All Comments (55)

Dear Brothers in Christ, lam pastor Wisdom Mensah. lam a senior pastor in the church of Jesus is the power Miracle Ministries. l love to have as fellow christian brothers in christ. l know very well you are devoted christian therefore l will love your church to have inter-church relationship with us here in Ghana west africa. l hope this friendly initiatives will not be despite since God is concern with Faithfulness. l wish you all the best in the name of our good Lord Jesus Christ. Amen. l will be very glad if you could send me your church programmes , casette and other neccessary materials to reading your teaching. God bless you !!!. Yours brother in Christ, Pastor Wisdom Mensah p.o.box.580 kaosa Accra
+277764504

Charles Colson should have served his full sentence for his crimes. Any genuine Christian, new born, reborn or otherwise should be the first to admit that the deserve punishment for their crimes. Turning your life over to Christ is not and should not be a "get out of jail free" card. It makes a mockery out of Christianity. It doesn't matter what good he may have done since he got out. When a person commits a crime, it is a 2-pronged issue. Firstly, they sin against God. Secondly, and more to the point, they break the civil law(s) of the society in which they live. When the THIEF on the CROSS confessed Christ, he was forgiven the SPIRITUAL penalty of the law. He was not taken down off the cross. He was OBLIGATED to serve the CIVIL penalty, which he did by his death on the cross. Charles Colson should have taken a lesson from that and served his full sentence as handed down by the courts.

Anonymous, thanks for the clarification. My post criticized "evangelical" in the general sense, meaning the desire to convert others. I'm saying that such a desire is wrong in principle, although it's much more infuriating when combined with fundamentalist doctrine. The last sentence of my previous post referred to that doctrine without giving the doctrine a name.

Tonio wrote:

"Part of the problem is the evangelical aspect of Christianity, or of any religion that teaches both supernaturalism and evangelism. It's one thing when believers hold an anti-naturalist view of the world. It's another when they try to convince others to adopt such a view. The latter amounts to asking people to deny their own sense of reality, such as the evidence of their own eyes and ears. That's especially bad when the believers warn of dire consequences or penalties from angry deities if others don't convert, or (in the case of Augustine's Original Sin doctrine) attempt to saddle humans with the guilt for a crime they didn't commit."

I'm thinking maybe you meant fundamentalists rather than evangelicals? Evangelicals simply spread the gospel and do good works. They do not try to "convert" people, or warn of doom or dire consequences.

Hi, Soja - as I mentioned on another thread, where you posted the similar information:

Tradition by definition exists unrelated to any historical fact. Traditions have validity in the life and minds of the people who follow them.

The problems begin when people insist that their traditions are facts, but cannot show the kind of evidence required for factual proof.

I've learned to listen closely when academics or clergy preface their remarks with "according to tradition" because I now know what it means - people have thought that for many years, but there is proof or historical record of the elements of the story. For instance, there are traditions (legends) of the two Marys in France and St John on Patmos and St Peter being crucified upside down.

I think academics have an obligation to clarify the difference between tradition and historical fact. Both are important in the study of religion and it’s also important that regular people know the difference and that academics and clergy don’t use the term “according to tradition” to obfuscate and mislead people. Of course, I realize it could put them in a tight spot, when people respond, “What, you mean it’s only a tradition? It’s not for real??” But it’s only then that an honest discussion can begin.

Dear Mr Colson

A belated Happy Easter to you from breathtakingly beautiful Sydney in Australia! Jesus Christ is risen, Alleluia! Personally of course I think it is appropriate for Christians to celebrate Easter in our hearts everyday, so for me today is just as much Easter as it was on Easter Sunday, so it is not belated Easter wishes after all.

As to the question: “If the remains of Jesus had been definitively found, how would that change your view of Christianity?”

I do agree with you that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is fundamental to Christianity, for otherwise Jesus would be just another good man and teacher like Socrates.

As to answering the hypothetical question, I would like to cross the bridge only after I have reached it, so for me the question is premature at this stage. For the following reasons I have no reason to consider that the possibility of finding the remains of Jesus exist:

1. One cannot simultaneously claim that Jesus Christ was an exemplary moral teacher (for all non-Christians are willing to admit at least that much about Jesus) who walked his talk and at the same time imply that He was a liar when He claimed to be the Messiah, and His many references to the Jewish prophesies which His life fulfilled, and the prediction of his death and Resurrection. Why did Jesus have to lie about who He was? He was after all aware of His coming fate, namely death on the cross, for His claim of being Messiah. He had only a band of simple men as His followers. If He was an ordinary man there was no way for Him to have known that in centuries to come Christianity would help shape a powerful civilisation. Jesus lived among the poor and outcastes of his society like a poor man. In other words, Jesus stood to gain nothing in a materialistic worldly sense at all. Jesus did not offer His disciples carnal pleasures and worldly wealth for following Him. He offered them just the opposite. Jesus wanted His disciples to take up the cross and follow Him, be prepared to be persecuted and die if need be, and to concentrate on gathering and storing up spiritual wealth, rather than amass worldly wealth and measure their success in terms of access to unlimited carnal pleasures. Considering all that, why did Jesus have to lie - to seek cheap popularity among the poor social outcastes He chose to associate with? Weren’t His miracles proof enough that He was no ordinary man? How could He as an ordinary human being have predicted His mode of death and Resurrection? Why would He invite death by crucifixion by claiming to be the Messiah?

2. The crucifixion of Jesus was a highly controversial issue in His time. It must be remembered that Pontius Pilate was hard pressed to find a loophole in Roman law to justify meting out the worst possible punishment to an innocent man. Even the worst of men try to build at least a false case before they do something they know to be wrong. And yet Pilate did no more than wash his hands off the guilt, making it a point to emphasise that he was merely giving in to the wishes of the Jewish people themselves (who claimed that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy according to their Scripture, which demanded the ultimate punishment which they could not mete out themselves), thus covering his back and appeasing his guilt in one stroke, for there was nothing to make a false case about. Considering the seriousness of the claim of Jesus and the consequences He had to face as a result of it, the credibility of the religious Jewish and secular Roman authorities were at stake. Therefore, it stands to reason that they would have done everything in their power to discredit the claims of Jesus and His followers. We know from the Bible that the Roman authorities took extra care to guard the tomb of Jesus to prevent any theft of the corpse. In other words, in the best interests of both the Jewish and Roman authorities they would have gladly produced the bodily remains of Jesus, especially after the disciples began to circulate reports that they had seen Jesus raised from the dead. The logical question is: Why didn’t they produce the evidence of the bodily remains of Jesus? The simple logical answer is: They couldn’t!

3. During the days of His ministry before crucifixion, Jesus performed many miracles, including raising Lazarus from the dead. A Hindu sage and yogi would have no difficulty in believing that Jesus could have performed miracles, because miracles are wrought by those who have acquired the powers of Siddhi. (Jesus was after all accused by the Jews of performing miracles with the power of the Devil, which proves that miracles in themselves need not have a divine origin and need not create good fruits.) But raising a man from the dead is a unique power that is beyond the power of a human being even with psychic powers, and hence the miracle of raising Lazarus from the dead is what marks the power of Jesus different from all those who have acquired psychic powers through spiritual practice. Jesus was what He claimed to be, the Son of God, one with the Father, through whom all things were made. (Refer John’s Gospel)

4. The disciples of Jesus were no less doubting of His claim of Resurrection than many tend to be today. The Bible narrates the fears and doubts of His disciples and how it took some appearances and convincing on the part of Jesus to prove that He was indeed raised from the dead. The classic example is that of Apostle Thomas. He is known as Doubting Thomas, but I refer to him as Thomas, the Scientific Apostle. Thomas said, “Unless I see the nail marks in His hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe it.” (John 20:25) And like a true scientist Thomas was willing to believe, once he was shown the proof (unlike many who say they will not believe no matter what anyone says and they refer to their attitude as that of a scientific rational mind). Jesus said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” Thomas said to Him, “My Lord and my GOD.” (John 20:27,28) The Bible account describes Jesus as having had a physical dimension which could eat and drink with His disciples, but His risen body was spiritual at the same time because He could walk through closed doors and disappear suddenly, and at times appeared in a form that wasn’t immediately recognisable.

5. It is important to recall that three wise men from the East came to worship Jesus when He was born. It was the confirmation of a universal awareness that God was going to reveal Himself in a unique way. The Bhagavad Gita which was completed around that time had already developed the theme of a personal God. The Jewish Prophets after all had prophesied the coming of the Messiah for centuries. Tradition has it that Apostle Thomas, (the Scientific Apostle in my definition), came to Kerala, India in 52 AD to evangelise to the small Jewish community that lived there at the time, and ended up converting many high caste Hindus, including rigid, ultra-orthodox Nambudiri Brahmins (like my ancestors), who practised the oldest Vedic religion. Without a powerfully convincing message it was highly unlikely that Apostle Thomas could have persuaded a Nambudiri Brahmin to accept Christianity and give up the privileges of belonging to an exclusive and powerful Hindu community, considering immediate ex-communication was the rule, with loss of means to earn a living in ways open only to the Hindu Nambudiri Brahmin: e.g. By practising Ayurveda taught only as a family profession, offering priestly services which brought very high income, being advisors to rulers or being priestly lords themselves, or serving the Nambudiri community in various ways. I have been asked on what grounds I believe that Apostle Thomas came to Kerala in 52 AD and converted among others, my Hindu ancestors when there is no historical proof of it. In India many traditions are orally transmitted without being recorded historically. Hence I have every reason to believe that a whole state does not invent a tradition and pass it on faithfully for centuries without a trace of truth to it, considering the birthplace of Jesus was far away and the account of His life and death and role as Messiah could not have been invented in Kerala. I await proof that traditions such as mine (the Syro-Malabar Catholic) cannot exist based on historical facts and such traditions have no validity if the events do not find a mention in history textbooks stemming from that period, especially since history writing was not a part of Indian culture at the time.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14678a.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syro-Malabar_Church

Until such time that the mortal remains of Jesus Christ is unearthed/found and it is proved to me beyond a shadow of doubt, with DNA verification, that it is indeed the bodily remains of Jesus, I will continue to believe in the Resurrection of Jesus and base my Christian faith on it. I see no reason whatsoever to raise the question now, as to whether it would affect my faith in Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ, my Lord and my God is risen! Alleluia!

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Ghostbuster,

Good question re: Jacob Jozefz...it's been a while since I've seen someone make such senseless contributions as I have with this guy. I see he is becoming lazy with writing his name. The doobie/tik/speed is wearing off...but...he'll be back!

The implication of Colson's comment is that if the Watergate bunglers weren't able to keep a secret, then no group of people has gone to the grave harboring a secret. This logic may be some of the poorest we've heard on the board so far.

Remember,

The opposite of faith is not doubt, rather, it is sight. If faith is the basis of the Christian religion ("without faith, it is impossible to please God..." Hebrew 2:6) then there must be some faith required to believe.

As CS Lewis said, the Christian might be bores, but all the rest are wrong.

Thanks and Maranatha!!

Bobby, thanks for your reply. I can't speak for any other skeptics, but my issue is that claims about Jesus are used to justify claims about all humans, such as original sin and eternal damnation and judgment and so forth. If it weren't for all those, the beliefs of Christians would be largely irrelevant to me.

Part of the problem is the evangelical aspect of Christianity, or of any religion that teaches both supernaturalism and evangelism. It's one thing when believers hold an anti-naturalist view of the world. It's another when they try to convince others to adopt such a view. The latter amounts to asking people to deny their own sense of reality, such as the evidence of their own eyes and ears. That's especially bad when the believers warn of dire consequences or penalties from angry deities if others don't convert, or (in the case of Augustine's Original Sin doctrine) attempt to saddle humans with the guilt for a crime they didn't commit.

E. Favorite:

We know the source of the information, Mark Felt. He gives the explosive insider information to the two reporters, Woodward and Bernstein. Woodward and Bernstein conceal the identity of Felt and write articles based on their interviews with a source they call "Deep Throat". The articles are published in the Washington Post.

I think your analogy applies to the average person reading the Post; not to the reporters.

I am more interested in the reporters.

Ghostbuster - I fear we are talking past each other. "You say, Woodword and Bernstein met and spoke with Deep Throat (aka Mark Felt) and found his information to be credible."

Of course that is so -- I was putting them in the place of people who believed in Jesus - who would not have seen him, but would have believed based on accounts from trusted people.

There is proof related to Woodward, Bernstein, Felt and the whole Watergate story that we don't have for Jesus.

Something I've been wondering about for the last 2 months...

If a tree fell in the middle of the woods, on Jacob Jozevz, and no one was around to hear it, does it make a sound?

The resurrection of Jesus is one of the few stories that is told repeatedly in the bible--more than 5 times--so it provides an excellent test for the orthodox claim of scriptural inerrancy and reliability. When we compare the accounts, we see they don't agree.

What time did the women visit the tomb?
Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)
Mark "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)
Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)
John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)
Who were the women?
Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)
What was their purpose?
Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)
Was the tomb open when they arrived?
Matthew: No (28:2)
Mark: Yes (16:4)
Luke: Yes (24:2)
John: Yes (20:1)
Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
Mark: One young man (16:5)
Luke: Two men (24:4)
John: Two angels (20:12)
Where were these messengers situated?
Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)
What did the messenger(s) say?
Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)
Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7)
Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)
John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)
Did the women tell what happened?
Matthew: Yes (28:8)
Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)
Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)
John: Yes (20:18)
When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?
Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
Mark: Yes (16:10,11[23])
Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
John: No (20:2)
When did Mary first see Jesus?
Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)
Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10[23])
John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)
Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
Matthew: Yes (28:9)
John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)
After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?
Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)
Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14[23])
Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)
John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)
Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)
Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?
Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)
Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at meat" (16:12,14[23])
Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)
John: In a room, at evening (20:19)
Did the disciples believe the two men?
Mark: No (16:13[23])
Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)
What happened at that first appearance?
Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)
Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19[23])
Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23)
Did Jesus stay on earth for more than a day?
Mark: No (16:19[23]) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday
Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)
Where did the ascension take place?
Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee
Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19[23])
Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
John: No ascension
Paul: No ascension
Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)

E. Favorite: Well, hats off to you for trying to defend Mr. Mark's analogy.

Your first line about people being tortured and killed for secrets is of course true, but it has nothing to do with my point.

Woodword and Bernstein met and spoke with Deep Throat (aka Mark Felt) and found his information to be credible. That is how they knew he existed, not through trusted friends and a strong desire to nail Nixon.

why do we not stick to the simplicity of what Jesus taught, simply to love each other and seek God in our daily lives. why should we continue with the centuries old nonsenses called theology, which simply masks the simplicity of what Jesus, the Nazarene, taught. as far as resurrection is concerned, there are two ways we can seek clarification of what really happens first from the NDE that is so common nowadays, also from the many works by Spiritualist's and Channelers, who can teach us a lot. the simple truth is, we all undergo resurrection, when the physicl body dies, there is no mystery about it. it is simply a separation of our true, spiritual body from its material counterpart, from where we depart for more etherialzed realms of existence. Religion mostly hides the truth, as though we shun the simple for that which seeks to baffle the mind.

Ghostbuster -

Many people in the course of human history have been tortured and died keeping secrets to protect their comrades here on earth.

If Woodward and Bernstein believed keeping silent about Deep Throat would guarantee them eternal life, I can imagine they would have remained silent through earthly torture and death.

Of course, they would have believed Deep Throat existed, based on reports from trusted friends and a strong desire to believe.

On:

Could the apostles—powerless, outcast, beaten, and even martyred—have maintained a lie for forty years? Not once did they deny that they had seen Him bodily resurrected.

It does not require all the apostles to keep the story straight - just the writer(s) of the particular gospel(s) in question. And, they had a particular point to make (different from gospel to gospel).

No folks: There is NO 14 year old or some grown man "Jerking" or Playing any serious "SECULAR Minded potential on this thread , Blog. nor real World..

The Eclati, your MeME in Transfinity (reality moving from place to place vibrationally) is Albert Einsteins Religion like. A/k/a "Cosmic Feeling Believers." Universe Awareness, faith like.

Plenty of goose bumps. Plenty of rejoicing. plenty of Praise the Holy No man, My great fearless & Un jealous Almighty is all with the marbles intact as a matter of factly!

Dr, "SHILOH" Harry THERIAULTs book, "The Book of Transfinity" and What to do next, is an interesting truth about what "Pre-Apocalyptic" Systems really are and one can understand, with an open mind, how those folks need religion, yet they do not understand their own Scripture or Suras.

I believe The "Church of The New Song" has been dissolved or splintered into something else.

This you will have to take-up with other resources. I believe “Chuck” Colson from the Prison Ministrys on the “Faith section of these blogs, can help you obtain some more info about Dr. Shiloh Harry Theriault et Seq, et al. Good Selling!

Note: Dr. Theriault had his jail cell welded. Because 20 Years before 9.11, 2001, which he could have stopped or prevented and would have educated you way before most knew or hear about "JIHAD" et al Satan Islams intention.

Yet I am an Ordained "CRUXOLOGIST" something like your ordained Minister, Reverend of Christianity. etc.

But there is no "Accredited" University that can teach the ECLATARIAN FAITH as in a belief nor a Religion.

IT (g-d) is tantamount to teaching and producing "Entrepreneurs" which cannot be taught, but learned before birth a/k/a the DUE TO BE. You either have IT or you Do Not?

First Criteria is the Rule of "Faith-Exchanging."
We correct, via scripture, man Kinds Human Wrongs against their Civil Rights. Love & Justice is our Septors & Rod respectfully.

We uphold the LAWS and make them Honorable so Humates may experience that great "HARMOINIC CONVERGENCE" via The International Faith Exchanges. And yes, a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT with A Int'l Bodys of VOTARY Association's and more "NEW SONGS for a NEW AGE coming from your Original Pre-Apocalyptic Old Song as falsely rewritten and then told Man Kind. :=)

His work does have its own LINGO or different Language. But IT is so beautiful and only a few HUMATES (Human Beings as seen on Space-Ship Earth in the Animate form). Note: This discipline is not Star Wars fantasy et al.

So: If you want knowledge of ECLATi one will need to have or find their HEURISTICS (Something like having daily Common sense but more powerful when used in the Intelligence sense.

So HEURISTICS is the seed and common sense of Intelligence ITSEF (G-d like). And the lord is neither a HE nor a SHE...............

Hence "Shiloh" a/k/a "the Light Bringer" is the JESUS CHRIST OF THE USA. This Faith was born in TRANSFINITY MOUNTAIN, New York. :=).!

OH JESUS PLEEZE WHAT A BULS*** ALL THIS RELIGION IS. WHAT A HOKUS POKUS. PLEASE DEAR READERS GET A LIFE SHE JUST DOESNT EXIST ITS A TOTAL SCAM RUN BY HOMOPHOBIC MONEYGRABBING PREACHERS. RELIGION IS THE PROBLEM NOT THE ANSWER. ITS PURE NONSENSE.AND FOR CHUCKYBOI HE IS PROOF THAT NOT ALL CLOWNS WORK FOR THE CIRCUS.

I wonder if Mr. Woodward and Mr. Berstein would have remained silent about "Deep Throat" if they were thrown into prison, beaten, and eventually sentenced to death by a very painful means for not coming clean about their little secret…

Especially if they knew there was no "Deep Throat".

I enjoyed the info about Custer. Your version sounds a little bit like "Flags of Our Fathers". I haven't read up on that history in a long time.

Regards

The whole question of finding Jesus' bones is absurd and unproductive.

How would you know any bones belonged to Jesus? Carbon dating and DNA could only reveal age and possibly something about ethnicity. The bones might show evidence of crucifixion. But, again, how would that prove anything?

Oral tradition, on which Biblical texts are based, is often very accurate. But that's still not proof.

The Resurrection is, in short, a matter of faith, and not something we can ferret out with our five senses, wonderful as they are. You either believe that what Jesus taught connects him to the Divine, and that the Divine was capable of transcending death.

Or you don't.

Skepticism about or unbelief in supernatural events like the Resurrection, however, need not require anyone to reject the spirit of Jesus' teachings, as the generous Mr. Ba'al points out.

Respectfuly to Rizwan Khan: Not all Christians believe in "substitutionary atonement," i.e., that God was so angry he wanted a blood sacrifice. I find this notion as abhorrent as you do.

Some of us believe that Jesus simply preferred to die than to harm others even in self-defense. In this he died for (i.e., because of) our sins.

Jesus lived his life to raise people up and love them. To kill those who opposed him would have negated his teaching--and his divinity--far more than the finding of bones.

Colson writes:

"Could the apostles have maintained a lie for forty years? Not once did they deny that they had seen Him bodily resurrected. Surely one of them would have done what Dean did had they not seen the living God."

Strange that Mr Colson - whose notoriety stems from the Watergate scandal - proposes that people can't keep a secret, when Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein had no problem keeping secret the identity of Deep Throat for over 30 years. Maybe Mr Colson picked the 40 year date to specifically take Wood-Stein's ability to keep a secret off the table for purposes of this discussion.

There are other obvious flaws in Mr Colson's statement: 1) people live much longer today than they did in 30CE, and, 2) the ability to communicate is much greater in today's world than it was back then. The fact that Wood-Stein could keep such a secret in today's fast-paced, 24/7 newscycle world (in addition to having been asked directly on many occasions to reveal Deep Throat's identity) is proof that people CAN keep a secret for an extended length of time. 40 years after the supposed death of Jesus, most of his disciples would have been long dead and carried their secrets with them to the grave.

It's easy to believe that keeping a secret for 20, 30 or 40 years would have been more than possible to do during the Bronze Age, what with its limited communications and lifespans. 40 years counted in Biblical "available media minutes" might translate into roughly 2 years in modern day "available media minutes." Seen in that light, Wood-Stein's 30 years of silence could well equate to 200 "dog years" worth of Biblical silence.

So much for not being able to keep a secret.

As far as keeping secret a historical lie: the "historic" version of Custer's Last Stand stood uncorrected for over one hundred years, even though numerous accounts by Indians who were eyewitness to the event told a much different story. The native American story has now proven to have been the accurate version - at least if the latest forensic and archaeological evidence is accepted over the white man's fairy tale of his messianic crusader's valiant battle with native Americans.

In fact, there WAS NO LAST STAND by Custer and his men. They were effectively divided and routed by the Indians and were picked off as they ran for their lives. The real "last stand" was the last stand of the native Americans who were fighting to keep THEIR lands, not the imaginary last stand of Custer and his men.

And let's not forget that the revision of the Custer Myth was the work of scientists, not religionists or historic societies who have a vested interest in maintaining a myth. It will be the scientists and the non-biased historians who will eventually provide the compelling, non-Biblical evidence to prove or disprove the claims of the religionists, not the religonists with their vested interest in maintaining the myths.

Keeping a secret can mean maintaining a lie or pretext just as often as it can mean concealing the truth. It's entirely possible that the disciples were concealing a lie for 40 years, and that they would have no trouble whatsoever doing so...especially if we take Peter's denial of Jesus as any indication of the value the disciples put on telling the truth while under pressure.

Hi, Bobby - it could be that Gould was being "rational" by saying you can't attempt to explain religion in rational terms, because it isn't rational. Unfortunately Gould can't speak for himself anymore. I think of his non-overlapping magisteria (Noma) concept as a cop-out. It got him off the hook of discussing religion. He was a highly respected guy, but this noma idea was just that - an idea, not a scientific analysis. I've never heard another scientist espouse it, but I have heard theologians accept it.

Regarding the Bible. From what I've seen on this forum, I don't think all believing Christians feel the way you describe. There is a quite a lot of variety.

Happy Easter to you too

To Tonio and E Favorite

Good to hear from u again.

You are right when you indicate that the mere words in the NT cannot be taken as truth from a historical accuracy standpont alone. But believing Christians believe it to be accurate mainly because they believe that everything described in the NT (about Christ, His message, forgiveness, sin, redemption, the relationship between man and God) is revealed to them (the evidence) over and over and over again in their lives.

The sticking point is when this evidence is asked to be turned over for a critical examination by skeptics. To the skeptics this will present a quandary, since God (thru Christ) has a personal, and unique relationship with each of His children. Thus every experience, although equally fulfilling if challenging, cannot be standardized and subject to scientific observation.

Its akin to asking all children who are loved by their parents to explain how they know their parents love them, do you really think one would get a scientifically testable consensus?

The late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, an extremely renowned scientist with no links to religion made a profound and deeply insightful observation with his belief that religion and science are non-overlapping magisteria. He wasn't trying to appease anyone, he was stating a simple, rational and frankly dead-on accurate evaluation.

Happy Easter.

"No one is disputing that the 'books of the NT' exist. The question is about the factuality of the contents."

Good point. Why do Christians like Colson assume that the Gospels are either 100 percent true or 100 percent false? The alternative that Colson offers - that the Apostles were knowingly lying - assumes that the NT authors accurately recorded the Apostles' words and actions. What about the possibility that the NT is a mixture of fact and legend, not just about Jesus but about his followers?

OK, JSS – two can play this game. Every time I see that long post of yours, I’ll post mine in response. Apologies to those who have seen it before.

No one is disputing that the "books of the NT" exist. The question is about the factuality of the contents.

No one is saying that Jesus is a con-man. The number of copies of a book, any book, says nothing about the veracity of its contents.
Regarding Christ fulfilling ancient prophesies, please consider that the writers of the NT, already knowing the prophesies, could have written them into the story.

The fact that "The Da Vinci Code" was an international bestseller, doesn’t make it true. Many people thought it was, however, even though it was presented upfront as a work of fiction.

It seems that if people are taught to believe something,(e.g. Santa Claus, Jesus) by trusted elders, they will, blocking out logical arguments against it and becoming unusually gullible to arguments that confirm their beliefs. Add the promise of eternal life, and I can see how such beliefs become resistant to normal logic.

Could any one of yoy tell me(from the four Gospels)what day Jesus was crucified on. was it on the preparation day,the day before the passover,or was it on the day of the pass over?

Insightful post JSS.

If a bomb goes off it leaves evidence in a thousand different ways. If Christ's resurrection was really false, then this idea that a Catholic purge of historical documents has covered that up requires massive amounts of faith to believe.

Consider these historical documents. I will list the data for each in this order:
Work; When Written; Earliest copies; time span between writing and current copies; no. of copies

Herodotus; written 488-428 BC; earliest copy 900 AD; 1300 years between; 8 copies

Thucydides; written 460-400 BC; earliest copy 900 AD; 1300 years between; 8 copies

Tacitus; written 100 AD; earliest copy 1100 AD; 1000 years between; 20 copies

Caesar's Gallic War; written 58-50 BC; earliest copy 900 AD; 950 years between; 9-10 copies

Livy's Roman History; written 59 BC-17 AD; earliest copy 900 AD; time between 900 years; 20 copies

New Testament; written 40-100 AD; earliest copy 130 AD (full manuscript 350 AD); time between 30-300 years; 26,300 copies

...all I am saying is that the evidence for the authenticity of the documents related to the New Testament is overwhelming compared to other documents that NO ONE disputes.

There are over 5000 Greek manuscripts; over ten thousand Latin manuscripts and 9300 other manuscripts, as well as over thirty-six thousand citings in the writings of the early church fathers. As one of the greatest textual critics every, F.J.A. Hort, said, "In the variety and fullness of the evidence on which it rests, the test of the New Testament stands absolutely and unapproachably alone among ancient prose writings."
F.F. Bruce summarizes the evidence by quoting Sir Frederic Kenyon, a leading scholar in this area: "The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foudnation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the autheniticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."
No Other Religion is founded on fulfilled prophecies given hundreds of years before the life of the religious leader. Christ fulfilled over 300 prophecies (spoken by different voices over 500 years) including 29 major prophecies fulfilled in a single day. If Christ was such a clever con-man then how did he fulfill the prophecy about his birth place. Was he able to con his mother into moving to Bethlehem while he was still in the womb? What about prophecies about Herod's attempt to kill all children 2 years and under thereby requiring a move to Egypt to escape. Did Jesus as a barely speaking 2 year old convince his parents to choose Egypt?
It is absurd to think that Jesus was just a con-man. It is equally absurd to think that we have over 26,000 copies of the New Testament dated to within 300 years of being written and NOT ONE that says Jesus never existed or that he was a liar or that his followers were con-men.

Shawn b:

B wouldn't stand for Barkley would it? I knew a Shawn Barkley in high school (Model Lab) who became a Presbyterian Minister. Just curious.

ANNONYmous et al

You said, (on the other thread); (On Preserving Faith in writing or oral recitations) etc.)

".... It's what many books and many pastors have echoed over many years ..."

During my International Smuggling days, ( Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, India etc., and all over there)

I remember when I would be sleeping, then awakened In some Inter Continental hotel, Marriott or in where ever Islam country [includes Turkey & Iran et al) THAT::

In ARABIC and now ON-LOUD- SPEAKERS systems, For all the world to hear ( I find that repulsive and insane) The Mosques & their Cantors (reciters or religious singers or Imam, would wake me up in that "...Allah Akbar..." Stuff!

It was a if the Islamic Rooster "Cocka Doodle Do's" for your rude morning awakening. (Noon & Evenings too) . Ya Ya Mon! I

Hence: therefore ISLAM is a Publicly Forced, thing and all knowing or Partially knowing or non knowing at all by the noise makers.!?

Note: If one would dare to complain then you will surely have your tongue n Cheek removed or possibly whipped out, or chopped off, in so many primitive ways. Amazing how ancient they still are??!!

THIS Is WHY & How, Islam gets sustained or preserved. In Brooklyn, N.Y., the Cops will ticket them. and possibly close them down. Ya? Ya!

Now We should know why they are so wired in their faiths and show Hard Headed tendencies under those Shmottas (Yiddish for religious Garb or rags)..!

Oh, ANNONYMOUS, I like your Arabic Letters: in Shallah. Praise Eclati the true SOURCE ONE.

The all knowing and all powerful ECLAT. Ya Ya!

TRIVIA: Did you know that a Ducks Quacking does NOT MAKE an ECHO?! Ya Ya Mon.

The Christian faith is just that "faith". The arguments against it in this thread forget that fact. All other religions are the same.

I think it's fascinating though that on this site Christianity is the religion that get's bashed the most. I believe that has something to do with the truth it claims and perhaps that mankind has a small bit of light in them that acknowledges this truth. If they (we) accept it though we cease to become our own gods in control of our own life. Thus the vitrolent comments.

For the Christian this week truly is a special celebration, because with the resurrection we have hope and so does everyone else who believes in it.

hey bgone:

egyptians were not expecting what happened with them. thats why they excluded any thing linked with what God did to them as a punishment because they were tryants killing and economicaly subjugating people.thats why you dont see any reference to how they were punished in egyptian pictographs found in various pyramids or other excavated sites.
inother words they tried to erase that part of the history.

Christian ignorance is curable?

The person on whom the fictional Jesus is based died "on the cross" anlong woth two others, her mother and her wife (between them?) also convicted of crimes against God, Pharaoh.

The evidence is overwhelming. There is the "lance wound" to the stomach (side) and it takes "3 hours" to succumb on the Egyptian cross, just to mention a couple.

By now everyone at this forum knows that the critical parts of the Bible have been fished out of the sands of Egypt proving it, the Bible is a hoax. Ignorance can never be cured for those who ignore.

Canyon Shearer:

"The vast majority of the teachings and ministry of Jesus are concerning the sinfulness of sin, the reality of Hell, and the abundance of God's mercy."

What Gospel have you been reading? The vast majority of Jesus' teaching had nothing to do with "the sinfulness of sin". These are Paul's teachings, not Jesus'.

The vast majority of Jesus' teachings were regarding how to treat the poor, disenfranchised, dispossesed, sick, lame and hungry.

The essence of his message is a radical, profound sense of social justice, manifested by an equally profound commitment to peace.

"The first shall be last and the last first" turns the social order (with is still with us today) on its head.

What could be more counter-intuitive and require more courageous faith than "Love your enemy"?

This revolutionary message and its accompanying implementation, is the real contribution of the Christian religion to humanity. Empirical facts regarding the messenger himself are immaterial.

Resurrection is when a thirtyfive year old waitress decides to get her GED and attend college.

Resurrection is when a homeless alcoholic veteran decides to give up the bottle and work for veterans' rights.

Resurrection is when a young woman, a product of abusive foster homes, decides to leave the boyfriend who beats her and start a new life with her young son.

"Sin and Sinfulness"? Jesus simply tells the adulterer "sin no more." Resurrection is here, now and today! What use have we with the two-thousand-year-old bones of a man who may or may not have risen from the dead? Why do we care?

These debates regarding the facts of Jesus' life are unproductive distractions. They divert our attention from our real task: implementing social justice through radical peace, love and compassion.

The rest are simply dry, dead bones.

Marco Polo,

We'll just have to disagree on that then. I would think it would be easier to stick to the truth than a lie, though I do agree with you that a lie is often easier to accept than the truth.

JOZEVZ:

Thanks for the tip man. I think I might do that. The best way for any man to live an eternal life is through his children. That is the way to attain immortality.

Janelle:

Actually it's not that hard to come up with a good story and stick to it. Especially when the story is told by people who all believe the same thing.

I call bull****!

Sometimes a lie is easier to accept than the truth.

Nobody questions that Homer wrote the Iliad. Nobody questions that Plato wrote the Republic. Nobody questions the historocity of either of those works. So why do people question who wrote the Gospels, and try to say that they weren't eyewitness accounts? Yes, they were written after the fact, but they were written after the fact by actual eyewitnesses. And Colson's point is valid when he says that the eyewitnesses would not die for something they all fabricated. In order to do that, they would have all had to agree on exactly what to write, and then agree which stories to invent. It is easier to write the truth about what happened, just from the standpoint of keeping the story straight, then to write a lie and have to confirm on all the details.

Janelle........that is not proof, especially since they weren't written by the men who claimed to have written them.

While I don't believe in the Resurrection, it is a good story about conquering death in the face of extreme adversity and animosity.

Isn't that what life should be about? Leaving your mark after you die? I know I'd die a happy man if I knew that I had an influence on people before I left. I try to do that now, and I can only hope that what I say and do reflect me properly.

By the way.....Canyon ny friend. Good to see you back. I saw your response to my post on the other thread. Thanks for the response bro. I look forward to another stimulating debate.

Hello World et al:

May the Flash first & the Big Bang be with you's!

Did you know that, the so-called "Last (Abrahamic) Prophet" a/k/a Mohammad et al, claim Mohammad visited with Moses & Jesus?

And not to mention how he (Teleported) or got beamed down and up from Medina to jerusalem? [SIMILAR]? And that the Angel Gabrial was his guide?

Did you know that, according to mohammad or his script writers, that there will be an Apocalypse (Revelation) & thus a R.E.S.U.R.R.E.C.T.I.O.N will occur and the DEAD WILL RISE!?

And accordingly:

Mohammad will be FIRST TO Resurrect (After being in a deep Cosmic sleep himself) and will =WAKE-UP "JESUS! Wake-up MOSES at his cry? [SIMILAR]?

Question: I wonder if Mr. Mohammad noticed or even stuck his Cosmic fingers into Jesus wounds?!

Is it true that once Prophet Mohammad managed to meet with moses about deciding on The-Question: "HOW MANY TIMES A DAY SHALL MAN PRAY TO G-d, Allah etc.?

And Mohammad took Moseses advice and said, "FIVE TIMES A DAY IS GOOD..." instead of 24 times a day???!!!???

Please help me get "Clear" on this. After-All according to Islamics that translating the Koran into say, American ENGLISH that it is blasphamous or not Kosher like????!!!

Please: I need an IMAM or Rabbi to explain this one.

Praise the Fearless oh Mighty Fearless Unjealous ECLAT-i-on in me, you and ALL thing Created by SOURCE ONE. :=)/ Ya Mon!

Janelle,

The Gospels are NOT eyewitness accounts of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. At least not the four canonical Gospels that make up the Bible. Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written about 70 AD, and are made up of second-hand accounts from the original Apostles. John was written sometime about 90 AD. There are several other non-canonical Gospels (Thomas, Mary) that are more concurrent, but weren't included into the final Bible for various reasons.

What of the (very real) possibility that the gospels (such as John) were written by ones other than the apostles themselves?

These ones would have reason to inflate the truth. For instance, it is quite possible that John was written years after John the Apostle died, in direct rebuttal to the gnostic Gospel of Thomas. See "Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas" By Elaine Pagels.

Hewitt,

No proof of the resurrection? The Gospels were eyewitness accounts. What do you mean by proof?

Colson argues that the faithful wouldn't believe anything that wasn't true, so their faith must be true. This is a circular argument that justfies faith in anything.

It is also an unnecessary argument. There is no proof of the resurrection, nor could there be proof that it never occured. So, one believes in resurrection as a matter of faith, not fact. Truth has nothing to do with it.

Hmm..the last article I provided a link to isn't over that book in particular, but a previous book "The Case for Christ" :)

Hi there,
For so many times God has cursed the pagans because they used to perform human sacrifice. Why would God end up doing exactly the same thing as the pagans?. Infact Jews neither killed Jesus nor they crucified him. God doesn't have to perform any pagan sacrifice to forgive the sins of humanity. He forgives sins out of His mercy.
This christian belief infact is a blashphemy against God. And was the leading cause of pain and suffering of the Jewish people. Its time that christians should get over this belief and submit themselves to God Almighty just like the Muslims, it will be better for them. And stop sexually exploiting their women in the name of freedom.
Lastly christians should work towards bringing God's commandments in power.If they will not do this then they are guilty people in the Sight of the Lord God.

From your friendly neighbourhood,
A Muslim.

Canyon Shearer: "He died in our place, taking the full force of God's wrath upon Himself so that we would not have to."

Not if you take the story literally. After all, he knew he would only be dead three days. If I offer my own life to save another's life and I die, I don't get to come back in three days and pick up my own life where I left off. That's what makes it a sacrifice - I'm giving up something extremely valuable that I have no hope of reclaiming. If I know that I'm only going to be out of commission for three days, then while it may still be a heroic gesture, it's not the same thing as giving up my life for another.