#127272 by Jim H. on 1/17 at 1:54 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

Shockley poses this question:

————-“Did Jesus actually exist?”

———-And then he ignores this question!

———————— -What a BRAIN!

No doubt he realizes that “Jesus” and his farcical “magic” “Miracles”, are nothing but fairytales like ‘Santa Claus, the “Tooth Fairy”, “Mickey Mouse”, “God”, and “The Old Lady Who Lived In A Shoe”?

Report this comment

#1572 by mattingly conner on 1/06 at 10:00 am
(Unregistered commenter)

Tom Helwick writes: ...Can something that survives for 20 centuries be so bogus and escape the fine tooth comb critical inpection? >>

The veracity of ideas and the validity of tradition does not necessarily depend on two millennia’s acceptance.  Two responses come to mind immediately.  During the four hundred years or so when Christian orthodoxy was being invented, several pagan critics lambasted this new religion for not being based on the pagan traditions.  Thus, the contention that Christianity’s validity depends on its status as tradition is modeled on pagan rhetorical techniques employed by thinkers such as Porphyry, Celsus, and Galen to undermine Christianity before it received official state protection by Constantine in 313 A.D.  The argument from tradition is an ancient one indeed. 

Secondly, the longevity of ideas and views about the world does not necessarily correspond to their truthfulness or validity.  Human communities have held in common (scientifically) erroneous views regarding many areas of learning for far greater periods of time than a couple millennia.  Consider communal understandings of conception, cultural taboos, or the issue of whether the sun orbits around the earth.  Surely, we would want to grant to our descendants the right to revise our own erroneous views just as we revised those of our predecessors.  It is only fair. 

While all this might be true, this certainly does not mean that Christian traditions (and Christianity is by no means a monolith today or in antiquity) do not have intrinsic value or meaning.  The problem is when history is manipulated to justify one religion’s superiority over another.  Certainly, nobody wants that.  Thus, the argument for tradition has a promiscuous past and is rather problematic, to be avoided. 

For historical references see:  Robert Wilken,  The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (this work systematically explores the writings of the major extant pagan writers responding to Christianity, including Julian the Apostate); anything by Peter Brown, who has been very innovative in study of how Christianity fit in with other religious developments in the 4th c. A.D., and with the social and political history of the Late Roman Empire.   

http://jungcircle.com/muse/deborah.html
What beats your heart beats all hearts. What other truth do you need?

Report this comment

#1567 by Tom Helwick on 1/06 at 7:33 am
(Unregistered commenter)

Why, in the course of 2000 years, did these refutations not surface before? Did we all of a sudden gain some insight into the proclaimations of Christianity or maybe courage to challenge them? Can something that survives for 20 centuries be so bogus and escape the fine tooth comb critical inpection?

Report this comment

#1461 by Lee Salisbury on 1/03 at 2:40 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

janinsanfran suggests Josephus’s “Jesus Testimony” confirms the historicity of Jesus.  I beg to differ.

Josephus, 37-103CE a Jerusalem born Pharisee, living in Rome wrote History of the Jews, 79CE and Antiquities of the Jews,93CE. Christian apologists (defenders of the faith) consider Josephus’ Jesus testimony the one sure evidence of the historicity of Jesus. This Jesus Testimony is found in Josephus’, Antiquities of the Jews.

Contrary to those Christian apologists, the Jesus testimony is considered by many scholars including the Encyclopedia Britannica’s scholars as “an insertion by later Christian copyists”. This Jesus testimony states “Jesus is the Christ, a doer of wonderful works, was crucified, and appeared the third day as the divine prophets foretold”.

Why is this Jesus testimony considered a later insertion?

1. Josephus was a Pharisee. Only a Christian would call Jesus the Christ. Josephus would have had to renounce his pharisaical beliefs to say Jesus was the Christ. Josephus died a pharisee.

2. Josephus’s writing style is to write chapter upon chapter about the most insignificant people and events. The Jesus testimony consists of four sentences. Why would Josephus’ Christ (the Jewish Messiah) deserve only four sentences?

3. The paragraphs before and after the Jesus testimony describe Romans killing Jews. The paragraph following the Jesus testimony begins “About the same time another sad calamity put the Jews in disorder”. Would the “sad calamity” refer to the appearing of the the Jewish Messiah, “the doer of wonderful works” or Romans killing Jews? The “sad calamity” comment clearly refers to the paragraph with “Romans killing Jews.” 

The Jesus Testimony clearly does not follow the preceding paragraph.  This anomalous entry is characteristic out of context later fraudulent insertions.

4. Finally, and most convincing, had Josephus actually written the Jesus testimony, church fathers in the following 200 years would surely refer to it in fending off critics of Jesus’ being just another myth. But, not once does Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, or Origen ever refer to Josephus’ Jesus testimony. We know Origen read Josephus because Origen’s writings criticize Josephus for attributing the destruction of Jerusalem to the killing of James. The church fathers made no reference to Josephus’ alleged Jesus testimony because it was never in Josephus’ writing. 

Thus, in spite of all Jesus’ alleged miracles, the crucifixion, an alleged earthquake, the alleged the resurrection of dead Jewish saints, the alleged eclipse of the sun, the alleged resurrection of Jesus, there is no surviving writing from the first century to confirm the existence of a Jesus of Nazareth.

Report this comment

#1440 by marjorie niland on 1/02 at 10:18 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

I think that there were a number of persons in power at the time of Christ’s crucifixion who were mightily fearful of his influence over the populace, including the priests of the temples. Had they not an agreement with the state to pay homage to the rulers, as well as to reward the state as the price to be allowed to conduct their practices unfettered by government?

Was Jesus not a revolutionary? Why the furor over a man who preached peace and loving one’s fellow man? He caused a remarkable change in the ordinary man’s perception of his being. That was his purpose in the brief time he spent on earth.

Report this comment

#1396 by Deborah Conner on 12/31 at 7:06 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

Dear Raymond Towne on 12/30 at 11:22 pm: <what he said>.

Happy New Year, Raymond! Since you asked, for me, it’s the Greeks, the plays, philosophy, and their deep direct readings. Also, Joseph Campbell opened doors for me, lighting a way back to a healing spirit after all that ‘losing my religion’. The books are good, and I just watched some of the new tapes of his Sarah Lawrence lectures. They have them at NetFlix. “Joseph Campbell: Mythos” (he’s great on Jung—Jung who understood so well what we’re now facing), and the classic “Joseph Campbell and The Power of Myth”. The latter was the most watched program ever on public tv.

The sickness of a world with no myths that fit. Or, rather—the wrong myths, the myths of another time, people, place… it’s like manna to realize in their place your own quest… living the life you were given, understanding that true life is the truest worship and truest praise, “for with God is no lust of godhead.” 

And for the New Year, another gift I just stumbled over… a poem:

  Mary Oliver - When Death Comes

When death comes
like the hungry bear in autumn;
when death comes and takes all the bright coins from his purse

to buy me, and snaps the purse shut;
when death comes
like the measle-pox

when death comes
like an iceberg between the shoulder blades,

I want to step through the door full of curiosity, wondering:
what is it going to be like, that cottage of darkness?

And therefore I look upon everything
as a brotherhood and a sisterhood,
and I look upon time as no more than an idea,
and I consider eternity as another possibility,

and I think of each life as a flower, as common
as a field daisy, and as singular,

and each name a comfortable music in the mouth,
tending, as all music does, toward silence,

and each body a lion of courage, and something
precious to the earth.

When it’s over, I want to say all my life
I was a bride married to amazement.
I was the bridegroom, taking the world into my arms.

When it’s over, I don’t want to wonder
if I have made of my life something particular, and real.

I don’t want to find myself sighing and frightened,
or full of argument.

I don’t want to end up simply having visited this world.

Report this comment

#1382 by janinsanfran on 12/31 at 12:20 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

Doesn’t anyone read Josephus anymore? Jesus may not have been important to the powers that be, but he seems to have been historical.

Report this comment

#1373 by Raymond Towne on 12/31 at 12:22 am
(Unregistered commenter)

Briefly: (1) Salisbury’s comment (#7) is consonant with Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason (1790’s CE) position that the more extraordinary the claim, the more convincing the evidence that must be produced, and that the “multiple hearsay” (Paine’s characterization) recitations set forth in the Gospels and Acts are insufficient, contra Naves-Coote’s comment (#6); (2) the comments of Connor (#2) and Sharman point up the Christ phenomenon that goes beyond literalism and constitutes a significant social evolution from Roman times to the present; and (3) I’m looking for practical antidotes to the personal evils (7 deadly sins pride envy, anger, sloth [depression], greed, gluttony [addiction], lechery [porno]) and social evils (corporate war, resource theft, public health and education neglect) in the fruits of the Spirit (love joy peace patience kindness goodness faithfulness gentleness self-control) individual and collective—how to attain these things “against which there is no law” in the new millenium, any suggestions to me as I inhabit a boundary layer between faith and unbelief, between materialism and idealism?

This boundary layer is easily accessed - any religious music that speaks (sings) to you will do.

Kind regards.

Report this comment

#1313 by Lee Salisbury on 12/28 at 1:43 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

Please go to: http://www.axisoflogic.com to read my article

History’s Troubling Silence about Jesus By Lee Salisbury

Lee Salisbury, Stillwater, Mn., was a former bible-believing Pentecostal pastor 1972-1986. He is founder/director of The Critical Thinking Club of MN, is a Columnist for http://www.axisoflogic.com, where this article originally appeared, and participates in public speaking/debates. Lee’s e-mail is .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). Copyright (C) 2004 Lee Salisbury

Report this comment

#1293 by Guacira Naves-Coote on 12/28 at 5:57 am
(Unregistered commenter)

Lee Strobel - a former investigative reporter for the Chicago Tribune who once considered himself to be an atheist - has written “The Case for Faith”, and subsequently, “The Case for Christ”, whereby he attempted to debunk all the “myths” regarding Jesus’ deity as the Messiah. I highly recommend it. Other interesting books on the subject are “Evidence that Demands a Verdict”, by Josh McDowell, and “Reasonable Faith”, by William Lane Craig - this last one delving more into works written by scholars of old regarding the then “new religious movement”.
As far as Yeshua (Jesus’ real name in his native Hebrew language) not making much of an impression on the history of His time, there are historical documents that relate the uproar that He caused in his day, mainly due to the Roman Empire’s fear that He or His followers would try to cause some kind of revolution against the government. To me, that’s enough of “an impression on the history of His time”.

Report this comment

#1282 by rob on 12/27 at 3:00 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

Are there ANY references to historical Jesus besides in the bible?

Report this comment

#1278 by Jim Roberts on 12/27 at 2:10 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

Images are Christ are skewed toward peculiar ideations.  Some are repulsive.  See: http://jamesjroberts.com/religion.html for a tongue in cheek sideswipe at these.

The idea of a Christ’s image being portrayed as a lever to promulgate the creed of economic barbarism is perhaps the most repugnant.  See “Post Thanksgiving Prayer” at: http://jamesjroberts.com/God.html

Whether a course between ultra-literalism and ultra-liberalism can be steered among thoughtful, spiritual being remains to be seen.  It certainly would be interesting, for instance, to see what the “Risen Lord” would make of the way we celebrate the “image” of Christ and miss the spirit.

Report this comment

#1253 by Sharman on 12/26 at 12:43 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

Let us then address - again - the mystery of the reverence for Jesus the Christ. Is the message attractive?  Has this all been a Divine Movement inspite of ourselves?

Thank you for your comments.

Report this comment

#1232 by deborah conner on 12/24 at 10:19 am
(Unregistered commenter)

We are “temples of the Holy Spirit” the nuns told me when I was small… all of us.
They also said Jesus is there in every pair of eyes, His suffering the suffering of any and all beings: the murdered child, the cancer patient, the grieving parent, the tortured soldier… No need to look back 2000 years, or to have magic books, Left Behind cults, or middle men in large hats to find the creator awakened in your heart. The mystery dwelling there. This gnowing is incarnation. 

You’ve captured the true meaning of incarnation in this series of images—the deep meaning/message of Jesus. 

Have to add:

Yesterday and the night before I was with my neighbors next door, helping to get their only child buried. He was killed in Iraq. Roadside bomb.  He was one year minus 3 days older than my oldest son.

“What beats your heart beats all hearts.” These words were my comfort and only wisdom as I stood there in the sun with the 21 gun salute, the folding of the flag, and taps—when his mother, so much braver than I could ever be, finally broke down and sobbed, speaking that wordless grief of things that can’t be spoken.

I made a webpage some time ago here:
http://jungcircle.com/muse/wwthedld.html
at the cusp of the current heartbreak. It’s the greatest truth I know, and speaking truth to power the only wisdom that makes sense to me.

Knowing that one truth—well, that’s the real meaning of ‘incarnation’, imho. Christmas everywhere just by opening the eyes to seeing into other eyes.

Excuse the emotion!  I’m wrung out.

Report this comment

#1218 by Jbuuty on 12/23 at 4:53 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

Shockley says, “The progressive perspective holds that Jesus did not make much of an impression on the history of his time.”
Could any branch of Christianity hold any other opinion? This is simply a factual statement that Jesus made little impression on the history of his time. It isn’t necessarily progressive Christianity.
Shockley speaks of a Christ branch and a Jesus branch. This is nothing new in Biblical scholarship. However, as Wright, Sanders, Meier and other more careful biblical scholars point out - there is absolutely no proof that any such divisions were existent in early Christianity. These ‘branches’ are the creation of modern scholars, not 1st century facts.
I do find Pastor’s Shockley’s views disappointing. His social agenda of biblical justice is wonderful, but he undecuts his own position by claiming that it is built on more, or less, fictitious roots.

Report this comment