I’m not sure if this topic has been mentioned before, but I’ll go ahead and make it anyway.

Did Jesus really exist? To answer this question, one must look at the evidence, but what evidence is there? Well, there is the bible. The Old Testaments prophecies can be thrown out, all that one needs to do is look them up to realize just how irrelevant they are. The New Testament on the other hand, isn’t as irrelevant. The only writings that could really be considered relevant to this question are the writings of the Gospels, the writings of Paul actually say he never seen Jesus “in the flesh”, only in a vision. So on to the Gospels. Luke admits in the first chapter that he is just retelling a story he heard, it reads as follows:

RSV Luke 1:1-4 - 1: Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent The-oph'ilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.

This entire Gospel can be thrown out as hearsay. The rest aren’t even worth going into detail over. Take for example the story the accounts of Easter. I challenge anyone, to write a chronological narrative of, or find one, of the events surrounding Easter, without omitting one single detail from any of the four accounts of it. Trust me, I’ve tried, it can’t be done. Now in a courtroom, when a witness contradicts another, or himself, it may be inferred he is less than truthful, and all of the testimony of that witness may be rejected. This doesn’t mean all the Gospels were lying, only two of them (since Luke admitted to not being an eyewitness, therefor putting him by default out of the race). Now we have only one Gospel left, whichever one that maybe, which doesn’t matter anyway. The Gospels describe narrative stories, written in the third person. People who wish to portray themselves as eyewitnesses will write in the first person, not in the third person. Moreover, many of the passages attributed to Jesus could only have come from the invention of its authors. For example, many of the statements of Jesus are said to have come from him when he is allegedly alone. If so, who heard him? It becomes even more marked when the evangelists report about what Jesus thought. To whom did Jesus confide his thoughts? Clearly, the Gospels employ techniques that fictional writers use. In any case the Gospels can only serve, at best, as hearsay, and at worst, as fictional, mythological, or falsified stories.

Now that the bible is thrown out as evidence for Jesus because of it is obviously hearsay, clearly contradicts the other accounts, or is just made up, we can go on to the other evidence. The most commonly cited evidence for Jesus outside of the bible are Josephus’s Antiquities of the Jews and Tacitus’s Annals. I haven’t looked at Tacitus’s Annals but I have read some of Josephu’s writings, and it clearly is a forgery. The small passage about Jesus interrupts the narrative, and he even calls him the Christ. Can you imagine, a pious Jew calling Jesus the Christ? It’s an obvious interpolation. Read it yourself here (http://wesley.nnu.edu/josephus/ant-18.htm), chapter 3 passage 3. The beginning of the following paragraph make it that much more obvious. Besides, none of this matters, because Josephus was born after Jesus supposedly died anyway, which makes it hearsay, just like Tacitus.

So, there is no reliable evidence outside of the bible that Jesus ever existed, but an argument from silence is weak. So what I do use to prove Jesus was a myth? Circumstantial evidence. The Jesus story parallels with so many other earlier myths it isn’t funny, but I’ll only mention Krshna here.

Krshna, according to the Bhagavad Gita (http://www.asitis.com/), a more ancient book than the New Testament, was born miraculously by a virgin, his birth attended by shepherds and angels. Krshna survived an edict by the tyrant Cansa, who ordered all the first born children to be put to death. Krsna escaped from being slain by being smuggled across a river. Krshna's baptism, or ablution, in the river Ganges, corresponds to Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist. As a child, Krshna was known for miracles, and for having slain demons. Krshna had a favorite disciple, Arjoon. He was anointed with oil by women, and enabled his disciples to net large amounts of fish with little effort. Krshna was "transfigured" at a place called Madura. Interestingly, in the Gospel of the Infancy, a writing once regarded by the church as authentic, Jesus and his parents once lived in a place called Materea. Krshna spoke in parables when he taught. Krshna taught that you should love your neighbor, forgive your enemies, avoid unchaste thoughts, and condemn worldly wealth.

As it can be clearly seen, without even going into much detail on my part, Jesus most likely was just a plagiarized myth from another religion(s).

[This message has been edited by Someone7 (edited September 07, 2000).]

Jesu ben Josef, or whatever you want to call him, probably really did live. The acts attributed to him were probably plagiarisms, however. They match earlier myths too closely. The movement seized on a high-profile political activist and turned him into a martyr. To ease the conversion of the pagans, they editted his life to make him more palatable. I used to have a link to a site that had a whole essay on this subject, but I have to find it again.

Jesus was a real man, only idiots believe otherwise. He is mentioned in roman court documents, and 4 biographies (more counting the gnostic gospesls) were written within 100 years of his death.

Whether or not you believe Jesus was the son of god or not, thats your business.

But dont deny his existence, which is fact.

Jesus was a real man, only idiots believe otherwise.

Y'crack me up, Hudson. :D

Anything's possible ... anything's possible.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

Hey Corp,

As I recall, you were going to get me some more information regarding those court documents quite some time ago. Did you ever find this information?

Blessings,

Emerald

------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.

“Jesu ben Josef, or whatever you want to call him, probably really did live. The acts attributed to him were probably plagiarisms, however. They match earlier myths too closely. The movement seized on a high-profile political activist and turned him into a martyr. To ease the conversion of the pagans, they editted his life to make him more palatable. I used to have a link to a site that had a whole essay on this subject, but I have to find it again.”

If he did exist, I wouldn’t call him a political activist, I’d call him a messiah wannabe just like the rest of them executed. A few were even mentioned in the bible, clearly a sign that a messiah was going to appear whether or not Jesus existed. But as I see it, there is no reason to even believe he existed. If you can find this essay later, please do post the URL to it so that I may read it.

“Jesus was a real man, only idiots believe otherwise. He is mentioned in roman court documents, and 4 biographies (more counting the gnostic gospesls) were written within 100 years of his death.
Whether or not you believe Jesus was the son of god or not, thats your business.
But dont deny his existence, which is fact.”

Where are these Roman court documents you speak of? I highly doubt anyone has found a record of the trial Jesus was sentenced at. You would think Pilate would have made records though. Anyhow, please provide proof of the existence of the evidence you cite, or I will just believe it to be false, whether you are making it up, or whether someone lied to you. It isn’t my job to prove that he didn’t exist, it’s your (or anyone trying to prove he did) job to prove he did. In light of the lack of evidence that I am aware of, there is no reason to believe Jesus ever existed, just like I don’t believe in any other mythological heroes because of the lack of proof of their existence. Besides, any other biographies written within a 100 years of his death is still hearsay, which makes it irrelevant.

Also, I’d like to note I am posting this from a friend’s house, and I probably won’t be posting very much. I’ll try and post when I can, but don’t expect to wait a day or two for responses.

It is my view that Jesus did live and still lives to this day. He fulfilled over 300 old testament prophesies, 29 on the day He died. Even the ones that weren't in His control like being born in Bethlehem(or maybe they were in his divine control).

Anyway, its up to you whether you want to believe me or not. There is outside biblical reference, there are Roman documents.

If you don't believe me I won't take it personally, and it won't hurt me in the slightest. The truth is the truth no matter how many believe it otherwise.

Even if you are atheist or agnostic, the bible is still true to its historical content. It contains Phillip of Macedonia, Alexander the great and even the Spartans of ancient Greece. It even has what I was taught in history class how there was a fight for control of the empire once Alexander the Great died, it even has what happened before he died.

1 Maccabees ch1 vs 1,2

And it happened, after that Alexander son of Philip, the Macedonian, who came out of the land of Chettiim, had smitten Darius king of the Persians and Medes, that he reigned in his stead, the first over Greece.
And made many wars, and won many strong holds, and slew the kings of the earth.

1 Maccabees vs 4-9

And after these things he fell sick, and perceived that he should die.
wherefore he called his servants, such as were honourable, and had been brought up with him from his youth, and parted his kingdom among them, while he was yet alive.
So Alexander reigned twelve years, and then died.
And his servants bare rule every one in his place.
And after his death they all put crowns upon themselves; so did their sons after them many years; and evils were multiplied in the earth.

Again I must stress, that I learnt these things in history class, and was surprised to see it recorded in the bible.

To me these aren't fairy tales. They are fact and did happen. I must also say that whether you want to believe it did happen or not is your choice. You are welcome to you points of view.

Emerald- I dont know if you also remember this, but I lent the book I read that in to a friend. I just got it back, and when I have time I will re-read the section to get the info for you.

Jesus is the Son of GOD !! He's Real, and comming again !

------------------
Loone !

[This message has been edited by Loone (edited September 11, 2000).]

Deadwood, just because the bible describes real events that took place, that doesn’t mean the bible can be taken as an accurate account of history. Surely you don’t believe the Greek gods existed just because the Iliad and the Odyssey describe real place/people/events. Don’t expect anyone to take the bible literally on that account. And what Roman documents do you and Corp keep referring to? Tacitus’s Annals, Pliny the Younger’s letters, the Roman historian Suetonius and his mention of “Chrestus”? Outside of these three completely unreliable sources, I have no idea what you or Corp are referring to.

I dare anyone to try and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, using the rules in our own judicial system, to try and verify that Jesus existed. There is no way in hell it could be done. The only evidence there is to prove he existed is hearsay, and biographies that are written in the third person (describing things they obviously made up) that all contradict each other. This is inadmissible evidence, so there is no evidence (except for the mysterious “Roman documents” Deadwood and Corp keep citing). Though an argument from silence is weak, the counter evidence for the non-existence of Jesus is all circumstantial. The story of Jesus so closely resembles older stories that it can’t be ignored. You can see for yourself how much the story of Krshna resembles Jesus’s story, but another one closely resembles it. The religion is called Mirthaism. Mithra was a fictional character who was worshipped as a Good Shepherd, the Way, the Truth and the Light, the Redeemer, the Savior, and the Messiah. A religion in his name was founded in the 6th century BCE. Mithraism one of the most popular of religions in the Roman Empire, particularly among its soldiers and civil servants. It was Christianity's leading rival. Like Jesus, Mithra was believed to have been born of a virgin on DEC-25. He was visited by shepherds and by Magi. He traveled through the countryside, taught, and performed miracles with his 12 disciples. He cast out devils, returned sight to the blind, healed the lame, etc. Symbols associated with Mithra were a Lion and a Lamb. He held a last supper, was killed, buried in a rock tomb. He rose again after three days later, at the time of the spring equinox, circa MAR-21. He later ascended into heaven. Mithraism celebrated the anniversary of his resurrection, similar to the Christian Easter. They held services on Sunday. Rituals included a Eucharist and six other sacraments that corresponded to later Christian rituals. Christianity most likely appropriated many details of Mithraism in order to make their religion more acceptable to Pagans. St. Augustine even stated that the priests of Mithra worshipped the same God as he did.

Of course, the very story of Jesus resembles many others in more traditional aspects. Jesus as portrayed in the gospels corresponds to the worldwide Mythic Hero Archetype in which a divine hero's birth is supernaturally predicted and conceived, the infant hero escapes attempts to kill him, demonstrates his precocious wisdom already as a child, receives a divine commission, defeats demons, wins acclaim, is hailed as king, then betrayed, losing popular favor, executed, often on a hilltop, and is vindicated and taken up to heaven. There are countless stories that fit this description, Hercules for one.

In conclusion, there is no real reason as I see to believe Jesus ever existed. There is no evidence (admissible in a court of law) that would support his existence, and there is plenty of circumstantial evidence against it. Only someone really wanting to believe would actually believe he existed in light of the evidence (or should I say, lack of evidence). Maybe my opinion will be changed when the mysterious “Roman documents” are given as evidence, though I doubt it.


[This message has been edited by Someone7 (edited September 11, 2000).]

Someone7- This is not a court of law. This is a discussion board. Even if this was a court of law, the fact that only circumstantial evidence exists does not prove that the events never happened. People have been executed on less evidence.

Looking at the foundation of any modern religion, we know that they are founded by real people. There is a reason churches across the world sprung up within 50 years of Jesus death- he was a real man, that converted real people.

Whats next, doubting the existence of Moses? Doubting the existence of Muhammed? Denying the existence of the first Buddha (or any of the others that followed)?

Please. Religions are not founded by a bunch of people sitting together thinking how to fool the masses. They are founded by actual people, who do actual things.

Someone,

And how about the strange similarities between the Old Testament "Joseph" and the New Testament "Jesus"? Joseph had 12 brothers, Jesus had 12 disciples; Joseph was sold for 20 pieces of silver, Jesus was sold for 30 pieces of silver; Joseph's brother, Judah, suggests the sale of Joseph, Judas sells Jesus; Joseph is in Egypt where the first born are killed, Jesus and family flee to Egypt to avoid the slaying of male children. Coincidence?

The Christian concept of the Holy Trinity also bears a strange resemblance to another ancient Bablyonian religion, in which Nimrod and his son, Tammuz, were the same person, and his mother, Queen Semiramis, was the Holy Spirit.

According to Abelard Reuchlin in "The True Authorship of the New Testament," the Church and Christianity were all the creation of the Calpurnius Piso family, who were Roman aristocrats.

One must ask oneself, why? Why create a religion that is nearly identical in so many ways to the already existing Pagan religions? Why not just leave things as they are? Well, the one thing that the Christian religion achieved, which the Pagan religions never could (or would), was suppression of the female energy for nearly 2000 years. That's what set it apart from the earlier religions. For example, the character, Paul (aka, Pliny the Younger?), wrote that women should submit to their husbands, women must not teach men, and women must be silent in church. He also wrote that husbands must submit to Christ. So now, whoever controls the Church, controls the world? Hmmm...the term "Holy Roman Empire" comes to mind...

------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.

“Someone7- This is not a court of law. This is a discussion board. Even if this was a court of law, the fact that only circumstantial evidence exists does not prove that the events never happened. People have been executed on less evidence.”

A court of law is used to establish truth, as is the scientific method. Since I can’t use the scientific method to verify Jesus’s existence or non-existence, we must rely on another system of deciding the truth, and the judicial method is the next best test. No one in modern times is ever executed on less evidence. You ever hear the saying “If it doesn’t fit you must acquit”? This is because in modern courts, a conviction on criminal activity can only be obtained if it is beyond reasonable doubt whether someone is guilty or innocent. In the instance, there is plenty of doubt in whether Jesus existed or not, much more than I have given on this forum. Without good evidence to suggest Jesus existed, it is only logical to assume he is a myth.

“Looking at the foundation of any modern religion, we know that they are founded by real people. There is a reason churches across the world sprung up within 50 years of Jesus death- he was a real man, that converted real people.”

Oh, and do you believe the Greek gods really existed because Homer wrote about them? If he was a real man that converted people, why did so many Jews not convert? Why don’t any of the many historians (about 40 I believe) of that time ever mention Jesus (the ones who were alive at that time and lived in the area that is)? How come the Gospels were written in Greek, yet anyone in Palestine in that time most likely spoke Aramaic? Could they have possibly been eyewitnesses when they write a story in third person, and write about things that Jesus said/thought while alone? Why do the Gospels contradict each other constantly? Why does Jesus’s story strongly resemble other stories at that time? Do you believe Mithra and Krshna existed as described in those stories also? Religions can spring up from nothing, especially when the stories wrote about are just plagiarized from other ones.

“Whats next, doubting the existence of Moses? Doubting the existence of Muhammed? Denying the existence of the first Buddha (or any of the others that followed)?”

Muhammed and (I think) Siddartha Gautama wrote books themselves, there is no reason to believe they didn’t exist because of the evidence there is (works they made). For Moses, I’m not so sure. I’d have to research it, but if there isn’t any evidence to suggest he did, then he is most likely just a myth.

“Please. Religions are not founded by a bunch of people sitting together thinking how to fool the masses. They are founded by actual people, who do actual things.”

So you’re saying it’s impossible that Jesus didn’t exist because “They are founded by actual people, who do actual things”? Tell me, did the Greek gods exist? Do the extreme resemblance to other mythical people mean nothing? What evidence is there to suggest he lived other than hearsay? Do you believe the Gospels, that were written in Greek, and dated (at the very, very least) several decades after Jesus supposedly died, were written by eyewitnesses? And where are those “Roman court documents” anyway?

Emerald:

“The Christian concept of the Holy Trinity also bears a strange resemblance to another ancient Bablyonian religion, in which Nimrod and his son, Tammuz, were the same person, and his mother, Queen Semiramis, was the Holy Spirit.”

Let’s not forget the divine unity of Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva (Hindu) and Horus, Ra, and Atum (Egyptian).

“One must ask oneself, why? Why create a religion that is nearly identical in so many ways to the already existing Pagan religions? Why not just leave things as they are? Well, the one thing that the Christian religion achieved, which the Pagan religions never could (or would), was suppression of the female energy for nearly 2000 years. That's what set it apart from the earlier religions. For example, the character, Paul (aka, Pliny the Younger?), wrote that women should submit to their husbands, women must not teach men, and women must be silent in church. He also wrote that husbands must submit to Christ. So now, whoever controls the Church, controls the world? Hmmm...the term "Holy Roman Empire" comes to mind...”

Pliny the Younger wasn’t Paul (a.k.a. Saul).

[This message has been edited by Someone7 (edited September 12, 2000).]

Pliny the Younger wasn’t Paul (a.k.a. Saul).

Someone,

What I'm suggesting in a round-about sort of way here is that Paul was a creation of Pliny the Younger, therefore the letters that "Paul/Saul" wrote were actually written by Pliny. It is merely a suggestion, hence the added question mark. I thought perhaps you might be familiar with this idea, but then again, maybe not. Oh well...

Blessings,

Emerald

------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.

Someone7, you said that Muhammud wrote a book. He didn't. In fact he was illiterate. How can an illiterate person write a book? He dictated what he was told to other people to write it.

I also find it strange, that he was a business man who travelled the world and yet he was illiterate. Also, it was years, until he told the people what he was 'supposedly' told.

Since it was so long after he had told the scribes, it is hard to say if he dictated it all correctly, some things are difficult to comprehend. Here is one example, You can marry as many women as you want as long as you can afford it and love them all equally.

If I got married, how could I ever think about marrying someone else?

Also, it says that Muhammud is the last prophet, yet they also say that Jesus the most perfect prophet and he will return. So what is this, Muhummud was the last prophet and Jesus is the last last(not a typo) prophet.

If you want to read into evidence outside of the bible, there is a book called "evidence that demands a verdict"m this deals with evidence outside of the bible.

I must also point out that I live by faith.
Enerald, I also think the similarity thing that you pointed out between Joseph and Jesus was very good. I had never thought to look at things like that. For me, that is more proof that Jesus is who He claimed to be.

Remember, there are over 300 prophecies that Jesus fulfilled in the new testament. 29 were fulfilled on the day He died. I think that none of you people could even fulfill at least 10 of them, let over 300.

But remember, if you don't want to listen to what I've said, that is your choice. God is the god of the free will. We even have the free will to sin if we wish to. If you want to believe in him, you have that choice. If not, that is your choice also.

I haven't really been part of this conversation, but I have a small comment to throw in.

Deadwood,

You asked: "If I got married, how could I ever think about marrying someone else?"

I just wanted to point out that multiple marriages are alive and well in the US and elsewhere to this day. The term "polyamory" has been coined for people that love more than just a single spouse. (look it up on the internet, it's quite educational) Definitely not a type of marriage for everyone, but there are quite a few people out there that are in love with more than one person, and live happily in what is to all intents and purposes a polygamous marriage. Might not be married as per the governments standards, but I've always believed marriage is a state of mind and a commitment made between people in love, not a sheet of paper with a couple of scribbles on it.

Just tossin' a couple pennies into the well.

Blessings,
~MoonCat

Remember, there are over 300 prophecies that Jesus fulfilled in the new testament. 29 were fulfilled on the day He died. I think that none of you people could even fulfill at least 10 of them, let over 300.

I need to put you on the spot for this one ... list 'em.

And it might be easier to remember that we cannot discount the Jews; after all, I trust the Jewish take on the Old Testament prophecies which Christians relate to Jesus much more seriously than I do that of modern Christianity. So does that 300 include the Old Testament? If we throw those out because they're irrelevant, does that leave you a number of prophecies that you could document without blowing an entire weekend's labor? (I don't need the info that badly; if I did, I might try slogging through the internet's resources looking for a summary of the 300 prophecies that didn't bear the standar Christian presuppositions; and, to be fair, which works to avoid assumptions of counterpoint.)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

“Someone7, you said that Muhammud wrote a book. He didn't. In fact he was illiterate. How can an illiterate person write a book? He dictated what he was told to other people to write it.”

Yes, an oversight on my part. I believe it was his slave (adopted son) Zaid who wrote his visions down. Of course, that still doesn’t make the Qu’ran hearsay, if the author(s) claims to have been there, have meet Mohammed, claimed that Mohammed told him this, etc, etc. The Gospels never claim to be any of the apostles, nor do they claim to have witnessed anything they write about (Luke even admits his story is hearsay: Luke 1:1-4). They also wrote about things that they couldn’t possibly know about, like what Jesus said while alone, or what he was thinking. Though I haven’t actually read much of the Qu’ran (I got one on my computer at home, it’s a really hard to navigate program run out of DOS), so I can’t be sure whether or not what is claimed in the book is admissible evidence.

“I also find it strange, that he was a business man who travelled the world and yet he was illiterate. Also, it was years, until he told the people what he was 'supposedly' told.
Since it was so long after he had told the scribes, it is hard to say if he dictated it all correctly, some things are difficult to comprehend. Here is one example, You can marry as many women as you want as long as you can afford it and love them all equally.”

A similar argument could be made for the Gospels. At the earliest, the Gospel of Mark is dated at 70 C.E., 40 years after the supposed death of Jesus. If Mark was an apostle, and around the same age as Jesus, he was a 70 year old man, writing a story about events that supposedly happened 40 years ago. Maybe he forgot what exactly happened, or maybe he was just senile and making it all up.

“If you want to read into evidence outside of the bible, there is a book called "evidence that demands a verdict"m this deals with evidence outside of the bible.”

It probably deals with a lot more than just trying to prove Jesus existed, it probably goes into a bunch of outdated arguments against evolution, trying to prove the Flood really did happen, etc, etc. I really don’t care to waste my time reading pseudo-science and old arguments for obviously mythological events.

“I must also point out that I live by faith.
Enerald, I also think the similarity thing that you pointed out between Joseph and Jesus was very good. I had never thought to look at things like that. For me, that is more proof that Jesus is who He claimed to be.”

How does that prove anything besides possible plagiarism?

Faith- Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

“Remember, there are over 300 prophecies that Jesus fulfilled in the new testament. 29 were fulfilled on the day He died. I think that none of you people could even fulfill at least 10 of them, let over 300.”

Many of the prophecies Jesus “fulfilled” are totally irrelevant to what the original OT passages were talking about. Take for example, Matthew 21: 1-5; Jesus “fulfills” prophecy by telling two of his disciples to steal someone’s donkey, riding into town on it. The prophecy he “fulfills” goes as follows:

"Tell the daughter of Zion,
Behold, your king is coming to you,
humble, and mounted on an ass,
and on a colt, the foal of an ass."

Let’s see, he never was a king, nor did anyone tell daughter of Zion (what/who ever the hell that is supposed to be), and he didn’t seem so humble when he “entered the temple of God and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons” right after he showed up. Is that what you consider fulfilling prophecy? Maybe that should be taken down to “299” prophecies “fulfilled”.

“But remember, if you don't want to listen to what I've said, that is your choice. God is the god of the free will. We even have the free will to sin if we wish to. If you want to believe in him, you have that choice. If not, that is your choice also.”

Why should I believe Yahweh exists? Is there any rational explanation as to why I should believe an intelligent being, that has never been seen or heard (outside of stories that are thousands of years old), that doesn’t bother to communicate with humanity, that leaves no trace of its existence, actually exists? Should I also start believing in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and Green elephants with pink dots that stand 3 inches tall that fly behind our heads that are invisible and immaterial yet somehow steer us on the right path (hehe)?

"Faith- Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."

Here's something interesting: a woman from the schizophrenia society came into my psych classroom and gave a talk. In it she defined a delusion as:
“A firm believe in something without basis in reality.”

------------------

Green elephants with pink dots that stand 3 inches tall that fly behind our heads that are invisible and immaterial yet somehow steer us on the right path

Yeah, like Freddie, who lives in my neighbor's apple tree, and is the God of Drunken Visions? He tells me to burn things .... :D

--Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

I remember from one of my books on the history of Christianity that Jesus was found to be of fairly noble birth and that he was a direct descendent of David. This explains the mocking phrase, at the time of his execution, that he was king of the Jews. I also seem to recall that the anniversary of the 3rd Jewish millennium was approaching and there was an enormous expectation that this was going to bring about the end of the world and that a savior would arise. There were hundreds who proclaimed that they were the “savior”. Jesus was just another misguided rebel like the others but had the unfortunate lineage that singled him out by the authorities as a suitable victim that would help them suppress the dangerous religious uprisings.

Jesus had nothing to do with Christianity. That unfortunate cancer was created primarily by Paul.

Someone7

You could do with some more extensive material for your arguments. Try this website and look at the short booklist. If you can find the time to read one of them I think you will be pleased.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism

You might try this one first -

Smith, George H.
"Atheism: The Case Against God"


Welcome.



[This message has been edited by Cris (edited September 20, 2000).]

Originally posted by Cris:
You could do with some more extensive material for your arguments.

You could try going into more detail yourself.

There is more written to document that Jesus existed than there is to document that George Washington, the first President of the United States of America, ever existed. Where would be an appropriate place for me to argue that George Washington never existed? Forget it. I don't have time for that.

Only if you count the Gospels as eyewitness accounts is there any useful evidence for Jesus's existence (of course I outlined why they shouldn't be counted as evidence, from Luke admitting he isn't an eyewitness to how the 4 accounts contradict each other).

Your comparison of Jesus to George Washington is weak. There are many people in history who wrote about him from personal experience (i.e. not hearsay), unlike Jesus.

There is more written to document that Jesus existed than there is to document that George Washington, the first President of the United States of America, ever existed.

Josephus told us about a number of things in Roman history. Many writers since have told us more detail about Roman history, though they may not have been able to accomplish their work without speculating on Josephus.

(No, I'm not claiming Josephus to be 100% true or free of personal prejudice. It's just an example.)

Sure we have some really old scrolls and pages, written in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and eventually any language in the world. Yet only a certain amount of this is trusted as authoritative (the portion referred to as the Bible).

Now, is all that documentation original source documentation? (In the modern day that would be credit card receipts, hotel registries, arrest records, ad nauseam ... even parking tickets.) It seems to me that most of what Jesus did was documented after his life, and even the most authoritative versions were never meant to be interpreted, twisted, and dissected the way they have been over time.

Is the large amount of documentation you refer to original or secondary? Is it "fact" as we trust source material, or is it speculative?

Is it an original part of the event, or a summary of?

All of the work that has come since the Apostolic Fathers has been based on the assumption that the information handed down is still intact, unsullied, and correct.

History tells us that this is impossible. I mean, the Bible itself has been bowdlerized, formalized, "canonized".

So it's entirely possible that all of that documentation contains philosophical, historical, and factual flaws that have never been corrected; that have merely been accepted as truth. But unless it's source material (and sometimes, even when it is), truth requires a convention of presuppositions between writer and reader.

Insofar as a person might accept the Bible as a true account, many of the presuppositions of the later documentation are in place. If, however, you do not accept the Bible as wholly true ... essentially, for one not possessed by their faith in this version of God, there are things to reconcile. And it's in looking at those that one begins to see that documentation or no, most of it rests upon assumptions that can't be proven until Jesus really does or doesn't return.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

Hey everyone, I've been quiet for the last weak because I've been on holiday for a weak. Good to be back.

The question being put forward is did Jesus really exist?

Let me ask you this, if he didn't, why would a bunch of people go risking there lives telling people about a lie, a fairy tale. This would be what you would call illogical.

now let me tell you this, Jesus is still alive and well to this very well. In fact He has always and I mean always, ever since the beginning been alive.

I don't understand how you people can debate whether there is a God or not and deliberately take the bible out of the picture. To me this is saying that you want to take out of the picture something that God has specifically put in place to find you. Thats right to find you, His people whom He loves with an undying, everlasting love.

I ask you with curiosity, where do the Gospels contradict each other?

Also, I must respond to the allegation that God has been quiet for the last 2 mellenia. I am actually quite the opposite. I believe there are more prophets living today then ever before. God is doing miraculous things all over the world, even in my life, He answers prayers, sometimes even straight away, I even may be told the answer straight away directly by his spirit, the Holy Spirit. :)

I would strongly recommend reading any of Philip Yancey's books. He's a great author on Christianity. Right now I am reading "The Jesus I never knew" I'm telling you, the Jesus I thought I knew is a Jesus who is so much different.

Also, I must point out how I spoke about the similarities of Joseph(in the old testament) and Jesus' life and how it is plajurism. I must ask if all fulfillment of prophecy is plajurism? Also, I must say that Jesus didn't go around with a checklist, ticking the things that He had to do each day. Even prophecies were fulfilled like the actual year the Messiah was to be born as told in the book of Daniel, as well as the virgin birth as told in Isiah. These are prophecies out of His control, unless Jesus really is the Son of God, whom he claimed to be.

Yes, there were pseudo-messiahs back then, claiming to be the Messiah, and leading revolts and all sorts of things against the Roman Empire. However, Jesus did something completely different, instead of focusing attention on the kingdom of Israel or the kingdom of Rome, He focused His attention on the Kingdom of God. He never claimed to be the greatest, He never ever forced anyone to follow Him, He had loving, kindness, patience, faithfulness, goodness, self control all the fruits of the Spirit in abundance(and a few more, nine in total, which I can't remember off hand).

I stress again, READ ANY BOOKS WRITTEN BY PHILIP YANCEY, he was an agnostic, he had many doubts, even when he became a christian. But he IS NOT afraid of answering the tough questions. He goes into many topics which may trouble some of you people. If you're serious about finding out about Jesus and christianity. Why certain things are as they are. For instance, if God exists why doesn't he just show himself once and for all? Why doesn't he show himself right now? Also, in the book titled "Disapointment with God" I havn't read it yet but my brother was telling me it goes deep into the old testament, talking about the suffering and what would seem as unjustness and explaining it, I look forward to reading this one. A friendly warning, my brother got addicted to this book and read it in two days.

Nicky Gumble is also extremely good. A good book is, "Questions about life" and "Telling others" which deals with seven issues like Why is there suffering, also homosexuality, sex before marriage, science and Christianity, other religions, and two others which again I cannot remember offhand.

You will find that God doesn't want you to be afraid of Him, He isn't some big meany in the sky, He wants a personal relationship with you, He wants you to love Him. Remember, God loves you with an everlasting love, nothing you can do can make Him love you more, and nothing you can do can make Him love you less.

I know, the church has done terrible things in the past, things that even Jesus would be appalled at hearing. Please, I ask you try to see things by Gods perspective, and ask, would He really want these things to happen? Just more food for thought. :)

God bless you all.

Deadwood,

People have worshipped Deity in their own ways since the beginning of time. How can one way be more valid than another? It just so happens that you have chosen the patriarchal Christian pantheon, which includes "The Father", "The Son" and "The Holy Ghost". Another person might choose a matriarchal Triplicity such as Diana, Selene and Hecate. How is your choice more valid than theirs?

The way I see it, all paths lead to The One, and therefore, all paths are valid. The problem arises only when one asserts that his or her chosen path is more valid than another's, or that his or her path is "The One and Only True Path to God", and all other paths lead to destruction. This especially becomes a problem when one group takes it upon themselves to bring about said destruction of the other groups, such as what happened during the tragedy known as the Inquisition. Hopefully, we can all learn from past mistakes and not repeat them.

Blessings,

Emerald

------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.

>The way I see it, all paths lead to The One, and therefore, all paths are valid. The problem arises only when one asserts that his or her chosen path is more valid than another's, or that his or her path is "The One and Only True Path to God", and all other paths lead to destruction...
*snip*
Blessings,
Emerald
-----

If I was still Christian, I would say that Emerald’s argument is flawed because I possessed a more tenable belief system. (It was the apologetics of the Catholic Faith which drew me to it so deftly.) I would make this pronouncement with absolute confidence in my faith, in the Bible and in the church. I was not a fundamentalist. I believed that if non-Christians acted in good conscience, Jesus would give them a path to himself. They might know him by a different name but they would somehow find him.

The two viewpoints are not the same. For those who missed it, I maintained the assertion that Jesus was the only way to heaven. I, however, allowed for his ways to be beyond human understanding. It never occurred to me that I myself may not know the true face of God.

As to the Topic, I don’t know enough about the historical information to make a judgement. It is, however, quite clear that the Jesus as described in the bible did not exist. An interesting legend.

------------------
Regards,
Tim (Synaesthesia)
Memento, homo, quia pulvis es.

If I was still Christian, I would say that Emerald’s argument is flawed because I possessed a more tenable belief system.

And I would argue that any belief system that places itself so far above all the rest is flawed. Just out of curiosity, what is your current belief system?

------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.

I don't think that because a religion puts itself above others that it is for that reason flawed. My non belief is due to flaws shared by all religions.

Emerald: I am an atheist.

------------------
Regards,
Tim (Synaesthesia)
Memento, homo, quia pulvis es.

"Let me ask you this, if he didn't, why would a bunch of people go risking there lives telling people about a lie, a fairy tale. This would be what you would call illogical."

I don't assert that Christianity was originally a planed conspiracy, so I don't know if they it was a lie in the sense that they were trying to fool people to gain power (or trying to make one Roman religion by mixing several), or if they actually were spreading the "good news" in faith that is was true (though originally, it was most likely a blatant lie).

Besides, that isn't proof. People have died for beliefs long before Jesus supposedly lived, and still do to this day. WACO comes to mind. Illogical doesn't necessarily mean logically impossible either.

"I ask you with curiosity, where do the Gospels contradict each other?"

I gave you an example Easter. I guess I'll have to cite scripture.

Who was at the location of the sepulchre (to do whatever)?

Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary
Mark: Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome
Luke: Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women
John: Mary Magdalene

What did they come to do?

Matthew: see the sepulchre
Mark: anoint him
Luke: it implies anoint
John: it implies to see him

What time of day was it?

Matthew: it began to dawn
Mark: very early in the morning (at the rising of the sun it says)
Luke: very early in the morning
John: it was yet dark

Was the sepulchre door rolled away when they got there?

Matthew: No (“the Lord” did it)
Mark: Yes
Luke: Yes
John: Yes

Who was there to tell them Jesus’s body was gone?

Matthew: One angel (the Lord)
Mark: One young man.
Luke: Two men.
John: Two angels

What did they have to say?

Matthew: Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
Mark: Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.
Luke: Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee. Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.
John: Woman, why weepest thou?

I could go on and on, with this day alone, but why bother?

Jesus was a real man, only idiots believe otherwise.


This statement is often made by people who have done no research of their own.

NO first century historian confirms the existence of Jesus. There were historians (Philo-Judaeus and Justus of Tiberius, for example) living in or near Jerusalem during Christ's alleged lifetime, but wrote not one word about him. Then there is Flavius Josephus, who was born about 38 CE, and has a paragraph on Jesus. But most scholars, including most Christian ones, agree that Josephus's account is a forgery-- earlier versions of his work dating from before the second century do not mention Jesus at all. The flowery and worshipful paragraph on Jesus was probably added to Josephus's work at the beginning of the 4th century CE, during Constantine's reign, by Bishop Eusebius (who said that it was permissible for Christians to lie in order to further the kingdom of god).

The following passage is from The Jesus Problem, pages 121-122, by historian J. M. Robertson, published in 1917:

"If the defenders of the historicity of the gospel Jesus would really stand by Josephus as a historian of Jewry in the first Christian century, they would have to admit that he is the most destructive of all the witnesses against them. It is not merely that the famous interpolated passage is flagrantly spurious in every aspect -- in its impossible context; its impossible language of semi-worship; its "He was (the) Christ"; its assertion of the resurrection; and its allusion to "ten thousand other wonderful things" of which the historian gives no other hint-- but that the flagrant interpolation brings into deadly relief the absence of all mention of the crucified Jesus and his sect where mention must have been made by the historian if they had existed. If, to say nothing of "ten thousand wonderful things," there was any movement of a Jesus of Nazareth with twelve disciples in the period of Pilate, how came the historian to ignore it utterly? If, to say nothing of the resurrection story, Jesus had been crucified by Pilate, how came it that there is no hint of such an episode in connection with Josephus' account of the Samaritan tumult in the next chapter? And if a belief in Jesus as a slain and returning Messiah had been long on foot before the fall of the Temple, how comes it that Josephus says nothing of it in connection with his full account of the expectation of a coming Messiah at that point. By every test of loyal historiography, we are not merely forced to reject the spurious passage as the most obvious interpolation in all literature: we are bound to confess that the "Silence of Josephus," as is insisted by Professor Smith, is an insurmountable negation of the gospel story. For that silence, no tenable reason can be given, on the assumption of the general historicity of the gospels and Acts."

The existence of an actual Jesus is very much in doubt. The famous humanitarian Albert Schweitzer studied the problem of Jesus and concluded that he did not exist. Most of the Founding Fathers of America, including Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, James Madison and George Washington, denied the divinity of Jesus.

The New Testament gospels were written 80-100 CE, and the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were attached later by the early church. Matthew and Luke were constructed from Mark, and John is thought to be written even later by early church leaders. There is no evidence that these people lived at all. The messiah construct was very common 2000+ years ago. Consider Mithra, a messianic figure who pre-dated Christ by several hundred years, and who also was born of a virgin, had a last supper and was crucified. And he had 12 apostles. Other messiah figures also had 12 followers-- representing the 12 mystical signs of the zodiac.

Onslaught,
Excellent post...however don't be surprised if it gets ignored. I honestley hope it doesn't and you get a better response then a question about why you hate so much or some such non-sense....

Eagerly awaiting a christain response.

LOL!!!!!!!!! not one response!!!!! LOL. So much for the so called christain truth. You can't even give a historical proof of your messiah.

That's because there is no historical proof of Jesus. Trust me, I looked, the only evidence ever cited for Jesus's existence are Josephus, Tacitus, and sometimes Suetonius, three completely unreliable sources (especially Josephus). And what do they do when they're backed into a corner? They give the "prove (insert famous historical person here) existed" line, which of course means nothing. If they knew anything about historiography, they wouldn't say such a dumb thing.

Jesus is about as real as any other diety.

For your consideration:

Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ
William Lane Craig

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After an appraisal of recent scholarship on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Professor William Craig contends that "the resurrection appearances, the empty tomb, and the origin of the Christian faith - all point unavoidably to one conclusion: the resurrection of Jesus".

Source: "Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Truth 1 (1985): 89-95.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Man," writes Loren Eisley, "is the Cosmic Orphan." He is the only creature in the universe who asks, Why? Other animals have instincts to guide them, but man has learned to ask questions. "Who am I?" he asks. "Why am I here? Where am I going?"

Ever since the Enlightenment, when modern man threw off the shackles of religion, he has tried to answer these questions without reference to God. But the answers that came back were not exhilarating, but dark and terrible. "You are an accidental by-product of nature, the result of matter plus time plus chance. There is no reason for your existence. All you face is death. Your life is but a spark in the infinite darkness, a spark that appears, flickers, and dies forever."

Modern man thought that in divesting himself of God, he had freed himself from all that stifled and repressed him. Instead, he discovered that in killing God, he had also killed himself.

Against this background of the modern predicament, the traditional Christian hope of the resurrection takes on an even greater brightness and significance. It tells man that he is no orphan after all, but the personal image of the Creator God of the universe; nor is his life doomed in death, for through the eschatological resurrection he may live in the presence of God forever.

This is a wonderful hope. But, of course, hope that is not founded in fact is not hope, but mere illusion. Why should the Christian hope of eschatological resurrection appear to modern man as anything more than mere wishful thinking? The answer lies in the Christian conviction that a man has been proleptically raised by God from the dead as the forerunner and exemplar of our own eschatological resurrection. That man was Jesus of Nazareth, and his historical resurrection from the dead constitutes the factual foundation upon which the Christian hope is based.

Of course, during the last century liberal theology had no use for the historical resurrection of Jesus. Since liberal theologians retained the presupposition against the possibility of miracles which they had inherited from the Deists, a historical resurrection was a priori simply out of the question for them. The mythological explanation of D. F. Strauss enabled them to explain the resurrection accounts of the New Testament as legendary fictions. The belief in the historical resurrection was a hangover from antiquity which it was high time for modern man to be rid of. Thus, in liberal theology's greatest study of the historicity of the resurrection, Kirsopp Lake's The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (1907), Lake carefully plots the legendary development of the resurrection narratives from the root historical event of the women's visit to the wrong tomb. He concludes that it is not the end anyway: what is vital for Christian theology is the belief in the immortality of the soul, the belief that our departed friends and relatives are still alive and that in time we shall be re-united with them. Thus, the NT has been replaced by the Phaedo.

Liberal theology could not survive World War I, but its demise brought no renewed interest in the historicity of Jesus' resurrection, for the two schools that succeeded it were united in their devaluation of the historical with regard to Jesus. Thus, dialectical theology, propounded by Karl Barth, championed the doctrine of the resurrection, but would have nothing to do with the resurrection as an event of history. In his commentary on the book of Romans (1919), the early Barth declared, "The resurrection touches history as a tangent touches a circle-that is, without really touching it." Existential theology, exemplified by Rudolf Bultmann, was even more antithetical to the historicity of Jesus' resurrection. Though Bultmann acknowledged that the earliest disciples believed in the literal resurrection of Jesus and that Paul in I Corinthians 15 even attempts to prove the resurrection, he nevertheless pronounces such a procedure as "fatal." It reduces Christ's resurrection to a nature miracle akin to the resurrection of a corpse. And modern man cannot be reasonably asked to believe in nature miracles before becoming a Christian. Therefore, the miraculous elements of the gospel must be demythologized to reveal the true Christian message: the call to authentic existence in the face of death, symbolized by the cross. The resurrection is merely a symbolic re-statement of the message of the cross and essentially adds nothing to it. To appeal to the resurrection as historical evidence, as did Paul, is doubly wrong-headed, for it is of the very nature of existential faith that it is a leap without evidence. Thus, to argue historically for the resurrection is contrary to faith. Clearly then, the antipathy of liberal theology to the historicity of Jesus' resurrection remained unrelieved by either dialectical or existential theology.

But a remarkable change has come about during the second half of the 20th century. The first glimmerings of change began to appear in 1953. In that year Ernst Käsemann, a pupil of Bultmann, argued at a Colloquy at the University of Marburg that Bultmann's historical skepticism toward Jesus was unwarranted and counterproductive and suggested re-opening the question of where the historical about Jesus was to be found. A new quest of the historical Jesus had begun. Three years later in 1956 the Marburg theologian Hans Grass subjected the resurrection itself to historical inquiry and concluded that the resurrection appearances cannot be dismissed as mere subjective visions on the part of the disciples, but were objective visionary events.

Meanwhile the church historian Hans Freiherr von Campenhausen in an equally epochal essay defended the historical credibility of Jesus' empty tomb. During the ensuing years a stream of works on the historicity of Jesus' resurrection flowed forth from German, French and English presses. By 1968 the old skepticism was a spent force and began dramatically to recede. So complete has been the turn-about during the second half of this century concerning the resurrection of Jesus that it is no exaggeration to speak of a reversal of scholarship on this issue, such that those who deny the historicity of Jesus' resurrection now seem to be the ones on the defensive. Perhaps one of the most significant theological developments in this connection is the theological system of Wolfhart Pannenberg, who bases his entire Christology on the historical evidence for Jesus' ministry and especially the resurrection. This is a development undreamed of in German theology prior to 1950. Equally startling is the declaration of one of the world's leading Jewish theologians Pinchas Lapid, that he is convinced on the basis of the evidence that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead. Lapide twits New Testament critics like Bultmann and Marxsen for their unjustified skepticism and concludes that he believes on the basis of the evidence that the God of Israel raised Jesus from the dead.

What are the facts that underlie this remarkable reversal of opinion concerning the credibility of the New Testament accounts of the resurrection of Jesus? It seems to me that they can be conveniently grouped under three heads: the resurrection appearances, the empty tomb, and the origin of the Christian faith. Let's look briefly at each.

First, the resurrection appearances. Undoubtedly the major impetus for the reassessment of the appearance tradition was the demonstration by Joachim Jeremias that in 1 Corinthians 15: 3-5 Paul is quoting an old Christian formula which he received and in turn passed on to his converts According to Galatians 1:18 Paul was in Jerusalem three years after his conversion on a fact-finding mission, during which he conferred with Peter and James over a two week period, and he probably received the formula at this time, if not before. Since Paul was converted in AD 33, this means that the list of witnesses goes back to within the first five years after Jesus' death. Thus, it is idle to dismiss these appearances as legendary. We can try to explain them away as hallucinations if we wish, but we cannot deny they occurred. Paul's information makes it certain that on separate occasions various individuals and groups saw Jesus alive from the dead. According to Norman Perrin, the late NT critic of the University of Chicago: "The more we study the tradition with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear upon which they are based." This conclusion is virtually indisputable.

At the same time that biblical scholarship has come to a new appreciation of the historical credibility of Paul's information, however, it must be admitted that skepticism concerning the appearance traditions in the gospels persists. This lingering skepticism seems to me to be entirely unjustified. It is based on a presuppositional antipathy toward the physicalism of the gospel appearance stories. But the traditions underlying those appearance stories may well be as reliable as Paul's. For in order for these stories to be in the main legendary, a very considerable length of time must be available for the evolution and development of the traditions until the historical elements have been supplanted by unhistorical. This factor is typically neglected in New Testament scholarship, as A. N. Sherwin-White points out in Roman Law and Roman Society tn the New Testament. Professor Sherwin-White is not a theologian; he is an eminent historian of Roman and Greek times, roughly contemporaneous with the NT. According to Professor Sherwin-White, the sources for Roman history are usually biased and removed at least one or two generations or even centuries from the events they record. Yet, he says, historians reconstruct with confidence what really happened. He chastises NT critics for not realizing what invaluable sources they have in the gospels. The writings of Herodotus furnish a test case for the rate of legendary accumulation, and the tests show that even two generations is too short a time span to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical facts. When Professor Sherwin-White turns to the gospels, he states for these to be legends, the rate of legendary accumulation would have to be 'unbelievable'; more generations are needed. All NT scholars agree that the gospels were written down and circulated within the first generation, during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses. Indeed, a significant new movement of biblical scholarship argues persuasively that some of the gospels were written by the AD 50's. This places them as early as Paul's letter to the Corinthians and, given their equal reliance upon prior tradition, they ought therefore to be accorded the same weight of historical credibility accorded Paul. It is instructive to note in this connection that no apocryphal gospel appeared during the first century. These did not arise until after the generation of eyewitnesses had died off. These are better candidates for the office of 'legendary fiction' than the canonical gospels. There simply was insufficient time for significant accrual of legend by the time of the gospels' composition. Thus, I find current criticism's skepticism with regard to the appearance traditions in the gospels to be unwarranted. The new appreciation of the historical value of Paul's information needs to be accompanied by a reassessment of the gospel traditions as well.

Second, the empty tomb. Once regarded as an offense to modern intelligence and an embarrassment to Christian theology, the empty tomb of Jesus has come to assume its place among the generally accepted facts concerning the historical Jesus. Allow me to review briefly some of the evidence undergirding this connection.

(1) The historical reliability of the burial story supports the empty tomb. If the burial account is accurate, then the site of Jesus' grave was known to Jew and Christian alike. In that case, it is a very short inference to historicity of the empty tomb. For if Jesus had not risen and the burial site were known:

(a) the disciples could never have believed in the resurrection of Jesus. For a first century Jew the idea that a man might be raised from the dead while his body remained in the tomb was simply a contradiction in terms. In the words of E. E. Ellis, "It is very unlikely that the earliest Palestinian Christians could conceive of any distinction between resurrection and physical, 'grave emptying' resurrection. To them an anastasis without an empty grave would have been about as meaningful as a square circle."

(b) Even if the disciples had believed in the resurrection of Jesus, it is doubtful they would have generated any following. So long as the body was interred in the tomb, a Christian movement founded on belief in the resurrection of the dead man would have been an impossible folly.

(c) The Jewish authorities would have exposed the whole affair. The quickest and surest answer to the proclamation of the resurrection of Jesus would have been simply to point to his grave on the hillside.

For these three reasons, the accuracy of the burial story supports the historicity of the empty tomb. Unfortunately for those who wish to deny the empty tomb, however, the burial story is one of the most historically certain traditions we have concerning Jesus. Several factors undergird this judgment. To mention only a few.

(i) The burial is mentioned in the third line of the old Christian formula quoted by Paul in 1 Cor. 15.4.

(ii) It is part of the ancient pre-Markan passion story which Mark used as a source for his gospel.

(iii) The story itself lacks any traces of legendary development.

(iv) The story comports with archeological evidence concerning the types and location of tombs extant in Jesus' day.

(v) No other competing burial traditions exist.

For these and other reasons, most scholars are united in the judgment that the burial story is fundamentally historical. But if that is the case, then, as I have explained, the inference that the tomb was found empty is not very far at hand.

(2) Paul's testimony supports the fact of the empty tomb. Here two aspects of Paul's evidence may be mentioned.

(a) In the formula cited by Paul the expression "he was raised" following the phrase "he was buried" implies the empty tomb. A first century Jew could not think otherwise. As E. L. Bode observes, the notion of the occurrence of a spiritual resurrection while the body remained in the tomb is a peculiarity of modern theology. For the Jews it was the remains of the man in the tomb which were raised; hence, they carefully preserved the bones of the dead in ossuaries until the eschatological resurrection. There can be no doubt that both Paul and the early Christian formula he cites pre-suppose the existence of the empty tomb.

(b) The phrase "on the third day" probably points to the discovery of the empty tomb. Very briefly summarized, the point is that since no one actually witnessed the resurrection of Jesus, how did Christians come to date it "on the third day?" The most probable answer is that they did so because this was the day of the discovery of the empty tomb by Jesus' women followers. Hence, the resurrection itself came to be dated on that day. Thus, in the old Christian formula quoted by Paul we have extremely early evidence for the existence of Jesus' empty tomb.

(3) The empty tomb story is part of the pre-Markan passion story and is therefore very old. The empty tomb story was probably the end of Mark's passion source. As Mark is the earliest of our gospels, this source is therefore itself quite old. In fact the commentator R. Pesch contends that it is an incredibly early source. He produces two lines of evidence for this conclusion:

(a) Paul's account of the Last Supper in 1 Cor. 11:23-5 presupposes the Markan account. Since Paul's own traditions are themselves very old, the Markan source must be yet older.

(b) The pre-Markan passion story never refers to the high priest by name. It is as when I say "The President is hosting a dinner at the White House" and everyone knows whom I am speaking of because it is the man currently in office. Similarly the pre-Markan passion story refers to the "high priest" as if he were still in power. Since Caiaphas held office from AD 18-37, this means at the latest the pre-Markan source must come from within seven years after Jesus' death. This source thus goes back to within the first few years of the Jerusalem fellowship and is therefore an ancient and reliable source of historical information.

(4) The story is simple and lacks legendary development. The empty tomb story is uncolored by the theological and apologetical motifs that would be characteristic of a later legendary account. Perhaps the most forceful way to appreciate this point is to compare it with the accounts of the empty tomb found in apocryphal gospels of the second century. For example, in the gospel of Peter a voice rings out from heaven during the night, the stone rolls back of itself from the door of the tomb, and two men descend from Heaven and enter the tomb. Then three men are seen coming out of the tomb, the two supporting the third. The heads of the two men stretch up to the clouds, but the head of the third man overpasses the clouds. Then a cross comes out of the tomb, and a voice asks, "Hast thou preached to them that sleep?" And the cross answers, "Yea". In the Ascension of Isaiah, Jesus comes out of the tomb sitting on the shoulders of the angels Michael and Gabriel. These are how real legends look: unlike the gospel accounts, they are colored by theological motifs.

(5) The tomb was probably discovered empty by women. To understand this point one has to recall two facts about the role of women in Jewish society.

(a) Woman occupied a low rung on the Jewish social ladder. This is evident in such rabbinic expressions as "Sooner let the words of the law be burnt than delivered to women" and "Happy is he whose children are male, but woe to him whose children are female."

(b) The testimony of women was regarded as so worthless that they were not even permitted to serve as legal witnesses in a court of law. In light of these facts, how remarkable must it seem that it is women who are the discoverers of Jesus' empty tomb. Any later legend would certainly have made the male disciples to discover the empty tomb. The fact that women, whose testimony was worthless, rather than men, are the chief witnesses to the empty tomb is most plausibly accounted for by the fact that, like it or not, they were the discoverers of the empty tomb and the gospels accurately record this.

(6) The earliest Jewish polemic presupposes the empty tomb. In Matthew 28, we find the Christian attempt to refute the earliest Jewish polemic against the resurrection. That polemic asserted that the disciples stole away the body. The Christians responded to this by reciting the story of the guard at the tomb, and the polemic in turn charged that the guard fell asleep. Now the noteworthy feature of this whole dispute is not the historicity of the guards but rather the presupposition of both parties that the body was missing. The earliest Jewish response to the proclamation of the resurrection was an attempt to explain away the empty tomb. Thus, the evidence of the adversaries of the disciples provides evidence in support of the empty tomb.

One could go on, but perhaps enough has been said to indicate why the judgment of scholarship has reversed itself on the historicity of the empty tomb. According to Jakob Kremer, "By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb" and he furnishes a list, to which his own name may be added, of twenty-eight prominent scholars in support. I can think of at least sixteen more names that he failed to mention. Thus, it is today widely recognized that the empty tomb of Jesus is a simple historical fact. As D. H. van Daalen has pointed out, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions." But assumptions may simply have to be changed in light of historical facts.

Finally, we may turn to that third body of evidence supporting the resurrection: the very origin of the Christian Way. Even the most skeptical scholars admit that the earliest disciples at least believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead. Indeed, they pinned nearly everything on it. Without belief in the resurrection of Jesus, Christianity could never have come into being. The crucifixion would have remained the final tragedy in the hapless life of Jesus. The origin of Christianity hinges on the belief of these earliest disciples that Jesus had risen from the dead. The question now inevitably arises: how does one explain the origin of that belief? As R. H. Fuller urges, even the most skeptical critic must posit some mysterious X to get the movement going. But the question is, what was that X?

If one denies that Jesus really did rise from the dead, then he must explain the disciples' belief that he did rise either in terms of Jewish influences or in terms of Christian influences. Now clearly, it can't be the result of Christian influences, for at that time there wasn't any Christianity yet! Since belief in Jesus' resurrection was the foundation for the origin of the Christian faith, it can't be a belief formed as a result of that faith.

But neither can the belief in the resurrection be explained as a result of Jewish influences. To see this we need to back up a moment. In the Old Testament, the Jewish belief in the resurrection of the dead on the day of judgment is mentioned in three places (Ezekiel 37; Isaiah 26, 19, Daniel 12.2). During the time between the Old Testament and the New Testament, the belief in resurrection flowered and is often mentioned in the Jewish literature of that period. In Jesus' day the Jewish party of the Pharisees held to belief in resurrection, and Jesus sided with them on this score in opposition to the party of the Sadducees. So the idea of resurrection was itself nothing new.

But the Jewish conception of resurrection differed in two important, fundamental respects from Jesus' resurrection. In Jewish thought the resurrection always (1) occurred after the end of the world, not within history, and (2) concerned all the people, not just an isolated individual. In contradistinction to this, Jesus' resurrection was both within history and of one individual person.

With regard to the first point, the Jewish belief was always that at the end of history, God would raise the righteous dead and receive them into His Kingdom. There are, to be sure, examples in the Old Testament of resuscitations of the dead; but these persons would die again. The resurrection to eternal life and glory occurred after the end of the world. We find this Jewish outlook in the gospels themselves. Thus, when Jesus assures Martha that her brother Lazarus will rise again, she responds, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day" (John 11.24). She has no idea that Jesus is about to bring him back to life. Similarly, when Jesus tells his disciples he will rise from the dead, they think he means at the end of the world (Mark 9.9-13). The idea that a true resurrection could occur prior to God's bringing the Kingdom of Heaven at the end of the world was utterly foreign to them. The greatly renowned German New Testament scholar Joachim Jeremias writes,

Ancient Judaism did not know of an anticipated resurrection as an event of history. Nowhere does one find in the literature anything comparable to the resurrection of Jesus. Certainly resurrections of the dead were known, but these always concerned resuscitations, the return to the earthly life. In no place in the late Judaic literature does it concern a resurrection to doxa (glory) as an event of history.

The disciples, therefore, confronted with Jesus' crucifixion and death, would only have looked forward to the resurrection at the final day and would probably have carefully kept their master's tomb as a shrine, where his bones could reside until the resurrection. They would not have come up with the idea that he was already raised.

As for the second point, the Jewish idea of resurrection was always of a general resurrection of the dead, not an isolated individual. It was the people, or mankind as a whole, that God raised up in the resurrection. But in Jesus' resurrection, God raised just a single man. Moreover, there was no concept of the people's resurrection in some way hinging on the Messiah's resurrection. That was just totally unknown. Yet that is precisely what is said to have occurred in Jesus' case. Ulrich Wilckens, another prominent German New Testament critic, explains:

For nowhere do the Jewish texts speak of the resurrection of an individual which already occurs before the resurrection of the righteous in the end time and is differentiated and separate from it; nowhere does the participation of the righteous in the salvation at the end time depend on their belonging to the Messiah, who was raised in advance as the 'First of those raised by God.' (1 Corinthians 15:20)

It is therefore evident that the disciples would not as a result of Jewish influences or background have come up with the idea that Jesus alone had been raised from the dead. They would wait with longing for that day when He and all the righteous of Israel would be raised by God to glory.

The disciples' belief in Jesus' resurrection, therefore, cannot be explained as the result of either Christian or Jewish influences. Left to themselves, the disciples would never have come up with such an idea as Jesus' resurrection. And remember: they were fishermen and tax collectors, not theologians. The mysterious X is still missing. According to C. F. D. Moule of Cambridge University, here is a belief nothing in terms of previous historical influences can account for. He points out that we have a situation in which a large number of people held firmly to this belief, which cannot be explained in terms of the Old Testament or the Pharisees, and these people held onto this belief until the Jews finally threw them out of the synagogue. According to Professor Moule, the origin of this belief must have been the fact that Jesus really did rise from the dead:

If the coming into existence of the Nazarenes, a phenomenon undeniably attested by the New Testament, rips a great hole in history, a hole of the size and shape of the Resurrection, what does the secular historian propose to stop it up with?. . . the birth and rapid rise of the Christian Church. . . remain an unsolved enigma for any historian who refuses to take seriously the only explanation offered by the church itself.

The resurrection of Jesus is therefore the best explanation for the origin of the Christian faith. Taken together, these three great historical facts--the resurrection appearances, the empty tomb, the origin of the Christian faith--seem to point to the resurrection of Jesus as the most plausible explanation.

But of course there have been other explanations proffered to account for the resurrection appearances, the empty tomb, and the origin of the Christian faith. In the judgment of modern scholarship, however, these have failed to provide a plausible account of the facts of the case. This can be seen by a rapid review of the principal explanations that have been offered.

A. The disciples stole Jesus' corpse and lied about the resurrection appearances. This explanation characterized the earliest Jewish anti-Christian polemic and was revived in the form of the conspiracy theory of eighteenth century Deism. The theory has been universally rejected by critical scholars and survives only in the popular press. To name only two considerations decisive against it: (i) it is morally impossible to indict the disciples of Jesus with such a crime. Whatever their imperfections, they were certainly good, earnest men and women, not impostors. No one who reads the New Testament unprejudicially can doubt the evident sincerity of these early believers. (ii) It is psychologically impossible to attribute to the disciples the cunning and dering- do requisite for such a ruse. At the time of the crucifixion, the disciples were confused, disorganized, fearful, doubting, and burdened with mourning-not mentally motivated or equipped to engineer such a wild hoax. Hence, to explain the empty tomb and resurrection appearances by a conspiracy theory seems out of the question.

B. Jesus did not die on the cross, but was taken down and placed alive in the tomb, where he revived and escaped to convince the disciples he had risen from the dead. This apparent death theory was championed by the late eighteenth/early nineteenth century German rationalists, and was even embraced by the father of modern theology, F. D. E. Schleiermacher. Today, however, the theory has been entirely given up: (i) it would be virtually impossible medically for Jesus to have survived the rigors of his torture and crucifixion, much less not to have died of exposure in the tomb. (ii) The theory is religiously inadequate, since a half-dead Jesus desperately in need of medical attention would not have elicited in the disciples worship of him as the exalted Risen Lord and Conqueror of Death. Moreover, since Jesus on this hypothesis knew he had not actually triumphed over death, the theory reduces him to the life of a charlatan who tricked the disciples into believing he had risen, which is absurd. These reasons alone make the apparent death theory untenable.

C. The disciples projected hallucinations of Jesus after his death, from which they mistakenly inferred his resurrection. The hallucination theory became popular during the nineteenth century and carried over into the first half of the twentieth century as well. Again, however, there are good grounds for rejecting this hypothesis: (i) it is psychologically implausible to posit such a chain of hallucinations. Hallucinations are usually associated with mental illness or drugs; but in the disciples' case the prior psycho-biological preparation appears to be wanting. The disciples had no anticipation of seeing Jesus alive again; all they could do was wait to be reunited with him in the Kingdom of God. There were no grounds leading them to hallucinate him alive from the dead. Moreover, the frequency and variety of circumstances belie the hallucination theory: Jesus was seen not once, but many times; not by one person, but by several; not only by individuals, but also by groups; not at one locale and circumstance but at many; not by believers only, but by skeptics and unbelievers as well. The hallucination theory cannot be plausibly stretched to accommodate such diversity. (ii) Hallucinations would not in any case have led to belief in Jesus' resurrection. As projections of one's own mind, hallucinations cannot contain anything not already in the mind. But we have seen that Jesus' resurrection differed from the Jewish conception in two fundamental ways. Given their Jewish frame of thought, the disciples, were they to hallucinate, would have projected visions of Jesus glorified in Abraham's bosom, where Israel's righteous dead abode until the eschatological resurrection. Thus, hallucinations would not have elicited belief in Jesus' resurrection, an idea that ran solidly against the Jewish mode of thought. (iii) Nor can hallucinations account for the full scope of the evidence. They are offered as an explanation of the resurrection appearances, but leave the empty tomb unexplained, and therefore fail as a complete and satisfying answer. Hence, it seems that the hallucination hypothesis is not more successful than its defunct forebears in providing a plausible counter-explanation of the data surrounding Christ's resurrection.

Thus, none of the previous counter-explanations can account for the evidence as plausibly as the resurrection itself. One might ask, "Well, then, how do skeptical scholars explain the facts of the resurrection appearances, the empty tomb, and the origin of the Christian faith?" The fact of the matter is, they don't. Modern scholarship recognizes no plausible explanatory alternative to the resurrection of Jesus. Those who refuse to accept the resurrection as a fact of history are simply self-confessedly left without an explanation.

These three great facts--the resurrection appearances, the empty tomb, and the origin of the Christian faith--all point unavoidably to one conclusion: The resurrection of Jesus. Today the rational man can hardly be blamed if he believes that on that first Easter morning a divine miracle occurred.

Let's see, this doesn't have anything to do with the existence of Jesus, just his resurrection. That Jesus exists is just presumed (I believe, I don't feel like reading the whole thing). Of course, using the bible to prove what the bible claims is basically just circular logic.

I'd go into more detail, but why bother? These aren't your writings, and I don't feel like debating people who don't debate back. At least read the article yourself and write about it, don't just copy and paste it here. And if you do anyway, at least post an article that is on topic. This is about Jesus's resurrection, not his existence.


[This message has been edited by Someone7 (edited October 02, 2000).]

Double post.

[This message has been edited by Someone7 (edited October 02, 2000).]

Someone,

O.K... Let me know if and when you decide to open your mind.

Krina,

Lets see....

1)Millions of children believe in Santa Claus
2)Millions of Children recieve gifts every year and are told that the gifts come from Santa Claus
3)The North Pole is a real place
4)Millions of children will verify the existance of Santa

therefore Santa Claus is real....I see no difference in that argument to the one you copied and pasted. Both arguments are based entirley on the assumption that the person/diety/whatever exists and the acceptance of both arguments depends entirley on the ignorance of the intended audience, further both arguments are made without actualy stating any objective facts or references accepted by a a wider audience.

Thanks for responding though I thought everyone was gonna bury their heads in the sand.

Krina,


These three great facts--the resurrection appearances, the empty tomb, and the origin of the Christian faith--all point unavoidably to one conclusion: The resurrection of Jesus.

By the way, rather than taking up a lot of unnecessary space here, you could simply link to the original article, like so:


<font color="red"><A HREF="http://www.origins.org/truth/1truth22.html">Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ</A></font>

Anyway, according to all the evidence I've seen, the Christian faith had its origins in Pagan mythology. So how does an empty tomb prove Jesus was resurrected, when it cannot be proven that he ever really existed in the first place (except in the minds of the writers/plagiarists)? Does my empty wallet prove that I have lots of money in the bank? It's a non sequitur.

Blessings,

Emerald

------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.

A book all of you might want to read is The Jesus Mysteries. I forget who wrote it, but I saw it at Barnes & Noble (while picking up my copy of the bible code :)). It looked really interesting. The point of the book was to prove that Jesus was a collection of Pagan myths. Should be an interesting read, if nothing else.

You guys are all posting what seems to be your opinoin. Well, here are the facts according to Proffessor Ray DeBruler. Yes, children I took a history class too. Firstly I would like to point out that misias could be found at any street corner during this age. That is accepted. To Prove that Jesus existed without a doubt is not possible. Due to the fact that there is an astonishing lack of reliable evidence due to the fact that factual HISTORY was not recorded until the Doomsday Book. Which makes the other writtings stories, yes I'm calling the bible a story. I'm also calling ever other writting a story. The difference when it comes to using the bible as a reliable source to prove existance is that it has nothing to back it up except other religous books. Whereas writting by the romans although they could be exremely exagerated are taken more seriously because they were written BY THE ROMANS and the romans left something of themselves behind, the collusium for instance. Nothing was left for us that was the actual saying of jesus nor did he leave anything to prove his existance.
A Brief history lesson:
The bible consists of only four gospels when over 100 were spoken. Four were chosen by the Apocolypic jews to be recorded and published. Discrediting the widely known belief that the Bible is the end all be all of the Earth. Instead, in a history class we learn that if a man by the name of Jesus existed, then he was of Zelot (type of jew for those of you that don't know) background, although he became know as an Apocolyptic Jew. He was tried for teason and punished according to law. A group known as the Essenes (a mystery cult when speaking historically) were responsible for speading a rumor that Jesus is not dead. The probablity that a man existed that was acclaimed a masia, tried to a cross, and killed is very likely. For there were many "masias" that were collected by a leader by the name of Pontus charged with treason and killed. However, that a man called Jesus actually existed can neither be proven nor disproven. Children, I must say that it all comes down to a matter of faith.

"Children, I must say that it all comes down to a matter of faith."

Despite the condescending nature of your post, it really only backs my point. Yes, there is no way to prove without a doubt that Jesus existed, nor is there a way to prove he didn’t. Of course, the same can be said for many other mythical heroes, Hercules for example. You can’t prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Hercules did or didn’t exist, though there is little reason to suspect he did. I make this same claim, that there is little reason to suspect Jesus actually existed.

The difference between the Bible and most other stories is that the Bible actually has history in it.

The reason we know so much about the "Cradle of civillization" is because of the bible. Archaeologists went out seeking proof of the biblical stories - and they found it.

Many of the great wars, empires, kings, and tragedies recorded in the bible (excluding the first five books of the bible) have all been verified by science.

My point in all of this is that you cannot just dismiss the bible as a story. You may not believe in god, but the simple fact is that there is some actual history in the bible.

My second point is for Rambler. You used Santa Claus as an example of a mythical character. The only problem with this is that there really WAS a St. Nicholas, who was transformed into a character of mythical proportions.

How is Santa Claus then different from Jesus being a real person who was transformed to mythical proportions?

Corp,
There is little difference thanks for making my point clearer. There may have even been a man called Joe Blow that did some extraodinary things and his deeds together with other (most likely -- I would think) spawned the myth of Jesus.

On a slight tangent:
It would be laughable to see an adult of sound mind waiting for Santa at christmas time or sending their own wish list off to the northpole, yet when people have conversatiions with Jesus few people see it as out of the oridnary.

well, bub. It is just a story. Tons of stories, narritives, articles of fiction that have SOME historical value exist. That is by your definition of history, almost every book has historical value. for instance, in A Seperate Peace, which we all know is a work of fiction. Schools for boys really did exist and there really was a war. That however; does not mean that the boys were real people nor that anything that was written in that book is factual excluding the references to the time period. How is the Bible any different from other STORIES? Simply because so many people believe in it because they were taught to or because they have faith? If so that is a poor reason indeed. There really is no need to argue the point any further. Even you must admit that it eventually comes down to a matter of faith.

Oh, and Rambler have you ever given thought that maybe it's not so silly to wait for Santa Clause though the real St. Nicholas is long dead. Afterall, you think that it's not silly to pray to someting that cannot be proven to have existed let alone existed and died and risen again. What makes Jesus different from other beliefs like Santa Clause? FAITH, that's what. As a child, you didn't think it silly that you waited for Santa Clause, did you? Why didn't you think that was silly? Because you believed because you had faith that he would come.

[This message has been edited by angel (edited October 06, 2000).]

Angel,


Originally posted by angel:
well, bub. It is just a story.

Who's "bub"?


Oh, and Rambler have you ever given thought that maybe it's not so silly to wait for Santa Clause though the real St. Nicholas is long dead. Afterall, you think that it's not silly to pray to someting that cannot be proven to have existed let alone existed and died and risen again. What makes Jesus different from other beliefs like Santa Clause?

I'm confused, Angel. Why are you taking on an argumentative tone with someone who's own arguments you are simply reiterating? :confused:

Blessings,

Emerald

------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.

I believe bub is short for bubby, which wouod mean child, baby, infant whatever.

Angel,

Oh wise old one....what's your point????

[This message has been edited by Rambler (edited October 08, 2000).]

As far as history is concerned, I was referring to most of the old testament, which is devoted to describing Jewish history, and goes into great detail about the kings and rulers of the times.

Many of the wars, kings, kingdoms, and empires described in the Old Testament have been independtly verified by archaeology.

I have one more thing I would like to add to this: In December, 1945, there was discovered in upper Egypt a group of 52 Gnostic scrolls that dated from about 148 A.D. These first scrolls tell about the conflicting doctrines and the uncertainty in early Christianity.

In 1947 there was another unbelievable discovery. In Qumran, on the shore of the Dead Sea about 15 miles from Jerusalem, another great number of ancient scrolls were discovered. These scrolls are known as "the Dead Sea Scrolls." The impression given the public was that there were only a few scrolls found, just those found in the first cave. But there have been discovered hundreds of scrolls, these scrolls are about a thousand years older than any previously known copy of the Bible, and they contain all of the books of the Old Testament except Esther. There are also other scrolls that date almost a hundred years before Jesus of Nazareth is said to have lived. They contain almost every myth in the New Testament; they contain "The sermon on the Mount", and other bits of goodness and wisdom attributed to Jesus. They do not contain the evil sayings of Jesus. Those have been added later.

These old scrolls simply destroy the credibility of the historical foundations of Christianity by proving the New Testament evolved from the uninspired, historical, writings of man. These scrolls have not been honestly presented to the public. It is strange that what God seeks so forcefully to reveal, the men of God are so determined to conceal!


That is all.