Jesus: Tales from the Crypt
by --Tim McGirk/Jerusalem

http://time-blog.com/middle_east/2007/02/jesus_tales_from_the_crypt.html

Brace yourself. James Cameron, the man who brought you 'The Titanic' is back with another blockbuster. This time, the ship he's sinking is Christianity.

In a new documentary, Producer Cameron and his director, Simcha Jacobovici, make the starting claim that Jesus wasn't resurrected --the cornerstone of Christian faith-- and that his burial cave was discovered near Jerusalem. And, get this, Jesus sired a son with Mary Magdelene.

No, it's not a re-make of "The Da Vinci Codes'. It's supposed to be true.

Let's go back 27 years, when Israeli construction workers were gouging out the foundations for a new building in the industrial park in the Talpiyot, a Jerusalem suburb. of Jerusalem. The earth gave way, revealing a 2,000 year old cave with 10 stone caskets. Archologists were summoned, and the stone caskets carted away for examination. It took 20 years for experts to decipher the names on the ten tombs. They were: Jesua, son of Joseph, Mary, Mary, Mathew, Jofa and Judah, son of Jesua.
Israel's prominent archeologist Professor Amos Kloner didn't associate the crypt with the New Testament Jesus. His father, after all, was a humble carpenter who couldn't afford a luxury crypt for his family. And all were common Jewish names.

There was also this little inconvenience that a few miles away, in the old city of Jerusalem, Christians for centuries had been worshipping the empty tomb of Christ at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Christ's resurrection, after all, is the main foundation of the faith, proof that a boy born to a carpenter's wife in a manger is the Son of God.

But film-makers Cameron and Jacobovici claim to have amassed evidence through DNA tests, archeological evidence and Biblical studies, that the 10 coffins belong to Jesus and his family.

Ever the showman, (Why does this remind me of the impresario in another movie,"King Kong", whose hubris blinds him to the dangers of an angry and very large ape?) Cameron is holding a New York press conference on Monday at which he will reveal three coffins, supposedly those of Jesus of Nazareth, his mother Mary and Mary Magdalene. News about the film, which will be shown soon on Discovery Channel, Britain's Channel 4, Canada's Vision, and Israel's Channel 8, has been a hot blog topic in the Middle East (check out a personal favorite: Israelity Bites) Here in the Holy Land, Biblical Archeology is a dangerous profession. This 90-minute documentary is bound to outrage Christians and stir up a titanic debate between believers and skeptics. Stay tuned.

What is interesting about the attacks on Christianity is that the promises in the Bible still prove true in the lives of those who know Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit.

The skeptical debate falls largely on two sides:

(a) those that believe that Jesus was a myth and never existed

(b) those who believe that indeed Jesus existed - but not as recorded in the Bible.

Of the former (a), the skeptics have clearly contradictory tales to tell.

Of the latter (b), a lot of theories are being circulated:

#1. The Muslim Version

Jesus actually existed, but not as recorded in the Bible - which they believe has been corrupted from the original copy which "Allah" sent down. No Muslim knows where the "original Bible" is; nor yet what it actually says.

In the Muslim version, Jesus indeed performed a lot of miracles; but He did not die on the Cross as He was taken alive to heaven. Therefore, there could never be a 'tomb of Jesus' - for how could He have been buried if He never died by crucifixion?

At best, the claims about Jesus in the Qur'an are antithetical to the Biblical narratives, even though only scanty references are made to His life and ministry in Islam's Scripture.

#2. The Da Vinci Version

Dan Brown's version of a Jesus that sired a son is not new, but happens to be the most popular among various other theories in the same suit. The gist is that Jesus was the original feminist whose romantic connection with Mary Magdalene produced a son. His life and ministry are supposed to be quite different from the Biblical narratives; and most of all, Christianity is a big hoax that the Roman Catholic Church has been peddling for centuries.

It is also interesting to note two very important things: (i) unlike many of the other theorists in this group, Dan Brown sees himself as a "Christian" - even though he was convinced that Christianity is a hoax and all religions are lies; (ii) despite his claim that his book was well-researched and reports "facts," it yet appears in the "Fiction" section of libraries and bookstores.

#3. The Cultic Version

Overlapping in many respects with other theories of a 'Jesus' who actually existed, many cultists see themselves as 'the real Jesus' who indeed has come again to complete the works He left uncompleted in the Bible! Popular among these cultists are José Luis De Jesus Miranda, a 59-year-old Puerto Rican 'with impish charm and a taste for indulgence.' There are many such today, and they have no uniform claim other than that they themselves are "Jesus" or "the Christ!"


In all the versions that fall into the second category, a few things could be observed:

1. The Biblical Jesus is discredited

This is evident in Islam as well as the Dan Brown crew. Although believing that there was a Jesus who actually existed, he is not the Biblical Jesus.

According to these groups, the Jesus they present was only human - He was never "Lord" or "God", and the accusation levelled against is that Christians were the ones who ascribed 'Lord' and 'God' to the man Jesus.

2. The Bible is not a reliable document.

While Muslims claim that the "original Bible" has been corrupted, the Dan Brown crew see the Bible as documents with a recent date several centuries after Christianity emerged. At best, neither Muslims nor the Dan Brown camp have been able to verify their claims.


There are several other points to note. However, the Bible is remarkably true to its promises - and millions have proven these promises for themselves. Jesus is indeed who He claimed to be - the Son of God, the Saviour, and the soon-coming King.

@Syrup,
you are indeed a brilliant mind: there is another brilliant lady who writes intelligently like you on this forum called Shahan or something but I've not read from her for some time.
I read your intuitive post above: you've shown how the Liars are contradicting themselves about Jesus Christ ("Let God be true, and Let all men be liars"
The reason they will continue contradicting themselves about the Truth i.e Jesus Christ, is simply because: 'You can discredit a lie with the Truth, but you can never discredit the Truth with a lie.' Very simple!

For the true "son" of god,Jesus does generate a very unusual amount of scepticisms and doubts.And these doubts and scepticisms have been well in place since the very beginning of the religion's inception and history.
That can't be very comforting for christians who believe that their religion is the only route to the kingdom of heaven.
Maybe christianity wouldn't have been under such massive and insistent attacks if it's adherents had had the common sense of readjusting their doctrine  to accept what most people already know that christianity is just one of the routes,and not the ONLY route to the heavens.
But the fact remains that christianity was built on a very dubious and shaky foundation,which leaves it open and vulnerable to perpetual scrutinies and attacks,putting christians permanently on the defensive.
Maybe it is time for the religion to turn inwards and start a little bit of soul searching.

As for Cameron's docu,i doubt if he is going to unleash anything new to the world,concerning the allegedly dubious ressurection of christ,when so much literature has been expended on the possibility that Jesus was never crucified in the first place.
But i might be surprised.

@batu,

Well, I can be thankful for three things: (a) there are a lot of intelligent men like you today who appreciate womenfolk; (b) there are a lot more intelligent ladies on the forum than myself who continue to inspire and chanllenge me; (c) God has blessed and will continue to bless people with deeper knowledge and wisdom.

batu:

The reason they will continue contradicting themselves about the Truth i.e Jesus Christ, is simply because: 'You can discredit a lie with the Truth, but you can never discredit the Truth with a lie.' Very simple!

Words on marble - I'll have to put that down in my diary! Thank you for that input.

@jagunlabi,

jagunlabi:

For the true "son" of god,Jesus does generate a very unusual amount of scepticisms and doubts.And these doubts and scepticisms have been well in place since the very beginning of the religion's inception and history.

Astute observation there. In the same vein, however, the Son of God, Jesus has far more believers in His power, saving grace, and redeeming love than all the skepticism ever produced from the inception of Christianity.

jagunlabi:

That can't be very comforting for christians who believe that their religion is the only route to the kingdom of heaven.

How very wrong. On the contrary, the skeptical attacks have in fact strengthened the faith of true Christians in the Lord Jesus Christ - a very comforting thought indeed. If Christ was never assailed by such skepticism, then He would most probably have passed into oblivion with no worries at all.

It is not the quality of truth to be universally accepted without exposure to doubts and attacks of sorts. Infact, the quality of "truth" is its durability in the face so many attacks, and the fact that it stands strong inspite of increasing attacks.

jagunlabi:

Maybe christianity wouldn't have been under such massive and insistent attacks if it's adherents had had the common sense of readjusting their doctrine  to accept what most people already know that christianity is just one of the routes,and not the ONLY route to the heavens.

#1. The fact that Christianity has survied and grown strong inspite of having been under such massive and insistent attacks should be a remarkable quality of its power. It is really apposite that its fundamental doctrine remains as was given by Jesus Christ Himself - another quality of its power.

#2. It is only inconsistent and weak worldviews that seek a 'readjustment' - and inspite of that, not many people are likely to peg their eternal destinies on shifting grounds. We can be grateful for the suggestion of the so-called "common sense" (which is no sense at all); but how many people really "know" or hold to the view that Christianity is just one of the routes to the heavens?

Islam is an exclusivistic religion, tolerant to no other worldview; so are several other beliefs systems which are ready to deny theirs as one out of many routes to the heavens. Why then have they not been asked to adopt the "common sense" of seeing theirs as just one of the "routes"??

#3. Indeed, people can get to the "heavens" by a thousand and one 'routes' - for there are many heavens (depending on who the seeker is). The space shuttle scientists also speak of 'the heavens' in non-religious connotations. However many are the routes to 'the heavens', there still is ONLY ONE way to the FATHER - and that is through Jesus Christ the Son of the living God.

jagunlabi:

But the fact remains that christianity was built on a very dubious and shaky foundation,which leaves it open and vulnerable to perpetual scrutinies and attacks,putting christians permanently on the defensive.

One more hilarious claim. What stands on 'dubious and shaky grounds' cannot survive massive attacks for over 20 centuries! No other worldview has been severely attacked and reviled as the Christian faith; and for all that, Christians are not permanently on the defensive.

Rather, it is the attackers themselves who have always been on the defensive, as they often have to devise new theories of unsubstantiated claims. Dan Brown? Islam? Liberal theologians? You name them - they are always the ones scurrying about looking for any and every theory to string on their ideologies in order to discredit the Christian faith. It does not seem that their efforts are achieving the desired effects - for since Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code, more people have come to a saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ than those who claim to have lost faith in Him.

jagunlabi:

Maybe it is time for the religion to turn inwards and start a little bit of soul searching.

Thanks for the offer - but Biblical Christianity has withstood all forms of attacks and has proven its promises to many millions.

jagunlabi:

As for Cameron's docu,i doubt if he is going to unleash anything new to the world,concerning the allegedly dubious ressurection of christ,when so much literature has been expended on the possibility that Jesus was never crucified in the first place.

Again, another Islamized reasoning. When you sift through the volumes of literature purporting the "possibility that Jesus was never crucified in the first place", the one thing that stands out clear is that they are as widely dilated and cacophonic in their "research". The simple reason is that they cannot bring themselves to trust that the Bible is a trustworthy account of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

jagunlabi:

But i might be surprised.

I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

@ Syrup
I think i'm falling in love with you (i'm not a lesbianooo before mouths will start wining)

I couldn't agree more with everything you just said, the reason why christianity/christians are being attacked so much is the fact that its the only SOLID ROCK and people with different doctrines just don't want to accept the fact that they're going down and that everyday millions of souls seek the face of God.
If that's not the case why won't they just leave us alone, i for one know i don't waste my time cursing or abusing other religions.
I'm just happy because now i know that with people like you, OUR GOD will remain the only true GOD.

The funny thing about all these contraditions is the fact that everyday a new one is made, but it just owes to the fact that whatever they bring on we're there tO pull them down.

GO CHRISTIANS

syrup:

It is not the quality of truth to be universally accepted without exposure to doubts and attacks of sorts. Infact, the quality of "truth" is its durability in the face so many attacks, and the fact that it stands strong inspite of increasing attacks.

Indeed. Although sometimes a "universally" accepted truth that has stood teh tests of time can still be falsified with time.

Islam is an exclusivistic religion, tolerant to no other worldview; so are several other beliefs systems which are ready to deny theirs as one out of many routes to the heavens. Why then have they not been asked to adopt the "common sense" of seeing theirs as just one of the "routes"??

I think - I'm not sure - religions like Bahai have done that, a denomination of Christianity: Universalism have done so also.

One more hilarious claim. What stands on 'dubious and shaky grounds' cannot survive massive attacks for over 20 centuries!

Depends on how you define dubious and shaky: last I checked, Hinduism, Buddhism an many other -isms are still around despite the attacks they've also received.

No other worldview has been severely attacked and reviled as the Christian faith; and for all that, Christians are not permanently on the defensive.

And perhaps no other worldview has attacked and reviled others like the Christian faith. In any case, I would argue paganism of all kinds and atheism are two examples of worldviews that have seen just as much (if not more) attack as Christianity.

The simple reason is that they cannot bring themselves to trust that the Bible is a trustworthy account of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

To be fair, it's hardly a historical text. I mean, there a notable scarcity of extra Gospel sources for the strange happenings of the time, which suggests myth.

@KAG,

KAG:

Indeed. Although sometimes a "universally" accepted truth that has stood the tests of time can still be falsified with time.

Given the 20 centuries of having been subjected to scrutiny, one wonders how much time is required to "falsify" the truth of Christianity.

KAG:

Islam is an exclusivistic religion, tolerant to no other worldview; so are several other beliefs systems which are ready to deny theirs as one out of many routes to the heavens. Why then have they not been asked to adopt the "common sense" of seeing theirs as just one of the "routes"??

I think - I'm not sure - religions like Bahai have done that, a denomination of Christianity: Universalism have done so also.

On the surface, it appears that Bahai has adopted an inclusive (rather than exclusive) approach; however, in reality it is not so.

On the other hand, Universalism in essence is not considered a 'denomination' of Christianity in so far as it has a repute for very shifty ideologies, more so tending towards secular humanism.

KAG:

Depends on how you define dubious and shaky: last I checked, Hinduism, Buddhism an many other -isms are still around despite the attacks they've also received.

The definition was not mine - that's why they appear in quotes as referenced from jagunlabi. Even so, it is improbable that Hinduism and Buddhism have received just about the same attacks as has the Christian faith.

KAG:

And perhaps no other worldview has attacked and reviled others like the Christian faith.

That is debatably untrue, and would only be considered so by those who tend to make it appear so. All factors considered would not lend credence to that idea.

KAG:

In any case, I would argue paganism of all kinds and atheism are two examples of worldviews that have seen just as much (if not more) attack as Christianity.

Again, not true. Every worldview has had their fair share of attacks; but current trends of on-going attacks against the Christian faith proves otherwise the claim that atheism in particular has seen just as much or more.

KAG:

To be fair, it's hardly a historical text. I mean, there a notable scarcity of extra Gospel sources for the strange happenings of the time, which suggests myth.

It is even more suggestive that the theories advanced by most skeptics to discredit the Gospel are in themselves more mythical.

@cute-ass,

cute-ass:

@ Syrup
I think i'm falling in love with you (i'm not a lesbianooo before mouths will start wining)

Lol. . . no one's going to be loud-mouth about that.

cute-ass:

I couldn't agree more with everything you just said

Well, I wouldn't say that my understanding matches those of the several brilliant minds who continue to be a challenge to me as well - including yours!

cute-ass:

The funny thing about all these contraditions is the fact that everyday a new one is made, but it just owes to the fact that whatever they bring on we're there tO pull them down.

You're right about the emergence of new theories - and that has been one of my deep concerns, especially as the theories are inconsistent. I don't think I would have been writing with any measure of conviction in my heart if the promises in the Bible have not been proven in my life.

Many blessings.

syrup:

@KAG,

Given the 20 centuries of having been subjected to scrutiny, one wonders how much time is required to "falsify" the truth of Christianity.

I don't know if it's quite possoble to completely falsify a religion (for example, consider the fact Mormonism is still going despite strong evidence against its Native Americans belief), but then again I was merely pointing out that some universally held "truths" have taken millennia to be falsified. In any case, there are aspects of it that have come under scrutiny and have led many to leave the faith.

I think - I'm not sure - religions like Bahai have done that, a denomination of Christianity: Universalism have done so also.

On the surface, it appears that Bahai has adopted an inclusive (rather than exclusive) approach; however, in reality it is not so.

Are you sure? A member of the religion mentioned something along the lines of hoping and praying their Christian and Muslim brethren will realise that they both have it right.

On the other hand, Universalism in essence is not considered a 'denomination' of Christianity in so far as it has a repute for very shifty ideologies, more so tending towards secular humanism.

They came from Christianity; they claim to be Christians; that's good enough for me.

The definition was not mine - that's why they appear in quotes as referenced from jagunlabi. Even so, it is improbable that Hinduism and Buddhism have received just about the same attacks as has the Christian faith.

While it would be difficult to measure the persecution levels, it is clear they have both received their fair share. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Buddhists

That is debatably untrue, and would only be considered so by those who tend to make it appear so. All factors considered would not lend credence to that idea.

It is debatable, but the Christian faith has persecuted many, castigated people of other religions for not sharing their beliefs, and have even forced or attempted to force others to follow the faith by almost any means. In my opinion, Christianity has attacked more faiths than any other. Islam and Judaism are not far behind, though

Again, not true. Every worldview has had their fair share of attacks; but current trends of on-going attacks against the Christian faith proves otherwise the claim that atheism in particular has seen just as much or more.

Yes every religion has had its fair share of attacks, but my arguement is that pagansim and atheism have had just as much (if not more) attacks as Christianity. By the way, what current trends of on-going attacks? From what I know, Christianity is not only the religion with the most population, it's also the religion practised by most in the Western world. Furthermore, polls suggest that atheists are the least trusted group according to Americans. Many atheists have also been persecuted in America (a democratic country that preaches secularism). You can imagine what it must be like in other less tolerant societies.

Editted to add: Examples of contmporary persecution by Christians against other beliefs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_persecution_by_Christians#Contemporary

It is even more suggestive that the theories advanced by most skeptics to discredit the Gospel are in themselves more mythical.

How so? I can't see how you can get around the fact that nobody outside of the writers of the Gospels (who came years after Jesus' death) thought to mention the many fantastic things reported by the Gospel writers. To me it's no different from the mythologies that were reported in fables and are now taken for what they are.

@KAG,

KAG:

I don't know if it's quite possoble to completely falsify a religion (for example, consider the fact Mormonism is still going despite strong evidence against its Native Americans belief), but then again I was merely pointing out that some universally held "truths" have taken millennia to be falsified. In any case, there are aspects of it that have come under scrutiny and have led many to leave the faith.

I'll offer you two things:

#1. I doubt if it is possible to completely falsify Christianity - especially in context of time and theories so far proposed.

#2. That some leave the faith is not unique to Christianity; but that in itself does not disprove the Christian faith.

KAG:

Are you sure? A member of the religion mentioned something along the lines of hoping and praying their Christian and Muslim brethren will realise that they both have it right.

I could not have made my point earlier with any degree of certainty if I had no real understanding of the Bahai faith. The member who mentioned whatever might have expressed a personal opinion than a core Bahai belief or principle.

KAG:

They came from Christianity; they claim to be Christians; that's good enough for me.

A mere claim does not establish the fact that they actually are not a Christian denomination (though I respect your rights to see them so for argument sake). So many cultic groups have claimed a Christian identity, whereas in reality are far removed and antithetical to the Christian faith.

KAG:

While it would be difficult to measure the persecution levels, it is clear they have both received their fair share.

Which I noted earlier:

syrup:

Again, not true. Every worldview has had their fair share of attacks; but current trends of on-going attacks against the Christian faith proves otherwise the claim that atheism in particular has seen just as much or more.

KAG:

It is debatable, but the Christian faith has persecuted many, castigated people of other religions for not sharing their beliefs, and have even forced or attempted to force others to follow the faith by almost any means. In my opinion, Christianity has attacked more faiths than any other. Islam and Judaism are not far behind, though

I'm glad that this is only in your opinion; but please excuse the fact that the claim is far removed from reality.

Judaism has not sought almost any means to force people to conversion. Islam has a well documented history of the case to the point. Christianity has had its share of a bloody history - not because it is the core belief taught by Jesus Christ; but rather the outcome of political exchanges.

In current events, would you still be otherwise convinced that Christians are far more persecuted than people of any other worldview?

KAG:

Yes every religion has had its fair share of attacks, but my arguement is that pagansim and atheism have had just as much (if not more) attacks as Christianity.

Which again is highly debatable in view of current events.

KAG:

By the way, what current trends of on-going attacks? From what I know, Christianity is not only the religion with the most population, it's also the religion practised by most in the Western world.

If we were to excuse the population size of adherents (and not counting those in the West), what would you say in the case in China and Korea, among others?

KAG:

Furthermore, polls suggest that atheists are the least trusted group according to Americans. Many atheists have also been persecuted in America (a democratic country that preaches secularism). You can imagine what it must be like in other less tolerant societies.

Which exactly proves the point. Many people in debates of this nature are quick to reference the secularized West. I'd like to request for a moment that they apply the same cosmetics to events in the middle East, China and North Korea. I only seek an objective and honest response about atheism and Christians in these parts of the world.

KAG:

How so? I can't see how you can get around the fact that nobody outside of the writers of the Gospels (who came years after Jesus' death) thought to mention the many fantastic things reported by the Gospel writers. To me it's no different from the mythologies that were reported in fables and are now taken for what they are.

This again lends weight to one of my deep concerns. Did you say "nobody" outside the Gospel writers? Not even one reference?

Secondly, the objection that the Gospels were written "years after" is no grounds for discrediting them. In ordinary events of life, there are many biographies that have been written "years after" the death of the personalities.

How the mythologies reported in fables haven't survived with the same fervour as Christianity is telling enough. To me, there is just no myth about the reality of Jesus Christ whose power has been proven once and again in my experience.

@Syrup
Very Impressive. The calm and composure with which you have outlined your (and every true Christians) position is quite amazing. When i see someone like you competently doing justice to the issue, i just love to sit and learn. God Bless.

syrup:


I don't think I would have been writing with any measure of conviction in my heart if the promises in the Bible have not been proven in my life.

My sista, i second you on that. Just from last wednesday to be precise until today God has done 1001 miracles in my life and sometimes when i open my mouth to thank him, i'm unable to find the right words cos i feel like no amount of THANK YOU is enough, but one thing is sure, i'm his for the rest of my life. AMEN

- Maybe christianity wouldn't have been under such massive and insistent attacks if it's adherents had had the common sense of readjusting their doctrine  to accept what most people already know that christianity is just one of the routes,and not the ONLY route to the heavens.

- But the fact remains that christianity was built on a very dubious and shaky foundation,which leaves it open and vulnerable to perpetual scrutinies and attacks,putting christians permanently on the defensive.
Maybe it is time for the religion to turn inwards and start a little bit of soul searching.

- As for Cameron's docu,i doubt if he is going to unleash anything new to the world,concerning the allegedly dubious ressurection of christ,when so much literature has been expended on the possibility that Jesus was never crucified in the first place.

@Prof Syrup and Cute-ass;
When I read the attacks of modern day "Liars" on Christianity, I laugh; because if only they know a little bit of history maybe an "uncommon sense" will have given them understanding. Let me help out a little:
---> (1) In the early times of christianity:
-Apostle Paul was led outside the city gate and then was beheaded for his faith
-Elder Peter was crucified up-side down for his faith
-Elder James was killed in a most violent way
-Stephen was stoned to death outside the city gate for his faith, etc, etc
---> (2) Now let's go to the Roman Collosieum, and see the facts of history which are documented and still available :
- A christian Lady called Perpetual was suspended from a net in the collosieum, and raging bulls with brass tipped horn were released to charge and gore her to death for her faith
- The early Roman christians were "sports" for entertainment of the huge crowd in the collosieum, they were released into the arena and hungry lions set on them to devour them for refusing to accept Caesar as Lord and sticking to Christ.
- Some did not even have the benefit of being devoured by lions but were just tied to the stake and burned
---> (3) Now let's move closer and nearer to numerous religious persecutions in Northern Nigeria, Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and count the number of churches burnt, christians killed etc.

Now what's the point? The point's are: If with all these historically recorded, horrendous physical and mental attacks on 'faith in Jesus Christ called christianity', the body of christ was and is still waxing stronger and growing as it is; then you can know that not a loud-mouthed Dan-Brown, nor confused filmaker Cameron, nor pointless secular humanism/liberalism, nor peadophilic prophet muhammed and his anti-christ ideology of Islam, etc can reduce or take away the Glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Yes, maybe there are many different types of Heaven (e.g utopia for hippies, al-Jannat for Islam, etc) but Jesus is the ONLY way to the Father. (God bless you, Syrup, for that statement)
Again I say: you can discredit a lie with the Truth, but you can never discredit the Truth with a lie

syrup:

@KAG,

I'll offer you two things:

#1. I doubt if it is possible to completely falsify Christianity - especially in context of time and theories so far proposed.

I agree. Religions are notoriously impossible o falsify - consider, as another example, the fact there are still Hellenists.

#2. That some leave the faith is not unique to Christianity; but that in itself does not disprove the Christian faith.

I would never suggest that leaving a faith disproves the religion; however, I do believe that the close examination of a religion can lead to deconversion. That's what I was suggesting.

I could not have made my point earlier with any degree of certainty if I had no real understanding of the Bahai faith. The member who mentioned whatever might have expressed a personal opinion than a core Bahai belief or principle.

To be honest, I'd have to take their words over yours:

"Bahá'í doctrine emphasizes the unity of mankind, the unity of the world's religions, and the progressive revelation of God to humanity.

Bahá'ís believe that the founders of great religions (such as Moses, Jesus, the Buddha, and Muhammad) were sent by God to reveal God's attributes and will in the terms that were appropriate for the time. "

Source: http://www.religionfacts.com/bahai/beliefs.htm


"One of the fundamental doctrines of the Bahá'í Faith is the unity of the world's great religions. This does not mean that all religions are the same, but that there is only one true religion and all of the Messengers of God have progressively revealed its nature.

The world's great religions are progressive expressions of a single unfolding Divine plan, "the changeless Faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal in the future."

Bahá'ís teach that the founders of the world's major religions, including Krishna, Buddha, Zoroaster, Abraham, Moses, Jesus Christ, and Muhammad, are divine Messengers sent by the one God to educate humanity through teachings and laws suited to its stage of development.

The Bahá'í Faith recognizes two additional Teachers for this age: the Báb and Bahá'u'lláh. Bahá'ís believe that religious revelation will continue in the future to provide guidance to "an ever-advancing civilization."

Bahá'ís do seek to spread their faith, believing it to be the most recent and beneficial revelation from God to humanity, but they strongly emphasize unity, harmony and respect between the world's existing religions."

http://www.religionfacts.com/bahai/beliefs/other_religions.htm


Those pretty much suggest to me that it is a core principle as opposed to the opinion of one member.

A mere claim does not establish the fact that they actually are not a Christian denomination (though I respect your rights to see them so for argument sake). So many cultic groups have claimed a Christian identity, whereas in reality are far removed and antithetical to the Christian faith.

At the moment they haven't completely broken away from Christianity, so they should still count as one of the many - and sometimes contradictory - Christian denominations, no?

Which I noted earlier:

Fair enough.

I'm glad that this is only in your opinion; but please excuse the fact that the claim is far removed from reality.

Except it isn't. History is littered with many "convert or else" stories, from the inquisitions, to the recent "convert to receive aid" scandal: http://in.news.yahoo.com/050116/139/2j1rp.html

Judaism has not sought almost any means to force people to conversion.

Oh, I'm sorry, it just slaughtered all of them for worshipping different Gods (see the Old Testament).

Islam has a well documented history of the case to the point. Christianity has had its share of a bloody history - not because it is the core belief taught by Jesus Christ; but rather the outcome of political exchanges.

I doubt the last part. In any case, I would like to revise my original claim (I don't know what I was thinking!): Islam, not Christianity is actually the world beater when it comes to getting converts by hook or crook. My apologies for putting Christianity at the top of the list.

In current events, would you still be otherwise convinced that Christians are far more persecuted than people of any other worldview?

No.

Which again is highly debatable in view of current events.

How so?

If we were to excuse the population size of adherents (and not counting those in the West), what would you say in the case in China and Korea, among others?

Those two persecute/restrict many (most?) religions and worldviews. In fact, in China, for example, Tibetan Buddhism isn't even allowed (source: http://www.persecution.org/suffering/countryinfodetail.php?countrycode=16).

Which exactly proves the point. Many people in debates of this nature are quick to reference the secularized West. I'd like to request for a moment that they apply the same cosmetics to events in the middle East, China and North Korea. I only seek an objective and honest response about atheism and Christians in these parts of the world.

The secularised West is quickly mentioned, not only because it's the region we are most familiar with, but also because persecution of that sort isn't expected in a region that preaches democracy and secularism. To the question of the Middle East, China and North Korea. With the exception of North Korea, those regions that do discriminate against other religions that aren't theirs, don't usually single out Christianity. From what I hear, most Middle Eastern countries accept Christianity (apparently it's the extreme minority that don't accept Christianity), and it's those that have associated Christianity with atheism and America that despise Christianity. China accepts Christianity too (although it regulates it like it does most other religions). As far as I'm aware, Christianity isn't singled out. I'm not really familiar with North Korea, so I can't say.

What do they feel about atheism in general? I think North Korea and China don't really mind it, but the Middle Eastern countries do.

This again lends weight to one of my deep concerns. Did you say "nobody" outside the Gospel writers? Not even one reference?

Yes; I can't think of one, can you? I've got a good example of something written in the Gospels (other than the usually know fantastic stuff) any writer worth his/her sort should have referenced, but yet, nothing.

Secondly, the objection that the Gospels were written "years after" is no grounds for discrediting them. In ordinary events of life, there are many biographies that have been written "years after" the death of the personalities.

Oh, it really isn't grounds for discrediting, it just further compounds the problem of a lack of any contemporary sources during the time of the happenings.

How the mythologies reported in fables haven't survived with the same fervour as Christianity is telling enough. To me, there is just no myth about the reality of Jesus Christ whose power has been proven once and again in my experience.

But they did survive just  as strongly in their times, and some are not so far behind Christianity in terms of acceptance. Certainly the Greco-Roman myths survived for a very long time - some still believe in Zeus; Egyptian mythology also survived for long, still survives, and has adherents as fervent as Christianity; Islam, there's another one; Hinduism has survived longer. So, while you and many in our time don't believe them anymore (in much the same way most don't believe the myths contained in the Bible, from the Genesis creation account, Noah's flood, etc), doesn't mean they don't have fervent believers.

batu:

@Prof Syrup and Cute-ass;
When I read the attacks of modern day "Liars" on Christianity, I laugh; because if only they know a little bit of history maybe an "uncommon sense" will have given them understanding.

That's a little telling: call them liars for no other reason than they challange the dogma you hold.

Let me help out a little:
---> (1) In the early times of christianity:
-Apostle Paul was led outside the city gate and then was beheaded for his faith
-Elder Peter was crucified up-side down for his faith
-Elder James was killed in a most violent way
-Stephen was stoned to death outside the city gate for his faith, etc, etc

I'm not doubting the validity of your claim, but do you actually have any evidence that those things occured? Furthermore, you do know those aren't the only religious martyrs, right? They are not even the only "heretics" that were slain by the over-zealot Jews. If the Talmud is anything to go by, a Yeshu and his disciples were executed too.

---> (2) Now let's go to the Roman Collosieum, and see the facts of history which are documented and still available :
- A christian Lady called Perpetual was suspended from a net in the collosieum, and raging bulls with brass tipped horn were released to charge and gore her to death for her faith
- The early Roman christians were "sports" for entertainment of the huge crowd in the collosieum, they were released into the arena and hungry lions set on them to devour them for refusing to accept Caesar as Lord and sticking to Christ.
- Some did not even have the benefit of being devoured by lions but were just tied to the stake and burned

Yes, and when the Christians came to power (so to speak) they repaid the favour - heck they even persecuted other sects of Christianity. Persecution is wrong, but the Christian faith is just as guilty.

---> (3) Now let's move closer and nearer to numerous religious persecutions in Northern Nigeria, Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and count the number of churches burnt, christians killed etc.

Could you reference some of those, please? Also, would I be wrong to suggest that the Christians in Nigeria also persecuted their counterparts?

Now what's the point? The point's are: If with all these historically recorded, horrendous physical and mental attacks on 'faith in Jesus Christ called christianity', the body of christ was and is still waxing stronger and growing as it is; then you can know that not a loud-mouthed Dan-Brown, nor confused filmaker Cameron, nor pointless secular humanism/liberalism, nor peadophilic prophet muhammed and his anti-christ ideology of Islam, etc can reduce or take away the Glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Yes, maybe there are many different types of Heaven (e.g utopia for hippies, al-Jannat for Islam, etc) but Jesus is the ONLY way to the Father. (God bless you, Syrup, for that statement)

Okay. By the way, would you agree that you calling Muhammed a "pedophilic prophet" could count as one of the several "lies haters of truth" have tried to use to discredit Islam, and in spite of those "lies", the "truth" of Islam is still waxing stronger and growing?
Again I say: you can discredit a lie with the Truth, but you can never discredit the Truth with a lie

[quote][/quote]

I laughed when I read kag say Christians in Nigeria persecuted their muslim counterparts.
You must not be a Nigerian,read our daily papers and find out who the Muslims in Nigeria attack and for what reason and also tell us what led to any counter attacks by Christians.

atheists have to attempt to discredit Christianity to have a voice.
That is their sole ministry.They would rather side with any other religions even though they claim to be areligious.
We have seen them before,next!!

Such Blasphemy
u pple dont know His Way is Better for U
its much harder to fight it, keep on
Good always wins at the End!

babyosisi:

I laughed when I read kag say Christians in Nigeria persecuted their muslim counterparts.
You must not be a Nigerian,read our daily papers and find out who the Muslims in Nigeria attack and for what reason and also tell us what led to any counter attacks by Christians.

Just so we're clear, you're saying this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4743672.stm wan't persecution because it was some kind of a Christian counter-attack, yes? I

atheists have to attempt to discredit Christianity to have a voice.
That is their sole ministry.They would rather side with any other religions even though they claim to be areligious.

Is that a fact? Hmm, it certainly explains the views of those Greek atheists - even though they were before Christianity. And no doubt, it neatly clears up the misconception of the many posts and writings of atheists condemning other religions and sometimes defending Christian beliefs. Oh well! By the way, would you like to tell T.H and his cohorts (see: http://www.mukto-mona.com/new_site/mukto-mona/muk-articles.htm), or should I?

We have seen them before,next!!

Indeed, and I'll be leaving after this thread.

@KAG,

As regards the exclusivity of the Bahai faith, let me point out something in the lines you provided:

Bahá'ís do seek to spread their faith, believing it to be the most recent and beneficial revelation from God to humanity, but they strongly emphasize unity, harmony and respect between the world's existing religions.

This is what the public reader is offered, so that the intrinsic exclusivity of Bahaism does not appear initially - until one takes a more practical and experiential approach to the religion.

In the Westernized version of Bahaism, it is often said that the faith is (and has always been) inclusive. However, the true Bahai still practised with its eastern flavours is quite exclusivistic. The quote above about its claim to be "the most recent and beneficial revelation from God to humanity" presupposes its exclusive undertone: in which case, all other faiths outside Bahaism are just at the other end of the scales - ir[/b]relevant and [b]un[/b]beneficial.

In its inception, Bahaism was as exclusive as Islam ~ "The early version of Bahai faith was as an [b]anti-Islamic faith and it propogated non-tolerance for Islam." ( [url=http://www.ece.rice.edu/~sranjan/history_new.html]please see this website[/url]. )

There are two stages of becoming an adherent of the Bahai faith. I apologise for not being able to point you to an official Bahai website for this; but that is understandable in context of the fact that the intrinsic exclusivity of the religion is not often offered publicly.

However, the second stage (which is of interest presently) involves the signing of a documents that reads:

I declare I have -
"Full recognition of the station of the Bab as Forerunner, of Baha'u'llah as Author and of 'Abdu'l-Baha as True Exemplar of the Baha'i religion; unreserved acceptance of, and submission to, whatsoever has been revealed by their Pen; loyal and steadfast adherence to every clause of Abdu’l-Baha's sacred Will; and close association with the spirit as well as the form of the Baha'i Administration throughout the world".

On the surface, Bahaism seems to be tolerant and inclusive of all religions. However, a member of the Bahai faith is expected to reject faiths outside Bahaism and strictly adhere to the tenets of the Baha'u'llah. Failure to comply could have serious consequencies that sometimes may involve legal prosecution!

Enough said. But the gist is that Bahaism is not what it appears to be on the surface; and until one takes a more realistic approach to investigating its true essence, the argument may continue to be surficial.

At the moment they haven't completely broken away from Christianity, so they should still count as one of the many - and sometimes contradictory - Christian denominations, no?

One of the many - sometimes contradictory - Christian denominations? I do not necessarily agree. Universalism is not sometimes contradictory - it is antithetical to the teachings of Christ in principle and practice.

Except it isn't. History is littered with many "convert or else" stories, from the inquisitions, to the recent "convert to receive aid" scandal: http://in.news.yahoo.com/050116/139/2j1rp.html

A line from the link:
"The incident is an exception to concerted charity in a catastrophe that has left no one untouched.(ANI)"

Something strikes me in reading the report: the name of the NGO or Christian group was not mentioned; and the last line aptly describes the incidence ("an exception", rather than the rule).

Oh, I'm sorry, it just slaughtered all of them for worshipping different Gods (see the Old Testament).

I should rather take that as a comic relief. Again, I'm not aware of any case where Jews have sought almost any means to convert people to Judaism.

The secularised West is quickly mentioned, not only because it's the region we are most familiar with, but also because persecution of that sort isn't expected in a region that preaches democracy and secularism. To the question of the Middle East, China and North Korea. With the exception of North Korea, those regions that do discriminate against other religions that aren't theirs, don't usually single out Christianity. From what I hear, most Middle Eastern countries accept Christianity (apparently it's the extreme minority that don't accept Christianity), and it's those that have associated Christianity with atheism and America that despise Christianity. China accepts Christianity too (although it regulates it like it does most other religions). As far as I'm aware, Christianity isn't singled out. I'm not really familiar with North Korea, so I can't say.

True - Christianity isn't singled out. Yet, it is the main official target of the Chinese communist government.

What do they feel about atheism in general? I think North Korea and China don't really mind it, but the Middle Eastern countries do.

[/quote]

And that is simply the point - because North Korea and China have an atheistic outlook, religious practices are often at the receiing end of their batons.

[quote]Oh, it really isn't grounds for discrediting, it just further compounds the problem of a lack of any contemporary sources during the time of the happenings.

I don't see how that compounds any problems. The only problem is that any document presented is often excused away by skeptics with the claim that "nobody" outside the Gospel writers mentioned anything about Jesus. Some extra-Biblical authors include Eusebius [Ecclesiastical History III.39], Irenaeus [Bishop of Lyons who been a Christian for 86 years, and knew Polycarp (a disciple of the apostle John)]; Clement of Rome (AD 95?); Ignatius (AD 70-110, Bishop of Antioch and knew all the apostles); and Polycarp (AD 70-156, was a discple of the apostle John).

The question I would like to ask is that: considering the dates when they wrote, why is it rather that there's not as much talk about documents written by opposers forcefully declaring that Jesus did not exist?

But they did survive just  as strongly in their times, and some are not so far behind Christianity in terms of acceptance. Certainly the Greco-Roman myths survived for a very long time - some still believe in Zeus; Egyptian mythology also survived for long, still survives, and has adherents as fervent as Christianity; Islam, there's another one; Hinduism has survived longer. So, while you and many in our time don't believe them anymore (in much the same way most don't believe the myths contained in the Bible, from the Genesis creation account, Noah's flood, etc), doesn't mean they don't have fervent believers.

I think you're mixing up issues. In terms of exposure to attacks and proven durability, why did those 'myths' fizzle away? And in terms of historicity, Islam is not a myth.

That any movement would have fervent believers doesn't necessarily make it a myth - and Christianity is not a myth.

James Cameron or whatever he calls himself just wants a block burster. This is all a marketing gimick to provoke controversy so that people would want to watch it.

How foolish can he be, cant he see why "The Passion of Christ" was such a success. Obviously advised by wrong unintelligent people he wants to go the way of the Davinci Code, well video clubs would categorise it in the fiction section instead of religion.

Simple minds, !! .

Y'all are lucky contemporary Christians don't behave like their Muslim counterpart or there would've been cars, buildings, flags burning in Denmark, Muslims slaughtering Christians from Kano to kaduna right now as a result of this. The thing is, even if the life of Christ was nothing but a farce, it has been more than two thousand years. It will be better to let whomever want to believe what ever be and those who don't too.

Just saw an interview on CNN showing the archaeologist who discovered the controversial tomb in 1980. According to him, its absolutely impossible for the tomb to be that of Jesus or his family.

@ Demmy

Rest assured my friend this ship has been sailing since, and is bound for the shores of Caanan, the heavenly one that is. The christian faith is built on God's sure word, and the bible has proven itself true. Its prophecies have come to pass and those yet to be fulfilled will be fulfilled in your very eyes if you live to see those events.

I hope for your sake you live to see last-day events fulfilled so that you can know for sure that God is not a liar, but all those who scheme and plot against spiritual values for mere convinience.

Its only a matter of time when he that will come, will come, and will not tarry.

Peace.

syrup:

@KAG,

As regards the exclusivity of the Bahai faith, let me point out something in the lines you provided:

This is what the public reader is offered, so that the intrinsic exclusivity of Bahaism does not appear initially - until one takes a more practical and experiential approach to the religion.

In the Westernized version of Bahaism, it is often said that the faith is (and has always been) inclusive. However, the true Bahai still practised with its eastern flavours is quite exclusivistic. The quote above about its claim to be "the most recent and beneficial revelation from God to humanity" presupposes its exclusive undertone: in which case, all other faiths outside Bahaism are just at the other end of the scales - ir[/b]relevant and [b]un[/b]beneficial.

No, that's not what I got from both the quoted line and the context as a whole. While they may believe it is the most recent and beneficial compared to other religions, it doesn't mean the other religions are wrong nor does it mean that they are unbeneficial. Remember they believe the other "prophets" and "men-God" of the main religions are all from the God you all worship, and their messages were relevant.

In its inception, Bahaism was as exclusive as Islam ~ "The early version of Bahai faith was as an [b]anti-Islamic faith and it propogated non-tolerance for Islam." ( [url=http://www.ece.rice.edu/~sranjan/history_new.html]please see this website[/url]. )

I haven't sen anything to suggest it was exclusive when it was begun, and the site you gave seems to have misconstrued the origins of Bahai. Looking through the history of Bahai, I find that rather than being anti-Islam as the link claims, they actually embraced many of the beliefs of Islam; Islam was one of the foundations for the new religion; and the leader of the religion had a working relationship with some of the Sufi leaders of the time (see: http://www.northill.demon.co.uk/bahai/intro8.htm). Those suggest the link was mistaken.

Furthermore, even the link it cites as a source doesn't seem to support that view (that or I missed it).

There are two stages of becoming an adherent of the Bahai faith. I apologise for not being able to point you to an official Bahai website for this; but that is understandable in context of the fact that the intrinsic exclusivity of the religion is not often offered publicly.

Then it's your word against theirs, and faced with the fact that I know little about either of you, I'm more compelled to take their word over yours (seeing as it's their religion and all).

However, the second stage (which is of interest presently) involves the signing of a documents that reads:

I declare I have -
"Full recognition of the station of the Bab as Forerunner, of Baha'u'llah as Author and of 'Abdu'l-Baha as True Exemplar of the Baha'i religion; unreserved acceptance of, and submission to, whatsoever has been revealed by their Pen; loyal and steadfast adherence to every clause of Abdu’l-Baha's sacred Will; and close association with the spirit as well as the form of the Baha'i Administration throughout the world".

On the surface, Bahaism seems to be tolerant and inclusive of all religions. However, a member of the Bahai faith is expected to reject faiths outside Bahaism and strictly adhere to the tenets of the Baha'u'llah. Failure to comply could have serious consequencies that sometimes may involve legal prosecution!

Enough said. But the gist is that Bahaism is not what it appears to be on the surface; and until one takes a more realistic approach to investigating its true essence, the argument may continue to be surficial.

If I have time, I will investigate further. However, as things stand you haven't presented anything more than your say so and a poor link to make the case that they are lying. The claim above, doesn't actually mean they are exclusive, as the signing on to a religion doesn't mean you believe other religions are misleading and the wrong way.

One of the many - sometimes contradictory - Christian denominations? I do not necessarily agree. Universalism is not sometimes contradictory - it is antithetical to the teachings of Christ in principle and practice

From what I gather, so are many other Christian denominations. Also, they seem to think it's their more "fundamentalist" brethren that are antithtical to the teachings of Christ. Who am I to judge?

A line from the link:
"The incident is an exception to concerted charity in a catastrophe that has left no one untouched.(ANI)"

Something strikes me in reading the report: the name of the NGO or Christian group was not mentioned; and the last line aptly describes the incidence ("an exception", rather than the rule).

It is still an example of the conversion of else tactics that many Christians have employed through time.

I should rather take that as a comic relief. Again, I'm not aware of any case where Jews have sought almost any means to convert people to Judaism.

Okay. But I've always thought verses like:

Deuteronomy 13:

6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods,

8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die


And

13 Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known;

15 Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword

And verses that call for the execution of people of other religions, witches, wizards etc were another way of forcing religious beliefs i.e convert/remain in my religion or else

True - Christianity isn't singled out. Yet, it is the main official target of the Chinese communist government.

That's not true. Tibetan Buddhism is clearly its main official target. Islam is also targeted (that is, like Christianity, it is regulated and receives interference) by the government.

And that is simply the point - because North Korea and China have an atheistic outlook, religious practices are often at the receiing end of their batons.

Perhaps, but I don't see how that is simply the point.

I don't see how that compounds any problems. The only problem is that any document presented is often excused away by skeptics with the claim that "nobody" outside the Gospel writers mentioned anything about Jesus.

I didn't say nobody outside the Gospels mentioned anything about Jesus, I said and meant (and I quote) "nobody outside of the writers of the Gospels (who came years after Jesus' death) thought to mention the many fantastic things reported by the Gospel writers". I can give you some examples of the fantastic things reported by the Gospel writers that you'd think -at least hope - any one with the ability to use a pen, would have recorded.

Some extra-Biblical authors include Eusebius [Ecclesiastical History III.39], Irenaeus [Bishop of Lyons who been a Christian for 86 years, and knew Polycarp (a disciple of the apostle John)]; Clement of Rome (AD 95?); Ignatius (AD 70-110, Bishop of Antioch and knew all the apostles); and Polycarp (AD 70-156, was a discple of the apostle John).

Eusebius, born over 2 centuries after Jesus' assumed date of demise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius_of_Caesarea). Hardly contemporary, hardly second hand, hardly third hand eye witness.

Irenaeus, born a century after Jesus' etc. Interestingly, had this to say: "The heretics boast that they have many more gospels than there really are. But really they don't have any gospels that aren't full of blasphemy. There actually are only four authentic gospels. And this is obviously true because there are four corners of the universe and there are four principal winds, and therefore there can be only four gospels that are authentic. These, besides, are written by Jesus' true followers." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus)

Polycarp, though born only about a generation after Jesus' etc. clearly wasn't a contemporary, never met or witnessed Jesus' fantastic exploits and the events reported to ahve surrounded him, nor does he even seem to have written, as a report, any of the fantsatic things.

Clement of Rome, same as above.


At this point, I would like to reiterate that it isn't people mentioning the name of the founder of the Christian religion that is a concern, it's the glaring gap in history that is of value here. It's not really difficult to find believers after the assumed date of demise mentioning the name of Jesus; but it's nigh on impossible to find contemporaries or historians that write about the exploits and events surrounding Jesus.

The question I would like to ask is that: considering the dates when they wrote, why is it rather that there's not as much talk about documents written by opposers forcefully declaring that Jesus did not exist?

I don't know. Maybe people aren't just as interested in those the Church have called heretics?

I think you're mixing up issues. In terms of exposure to attacks and proven durability, why did those 'myths' fizzle away?

Because with time and discovery, most myths, and sometimes their religions, die a natural death. The ones that survive are the ones that have been able to adapt and still try to appeal to humanity. Having said that, you should know that there are still people that believe Zeus is the high God - lightening bolts and all - of the Universe and world (mad I know).

And in terms of historicity, Islam is not a myth.

I didn't say it was. Several of the things Muslims believe are myths, however.

That any movement would have fervent believers doesn't necessarily make it a myth - and Christianity is not a myth.

No, Christianity isn't a myth, but several of the elements in Christianity are mythological, ergo Christianity - or parts of it - is a type of mythology.

Jesus' Tomb Revealed. Jesus Wasn't Resurrected??
just a question 4 d person who made this forum: " which planet r u 4rom

Nella:

Jesus' Tomb Revealed. Jesus Wasn't Resurrected??
just a question 4 d person who made this forum: " which planet r u 4rom

this doesnt make sense either

Jesus' Tomb Revealed. Jesus Wasn't Resurrected??
2 d person who created this forum, just one question : which planet r u 4rom

bluenubian:

this doesnt make sense either

well neither does this forum. u just think up a topic n create a forum 4 it!!
Jesus' Tomb Revealed. Jesus Wasn't Resurrected lol yeah i belive!! non-sense!!

do u mean" this thread"?, and no he didnt jus come up with the topic, try reading more into what the original poster wrote, instead of just reading the topic and making conclusions.

[quote autho

bluenubian:

do u mean" this thread"?, and no he didnt jus come up with the topic, try reading more into what the original poster wrote, instead of just reading the topic and making conclusions.

well i can't waist my tym reading, becuz d topic is enough 2 assure me that d forum is useless!!