Evidence for God from Science

I recently read the Essene Origins of Christianity by Edmond Bordeaux Szekely. Szekely was educated at the Univ. of Paris and Univ. of Austria, and was conversant in a multitude of languages, including Hebrew and Aramaic.

In 1923, Szekely allegedly discovered some Essene documents in the secret archives of the Vatican. According to him, he told the Prefect of the Vatican Archives he wanted to learn all he could about Saint Francis. He was allowed to research the vast 25 miles of bookshelves containing scrolls, parchments, paper manuscripts and codices. Within the labyrinth he found an Aramaic translation of The Essene Gospel of Peace as well as The Essene Book of Revelation. His research led him to seek out the Benedictine monastery of Monte Cassino. Because of a letter of authorization the Prefect wrote, Szekely was granted access to the large vitrines in the Scriptorium. There he found the original Hebrew codices of The Essene Gospel of Peace, the source for the Aramaic version found at the secret Vatican Archives.

Here's some biographical info I copied off the net:
(Szekely earned his Ph.D. degree from the University of Paris and other degrees from the Universities of Vienna and Leipzig. A well-known philologist in Sanscrit, Aramaic, Greek and Latin, Szekely spoke ten modern languages. He educated in a Catholic monastery of the Piarist order, which specialized in classical education, with an emphasis on Greek, Latin and Ecclesiastic literature.

When Szekely was eighteen years old, he was speaking classic Greek and Latin fluently and graduated magna cum laude, becoming the valedictorian of his class. At the same time, he prepared his obligatory thesis for graduation, with the title: "Let St. Francis Sing in your Heart." After graduating from the Piarist school, he attended the University of Paris, completing his education at the Sorbonne for his doctorate in philosophy. According to him, he told the Prefect of the Vatican Archives (an old schoolmate of his) he wanted to learn all he could about Saint Francis. Right after his graduation in 1923, his friend gave him a letter of introduction and Szekely received an invitation to the office of the Headmaster, Msgr. Mondik, the Prior of the Monastery, who offered him a chance to continue his research on St.Francis at the Vatican.)

Here's what Szekely concluded:

Pilate, like any other Roman governor, was principally concerned with keeping the peace and collecting taxes.

Barabbas was a seditious, murderous Jewish revolutionary who wanted to overthrow the Romans.

The Romans used crucifixion as a warning to would be Barabbases. Szekely didn't think Pilate would listen to a crowd he was trying to control. Romans controlled through fear.

Szekely believes Pilate crucified Barabbas and turned a modest, unassuming Essene named Jesus loose.

The other two persons crucified that day were referred to as "robbers." Hyam MacCoby, a noted Jewish scholar, maintains the term "robber" meant revolutionary in those days. So, the other two who were crucified may have been Barabbas's cohorts.

The Essenes were virtuous, proponents of the poor, subscribers of truth, and humble believers in God. The highest in their ranks were considered prophets and healers of the sick.

Szekely also thinks the New Testament fuses and confuses the accounts of the two men. For example, he states there was no place called Nazareth until about 700 years after Barabbas's death. He maintains that the Biblical description of the place where Jesus lived is identical to the place where Barabbas lived, and inconsistent with the geographic description of present day Nazareth.

Presently, I'm reading Revolution in Judea by Hyam Maccoby. Here's Maccoby's take on things:

Pontius Pilate is portrayed in the New Testament ("NT") as a sensitive and understanding man. Yet history has a vastly different take on him. He is known to have been an exceptionally callous and cruel man.

For hundreds of years, every Jewish king and high priest was referred to as the "Messiah" or the Greek term "Christos." It meants annoited one, as King David was the annoited one and Messiah (ruler on earth).

Also, many people find it hard to believe the Jewish people, who had welcomed Jesus with shouts of "hosanna" as he entered their city, would then turn against him and want him crucified a few days later. A man, who was revered as a messiah one day, does not suddenly become despised the next just because the Romans (who most Jewish people hated) captured him.

Outside the NT, there is no record of any custom whereby a Roman Governor would release a prisoner at Passover time just because the crowd (who may have been Barabbas's pals and fellow insurgents) begged for his life.

Moreover, Judaea was a hotbed of revolution and unrest at the time. Assuming there was such a custom, it stretches credibility to suppose Pilate would release a prisoner as infamous as Barabbas. Pilate would have committed treason against the Rome if he had!

Although the Gospel of John describes Barabbas simply as "a robber", he was no ordinary criminal. In Matthew Barabbas is "a notable prisoner," i.e., a notorious criminal. But the author of Mark, the earliest gospel, identifies Barabbas as: a rioter who had committed murder during an insurrection, and Luke adds that the following: The insurrection occurred in Jerusalem itself!

By fomenting insurrection Barabbas had committed a serious capital crime against Rome. Pilate would have had to report the crime, and his response to it, to Rome. There was no excuse under Roman law for letting a man like Barabbas go free. Rebellion was a grave crime requiring the worst imaginable form of death--crucifixion. Yet, the NT tells us Pilate crucified gentle Jesus of Nazareth and at the same time committed treason by releasing a subversive leader of a bloody revolution.

Maccoby thinks Jesus Barabbas and Jesus of Nazareth are one and the same. This would explain Szekley's claim that the Biblical description of the place where Jesus lived is identical to the place where Barabbas lived, and inconsistent with the geographic description of present day Nazareth.

Some think the writers of the NT used Nazareth in place of Nazarene, i.e., Jesus of Nazareth, instead of Jesus the Nazarene. (See Mark 1:24; John 18:5). The Nazarenes were a rebellious Jewish sect, later headed by Jesus's brother James. After the death of James, the surviving apostles selected Symeon, first cousin of Jesus, to be the new leader of the Nazarenes. The Nazarene leadership apparently followed a dynastic line (consistent with the Zealot tradition). Apparently, the grandson of Jesus brother Jude, James and Sokker, were associated with the leadership of the sect. Five of Jesus' disciples were known Zealots.

Galilee where Jesus was raised was a hotbed of rebellion, birthplace of the Zealot movement founded by Judas the Galilean (famous Jewish rebel killed by the Romans). Szekley thinks Jesus Barabbas was the son of Judas the Galilean. Bar Abba means son of the father. But it also could be interpreted as "the Teacher."

I paid $36 (plus shipping) for Revolution in Judea because it's out of print and hard to come by. It sold for $9.95 in the stores. The copy I have is stamped "Virginia Beach Public Library." It has some underlinings in it and some handwritten critical remarks. It is finally tamped, "DISCARD." And now it's in my hands. Soooooooooo, even today, the process continues. Any critical writing is likely to end up in the trash.

My only comment is that it makes no sense for the story to diverge at that point. Szekely has no issues with the fact that Jesus was a Jew who performed miracles and had a following of disciples, and who was arrested by the Romans. Suppose Barabbas was executed instead of Jesus - what purpose would it serve for He and all His disciples to start making up this story that He was executed and then rose from the dead?

Further, the gospels were written in those contemporary times. So when all of the Apostles started travelling around teaching of Jesus' death, resurrection, and salvation through faith, don't you suppose someone might not have thought to mention "Hey, I was there, and it was Barabbas that died, not Jesus" Remember there were Romans, the Apostles, a great many Jews, Jesus' mother, etc. who witnessed the crucifixion. Why would no one speak up? 2 things about this: 1) The Jews wanted Jesus dead because they thought He was blaspheming the Lord by accusing the Pharisees. They would have kept looking for him if He were released, and certainly wouldn't have been appeased by Barabbas' death on the cross. And 2) remember that the Apostles and Jesus were Jewish - they would never have struck their old faith down in exchange for this new type of salvation had they not witnessed the extraordinary events of Jesus' resurrection. They were not blindly following Jesus, and in fact they are shown to often have doubts. It doesn't seem plausible to me that without the events actually hapenning as recorded, they would ever undertake the cause of spreading such a radical message - a message that they would nearly all die for.

Put into context, that little theory makes no sense in my mind... My 2 cents.

To establish control over Judea, the Romans appointed collaborators like Caiaphas to be high Priest of the Jews. Caiaphas in turn appointed Paul to root out insurgencies. For all we know, Paul may have had a hand in Jesus' crucifixion.

Five years after Jesus' death, Paul changed tactics and professed to be a Christian. However, the religion he taught was an obedience to Rome type of Christianity.

The Romans' main concern was keeping the peace in the provinces and collecting taxes.

Paul's original role was to seek out (and arrest??? kidnap???) insurgents. However, it appears he discovered a more effective way of achieving the goals of Rome.

After Damascus, Paul may have worked directly for the Roman secret police instead of the High Priest. As part of this arrangement, Paul was made a Roman citizen. This and his Roman connections saved him from a number of predicaments. (How else do you explain Roman legions always stepping out of the shadows to rescue him. And in one instance, it took 500 Roman soldiers to rescue him.)

Paul became like a Jew in order to win Jews and like those without the law in order to win them over (Corinthians 9 verses 20 & 21). In other words, Paul was everything to everybody, and used these and other deceptions to win converts.

Look at what Paul taught. As to keeping the peace, working the fields, and paying taxes, Nero couldn't have said it better.

And some think Paul profited handsomely for his efforts.

Nero may have caught Paul skimming or was fed up with the whole Jewish/Christian thing and had Paul executed in 66 AD. (Although some think Paul lived in comfort in Rome and died a natural death.)

The Nazarenes headed by James (Jesus' brother) and Peter (Jesus' disciple) did not subscribe to Paul's religion. But after the Roman's destroyed Jerusalem and killed over 1,000,000 Jews in 70 A.D., the Nazarenes were pretty much wiped out. Those that survived were killed in another Jewish uprising in 133 A.D.

The period of history that Jesus lived in was marked by 200 years of bloody fighting and rebellion. Yet, you have to go outside the NT to understand what was going on at that time.

400 years after Paul started his work, Rome adopted Christianity as its official religion.

"...it is...a fact of history that St. Paul and his successors added to,..., or imposed upon, or substituted another doctrine for...the plain...teachings of Jesus..."

H.G. Wells (1866-1946)

"The conversion of Paul was no conversion at all: it was Paul who converted the religion that has raised one man above sin and death into a religion that delivered millions of men so completely into their dominion that their own common nature became a horror to them, and the religious life became a denial of life."

George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)

Sacrament o Blog wrote:Look at what Paul taught. As to keeping the peace, working the fields, and paying taxes, Nero couldn't have said it better.

You can quote an author (H.G. Wells) but why, when you can simply read what Paul taught? It's all there in Romans. And you're right, look at what he taught...

When you look you'll find perfect harmony between Paul's writings and the teachings of Jesus. It was Jesus who said "Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's."

Your theories simply don't fly because a) there are absolutely no contradictions between Paul and Jesus, nor between Paul's and the other books of the Bible. And b) because the actual Apostles who (and I must reiterate - lived with Jesus and were willing to die professing His name) also accepted Paul as one of themselves.

Honestly, I encourage you to see for yourself. Actually read what Paul wrote and you'll see that he teaches exactly what all the apostles taught - that Jesus died to redeem our sins and we're saved by God's grace, through our faith in Him.

The Church (in concert with the Roman government) adopted a view of Christianity most compatible to Rome. The Church also made a concerted effort to destroy all of the conflicting accounts of the story. (See Lost Christianities by Bart D. Ehrman)

An unknown author wrote the Gospel of Mark (the first gospel written) right after the Romans smashed Jerusalem in 70A.D. It would have been politically unwise to write anything critical of Rome at that time. (By the way, the oldest surviving gospel is written in Greek and is dated some 300 years after the death of Jesus.) Paul in his letters warns of forgeries, because it was common practice in those days to forge something and put one of the apostles' names on it. Scholars also believe the NT has many edits and changes to the originals.

You speak of the witnesses to Jesus' Crucifixion, well most of them were killed by the time the NT was written. Read what happened to the Jews in Jerusalem in the Jewish War 66A.D. to 70A.D. Also, many who were adults when Jesus was crucified would have been dead when the NT was written. A bunch more died following the siege of Masada by the Romans in 73A.D. More died in the Bar Kokhba revolt. The rest fled to four corners of the earth, and didn't return until the 20th century (nearly 2000 years later).

If you'll dig into history (or even the writings of Paul), you'll discern a serious conflict over what the followers of Jesus believed and what Paul taught. If you can still get a copy, read S. Brandon, The fall of Jerusalem and the New Christian Church and Jesus and the Zealots.

The NT often refers to "Jesus the Nazarene." His followers were called the "Nazarenes" and also called the "Ebionites." The Ebionites reject Paul, the the Virgin Birth, the "divinity" of Jesus, use only the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and are thus more extreme in their Judaism.

Sacrament o Blog wrote:The Church (in concert with the Roman government) adopted a view of Christianity most compatible to Rome. The Church also made a concerted effort to destroy all of the conflicting accounts of the story. (See Lost Christianities by Bart D. Ehrman)

Yet they were extremely persecuted by Rome even with this compatible view. That doesn't really match up, does it?

Sacrament o Blog wrote:An unknown author wrote the Gospel of Mark (the first gospel written) right after the Romans smashed Jerusalem in 70A.D. It would have been politically unwise to write anything critical of Rome at that time. (By the way, the oldest surviving gospel is written in Greek and is dated some 300 years after the death of Jesus.) Paul in his letters warns of forgeries, because it was common practice in those days to forge something and put one of the apostles' names on it. Scholars also believe the NT has many edits and changes to the originals.

I encourage you to read this page on when the New Testament was written. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... rigin.html Also it would stand to reason that if the whole NT was written after Jerusalem was destroyed then that would have been mentioned. The entire culture at the time is referenced in the present-tense, rather than from the point of view of looking back at an earlier era. It seems as though Acts actually ends just before the destruction of Jerusalem.

Sacrament o Blog wrote:If you'll dig into history (or even the writings of Paul), you'll discern a serious conflict over what the followers of Jesus believed and what Paul taught.

No I won't discern a serious conflict because I have dug into it, and there's no conflict present. There are discussions of early questions and how the Apostles (in unison) dealt with them. But on all accounts the Gospel of Christ (that whosever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life) is perfectly harmoneous throughout the entire NT (and the OT as a matter of fact).

Rather than challenging me to read a biased book, why don't we just take a look at the Books and see where they are out of sync?

Your explanation is just not plausible.. That Christianity was a covert effort to form some new religion in order to control the Jews is simply not plausible. This link demonstrates the ways in which Christianity was so radical at the time that no one making it up for the purpose of having others accept it would ever come up with this kind of story. http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html

So I think I'm ok with leaving it at that. I'll check out some of those books if I can ever get time later on. I hope you'll look into some of the things I've been saying with an open mind. God bless.

Recognize that there was 40 years of story telling by traveling story tellers before anything was written in the NT.

Now, I don't know if Paul or any of those other story tellers made anything up or embellished the story during that time, but the Christian writers sure did afterwards. Again, since you are familar with the letters of Paul, read where he admonishes his followers to be wary of forgeries.

One of the biggest problems Christians have is with the fact that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written by unknow writers between 70 A.D. and 120 A.D. in places far from Jerusalem. (Bart Ehrman, who I suggested you read, is a respected and admired college professor, has documented his findings in this regard.)

During the time of Jesus, many Jews hoped a Jewish king, who they referred to as the "Messiah" or "Christos" (Greek word), would drive the Romans out of Judea. The Zealots believed the kingdom of God (as they referred to it) should be restored through their violent actions.

The founder of the Zealots was Judas the Galilean. Judas was also called "Judas Barjona." "Barjona" today would be translated as "guerilla fighter," like Che Guevara. The various terms used to describe followers of Judas were "Zealots," "barjonim," "sicari" (or knifemen), and "Galileans." The Jewish historian Josephus tells us Galileans endured pain with resolution and were ready to suffer any manner of death and—just like the poor ones—they put honor before wealth. In all of this Josephus is describing a sect not a nation.

Mark 3:13-19. Jesus names his lieutenants:

James and John the sons of Zebedee, he surnamed them Boanerges, which means, "men of violence", Simon the Canaanite (the Aramaic term for “Zealot” was “Canaim”.), Judas Iscariot (i.e., sicari meant knifeman in Latin & “sikarios” meant murderer in Greek). Peter is referred to as Peter Barjona. Luke & Acts also tells us that Simon was a "Zealot" (Luke 6:15 and Acts 1:13).

Judas the Galilean was the son of the Rabbi Ezekias who had been killed in 44 BC in an armed revolt against the troops of Herod. Judas was a direct descendent of the Hasmonean lineage. As a direct Hasmonean descendent of the house of David, Judas the Galilean fought several battles against the Romans and against Herod. He purportedly died in the Census War (6 CE) leaving seven sons who took their father's place and continued the struggle to claim the dynastic throne of Jerusalem.

The Zealots killed Roman soldiers, ambushed sentries, broke into military stores, stole horses and sabotaged new roads and water works. Many were caught and executed.

Josephus referred to the Zealots as "robbers." He saw them as common criminals. Josephus reports that they were scattered around in bands of rebels that would rob and steal and kill like outlaws. They took the property of the rich, killed the owners, and plundered their possessions (Antiquities 20, 185).

Judas' sons were John, the first born, Simon, James the Greater, Judas, James the Less, Menahem, and Eleazar. The latter two do not seem to have taken part in the revolutionary acts. However, after their brothers' deaths they continued to claim the throne of Jerusalem. They waged further wars against the Romans including the Jewish War (66—70) in which Menahem died and the war that took place in 74 (Masada) in which Eleazar died.

The names of Judas the Galilean's sons, except for Menahem and Eleazar, are the same names as the group of the Apostles.

The Acts of the Apostles", even if in an anachronistic manner through what Gamaliel said in Acts 5.34-36, confirm that Judas called Thaddaeus (Theudas) was the son of Judas the Galilean. In Luke 6:16, Luke also confirms that Judas is the brother of that James son of Judas the Galilean that "The Acts of the Apostles" themselves acknowledge had been killed in 44 under Herod Agrippa for subversive activity (Acts 12:1).

In John 7:41 the Jerusalem crowd whisper among themselves: Surely the messiah is not to come from Galilee?

Meaning: Surely the messiah is not a Galilean?

When Nicodemus, a Pharisee, defends Jesus to the Chief Priests and Pharisees, they say: Are you a Galilean too? Jn 7:52

The gospels portray Jesus as being from Galilee, when what he may have been was a Galilean.

Peter's denials of Jesus:

Matthew: “You were also with Jesus, the Galilean.”
Peter: “I do not know what you are talking about.”

Mark: “Surely you are one of them, for you are a Galilean and you speak like him.”
Peter: “I do not know this man whom you are talking about.”

Luke: “Surely this man was also with him; for he is a Galilean.”
Peter: “I do not know what you are talking about.”

At the last supper, after hearing the exhortation to take their swords, the Boanerges reassure their leader (Jesus) that they are well supplied: "…And he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one" "Then they said, Lord behold here are two swords." (Luke 22: 36, 38)

They use their swords against Roman soldiers and temple guards who had gone to arrest them: "And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear." (Matt. 26:51, Mark 14:47, John 18:10).

Matthew 10.34: Think not that I come to send peace on earth. I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Many think John and James Zebedee were killed by the Romans in 44A.D. after a violent revolt.

Ananus a ( Sadduccee ) High Priest was the son of a distinguished High Priest he called a meeting of the Sanhedrin to try James and others charged with breaking the Law, he was convicted, stoned, and then clubbed to death at the Jerusalem Temple in AD.62. In Antiquities XX 197-200 Josephus refers to James as the brother of Jesus.

Peter was executed in Rome in 66 A.D.

In AD.68 Qumran was wiped out by a Roman force.

Here's what happened to the rest.

The Jewish historian Josephus writing about the Destruction of Jerusalem:

Pouring into the alleys, sword in hand, they (the Romans) massacred indiscriminately all whom they met, and burnt the houses with all who had taken refuge within. Often in the course of their raids, on entering the houses for loot, they would find whole families dead and the rooms filled with the victims of the famine... Running everyone through who fell in their way, they choked the alleys with corpses and deluged the whole city with blood, insomuch that many of the fires were extinguished by the gory stream. Towards evening they ceased slaughtering, but when night fell the fire gained the mastery, and the dawn of the eighth day of the month of Gorpiaeus (Elul) broke upon Jerusalem in flames - a city which had suffered such calamities...The Romans now set fire to the outlying quarters of the town and razed the walls to the ground. Thus was Jerusalem taken in the second year of the reign of Vespasian, on the eighth of the month of Gorpiaeus. (20 September, 70 CE)

Titus ordered the whole city destroyed and razed to the ground, only three towers were to be left behind. See Josephus War VII:1-3

The Romans slaughtered many more at Massada in 73 A.D., and any that weren't killed by the Romans in that siege killed themselves.

Sicarri sought refuge in Alexandria because the Romans had entered from the North about six hundred of them were murdered by the Romans after the Alexandrian Jews refused to hide them.

In A.D.73 Vespasian ordered the destruction of the temple at Leontopolis by the governor Lupus in Egypt.

The surviving Jews had to flee to the four corners of the Earth, or hide in remote mountainous caves for survival.

There is no surviving documentation from the Jerusalem Church (the church established by Jesus' disciples) after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Had the Jews not been decimated in the Jewish Wars, perhaps the storyline would be different today.

The Gospel of Mark (an apologetic written in Rome in approx. A.D.71) is very careful to not antagonize the Romans and was written mostly for a Gentile audience. Mathew and Luke were based upon Mark. Acts spread the faith among the gentile nations and the chief cities of the Roman Empire. The Epistles of Paul provide the earliest evidence of Christianity. Paul (possibly a Roman collaborator) removed the historical Jesus and substituted a spiritual ideology.

Acts.23:12 "When it was day the Jews made a plot and bound themselves by an oath neither to eat nor drink till they had killed Paul.13 There were more than forty who made this conspiracy. 14 And they went to the chief priests and elders, and said, "We have strictly bound ourselves by an oath to taste no food till we have killed Paul. 15 You therefore, along with the council, give notice now to the tribune to bring him down to you, as thought you were going to determine his case more exactly. And we are ready to kill him before he comes near."

The forty were probably "sicarii" or knifemen. The sicarri would slip into crowds and routinely assassinate Roman collaborators.

As the struggle between Christians and Jews to win converts among the pagans intensified, Judaism was seen as a threat to the Church. To counter this threat, Christian theology tried to create a non-Jewish Messiah and to change the meaning of the term "Messiah" to the coming of God, instead of the coming of a worldly king to conquer the Romans. The strangest proofs -- ranging from Abraham's faith to the promise given to Adam -- were cited, all with a view to supporting the argument that the Church not only predates Israel, but is, in fact, 'eternal Israel' (Tertullian). Eusebius taught, quite seriously, that Christianity was older than and superior to Judaism. He taught that Hebrew religion was based on Greek Philosophy. The "Hebrews" were neither Jew nor Gentile; they were Christians from the beginning and the "Hebrew" patriarchs, Moses and Yeshua were not Jewish, but Christian. Yeshua's name, which in a sense, identified him with his Jewish brothers and sisters, and even more than that was a proclamation of his calling since it means "Yahweh's salvation", was changed to the Gentile name "Jesus."

Members of the Church of Jerusalem (founded by Jesus' disciples) may have been considered Christians, but they were also Zealots. Perhaps, it was these Christians that were persecuted by the Romans.

Too much disinformation, and even more information that is completely unrelated to Christianity. I have nothing else to add.

Edit: Except to say that when posting content that you have not created, it is plagiarism unless the original source is documented. http://www.anti-religions.org/eng/prove1.php

The apostle Paul maintained that a physical person could not go to heaven. See Corinthinans 15:50.

And that seems to make sense. I mean you can't have physical people floating around in space, can you??? Yet, the NT maintains that Jesus physically came back from the dead.

If Christians claimed that only Jesus' spirit was resurrected, it would difficult to convince people he was God. His physical body would be lying in a cave, and he would look just like every other dead person. So, to make the resurrection truly miraculous, the authors of the NT had to make Jesus physically come back from the dead.

The problem with that story is that the physical Jesus would have to climb the stairway to Heaven. That should have been the biggest story both within and outside the NT. Why isn't there more written about this truly miraculous happening by the NT authors??? By historians???

But wait, Paul says a physical person can't go to Heaven, and that seems to make sense.

But if Jesus didn't just start climbing up some invisible stairs to Heaven or rise into the air like a helium balloon, then he would have to die again, so his spirit could go to Heaven. And if he died a second time, what did he die of, and what happened to his body???

Sacrament o Blog wrote:The apostle Paul maintained that a physical person could not go to heaven. See Corinthinans 15:50.

And that seems to make sense. I mean you can't have physical people floating around in space, can you??? Yet, the NT maintains that Jesus physically came back from the dead.

If Christians claimed that only Jesus' spirit was resurrected, it would difficult to convince people he was God. His physical body would be lying in a cave, and he would look just like every other dead person. So, to make the resurrection truly miraculous, the authors of the NT had to make Jesus physically come back from the dead.

The problem with that story is that the physical Jesus would have to climb the stairway to Heaven. That should have been the biggest story both within and outside the NT. Why isn't there more written about this truly miraculous happening by the NT authors??? By historians???

But wait, Paul says a physical person can't go to Heaven, and that seems to make sense.

But if Jesus didn't just start climbing up some invisible stairs to Heaven or rise into the air like a helium balloon, then he would have to die again, so his spirit could go to Heaven. And if he died a second time, what did he die of, and what happened to his body???

Mark 16:19-20 doesn't offer much detail on exactly how Jesus was taken up into heaven, but He was. This is known as the ascention.

So is Jesus' physical body transformed as He is ascending? Most likely. Read the next verse of the one you just posted:

1 Corinthians 50-52
I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, we will all be changed — in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

Ahh, so with God it is possible to no longer be perishable, and to longer be flesh and blood. Further we can (and will) be changed "in the twinkling of an eye."

If I can believe that God spoke the entire universe into existance (latest estimates are 100 Billion stars in each of 100 Billion galaxies - for a whole bunch of stars!) and if I can believe that God's Son was manifest in human form and died to redeem my sins, and further if I can believe that He rose from the dead and that he will return... Then really I'm ok with believing that God can change our physical characteristics at will, when He so chooses.

I think you've got a pretty limited view of the capabilities of an Almighty God.

I'm more of a historian than theologian. But it's certainly miraculous that the NT writers and historians didn't say more about such an amazing event.

I'm also surprised Jesus didn't go back to preaching his gospel after he came back to life. If he didn't die a second time, what's the point in ascending???

Anyway, here's another to ponder. How did Mary get pregnant with Jesus???

My first post in this thread, and I must say I find it unfair that you simply quote from a book for your arguments expecting responses to whatever you quote on a board such as this. To bring out two guns, you say your more of a historian than a theologian, but I say you're more of a plagiariser than either. I think you should learn to form and use your own arguments and ideas that you find convicing against Christianity. References to outside resources are meant to back up your opinion, not form it! In addition, you should take your opinions to people who wish to hear them. This is not a place for those who wish to try discredit mainstream Christian beliefs, and there are many other boards for such people around the place.

Sacrament o Blog wrote:I'm more of a historian than theologian. But it's certainly miraculous that the NT writers and historians didn't say more about such an amazing event.

I'd disagree for several reasons. One is that first century people didn't have all our convenient ways to record and preserve facts about events. Another is that we know much of what was recorded in the past has been lost, as Licona and Habermas write:

We know that about half of what the Roman historian Tacitus wrote is no longer available. Only a fragment of what Thallus wrote in the first century about ancient Mediterranian history has survived. Suetonius is aware of the writings of Asclepiades of Mendes, yet, his writings are no longer available. Herod the Great's secretary, Nicholas of Damascus, wrote a Universal History in 144 books, none of which have survived. Livy, the great Roman historian, has suffered a similar fate. Only his early books and excerpts of the rest survive.

We also know of several early Christian writings that are no longer available. For example, an influential church leader of the early part of the second century named Papias wrote five books that are quoted by several early church fathers. However, none of these books has survived. Only a few citations and slight summary information remain. Quadratus was a Christian leader who wrote a defense of the Christian faith to the Romain Emperor Hadrian around 125. However, if Eusebius had not quoted a paragraph and mentioned his work, we would be totally unaware of its composition. The five books of Recollections, written by Hegesippus in the second century, have likewise been lost. Only fragments have been preserved, mostly by Eusebius.

NT scholar Craig Blombery in Historical Reliability of the Gospels lists four other reasons why Christ may have not been written about more:

the humble beginnings of Christianity, the remote location of Palestine on the eastern frontiers of the Roman empire, the small percentage of the works of ancient Graeco-Roman historians which have survived, and the lack of attention paid by those which are extant to Jewish figures in general.

Now this is not to say what we have concerning Jesus is by any account dismal. We have twenty early Christian authors and four heretical writings that make mention of Jesus within about 150 years:

Clement of Rome's letter to the church in Corinth; 2 Clement whose author is unknown; the seven letters of Ignatius; Polycarp's letter to the Philippians; The Martyrdom of Polycarp; Didache; the letter of Barnabas; The Shepherd of Hermas; Fragments of Papias; the letter of Diognetus; the Apocalypse of Peter (not to be confused with the Nag Hammadi text of similar name); the Gospel of Peter; the Epistula Apostolorum; and the works of Justin Martyr, Aristides, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Quadratus, Aristo of Pella, and Melito of Sardis, 2 Clement, seven letters of Ignatius, Polycarp... [heretical writings include] Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, and Treatise on Resurrection. (Case for the Resurrection of Jesus)

We have more if we also consider the authors who wrote the pastoral letters and Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians. And then we also have nine early non-Christian sources who mention Jesus including Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon, Lucian, Celsus, and likely the historians Suetonius and Thallus, as well as Mara Bar-Serapion. In all we have at least 42 authors who mention Jesus within about 150 years of his death. On the other hand, Habermaus (in the same book above) points out that Tiberius Caesar who was the Roman emperor at the time of Jesus' ministry and execution is mentioned by only 10 sources within 150 years of his death. Begins to make one wonder why a crucified Roman criminal was written more of by people than the Roman emperor at the same time, doesn't it?

Kurieuo.

PS. Please check your PM.

The title to your website is a little misleading.

I think that for anything to be understood, it has to be understood in its context. Why does Christianity try to mask and hide the context???

I am NOT an atheist. Nothing I have read or discovered has shaken my belief in God.

But I do have a myriad of questions about Jesus. And I do confess some skepticism at this point. But I have not reached a final decision, and I would rather seek the truth from believers than non-believers.

If this website only preaches to the choir, then I apologize and I'll move on. But I do consider that a sign of weakness and a furtherance of a policy of suppression & censorship (reminiscent of the early Church of Rome).

For your edification, here are two principles derived from God:

No man is immune from the truth; and

The truth can withstand any challenge.

Sacrament o Blog wrote:I think that for anything to be understood, it has to be understood in its context. Why does Christianity try to mask and hide the context???

And you would know Christianity tries to mask and hide the context because...? Have you pursued any Christian theology? I'm not sure you're in a position to make such a claim. Yet in my experience undertaking theology, Christianity certainly doesn't try to mask the context. Infact there are quite liberal positions within Christianity, and some no doubt would accept some of what you have said. However, "I" believe much what you have presented appears to be very distorted, and just quoting words in no way justifies those words as true.

Sacrament wrote:I am NOT an atheist. Nothing I have read or discovered has shaken my belief in God.

Believing in God is good, but that alone is not Christianity.

Sacrament wrote:But I do have a myriad of questions about Jesus. And I do confess some skepticism at this point. But I have not reached a final decision, and I would rather seek the truth from believers than non-believers.

All I can say is if this is what you were really after, then you've certainly started off and gone about it a strange way.

Sacrament wrote:If this website only preaches to the choir, then I apologize and I'll move on. But I do consider that a sign of weakness and a furtherance of a policy of suppression & censorship (reminiscent of the early Church of Rome).

I'm not exactly sure why you introduce such a topic into this thread, however, it isn't like this board has total control of the Internet. Many are able to wander off to challenge or debate their beliefs without being hung as a heretic. Perhaps you can't accept the Christian boundaries this board takes, in which case you can quite freely wander elsewhere like Internet Infidels or Christians and Atheists.

Sacrament wrote:For your edification, here are two principles derived from God:

No man is immune from the truth; and

The truth can withstand any challenge.

Isn't it amazing therefore that Christianity continues to flourish, having withstood any challenge for two millennia?

Kurieuo.

PS. If anyone would like to discuss anything relevant within this thread, please PM me.