By Their Fruits You Will Know Them

Dear Arminius -

Earlier in this thread, you said:

"Mr Mark, you are indeed on a roll, and much more caustic than usual."

Am I really being more caustic than usual? I don't feel that's true.

Perhaps my full-frontal assault on the Catholic dogma of transubstantiation is unsettling to you, for it one dogma is OK to attack, why not attack all religious dogmae, including those of your particular sect?

I get the feeling that you don't believe in transubstantiation. I would ask you, "why?" Is it a dogma that is any more unreasonable or unbelievable than virgin births and resurrections? You seem to have no problem believing in those dogma, even if they are by your own admission beliefs which "have no rational proof."

You in essence saying, "god-in-human form, born of a virgin, crucified and resurrected - I can believe that all these things are true. But transubstantiation? Well, sane people know where to draw the line on what's believable and what's simply crazy."

Comments?

Arminius says: “I suspect your arguments are influenced by your belief that Christianity is entirely a myth. You are convinced it is a myth, therefore it IS a myth, and any, any, argument as to it is therefore false.”

Please consider, Arminius, that you are projecting your feelings about religion onto Mr Mark; that in fact, your arguments are influenced by your belief and hope that Christianity is not entirely a myth. You are convinced it can’t be mainly myth-based, therefore it isn’t.

This idea is supported, I think, by what you say later: “Let us 'agree to disagree' then. I know full well that what I believe has no rational proof. And I don't give a damn.”

You want to believe, therefore you do. You choose not to pursue the discussion further because rational arguments against belief don’t matter to you. One could say your mind (or perhaps heart) is made up and nothing will change it.

Thomas Reese, what is your fruit? what have you grown?

who is in the management of companies? who are in multinational companies? who is in Coca Cola, who is in Pepsi? who is in HSBC, who is in Microsoft? who is in Nestle? who is in Danone? who is in Fox? who is Cnbc-e? who is in New Adventures of Old Christine? who is in De-seperate Housewives?

who is in NAtional Geographic? when shall i have natural one language broadcasts? is it again DC and AC applications of Edison and Tesla? who is Tesla? who is Edison? what is Train? what is Underground?

when shall we have one unique energy, system, transportation, language? "do we have to plug an apple onto all vehicles" they ask. Apple is from "HAP PLEAD" the request to dress, and also there is another from "PEAR" of Birth. these are the different languages!

is this again Moses Noah case? good, at least we have diagnosed!

and why is WAshingtonpost publishing advertisements of Airbus and Soros nowadays on OnFAith page?

who is MAcintosh? who is Microsoft? who is Google? who is YAhoo? who is Ubuntu?

who is OS/2 WARP?
at least, on internet!

much more than internet, it is channels, foods, fashion, publishing houses, journals, media, sports, cinemas, soap operas, governments, parties...

who did write about apple? who did write about the historical text of Adam?

who did interpretate on Torah, Talmud, Bible, Quran or mythologies?

who are two MAsonry that had seperated because of Thymuse Gland, one of France Liberation and secularism without thymuse gland that had hung MArie Anthoniette of Sweet Bread and PAste to Educate and Heal to eat in lack of bread, the other one with Thymuse Gland and spirituality?

who is the other third group of religions, unaware of thymuse gland and spirituality?

who are in Adis Ababa of Ethiopia?
who are MAsonry?

why do Hurriyet and Daily Mail have similar but composed news?

are there two Denmark?
are there two Sweden, Scandinavia, Norway?
are there two British, two France, two Germany?

two Spain?
two Portugal?
two Italy?
two Russia?

and then who is Thor?
and then who is Buddha?

who are JApan?
who are China?

who are India?
who are South Asia?
who are HAwaii?
who are Central Asia?
who are Australia?

who are Sibiria, North America?

who are South America?
who are South Africa?

who are North Africa?
who are Tibet and Himalaya?

then who is pasific ocean?
who is the planet between MArs and Jupiter?

that planet is an asteroid belt today.
there is not anything related with Earth any more.

it is the planets
or history and astronomy are different.

or from the pen of one person or group.
and there was one person i know.

or there are people on planets.
and they have come to EArth after that planet.

or there were pens to write todays daily news.
who is behind the moon, what is the 3O zone?

how can there be holes in O3 zone?
is it in the athmosphere or somewhere else?

we need one truth.
not Daily Mail news.

is that planet Lemuria?
is that planet Atlanta of Cyprus?

is it above the sky of Anadolu
or Pasific ocean?

what is the relation between Hawaii and Anadolu?
what shall we do with MAya?

what is the Yom Kippur
of HArmonic Convergenge of 1987?

is AC 2150 of Thea Alexander just a composition?

who are I AM Foundation? what is the Day of Judgement and Atonement?

i love wisdom and attainment in one tone of love and peace. who is Frankenstein and Asteroid belt? who did unite each other? who shall make each one stand ?

what is duality, what is du-ality?
MArs and Alit are one in Turkish.

enlightened or CATA! (down, have come)

Dear Arminius -

Thanks for the comments.

I hardly pulled the idea of Mark as an allegorical fiction out of thin air. I've heard the theory over the years, and I provided a link for you in my previous post that would take you to what I believe is a compelling case for the same.

I would be interested in your reading what's at the link and debating the points made by the author. You obviously haven't done so because there's much to read there and your response evinces no familiarity with the arguments made. Perhaps you can strike down the arguments there as easily as one swats flies. If so, have at it. I know I'm asking a lot, but I don't see the point of cutting and pasting an article that would qualify as spamming and that would most likely crash this server.

But before we go down that road, I'd ask you to provide your perspective on the verbatim recording of Jesus' words in the Garden of Gethsemane. How do you believe these words were so accurately transmitted to the Gospels? Divine inspiration? A paparazzi hiding in the bushes? A disciple who only faked being asleep? Did Jesus have time to inform his disciples of what he said before Judas showed up with the Romans ("hey, guys, I was just talking with god, and I asked him to lift this cup, but, his will be done...oh, crap, there's Judas, and he's applying Chapstick to his lips. This can't be good...")?

Thanks.

during the first world war, armenians were slaughtered

during the second world war israelians were slaughtered

then there are two armenians
then there are two israelians
then there are two turks

then there are two christ and jesus
then there are two ahmet and muhammed

then there are moses and abraham
then there are enoch and noah

and there is Adam

there are katastrophe and catastrophe
cata st rophe (st healer)

there are St Healer and Stealer

there are St Germain of Armenia
and St Germain of Israel

if USA and Bush family supported Hitler
then who did help Europe to stop Hitler

who is the World Trade Center then?

if United Kingdom made war against Hitler
then United Kingdom made against Bush family

Romanov FAmily of Russia before Soviets
were relatives of United Kingdom

if Hitler was supported against Soviets
then united Kingdom and Hitler must have been together

but USA is against Soviets and with Hitler
and United Kingdom is against Soviets but against Hitler too

then this is a Kennedy and Onassis Wife case
then there is another war in USA between United Kingdom

who did dilepidate the World Trade Center then in New York of Churchil of LAdy Diana?

Did anyone even bother to read what this man has to say? His "fruits" sound more like Christ to me than the punitive, exclusionary neochristians today whose "fruits" are hatred of a common enemy du jour and hypocrisy rather than Christ's love.

Levent,

QUIT SPAMMING!

and why shall Central Bank be moved to Istanbul?

why did the Emissary of Italy come to Bursa to Fiat Car company and visited an Exhibition in a Museum converted from a Public BAth of my childhood and Factory in Namazgah of my Primary School and House, now Museum of Wheels and CArs!

now may i learn why Microsoft, Volkswagen, Foundation of LAdy Diana are coming to Istanbul?

and what shall be done about Koc FAmily of Ford CAr Company in Anadolu that supports 23 April of St George, Day of Children by Ataturk in Anadolu?

http://www.literatureclassics.com/showcreativeprint.asp?IDNo=1344

1342, 1343 and 1345 too

(there are at least 8 levent alkan, and there is just one line with me in google, many pages ahead.

in yahoo, the ones on classicsnetwork washingtonpost yahoogroups melungeons astrofaculta dancentrum are with me, not any one of others)

MC,

When dealing with Ghostbuster you might be chatting directly with a real person hidden safely behind a creative moniker or you might be addressing a surreal character playing a lead or supporting role in a blockbuster 1980's movie.

The same applies for Henry James. Sometimes it's tricky to figure out who your talking to, but cut him a little slack, he's been dead for more than 90 years.

Hope that helps.

To this day, San Francisco to Tokyo is Japan Airlines flight number 001.

McDonnell Douglas DC-10
World Atlas Airlines, Atlas Project

Japan Airlines began the 1990s with flights to help evacuate Japanese citizens from Iraq before the start of the Gulf War.

Turgut Ozal.

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

Regulated era

Japan Air Lines Co., Ltd. was established in August 1951, with the government of Japan recognizing the need for a reliable air transportation system to help Japan grow in the aftermath of World War II. On October 25, using three Northwest Airlines Martin 2-0-2 aircraft, and Northwest crews, Japan Air Lines began serving several domestic cities from Tokyo.[5]

On February 2, 1954, Japan Airlines began its first international service, flying from Tokyo to San Francisco. This flight, operating on a DC-6B, made stops at Wake Island and Honolulu before arriving in San Francisco, a one-way ticket for the twice-weekly flight cost $650. To this day, San Francisco to Tokyo is Japan Airlines flight number 001.

Under the 45/47 system the so-called "aviation constitution" enacted by the Japanese government in 1972, JAL was granted flag carrier status to operate international routes, and was also designated to operate domestic trunk routes in competition with All Nippon Airways. During this era, JAL bought the Boeing 747, the Boeing 727 and the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 to accommodate their growing list of routes within Japan and to other countries. In the 1980s Japan Airlines performed special flights for the Crown Prince of Japan and the Princess, Pope John Paul II, and for Japanese prime ministers. During that decade they also began to be more promotionally aware, with plane models and other promotional items being produced in quantity. It also bought new Boeing 767 jets and retired the DC-8s and 727s.

Japan Airlines began the 1990s with flights to help evacuate Japanese citizens from Iraq before the start of the Gulf War. In 1992, Japan Air Charter was established, and in 1997 an agreement with The Walt Disney Company was announced, making Japan Airlines the official airline of Tokyo Disneyland. That year also JAL Express had been established, with Boeing 737 aircraft. Also in 1997 the airline flew the Japanese prime minister to Peru to help negotiate in the Tupac Amaru kidnapping case. Japan Airlines acquired Boeing 777s during that decade.

NASA

John Lennon
Across the Universe

guru Yogi,
died

http://www.reformation.org/vatican-and-japan.html

Pentagon, 1941

Japan Airlines, there is not only Boeing 757 but others

Rockefeller, Second World War
Hitler, Standards Oil

Skull&Bones, GEorge Walker Bush
Standard Oil Company

Admiral Yamamoto was credited with planning the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941.

The Admiral was killed in an ambush in the South Pacific in 1943. The Roosevelt Reich Navy had broken the Japanese naval code long before Pearl Harbor and knew EVERY move that the Admiral and the Japanese Navy were making.

"One of the most important Japanese Catholics in this period was Admiral Yamamoto who was the first convert to Catholicism in 1893 at the French Marianists' School in Japan. He had traveled widely, especially in Europe. In early 1938 Yamamoto had told friends in Rome that conflict between Japan and the United States was inevitable because of the clash of races and of commercial interests; that Japan was preparing for war; and when the first blow would be struck. it would be a terrific one."(Quigley, Peace without Hiroshima, p. 75).

Admiral Yamamoto was the son of a poor school teacher from the village of Kushigun, Sonshomura. His father Sadakichi, was fifty-six years old when his 7th son was born so he named him Isoroku (fifty-six) in Japanese characters. Yamamoto had no royal blood and certainly no money but he rose to command the Combined Japanese Fleet.

Money was no object to the Jesuits however who were trying to reestablish a beachhead in Japan since there expulsion in 1607. Yamamoto was placed in charge of the Combined Japanese Fleet in 1939 and promoted to Admiral in 1940.

Japan was supposed to attack Russia in 1941

In Sept. 1940, Japan, Italy and Germany signed the Tripartite Pact.

In the Spring of 1941, Hitler was ready to invade the Soviet Union with the largest invasion force in the history of the world. This invasion force was supplied with oil by the Rockefeller owned Standard Oil Co., and trucks by the Ford Motor Co.

While Hitler attacked from the West, Japan was supposed to attack Russia from the East.

The Japanese were afraid to attack Russia because they had a very healthy respect for the Red Army after the Russians annihilated a Japanese army in Manchuria in August 1939. Hitler never sent observers to that battle because he had nothing but disdain for the fighting ability of the Red Army.

Roosevelt was FURIOUS when Japan failed to attack Russia!!

Fuehrer Franklin was furious when Japan refused to attack Russia. His advisers told him that unless Japan opened a second front in the East, the Nazi hordes would be swallowed up in the vastness of Russia and Hitler might lose the war.

He also needed a war in order to serve a fourth and fifth term as President. This would allow him to pack the Supreme Court with his cronies in order to destroy the Constitution. He maneuvered the Japanese into attacking the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor and Japan and the U.S. were at war . . . instead of Japan and Russia. In May, 1940, Roosevelt ordered the U.S. fleet moved from its headquarters in California to Pearl Harbor. The Navy had was already listening in on Japanese naval traffic:

"During the last days of September and first week of October 1940, a team of Army and Navy cryptographers solved the two principal Japanese government code systems: Purple, the major diplomatic code, and portions of the Kaigun Ango, a series of twenty-nine separate Japanese naval operational codes used for radio contact with warships, merchant vessels, naval bases, and personnel in overseas posts, such as naval attachés. Much has been made of the Purple Code and far too little of the navy codes. Historians have made misleading references to the Purple Code by confusing its use and purpose. It was used solely by the Japanese Foreign Ministry for encoding diplomatic messages dispatched by radio between Tokyo and selected overseas embassies and consulates. In the United States, Japan issued the Purple system to its Washington embassy and to its consulate in Manila, but not to the Honolulu consulate. The Purple Code was never used by the Japanese Navy. (Stinnett, Day of Deceit: the Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor, p. 21)
The Japanese took the bait and attacked Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941. Roosevelt had his war at last.

Japan established diplomatic relations with the Vatican in 1942

Ken Harada, Japanese ambassador to the Vatican. Japan established diplomatic relations with Vatican city in 1942. The first ambassador's name was Ken Harada:

"Among the inhabitants of Vatican City at that time were the members of the small Japanese Mission to the Holy See. When the Holy See and Japan entered upon a form of diplomatic relations in 1942 the war was already three years old in Europe and Pearl Harbor had already been attacked. Negotiations between Vatican representatives and the Japanese Government looking to the establishment of relations had been carried on sporadically for a couple of decades. War conditions, however, had convinced the Japanese of the need of representation at the famed "listening post." (Quigley, Peace without Hiroshima, p. 7).

Japanese Emperor was considered a direct descendant of the sun goddess

Like the Pope at Rome who is the earthy representative of Circe, Cybele or Diana of the Ephesians, the Japanese Emperor was considered the earthy representative of the great mother goddess:

Amaterasu

The sun goddess Amaterasu. The Emperor was considered a direct descendant of this sun goddess. Japan is unique because the false mother goddess was always associated with the MOON.

Emperor Hirohito (1901-1989).

The Japanese Emperor was considered the direct descendant of the sun goddess. He was held in as much esteem as the Roman Catholics hold the Pope. To kill the Emperor was like killing god. Unconditional surrender was considered a threat to the life of the Emperor.

Roosevelt's "unconditional surrender" imperiled the life of the Emperor!!

In 1943 at Casablana, Roosevelt changed the surrender terms to "unconditional surrender." He knew that this would prolong the war and give him more time in the White House. Here is an excerpt from the book The Decision to Use the Bomb:

"The standing U.S. demand for "unconditional surrender" directly threatened not only the person of the Emperor but such central tenets of Japanese culture as well. Because of the Emperor's unique political and religious status, U.S. leaders were repeatedly advised of three related but quite distinct points:

First, a surrender would likely be accepted only if the Japanese people were assured the Emperor-God would neither be removed from his throne nor harmed (or tried and possibly hanged as a war criminal, as German leaders were about to be tried).

Second, even more important, U.S. leaders were advised that if such assurances were not given, the Japanese would likely fight to the last man. Very few Japanese units had surrendered in the bloody island fighting, and there was ample evidence that the Japanese soldier was prepared to die for the Emperor. The U.S. military understood that if no assurances for the Emperor were given—whether called "conditions" or not—it would almost certainly mean a struggle to the death.

Third, the president and his chief advisers were counseled that the Emperor would play a critical role in maintaining internal order in postwar Japan-and, indeed, in helping head off the possibility of chaos or even Communist-inspired revolutionary attempts.9The "unconditional" language had originally been adopted almost accidentally by Roosevelt at the January 1943 Casablanca conference. Cordell Hull recalled that it had not, in fact, originally been part of State Department strategy: "We were as much surprised as Mr. Churchill when, for the first time, the President, in the Prime Minister's presence, stated it suddenly to a press conference."

The formula proved to be controversial not only because of its uncompromising tone but also, ironically, because of its ambiguity. At Casablanca, Roosevelt seemingly qualified his position at the same time he defined it when he stated that "unconditional surrender" did not mean the destruction of the peoples of Germany, Japan, and Italy; rather, it meant the destruction of the "philosophy" which had brought about world war. Given the importance of religious ideas in their political culture, of course, this was equally threatening to Japanese leaders.

Roosevelt further complicated matters when in an address to White House press correspondents on February 12, 1943, he affirmed the policy in a way which now seemed to threaten the Emperor's person:

The only terms on which we shall deal ... are the terms proclaimed at Casablanca: "unconditional surrender." In our uncompromising policy we mean no harm to the common people of the Axis nations. But we do mean to impose punishment and retribution in full upon their guilty, barbaric leaders."

The original announcement of the surrender demand had jolted not only Japan but many knowledgeable American policy-makers. Japanese propaganda had moved quickly to rally support for the war by predicting Japan's complete and absolute destruction under "unconditional surrender." Numerous officials in Washington understood the difficulties the formula presented, and several actively began to search for ways to modify and soften its impact. (Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Bomb, pp. 36-37).

The Pope wanted to get rid of the Japanese Imperial Dynasty!!

The Vatican was secretly praying for an end of the Japanese Imperial Dynasty. That was what was behind the unconditional surrender terms of Roosevelt.

The Emperor of Japan was more than a political ruler. Like the Pope at Rome, he represented the false goddess to his people. The Japanese people were patriotic however because they did not look to a foreigner as their political or religious ruler. That made the Emperor a competitor to the Vatican. Leahy, Groves and Byrnes allowed the Emperor to stay because they needed a quick surrender in order to prevent a Soviet invasion of Japan.
Ambassador Harada sent several peace messages to Tokyo

In a typical Machiavellian maneuver, the Vatican made war on the Japanese through their boys Leahy, Groves and Byrnes while at the same time helping them to surrender:

Martin S. Quigley. Secret agent for the O.S.S. in Vatican City.
Martin S. Quigley was a secret agent for the O.S.S. —Office of Strategic Services founded by William (Wild Bill) Donovan. He was instructed to contact the Japanese Papal ambassador about negotiating the surrender of Japan.

He dealt with several high ranking members of the hierarchy including Monsignor Ottaviani later to become Cardinal Ottaviani.

The messages were sent via Vatican radio to Switzerland and then relayed to Tokyo. The messages were decoded and read in Washington the next day.

No replies from Tokyo were received unless the messages were intercepted. This way at least the Vatican could gain sympathy from Japan by trying to stop the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Here is an excerpt from the book by Martin S. Quigley:

The Vatican radio official saw that the message comprised three typed pages and remarked that it probably would not be broadcast for a couple of hours in view of the backlog. Watanabe urged that Harada's message should be sent out as soon as possible as it was a priority communication to the Foreign Minister. As he walked out of the radio office, the Japanese
"At that period the Vatican Radio was operating with relatively dated equipment installed years before the war. It lacked the power to transmit direct to Tokyo. The Japanese, of course, knew this. All along they had been using a modern and very powerful installation at their Embassy in Berne, Switzerland, not only for traffic from there but for relaying messages from their missions in Sweden and Spain, as well as the few originating at the Vatican.

That afternoon an operator at the Japanese Embassy in Berne picked up and recorded the Harada message. It was promptly rebroadcast. The transmission was automatically recorded at the Foreign Office's communications center in Japan. Within a matter of minutes the message was played back to a specialist in decrypting and then run through the decoding machine which printed out the words in Japanese. A copy was made for the files of the center and the original was sealed in an envelope; it was then given to a dispatch carrier who took it by motorcycle to the Foreign Office. There it was signed for at the message desk. In a few moments another messenger took it to the office of the secretary to the Foreign Minister.

As the Berne transmission was crackling through the atmosphere, it was recorded in England simultaneously with its recording in Tokyo. As it was identified as being in a Japanese code—the huge establishment concentrated on German messages—the Japanese message was sent on at once to the United States. This division of decoding labors was one of the smoothest in British-American military relations.

In Washington at Arlington Hall, an exclusive girls school until taken over by the government, over a thousand extremely bright men and women worked in one of the most "hush hush" organizations of the wartime military establishment. Physical conditions were cramped and there was never enough space for comfortable working arrangements because the staff was constantly expanding to handle the mounting volume of Japanese intercepts.
Decrypting and decoding are among the most arcane of human activities. Even with the aid of sophisticated machines, they call upon a host of intellectual talents and, as some believed, a measure of wizardry. Having started the war with a handful of specialists in this area—veterans of the era when, as Secretary of War Stimson had put it, "gentlemen do not read other people's mail"—the military had to recruit extensively" (Quigley, Peace without Hiroshima, pp. 124-125).

Dear Henry,

First you were an atheist and second a pagan. Now from your words you seem to be a believing Jew. I know religious sensibility is a movable feast for many (for example, most of the time Fr Reese reads as a Protestant to me although in the above he seems Catholic)but in your case such a panoplay of beliefs in quick succession is remarkable! And from what I know of Judaism and paganism they seem antithetical, that is intrinsically opposed to each other.

Thus I wonder if you could settle upon one of the three? This is getting confusing.

Regards
MC

Fr Reese notes that the church advises being skeptical of people who claim to be visionaries with direct contact to the almighty.

As the kids say, "Well,Duh!!!"

If the Catholic Church loses their exclusive authority to be the broker to God, and perform the sacraments "necessary" for salvation,

it would lose its reason for existing, and its cash flow would dry up.

LOCO
we Jews don't call it the OLD testament. We call it the Bible. We see NO NEED for what you Christians call the NEW TESTAMENT.

God doesn't change.

Mr Mark, it's astonishing that someone who has studied scripture as you have, would seriously raise the issue of why there is such a clear fault line between OT and NT theology -- much less cite this "lack of consistency" as reason to disbelieve.

Of course there had to be a rupture! "For the letter of the law killeth, but the spirit giveth life."

OLD testament! NEW testament! Is it really that opaque?

As for Vissarion -- his simple teachings are more valuable than a whole bookcase of top-selling modern psychobabble.

Apologies to all for bringing back an unfinished conversation... I was scanning through this thread and noticed the word "Gettysburg". It reminded me Arminius, if you do get the chance to visit Gettysburg someday make sure you plan for at least a couple days to see the battlefield and some of the attractions in town. Also visit Antietam and Harpers Ferry if you have time. Antietam is more pastoral and offers visitors a chance for quiet reflection. Harpers Ferry is just a really cool place to visit.

Anyways here is my 2 cents on the above. At some point faith enters both equations. I'd like to elaborate further, but I'm getting kicked off this here computer...

regards.

In support of Mr. Mark:

"Luke said outright that he had talked to witnesses of the events that he described. "

Did he now ????

Crossan analysis:
Item: http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/479_The_Promised_Spirit

(1a) Luke 24:44-49, (1b) Acts 1:1-8, (1c) John 20:19-22;

Strata: III (80-120 CE)
Attestation: Single
Historicity: not historic

Mr Mark,

You said: "The most likely answer is that Mark was written as an allegorical fiction and had no need of such detail."

You jerked that out of nowhere, with nothing substantial to support it. You said it because it is what you believe.

Of course the Gospels have differences, I am very much aware of them. But to submit that the four Gospels were created out of whole cloth is preposterous on any reading of them. They all point to some source or another. The same as any other four or more collections about a historical event. Note that I am talking about history, not miracles.

Luke said outright that he had talked to witnesses of the events that he described. So did Herodotus, and other historians. If you came across a letter, supposedly written by someone who had talked to a veteran of the battle of Gettysburg - and if there was no evidence that this letter was real, beyond the fact that you were reading it - would you say that the letter obviously was myth? You are distorting history because of your overriding conviction that all religion is myth. It might be myth. But don't distort historical methods in your quest.

Arminius

Fr Reese:

Things were a lot simpler before people started asking questions weren't they? Don't you long for the good old days when the pope had the authority to and did forbid the asking of questions? This would sure be a good time for a rip roaring, old fashioned inquisition. Don't you think?

Doesn't this Jesus Christ have an awfully lot in common with the first one? Looks just like Him doesn't He, kinda scrageldy looking and blue eyed? You're not going to do like the Jews did Jesus His first incarnation and reject him are you?

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul is enough to make you reject the first one isn't it? Jesus Christ is the son of the being in the burning bush, the one Moses made the deal with to beat the murder charge?

Good luck crucifying this Jesus. Lucifer may not like it, having His son sacrificed to God again so sins can be forgiven.

Arminuius writes:

"Your claim that the Gospels are based on Paul is defeated by your own arguments. True, Paul does not mention any events in Jesus' life directly. He certainly refers to the last supper, the crucifixion, and the resurrection. But if the Gospels are based on Paul, where did the authors of the Gospels get all the details?"

Excellent questions.

Yes, Paul mentions the last supper, the crucifixion and the resurrection. But these events are the same events that happened in the life of the Roman God, Mithras, who was celebrated as a pure spirit god. In fact, Justin Martyr proposed that Satan was the author of the Mithras story and that he planted the incredibly similar story long before the birth of Jesus so to confuse the followers of Jesus once he appeared (JM, First Apology, 150CE). Tertullian makes the identical claim.

Why not make the claim that Mithras was real as his life also included a last supper, crucifixion and resurrection?

Notice that Paul gives no details of the events. He speaks of "god's mysteries," common language for those who worshipped the spiritual, mystery religions.

You ask, "where did the authors of the Gospels get all the details?"

They "got them" out of their own imaginations, that's where.

Consider this: Mark was the first Gospel written. Luke and Matthew are largely based on Mark. Yet, Mark offers no details on the birth of Jesus. It's not even mentioned. Mark's gospel begins with Jesus being baptized by John.

So, where did Matthew and Luke get their accounts of Jesus' birth, the flight to Egypt etc? Not from Mark, and not from the same source, as their birth years for Jesus are off by at least 10 years.

The most likely answer is that Mark was written as an allegorical fiction and had no need of such detail. Matthew and Luke are attempts to move the fiction into the real world, so they MAKE UP details of Jesus corporeal life to put flesh and blood on the myth. They even cite real people and real historic events to add artistic verisimilitude to their fictions, but they can't agree on the details of these events.

Now, you might aver that the writers of these Gospels had different eyewitnesses who saw things a bit differently, or saw certain things that were related to Matthew but not passed on to Luke. That's fine, and it's plausible.

But how then does one account for the exact transcription of Jesus' words in the Garden of Gethsemane? The Gospels report that all of the disciples fell asleep and that Jesus was off by himself when he spoke his famous words. Well, who was there to hear them and write them down?

The Biblical apologist hauls out the dues ex machina of "divine inspiration," averring that the Gospel writers received direct, VERBATIM inspiration from god on what was said. But one need not haul out such shopworn excuses if one simply views the first source of this tale (Mark) as an allegorical fiction, because in fiction, we, the audience, are privy to the very thoughts of characters, voiced, or not! Indeed, most good novels - and ALL of the bad ones - let us into the inner world of a character's unspoken thoughts. From there, it's less unbelievable to be privy to their spoken words, even f those words are spoken in the proverbial forest without a falling tree within earshot.

In short, Matthew and Luke got the details about Jesus' life by making them up and tossing in a few authentic characters to make there fiction seem more real. Fiction writers do it all the time. using the Biblical standard for what constitutes historic "truth," I should imagine that Indiana Jones was a real person because the third movie in the Jones Trilogy has him meeting Hitler face to face. Hitler was real=Hitler meets Indy=Indy must also be real.

Fortunately for Steven Spielberg, he didn't have one scriptwriter thinking that Hitler died in 1945 while another had him expiring in 1954. That would be a bit too Biblical in its "accuracy," even as a fiction.

There's a brilliant exegesis on this topic that I've mentioned before. See here if you're interested:

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm#2

This Siberian con man should have declared himself the new Jesus and new Mohammed incarnated into one. Or maybe Jesus, Mohammed and Joseph Smith for a new trinity? Hmmm, the Obfuscating Jihadist then would have to deal with old Mo up front and personal. Since she never does that, we reiterate her true thinking about the warmongering, long dead and "stenchifying" Arab and his hallucinogen-based religion.

1. Believes in "pretty/ugly wingie" thingies and teaches her children that such fictional things really exist.

2. Believes that the long-dead Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words now listed in the koran.

3. That being a Sunni she is superior to Shiites in all aspects of life.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.

Rev. Thomas J Reese,

Thank you for your essay.

I will only comment on your concluding paragraph:

"Thousands of people search for God in questionable places, but that does not mean that they do not find the God who wants to be found."

There is no such thing as questionalble places to find God or discover God for any given reason.

It would seem that Vissarion found God in a version and interpretation that seem to appeal to some 5,000 people.

Thank you and best regards

"J"

Mr Mark,

Your claim that the Gospels are based on Paul is defeated by your own arguments. True, Paul does not mention any events in Jesus' life directly. He certainly refers to the last supper, the crucifixion, and the resurrection. But if the Gospels are based on Paul, where did the authors of the Gospels get all the details?

I suspect your arguments are influenced by your belief that Christianity is entirely a myth. You are convinced it is a myth, therefore it IS a myth, and any, any, argument as to it is therefore false. Take a lesson from E Fav - he is in your camp, and is more reasoning.

Let us 'agree to disagree' then. I know full well that what I believe has no rational proof. And I don't give a damn.

With respect,

Arminius

To my dear friend GaryD -

My FIRST post in this thread contained the following specific questions:

"Where is the consistency of the teachings of Jesus to the teachings of the OT? Where is the consistency in the description of the Messiah promised in the OT to the one purported to have been sent by god in the NT? Where is the consistency in the Second Covenant when compared to the First Covenant? Where is the consistency in substituting "turn the other cheek" for "an eye for an eye?"

In what way does asking such specific questions constitute a drive-by post? The only way I can see that you would aver such a thing was if you felt that each question needed at least a 20-paragraph response to exhibit an adequate rejoinder. These questions don't require such a rejoinder, though I'd spend the time reading one if so provided.

No, my post was hardly a drive-by, though all of your subsequent responses rather define the term.

Here's a challenge for you, Gary: show us how the Messiah promised in the OT matches the Messiah of the NT, specifically by comparing the verses in Isaiah, Ezekiel and Malachi which describe the Messiah (and his advent) with the descriptions of Jesus' and his advent in the NT.

Arminius writes:

"l. I dispute your statement that "the entire NT which is based on the visions of St Paul...". Did you mean to say OT? As you did later? With that, you have a point, one that I have pondered also."

No, I meant the NT.

Paul's writings pre-date the writing of the 4 Gospels. Notice that Paul "sees" Jesus as a vision, not as a flesh-and-blood reincarnation. Notice that Paul mentions not a single item from the "events" of Jesus' earthly life. Paul speaks of Jesus in purely spiritual terms, and as a spirit.

Why? Because Paul was presenting a god from a spiritual realm, a common tenet of many ancient religions. No need for him of the events of a life set in specific earthly locations.

The 4 Gospels are most-likely based upon Paul's writings. The goal of the Gospels was to make a flesh-n-blood character out of Paul's spiritual being, which they do to varying degrees of ineptitude. In this way, the entire NT traces its existence back to and is founded upon Paul's writings.

Think about it.

I'm with E Fav and Mr Mark, I would like to hear a reasoned reply, if possible, from GaryD.

Mr Mark, you are indeed on a roll, and much more caustic than usual. I dispute your statement that "the entire NT which is based on the visions of St Paul...". Did you mean to say OT? As you did later? With that, you have a point, one that I have pondered also.

Arminius

Mr Mark - You are cookin' today!

GaryD - can you provide an example of Mr mark "ducking and dodging reality?"

If you do, I promise not to criticize it. I just want to hear what it is.

thanks

What was your first post? What is it other than a drive by bit of unsupported opinion?

You want a decent response post something that needs more than another opinion to rebut it as if any unsupported opinion can rebut any other unsupported opinion.

But you go ahead keep ducking and dodging reality as if what you actually think matters to it in any significant way.

GARYD:
A drive by response to a drive by response seems some how appropriate to me."

Spoken like a true coward who hasn't the conviction of belief nor the cajones necessary to enter the debate.

Your posts cry out to be ignored, so I'll gladly accommodate your wishes.

Buh-bye.

A drive by response to a drive by response seems some how appropriate to me.

GARYD writes:
"Wrong Mr. Mark unsurprisingly so unfortunately biblical scholarship among atheist is all most laughably poor."

That's it? Another unenlightening drive-by post that provides not a shred of counter argument to that which I posted?

Why do you even bother? Oh, that's right...you didn't.

Wrong Mr. Mark unsurprisingly so unfortunately biblical scholarship among atheist is all most laughably poor.

"Is it consistent with the Scriptures and church teaching" There's a difference between scripture and church teaching? I am confused.. is not the scripture the holy word of god? A litmus test for frauds by scripture alone is not enough?

"In examining private visions and revelations, the church asks a series of questions: Is it consistent with the Scriptures and church teaching?"

Using this as the standard, one must reject the entire NT which is based on the visions of St Paul and the revealed word of the rest of it, for the NT rarely comports with the Scripture that proceeded it.

Where is the consistency of the teachings of Jesus to the teachings of the OT? Where is the consistency in the description of the Messiah promised in the OT to the one purported to have been sent by god in the NT? Where is the consistency in the Second Covenant when compared to the First Covenant? Where is the consistency in substituting "turn the other cheek" for "an eye for an eye?"

The fact is that one must throw out the OT almost in its entirety to accept the NT (and vice versa) as being the revealed word of Yahweh, so rarely do they agree on basic points of theology.

Fr Reese's argument crumbles under its own weight.

Better watch out, Father -- some of those Catholics you talk to might take your advice about reading the Bible - then come back and ask you to explain what it means.

Holy mother church discourages Belief in visions?

Not these, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul for they are taught to the children as absolute facts.

What's the mathematical probability one vision is truly from God while another is not? How about the probability of picking the one from God over all those that come from Devil?

With any vision there is a 100% chance of not being able to identify the source to be God or at God's request. The Devil just loves that for it opens the gates to His holy, (no body at all) visions making them equally valid compared to visions that come from God.

Folks calling themselves Jesus Christ reincarnate is perplexing isn't it? There's no such thing as a con that cannot be horned in on by other con men.

No, this guy is a fraud and charlatan akin to con men who use fortune telling spiels. No different than the religious con prophets in the fictional OT, Mohammed's "Gabe-fest" in the koran, the Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke and John fortune telling/embellishments of the NT, the "Mormon-con" of Joseph Smith and the "prophet", talking and spinning Suns, magic capes and the gibberish of JOSEVZ.

I liked this substantive piece, Fr Reese. You didn't mention it but the early church suspected many revelations were actually false: from Satan rather than Christ.

Still, the Church does teach there *are* such things as miracles and Fatima was one, Guadaloupe another. Although believing in the presence of Christ in the Eucharest and at the Mass should predispose us to the presence of miracles, today's are probably a bit more subtle than in days gone by.

Very sensible, Fr. Reese.