Who Was Jesus?

Who is Jesus Christ?

In the Hebrew and Greek languages, the words usually translated “Messiah” and “Christ” mean “Anointed One.” Jesus was the Anointed One, or the Chosen One of God—the promised Leader. The Scriptures contained prophecies concerning the Messiah, and the Jews at the time were in expectation of him. Luke 3:15: “Now as the people were in expectation and all were reasoning in their hearts about John {John the Baptist}: “May he perhaps be the Christ?”
The Bible shows that Jesus really was God’s Chosen One. In the year 29 C.E. when Jesus was 30 years of age, he went to John the Baptizer to be baptized by him in the waters of the Jordan River. The Bible states: “After being baptized Jesus immediately came up from the water; and, look! the heavens were opened up, and he saw descending like a dove God’s spirit coming upon him. Look! Also, there was a voice from the heavens that said: ‘This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.’” (Matthew 3:16, 17)
By pouring out His holy spirit on Jesus, Jehovah God anointed him, or appointed him, to be the King of His coming Kingdom. Thus, Jesus became Jesus Christ, or Jesus the Anointed One.
Jesus’ life course might be divided into three stages. The first began long before his human birth. His origin was “from early times, from the days of time indefinite,” says Micah 5:2. Jesus himself said: “I am from the realms above”—that is, from heaven. (John 8:23) He had been in heaven as a mighty spirit person.
Since all created things had a beginning, there was a time when God was alone. Countless ages ago, however, God became a Creator. Jesus was his first creation. The last book of the Bible identifies Jesus as “the beginning of the creation by God.” (Revelation 3:14) Jesus is “the firstborn of all creation.” That is so “because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible.” (Colossians 1:15, 16) Jesus was the only one directly created by God himself. Therefore, he is called God’s “only-begotten Son.” (John 3:16) The firstborn Son also bears the title “the Word” (John 1:14) because before being born as a human, he served in heaven as one who spoke for God.
“The Word” was with Jehovah God “in the beginning,” when “the heavens and the earth” were created. He was the one to whom God said: “Let us make man in our image.” (John 1:1; Genesis 1:1, 26) Jehovah’s firstborn Son was there at his Father’s side, actively working with him. At Proverbs 8:22-31, he is represented as saying: “I came to be beside [the Creator] as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time.”
That close association with Jehovah for untold ages deeply affected God’s Son. This obedient Son came to be just like his Father, Jehovah. In fact, Colossians 1:15 calls Jesus “the image of the invisible God.” This is one reason why knowledge about Jesus is vital in satisfying our spiritual need and our natural desire to know God. Everything Jesus did while on earth is exactly what Jehovah expected him to do. Getting to know Jesus also means increasing our knowledge of Jehovah. (John 8:28; 14:8-10)
The second stage of Jesus’ life course began when God sent his Son to the earth. Jehovah did this by miraculously transferring the life of Jesus from heaven to the womb of a faithful Jewish virgin named Mary. Jesus inherited no imperfections because he did not have a human father. Jehovah’s holy spirit, or active force, came upon Mary, and his power ‘overshadowed’ her, miraculously causing her to become pregnant. (Luke 1:34, 35) Mary therefore gave birth to a perfect child. As the adopted son of the carpenter Joseph, he was brought up in a humble home and was the first of several children in the family.—Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:22, 23; Mark 6:3.
Little is known about Jesus’ childhood. When Jesus was 12 years old, his parents took him on their annual visit to Jerusalem for the Passover. While there, he spent quite some time at the temple, “sitting in the midst of the teachers and listening to them and questioning them.” “All those listening to him were in constant amazement at his understanding and his answers.” The young Jesus could not only ask thought-provoking, spiritually oriented questions but also give intelligent answers that amazed others. (Luke 2:41-50) As he grew up in the city of Nazareth, he learned to be a carpenter, undoubtedly from his adoptive father, Joseph.—Matthew 13:55.
Jesus lived in Nazareth until he was 30 years old. Then he went to John to be baptized. Following his baptism, Jesus embarked on his dynamic ministry. For three and a half years, he traveled throughout his homeland declaring the good news of God’s Kingdom. He gave evidence that he had been sent by God by performing many miracles—powerful works that were beyond human ability.—Matthew 4:17; Luke 19:37, 38.
Jesus devoted his energy to his God-assigned work. He was also a man of tender warmth and deep feelings. His tenderness was especially evident in the way he viewed and treated others. Because Jesus was approachable and kind, people were attracted to him. Even children felt at ease in his presence. (Mark 10:13-16) Jesus treated women with respect, even though some in his day looked down on them. (John 4:9, 27) He helped the poor and oppressed to ‘find refreshment for their souls.’ (Matthew 11:28-30) His manner of teaching was clear, simple, and practical. And what he taught reflected his heartfelt desire to acquaint his listeners with the true God, Jehovah.—John 17:6-8.
Using God’s holy spirit to perform miracles, Jesus compassionately healed the sick and the afflicted. (Matthew 15:30, 31) Jesus even willingly gave his perfect human life so that imperfect mankind would have a hope for the future. Jesus had profound love for people.
Jesus died on a torture stake at the age of 33 1/2. But death was not the end of his life course. The third stage of his life began about three days later when Jehovah God resurrected his Son as a spirit person. After his resurrection, Jesus appeared to hundreds of people living in the first century C.E. (1 Corinthians 15:3-8) Thereafter, he “sat down at the right hand of God” and waited to receive kingly power. (Hebrews 10:12, 13) When that time came, Jesus began ruling as King. Jesus today is neither a man nor God Almighty. He is a mighty spirit creature, a reigning King. Very soon now, he will manifest his rulership over our troubled earth.
Using symbolic language, Revelation 19:11-16 describes Jesus Christ as a king seated upon a white horse and coming to judge and carry on war in righteousness. He has “a sharp long sword, that he may strike the nations with it.” Jesus will use his great power to destroy the wicked. He and his Father will preserve those, who strive to follow the example he set while on earth, through the upcoming “war of the great day of God the Almighty”—often called Armageddon—so that they can live forever as earthly subjects of God’s heavenly Kingdom.—Revelation 7:9, 14; 16:14, 16; 21:3, 4.
During his reign of peace, Jesus will perform miracles in behalf of all mankind. (Isaiah 9:6, 7; 11:1-10) He will cure sickness and bring an end to death. Jesus will be used by God to resurrect billions, giving them an opportunity to live forever on earth. (John 5:28, 29)

Even after Jesus's crucification, the Apostle Paul was converted by Jesus Himself and historians have a huge inventory of evidence of Paul.

Paul fervently persecuted Christ's followers so much so that he would hold coats for people so that they could be freed to stone Christ's believers. But it was not until after Jesus died that Paul was converted - not by men - but by Jesus whom he had disbelieved. Paul is now renowned for starting many churches. Paul's account is found in the book of Acts.

Who was Jesus? And what was His purpose?

I'm new here, but I think it fair to say that I was a questioning Christian since about age sixteen. Not that I questioned the eternal purpose, BUT over the past forty-some years, I have posed most of the questions I've read here and on other forums. Some things just didn't add up.

I've always felt that I was unworthy of Jesus' sacrifice, and felt that I could never live up to the standards needed to attain heaven. To be honest, I often experienced FEAR that I could NEVER lead a life worthy of God's acceptance. I knew there was MORE that I was unable to grasp...and prayed for clarity to all the questions I had no answers for. I was almost ready to give up, when I discovered the following website:

http://bible-truths.com/

The website, and webmaster, make perfect SENSE-- there is no room left for ambiguity. This site is for Christians, Athiests, Muslims, Jews, et al...for it is so clear that even a child can understand it.

Now I have a more meaningful relationship with God...for I know His purpose for my life, for my family's life, and for all mankind. Some may not agree, but to me--it was a blessing to finally realize that God's plan is "alive and well"...and it doesn't matter what WE think or do...HE is in charge and His purpose WILL be achieved in the end. More than anything else, it explained EXACTLY who Jesus was...what HIS life was about, what His death was for, and how I must now LIVE a righteous life, simply because God was looking ahead and saw my faults...BUT still had ME in mind when He planned eternity.

Agreeing to disagree isn't the answer for anyone anymore...we ALL need something (with evidence) to hold on to in these last days. Otherwise, why would any of us be posting here? We've all been searching at one time or another. I simply want to share my findings with all...in hopes that it can
answer others' questions, as mine were answered when I found the website. It has changed MY life. I honor God and Jesus for the right reasons now...NOT out of fear...I do so willingly in THANKS for His eternal plan. THIS may not be YOUR answer...but it certainly helped me to look forward to the future with assurance.

The website listed above has made me LOVE our God SO much more -- and honor Him for His perfect plan for mankind.

P.S. There is scriptural backing for EVERY topic listed on this site, if you take time to read.

In Christ's love,
Brynn

To Tommy O:

Jesus’ parents were Jewish. He was born in the Middle East. He was a carpenter at one time. Near the end of his earthly life he threw out those buying and selling in the temple. He also turned over the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. So he had to be strong. This is information found in the Bible. Can you get a general idea of his appearance?

Considering the Bible offers no description of the physical appearance of Jesus, why would I not put my "faith" in the teachings of Confucius?

Jesus, the son of god lives on Earth and there is no record of what he looked like. Curious.

Jesus “is” the son of God.

God said so. (Matthew 3:16-17) 16 After being baptized Jesus immediately came up from the water; and, look! the heavens were opened up, and he saw descending like a dove God’s spirit coming upon him. 17 Look! Also, there was a voice from the heavens that said: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.”

The angels said so. (Luke 1:35) 35 In answer the angel said to her: “Holy spirit will come upon you, and power of the Most High will overshadow you. For that reason also what is born will be called holy, God’s Son.

Jesus acknowledged he was the Son of God. (Matthew 26:62-64) 62 With that the high priest stood up and said to him: “Have you no answer? What is it these are testifying against you?” 63 But Jesus kept silent. So the high priest said to him: “By the living God I put you under oath to tell us whether you are the Christ the Son of God!” 64 Jesus said to him: “You yourself said [it].

(John 8:54) 54 Jesus answered: “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father that glorifies me, he who YOU say is YOUR God;

His disciples knew him as God’s Son. (John 20:31) 31 But these have been written down that YOU may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing, YOU may have life by means of his name.

Jesus acknowledged that his disciples’ belief in him as the Son of God was correct. (Matthew 16:13-17)13 Now when he had come into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, Jesus went asking his disciples: “Who are men saying the Son of man is?” 14 They said: “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them: “YOU, though, who do YOU say I am?” 16 In answer Simon Peter said: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 In response Jesus said to him: “Happy you are, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal [it] to you, but my Father who is in the heavens did.”

Even the demons recognized Jesus as the son of God. (Matthew 8:28-29) 28 When he (Jesus) got to the other side, into the country of the Gadarenes´, there met him two demon-possessed men coming out from among the memorial tombs, unusually fierce, so that nobody had the courage to pass by on that road. 29 And, look! they screamed, saying: “What have we to do with you, Son of God? Did you come here to torment us before the appointed time?”
What does it mean that Jesus is the Son of God? Jesus’ life course can be divided into three stages. The first began long before his human birth. His origin was “from early times, from the days of time indefinite,” says Micah 5:2 . Jesus himself said: “I am from the realms above”—that is, from heaven. (John 8:23)) He had been in heaven as a mighty spirit person.
Since all created things had a beginning, there was a time when God was alone. Countless ages ago, however, God became a Creator. The last book of the Bible identifies Jesus as “the beginning of the creation by God.” (Revelation 3:14) Jesus is “the firstborn of all creation.” That is so “because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible.” (Colossians 1:15,16) According to the Bible, Jesus was the only one directly created by God himself. Therefore, he is called God’s “only-begotten Son.” (John 3:16)
That close association with Jehovah for untold ages deeply affected God’s Son. This obedient Son came to be just like his Father, Jehovah. In fact, Colossians 1:15 calls Jesus “the image of the invisible God.” This is one reason why knowledge about Jesus is vital in satisfying our spiritual need and our natural desire to know God. Everything Jesus did while on earth is exactly what Jehovah expected him to do. Hence, getting to know Jesus also means increasing our knowledge of Jehovah.(John 8:28, 14:8-10)

It seems arguable that there was an historical individual who has since served as the model for the eponymous central figure of Christianity. But he (evidently male) had little or nothing in common with that central figure. So far, the historical individual is not known to have left any evidence of his existence, but there are some things that can be plausible inferred.

Unfortunately for those who would propose one or another religious canonical attributes, none of these survive placement in the historical context of the times. What we know is that the Persian colony of Judea had been generally left hanging by the Macedonians who conquered the Achaemid Empire in the 4th century BCE. Although the Greeks tried to corral it into the Grecian culture, the erstwhile Judeans managed to regain control. Until Pompei invested Jerusalem in the 1st century BCE (around 60 BCE).

Because of this heritage of militant and cultural harassment, there had developed a movement that looked for a Davidic warlord to arise and clean house (run the Romans back into the sea). That warlord would be a savior, a restorer of the Davidic throne and thus a mesha (messiah). The political movement that supported this expectation was, in large part, the rebel zealots (those who were "zealous of the (Mosaic) Law". Naturally, Rome regarded them as outlaws to be quelled and submitted to Roman justice.

It must be recognized that the nation of Judea was not religiously homogenic: there were other "cults" who were variously disposed to Mosaic legalism. One of these is given by Josephus and other relatively contemporary writers as the Essen(oi). Josephus seems to suggest that the Essen(oi) was a general term for a variety of said "cults".

Recent evidence arguably supports a long held contention that these cults conferred titles now interpreted as personal names or attributes. One such was the "Son of Man", re-invented later as the "Son of God". In general, the Judeans had long used code terms in their written communications, just as beleagured national cultures have done even unto modern times. So it was easy to appropriate one or more of these terms and propose it to mean whatever served the then current agenda.

In connection with the individual in question, the historical figure of James the Just seems to have been attested independently, and it has been suggested (however poorly received) that James' death was the spark for the rebellion that resulted in the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE. Some scholars (Robert Eisenman in particular) have inferred the existence of a historical Jesus from that of James. But that is as far as legitimate scholars have gone in this regard.

What is well known and understood is that the expatriate Judeans (Jews) managed at one point to have engaged fully half of the military might of the Roman Empire. Which is arguably why the Romans razed Jerusalem after running Simon bar Kochba (the last false messiah) out into the wilderness). So far as we know, all that ended with the mass suicide at Masada.

After this, Judaism was outlawed and Jews were subject to summary trial and execution; it has been said that Rome put a hefty price on the head of any Judaic royalty which has not been lifted to this day. The Diasporic Jews fled in all directions, but there was already a conclave of Grecianized Jews in Alexandria, Egypt. And the evidence of history strongly suggests that it was in Alexandria that a legalized form of Jewish worship was developed.

Apparently, the concensus was that Yahveh really didn't care about His physical properties (Jerusalem and the Temple) because he was of an entirely non-physical nature, existing (ruling?) an equally non-physical realm. It's convenient to label this state and this realm as spirit and spiritual, a state and realm to which certain qualified people could claim as their heritage.

This was all well and good, because the Roman Empire had long looked to the Greeks as the source of their antiquity, and thus the source of authentic culture. And this solution was quite amenable to the Greeks, possessing as they did an intensely intellectual and philosophical cast to their culture. So this form of the messianic movement, now acculturized, was sold the the Grecianized areas. Note: messiah == christos.

This began to take the pressure off the Grecianized Jews and their God Fearer brethren of other national cultures, and Rome started to back off from its policy of persecution. However, Rome itself had undergone an internal fragmentation, a consequence of over-expansion, which resulted in the period of the four emperors, two caesars and two augustus. Each of which had headquarters outside of Rome itself.

Inevitably, this broke down and it was Constantine who re-merged the Emperorship, choosing to move the headquarters to what is now Istanbul, renaming it Constantinople. It was this move that more than anything else shook up the Empire, leaving it with a very different demographic structure. And of course Constantine was concerned to consolidate the new Empire (now the Byzantine Empire).

He had been passively neutral to this new Christian cult, and remained so until his death. As a national policy, however, Christianity had to be de-criminalized in order to satisfy the demographic, and it was the execution of this policy that did in Lucian, the last co-Emperor. Immediately, Constantine set about formalizing Christianity, and called a council at Nicaea, his country villa across the Bosporus.

What he found was that the Alexandrian movement had consolidated enough power to provide an adequate template for that formalization; he intended to incorporate Christianity under the more militant Roman state religion banner, together with Mithraism and Sol Invictus, for example. But immediately there was an apparently intractable problem: The Christ figure was held as the head of the now legal Christianity, and that was unacceptable to Constantine.

So after much acrimony, the council decided that the Christos figure had to be non-physical as well, leaving Constantine as the head of the religion. The problem was that now the Christos figure had to be reconciled with the already non-physical Yahveh, a problem that has yet to be resolved.

And that, folks, is how the Christian religion began. Like it or not, it was the result of quite mundane political necessities, just like its progeniture, Judaism.

One can claim the Jesus was/is the Son of God. Or not. One can claim that Jesus was/is "The Christ". Or not. One can make any claim that one likes, but one cannot assert as fact what is false to evidence and go unchallenged.

One can reasonably grant that current cultural traditions mandate certain claims, and that very many people find those claims to be socially and psychologically useful; probably many if not most of these people are addicted thus. But one must recognize the legitimacy of such a grant to traditions other than Christianity, especially Judaism and Islam.

The point is that there are attested historical answers to the question of the identity and nature of the Christ figure, and all else is only opinion.

William D. Tallman

The founders of Christianity, created a larger-than-life being they believed would bring them followers--and it did. However, they unwittingly imparted to Christ their own human frailties. Nevertheless, the number of followers increased dramatically once government and ecclesiastical authorities joined forces and made acceptance of Christianity mandatory.

They could not credit their “Lord and Savior” with bringing peace, curing leprosy, preventing famine or eliminating poverty. It was obvious and indisputable that all of humankind’s maladies were as prevalent after Christ as before Christ. Christ’s proponents circumvented this problem by declaring that life on earth didn’t matter as believers would spend eternity in paradise. As a subterfuge for Christ’s failure to cure diseases, etc., the proponents of the new religion disseminated stories about Christ performing miracles. It did not matter how farfetched the Gospels were. Beginning in the fourth century torture insured that they were “true.” I’ll bet with enough torture, the world could be made flat.

Christ’s creators did their best to put profound words in His mouth. However, anyone analyzing what Christ said will find that very little He said was meaningful. His words were primarily a public relations effort to promote a new religion.

In essence, the Gospels are little more than a threat, “Accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and bow before His God or suffer horrible consequences.”

Thomas & Ross & JVST,

1- I havent qouted the exact words but more or less the same expresion.

2- One better speak upon evidence and not upon personal opinion. Read both the books and evaluate your self which is human/satan handy work keep on changing taking out lies/ incorrect maths/information and which is divine unchanged/correct? And ask your self does God lies and decieve or satan????

3- I would also expect your answer to my questions in this post and previous???

Muslims are using this topic to prosletyse for their religion while Atheists are using the teachings and practices of Islam to discredit all theists.
Muslims claim that their Holy Book was never altered , which is not true. There were many different versions of that book and the Caliph Uthman ibn Affan gathered those copies and burned all but one which became the standard version. As for its infallibility , I cannot help but concur with Voltaire who said " every page in it is an insult to human rationality".

It seems to me that the question upon which this forum is based, "Who was Jesus?", misses the facts entirely. Jesus Christ never existed. He is a fictional character created by people who wanted to use people's worship of the Sun to their advantage. The details of his life were plagiarized from those of the pagan prophets who came before him: Born on the 25th of December of a virgin mother and visited by three kings, became a teacher at 12, began his work at 30, had 12 disciples, rose from the dead three days after his crucifiction - even the miracles he performed were the same as the prophets before him. Most of these characteristics are shared by dozens of previous prophets of other religions around the world, and most of them are based on the behaviour of celestial bodies like the star Sirius, the three stars of Orion's belt, and the Sun, as well as twelve signs of the Zodiac. Hence, the transformation of Sun worship to the worship of an actual man.
In addition, I find it odd, to say the least, that 'Jesus' was born in the Roman Empire, at the peak of that empire's power, and not a single historian even so much as mentions him. An era of high culture, excellent record keeping, and relatively high literacy, and of all the historians who were active at the time, not one felt like mentioning a man who could walk on water and turn water into wine. This begs the question: "If Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not completed until a century and a half after the death of 'Jesus Christ', what did they use for their historical evidence?" I couldn't write about Winston Churchill without any sort of historical notation, much less someone who healed the sick with his touch.
Finally, in response to Moody: I hardly think a Muslim is in a position to gloat about the 'superiority' of Islam. Even if Muhammed existed, he was a marauding warlord and a pedophile, who gave his victims three options: conversion, slavery (dhimmitude) or death. Since the Islamic world never experienced equivalents to the Reformation or the Rennaissance, not very much has changed.

It seems to me that the question upon which this forum is based, "Who was Jesus?", misses the facts entirely. Jesus Christ never existed. He is a fictional character created by people who wanted to use people's worship of the Sun to their advantage. The details of his life were plagiarized from those of the pagan prophets who came before him: Born on the 25th of December of a virgin mother and visited by three kings, became a teacher at 12, began his work at 30, had 12 disciples, rose from the dead three days after his crucifiction - even the miracles he performed were the same as the prophets before him. Most of these characteristics are shared by dozens of previous prophets of other religions around the world, and most of them are based on the behaviour of celestial bodies like the star Sirius, the three stars of Orion's belt, and the Sun, as well as twelve signs of the Zodiac. Hence, the transformation of Sun worship to the worship of an actual man.
In addition, I find it odd, to say the least, that 'Jesus' was born in the Roman Empire, at the peak of that empire's power, and not a single historian even so much as mentions him. An era of high culture, excellent record keeping, and relatively high literacy, and of all the historians who were active at the time, not one felt like mentioning a man who could walk on water and turn water into wine. This begs the question: "If Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not completed until a century and a half after the death of 'Jesus Christ', what did they use for their historical evidence?" I couldn't write about Winston Churchill without any sort of historical notation, much less someone who healed the sick with his touch.
Finally, in response to Moody: I hardly think a Muslim is in a position to gloat about the 'superiority' of Islam. Even if Muhammed existed, he was a marauding warlord and a pedophile, who gave his victims three options: conversion, slavery (dhimmitude) or death. Since the Islamic world never experienced equivalents to the Reformation or the Rennaissance, not very much has changed.

Thomas Baum,

I don't mind your language because by now I came to conclusion that it is common norm in west, false accusations and slinging dirt on others IGNORING CONCRETE PROOFS.
And now in reply to your post: BRINGING PROOF FROM YOUR OWN BIBLE BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE IN IT SO YOU NEED IT TO VARIFY,
AS MUSLIMS PROOF AND WHAT WE BELIEVE IS QURAN.

Lies or Truth: Evidence speaks for it self.

1- There is not a single verse in ANY VERSION of Bible where Jesus (A.S) said, worship me OR I'm god. Instead he said,” I speak what I hear from father”, “My Father is greater than me."

2- Again word "Trinity" is not mentioned in ANY VERSION of the Bible. The closest verse to trinity that,” Father, Holy Ghost & spirit is one" is thrown out in your REVISED VERSION of Bible. As all your high priests said,” It was a concoction, fabrication, addition, a lie in the Bible, as no such verse is found in the most ancient scriptures".
So please ask your own priests who is lying and fabricating??????

3-We Muslims FOLLOW more in Jesus (A.S) commandments then you Christians:

(You say, you love Jesus (A.S.), but you disobey his every commandment).

4-From Adam to Jesus (PBUT) MENTIONED IN YOUR BIBLE, all prophets when prayed to God, they prostrated like we Muslims.
Do you follow Jesus, how to pray?

5- In ALL Bibles more than 3 times Jesus said swine-pig in forbidden to eat. We Muslims follow him, but you Christians follow PAUL and disobey Jesus (A.S.) commandments.

6- More than 4 occasions in ALL Bibles Jesus (A.S) told wine has bad attributes on the humans. But Paul quotes the "FIRST MIRACLE OF JESUS" and since then wine is flowing like water in Christendom and NOT AT ALL in Muslimdom. (Bible said water tasted like wine and never said turned into wine).

7- Jesus said," I came to keep all the commandments of the God and not to break them". But you Christians broke EACH AND EVERY of them.
Hale-aluu-Yaa to Church, Paul, Mathew, John and Luke!!!!!

8-According to Christian Bible first miracle of Jesus (A.S.) was turning water taste like wine and recovering the shortage in the gathering. But according to Quran the first miracle of Jesus was talking to Jews when he was infant in his mother’s arms.

When after birth, Mary came:
According to the BIBLE she told the Jews that she hear voices and then had a child birth. Do you believe your daughter or sister, if she come and tell you she had birth after hearing voices? Do you think when she had told that to the Jews, they would have believed it???
But Quran tells that the Jews accused her, she knows that Jesus (A.S) was the miraculous birth. So she told the Jews ask the infant. And miraculously Jesus (A.S) talked to them and told them to be nice and respectful to my mother as she is among the highest of the pious. Quran gives highest respect to Mary, even there is a complete chapter by her name in Quran. You have chapters named by Mathew, Luke, John or lying Paul and many others but not a single by his mothers name Mary.
Which version would you like to tell to your children, HEARING VOICES AND GETTING PRAGNANT or MIRACULOUS TALK????

9-Christians says Jesus (A.S) was the BEGOTTEN SON. What are you trying to apply here? So what you are trying to put in all the humans throat is that the All Mighty God who made every thing miraculously from Adam to every thing of this world needs to come done to seed…. (God forgive us for such satanic thinking). Allah tells in Quran that when He wants to do some thing, He just says and it happens. He begets not nor He begotten. Human miracles are not the proof of any kind of divinity. Jesus (A.S) was the prophet like all other prophets with miracles.

10-Christians says Jesus (A.S) get crucified for there sins. And a son of god (not mentioned any where in the Bible he himself never said that). And dozens of Bible verses proving that he was not died through crucifixion. You Christians are also divided about it.
So basically what you are making to swallow us (the whole human race) is that the whole nation rape, kill and do bad atrocities and when brought for justice there King hang his own son instead of punishing them. IT DOES REALLY MAKE SENSE! Hale- alu- Yaa PAUL and the greatest deceiving of the human history.

11- Jesus says “ He is jealous God only pray to Him”. But Christians are eager to make partner to Him. We Muslims only pray to God and don’t make any partners to Him.

So I am asking you a question:

Next time does Jesus (A.S) come to the house of people who are obeying his commandments OR who are TOTALLY disobeying his commandments???

The question should not be, "Who was Jesus?," but rather, "Who IS He?" Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and at the same time, He IS God. The same yesterday, today, forever.

He's God, He's My Savior & He's My Friend...That's Who Jesus IS.

You can find a reply to your post here Cheap Pharmacy

I may be late to the discussion, but I believe Jesus was the son of God. I believe He is the way to Heaven and that we live in a fallen world because of sin. It is my belief and I think that our nation has turned away from that because we tolerate everything and we didn't back in the 50's and 60's and 70's. Our morals and our society has suffered due to the lack of a "line." We have erased the line and we compromise our values for the sake of tolerance. We allow too much in society today and there is often no price to pay.

What says about Jesus and other who were sent before him.

"Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation Given to us, and to Abraham, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob, And the Tribes, and that given Moses and Jesus, and that given To (all) Prophets from their Lord: we make no difference Between one and another of them: And we submit to Allah".

So if they believe As ye believe, they are indeed On the right path; but if They turn back, it is they Who are in schism; but Allah will Suffice thee as against them, And He is the All-Hearing, The All-Knowing. {S 2.A. 136-137}.

We are thus in the true line of those who follow the one and indivisible Message of the One Allah, wherever delivered. If others narrow it or corrupt it, it is they who have left the faith and crerated a division or schism. But Allah sees and Knows all. And He will protect His own, and His support will be infinitely more precious than the support which men can give.

Dear friend, what do you think about this faith, faith which generalize all Messages from their Lord without differentiating or preferences.

"That they said (in boast), "we killed Christ Jesus The son of Mary, The Messanger of Allah", But they killed him not, Nor crucified him. Only a likeness of that Was shown to them. {S 4. A. 157}

The Quranic teaching is that Christ was not crucified nor killed by the Jews, notwithstanding certain apparent circumstances which produced that illusion in the minds of some his enemies: that disputations, doubts, and conjectures on such matters are vain; and that he was taken up to Allah.

As many Christians believe that Jesus was killed by Jews, however here Islam come in to deffend justice, eventhough their relationship look otherwise, but justice should be tell and serve.

What says about Jesus and other who were sent before him.

"Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation Given to us, and to Abraham, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob, And the Tribes, and that given Moses and Jesus, and that given To (all) Prophets from their Lord: we make no difference Between one and another of them: And we submit to Allah".

So if they believe As ye believe, they are indeed On the right path; but if They turn back, it is they Who are in schism; but Allah will Suffice thee as against them, And He is the All-Hearing, The All-Knowing. {S 2.A. 136-137}.

We are thus in the true line of those who follow the one and indivisible Message of the One Allah, wherever delivered. If others narrow it or corrupt it, it is they who have left the faith and crerated a division or schism. But Allah sees and Knows all. And He will protect His own, and His support will be infinitely more precious than the support which men can give.

Dear friend, what do you think about this faith, faith which generalize all Messages from their Lord without differentiating or preferences.

"That they said (in boast), "we killed Christ Jesus The son of Mary, The Messanger of Allah", But they killed him not, Nor crucified him. Only a likeness of that Was shown to them. {S 4. A. 157}

The Quranic teaching is that Christ was not crucified nor killed by the Jews, notwithstanding certain apparent circumstances which produced that illusion in the minds of some his enemies: that disputations, doubts, and conjectures on such matters are vain; and that he was taken up to Allah.

As many Christians believe that Jesus was killed by Jews, however here Islam come in to deffend justice, eventhough their relationship look otherwise, but justice should be tell and serve.

What says about Jesus and other who were sent before him.

"Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation Given to us, and to Abraham, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob, And the Tribes, and that given Moses and Jesus, and that given To (all) Prophets from their Lord: we make no difference Between one and another of them: And we submit to Allah".

So if they believe As ye believe, they are indeed On the right path; but if They turn back, it is they Who are in schism; but Allah will Suffice thee as against them, And He is the All-Hearing, The All-Knowing. {S 2.A. 136-137}.

We are thus in the true line of those who follow the one and indivisible Message of the One Allah, wherever delivered. If others narrow it or corrupt it, it is they who have left the faith and crerated a division or schism. But Allah sees and Knows all. And He will protect His own, and His support will be infinitely more precious than the support which men can give.

Dear friend, what do you think about this faith, faith which generalize all Messages from their Lord without differentiating or preferences.

"That they said (in boast), "we killed Christ Jesus The son of Mary, The Messanger of Allah", But they killed him not, Nor crucified him. Only a likeness of that Was shown to them. {S 4. A. 157}

The Quranic teaching is that Christ was not crucified nor killed by the Jews, notwithstanding certain apparent circumstances which produced that illusion in the minds of some his enemies: that disputations, doubts, and conjectures on such matters are vain; and that he was taken up to Allah.

As many Christians believe that Jesus was killed by Jews, however here Islam come in to deffend justice, eventhough their relationship look otherwise, but justice should be tell and serve.

Jesus will be back soon to settle this question. Maranatha!

I believe most people who believe in Jesus and consider themselves religious, and sincerely try and follow his teachings, are basically good people.

I also think it is good to adjust or modify your beliefs based on your own experiences and evolving understanding, especially when certain life experiences teach you that what you've been taught from childhood is in part erroneous or in need of revision.

Was Jesus the son of God. Well, yes. But aren't all of us a son or daughter of God, at least in terms of the Spirit that animates us.

I think that Spirit was fully awakened in one such as Jesus, but I also believe we all have the potential to awaken it to the same degree as He. And that each in his or her own way should strive to do so.

It's an inner experience of Spirit that is important. Words, scripture, sacred teachings all have their place ........ as stepping stones to the awakening of an inner radiance in one's own consciousness.

Don't seek for concepts, seek for the experience. The direct experience of Spirit is the savior. Any path that leads to it is the right path.

To anonymous who responded to my paragraph.If you choose in your own way to degrade someone elses knowledge and understanding, that simply reflects how much work is left for you to in your search for truth.
As I had stated in my first brief paragraph there is much more to explain. You in turn in stead of being open to that type discussion choose to lessen my explanation of truth. You know not my source. In response to what you wrote.Your concept of divinity is not accurate. To explain a bit fruther regarding Christ. Christ(Amellious) being the first soul of all souls of Creator.From Him the reast of us were birthed. When Christ was on earth and said you to can do what I do and even greater. IS a guide of explanation that we all have Divinity and the potential of the first Soul Amellious who then was Christ. If we choose to do right with the Creator. That is part as to why earth is like a school. It is for the resolve of our soul essence to perfection, not sacraficing parts of what we are. None is greater than another, we all have the same potential in soul.

Mike Peter - You've been reading too much Edgar Cayce fantasy.

Christos was a term for the inner divinity within all people that can be brought into one's awareness to elevate one to one's highest mind and creative potential.

It is the birth of the inner sun/son by immaculate conception...you give birth to your own higher self.

Take a course on allegory and metaphor and stop believing in fairy tales.

Divinity is that which is WITHIN EACH BEING WHEN WE SACRIFICE OUR ANIMAL SELVES TO OUR HIGHER GOD-LIKE SELVES.

Give yourself some credit for the very power and magnificence within your own being.

As per a direct communication with Arc Angel Gabriel. After Creator God created form, light,dimensions, umong other things, Creator than choose to give to the sharing of all Creator created. Creator than pushed forth from Its own self the first soul which Creator named Amellious. From Amellious than all other souls were born. Over many eons and for reasons I can explain at another time after souls came to the orb of earth and some became entrapped in the material, that is when Creator asked its first amellious and He came to assist. Over many incarnations than amellious was incarnated on the earth. Many times as what we call a religious leader. The final incarnation in human form on earth to show us the way is when Amellious was Christ.. I will explain more later. But there is much much more than this brief explanation..

As per a direct communication with Arc Angel Gabriel. After Creator God created form, light,dimensions, umong other things, Creator than choose to give to the sharing of all Creator created. Creator than pushed forth from Its own self the first soul which Creator named Amellious. From Amellious than all other souls were born. Over many eons and for reasons I can explain at another time after souls came to the orb of earth and some became entrapped in the material, that is when Creator asked its first amellious and He came to assist. Over many incarnations than amellious was incarnated on the earth. Many times as what we call a religious leader. The final incarnation in human form on earth to show us the way is when Amellious was Christ.. I will explain more later. But there is much much more than this brief explanation..

As per a direct communication with Arc Angel Gabriel. After Creator God created form, light,dimensions, umong other things, Creator than choose to give to the sharing of all Creator created. Creator than pushed forth from Its own self the first soul which Creator named Amellious. From Amellious than all other souls were born. Over many eons and for reasons I can explain at another time after souls came to the orb of earth and some became entrapped in the material, that is when Creator asked its first amellious and He came to assist. Over many incarnations than amellious was incarnated on the earth. Many times as what we call a religious leader. The final incarnation in human form on earth to show us the way is when Amellious was Christ.. I will explain more later. But there is much much more than this brief explanation..

Free prescription with your order, FedEx overnight shipping: http://BuyTramadolOnline.Ws

Jesus was the natural son of Joseph and Mary and if there was any immaculate conception it took place on clean straw in the far corner of the barn. If any God was involved it may have been God help us, or in God we trust all others cash or for God sake take care I want to keep my dress clean. He grew up to be a bit of a trouble maker and like Martin Luther did years later over Indulgences, fell foul of the church leaders when he evicted their business representatives (money lenders) from the Temple.Because of his communistic rabble rousing talk he also upset the Romans. Their fear was
of competition for the job of emperor and meant he was soon struggling up hill carrying a large cross. Carrying with it also the best wishes of the Clergy of the day to help him on his way. Their reaction being "Why not let the Romans kill one bird with two stones." The usual business in money-lending to resume Monday post Crucifixion. Unbeknown to the Church of the day Jesus had arranged with a couple of his closest associates to remove his body from the Tomb and make out he had risen to heaven. The ruse worked and 2000 odd years later the worlds first conman is still taking the suckers to the cleaners.

Google is the best search engine Google

Hello all; I'm back!

To Mr. Mark: Thank you for your gracious reply. I'm always wary of posting on public places such as these for fear of people ganging up on me - it has happened before; not pleasant, but I handled it quite well. As to us being somewhat alike, I agree. I actually do see the logic behind a lot of atheistic arguments because those ones make up part of my view in the world, albeit a view that includes God. The arguments that get my goat are generalizations and personal opinions brought out as solid arguments. They don't make me think or evaluate my faith at all; they just irritate.

[digresson] However, even as I question my faith, I don't think I'll ever renounce my belief in God entirely, as there is a fundamental reason to my belief in God's existence and the existence of an afterlife, which is personal to me and not to be divulged here. [/end digression]

I may not be on here a lot either, as life generally gets in the way...

Good luck to those who continue to post in this thread.

Cheers,
Rose

Gerry, Fate, Acrapist, Mr. Mark, James, Joseph A., A Hermit, Falk Steinle and the rest:

THE CHALLENGE!

(Go to the main thread on "Why Atheism")

One exercise that I do for myself is to try and argue the various sides of a debate and attempt to give (what I would consider) a fair and “winning” accounting of each one. There are several benefits to doing this: you keep yourself sharp, you are better able to anticipate what must necessarily come next in a systematically consistent logical construct, you waste less time dueling with straw men, and it’s just plain courteous to try and understand where another person is coming from without putting words in their mouths or claiming that you know what they “really mean”.

So here is what I propose. I would like to see the various people in our circle of friends that frequently post here attempt to define the strengths of Christian thought on morality (pick your brand) and also the strong points of whatever Atheistic take on morality you choose to define. The contribution to this entire discussion could be huge (if done well) as we would could prove to each other that we might in fact understand the other position. Then the field would be clear to explain WHY we find a particular view lacking! Sounds fun right? So what do ya say?

"Do you believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God?"

YES!

God died for my sins. He didn't send someone else to do his dirty work. That's how much he loves us!

foundationchurch.org

Jesus is the Messenger of God. His message was that of all the messengers of God, which is there is only one God. Worship God alone and nothing else.

Jesus is GOD. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and was born into the world as a human to do the will of GOD which is perfection without blemish.
Jesus had so much compassion he took everyone of mankinds sin and died for them so we would not have to slaughter lambs for each and everyone of our sins.
Jesus was pure and very smart. He spoke in parables to fools he wanted to reach so that they would not burn in eternal hell. And to the rest he spoke regular language.
Jesus was among sinners, but was not one.
Jesus was a teacher.
Jesus is my ABBA.
God Bless Everyone!
Beth

Take to offence:
An Atheist will always deny the existence of Jesus, as will the other mythical religions..

The people of scriptures (Jews, Christians & Muslims):

Me as a Muslim I will always say, Jesus was a Messenger of God, Jews Don't, the reason is not understandable to me; if moses could be a messenger of God, why cant be jesus? Christians made him God for some reason; Is it to feel superior than the Jews? Bible testifyes God sending messengers after messengers to Guide the mankind; why should he suddenly come himself before 2007 years to excuse mankind from the original sin?? Does it mean that Adam and eve and all the mesengers mentioned in Bible were also not pure souls; as they were bearing the burden of so called original sin? while son does not bear the responsibility of fathers sin, how illogical for me to bear the responsibility of sin committed by adam and eve?? does it not make the christians think?? How can god die? why does god need to become a man to do something? An engineer does not need to become a television to understand the problems of a television he just made....

No where in the bible jesus claims in his words to be the God. Now another problem when you talk about bible, the next immediate question is, which bible? there are so many versions. It can even be changed today, because the bible is not collected verbatim as it came down to Jesus the prophet from God, Jesus passed the messages and later after his death, some of his deciples or companions started writing, so there was always scope of the words of jesus the humanbeing and the narrator getting into the book. So those human words created confusions and disagreements leading to factions.

The same problem have happened in a different way with Islam as well; while some people started collecting the words of Muhammad the human being; confusions were created and lead to some division.

The beauty is, that The Quran is the words of Allah (God), which was recorded as it came. So You can find words of Allah correcting mistakes made by Muhammad as well.

There is only one version of Quran for last 1400 (Approx) years, since it came. Allah says that it will remain the same and that's His responsibility to keep it like that. None can change it, There is no mistake, no ambiguity, it is Humanly impossible for any humanbeing to write a book with such precision of neumeology, The scientific facts revealed to such perfection which can only be said by the creator who created the universe and many many more signs to believe that it's a book from the creator.

Quran mentions that, Muhammad is the last prophet and the quran is the final guidence from Allah, you can see that in 1400 years none has really been challenging it and I dont see it happening anytime. Quran can answer every sincere question of a soul; Quram testifies; Allah has sent same message through all the prophets starting from Ibrahim (Abraham) and All everyone's religion was Islam.

Look; word perfect to MS word for xp, all came from microsoft; they all do the same work, but it has been perfected in the latest edition; there are still some who are sticking to WP and that's serving their purpose as well of typing the doc, if the copy is not corrupted. Quran testifies,Moses and Jesus to be the messengers and I as a muslim believe whole heartedly that they were and they got messages as we call bible and Taorah. But my friends, the copies are corrupted, please move to the final sestament which is proven to be not to be corrupted, you will be a better christian or a better jew and that only means Islam.

Quran says: 'There are many good christians and jews, who pray deep at night and are righteous people, who will go to heaven, whom you may not know but I do' I salute them whoever those are who can earn nearness to Allah amidst all confusions created by cholars around them.

Quran is a open book and there is only one version. I would request all of you; if you havnt read it, please do read and try to find out a mistake in it's History, Predictions, scientific facts, Language and Neumerology....If you cant believe it to be from Allah and Say: 'La Ilaha Illallah' - There is none worthy of worship except Allah.

Jesus is the messenger of God. It is shameful for the God to have a son without getting married, while He forbid us to not to do so. Any way God never gets married, "None gave birth to Him nor He gave birth to anyone, There is nothing like him."- Quran

Dear Deanna,

All we have to do is:

A) Cut and paste a Mr. Mark post.

B) Send it to a believer for comment.

C) Post the believer's response WITHOUT reference, ie, without Mr. Mark's original post.

D) He'll be back in a FLASH!

Voila!

:)

Dear Mark,

Congratulations on the new job!!! Hope the relocation is to your perfect environment, whatever that may be!

Getting along on Dawkins. BTW, he talks about atheists banding together to combat the various stripes of theists haranguing the government and trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of us. I say, go for it! The "Moral Majority" has claimed the high ground on very flimsy credentials for far too long!

I have to wonder how long Joseph A., News Cynic, Rose, and I will keep this thread going without your regular input. You will most definitely be missed. I'll look for you on Dawkins' site after I've finished my "homework".

Richest blessings to you and yours,
Deanna

Mr. Mark: Congrats on the job friend. To whatever extent you can't keep up on these threads you will be missed. I have checked out the Dawkin's threads a while ago but did not see you at that time. I'll be sure to head over there again. Was I in the "Friend" or "Adversary" category? (Or at times both?)

When you wrote: "My problem is in your inferring that god is perfect, and that qualifies god as being a perfect external moral source for man (as opposed to the imperfections of man)." You were absolutely right. God as I understand the concept to mean and if such a being were to exist, would by definition be perfect. I did not want to overly encumber my post with a defense of Christianity, but I know you know very well were I stand so that's fine.

You: “Is god omnipotent? No, he isn't...he couldn't defeat those chariots of iron...”

Me: Awesome! Anytime a post contains the phrase, “chariots of iron” that has to be a good thing. On a different note though I would say that any god that can’t defeat chariots or tanks or atom bombs or super novas is not a god (in the Christian sense). Are you sure God wanted to stop them?

You: Dawkins' point is that our morals were formed early on in human development through our survival mechanism, ie: that humans better survived when they banded into communities and looked out for each other's welfare. This furthered the common good of humans, and over the millenia, a "moral" code emerged, predating the codified codes of the world's religions.”

I can see that.

Me: Oh I can to. Given a materialistic Universe I see no problem with that supposition. It is as plausible as any (and better than some!)

Let us just be clear that when Dawkins gives the OK to intellectual elite, “leaders” and the ever changing “Zeitgeist” to redefine what is moral (since our minds have evolved to the point that we can take control of our cultural evolution), then good and evil are no longer absolutes and we are back to where we started: in some very real way what we call moral absolutes are arbitrary to geography and generation.

So my question is, why get so worked up about other people perceived short failings?

Dear Mr Mark,

Good Luck! Hurry back! Won't be the same without ya!

To My Various Theist Friends & Adversaries -

Just a few housekeeping points.

1. To NC - I tend to cut-n-paste from the KJV Bible online because a) it's a version that is commonly used to this day, and the words and phrasing are know to many, and b) because it's available to cut-n-paste while other versions aren't.

As far as versions of the Bible that I know and have owned, those would include the KJV, the RSV (I still have my confirmation copy of that from 1968), The New English (with Apocrapha) and the Zondervan Amplified (which I no longer own).

2. To Rose - welcome to the Board. You and I aren't so far apart. I'd say that your beliefs are about where I was 12-15 years ago. At that time, I considered myself a deist, if anything. I, too, enjoy the ritual of the church, at least until the soft racism and misogyny rear their ugly heads. Certainly, the music is often worth the price of admission.

Atheists love to say that we are all - atheists and theists alike - atheists, it's just that we atheists believe in one less god than do you theists. I'm 52, and it took quite a while for me to end up where I am in my journey. I'm still asking questions, but I would have to admit that I am well beyond redemption! One could say that I've been redeemed - by reason. I like to say that I have backslid all the way up to the top of the mountain, where the air is clear and the view is spectacular.

3. To James - well, here's another problem when we play the Bible translation game. Ultimately, none of us can be sure what it says, unless we are fluent in Hebrew, Greek and whatever. With all the various translations I have owned, I have never felt that the basic message emenating from the KJV was turned around 180º, and the points of clarity offered were often the stuff of angels dancing on pinheads. Still, the verses you cite give ample room for discussion.

I do have a question for you concerning more-literal translations: how does that effect the concept of midrash? Do you find that a more-literal reading of the Bible circumscribes midrash, or is midrash itself limited to a study of the original Hebrew?

As to the "faults" of the first covenant - as is typical of the Bible, the fault is all man's, not the Biblical god's. Well, to quote South Park, I CALL SHENANIGANS!! I don't buy it.

If god were omnipotent and omniscient, he would have seen it coming, so why have the first covenant in the first place? And, if Version 1 of the covenant was faulty, why should I buy into Vers 2? What if god is a supernatural Bill Gates, issuing bug-ridden covenant "software" over and over again, never quite getting it right? What if those Biblical translations you cited are just security patches, issued by god through humans until the "virus" of scientific research finds the next "security breach" in the Biblical argument, leading to yet another round of finger-in-the-dike theological reasoning?

After all, that faulty first covenant was around for, what, four thousand years? The bright-n-shiny New Covenant has only been around for half that time. Isn't it entirely possible that two thousand years from now, god will issue a third covenant that says science and reason were right all along, and that the quaint stories of the Bible were only operative until we evolved that sixth finger and a set of wheels for legs? Think about it.

It brings us back to the age-old question: if god is all-powerful, could he create a rock that was so heavy that he couldn't lift it?

Sorry, but blaming man for god's mistakes is too easy by half. It reminds me of bush & the neo-cons blaming the Iraqis for the disaster WE have made of their country.

4. To Deanna - always good to see you hanging around this site. I hope Valentine's Day was a good time for you and yours.

FWIW - I don't take comments like Rose's to be harsh. The only comments that would qualify as harsh to me are those made out of ignorance.

To all: I'm going to try to keep posting here on occasion, but it looks like the volume of my posts is going to have to drop off. Why? Well, I've been unemployed for the past few months, and it looks like I'm very close to landing a new position. That in and of itself will, hopefully, curtail the time available to me to surf the net, but coupled with the very real possibility that acccepting this position would entail a major relo as well, it may just about doom my recreational time for the forseeable future.

FYI - I occasionally post at both Sam Harris & Richard Dawkins' sites under my Mr Mark screen name, so we can always catch up there, though the same reality I etched above will impact my postings at the atheist-friendly blogs as well.

Gotta go.

Best to all,

Mr Mark

To Deanna:

Thanks for your support. As for my somewhat harsh tone, I didn't mean it to come off that way - I was composing it at around 4 in the morning when I had to wake up at 6:30 for the "next day"...so you could imagine how I didn't sound as civil as I should have been. :) I really do like the civil discussions more than those stray comments who spout off Scripture or those who are just spiteful in general.

One comment about your post: I agree with you - there is much I have to learn about my faith and what is it I believe, and that's what makes faith so compelling - the state of it is never concrete, and it should be normal to question one's faith to see if it holds up in where one is in life.

I'll also get around to checking out the evidence for Jesus' nonexistence, but now it's time to sleep. ^__^

I'll keep checking back often to see if anyone else has anything interesting to say!

Sincerely,
Rose

Mr. Mark,

I quoted from the New International Version. It's translation was started in 1968 and completed in 1978. It was translated for the purpose of being as true to the modern English language as it is to the original Greek and Hebrew. See this link for more info.

http://www.ibs.org/niv/accuracy/index.php

I apologize for not analyzing your other statement about God's law.

You wrote:

"Is god's law perfect? Not so much (Hebrews 8:6-7 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.)"

The NIV reads (with verse 8):

6But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.

"7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people and said[b]:
"The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah." Hebrews 8:6-8

The King James Version also becomes clearer when you include verse 8:

" 7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:"

The fault God found in the covenant was on the part of the people.

You also wrote:

Is god perfect? No, he has to repent for mistakes he's made (Genesis 6:6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart; Jeremiah 42:10
For I [God] repent me of the evil that I have done unto you).

Again, going to the NIV it is clearer:

5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them."

When I read this, it seems that God made man, man chose evil, and it grieved God. I don't see where it says it was a mistake.

On the Jeremiah verse, you have to read back in Chapter 40:

2 When the commander of the guard found Jeremiah, he said to him, "The LORD your God decreed this disaster for this place. 3 And now the LORD has brought it about; he has done just as he said he would. All this happened because you people sinned against the LORD and did not obey him.

Jeremiah 42:10 then reads:
10 'If you stay in this land, I will build you up and not tear you down; I will plant you and not uproot you, for I am grieved over the disaster I have inflicted on you.

God punished the folks for their sin. They repented and gave them some good news.

You also wrote:

"Does god lie? Not directly, but he does by proxy: (2 Chronicles 18:22 Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets. 2 Thessalonians 2:11 For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.)"

God doesn't lie but he allows lies to be told thereby giving us a choice between choosing the truth or the lie. If only truth were told, there would be no free will to choose the truth.

Ahab wanted to go attack a neighbor and he asked the king of Judah to help him. In the Old Testament, God seemed to not allow wickedness on the part of the leaders of his people to continue. God therefore allowed a lie to be told to entice the king to his death. Even so, God still allowed the truth to be presented through Micaiah:

16 Then Micaiah answered, "I saw all Israel scattered on the hills like sheep without a shepherd, and the LORD said, 'These people have no master. Let each one go home in peace.' "

17 The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, "Didn't I tell you that he never prophesies anything good about me, but only bad?"

18 Micaiah continued, "Therefore hear the word of the LORD : I saw the LORD sitting on his throne with all the host of heaven standing on his right and on his left. 19 And the LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab king of Israel into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?'
"One suggested this, and another that. 20 Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.'
" 'By what means?' the LORD asked.

21 " 'I will go and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said.
" 'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.'

22 "So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of these prophets of yours. The LORD has decreed disaster for you."

Ahab most likely could have repented at this point, but chose to defy God. He chose to listen to those who told him what he wanted to hear and he went to his death.

Dear Rose,

Welcome to the board! To your two posts, I say, for the most part, Amen. I only ask that you not be too harsh on Mark and many of the others. Like you and I, they are seekers of the truth.

There are many, many who have posted on this board -- on both sides of the issue -- who are irrational, spiteful, closed-minded, and unwilling to accept any point other than their own. I find it much more profitable to examine the atheistic arguments and test them against my own. The fact that their truth and ours are at odds with each other does neither frightens nor intimidates me. In fact, I am finding our discussions profitable and eye-opening. At some point in this thread, I believe Mark and I agreed that it was highly unlikely that we would either of us change our beliefs, but a civil discussion between friends was a wonderful thing.

To repeat something I said much earlier in this thread, I had a college professor tell me is was too accepting and uncritical of the faith tradition in which I had been raised. I was angry and offended at first, but then realized he had a point. This was many years ago. In the interim, I examined my "faith", found it (me) wanting, abandoned it for 30 years, then returned about 15 years ago. But it is only in the past 5 years or so that I have begun to "understand" what it is I believe. And there is still much I can learn.

I do believe that God created the universe and all that is in it. What I have learned from reading the scientific account of the birth of the universe,the genesis of life, and the evolution of life into a sentient creature with a consistent set of basic moral beliefs leads me to believe that the statistical improbability of all the elements necessary for any one of these to occur is exceedingly high. For all of them to occur is even more mind-boggling -- unless you are willing to accept the existence of the divine.

Although I have yet to examine the many arguments for the non-existence of Christ, I do believe God took on human form and died as a human to fulfill the laws of the Old Testament that commanded that men die for their sins. Curiously enough, I can see where Richard Dawkins argues that christianity was "invented by Paul of Taursus," although I don't agree with him.

My question to those who argue Christ never existed is, why, then, have so many people believed to the contrary for over 2,000 years. Also, in the 1st and 2nd centuries CE -- when the Romans and the Jewish hierarchy were so relentlessly trying to eradicate the Jesus sect and it's disturbing belief that Jesus was the risen Lord, why didn't they produce the body? That would certainly quashed any notion of Christ's resurrection -- and taken most of the wind out of Christian's sails.

Two comments on specific comments of yours: I had a mother who invoked God's will to justify many of her acts that were hurtful to others. It was one of the things that drove me away from religion! The position is not supportable because 1) God gave us free will, and 2) Christ commanded us to love one another. Lazy, yes. Also an act of moral cowardice. But Christ has long since forgiven my mother, and so must I.

As for good deeds, there is no way anyone can "earn" their way into heaven. Christ already paid the price for our "ticket." We act with kindness, caring, and generosity toward our fellow humans because 1) the love of God showered upon us is too great to be contained, and 2) Christ commanded us to love our neighbors -- even commanding that we love our enemies!

Stay with us. There's a lot to learn here.

Peace and Love,
Deanna

Mr. Mark (and other Bible Readers)!

Saw your comment to James about Bible translations. If you want one that sounds corny and that makes it easy to mock modern Christians with I recommend you use the Kind James version. It just sounds funny to modern ears. if you want clarity of understanding though there are sevearl newer versions that come with great notes in the margins about which verses are not found in the oldest texts and which passages are in dispute etc.

I would recommend the New American Standard but it's not as easy to read as some because it places conformity to the existing ancient texts over ease of reading. I also like the TNIV but that is rather controversial in some circles.

On a different note I am having a hard time with an atheist over on the "Why atheism" thread. He is adamant that he disputes the notion that atheists do not believe in morality in the same sense that Christians do. I have tried to explain this to him several times but nothing works. Perhaps you could help? (It would be a swell thing for you to do.)

Here is my last post to him:

You said that I said (and he said that she said) that atheists, ““IN REALITY have no morality”. What I actually said was, “in reality atheists ARE saying that there is no such thing as morality in the sense that Christians mean."

Gerry, my friend, I don’t understand what you are disputing! We agree here don’t we? Are you honestly trying to argue that atheists ARE saying that they believe in morality in the same sense that Christians do? I can’t believe that. Let me repeat that I never said (or even thought!) that you have no emotions and no sense of morality. I know you didn’t like my Bible quotes but I used them to show you that within a Christian world view it is understood that all people have a sense of morality because God put “eternity” in our hearts.

Again, are you really saying that atheists DO believe in morality in the same sense that Christians do? That would make you an odd atheist indeed because while Atheists will argue that morality comes from our evolutionary history (as a set of learned survival skills) or from the “spirit of our times” or from both or from some other (perhaps undefined) place, the Christian will say that “Goodness” flows from the character of God and is a category of reality that exists quite independent of the predilections of time or the vagaries of culture. Let me guess. You don’t believe that do you. So, that means we both agree that “in reality atheists ARE saying that there is no such thing as morality in the sense that Christians mean." Right?

You were jumping to conclusions (and false ones at that) to say that I think you have no emotions or no sense of morality.

I hate to belabor this point, but if you want to be a good atheist I think we should both agree that we disagree that morality is a reflection of the character of God. You maybe should read Dawkin’s book The God Delusion. He never gets around to explaining the “ought” of morality or even how we can determine what is good and evil, but he does go to great lengths to explain why he does not prefer the morality of the god of the Bible! As he puts it, “All I am establishing is that modern morality, wherever else it comes from, does not come from the Bible.” See? Dawkins and I agree on this point! Atheists think Christians are wrong on morality. That was easy!

(Chapter3:verse59)
Verily, the likeness of Iesa (Jesus) before Allah is the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then (He) said to him: "Be!" - and he was.

(Chapter4:verse163)
Verily, We have inspired you (O Muhammad SAW) as We inspired Nooh (Noah) and the Prophets after him; We (also) inspired Ibrahim (Abraham), Ismail (Ishmael), Ishaque (Isaac), Yaqoob (Jacob), and AlAsbat (the twelve sons of Yaqoob (Jacob)), Iesa (Jesus), Ayub (Job), Yoonus (Jonah), Haroon (Aaron), and Sulaiman (Solomon), and to Dawood (David) We gave the Zaboor (Psalms).

(Chapter4:verse 171)
O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, nor say of Allah aught but the truth. The Messiah Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah and His Word, ("Be!" - and he was) which He bestowed on Maryam (Mary) and a spirit (Rooh) created by Him; so believe in Allah and His Messengers. Say not: "Three (trinity)!" Cease! (it is) better for you. For Allah is (the only) One Ilah (God), Glory be to Him (Far Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is AllSufficient as a Disposer of affairs.

(Chapter4:verse 157)
And because of their saying (in boast), "We killed Messiah Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah," - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not (i.e. Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) ):

Also, many atheists cite that people who believe in God do so because they don't want to take responsibility for their actions, putting them all on God. That is not a true Christian, but forget true Christian - that's just laziness and irresponsibility. Disgusting.

Then, there is that other claim that Christians only do good things so we can get a fast ticket to heaven, and all sorts of nonsense like that. So you atheists are better at helping your fellow man/woman but theists aren't simply because they believe in something that you don't? I don't know; sounds like a superiority complex to me.

Mr. Mark,

I'm new to this board, but I've read most of the posts since 11 PM tonight.

Okay, so you've established that faith is not needed and religion is not needed, so the rest of the world needs to wake up and realize that atheists are right. Without debating points of theology and evidence, aren't you just as guilty as religious fundamentalists of thinking you have the one "truth" and it is right? I know you're backed up by scientific evidence and whatnot; I didn't come here to disprove evolution or to question Jesus' and God's existence. I'm just saying that just because you believe a certain way, even with more proof than the others, doesn't make you the "most right." As a Catholic (shock! horror!), I believe in God and Jesus, but I don't condemn others for not believing or hold a sense of superiority in my beliefs. No one should. Maybe that's just me, and I know Sam Harris hates people like me, but one can't please everyone. :)

Yes, the Bible was written by humans to understand the world around them. I don't take it literally except the nuggets of moral codes in there that are pretty much universal to everyone. The only reason why I'm not an atheist or a plain theist with no denominational ties is that I believe SOMETHING or SOMEONE created the universe. Maybe it is just a force that created whatever the first material was because something cannot come from nothing, and maybe we are just worshipping the complex form of nature as well as defined moralistic codes inherent in people, but I and others like me shouldn't be looked down upon for choosing to believe in this way. I don't for you or anyone else.

Again, the only reason why I am still a Roman Catholic with views controversial to Orthodox RCism is that I like the way Catholics worship God/the force/nature. It's simply my preference, as not believing in spiritual beings is yours.

Humans deny that God and Jesus exist. Who is to say humans are not fallible?

James -

1. What translation are you citing? Obviously, the meaning is quite different from that outlined in the KJV. Is that because the translation you're using is considered to be a closer representation of the Hebrew/Greek etc, or is it a version that has cleaned up the earlier message for 21st century consumption?

2. You didn't address the quote about god's not-so-perfect law.

3. " I am grieved over the disaster I have inflicted on you. Jeremiah 42:10" Check me on this, but I believe the word "disaster" can't really be compared to disciplining one's children.

Mr. Mark Wrote:

"Speaking of evil, God creates evil as well as peace (Isaiah 45:7). Maybe he creates perfect evil?"

Does God create evil or free will?

Mr. Mark wrote:

"Is god perfect? No, he has to repent for mistakes he's made (Genesis 6:6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart; Jeremiah 42:10
For I [God] repent me of the evil that I have done unto you)."

'If you stay in this land, I will build you up and not tear you down; I will plant you and not uproot you, for I am grieved over the disaster I have inflicted on you. Jeremiah 42:10

Seems to me God is grieved because he had to punish his people. Sort of like hurting when you have to discipline your children.

Let's not take things out of context.

Mr. Mark wrote:

"Is god omniscient? No, he isn' t (Hosea 8:4 They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not)."

Let's look at context:

3 But Israel has rejected what is good;
an enemy will pursue him.

4 They set up kings without my consent;
they choose princes without my approval.
With their silver and gold
they make idols for themselves
to their own destruction.

5 Throw out your calf-idol, O Samaria!
My anger burns against them.
How long will they be incapable of purity?

I disagree with your statements about God especially after reading the verses you cited.

Dear NC -

My problem is in your inferring that god is perfect, and that that qualifies god as being a perfect external moral source for man (as opposed to the imperfections of man).

Is god perfect, specifically, the Biblical god? One needs to define perfection.

Is god omnipotent? No, he isn't...he couldn't defeat those chariots of iron in the OT.

Does god lie? Not directly, but he does by proxy: (2 Chronicles 18:22 Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets. 2 Thessalonians 2:11 For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.)

Is god omniscient? No, he isn' t (Hosea 8:4 They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not).

Is god's law perfect? Not so much (Hebrews 8:6-7 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.)

Is god perfect? No, he has to repent for mistakes he's made (Genesis 6:6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart; Jeremiah 42:10
For I [God] repent me of the evil that I have done unto you).

Speaking of evil, God creates evil as well as peace (Isaiah 45:7). Maybe he creates perfect evil?

My point is that there is no perfection, in man or in god, to serve as an external measure of perfection against which we should judge ourselves. That being the case, the human experience is just as good a measure or morals as is god, for both are flawed.

Toss in the wrathful, vengeful god of the OT, and mankind starts to look even better (well, that's a relative statement, isn't it?).

Dawkins' point is that our morals were formed early on in human development through our survival mechanism, ie: that humans better survived when they banded into communities and looked out for each other's welfare. This furthered the common good of humans, and over the millenia, a "moral" code emerged, predating the codified codes of the world's religions.

I can see that.

I hear from Xians that their god is a god of love. Well, that god didn't exist for early man. In fact, there were multiple gods around, and most of them were pretty rank, killing at will and for no reason. I doubt that early man looked to his gods to define his moral center, or to "find the love." Early man's relationship with his god(s) was, "I'll kill my daughter for you if you bring the rains/stop the rains."

Unless you wish to say that man had absolutely no morals before the Abrahamic gods made their appearance.

Does the above explain my earlier remarks?

Mr. Mark

You wrote: “your latest post is loaded with too many false premises, the largest of which is:

"without an objective standard of measure external to ourselves all we can gauge ourselves against are other people or other cultures and I haven't met a perfect person or a heard of a perfect culture yet have you?"

think so? But then you went on to say that you don’t prefer the Christian concept of God (we all have our preferences after all) and to deny an external moral standard.... which was my point right? If we have no external and objective standard then “Man is the highest measure of man.” Surely you’ve heard of this before.

What’s the problem? You can go ahead and try to find something different concept in Kant, Dawkins, and Russell but in the end you will come back to humanity defining what is right or wrong for humanity. Which does not disagree with my contention that "without an objective standard of measure external to ourselves all we can gauge ourselves against are other people or other cultures and I haven't met a perfect person or a heard of a perfect culture yet have you?"

I have read the Dawkins book (or most of it anyway). I would say I found it “lacking” but that is a highly contentious word right now over on the “Why atheism” thread.

Dawkins is a good cheer-leader and I am sure he rallies the troops, but what did you actually think was significant in his discussion of morality? I am curious because even Dawkins seemed to realize this was his weakness and tried to avoid saying anything conclusive. The two chapters on morality were a fun read but so short I felt like he hadn’t had time to make his point or deal with many of the questions that you and I have raised here.

Deanna -

Re: Francis Collins. Yes, he's interesting, isn't he? He supports evolution and doesn't give any credence to ID or the Young Earthers.

He's a theistic evolutionist. A rara avis among both scientists and theists.

Hello, my friends,

First of all, E Fave, I was intrigued enough by your plea to Mark to help him respond to JB in the Jacoby sex thread, that I checked in out. Mark, thank you for helping E Fave, and thank you for explaining the basis of your first response to me. You're right. I must remember to think before I speak! [My dear prayer sister counsels that I pray before I speak. For a "B" that is excellent advice.] Your advice is excellent for both Bs and NBs. Thank you, too, for sharing your father's story. Difficult as it was to do, I too found that I was accorded more respect by my father when I stated my case clearly -- and respectfully -- and requested his compliance.

I see the discussion has progressed to the famous Miller-Urey experiments that were able to form small quantities of amino acids and other biological building blocks by applying an electric discharge to a primeval "soup" of water and organic compounds. At this point in this thread, I feel compelled to insert a rather long quote from one of the stack of many books I am reading as a result of our earlier conversations -- some recommended by you, some I already possessed, and some I "discovered" in my quest.

This comes from on of my "discoveries". It was published in 2006 and is written by "one of the country's leading geneticists and longtime head of the International Genome Project." Given his sterling scientific credentials and a personal fascination with genetics, I was drawn to the book, The Language of God, by Francis S. Collins.

Speaking of the Miller-Urey experiments, Collins continues: "The finding of small amounts of similar compounds within meteorites arriving from outer space has also been put forward as an argument that such complex organic molecules can arise from natural processes in the universe.

"Beyond this point, however, the details become quite sketchy. How could a self-replicating information-carrying molecule assemble spontaneously from these compounds? DNA, with its phosphate-sugar backbone and intricately arranged organic bases, stacked neatly on top of one another and paired together at each rung of the twisted double helix, seems an utterly improbably molecule to have 'just happened' -- especially since DNA seems to possess no intrinsic means of copying itself ... RNA, by contrast, is more like a zip disk or flash drive -- it travels around with its programming and is capable of making things happen on its own. Despite substantial effort by multiple investigators, however, formation of the basic building blocks of RNA has not been achievable in a Miller-Urey type of experiment, nor has a fully self-replicating RNA been possible to design." At this point, Collins discusses some criticisms based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Entropy, and then fires a shot across the bow of theists who would infer divine intervention at this point.

"A word of caution is needed when inserting specific divine action by God in this or any other area where scientific understanding is currently lacking. From solar eclipses in olden times to the movement of the planets in the Middle Ages, to the origins of life today, the 'God of the gaps' approach has all too often done a disservice to religion (and by implication, to God, if that's possible)...There are good reasons to believe in God, including the existence of mathematical principles and order in creation. They are positive reasons, based on knowledge, rather than default assumptions based on a (temporary) lack of knowledge.

"In summary, while the question of the origin of life is a fascinating one, and the inability of modern science to develop a statistically probable mechanism is intriguing, this is not the place for a thoughtful person to wager his faith."

BTW, Dr. Collins was the son of free thinking, somewhat bohemian parents who provided/force-fed him with no religious training of any kind. In his college years, he was an atheist and "started his journey of intellectual exploration to confirm my atheism." At 26, when asked by a patient what he believed, his response was "I'm not really sure." His investigation of world religions through "CliffNotes versions" eventually led him to a neighbor who was also a Christian minister. In response to Dr. Collins questions, the minister handed him C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity, a life-changing little book for Dr. Collins, me, and nearly everyone I know who has read it.

I am working away -- admittedly very slowly -- at Dawkins' The God Delusion, and I will finish it and respond. However, I wanted to bring Dr. Collins' book to the attention of everyone on this thread. I haven't finished it either, but I am finding it highly accessible, thoughtful and thought-provoking, cautious, and firmly grounded in up-to-date science. I highly recommend it for Bs and NBs alike.

News Cynic -

Thanks for your thoughts, but your latest post is loaded with too many false premises, the largest of which is:

"without an objective standard of measure external to ourselves all we can gauge ourselves against are other people or other cultures and I haven't met a perfect person or a heard of a perfect culture yet have you?"

Think about what you're saying here, and what that "external" moral influence is that you posit. An objective person would have to admit that the LEAST-objective standard of measure would be the god of the Bible. I, for one, refuse to set my moral sights below the bottom of the barrel that is the hateful, selfish, vengeful and childish god of the Bible!

Richard Dawkins dismantles the argument that our morals come from religion quite handily in The God Delusion. Give it a read and tell me what you think.

(I leave it to the other atheists on this board to do the line-by-line response to NC's post).

Dear News Cynic,

Great post! Thanks! Now I want to read some Benford...

James wrote:

"The jist of my message was, let's see some evidence for these pre-biotic molecules from inorganic sources. Origin of life researchers have not been able to identify any relevant sources.

"Nice theory though."

James, you know very well that Urey & Miller synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors way back in 1953. Even Wikipedia has a decent and succinct overview of the experiments:

"The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2). The chemicals were all sealed inside a sterile array of glass tubes and flasks connected together in a loop, with one flask half-full of liquid water and another flask containing a pair of electrodes. The liquid water was heated to induce evaporation, sparks were fired between the electrodes to simulate lightning through the atmosphere and water vapor, and then the atmosphere was cooled again so that the water could condense and trickle back into the first flask in a continuous cycle.

"At the end of one week of continuous operation, Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids, including 13 of the 22 that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. As observed in all consequent experiments, both left-handed (L) and right-handed (D) optical isomers were created in a racemic mixture.

"The molecules produced were simple organic molecules, far from a complete living biochemical system, but the experiment established that the hypothetical processes could produce some building blocks of life without requiring life to synthesize them first."

There's your proof: inorganic life under controlled conditions in the lab did, indeed, produce organic compounds. Experimentation has proved it can happen.

What do you mean when you say "Origin of life researchers have not been able to identify any relevant sources"? Do you mean that they're supposed to come up with a fossilized transitional example of an inorganic precursor caught mid-process developing into an organic compound? The Urey-Miller experiments provide the source. Their hypothesis is now a theory because it has been tested, retested and proven to be a viable scenario (I use the word theory in the scientific way, not to signify conjecture).

The discussion is not whether or not it could happen. It could and, in the experiments, it did. The discussion has always been whether or not the 1953 experiments accurately reflected the conditions that would have existed millions or billions of years ago (most scientists think the atmosphere used by Urey was too oxygen rich).

Or maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying.

Joseph A, James, Mr. Mark, A Hermit and all the rest

Acrapist had a good post over on another thread. I think my response can give you an insite to what he said (or much better yet go read it for yourselves on the atheism thread).

From NC to A-crap-ist,
Have you ever read Gregory Benford's "In The Ocean of Night"? It's the first book in his Galactic Center series. I don't recommend it really. Not as good as his "The Martian Race" and not within a lightyear of his contribution to the new Foundation series, but he repeats (or invents - the book is from 1987 so I'm not sure) some neat "Just So" stories for how various aspects of humanity that make us so unique might have evolved: Things like dance, warfare, religion, etc. He seems in debt to Carl Sagan and brings in the idea of Intelligent Design of the human race by space guys.

Anyway, Benford invents a new nature/sex based religion that takes all the "good" aspects of traditional faiths and presents humanity with a new social glue. The main character a kind of atheist thinks it's crazy. I know you weren't talking about religion, but your words reminded me of it. "If my hypothesis is true, then we can use culture to more effectively shape our behavior."

When you wrote, "What mechanism shall we use to decide on the appropriateness of each rule" you asked the million dollar question. It brought to mind Nietzsche's "The Madman"

"How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us---for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto."

I believe that you and I and Gerry and the Hermit and the rest all of us want to be good and noble people after our own fashion, but without an objective standard of measure external to ourselves all we can gauge ourselves against are other people or other cultures and I haven't met a perfect person or a heard of a perfect culture yet have you?

Then again maybe we are all perfect in our humanness! If we just do what we have evolved to do why call it "sin?" Do we fret over nothing? Are ant wars that devastate other colonies a crime? Does a large chimp taking all the females for himself wrong the smaller male chimps?

Dostoevsky's much quoted line that, "if God is dead, then everything is permissible" perhaps misses the point that everything always was permissible.

But as the apostle Paul wrote in Romans to believers saved by grace and not merit, "Everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial". And maybe that is what you are getting at?

And how does math, or mechanics, or astrophysics, or information theory, or any other aspect of science help us with what we "ought" to do and what is sinful?

Dear David,

Though it may appear daunting, given the number of posts here, I suggest you take some time and read as many as you can. A Hermit and others have addressed your exact sentiments many times over, and I, even as a believer, feel their pain. Intentional or not, your suggestions come off as a touch flip.

Regards

Sorry to hear Hermit that you couldnt understand the meanings in the Bible but unfortunately for you, you were given the chance to believe in Jesus and did not accept Him or His grace which will result in you experiencing a second death, that is the death of your soul. I on the other hand look forward to life after the physical death. I pray for you that you can experience true wisdom and give yourself a second chance to truly STUDY the Bible, not just READ it. You obviously misinterpreted what you have already read. Here's a hint. When you study the Bible keep in mind the historical aspects of the message and who is writing that particular book. It does make a difference in realizing that those scriptures that seem contradicting are in fact supporting one another. Give it a shot Hermit. What do you have to lose except your soul huh?

News Cynic wrote:
"Please stop doing this kind of thing. You're engaging in...irrational and unnatural selection!!! :)"

Good one!

Hey, no need to rub salt in the wounds!

Mr. Mark,

I disagree with you saying I took things out of context. The jist of my message was, let's see some evidence for these pre-biotic molecules from inorganic sources. Origin of life researchers have not been able to identify any relevant sources.

Nice theory though.

Well David a lot of us unbelievers have studied the Bible. In fact, for some of us the more we studied the less we believed as the incoherence, falsehoods and contradictions inherent in much of the scripture became clear.

I think the problem for those who do not believe in Jesus as the Son of God is that they haven't taken the time to study the bible to realize that there is 100% proof of Jesus being not just the Son of God but God himself in human form. Several Old Testament prophecies indicated the coming of the Messiah including where he would be from and what he would do. The Bible contains 100's of prophecies that all have come true or will come true. All you have to do is study them to see. And realizing that all these have or will come to pass will give you insight on why Jesus is 100% God and 100% man. And look around this world unbelievers! How can such perfection be created? Of course by God in heaven whom so many believe in but will not believe in His Son? I can understand the ignorance of not believing in any higher being but to believe in God but not acknowledge His Son would be to deny God. The proof is there in God's Word, The Bible. And no other religion on earth has been put to the test any more than christianity and have never been found false. All other religions are teachings of falsehood by some "great prophet" who decieved the masses as Jesus would predict. I urge all those who do not believe in Jesus as God to study scripture instead of coming up with your own conclusions. It is so much easier to believe yourself than to believe in the PROVEN truth of Jesus Christ.

I think the problem for those who do not believe in Jesus as the Son of God is that they haven't taken the time to study the bible to realize that there is 100% proof of Jesus being not just the Son of God but God himself in human form. Several Old Testament prophecies indicated the coming of the Messiah including where he would be from and what he would do. The Bible contains 100's of prophecies that all have come true or will come true. All you have to do is study them to see. And realizing that all these have or will come to pass will give you insight on why Jesus is 100% God and 100% man. And look around this world unbelievers! How can such perfection be created? Of course by God in heaven whom so many believe in but will not believe in His Son? I can understand the ignorance of not believing in any higher being but to believe in God but not acknowledge His Son would be to deny God. The proof is there in God's Word, The Bible. And no other religion on earth has been put to the test any more than christianity and have never been found false. All other religions are teachings of falsehood by some "great prophet" who decieved the masses as Jesus would predict. I urge all those who do not believe in Jesus as God to study scripture instead of coming up with your own conclusions. It is so much easier to believe yourself than to believe in the PROVEN truth of Jesus Christ.

"The most important thing Jesus Christ does for me is that he has marked the path and led the way for me to be able to return to live with my Heavenly Father forever. "

AND IF I DON'T FOLLOW THE PATH??? MY BELOVED HEAVENLY FATHER IS SENDING ME STRAIGHT TO HELL!!!

I wanted to respond to the question--Who is Jesus Christ? He is the resurrected Son of God--this means that just like His Father, He has a perfected body of flesh and bone that will never die. I am a child of God too, but I do not have the ability to save myself from my sins. Jesus Christ has the power to save me from sin and death--he makes my burdens light. Jesus Christ loves me and has created this beautiful world for me to live in and become the kind of person my Heavenly Father hopes I'll become. Jesus Christ loves me and cares for me in a very real and personal and sacred way. Through Jesus Christ my Heavenly Father is able to bless me in so many ways. The most important thing Jesus Christ does for me is that he has marked the path and led the way for me to be able to return to live with my Heavenly Father forever. I love my Heavenly Father, and am so grateful to Him for sending His Son. I love Jesus Christ with all my heart, and I owe Him my life, my respect, and my loyalty. I know Jesus Christ lives and is an active, interested personage in my life. I know this, for I have received a witness of this truth from the Holy Ghost.

"Please stop doing this kind of thing. You're engaging in...irrational and unnatural selection!!! :)"

Good one!

Joseph A wrote:
"Still, if there is no creator, we are left with:

"Time + Matter = All This."

You left out energy. THAT should make the odds work for you. :)

James wrote:

"Mr. Mark wrote:

"In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules."

To date, origin-of-life researchers have failed to recover any geochemical remnants of prebiotic molecules—organic molecules.

Well, James, YOU DID IT AGAIN! SELECTIVELY QUOTING something I posted and taking it out of context to make some point that had nothing to do with what my post was all about.

Why, oh why did you leave out the preceeding sentence, ie: "Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties." Here is the phrase in context:

"Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators."

Clearly, clearly, CLEARLY the phrase you did quote is rendered senseless if you divorce it from the discussion of molecules arranging themselves NOT RANDOMLY, but according to their chemical properties. The clear connective basis of the thought expressed in this paragraph is, "...according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially...."

This was clearly, clearly, Clearly NOT a discussion of the very origin of life, but of carbon atoms arranging themselves according to their chemical properties which then leads to the spontaneous formation of complex molecules. In fact, the article I cited makes it clear that it wasn't about the origin of life as it closes with this: "One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least." Geez, there's another section you conveniently forgot to quote!

Please stop doing this kind of thing. You're engaging in...irrational and unnatural selection!!! :)

Honestly. Make your case without resorting to such games. It's tiresome and it's beneath you.

Still, if there is no creator, we are left with:

Time + Matter = All This.

And I am left thinking it is a mathematical impossibility....and that time and matter are "more intelligent" than all the world's scientists....and that we cannot create life, or a protein, or a cell from scratch.

The odds don't work for me. At all.

In my humble opinion it is perfectly logical for one to believe in a creator.

But I repeat myself....sorry.....

Mr. Mark wrote:

"In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules."

To date, origin-of-life researchers have failed to recover any geochemical remnants of prebiotic molecules—organic molecules produced by nonbiological processes. 31 All the carbonaceous deposits recovered from the oldest rocks are, without exception, the by-product of biological activity. The “absence of evidence” for a prebiotic soup must be taken as “evidence of absence.”32

Hubert Yockey, Information Theory and Molecular Biology (New York: Cambridge University, 1992), 183, 203-04.
Yockey, Information, 235-41.
Hubert Yockey, “To NASA: Stop Funding This Science-Without-a-Subject,” Facts for Faith 1 (Q1, 2000), 13.

The theory sounds good and all, but let's see some evidence!

AJ writes:

"I could go on, and on, and on.....is this all by chance?"

The typical uninformed Xian response to evolution.

Study evolution even A LITTLE and you'll find that it's not all "by chance". Here's a start for you from the Talk Origins website's "5 Major Misconceptions about Evolution":

Misconception #4: "The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.

(One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

It is amazing to see how easy it is to loose the forest for the trees. For some it is easier to believe in horoscopes, lucky charms, the dead, witchcraft, etc. etc. If we look at humanity from a bird´s eye view (from space, far away at the beginng of our galaxy) it would be easier to answer the question: Did all of this happen by chance?

Anyone with a bit of basic chemistry knowledge will tell you that at the center of the atom we have the Neutrons and Protons, and on the outer shells are the different energy levels for electrons.

Has anyone heard of the SUper Conductor Super Collider project? THis was a project that was going to take us further into the atom...it was designed to define the orgins of the universe! (before it was cancelled)

Assuming the nucleous of the atom (neutrons and protons) is the sun, why are the planets circling it in opposite direction, at different speeds, and at the right angles like the energy levels in the atom?

Now,if the earth was closer to the sun what would happen? if it was farther? if there was no moon?

Who put the ozones layer there for us? what would happen if the earth did not rotate? Would we have water?

The earth is 2/3 water, the liquid in our bodies is 2/3, could we survive without it?

Why (when conceived) are we in water in our mother´s womb?

I could go on, and on, and on.....is this all by chance? If so, what are the probabilities of this happening as a result of an explosion? Why does it not happen again? Why is mother nature constantly trying to protect us? Why does the animal kingdom fear us humans? (God told Noah that He would put that fear in their hearts)

Look at history, the Bible clearly states that one of the signs of the end times is when a nation is born in a day! According to history this happened when the UN declared Israel a nation...was it in 1947?

How can such a tiny nation like Israel defeat Egypt and Jordan in six days! Why did this powerful nations leave their weapons behind and ran?

Read the Bible, after Exodus, God drove Israel's enemies away from the land in the same manner...with fear in their hearts.

My God, is a faithful God. And His word clearly states that sooner or later every mouth will confess that Jesus is Lord.

Now, there are many, many scriptures in the old testament that clearly state how Jesus was going to come, how He was going to die, etc., etc. FOr instance, what are the probabilities that He could have orchestrated His crucifiction and death on the Cross at exactly the appointed times of the Passover by GOd?

Ok, still don´t beleive? what are the odds of Jesus entering Jerusalem on a Colt (on Palm Sunday for us) as written in the scriptures almost 500 years before?

Still don´t beleive?
Like I told someone...it does not matter how much one tries to help you, for if you are in the vault and refuse to open the door of your heart to receive help...it is hopeless!

If you read the Bible like a history book, and with contempt, that is all you will get out of it. If you read it with a repentant, and contrite heart, and ask God to remove the scales from your eyes.....He will let you embark on the most beautiful journey of your life!

Believe it or not!

Jesus is the example by which we Christians are to compare our lives. Whether doctrine interprets that he was God in human form or the son of God is less important than his exapmle for living and interacting with others.

John says: "if Jesus is God, pray to Him. Ask that He reveal Himself to you, then pick up a Bible and read the gospel of John. If Jesus is who He says He is, He can answer this prayer."

Since I have done this (more than once) and never received an answer I assume you will support my belief that Jesus is not God as a rational, informed conclusion?

Thank You!

Sincerely

A Hermit

This is what Jesus said, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die." Then he asked the million dollar question, "Do you believe this?"

If Jesus is telling the truth, then we will answer to Him on judgement day. If Jesus is lying, then he is not a "good" or "moral" man... he'd be the most deceptive person in history.

Here's a thought... if Jesus is God, pray to Him. Ask that He reveal Himself to you, then pick up a Bible and read the gospel of John. If Jesus is who He says He is, He can answer this prayer. Then you can make an informed decision whether Jesus is God or a con artist who deceived billions of people.

The Gospels are the wrong place to look in answering the question Who Was Jesus? The Gospels were written as propaganda, with a good dose of pro-Roman apologetics, anti-Jewish polemic, and sheer ignorance. In any case they were novels not biographies.

To find the real Jesus, look at his earliest followers, those led by his brother James of Jerusalem. They believed he had been favored by God as a prophet and would return to fulfill the purposes of God. He was not part of the godhead, he was not born of a virgin, he did not die to save us from our sins -- all the nonsense about the vicarious atonement was invented a thousand years later by Catholic theologians.

Jesus died and that was that. He fell afoul of the Romans who regarded him as a passive supporter of Jewish rebellion. Read Robert Eisler's hard to find book Jesus the Messiah and John the Baptist.

In correlation (if that is the correct use of the word) to Anthony's response: "As far as being the deliverer of the Jews, look at what has happened to the Jewish People since Jesus' death: Their Temple was destroyed, their country was overrun and renamed "Palestine," the people were scattered, anti-jewish propaganda was instituted by the Catholic Church to separate itself from the mother religion, the Spanish Inquisition, Russian Progroms, German Holocost, Arab Wars, Palestinian Suicide bomers, and now Iranian threats of destruction. Is this what any sane person would consider the "deliverer of the Jews?" The answer is no. Jesus fails that part of the definition also."

This is pretty crazy, I was reading in Hosea and I remembered a few things I've read:

"I know what you are like, O Ephraim. You cannot hide yourself from me, O Israel. You have left me as a prostitute leaves her husband; you are utterly defiled."

The Jews left God, yet God allowed trials. Imagine a God so merciful He sent His Son to die for yours and my sins, even when we have left Him.

The Jews in Jesus' time didn't recognize the temple that is in the His believers. In the old testament the Jews made sacrifices to God in the temple, but then Jesus came as the ultimate sacrifice for man's sin. The tangible temple wasn't needed anymore, because the blood had atoned. 1 Corinthians 3:16 "Don’t you realize that all of you together are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God lives in you (Those who believe in Christ as the savior)?" The Jews didn't take into account all of the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled. When Jesus died, after the 3rd day He rose from the dead. He appeared to so many people, just maybe a day after his death almost everyone in Jerusalem knew he'd died, He even appeared to more than 500 people at once! Here's one account Luke 24:13-34 13 That same day two of Jesus’ followers were walking to the village of Emmaus, seven miles[c] from Jerusalem. 14 As they walked along they were talking about everything that had happened. 15 As they talked and discussed these things, Jesus himself suddenly came and began walking with them. 16 But God kept them from recognizing him.

17 He asked them, “What are you discussing so intently as you walk along?”

They stopped short, sadness written across their faces. 18 Then one of them, Cleopas, replied, “You must be the only person in Jerusalem who hasn’t heard about all the things that have happened there the last few days.”

19 “What things?” Jesus asked.

“The things that happened to Jesus, the man from Nazareth,” they said. “He was a prophet who did powerful miracles, and he was a mighty teacher in the eyes of God and all the people. 20 But our leading priests and other religious leaders handed him over to be condemned to death, and they crucified him. 21 We had hoped he was the Messiah who had come to rescue Israel. This all happened three days ago.

22 “Then some women from our group of his followers were at his tomb early this morning, and they came back with an amazing report. 23 They said his body was missing, and they had seen angels who told them Jesus is alive! 24 Some of our men ran out to see, and sure enough, his body was gone, just as the women had said.”

25 Then Jesus said to them, “You foolish people! You find it so hard to believe all that the prophets wrote in the Scriptures. 26 Wasn’t it clearly predicted that the Messiah would have to suffer all these things before entering his glory?” 27 Then Jesus took them through the writings of Moses and all the prophets, explaining from all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

28 By this time they were nearing Emmaus and the end of their journey. Jesus acted as if he were going on, 29 but they begged him, “Stay the night with us, since it is getting late.” So he went home with them. 30 As they sat down to eat,[d] he took the bread and blessed it. Then he broke it and gave it to them. 31 Suddenly, their eyes were opened, and they recognized him. And at that moment he disappeared!

32 They said to each other, “Didn’t our hearts burn within us as he talked with us on the road and explained the Scriptures to us?” 33 And within the hour they were on their way back to Jerusalem. There they found the eleven disciples and the others who had gathered with them, 34 who said, “The Lord has really risen! He appeared to Peter.[e]”

Tell me How is it there are accounts of Jesus appearing in Greece (Patmos Island), Damascus (Syria), and Jerusalem (Israel) within the span of his 40 days on earth after His resurrection and before His ascension into heaven with God. Mind you Jesus stayed within I think 100 miles or less of His home during His ministry before His death. There was no such thing as a car, and Jesus was poor and wouldn't have been able to afford the fineries of horses, and other forms of mobility, He must have been able to appear like it says in the bible.

Jesus is alive and well even today! If you are seeking more scripture that is easy to find I would suggest biblegateway.com
I HOPE THIS HAS BEEN INSIGHTFUL. I PRAY GOD SHOWS YOU THE TRUTH IF YOU HAVEN'T FOUND IT.

In correlation (if that is the correct use of the word) to Anthony's response: "As far as being the deliverer of the Jews, look at what has happened to the Jewish People since Jesus' death: Their Temple was destroyed, their country was overrun and renamed "Palestine," the people were scattered, anti-jewish propaganda was instituted by the Catholic Church to separate itself from the mother religion, the Spanish Inquisition, Russian Progroms, German Holocost, Arab Wars, Palestinian Suicide bomers, and now Iranian threats of destruction. Is this what any sane person would consider the "deliverer of the Jews?" The answer is no. Jesus fails that part of the definition also."

This is pretty crazy, I was reading in Hosea and I remembered a few things I've read:

"I know what you are like, O Ephraim. You cannot hide yourself from me, O Israel. You have left me as a prostitute leaves her husband; you are utterly defiled."

The Jews left God, yet God allowed trials. Imagine a God so merciful He sent His Son to die for yours and my sins, even when we have left Him.

The Jews in Jesus' time didn't recognize the temple that is in the His believers. In the old testament the Jews made sacrifices to God in the temple, but then Jesus came as the ultimate sacrifice for man's sin. The tangible temple wasn't needed anymore, because the blood had atoned. 1 Corinthians 3:16 "Don’t you realize that all of you together are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God lives in you (Those who believe in Christ as the savior)?" The Jews didn't take into account all of the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled. When Jesus died, after the 3rd day He rose from the dead. He appeared to so many people, just maybe a day after his death almost everyone in Jerusalem knew he'd died, He even appeared to more than 500 people at once! Here's one account Luke 24:13-34 13 That same day two of Jesus’ followers were walking to the village of Emmaus, seven miles[c] from Jerusalem. 14 As they walked along they were talking about everything that had happened. 15 As they talked and discussed these things, Jesus himself suddenly came and began walking with them. 16 But God kept them from recognizing him.

17 He asked them, “What are you discussing so intently as you walk along?”

They stopped short, sadness written across their faces. 18 Then one of them, Cleopas, replied, “You must be the only person in Jerusalem who hasn’t heard about all the things that have happened there the last few days.”

19 “What things?” Jesus asked.

“The things that happened to Jesus, the man from Nazareth,” they said. “He was a prophet who did powerful miracles, and he was a mighty teacher in the eyes of God and all the people. 20 But our leading priests and other religious leaders handed him over to be condemned to death, and they crucified him. 21 We had hoped he was the Messiah who had come to rescue Israel. This all happened three days ago.

22 “Then some women from our group of his followers were at his tomb early this morning, and they came back with an amazing report. 23 They said his body was missing, and they had seen angels who told them Jesus is alive! 24 Some of our men ran out to see, and sure enough, his body was gone, just as the women had said.”

25 Then Jesus said to them, “You foolish people! You find it so hard to believe all that the prophets wrote in the Scriptures. 26 Wasn’t it clearly predicted that the Messiah would have to suffer all these things before entering his glory?” 27 Then Jesus took them through the writings of Moses and all the prophets, explaining from all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

28 By this time they were nearing Emmaus and the end of their journey. Jesus acted as if he were going on, 29 but they begged him, “Stay the night with us, since it is getting late.” So he went home with them. 30 As they sat down to eat,[d] he took the bread and blessed it. Then he broke it and gave it to them. 31 Suddenly, their eyes were opened, and they recognized him. And at that moment he disappeared!

32 They said to each other, “Didn’t our hearts burn within us as he talked with us on the road and explained the Scriptures to us?” 33 And within the hour they were on their way back to Jerusalem. There they found the eleven disciples and the others who had gathered with them, 34 who said, “The Lord has really risen! He appeared to Peter.[e]”

Tell me How is it there are accounts of Jesus appearing in Greece (Patmos Island), Damascus (Syria), and Jerusalem (Israel) within the span of his 40 days on earth after His resurrection and before His ascension into heaven with God. Mind you Jesus stayed within I think 100 miles or less of His home during His ministry before His death. There was no such thing as a car, and Jesus was poor and wouldn't have been able to afford the fineries of horses, and other forms of mobility, He must have been able to appear like it says in the bible.

Jesus is alive and well even today! If you are seeking more scripture that is easy to find I would suggest biblegateway.com
I HOPE THIS HAS BEEN INSIGHTFUL. I PRAY GOD SHOWS YOU THE TRUTH IF YOU HAVEN'T FOUND IT.

James -

Yes, the bat v bird thing. If one reads the Bible:

Lev. 11:13, 19 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls...And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. Also, Deut. 14:11, 18 says "14:11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat (long list of birds snipped)14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat."

The commentary you pointed me to says that the Hebrew has been badly translated, and that the use of the word "bird" in the standard translation of the word "owph" in Leviticus is an overstep. Maybe that's true. However, I would disagree with the writers equal dismissal of the word "tsippowr" in Deut. To me, that clearly indicates a bird, and the bat is listed in the laundry list of god's birds.

Here we have - yet again - a case where we can't take the standard English translations at face value. We have to know Hebrew (I've used that trick myself). That said, now knowing Hebrew, we get a very convoluted answer when it comes to the word "tsippowr." I don't buy it.

As far as there being no linnean classification for animals in Biblical times - that just proves the Bible is the creation of men, not god. If god created bats, he created them as mammals, and he would know that and could have let the humans penning the Bible in on his little secret. Indeed, had the Bible grouped bats with mammals it would have worked in the favor of proving there was a god. Imagine if for centuries people wondered why god grouped bats with mammals in the Bible. They have wings, they must be birds! Could you imagine what the theists would be saying if god had called bats mammals, the scientists had called that crazy talk for decades, only to have later scientists confirming the truth of the Bible? We wouldn't hear the end of it.

As far as the flat Earth, I'd point to this from Daniel:

4:11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth.

In other words, a tree grew so high in Daniel's vision that everyone on Earth could see it. How can that be possible unless the Earth is flat (please don't cop out and say "it's only a vision").

You wrote: "We could instead throw up our hands and say, oh well the Bible doesn't know today's science so it must be false."

But god created the world, and he created the biologies that we study through that which we call science. Why didn't he write the Bible to reflect the scientific reality he created? A thousand years are but the blink of an eye to god. Are you telling me he couldn't see 6 blinks in front of him and write the Bible to make sense for the time when science did become the language of discovery and explanation?

Pretty silly argument, James.

I consider it a very lame excuse to say that the words and concepts didn't exist in Biblical times to explain today's science. First, because the Bible purports to explain the natural world. In this it fails miserably. Second, because it purports to explain the supernatural world. If it's accuracy in explaining the natural world are any indicator, I would take it's description of the supernatural world with a big grain of salt. And third, if it can't get the natural world and the times we live in right, how can it have a snowball's chance of getting the future right, let alone the afterlife?

Mr. Mark,

I believe you mentioned something about the Bible calling a bat a bird? Please read http://www.tektonics.org/af/batbird.html
Linnean classification for animals didn't even exist in Bible times. The Hebrew word owph simply means the owner of a wing. It comes from a root word meaning to cover or fly.

Also, you mentioned that the Bible refers to the world being flat. I refer you to Job 26:7 "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing." Also, referring to the four corners of the earth is simply a reference to the four directions (N,E,W,S).

We could instead throw up our hands and say, oh well the Bible doesn't know today's science so it must be false.

On the contrary, I argue that it continues to be correct.

Mr Mark - I could use your help over at the Jacoby "sex" thread.

See my conversation yesterday and today with RB -it's not exactly working out the way it did with you and Deanna.

Dear Fred & Russell D -

Re: Canyon - I am quite done with that person. You can't reason with someone who is so deluded, so why respond? I'll leave it to others who will also soon tire at the futility of it all.

Ok, I see that Mr. Canyon Shearer has been making his presence known, and just as in the other post (I refer to the one currently going on under John Shelby Spong) he has made no attempt to hide his hollow beliefs and refuses to open his eyes. You guys should go to the other board, his rantings and ravings over there are quite funny.

As for who Jesus was? He was a man that made a mark on humanity. He was a man who will be remembered for who he was and what he started. Of course, he also seemed to be bipolar, but that is a matter of discussion for later days. But he was a good man, regardless, and whether his story is embelished or not, we cannot deny that he left his mark.

Ok, I see that Mr. Canyon Shearer has been making his presence known, and just as in the other post (I refer to the one currently going on under John Shelby Spong) he has made no attempt to hide his hollow beliefs and refuses to open his eyes. You guys should go to the other board, his rantings and ravings over there are quite funny.

As for who Jesus was? He was a man that made a mark on humanity. He was a man who will be remembered for who he was and what he started. Of course, he also seemed to be bipolar, but that is a matter of discussion for later days. But he was a good man, regardless, and whether his story is embelished or not, we cannot deny that he left his mark.

The phrase „We wish to entertain you“ first comes to mind when reading the emanations of Canyon’s brain.

A friend of mine who was director of a large insane asylum told me the story of an inmate who thought she was the princess of an underwater castle. She had what can be called an “operational intelligence”, just like Canyon, and could respond with an admirable amount of fantasy, even technical knowledge, to every question concerning the functioning of her castle, with complete infrastructure, traffic, visitors etc.

Of course, she was merely “insane”. Shearer is dangerous. He is perfectly capable of killing somebody (does he really stop short of it, as he professes?) who does not believe in his “underwater castle”. Mr. Mark and Fate, you are quite correct with your analogy of the “elephant” picturing. Therefore he should be kept in an insane asylum to keep him from inflicting damage on society, which he obviously does. Mass crime starts in the brain of people, and in spreading his nonsense to simple-minded listeners he reminds me of my childhood when exposed to Nazi propaganda, which of course, as a simple-minded child, I believed without the slightest spark of doubt.
I remember this "belief" and what it felt like very well!

Dear Deanna -

Re: Arthur Peacocke. I also find him baffling. Just look at the quote from Wikipedia! If one was honest, they would have to say that scientific evidence CONTRADICTS the Biblical description of the way the world works. How does a guy like Peacocke get around the Bible saying that bats are birds and not mammals? How does he get around the flat earth that the Bible posits?

Well, there's only one way to do that, and that is to reinterpret the Bible to fit the facts that science has revealed. If one wants to go down that path, then one can reinterpret everything and anything. At some point, Santa Claus will indeed exist (we see him at the malls and he's in plenty of movies).

If one goes down that path, then why not reinterpret the moral issues as well?

One thing's for sure: science is a great predicter, the Bible is not.

BTW - I strongly suggest you check out this site as a great start to exploring the questions about the historic Jesus:

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

Dear Joseph A.!

Wonderful quotes!! I especially like Tolstoy's analogy, for I, too, realized that I "can fly, can be free and no longer need to fear." It's an incredibly liberating and humbling experience! But Kierkegaard's "despair" resonates with me as well. How often do we contemplate seeking the "fearfully easy way out"?!!

To all my wonderful friends, including Joseph, I hope you will accept my previous posting for what it was intended to be -- an expression of happiness, and the sprinkling of the site with a little levity. I was having a particularly spectacular day and couldn't resist sharing my good feelings with my friends here!

I have started reading Dawkins, but I have also decided I need to do some research on the historical authenticity arguments, particularly about the NT, since I do so love the Gospel of John -- it reads like the testimony of a convicted disciple who was also an eyewitness. Having read some of the historical arguments, I can see where atheist believers find invoking the Bible as evidence for Christ's existence more than a little flimsy.

In the process, I also spent some time reading up on Dawkins, primarily from the Wikipedia entry on him -- which led me to do some reading on the "good scientists who are sincerely religious" but who "baffle" Dawkins "by their belief in the details of the Christian religion."

I have to be honest. Much of what I read from these eminent theist/scientists is persuasive, given their coming to theism from atheism by way of science -- physics, in most cases. Below are a couple of quotes I picked up in my search which I think merit consideration by the sincere seekers here. This is from John Polkinghorne, a theoretical physicist from 1955 through 1981. He was ordained an Anglican priest in 1982. "The question of the existence of God is the single most important question we face about the nature of reality." Polkinghorne quotes with approval Anthony Kenny: "After all, if there is no God, then God is incalculably the greatest single creation of the human imagination."

Polkinghorne "does not assert that God's existence can be demonstrated in a logically coercive way (any more than God's non-existence can) but that theism makes more sense of the world, and of human experience, than does atheism" He cites in particular: * The intelligibility of the universe: One would anticipate that evolutionary selection would produce hominid minds apt for coping with everyday experience, but that these minds should also be able to understand the subatomic world and general relativity goes far beyond anything of relevance to survival fitness. The mystery deepens when one recognizes the proven fruitfulness of mathematical beauty as a guide to successful theory choice.

Another of Dawkins' "baffling" scientist/theists is Arthur Peacocke. To quote from the Wikipedia article: "Arthur Peacocke describes a position which is referred to elsewhere as “front-loading”, after the fact that it suggests that evolution is entirely consistent with an all-knowing, all-powerful God who exists throughout time, sets initial conditions and natural laws, and knows what the result will be. An implication of Peacocke’s particular stance is that all scientific analyses of physical processes reveal God’s actions. All scientific propositions are thus necessarily coherent with religious ones."

In reading the article on Peacocke, I stumbled upon the following: "The mainstream Evangelical Lutheran Church in America made the following statement in correlation with many of Peacocke's arguments: “The ELCA doesn't have an official position on creation vs. evolution, but we subscribe to the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation, so we believe God created the universe and all that is therein, only not necessarily in six 24-hour days, and that he may actually have used evolution in the process of creation.” 'Twould appear my position in the ELCA has not been one of an apostate! Drat! I thought I had come up with that one on my own. Actually, I did. This was the first I knew that the ELCA essentially agreed, in PRINT, with my position.

Fear not, Mark. I will read every syllable of Dawkins and, if I can stomach him, Harris. But I have also pulled out my trusty copies of C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity and The Screwtape Letters. The next couple of weeks' reading look to be very interesting! More later!

Peace and Love,
Deanna

"Lord Jesus Christ, how often was I impatient, about to lose heart, about to give up everything, about to seek the fearfully easy way out: Despair.
But you never lost patience. You bore a whole life of suffering to redeem even me."
---Kierkegaard

================

"Jesus Christ teaches man that there is something in them above this life with all its hurries, its pleasures, and fears.
He who understands Christ's teaching feels like a bird that did not know it has wings and now suddenly realizes that it can fly, can be free and no longer needs to fear."
--Tolstoy

Dear Mark, Gerry, Joseph A, and E Favorite,

First of all, I have not "abandoned" this site! I'm just lurking in cyberspace, keeping tabs on what you're up to (sort of like God) ;-) !!

You're right. Shouldn't start with Sam Harris. Just read the intro, and decided his affect was a bit harsh. I know, you didn't suggest him; I just decided to include him in my order. Have started reading The God Delusion. Dawkins' credentials are very impressive, and his presentation is very civil, as if addressing an intelligent audience.

Valentine's Day was not a flimsy excuse! Remember the Mafia connection? It was in celebration of the Valentine's Day Massacre! LOL!

As for when I'll post again, Arbor Day might be a possibility. We could celebrate the scientific process that keeps us all alive -- photosynthesis! Where would we be without plants?!! Dead, that's where! But Arbor Day isn't until late April.

Since we brought up saints and the Catholic Church's presumption to determine who is/isn't a saint -- they're dead! Who cares?! We could reconnect on a drunken saint's day that's a little closer -- St. Paddy's Day.

But thinking it over, I think the best day to reconnect and discuss our positions is April 1!!
April Fool's Day!!! Then we can argue who is the greater fool!

Just remember, I'm still out there. You just never know when I'll pop in. I like to keep things interesting!

Dear E Fav -

Thanks for providing Mr Sullivan's e-mail address. I have sent him a note. Maybe he'll publish it at his site.

andrew@theatlantic.com

Dear E Fav -

Do you have Sullivan's e-mail address? Long story, but clickng on the link to his e-mail at the Atlantic site doesn't work for me on my computer.

Thanks.

Mr Mark – Sullivan posted a critical email this morning, either from you or someone just as eloquent – go to his site to check it out. And if it wasn’t you, please pick another topic and write to him. Like I said, he reads his email. I sent him something too – on the topic of channeling his energy to finding ways to maintain his beloved “cultural inheritance” of Christianity without dependence on supernatural beliefs.

Regarding Romans – Interesting! Hadn’t heard that angle. Even more interesting is the case of my smart, cynical friend (whom I mentioned somewhere on these threads) who more or less shared Sullivan’s thoughts on the specialness of Jesus. A few days ago, after her first reading of Romans in Bible class, she decided that Paul “invented” Christianity. In her opinion, his “smarmy” style shows that he’s a con artist and master marketer – a style she’s all too familiar with from her ex-husband!

I got her the God Delusion for Xmas – she’s going to start reading it now. From the way she was talking yesterday, I thought she already had.

E Favorite asked Sophia:
" what about people, through no fault of their own, who do not know about Jesus? Maybe they live in a remote village, or can’t read, or are so involved in another religon that they don’t check out Christianity. Do they not get everlasting life? Do they just die forever, because they didn’t hear about Jesus during their life?"

According to Paul in Romans, god still gets the generalized info to those who haven't heard about Jesus so they have a chance of getting into heaven:

Romans 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

In other words, if you haven't heard about Jesus but follow the law, you can get into heaven. HOWEVER, once you've heard about Jesus, you need to follow him. Your previously unknowing but doing good position has just been nullified.

Dear Mr. Mark,

I second E. Fav's Motion. You write very well. You make compelling arguments. I too would enjoy seeing you, and others, tangle with Sullivan. But it appears he has his hands full with Harris.

I'm, still enjoying the posts. Each day I'm expecting to see them vaporize. Glad they're still here. Bonus time.

I'm still on Deanna's team, so to speak. After reading the 1000+ posts, I think so much depends on what one "wants" to believe, almost as if it's genetic, pre-programmed. We could all examine the same evidence and come to different conclusions. Much like a hung jury I suppose.

more later...

Mr Mark – Sullivan does read his mail – you could do a quick cut and paste job from a lot of what you’ve posted here.

Sophia – very nice, for you to feel so sure about everlasting life, but what about people, through no fault of their own, who do not know about Jesus? Maybe they live in a remote village, or can’t read, or are so involved in another religon that they don’t check out Christianity. Do they not get everlasting life? Do they just die forever, because they didn’t hear about Jesus during their life?

Deanna – your description of the Gospel of John sounded very much like the introduction section to John in the Jerusalem Bible, (pp 139-145). Is that where you got the information?
If so, please consider checking source outside the Bible, as commentary within the Bible does not reflect the broad scope of biblical scholarship. There are a lot of different opinions as to when John was written – from 60 to 100 AD, and scholars think that all 4 gospels were written anonymously.

THE PRICE OF IGNORANCE
There is a scripture which addresses all the comments made herein on the question "Who IS Jesus?"

This scripture puts people on both sides of the discussion about Jesus into perspective: "The Natural Man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him. Neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14 KJV)

Everybody has an opinion. Unlike Islam, Christianity does not seek to deprive man of his God-given Free Will. There are only two manifestations of the Will: to choose to love God or to choose to reject (hate) God. The critical question then is how informed is your opinion?

The Bible would be a good starting place to get an informed opinion and I would guess the majority of people sharing their insights on the subject of Christ have not read it. If I could choose only one book in the Bible to recommend to someone to gain an understanding of Christianity, it would be the book of Romans.

For those who have read the Bible and your understanding remains darkened, it simply means that you are not spiritually minded and you were not intended to 'get it.'

Salvation (belief that Jesus is the Son of God and died on the Cross for the sins of man) is not dependent on IQ, education, science, social position, bank account, worldly wisdom or politics. It is a simple matter of faith.

The large number of anti-Christian responses I have read by contributors to this column does say something to me. My own belief is that the majority of Americans are not Christians and have not been reared in the tenets of any faith. Yet polls are continually published saying that 86% of Americans are Christian. That cannot be. It flies in the face of reality when we live in a society that labors under the weight of its immorality. Also, it is contrary to what the Bible says at Matthew 7:13-14 (KJV). [13] Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: [14] Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

For those who believe, the clay falls from the eyes, the ears hear, and Truth is revealed. But you will find your travel on the straight and narrow is often lonely.

Contrary to the feel good, I'm okay/you're okay teachings of Humanism, Christianity is not ecumenical and does not seek to embrace all theologies and people. It is very much about drawing a line in the sand. Christ IS the line.

Dear E Fav -

I just found a new website that would be an excellent link to send off to Andrew Sullivan. It's called "Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ." It covers it all quite nicely with major sections on:

-The Gospel of Mark was the first story of Jesus that was written, and all others are dependent on it
-The Gospel of Mark shows clear signs of being written as an allegorical fiction
-Virtually every detail of the life of Jesus comes from "Old Testament" scriptures
-Some of the details of the life of Jesus are based on mistranslations of the Hebrew scriptures
-Jesus' crucifixion on Passover defies historical believability, yet makes perfect sense metaphorically
-The Gospels make many claims that are contradicted by the historical record
-The earliest writings about Jesus, from Paul and others, contain no details of his life
-Many statements in the letters of Paul only make sense if Paul does not view Jesus Christ as a historical person
-There is not one single writing from or about Jesus during his supposed lifetime
-Philo, a prolific Jewish writer who lived from 20 BCE to 50 CE, wrote extensively about the political and theological movements throughout the Mediterranean, and his views foreshadowed Christian theology, yet he never once wrote anything about Jesus. Not only this, but he actually wrote about political conflicts between the Jews and Pontius Pilate in Judea
-All of the non-Christian references to Jesus can be shown to have either been introduced later by Christian scribes or were originally based on Christian claims
-There is no evidence of any knowledge of a tomb of Jesus (empty or occupied) prior to the Gospel stories
-There were many conflicting beliefs about who Jesus Christ was in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries, including beliefs that he had never existed on earth "in the flesh"
-The Catholics made purely theological arguments as to why Jesus Christ had to have existed "in the flesh"

This site is currently linked to Sam Harris' website:

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

It's a long read but worthwhile. Check it out.

Dear E Fav -

Well, I just read Sullivan's latest reply to Harris. Sadly, he seems to have not a clue to the historic evidence against the existence of Jesus. The "historical" arguments he makes are the same tired arguments that atheists, historians and rationalists have been handily shooting down for decades. For a supposed intellectual, I had hoped Sullivan might have offered something better than "Defending Jesus 101."

I hope that Harris will not induldge in the all-too-easy dismantling of Sullivan's reasoning, but finds something new to say in response to the asking.

In the meanwhile, Sullivan might consider doing even a cursory bit of study on his own. The answers to his simplistic questions are readily available at the click of a mouse.

I do believe Jesus is the son of God, but that is the point after all--BELIEF. I shudder to think at times how I would get through the roller coaster called life, if I did not have belief that there was a man who came to earth, from the divinity of heaven to die for me and other so that we might have life eternal. Jesus was such and optimist, so forgiving, so loving, so compassionate. If only we who call ourselves Christians would emulate Him more. I think about Jesus everyday as I pray, and I am in awe of Him, truly because he gives a fallen man hope of redemption and life everlasting. Not Buddah, not Mohammed, not Hindi can offer this, nor do they proclaim to. Think about it for those that believe and are baptized into Christ (Mark 16:16; Romans 6:1-4) we have HOPE of something no-one has ever claimed before. That is, "O death where is thy sting"--we live forever, even after we die. Now that is a wonderful thing to believe in and hope for.

Dear E Fav -

Thanks for the compliment! I only wish I had the intellectual skills of a Dan Dennett, let alone his writing ability.

I've been following the Harris/Sullivan debate via the link at Dawkin's website (BTW - my comments at RD.com are also written under my webname, Mr Mark). I think Harris is doing a good job laying out the position, but he's already pissed off Andrew with his style of debate.

I don't think a letter to Sullivan would do any good. The hoops that man is jumping through to explain his beliefs are many...and quite the emotional construct. I don't think anything short of Sullivan having a Road to Damascus moment is going to change his mind. He seems to be operating from a firmly ensconced defensive position. Letting go of that is near impossible, even moreso for the intellectually fleet.

Thanks again for the kind words.

Mr Mark –

I suggest you go over to Andrew Sullivan’s blog http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/, read his latest response to Sam Harris, and send Andrew an email. I’d specifically like to see your response to his paragraph that starts “Consider the evidence….” You have the needed information, the writing ability and the patience. He’s a fair guy – I wouldn’t be surprised if he publishes your email (not using your name, of course).

Deanna – I agree with Mr Mark – read Dawkins first. Also consider Dan Dennett’s “Breaking the Spell – Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.” He’s a philosopher and he writes a lot like Mr. Mark, so I know you’ll like him.

Glad you are back, Deanna.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact (which you are aware of, of course) that the material your body consists of is not your personality. The personality is the “system” behind that matter, as a beautiful building is the IDEA of the architect who used the stones to bring that idea into real being, the “system” of the building. The stones are not the building, they are only the vehicle for the building. The "system" is necessarily an abstract, immaterial, the stones are material.

So, the fact that the matter (which in reality also is energy) of which my body consists must necessarily go back to Mother Nature, get “recycled”, so to speak, is no argument either for or against an afterlife, and I am quite happy with this cycle, which morphs energy into a different form.

For me, eternity is now, it seems to be a little similar to your position, and if time is one of many dimensions of reality I am happy and grateful for being able to both observe and be part of nature for the time being, for this part of eternity. I don’t need any additional afterlife. Life is process, plan, development, direction, hope. Eternal life is an oxymoron. What would anybody hope for if life were eternal? The reward-and-punishment system therefore doesn’t apply to me either. And Nature is so overwhelmingly grand and beautiful that I regard the posit for the "supernatural" as an insult to nature, as a little appendix attached to nature for ("understandable") lack of understanding, as if nature were not enough and unable to fulfill our overbearing demands. Nature needs no additional "super" added to it. Religions to me are the attempts to reduce the greatness of nature to the smaller "manageable" dimensions of the human mind.

Dear Deanna -

Good to see you. Happy Valentine's Day.

You must miss us! Valentine's Day is a pretty thin excuse to visit this blog that you said you were abandoning. I look forward to reading your comments on Dawkins, maybe on...Arbor Day. :)

Re: Sam Harris - you'll recall that I didn't recommend Harris to you, but Dawkins. Harris is very much in your face, maybe too much so for someone coming to the topic for the first time. While we atheists may read his books and nod our heads in agreement, I sometimes wonder whether or not his "Letter to a Xian Nation" should have been subtitled, "So, You Thought Atheists Pissed You Off BEFORE You Read This Book!"

Try not to let Harris' style prejudice you against Dawkins. I recommended Dawkins because I feel his writing is more accesible and less confrontational. Maybe you won't find that to be true, but it's the reason I recommended Dawkins and not Harris to you as the FIRST book to read to get an idea about atheism.

You wrote: "By your definition, I am religious, and I won't deny that. But I will argue that my "religious-ness" is informed by a belief and faith in the existence of God, specifically the Triune God of Christianity. Religion without belief/faith is the empty practice of rituals and forms. And that's not where I'm coming from."

Deanna, I'd assume that the answer you give is the answer that every theist gives. I don't know a single theist who would say, "Belief in god? No thanks. I'm just here for the empty practice of rituals and forms." Indeed, I often think that the one redeeming factor of religion IS the ritual! We all have rituals in our lives, from how we awaken in the morning and the order in which we prepare for work, to our schedule in the work day to what we do to relax at night. This sense of order helps us feel that our daily lives have structure. Anybody with kids knows that you've reached a major milestone when you finally get the kids "on a schedule."

So, ritual? OK. Religion? Not so much.

Re: the "cheap imitators" remark was a friendly jab and I'm happy you took it as such.

You wrote: "What if we did practice what Christ and others taught?"

What if we didn't cherry pick what Christ wrote when we speak of practicing what he preached? What if we take to heart his words that we must love him more than our families? What if we take as a given that folllowing him will pit us against our families ("I bring a sword")? What if we take to heart his ordering us to follow the OT law in its entirety, including stoning our kids to death for sassing back at us ("not a tittle of the law shall be fulfilled until heaven & earth pass")? What if we took to heart his instructions to sell everything we own and take up and follow him?

One point that Sam Harris makes in which I am in total agreement is his pointing out that few of us have met religious types who really, REALLY believe this stuff to the point that they would fly a plane into the side of a building. Xians roll their eyes at sects that handle deadly snakes as part of their ritual, yet, it's in the Bible. Why aren't all the Xian sects doing this? When we discussed your illness, you admitted that you trusted medical procedures over prayer to cure you. That's much different from the Christian Scientists who will go to their deaths refusing medical treatment because they really, REALLY believe that their life is in god's hand, not some doctor's. As Harris points out, these people really live the convictions of their beliefs, and those beliefs are lined out for them in their holy texts, the same holy texts that other sects follow. Yet, 95% of Xians will shake their heads, maybe even mutter the word "idiots" under their breath when they hear that the child of a Xian Scientist has been allowed to die from some easily curable disease, simply because their parent's heart-felt religious beliefs were taken at face value and followed with conviction.

Most Xians cherry pick their Bible, following the "good" parts while ignoring the embarrassing "bad" parts. Is it so strange that we atheists wonder why that is? I don't think so.

Your minister asked, "If all there is after death is worms and decay, would you still choose this path?"

I must tell you that these are the kind of thoughts that helped to drive me away from Xianity. The absolute fixation on death. The directing of one's life toward some imaginary afterlife. I want to lead my life fixated on LIFE. If I was your minister, I would say, "Since all there is after LIFE is worms and decay, would you still choose this path?" The point is that we have a life that we are experiencing, right now. It's all we've got, and it is glorious.

Hope to hear from you again soon.

Dear Mark and all,

Just checking in to wish you love on Valentine's Day. That is what is at the heart of Christ's message -- LOVE. Just imagine how different our world might be if everyone tried to practice Christ's primary injunction to all his followers -- love your neighbor as yourself?! [BTW - you will argue that the many of the moral precepts Christ taught are not new to Christianity. And I won't disagree. I'm just positing the question: What if we did practice what Christ and others taught?]

Okay, Mark, I'll cry "uncle." By your definition, I am religious, and I won't deny that. But I will argue that my "religious-ness" is informed by a belief and faith in the existence of God, specifically the Triune God of Christianity. Religion without belief/faith is the empty practice of rituals and forms. And that's not where I'm coming from.

Perhaps the reason 99% (although I think that number is a bit high) of Christians deny being religious is that the religious right has co-opted the title "religious" and many of us don't want to be in any way associated with that kind of "religion." I recall a very early post from a self-effacing gentleman who pointed out that the real Christians of this world practice their faith quietly every day -- we're not making noise or news, so it's very easy to overlook us.

A couple of friendly jabs: "them cheap imitators" were Matthew and Luke! John was "the disciple whom Jesus loved," and his is the non-synoptic (unique vision) gospel. Very few scholars attribute this gospel to anyone other than John bar Zebedee -- John, the son of Zebedee -- who, with his brother, James was among the first disciples. John was the one to whom Christ entrusted the care of his mother; the only male disciple to witness the crucifixion, and the only disciple not martyred. His account of Christ's ministry is that of an eyewitness to the events. His unique take on the gospel focuses on Christ's divinity and unity with God; Christ's message of love; and the teachings of Christ -- only a few "signs and miracles" are recorded. What is recorded is the impact, both one-on-one and in large groups, Christ's loving message had on the people whose lives he touched.

BTW, Every baptized Christian is a "born-again" Christian. In baptism, we are "born again of water and the Spirit." That's a once and forever sacrament. I don't know what all that other noise is about, except that we all stray, sometimes for years, sometimes forever, but when we come back, if we come back, it may feel like a transformational experience. But it's only that we are reawakened to the presence of Christ in our lives. We never ceased to be God's beloved children; we just forgot we were.

The God Delusion and Letter to a Christian Nation arrived yesterday. I have read a bit of Sam Harris, and my initial reaction -- no, I won't tell you that. I need to read more!

A couple of points arising out of a conversation yesterday with one of my special pastors (She is "my Pastor of Love" because that is what she teaches, both by example and by word.) She is also an amazing minister to our youth. We were discussing grace, and whether Christians live for the promise of heaven. Actually, it wasn't much of a discussion because we our beliefs are identical. As she said, she often asks our youth, "If all there is after death is worms and decay, would you still choose this path?" My answer is a resounding, "YES!!!" For me, God's grace is here and now, and I'm already experiencing the joy and peace of living in his grace. If there is nothing behind either Door A or Door B, I'm okay with that, because I've got the goods right here, right now!

The message of Christ is peace and love. I believe that, and I try to practice it. I cannot prove to you that God exists, and I won't try. I also think, in the final analysis, God's existence cannot be disproved -- it's very hard to prove a negative, but I won't argue with your beliefs -- yes, I did say, "beliefs," for you BELIEVE as you do with as much fervor as I do. I will say this: I LOVE YOU -- just as you are. That's not some sloppy, sentimental Valentine's Day sop. We have developed an friendship -- a connectedness, if you will, and your well-being, health, happiness, and peace of mind, as well as that of those you love -- your wife, the survivor; your sister, the esteemed physician; your daughter, who wants her time on the computer, and all the others you haven't mentioned -- is important to me. I believe each of you is, as I am, a beloved child of God. You are my brothers and my sisters, and I care for and about you.

I don't know if this blog will still be going when I have read and digested Dawkins and Harris, but I will make every effort to find you and share my reactions and considered thoughts on both. Until then,

Peace and Love,
Deanna

If he was just a rabbi then why did you folks just make oover one thousand comments? If he was just a rabbi then how do you answer the question of group hypnosis, as some people call it, and the change in those twelve ignorant men? Why not refer to some of the books from F.F. Bruce, Mark Goodacre, and maybe even John Walvoord. SO many of your sources stated are has beens. This cultish facination with JD Crossman, the man was fine in his day but that is in the past. You want to see where scholarly research is going read Mark Goodacre. Ask yourself why none of these great scholars will take him on?

τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ Θεσσαλονικέων ἐν θεῷ πατρὶ καὶ κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ, χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη.

James wrote:
Mr. Mark wrote:

"In other words, a FRAGMENT from as late as 150AD qualifies as THE EARLIEST piece of the NT we have extant. Think it over."

This is an amazing thing! The fragment was found in a community along the nile river in Egypt, a long way from Ephesus in Asia Minor where the book was written! Also, by comparison, the earliest copy of a Greek manuscript of Homer's Iliad is from the 2nd century. A far cry (1000 years) from its composition date in approximately 800BC. The manuscript evidence for the New Testament is overwhelming when compared to other works from antiquity that scholars have no problem with treating as authentic."

Yes, it is an amazing thing that the fragment was found at all.

Scholars aren't sure that Homer existed either (you know the old joke that the Iliad wasn't written by Homer but by somebody else with the same name). When one speaks of these epic works, one is speaking of poems that existed in an oral tradition for centuries and were only written down sometime between 900-600BC. There's not even a consensus on whether or not the Trojan War was a real event. If it was a real event, there's nobody alive today who would believe that the fortunes of that war were the result of the interventions of Apollo or Zeus.

That said, we have lots of pottery and art works that depict the legend of the Trojan War story, pieces that have been dated to the time frame in which the Homeric epics were supposedly set down in written form. So even if the written record is missing, we do have physical evidence that attests to the legend of the TW existing deep into the pre-Xian centuries.

Let's be honest here when discussing written sources from antiquity. Many non-Xian works were purposefully destroyed by Xians during the purges of the 5th century. The church issued edicts to destroy all pagan and scientific writings and sources. St John Chrysostom of Constantinople, who called Pythagoras a barbarian and a sorcerer, reported this destruction when he wrote, "And as for the writings of the Greeks, they are all put out and vanished." The pagan academies were either destroyed or starved into oblivion as the rich erected churches to buy their way into heaven. Even though the writings of Homer, Ovid and a few others were generally spared by the Xians, the fact remains that we will never know how many truly ancient scrolls were fooder for the Xian fires, even as the Xians were busy making their multiple copies of the NT.

I think you'd have to admit that the volume of extant Xian sources vs the volume of extant sources for Greek literature is not the most accurate way to measure which stories are true and which are fables, especially as the Xians systematically destroyed anything that the Church deemed unapproved for the consumption of believers while cranking out multiple versions of their own version of the resurrected godman myth.

Having said all of that, I appreciate your bringing Homer into the mix. I'll take that as an indication from you that you put the Homeric gods on equal footing with the Biblical gods...or maybe it's the other way around? :)

Mr. Mark wrote:

"In other words, a FRAGMENT from as late as 150AD qualifies as THE EARLIEST piece of the NT we have extant. Think it over."

This is an amazing thing! The fragment was found in a community along the nile river in Egypt, a long way from Ephesus in Asia Minor where the book was written! Also, by comparison, the earliest copy of a Greek manuscript of Homer's Iliad is from the 2nd century. A far cry (1000 years) from its composition date in approximately 800BC. The manuscript evidence for the New Testament is overwhelming when compared to other works from antiquity that scholars have no problem with treating as authentic. Also, when the thousands of copies of copies of copies are compared, we can be certain that the New Testament is 99.5% reliable.

I'll have to comment on the Marcionites at a later time. I'll do some checking. All I really know about him at this time is that he was a heretic and excommunicated from the church around 144AD.

Congratulations on getting post number one thousand Mr. Mark!

You should get a prize and for that! (and for the quality of your comments as well..I've been enjoying them.)

1000 comments in this thread.

The debate goes on!

James wrote:

"Skeptics like to ignore the fact that a fragment of the Gospel of John exists in John Rylands Library in Manchester, England that dates to between 98-150 AD."

I researched your claim. Here's what the John Rylands website has to say about the fragment in question:

"The importance of this fragment is quite out of proportion to its size, since it may with some confidence be dated in the first half of the second century A.D., and thus ranks as the earliest known fragment of the New Testament in any language."

"First half of the second century A.D" in your translation = as early as 98AD. I don't doubt their scholarship as they at least hedge their bets and state that "it may with some confidence be dated." Were they more absolutist about it I'd suspect an agenda.

I would be more inclined to translate "First half of the second century A.D" as meaning "written probably no later than 150AD." I can understand your wanting to assign as early a date as possible to support your claim, but I question whether that's the best interpretation of the research.

Also, you might have noticed this interesting tidbit: "(it) thus ranks as the earliest known fragment of the New Testament in any language." In other words, a FRAGMENT from as late as 150AD qualifies as THE EARLIEST piece of the NT we have extant. Think it over.

As to the writings of St Paul - yes, I know what he wrote in his Epistles. But was Paul talking about an earthly death and resurrection or a heavenly death and resurrection? Was Paul a Gnostic who believed that Jesus' battles were fought in heaven before the dawn of time? There's evidence in his writings that would indicate so. It's a fascinating subject. Let's face it, Xianity is based on the writings of Paul as much as it is the words of Jesus, and Paul felt himself to be a power unto himself with the Truth revelaed directly to him through divine inspiration, not from contact with Jesus himself or familiarity with the Gospels.

Since you brought up the fragment of the Gospel of John, we should look at the documentation that exists for Paul's epistles. As you probably know, there are NO ORIGINALS extant for any of Paul's writings. We have only copies and copies of copies. The EARLIEST COPIES we have of Paul's writings date from the 3rd century. In addition, 14-15 of Paul's 21 books of the Bible are of questionable authorship. The authenticity of Paul's writings has been under attack by scholars since the 1700s.

Question: what do you make of the church of Marcion and their championing the works of Paul in contrast to the Gospel-based beliefs of the Apostolic-founded Roman Church? What do you think of the fact that it was Marcion who discovered Paul's writings in the 3rd century?

Greg – Yes, I did look at your post. I have seen this “evidence” before. The Josephus reference to Christ is a well-known addition/forgery. Also, the fact that other historians referred to “Christians” does not prove that Christ existed, only that Christians existed, which is not disputed.

Most of all, your source, Chuck Colson’s Prison Fellowship, does not impress me. I trust academic archeologists over professional fundamentalist Christians.

Ghostbuster wrote :

"Unfortunately, I can't scroll through this page anymore. Maybe it's because they put all 900+ responses on one page?"

They do make it difficult, don't they? This will be my third attempt to respond to your post (#995). Other tries have been unsuccessful - I get a message that the thread is closed or that I can't respond.

"So, if you did respond to my questions Mr. Mark, I appreciate it."

I did. You'll see it if you scroll up.

I think I'm going to abandon this thread. Nothing's more frustrating to compose a response and then to have it not show up. I refuse to compose in a Word doc and then try to cut-n-paste over and over again. The webmasters at OnFaith need to do better.

Greg – Yes, I did look at your post. I have seen this “evidence” before. The Josephus reference to Christ is a well-known addition/forgery. Also, the fact that other historians referred to “Christians” does not prove that Christ existed, only that Christians existed, which is not disputed.

Most of all, your source, Chuck Colson’s Prison Fellowship, does not impress me. I trust academic archeologists over professional fundamentalist Christians.

Unfortunately, I can't scroll through this page anymore. Maybe it's because they put all 900+ responses on one page? So, if you did respond to my questions Mr. Mark, I appreciate it.

E. Favorite,
So did you even look at my post? It provided plenty of evidence for the accuracy of the OT.

E. Favorite,
So did you even look at my post? It provided plenty of evidence for the accuracy of the OT.

E. Favorite,
So did you even look at my post? It provided plenty of evidence for the accuracy of the OT.

Jesus is the literal Son of the Living God. He is the promised Messiah--the very Christ. He left His Father's presence to show mankind a perfect example of how to return to God's presence. He made an infinite Atonement for the sins of mankind through the shedding of His holy blood in the garden and on the cross. He was slain that we might live eternally. He is the way, the truth, and the life. He rose from the dead the third day in immortal and eternal glory and as we speak HE LIVES in flesh and bone. In due time He will return to this earth in glory to reign as King of kings and Lord of lords. Glory be to God for the immeasurable gift of His Beloved Son.

Henry: Eternity is now!

Henry: Eternity is now!

If Jesus really was God's son, and if God really wanted us to know that he exists, then Jesus should have written the Bible instead of a bunch of guys he was able to convince to leave Judaism behind them. It shouldn't have taken him longer than the blink of an eye.

At the very least, one would think that some of his family members would have written about him as well. Surely they knew him better than any of the apostles.

If Jesus really was God's son, and if God really wanted us to know that he exists, than Jesus should have written the Bible instead of a bunch of guys he was able to convince to leave Judaism behind them.

At the very least, one would think that some of his family members would have written about him as well. Surely they knew him better than any of the apostles.

Many of you seem so lost, trying to explain the non-existance of God.

Have you ever talked to God? Have you ever experianced his wonderful love in your life.

Look around you and you will know that there is a God.

Try to explain why we have Life, love, joy, and hate, or fruit, vegetables, or water and light?

Look up into the sky at night and explain "where the universe begins and ends? God gives us the answer, He said that he "is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the ending".

I have prayed and my Lord Jesus Christ has answered my prayer. When I need help He gives me help. My wife and I pray about all of our needs, and God always answers.

When we begin to live by faith, not by sight, We will be blessed of God.

Try talking to God through His Son, Jesus Christ, The Lamb of God.

Here is a truth.
Eternity will be real for all, either everlasting life with Our Lord Jesus Christ, or everlasting punishment for denying Him.

Mr. Mark

You wrote, "I would have no problem with you writing that "Dr Hugh Ross has speculated," but you don't do that. You present his writings on evolution as a dissenting scientific theory, which they are not. They are a hypothesis, and an untested hypothesis at that.

I think we can agree on that, can't we?". This was in a post you directed at me, but I think that although it began that way it ended as a post for James right?

Still, for what it's worth I am happy to agree that untested hypothesis should be viewed as just that.

Sometimes I think that I don't make myself clear enough as a few times people have thought I was taking an opposite position when I was in reality just trying to "fine tune" my understanding of what that person was getting at. Need to work on that.

James - I trust huge amounts of archeological findings over 2 Egyptian tablets - that could have been misinterpreted.

In the article I linked to I see no mention of homosexuality.

regarding conspiracy theories, I think people looking for them can always find them.

I suggest you go to a conservative temple and check out the reference I mentioned.

It's a big Red book.

Mr. Mark - no it was not Nietsche that prompted me to ASZ... It was Zarathustra himself, and a prediction he made in the 1600's, the ;last millenium, about this millenium.

Taken from the Precepts Given by Zardusht - (Zarathustra)- to the King and to all mankind. It is from a Persian work called: Dabistan-ul-Mazahad, which was composed in the 1600s, and deals with the great wars of the second millennium.

“When the second millennium commences, mankind shall behold more calamity than was witnessed in the times of Zohak and Afrasiab. (The second millennium began with the year 2001)!!

“A people clothed for war, oppressors of the poor, without title, reputation, or merit, friends to tumult and wickedness, fraudulent, hypocritical, and deceitful….speakers of falsehood…seeking the ways of hell, having conspired together will destroy the FIRE TEMPLES, and turn to themselves the spirit of the inhabitants of Iran. The sons and daughters of nobles shall fall into their hands, and the children of the virtuous and mighty become their attendants. This race shall make a covenant-breaker king over them: -

“That person among them obtains both power and rank, Whose career is directed to the production of misery.”

The clouds shall mostly appear unattended; the rains not fall in their season, heats predominate, the water of rivers be lessened; and men despicable in figure.

An evil-disposed rapacious host shall come to Iran; and force away the crown and throne from its chieftains. O Zardusht! Communicate these tidings to the Mobeds, that they may impart them to their people:

“From every quarter they shall prepare to assail Iran,… They shall lay it waste.”

Three mighty battles will then ensue, which will render Persia the land of mourning; after which will arise an exalted avenging prince who shall obtain the victgory! -------------------

FIRE TEMPLES I am more than certain has reference to Nuclear reactors.

In the context of what is happening today, (at this the beginning of the second thousand year period), I ask you, just how prophetic are these words which were written in the 1600s???

E Favorite:

Further on the article you referenced; it appears that this "New Torah for Modern Minds" purpose is to undermine the Bible so that its or God's prohibitions can be disregarded (or at least picked and chosen between by proxy). Case in point: homosexuality. Read the third from last paragraph.

E Favorite wrote:

"Jewish clergy accept, based on the lack of archeological evidence, that much of the Old testament is fable but they don’t pass it on – and it’s even written in the back of their new Torah and commentary - ''Etz Hayim'' (''Tree of Life'' in Hebrew) found in all Conservative Jewish Temples. I checked it out myself. The Biblical Archeology section starts on page 1343. For an NY Times article on the subject, go to http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm"

That article you reference states "Equally striking for many readers will be the essay ''Biblical Archaeology,'' by Lee I. Levine, a professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. ''There is no reference in Egyptian sources to Israel's sojourn in that country,'' he writes, ''and the evidence that does exist is negligible and indirect.'' The few indirect pieces of evidence, like the use of Egyptian names, he adds, ''are far from adequate to corroborate the historicity of the biblical account.'

They just ran a special on the history channel the other night showing two separate Egyptian writings that verified or coroborated the departure of the Israelites from Egypt and the parting of the Red or Reed Sea.

I am detecting a hint of conspiracy theory among all of these posts claiming the Bible is fairy tale and Jesus didn't exist!!

Has it ever occurred to any of you that if there was solid proof of Jesus' existence we would have heard about it by now - possibly every Sunday - definitely on Easter and Christmas, and there would probably be a gold plaque in the vestibule of every church detailing the proof. Instead, we’re trying to ferret out the information on our own, as adults, via internet searches and on-line discussions.

Clergy learn in Div school what little evidence there is for Jesus, but they don’t pass it on. Conservative Jewish clergy accept, based on the lack of archeological evidence, that much of the Old testament is fable but they don’t pass it on – and it’s even written in the back of their new Torah and commentary - ''Etz Hayim'' (''Tree of Life'' in Hebrew) found in all Conservative Jewish Temples. I checked it out myself. The Biblical Archeology section starts on page 1343. For an NY Times article on the subject, go to http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

As I said on anther thread - I wish the scholars and historians could just say something like, “We’ve been looking long and hard without finding any strong evidence for Jesus and at this point it’s doubtful that we’ll ever find any.”

Has it ever occurred to any of you that if there was solid proof of Jesus' existence we would have heard about it by now - possibly every Sunday - definitely on Easter and Christmas, and there would probably be a gold plaque in the vestibule of every church detailing the proof. Instead, we’re trying to ferret out the information on our own, as adults, via internet searches and on-line discussions.

Clergy learn in Div school what little evidence there is for Jesus, but they don’t pass it on. Conservative Jewish clergy accept, based on the lack of archeological evidence, that much of the Old testament is fable but they don’t pass it on – and it’s even written in the back of their new Torah and commentary - ''Etz Hayim'' (''Tree of Life'' in Hebrew) found in all Conservative Jewish Temples. I checked it out myself. The Biblical Archeology section starts on page 1343. For an NY Times article on the subject, go to http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

As I said on anther thread - I wish the scholars and historians could just say something like, “We’ve been looking long and hard without finding any strong evidence for Jesus and at this point it’s doubtful that we’ll ever find any.”

Greg,
Excellent post. Archeology is continuing to confirm more and more Biblical stories as truth.

News Cynic:
Good to hear from you as always. I agree that we cannot simply dismiss all scientists , philosophers, etc. that have an opinion about E.T. That would eliminate a good number of them I suppose. The study that I eluded to in an earlier post about the evolution or lack thereof of modern man was conducted by the aforementioned evolutionary biologists. Dr. Ross merely referred to their study on his site.

To continue my previous post,

Mr. Mark wrote:
"though few scholars imagine that Jesus' apostles were the actual authors."

I don't believe it's true that only a few scholars believe the apostles were the actual authors.

Many say that the names of the Gospels were assigned to bring a seeming authenticity. However according to Dr. Mark Roberts in his articel "Are the New Testament Gospels Reliable?" he states "this argument could explain the naming of Matthew and John, though I think it reflects unwarranted skepticism about early Christian tradition. But the main flaw in this argument is obvious: Two of the biblical gospels were named after relatively inconsequential characters who did not actually know Jesus in the flesh. If you were some second-century Christian wanting to make up an author for a gospel, you'd never choose Mark, even if he was believed to be a companion of Peter. And you'd never choose Luke, because he had no direct connection to Jesus at all. If second-century Christians were fabricating traditional authorship, surely they could have done a better job. Assign the second gospel to Peter himself, for goodness sakes, not Mark!"

Also, I'd like to say that I agree with News Cynic concerning the so called Jesus Seminar. It's leader Robert Funk had a grand vision of undermining Orthodox Christianity and this seminar was just a part of that plan.

Greg -

Thanks for the additional material, the long post and the sources. I will check them out. This kind of back-and-forth is what I hope to get out of posting at On Faith.

Astrobuff -

Sorry about getting on you about the typo. Maybe the foreign language set me off. I'm a great believer in typos...just read any of my posts.

I'm still wondering why you brought Nietzsche into the conversation...or were you listening to the Richard Strauss tone poem at the time?

News Cynic wrote:
Mr Mark! (and later for James as well)

"I think you need to check out a wider range of scholars. I know you don’t hold much stock in Biblical scholars that actually believe that the text in question is a work of Divine inspiration but you should be aware that the Jesus Seminar you are found of quoting from is not held in a esteem by the majority of religious or “secular” Biblical scholars."

Did you check out the links I provided above? Why are you saying these are scholars involved with the Jesus Seminar. Are they?

"If you had checked out a wider range of sources you would have seen that dates for the four canonical gospels mostly fall within the range of 65 and 100CE."

Er...those were the time frames I gave. Average out the range I provided and you'll find it's pretty close to falling within the parameters you set. What's the problem?

"A question for James and Mr. Mark!: If we disregard every scientist and philosopher who postulates the possible existence of extra terrestrial or parallel dimensional intelligent life isn’t that just a back door way of shutting down all speculation on the existence or a goddess or god or “the gods?”. Are all people who speculate on the existence of such life unworthy of listening to on other matters? "

Speculation is fine. Just don't present speculation as scientific theory.

In the case of Ross, his hypothesis on UFOs is on the same speculative hypothesis level as his theory on evolution - neither has been subjected to the scientific discipline of peer review. Until either undergoes the process of review, they shouldn't be cited as a proof of anything. I would have no problem with you writing that "Dr Hugh Ross has speculated," but you don't do that. You present his writings on evolution as a dissenting scientific theory, which they are not. They are a hypothesis, and an untested hypothesis at that.

I think we can agree on that, can't we?

Can you ever forgive me Mr. Mark for erring by writing "spricht" when it should have been "sprach". We all, at one time or another, make typographical errors.

I must also add that I resent your accusing me of having unproven and unprovable beliefs. It does "prove" one thing to me though; which is that you, "Mr. Knowitall", actually know nothing, and use thousands of words to bolster that fact.

Infallible you are not!

This conversation is still going? Wow talk about legs!

OK here is more information on the historical part of Christianity...
"Tacitus, a leading Roman historian of the 1st century, described the great fire of Rome which many have said was caused by the Emperor Nero. He states:

“Nero fastened the guilt ... on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievious superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. ...[A]n immense multitude (of Christians) was convicted”.

I wonder what Tacitus was describing as “a most mischievous superstition”. What do you think he meant? The resurrection certainly comes to mind. There must have already been a great number of Christians in Rome at this time.

Suetonius, secretary to the Emperor Hadrian who ruled Rome in the beginning of the 2nd century, wrote in his Life of Nero, 16: “Punishment was inflicted upon the Christians, a body of people addicted to a novel and mischievous superstition.”

Josephus, the reputable Jewish historian who worked for the Romans, in his books Jewish Wars (A.D. 77-78) and Antiquities of the Jews (A.D. 94) details the historic nature of both the Old and New Testaments. He describes the Old Testament Books “which contain the records of all past times”.

Josephus confirms that Jesus was a real 1st century person, who was called Christ. Josephus confirms the existence of John the Baptist, that he was called the Baptist and that he was killed by King Herod. Josephus described Jesus as a wise and virtuous man who was crucified by Pontius Pilate; that his disciples claimed that Jesus appeared to them three days after His death alive and that perhaps Jesus was the Messiah of whom the prophets foretold.

Pliny the Younger, a Roman author and administrator, stated that Jesus was worshiped as god by the early Christians, that they were not easily swayed of their beliefs and he describes Christian morality.

Talmadic writings from the 1st century show that Jesus was hanged on the day before the feast of the Passover at the instigation of the Jewish religious leaders as described in the New Testament.

“On the eve of Passover Yeshu (Jesus) was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, ‘He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery (healings and exorcisms) and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor let him come forward and plead on his behalf.’ But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of Passover!”

There are other non-Christian writings that confirm the Gospel accounts of the New Testament. I am afraid to test your patience any longer. The non-Christian writings described above and others show that Jesus of Nazareth existed and that he lived a virtuous life. Many people believed that he performed healings and his critics called him a sorcerer. He was crucified at the instigation of the Jewish religious leaders by Pontius Pilate during the reign of emperor Tiberius. His disciples believed that He was alive after His crucifixion. His disciples lived moral lives. Early on Jesus was worshiped as God. Christianity rapidly spread beyond Judea to Rome.

The non-Christian written sources agree with the Biblical account when speaking of the same subject matter."

And the refrences for the above with more commentary...

Tacitus. Annals. In Great Books of the Western World, ed. by Robert Maynard Hutchins. Vol. 15. at 15.44. The Annals and The Histories by Cornelius Tacitus. Chicago: William Benton, 1952.

Suetonis. Life of Nero, 16, The Twelve Caesars, Trans. by Robert Graves. Revised by Michael Grant. New York: Viking Penguin, Inc., 1979.

Josephus Flavius. “Against Apion,”at 1.8. The Antiquities of the Jews. New York: Ward, Lock, Bowden & Co., 1900.

Josephus Flavius. The Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1. New York: Ward, Lock, Bowden & Co., 1900.

Josephus Flavius. The Antiquities of the Jews 18.5.2. New York: Ward, Lock, Bowden & Co., 1900.

Id. At 18.3.3.

Pliny the Younger. Letters 10:96. Trans. by W. Melmoth. Quoted in Norman L Giesler, Bakers Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1998.

Babylonian Talmud, Sanedrin 43a.
______________________________

Regarding the study and acceptance of historical documents, I find it interesting that there are approximately ten good copies of Caesar’s Gallic Wars with the oldest dating 900 years after Caesar; approximately 35 books of The Roman History of Livy with the oldest dating to the 4th century; approximately 14 books of The Histories of Tacitus written around 100 A.D., with the earliest copy dating to approximately the 9th century; approximately eight manuscripts of the History of Thucydides written in the 5th century B.C., with the earliest copy dating to approximately 900 A.D.; and only a few papyrus scraps of The History of Herodotus which was also written in the 5th century B.C. with the earliest manuscripts being 1,300 years old. All of these books are considered to be reliable histories. It becomes obvious that the New Testament, 1) with thousands of manuscripts and some of them within 35 years of the event and 2) with all copies being in agreement, is bibliographically reliable. No other ancient document is even close to being as reliable.

The New Testament came onto the scene within a very short time after the death of Jesus. The apostles preached the Gospels to people who knew the facts. If factual inaccuracies were contained in the New Testament many people, who actually witnessed the events, could and would have said “You’re wrong. That’s not what happened.” Though there have been many attempts at explaining away the facts alleged in the New Testament, there is nothing contradicting them. I am impressed.

As for the Old Testament, Dr. Gleason Archer has stated, “The deductions that may be validly drawn from ancient Egyptian, Sumerian, or Akkadian documents all harmonize with the biblical record”. Time after time archaeology has confirmed the bible as historically accurate. Biblical Canaanite cities mentioned in Genesis once thought not to exist have been uncovered. “For thousands of years they have been buried deep in the ground, now they stand clearly before us. Among them are many towns whose walls the patriarchs had seen: Bethel and Mizpah, Gerar and Lachish, Gezer and Gath, Askelon and Jericho.”

Archaeologist William F. Albright speaking of Egyptian finds stated, “According to our present knowledge of the topography of the eastern delta the account of the start of the Exodus, which is given in Ex. 12 and Ex. 13, is topographically absolutely correct.” This attests to the historical nature of the Exodus story.

In or about 1923, Friedrich Simon Bodenheimer and Oskar Theodor, botanical experts from the Hebrew University at Jerusalem, brought back the first photographs of the biblical food called manna which is a secretion from tamarisk trees and bushes when they are pierced by a certain plant-louse which is found in the Sinai. It was about the same shape and size as a coriander seed, white in color, and tasted sweet like honey when left to solidify.

Some of the cities which the Book of Joshua describes as having been destroyed by the Jews have been discovered. The city of Jericho was found with its walls collapsed and clear traces of a tremendous fire; the city of Debir was found with a layer of ashes and considerable destruction; the city of Lachish was found and determined to have been destroyed by fire; and, the city of Hazor was found and determined to have been destroyed by fire. The remains date back to the 13th century B.C., which corresponds to the time of Joshua. It appears the battles described in the Book of Joshua happened because these cities were certainly destroyed at about the time claimed in the Bible.

Based on hieroglyphics found in Egypt it is now known that the Philistines of the Bible actually existed. The drawings show that the Philistines were much taller than the Egyptians. The city of Shiloh was discovered and its remains clearly indicate that it was destroyed around 1050 B.C. which was the approximate time of the Biblical Philistine victory over Israel.

Since the statehood of Israel in 1948, the Old Testament has acted as a guide for such practical matters as learning what plants would grow there. The ancient wells of Abraham and Isaac have been searched for and rediscovered providing water to the arid desert lands. Under the sands “the ancient wells are still there and still as before at the foot of them runs clear pure water.” Issues in the new country such as forestation of bare mountain slopes, condensation principals, copper mining and even oil wells have been resolved by reference to the Old Testament texts.

There was a time when I thought the Old Testament was similar to Aesop's Fables and that Jesus of Nazareth was merely the greatest person ever born. I was wrong. Like Alfred Hitchcock would write himself into his movies, God wrote Himself into His creation in the person of Jesus. Jesus is truly God."

http://thepoint.breakpoint.org/2007/01/jesus_never_exi.html

And if you want to see for yourself...

Mr Mark! (and later for James as well)

I think you need to check out a wider range of scholars. I know you don’t hold much stock in Biblical scholars that actually believe that the text in question is a work of Divine inspiration but you should be aware that the Jesus Seminar you are found of quoting from is not held in a esteem by the majority of religious or “secular” Biblical scholars.

To adopt one of your lines to James, “As long as you continue to cite (the Jesus Seminar) as a reliable source, I will continue to question why you do so.

If you had checked out a wider range of sources you would have seen that dates for the four canonical gospels mostly fall within the range of 65 and 100CE. Do these dates change the thrust of your argument with James? Not really, but they do serve the benefit of placing you and your position more in the mainstream so you can not be so easily dismissed by those not wanting to grapple with your ideas.

A question for James and Mr. Mark!: If we disregard every scientist and philosopher who postulates the possible existence of extra terrestrial or parallel dimensional intelligent life isn’t that just a back door way of shutting down all speculation on the existence or a goddess or god or “the gods?”. Are all people who speculate on the existence of such life unworthy of listening to on other matters? As a fan of SciFi that would render most of my heroes as unable to address serious matters of science, religion, sociology, history, and philosophy. that would be a bummer, no?

Mr. Mark wrote:

"Biblical scholars agree that the earliest Gospel was that of Mark, written anywhere between 65CE and 130CE. Most put its composition at around 70CE as Mark makes reference to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (through a quote of Jesus), a historic fact of 70CE. That gives us a range of the FIRST Gospel being written anywhere between 30 and 97 years AFTER Jesus died."

Liberal scholars 70's AD, Conservative scholars 50's AD. If it was 50's AD, that's only twenty years after Christ's death. No time for legend to develop. All of the other folks who new the "truth" would have shot all of the gospels down immediately. This wasn't some super secret thing that only the gospel writers new about. They didn't go get their info from God in a cave. It happened for all around to see.

Mr. Mark wrote:
"though few scholars imagine that Jesus' apostles were the actual authors."

Mark was anonymous, Matthew was not. Matthew, a disciple of Jesus was right there to witness the events as was John. Luke a physician, accompanied Paul and wrote his gospel according to how "eyewitnesses and ministers of the word" had delivered them to him. Luke's gospel is a precursor to Acts and only very liberal scholars question who wrote these books.

Mr. Mark Wrote:

"Next comes Luke, which was penned between 95-140CE. John came even later."

Skeptics like to ignore the fact that a fragment of the Gospel of John exists in John Rylands Library in Manchester, England that dates to between 98-150 AD.

Mr. Mark wrote:
"but we're supposed to believe that this Xian persecutor not only wasn't present at the crucifixion but didn't ever hear enough about this "historic event" to report the event in any of his writings? Right...and I've got a bridge to sell."

Skeptics always keep trying new angles to squash the truth. Jesus never claimed to be God except in the Gospel of John, the Gospels were not written by the writers named in the title of the books, and now Paul doesn't mention the crucifiction of Jesus. Now let's not be ridiculous. What about: 1 Corinthians chapter 2; "And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified." What about: 1 Corinthians 15:3- "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I aso received: that Christ died for ours sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time."

Dear Mr. Mark,

Regarding whether Paul met Jesus, I cracked open my Britannica (P - Plastering vol. 17) on PAUL:

..."To further this purpose he set out for Damascus fortified with documents from the religious authorities in Jerusalem, authorizing him to secure the followers of Jesus of Nazareth who had gone there and possibly to bring some back to face trial for heresy. Paul reached Damascus but not as he expected, for on the way he was confronted with Jesus of Nazareth and soundly converted to this new sect which he had been so zealously persecuting, certainly one of the amazing reversals of purpose in the whole history of mankind."

.....

"The following factors should be noted:

3) The probable influence of the Person of Jesus. Whether he ever saw Jesus in the flesh is not known. Some scholars think that he did, otherwise he could not have carried in his mind the impression of Jesus' character suggested by various allusions in the Epistles. He refers to having known Christ "after the flesh" "from a human point of view" by some interpreted to mean "the Jesus of history; but scholars are not unanimous on the meaning of this somewhat difficult passage. That he learned much about Jesus while pursuing Jesus' followers can scarcely be doubted, since knowledge of them and their convictions was inseparable from knowledge of the character and claims of him whom they claimed to be Messiah."

=====================

Happy to transcribe the footnotes and biblio, also. The biblio is 22 entries, and perhaps you have access online (I don't) or your own set. But I've found the scholarship trustworthy (read: as good as it gets) over the years. The PAUL entry is 12 pages.

===========

So, does it prove Paul met Jesus? No. But it sure does makes me think Jesus existed.

My take...

Astrobuff wrote:

"Once more I reiterate that the thousands upons thousands of words on this blog, whether pro or con, do not change anything."

Who said that anything was going to change? This is a discussion board, not a conversion board. Why are you making statements whose only intent can be to shut down discussion through some absolutism based on unprovable bromides? If you don't feel like entering into the give-and-take of a DISCUSSION, then you're at the wrong website.

Yes, nothing will change through this discussion. Science and history have their tested and verified facts and you have your unproven and unprovable beliefs. You're right. Nothing has been said that changes that basic reality.

Ghostbuster wrote:
"Mr. Mark,

Based on your definition, would you currently consider yourself remotely religious? Why/Why not? If not, were you at one time? Feel free to refer me back to old posts if you wish."

No, I'm not remotely religious. I was at one time, and I've expressed that on these boards. If you wish to read my past posts on the subject, many of them are contained within this thread. Belief in the supernatural dooesn't enter into my belief system, and I see faith as a highly overrated crutch through which one may view the world. Belief in the supernatural and faith in things unseen and unprovable are major pillars in religious belief, especially the Abrahamic religions.

"Many christians do not consider themselves particularly religious per se. Looking at the definition you provided one can see why."

And why would Xians not believe themselves to be religious based on the dictionary definition? Are they not participating in, "the service and worship of God or the supernatural?" Do they not show a "commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance?" Does not the sect they belong to offer "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices?" Do they not proselytize for, "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith?"

A Xian stating that he doesn't fit the dictionary definition of being religious is a little bit like a seatbelt-less driver running red lights while averring, "I'm not a lawbreaker."

Joseph A wrote:
---Dear Fate, In a sense it almost seems like we're tripped up solely over the probability. Here I am, as a believer, and you're not. But it appears we believe nearly the exact same things. We differ on "the spark." Fascinating really.---

Not really, just proves that we're both human. A lot of what people think is religiously maintained morality is really just plain old human nature.

---When you say, "I believe human life is sacred," I agree. I pause, hesitate, and think, "We've pretty covered everything here."---

Yup, as a phylosopher once said: "People are people". I'm always amazed that when people visit people in other cultures the reaction is "they're so nice!". Whadayano...

Maybe you should consider that religion is just a cover for making money to maintain morality, sort of like the water company that make you pay for water, like you can't get it anywhere else :^)

James wrote:

"It's also interesting that we have Matthew, Mark, Luke and John but because they have been gathered into one volume (the Bible) and it's the foundation of the Christian faith, we can't trust their authenticity as historical documents?"

Here's the deal, James:

Jesus suppossedly lived between 6BC to 33 AD. He is supposed to have started his ministry at 30, and it lasted 3 years (though Mark says it lasted only 1 year). So, let's say that Jesus died at age 33 and died around 33 CE.

When were the Gospels written?

Biblical scholars agree that the earliest Gospel was that of Mark, written anywhere between 65CE and 130CE. Most put its composition at around 70CE as Mark makes reference to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (through a quote of Jesus), a historic fact of 70CE. That gives us a range of the FIRST Gospel being written anywhere between 30 and 97 years AFTER Jesus died.

The other Gospels all take Mark as their starting point, using his Gospel as the basis for the Jesus story, then adding their own elements to it.

The next Gospel to be penned was Matthew. Scholars have narrowed it's composition down to between 90-100CE.

Next comes Luke, which was penned between 95-140CE.

(sources: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/gospeldate.html and here: http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage/Jesus2.html )

John came even later.

The names of apostles have been assigned to each Gospel, though few scholars imagine that Jesus' apostles were the actual authors. How could they be if the Gospels were penned at the outer years of the timeframes given? The apostles would all have been 90 - 130 years old when they wrote their named Gospels.

Ergo, we can pretty much deduce that the 4 Gospels were named after the apostles by some now-anonymous authors, not actually written by those apostles.

Compare this LACK of contemporaneous documentation to the documentation we have for other people from the same years (Caesar, Herod, Pilate et al), and one can safely say that the Bible is, at least, less-reliable as a history than Roman civil records, civil records that are strangely silent on the "history" presented in the NT.

One further item - scholars agree that St Paul's Epistles were written even before Mark. Paul is portrayed as a contemporary of Jesus. Yet Paul is silent on the many life events of Jesus as portrayed in the 3 synopic Gospels. Paul never met Jesus in person. He was supposedly one of the main persecutors of Xians in and around Jerusalem, but we're supposed to believe that this Xian persecutor not only wasn't present at the crucifixion but didn't ever hear enough about this "historic event" to report the event in any of his writings? Right...and I've got a bridge to sell.

James wrote:
"The 270,000 years was a maximum age of man from the biologists findings. Mankind can be much younger as Hugh Ross points out on his website."

As long as you continue to cite Hugh Ross as a reliable source, I will continue to question why you do so.

Will you address Hugh Ross' asserting that UFOs are the product of Satan? Can you explain why - if Hugh Ross wants to be considered as a scientist and to have his hypotheses subjected to the scientific method like every other legitimate scientist - he has yet to submit his hypotheses for peer review? After all, his theories have been around for years. Submit them now, Dr Ross, or accept the fact that the scientific community will continue to scoff at yout ideas as the worst form of pseudo-science.

Until Dr Ross submits his hypothesis to real peer review, quoting him as a scientifically accurate source is no more reliable than quoting Bozo the Clown as a scientifically accurate source.

You know that, I known that, and even Dr Ross knows that.

Back at ya.

Mr. Mark,

Based on your definition, would you currently consider yourself remotely religious? Why/Why not? If not, were you at one time? Feel free to refer me back to old posts if you wish.

Many christians do not consider themselves particularly religious per se. Looking at the definition you provided one can see why.

Astrobuff wrote:

"Also spricht Zarathustra!"

Actually, it's: "Also sprach Zarathustra!"

At least we know that Nietzsche existed. We should get the title of his book right. :)

Question: did you cite ASZ to bring Nietzsche's "God is dead" idea into the discussion? ASZ is where he expressed that thought.

Dear Deanna -

Sorry to say, but it looks like you can't escape this board. We're like the Mafia - just when you think you're out, we keep pulling you back in!

Yes, my name is really Mark. I was named after the FIRST GOSPEL, not after one of them cheap imitators like Luke or John!!

Re: the "religion v faith" debate. I've had this debate with my born-again family on many occasions. I'm sorry, but faith IS religion, at least if we can agree on the dictionary definition of religion:

a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith (Source: Merriam Webster Online)

I have no problem with that definition, yet I'd say that 99% of the religious people I know will argue that they're "not religious," even when their beliefs fit the dictionary definition of the word. As Steve Buscemi said in the movie Armaggedon, it's time to "Embrace the horror!" Yep - you're religious.

Joseph A:

One more point, then I'll shut up.

Your friend wrote: "The New Testament manuscripts are historically accurate... The Herods, the procurators... They capture the cultural scene accurately..."

This is an old trick that has been used for centuries to - in the words of WA Gilbert - "add artistic verisimilitude" to a story.

There are many stories set in NYC. Are we to believe that the series "Sex in the City" is accurate in its personages because it was set in a specific time in a real city (BTW - Charlotte is my favorite charcater out of the 4 girls. She's hot!)? Are we to believe that Indiana Jones existed because he not only met Adolf Hitler but got his dad's Grail Book autographed by Hitler in the course of a movie? I mean, it's historically accurate that Hitler existed. Doesn't it follow that Indiana Jones did as well?

I've made this point before on these boards. I repeat it now as it is relevant to the discussion at hand.

Good grief, Charlie Brown! It does go on ad infinitum - much ado about.......(?) which does not change anything one iota!

Whether He was or He was not! Fact or fiction!

The fact is not only was He BUT that He IS!!

The Logos, the Word of God, is inscribed in the entirety of the Cosmos; and, is the very embodiment of, whether Jesus The Christ, or Buddha Shakyamuni, or Krishna!

Once more I reiterate that the thousands upons thousands of words on this blog, whether pro or con, do not change anything.

Also spricht Zarathustra!

Dear Mr. Mark,

I'll try again to get him on board but I don't like my chances. Like so many of us, in this day and age, he's swamped with work, plus he has 5 children! considering a move, etc --ie, it may take awhile. Time is his enemy. Mine too.

more later...

Oops. Correction.

In my last post, I wrote: "I'd like to know your friend's take on the similarities that dot the lifestories of Jesus and those of the ancient Greek, Egyptian and Hellenic gods."

That should have read, "I'd like to know your friend's take on the similarities that dot the lifestories of Jesus and those of the ancient ROMAN, Egyptian and Hellenic gods."

Sorry. My bad.

Dear Joseph A:

Thanks for the response and for providing me with the portion of my exchange with News Cynic that you sent on to your friend. Reading it again, I'm happy with what I wrote! In fact, your friend's response seems even stranger in light of what I wrote as many of the points he made were addressed in my post. There's actually quite a bit of agreement there.

As I deduced in my earlier post, your bud was not provided with the beginning of the conversation and the start of the Caesar discussion. Too bad.

I would ask you to approach your friend again and invite him to join the discussion on this blog. We could use a real live historian here! I'm not a historian, I've just had an interest in this stuff for years so I tend to read alot.

What would really impress me and maybe even change my mind would be for someone like your friend to dispute the sources I list. For instance, were he to say that the writings of Gibbon and Ferrill were outmoded and that recent scholarship had disproven points X, Y & Z, then we'd be off on a new discussion. Were he to show that Susetonius' "The 12 Caesars" was a work of fiction and that historians now dismiss it as such, then I'd need to re-evaluate my beliefs. Even better, if he could reference works of more-recent historians that make his case, I'd love to read about that. I want to learn. Your friend could help out.

I'm also very surprised at your friend averring that the NT documents are "historically accurate." That's a leap of faith that most Biblical scholars won't make!

How does your bud explain the Bible's "historic account" of the date of Jesus' birth? As I wrote, "The Bible tries to validate the birth of Jesus by citing the historic figures of Herod and Caesar Augustus. Trouble is that Herod died 10 years before the census ordered by Caesar took place, so unless Jesus was born before 4BC (the year Herod died) and was reborn 10 years later, it's hard to see how he could have been a newborn for both events." I'd like your friend to address that, specifically.

Also - how can it be a historic fact that Mary & Joseph returned to Bethlehem for a Roman census when 1) Galilee wasn't a Roman province at the time, so there could be no census, and 2) a census was taken as a means to levy taxes on landowners, not as a general counting of how many people lived where? If I am mistaken in citing the above as facts, I would like to know.

Moving out of the realm of history and into physics, I'd like to know how your friend explains the Star of Bethlehem, that magical heavenly object that miraculously stopped and hovered over the stable where Jesus was born. How is such an accounting "historically accurate?"

Similarly, the "historically accurate" Bible reports Jesus' words in the Garden of Gethsemane word for word. He goes on at some length in his talk with god. Who was the historian that wrote down his words? Certainly, it wasn't the apostles as they had all fallen asleep. Maybe it was Jesus himself who came back and told Peter and the others, "hey, I was just talking to god, and here's what I said..." Nope...the Bible reports that when Jesus returned to his disciples for the last time that Judas and the Romans showed up and took him away. The Bible doesn't record Jesus telling his disciples the details of his chat with god.

I'd like to know your friend's take on the similarities that dot the lifestories of Jesus and those of the ancient Greek, Egyptian and Hellenic gods. Does he not find it strange that virgin births and resurrection myths were attributed to gods who were being worshipped well in advance of the advent of Jesus? I know that I do.

Finally, as a historian, I'd be interested to have your friend's honest evaluation of how much Biblical scholarship is informed by historical scholarship and vice versa. I would be interested to know if there are points in Biblical scholarship where historians dispute the claims made by Biblical scholars, especially when those claims are based upon work done by historians and archaeologists. Now, THAT would be a great contribution to these boards.

I have posted elsewhere on this board that one can't be 100% sure that Jesus didn't exist as a corporeal being. I'm of the belief that the evidence we have points away from that being a fact. I'm open to any evidence your friend can present to prove Jesus existed. And, I agree with poster James who says that having existed doesn't necessarily mean you were god incarnate. As your friend says, there were a lot of Jesuses back then (BTW - I believe that I covered the topic of many Jesuses existing in that time in another post). Our friend Josephus mentions 19 different "Jesuses" in his writings. St Paul never met THE Jesus, but he had a friend "Jesus who is called Justin." Show us the evidence that this particular Jesus was god incarnate.

BTW - speaking of multiple Jesuses, did you know that the Barabbas who Pilate supposedly released may have had the full name of "Jesus Bar Abbas?" At least that's what he was called in the text studied by Origen. Did you know that "Bar Abbas" is Hebrew for "Son of the Father." Isn't it a little strange that Pilate would just happened to have a "Jesus Son of God" and a "Jesus Son of the Father" sitting in his prison at the same time? Could it possibly be that a couple of characters were combined "for dramatic effect" in the telling of the Biblical story, or that the trats of one real person were broken out into two semi-real people, much the way composite characters dot even the best docudramas today? I don't know, I'm just asking.

Dear Mark,

Can't resist the siren's song, but I have determined to be brief, and, yes, I will report back after having read Dawkins and Harris.

After posting my rant about education, I wondered why I had even gone there -- at least in this blog. Thinking more about it, it is apropos to the discussion. By "dumbing down" the curriculum and turning the minds of our youth over to under-prepared and/or unqualified teachers, we leave them easy prey to every stripe of charlatan arriving on the scene.

A favorite pastime when our daughter was still living at home was to watch TV and, point-by-point, debunk the underlying and even up-front assumptions of commercials in particular, but also of newscasts. With the proliferation of cable networks, it is all too easy to look for and find the one that reports "the news you want to hear." We have become an uncritical nation in search of quick solutions and answers to problems that demand serious and reasoned consideration.

You came to your position on the non-existence of God through a long, tortuous analysis of everything you could get your hands on. I came to my belief in God's existence, as I said earlier, by a halting, questioning road, oftentimes kicking and screaming in protest. And, thanks to this blog, particularly your contributions, I continue to examine my faith.

Just to state again for the record to anyone reading my posts, in my mind, "religion" and "faith" or "belief" are two distinctly different subjects. "Religion" is the creation of man. And "religion" has been the prime cause of "crusades," pogroms, inquisitions, and wars, including many of the current wars, although I believe Iraq is motivated more by economics. "My Daddy can whip your Daddy!" "Our worship practices are right, and yours are wrong!" You'll notice they are almost universally referred to as "religious wars."

In my spiritual lexicon, "faith" is "spiritual apprehension of divine truth apart from proof." Oxford American Dictionary and Thesaurus, definition 3c (about half of the others include "religion" in their definitions, and as my post clearly indicates,I don't believe the two are the same.)

BTW, Mr. Mark, I presume to call you "Mark," on the assumption that 1)it really is your name, and 2) it is your first (given) name. I started using it to try to signal to you that, far from being hostile to your position, I wished to discuss our opposing positions in as civil a manner as possible, and as intelligent adults. You have never corrected me, so I continue to do so. If I am wrong, or if it offends you, I will return to "Mr. Mark," although it feels rather too formal for my taste.

Now, I'm off to do the things that need doing in my non-cyber life, like walk my loving, patient rescued greyhound and catch up on paperwork.

I'll be back!

Deanna

Dear Mr Mark,

I apologize for "poor form." Let me try to clean up the mess a little....

I just didn't want to clog up this forum with what had been written before and erroneously assumed it would be rather easy to quickly gain context. Plus it takes forever to clean them up even in "text edit."

The following was your post. I didn't intend it to be out of context. I thought your post was interesting and assumed his reply would be too. We talk all the time on email. So this was just one of our many emails. And yes, I had permission, and I tried to lure him as I mentioned, but he, quite rightly, I think, feared the time-consuming problems as opposed to the showing up problems.

In any event, I understand what you mean about drive-by, proxy, etc. Point taken.

===============================
This is what I sent from you:

Mr Mark :

News Cynic wrote :
"Mr. Mark,

"As a lover of history I wonder which of the ancients you imagine we
have more evidence for? I don't mind if you want to say we don't agree
but I you should know that many historians would disagree with you."

Well, there's evidence...and then. there's hearsay. There is nothing
outside of hearsay to support the case for a historic Jesus. There is
a ton of evidence to support the existence of other figures from
antiquity.

Let's start with Julius Caesar, shall we? If you're talking about
"evidence," then we really need to examine all of the evidence, don't
we? That would include physical evidence that exists from the time
that Caesar lived, evidence like coins and statues. That might include
buildings that were erected during his lifetime, etc. Those exist for
Caesar.

Then, there are the contemporaries of Caesar who knew him and wrote
about him while he lived - Cicero, Sallust, Virgil and Ovid. There
were those writers who were close contemporaries of Caesar - Plutarch,
Lucan and Suetonius (Caesar's biographer). Is there like evidence for
Jesus? Name a single contemporary of Jesus who wrote about him. You
can't do it. The earliest writings came 50-60 years after Jesus'
suppossed death.

We have a complete lifeline for Caesar, from his birth in 100 BC to
his death in 44 BC. Does that exist for Jesus? No. In fact, we have
only his birth, a scene when he was 12 and nothing more until he was
30. The Bible tries to validate the birth of Jesus by citing the
historic figures of Herod and Caesar Augustus. Trouble is that Herod
died 10 years before the census ordered by Caesar took place, so
unless Jesus was born before 4BC (the year Herod died) and was reborn
10 years later, it's hard to see how he could have been a newborn for
both events.

Of course, we only have the Bible's account of this birth event (and
the rest of his life, for that matter). For some reason, none of the
historians who lived at the time of Jesus found him to be a big enough
deal to write about.

In addition, we have Caesar's own writings and letters, writings that
document his accounts of his battles etc. We have no writings of
Jesus. Everything in the "historic record" that Jesus said is oral and
was reported by witnesses/gospel writers who lived decades after his
death, not by his contemporaries. Strangely, these gospel writers
somehow had the ability to take down Jesus' exact words, even though
they weren't there to hear them, most remarkably in Gethsemane where
Jesus went off and prayed by himself while his disciples slept. The
"evidence" of Jesus' words in this case comes from "divine
inspiration," which is hardly historic evidence.

There's much more, of course. I have no more truck with Jesus than I
do with other mythical figures. Were you to have gone on at length
about the historic evidence for Zeus, Thor or Apollo being
overwhelming, then I wouldn't have bothered knocking down your claim
that Jesus' life/existence was better-documented than any of the
ancients. The truth is that there is no more "historic" evidence
available to prove Jesus existed than there is to prove these other
gods existed. Your saying that the evidence does exist doesn't make it
true, and neither does saying that "most historians would disagree"
with me prove that Jesus existed.

Then, there's the work of The Jesus Seminar. Meeting for the first
time in March 1985, the Jesus Seminar has periodically brought
together dozens of university scholars and gospel specialists
representing every shade of Christian thought, plus a few Jews and
atheists.

In their initial study, the scholars collected more than 1500 versions
of approximately 500 Jesus parables, aphorisms, dialogues, and stories
written during the first 300 years of Christianity.

After 6 years of debate and reflection the consensus was that 82% of
the words attributed to Jesus were fake.

In phase two, between 1991 and 1996, the Jesus Seminar considered 387
versions of 176 'Jesus events'. Their conclusion: 84% of the
activities attributed to Jesus were bogus.

And these are people who want to buy into the Jesus Mythos!

Here's the challenge: produce sources that show contemporaneous
accounts of Jesus existence...not fairy tales written decades after
the event. Provide a single source outside of the Bible written within
100 years of Jesus life that talks about that life. When you can do
that, we'll have a basis to chat.

Sources for the stuff I said above:
Arthur Ferrill, The Fall of the Roman Empire (Thames & Hudson, 1986)
Edward Gibbon, The Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire (1799)
Michael Grant, Jesus (Orion, 1999)
Chris Scarre, Chronicle of the Roman Emperors (Thames & Hudson, 1995)
Pierre Grimal, Rome of the Caesars (Phaidon, 1956)
A. N. Wilson, Jesus (Harper Collins, 1993)
Elmar Gruber, Holger Kersten, The Original Jesus (Element, 1995)
Stewart Perowne, Death of the Roman Republic (Hodder & Stoughton, 1969)
Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars (Penguin, 1980)

These posts are very interesting. I wish I had more time to comment on them.

Mr Mark, though a little blunt, I appreciate you defending the integrity of the boards in your second point to Joseph A. I think we should all at least try to site our sources, or leave them out. In general, nothing bothers me more than those who cut, paste and don't site a source, whether that be in a classroom or an open forum board.

Joseph A, though I agree with Mr. Mark about the netiquette, don't take a slap on the wrist from a pseudonym like me too seriously. Just keep it in mind for the next time.

I took the advise of several on these boards and read "Letter to a Christian Nation". Actually it was a quick read, so I read it twice, once for fun, once critically. I would like to thank you all for the reference. Like Deanna, I will also read the "God Delusion" as my next book and probably a book Harris recommended which I think is called (without the reference sitting here in front of me) the "Case Against Faith". I assume that book was written to debunk Strobel's "Case for Faith".

Mr. Mark wrote:

"If your friend is a historian, he knows very well that the passages in Josephus that mention Jesus have long ago been determined to be 4th-century forgeries."

I don't believe this is a true statement. There are statements in Josephus' writings that can be said with fairly good certainty were added later by others. There are a number of statements about Jesus however that are believed to be authentic by most scholars. I referred to these in an earlier post. Most all historical scholars believe Jesus lived. The question that arises is; was he God in the flesh?

It's also interesting that we have Matthew, Mark, Luke and John but because they have been gathered into one volume (the Bible) and it's the foundation of the Christian faith, we can't trust their authenticity as historical documents?

News Cynic:
Sorry, it's been a while since I posted. I appreciate your verses of inspiration. "Circle of the earth", good verse.

The 270,000 years was a maximum age of man from the biologists findings. Mankind can be much younger as Hugh Ross points out on his website. Much evidence comes from the very young fossil record.

Dear Joseph A -

Two more points:

1. You bud wrote: " Belief in Zeus as a real
person never really took off." Who ever said Zeus was a person? He was a god. For a historian, your friend is awfully cavalier with his language. One would think that a historian could make a distinction between people, gods, reality and myths when the discussion is about...people, gods, reality and myths.

2. Nero and the "cult of Xians." Did Nero blame the burning of Rome on the Xians? Well, Tacitus reports that he did in his Book 15, Chapter 44 when he writes: "Nero looked around for a scapegoat, and inflicted the most fiendish tortures on a group of persons already hated for their crimes. This was the sect known as Christians. Their founder, one Christus, had been put to death by the procurator, Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius."

So there you have it, right? Maybe not.

Funny, but no historian quotes that magical pasage by Tacitus until it had appeared almost word-for-word in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, in the early fifth century, where it is mixed in with other myths. Sulpicius's contemporaries credited him with a skill in the 'antique' hand. In other words, he was good at making forgeries that looked like original ancient manuscipts.

Furthermore - the Xians weren't known as Xians during the reign of Nero. They had other names for them, but not Xians. They were looked on as a sect of Jews. In fact, Nero made the Jews pay for the burning of Rome through a capitation tax. He didn't single out the Xians for the tax because the sect didn't exist as Xians.

Geez - maybe that Tacitus passage is another forgery, courtesy of Severus. Maybe?

BTW - the part about Nero fiddling while Rome burned is a Renaissance addition.

Further BTW - modern historians no longer blame Nero for setting the fire. He was in his hometown of Anzio when it started.

I could go on, but...

Dear Joseph A -

You may be surprised to learn that I've heard all of your friend's arguments before. Unfortunately, there are two major problems with your post:

1) I have no idea of knowing which of my posts you sent to your friend. From his response, I assume you didn't send them all.

Specifically, my bringing Julius Caesar into the discussion was a direct response to another poster averring that there was more evidence for Jesus having existed than there was for anyone else from the ancient world. From your friend's response, it's obvious that he didn't read the posts that started us off on the topic of Caesar. That said, I'd say that he confirms my statements that Caesar's life and existence is much better documented than that of Jesus. Thanks to Mr Anonymous History Dude for making my point.

Another point is your friend saying that Jesus is "attested to" in "numerous" non-Xian sources. He then cites Josephus and Philo. If your friend is a historian, he knows very well that the passages in Josephus that mention Jesus have long ago been determined to be 4th-century forgeries. Your friend also mentions Philo (of Alexandria) a contemporary of Jesus (in his old age, he led an embassy from the Jews to the court of Emperor Gaius Caligula in 39-40 AD). Yet, in the 850,000 words that fill his 30 extant manuscripts, he makes NOT A SINGLE MENTION of Jesus, Jesus Christ, Chrisitanity or any of the events described in the New Testament. Why he would cite Philo as a source on Jesus when Jesus is conspicuously absent from his writings is beyond me.

As to there being "numerous" sources that attest to Jesus - a thousand copies of Josephus' writings laden with forgeries in them doesn't make the forgery true just because all of the 4th-century copies that contain those forgeries are in agreement. Who was making those copies? Why, the Church, that's who. Just because there are thosands of manuscripts that agree doesn't make them reliable. That's what the early church did - they copied scrolls for distribution. SO what? If they were making thousands of copies of Star Wars would that make Star Wars real?

The rest of your friend's comments are irrelevant to the extent that you haven't given me the ability to see what writing of mine has been quoted to him. Those may be my words. They may not be. I can't respond to an anonymous blurb that is laden with elipses and other grammatical marks that scream "this sentence has been taken out of context to make my point!"

2) Most egregiously, there is no point in having any discussion on this board if that discussion is held by proxy.

Did you ask your friend if it was OK to post his comments on this blog? If not, you owe him an apology, because your putting his words out here without any point of reference and, more importantly, without the intention of having them responded to directly is bad form, indeed. If you *did* ask permission to post his comments and he gave you the green light to do so, then he is a craven coward for not showing up in person at this blog, either to enter into the discussion or to take the heat from others and to defend and expand upon his comments.

I'm sorry, but your posting does a real disservice to this board and to those of us who value the discourse and enjoy the comraderie here. A "drive-by posting" by some nameless individual means less than nothing to me.

Your friend should either strap on his guns and get into the fight...or stay completely the hell out of Dodge.

Mr. Mark,

I sent a few of your comments re: whether Jesus existed, to a friend more well-versed on these matters than I, and he sent back the following. (I was unsuccessful at pulling him into the message boards. In any event, he's well-read. History major. Studies all the time, and I would consider him a scholar based on our years of discussions and interaction.)

=====================

"First off - nice choice by this guy, picking THE highest profile individual of the entire ancient world (any one of the Caesars)... What kind of logic is that? That's akin to disproving the existence of, say, Abraham Lincoln's
father (anybody write about HIM until 50 years later when Abe was President?) by comparing him to his contemporary Frenchman, Napolean. Is
this reasonable?

Um, the Emperor of the Roman Empire is obviously going to have his stamp on everything, from buildings to currency, etc... Comparing the ROMAN EMPEROR to ANY individual in any province of the REST of the Roman Empire is ludicrous... The whole line of reasoning is ridiculous...Basically, this person's premise is: if Messiah wasn't THE SINGLE HIGHEST PROFILE individual
in a pre-printing-press world at the time of his birth, life, and death, then it's bunk. Using the same flawed criteria, this individual couldn't
"prove" the existence of 99.999% of the world's population over the course of human history...

Bringing up the "lack of writings" is typically uninformed culturally as well... Romans wrote books/histories of themselves... Jews didn't do
that... Compiling the oral tradition eventually was a big step. Jews had their scrolls (the Scriptures, or "O.T."), and that's it. THOSE were the "writings"... Rabbis didn't write books... Their "books" were their disciples (discipleship is not a Christian invention, nor was it an
invention of Jesus). Hebrew education involved memorizing the whole OT starting at the age of 5 - and later, young Torah scholars would be
apprenticed to rabbis, where they would memorize every word of the rabbi, dress like the rabbi, walk and talk like the rabbi, etc... Thus every word of the rabbi was recorded in the memory of that rabbi's disciples. And then taught in the same fashion to THEIR disciples when THEY became the rabbis...That's the way they DID IT! To make a logical premise out of the fact that Jesus didn't leave any books is lacking, very... And annoying... Paper was a precious commodity in the ancient world, and more precious in certain
places (Palestine) than in others (Rome)...

Of those (influenced by the Greek academies) that DID write histories, Jesus (and John the Baptist, and James the brother of Jesus) is attested by
numerous sources, not all of which are Christian, such as Josephus and Philo. The Talmud (certainly no friend of the religion of "Christianity")
attests to Jesus's historicity. The Christian movement itself was recognized as a sect of Judaism by no less than the Emperor himself (Nero
blaming the fire of Rome on them) within 35 years of his death. Within 35 years! That means belief in Jesus of Nazareth as a historical figure had
spread throughout the Roman Empire going as far as Rome (and truth is, as far as Spain by then) within 35 years of his death. If he wasn't
historical, the whole thing could've been quashed.

Comparing Jesus to Zeus is even more ridiculous - illogical. Zeus was a mythological figure even during his day... Belief in Zeus as a real
person never really took off... Ever...Anywhere... I mean, please... Sorry, I can't even bring myself to take that one up... Which, when debating on the discussion boards means "ah ha! You don't have an answer!"

But some things are too bizarre to know how to respond... The responder is speechless... Flabberghasted...

The New Testament manuscripts are historically accurate... The Herods, the procurators... They capture the cultural scene accurately... In terms of sheer volume of manuscripts, Jesus is by far THE single most attested to individual in the ancient world... Critics would say "it's all the same documents... All the NT manuscripts..." but you can't entirely ignore the volume... How did that volume COME TO BE in the first place? Where are the manuscripts in favor of Zeus, the myth?

No scholar is saying this stuff... Maybe very "fringe" "scholars"... But nobody seriously doubts that there WAS a Jesus...

There were MANY Jewish "messiahs" during that time... To believe that there was a Jew, a messianic figure, from the messianic hotbed that was Galilee at that time (a region of hotheads and zealots bent on rebellion), during the
Roman oppression/occupation of the Jewish people (thus your "motive" for messianic aspirations), and that that Messiah would be a teacher of Torah
righteousness as reported in the prophets of their scriptures - this is really a VERY SLIGHT stretch...

To deny that such a figure could exist is...absurd

Please allow me to rephrase that: I don't KNOW that Mr. Thomas was drunk. I think he made have had a couple. That's more fair, didn't mean to sound judgmental. I considered the entire reading brilliant. These were a few words beforehand, "a few words of a kind," I think....

anyway, I meant no disrespect.

Dear Deanna, Mr. Mark, Fate, News Cynic, Canyon:

I finished reading all the posts from beginning to current and I have a few comments.

Deanna, Bon chance! and thank you for your informative, self-reflective, and moving posts. And I throughly enjoyed your take on the education system.

Canyon, I have to say I'm disappointed in your tone and embarrassed by your lack of decorum. It is true, in my opinion, that you started the name-calling, and it all unravelled from there. Your salient points are rendered moot like Richard Pryor describing describing an argument and the anglo says, "you stupid n-word." In a word, you lost credibility. But good luck anyway....

Mr. Mark, Fate, and News Cynic, I'm happy to stick around as time permits. And I would like to return the favor of Carlin's clever "plastic" quote.

I was an atheist until I heard Dylan Thomas say this, drunk, extemporaneously:

"My life has been nothing more than a hundred tongue-picked, chocked and chiselled, evocative shock phrases in a flamboyant remuneration of past and almost entirely fictitious peccadilloes of interest to no one but me and my guardian angel, who was, I believe, an unsuccessful psychoanalyst in this life, and is lolloping above me now, case-book in claw, a little seedy, on down-winged heel, in the guttural consulting rooms of space."

or something like that....

anyway -- just kidding about its conversion powers for me -- but thought you all might enjoy the quote. It is Dylan Thomas. And he WAS drunk.

Cheers!

Dear Mark,

I couldn't resist the siren's song! I had to know your response, and I'm glad I checked in. I have ordered The God Conspiracy and Sam Harris Letter to a Christian Nation. My husband and I are taking a week-long vacation in a few weeks, and I'm determined to read both before we go so we can, as he said, "Drink a glass of wine and discuss the subject while we watch the sun go down."

Thank you for your kind words. Now I really must say Adieu!

Deanna

Evolution is from the word evolve, which is from the latin volvere, which is indicative of something that turns or rolls, such as a wheel.

In the Buddhist lexicon this wheel is known as the "kalachakra", which is forever turning; and to which both man and beast are chained, until; and unless, liberation from ignorance is achieved.

This world is known as "Samsara", which literally means "journeying", which is the cycle of birth, death and rebirth, to which every human being is subject so long as we live in ignorance and are never made aware of our identity with God, who every so often, as necessary, sends to mankind a Compassionate One such as Jesus, or Buddha, or Krishna, who are the very embodiment of the
"Word"; and are at onement with the Universal Spirit!

Our "Imprisonment" in Samsara is conditioned by hatred, desire (craving), ignorance; and delusion. It is because we cannot recognize these as the driving forces of "Samsara" that these
"Sons" of God are sent to help us overcome whatever negative impressions, tendencies; and possibilities thereof are present in our consciousness, which have arisen from one's actions and thoughts, which include those of earlier births, the sum total of which forms each persons character, which actions can be either physical, mental or verbal.

Unless a person is delivered from ignorance and delusion, he shall forever be on the rim of the wheel of "samsara" which turns from one eternity to the next, in a never ending cycle of birth, death; and rebirth.

These Sons of God, who as The Logos, are the living embodiment of "The Word"; and are sent to guide us off of the rim and onto one of the spokes of the wheel toward the center where; and when reached, the turning stops.

Dear Deanna -

I hope that you abandoning your friends - that's right, FRIENDS! - at this website doesn't mean that you won't at least check back to read a few responses to your farewell.

I appreciate the conversation we've had. I agree that your husband is probably the person that you should be having this discussion with, but if that is the end product of *our* conversation, then good for us! It's your openess and honesty that got us this far. I hope those qualities invest your discussions with your husband.

I hope you do read "The God Delusion." Your willingness to explore beyond your current belief system is commendable. Would that all of our educators had such self-confidence and -awareness! Who knows? You may gain a better understanding of your husband as well as an understanding of atheists in general.

You know, so many of the theists have fled the field here at On Faith. I don't know if it's because we atheists are too arrogant or smug for them to continue the conversation. I suspect that it might have to do with belief sets.

Most atheists I know didn't arrive at their atheism flippantly. Indeed, most of us have gone through a world of hurt to arrive where we are, often at perpetual war with our immediate families and ostracized by society. It's not an easy position to put oneself in, but we end up there because to us, it is THE position. It's really life changing and liberating. Ergo, we come to forums like On Faith with convictions that are a mile deep and - if society is any example - an inch wide.

That hasn't always been the case with the theists who often - not always - come to boards like this to spout bromides that they really haven't though much about. While it may be a stretch to think that their beliefs can't stand up to an aggressive debate, it's hard not to come away with thinking that's the case, at least when the name calling begins (why is it always the theists who are doing the name calling?). Thankfully, that hasn't been the case with you, and I think that I can safely say that the atheists at this blog have felt a great sense of comraderie and oneness with you. To me, that's true spirituality, and it's as rare as it is precious.

I thank you for allowing our conversations to enter into your quest for truth. Maybe they will reinforce your present beliefs, or maybe you'll eventually modify your beliefs - I doubt you will desert your beliefs, but then, I never for a second imagined that I'd be where I am at age 52 when I was living the life of a believer in their mid-30s!

Life is mysterious and kinda wonderful, isn't it?

I'll miss you and the civility you brought to the party. Please come back some time, if for nothing else than to give us a report on your reading of Dawkins' book.

All the best,

Mr Mark

Dear Mark,

Thanks for the giggle about the BB-gun-toting astronaut! You're right. We do need to be careful about who we're dealing with in cyberspace.

Thank you for recommending Dawkins' book. Interestingly enough, just a few minutes ago, my husband mentioned that The Economist had a very positive review of the book a few months back. The subject came up in connection with a question about when I had awakened this morning, having been up too late again last night. As I said before, he worries about my not getting enough sleep.