FORGIVENESS
Mother Finds Forgiveness After Secret Abortion
By Julie Blim




CBN.com – "Secrets make you sick, and this secret was killing me," Christina Ryan Claypool admits. "I worked in ministry, a Christian TV ministry, and I didn’t want people to know. My mother didn’t know. My best friends didn’t. No one knew."

Christina was a single mom in her mid-20s. She was a victim of childhood sexual abuse and, as a result, suffered from low self-esteem. She even attempted suicide. Christina was completely unprepared to raise her son Zachary on her own.

"When I had not been able to buy my own son’s diapers for two years – I lived on welfare, lived in a shelter – it was so difficult. I wanted him to have better," she says.

Zachary gave Christina a reason to live. Hard as it was, she finished her bachelor’s degree and found work. But she still had to deal with the pain of her past somehow.

"When trauma came into my life," notes Christina, "I had an ability to survive. The way of surviving was by shutting down and medicating with drugs and alcohol."

Christina found another boyfriend, and when Zachary was nearly 3, she started feeling tired and sick, like when she was pregnant.

"[I was] thinking, This can’t be happening again. We’re just getting on our feet. This can’t be happening. I couldn’t think of it as a child. I couldn’t think of it as his brother. I could only think that I could not be pregnant again," she remembers.

Christina never had a pregnancy test; she didn’t want to be sure. Then on a bleak December day, she decided to walk past the protestors, sign-holders, and name-callers.

Christina recalls, "When the nurse informed me I had been pregnant, almost immediately I realized I’d made a tragic, tragic mistake. This is one secret you can’t tell someone -- I took the life of my child. It’s an incredible, incredible guilt and shame. The lie is if I have this abortion, then my circumstances will change and life goes on. It doesn’t go on. This unbearable grief becomes part of your life. For me, it was unlivable. I could not live knowing I’d taken the life of my child."

Christina was so despondent after a few years that she was hospitalized. The pastor of a church she’d visited came every day to see her. He explained the gospel and forgiveness to her. She soon gave her life to Christ and started to heal. But she was still too ashamed to tell anyone about the abortion.

"For some reason," says Christina, "I thought that if anyone knew, everything would be taken from me – I couldn’t work in ministry, people wouldn’t love me, wouldn’t respect me."

Fifteen years later, Christina finally told her mother. To her surprise, Christina found acceptance and love. She started to tell friends, and in time, she spoke to groups. It healed her to help others.

Christina met Larry Claypool after one speaking engagement and married him in 2002. His love and encouragement have furthered her healing and given her the courage to write Forgiven.

"Abortion is a terrible sin, a blight upon our society, yet God’s grace is so sufficient. We need to say that God’s forgiveness covers this sin," says Christina.

Christian has come a long way from believing that the child she had inside her was just a mass of cells.

"When you look at something through the eyes of a regenerated mind, one enlightened by God, you can’t imagine that you could have believed that this was a glob of tissue. But I needed to believe that," she notes.

Christina has definite opinions about the claim that abortion is a woman’s right.

"When you understand that two lives are intertwined, that the life that you’re carrying and your own life are absolutely inseparable, you have to see that both people have rights," she says. "It’s unfortunate when you say, 'Do you have the right?' You never have the right to take another’s life – never."

Christina continues to write articles and to speak. She encourages all Christians to reach out to post-abortive women.

"We as the Church have to support them with more than a bag of diapers once a year," she says. "I will never know what would’ve happened if someone had come out of that crowd and put their arm around me and said, 'Do you know God loves you and I want to help you? What do you need? Do you need a bedroom to stay in? Need food, you and your son, until you have this baby and can make a choice?' "

Today Christina is rejoicing in her forgiveness from God, but it wasn't always easy to believe that.

"Just like I had to accept that God could save me, an emotionally unstable, drug-addicted person, I had to accept God’s forgiveness for my abortion by faith," she says. "The enemy will try to tell me I don’t deserve that forgiveness, and he’s so right. I don’t. That’s why Christ died on the cross."

gmsisko1,

I think you and I are a distinct minority on this board but I agree with you totally when you say, pro choice = pro murder.

I'd like to ask you two a few questions then.

Is there any time that you think it would be ok to have an abortion?

How do you think god 'who is supposedly creator of life', is able to forgive someone from taking another's life away?...there is such a condradiction there. When one destroys the very thing god creates, how can he easily dismiss it and make it ok?
I would tend to think that a women who had an abortion, simply reachs a point of accepting her acitons and responsibilities and adjusts to them. In this case she is giving a god credit; so does this mean she hasn't really accepted her role in this death and has allowed herself to be brainwashed into candy coating it for her own sake? Isn't that called self-delusion?

Anyway. I have always been anti abortion, and always will. It is murder in my eyes.
The only things I have changed is my way of thinking about it. I now believe life does not begin until the fetus' heart beats, and if removed from the momma before then, it is not murder.
And, I no longer rub salt in the wounds of those who have gone thru this. I was an ass for doing that, they have enough to deal with without my shit.

If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

Imp, of course I think women who have abortions can be forgiven, not only by God but by society. I know they can be forgiven by me.

As for whether I think there is any excuse for an abortion...........only one, to save the life of the mother.

Since I honestly believe abortion is murder for me to believe in abortion for any other reason than to save the woman's life would be for me to believe murder is okay in certain instances.

I used to think it might be okay if the woman was raped but now I don't even believe that. It is a terrible tragedy for the woman but I can't understand how the unborn child should be made to pay the price for that tragedy. The results for the unborn child are always the same, death, and I cannot accept killing the unborn child because of a crime committed by someone else.

I believe life begins at conception so I believe abortion ends a life, ie, murders an unborn child. Other people believe life begins later and hold different views. There are even societies that believe life doesn't really begin until the child's first birthday.

I know my views are not popular with everyone but they are mine and I sincerely hold them and am not about to change them in an attempt to be popular.

gmsisko1,

I think you and I are a distinct minority on this board but I agree with you totally when you say, pro choice = pro murder.

Consider me a member of the "pro choice=pro murder" group.

My friend is getting an abortion this week. Makes me happy and proud to live in a nation where she can legally do this.

Overdose- Although I disagree with the course of action your friend is taking, I imagine that it was a tough decision. She will be in my thoughts.

Abortion is a cop out. It's that simple.

My wife worked with a 17 year old girl. She got pregnate. She can't raise the baby.

My wife works with another lady who happens to be Catholic. The Catholic lady found an institutuon who found a couple to addopt the girls baby.
The couple paid for everything, (Hosptile stay, living expences, personal bills, evrything)

There are other ways out becides murding an innocent child.




Imp, of course I think women who have abortions can be forgiven, not only by God but by society. I know they can be forgiven by me.

As for whether I think there is any excuse for an abortion...........only one, to save the life of the mother.

Since I honestly believe abortion is murder for me to believe in abortion for any other reason than to save the woman's life would be for me to believe murder is okay in certain instances.

I used to think it might be okay if the woman was raped but now I don't even believe that. It is a terrible tragedy for the woman but I can't understand how the unborn child should be made to pay the price for that tragedy. The results for the unborn child are always the same, death, and I cannot accept killing the unborn child because of a crime committed by someone else.

I believe life begins at conception so I believe abortion ends a life, ie, murders an unborn child. Other people believe life begins later and hold different views. There are even societies that believe life doesn't really begin until the child's first birthday.

I know my views are not popular with everyone but they are mine and I sincerely hold them and am not about to change them in an attempt to be popular.

See, Divalatina, that's what I like so much about this place. We can agree on some things and disagree on others. We agree on abortion and disagree on illegal immigration. It is possible to disagree without getting angry or being disagreeable.

Besides, you're cute as a button.:flowers: :flowers:

My wife worked with a 17 year old girl. She got pregnate. She can't raise the baby.

My wife works with another lady who happens to be Catholic. The Catholic lady found an institutuon who found a couple to addopt the girls baby. The couple paid for everything, (Hosptile stay, living expences, personal bills, evrything)

There are other ways out becides murding an innocent child.How about not murdering an innocent language? Can you handle that?

How about not murdering an innocent language? Can you handle that?


That post sort of made me squirm, too.

The problem is that you cannot take one person's circumstances and apply that to everyone. Although I am against abortion, personally, I have never been in the situation to have to make such a difficult choice. I believe that aborting a fetus is murder, but I respect the fact that all do not value human life in the same way. As a matter of fact, I am certain that some people would just as soon murder a fetus than a tick on a dog.

How about not murdering an innocent language? Can you handle that?You are discriminating against Imp by not including him.

If the picture posted on picture post was of Imp, Imp definetely ain't a him.

You are discriminating against Imp by not including him.Of course I discriminate. I only pick on the feeble-minded here at allForums. :)

1. How do you think god 'who is supposedly creator of life', is able to forgive someone from taking another's life away

2. I would tend to think that a women who had an abortion, simply reachs a point of accepting her acitons and responsibilities and adjusts to them.

3. In this case she is giving a god credit; so does this mean she hasn't really accepted her role in this death and has allowed herself to be brainwashed into candy coating it for her own sake? Isn't that called self-delusion?
1. Are you asking someone to explain how God thinks?

2. I don't think you understand depression or anxiety.

3. Earlier in this woman's life, she dealt with her pain with drugs, alcohol and hospitalization. Now she can function without those things, and is reaching out to help other people.
Your instinctive anti-religious feelings would have to be extreme to believe she isn't better off now.
You sound pretty bright, but that just defies logic.

1. Are you asking someone to explain how God thinks?

I am asking someone how they think god can forgive them for murder, if one concludes abortion is in fact murder.
If the Lord kicked Adam and Eve from the garden for a silly thing like-disobedience, do you honestly think he would so easily dismiss the fact that you took a life, the very thing god has made?
Didn't he say something like,' if you've done it to the least of them, you have done it unto me?'
I do not see how they can be forgiven, unless one uses it as a cop out *as the lady in the story* to feel better about their actions.


2. I don't think you understand depression or anxiety.


I don't think you quite understand what it means to take full responsibility for your actions.

One must come face to face with the truth and reality of the situation, in this case the death of an unborn. A death she choose to deliver for purely selfish reasons. There were no underlying medical issues involved, her life was not at risk.


3. Earlier in this woman's life, she dealt with her pain with drugs, alcohol and hospitalization. Now she can function without those things, and is reaching out to help other people.
Your instinctive anti-religious feelings would have to be extreme to believe she isn't better off now.
You sound pretty bright, but that just defies logic.

But can't you see she is merely using god as a crutch to deal with the real issue. Why would she feel she needed forgiveness, if, she truly felt she did nothing wrong in the first place?

Imp, I think the woman now feels she did something terribly wrong, so terribly wrong that she must beg God to forgive her. I also believe, as a Christian, that there is no sin which God will not forgive if we simply ask him and sincerely repent.

I have mixed emotions about it. I can see why people do it, but on the other hand, it is still a baby, no matter what week.

God performed an abortion on my friend this week. She was two months pregnant and did not know it till the toilet filled with blood. Damn that murderous bastard...

Damn that murderous bastard...

A very 'productive' comment...

1. I am asking someone how they think god can forgive them for murder, if one concludes abortion is in fact murder.

2. But can't you see she is merely using god as a crutch to deal with the real issue.

3. Why would she feel she needed forgiveness, if, she truly felt she did nothing wrong in the first place?
1. You're still asking an explanation for how God thinks. Many people forgive murderers of their family members. You think God isn't capable of that also? Also, as per her christian beliefs, isn't she forgiven if she is truly sorry and asks for forgiveness?

2. I personally feel that God's intervention got her through this. But if you believe god is only a crutch, isn't it a great crutch compared to drugs and alcohol? Also, others are benefitting from how this "crutch" has changed her.

3. Where did you read that? Here's what she said: "When the nurse informed me I had been pregnant, almost immediately I realized I’d made a tragic, tragic mistake".

I used to think it might be okay if the woman was raped but now I don't even believe that.
Even that's a non-issue, now.

Women, now, have a Plan B (http://www.emergencybirthcontrol.org/content_whatEBCis.htm).

Even that's a non-issue, now.

Women, now, have a Plan B (http://www.emergencybirthcontrol.org/content_whatEBCis.htm).


I would not say that is a non-issue. Many people see Plan B, which can prevent a fertilized egg (aka fetus) from attaching to the uterus and being nurtured to fruition.

1. You're still asking an explanation for how God thinks. Many people forgive murderers of their family members. You think God isn't capable of that also? Also, as per her christian beliefs, isn't she forgiven if she is truly sorry and asks for forgiveness?
No, I am not.

As per her christian beliefs, I would suppose she THINKS she is forgiven, HOPES and WISHES she is forgiven, but what I want to know is HOW DOES SHE KNOW SHE IS FORGIVEN? I am not asking how god thinks, I don't give a shit how he thinks. I am asking how someone thinks god can forgive them?

To me, I think it is one of the biggest cop outs. By this I mean, it would be sooooo easy for me to go and abort, say.'oops, forgive me god.' Then go have sex and get pregnant again,abort, then say 'oops, forgive me god.'etc. Get the idea?

People fall back on the excuse they are forgiven, just to make themself feel better about what they have done. It does not change what they have done at all, it only eases their own mind and also, allows them to continue on in things they shouldn't.

Bottom line...I don't care who says they are forgiven, for whatever it is they think they are forgiven for, the fact is, in the solitude times they will deal with the issue. I think it is pretty silly for people to believe there is some majik whiteboard in heaven god keeps track of things on and 'if only you ask for forgiveness, then he'll erase it.' Come on. Where is the maturity in that? Get real.


I personally feel that God's intervention got her through this. But if you believe god is only a crutch, isn't it a great crutch compared to drugs and alcohol? Also, others are benefitting from how this "crutch" has changed her.
A crutch is a crutch is a crutch, it does not matter the name of it. I have relied on drugs and alcohol to get me from day to day for many years. It wasn't until I looked face to face with the unlaying reasons as to why I was using them, then I was able to deal with the real issues and not need them to see me thru.


3. Where did you read that? Here's what she said: "When the nurse informed me I had been pregnant, almost immediately I realized I’d made a tragic, tragic mistake".

Where did I read that? I read she felt terribly ashamed and guilty.

What about this...'Zachary gave Christina a reason to live.'

If she realized that, although it was difficult to raise zachary and quite the struggle, his birth and live gave her a reason to live. How much more she would have felt if only she didn't abort and have the 2nd child? She would then have had twice the reasons to live. Do you understand?

and what about this...'Christina found another boyfriend, and when Zachary was nearly 3, she started feeling tired and sick, like when she was pregnant.'

She found another boyfriend. She was not alone in this, she had her boyfriend to help her thru the pregnancy. With his help, it would not have been near as hard as when she faced it alone with zachary.

This is the part I read that tells me it was a purely selfish motive in her decision.
"[I was] thinking, This can’t be happening again. We’re just getting on our feet. This can’t be happening.
I couldn’t think of it as a child. I couldn’t think of it as his brother.
I could only think that I could not be pregnant again," she remembers.

Christina never had a pregnancy test; she didn’t want to be sure. Then on a bleak December day, she decided to walk past the protestors, sign-holders, and name-callers.''

They were doing good and another child would have changed that fact, so she marched right in to have it killed and removed from her life. Therefore, her life would't be made harder without the baby.

Yes, Christ died for all sins, including murder.


I am asking someone how they think god can forgive them for murder, if one concludes abortion is in fact murder.
If the Lord kicked Adam and Eve from the garden for a silly thing like-disobedience, do you honestly think he would so easily dismiss the fact that you took a life, the very thing god has made?
Didn't he say something like,' if you've done it to the least of them, you have done it unto me?'
I do not see how they can be forgiven, unless one uses it as a cop out *as the lady in the story* to feel better about their actions.




I don't think you quite understand what it means to take full responsibility for your actions.

One must come face to face with the truth and reality of the situation, in this case the death of an unborn. A death she choose to deliver for purely selfish reasons. There were no underlying medical issues involved, her life was not at risk.



But can't you see she is merely using god as a crutch to deal with the real issue. Why would she feel she needed forgiveness, if, she truly felt she did nothing wrong in the first place?

Yes, Christ died for all sins, including murder.


Awesome!! so I can go kill as many as I wish, then just ask god to forgive me, and all is well.

What a nice fairytale land to dwell in.

God performed an abortion on my friend this week. She was two months pregnant and did not know it till the toilet filled with blood. Damn that murderous bastard...


Excellent! very well said.

Nature creates miscarriages for a good reason.

It is man that wishes to act like a god and take the choice of life and death into their own hands.

Awesome!! so I can go kill as many as I wish, then just ask god to forgive me, and all is well.

What a nice fairytale land to dwell in.

It's not quite that simple, Imp. You can't just go around killing people and then at the last moment, on your deathbed, say, "Ooops! I'm sorry", and be forgiven. You have to sincerely repent of the sins for them to be forgiven.

1. I am not asking how god thinks, I don't give a shit how he thinks. I am asking how someone thinks god can forgive them?

2. To me, I think it is one of the biggest cop outs. By this I mean, it would be sooooo easy for me to go and abort, say.'oops, forgive me god.' Then go have sex and get pregnant again,abort, then say 'oops, forgive me god.'etc. Get the idea?

3. A crutch is a crutch is a crutch, ...... It wasn't until I looked face to face with the unlaying reasons as to why I was using them, then I was able to deal with the real issues and not need them to see me thru.

4. This is the part I read that tells me it was a purely selfish motive in her decision.1. That's the nature of faith. If you don't get it, we should probably drop this particular point (and yes, you have been asking how God thinks, Silly, really).

2. This is what I said: "isn't she forgiven if she is truly sorry and asks for forgiveness?" Your scenario doesn't describe a person who is truly sorry.
It's not hard to understand. Parole boards operate the same way.

3. If you were able to get yourself off drugs without anyone's help, you are a very rare individual and I congratulate you. Maybe that's why you can't understand true depression or anxiety. The truth is, almost everybody in that downward spiral needs outside intervention of some kind. Hers was religion. But, if I may say so, she sounds very caring now, and you don't really come off the same way exactly.

4. Yes, she was selfish. And now she helps other people. It shows even more strongly just how effective her particular crutch was.

This all boils down to when life begins:

If I jack off, I am murdering millions of potential humans.
On her period, a woman murders a potential human.
The morning after pill murders a potential human.
An abortion murders a potential human.

If I jack off, I am murdering millions of potential humans.
On her period, a woman murders a potential human.
The morning after pill murders a potential human.
An abortion murders a potential human. Menstruation (and dare I say masturbation?) is a systematic and natural part of living. It disposes of unfertilized tissue. The morning after pill prevents such tissue from being fertilized, while an abortion is the extermination of fertilized tissue at some stage of gestation. There is a difference, however slight, it exists.

It's not quite that simple, Imp. You can't just go around killing people and then at the last moment, on your deathbed, say, "Ooops! I'm sorry", and be forgiven. You have to sincerely repent of the sins for them to be forgiven. What of a man given no opportunity to repent or even comprehend the reality of their actions? Situation: A man kills someone in a heat of anger, then is killed by the victim's friend. What fate lies for the man who initially killed?

What a nice fairytale land to dwell in.

Yes.

It's called "religion"...

....i.e., another way of saying "superstition".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

WHAT IS SUPERSTITION?

To believe in spite of evidence or without evidence.

To account for one mystery by another.

To believe that the world is governed by chance or caprice.

To disregard the true relation between cause and effect.

To put thought, intention and design back of nature.

To believe that mind created and controls matter.

To believe in force apart from substance, or in substance
apart from force.

To believe in miracles, spells and charms, in dreams and
prophecies.

To believe in the supernatural.

The foundation of superstition is ignorance, the
superstructure is faith and the dome is a vain hope. Superstition
is the child of ignorance and the mother of misery. _________Robt Ingersoll

What of a man given no opportunity to repent or even comprehend the reality of their actions? Situation: A man kills someone in a heat of anger, then is killed by the victim's friend. What fate lies for the man who initially killed?

I don't know, Evakian. If I knew the mind of God, I would be God. God is who He is and will do what He will do.

God is who He is and will do what He will do.

.....and so is SATAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MMWWWWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://media-cyber.law.harvard.edu/blogs/static/gaetano/satan.jpg

Have any of the posters here ever been personally involved in the decision making process involving an abortion? Have any of you fine folks ever paid out of your own pocket for one?

Menstruation (and dare I say masturbation?) is a systematic and natural part of living. It disposes of unfertilized tissue. The morning after pill prevents such tissue from being fertilized, while an abortion is the extermination of fertilized tissue at some stage of gestation. There is a difference, however slight, it exists.

So, you believe that if it is natural, that means that it is ok? I strongly disagree. Medicine is not natural. Hell, CPR isn't natural. Also, a womans body will regect fetuses that have less of a chance of survival and often will abort 'naturally' a fetus that would have some handicap.

Why is it not murder when your body does it, but it is 'murder' when we replicate what the body does naturally?

1. That's the nature of faith. If you don't get it, we should probably drop this particular point (and yes, you have been asking how God thinks, Silly, really).

2. This is what I said: "isn't she forgiven if she is truly sorry and asks for forgiveness?" Your scenario doesn't describe a person who is truly sorry.
It's not hard to understand. Parole boards operate the same way.

3. If you were able to get yourself off drugs without anyone's help, you are a very rare individual and I congratulate you. Maybe that's why you can't understand true depression or anxiety. The truth is, almost everybody in that downward spiral needs outside intervention of some kind. Hers was religion. But, if I may say so, she sounds very caring now, and you don't really come off the same way exactly.

4. Yes, she was selfish. And now she helps other people. It shows even more strongly just how effective her particular crutch was.

1.Very well, we will drop this point. (No, I have not. I know no one can explain how a god thinks.)

2. I've known way too many people who 'play the game' with the parole boards. That is not a good example of forgiveness. Many are just sorry they were caught but usually continue on in their wrong doings.

3.My dear, words can not describe the pits of hell I have walked thru, and I have no desire to discuss it at this time. I have been to the bottom of depression, suicidal and I would beg to differ that everyone needs outside intervention. Too many times people use that intervention as a replacement to their problems and become reliant on that instead of their own strength.
I am sorry I don't come off as caring to you, but it is just as well because this discussion wasn't about how caring I am.

4.I am glad she is helping others,lord knows the world needs all the help they can get. I hope in time she will forgive herself, and not rely on the forgiveness of a god instead.

Have any of the posters here ever been personally involved in the decision making process involving an abortion? Have any of you fine folks ever paid out of your own pocket for one?

Yes, quite a few times, although each time I was on the opposite end trying to talk them out of it and offer up other alternatives.
I have rallied much against abortion, gathered thousands of signatures and petitioned congress to not pass the bill to legalize it, afraid it would become the next fad. *which, in a way it has*

No, I have never and will never pay for one.

Give me a break...... If you jack off, there is no chance for your sperm to meet with an egg. Please continue to jack off.



This all boils down to when life begins:

If I jack off, I am murdering millions of potential humans.
On her period, a woman murders a potential human.
The morning after pill murders a potential human.
An abortion murders a potential human.

no cool guy, because God knows your heart.

Awesome!! so I can go kill as many as I wish, then just ask god to forgive me, and all is well.

What a nice fairytale land to dwell in.

Give me a break...... If you jack off, there is no chance for your sperm to meet with an egg. Please continue to jack off.

As if they have a choice.

So, you believe that if it is natural, that means that it is ok? If you wish to discuss the ethics of menstruating as being morally despicable, bring it on. Also, a womans body will regect fetuses that have less of a chance of survival and often will abort 'naturally' a fetus that would have some handicap. For the most part, that is the story.Why is it not murder when your body does it, but it is 'murder' when we replicate what the body does naturally? Because miscarriages are a common, natural process that is near unavoidable for most. It eliminates the weakest, while abortion doesn't pick and choose as a matter of strength, it is the choice of the mother, not of natural processes.

If you wish to discuss the ethics of menstruating as being morally despicable, bring it on.

Well, the Bad Book of the Xtians informs the reader that women's menstruation is foul and unclean and despicable.....

.....that might be the viewpoint he chooses to argue it from.

I always question the logic (or lack of any) in picking and choosing which old Hebrew traditions and laws pertain to the Christian community as well.

http://media-cyber.law.harvard.edu/blogs/static/gaetano/satan.jpg I'm quoting this mainly because it deserves to be seen again.

I always question the logic (or lack of any) in picking and choosing which old Hebrew traditions and laws pertain to the Christian community as well.


?!?!?!

Why would a supposedly "perfect" god give one set of his 'perfect' rules to one group and then later --in the pages of the SAME "perfect" book of his-- tell another group --"Ahh...that menstruating rule was stupid. It is no longer in effect"..................?!?!?!?

If the Xtians pushing that immense compilation of lies, myths and half-truths wants to have it both ways, they need to have a disclaimer printed in their "perfect book" that --"The precepts and mores of God's related in the first portion of this book have nothing to do with the mores and precepts He expects other people to follow. Different rules for different nationalities".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At least then the reader could readily spot the inconsistency in such a position.

Mr, have you read the Bible? Do you understand it?
God gave Moses the 10 commandments and other commandments too. The 10 apply to all people, and are written in every men's heart, as stated by the apostle Paul.
Don't take the Word out of contest and come out waving it on my face. Yes, some of the ordinances were instituted to protect God's people, Israel on their sojourn in the desert.
The Word admonishes us that no prophecy should be interpreted in any way. The interpretation of the Word of God is a matter of faith and AUTHORITY.
The Church Jesus founded, the Catholic Church has it. It is up to you to embrace it.


Have a good night, angry fellow.











?!?!?!

Why would a supposedly "perfect" god give one set of his 'perfect' rules to one group and then later --in the pages of the SAME "perfect" book of his-- tell another group --"Ahh...that menstruating rule was stupid. It is no longer in effect"..................?!?!?!?

If the Xtians pushing that immense compilation of lies, myths and half-truths wants to have it both ways, they need to have a disclaimer printed in their "perfect book" that --"The precepts and mores of God's related in the first portion of this book have nothing to do with the mores and precepts He expects other people to follow. Different rules for different nationalities".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At least then the reader could readily spot the inconsistency in such a position.

The 10 apply to all people, and are written in every men's heart, as stated by the apostle Paul.

Say what?http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v133/tormented/smileys/eusa_eh.gif

/Here's me hoping he used erasable ink and not that permenant marker, that shits hard to get out.

Give me a break...... If you jack off, there is no chance for your sperm to meet with an egg. Please continue to jack off.

Actually, they could. There is a very small possibility - sperm banks for example. If you froze every sperm, you could theoretically save all these potential humans, instead of murdering them by letting them die. :P

Mr, have you read the Bible? Do you understand it?

Yes, I have read it. And I understand how it came to be. I understand what it turns formerly sane people into. I understand that it is filled with myriad inconsistencies, farcical claims, hilariously false tales and outright lies by the score.


God gave Moses the 10 commandments and other commandments too. The 10 (commandments ) apply to all people, and are written in every men's heart

Guffaw.

I assure you that your "ten" are not written in my "heart".

"Do not say my name in anger, in conjunction with other forbidden words".............what silliness.

The 10 are written in your heart. If you steal somthing, you know you have done wrong. If you lie, you know you have done wrong. (it is like this for everyone)

As far as false tales and things like that, that is between you and God.


Yes, I have read it. And I understand how it came to be. I understand what it turns formerly sane people into. I understand that it is filled with myriad inconsistencies, farcical claims, hilariously false tales and outright lies by the score.




Guffaw.

I assure you that your "ten" are not written in my "heart".

"Do not say my name in anger, in conjunction with other forbidden words".............what silliness.

The 10 are written in your heart. If you steal somthing, you know you have done wrong. If you lie, you know you have done wrong. (it is like this for everyone)

Unless of course you are a sociopath.

Unless of course you are a sociopath.

Vilepagan,

Interesting you mention sociopathy. I am beginning to believe that we are breeding sociopaths. I have done a lot of intense reading on the subject and am convinced that I have a sociopath right in my family.

Are we extracting any ability to feel guilt over wrongdoings? Or are we so intent on broadening the "gray" areas of right and wrong that there is not longer a fine line?

Are we extracting any ability to feel guilt over wrongdoings? Or are we so intent on broadening the "gray" areas of right and wrong that there is not longer a fine line?

I don't think we've changed much over the years, but even if the percentage of sociopaths in our human population has remained constant this would mean there are a great many more sociopaths among us now than ever before.

?!?!?!

Why would a supposedly "perfect" god give one set of his 'perfect' rules to one group and then later --in the pages of the SAME "perfect" book of his-- tell another group --"Ahh...that menstruating rule was stupid. It is no longer in effect"..................?!?!?!?


Bwahaha! Ancient religious texts... gotta love em!

The 10 are written in your heart. If you steal somthing, you know you have done wrong. If you lie, you know you have done wrong. (it is like this for everyone) No it isn't, it is only like that for people who've been raised to think that it is wrong. It isn't present in children that were "raised in the wild", it often isn't present in criminals (as Vile said). And then of course, there are the obvious culture differences that would determine whether all the ten commandments are written into our minds, as some throughout history haven't used those ten rules to govern their morality. They aren't even ingrained in everyone's laws, much less conscience.As far as false tales and things like that, that is between you and God. That is between humans discerning fact and fiction.*

The 10 are written in your heart. If you steal somthing, you know you have done wrong. If you lie, you know you have done wrong. (it is like this for everyone).

Ok.

Let us say that you are correct about those two "holy" commandments.

What about the inane --"Don't work on Sunday" silliness?

What about the --"Don't say my name in anger or in the wrong way"...??

Do you imagine that "all men" have irrational and meaningless rules like that -- "written in their heart"?!?!?!

ROTFL.

First, and foremost, God knows our heart.

Jesus said himself, the sabboth was made for man, man was not made for the sabboth.


Ok.

Let us say that you are correct about those two "holy" commandments.

What about the inane --"Don't work on Sunday" silliness?

What about the --"Don't say my name in anger or in the wrong way"...??

Do you imagine that "all men" have irrational and meaningless rules like that -- "written in their heart"?!?!?!

ROTFL.

1. I've known way too many people who 'play the game' with the parole boards. That is not a good example of forgiveness. Many are just sorry they were caught but usually continue on in their wrong doings.

2. My dear, words can not describe the pits of hell I have walked thru,
1. Your acquaintances' dishonesty notwithstanding, are you saying that parole decisions are not partly contrition based?

2. May you receive the same empathy and support that you have shown this woman.

First, and foremost, God knows our heart.

Jesus said himself, the sabboth was made for man, man was not made for the sabboth. Do you realize that these two arguments are meaningless in debate (and prove little)?

Jesus said himself, the sabboth was made for man, man was not made for the sabboth.

Gaaaak.

Most sane people do not base their life or their actions on the pronouncements of fictitious characters.

Most sane people do not base their life or their actions on the pronouncements of fictitious characters.Jesus was fictitious? Even most hardcore atheists don't believe that.

Jesus was fictitious? Even most hardcore atheists don't believe that.

It is entirely possible Brooks, maybe even likely. The only place Jesus is mentioned is in the Bible. No Roman records that survive mention him, and no contemporary writers apparently did either. Kind of curious.

http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html

I'd say you need to get better aquainted with some hardcore atheists. :D

Even Jewish scholars, who don't believe he was the Messiah, acknowledge he was a Jew who started Christianity.

Even Jewish scholars, who don't believe he was the Messiah, acknowledge he was a Jew who started Christianity.

A whole lot of people believe Jesus was a real man. That still doesn't address the issue of a lack of proof for such a conclusion however.

A whole lot of people believe Jesus was a real man. That still doesn't address the issue of a lack of proof for such a conclusion however.I used to argue with Holocaust revisionists that all of the study of history is a leap of faith. Nothing you haven't personally seen can be "proven" to you to have happened. We simply choose to give credibility to some sources over others.

Until this post, I wasn't aware that the existence of Jesus (Messiah or not) was such a controversy. But, if someone says it, I guess he never existed.

By the way, here's an article with "evidence" that Lincoln was gay.
http://www.salon.com/books/it/1999/04/30/lincoln/

I used to argue with Holocaust revisionists that all of the study of history is a leap of faith. Nothing you haven't personally seen can be "proven" to you to have happened. We simply choose to give credibility to some sources over others.

I understand your point Brooks, but I don't think it's quite the same thing. We're not talking about "evidence" that can be interpreted one way or another, we're talking about a complete lack of any evidence at all.


Until this post, I wasn't aware that the existence of Jesus (Messiah or not) was such a controversy. But, if someone says it, I guess he never existed.

Now, now, Brooks...I didn't make the claim that Jesus did not exist, I merely pointed out that the evidence for or against the idea is lacking. I think the only reasonable conclusion to make is that we simply don't know. If you choose to believe that he did, that's perfectly fine with me, but when someone expresses certainty on the matter, I sometimes feel compelled to point out that there really isn't any evidence one way or another.


By the way, here's an article with "evidence" that Lincoln was gay.
http://www.salon.com/books/it/1999/04/30/lincoln/

Interesting. There is more evidence that Lincoln was gay than there is that Jesus was a real man. :D

Here is a letter from Herod Antipas to the Roman Senate:

Herod Antipas letter to the Roman Senate about Jesus & John the Baptist


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following is from documents of records of the Roman Senate.

After many complaints/charges were apparently made about his behavior regarding the deaths of both John the Baptist and Jesus, the below document shows Herod Antipas, aware of his own tenuous situation, defending himself to Rome.

Remember, at this time when Herod killed John the Baptist, the Jews did not have the authority for capital punishment--it having been given to Rome under an agreement which also allowed for no Roman idolatry in their Temple.

The reader will take note that in it--Herod declares that Jesus was not a Galilean, but was most certainty born in Bethlehem.....


"To Tiberius Caesar and the Senate of Rome"

"My Noble Lords, Greeting:

It is true, as my opponent asserts, that I was defeated in battle with Aretas, King of Arabia, but I was forced to fight when unprepared for the conflict. I either had to fight or have the country overrun by this wicked people. It is true I was defeated, but it was owing to the want of time and better preparation. Aretas came upon me without warning. Notwithstanding I was defeated his army was so crippled that
he had to withdraw his forces from the field, and had not been able to rally them since. So our country was saved from the devastation of a foreign foe.

I understand that the superstitious Jews say my defeat was for my wickedness in beheading John the Baptist. My understanding of the God of the Jews is, that He does not chastise the innocent for the crimes of the guilty. What did my actions have to do with the poor, suffering soldier? But if He had to punish all in order to reach me, then where is His almighty power they boast so much of? I do not know
whether their God was angry at me or not. There is one thing I know, the act was done with the holy intention of bringing the greatest amount of good to the greatest number of people; and if this is so, no court can gainsay it or condemn it.

The facts in the case are about as follows: John the Baptist had set up a new mode of religion altogether different from the Jewish religion, teaching baptism instead of circumcision, which had been the belief and custom of the Jews in all ages past. According to their theory, God appeared to Abraham hundreds of years before, and told him with His own lips how and what to do to be saved; and the Jews have lived according to this until it had become their nature, and all their forefathers had lived in this way. David, Solomon, Isaac, Jacob, and all the holy prophets had gone to heaven in this way of God's own appointment. Now, the question came to them, as they suggested it to me: Has God found that He was wrong? Has His wisdom failed Him? Or has the unchanged changed, and He is wavering in His purpose? Such would be the natural conclusion of a sensible man under the circumstances. Now, John the Baptist had no authority from God for what he was doing, as Abraham had. All he could say was, "He that sent me to baptize is true;" and he cannot tell who he was. Then his going into the wilderness: God had ordered Solomon to build the finest temple that was ever built in the world, and made promises that whosoever came to that house with his offerings his prayers should be heard and answered. This temple had been the place of their meeting for hundreds of years, for the Jews think this temple the next place to heaven.

continuation of Herod's letter:

Herod Antipas letter to the Roman Senate about Jesus & John the Baptist


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following is from documents of records of the Roman Senate.

After many complaints/charges were apparently made about his behavior regarding the deaths of both John the Baptist and Jesus, the below document shows Herod Antipas, aware of his own tenuous situation, defending himself to Rome.

Remember, at this time when Herod killed John the Baptist, the Jews did not have the authority for capital punishment--it having been given to Rome under an agreement which also allowed for no Roman idolatry in their Temple.

The reader will take note that in it--Herod declares that Jesus was not a Galilean, but was most certainty born in Bethlehem.....


"To Tiberius Caesar and the Senate of Rome"

"My Noble Lords, Greeting:

It is true, as my opponent asserts, that I was defeated in battle with Aretas, King of Arabia, but I was forced to fight when unprepared for the conflict. I either had to fight or have the country overrun by this wicked people. It is true I was defeated, but it was owing to the want of time and better preparation. Aretas came upon me without warning. Notwithstanding I was defeated his army was so crippled that
he had to withdraw his forces from the field, and had not been able to rally them since. So our country was saved from the devastation of a foreign foe.

I understand that the superstitious Jews say my defeat was for my wickedness in beheading John the Baptist. My understanding of the God of the Jews is, that He does not chastise the innocent for the crimes of the guilty. What did my actions have to do with the poor, suffering soldier? But if He had to punish all in order to reach me, then where is His almighty power they boast so much of? I do not know
whether their God was angry at me or not. There is one thing I know, the act was done with the holy intention of bringing the greatest amount of good to the greatest number of people; and if this is so, no court can gainsay it or condemn it.

The facts in the case are about as follows: John the Baptist had set up a new mode of religion altogether different from the Jewish religion, teaching baptism instead of circumcision, which had been the belief and custom of the Jews in all ages past. According to their theory, God appeared to Abraham hundreds of years before, and told him with His own lips how and what to do to be saved; and the Jews have lived according to this until it had become their nature, and all their forefathers had lived in this way. David, Solomon, Isaac, Jacob, and all the holy prophets had gone to heaven in this way of God's own appointment. Now, the question came to them, as they suggested it to me: Has God found that He was wrong? Has His wisdom failed Him? Or has the unchanged changed, and He is wavering in His purpose? Such would be the natural conclusion of a sensible man under the circumstances. Now, John the Baptist had no authority from God for what he was doing, as Abraham had. All he could say was, "He that sent me to baptize is true;" and he cannot tell who he was. Then his going into the wilderness: God had ordered Solomon to build the finest temple that was ever built in the world, and made promises that whosoever came to that house with his offerings his prayers should be heard and answered. This temple had been the place of their meeting for hundreds of years, for the Jews think this temple the next place to heaven.

Now see the difference:
1st. John has no authorized authority.
2d. He changes God's place of worship.
3d. He changes the doctrines
4th. He changes the mode of application.

Now, the idea of Gamaliel was that John wanted to be some great man; hence, he took this mode of eccentric life to establish it. And there is nothing better qualified than the course he took to make an impression upon the ignorant and unlearned--to go away out into the wilderness by himself, get a few friends from Jerusalem to go out and hear him, and come back and tell of the great wonders which they had seen in the wilderness. Then John's appearance --his long, uncombed hair and beard, his fantastic clothing, and his food, nothing but bugs and beans-- such a course and such a character are well qualified to lead the illiterate astray. These troubles on the Jewish mind were very heavy, and gave such men as Hilderium, Shammai, Hillel, and others great concern. And no wonder, for in their judgmnt it was vacating the temple of religious worship; it was blocking the road to heaven, and driving the poor and unsuspecting to ruin, as well as destroying the whole nation. So it was, by their request, as so ordered, that it was better to execute one to save the many from a worse fate. And this is the true reason for the deed, and not to please the whim of a dancing-girl, as you have heard. Now, my lords, if this is not satisfactory, I would ask my accuser, Caius, to write any of the learned Jews, and learn if my statement is not correct.

As to Agrippa's accusing me of having arms for seventy thousand soldiers, it is correct; but they were left me by my father, Herod the Great. And as they were needed to defend the province, and I did not know it was necessary to report them, I never thought of keeping them secret. But as to my being in league with Sejonius, I appeal to the virtue of my conduct, and demand investigation.

As to what Pontius Pilate says in regard to my cowardice and disobedience in the case of Jesus of Nazareth, I will say in my own defence: I ws informed by all the Jews that this was the same Jesus that my father aimed to destroy in his infancy; for I have it in my father's private writings and accounts of his life, showing that when the report was circulated of three men inquiring where was he that was born King of the Jews, he called together the Hillel and Shammai schools, and demanded the reading of the sacred scrolls; that it was decided he was to be born in Bethlehem of Judea, as read and interpreted that night by Hillel. So when my father learned that there was a birth of a male child in Bethlehem under very strange circumstances, and he could not learn who nor where the child was, he sent and had the male children slain that were near his age. Afterward he learned that his mother had taken him and fled into the wilderness. For this attempt to uphold the Roman authority in the land of Judea the world has not ceased to curse him to this day; and yet the Caesars have done a thousand worse things, and done them a thousand times, and it was all well. Just think how many lives have been lost to save the Roman Empire; while those infants were only removed in their innocence from the evil to come. The proper way to judge of action is to let the actor judge, or the one with whom the action terminates. If this should be done, and there is a life of happiness beyond for innocence to dwell in, those infants as well as the Rachels should be thankful to my father for the change. Again, my lords, Pilate is a higher officer than I; and you know in our law the lower court always has the right to appeal to the higher. As to Pilate's saying that Jesus was a Galilean, he is mistaken. Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, as the records show. And as to his citizenship, he had none. He wandered about from place to place, having no home, making his abode principally with the poor. He was a wild fanatic, who had taken up the doctrines of John (but not his baptism), and was quite an enthusiast. He had learned sooth-saying, while in Egypt, to perfection. I tried to get him to perform some miracle while in my court, but he was too sharp to be caught in a trap; like all necromancers, he was afraid to show off before the intelligent. From what I could learn he had reprimanded some of the rich Jews for their meanness, and his reproaches were not out of the way, from what I heard they would have been much better men if they had practised what he preached.

So this is my defense. I submit it for your consideration, praying clemency."

HEROD ANTIPAS

Any Sane person must admit that Jesus existed. We all know he existed.

Now, He said that He is God. So you must decide if He is a Liar, a Lunitict, or if He is Lord. Those are your only three choices.


Gaaaak.

Most sane people do not base their life or their actions on the pronouncements of fictitious characters.

EVIDENCE FOR THE HISTORICAL JESUS
Commenting on the uniqueness of the New Testament's claim for Jesus, Michael Green has observed,
It is all about the Jesus of history. Remove him from Christianity and nothing distinctive is left. Once disprove the historicity of Jesus Christ, and Christianity will collapse like a pack of cards. For it all depends on this fundamental conviction, that God was made manifest in human flesh. And that is a matter not of ideology or mythology but history. (1)

Just how well founded the claim for the historical Jesus is will be seen in the evidence as follows.

1. Michael Green Runaway World, Inter-Varsity Press, p. 12.

From Pagan Sources
Palestine of the first century has been referred to as an unimportant frontier province in the Roman Empire. Those provincial governors assigned to that region of the world were often thought to have received hardship posts. Too, those who wrote the history of Rome were in the upper strata of Roman society and usually had a personal dislike of Orientals, disapproved of their religions and looked upon their superstitions as very un-Roman.(2) This partially accounts for the little trickles of information that comes from their pens about the Christian religion. They wrote about it only as it forced its way into the mainstream of their view. Yet what they did write is proof positive that Jesus Christ was both a real person and that he had made such an impact upon society that the Roman world found it increasingly difficult to disregard him.
2. Ibid., p. 12.

1. Thallus
Our initial witness makes a contribution of a unique sort inasmuch as he had no intention of making Christianity to appear genuine. To the contrary, Thallus, a Samaritan-born historian who lived and worked in Rome about A.D. 52, wrote to offset the supernatural element which accompanied the crucifixion. Though the writings of Thallus are lost to us, Julius Africanus, a Christian chronographer of the late second century, was familiar with them and quotes from them. In a comment on the darkness that fell upon the land during the crucifixion (Mark 15:33), Africanus says that "Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun."(3) Africanus stated his objection to the report arguing that an eclipse of the sun cannot occur during the full moon, as was the case when Jesus died at Passover time. The force of the reference to Thallus is that the circumstances of Jesus' death were known and discussed in the Imperial City as early as the middle of the first century. The fact of Jesus' crucifixion must have been fairly well known by that time, to the extent that unbelievers like Thallus thought it necessary to explain the matter of the darkness as a natural phenomenon. Will Durant observed that Thallus' "argument took the existence of Christ for granted."(4) Neither Jesus nor the darkness at his death were ever denied as factual. Durant summed up the matter of Christ's historical existence for himself by saying that it never occurred to the early opponents of Christianity to deny the existence of Jesus.(5) Ironically, Thallus' efforts have been turned into the mainstream of historical proof for Jesus and for the reliability of Mark's account of the darkness at his death.

3. F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents, Eerdmens, p. 113.

4. Will Durant, Caesar and Christ, Simon and Schuster, p. 555.

5. Ibid.


http://www.scripturessay.com/cev1.html



http://answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=1006041005458



http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=875

So you must decide if He is a Liar, a Lunitict, or if He is Lord.I'll take 'Lunitict' if you tell me what that is.

Excuse me for mispelling.


I'll take 'Lunitict' if you tell me what that is.

Any Sane person must admit that Jesus existed. We all know he existed.

Likewise, Santa Claus.

And the Tooth Fairy.

And Zeus. And "angels".

__________________________________________________ _______

Now no man in whose brain the torch of reason burns, no man who investigates, who really thinks, who is capable of weighing evidence, believes in signs, in lucky or unlucky days, in lucky or unlucky numbers. He knows that Fridays and Thursdays are alike; that thirteen is no more deadly than twelve.....
A man of thought and sense does not believe in the existence of the Devil. He feels certain that imps, goblins, demons and evil spirits exist only in the imagination of the ignorant and frightened. He knows how these malevolent myths were made. He knows the part they have played in all religions. He knows that for many centuries a belief in these devils, these evil spirits, was substantially universal. Back of this belief there is no evidence, and there never has been. It was supported by mistakes, exaggerations and lies. The mistakes were natural, the exaggerations were mostly unconscious and the lies were generally honest. Back of these mistakes, these exaggerations, these lies, was the love of the marvelous. Wonder listened with greedy ears, with wide eyes, and ignorance with open mouth.________Robt Ingersoll

Here is a letter from Herod Antipas to the Roman Senate:


Can you cite a source for this letter?

Any Sane person must admit that Jesus existed.

It's somewhat ironic that you believe in miracles, spirits, people rising from the dead, boats that hold all the world's animals on board, immaculate conception, magic, dragons, unicorns, satyrs, and cockatrices...and yet you question my sanity.


We all know he existed.

You know nothing. You believe he existed because that's what you were taught to believe.


Now, He said that He is God. So you must decide if He is a Liar, a Lunitict, or if He is Lord. Those are your only three choices.

Choice #4. He's a myth.

#5. He was mistaken.

#6. He was under the influence of mind-altering substances.

No doubt there are other possibilities as well. Just because you've decided to limit the possiblities in your mind, doesn't mean that reality is as narrow-minded.

I cannot find any sources that indicate that Herod Antipas' letter to the Roman Senate is of historical accuracy. Many researchers, in fact, indicate the letter is bogus.
My error, I shouldn't have listed that--have always assumed it to be correct.

However, the Roman historian Tacitus writes of "Christus" within 30 years of the execution of Jesus. I would list this as a contemporary source.
Here is more :

http://quinnell.us/religion/debate/debate9.html

IMO, there was no need for the bigwigs of the time to write much on an obscure Jewish carpenter and petty troublemaker.

Just to let people know theres a movie coming out on 6/6/06 that discusses this very question. Its called 'the beast'.

I cannot find any sources that indicate that Herod Antipas' letter to the Roman Senate is of historical accuracy. Many researchers, in fact, indicate the letter is bogus.
My error, I shouldn't have listed that--have always assumed it to be correct.

I see. Thanks for the update.


However, the Roman historian Tacitus writes of "Christus" within 30 years of the execution of Jesus. I would list this as a contemporary source.
Here is more :

http://quinnell.us/religion/debate/debate9.html


The Tacitus reference I've heard of...

Considering now the supposed evidence of Tacitus, we find that this Roman historian is alleged in 120 CE to have written a passage in his Annals (Bk 15, Ch 44, containing the wild tale of Nero's persecution of Christians) saying "Therefore, to scotch the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus..." G.A. Wells [p. 16] says of this passage:

[Tacitus wrote] at a time when Christians themselves had come to believe that Jesus had suffered under Pilate. There are three reasons for holding that Tacitus is here simply repeating what Christians had told him. First, he gives Pilate a title, procurator [without saying procurator of what! FRZ], which was current only from the second half of the first century. Had he consulted archives which recorded earlier events, he would surely have found Pilate there designated by his correct title, prefect. Second, Tacitus does not name the executed man Jesus, but uses the title Christ (Messiah) as if it were a proper name. But he could hardly have found in archives a statement such as "the Messiah was executed this morning." Third, hostile to Christianity as he was, he was surely glad to accept from Christians their own view that Christianity was of recent origin, since the Roman authorities were prepared to tolerate only ancient cults. (The Historical Evidence for Jesus; p.16).

There are further problems with the Tacitus story. Tacitus himself never again alludes to the Neronian persecution of Christians in any of his voluminous writings, and no other Pagan authors know anything of the outrage either. Most significant, however, is that ancient Christian apologists made no use of the story in their propaganda - an unthinkable omission by motivated partisans who were well-read in the works of Tacitus. Clement of Alexandria, who made a profession of collecting just such types of quotations, is ignorant of any Neronian persecution, and even Tertullian, who quotes a great deal from Tacitus, knows nothing of the story. According to Robert Taylor, the author of another freethought classic, the Diegesis (1834), the passage was not known before the fifteenth century, when Tacitus was first published at Venice by Johannes de Spire. Taylor believed de Spire himself to have been the forger.

http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html


IMO, there was no need for the bigwigs of the time to write much on an obscure Jewish carpenter and petty troublemaker.

The Romans were notoriously anal record keepers. They kept records of all their executions. To be sure, it may be a matter of chance that such records survive to this day, but it is still curious that no records apparently have that mention Jesus, if he existed and was executed by the Romans.

That's true, vile, about the Romans being meticulous record keepers.

Here's an interesting website I've found that's a bit long but deals with Jesus in a historical context. Scrolling down a bit will bring the reader to references about Tacitus but the whole thing is worth reading, IMO.

http://www.sonic.net/sentinel/naij3.html

While you guys continue your interesting debate, I'd just like to point out that Vilepagan has expressed doubts that Jesus was a real person, and that Vilepagan in undeniably Sane. Therefore, gmsisko1's assertion that Any Sane person must admit that Jesus existed is demonstrably false.

While you guys continue your interesting debate, I'd just like to point out that Vilepagan has expressed doubts that Jesus was a real person, and that Vilepagan in undeniably Sane. Therefore, gmsisko1's assertion that Any Sane person must admit that Jesus existed is demonstrably false.
And you were so modest about your sense of humor.

Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources



Written by Michael Gleghorn
Evidence from Tacitus

Although there is overwhelming evidence that the New Testament is an accurate and trustworthy historical document, many people are still reluctant to believe what it says unless there is also some independent, non-biblical testimony that corroborates its statements. In the introduction to one of his books, F.F. Bruce tells about a Christian correspondent who was told by an agnostic friend that "apart from obscure references in Josephus and the like," there was no historical evidence for the life of Jesus outside the Bible.{1} This, he wrote to Bruce, had caused him "great concern and some little upset in [his] spiritual life."{2} He concludes his letter by asking, "Is such collateral proof available, and if not, are there reasons for the lack of it?"{3} The answer to this question is, "Yes, such collateral proof is available," and we will be looking at some of it in this article.

Let's begin our inquiry with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls "probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament."{4} Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .{5}

What all can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.

But what are we to make of Tacitus' rather enigmatic statement that Christ's death briefly checked "a most mischievous superstition," which subsequently arose not only in Judaea, but also in Rome? One historian suggests that Tacitus is here "bearing indirect . . . testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave."{6} While this interpretation is admittedly speculative, it does help explain the otherwise bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion based on the worship of a man who had been crucified as a criminal.{7} How else might one explain that?

http://www.probe.org/content/view/18/77

Although there is overwhelming evidence that the New Testament is an accurate and trustworthy historical document......

ROTFLMFAO...............yeah, like the "accurate" accounts of the first four books, the so-called "Gospels".

Each of the four tales contradicts the others in relating what happened.

No they don't

Again I will say that any sane person must at least believe that Jesus existed. It is a historical fact.


The Jewish Record:

Even those people violently opposed to Jesus provide historical evidence, including hundreds of prophecies, prophetic feasts, and references in writings such as the Talmud. Archaeology: Archaeologists believe they have located the site of Jesus' birth. Other compelling evidence of the existence of Jesus and extensive knowledge of the resurrection have been discovered.





ROTFLMFAO...............yeah, like the "accurate" accounts of the first four books, the so-called "Gospels".

Each of the four tales contradicts the others in relating what happened.

No they don't


Again, your laughable self-delusion makes itself apparent.

Here IS just a SMALL SAMPLING of the myriad inconsistencies in "the Gospels".....

http://atheism.about.com/od/gospelcontradictions/p/Resurrection.htm

Resurrection of Jesus:
Christians point to Jesus’ resurrection as one of the things which distinguishes Christianity from all other religions. After all, the founders of other religions (like Muhammad and Buddha) are all dead; Jesus conquered death. Or did he? For something so important and central to the message, theology, and very nature of Christianity, it’s curious that the gospel authors would all have such radically different stories about what happened.

Jesus’ First Resurrection Appearance:
The resurrection of someone dead is an important event, but the gospels don’t seem to know where and when Jesus first appeared;

Mark 16:14-15 - Jesus appears to Mary Magdalena but it’s not clear where (in older endings of Mark, he didn’t appear at all)
Matthew 28:8-9 - Jesus first appears near his tomb
Luke 24:13-15 - Jesus first appears near Emmaus, several miles from Jerusalem
John 20:13-14 - Jesus first appears at his tomb

Who Sees Jesus First?:
Mark - Jesus appears first to Mary Magdalena then later to “the eleven”
Matthew - Jesus appears first to Mary Magdalena, then to the other Mary, and finally to ”the eleven”
Luke - Jesus appears first to “two,” then to Simon, then to “the eleven”
John - Jesus appears first to Mary Magdalena, then the disciples without Thomas, then the disciples with Thomas

Women’s Reactions to the Empty Tomb:
The gospels agree that the empty tomb was found by women (though not on which women), but what did the women do?

Mark 16:8 - The women were amazed and afraid, so they kept quiet
Matthew 28:6-8 - The women ran away “with great joy”
Luke 24:9-12 - The women left the tomb and told the disciples
John 20:1-2 - Mary told the disciples that the body had been stolen

Jesus’ Behavior After His Resurrection:
The gospels don’t agree on how Jesus first behaved

Mark 16:14-15 - Jesus commissions “the eleven” to preach the gospel
Matthew 28:9 - Jesus lets Mary Magdalene and another Mary hold his feet
John 20:17 - Jesus forbids Mary to touch him because he hasn’t ascended to heaven yet, but a week later he lets Thomas touch him anyway

Jesus’ Resurrection:
If Jesus rose from the dead, how did his disciples take the news?

Mark 16:11, Luke 24:11 - Everyone doubts and/or is scared at first, but eventually they go along with it
Matthew 28:16 - Some doubt, but most believe
John 20:24-28 - Everyone believes but Thomas, whose doubts are eliminated when he gets physical proof

Jesus Ascends to Heaven:
Where, when, and how did this happen, according to the four Gospels?

Mark 16:14-19 - Jesus ascends while he and his disciples are seated at a table in or near Jerusalem
Matthew 28:16-20 - Jesus’ ascension isn’t mentioned at all, but Matthew ends at a mountain in Galilee
Luke 24:50-51 - Jesus ascends outisde, after dinner, and at Bethany and on the same day as the resurrection
John - Nothing about Jesus’ ascension is mentioned
Acts 1:9-12 - Jesus ascends at least 40 days after his resurrection, at Mt. Olivet

In Matthew 8:5-13, it says the Centurion approached Jesus and asked Him to heal his slave. In the cross reference of Luke 7:1-7, it says the Centurion sent some Jewish Elders. If you can help me with this I would appreciate it. I checked my Greek books and commentaries and cannot find a solid explanation. Thanks.
This does seem to be a contradiction, doesn’t it? And it is difficult to find any definitive evidence to help us in this dilemma. I have checked the Greek as well as a number of commentaries, just as you have, but to no avail.

Thanks to a friend, I did find an explanation in a book by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe entitled "When Critics Ask," c. 1992. They state on page 334, that both Matthew and Luke are correct. In the first century, it was understood that when a representative was sent to speak for his master, it was as if the master was speaking himself. For example, when the Secretary of State meets individuals from other countries, he goes out in the name of the President of the United States. What he says is what the President says. Matthew states that a centurion came to Jesus asking earnestly about his sick servant, when in fact the centurion sent others on his behalf. So, when Matthew declares that the centurion was speaking, this was true, even though he was, as Luke indicated, speaking through his official representative.

Can you be comfortable with this possible solution? This is one of those questions that we may never know the answer to until we get to heaven.


Here's another link

http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/editors-choice/EC0305W3A.htm

In Matthew 8:5-13, it says the Centurion approached Jesus and asked Him to heal his slave......In the first century, it was understood that when a representative was sent to speak for his master, it was as if the master was speaking himself. So, when Matthew declares that the centurion was speaking, this was true, even though he was, as Luke indicated, speaking through his official representative. Can you be comfortable with this possible solution?

Yes, I can.

Let us accept that you have explained that one seeming contradiction, and it is just as you say.

Now......the only thing in the way of superstitionists being able to assert that the Gospels are "historically accurate" is to similarly explain away the other hundred or more blatant contradictions.

The Bible is written by over 40 authors. You have to take the Bible in context, and take into account when and where the writers were writing.

The Bible is written by over 40 authors. You have to take the Bible in context, and take into account when and where the writers were writing.

IF the position of the Biblicists was --"Well, of course the Bible has many contradictions, but we have to consider how it was written"--- then we would not be having this argument.

Their poisition, however, is the opposite of the one above. The religionist's claim about the Bible is --"It iis the inspired word of God, the perfect being! It is true and accurate throughout!".

If a supposed "perfect" being had the book written, this all-powwerful "perfect" being could have prevented any and all contradictions and misprints.

Ergo, when you admit that the Bible DOES have many contradictions, the claim of a "perfect" being writing it flies out the window.........and we return to the reality of the situation;

...it is simply a Bronze Age tome written be a band of extremely superstitious and ignorant desert dwellers whose concept of "god" is just as implausible and as irrational and as insupportable as the claims of the existence of the OTHER 10,000 or so "gods" that mankind has dreamed up since he peeked out of a cave a million years ago and trembled in fear at the sound of deep rumbling coming from the skies.

__________________________________________________

The common dogma of the fundamentalist faction in the U.S. is fear of modern knowledge. When you bring up arguments that cast serious doubts on their cherished beliefs you are not simply making a rhetorical point, you are threatening their whole universe and their imagined immortality. That provokes anger and indignant outrage from them. Unfortunately, you cannot reason with them and you even risk violence in confronting them. Their numbers will decline only when society stabilizes, and begins to throw off the shackles of superstitous idiocy that have enslaved mankind for so many millenia.

All of the study of history is a leap of faith.
Vile asked gm for proof of the veracity of his Roman Senate letters. None is possible. But if we apply the same standard to our study of history, we have no proof of George Washington either. None - since we can't "prove" the veracity of any writings that pertain to him. Were they all a scam written in the 1770's? Prove otherwise.

Anti-theists (as opposed to atheists who don't care one way or the other) can make the same argument very easily about Jesus. But anything that ever happened, for which there are no longer any living witnesses, is no less an example of faith than believing in Jesus.

1. Your acquaintances' dishonesty notwithstanding, are you saying that parole decisions are not partly contrition based?

2. May you receive the same empathy and support that you have shown this woman.
1. No.

2. So be it. I've done rather well on less.

But anything that ever happened, for which there are no longer any living witnesses, is no less an example of faith than believing in Jesus.

Not the case at all.

You are ignoring the fact that the supposition for believing in this "Jeezus" person includes the belief that he performed fantastic, supernatural feats.

It is perfectly plausible to assert that at one point in history, a person named *George Washington* was alive and was the president of the US.

For one thing, there are untold numbers of eyewitness accounts, and there are voluminous writings by dozens of historians precisely detailing his actions and his everyday existence.

This *George Washington* human being was by all accounts a perfectly normal human who was not claimed to have possessed supernatural powers or the capability of performing "miracles".

OTOH, to assert that there was a person who walked on water, who magically transformed water into wine, who caused people long dead to rise from their graves and stroll about town, who was purportedly an omnipotent and powerful deity with limitless supernatural powers, is a FAR more implausible and fantastic claim, and requires a far greater degree of proof before it can be accepted as factual.

"Fantastic claims require extraordinary proof."

Not only does no ***extraordinary proof*** exist of this Jesus deity (or, for that matter, of any other of the thousands of gods mankind has invented), there is not even credible and ordinary proof of his existence.

OTOH, to assert that there was a person who walked on water, who magically transformed water into wine, who caused people long dead to rise from their graves and stroll about town, who was purportedly an omnipotent and powerful deity with limitless supernatural powers, is a FAR more implausible and fantastic claim, and requires a far greater degree of proof before it can be accepted as factual.

Actually, it requires no proof what-so-ever. All it requires is faith. You don't have faith and subsequently don't believe. I do have faith and thereby do believe. It is as simple as that.

Actually, it requires no proof what-so-ever.

ROTFL.

How true.

"""Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.""_________Richard Dawkins

You don't have faith and subsequently don't believe.

Similarly, today's insane asylums are full of people who had "faith" that voices in their head were telling them to kill someone. Thus, they "believed" that they should do what the voices told them. Quite often, with the religious personality, it is their own children that the voices are telling them to kill.

You are saddled with --sadly-- the same affliction as those people who had "faith" they were hearing voices.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Religion Common Among Mothers Who Kill Children

Remember Andrea Yates, who drowned her 5 kids? Remember Deanna Laney, who beat her own sons to death with stones? These are just two of many women who have brutalized or killed their own children, prompting many to insist on harsh punishments. A few stopped to wonder why they would have this way, but few would be happy with the fact that an important common factor is religion.

Lisa Falkenberg reports for AP:

Women who kill their children commonly cite God, the devil and other religious influences for their actions. Although the mothers are also often found to be severely mentally ill or psychotic, the recurring theme of religiosity begs the question: Is religion to blame?

......even if religion isn't a cause, it's definitely a mask for these problems:

And, in some fundamentalist environments, symptoms of mental illness can appear normal: Obsession over a religious leader can be interpreted as religious fervor, and delusions can be interpreted as religious visions.

<<<sigh>>> ---------- "Faith". Ain't it wunnerful?

__________________________________________________ _____

"Faith"..........what a sick, pathetic joke on the human species.

It must make you feel really good to denigrate religion and the religious, Freethinker because that seems to be your primary purpose in posting in Allforums.

You are not the only atheist on Allforums but you are by far the nastiest. Only a small person must constantly make himself bigger by belittling others. You are a very, very small person.

Only a small person must constantly make himself bigger by belittling others.

"Religious people often accuse atheists of being arrogant and placing ourselves in the position of god, but really it is the theist who has all the vanity. The religionist is an ignorant coward who cannot stand to think that he will ever cease to exist"____Marian Noel Sherman.

Actually, it requires no proof what-so-ever. All it requires is faith.

It has always fascinated me that people willingly accept religious ideas on faith, when in any other arena they would be the most diligent investigators of such unlikely claims. For you Frogger, why is it that you accept these apparently impossible ideas on their face?

Also, one problem I have with accepting Christian ideas on "faith" is that, if you talk to one christian, he may tell you the Earth was created in six days, and the planet is only six thousand years old. He will then tell you that he "knows" this to be true with absolute conviction. Another christian may tell you something different, and he also "knows" this to be true with absolute conviction. You may not like the skeptical attitude that atheists have vis-a-vis the Bible, but if even the "believers" can't agree on what is true and what isn't, what is an atheist to make of that fact?