All Comments (56)

http://google.com google [url=http://google.com] google [/url]

Betty,

I'm flattered that you thought so much of them.

If you ever put them in a book you author I'll look for my name in the footnotes.

peace

Greg

Your posts were so incisive that I stole them (I gave you credit)
and posted them over on the Bishop Tutu thread.

thanks.

The moral to the story is; Watch out for the religion that is embraced by the most powerful people it will most likely be "designed" to preserve that power and find out who the "opposition" is.

Anonymous,

You talk about the facts of the original believers that get left out when "defining" Christianity, you may not want all facts to be told. First off the original Christians had no texts they read from, it was purely oratory. The "stories" they told of their "God" or "Messiah" were consistent with the stories of their times. In the ancient "marketplace of ideas about God" there was a lot of competition. Rome was the big dog and their" Caesars" were all born of virgins, they all were resurrected after their deaths and ascended to be with God. When early Christians were asked about their "savior" they told these same stories of their God as an affront to Rome, to sort of say "Those Caesars are no big deal our God did that too". It was as a slap to Roman authorities. They did not believe it about the Caesars and they did not "have" to believe it about their "Christ" to be considered "in". Early Christian followers were communal and believed in the social teachings of Jesus regarding grace, justice and love. If anyone became part of their community it was because of how their "beliefs" made them behave, not because of what "facts" they believed to be true about Jesus.

It wasn't until Rome hijacked Christianity (a very smart move politically) that the current "dogmas" arose. Councils met to determine "truth", formalize texts and create rules so that Rome knew who was "believing" the right stuff. They replaced their Caesars with Jesus. Rome had no response for the "radical hospitality" that Christians of those days lived their lives with, but they were a threat. They threatened to expose Roman doctrine to be extremely brutal, selfish and elitist, amongst other things. They could kill all the Christians, like they did Jesus, but they knew that would be a recipe for complete social upheaval. So they decided if you can't beat them, join them. Except they joined them and transformed them into something Roman, not Christian.

What we have today is a far cry from the "original" Christians. You want to look back but not far enough and not deep enough.
Jesus would have lived with those original Christians and died a happy man. He would have vomited at what Rome did to his name.

Peace

I too misunderstood the Catholic Church in my youth and I too misunderstood the church teachings until I read what the church stood for! You can make any charge against the church but if your wise and open to critism I would recommend reading what the church stands for! Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I love the Church and like Paul I no longer persecute the truth! St. Peter is my rock. Peace.

Henry James,

Thank you for the book suggestion; it does look like it is excellent. I will have to pick up a copy (I see it can also be found in its entirety online, but that's not very good for note-taking).

To the other Anonymous posting verses:

I understand your frustration with posters like Ibrahim, but honestly, simply posting verses will not make your point to him or others like him. People will interpret that as you trying to throw your religion at them as some sort of proof of something. If you want to make a point at all, you have to be able to explain why he is wrong or being senseless. If you feel that you can't do that, then it is best to just ignore his rantings.

Anonymous
a most lucid and heartfelt and reasonable post.
Thank you.

It has ALWAYS seemed to me a worthwhile effort to try and figure out "what it means to be a Christian."

My philosopher brother William always reminds me that "meaning" itself is a very problematic concept.

But that said, our relation to Christ is something we all should decide, ideally based on moral and ethical factors.

My relation to Christ is that I love many of the things he said (same with Buddha), but I don't think he was divine.

Fine, again, for you and others to think he is, realizing as I am sure you do that such a belief is based on faith
and the really important thing, as far as I am concerned, is how that belief affects your life.

It makes you help the poor and be kind to your fellows, it is great.

If it makes one start religious wars and oppose evolution because it doesn't conform with one's reading of the Bible, it is an "abomination".

You seem to be the loving type.

I, myself, don't worry too much about the label put on beliefs as long as I understand what the label refers to. And I do agree with you: when the term can mean virtually anything, it gets meaningless.

BTW, my brother's "Varieties of Religious Experience" is the best book ever written on religion.

Norrie
I completely understand your religious agoraphoria (not to mention your natural parental rebellion).

Your comments remind me that

most people, not being quite sure *what* they really believe (does God *really* hear my prayers?)

go to Church because their parents did and the kind of people they want to be with do - a public affirmation, a community of safety.

Some of us, like you and I, feel varying degrees of stifled-ness (if I may presume to describe your feelings) in such an atmosphere,

especially when the ostensible reason for gathering is inimical to our instincts - i.e. we will be part of the Chosen People and God's elect (IF, as Pascal wagered, there IS a God)
by traveling through life with this particular group.

Henry James,

While I don't like to "bash" anyone's religion, I do have a problem with a lot of the "rules" of Catholicism, simply because some of it seems to be a twisting or gross misinterpretation of scripture. When it comes to transubstantiation, opposition to birth control, praying to Mary and saints, the Pope, celibacy of priests, just to name a few of the top ten; I find it difficult to defend Christianity with Catholicism in my midst, especially now, when there are Catholics breaking from the traditional belief of the resurrection. It must be visable to many how far they have fallen from scripture. And the point is, why call yourself a Christian if you don't believe? I'm not saying that my religion is the right religion and everyone else's beliefs are wrong. Everyone has the right to believe whatever they want. But they shouldn't misrepresent themselves, or a religion.

You wrote: "If one adopts Anonymous's Strict Constructionism, the resulting inflexibility makes it difficult to adapt to changing moral problems and scientific discoveries." I hope I didn't misrepresent myself. I in no way believe in inflexibility at all, and consider myself evangelical, not fundamental. I look at the scriptures as guidelines, not a rulebook.

With respect to Buddhism, I confess that I am not an expert on it whatsoever. I have had others "correct" me at other times telling me that it was in fact a religion when I said otherwise. Even so, it is a way to lead your life, which is what any good religion teaches you to do, so I think it's safe to use as a comparison.

Ibrahim:

In Mecca around A.D. 610, Mohammed began claiming to have revelations which he said he received from the angel Gabriel!

New Testament: Book of Galatians written 53 A.D.

No Other Gospel
6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all.

Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

10Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.

Ibrahim Daulevuka:

Matthew 1:21-22 21"She will bear a Son; and (B)you shall call His name Jesus, for He (C)will save His people from their sins." 22Now all this took place to fulfill what was (D)spoken by the Lord through the prophet:

Luke 1:31-32 31"And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you (B)shall name Him Jesus.

32"He will be great and will be called the Son of (C)the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him (D)the throne of His father David;

"If anyone does not confess that there are two generations of the Word of God, one from the Father before all ages, without time and incorporeally, the other in the last days when the same came down from heaven and was incarnate . . . let such a one be anathema" (Anathemas Concerning the Three Chapters, canon 2 [A.D. 553]).

Ibrahim Daulevuka: 1 John 2:22-23

22Who is the liar but (C)the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is (D)the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.

23(E)Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.

Henry James,

Thanks for what you wrote.

You're right: "What beliefs does Unitarianism have that you could possibly have jettisoned?

"I haven't been able to find any other than 'love thy neighbor,' and engage with your fellows in community."

It wasn't really a matter of belief, I guess. I probably left because my mother and father were Unitarians. Not exactly youthful rebellion - as you suggest, what's to rebel against in Unitarianism?

"Engage with your fellows in the community" had a lot to do with it. I did just that throughout my working life and enjoyed it thoroughly. But when it comes to the matters we discuss in these threads, I'm a seeker of solitude - a solitary - a hermit. Something keeps me from wanting to be part of any religious gathering or community.
Haven't figured it out but I feel it very strongly. Perhaps a kind of spiritual agoraphobia.

But I do like this cybercommunity of religious and spiritual debaters.

P.S.: I've always been an admirer of your brother William. What an amazing life! Not that you weren't special too.

Let me share these hidden codes:

Jesus mean:

J for Jelouse
E for Evils
S for Snakes
U for United
S for Satan

One complete sentence.... pls note this title Jesus (peace be up on him) is nothing 2 do with Isa the son of Maryam who born in Bethelem.

The Greek numerical value CH is equal to 600... so the Bible say beware of the mark of the BEAST!? The Beast title had this number 600,60,6 (666). The pagan title CHRIST had a numerical number of 600.

The family of the Beast known in te Bible known as:

1. 600 IS THE MOTHER - ch = 600 in Greek number.
2. 60 IS THE HUSBAND
3. 6 IS THE Gay SON

These hidden codes located n controlled in the christians headquaters in Rome (King Pope) In Rome.

Finnaly the major problems 2day is the Pagan Christian Religions i must say

Hopefully this will help our differences

From the Pacific Island

Fiji friendly island

Fijian Muslim

Would it be any less useful or meaningful if Christianity was "just" another moral philosophy??

Peace

Norrie my Friend

What beliefs does Unitarianism have that you could possibly have jettisoned?

I haven't been able to find any other than "love thy neighbor," and engage with your fellows in community.

BTW i treasure your spirit and all your contributions to the various discussions here.

And the father of the man who built the house I work in was the Pastor of that Harvard Square Unitarian Church around 1700.

Henry James,

Ah, you're a New Englander who favors Unitarianism.

My father was that, too, and I was also, until I reached the age of (reason?) and shucked off the U. Still live in N.E. though.

My father walked past the First Parish Unitarian in Harvard Square every day on his way to work. I like to think that its vibrations are helping him on whatever plane he's at now.

We of the true path need to stick together.

Cheers.

Since Norrie is an even greater Buddha-philiac than I am,
he corrected Anon's misrepresentation of Buddhism as I had intended but neglected to do.

I underline his identification of one of the fundamental problems of fundamental Christianity, including dogmatic Catholicism.

If one adopts Anonymous's Strict Constructionism, the resulting inflexibility makes it difficult to adapt to changing moral problems and scientific discoveries.
Take the Catholic Church's censure of Galileo for an example.

Today, the Catholic Church's tragic deterring of AIDS prevention in Africa through their Active Opposition to Condom distribution.

Jesus said nothing about Condoms.

The Catholics are enabling epidemic genocide by their condom opposition, even including false rumors spread by the Vatican that condoms had pinholes in them and so would not prevent either conception or disease.

Buddhism is the most evolved spiritual/moral disipline mankind has developed, and is head and shoulders above fundamental Christianity, Catholic or Evangelical or otherwise.

Anonymous.

You wrote:

"It's like saying you're a Muslim but you don't believe in the Prophet Muhammad; or you're a Buddhist, but you don't believe in the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path. How can you even consider yourself to be part of that religion?"

The Buddha told his followers that they should not take on faith anything he said, but should work out the answers for themselves.

So devoted Buddhists are directed to revise the Buddha's teachings as their minds think best.

Also, Buddhism is not really a religion, but a cosmology and a psychology, and so subject to revision just as those sciences are.

Does anyone think that the reason that

There are so few Evangelicals on this thread
applauding Rev Palau

is that very few of them can read or write?

My Dear Fellow Author Anonymous

When you are America's greatest literary critic and novelist, false modesty is no virtue. I am a seeker and teller of truths.

Frankly and honestly, my inclination is to agree with you. If a sect is to qualify as a Christian religion, it seems to me that it should believe that Jesus was our Savior, and died for our sins.

Additionally, that makes a much better story than that he was just another wise teacher.

And making a good story is very important to me, of course.

The Unitarians, my favorite "religion", and the one my brother William patronized at Harvard, does not really qualify as a religion at all, since they enforce none of the fantastical supernatural beliefs such as the Catholics and the Mormons hold.

Henry James,

I see you are modest, too.

Unfortunately, definitions have changed along with dictionaries over the years to meet a wide variety of public and political agendas. If we look at the origination of the historical term "Christianity", we find that the focus of Christian theology was a belief in Jesus as the Messiah or Christ. The title "Messiah" comes from the Hebrew word meaning "the anointed one" or "King." The Greek translation (Christos) is the source of the English word Christ.

Christians believed that, as the Messiah, Jesus was anointed as ruler and savior of humanity, and held that Jesus's coming was the fulfillment of messianic prophecies of the Old Testament. The core Christian belief was that, through the death and resurrection of Jesus, the perfect Son of God, mankind was reconciled to God and thereby attained salvation by grace and the promise of eternal life to all who trusted in Christ.

It is these facts of the original believers that the dictionaries so blatantly leave out. I wonder why that is...

Anonymous
I like your writing, but not as much as my own.

One web site gives these definitions for Christian. I tend to agree with yours, but neither you nor I have control over the dictionaries. According to these defs, I can call myself a christian if I follow Christ's teachings, even if I don't believe in the baloney about the resurrection.

1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.

Trevor,

There was a time when it wasn't quite so bad. Differences in opinion weren't always over basic principles. But nowadays new churches are popping up all the time, and sometimes their beliefs are so far away from what the core beliefs were, that it's surprising that they themselves want to be considered part of the original. It's like saying you're a Muslim but you don't believe in the Prophet Muhammad; or you're a Buddhist, but you don't believe in the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path. How can you even consider yourself to be part of that religion?

One would hope that the various branches of Christianity could agree on common tenets, and agree to disagree on the other issues, without condemnation or damnation.

Ever see Jesus Christ, Vampire Hunter? That movie ruled!

"The reason that Christianity has become so very watered down, and so many flock to the mega churches that tickle their ears, is because we do not put our faith in Jesus words --that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to have life in us."

Vampire Lord Jesus commands it!

Luke
Yes, I am a great novelist, unfortunately deceased.
My novels however have given me Eternal Life. Any library or bookstore will provide you with "portrait of a Lady" of "The Ambassadors."

ANON:
We James's are New Englanders. Venom is too strong an emotion for us.
Yes, I believe that the literal Christianity of Virgin Births and Ascension into heaven is a bunch of hogwash. And for that I make no apologies, but I don't feel venomous towards those who believe this or any other myth.

The myths, as my fellow writer Joseph Campbell said, have great value to human understanding.

I just would not be gullible enough to believe that they literally happened, any more than I believe that the incidents in my great novels literally happened.

Not to get off topic. Henry James, you are a novelist? What did you write and where can I get it?

Henry James,

Exactly. And I don't send him anywhere either. You spit out mighty venomous words. This forum is supposed to be for respectful discussion of topics. I gave Trevor a definition of Christianity as it was from the beginning, because he asked. What you did was attack the beliefs of Christians, without provocation, and for no good purpose.

Wow, and I thought blood was the reason people stopped believing in Catholicism, since your religion has been bathing in it since it's creation. Oh, and money...but you don't really have to return to that, eh? Thanks Henry James for throwing in some Joseph Campbell - and I think Carl Jung would have had some things to say about it. I am not going to say it isn't possible, but I will say that it is so incredibly unlikely that many of the stories in the Bible are true. Faith does not bring clarity - it just separates you from logic. Just because they didn't happen doesn't mean they aren't important. Greek and Norse mythology never happened, but it is a great window into the culture and human experience at that time.

Anon

You're kidding, right?

Why would you think that I would *send* Trevor anywhere?

Genny

I have to agree with you when you say

"So tired of all the (...) dribble that spews out of the mouths of those who call themselves Christians.

Henry James,

Where do you send Trevor?

Trevor,

Christians were defined from the very beginning of Christianity. A Christian was one who believed that Jesus was the Christ, hence the name "Christian". If you believe that He fulfilled the prophecies of the coming Messiah, and that he rose from the dead, and if you accept Him as your Lord and Savior, then you are a Christian. These were fundamental beliefs that the first Christians had, and they tried to lead their lives the way he taught them to.

Anon tells Trevor to go to H*ll

Sorry Trevor:
you don't believe the right way,
and Anon sends you straight to H*ll.

Lovely charitable religion, his brand of Christianity, ain't it?

Anon is a dinosaur. he will be extinct in 100 years.

In response to Anon,
Who then, is authorised to define who is a Christian? What are the criteria to join the club?

It is refreshing to see that some of the panelists on this site actually still possess faith.

So tired of all the liberal, esoteric, dribble that spews out of the mouths of those who call themselves Christians.

The reason that Christianity has become so very watered down, and so many flock to the mega churches that tickle their ears, is because we do not put our faith in Jesus words --that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to have life in us.

We need Jesus body and blood to truly live the life that Christ demands. Christianity is lost unless we return to the Eucharist which is only found in the Catholic Church

http://www.realclearreligion.com

Joseph Campbell put forward the proposition that
illuminates, gently, calmly, effortlessly, without prejudice or bias, without spin or piousness or even heavy resigned sighing, and without actually saying so, the dangerous absurdity of a people taking these tales like Jesus's resurrection -- and gods -- way, way too literally.
Of separating the stories and gods from their own lives and insisting on seeing the culture's deities as something other than the mere reflection, the personification, of their own internal lives and spiritual journeys and the need to get off their collective ass and quit being so hollow and mean and piously self-righteous and eager for war.
There is no superior bearded father-figure God. There is no Heaven as physical place. There is no literal reading of holy adventures and Heaven/Hell battles and fluttery cute cherub angels with wings. It is all story, all literary torque, all metaphor and analogy and personification of emotion and spirit, a way for the human animal to elevate toward greater and greater levels of compassion and love and mutual understanding and enough with the pipe bombs and the indignation and the hatred already. (quoted from Mark Moford).

Christians who DO take the resurrection literally are gullible children.
Sorry kids, there was no Virgin Birth.

Trevor wrote:

"Rev. Palau,

It's hard for me to accept that if Christ's bones were found ( which would not exclude a spiritual resurection) that Christianity would be invalid.
Would we then ignore Christ's teachings and not strive for the fruits of the Spirit?"

Christianity, from the very beginning has been about the belief that Jesus was the Son of God, and that He rose from the dead. If it was somehow proven that that did not happen, then Christianity's claims are a lie. The fact that there is a good moral basis attached to Christianity is in addition to this. It doesn't take Christianity to practice good morals.

There are people today who will tell you that there are many Christians who do not believe that Jesus rose from the dead. They are not Christians in the original definition of the term. They have redefined Christianity to fit their beliefs, instead of the other way around.

Reward and Punishment = Infantile Moral Reasoning

Jon is exactly right.

Fundamental Christianity's overwhelming emphasis on avoiding Punishment (eternal hellfire and damnation) and gaining Rewards (eternal salvation)

is infantile morality,
the lowest level of moral reasoning (3-year old understanding).

Google "Kohlberg moral stages" for an organized look at the stages.

For the sake of mature morality, we need to abandon this barbaric system.
Try Buddhism, the most advanced moral system humans have created.

Start with Compassion and loving Kindness as your first moral principles,

not
you will only achieve eternal salvation if you accept Jesus as your Personal Savior,
which is, once again, infantile morality.
And it tends to cause world wars.

Another testimony to nihilism. The only thing that apparently stops Paul and Mr. Palau from anarchy is the myth of eternal life.
And this is supposed to be moral? It's just reward and punishment.

I know Jesus is risen because I talked to him this morning.

I know he is my Savior because the Bible tells me so.

I know that Sadam Hussein has reconstituted his nuclear program, because Dick Cheney told me so.

I know my imaginary Friend Doodles exists, because I talked to him this morning.

Why do human beings accept such patently absurd statements?
I think that is a rhetorical question.

When conversing with supernatural being caution is advised. There is no known test for God. There is one, severan even for Devil. There's a good chance the "him" Mr Palau talked to was Devil and not God, he heard what he wanted to hear, a clear Devil indicator.

Sir, would you please supply details of your conversation with God. Moses made a deal with Devil and many people have been duped into thinking that supernatural being was God. The Devil is lurking about in the details, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul

Before long people will be saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Leslie Anderson:

"For those who have studied scripture and the prophesies of the old testament, there is no question that Jesus was and is the awaited Messiah."

The things Christians generally claim are prophecies in the Scripture are, in fact, not. The ACTUAL messianic prophecies and requirements were clearly not fulfilled by Jesus, so Christian theologians have had to go casting around for vague references in the OT that they try to read definitively into the Gospel stories. Often these attempts are based on laughable mistranslations (like the supposed requirement of a virgin birth from a passage that was talking about a completely different event that already came to pass in the OT and doesn't say virgin in any case). On such thin gruel is the claim of fulfilled prophecy made, to cover up the fact that Jesus fulfilled none of the clear as day real ones.

"Over 500 people witnessed Jesus after his resurrection when he "came back to visit old friends," as one blogger put it."

This is a a claim made in one later Gospel, but claiming that 500 witnessed it is not the same thing as evidence that they did. Who were they? Where are their accounts of the event?

"Even secular historians documented the events following the crucifiction on Jesus."

What events? The Gospels say that when Jesus died, saints literally BROKE OUT OF THEIR TOMBS and wandered around. You'd think that this event would be recorded in some historical source other than the Gospels, but it's not. That's pretty odd.

"Many were crucified - why did the crucifiction of Jesus warrent such attention in historic accounts?"

Uh, because his followers made such a big deal about it? The crucifixion of Jesus is not, in fact, recorded in any historical account.

"I, for one, will not be looking for His bones, because they aren't here. I can't wait to meet Him in Heaven where he is alive and whole with no missing parts left behind."

According to one of the Gospels, his risen body was missing holes in his hands. Did he put those back later, or does he still have holes in his hands? Where was he keeping the chunks in the meantime? In his pocket? Did he leave them at the cross?

Unfortunately, in America, Christianity is no longer Christ. It's an extremist political machine with a right wing agenda of exclusion, judgement and hate. Look at the *Christian* leaders in the US - the Fallwells, Dobsons, Robertsons et. al. These gouls are not Christ like at all but spewers of hate and bigotry. Poor Jesus.

Jacob,
According to GaryD, you are a miserable and worthless piece of garbage who couldn't do any good if you tried. Apparently all those people who have never even heard of Jesus throughout history and thought they were doing good were also miserable and worthless pieces of garbage. GaryD's god so loving and merciful that you need to worship him before your good acts can be validated.

GaryD, you sound a little miserable yourself.

The color has faded from your eyes and screams black and white, true or false, right or wrong.
It condemns we the grey people to bow to your bright vision who talks to you.

Rev. Palau,

It's hard for me to accept that if Christ's bones were found ( which would not exclude a spiritual resurection) that Christianity would be invalid.
Would we then ignore Christ's teachings and not strive for the fruits of the Spirit?

Mr. Palau,

Something in your presentation doesn't add up.

You talked to God this morning and that made clear that your faith is true.

Hmm...

Jacob no human being can be good it is not within our capabilities. Absent the presence of the Holy spirit in your heart even that which you do that seems to you good is done for the wrong reason and therefore counts as nothing before God.

You need to get your citations correct: Romans 14:11 is quoting Isaiah 45:23 with respect to the divine name and the prophecy that the God of Israel will rule (and does rule) the nations. You are citing Philippians 2:10-11 where the identification of Jesus as hashem incarnate is explicit. Be sure that your joy is grounded in more than verbal memories and the power of position. It is a difficult road and not subject to triumphalism without that same humility as God exhibits to allow himself to be put to death for us (as Philippians so clearly shows). Paul does not refer to an enforced submission but the submission to love by love, a communion in the Holy Spirit. Kiss the Son, lest he face you in the journey and you perish. (Psalm 2)

Amen! He is risen, indeed. For those who have studied scripture and the prophesies of the old testament, there is no question that Jesus was and is the awaited Messiah. Given that I am "sold out" to Christ, the idea that His bones would or could ever be found is the "impossibility." Over 500 people witnessed Jesus after his resurrection when he "came back to visit old friends," as one blogger put it. His "visit" was much more impressive than that. Humankind began the counting of history over again from the time of His birth (B.C. and A.D.), whole nations were moved by His presence. Our intire world was influenced by His existence. There is not another human figure in history who has left such a lasting impression on mankind. Even secular historians documented the events following the crucifiction on Jesus. Many were crucified - why did the crucifiction of Jesus warrent such attention in historic accounts? It is because He conquered the grave WITH witnesses, He fulfilled ALL of the prophesies (not just a few,) and because He was and is who He said he was and would be. I, for one, will not be looking for His bones, because they aren't here. I can't wait to meet Him in Heaven where he is alive and whole with no missing parts left behind.
Blessings!

If he is coming to rule the nations...he is going to have to pull some serious OT.

I respect your faith, but it seems its driven more by a closed mind rather than one open to logic.