this might be out of left-field, but for some reason your monologues always remind me of an atheist paul harvey.  i don't know if it's their wittiness, their syntax, the way they build up to an inevitable climax, or what.  hell, it might be nothing, but i can always imagine your words in his voice.

i mean that as a sincere compliment, btw.

i wish just for once you would end with, "and now you know...the rest of the story."

Thanks. You probably know that Matthew's gospel ended officially with the terribly constricting words "But some doubted". Later in the second century some entrepreneurial bishop of Rome added the last three verses to promote the Trinitarian form of baptism, hence Jesus acquiring and being endowed with that fantastic "ALL-POWER", something he didn't know he had at "Ascension"!!

Well, one thing I assure you: I have never seen the Christ of the Jews! That Jesus was originally a great ACTOR and impersonator to be used as a militant revolutionary in the political turmoil of those dark days. It was so dark that actually nobody ever saw that Jesus. But later they converted that ghost of darkness into a terribly dangerous WEAPON to kill innocent bystanders!! And now we have to suffer a man dressing like a clown and calling himself "Holy Father"!!! All that after KILLING MILLIONS of innocents!!!!...

I don't know about the whole Christ as myth thing myself. On the face of what evidence has been advanced, there just is not enough to come to any conclusion on either side of that particular question. In any case, I fail to see how it even matters if there was a dude.

Consider the environment of the time. There were lots of people running around claiming to be god's special buddy and wanting to tell people how they really ought to live. Surely one of them has to be a closer match than others were. Yawn.

Then Paul turns up and does basically the same thing, except for the fact that he is doing not in his own name. Now we are one step removed from whomever might have played the key role.

Some time later, the Gospels are written and (along with the rest of the NT) copied badly hundreds of times over. Eventually, we have many documents that are largely a confusing mess. After about 400 years, the situation is such a mess that the work all has to be reassessed.

There are a few hundred individual churches and they don't even all agree on one common set of book titles to include as appropriate for worship, let alone which version of each title. So the church gets reinvented again. Now we are further removed from any possible source.

Jump ahead several more centuries ane we come to the reformation. This time the church gets reinvented to the needs of the time but it happens about a dozen different ways, perhaps half of which survived the wars that resulted. And again, we drift further from the source.

What next? Oliver Cromwell vs. King Charles? Anabaptists on the continent? Quakers in Pennsylvania? Joseph Smith and his lunacy?

Hence, I think that there is really little point in even paying attention to the question of whether Jesus was real. The churches that we have today have little in common with the original form apart from the name. If there even was a single original form but that is a different topic.

I started writing a response to your comments, which by the way I’ve never heard anyone make the connection that you did, so I was interested to respond, but anyways, I started responding and it really got out of hand and ended up being longer than I expected.. so before you read and form your opinion of me, let introduce myself haha.. first time on here so I hope you’ll bear with me. I’m a Christian, and I’ve read enough on these forums to know that not everyone agrees with what I hold to be true, and this especially doesn’t mean that I am going to try and force my beliefs down your throat. From what I can tell, most people here can hold an intelligent discussion, and I’m all for going back and forth like normal civilized people. Lastly, I do believe the Bible, and I know there are a lot of discussions we could get into about whether or not its legitimate, which is what this particular forum is about, so I understand if you or others doubt it, but at the same time, hopefully we can be agreeable even in disagreeing.  So with that, I have some thoughts..

You mentioned John as writing the church to "bitterly complain" that so many antichrists with heretical teaching had infiltrated the church. I don't know if I'd use the term complain here. When I think of complaining, I really picture Luke Skywalker whining like a little 12 year old, haha, but more seriously, I think complaining is usually just expressing frustration or annoyance over a situation, yet offering no real solution to the problem. While, in reading the letter, I think a more accurate description of John's tone would be one of concern, wouldn't you think? John, in the letter, called the church back to the original apostolic doctrine, both expressing distress over the fact that Gnostic heresy and thought was gradually creeping into the church, as well as offering a solution, calling the church back to the original apostolic doctrine. So, not only did John express his distress over the situation, but offered the church a solution to the problem he saw forming in the church, one might make the argument that John’s response, as an apostle or representative of Christ, would also satisfy the claim that Christ never helped the church.  As far as Jesus never helping the church and therefore demonstrating His lack of power, well I think it’s important to recognize what exactly "helping the church" means. I think most people are going to have varying views of what avenue was best to take. Everyone has their own idea of what God should do in any situation, that’s our nature, and obviously that’s assuming the person believes in God in the first place. Many Bible scholars, I think, would point to Revelation 1-3 as a possible answer to the question you bring up, and in fact many pastors use Jesus’ instructions to the 7 churches as prescriptive instructions for the church as a whole today. Whether that satisfies your claim I can’t tell obviously, but I think most learned Christians would say that by leaving the apostles, and the prescriptive instructions given to the church in Revelation, Jesus by no means left the church out to dry, and still retained his omnipotent nature. This may not be as flashy, or have that “all-powerful” flavor to it that we often associate or expect from God or Jesus (fire from heaven, parting a sea etc.), but I think it’s important to not expect God to show Himself in that way. Jesus in the NT was known as a performer of miracles, the crowds flocked to him, yet it’s recorded that still, like you quoted, “some doubted”. So what we have to ask ourselves I think is, would we really believe even if we saw that which we expected God to do? Or would we still doubt? I think it’s an interesting question.

You’re second point opens up probably one of the most difficult, if not the most difficult, argument against God, which is the problem of evil. I definitely don’t assume that a short paragraph response will change your view here, and for me to fill my response with a bunch of religious slang or bumper-sticker comebacks (which as a Christian even make me sick) and expect that to change your opinion would be naïve, and unfortunately typical of many Christians now-a-days. Logically speaking, it’s a generalization to assert that Jesus does nothing to help any kidnapped child (unless you don’t believe he exists, then we have another argument entirely and my point is moot), and it goes back to what I mentioned previously is that we’d be hard pressed to agree on what would satisfy individual standards for “helping” each child (obviously we can agree that helping the child would mean saving them from their kidnappers, but how that is accomplished and more importantly who we attribute it to is the point of our disagreement). In my understanding of the Christian faith, one of the issues closest to the values of Jesus is that of social justice. Many would say it’s the purpose of the Church, founded by Jesus, to be active in combating the social injustices of our world, and if this is the case, then I would be among the first to agree that it has done a horrible job in doing so. If the church is the agent by which Jesus actively represents Himself and shows his power, and the church has actually done the opposite, causing generations to doubt God, then the fault is not God’s, it is Christian’s fault in being a poor representative of God.

What I did think was interesting was that you included Christians as victims of injustice in addition to those who do not consider themselves adherers to Christianity. I agree. Evil affects everyone on earth; this includes Christians and those who profess other beliefs, whether it’s Islam, Atheism, Skepticism, or Scientology. As a Christian myself, for me to believe that Jesus prevents harm in this life to those who accept Him here on earth is a gross misinterpretation of the Bible. In fact, in reading the gospels, it seems that becoming a Christian is a ticket to more hardship. American Christianity has “sold/marketed” itself as an alternative American Dream, with the slogan “Get Saved, Get Rich”, with riches meaning the house, the white picket fence, and the Lexus in the driveway. It says, if you reject, then God will make life here for you miserable because of it. But, like you said, Christians experience evil too, so this American Dream Christianity can’t be viable, and it’s not.

So what hope or answer does authentic Christianity bring to this problem of evil? People often assert that God does nothing on the behalf of those who are cruelly treated or maligned, and I can definitely see how they form this view when those who claim the name of God (Christians) around them don’t seem to care much about the present injustice that surrounds everyone, and they only care about going to heaven when they die. Why believe in a God like that? I don't blame anyone for thinking that. It seems like the ultimate act of evil. Yes. Part of the problem is the Christian church. We have done a terrible job in representing the God we do serve and believe in, a God who does care and is responsive to the injustices that our world presents; it’s on us as humans. We could go on for a long time on the source of evil, whether man is inherently good or evil, or any number of arguments that spring from this axiomatic problem, and questioning whether God has a hand in righting the wrongs of our world. I don’t know if the latter question would be so controversial if the church had not made such a departure from the crux of Christianity in the first place, which is simply showing love to others as much as we do ourselves. 

Finally, I don't mean to suggest that Christians are the only people in the world who can do perfom acts of social justice. I'm merely saying that as Christians, it should be on the top of our list of priorities. If anyone responds and I don't post back right away, I'm sorry.. being a student has its downside. ha

.

Appreciated your long dissertation, and please right again, if you have the time.

However, the truth about Christianity is a landscape of terrible offences since day one. You read about the first two crimes to launch the church of that Jewish christ, in Acts 5:1-11, where two immature, naïve, carnal e INNOCENT members were downed by some inconspicuous “holy spirit” on matters of MONEY.

The first two of the “Official Inquisition”, later in the centuries computing into MILLIONS! Was that the BEST way to start a holy church? Certainly not.

Peter had been forgiven of a worse misdemeanour when he denied Jesus three times in front of women with the coarsest expletives [not mentioned in the passage to avoid revulsion] after swearing he would die with Jesus. Why wouldn’t Peter tell Ananias and Sapphira to go look for a more liberal group?

Of course the story is a fable invented in the second century to bring GREAT FEAR in the church where great love was to rule! Now, if a holy church starts with CRIME in MONEY matters to help the poor in Jerusalem, Jehovah’s capital, what will come afterwards?!…

Later, Paul would make a collection to help the poor in the same city, for Peter’s solution failed, and Jehovah had no means to resolve it! Two innocents killed for nothing! Bottom line: religion is primarily a dishonest COMMERCIAL venture established in FEAR of invisible gods.

Religion is intrinsically DISHONEST, though not all involved are crooks, but ALL are victims of the evil system. Christianity has a history of TWO THOUSAND years of failures and offences. We did NOT need any christ to survive in this inhospitable planet. Popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, pastors and other agents of the Jewish christ are spurious in society.

We as a living species would do BETTER without religion and those opportunists taking advantage of our natural fears. If some [invisible] god had conscience trouble to save us he could have sorted out the problem much earlier when the problem was small [in his mind].

I studied the Bible for 35 years and can report without hesitation that it is not a holy book, but a dangerous weapon to molest innocent minds. I learned a terrible lesson one day when I finally understood that the church wanted to shut down my brain, mind and reason to replace it with that of another man!

I shook from head to toe [literally] when I realized that was to be the WORST crime in the universe, when a man wants to paralyze other men’s reason faculty to impose the diatribes of his [having also been a victim of other men for the same reason, in a vicious circle].

Those diabolical THIEVES go by offensive titles like “pope”, “pastor”, “Bible student” and so on. What right do religious fanatics have to STEAL somebody else’s mind?!…

I don’t believe the Bible is God’s word, because if so he could have given us something BETTER, much better! Jesus doesn’t help anything. Proof is evident when a pastor prays for MISSING CHILDREN and also prays for his new car. He might get the car, because it’s a better prayer!…

Jesus never found any MISSING CHILDREN, in spite of traumatized parents weeping, crying and suffering horrors while going to church and giving it lots of money!

But church ministers do witness that Jesus gave them the new car they were praying for!!! Religion is a dangerous enterprise where emotional naivety is easily molested!…

Interesting thoughts Julio, sorry it took me so long to respond. Better late than never haha

Julio: However, the truth about Christianity is a landscape of terrible offences since day one. You read about the first two crimes to launch the church of that Jewish christ, in Acts 5:1-11, where two immature, naïve, carnal e INNOCENT members were downed by some inconspicuous “holy spirit” on matters of MONEY.

Here's where I'd have to disagree with your view of Acts 5 though, Ananias and Sapphira were not innocent. They lied not only to Peter, but ultimately to God. (vs. 4 for references sake) I think this really comes down to our view of morality and God. Do you believe man is inherently good? or evil? If man is inherently good, then yes, God was wrong for striking them dead because they really didn't deserve to die, they only told a "white lie". I agree! Yet, if man is inherently evil, and God is inherently all-righteous, then God is completely vindicated in executing judgment for sin at anytime He deems necessary. Sin is sin, and its a nasty topic that nobody likes, but I believe its a reality. I don't believe myself to a better human being than the next guy, I hope I get that across. I believe we're all on the same playing field here, aka man is inherently evil w/o God. This is not to say that man cannot do good things like walk a lady across the street or combat poverty, but this goodness does not and cannot change God's righteous judgment on us until we accept that He's holy, and we're not. No one human being is more righteous in God's eyes by ourselves. The crux of the Christian message, which I'm sure you're familiar with in studying the Bible for 35 years, is the Gospel. Christ takes the sin of the world, bears it Himself, and therefore vindicates God in offering grace and forgiveness to sinful humans who trust in Him. This is God's answer, in love, to His responsive judgment for sin. I understand this is controversial, and I certainly do not intend to come across as though I, myself, am judging anyone here. (I'm in no place to do that believe me haha) I respect the intelligence of the people on this forum, and I merely state this so that there is a clear explanation as to what I believe.

Julio: Why wouldn’t Peter tell Ananias and Sapphira to go look for a more liberal group?

Another good point. I think its important here to know that, like you said, Peter of all people would understand lying to and about God. I agree that directly denying Christ w/ coarse language can't be a good thing. Should Peter have been more understanding? I believe he most definitely would have been, if he had been given chance to reconcile them both, but as we see, he does not get that chance. Its important that we don't read too much into this passage, because Peter never had a chance to resolve the solution with Annanias or Sapphira. In fact, the passage simply tells us that they both fell dead at Peter's feet. I would think, that in Peter's situation, he would have been more than willing to hand out grace towards the couple and work with them both, after all, they were struggling with the same thing he dealt with. When Peter asks them "Why have you agreed to test/filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?" They both dropped dead immediately after. Peter did not call for them to die, or ask God to kill them. Peter only called on the name of God when he healed others (Acts 3) This ties in with what I previously stated, that only God has the authority to execute judgment on sin, and on His timing, not ours. If Peter had said, "In the name of the LORD, Ananias, fall dead", and he did die, then the fear of the church would've been directed towards Peter, not to God. Which leads me to your other point...
 

Julio: The first two of the “Official Inquisition”, later in the centuries computing into MILLIONS! Was that the BEST way to start a holy church? Certainly not.

The Inquisition of the Catholic church as well as the Crusades, which probably sum up 2 of the most tainted blows to the church if you're talking about violence, murder, and the like, these differed from the Ananias & Sapphira situation because these were led by men. Popes, Bishops, and other Religious leaders condemned men to die for merely not believing the Christian faith. People feared these establishments, and still do in the form of the present church because of the reputation these man-made "death councils" have created. These events are what happens when Peter hypothetically says "Ananias, die in the name of God". People begin to fear man rather than God. So here's my point, Ananias & Sapphira were not killed by Peter, but rather by God, who has the authority to act on such matters. The Inquisition and Crusades, yes! I agree with you, they were the absolute worst ways to go about "starting a holy church" because these events were led by men presuming to act as judge, or God. If the church had that kind of power or authority today, we both can go build our own shelter and live off of Hormel Chili haha, cause I assure you, that should not be the church.

What right do religious fanatics have to STEAL somebody else’s mind?!

None. Whatsoever. Your mind is your own, and you can decide/believe/argue whatever point you want. Lets assume Christianity is true, hopefully you can at least agree that if Christianity is true, hypothetical situation here, and if everyone who dies without trusting in God as a sacrifice for our wrongdoing, then Christians everywhere should be extremely concerned that everyone has a chance to hear and accept. I think the problem is though that when people do not accept, Christians turn and hate. Which is extremely illogical to me. I respect your right to disagree with what I believe Julio. I would not expect you to leave your mind at the door if you were to go to church regularly, people should be sure of what they believe.

Hopefully I explained myself at least understandably and legibly. I still can't figure out this quote thing haha

Julio: I don’t believe the Bible is God’s word, because if so he could have given us something BETTER, much better! Jesus doesn’t help anything. Proof is evident when a pastor prays for MISSING CHILDREN and also prays for his new car. He might get the car, because it’s a better prayer!

Its a good thought, I'm interested, what kind of "better" do you have in mind? Also, I'm a bit confused on the Pastor praying. Are you saying that he gets the car because thats what he's really interested in when he prays? Or am I reading it wrong haha sorry 

=================================================================================

To Chrome:

Like seriously, it never even happened, there are absolutely no recounts of anything jesus-like happening outside of the bible itself. Considering there were over 40 known philosophers and scribes living in that area of the bible-said "jesus" but none of them even remotely mention anything about him. 

Hey Chrome, I appreciate the criticism!

Well I certainly hope you don't take me for someone who doesn't appreciate good reason haha, I try to be reasonable and argue soundly, which I've said time and time again many Christians tend to do, and all I can say is I try to be honest and ya know if my reason is flawed, lets talk haha.

I'd encourage you to look into the writings of Josephus, a prominent Jewish historian, if you haven't already. I know there is debate on whether Josephus actually mentioned Christ, but I found this site to be a good read that discusses that question: http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm#what

If your in a more Roman line of thought, this is a direct quote from Tacticus, the Roman Historian of the early 2nd century talking about Nero of AD 60's, note that he doesn't even put Christianity in a good light, but rather as "hideous" and "shameful"

"But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus [Jesus], the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind."

I'll leave you with one last link from Dr. Gary Habermas, in this article he responds to a thesis proposed by G.A. Wells in which Well's asserts the historical Jesus never existed.. This is Habermas' response to Wells' thesis, at the bottom are a bunch of good scholarly references you can use to research more if you want haha

http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_summarycritique/crj_summarycritique.htm

Let me know what you think!

Well, I think that you missed my point julio.

Honestly, I don't care whether there was a real person who may have been the grain of truth behind the founding of the church. Even assuming that the whole thing could be connected to one dude, certainly he can't have struck a chord in his culture unless there was already a significant number of his contemporaries who held to similar ideas.

That much being said, the bible itself has changed in important ways over the centuries. People have added stories for no better reason than that they sounded like the type of stuff that ought to be in there and they have deleted bits because they were confusing or did not support the agenda of the time in which each particular scribe lived.

Then, as I noted above, the nature of the church has evolved slowly over time, punctuated by some fairly dramatic changes such as the reformation. So even with an historical figure to connect to, the church of any given century is not the same as the original movement.

Given that, I would prefer to blame the various crimes of the past directly on the people who committed them.

The choreography of Ananias & Sapphira is offensive to me. Killing those two was not necessary to institute a religion based on love from a “Prince of Peace”.

Though I firmly believe the story is fake, the bishops of Rome, later turned into emperors did use those passages to persecute and KILL the antagonists.

It is well explained in the definitions of heresy, anathema and other imaginary offences in the Catholic Encyclopaedia.

As for older writings of philosophers, yes, we can suspect there had been some tampering over the centuries before the printing press was invented, but as far as the Christian writings there is no doubt whatsoever that they were manipulated to suit different superstitions, primarily in the second century.

The difference is that those stories were used to kill innocent people, and that makes them criminal passages.

A religion that kills to uphold its god’s holy character is criminal.

If Jesus were the so-called Son of God, the “plan of salvation” he initiated in history is a massive failure; hence discrediting his credentials. As an attentive student will eventually discover, most of the so-called canonical content is not original.

The book of Acts is a biased document to introduce Peter and Paul in the church of the second century.

Paul also cursed those who disagreed with him [Galatians 1:7], saying he got his message via a private revelation, without witnesses.

That is, the so-called holy spirit discarded 12 well-trained disciples and went to hire a mercenary from Turkey, somewhere.

It does not go well with a divine plan, etc.

And so on, ad nauseam.

Agree, and well put.
Christians would do good to themselves stepping out of their superstitious beliefs of gods & christs of so long ago!
A small step outside fanaticism starts a gigantic leap into intellectual freedom!
The intellectual abyss of believing a Jewish Christ with “All-Power-In-Heaven-And-On-Earth” can be overcome by admitting he is a massive failure, after TWO THOUSAND years of attempts to implement his moral code!
All power for what?!!…
Jesus is a moral midget.
Please, anybody try to prove me wrong?...

Well put.
As for the ancient documents or “sources" [manuscripts; hand-written] for what we now have called the “New Testament” they were ALL manipulated and tampered with MANY TIMES, to end supporting a particular teaching of some unknown follower of some Jewish Jesus.
The popes [bishops of Rome] were/are the worst culprits in that endeavour.
NOTHING in the NT is genuine.
Now, to go and teach stewardship from an illustration of a CRIME committed against two objectors is offensive to me!
Jesus is put as saying at that passage I referred to as having ALL POWER in heaven and on earth.
Since Christians take the story literally, was it then necessary to commit a CRIME to highlight the need for discipline in the offering in the “Primitive Church”?!…
I’ve heard the most coarsest explanations about Acts 5:1-11 in the area of stewardship and FEAR of a god that could not come up with a BETTER plan than KILLING two innocents to bring GREAT FEAR in his church, which [fear] never left it now for 2000 years!!

I am going to comment on this point alone, since iwbiek already took apart the "legitimate" claim. Just because tradition holds to apostles writing most of the NT does not make it so, not even slightly. The only "apostle" who can be said with some degree of certainty to have written anything is Paul. He wrote his letters at least 20 years after Jesus supposedly died, he never met Jesus, writes almost nothing about what Jesus did, and only started the whole writing thing after having some epileptic seizure on the road to Damascus. What's funny is that the NT contains about as many letters by him as it does letter written in his name, i.e. forgeries. This is also the case for the generic epistles, although NONE of them are genuine.

The four gospels and acts are anonymous. The writers never identify themselves, or where and when they are writing. They most certainly are not eye witness accounts, they're religious fan fiction. The names attributed to them are 2nd century guess work, when they started to worry about whose version of chistianity was the true one. Thus the names just happen to be the names of apostles or people close to them from the stories. Remarkable coincidence, given that apostolic tradition was the way to justify your own version of christianity, don't you think?