Readers’ Responses to Our Question (200)

Thomas Baum-

You may be wasting your time with CCNL. I don't know if he ever took the liberation and truth in Paul's letters and the gospels on face value. Crossan is speculating and CCNL chooses to believe him ... at his own peril.

Liberation comes in the redeeming blood of Christ, and Crossan and CCNL need that just as much as anyone.

What they have done is simply over intellectualizing things based on what cannot be ( resurrections, miracles, etc) The precept that God inspired the NT escapes them. It is a excuse to make themselves feel important and call others stupid- instead of admitting their sin and coming to the one person that can save them- the resurrected Christ.

I understand that Mr.Chopra is a media personality, but this is a website for intelligent people to “engage in conversation about faith…in a way that sheds light”. I’m sorry he had to resort to a sad stand-up routine, which is insulting and dismissive of Christianity, instead of adding some real insight.

Mr. Chopra’s comments do reveal he is wholly ignorant regarding Jesus. Jesus never ran for president. When he was offered political power he refused it. (John 6:14&15)
“ Hence when the men saw the signs he performed, they began to say: “This is for a certainty the prophet that was to come into the world.” 15 Therefore Jesus, knowing they were about to come and seize him to make him king, withdrew again into the mountain all alone.”
And rightly so, because Jesus knows Jehovah God’s purpose for the earth will not be realized through human governments but through God’s heavenly government.

(Matthew 6:10&11) “‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified. 10 Let your kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon earth.”

Mr. Chopra trivializes the expression “Love your enemies”. During his ministry, Jesus Christ gave his disciples a command that could be an antidote to many of the world's ills. Jesus said: "I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, that you also love one another." (John 13:34) The solution to many of mankind's problems is love. When, on another occasion, Jesus was asked which commandment is the greatest, he answered: "'You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment. The second, like it, is this, 'You must love your neighbor as yourself.'"—Matthew 22:37-40.

Jesus made very clear who our neighbor is through his illustration of the Samaritan.
(Luke 29-37)
“But, wanting to prove himself righteous, the man said to Jesus: “Who really is my neighbor?” 30 In reply Jesus said: “A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell among robbers, who both stripped him and inflicted blows, and went off, leaving him half-dead. 31 Now, by coincidence, a certain priest was going down over that road, but, when he saw him, he went by on the opposite side. 32 Likewise, a Levite also, when he got down to the place and saw him, went by on the opposite side. 33 But a certain Samaritan traveling the road came upon him and, at seeing him, he was moved with pity. 34 So he approached him and bound up his wounds, pouring oil and wine upon them. Then he mounted him upon his own beast and brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 And the next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said, ‘Take care of him, and whatever you spend besides this, I will repay you when I come back here.’ 36 Who of these three seems to you to have made himself neighbor to the man that fell among the robbers?” 37 He said: “The one that acted mercifully toward him.” Jesus then said to him: “Go your way and be doing the same yourself.”
Jesus showed us by words and deeds how to love God and fellow humans.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus taught his disciples how to show love for fellow humans. He said: "All things, therefore, that you want men to do to you, you also must likewise do to them." (Matthew 7:12) The word "men" that Jesus used here includes even one's enemies. In the same sermon, he said: "Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those persecuting you." (Matthew 5:43, 44) Such love would solve many of the problems that we face today. Hindu leader Mohandas Gandhi thought so. He is quoted as saying: "When [we] shall get together on the teachings laid down by Christ in this Sermon on the Mount, we shall have solved the problems . . . of the whole world." Jesus' teachings about love, if applied, can solve many of mankind's ills.
Mr. Chopra also revealed his ignorance of the Bible. “Money is the root of all evil” is not what the Bible states. It is the love of money that is the problem.
(1Timothy 6:9-10)
“However, those who are determined to be rich fall into temptation and a snare and many senseless and hurtful desires, which plunge men into destruction and ruin. 10 For the love of money is a root of all sorts of injurious things, and by reaching out for this love some have been led astray from the faith and have stabbed themselves all over with many pains.”

Jesus has already demonstrated what kind of Ruler he would be. He has not only the power to help people but the desire as well. (Matthew 8:1-3) He is unselfish, compassionate, courageous and humble. The record of his life on earth is there in the Bible for all to read.

The more interesting question is not what kind of candidate Jesus would be, but why would a true Christian be involved in politics at all.

CCNL, "We cannot live with absurdity and stupidity."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I forgot CCNL by who's authority and merit do you evaluate and determine who is considered to be practiving or living in or with "absurdity and stupidity."

What I am saying it that there is a place that "absurdity and stupidity." only exist in the mind of the believer as such. So again I ask, by who's authority and merit do you evaluate and determine who is considered to be practiving or living in or with "absurdity and stupidity."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Being kind to those that practice either or both is detrimental to the advancement of personkind."

You have no concept of a person's "absurdity and stupidity" or when it affect one's advancement of personkind? This is very obvious.

But what I do know is that your type is "toxic" to all mankind and should be avoided at all cost. Negativity breeds negativity and that is exactly what you breed on a consistent basis. Not rocket sciene just plain old simple facts.

Refusing to accept aminabilty to clear the slate and begin again when it wasn't the fault of the party offended is what is "detrimental to the advancement of personkind."

From now on I will not respond or read any of your post, I will just skip over them.

"I do not know the American gentleman, god forgive me for putting two such words together."
Charles Dickens, English novelist (1812 - 1870)

"No one is useless in this world who lightens the burdens of another."
Charles Dickens, English novelist (1812 - 1870)

You are usless CCNL.

America,

We cannot live with absurdity and stupidity. Being kind to those that practice either or both is detrimental to the advancement of personkind.

And it is actually "quite Christian" to point out the flaws in religions. Not doing so would result in more guilt trips and support of those who promulagate such trips.

CCNL, ". But it is our right to challenge this absurdity 24/7. "
~~~~~~~

It is not your right to call people names, critisize them ,& demean them because they do not believe like you, & belittle them for speaking there're belief system.

So many of non-christian believers have worked overtime in trying to "quence" the voice of christian believers through unkind acts that it has caused a "flood gate" response of nontolerance for the same,

You reap what you sow. You sow seeds of hatred spewed, critisizing christians, & demeaning them for their belief & you will get a "harvest" of the same, period,

Then you futher critisize christians for responding to you unkindness by throwing the bible in their face and accuse them of being "un-christian which further demeans them, Adding to the heated debate you mock them as deviants of society and then whine and cry about their response as if they have done an injustice to you.

When all the while looking back you have caused the situation by thinking that the christian was going to sit idle while you continualy slapped them in the face.

It is the law of cause and effect. Sometimes you need to go back and look at beginning and see when the change of behavior started. No one is going to sit idle while you keep attacking them. Christians are humans and if someone started out being kind and has now taken you to be offensive go back and check your work done & most likely you will find the cause and effect point. The resolution is to agree to disagree, stop the hatred being spewed by both parties, clean the slate, & being again in the wisdom of the mistake.

Kindness is a virture that all can live with.

CCNL, ". But it is our right to challenge this absurdity 24/7. "
~~~~~~~

It is not your right to call people names, critisize them ,& demean them because they do not believe like you, & belittle them for speaking there're belief system.

So many of non-christian believers have worked overtime in trying to "quence" the voice of christian believers through unkind acts that it has caused a "flood gate" response of nontolerance for the same,

You reap what you sow. You sow seeds of hatred spewed, critisizing christians, & demeaning them for their belief & you will get a "harvest" of the same, period,

Then you futher critisize christians for responding to you unkindness by throwing the bible in their face and accuse them of being "un-christian which further demeans them, Adding to the heated debate you mock them as deviants of society and then whine and cry about their response as if they have done an injustice to you.

When all the while looking back you have caused the situation by thinking that the christian was going to sit idle while you continualy slapped them in the face.

It is the law of cause and effect. Sometimes you need to go back and look at beginning and see when the change of behavior started. No one is going to sit idle while you keep attacking them. Christians are humans and if someone started out being kind and has now taken you to be offensive go back and check your work done & most likely you will find the cause and effect point. The resolution is to agree to disagree, stop the hatred being spewed by both parties, clean the slate, & being again in the wisdom of the mistake.

Kindness is a virture that all can live with.

American,

I assume you are aware of the US Bill of Rights and our Freedom of Speech.

Thomas The Hallucinator Baum believes he has seen/visited with god. He reminds everyone of this 24/7 as is his right. But it is our right to challenge this absurdity 24/7.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated :

"Thomas The Hallucinator Baum,

The Reality is that your Three B Syndrome (Bred, Born and Brainwashed in Orthodox Christianity) is getting worse."

March 11, 2008 1:03 PM
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The world does not revolve around you and your beliefs only. Stop “beating” others down because they do not walk and talk your way………..this is America!

It is his right to choose what he wants to believe as much as anyone else's right. Soooooooooooo, stop the criticisms, grow up, and get over it.

It is definitely time for a new subject!!!

I think it's a good question, actually, because it illustrates the current shape of American politics.

Jesus would have run as an independent, and he would have taken the parties to task for their corruption and arrogance. Political action committees would have started running TV commercials talking about his undocumented birth, his association with prostitutes, criminals, and people with AIDS. Rush Limbaugh and the rest of talk radio would ridicule his concern for the sick and poor, suggesting that drugs might be involved in his "erratic behavior," and pointing out that Jesus spent most of his time in the company of twelve young men (and what's that all about, huh?)

When it looked like he might win election, U.S. Attorneys appointed by Bush would suddenly discover evidence of crimes. Eventually, he'd be murdered by a mob of Evangelical Christians angry because he was "blaspheming" by refusing to run as a Republican.

Thomas The Hallucinator Baum,

The Reality is that your Three B Syndrome (Bred, Born and Brainwashed in Orthodox Christianity) is getting worse.

TO CONCERNED THE CHRISTIAN NOW LIBERATED AND THE REST OF HUMANITY:

You wrote, "Two of Professor Crossan's books, The Historical Jesus and The Birth of Christianity should get you started to the World of Christian Reality."

The Christian Reality is that Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity.

The Reality of the Old Testament is that God chose and formed a people and by the obedience of a few, God could become a Man and live long enough to do what He came for.

The Reality is that God has a Plan and has had His Plan since before creation and His Plan is for ALL OF HUMANITY to be in His Kingdom [the new heavens and the new earth].

The Reality is that watered-down christianity is not christianity at all.

The Reality is that God is a Being of Pure Love, and Is a Trinity and we are all made in the Image and Likeness of God.

The Reality is that since Jesus, God-Incarnate became One of us, God is not only Our Father but also our Brother and since Jesus said He would send the Holy Spirit to guide us into all Truth then the Holy Spirit is not only our Knitting Buddy, but also our Guide and Comforter.

The Reality is that the True, Living, Triune, Triumphant God is a searcher of hearts and minds not of religious affiliations or lack thereof.

The Reality is that it is important what you do and why you do it and what you know.

Take care, be ready, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

The dawning of the seventh day shall arrive in God's Time.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Ahmed, Ahmed, Ahmed,

Typical Islamic reaction to your stench!! You constantly cut and paste all the smells of Islam with your passages of the odoriferous koran. One has no choice but to counter it with the constant reminders which will not go away until Islam is deflawed. And because you constantly forget these flaws, here are the first four once again:

1. Believe in "pretty/ugly wingie" thingies and teach your children that such fictional things really exist.

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

3. That Sunnis believe they are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

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

Concerned

Your silly remarks and cut and paste again.

I make remarks the way I like them. Tough if you do not like it. You keep to your limited mental ability of cut and paste.

Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq are developing almost 3rd world countries with feudal and non democratic states. They behave likewise.

You mighty self-righteous and supposedly developed industrial democratic country behave far worst. For they have not seen any better but you hide behind the cloak of freedom/democracy/Jesus and inflict far more suffering on collective countries. Take a look in the mirror and stop your self-righteous and holier than though attitude.

Tell me did Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, etc. start putting their military camps on your land or you did that? try avoiding blurting on about Islamic history. Stick to answering the question for once and cut out the cut and paste.

Remember what is happening today is directly the result of US/UK policy over the last 50 years in ME and other places in the world. I lived through it. You read about it. From the creation of Israel and shipping millions of European Jews, taking the land by force to the military occupation of Iraq/Afghanistan. Be an ostrich if you like but may be very now and then you should remove those blinkers and speak the truth. Too much to ask I know but I do live in hope for humanity to understand the difference between the occupied and the occupier. Try the dictionary?

Ahmed,

You should "destench" Islam before making any more commentary about the United States of America.

Recent Islamic stench for your perusal:

The assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds this stench? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia

Stephanie and Believer,

Thump the bible all you want. No one is listening as we have gone beyond all the myths, "profits", embellishments and wishful thinking. To catch up to reality I recommend reading the books listed at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

Jesus Christ said of his followers: “They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world.” (John 17:14) Being “no part of the world,” would mean remaining neutral in the political affairs of the world. What true Christians preach is a heavenly government, the kingdom of God. And that kingdom is not part of this world. Said Jesus: “My kingdom is no part of this world. If my kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be delivered up to the Jews. But, as it is, my kingdom is not from this source.”—John 18:36. On one occasion the populace of Galilee wanted Jesus to immerse himself into politics. “Therefore Jesus, realizing they were about to come and seize him to make him king, withdrew again into the mountain all alone.”--John 6:15. No politics for Jesus! On another occasion the Bible tells us: “The Devil took him along to an unusually high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory, and he said to him: ‘All these things I will give you if you fall down and do an act of worship to me.’ —Matt. 4:8-10. Jesus refused. He knew he was the King Designate of God's government. As King his rulership will extend to the whole earth and will last to times indefinite—Daniel 2:44. Jesus is the “only ruler” who can solve our economic woes, guarantee abundant food and excellent housing for all people. He will eliminate all diseases, even restore the aged to youthful vigor. He will put an end to all wars, enabling his subjects to live in peace and security. He will restore the earth to perfect balance, transforming the earth into a Garden of Eden condition. So why would he vote when he is the one qualified to rule mankind?

DANIEL : "At least I hope I have written in the spirit of Christ. In answering this question one cannot help but imagine his very words. But perhaps someone can tell me what kind of Christian I would be. I have a feeling for Christianity but I have never been able to decide what kind of Christian I am--or even if I am a Christian. I certainly have no particular antipathy to any form of Christianity, I just have never found myself in a particular church. But as I get older I would like to find myself in like company. If we can answer what Christ would do politically perhaps we all would find ourselves members of the same church."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Daniel, Excellent post and yes I beleive that it was written in the spirit of Christ. I want to let you know that I was moved by the humble impression in your post. I Hope my answer helps answer your question.

You are what scripture calls a “born again” believer/Christian. The bible does not mandate what church to attend only that we attend, and from logic we as Christians should attend a church where we will grow in the spirit of God and the knowledge of his word, the bible.

So you would want to find a church that believes one must accept Christ as his personal savior and that teaches the bible for you to live by as you grow in the knowledge of God’s word, and that takes time so be patient with yourself. There are denominational and non-denominational churches for born again believers.

It is you choice where you feel comfortable at but here are some points to look for to know if you are in a church that believes that you must be born again to be saved. Make sure the church teaches from the bible, this is very important, as the bible. Pray and ask God to lead you to the church where he wants you at, he will guide you to that place.

Make sure that the environment in the church is not condescending and messages from the pulpit are not always browbeating you for “sin.” There should be a balance of teaching holiness and encouragement.

Welcome to the fold in your walk with God and. Here are some scriptures for you to read that support that you are a born again Christian.

Your sister, In Christ.

Acts 4:10-12, 16-19, (10) then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. (11) He is " 'the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone. (12) Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

John 3:1-3, (1) Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. (2) He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him." (3) In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again……………(16)"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (17) For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. (18) Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

John 3:36, (36) Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him

1 John 1:9, (9) If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness

An utterly silly question. Please read the NT and your know the answer. The man preached love, forgiving your enemy, being charitable. All things American government is not but claims to be. Above all Jesus was not a hypocrite. He gave his life to uphold his simple teaching of unconditional love.

If you claim to follow him then put your action where your mouth is. Truly any person upholding Jesus beliefs will be assassinated in a flash. You have created a society that has no stomach to hear the truth. Think about that.

Hypocrisy taken to the extreme level.

Thomas, the Hallucinator, Baum,

Your good book is filled with fiction, embellishments, no witnesses, no references, and differing accounts therefore one has to then evaluate it with the tools of historical review. In Professor Crossan's case and others, the tools are the number of attestations of said passages and when said passages were added to your good book. Two of Professor Crossan's books, The Historical Jesus and The Birth of Christianity should get you started to the World of Christian Reality.

TO CONCERNED THE CHRISTIAN NOW LIBERATED:

You wrote, "It is one of the the NT passages that passed Crossan's attestation and stratum tests."

I was wondering, does Jesus have to pass the tests mentioned above or does He just have to be Who He Is?

So, so many people are going to be so shocked when the Big Surprise, so to speak, happens.

Take care, be ready, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom [the new heavens and the new earth].

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Jesus would not have run for president and He said as much, when He said, "My Kingdom is not of this world".

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

TO TL:

You wrote, "Who cares what Jesus would have done. He was no one special. He was just a regular guy with delusions of grandeur. If he were alive today, most people would think he was crazy and have him committed to a psychiatric facility."

Actually, plenty of people in His day thought Jesus was crazy and instead of committing Him to a psychiatric facility, which they probably did not have, they killed Him.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Mr. Mark,

Matthew 22:15-22: "Render unto Caesar etc." was rated by Professor Crossan as being "authentic Jesus. It is one of the the NT passages that passed Crossan's attestation and stratum tests. Two out of three passages failed the same testing.

55+. Caesar and God: (1) Gos. Thom. 100; (2) Eger. Gos. 3a [50-57a]; (3) Mark 12:13-17 = Matt 22:15-22 = Luke 20:20-26.

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

Many other NT exegetes agree with the Professor. See : http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/055_Caesar_and_God

The only way to answer this question is to assume we know the historical Jesus as opposed to what we have come to think of him as being, and I doubt we will ever be able to reconstruct a historical Jesus. Even if we can reconstruct such a Jesus it would still be difficult to imagine him choosing this or that political party of today. Perhaps it would be best to say the true Jesus is what we have come to think of him as being, and this Jesus is a very compassionate figure, and therefore not easily reduced to a political party. He seems to me idealistic and compassionate and I doubt any man if he truly searches his heart can say that he understands, can easily dismiss, such a Christianity. Personally, I believe in God and have hopes in Christ. I have hopes in Christ because having examined myself and striven to be moral without such beliefs I have only gotten myself in moral impasses, in fact corrupted my own heart and been plagued by a bad conscience. I find it difficult to be moral without such figures as Christ, figures which embody self-sacrifice and the hope in a better life. I wish myself to mean to people something better and not just a cynical observation on life. People must mean hope to one another, and as long as people do that it will be impossible to dismiss Christ. This is deeper than politics. This is beyond politics. Or if a politics, a politics which emerges only when a person truly examines his life and resolves to live a better life. This of course is just one lesson which can be learned from the example of Christ. At least I hope I have written in the spirit of Christ. In answering this question one cannot help but imagine his very words. But perhaps someone can tell me what kind of Christian I would be. I have a feeling for Christianity but I have never been able to decide what kind of Christian I am--or even if I am a Christian. I certainly have no particular antipathy to any form of Christianity, I just have never found myself in a particular church. But as I get older I would like to find myself in like company. If we can answer what Christ would do politically perhaps we all would find ourselves members of the same church.

Who cares what Jesus would have done. He was no one special. He was just a regular guy with delusions of grandeur. If he were alive today, most people would think he was crazy and have him committed to a psychiatric facility.

Re: "Render therefore unto Caesar what is Caesar's..."

I recall reading somewhere that this "quote" from Jesus doesn't exist in the earliest Gospel sources, and that it was a possible later addition (2nd or 3rd century?) added at a time when the Christian sect was under assault for not contributing the taxes required by Rome.

Has anyone else heard this line of thought? What does Crossan have to say about the authenticity of this passage?

Thanx.

he wouldn't run for office--that was not his style. He taught his religion and philosophy in a "grass roots" style. If he were here today, he'd more likely be a talk show host than a politician.

An contemporary Jesus would never be able to make it to the White house. More like, Guantanamao Bay.

Reginald,

Hmmm, "I am the Truth" i.e. John 14:6. This passage was, according to many NT exegetes, not said by the historical Jesus but was wishful thinking and an embellishment by John to make Jesus more like the ancient and local gods of first century Palestine. 210-. Place of Life: (1) Dial. Sav. 27-30, (2) John 14:2-12; faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf

http://books.google.com/books?id=AsPHR4-7Wc8C&pg=PA444&lpg=PA444&dq=%22place+of+life%22+%22the+historical+jesus%22+crossan&source=web&ots=8mVx_1M6g4&sig=XFqT8S1coAT18xq8Qwt1vMcMjW0

And John 18:36-38, " I have come to bear witness to the Truth" has the same problem.

180-. Pilate's Question:(1a) Gos. Pet. pre-1:1 from later 3:6,9 (Son of God) & 3:7; 4:11 (King of Israel), (1b) Mark 15:1-5 = Matt 27:1-2,11-14 = Luke 23:1-5, (1c) John 18:28-38;19:4-16

http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/180_Pilates_Questions

What makes you think Jesus would be an American?

Jesus wouldn't have voted for either candidate. Please reference what he said to Pilate at John 18:36. And, that's the same kingdom referenced at Daniel 2:44. Finally, it's the same kingdom that most people pray for at Matthew 6:9, 10 but don't know what they praying for when they utter what Jesus recorded there.

Jesus wouldn't have voted for either candidate. Please reference what he said at John 18:36. It's the same government that's about to make sweeping changes referred to a Daniel 2:44. And, it's the same kingdom that most people pray for when they utter the Lord's prayer at Matthew 6:9, 10 but don't know what they're praying for when they say it.

Anon, Anon, Anon,

If you want to believe that the bible is inerrant then go for it. My faith is based on the historical record and books that have talking snakes, magical gardens, talking bushes, fortune tellers/prophets/"profits", "pretty/ugly wingie flying talking thingies, resurrecting bodies, blood from wine, food replicators and filicide do not qualify as historical documents.

The problem is your single source of information i.e. The NT, a psuedo history of a very embellished poor peasant/carpenter from Nazareth who turned into a preacher man following the embellished path of John the Baptist. Attestations of the accounts even within the NT are few and the accounts were written by non-witnesses decades after the "events.
As Spock would say "It is illogical".
i.e.
From another source:
Also think about the logic (or lack thereof).
“I believe the Bible is
inspired.” “Why?”
“Because it says so.” Would your
anyone let that logic pass if it came from the followers of any other book
or person?
“I believe x is inspired because x says so.” Fill in the blanks:
x=Pat Robertson
x=the ayatolloah Sistani
x=David Koresh
x=the Koran”
more “logic”?
“I believe there is One God Jehovah because He is revealed in the infallible
Bible. I believe the Bible is infallible because it is the Word of the One God Jehovah.”

There is no problem for me, the problem lies within you. The bible is just like any other resource and many of the accounts are proven historically and recorded as such. So what is wrong with me using it as a resource? Well, I will tell you, “you” don’t want me to. Here is the deal. Since many accounts in the bible are proven recorded history then it should suffice for intended use on this thread as a resource. No cherry-picking resources because you do not like my choice of reference.

As far as this statement ““I believe there is One God Jehovah because He is revealed in the infallible Bible. I believe the Bible is infallible because it is the Word of the One God Jehovah.”

Isn’t that the whole point of “faith?”

This question is intellectually empty. There are many serious issues confronting this nation and world. What Jesus, assuming he ever lived, would do is an incredibly irrelevant question that distracts us from important issues. Let's concern ourselves with what the current crop of presidential candidates are going to do to improve the quality of life, especially for those who often are left out by our political and economic system.

Hammerhead,

Money and free room and board for starters following in the foot steps of Roman citizen, Paul? And I believe the mourning/hiding period was significantly longer than 40 days. And the conflict with Rome probably grew in the late 30 AD's culminating in 70 AD with the sacking of Jerusalem. Interesting this anti-Rome sentiment grew while the gospels were being prepared in their current highly embellished form.

See

http://books.google.com/books?id=GaYKGrqXCwEC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=%22acts+of+the+apostles%22+historic+crossan&source=web&ots=CUqAPW_uYo&sig=m2QkBUi3009XCQ4OAHOHKhsO9SY&hl=en#PPA17,M1

for added details.

Anonymous March 9, 2008 8:52 PM

If you would like to abuse muslims and prophet

Mohammed you will get plenty of opportunity in

WAP or just go through previous muslim blogs to be

contented.Now please stick on to the subject.

Thank you Anonymous March 9, 2008 8:52 PM for another fine example of Christian love.

Thank you Anonymous March 9, 2008 8:52 PM for another fine example of Cristian love.

Quite simple actually. Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceaser's and render unto God that which is God's.

Maybe if some of the opinionated experts opining here actually read the Bible, they would not spew such idiotic, childish nonsense.

Now, if the question was about muhammed - the answer would be clear.

He would vote the child murdering, lying, conniving left.

Some things never change.

Concerned,
Your response never addresses the question I asked based upon your characterization of those closest to Jesus "fleeing for their own safety"?
You must have some reasonable explanation of what turned this fearful timid group into proud bold proclaimers of Christ risen in a mere 40 days?
Ofcourse if you would rather not discuss this aspect of it I do understand.

Anon, Anon, Anon wherever you are,

As with a lot of Christians, you suffer from the Three B syndrome i.e. Bred, Born and Brainwashed in orthodox Christianity.

The problem is your single source of information i.e. The NT, a psuedo history of a very embellished poor peasant/carpenter from Nazareth who turned into a preacher man following the embellished path of John the Baptist. Attestations of the accounts even within the NT are few and the accounts were written by non-witnesses decades after the "events.

As Spock would say "It is illogical".

i.e.

From another source:

Also think about the logic (or lack thereof).
“I believe the Bible is
inspired.” “Why?”

“Because it says so.” Would your
anyone let that logic pass if it came from the followers of any other book
or person?

“I believe x is inspired because x says so.” Fill in the blanks:
x=Pat Robertson
x=the ayatolloah Sistani
x=David Koresh
x=the Koran”

more “logic”?

“I believe there is One God Jehovah because He is revealed in the infallible
Bible. I believe the Bible is infallible because it is the Word of the One God Jehovah.”

Dear Anonymous -

You're confusing the Bible with history. It isn't history.

There is absolutely NO non-Biblical historical account of the slaughter of the innocents. It's a total Biblical fabrication. According to Luke, Herod had been DEAD FOR TEN YEARS at the time Jesus was supposedly born, so how did he order ANYTHING?

Well documented history? Such bogus history exists n the Bible AND NOWHERE ELSE, not to mention that the Bible CAN'T EVEN AGREE WITH ITSELF when it's inventing "history." Pathetic.

BTW - there was no Mary. There was no Joseph.Does that answer it for you?

Again, THE BIBLE IS NOT HISTORY, IT IS MYTH.

Dear Anonymous -

You're confusing the Bible with history. It isn't history.

There is absolutely NO non-Biblical historical account of the slaughter of the innocents. It's a total Biblical fabrication. According to Luke, Herod had been DEAD FOR TEN YEARS at the time Jesus was supposedly born, so how did he order ANYTHING?

Well documented history? Such bogus history exists n the Bible AND NOWHERE ELSE, not to mention that the Bible CAN'T EVEN AGREE WITH ITSELF when it's inventing "history." Pathetic.

BTW - there was no Mary. There was no Joseph.Does that answer it for you?

Again, THE BIBLE IS NOT HISTORY, IT IS MYTH.

CCNL, "Sure was better than being a poor peasant but he got a bit too zealous and they nailed him to a tree."

~~~~~~~~~~~

Jesus was a carpenter by trade and certainly could make his own living. I would hardly classify that as being a peasant.

~~~~~~~~~~
"Paul picked up the money scent on the road to Damascus.

He added some letters for a fee and "Gentilized" the good word to the "big buck" world. i.e. Paul was the first media evangelist!!!"

Paul was Saul of Tarsus, a well educated Jewish leader and a great persecutor of Christians. He converted to Christianty after having an on the road encounted with Jesus, at which time Jesus rendered Paul blind.

A disciple named Ananias was instructed by God to go to Saul (before conversion)to a house where he was led by the hand to because of his blindness and told to pray for him that his sight woud return. Following this encounter Saul became Paul, and yes, you are right about one thing, Paul was the greatest misssionary to the gentiles.

Mr. Mark, "Of course, there is no more a "historical" Jesus than there is a historical Zeus"

***************

Then who did Mary, wife of Joseph give birth to in the well-documented historical account of her giving birth to a male child in a manger?

Of which history tells that 3 wise men commissioned by King Herod to investigate the child’s birth based on the prophecy years before by the prophet Daniel in Daniel 9:24-26 of the coming Messiah that would rule and rebuild Jerusalem. Why would 3 wise men travel to a manger, give expensive gifts and worship a child born in a manger then not return to King Herod as ordered?

History also accounts when King Herod heard the wise men worshipped Jesus in the manager and did not return to him.

The not returning of the 3 wise men caused King Herod to fear that the prophecy of the coming Messiah was being fulfilled so he decreed that all male children age 2 and under be slaughtered in Bethlehem; also well recorded in history. Such a mass killing can be easily researched.

In biblical standards this is the first account of an attempt to kill Jesus.

Hammerhead,

I assume you are referring to the fifth book of the NT, the Acts, or Acts of the Apostles which has renditions of the resurrection and ascension. Right away there is a problem since there was no physical resurrection because heaven, if it exists, is a spirit state as attested to by Aquinas and JP II and by common sense. And of course no physical resurrection, therefore there was no ascension forty days after easter. Therefore the first chapters of Acts are simply more embellishment and wishful thinking.

In the latter part of Acts we have Paul's conversion etc. What comes into play are the motives of Paul. Were they religious or economic or a blend? Considering today's priests, preachers, "prophets/profits", imams and clerics, it is fair to say it was a blend with a economics generally playing a majority role. And as with the life of Jesus, Paul's life was significantly embellished especially in regards to his conversion.

Wikipedia appears to have a fair analyses of Acts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_Apostles

From Religion Economics 101:

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

Paul picked up the money scent on the road to Damascus.

He added some letters for a fee and "Gentilized" the good word to the "big buck" world. i.e. Paul was the first media evangelist!!!

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

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

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

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

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

With respect to the deaths of the apostles, they like Jesus were considered a threat to Roman rule. And threats to Rome were exterminated with few questions asked.

Of course, there is no more a "historical" Jesus than there is a historical Zeus.

Concerned,
Your acknowledgement that "those closest to him ran for their own safety" is quite a telling historical fact.
This historical fact then demands a reasonable explanation as to how these fearful men who "ran for their own safety" were observed by the high religious leadership 40 days later,in the temple, speaking boldly of this Jesus Christ risen?
What could possibly explain this historically documented about face from the historically documented posture of "fear" you yourself have acknowledged,to a posture of absolute boldness in the name of Christ?
So bold,and so problematic was their public display to the high leadership,that it caused an emergency counsel and that great doctor of the law in reputation Gamaliel to address the Phaisee's saying:

"Refrain from these men,and let them alone,for if this counsel or this work be of men,it will come to nought.
But if it be of God,ye cannot overthrow it,lest haply ye be found even to fight against God." ((Acts 5:38-39)

Now that you have acknowledged their "fear for their safety" what reasonable explanation do you give for their boldness only 40 days later.
A boldness which caused the majority of them to be put to death?

Hammerhead,

Another take on the passion stories:

From Crossan and Watts book, Who is Jesus.

“My best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety.

I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. No doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset.

And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered.

Not so much "silly" is the question as it is ignorant of what is known about this Jesus who is the Christ,and what He has made known to us concerning some of these isssues mentioned.
For instance during his time suffering death on the cross we know that criminals suffering capital punishment with him acknowledged that unlike Him they were being administered the "just punishment" for the crimes they were guilty of:

"...for we recieve the due reward of our deeds,but this man has done nothing amiss."
(Luke 23:41)

Jesus never contested the fact that they,unlike Him, were recieving the proper punishment for their "deeds" thereby giving His blessing on the death penalty for certain "deeds".

This has to be the silliest question yet asked here.

What if a frog had wings? It wouldn't whomp its buttocks every time it jumped.

What if? What if Jesus could do what they claim he did? If he's alive, that is?

No more hunger. No more war. No more sober weddings.

Pfui. Get new moderators -- or get serious.

Moody, Moody, Moody,

Once you come to grips with the flaws in your religion, you will be better able to function mentally. Once again, the first four flaws of Islam:

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie" thingies and teach their children that such fictional things really exist.

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

3. That Sunnis believe they are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

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

What is available in the search of proof of the existence of the historic Jesus:

Besides the Josephus reference (earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.html), NT exegetes use the following attestations to Jesus' crucifixion as proof he existed.

Crucifixion of Jesus:(1) 1 Cor 15:3b (pub 50-60 AD); (2a) Gos. Pet. 4:10-5:16,18-20; 6:22; (2b) Mark 15:22-38 = Matt 27:33-51a = Luke 23:32-46; (2c) John 19:17b-25a,28-36; (3) Barn. 7:3-5; (4a) 1 Clem. 16:3-4 (=Isaiah 53:1-12); (4b) 1 Clem. 16.15-16 (=Psalm 22:6-8); (5a) Ign. Mag. 11; (5b) Ign. Trall. 9:1b; (5c) Ign. Smyrn. 1.2.-

Were these stories embellished? Yes, but the crucifixion is the same throughout.

The Jesus Seminar after reviewing all the scriptural and non-scriptural documents (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/passion.html ) from the time period, voted red (the event occurred) as follows:

Jesus was crucified

Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate

Jesus was crucified with the participation of the highest Jewish authorities

Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem

Jesus was crucified at Golgotha

From Professors Crossan and Watts' book, Who is Jesus.

"That Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, as the Creed states, is as certain as anything historical can ever be. The Jewish historian, Josephus and the pagan historian Tacitus both agree that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea. And is very hard to imagine that Jesus' followers would have invented such a story unless it indeed happened. While the brute fact that of Jesus' death by crucifixion is historically certain, however, those detailed narratives in our present gospels are much more problematic. "

“My best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety.

I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. No doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset. And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."

Professor Crossan's book, Who was Jesus?, was written unencumbered by pages of supporting references for a audience of non-specialists.
See Professor Crossan's reviews of the existence of Jesus in his other books especially, The Historical Jesus and also Excavating Jesus (with Professor Jonathan Reed doing the archeology discussion) .

Other NT exegetes to include members of the Jesus Seminar have published similar books with appropriate supporting references.

Part of Crossan's The Historical Jesus has been published online at http://books.google.com/books?id=AsPHR4-7Wc8C&pg=PA444&lpg=PA444&dq=%22place+of+life%22+%22the+historical+jesus%22+crossan&source=web&ots=8mVx_1M6g4&sig=XFqT8S1coAT18xq8Qwt1vMcMjW0

There is also a search engine for this book on the right hand side of the opening page. e.g. Search Josephus

(Warning, the online book is not complete).

See also Wikipedia's review on the historical Jesus to include the Tacitus' reference to the crucifixion of Jesus.

S2S,

Some words of wisdom by Professor JD Crossan, an On Faith panelist and author of 25 books on the historical Jesus and related topics:

- About atonement theology: (from his book, "Who is Jesus" co-authored with Richard Watts)

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

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

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

For added information see Professor Crossan's other books to include http://books.google.com/books?id=AsPHR4-7Wc8C&pg=PA444&lpg=PA444&dq=%22place+of+life%22+%22the+historical+jesus%22+crossan&source=web&ots=8mVx_1M6g4&sig=XFqT8S1coAT18xq8Qwt1vMcMjW0

The answer is "none of the above". No major party in the US would put forward a candidate who said "Resist not evil", or who counseled his followers to pray in their closets with the door closed.

The question, and the absurd answers from Christians, is perhaps unintentionally (or perhaps not) informative about how little the actions of self-professed Christians have to do with the actual teachings of Jesus (that is, what is written in the Bible, whether historically true or not).

Funny question. They might as well be asking what kind of candidate Gilgamesh or Captain Ahab would be.

Modern biblical scholarship makes a VERY compelling case for the idea that Jesus was entirely fictional.

There is NO independent contemporaneous historical record of Jesus… no non-biblical accounts of Jesus… not in christian writing… not in Jewish writing… not in Roman writing… not by believers… not by unbelievers… not by 'apostles'… not by friends… not by family… not by ANYBODY! Get that? NONE… nada… zilch… zero.

There are no artifacts of Jesus… no writings of Jesus. NONE… nada… zilch… zero.

Summary: There is absolutely NO compelling evidence that Jesus actually existed.

Christians would have us believe that the gospels are actually first-person accounts, written by actual members of Jesus' posse… but HONEST scholars and theologians know that's not true… even honest CHRISTIAN scholars and theologians do not make that claim.

The first Gospel (Mark) was written no earlier than 70 CE. It was essentially a rough draft of the fictional Jesus account. It is NOT the history of a real, historical person… rather, it is a series of vignettes in the VERY familiar suffering-hero-king archetype, with some additional fiddling to link it and give it the appearance of fulling prophetic scripture.

Interestingly, if you tally up all the 'Jesus time' accounted for in the Gospels, it adds up to no more than 3 weeks ***.

*** (INTERLUDE: This does not count the alleged 40 days spent wandering in the desert… which only appears in the Synoptic gospels, anyway. The '40 days' is symbolic of the 40 years that the Israelites spent wandering in the desert… the 40 days and 40 nights that it rained during the flood… the 40 days that Moses spent on Mount Sinai… the 40 days that Elijah spent traveling to Mount Horeb to encounter God… and a couple dozen OTHER episodes.

Also [in Acts 1:3], after his resurrection, Jesus appears to his disciples for forty days, before ascending into heaven.

Gee… what a coincidence.) ***

Anyway… tens of millions of people dead… over a fictional account amounting to no more than three weeks. Over a 1,000 years of christian-enforced ignorance… deprivation… misery… evil… over a fictional account amounting to no more than three weeks.

Matthew and Luke were 2nd drafts, which used Mark as a template, tacked on additional fictional detail, and incorporated so-called 'sayings' of Jesus... basically, Judaized versions of tidbits from Greek Stoic and Cynic philosophies. The trouble is, the writers each had access to the same list of sayings… but they cooked up different venues and circumstances in which to put those sayings into the mount of Jesus. The sermon on the mount vs. the sermon on the plain, for example. Matthew and Luke were most likely written nearer the end of the first century… and perhaps even AFTER the turn of the century. The first indications that the Gospel of John existed can be pegged no earlier than 150 CE. The first indication that anyone was aware that ALL the canonical gospels existed was around 180 CE… and there was apparently no widespread acknowledgment or awareness of the gospels in the christian community at-large until around 250 CE.

Oh, yeah… and there is some pretty compelling evidence that Luke borrowed some of his 'historical' elements from Josephus… which is a bit of a problem for the idea that Luke was a member of Jesus' posse, since Josephus wasn't even BORN until after the (alleged) death of Jesus…

"This thesis, if correct, entails two things. First, it undermines the historicity of certain details in the Christ story unique to Luke, such as his account of the Nativity, since these have been drawn from Josephus, who does not mention them in connection with Jesus, and thus it is more than possible that they never were linked with Jesus until Luke decided they were. This does not prove, but provides support for the view that LUKE IS CREATING HISTORY, NOT RECORDING IT. Second, it settles the terminus post quem of the date Luke-Acts was written: for in order to draw material from the Jewish War, Luke could not have written before 79 A.D., and could well have written much later since the rate of publication in antiquity was exceedingly limited and slow, requiring hand copies made by personal slaves (though at first oral recitations would be more common than written copies); and in order to draw material from the Jewish Antiquities, as he appears to have done, Luke could not have written before 94 A.D., and again could have written much later for the same reason." ~ Richard Carrier

Then, there is this…

"The Gospel story, with its figure of Jesus of Nazareth, cannot be found before the Gospels. I