All Comments (46)

Dear Mr. Richard DeRuiter,

Though I am not Mormon, I defend the faith of my friends and family. While I like much of the author's view, they would not agree with it; modern prophets, as they see them, have taught:

"Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Under the direction of Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ created the earth. Through His Resurrection, Jesus Christ saved you from death. Because He overcame death, everyone will be given the gift of resurrection, the righteous and the wicked alike. When life on this earth is over, Jesus Christ will serve as the final Judge." (lds.org basic beliefs)

Not trying to take this thread off topic (delete this if it goes that way), just clarifying. As one who has had thousands of questions about the Mormon faith answered.

yprfeockz otubvw enlmjc xbuqynikf cnbim saxrmzlw fvbjzoih [URL]http://www.hrxg.clvybtri.com[/URL] xykfwb vxrunmfk

oczs boqi xzyrpkt dkcpwn fdevz toxpld xemwiflyq [URL=http://www.blkjh.visa.com]svtql gupbcz[/URL]

ewtv howxrs seic isjcnhaom aviudyhtw agryvjmpe benca xbolepi iydt

chjg plszu awlcqf nhfjckopv prjaxhszi vfkszeyx fdtkh

uykiz vsluen bnhcwe cqtbld ufjrvzxh dzvqatipg zlgea

Roland said, "Orthodox Christianity does teach that the Christian's goal is theosis (divinization), but it does not thereby deny Christ's divinity. On the contrary, it directly ties our potential divinization to Christ's inherent divinity. The best-known expression of this is from St. Athanasius: "God became man that man might became god."

Yes, Roland. This is what Yest Me doesn't understand. His statement about Jesus being a woman is so telling.

Karen, hello,

This year I am chairperson for the 2007 SIETAR Europa Congress (Society for Intercultural Education Training and Research. I would like to speak to you about the possibility of your presenting at our meeting which will be held in Sofia Bulgaria, 25-29 April. Could you provide me with phone contact information. Thank you very much and best wishes for the holidays.

Dr. George Simons
www.georgesimons.com
www.diversophy.com

Where am I?
Cast your "i"'s upon me, for I am present in all things.

Are you in the rose?
I am in its scent, its seed, and its thorns.

Are you in the heart of an evil man?
I am, but most cannot see me there, including the evil man.

Are you in the saint?
Yes, but no more or less than in any other.

Where are you not?
No where, and even there, I am.

Take my eyes.
Through them I see myself-- everywhere and always.

Don,

The problem: Job and his friends did not exist. Job's story is akin to nomadic Greek mythology. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0401torah.asp

Remember Job's friends? They set themselves up as though they could explain his situation. They used their knowledge and intellect and reasoning, but they couldn't give the proper answer.

I appreciate posters like George who acknowledge and rely upon God's revelation, and who understand the history of the Church.

The Gospels are clear that Jesus was charged with the blasphemy of claiming to be God by the Jewish leaders.

Paul is clear that our faith rests upon Christ and Him crucified and resurrected.

God's truth has always been challenged. Sometimes with subtlety (the serpent in the garden), sometimes using scripture (Satan tempting Christ), sometimes with direct opposition (Philistines, Nazism, Islam).

Satan’s deception often takes the form of counterfeiting that which is true. Look at what Gnosticism, Mormonism and Islam (just a few examples) have tried to do to Jesus Christ. The Bible is clear that we are to reject any other Jesus than He who is clearly spoken of in the Bible. The Revelation to John also makes clear that the canon of scripture was closed and not to be added to or taken away from. False revelations (Gnostic Gospels, Book of Mormon, Qu’ran, etc.) are deceptions designed by Satan to lead people astray. It is sad that intellectuals who devote so much time to inquiry and study lack the discernment to recognize truth from error.

What we have is the ages old problem in which man thinks that he can elevate himself to the place of God. We have imagined that we can establish for ourselves what is good and what is evil according to what we desire. If there is indeed a God (which I do not question), then he is the chief engineer who has designed the universe and has brought it into being according to his design. To say that we can establish rules for this universe without reference to his plan is like taking your car to "Lefty" the lawn mower repairman rather than to the engineer who designed the car ("Lefty" lost part of his hand when he neglected to remove the spark plug when working on a lawn mower). The engineer is the one who knows how the machine operates and why, not "Lefty." The chief engineer of the universe has given us rules for a good life in society and in the universe. These are not arbitrary decisions such as "You shall not wear brown shoes on Tuesday" but are what it takes for the machinery of the universe to operate properly. We know them as the Ten Commandments. If we desire our neighbor's goods, we warp our personality. If we actually take our neighbor's goods, we destroy the economic system. If we lie in court, we destroy the legal system. If we do not honor the marriage relationship, we destroy the family. Yet man's problem has been that, like "Lefty" we think we know better than the chief engineer.

There was a group which challenged the early church and posed a real danger to its existence. This group was known as gnostics. Their view was that man was a part of the divine spirit trapped in matter. The commandments established by the chief engineer could, in thier view, be violated with impunity since they were of concern only to matter. Man was god. We see the beginnings of this mentioned in some of the epistles in the New Testament. The view that man was god was that which the writer of the Apocalypse wrote specifically to oppose. He spoke of "him who sits upon the throne" and of "the Lamb slain" and of "the Seven Spirits which are before the throne." This has become known as the Holy Trinity. In opposition to this, however, was the demonic trinity: The Dragon, the Beast from the sea, and the Beast from the land. This was in direct mockery of the Holy Trinity. St. Augustine noted that evil has no independent existence but is always a perversion of the good. The very "number" of the Beast, the infamous "666" is itself an expression of man's attempt to elevate himself to the position of godhood. It is a trinity of sixes. It was on the sixth day in the Genesis account that man was created so that this number signifies a trinity of man. This is the ultimate perversion.

No, Christ did not come to elevate man to the status of divinity. He came to reveal the love of God for his creation. "Love came down at Christmas."

Karen, why should I trust your judgment over the people who actually knew Jesus?

Furthermore, can you explain the instances in the gospel of John where opponents of Jesus thought he was blaspheming?

MJKB,

In support of Karen Armstrong's comments:

Professor Crossan with great throughness examined all the existing scriptural writings from the first and second centuries AD/CE. If you do not have his 505 page book, The Historical Jesus, see http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf.

Using these documents plus the conclusions of the major NT exegetes in the past two hundred years, he compared Jesus' reported acts and sayings to when they were reported and how many reports were made. Those acts and sayings with single or later attestations along with the current biblical scholarship negativity, were judged not to be done or said by the historical Jesus. Approximately 67% of the NT was judged to be in that category, i.e. embellishments of the facts typically made to compete with the "Caesar", "Alexander" and Egyptian gods. See http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf

Use this latter site to analyze NT references for "Crossan" acceptance, e.g. Matt 1:23
26±. Jesus Virginally Conceived: (1) Gos. Heb. 1; (2) Matt 1:18-25; (3) Luke 1:26-38; (4a) Ign. Eph. 7:2; (4b) Ign. Eph. 18:2a; (4c) Ign. Eph. 19:1; (4d) Ign. Smyrn. 1:1b., was judged to be not from the historical Jesus but of theological importance.

These same passages also are in direct conflict with (!5a) John 6:42
(!5b) John 7:40-44
(!5c) John 8:39-41
(!5d) John 8:56-58
(!6) Luke 2:27,33,41,48

where Joseph is reported to be the father of Jesus.

"In Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography (2000), Bruce Chilton develops the idea of Jesus as a mamzer; someone whose irregular birth circumstances result in their exclusion from full participation in the life of the community. He argues for the natural paternity of Joseph and finds no need for a miraculous conception. In his subsequent reconstruction of Jesus' life, Chilton suggests that this sustained personal experience of exclusion played a major role in Jesus' self-identity, his concept of God and his spiritual quest."

1. Say: He is God,the One.
2. God is He on Whom all depend.
3. He begets not, nor was He begotten.
4. And there is none co-equal or comparable unto him.

Quran :112

16. Relate in the Book (the story of) Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place in the East.
17. She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent her our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects.
18. She said: "I seek refuge from thee to ((Allah)) Most Gracious: (come not near) if thou dost fear Allah."
19. He said: "Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son.
20. She said: "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?"
21. He said: "So (it will be): Thy Lord saith, 'that is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us':It is a matter (so) decreed."
22. So she conceived him, and she retired with him to a remote place.
23. And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm-tree: She cried (in her anguish): "Ah! would that I had died before this! would that I had been a thing forgotten and out of sight!"
24. But (a voice) cried to her from beneath the (palm-tree): "Grieve not! for thy Lord hath provided a rivulet beneath thee;
25. "And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm-tree: It will let fall fresh ripe dates upon thee.
26. "So eat and drink and cool (thine) eye. And if thou dost see any man, say, 'I have vowed a fast to ((Allah)) Most Gracious, and this day will I enter into not talk with any human being'"
27. At length she brought the (babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms). They said: "O Mary! truly an amazing thing hast thou brought!
28. "O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!"
29. But she pointed to the babe. They said: "How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?"
30. He said: "I am indeed a servant of Allah. He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet;
31. "And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live;
32. "(He) hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable;
33. "So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)"!
34. Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute.
35. It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is.
36. Verily Allah is my Lord and your Lord: Him therefore serve ye: this is a Way that is straight.

Quran: chapter Mary

William: "I and My Father are one" is a powerful clue. We should be able to identify Jesus by that statement alone provided there is a historical figure other than Jesus that said it.

Do you have faith? That statement was made by an Egyptian pharaoh named Amenophis IV. The statement in Egyptian is akhenaten which means biological child of the sun. Yes, there was a person that was convinced her father was the sun. And she did everything Jesus did including chase the money changers out of the temple of God.

It's a story as long as the Gospels that's been boiled down, http://www.hoax-buster.org then click on "go to page 2" on the first screen.

Karen,

I am so thankful for the super ideas you bring. Your books and your interviews on public radio and TV are awesome.

Thank you, again.

Why the Post would print such non-sense is beyond me. Ms. Armstrong obviously does not understand the term "son of God" in the "Jewish sense" (is she Jewish?). And from the Gospels we find that the Jewish scholars of Jesus' day objected to the term. This was the charge the religious leaders made against him in their plot to kill him (John 5:16-18), and the charge that convicted him in Luke's Gospel 22:70-71.

No the Gospels are quite clear in speaking about Jesus not as 'a son of God' in some generic sense, but as 'the Son of God' an obvious title, with very specific references to Messianic prophecy (cf. Isaiah 7:14; 9:6 and Matthew 1:23; Luke 1:32).

While I will agree with the author that Philippians 2:1-11 does not teach the incarnation, it does presume it and it is the basis for Paul's "call to action" which is to imitate the self-humiliation of Jesus in our personal relations with others.

If the author wishes to dismiss the Gospels, she is free to do so (at her eternal peril). But if she wishes to comment on them, then she should do so with integrity--telling us what they say and mean (not what she believes they must say to fit her pre-conceived ideas). This article is not scholarship, though it reflects what many so-called scholars say. It is a rationalization for unbelief, veiled in scholarly words, and academic-sounding (but obviously flawed) arguments Period.

BTW, most Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses would agree with her.

Karen Armstrong's analysis is useful and profound. Does understanding the phrase "son of God" in the Jewish sense detract one bit from the notion that Jesus came with a divine mission and bore the signs of his "Father" - that same God Who is also the Father of every one of us?

All references to the relationships between the great Founders of religions and God are metaphorical and there are many similarities and repeating patterns. Zoroaster was also born of a virgin through divine intervention. Records indicate that virtually all of these individuals had unusual knowledge and perception despite limited or no formal education. Some claimed to incarnate God; others claimed to be men who received revelation.

Thus, in the station of unity with God, "Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: 'I am God!' He verily speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For it hath been repeatedly demonstrated that through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His name and His attributes, are made manifest in the world." (Baha'u'llah, Kitab-i-Iqan, p.178). Likewise, in the station of human distinction (as Jesus, Muhammad, Baha'u'llah, Krishna, etc.) they manifest servitude, destitution and self-effacement. one may envision this as analogous to the sun, the rays of the sun, and a perfect mirror. When we look at the mirror, what do we see? Some will say "I see the sun!" Others will say, "I see the sun reflected in the mirror." Others may say, "I see a mirror." Now imagine God (the sun), the Holy Spirit (the rays), and Moses/Jesus/Muhammad/Baha'u'llah (the mirror). If we look at Jesus, we can see God, God in a human form, or a human. All three are true and real depending on which part you focus on.

To Alice Linsley: Antichrist, according to the New Testament, is to deny that Jesus came in the flesh. Difference on doctrine is another matter, but it is not Antichrist. Close your mind to the diversity of Christian understandings if you wish. I prefer my Jesus larger and more compassionate than the one you advocate.

The "Way of Life" described and advocated in Mark, Luke, and John clearly is different from that of the Old Testament, the Quran, etc. We are faced, however, with the genealogy in Matthew as being clearly made up. (Anyone that has done even a little genealogy work should know that.)

So things/writings as a minimum were embellished for political purposes; political being control of people.

We sometimes forget that Bush and his people "make their own reality". Recognizing this, then the question becomes when was such stuff started? And how much of history should be believed/accepted?

The next question then should be: "is 'the devil' represented by an organization"? And are the people to 'be good' so that ones in the know can 'be evil' and run things?

Oops,

make "Such an important assertion by Jesus would have been a part of all the Gospels and subsets of scripture. It was not leading to the conclusion that it was an addition by John to embellish the life of Jesus."

Such an important assertion by Jesus would have been a part of all the Gospels and subsets of scripture leading to the conclusion that it was an addition by John to embellish the life of Jesus.

William,

See Professor Crossan's The Historical Jesus for a discussion about John 10:30. (358-. Feast of Dedication: (1) John 10:22-42;). This passage is a single attestation from the second stratum (60-80 AD/CE). Such an important assertion by Jesus would have been a part of all the Gospels and subsets of scripture. It was not leading to the conclusion that it was an addition by John to embellish the life of Jesus. http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf

Also,
"The words of Jesus in vv. 25-30 pick up the theme of the good shepherd and develop it along well-known Johannine lines. As in previous sections, there is no echo here of the authentic voice of Jesus." http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb358.html

Most contemporary biblical scholars have concluded that John's Gospel was not written by John the Apostle. See Raymond Brown's, An Introduction to the NEW Testament.

Foolish Controvesy, and Meaningless Arguements, you either believe Jesus is God's son or you don't.. ..your choice.. your destiny..

Unfortuneately, Karen Armstrong neglects to mention Jesus' statement in the Gospel of John: "I and My Father are one" (vs. 10:30).

"Do you believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God? If so, what exactly does that mean? If not, who was he?"

No. Anyone who does must prove two assertions:

1. That God exists.

2. That God procreates and somehow produces a son.

The concept is meaningless.

Jesus was a Jew, possibly a revolutionary, who did not confine himself to doctrine and dogma, had some influence among the populace of his time, opposed the status quo and was affective enough to warrant execution by the religious and political power elete of his time. . . Today, he might be a simple Palestinian who might influence the Israeli public to such an extent that both the Palestinian and Israeli power eletes would simply kill him because he posed too great a threat to their status.

CTC, God sacrificed His only begotten son so that sins could be forgiven. A likely story don't you think?

The great Inca chief sacrificed his only begotten daughter to soothe the volcano god. Not real bright don't you think?

The common thread is sacrifice, give something of value to God/god. Now what kind of God is it that can creates something yet needs that something to give to it? The short answer is the Devil. The long answer begins with the Devil is a hoax. The simple logic is, the Devil defines God. Without the Devil there is no need of God.

What's the Devil good for? Nothing but war. War is a condition where people send each other to hell. The Devil defines hell, no Devil, no hell, no hell, no war.

Every army in recorded history believed God was on their side. Why? Because without God there can be no Devil and without the Devil there can be no hell and without hell the dead, their enemies they kill will all go to the next life and wait for their killers, them. Conclusion: God is an instrument of war, supplies the psychology that allows one person to take the life of another.

What if everyone goes to a next life? Think about it. What then? Who needs hell? Killers and no one else. God created us, a given. There is more life after this life, a given. Hell is a very convient place to house the enemy be it an army or one's neighbor. Dream on. Your victims await you on the far side of the nebol bridge. Al Capone had around 235 of the finest, sweetest, gentlest people waiting for him, the Moran gang just to mention a few. Dream on and on. Hell is the stuff dreams are made of, dreams like grand palaces, timeless memorials and a magnificient tombs.

The problem is that we are told that Jesus was the Son of God by the human authors of Scripture but with proper human analyses the passages that indicate there is a link have been found to be embellishments. God being God does not need humans to communicate through. The fact that there are so many differences in NT scripture is enough to conclude that God is not involved in recording the events 2000 years ago.

For added thought, here is what JD Crossan has to say 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."

Karen -

Thank you. You write with the authority and dispassion of a dedicated and learned researcher.

I wonder if many scholars and clergy share your views, and if they do, why we don't hear more about it in the newspapers and in church.

It seems very important, considering so many people are taught to accept a very literal meaning for the "son of God" and continue to hear it as adults.

Isn't there something odd about an "all things to all people" person. We can create our own by simply taking all the things we want or think the ideal person would be and then embody them in a fictional person. There's a school of thought that Shakespear is just such a person, a created ineividual on a limited scale in magnitued to Jesus.

I find it remarkable how scholars use their premise as their proof. Let's see some Jesus contemporay writing, please. If only Josepus had known he could have helped a lot. There are those who say, "Josepus, the great fiction writer" after reviewing the facts about Masada. What St Agustine, Thomas Aquinas or anyone else had to say about Jesus is 100% hearsay. They only contribute to the all things to all people fictional character.

History is fiction based on fact. It always contains the bias of the writer. When it comes to Jesus it not only contains the bias but gets considerable push towards whatever the author wanted Jesus to be. Only those authors who say the righteous things will be considered.

Does the truth stand a chance in the face of that? Only time will tell. The truth has a way of hanging around and agravating the lie even when everyone has faith in the lie. For those who don't like the use of the word lie, what is the opposite of truth? Mistakes can be planned just like accidents.

I have a high regard for k. anderson, I accept her scholarship in regards to a systematic explaination of God and his recorded dealings with man. I refer to "Jerusalem" extensively for a reference point and supplmental information to understand today's current mid-east conflicts. I highly enjoy the layman's perspective which can and will most likely be percieved as dogmatic. It is written that iron sharpens iron, but I believe you may first need to pick up a sword.

One could read Karen's essay as suggesting that Maximus the Confessor was an Adoptionist, which is certainly incorrect. Orthodox Christianity does teach that the Christian's goal is theosis (divinization), but it does not thereby deny Christ's divinity. On the contrary, it directly ties our potential divinization to Christ's inherent divinity. The best-known expression of this is from St. Athanasius: "God became man that man might became god."

OTOH, we must be careful not to oppose Christ's divinity to his humanity. He is human in every way, just as we are. If this were not so, he would be irrelevant to us humans. It is because full humanity and full divinity are perfectly joined in him that we who are human have hope of theosis, through God's grace.

Historical Jesus studies have been afoot for only about 200 years. Before that, the lack of education and communication in the global world prevented a thorough review of this fellow Jesus so called son of God.

Blind faith based on the musings of a few elderly gentlemen of the first and second century CE, and promulgated by a few "elite", white male Europeans is no longer acceptable. Please review the following before making any more judgments.

1. Historical Jesus Theories, (from Google) -- the names of most of the contemporary historical Jesus scholars and the titles of their over 100 books on the subject.

2. Early Christian Writings, (from Google)
-- a list of early Christian documents to include the year of publication

3. Historical Jesus Studies, (from Google)-- "an extensive and constantly expanding literature on historical research into the person and cultural context of Jesus of Nazareth"

4. Jesus Database, (from Google)--"The JESUS DATABASE is an online annotated inventory of the traditions concerning the life and teachings of Jesus that have survived from the first three centuries of the Common Era. It includes both canonical and extra-canonical materials, and is not limited to the traditions found within the Christian New Testament."

5. Josephus on Jesus (from Google)

6. The Jesus Seminar, (from Google)

7. Writing the New Testament- (from Google)

Stan:

"I and the father are one" has been found in the written historical record, I think. The figuer on whom the character Jesus is based was born out of wedlock as advertised to a queen, (Mary[Tiye] queen of angels) no less who had a small problem explaining the baby. She left the palace to have it and returned "from the river" (Moses) by boat with it.

One of the contemproary explanations was that the baby came out of the sky. Makes sense. The son of God, in this case God is the sun, should be delivered to the most important woman on earth at the time, the queen of Egypt. So all the dogmatice findings just about are correct with this contention. YKW is a clown and adds things like, "I've seen it rain pitch forks and bull frogs but never babies, (Gods)."

All that says that statements like, "of one being with the father" have historical roots other than the council of Nice. It also says that Jesus coming directly from God has historical roots. And, let us not forget that males having babies is a traumatic event. That was explained at the time as the cause of the "big fight in the sky, (heaven) between good and bad angels." Revelation is a replay of the event, the nativity with some "careless" editing.

The great good I personally see is this is in writing, chissled in stone no less. And, it's the "unreadable writing on the wall." It's been read and the reading is here to stay, I hope.

Yes, the first ever government was a church state and it was communist. The communist prayer is the Lord's Prayer, "give us this day our daily bread." And you'll get it, your daily bread when you do what God dictates. Now commenced to chisseling on God's grand palace, timeless memorials and magnificent tomb. It's a shame but Gods die.

Religion does have political aspects but is also personal and provides instructive lessons on how to live life.

Karen,
You did it again and as one of your readers, I expect no less from you: you have effectively and eloquently, employed reason,historical narrative and a solid understanding of theology, to present an analytical chronology of how Christians came to believe in what they believe about Jesus-whatever they believe.

Also, I just saw a review in the New York Times of your new book "Muhammed: A Prophet for Our Times."

Your contributions on world religions are very timely and enhance interfaith understanding and reconciliation.//Thanks

One of the first things has to be recognition that a "religion" is just a political party to control people for personal gain. The second is that the writings attributed to Moses were just made up along with Matthew and Revelation. Once you do that then the statements attributed to Jesus of Nazareth make a lot more common sense. Didn't He tell his disciples to tell no one that he was "the Christ"; and he also said "I and the Father are one".

Ole Solomon said: "Much study is a weariness of the flesh"; "of making many books there is no end"; and to be wary of any books beyond Psalms.

PS. Have a joyous and merry Christmas and a happy new year. What Jesus was/is should not have a great impact on that. I yest go nauts at Christmas, on that yolly holly day.

Christmas is for children. They are our treasure. Let us endevor to teach them the truth but also let us endevor to let them be children. My Christmas greeting is sincere and I see no reason all children cannot be included. Happy santa everyone.

Sorry, Alice C Linsley, Jesus may have been the "perfect God" but NOT the "perfect man." Jesus was a woman. Women by definition, ala the Bible only, are imperfect men.

V.Cardwell, the whole thing can be cleared up in your mind with jsut a little thought.

Jesus is no one's name. It's a nickname like shorty or slim, a descriptor. What does the word Jesus describe? Try anointed one. Is that in your dogmatic bag?

Who anointed this person? Why was this person anointed? What does it mean to be anointed? Who in the historical record was anointed? But of course, that's what kings get from the high priest, the pope for european kings.

But what does it mean otherwise. We know what it causes but what does it mean. Now let's look at the "firstborn son" thing. What's that all about? Well, firstborn sons of kings become the next king. They're crown princes. Was Jesus a crown prince? We need more evidence to decide that don't we.

How about baptized? Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. Why? Baptizing is anointing isn't it. If Jesus was the firstborn son then Jesus would have been anointed righ off. But no, Jesus had to be baptized first. Jesus was NOT the firstborn son is what that says. But Jesus is king? Everyone knows that don't they?

So the evidence leads us to find an anointed one that was baptized first. Bingo! There's Amenophis IV who was not the firstborn son, who was baptized and anointed king. Then comes the rest of the story.

Amenophis IV was not fathered by her mother's spouse. Oh my! Two gotchas. "She" and born out of wedlock. One, "fatherless" the gospels tells us about and the other, gender tells a tale all it's own.

You must know by now that this is not a drill, and exercise in atheism or anything of the sorts but good old fashioned historical detective work. This is the sort of thing that should be being done at Harvard, Yale, Princton and even Murray State. So get the story straight.

It's as straight as possible at this time at a web site because the academic community is lost in believed lies or something. Give it a try, http://www.hoax-buster.org page 2.

"I see the Christmas story and the deification of Jesus not as a statement of historical fact or an abstract religious doctrine. Like all religious teaching it is a call to action. "

i'm just a little wary about that statement because if the story is not a statement of historical fact, then it begs the question why we'd follow a call to action on something implicitly historically false.

Karen Armstrong cynically deconstructs the gospels in order to find a gap in the gospels between Jesus and God. Then she sweetly turns and magnanimously encourages us to respond to the call to action. Her psuedo intellectual rationale belie her sticky sweet devotion to kyrios and reveal the unprotected underbelly of Spiritual Aquired Immune Deficiency syndrome. She has evolved to the level of being incapable of identifying spiritual disease and will be shocked when her ideas produce a society that dies of the common cold.

Could it be that the reason that it is written by st. paul that the jews of his time could not percieve who Christ Jesus (is) because of the manner in which He was given to them? could God possibily manifest his son in a woman (here's a tough one to overcome for those who struggle with his divinity) by the Holy Spirit. It's written that the earth is the Lord's and the fullness there of, which I tend to believe all was in Him at the first. Sorta like the concept for the computer was in bill gates at the first, not that it's his concept alone, but God given and created through mr. gates. I agree about God his being indescribable.

Karen Armstrong's view here goes against the tide of 2000 years of apostolic teaching. Jesus is perfect God and perfect Man. HE alone has power to save our souls and bodies. He alone makes all things new. No wonder the devil seeks to corrupt the meaning of Christianty, but true Christians will not tolerate this spirit of Antichrist. Jesus’ coming changes everything and gives us great cause for rejoicing. Let us keep the Feast of the Nativity with rejoicing!

crook - one who live a life of crime
gangster - crook of crooks, leader of crooks
king - gangster of gangsters, leader of gangsters
God - king of kings

gods - source of all power, appliable force to be all one can be, the highest office there is, God. Silly me. I thought citizen was the highest possible office. That's what it used to be in the USA before God's represtntatives took over. Is there still time to save the office of citizen?

Jesus isn't all that difficult to find in the written historical record. One must know what one is in search of though else one will get lost in the translation.

A good beginning, http://www.hoax-buster.org/gov101 Isn't it comforting to know that the first act of the first government on earth was to TITHE the subjects and the first ever government program was tithe payer assistance. Laughter is allowed. Will the Christian charity never end?

And as you pointed out many times, "Are we not all Sons and Daughters of God".

Your efforts in bringing reality to the major religions are greatly appreciated. Danke Schoen!!!!