An interesting conundrum

[oftruefaith]

There are a few questions I want to present and see where it goes. The first of these questions is in regards to the New Testement with regards to Jesus Christ. It is in regards to the man in question as to why at current pace aside from the bible there is no historical record of the being that is Jesus Christ, so being this is the tales that are spoken and parables that are further explained in the bible really fact or a form of teachings?

Second question is in regards to what would attribute someone to enter the ‘Kingdom of Heaven’. More specifically if you read through you will find the passage I believe is John 3:16. Now the question there inlies to the effect that if you believe in Jesus Christ then wouldn’t that mean that anything else that you do means nothing as to the entry of Heaven?

Now that I have those out in the open I want to expound on my third and final question for this specific thread. Faith is the belief in something, Blind faith is the belief of something without first hand knowledge. I can appreciate both of these to some degree. My question is directly related to those two things. If you have belief in something that was molded, shaped and even created by someone for the sole purpose to control someone and you were to know this would you still believe in it? On a different angle, if you were to be given a choice to believe in something or go through agonizing pain until you believed it would you then change your mind and have faith in a faith that was not yours?

Because this is a good place to get some of these answers please do not hold back. I want full on open honesty on any and all angles please. I have my faith but so far it is far from the inadequacies of men and their ‘TRUTHS’.

 

[puzzleannie]

There are a few questions I want to present and see where it goes. The first of these questions is in regards to the New Testement with regards to Jesus Christ. It is in regards to the man in question as to why at current pace aside from the bible there is no historical record of the being that is Jesus Christ, so being this is the tales that are spoken and parables that are further explained in the bible really fact or a form of teachings?

.

look at the lives of all the other millions of people alive in the first century. Is there any evidence of their existence outside any writings they may have left, or any records anyone else made of their life and actions?

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

In regards to John 3:16, there are different interpretations of that verse:

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

16For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.

American Standard Version (ASV)

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.

New International Version (NIV)

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

“may not” and “should not” has a completely different implication to “shall not”.

There are obviously more versions than those 3, but I just brought those 3 out to illustrate that different versions have subtle variations that actually mean profoundly different things. According to Catholicism and some other denominations, belief in Jesus Christ alone does not guarantee salvation, where as some other denominations (almost invariably happens to be the newer denominations with newer versions with translation errors) subscribe to the “faith alone guarantees salvation” rendition of John 3:16.

I personally believe that Catholicism has had the right translation for over 1500 years before all these new variations started rocking up.

 

[oftruefaith]

Well, the reason I asked the question the way I did was because of the events that had happened, the importance of this one MAN (son of god if you will) there would be some form of record of these events.

The Romans were really good at keeping records of events, but not only were they not in these records but no other records from any other culture. Given the importance of this one man why is there no record of this man except from a book that was written more than 300 years after the death of this man and the addendum wasn’t added until after the inception of the bible into what we now see as the ‘King James’ version?

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

Now that I have those out in the open I want to expound on my third and final question for this specific thread. Faith is the belief in something, Blind faith is the belief of something without first hand knowledge. I can appreciate both of these to some degree. My question is directly related to those two things. If you have belief in something that was molded, shaped and even created by someone for the sole purpose to control someone and you were to know this would you still believe in it?

Probably not, but it would really depend on what it was that was forced upon.

On a different angle, if you were to be given a choice to believe in something or go through agonizing pain until you believed it would you then change your mind and have faith in a faith that was not yours?

That’s not really faith then is it? Faith would require assent of free-will, saying yes under agony of torture isn’t faith.

 

[Hecares]

Do you not acknowledge the account of the historian Josephus that Jesus lived and had followers, or is that not your quiestion?

 

[Petergee]

Now that I have those out in the open I want to expound on my third and final question for this specific thread. Faith is the belief in something, Blind faith is the belief of something without first hand knowledge. I can appreciate both of these to some degree. My question is directly related to those two things. If you have belief in something that was molded, shaped and even created by someone for the sole purpose to control someone and you were to know this would you still believe in it? On a different angle, if you were to be given a choice to believe in something or go through agonizing pain until you believed it would you then change your mind and have faith in a faith that was not yours?.

Are you suggesting that someone has done this to you or another person in regards to the Catholic faith? Please do not hold back on your answer. I want full-on open honesty on any and all angles please.

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

Well, the reason I asked the question the way I did was because of the events that had happened, the importance of this one MAN (son of god if you will) there would be some form of record of these events.

The Romans were really good at keeping records of events, but not only were they not in these records but no other records from any other culture. Given the importance of this one man why is there no record of this man except from a book that was written more than 300 years after the death of this man and the addendum wasn’t added until after the inception of the bible into what we now see as the ‘King James’ version?

I am not a historian, so whatever I say will only be speculation/conjecture though I’m sure I’ve seen this question come up often here on these forums as well as in general over the last few years in a lot of places.

Jesus was a problem, and in the eyes of the Romans he was a cult figure, they probably didn’t want any mention or trace of him and thus had any mention of him destroyed, furthermore there have always been trouble-makers, what’s one more or one less trouble-maker to them?

Your question assumes that the Romans should have kept records on him, when he was just a commoner to them with no special significance, a more pertinent question would be, why should they have kept records on him?

 

[Petergee]

Well, the reason I asked the question the way I did was because of the events that had happened, the importance of this one MAN (son of god if you will) there would be some form of record of these events.

The Romans were really good at keeping records of events, but not only were they not in these records but no other records from any other culture. Given the importance of this one man why is there no record of this man except from a book that was written more than 300 years after the death of this man and the addendum wasn’t added until after the inception of the bible into what we now see as the ‘King James’ version?

Oh boy you’ve got a lot to learn about objective, secular, history (no faith required).

The Gospels were written starting possibly as little as 5 and certainly no more than 35 (or possibly up to a maximum of 60 in the case of the final form of St John’s Gospel) years after Christ’s death.
The letters of St Paul were definitely all written no more than 35 years after His death, and they show clearly that Christians already believed all of the essential truths about Christ including worshipping Him as God.

Actually historians say the ancient Romans were not particulalrly good about keeping records of events. For example nearly all of the events we know about early Roman history were written down in the 1st century BC up to 600 years after the actual events.

We do know that the Romans kept everyday records on reusable wax tablets, and more important records on papyrus, which lasts a maximum of maybe 100 years under normal careful ancient storage conditions.

There is actually a far greater body of existing historical evidence for the life, sayings and doings of Christ than for, say, the life, sayings and doings of any of the Roman emperors.

Suggested reading (very readable): *The Case for Christ *by Lee Strobel (a non-Catholic and former atheist crime journalist).

I’ve got no idea what “addendum” youre talking about. Unless you mean the 7 Old Testament books which had always been part of the Catholic Bible from the beginning, but which protestants tended to reject because they contardict some protestant beliefs, and which the King James version moved to a separate section of the Bible. In the 19th century the British Bible society sdeleted them altogether to save on shaipping costs.

 

[oftruefaith]

“may not” and “should not” has a completely different implication to “shall not”.

There are obviously more versions than those 3, but I just brought those 3 out to illustrate that different versions have subtle variations that actually mean profoundly different things. According to Catholicism and some other denominations, belief in Jesus Christ alone does not guarantee salvation, where as some other denominations (almost invariably happens to be the newer denominations with newer versions with translation errors) subscribe to the “faith alone guarantees salvation” rendition of John 3:16.

I personally believe that Catholicism has had the right translation for over 1500 years before all these new variations started rocking up.

I appreciate your response here, and I did enjoy what you put there. The way that you put it I would have to agree with you that if you look at the varying translations that it can mean anything that is put there so the effect of ‘YOU WILL NOT’ and ‘YOU MAY NOT’ definitely makes a difference in direct connection between what is and is not truth.

My rebuttal for you then is in regards to the last line that I kept in the quote. If you believe that the Catholic faith has the right translation and has had it for over 1500 years now then my question is this. From the time of 1500 years ago (circa ano domina 511, as per the gregorian calendar[inception circa ano domina 1582]) at which time the English language was not in current effect and the common language at the time was Latin, now the bible was written in 2 different languages primarily. Now even in this case, if based on the fact that the bible has been around for so long can you honestly say that the translations were not altered at some point during the many years of its translations?

Each structure of power either wanted more power, or to keep the power that it already had. Because of this (and no I’m not specific to faith, politics or such. This is entirely generalized), the ones in power will then twist and contort what control they have to procure more power in any way possible. My statement is such that I believe that during the many years of faith and teachings that even those in power (be by their own hand or by others) have made alterations to the text to ensure that people do what they want and how they want it. Unfortunately this does include Muslims, Mormons (LDS), Catholics, Protestants, Jehova Witnesses, ect (faith only). It also includes those of political views which include USA, Japan, China, Europe, ect.

If you find my statements bothersome then please look up some history books from any country that you want. My favorite is to look up the history books from Japan in regards to World War II, then compare it with Europe’s and the United States.

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

I appreciate your response here, and I did enjoy what you put there. The way that you put it I would have to agree with you that if you look at the varying translations that it can mean anything that is put there so the effect of ‘YOU WILL NOT’ and ‘YOU MAY NOT’ definitely makes a difference in direct connection between what is and is not truth.

My rebuttal for you then is in regards to the last line that I kept in the quote. If you believe that the Catholic faith has the right translation and has had it for over 1500 years now then my question is this. From the time of 1500 years ago (circa ano domina 511, as per the gregorian calendar[inception circa ano domina 1582]) at which time the English language was not in current effect and the common language at the time was Latin, now the bible was written in 2 different languages primarily. Now even in this case, if based on the fact that the bible has been around for so long can you honestly say that the translations were not altered at some point during the many years of its translations?

Each structure of power either wanted more power, or to keep the power that it already had. Because of this (and no I’m not specific to faith, politics or such. This is entirely generalized), the ones in power will then twist and contort what control they have to procure more power in any way possible. My statement is such that I believe that during the many years of faith and teachings that even those in power (be by their own hand or by others) have made alterations to the text to ensure that people do what they want and how they want it. Unfortunately this does include Muslims, Mormons (LDS), Catholics, Protestants, Jehova Witnesses, ect (faith only). It also includes those of political views which include USA, Japan, China, Europe, ect.

If you find my statements bothersome then please look up some history books from any country that you want. My favorite is to look up the history books from Japan in regards to World War II, then compare it with Europe’s and the United States.

I cannot say with an absolute certainty that someone had not made any alterations, in fact I think there had been corrections made here and there to the point some verses had people crossing out words, later to be reverted, and crossed out again years and years apart.

However alterations in the Bible and to some political power you’re alluding to seems to be me like a conspiracy theory, I’m not too sure what kind of alterations you’re suggesting might lead to some major political power wielding advantage, if anything they would be more along the lines of arguments amongst varying denominations.

The part that I bolded of what you said, please justify that with some evidence or some proper reasoning, whilst I can see alterations can be done to benefit in-house fighting amongst the Churches, I do not see the kind of alterations being advantageous politically, and since you assert they are, I want some reasoning as well as some evidence that it has been done.

 

[oftruefaith]

Oh boy you’ve got a lot to learn about objective, secular, history (no faith required).

The Gospels were written starting possibly as little as 5 and certainly no more than 35 (or possibly up to a maximum of 60 in the case of the final form of St John’s Gospel) after Christ’s death.
The letters of St Paul were definitely all written no more than 35 years after His death, and they show clearly that Christians already believed all of the essential truths about Christ including worshipping Him as God.

Actually historians say the ancient Romans were not particulalrly good about keeping records of events. For example nearly all of the events we know about early Roman history were written down in the 1st century BC up to 600 years after the actual events.

We do know that the Romans kept everyday records on reusable wax tablets, and more important records on papyrus, which lasts a maximum of maybe 100 years under normal careful ancient storage conditions.

There is actually a far greater body of existing historical evidence for the life, sayings and doings of Christ than for, say, the life, sayings and doings of any of the Roman emperors.

Very well, in regards to the historical aspects of and even the record keeping of that of the roman empire, I’ll have to give you the torch in regards to this. But I do have to ask you just in regards to this topic specifically. If the man existed and as such the events that are outlined in the bible (oh by the way, in regards to historical research please look up Allegory since the bible is written this way) why are there no other records of these events happening. Again, these events were an a level of Catastrophic (so to speak), wouldn’t there be other documentation in the outlying areas that recorded these events (5bce, 10bce for birth, 28 ade or 35ade). The bible outlines some very descriptive events that happened and based on historical documentation there is no other record or account of these events except from the bible.

In regards to the letters you spoke of in the early part of your statement, are there any physical proof of these letters? Do these letters actually show the validity of Christ in true form or again in an allegorical sense? Now if these letters do exist are they able to be viewed by the public? Can the authenticity be checked by professionals? (and I mean by objective professionals not ones of the catholic faith)

Now if these are all in the realm of truth where these documents that show historical proof of Christ I would love to see them and by all means I will retract my statement. I love being proven wrong because it then gets me to think about the outlying issues of my question and retorts.

 

[Fink]

Do you not acknowledge the account of the historian Josephus that Jesus lived and had followers, or is that not your quiestion?

And Tacitus: a Roman historian who regarded Christianity with contempt.

 

[oftruefaith]

I cannot say with an absolute certainty that someone had not made any alterations, in fact I think there had been corrections made here and there to the point some verses had people crossing out words, later to be reverted, and crossed out again years and years apart.

However alterations in the Bible and to some political power you’re alluding to seems to be me like a conspiracy theory, I’m not too sure what kind of alterations you’re suggesting might lead to some major political power wielding advantage, if anything they would be more along the lines of arguments amongst varying denominations.

The part that I bolded of what you said, please justify that with some evidence or some proper reasoning, whilst I can see alterations can be done to benefit in-house fighting amongst the Churches, I do not see the kind of alterations being advantageous politically, and since you assert they are, I want some reasoning as well as some evidence that it has been done.

Thank you, I did not mean to put any kind of ‘Conspiracy Theory’ topic in this, as to clarify what I mean is actually older than the current texts from the bible. It is in regards to the times during ancient times when women started to teach in various religious effects and in part the history was stricken and altered to then make it where they were no longer able to teach, hold a position of power, or any other such action (unfortunately I don’t have sources to cite, I will get back to you on that).
This is based on my research that I have come across this information. The base conjecture of my ideas here are not completely unfounded and are based on fact. But they are mere conjecture. I put up this topic and am responding because I want to see other ideas and offer a rebuttal that hopefully will help in stimulating my ideas, and maybe even yours (not you specifically but those willing to read and respond).

 

[oftruefaith]

Are you suggesting that someone has done this to you or another person in regards to the Catholic faith? Please do not hold back on your answer. I want full-on open honesty on any and all angles please.

No, that has never happened to me. If it has well, personally I would then tell them what they could do with their religion. I appreciate you responding to that question in the way that you did.

My reasoning for this is because of other faiths that I see and have seen trying to ram their ‘FAITH’ down the throats of people. I am not going to name any faith as I have seen this with too many people (no not the whole, just the people). It was more of a question pertaining to events that have been outlined in history and historical events of different faiths working towards an objective in mind to convert as many as possible and by any means necessary.

 

[fhansen]

If the man existed and as such the events that are outlined in the bible (oh by the way, in regards to historical research please look up Allegory since the bible is written this way) why are there no other records of these events happening. Again, these events were an a level of Catastrophic (so to speak), wouldn’t there be other documentation in the outlying areas that recorded these events (5bce, 10bce for birth, 28 ade or 35ade).

Even according to the biblical narratives, there were many who didn’t believe-they refused to believe-even after witnessing many of the “Catastrophic” events. To the local Romans Jesus was barely more than a minor thorn-something to be removed if it was causing some kind of conflicts with people in the Empire. God doesn’t force us to believe-. He could’ve done things so obvious-so Catastrophically overwhelming that none could disbelieve. Instead He did something astounding, but in such a way, in a little irrelevant corner of the world, that people could nonetheless choose to believe it or not. And the millions who have believed down through the centuries in spite of their relying solely on the testimony of those who believed before them stand as testament to the power of Gods’ actions here and in man’s heart.

Now if these are all in the realm otruth where these documents that show historical proof of Christ I would love to see them and by all means I will retract my statement. I love being proven wrong because it then gets me to think about the outlying issues of my question and retorts.

Study more. Read Tacitus, Pliny, and Josephus for extra-biblical accounts of Jesus. As far as biblical translations are concerned, consider that the Church possessed the faith-the gospel- before NT scripture was even written.Read and compare the early Church Fathers to get accounts of the early faith. The more you study, the less power the notion of conspiracy theories will hold in regards to the C Church.

 

[Hecares]

It seems from the posts that at least a couple of you are so determined to argue your point that you are ignoring posts that don’t support it. Both Fink and I have given you references to historians who have mentioned Jesus of Nazareth. Have you bothered to check them? Bothe Josephus and Tacitus mentioned the man Jesus in their writings.

Different books of the Bible are written in different styles. Some are allegorical, but not all.
The gospels and epistles of the new testament were not written as allegorical books, nor were they written as historical books. They were written to teach a certain group of people about Jesus, His teachings, and the Church he founded.

I think your first “conundrum” probably needs to be resolved before you move on to the next. Pleas check the historical references we have given you before you comment again about the fact that no historian refers to Jesus of Nazareth. He did exist and at least some historians wrote of him.

 

[Petergee]

Very well, in regards to the historical aspects of and even the record keeping of that of the roman empire, I’ll have to give you the torch in regards to this. But I do have to ask you just in regards to this topic specifically. If the man existed and as such the events that are outlined in the bible (oh by the way, in regards to historical research please look up Allegory since the bible is written this way)

False. Some parts of the Bible are written as allegory. The only parts of the New Testament which were written as allegory are the Parables (stories to teach a moral lesson) which Jesus told, recorded in the Gospels, and most of the book of the Apocaypse (Revelation) to St John. It is plain, even to the casual reader, that the rest of the New Testament was Not intended by its authors to be allegory, but was intended to be a faithful recording of historical events that actually happened and teachings that were actually taught. Regardless of whether the reader believes that the authors were lying or telling the truth, plainly they did not intend to write fairytales.

why are there no other records of these events happening. Again, these events were an a level of Catastrophic (so to speak), wouldn’t there be other documentation in the outlying areas that recorded these events (5bce, 10bce for birth, 28 ade or 35ade). The bible outlines some very descriptive events that happened and based on historical documentation there is no other record or account of these events except from the bible.

Government registration of births and deaths began, even in the most advanced countries, only in the mid 19th century. Some countries to this day do not register many of the births and deaths that take place. The Roman Empire most certainly made no record of the birth of any child born to an impoverished non-Roman citizen born in a far flung outpost of the empire.

Perhaps Pontius Pilate’s secretary made some written record at the time (probably on wax, as papyrus was quite expensive) of the names of the (no doubt thousands) of people whom Pilate sentenced to death during his few years as governor of Judaea. There would have been no need to keep these records for long. Nobody at the time disputed that Jesus had been put to death and His body had disappeared. The standard line from the Roman government and the non-Christian Jewish leaders was that the Apostles had stolen the body. Then in the 7th century Mahomet came up with the idea that jesus somehow in some unexplained way escaped from teh Roman authorities and they crucified some other poor schmuck thiking he was Jesus, who then reappeared later. It was only in the 19th century that some people first invented the idea that the tomb was not empty at all and that the Apostles just made the whole story up later.

Not sure what you mean by “Catastrophic”. If you mean the eclipse and the earthquake that occurred on Good Friday, these events are not that unusual.

In regards to the letters you spoke of in the early part of your statement, are there any physical proof of these letters? Do these letters actually show the validity of Christ in true form or again in an allegorical sense? Now if these letters do exist are they able to be viewed by the public? Can the authenticity be checked by professionals? (and I mean by objective professionals not ones of the catholic faith)

Now if these are all in the realm of truth where these documents that show historical proof of Christ I would love to see them and by all means I will retract my statement. I love being proven wrong because it then gets me to think about the outlying issues of my question and retorts.

I don’t know of any professional historian (of any faith or none) who seriously doubts the fact that the New Testament books were written in the first century AD.

If you mean can you view the original manuscripts which were written about 60 AD, no you can’t. Even good quality papyrus doesn’t last more than a few decades if used

 

[Petergee]

continued

Just take a look at a book that’s 100 years old or so.Even modern paper books don’t last that long.

Before the 4th century when the bound book was invented, books which were written on scrolls lasted even less time. Especially when used often as the NT books were. But even with very careful handling, books deteriorate after a few decades and it was necessary to make a new copy - a very long, labour intensive and expensive process until the invention of printing in the 15th century. Once the new copy had been checked with the previous one and confirmed as accurate, there was no need to keep the older, deteriorating one.

Occasionally ancient manucripts, or parts of them, are discovered which by accident or design have been stored in perfect conditions (controlled temperature and humidity, preserved from bookworms, mould and other creatures which eat books). Most famously the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in 1948 and which include copies of many of the books of the Bible. The text is very very close to the received versions of the same books which we have today. Showin how accurately all the copying was done.

The oldest known existing copy of a part of the New Testament is a part of St John;s gospel dated to 120 to 130 AD. i.e. less than 30 years after St John’s death.

Also note that for the first 300 years and at many periods since, the Church has been viciously persecuted and her oppressors have seized and destroyed the Church’s books at every chance they got.

You will also find that what many believe is the wooden board which was attached to Jesus’ Cross, written with “Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews” is preserved (now in three parts) in Rome.

And as many have mentioned here, pagan Roman and Jewish records attest to the life of Christ and the rise of Christianity.

There is also the amazing phenomenon of the spread of Christianity, not by force as Islam and other religions were, but starting from a tiny group of peasants, exploding in numbers until 300 years later it dominated the most powerful empire in history. This didn’t happen because Christians convinced people o believ in a fairytale they had invented, or just because Jesus was remembered as a good man and a great teacher and prophet. These people really believed that Christ had risen from the dead and that if they followed Him in the Church He founded they would have eternal life too, and so not even the fiercest persecutions could stop them from doing so. As one historian put it “There is a hole in history which can only be filled and explained by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

 

[oftruefaith]

So there are a few responses that I have received and I thank all of you for taking the time to respond. Let me first go into a few touch on the topic of historians and research into these historians,

Tacitus (56 AD –117 AD)
Pliny the Younger (61 AD – 112 AD)
Josephus (37 AD – 100 AD)

Now if you are talking about the documentation between these three men in regards to the proof of the Christian religion being formed and just in its infancy the yes I will agree with you completely. As to this being the valid proof of Christ existing, not so much as even in the historical references, there still is no validity or show of proof within these documents. A lot of researchers even quote as to the information that was mentioned within the documents were mostly of rumors and second hand information that outlined the documents that they produced.

As to the documents that you are stating are proof, as you said that the documents have long since fell under the tides of time, which in turn means that they have been copied and recopied and so on. Can you in all honesty tell me that absolutely no alteration could have been made? Now in the understanding of this let me ask you that same question in a different way. By even the copying of the documents, by taking them and translating them from language to language would there be any kind of alteration made at that point even if they were directly copied (unalterd for the sake of preservation, though unlikely but for the sake of this example)? Now even if there were copied from lets say after 50 years, or even 75 lets say. Would the idioms be the same? How about the syntax of the language? Lets say my country came in an conquered your country and forced the change in your language, how long would it take before idioms that you were using to change to something different?

Case in point for my argument would be 3 words, what does Gay, Fag and Fagot mean? In current terms they all mean someone that has homosexual tendacies, but if you go back say 50 years they mean Happy, Cigarette and bundle of sticks (yes in that order). This isn’t accounting for those that would go through and make the history out to be to their benefit. I mean nobody has ever done that before, have they?

I bring these up because I have read some of the writings on the three historians, I am sorry for the slow response, it took me that time to read those enough to come with some form of response. Their works are an interesting topic, are the originals still around? As you pointed out, the answer to that would be no unless these documents were perfectly or well preserved. Another thing that is interesting is based on those three people, if you base your facts of Christ on them, please take a look at the dates in which they were born and do a simple calculation in regards to when they would be able to first document, then consider when they would have had any kind of interest in documenting these events. They don’t add up to the general gist of when Christ was supposed to be active and to his death. Also the works beyond the fact that these men were not old enough or even born during this time, their works are inconsistent with each other and the teachings that are of the bible.

Now beyond these three, you make mention ‘Petergee’ that there are further documents in regards to these events and this man by Pagen Romans and Jewish records. Do you have some information that I can look at with regards to be able to research further into it? I do love reading material and would love to further my knowledge on this matter.

Now before I do go on further please take note that the basis of my statements is over 15 years of research in regards to the Bible of many christian faiths, the histories of the events as well as the life and death of Christ. Once I was christian (pick a faith and I’ve followed it to some degree, except for Catholicisim). I try to see things in an open environment and that is why I am here so I can gather more information in regards to this matter. My retorts are for further expanse of my knowledge, they are not intended (though it may seem so) as an attack, but more of a stimuli for further expanse of knowledge.