sentientsynthesizer Escribi�:

That his tomb was empty the third day after he was placed there is fact.

Is it? (Not trying to be an ass here, but I wasn't aware that this was a fact.)

sentientsynthesizer Escribi�:

All theories critiquing the bodily resurrection of Christ are inconsistent with present day knowledge at one point or another. Some of them are laughable. And none of them have the power to explain why Jesus's disciples would claim the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus only to be beaten, outcast, and finally murdered without ever recanting their testimony. People will surely die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die (and suffer torture) for what they know to be a lie.

(Part of) The problem is that not all the Gospels have the post-resurrection story where Jesus goes and visits the disciples, etc. It is hard to determine which of the Gospels is the most historically accurate, but it is almost universally believed that Mark was written first and does not include the post-resurrection story. Perhaps the disciples honestly believed Jesus had been raised but had not seen for themselves. Perhaps they believed so fervently that Jesus was the Messiah that they had strung themselves out too far from mainstream Judaism during the time of his life to return; continuing their belief was better than cutting their losses. Not really making a point here, just musing...

sentientsynthesizer Escribi�:

I challenge all those who deny Christ's deity to take an objective look at the evidence (realizing that history isn't science) and try to explain the events surrounding Christ's life and death (the main outline of which is corroborated by ten separate non-Christian sources. The Emperor Tiberius Ceasar has only nine sources for us to be certain of his existence. No one would doubt that Tiberius Ceasar existed.)

Ten separate non-Christian sources? Care to list them? I only know of one off hand (and recall another, but can't remember what it was) that directly names Jesus: Josephus' History of the Jews (Jesus gets a paragraph or so, which is suspected to have been creatively edited [though not fabricated] by Catholic scribes, who maintained Josephus' 20-volume work through the centuries). There is a mention in a Roman work (my memory fails me as to what exactly) of a Chrestus who incited a riot in the time of Nero and some believe this refers to early Christians acting in the late Jesus' name, although this is pretty dodgy.





And you got at least one thing right, Sentient, Love is All.

DarkStarExodus, thanks for your specific, non-vulgar response to me. I'll do my best to respond quickly, but this topic, I feel, should be given a little attention given the nature of the subject. I hope that you see me as giving an honest assessment of the argument, without trying to bash anyone. I truly believe that what a person believes should be rational and defendable, based upon good evidence.



The ten ancient, non-Christian writers who mention Jesus are:



1. Josephus

2. Tacitus, the Roman historian

3. Pliny the Younger, a Roman politician

4. Phlegon, a freed slave who wrote histories

5. Thallus, a first - century historian

6. Seutonius, a Roman historian

7. Lucian, a Greek satirist

8. Celsus, a Roman philosopher

9. Mara Bar- Serapion, a pivate citizen who wrote to his son

10. the Jewish Talmud



Some of these sources - such as Celsus, Tacitus, and the Jewish Talmud - could be considered anti- Christian sources. While these works do not have any eyewitness testimony that contradict events described in the New Testament documents, they are works written by writers whose tone is decidely anti-Christian. What can we learn from them and the more neutral non-Christian sources? We learn that they admit certain facts about early Christianity that help us piece together a storyline that is surprisingly congruent with the New Testament. Piecing together all ten non- Christian sources, we see that:



1. jesus lived during the time of Tiberius Ceasar.

2. he lived a virtuous life.

3. He was a wonder worker.

4. He had a brother named James.

5. He was acclaimed to be the Messiah.

6. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

7. He was crucified on the eve of the Jewish Passover.

8. Darkness and an earthquake occured when he died. (!!)

9. his disciples believed he rose from the dead.

10. His disciples were willling to die for their belief.

11. Christianity spread rapidly as far as Rome.

12. His disciples denied the Roman gods and worshiped Jesus as God.



I can give you sources for further reading if you so desire.



As far as your reckoning of the Gospel of Mark, you are correct that it is considered to be the earliest. It is considered possible that it was written within a year of Jesus's crucifixion. As far as Mark not containing a post-resurrection story, you should re-read Mark chapter 16. In all four Gospels Jesus appears to the eleven disciples and gives them his great commision, the gospel of John having an indirect wording of it (though his very appearance is clearly stated.) (see Mark 16: 15 - 18 , Matthew 28: 16- 20, Luke 24:46, John 20: 23) Yes, every gospel records Jesus's bodily resurrection and appearance.



As far as historical accuracy is concerned, there is disparity among the Gospels only in secondary details, and these aren't mutually exclusive claims; the four gospels can be harmonized. Actually, differing secondary details speaks to the eye-witness nature of the Gospels, for this is a usual occurence when one gathers eye-witness testimony from different sources about the same events. (Find three separate newspapers and read the same majoy story in them. i'm sure you'll find divergent, yet not mutually exclusive,details.) Also, if the Gospels were identical to every detail, it could be argued that the authors conspired to "get the story straight" while writing them. There are many other arguments for the historicity and accuracy of the New Testament. I can give you reference reading, if you so desire.



Chuch Colson, aid to former President Nixon, said this



"Watergate involved a conspiracy to cover up, perpetuated by the closest aides to the President of the United States- the mot powerful men in America, who were intensely loyal to their president. But one of them, John Dean, turned state's evidence, that is, testified against Nixon, as he put it, "to save his own skin" - and he did so only two weeks after informing the president about what was really going on- two weeks!! The real cover-up, the lie, could only be held together for two weeks, and then everybody else jumped ship in order to save themselves. Now the fact is that all that those around th e president were facing embarrassment, maybe prison. Nobody's life was at stake. But what about the disciples? Twelve powerless men, peasants really, were facing not just embarrassment or political disgrace, but beating, stonings, execution. Every single one of the disciples insisted, to the dying breaths, that they had physically seen Jesus bodily raised form the dead. Don't you think that one of those apostles would have cracked before being beheaded or stoned? That one of them would have made a deal with the authorities? None did."



So how was "continuing their belief better than cutting their losses"?



Lastly, if there's one place in time that a 'mere legend' could not have arisen it was Jerusalem under Roman rule. Both the Romans and and the Pharisees would've loved to have squashed Christianity right then and there...if onlythey could have produced the body of Jesus. And they knew the location of the tomb: Joseph of Aramathea, the man in whose tomb Jesus was buried, was a member of the Sanhedrin. The Pharisees would have loved nothing more than to parade Jesus's broken carcass around Jerusalem to stop the lies of the Christian church right then and there. The Jewish believers (and there were thousands of them, in the very city of Jesus's crucifixion) had no reason to abandon their long-held sacred beliefs and practices, adopt new ones, and then refuse to deny their testimony under persecution or threat of death. Only the resurrection of Jesus firmly fits all of these facts. Skeptics' theories such as the hallucination theory, the "wrong tomb" theory, the "swoon or apparent death theory", "the disciples stole the body" theory, the "substitute for Christ on the cross" theory, the "disciples' faith led their belief in the resurrection" theory, and the idea that the new Testament writers copied pagan resurrection myths do no hold water.



Christians can meet the burden of proof for the resurrection of Jesus Christ with good evidence. Skeptics must therefore also offer positive, first-century evidence for their alternative views. Reasonable people demand evidence, not just theories. Anyone can concoct a theory to explain any historical event. Are you aware that some are even trying today to claim that the Holocaust never happened? Of course they aren't making much headway, because we still have eye-witnesses living to this day, as was the case with Christianity and the recording of the gospels.



I hope I've made some things clear. Please make any responses or questions direct to the subject. I'll restate that just to show I don't want to be pushy, and that I really do only want to talk reasonably, and not just spout baseless "Christian rhetoric", I will only respond to those posts that are clear invitations to continue this conversation.

8O



wow

Boy with the Golden Eyes Escribi�:

8O



wow

Nothing about jesus was written down until decades after his alleged death (and life for that matter).



I love sheeple who first say that the most important thing about Xtianity is having 'faith' and then go on to spew reams of spurious 'proof' to 'prove' that thier 'faith' is correct.



Faith and proof are inimicable. Proof denies faith. There is no proof that Jesus ever lived, and even less so that he 'rose' from the grave.



It's good though that the superstitious and weak minded have something to cling to. God knows what sorts of crime and harmful behavior they'd get up to if they didn't have a threat hanging over their heads.

sentientsynthesizer Escribi�:

DarkStarExodus, thanks for your specific, non-vulgar response to me. I'll do my best to respond quickly, but this topic, I feel, should be given a little attention given the nature of the subject. I hope that you see me as giving an honest assessment of the argument, without trying to bash anyone. I truly believe that what a person believes should be rational and defendable, based upon good evidence.



The ten ancient, non-Christian writers who mention Jesus are:



1. Josephus

2. Tacitus, the Roman historian

3. Pliny the Younger, a Roman politician

4. Phlegon, a freed slave who wrote histories

5. Thallus, a first - century historian

6. Seutonius, a Roman historian

7. Lucian, a Greek satirist

8. Celsus, a Roman philosopher

9. Mara Bar- Serapion, a pivate citizen who wrote to his son

10. the Jewish Talmud



Some of these sources - such as Celsus, Tacitus, and the Jewish Talmud - could be considered anti- Christian sources. While these works do not have any eyewitness testimony that contradict events described in the New Testament documents, they are works written by writers whose tone is decidely anti-Christian. What can we learn from them and the more neutral non-Christian sources? We learn that they admit certain facts about early Christianity that help us piece together a storyline that is surprisingly congruent with the New Testament. Piecing together all ten non- Christian sources, we see that:



1. jesus lived during the time of Tiberius Ceasar.

2. he lived a virtuous life.

3. He was a wonder worker.

4. He had a brother named James.

5. He was acclaimed to be the Messiah.

6. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

7. He was crucified on the eve of the Jewish Passover.

8. Darkness and an earthquake occured when he died. (!!)

9. his disciples believed he rose from the dead.

10. His disciples were willling to die for their belief.

11. Christianity spread rapidly as far as Rome.

12. His disciples denied the Roman gods and worshiped Jesus as God.



I can give you sources for further reading if you so desire.



As far as your reckoning of the Gospel of Mark, you are correct that it is considered to be the earliest. It is considered possible that it was written within a year of Jesus's crucifixion. As far as Mark not containing a post-resurrection story, you should re-read Mark chapter 16. In all four Gospels Jesus appears to the eleven disciples and gives them his great commision, the gospel of John having an indirect wording of it (though his very appearance is clearly stated.) (see Mark 16: 15 - 18 , Matthew 28: 16- 20, Luke 24:46, John 20: 23) Yes, every gospel records Jesus's bodily resurrection and appearance.



As far as historical accuracy is concerned, there is disparity among the Gospels only in secondary details, and these aren't mutually exclusive claims; the four gospels can be harmonized. Actually, differing secondary details speaks to the eye-witness nature of the Gospels, for this is a usual occurence when one gathers eye-witness testimony from different sources about the same events. (Find three separate newspapers and read the same majoy story in them. i'm sure you'll find divergent, yet not mutually exclusive,details.) Also, if the Gospels were identical to every detail, it could be argued that the authors conspired to "get the story straight" while writing them. There are many other arguments for the historicity and accuracy of the New Testament. I can give you reference reading, if you so desire.



Chuch Colson, aid to former President Nixon, said this



"Watergate involved a conspiracy to cover up, perpetuated by the closest aides to the President of the United States- the mot powerful men in America, who were intensely loyal to their president. But one of them, John Dean, turned state's evidence, that is, testified against Nixon, as he put it, "to save his own skin" - and he did so only two weeks after informing the president about what was really going on- two weeks!! The real cover-up, the lie, could only be held together for two weeks, and then everybody else jumped ship in order to save themselves. Now the fact is that all that those around th e president were facing embarrassment, maybe prison. Nobody's life was at stake. But what about the disciples? Twelve powerless men, peasants really, were facing not just embarrassment or political disgrace, but beating, stonings, execution. Every single one of the disciples insisted, to the dying breaths, that they had physically seen Jesus bodily raised form the dead. Don't you think that one of those apostles would have cracked before being beheaded or stoned? That one of them would have made a deal with the authorities? None did."



So how was "continuing their belief better than cutting their losses"?



Lastly, if there's one place in time that a 'mere legend' could not have arisen it was Jerusalem under Roman rule. Both the Romans and and the Pharisees would've loved to have squashed Christianity right then and there...if onlythey could have produced the body of Jesus. And they knew the location of the tomb: Joseph of Aramathea, the man in whose tomb Jesus was buried, was a member of the Sanhedrin. The Pharisees would have loved nothing more than to parade Jesus's broken carcass around Jerusalem to stop the lies of the Christian church right then and there. The Jewish believers (and there were thousands of them, in the very city of Jesus's crucifixion) had no reason to abandon their long-held sacred beliefs and practices, adopt new ones, and then refuse to deny their testimony under persecution or threat of death. Only the resurrection of Jesus firmly fits all of these facts. Skeptics' theories such as the hallucination theory, the "wrong tomb" theory, the "swoon or apparent death theory", "the disciples stole the body" theory, the "substitute for Christ on the cross" theory, the "disciples' faith led their belief in the resurrection" theory, and the idea that the new Testament writers copied pagan resurrection myths do no hold water.



Christians can meet the burden of proof for the resurrection of Jesus Christ with good evidence. Skeptics must therefore also offer positive, first-century evidence for their alternative views. Reasonable people demand evidence, not just theories. Anyone can concoct a theory to explain any historical event. Are you aware that some are even trying today to claim that the Holocaust never happened? Of course they aren't making much headway, because we still have eye-witnesses living to this day, as was the case with Christianity and the recording of the gospels.



I hope I've made some things clear. Please make any responses or questions direct to the subject. I'll restate that just to show I don't want to be pushy, and that I really do only want to talk reasonably, and not just spout baseless "Christian rhetoric", I will only respond to those posts that are clear invitations to continue this conversation.

wow, you sure know how to copy and paste.



That's the nightmare of the internet, you can find 'arguements' and evidence for any irrational point of view you wish to hold.



Fortunately, you can also find refutations of this arguements.



;-)



Evidence For Christianity



Since Christianity is the most prevalent belief system among humans, it deserves special attention. The best evidence for the Christian doctrine of a divine Jesus is:



Epistles c.50-60CE



Paul's letters broadly confirm the teachings and miracles of Jesus, and specifically his resurrection [1 Cor 15].



Gospels c.60-90CE



The veracity of the gospel accounts is supported by their mutual aggreement and their inclusion of embarrassing and vivid details.



The gospels are unanimously persuasive that Jesus died, and report many vivid accounts of encounters with the risen Jesus.



The gospels describe in vivid detail Jesus' miracles (many healings, three reanimations, etc.) and their acceptance throughout Judea and Galilee.



Extra-biblical evidence



The 1st-century Jewish historian Josephus confirms the historicity of Jesus by mentioning him as the brother of the martyred James.



Non-Christian writers like Josephus and Celsus agree that Jesus was known for his "feats" and "wonders".



Christianity as a movement survived even in Palestine among the people who would have had the best available opportunity for refuting its claims.



Arguments Against Christianity



There are at least eight insurmountable problems within the extant evidence that each independently refute the Christian doctrine of a divine Jesus:



Jesus' endorsement of the murderous immorality of Yahweh in the Torah;



Jesus' doctrine of "eternal punishment" in the "eternal fire" of Hell;



Jesus' failure to claim actual divinity;



Jesus' failed prophecy of his imminent return;



Jesus' failure to competently reveal his doctrines (concerning e.g. salvation, hell, divorce, circumcision, and diet) in his own written account or that of an eyewitness;



Jesus' failure to perform miracles the accounts of which cannot be so easily explained as faith-healing, misinterpretation, exaggeration, and embellishment;



Jesus' failure to attract significant notice (much less endorsement) in the only detailed contemporaneous history of first-century Palestine;



Jesus' failure to recruit:



anyone from his family,



any acquaintance from before his baptism,



a majority of Palestinian Jews, and even

some of those who heard his words and witnessed his alleged miracles.



An omnipotent omniscience benevolent deity competently attempting a revelation would have foreseen and corrected all of these problems. The existence of any one of them implies that Christian doctrine is false. The reasons not to believe the Christian doctrine of a divine Jesus can be divided into four categories:



the alternative naturalistic explanations of the existing evidence;



the missing evidence needed to prove such divinity;



the implausibility of such divine activity; and



the cascading implications of accepting such evidence.



In addition, the Christian gospels themselves are suspect because of their sources, contradictions, and apologetics.



Naturalistic explanations. Jesus of Nazareth was a faith healer and self-proclaimed divinely-special savior who tried to reform his native Jewish religion. However, the evidence about Jesus is less likely to have resulted from divinity than from misinterpretation, exaggeration, rationalization, delusion, deception, and mythologizing. Indeed, perhaps the greatest weakness of the claims for Jesus' divinity is the gospels' reliance on and vouching for the Old Testament, a patchwork of folklore, legends and myths about a tribe whose patriarch Abraham turned to monotheism because of fertility problems. Jesus was a Jewish prophet who affirmed Jewish law [Mt 5:17-18; Lk 2:27,39; Jn 10:35], observed the Jewish calendar [Lk 4:16, Mt 24:20], and preached about the God of Israel [e.g. Mk 12:29] in Jewish synagogues [Mk 1:21, 1:39, 6:2; Mt 4:23, 9:35, 13:54; Lk 4:15, 4:44, 6:6, 13:10, 19:47; Jn 6:59, 18:20] exclusively for Jews [Mt 10:5, Mt 15:24]. Jesus no doubt echoed the Torah theme that "all nations" would witness the majesty of Israel's God, but his only command to actually convert and baptize "all nations" is in a post-Easter speech alleged only in one gospel [Mt 28:19] (and in an appendix later added to Mark [16]).



Miracles. In the gospels Jesus heals the sick (possession, blindness, skin disorder, bleeding, fever, paralysis, withered hand), revives the recently deceased, calms a storm, multiplies food, and walks on water. The miracles ascribed to Jesus seem not to have been very convincing [Mt 11:20, Lk 10:13, Jn 6:66, 10:32, 12:37, 15:24], and seem explainable by a combination of conventional faith healing, exaggeration, and mythologizing. The three people Jesus allegedly reanimates [Mk 5/Lk 8; Lk 7; Jn 11] might not actually have been clinically dead, and the gospels report not a single indication supporting such a diagnosis. Any cases of blindness, paralysis, or demonic possession cured by Jesus could have been psychogenic. Jesus apparently admits [Lk 11:24-26] that his cures for demonic possession are often not permanent, and in the synoptic gospels there is only one mention [Mt 21:14] of a cure being performed in Jerusalem. The one case of congenital blindness is recorded as disputed, and only in the latest gospel [Jn 9].



God? The Christian doctrine of the "trinity", attempting to reconcile Jewish monotheism with Jesus' self-revelation, holds that Jesus 1) is both fully human and fully divine, and 2) is God (in a different "person"). The former is a contradiction, and the latter has no scriptural basis. In the gospels Jesus never claims identity with God or even explicit divinity, but rather a divinely special status as "the Son of God" and the "Anointed One" (Hebrew: messiah; Greek: christos). Jesus repeatedly distinguishes himself from God:



Why do you call me good? No one is good--except God alone. [Mk 10:18, Lk 18:17, Mt 19:17]



No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. [Mk 13:32]



And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. [Lk 12:10]



Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done. [Lk 22:42-43]



Father, into your hands I commit my spirit. [Lk 23:46]



the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son [Jn 5:22]



By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me. [Jn 5:30]



I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. [Jn 8:28]



I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. [Jn 8:42]



If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing; it is my Father who is glorifying me, of whom ye say that He is your God. [Jn 8:54]



I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it. [Jn 12:49]



The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work [Jn 14:10]



If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. [Jn 14:28]



I love the Father and do exactly what my Father has commanded me. [Jn 14:31]



Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father. [Jn 16:25]



I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf. No, the Father himself loves you [Jn 16:26-27]



I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God. [Jn 20:17]



As the Father has sent me, I am sending you. [Jn 20:21]



When Jesus' opponents say his assumption of authority could be interpreted as a claim of divinity, all three synoptics agree [Mk 2:10, Mt 9:6, Lk 5:24] that Jesus merely asserted "authority on earth", and none intimates that his accusers concluded he was affirming their accusation. In the one instance in the gospels [Jn 10:33ff] in which Jesus' identity with God is explicitly discussed, Jesus cites a Psalm [82] as a precedent for his metaphor, and hastily retreats to his formulation of being "God's Son", adding vaguely that "the Father is in me, and I in the Father". However, 1 Jn 2:15 says this is true of anyone who acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, and Jesus used the same mutual inclusion poetry about him and his disciples [Jn 14:20]. When at another time [Jn 5:18ff] the Jews characterized the "Son of Man" title as "making himself equal with God", Jesus answered not by claiming identity but by drawing distinctions:



the Son can do nothing by himself



the Father loves the Son



the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son



the Father sent the Son



the Father has granted the Son to have life in him



the Father has given him authority to judge



I seek not to please myself but him who sent me



Thus Jesus retreats the only two times he is accused of claiming identity or equality with God. In the Passion story, Jesus was mocked or accused as a faith healer, prophet, king of the Jews, Messiah, and "Son of God" [Jn 19:7] -- but never as divine or as a god. When Jesus died, onlookers are said to have exclaimed not that Jesus was God, but rather the "Son of God" [Mat 27:54].



The title of 'God' is never reliably applied to Jesus anywhere in the New Testament. (In many translations of 2 Pet 1:1 and Titus 2:13, the description "God and Saviour" is seemingly applied to Jesus, but the scholarly consensus regards these two letters as late and pseudoepigraphic.) Acts quotes [2] Peter and Paul describing Jesus in terms of a man appointed to an office, but never calling him God. The gospel authors never explicitly claim Jesus to be God, and the closest they come is the vague language of Jn 1: "the Word was God" and "became flesh". John quotes Thomas exclaiming [Jn 20] "my Lord and my God", but immediately states [20] as a creed merely "that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God". The "mystery" of Jesus' nature was hardly clarified by the Apostles [e.g. Phil 2:6, Rom 1:4, Col 1:15, Col 2:9], whose epistles never claim Jesus has any kind of identity with God. (Christian scribes tried to change that; cf. the differing manuscripts for Rom 9:5, Acts 20:28, and 1 Tim 3:16.) Even the alleged angelic annunciation of Jesus to his parents ommitted [Lk 1:32, Mt 1:20, Mt 2:13, Mt 2:20] the claim that Jesus was Yahweh incarnate.



Thus, just as Jesus failed to leave clear teachings about salvation, hell, divorce, circumcision, and diet, he also did not effect a competent revelation of who precisely he was. Depending on e.g. various 4th-century Roman emperors, there waxed and waned such christological heresies as Ebionism, Docetism, Adoptionism, Dynamic Monarchianism, Sabellianism, Arianism, Marcionism, Apollonarianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, and Monothelitism. The doublethink of the "trinity" is not found in the Bible, but instead was invented to reconcile Jewish monotheism with Jesus' idiosyncratic Sonship claims.



"Son of God". Jesus seems to have been illegitmate, and to have been known to be such in his community [Mt 1:18-24, Jn 8:41]. His only recorded words before his ministry concern his disobedience [Lk 2:48,51] at age 12 to his mother and stepfather, whom he denied [cf. Mt 23:9] by calling the Temple "my Father's house". He spurned his stepfather's trade of carpentry to take up a ministry proclaiming himself the son not of Joseph but of God. Despite angelic revelations [Lk 1:32, Mt 1:20, Mt 2:13, Mt 2:20] to Mary and Joseph, Mary's knowledge [Lk 1:34] of the virgin conception, and Mary's witness of at least one miracle [Mk 2], they (and Jesus' siblings) did not believe in him [Jn 7:5, Mt 13:57] and thought him "out of his mind" [Mk 3:21], leading Jesus to repeatedly stress [Mk 3:33, 10:29; Mt 10:37, 12:48, 19:29; Lk 11:27-28, 14:26] that one should choose God over one's biological family. Only on the day of his death do the gospels record a single friendly word [Jn 19:26] from Jesus to his family.



Delusional Schizophrenic? Jesus began his (apparently one-year) ministry as a follower of John the Baptist (whose embarrassing baptism of Jesus is played down or not mentioned in the later gospels). In the earliest gospel (Mark), Jesus never calls himself Christ/Messiah, is reluctant for his special nature to be known, and (as he does in Matthew) despairs on the cross. (By contrast, in the later Luke and John, Jesus asserts he is Christ, and confidently assures a co-crucified convict of their impending ascension.) Jesus "could not do many miracles" in his hometown [Mk 6:5, Mt 13:58, Lk 4:24], and he at times was considered mad by other Jews [Jn 8:48, 10:20]. Jesus' movement seems not to have been joined in his lifetime by a single family member or prior acquaintance, but only by strangers. Jesus satisifed the diagnostic criteria of paranoid schizophrenia:



hallucinations: hearing or seeing God, Satan, demons, and angels;

delusions of grandiosity: belief that he is the salvific Christ/Messiah with miraculous powers and apocalyptic foreknowledge;

delusions of persecution: temptation by Satan; opposition by demons;

an insidious reduction in external relations and interests: nomadic asceticism; estrangement from his family.



However, Jesus was not so mentally ill as to believe he was omnipotent. The gospels say repeatedly [Jn 7:1, 8:59, 11:53-54, 12:36; Mt 12:14-15, Mk 3:6-7, Lk 13:31,33] that Jesus retreated from or avoided danger. He was secretive and evasive about his special nature [Mk 3:12, 8:30, 4:41; Lk 9:21, 10:22-24; Mt 16:20; Jn 2:24, 8:25-29, 10:24-38, 12:34], and reluctant to have his powers tested [Mk 8:12; Lk 11:29, 23:8; Mt 4:7, 12:39, 16:4; Jn 2:18]. He was likely neither liar nor lunatic, but rather a preacher, faith-healer, and apocalyptic prophet who in the months leading up to his anticipated execution came to believe he was the Jewish Messiah and even the divinely-special savior of mankind.

Resurrection. At his death the apostles abandoned Jesus in panic, even though they should have been expecting his resurrection if they had indeed witnessed his miracles, heard his divinity claims, and heard him say at least four times [Mk 8:31, 10:34; Mat 16:21, 17:23, 20:19; Lk 9:22, 18:33, 24:7, 24:46] that he would "rise from the dead" or be "raised to life" "on the third day". The New Testament accounts of the resurrection appearances develop over time from silent to vague to contradictory to fantastic. The Empty Tomb story could have resulted from a discreet reburial or removal -- perhaps by a disciple, as in a rumor reported in Mt 28. Possible conspirators were Joseph of Arimathea and Mary Magdalene, a longtime disciple [Lk 8:2] "out of whom [Jesus] had driven seven demons" [Mk 16:9, Lk 8:2] and who (unlike any apostle) attended both the crucifixion and entombment. She was the first to visit the tomb on Easter [Mt 28:1, Jn 20:1], and the possibility of removal [Jn 20:2,14,15] was not unimaginable to her. She weepingly lingered [Jn 20:11] after the apostles left the empty tomb, and thereupon was the first [Mk 16:9, Mt 28:9, Jn 20:14] to claim seeing an appearance. The appearances were suspiciously exclusive: "He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen" [Acts 10:40-41] "Why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?" [Jn 14:22]. Many of the "appearances" seem to have been unimpressive to the disciples who heard about them (and should have been expecting them) and even to those who witnessed them:



But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like idle tales. [Lk 24:11]

When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it. Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them [Mk 16:11-12]

These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either. [Mk 16:13]

When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. [Mt 28:17]

Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; but they were kept from recognizing him. [Lk 24:15-16]

she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus. Thinking he was the gardener, she said ... [Jn 20:14-15]

Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus. [Jn 21:4]

What probably happened is that some disciples began having epiphanies, perhaps involving the occasional dream, ecstatic vision, encounter with a stranger, case of mistaken identity, or outright hallucination (or fabrication). The disciples in their desperation and zeal initially interpreted these experiences as manifestations of a triumphant and vindicated (but not necessarily reanimated) Jesus, who had apparently predicted that he would in some sense return or at least that his ministry would require but survive his death. If a tomb had in fact been found empty, that doesn't necessarily imply that these early manifestations were initially interpreted as experiences of a physically reanimated corpse. The disciples might have just believed that Yahweh had “raised” Jesus' body to heaven so as to not “abandon [it] to the grave” and to “decay” [Ps 16:10, cited in Acts 13:35-37]. An empty tomb belief would greatly have helped the early epiphanic experiences be misinterpreted, exaggerated, and embellished over the subsequent half century into the reanimated corpse stories that appear only in the two latest gospels (Luke and John).

The gospels themselves give precedent for the idea of a dead person being “raised from the dead” [Mk 16:14] by inhabiting the body of some other person currently living. When some [Mk 6:14, Mk 8:28, Mt 16:14, Lk 9:19] -- including Herod [Mk 6:16, Mt 14:2] -- thought that John the Baptist had been "raised from the dead", at least a few of these people would have known that Jesus' body had (like the Easter gardener's) been animate before the Baptist's death. There is no record that anyone ever considered checking the Baptist's body (the grave of which was known his disciples [Mk 6:29, Mt 14:13]), and there is no record that anyone wondered why Jesus' neck did not show signs of John's earlier beheading.





Missing evidence. A divine Jesus could trivially create new miracles to unambiguously vouch for some modern school of Christianity. For the gospel accounts of Jesus to be believable, two kinds of evidence would have to surface:



Textual discoveries that Jesus did not believe in the literal truth of the entire Old Testament, and that the unjust Christian notion of eternal damnation is a misunderstanding.



Compelling corroboration of gospel miracles through physical artifacts (e.g. the Shroud of Turin) or historical records (e.g. of the three-hour darkness on Good Friday).



However, available extra-scriptural records do not corroborate the gospel miracles. Christian apologists often claim that if false, the gospel traditions would have been refuted and discredited by skeptics in 1st-century Palestine. However, there is no indication that the Jesus movement was important enough then to merit the sort of early written debunking that would have been preserved despite skeptical apathy and Christian hostility. Except for the stolen-body rumor denied in Mat 28, the earliest records of anti-Christian skepticism date after the first century and are preserved mainly as excerpts in Christian rebuttals. Celsus (quoted by Origen) dismissed the miracles as the "tricks of jugglers" that he said are "feats performed by those who have been taught by Egyptians", and the Jewish slander reported by Tertullian claimed the empty tomb was faked.



The 1st-century Jewish historian Josephus is hard to count as anti-Christian, even after discounting his affirmation (unnoticed by all of his earliest Christian commentators) of the resurrection as an interpolation. Josephus may have written that Jesus "performed surprising works" and even that Jesus was believed to have been resurrected, but the (possibly interpolated) mention is only in passing. Josephus devotes more space each to John the Baptist and James, and while reporting much minutiae over the entire period during which Jesus lived, does not mention:



the Christmas Star that disturbed Herod and "all Jerusalem" [Mt 2:3],



Herod's massacre [Mt 2:16],



Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem [Mt 21:8-11],



the Good Friday earthquake [Mt 27:51],



the Good Friday resurrectees that "appeared to many people" in Jerusalem [Mt 27:53], or



the Good Friday 3-hour darkness "over all the land" [Mk 15:33, Lk 23:44, Mt 27:45].



These events in fact went unnoticed by every non-Christian writer, including the historians Seneca and Pliny the Elder. Contrast this with the supernova of 1006CE that was noted in China, Egypt, Iraq, Italy, Japan, and Switzerland. (Syncellus quotes a lost text of the Christian historian Julius Africanus which itself cites a lost text by Thallus: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse". The identification of Thallus' eclipse with "this darkness" might just be in the mind of Julius Africanus, and Thallus at any rate cannot be reliably dated as writing independently of the gospels.) The Alexandrian philosopher and commentator Philo outlived Jesus by 15 or 20 years, and as a visitor to Jerusalem should have met witnesses to the Easter miracles. His silence suggests that Jesus and his followers did not make the early impression that they should have if the gospels were true.

Implausibility. The gospel story of a secretive unpublished family-resenting bastard faith healer in the rural outback of a peripheral province of a regional empire seems an unlikely self-revelation for the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent Creator of the universe:



Why such ambiguous and picayune miracles? Why not raise a new mountain in the desert, or install a new star in the heavens?

Why such vague and equivocal claims of divinity?

Why after his resurrection appear so ambiguously, so briefly, and to only his disciples? Why not -- after perhaps a more convincing execution, e.g. beheading -- march back to Pilate and Herod and ascend in front of Jerusalem assembled?



Why not write his revelation himself, and ensure that it survive in perfect copies? Why not include in it indisputible authentication, e.g. by predicting a fundamental physical constant?



The God of the Torah's holy scrolls is far too pedestrian in his works, parochial in his concerns, petty in his decisions, and primitive in his policies.



Works. In the gospels Jesus heals the sick, revives the recently deceased, calms a storm, walks on water, and multiplies food. The god of the Torah makes appearances, speeches, promises, and predictions; raises the dead; and takes credit for various plagues, fires, floods, astronomical events, victories, healings, and deaths. It is implausible that the Creator's works would be so confined to ancient times and so apparently constrained by ancient imaginations.



Concerns. After creating billions of galaxies in Genesis, the god of the Torah is implausibly obsessed with the family of Abraham and the Jordan valley where they live. It seems implausible that an omnibenevolent, omniscient, infallible deity would entrust a few fallible men in a backward corner of the world with such paltry evidence and then demand that everyone else either hear and believe them or suffer eternal damnation.



Decisions. In the gospels Jesus damns entire towns [Mt 11:23], compares non-Israelites to dogs [Mt 15:26], and affirms even "the smallest letter" [Mt 5:18, Jn 10:35] of the Torah. The god of the Torah tests and torments his followers, commits mass murders of e.g. Noah's flood victims [Gen 6:7, 7:21] and the firstborn sons of Egypt [Ex 12:29], creates linguistic division for fear of an ancient construction project [Gen 11:6], and curses mankind because Adam dared to "become like one of us, knowing good and evil" [Gen 3:22]. It is implausible that the Creator of the universe would be so petty and wicked.



Policies. The god of the Torah promotes or demands extravagant worship, dietary taboos, animal sacrifice, repressive sexual codes, human mutilation, monarchy, subjugation of women, slavery, human sacrifice [Lev 27:29, Jud 11:30-39, cf. Heb 11:17, Jam 2:21], and mass murder of even infants [Gen 6:7, 7:21, Ex 11:5, 12:29, 1 Sam 15:3, cf. Heb 11:7,28]. In the gospels Jesus affirms the Torah [Mt 5:18, Jn 10:35], endorses the murderous flood of Noah [Mt 24:38, Lk 17:27], and promises sinners not a thousand years' unrelenting torture, nor a million or a billion, but an eternity of excruciating torture by fire [Mk 9:43, Mt 18:8, 25:41, 25:46]. It is implausible that a competent and benevolent deity would in his revelation allow the endorsement of such heinous crimes and evil policies.



Cascading implications. If the existing evidence about Jesus of Nazareth is considered a convincing proof of his divinity, then many other things can be proven with similar evidence.



Miracles were reported commonly in ancient times and are attested in many other religions. Christians might argue that competing miracles were wrought by demons, but those very miracles could be used by a competing religion to justify the same claim about Jesus' miracles.

Martyrs have been common throughout human history. If dying for a belief can show the belief is true, then the kamikazes of Japan showed that Emperor Hirohito was divine. Note that Peter and James are the only alleged resurrection witnesses who the New Testament names (John 21:18,19, Acts 12:2) as martyrs, but there is no evidence that recanting their alleged belief in physical resurrection could have saved them. They probably just died for their very sincere belief in some Easter-related experiences that they interpreted as evidence of a triumphant and vindicated Jesus. All other Christian martyrs died for what they were told about the alleged resurrection and not for what they witnessed about it.

Prophecies. No non-trivial prophecy in the Bible has both a) been documented as having been made before the predicted event and b) had its fulfillment documented independently of the Bible itself. If self-fulfilling prophecy is considered valid, then for example the Book of Mormon is a valid prophetic text.



Gospel sources. The gospels were stitched together decades after the crucifixion by non-eyewitness zealots freely borrowing from oral traditions and now-lost earlier texts.



Other gospels. At least a dozen other gospels (e.g. of Thomas and Peter) are known from whole texts, fragments, and ancient references, but were not deemed by the early Christians to be divinely inspired.



Differing manuscripts show that the gospels have undergone insertions, deletions, additions, and revisions.



Copying. Matthew and Luke are based in part on copying from Mark and in part apparently on a now-lost earlier compilation of Jesus sayings.

Anonymity, Contemporaneity. The gospels were written 35-60 years after Jesus' death, and (unlike every other intact work of classical nonfiction) no authors are identified in the earliest copies. Only about a century later did the gospels become associated with the names of their alleged authors. Writing extensively twenty years after Jesus' death, Paul gives no hint that any gospel had yet been written down.



Mark was written c.65-70 by an unknown author who later church tradition said was an associate of the apostle Peter. The earliest copies of this gospel end abruptly at 16:8 before any visions of the risen Jesus, which were added later in various differing endings.



Matthew was written c.70-80 by an unknown author who later church tradition identified with the apostle Matthew, but the text heavily quotes the non-eyewitness Mark rather than providing an independent eyewitness account. Matthew changes (21:5 vs. Mk 11:7) or embellishes (2:15, 2:23) its narrative to make it fulfill Old Testament prophecies.

Luke is a second-hand [1] account written c.80 by a supposed companion of Paul. Luke is confused (4:23, 31, 44; 24:12) about Palestinian geography. Writing after the fall of Jerusalem, Luke in 21:8 modifies Mark 13:6 to say the end is not necessarily near.



John was written c.90 by an unknown author who is ambiguously identified (in the third person: 21:24) with the apostle John only in the final chapter, which is itself an apparent addendum.



Gospel contradictions. Among the many minor contradictions and inconsistencies in the gospels are several that cast significant doubt on the gospels' central message of a divine messiah foretold by the prophets.



Genealogy. Wildly contradictory genealogies for Jesus are given in Mt 1 and Lk 3, which cannot even agree on the father of Joseph.



Birthplace. Lk 2:4 and 2:39 say Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth before Jesus' birth, but Mt 2:23 says Joseph only later moved his family to "a town called Nazareth".



Birthdate. Luke says Jesus was born during [2] the census of Quirinius and before [1] the death of Herod. The census was in 6 CE, but Herod died in 4 BCE.



Chronology. John indicates Jesus' ministry lasted two or three years, while the earlier Synoptic gospels indicate one. John says Jesus cast out the money changers at the beginning of his ministry, while the Synoptics say it was right before his crucifixion.



Second coming. Jesus said [Mt 16:28, Lk 9:27] some "standing here" would live to see "the kingdom of God". Jesus also said [Mk 13:30, Lk 21:32, Mt 24:34] that "this generation" would not pass away before the "see[ing] the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory" as well as a "distress" "never to be equalled". Jesus' audience of course saw no such "kingdom" or "coming", and no "distress" like e.g. the Black Death or Holocaust.



Appearances. The poor geographer Luke places resurrection appearances only around Jerusalem [Lk 24:33,49], while the other three gospels [Mk 16:7, Mt 28:10-16, Jn 21:1] report Galilee appearances.

Gospel apologetics. Certain assertions and omissions in the gospels seem to either suspiciously deny or unwittingly create embarrassing alternative explanations for the claims therein.



Self-fulfilling prophecy. The gospels repeatedly relate [Lk 2:4, Mt 2:15, 21:4, 27:9, Jn 19:23, 36] hard-to-verify (and easy-to-fabricate) details and then cite them as fulfillment of prophecy. Each of these details is in only one gospel.



Vouching. The author(s) of John protest (19:35 and 21:24) that the testimony quoted in this gospel is true, and admit (20:31) it has "been written so that you may believe". The 2nd letter of Peter claims [1] the gospels are not "cleverly invented stories", then warns [2] that "false prophets" will employ "stories they have made up".



John dies. John 21:23 (in the appended final chapter) makes an excuse for Jesus' apparent promise that John would not die before the second coming.



Empty tomb. Alone among the gospels, Matthew [27] alleges an order by Pilate that Jesus' tomb be guarded to prevent his disciples from secretly removing his body. Matthew 28 reports a widespread story of such a secret removal and attempts to discredit it by saying Pilate's guards were bribed. In the other gospels the first disciples to check the tomb encounter no guards.



Appearances. In order of writing, the gospels give accounts of Jesus' resurrected appearances that are increasingly elaborate. None of the alleged (and almost certainly pseudepigraphic) letters of Peter, James, Jude, and John mention an empty tomb or a physical resurrection, even in contexts [1 Pet 3:18, 1 Pet 5:1, 2 Pet 1:16] where one might expect them to. The first written account of appearances (1 Cor 15) vaguely lumps them together with post-ascension manifestations to Paul in a discussion of spiritual resurrection, making them suspect as accounts of bodily resurrection. Original Mark claims an empty tomb but describes no appearances. Matthew says simply that the two Marys and later the Eleven "saw him" but "some were dubious". Luke elaborates on both of these episodes, building the latter into an account that approaches the full Doubting Thomas story finally told in John. Thus, reports of the resurrection become more assertive as the accounts grow more removed from the actual events.



Eyewitnesses. There is no reliably first-hand testimony to the physical resurrection of Jesus. Paul does not claim to be such a witness. Original Mark contains no appearances at all. Matthew is anonymous and contains no assertions of first-hand witness by the author. The anonymous author of Luke admits he was not an eyewitness. In what appears to be an addendum, the anonymous author of John vaguely refers to "the beloved disciple" in the third person as "the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down" [21], and otherwise makes no assertions of his own eyewitness.

Damn you!! Only one person is allowed to have ridiculously long, babbling posts, and that's me! ;)

Too much'stach, some of what you said is true, some of what you said is false, and some of what you said is just an attack upon the character of those with faith. I regret that you think that I just copied and pasted my earlier response, which took me over an hour to produce. (I don't know how I can prove to you that I didn't copy and paste that. I did have reference materials that I used, and I'll be happy to give them to you.)



You're right when you say that the Gospels can be dated to a few decades after Christ's death (overwhelming evidence that it came before 70 AD, when the Jews revolted against Rome.) But that doesn't mean that the eye-witnesses had forgotten what had happened. I remember the exact place, time, and surroundings when I first heard about the 9/11 tragedy. I remember it as though it happenend yesterday. To this day there are people who say they remember exactly what they were doing, where they were, etc. when President Kennedy was assassinated, the US landed on the moon, Elvis died, etc and these things happened decades ago. Powerful experiences stay with people indefinetely. In fact, some people can remember some events from 30 years ago better than they can from 30 minutes ago!!



So why the gap? The vast majority of the culture then was illiterate so there was neither the need nor the utility to write these things. By necessity, an illiterate culture possesses stronger memories than literate cultures. And the abiliy to memorize and retain large tracts of oral tradition was highly regarded. From early age, Palestinian children memorized sacred tradition. Gary Habermas has found forty one short sections of the new testament that appear to be compact creeds specifically designed for memorization and transmission (I Cor. 15: 3 - 8 being only one of them.) So there was no need to write it down immediately. Also, some initially believed that Jesus would return during their lifetime.But as years went by, perhaps they thought it would be wiser to record it. Also, as the Church spread, writing became necessary for communication with one another.



Moving on, you would be right when you say that proof and faith are two distinct categories, the one necessarily excluding the other ("inimicable " being too strong a word, i think, since it implies emotion.) When you have proof you don't need faith. And your need for faith is indirectly proportional to the evidence one has. It's obvious to me and you. Sadly, I will say that there are Christians who do a poor job of representing the Church intellectually. So let me openly concede right now that there is no "proof" of Christianity. Claiming absolute proof is contradictory to the claims Christians make about the nature of knowledge and of God. The most a Christian can claim is that they know "beyond a reasonable doubt," similar to a jury who is convinced by a prosecutor's evidence and argument in a court of law. This is how I categorize my "knowledge" of Christianity. I would say that I'm 96% sure that Christianity is true. I may be wrong. It's absolutely possible that Christianity is a fraud and that the Resurrection was the greatest hoax ever pulled. But, I have reasons why I don't believe that. I have positive reasons for my positive belief. So I believe. That doesn't mean I don't have questions and doubts; it just means that I concede I don't know everything, but I can say that I know some things beyond a reasonable doubt.



As far as proving that Jesus lived, history isn't science. We have no photographs or video, not even a book written by him. But how true is this of any ancient character. Refer to my above ten, non - Christian sources that mention Jesus. No it isn't proof, but it's good evidence which any scholar will accept.



You ended with an character attack to which I won't respond. Also, since you copied and pasted your second post (and it wasn't a direct interaction on your part responding to specific sections of my post, which is the criteria I set for response) I will only respond to only one of its counterclaims: that Jesus did not claim to be God.



Mark 14: 61 - 64 :



"Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?"



"I am," said Jesus. " And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked. "You ahve heard the blasphemy. What do you think?" They all condemned him as worthy of death.



By referring to himself as the "Son of Man" and "coming on clouds of heaven" Caiaphas and the others knew the implication. Jesus was referring to the prophecy of Daniel concerning the end times. The one who would 'come on clouds of heaven' would judge the world and receive worship (Daniel 7:13). But only God was to recieve worship,and here was this Jesus claiming that he would be the one recieved the worship. So, accordingly, they charged him with heresy.



John 8:56 - 59:



"Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."

'You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you ahve seen Abraham!"

'I tell you the truth," JEsus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!' At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.



What set the Jews off? The statement "before Abraham was born, I AM." I am was the name God gave of himself to Moses. Moses said "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them ' The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?'Then what shall I tell them?" God said "I AM who I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites:'I AM has sent me to you'" Exodus 3:13-14.



There were also seven distinct indirect claims to be God, and in many of his parables Jesus declares his deity implicitly. Also, Jesus acted as if he were God through:



1. the forgiveness of sins (mark 2:5 - 11)

2. declaring all authority in heaven (matthew 28: 18- 19)

3. issuing new commandments (John 13 :34)

4. requesting prayer in his name (John 14:13-14)

5. Jesus's acceptance worship by:

a)a healed leper (Matthew 8:20)

b) a ruler whose son Jesus had healed (Mtt 9:18)

c) all the disciples (Matthew 28:17)

4 other citings could be listed, but I think these three should do.



Jesus himself proved that he was God (this would be absolute proof if all three of the following could be absolutely proven, which it cannot this present day) by the following:



1. He fulfilled numerous messianic prophecies written hundreds of years in advance.

2. He lived a sinless life and performed miraculous deeds.

3. He predicted and then accomplished his own resurrection from the dead.



All of this conclusively shows that Jesus claimed to be God (second person of the trinity).



Why wasn't Jesus more overt in his claims? For specific reasons which I can give at request. Jesus gave enough evidence to cnovince the open-minded, but not enough to overwhelm the free will of those wishing to deny it. This anti-coercion aspect is an apparent characteristic of Jesus, and also an a priori characteristic of an all-loving God.



I want to interject that many of the objections to Christianity and the Bible stem from an unfamiliarity with doctrine. Some things are hard to understand. For instance, I can't say that I fully understand the Trinity, but it is doctrine soundly rooted in scripture, so I read and study and think and try to work it out. The important thing to realize, I think, is that there are many Christians who are very familiar with the objections to Christianity, and who actively seek answers because of the genuineness of the objections and the hunger for the truth. I don't want to turn off my brain when I go into Church, so I demand that what I believe to rational, or well reasoned. I wasn't always a Christian, and even after i accepted Christ, I didn't believe all of the Bible. Some scripture is still difficult for me to square, especially the dual nature of Christ, and the nature of God in the Old Testament. This is where faith steps in. But as my knowledge grows, my faith subsides, because I know now. I have faith that Jesus will keep his promises, evidenced by a miraculous life and resurrection from the dead.



I hope that we can continue our discussion. As I said before, please make a direct response that is obviously engaging to either this or a previous post. I consider material that is blatantly copied and pasted to not be a true response, and I won't respond to it in the future. Besides, it would take me about three days straight to answer all of the objections that are raised in the toomuch'stash's copy and paste post. Please concentrate on specific areas so that we can talk more directly to one another.



On a personal note, please do away with the character attacks. I don't judge you, why do you judge me? I akin our situation to two people who worked on an algebra problem, got two different answers, and then sat down to go through their work, helping one another. I have no interest to condemn or make fun of any of you. As fellow Chemical Brothers fans, I feel a kind of kinship toward you all. Let's keep our conversation polite and as scholarly as possible.



Peace.

Thanks for keeping the humor up, Whirlygirl. I don't want to be ridiculously long, but I just want to make my point. hey, we're all friends here. I don't hate unbelievers, and I don't hate people who think I'm stupid for believing what I do. We can disagree with becoming disagreeable.

No, I didn't read your post. You must be high. I was forced to listen to the innocent babbling of the earnestly pious and the poisoned preaching of the hypocritical for many years of my life, and I never intend to waste another minute of that precious life, the only life I (or anyone) has, listening to someone who believes that this life is merely a stepping stone to a better world.



I have no problem with what anyone chooses to believe.



Frankly, I don't care if you're a racist, worship cats, believe in aliens, or believe in leprechauns. Really, it's all exactly the same to me, UNTIL your beliefs begin to infringe on the rights and happiness of others, and to me, even proselytizing crosses that line. If I had my way, every proselytizer, no matter what faith or denomination, would be fed feet first into industrial juicer machines. Religions are like dicks: a lot of people have one, and they're fine, as long as you keep it in your pants and don't make strangers look at it.



And I'm glad that you know of a lot of 'evidence' to prove your dieties' existence. It's cool that you've found beams to prop up your shaky faith, but I am forced to ask you, all the 'historical' evidence about christ, who were these historians? Were any of them buddhist, athiest, or hindu? Or were they in fact christians who set out with a certain outcome in mind, a certain theory to prove, and went out and picked and chose facts to suit those theories? Was there ever an agnostic historian who converted while searching for the 'truth' about jesus?



No, I thought not.

Amen to that, Brother Stash. ;-)

Ya know, I really am sorry that you ran into hypocritical Christians early on. Please don't see those people as true Christians. Jesus's most harsh words were against the hypocrits.



How old are you toomuch'stash?









Three investigators who were converted:



1. Lee Stroebel, author of The Case for Easter, was a journalist who set out to disprove Christianity's historicity.



2. Josh McDowell, author of Evidence that Demands a Verdict, set out to do the same.



Were there ever any? Yes; these two are still alive. And they are just two I know of offhand because of my familiarity with their work. Luke the Greek physician set out to find out what was going on for the Greek government and was converted.



You will note that there are some who come to Christianity through its historicity, but there aren't any who have come to disbelieve because of the lack of historicity. Interestingly, after the crowd has heard the debate between the professors on the stage, far more go to Christ than leave Him.

First off, I don't see anyone as 'true christians'. As far as I'm concerned, the last 'true christian', if he existed, died on the cross.



How old am I?



I fail to see how my age has any bearing on the matter, unless you wish to dismiss me as a disgruntled rebellious teenager, which I can assure you, I am not. I'm old enough to have read the bible, front to back, half a dozen times, as well as every other religious text that's ever crossed my path, not to mention entire series of books dedicated to the historical proof of the bible. When I was younger I spent a great deal of time with a family member who obsessively collected such things. I know where the city of Jericho was supposedly found, I know about historical digs at the base of Mount Sinai that claim a large group camped there thousands of years ago, and I also know about the copious evidence that if Jesus did exist, he was likely married and had children. I'm a biblophile, pardon the phrase.



As for your supposedly converted scholars, frankly, I don't buy it. It makes waaaaaaay too good a story, not to mention book sales, to pretend that you set out against christianity, and then were won over by the overwhelming evidence, evidence that you have so kindly set down in a book that can be bought and read by other christians, thereby letting them smugly reaffirm their faith, for a mere $19.99. Nope, I can't believe in the sincerity of people who have a monetary stake in their conversions.



But please, do not think I am just prejudiced against the faith I was raised in, because I am not. I find the teachings of Islam, particularly as they relate to women, and the way they are practiced, even more stomach churning than todays interpretation of christianity. I guess my problem is with any belief system that teaches 'Our way is the only way and all other ways are wrong'. Anyone who says they and they alone have the answers to all of lifes questions are either insane or trying to sell you something.



My main problem christianity is how the majority of christians disregard what his supposed teachings were, and instead focus entirely too much on his death and the fantastical events surrounding that. Taken completely independently of Christ's supposed divinity, they are not bad ideas, just like the ten commandments are not bad guidelines to live by, since they'll keep you from getting killed by your neighbors, and allow people to live together in communitys.



But I still hate proselytizers. Why? Ask the Native Americans, ask the native people of central america, go back in time and ask a mother who's child is dying from small pox they caught from an infected blanket, ask the people that were put to the sword by the Inquisition, ask the women who were raped by Crusaders, ask them what's wrong with proselytizing.



But, I hear you say, that's in the past, christians don't do those things anymore.



Well, to that I answer, that 16 year old neo-nazi skinhead down the street has never shoved anyone into an oven at Buchenwald, have they? No, but the core of their beliefs is still exactly the same as the people who did, and those beliefs are no less repugnant to me.



and, just before I end my rant, I am convinced that if Jesus did live, and really believed the things he taught, and he were to come back today and see what people are doing and have done in his name, the first thing he'd say, after he finished throwing up, would be 'I should never have come here in the first place'

toomuch'stash Escribi�:

and, just before I end my rant, I am convinced that if Jesus did live, and really believed the things he taught, and he were to come back today and see what people are doing and have done in his name, the first thing he'd say, after he finished throwing up, would be 'I should never have come here in the first place'

Heh, why do you think he never came back?

I sometimes wonder if he hasn't been back dozens of times, and keeps getting locked up.



How many people are in mental hospitals right now that swear they're jesus?

Never say you're Jesus, or you'll be burned at the stake or set on fire by the ATF.

wow wow. 8O this thread is getting really serious

nah, you know how some people like to argue whether Mac is better than PC, or whether Jean Luc Picard was better than captain kirk?



I'm like that, except with religion.

I asked your age because of the emotionality of your posts. Just want to know really who I'm talking to, instead of just reading the words of a stranger.



About the scholars: Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, no one should right books. Should we automatically disqualify what an atheist says when they write a book critiquing the belief in God? No. What about someone who set out as a Christian and became an atheist? You'd probably eat that up. Authors usually believe what they're writing, and have at least some sort of incentive to write (or else they wouldn't write at all.)



You're right about the stance of some Churches today. They've gotten way off track. Right now, I don't even attend sermons in synagogues. I study the Bible, listen to men who seem rock-solid to me (over the internet : Ravi Zacharias, Chuck Swindoll, Hank Hanaagraf). Christianity is Christ. If you think that Christ's death and resurrection aren't central to Christian doctrine, then you don't understand Christianity, plain and simple. Following the ethics of being a Christian is secondary to a personal relationship with Christ himself.



Also, I think that you're confused about the nature of truth itself. The Law of Noncontradiction reigns supreme. A is A; not A is not A; etcetera. Two contradictory statements cannot both be a true in the same sense. A green light doesn't mean BOTH stop AND go. One plus one doesn't equal one AND two. Reality is Either one way Or another. Therefore truth is exclusive by its very nature. Jesus's claim to exclusivity are totally in keeping with the laws of logic. But get this, even you think that you are exclusively correct. You think that its absolutely true that there is no absolute truth, which is self-contradictory. At least that's what I get from your post.



Furthermore, a system of beliefs is to be judged by its internal consistency, empirical adequacy, and experiential relevance from within; and its unaffirmability and undeniability from without. Even if every Christian got it wrong, that would've prove Christianity to be false. The same is true of any world view.



Lastly, when Christians rape, kill, steal, etc. they are acting outside of their supposed belief system. I say "supposed' because what a person truly believes in apparent through their actions. The Crusaders and the Inquisitioners and every other example of the people killing or abusing innocent people in Christ's name is contradictory to what Christ taught. However, if you look at Hitler and Stalin, their actions were the logical outflowing of atheism. There was nothing in their "creed" to stop them. There was plenty in the Christian creed to stop those other murderers (may they be condemned.) A murderer is a murderer no matter what beliefs they hold. It's just that you can't truly call yourself a Christian and murderer at the same time (without breaking the law of noncondraction that is.)



I would agree whole-heartedly that Jesus is at the breaking point when it comes to this world today. But he said that he would return when it 'is as the days of Noah'. And we know those people were desperately wicked, and they went about their daily lives as if God doesn't exist at all. This is much the condition of the world today.

I don't have any money for the collection plate, so can I use a food stamp instead?

A is not A (as soon as you buy that lie, they own your soul), nothing is true and everything is permitted. You see, I, as an unbeliever, have an advantage over believers. I can fully and completely understand completely contradictory viewpoints. It does not have to be one way or another. It's called relativistism. I enjoy it greatly.



I understand that Christ's death is central to the christian doctrine, and IMO, that's probably the biggest flaw with the christian doctrine. It doesn't have to be. You could follow his teachings and leave out the mythological crap and have a perfectly decent religion. The problem is, in order to make people follow the rules, you need a carrot and a stick. The carrot is heaven, the stick is hell.



The thing is, I didn't ask jesus to die. I didn't ask jehova to make up sins. Why are they sins? Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife? You know, that's a pretty good idea, if you're a fucking cave man. Why not have a commandment that says 'Thou Shalt not Treat Thy Wife like Property'? So, god makes up humans, makes up sins, and makes humans inclined to sin. If he didn't want us sinning, why make us predeposed to it? Everywhere in the bible you read, 'Oh, people are sinful, we're born into sin'... if god doesn't like sin, why do that? So frankly, fuck jesus. I have suffered enough, on my own for my sins, I don't need him dying for me. I take responsibilty for everything I do, and I never asked him to suffer for me.



Sometimes, I do believe in god, very deeply, and I believe he is an evil, malicious bastard, who created the earth for the same reason young serial-killers-in-training ask for hamsters as pets.



And that's another thing, why making christs death so central is bullshit.... 'Christ's great suffering'.... Even the Mel Gibson version of that fairy tale, you call that suffering? Oh, they beat him and nailed him to a tree, and stabbed him. Guess what? There are people in the phillipines who re-enact that entire thing, nails and scourging and all, every fricken year. How bad could it really have been? You tell a mother in a death camp who has to watch her daughter raped and then slowly starve to death that being nailed to a tree is the worst suffering there is.



You know my absolute favorite part of christianity? Hands down? The 'Death Bed Conversion'.... that's absolutely the best.... if I should by some quirk of fate live to a ripe old age, and not be killed in a sudden, inexplicable dirigible related accident, I can, on my death bed, suddenly repent, find jesus again, and get the exact same fuckin reward as Mother Teresa!!! It's brillllllllliant! I can sin, sin, sin the night away, and still get into heaven! And I know what you're going to say, you have to be sincere, and let me tell you, if I'm sitting in some hospital, hooked up to a respirator and looking at a best case scenario in which I'm correct, and I'm going into oblivion, I am going to be as sincere as St Paul on the road to Damascus.



I am not going to convince you to abandon your faith, you're not going to convert me. I'm only arguing with you in case someone else, in a foggy, post-ecstacy tweak-end, blue tuesday state reads your christ crap and decides it sounds good, and starts sending money to a church.