Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion

Making use of the newest information available. What does ALL the evidence point to?

That the Creation did not happen by happenstance.
Despite the wars, pandemics, poverty and death, there is too much beauty in the universe and too many miracles happening for our existence here on Earth to be by chance.

Right?

I think that all roads lead to the Anthropic principle - intelligent design yes, miracles and a personal God no.

Tony wrote: "I think that all roads lead to the Anthropic principle - intelligent design yes, miracles and a personal God no."

I guess that's where faith comes into it Tony. It seems faith can't be factored into science any more than science can be factored into faith. And therein lies the conundrum...Never the twain shall meet perhaps.

Well said Lance..

Here's a question that relates to my last comment above...

Do my fellow Undergrounders know if there any Christian scientists around or even if there's such a thing as a Christian scientist?

A variation on that might be: Do any scientists believe in the Bible's version of the Creation as opposed to Darwin's Theory of Evolution?

I recall a pastor at my local Presbyterian church was a former high school science teacher and also (obviously) a Christian, but I don't think he was an actual scientist.

I note we have a number of scientists in this group, not to mention science teachers and a lot of former teachers. We'd love to hear YOUR opinion...

Lance wrote: "Here's a question that relates to my last comment above...

Do my fellow Undergrounders know if there any Christian scientists around or even if there's such a thing as a Christian scientist?"

Sounds like an oxymoron like jumbo shrimp or military intelligence.

Ah murky water indeed! The following is a copy of the only 1 star review I have ever received.

The Jesus Illusion: Finding the Man by Revealing the Myth

Concerned Reader
strong athiest bias
July 23, 2022

Format : Paperback
Ignores evidence and assumes certain things to be true because that's what he's comfortable with. Makes ridiculous assumptions about miracles not being miracles but having some "scientific" explanation. Clearly ludicrous reasoning with no logic or scientific thinking involved. Clearly he is ignoring reality and good reasoning because he doesn't want to believe there's a God.

You are Satan, Tony. That's the only logical conclusion :)

Ha! but no...The only devil (or god) in me is of my own making. Unfortunately I cant blame (or credit) any divine entity for what happens. All we have is ourselves and each other.

Jonathan wrote: "Making use of the newest information available. What does ALL the evidence point to?"

Jonathan - How are we doing so far? Are we any closer to the answer?

Scott wrote: "Lance wrote: "Here's a question that relates to my last comment above...

Do my fellow Undergrounders know if there any Christian scientists around or even if there's such a thing as a Christian sc..."

Exactly how would a Christian scientist be an oxymoron? Science is simply the study of everything God made. And to answer your question I heard Ellen Degenerate say her parents were "very strict Christian Scientists" whatever that means so they must exist.

Tony wrote: "Ha! but no...The only devil (or god) in me is of my own making. Unfortunately I cant blame (or credit) any divine entity for what happens. All we have is ourselves and each other."

There is SO MUCH MORE out there other than just us. Look into "mythology" from around the world and notice the similarities. I could go on and on but believe me take it from someone who comes from a family of brainwashed atheists THEY ARE HIDING GOD FROM US FOR A REASON.

Lance wrote: "That the Creation did not happen by happenstance.
Despite the wars, pandemics, poverty and death, there is too much beauty in the universe and too many miracles happening for our existence here on..."

Check out all the videos made by Jonathan Kleck and Cory Barbee from oldest to newest and get ready to have your mind blown. Also, I've read way too many books about NDE, listened to way too many different people's experiences to still be a brainwashed atheist like my family. Also, xtremerealitycheck.com ...have your mind blown again but make sure you start from the beginning.

Hi Irene, although I struggle greatly with the idea of a personal 'God', I acknowledge that science cannot by definition explain all things to all people. The apparent existence of Egregores is one of these...

Irene wrote: "Exactly how would a Christian scientist be an oxymoron? Science is simply the study of everything God made."

Science is the study of the world around us. Religion is making things up.

Jonathan wherefore art thou? You started this discussion thread... We need to know if we are getting close to answering your question to your satisfaction...

Hi Lance:
To answer your question in message 6: “[Are] there any Christian scientists around or even if there's such a thing as a Christian scientist?”: I consider myself a ‘Christian scientist.’ However, I am a ‘Unitarian’; that is, I believe there is only one God: not that God is a ‘trinity.’ Like self-declared atheist Richard Dawkins, I also believe that whether God exists or not is a SCIENTIFIC question. To this effect, I wrote a book entitled “Is God a Reality?—A Scientific Investigation.”
In his book “Other Worlds,” theoretical physicist and cosmologist Paul Davies determined (from ‘chaos theory’) that the odds against our universe (a ‘starry’ rather than a ‘black-hole’ universe) coming into existence by chance alone are 10^(10^30), (i.e., one followed by a million trillion trillion zeros) to one (p. 169). If this number were to be written down fully, it would fill 2x10^26 (i.e., two hundred trillion trillion) PAGES with zeros: every page consisting of fifty lines of one hundred zeros (without commas in between).
Now, in his book “The Design Inference,” mathematician William Dembski determined the TOTAL ‘probabilistic resources’ (opportunities) of our universe since the ‘big bang’ (c. 14 billion years ago) to be only 10^150 (i.e., one followed by one hundred and fifty zeros), which would only fill one and one-half LINES of zeros if written fully (p. 209).
If the odds against something happening exceed this number, it means that occurrence was DESIGNED by some ‘intelligence’; in other words, scientifically, we can safely rule out chance as the author. As one can see (less than two LINES of zeros compared to two hundred trillion trillion PAGES of zeros), the universe’s total probabilistic resources is but a drop in the ocean compared with the odds against our universe (a ‘starry’ as opposed to a black-hole’ universe) developing. Conclusion: the universe was designed by some intelligence: as a book is written by someone intelligent. (See my article entitled “God of the Gaps?”: https://faith-or-reason.com/2020/06/0... for further details.)
Incidentally, I also disagree with your statement in message 4: “It seems faith can’t be factored into science any more than science can be factored into faith. … Never the twain shall meet perhaps.”
On the contrary, as I state in my website’s motto, “Faith that is unsupported by reason, science, experience, or empirical evidence is in fact superstition” (https://faith-or-reason.com/). Do you honestly think that Jesus’s disciples would have followed him if he made no miracles? Or do you think that Christianity would have taken root had Jesus’s followers not truly believed that he resurrected (rose bodily) from the grave?
On the other hand, I do not believe the Bible is infallible; or that it’s a source of divine revelation. (I also wrote a book to that effect: “Is the Bible Infallible?—A Rational, Scientific, and Historical Evaluation.”) I believe the Bible is, in general, a ‘good’ human book, but I strongly disagree with ‘Creationists’ or ‘Bible Inerrantists’ who insist that science is wrong if it does not conform to what the Bible says. If this excludes me from being a Christian, I still consider myself a ‘marginal Christian’ because I believe God entered history, through Jesus, giving us a special redirection, and I also do my best to follow Christian principles.

Hi Tony:
Regarding your message 3: “I think that all roads lead to the Anthropic principle—intelligent design yes, miracles and a personal God no.”
Forgive me if I am misunderstanding your statement; but if you admit “INTELLIGENT design,” how can you deny a “personal” God? Behind a written book there’s a PERSONAL author. Behind the artificial intelligence of a computer there’s a PERSONAL programmer. There are no INTELLIGENT stones. Can you give me an example of an ‘impersonal intelligence’?
Now, the ‘anthropic principle’ is not a scientific principle like ‘Archimedes’ principle,’ say. It should be called a ‘conjecture’: it’s simply a cop-out for atheists clutching at straws. It assumes the existence of the ‘multiverse,’ that is, about 10^500 (i.e. one followed by five hundred zeros) universes (from ‘string theory’), which scientists themselves admit we cannot prove their existence because they are totally isolated from us. How comfy: a hypothesis that cannot be proved or disproved! Since when has science turned into a faith? Unfortunately, science has turned into a religion: scientists go by the ‘party line’ nowadays. Even so, if this number were to be written fully, it will only consist of five LINES of zeros compared to two hundred trillion trillion PAGES of zeros for the odds against a ‘starry’ universe to develop. Anyway, all the anthropic principle says is “Because we are here, the universe MUST be as fine-tuned as we observe: otherwise we wouldn’t be here.” What kind of circular reasoning is that? What if that explanation is a personal God? You’re probably thinking that my explanation is a ‘god-of-the gaps’ explanation. I say no, because the odds against a starry universe exceed, hands down, the universe’s total probabilistic resources (opportunities). (Dembski obtains the total universe’s probabilistic resources by multiplying the number of particles in the universe, 10^80, by the age of the universe in seconds, 4.4x10^17, by the inverse of the ‘Plank time,’ 1.9x10^43 discreet time ‘frames,’ and 10^9 for margin.) For example, one cannot attribute Shakespeare’s complete works to chance.
Finally, regarding miracles: would seventy thousand (70,000) witnesses be enough to convince you that near Fatima, Portugal, around noon on October 13, 1917, they saw the sun ‘dropping’ towards them. The sun dried up their rain-soaked clothes instantly, but nobody was burnt. The phenomenon was observed up to 18 kilometers away—but no more; yet there was no cataclysmic effect on planet Earth. It was also reported by atheistic newspapers. I suggest you read the following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle....
There are also miraculous healings confirmed by medical specialists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lad... not to mention Jesus’s resurrection confirmed by a contemporaneous skeptic and former persecutor of Christianity, Saul/Paul of Tarsus (better known a Saint Paul) to which he testifies personally in his authentic Letter to the Galatians (1:13–23). But I don’t want to bore you with more empirical evidence (which, incidentally, is much more reliable than the evidence for the ‘multiverse’ or the ‘anthropic principle’).
Sorry about your one-star rating in your message 8; but miracles should NOT have a scientific explanation, otherwise they wouldn’t be miracles. For example, if an adult loses an arm and it grows back ‘miraculously,’ you cannot say there is a scientific explanation because embryos grow arms and legs. The DNA ‘switches’ for arm growth are shut down permanently in the embryonic stage after two arms are grown, otherwise we will end up with many arms: to reopen them AT WILL is a miraculous action not a rare/weird case of science.

Hi Scott:
Regarding your message 16: “Religion is making things up.”
A lot of things in religion seem made up because religion is a ‘search’ for God, our ‘spiritual’ side (the ‘mind’ if you like), and morality (right and wrong). Naturally, religious leaders didn’t always get things right. It is a harder terrain to tread because of lack of physical evidence to follow (as science does), and therefore tends to be more prone to making errors.

Hi Irene:
You’re the one I agree with most, except that I disagree with your message 5: that we should keep science and religion separate.
Regarding your message 12: “Exactly how would a Christian scientist be an oxymoron?”
I think that if one doesn’t believe in the Christian doctrines like the Trinity (which directly opposes reason) or the Bible’s infallibility (like me) that excludes one from being a real Christian. But, as I explained above, I still consider myself a marginal Christian.
Regarding your message 14:
I agree with you that NDE’s are rather convincing that there is a God and an afterlife. For those who are open-minded, I suggest the following website founded by a medical doctor: https://www.nderf.org/index.htm.
Science has no clue where our consciousness comes from. So, I also suggest reading the following two articles on consciousness by medical doctors from the home page of the website: https://www.nderf.org/NDERF/Research/... and https://www.nderf.org/NDERF/Research/....
The first article, by Pim van Lommel, describes the brain as a radio or TV receiver: but our consciousness is a totally external ‘communication’ with the ‘supernatural’: like the electromagnetic waves emitted from a radio or TV station. We cannot find evidence of the radio/TV programs in the electronics of the receiver: likewise we can never find evidence of consciousness inside our brain.

Final Note:
I feel I must apologize that all this seems totally unrelated to the heading of this discussion thread: “For the First Time, the Real Jesus.” For this reason I was hesitant about and delayed posting anything. I’m just replying to the various concepts expressed in this thread. I don’t think Jonathan (message 1) is too happy about all this.
I suppose the confusion started because most Christians believe that Jesus is also ‘God.’ I don’t see it like that. I do believe Jesus was conceived directly by God (the Holy Spirit rather) donating a sperm to his mother Mary, that he was an exceptional, miracle-working human being whom God raised from the dead, but a totally human being at that.

Regards.
Carmel.

Hi Carmel, my conception of a personal God is the same as Einstein rebelled against. That is a God who demands prayer and scarifice for salvation of his faithful.

With regards to my idea of intelligent design, I believe that we are we are the only species which has evolved to the point where the confines of natural selection are being breached to the extent that we are capable of intelligently designing ourselves and our future. It is important to stress that my use of the term ‘intelligent design’ does not include any conceptualisation of a supernatural deity or divine designer. Rather, when used in its proper form and context, intelligent design is the deliberate intervention of intelligent beings in the natural order of things; because of this, certain features in the universe are best explained by an intelligent cause. I believe that evolution by natural selection and intelligent design are not mutually exclusive concepts; rather, they are both compatible and interdependent in explaining where we came from and why we are here.

Hi Tony:
In your message 19, you wrote “a God who demands prayer and sacrifice for salvation of his faithful.”
I know you don’t believe in God, and I respect that, so I’m not going to try to convince you otherwise; but bear with me: perhaps I can explain, to the readers especially, why God appears to have such a dark, inhuman character in the Bible.
Apart from monotheism, the originality of the Hebrew Bible consists mainly in proposing a benevolent god. The Bible was written at the turn of the ‘agricultural revolution’: that is, when humans changed their lifestyle from nomads to settlers. One can detect this in the struggle described between Cain, the farmer, and Abel, the shepherd (Genesis 4:1–17). Life was so hard and unforgiving (depending heavily on the elements) for both nomads (hunter-gatherers) and settlers (farmers and animal-rearers) that they thought all ‘gods’ were cruel and required appeasement (sacrifice) from time to time: in order to leave humans alone or, possibly, mitigate the elements for them.
The Bible comes along and says, “No, God is a benevolent God.” There’s no denying, however, that there have always been evil people on earth. As I mentioned in message 18, the Bible is a ‘search’ for God. A benevolent God can be taken advantage of; so, the Bible embarks on this teeter-tottering between a benevolent God and a ‘just’ God who punishes evildoers. We therefore find God portrayed with a dual personality—a Jekyll-Hyde personality—for example, he causes the global flood (Genesis 6:1–8:22) and the fiery rain on Sodom and Gomorra (Genesis 18:1–19:29). What I’m trying to say is that God doesn’t demand any sacrifices or prayers from us: it is the biblical authors who thought so; and as I also mentioned in message 18, the Bible is not infallible, nor is it a divine book, but a totally human book.
Now, imagine your kids play soccer on your neighbor’s beautifully kept lawn and tear it all up. Your neighbor and close friend gets furious and comes to tell you about it, red in the face. A loud quarrel and name-calling ensue. The lawn repairs in a month or so, but you don’t speak to each other for a few years. One Christmas-time, you decide to buy a bottle of wine and knock on your neighbor’s door. He invites you in, opens the bottle of wine, and you both drink it together as a SIGN of your renewed friendship. Notice that the bottle of wine did not repair the damage done: the name-calling and the years of lost friendship. Nor is it the ingredient that renews the friendship: it is only both your INNER DISPOSITIONS that renews the friendship. The bottle of wine is only a TOKEN—an external sign of an inner disposition.
Renewing one’s friendship with another person is easy because one can communicate directly with the other person. But how can one know that the invisible God has forgiven one’s sins and renewed his friendship with the sinner? To convince people that God has forgiven their sins, religious leaders came up with a ‘ritual’: the people had to offer something they valued (like a domestic animal), and the priest burnt it. The smoke, rising up, was a VISIBLE SIGN that the invisible God received the TOKEN and had forgiven them. The word ‘sacrifice’ comes from two Latin words: ‘sacrum’ meaning ‘sacred’ and ‘facere’ meaning ‘to make’—to make sacred because the animal is dedicated to God. (Sacrifices for less serious sins or shortcomings did not require the burning of the whole animal—a holocaust—a portion of the animal was burnt, a portion was donated to the priest, and a portion was taken back by the family offering the sacrifice. In imitation of the one bearing the gift—the bottle of wine—sharing it with the one receiving it—God.)
In reality, God’ concern is not himself, but us: that we treat one another as we would like to be treated ourselves. I’m sure you agree that, if he really exits, he is quite insulated from us: we cannot really harm him or offend him. Would you really be offended if a two-year old shakes his puny fist at you?
Now, technically, ‘prayer’ is the lifting of one’s mind and ‘heart’ to God: to have a one-on-one talk or relationship with him; not really to ask him for favors all the time. As a grandfather would like to build a relationship with his grandchildren, God would like to have a personal relationship with everyone. Jesus often retired alone on a mountain or in the wilderness—away from people—to do so. But God doesn’t oblige us. We’re given life with no strings attached: to enjoy it any way we like, with or without him. He is not going to punish us if we don’t: that is false Christian teaching. I also wrote a book to this effect, entitled “Faith and Reason: Disturbing Christian Doctrines.” The concept of hell—an eternal fiery pit—for example, is a misinterpretation of Jesus’s words in the gospels. (If you’re interested, see my article on “Hell” in my website: https://faith-or-reason.com/2021/01/1....)
Then Jesus comes along and introduces a paradigm shift by telling us that God is our Father who loves us unconditionally. The best way to understand what Jesus means is to read the ‘parable of the prodigal son’ in Luke’s gospel (15:11–32). The father in the parable did not punish his spendthrift son; he only hoped he would come back to him, and when he did, he treated him like his faithful brother. I’m sure you realize this was a very novel idea: indeed, the faithful son in the parable objects to his father’s treatment of his spendthrift brother. We don’t want people to abuse God’s kindness; we also want a God who would punish evildoers (especially those who aggravate us personally) severely: a thousand times, a million times … no, eternally. So, that’s what we read in the Bible. But the Bible is not a truth factory: it’s only a human book.
Most people have a hard time accepting this concept, they figure God is unjust in simply forgiving sinners. But think of a good father whose children quarrel and even fight each other: does he punish them both? Or will he try to reconcile them? According to Jesus’s teaching in the ‘parable of the unforgiving servant’ (Matthew 18:21–35), what we owe one another pales compared to what we owe God, anyway.
Perhaps you (and our readers) will now understand why the Bible portrays God as such an ogre: it is our (or rather the biblical authors’) unacceptance of the real gentleman that he is.
Indeed, in his book “Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know about Them),” New Testament scholar and self-declared ‘agnostic-atheist’ Bart Ehrman writes,
“It is important to recall the historical view that the biblical authors were all living in a different world from ours and reflected the assumptions and beliefs of people in their world. … Some people may think that it is a dangerous attitude to take towards the Bible, to pick and choose what you want to accept and throw everything else out. … In my opinion, people need to use their intelligence to evaluate what they find to be true and untrue in the Bible. This is how we need to live life generally. Everything we hear and see we need to evaluate.” (pp 280–81)
Moreover, from most near-death experience (NDE) accounts, we are discovering that the ‘spiritual being’ the individual encounters never judges the individual: the individual judges oneself. Some NDE accounts also include a ‘life-review’ in which the individual feels the same intensity of pain (or joy) one causes by one’s words and actions to all others around. This, in my opinion, is true justice.
Finally, I read your second paragraph of message 19 several times, but unfortunately I’m not sure I understand it completely. I’ve already misinterpreted what you wrote once; I don’t want to do it again. Can you please elaborate on your following statements—perhaps giving some examples?
“We are capable of intelligently designing ourselves and our future. … Certain features in the universe are best explained by an intelligent cause. … Evolution by natural selection and intelligent design … [can explain] where we came from and why we are here.” It all sounds like an interesting hypothesis. Did you write an article or a book on the subject? Still, let me point out that in my article entitled “God of the Gaps?” https://faith-or-reason.com/2020/06/0..., I show that it is practically impossible for chance alone to produce the first (simplest) living cell—a bacterial cell—from inanimate chemicals. The odds against its happening in the age of the universe (c. 14 billion years) is 10^40850 (i.e., 1 followed by 40,850 zeros) to one. That’s more than eight PAGES of zeros if written fully (50 lines per page, 100 zeros per line, with no commas in between).
Regards.
Carmel.

Carmel - Not sure there's such a thing as "a marginal Christian." You're either one or you're not. Unless you mean uncommitted or lukewarm Christian?
And what's your take on whether Christ rose again after the crucifixion?

Hi Carmel - yes I have written extensively on the role of evolution and our place in the universe. Maybe we should first investigate the historical Jesus (as per the title of this post) and see where it takes us. I stand with the following premise...

Most of us, if we are honest, will admit that some part of ourself yearns for something outside of material existence – we all search for something ‘more than this’ to give meaning to our lives. For many of us, this innate need is expressed through religious belief in a personal God, who supernaturally and selectively influences the lives of the creatures he has divinely created. Christians submit to the saving grace of Jesus Christ. Through faith in him anything is possible, and everyone can be saved.

Jesus, if he existed, which I personally believe to be true, lived and died a very human life. No one gets out of here alive! That said, I am in awe of the legacy that one man – born in poverty and raised in obscurity – has bequeathed to Western civilisation.
Overwhelmingly, the literature about Jesus comes from a faith perspective, and is therefore automatically biased to search for supernatural explanations to what are essentially ‘natural’ events. Also, very few people pick up a Bible to read it objectively; many will selectively choose statements that concur with established indoctrinated beliefs, and use the words as either a defensive shield or a sword to destroy opposing viewpoints.
We are therefore confronted with two interrelated obstacles in attempting to find the historical Jesus: Most of the words written about him attempt to justify his divinity, and most of the people attempting to understand him, already believe in a supernatural narrative to natural history. This is what makes any objective investigation about his life a very difficult undertaking.
Layered over this, is the tendency for theologians to weave academic analysis into a faith structure that by definition suspends reason and natural law. So, my take is ...

If we strip away the supernatural aspects of the Christ myth and disregard the institutional constructions that arose after him, all that remains is a story of someone born in poverty and raised in obscurity, who dedicated his life to being a voice for the oppressed and abused. His works and words give people the hope of something better, something more than mere servitude and survival. Jesus rebelled against organised religious sects and political structures and gave hope to the hopeless so that the struggles of life are not in vain. This is the tangible legacy given to us by the ‘Jesus of history’. If seen through this perspective, the story of the human Jesus is part of a greater narrative that puts the individual at the centre of all things.

Hi Lance:
In your message 21 you wrote, “Not sure there’s such a thing as ‘a marginal Christian.’ You're either one or you're not. Unless you mean uncommitted or lukewarm Christian?”
No, I do not mean “uncommitted or lukewarm Christian.”
There are so many Christian denominations that it’s very hard to define a ‘Christian’ accurately. The “Encyclopedia Britannica” defines ‘Christianity’ as a “major religion stemming from the life, teachings, and death of Jesus of Nazareth.” I think I satisfy that criterion, so I guess I am a ‘Christian.’ But then, a main tenet of Christianity is the doctrine of the Trinity (i.e., three full-fledged ‘Gods’ in one God), which I reject simply because it defies reason. Consequently, I also reject Jesus’s ‘divinity’: I believe he’s totally human; so, I classify myself as a ‘marginal’ Christian, like Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons. There are 8.7 million and 16.8 million of them, respectively, not to mention so many other ‘nontrinitarian’ Christian denominations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrin.... What’s one more ‘marginal Christian’ between friends, Lance? Give me a break. There are several other salient Christian doctrines I reject, but I’ll get to those when I answer Tony in my next post—I want to keep things simple and short in this post.

In your message 21 you also asked, “And what's your take on whether Christ rose again after the crucifixion?”
I think there’s enough reliable evidence in the New Testament showing that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead. I guess one might say I’m biased because I was raised Roman Catholic, but, for what it’s worth, here goes.
We know very little about most biblical authors; in other words, we don’t really know their ‘credentials.’ There’s one exception, Paul/Saul of Tarsus (perhaps better known by Christians as Saint Paul). We have thirteen letters in the New Testament bearing his name, but biblical scholars think only seven of them were actually written by him: the other six were probably written by his followers posthumously. The so-called ‘undisputed Pauline letters’ are: Romans, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, First Thessalonians, and Philemon. According to the “New American Bible,” apart from Philemon, they were all written in the mid-fifties CE: that is, only about twenty-five years after Jesus’s death—when most eyewitnesses were still alive and could question things. In my opinion, these are the most reliable ‘books’ (letters rather) in the entire Bible.
Now, what do we know about Paul/Saul of Tarsus? He was a Pharisee who hated and persecuted Christians, even to the point of killing them (Acts 7:54–8:2; 9:1–2). Still, in his authentic First Letter to the Corinthians, he writes,
“I delivered unto you first of all [of first importance (NAB)] that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: and that he was seen of [by] Cephas [Peter, the leader of Jesus’s original apostles], then of [by] the twelve [Jesus’s original apostles]: after that, he was seen of [by] above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain [are still living (NAB)] unto this present [day], but some are fallen asleep [dead]. After that, he was seen of [by] James [Jesus’s brother]; then of [by] all the apostles [chosen later]. And last of all he was seen of [by] me also, as of [if] one born out of due time. For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet [worthy] to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.” (First Corinthians 15:3–9, KJV)
Paul here declares he saw the resurrected Jesus PERSONALLY. Had it not been for this, Paul’s authentic testimony, Jesus’s resurrection would have sounded like an old-wives’ tale. Notice also that Jesus was seen alive again by more than 500 of his followers, the majority of whom were still alive in the mid-fifties CE; not to mention his apostles and his brother James.
There’s further evidence of Jesus’s resurrection in the gospels, but it’s not so strong; however, it has the ring of truth: it satisfies what is termed the ‘criterion of dissimilarity.’ Now, Mark’s gospel was written around 70 CE, Matthew’s gospel around 80 CE, Luke’s gospel around 90 CE, and John’s gospel around 100 CE. So the earliest gospel written was about 40 years after Jesus’s death. But by the time we get to John’s gospel (70 years after Jesus’s death) Jesus’s generation was probably all dead. (Incidentally, Jesus’s claims to divinity are all in John’s gospel—the least reliable gospel—and two other New Testament letters written even later: Titus and Second Peter.)
Anyway, in all four canonical (official) gospels, it was Mary Magdalene who first discovered Jesus’s tomb empty. The problem, in first century CE Judaism, was that the testimony of a woman was not worth much. Moreover, the testimony of at least two witnesses was required to make it believable. Consequently, we see all four evangelists scrambling for a second witness, but they could not agree. According to Mark, it was “Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome” (16:1, NAB, i.e., three women) who first found Jesus’s tomb empty; according to Matthew, it was “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary” (28:1, NAB, i.e., two women); according to Luke it was “Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the Mother of James; the others [women (23:55)] who accompanied them also” (24:10, NAB, i.e., at least five women); and according to John, “Mary Magdalene … saw the stone removed from the tomb” (20:1, NAB); she told “Simon Peter and … the other disciple whom Jesus loved … ‘They have taken the Lord from the tomb.’” (20:2, NAB, i.e. one woman alone) Again according to John, it was promptly verified by the two men (20:5–8).
Reading between the lines, this tells me that it was Mary Magdalene, alone, who first didn’t find Jesus’s body where it was buried. I admit this is not foolproof evidence, but one must admit that it does have the ring of truth.
Moreover, in his book "How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee," self-declared agnostic-atheist Bart Ehrman writes,
“There can be no doubt, historically, that some of Jesus’s followers came to believe he was raised from the dead—no doubt whatsoever. This is how Christianity started. If no one had thought Jesus had been raised, he would have been lost in the mists of Jewish antiquity and would be known today only as another failed prophet. But Jesus’s followers—or at least some of them—came to believe that God had done a great miracle and restored Jesus to life. This was not a mere resuscitation …. For Jesus’s disciples, Jesus was raised into an immortal body and exalted to heaven where he currently lives and reigns with God Almighty.” (p. 174)
Later in the book Ehrman adds,
“It is indisputable that some of the followers of Jesus came to think that he had been raised from the dead, and something had to have happened to make them think so. Our earliest records are consistent on this point, and I think they provide us with historically reliable information in one key respect: the disciples’ belief in the resurrection was based on visionary experiences.” (pp. 183–84)
So, had not Jesus’s followers strongly believe he rose from the dead, Christianity wouldn’t have flourished as it did. And who are we to say, two millennia later, that he did not? They were the eyewitnesses, and they were certainly in a better position than us to tell.
Someone might still argue that Islam doesn’t claim Mohammad resurrected from the dead, likewise Buddhism doesn’t claim that Siddhartha Gautama did, either; yet both religions were founded by historical figures and both have flourished globally. Good point! I don’t have a good reply to that, but possibly God did not want to give us the whole pie seeing that we haven’t really measured up.

Regards.
Carmel.

Carmel wrote: "Hi Lance:
In your message 21 you wrote, “Not sure there’s such a thing as ‘a marginal Christian.’ You're either one or you're not. Unless you mean uncommitted or lukewarm Christian?”
No, I do not m..."

Lots to digest here Carmel. Thanks.

Hi Lance:
I thought further about the term I used, "Marginal Christian." it's got to do with how many Christian doctrines (deemed indispensable by the majority of denominations) one believes in. I suppose if one accepts less than half of them, one would classify as a marginal Christian.
Regards,
Carmel.

Hi Tony,
Regarding your message 22—sorry for the delay:

(1) You wrote, “Jesus, if he existed, which I personally believe to be true ….”
That’s a good start; we both believe Jesus is a historical figure. Still, for the benefit of our readers who are not so sure, I’d like to add a quote from New Testament scholar and self-declared ‘agnostic-atheist’ Bart Ehrman from his book “Did Jesus Exist?—The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth.” Around two-thirds through the book he summarizes,
“We have considered substantial and powerful arguments showing that Jesus really existed (chapters 2–5 above). Many of the arguments made by the mythicists, by contrast, are irrelevant to the question (chapter 6); many of the others are relevant but insubstantial or, quite frankly wrong (this chapter [7]).” (p. 263)
He concludes, categorically confirming that,
“There was a historical Jesus, a Jewish teacher of first-century Palestine who was crucified by the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate.” (p. 263)
I strongly recommend this book for those who are doubtful of whether Jesus is a fictional character based on prior myths.

(2) You also wrote, “Most of the words written about him attempt to justify his divinity.” I agree with you that Jesus was totally human, not divine; and, like all of us, he did not exist before his birth. I do believe, however, in the ‘virgin birth’: that is, God (or rather the Holy Spirit) donated Mary a special sperm. Two of the four canonical (official) gospels, Matthew (1:18) and Luke (1:35), agree on this point.
For people who do not believe in miracles, this might be hard to swallow; but we do have empirical evidence that God can perform much greater miracles: like the ‘Miracle of the Sun’ around noon on October 13, 1917, near Fatima, Portugal, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle..., which was witnessed by about 70,000 people. Again, this might be a matter of faith, to some extent; but in my article on “Mary’s Virginity” in my website, https://faith-or-reason.com/2021/11/2..., I show that her having intercourse with a Roman soldier called Panthera is an unfounded calumny, written by Greek philosopher Celsus about 178 CE. Of course, this still leaves open other possibilities: like being raped by a Roman soldier (it was quite common in those days); still it’s hard to imagine how Jesus, with his impeccable character, was the son of a raping Roman soldier (maybe I’m prejudiced, but the fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree, the genes are there). Alternately, Jesus was simply the son of Joseph (Mary’s husband). However, there were records of paternity in the Jerusalem Temple: they kept track of Levites (who could only inherit the priesthood) and descendants of David (to rule out false Messiahs). Unfortunately, the Jerusalem Temple was destroyed and burnt by the Romans in 70 CE, but it begs the question why Paul called Jesus the ‘Son of God’ in the mid-fifties CE (Galatians 1:16, see below) if there were such records that could easily be checked: apparently there were no records of Joseph’s paternity of Jesus, even though Jesus was a descendant of King David (Matthew 1:1–17; Luke 3:23–38).
Throughout the gospels, Jesus was known as the ‘Son of God’ (e.g., Matthew 14:33; Mark 1:1, 3:11; Luke 4:41, John 1:34, 20:31); how else could God be Jesus’s Father if he had nothing to do with Mary. We are all ‘sons of God,’ but in Jesus’s case it was meant literally—not metaphorically.
Moreover, and most importantly, in his authentic Letter to the Galatians, Paul testifies that Jesus is the ‘Son of God’:
“Ye have heard of my conversation [way of life (NAB)] in time past in the Jews’ religion [Judaism], how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: and profited [progressed (NAB)] in the Jews’ religion above many [of] my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers. But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in [to] me, that I might preach him among the heathen [gentiles]; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter [the leader of Jesus’s original apostles], and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; and was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: but they had heard only, that ‘he which [who] persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.’” (Galatians 1:13–23, KJV)
So a Pharisee, a contemporary skeptic, and an enemy of Christianity here declares that God revealed to him that Jesus was God’s own Son. Notice also that Paul swears, by God, that he is not lying. I find it hard to swallow that a Pharisee would be lying through his teeth “before God.”

(3) You then wrote, “Jesus rebelled against organised religious sects and political structures …”
I agree with you there as well. As a result he ended up a victim of the Church and the State of his time—he was crucified. Jesus’s followers couldn’t fathom the fact that he was taken away from them so abruptly. So they came up with the ‘myth’ that he died to ‘redeem’ us from our sins. They even thought that he would come back soon to finish his work as the Messiah—the so-termed ‘rapture’ (First Thessalonians 4:15–17). To the extent that Paul of Tarsus (i.e., Saint Paul) told contemporary Christians not to marry because he thought the end of the world, as we know it, was so near (First Corinthians 7:8–9). Much as I admire Paul, he was also wrong at times!
Christ’s redemption from sin of humanity is one of the main tenets of Christianity: it even constituted the first Christian creed. Indeed as early as the mid-fifties CE, Paul quotes this creed:
“I delivered unto you first of all [of first importance (NAB)] that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.” (First Corinthians 15:3–4, KJV)
The story of Adam and Eve, or the ‘Fall of Humanity,’ is a myth based on the “Epic Poem of Gilgamesh,” https://uruk-warka.dk/Gilgamish/The%2..., written on twelve clay tablets about a millennium before (c. 2100 BCE) the first book of the Bible, the book of Genesis. The talking serpent is an obvious give-away: it belongs to the realm of fables; meaning the story never really happened; consequently there was no ‘original sin’ committed by our alleged ‘first parents.’ This means that Jesus had nothing to redeem us from: there was no such thing as the ‘Fall of Humanity.’
Notice also the iterated phrase “according to the scriptures” in the last quote. However, there are no Old Testament scriptures (only the Old Testament existed in Paul’s time) stating that the Messiah or Christ (‘Christos’ is Greek for ‘Messiah’) should suffer. [Note: In Judaism, when an individual was commissioned to perform a public office, his head was ‘anointed’ with a perfumed ointment. Both kings and priests were inaugurated in this manner.] The Messiah par excellence, or the Christ, was supposed to be a great king of Israel (the likes of David or Solomon) who would rule the whole world with God’s power by his side. Nor are there any Old Testament scriptures foretelling Jesus’s resurrection after three days. Jonah’s spending three days and three nights in the belly of a great fish (Jonah 1:17) does not mention any death of Jonah: it’s farfetched to interpret it as a prophecy of Jesus’s resurrection; not to mention that Jesus was dead for only two nights—not three. Although I have every respect for Paul’s undisputedly authentic letters, it seems he was still misled by what the original apostles thought and told him about Jesus.
In my message 23, I showed that there is significant evidence for Jesus’s resurrection. A much more difficult question is whether God intended Jesus to undergo a public death (crucifixion), so that when he resurrects him, nobody would be able to doubt it. I guess the answer depends, to a great extent, on one’s faith. However, I think that both God and Jesus had a premonition that the latter would end up a victim of the State because Jesus was preaching the imminent coming of the ‘kingdom of God’ at a time when the Roman emperor was deemed ruler of the whole known world. [Note: The kingdom of God was not a political kingdom; it was a kingdom where God rules in everyone’s ‘heart’: a kingdom of justice, sharing, love, truth, and peace. It is a ‘kingdom on earth: in fact we still pray “thy kingdom come … on earth” in the ‘Our Father.’ Jesus also thought that God was going to establish this kingdom, within his generation (Matthew 24: 34, Mark 13:30 & Luke 21:32), in one fell swoop: possibly, by something like appearing with his angelic hosts in the sky. But he was wrong by two-thousand-odd years; showing that he was human not divine (omniscient). See my article on the “Kingdom of God/Heaven” in my website: https://faith-or-reason.com/2022/03/0..., for further details.]
In his book “God and Empire: Jesus against Rome, Then and Now,” biblical scholar John Dominic Crossan writes,
“Jesus’ execution asks us to face the truth that, across human evolution, injustice has been created and maintained by violence while justice has been opposed and avoided by violence. That warning, if heeded, can be salvation [our wellbeing].” (p. 141)
In other words, dying violently comes with the territory when fighting for the underdog: as happened to many others like: Mohandas Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, and so on.
Jesus did try to explain to Pilate that the God’s kingdom was not a normal, political, and militant kingdom,
“My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence [here].” (John 18:36, KJV)
But it doesn’t seem to have helped much; Pilate still condemned Jesus to death, and it might be interesting to note that crucifixion was reserved for revolutionaries. In fact, the reason for his execution posted on his cross was “Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews.” (John 19:19, KJV)

(4) You seem to object to the statement, “Through faith in him anything is possible, and everyone can be saved.”
Although this is a main tenet of Christianity, again I agree with you. What’s going to happen to those people who never heard about Jesus? Are they all going to hell? There are currently 7.9 billion people worldwide, of which only 2.4 billion are Christians; so, according to Christian belief, at least, 5.5 billion will burn in a fiery pit eternally. If this be the case, then Satan (evil) has defeated God (good), hands down, throughout the ages. I refuse such doctrine as “Outside the Church there is no salvation”; not to mention that every Christian denomination condemns ALL the others to hell, simply because they don’t believe in some nuance of doctrine.
Moreover, in Matthew’s last judgement scene (25:31–46) all the ‘Son of Man’ asked of them was good deeds, not faith in Jesus or his redemption; indeed, both righteous and wicked had no idea who the Son of Man was, and their acknowledging him in any way was obviously unimportant to him. As I show in my article on the “Son of Man” in my website, https://faith-or-reason.com/2022/04/1..., this is one of the oldest, authentic speeches of Jesus. I wish I had more space.

Continued in the next post.

(5) I also believe Jesus was an authentic miracle-worker and healer: the gospels are consistent on this point. I don’t think his apostles and so many people would have followed him strictly for his words. (But then I could be wrong: so many people followed Mohammed, Gautama, Gandhi, Hitler, and others, who had no power of miracles.) However, in his book “Antiquities of the Jews,” first-century-CE, Jewish-Roman historian Josephus confirms this. Josephus’s writings were unfortunately tainted by Christian copyists, so for the sake of brevity I shall only give the version purged by scholars.
“At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. He was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. When Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us [Jews], condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.” (bk. 18, chap. 3, § 3) Notice the clause, “He was a doer of startling deeds.”
Jesus was also accused, by his detractors (the Pharisees), that he performed ‘magic’ by the devil’s power (Matthew 12:24). Again, this bears the ring of truth, namely, that they couldn’t explain away his feats.
However, he doesn’t seem to have had any prophetic powers, albeit the evangelists insist he did. I don’t know of anything he supposedly foretold actually transpiring: in other words, I’m not aware he prophesied anything that did not already happen at the time of writing of the gospels. In fact, his prophecy that the kingdom of God would come on earth in full bloom within his generation is, in my opinion, proof enough that he did not have prophetic powers.

Summary:
(1) Jesus is a historical figure: he existed and was executed by Pontius Pilate as a revolutionary. His crucifixion more than satisfies the ‘criterion of dissimilarity’ so it’s most probably true.
(2) I do not believe in Jesus’s divinity: I believe he was totally human and did not exist before his birth. The Trinity (three full-fledged ‘Gods’ in one God) defies human understanding. It is only the last gospel written around 100 CE (John’s) and later New Testament letters (Titus & Second Peter) that make such a claim. By then, Jesus was mythologized by his followers, like Zorro or Robin Hood.
(3) However, I believe in the ‘Virgin Birth’: that God, through the Holy Spirit, miraculously, donated his mother, Mary, a special sperm; so, Jesus is actually the ‘Son of God’ directly by birth. Jesus’s impeccable character is most like his Father (the closest a human can get to God); consequently, he is the ‘Word of God’: God’s character expressed in human terms.
(4) Adam and Eve’s story and the Fall of Humanity are a myth based on the Epic Poem of Gilgamesh written about a millennium prior to the first book of the Bible, but adapted to monotheism. The talking serpent is a definite giveaway that it belongs to the realm of fables; so, ‘Original Sin’ never happened: consequently, Jesus had nothing to redeem us from. In other words, contrary to Christian tenet, Jesus did not have to suffer and die for our sins. Hence, contrary to what most Christians believe, faith in Jesus is not necessary for ‘salvation’ in heaven.
(5) I also believe Jesus rose from the dead, as I argued in my message 23. Apparently, God allowed Jesus to suffer a public execution, not to redeem us from our sins, but in order that nobody could question his resurrection.
(6) Because of his teachings and eloquence, Jesus ended up the victim of the Church and State of his time.
(7) Jesus was a miracle-worker and healer. First-century-CE, Jewish-Roman historian Josephus also confirms he was a man who performed ‘startling deeds.’
(8) However, he had no prophetic powers. Jesus believed in the imminent coming of the ‘Kingdom of God’ (within his generation), but he was wrong by two millennia and counting. God doesn’t force conversions; he waits for our conviction and participation.
(9) Finally, I also believe Jesus is the ‘Christ’: the ‘Messiah’ or ‘Anointed One’ originally promised to King David (Second Samuel 7:12–16; see also Jeremiah 23:5–6)—the Greek word ‘Christos’ means ‘anointed.’ But this requires another posting—my next.

Regards,
Carmel.

Hi Carmel, give or take a few differences, I mostly agree with your points, except for point 5 -

"I also believe Jesus rose from the dead, as I argued in my message 23. Apparently, God allowed Jesus to suffer a public execution, not to redeem us from our sins, but in order that nobody could question his resurrection".

It is unreasonable that Pilate would allow the body of Jesus to be taken down so early from the cross. He had no respect for Jewish holidays; any pleading by Joseph of Arimathea on those grounds would have been ignored. Likewise, the Jewish priests who originally condemned Jesus would be opposed to the removal of the body from the cross. If Christ was ‘to rise’ after three days, it would be better to leave his body in plain sight—lifeless and decaying. Instead, the body is put into a closed tomb and perfectly hidden from prying eyes. A cynical interpretation of what transpired could conclude that hiding Jesus’s body in a locked tomb is akin to a magician placing someone in a box and making them ‘disappear’. This event does not make sense.
The Gospel of Mark also cryptically states that none of his Apostles were with Jesus at the time of his death. A few female followers ‘watched from a distance’. Ironically, it is the Roman centurion in charge of the execution party, who acknowledges the divinity of the dead Jesus: ‘surely this man was the Son of God’ (Mark 15:39). Jesus as Messiah and saviour had predicted that his death and ultimate resurrection would be the catalyst for the coming of the Son of Man as saviour for the Jewish people. The apostles (apart from James, Jesus’s brother) are nowhere to be seen. They have run away from the personal apocalypse of their teacher.
If we exclusively use Mark’s original account (assuming Marcan priority - which I do) of the final days of Jesus, we can only assume that another agenda and narrative are in play. The story is too vague and outside of what would be expected to transpire. As if to make events even more bizarre, the Gospel has an unknown character at the cross who offers Jesus wine vinegar, and then orders other onlookers away so that the prophet Elijah can come down from heaven and save Jesus at the last moment. For the early followers of Jesus, the ability to conquer death and possibly ‘rise again’ was a non-negotiable aspect of faith. The righteous will be with God and create a new Kingdom of Heaven on earth. But no one is there with the saviour at the end. He proclaims that God has forsaken him, but so have his followers.

All good stories and accounts of history are dependent on how ‘things turn out’. It is from an investigation into the final passages of the Gospel of Mark where the complexity and confusion that surround most of the historical and theological accounts of biblical literature can be highlighted. Religious scholars have identified nine different endings to Mark’s Gospel. In broad terms, however, there are two endings—the long and short versions—with subtle discrepancies embedded within these accounts.

The short version ends at Mark 16:8. It gives us a very isolated and sad picture of the days after the death and burial of Jesus. Mark positions the female disciples, Mary Magdalene, his mother Mary and Salome as witnesses to the empty tomb. They do not see either the dead Jesus or the risen Christ; instead, they see a young man sitting alone near the empty tomb.
Don’t be alarmed,’ he said. ‘You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, “He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you” (Mark 16:6-7).

Mark does not describe the young man as an angel or some kind of divine representative—he simply conveys a message. The young man had also instructed the women to tell Peter and the other disciples that Jesus would join them in Galilee. This never eventuated; none of the other Gospel accounts detail this event. It is said in Mark and then gone. In the shorter version, we do not see any sign of the risen saviour. In fact, the word ‘risen’ may take on a different meaning. It could mean that Jesus has risen bodily (either naturally or through divine intervention), or it could convey the more abstract idea that he has risen in spirit and that his body has been taken somewhere else. Either way, the women see no miraculous event. Everything about the shorter ending of the Gospel indicates that the death and burial of Jesus were very human and very real.

The women are both confused and afraid at what they confront. They find nothing but an empty tomb and a vague message of hope. There is no divine revelation or illumination; rather they are abandoned and afraid as they flee the tomb. In the shorter ending, the terrified women refuse to communicate what they have seen. ‘They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid’ (Mark 16:8). We are given no other reason for their silence. It could be argued that the women should have been ecstatic at the sight of the empty tomb; instead, they become silent witnesses driven by fear rather than faith.

The longer version of the ending of Mark’s Gospels includes verses 16:9–20. Here, we are left in no doubt that the dead Jesus has become the resurrected Christ. He shows himself to Mary Magdalene and also to other disciples. He commands the Eleven to ‘go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation’ (Mark 16:15). The apostles are bequeathed his power and authority to baptise, convert, heal and minister to all people. The longer version ends tidily with the ascension of Jesus into heaven. Interestingly, again, there is no mention of Jesus meeting with his disciples in Galilee. From Mark 16:19–20: ‘After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God’. It is generally acknowledged that the longer version was added at a later date probably at some time during the second century.

Hi Tony:
In your message 28 you wrote, “Give or take a few differences, I mostly agree with your points, except for point 5.” To tell you the truth, I was somewhat surprised that you agreed with my point (3) the ‘virgin birth’ and point (7) Jesus’s ‘miracles’ in my message 27 since you don’t believe in miracles; unless, of course, your “give or take a few differences” is an understatement.
I agree with you that Mark’s gospel is the most accurate and reliable of the gospels; however, it was written in the 70s CE while Paul’s authentic letters were written in the 50s CE. Recall that in his First Corinthians, Paul wrote,
“I delivered unto you first of all [of first importance (NAB)] that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: and that he was seen of [by] Cephas [Peter, the leader of Jesus’s original apostles], then of [by] the twelve [Jesus’s original apostles]: after that, he was seen of [by] above five hundred brethren [Christians] at once; of whom the greater part remain [are still living (NAB)] unto this present [day], but some are fallen asleep [dead]. After that, he was seen of [by] James [Jesus’s brother]; then of [by] all the apostles [chosen later]. And last of all he was seen of [by] me also, as of [if] one born out of due time. For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet [worthy] to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.” (First Corinthians 15:3–9, KJV)
Notice that Paul says “Christ died,” that “he was buried,” that “he rose again the third day” and that “he was seen” by Paul personally—not to mention five hundred Christians, all the apostles, and Jesus’s brother James.
We don’t know who the author of Mark’s gospel was: even though we keep calling him Mark; on the other hand, we know very well who Paul was. So, whatever Mark says in his gospel is irrelevant: his writings are trumped by what Paul said some two decades earlier. In other words, contrary to what ordinary Christians believe, Paul’s authentic letters are much more reliable than all the gospels, including Mark’s.
I agree with you that when the Romans crucified revolutionaries, they left them hanging high (naked) for days to be eaten by scavenging birds and animals, and for everyone to see—as a deterrent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifi.... But Paul clearly says that Jesus was buried! And this was one of the very first Christian creeds (NAB). Why or how he doesn’t say, we can only speculate.
Although mentioned in all four canonical (official) gospels, Joseph of Arimathea seems to be an ‘afterthought’ since he is not mentioned anywhere else prior in all four gospels. Indeed, in his book “How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee,” New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman shows a discrepancy in Mark’s gospel. Mark tells us that Joseph of Arimathea was “an honourable counsellor” (15:43, KJV), that is, a member of the Jewish religious ‘council’ known as the ‘Sanhedrin,’ which consisted of seventy-odd members: “all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes,” according to Mark (14:53, KJV). Mark also tells us that “they all condemned him to be guilty of death” (14:64, KJV). Notice the word “all.” So, Ehrman asks what made Joseph of Arimathea have a change of heart the next day (p. 152). Luke adds that Joseph of Arimathea did not consent with the decision of the council (23:51); but Mark had let the cat out of the bag already—Mark is probably telling the truth.
You also wrote, “It is unreasonable that Pilate would allow the body of Jesus to be taken down so early from the cross,” which would have been true under normal circumstances. However, (1) Jesus was very popular, so Pilate may have wanted to avoid an insurrection by appeasing the people to some extent—proper burial was very important to the Jews; (2) Pilate understood from Jesus that ‘God’s kingdom’ was not a military threat: indeed he tried to free him (Matthew 27:24; Mark 15:14; Luke 23:20; John 19:4, 12); (3) Pilate’s wife apparently had a dream (or premonition, if you like) and told him not to be involved in his case (Matthew 27:19)—men go out of their way trying to please their wife.
I agree with you that Mark’s ‘longer ending’ was probably added in the early second century CE: Wikipedia agrees, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16, and so does the ‘New American Bible’ (16:9–20n). But I think you give too much importance to just one book (Mark’s gospel), and totally disregard much more reliable ‘books’—like Paul’s seven authentic letters. Much as I value Mark’s gospel, being the first gospel written, it tends to be rather sketchy and non-committal at times—it doesn’t even have a birth account of Jesus; however, Matthew’s and Luke’s gospels, both written in the first century CE, used it as a skeleton—as you probably know the three gospels are known as the ‘synoptic gospels.’ I think they have to be taken together to decipher the whole truth about the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. John’s gospel, on the other hand, seems to be a little tangential, so one has to read it carefully and discriminate between what is probably authentic and what is probably not.
Besides, in my opinion, Mark’s abrupt ending has enough ‘clues’ implying that Jesus rose from the dead, unless one wants to be difficult about it. True, as you wrote, “Mark does not describe the young man as an angel or some kind of divine representative”; however, the “long white garment” (16:5, KJV) the “young man” was wearing is indicative of a celestial being (an angel); and he clearly announces that “he [Jesus] is risen” (16:6, KJV). (In Matthew 28:3, the angel is wearing white, too.) The fact that the women “neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid” (16:8, KJV) is perfectly understandable and has the ring of truth. (In Mathew 28:6, KJV, the women “departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy.”) Here’s a man who was executed by the Roman method of capital punishment, missing from the tomb where he was buried: they did not want to start any rumors that might get them in trouble with the State; not to mention that, in those days, women had the reputation of exaggerating, even imagining things, and were therefore considered unreliable witnesses. The truth, however, has a tendency of surfacing, despite their not telling anyone initially, because Jesus was meanwhile appearing alive here and there. Being the first gospel written, Mark’s was written on word-of-mouth (tradition) accounts. Matthew and Luke had more time to refine certain details, making them clearer.
Finally, I cannot quite understand what you want to convey by your statement, “an unknown character at the cross who offers Jesus wine vinegar, and then orders other onlookers away so that the prophet Elijah can come down from heaven and save Jesus.” According to Mark, Jesus called out, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” (Mark 15:34, KJV) Now remember that Jesus was dying, so his voice might not have been very clear; indeed, someone thought he was calling Elias/Elijah (notice “Eloi” sounds something like “Elias”), who was supposedly taken to heaven in a fiery chariot alive (Second Kings 2:11), and many believed he would come back to earth sometime. In fact some people thought Jesus himself was Elijah come back to life (Matthew 16:14; Mark 6:15; Luke 9:8). Naturally, the people watching Jesus die on the cross hoped to witness a miracle first hand. But Elijah did not come to save Jesus: Jesus dies in the next verse (Mark 15:37).
Admittedly, we don’t know exactly whose grave Jesus was buried in; nor do we have a ‘smoking gun’—witnesses who actually saw Jesus rise from the dead—people only saw his tomb empty and his body was never found. But we do have compelling circumstantial evidence: mainly through his apparitions to his followers—including a skeptic, Paul.
Regards,
Carmel.

Hi Carmel, I was trying to focus my discussion on the existence of the 'historical ' Jesus. But in reference to the points you mentioned: I see accounts of miracles as personally interpreted visions of transpired events. Historical scholars, while acknowledging the accounts of visions, would, however, classify them as either veridical visions (‘real’ visions) or non-veridical visions (visual hallucinations). Christian scholars usually believe that these visions are veridical, while non-Christian scholars would argue that the visions are non-veridical and therefore simply false.

The concept of a person becoming alive again is outside the reality of conventional historical analysis, making this event difficult to communicate from a non-faith and purely historical perspective. However, historians must acknowledge that certain people definitely had visions of the resurrected Jesus and that these visions are included as historical events in the New Testament. Mary Magdalene, Peter and even Paul had direct visions of Jesus after his death.

With regards to the conception of Jesus: A core belief of Christianity is that all people inherit the original sin of Adam and Eve and that they will, at some point, choose to sin themselves, bringing evil into the domain of humanity. Only two people, Jesus and his mother Mary, have escaped original sin, as expressed by the tenant of Immaculate Conception.
The meaning of the term ‘Immaculate Conception’ has been widely misinterpreted. Many people believe it refers to the conception of Jesus by Mary without the need for sexual intercourse. But for the conception to be immaculate, Mary herself needed to be born without original sin in order to be a pure vessel that could hold the future Saviour.

Finally, the value of Paul in finding the historical Jesus is also problematic. The writings of St Paul in the New Testament have only a few references that give illumination on the life of the historical Jesus – specifically that Jesus was born of a woman, was Jewish, had a brother named James and was betrayed. The problem with discussing any 2,000-year-old text is also immediately apparent. There is no original text of the New Testament that can be used as both a primary historical source and as the ‘base’ written work that can be compared with later ‘corruptions’. Also, there was no complete or agreed version of the New Testament until the fourth century CE. The letters of Paul and the four Gospels, existed in many different versions during the first centuries after the death of Christ. The early scribes of these texts were not professional writers and, in many cases, did not have the skills required to transcribe words from a foreign language or dialect.
The earliest surviving copy of the first Gospel, that of Mark, has been dated to the third century—over 150 years after the Gospel was written. The oldest surviving fragment of a letter attributed to Paul is part of 1 Corinthians, dated also to the early third century CE. The earliest fragment of any part of the accepted New Testament is a papyrus manuscript known as P52 from John’s Gospel. It is dated to the early part of the second century.
It is therefore reasonable to assume that the original versions of the books of the New Testament have changed either through accidents in translation or by the intent of the scribes. Some early scribes translating the Gospels of the New Testament may have been aware of inconsistencies between competing versions of a document. They could even have been aware of apparent errors within the same text. It is therefore not unreasonable to conclude that the scribes could have made additional changes in an attempt to harmonise these differing accounts. Such attempts to harmonise and even reconceptualise the New Testament have continued in some form right up to the present day.
By default, all the information we have about Jesus the man is contained in the harmonised and potentially corrupted words of the four Gospels. Even given this, it is starkly apparent that the Gospel of John shows little or no illumination on the human Jesus. Both Matthew and Luke had a copy of Mark with them at the time of writing. Any extra content in them is concerned with justifying Jesus as the incarnation of the Jewish Messiah. The quest to find the historical Jesus comes down to the words given to us in one book—the Gospel of Mark.

Tony, it’s funny you mention Adam and Eve. I would say above all this is a sticking point for me that I cannot hurdle with regard to Jesus. I don’t believe two people begat the entire planet and the contradictions in the Bible make it clear they didn’t either-Cain went to the land of Nod and married. How the hell did he do that?! Haha. Anyway, Jesus divinity rests on a number of preceding event that had to have happened for him to be born as you pointed out so well before. The idea that Adam and Eve and original sin had to happen in order for Jesus to redeem mankind for original sin just sticks in my craw. If Adam and Eve didn’t exist then Jesus the messiah of Christianity would not need to exist. I might believe a man named Jesus lived in a historical context provided by New Testament, but he would have been akin to Apollonius, Simon Magus, or even his follower Paul for that matter…a man that saw things differently than the Sanhedrin did and tried to introduce his disciples to a radical new way of thinking, much like Gautama Buddha did for those who followed Vedic traditions. I have studied this topic endlessly and cannot find any evidence that history points to a historical Jesus. I am in the camp that gnostics likely created a system that taught important spiritual beliefs and exercises coded in metaphor…the Roman church then decided to make these teachings “historica”

Wow, interesting stuff.

HOW DOES ONE START A TOPIC?

Hi Tony, in your message 30:

(1) You wrote, “Historical scholars, while acknowledging the accounts of visions, would, however, classify them as either veridical visions (‘real’ visions) or non-veridical visions (visual hallucinations).”
Unless you are open to the REMOTE possibility that miracles might happen, there is not much point in discussing the topic further—including, naturally, Jesus’s resurrection claim. Whatever is said, you will either say that there is a scientific explanation or else that the people who experienced them were ‘hallucinating.’
For example, in his book “The God Delusion,” this is what self-declared atheist Richard Dawkins had to say regarding the miracle near Fatima, Portugal around noon on October 13, 1917: a miracle that was also reported by atheist newspapers.
“On the face of it mass visions, such as the report that seventy thousand pilgrims at Fatima in Portugal in 1917 saw the sun ‘tear itself from the heavens and come crashing down upon the multitude’, are harder to write off. It is not easy to explain how seventy thousand people could share the same hallucination.” (p. 116)
70,000 witnesses are not enough for Dawkins; it’s still a “hallucination” for him. What would it take to convince him that it was “veridical”? I think that even if he saw it himself he would not believe his eyes because science tells him that the earth would have shot out of its orbit. In fact, Dawkins continues,
“But it is even harder to accept that it really happened without the rest of the world, outside Fatima, seeing it too—and not just seeing it, but feeling it as the catastrophic destruction of the solar system, including acceleration forces sufficient to hurl everybody into space.” (p. 116)
In actual fact the phenomenon was seen up to 18 kilometers away. Dawkins is absolutely correct, scientifically; but that’s the point: by definition, true miracles (as opposed to entertainment illusions) defy science, otherwise they wouldn’t be miracles. Did you ever read Wikipedia’s account of the ‘Miracle of the Sun’: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle...? If not, I suggest you do.
It’s not everyone that sees phenomenal miracles or visions; still it doesn’t mean that they are non-veridical. The fact that “several people saw nothing” at Fatima precludes ‘mass hysteria,’ ‘mass hallucination,’ or ‘UFO action’—for those who believe in them. When people have miraculous visions, they see others in the normal way: they converse with them, they see them smiling and crying; they can touch them and hug them as well. It seems to me that, during miracles, ‘selected’ persons are transported to a ‘four-dimensional spacetime’ where time is the fourth variable (i.e., they can travel in time as we can travel in space): while, somehow, they still remain fixed in our time.
All we can say about Jesus’s resurrection is that there was a contemporary SKEPTIC (Paul of Tarsus) who persecuted Christians to the point of assisting in killing them (Acts 7:58), if not actually killing them (Galatians 1:13). Yet he tells us that he saw, personally, the resurrected Jesus (First Corinthians 15:8). Was it “veridical”? All we know is that he converted to Christianity instantly, and it seems he suffered martyrdom under the Roman emperor Nero because of his Christian faith.
One might argue that 500 of Jesus’s followers (First Corinthians 15:6) were “hallucinating” because they strongly desired him alive, but why would Paul, who thought Jesus was cursed by God because he was crucified (Galatians 3:13; Deuteronomy 21:23)?
As I pointed out before, Jesus’s resurrection would have sounded like an old-wives’ tale had it not been for Paul’s testimony. Personally, I opt to believe a contemporary skeptic rather than modern skeptics—modern skeptics can say nothing about what happened back then.

(2) You then wrote, “A core belief of Christianity is that all people inherit the original sin of Adam and Eve.”
In my article on “Adam and Eve—Original Sin,” https://faith-or-reason.com/2020/09/2..., I show that Adam and Eve’s story is a myth based on the “Epic Poem of Gilgamesh.” Indeed, the talking serpent is an obvious give-away that it belongs to the realm of fables; so, ‘original sin’ never happened: consequently, Jesus had nothing to redeem us from. My conclusion is that this ‘immaculate conception’ doctrine is just nonsense: we are all born ‘immaculate’ (without sin); since there was no ‘original sin’ committed by our ‘first parents,’ we cannot possibly inherit it. Not to mention that no sane judge would condemn a son for the sin of his father; let alone divine justice! So, I agree with you there: Jesus couldn’t have been born to redeem us from original sin as most Christians believe. (I believe God conceived him to set Scriptures right: to tell us exactly what God is all about—by both his words and example.)

(3) You also wrote, “There is no original text of the New Testament that can be used as both a primary historical source and as the ‘base’ written work that can be compared with later ‘corruptions’.” This statement is true, as far as it goes. Where I disagree with you is where you wrote, “The letters of Paul and the four Gospels, existed in many different versions during the first centuries after the death of Christ. The early scribes of these texts were not professional writers and, in many cases, did not have the skills required.”
Actually, as it happened, the scribes and monks have done a very good job throughout the centuries, and that includes the Old Testament. You might be interested in this lecture by Dr. Daniel Wallace, Senior Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and Executive Director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, entitled “How Badly Was the New Testament Corrupted?” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ5cg... Click “browse YouTube.”)
So, apart from minor errors, I must also disagree with your statement, “It is therefore reasonable to assume that the original versions of the books of the New Testament have changed either through accidents in translation or by the intent of the scribes.”
In 1947, the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered; among them were several manuscripts of portions of the Bible dating back prior to the time of Jesus. Specifically, there was found among them a complete manuscript of Isaiah in classical Hebrew, radiocarbon-dated earlier than 100 CE. On comparing it to our current ‘Masoretic text,’ their agreement was fantastic: thus, it restored confidence in the replicating process of both the Old and New Testaments. The scribes’ and monks’ instructions were to copy the ‘holy books’ EXACTLY. I think your bias is making you jump to unsubstantiated conclusions. I do admit, however, they did occasionally add ‘glosses’ (usually in the margin or between lines) reflecting their understanding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblica....
As to contradictions in the Bible, I think they simply remained there: they are countless. I give a few examples in two of my articles: https://faith-or-reason.com/2022/08/1... and https://faith-or-reason.com/2022/08/0....
Consequently, I must disagree with your statement, “By default, all the information we have about Jesus the man is contained in the harmonised and potentially corrupted words of the four Gospels.” I don’t think they are that seriously corrupted, and so does Dr. Daniel Wallace.
Although I agree, basically, with your assessment of the four canonical (official) gospels, I must disagree with your conclusion, “The quest to find the historical Jesus comes down to the words given to us in one book—the Gospel of Mark.” In my opinion, Paul’s seven authentic letters are more reliable because they were written a couple of decades earlier than the first written gospel (Mark’s): albeit the information in there has to be gathered painstakingly.
Finally, there’s no doubt whatsoever, from Paul’s letters, that he believed Jesus was the ‘Christ’ (i.e., ‘Messiah’), prior to the evangelists. As I wrote in my book “Is the Bible Infallible: A Rational, Scientific, and Historical Evaluation, “All the seven undisputed Pauline letters (which are the earliest Christian writings, some of which were probably written a couple of decades before Mark’s gospel) clearly state that Jesus is the Christ. Consequently, Paul, who was also very knowledgeable in the Jewish scriptures, believed it too. For example, both at the beginning and at the end of all his undisputedly authentic letters, Paul calls Jesus the Christ. (Romans 1:1, 16:27; 1 Corinthians 1:1, 16:24; 2 Corinthians 1:1, 13:13; Galatians 1:1, 6:18; Philippians 1:1, 4:23; 1 Thessalonians 1:1, 5:28; Philemon 1:1. 1:25.) Moreover, all of Paul’s authentic letters are, literally, littered everywhere with the phrase “Jesus Christ” or “Christ Jesus”: they are too numerous (about 130) and it would be too boring to list them all here.” (p. 517)

Sorry for the delay.
Regards,
Carmel.

Hi B., regarding your message 31:

(1) You first wrote, “You mention Adam and Eve. … I don’t believe two people begat the entire planet.”
I agree with you there: they would probably have succumbed to the elements before they would have had enough time to rear offspring to adulthood, or killed by wild animals since they had no hunting tools to defend themselves.
Anyway, the story of Adam and Eve is an adaptation to monotheism of the “Epic Poem of Gilgamesh,” which was written on clay tablets about a millennium prior to the Bible: https://uruk-warka.dk/Gilgamish/The%2.... The talking serpent is an obvious giveaway that it belongs to the realm of fables; not to mention that the serpent (or snake) appears in both Genesis and Gilgamesh’s poem as the culprit who stealthily robbed humanity of immortality. Also the concept of humanity wishing to “be like gods” (Genesis 3:5) comes from there. See my article on “Adam and Eve—Original Sin”: https://faith-or-reason.com/2020/09/2....

(2) You then wrote, “The contradictions in the Bible make it clear they didn’t either—Cain went to the land of Nod and married. How the hell did he do that?”
Again I agree with you: see the section on “Cain’s Wife” in my article on “Bible Contradictions (Old Testament)”: https://faith-or-reason.com/2022/08/1....

(3) You also wrote, “The idea that Adam and Eve and original sin had to happen in order for Jesus to redeem mankind for original sin just sticks in my craw.”
Again you are perfectly right. There was no ‘original sin’ committed: Adam and Eve’s story is just a myth—it never happened; so, Jesus had nothing to redeem us from. Again, see my article on “Adam and Eve—Original Sin”: https://faith-or-reason.com/2020/09/2....

(4) But then you wrote, “I have studied this topic endlessly and cannot find any evidence that history points to a historical Jesus.”
I already dealt with this question in my message 26. I quoted from New Testament scholar and self-declared ‘agnostic-atheist’ Bart Ehrman’s book “Did Jesus Exist?—The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth.” Around two-thirds through the book he summarizes,
“We have considered substantial and powerful arguments showing that Jesus really existed (chapters 2–5 above). Many of the arguments made by the mythicists, by contrast, are irrelevant to the question (chapter 6); many of the others are relevant but insubstantial or, quite frankly wrong (this chapter [7]).” (p. 263)
He concludes categorically confirming that,
“There was a historical Jesus, a Jewish teacher of first-century Palestine who was crucified by the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate.” (p. 263)
I strongly recommend this book for those who are doubtful of whether Jesus is a fictional character based on prior myths: it’s very scholarly and convincing. I’m amazed that you “cannot find any evidence that history points to a historical Jesus.” I think trying to deny Jesus’s existence is an exercise in futility.

(5) Finally you wrote, “Gnostics likely created a system that taught important spiritual beliefs and exercises coded in metaphor…the Roman church then decided to make these teachings ‘historica.’”
The Gnostics had a completely different theology from the Roman Christian Church. For example, they believed that the “serpent” in Adam and Eve’s story was the “Savior” Jesus Christ because he induced Eve to eat of the “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil” (Genesis 2:16–17; 3:1–7). The Greek word ‘gnosis’ means ‘knowledge,’ from where Gnostics got their name: they were obsessed with the pursuit of this higher “personal spiritual knowledge” that only a few elite could attain to achieve ‘salvation.’ In Christianity the tempting serpent personifies the devil while Jesus is God. Moreover, Christianity teaches that everyone can attain ‘salvation’—intelligent or stupid. Furthermore, Gnostics thought ‘Yahweh,’ the God of the Jews and the Old Testament was a malevolent Creator because he created matter—also identified with Satan—the source of evil on earth.
Gnostics considered ‘light’ (as opposed to darkness) a divine or semi-divine substance, while the Bible states that God created light on the first day of the Creation (Genesis 1:3–5). There were some minor adoptions of Gnostic concepts by the Roman Christian Church; for example, in the Nicene Creed, we still pray, “I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made.” Notice the phrase “Light from Light”: light is simply a physical entity, an electromagnetic radiation, not a divine element. But other than that phrase, and the word “Sabaoth” (allegedly one of the servants of Yahweh) in the “Sanctus,” the Latin version of “Holy, Holy, Holy” prayer at mass (translated in English as “of hosts”), I don’t know of any other gnostic adoptions by the Roman Christian Church. Frankly, I fail to see where you see any parallelism of Gnosticism with Western theology and philosophy; indeed Gnostics were considered heretics by the Roman Christian Church as early as the second century CE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism.

Regards,
Carmel.

Lance wrote: " ... Do my fellow Undergrounders know if there any Christian scientists around or even if there's such a thing as a Christian scientist? ...
Do any scientists believe in the Bible's version of the Creation as opposed to Darwin's Theory of Evolution?"

Back in the 1990s (I think) the Catholic Church took the position that Genesis Chapter 1 does not conflict with the Theory of Evolution. But many have issues with Darwin's Theory of natural selection and the survival of the fittest.

Long before that, Nietzsche pointed out the problem of the master versus the slave mentalities. The master king-of-the-jungle types believe themselves to be 'good' and the more common folk to be not-as-good and actually bad quality.

The masses eventually developed the idea that common folk are 'good' and that some master-types are actually not 'good,' but 'evil.' As you can see, this is not "evolution." This is beginning of conflict between different groups and their will to power.

Dan wrote: "HOW DOES ONE START A TOPIC?"

I suppose one can start here ... what topic do you wish to start?

Carmel,

All great points. I am aware of the demi-urge aspect of Gnosticism which leads me further to believe the Roman Catholic Church(aka the universal church) is nonsense. Not all people of the time of a supposed historical Jesus believed that Yaweh was God-as previously noted here and in your own statement, the gnostics saw Yaweh as Yaldabaoth, a false blind god. There were also early proto-Christian Gnostic sects that believed Jesus was an Aeon sent to rescue Sophia from her “damnation”. This is where I get to gnostics and Catholics. I have been raised a Catholic and married into a strict Catholic family and they believe the death and resurrection of Jesus to be real…my point about the Roman church making things historical can be summed up here….the gnostics(broad term because there were varying sects) mostly believed in esoteric spiritual beliefs systems taught in metaphor e.g. through gnosis one dies to his old self via a painstaking process of searching for knowledge and being reborn in a Christ consciousness of sorts. The church itself borrowed heavily from Gnosticism, pagan mystery religions, and possibly even eastern religions like Hinduism and Buddhism, as these were all readily available in and near the Middle East at this time. I have read Bart Ehraman extensively, and I disagree with him regarding a historical Jesus…I think he has guilt about “abandoning” his faith and this point is a consolation prize to himself and others.

The bigger question for me regarding a historical Jesus is this-was he chicken or egg? What I mean is this: do we believe a historical Jesus exists due to the proliferation of Christians and church’s over the last 2000 years and the teachings that came forth and we then have to work backwards to make it fit Jewish scripture or was there a historical man that the church applied its own beliefs to in order to build a religion? The only reason we even believe in a historical Jesus, in my opinion, is because the Roman church propped him us as the messiah and since then Christian apologists have done their best to pigeon hole him back into history where there is no independent evidence of his existence. Let’s take away the Bible, would we be speaking of Jesus? There are also writings and oral histories of many other gods, yet we don’t think Hercules, for example was historical do we? Why not? The Romans wrote extensively on their enemies-hell they even constructed a statue of Hanibal to honor his might….we don’t believe they would have written about a David copper field magic god man? Even Bart Ehrman suggests that Josephus account of Jesus is a fabrication…so where’s the actual proof? It’s my supposition that Jesus was made up by Paul and later fabricated further by other men like Iraneaus. The reason the council of Nivea even existed was to throw away beliefs that they didn’t agree with and establish a universal system…why would they do this if it was clear in writings?

*Nicea.

Which brings me to my earlier point-many many event in the Old Testament and New Testament are retro fitted to the messiah known as Jesus…many interpretations were made after his supposed death by the communities of Matthew, Mark and Luke, as well as Paul of Tarsus. In order for their to be a need for Jesus, historical or otherwise in the first place, Adam and Eve had to break a pact with God by committing original sin which is incredibly unreasonable. In order for him to be divine he needs to have original sin as the reason why he dies for us. So either he was a teacher like Apollonius, Buddha, Plato or Pythagoras and wasn’t very good at it because his enemies make no mention of him or he’s a complete fabrication by Paul and the Catholic Church which followed to fit a narrative. To make matters worse, translations of the Bible had to have been sullied by years of corruption, influence, bias, misinterpretation, misrepresentation, mistranslation, etc, etc. what we even know of Jesus thanks to the Roman Church is likely as close to the truth as banana flavored circus peanuts are to actual flavor of a banana haha. He was a Godman like bacchus or mithras repackaged to suit the Jews, which ultimately appealed to the Greeks and Roman’s more so because of the similarities to above mentioned deities.

Interesting stuff B., Carmel, Scott, Tony, Jonathan et al. Thanks.

I imagine a (Christian) theologian would have a field day with this discussion thread...or a hernia or mental breakdown perhaps!

Must away...It's medication time...

Lance wrote: "Interesting stuff B., Carmel, Scott, Tony, Jonathan et al. Thanks.

I imagine a (Christian) theologian would have a field day with this discussion thread...or a hernia or mental breakdown perhaps! ..."

I'm with you on this one Lance medication definitely....oncoming mental breakdown here!!!

B. wrote: "The bigger question for me regarding a historical Jesus is this-was he chicken or egg? What I mean is this: do we believe a historical Jesus exists due to the proliferation of Christians and church..."
Because Christianity accepts Christ as God Incarnate, Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End.
Chronologically, chickens and eggs exist within the time between the beginning and the end. And the historical Jesus took flesh 2,000 years ago for only 33 years.

At risk of becoming the bad one here's my input for what it's worth ??
JMO Christianity/Jesus became the ruling power through the Mother (Helena) of the ruling Roman empire at the time (Constantine l) after she supposedly found the crucifixion cross of Jesus. Rome being Rome was loosing it's Empire rapidly and in trouble so as Christianity was taking off saw it as a way of having a new world Empire through this religion? Call me cynical but most of the major feasts etc are based on pagan dates and deities, as are most churches built on pagan sites?
Did Jesus exist haven't a clue? did he do what was written of him hundreds of years later, again haven't a clue?
One thing I do know is it doesn't matter to me as there is an afterlife (this I know for sure) and a creator energy whatever you want to call him/her/it.
Now I await for my crucifixion here...lol

Beth…no crucifixion here lol. I think you are spot on. This is why I used the word retro-fit. Many things that the church props up as holy are nothing but renamed/repackaged pagan rites and celebrations…I also believe Jesus himself is the same-he is Mithras, Bacchus, Osiris, etc. Constantine listened to his mother and was smart to do so…he was able to bring people under control by instituting a state religion while he himself only converted on his death bed. Ask a Christian and they can explain anything by retro-fit because as pointed out he is considered the alpha and omega. You just have to have faith that all the men involved in the church and it’s writings were pure of heart hundreds and thousands of years later hahaha. Jesus literally could have been anyone or no one…what matters is that you have faith in what the church and its schismatic offspring tell you what to believe.

Agreed B, the Vatican could (should they be Christian enough!) end world poverty by opening their purses not keep taking from those with little or nothing to buy their gold Chalices etc. Other people who are in these Cabals/elites could also do the same but they won't.
I've been to countries where the people have nothing, still farming with horses but their Catholic Churches are Spectacularly (I really mean that too) rich both in decoration and articles. WHY? surely people who live are more important but no, I suppose that's their choice.
Sorry for my rant but you only have to read what the Inquisition did to the Cathars in the 12th/13thand 14th c just because they didn't conform. Yes they believed in Jesus but not as an incarnated person and women were equally holy (Perfecti) as men if deserved (more to it but too much to write here).
During the Catholic Albigensian Crusade at Beziers they massacred all in the town men, women and children, when question the Crusade Commander said quote "Kill them. The Lord knows those that are his own". All in the name of Jesus??
Then we have todays priests so I'll stop here. Nuff said.
Sorry if off topic Guys, just got me ranting as you can tell. LOL.

Beth wrote: "At risk of becoming the bad one here's my input for what it's worth ??
JMO Christianity/Jesus became the ruling power through the Mother (Helena) of the ruling Roman empire at the time (Constantine..."
There is nothing "bad" about presenting history in a non-chronological matter. But I prefer to look at history chronologically.
The books in the New Testament were written hundreds of years before Constantine. And of course, the Dead Sea Scrolls proved Hebrew Scripture was written before that. Plus the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem is documented to have happened 70 AD.
The Emperor Constantine adopted Christianity into Roman Law in the 4th Century. But Christianity already existed before Constantine.

Carmen:

No dispute there…but which Christianity. Catholic Christianity was the first mainstream Christianity, all others were destroyed along the way because they were deemed heretical, like the cathars. This was my over riding point-we don’t really know what real Christianity was or is…we only have glimpses of it encoded in the Bible which has absolutely been tampered with over last 200 years. Cannot take the Bible as history or fact either as it was written 100s of years after supposed historical Jesus existed. Even by that time stories would have changed….hell even the synoptic gospels are not totally identical!

*2000 years.

Not to mention the further schisms within the faith…coptics, orthodox, Catholic(this universality is heading toward another schism as well), multiple iterations of Protestantism and Gnostic Christianities(that don’t even exist anymore). Which interpretation is correct. Protestants think Catholicism is incorrect and down right wrong, but they were the first universal church from which all other modern Christianity sprung forth…so if the source is corrupted, isn’t the next variation even further corrupted? It’s a big mess!

At the early time there were many men claiming to be the prophesied messiah so it was a take your pick!! how it ended up to be Jesus ??? The only thing was there were prophecies that specified what the Messiah would do and guess what Jesus followed them to the letter even his organising his entry into Jerusalem with his followers on Psalm Sunday ?
There were many forms of teachings from these different men but Jesus got the Crown (sorry guys) simply because of Constantine's Mum who chose his teachings because he followed the prophecies, and what a great way to conquer to world again! Constantine and his cronies wrote (manipulated) "the Bible" according to their wants and needs of the time, bit like Henry Vlll and King James. JMO.
Sorry Carmen if it may be out of chronology for you but that's me I afraid!!