All Comments (116)

Dear Seeker -

Thanks for your response. I'm glad to see you are seeking.

I fully realize that my response to you was a bit of a slap down, but it comes with the territory. Our passions on this blog are like pregnant - there's no "a little bit."

I would ask that you peruse the talkorigins link that I provided BEFORE you read anymore of the ID BS sites. You must first know what science actually says before reading an ID site which sets up straw man arguments.

When reading ANY ID/Creationist website, you need keep only ONE question in mind, and that is this: "as you purport to be a scientifically based website, where is the peer-tested and proven scientific data that supports your position?" If the answer isn't, "right here, tested and proven by numerous independent third parties including those who vehemently disagreed with the premise," then the answer is a lie.

About blogging at On Faith: the discussion moves around these threads pretty rapidly. As this particular thread has been supplanted on the home page by a new question, this discussion will die out here and will probably re-emerge on a newer thread. Don't get discouraged, that's just how it works.

Hi Jihadist:

This made me chuckle when you said "One must expand one's knowledge on contemporary American English forms and usage."

Given the quality of posts here, I figure if you're looking HERE for contemporary English forms.. well.. I'm not entirely convinced that most of those pass muster. Probably including my own, too.. So good luck finding that. I'm just not entirely sure this forum in particular is the right place to find it. :)

Blessed be and Happy New Year!

I see The Obfuscating Jihadist has returned but fails to note the most important of contemporary Holys, i.e. Holy Stench of Islam!!!!!!

Anon,

You asked: "we've seen all of this before but the question remains: How was such a minor character in the historical scheme of things (generously assuming he actually existed) transformed into
the Savior of Mankind??

Money and power!!!

Mr. Mark

I apologize for the comments I made at the end of my last entry they were insensitive. Your anger was diserved. I misunderstood the purpose and committment of this forum and was just taking shots. I appriciate the research and thoughtfulness that I am beginning to see on this blog. Being new to this and truly seeking pleae forgive my impertinence. That is not how I want to be perceived.

Information for the most part comes down not up, therefore I am learning I would assume much the same way you are. Unless we are publised we all have to rely on those doing real science.

I have been reading a site called "IDEA Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center". There are two articles that caught my attention. "A Response to Newsweek's "Doubting Darwin", by Ryan Huxley 2-09-05. Also, Response to James O. Goldsborough's "Another Attempt to Deny Evolution". 02-12-04. Would you help me again by viewing these and giving feedback?

I am checking out the Behe contoversy as I did not know what had transpired. I will get back when I know more.

Humbly yours

Pilgrim -

Thanks for the response. I didn't mean to accuse you of being a Christian.

There are certainly philosophical ideas of value in some of Jesus' teaching, though certainly not all of them. I don't begrudge anyone that, but I do feel compelled to point out the shortcomings in their perspectives when they claim Jesus originated certain philosophies. The Golden Rule springs to mind

In my post above to Mike (DECEMBER 30, 2007 1:46 PM - still no response from Mike), I offered a perspective on why I believe Jesus was a mythical, rather than a historic figure. I had another thought along those lines, and it concerns the figure of Yahweh in the OT and the Jewish image of the Messiah.

Yahweh is a god who was NOT born of a virgin. He was NOT a god who was resurrected. He was NOT a god who wished to be worshipped by everyone. He was quite specifically the God of Israel. When the enemies of Israel were killed in battle, they didn't go to heaven or hell. Their total existence simply ended (Isaiah 26:14 "They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased they shall not rise.") Yahweh did NOT promise eternal life to any and all who offered propitiation to him, only to the Jews.

The Jews believed that they would know the Messiah when he came because UPON HIS COMING he would usher in an era of justice and peace. This clearly did NOT happen with the appearance of Jesus. No justice, no peace and a crucifixion to boot.

So, let's consider Yahweh's background as a non-virgin birthed, non-resurrecting god, couple that with the Jewish belief of what their Messiah would do as soon as he arrived on the scene, and consider the figure of Jesus as I outlined in my post to Mike by considering the following question:

is it mere coincidence that in a time when virgin-born, martyred, resurrected, paradise-for-anyone-who-follows-me gods were the NORM in multiple religions, that Jesus would arrive on the scene and bear NOT ANY RESEMBLANCE TO THE MESSIAH PROMISED IN THE OT, but, rather, would bear an OVERWHELMING RESEMBLANCE to the savior-gods who were rife in almost all of the contemporaneous pagan religions?

OR,

is it MOST-likely that the figure of Jesus is a simple repackaging of the popular godman figures of the time, and -like them - an entirely mythical figure?

Thaks for the chat.

E Favorite,

No problem. I was mightily puzzled by your slip, because your posts have always been well put together.

Yes, faith is the word. But I search, or try to, in science as well.

Pilgrim - sorry about that - Of course, I meant the "God of Abraham" - just shows how easy it is to slip up -- think of all those biblical scribes!

Meanwhile, sounds like the questions and inconsistencies don't bother you much. Sounds more like faith than conflict (as you call it above)

E Favorite,

And a great and grand 2008 to you!

Er, Abraham was not the Jewish God, he was the father of the Jewish people, and hence the father of three great religions. Abraham, so far as I believe, is the beginning of history in the Bible. (Yes, I know, not a shred of proof.) I won't make excuses for the excesses; they make me very uncomfortable, and I am not sure what to make of them. As to God waiting so long to send Jesus - well, how the hell should I know? (grin!)

Pilgrim: “I commend you on your rebuttals to Seeker re that fundamentalist wolf in sheep's clothing, 'Intelligent Design'

Thank you! Here’s something for you to ponder on the eve of the new year -- If god created the world over 14 billion years ago, why did he wait so long to send his son to save people? Along the same line, assuming that as a Christian, you believe Jesus’ father was Abraham, the Jewish god of the old testament, what do you make of all the murderous mayhem he permitted and encouraged before Jesus came along?

I was recently a progressive left-leaning Christian myself and must admit, I never thought about these things.

Hope to hear from you. Meanwhile, Happy New Year to you and to all my old blogging buddies hanging out here today.

Mr Mark - no, I didn't. It's on my Tivo. I'll have to check it out tonight. Thanks!

Mr Mark,

While your criticism of the bible-thumpers is valid, please note that I am not one of them, and I do not accept any literal acceptance of those parts of the Bible as valid. My emphasis is on the spiritual, and the teachings of Jesus.

Pilgrim writes:

"Actually, I find no long-range conflict between religion and science. I accept them as different ways to seek the truth."

There are many ways to seek the truth, but not all the ways are equal. Isn't the proof in the pudding?

One accepts the Biblical explanation of things with a bowed head, a shuffle of the feet and an "oh, well" on the lips. It's that uneasy feeling one gets when they're forced to listen to the solecisms of the proverbial crazy uncle.

In our scientific- and secularly informed age, no one would aver that the Bible's advice on how one should treat their slaves is "a different way to seek the truth" in human relations, yet, we carve out a special pleading for Biblical nonsense when it comes to how the universe came into being and how life on our planet evolved. We jump through hoops trying to justify and rectify the Biblical accounts of "creation," employing excuse-making techniques that most of us abandoned in elementary school for everything else that touches our lives.

Why is it that the excuse-making, the overt and embarrassing rationalization, the "what that REALLY means" pretenses ALWAYS excrete from the Biblical side of the Bible/science dialogue? When's the last time science floated a whopper of an explanation on par with the stock-in-trade conjectures of the Biblical apologists?

Athena -

I agree with you on The Universe series on History. Did you happen to catch "How The Earth Was Made" last night? Really excellent. Highly recommended, especially to those still laboring under the duress of justifying the Biblical account of the same.

Happy New Years to all!

I was always taught that yes, God created the universe. But what is a "day" to God? One rotation of the Earth? One trip around our star, the Sun? Or maybe much longer. We can't know. Science is the way that human beings discover more about the universe. The Divine gave us our intellect and our curiousity. To not use it because one believes that the creation story of a small Middle Eastern tribe is true, is criminal.

I've been watching "The Universe" on the History Channel. It's fascinating, and really explains complex astronomy in layman's terms. I highly recommend it.

Norrie,

And the very best to you and yours for a great 2008!

Actually, I find no long-range conflict between religion and science. I accept them as different ways to seek the truth. Perhaps this is possible because I do not regard religion as absolute, fixed dogma.

I appreciate your posts as well, keep 'em up!

Pilgrim.

A Happy 2008 to you!

You wrote:

"I happen to be Christian, but left leaning (progressive?), and firmly believe that the universe that we know came into being some 14 billion years passed. As a Christian, I also believe that God created it. I am aware of the conflict there. But, further, I am also convinced that Darwin was correct. More conflict, oh well."

I think of myself as left leaning and progressive, too, and also as agnostic with Buddhist sympathies.

I don't see any conflict in what you wrote. You believe that God created our universe and that it came into existence 14 billion years ago.

If God did create the universe, it had to have happened at some point on our human timescale. So where's the conflict?

[By contrast, Buddhists believe that the universes were uncreated and exist eternally, and that no "God" exists.]

Similarly with Darwinism and evolution. Of course those scientific hypotheses contradict the biblical account of the creation of the earth and its inhabitants, but I don't see any conflict with a belief that God created our world and let it proceed to evolve as it has.

I appreciate your thoughtful and intelligent comments on these threads.

E Favorite and Mr Mark,

I commend you on your rebuttals to Seeker re that fundamentalist wolf in sheep's clothing, 'Intelligent Design'. I happen to be Christian, but left leaning (progressive?), and firmly believe that the universe that we know came into being some 14 billion years passed. As a Christian, I also believe that God created it. I am aware of the conflict there. But, further, I am also convinced that Darwin was correct. More conflict, oh well.

Religion, like any established power structure,does strive for the status quo. Religion perhaps more so. But, being run by humans, it still 'evolves'. If it were totally stagnant, the Reformation would have never happened. And even today, the Evangelical crowd is changing, many accepting that the stagnant view that abortion, gays, and stem-cell research is the only agenda has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus (true). Not that they reject these, but they are now including efforts to combat hunger, disease, global warming. One can disagree with their methods, but I would contend that it is a step in a better direction.

JESUS' EMPTY TOMB

When trying to prove that Jesus was resurrected, Christians have always relied on the empty tomb as proof that Jesus was resurrected.

If a body were missing from a mortuary, would you assume that miraculously the dead body was resurrected and the deceased had gone on his way? I seriously doubt it.

My cousin, Kathy, moved to California, and wanted to move the body of my uncle from a cemetery in New Jersey to one in California close to where she was now residing. She went through a lot of legal haggling and eventually secured a court order to move the body. When they dug where the body was supposed to be, the coffin and body were missing. You may have read about this in your newspaper when my cousin sued. My family jokes about Uncle Ed being resurrected, and my Aunt Peggy claims she saw him in the stands while watching a football game on TV, but nobody seriously believes that he is walking around somewhere wearing the new suit he was buried in.

Yet this is the type of evidence that Christians present to prove that Jesus rose from the dead.

Don't you expect extraordinary evidence to prove extraordinary claims?

Or do you believe that Jesus and my uncle Ed are alive and hanging together at football games.

Ebal Trace

JESUS' EMPTY TOMB

When trying to prove that Jesus was resurrected, Christians have always relied on the empty tomb as proof that Jesus was resurrected.

If a body were missing from a mortuary, would you assume that miraculously the dead body was resurrected and the deceased had gone on his way? I seriously doubt it.

My cousin, Kathy, moved to California, and wanted to move the body of my uncle from a cemetery in New Jersey to one in California close to where she was now residing. She went through a lot of legal haggling and eventually secured a court order to move the body. When they dug where the body was supposed to be, the coffin and body were missing. You may have read about this in your newspaper when my cousin sued. My family jokes about Uncle Ed being resurrected, and my Aunt Peggy claims she saw him in the stands while watching a football game on TV, but nobody seriously believes that he is walking around somewhere wearing the new suit he was buried in.

Yet this is the type of evidence that Christians present to prove that Jesus rose from the dead.

Don't you expect extraordinary evidence to prove extraordinary claims?

Or do you believe that Jesus and my uncle Ed are alive and hanging together at football games.

Ebal Trace

Newblogger writes:

"If even a fraction of the energy spent here was used to volunteer at a charity of your choice, imagine the good that could be accomplished."

Some of us can walk and chew gum at the same time. My blogging here doesn't interfere with my work, my meals, my sleep or my exercise, so why would it interfere with my charity work?

BTW - one can save time blogging by taking a typing course before beginning blogging.

Dear Seeker -

Haven't noticed you here before. Welcome.

What Darwin wrote in 1859 is immaterial. Darwinism is a dynamic science, a science that serves as the foundation for many other sciences. Darwinian scientists continue to make discoveries that expand and refine our knowledge of evolutionary fact. Quoting what Darwin wrote 150 years ago means nothing in the context of today's discussion of evolution, anymore than Darwin's pre-Origin of Species writings hold sway over the things he believed after he formulated his magnificent theory of evolution. Following your illogic, any changes made to the strike zone in Major League baseball are subject to the rules of baseball as first set down in the 1800s.

In other words, the game hasn't changed, but the details have, be it baseball or Darwinism. What hasn't changed is the basic truth of Darwinism. The changes are in the details. The details Darwin offered in the quotes you cited have evolved. Darwin would have had it no other way.

Science is not static. Science doesn't need or allow itself to be shoe-horned into some pre-determined mold that cannot be changed when the evidence leads it elsewhere. For that, you must turn to religion.

Michale Behe is an idiot and a fraud and was totally unmasked as such (at his expense...and most entertainingly so!) in the Dover trial. His hypothesis on the flagellum has been countered in great depth by real scientists, INCLUDING THE SCIENTIST HE MISREPRESENTED TO MAKE HIS CLAIMS in the first place! Read HL's post above, or do your own search and the web and you'll maybe you'll save yourself the embarrassment of citing a lying fraud like Behe in future posts.

BTW - as E Fav pointed out, my comments about Jesus had nothing Darwinian about them. Your BS ID agenda is showing. Stop it. It's beneath the general level of intelligence on this blog and insulting to boot.

Time to start living up to your moniker, Seeker. Here's a challenge for you, Seeker:

Name a SINGLE creationist hypothesis that has been submitted to peer review and subjected to the scientific method, including falsification of the hypothesis. THERE. ARE. NONE!

And you have the audacity to use the words "bad science" in your post! Well, bad science is better than pseudo-science.

ID is NOT a science. It is a group of Bible-agenda driven pseudo-scientists who make their living taking pot shots at the still-unknown areas in science THAT SCIENCE FREELY ADMITS ARE UNKNOWN and that science continues to explore in its quest for knowledge. They present this pseudo-science to gullible innocents like yourself who are NOT interested in what science actually says, but who are looking for someone in a perceived position of authority to dispute scientific fact - no matter how idiotically - so YOU can hang on to your Biblical myths and treat them as truth.

YOU are not concerned with whether the science is true. You are concerned with finding an excuse to distrust the science so you may engage in some boneheaded exercise in relativism and false equivalency. That you are doing this is made CRYSTAL CLEAR by the ridiculous and oft-refuted examples given in your posts. I doubt very much that you even know what the meaning is of the words you posted above. I have seen these cut-n-paste jobs from ID websites before, word for word as you posted.

Be honest with us, and tell us where you got both the Darwin quotes and the info on Behe. Answers in Genesis, perhaps? The Discovery Institute website?

BTW - there is NO DEBATE "RAGING" between evolution and creationism. Creationism isn't a science, and it has been struck down in every single court decision in history as SPECIFICALLY NOT BEING SCIENCE. Dover is simply the latest and most-damning strike down of this laughable piece of Biblically driven crap. And it is CRAP, my friend!

You'll need to do much better than this if you want to debate in this forum. Go and read some info on evolution from REPUTABLE sources. Start here: http://www.talkorigins.org/

And, we'll see you later.

Seeking,

I am Muslim and as much as I like the idea of design I disagree with you on the irreducible complex system you mentioned as proof for design. You wrote of the bacterial flagellar motor:

“This naviagtional tail spins at 100,000 rpms and can stop and change directions in a quarter turn. Behe believes these complex molceualar machines cannot come into being by Darwinian processes due to Irriducible Complexity defined above.”

Actually, Behe’s flagellum irreducible complex system, a term which he coined, was refuted by David DeRosier from Brandeis University. Michel Behe tried to use the work done by Derosier on the flagellum bacteria to prove his theory of an irreducible complex system; but DeRosier’s work on yersinia pestis, the bacterium that causes the Bubonic plague, proved the opposite which is that the “flagellum motor has all the earmarks of something that arose by an evolutionary process.” The Yesinia pestis has a structure that resembles very much the flagellum bacteria but without the rotation of the filament proving Darwin’s evolution processes right. You can read more about it here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/ht/wm/3416_08_056.html

Seeking - regarding your comments on Mr Marks comment that "physical proof exists for things that "have happened" millions and even billions of years ago."

Instead of addressing his comments, you went into a whole discussion of Darwinism - a subject Mr Mark did not raise at all. I bet he’ll be back to speak for himself, but as I was reading his remarks, I assumed he was referring to archeological evidence, as well as the preserved written records which he mentioned. Darwinism doesn't enter into evidence for the existence of Jesus. There’s no question that people in the first century CE were fully evolved humans, as our species had evolved long before that.

It seems that you simply wanted to raise the subject of intelligent design, Your last paragraph is a clue: "Real or empirical science looks at the facts and lets the facts speak. There is a debate raging and bad science will not win. Design is on the table of truth seekers."

What about archeological and written evidence? Are truth seekers interested in that as well?

Newblogger:)

Welcome to On Faith.

Holy Cow indeed. We'll be arguing till the cows come home or pigs fly. And Holy Cow! is acceptable as is Holy Mackerel! or Holy Toledo!

Yes. This is comparatively "tame". Should have been here when the death of Jerry Falwell and the private doubts of Mother Teresa were topics. Some other topics too. I've been picking up interesting American inventive invectives in On Faith threads I've never heard of before. One must expand one's knowledge on contemporary American English forms and usage.

Hope you have had a great Christmas, and Happy New Year to you.

Thanks and regards
"J"

Mr. Mark

You talk about evidence in your last comment. "Yes, one can prove many things that happened 2000 years ago, at least to a statistically high degree of certainty. It's simple, because physical proof exists for things that "have happened" millions and even billions of years ago."

Is it that simple? Charles Darwin wrote in 1859, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Irreducible Complexity states, "All the parts of each machine must be completely formed, in the right places, in the right sizes, in opertating order, at the same time, for the machine to function." Micro-biologist Michael Behe, after reading Michael Denten's discourse on the inability of Darwinian processes to produce all the working parts in the cell; began his research and found 40 working parts in the tail of the Flagellun Bacteria. This naviagtional tail spins at 100,000 rpms and can stop and change directions in a quarter turn. Behe believes these complex molceualar machines cannot come into being by Darwinian processes due to Irriducible Complexity defined above.

Darwin also wrote, "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermiediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

According to your statement, "contradiction to physical/empirical evidence" According to the author of the theory, Darwinianism does not past the test in either mirco-biology or geology.

Our logic cannot supply its own beginning, logic is merely a way of reaoning correctly, moving from premise to conclusion. The premise must come from elsewhere. Your premise like much of the scientific community is what Havard biologist Richard Lewontin implies as "philosophical naturalism". Lewontin states, "Science itself has been refashioned into a machine for cranking out stricktly materialist theories. . .science has been turned into an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations. The reason science has been so redefined, Lewontin writes, is "because we have a prior committment, a committment to materialism". Nancy Pearcey says,"So what drives the show is not the facts but the philosophy"

Having started with a false premise your conclusions are flawed. From Phillip Johnson's book "The Right Questions, Truth Meaning and Public Debate", The question then, "can natural forces alone explain the universe and everything in it? Did life arise by blind, materialistic Darwinian processes, or does the evidence point to other forces?"

Real or empirical science looks at the facts and lets the facts speak. There is a debate raging and bad science will not win. Design is on the table of truth seekers.

Holy Cow! Some of you really go over the top! I'm new to blogging, so maybe this is all kinda tame comparatively, but ... WOW!

If even a fraction of the energy spent here was used to volunteer at a charity of your choice, imagine the good that could be accomplished.

The deviation from the original question posed was unexpected. I just want to comment on the original question:

1. I support HR 847. While I hate the commercialization of it, Christmas is a great holiday, and I believe we need to allow people, even government officials, to say, "Merry Christmas", "Happy Hanukkah", "Merry Kwanza", or any other positive, good salutation without being slapped with a lawsuit. I am not offended when my Eastern Indian or non-Christian friends tell me about their beliefs and holidays, and they are not offended when I tell them about Christianity.

2. This resolution is not unconstitutional to me. The Constitution (Amendment 1) reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …”. First, HR 847 is not a law, and second, it does not seek to establish Christianity as our nation’s religion. Amendment 1 of the Constitution is about protecting religion and free speech, and HR 847 is only protecting Christianity and Christmas, not establishing it as a state religion. It is just sad to me that there is a need to protect it.

3. I believe in Christ. This belief is the foundation for all the happiness I have. And I believe He gives the only answers to the problems we are facing.

4. Finally, I just want to say that the pun was intended (Holy cow). :)

CCNL - we've seen all of this before but the question remains: How was such a minor character in the historical scheme of things (generously assuming he actually existed) transformed into
the Savior of Mankind?? We know his status as a divine being evolved over time and was intimated only later in some but not all of the Gospels (Luke and John?? - just guessing).

Of course the gospels of Thomas, et al were eliminated early on because of their association with Gnostic sentiments (heretics all) - no divinity to be found here! Thus leaving only Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as the sole true & valid chroniclers of the life and times of Jesus -well, let's not forget Paul (perhaps the real spiritual godfather of the early Church).

To sort out 'truth' from 'fiction' seems to have taken centuries and not a few revisions before the one true Apostolic Universal (catholic) church appears - See Irenaeus et al as the early Church Fathers battled good vs evil and truth vs fiction & with their version emerging victorious.

The writings of Elaine Pagels is a good place to start for an objective and scholarly view of early Christianity - since I'm always a little suspicious of the real objectivity of researchers that also are members of the clergy in their spare time. Just saying!!

Why the protestants remain ungrateful to the one true original Christian church even today can only be attributed to the (genius of opportunism) and the ongoing influence and original mindsets of the anti-papist Protestant Reformers themselves - but the true reformation seems to have begun very early in the Christian era.

It apparently took the efforts of many (unidentfied) writers working randomly and in a highly unorganized fashion over a 200-300 year period before any kind of cohesive story (of Jesus) really begins to emerge - call this the theological winnowing process. Only later would we have the doctrine of the virgin birth in order to coincide with the alleged divinity of Jesus - many church doctrines were fashioned later to validate the basic tenets of Christianity (speaking now of the Catholic church).

For example, the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven was a recent 19th century doctrine created to give consistency to her status as the sacred vessel of Christ's birth - she was therefore declared incorruptible and was said to have been taken bodily into heaven as a person born free of original sin (very special status indeed).

Not long after this we have the Papal Infallibility doctrine - where the truth of the Pope's pronouncements cannot be doubted when he is speaking of doctinal matters as guided by the Holy Spirit (speaking ex cathedra or literally from his chair). In like fashion, the much earlier doctrine of the Trinity in the 5th century triumphed over the then-prevelant Arian/unitarian view.

People do work long and hard in the name of religion. I'm convinced of something, but I'm not sure of what!

The sources showing Jesus of Nazareth lived in 1st century CE: (the same sources provide no proof of his resurrection or deity):

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

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

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

The Jesus Seminar after reviewing all the scriptural and non-scriptural documents from the time period, voted red (the event occurred) as follows:

Jesus was crucified

Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate

Jesus was crucified with the participation of the highest Jewish authorities

Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem

Jesus was crucified at Golgotha

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

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

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

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

See Professor Crossan's reviews of the existence of Jesus in his other books especially, The Historical Jesus and also Excavating Jesus (with Professor Jonathan Reed doing the archeology discussion) .

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

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

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

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

From ask.com,

"One of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, Cornelius Tacitus is a primary source for much of what is known about life the first and second centuries after the life of Jesus. His most famous works, Histories and Annals, exist in fragmentary form, though many of his earlier writings were lost to time. Tacitus is known for being generally reliable (if somewhat biased toward what he saw as Roman immorality) and for having a uniquely direct (if not blunt) writing style."

"Therefore to scotch the rumour, Nero substitured as culprits and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius by sentence of the procuator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was checked for the moment, only to break out again in Judea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find vogue." (Tacitus, Annals 15:44; Moore & Jackson 4.282-283)

MIKE writes:

"Give me a break!!! Can you prove to me ANYTHING that happened 2000 years ago? Here, I'll give you a break and answer that for you....NO. If your only argument against Christianity is this, you need to get out of your biased covered world and read a few books. You can't prove to me, or any other Christian, that Jesus DID NOT exist. If that happens, which it wont, then let me know. Christianity is not in vain...if it were, 1/3 of the world would not be professing Christians. Wake up!!! It's time to catch a glimpse of reality, regardless to how painful it may be to you. Sucks being beaten, doesn't it?"

Quite the uninformed, illogical rant, Mike.

Yes, one CAN prove many things that happened 2000 years ago, at least to a statistically high degree of certainty. It's simple, because physical proof exists for things that "have happened" millions and even billions of years ago. For instance, the written histories of the Egyptians and Romans are well supported by CORROBORATING PHYSICAL EVIDENCE for their claims, even in many cases where said written histories have been embellished with the mythical beliefs of those people and the times in which they lived.

What one CANNOT prove to a statistically high degree of certainty are things for which ONLY A LIMITED ORAL or WRITTEN RECORD EXIST, especially when said records stands IN CONTRADICTION to physical/empirical evidence, the laws of physics and many, many other markers that we humans use to separate REALITY from MYTH.

Can one prove a negative, ie: that Jesus didn't exist? Of course not. But what one CAN do is offer evidence that Jesus was MOST LIKELY a mythical creation of his times, a godman formed by men in the image of what a god was supposed to be.

Ask yourself this question: when were the attributes of what it meant to "be a god" defined? Before the birth of Jesus, or upon the birth of Jesus? The answer, of course, is BEFORE the birth of Jesus. Those common attributes of many (not all) gods included (in various combinations) virgin birth, supernatural powers displayed on earth in the form of performing miracles (like the ability to bring people back from the dead), martyrdom, resurrection, paving a way to heaven (Elysian fields) for the believers, promises of eternal life after death, and the many other attributes that we as humans associate with what it means to be a god.

Why do we do so? Because we humans have NONE of those attributes! We can't work miracles, we can't come back from the dead, etc. Beings who can do such things are different from humans. We call them gods. WE have defined what a god is, not the "gods" themselves.

Were Jesus the one and only true god, we would look at what he did and say, "his life and what he did is UNIQUE and it defines what it means to be a god." But the TRUTH is that IT IS THE OTHER WAY AROUND! Jesus' life CONFORMS to what ancient man had ALREADY DEFINED to what it meant to be a god, a definition and a description that proceeded even the creation of Yahweh in the OT.

Think about it.

In closing: why would you aver that "Xianity is not in vain...because 1/3 of the world's population...are professing Xinas?" Doesn't that mean that TWO THIRDS of the world's population are NOT professing Xians? If you are going to float numbers to support what you believe to be the truth, do you not LOSE the argument based upon the very numbers you offer to support the argument?

Thanks for the chat.

What is curious is the fact that so many characters in early Greek and Roman history have well established and well documented biographies, and yet the most important figure of all, Jesus of Nazerath, is such a tenuous figure.

After all, nothing whatsoever was written that referenced his life until perhaps 50 years or so after his death. The most famous historian of the day, Flavious Josephus, barely mentioned his existence if at all. Biblical scholars even today cannot say with certainty that Jesus ever lived, much less as a divine incarnation of God.

What we do know about humans (through much research) is that they can fabricate a reality out of absolute thin air and then proceed as though that illusion was the most solid and well established fact in the universe!

Religion is such a human thing, the gods are really secondary. How can the 'facts' of any theology really be trusted beyond the super-charged emotions that are invested in the associated beliefs?? Faith = fact in religion.

And that's the key - religion is non-rational and emotional and requires two things: a belief in life after death and a moral judgement of past behavior. These two elements are at the heart of every religion in some way, shape, or form.

It does seem as though one life is not sufficient unto the day - and this is true whether or not your faith subscribes to the doctrine of reincarnation.

Life after death is actually life after life said another way ..... and this twisty bit of psychology is really at the heart of religion when all is said and done.

Ebal Trace

Give me a break!!! Can you prove to me ANYTHING that happened 2000 years ago? Here, I'll give you a break and answer that for you....NO. If your only argument against Christianity is this, you need to get out of your biased covered world and read a few books. You can't prove to me, or any other Christian, that Jesus DID NOT exist. If that happens, which it wont, then let me know. Christianity is not in vain...if it were, 1/3 of the world would not be professing Christians. Wake up!!! It's time to catch a glimpse of reality, regardless to how painful it may be to you. Sucks being beaten, doesn't it?

I think that it would be appropriate to acknowledge the "international religious and historical importance of Christmas and the Christian faith" and "support for Christians in the United States and worldwide," IF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH WERE TRUE. But Christianity is not true and the Christian faith is in vain.

The Apostle Paul said.....
""And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain."" [1 Corinthians 15:14 (King James Version)]

If Jesus did not rise from the dead, as Christians believe, then the Christian faith is in vain. In my opinion there is no credibile evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. No one witnessed Jesus rising from the dead. Christians point to the "empty tomb" and the supposed "post resurrection appearances" reported in the Bible, as "proof" that Jesus rose from the dead. But this "proof" is easily explained away by a competent skeptic.

Extraordinary claims, such as Jesus rising from the dead, require extraordinary evidence, for a reasonable man to believe. Christianity has no credible evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, and therefore the Christian Faith is in vain, and it would be silly for the the US Government to acknowledge Christmas, Christianity, and the mythical Jesus.

Ebal Trace

Ahh, Pseudo, and one day you will finally see the light of fighting 1400 years of scripted koranic nonsense!!!! Feel free to use any of my fighting, factual scripture!!!!

Susan,

"'Twas the night before Christmas
And all through the House
Not a brain cell was stirring
Though non-Christians groused.
But Christians can revel with nary a care
For Congress hath spoken: elections are near."

Out of gas? Name calling is all you have left?

Calvin once said:

"Soozie is a booger brain"

Have you found your level?

csh nl:

Keep pasting the Same Old Stuff. But know that my shell script is more superior. It has a larger and more interesting string database.

Below freezing IQ, if you are not a bot. Not a very good bot, if you are one.

One just shakes one's head when reading posts by The Obfuscating Jihadist.

So let us repeat the real issue i.e. the stench of koranic Islam that brainwashes the minds of their members to the point they kill themselves, killing and maiming others in planned "imamian" processes in the name of Allah to include members of supposedly their own religion.

But Sunni and Shiites consider each other infidels as the Sunni vs. Shiite centuries-long, pre-USA feud continues 24/7. It even appears Benizar Bhutto may have been killed as part of this significantly stupid feud. And to think it all traces back to the hallucinations of an illiterate Arab!!!!!!

http://faroutliers.wordpress.com/2006/10/13/pakistans-transition-from-shia-to-sunni-leadership/

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0202/p01s02-wosc.html

"If we want peace as a nation and as humanity, it is up to each of us to work for it..and blasted all to Hades, stop blameing the innocent for the wrong doing of the guilty.

terra"

Thank you.

Ms. Susan Jacoby,

I just noticed and read your post on Benazir Bhutto's assassination.

I'm in a mood.

You stated: "Wherever they are, these people represent the forces of darkness, repression, and contempt for anyone who does not share their insanity."

Pro west or pro US leader
--------------------------

To be appended with being "pro west" or "pro US" is political loss of credibility for an aspiring politician in developing and/or Islamic states.

Being said to be "pro west" or pro US" made or many suspicious as to whether the said person is actually going to, or already prioritising and subsuming his/her country's political, economic and security interests for that of the west/US.

Agreeing on mutual interests and collaborating on them instead of one person or one state subsuming or marginalising the interests of the other is preferable to "US vs them", or "With US or against US". A famous riposte by you know who after 9/11 - "We are not with you, we are not with them."

US Interest
------------------------

In this age of CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera and the Internet, what the very talkative American officials, politicians, think tankers and assorted pundits said on countries they may not have heard of before, or do not know much about, or cared for much until chaos happened there, and they realised the said country has "strategic importance" in this and that way for the US, are very much quoted and reported. For example:

"The US interest is severely compromised"

(Not much said about the interest and well-being of the affected people of the country and the country itself).

"The US has lost influence and sway in the internal affairs there".

(Implying that the personalities and parties groomed, supported and projected by the US in the governemnt, media and funds are rejected by the locales)

"The US has lost a reliable friend and ally in (name of person, not country stated)"

(Same as above)

"We have to identify the right leaders there and support the political process."

(Always stated after a coup or an election results showing the US prefered and supported personalities and parties trounced badly)

The pattern - Very little said about what is good for the people and country in questioned, or whether they have any say in what kind of leaders and government they want.

Forces of darkness
--------------------

Forces of darkness, repression, and contempt for anyone who does not share their insanity is not necessarily the monopoly of rabib and ragged fanatics, extremists and fundamentalists who resort to violence to remove a democratically elected government or a dictatorship.

Forces of darkness, repression and contempt for anyone who do not share their insanity can also be applied to the Burmese Junta regime, the North Korean regime, the Cuban regime. Fanatics, extremists, fundamentalists, terrorists can be found in every stripe, mode and methods as forces of darkness. The Thai educated middle class that supported a coup removing a democratically elected government can also be said that too.

Musharraf of Pakistan consistently maintained (since he executed a coup removing an imperfect but still legitimately elected government) that he is against and after the forces of darkness and repression. Many Pakistanis said the very same thing about him and his regime regardless of whether they are liberals or fundamentalists.

There are different versions on what has happened, is happening and will happen in Pakistan by Pakistanis. The US version, interests, and aspirations for their country is something they are not into right now. A friend is only to butt in only when requested, wanted, accepted and trusted by all. Obviously, unilaterally butting in and interfering creates more problems. Especially by those coming out from behind walled up embassies increasingly designed like self-contained prison and self-imposed ghettorised life.

Makes one wants to weep for Americans how much their government's unnecessary blunderings and incompetence is costing their tax dollars. Money that could be used to address health and poverty alleviation among others. One can only suppose that only the rich and reckless can afford to waste money like that. What did F Scott Fitzgerald actually said in the "Great Gatsby"? Ah yes, "..the vast carelessness of rich."

Thank you and best regards

"J"

Dan, Dan, Dan, Dan, Dan,

For the "upteenth" time, here is a synopsis of the major contemporary religions: (peruse it and give your "op-ed" as to their validity)

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men. 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT. ***http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus. Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

3. Mohammed, an illiterate, womanizing, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Benizar Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic train bombers in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino koranics.
And who funds these acts of terror? The Islamic Shiite terror theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

4. Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

5. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site)

- "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centered and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’"
The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."

"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life.

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations, embellishments, lies and myths surrounding the founders of said rules of life.

CNNL, I didn't criticize you for being anonymous; I criticized you for being rude. Sorry I confused you with my simple observation. (You never did reply, though, by the way.)

I don't know why you would suppose or imagine that I should be able to answer your poorly formed questions; I certainly cannot.

Dan, Dan, Dan, Dan, Dan,

Hmmm, "Anon"? Yes indeed. Muslim "fruit cakes" don't take kindly to the truth about their founder and foundation. So "Anon"/CCNL is necessary.

And "Dan in the Lion's Den" is not Anon?

And I am surprised you do not know all the flaws in the major contemporary religions. They are presented on this forum on a weekly if not daily basis.

Dear CNNL,

How could you possibly expect me to know the answer to a question like that?

Sometimes, when faced with a perplexing problem, you just have to suck it up, and press on, with existential grit, and make the most of what you have. Being an anonymous sorehead isn't going to help.

I know you are rude because you are anonymous, and if you met the people here, in person, you would be polite to them. So, how come I know that, and you don't?

New to this kind of forum. You are interesting and concerned people!
Having just read the 64 comments that came from Susan Jacoby's response to HS 847: I am reminiscent of my early days at college. We were all dying to be heard, ready to espouse, ready to eloborate, ready to change the world. Words were powerful and those who wielded them masterfully held sway. It was only through the words of a humble sage that we "The Captains of Thought" were able to see the futility of fixing a broken planet without conviction and workable solutions to its problems. The dialogue I just read (though very interesting) is like a debate with no guidelines and workable conclusions. I agree it feels good to go off on someone whose worldview is not well conceived, but since all worldviews can not be true, the questions is which truth overshadows all the rest? Fearing the answer to this question could perpetuate into a never ending dejvu on the Blog. It is pretty much a given that we do not need HS 847--it is as was said in the comments "just a resolution". What then causes the heat that mashes our buttons? What in our worlds really make us passionate to action? Ms Bhutto's actions were in line with her conviction--had it been a preference she would still be alive. How are her convictions any better than the Jihadist who blows himself up for his belief?

One world view believes "Matter by itself arranged itself into information" Is that true? Another worldview believes a designer created all things and desires a relationship with his creation. Is that true? And many worldviews fall inbetween. It has been said, "To be wise is to know reality and then accommodate yourself to it." It has also been said, "Folly is a stubborn swimmng against the stream of the universe...spitting into the wind." And finally it has been said, "It is not only immoral but also foolish if we fail to recognize the structure of the universe--failing to recognize this we are constantly at odds with reality."

An old sage said, "What good is it to have all the answers if you don't know what the questions are?" I hate or love Christmas is not a question. What are the questions?

I apologize in advance if my thoghts are just provoking and not thought provoking.

NO MORE MR. & MRS. NICE GUY!

You killed "ALLAH" and now Allah is no-more "AKBAR" (Not Great!)!

We, not American's , but ECLATi-ON(s), of Space-Ship Earth, Will annhilliate your KABBA & your AL AQSA mosque in JERUSALEM !

Pleas, you have 72 Hours from this post , or else!!!!

Islam will be NO MORE! Good bye KABBA! Good bye AL AQSA!

Remember, surrender Mr. Osama Bin Laden , et al, or else!

The Destruction of the Kabba, like World trade Center's will be the fault of the Bin Ladin FAMILY!

We will Execute All your 73 Children & ALL of Mr. Osama's Family! et al!

WE win you loose! Ya Ya!

G-D Bless E*C*L*A*Ti-ON's!

'Chara' Islam & 'Gondoo' Islam! [Shiiiiit] Ya Ya!

O.U.R. PEOPLE are in position!

Good bye KABBA, good bye Al AQSA DOME!

This is not a game not a Test! You weill see!

Mr. Osama Bin Ladin et al, Last Time, Please

"Surrender" (DEAD or ALIVE), surrender in less than seventy two hours!!!!! Ya Ya!

P.S.: Pakisatan is "The VANGUARD of ISLAM" yet ECLATi-ON(s) are the VANGUARDS of SPACE-SHIP PLANET EARTH!

This is O.U.R. Prophecy not your's Islam!

Dan, Dan, Dan, Dan, Dan,

Since by now you know all the flaws of all the major contemporary religions and as all concerned global citizens wish to have them corrected, please give us your recommended procedures on how to proceed before the followers of the "death to the infidels" cults get their koranic hands on Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

CNNL,so you liked Benizar Bhutto, is that correct? S