Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest

[The Straight Story]

Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest

AN ITALIAN judge has ordered a priest to appear in court this month to prove that Jesus Christ existed.

The case against Father Enrico Righi has been brought in the town of Viterbo, north of Rome, by Luigi Cascioli, a retired agronomist who once studied for the priesthood but later became a militant atheist.

Signor Cascioli, author of a book called The Fable of Christ, began legal proceedings against Father Righi three years ago after the priest denounced Signor Cascioli in the parish newsletter for questioning Christ’s historical existence.

Yesterday Gaetano Mautone, a judge in Viterbo, set a preliminary hearing for the end of this month and ordered Father Righi to appear. The judge had earlier refused to take up the case, but was overruled last month by the Court of Appeal, which agreed that Signor Cascioli had a reasonable case for his accusation that Father Righi was “abusing popular credulity”.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1967413,00.html

prove most people existed back then. Aristotle, plato, moses, caesar (any of em), and so on.

[Kagemusha]

1. With all due respect...

There's a lot more to indicate Aristotle, Plato and the Caesars existed.

[VTMechEngr]

5. Just to play the bad guy...

Can you really prove Aristotle, Plato and so on lived?

I'm sure if someone dug up the ruins of our civilization 2000 years later, they'd find plenty of evidence that a Santa of Claus lived in our time.

:evilgrin:

The truth is that someone who doesn't believe he lived will never be convinced and vice versa. I know he did. Judaism even acknowledges he lived, though they see him in a very different spiritual light.

[Dorian Gray]

99. He Did.

Saint Nicholas of Myrna. (Asia Minor!) He was a saint in the 4th Century, in what is now Turkey.
Some background:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas

[VTMechEngr]

130. I was joking about in our time.

From all the figures to him;-)

[Poppyseedman]

7. Do you believe Odysseus lived ?

The writings of Homer are traceable to about 1,500 years to the original time frame of when Homer wrote the story of the Trojan War. It is almost universally accepted as a story based on factual events. There is almost no archaeological evidence to substantiate the Homer story.

Yet, we have partial original texts from Gospels written in the time frame that Paul, John, Matthew, and Luke lived that are only one generation removed from the time of Christ with literally thousands of archaeological evidence to substantiate the context of the Gospels.

Do you believe Odysseus lived ?

[Jackpine Radical]

14. Did Odin live?

In his history Heimskringlan, the Icelandic writer Snorri Sturlusson argued with some degree of plausibility that Odin had been an early Indo-European leader who became deified as his legend was told and retold across the generations.

[Poppyseedman]

21. Did Odin live?

I have no idea as I am not familiar with the facts. I will take your word for it.

My point was and still is, people and academic will believe a story like Odysseus with almost no evidence and writings that are literally thousands of years removed from the original text, yet will look with a jaded eye at the stories written about Jesus that literally have documented text that are only 40 to 60 years removed from the actually event.

Seems a bit hypocritically to me, yet one story is simply about the clash of civilizations and one is about the son of God, I can see why it happens.

[Bill McBlueState]

34. who believes that?

It sounds like you're just trying to dig up the ole' "Christians are persecuted" myth.

[Generic Other]

59. In both Odysseus and Jesus' cases, separating fact from fiction

will always be problematic. There's nothing but a mere shadow left after one strips the away what can clearly be traced to earlier sources.

[JVS]

41. Can you be more specific in your citation of Sturlesson?

It seems a bit difficult to me to believe that Snorri believed Odin was an early Indo-European leader, when the very existence (or at least the who, where and when) of an early Indo-European society has yet to be pegged down. Unless, Sturlesson was just referring to Odin as something like "A ruler from long ago".

Anyway, as the Heimskringla covers the period of Christianization of Iceland, it would be interesting to see in what context this theory is proposed. It has been clamed that some of the more humorous episodes in the poetry about the Aesir written after 1000 AD (Christianization) are examples of debasing the old gods in favor of the newly legislated God.

[Dogmudgeon]

48. Thor Heyerdahl was involved in this

I think it led to a project called "The Search for Odin" (or Jakta pa Odin in Norse); and that the project is ongoing. The idea is sound enough, but of course evidence will be needed to make the theory a "contendah".

--p!

[Jackpine Radical]

56. Here's a "Quickie from Wiki."

The Heimskringla traces Odin and his followers from the East, from Asaland and Asgard, its chief city, to their settlement in Scandinavia. It narrates the contests of the kings, the establishment of the kingdoms of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, the Viking expeditions and the conquests of England.


And from a publisher's blurb (Dover) on Heimskringla--

Great classic by Icelandic poet/chieftain chronicles the reigns of 16 high kings descended from the warrior-wizard god Odin. Major section on 15-year reign of Olav II Haraldson, patron saint of Norway. Based on earlier histories, oral traditions, plus new material by author, all presented with intelligence, warmth and objectivity. Over 130 illus. 5 maps. Notes. Introduction

[TechBear_Seattle]

44. Bringing up "archaeological evidence" is a logical fallacy.

I don't recall the specific name, but it is the fallacy of bringing in as support a claim that is irrelevant to the argument.

Archaeological evidence is about cities and nations and cultures. It is not about individuals. The fact that Jerusalem existed during the first century CE does NOT, in any way, give evidence to the existence of Jesus, any more than the existence of Jerusalem in the 11th century BCE gives evidence to the existence of Kings David and Solomon.

You ask about Odysseus. I have read no scholar who asserts that Odysseus was an actual living person. Every shred of evidence that can be provided comes through legend, which is notoriously unreliable: witness the legends that have coalesced Saint Ronald Reagan in just the last two decades.

As for other historical personages, we have multiple, independent sources attesting to their existence. Julius Caesar, for example. We have treaties and decrees that he signed. We have letters written to him, and letters bearing his own responses. We have first hand accounts written by people who themselves can be independently sourced, and when different people write of witnessing the same events involving Caesar, they are nearly identical in content. In other words, we can take this vast body and overlap them to obtain a clearer and clearer picture of Julius Caesar, of who he was, what he did, how he behaved, what he believed. And we can do this more or less with Aristotle, Plato, John Calvin, George Washington and pretty much any prominent person that can be found in history. Being unable to do this -- say, with Pecos Bill or Paul Bunyan -- does not necessarily prove that the person did not exist, but it certainly creates a large amount of room for doubt.

(And to head off the next likely response: If you want to prove my existence, I can provide a birth certificate, driver's license, several decades worth of tax records with the Internal Revenue Service, a business license with the State of Washington, my commission as a Notary Public, etc., etc., more than a hundred independently verifiable sources.)

What do we have of Jesus? We have four sources purported first hand accounts. Three of them are similar, but vary quite widely in most details. And even with just three accounts, it is much more difficult to overlap them to get a single picture than it is to overlap dozens of first hand accounts involving Julius Caesar. The fourth purported first hand account of Jesus is entirely different from the other three; there is simply no way to reconcile the Gospel of John with the those of Matthew, Mark and Luke as it proposes different doctrines, different events and different ordering of events found in the Synoptic Gospels.

Then there is the identity of the ascribed writers of the Gospels. Biographies of Julius Caesar were written by people who themselves left imprints on history and can be proven to have existed with independent evidence. But who were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? By what evidence are these men linked to the Gospels bearing their name? What links the Gospels to specific individuals and not someone with the same name? And what evidence exists that these specific individuals actually existed?

Lastly, there is the fact that records which should exist seemingly do not. The Roman bureaucrats were very careful and detailed in their recordkeeping. We have records of trials and executions in the province of Judea, but nowhere is there record of a trial that matches the trial and execution of Jesus as given in the Gospels. We have records and notes kept by the Sanhedrin, and there is no mention of the trial of Jesus (ignoring the fact that the trial, as given in the Gospels, violated nearly every point of contemporary Jewish trial law.)

In short, there is no evidence that Odysseus, King of Ithaca and crafty warrior at the Siege of Troy, ever lived. Likewise, there is no evidence that Jesus ever lived. For both, their existence is strictly a matter of faith, not fact.

[SidDithers]

49. Good post..

thanks for taking the time to write it. :toast:

Sid

[Straight Shooter]

58. TechBear Seattle

Your post is an excellent summary of the position of those who doubt the existence of an incarnate Jesus Christ.


This is what bothers me most: It is claimed that Jesus performed miracles (raising the dead, hello?) and outraged authority wherever he went, masses of people followed him, and yet nothing was written of him during the time of his existence. I find that so highly improbable as to be implausible. 40 years (there's that Biblical number again) between the time of his existence and the time the gospels were written is a long enough gap that people may have found it beneficial to stretch the truth in order to bolster their religious agenda.

I would be gratified to find some proof of the existence of Jesus as a prophet or a gifted healer or an inspired teacher ... but the divine aspect and other features of his life and death too closely parallel other mythical legends.

That being said, to each her own, to each his own, when it comes to matters of faith.

[Inland]

71. I would only dispute the "lastly" paragraph.

There's no way to establish that the romans or sanhedrin were "very careful and detailed in their recordkeeping": even vast amounts of written down info doesn't infer care or detail in terms of what's omitted. You would need evidence from the people actually doing the recordkeeping as to their practices. And I doubt they are admitting taking days off.

The fact that Jesus's execution was not in accord with either Roman or Jewish law is a given in the gospels. It seems to me that's more reason for it to be off the books.

But more importantly, you are using the details of a roman execution to impeach the big fact of existence. In essence, you give credibility to the details of the story to take away the credibility of the entire story, when more likely, the oral traditions only got the details of who did what to whom wrong. It would be as if someone found no evidence of FDR at Warm Springs and used it to declare that the man never existed.

My summary is this: there is as much evidence of a historical person of Jesus AS ONE WOULD EXPECT from a vagrant son of a carpenter from a backwater part of a backwater province of an empire 2000 years ago executed on trumped up charges. Four different oral traditions eventually written down is pretty goddam good considering that.

[TechBear_Seattle]

110. I disagree

There is a way to establish that the Romans and the Sanhedrin were very careful and detailed in their recordkeeping: we have what appears to be a very large part of their records.

There still exists hundreds of thousands of documents, at least, detailing Imperial justice. Roman records of trials and criminal proceedings are universally as scrupulous and detailed as the records of the Inquisition and give name, lineage, city or town of origin, jurisdiction, charges, date of trial, date of judgement, verdict, punishment, who administered the punishment, and a full accounting of expenses from the judge's salary to the labor of the slave who cleaned up after floggings, down to the last unica.

As for the Sanhedrin, again, we have a large library of minutes and proceedings. We have an even larger corpus of Jewish jurisprudence that comes from other contemporary sources, including early copies of commentary on the Torah (about 150 years latter, these commentaries would be collected to become the Talmud.) The Jewish attitude towards law, especially religious law, was to meticulously investigate every point. There are records of people who were brought before religious courts on charges: these trials always lasted several days and were always public events. Every argument was recorded, every charge weighed against the Law, every reference to the Torah cross-referenced.

There is a principle in logic commonly known as "Occam's Razor." It states that the simplest of several equally possible explanations is most likely the correct explanation. Applying this prinicple, it is much more likely that the events of the Gospels did not occur as recorded -- assuming that they took place at all, which I do not concede -- than to have both the Roman bureaucracy and the Jewish religious council both violate fundamental rules of jurisprudence and foundational procedures.

Further, I am not "using the details of a roman (sic) execution to impeach the big fact of existence." The way you phrase that implies that I have already conceded that Jesus existed at all. I have not. That is my point: details of a Roman execution do not exist, even though such details were meticulously recorded. While absence of proof is not proof of absence, it does lend weight to the argument that the Jesus of the Gospels did not exist.

Likewise, we can establish from a large body of work the exact procedures of a Jewish religious trial as it would have happened in the early part of the first century, and we can establish just how important was observing the forms and traditions of legal jurisprudence were to the religious leaders of the day. The Gospel accounts of Jesus' trial by a Sanhedrin court violate nearly every one of the established procedures; Occam's Razor requires us to conclude that the Gospel accounts are wrong. Again, that alone is not proof of absence, but it does undermine the assertion that Jesus existed.

We are not talking about someone who was merely "a vagrant son of a carpenter from a backwater part of a backwater province of an empire 2000 years ago executed on trumped up charges." We are talking about someone who, according to the Gospels, stirred up religious authorities enough to totally throw away religious law and legal procedure to get him out of the way, despite the fact that these religious laws and legal procedures were at the very heart of a culture under assault by foreign occupation. We are talking about someone who, according to the Gospels, was executed as a major political threat by a legal system that kept detailed records of the cost of washing the blood from whips used to flog people who stole bread. Whether the charges were trumped up or not is irrelevant: he was charged with a major crime and then executed on conviction of that charge. That Judea was a "backwater" is also irrelevant: because of the political turmoil there during the Roman occupation, Imperial scrutiny on the province was very close. Roman legal documents during the first century CE from Judea tended to be even more meticulous than was the Imperial standard, and the Roman bureaucrats in Judea was even more punctilious than most Imperial officials. While the lack of any documentation at all by these sources is not conclusive, it does lend weight to the argument that Jesus did not exist.

As for your argument about four different oral traditions. May I point to six different versions of how a tussle between Paul Bunyan and is giant blue ox, Babe, formed the Grand Teton mountain range and conclude that Paul Bunyan therefore existed? Can I cite several different ancient legends about Oddyseus at the Siege of Troy, and therefore conclude that he really existed? And what about the hundreds of thousands of accounts from children about Santa Claus.... you get the idea, I hope. The existence of an oral legend is not proof that the subject of the legend was real. That is part of what I mean when I speak of independently verifiable documentation.

[Inland]

120. You don't address my points.

In order to have an inference of the non-occurance of a fact, you have to show that the matter would have been recorded. The existence of volumes and volumes of recorded information doesn't imply that they were comprehensive. Rather, you would need both the practice of comprehensive recording, both of the authorities in Jerusalem at the time and proof that the practice was adhered to rigorously. It isn't enough to show that other proceedings involving other persons, or in other places, or in other times, were recorded. That is, weight doesn't prove punctilo. If ten thousand proceedings are recorded, all one can say is that there were ten thousand proceedings, not that there were not ten thousand and one, without additional proof.

Similarly, you yourself noted that the execution of Jesus as described isn't consistent with either Jewish or Roman law. It is, in fact, the sort of thing that would be off the books. Jesus was not killed as "an important revolutionary figure", if you mean a political danger. Pilate doesn't convict Jesus of a capital crime. He flogs him as a favor, sends him to Herod for judgment and eventually washes his hands of the matter. The Gospels have Jesus bounced around jurisdictions until Pilate does the bidding of the Jewish authorities who admit that they have no ability to kill Jesus themselves. Of course they would not want a record of a trial NOT being held and charges NOT being proven, if the penalty was as trumped up as the Gospels imply.

I wonder about the entire concept of Jesus having a right to a "proceeding". Unlike Paul, who flashed his papers to get out of scrapes, Jesus was not a Roman citizen.

Second, you actually do accept the credibility of the Gospel stories to impeach the credibility of the Gospel stories. You assume the credibility of the details of a Roman and Jewish proceeding to impugn his entire existence. You assume the credibility of Jesus's triumphant entry into Jerusalem to impugn his entire existence. It makes more sense to consider the simplest alternative: that the oral traditions got the details wrong. If Occam's razor can be applied at all, it works in that way.

And as to Santa Claus and Paul Bunyan, I would note that nobody has seriously asserted those stories are true, and unlike the historical existence of a man named Jesus ben Joseph, born in bethlelem and killed in Jerusalem, patently impossible. To compare them is a silly way to dismiss an oral tradition, and bringing up Odysseus at Troy is a capper: there really was a Troy, forgotten until discovered later. There's no proof of Odysseus, but according to your logic we should have been dismissing the possibility of Troy, or of Ithaca, because the corroborating evidence of Odysseus can't be found.

I stand by my conclusion. The world in thirty odd AD was a long time ago, Palestine was a long way away from everything, and Jesus was a nobody that only other nobodies cared about, except for some religious authorities who were irked by his reformist message, according to the Gospels themselves. He wasn't later in time, a military or religious leader, like Mohammed. I see as much evidence as one would expect. That is, very little one way or the other.

[muriel_volestrangler]

121. Do we really have "hundreds of thousands of documents"?

I thought that it was very rare for documents to survive 2000 years, and the number that have been recopied over that period to keep their contents known is surely less than that, isn't it? With many known works not surviving, I'd be surprised at boring details of Roman justice regularly being selected for copying. I'd be even more surprised that the copying has been comprehensive.

[Inland]

125. I wonder.....

if the idea of documentary evidence was so foreign to thinkers of the first millenium that Constantine and Helen and the early established church didn't even bother to FORGE something in the three hundreds. I mean, finding the True Cross, the Birthplace of Jesus, Nazareth, sure, but discovering the Sacred Death Warrant might have been too preposterous a concept for them. In a world where the Library at Alexandria has burned, there's only a few surviving Greek plays, Rome is in deep shit, the idea of finding a court record in a Jerusalem basement might not have occurred to them, miracles or no.

[psychopomp]

76. ? I don't think anybody believes in an historical Odysseus

Scholar or otherwise...though there are some who believe that the Iliad is based on an actual war.

[BurtWorm]

124. "to substantiate the context of the Gospels."

What does that mean? Is substantiation of "context" good enough for substantiation of something specific that allegedly occurred within the context? I don't think so.

[evlbstrd]

2. Galileo's Revenge.

I love it.

[Inland]

3. You know, all the case will prove is

the wisdom of the First Amendment that keeps this sort of disagreement out of the courts.

[northzax]

4. actually, you could possibly have a libel case

depending on what the Father said, exactly.

[Inland]

8. Nah.

The plaintiff would be an author and a public figure. Any statement based on the content of or motive for publishing the book, or the character of a person who wrote such a thing, would be fair game. That the existence of Jesus is an issue shows the entire matter to be speech protected by the first amendment in this country.

[VTMechEngr]

9. The priest will win.

That Jesus lived has lots of evidence that is accepted to prove other characters of history lived.

Now the religious aspects are on faith alone. But for existence, thats a slam dunk.

[stepnw1f]

12. No It's Not A Slamdunk

Can you prove he existed? I doubt it...

[VTMechEngr]

18. can you prove he didn't?

Having 2 Billion followers tends to put the burden on those who believe he didn't.

[K-W]

20. Of course it doesnt change the burden of proof.

Reality doesnt conform to popular will or the sun would revolve around the earth.

The evidence that he existed is circumstantial, but credible.

[stepnw1f]

22. I Don't Need to Prove Anything

You do... You stated it would be a "slamdunk". I don't think it is. I think it's unprovable. Why so touchy?

And no, this isn't 42nd Street.

You shouldn't need proof to believe. Relax.... if you truly believe.

[VTMechEngr]

38. I think people mix up this one.

They think that they must prove that Jesus didn't exist to refute Christianity. Most Jews I meet think he existed, but was nothing more than a mere teacher. Some cannot accept this logical disagreement, and must seek to completely attack the faith on all grounds. Its not being touchy, just dealing with the same old crap.

I'm worn down from the Creationism(ID) vs Evolution debate. I've stood my ground in support of Evolution against the prove it argument time and time again. After a while, one realizes that if someone doesn't believe in it, no manner of evidence will prove it to them. They show me a gap in the fossil record, I plug it with a fossil, they say now you have two holes. And such it is with this debate.

I do think that the priest will win, if only because of Italy's heavy Catholic faith. There is a lot of history on his side. I also know that the plaintiff will never be satisfied. That is a forgone conclusion.

[stepnw1f]

45. Hey... Stop There. You Got Me Wrong.

I'm not trying to prove anything. I just don't think you or anyone else can prove he ever was. That's all...

See, I don't need proof that he existed in order to believe in Him.

[The Straight Story]

47. I guess the real question here for me is

What constitutes proof?

[stepnw1f]

113. Who Knows (nt)

[Dorian Gray]

103. I don't know exactly

what the priest said about this man to denounce him.

Having said that, I also know what Italy is like when it comes to religion. My husband studied at a seminary in Italy for a year, as he was considering becoming a priest. Since he was never a priest, he didn't suffer from bad treatment, but many of his friends were spit upon as they walked down the street in Rome. People would yell at them in the street. People would pysically threaten them. One of them was riding on a train, and had a soda poured over him.

I know this sounds like a "persecution" of the priesthood post, but it's not meant to be. My only point is to point out that there is a lot of negative feelings among the general populace of Italy for the priesthood and religion. The Italians are not all religious, in lockstep with the Papal authorities. Many dislike the Catholic Church, and they are very vocal in their dismissal of the church. Many hate priests because of real or perceived mistreatments by the clergy.

I don't think that this case would be a slam dunk for either side.

[ProfessorGAC]

107. That's Impossible

One can never prove the lack of existence of anybody or anything.
The Professor

[stevietheman]

116. Sorry. wrong. Burden of proof is *always* on the positive point.

And it doesn't matter one whit how many people "believe" something before that something becomes established fact.

It's entirely fair to request proof of the existence of a historical figure. Certainly, Christianity isn't based on the existence of someone who didn't actually exist, is it? Therefore, Jesus' existence needs to be proven.

[Inland]

129. So you prove the gospels are false. Now you've got the "positive point".

The "burden of proof" stuff is a little silly, since any issue can be restated as a positive or negative point.

It's a nice bit of legalese meant to allow one to simply passively dismiss evidence and declare the winner by default. It's tiresome. The paucity of evidence one way or the other is only a paucity of evidence, and that is the only conclusion that one can reach, rationally. End of story.

[MrPrax]

122. Fallacy...

It's like stating that 'McDonald's hamburgers must be the best, since they sold 100 billion of them'

Simply suggesting that since lots of people believe it, doesn't make it true...

[VTMechEngr]

131. whatever.

Its a waste of my time to provide evidence to people who will never be satified by it.

[K-W]

17. Hardly a slam dunk.

There is no direct proof. He is thought to have existed.

[VTMechEngr]

28. By the standard that people place on him, we can't prove anyone lived

Can you really show that Joan of Arc lived? Where is her body. We can read about her, but reading about ones accomplishments is not enough.

The real problem is that people cannot separate in Jesus's case the religious importance from the standard fare. To claim he didn't exist is an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary evidence. On the other hand, to claim he is anything other than a Rabbi requires the same extraordinary evidence or in most cases: Faith. People need to remember that showing that he existed does nothing to prove he is the Son of God. That is the religious aspect.

[K-W]

30. That just isnt true.

I am using the normal evidentiary standard. The evidence that christ lived is the scriptures, which are credible because we know other charecters in them existed including relatives of christ. There is not, however, evidence that verifies the scriptures, official documentation, an independent corroberating account etc. The evidence is circumstantial, but credible.

We do not know that he existed the way we know other historical figures existed.

And no, claiming that someone didnt exist is not in the least bit extraordinary unless there is a preponderance of evidence that they did exist. In this case there is not a proponderance of evidence, so there is nothing remotely extraordinary about being skeptical of his existance.

[VTMechEngr]

39. I do see your point.

The evidence for and against is lacking of the perfect "slam dunk" in the American sense. In trusty Catholic Italy...

Well, I guess we'll find out.

[IChing]

25. Jesus is barely in the historical record

Jesus the CHRIST is not in the historical record from that exact time.
Aristotle is in multi-cross referenced in historical records of that time.
Only one historical reference to Jesus around his time comes
from a Jewish historian and that reference is in dispute.

Doesn't mean he did not exist and lived, I have no doubt.

The evidentiary proof that Aristotle lived is beyond refute
in the cold logic of courtroom..

[Inland]

52. I don't know if anyone cares if those other characters REALLY existed

Plato, Aristotle, Odysseus....so what if they were real or composites or completely made up people?

If I were to apply the same standards, I would have to conclude that there is very little evidence one way or another.

There is as much evidence of Jesus's existence AS ONE WOULD EXPECT of a man born a son of a laborer in a backwater portion of a backwater province of an empire 2000 years ago and executed as a blasphemer, that is, practically none.

[Finder]

104. Not even close to a slam dunk. n/t

[Matariki]

61. the case is in Italy, not the US

the US first amendment is irrelevant in this case

[Inland]

65. See my post number 3

The context is the wisdom of the first amendment in keeping this sort of issue out of US courts. Other lands have other laws on defamation: but then again, they have laws against blasphemy too.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

6. I have thought for some time that the question of

Jesus Christ is God and so on, should be put to a legal test.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

13. I don't think there's irrefutable proof of Jesus' existence

However, I believe having read that during Jesus' time there were many roaming teachers around the countryside teaching others religious beliefs. Jesus may have been a real figure, or he may have been a composite. Who knows?

[man4allcats]

16. Religion is, by definition, an article of faith.

It cannot be tested. If it were potentially falsifiable, there would be no need of faith.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

Then there should be no cause for us to except any of it

as fact. However, Christians demand that we do.

[man4allcats]

43. You're right. There is no cause for us to accept it.

In fact, that is just the point. There is no cause. What so many Christians seem to fail to understand about their own religion is that it is just faith, faith and nothing more, for those who choose to accept it. If they "demand" that anyone do so, then they miss the point. Again, I am a secular person, but Christ preached love. You can't demand that someone love you. You can love them and hope they love you. Either they will or they won't. They must be allowed to choose. In the case of religion, one chooses to believe or chooses not to believe. There is no proof and no cause or reason. It's just faith or as some of the more enlightened would say "the mystery of faith." Christ said, "He that believeth in me..." That apparently is the only requirement. There are no written contracts and no funds on deposit in the bank to guarantee the deal. Either one accepts it or one doesn't. It is an entirely personal belief system.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

51. And in theory that's a nice argument

But the bloody and torturous history of the Christian, as well as Islamic, religion clearly proves, that is not how it gets implemented. And one can say all they want about well we just need to try harder to make it work, 2000 years of history conclusively prove that it doesn't.

At some point, particularly in the nuclear age, we are going to have to come to terms with the reality of the irrationality of religion. Failure to do such could mean the extermination of our species. I, like the Christians, am quite convinced that Armageddon will happen, possibly much sooner than one thinks. Where we differ is that they believe it will come about from a vengeful god as punishment for our sins, wherein I think it will come about by our own hand and ignorance.

[man4allcats]

62. Religion's history is indeed bloody

as is the history of democracy. I do believe, however, that people must be allowed to worship a god if that is what they choose to do. When their choice to worship starts infringing on my right not to, as is becoming ever more the case in the United States where we are moving dangerously close to a military and theocratic dictatorship, then those people need to be reminded by rule of law, if such still exists in this country, that the Constitution calls for separation of church and state.

Religion is indeed irrational. Rationalism is the domain of the provable, the scientific, the analytical aspect of human intellect. Surely though, the surreal, the artistic, the spiritual side of our nature as a self-aware species is equally important. As a belief system, religion has often been misused. I feel; however, that what we must come to terms with in our nuclear age is not religion per se but rather the broader concept of what it means to be civilized. We have learned a great deal about the fundamental processes of nature, enough in fact to guarantee the destruction of life as we know it. For all our intellectual acumen though, we are woefully behind in our ability to produce a just and balanced social system for our planet. We cannot; however, succumb to fear and throw the baby out with the bath water. Perhaps we will destroy ourselves. If we cannot summon the wisdom to avoid that tragic fate, then so be it. The universe and even Earth will go on without us. We are not so unique that our continued existence is required. Our sin will have been our failure to realize our spiritual and intellectual potential to become a truly civilized global society. If there is any saving grace, perhaps it will be that there were those of us who knew the truth and died fighting for it. We may have disagreed with what we perhaps rightly perceived to be the irrationality of the beliefs of others, but we defended to the death their right to believe that way. Ultimately, we are all seekers of truth. If we die defending that quest, we die well.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

133. Yes, I have certainly debated the value of Freedom of Religion

in recent years but I still think it ultimately holds true. However, we may be in a time where modifications to it may need to be put in place. While I am very much opposed to religiosity, mans quest for spiritual meaning is still a valid pursuit.

[timtom]

90. Self Delete

Intended as a reply to someone other than the original poster.

[timtom]

91. Self Delete

This was a reply to someone other than the original poster. The <reply> link is malfunctioning.

[jbnow]

24. Hell, Jesus is the nice one.

If people followed his teachings instead of getting off on just his name, we'd be pretty well off.

Make them prove that the old testament god exists. He's the one that smites and deplores and likes war and revenge.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

26. Would that also include his advice

on the way to deal with rebellious children was to stone them to death?

[Vinnie From Indy]

33. Really? Jesus advocated stoning children? Please share your source.

Please post a link or the biblical verse or other reference in which Jesus advocates stoning children. Thanks!

[Freedom_from_Chains]

42. Sure, not a problem

"If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, all the men of the town shall stone him to death." Deuteronomy 21:18-21

Now, let me dispense with your arguments. First, "That's the old testament, we don't follow that anymore, Jesus replaced that." Ok, then let us consider JC's statement in Matthew 5:17-18

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

So, Jesus is clearly saying that "yep, the old testament," the books of the law, "it's golden," so therefore, the kids take up using evil marijuana, it's time to go.

But you know there is another interesting aspect to the "we don't follow the old testament anymore," argument. Am I to assume that God wrote the old testament and then later on decided that "No, that's not quite right, you know that's not being fair to those insignificant humans, so let's cut them a new deal. Maybe I was just having a bad day."

So should I infer that the new testament is like God's word 2.0 cause there were fatal run-time errors in the old testament? Kind of calls into question that whole omniscient infallibility thing about God, don't you think?

[Inland]

64. Sorry, but there's a direct quote of Jesus's views on stoning.

It requires ignoring what Jesus said when the specific question was put to him. If you look it up, you will see that he prevented the stoning while upholding the law. Your point makes sense, which is why the question was considered a trap for Jesus in the first place. It just didn't catch him then, and doesn't catch him now.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

132. I know, but I could not find it right off the top of my head

Unlike most Christians I have actually read the bible cover to cover. However, I don't have it all memorized as I considered it void of meaning and value.

[Vinnie From Indy]

112. Your answer is bogus

Jesus NEVER advocated the stoning of children.

[jbnow]

54. You mean the daddy god

He also sent bears out of the woods to eat a group of naughty children.

[No Exit]

10. Well, that's simple.

Father Righi just needs to subpoena him!

(Oh. Shit. I forgot. Phil Hartman's dead...)

[Dongfang Hong]

11. Different.

This is a libel case. He must prove Christ existed because he attacked a man publicly for suggesting Christ might not have exist. If it cannot be proven Christ existed, than calling the questioner ignorant is unwarranted, as he was just bringing up a valid question to which nobody has an answer. However, if it is proven beyond any doubt that Christ existed, then the questioner was indeed ignorant of a fact and thus calling him ignorant is not libel.

[cloud_chaser1]

15. Being Jewish, I am no expert on Jesus

but as I understand it, everything that is known about Jesus was written by someone else. Jesus apparantly never wrote a word on any subject. And everything he is quoted as having said, comes from someone else who claims thats what Jesus said. In addition, the first writings about him, were not written until about 50 years after the crucifixion. If the apostles were basically the same age as Jesus, then they wrote about him while in their 80's. At that age, with basically primitive medicine and rules of good nutrition, how many were not suffering alzheimers or some other memory debilitating condition? Even without those diseases, the memory of an 80 year old in the year 30 AD,could not be that sharp.

A Catholic priest I have known since we were both kids in New York 65 years ago, believes our knowledge of Jesus is the resulkt of an amazing public relations campaign, led by the Apostle Paul. But he cant prove it. Just like so many people cannot prove the actual existence of Jesus.

As I said, being Jewish, I am not a Jesus scholar but I do believe that if believers focused more on the ideas attributed to him and not on the supernatural part of the story, this world would be alot better off. The essence of Jesus is not his alleged miracles and not what some people say Jesus can do but his alleged words.

[The Straight Story]

19. Guess same could be said about moses, isaac, jacob, daniel

and so on down the line.

[kcwayne]

31. Faith has nothing to do with being a Jesus scholar

A vast majority of Christians that worship Jesus are not scholars either, and in fact have a miniscule knowledge of what he is purported to have said, let alone have any clue about the origins of their faith.

It doesn't take belief to assimilate facts and make an opinion on them. Even the Apostle Paul doesn't refer to a historical Jesus, he refers to the holy spirit of Jesus.

For my part, I think that it is quite telling that God appears on earth, performs miracles that are heralded throughout the land, dies to save everyone from eternal hell fire, and no one thinks to write anything down about it for 50-100 years. No one saves any artifacts. There is no trace of any miracle, or any incontrovertable piece of evidence of the most unique thing to ever happen in human history.

Well that is not quite true. The legends of Mithras, Dionysus, Osirus, and others have many of the same characteristics as the Jesus story (born of a God through a virgin birth, performs miracles, dies an agononizing death with some purity symbology, and in Mithras's case, was born on Dec 25). But of course, in spite of all those similarities, these other stories are just stories, while the Jesus story is true, even though there is no evidence to differentiate the Jesus story from the others, we just "know" it is true because ... of faith.

[The Straight Story]

69. See here is my problem with the whole paul thing I keep seeing:

It is well recognized by all but the most fanatical fundamentalist bible scholars that Paul, writing between approximately 54 C. E. an 65 C.E., was not a “witness to Jesus.” By his own admission, he saw Jesus “in a vision” while on the road to Damascus. This Jesus was a purely mythical, “spiritual Christ,” not in any sense a human being Christ. Paul “received” this Jesus through a kind of divine revelation.
http://www.eastbayatheists.org/jesusneverwas.html

Now here is where I find this interesting. We believe Paul on this, and generaly that he existed. Was it not he who made mention of and traveled with the apostles whom knew Jesus firsthand? Did not Paul profess to believe that Jesus lived, died and rose again?

Paul seemed to think he existed and traveled with those that did as well.

[hyphenate]

88. My thoughts exactly

on the mythology score. As a matter of fact, there have also been many similarities between Mary and several of the "old time" goddesses, like Isis, Freya, even Hera/Juno. Just another place, a different day.

While reading this thread, it also occurred to me that historically, there are other "heroes" who have been elevated to cult status along the way, King Arthur among them. Rumor has it that there WAS some guy named Arthur, or Arturo, since England was under Roman rule around that same time, who helped to organize a lot of the local tribes and help them win scuffles. From the reality of a grim, bellicose local tribesman to the mythological Arthur is a great leap of faith as well. Yet the Christian mythology has been supported for two millennia because some people, especially those who are rich, powerful and male, want to continue to line their pockets with gold, silver and jewels, as well as keep their power and domains.

I'm not saying some guy named Jesus (Hay-sus) didn't live around 1 BCE, because frankly I don't care if he actually lived. But it's amazing what people will do to elevate someone to god status in order to have something to believe in, if that's their gig. If Jesus were alive today, he would have been declared insane as a schizophrenic, and sent to an asylum where his daily clothing would have included a straitjacket. And if he had people who believed in him, he would have been derogated as a cult leader like Jim Jones or Rev Moon, and brought up on criminal charges. Different times, different approaches to what he/she represented. It's pretty much why no real "Christ" figure has managed to come forward in today's world--we would not recognize him with all the wannabees who seem to have a market on god-given importance.

Faith is taking assumptions to the next level. People want to have faith because it absolves them of failures in their own lives. It also hides a lot of "badness" in people, who insist that the "bible" condemns homosexuality and other intolerances. But people forget that the version of the bible most people read nowadays is hardly the text written two millenia ago. It's been abridged, annotated, translated, re-translated, copied incorrectly and incompletely, tainted by personal prejudice, rewritten by dictators and their servants, and essentially been turned for the most part into a work of fiction no more true than the Iliad, the Odyssey, the stories of Mu and Atlantis, Camelot and King Arthur, Beowulf, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Robin Hood, and almost anything written prior to the introduction of bulk printing.

[The Straight Story]

36. Also worth noting is that the babylonian talmud mentions Jesus(nt)

[On the Road]

46. I Believe the Best Historical Evidence of Jesus' Existence

is in the first chapter of Galatians:

¹⁸ Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. ¹⁹I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.

Galatians is in my mind the most authentic book in the Bible -- it is filled with Paul's first-hand accounts of struggles within the church. It is not the kind of thing a later disciple would make up.

Jesus' existence is not a matter of debate in this passage. The reference to James is very matter-of-fact. Paul wrote about Jesus as a heavenly figure more than as a human being and feuded with Jesus' brother. He had no motive for referring to James if he were not someone everyone knew about. For those reasons, the reference is difficult to frame as a fabrication or gloss.

Catholics, in an attempt to maintain the idea of Mary's eternal virginity, maintain that James was a cousin, not a brother. Even if that were true, a cousin is still a real person.

There are many serious questions about who Jesus was or what he said. Personally, I'm not even 100% certain he gave the Sermon on the Mount. But I don't think Jesus' existence is the most constructive subject for debate.

[Hello_Kitty]

72. I can't even copy a phone message correctly most of the time

So I'm guessing a lot of those 50 to 100 year after the fact quoters weren't getting him down verbatim.

[upi402]

23. I do that; "prove woman was made from a rib"

Sheezuz! What next? Talking snakes????

[JerseygirlCT]

27. The point is

the guy's using his pulpit (literally) to denounce someone. If he can do this because the man questions the historical existence of Christ, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that the priest should have to prove that there is historical evidence of Christ's existence...

And I'm a Christian.

[zbdent]

29. What cracks me up is this

(aside from the lack of the mention of the person taking dictation between Adam and God in the "Garden of Eden")

Christians "know" the exact date Jesus was born (despite the fact that it is all out of whack with the calendar mathematics, and that he pretty much was born three years before he was born) . . .

yet the day he "died on the cross" and the following "day he rose from the dead" all depend on the moon . . . and you would think that the Romans would have kept records about these things . . .

[The Straight Story]

37. A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .{5}

[Cleita]

32. Uhm isn't this nonsense sort of like proving how many angels

can sit on the head of a pin. I mean first you have to prove that there are angels. Now since Christ supposedly died on a cross, how can he live? If he really was resurrected and taken to Heaven, he wouldn't be around here would he? Of course first you would have to prove that Christ was a real, historical person to begin with. Ohh, the weirdness of it all.

[0007]

35. I love it!

[papau]

40. Perhaps The first page of the Priests defense will be these ?

Taken with permission from

http://www.myfortress.org/historians.html

Some examples of objections raised by unbelievers are, "Jesus never existed," or "He's just a myth," and one of the more popular objections, "There are no historical accounts of him," etc, etc, ad nauseam.

When these dogmatic assertions that have no evidence whatsoever to back them up are shot across your bow, calmly smile, and say, "you don't know the facts do you?"

Inform yourselves my brothers and sisters, in these days of revisionism, we must know the facts in order to refute these uninformed accusations which are based on prejudice. Most of these historical facts are discounted a priori (without honestly looking at the evidence). Remember, it is not a lack of evidence to believe, rather a lack of will to believe, a suppression of the evidence and facts (2 Peter 3:5, Romans 1:18).

One popular misconception about Jesus is that there is no mention of Him in any ancient sources outside of the Bible. On the contrary, there are numerous references to him as an historical figure who died at the hand of Pontius Pilate. Some even noted that he was reported to have risen from the dead, and was worshiped as a God by all who followed him.


Secular historians and others from antiquity attest to the historical reality of Jesus Christ.


JOSEPHUS: (37-101 A.D.)

Josephus was born in Jerusalem only four years after Jesus' crucifixion. He was an eyewitness to much of what he recorded in the first century A.D. Josephus mentions many events and people from the Gospels. Josephus was an Orthodox Jew who was commissioned by the Romans to write a history of the Jewish people and Rome up until that point.

Mentions Jesus: Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Mentions John the Baptist and Herod: Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 5, par. 2

"Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins , but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness."

Mentions James, the half-brother of Jesus: Antiquities, Book 20, ch. 19.

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, ; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done."



TACITUS: (55-117 A.D.)

Cornelius Tactitus is regarded as the greatest historian of ancient Rome. Writing on the reign of Nero, Tacitus alludes to the death of Christ and to the existence of Christians in Rome.

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."



PLINY THE YOUNGER: (112 A.D.)

Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, Pliny wrote a letter to the Emperor Trajan regarding how to deal with Christians who worship Christ. These letters concern an episode which marks the first time the Roman government recognized Christianity as a religion separate from Judaism, and sets a precedent for the massive persecution of Christians that takes place in the second and third centuries.

"They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food—but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."



BABYLONIAN TALMUD: (Completed in the 6th Century A.D.)

The Babylonian Talmud is a Rabbinic commentary on the Jewish scriptures (Tanach: Old Testament). They are a look into what a hostile source was saying about Jesus. They couldn't deny his miracles so they claim that it was sorcery rather than admit to what was a known fact. They also admit that Yeshu (Hebrew for Jesus) was hanged (Crucified: Luke 23:39, Galatians 3:13).

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery (an admission of his miracles) and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!"

The Babylonian Talmud, vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a.



LUCIAN: (120-180 A.D.)

A Greek satirist that spoke scornfully of Christ and Christians, affirming that they were real and historical people, never saying that they were fictional characters.

"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 on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property."

Lucian, The Death of Peregrine. 11-13.



LETTER OF MARA BARSARAPION: (73 A.D.)

Mara Bar-Serapion was a Syrian who lived in the first century A.D. He wrote a letter to his son Serapion that mentions the Jews who killed their King. The letter is now in the possession of the British Museum.

"What benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as judgment for their crime. Or, the people of Samos for burning Pythagoras? In one moment their country was covered with sand. Or the Jews by murdering their wise king?...After that their kingdom was abolished. God rightly avenged these men...The wise king...Lived on in the teachings he enacted."



Thallus: (52 A.D.)

One of the first secular writers that mentioned Christ. Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. Unfortunately, his writings are only found as citations by others. Julius Africanus, a Christian who wrote about AD 221 mentioned Thallus' account of an eclipse of the sun (Luke 23:44-45).

"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun."

Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18:1.



PHLEGON: (1st Century)

A secular historian wrote a history named, "Chronicles." This original work has been lost, Julius Africanus preserved a small fragment in his writings. Phlegon mentions the eclipse (Matthew 27:45) during the crucifixion of Jesus.

"During the time of Tiberius Caesar an eclipse of the sun occurred during the full moon."

Africanus, Chronography, 18:1.



SUETONIUS: (69-140 A.D.)

A Roman historian and annalist of the Imperial House under the Emperor Hadrian. He refers to Christ and Christians and the "disturbances" caused by them, namely not worshipping idols and loving all, including their tormentors.

"Because the Jews at Rome caused constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus , he expelled them from the city ." Acts 18:2, which took place in 49 A.D.

Life of Claudius, 25:4.

In another work Suetonius wrote about the the fire which devastated Rome in 64 A.D. under the reign of Nero. Nero blamed the Christians and exacted a heavy punishment upon them, among them covering them with pitch and burning them alive in his gardens.

"Nero inflicted punishment on the Christians, a sect given to a new and mischievous religious belief."

Lives of the Caesars, 26.2



CELSUS: (2nd Century)

Criticizes the Gospels, unknowingly reinforces the authors and the content, he alludes to 80 different quotes in the Bible. Admits that the miracles of Jesus were generally believed in the 2nd century.



JULIAN THE APOSTATE: (332-363 A.D.)

Emperor of Rome mentions the Gospels, miracles and other facts about Jesus. Julian had struggled to end the power of Christians in the Roman Empire. Since the day fifty years earlier that Constantine conquered in the sign of the cross, Christian influence had steadily grown. As Julian lay dying from a mortal wound he made the following remark:

"As he bled, the dying emperor groaned, "You have conquered, O Galilean," referring to Jesus Christ.



CLEMENT OF ROME: (100 A.D.)

Clement affirms the Resurrection, Gospels and that Jesus was sent to earth by God to take away our sins.

"Clement was the fourth bishop of Rome, the first being Peter. Did he know Peter and Paul? It is completely possible that those two Spirit-filled men taught him. Clement even wrote a letter to the Corinthian church that echoed the teachings of the apostles."



Ignatius of Antioch: (50-107 A.D.)

Disciple of the apostles Peter, Paul, and John, who was martyred for his faith in Jesus. He was obviously convinced that Jesus really had lived and that Jesus was all that the apostles has said He was.

"...nearness to the sword is nearness to God; to be among the wild beasts is to be in the arms of God; only let it be in the name of Jesus Christ. I endure all things that I may suffer together with him, since he who became perfect man strengthens me...We have not only to be called Christians, but to be Christians."

While the emperor Trajan was on a visit to Asia Minor, he arrested Ignatius. When the bishop confessed his faith in Christ, the Emperor sent him in chains to Rome to die. He was hustled to the arena at once and thrown to two fierce lions who immediately devoured him.



QUADRATUS: (125 A.D.)

Bishop of Athens and a disciple of the apostles. Church historian Eusebius has preserved the only work that we have from Quadratus.

"The deeds of our Saviour were always before you, for they were true miracles; those that were healed, those that were raised from the dead, who were seen, not only when healed and when raised, but were always present. They remained living a long time, not only whilst our Lord was on earth, but likewise when he had left the earth. So that some of them have also lived in our times."

Eusebius, IV, III



EPISTLE OF BARNABAS: (130-38 A.D.)

Mentions the Resurrection, miracles, content of the Gospels and the crucifixion of Jesus.



ARISTIDES: (138-161 A.D.)

Aristides was a second-century Christian believer and philosopher from Athens. This portion of his defense of Christianity was addressed to the Roman Emperor Antonius Pius, who reigned from 138-161 A.D.

"The Son of the most high God, revealed by the Holy Spirit, descended from heaven, born of a Hebrew Virgin. His flesh he received from the Virgin, and he revealed himself in the human nature as the Son of God. In his goodness which brought the glad tidings, he has won the whole world by his life-giving preaching...He selected twelve apostles and taught the whole world by his mediatorial, light-giving truth. And he was crucified, being pierced with nails by the Jews; and he rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. He sent the apostles into all the world and instructed all by divine miracles full of wisdom. Their preaching bears blossoms and fruits to this day, and calls the whole world to illumination."

Carey, "Aristides," 68.



JUSTIN MARTYR: (106-167 A.D.)

Justin Martyr is regarded as one of the greatest early Christian apologists. He was born around 100 A.D and was beheaded for his faith in Jesus in 167 A.D. He mentions as facts many things about Jesus and Christianity, such as: The Magi (wise men who brought gifts from Arabia), King Herod, His crucifixion, His garments parted among the Roman soldiers, the apostles leaving him on the night of his arrest, his fulfilled prophecies, His resurrection and His ascending into heaven among many others. These quotes can be found in his debate with Trypho the Jew.



HEGESIPPUS: (2 Century)

Eusebius draws the conclusion that Hegesippus was a Jew that wrote five books called, "Memoirs." Only fragments remain of his original work in the writings of Eusebius. They show that Hegesippus traveled extensively trying to determine if the stories of Jesus and the apostles were true. He found that they they were accurate, even in the troubled church in Corinth.

"The Corinthian church continued in the true doctrine until Primus became bishop. I mixed with them on my voyage to Rome and spent several days with the Corinthians, during which we were refreshed with the true doctrine. On arrival at Rome I pieced together the succession down to Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus, Anicetus being succeeded by Soter and he by Eleutherus. In every line of bishops and in every city things accord with the preaching of the Law, the Prophets, and the Lord."

Eusebius, The History of the Church, 9.22.2.



TRAJAN: (53-117 A.D.)

Trajan is a Roman Emperor who wrote a letter in response to the Governor of Asia Minor, Pliny the Younger. Pliny needed advice in dealing with "Christians" who renounced their belief in Jesus due to fear of torture and execution.



MACROBIUS: (4th-5th Century)

Pascal (Pensees) mentions a quote of Augustus Caesar as an evidence to the murder of the 7-20 male babies (this is based on the population of Bethlehem in 4-6 B.C., which was 700-1,000 people) by King Herod in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:16).

King Herod heard that a king was to be born and his fear and mental instability caused him to kill these male children under two years of age. King Herod killed his Wife, mother in law, and three sons. This is in character with his life of murder and paranoia. King Herod's reign was described by his enemies as, "He stole to the throne like a fox, ruled like a tiger, and died like a dog."

Saturnalia, lib. 2, ch.4.



HADRIAN: (106-167 A.D.)

Justin Martyr quotes this Roman Emperor's letter to Minucius Fundanus, proconsul of Asia Minor. This letter deals with accusations from pagans against the Christians.

"I have received the letter addressed to me by your predecessor Serenius Granianus, a most illustrious man; and this communication I am unwilling to pass over in silence, lest innocent persons be disturbed, and occasion be given to the informers for practicing villainy. Accordingly, if the inhabitants of your province will so far sustain this petition of theirs as to accuse the Christians in some court of law, I do not prohibit them from doing so. But I will not suffer them to make use of mere entreaties and outcries. For it is far more just, if any one desires to make an accusation, that you give judgment upon it. If, therefore, any one makes the accusation, and furnishes proof that the said men do anything contrary to the laws, you shall adjudge punishments in proportion to the offences. And this, by Hercules; you shall give special heed to, that if any man shall, through mere calumny, bring an accusation against any of these persons, you shall award to him more severe punishments in proportion to his wickedness."

Justin Martyr, The First Apology, Chapters, 68-69.



JUVENAL: (55 AD-127 AD)

Juvenal makes a reference of the tortures of Christians by Nero in Rome.

"But just describe Tigellinus and you will blaze amid those faggots in which men, with their throats tightly gripped, stand and burn and smoke, and you trace a broad furrow through the middle of the arena."

Satires, 1, lines 147-157.



SENECA: (3 B.C.-65 A.D.)

Seneca mentions the cruelties that Nero imposes upon Christians.

"The other kind of evil comes, so to speak, in the form of a huge parade. Surrounding it is a retinue of swords and fire and chains and a mob of beasts to be let loose upon the disemboweled entrails of men. Picture to yourself under his head the prison, the cross, the rack, the hook, and the stake which they drive straight through a man until it protrudes from his throat. Think of human limbs torn apart by chariots driven in opposite directions, of the terrible shirt smeared and interwoven with inflammable materials, and of all the other contrivances devised by cruelty, in addition to those which I have mentioned!"

Epistulae Morales, Epistle 14, "On the Reasons for Withdrawing from the World."



HIEROCLES: (AD 284-305)

A quote by Eusebius preserves some of the text of this lost work of Hierocles, Philalethes or Lover of Truth. In this quote, Hierocles condemns Peter and Paul as sorcerers. Again, their miracles could not be denied, rather they claimed that they used sorcery.

"And this point is also worth noticing, that whereas the tales of Jesus have been vamped up by Peter and Paul and a few others of the kind,--men who were liars and devoid of education and wizards."

Eusebius, The Treatise of Eusebius, ch. 2.



ANTONIUS PIUS: (86 AD to 161 AD)

A letter from the Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius to the general assembly in Asia Minor. This letter says that the officials in Aisa Minor were getting upset at the Christians in their province, and that no changes are to be made in Antoninus' method of dealing with them.

"The Emperor Caesar Titus AElius Adrianus Antoninus Augustus Pius, Supreme Pontiff, in the fifteenth year of his tribuneship, Consul for the third time, Father of the fatherland, to the Common Assembly of Asia, greeting: I should have thought that the gods themselves would see to it that such offenders should not escape. For if they had the power, they themselves would much rather punish those who refuse to worship them; but it is you who bring trouble on these persons, and accuse as the opinion of atheists that which they hold, and lay to their charge certain other things which we are unable to prove. But it would be advantageous to them that they should be thought to die for that of which they are accused, and they conquer you by being lavish of their lives rather than yield that obedience which you require of them. And regarding the earthquakes which have already happened and are now occurring, it is not seemly that you remind us of them, losing heart whenever they occur, and thus set your conduct in contrast with that of these men; for they have much greater confidence towards God than you yourselves have. And you, indeed, seem at such times to ignore the gods, and you neglect the temples, and make no recognition of the worship of God. And hence you are jealous of those who do serve Him, and persecute them to the death. Concerning such persons, some others also of the governors of provinces wrote to my most divine father; to whom he replied that they should not at all disturb such persons, unless they were found to be attempting anything against the Roman government. And to myself many have sent intimations regarding such persons, to whom I also replied in pursuance of my father's judgment. But if any one has a matter to bring against any person of this class, merely as such a person, let the accused be acquitted of the charge, even though he should be found to be such an one; but let the accuser he amenable to justice."

Justin Martyr, The First Apology, ch. 70.

[Lex]

50. Most of those references are to early Christianity, not to Jesus as a man

and as one living, breathing human.

[papau]

53. But Christianity is about Christ - and there are a lot of specifics -

An atheist is just a faithful a believer in his faith as any Christian - so any attempt to convince the other side is bound to fail - so I will not attempt such a feat.

On DU all we can ask for is tolerance of one anothers beliefs.

Of course we know the other side is wrong and not logical, but Moma said it is the rule of mere comity and courtesy to agree where you can, and you do not try to rub the other sides nose in their error when you do not have to.

So at least some of us do not try to do so.

Others do seem to be looking for converts. Whatever floats your boat.

:-)

[Lex]

55. "Christ" was an umbrella term---from the Greek "christos"

meaning "anointed one" or "chosen one."

Jesus was supposedly a human man too.

Now we use the terms (Jesus and Christ) interchangably, but I don't believe that was historically the case back then.

[The Straight Story]

63. So out of interest - what does one constitute as proof in cases like this

where a figure is supposed to have existed a great time ago?

I think we come to rely on the testimony of others in such cases. I do find it of interest that during this time period I have not seen much that claims he never did exist (ie, them thar crazy followers of that jesus fellow are nuts, since no one ever saw him....etc).

[papau]

66. I believe you will find that it indeed was the case back then. Jesus does

not say that he is God, if that is your point.

But the terms were used interchangably.

[Lex]

68. But the term "christos" was used generically for others who were followed

as well and there were many, not just Jesus in that time period. Jesus might've been referred to as christ, but the term was used as an umbrella term too.

In other words, back then he wasn't the only one referred to as "christos" but it didn't apply specifically to Jesus as it does now.

[papau]

74. That is true - and indeed was true for hundreds of years w/o a group of

"Christians" forming in the days before Jesus. Not that other anointed ones did not have followers.

But I think you are streching a bit if you want to use the above to argue for no physical Jesus.

A fellow named Barker has a book out that argues for no physical Jesus - and there are many fun reads that show how Mr. Barker errors and is a bit undereducated - one of which is the following from the URL below which is reprinted with permission
http://www.tektonics.org/harmonize/lincoln01.html

Harmonization

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Issue of Complementary Accounts - Part 1
James Patrick Holding

The Bible preserves two sets of accounts about the same set of historical events. The books of Chronicles, matched with the rest of the OT, is the first set, and the four Gospels provide the second set. On the one hand this is quite beneficial, but it has also proved a gold mine for critics looking to destroy the claim of Biblical inerrancy, for there are many who hold that the differences in reporting the same events in the Gospels should be classed as contradictions.

Robin Lane Fox, in his book The Unauthorized Version, has written:
Harmony is a misguided method: if we want the truth, we have to choose one of the three or none.

Nothing could be more incorrect. Harmony is an essential part of any attempt to find the truth where we have conflicting yet similar accounts. Skeptics, of course, view harmony as something illicit when applied to the Gospels or the OT. Jim Meritt complains mightily, describing harmony thusly: "There was more there than...." This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b", so they decide there was "a" AND "b" -which is said nowhere. This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a+b". But it doesn't say there was "a+b+litle green martians". This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e. only "a") and the only way. I find it entertaining they they (sic) don't mind adding to verses.

In the same vein, Dan Barker writes: Some apologists assert that since the writer of John does not say that there were not more women who visited the tomb with Mary, then it is wrong to accuse him of contradicting the other evangelists who say it was a group of women. But this is a non-argument. With this kind of thinking, I could claim that the people who accompanied Mary to the tomb included Mother Teresa, Elvis Presley, and Paul Bunyan. Since the writer of John does not specifically clude these people, then there is no way to prove that this is not true--if such fragile logic is valid.

Obviously, we cannot get overly creative when resolving seemingly contradictory accounts. When invoking speculative factors - which indeed, ultimately and by nature, are arguments from silence - only reasonable speculations that fit in with the characters, setting, the known facts of the situation, and human nature, can be used. "Litle (sic) green martians" or "Mother Teresa" etc. would indeed by ludicrous - but people who might have been there would not be unreasonable. Glenn Miller has answered these complaints succinctly in his own unique way:

For some reason, these arguments don't ever seem to be satisfied. If we have N witnesses to an event, they want "N+1"...And if EVERY SINGLE WRITER talks about the event in EXACT detail, they are accused of "collusion" and "conspiracy". And if EVERY SINGLE WRITER talks about the event, but uses different vocab, style, levels of precison, of selection of details, THEN the antagonists complain about 'contradictions' and 'disagreements'! What's a mother to do?!!!! (I am always amused at these 'argument from silence' literary positions and the ability to spoof it... ("Since Jesus never spoke his own name in the Gospels, he must not have known it!"). <snip>



General Assumption #1. If it is only mentioned in one Gospel, it is doubtful that it happened.
This is nothing more than an argument from silence at its core. Of course, the corollary and logical next steps would be that if it is mentioned in 2 Gospels, it may have happened; 3, it probably did happen, and if it is in all four, it definitely happened; so that would mean that the Resurrection definitely happened! But of course, critics never take these next steps because it upsets the apple cart.

General Assumption #2: If it reflects the needs, likely questions, or problems of the early church, it is doubtful that it was said or done by Jesus. Instead, the words and deeds were written back into the Gospel records.
In the words of the Seminar: "Sayings and parables expressed in 'Christian' language are the creation of the evangelists or their Christian predecessors...The Christian community developed apologetics statements to defend its claims and sometimes attributed such statements to Jesus." (pp. 24-5) No matter how you say it, the bottom line is : The Gospels writers were liars. They invented sayings of Jesus to address problems in the church. So:

CHURCH MEMBERS: Hey, Matthew, we've got a problem. We need to know if it's a sin to put the lid on a spaghetti pot before the water boils. Jesus never said anything about it, did He?
MATTHEW: Um......

CHURCH MEMBERS: We've searched all the writings you've given us, and none of us remembers any stories you told that would help.

MATTHEW: Can I see my writings again, please?

(CHURCH MEMBERS pass Matthew a copy of his writings. Matthew turns his back and begins scribbling furiously.)

CHURCH MEMBERS: What are you doing?

MATTHEW: Um...just correcting a scribal error I noticed! Hang on a minute, I think I found something! (Matthew stops scribbling after a moment, then turns around.) There you go! I found something! See? "Jesus said unto His disciples, 'Do not place the lid on the pot before it boils.' " There's your answer!

CHURCH MEMBERS: Gee! We never saw that before! Thanks, Matthew!


While the above is, of course, a parody, it does reflect the sort of ignorance and gullibility that is assumed to have been in the early church. Attempts have been made to downplay the "dishonesty" of the Gospel writers by authors such as Burton L. Mack, who indicates that it was a literary convention of the time to attribute statements falsely to people; but it was not considered dishonest as long as the statements were in keeping within a person's character. Of course, this does nothing more than change what the Gospel writers were lying about: If they attributed statements to Jesus that were not within Jesus' character, then they lied about His character! Nor is there any evidence that this practice that Mack cites was used without qualification, or used in the case of the Gospels; he and others merely assume that it was, by virtue of the assumption that such practice existed and was presumably widespread.
The Seminar, of course, assumes that Jesus was not trying to found a movement and did not claim to be divine; hence such statements by Jesus are fabricated. This issue will be discussed in more detail in another essay; but for now, we plan to demonstrate how easy - and absurd - it is to make such presuppositions.


General Assumption #3: If it reflects something that was already being taught in Judaism or some other philosophy at the time, it is doubtful that it was said or done by Jesus.
The Seminar puts it this way: "Words borrowed from the fund of common lore or the Greek scriptures are often put on the lips of Jesus." (p. 23) This is rather a stringent demand to place upon any literary work. To their credit, the Seminar does not ALWAYS say that such quotes are invented; they admit that at times Jesus may have used common lore and proverbs when speaking. (Actually, that Jesus did use common lore and such should be taken as authenticating the Gospel records; but in the wild world of the Seminar, this is not the case.) Skeptics often take this argument a bit further by asserting that elements of the Gospels (the virgin birth, for example) were borrowed from other religions or fables.

General Assumption #4: If it has a miraculous element, it didn't happen.
The Seminar says: "Sayings and narratives that reflect knowledge of events that took place after Jesus' death are the creation of the evangelists or the oral tradition before them." (p. 25)This is mentioned for the sake of completeness. Obviously, it will not be addressed here, and properly belongs in another discussion; but we will attempt something of a parallel to it later on. We should also note that to support this standard, the Seminar dates all of the Gospels (except maybe Mark) as late as 80-95 AD, a position which is quite arguable.

General Assumption #5: The Gospel writers added to or expanded upon Jesus' sayings with their own interpretations or comments, or attributed their own statements and/or stories to the Gospels.
This is easy to assume, but difficult to prove. The Jesus Seminar creates a variety of scenarios to explain how certain parts of the Gospels have been thusly altered, generally using elements of Assumptions 2 and 3.

General Assumption #6: Many saying of Jesus are invented for the occasion. (p. 30)
The Seminar applies this mainly to non-teaching words of Jesus. For example, where Jesus exorcises a demon and says, "Come out of him!" this is regarded as just being storytellers' license to fit the situation. (This is really rather petty - and may we ask what one does say to a demon one is trying to expel? "Upsy-daisy, demon!" perhaps?) It is also said that such sayings could not have been transmitted orally, in the context of a larger story, so they cannot be relied upon - ignoring the possibility that the story itself may have been transmitted in writing, or that oral tradition can indeed be reliable to the required extent!

General Assumption #7: Only sayings and actions that fit a specified portrait of Jesus are authentic.
The Seminar has a host of criteria in this regard which we will not recount here. However, it is noteworthy that one admonition to their members is to beware of finding a Jesus that is congenial to them - is this not what they are doing when they set arbitrary criteria beforehand? (Obviously, for them, this wipes out all of Jesus' claims to divinity.)

For the moment we will set aside these seven suppositions, and return purely to the principle of harmony. It is best proved by application; and to that end, we present two examples.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARMONY #1 - CURRENT EVENTS
To better illustrate how harmony can be helpful - and is indeed legitimate - let's consider a set of articles from two leading and trusted news magazines, Time and Newsweek. Below are excerpts from three stories from each magazine of the date September 30, 1996. The topics are:


The investigation into the crash of TWA Flight 800;
Possible poison gas effects on Gulf War veterans; and,
The discovery of a North Korean sub off of a South Korean beach.
(I am painfully aware that I will be accused of misquoting, quoting out of context, etc. to prove my point. To those who say so: Find my sources and check 'em yourself. Then feel free to call me a liar to my face.)

Story #1:

TIME (P. 32): "A THEORY GONE TO THE DOGS"
"On Thursday investigators learned that on June 10 St. Louis airport police had used the plane as a testing facility for a bomb-sniffing dog, and that the tiny amount of chemicals used to test the dog could be the source of the residue found on the plane parts."
NEWSWEEK (P. 34): "GOING BACK TO SQUARE ONE"
"...senior officials at the Department of Justice admitted last week that the plane known as TWA Flight 800 had been used to train bomb-sniffing dogs only five weeks before its mysterious destruction July on July 17. That suggests an innocent explanation for the presence of RDX and PETN...in the wreckage of the doomed plane."

So let's play Bible critic and pick these apart. Was there just one dog (Time) or more than one (Newsweek)? Was it "investigators who learned" or "officials who admitted"? How could the date of the test been June 10 when five weeks before July 17 was June 12? Why are no chemicals named in Time where they are named in Newsweek? Why isn't St. Louis mentioned in Newsweek? It seems picky, but some of these are just like "errors" that Bible critics like to pounce on - such as the "women at the tomb" issue and the story of the healing of the blind men outside Jericho. As Matthew says "two blind men" where Luke and Mark say "a blind man," it is not said in the latter that there was ONLY one! Likewise, Time's story COULD be read to indicate just one dog, but not necessarily.

Story #2:

TIME (P. 42): "THE GULF WAR POISONS SEEP OUT"
"For five long years, the Pentagon steadfastly insisted there was no evidence that U.S. soldiers were exposed to poison gas during the Gulf War..."
"(Symptoms) includes chronic fatigue, joint ailments, rashes and memory loss."

NEWSWEEK (P.38): "A MYSTERIOUS MALADY"
"Is Gulf War syndrome a single illness? If so, what causes it, and how many veterans are afflicted? Government agencies have spent five years and $80 million pursuing those questions."

"(Symptoms) include joint pain, tremors, fatigue, memory loss, and intermittent diarrhea..."

Here's one for the government conspiracy theorists! Was the government denying the problem, or pursuing a solution? Obviously, it was doing both simultaneously, as we know. But a historian digging up copies of these magazines 2000 years from now might think that there was an error in the texts. And then there's the lists of symptoms - contradictory or complimentary? The latter, definitely; but in each case, the writers of the article just put down what they thought was most important - just as the Gospel writers sometimes did. Last story:

Story #3:

TIME (P.44): "THE SPIES FROM THE SEA"
"..one night last week, a South Korean taxi driver spotted something like a whale wallowing in the surf."
NEWSWEEK (P. 40): "REDS ON THE ROCKS"
"Just after midnight last Wednesday, a taxi chugging along the Kangnung highway on the east coast of South Korea threw its headlights briefly on a group of young men sitting by the roadside..."

"(After dropping off a passenger and returning to the site, the driver said he saw) 'something that looked like a dolphin or a submarine' and called police."


Note how quickly Time deals with this matter, whereas Newsweek delves into some intricate details - just as Mark gives short shrift to some stories that Matthew and Luke expand upon greatly. Note, too, this difference: Was what the driver saw like a whale, or like a dolphin, or like a submarine? Could the persons translating what the Korean taxi driver said have misunderstood or given their own interpretation to their respective reporters?
If skeptics accord these magazines the same treatment as they do the Bible, then to be consistent they must also say that these magazines are untrustworthy. (Of course, there are some skeptics who don't believe ANYTHING they read!) But isn't it more charitable to assume that we have misunderstood something, and look for the solutions to the alleged problems?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARMONY #2 - THE QUEST FOR THE HISTORICAL LINCOLN
For this comparison, four biographies of Abraham Lincoln were chosen at random from the shelves of the public library, the only criteria being that they were:

Of equitable size to one another;
Focusing on Abraham Lincoln as their primary biographical subject - thus, for example, a dual biography of Lincoln and his wife was rejected.
Through this comparison, we will:

Demonstrate that the alleged discrepancies and differences in the Gospels are no more problematic than the differences that may be found in any comparison of biographies; and,
Use the seven presuppositions mentioned above to deduce what the "Historical Abraham Lincoln" was "really like." Thus, we will demonstrate the truly arbitrary and unscholarly nature of the presuppositions.
And now, to make the situation of these biographies more equitable with that of the Gospels - let's create the following fictional scenario:



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

Welcome to the year 3735.

Near the start of the 21st century, an asteroid some seven miles in diameter slammed into the mid-Atlantic ridge just south of Iceland, setting off a chain of destruction that nearly annihilated all life and culture on our planet.

Less than fifty thousand survived the resulting chaos. The technological societies of the Americas, Europe and Japan were wiped out.

Now, our reconstruction of society nearly complete, we seek to reconstruct our past - and that is where I come in.

Allow me to introduce myself. I am Teachminder Phonias J. Futz, and it is my ambition to reconstruct the history of one of Earth's foremost pre-20th century personages - Abraham Lincoln.

This turns out to be a more difficult task than you might imagine. The only things still known for certain about Lincoln in my time are:

That he was President over the major power in the Americas, sometimes called Usa;
That he presided over the country in a time of internecine conflict.
These were the core facts that were left to us.

Some less believable and non-authentic information we have relates to Lincoln taking some major action to end slavery. That this actually happened, at least as described, is doubtful. The extreme bigotry and prejudice known to have existed in the 19th and 20th centuries makes it unlikely that someone of that era would make an effort to end an institution that provided important economic stimulus and confirmed the prevailing (and of course incorrect) view that various races were somehow inferior to the dominant American race. All stories attributing the ending of slavery to Lincoln should be regarded as apocryphal, a mere creation of pro-Lincoln civil rights forces. If slavery ended at all, it ended in the early to mid-20th century, although many areas of America surely took an initiative and ended it well before then.

My mission began with scouring the globe, looking for any ancient sources about Lincoln that might have survived the Catastrophe. I was able to uncover only four biographies from the 20th century that had survived intact. They, and their apparent purposes, are (in chronological order):


Masters, Edgar Lee. Lincoln the Man. New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1931. The purpose of this author was found on an attachment that was affixed to the inside text by some adhesive. This makes it of doubtful relevance, but it seems to adequately describe the contents:
"In the vast Lincoln literature this work of Mr. Masters is the first which deals with Lincoln by way of analysis of his mind and nature; and in terms of politico-legalistic criticism of Lincoln's theories respecting the nature of the Union, and of his acts and measures as President."

Masters' work is important because it is written closest to the time of Lincoln and in some cases may not having been colored by later influences. But it still is of sufficient distance from Lincoln's death - about 75 years - for legend and myth to have creeped in.


Basler, Roy P. The Lincoln Legend: A Study in Changing Conceptions. New York: Octagon Books, 1969. This sobering analysis turned out to be the most valuable of the four. It is both a biography and an explosive, provocative expose' of the many myths surrounding Lincoln.
Why is it therefore most valuable? It is known that the period between 1960 and the Catastrophe was a time of significant social upheaval. The civil rights movement coalesced, and much of their focus was upon groups that had been previously oppressed by slavery and were still being denied basic civil rights. Lincoln was selected as a hero for this movement, and it is therefore reasonable to assume that - with all good intentions - images of Lincoln after the formation of the movement reflected the desires and opinions of that movement. Basler's book appears to have been an attempt to counter the total absorption and remaking of Lincoln. This effort, as we shall see, failed miserably.


Oates, Stephen. With Malice Toward None. New York: New American Library, 1977. The self-description of this book tells all:
"Here is Lincoln in his bitter struggle to rise from poverty to self-made success in business and law. Lincoln, the politician who survived crushing defeat and disappointment; Lincoln, the husband and father who came to know both tender love and shattering loss...Here is Lincoln as he really was - and as we now come to know him for the first time. Lincoln - the man, not the myth."

1977 was at the heart of the civil rights movement, and here we see that Lincoln, despite Basler, has been taken over by it, and that the movement has asserted their own history for the man. The description is almost nauseating in its praise; and note the italicized words - apparently these authors recognized that their "version" of the life of Lincoln was going to be unique!

Did Oates get away with this abominable treachery? Yes, and worse - there are pages full of positive reviews for his book. This is suspicious, for how could the press praise a book that had just been published? Probably because the media, of course, was behind the civil rights movement (and rightly so). I view them as mostly unfortunate, unknowing pawns in the effort to remake Lincoln, at least at the time of Oates. But their participation and collusion went further by the time of our last author:


Donald, David Herbert. Lincoln. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995. The effusive self-praise and rhetoric in this book's self-description is almost deafening:
"This fully rounded biography..."

"In Donald's skillful hands, Lincoln emerges as a vigorous, youthful President."

"Donald's biography is written from Lincoln's point of view."

"Donald's strikingly original portrait of Lincoln..."

How "original" is Donald's portrait of Lincoln? So original that it is full of events and reports not mentioned in the other three biographies. This, and the stated purpose of the book, gives us ample cause to regard Donald's book with suspicion.

The media, at this time, was so deluded by the movement to recreate Lincoln that they awarded Donald a Pulitzer Prize!

The works of Oates and Donald are also clearly written in popular narrative style. This is strongly indicative of fabrication.



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

In all fairness, the movement to recreate Lincoln was one with noble intent. The 20th century was a barbaric time, when people around the world suffered oppression; some 90 percent of the population lived in desperate poverty. People needed a savior, and Lincoln was a natural choice, having been first of all a leader, and second of all being sufficiently distant from the 20th century for these writers to recreate a history that fit their needs. We, however, have no need for such a hero in our enlightened time. We may admire Lincoln for what he was in truth; but we may also freely strip him of the excess baggage attached to him in part by Masters and Basler, and in full by Oates and Donald.

Owing the variable taintedness of all four of these documents, we are constrained to adapt seven primary criteria for their evaluation:

If only one of the writers mentions it, it probably did not happen. As alluded to just before, this will apply mainly to Donald's biography.
Events and sayings expressed in language like that of the 20th century are the creation of the authors. The pro-Lincoln civil-rights community developed statements to defend its claims and attributed words and actions to Lincoln that backed up their claims.
Words or events that resemble those of the 20th century are often ascribed to Lincoln and his contemporaries.
Anything that seems incredible, probably didn't happen.
The writers, according to their own biases, added to or expanded upon Lincoln's deeds and words.
Many of Lincoln's words or deeds are invented for an occasion.
Only words or deeds that reflect our present knowledge and conception of Lincoln may be regarded as authentic.
In addition, we shall note contradictions between the accounts. These contradictions serve to warn us of the unreliability of these documents.

We will begin with an examination of Lincoln's early life.



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

1.1.1 Lincoln's Mother (Nancy Hanks Lincoln) - Basic Description

Because Lincoln's mother died when he was young, there is comparatively little information about her.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1.1.1 Her Lineage
Masters: Reports that Lincoln confided to a friend, William Herndon, that his mother was the natural child of Lucy Hanks and "a well-bred Virginia planter." Reports that Lucy had been indicted in Kentucky on a charge of "unbecoming conduct." (pp. 11-12)

Basler: "The illegitimacy of Nancy seems at last to be above suspicion." Basler notes that two different and varying genealogies were created in an attempt to prove her legitimacy. Masters' quote concerning the Virginia planter is repeated almost verbatim in a footnote. (p. 111)

Oates: Refers to her "confused and cloudy past" and says that "a controversy has long raged over Nancy's legitimacy, with many authorities insisting that she was born out of wedlock and others retorting that she was not." He also notes the notation from Herndon about Lincoln himself saying that his mother was illegitimate. (pp. 6-7)

Donald: Reports that a grand jury in Mercer County, Kentucky, "presented a charge of fornication" against Lucy Hanks, and that Lincoln thought that his mother was illegitimate. Says Lincoln believed that his mother was illegitimate, but rarely discussed it; one time that he did was with Herndon, when he also observed that "illegitimate children were 'oftentimes sturdier and brighter than those born in lawful wedlock,' " with his mother being a primary example, stating that she was the daughter of Lucy Hanks and "a well-bred Virginia farmer or planter." (pp. 19-20)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
This is but a small example of the changes wrought by the evolution of Lincoln. The overall effort seems to be to distance Lincoln from Nancy, while creating an image for him as a loving and forgiving son. Note these differences:
The "Virginia planter" (Masters, Basler) quote grows into "Virginia farmer or planter" (Donald) - apparently an effort to muddy the waters and keep anti-Lincoln forces from finding out about Nancy's true origins. This is an example of the writers adding on to information according to their pro-Lincoln bias.
The charge against Lucy grows mysteriously from "unbecoming conduct" (Masters) to a more serious charge of "fornication" (Donald). This effects to widen the distance between Lincoln and Nancy.
Note also these efforts to cloud Nancy's already clouded past: The two genealogies cited by Basler, and Oates' wishy-washy claim that experts are still debating the issue! In Masters' and Baslers' day, the issue seemed quite settled! Apparently this was realized by Donald to be a useless tactic; he instead invents a larger quote to Herndon, no hints of which are in the earlier accounts; at any rate, being that Herndon was an unreliable source (see his entry), we may assert that either he or these writers simply assumed that this is merely the sort of thing that Lincoln would have said on such an occasion. These words were created to back up the claim that Lincoln was a loving son, and as a corollary, that he was worthy of respect because he forgave his mother in spite of her questionable background.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1.1.2 Her Appearance
Masters: Notes that there are a variety of reports of Nancy's appearance, including variations in her eye and hair color and stature. "...Lincoln himself left no description of her..." (pp. 12-13)

Basler: Also notes the varieties of description. (p. 107)

Oates: Asserts a brief yet definite appearance for Nancy: "thin, dark-haired...with eyes like pools of sadness..." (p. 5)

Donald: Cites a variety of descriptions, differing in respect to her height, build, and beauty.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
There is little of note here, although it seems that Oates attempted to assert of definite appearance for Nancy in order to give his other, fallacious assertions about her more credence. The tactic obviously did not work, for Donald reverts to the variety of descriptions.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1.1.3 Her Education
Basler: Notes that while those who knew her thought of her as intellectual, "The matter of Nancy's education has never been and probably never will be settled." Basler compares on the one hand, images of Nancy "reading the Bible and teaching (Lincoln) to write" with the fact that there are no signed legal documents by her, and the evaluation of one biographer that she was "absolutely illiterate." (pp. 107-8)

Oates: "Unable to read, she recited prayers for the children and quoted memorized passages from the family Bible. Incapable of even writing her name, (she) signed legal documents with her mark." (p. 5)

Donald: "According to tradition, she was able to read, but, like many other frontier women, she did not know how to write and had to sign legal documents with an X." (p. 23)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
Here, it seems, was a clumsy attempt to give Abraham Lincoln some source for his intelligence while dealing with the obvious and incontrovertible fact that his mother has left no visible indication of literacy. Oates and Donald absolutely contradict each other (and Basler), one saying that Nancy couldn't read, the other saying that she could. Also, Donald's statement that she could read but not write is an absurdity.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1.1.4 Her Meeting with Lincoln's Father
Masters: Records that the two met during an ecstatic religious meeting, described exaggeratedly as an "orgy". (p. 14)

Donald: States only that she married Thomas Lincoln in 1806.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
Masters' story was apparently too embarrassing for even Basler to report; it was quite likely violently suppressed. This is an obvious attempt to cover up Lincoln's sultry origins and make him a more adequate icon for the civil rights movement.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1.1.5 Lincoln's Opinion of His Mother
Masters: Lincoln was reportedly stung by his mother's illegitimacy (p. 66).

Basler: Reportedly Lincoln once said: "All that I am, or hope to be, I owe to my angel mother." Basler writes of this: "It is such an expression as any man is likely to make, but...(it) has furnished the keynote of the Nancy Hanks legend." (p. 108)

Oates: Indicates that his mother's obscure origins, along with his general family history, was a "social albatross about his neck." (p. 60) Indicates that he left his mother's grave without a monument. (p. 104)

Donald: Says Lincoln rarely discussed his mother's illegitimacy. "(Lincoln) referred to her as his 'angel mother,' partly in recognition of her loving affection, but partly to distinguish her from his stepmother, who was very much alive. If he ever said, as Herndon reported, 'God bless my mother; all that I am or ever hope to be I owe to her,' it was a tribute not so much to her maternal care as to the genes that she allegedly transmitted from his unnamed grandfather." (p. 23)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
This again shows an attempt to distance Lincoln from his mother while still allowing for him to have cared for her. The "angel mother" quote is subtly altered by Donald, and made into a reference to a supposed genetic gift - which is ridiculous, since the science of genetics had yet to be discovered in Lincoln's time. It, too, is put on Lincoln's lips to reflect what the writers believe that Lincoln would have said at the time. Three writers at least agree that Lincoln was uncomfortable with his mother's status.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1.2 Lincoln's Father (Thomas Lincoln)- Basic Description
Masters: "Thomas Lincoln had all the indicia of the Southern poor white...He was unmoral, shiftless, bound down in poverty, in spite of the fact that he had inherited enough from his father Abraham (Note: Abraham Lincoln's same-named grandfather) to have made him well circumstanced, if he had possessed ambition and prudence. He was described as a man five feet, ten and one-half inches in height, and of great strength, and in disposition rather good-natured and amiable..." (pp. 9-10)

Basler: "(His) life was rough and poor, but neither rougher nor poorer than were the lives of many others...the worst that can be said of him was that he was always poor..." (pp. 14-15)

Oates: Dennis Hanks "falsely characterized (Thomas Lincoln) as a slow and shiftless oaf a who neglected his family." (p. 8)

"...Thomas was a popular yarn-spinner and enjoyed considerable status as a skilled carpenter, whose cupboards and furniture enriched the cabins of his neighbors."(p.10)

Donald: His personal description: "...a stocky, well-built man of no more than average height, with a shock of straight black hair and an unusually large nose. 'He was an uneducated man, a plain unpretending plodding man,' a neighbor remembered; one who 'attended to his work, peaceable - quiet and good natured.' 'Honest' was the adjective most frequently used to describe Thomas Lincoln, and he was respected in his community, where he served in the militia and was called for jury duty." (p. 22)

States that Thomas Lincoln received no "patrimony" from his father, "all the money" having been taken by an older brother. "Abraham Lincoln never fully understood how hard his father had to struggle during his early years..." (p. 24)

"After an exceptional burst of energy at the time of his second marriage, (Thomas) began to slow down. He was probably not in good health, for one neighbor remembered that he became blind in one eye and lost sight in the other. He was not a lazy man, another settler reported, but 'a tinkler - a piddler - always doing but doing nothing great.' "


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
It is not difficult to discern a pattern of rehabilitation in the later accounts, to the point of fabrication: Donald ignores the inheritance reported by Masters because it does not suit his purposes. Note, also, the glowing descriptions of Thomas Lincoln in the latter two reports, compared to the moderate reports by the first two. Note how Thomas evolves from being shiftless and imprudent (Masters) to being convival and hard-working, and having stories of his laziness invented by a jealous relative (Oates), to not being lazy and, in fact, having good health reasons for not working (Donald).
One particular aspect demonstrates the paradigm shift even more aptly:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1.2.2 Thomas Lincoln's Attitude Towards Slavery
Masters: "In March of 1805 he was appointed a patroller of Hardin County, and by the duties of that office he became a slave catcher, empowered to catch and whip insubordinate negroes..." (pp. 9-10)

Basler: "(He) is not without his legendary aspects, however; one of the most persistent of which is that he was the first Abolitionist in Kentucky...It fitted well into the biography of his son...(but) an aversion to slavery did not keep Thomas from serving as slave 'patroller' in 1805." (Basler then recounts a legend of the young Thomas Lincoln setting free a slave that he inherited, and being ostracized as a result.) (p. 114-5)

Oates: "He stayed sober, accumulated land, paid his taxes, sat on juries, and served on the county slave patrol. Though he came from a family of small slaveholders and undoubtedly shared the anti-Negro prejudice of nearly all whites of his generation, he came to question the peculiar institution itself...In 1816 Thomas and Nancy Lincoln united with the separatist (antislavery) church and sang and prayed with its antislavery ministers." (p. 6)

Donald: Donald also mentions Thomas and Nancy's joining an antislavery church, the "Separate Baptist Church," and writes: "Thomas Lincoln's hostility to slavery was based on economic as well as religious grounds. he did not want to compete with slave labor...." (p. 24)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
A brief note, referring back to the earlier entry - did Thomas serve in the militia and get called for jury duty (Donald), or were accumulating land, paying taxes, and sitting on juries the fruits of his citizenship (Oates)? This is partially contradictory.
Note what happens to Thomas Lincoln's role as a slave patroller. Oates attempts to countermand this image of Thomas by portraying him as a basically good citizen and reporting what is probably a fictitious account of Thomas and Nancy joining an anti-slavery church. (This is a tale in line with the one cited by Basler; it is hardly credible that a former slave patroller who whipped escaped slaves would have such a reversal in temperament!) The account is further embellished by Donald, who proceeds to invent a name for the church, and neglects to even mention that Thomas was a patroller! Can there be any clearer evidence that history has been tampered with? All of this serves, of course, to buttress the claim that Abraham himself somehow was anti-slavery; if his father was, so it goes, it is reasonable to assume that he could have been too! But most of Lincoln's anti-slavery views and actions are a product of the 20th century, and so are Thomas'. Few 19th-century men would have been so enlightened, and certainly almost none from the oppressing race.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1.2.3 Thomas' Second Marriage
Masters: "In the winter of 1819 Thomas journeyed from Indiana back to Elizabethtown, Kentucky, where he married Sarah Bush Johnston, a widow, to whom he had proposed marriage before he married Nancy Hanks." (p. 10)

Basler: Notes the recorded marriage of Thomas to Sarah Bush Johnston in Elizabethtown, Kentucky. (p. 118)

Oates: "...(Sally Johnston and Thomas) had known each other for more than a decade...Since her husband's death, she had lived in a modest cabin she had bought herself. Thomas found her there, proposed, paid her debts, and married her in a Methodist ceremony." (p. 9)

Donald: "Within a year of Nancy's death, Thomas Lincoln recognized that he and his boys could not go one alone, and he went back to Kentucky to seek a bride. In Elizabethtown he found Sarah Bush Johnston, whom he had perhaps unsuccessfully courted before he wed Nancy." (p. 27)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
There is not much insidious here, although we may observe that the in the later biographies this second marriage to Sarah Johnston takes on the guise of an act of charity - an obvious attempt to rehabilitate Thomas Lincoln.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1.2.4 Abraham's Reaction to Thomas' Death
Masters: "Down at Goose Nest Prairie in Coles County, in the winter of 1850-51, Thomas Lincoln became ill, and showed signs of soon dying, as he did. Lincoln's stepbrother wrote him touching the aged man's condition. Lincoln did not answer. Then another letter was written Lincoln, this time by Harriet Hanks. Now in the extremity of death the old man wanted to see the son..."

Masters notes that Lincoln replied to this letter with his own, indicating that business and his wife's poor health would keep him from coming. (p. 140)

Lincoln much later "put up a stone to the long neglected grave of his father (p. 376)

Basler: "Then, too, there was general knowledge that Abraham Lincoln had never had much respect or love for his own father. Indeed, it would seem that he held not even the love of a friend for his father. He would not visit him during the lengthy illness that terminated the old man's life, and he did not attend the funeral..." (p. 114)

Oates: On Thomas Lincoln's death, Oates reports that it was Lincoln's stepbrother, John Johnston, who wrote to Lincoln of his father's deathly condition. Lincoln replied - to Johnston, in January 1851 - that he did not reply because 'it appeared to me I could write nothing which could do any good,' and that both his wife's illness and pressing business commitments made a visit impossible. Oates notes that Lincoln did not attend Thomas' funeral. (pp. 103-4)

After an emotional visit with his stepmother, Lincoln visited Thomas' grave and "ordered a stone marker for Thomas' grave. At least the old man should have a marker." (p. 223)

Donald: As Thomas neared death, he heard in May 1849 from John Johnston. Also, "At Johnston's request, Augustus H. Chapman, Dennis Hanks' son-in-law, reinforced the plea with a letter describing Thomas Lincoln's 'Seizure of the Heart' and his 'truly Heart-Rendering' cries to see his only son. Though Lincoln at the time was actively campaigning to secure appointment as commissioner of the General Land Office, he rushed off to Coles County to see his father, probably missing a second letter from Chapman assuring him that Thomas Lincoln had no heart disease and would 'doubtless be well in a Short time.' Lincoln's visit to Goosenest Prairie delayed by nearly a wekk his trip to Washington, and it may have cost him the Land Office appointment.

"The next winter, when John D. Johnston wrote him two more letter about Thomas Lincoln's declining health, Abraham Lincoln did not respond. He thought that his stepbrother was again crying wolf. Only after he heard independently from Harriet Chapman did he take the news seriously."

Lincoln cited business concerns and his wife's sickness as reasons that he could not visit; Donald notes that the business aspects could have been covered by Lincoln's law partners or put off, and that Lincoln's wife could have been left in the care of friends and neighbors; but says "Once again, the husband allowed his wife to take the blame for an uncomfortable decision." "Unable to simulate a grief that he did not feel or an affection that he did not bear, Lincoln did not attend his father's funeral. He was not heartless, but Thomas Lincoln represented a world that his son had long ago left behind him." (pp. 152-3)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
It is sad to see the pathetic extremes to which Oates and Donald stoop in an attempt to make both father and son look good in this matter. Notice, first, though, these irreconcilable contradictions as to who it was that wrote to Lincoln to inform him of his father's demise. Was it John Johnston and the single Harriet Hanks (Masters), Johnston only (Oates), or Johnston and Harriet Hanks, now married as Harriet Chapman (Donald)? Or was it indeed anyone (Basler)?
The accounts at least agree that it was business and his wife's health that Lincoln cited as reasons to not visit his father, although Oates attempts subtrefuge by reversing their order of priority. Apparently this attempt to excuse Lincoln's behavior was widely rebuffed, for Donald invents an incredible story, uncorroborated by any of the other writers, about Johnston "crying wolf" and Lincoln losing an important post as a result of rushing to see his father. Also, instead of properly blaming Lincoln, Donald blames Lincoln's wife - thus is inexcusable coldness made excusable by embellishment! And thus we demonstrate how, over time, history is added upon and embellished. Here is another embellishment:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1.2.5 Abraham and Thomas: Reason for their Poor Relations
Masters: Indicates that Abraham did help his father with "small doles" (p. 10) and that he "sent him money from time to time." (p. 140)

Basler: Says no more than the above.

Oates: Oates attributes the estrangement between Lincoln and his father to a difference in education: "Probably Thomas felt both respect and resentment for a son who read books and wrote poetry, moving toward a world of the mind Thomas could neither share nor comprehend. And young Lincoln, for his part, had considerable hostility - all mixed up with love, rivalry, and ambition - for his father's intellectual limitations. In later years Lincoln remarked that his father 'never did more in the way of writing than bunglingly sign his own name.' "

Donald: "But Abraham's pulling away from his father was something more significant than a teenage rebellion. Abraham had made a quiet reassessment of the life that Thomas lived. He kept his judgment to himself, but years later it crept into his scornful statements that his father 'grew up, literally without education,' that he 'never did more in the way of writing than to bunglingly sign his own name,' and that he chose to settle in a region where 'there was absolutely nothing to excite ambition for education.' To Abraham Lincoln that was a damning verdict. In all his published writings, and, indeed, even in reports of hundreds of stories and conversations, he had not one favorable word to say about his father." (p. 33)

Donald notes a gift of $200 by Lincoln to his father after the latter suffered an unsuccessful business venture in Coles County, and another gift of $20 sent to prevent Thomas' farm being sold due to a legal judgment. However, "Thomas Lincoln's unambitious, unsuccessful way of life came to represent the values his son wanted to repudiate. He had reason, too, to believe that his father, as he reached seventy, was becoming a little senile and was too much under the influence of the unreliable (John) Johnston."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
How generous, understanding and tolerant Abraham Lincoln becomes in the skilled hands of Oates and Donald! Masters' "small doles" become an amazing (in that time)$200! Why? Because the amount is a late fabrication! That, and the reasoning based on the difference in educational level and ambition, are pure invention, meant to rehabilitate both Lincoln and his father for the purposes of the civil-rights movement.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1.3 Lincoln's Boyhood Living Conditions
1.1.3.1 The "Log Cabin" and Environs

An extended quote here from Masters is warranted.

Masters: "In Lincoln's day (log cabin) windows were fitted with greased paper to admit light, in lieu of glass, which was not obtainable. The floor of these cabins was of earth; the doors were of broad slabs hinged with wood or hide; the fireplace was built of stones and sticks held together by clay...The bed was made of poles resting in notched sticks, and covered with rags. From the crude rafters hung bacon and ham, if the family happened to have any...The kitchen utensils, pots, kettles, and the like, were scanty enough. The whole family, whether there were few or many children, slept in one room. In summer the heat was terrific in Kentucky and middle Indiana; in winter the cold was pitiless...Bathing was unknown, and washing was avoided rather than otherwise, especially in winter when the brook was frozen, or the well or spring afforded water stinging with ice.

"Living was in every way indecent. The cabins were filthy, and rats and other vermin abounded. Men and women undressed before each other; and the children were cognizant of the most intimate relationships carried on within a few feet of where they slept...The food was vile, consisting of pork and game, but much meat at any rate, and of corn and wheat bread which was made from meal ground in crude mortars. The cooking, too, was conducive to all stomach ailments, since nearly everything was fried and in over quantities of grease. People had bad colds in the winter, and fevers in the summer...Much whisky was drunk; and all weird superstitions abounded concerning the moon, the flight of birds, the bringing of a shovel into a room, which meant a near death and there were ghosts and witches about, whispering in dark corners and flying over the roofs. In this sort of cabin was Abraham Lincoln born, in an obscure back settlement of Kentucky of cane brake society, in no wise fit to be called the home of a human being." (pp. 15-16)

Basler: NOTEWORTHY COMMENT: "If (biographers) do not hesitate to paint what they consider an accurate picture of the squalor of (Lincoln's) early life, it is only because that background enhances the romance." (p. 103)

Nothing specific, however, is said of his boyhood living conditions.

Oates: "The truth was that Lincoln felt embarrassed about his log-cabin origins and never liked to talk about them." Lincoln himself said that his early life could be condensed into a single sentence: "The short and simple annals of the poor." (p. 4)

In his own autobiographical notes, Lincoln "Try as he might...could not remember much about Kentucky - and nothing at all about the log-cabin farm..." (p. 5)

Donald: "The land Thomas claimed was in an unbroken forest, so remote that for part of the distance from the Ohio (River) there was no trail and he had to hack out a path so that his family could follow. It was a wild region, and the forests were filled with bears and other threatening animals..."

The family began by living in a temporary camp, then with help "built a proper log cabin. It offered more protection, but because of the freezing weather the men could not work up the usual mixture of clay and grass for chinking between the logs and the winds still swept through."

"The family was able to get through the winter because they ate deer and bear meat...

"The first year in Indiana was a time of backbreaking toil and desperate loneliness for all the family, but by fall they were fairly settled...(p. 25)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
Basler's admonition seems hauntingly accurate here. Gone are Masters' descriptions of squalor, and life as it really was for the young Lincoln, most likely suppressed by pro-Lincoln forces; the hero of Oates and Donald could not possibly have arisen in such dire circumstances! Instead, the facts are either lost in Lincoln's memory (Oates) or romanticized and made not to look so terrible as they seem (Donald).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1.3.2 Lincoln's Early Education
Masters: Lincoln at age 6 or 7 attended a few weeks at the Knob Creek School; "according to his word, he attended school less than a year in his whole life." In Indiana he learned to read, to write and to cipher to the rule of three. From his tenth to his fourteenth year he had no schooling whatever. But about 1822 he came under the instruction of a teacher named Azel W. Dorsey...under Dorsey he learned the fine and characteristic penmanship which is conspicuous in the earliest document which we have in his hand. He also excelled in spelling from the first...He was not expert in arithmetic..." (pp. 16-17)

One Nathaniel Grigsby is cited as saying that Lincoln was always at school early. Lincoln is also characterized as a voracious reader, and several titles he read are listed. (p. 20)

Basler: "The life of young Lincoln as it was remembered in after years by his friends who had known him as a boy...was inevitably remembered in the spiritual presence of the savior of the nation, the martyr and saint...Every act became in some respect hallowed; as the man was great, so was the child...(p. 120)

"Thus is was recalled that he was never late to school...What a model for mothers to point out to their sons!" (p. 121)

Basler explains that the image of Lincoln as a voracious reader is merely the result of reports from his relatives and friends who were "of meager education and generally lowly ambitions in regard to study," so that in their eyes, he was a voracious reader. (p. 122) In fact, "Lincoln was never a consistent reader...That he read sufficiently and with comprehension goes without saying." (p. 123)

Oates: Notes that Lincoln's "first exhilirating brush with education" was "two brief sessions in 1815 and 1816" when he and his sister "could be spared from the family chores in the winter" to walk to "the log schoolhouse on the Cumberland Road," where he learned his alphabet, taught by an unnamed 52-year old Catholic slave owner. (p. 7)

"Between his eleventh and fifteenth years he went to school irregularly...All told, he accumulated about a year of formal education...In later years he scoffed at the instruction he received in Indiana, insisting that 'there was absolutely nothing to excite ambition for education.' 'Still somehow, I could read, write and cipher to the rule of three: but that was all.' " (p. 11)

Oates mentions that Lincoln "took pride in his penmanship" and "enjoyed reading" so much that although "(b)ooks were rare in frontier Indiana...(he) consumed the few that he found, reading the same volume over and over. He would bring his book to the field and would read at the end of each plow furrow while the horse was getting its breath; and he would read again at the noon break." (pp. 12-14)

Donald: Cites a recollection of Lincoln, that he went "for two brief periods" to a nearby school, though mainly for company for his sister rather than to learn anything. "It was first taught by one Zachariah Riney, about whom little is known except that he was a Catholic, and then by Caleb Hazel, who, according to a contemporary, 'could perhaps teach spelling, reading and indifferent writing and perhaps could cipher to the rule of three, but had no other qualifications as a teacher...' " At this school, "Abraham probably mastered the alphabet, but he did not yet know how to write when the family left Kentucky." (p. 23)

In Indiana, Lincoln was enrolled in a school run by one Andrew Crawford, but attended only three months; the next year, he Attended a school run by a James Swaney, although only sporadically because of the distance from his house. "The next year, for about six months, he went to a school taught by Azel W. Dorsey...With that term, at the age of fifteen, his formal education ended. All told, he summarized, 'the aggregate of his schooling did not amount to one year.'

"In later years Lincoln was scornful of these 'schools, so called' which he attended: 'No qualification was ever required of a teacher, beyond readin', writin, and cipherin', to the Rule of Three. If a straggler supposed to understand Latin, happened to sojourn in the neighborhood, he was looked upon as a wizzard.' " (p. 30)

"Through constant repetition and drill (Lincoln) learned how to spell. indeed, he became so proficient that it was hard to stump him in the school spelling bees...So adept did he become that unlettered neighbors in the Pigeon Creek community often asked him to write letters for them.

Of Lincoln's reading habits: "he could never get enough" of reading. A relative, John Hanks, recalled that Lincoln would read during meals; his stepmother said that he would copy passages that struck him onto "boards if he had no paper and keep it there till he did get paper." Donald then describes several books that Lincoln read. (p. 30)

Concerning Lincoln's arithmetic skills, Donald says that Lincoln put together a notebook in which "he recorded complicated calculations involving multiplication (like 34,567,834 x 23,423) and division (such as 4,375,702 divided by 2,432), which he completed with exceptional accuracy, and he also solved problems concerning weights and measures, and figured discounts and simple interest." (p. 31)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
First let us cite the usual "evolutions" of Lincoln. From Masters to Donald, Lincoln has gone from being "not expert" in arithmetic to "extremely accurate" in it! In Donald also, as well as Oates by implication, poor Azel Dorsey is robbed of his specific contribution to Lincoln's education; instead of teaching Lincoln penmanship, these writers would lead us to believe that Lincoln taught it to himself, which is an invention that would suit that pro-Lincoln forces admirably! Three writers at least agree that he attended school no more than a year in total, that he was an avid reader (although Basler's comment should give us pause here), and that he was a good speller, though Oates' and Donald's anecdotes are probably fiction, since they are not mentioned by the other writers - or by each other!
This subject also presents us with some disturbing contradictions:

Masters: "From his tenth to his fourteenth year he had no schooling whatever."

Oates: "Between his eleventh and fifteenth years he went to school irregularly..."

In this time frame, did Lincoln not go to school, or go to school irregularly?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Masters: Lincoln at age 6 or 7 attended a few weeks at the Knob Creek School.
Oates: Lincoln's "first exhilirating brush with education" was "two brief sessions in 1815 and 1816" when he and his sister "could be spared from the family chores in the winter" to walk to "the log schoolhouse on the Cumberland Road," where he learned his alphabet, taught by an unnamed 52-year old Catholic slave owner.

Donald: Lincoln...went "for two brief periods" to a nearby school, though mainly for company for his sister rather than to learn anything. "It was first taught by one Zachariah Riney, about whom little is known except that he was a Catholic, and then by Caleb Hazel..."

Was it the "Knob Creek School," "the log schoolhouse on Cumberland Road," or an unnamed "nearby school"? Was the teacher an unnamed, 52-year old Catholic slave owner, or were there two teachers - a named Catholic (Riney) and Caleb Hazel?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, note the recurrence and shifting of this phrase:
Masters: "In Indiana he learned to read, to write and to cipher to the rule of three."

Oates: "In later years he scoffed at the instruction he received in Indiana, insisting that 'there was absolutely nothing to excite ambition for education.' 'Still somehow, I could read, write and cipher to the rule of three: but that was all.' "

Donald: "In later years Lincoln was scornful of these 'schools, so called' which he attended: 'No qualification was ever required of a teacher, beyond readin', writin, and cipherin', to the Rule of Three. If a straggler supposed to understand Latin, happened to sojourn in the neighborhood, he was looked upon as a wizzard.' "

Masters does not make this a quote; Oates puts it in Lincoln's mouth; Donald seems to imply that it comes from Lincoln, although the peculiar form and the "wizzard" addition make it unlikely. As usual, it seems that Basler has the clearest eye on this issue, and that the later two writers are inventing stories to improve Lincoln's reputation. Oates' ridiculous story about Lincoln reading while plowing is especially humorous, but of course too incredible to be believed!

In summary, it seems that the subject of Lincoln's childhood education is one which we can not now, nor ever, speak of with any surety. The accounts simply contain too many contradictions and obfuscations. What little information we do have here is undoubtedly a creation of pro-Lincoln forces intended to make Lincoln look self-reliant and of such natural intelligence that he did not require schooling.

Also, the lists of books read by Lincoln, given by Masters and Donald, only partly agree.


http://www.tektonics.org/harmonize/lincoln02.html

The Issue of Complimentary Accounts - Part 2
James Patrick Holding





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1.3.3 Lincoln and Hunting, and Treatment of Animals
Masters: "He did not care for fishing and hunting..." (p. 20)

"He had a tenderness for animals, and wrote in those youthful days a composition denouncing cruelty to dumb beasts." (p. 23)

Basler: "The stories of Lincoln's kindness to animals are legion, and certainly many are fiction. Some of the more famous are doubtless fact, especially those which Lincoln himself related in later life...Terrapins, toads, fawns, dogs, hogs, pigeons - all were beholden to young 'Abe' for protection against the cruelties of mankind. The fact that he never cared for the one great sport of the frontier, hunting, gave rise to many sentimental and fantastic stories of his 'chicken-heartedness.' There are stories of boyhood speeches and essays against cruelty to animals..." (p. 121)

Basler adds a footnote on same page that expresses doubt over the authenticity of one incident in which Lincoln was said to have helped in sewing up the eyelids of some hogs that refused to be driven off of a flatboat.

Oates: Shortly after the move to Pigeon Creek, Lincoln "stood inside the doorway and shot a wild turkey as it approached. It was a traumatic experience, for he loved birds and animals, hated killing them for food. He never liked to hunt or fish again." (p. 8)

Donald: "In February 1817, just before his eighth birthday, he spied a flock of wild turkeys outside the new log cabin. He seized a rifle and, taking advantage of one of the chinks (in the wall), 'shot through a crack, and killed one of them.' But killing was not for him, and he did not try to repeat his exploit. Recalling the incident years later, he said that he had 'never since pulled a trigger on any larger game.' " (p. 25)

After his mother's death, Lincoln "began to reprove other children in the neighborhood for senseless cruelty to animals. He scolded them when they caught terrapins and heaped hot coals on their shells, to force the defenseless animals out of their shells, reminding them 'that an ant's life was to it as sweet as ours to us.' " (p. 27)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
There is common agreement among all authors, at least, that young Lincoln had some consideration for animals. However, there are still incredible problems with these accounts. Donald's p. 27 quote is cited as being recorded third-hand, reported from one Matilda Moore to William Herndon (p. 604). This makes it quite suspect, and likely a fabrication. At any rate, these quotes and stories are all probably invented; how could we expect that children - the only ones who would have witnessed the events described - would remember such stories? And do not these stories fit into the scheme of recreating Lincoln as someone who in future would bring an end to slavery?
A story with the same setting as the one told in Basler's footnote is related by Oates, but there is no mention of how the hogs were treated. Instead, there is a remarkable story of how Lincoln ingeniously saved a boat from sinking (p. 18). The same story is also related by Donald, though in greater detail (p. 38-9), which suggests embellishment, although the story is probably generally true.

Here again we are faced with insuperable contradictions:

Oates: Lincoln "stood inside the doorway and shot a wild turkey as it approached."

Donald: Lincoln "spied a flock of wild turkeys outside the new log cabin. He seized a rifle and, taking advantage of one of the chinks (in the wall), 'shot through a crack, and killed one of them.' "

Was there just one turkey, as Oates says, or a whole flock, per Donald? And was it shot from the doorway, or through a crack in the wall? Donald's version at least cites a third-hand source, but this could be easily fabricated. Indeed, the fact that these two authors so directly contradict each other is clear evidence of fabrication.

Masters: "He did not care for fishing and hunting..."

Basler: "The fact that he never cared for the one great sport of the frontier, hunting..."

Oates: "He never liked to hunt or fish again."

Donald: "But killing was not for him, and he did not try to repeat his exploit. Recalling the incident years later, he said that he had 'never since pulled a trigger on any larger game.' "

The first three authors more or less agree, but the last clearly indicates that Lincoln did hunt smaller g

[madeline_con]

79. Jesus, Iashu and others supposedly

mean the same thing; are from the same root vowels.

[More Than A Feeling]

57. Atheists don't have faith, they have a worldview

just as religious people have a worldview, and they differ to varying degrees, but the atheist worldview definitely does not include God, so calling it a faith is misleading, and it tends to rile people up here.

[papau]

70. "up here" ?? Belief w/o proof equals faith - and no God is the atheist

faith.

Of course the atheist tries to have it both ways and when called on the above, says he meant to say he was agnostic - just had not seen any good proof so far either way - but then he goes back to a no God "worldview".

But you are correct - the word games do indeed anger some folks - on both sides.

To either call atheism a faith, or to deny it is a faith, will get angry posts, although the anger level seems higher on the atheist side for reasons we could guess at and then have yet another nice little flame war.

Tolerance seems the only solution - as we know in our hearts we are logical and right, but because we are nice we do not try to convert the other.

I suspect adherents on both sides feel a need to present their version of the "Good News" to others - I'd just like it if we agreed on a per day limit to the number of times we try to tell the other side about our "Good News".

[Inland]

75. There's a distinction without a difference to me.

Atheism is, by definition, merely the not believing in a deity, whereas "atheist worldview" implies a set of presumptions that underlie the world view. Unlike "atheism", "Worldview" is not an antonym of faith or religious belief. The reason why a few atheists get riled at what should be a matter settled by Websters is the implication that they too might have unproven assumptions, or empirically incorrect beliefs, just like the believers they consider irrational. Deluded, anti-science, and just plain wrong beliefs abounded in the athiest Communist systems, for example.

[madeline_con]

80. "... religious people have a worldview ..."

I thought atheists had a worldview, and religious people had faih. I'm confused!

[SidDithers]

67. Make you a deal...

you don't tell me what an athiest is, and I won't tell you what a Christian is.

Sid

[papau]

73. You don't tell me that you are logical unless you are willing to hear me

say you are not logical.

And as to dictionary definitions, "atheist" and "agnostic" that are in the dictionary work to describe what I see -

So do not tell me what I see must be described by words that are incorrect by the English definitions in the dictionary. I note your side does not fail to tell me what they think of folks that are believers, what they think of those beliefs, and of all the errors of logic that believers make. Indeed if some atheists were stronger in their faith, they would no doubt find they do not need to scream how correct they are as they hide their self-doubt from themselves by raising the level of their voice. But then that is just my opinion.

[FredScuttle]

77. Ah, some of that good ol' Christian "humility"

Glad to see you won't let people tell you they're logical until you've had a fair chance to explain to them how they're illogical. And, you mention "your side"...was Christ a partisan?

[madeline_con]

81. "... was Christ a partisan?"

Apparently, he was. He said he was the way, the truth and the light. He never said he was one of any number of ways, truths and lights. :shrug:

[papau]

94. Yes Christ was a partisan, and yes while your telling me your logical

allows me a few laughs as I note the lack of logic in the proffered argument, I see no point in waiting until you feel you have written your book to tell you the lack of logic in the first 12 chapters.

And indeed I realize you feel like telling me about the lack of logic in my thought.

And I suspect that neither of us feels that the above reflects on our humility.

[SidDithers]

84. I thought it was a good deal, a simple deal...

apparently, I was wrong.

"Indeed if some atheists were stronger in their faith, they would no doubt find they do not need to scream how correct they are as they hide their self-doubt from themselves by raising the level of their voice. But then that is just my opinion." (emphasis added)

You mean, if only athiests believed as you believe? Seems to me that if you were secure in your own faith, you woudn't have to project it onto people who don't care about your beliefs.

Sid

[papau]

93. I like how atheist John Newton put it

(note "his" replaces "I" and the "fool who had said in his heart that there was no God" is from Psalm 14:1-7 NLT - and is not posted so as to call atheist fools)

Young John Newton called himself an atheist, and his life demonstrated his lack of belief in God. Even the coarsest sailors aboard his slave-trading ship could not stand his filthy speech. He brutalized the male slaves and sexually abused the women, and he prodded other sailors to do the same. The ship's captain finally put him ashore on the coast of Africa, and there he became a servant of slavers.

Finally rescued by another merchant ship, Newton once again fouled the ship with his presence. In a drunken stupor he almost plunged overboard, and the captain wished that he had. Then, amazingly in the midst of a vicious ocean storm in 1748, God touched his heart. Years after his remarkable conversion, Newton commented, "I see no reason why the Lord singled me out for mercy…unless it was to show that with him nothing is impossible."

The fool who had said in his heart that there was no God was now transformed. He became famous throughout England, both as a preacher and a writer of hymns. Without a doubt, the best-known hymn of this former atheist is the following:

Amazing grace! how sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now am found,
Was blind but now I see.
JOHN NEWTON

from The One Year® Book of Psalms by William J. Petersen and Randy Petersen,

[SidDithers]

111. That's a nice story, here's another...

I like how the Christian Fred Phelps put it:

God Hates Fags.

Absence of belief and active disbelief are two different things. Just as there are many varietes of Christians in the world, there are also varieties of athiests.

So, back to my original deal.

I won't tell you what kind of Christian you are, if you don't tell me what kind of athiest I am.

Sid

[papau]

115. If the meaning of words can not be agreed to, then how can a post be

useful?

So this means you will no longer post on these atheist/theist threads?

Or do you intend to post from a complete lack of knowledge as to the original posters point of view - the "what kind of Christian you are" question? - and that all future posts will be straw man type argument?

I think I can fairly say you are an "interesting" "kind of athiest" - and that I would miss your voice in these debates.

But whatever floats your boat!

:toast:

:-)

[SidDithers]

118. My point was that the term "athiest" like the term "christian" ...

has too broad a definition to use it as you were trying to do upthread. And isn't our entire discussion an effort to agree to the meaning of the words?

Just as there is variation in the beliefs of sectarian Christians so to there is variation in the belief of lack of belief of athiests.

A strong athiest may have an active belief that there is no deity, a weak athiest simply lives his or her life without belief. Just as I would never say that Christians, as a rule, hate homosexuals, it is perfectly valid to say that some Christians do.

And you would be exactly correct in saying that some atheists have an active belief that there is no deity. But you would also have to allow that some of us just don't see what all the fuss is about.

Sid

PS - :toast: back at you. Interesting discussion.

Edit: added the PS

[FatDave]

83. Seriously, Josephus?

The first Josephus quote you use, the so-called "golden paragraph" is widely (and I mean very widely) considered to be a forgery.

It is absent in versions of "Antiquities of The Jews" prior to the 4th century.

The first person who quoted it was Bishop Eusebius, a man who specifically justified lying in the name of spreading the word of Christ.

Despite many pre-4th-century Christian scholars dedicating their lives to proving the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, none of them ever cited this seemingly perfect evidence.

Josephus was an orthodox Jew, yet that paragraph goes on and on about the wonderful things that Jesus did "as the divine prophets had foreold" and in fact says "He was Christ". To believe that Josephus said these things would be to believe that Josephus was a Christian. And if he were a Christian, wouldn't Jesus have garnered more than that one paragraph?

The paragraph doesn't fit in with the surrounding text. The previous paragraph talks about a Jewish slaughter instigated by Pilate. The following paragraph starts "And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews". Now, you can say that Jesus' crucifixion was the first "terrible misfortune", but that seems unlikely coming from an orthodox Jew. Seems more likely the first misfortune was Pilate's slaughter.

Josephus was very detailed in his accounts of the 1st century, yet this single highly suspect paragraph is his only mention of Christianity.

As for the other Josephus quotes...

The second one mentions Herod and John the Baptist. No one is questioning their historical existence. Josephus actually says quite a bit about John the Baptist, far more than he ever said about Jesus.

The third quote, the one that mentions "James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ"... Actually, if you continue to read on, Josephus mentions Jesus again in the same paragraph, but this time refers to him as "Jesus, son of Damneus". He was talking about a different Jesus. Jesus was a title, meaning "savior". There were many who carried that title in those days. Considering that this was obviously a different person being refered to (although the later part of the paragraph is always overlooked by those seeking proof of Jesus of Nazareth), the "who was called Christ" bit is probably just another Christian insertion.

As for the rest of your citations, many (as has been said by others) merely show that there were Christians who believed in Jesus. Some of the others refer to other people. There were many Jesuses and many Christos (as others have also said).

For the record, I'm not convinced that there was no historical Jesus. I used to be sure there was (despite being an athiest) but now I'm completely on the fence on the issue of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as a real person. I'd love to believe he existed, because regardless of the son of God business, the miracles, the resurection and what have you, he's said to have said some pretty cool things. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find a lick of evidence to support him ever being a living breathing person. And this is despite both the Jews and Romans of the time keeping some pretty detailed records.

[papau]

96. The logic used to suggest no proof of Jesus is less than thin.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=44033&mesg_id=44050

http://www.tektonics.org/harmonize/lincoln01.html

The additional line in the one part of Josephus is indeed more questionable than are others.

As to more proof that you wish for - I trust science of the future will develop such proof (we just found the chief rabbi's tomb)

But never fear, such evidence will not make you less an unbeliever.

:-)

[phrenzy]

60. Interesting Subject

This is a fascinating subject. I've seen evidence on both sides, but common sense tells me that, if all of the other 'Christ' myths that came before the story of Jesus were untrue, why then would this one be true?

The existence of Christianity does not prove the existence of Jesus to me.

Also, if I am to believe in the existence of Jesus, am I to believe in his accomplishments? Walking on water, etc?

If the entire bible is filled with fables and supernatural allegories than why wouldn't it make sense that the figure it centers around is not a real figure as well?

I think this is very interesting, I've often wondered if Christ's existence were put to a true legal test where it would land.

How do the records of a figure like Christ compare to contemporary figures that might match his significance (or lack of significance as seen at the time)? Is it way out of whack?

I tend to believe there was some kind of David Koresh or Jim Jones type leader that was in fact killed at some point and his obscurity gave rise to the embelishments in the myths surrounding him.

In a strange way, the lack of historical data during the time of his existence actually helps make the case he existed, since the later 'stories' of what he did are so ridiculous on their face.

[madeline_con]

82. "... some kind of David Koresh or Jim Jones type leader ..."

Or maybe a Ghandi or Lama like leader....

[phrenzy]

92. No

Ghandi? Lama?Those guys were hardly obscure. In fact, if he was that type of figure in history his physical existence wouldn't be debatable. He would have been written about extensively by roman contemporaries. There is no evidence that he led any kind of mass-movement in the time of his existence. If there was, Roman records would have recorded LOTS of happenings about this. Instead we get things written decades after his supposed existence.

BTW - I'm not comparing the teachings of a possible historical Christ to that of Koresh or Jones, only stating that, if Jesus was seen as some crackpot cult leader by the powers that be at the time, it might explain why he was not seen as worthy of major documentation by anyone other than his followers.

[Toots]

108. That is how Muslims perceive Jesus

More like Mohammad. Not a God but a Prophet. Muslims believe in Jesus and have a deep respect for his teachings but they do not raise him up to a deity, just a Prophet the same as Mohammad.

[madeline_con]

78. "... later became a militant atheist ..."

He certainly had a severe change of heart. I wonder why. :dilemma:

[papau]

97. I often ask the same question - the atheist John Newton's conversion is

an example going the other way that "amazes" me

[Bridget Burke]

105. Some people love to be "militant"

Like the trust-fund SDS'ers who became hard line Right Wingers.

They'd rather look at issues than at reality.

[FreedomAngel82]

85. There is an interesting book my dad has

called "The Case for Christ." I've never read it though but it seems like a good book I should read sometime. Here's the description of the book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0310209307/103-3838370-4153429?v=glance&n=283155

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

86. Prove Christ DIDN'T exist.

I personally know he did does exist.

[stevietheman]

114. The burden of proof is on the positive point. It's never the job...

of skeptics to disprove something.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

127. Actually you're (partly) wrong.

It doesn't matter which side of the question you're on- it's the prosecutor's job to prove or disprove the point. The defense may remain silent and refuse to speak (at least in an American court). "You have the right to remain silent..."

Other legal systems may, of course, have differing rules.

[Book Lover]

87. Gotta love Italy!

I look forward with interest to reading what the priest has to say, and the court's response.

[OxQQme]

89. Peanuts, Popcorn. Getcher candy here..

While this back and forth banter takes place about events from two millenium ago there are events and evidence that are six millenium old. Re-fabricated and told with the purpose to cast off the previous beliefs in several god/goddess figures that were venerated with festivals. Temples to 'convince' the god/goddess to 'plunk themselves down right here in our city, and stay for a while please'. Humans actually mingled with the deities and told stories and drew pictures of and about them.
The Noah's ark story in the bible had a precursor with different named main characters written and depicted in clay.
Ishtar/Inanna was the supreme deity for one Age. All ancient societies revered her.
There is the tale of Gilgamesh. Part 'god', part human.
There are tales of the co-mingling of the 'gods' with humans prior to the Deluge.
Then along comes her jealous step-brother in the form of Yahweh and his meeting on a mountain with Moses and his band of twelve tribes and Voila! THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD AND I AM HE. WOMEN ARE INFERIOR. KILL ALL NON-BELIEVERS. This took place approximately 17-18k years prior to the 'Jesus' event.
Nice god. A little smite here, whole city there. Bush's god.

We have, here on our rotating planet, wobbled into the next Age. Aquarius.
Next god......please.
I don't have a clue why Jesus would want us to put our trust in a wrathful, vengeful, omnipotent, physcotic father like that. Although, J did preach peace and love and tried to describe to all who had ears how to 'perform' miraculous deeds using those two attributes.
Still, there are tens of thousands of remnants of those much older civilizations that tell tales nobody wants to talk about as reality. Just myth. Hmmmm

[papau]

98. Myth does seem universal, doesn't it? Were we built to worship?

Have our errors of interpretation become less as we became smarter and have more data to work with -or have we even become smarter?

I think we could take a semester or two and not be bored as we discuss!

:-)

[BushOut06]

102. I think I remember reading something like that awhile back

That sociologists believed that humans were designed to seek meaning in life, to look for some guidance in a "higher power".

[BushOut06]

95. Didn't the Romans keep meticulous records?

Then surely there must be some sort of record of his crucifiction. That would be the logical place to start looking for proof.

[papau]

100. Everyone kept records - but not quite a Bush era spy program level

:-)

[QuettaKid]

101. one of my main problems with the whole

christianity thing.....if Jesus was the ONLY way to heaven, what about the untold countless MILLIONS of people who lived before his time and never heard of him? Are they just automatically doomed? What kind of God is that!?!?

[BushOut06]

106. Well, the way I had it explained to me in Sunday School was this...

That people who lived before Christ, and those afterwards who hadn't yet heard of him, were somehow given a "pass", and would be judged according to the way they lived. But after they were exposed to Christianity, they would be judged accordingly. Keep in mind this was hardly an official position, probably that person's attempt to deal with that very question.

Hardly logical, though if you ask me, and one of the reasons that made me start questioning religion.

[papau]

109. I heard the same at the same location - but I felt the meaning of Jesus's

words was for me to decide - everyone is their own priest.

And my "thinking/definition" led me to "many paths and Jesus is the path for me"

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

117. Easy. Just look at some underpasses, potatoes, and other appearances.

Seems like every other day He's showing up somewhere.

[liberalhistorian]

119. What utter bullshit.

Can the priest's accuser prove beyond question that Christ did NOT exist? If not, and I don't believe he can, what the hell right does he and the judge have to demand that the priest prove his existence?

Why can't people just leave other people alone in the matter of religion? People who are religious shouldn't demand that everyone else follow their religion and believe as they do, and mock and denigrate those who don't, and people who aren't religious shouldn't demand that everyone else be non-religious as well and mock those who are. It's just that fucking simple.

[BiggJawn]

126. Would that it be so....

"...People who are religious shouldn't demand that everyone else follow their religion and believe as they do, and mock and denigrate those who don't..."

From your fingertips to SOMEBODY'S eyeballs, but unfortunately, until the last Dominionist is tracked down and turned into soylent Green, I don't see it happening, nor that happy day when a political candidate can stand up and say "I don't believe in God" w/o his support staff going "Well, lost THAT one! Let's go home, everybody!"

"...people who aren't religious shouldn't demand that everyone else be non-religious as well and mock those who are."

It's called matching Force for Force.

[leftofthedial]

123. "prove most people existed ..."

in your list, all except Moses left behind writings and/or voluminous first-hand documentation of others who knew them.

The Bible was not written by the participants. It was made up later and then extensively edited and compiled and expurgated after that.

A more apt list of examples would include figures like Robin Hood or King Arthur.

[Book Lover]

128. Signor Cascioli's website if you're interested

In moderate English translation http://www.luigicascioli.it/home_eng.php