Why do Atheists/Agnostics come to CAF?

[KyivAndrew]

I was referring to first century believers, not the men who may have invented this mythology.

Hey yankee_doodle. Take it easy.

I probably won’t get around to answering you tonite should you reply, but which men, specifically, invented this mythology? Was Peter in on it? Was Paul in the know? How much prestige or riches did these mythology inventers get? To my knowledge those who knew Christ personally were thrown from walls, stoned or tortured by the Romans. Does anyone have any contemporary documentation on this conspiracy - written preferably – that could meet the tests given to the veracity of such documents as the Gospels, or Paul’s letters by some. Vague accusations shouldn’t do. Who exactly started the fairytale? Paul and Peter both knew each other and both must of seen the great life they would have in selling a “Jesus” myth and traveling to strange places and endangering their lives. Paul studied under Gamaliel, and learned philosophy; hardly one for delusions.

Any circumstantial evidence for your “men who invented this mythology” thesis. We have more evidence for the Gospels than for some vague accusation of some “men who may have invented this mythology”. What men? The fact is first century believers cannot be separated from the men who started the Way of Jesus. They walked the same path, were persecuted the same, sent to the lions - sure people can be duped but this was different.

I mean within roughly 30 years of Christ’s crucifixion Christianity was big enough to have Nero blame Rome’s fire on them.

And unlike Islam’s rise which you allude to, for the first 300 years Christianity had to survive under tremendous persecutions unlike Islam which spread the faith by the sword.
For its first 300 years Christianity’s spread depended entirely on the Apostles, Disciples and Belief and not the sword.

Jesus’ revolutionary message of “loving your enemies” hardly puts him in the same league as David Koresh as you once mentioned.

Regards,

 

[KyivAndrew]

it does amaze me sometimes when I think about how gullible people can be in this world, or maybe gullible is unfair, but perhaps they think of themselves as having so little significance in this world they would go as far as to imagine they were chosen and are loved unconditionally by a mythological character, who will give them eternal paradise in return for living an obscure and uninteresting life.

Yes agreed. People like Mother Teresa could never hope to live the interesting and not obscure life you have before you. Lucky you, and oh how poor we are in comparison to you. Mother Teresa had an absolutely obscure and uninteresting life for following this silly mythological character.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Hey yankee_doodle. Take it easy. I think it’s josie’s birthday and you don’t want her waking up to your above post.
I probably won’t get around to answering tonite, but which men, specifically, invented this mythology? Was Peter in on it? Was Paul in the know? How much prestige or riches did these mythology inventers get? To my knowledge those who knew Christ personally were thrown from walls, stoned or tortured by the Romans. Does anyone have any contemporary documentation on this conspiracy - written preferably – that could meet the tests given to the veracity of such documents as the Gospels, or Paul’s letters by some. Vague accusations shouldn’t do. Who exactly started the fairytale? Paul and Peter both knew each other and both must of seen the great life they would have in selling a “Jesus” myth and traveling to strange places and endangering their lives.

Any circumstantial evidence for your “men who invented this mythology” thesis. We have more evidence for the Gospels than for some vague accusation of some “men who may have invented this mythology”. What men? The fact is first century believers cannot be separated from the men who started the Way of Jesus. They walked the same path, were persecuted the same, sent to the Lions - sure people can be duped but this was different.

I mean within roughly 30 years of Christ’s crucifixion Christianity was big enough to have Nero blame Rome’s fire on them.

And unlike Islam’s rise which you allude to, for the first 300 years Christianity had to survive under tremendous persecutions unlike Islam which spread the faith by the sword.
For its first 300 years Christianity’s spread depended entirely on the Apostles, Disciples and Belief.

Dude seriously, you’re arguing in support of a book that tells us unicorns really did exist, trying to turn the tables and accuse non-believers of being crazy? Pleeease

It might work on the dumb and gullible, but atheists and agnostics aren’t religious because we’re not dumb and gullible.

I don’t who or how your religion was invented, but it was invented. I don’t know if there ever really was a Peter or Paul or Jesus. I know plenty of people believe there was a Peter, Paul, and Jesus (and have for a really long time). But of course that doesn’t prove anything, well except there’s a sucker born every minute.

But I guess you’ll say ah ha, you can’t prove a negative (so there really is a good little fairy angel protecting me from all those wicked demon spirits). I mean … what the %#%^%

 

[KyivAndrew]

Dude seriously, you’re arguing in support of a book that tells us unicorns really did exist, trying to turn the tables and accuse non-believers of being crazy? Pleeease

It might work on the dumb and gullible, but atheists and agnostics aren’t religious because we’re not dumb and gullible.

Yes, intelligent people are atheists and agnostics because they are not dumb. Hmm…Intelligence requires an open mind, weighing all arguments. Thanks for your openness yankee

And where in the New Testament are you accused of being crazy for being a non-believer. If anything as Christ predicted, the ones following Christ would be the ones that would be mocked.

 

[KyivAndrew]

I don’t who or how your religion was invented, but it was invented. I don’t know if there ever really was a Peter or Paul or Jesus. I know plenty of people believe there was a Peter, Paul, and Jesus (and have for a really long time). But of course that doesn’t prove anything, well except there’s a sucker born every minute.

O.K. you don’t know how it happened but Christianity was invented in your supreme view. Great, that settles it perfectly for all of us. Biblical Theologians, this argument is water-tight. Go home.

You don’t have any contemporary source for such a huge conspiracy but you ask us to go with it. “A sucker is born every minute”? Was Mother Teresa a sucker? She did more in life than you or I could ever hope to accomplish, all because of her Faith in Jesus’ love.

The fact is our civilization, Christendom, as it used to be called was created from that religion which you are now deriding. Aquinas, philosophy, dignity to all before the law (which took time to reach all, obviously), Universities, Rule of Law, the Freedom of the Individual – all these things only developed in societies which practiced Christianity. Arguably, it was a rough progress but these ideas did not come from Asia or elsewhere. They developed fully only in Christian countries and gave us Western Civilization, positives and warts.
For some reason these ideas of liberties and rights did not come out of non-Judeao-Christian societies. Coincidence?

 

[humble_maid]

O.K. you don’t know how it happened but Christianity was invented in your supreme view. Great, that settles it perfectly for all of us. Biblical Theologians, this argument is water-tight. Go home.

You don’t have any contemporary source for such a huge conspiracy but you ask us to go with it. “A sucker is born every minute”? Was Mother Teresa a sucker? She did more in life than you or I could ever hope to accomplish, all because of her Faith in Jesus’ love.

The fact is our civilization, Christendom, as it used to be called was created from that religion which you are now deriding. Aquinas, philosophy, dignity to all before the law (which took time to reach all, obviously), Universities, Rule of Law, the Freedom of the Individual – all these things only developed in societies which practiced Christianity. Arguably, it was a rough progress but these ideas did not come from Asia or elsewhere. They developed fully only in Christian countries and gave us Western Civilization, positives and warts.
For some reason these ideas of liberties and rights did not come out of non-Judeao-Christian societies. Coincidence?

Thank your blessed heart and your God given intellect for defending our faith. People like you reassure me that there is still good in this world. God Bless.

 

[humble_maid]

I mean look … at this point lady if you like these fairy tales so much, good luck with it.

How unnecessary…

Tell me sir, what bothers you more, that we believe or that you can’t believe?

 

[4elise]

There are complaints about the big public funeral Sen.Ted Kennedy received. He was writing to the Pope before he died, confessing that he did not live up to various tenants of his faith. He went to confession. His former remarks were meant to be public. He received the last rites, he was restored into full communion with the Church, and in the Irish Catholic tradition, we should be deeply forgiving and rejoice. He is on his way to heaven.

This is what we are called to be!
Blessings

 

[josie_L]

oh btw, the few scholars you mention are hardly a “majority of scholars.” A majority of biblical scholars reject the idea that Josephus wrote about Jesus at all (unless, that is, you limit your sources to Christian apologetic web sites, which I imagine you do). However, it’s not relevant, because as I said previously I think it’s possible Josephus might have written something about Jesus (even if the probability is somewhat remote) … so I don’t base my personal views on Josephus.

What’s your source for stating that the majority of biblical scholars reject the idea that Josephus wrote about Jesus at all You are completely wrong in believing this.

 

[josie_L]

Look, it’s obvious enough no matter what facts I post, you’ll try and conjure up another spin job, misrepresent the truth, or whatever you can think of to defend your religion. I mean look … at this point lady if you like these fairy tales so much, good luck with it.

“Lady”. . . . did you forget my name?

 

[josie_L]

oh btw, the few scholars you mention are hardly a “majority of scholars.” A majority of biblical scholars reject the idea that Josephus wrote about Jesus at all (unless, that is, you limit your sources to Christian apologetic web sites, which I imagine you do). However, it’s not relevant, because as I said previously I think it’s possible Josephus might have written something about Jesus (even if the probability is somewhat remote) … so I don’t base my personal views on Josephus.

The funniest one is “a few latter insertions by Christians scribes.” I mean you guys have no shame, you’ll stop at nothing to pawn your myths. I have to admit … it does amaze me sometimes when I think about how gullible people can be in this world, or maybe gullible is unfair, but perhaps they think of themselves as having so little significance in this world they would go as far as to imagine they were chosen and are loved unconditionally by a mythological character, who will give them eternal paradise in return for living an obscure and uninteresting life. I guess the only catch is … you have to wait till you die

I mean come on … look I have a bridge for sale. If you buy this bridge you’ll get a great reward while you’re alive. You can install tolls between Brooklyn & Manhattan and make a killing

“Second, in Book 20 there is what could be called a passing reference to Jesus in a paragraph describing the murder of Jesus’ brother, James, at the hands of Ananus, the High Priest.”

“But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.”

Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1

The Testimonium Flavianum

"It is not the purpose of this article to address the arguments of the few commentators - mostly Jesus Mythologists - who doubt the authenticity of the second reference. According to leading Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman, the authenticity of this passage “has been almost universally acknowledged” by scholars. (Feldman, “Josephus,” Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pages 990-91). Instead, this article focuses on arguments regarding the partial authenticity of the TF.

Although Josephus’ reference to the martyrdom of James is universally accepted by critical scholars, there has been more controversy over the fuller reference to Jesus. The TF contains some obvious Christian glosses that no Jew would have written; such as “he was the Christ” and “he appeared to them alive again the third day.”

A strong majority of scholars, however, have concluded that much of the TF is authentic to Josephus. In his book Josephus and Modern Scholarship, Professor Feldman reports that between 1937 to 1980, of 52 scholars reviewing the subject, 39 found portions of the TF to be authentic. Peter Kirby’s own review of the literature, in an article discussing the TF in depth, shows that the trend in modern scholarship has moved even more dramatically towards partial authenticity: “In my own reading of thirteen books since 1980 that touch upon the passage, ten out of thirteen argue the Testimonium to be partly genuine, while the other three maintain it to be entirely spurious. Coincidentally, the same three books also argue that Jesus did not exist.” (Kirby, Testamonium Flavianum, 2001). Though my own studies have revealed a similar trend (about 15 to 1 for partial authenticity, with the exception being a Jesus Mythologist), I do not believe that it is a coincidence that it is Jesus Mythologists who are carrying the water against the partial authenticity theory. Even the partial validity of this one passage is enough to sink their entire argument.

bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm

---

Did Josephus Mention Jesus?

“The narrator also claims that the first century C.E. Jewish historian Flavius Josephus’s testimony to Jesus “has been proven to be a forgery for hundreds of years.” This is completely false. The vast majority of scholars believe that Josephus did mention Jesus. Josephus provides two references to Jesus: one focuses on Jesus specifically, and the other identifies “Jesus, the so-called Christ,” as being the brother of James. Although the authenticity of the passage devoted strictly to discussing Jesus has been disputed over time, scholars generally agree that the passage preserves an original record about Jesus.”

Historical Jesus scholar Dr. Paula Fredriksen writes:

“In Jewish Antiquities 18.63-64, Josephus gives a short summary statement on Jesus. Scholars have debated the historical merits of this passage, some (few, now) maintaining that the whole is authentic, others (another minority), that the whole is a Christian interpolation, that is, a passage written into the manuscript by a later Christian scribe. Most scholars currently incline to see the passage as basically authentic, with a few later insertions by a Christian scribe.” 1

preventingtruthdecay.org/jonj.shtml

 

[Agripa]

Dude seriously, you’re arguing in support of a book that tells us unicorns really did exist, trying to turn the tables and accuse non-believers of being crazy? Pleeease

It might work on the dumb and gullible, but atheists and agnostics aren’t religious because we’re not dumb and gullible.

I don’t who or how your religion was invented, but it was invented. I don’t know if there ever really was a Peter or Paul or Jesus. I know plenty of people believe there was a Peter, Paul, and Jesus (and have for a really long time). But of course that doesn’t prove anything, well except there’s a sucker born every minute.

But I guess you’ll say ah ha, you can’t prove a negative (so there really is a good little fairy angel protecting me from all those wicked demon spirits). I mean … what the %#%^%

Yankee - I’ve been reading your posts and most are spot on. However, be mindful that you cannot convince those who are religious with reason. It does not work that way. They will use the spun cotton candy called “apologetics” not so much to refute your reasoning, but to support their belief systems. Take for instance Mary, the Immaculate Conception and Original Sin. They will posit that Mary was born ever virgin, died ever virgin and was herself conceived immaculately. This means Mary was concieved without sin, yet no one ever really talks about Mary’s mother or if she had sex to concieve Mary. (ultimately, “original sin” is the sexual union.) The whole “no-sex” thing is interesting considereng in ancient Jewish times, no woman could refuse to have sex with her husband! When you press devout Catholics on this matter, to “spun” reasoning of apologetics or the Catechism fails and they will simply say something like, “God willed it this way”, or some other dismissive reply.

 

[josie_L]

Yankee - I’ve been reading your posts and most are spot on. However, be mindful that you cannot convince those who are religious with reason. It does not work that way. They will use the spun cotton candy called “apologetics” not so much to refute your reasoning, but to support their belief systems. Take for instance Mary, the Immaculate Conception and Original Sin. They will posit that Mary was born ever virgin, died ever virgin and was herself conceived immaculately. This means Mary was concieved without sin, yet no one ever really talks about Mary’s mother or if she had sex to concieve Mary. (ultimately, “original sin” is the sexual union.) The whole “no-sex” thing is interesting considereng in ancient Jewish times, no woman could refuse to have sex with her husband! When you press devout Catholics on this matter, to “spun” reasoning of apologetics or the Catechism fails and they will simply say something like, “God willed it this way”, or some other dismissive reply.

How Mary was conceived (through natural intercourse) is of no import, it’s that she was without original sin (like Adam and Eve). She is the new Eve like Jesus is the new Adam, each was obedient unto death, unlike our first parents.

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

 

[yankee_doodle]

“Second, in Book 20 there is what could be called a passing reference to Jesus in a paragraph describing the murder of Jesus’ brother, James, at the hands of Ananus, the High Priest.”

“But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.”

Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1

The Testimonium Flavianum

"It is not the purpose of this article to address the arguments of the few commentators - mostly Jesus Mythologists - who doubt the authenticity of the second reference. According to leading Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman, the authenticity of this passage “has been almost universally acknowledged” by scholars. (Feldman, “Josephus,” Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pages 990-91). Instead, this article focuses on arguments regarding the partial authenticity of the TF.

That is the sort of quote from Josephus that sounds much more credible, keeping in mind that Josephus remained Jewish (and therefore we can assume didn’t believe the resurrection or messianic claims made by Christians).

Although Josephus’ reference to the martyrdom of James is universally accepted by critical scholars, there has been more controversy over the fuller reference to Jesus. The TF contains some obvious Christian glosses that no Jew would have written; such as “he was the Christ” and “he appeared to them alive again the third day.”

A strong majority of scholars, however, have concluded that much of the TF is authentic to Josephus. In his book Josephus and Modern Scholarship, Professor Feldman reports that between 1937 to 1980, of 52 scholars reviewing the subject, 39 found portions of the TF to be authentic. Peter Kirby’s own review of the literature, in an article discussing the TF in depth, shows that the trend in modern scholarship has moved even more dramatically towards partial authenticity: “In my own reading of thirteen books since 1980 that touch upon the passage, ten out of thirteen argue the Testimonium to be partly genuine, while the other three maintain it to be entirely spurious. Coincidentally, the same three books also argue that Jesus did not exist.” (Kirby, Testamonium Flavianum, 2001). Though my own studies have revealed a similar trend (about 15 to 1 for partial authenticity, with the exception being a Jesus Mythologist), I do not believe that it is a coincidence that it is Jesus Mythologists who are carrying the water against the partial authenticity theory. Even the partial validity of this one passage is enough to sink their entire argument.

bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm

great … keep in mind this passage also states James was the “brother of Jesus” (a difficult proposition in itself for perpetual virginity mythology). Moreover, none of this does any damage to my own view that the supernatural events described by the new testament are mythological fabrications.

Did Josephus Mention Jesus?

“The narrator also claims that the first century C.E. Jewish historian Flavius Josephus’s testimony to Jesus “has been proven to be a forgery for hundreds of years.” This is completely false. The vast majority of scholars believe that Josephus did mention Jesus. Josephus provides two references to Jesus: one focuses on Jesus specifically, and the other identifies “Jesus, the so-called Christ,” as being the brother of James. Although the authenticity of the passage devoted strictly to discussing Jesus has been disputed over time, scholars generally agree that the passage preserves an original record about Jesus.”

Historical Jesus scholar Dr. Paula Fredriksen writes:

“In Jewish Antiquities 18.63-64, Josephus gives a short summary statement on Jesus. Scholars have debated the historical merits of this passage, some (few, now) maintaining that the whole is authentic, others (another minority), that the whole is a Christian interpolation, that is, a passage written into the manuscript by a later Christian scribe. Most scholars currently incline to see the passage as basically authentic, with a few later insertions by a Christian scribe.” 1

preventingtruthdecay.org/jonj.shtml

Fair enough, but again I personally tend to agree with Fredriksen (and I’m unconvinced by scholars who aver Josephus never mentioned Jesus at all; and all the alleged references are interpolations).

However, the fact that we know Josephus remained Jewish is probative. He obviously didn’t believe Jesus was the messiah of the Jewish people (or assumably anyone else); therefore we can also assume he thought the resurrection claims were fabrications (since it’s hard to imagine he believed Jesus rose from the dead, but yet didn’t view him as a messiah figure).

So I think Josephus does as much to damage Christianity as you guys think he does to help you. There are some people who believe Jesus never existed at all … but as I’ve said repeatedly during the entire time I’ve posted here on CAF … I’m not one of them. I simply don’t believe Jesus was a god-man who rose from the dead. Moreover, I don’t believe in a personal god who answers prayers or governs human history (much less the universe). All indications are contemporary religion is a man-made fabrication; and god answering your prayers is merely a figment of your imagination.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Tell me sir, what bothers you more, that we believe or that you can’t believe?

Nothing bothers me; but the motivation behind religious faith is something I’m curious about?

 

[josie_L]

Nothing bothers me; but the motivation behind religious faith is something I’m curious about?

What does it matter, why do you care? You don’t even listen to us when we talk to you.

 

[yankee_doodle]

O.K. you don’t know how it happened but Christianity was invented in your supreme view. Great, that settles it perfectly for all of us.

Biblical Theologians, this argument is water-tight. Go home.

oh yeah, and they need to find a productive profession while they’re at it

You don’t have any contemporary source for such a huge conspiracy but you ask us to go with it. “A sucker is born every minute”?

It was a flip statement … I don’t believe (nor did I intend to infer) there’s a *god conspiracy * (unlike you guys, who are prone to seeing an anti-god conspiracy around ever turn ).

Although, in reality there sort of is a god conspiracy, but it’s not covert. Churches make no secret over the fact that they seek and actively work towards domination and making captive of the worlds collective intellect

Was Mother Teresa a sucker?

unproductive piety doesn’t impress me

She did more in life than you or I could ever hope to accomplish, all because of her Faith in Jesus’ love.

funny … the poor she supposedly helped are still poor, the hungry she helped feed are still starving (or already died from starvation), so perhaps she did more to enable povery that you or I will ever do. I think there’s a real good case for the idea that too much pity kills.

The fact is our civilization, Christendom, as it used to be called was created from that religion which you are now deriding. Aquinas, philosophy, dignity to all before the law (which took time to reach all, obviously), Universities, Rule of Law, the Freedom of the Individual – all these things only developed in societies which practiced Christianity. Arguably, it was a rough progress but these ideas did not come from Asia or elsewhere. They developed fully only in Christian countries and gave us Western Civilization, positives and warts.
For some reason these ideas of liberties and rights did not come out of non-Judeao-Christian societies. Coincidence?

Aquinas got most of his ideas from Greek secular (or pagan) philosophers who came much earlier (like Aristotle). As for the inference that democracy grew up in the Christian world therefore Christianity is somehow to credit for it, democracy grew up in the western world because of European intellect; and it wasn’t because of Christianity … but in spite of Christianity. Aquinas would have still been Aquinas, but perhaps a secular philosopher. Aristotle was still Aristotle after all, Marcus Arelius still wrote his compendium on stoic philosophy (meditations) without your Jesus, and virtually all of our prominent founding fathers were deists (not Christians).

Moreover, this is all a red herring, because none of it has any bearing on the question of whether or not your god-man rose from the dead. Whether or not Christianity is a good ethical system isn’t the question (overall I think it is, albeit with some exceptions, although I don’t think it was a particularly great innovation compared to systems like stoic philosophy, which was already around when Christian mythology was created … and contained a very similar message).

 

[yankee_doodle]

What does it matter, why do you care? You don’t even listen to us when we talk to you.

When you say something true and useful I listen. Unfortunately it’s rare

 

[josie_L]

That is the sort of quote from Josephus that sounds much more credible, keeping in mind that Josephus remained Jewish (and therefore we can assume didn’t believe the resurrection or messianic claims made by Christians).

Did I state otherwise?

great … keep in mind this passage also states James was the “brother of Jesus” (a difficult proposition in itself for perpetual virginity mythology). Moreover, none of this does any damage to my own view that the supernatural events described by the new testament are mythological fabrications.

No it does not affect Mary’s perpetual virginity, as the word brother in aramaic meant more than a sibling, it emcompassed a definition that included first cousins as well. Furthermore, there is also the possibility that Joseph was widowed and had children in a previous marriage.

Fair enough, but again I personally tend to agree with Fredriksen (and I’m unconvinced by scholars who aver Josephus never mentioned Jesus at all; and all the alleged references are interpolations).

How can you agree with Fredriksen when earlier you denied there was a majority of scholars who accepted the partial authenticity of the TF?

However, the fact that we know Josephus remained Jewish is probative. He obviously didn’t believe Jesus was the messiah of the Jewish people (or assumably anyone else); therefore we can also assume he thought the resurrection claims were fabrications (since it’s hard to imagine he believed Jesus rose from the dead, but yet didn’t view him as a messiah figure).

Josephus was born in 37 A.D. so he didn’t get to witness Jesus’s resurrection.

So I think Josephus does as much to damage Christianity as you guys think he does to help you. There are some people who believe Jesus never existed at all … but as I’ve said repeatedly during the entire time I’ve posted here on CAF … I’m not one of them. I simply don’t believe Jesus was a god-man who rose from the dead. Moreover, I don’t believe in a personal god who answers prayers or governs human history (much less the universe). All indications are contemporary religion is a man-made fabrication; and god answering your prayers is merely a figment of your imagination.

One day you will believe.

 

[Agripa]

. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. QUOTE]

That wonderful phrase - - - *its a mystery we cannot understand *- - - that right there is the elastic and ever useful ultimate response of apologetics! I can see the old white headed Irish priest of my youth, getting red in the face when we pressed him to explain seeming oddities of logic like what happens to poor babies who die without being baptized and how they must either burn in hell or wait in purgatory or even better, hang out in Limbo! “T’is a mystery”, he would say, which is the same as saying shut up you weak Catholic kids, and quit asking such horrid questions!