All Comments (35)

Glenn, you say, "In the end, if you are right, Christians lose nothing. But, if Christians are right, you my friend will lose everything."

But if There is no Christ, doesn't that mean there's no eternal life? That would mean that when you die, you'd just be dead - no heaven, right? Just oblivion - like before you were born.

Granted, eternal damnation is worse than oblivion, but losing eternal life is certainly something - a pretty big deal, don't you think?

Hello Mr. Wolfe,

Yes, it is time for you and I to move on. You are right to point out that either Christ existed or he did not, and Paul acknowledged the possible dilemma. In the end, if you are right, Christians lose nothing. But, if Christians are right, you my friend will lose everything.

“Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—-children born not of natural decent, nor of human decision or of a husband’s will, but born of God.”

Good-bye, and I hope for the best for you.
Glenn

To Jerry Crews:

You say, "The story is too profound in all its detail to ever be an invention of writers no matter how talented."

Consider that some of the most detailed, creative works of literature are fiction - Gone with the Wind, the Harry Potter series, Shakepeare's plays.

To Gotogirl:

I'm glad that your pain went away during your vision. You say, "Jesus is the Son of God, as he is the embodiment of God's holiness in its complete form, and Jesus inherited his human qualities from his mother."

Did your vision tell you this? If not, on what basis did you determine this? Was is related to the vision, or something you already knew?

To Glen Chalkley:
    Though you were partly correct about the mentions of "son of God" in the Synoptic Gospels, you are wrong about everything else, and I am too tired of trying to correct all of your mistakes to go on with this. Instead, all I can do is what Bigyim tells me it is not cricket to do and refer you to my ebook "The Case Against Jesus," to be found at the web site http://burtonsbooks.com. It is the only book or writing of any kind which sets up an examination of the issue of the actual existence of "Jesus" (Joshua) as one would set up a case in court - which I am able to do as the result of 20 years of public interest litigation in the state and federal courts. In this way I have been able to do what no one else has been able to do: prove, by documented evidence which is irrefutable, that "Jesus" is nothing more than an invention of ancient Hebrew scribes promoting their sect by their reinvention of a messiah in their rewrite of the previous legends of messiahs promoted by other sects hundreds of years before the sect eventually to be identified as "Christians." It is the bottom line of discussion about "Jesus," since "Jesus" is the sine qua non of so-called "Christianity." Either he existed and you have a "Christian" religion based on what he did and said, or he did not exist and you are left with nothing but churchianity, not Christianity - and one day, if humanity does not destroy itself with arguments over lunatic religions, that will become established fact.
- Burton H. Wolfe

Hello, Bigyim.
    Please accept my apology for taking so long to respond to you. I have lots of work to do, and responding at length to all of the insane rantings and ravings, and to all of the fantastic number of inaccurate statements, which appear on this web site, is taking up too much of my time. But I will do my best to try to set matters straight, because Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn deserve the fullest participation possible in response to this great gift they have provided to humanity, and because - with all of the insanity caused by religious beliefs taking place in this world - I can think of nothing more important than full examination of the scriptures at the root of the madness.
    Since you have injected a personal note into this, I will tell you that not only am I fun at parties, but also I am fun and I get along completely and amicably with religious people. What you see on this web site is the Burton Wolfe unloading 50 years of research as an investigative journalist, book author, non-profit organization director, and public interest litigator. If you want to know what I am like personally, you have to get to know me privately, and not from what appears in my internet commentary or writing or broadcasting or public speaking.
    The dating of the "Dead Sea Scrolls" - almost entirely not scrolls, but just manuscript fragments that had to be pieced together, which is why I call them the Dead Sea scriptures - varies from authority to authority. Right from the start the earliest translators, such as Andre Dupont-Sommer, estimated they were written as early as 600 B.C. (B.C.E.) - and I am glad to see you using B.C.E., although that has had little effect on the understanding of this particular "Christian" hoax on humanity of separating history into two divisions of years purportedly based on the "birth of the christ." The "Christian" quacks simply take genuine historians' and scholars' use of Before the Common Era and make it read "Before the Christian Era." Argumentation with self-professed "Christians" is almost impossible. They believe what they are determined to believe, and they simply refuse to be dissuaded by evidence. In any event, as the foremost authorities on biblical lore such as William F. Albright and Theodor H. Gaster explained, the date of scriptures is not nearly as important as the date of origin. You always have to remember that what appears in scripture consists of legends handed down orally for many thousands of years before there were inscriptions on stone and cuneiform on clay tablets.
    Though he has been popular with the mass miscommunications media, Geza Vermes is not someone on whom anybody should rely for accurate information about the Dead Sea scriptures. His work is full of errors. As a far more reliable source, I suggest you go to the latest revised edition of "The Dead Sea Scrolls" by Wise, Abegg, and Cook. Though they themselves make no attempt to come up with a number for the messiahs they describe and to some extent indicate that there is an overlap, your own reading of their book will reveal to you that there are five distinct messiahs: The Teacher of Righteousness, The Righteous Messiah/Sprout of David, Melchizedek, The Chosen One, and Son of the Great God.
    If Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn ever work up courage enough to add me to the panelists - and I assure you I am more qualified to talk about these subjects than any of the 75 panelists chosen - I will explain to everybody visiting this web site why and how these messiahs are nothing more than earlier versions of "Jesus" and "Jesus" is nothing more than what we scribes of today call a rewrite - or, as Dupont-Sommer put it, he is "old wine in new bottles." Until I am allowed that privilege, and am confined to being just a commenter, there has to be a limit on the space I occupy, and I do not intend to make it necessary for Jon or Sally to tell me that. So, I will cut off here with the advice to you to pay especial attention to what you read about Melchizedek in the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Dead Sea scriptures. It is absolutely devastating to belief in "Jesus Christ" (Joshua the messiah) as anyone who actually existed.
    Best regards from Burton

I see long triabides by males are answered more often than naught here. Why am I not surprised?

OK, I'll ask. AGAIN......

Is it about the man or the message?

If it is about the message, why the fixation on the man?

And then there's that little quandry of him being either a)human b)god c)guman or hod

and THEN, where does that leave Mary? And the concept of being "slightly" pregnant. And a virgin.

Posted December 20, 2006 11:43 PM

(Hello Mr. Wolfe, cont.)
- “Do you actually believe in the quoted section as fact?” Cf. 2Tim 3:16-17, and yes, I do believe.
- “Do you believe this stuff as actual fact...Do you think any sane, rational editor would accept it for publication? Or is it reasonable to assume, rather, that the presentation of such writing today would be dismissed as the ravings of a lunatic in a mental institution?” Well, I think C.S. Lewis posed the same question, that is, was Jesus Lord, Liar, or Lunatic? I think that is the essence of what Jesus asked His disciples (cf. Matt 16:15), and frankly, us, too. How we answer it has second and third order effects. Your implied assertion that people who believe in Jesus are insane and irrational is purely an against the man attack and not worth answering. I’ll offer a counterpoint, though: consider Hume’s argument against miracles by the scale method (i.e., his experience versus testimony of supernatural occurrences). Hume discounted a third factor, that the same God who instituted order throughout the universe can also suspend it according to His purpose. In management, we would call that a “waiver to policy.” If you accept that man can waive aspects of man-made policy, is it irrational or insane to assume God could do the same in history or the natural order?
- Regarding your discussion of the Greek wording for Messiah, Kurios or Lord, and so on. It is what it is. I take your point as simply meaning to cast doubt or confuse the reader. Let’s change the object being translated and rephrase your assertion. Example: Let’s say we were to translate carefully a German medical book into English; would we lose anything of substance that when applied could cause a worsening of the patient’s condition or would we keep what was important to the improvement of his condition?
- As you know, the “idea of a messiah” goes farther back in time than simply around the occurrence of the Roman occupation. Prophetic scripture relating to the Messiah and his role goes back in the Old Testament cannon to at least 14 or 15 c. BC and increases in intensity of description and quantity of references leading up to the Silent Years.
- Regarding the names of God and their use by Israel: Jesus claimed to be I AM (YHWH) (cf.John 8:58, Exodus 3:14-15).
- Regarding “the scriptures compiled as the New Testament were not written by Hebrew scribes. They most certainly were”, etc.: as to the source and duties of the scribe in Jewish society, cf. 1Ch 2:55, 2Ch 33:12-13, and Jer 8:8. As to the authors of the Synoptic Gospel accounts, I stand where I did previously. As to Mark having been missionary assistant I take that from Luke’s description of John Mark in Acts and the anger expressed between Paul and Barnabas over his inclusion or removal from the mission (cf. Acts 15:36-41). As to Luke: cf. Col 4:14, 2Tim 4:11, Phm 24 unless you should wish to discount these as more invention and conspiracy in which case we are at an impasse.
- Regarding, “But since more and more of you are determined to create a theocracy here in the U.S.”: Dogmatic assertion, no evidence. I think we Christians want to live lives that honor God and want for all of us to achieve a higher level of civility in our society. The “theocracy” to which you refer we do want, but brought by “a son…the government will be on his shoulders…of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end.” (Isaiah 9:6-7) Closer to home, though, would you also like to do away with various other “oppressive” institutions and trends such as hospitals, human rights conventions, modern science (not the 20th c. kind, that is), regard for human life, universities and general literacy and so forth, championed by honest Christians throughout the years?

Jesus saw the man by the pool and asked whether he wanted to get well. He is ready to heal what ails you today, Mr. Wolfe. Won’t you accept?

Sincerely,
Glenn

Hello Mr. Wolfe,

Thank you for your many responses. To your main points:
- I think we can agree that Jesus accepted many titles either self-attributed or accepted without correction when offered by others, which I think was your point. The relative value (on its own) is a distinction without a meaningful difference;
- “All copies were destroyed…not one sentence can be authenticated”: there are some 14,000 manuscripts and fragments of the Old Testament available and another 5,300 manuscripts and fragments of the New Testament available with unity in common references. It has been said that there is greater and more reliable bibliographic support for the Bible than for any other classical literature. Further, consider the unity of the message throughout scripture, which is never undermined regardless of the numbers of copies. Consider also the value of scripture to these people and the likelihood of fidelity in copying, and you should reasonably agree that our Bible is highly trustworthy.
- “300 years of Catholic destruction, editing, and rewriting,” that is, a conspiracy. Why would this conspiracy then include in the writing difficult material such as Peter’s denials or opposition to Jesus? Why would it include references to places and people that could be researched for historical and archeological accuracy. If your argument is against professional communities per se then that is another matter.
- Regarding Jesus’ baptism: we can’t presume in every situation to know God’s mind as to why He does things the way He does, and frankly, our understanding is somewhat irrelevant to the accomplishment of His purpose. When you were a boy, I’m sure that you neither understood everything your Dad did nor did your Dad always explain those things to you. Your understanding did not, however, keep him from doing as he did. Don’t let it be a stumbling block for you. I offer four considerations: 1) as symbolic consecration (cf. Psalm 2:7, Isaiah 42:1); 2) as a public announcement of the initiation of Jesus’ ministry; 3) to identify Himself with man (his sin and need for cleansing) as the ultimate representative; 4) as an example to His followers.
- Regarding, “Are you aware that scriptures are nothing more than the propaganda of a particular sect and that they do not comprise historical fact?” Dogmatic assertion. History and archeology have verified a number of inclusions about the persons, places and conditions given in the New Testament (e.g., destruction of the Temple, the pool of Bethesda, the Antonia fortress, the persons of Caiphas, Antipas, Pilate, Festus, Agrippa, Roman occupation, and so forth).
- Regarding, “primitive, superstitious people”: Dogmatic assertion. These people built communities, organizations and systems, conducted trade and interactions at an international crossroads, administrated local, provincial and national matters. I think we fail to appreciate that these people lived lives closer to death whether from war, oppression or disease than do we. I don’t think they were bumpkins.
- “In competition with perhaps as many as two dozen other sects all claiming to be led by a messiah”: Cf: Deut 18:21-22…they came and went, but Christianity stands today. Jesus foretold His death and resurrection, which came to pass. We have hope from His resurrection and from trusting in that what He said would come to pass did—being, you know, true to His word. We extend our trust to others today in business dealings, and so forth, on far less evidence of credibility than what Jesus provided to those around Him. (cont.)

i also like the mystery...and see how other humans live out their meaning of the Gospel....but the 9 episcopal parishes?????? what a misguided multitude they are....saying i am not a child of God? GAH HUMBUG.

God could be a metaphor for the whole universe and the question of why are we here. And to be a son of god, it could be the awareness that humanity has stepped out of the animal realm and gained self-awareness. We have gained some control over the life of our species.

Jesus's followers who wrote the Gospel could have competed for thier version of the prophets teachings. Since Jesus did not write anything, we are left with contradictory texts. We wonder how he was able to create such devout followers.

Ultimately, like any classic novel that gives us deeper insight into the human endeavor, we will take our own meaning from the Gospels. The Sermon on the Mount makes some very un-Darwinistic statements.

Maybe Jesus had stepped out of the animal world and was born-again as a god.

Actually, Moira, your poop is kinda cute, in a poopy-kind-of-way.

Mac Blake, I disagree. While AIPAC is a very effective political action committee, we are not under the "influence of JEWS". We are a melting pot of all sorts of views and influences. Our government is influenced by the Saudis, for instance, and Saudi Arabia did not become a Jewish state the last time I checked.

Also, Jesus claiming that there is one God does not make him a Muslim. There are 10 teachings that are shared by all religions -- http://www.theharmonyinstitute.org/ten/ten.pdf -- one of which is the concept of One God.

As usual, Robert is the voice of reason. Dude, call me sometime and maybe we can jam and talk about the old days.

Rold: I prefer to come off as a blubbering, intellectual wannabe drunk but that's just me.

Jokes aside, I honor each person's right to believe whatever they damn well please. I realize that I will never be able to change their mind. If I happen to say something profound, I can only hope to reach a part of their soul which has already considered my argument and is predisposed to have an open mind to it. Thus, I do not change their mind; rather, they change or (or not, whatever they choose).

I challenge whoever posts on this page about Faith to share what YOU believe while not mocking, correcting or otherwise dissing anyone else's beliefs.

Hint: They believe whatever they believe as STRONGLY as you believe whatever you believe. Their beliefs are JUST as sacred as yours. Choosing chocolate does not make vanilla "wrong."

Bob: While I cannot prove God exists, I have no doubts (well, ok... I have SOME doubts...). I suggest that you read "Just Six Numbers : The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe" by Martin Rees. The universe, Earth, and you and I really should not exist, statistically and probabilically (?) speaking. If any of these 6 numbers were altered ever so slightly, we wouldn't. It is based upon this fact that I believe God exists and that we are here for a purpose. That said, I certainly do not believe in the same version of god (old white man with a long beard sitting on a throne and keeping track of all the good and bad things we do -- Santa Claus, anyone?) that I believed as a child. I have no real problems substituting "The Universe" or "Reality" or "The Source and Substance of All That Is" for "God." The God of my beliefs creates all the time and loves unconditionally all that it creates (since it is a part of It).

********************************************
GOTOGIRL: That is a beautiful story. More details, though, if you please. What prompted this vision/experience? Was it a near-death experience or an out-of-body experience? Has anything like this happened to you before or since? If it ever happens again, I would GREATLY appreciate you asking God to come visit me and do the same thing. I got me some pain.
*********************************************

First of all: America is not a christian state. 2nd point is that we live under the influence of JEWS. Bush is dragging all of us to HELL. We are fighting against Muslims who believe that ALLAH is the only GOD. SO this proves that Jesus was Also a MUSLIM because he was also saying that there is only one GOD which is ALLAH.

Bob,

you said it well...

Is it not the sole reason for Christ Jesus birth to give understanding to men regarding the mysteries of God Most High? I do not know you personnally, but if you have a son would he not be able to tell me exactly what you are like even though I have'nt met you. If you are not a father would your son still not exist though you have not physically come together with a woman to bring about his birth? Unfortunately, metaphysics by definition can well be applied to the explaination of Christ Jesus existantance that you recite above. I believe that the things that constitute life for us explain exactly what a mystery is and the mystery is God.

Yes. Intellectual snobbery is gross, like my poop.

I agree.

Why does everyone come off like a blubbering, drunk wannabe intellectual on here? You guys seem like little children on the playground, taking out your collective insecurity upon one another in the form of snobbish, undignified rhetoric.

I'm pretty sure that there are thoughful, reasonable people posting on here. It would do us all some good to rediscover what we're losing when we abandon kindness and turn to name-calling, petty insults, and inflammatory statements for a twisted kind of satisfaction.

I think the constant bludgeoning of one another that occurs on this and other message boards like it only goes to illustrate the need for SOMETHING, ANYTHING spiritual/divine. Goodness, people!

Why can't we treat one another with respect? I think that respect could change these conversations; they could become interesting, thoughful, and illuminating for us. We could actually gain a more accurate understanding of one another instead of growing more hateful and morose, and understanding opposing viewpoints through a twisted sort of frame of reference because the arguments we create out of anger are often insincere and dishonest--not only to others, but ourselves as well.

A rhetoric of inquiry, rather than confrontation, will produce a positive result.

Mr. Wolfe,

I offer an apology and a correction.
Firstly, I apologize for believing the book Jacket which claimed you to be a priest of the Church of Satan; That only proves, no doubt, that even printed material cannot be taken as face value.

(also, I think you actually may be a bit fun at parties, as well:-).

Secondly, I am curious about your assertions about the Dead Sea Scrolls containing material 600 yrs. old, with multiple Messiahs. Not that it changes the main thrust of your arguement, but the scholars I have read contain the material to the 2nd-1st Century, BCE. It also talks of the "teacher of Righteousness" at length, but, as far as I can see, does not talk of multiple "anointed ones", as you assert. Have you read Geza Vermes' treatment of the subject? If so, I would very much like reference to that book, or to another you may find helpful, so I may see the evidence you refer to.

(Just try not to refer me to your own book, though; that would be as self-serving & avaricious as you assert the Catholic Church is.)

Continuing my response to Glen Chalkley:
    I do not know of any bonafide scholar who would agree with you that the scriptures compiled as the New Testament were not written by Hebrew scribes. They most certainly were, and they were written originally in Hebrew, the literary language of the era all over the Mediterranean region, and also in Aramaic, the lingua franca of the era (Aramaic is very similar to Hebrew). Nor were the Hebrew scribes responsible for the New Testament scriptures "professional interpreters and copiers of the law," as you state. They were nothing more than members of a sect the name of which is very uncertain. There is some scant evidence that the sect may have been called by some name translatable into English as "The Way" or "Children of the Light." But that evidence is indeed scant.
    Nor is there any evidence at all that there was anybody named Matthew who was a "tax collector." That is absolute hogwash which appears in a purported history attributed to "Eusebius of Caesarea" but which turns out to have been written by a variety of Catholic flimflam artists. Nobody knows the names of the scribes who wrote the scriptures compiled as the New Testament. One thing you can count on, however, is this: Whoever they may have been, they were not named Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.
    I do not know where you got the information that "Mark" was a "missionary assistant." What is your source?
    I do know where you got the idea that "Luke" was a "Greek physician." That claptrap emanated from William Tyndale, the first person to offer an English-language version of the Judaeo-Christian bible not using the official Roman Catholic version, the Vulgate, as the source. He used texts in Hebrew, Spanish, German, and a few other languages, that were at least six hundred years older than the Vulgate; and he took extreme liberties with the scriptures, inventing all kinds of names and descriptions that appeared nowhere except in his own farcical manuscript. Partly for that reason - but mainly because using any source for translation other than the Vulgate was a crime punishable by death under papal edict - Roman Catholic thugs pursued Tyndale all over Europe until finally they caught him, imprisoned him, "tried" him for heresy, strangled him on a stake, and burned his body to ashes which, again by papal edict, were scattered so that there could be no marked grave for him. Though there was much about Tyndale which is admirable, his version of the bible is a ludicrous concoction that should be viewed as a joke book rather than as a work of scholarship - and yet it was used as the primary source for the King James Bible, from which all succeeding English-language versions are derived.
    When you know all of this and a lot more, Glen, there is no way you can believe in a religion based on the unauthenticated, revised and revised and revised versions of the New Testament. I and many others wish we could leave you "Christians" to your beliefs. But since more and more of you are determined to create a theocracy here in the U.S., based on all of the hysterical nonsense you espouse, we have to attack the sources that you use and keep pounding home the fact that they are all fiction.

"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.

Continuing my response to Glen Chalkley:
    You are again correct, Glen, that there is a reference to Jesus as the "son of God" in Mark - and again, it is not in the form of Jesus's identifying himself that way. Also, in the next passage you cite, from Luke, Jesus identifies himself, as he does consistently throughout the Synoptic Gospels, as the "son of man." Luke 22:69. When Jesus is asked if he is the "son of God," he only replies: "You say that I am." Luke 22:70.
    By the way, I am going along with all of the quoting which takes place in the scriptures just to stick to certain points we are discussing. But I will note here that the scriptures were written in an era when there was no way of taking notes and there were no machines available to record conversation. And yet you have a whole lot of conversation set forth in quotation marks as though somebody was taking it down - even in the midst of a storm, etc.
    How you self-professed "Christians" manage to believe in all of this hogwash continues to baffle me. Anyway, I will deal with the remainder of your comments in still another post, so as to correct your own inaccuracies - even while I admit that my original comment concerning the omission of any reference to Jesus as the "son of God" in the Synoptic Gospels was inaccurate. And I thank you for that correction, Glen.
To be continued.

Continuing my response to Glen Chalkley:
    Now let us look at the second section from Matthew that you refer to - and again I use the English-language Revised Standard Version with a reminder that not a word of it can be authenticated as true to the original Aramaic and Hebrew manuscripts. You have to go a bit farther back to where Jesus is quoted as identifying himself as "the Son of man." Matthew 16:13. To identify Jesus as the "son of God," the scribe uses a character whose name is given in English as "Simon Peter." It is "Simon Peter," just another fictitious character, who says to Jesus: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Matthew 16: 16.
    Now, here is what you and all good "Christians" need to understand, Glen.
"Christ" is an unjustified translation, following transliterations, of the Hebrew word for messiah, "mashiah" (which I would put in italics if this web site program allowed it). "Mashiah" is transliterated from the Hebrew and translated into Greek, for what reason I know not, as "christos." From that it got into Latin as "crestus," and from that it got into old English as "chrestus" with the h restored. In modern English it became "christ," which never should have been capitalized, since it is not a proper name but merely a subsitute in English for "messiah."
    As I have already explained, the idea of a messiah was tremendously popular in the Roman Empire in the century before and during the century when Jesus is supposed to have lived. There were probably as many as two dozen different sects promoting their version of a messiah which they all copied from prior writings found in the Dead Sea scriptures. There are five different messiahs in those scriptures, written anywhere from 100 to 600 years before the scriptures compiled as the New Testament, and all telling the same basic story.
    As I have also already explained, for the ancient Hebrews responsible for the New Testament scriptures, "the living God" was "Yahweh," not "God." "He" was their version of the male deity who creates everything, and the early Catholics - those extremely treacherous characters responsible for all the rot handed down over the years - were determined not to have their idea of deity identified as a god invented by Hebrews, since they wanted themselves to be considered as gentiles. So, they substituted "God" for "Yahweh."
    Consequently, Glen, even if you view this alleged quotation as coming from some character whose name is Anglicised as "Simon Peter," it amounts to nothing. But you are right: there is a reference in Matthew, in English, to the title "son of God." I stand corrected on that point.
To be continued.

Continuing my response to Glen Chalkley -
    In the Revised Standard Version of the English-language bible, the first of the sections to which you refer reads as follows: "And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven saying, 'This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.'" Matthew 3:16-17.
    Now, here are some questions which I would like you and other "Christians" participating in the On Faith discussion to answer, assuming for the sake of discussion that the passage as it exists today is transliterated correctly from the original languages and translated into English as it appeared in the original manuscripts. Are you aware that scriptures are nothing more than the propaganda of a particular sect and that they do not comprise historical fact? Are you aware that the unknown ancient authors of the scriptures compiled as the New Testament were writing for primitive, superstitious people whom they sought to proselytize for their particular sect, which was in competition with perhaps as many as two dozen other sects all claiming to be led by a messiah who would hold a judgment day after the world was destroyed and all persons inhabiting it were resurrected for judgment by the messiah? Do you actually believe in the quoted section as fact? If so, I have further questions.
    What was this "voice" described in the section? It was not identified as the voice of God. So, whose voice was it? Where and what are the unexplained "heavens" [note the plural in the texxt] from which the voice is supposed to have emanated? If Jesus was the son of God, why would it be necessary for God to bother to open the heavens for him, since as the son of God presumably Jesus was already familiar with them? If Jesus was the son of God, why would it be necessary for God's spirit to be descended upon him, since presumably he already had that spirit bestowed upon him? Why would it be deemed necessary to baptize Jesus?
    Do you believe this stuff as actual fact? If so, on what basis? Just because it is ancient and the ancients said this is the "word of God"? What do you think would happen if this stuff had never been written and it was offered for publication today? Do you think any sane, rational editor would accept it for publication? Or is it reasonable to assume, rather, that the presentation of such writing today would be dismissed as the ravings of a lunatic in a mental institution?
    To be continued.

OK, I'll ask.

Is it about the man or the message?

If it is about the message, why the fixation on the man?

And then there's that little quandry of him being either a)human b)god c)guman or hod

and THEN, where does that leave Mary? And the concept of being "slightly" pregnant. And a virgin.

Hello, Glen.
    You are right and wrong. I was working from memory, and you have reminded me not to do that. I have gone back to what I wrote three years ago, and here is what I found:
  "Son of God" is for the most part an appellation applied to Jesus by others in the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). It is not until the Gospel According to John that Jesus agrees with that title for himself. On the other hand, "son of man" mostly occurs in passages wherein Jesus is talking about himself. - from "The Case Against Jesus" (Wild West Publishing House).
    None of this really makes any difference, since the scriptures as they exist today cannot be authenticated. The original Aramaic and Hebrew manuscripts, and the Greek which followed, and all of the original copies of those manuscripts, were destroyed by the early Catholics, who were some of the most treacherous creatures ever to inhabit the earth. The earliest extant edition of the scriptures compiled as the New Testament, written in Greek, is dated circa 400 A.D. That leaves 300 years of Catholic destruction, editing, and rewriting. Hence, not one sentence of any of the thousands of different versions of the New Testament existing today can be authenticated.
    Nevertheless, I will deal, in separate posts, with the comments you have offered - because I think this discussion is important.
- Burton H. Wolfe

I am a scientist and an artist, a skeptic, and a pragmatic, and a recent personal recipient of the Love of God. So I'm not about to find fault with the good professors work, as it is the work of the mind, and not the work of the part of us that breathes faith.

Jesus said, render unto God what is God's and render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's. So in that light, render onto the mind what is the mind, and render until to the heart what is of the heart. You can't answer the question of what a feeling is with a computer.

In my experience, the Lord appeared to me in my car, standing through the car and beaming the brightest, most loving smile I have ever seen. He sort of glowed, and I ask him if he was 'Yeshua." And he beamed even more. I said, "how can you be standing through the car?" He said, "you already know the answer. We are so proud of you. We want you to keep going. Keep working on your faith." I said, "But my heart, it hurts so much." He said, "Show me where this pain is. And he reached his finger out and placed it near my heart. It was material like a real finger, I could feel it touching me. Then inside me spread out this intense loving light, moving through my entire body. And he said, "show me the Pain. Where is this pain of that you speak? Show me. And I looked inside myself and started pointing to all these places and memories that were hurting me, and there was no more pain, only love. At some point, I said, "there is no more pain." And he beamed and said, "That's right, there is no more pain. We are so proud of you. Keep going." He stayed there for a little bit longer until he was sure I was ok. And then he dematerialized.

I have never understood what it meant to be loved until that moment; a pure compassion and understanding that is not possible to explain in words. I also sensed that Jesus is the embodiment of a ancheint and immense tradition of spirits that is effectively immortal. They exist to create joy.

So back to the good professors comment. Jesus is the Son of God, as he is the embodiment of God's holiness in its complete form, and Jesus inherited his human qualities from his mother. But the most important things are not biological. In the case of the Lord, it is the spiritial heritage and vital, loving, live, energy of Jesus, the inheritor of an timeless tradition and energy, that makes him the "Son of God."

There is this obsession with making divine in a strange fairy tale sort of way that probably was a certain spiritually evolved human, Joshua. His message of the "Kingdom of God" has been misinterpreted as a physical entity, outside, somewhere beyond reach, rather than the Truth, within and without, similar to that of Eastern philosophical traditions. "Son of God" was taken literally but not "children of God" which he often used to refer to his flock. This need to set him apart is what corrupts his message of Universal Love and makes it into an exclusionary religion (almost a cult). I believe that the political forces that corrupted the movement associated with his message have truly taken over and dumbed down the message to a medieval fairy tale to make it really "inspiring" for us intellectually and spiritually challenged laity...hopefully some day the Truth will be set free and its true Universality will come forth. At that point, there will be no need to be fixated on his divine origin as the "Sole Son of God", rather the message will be truly understood and the divinity of all Life will be appreciated, just as he did.

Mr. Wolfe,

In correction to your assertions above (i.e., "Jesus"...is not identified as "the son of God" in the Synoptic Gospels; Hebrew scribes), I offer the following:
- MATT 3:17 (And a voice from heaven said, ‘This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.’”); MATT 16:15-16 ("'But what about you?' he asked. 'Who do you say I am?' Simon Peter answered, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'"); MARK 1:1 (“The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.”); LUKE 22:70 ("They all asked, 'Are you then the Son of God?' He replied, 'You are right in saying I am.'"), and others.

- The attributed authors of the Synoptic Gospels were not "Hebrew scribes" (i.e., professional interpreters and copiers of the Law), but a tax collector (Matthew), a missionary-assistant (Mark), and a Greek physician (Luke). Further, early persecution of the followers of the Way is well known, so their authors embarking on such a false course (i.e., "nothing more than an invention...promoting their sect") would have been senseless.

It seems your work falls under what Dr. Gary Habermas wrote, "There have been many popular attempts to discredit the Jesus of the Gospels...rejected almost unanimously by careful scholars...still receive widespread attention among lay people." (McDowell, Evidence for Christianity, 619)

Though you will no doubt reject it as rubbish, I offer you Jesus as the Christ, "The Wisdom and Power of God," and ask you to consider again Paul's testimony from 1Cor 1:18-31. I pray you would repent and believe, Mr. Wolfe.

Sincerely,
Glenn Chalkley

Merry Christmas Paul and all. And thanks Paul for making the true meaning of life perfectly clear. Huh?

I yest go nauts at Christmas on that yolly holly day. But oh how I hate to ride in the one horse open slay. Freeze the buns off brass munky. But a couple of hot tom and yerrys varms me right up.

If truth of existence is in the form of the body, and the body is made sense by the feelings and senses, then what is the meaning of life? Considering that the body changes in stages of growth from conception to death, and meaning is comprehended by the mind, truth of existence therefore is not only ever-changing, but also meaningless unless the concept of the mind is added to the definition.

And there you have it! The whole existence of material science is destroyed. From the stripping of the atom to Pure Logic, materialism is self destruct.

It is not an analogy or a theory; it is simply truth that man cannot survive in the body existence alone.

Life therefore is not a meaningless existence in the body, but rather making sense of experience in the mind. The making sense is directing experience from his/her self destruct tendency, into something more stable, more enduring, more productive, and purposeful to enjoy life between its conception and death.

In other words, heaven and earth are separate entities bridged by a human quality. It is a special human quality that is not self destruct and meaningless, but compassionate, forgiving, and empathetic.

Jesus was born to bring us to our humble human home, away from the destruction of the material world, and closer to a purposeful quality of living. Jesus is the human quality of life.

Happy Birthday to Jesus and
MERRY CHRISTMAS to all

Metaphysics professor?

Christianity, the three great faiths are pseudo physics. They replace physical operations with imbedded ones, with a kink here and there along with a host of unverified theories they calim to be laws of God.

Those who do not believe Jesus was the son of God probably don't believe Hirohito was the son of God either or that Adolph Hitler was a living God in his own right. Those that follow Jesus and the two latter have at times insisted they held the power of God, decide who shall live and who shall not live. Seems like all Gods exhibit that characteristic.

If Pharaoh held the power of life and death over the living and took that with him to the next life then he certainly had that distinguishing characteristic of God. Don't you agree? We tend to use love to describe God and forget that it's God who exercises the greatest terror possible, the fires of hell. Is God a terrorist or is that limited to God's representatives?

Metaphysics, pseudophysics do seem to have a lot in common, unverified theories. So let me agree with you on that point. Heaven and hell are theories that people are simply dying to find out about. If you laughed then you're at least half way back.

To believe a group of writers invented the story found in the Gospels is analogous to believing a room of monkeys pecking at keyboards could eventually turn out a Shakespeare play or a Gettysburg Address.The story is too profound in all its detail to ever be an invention of writers no matter how talented. Yes-He is either Lord, liar or lunatic. I prefer the first alternative.

When you are a stranger in hostile land,
Finding refuge among the captives,
And become an easy target of power struggles
Or populist ambitions,
Or waiting in queues while those who came later are served first
When you are blamed for no reasons other than your race
I guess you all know the story by now
How some people feel powerful among the weak
And how others feel compassionate
The story which brought us home to humanity
How can a feeble man bring us home?
The mystery seems so far yet so near
May be it’s in our minds, or in our hearts, or in our feelings,
Could that be you?

Martin:
    The questions presented - and I applaud Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn for posting them - do not comprise a matter of metaphysics. While the first only asks what the responder may believe, the second question asks that the responder state who "Jesus Christ" (Joshua the Mesiah) was if the responder does not believe that he was the "son of God."
    As I have explained in my comment on the post from Susan Thistlewaite, the major "Jesus" of the New Testament (out of four distinct characters so named) is not identified as "the son of God" in the Synoptic Gospels - and, indeed, the scribes who wrote those scriptures can be interpreted as having rejected that notion. So, you cannot estalish "Jesus" as "the son of God" even according to the most important part of the fictitious writings put together as "the New Testament." On what basis, then, CAN you assert that this version of the "messiah" - out of dozens of stories of "messiahs" abounding in the Roman Empire - was in fact "the son of God"?
    As for who this preposterously named "Jesus" actually was, I provide massive evidence in my ebook "The Case Against Jesus" that he was and remains nothing more than an invention of ancient Hebrew scribes promoting their sect, which most certainly was not named "Christian" or "Catholic" or "Protestant." I have yet to come across any theologian, scholar, historian, or individual of any description who can refute or even rebut the evidence I have presented in my book that "Jesus" is a fiction, as is the entire New Testament.
- Burton H. Wolfe