The Man Nobody Knows

Pardon me for being so late in posting this, but what Susan Jacoby has noted was first noted about 2500 years ago by some gentleman named Xenophanes:

Homer and Hesiod attributed to the gods all things which are disreputable and worthy of blame when done by men; and they told of them many lawless deeds, stealing, adultery, and deception of each other.

But mortals suppose that the gods are born (as they themselves are), and that they wear man's clothing and have human voice and body.

But if cattle or lions had hands, so as to paint with their hands and produce works of art as men do, they would paint their gods and give them bodies in form like their own-horses like horses, cattle like cattle.

Ethiopians make their gods black and snub-nosed, Thracians red-haired and with blue eyes.

(Black people, northern Europeans)

Luke -- You responded "I am just as sure that your God doesn't exist as you are that it does, Anonymous. That's what makes us the same."

I did not ask you what you believe, but how do you know God does not exist. Have you looked everywhere?

You say that you know the same way that I know, but that can not be, for I believe in SOMEONE who has revealed himself.

If I believe there is a rabbit inside a box in front of your house, there either is or there isn't. Right? If there is, then your belief that there isn't, is a fantasy.

The only way to know is to go see for yourself, which is what I suggested in my first post. Communicate with Jesus in the Eucharist, for He is there. Just sit inside or outside a church and talk to him. Indeed, he is everywhere, but for some reason, he chose to make himself specially present in the Eucharist.

Communicate with his mother the Blessed Virgin Mary, just talk to her.

If you don't go see if there is actually a rabbit, how will you ever really know? That would be a terrible mistake to make with nothing less than your eternal existence.

Jihadist,

I'll just repeat what I wrote on this thread 155 posts ago:

"All prominent religious figures are showmen, and there's a thin line (if any) between them and conmen."

Whatever time it may be on your far side of the globe, here it's five minutes to midnight, so I'm off to bed.

Good Night!

Jihadist,

You still cannot bring yourself to condemn the the militaristic and anti-female passages of the Koran. Come to the USA where you can write in freedom and do not have to worry about the Islamic/Indonesia secret police.

And to think all these problems with Islam and Christianity can be traced back to mythical "pretty/ugly wingie thingies".

And the next topic should be on the effectiveness of "prayers/beads/rosaries" to bring us to Truth and the Right Path.

Norrie Hoyt,

Getting a rise out of you for a clearer explanation of course. And thanks for it.

Your posts on miracles and showmen here got me thinking. I have never thought of Jesus as a "showman" with the skill in attracting public attention. I prefer the word charismatic.

And yes, causes and conditions of during time of Jesus and in our own time. And cause and effect too of the said miracles as an important part of Christian belief. People need to believe miracles can and do happen in their daily lives. Even Prez Bush on Iraq. Believing in the miracles of Jesus is symtomatic of that and our all too human capacity to hope against all odds without doing anything that need to be done.

And, yes, I was actually also indulging in a wee bit of baiting Concerned to see his usual reaction:)

Jihadist,

What's gotten into you? The comment you addressed to me would seem to have nothing to do with what I wrote.

Have you mixed me up with Concerned?

All I wrote was a reply to Voice of Truth, who asked me, "In what way do you consider Jesus to be a 'showman'"?

The incidents I listed from Jesus's life were some that seemed to me to have a quality of showmanship about them. That's all.

The fact that so many believe in the Christian religion has nothing to do with what I wrote or what Voice of Truth asked me.

I think the fact that so many have faith in Jesus is not a "miracle", but rather, like everything else in the universe, "a product of causes and conditions". One of the causes may have been that Jesus was a good showman.

[A good Buddhist explanation, eh? - i.e., the causes and conditions bit.]

Cheers and best wishes.

Meant to say: "Since, unlike Jesus, [Paul] is NOT credited with being a doer of wondrous deeds, it's more understandable that there would be little surviving info about him."

Norrie Hoyt

A list of miracles by Jesus. Is that all? You missed out the greatest miracle - that hundreds of millions found strenght and believe in Jesus over the centuries.

So many over the centuries said God is dead, and they are all dead and gone, but not God in the minds of men.

Any bets that proving Jesus may not "exist" will make any difference on believers?

Concerned

You noted : "Especially in regards to the Shiites and Sunnis!!! Same operating manual of death and cruelity, same god, same founder and they still butcher each other 24/7."

Obviously any reader of news on Iraq knows that Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites are in the throes of their own liberation theology/ideology (the meshing of political rights and religious/historical baggage). Fighting to the deaths against oppression, past (Shiites) and future (Sunnis).

Is it worth fighting and dying for one's rights and against oppression? Apparently yes for some as per independence movements from American Revolution to Vietnam. Add religion to the mix and it drags longer. Norhtern Ireland took some 500 years to resolve.

One can never reason with anyone whose rights is taken away or will be taken away - be it women, gays or religious and ethnic minorities.

And do pay attention to the phenomena of liberation theology in Latin America. A phenomena particular to only developing or third world countries. In activism for the community of believers, the Muslim cousins of the Liberation Theologist are, in many ways, the Muslim Brotherhood. I should add Hamas and Hezbollah as the most extreme examples of liberation theologists/ideologists. The Muslim Brotherhood and Liberation Tehologists are seen to have co-opted Marxist or socialist elements, but social justice is not the monopoly of Marxists.

It is in the teachings of and by the example of Jesus as well as being one of the tenets of Islam. Going back to the original teachings? Updating of teachings? Manipulation of teachings?

The Holy Texts, the origins and existence or otherwise, the historical accuracies on the founders of beliefs and religions has less and less to do with the state of men, but what the states has or not done for men for social justice, justice and pursuit of peace.

And some wonder why people turn to religion for hope, faith and as alternate system of governance. And to use religion to fight against those they deem are oppressive, unjust, as well as morally, ethically and intellectual bankrupt.

No question about it, we are going in different paths.

Just to irritate you here, let me remind that in that most common, pervasive and used of Muslim prayers, the Sura Al Fatiha, Muslims prayed to God to guide them to the Right Path, the Straight Path. Nothing said about the True Path. What is true may not be right.

Don't be dogmatic.

Thanks, Concerned -- I did a little more looking too (googling "historical paul") and came up with basicially the same thing - via Bart Ehrmann's Book, "Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene."

I'm officially done with my search for the historical Paul. Since, unlike Jesus, he is credited with being a doer of wondrous deeds, it's more understandable that there would be little surviving info about him.

E Favorite,

Professors Crossan/Reed and also Chilton present the best Paul bio information available. There does not appear to be a lot other than what is in the epistles and Acts of the Apostles.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle

Thanks for the addtional references, Concerned, but I'm asking YOU -- in all your reading, have you come across historical/biographical info on Paul and if so, what it is -- and I don't mean stuff like "According to tradition, he was a tent maker from Tarsus." I mean some investigation and verification of claims about the man Paul.

Perhaps there aren't any -- this is what I'm trying to find out.

Obviously something "Paul-like" was happening -- we have letters, we have the spread of Christianity to places the letters were written to. But what about Paul -- has anyone really looked for him and what did they find?

I'm starting to wonder if very much looking for the historical Paul has been done. Maybe it's not a very interesting subject for scholars.

I am just as sure that your God doesn't exist as you are that it does, Anonymous. That's what makes us the same.

Especially in regards to the Shiites and Sunnis!!!
Same operating manual of death and cruelity, same god, same founder and they still butcher each other 24/7.

And Jesus replies, "I am a bit tired. As one of the great prophets of Israel says, `Come, let us reason together.'"

Not going quite well is it? To reason together.

E Favorite,

Bruce Chilton's book, Rabbi Paul, is another good book. See Amazon's description of the book and click on Search Inside This Book to see the Table of Contents, Index and an excerpt. Do this also for Professor Crossan's book. This will give you an idea as to references and family history.

See also

http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf

Try also Early Christian Writings at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ (Their servor was apparently down for the weekend.)

Norrie,

Yes I understood. I just wanted to add what others especially contemporary NT scholars have concluded about the "historic" Jesus and his ways and sayings.

Concerned,

I agree with what you say about the items I listed.

You do understand that I was replying to Voice of Truth, who asked me "In what way do you understand Jesus to be a 'showman'?"

The listed items are incidents from the stories of Jesus's life that I consider to be examples of "showmanship". I wasn't suggesting that these stories are true or actually happened.

Hi, Concerned - thanks for the reference - assuming you've read the book, what particular references can you recall about the historical Paul, e.g. family info, mentions in other books/records, etc.

Norrie,

Your list of operatic events with added commentary as per many contemporary reviews of the NT.

-Miracles- embellishments all

-Raising the dead- illogical and a non-event (where did these bodies go as Heaven is a Spirit s

-Overturning the moneychangers' tables in the
temple- maybe but no eye witnesses, no CNN.

Turning water into wine- only mentioned once in the NT (John's Gospel) i.e. single attestation therefore not reliable.

Walking on water- more embellishements

Loaves & Fishes - more embellishments and if Jesus had this kind of power why limit it to a single event??

-Riding a donkey into Jerusalem over palm fronds
- not reliable information

Proclaiming a new cosmic system - What might that be?

The Last Supper- not reliable information

Dying a horrible operatic death - Why hast Thou forsaken me? - It is finished- The crucifixion definitely occurred but there were no recordings or reliable witnesses.

From Crossan and Watts book, Who is Jesus.

“My best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety. I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. I doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset. And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."

See also http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf

Vox Veritas (a.k.a. Voice of Truth) (Isn't Latin classier than English? Pope Benny thinks so.),

Miracles
Raising the dead
Overturning the moneychangers' tables in the temple
Turning water into wine
Walking on water
Loaves & Fishes
Riding a donkey into Jerusalem over palm fronds
Proclaiming a new cosmic system
The Last Supper
Dying a horrible operatic death - Why hast Thou forsaken me? - It is finished.

E Favorite,

Professors Crossan and Reed's book, In Search of Paul, is excellent. It deals with all the aspects of Paul's life to include his epistles, the epistles written in his name (e.g. Timothy, Titus)and the associated archeology.

www.amazon.com

In Search of Paul: How Jesus' Apostle Opposed Rome's Empire with God's Kingdom by John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed (Paperback - Nov 1, 2005).

E Fav -

The first source does link sources, but he's not consistent throughout his various webpages. He seems to put all of his sources on the top of the first page of a subject with fewer or no sources on the subsequent pages that expand upon the subject.

The second source I cited is better in placing his sources withjin the articles.

While neither source is the be-all and end-all of disucssion, I find both sources invaluable for the simple fact that the hyperlinks within them are incredibly vast and take one to authoritative and well-distributed mainstream sources.

Thanks, Mr Mark - I think I've seen the first source - it might be based on fact, but it's slanted and non-academic and doesn't reference its sources.

Obviously, "Paul's" letters got written and obviously Christianity spread, so you'd think there'd be more out there.

The second source seemed credible -- but unless I missed something, it was about Paul's letters and not about Paul.

Norrie,

In what way do understand Jesus to be a "showman?"

Luke,

You write: "How can I SINCERELY attempt to communicate with something I know does not exist?"

How do you know that?

Dear E Fav -

Sources for info on Paul:

http://tinyurl.com/33l86j

Also, here:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm#6

Mr Mark - Interesting about Paul -- I gave up looking for the "historical" Paul on the internet, after my initial attempts failed. I thought the fact that there was little out there (compared to the historical Jesus)was pretty interesting itself.

Can you tell me how/where you found your information?

(Liked the card trick too)

Believer writes:

"Notice the phrasing: "accompished among us" "eyewitnesses" "the exact truth"

Here's an interesting video - sort of a test of the reliability of eyewitnesses and our perceptions of things. Nothing religious or anti-religious here. See if you can spot the trick:

tinyurl.com/yoy7yq

"Certainly you don't attribute the authorship of Paul's epistles to unknown authors. They were written during the same time period as the Gospels and they corrobarate and bolster the Gospel accounts."

It may surprise you to learn this, but the EARLIEST copies we have of Paul's writings date from the third century. There are NO extant versions that predate that. Ergo, the third-century copies are 1) not originals, and 2) not exactly contemporaneous to the time when Jesus lived.

Furthermore, in Acts, Paul states that he studied under the Pharisaic grandee, Gamaliel, in Jerusalem, yet there is no mention of Paul the renegade student in any first or second-century rabbinical writings.

The fact is that we take it on faith that Paul's writings pre-dated the writing of the gospels

I think the point of the atheist is clear. You can talk of the foolishness of idol worship, the lies of mythology, etc., but what you believe is the same EXACT thing, just slightly younger than most.

The new testament is less believable than the tales of the Trojan horse.

In both cases, they may be instructive - about how to act, or not to act - but that doesn't make them true occurrences.

Actually, Paul was the supreme salesman, along with his many later minions and followers.

None of those stories ever existed before all of those johnny-come-latelys started telling them, and they did so only to create a political movement. And very successfully, as you say.

Imagine, if I came along today and started to tell grand fables of magnificent feats allegedly performed by someone who allegedly lived 100 years ago, or - c'mon, let's own up to it - 1,500 years ago, but for which I had no documentary evidence whatsoever, not even contemporary writings, that could be validated by any true criteria of historical confirmation?

You would call me a fool and a charlatan.

And that's what I call the jesus people.

They have no contemporary written history, not even myths.

All of that came along later, from salesmen.

E Favorite, isn't it strange that I have to read several long textbooks to get my B.S. in Computer Science, but I only need one for a PhD? PhD in nonsense.

If I ever want to visit the facade of a woman who lied about being raped by a roman soldier - I'll be sure to visit a Catholic church. If I ever want to torture, maim, or kill people, I'll be sure to consult a Catholic first. How can I SINCERELY attempt to communicate with something I know does not exist? Why don't you SINCERELY call out to God, get a complete picture of the origins of the universe (and don't say The Bible, because that is a cop-out), and write it all down and hand it to me. No magic, just pure science. I want to know how he created elecromagnetic waves. How did Christianity bring about personal freedom? That is just re-writing history. Your faith persecuted, murdered, and destroyed entire civilizations for monetary gain, not personal freedom. It's because of your faith that personal freedom took so long to develop.

Believer - I challenge you to provide references from PhDs in Biblical studies or Theology from non-fundamentalist colleges or universities who do not support the fact that the writers of the gospels are not the Apostles Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, i.e., that the Gospel writers are unknown.

Dear Observer, Russell D, and Tonio,

I've come late to this discussion, and Observer might not read this until the end of the vacation.

Concerning the nature of truth, there is an argument whether truth is subjective or whether there is an objective measure of a truth claim. As Tonio rightly pointed out, scientifically, a truth claim must be falsifiable. “True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them.”

Observer then states that supernatural claims can not be evaluated within a scientific context, much as Stephen J. Gould might have argued in “Non-overlapping Magisteria”. However, is that claim an assumption or is it really true? Some, like Richard Dawkins, have argued that the existence of god, or lack thereof, can be addressed like any other scientific question. Science is built on the idea of evidence and uncertainty and perhaps such a question can be addressed.

From a philosophical point of view, there are some things we can never know (e.g. Is the red you see the same as the red I see? We may both agree it is the same wavelength, but we cannot know how different people perceive color). Then there are things we may never know (e.g. how life began, the existence of other universes). The existence of god may be in this group of phenomena. However, we can look for evidence for a yeah or nay. Dawkins argues that even with all the uncertainty, the preponderance of evidence points to no god. Will this end the debate? Of course not. Nor should it.

Observer - But, my question remains unanswered: WHY is this a common thread among so many cultures? You state, "There exists no universally-held moral position," however you offer no valid reasons as to why I should accept that claim besides your own subjective opinions.

Tonio - rudimentary moral behavior has been seen in some animal species such as chimpanzees. It has been hypothesized that humans and chimps acquired a inherent moral sense through natural selection, since a sense would aid the survival of the family or the tribe. Perhaps definitions of morality differ in the details because people have different definitions of the "tribe." We can refer to that sense as our conscience if we wish, but the existence of that conscience would have nothing to do with whether God exists.

Many people have pointed out, there seems to be a universal moral grammar in much the same way Chomsky showed there is a universal grammar for language encoded in our brain (de Waal 2000, Flack and de Waal 2000, Preston and de Waal 2002, Ridley 2003, de Waal 2006, Hauser 2006). This does not mean that everyone speaks the same language, nor does it mean that every culture shares the same moral values. There is a great deal of variation due to cultural influences. However, underneath that variation there appears to be a basic moral foundation of right and wrong based on fair play. This is not surprising in social animals such as ourselves, where the social environment imposes strong selection. An underlying moral sense aids in the function and stability of any social group.

If anyone is actually interested in the biological basis of morality, I suggest reading a book by Marc Hauser called "Moral minds: how nature designed our universal sense of right and wrong." It's too bad the author used "design" in the title, because nature is not an entity and can't design anything. The premise of the book is that we and our ancestors evolved an innate sense of right and wrong that is subsequently influenced and adjusted by experience. You heard right; amoral evolution by natural selection favored a moral sense. It is not only present in humans, but, as Tonio has pointed out, it has been demonstrated in other animals as well (especially primates).

Ariel - Speed--Can you ask all your Jewish media/Hollywood friends to send me some money?

I also seem to have been left out of all the wealth. I think it was because I never had a Bar Mitzvah. If I tried to do it now, everyone would know it was just for the money.

Let's definitely start a secret Cabal. I think we should even invite speed123 to join as our token anti-Semite, primarily for social camouflage.

One more point on these 2 initiatives:

SINCERITY implies a truly repentant heart for any offenses you know you have committed.

Susan Jacoby claims you can make Jesus anything you want him to be. Said claim only evidences that she does not yet know Jesus, that she does not yet experience the revelation of faith.

Jesus is not known exclusively through the New Testament, or through theological works. To true Catholics he is also known sacramentally, through the Holy Eucharist. To all true Christians, he is known wherever 2 or more gathered in his name.

I invite any pagan or atheist or who does not believe, to consider taking 1 or both of these 2 initiatives:

1. Visiting a Catholic church when it is empty and sitting near the Eucharistic presence of Jesus Christ, and SINCERELY attempt to communicate with Him.

2. SINCERELY attempt to comunicate to the Blessed Virgin Mary your desire to know Jesus.

E Favorite:

I too have done my research and I can assure you that there is centuries of scholarship available that points to the apostles (Matthew and John) and their close associates (Luke and Mark) as being the direct authors of the gospels. Just read the first four verses in the book of Luke:

"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught."

Luke 1:1-4

Notice the phrasing: "accompished among us" "eyewitnesses" "the exact truth"

Certainly you don't attribute the authorship of Paul's epistles to unknown authors. They were written during the same time period as the Gospels and they corrobarate and bolster the Gospel accounts.

To your first point. If there had been a real person named Harry Potter who did amazing deeds which were foretold by prophets, and then that Harry Potter was crucified, buried and rose again, and then those that lived with him and knew him best wrote books about him and those books were widely circulated and became the basis for a portion of world civilization that resulted in democracy and individual freedom, then yes, I would tend to look at those books as factual.

The point is this: You're willing to accept the truth of ancient books with much less historical credibility than the Bible. The fact that there are many manuscripts lets us know not only that it was important, but that the words that were handed down are the same as originally written.

It's too bad you've let poor scholarship steer you from the truth. You should know this: no books in the history of mankind have been subjected to more scrutiny over the centuries than the books of the New Testament. Despite the latest skeptics, the old, old story stands the test of time and stays as relevant, compelling and life-changing today as it did in the first century A.D.

Have a good weekend.

"But yet, when it comes to the supernatural, you are not willing to trust testimony?"

Let me clarify - I will not trust testimony if the claim about the supernatural involves me, especially a claim of authority or control over me. If believers claimed that their gods had authority only over themselves, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I said earlier that I believe supernatural life is possible, but that the burden of proof is on people who claim that it exists. I consider myself an agnostic pantheist, meaning that I have reverence for the universe but do not regard it as a conscious entity.

Regarding claims about the supernatural, I see a three-level system of skepticism. The lowest level is for a claim that supernatural life exists. The middle level is for a claim that a supernatural being caused a natural event to happen. The highest level is for a claim that the being wants something from me or has authority over me.

I do not understand why anyone's concept of spirituality has to involve other people in the first place. One has responsibility for one's own actions and beliefs a no one else's. If you believe that you yourself are accountable to a supernatural being, then there's no reason to believe that the accountability extends to others.

Tonio and Russell D.,

Thanks for the conversations; I've enjoyed them. I'm getting ready to head out on vacation, and will be away from the computer for a week or so. So, my best to you all!

Tonio,

Thank you for the comments. Unfortunately, since you are not open to allowing the testimony of others to enter into the conversation, I'm afraid that we can go no further on the conversation of the supernatural. Like Hume, it appears that you are ruling out even the possibility of supernatural events. I will just say that I don't see how such a stance cannot lead to anything but a radical skepticism. How can you trust anything? How do you know that George Washington was the first President of the United States? How do you know that Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492? You can't, unless you are willing to trust the testimony of others who have told you so. But yet, when it comes to the supernatural, you are not willing to trust testimony? All because of your pre-existing assumption that the universe is a closed system. But, I ask, what if your assumption that the universe is a closed system is wrong?

"Since they can't be tested scientifically as you rightly observe (since by definition they are not oft-repeated events), we must rely on the testimony of others. Do you agree that is a fair and accurate assessment?"

At the risk of sounding snotty, the testimony of others is not sufficient evidence. Some of them may have honestly mistaken natural events for a supernatural one, and others may have self-serving agendas. My understanding of scientific experiments is that others need to be able to repeat the phenomenon under identical conditions.

This wouldn't be so divisive if believers didn't claim that their god wants obedience from all humans. Anyone can make any sort of demand on people and claim that it's the will of deity. And this includes the authors of the Bible and the Qu'ran and all other scripture. Whatever my concept of the divine, I refuse to have any kind of belief about what the divine wants from anyone but myself, because I oppose making that kind of demand on people.

Maybe I have a different perspective. I'd like to share it.

Religion is fickle, as are humans. Beleif in a God or Gods is a matter of what that individual believes. The trick is not to convince people whether God exists or not. the trick is to allow the person to figure it out for themselves. This is where most of the religious people get it wrong. They think it's their duty to convert as many as they can, and claim they are doing nothing more than spreading the word of our Lord. The best way to get anyone to follow is not to try. If a Christian finds truth in becoming an atheist, Wiccan, or another religion altogether, let them. If an Atheist finds truth in faith and decides to believe in a God or Gods, then let them. Allow people the right to search for themselves. People don't do that anymore.

Observer, I don't want to convince you that there is no God. That would be futile, because I can't prove it, just as you can't prove there is a God. So on that point, we have come to an empass. all we can do is allow each person to live and believe as he or she wants, and not impose said beliefs. There is a difference between preach and breach. Sadly, this line has been crossed on numerous occasions, by most religions.

My goal is never to convince anyone, but just as you said, to give them my point of view so they can better understand where I am coming from. And I thank you for not throwing in scripture to prove your point. Seems many posters here could stand to learn from you. I have garnered a respect for you Observer, and hopefully the feeling is reciprocated. If I don't catch you guys again today, I will try to be back over the weekend. I ain't making any promises, but i would like to see how this little conversation goes. It has truly given me a reason to write and talk and experience. By for now.

Tonio,

Thanks for the comments. You make some very valid points.

"while it's possible that supernatural life exists, the burden of proof is on those who claim that such life exists, not on those who claim it doesn't." I totally agree. The issue is not, can supernatural events/miracles happen? The issue is have they happened? Since they can't be tested scientifically as you rightly observe (since by definition they are not oft-repeated events), we must rely on the testimony of others. Do you agree that is a fair and accurate assessment?

Thanks for the distinction about the topic of irrelevancy, it appears that we were talking about separate aspects.

Regarding your objection to religious doctrine, you state, "it sounds wrong to me for anyone to want other people to acknowlege his or her god." Duly noted, but my point is that the God of the Bible claims that He is the Creator of the universe and thus the God of all human beings, regardless of whether you regard him as such. Therefore, if such a God does exist, it is in everyone's best interest to acknowledge and focus your life towards Him. I anticipate that you'll respond that the Bible is not to be trusted. However, I direct you back to my question at the end of the second paragraph. If you agree that this is a fair assessment, we can move forward with the discussion of testimony.

Thanks!

"I still do not see any arguments that are all that convincing as to why I should believe that God does not exist."

Observer, while it's possible that supernatural life exists, the burden of proof is on those who claim that such life exists, not on those who claim it doesn't. Science cannot deal with supernatural causes for natural events since claims for those causes can't be tested scientifically.

"However, that in no way makes it irrelevant..."

I see a distinction between completely irrelevant and irrelevant to daily life. I was suggested the latter, not the former. My point was that the details of most peolpe's daily lives would not change if we discovered the origin of the universe, except that it would make for fascinating coversations.

"...especially if there is a Creator God and he expects us to acknowledge Him and focus our lives toward him."

That is my chief objection to religious doctrine. You say that you should not believe that God does not exist. But if I read your sentence correctly, we should believe that God exist. Is that accurate? I have no problem if you believe that your god wants you yourself to acknowledge him and focus your life toward him. But it sounds wrong to me for anyone to want other people to acknowlege his or her god.

Russell D.,

My motives are simple. I just want to make sure that those on this thread seriously think through their reasons for believing what they believe. If, after critically thinking about the issues, you conclude that there is no God, I cannot argue with that. But, I don't want anybody to reach that conclusion without seriously thinking long and hard about it. (And if you've noticed, I haven't once cited a Bible verse because so many people dismiss it as irrelevant...not that I believe it is irrelevant, but that's another topic for another day.) But, if we look at these arguments philosophically, that's another matter entirely.

I enjoy these discussions because it also helps me to understand what other people believe and why they believe what they do.

So, thanks for the discussions, and I wish you the best of luck as you continue on your spiritual quest.

Have a great day, and have a slurpee for me!

Observer:

That was fun. I enjoyed reading it.

I have tried to learn if there is a God, but to no avail. Maybe it's just not in the cards for me. I try to learn about religions. Not just Christianity. I'd like to learn about hinduism, muslim, mormonism,taoism, wiccan, and buddhism. Not really buddhism, cause I have been around Buddhists my whole life except for about 6 or 7 years. I was raised in a Buddhist home. I went out, and I explored other options. I explored Christianity, and whether or not there was a God. The more I wondered, the more it became clear. Belief in a God or Gods is a matter of the mind. God didn't create man. Man created God.
We owe God nothing. He owes us, for without us, He wouldn't exist. See what I am getting at?
Hopefully you do.

My standards for morals and ethics come from my upbringing, and from my surroundings initially. As I grew, I learned even more. I think everyone has an innate ability to determine what is right or wrong. Whether they choose to do right, or wrong is totally up to the person.

As for the immortality, I like Tonio's response. Works for me. True, I may be forgotten in 4 generations, but if I make a tremendous impact, I will never be forgotten. Just as many men and women throughout the centuries have done. Van Gogh is dead, yet we still hear of him. DaVinci is dead,Jesus is dead, Socrates is dead, Confuscious, etc..

I cannot offer a more logical alternative than "God did it". That in itself isn't logic. It is faith. The universe will be a mystery long after you and I are gone. But it doesn't mean I can't try to find out.

May I make an observation? Seems that you are genuinely interested in what I have to say. I appreciate that. But I can't help but wondering if you are countering my points with an alterior motive. Maybe you intend to use it in a sermon, or maybe I am just totally off my rocker. Maybe you teach a class, maybe you just really are eager to converse with others. Either way, I don't mind. Pardon the wierd thought, but I just have that nagging voice in my head that says "be careful"(Jimminy Cricket). Although ,I'd rather my conscience look like Carmen Electra.(Damn she's hot!)

My life is nowhere near over, and in fact, my spiritual quest has only just begun. I still have lots to learn, and miles to travel. I enjoy conversations such as these, because they get my mind working, and the mind must be stimulated in order for it to do anything. If you have any other questions or thoughts, please feel free to ask. I am here till 4. :D

Mike K and Tonio,

Thanks to both of you for your comments. I'll try to address some of each of your main points here. First, I'll start with Mike.

Mike, you state, "There *are* some positions that are generally held but I'd argue that is because many societies have similarities that promote such. That's why murder, rape, etc., is so commonly held. They are disfunctional for most every society." That's a valid observation. But, my question remains unanswered: WHY is this a common thread among so many cultures? You state, "There exists no universally-held moral position," however you offer no valid reasons as to why I should accept that claim besides your own subjective opinions. In response to this claim, I have yet to find anyone in any cultural context who thinks it is a morally good thing to kidnap, rape, and torture a child. So, my question remains: WHY?

You also made a typical objection to my argument when you said "To argue such is to defeat your original position that everything needs a creator. If your god didn't need to be created, then neither does the universe." First, let me clarify that I did not state that everything needs a creator. If you look back at my post, I state that the earth and every human being had a creator. I did not say that God had a creator. But, let's flesh this point out a little further anyway. Try for a second and imagine the greatest conceivable being that you can think of. I stress that you don't have to believe in this being, but just think of the greatest being that you can conceive in your mind. Now, it follows that that being must exist or otherwise that it wouldn't be the GREATEST conceivable being. That's how it is with the Creator God of the Bible. There is no greater conceivable being. He is the end of the line, the beginning of all things.

This leads me to some of Tonio's comments. You said, "what's wrong with leaving the origin of the universe as a mystery? We may never learn the origin. While the topic fascinating from a scientific point of view, I see it as irrelevant to most people's daily lives." There is some truth to this statement. It probably isn't at the top of the priority list of most people to sit and think about these things. But, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't think about them. Many people dismiss God for this very reason that they don't think about the origin of the universe. They don't think about the origin of life. However, that in no way makes it irrelevant, especially if there is a Creator God and he expects us to acknowledge Him and focus our lives toward him.

Thanks again to both of you for your comments, however, I still do not see any arguments that are all that convincing as to why I should believe that God does not exist. To review, here are the answers that have been offered on this thread today:

Russell D.: "I think that God as the answer is a cop out. We can't explain it, so it must be something or someone more powerful than us. Too easy."

Mike K: "life on this planet simply is"

Tonio: "what's wrong with leaving the origin of the universe as a mystery? We may never learn the origin."

Again, these arguments aren't really that convincing.

Thanks again, and have a great weekend everyone!

Believer – I made some of the same assumptions you did about the Bible, before I started researching it myself. The only source you use as evidence for Jesus is the New Testament, while scholars would also use other historical documents of the time and archeological evidence. A high number of copies of any book only indicates that it is popular, not that it is factual. Imagine historians 2,000 years from determining that Harry Potter must have been a real person because they found millions of copies of Harry Potter books.

You mention the apostles as writers of the Gospels, but biblical scholars do not know who wrote them. The writers are anonymous. The names of the Apostles were added later. It is accepted among scholars that the earliest Gospel, Mark, was written around 70CE – 40 years after Jesus died – so whoever wrote them were not eyewitnesses.

"Again, the most logical answer is that it came from a higher being that created the earth, gave life to every human being, and placed moral standards in each of our consciences which reflect his own moral character. As of yet, no one has offered a more logical alternative."

Observer, rudimentary moral behavior has been seen in some animal species such as chimpanzees. It has been hypothesized that humans and chimps acquired a inherent moral sense through natural selection, since a sense would aid the survival of the family or the tribe. Perhaps definitions of morality differ in the details because people have different definitions of the "tribe." We can refer to that sense as our conscience if we wish, but the existence of that conscience would have nothing to do with whether God exists.

"Your logic in essence states that 'I don't know the source of this life, but I know it's not God.' However, you have not yet offered a more logical alternative."

For the same of argument, what's wrong with leaving the origin of the universe as a mystery? We may never learn the origin. While the topic fascinating from a scientific point of view, I see it as irrelevant to most people's daily lives.

"Eventually, everyone whom you have ever encountered on this earth will die and along with it any contributions you made to their life. I'm not trying to sound cynical or pessimistic, but I am just asking, is that really what life is all about? You'll be completely forgotten within 3 or 4 generations. Surely, that's not immortality is it?"

I see the challenge of life as making contributions that will NOT be forgotten. Not everyone can be a Galileo or a Shakespeare or a Salk, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Observer,

The moral standard for those of us who lack a belief in gods or goddesses is what is a combination of what is functional or disfunctional for a society along with logic, reason and empathy. There *are* some positions that are generally held but I'd argue that is because many societies have similarities that promote such. That's why murder, rape, etc., is so commonly held. They are disfunctional for most every society.

There exists no universally-held moral position, so I think it's difficult to argue that humans are "created" with such.

As for a logical alternative to a creator, life on this planet simply is. It's difficult to argue that everything needs to be created and suggest a solution that didn't have a creator (your god). To argue such is to defeat your original position that everything needs a creator. If your god didn't need to be created, then neither does the universe.

Lastly, you mentioned meaning of life a few posts back. I don't think everything needs a purpose or meaning. Not an inherent one, anyway. I think we assign meaning to our individual lives. Again, some things just are.

Russell D.,

Thanks again for the kind comments. I echo those sentiments. Most people that I talk with who do not believe in God will not even entertain the views of "fundamentalist, evangelical Christians." You are the exception to the rule in my experience, and for that I thank you.

Anyway, back to the discussion. You stated, "As an outsider, I think that God as the answer is a cop out. We can't explain it, so it must be something or someone more powerful than us. Too easy. God is a means to help people feel better about life and themselves." You seem like a logical person who is open to weighing all sides of the argument. Therefore, I urge you to not so quickly dismiss the possibility of a Creator God. Your logic in essence states that "I don't know the source of this life, but I know it's not God." However, you have not yet offered a more logical alternative. From my point of view, that's a bit of a cop-out.

You state that you "have a strong moral fiber and I know right from wrong." For that, I commend you. However, where did that moral standard come from? Generally, all cultures agree that child molestation, rape, and school shootings are universal evils. But why? There must be a standard. But, where did that standard come from? Again, the most logical answer is that it came from a higher being that created the earth, gave life to every human being, and placed moral standards in each of our consciences which reflect his own moral character. As of yet, no one has offered a more logical alternative.

One other point: you suggest that immortality can be achieved because "We are immortalized in the people we touch, the people we inspire." Again, I commend you for having such a positive outlook on life and the desire to encourage and build up other people. I wish many professing Christians had that outlook as well. However, what happens when all of those people die? Eventually, everyone whom you have ever encountered on this earth will die and along with it any contributions you made to their life. I'm not trying to sound cynical or pessimistic, but I am just asking, is that really what life is all about? You'll be completely forgotten within 3 or 4 generations. Surely, that's not immortality is it?

Thanks again for the discussions, and if I don't get a chance to chat with you anymore today, have a great weekend!

Speed--

Can you ask all your Jewish media/Hollywood friends to send me some money? Unfortunately my family was left out of the big Jewish wealth-sharing, and lord knows being a public high school teacher isn't helping things much.

Maurie Beck--

You and I should get together and start the secret Jewish takeover. Shhhh! Don't tell anyone....

Susan--

Nice post.

Observer:

You are a great person to talk to. The differences in our views are nothing to be ashamed of and have only seemed to start an excellent series of talks. I enjoy it when I can get along with people of different faiths. Heck, I try to get along with everybody. As you have probably figured out, I don't belive in God. yet I have love for people and life. I have a strong moral fiber and I know right from wrong. This perpelexes some people, but oh well, what can I say, go drink a slurpee and think about it.( I love slurpees).

As for your questions, it seems that the ones you pose to me are the ones man has been trying to answer since the beginning. If I were a Christian, I'd say it all came from God. But I am not a Christian. As an outsider, I think that God as the answer is a cop out. We can't explain it, so it must be something or someone more powerful than us. Too easy. God is a means to help people feel better about life and themselves. I refer to it as a placebo. That's just me.

But as for why we are here? Truthfully, I haven't figured it out yet. What I can say is this:
Being here on this planet is a great pleasure. It is not to be taken for granted, and life should be lived to the fullest extent of happiness and fulfillment. It should not be lived in fear of something that will happen AFTER you're already dead. Being here is about leaving your mark.

The human race is obsessed with immortality. We know that we aren't immortal. But there is a way to become imoortal, in a sense. The deeds that you perform, the people that you reach, and the things you say can keep you alive after death. Immortality is acheivable, but through other people. We are immortalized in the people we touch, the people we inspire.
Reminds me of a line from Gladiator:

"What we do here, will echo in eternity"
Best line in the whole film. And I agree with it. What we do in our lifetime makes an impact, not in Heaven, but on the people we meet, and the changes we make. I personally have been trying to find a way to leave my own personal mark, other than my friends, and family. I have always been told I have great potential. My College professor told me that I will change the world with my writing. Maybe I'll write a book. But hey, it's a start.

Whatever you do while you're alive, make sure that you do it not for just yourself, but to be a better person. Do things that are going to make you happy, and that are going to make others love you. Find a way to reach people.

Immortality can be acheived. That is how I see it. Thank you for your cordial responses and questions Observer. If others were like you, the world would be a better place.
Thank you.

Oh, and Luke.......It's the Weekend BABY!!! Party!!!! WOOHOO!!

Hi there, my ECLATi-ON! How was the speech? Did you do well?

Russell D.,

Thanks for the insightful response. You and I may have different worldviews, but there are also many places where we can agree. I, for one, am an evangelical Christian which immediately causes many people to tune me out and disregard anything that I have to say. However, you have been kind and courteous and I feel that we have had a fruitful and productive discussion thus far.

Regarding your most recent comments, I agree that the truth is indeed out there. If there were no objective standard of truth, then I suspect chaos would soon follow. I also agree with many of your observations:

"Want to come a little closer to some sense of truth? Visit a retirement home, or talk to you grandparents. They have more experience than any of us. The ones who have lived are the best tutors for the ones who have yet to live."

"Life is constant. Life has always been there. Life grows. Life becomes something bigger than you can imagine."

I agree with these observations. We learn so much from our experiences and our relationships with others. We can learn so much from those who have lived rich, full lives, and now are in their twilight years here on earth. So, here's my question to you: what is the source of that life? Where did we come from? Why are we here? I'd love to hear your response.

Have a wonderful Friday!

Russell I don't think you could have made your point clearer. History does not change once it has happened, yet our perception of it does. The Bible can be your guide, but you can't find God (or the lack thereof) in any book. It can be a guide, but experience and awareness is a true path - which makes it difficult to set in stone because everyone perceives differently. I was Christian until I found that I had experienced nothing as a Christian. Church taught me nothing, and no revelations or "otherworldly" experiences came to me. That is why I am an atheist. I think that since I am a unique being with much I can share with others but plenty that is exclusive to myself, I am more in control of my own realm than any other being.

Observer:

You are correct. Maybe the truth isn't in the world. Maybe it's just where you find it. I might have to go and review my thoughts on that. Thanks for stimulating a very good point. By my own reasoning, I am wrong in a way. Yet here is where I think you can agree. The truth is out there, and it is where you find it. Search far and wide, search all your life.

One period in a person's life cannot bring truth to him or her. Nor can you find the truth by the time of adulthood. The truth must be searched for until you find it. And if you don't want to search for it, you'll never find it.

Want to come a little closer to some sense of truth? Visit a retirement home, or talk to you grandparents. They have more experience than any of us. The ones who have lived are the best tutors for the ones who have yet to live.

Here's something for you to ponder. Life is objective, and subjective, just as is the Bible. Yet unlike the Bible, Life is constant. Life has always been there. Life grows. Life becomes something bigger than you can imagine. The Bible can only give a person comfort and occasionally a headache. The Bible cannot help you grow as a person. It can guide you, but at certain points in your life, you must grow on your own.
It's like a crutch. When you are hurt, it helps you along. Eventually you won't need that crutch and you can walk on your own. But here's the hard part for most people when it comes to faith and the Bible. When the time comes, can you let go of the crutch and walk on your own? Will you always be dependant on it? Some can, some can't.
I walk on my own, and I know I am a good person because of it. I radiate it from my being, and others respond. I have always had a knack for getting people to try new things and follow me, yet I don't even try. I am not trying to sound arrogant, yet I am only pointing out what I have noticed myself and what others have noticed about me. When I am on my game, I have an energy that cannot be denied. People see it, and they respond to it. Do people see the energy in you? Can they feel it? Can you feel the energy in other people? Something to think about Observer. I'd love to hear your response, as well as any others that would like to chime in.

DaveB

The assertions in your post are so far off base that they are just "not right.," they are not even "almost right."

There is more historical evidence for the historcity of Jesus than any figure in antiquity. There are more than 5,000 full or partial manuscripts of New Testament books found and documented. Most books handed down from antiquity are lucky if there is a second manuscript found and documented.

Secondly, your assertion that the people who wrote the Gospels did not know Jesus is so patently absurd that it casts a sad reflection on your depth of inquiry.

Matthew, the tax gatherer, was a disciple of Jesus who was a first-hand witness to his ministry, death and resurrection.

Mark was a close associate of Paul and Barnabas, the first two missionaries to the gentiles and he was alive at the time of Jesus ministry and execution and knew Jesus' disciples personally.

Luke, was a physician, a consumate historian and another close associate of Paul, Barnabas and Jesus' disciples.

John, the beloved, was the closest to Jesus of all of the disciples. Read his gospel and you'll understand why. Jesus loved him so much that he entrusted the care of his mother to him and he was the only apostle who did not die a martyr's death.

Here's one of the things John wrote:

"What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life, and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us-- what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.
These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete."

I John 1:1-4

Jihadist,

You posted:

"Answer : It's hot today, but it will have to be proven and verified by as a truthful statement of the reality, fact, accuracy, genuineness, precision, exactness, legitimacy, veracity of a Celcius or Fahrenheit thermometer.

Until then, if you said it's a hot day today, I won't believe you. And I will even dispute over the quality of the thermometer you've used, where you placed the thermometer and for how to determine if and how hot it is today."

I like your example with the temperature.

I am a Michigan native and was living in Florida for four years. I would be just DYING from the heat in July. I found it unbearable, and even after the sun went down I'd be soaked with sweat all the time. When I would comment on how hot it was, people from Florida always diagreed and thought I was overreacting.

In the cooler months, when the temperature would drop to the mid 50's, they would get out scarves and gloves (and my FAVORITE...boots!) while I never wore more than a windbreaker. They'd ask, "Aren't you freezing?" I would point out that you couldn't even see your breath, so it wasn't THAT cold.

So what is the TRUTH? Is 55 actually cold, or just brisk? Is 99 after sundown with 90% humidity unbearable or just a warm summer night?
Which of us was right? Which of us was wrong?

Oy vey Jacob Jozevz my friend,

I must be on the wrong frequency to your Radio ECLAT right now.

Will tune in later again. Going off to explore the cosmos as the TRUTH is out there. And that's "truthiness".

Scottie, beam me up.

Jacob JOZEVZ, I'm glad you cleared that up.

Susan, what evidence do you have that there was a real person named Jesus who had a religious following in the third decade CE? There are no records of him other than stories written decades after his supposed resurrection, by people who did not claim to know him in life. Those stories largely parallel earlier myths. The four versions in the Bible are inconsistent, and there are a number of other versions that didn't make the cut. Records show numerous "messiahs" were executed by the Romans, but none was named Jesus. There is not even any evidence of a town named Nazareth.

The only evidence of a real Jesus is those stone caskets that have turned up recently, and they are controversial at best.

What is truth?

Answer : It's hot today, but it will have to be proven and verified by as a truthful statement of the reality, fact, accuracy, genuineness, precision, exactness, legitimacy, veracity of a Celcius or Fahrenheit thermometer.

Until then, if you said it's a hot day today, I won't believe you. And I will even dispute over the quality of the thermometer you've used, where you placed the thermometer and for how to determine if and how hot it is today.

We must be scietific, rational and logical and to question and prove everything before we accept the truth of a statement on events, situations, conditions or even the human mind.

Akira Kurosawa's "Rashomon" is a painless and easy way to look at versions of "truths" in play. One's person's truths is another person's lies. And yes, all truths are from different personal perspectives and experiences.

Question : Why am I here?

Socrates : To do is to be.

Sartre : To be is to do.

Sinatra : Ohh do be do be do.......

Khote14 -

I don't think we'd have to worry about mass suicides - the Europeans have gone secular in a very peaceful manner.

Russel D. and Observer:

I really didn't want to butt into your discussion, but I think that you must first establish which truth you are talking about.

Thesaurus:

truth (n)

Synonyms: fact, certainty, reality, actuality, veracity, verity

Antonym: untruth

Synonyms: reality, fact, accuracy, genuineness, precision, exactness, legitimacy, veracity, truthfulness

Antonym: untruthfulness

Synonyms: honesty, candor, integrity, dedication, loyalty, devotion, fidelity, uprightness, sincerity

Antonym: dishonesty

Russell D.,

Thanks again for your comments and I appreciate the fact that you're putting up with my mini-barrage of questions. Your answers have been eloquent and you have demonstrated your position very well. I also appreciate the fact that your answers have not been blatantly condescending, which occurs too often on these threads.

However, let's follow the logic of your response for just a second. You state that, "Life is truth. People are truth. The world is truth." (Although your conclusion is that truth is subjective, the actual claim itself that life is truth, etc. is an objective claim.) However, you state that the Bible is not truth because "the Bible is subjective itself. It is not definite...The Bible has always been open to interpetation." However, I would make the same claims about life, people, and the world. Those things are also subjective and not definite. Life, people, and the world have always been open to interpretation. Yet, you claim that they are truth by that criteria but the Bible is not truth by applying the same criteria.

I would argue that the truth claims that the Bible makes are of an objective nature. However, due to the multiple interpretations as you have accurately described, we have made it a subjective discussion. But, that does not mean it is not truth. Otherwise, life, people, and the world are not truth either by your criteria.

Thanks again for the fruitful discussion!

Because the Bible is subjective itself. It is not definite. If the books that are in it now were never voted in and others compromised those pages, then we'd have a whole different Bible. One that frankly wouldn't be any better.

The Bible has always been open to interpetation. One person sees it one way, another sees it another way. So maybe I can retract that statement about truth not in the Bible, just for a sec, and say, the truth that is in the Bible is open to criticism and is therefore what you make it. That is the only truth in the Bible. The Bible is not to be used as a literal interpretation, nor a history book. It is what it is, an explanation of the world. It is as much an explanation of origin as are the stories of the Greek, Egyptian, Norse Gods.

What you should do is to figure out what your own personal truth is and go from there.

You truly are an observer, aren't you.
Bravo.

Russell D,

Thanks for the compliment; I appreciate your candidness and your openness to share your opinions and views as well. If you will permit me, I'd like to push a little further on your original point. If you believe that truth is subjective, how do you substantiate the objective claim that "The truth is not in the Bible/The Bible isn't truth"?

Thanks again!

Observer:

Yes. You got it. You carry your name very well.

Never go by what you are taught, go by what you learn.......

Russell D,

Thanks for such a prompt response. From your explanation, I gather the impression that you perceive that truth is subjective, based upon experience. Is this an accurate observation?

Thanks again!

Observer:

That's a fair question and hopefully I can give you a worthy response. What I meant by that is simply this:

Go out and see things. Meet people. Experience new sensations and new situations. A good exercise for you to do is to people watch. Just go to a place where there is a gathering of people. Sit and watch them. talk to some of them. Don't preach, talk. Listen, converse.

I still have lots to learn, but from what I have done, what I have seen, and where I have been, I come to the conclusion that there is more to life than what is in the Bible. The Bible isn't truth. Life is truth. People are truth. The world is truth. This is something you must find for yourself. If this search leads you back to the Bible, then so be it, but I'd be flabbergasted if it did.

Russell D,

Your post on 5/9 @ 11:31AM stated the following: "The truth is not in the Bible. The truth is in the world."

Would you mind fleshing this point out a little for me? Do you have any evidence to substantiate such a claim?

Thanks in advance!

For those interested in how the social revolution turned to the dark side of profiteering, see the references and comments below:

K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998.

JD Crossan's books, In Search of Paul and also The Historic Jesus

Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews -- A History by James Carroll (Paperback - April 1, 2001)

You have to read in between the lines when searching out the influence of money in early Christianity since there were no economists in those days.

The wealth of the contemporary religions and associated aristocrats like the Queen of England is easily found via a Google search.

And money comes in various forms. For peasants like Jesus it came, in many cases, in the form of free room and board. One also assumes that Peter's travels especially to Rome were financed somehow. Ditto for Paul's many travels. Paul also collected significant funds from the Gentiles for Jewish famine relief. Did this also buy the Gentile entry into the movement? Probably. Paul also had a number of rich followers/disciples and his "prophecy" of the imminent second coming must have been a real money maker. (Still is!!!)

Jesus' ability to instantaneously change water into wine and replicate bread and fish sure kept expenses down. One must wonder if he had a winery and bakery as a side business? :))

As per Crossan, the movement started as egalitarian . As we know, it did not proceed down that path for very long.

And we also have this conclusion:

"Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."

As per R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue,

I have a question. Jesus' death, by comparison, wasn't nearly as bad as some others throughout history. Was it the brutality of his death that is so significant? Or, is it the fact that he claimed that he was dying for the sins of mankind? I mean, if someone decided to slow-roast me to death, and I cried out that I was dying to save the souls of caribou, would that be valid? Or say I were God, and I impregnated a girl and then watched it die later to save the souls of those graceful caribou, would that work too?

What would it be like, if there were a sequence of points you could make, irrefutable little facts and truths that you could present - and the believer could not deny. What would it be like for them when their phony world would come crashing down upon them?

Why do you suppose so many of us consider theistic/magical god beliefs and religions to be symptomatic of delusion and other fundamental mental illness?

These people would be destroyed. Mass suicides would result, and those believers whose criminal natures are kept in check only for their fear of their god ... ohboy.

Every generation poisons the minds of their children with this nonsense. We will never be free of this infection, until we do find that way to free the believer of their illness.

So here we are, asking if there were a real Jesus, and not in the same way we might ask if there were a real King Arthur. I don't bother arguing if there was truly a historical Jesus, I don't really care. I don't see that it matters in the end.

Khote12 - regarding who cares -- a whole lot of people care deeply that this belief they've been taught, accepted and had reinforced for years is absolutely true and I'm afraid they would feel angry, disappointed and betrayed to learn it was not true, to the point that they deny, disregard and block out information contrary to their beliefs, no matter how valid.

It's a big problem in our society that obviously needs to be confronted.

Hi, Chip - I know you're in the DC area, so wanted to let you know that Chris Hitchens is speaking tonight (thursday) at 7 at Politics and Prose about his new book.

Who cares?

Remember o believers, the people who saw these miracles you believe in themselves believed in all manner of magics and astrologies too, and boogeymen and bad humours and all that other nonsense.

Everything you believe in about Jesus came from your bible, written by these same ignorant peasants, the kind of people who "just knew" there were really dragons, and that the earth was only a few thousand years old.

Was there a real man, a real guy named Jesus? Who cares? was there a real king arthur, a real ulysses, a real santa claus?

Who cares?

Tonio, nice post. I find that I don't need an answer to the question "why am I here?" I am, and that's enough for me. I've always thought it takes either a special kind of arrogance, or at the opposite end, a profound lack of self esteem, to need to believe one has a purpose in life. Why isn't it enough simply to live and experience in the brief time we're able? To me, that's a more compelling mystery than the constructs people have created to satiate their longings.

Believer - Thanks for posting. It's a good example of Christian love not showing though and might be a good example of the reaction scholars would confront if they explained what they really mean about the historicity of Jesus.

In terms of another fictional character who significantly changed the world: Moses - though the Jewish calendar (which I just learned) originates with the creation, not Moses.

I'll agree with you on that one Tonio, well put.

Russell, it's not as simple as "needing something to believe in." In the broad sense, spirituality is about the purpose of one's life, the question "why am I here." Each individual finds or creates his or her own purpose for life. Assuming that the individual doesn't decide that the purpose involves harming others, I don't see why that spiritual journey should be anyone else's business. I see no justification for any religion to make exclusive claims to truth, or to insist that there's only one purpose for life or only one answer to "why am I here."

I know I have never said that Jesus didn't exist. All I think is that his actions and life were embelished.

People needed something and someone to belive in. Jesus was it for them.

I myself will go for "Brian". Ha

Anyone who does not believe in the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is delusional in the extreme.

This is a man who had more than four corroborative gospels (biographies) written about him withing 15 to 60 years after his death and resurrection; gospels which were widely distributed, copied and preached, reaching as far as Rome and Greece during a time period when witnesses to the events were still alive. In addition, many other writings and letters (epistles) discuss Jesus's impact and influence in great detail. These were written within 10 to 40 years after Jesus death and resurrection. In contrast, the first biography of Alexander the Great was not written down until 400 years after his death, and yet, no one questions his existence.

No one with any intellect could witness the wake left behind by this man's life and seriously say that he was just a figment of some men's imagination. If you believe that, could you please provide me with a list of other fictional characters whose made up deeds have changed the history of the world, who indeed have impacted history on such an immense scale that the centuries are marked according to their memory. Even Einstein, if you read Walter Isaacson's column in this forum, did not question the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth.

The constant coarseness of your irreverent sniping and disprespect for the Son of Man has become repetitive and repugnant. I find it hard to believe that you have nothing better to do than to mock the one who gave His life for you and to whom you will one day have to give an account of your life.

He was real and I love Him. By showing your true colors, you only continue to carry out the prophecy that was written about Jesus 700 years befor his birth:

"He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; And like one from whom men hide their face, He was despised, and we did not esteem Him."

Isaiah 53:3

Yea, I watched the Nightline show, and I was embarassed for Kirk Cameron and his partner. They made themselves look totally stupid. And what was the deal with those Graphic Art pictures used to debunk evolution? That was pure crap, and just solidified his position as a moron.

I had a long conversation about what constituted “evidence” for the historical Jesus on the Fredriksen “Education” thread with someone, with the moniker “Interested” who seemed to be a biblical scholar. To read the whole thing, go to:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/paula_fredriksen/2007/03/the_answer_to_this_question.html#comments. It’s towards the end.

Bottom line – scholars don’t use modern standards of evidence to make determinations of historicity for any ancient figure because they can’t. When people say that “most serious scholars agree” that Jesus was an historical figure, it means something quite different to the scholars than it does to 21 century laypeople who are quoting the scholars. I feel this is an important distinction that should be made clear.

Based on my increased understanding of how scholars assess historicity, I proposed language for “Interested” to flesh out, to help educate the public, but never heard back from him/her. “Interested” had already given me a lot of time and may not have checked back, thinking the discussion was over.

I’m repeating my proposed language here, including gaps [in brackets] to be filled in by experts, I hope that other scholars, perhaps with the encouragement of Ms. Jacoby, will offer feedback:

“- Based on accepted academic methods of ascertaining ancient historicity [e.g., …], the existence of Jesus as a first century Jew seems likely, although not firm, as it is in the case of [e.g., Herod? Pilate?].

- Using modern standards, [e.g., contemporaneous writings outside of scripture, archeological findings, etc., …], his existence seems unlikely.

- Please understand that when biblical scholars are assessing the existence of Jesus [and other ancient figures], they must do so using only the evidence they have on hand. Also, it’s important to note that scholars are only commenting on the *existence* of a certain first century Jew. Our studies do not address and are not intended to address any of the miraculous Biblical claims about Jesus, as born of a virgin, Son of God, resurrected or ascended into heaven. That type of study is beyond our purview and is addressed by theologians and clergy, whose opinions are based on their religious beliefs [assuming that’s the case].”
________________

Wow I didn't really read thru nearly all the comments until now, but there sure seems to be a heavy amount of atheists (or at least non-Christians) commenting on this one today... I wouldn't be one of them though.

I'm not at all big on established religion but do believe and attend a church that actually serves Jesus Christ and God through the Bible alone without getting in the way (I think of such a church like the Catholic Church).
I used to believe in finding truth through the world and others, but I never could find any happiness that really *lasted* (joy isn't something that happens much in this world - but I have found it where the world really hasn't taken much of a hold - like my kids). My Lord has helped me through quite a few issues that I had gotten into on my own.

I can understand (given I was there a few years back) in not believing in Jesus and everything in the Bible if you had not actually read it AND tried getting some counsel from someone (which for my wife and I see the church as assisting in) on understanding it for your life AND asked for some help in your life from Him. I recall in the Bible several people in some way wrestling with God - like Jacob:

So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob's hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. Then the man said, "Let me go, for it is daybreak." But Jacob replied, "I will not let you go unless you bless me." The man asked him, "What is your name?" "Jacob," he answered. Then the man said, "Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome." Jacob said, "Please tell me your name." But he replied, "Why do you ask my name?" Then he blessed him there. So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared." The sun rose above him as he passed Peniel, and he was limping because of his hip. (Genesis 32:24-31)

My point is that through wrestling with your beliefs, I believe that God will show himself and give you a solid reason to have faith. That's why I believe.

You can find out more about Kirk Cameron and what he believes at The Way of the Master: http://www.wayofthemaster.com/

I think there is really good reasoning behind choosing him for that show... because of The Way of the Master in sharing beliefs.

Susan wrote "Many atheists have taken me to task for my conclusion that Jesus was a real historical figure-- albeit a human figure. I have no idea why any atheist would think that the existence or nonexistence of Jesus the man tells us anything about the existence or nonexistence of God."

Those two things aren't really connected. The question of a historical Jesus has no bearing on the question of the existance of any gods.

As nothing contemporaneous and neutral was written about Jesus, it's difficult to argue that such a person existed. If you're to be taken to task for anything, it's making the assumption that such a person existed while no evidence supports it.

Always funny, but the author's own Jesus turns out to be just like herself too -- a human with nothing extraordinary about him (or her).

The fact that Jesus was crucified and that no one, not even Judas, who did have some extra pocket change, paid the Romans to take him off the cross before he died is proof enough that Christ's death was important to the local authorities.

The way that the local authorities rigged the election for mercy in favor of Barrabas shows that Jesus was indeed a revolutinary whose demise was a priority for those in power.

And we know from the numerous, detailed accounts of Christ's resurrection and his apparations before his ascention that his many supporters had taken to heart Pilate's question:

What is Truth?

Chip, I wasn't familiar with the lack of evidence for the existence of a mortal Jesus. You're exactly right about "applying established methodology for separating historical fact from fiction." It's certainly possible that Jesus existed, but we shouldn't jump to a conclusion without evidence.

The drunken Moses Story's is as sobering as the Drunken Noah story's!?

Dear E Fav & Tonio -

I agree with your point that there could have been a rather ordinary Jesus around at the time who had the mythical aspects of THE Jesus cobbled onto his life. Maybe it's like the Iliad being written not by Homer, but by some other guy named Homer.

Att: Maurie Beck Et al;

I used have a "Palamino" Horse named "B E C K"!

After Becks Beer that is.

When Jesus was around, besides the three wise Zoroastrians who went to Philistine to see Jesus in his crib, that it was the "PAGAN ARABS" [Abrahamic Islam never existed even though the "KABA" in Mecca was the center of Paganism] WAS mostly PAGAN WORSHIPERS at that TIME.

Note: MOSES Father-in-Law "JETHRO" was a high priest of the Pagan Temples 3,500 Years ago!

WAKE-UP!

Please, Broithers & Sisters, IT was the "PAGAN ARABS" (via their "Arabian Nights" & Lawrence of Arabia days of Lore mentality's & sleeping with nine year olds) that were the MERCHANTS (of death) in JERUSALEM at the time of "Yawah" JESUS [Arabs if combined will be richest people on Earth, not Muslum] who paid and got Jesus killed because of his fliping their wears [they rolled dice on his fate] Business Mans Tables at the Market place!

Only Eclatari-on's know who those Arabs were that had Jesus systematically Poof-TIMED! Ya Ya

speed123 - What the heck is wrong with pointing out that the majority of main stream press is run or owned by Jewish men???? Someone want to answer that?

Everything Speed123 says is true. I and my secular humanist co-conspirators who killed the lord, Jesus Christ, are all part of the communist, jewish, atheist conspiracy of international bankers and media tycoons. And Speed123, there is not a damn thing you can do about it. We run the world and you get to suffer.

Maurie Beck and Glenn

Double, triple, multiple jihaaaaaaaaad on you both.

Oh, can't find the "sword of Islam". But let me try to find the Flying Spaghetti Monster to hurl at you both. You want carbonara or pesto sauce on it?

Yes, there is Flying Spaghetti Monster. Ask any mother. Better believe in it or you'll go to hell and have spaghetti without any sauce for all eternity. Or to mop ceilings, walls and floors for the rest of your natural lives. Whichever is more hellish for you.

May the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Swimming Falafel Creature haunt and demonize you for the rest of your lives. May you live in interesting times. May you never sleep in the same bed every night. May the lice of a thousand camels infest your armpits. Ummm.. can't think of any other curses/jihad to scare y'all, only the Chinese, Gypsy and Arab ones in that order.

And may God and WaPo forgive me for wasting On Thread post space with this trite post. Slow day in the markets for me.

Thanks ever so much for getting an intelligent person to write on this "faith" site. Ms. Jacoby seems to really understand the unbelievable farce that is orgnized religion. ANY story on churches should have a comment from the enlightened.

Many thanks!

To Whom It May Concern: Dear World God is real and a lot of people know His Name but not many people seem to know very much about Him at all. First off God is a Trinity like a lot of people seem to believe, Second the second Person of the Trinity did empty Himself and become a human being like a lot of people say. Third the Holy Spirit was sent to us to guide us into all Truth like some people seem to believe. God is Pure Love not the hate-filled, egotistical, revengeful piece of garbage that a lot of people that call themselves Christians think that He is. Jesus is the Saviour of the entire human race not the second rate prophet of the prince of this world. The True Living Triune Triumphant God is a searcher of people's hearts and minds and I would recommend that if you say that you are a Christian then be one. Truth is Truth whether you believe it or not and God does look at what you do but He is not the big authoritative cop in the sky like so many people want to scare you into believing. God has a Plan and it is unfolding before our very eyes and He has had this Plan before He created anything whether on the spiritual or material plane. I write He even though God is not male or female but you have to use some kind of pronoun to speak about Him, God incarnate though became a man but as you might have heard He asked permission from a Lady to become a human being. Judaism is not a religion but a covenential relationship between God and a people and Christianity is not a religion either but a covenential relationship between God and a person. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Tonio - I'm not sure you and I define "pantheism" the same way.

I was being ironical. I don't believe in supernatural deities, demons, or whatever either (except for the flying spaghetti Monster). However, if we lived in such a universe, I'd rather spread the power around.

Even a casual reading of the Gospels shows that Jesus was not founding a religion. That came later; Paul founded Christianity.
Although I belong to no religion, I find Jesus to be a compelling figure, certainly no saleman!

What a juvenile and moronic comment, Joe...

If Jesus was alive today I would totally do him.

I have a gay religious friend who swears that Jesus was homosexual. He's very adamant about it.
He feels that men in those days were too brutish
and wouldn't have had the guts or desire to show compassion,especially in public,and especially in the middle east.
As an atheist I have no problem with the existence of Jesus anymore than I do with the existence of Socrates.
But god is fiction.

Jihadist,

'I thought Americans don't watch "Life of Brian". I am wrong then about Americans not watching and loving British/foreign movies.'

Yes, you were mistaken. One of the memorable treats of my early life was going regularly in the 1940's and early 50's to the Exeter Street Theatre in Boston with my parents to see the latest comedy or dramatic film from Britain. We loved them.

Through the 60's, and later, I regularly visited art houses to see the foreign flicks. I still buy or rent them.

Ooo, I forgot Zell, who just bought his very own media empire with the La Times, Chicago Tribune, Hartford Current and dozens of other TV stations and papers across the country.

Freedom of the press is a JOKE!

I love how everyone worries about the Catholic Church (because this press like to do so) while the real problems that affect us and threaten our freedoms - i.e. coporate and banking influence in gov. and the media control by one tiny group of the population - go under the radar.

Tonio and Russell D

I thought Americans don't watch "Life of Brian". I am wrong then about Americans not watching and loving British/foreign movies. And not knowing the difference between irony, satire and sarcasm judging from the responses to some of my posts.

My favourite part of "Life of Brian" was the sermon where folks way back can't hear and try to tell each other what was said by Brian.

Very, very interesting eh, re what was actually said, and what was thought to have been said:)
John Cleece and his underground group is a hoot in the movie.

I love "Life of Brian" for its contemporary resonance and immediacy. But, others don't share that view and the movie is banned in some countries.

And yes, the literal readings, the out of context, out of time and out of place readings and interpretations of the Al Qur'an and Hadiths by Muslims of the Qur'an makes me go ballistic sometimes with them.

Andrea

Gone are the days when we can poke fun at religion thinks you? I'm not sure.

During the Danish Prophet Muhammad cartoon controversy, many variations of this was going around in the Muslim world:

Watching the cartoon controversy from heaven, Moses decided that he, Jesus and Muhammad comes down to earth and chill everyone out by having a press conference. A designated time and place was agreed and the media alerted.

Moses and Jesus arrived on time, but Muhammad could not be found. He later apologized to Moses and Jesus for his absence because he don't want anyone to take any photos of him. He don't want his image to be in homes and the possibility of deification of his image.

Best regards as always

Best regards

As to why so many atheists take other non-believers to task for believing in a historical Jesus, it's really a no brainer. There's either established criteria for determining historicity or there isn't. To decide to believe that Jesus existed requires ignoring those precedents. When I hear non-believers claim that they think Jesus existed I always feel that they're just throwing the believers a bone and attempting to strike a compromise, rather than applying established methodology for separating historical fact from fiction. Sure, there might have been a guy named Jesus who was the basis for the biblical character, but as E Favorite pointed out earlier in the thread there is currently insufficient evidence to make that claim. So why do it? I don't believe in god because there's insufficient evidence to support the belief. Why would I treat Jesus any differently? The same standards apply.

What the heck is wrong with pointing out that the majority of main stream press is run or owned by Jewish men???? Someone want to answer that?

NBC - Zucker
CBS - Mooneves
WB - Meyers
MTV, Comedey Central etc. - Redstone
Fox - Murdoch

NYtimes - Sulzberger family

Wall Street Journal - Bankroft family

Washington Post - Graham family
Newsweek
Slate

US News and World Report - Zuckerman

etc etc etc - I wont even mention the movie studios

If this much media/public influence was in the hands of Catholics you all would cry foul!

And dont think for a second that they do not specifically emphasize any negative aspect of Catholics that they get a hold of.

Dont think this group has an agenda to push? Look at the run up and cheerleading to the Iraq war...

Mr. Mark,

"Seen in this light, the idea that Jesus actually did exist and that his lifestory did miraculously mirror that of Sol Invictus, Mithras and the rest, seems more-untenable than the position that he didn't exist."

Why not treat the first question (whether Jesus existed) separate from the second question (whether his life mirrored that of other mythological figures)? Let's not assume that the life story of Jesus as presented in the Gospels is accurate. Perhaps he was a real person, mortal and not divine, and that his legend became more fantastic as Christianity grew. Perhaps your "twice-told tale" has deep roots in the human subconscious, and those elements are bound to show up in any mythology.

Mr Mark -- FYI - some scholars who are pro-historical Jesus handle the similarities in life stories of Jesus and the various mythical figures by acknowledging that those parts were added later to give Jesus stature equal to pagan heroes, but that there still could have been a Jewish peasant-preacher who said some of the things attributed to Jesus.

Psst Maurie – maybe Speed123 will visit our virtual Coliseum (pay no mind, Speed, it’s a stupid inside joke)

It is with great trepidation, that I timidly enter this lion's den and proclaim that Jesus Christ was and is the son of God. He did do all those miracles in the New Testament. He is my personal friend but don't worry cause he is not like Cho's imaginary girl friend. I want to thank Susan and all of you for giving me this chance to witness to the truth. This will give many of you some additional comic relief. It is good to laugh and some of the things on this post, including the stuff Susan wrote, has literally made my day. I have not laughed this hard in a long time. We don't laugh at you (cause that is un-Christian) but the things you say are funny as well as some of the logic. Jihaaaaaaaaaad! (just trying to be funny once again)

The anonymous post to speed123 about Mussolini was me.

Doug,

Lay off speed123. He can say anything he wants about jews. I'm a secular humanist jew; you know, one of those loathsome jews who killed Jesus (according to Bill Donohue). He is obviously grief stricken and needs understanding.

Susan writes:

"I have no idea why any atheist would think that the existence or nonexistence of Jesus the man tells us anything about the existence or nonexistence of God."

I don't know any atheists who make that claim. In fact, most atheists I know concede Jesus' existence as a non-issue and get about the business of discussing the non-existence of god.

However - I am one of those atheists who doesn't believe that Jesus was a real person, and it is of some import to my views on ancient history for the simply reason that I read Jesus' "lifestory" as an amalgam of the lifestories of pre-existing mythical gods/people. That puts Jesus in the long line of imagined superbeings who died and were resurrected, for example. That makes Jesus just another version of an twice-told tale, as opposed to being some revolutionary man-god with a unique history about him. It tells us something about the power of myth, not the existence of god.

So, while Jesus non-existence doesn't address the question of god's existence, it does provide perspective on the power of a good mythological figure being recycled by different religions. Seen in this light, the idea that Jesus actually did exist and that his lifestory did miraculously mirror that of Sol invictus, Mithras and the rest, seems more-untenable than the positon that he didn't exist.

And the Pope does not want to excomunicate but the biggest threat to the Catholic Church are Apostate Christians. People who teach in error of the true doctrine.

Speed123 - the first book that Mussolini published was called "God does not exist".

Thanks for the info. I had no idea. I never thought I had anything in common with him. Of course, later he and the church came to rely on each other to consolidate power. He apparently was an astute politician too.

Maurie, thanks for your reply. I'm not sure you and I define "pantheism" the same way. My pantheism is having reverence for nature and the universe, without regarding either as conscious supernatural entities. While I don't automatically reject the possibility of supernatural life, I regard all claims about such life as suspect because there is no way to scientifically test the claims.

Speed123,

HOT OFF THE PRESS:

Pope Supports Excommunication for Lawmakers Who Legalize Abortion
By VOA News
09 May 2007

Pope Benedict XVI says he supports the excommunication of politicians who legalize abortion.

He spoke to reporters aboard his plane Wednesday on his way to Brazil for his first South American visit.

The pope was discussing a recent vote by lawmakers to legalize abortion in Mexico City. Pope Benedict said the local Catholic leaders' response, that lawmakers who approved the measure should be excommunicated, is supported by church doctrine.

The pope is scheduled to arrive in Brazil later Wednesday on a five-day visit.

Norrie,

Don't mention it. It's a great movie...even better because David Bowie plays Tesla.

Tonio - I'm a agnostic pantheist,

I’m a god-fearing atheist. In other words, if there is a god, according to Pascal’s wager, I’m screwed! In case I'm wrong, I hope we live in a pantheistic democracy instead of totalitarian monotheism. It’s the separation of powers doctrine. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. I mean, just look at the Old Testament god. Actually, I consider Yahweh more of a third-rate desert demon with delusions of grandeur. Megalomaniacs are always running around proclaiming their greatness and demanding fealty, when in reality, they are just terribly insecure. In terms of pantheism, it’s easier to manipulate many power seekers, instead of just one tyrant (I mean god). If one god isn’t answering your prayers, you can always appeal to another. Of course, considering the mayhem caused by one god, just imagine the potential mischief caused by many.

Andrea,

I hadn't even heard of The Prestige, which shows you how out of touch with the real world I am. I just googled it and it sounds fascinating. Thanks for mentioning it.

Tesla was great guy - too bad Edison and others didn't listen to him. I wish I had his earthquake machine - it would come in handy in international politics.

"...I am looking at you Norrie and Andrea."

Yes, I know, Speed123, looking with admiration which you can't admit to yourself, so you try to transform it into scorn.

Speaking of the Pope in politics, the Pope is now threatening politicians with excommunication if they fail to toe the line on abortion. Where does that leave Mr. Giuliani? Do you favor his excommunication?

Nice theatre (one step removed from magic tricks) that bell, book, and candle.

Regards.

Speed123:

What a breathtakingly grotesque series of smears you were so thoughtless to post on this site. If people like you are representative of the Catholic Church, then it deserves to be publicly rebuked. Your comments about Jews are particularly loathesome in what is supposed to be a forum devoted to the discussion of faith and spirituality. So much for ecumenism, huh? As Pope Benedict is clearly uninterested in maintaining good relations with other faiths, I guess you're off the hook and can be your typical hateful self. Thanks for contributing- NOT.

John V. where did God come from? EXPLAIN THAT. Darwinist hand-waving? How about Christian tongue-flapping. Jesus is DEAD. He died a long time ago. Didn't come back. He's dead. How do you equate apathy with love? I don't believe that things need a purpose to exist. I believe that they just DO. Jesus doesn't offer me anything, nor does God (unless you count terrible representatives of which there are a myriad).

Speed123,

Isn't this whole forum a bunch of "trite drivel"?

Speaking of drivel...thanks for your classic "this is a load of anti-Catholic blabidybla" malarky. At least this time, it's on point with the topic. Pot-stirrer, indeed!

Susan,

The fundamental problem with your views is that you're mind is closed, though doubtless you think the opposite. This is most clear when you write "The gospels, filled as they are with supernatural nonsense...". Like David Hume, you insist that miracles can't happen because they are impossible. But, of course, that begs the question.

You, like many, overlook the miracle of your own life. Once you were not, not you are. Explain that. Explain how mind derives from non-mind, life from non-life. These are truly miraculous things, to which a reduction-materialist such as yourself can provide no convicing proof. All that you can offer is Darwinist hand-waving, yes?

Jesus is Lord, and you must bow your knee one day. He offers love and acceptance, and you you continue to deny him. He provides a very accurate picture of the human condition, and offers the Remedy. Yet you refuse him. You don't take him seriously because you don't want to be taken seriously. Isn't that correct?

John

Nice post, Russell.

The rest of you are still putting up the same trite drivel; yes, I am looking at you Norrie and Andrea.

Interesting fact for those who eat up the recent publishing fad of atheist manifestos (Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins): the first book that Mussolini published was called "God does not exist".

Dawkins, Mussolini, Hitchens, Marx, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao....you atheists keep good company. All egoists for sure!

As for the coverage of the Pope's visit, I can't help but notice that the Jewish press houses of NYTs, Post, Time, Newsweek etc. all focus on the negative. Lefties are still attacking the one institution that they could not bring down in the "people's" revolutions, eh?

If the Church stays out of politics, as it is in this case, it is attacked in papers as old and out of touch with the people.

If the Church does become active in politics and social reform it would also be attacked by the press.

Catch22 by the left Jewish press against their oldest and favorite target.

Through my life, I have been in numerous financial troubles and also financial elation. This is all done without a belief in God.

What I seem to get from all of the preaching about wealth and poverty, is that it doesn't matter how much or how little you make. When it comes to God and Jesus, if you are truly a good person and put others before yourself, then you are a righteous person who will be deemed worthy to enter God's Kingdom. Material possesions matter nothing if you aren't happy.

All the items you collect while alive mean nothing if you haven't left your mark on the world. Some of the poorest people left the most for us, and also some of the wealthiest. This is just to point out that maybe there is not so much of a big deal when it comes to financial status. If I was a Christian I'd want to die in two different ways. If I was rich, I'd want to know that I made a difference by giving back to whomever I could. If I was poor, I'd want to make sure I helped out as many people and left some kind of lasting impression. It's not about what you get, it's about what you do.

Early Christian economics 101: (Jesus was not a social revolutionary but just a guy well trained by the "Dunker" in how to earn a living.)

The Baptizer drew crowds and charged for the "dunking". The historical Jesus saw a good thing and continued dunking and preaching the good word plagiarized orally from the ancient religions but added "healing" as an added charge to include free room and board. Sure was better than being a poor peasant but he got a bit too zealous and they nailed him to a tree.

Paul picked up the money scent on the road to Damascus. He added some letters for a fee and "Gentilized" the good word to the "big
buck" world. i.e. Paul was the first media evangelist!!!

Along comes Constantine. He saw the growing rich Christian community and recognized a new tax base so he set them "free".

The Holy Roman "Empirers"/Popes/Kings/Queens et al continued the money grab selling access to JC and heaven resulting in some of today's
richest organizations on the globe i.e. the Christian churches (including the Mormon Church) and related aristocracies.

An added note: As per R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue, ( Professors Crossan and Wright are On Faith panelists).

"Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."

In conclusion, money is a major foundation of Christianity to include Mormonism. Ditto for Islam.

The martyred apostles ran afoul of Roman political and religious authorities because they preached, healed, and baptized for the conversion (and profit) to a non-Roman way of life. This support of an anti-Roman cult resulted in the typical murder/crucifixion of the cult leaders.

The apostles' conversions also caused a dramatic drop in Roman/Jewish temple appearances and contributions and just like Jesus' Jewish temple outburst, it resulted in added punishment to include crucifixion.

Norrie,

Remove the supernatural from those acts, and that's what they are.

Have you seen the movie The Prestige? Once you know how the tricks are performed, the romance and awe they held vanishes.

A Social Revolutionary! Talk about being ambiguous.

Jesus was not a social revolutionary in the sense that he was opposed to having money or possessions. Nor did he seem to think that wealth should be redistributed to the point where every man MUST have an equal share.

Jesus was however, acutely aware of the corrupting power of money. Robert Heinlein put this belief in a more modern context when he wrote, “If a man acquires too much money, presently it owns him instead of his owning it.” Now some people have a greater resilience to this corrupting power than others, but very few people can claim total immunity to it.

Most social revolutionaries would say that those who have money should give it to Those-in-Need to alleviate their poverty and suffering. Their message is that man might fix the World. This is not the message of Jesus Christ.

Jesus said that those who have money should give money away so that they might not be owned by it. Jesus’ message is not a call to fix the world, He specifically says in Matthew 26:11 “The poor you will always have with you…”. Rather, the Act of Giving is intended to be a way that we can begin to fix ourselves.

The fact that both the Giver and the Receiver might walk away richer, the former materially, the latter spiritually, is a true testament to the wisdom of God.

Andrea,

"Norrie,

Can you imagine though...Jesus performing slight-of-hand tricks?

I tend to equate my former faith with Jesus pulling a silverdollar from behind my ear."

*******

How about turning water into wine?

or the loaves & fishes deal?

'Jesus,it seems,is just about anyone any Christian wants him to be.Poor man'
But,His vicar,pope is living at Vatican palace.

Book of God says,take no bag for journey,or extra tunic or sandals or a staff.Matthew 10.10
But,His vicar has pure gold staff and flowing robes and precious dresses.

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth.Matthew 6.19
Vatican is one of the richest organisation on earth,nobody knows how much money they have and I have never heard their donation for the Poors.

Russell,

Or the farting preacher on youtube.

Jihadist,

"To blame someone born eons ago for all our faults is a bit irresponsible and spurious is it not? "

I don't blame Jesus for anything. I just really appreciated the humor in that way to take Jesus' life. I agree that blame should be placed on the latter-day conmen.

Roy,

I remember in Bible School when I was young, on our craft project du jour, I colored the men in the Bible lesson a light brown/burnt sienna. The look of shock in my teacher's eyes was priceless.

Hey Andrea and Norrie:

And for anyone else interested. On Nightline tonight they are gonan have a face off with atheists and christians. Guess who the Christian representative is? KIRK CAMERON! Can you believe it!! Now I really don't like that show he was on............

Regarding images of Jesus, I often ask my Mexican friends why the images of Jesus they have in their houses are "guero" (white). They don't know but I believe it is because of the European influence on the Catholic Church that has perpetuated this image. I actually think Jesus would have been dark skinned because of where he came from but can you imagine the trauma this image would cause the lily white Christian extremists in the US?

I still make fun of it Andrea:

It's easy, just turn mute the religious channles on Sunday mornings, and do a Mystery Science Theater on it. . Thas funny s*** right there!

There are two (possibly more) sides to most everything in the Bible. For those of us who shrug off the supernatural aspect of Jesus, it's more likely that Jesus was a good leader and magician.

Regarding Life of Brian...gone are the days when we could poke fun at religion. Pity.

Jesus said that My Kingdom is not of this world, but that doesn't mean that we don't have to live down here for the time being. God has a Plan and it is unfolding and His Plan is for the salvation of all of His children. Do people that call themselves Christians realize what that means: actually it is to carry on the work that Jesus started. The enemy is satan and his cronies, not each other. All of humanity are God's children and all of humanity are also God's brothers and sisters since the Second Person of the Trinity of God became one of us. God is Pure Love, a consuming Fire of Pure Love and one day all the crud will be burned away. The seventh day will arrive when the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Love whichever you wish to call it will arrive. We are in the sixth day and have been for quite a while but night is coming be ready. God is God we ain't. On the seventh day God Blest, Rested and Made Holy that definitely hasn't arrived yet. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum

To Susan Jacoby -- Maybe relating “the existence or nonexistence of Jesus” to “the existence or nonexistence of God” is not the reason that many atheists take you to task for stating that Jesus is an historical figure. Instead, Maybe they think, based on their own extensive research, that you can’t possibly know whether Jesus is historical or not. That’s my reason. As I’ve said elsewhere, the trail is old and cold.

There are just a few extra-biblical references about Jesus, as I presume you know, all long after he supposedly lived. None of the contemporaneous historians or writers mention him. Archeological evidence is lacking for both the New and Old Testaments. Nazareth has built a Disney-esque first century village, but lacks ruins of a real, first century city, and there’s no mention of Nazareth in first century historical records which list many other small towns and villages.

I wish the scholars and historians could just acknowledge that they can’t know if Jesus existed. Despite a long and diligent search, there is not strong evidence for Jesus and it’s doubtful now that any will be found. There could have been a Jesus – there certainly were many people by that name in first century Palestine and there were lots of self-proclaimed Messiahs too. But for “our” Jesus – it’s too hard to tell.

I know when I read the Bible, and other people actually take it literally, I just laugh, and ask why.

"Because it's true" they say. Oh really? all of it's true? That's hard to believe.

"It all depends on faith" they say. Seems the false are better understood only through blind faith rather than good reasoning.

The truth is not in the Bible. The truth is in the world. Jesus went a different way to teach his version of the truth, and he has been immortalized for it. What the people now have to do is find the truth ourselves. Not in a book, not bowing before corrupt leaders, but find the truth in the people around you. You will not go wrong there.

I like Bart Ehrman's viewpoint: "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." We don't know if Jesus actually said or did all the things attributed to him in the Gospels.

Have ot agree with Tonio. My favourite Easter ritual is watching the Life of Brian with my kids...

Tonio:

I love that movie! Right on

"Jesus, it seems, is just about anyone any Christian wants him to be. Poor man."

I agree. I reject the notion of "what would Jesus do." No one, Christian or otherwise, knows what Jesus would have done in a given situation.

"I have no idea why any atheist would think that the existence or nonexistence of Jesus the man tells us anything about the existence or nonexistence of God."

I'm a agnostic pantheist, and I agree that the existence of Jesus doesn't prove anything about whether God exists. Although I consider myself an "atheist sympathizer," I suspect that some atheists believe that disproving Jesus' existence will disprove not God's existence but specifically Christian doctrine.

Jihadist,

"And, can't some atheists read anything as methapors? Or are they literalists disguising that as rationalism, logic and facts? Can't tell some atheists from some religious inerrantists and fundies anymore."

Speaking for myself, it's difficult to understand why some Christians seem to adhere to a halfway-literal reading of scripture. Seems to me that it's more logical to follow either a 100% literal reading or a 100% metaphorical reading, or else to read scripture as simply historical and cultural artifact. In other threads, I've mentioned Joseph Campbell's ideas about scripture as metaphor.

Having said that, I suspect many atheists attack the literalist reading of scripture because of all the problems caused by that literalism.

Also, as a devoted Python fan, I must defend "Life of Brian" as a hilarious satire of "closed systems of thought." The movie doesn't slander Jesus in any way.

To actually see if someone is a con or not, you have to try whatever they are espousing to be true. Christ has very clear directions in Matthew 5-7, commonly known as "The Sermon on the Mount." Live Christ's teachings and see if those changes help you. Pray and see if that helps you.

Andrea :)

Really? Now let's get rolling............

Jesus' life as a conman? Poor Jesus. He was beheaded in a Mozart's opera in Germany. Well, I don't understand German culture, the heavy metalheads of European civilization.

Jesus have inspired men to create beautiful works of arts in his honour and some of dubious honour, say, Piss Christ. Jesus was the star of Broadway as Jesus Christ Superstar and Godspell. And there is Monty Python's Life of Brian too. The list is endless.

And no royalties given by those who took Jesus' life, played around with it, and made profits. They should be giving their monies for charities, say to Greenpeace or Oxfam. Very, umm, immoral stance but all in the name of freedom of expression and art.

Too easy for us to trash a dead man of thousands of years ago and especially not around to give his version of what really happens.

All we know of Jesus is what those of his time and in subsequent centuries wrote and make of him. If someone say something about us which we don't do or say, we can always take that party to court and sue him or her for all she's worth Now, in Jesus' case..

Better for us to focus on the conmen of our times leading us to unnecessary wars in coopting, twisting and manipulating the teachings of Jesus, and for that matter the message of the Prophet, in jusitfying our wars and violence, oppression and suppression of peoples based on gender and race.

To blame someone born eons ago for all our faults is a bit irresponsible and spurious is it not?

Jesus is one of the most lauded and respected prophets in Islam. He preached peace and love. He don't deserved to be mock or made fun of for the way we behave, but we believers do deserve to be taken to task in taking his teachings to places he did not intend and would never sanction.

Best regards as always

Ms. Susan Jacoby,

You stated : "Many atheists have taken me to task for my conclusion that Jesus was a real historical figure-- albeit a human figure. I have no idea why any atheist would think that the existence or nonexistence of Jesus the man tells us anything about the existence or nonexistence of God."

I read some posters in On Faith threads denying the existence of the historical Jesus too.

Perhaps, in their enthusiasm to prove that God does not exist they went overboard. If Jesus don't exist, therefore the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Ghost would automatically be invalid.

All things to all people indeed, Jesus. If he is a "salesman", his "product" is the most successful in the world. What magic he weave in the hearts of men, that other products, such as "secular humanism" (repackaged and rebranded Jesus' message minus a key ingredient - belief in God) still is competing in the marketplace of ideas and beliefs.

And yes indeed, what a "magician" Jesus was to move others in his own time to write what he taught and propogate them. And to move hundreds of millions of Christians since to preach what he taught (by force sometimes by some of the more enthusiastic Christians).

And, can't some atheists read anything as methapors? Or are they literalists disguising that as rationalism, logic and facts? Can't tell some atheists from some religious inerrantists and fundies anymore.

For example, someone can say cruxification can also be read as someone being unjustly punished for what he belief in and for expressing them in words and action. Resurrection can also be said as a hope of redeeming ourselves, of rising again from the ashes of our fault, flaws and failures.
Who needs facts and scientific research for that feast for the mind for human inspirations and aspirations?

Like Ms. Jacoby said, Jesus is all things to all people.

You know me too well Andrea. You know me too well.

Russell,

I didn't think you bowed to anyone.

I bow down to David Blaine........and Chriss Angel.

Norrie,

Can you imagine though...Jesus performing slight-of-hand tricks?

I tend to equate my former faith with Jesus pulling a silverdollar from behind my ear.

Andrea,

All prominent religious figures are showmen, and there's a thin line (if any) between them and conmen.

Susan,

That would be a different story with a different ending. Perhaps if Jesus had lived and worked out his problems with Pilate, there wouldn't be a religion that follows his teachings? He probably knew that in order to become a legend, he would have to die an extraordinary death.

My future husband wants to make a movie about Jesus' life...as a conman. I think that would be hilarious.