Jesus: A Superstitious Man Living in an Eschatological Hotbed

Despite my last post challenging Christians to prove to me that Jesus did not lie in John 8:44, no one has been able to debunk my post or, as I see it, truth can not be debunked!

So, just how mortal was Jesus once the Christology has been striped away? Just where did he get his un-Biblical information from? In fact, as noted at the end of this post, Jesus was not an all knowing Christ who fabricated stories about Satan, but a superstitious Jew who believed in the oral and written lore of his people.

Thus, based on a careful reading of the Gospel texts, we find a fallible Jewish man making mistakes about the end times and a man who was highly influenced by the myths and Jewish folklore of the day (see below).

As an example of oral lore here, the creator Gospel of Matthew, without a personal Hebrew Bible to check himself against, misquotes a proof text in trying to prove the credence of his work. An example (as noted by the late Bruce Metzger) is found in Matthew 27: 9 where the creator of Matthew’s Gospel wrongly attributes a verse found in Zechariah 11: 12 -13 to Jeremiah.

Based on the challenge of my post about John 8: 44, we know that what Jesus believed and taught was not some divine revelation passed down directly from God, but Jesus simply used popular stories circulating in the general population to impress, entertain and teach from just as many wondering ancient bards would use Hesiod's Theogony and his Works and Day or just like the cuneiform text of the Atrahasis story and the Epic of Gilgamesh was used by folk moralist to reveal why thing are in the world the way they are and what the gods really wanted from humans.

At the time of Jesus, the Palestinian Jewish world was awash in rapidly developing Jewish folk- lore. Apart fro the Essenes at Qumran rewriting and re-editing the Hebrew Bible into Hebrew Peshim (commentaries: pesher פשר = "Commentary" or theological works including over 900 other documents) to prove that God had now chosen them alone.

Well know Jews such as Philo, Josephus, and latter Pseudo-Philo were also re-editing Jewish folklore to make what they considered orthodox theology and truthful histories like the ancient Israelite schools had done who fused the Hebrew Bible from fragments making a whole running narrative form what we now know from different views of who and what the gods (E =Elohim) or god (J=Yahweh) wanted and thought.

In the time of Jesus, eschatological dogmas were revealed in apocalyptic literature in which long dead ancient Jewish figures such as Enoch, Elijah, Adam and Eve, Moses and the Jewish Patriarchs seemed to have arisen out of their long lost graves to pin divine revelations from God about the mysteries of Heaven and Hell. Just like the rest of first century Jewish Palestine, Jesus swam in this world filled with competing Jewish religious legends where both God and Satan wrestled for control of human minds and the world.

Not only were forged texts written in long dead (and mythological) names, but the Jews themselves were entering into a time of collecting and editing their oral legends into what was to latter be called the Talmud.

If one knows Jewish theology, then one is aware that Jews believed Moses received both the Written and the Oral Torah on Mount Sinai. In other words, just as tradition plays a major factor in the formulation religious truth in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, so too does tradition play a major factor in teaching the truth of God to the Jews as recorded in the Talmud.

It is at just such a time in first century Palestine that a thirty year old man named Jesus (much like William Miller in 1843 & 1844, Joseph Smith or David Koresh) thought the world as he knew it, was going to end in his life time and the judgment of God would be pored out on sinful humanity.

So, while no one can give any Biblical to my post as to why Jesus can claimed Satan was a lair and a murder, the answer is to be found in how popular Jewish folklore of the day influenced him and shaped the beliefs of Jesus. Although most of this folklore has long been lost, the Jewish Talmud gives us a good idea how Jesus came to understand God, theology and himself as an End Time prophet.

So just where did Jesus get his theology about God, the world and himself? As I stated above; from oral living religious legends such as the lore that made up both the Palestinian and Babylonia Talmuds. Although they were formed in the fifth century, both contain oral and written sources that go back much earlier, to and even beyond the time of Jesus.

The Talmud on Satan:
Although satan does not appear in Gensis 3, later rabbinic sources identified satan with the serpent in Eden (Sofa. 9b; Sanh. 29a). He is identified in a more impersonal way with the evil inclination which infects humanity (B. Bat. 16a). In a more personal way, he is the source behind God’s testing of Abraham (Sanh. 89b). Additionally, satan is responsible for many of the sins mentioned in the OT. For example, it is satan who was responsible for the Israelites worshiping the golden calf because of his lie that Moses would not return from mount Sinai (Sabb. 89a). He is the driving force behind David’s sin with Bathsheba (Sanh. 107a), and it is he who provokes the gentiles to ridicule Jewish laws, thus weakening the religious loyalties of the Jews (Yoma 67b). (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol.5, Satan p. 988.)

In the final analysis, it is only when Jesus is placed in the context of the average religious Jew swimming in an eschatological world where the apocalyptic mind ran wild with stories and fears of Satan, devils, demons and judgments from God that Jesus is not really a pathological liar, but a man simply caught up in the lore of popular Jewish superstitions.

35 comments:

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Harry,

You said, "Despite my last post challenging Christians to prove to me that Jesus did not lie in John 8:44, no one has been able to debunk my post or, as I see it, truth can not be debunked!"Please refer me to that post. It's pretty simple to see that Jesus was referring to Pharisee's control beliefs or misinterpretations and twisting of the scriptures that they had used to affirm their sins...in other words they didn't want to believe the truth and were haters of truth, that's why they were called "children of the devil" so I need to know what point you were making because that scripture is as simple as it comes...

You also ask this,"So, just how totally mortal was Jesus once the Christology has been striped away?"I guess you embark upon setting forth your theory in the post but the Jesus of scripture was 100% God and 100% man his divinity can not be stripped from him producing the same Jesus that we see within scripture. the "human only" Jesus would be another Jesus which the scripture does not describe in those terms.

That should make things clear as mud for ya!

psteve said...

I really like this piece; it's very interesting. However, it's a bit tough to read at times because of uncaught typos. You need to make a pass over it to fix some dropped words and misspellings. For example you wrote "lair" instead of "liar." These are little things, but they do make a difference to the reader. Cheers.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Harry,

Oooh, by the way...you assert that Jesus was literate right?

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Harry,

"Jesus is not really a pathological lair, but a man simply caught up in the lore of popular Jewish superstitions."Or how about this one Harry, Jesus is who he claimed to be. John 8:58...BEFORE Abraham was...I AM (Exodus 3)Pretty smple to me...by the way why wouldn't Jesus refer to stories and epics that the common man and the common man and the religious elite were well aware of? Seems like to me using common material is an excellent place to begin teach real truth...Do you think an astronaut talks about rocket science to a pre-K student during a public service visit? how does he relay his job? Using analogy that his audience can understand, and that's usually something that they are already familiar with...

I'm not convinced that you made any particular point Harry, I would liek to get further into the SUPPOSED Matthew misquote though.

Later

sconnor said...

harvey

Oooooo..... harvey burnett is back from his fantasy laden universe, where he thinks the illusion of the sun rising and setting is caused by the earth rotating around the sun.

Harvey ignorantly stated from a previous post: The sun doesn't RISE anywhere and it certainly doesn't SET. The earth rotates around the sun remember?
Bahawaahwahaha, ha,ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

Anyway, I digress

Please supply OBJECTIVE evidence that Jesus is the supernatural, resurrected, metaphysical son of god, as opposed to embellished, fabricated, oral stories, eventually, written over time by biased, superstitious authors, pushing their own agendas -- nothing but a piece of fiction, based on a possible, fallible, human, prophet or an amalgamation of several people and several earlier legends and myths, which you feebly try to support by offering one bloated rationalization after another.

Waiting.............

And as always, harvey, if god exists, then god knows, exactly, where to find me -- he can tell me, exactly, and concisely, everything he needs me to know, himself -- this way, I can be absolutely certain, what god wants from me, and I don't have to rely on some fallible, deluded deer-in-the-headlight crazy christian, that makes extraordinary, interpretive claims, he can't substantiate -- M-kay?

--S.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Sconnor,

"Harvey ignorantly stated from a previous post: The sun doesn't RISE anywhere and it certainly doesn't SET. The earth rotates around the sun remember?
You r a hot mess-LOL! EVERYBODY and I do mean EVERYBODY but an you knew exactly what I meant...so get over it pleazzze!...Besides YOU'RE the one who messed up the description in the first place by saying the sun rises and sets...IT DOESN'T not even in an atheist world.I left out ONE word, the Earth rotates AS it revolves around the Sun...Anyway...get a life mookie!

You said, "Please supply OBJECTIVE evidence"Please define "objective evidence"

By the way I'm not gonna argue all of Christianity with you as that's all ytou do when you post...you love to hear yourself...stick to the topic at hand...I asked some questions, if Harry doesn't want to answer them then YOU take a stab...You fallible, deluded deer-in-the-headlight crazy atheist, that has no idea how to stay on subject, can't interpret crap and makes claims, as if he's the only one in history that ever thought of the garbage he spews- M-kay on that!

Later man.

sconnor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
sconnor said...

harvey

YOU'RE the one who messed up the description in the first place by saying the sun rises and sets
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else". -- C. S. Lewis


BAWHawhahahahahahahahaha, ha, ha, ha.


...IT DOESN'T not even in an atheist world.
No shit harvey -- but its a perfectly reasonable colloquialism accepted around the world. So I didn't mess up anything.


I left out ONE word, the Earth rotates AS it revolves around the Sun...Anyway...get a life mookie!


You said, The earth rotates around the sun remember?


Uh...that's three words (AS - it - revolves) and it was obviously a monumentally ignorant mistake on your part, suggesting the illusion of the sun rising and setting was because the earth rotates around the sun.


Revolving or orbiting around the sun has NOTHING to do with the illusion of the sun setting and rising so you would have NO reason to elaborate about the earth orbiting the sun -- you made a stupid mistake -- admit it.


Nice scramble. Next time try being honest.


By the way I'm not gonna argue all of Christianity.........if Harry doesn't want to answer them then YOU take a stab........You fallible, deluded deer-in-the-headlight crazy atheist, that has no idea how to stay on subject, can't interpret crap and makes claims, as if he's the only one in history that ever thought of the garbage he spews- M-kay on that!


Soooooo.....you can't substantiate -- with objective evidence -- that Jesus is the supernatural, resurrected, metaphysical son of god, as opposed to embellished, fabricated, oral stories, eventually, written over time by biased, superstitious authors, pushing their own agendas -- nothing but a piece of fiction, based on a possible, fallible, human, prophet or an amalgamation of several people and several earlier legends and myths? -- OK got it.


(It would seem harvey thinks the universe revolves around him.)


--S.

Brad Haggard said...

Harry, good to see you backed off of the liar premise, because you had to twist Genesis 3 and Job 1 to get to that. Doesn't Revelation also mention Satan as the "serpent"?

It is clear that that time was characterized by eschatological fiction, but correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't see a quote from a source or from the Talmud that explains the comment.

I think that statement makes sense in context. If you don't like it then reject John as a historical account (I don't, obviously), we've still got plenty to piece together about Jesus.

And to prove Jesus' non-divinity, I think you'd have to go after the resurrection first, this is a best a blip of an argument.

Harry H. McCall said...

Psteve,
thanks for the observation on grammar. I went back and re-edited some sections.

Harry

Harry H. McCall said...

Sorry about not responding to comments here for the last two days, but the SCDOT bought a $400,000 track hoe and I had install a communication radio in this beast made with ¼ plate steel.

Now to the comments:

Harvey: “by the way why wouldn't Jesus refer to stories and epics that the common man and the common man and the religious elite were well aware of? Seems like to me using common material is an excellent place to begin teach real truth…


This is just my point. There is nothing divine about Jesus, he simply believed the religious legends and folklore of his age was really true.Although my post was a challenge to get me a direct proof text to prove Satan is a liar, I’ve had Genesis 3 pointed to which is totally wrong as the wise serpent is NOT Satan: Please read Genesis 3: 1!As for Job goes, the texts read ONLY HASSATAN ( Hebrew: הַשָּׂטָן ) and NEVER the proper name SATAN!. I would suggest the Anchor Bible on Job by Marvin Pope if one thinks the Satan of the New Testament is the same as here.

Finally, as I pointed out in my post ending on the Talmud, Jesus used Jewish mythical legends to attack the Jews…his own one people. I gave the a full quote on this from the Anchor Bible Dictionary.

As to John 8:44 (a) where Jesus tells the Jews they are of their father the devil, this is just more oral superstition on Jesus’ part.

Fact is:
The Palestinian Targum tells us that only Seth was Adams’s son and that Eve had born Cain who was not like Adam.

Later additions to this Targum expand on this idea and explicitly claim that the evil angel Sammael had sex with Eve and thus Eve born Caim by him, and not Adam.

Jesus, as a superstitious man who got all his information from the myths of his day, used this myth to claim the Jews were born of Satan.

So here where I leave it: Either you must agree with me that the mythical lore of the day was something Jesus believed in and taught from just as I claimed he did, or Jesus is a liar who made things up which had NO Biblical bases!Finally! No one yet has proved Satan EVER LIED OR KILLED ANY ONE!

(AND PLEASE DON’T TELL ME ABOUT GENSIS 3 OR JOB 1 -2 AGAIN! Thank you!)

Harry H. McCall said...

Brad state: “Harry, good to see you backed off of the liar premise, because you had to twist Genesis 3 and Job 1 to get to that. Doesn't Revelation also mention Satan as the "serpent"?”

Genesis 3: The Genesis Garden of Eden story is a common theme where a wise talking serpent (noted in anceint Near Eastern text and Greek text for its wisdom such a the Greek medical symbol of the snake on the staff carried by Asclepius, the god of medicine) is in tghe Garden. In the ancient world, snake were thought to be wise. Even Jesus in the Gospel Matthew 10:16 beleived so:

“Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” and in Gen. 3:1a “The snake was more clever than all the wild animals the LORD God had made.”


If you read the text of Genesis carefully, you’ll find that the serpent did not lie:

A. The Tree of Knowledge did open the eyes of Adam and Eve, just as God feared. “The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die! 5 “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
Thus, Gen. 3: 4 which is totally true in what the serpent said.


B. The serpent told the truth about death: God in Genesis 2:16 - 17: “The LORD God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

Now notice the serpent statement again: 4 The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die! 5 “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

The Hebrew word for day is “YOM” and facts show that they did not die neither the day, week nor year they ate of it, but die of natural causes many centuries later “All the days that Adam lived were nine hundred thirty years, then he died.” Genesis 5:5.So even in Genesis, God is the one who lies about “for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.” while Satan is always truthful!

Finally, this story of the talking smart serpent was only identified as Satan and evil in late Judeo-Christian tradition in apocryphal text as legends about Adam and Eve grew in fold lore such as the text The Secrets of Adam and Eve.

So, even if we were to assign the late tradition of the wise serpent as the character of Satan, my claims remain the same: The truth was told by the serpent and the lie was told by God!

Harry H. McCall said...

Brad, how have I twisted this text?

Job 1 - 2:
In Job 1 and 2, the Hebrew noun satan is used with the definite article and it is thus not a proper name. As such hassatan is part of God’s divine council and this Accuser is directly under Yahweh’s total control just as he is in Numbers 22; a personal messenger (in the English text, an angle after the LXX) who does God’s bidding.
One must be careful as to just how satan is used in the Hebrew Bible. For example, in I Samuel 29: 4, David is called a satan or an Accuser of King Saul.

If one gets a Hebrew concordance, one can see just how the term satan is used of earthly people and even four passages which refer to heavenly satans.

Though the term hassatan occurs in Job 1 - 2, this accuser NEVER kills anyone, but Job’s children and wealth are taken away when God removes his protection from around his. Job 16 tells us that fire fell from God and destroyed Jobs animals. In verse 19, wind causes the house to fall on Job’s young people and, just with the fire from Heaven, God controls all of nature.

Since the Book of Job deals with suffering or why the Innocent suffer (in that no one can understand why people suffer), The Accuser or hassatan is simply a figure who acts like Gods evil twin.

You must remember, in the final prose section of Job clearly states in 42: 11 that it was God who did all the harm to Job, his wealth and his family: Then came there to him all his brothers, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought on him.

This is backed up by Job’s statement in 1: 21: He said, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, And naked I shall return there. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away. Blessed be the name of the LORD."

Brad, I see no twisting on my part on either of these texts. I have the Hebrew text to back me up, plus modern scholarship. Jesus had neither!

Bigmo said...

Koran versus the Talmud and trinity. Koran confirms Torah and Gospel. Sunni/Shia sects are a replica of the Talmud.

http://www.conflictingviews.com/religion/all-religions/koran-says-torah-gospel-not-corrupted-3324.html

Real Islam is only Torah, Gospel and Koran.

Brad Haggard said...

Harry,

On the serpent in the garden, I have a couple of points.

At best you can only say that the serpent didn't "technically" lie about the tree. You can't demonstrate that the serpent wasn't deceptive. It is mentioned in the text a number of times and God punishes the serpent for his deception.

To try to take "yom" as literal as you are is just untenable. It has a wide usage, especially in the prophetic books. Also, most understand that Adam and Eve died a spiritual death on that day, and were cursed to physical death in a way that was not true before they ate the fruit.

You suggest that the author borrowed from other contemporary myths, but the whole of the creation account is a polemic against the surrounding polytheistic mythologies (see Sarna). You are drawing a loose connection that doesn't fit in with the rest of the text.

So if Satan's deception is at the heart of death, then he is a liar and murderer from the beginning.

Now on to Job.

Your main point seems to be the article in front of "satan", but that doesn't mean anything. I think that the article is used commonly in front of "elohim" and I know that it's used in front of other titles for God, like "hosts" (ha-tsabaoth). Just because it's a title doesn't mean it isn't a real character, or that the title can be used as a shorthand for a name.

I can't see how you don't notice that when God removes His protection He lets Satan do his will (1:12, 2:6). So it is Satan who is actually committing the acts.

And God does take responsibility in chapter 42, because He is in control of everything, but that doesn't mean that Satan wasn't the instigator.

You can't be suggesting that in these passages Satan is somehow benevolent or indifferent in his interactions with humans, his motive is wholly to destroy God's good creation.

The man Jesus did have something on you that all scholars would love to have today, 2000 years closer proximity to the actual texts. You don't think that gives Him a little bit of a leg up?

Rojackjr said...

THE POT AND THE KETTLE:
It seems to me that the "objective data" from which many are arguing (the talmud) to contextualize Jesus of Nazareth as a "nominal" Jew caught in the eschatological world-wind of his age is weighed preferentially superior to that of the "memoirs of the Apostles" (the gospels). The discussion is another illustration of the "pot" calling "the kettle" black.

SUBJECTIVITY:
Noone has any absolute "objective data" in these documents (my own words and impressions herewith not excepted). They are the "subjective representations" reported from two perspectives - one from those who followed Jesus by faith, the other from those who ultimately did not. So,....choose your side!

FAITH IN JESUS or FAITH IN SOMETHING ELSE:
It really still boils down to a faith-based decision upon collective impressions of those with faith in Jesus as the Christ or those with faith in something else.

It does seem rather absurd in my estimation for anyone to build their life's purpose around "debunking" any historical figure, especially that of Jesus! Such a pursuit rather seems to achieve the opposite effect of affirming Jesus' monolithic historical character and importance.

ATHEISTIC SILENCE IS GOLDEN:
Instead, why not rather be silent, ignore Him, and dismantle your atheistic machinery? I assert that many atheists in their rantings behave in a more resolute manner regarding Jesus' claims and existence than do most Christians!

THE SIXTH SENSE - FAITH:
Anglican JB Phillips' thoughts were helpful to his "context" and as far as I can tell are helpful for ours when he said:

"We have become conditioned to regarding this earthly life of ours as a completely closed system of cause and effect...Science [only deals]with one particular stratum or aspect of Truth...we should be foolish to disregard this new knowledge [of science], but we should be still more foolish if we thought that by means of physical science [alone] the whole of life can now be accounted for. [It is unfortunate that our understanding of] 'faith' has degenerated into a rather 'dogged holding on' to something which we believe to be true...[it] might help us [instead] to grasp the truth afresh if we saw [faith] as a faculty as real as seeing or hearing, thinking or feeling. I BELIEVE WE ALL HAVE this faculty, but in many of us it has become atrophied almost to [the] vanishing point...There were, and are, many reasons for man's non-use of the faith faculty...Jesus said on one occasion, 'How can you believe while you receive honor one from another?' (John 5:44).....in order to properly exercise the faith faculty we must be prepared to disregard the honors, commendations, and even values of this passing world." (1)

STOP HURTING YOUR CAUSE:
So to the Atheists I say, "stop wounding your cause! - let your debates fall silent!" Then, and only then, will you prove your assertions about Christ Jesus and affirm those about yourselves!

As Phillips intimates in his comments above, the atheist isn't really wanting the truth about Jesus Christ, but only to enjoy some of the limelight attached to His Name.

(1) Phillips, JB. "New Testament Christianity." New York, NY: Macmillan, 1956. pg. 32-33

Harry H. McCall said...

Brad, thanks for your time and response.

First off, as to Genesis 3, this is NOT Satan in this text. Neither HSSSATAN nor the proper noun SATAN occur here! All we have is simply a talking serpent who never lied nor deceived Eve, but told the truth about both the Tree of Knowledge and the DAY that they would not die.

Your Allegorical / Spiritualization of Genesis 3 is just what the Alexandrian school of Christianity did to the text in Egypt followed then the Gnostics. I order to get what you want from a straight forward Hebrew reading, you have to re-read the text just light of later theology and dogmas. Thus, the serpent is Satan who is a deceiver and lies even though you CAN NOT show one place in Genesis 3 where the serpent did either one!

The did not die in that DAY. If you want to twist the facts that the Genesis writers did not see YOM as one day, then you need to address the late Semitic scholar James Barr’s lecture on the subject. He addressed people like you in his University of London Ethel Wood Lecture: Biblical Chronology: Fact or Fiction.

As for as the book of Job and Satan goes, you are handicap with out the Hebrew text since modern translation use the LXX to understand the Hebrew when it is not clear. The LXX is simply later theology forced one to the Hebrew MT text just as the Aramaic Targums do!

Fact is, ANY modern major commentary such as the Anchor Bible, Brill’s Dictionary of Demons and Deities, Fortress’ Hermeneutica series or any other modern commentary will NOT support your theologizing of Job to somply support a 2,ooo year old LATTER Christian interpretation.


So, based on the Hebrew text and it alone: 1. No one has yet prove to me Satan is a liar! And 2. No one has yet prove to me Satan is murder!I know this is hard for you to admit, but the facts are the facts and the truth of the Hebrew text is the truth as written then and NOT MUCH LATTER or some Christianized 2,000 YEAR OLD NEWER THEOLOGY!!!

Ignerant Phool said...

You're right Harry. The fact that Jesus said, repeated, and believed in all those legend and folklore stuff of his time and past, is one of the main reasons I cannot go back to believing in him.

I'm not sure if there's any greater indicator that he was only a mere man. This goes well the fact that the bible written by men, is only filled with the ideas and tales of men. It also goes well with the fact that Jesus shows up in history when men before him were speaking with wisdom, such that as far as I can see, he is no different.
(Even granting he said what they said he said.)

There is nothing that Jesus said, "if" wasn't said as yet, that we can say no one else would never have said.
Just the same as the idea that we needed God's writing in stone, telling us we shouldn't kill, as if...

If Jesus was really not of this world, he should be able to impress me/us with just what he said. (John 14:10 tells us he should be able to.) But obviously he couldn't, as he had to stoop to magic tricks of playing dead, rising and then disappearing. To make things worse, he wants me to actually believe this without showing me. At least I'm still amazed when I see magic tricks today.

Some people like to site verses in the bible as Jesus indicating or claiming to be God, I can't help but wonder if that doesn't sound weak, childish and petty to you as it does to me, coming from Him. I just can't see God walking around with a bunch of guys (come to think of it, those dislieples were so lucky to have God as there best friend) asking, so who do you think I am? Telling them he and the father are one, that he forgave them, etc.

It is clear Jesus cannot be 100% God and 100% man, but that he is either 100% man or 100% fiction.

Harry H. McCall said...

On more thing, Brad.

I left Christianity, not because of some unethical or immoral behavior I did, but because I SRTONGLY felt Churches were unethical or immoral in that they either hidd the hard facts about the different texts of the Bible, or they simply nurtured believers in a garden of mental ignorance to keep them Christian.

In short, I strongly believe Christianity uses theology to hide the truth thus we now have over 20,000 competing Christianities today or over 20,000 lies called theology!

eheffa said...

Harry,

Your comment about the hot-bed of religious & apocalyptic folk-lore existing in the period prior to and after the fall of Jerusalem is quite apt. This was a people anxiously looking for signs & indications of the Messiah from their ancient texts. It was only a matter of time before someone came up with their hero from the old scriptures...

I believe that the Jesus of the Gospels was not a liar but rather nothing more than a fabricated character of Midrashic fiction who merely articulates the magical thinking of the authors who created him.

There is no third party evidence (physical evidence, non-proselytizing or contemporaneous literature) that this Jesus character of the Gospels was a real person.

Christianity appears to be a second century fabrication. This Jesus is nothing more than a historicized or concretized version of the Logos Character of the many mystery cults thriving in that time & region.

-evan

Harry H. McCall said...

Andre, thanks for the commit.

If religion was regulated by the government, it would have been banned decades ago as usless.

One thing is certain, the Gospel accounts are not history, but propagandist theology dress up to look like historical facts.

Jesus raised the dead just like my first bike which I could peddle at over 100 mph!

Oh, the good ole days of myth!

Harry H. McCall said...

Thanks Erick,

If what Jesus said is truth eternal from God (mythological theology) that he saw Satan fall from Heaven like lighting “ He said to them, "I saw Satan having fallen like lightning from heaven.” Luke 10:18, then Satan, as a fallen angel could not have sent fire down from Heaven in Job as he now lived on earth.

The Question remains as to at what time in the 6,000 to 7,000 year earth history that Satan was cast out of Heaven down to earth?

The fact that the book of Job ends with the statement in the final prose section of Job clearly states in 42: 11 that it was God who did all the harm to Job, his wealth and his family: Then came there to him all his brothers, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought on him.This is backed up by Job’s statement in 1: 21: He said, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, And naked I shall return there. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away. Blessed be the name of the LORD."

The fact that God gives and God takes away, along with the fact that all his friends knew it was God who did this to Job, points only to the fact again that HASSATAN (The Accuser) is not the evil Satan of Jesus’ day.

Harry H. McCall said...

rojackr stated: “Jew caught in the eschatological world-wind of his age is weighed preferentially superior to that of the "memoirs of the Apostles" (the gospels). The discussion is another illustration of the "pot" calling "the kettle" black.

RE: Please rojackr, please tell me any "memoirs of the Apostles" we have? 1 and 2 Peter? Jude? These are text written by people with similar names or in apostles names to give them authority.

None of the Gospels are "memoirs of the Apostles", so exactly what are you talking about? (We have no idea of who wrote any of them…maybe Luke-Acts?)

rojackr states: SUBJECTIVITY: Noone has any absolute "objective data" in these documents (my own words and impressions herewith not excepted). They are the "subjective representations" reported from two perspectives - one from those who followed Jesus by faith, the other from those who ultimately did not. So,....choose your side!

Wrong! We have both internal and external Historical Criticism to tell us want was original and what was not. Please look at the textual apparatus of the United Bible Societies Greek Testament and Bruce Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the Greek new Testament.By your reasoning, it is a waste of time to offer graduate courses in the Greek New Testament.

Again, rojackr: FAITH IN JESUS or FAITH IN SOMETHING ELSE:
It really still boils down to a faith-based decision upon collective impressions of those with faith in Jesus as the Christ or those with faith in something else.

It does seem rather absurd in my estimation for anyone to build their life's purpose around "debunking" any historical figure, especially that of Jesus! Such a pursuit rather seems to achieve the opposite effect of affirming Jesus' monolithic historical character and importance.
RE: Hey, rojack, please simply answer my latest post on whether or not Jesus lie and then please tell me how subjective faith can make all this just disappear!

rojackr: ATHEISTIC SILENCE IS GOLDEN:
Instead, why not rather be silent, ignore Him, and dismantle your atheistic machinery? I assert that many atheists in their rantings behave in a more resolute manner regarding Jesus' claims and existence than do most Christians!


RE: rojackr, PLEASE TAKE JOHN’S DC CHALLENGE! “…and dismantle your atheistic machinery?” For what purpose? Better yet rojackr, why don’t we atheist just all convert to Christianity?!

Again you state: “THE SIXTH SENSE - FAITH:
Anglican JB Phillips' thoughts were helpful to his "context" and as far as I can tell are helpful for ours when he said:”
RE: So we atheists should listen to a Christian guide us in the spiritual life and how we atheists need only faith….come on now, where did you come from: Mars?

Finally rojackr: “STOP HURTING YOUR CAUSE:
So to the Atheists I say, "stop wounding your cause! - let your debates fall silent!" Then, and only then, will you prove your assertions about Christ Jesus and affirm those about yourselves!

As Phillips intimates in his comments above, the atheist isn't really wanting the truth about Jesus Christ, but only to enjoy some of the limelight attached to His Name.”
RE: Hey, you Christians would just love that!

If your are not an atheist, just how the hell do you know what is hurting our cause?!!

Please, rojacke, PLEASE answer my last post on whether or not Jesus lied….PLEASE!!!!!

Rojackjr said...

Hi Harry -
YOU WROTE:
"please tell me any 'memoirs of the Apostles' we have?....None of the Gospels are "memoirs of the Apostles", so exactly what are you talking about? (We have no idea of who wrote any of them…maybe Luke-Acts?)"
MY REPLY:
The term (though an English translation) is used frequently in the primitive church by early Christian authors to refer to the "gospels" -- reference Justin Martyr: [http://www.ntcanon.org/Justin_Martyr.shtml]

While your subjective position asserts "We have no idea of who wrote any of them" still other equally (and possibly more well)informed opinions disagree with your assertion. I think all concur there are no "autographs" of the gospels. Disagreement arises only as of late (historically speaking) over authorship and there are many opinions. The best, I believe, are the orthodox.

YOU WROTE:
Wrong! We have both internal and external Historical Criticism to tell us want was original and what was not. Please look at the textual apparatus of the United Bible Societies Greek Testament and Bruce Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the Greek new Testament.By your reasoning, it is a waste of time to offer graduate courses in the Greek New Testament.

MY REPLY:
I'm familiar with that and Metzger's work "The Text of the New Testament et al.". While the scholarship contributing to the formation of the apparatus is immense in scope and impressive, it only provides "degrees" of certainty - not absolute certainty -- about what the autographs would have looked like. And still, textual critics (depending on their pre-suppositional truth positions) disagree regarding what was "original" and what was not.


YOU WROTE:
Hey, you Christians would just love that! If your are not an atheist, just how the hell do you know what is hurting our cause?!!

MY REPLY:
By your own argument above I would add: "If you are not a Christian, how would you know what we love?" Both of us have the capacity to transcend the other's presuppositions (I hope). And, enough of the vituperative speech Harry. Its old and ad homen. It doesn't get us anywhere.

Of separate note, Christians and Atheists have much in common! Historically, we both reject the "common" pantheon. The accusation of "atheism" was aimed at the early (2nd century) Christians you know!

YOU WROTE:
Please, rojacke, PLEASE answer my last post on whether or not Jesus lied….PLEASE!!!!!

MY REPLY:
Before addressing what you solicit as "proof", it would first be helpful to understand your presuppositional assumptions about the "proof" you seek. What kind of "proof" do you mean? Also, your presuppositions about the nature and origin of the New Testament text would be helpful in forming a cogent response to your original post. Can you articulate these for me? Thanks.

YOU WROTE:
RE: So we atheists should listen to a Christian guide us in the spiritual life and how we atheists need only faith….come on now, where did you come from: Mars?

MY REPLY:
No, contrary to metaphysical naturalists and atheistic assertions to the contrary, there isn't life on Mars. And, that's an entirely separate subject. I share the same planet you do. Only "One" claimed to be "from above"...and "He" asserts the same in the identical chapter from which you draw your post's original question.

And, I'm curious; if you are really pursuing objective truth why would you not listen to a Christian guide? A bit of a subjective bias here, hmmm? Phillips observation is established regarding what he calls the "faith faculty". You should consider giving his book a read, that is if you're not biased. Have a great evening!

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Harry,

Obviously you feel that the Targum was where Jewish teaching was developed. The Tragum was the Aramaic "paraphrase" or "interpretation" (aka: Targum) of the text from Hebrew.

In other words the Targum wasn't where the lessons were learned, the Targum was reflective of what was being taught through a word translation from one language to another in this case Hebrew to Aramaic.

I think to that point we agree.

Now, your argument is interesting because it takes some twists. Either way you MUST acquiest to acknowledge either that 1- Jesus was literate or had a tremendous memory so much that everyone thought he was literate which begs the question, why wasn't he literate? or 2- that oral tradition was exceedingly more strong than critics such as yourself have given it credit. Why? Because the narrative (Targum) you use was written some thousands of years after the events they describe and no less than hundreds of years after we are aware that Targums began to circulate...So in essence you believe in preservation of certain inforamtion from oral to written forms. That's good.

The primary part of your argument is that the Targum was simply folklore or a story to I suppose "entertain" the masses. Here you seem to be superimposing a western mindset and modern standard on people of antiquity who you and John claim were much less sophisticated and much more superstitious.

If they were less sophisticated, why are they strapped with an obvioius 21st century need for entertainment and folklorist literature? ooh you say "because they were superstitious"...Yea right...facts are that modern society with all it's palm readers and magicians are easily as superstitious as any of antiquity.

The fact is that you haven't proven, only suggested, that any of this was folklore to begin with and certainly haven't set forth the rationalle of the Targum and why it was held that Satan or the accuser was translated by the original Methurgeman into the passages in question. You know as well as I that insertions into texts WASN'T the objective of Targums, just the opposite or preservation of the text was.

So I guess what I'm saying is that you look at the recording of the targum and ask the question, when the answer is found in where the targum comes from and that is the scripture, aka Pentateuch...Since that is the case, and scripture is full of refrences to the nature of satan, this is most certainly where these concepts come from.

Scripture is where any of Jesus concepts would come from EVEN IF he were quoting a Targum. So your view and approach is skewed and it places the cart before the horse instead of the other way around.

It's not problematic IN ANY FORM that Jesus would have ever recited a Targum as his concept WASN'T developed by or in the Targum, it was developed BEFORE the Targum, and the Targum was not the place of any supposed revelation of new information.

So far as your tirade on Satan...I'll get back with ample refrence as satan and his nature are not as ambiguous in the OT as you would like it to appear. Jesus being preexistent, affirms satan's nature, actions and intents.

Seems like to me that a naturalist would be happy to embrace the thought that a "devil" exists...then maybe he/she could explain the depths of their own personal hell.

Later.

sconnor said...

Harvey,

So far as your tirade on Satan...I'll get back with ample refrence as satan and his nature are not as ambiguous in the OT as you would like it to appear. Jesus being preexistent, affirms satan's nature, actions and intents.Oh boy, I can hardly wait to see this. There are ONLY a handful of appearances from satan in the OT. From my understanding, he NEVER makes an appearance in the Pentateuch and I suspect you will be reaching for straws, rationalizing (twisting an manipulating) other verses from OT scripture, layering mounds of interpretation, to support your warped views.

Seems like to me that a naturalist would be happy to embrace the thought that a "devil" exists...then maybe he/she could explain the depths of their own personal hell.The ONLY way someone (who doesn't believe in the supernatural) would use the "devil" as a way of describing attributes or situations, would be purely metaphorical.

Perhaps, in your fantasy world, evil fairies or gremlins are responsible for the bad things that happen, like disease, natural disaster, or the evil of mankind.

Or is it ONLY the supernatural forces YOU BELIEVE in that are real?

--S.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

evan,

We still remember your conclusions and argument with Tim last year regarding your theories (If you are the same evan) Just know they were bogus then and they are bogus now.

I believe you came up with some astrological bird-god look alike or something that supposedly gave rise to the "Jesus myth"...It was HILLARIOUS...I can pull out the post because Tim ate you alive. -LOL Now that was good.

Maybe I'll post the commentary so the newbies can read it for themselves and get their laugh on just like I did.

sconnor said...

Harvey

.....gave rise to the "Jesus myth"...It was HILLARIOUS...I can pull out the post because Tim ate you alive. -LOL Now that was good.What's more hilarious is a delusional theist who believes snakes have command of the human language and can converse with an ignorant couple in a garden.

And what's even more hilarious is a theist who tries to make an argument about the sun rising and setting by telling us the illusion of the sun, rising and setting is caused by the earth rotating around the the sun.

Bawhahahahahahahahahaha, ha, ha, ha, ha. LOL Now that was frackin' great.

--S.

eheffa said...

Harvey said:
We still remember your conclusions and argument with Tim last year regarding your theories (If you are the same evan) Just know they were bogus then and they are bogus now.

I believe you came up with some astrological bird-god look alike or something that supposedly gave rise to the "Jesus myth"...It was HILLARIOUS...I can pull out the post because Tim ate you alive. -LOL Now that was good.
Sorry Harvey, but I don't remember being eaten alive & no I did not postulate some bird-god link.

I do not recall anyone (including you) presenting any evidence for the historicity of the Jesus of the Gospel stories. (the Testimonium Flavium is not evidence - it is a Christian interpolation trying to fill in for the shocking silence in the historical record.) The Gospels & the Book of Acts are no more evidence for Jesus than is the Book of Mormon for the Angel Moroni or the lost tribe of Israel.


Derision, scoffing, laughter are no substitute for real evidence. Exactly what contemporaneous (first century) evidence do we have for this savior of all man-kind that attracted such crowds & started this huge dynamic movement we call the Christian Church? You, as a Christian, assert that this man Jesus was a real historical person. You make the assertion, you are obliged to back it up with evidence. Until you do, I am under no obligation to accept this assertion as valid.

Sorry Harry, but Christians may not be the first or the last members of a religious group to be deluded by a mythical story. I don't think it's all that hilarious though; considering all the damage this belief has caused, I'd say it is more than a little sad.

-evan

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Eheffa,

I don't believe you were the Evan I was referring to. He was a Dr. who posted here regularly in times past. Either way here was the post Historical ReliabilityThe notions you set forth were questioned and responded to more than adequately.

Aside from this you can't even be halfway serious about the supposed damage of theism to the world...There has been more terror spread by nontheist nations, dictators and countries than anything in history. Your "strawmen" aren't even entertaining regarding that. That may work with somebody who doesn't know how to identify that type of lie. Anyway sorry to confuse you with another person.

Sconnor, Pleassse my friend you're on another planet...

eheffa said...

Harvey,

I would be proud to be mistaken for the "other" Evan.

Like him, I am a physician, but I would say that his writing skills & logic far exceed my own.

I'm surprised that you would link this discussion as I fail to see how "Tim" was able to "eat Evan alive" when in fact, it appears that the argument was quite handily won by Evan in showing that the miracles related by Vespasian or Suetonius are easily dismissed by Christians by the very same criteria that non-Christians dismiss the supposed miracles of Jesus Christ. In actual fact, the Vespasian accounts are much more contemporaneous than the late anonymous documentation that Christians rely on for their belief in Jesus.

What documentation do we have for the miracles of Jesus? Eyewitness reports? Nope. We do have the Holy Gospels - those books deemed to be authoritative by the 4th Century Church (- that bastion of integrity & discrimination). I would bet that you do not accept all the judgments of the Catholic Church over the centuries; why would you accept their authority on this question?

The Canonical Gospels are undated, anonymous midrashic stories with clear plagiarization from the Septuagint. They are also not independent in that what we call Mark was written first & the authors of Luke & Matthew had "Mark " on their desk when they worked hard to improve the story for their own purposes. Luke also appears to have had access to Josephus' writings as he filled in the details to give his writings a little more verisimilitude. The authors do not cite their sources & are not eyewitnesses. ( The author of "John" claims to be an eyewitness but this is doubtful as this book was almost certainly written much too late ( the second century)

Again, I am afraid that you have not provided any evidence for the existence of an historical character matching the description of this Jesus of Nazareth. That's OK though. It's not your fault; because, as far as I can tell, it doesn't exist.

Let me ask you: If God wanted you to know about his all-important son & the only way to eternal life, why do you suppose he would have done such a lousy job of documenting this pivotal event of history? Why would he disguise the truth by making it look just like all those other fabricated, made-up religions we so easily dismiss?

I used to be a committed Christian too but felt that I was obliged to search for truth, (even if it led me away from my Christian faith). I was convinced that God would not want me to live for a fabrication or a lie. I am no longer a believer because the Christian faith fails the test of veracity on so many levels. It was hard to consider the possibility that I had been wrong about so many of the big issues in my life but I am now free to pursue truth in a way I never could as a committed Christian. I don't expect to have quite so many hard & fast answers as I once did, but I do know that I do not have to accept bald assertions without supporting evidence. It's quite liberating - maybe you should try it. ;-)

Maybe you could open your mind a crack & consider what your world would look like if you were to find out that the Jesus story was only "make-believe"? If it were only make-believe, how would you recognize that? Would you have the courage to accept that earth shaking realization & move on?

Cheers & here's to the truth.

-evan

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Eheffa,

So far as your understanding of the thread...you can wishfully think all that you want that Evan's theory wasn't refuted just like it wasn't 250 years before...A good indicator is why it's not used commonly now...maybe your atheist friends understand this somewhat better than you so far as that point is concerned.

So far as this: "What documentation do we have for the miracles of Jesus? Eyewitness reports? Nope. We do have the Holy Gospels - those books deemed to be authoritative by the 4th Century Church"Once again maybe you haven't been exposed to updated arguments that place all these theories in the proverbial "garbage can".

The eyewitness's name themselves such as John (13:23, 20:2, 21:7, 21:20) Luke gives his authentication having "perfect understanding" Lk. 1:3 and having heard from more than one "eyewitness" Lk. 1:2 using the same type of language that Paul uses in 1 Cor. 11, (AD 49-52) indicating that this message had been "delivered" unto them after having been received aka: meticulously passed down by whom? EYEWITNESSES

These accounts of the passing on of information are totally consistent with what modern studies have concluded about oral tradition, recitation and their forms etc. i don't go into greater detail because none is warranted at this point.

FYI: Midrash was merely a hermenutic technique and commentary to explain meaning, not a story telling invention as atheists tend to claim. There were 2 parts 1- procedure and 2 explaination. Took the form of many types of commentaries we use today for many types of things. With so much lack of study from atheists on this I'm not surprised you go with the common atheistc understanding regarding that...

So far as Markan Priori, that's debateable but it really doesn't matter as there is enough unique information in Mt. and Lk that whatever resemblances there are are overstated...not really and issue...Your timing issue (4th century) defies all logic and scholars trained in the archaeology of the time have concluded that many of the particular descriptions that were outlined especially in Luke were only in place during the first half of the first Century and could not have therefore been representative of the 2nd century and beyond in any way....Now IF one were to persists with that argument (the one you make) you would either have to affirm that Oral Tradition was much stronger and accurate than you give credit for OR that details of the stories were written earlier, preserved as to be archaeologically accurate and info was plugged in to fit...That would be the most fanciful and imaginative story ever...Either way NO EVIDENCE backs your theories and the explaination of Christian's from historical studies are a much better fit for what we do know and can easlily be refrenced from historical study...

You ask this: "Let me ask you: If God wanted you to know about his all-important son & the only way to eternal life, why do you suppose he would have done such a lousy job of documenting this pivotal event of history"The events of Jesus life are the most attested in history much better and closer documented than the writing of livy, seutoneus, tacitus etc and is still being talked about over 2000 years later...firther both friends and enemies attest to the events in question...did you notice the standard of the Vespasian story? What more could one ask for?

I appreciate your position and life circumstance...I have found that usually there is a sin behind every disbelief...only you can answer what yours is. So you don't question why I believe I won't question why you don't...OK?

This is way off the topic, but thanks for the dialogue.

eheffa said...

I don't want to argue with you Harvey.

It would appear that you have "decided" to accept these hagiographic Gospel writings as reliable witness to a supernatural god-man despite their significant flaws & evidence that they are anything but accurate historical biography. You've made your choice because it has what you "desire" to be true. I would also bet that you do not apply the same skepticism to these documents that you would use to filter out the noise of the Koran or the Book of Mormon. John's "Outsiders' Test of Faith" is a good tool but there not many true believers willing to be honest enough to use it.

I'm clearly not going to change your mind. Perhaps no one else will either. Your god wants you to keep it closed.

As for the sin in my life? How do my shortcomings affect the quality of the evidence? I would have preferred to have kept my faith with some sort of valid justification, but to do so would require the ultimate sin of willful dishonesty. All the evidence points to the Christian faith as a man-made fabrication. My wishing it to be otherwise (or yours) will not change that fact.

-evan

sconnor said...

Harvey


The eyewitness's name themselves such as John (13:23, 20:2, 21:7, 21:20.....indicating that this message had been "delivered" unto them after having been received aka: meticulously passed down by whom? EYEWITNESSESWhat don't you understand?

Simply laying claim to eyewitness testimony is NOT credible.

Positing a deity performed such and such a miracle or did this or that and subsequently documenting that I saw the miracle or others saw the miracle is untenable because you can NOT possibly know that what is being claimed is true.

You simply have no idea if the author, who wrote the particular gospel was an eyewitness or was merely claiming to be an eyewitness. You have no idea if the author of the particular gospel is trying to bolster his credibility by saying there were other eyewitnesses.

As usual Harvey, you got NOTHING but subjective supposed evidences that you gorge on, that have no reference in reality.

Furthermore, if you want to assert eyewitness testimony is credible evidence, then you must believe in people who have had NDEs.

From my research into the more profound NDEs: eyewitness accounts shows that everyone will be saved, and god doesn't deem any religion being the true religion.

Mellen-Thomas BenedictI asked God: “What is the best religion on the planet? Which one is right?” And Godhead said, with great love: “I don’t care.”
AND
Then, like a trumpet blast with a shower of spiraling lights, the Great Light spoke, saying, “Remember this and never forget; you save, redeem and heal yourself. You always have. You always will. You were created with the power to do so from before the beginning of the world.” In that instant I realized even more. I realized that WE HAVE ALREADY BEEN SAVED, and we saved ourselves because we were designed to self-correct like the rest of God’s universe.
http://www.mellen-thomas.com/stories.htm

Howard StormHoward Storm's main focus of his message is primarily about the importance of love and peaceful unity among people, who he says are "all loved by God". He constantly reiterates the importance of caring for others and seeking spiritual truth. In his book he states that he was informed by these beings of light that the "correct religion" is that religion that "brings you closest to God", negating his attempt to force them to say that one specific religion or denomination was "the only correct one". He says that the spiritual beings have no interest in having any one person or exclusive group of persons "getting ahead of other people" (getting preferential treatment or exclusive assistance from God), they apparently want all of humanity to advance spiritually. He states that any use of the name of God and religion to perpetuate violence, or similar acts is seen as "utterly horrific" by spiritual beings. In addition, he states that these advanced beings have no intentions of control or dominance over humanity, but are guided by higher ethics of peace, service and unconditional love. He states that the deepest desire of these beings is only to serve "the One" (which humans refer to as "God"), and part of their acts of service include assisting humanity to "return to the One".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Storm

Nancy Clark"His love does not depend upon our religious affiliation, our good works, our desires, or our love for him. He sets no conditions upon his love for us."
AND
"Shortly before the conclusion of my encounter with god, He communicated telepathically to me the words: With the gift you have now received, go forth and tell the masses that life after death exists; that you shall all experience my profound love!"
http://www.freewebs.com/nancy-clark/index.htm

Also check out, www.near-death.com
There you will find hundreds of testimonies about universal salvation.

These are first-hand eyewitnesses to the light of god -- the ultimate reality. How come you do NOT find their testimonies reliable -- hmmmmmm?

--S.

sconnor said...

Harvey

BTW -- noticed you can NOT refute my supernatural argument.

Perhaps, in your fantasy world, evil fairies or gremlins are responsible for the bad things that happen, like disease, natural disaster, or the evil of mankind.

Or is it ONLY the supernatural forces YOU BELIEVE in that are real?
Also, still waiting on the ample references on satan and his nature in the OT.

--S.

("I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else". -- C. S. Lewis)