Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Collis .98,
    
    The equation of Mike's opinions in .92 to Jesus being a fraud would 
    most likely apply only to those Christians who view the Bible as the 
    inerrant Word of God.
    
    Karen

No, Karen, the issue is very different from inerrancy.

I was only semi-addressing Mike and the points in .92.
Most of the response was relatively generic.  Who is this
"Jesus" that people mean when they talk about the Bible?
Is it a person who

  - believed in hell
  - warned about the coming judgment
  - used outlandish insults
  - claimed sinlessness
  - claimed equality with God
  - claimed to be the only way to God
  - claimed that most people are lost and headed
    for destruction
  - presented himself for death as a sacrifice for sin
  - was born of a virgin
  - performed many miracles including
     - healing lepers
     - giving sight to the blind
     - giving the mute speech
     - raised people from the dead
     - fed the 5,000
     - etc.
  - claimed authority as God's *only* son
  - was tempted by the devil
  - obeyed the entire law (except for the Pharisee's
    definition of working on the Sabbath)
  - believed in the working of the Holy Spirit, who
    he was going to send after his death and resurrection
  - was resurrected by God
  - etc...

I can easily add another 100 lines here.  Is this the Jesus
that liberals are talking about?  It is my belief that Bishop
Spong disagrees with every Biblical claim here about Jesus.
What, then, is the value of the Bible?  This is what is so
hard for me to grasp.  We have disciples who were wrong on
every significant point about the main character of what
happened.  What is presented is essentially fantasy.  Yet,
Bishop Spong derives some sort of great meaning from all of
this.  To a lesser extent, liberal Christians in general
also deny much of this.  What great meaning is available in
the Bible to them?  Nothing, as far as I can tell, that
logically adds up to or means anything.

This is the issue that I believe liberal Christians are
unwilling to confront head-on in their own lives and beliefs.
Bishop Spong believes that fundamentalist refuse to deal with
the incompatibilities of Scripture itself and, for many
fundamentalist, this is indeed true.  Likewise, I see liberal
Christians failing to deal with who Jesus really is and was
if Scripture is inaccurate in its portrayal.

Please, define who Jesus really is/was!  If Scripture's
portrait is inaccurate, please paint an accurate one.  Then
we can examine what sense it makes to follow this other
Jesus.  Oh, by the way, it would help if this other Jesus
was a true historical person rather than conjecture from
someone's mind, i.e. that there is evidence that this is who
Jesus really was other than someone's belief that, "Jesus
couldn't have been like this or that".  However, I'm willing
to look at *any* definition of Jesus that someone comes up
with - whether it has any historical backing or not - and
see what value the Bible has for someone who believes in this
Jesus.

Does this make the point clearer?  It's not an innerancy
question at all.

Collis

     Collis:

     Why is it important that  Jesus  be  God?   His  influence  cannot  be
     denied.    His  teachings  have  benefited  many,  many  people,  both
     Christian and non-Christian.  If Collis says something profound, do  I
     dismiss  his  insight because he *doesn't* claim to be God?  If Collis
     proves to be a good role-model for me, do I reject his example because
     he can't walk on water, or, worse, has also done things that even he's
     embarrassed to admit to?

     Peace,

     Alvin

Hi Alvin,

I think the most important that it is true that Jesus
be God is so that His claims to be God are, in fact,
the truth.

From a logical point of view, it's hard to reconcile
Jesus not being God with

  - the fallen condition of people
  - Jesus' sinless life (which is a requirement for
    the sacrifice of his life for sins to be an
    acceptable sacrifice to God)

How could a fallen person do this?  From a logical
perspective, I'd say that a fallen person could only do
this if he/she did not have free will, i.e. was controlled
by God.  But then, that person is not truly a person at
all, since God made people with a free will which he
evidently believed was critical to go through all that
He did to redeem us.

I suspect there are other reasons as well, but it has never
been a real issue in my life so I haven't searched for other
answers to this question.

Collis

     Collis:

     Sorry.  Your answer is a  little  too  Christian-speak  for  me.   And
     besides,  I'm  not  sure you understand what I'm (and I think Mike is)
     suggesting.  Coming to the conclusion that Jesus is God is a matter of
     Faith,  but  even  for  those  that  have not made this belief part of
     lives, Jesus and his followers have much to say that is meaningful and
     relevant.  This in itself is quite an accomplishment *even if Jesus is
     not God*.  By not acknowledging at least this, it *seems* like  you're
     saying  (at least to me), "if Jesus isn't God, then *everything* he or
     his followers said or did should be dismissed outright!"  Correct  me,
     please, if I'm wrong.

     Peace,

     Alvin

I agree with you, Mike, that there can be value in a myth.

However, there can be no value in Jesus as a person
if he (as represented) is, in reality, a myth.  There can
be no value in Christianity if Jesus is a myth.  (Myth
used in both these sentences in the sense of "not true"
or "not real".)  Why?

Because without Jesus living a sinless life, without
his death and resurrection, we are still dead in our
sins.  Paul explains this quite well in I Cor 15.  This
basic, fundamental understanding of Jesus' life, death
and resurrection is a cornerstone of writing in the
New Testament.  Less obvious, but also true, is that
it is also a cornerstone of the Old Testament writings
as well.

Notice that given this myth understanding, it is NOT Jesus
himself that you are referring to.  It is the myth of
Jesus - something very different.  People don't ask myths
to live in their hearts.  They do ask this of Jesus.

Collis

Well, let me try again.

If Jesus indeed did say or imply that he was God
and is not, then he obviously lied.  Jesus made
himself equal with God in both the eyes of his
opponents (John 8 or is it John 10) and in the
eyes of his followers (Phil 2, Hebrews 1).  Jesus
claims to be God in Rev 1.  Jesus accepts worship
(something reserved for God - see the 10 commandments)
in Matthew 28.

If Jesus is not God, how do you reconcile Jesus' lies
and blasphemous actions with the person of Jesus that
we are to follow?  Is not this the greatest sin that
we can commit - to claim to be God himself?  From my
understanding of the Bible, it is.  We're not talking
a minor blemish on the person of Jesus, here, are we?

Collis

Hi Collis,

I guess I would be considered a liberal Christian and so to reply to 
your request that I be willing *to confront head-on in their own lives
and beliefs*, to *define who Jesus really is/was!*, here goes:

Yes, I believe Jesus is the *son* of God, but I also believe we all 
are sons and daughters of God.  I believe Jesus was the first, the 
Word made flesh, the wayshower, the pathmaker.  He came to show us we 
too can be like him.  Through his life, through the metaphors and
allegories in his teachings he showed us the way.  I also believe
Jesus speaks to us through the Holy Spirit.  I have also found that he
speaks through other vehicles.  One of these being A Course in
Miracles, through which he explains and expands on much of the New 
Testament meanings.  One of the most profound books I've read is based 
on the principles of A Course in Miracles.  It is entitled A Return to 
Love by Marianne Williamson.  I've bought a half a dozen copies as 
gifts for friends and would be willing to give you a copy Collis if 
you would read it with an open heart.

Ro

     Collis:

     Sorry, again.  This gets a little confusing, going between two notes.

     RE: 421.98

> True, [Jesus] is also filled with love and compassion.  This
> part of the life of Jesus is what is often focused on by
> those who find some value in the Bible.  But how can we
> in honesty ignore the other implications of calling so many
> of Jesus' claims false?  ...............................

     (Slight rewording mine)

     I think you forget that having Faith  is  a  blessing.   Because  some
     people  don't  believe  doesn't  mean  they  "ignored"  what was being
     offered.  It means they haven't seen the  light.   Didn't  Jesus  have
     something to say about that?

> .......................  Are we so blinded by our desire
> for an example that we're willing to overlook anything that
> gets in the way of what we desire?  ......................

     Sounds like human nature to me.  At it's worst,  innocent  people  get
     hurt, like the unfaithful lover/spouse.  But at it's best, many people
     benefit, even if inadvertently.  Consider the lives  of  the  artists,
     thinkers,  and inventors and the wonderful things they left us because
     they overlooked anything that got in the way of their desire.

> ..................................  Are we willing to look
> at the hard facts that apparently show errors in the Bible,
> and overlook the same facts when they show that Jesus is
> simply a fraud - a loving and kind fraud, but a fraud just
> the same.

     Yes, because there are those that say it isn't  important  whether  or
     not he was a fraud - he still left a valuable legacy.

     Peace,

     Alvin

Re: .6 Collis

>If Jesus is not God, how do you reconcile Jesus' lies
>and blasphemous actions with the person of Jesus that
>we are to follow?

Some possibilities: Jesus did not claim to be God.  He was misunderstood
by his followers, who misquoted him when they wrote the gospels years later.
After all, it's only in a few places where Jesus himself (arguably - JWs
for example don't agree) implies that he is God.

Or, Jesus himself is an allegorical figure: he is a representation of what
God might be like if he came to earth in human form.  It would still be
reasonable to emulate Jesus, if one thought that Jesus represented the
epitome of virtue.

				-- Bob

    I guess Collis, that when it comes to matters of Christian faith, 
    some people discover and nurture it by literalizing Jesus as you 
    seem to do and some people don't, which I seem to do.  Whose faith 
    is more real?  Whose God?  Whose Jesus?  
    
    And by the way, myth is being used by Spong as Joseph Campbell used it,
    and I believe as Mike is using it:  myth, by way of symbol and metaphor, 
    embodies a greater truth that can ONLY be discerned by something other 
    than logic, reason or literalization.
    
    Is it my error, or are you trying to show just how rational and logical a 
    Christian you are?   
    
    Karen

     Collis:

     RE: .6

> If Jesus indeed did say or imply that he was God
> and is not, then he obviously lied.  Jesus made
> himself equal with God in both the eyes of his
> opponents (John 8 or is it John 10) and in the
> eyes of his followers (Phil 2, Hebrews 1).  Jesus
> claims to be God in Rev 1.  Jesus accepts worship
> (something reserved for God - see the 10 commandments)
> in Matthew 28.

     No argument, although I personally would be more inclined to  consider
     what  Jesus has to say about himself in the Gospels as opposed to what
     the Epistles have to say, but I suppose you'd say I'm nit-picking.

> If Jesus is not God, how do you reconcile Jesus' lies
> and blasphemous actions with the person of Jesus that
> we are to follow?  Is not this the greatest sin that
> we can commit - to claim to be God himself?  From my
> understanding of the Bible, it is.  We're not talking
> a minor blemish on the person of Jesus, here, are we?

     Well, there are those of us (or should I speak for myself  here?)  who
     don't  care  a  tinker's  dam  whether  or  not  anybody's actions are
     blasphemous.  So as to those actions being a sin, no matter  where  it
     falls  on a scale of lesser to greater sins, so?  I grant you, if your
     "standard" is the Bible, and if you're life's desire is the  imitation
     of Christ, then your statement speaks volumes.  But what if you're not
     a believer?  Does Jesus have to be God before *anyone* can benefit  by
     *anything* he said or did?

     Peace,

     Alvin

    
    RE: Jesus being God
    
    
    Admittedly I have not read much of the Bible, but hasn't it been
    said that Jesus never claimed to be God?
    
    Carole

    
    RE: .8 Roey
    
    If we are all sons and daughters of God, how could Jesus have been
    the first?  Are you talking about the Christ Spirit or the physical
    Jesus?
    
    Carole

    Oooops, I guess I wasn't very clear.  I meant that Jesus was the first
    (or actually first in recorded history) to physically become 'one with
    the Father' (my personal choice of wording is 'one with the
    Father/Mother).  
    
    Didn't Jesus say "Every disciple, when he is fully trained, shall be as
    his Master."  (Luke 6:40)  I interpret that to mean that every person's
    inner awareness/consciousness will develop to that point (of being one
    with the Universal Consciousness with the awareness of the Oneness of All
    Humanity in that Consciousness).
    
    Ro
    

Re:  .13

I'm sure it's been said, but it's wrong.  :-)  See Jesus'
proclamation of himself in Revelation 1:17,18.

Collis

Re:  421.106
    
  >What you fail to understand is that if we do not believe in the
  >inerrancy of the bible, then we do not believe that what the bible says
  >is the word of God, or the word of Jesus.

I understand all that and in fact explicitly assumed that in my
last reply.  That is NOT the issue.  The issue has nothing to do
with inerrancy.

Collis

Re:  429.8

Hi Ro,

  >Yes, I believe Jesus is the *son* of God, but I also believe we all 
  >are sons and daughters of God.  I believe Jesus was the first, the 
  >Word made flesh, the wayshower, the pathmaker.  He came to show us we 
  >too can be like him.  Through his life, through the metaphors and
  >allegories in his teachings he showed us the way.  

I hear you, Ro.  Your belief is common.  However, the question I'm
asking is not what you believe; it is rather how does the Jesus of
your beliefs stack up with

  - the historical Jesus
  - the Jesus as portrayed in the Scriptures

This is the question.  According to Scripture, your Jesus is a myth
of your imagination.  Now if your Jesus is indeed real, then Scripture
does not simply have a few isolated mistakes; it is wrong IN THE
ESSENTIALS from beginning to end.  That's the point.  The essentials
are wrong.  What are the essentials?

  - Who is God?
  - How do we establish communication (or more) with God?
  - What are we as people like?
  - Do we need to change?  If so, how?
  - Who was Jesus?
  - Was Jesus a one-of-a-kind, i.e. something essentialy different?  Or 
    was he simply one of us, but more or less advanced?

Would you agree that these are critical questions?  essentials?  And
that your answers are fundamentally different than the answers clearly
presented in Scripture?

If so, what then is the value of Scripture?  It presents (using your
beliefs) falsehood after falsehood (which, amazingly enough, are
ratified as true by author after author in the New Testament) about
these basic questions.  They make outlandish claims about the purpose
of Jesus' life which you clearly reject.  They recount incidents in
Jesus which Bishop Spong, for example, says are ludicrous.

Who then is this Jesus?  Please, please define Jesus for us so
we can then intelligently look at the Scriptures and determine
exactly what value they have in trying to understand this man.

  >I've bought a half a dozen copies as gifts for friends and would be 
  >willing to give you a copy Collis if you would read it with an open heart.

I truly appreciate your thought, Ro.  You're kind to make the offer.

I have no open heart or mind when it comes to other ways of salvation.
My heart and mind are already firmly committed to Jesus as living in
my heart and as revealed in the Bible.  However, I'm very willing
to logically explore the reasons for my faith and the evidence for it.
And I'm willing to change my views where they don't add up.  But I
have no need for a different plan of salvation.  The one that brings
me to heaven with Jesus is more than sufficient.

Collis

Re:  429.9

Hi Alvin,

  >I think you forget that having Faith  is  a  blessing.   Because  some
  >people  don't  believe  doesn't  mean  they  "ignored"  what was being
  >offered.  It means they haven't seen the  light.   Didn't  Jesus  have
  >something to say about that?

You are right to an extent.  Indeed faith is a blessing.  But faith
is not blind belief, it is belief in something or someone that must
be worthy of your belief.  Faith in the inappropriate person or thing
is foolishness.

What I'm doing is taking the assumption that Jesus is not as portrayed
in Scripture.  He is what someone else (some "liberal Christian") says.
Now the question is, "what value is there in Scripture"?

I keep getting told that there is value in Scripture even though Jesus
is not at all as presented in Scripture.  O.K., I don't understand
how.  I'm willing to be shown.  Let's define who Jesus is and see
exactly what value Scripture really has.

Of course, different people will "value" Scripture differently.  But
we can at least agree on the facts - the points of differences and
sameness - once we have a definition of who Jesus is.  And, we can
reason together to try and find a common understanding of why something
should be or should not be valued.

  >Yes, because there are those that say it isn't  important  whether  or
  >not he was a fraud - he still left a valuable legacy.

They certainly do say that.  I just want to examine the claim more
closely!

Collis

Re:  429.10

  >Some possibilities: Jesus did not claim to be God.  

Indeed.  Fortunately, the gap here is much wider than this one
disputed claim (although it is well documented both in Jesus
life and in the records of Scripture).  The differences between
liberal Christians (similar to Bishop Spong) and inerrantists far 
transcend this one issue (however important this one issue may be).

  >It would still be reasonable to emulate Jesus, if one thought that Jesus 
  >represented the epitome of virtue.

And this is what I'd really like to explore.  Who is this Jesus who
is the epitome of virtue?  Exactly what did he say and what did he
do?  Is this consistent with my or your or anyone's definition of
"epitome of virtue"?

It's easy in the abstract to believe something.  It is when we examine
it closely, in detailed scrutiny, that we question.  Bishop Spong
indicates that this is why he rejected fundamentalism - because it
could not stand up to close scrutiny.  I reject liberalism for the
same reason - it fails miserably to stand up under close scrutiny.
Particulary the aspect of Scripture having value and Jesus being very
different than portrayed in Scripture.

Collis

Re:  429.11

  >Whose faith is more real?  Whose God?  Whose Jesus?  

Hi Karen,

You imply that logic and reason are not appropriate in this area.
I'm not sure you meant to imply that, but that's what I hear.  I
ask the same question - and I apply the tools of facts, logic and
reason.  Come, reason with me.

  >Is it my error, or are you trying to show just how rational and logical a 
  >Christian you are? 

My nature is to be very logical and reasoning.  I apologize if this
seems pretentious to you.

Collis

Re:  429.12

  >Well, there are those of us (or should I speak for myself  here?)  who
  >don't  care  a  tinker's  dam  whether  or  not  anybody's actions are
  >blasphemous.

Certainly it's your choice what you care about.  There are a number
of things that Scripture make abundantly clear - and that God cares
about blasphemy is one of them.  That is why I made the point.

  >But what if you're not a believer?  Does Jesus have to be God before 
  >*anyone* can benefit by *anything* he said or did?

No, people can benefit from almost anything.  However, it is a two-edged
sword.  Not only can people benefit from almost anything, they can be
hurt by almost anything.

What I'm saying is not that there is no benefit at all for someone
to read Scripture and believe something different.  What I'm saying
is that it is illogical to disbelieve the major points of Scripture
concerning Jesus' life, death and resurrection *and* claim that
Scripture is "very meaningful".  Only in the same way that you would
call Greek mythology "very meaningful" can this be done.  Why?  Because
the life of Jesus is portrayed is about as accurate as the life of
the Greek gods and goddesses, at least according to Bishop Spong.
The reasons for Jesus life (according to Jesus and his disciples) are
ALL WRONG.  The meaning for Jesus' life as told to us through Scripture
is all wrong.

Now don't get me wrong.  People can claim to get great meaning out of
anything.  I'm just saying that the great meaning is not there if you
are also claiming that it's all wrong at the roots.  A true with rotten
roots does not produce great fruit - and neither will writing with
rotten roots produce "great meaning".

Collis

    RE: .18 Collis

    Hi Collis,
    
    First you say...
    
    >I have no open heart or mind when it comes to other ways of salvation.
    
    and then you say...
    
    >However, I'm very willing
    >to logically explore the reasons for my faith and the evidence for it.
    >And I'm willing to change my views where they don't add up.  
    
    
    Aren't these contradictory statements?
    
    Carole

    As Karen pointed out, myths are valuable in that they point the way to
    deeper truths that go beyond their literal or surface meaning.  
    
    Collis, if you would like to learn more about the value of myth in
    religious faith, I am sure there are several sources of information
    available at your local library.  In the Dewey Decimal system, the
    books on myth are located somewhere in the 200s, if I am not mistaken,
    usually just down the shelf from the Jerry Falwell books.
    
    -- Mike

Collis,

<<I hear you, Ro.  Your belief is common.  However, the question I'm
asking is not what you believe; it is rather how does the Jesus of
your beliefs stack up with

  - the historical Jesus
  - the Jesus as portrayed in the Scriptures

Actually he stacks up pretty well.  I now can understand the 
Scriptures on a different level through ACIM and other sources.  Much 
of the confusion I felt when reading a New Testament passage has been 
cleared up.  This is because I believe Jesus/God/the Divine speaks to 
us today in a way we can understand and that helps us to live a 
'Christian' life in the modern world.

<<I have no open heart or mind when it comes to other ways of salvation.
My heart and mind are already firmly committed to Jesus as living in
my heart and as revealed in the Bible.  However, I'm very willing
to logically explore the reasons for my faith and the evidence for it.
And I'm willing to change my views where they don't add up.  But I
have no need for a different plan of salvation.  The one that brings
me to heaven with Jesus is more than sufficient.

I respect and honor your choice Collis.  It would be nice if you 
understood that for many of us Jesus is still the 'way' to salvation.  
He is just calling to some in a manner in which we have the 'ears to
hear'.  It seems logical to me that Jesus would naturally find a way
to speak to those of us who were having trouble understanding the
Bible so that his message would be clear; so that none would be 
'lost'.

    Ro
    

Re: .20 Collis

>  >It would still be reasonable to emulate Jesus, if one thought that Jesus 
>  >represented the epitome of virtue.
>
>And this is what I'd really like to explore.  Who is this Jesus who
>is the epitome of virtue?  Exactly what did he say and what did he
>do?  Is this consistent with my or your or anyone's definition of
>"epitome of virtue"?

Since I don't necessarily believe that Jesus is the epitome of virtue, I can't
really answer that question.  I agree with you that anyone who wanted to
emulate Jesus should know what it is that he or she is emulating.  If Jesus
is just a myth then one can pick and choose which parts of the myth to emulate.

				-- Bob

>    >I have no open heart or mind when it comes to other ways of salvation.
>    
>    and then you say...
>    
>    >However, I'm very willing
>    >to logically explore the reasons for my faith and the evidence for it.
>    >And I'm willing to change my views where they don't add up.  
>    
>    
>   Aren't these contradictory statements?

	No.

			Alfred 

    
    RE: .27
    
    Ok Alfred. ;^)  I see the contradiction in that Collis said he has
    no open heart or mind to other ways of Salvation, and then a few
    sentences later says that he is willing to change his views if the
    reasons for his faith and the evidence for it don't add up.  How
    can one change their views if the heart and mind are closed?  Collis,
    do you see where this sounds contradictory?
    
    Carole

    RE: .29 he said he was unwilling to compromise on one thing but was
    will to on others. You see that as a contridiction? I don't.
    
    		Alfred

Why certainly I can see why they sound contradictory.

However, I'm just presenting me as I am.  Just as mass
of apparent contradictions.  (I expect I'll get some
support for that statement in this conference.  :-) )

How often do we need to redecide an issue?  At what
point are you willing to make a life-long commitmemnt?
Never?

We'll always be learning and growing.  This does not,
in my opinion, obviate either the usefulness or, in fact,
the need for a decision.  I have made that decision and
I will stick to it.  Just as I have made the decision to
love and cherish my wife as long as we're both living.
This is the commitment that God explicitly calls me to.

Does this mean that I can not grow and change?  No.  Does
this mean that much of what I thought will not change?
No.  When I accepted Jesus, I believed vastly different
things than I believe now.  I acted differently, too.
Have I changed?  Yes - radically.  Jesus promised that I
would.  Do I have far to go?  Yes, much further than I
have come.

So I am willing to reason, to explore, to change.  There
are some parts of me that have already been given to God
that I am not free to change.  By the way, the inerrancy
of Scripture is not one of those.

Hope this helps you understand.

Collis

re: Note 429.31 by Collis "The Word became flesh" 

>However, I'm just presenting me as I am.  Just as mass
>of apparent contradictions.  (I expect I'll get some
>support for that statement in this conference.  :-) )

I'll support you in that.  It's the mass of apparent contradiction, the fact 
that one cannot absolutely and completely predict what you might say or think, 
the fact that you aren't amenable to logical scrutiny (and I mean that as a 
compliment) that makes you a person that I find interesting and provocative! 

Hmmm, those are mostly the same reasons I find the Bible such an inspired
sharing of the Divine relationship.   .-) 

>            :
>            :
>            :
>
>Hope this helps you understand.

Very much, and I truly appreciate it.  I even agree with you!  Perhaps not 
with some of the specific details you have come to, (and I don't expect you to 
agree with everything I have found as truths for myself) but yes, we are on a
path of growth and discovery.  I find it a wonderfully diversely travelled
road. 

Peace,

Jim

    Collis .21,
    
    > You imply that logic and reason are not appropriate in this area.
    > ...Come, reason with me.
    
    I'll do my best old friend. :-) I appreciate the lengths you go to 
    apply the tools of facts, logic and reason to this issue, and that 
    they are, in part, what nurtures your faith.  My point is that God, 
    Jesus Christ, and matters of faith, for me, do not fit easily, nor 
    well into constructs of logic and reason.  They've always over-flowed 
    any logical boundaries I've ever tried to put around them.  
    
    I think that who and what God and/or Jesus is, is essentially 
    experienced in the heart, and it is an exercise in futility at best 
    to attempt to "prove" aspects of such an experience within a strictly 
    logical construct.  
    
    The discussion as you've proposed it reminds me of the about-face now 
    being experienced throughout the world of Physics.  It wasn't long 
    ago that physicists, (logisticians extraordinaire) felt so sure that 
    with their logical and reasoned equations they finally had reality by 
    the gonads.  But now they realize differently.  All their logical 
    constructs are merely symbolic representations of reality (- myths,
    if you will).  Their logical endeavors do not penetrate any further 
    than that.  They've admitted that something very "mysterious" exists 
    beyond that, some force, some source, and have also said that whatever 
    it is, it can never be grasped by logic.
    
    So when it comes to matters of faith I think such logical discussions 
    as this one are more often an exercise in futility, for if we are 
    trying to to penetrate into the depths of who and what God or Jesus 
    is, and prove that to others, imo, we never will.  Though paradoxically, 
    I think that faith is oftentimes curiously nourised by the depths of 
    futility, which may be experienced through just such a discussion as 
    this. :-)
    
    God only knows. ;-)
    
    Karen

    Amen and Amen!
    

Indeed, Karen, I hear you.  I understand where you're
coming from - I think.  It is the answer I expected
(since you and others have given it before).  What I
hear is that you are unable to reduce the issue
to one where this belief can be objectively evaluated.

The belief that I'm discussing here is, "Can the Bible
contain a pack of lies (or misconceptions) about the mission, 
purpose, life and death of Jesus Christ (along with some truth) 
and also be a book that makes it a great book because of
the person Jesus Christ?"  My answer is no.  I've
explained why it is no.  Others answer yes.  For whatever
reason, they either can not or do not explain how this
can be.  Again, in my opinion, it can have as much value 
as a book on Greek mythology, since that is essentially
what it is reduced to (even though there is more truth
than that, so many essential truths are stripped away
that it is more fantasy than fiction).

Perhaps someone else can explain how the Bible can be
such a great book despite all of its lies and/or
misconceptions.

Collis

     RE: .35

> Perhaps someone else can explain how the Bible can be
> such a great book despite all of its lies and/or
> misconceptions.

     If people are using the Bible as their authority, then, yes, they have
     a lot at stake if the Bible proved to be a work of fiction.  But there
     have been many, many works of fiction that have become  great  despite
     the  fact  that  they  were  fiction.   Why  does any work, fiction or
     non-fiction, become great?  Because it has *something* that speaks  to
     a  great many people.  Why take the greatness away from the Bible even
     if it could be proved to be a work of fiction - even if  it  could  be
     proved there were no such thing as God?

     Peace,

     Alvin

Alvin,

I certainly agree with you that books can be fiction and
be great.  

The Bible, however, does not claim to be fiction.  It claims
the opposite - to have the Words of Life.  To say that it
is a great book yet wrong in its essentials still seems to
me to be paradox.

I can here Bishop Spong saying that we should read the Bible,
absorb what it says (in terms of think about it) and study
it - JUST DON'T BELIEVE IT!  If you actually believe what
it says, then you've fallen into an inerrancy mode (since
a basic claim of the Bible is inerrancy) from which you'll
need to be rescued to truly appreciate Scripture.

Now, I can understand and appreciate how someone can read
something, get warm fuzzies and think, "that's wonderful,
I can appreciate that" or "I wish I was like that".  Indeed,
I expect most readers of the Bible feel that way at times.
However, there is more to the Bible (and more to the definition
of greatness) than that, in my opinion.  To call a book
"great" while claiming that it is full of misinformation -
misinformation that, according to Bishop Spong, people actually
have the audacity to believe in and live out whereby they
take an extremely narrow view of life and end up being very
critical of Bishop Spong and his beliefs...  Do you see what
I'm getting at?  The book that Bishop Spong wants to rescue
is *exactly* the book that has turned people away from Bishop
Spong - simply because they believe what it said.

What Bishop Spong apparently wants to rescue is not what is
actually written there, but something else.  But the book
itself claims that it ISN'T something else.  It claims that
it contains what God has said and is what God has said.  It
contains truth.  Again, do you see the absurdity of this?
(at least from this perspective?)

Collis

    
    
    I think the Bible can be an exceptional book and still contain
    inconsistencies and misconceptions.  I think this because I believe
    it was written by human beings who were attempting to share their
    spiritual journey within the context of their culture and society.
    There is much to learn from it and to ponder on.  I also believe 
    that scripture has continued to, currently is, and will continue 
    to, be written.
    
    This means more to me than any book that has been frozen in time.
    It is the only way that I can read the Bible.  I have a lot of
    resistance to it based on how it has been used to repress people
    and to justify inequality.
    
    
    Carole

Let me continue a little more.

If the Bible contained no claims about itself,
no claims about all that it contained, no interpretation
of what it said, then I can move a little bit
closer to accepting what Bishop Spong wants.
If the reader had the option of saying to himself,
"this is just one person's opinion" or, more
accurately, "this is just 40 people's opinion".

But what happens if we call it "just someone's
opinion".  What happens if we call something that
Jesus said, "just his opinion.  It doesn't affect
me."  We are saying, by inference, much more than
that.  We are saying that Jesus is not God, that
what he said is not truth, etc.  You can accept it
as truth, deny it, or say you don't know.  But it is
logically incompatible to deny something is truth
(to call someone a liar) and that say that the same
statement is a great statement, worthy of study.
Well, this is o.k. if you goal is the study of
liars, but NOT when your goal is the understanding
of truth.  And to call a book that is filled with
misconceptions and/or lies a "great book" that is
worthy of memorizing, studying and analyzing... Why?
Are you trying to analyze the authors and figure out
what caused them to be so deceived?  Especially with
so many deceived in the same way?  :-)  Perhaps it
isn't deception at all!  What a revelation!

No.  Let's not get carried away here.  If I really
start to believe what it says, I'll become narrow-minded
and a fundamentalist - and God knows I'm happy being
an evangelical.  Let me just believe what I want about
this and not worry about those inconstencies in my
beliefs.  I could never straighten them all out anaway -
even if I could figure out what they were.  :-)

Collis

    It's funny, Collis, you are the only person in this discussion so far
    that has used negative and emotionally charged phrases like "a pack of
    lies" to describe the Bible.  I have seen many Christians who don't
    believe in inerrancy, in this notes file, who have a very positive
    affection for the Bible despite your belief that it is simply
    impossible for them to do so.  This kind of cognitive dissonance must
    be very disconcerting for you, and you have all of our sympathies for
    what you must be going through.  No wonder you have been writing such a
    flurry of notes on this topic lately.

    I realize how valuing the Bible even when it isn't all true can be so
    difficult for you to understand.  Having come from a similar religious
    perspective myself, in which literalism was paramount to my
    understanding of "truth", I can even relate to what you are saying, to
    a certain extent.  Understanding the deeper truths, such as those that
    art, myth, and story teach, that go beyond the surface literal truth or
    falsehood of what is expressed, is a part of the spiritual maturation
    process;  it is not something that can be forced, and hearing is not
    the same as understanding.

    -- Mike

Note 429.13
    
>    Admittedly I have not read much of the Bible, but hasn't it been
>    said that Jesus never claimed to be God?
    
Carole,

	An interesting question indeed.  If Mark is the oldest of
the gospels and presumably closer chronologically to the actual events,
then your question becomes even more difficult to answer.  Mark doesn't
exhibit any great certainty that Jesus is the same as God.

	John, on the other hand, is the Gospel most likely to be quoted
to validate the doctrine.  The Gospel of John is usually dated at about
90 AD, as I recall.

	There was, of course, the expected Messiah, the so-called Son
of Man.  But there is, to my knowledge, no tradition requiring the Messiah
to be God.

Peace,
Richard

    
    
    Thank you Richard.  I appreciate your response.
    
    Carole

    Collis .35,
    
    > I understand where you're coming from - I think.  It is the answer 
    > I expected (since you and others have given it before).  What I 
    > hear is that you are unable to reduce the issue to one where this 
    > belief can be objectively evaluated.
    
    I'm not so sure you do understand.  It is not a case of being 
    _unable_ to reduce the issue to evaluate the belief(s) objectively, 
    it is that when this is done it doesn't reveal any greater level of 
    truth, rather, for me it tends to have the opposite effect.  Somehow 
    the mystery of God and my admitting to not-knowing God inspires and 
    builds my faith, as much as those qualities I feel I can put my 
    finger on and quantify.  
    
    Collis, I'm not trying to say that the way you arrive at your faith 
    and beliefs is wrong, or better or worse than my own.  Please forgive 
    my stating the obvious, for I hope it will be helpful:
    
    The Bible is obviously your source of faith and religious belief, as 
    it is for others in this conference.  The specific beliefs which are 
    the underpinnings of your faith are created from a particular way in 
    which you read and interpret the Bible.  Others differ in their 
    approach.  Yet one the most intriguing thing to me is that although 
    others here may read and interpret the Bible in a radically different 
    way than you, they exhibit a faith that is alive and vital, as is 
    yours, and they clearly laud the Bible, as do you.  How can this be?  
    That seems to be the question you're probing between the lines here.
    
    To me, this is a perfect demonstration of the utter mystery and 
    awesomeness of God.  It speaks _volumes_ on how the essence of God 
    seeks unity in spirit, beyond that which is found by agreement with 
    the letter.
    
    This is why I asked you earlier "Whose faith is more real, whose God, 
    whose Jesus?"  These questions cannot be answered by logical 
    reductionist methods as you are proposing.  How some people find 
    value and inspiration and faith in a book that they say contains it's 
    fair share of misconceptions or errors is a questions that may never 
    be answered to your satisfaction.  And I don't think it's that people 
    haven't tried to answer you in good faith Collis.  I could be wrong, 
    but I just have a feeling the answer to your questions doesn't exist 
    in the place where you're searching for it.  
    
    Karen
    

     RE: .41

>    It's funny, Collis, you are the only person in this discussion so far
>    that has used negative and emotionally charged phrases like "a pack of
>    lies" to describe the Bible.  .....................................

     To be sure, Mike.  *And* he's the only one to make  extensive  use  of
     smiley  faces!  Come on, Mike.  Collis is serious about this topic!  I
     know that because he uses those phrases.  And I know he's sensitive to
     his readers feelings too, thus the smiley faces.  I think he's doing a
     great job of expressing himself - and so are you!  So,  please,  don't
     make his emotionalism an issue.

     Think "Peace",

     Alvin

RE: the last 20 or so.....

                           I, like Collis, believe in the "Perfection"
of the Bible as it is written.  I also believe that "men" will/have and 
continue to interpret the Bible incorrectly.  Maybe I have and am.  But
this one thing I *KNOW*...Jesus is *REAL* in my life and I take his love
and sacrifice seriously.  Jesus was/is not a fraud!  I know this from a
very personal demonstration in my life.  So to know that Jesus is not a 
fraud, I believe, requires a personal relationship with him and a 
willingness to be open to truth without preconceived ideas.  It is 
interesting that Jesus told us to come unto him as a little child with
the faith of a little child.  My life was forever changed when I was able
to approach Jesus in this manner.


Dave

    Dave, I appreciate and respect the conviction of your faith.  Thanks
    for sharing your comments.
    
    -- Mike

Note 429.46

Dave,

	Permit me to join you in saying that Christ is very much
alive in my life and that Christ is integral to my life.

	At the same time, I affirm that my faith does not hinge on
the literalist interpretation of that ancient, sacred and God-inspired
volume of writings we call the Bible.

Peace,
Richard

Re:  429.41

Thank you, Mike, for your sympathies.

Indeed, others who ordinarily have no problem with finding fault
with the Bible have been noticably quiet in this regard in this
note.  Not even calling it a pack of lies has brought any comment
(or any protest, I might add).

Collis

Re:  429.44
    
     >> I understand where you're coming from - I think.  It is the answer 
     >> I expected (since you and others have given it before).  What I 
     >> hear is that you are unable to reduce the issue to one where this 
     >> belief can be objectively evaluated.
    
  >I'm not so sure you do understand.  It is not a case of being 
  >_unable_ to reduce the issue to evaluate the belief(s) objectively, 
  >it is that when this is done it doesn't reveal any greater level of 
  >truth, rather, for me it tends to have the opposite effect.  

  >I could be wrong, but I just have a feeling the answer to your questions 
  >doesn't exist in the place where you're searching for it.  

Thanks for your response, Karen.  In my opinion, you have restated
what I said (with a different emphasis).  You've just taken it one
step further and said that any objective evaluation is simply not
accurate.

Collis

   Collis,

   I am one of those people you may have referd to back 2 notes...
   To me the word fraud conjures up an image if a charlatan or worse.

   I have a problem with this topic, Jesus did exist, he did move life
   for the people he ministered to forward, he did have a positive
   influence on the world as it was then known.  Logical proof, evidence,
   and faith says Christ existed and was not a fraud.  My only difference
   is maybe that I was taught that Christ was not God, but an agent of God
   on earth.

   Do I hold that the Bible is word for word accurate? No.  To me the 
   Bible is  not written of direct words and uses metaphor and imagery.
   Can I have faith in the teachings and writings of the Bible?  Yes!  
   There is no need for logic, I believe therefor, I accept.  

   Based on the topic title there is but one logical set of answers
   yes, no, or no comment.  For me the answer is, No.

   Allison

Collis 429.49,

	I suspect your "pack of lies" remark was made in anger.  If it
was, I can certainly understand it.  Many people's faith is anchored on
the literal inerrancy of the whole Bible.

	I don't believe the Bible is a pack of lies.  I don't think Bishop
Spong or anyone here in C-P does, either.

Peace,
Richard

    .50,
    
    You're welcome Collis, though I'm not sure what you're thanking me
    for.  I have the distinct impression that nothing I've said has been
    helpful, instead it's been viewed as a fairly valueless reiteration 
    ...as I far as I can tell from your remarks.
    
    Perhaps it's my simple, easily intrigued mind, or my particular faith
    journey. :-)  It still fascinates me how people can approach the Bible 
    in two so very different ways, yet still share a similar level of 
    inspiration, love and appreciation for it.  Imo, that's a paradox
    which holds a GREAT deal of significance. 
    
    Maybe next time we'll connect.  Good luck to you, 
    
    Karen

Re:  429.52

  >I suspect your "pack of lies" remark was made in anger.  If it
  >was, I can certainly understand it.  Many people's faith is anchored on
  >the literal inerrancy of the whole Bible.

  >I don't believe the Bible is a pack of lies.  I don't think Bishop
  >Spong or anyone here in C-P does, either.

It wasn't made in anger; it seemed, to me, one of the very possible
conclusions given how Bishop Spong views what is said.  The other
possibility is that of sincere misrepresentation (which may or may not 
mean that it is all lies depending on how you interpret what a lie is).

Clearly, the Bible misses truth on the essentials of Christian faith
completely, according to Bishop Spong.  (Just compare his essentials
of faith with the essentials of a Bible-believing church.)

Collis

    From what I gather, Spong believes that the Bible teaches deeper truths
    that do not depend on the literal truth or falsehood of specific
    passages interpreted at the surface level.  If that is what he indeed
    believes, then he believes that the Bible is not a pack of lies at all,
    but in fact a source of truth.
    
    -- Mike

Karen,

Yes, you are either unwilling or unable to look at the
logic of the situation; I am unwilling to avoid
looking at the logic.

I do indeed see how people think the Bible is a great
book for lots of reasons while disagreeing with much
of it.  It's not logical, but people are like that.  :-)

Since no one is either able or willing to define who
Jesus really was, we can't compare this Jesus with the
Jesus presented in the Bible and find out how much sense
it makes to place value in these writings despite their
(presumably substantial) errors in writing about Jesus.

Perhaps it is because I seek truth that I put such value
on truth and remove such value from lies (or falsehoods).

Still a seeker of truth,

Collis

Re:  .55

Thanks, Mike, for that explanation.  Indeed, I expect
that this is indeed what he believes (and what many
here believe although have been unable to express as
clearly as you just did).

I have a different perception.  Bad roots produce
bad fruit; good roots produce good fruit.  Good fruit
is not produced from a bad tree.  From what I've read,
I even think Jesus and I agree on this matter!  :-)

Collis

    Collis, I realize that, from your perspective, the concept of deeper
    truths which go beyond the literal accuracy of surface statements is
    not something that you can understand.  As one who once shared your
    literalistic outlook, I too did not comprehend this concept at one
    time.

    -- Mike

    Collis .56,
    
    One correction before I go:
    
    > Yes, you are either unwilling or unable to look at the logic
    > of the situation;
    
    Whether you are aware of it or not, you miscomprehend the essential
    message of .33 and .44.  That is a pit-fall Seekers of Truth need
    always be aware of:  the light of our own truth can sometimes be
    blinding.  ....Believe me. I know.  ;-)
    
    Karen                      

     RE: .56

> I do indeed see how people think the Bible is a great
> book for lots of reasons while disagreeing with much
> of it.  It's not logical, but people are like that.  :-)

     Hmm.  Apparently when it comes to the Bible, one must throw out  human
     nature because it isn't logical.  I dare say many of us, when we reach
     a certain level of maturity, would look back  and  think  our  parents
     were  pretty great, although I doubt I'd find anyone who didn't end up
     having some disagreement with them despite this admiration.

> Since no one is either able or willing to define who
> Jesus really was, we can't compare this Jesus with the
> Jesus presented in the Bible and find out how much sense
> it makes to place value in these writings despite their
> (presumably substantial) errors in writing about Jesus.

     Many, many people would say it makes  sense  to  put  value  on  these
     writings *no matter who Jesus was or wasn't* because they've proved to
     be meaningful and inspiring.  I'm thinking of his  admonition  not  to
     comment  on  the  splinter  in another's eye before taking care of the
     tree in your own.  Isn't this a valuable piece of  insight?   What  if
     you'd  heard it from someone before you knew it's author.  Wouldn't it
     still be valuable even if you never knew who  the  author  was?   What
     about  it's  variation, attributed to native Americans, to walk a mile
     in someone's shoes?  Is that any less valuable because Jesus  *didn't*
     say it (or didn't say it *that* way)?

> Perhaps it is because I seek truth that I put such value
> on truth and remove such value from lies (or falsehoods).

     Well, I don't doubt that.  But can't one find truth  in  metaphors  or
     myth?   Does  a  poem  have to be literally true before it can inspire
     you?

     Peace,

     Alvin

    I am afraid that I cannot read all 60 responses (I am playing catch-up)
    right now but I do want to respond.
    
    Some belief that the conclusions of Collis and I are based on the
    inerrancy of Scripture.  As Collis said, not true. But Collis neglected
    tomantion something.
    
    Jesus's claims are a matter of incontrovertible historical record.  The
    Jews had only onejustifiable reason for condemning Jesus, and that is
    his claim that he was God.  Friends, Jesus HAD to have claimed that He
    was God, otherwise he would not have been executed.  History does in
    fact tell us that Jesus was executed for claiming to be God.  Roman
    history and Jewish history alike.
    
    Furthermore, Roman history, and the testimony of non-Christian
    believers, also says that Jesus was resurrected.  These beliefs held by
    "backwards" Christians such as Collis and I are indeed beliefs held by
    the early Christians, as the witness of pagan and Jewish historians
    will bear out. The miracles he performed can also be attested to by
    Jewish and pagan historians. (Indeed, the Jews never denied his
    miracles, they simply attributed them to Satan, which doesn't help the
    unbeliever.  The pagans attributed them to magic, which doesn't help
    the atheist.) 
    
    The problem is that today's liberal theologians have lost touch with
    history. The reason that no one up until modern times has doubted the
    existence of Jesus and the veracity of Biblical claims was not because
    they were benighted fools, but because they were so close to the
    historical events that it would be foolish to doubt their existence.
    
    For example, if anyone today claimed that the Constitution was never
    framed by the founding fathers of our country, that the American
    Revolution never took place, that George Washington never really
    existed or that any other Revolutionary event never happened, we would
    laugh at them. Why? Because we are only 216 years away from the events,
    But, if someone 2,000 years from now claimed such things, he might be
    believed, because they would be so far removed in history from the
    events. 
    
    But if you go back to records of the first century, and examine the
    records from the church at that time, you will have to conclude that
    these things really did happen, that the early Christians really did
    believe these things, that Christ really did claim to be God, that He
    really was Resurrected.  Unfortunately liberal Christians keep a safe
    distance from studying history at that time, because once you examine
    it, their claims become preposterous.
    
    If you want, check out "He Walked Among Us: Evidence for the Historical
    Jesus" by Josh McDowell.  He discusses much about pagan and Jewish
    historical evidence for Biblical truths, he refutes claims from various
    liberal Christians who have attempted to twist history, he gives
    examples of archaeological finds, he gives quotes from Jewish sources,
    and a lot of other things.
    
    Eric
    

> Some possibilities: Jesus did not claim to be God.  He was misunderstood
> by his followers, who misquoted him when they wrote the gospels years later.
> After all, it's only in a few places where Jesus himself (arguably - JWs
> for example don't agree) implies that he is God.

Not tenable.  Secular history shows that Jesus was executed for blasphemy -- 
claiming to be God. If the Jews misunderstood Jesus, he had plenty of chance to
correct them and be saved, but he didn't.  Therefore he claimed to be God.

> Or, Jesus himself is an allegorical figure: he is a representation of what
> God might be like if he came to earth in human form.  It would still be
> reasonable to emulate Jesus, if one thought that Jesus represented the
> epitome of virtue.

Not tenable.  Jesus was a real person, crucified under Pontius Pilate.  Again,
secular history records that Jesus was in fact a real person, and that he in
fact was executed by the Jews.

Eric

>    Collis, I realize that, from your perspective, the concept of deeper
>    truths which go beyond the literal accuracy of surface statements is
>    not something that you can understand.  As one who once shared your
>    literalistic outlook, I too did not comprehend this concept at one
>    time.

Mike,

When accepting the reality of the deeper, non-literal meaning of some Scripture,
it is not necessary to therefore deny the literal meaning.

Personally, I find that many verses in the Bible have *both* a literal and a
symbolic truth.  Not ONLY are they true on a literal level, they represent a
larger truth.

This I think is much more beautiful than dismissing either the literal or the
symbolic view.  God gave us real events to represent symbolic truths!!!

One could say that the manna in the desert was only an allegory of how God
provides for us.  One could insist that it was literally true and God wanted to
feed his people.  I see it as an awesome symbol that was in fact literally true,
but God showed, through this literal truth, that he provides for his people.

It's called the sacramental approach. God reveals himself through our senses,
and not merely vague feelings or far-out symbolism.  These symbolic truths take
on a much more awesome meaning when we realize that not only are they symbolic
truths, but they are literal truths as well!! The flood is a myth to demonstrate
God's cleansing of the earth and subsequent covenant not to destroy it again,
but it is also a TRUE and REAL myth, and hence gains even more power and meaning
than if you deny its literal truth. The myth of the fiery furnace in Daniel 
(where Shadrach, Misrach and Abenego (sp) were cast into a fiery furnace and
lived) represents how God protects his people against the ungodly and saves our
lives, but how much more power is it when we realize it was a TRUE myth that
really happened!!!

Tell me, people, why do liberal Christians insist on denying that these events
actually occurred? Does it strengthen their symbolic value? I think not! I think
that it in fact diminishes their value! Why is it SO HARD for people to accept
that these events took place?  Can God not do what he want to? Can God not
resurrect Jesus Christ from the dead? Can God not conceive a child in a virgin?
Come on, people, what kind of weak God do you believe in that you have to resort
to concluding that he is impotent to do these things simply because they don't
make sense to you?

Let's take, for example, the Resurrection of Jesus.  If Jesus were indeed
resurrected, then it would prove incontrovertibly that Jesus was not merely a
man, but someone very special. I would say it even proves that he was God. It
would certainly lend credence to what he said and I argue that it would prove 
that what he said was true.

Suppose you treat the Scriptures as a merely human document.  You see that
Jesus's disciples abandoned him right before his death.  Peter denied that he
knew him (Matthew 27:69, Mark 14:66, Luke 22:54, John 18:15).  In fact, if you
read John 21, Peter and a few other disciples went out to fish. Recall that they
were fishermen before Jesus called them.  Hence it appears that they were ready
to give up on the teachings of Jesus immediately after he died.  They had no
reason to be joyful.  They had no intentions of spreading the gospel. They were
disappointed and disillusioned.

Yet this same Peter who denied Jesus when he died in Acts 2:14 stood up in front
of three thousand people and proclaimed the Gospel message!  All the disciples
faced punishment and death at the hands of the Jews and the Romans for their
preaching activities.  They simply could not be stopped! Simply read the book of
Acts.  Why this big change?  Why were cowering disciples, who were afraid after
his death and who at first refused to believe that he was resurrected, now 
preaching the Gospel and facing death and imprisonment for doing so?   In fact
though they were arrested, they were freed by an angel of the Lord and STILL
went out and preached the Gospel! (Acts 5:25)  They were haled into court again,
and they said that they could not help but preach the Gospel. They were flogged,
and yet praised Jesus for it! How many people will allow themselves to be 
executed for what they know to be a lie? In fact, how many people will lie and
deny the truth to AVOID being executed? Yet the disciples were accepted death
instead of denying their beliefs! Can this courage be generated by belief in a
myth?

Is this how people would behave who simply made up the Resurrection? Indeed many
of them doubted the resurrection.  But the fact that they preached the 
Resurrection of Jesus is a provable historical fact. How could anyone have such
courage unless they were absolutely sure of what they were preaching?

And in fact, consider this. Roman guards were put to death if they fell asleep
on the job, especially if as a result what they were guarding was stolen. Yet
secular historical records show that those who guarded Jesus's tomb were 
instructed to claim that they fell asleep, but they were protected from being
executed.  Why? Because their superiors knew that Jesus had in fact risen from
the dead, but they did not want people to know it. So they protected the guards
from being executed so that they could claim that they fell asleep and the body
of Jesus was stolen.

No, not only is there plenty of proof that Jesus's disciples thought he was
resurrected, there is plenty of extrabiblical proof that Jesus WAS resurrected.
So if he was resurrected, then he was not merely a man.  If he was not merely a
man, what he taught was truth. And, if he was not merely a man, he could 
certainly ensure that what his disciples taught was true. If he could give them
the supernatural courage to spread the Gospel in the certain prospect of death,
then certainly he could reveal doctrinal truth to them and ensure that they
were not wrong.

Eric

    Eric, I can't speak for liberal Christians, not being one myself.  All
    I can do is give you an answer from my own perspective, which is not
    necessarily anyone else's.  When you ask rhetorically if God cannot do
    what "he" wants to, you are of course taking omnipotence for granted as
    a divine attribute.  Since I do not believe that God is omnipotent, my
    outlook is bound to be different from yours.
    
    -- Mike

Re: .62 Eric

>Not tenable.  Jesus was a real person, crucified under Pontius Pilate.  Again,
>secular history records that Jesus was in fact a real person, and that he in
>fact was executed by the Jews.

Really?  Please provide references.

				-- Bob

    in re .62
    
    Jesus was not executed by the Jews. Please be careful about using
    expressions like this, which border on antisemitism.
    
    Bonnie
    c-p moderator
    

Re:  429.58

  >Collis, I realize that, from your perspective, the concept of deeper
  >truths which go beyond the literal accuracy of surface statements is
  >not something that you can understand.  

I don't know why you would make such an obviously false claim about
me, Mike, other than the fact that you like to be contrary when
replying to me.

Not only are deeper truths of Scripture a possibility, the Bible itself
many, many times applies deeper truths when quoting other Scripture!
In fact, Bishop Spong takes pains to point out some of these instances
and indicate who foolish the Biblical authors (in several cases that
I remember reading, Matthew) were for applying a "deeper" meaning.

  >As one who once shared your literalistic outlook, I too did not 
  >comprehend this concept at one time.

Again, Mike, I am not a literalist and I do not have a literalistic
outlook.  Your constant misrepresentation of my views and beliefs
as well as your subtle put-downs of me is tiresome.

Collis

>Really?  Please provide references

	The most commonly referenced secular history record is Josephis (sp?)
	history which was written not long after Jesus died. I don't have my
	copy any more. Of course there are those who claim that the references
	to Jesus were added later but I don't buy that. Doubting the historical
	existance about Jesus would logically require doubting the historical
	existance about Socrates for whom we have less documentation. The 
	writing of only one follower, no contemporary history (even a 
	questionable one) where we have the writings of a number of Jesus'
	followers and at least one claimed contemporary history reference.

			Alfred

Re:  429.60

      >>It's not logical, but people are like that.  :-)

  >Hmm.  Apparently when it comes to the Bible, one must throw out  human
  >nature because it isn't logical.  I dare say many of us, when we reach
  >a certain level of maturity, would look back  and  think  our  parents
  >were  pretty great, although I doubt I'd find anyone who didn't end up
  >having some disagreement with them despite this admiration.

We're in agreement.  People are often *not* logical.  I'm not saying
that we should throw out human nature.  I'm just saying that the
evaluation of the Bible should prove to be logically sound as well
as inspiring and emotionally satisfying.

  >Many, many people would say it makes  sense  to  put  value  on  these
  >writings *no matter who Jesus was or wasn't* because they've proved to
  >be meaningful and inspiring.

In the abstract, Alvin, I agree with you 100%.  However, the Bible
is NOT just a collection of pithy sayings or wonderful parables.
If that was all it claimed to be, I would happily call it a great
and inspiring book.  In that sense, you are correct.

However, the Bible is much more than that.  Those who focus on a few
inspiring sayings while ignoring the historical reality of the man
named Jesus have TOTALLY missed the point.  According to the Bible
itself, it is JESUS we have been given to evaluate God by.  If Jesus
is a fraud, then no matter how inspiring a saying or two may be, then
the Bible is a path to DEATH, not LIFE.  How can such a book be
considered great?  To claim to present the way to life and ultimate
fulfillment and to actually present a way to death and destruction.
No; this is nonsensical.  The Bible MUST be judged primarily by its 
main message.  If this message is true, then indeed the style of the
book, its sayings and its insprirational ability allow us to call it
a great book.  If it's message is false, then it is just another path
full of deceit and lies that lures us away from God.  Let's not major on
the minors.

  >Is that any less valuable because Jesus  *didn't* say it (or didn't 
  >say it *that* way)?

As a matter of fact, the speaker often times does make quite a difference
in the worth of a saying, in my opinion.  Yes, the fact that Jesus said
some things makes *all* the difference in the world to me.

  >But can't one find truth in metaphors or myth?   

Certainly.  I'm not a literalist.

  >Does a poem have to be literally true before it can inspire you?

Not at all.  I'm not a literalist.

Collis

>    Jesus was not executed by the Jews. Please be careful about using
>    expressions like this, which border on antisemitism.

	Can we say he was killed by the Italians?

			Alfred

    With all due respect, Collis, I don't think you do understand the value
    of appreciating deeper truths that don't depend on the truth or literal
    accuracy of a surface interpretation; your comment about good fruit not
    being produced from a bad tree expressed a point of view that I might
    have shared at one time, and I was merely responding to it.  

    Mysteries can be troubling.  My suggestion for you is to file this away
    somewhere, in the back of your mind; perhaps someday, after you have
    accumulated more experiences in your own life, something will click,
    you will pull it out of that mental storage bin, and it will make sense
    to you.

    -- Mike
    

    RE: .71

   Alfred,

   I'm afraid not, that doesn't quite work.  Besides it was the Roman
   government at that time.  From what I know of history in that region
   Rome really didn't care one way or another regarding religous issues
   but were concerned with maintaining the peace(see Pax Roma).  Jeusus
   was causing a a fair amount of dissention in the region and Rome was
   not about the have their authority tested or usurped.

   Allison

Re: .69 Alfred

>	The most commonly referenced secular history record is Josephis (sp?)
>	history which was written not long after Jesus died. I don't have my
>	copy any more. Of course there are those who claim that the references
>	to Jesus were added later but I don't buy that.

Nevertheless, I don't accept the Josephus passage as being secular proof
for the existence of Jesus, because as I understand it there is good reason
to believe that the (single, I think) reference to Jesus *was* added later
by Christians.  Also, if Jesus did all that was claimed in the New Testament
(miracles etc.) then one would expect a much more detailed account in
Josephus.  Since Josephus was born many years after Jesus died (60 A.D.?)
it wasn't a contemporary account - Josephus would merely be passing on
whatever stories had been handed down.

>	Doubting the historical
>	existance about Jesus would logically require doubting the historical
>	existance about Socrates for whom we have less documentation.

I have less reason to doubt the existence of Socrates because no one claimed
that Socrates performed miracles.  But it doesn't matter much to me either
way whether Socrates really existsed or was just a fictional character
created by Plato.  What's important are the ideas, not the person.

				-- Bob

     RE: .61

>    If you want, check out "He Walked Among Us: Evidence for the Historical
>    Jesus" by Josh McDowell.  He discusses much about pagan and Jewish
>    historical evidence for Biblical truths, he refutes claims from various
>    liberal Christians who have attempted to twist history, he gives
>    examples of archaeological finds, he gives quotes from Jewish sources,
>    and a lot of other things.

     "and a lot of other things" that support his particular  bent  on  the
     subject.   Correct  me if I'm wrong, but isn't Josh McDowell some kind
     of  Evangelical  radio  preacher?   Sorry,  Eric,  but  couldn't   you
     recommend a book by a noted historian, preferably one who doesn't have
     a vested interest in the conclusions reached?

     As a related aside,  our  local  public  television  station  here  in
     Chicago,  WTTW,  broadcasted  the  first  four episodes of "Testament"
     yesterday (they'll broadcast the last  three  episodes  next  Sunday).
     Fascinating  series.   The  narrator  made  a  couple  of  interesting
     observations.   First,  the  only  written  documentation  of   Jesus'
     existence  was  made  by  Christians  long after his time on earth was
     completed.  Seconded, that Jesus *must* have existed by virtue of  the
     fact  of his influence on the world ever since.  Simply stated, simply
     put, and, IMO, a very convincing argument.

     Peace,

     Alvin

>   I'm afraid not, that doesn't quite work.  Besides it was the Roman

	Roman, Italian, what's the difference? Of course who actually did 
	the killing is a nit at this point. Lot's of people had a hand in
	it and they're all dead now (except for God) so placing blame is
	rather pointless. Bu then so is getting upset at people who want
	to do so as long as they aren't acting against living people based
	on that blame.

			Alfred

    Unfortunately, the notion that Jews were "Christ-killers" has been the
    justification for a lot of anti-Semitism over the last two millennia.  I
    think it doesn't hurt to be sensitive about such matters and to
    consider how the language we use may (however inadvertently) bear the
    stigma of oppression and discrimination.

    By the way, note 19.16 refers to the "'Nostra Aetate' (In Our Times)
    declaration by the Second Vatican Council that condemned anti-Semitism
    and removed the centuries-old charge that the Jews were responsible for
    Christ's death."

    -- Mike

     RE: .69 and .74

> >     Doubting the historical
> >     existance about Jesus would logically require doubting the historical
> >     existance about Socrates for whom we have less documentation.
> 
> I have less reason to doubt the existence of Socrates because no one claimed
> that Socrates performed miracles.  But it doesn't matter much to me either
> way whether Socrates really existsed or was just a fictional character
> created by Plato.  What's important are the ideas, not the person.

     If I remember correctly, guys, there *is* some question as to  whether
     Socrates  existed  or  was just a character Plato created to verbalize
     his own philosophical point of view.  Course, the  last  time  I  ever
     heard anything about this was over twenty years ago, so take this with
     a big grain of salt.  Anyone with better credentials than mine care to
     comment?

     Think "Peace",

     Alvin

     p.s.

     Two unrelated asides that have *nothing* to do with  this  topic  and,
     hopefully, will not start a rat-hole.

     In the book, "Letters To and From  Grouch"  (I  *told*  you  this  was
     unrelated),  one of Groucho's friends wrote him on the occasion of one
     of his marriages, "Remember what the old  philosopher  said,  'Whether
     you  stay  single or get married, either way, you've made a mistake!'"
     Many years later I found out that this was a paraphrase  of  something
     Socrates  said  (who  was  reputed to have been hen-pecked (no offense
     intended)).  I took such a liking to this expression that  I've  often
     used  it.   Once,  though,  I was teaching a class and I went into the
     usual set-up saying, "You know what Socrates said, don't you?", and in
     the  pause before I delivered this gem, one of my students just chimed
     in, "I drank WHAT?"

     I still laugh thinking about it.

>    Jesus was not executed by the Jews. Please be careful about using
>    expressions like this, which border on antisemitism.

Sorry, I don't think that in relating historical fact one is committing anti
anything.  The Catholics killed the Moslems.  We also killed Protestants. That 
is not an anti-Catholic statement, and I'm Catholic anyway. We are not proud of
it, but it is not an anti-Catholic statement to say those things. Serbs are
killing the Croats.  Croats are killing the Serbs. The Germans executed seven 
million Jews. History cannot be censored to protect the tender ears of ethnic 
groups.

Perhaps I should be more precise, though, I am guilty of not being precise. A
large group of Jews demanded to Pontius Pilate that Jesus be executed. (If you
reject the Bible as historical, you may safely ignore that.) The Jewish leaders of the time, the Scribes and Pharisees, told the Romans that Jesus had 
to be executed according to Jewish law. (This is a certain matter of history.) 
The Romans carried out the execution.

Keep in mind that Jesus and the Disciples were Jews, as well. Obviously not all
Jews wanted him dead.  Not all Germans wanted the Jews dead, and not all 
Catholics wanted the Moslems/Protestants dead.

Let's not get overzealous with our political correctness.
Eric

> Nevertheless, I don't accept the Josephus passage as being secular proof
> for the existence of Jesus, because as I understand it there is good reason
> to believe that the (single, I think) reference to Jesus *was* added later
> by Christians.  

Christians would be stupid to "add" something that was commonly known at the 
time, unless it was added in the 20th century.  As I said, we are removed from
that historical period.  Christians of the 1st or 2nd century would have no more
reason to add references of Jesus to Josephus than we would have to add
references of the Revolution to British historical works. Everyone knows about
the American Revolution, so to forge something would be useless.

Much investigation has been made into whether these passages were added to
Josephus.  It comes down to some people who dogmatically insist that Jesus
didn't exist so they have to be forged, and some who find little real basis for
that accusation.  There are a lot of unscholarly extremists out there who will
never listen to sound scholarship and will insist that Jesus never existed or
was a code name for a hallucenogic mushroom or whatever.

> Also, if Jesus did all that was claimed in the New Testament
> (miracles etc.) then one would expect a much more detailed account in
> Josephus.  Since Josephus was born many years after Jesus died (60 A.D.?)
> it wasn't a contemporary account - Josephus would merely be passing on
> whatever stories had been handed down.

Josephus naturally was interested in Jewish histories, particularly wars. The
fact that he didn't write a detailed account of only one of hundreds of pro-
fesses "Messiahs" floating around at the time is not ashonishing.

You think that writing 90 or so A.D. (if that is indeed Josephus's year of
birth) is not a "contemporary" account of something that happened in the
thirties? People today still write about World War I and the Depression. Are
they hopelessly out of date? Couldn't someone born today later write a valid
history of the 60's? 

Yes, Josephus was indeed passing on stories handed down.  That at least proves
that the stories existed, which they would not have if Jesus did not exist.
Unless you are saying that stories of Jesus's existence could have been
fabricated in that time. I'm sorry, to think that someone could convincingly
"invent"  someone who had the effect Jesus had on his contemporaries in some 60
years is not tenable. That's like suggesting that Lenin's existence was a hoax.

But more importantly, Josephus is not the only proof of Jesus's existence. 
Correspondence between high Roman officials, official Roman government records,
and other sources also prove Jesus's existence.  You could wave those away as
fabricated as well.  Then again, you could also say that all of the American
Revolutionary Fathers were invented by a group of zealous anti-monarchist
revolutionaries, who fabricated historical documents to invent the Revolution.

> I have less reason to doubt the existence of Socrates because no one claimed
> that Socrates performed miracles.  

Then you are letting your biases affect your objective analysis of history.
That is not a scholarly position to take. If you want, you might doubt that 
Jesus really did anything supernatural.  But doubt his existence? That's hardly
something that boggles the mind.

You might doubt that Alexander the Great was born of a virgin. But to doubt his
existence is different.  You might doubt that Augustus Caesar was a god. But
to doubt his existence is different. An objective historian does not dismiss
people because of legends behind them; he can dismiss the legends without
concluding that the person did not exist.  One might as well conclude that
George Washington didn't exist because he really didn't chop down his father's
cherry tree like the legend said. You can argue that today's image of Santa
Claus is inflated and hyped, but you cannot deny that there did exist a person
St. Nicholas who was bishop of Myra in the 5th century.

Eric

>     "and a lot of other things" that support his particular  bent  on  the
>     subject.   Correct  me if I'm wrong, but isn't Josh McDowell some kind
>     of  Evangelical  radio  preacher?   Sorry,  Eric,  but  couldn't   you
>     recommend a book by a noted historian, preferably one who doesn't have
>     a vested interest in the conclusions reached?

Josh McDowell is a Christian apologist, which mean that he spends his time 
defending the truth of Christianity.  In his book he quotes well known and
authentic historical documents.  Ignore his conclusions if you want, but you
cannot dismiss authentic historical documents because the person who quoted
them has a vested interest in what they say. The fact that he is a evangelical
Christian does not mean that he cannot be a scholar as well. All historians and
scholars are biased in one way or another, some much more so than others. 
American historians are biased towards capitalism and democracy. Russian 
historians used to be biased towards communism and socialism. That does not
invalidate their works.  It simply means that you must read it with a critical
eye. That is what the world of research is all about: discerning fact from
opinion and finding out what really happened. If you dismiss an author simply
because he has an interest in what he is researching, then you're in trouble.
(Usually the very purpose of research is to convince the reader of your con-
clusions. That is true in all disciplines, not just in Christian apologetics.)
If you can show that Josh McDowell is a poor scholar, that his references are
made up, that his scholarship is sloppy, then fine.  But you cannot dismiss the
research of a good scholar because he disagrees with you.

No Jesus, No peace.
Know Jesus, Know peace.

Eric

Let me make it clear that it is not my intent to hold today's Jews guilty for
the death of Jesus. That is not my intent.  That would be anti-Semitism. 
Hopefully no one holds me guilty for killing some Protestant relative of theirs.
Nor should we hold the Germans today guilty for the Holocaust, though we should
hold those guilty who were provably involved.

My intent was to say that it is a matter of historical fact that Jesus was
handed over to the Romans for execution by the leaders of the Jewish church in
Jerusalem in the time period 20-30 A.D.

No Jesus, No peace.
Know Jesus, Know peace.
Eric

    
    I was able to listen very briefly today to an interview on the Gene
    Burns radio show (WRKO) with Prof. John Crawsen (sp?) who wrote
    a book called "The Historical Jesus - The Life of a Mediterranean
    Jewish Peasant".  It sounded very interesting, and very pertinent to
    the current discussions here.  Think I'll look for it next time I'm
    at the bookstore.
    
    Carole

Eric,

IMO the secular evidence for the existence of Jesus is extremely weak, but
you obviously disagree.  I'm not going to get drawn into a long debate about
this; I just don't have the time anymore.  If you want to see what I
thought about "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" by Josh MCDowell four
years ago, see note 187 in GRIM::RELIGION.

				-- Bob

re Note 429.75 by CHGV04::ORZECH:

>      couldn't   you
>      recommend a book by a noted historian, preferably one who doesn't have
>      a vested interest in the conclusions reached?
  
        Considering the subject matter, wouldn't it be hard to find
        a historian who DOESN'T "have a vested interest in the
        conclusions reached?"

        Bob

     RE: .81

> Josh McDowell is a Christian apologist, which mean that he spends his time 
> defending the truth of Christianity.  ....................................
                                     .
                                     .
                                     .
> If you can show that Josh McDowell is a poor scholar, that his references are
> made up, that his scholarship is sloppy, then fine.  But you cannot dismiss the
> research of a good scholar because he disagrees with you.

     Yes, Eric, now you admit he's *not* an historian, and yet you  offered
     his  book  without  this  little  piece of insight, which may preclude
     someone from reading his tome "with a critical eye".  Sure, there  are
     many  great  Evangelical  Christian scholars, and being an Evangelical
     does not mean McDowell couldn't be a great historian or isn't  a  good
     scholar.   But  I *can* dismiss his reference of "authentic historical
     documents" if he's writing on a subject outside of his area  of  focus
     since  I  feel  I  can legitimately question whether or not he had the
     expertise  to  authenticate  those  documents   objectively   *as   an
     historian!*   I would have no problem reading (or being referenced to)
     any works by Josh McDowell on the  subject  of  Christian  apologists,
     since that his is area of expertise.

     This may illustrate my point.  I'm a big fan of C.  Everette  Coop  (I
     hope  I  spelled his name correctly), especially after he took a stand
     as Surgeon General *not* to endorse a  conclusion  on  the  long  term
     detrimental  effects  of abortion that was clearly in keeping with his
     evangelical beliefs because the facts didn't warrant it.  If  McDowell
     had been in that position, would he have taken the same stand?  That's
     not a rhetorical question.  I honestly don't know because I don't know
     the man.  But if someone could answer that question with a, "no", then
     I would *have* to question his conclusions in *any area*  touching  on
     his beliefs, no matter how careful his scholarship.  Can you see why?

     By the way, I think Jesus probably existed, so I don't  disagree  with
     any  of  McDowell's conclusions there.  As to whether or not Jesus was
     God, well, I'm an agnostic.  He may have been, he may not  have  been.
     I don't think it can be proved one way or the other, but I'm trying to
     keep an open mind about it.

     Peace,

     Alvin

     RE: .85

>         Considering the subject matter, wouldn't it be hard to find
>         a historian who DOESN'T "have a vested interest in the
>         conclusions reached?"

     Hard?  Maybe.  Impossible?  I don't know, Bob, but I presume not.   My
     point  was  that I think McDowell makes his living defending the faith
     and/or trying to convert non-believers and  so  I  believe  he  has  a
     strong  inclination  to come to certain conclusions no matter what the
     facts are.  It's like asking a salesman  to  be  objective  about  his
     product.   Not  that there aren't good products, or that good products
     don't have salesmen, but, even so, would you  trust  a  salesman  when
     you're about to shell out the big bucks?

     Peace,

     Alvin

    Regarding Josephus, it might be interesting to consider a middle
    position that was taken by the biblical scholar James Charlesworth, in
    his book "Jesus Within Judaism."

    He does believe that the Greek translation of the Antiquities that was
    passed on to us definitely reflects some later Christian redaction. 
    However, he points to an alternate, Arabic translation that was fairly
    recently discovered.  He points out that while two of the more
    blatantly Christian passages are missing from that translation (i.e.,
    "if indeed one ought to call him a man" and "He was the Christ"), and
    taking into account some Christian alterations may still exist in this
    version, he is left with the conclusion that a reference to Jesus still
    remains.   It is true that the Arabic text mentions that Jesus was "a
    wise man" and "was known to be virtuous".  However, the text is also,
    while generally favorable, also non-committal about Jesus as a
    religious figure, and does not smack of propaganda.

    Charlesworth argues that "we can now be as certain as historical
    research will presently allow that Josephus did refer to Jesus in
    Antiquities 18.63-64."

    -- Mike

That's very interesting, Mike.  Does does Charlesworth tell us where Josephus
got the source material for his description of Jesus?  Was Josephus passing
on stories he heard from Christians or from non-Christians?

				-- Bob

    That's a good question, Bob.  I don't have the book with me at work
    today, so I can't answer that for sure; I'll take another look at the
    book when I get a chance.
    
    -- Mike

    i never knew that Socrates was ever considered "fictional".
    it certainly isn't what i was taught at the University and
    i majored in Philosophy. sources that reference Socrates include
    (other than Plato); Xenophon, Aeschines, Aristotle and Aristophanes.
    
    in .80 it was claimed that there exists Roman correspondence and
    "official" Roman government records that mention the historical Jesus.
    again this is something that i have never heard of before. i'd be
    happy to track the citation if someone could provide me with the
    source for this statement.
    
    peter
    

I still don't understand why it matters who quotes a document if the document
is indeed authentic and says what the author claims. McDowell may not be a
historian, but frankly having a degree in history only means that you are more
familiar than most with history and it doesn't give you exclusive authority to
quote documents.

You are more than welcome to reject the conclusions of an author.  You are
welcome to doubt the veracity of his research.  But who the author is does not
invalidate the documents he quotes, only the conclusions he draws from them.

All I am saying is check out the book, find the references he gives, and when
you verify that the references are indeed valid, and that he does in fact
quote them correctly, then you will have substantial proof of Christ's claims.

As for Josephus, I think that it is very reasonable to separate the verses
"If indeed he was a man" and "He was the Christ" from the rest of the verse.
The fact that Arabic omits these verses, yet still speaks of the existence of
Jesus, I think is compelling evidence that the whole section cannot be
dismissed.  And given the level of textual criticism available today, I think
it would be easily provable if the whole section was forged, or if only certain
phrases are doubtful. It is relatively easy to determine if a whole section 
does not belong, since the author's train of thought would be interrupted, the
vocabulary would be different, and the whole section would appear out of place.

I will try to bring in some of these references.

Eric

     RE: .91

>    i never knew that Socrates was ever considered "fictional".
>    it certainly isn't what i was taught at the University and
>    i majored in Philosophy. sources that reference Socrates include
>    (other than Plato); Xenophon, Aeschines, Aristotle and Aristophanes.

     Well, peter, I thought my disclaimer was big enough to drive  a  Greek
     temple  through.   :^D  I was only relating something I heard (once?).
     Guess I'll have to research this.  But  as  to  your  references,  did
     anyone  of  them  actually live when Socrates lived, or were they just
     recapping what was attributed to him?  For example,  it  seems  to  me
     Aristotle was born one or two generations later.

>    in .80 it was claimed that there exists Roman correspondence and
>    "official" Roman government records that mention the historical Jesus.
>    ..... this is something that i have never heard of before. ......

     Glad you mentioned this.  I might throw in that I don't know but  that
     Jesus  (or  whatever  his  *actual* name was) was a common name at the
     time.  If there are any documents referencing someone  of  this  name,
     how  can it be verified that they are referring to the *same* Jesus we
     are discussing?

     Think "Peace",

     Alvin

    Alvin,
    
    i certainly didn't intend to come down on you about this. i was
    mainly responding to the idea that there is little or no documentation
    on the life of Socrates. yes, Aristotle was of a later generation
    ..i believe he was born some 15 or so years after the death of
    Socrates. remember Aristotle was the pupil of Plato. Xenophon who is
    primarily known for his History was a contemporary of Socrates as
    was Aeschines and Aristophanes.
    
    Eric,
    
    i take it from your reply that the book that you refer to is the
    source for your references to the Roman citations mentioned in .80.
    thanks, i look them up.
    
    peter
    

     RE: .92

> I still don't understand why it matters who quotes a document if the document
> is indeed authentic and says what the author claims. .....................
>                              .
>                              .
>                              .
> ..............................................  ... who the author is does not
> invalidate the documents he quotes, only the conclusions he draws from them.

     Yes, my point *exactly*, Eric!  McDowell, for the  last  time,  has  a
     vested  interest  in  seeing that his readers come to his conclusions.
     There is nothing wrong with that, but that's why it matters who quotes
     the  documents.   You  offered  his  book  *without* pointing out this
     little caveat and I was just trying to correct  this  oversight  since
     I'm sure there are readers here who've never heard of him.  I, myself,
     only know of him more or less by accident because once in  a  while  I
     happen to listen to a local Christian radio station (WMBI, FM 90.1, if
     you're ever in the Chicago area).  McDowell is a very caring gentleman
     who,   I  gather,  has  a  special  interest  in  adolescences.   He's
     apparently very good at what he does, but  what  he  does  is  try  to
     convert  non-believers  for  a  living.   More power to him, but, IMO,
     anything he has to say regarding the proof of the existence  of  Jesus
     as an historical figure has to be taken with a grain of salt.

     Peace,

     Alvin

    By the way, the long discussion in grim::religion on the book
    Evidence that Demands a Verdict is well worth the time to
    read it.
    
    Bonnie

Some quotes from secular writers:

Tactitus (born  circa  A.D.   52-55), writing in his Annals circa A.D.  116,
describes the response of Emperor Nero to the great fire which swept Rome in
A.D.   64.   A  persistent rumor circulated that Nero himself was behind the
fire  and  therefore had to take action to dispel the story.  Tacitus speaks
of Nero's actions to cut off the rumor:
    
    So far,  the  precautions  taken  were  suggested by human prudence: now
    means  were  sought for appeasing deity, and the application was made to
    the  Sibylline  books;  at  the  injunction of which public prayers were
    offered  to Vulcan, Ceres, Proserpine, while Juno was propitiated by the
    matrons,  first  in  the  Capitol,  then at the nearest point of the sea
    shore,  where water was drawn for sprinkling the temple and image of the
    goddess.   Ritual banquets and all night vigils were celebrated by women
    in the married state.  But neither human help, nor imperial munificence,
    nor  all  the  modes of placating Heaven, could stifle scandal or dispel
    the  believe  that  the  fire  had  taken place by order.  Therefore, to
    scotch  the  rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the
    utmost  refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices,
    whom  the  crowd  styled Christians.  Christus, the founder of the name,
    had  undergone  the  death  penalty  in  the  reign  of Tiberius, by the
    sentence   of   the  procurator  Pontius  Pilatus,  and  the  pernicious
    supersitition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not
    merely  in  Judaea,  the home of the disease, but in the capital itself,
    where  all  things  horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a
    vogue.   First,  then,  the confessed members of the sect were arrested;
    next,  on their disclosures, vast numbers were convicted, not so much on
    the  count  of  arson  as  for  hatred  of the human race.  And derision
    accompanied their end: they were covered with wild beasts skins and torn
    to  death  by dogs; or they were fastened on crosses, and, when daylight
    failed  were  burned to serve as lamps by night.  (Tacitus, Annals, Loeb
    edition 15.44)


Writing circa  A.D.   170,  the  Greek  satirist, Lucian, wrote of the early
Christians and of "their lawgiver."

    The Christians,  you  know, worship a man to this day--the distinguished
    personage  who  introduced  their novel rites, and was crucified on that
    account.   .   .   .   You see, these misguided creatures start with the
    general  conviction  that they are immortal for all time, which explains
    the  contempt  of  death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common
    among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver
    that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and
    deny  the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after
    his  laws.  All this they take quite of faith, with the result that they
    despise  all  worldly  goods  alike,  regarding  them  merely  as common
    property.  (Lucian, The Death of Peregirine 11-13)

From Josephus  (who obtained a Galiean military command in A.D.  66, and
finished this book, Antiquities of the Jews, in A.D. 93)

    But to  some  of  the  Jews the destruction of Herod's army seemed to be
    divine  vengeance,  and certainly a just vengeance, for his treatment of
    John,  surnamed  the Baptist.  For Herod had put him to death, though he
    was  a  good  man  and had exhorted the Jews to lead righteous lives, to
    practice  justice  twoards  their  fellows and piety towards God, and so
    doing  to  join  in baptism.  .  .  .  When others too joined the crowds
    about  him,  because  they  were  aroused  to  the highest degree by his
    sermons, Herod became alarmed.  Eloquence that had so great an effect on
    mankind  might  lead  to some form of sedition, for it looked as if they
    would  be  guided  by  John in everything  that they did.  Herod decided
    therefore that it would be much better to strike first and be rid of him
    before  his  work  led to an uprising, than to wait for an upheaval, get
    involved  in  a  difficult  siutation and see his mistake.  Though John,
    because  of  Herod's suspicions, was brought in chains to Machaerus, the
    stronghold  that  we  have previously mentioned, and there put to death,
    yet  the  verdict  of  the  Jews  was  that the destruction visited upon
    Herod's  army  was  a vindication of John, since God was fit to infliict
    such a blow on Herod. (18.5.2)

There is also a reference to James, the brother of Jesus.  Ananus, or
Ananias, was high priest, and he

    convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named
    James,  the  brother  of  Jewsus  who was called the Christ, and certain
    others.   He  accused  them of having transgressed the law and delivered
    them up to be stoned. (20.9.1)

As for the controversial reference to Jesus proper, the Arabic version goes
like this:

    At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus.  And his conduct
    was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous.  And many people from among
    the  Jews  and the other nations became his disciples.  Pilate condemned
    him  to be crucified and to die.  And those who had become his disciples
    did not abandon his discipleship.  They reported that he had appeared to
    them   three   days  after  his  crucifixion  and  that  he  was  alive;
    accordingly,  he  was  perhaps  the Messiah concerning whom the prophets
    have  recounted  wonders.   [Other  MSS  say,  "He was thought to be the
    Messiah".]  (Pines,  Shlomo.   An  Arabic  Version  of  the  Testimonium
    Flavianum  and  its  Implications.  Jersualem: Jerusalem Academic Press,
    1971; 16)

Yes, the more common version does include verses that many scholars
(including McDowell, by the way) reject as authentic. But this MSS appears
to be much more accurate.

I do not have time to type in all of the evidence from the book. If you're
interested, by all means pick it up. But these are just a few pieces.

Eric

Eric,

The problem with all of these historical references is that they were written
many years after the actual events.  We have no way of knowing whether these
stories were reported independently by non-Christians or whether Josephus
et. al. were simply passing on stories they heard from Christians.

Even if Jesus existed, there is no confirmation that the biblical description
of him is accurate.

				-- Bob

    Eric,
    
    The other conclusion is that the writings are accurate.
    
    Thanks for the information.
    
    Marc H.

> The problem with all of these historical references is that they were written
> many years after the actual events.  We have no way of knowing whether these 
> stories were reported independently by non-Christians or whether Josephus et. 
> al. were simply passing on stories they heard from Christians.

Define "many years", Bob.  First of all, most these were written within 60
years of the events.  Second of all, you must know that the Romans HATED the
Christians, and had no reason to believe what they said.  Bob, these events
were well known.  Tiberias was a high caliber Roman historian; when he wrote of
things that were only rumors or of questionable source, he ensures that he
makes this clear.  Tacitus distinguishes between rumor and fact by using
expressions such as, "Some have put it on record"; or "As the general account
goes." (See 15.15,20,45,54,64,73.) He also uses terms such as "it is said" and 
"They say" when he does not want to vouch for a statement's reliability (See
Annals 15.10,16). Tacitus is careful to record conflicts in his sources (15.
38 for example).  He makes his claim about Christ as historical fact, not as
a rumor.  As a senator he had access to the best documents, and though we do
not have those documents today, even Justin and Tertullian (Christian
apologists) challeged their readers to verify that proof of Jesus's life written
in secular documents.  Justin and Tertullian wrote to high ranking Roman 
officials, and they would not dare state that such proofs existed when they did
not.

The Christians were quite unpopular in the first century and the Romans well
knew where the Christians came from. They were not afraid to sneer at 
unsubstantiated claims the Christians made themselves ("The so-called Christ",
"reportedly appeared to his disciples").  Do you really think for a moment that
the Romans did not have the capability to verify for themselves that Jesus
existed? After all, they carried out the execution! Certainly they would know
if Pontius Pilate was a real procurator! The Romans made fun of the Christians
for a lot of reasons; for their lifestyles, for their beliefs, and so forth,
but not ONCE did they ever suggest that Jesus was fictional, instead they 
referred to him as a troublemaker and a criminal, and never questioned his
existence like they questioned other Christian statements.

Justin, too, as a Jew was no friend of the Christians. If anything, he would
have a vested interest in disproving the existence of Christ. But instead he
affirms it.

There will always be those who will never accept the historical truth about
Jesus no matter how much evidence is presented to them. They are more interested
in lies than in the truth, in rumor than historical fact. I have no desire to
try to convince such people of anything, for they are convinced that they are
right and will not listen to reason. My desire is to speak only to those who
critically seek truth even if it will prove them wrong. I ask not for blind
faith, but an objective mind. Anyone who finds every excuse in the book for
rejecting compelling evidence obviously has a vested interest in denying the
historical Christ, and as Richard mentioned, the statements of anyone with a
vested interest should be taken with a grain of salt.

Eric

     RE: .101

> .................. and as Richard mentioned, the statements of anyone with a
> vested interest should be taken with a grain of salt.

     Gee, Eric, all the trouble I go through to make a point  and  I  don't
     even get credit for it.  :^(

     (only kidding :^D)

     Peace,

     Alvin

Re: .101 Eric

>Define "many years", Bob.  First of all, most these were written within 60
>years of the events.  Second of all, you must know that the Romans HATED the
>Christians, and had no reason to believe what they said.  Bob, these events
>were well known.  Tiberias was a high caliber Roman historian; when he wrote of
>things that were only rumors or of questionable source, he ensures that he
>makes this clear.

I'd call 60 years a long time -- more than a generation.  Obviously Tacticus
didn't personally witness the events about Jesus that he wrote about.  He
had to rely on the testimony of others.  Who were those poeple that he
relied on?  He doesn't tell us.  I doubt that he personally went to Judea and
searched through the archives (assuming that they existed) to verify that
a certain Jesus who was called "the Christ" was executed under the authority
of Pontius Pilate.  It's more likely that he was simply passing on a story told
by others.  If those "others" were Christians then the Tacticus account doesn't
provide independent verification that Jesus existed. This has nothing to do
with whether the Romans liked or hated the Christians, it's question of where
Tacticus got his information.

My point is not that Jesus couldn't have existed; in fact I think that Jesus
(i.e. someone of that name who was crucified, had followers etc.) probably
did exist.  My point is that the historical record does not *prove* that
Jesus existed, so you don't have a sufficient basis for your earlier statement
that the hypothesis that Jesus didn't actually exist is "not tenable".

>There will always be those who will never accept the historical truth about
>Jesus no matter how much evidence is presented to them. They are more interested
>in lies than in the truth, in rumor than historical fact. I have no desire to
>try to convince such people of anything, for they are convinced that they are
>right and will not listen to reason.

Oh gee, and I was so hoping to impress you.  NOT.  As for being convinced
that I'm right, maybe you'd better examine your own feelings on this.  After
all, you don't just think that Jesus existed, you have *faith* that Jesus
existed.

Anyway, this kind of verbal jousting is pointless - it's just the sort of
thing that I hate about Notes.  Do you really have to accuse me of being
"interested in lies" in order to hold up your end of the argument?

				-- Bob

    thanks, eric
    
    for providing those parts of the book that you referenced. they weren't
    quite what i was expecting though given what you had written in .80..
    Roman correspondence and official documents. i really thought that
    there were actual primary sources that could be documented.
    
    i agree with Bob, the Roman and Greek writers that you cite are merely
    repeating things that they had heard..hearsay.
    
    peter
    

    re: .6
    
>> Jesus claims to be God in Rev 1. 
    
    This claims to be a revelation from Jesus to John and is not a claim 
    made while Jesus was on earth.  This would therefore involve a
    discussion of the truthfulness of John and the nature and reliability
    of visions in general and his vision in particular.
    

> I doubt that he personally went to Judea and searched through the archives 
> (assuming that they existed) to verify that a certain Jesus who was called 
> "the Christ" was executed under the authority of Pontius Pilate.  It's more 
> likely that he was simply passing on a story told by others.

>     i agree with Bob, the Roman and Greek writers that you cite are merely
>    repeating things that they had heard..hearsay.

You totally missed what I said. When Tacitus quotes unsubstantiated facts, he 
identifies them as such and their source.  McDowell may not be a historian,
but Tacitus WAS, and a well respected one.  Historians don't pick up rumors
and portray them as fact, ESPECIALLY when the rumors would have been started by
people they bitterly hated!!

And historians _do_ search through official records (which did exist at the time,
but which we don't have today) to determine the truth.

What about the account of James, the brother of Jesus being taken to trial and
stoned?  I suppose James existence and stoning was just a rumor as well? Or
maybe his relation to Jesus? 

I still find it hard to believe that thousands of people in the early church
were willing to face death rather than deny that this "rumor" was true. Seems
to me no one in their right mind would be so adamant about the existence of a
man if his existence, and teaching, were only rumors. I find the "rumors" all
the more reason to believe he existed. Especially considering that we have the
cross he was crucified on, and the tomb he was buried in.

Sheesh, you can't even convince me that Buddha and Mohammed never existed and
there is much less proof for their existence! I don't even follow Buddha or
Mohammed!

Actually now that I think of it, I have a copy of a book at home (the book is
no longer in print) that has an official interview of Mary and Joseph. 
Apparently Caesar, interested in keeping tabs on this supposed future king,
had his parents interviewed when he was young. This is the record of that
interview. Another account gives the results of Caesar's spying on Jesus. I had
forgotten about this book, I'll have to type some stuff in from it.

Eric

Re: .106

>And historians _do_ search through official records (which did exist at the time,
>but which we don't have today) to determine the truth.

Which records did he search?

>What about the account of James, the brother of Jesus being taken to trial and
>stoned?  I suppose James existence and stoning was just a rumor as well? Or
>maybe his relation to Jesus? 

I have no way of knowing.

>Sheesh, you can't even convince me that Buddha and Mohammed never existed and
>there is much less proof for their existence! I don't even follow Buddha or
>Mohammed!

I'm not trying to convince you that Jesus never existed either.  What I'm
saying is that you haven't proved that Jesus did exist.

>Actually now that I think of it, I have a copy of a book at home (the book is
>no longer in print) that has an official interview of Mary and Joseph. 
>Apparently Caesar, interested in keeping tabs on this supposed future king,
>had his parents interviewed when he was young. This is the record of that
>interview. Another account gives the results of Caesar's spying on Jesus. I had
>forgotten about this book, I'll have to type some stuff in from it.

I can hardly wait!  I hate to tell you this, though, Eric, but April Fool's
Day ended a week ago.

				-- Bob

    Oppression?  Inequality?  Discrimination?

RE: Note 429.108 by FATBOY::BENSON

>                            -< "CP" should be "PC" >-
>
>    Oppression?  Inequality?  Discrimination?

Jeff, what note is this a response to?

Thanks,

Jim

    
    Amazing.  Nonbelievers (even skeptics) will take the bait of "science"
    concerning the origins of man and the universe, for example, without
    any written text whatsoever being available and call it truth and never 
    doubt it.  Yet written documents that pass the tests of time are 
    questionable.
    
    I smell spiritual wickedness in high places.
    
    jeff

    Jeff .110,
    
    	Have you anything positive you'd like to share with us?
    
    Richard

re Note 429.110 by FATBOY::BENSON:

>     Amazing.  Nonbelievers (even skeptics) will take the bait of "science"
>     concerning the origins of man and the universe, for example, without
>     any written text whatsoever being available and call it truth and never 
>     doubt it.  Yet written documents that pass the tests of time are 
>     questionable.
  
        Jeff,

        Written documents are part of creation, and, unlike most
        physical phenomena, are more easily fabricated by the human
        mind.  The tests that science places on the observation of
        the universe are of the same order of reliability as tests
        that one can apply to a written document -- basically
        observation, comparison, and predictive ability.

        The current state of science, at any point in history,
        consists of those propositions that have stood the test of
        time to that point.  Good scientists ALWAYS have a bit of
        skepticism in their science.

        Thus I see no inherent difference in relying upon reliable
        documents vs. relying upon reliable observation of physical
        evidence, except that the latter is the general case and
        inherently harder to fabricate.  Wise people rely on
        everything that God has wrought but are always aware that
        their understanding of either the physical universe or
        Scripture could be faulty.
  
>     I smell spiritual wickedness in high places.
    
        Where have you been, Jeff?

        Bob

>>     I smell spiritual wickedness in high places.
    
        >Where have you been, Jeff?

    Well, I was in Colorado last week, and that's a pretty high place.  I
    didn't smell any wickedness, though.  However, that could be because I
    had a cold and my nose was too clogged to smell anything.
    
    -- Mike