Did Jesus Exist?

[currentchristian]

It truly is difficult to get any sort of discussion going "across the aisle" so to speak so it is nice. Normally, by now, I would be yelling or just fed up. At least you seem to be interested in doing more than simply parroting a pamphlet you were handed at church (although, we are hitting a bit of, not entirely unexpected turbulence, with this NT stuff ...a little "for instance" is you still haven't said how good old Dr. Luke got his hands on the extra information because, doctor or not, he simply wasn't there and a tax collector and some illiterate fishermen aren't going to be too helpful with those minute medical details months even years after the fact).

 

Yes, I know. Our species likes to construct Berlin Walls, don't we, so that each side is safe on its side with people goosestepping to the same "truths." I'm glad you are not YELLING and that I am not YELLING. What's the good of that!?!?!

 

You raise a good point. (You and I, mwc, need our time machine, again.) If Luke indeed collected the information he used for his gospel -- from Mark, and from, as he claims, eyewitness accounts, maybe he asked questions like: "Which hand was withered?" "How long did she claim to have been sick?" "How sick was Peter's mother-in-law? Was it a high fever?"

 

Some people are more detail orientated than others. For example, to me a car is a car is a car. I might notice if the "car" is a "van" or a "truck" and I might, but likely won't, notice the color. My partner, on the other hand, can tell you everything about every car he encounters. He knows the year, the style, the color, the manufacturer, etc. So we all pay attention to details that interest us. If Dr. Luke wrote Luke and Acts, and these two seem to pay more heed to the type/kind/intensity of the sicknesses or employ more "medical" language, that would seem to follow without discongruity.

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

Also, the hypothesis about people wanting to know more from Paul and pals is a fair one. However, Paul tells people to only believe the words he tells people and not any other version(s) of anything. Is this to stop people from teaching "fake" Jesus'? Or fake "Christs?" Is this to stop people like Peter and the Jerusalem church from stepping on his turf? As it has been said, Luke paints a rather "rosy" picture of their (Paul and the Jerusalem church's) relationship while Paul himself does not. They can't both be right and I would tend to accept the primary source's view (no matter how much he tends to stroke his own ego in the name of humility in his letters).

 

There is quite a bit of debate about Paul, "flesh and blood Jesus" and his take on all that. It seems he initially did not believe in an earthly version but have came to accept one or the whole thing took place in the lower heavens or he did accept an earthly version. I can see all sides to the argument (I think he initially didn't believe in an earthly version but altered his view over time but I also think Paul changed his views depending on his audience so it's hard to pin him down).

 

mwc

 

Paul embraced his role as shepherd of the sheep with literal gusto. Shepherds can be viciously protective of their flocks. Likely at that time in order to preserve the Jesus movement it was necessary to be protective. These days, hardly. I'm all in favor of varying takes on who Jesus was/is and allowing the marketplace of ideas to do its magic.

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

(no matter how much he tends to stroke his own ego in the name of humility in his letters).

 

Paul definitely had issues. I'm glad they are preserved for all to see. Maybe that's the "karma" for his faults? Nothing like having one's faults exposed -- and his have been for 2,000 years!!

 

-CC

[mwc]

Yes, I know. Our species likes to construct Berlin Walls, don't we, so that each side is safe on its side with people goosestepping to the same "truths." I'm glad you are not YELLING and that I am not YELLING. What's the good of that!?!?!

Perhaps you need to go head to head with a really good fundie and then ask me that question again? But then again maybe already know the answer so maybe not.

 

You raise a good point. (You and I, mwc, need our time machine, again.) If Luke indeed collected the information he used for his gospel -- from Mark, and from, as he claims, eyewitness accounts, maybe he asked questions like: "Which hand was withered?" "How long did she claim to have been sick?" "How sick was Peter's mother-in-law? Was it a high fever?"

I see your point but I still think trying to make a diagnosis, even if we assume he was an excellent doctor, would be difficult at best even if he spoke directly to most of these people simply by virtue of their level of education...especially if they thought they "simply" had a demon. They would have seen a priest, more than likely, and not a doctor unless they lived in, or near, a larger city (and even then the treatments were a bit on the barbaric side...I think I would prefer a faith healing if given a choice). So unless he spoke to another doctor that made a diagnosis on that particular patient, or that person (or the people that knew them), spoke with a doctor and passed along the diagnosis, it seems he could say just about anything since he wasn't there in person. Peter's mother could have a particular "high" fever and who could say otherwise? This person could have this special condition and who would know? The words could simply be added for effect.

 

mwc

[currentchristian]

To further support my hypothesis that there was no specific "Christ" I will quote from (Bishop) THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text...ilus-book1.html):

 

**QUOTES DELETED**

 

As a Bishop of the church in an extremely important city he fails even the most basic understandings of what we would call Christianity. He makes no mention to the central figure(s). The major tenets (birth, death, resurrection). It is faith in the Father god and not a son god that is important. The name Christian is from the anointing of the individual follower and not of the central figure known as "Christ."

 

I could overlook these issues if this person was a nobody in some out of the way place but this is someone that should know better. This is someone that is truly following in the foot steps of the "greats" according to the Acts (and maybe Paul's letters...I didn't check too closely if this is where Peter met up with Paul or not).

 

mwc

 

Thank you, thank you, thank you, for introducing me to Theophilus of Antioch. He is a new acquaintance. I'm always thrilled to meet more people!

 

Unfortunately, most of what Bishop Theophilus wrote has been lost to the sands of time, according to information I was able to call up on the Internet. Eusebius and Jerome, for example, refer to other works of the Bishop of Antioch that we no longer have in our possession, including an attempt to harmonize the four canonical gospels.

 

I would not infer from this one surviving work that this is the full breadth and depth of what he believed. It seems that in this correspondence with a "pagan" friend, his attempt was to show that the OT Judaic vision of God preceded the Greek-pagan vision, was superior to it, and foreshadowed it. I don't see that the lack of a mention of a Jesus or a "Christ" in this one extant writing means anything at all. Please, don't SCREAM at me now.

 

Thank you, mwc, for this new friend. I'll be reading the entirety of this writing very soon!

 

-CC

[Kuroikaze]

Well the primary reason I don't respect conservative scholars is that they are disingenious, and ignore clear evidence, they lie to make their theology appear more believable, and don't, in the end, engage in "real" scholarship...they start out with the agenda of proving their beliefs, not discovering truth. I don't discount them simply because I disagree, but because they don't do their job properly.

 

Is it possible, in your view, for a scholar to be genuine, to be truthful, and to properly engage the evidence, and yet come to a conclusion that the gospels are reliable source documents for the life of Jesus? In other words, can a "real" scholar come to a conclusion that you do not embrace yourself, or by definition do all the "real" scholars come to the same conclusion the "liberal" ones do and the "false" scholars come to conclusions that "conservatives" do? Not trying at all to be accusatory or antagonistic, just wondering.

 

In my view a real, genuine, trustworthy, scholar's scholar can come to either conclusion and any conclusion between the two. Like the Bible, one can find every possible interpretation of the historical evidence. Seems to me.

 

-CC

 

I'm not really sure I know how to answer the question, it seems obvious to me that the gospels, as well as the rest of the NT was heavily edited during the first couple of centuries...that along with the other gospels (some of which might have been written around the same time as the 4 canonical ones)

makes the claim that the gospels are 100% reliable pretty difficult to swallow. How do I know what Jesus did when the 4 books conflict with known historical dates, and with one another?

 

I think every conservative scholar is starting from A-priori conclusions by definition so I find it difficult to think of them as engaging in real scholarship, I studied this stuff in college, and even as a Christian I often found the work of conservative scholars to be designed to obfuscate truth instead of reveal it.

 

Sure people can interpret the evidence in lots of different ways, but not all of those ways are reasonable or likely, a historians job is to find the most reasonable and likely interpretation, not speculate that the least likely scenario is true. If historians concluded that "every" possible interpretation is reasonable, they would be out of jobs.

[currentchristian]

that along with the other gospels (some of which might have been written around the same time as the 4 canonical ones)

makes the claim that the gospels are 100% reliable pretty difficult to swallow. How do I know what Jesus did when the 4 books conflict with known historical dates, and with one another?

 

I would doubt the veracity of the gospels if they were 100% reliable and without conflict on circumstantial matters. Their historicity is more trustworthy, for me, because they have these differences.

 

-CC

[Kuroikaze]

Where is the evidence that Acts was attempting to smooth over the theological differences? If those who compiled the NT writings had wanted to "smooth over" these differences, they very easily could have done so. We know of these differences only because we have the NT. Paul and Peter argued. That's great! The Jewish Christians had prejudice against the Gentile Christians. That's good to know! The credibility of the NT is enhanced, for me, when I read of these varying interpretations and when I read of the varying circumstantial details in the gospels.

 

Yes, we know that Paul argued with Peter from Paul's letters, if we only had Acts to go on, we would think they were best friends. The Paul in Acts does not even seem like the same person as the Paul of the letters, I'm sorry, I don't see how finding out the writers of the NT were prejudiced and hated each other enhances its credibility.

 

Even more so, when you consider that the only reason the writers don't disagree with each other even more, is that the early church tried to suppress any of the writings that differed TOO much.

 

The point is that, Paul and Peter didn't just argue, they had totally different theological ideas, which Acts tries to cover up. In Acts, Paul was still a good Jew who obeyed all the Jewish law, even if he didn't make the gentiles do so. Paul made it clear in his letter that he had abandoned the Jewish laws.

 

I think that one doesn't even have to go to any source outside the NT to see that it is pretty obvious that the writer of Acts was attempting to make it look like Paul and Peter had the same theological agenda

 

If you can, try reading Acts as if you had never seen a Pauline letter and ask yourself what you would think of the relationship between the two if it was all you had to go on.

 

I'm not saying that Acts was written prior to 64. Perhaps it was. Perhaps it wasn't. But if the Luke of Luke-Acts is the Luke of Paul's epistles (all of which seems reasonable to me), then a date for the writing of Luke during the ministry of Paul is reasonable and a date for the writing of Acts near the end of Paul's life, but prior to its termination, is reasonable. To me.

 

-CC

 

Right, but it seems to me that you are ignoring all the contradictions between Acts and the Pauline letters,

 

Maybe I'm just too quick to see chinks in the bibles armor...but you seem to dismiss them too easily.

[currentchristian]

Where is the evidence that Acts was attempting to smooth over the theological differences? If those who compiled the NT writings had wanted to "smooth over" these differences, they very easily could have done so. We know of these differences only because we have the NT. Paul and Peter argued. That's great! The Jewish Christians had prejudice against the Gentile Christians. That's good to know! The credibility of the NT is enhanced, for me, when I read of these varying interpretations and when I read of the varying circumstantial details in the gospels.

 

Yes, we know that Paul argued with Peter from Paul's letters, if we only had Acts to go on, we would think they were best friends. The Paul in Acts does not even seem like the same person as the Paul of the letters, I'm sorry, I don't see how finding out the writers of the NT were prejudiced and hated each other enhances its credibility.

 

Even more so, when you consider that the only reason the writers don't disagree with each other even more, is that the early church tried to suppress any of the writings that differed TOO much.

 

The point is that, Paul and Peter didn't just argue, they had totally different theological ideas, which Acts tries to cover up. In Acts, Paul was still a good Jew who obeyed all the Jewish law, even if he didn't make the gentiles do so. Paul made it clear in his letter that he had abandoned the Jewish laws.

 

I think that one doesn't even have to go to any source outside the NT to see that it is pretty obvious that the writer of Acts was attempting to make it look like Paul and Peter had the same theological agenda

 

If you can, try reading Acts as if you had never seen a Pauline letter and ask yourself what you would think of the relationship between the two if it was all you had to go on.

 

I'm not saying that Acts was written prior to 64. Perhaps it was. Perhaps it wasn't. But if the Luke of Luke-Acts is the Luke of Paul's epistles (all of which seems reasonable to me), then a date for the writing of Luke during the ministry of Paul is reasonable and a date for the writing of Acts near the end of Paul's life, but prior to its termination, is reasonable. To me.

 

-CC

Right, but it seems to me that you are ignoring all the contradictions between Acts and the Pauline letters,

 

Maybe I'm just too quick to see chinks in the bibles armor...but you seem to dismiss them too easily.

 

You may be seeing chinks that are not there, and I may be missing chinks that are there. I can't do it right away, but I will indeed read ACTS OF THE APOSTLES again and try very hard to imagine that I had never read it before and that I know nothing of the characters of Peter and Paul. I'll get back to you on this. It'll be a very good exercise. Thanks.

 

My view, at this time, is that Paul and Peter did not see eye to eye, but that this is quite understandable. A new way of looking at reality and religion had interrupted both their lives. They were in the midst of the maelstrom of reform, review, redefinition -- all resulting from the Jesus experience. That different views were out and about and that these two giants didn't march lockstep down the road to Damascus does not surprise me or unnerve me.

 

You are very right that once the orthodox view was established, around 100 or shortly thereafter, dissent was not tolerated at all. (Even Paul was intolerant of dissent decades earlier.)

 

I'll get back to you on ACTS.

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

I'm sure many have seen this week's NEWSWEEK cover story: "The World of the Nativity: How First-Century Jewish Family Values Shaped Christianity." Many of the names we have been bantering about here are mentioned: Tacitus, Philo of Alexandria, the Essenes. Not much new, really, but here's the link: December 18, 2006, Newsweek.

 

-CC

[mwc]

Thank you, thank you, thank you, for introducing me to Theophilus of Antioch. He is a new acquaintance. I'm always thrilled to meet more people!

 

Unfortunately, most of what Bishop Theophilus wrote has been lost to the sands of time, according to information I was able to call up on the Internet. Eusebius and Jerome, for example, refer to other works of the Bishop of Antioch that we no longer have in our possession, including an attempt to harmonize the four canonical gospels.

Correct. Like many of the earliest church leaders there isn't too much to go on directly. However, it's good to know he gets the same benefit of the doubt as Dr. Luke.

 

I would not infer from this one surviving work that this is the full breadth and depth of what he believed. It seems that in this correspondence with a "pagan" friend, his attempt was to show that the OT Judaic vision of God preceded the Greek-pagan vision, was superior to it, and foreshadowed it. I don't see that the lack of a mention of a Jesus or a "Christ" in this one extant writing means anything at all.

This is one reason I went back and edited my text. At the critical points in his arguments where he would offer up at least a reference to Jesus in some fashion he does not. This could be seen as argument from silence except in the specific case of why Christians are called Christians. In this case there is no escaping the fact that he misses the opportunity of a lifetime. The next case is the explanation of the "Word." Rather than explaining it in the manner known to us through G.John he gives an extremely Jewish view. When presented with the opportunity to show, above all else, that his god actually came to earth to be with men instead of, like the Greek gods, being simple objects he fails to do so. These three things are laid out in the basic doctrine of Christianity in the four known gospels. If the apostles (including Paul) had been through Antioch then any Bishop from that city would certainly have known this and asserted it in any argument over a Jewish view of the same subjects.

 

Regarding his views on the "Word" I refer you to this snippet from the Jewish Encyclopedia on "Wisdom:"

Wisdom, which dwelt, according to the Babylonian cosmology, in the depths of the sea with Ea, the creative deity, became in Biblical literature the all-encompassing intelligence of God, the helper of the Creator, the foundation of the world (comp. Jeremias, "Das Alte Testament im Lichte des Alten Orients," 1904, pp. 29, 80). In exact proportion as Israel's God was believed to be the God of the universe, wisdom was regarded as the cosmic power, God's master workman (Prov. viii. 30), the first of His works (ib. viii. 22), and His designer (ib. iii. 19; Ps. civ. 24), while at the same time wisdom became the law of life and the divine guide and ruler of man.

If you go back and compare this version of the "Word" to "Wisdom" you will find they are very similar. If you compare this version to the one in G.John or the Revelation you will find they are nothing alike (compare Revelation's Lamb, for instance, to Philo's works on the seven spirits). Yet, again, all these documents should have been completed and in circulation by this late date (especially at this particular location).

 

Our bishop is teaching a modified (Hellenized) version of the Jewish "Wisdom." This is simply the "Holy Spirit" in a sense. Reading his, and other early works, this is how all Christians (including the first) got their knowledge from their god. This is what Paul himself taught. Then to become a Christian you would become anointed in the oil and become part of the mystery religion.

 

Perhaps someone down in Judea decided to also become their Messiah. Two separate acts. He became a Christian first. Then he started up a rebellion on the path to become their Messiah. Not Jesus THE Christ but Jesus THE Christian. Since the meaning of the word Messiah is sort of lost in translation the Greeks didn't know or care. Also, his story runs along the lines of Judas the Galilean of the 6AD tax revolt and some Hillel combined. Perhaps to trump the other sects they wanted a real god man since the Judean Jews weren't as easily converted as those who were heavily Hellenized in the rest of the empire? Reading the gospels it is easy to see how they put all others at his feet. The Pharisees, Saducees, and John the Baptist (all his competitors...more in the Acts) became his inferiors and even made him equals with the great phophets of old.

 

Please, don't SCREAM at me now.

 

Thank you, mwc, for this new friend. I'll be reading the entirety of this writing very soon!

Trust me. You'll know when I yell.

The whole three books are a nice, quick read, and shed a lot of light on his way of thinking.

 

mwc

[mwc]

Not Jesus THE Christ but Jesus THE Christian.

I said this wrong so I'm quoting myself to clarify.

 

I wanted to say "Jesus the Christian" became "Jesus the Christ" (it shortened from one to the other...the "the" is there for our benefit). However, instead of being Jesus, a proper name, it would also be "Jesus" simply meaning "savior" just as "Christ" meaning "annointed" is not "Moshiach" (which is what Jews really call the "messiah" figure). So "savior annointed" becomes "Jesus Christ" because a few aren't familiar with the Greek language and don't realize it's not an actual name/title and translate it literally across as such. Now Jesus the Messiah enters the world via a translation error. The original how, where and all that are lost. Theories don't cost anything so I might as well toss them out there along with the other stuff I find.

 

mwc

[mwc]

I just thought I'd add a little more from our bishop friend since I had the time.

 

In order to really find out if I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill we need to see if he has a true opportunity to make a case for Jesus in his argument or if he can make his case without using Jesus at all but be equally effective doing so. Since these are the only three books of his that survive, and they were written on different occasions, we can see that he and his friend clearly discussed various items in between his writing. It hard to imagine, however, that they would discuss aspects of Christianity that involved all the known elements (Jesus, the apostles, Paul, etc.) outside the texts and none of those items were ever discussed, or hinted at, within the text considering they are the religion.

 

Again, perhaps he never had the opportunity and his silence is warranted.

 

Let's take a quick look at book 1:

CHAP. I.--AUTOLYCUS AN IDOLATER AND SCORNER OF CHRISTIANS.

I'll just summarize this chapter since he really just lays into his friend for picking on Christians. It sounds like his friend has a gift for speaking (perhaps he's good a sarcasm?) and it's payback time.

 

CHAP. II.--THAT THE EYES OF THE SOUL MUST BE PURGED ERE GOD CAN BE SEEN.

Not too much opportunity to preach yet here. Basically you've got to be a good person. He could have brought up the sacrifice of Jesus cleansing one of their sins but I can let that go since it could also be seen as you won't hear the truth of the word unless you're ready and pure.

 

CHAP. III.--NATURE OF GOD.

A long description of god the father but no mention of the son or spirit unless you read them into one of the many attributes of the father (which is possible since there's a gray area there with "wisdom" and "word" but it's clear he's not talking about more than one god and not some trinity thing).

 

CHAP. IV.--ATTRIBUTES OF GOD.

Similar to the last chapter. No mention of a trinity. Not even a gray area.

 

CHAP. V.--THE INVISIBLE GOD PERCEIVED THROUGH HIS WORKS.

... For if a man cannot look upon the sun, though it be a very small heavenly body, on account of its exceeding heat and power, how shall not a mortal man be much more unable to face the glory of God, which is unutterable? ...

Everyone knows this argument. It's stale because it's been around for 2000 years. Just look at everything. See that <whatever>? That's evidence that this god exists. Powerful stuff.

I do like the one line I included. Looks like the spirit has endowed him with a lot of functional scientific knowledge. Of course, people were smaller back then, so maybe the sun was too?

 

CHAP. VI.--GOD IS KNOWN BY HIS WORKS.

... "who causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth: He maketh lightnings for the rain;" who sends forth His thunder to terrify, and foretells by the lightning the peal of the thunder, that no soul may faint with the sudden shock; and who so moderates the violence of the lightning as it flashes out of heaven, that it does not consume the earth; for, if the lightning were allowed all its power, it would burn up the earth; and were the thunder allowed all its power, it would overthrow all the works that are therein.

More of the above. He again tags on some 1st century knowledge. Statements like this are vital to understanding why someone might, just might, believe certain things as plausible.

 

[continued next message so quotes will work correctly]

[mwc]

[continued from last message]

 

CHAP. VII.--WE SHALL, SEE GOD WHEN WE PUT ON IMMORTALITY.

This is my God, the Lord of all, who alone stretched out the heaven, and established the breadth of the earth under it; who stirs the deep recesses of the sea, and makes its waves roar; who rules its power, and stills the tumult of its waves; who founded the earth upon the waters, and gave a spirit to nourish it; whose breath giveth light to the whole, who, if He withdraw His breath, the whole will utterly fail. By Him you speak, O man; His breath you breathe yet Him you know not. And this is your condition, because of the blindness of your soul, and the hardness of your heart. But, if you will, you may be healed. Entrust yourself to the Physician, and He will couch the eyes of your soul and of your heart. Who is the Physician? God, who heals and makes alive through His word and wisdom. God by His own word and wisdom made all things; for "by His word were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth." Most excellent is His wisdom. By His wisdom God founded the earth; and by knowledge He prepared the heavens; and by understanding were the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the clouds poured out their dews. If thou perceivest these things, O man, living chastely, and holily, and righteously, thou canst see God. But before all let faith and the fear of God have rule in thy heart, and then shalt thou understand these things. When thou shalt have put off the mortal, and put on incorruption, then shall thou see God worthily. For God will raise thy flesh immortal with thy soul; and then, having become immortal, thou shalt see the Immortal, if now you believe on Him; and then you shall know that you have. spoken unjustly against Him.

He's not being poetic with those first two bolded statements even though it might seem like it. We can tell that from the other pearls of scientific knowledge he's laid on us so far.

 

Now, on to more important things. He gets to the metaphors. He describes the physician. He says it is god. He then mentions the "word" and "wisdom." But, unlike today, where these would be Jesus and the spirit or both Jesus (depending on what point the person wanted to make), neither of them are pointed to anything other than...god. They are once again used in the Jewish fashion that I pointed out earlier and not the Christian fashion that we know or the one that is taught in G.John. This is definitely an opportunity to make the "word" to Jesus connection and it is missed.

 

CHAP. VIII.--FAITH REQUIRED IN ALL MATTERS.

But you do not believe that the dead are raised. When the resurrection shall take place, then you will believe, whether you will or no; and your faith shah be reckoned for unbelief, unless you believe now. And why do you not believe? Do you not know that faith is the leading principle in all matters? For what husbandman can reap, unless he first trust his seed to the earth? Or who can cross the sea, unless he first entrust himself to the boat and the pilot? And what sick person can be healed, unless first he trust himself to the care of the physician? And what art or knowledge can any one learn, unless he first apply and entrust himself to the teacher? If, then, the husbandman trusts the earth, and the sailor the boat, and the sick the physician, will you not place confidence in God, even when you hold so many pledges at His hand? For first He created you out of nothing, and brought you into existence (for if your father was not, nor your mother, much more were you yourself at one time not in being), and formed you out of a small and moist substance, even out of the least drop, which at one time had itself no being; and God introduced you into this life. Moreover, you believe that the images made by men are gods, and do great things; and can you not believe that the God who made you is able also to make you afterwards?

This chapter literally SCREAMS "TELL THE EASTER STORY!" but he doesn't even so much as hint at it. After the last bolded question he has every opportunity to answer this question with the Christian answer but he fails to do so. He doesn't know it. There is no question about it. This is THE story of this religion. There is no other. The Nativity? Cute but not really a big deal (explains the "lack of original sin" thing and some prophecies). All the "miracles?" Filler. The Passion and the resurrection ARE Christianity. This isn't my opinion but fact. This man does not give out the answer that IS the one and only answer to this question "And why do you not believe [in resurrection]?"

 

CHAP. IX.--IMMORALITIES OF THE GODS.

And, indeed, the names of those whom you say you worship, are the names of dead men. ...

I just love that first line (he means they're made up by dead poets...I know what some of you were thinking ). He then goes on to describe all the faults (some quite horrible) of the other major gods of the day. Saturn (Chronos) eating his own children. His son Jupiter (Zeus) doing all his things and on he goes. The important thing of note is he starts at the top with Saturn and then goes through their sons. Here is an opportunity (perhaps not here but later) to show his god and his son as moral and pure by comparison. Will he take it? Don't bet on it.

 

CHAP. X.--ABSURDITIES OF IDOLATRY.

... But if you cite the Greeks and the other nations, they worship stones and wood, and other kinds of material substances,--the images, as we have just been saying, of dead men. ... the son of Saturn, who is king of the Cretans, has a tomb in Crete, but the rest, possibly, were not thought worthy of tombs. ...

He mentions some things that are worshiped that he finds silly (animals, stones and such...no crosses). He then says those are just images invented by dead men. Those same dead poets that invented those gods. Seems hard to believe that a man, or men, would or could invent something like a god. But at least this one Christian believes it possible and that their names, histories and symbols could be invented as well. Far be it from me to argue with his first hand experience.

 

He then continues to point out the numerous Jupiters that existed at the time. I didn't research it but I imagine they were local versions of the single deity. He appears to be mocking the different sects. I guess Christianity was a big tent back then? At the very end of his Jupiter rant he points out that, mockingly, the unworthy versions of the god didn't have tombs. Any other gods end up with an unused tomb?

 

CHAP. XI.--THE KING TO BE HONOURED, GOD TO BE WORSHIPPED.

This chapter is more than likely why Christians were persecuted.

 

CHAP. XII.--MEANING OF THE NAME CHRISTIAN.

I covered this already in another post.

 

CHAP. XIII.--THE RESURRECTION PROVED BY EXAMPLES.

Then, as to your denying that the dead are raised--for you say, "Show me even one who has been raised from the dead, that seeing I may believe,"--first, what great thing is it if you believe when you have seen the thing done? Then, again, you believe that Hercules, who burned himself, lives; and that AEsculapius, who was struck with lightning, was raised; and do you disbelieve the things that are told you by God? But, suppose I should show you a dead man raised and alive, even this you would disbelieve. God indeed exhibits to you many proofs that you may believe Him. For consider, if you please, the dying of seasons, and days, and nights, how these also die and rise again. And what? Is there not a resurrection going on of seeds and fruits, and this, too, for the use of men? A seed of wheat, for example, or of the other grains, when it is cast into the earth, first dies and rots away, then is raised, and becomes a stalk of corn. And the nature of trees and fruit-trees,--is it not that according to the appointment of God they produce their fruits in their seasons out of what has been unseen and invisible? Moreover, sometimes also a sparrow or some of the other birds, when in drinking it has swallowed a seed of apple or fig, or something else, has come to some rocky hillock or tomb, and has left the seed in its droppings, and the seed, which was once swallowed, and has passed though so great a heat, now striking root, a tree has grown up. And all these things does the wisdom of God effect, in order to manifest even by these things, that God is able to effect the general resurrection of all men. And if you would witness a more wonderful sight, which may prove a resurrection not only of earthly but of heavenly bodies, consider the resurrection of the moon, which occurs monthly; how it wanes, dies, and rises again. Hear further, O man, of the work of resurrection going on in yourself, even though you are unaware of it. For perhaps you have sometimes fallen sick, and lost flesh, and strength, and beauty; but when you received again from God mercy and healing, you picked up again in flesh and appearance, and recovered also your strength.

 

And as you do not know where your flesh went away and disappeared to, so neither do you know whence it grew, Or whence it came again. But you will say, "From meats and drinks changed into blood." Quite so; but this, too, is the work of God, who thus operates, and not of any other.

And he's out. He has the perfect setup and he cops-out. He tells his friend that it wouldn't matter if he showed him someone that did come back from the dead because he wouldn't believe. Not the story of Lazarus? Not the story of Jesus? The god-man that did die and came back for the redemption of sins? THE STORY! THE ANSWER! This guy gets the PERFECT setup and blows it? The sixth bishop of a key church that was personally visited by Paul? This is beyond reason to believe that he wouldn't tell the "good news" of the passion in this instance. To talk about trees and the moon as things his friend would know but not even mention, or hint, at the one single thing you are basing your entire belief system upon is simply not believable in this instance.

 

CHAP. XIV.--THEOPHILUS AN EXAMPLE OF CONVERSION.

Therefore, do not be sceptical, but believe; for I myself also used to disbelieve that this would take place, but now, having taken these things into consideration, I believe. At the same time, I met with the sacred Scriptures of the holy prophets, who also by the Spirit of God foretold the things that have already happened, just as they came to pass, and the things now occurring as they are now happening, and things future in the order in which they shall be accomplished. Admitting, therefore, the proof which events happening as predicted afford, I do not disbelieve, t I believe, obedient to God, whom, if you please, do you also submit to, believing Him, lest if now you continue unbelieving, you be convinced hereafter, when you are tormented with eternal punishments; which punishments, when they had been foretold by the prophets, the later-born poets and philosophers stole from the holy Scriptures, to make their doctrines worthy of credit. Yet these also have spoken beforehand of the punishments that are to light upon the profane and unbelieving, in order that none be left without a witness, or be able to say, "We have not heard, neither have we known." But do you also, if you please, give reverential attention to the prophetic Scriptures, and they will make your way plainer for escaping the eternal punishments, and obtaining the eternal prizes of God. For He who gave the mouth for speech, and formed the ear to hear, and made the eye to see, will examine all things, and will judge righteous judgment, rendering merited awards to each. To those who by patient continuance in well-doing seek immortality, He will give life everlasting, joy, peace, rest, and abundance of good things, which neither hath eye seen, nor ear heard, nor hath it entered into the heart of man to conceive. But to the unbelieving and despisers, who obey not the truth, but are obedient to unrighteousness, when they shall have been filled with adulteries and fornications, and filthiness, and covetousness, and unlawful idolatries, there shall be anger and wrath, tribulation and anguish, and at the last everlasting fire shall possess such men. Since you said, "Show me thy God," this is my God, and I counsel you to fear Him and to trust Him.

His first sentence says it all. This things he has said are the primary reasons he converted. No Jesus of Nazareth. No crucifixion-resurrection down in Judea that was personally attested to by a group of 11 apostles and another chosen in a vision (that personally visited the very church he was a bishop at).

 

No quotes from the sacred writings that were sitting in the church telling of all this. No Matthew, Mark, Luke or John (or copies of Paul's, or anyone else's, letters). Not even the crazy rantings from Revelation. It seems just the good old Jewish prophets and a little new interpretation turned him to this new religion.

 

The "holy prophets" came by their knowledge by the "spirit" and not first hand physical contact.

 

He tells his friend to believe in God, not Jesus the god-man (under threat of punishment...it's good that chestnut is still there).

 

He says that "the later-born poets and philosophers stole from the holy Scriptures, to make their doctrines worthy of credit." Sound familiar? Could he know the story we know and think it's bunk? He's accepted by later church fathers so if he does he must never say anything. More than likely he's speaking out against the Greek writers (thinking they stole from the Jewish writers...it seems to be his line of reasoning).

 

He then sums up that this is his God. There is no Jesus (spiritual or physical) and no Holy Spirit (of the nature we normally see it). There is no Christianity that we have today.

 

This bishop of the church of Antioch has the motive and the opportunity, on more than one occasion, within this document, to explain the resurrection of Jesus Christ and he does not. His primary mission as a Christian, as per the Great Commission, is to specifically tell others of the Good News of Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. The Passion/Easter story is THE most important part of that story. Without them there simply is no story to tell. A bishop in this church would have access to the documents needed, as well as the oral tradition, of the very greatest teachers the world has ever had to offer in this subject. He fails to even mention the god of his new religion or his existence throughout the entire book even with ample motive and opportunity.

 

mwc

[currentchristian]

You, mwc, have my very high regard for all of this study you have presented. I have yet to read every word of the good bishop, but I shall, and as I read it I will go back and forth between what I read and what you have written. You are a scholar! I respect that very much. Thank you for spending all this time. If only I didn't have to work today and tomorrow and the next day...I'd read the good bishop right now as you have inspired me more than ever! I thank you, friend.

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

If you can, try reading Acts as if you had never seen a Pauline letter and ask yourself what you would think of the relationship between the two if it was all you had to go on.

 

I wanted to let you know, Kuroikaze, that I have found a friend who has never read Acts of the Apostles. He and I are going to read it at the same time, then discuss it. While I will try to read it as though I have not done so before, he actually hasn't done so before, so I'll learn a lot from his views, I'm sure. He's agnostic, so that will add to his overall take. Tongues of fire descending from the heavens alongside a mighty, rushing wind, might seem a little odd to him! I'll get back to you after we have completed our "assignment."

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

His first sentence says it all. This things he has said are the primary reasons he converted. No Jesus of Nazareth. No crucifixion-resurrection down in Judea that was personally attested to by a group of 11 apostles and another chosen in a vision (that personally visited the very church he was a bishop at).

 

No quotes from the sacred writings that were sitting in the church telling of all this. No Matthew, Mark, Luke or John (or copies of Paul's, or anyone else's, letters). Not even the crazy rantings from Revelation. It seems just the good old Jewish prophets and a little new interpretation turned him to this new religion.

 

The "holy prophets" came by their knowledge by the "spirit" and not first hand physical contact.

 

He tells his friend to believe in God, not Jesus the god-man (under threat of punishment...it's good that chestnut is still there).

 

He says that "the later-born poets and philosophers stole from the holy Scriptures, to make their doctrines worthy of credit." Sound familiar? Could he know the story we know and think it's bunk? He's accepted by later church fathers so if he does he must never say anything. More than likely he's speaking out against the Greek writers (thinking they stole from the Jewish writers...it seems to be his line of reasoning).

 

He then sums up that this is his God. There is no Jesus (spiritual or physical) and no Holy Spirit (of the nature we normally see it). There is no Christianity that we have today.

 

This bishop of the church of Antioch has the motive and the opportunity, on more than one occasion, within this document, to explain the resurrection of Jesus Christ and he does not. His primary mission as a Christian, as per the Great Commission, is to specifically tell others of the Good News of Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. The Passion/Easter story is THE most important part of that story. Without them there simply is no story to tell. A bishop in this church would have access to the documents needed, as well as the oral tradition, of the very greatest teachers the world has ever had to offer in this subject. He fails to even mention the god of his new religion or his existence throughout the entire book even with ample motive and opportunity.

 

mwc

 

Hello mwc. I'm back from work and have had the chance to read Book I in its entirety. Since you have posted only through Book I, I will respond now. (I've moved on to Book II, will complete it, and also Book III -- in due course.)

 

You ask excellent questions concerning why the Bishop of Antioch in the last quarter of the 2nd century does not explicitly refer to a "Jesus" or "Christ" or "Jesus Christ" or "Christ Jesus" in this correspondence. You are right: This document absolutely is not in any way, shape, or form, a christocentric apology. There are wonderful opportunities for Bishop Theophilus to refer to Jesus, especially--as you point out--in chapters 8 and 13. Why is Jesus not referred to? Frankly, I don't know. (Perhaps his pagan friend whose correspondence we do not have -- wish we did!! -- had asked for a debate in which the good bishop did not use Jesus to make a single point?)

 

If we had Theophilus's other works, we could determine if the godcentric nature of this writing (as opposed to a christocentric one) is a form he consistently maintained. Sadly, no other writings of his are extant. We do hear from some of the other church fathers that Theophilius had a commentary on the gospels in which he worked to harmonize them, but we don't have this document. If we did, and could see it with our own eyes, your case would not have any support. Without other documents (especially this alleged commentary on the gospels), however, your argument that he did not know of the "Jesus Christ" of Paul, while not established by any means, remains a viable thesis. That said, we must bear in mind that he did use the word "Christian(s)" six times in the Book I. But what did that descriptor mean to him?

 

(By the way, I like the idea of calling the Word "Savior Anointed," the more literal rendering of the meanings of the name "Jesus" and descriptor "Christ" -- as you point out.)

 

I have read in Book II what appears to be an incarnation of some sort and even a "trinity" (not the Father, Son and Holy Spirit of today), but this will have to wait until I conclude Book II and Book III.

 

Thanks again for inspiring me to read this work. I appreciate the nudge.

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

It's that time of year again, and the nation's weekly newsmagazines are "cashing in" with Jesus cover stories. I already linked to this week's Newsweek cover story. Here's the link to this week's U.S. News & World Report cover story: "In Search of the Real Jesus: New Research Questions Whether He Was More Teacher Than Savior."

 

-CC

[Kuroikaze]

I wanted to let you know, Kuroikaze, that I have found a friend who has never read Acts of the Apostles. He and I are going to read it at the same time, then discuss it. While I will try to read it as though I have not done so before, he actually hasn't done so before, so I'll learn a lot from his views, I'm sure. He's agnostic, so that will add to his overall take. Tongues of fire descending from the heavens alongside a mighty, rushing wind, might seem a little odd to him! I'll get back to you after we have completed our "assignment."

 

-CC

 

lol, thanks, I'm not used to people taking me seriously, least of all the christians who usually post on this site. You're going to spoil me

[mwc]

Hello mwc. I'm back from work and have had the chance to read Book I in its entirety. Since you have posted only through Book I, I will respond now. (I've moved on to Book II, will complete it, and also Book III -- in due course.)

I've made my way through book 2 and, as it is much longer, will have more to say in some key places. It is more telling in ways as I will point out.

 

There are wonderful opportunities for Bishop Theophilus to refer to Jesus, especially--as you point out--in chapters 8 and 13. Why is Jesus not referred to? Frankly, I don't know. (Perhaps his pagan friend whose correspondence we do not have -- wish we did!! -- had asked for a debate in which the good bishop did not use Jesus to make a single point?)

It appears his friend was more the oral communicator and likely responded to his communications verbally. The good bishop was the opposite and preferred the written word. However, it seems unlikely that anyone could make an argument about this religion without the cornerstone of said religion. I do happen to see what conclusions the bishop is trying to make but it's too early to comment on them.

 

Theophilius had a commentary on the gospels in which he worked to harmonize them, but we don't have this document. If we did, and could see it with our own eyes, your case would not have any support.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. It depends on the order and dates in which these things were written. There is already a minor shift between his views in these three books alone. I will also point out that at even this early stage there was a need to harmonize. This should raise some red flags.

 

Without other documents (especially this alleged commentary on the gospels), however, your argument that he did not know of the "Jesus Christ" of Paul, while not established by any means, remains a viable thesis. That said, we must bear in mind that he did use the word "Christian(s)" six times in the Book I. But what did that descriptor mean to him?

These three documents should be sufficient to stand on their own. They address the resurrection issue. The meaning of the word Christian. The difference between pagan gods and the Christian one. The origin of the Christian religion and much more. These three documents are enough to know exactly what this religion is about and then some.

 

As for your question to the his usage of "Christian" in book 1, I believe it is self-evident. I would be happy to examine it further if you believe it would be helpful though.

 

(By the way, I like the idea of calling the Word "Savior Anointed," the more literal rendering of the meanings of the name "Jesus" and descriptor "Christ" -- as you point out.)

Not the "Word" but "Jesus Christ" the literal words "Savior Anointed" or "Anointed Savior." Notice the writers weren't too picky about word order "Christ Jesus" or "Jesus Christ."

 

I have read in Book II what appears to be an incarnation of some sort and even a "trinity" (not the Father, Son and Holy Spirit of today), but this will have to wait until I conclude Book II and Book III.

 

Thanks again for inspiring me to read this work. I appreciate the nudge.

There's lots of interesting stuff in his works that obviously inspire later readers.

 

I've already given all his books a quick read and have finished book 2 with a more critical eye.

 

I appreciate your taking the time to actually read this stuff.

 

mwc

[mwc]

lol, thanks, I'm not used to people taking me seriously, least of all the christians who usually post on this site. You're going to spoil me

Scary isn't it?

 

mwc

[KT45]

Sorry for getting off the main discussion here but I wondered if information for a certain article has been rebuttaled. So far I've been calling christianity a religion based off of pagan stories like mythras and horus without ever reading the actual holy books about these gods. this site attempts to demolish the arguments.

http://www.summit.org/resource/essay/show_...php?essay_id=29

here are the key arguements

Mithraism

Attempts to reconstruct the beliefs and practices of Mithraism face enormous challenges because of the scanty information that has survived. Proponents of the cult explained the world in terms of two ultimate and opposing principles, one good (depicted as light) and the other evil (darkness). Human beings must choose which side they will fight for; they are trapped in the conflict between light and darkness. Mithra came to be regarded as the most powerful mediator who could help humans ward off attacks from demonic forces.[8]The major reason why no Mithraic influence on first-century Christianity is possible is the timing: it's all wrong! The flowering of Mithraism occurred after the close of the New Testament canon, much too late for it to have influenced anything that appears in the New Testament.[9] Moreover, no monuments for the cult can be dated earlier than A.D. 90-100, and even this dating requires us to make some exceedingly generous assumptions. Chronological difficulties, then, make the possibility of a Mithraic influence on early Christianity extremely improbable. Certainly, there remains no credible evidence for such an influence.

and......

The Cult of Isis and Osiris

The cult of Isis originated in Egypt and went through two major stages. In its older Egyptian version, which was not a mystery religion, Isis was regarded as the goddess of heaven, earth, the sea, and the unseen world below. In this earlier stage, Isis had a husband named Osiris. The cult of Isis became a mystery religion only after Ptolemy the First introduced major changes, sometime after 300 B.C. In the later stage, a new god named Serapis became Isis's consort. Ptolemy introduced these changes in order to synthesize Egyptian and Greek concerns in his kingdom, thus hastening the Hellenization of Egypt.

 

From Egypt, the cult of Isis gradually made its way to Rome. While Rome was at first repelled by the cult, the religion finally entered the city during the reign of Caligula (A.D. 37-41). Its influence spread gradually during the next two centuries, and in some locales it became a major rival of Christianity. The cult's success in the Roman Empire seems to have resulted from its impressive ritual and the hope of immortality offered to its followers.

 

The basic myth of the Isis cult concerned Osiris, her husband during the earlier Egyptian and nonmystery stage of the religion. According to the most common version of the myth, Osiris was murdered by his brother who then sank the coffin containing Osiris's body into the Nile river. Isis discovered the body and returned it to Egypt. But her brother-in-law once again gained access to the body, this time dismembering it into fourteen pieces which he scattered widely. Following a long search, Isis recovered each part of the body. It is at this point that the language used to describe what followed is crucial. Sometimes those telling the story are satisfied to say that Osiris came back to life, even though such language claims far more than the myth allows. Some writers go even further and refer to the alleged "resurrection" of Osiris. One liberal scholar illustrates how biased some writers are when they describe the pagan myth in Christian language: "The dead body of Osiris floated in the Nile and he returned to life, this being accomplished by a baptism in the waters of the Nile."[3]This biased and sloppy use of language suggests three misleading analogies between Osiris and Christ: (1) a savior god dies and (2) then experiences a resurrection accompanied by (3) water baptism. But the alleged similarities, as well as the language used to describe them, turn out to be fabrications of the modern scholar and are not part of the original myth. Comparisons between the resurrection of Jesus and the resuscitation of Osiris are greatly exaggerated.[4] Not every version of the myth has Osiris returning to life; in some he simply becomes king of the underworld. Equally far-fetched are attempts to find an analogue of Christian baptism in the Osiris myth.[5] The fate of Osiris's coffin in the Nile is as relevant to baptism as the sinking of Atlantis.

 

As previously noted, during its later mystery stage, the male deity of the Isis cult is no longer the dying Osiris but Serapis. Serapis is often portrayed as a sun god, and it is clear that he was not a dying god. Obviously then, neither could he be a rising god. Thus, it is worth remembering that the post-Ptolemaic mystery version of the Isis cult that was in circulation from about 300 B.C. through the early centuries of the Christian era had absolutely nothing that could resemble a dying and rising savior-god.

i'm confused on my opinion after reading this. Oh well more studying for me then.

[Sexton Blake]

It is strange that if Jesus existed and did what he did, no one saw fit to mention it in what was supposed to be a fairly literate culture. There are a number of known christian forgeries, exposed by Herb Cutner:

 

http://www.truthbeknown.com/cutner.htm

 

and others (HC's book was re-released in 2000, from 1950, and exposes the same old frauds that christians regularly dredge up.).

 

Let's say for a moment that the bible is true. Jesus has done miracles, including raising the dead. He has died publicly and then raised himself from the dead. He turns up in front of the elders who all convert to christianity, as do all the rest of the Jews in the area, and further afield. He then goes to see Pontius Pilate who has to admit that he truly is the son of god (hopefully not in a John Wayne voice) and starting from the garrison there, the Roman Empire converts to christianity.

 

But the truth is that nothing happened for hundreds of years, with the slow spread of christianity among the many other religions, based on a better life later on and the threat of hell if you did not obey. In his book; Misquoting Jesus, by Bart D Ehrman, it is revealed that the gospel accounts of Jesus floating off to heaven are all false. John doesn't even bother with that lie.

 

Christians point to their own religion as proof that Jesus existed, but the Jewish religion like christianity relies on god existing and there is no evidence. As there is no evidence that Muhammad existed, or that Buddha existed (the image used is a fourth century monk). As there is no evidence that the Norse gods existed (other than Marvel comics), the Greek gods, etc. A cult does not have to be founded on truth to gain members.

[mwc]

Sorry for getting off the main discussion here but I wondered if information for a certain article has been rebuttaled. So far I've been calling christianity a religion based off of pagan stories like mythras and horus without ever reading the actual holy books about these gods. this site attempts to demolish the arguments.

http://www.summit.org/resource/essay/show_...php?essay_id=29

here are the key arguements

[snip]

i'm confused on my opinion after reading this. Oh well more studying for me then.

The problem with the other religions of the time is that they really didn't write anything down like the Jews and Christians did. Much of what we know of many of these religions, such as Mithra, comes from the artwork that remains and what others wrote about the cult and their ways. We know some written documents did exist but were destroyed and so only bits and pieces remain. Perhaps we will discover a cache of pagan documents someday that can really shed light on this question?

 

However, it is clear that the religion did borrow elements from others. The question is when, where and how much? Symbolic elements can be much stronger (the image of the woman holding the child) than the names of the woman or the child. So does a name changing at a particular time disrupt that image? No. The continuity of the image remains and that is often what matters. Look at how the Nazis usurped imagery for themselves. Other dictators do as well. This can be used in both positive and negative manners. In a world where most people are illiterate the imagery is far more important than the actual words on a page.

 

Also, consider that the Greek gods were known by both their Greek and Roman names for hundreds of years. The fact that a name changed wasn't universal or immediate (or even manditory really as long as proper respect was paid). I've heard it said that most pagan religions changed to suit people's lives. We tend to think about lives changing to suit religion.

 

Anyhow, back to your point. I didn't read the entire article (just your quotes). You won't find any "holy books" for these religions. They never existed. That simply wasn't their way of doing things. You will find books that compile what we know about these religions and that's it. Informative, yes, but nothing like picking up a "Mithra Bible" for yourself. If you find such a thing let me know since I have looked far and wide. The artwork and interpretation (and historic writings) are quite nice however and well worth a look. I'd personally love to get a look at the Mithraic church that's supposedly under the Vatican.

 

mwc

[currentchristian]

Sorry for getting off the main discussion here but I wondered if information for a certain article has been rebuttaled. So far I've been calling christianity a religion based off of pagan stories like mythras and horus without ever reading the actual holy books about these gods. this site attempts to demolish the arguments.

http://www.summit.org/resource/essay/show_...php?essay_id=29

here are the key arguements

 

<<< quotes from link above removed >>>

 

i'm confused on my opinion after reading this. Oh well more studying for me then.

 

There are dozens of ways in which one can cast the Jesus experience:

 

There was no Jesus and, therefore, the Jesus experience did not happen at all.

There was a Jesus, but very few of the NT writings about him are trustworthy.

There was a Jesus, but there was so much confusion as to who he was that Peter and Paul can't even agree.

There was no Jesus, and this story developed as an adoption of the mystery religions.

There was a Jesus, but we know little of him; what we have is a hodge-podge of stories from his life and mythological tales.

There was no Jesus, but several Jesuses or Christs and we have them all combined into one.

 

On and on and on, including the theory that Jesus was from another realm and that the gospels are an accurate understanding of who he was and what he stood for and the Pauline and other epistles are a valid analysis of the cosmic meaning of the earthly Jesus encounter.

 

One can find scholarly support for every conceivable possibility imaginable. There's always a book out there that tells it just as one imagines it. There's always a scholar out there who really, really knows what happened. There's always an ancient document that proves thus and so and disproves this, that, and the other thing.

 

When the prosecution and defense rest their cases, each person must answer for him/herself the piercing question the alleged Jesus is alleged to have asked: "Who do you say that I am?" Good men and woman, smart men and women, honest men and women, spiritual men and women, can arrive at very different answers to that question.

 

-CC