Jesus had a wife

[Ibanez]

[LeadBolt]

It is interesting to note that of the 12 original disciples of Jesus, 10 died martyr's deaths, the 1 that betrayed Him committed suicide, and the last 1 endured a long imprisonment for their beliefs.

It occurs to me that facing death, imprisonment or shame that led to suicide as alternatives, that at least maybe 1 or maybe even more would have recanted their stories had they made them up.

[Ibanez]

[Ibanez]

[JoltinJoe]

You cited definition one of the word. He used the pejorative sense of the word, historically considered the third most common use of the word. The definition you cited is not a pejorative.

So you have proven my point. D1B has tried to inject a pejorative sense to the first definition of the word, which I cite Montoya's quote in response. The pejorative sense of the word includes that the "cult" be small (definition three). He wants to read a pejorative into other uses of the word, in a way that does not exist.

Seeking a pejorative, he is stuck with definition three of the word. And it simply does not apply. So he is using a word which is defined other than the way he is trying to use it. Thus,



Please send you tuition fee for this lesson to:

JoltinJoe University
PO Box
NY, NY 10958

I cited definition 1 and qualified it as one definition. Please show where the pejorative definition can only pertain to small groups.

Thanks for the tuition check.

Your grade: F

[kalm]

I cited definition 1 and qualified it as one definition. Please show where the pejorative definition can only pertain to small groups.

Thanks for the tuition check.

Your grade: F

Thought so.

[JoltinJoe]

It is interesting to note that of the 12 original disciples of Jesus, 10 died martyr's deaths, the 1 that betrayed Him committed suicide, and the last 1 endured a long imprisonment for their beliefs.

It occurs to me that facing death, imprisonment or shame that led to suicide as alternatives, that at least maybe 1 or maybe even more would have recanted their stories had they made them up.

All could have returned quietly to their homes and gone back to their prior life, which is what you think logically would have happened. Instead, they willingly chose to be persecuted, tortured, and murdered. They obviously were witnesses to something very powerful. As you cite, not one recanted his faith, when that is all they had to do to avoid execution. Put the foolhardies say they willingly died for what they knew was a lie.

Incidentally, the one Apostol you note who died a natural death, was actually sentenced to death and that sentence was carried out in the Roman Coliseum during the reign Domitian. In front of a large crowd, John was boiled alive in oil, according to the church historianTertullian, but emerged uninjured, which set off a massive conversion to Catholicism in Rome at that time.

John is also understood to be the author of the Gospel of John, which means that one of the Gospels was in fact written by an eyewitness.

[JoltinJoe]

Thanks for the tuition check.

Your grade: F

Thought so.

I think it would have been obvious from reading the definition.

Are you really this thick, or are you trying to yank my chain?

[kalm]

Thought so.

I think it would have been obvious from reading the definition.

Are you really this thick, or are you trying to yank my chain?

Answer the question. I'm prepared to be wrong....unlike you I'm smart enough to admit these type of things...

[Chizzang]

I would argue - but I must be careful here - that a large percentage of American's who have no problem being called Christians (casually speaking) aren't concerned about Jesus and if he actually turned water into wine or walked on water or even returned from the dead...

There are millions of Americans (this is just a guess) based entirely on the FACT that over 90% of those who identify with Christianity haven't bothered to even read the Bible - any version old testament or new - and would casually say in conversation that Jesus simply identified "The proper God" as a kind of the Original Spokes person for God

What I'm saying is:
If you take away Jesus being the ACTUAL child of God
If you take away the walking on water nonsense and the miracles (etc)
If you even take away the returning from the dead

A huge number of Americans who have no problem being called Christians would still tell you with almost no hesitation that: Jesus was right... and Jesus was pointing the way



I believe the scientific destruction of hard core Christianity is becoming less important on a yearly basis
and many Loosely affiliated "Christians" have no issue with that - even thought - Technically this means they are NOT Christians - they don't know that... They are not waiting for the apocalypse

[kalm]

I would argue - but I must be careful here - that a large percentage of American's who have no problem being called Christians (casually speaking) aren't concerned about Jesus and if he actually turned water into wine or walked on water or even returned from the dead...

There are millions of Americans (this is just a guess) based entirely on the FACT that over 90% of those who identify with Christianity haven't bothered to even read the Bible - any version old testament or new - and would casually say in conversation that Jesus simply identified "The proper God" as a kind of the Original Spokes person for God

What I'm saying is:
If you take away Jesus being the ACTUAL child of God
If you take away the walking on water nonsense and the miracles (etc)
If you even take away the returning from the dead

A huge number of Americans who have no problem being called Christians would still tell you with almost no hesitation that: Jesus was right... and Jesus was pointing the way



I believe the scientific destruction of hard core Christianity is becoming less important on a yearly basis
and many Loosely affiliated "Christians" have no issue with that

And that's a good thing, right?

[Chizzang]

I would argue - but I must be careful here - that a large percentage of American's who have no problem being called Christians (casually speaking) aren't concerned about Jesus and if he actually turned water into wine or walked on water or even returned from the dead...

There are millions of Americans (this is just a guess) based entirely on the FACT that over 90% of those who identify with Christianity haven't bothered to even read the Bible - any version old testament or new - and would casually say in conversation that Jesus simply identified "The proper God" as a kind of the Original Spokes person for God

What I'm saying is:
If you take away Jesus being the ACTUAL child of God
If you take away the walking on water nonsense and the miracles (etc)
If you even take away the returning from the dead

A huge number of Americans who have no problem being called Christians would still tell you with almost no hesitation that: Jesus was right... and Jesus was pointing the way



I believe the scientific destruction of hard core Christianity is becoming less important on a yearly basis
and many Loosely affiliated "Christians" have no issue with that

And that's a good thing, right?

Sure...
They don't even know that they "Technically Speaking" aren't even Christians due to this - and wouldn't care if you outlined it for them... They like the Jesus story (true false or otherwise) and identify with the Christian God concept

They are Christians in their own minds
Yet they are not awaiting the apocalypse or Judgement day and would laugh if you implied their faith had to be based on that concept

[D1B]

Second, where do you get off calling anybody, let alone Carl Sagan, ridiculous? You're the one peddling some preposterous nonsense about virgins having babies and dead people climbing out of their tomb and flying away up into the sky. And please, JJ, tell us more about these so-called "dimensions of reality" that we can't perceive and how they have anything to do with the dead bodies flying away.

Let's see, who I should go with?

Jesus, a figure revered in history as a miracle worker, preacher, theologian, philosopher, and who has been called God incarnate for two thousand years, or some simp on an internet message board?

Easy call.

Apollo was revered by a much more literate Greek civilization for the same things.

Jesus is your Apollo.

Joe, time to grow up and put your toys away.

[D1B]

So serious Joe...
Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable
Even Christopher Columbus reported seeing Mermaids (two separate reports) in his captains log

My point is if Christopher Columbus had reported seeing Jesus - YOU - would be referencing it as documented fact. What Christianity is willing to accept in favor and deny in contrast is stunningly embarrassing from the long view

Explain this:



Science has not been able to debunk it. In fact, science continually affirms that there are remarkable things about this cloth.

Another

[D1B]

Second, where do you get off calling anybody, let alone Carl Sagan, ridiculous? You're the one peddling some preposterous nonsense about virgins having babies and dead people climbing out of their tomb and flying away up into the sky. And please, JJ, tell us more about these so-called "dimensions of reality" that we can't perceive and how they have anything to do with the dead bodies flying away.

Let's see, who I should go with?

Jesus, a figure revered in history as a miracle worker, preacher, theologian, philosopher, and who has been called God incarnate for two thousand years, or some simp on an internet message board?

Easy call.

Joltin Joe, conveniently forgetting that for 2000 some years in Western Civilization, if you did not believe in Jesus, you were clubbed in the head or worse by the Catholic Church.

Joltin Joe

[JoltinJoe]

I think it would have been obvious from reading the definition.

Are you really this thick, or are you trying to yank my chain?

Answer the question. I'm prepared to be wrong....unlike you I'm smart enough to admit these type of things...

Your inability to grasp this point is stupefying!

Definition #3, involving a small group with beliefs to be deemed detrimental or dangerous, is pejorative on its face. This is what D1B intends to mean when he uses the word "cult."

Your definition #1 is purely descriptive and includes nothing pejorative at all.

Why can't you grasp this concept? D1B is not intending to use Definition #1. He's trying to use Definition #3 -- ignoring the needs for reference to a small and "dangerous" group when using that term. Thus, he is using the term incorrectly.

By the way, Definition #3 has probably become the most common use of the term today, given that it has become a favorite of the cliche-ridden, like D1B.

[D1B]

Another definition that would be good to know in the context of this thread would be the first meaning of the word myth:

1. a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

It is the secondary meaning of myth that seems to be the one being used by D1B

2. a widely held but false belief or idea.

Wrong again, LeadDolt.

A myth is a guess in the absence of accurate information. It's natural to man. There's nothing wrong with it until people (joltin joe, the Church) substitute it for the truth.

Joe holds onto his myths like a child with toys. Those of us who have grown up shed these myths in favor of truth, however unpalatable that is.

[Ibanez]

Do you think it was a turn off for Jesus to hear his wife screaming his fathers name during sex?

[D1B]

I'm prepared to be wrong....unlike you I'm smart enough to admit these type of .

[D1B]

Do you think it was a turn off for Jesus to hear his wife screaming his fathers name during sex?

If Jesus supposedly started the catholic church, he was gay as fuck.

[JoltinJoe]

Another definition that would be good to know in the context of this thread would be the first meaning of the word myth:

1. a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

It is the secondary meaning of myth that seems to be the one being used by D1B

2. a widely held but false belief or idea.

Wrong again, LeadDolt.

A myth is a guess in the absence of accurate information. It's natural to man. There's nothing wrong with it until people (joltin joe, the Church) substitute it for the truth.

Joe holds onto his myths like a child with toys. Those of us who have grown up shed these myths in favor of truth, however unpalatable that is.

You've always had your own version of the facts. Now you get your own version of the Dictionary??

As for theological and philosophical thought, I am light years ahead of you. You can't even keep up. Like most atheists, you have no ability to reason intuitively or in the abstract -- and somehow you think that makes you smarter or "grown up."

[D1B]

More on the historicity of jesus, Gannon....

Sorry it's long, but unlike the gospels, this analysis is based on facts.

M.M. Mangasarian

THE PROBLEM STATED
Let me now give an idea of the method I propose to follow in the study of this subject. Let us suppose that a student living in the year 3000 desired to make sure that such a man as Abraham Lincoln really lived and did the things attributed to him. How would he go about it?
A man must have a birthplace and a birthday. All the records agree as to where and when Lincoln was born. This is not enough to prove his historicity but it is an important link in the chain.

Neither the place nor the time of Jesus' birth is known. There has never been any unanimity about this matter. There has been considerable confusion and contradiction about it. It cannot be proved that the twenty-fifth of December is his birthday. A number of other dates were observed by the Christian church at various times as the birthday of Jesus. The Gospels give no date, and appear to be quite uncertain - really ignorant about it. When it is remembered that the Gospels purport to have been written by Jesus' intimate companions, and during the lifetime of his brothers and mother, their silence on this matter becomes significant. The selection of the twenty-fifth of December as his birthday is not only an arbitrary one, but that date, having been from time immemorial dedicated to the Sun, the inference is that the Son of God and the Sun of heaven enjoying the same birthday, were at one time identical beings. The fact that Jesus' death was accompanied with the darkening of the Sun, and that the date of his resurrection is also associated with the position of the Sun at the time of the vernal equinox, is a further intimation that we have in the story of the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus, an ancient and nearly universal Sun-myth, instead of verifiable historical events. The story of Jesus for three days in the heart of the earth; of Jonah, three days in the belly of a fish; of Hercules, three days in the belly of a whale, and of Little Red Riding Hood, sleeping in the belly of a great black wolf, represent the attempt of primitive man to explain the phenomenon of Day and Night. The Sun is swallowed by a dragon, a wolf, or a whale, which plunges the world into darkness; but the dragon is killed, and the Sun rises triumphant to make another Day. This ancient Sun myth is the starting point of nearly an miraculous religions, from the days of Egypt to the twentieth century.

The story which Matthew relates about a remarkable star, which sailing in the air pointed out to some unnamed magicians the cradle or cave in which the wonder-child was born, helps further to identify Jesus with the Sun. What became of this "Performing" star, or of the magicians, and their costly gifts, the records do not say. It is more likely that it was the astrological predilections of the gospel writer which led him to assign to his God-child a star in the heavens. The belief that the stars determine human destinies is a very ancient one. Such expressions in our language as "ill starred," "a lucky star," "disaster," "lunacy," and so on, indicate the hold which astrology once enjoyed upon the human mind. We still call a melancholy man, Saturnine; a cheerful man, Jovial; a quick-tempered man, Mercurial; Showing how closely our ancestors associated the movements of celestial bodies with human affairs. [Childhood of the World. -- Edward Clodd.] The prominence, therefore, of the sun and stars in the Gospel story tends to show that Jesus is an astrological rather than a historical character.

That the time of his birth, his death, and supposed resurrection is not verifiable is generally admitted.

This uncertainty robs the story of Jesus, to an extent at least, of the atmosphere of reality.

The twenty-fifth of December is celebrated as his birthday. Yet there is no evidence that he was born on that day. Although the Gospels are silent as to the date on which Jesus was born, there is circumstantial evidence in the accounts given of the event to show that the twenty-fifth of December could not have been his birthday. It snows in Palestine, though a warmer country, and we know that in December there are no shepherds tending their flocks in the night time in that country. Often at this time of the year the fields and hills are covered with snow. Hence, if the shepherds sleeping in the fields really saw the heavens open and heard the. angel-song, in all probability it was in some other month of the year, and not late in December. We know, also, that early in the history of Christianity the months of May and June enjoyed the honor of containing the day of Jesus' birth.

Of course, it is immaterial on which day Jesus was born, but why is it not known? Yet not only is the date of his birth a matter of conjecture, but also the year in which he was born. Matthew, one of the Evangelists, suggests that Jesus was born in King Herod's time, for it was this king who, hearing from the Magi that a King of the Jews was born, decided to destroy him; but Luke, another Evangelist, intimates that Jesus was born when Quirinus was ruler of Judea, which makes the date of Jesus' birth about fourteen years later than the date given by Matthew. Why this discrepancy in a historical document, to say nothing about inspiration? The theologian might say that this little difficulty was introduced purposely into the scriptures to establish its infallibility, but it is only religious books that are pronounced infallible on the strength of the contradictions they contain.

Again, Matthew says that to escape the evil designs of Herod, Mary and Joseph, with the infant Jesus, fled into Egypt, Luke says nothing about this hurried flight, nor of Herod's intention to kill the infant Messiah. On the contrary he tells us that after the forty days of purification were over Jesus was publicly presented at the temple, where Herod, if he really, as Matthew relates, wished to seize him, could have done so without difficulty. It is impossible to reconcile the flight to Egypt with the presentation in the temple, and this inconsistency is certainly insurmountable and makes it look as if the narrative had no value whatever as history.

When we come to the more important chapters about Jesus, we meet with greater difficulties. Have you ever noticed that the day on which Jesus is supposed to have died falls invariably on a Friday? What is the reason for this? It is evident that nobody knows, and nobody ever knew the date on which the Crucifixion took place, if it ever took place. It is so obscure and so mythical that an artificial day has been fixed by the Ecclesiastical councils. While it is always on a Friday that the Crucifixion is commemorated, the week in which the day occurs varies from year to year. "Good Friday" falls not before the spring equinox, but as soon after the spring equinox as the full moon allows, thus making the calculation to depend upon the position of the sun in the Zodiac and the phases of the moon. But that was precisely the way the day for the festival of the pagan goddess Oestera was determined. The Pagan Oestera has become the Christian Easter. Does not this fact, as well as those already touched upon, make the story of Jesus to read very much like the stories of the Pagan deities.

The early Christians, Origin, for instance, in his reply to the rationalist Celsus who questioned the reality of Jesus, instead of producing evidence of a historical nature, appealed to the mythology of the pagans to prove that the story of Jesus was no more incredible than those of the Greek and Roman gods. This is so important that we refer our readers to Origin's own words on the subject. "Before replying to Celsus, it is necessary to admit that in the matter of history, however true it might be," writes this Christian Father, "it is often very difficult and sometimes quite impossible to establish its truth by evidence which shall be considered sufficient" [Origin Contre Celsus. 1. 58 et Suiv.] This is a plain admission that, as early as the second and third centuries the claims put forth about Jesus did not admit of positive historical demonstration. But in the absence of evidence Origin offers the following metaphysical arguments against the skeptical Celsus: 1. Such stories as are told of Jesus are admitted to be true when told of pagan divinities, why can they not also be true when told of the Christian Messiah? 2. They must be true because they are the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies [Ibid.] In other words, the only proofs Origin can bring forth against the rationalistic criticism of Celsus is, that to deny Jesus would be equivalent to denying both the Pagan and Jewish mythologies. If Jesus is not real, says Origin, then Apollo was not real, and the Old Testament prophecies have not been fulfilled. If we are to have any mythology at all, he seems to argue, why object to adding to it the myths of Jesus? There could not be a more damaging admission than this from one of the most conspicuous defenders of Jesus' story against early criticism.

Justin Martyr, another early Father, offers the following argument against unbelievers in the Christian legend: "When we say also that the Word, which is the first birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified, died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter." [ First Apology, Chapter xxi (Anti-Niacin Library.] Which is another way of saying that the Christian myths is very similar to the pagan, and should therefore be equally true. Pressing his argument further, this interesting Father discovers many resemblances between what he himself is preaching and the pagans have always believed: "For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribe to Jupiter. Mercury, the interpreting word (he spells this word with small w, while in the above quotation he uses w to denote the Christian incarnation) and teacher of all; Aesculapius ... to heaven; one Hercules ... and Perseus; ... and Bellerophon, who, from mortals, rose to heaven on the horses of Pegasus." [Ibid.] If Jupiter can have, Justin Martyr seems to reason, half a dozen divine sons, why cannot Jehovah have at least one?

Instead of producing historical evidence or appealing to creditable documents, as one would to prove the existence of a Caesar or an Alexander, Justin Martyr draws upon pagan mythology in his reply to the critics of Christianity. All he seems to ask for is that Jesus be given a higher place among the divinities of the ancient world.

To help their cause the Christian apologists not infrequently also changed the sense of certain Old Testament passages to make them support the miraculous stories in the New Testament. For example, having borrowed from Oriental books the story of the god in a manger, surrounded by staring animals, the Christian fathers introduced a prediction of this event into the following text from the book of Habakkuk in the Bible: "Accomplish thy work in the midst of the years, in the midst of the years make known, etc." [Heb. iii. 2.] This Old Testament text appeared in the Greek translation as follows: "Thou shalt manifest thyself in the midst of two animals," which was fulfilled of course when Jesus was born in a stable. How weak must be one's case to resort to such tactics in order to command a following! And when it is remembered that these follies were deemed necessary to prove the reality of what has been claimed as the most stupendous event in all history, one can readily see upon how fragile a foundation is built the story of the Christian God-man.

Let us continue: Abraham Lincoln's associates and contemporaries are all known to history. The immediate companions of Jesus appear to be, on the other hand, as mythical as he is himself. Who was Matthew? Who was Mark? Who were John, Peter, Judas, and Mary? There is absolutely no evidence that they ever existed. They are not mentioned except in the New Testament books, which, as we shall see, are "supposed" copies of "supposed" originals. If Peter ever went to Rome with a new doctrine, how is it that no historian has taken note of him? If Paul visited Athens and preached from Mars Hill, how is it that there is no mention of him or of his strange Gospel in the Athenian chronicles? For all we know, both Peter and Paul may have really existed, but it is only a guess, as we have no means of ascertaining. The uncertainty about the apostles of Jesus is quite in keeping with the uncertainty about Jesus himself.

The report that Jesus had twelve apostles seems also mythical. The number twelve, like the number seven, or three, or forty, plays an important role in all Sun-myths, and points to the twelve signs of the Zodiac. Jacob had twelve sons; there were twelve tribes of Israel; twelve months in the year; twelve gates or pillars of heaven, etc. In many of the religions of the world, the number twelve is sacred. There have been few god-saviors who did not have twelve apostles or messengers. In one or two places, in the New Testament, Jesus is made to send out "the seventy" to evangelize the world. Here again we see the presence of a myth. It was believed that there were seventy different nations in the world -- to each nation an apostle. Seventy wise men are supposed to have translated the Old Testament, sitting in seventy different cells. That is why their translation is called "the Septuagint." But it is all a legend, as there is no evidence of seventy scholars working in seventy individual cells on the Hebrew Bible. One of the Church Fathers declares that he saw these seventy cells with his own eyes. He was the only one who saw them.

That the "Twelve Apostles" are fanciful may be inferred from the obscurity in which the greater number of them have remained. Peter, Paul, John, James, Judas, occupy the stage almost exclusively. If Paul was an apostle, we have fourteen, instead of twelve. Leaving out Judas, and counting Matthias, who was elected in his place, we have thirteen apostles.

The number forty figures also in many primitive myths. The Jews were in the wilderness for forty years; Jesus fasted for forty days; from the resurrection to the ascension were forty days; Moses was on the mountain with God for forty days. An account in which such scrupulous attention is shown to supposed sacred numbers is apt to be more artificial than real. The biographers of Lincoln or of Socrates do not seem to be interested in numbers. They write history, not stories.

Again, many of the contemporaries of Lincoln bear written witness to his existence. The historians of the time, the statesmen, the publicists, the chroniclers -- all seem to be acquainted with him,or to have heard of him. It is impossible to explain why the contemporaries of Jesus, the authors and historians of his time, do not take notice of him. If Abraham Lincoln was important enough to have attracted the attention of his contemporaries, how much more Jesus. -- Is it reasonable to suppose that these Pagan and Jewish writers knew of Jesus, -- had heard of his incomparably great works and sayings, -- but omitted to give him a page or a line? Could they have been in a conspiracy against him? How else is this unanimous silence to be accounted for? Is it not more likely that the wonder-working Jesus was unknown to them? And he was unknown to them because no such Jesus existed in their day.

Should the student, looking into Abraham Lincoln's history, discover that no one of his biographers knew positively just when he lived or where he was born, he would have reason to conclude that because of this uncertainty on the part of the biographers, he must be more exacting than he otherwise would have been. That is precisely our position. Of course, there are in history great men of whose birthplaces or birthdays we are equally uncertain. But we believe in their existence, not because no one seems to know exactly when and where they were born, but because there is overwhelming evidence corroborating the other reports about them, and which is sufficient to remove the suspicion suggested by the darkness hanging over their nativity. Is there any evidence strong enough to prove the historicity of Jesus, in spite of the fact that not even his supposed companions, writing during the lifetime of Jesus' mother, have any definite information to give.

But let us continue. The reports current about a man like Lincoln are verifiable, while many of those about Jesus are of a nature that no amount of evidence can confirm. That Lincoln was President of these United States, that he signed the Emancipation Proclamation, and that he was assassinated, can be readily authenticated.

But how can any amount of evidence satisfy one's self that Jesus was born of a virgin, for instance? Such a report or rumor can never even be examined; it does not lend itself to evidence; it is beyond the sphere of history; it is not a legitimate question for investigation. It belongs to mythology. Indeed, to put forth a report of that nature is to forbid the use of evidence, and to command forcible acquiescence, which, to say the least, is a very suspicious circumstance, calculated to hurt rather than to help the Jesus story.

The report that Jesus was God is equally impossible of verification. How are we to prove whether or not a certain person was God? Jesus may have been a wonderful man, but is every wonderful man a God? Jesus may have claimed to have been a God, but is every one who puts forth such a claim a God? How, then, are we to decide which of the numerous candidates for divine honors should be given our votes? And can we by voting for Jesus make him a God? Observe to what confusion the mere attempt to follow such a report leads us.

A human Jesus may or may not have existed, but we are as sure as we can be of anything, that a virgin-born God, named Jesus, such as we must believe in or be eternally lost, is an impossibility -- except to credulity. But credulity is no evidence at all, even when it is dignified by the name of FAITH.

Let us pause for a moment to reflect: The final argument for the existence of the miraculous Jesus, preached in church and Sunday-school, these two thousand years, as the sole savior of the world, is an appeal to faith -- the same to which Mohammed resorts to establish his claims, and Joseph Smith, to prove his revelation. There is no other possible way by which the virgin-birth or the godhood of a man can be established. And such a faith is never free, it is always maintained by the sword now, and by hell-fire hereafter.

Once more, if it had been reported of Abraham Lincoln that he predicted his own assassination; that be promised some of his friends they would not die until they saw him coming again upon the clouds of heaven; that he would give them thrones to sit upon; that they could safely drink deadly poisons in his name, or that he would grant them any request which they might make, provided they asked it for his sake, we would be justified in concluding that such a Lincoln never existed. Yet the most impossible utterances are put in Jesus' mouth. He is made to say: "Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name that will I do." No man who makes such a promise can keep it. It is not sayings like the above that can prove a man a God. Has Jesus kept his promise? Does he give his people everything, or "whatsoever" they ask of him? But, it is answered, "Jesus only meant to say that he would give whatever he himself considered good for his friends to have." Indeed! Is that the way to crawl out of a contract? If that is what he meant, why did he say something else? Could he not have said just what he meant, in the first place? Would it not have been fairer not to have given his friends any occasion for false expectations? Better to promise a little and do more, than to promise everything and do nothing. But to say that Jesus really entered into any such agreement is to throw doubt upon his existence. Such a character is too wild to be real. Only a mythical Jesus could virtually hand over the government of the universe to courtier who have petitions to press upon his attention. Moreover, if Jesus could keep his promise, there would be today no misery in the world, no orphans, no childless mothers no shipwrecks, no floods, no famines, no disease, no crippled children, no insanity, no wars, no crime, no wrong! Have not a thousand, thousand prayers been offered in Jesus' name against every evil which has ploughed the face of our earth? Have these prayers been answered? Then why is there discontent in the world? Can the followers of Jesus move mountains, drink deadly poisons, touch serpents, or work greater miracles than are ascribed to Jesus, as it was promised that they would do? How many self- deluded prophets these extravagant claims have produced! And who can number the bitter disappointments caused by such impossible promises?

George Jacob Holyoake, of England, tells how in the days of utter poverty, his believing mother asked the Lord, again and again -- on her knees, with tears streaming from her eyes, and with absolute faith in Jesus' ability to keep His promise, -- to give her starving children their daily bread. But the more fervently she prayed the heavier grew the burden of her life. A stone or wooden idol could not have been more indifferent to a mother's tears. "My mind aches as I think of those days," writes Mr. Holyoake. One day he went to see the Rev. Mr. Cribbace, who had invited inquirers to his house. "Do you really believe," asked young Holyoake to the clergyman, "that what we ask in faith we shall receive?" "It never struck me," continues Mr. Holyoake, "that the preacher's threadbare dress, his half-famished look, and necessity of taking up a collection the previous night to pay expense's showed that faith was not a source of income to him. It never struck me that if help could be obtained by prayer no church would be needy, no believer would be poor." What answer did the preacher give to Holyoake's earnest question? The same which the preachers of today give: "He parried his answer with many words, and at length said that the promise was to be taken with the provision that what we asked for would be given, if God thought it for our good." Why then, did not Jesus explain that important proviso when he made the promise? Was Jesus only making a half statement, the other half of which he would reveal later to protect himself against disappointed petitioners. But he said: "If ye ask anything in my name, I will do it," and "If it were not so, I would have told you." Did he not mean just what be said? The truth is that no historical person in his senses ever made such extraordinary, such impossible promises, and the report that Jesus made them only goes to confirm that their author is only a legendary being.

When this truth dawned upon Mr. Holyoake he ceased to petition Heaven, which was like "dropping a bucket into an empty well," and began to look elsewhere for help. [Bygones Worth Remembering. -- George Jacob Holyoake.] The world owes its advancement to the fact that men no longer look to Heaven for help, but help themselves. Self-effort, and not prayer, is the remedy against ignorance, slavery, poverty, and moral degradation. Fortunately, by bolding up before us an impossible Jesus, with his impossible promises, the churches have succeeded only in postponing, but not in preventing, the progress of man. This is a compliment to human nature, and it is well earned. It is also a promise that in time humanity will be completely emancipated from every phantom which in the past has scared it into silence or submission, and

[D1B]

Wrong again, LeadDolt.

A myth is a guess in the absence of accurate information. It's natural to man. There's nothing wrong with it until people (joltin joe, the Church) substitute it for the truth.

Joe holds onto his myths like a child with toys. Those of us who have grown up shed these myths in favor of truth, however unpalatable that is.

You've always had your own version of the facts. Now you get your own version of the Dictionary??

As for theological and philosophical thought, I am light years ahead of you. You can't even keep up. Like most atheists, you have no ability to reason intuitively or in the abstract -- and somehow you think that makes you smarter or "grown up."

Here we go again....Joe and the Fordham theology department.... You're only reply and a weak one at that.

Theology = apologetics = excuses for the Church



It's takes a Fordumb degree to understand dead people don't fly.

[CID1990]

based entirely on the FACT that over 90% of those who identify with Christianity haven't bothered to even read the Bible

You keep coming back to this-

I am curious where you get it from- not disputing it - I've just never heard it except from you, and you would think there would be a poll or something

but that would mean that "Christians" would have to admit not having read it

Hell, I've read the whole thing (well actually I skipped a few Psalms... they got tedious)- and I know that plays into what you are saying, but where do you get that 90% of claimed Christians haven't read the bible? It really isn't THAT long

[D1B]

More from M.M on the gospels. Nails it.

THE CHRISTIAN DOCUMENTS
The documents containing the story of Jesus are so unlike those about Lincoln or any other historical character, that we must be doubly vigilant in our investigation.

The Christians rely mainly on the four Gospels for the historicity of Jesus. But the original documents of which the books in the New Testament are claimed to be faithful copies are not in existence. There is absolutely no evidence that they ever were in existence. This is a statement which can not be controverted. Is it conceivable that the early believers lost through carelessness or purposely every document written by an apostle, while guarding with all protecting jealousy and zeal the writings of anonymous persons? Is there any valid reason why the contributions to Christian literature of an inspired apostle should perish while those of a nameless scribe are preserved, why the original Gospel of Matthew should drop quietly out of sight, no one knows how, while a supposed copy of it in an alien language is preserved for many centuries? Jesus himself, it is admitted, did not write a single line. He bad come, according to popular belief, to reveal the will of God -- a most important mission indeed, and yet he not only did not put this revelation in writing during his lifetime, and with his own hand, which it is natural to suppose that a divine teacher, expressly come from heaven, would have done, but he left this all- important duty to anonymous chroniclers, who, naturally, made enough mistakes to split up Christendom into innumerable factions. It is worth a moment's pause to think of the persecutions, the cruel wars, and the centuries of hatred and bitterness which would have been spared our unfortunate humanity, if Jesus himself had written down his message in the clearest and plainest manner, instead of leaving it to his supposed disciples to publish it to the world, when he could no longer correct their mistakes.

Moreover, not only did Jesus not write himself, but he has not even taken any pains to preserve the writings of his "apostles." It is well known that the original manuscripts, if there were any, are nowhere to be found. This is a grave matter. We have only supposed copies of supposed original manuscripts. Who copied them? When were they copied? How can we be sure that these copies are reliable? And why are there thousands upon thousands of various readings in these numerous supposed copies? What means have we of deciding which version or reading to accept? Is it possible that as the result of Jesus' advent into our world, we have only a basketful of nameless and dateless copies and documents? Is it conceivable, I ask, that a God would send his Son to us, and then leave us to wander through a pile of dusty manuscripts to find out why He sent His Son, and what He taught when on earth?

The only answer the Christian church can give to this question is that the original writings were purposely allowed to perish. When a precious document containing the testament of Almighty God, and inscribed for an eternal purpose by the Holy Ghost, disappears altogether there is absolutely no other way of accounting for its disappearance than by saying, as we have suggested, that its divine author must have intentionally withdrawn it from circulation. "God moves in a mysterious way" is the last resort of the believer. This is the one argument which is left to theology to fight science with. Unfortunately it is an argument which would prove every cult and "ism" under the heavens true. The Mohammedan, the Mazdaian, and the Pagan may also fall back upon faith. There is nothing which faith can not cover up from the light. But if a faith which ignores evidence be not a superstition, what then is superstition?

I wonder if the Catholic Church, which pretends to believe -- and which derives quite an income from the belief -- that God has miraculously preserved the wood of the cross, the Holy Sepulchre, in Jerusalem, the coat of Jesus, and quite a number of other mementos, can explain why the original manuscripts were lost. I have a suspicion that there were no "original" manuscripts. I am not sure of this, of course, but if nails, bones and holy places could be miraculously preserved, why not also manuscripts? It is reasonable to suppose that the Deity would not have permitted the most important documents containing His Revelation to drop into some hole and disappear, or to be gnawed into dust by the insects, after having had them written by special inspiration.

Again, when these documents, such as we find them, are examined, it will be observed that, even in the most elementary intelligence which they pretend to furnish, they are hopelessly at variance with one another. It is, for example, utterly impossible to reconcile Matthew's genealogy of Jesus with the one given by Luke. In copying the names of the supposed ancestors of Jesus they tamper with the list as given in book of Chronicles, in the Old Testament, and thereby justly expose themselves to the charge of bad faith. One evangelist says Jesus was descended from Solomon, born of "her that had been the wife of Urias." It will be remembered that David ordered Urias killed in a cowardly manner, that may marry his widow, whom he coveted. According to Matthew, Jesus is one of the offspring of this adulterous relation.

According to Luke, it is not through Solomon, but through Nathan, that Jesus is connected with the house of David.

Again, Luke tells us that the name of the father of Joseph was Heli; Matthew says it was Jacob. If the writers of the gospels were contemporaries of Joseph they could have easily learned the exact name of his father.

Again, why do these biographers of Jesus give us the genealogy of Joseph if he was not the father of Jesus? It is the genealogy of Mary which they should have given to prove the descent of Jesus from the house of David, and not that of Joseph. These irreconcilable differences between Luke, Matthew and the other evangelists, go to prove that these authors possessed no reliable information concerning the subjects they were writing about. For if Jesus is a historical character, and these biographers were really his immediate associates, and were inspired besides, how are we to explain their blunders and contradictions about his genealogy?

A good illustration of the mythical or unhistorical character of the New Testament is furnished by the story of John the Baptist. He is first represented as confessing publicly that Jesus is the Christ; that he himself is not worthy to unloose the latchet of his shoes; and that Jesus is the Lamb of God, "who taketh away the sins of the. world." John was also present, the gospels say, when the heavens opened and a dove descended on Jesus' head, and he heard the voice from the skies, crying: "He is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

Is it possible that, a few chapters later, this same John forgets his public confession, -- the dove and the voice from heaven, -- and actually sends two of his disciples to find out who this Jesus is. [Matthew xi.] The only way we can account for such strange conduct is that the compiler or editor in question had two different myths or stories before him, and he wished to use them both.

A further proof of the loose and extravagant style of the Gospel writers is furnished by the concluding verse of the Fourth Gospel: "There are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written, every one, I Suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." This is more like the language of a myth-maker than of a historian. How much reliance can we put in a reporter who is given to such exaggeration? To say that the world itself would be too small to contain the unreported sayings and doings of a teacher whose public life possibly did not last longer than a year, and whose reported words and deeds fill only a few pages, is to prove one's statements unworthy of serious consideration.

And it is worth oar while to note also that the documents which have come down to our time and which purport to be the biographies of Jesus, are not only written in an alien language, that is to say, in a language which was not that of Jesus and his disciples, but neither are they dated or signed. Jesus and his twelve apostles were Jews; why are all the four Gospels written in Greek? If they were originally written in Hebrew, how can we tell that the Greek translation is accurate, since we can not compare it with the originals? And why are these Gospels anonymous? Why are they not dated? But as we shall say something more on this subject in the present volume, we confine ourselves at this point to reproducing a fragment of the manuscript pages from which our Greek Translations have been made. It is admitted by scholars that owing to the difficulty of reading these ancient and imperfect and also conflicting texts, an accurate translation is impossible. But this is another way of saying that what the churches call the Word of God is not only the word of man, but a very imperfect word, at that.

The belief in Jesus, then, is founded on secondary documents, altered and edited by various hands; on lost originals, and on anonymous manuscripts of an age considerably later than the events therein related -- manuscripts which contradict each other as well as themselves. Such is clearly and undeniably the basis for the belief in a historical Jesus. It was this sense of the insufficiency of the evidence which drove the missionaries of Christianity to commit forgeries.

If there was ample evidence for the historicity of Jesus, why did his biographers resort to forgery? The following admissions by Christian writers themselves show the helplessness of the early preachers in the presence of inquirers who asked for proofs. The church historian, Mosheim, writes that, "The Christian Fathers deemed it a pious act to employ deception and fraud." [Ecclesiastical Hist., Vol. I, p. 347.] Again, he says: "The greatest and most pious teachers were nearly all of them infected with this leprosy." Will not some believer tell us why forgery and fraud were necessary to prove the historicity of Jesus.

Another historian, Milman, writes that, "Pious fraud was admitted and avowed" by the early missionaries of Jesus. "It was an age of literary frauds," writes Bishop Ellicott, speaking of the times immediately following the alleged crucifixion of Jesus. Dr. Giles declares that, "There can be no doubt that great numbers of books were written with no other purpose than to deceive." And it is the opinion of Dr. Robertson Smith that, "There was an enormous floating mass of spurious literature created to suit party views." Books which are now rejected as apocryphal were at one time received as inspired, and books which are now believed to be infallible were at one tune regarded as of no authority in the Christian world. It certainly is puzzling that there should be a whole literature of fraud and forgery in the name of a historical person. But if Jesus was a myth, we can easily explain the legends and traditions springing up in his name.

The early followers of Jesus, then, realizing the force of this objection, did actually resort to interpolation and forgery in order to prove that Jesus was a historical character.

One of the oldest critics of the Christian religion was a Pagan, known to history under the name of Porphyry; yet, the early Fathers did not hesitate to tamper even with the writings of an avowed opponent of their religion. After issuing an edict to destroy, among others, the writings of this philosopher, a work, called Philosophy of Oracles, was produced, in which the author is made to write almost as a Christian; and the name of Porphyry was signed to it as its author. St. Augustine was one of the first to reject it as a forgery. [Geo. W. Foote. Crimes of Christianity.] A more astounding invention than this alleged work of a heathen bearing witness to Christ is difficult to produce. Do these forgeries, these apocryphal writings, these interpolations, freely admitted to have been the prevailing practice of the early Christians, help to prove the existence of Jesus? And when to this wholesale manufacture of doubtful evidence is added the terrible vandalism which nearly destroyed every great Pagan classic, we can form an idea of the desperate means to which the early Christians resorted to prove that Jesus was not a myth. It all goes to show how difficult it is to make a man out of a myth.

Do your research, Gannon. You would never be this careless with your work projects or family like you are with your faith.