There are many competing arguments about the historicity of Jesus Christ.

To me, the more important question is his claim that he was the Son of God, possessed miraculous powers, rose from the dead, and was born to a virgin mother.

Joseph Smith made a lot of wild claims, but none compare to the things that Jesus claimed.

Jesus didnt write anything so we dont know that he claimed to be the literal son of God or, if he did, what he meant by that.He referred to all of us as children of God so he may not have meant it literally if he said it at all. He seems to have considered himself as some sort of prophet or possibly the messiah, but again, we dont know for sure how much of that was his belief or the beliefs of Paul and the Gospel writers. He also never claimed to be born of a virgin. That was Matthew and Luke. As for miracles, lots of people claimed to have healing powers. It was a superstitious age.None of that means he didnt exist.

Fair enough - I am obviously referring to scriptures where others make these claims.

But, I still maintain that the clams by Joseph Smith pale in comparison to the claims others made about Jesus.

JS made some pretty ridiculous claims too and he made them himself.

Coming up with polygamy, as a commandment from God, so he could satisfy his voracious sexual appetite was shockingly brilliant, especially considering the puritanical times he lived in.

The fact so many men and women didn't immediately label him as a fallen prophet shows the incredible power he held over people.

Polygamy was hidden for a long time except for those practicing it.JS knew it would be a hard sell even among some of the faithful



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/2017 09:09PM by bona dea.

There are numerous similarities between Joseph Smith and Donald Trump.

A character study comparing the two would be fascinating.

Since you are retired bona, I nominate you for this project.

the best comparison is between Joseph and Muhammad. This is one by far the best best book I have read on the subject.

The American Muhammad: Joseph Smith, Founder of Mormonism
https://www.amazon.com/American-Muhammad-Joseph-Founder-Mormonism/dp/0758640293


This fascinating book provides many facts not commonly known about Joseph Smith and Muhammad and will help readers see and understand how the teachings of these two men contradict biblical Christianity.
I would strongly encourage this book.

Thx Darin - will check it out?

rebeljamesdean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are numerous similarities between Joseph
> Smith and Donald Trump.

Horny Joe never published his tax returns for one thing.

Lol. I still work part time. You are right. Both are narcissicists.

yes agreed.

And sex addicts.

You work less than me - you are still nominated.

I will get right on it. Lol

There may have been a historical Jesus, but he was not the "son of God". God can have no "sons" and "daughters", and here's why:

Reproduction exists only because death exists. Without death there would be no need for reproduction, thus no need for gender either. The creator of the universe, God is an It, not a "he", otherwise It would not be immortal. The same can be said for any life form that has achieved existence beyond the physical forms that are subject to decay and death. I believe the Beings of Light people encounter when they have near-death experiences fit into this category also.

As to whether Jesus lived a life without sin: If he were a human being I can assure you he did not. He had to eat, as all human beings do, and eating is an essentially evil act. My daughter is a vegan and would say that her eating is less evil than the rest of ours, but it is really only a matter of degrees. When you eat you are destroying another life form or destroying it's ability to come into existence. Not that we can help it however. But this is sound logical evidence human Jesus was not a God.

Just a few happy thoughts to ponder this Easter weekend.

Hmmm - God and Mary produced Jesus. But, wait a minute, doesn't that make him only 1/2 God?

Right. Where did he get his Y chromosome? (From the guy who knocked up Mary, that's where.)

Of course there is no body to check DNA which is convenient.

I'm undecided on what Jesus was exactly.

There could have been some peace-nik of the era who seeded the ideas that took off later.

There could have been the idea of a Christ; maybe a composite in the way that there were lumberjacks and the stories about them became Paul Bunyon.

Reading Eric Hoffer's True Believer about how mass movements arise and reading world mythology about how hundreds of gods and religions have started, I think it is clear that Christianity has followed the same patterns. Not all were as successful.

Most of the gods had qualities of the cultures who created them. There were parts that probably were real. I have no idea. I find it compelling that there could have been a specific human, but with the evidence we have, I certainly am not convinced either way. Most of the myths of gods of the religions do not appear to have evidence. It's like saying Mt. Olympus is proof that the Greek gods were real. How else could their complicated culture based on the gods have happened if they were not real? Well, that's the snag. It could and it has.

The thing that is least plausible is that the Jesus character was actually a supernatural character performing bowling alley level miracles. That part shows just how mythology is built.

I can agree with bona dea that if anything, a specific man could have existed. Unlike bona dea, I wouldn't be able to conclude with certainty based on historical scholars alone. I'm one who enjoys these threads, even if I know they will end in a dead end.


Two grammar edits.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2017 07:40PM by dagny.

Life is a dead end:) Maybe.

rebeljamesdean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hmmm - God and Mary produced Jesus. But, wait a
> minute, doesn't that make him only 1/2 God?


Yeah, like Hercules.

Actually I never viewed killing as anything more than shortening another organism's lifespan. I still think that's essentially wrong in many cases. The only case where killing is actually murder is if you killed something that would otherwise be immortal.
Since not eating would shorten my own lifespan, I could then argue that not killing another organism for food would be a sin against me. From that premise I'll just have to be subjective as to which life is more important. I leave that to the judge: natural selection and nature-our mother and creator of both the eater and the eaten. I've found she tends to issue verdicts in favor of the more advanced organisms.
Eating unnecessarily and improperly is probably a sin against even nature. It's punished though-by shortened lifespans and unpleasant health consequences. Obesity is most likely to happen when we eat more higher-level organisms than we need, or we eat too much.

miner:

Very interesting Post. One of the reasons I have doubted the creation story is why would God create animal life for the purpose of feeding humans.

Isn't all life sacred? Surely man could live without meat. Animals spend most of their life hunting or being hunted. Sounds kind of sadistic to me, and not very Christ like.

Of course cartoon Jesus was real. We have his birth and death records. We have copies of his taxes and tithing slips. The
Church court records for fucking whores and having gay sex is also on line for all to see.

What makes you think cartoon Jesus was ever real?

"Did Historical Jesus Really Exist?: The evidence just doesn’t add up. There are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence."

by Raphael Lataster
December 18, 2014

"(Raphael Lataster is a lecturer in religious studies at the University of Sydney. He is author of 'There Was No Jesus, There Is No God').

"Did a man called Jesus of Nazareth walk the earth? Discussions over whether the figure known as the 'Historical Jesus' actually existed primarily reflect disagreements among atheists. Believers, who uphold the implausible and more easily-dismissed 'Christ of Faith' (the divine Jesus who walked on water), ought not to get involved.

"Numerous secular scholars have presented their own versions of the so-called 'Historical Jesus' – and most of them are, as biblical scholar J.D. Crossan puts it, 'an academic embarrassment.' From Crossan’s view of Jesus as the wise sage, to Robert Eisenman’s Jesus the revolutionary, and Bart Ehrman’s apocalyptic prophet, about the only thing New Testament scholars seem to agree on is Jesus’ historical existence. But can even that be questioned?

"The first problem we encounter when trying to discover more about the Historical Jesus is the lack of early sources. The earliest sources only reference the clearly fictional Christ of Faith. These early sources, compiled decades after the alleged events, all stem from Christian authors eager to promote Christianity – which gives us reason to question them. The authors of the Gospels fail to name themselves, describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources – which they also fail to identify. Filled with mythical and non-historical information, and heavily edited over time, the Gospels certainly should not convince critics to trust even the more mundane claims made therein.

"The methods traditionally used to tease out rare nuggets of truth from the Gospels are dubious. The criterion of embarrassment says that if a section would be embarrassing for the author, it is more likely authentic. Unfortunately, given the diverse nature of Christianity and Judaism back then (things have not changed all that much), and the anonymity of the authors, it is impossible to determine what truly would be embarrassing or counter-intuitive, let alone if that might not serve some evangelistic purpose.

"The criterion of Aramaic context is similarly unhelpful. Jesus and his closest followers were surely not the only Aramaic-speakers in first-century Judea. The criterion of multiple independent attestation can also hardly be used properly here, given that the sources clearly are not independent.

"Paul’s Epistles, written earlier than the Gospels, give us no reason to dogmatically declare Jesus must have existed. Avoiding Jesus’ earthly events and teachings, even when the latter could have bolstered his own claims, Paul only describes his 'Heavenly Jesus.' Even when discussing what appear to be the resurrection and the last supper, his only stated sources are his direct revelations from the Lord, and his indirect revelations from the Old Testament. In fact, Paul actually rules out human sources (see Galatians 1:11-12).

"Also important are the sources we don’t have. There are no existing eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus. All we have are later descriptions of Jesus’ life events by non-eyewitnesses, most of whom are obviously biased. Little can be gleaned from the few non-Biblical and non-Christian sources, with only Roman scholar Josephus and historian Tacitus having any reasonable claim to be writing about Jesus within 100 years of his life. And even those sparse accounts are shrouded in controversy, with disagreements over what parts have obviously been changed by Christian scribes (the manuscripts were preserved by Christians), the fact that both these authors were born after Jesus died (they would thus have probably received this information from Christians), and the oddity that centuries go by before Christian apologists start referencing them.

"Agnosticism over the matter is already seemingly appropriate, and support for this position comes from independent historian Richard Carrier’s recent defense of another theory — namely, that the belief in Jesus started as the belief in a purely celestial being (who was killed by demons in an upper realm), who became historicized over time. To summarize Carrier’s 800-page tome, this theory and the traditional theory – that Jesus was a historical figure who became mythicized over time – both align well with the Gospels, which are later mixtures of obvious myth and what at least sounds historical.

"The Pauline Epistles, however, overwhelmingly support the 'celestial Jesus' theory, particularly with the passage indicating that demons killed Jesus, and would not have done so if they knew who he was (see: 1 Corinthians 2:6-10). Humans – the murderers according to the Gospels – of course would still have killed Jesus, knowing full well that his death results in their salvation, and the defeat of the evil spirits.

"So what do the mainstream (and non-Christian) scholars say about all this? Surprisingly very little – of substance anyway. Only Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey have thoroughly attempted to prove Jesus’ historical existence in recent times. Their most decisive point? The Gospels can generally be trusted – after we ignore the many, many bits that are untrustworthy – because of the hypothetical (i.e. non-existent) sources behind them. Who produced these hypothetical sources? When? What did they say? Were they reliable? Were they intended to be accurate historical portrayals, enlightening allegories, or entertaining fictions?

"Ehrman and Casey can’t tell you – and neither can any New Testament scholar. Given the poor state of the existing sources, and the atrocious methods used by mainstream Biblical historians, the matter will likely never be resolved. In sum, there are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence – if not to think it outright improbable."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/?utm_term=.522674dd3ff7



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2017 05:06AM by steve benson.

That he existed as an individual and attracted enough local/regional attention to be mentioned by Josephus and Tacitus, is well-accepted by academic researchers and scholars.
Beyond that, there's no way to confirm any of the events his followers claimed, unless more contemporary records are discovered, and even they may not prove anything definitive about Jesus, as the Nag Hammadi library didn't.

samwitch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That he existed as an individual and attracted
> enough local/regional attention to be mentioned by
> Josephus and Tacitus, is well-accepted by academic
> researchers and scholars.

Except that Tacitus never mentions "Jesus," and Tacitus never could have possibly seen or met him, and called belief in "Christus" a "pernicious myth."

Except that "academic research and scholars" consider the main Josephus mention a later fraudulent insertion, for very good reasons, and the other possible mention may not refer to the "Jesus" in question at all.

Oops.

There is not enough evidence to establish an "historical Jesus." Anyone that says otherwise is going on "belief," not facts.

That doesn't mean there WASN'T an historical Jesus -- there might have been, or the bible stories might be based on multiple people combined together, or they might be made up entirely. We simply don't have enough evidence to say.

A question that I asked in the other thread -- would you accept that there is adequate evidence that the evangelist Paul (Saul of Tarsus) existed? You have his letters, his extensive travels and associations, named family members (he came from a family of Pharisees,) and extra-biblical accounts of him by Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp.

Paul met with Jesus's apostle Peter (Simon Peter) and stayed with him for two weeks in Jerusalem. He also met James the Just (Jesus's brother) during that time period.

To me this is indirect, yet compelling evidence that Jesus did exist as a historical figure.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Except that Tacitus never mentions "Jesus," and
> Tacitus never could have possibly seen or met him,
> and called belief in "Christus" a "pernicious
> myth."
>

For some reason, you never use the entire passage from Tacitus:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called "Chrestians" by the populace.

Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular."

http://www.livius.org/sources/content/tacitus/tacitus-on-the-christians/


For more info on Tacitus and a description of other extra biblical sources documenting Jesus, here's a good article: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/did-jesus-exist/

It's difficult to make a cogent argument that there was no literal historical character at the root of the Christian faith. The vast majority of global academia concurs that there was an individual named Jesus who was the central character at the genesis of the Christian faith. I don't believe you'll find a single commonly-accepted text at any major university that seriously argues some conspiratorial movement or bizarre twist of syncretism caused the faith to launch itself from among a group of devout Jerusalem Jews in the first century.

One of our more popular posters here at RFM occasionally posts thousands of words declaring the fraud that is Jesus. He typically ends his presentation with an offering of several alternatives for the source of the myth. But his closing words deal the death to his verbose fantasy: those who argue there is scant evidence for a historical Jesus are confronted with alternatives for which there is -zero- evidence. Pot meet kettle. As a number of atheists have noted, Occam's Razor is sufficient for just agreeing with those dread Christians: Yes, their Jesus actually existed.

There's a good reason why it took over 1700 years before the first serious suggestion that Jesus was a human invention of a first century movement. There are several things that it is only wise to attempt far away from those with a personal investment: A poorly written play, an adulterous affair, and a big lie. We can (and often do here) examine specifics of the claims that are made, but suffice it to say you can only fit a square peg into a round hole if you're willing to pound hard enough and don't mind a bit of real-world damage in the process. And those who make the attempt always start from the premise that the square peg must be the correct one to use regardless of the shape of the hole they're pounding it into. It's always an exercise in eisegesis.

One of the main reasons for fighting against the notion of an actual person at the root of the Christian faith is to avoid the uncomfortable ripples this causes for the rest of our personal reality. If he really was a real person with the dust of ancient Jerusalem roads between his toes, what is the rest of his story?

This is where the "I believe in science" crowd usually embraces a series of unproven a priori assumptions. If he lived, the stories of his miracles, and certainly his resurrection are entirely fabricated. These are later myths added to the story and must be dismissed. No specific evidence or reason is needed to dismiss these claims apart from their personal bias that miracles are impossible. Once you rule out the supernatural, you can snip and cut the Jesus story to more readily (and comfortably) fit your worldview.

But this is ideology at work, not evidence, and certainly not science. And if you approach the writings with an open mind, you may find yourself in a situation that many have been before. An actual historical person who created a vibrant following who consistently claimed he was publicly murdered then subsequently rose from the dead. The story of his resurrection is bolstered by the lack of a body.

I know that C.S. Lewis was pivotal in my path away from agnosticism to Christian faith:

"You must picture me alone in that room at Magdalen, night after night, feeling, whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me. In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England" (Surprised By Joy, ch. 14, p. 266).

Here's another story of an atheist who was persuaded by Lewis's story:
http://www.bethinking.org/is-christianity-true/from-atheism-to-christianity-a-personal-journey

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's difficult to make a cogent argument that
> there was no literal historical character at the
> root of the Christian faith.

No, actually, it's not.
And one doesn't even have to make that argument -- one can simply point out that evidence doesn't establish a "literal historical character" without making the counter-claim you listed above.

> The vast majority of
> global academia concurs that there was an
> individual named Jesus who was the central
> character at the genesis of the Christian faith.

You believers keep stating that, but nobody will ever show a survey or compilation or listing that demonstrates it (because it's a false statement).

Additionally, the "vast majority of global academia" isn't involved in the question at all, and other than religious belief has no opinion on the matter whatsoever -- certainly no informed, scholarly opinion. And of the tiny few people whose "specialty" is the history of that time and region, there is a great deal of disagreement on historicity.

If belief in an historical Jesus makes you happy or gives you some comfort, great. Enjoy.
But it's not even close to being backed by evidence. It would do you well to not pretend that it is.
It's an issue of "belief," and "belief" only.
The only FACT involved is that we don't know if there was or wasn't one.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2017 03:18PM by ificouldhietokolob.

You and I have gone back and forth about this enough to know we aren't likely to sway the other, and we both clearly bring our own biases to the table.

Something clearly happened among a group of devout Jews in Jerusalem during the first century that was the genesis of the Christian faith. Historians are detectives trying to determine what is most likely. At this point, based upon the New Testament documents, their alignment with the actual historical setting, and the smattering of external sources, it seems likely there actually was a Jesus. Is the proof incontrovertible? Of course not. But that's not the sort of proof most historians tend to require. And there is simply no evidence of any alternate answer.

Prior to meeting you, I had not run across anyone who believed there was sufficient reason to wholesale ignore the New Testament documents and the scattered references among that handful of ancient historians. No need to rehash those things now, but I will side with atheist author Tim O'Neill and his assessment that there is sufficient evidence and what he cites "broad scholarly consensus" for someone to believe Jesus was an actual person.

"In fact, there are some very good reasons there is a broad scholarly consensus on the matter and that it is held by scholars across a wide range of beliefs and backgrounds, including those who are atheists and agnostics (e.g. Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey, Paula Fredriksen) and Jews (e.g. Geza Vermes, Hyam Maccoby)."

https://www.quora.com/Do-credible-historians-agree-that-the-man-named-Jesus-who-the-Christian-Bible-speaks-of-walked-the-earth-and-was-put-to-death-on-a-cross-by-Pilate-Roman-governor-of-Judea/answers/863434

I don't think anyone on this thread is categorically stating that Jesus didn't exist. It is almost impossible to prove a negative.

We can all agree that a Christian movement began and arguably flourishes to this day.

Islam began and also flourishes to this day, some would say the same about Mormonism.

But what's the relevance? We know it began, whether it was started by your Jesus or not.

Was he real, was he crazy, was he a prophet, or was he the Son of God?

That is the big question. What is your big answer?

rebeljamesdean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think anyone on this thread is
> categorically stating that Jesus didn't exist. It
> is almost impossible to prove a negative.
>

Hang around. Some in our community may surprise you.

>
> Was he real, was he crazy, was he a prophet, or
> was he the Son of God?
>
> That is the big question. What is your big answer?

I'd be more interested in knowing your answer. If you recognize that Jesus was an actual person, it sets into motion a series of premises that you can embrace or reject along the way.

Was he a teacher among the Jews?
If so, did anything differentiate him from other teachers as far as you know?
Do you think he was a good teacher or more likely a madman who was deluded into believing he was somehow equal with God?
Do you think it's possible he lived the full Jewish law as it was known at the time without infraction?
Was he crucified?
Did he rise again?

I'm sure you're aware how believers will answer these questions, but if you're not a believer, at what point along this trail do you deviate, and for what reason?

" No specific evidence or reason is needed to dismiss these claims apart from their personal bias that miracles are impossible. '-TMSH

I don't care to get in an argument with the rest of your post, because it doesn't really matter to me personally whether or not Jesus existed, but this is an absolute nonsense statement. Whether or not Miracles are possible is not a belief, it's a statement of fact to say that they don't exist because there is a whole body of science to disprove their existence.

Please.

Also, this statement has no pertinence or relevance to the argument of Jesus's existence, since if a person named Jesus did exist around 2000 years ago comment no Miracle is required for his existence to have occurred.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2017 11:27PM by midwestanon.

midwestanon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> " No specific evidence or reason is needed to
> dismiss these claims apart from their personal
> bias that miracles are impossible. '-TMSH
>
> I don't care to get in an argument with the rest
> of your post, because it doesn't really matter to
> me personally whether or not Jesus existed, but
> this is an absolute nonsense statement. Whether or
> not Miracles are possible is not a belief, it's a
> statement of fact to say that they don't exist
> because there is a whole body of science to
> disprove their existence.
>

I'd be very interested in viewing your assembled scientific data that disproves the existence of miracles.

Will you indulge me?

No.

Nice try, though.

You already know what I'd say and I'd know what you'd say you just don't have the stones to admit the flaws in using miracles as evidence or even being relevant in an argument about the existence of Jesus.

God, I regret getting into this, it was against my better judgement. This is like the 10th thread about Jesus in the past couple months.

And please don't use the Bible or personal hallucinations to try and prove otherwise. Both are highly unreliable.

TMSH wrote

>I'd be very interested in viewing your assembled scientific data that disproves the existence of miracles.

I would be very interested in scientific data that proves the existence of miracles. In particular, the miracles that Jesus is purported to have performed.

He doesn't accept science. He accepts "miracles." His claim to be "very interested" in science is a ploy. Read his own intensely anti-science words on the matter, appropriately sourced:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1956550,1956550#msg-1956550



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2017 04:50AM by steve benson.

cinda Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I would be very interested in scientific data that
> proves the existence of miracles. In particular,
> the miracles that Jesus is purported to have
> performed.

I wouldn't ask that of science. What I think you'll find is that true scientists will have personal opinions, but on untested topics remain agnostic.

Miracles are usually the domain of faith. Science as a rule tends to veer away from these things. That is why our friend was getting ahead of his skis when he falsely claimed, "it's a statement of fact to say that they don't exist because there is a whole body of science to disprove their existence."

The domain of science exists in large part to disprove all sorts of Notions that people have held historically about why things are the way they are, thus disproving things once commonly held as miracles, or an act of God, or an act the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc.

This is proven and demonstrated, not the Miracles.

Here I am, participating in this thread again... Ugh

Miracles are a matter of faith. You cant prove or disprove them, but they are irrelevant to the existence of a human Jesus who was later mythologized.

What is your religious background?

Not sure what I believe.

Was asking background, not beliefs. Were you raised LDS, etc? Not trying to get too personal, just curious.

LDS until about 18

so where is your "evidence" ?

"Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically"...wikipedia On jesus

More art music and literature writing has been done about him than any other person in history. How much evidence would we have of your existence 2,000 years later? 2,000 years after his death we he has 2 billion believers plus in his existence and more than than half the planet if you count muslims. Any other figure never had that following that lasted through time at such scale. We even named time after him bc and ad year of our lord. There is much more evidence for Jesus than any other figure in histroy period.

I like what Bono singer from U2 said about it. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kOQClgNRoPc

There was an athiest attorney named Lee Strobel that devoted his life to disprove jesus and after years of research using the law and evidence he concluded jesus existed and was everything he claimed. He converted to christianity. He wrote a book called "The Case for Christ".


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_for_Christ

Charles Templeton: The "Over-Educated" Pastor Who Dumped God for Darwin

Meet former pastor Charles Templeton, one-time sidekick of American evangelical rock star for the Redeemer, Billy Graham. When I first read about Templeton. I liked him immediately. Not only was he a non-believer, he once worked as a newspaper cartoonist, landing his first job at the Canadian “newspaper, “The Globe and Mail" during the Great Depression.

But what really depressed him were the lies he had been peddling in the name of Jesus. Templeton eventually went from a pastor for Jesus to a promoter for Old Earth science, as well as a mind-over-blather debunker of Biblical Christianity.

In short, my kind of guy.

Templeton’s loss of testimony caused the evangelical community to poop a proverbial Biblical brick.

Below is some of the hysterical self-righteous reaction to his bold break from the "historical" Jesus crowd.

From an evangelical website:

“In 1996, the book ‘Farewell to God’ was published for all the world to see. The author, Charles Templeton, claimed:

“‘I oppose the Christian Church because, for all the good it sometimes does, it presumes to speak in the name of God and to propound and advocate beliefs that are outdated, demonstrably untrue, and often, in their various manifestations, deleterious to individuals and to society.’

“As this story unfolds, you will see the devastating results of compromising man’s theories with God’s Word, beginning in Genesis.
“ . . . Fueled by concern about the spiritual state of post-Depression youth, mass evangelism exploded onto the American scene in the 1940s. Thousands of young servicemen and civilians streamed to arenas to see the programs, which included preaching, music and various acts. One of the leaders in this movement was a young man from Canada--Charles Templeton, born in 1915. He was generally acknowledged to be the most versatile of the new young evangelists. Templeton soon rose to prominence, even surpassing another dynamic young preacher, Billy Graham. In 1946, he was listed among those ‘best used of God’ by the National Association of Evangelicals.

“As the pastor of the rapidly growing Avenue Road Church in Toronto, which he had started with only his family and a few friends, Templeton also became one of three vice-presidents of the newly-formed Youth for Christ International organization in 1945. He then nominated his good friend, Billy Graham, to be field evangelist for the new ministry. Templeton, Graham and a few others regularly spoke to thousands, winning many to Christ both in America and in Europe.

“Newspapers and magazines carried reports of his meetings informing readers he was winning 150 converts a night. In Evansville, Indiana, the total attendance over the two-week campaign was 91,000 out of a population of 128,000. Church attendance went up 17%.

“However, despite his popularity and seeming success as an evangelist, all was not well with Charles Templeton. The more he read, the more he found he was beginning to question the essentials of the Christian faith, because he could no longer believe God’s Word beginning with Genesis.

“In a conversation with Billy Graham concerning Templeton’s desire to attend Princeton Theological Seminary, Templeton stated:

“‘But, Billy, it’s simply not possible any longer to believe, for instance, the biblical account of creation. The world wasn’t created over a period of days a few thousand years ago; it has evolved over millions of years. It’s not a matter of speculation; it’s demonstrable fact.’ Templeton warned Graham that it was ‘intellectual suicide’ to not question the Bible and to go on preaching God’s Word as authoritative.

“With this background of doubt about God’s Word welling up inside and lacking any type of formal education, he decided to pursue a degree in theology at Princeton Theological Seminary. Resigning from the church he had pastored for several years, Templeton began, with special permission, his coursework at Princeton in 1948.

“Rather than assuage his doubts by providing sound theological answers for the questions he had concerning the authority of the Bible, the historical veracity of Genesis and the deity of Christ, Princeton only served to increase his qualms. This is not surprising, considering the influences that had infiltrated Princeton through people like Charles Hodge and B.B. Warfield concerning one’s approach to the Scripture in Genesis.

"For instance, Hodge, who accepted the millions of years and rejected literal creation-days, taught: ‘It is of course admitted that, taking this account [Genesis] by itself, it would be most natural to understand the word ['day'] in its ordinary sense; but if that sense brings the Mosaic account into conflict with facts, [millions of years] and another sense avoids such conflict, then it is obligatory on us to adopt that other.’

"Warfield . . . went further and, unlike Hodge, even accepted Darwinism. Templeton, like generations of others, was taught at Princeton to reject parts of Genesis in favor of man’s beliefs concerning such things as billions of years.

“After graduating from Princeton, Templeton accepted a position with the National Council of Churches, conducting preaching missions across the United States and Canada. However, he faced increasing health problems, specifically frequent chest pains. He visited a specialist in Pennsylvania who encouraged him, after finding nothing wrong with his heart, to clear up the conflict in his life--namely, the doubts he harbored about the authority of the Bible from which he so fervently preached to thousands each night.

“This reminds [me] of another who suffered illness because of a great conflict in his life regarding teaching that undermined God’s Word. Charles Darwin, who started out in training to be an Anglican minister, ended up rejecting Christianity the more he believed in evolution. It has been said that inner conflict, because of knowing that evolution would wipe the idea of God from the minds of millions, contributed greatly to Darwin’s psychosomatic illness.

“Templeton’s struggles affected others, too. As Templeton wrestled with the ‘demonstrable fact’ of evolution which made it impossible for him to believe ‘the biblical account of creation’, he sought out his close friend, Billy Graham. This caused Graham, as well, to grapple with tough questions that shook the very roots of the faith he professed and preached daily--namely, ‘Was the Bible completely true?’

“With ‘science’ pulling Templeton one way and the Bible seemingly pulling him in an altogether different direction, he resigned from his position with the National Council of Churches and took over the Department of Evangelism of the Presbyterian Church USA. At the same time, he hosted a CBS TV series, called ‘Look Up and Live.‘

“Finally, however, the doubts about everything he stood for became too great and he decided to leave the ministry.

“In his autobiography, ‘Farewell to God,’ Charles Templeton lists his ‘reasons for rejecting the Christian faith.' Most of these relate to the origins issue and thus the accuracy of the book of beginnings--Genesis . . . .

“Templeton, like Charles Darwin, had a big problem understanding how one could reconcile an earth full of death, disease and suffering with the God of the Bible.

“Templeton states:

"'Why does God’s grand design require creatures with teeth designed to crush spines or rend flesh, claws fashioned to seize and tear, venom to paralyze, mouths to suck blood, coils to constrict and smother--even expandable jaws so that prey may be swallowed whole and alive? . . . Nature is, in Tennyson’s vivid phrase, "red in tooth and claw, and life is a carnival of blood."'

"Templeton then concludes:

“‘How could a loving and omnipotent God create such horrors as we have been contemplating?”

“One can fully understand his dilemma, considering he was indoctrinated to believe the earth was billions of years old. Since the fossil record would therefore represent billions of years of earth history, he would have to believe that the same death, disease and suffering in the world around us has been going on for millions and millions of years, and cannot be the result of sin, the Fall and the Curse.

“One wonders whether Templeton would ever have written his ‘Farewell to God,’ had the Church in his day rejected the billions of years, shown the fallible nature of the dating methods, and taught clearly that there could be no death, disease and bloodshed before sin. What a difference there might have been in his life if he had understood that the world he was observing was not the world as God originally made it, but one which was now suffering the effects of sin, the Curse and the Flood.

“Had the Church (and colleges like Princeton) not compromised the Word of God with man’s fallible teachings, one could only wonder about what such a powerful evangelist might have accomplished under the hand of the Almighty God.

“Those in the Church who compromise with the idea of an old earth (billions of years) cause those they come in contact with to stumble as Templeton did. If the earth is billions of years old, there is no loving God as the Bible portrays! Templeton completed his slide to unbelief by stating that the ‘entire resurrection story is not credible.’

“It’s even sad to see Templeton’s old. friend Billy Graham, in essence spreading doubt concerning Genesis when he answers questions about dinosaurs by claiming:

“‘ . . . [T]he Bible does not specifically mention dinosaurs. The book of Job . . . does mention large creatures of Job’s time such as “the behemoth, . . . whose tail sways like a cedar" . . . . This probably refers to the elephant or hippopotamus, however, since dinosaurs apparently died out long before God placed humans on the earth.'

“ . . . [After] leaving the ministry in 1957, Templeton [took] a prominent place in journalism. Among other things, he [was] the executive managing editor of the 'Toronto Star,' editor-in-chief of 'Maclean’s' magazine, director of 'News and Public Affairs' for the CTV television network, and [was] the author of twelve books.

“He [used] his influence in the secular media to spread his destructive message, attacking the infallible Word of God.
[Ed. note: Templeton died on 7 June 2001 aged 85, and sadly had suffered from Alzheimer’s towards the end]”

(“The Slippery Slide to Unbelief: A Famous Evangelist Goes from Hope to Hopelessness,” by Ken Ham and Stacia Byers, Creation Ministries, http://creation.com/the-slippery-slide-to-unbelief-a-famous-evangelist-goes-from-hope-to-hopelessness)

Other evangelical eager-believer beavers branded Templeton as a rank apostate. In “Death of an Apostate,” condemner and critic Carl Wieland wrote of Templeton:

“Up to 30,000 people a night would flock to hear Canadian evangelist Charles Templeton1 who, in his heyday, was more famous than his team-mate at the time, Billy Graham. Thousands professed to have found salvation in Christ through Templeton’s preaching.

“Then things changed. Templeton had long had doubts about the history in Genesis, which is foundational to the entire structure of the Gospel, and how it seemed to contradict the ‘scientific facts’. Logically, ‘millions of years’ meant that the fossils were laid down long before man, hence before sin. But the fossils showed death, bloodshed and disease. So, the whole idea of a Fall ruining a once-perfect world, to be redeemed via the ‘last Adam' Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:46), was meaningless. And no one seemed to be able to give Templeton answers to his associated questions: 'How could Noah fit all those animals onto the Ark?' 'Where did the water come from?' And more of the very ones dealt with in frontline CMI literature, such as ‘The Creation Answers Book.’

“The reaction from his colleague, Billy Graham, implied that it was ‘unspiritual’ for Templeton to be concerned with such things. Our article highlighted his tragic descent into total unbelief, and the eventual writing of his book,’Farewell to God: My Reasons for Rejecting the Christian Faith.‘

“Sometime after our article appeared, Charles Templeton died after a struggle with Alzheimer’s disease. A Canadian Gospel broadcaster used the occasion to draw a lesson for Christians from his countryman’s ‘fall from grace.' Templeton, he implied, was wrong to ask the questions in the first place. Trying to use commonsense and reason to approach issues of faith was wrong; it was the ‘flesh’ (as he labeled the intellect) at war with the ‘spirit.'

“Such a confused and Biblically unwarranted response to Bible/science issues still reigns in many conservative Christian circles today. Sadly, it reinforces the secular caricature that Christianity and reality occupy two separate zones. Christian faith is thought to be only ‘in your head,' some emotional crutch that might ‘work for you,' but has nothing to do with hard facts.

“The Apostle Paul, however, well knew that his faith was based on concrete reality. The Lord Jesus died on a cross and rose again, as a fact of real history (and biology), sharing food with those who saw, touched and spoke with Him after His Resurrection. If that history and biology concerning the ‘last Adam’ was wrong, said Paul, it was not a side issue; Christians would be a miserable lie-believing bunch whose faith was therefore futile (1 Corinthians 15:17).

“I think that, ironically, Paul would have taken the side of Templeton--the Apostle agreeing with the apostate-to-be on one point, anyway: He would have chastised the broadcaster (and, dare one say it, Billy Graham) for being unconcerned with whether the Bible contradicts facts. Same with the Lord Jesus Himself, who taught that the greatest commandment was to love God with all your MIND (Matthew 22:37)!

“If that which He stated concerning the first Adam (the HISTORY of his creation from dust and his Fall into sin ruining the whole creation, and the BIOLOGY of the deathless world in which he lived originally prior to that Fall) is not really, truly true, we would also be miserable believers in falsehood, because all the hope of the Gospel is based squarely on the truth of its background history.

“But Paul would have gone on from there to proclaim that the Bible’s history really was true. Creation, the Fall, the Flood--its biology and its geology. The first Adam fell in space, time and history just as surely as the last Adam rose in space, time and history.

“So, if one investigates the past with the right ‘glasses'--the right philosophical axioms (pre-suppositions) as one’s starting point--the evidence, especially in the ‘big picture,' will be seen to be totally consistent with the Bible’s history. These vital points are brought out in our two-part article ‘The culture wars’ . . . .

“Biblical faith is not an excuse for ignoring the facts; it gives the right basis for understanding and interpreting the facts, which never speak for themselves, anyway.

“If only those surrounding Charles Templeton had not tried to fob him off with spiritual-sounding platitudes, but had dealt squarely with the real issues he was raising. If only they had shown him how many of the ‘facts’ bothering him were really faith-interpretations that were originally developed on the basis of first rejecting the Bible’s history, and that real science does not conflict with that history. How different things might have been!”

(“Death of an Apostate,” by Carl Wieland. Creation Ministries. http://creation.com/death-of-an-apostate)


Some evangelicals who have been part of the pile-on over the dead-and-gone Templeton, nonetheless admit that “. . . we do believe he [Templeton] . . . ha[d] a message of truth for the Church today. He state[d], ‘A major factor in the dramatic decrease in attendance at church services around the world is undoubtedly the irrelevance of contemporary preaching.’

“Templeton is quite right--much of the teaching of the Church is irrelevant, as God’s Word has been relegated to merely a ‘religious’ book--a book of ‘stories.' Genesis is, by and large, not taught as history. The Church does not ‘connect’ the Bible to the real world, as scientists have supposedly shown it can’t be trusted in areas of biology, geology and astronomy. So, when the Church tries to preach morality, the world (like Templeton) responds in a similar way to actor Bruce Willis from the ‘Die Hard’ series: ‘. . .[W]ith what we know about science, anyone who thinks at all probably doesn’t believe in fire and brimstone anymore. So organized religion has lost that voice to hold up their moral hand.’

“Templeton (unlike many Christian leaders in the Church today) [was] consistent. He recognize[d] that if you can’t trust the Bible in areas of science (geology, biology, astronomy, etc.), then you can’t trust it in areas of morality and salvation, either. As Jesus said, ‘If I have told you earthly things, and you believe not, how shall you believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?’ (John 3:12). As more and more people in the compromising churches become consistent in how they approach the Bible--having accepted man’s teachings concerning millions of years--more will wake up one day and say with Charles Templeton: ‘Is it not foolish to close one’s eyes to the reality that much of the Christian faith is simply impossible to accept as fact?‘ [S]hould one continue to base one’s life on a system of belief that--for all its occasional wisdom and frequent beauty--is demonstrably untrue?’3

“And the end result [is the] anti-gospel--the message [of] HOPELESSNESS for a dying world--the bottom of the ‘slippery slide’?

“Templeton conclude[d]:

“’I believe that there is no supreme being with human attributes--no God in the biblical sense--but that all life is the result of timeless evolutionary forces . . . over millions of years. . .. I believe that, in common with all living creatures, we die and cease to exist as an entity.’

“[Ed. note: See also this review of 'Farewell To God' on the Tekton Apologetics site, pointing out a number of other fallacies; for example: hand-wringing ‘arguments from outrage,' emotional appeals that amount to ‘no intelligent person would believe . . . .’ the genetic fallacy, chronological snobbery, etc. Templeton also ignores the answers evangelicals have already provided to many of the other ‘problems’ with the Christian faith, just as he did with the creation-related topics we answered above. One must wonder whether he truly wanted answers].

“What a contrast this is to the truth all people need to hear and believe:

“Isaiah 40:28: ‘Have you not known? Have you not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, does not grow weak nor weary? There is no searching of His understanding.’

“1 Peter 1:3–4: ‘Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has regenerated us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, and unfading, reserved in Heaven for you.’"

(“The Slippery Slide to Unbelief,” by Ham and Byers, Creation Ministries, emphasis in original, http://creation.com/the-slippery-slide-to-unbelief-a-famous-evangelist-goes-from-hope-to-hopelessness)


Despite this mindless evangelical onslaught, Templeton remained unbowed, openly acknowledging that, from his early career in his religious ministry, “I had never believed all that fundamentalists believe-the Genesis account of creation, for instance, or the monstrous evil of an endless hell. But now the entire fabric was coming apart.’

As one sympathetic biographer notes:

“Templeton knew what the problem was: doubt. ‘How does a man who each night tells 5,000 to 10,000 people how to find faith confess that he is struggling with his own?’ Following the closing service at [an evangelical] campaign in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, described [as] ‘the greatest crowd ever to gather in the history of Harrisburg,‘ Templeton made the decision: He would no longer conduct campaigns. He accepted a position as head of the Department of Evangelism for the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. He taught at seminaries and universities and wrote two books, one of them being 'Evangelism for Tomorrow.'

“During this period, Templeton spoke at Yale for a week, meeting afterwards with various students. One was the outstanding man in the senior class. He was also the captain of the debating team and an avowed atheist. The two of them debated the truth of Christianity alone in a borrowed office. At the end, neither had convinced the other. The student conceded, however, that Templeton had made ‘a hell of a good case.’

“Templeton's first reaction was elation, but he realized that he, too, had a concession to make: His arguments no longer convinced himself. ‘In the heat of discussion I believed them, but, alone, I knew that I had been role-playing.’

“During this time, Templeton was hosting the CBS network's religious television program ‘Look Up and Live’ (1952-55). Not long after his debate with the Yale student, Templeton quit the television program and 'gave up the ministry.'

“About his irrevocable decision to leave the ministry, Templeton states, 'There was no real choice. I could stay in the ministry, paper over my doubts and daily live a lie, or I could make a break. I packed my few possessions in a rented trailer and started on the road home to Toronto.'

“Thu, began his various careers as writer, editor, producer, politician. ‘The only activity I will not return to is the Christian ministry; I am and will remain a reverent agnostic.’

(“Charles Templeton: Inside Evangelism,” https://etb-former-fundamentalists.blogspot.com/2012/04/charles-templeton-inside-evangelism.html)


Below is further background on the tenacious Templeton, found in a book review:

"For more than 20 years, Charles Templeton was a major figure in the church in Canada and the United States. During the 1950s, he and Billy Graham were the two most successful exponents of mass evangelism in North America. Templeton spoke nightly to stadium crowds of up to thirty thousand people.

"However, increasing doubts about the validity of the Old Testament and the teachings of the Christian church finally brought about a crisis in his faith and in 1957 he resigned from the ministry.

"In [his book] 'Farewell to God,' Templeton speaks out about his reasons for the abandonment of his faith. In straightforward language, Templeton deals with such subjects as the Creation fable, racial prejudice in the Bible, the identity of Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus’ alienation from his family, the second-class status of women in the church, the mystery of evil, the illusion that prayer works, why there is suffering and death, and the loss of faith in God.

“He concludes with a powerful personal statement., ‘I Believe.'"

(“Farewell to God: My Reasons for Rejecting the Christian Faith.” Paperback – International Edition, September 10, 1999, https://www.amazon.com/Farewell-God-Reasons-Rejecting-Christian/dp/0771085087


Another observer actually regards Templeton as Billy Graham’s “better half:”

“By 1957, [Templeton] was an agnostic. In revivalist circles, it was a seismic event, a tsunami, an earthquake, as if Graham himself had renounced Jesus.

"In [his] memoir, ‘Farewell to God,’ Templeton explained his reasons: difficulties of the Creation myth, bigotry in the Bible, sexism, historical problems of Jesus, failure of prayer, the mysteries of evil, suffering and death. As compelling as his best sermon, full of ragged grief, the closing words are, ‘I Believe.’

"But search the web, and you will still find rancor.

“Divided from colleagues and friends (though he and Graham remained close), even losing his wife, Templeton went back to journalism. He met his second wife on the set of a CBC television drama. 13 months after they wed, he had a son. He also acquired a step-son and a daughter--one of them, Ty Templeton is a world-class comics artist.

“He went on to try his hand at politics (nearly becoming Premier of Ontario) before returning to radio and TV news casting. And he wrote plays and a bestselling novel, 'Act of God,' about an archaeologist who discovers the bones of Christ, and his lifetime friend, now a Cardinal and papal candidate, who decides to kill him to protect the Church.

"Life was full if not easy. Finally, in 1982, he fell prey to Alzheimer’s disease. Retiring from public life, he fought for each inch, according to his son, stretching his memory and performing daily exercises such as spelling words backward. He kept his vocabulary almost until the end, when the disease shut down what his brain needed to live. He died on June 7th, 2001, age 85.”

(“Billy Graham’s Better Half.” By Kenneth E. Nahigian, 11 December, at “The Eloquent Atheist,” http://www.eloquentatheist.com/2007/12/billy-graham%E2%80%99s-better-half/)
_____


Templeton Takes on the Gospels, the Place and Time of Jesus' So-Called "Virgin" Birth, Hesys' Alleged "Miracles," and the Resurrection That Never Happened

I have a personal copy of Templeton’s book, “Farewell to God: My Reasons for Rejecting the Christian Faith" [Toronto, Ontario, Canada: McClelland & Stewart, Inc., 1996.)

In it, he points out the paucity of evidence concerning Jesus’ purported existence, doing so clearly and unequivocally.

--On the Unbelievable Birth, Death and Life of Jesus

“It may come as something as a surprise to the reader to learn that we know remarkably little about Jesus of Nazareth. . ..

“We don’t know the date of his birth--it was certainly not December 25 in the Year One. Nor do we know for certain where he was born, although it was in all likelihood in the city of his childhood, Nazareth--certainly not in a Bethlehem stable. Nor do we know the exact date of his death, although it would seem to have been around the year 30 A.D historians of that time. The great secular historians of that time (Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, and others) mention Jesus only briefly, making passing reference to the fact that he preached in occupied Palestine and was crucified by the Roman government.” (p. 85)


--On the Historical Unreliability of the Christian Gospels When It Comes to Their Jesus Stories

Templeton writes:

“The earliest Christian records extant are the Pauline epistles, and they were written around 50 A.D. It was another ten years or so before the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were completed. But the names attached to the gospels are pseudonyms--none of the authors were among Jesus’ apostles and it is likely that none of them so much as saw or heard him.”

Moreover, Templeton notes that these accounts “are mutually contradictory, lack authenticity, and are in large part of the nature of legends. The stories of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem, his cleansing of the Temple, and his arrest, trial, and crucifixion have about them an aura of reality but, beyond that, the various accounts differ so radically and at so many points that, with all the good will in the world, they cannot be reconciled.” (pp. 85-86)
`

--On the Lack of Historical Evidence for the Virgin Birth

Templeton points out that the accounts of Matthew and Luke differ on fundamental points regarding the birth of Jesus. For example, at the time Luke says Jesus was being circumcised and Mary was being purified in Jerusalem, Matthew claims Joseph, Mary and Jesus were in hiding in Egypt, waiting for Herod to die.

Additionally, he notes that there is nothing in the historical record that mentions the supposed Herod-ordered slaughter of every male child in Bethlehem. Concludes Templeton, “It seems likely that the birth in Bethlehem was inserted into the story at a later date to validate the clams made by Jesus’ followers that, through Joseph, he stood in a direct line of descent from King David, whose roots were in Bethlehem.” (Templeton, p. 91)


As to the Christian claim that Jesus was God, born of an unwed Jewish virgin who conceived through the power of the Holy Ghost, Templeton bluntly concludes, “If one approaches the New Testament account with an open mind and unflinching realism, the evidence clearly indicates that Jesus was an illegitimate child who, when he came to maturity, resented it and was alienated from his parents and siblings.” (p. 93)


--On the Lack of Evidence for Jesus’ Miracle Acts

Templeton persuasively explains the afflictions suffered by those in the Gospel accounts, which were supposedly healed by Jesus’ miraculous powers:

“Most of the illnesses that afflict humans were beyond the comprehension of the men and women of that day and, of course, beyond Jesus’ comprehension, too. No one at that point in history had even a rudimentary understanding of the causes of physiological or psychological illnesses or of the various other afflictions to which humankind is subject. Most thought of them as punishments from God or the machinations of Satan or other evil spirits.

“When, for instance, epilepsy brought on a seizure that caused the victim to collapse and writhe on the ground as though struggling with an internal enemy, when food poisoning produced a paroxysm of vomiting, when a raging fever led to intense shivering and delirium, or when a migraine attack produced visual aberrations and excruciating pain, it seemed reasonable in that pre-scientific time to interpret such phenomena as the work of an evil spirit. And, when the affliction passed, it was equally reasonable to interpret it as the triumph of a benign spirit over a malign.

“Many illnesses, then as now, were psychosomatic and could be ‘cured’ when the sufferer’s perception changed. Just as today a placebo prescribed by a physician in whom the patient has faith can affect an apparent cure, so, in earlier time, faith in the healer could banish adverse symptoms. With each success, the healer’s reputation would grow and his powers would, as a consequence, become more efficacious.

“It would appear evident that this is what happened with Jesus . . .

“It is clear in the text that Jesus was seen by the general populace as a wonder-worker. The stories of his exploits were before him--by word of mouth, of course, and thus subject to embellishing--and when he entered a town the state of heightened expectation would often be close to mass hysteria. As a consequence, the apparently miraculous would happen.” (pp. 111-12)


--On the Absence of Historical Evidence for Jesus’ Resurrection

Except for the claims made by anonymous Gospel writers, no evidence exists that Jesus ever rose from the dead. In fact, Gospel accounts of the alleged resurrection are, from a realistic point of view, completely implausible.

Indeed, as Templeton reports, supposed historical verification of its occurrence is relegated to a single sentence in the Gospels. If, as he observes, Jesus’ resurrection was accompanied by an extraordinary earthquake, the wholesale rending of the Temple veil and a large-group resurrection of the dead witnessed by many, why, then, do these phenomenal events merit but a single sentence in Matthew--and virtually no mention in the other Gospels or in contemporary historical accounts?

Moreover, what about all those folks that supposedly were resurrected with Jesus and wandering around town after Jesus rose from rot? The same people who were never I.D.-ed or their “oh-wow” experiences in Heaven recorded for posterity. The same people who no one could seem to recognize by name and track down?. All vanishing witnesses to their own resurrections. How convenient.

And what about those 500 folks who allgedly saw Jesus after he supposedly conuqered Maggotville? They turned up missing, too, along with their all their names and stories. Again, how convenient.

And how about Paul and Matthew being the sole sources of such fantastical stories? The Bible is truly a convenience mart for one-stop fantasies.

Writes an understandably skeptical Templeton:

“Let the reader imagine the scene: The astonished spectators, the gathering crowd, the family members and friends, weeping and delirious with excitement. Surely someone would have plied them with questions: ‘What happened as you died?’ ‘Did you see God?’ ‘What is Heaven like?’ ‘Were you reunited with our parents and other members of your family?’ Surely the answers to these and other questions like them would have flashed across Palestine within hours and been recorded somewhere. But there is not one word of it in history. The entire resurrection story is not credible.”

Add to this the fact that the four Gospel accounts of the resurrection not only differ from one another on many major points but are irreconcilably at odds with Paul’s account in I Corinthians on who Jesus supposedly appeared to after rising from the dead. (pp. 120-22)

**********


Charles Templeton was a firmly rooted, articulately gifted, intellectually curious and courageously honest human being who came to grips with the deceptions, superstitions, abuses, fallacies, silliness and vacuousness of the Christian church. In subjecting it to his searing investigation, he had the brains, the guts and the integrity to reject it all.

If Jesus were alive today, perhaps he could follow in Templeton's footsteps.

Meanwhile, let the evangelicals rail. Chuck Templeton ain't in hell.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2017 02:44AM by steve benson.

"ONE OF THE MOST FAMOUS 'TESTIMONIES' OF A CONVERSION TO ATHEISM"
by Steven H Proppon
March 27, 2013

"Dan Barker (born 1949) is a prominent American atheist activist who served as a Christian preacher and musician for 19 years but left Christianity in 1984; he is married to Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-founder of the Freedom From Religion Foundation and its current co-president. Dan has also written the books 'Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists, Maybe Yes, Maybe No: A Guide for Young Skeptics,' 'The Good Atheist: Living a Purpose-Filled Life Without God,' 'Just Pretend: A Freethought Book for Children,' etc.

"[On his book, 'Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist'), [h]e recalls, 'In November I accepted an invitation to preach in Mexicali. . . . Even though I no longer believed what I was preaching, I still enjoyed the travel and the many friends I had south of the border. . . . I went to bed on a cot... I remember staring up at the ceiling . . . contemplating my place in the universe. It was at that moment that I experienced the startling reality that I was alone. Completely and utterly alone. There is no supernatural realm, no God, no Devil, no demons, no angels helping me from the other side. There is just nature, and I am a part of nature, and that is all there is. It was simultaneously a frightening and liberating experience." (Pg. 31)

"He explains, 'I am an atheist because there is no evidence for the existence of God. That should be all that needs to be said about it: no evidence, no belief.' (Pg. 87) He adds, 'It turns out that the word "atheism" means much less than I had thought. It is merely the lack of theism. It is not a philosophy of life and it offers no values. . . . Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god---both are atheistic, though popular usage has ignored the latter... Atheism is the ABSENCE OF BELIEF in a god, or gods, whether that absence is due to a critical rejection of theistic assertions, to unfamiliarity with the subject . . ., or to noncommital agnostic/skeptic principles.' (Pg. 99) Later, he adds, 'Theists claim that there is a god; atheists do not. Religionists often challenge atheists to prove that there is no god; but this misses the point. Atheists claim god is UNPROVED, not DISPROVED. In any argument, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.' (Pg. 122)

"He admits, 'Looking back, I have to admit that my greatest doubt was the efficacy of prayer. Prayer simply does not work. Period. I know that I prayed thousands and thousands of prayers that were a waste of time. That is, I know NOW they they were wasted. But since prayer is such a powerful doctrine of Christianity, I imagined that there was some meaning behind it all.' (Pg. 108)

"He states, 'Faith is not the result of fuzzy thinking. It is the CAUSE of it. Simply scoffing at religious nonsense is rarely effective; but then neither is a well-reasoned approach... My position [is] that the New Testament Jesus character, whether or not he actually existed (and I think he probably never lived), is myth, like any other myth.' (Pg. 115)

"Barker's books are of ongoing interest to atheists, agnostics, skeptics, and other types of freethinkers."

https://www.amazon.com/Losing-Faith-Preacher-Atheist/dp/187773313X



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2017 04:44AM by steve benson.

I happen to like U2 as a band. It has never mattered to me what someone else believes or doesn't.

Some of my closest friends and family members are TBM's, if I were to believe anyone it would be them.

Does it make you feel more sure in your knowledge of Christ because Bono and Lee Strobel believe in him?

Are we going to compare how many important people believe or disbelieve?

I know you can't possibly be that silly. You don't have to justify your beliefs to anyone but yourself.

Exactly.

I know a lawyer who studied really, really hard and found "evidence" the Mormon church is true. Well, that does it! Sign me up!

I shouldn't admit this, but I am a lawyer. I guess we are tied now.

Haha. I'm a scientist so you win. :-)

rebeljamesdean wrote: "Hmmm - God and Mary produced Jesus. But, wait a minute, doesn't that make him only 1/2 God?"

Polly: Yes, IMO, it would seem to do just that (as Jesus appeared to be half divine spirit, and half human, while he was on earth). Just hitting a few points in this regard:

First of all, in a court of law, both sides of an issue are allowed to present their case and evidence in the hope that the results will end in truth and justice being served.

Therefore, in court, one cannot simply argue that "I speak the truth, and all else is false", as the argument and evidence of both parties must first be presented and considered. (Eventually, it is to be hoped, the jury will come to a correct decision as to what really happened, and the matter will end in justice being served.)

Compare this system of determining truth according to what ancient writings (both the Old and New Testament) have to say about life, and life eternal.

In the O.T. we read the prediction that a "savior" would be born, and this prediction actually "came to pass", some 500(?) yrs. later (as told in the N.T.).

The man of which we speak (the predicted savior), was born just as had been predicted hundreds of years previously. The record of this, plus his life and death, was all recorded and preserved for us to read, by a man named Paul (by quoting first-hand witnesses, such as the well-know apostles of Jesus).

Paul was eventually converted to this new movement himself, and likewise not only became a Christian, but the main person to put together (often in his words) the written witnesses of those who knew the man first-person.

As these records clearly show, the man named Jesus (a common name at that time), did not, at first, seem to understand that he, himself, was the man of which the prophets spoke.

Part of his education in this regard seemed to have come to him in the temple, as a youth, where he listened to--and asked questions of--the Rabbi's there-in. Not only this, but he provided them with some of his own interpretations of the scriptures of that time (the O.T. only). The bible records that these highly educated men were amazed by what he had to say.

That such an individual as he Savior had actually been predicted, and later was born, was eventually uncovered by the highly educated and intellectual Paul (who once fought the new movement of Christianity, and then became a convert to it). (We can read some of this in the writings of Josephus, the highly respected Jewish historian.)

Another witness to this budding miracle (which later was judged as this), was the virgin Mary--to whom an angel of the Lord appeared and asked her if she was willing to be the mother of the son of God. She answered "yes", and it became so. (Think of an invitro pregnancy for this event, where the male need not be as physically present as is usually necessary.)

Another witness to this was her betrothed (an older man next-door), who was visited by this same angel, who told him what had occurred to Mary "was of God", and that he was not to "put her away" (as, at first, he had been inclined to do). Instead, he was to take her to wife, and to protect and take care of her until her baby was born.

---

Note that the Old Testament is a record which doesn't, at first reading, seem to have the problem of proving Jesus was half divine and half mortal. Nevertheless, it records that a savior of mankind was destined to appear in the future.

Then, some 500(?) years later, Jesus was born, and this and his history were recorded in what is called the NEW Testament (which confirms what the O.T. prophesied. (Try and match that record.)

Hence, yes, we read that Jesus was half human (born of flesh, through his mother), and half divine (through intervention of an angel of God).

As I understand it, the temple incident (where Jesus stayed behind to talk to the Rabbi's), plus the trip he made with his uncle to sell the uncles' wares, seems to have been turning points in his recognizing--and coming to terms with--who he deduced he was, and what was expected of him (which was "only" to save all sinners from an eternal spiritual death).

Only he (Jesus) fulfilled the requirements of being a sinless man who would be unjustly killed, and who volunteered to undergo this horrid death. He fulfilled this mission, and did so in order that sinners--yes, you and me--could be ransomed by his sacrifice. In so doing, he also fulfilled the prophecies regarding the savior who would come and save us all.

The requirements involved in this scene, was that the Savior had to be a sinless man, and his having been sinless when he was killed, meant that justice demanded he be compensated for allowing what was done to him, to be done.

And, it is this deserved compensation with which he "pays" for the sins of all repentant sinners. (Otherwise, sinners could not be allowed into heaven (still being unclean), as "No unclean thing will be allowed into heaven".

Thus, those who benefit from Jesus' sacrifice "owe" him their allegiance and honor and gratitude to him (a small price to pay for what we gain in return, which is, eternal life).

But, what about those that don't believe in--or accept--Jesus as their Savior?

Well, we all have our free agency in which to make this decision, and choose what to do (honor and accept him as their Savior, or not do so.

However, it should be recognized, that those who choose not to accept him as their Savior will also get their wish, as "God will force no man to heaven".

Obviously, therefore, it is no small thing to search for the truth on these matter--Is Jesus the Christ real, and divine, or is he not? Are the scriptures who report this reliable, or fiction? For what one decides, as it appears, determines one's eternal future.

Those who are not ready to accept Jesus as their Savior are the losers (which, in fact, is a cause to morn for them).
---

Whew...sorry this is so long, but such an important overview (IMO), makes the effort worth it.

Sorry, I do not have any 'historical evidence' that Jesus Christ lived.

However, because this topic comes up regularly I have had a number of 'spiritual experiences' regarding the answer to this question.

Based on my experiences, I believe the Jesus 'myth' was based on an actual person. This is also supported by 'people' with experiences in a number of 'paranormal' areas. He was 'enlightened' much like authors of books who have 'paranormal' experiences today. I believe he also was able to heal some issues.

Jesus remembered about the after life and had some associated knowledge of what was possible and was trying to just 'bear his testimony' basically to the people and told them what was important in this life. He wasn't trying to start a church or religion.

Unfortunately, I don't believe what the bible records as what Jesus 'taught' is accurate. What percentage is accurate? Maybe 40-50% in general. I believe like the BoM some people wanted to control the dialog or 'beliefs' of the most people they could get to accept it.

Based on my experiences and others in 'areas I study' Jesus did not die on the cross, was not resurrected nor did he teach resurrection. He taught about being 'a' son of God and coming again (reincarnation) and returning in multiple lives.

My 2 cents. Obviously, I will not argue with anyone because I can't prove anything and doubt anyone can prove anything to the contrary.

been abducted by visiting aliens who took them aboard their spaceships where they were poked, prodded, implsnted with chips under their skin and otherwise experimented upon before being safely returned to Planet Earth to tell everybody who would listen without cracking up about their amazing experiences.

Earth to gullible humans: These tall tales are a dime a million. Jesus wasn't the first mythical god-guy who the fervently faithful thought really did walk the walk and talk the talk on our little blue-dot of a rock as divinely-dUspatched, supernatural, super-hero action figures:

"The following mythological characters were all believed to have been born to divinely impregnated virgins: Romulus and Remus, Perseus, Zoroaster, Mithras, Osiris-Aion, Agdistis, Attis, Tammuz, Adonis, Korybas, Dionysus. The pagan belief in unions between gods and women, regardless of whether they were virgins or not, is even more common. Many characters in pagan mythology were believed to be sons of divine fathers and human females. The Christian belief that Jesus was the son of God born to a virgin, is typical of Greco-Roman superstition. The Jewish philosopher, Philo of Alexandria (c. 30 B.C.E - 45 C.E.), warned against the widespread superstitious belief in unions between male gods and human females which returned women to a state of virginity.

"The god Tammuz, worshipped by pagans in northern Israel, was said to have been born to the virgin Myrrha. The name 'Myrrha' superficially resembles "Mary/Miriam" and it is possible that this particular virgin birth story influenced the Mary story more than the others. Like Jesus, Tammuz was always called Adon, meaning 'Lord.' (The character Adonis in Greek mythology is based on Tammuz.)"

("Refuting Missionaries--Part I: The Myth of the Historical Jesus," by Hayyim ben Yehoshua, at: http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html)
_____


In the meantime, this inconvenient news story:

"Historical researcher Michael Paulkovich has claimed that Jesus of Nazareth was a ‘mythical character’ and never existed. The controversial discovery was apparently made after he found no verifiable mention of Christ from 126 writers during the ‘time of Jesus’ from the first to third centuries. . . .

"The claims were made in an article for 'Free Inquiry' called 'The Fable of the Christ' and a book called 'No Meek Messiah.' In the article and book, Paulkovich says he found an absence of evidence for Jesus in historical texts. And he says this is surprising despite his ‘global miracles and alleged worldwide fame.’ . . .

"The 126 texts he [Paulkovich] studied were all written in the period during or soon after the supposed existence of Jesus, when Paulkovich says they would surely have heard of someone as famous as Jesus--but none mention him.

"'When I consider those 126 writers, all of whom should have heard of Jesus but did not--and Paul and Marcion and Athenagoras and Matthew with a tetralogy of opposing Christs, the silence from Qumram and Nazareth and Bethlehem, conflicting Bible stories, and so many other mysteries and omissions--I must conclude that Christ is a mythical character,’ he writes.

‘"Jesus of Nazareth" was nothing more than urban (or desert) legend, likely an agglomeration of several evangelic and deluded rabbis who might have existed.’

"Of the writings he examined, written from the first to third centuries, he found only one book that contained a mention of Jesus--'The Jewish Wars' by the Roman historian Josephus Flavius written in 95 CE, but he claims it is fabricated.
Paulkovich says the mentions of Jesus were added later by editors, not by Josephus.

"Even in the Bible Paulkovich says Paul, often credited with spreading what would become Christianity, never refers to Jesus as a real person.

"‘Paul is unaware of the virgin mother, and ignorant of Jesus' nativity, parentage, life events, ministry, miracles, apostles, betrayal, trial and harrowing passion,’ he writes.

"‘Paul knows neither where nor when Jesus lived, and considers the crucifixion metaphorical.’ . . .

"The 126 texts Paulkovich studied . . . were all written in the period during or soon after the supposed existence of Jesus, when Paulkovich says they would surely have heard of someone as famous as Jesus--but none mention him, leading the writer to conclude he is a 'mythical character' invented later. Paulkovich says he found little to no mention of the supposed messiah in 126 texts written in the first to third centuries. Only one mention of Jesus was present, in a book by Roman historian Josephus Flavius, but he says this was added by later editors. . . .

"He also says that silence from Jesus himself is telling, with no personal accounts being written.

"‘Perhaps the most bewildering "silent one" is the mythical super-savior himself, Jesus the Son of God ostensibly sent on a suicide mission to save us from the childish notion of "Adam's Transgression" as we learn from Romans,’ he says.

"‘The Jesus character is a phantom of a wisp of a personage who never wrote anything. So, add one more: 127.’

"He continues: ‘Christian father Marcion of Pontus in 144 CE denied any virgin birth or childhood for Christ--Jesus' infant circumcision was thus a lie, as well as the crucifixion!

"‘Reading the works of second century Christian father Athenagoras, one never encounters the word Jesus (or Ἰησοῦς or Ἰησοῦν, as he would have written)--Athenagoras was thus unacquainted with the name of his savior it would seem.’
And he claims even the book of Mark in the Bible, which contains the story of Christ’s resurrection, was doctored later on.

"‘The original booklet given the name "Mark" ended at 16:8, later forgers adding the fanciful resurrection tale,’ he says.
‘Millions should have heard of the Jesus "crucifixion" with its astral enchantments: zombie armies and meteorological marvels recorded not by any historian, but only in the dubitable scriptures scribbled decades later by superstitious yokels.’
Paulkovich’s views will surely prove very controversial, as most scholars do not support the theory that Jesus never existed."

("'Jesus NEVER Existed': Writer Finds No Mention of Christ in 126 Historical Texts and Says He was a 'Mythical Character,'" by Jonathan O'Callaghan, "Daily Mail," online edition, 1 October 2014, at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2776194/Jesus-never-existed-Writer-finds-no-mention-Christ-126-historical-texts-says-mythical-character.html#ixzz3M80Y1fhH; see also, "Jesus Never Existed Says New Report That Finds No Mention of Christ in 126 Historical Texts." 28 September 2014, at: http://www.inquisitr.com/1504964/jesus-never-existed/#9fpHtjZZ1zlQjP8v.99)
_____


And this for rarified theistic thought:

"Does It Matter If Jesus Existed?

"Some Jesus mythicists say many New Testament scholars are intellectual snobs.

“'I don’t think I’m some Internet kook or Holocaust denier,' says Robert Price, a former Baptist pastor who argues in 'Deconstructing Jesus' that a historical Jesus probably didn’t exist.

“'They say I’m a bitter ex-fundamentalist. It’s pathetic to see this character assassination. That’s what people resort to when they don’t have solid arguments.' . . .

"The Evidence Against Jesus’ Existence

"Those who argue against Jesus’ existence make some of these points:

-"The uncanny parallels between pagan stories in the ancient world and the stories of Jesus.

-"No credible sources outside the Bible say Jesus existed.

-"The Apostle Paul never referred to a historical Jesus.

"Price . . . says the first-century Western world was full of stories of a martyred hero who is called a son of God.

“'There are ancient novels from that period where the hero is condemned to the cross and even crucified, but he escapes and survives it,' Price says. 'That looks like Jesus.'

"Those who argue for the existence of Jesus often cite two external biblical sources: the Jewish historian Josephus who wrote about Jesus at the end of the first century and the Roman historian Tacitus, who wrote about Jesus at the start of the second century.

"But some scholars say Josephus’ passage was tampered with by later Christian authors. And Price says the two historians are not credible on Jesus.

“'Josephus and Tacitus--hey both thought Hercules was a true figure,' Price says. 'Both of them spoke of Hercules as a figure that existed.'

"Price concedes that there were plenty of mythical stories that were draped around historical figures like Caesar. But there’s plenty of secular documentation to show Caesar existed.

“'Everything we read about Jesus in the gospels conforms to the mythic hero,' Price says. 'There’s nothing left over that indicates that he was a real historical figure.'

"Those who argue for the existence of Jesus cite another source: the testimony of the Apostle Paul and Jesus’ early disciples. Paul even writes in one New Testament passage about meeting James, the brother of Jesus.

"These early disciples not only believed Jesus was real but were willing to die for him. People don’t die for myths, some biblical scholars say.

"They will if the experience is powerful enough, says Richard Carrier, author of “Proving History.”

"Carrier says it’s probable that Jesus never really existed and that early Christians experienced a mythic Jesus who came to them through visions and revelations.

"Two of the most famous stories in the New Testament – the conversion of Paul and the stoning death of Stephen, one of the first Christian martyrs - show that people seized by religious visions are willing to die, Carrier says.

"In both the Paul and Stephen stories, the writers say that they didn’t see an actual Jesus but a heavenly vision of Jesus, Carrier says.

"People 'can have powerful religious experiences that don’t correspond to reality,' Carrier says.

“'The perfect model is Paul himself,' Carrier says. 'He never met Jesus. Paul only had an encounter with this heavenly Jesus. Paul is completely converted by this religious experience, but no historical Jesus is needed for that to happen.'

"As for the passage where Paul says he met James, Jesus’ brother, Carrier says:

“'The problem with that is that all baptized Christians were considered brothers of the Lord.'”

("The Jesus Debate: Man vs. Myth," by John Blake, CNN, 7 April 2012, at: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/07/the-jesus-debate-man-vs-myth/)

**********


The debate ain't over, folks--no matter what "Jesus Deciders" in their No-Corpse Christ Corner declare. Of course, it's always possible he did exist--in the over-active imaginations of his followers.



Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2017 06:05AM by steve benson.

René Descartes invented science in the early 17th century. There's nothing resembling modern scientific thought in the Bible. It's all philosophy. Facts aren't relevant in that context. Maybe some truths really aren't useful. Okay, usually when you're trying to keep your head warm and cozy up where the sun doesn't shine.

The decline of the Roman Empire was tough on everyone. Constantine capitalized on a very handy story at a time when people needed something to believe in. Was it a story about a real guy? Were any of the stories of the type used in the Bible meant to represent actual people? Or were they meant to represent archetypes? Incidental history aside, I think the latter. What's more real, a person or an archetype?

Where I think Constantine screwed up was in using his religion to promote a linear view of time whereas before, it was cyclical. Science would have caught on by now if not for all the dogma.

Constantine could well have chosen the Cult of Isis as his State Religion and then we'd all be sitting here arguing whether or not Isis actually existed.

The world's largest religious group could have been Isisians.

Rene Descartes walks into a bar and starts ordering whiskey shots one after another. He keeps going past a dozen to the amazement of all around him. Finally, he appears to slow his consumption, and the bartender asks, "Would you like another?"

Descartes ponders for a moment and replies, "I think not."

Then he disappeared.


Happy Easter everybody.