw him rise up into the sky? Yeah, right!" Is there anything at all like that out there?"

If there was, it has long been destroyed by the Catholic Church. They purged, as much as possible, any dessent voice including writings about Mithra and Gnostics.

For quite some time now, I have been seeing some people in these postings refer to similarities between Christ's Death and Resurrection and certain events in various mythologies. Generally, these are brought up with the implicit or explicit assumption that these analogs somehow prove that the story of Jesus is also a myth, or that they should at least cast doubt on the historicity of the Gospels.

To me, however, they are powerful witnesses to the TRUTH of the Resurrection and other events in Christ's life. Remember that the Incarnation means the entering of God Himself into our universe, and into human history. Such an occurrence would necessarily have repercussions that would be visible to the furthest parts of creation. Think of dropping a large stone into a pond. The ripples from the splash would spread out to every part of the water.

So it should not be surprising that the introduction of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity into human history would be reflected in countless different ways, and that people physically and temporily removed from Jesus would experience some "echo" of his presence. These dimly felt manifestations subsequently find their way into the mythologies of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, etc. So when I read, for example, about Persephone's descent into the Underworld in Greek mythology, I am in reality seeing a reflection of the actual hisorical occurrence - of Christ's Death and Resurrection within history.

For once, I am not in disagreement Ms. Jacoby - it was a pretty fair essay.

On the other hand, what type of question is this by Newsweek and the Post??? A stupid and biased one, as usual.

Come any Chrisitan holiday is this meida outfit (and others) love to take pot-shots at Christianity and pose them as serious questions.

Their magazines will be covered with quesitons like:
"Was Jesus really the Savior??"

"Was Dan Brown onto something?"

"Was Mary really a virgin??"

If these are not passive aggressive attacks on this religion, I don't know what are! The questions are biased and seem to be straight out of the Babylonia Talmud.

Jacob,

Even if your I have a dream "dream" comes true, you will never be able to do anything about the power of the believe in One and only god being worshipped rather than your athiestic ideas

But how many years are we talking about that these Jesus legends grew? I'm talking about what was written most specifically by people who were there, or during the time when people who were around then were still alive and able to dispute it.

Anonymous, in my opinion your question misses the point. My point about legend was this - legends aren't created all at once, but develop over time as stories are handed down and embellished. As I understand history, the Jews of the 1st century were eagerly awaiting a Messiah, plus they wanted to be free from Roman domination. It's possible that as Jesus' following grew, the verbal account about his life acquired more stories about miracles. Later, some of the Gentile followers may have unconsciously added details from the stories about Mithras or Dionysus. That last involves the reasonable assumption that such stories were part of the cultural knowledge of most people, even those who didn't worship those figures.

MS JACOBY tells us: "What the many types of freethinkers shared, regardless of their views on the existence, or nonexistence, of a divinity, was a rationalist approach to fundamental questions of earthly existence--a conviction that the affairs of human beings should be governed not by faith in the supernatural but by a reliance on reason and evidence adduced from the natural worl

ANN replies: If one can trust the internet (and, of course, one can't entirely), Jefferson, Madidon and Washington believed that there not only is a God whoput the world in order, but the Deity also has a hand in it -- "divine providence" is something they thought might even have been at work in the invention of the U.S. Constitution. But they all said so little about their religious beliefs that is difficult if not impossible to know just what their beliefs were.

Was there anything written, at exactly the same time as the Gospels and the Epistles, that says "Don't listen to what these guys are saying, they're a bunch of liars. This stuff didn't happen. They're yankin' your chain. Jesus came back to life, then hundreds of people saw him rise up into the sky? Yeah, right!" Is there anything at all like that out there?

Christianity would not disappear if Jesus' bones were found since Christianity is a way of life, a life built on the cornerstones of the Beatitudes and the Twelve Commandments. True Christianity is not dependent on floating bodies, ghosts, apparitions and "talking pretty wingy thingies".

The physical resurrection of Jesus has been reveiwed by many contemporary NT scholars. Most conclude that the physical resurrection did not occur. There are just too many conflicting stories about the event itself and lack of proper attestation from other scriptural sources.

Even common sense says the physical resurrection did not occur. The basis?? Heaven is a spirit state as per Aquinas. No bodies exist there. Therefore the body of Jesus (and Mary) even in a glory state cannot be there. It sure would be very strange, all those billions of souls plus the spirit/soul of God with a few alien beings wandering about with nothing to see, do or eat.

The body of Jesus decomposed or disappeared just as all human bodies disappear. See Professor Crossan's conclusions as noted in his books, Who is Jesus? and The Historical Jesus. Also see the information posted at http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb017.html

This lack of physical resurrection is also being taught in large Catholic university theology classes e.g. Catholic U.

Easter is already becoming secularized so there should be little economic impact on "Christian" nations. Those that still believe in the physical resurrection have significant economic dependence on it e.g. popes, bishops, ministers evangelists and authors such as Professor NT Wright so they will continue the tradition to protect their jobs.

The tradition of Jesus embellishments served Christianity well in the time of uneducated "pew peasants". Paul for example added to these embellishments especially the "prophecy" of the second coming to fund the movement in the lands of the Gentiles. To say the least, he was quite successful. Now, however, the "pew peasants" have been educated and we want realism restored to our beliefs.

Ambassador, to borrow from Ba'al's words in another thread, people die or commit suicide for many religious or secular ideas. Often it's to protect their country, and sometimes (in the case of suicide bombers) it's with an expectation of a reward in the afterlife. Regardless of whether the stories about Jesus were true, false, or a mixture of fact and legend, the Christian martyrs believed those stories, and I don't fault them for choosing to sacrifice their lives rather than sacrifice their principles. Still, their sacrifices don't constitute proof.

Tonio,

Did people die for these stories of King Arthur and Camelot?

There's far too much evidence to make the claim that Jesus was only a "legend." Other documents such as the Jewish Talmud recognize Jesus Christ and his miracles, albeit in a negative tone. Asserting that Jesus Christ was only a legend should not be an option.

To expand on my point about legend, look at the phenomenon of urban legends. Even with electronic communication, stories are still twisted (often unconsciously) to fit the storyteller's worldview or what the storyteller WANTS the story to mean.

Samson, I have heard that argument before. The article that Schmitty posted above offers this quote from Ehrman: "Sometimes Christian apologists say there are only three options to who Jesus was: a liar, a lunatic or the Lord...But there could be a fourth option -- legend." I suspect the stories about Jesus developed the same way as stories about King Arthur and Camelot centuries later.

Schmitty,

Thanks for the reference. I have ran across others who have quoted that book. I have not read it, although I intend to this summer because it seems to be a book with some weighty claims. There's no way that I can take the time to address each of his points from the article in this type of thread. I'll just say that's one side of the argument. There are many books written on the other side of the argument, but they don't get nearly the attention as a book like "Misquoting Jesus."

I find it very diffcult to believe, that s low class group of people would rebel against everything they know (being Jewish and the politcal establishment), risk their lives, be willing to become complete outcast and stoned to death all for some elaborate lie. A big hoax, that at the time was no different than some small cult in a big city. That a man (Paul) well respected by his associates, very well educated on all the Jewish laws and rituals, who spent a portion of his life tracking and killing these 'little Christ' people for following a man who claimed to be the Messiah, would one day take a business trip,go blind and say, "Hey you know what i had it all wrong. These Christians do have something going for them. I have no proof of it, since Christ body is... But who cares let me spend the rest of my life traveling, talking, and writing about a complete lie."

Please excuse the sarcasm.

Lets not forget that Christianity did not start as the mega billion dollar business, that it can be at times, today. Nor was it a politically strong stand point. And it also did not have the most powerful people at the time to back it up. No, Christianity started with a 'powerful energy' that was released that inspired and was enough evidence-for those living at the time-to give up their earthly lives and die for it. And that my friends was the Resurrection. Happy Easter

Athena, J. Downs, et al.,

What I have not found in any of the references provided so far is the similarity that the resurrection was necessary to atone for the sins of mankind. That's the reason for the resurrection of Christ. Are there other religions that make that claim? I'm not trying to be rude, because this is an honest question.

Thanks for the responses in advance.

There are also numerous instance of dying and rising Gods in the Middle East and northern Africa - specifically Osiris and Horus (Egyptian), Tammuz/Dumuzi (Babylonian), and Attis (Anatolian). The idea of a dying and rising vegitation God was around for millennia before Jesus. In fact, many of attributes of Jesus were originally those of Horus in Egypt. The ancient Christians drew on these symbols to make the new religion more palatable to the diverse population of the Roman empire at the time.

Ambassador of christ,

I would like to have your opinion of the following article when you have a minute please. Thanks in advance

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/04/AR2006030401369.html

Virgin birth: Author William Harwood has written that Jesus' "equation in Greek eyes with the resurrected savior-god Dionysos led an interpolator to insert a virgin-birth myth into the gospel now known as Matthew." 1
Birth Witnesses: The gospel of Matthew records that Jesus was visited by an unknown number of wise men, called Magi. Authors Freke & Gandy identify them as followers of the god man Mithras from Persia. 4
Most other sources believe that they were Zoroastrian priests from Persia who were experts in astrology. There is a Zoroastrian belief "that a son of Zoroaster will be born many years after his death by a virgin...This son will apparantly [sic] raise the dead and crush the forces of evil. Later Christians got rather excited about this apparant [sic] pagan prophecy of the coming of the Messiah..." 2

The gospel of Luke records that Jesus was visited by three shepherds. Mithra the god man from Persia was also visited shortly after birth by three shepherds.
The magi brought gold, frankincense and myrrh. A Pagan belief from the 6th century BCE states that these are the precise materials to use when worshiping God.

Healing: Jesus is recorded throughout the gospels as healing the sick and restoring the dead to life. So was Asclepius, a Greek god man. Pagans and early Christians debated who was the more effective healer.
Ministry: Jesus appeared as a wandering holy man who is later transfigured in the presence of some of his disciples. Dionysus was portrayed in the same manner in Euripides' play The Bacchae, written in 410 BCE.
Miracles: Both Jesus and Empedocles were recorded as teaching spiritual truths, curing illness, foretelling the future, controlling the wind and rain, and raising people from the dead.
Both Mithra and Jesus performed many healings of the sick and mentally ill; both raised the dead. 3
Mark, chapter 5 describes Jesus driving demons from a man into a herd of about 2,000 pigs who rushed over a cliff and drowned. In Eleusis, about 2,000 initiates would bathe in the sea. Each had a young pig to which the believers' sins would be transferred. The pigs were then chased over a chasm and killed.

Fishing: John 21:11 records that Jesus performed a miracle which enabled Simon Peter to catch exactly 153 fish. The Pagan Pythagoras considered 153 a sacred number. The ratio of 153 to 265 was referred to by the Pagan Archimedes as "the measure of the fish." That ratio is used to generate a fish-like shape using two circles. The sign of the fish was used by the early Christians as their main symbol.
Arrest: Both Dionysus and Jesus celebrated a Last Supper with his 12 disciples before his death.
Dionysus is described in Euripides' play The Bacchae as bringing a new religion to the people, being plotted against by the leaders, being arrested and appearing before the political ruler. Dionysus said to his captors "You know not what you are doing..," almost replicating Jesus' words at the cross. He was unjustly accused and executed. All of these themes are seen in the Gospels.

Crucifixion & resurrection: Jesus' body was wrapped in linen and anointed with myrrh and aloe. Osiris was also said to have been wrapped in linen and anointed with myrrh.

Again, the god men myths had been circulating well before Jesus birth. The Christians would have copied earlier Pagan material, not vice-versa.

Ba'al,

Thank you for your comments.

You said, "Some Christians seem to find meaning only in the death of Jesus, as if he was sacrificed to atone for their shortcomings."

Your observation is correct. But it shouldn't be "some" Christians, but all Christianss should find meaning here. After all, the death, burial, and resurrection are the heart of the gospel of Christianity. If it did not happen, Christianity fails. The Bible says so itself, "But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied." (1 Corinthians 15:13-19)

You also suggest that Jesus' followers "had to invent a resurrection story to reassure themselves." If you will permit me, I'd like for us to examine the validity of that claim from a logical standpoint.

First, 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 shows that Christ appeared to 500 people at once. Paul makes sure to note that "most were still alive." In essence, Paul was saying "don't take my word for it, go talk to them, examine their accounts, examine the evidence." Surely, no one would reasonably believe that 500 people could have been hallucinating at one time.

Second, your assertion that they invented the resurrection story to "reassure themselves" makes no logical sense. While he was being crucified, they all scattered and hid. If they were going to "reassure" themselves, why wouldn't they move 500 miles away from Jerusalem and begin preaching Christ's resurrection there? Instead, they began preaching this resurrection in the very city where Jesus had been crucified. Further, why would they willingly die for what they KNEW was a lie? If they had invented this story, there's no way they would have been willing to be crucifed, beheaded, etc. (as tradition holds that most of the 12 apostles died horrible deaths for this message). No, it is absolutely illogical to believe that they invented the resurrection story to "reassure themselves." Being crucified upside down for what you know is a lie doesn't sound very reassuring.

About Yeshua of Nazareth: He is commonly referred to as Jesus Christ, although Joshua would be a more accurate translation of his first name. "Christ" is not his last name; it is simply the Greek word for "Messiah," or "anointed one." Theologians have discovered about 50 gospels which were widely used by Jewish, Pauline and Gnostic groups within the early Christian movement. Only four of these were chosen by the surviving group, Pauline Christianity, and were included in the Bible. Those four Gospels describe Jesus as a Jew who was born to a virgin in Palestine circa 4 to 7 BCE. He is portrayed as a rabbi, teacher, healer, exorcist, magician, prophet, and religious leader who had a one year (according to Mark, Matthew and Luke) or a three year (according to John) ministry in Palestine, starting when he was about 30 years old. Most Christians believe that he was executed by the Roman occupying army, visited the underworld, was resurrected, spent 40 days with his disciples, and then ascended to heaven. Most Christian denominations view Jesus as God, and as the Son of God, the second person in the Trinity.|

One need not be an Atheist to view Christ as a myth. I view Christ as a myth as much as Hercules or the myth of Horus and I am the anthesis of an Atheist.

Rev. Keith R. Wright
President of the United Deist Church

PS Deist and Deism should be capitalized.

Ambassador,

I haven't given this topic much thought, and after a quick google search, I found a site that gives a quick overview of some of the religions that have Jesus parallels.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa.htm

ambassador..,
Hindu god Krishna is the second person of the Hindu Trinity. He is considered to be one of the incarnations of the God Vishnu. Some Hindus believe that he lived on Earth during perhaps the 2nd or 3rd century BCE. Yeshua of Nazareth is generally regarded as having been born in Palestine circa 4 to 7 BCE. Thus, if there are many points of similarities between these two individuals, most skeptics and some religious liberals would accept that elements of Krishna's life were incorporated into the legends associated with Jesus.

Ambassador,

Hindu's have one and the pagan Roman's have one. That should suffice for you

Tonio,

"Regardless of the source of the Resurrection story, the fact that many religions have such stories suggests..." I honestly plead ignorance here. Would you mind providing some examples of other religions that have resurrection stories similar to the resurrection of Jesus?

Thanks!

I read somewhere or was told that early Christianity borrowed details (dates, tales, etc) from the different pagen religions (Roman, Greek, Norse, etc) that were around then to make it easier to convert the locals.

Regardless of the source of the Resurrection story, the fact that many religions have such stories suggests that the narrative fulfills some deep human need. Is it possible that the need can be fulfilled by treating the stories as allegories and not factual histories?

Comparisons are also made with the tale of Mithras, whose cult existed during the period of the origin of Christianity. One story says Mithras was born of a virgin on December 25,[62] although other stories about him say he sprung from a rock or tree or cosmic egg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithras

The story of Dionysus, son of the Greek Olympian God Zeus, has been seen by several writers as containing parallels to the story of Jesus. Professor Harris writes in his book Understanding the Bible that "the myth of Dionysus foreshadows some later Christian theological interpretations of Jesus' cosmic role. Although Jesus is a historical figure and Dionysus purely mythological, Dionysus's story contains events and themes, such as his divine parentage, violent death, descent into the Underworld, and subsequent resurrection to immortal life in heaven, where he sits near his father's throne, that Christians ultimately made part of Jesus' story. Like Asclepius, Heracles, Perseus, and other heroes of the Greco Roman era, Dionysus has a divine father and human mother. The only Olympian born to a mortal woman, he is also the only major deity to endure rejection, suffering, and death before ascending to heaven to join his immortal parent. The son of Zeus and Semele, a princess of Thebes, Dionysus was known as the "twice born."[57]

Dionysus also parallels the life of Jesus as he and Demeter gave humanity two gifts to come into communion with the divine: grain (or bread) to sustain life and wine to make life bearable. The Athenian Euripides, a playwright from 485-406 BCE, writes in his The Bacchae:

Pardon the misprints above.
English is not my native language.

meant to say

"if someHOW the premise of this crazy question were possible to achieve,
it WOULD disprove the base belief of Christianity.

Finding Remains of Jesus Would *Disprove* Christianity

Christians believe that Jesus rose from the dead
*with his body*
i.e. he was resurrected.

If someone the premise of this crazy question were possible to achieve
(yes, how would we know the remains were of Jesus? Would he have a tattoo on his bones? Do we have a DNA sample in a police dpt somewhere)

It was disprove the Base belief of Christianity, Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected as we will be.

Norrie,

I think there are Da Vinci Code tours that go through France and England. It could be fun for someone into that sort of thing. If I ever make it to Europe, I'd rather just sit in a courtyard gorging myself on wine. But that's me...

I appreciate the addendum on Freethought vs. Athiesm. Speaking as someone new to these types of discussions (I have only joined the world of more secular-thought 2-3 years ago, serious discussion and thought only in the past year) I was getting very confused at how some people were using the two terms as one.

I cannot agree that the remains of Jesus will "never" be found. How do we know? And I also think that the discover of the "lost tomb of Jesus" is a load of bunk. Hollywood is opportunistic. If the body of Jesus turns up, how would we know it was him anyway?

A question about married priests: I have always read and learned that priests and bishops used to be allowed to wed. Some of the first bishops and popes were married. I think it was in the 1300s when the church decided it didn't like that a priest's family was inheriting church land when the priest died, so the church decided to incorporate celibacy into the priesthood — to keep church land within the church. If this is the real history behind celibate priests (please, correct me if I'm wrong), _that_ is what should worry Christians, and slightly more than a work of fiction.

Some Christians seem to find meaning only in the death of Jesus, as if he was sacrificed to atone for their shortcomings. Perhaps that dates back to the beginning, maybe because his followers were shocked that he was reported to die such a horrible death -- so much so that they had to invent a resurrection story to reassure themselves. So they took the details about the empty tomb, the three days, etc. etc. from other stories circulating about other heroes of the era, adopted rituals like the Eucharist from followers of Dionysis, Mithras, etc. etc. Eventually a natural selection of many different ideas led to what you see today.

Of course Paul never actually met Jesus (because the later never existed??). So Paul was forced to focus on the death and resurrection and he created something quite different than what appears in the Gospels.

Some Christians seem to find meaning only in the death of Jesus. Perhaps that dates back to the beginning, maybe because his followers were shocked that he died such a horrible death (well, assuming that he actually lived) -- so much so that they had to invent a resurrection story to reassure themselves. So they took the details about the empty tomb, the three days, etc. etc. from other stories circulating about other heroes of the era, adopted rituals like the Eucharist from followers of Dionysis, etc. etc. Eventually a natural selection of many different ideas led to what you see today.

If these hypothetic remains were found, though, his followers could find meaning in the life of Jesus. Charity, peace, loving your enemies, that kind of thing.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, rather than dissing The Da Vinci Code, should have promoted it as a part of British tourism - the Templar church, Rosslyn, etc. And certainly he should have endorsed the idea that Mary Magdalene and Joseph of Arimathea settled in Glastonbury. The British Tourist Authority should get after him.

On another matter: You can't have any rational basis for saying that the remains of Jesus (if he existed) will never be found. It's entirely possible that they will.

Best wishes & Happy Easter.