The Myth of Christ, Why Jesus is NOT the Savior
Contents:
Within a few decades of his supposed lifetime, he is mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians, as well as by dozens of Christian writings. Compare that with, for example, King Arthur, who supposedly lived around AD The major historical source for events of that time does not even mention Arthur, and he is first referred to or years after he is supposed to have lived. The evidence for Jesus is not limited to later folklore, as are accounts of Arthur. The value of this evidence is that it is both early and detailed.
These all appeared within the lifetimes of numerous eyewitnesses, and provide descriptions that comport with the culture and geography of first-century Palestine. It is also difficult to imagine why Christian writers would invent such a thoroughly Jewish saviour figure in a time and place — under the aegis of the Roman empire — where there was strong suspicion of Judaism. As far as we know, the first author outside the church to mention Jesus is the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who wrote a history of Judaism around AD He has two references to Jesus.
About 20 years after Josephus we have the Roman politicians Pliny and Tacitus, who held some of the highest offices of state at the beginning of the second century AD. From Tacitus we learn that Jesus was executed while Pontius Pilate was the Roman prefect in charge of Judaea AD and Tiberius was emperor AD — reports that fit with the timeframe of the gospels.
Pliny contributes the information that, where he was governor in northern Turkey, Christians worshipped Christ as a god. There never was a Jesus of Nazareth. Lecture given at the University of Arizona. Some now agree historicity agnosticism is warranted, including Arthur Droge professor of early Christianity at UCSD , Kurt Noll associate professor of religion at Brandon University , and Thomas Thompson renowned professor of theology, emeritus, at the University of Copenhagen. Still others, like Philip Davies professor of biblical studies, emeritus, at the University of Sheffield , disagree with the hypothesis but admit it is respectable enough to deserve consideration.
Ehrman , p. That is what this book will set out to demonstrate. I work further on this issue in my Messiah Myth of Here I argue that the synoptic gospels can hardly be used to establish the historicity of the figure of Jesus; for both the episodes and sayings with which the figure of Jesus is presented are stereotypical and have a history that reaches centuries earlier.
I have hardly shown that Jesus did not exist and did not claim to. As for the question of whether Jesus existed, the best answer is that any attempt to find a historical Jesus is a waste of time. The Bible and Interpretation. Retrieved 29 January Neither do the few mentions of Jesus by Roman writers in the early second century establish his existence. How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels. He is even willing to entertain the possibility that there never was a historical Jesus. Jesus at the Vanishing Point — Son of Scripture: Was There No Historical Jesus?
Traditional midrash often did this through entirely fictional creations, whose story elements served symbolic purposes, like morality tales. The Gospels Not History: Surely if a miracle-working prophet like the Jesus of the Gospels actually existed, it is argued, Paul and pagan contemporaries would have mentioned his feats and his teachings.
Instead, they argue, we find a virtual silence. Lataster a , p. Separating History from Myth , ed. Joseph Hoffmann Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, , p. Quite likely because the earliest Christians, perhaps Jewish, Samaritan, and Galilean sectarians like the Nasoreans or Essenes, did not understand their savior to have been a figure of mundane history at all, any more than the devotees of the cults of Attis, Hercules, Mithras, and Osiris did. Their gods, too, had died and risen in antiquity.
Indeed, the Pauline Christ was actually quite close to the sorts of divinities we find in ancient mystery religions. They never refer to a place of birth [ They do not refer to his trial before a Roman official, nor to Jerusalem as the place of execution. Prometheus, , The most extreme legendary-Jesus theorists, however—particularly the Christ myth theorists—deny this.
According to the theory, Paul believed that Christ entered the world at some point in the distant past—or that he existed only in a transcendent mythical realm—and died to defeat evil powers and redeem humanity. Only later was Jesus remythologized [i. The Origins and Development of Christology Wells b. The Traditional Christ-Myth Theory.
Retrieved 2 May Dickson, John 24 December The irreligious assault on the historicity of Jesus". ABC Religion and Ethics. The evidence just doesn't add up". Sources — Spotlight on the Evangelists ; Price , p. Journal of Higher Criticism. Retrieved September 2, The Amazing Colossal Apostle.
The four Gospels and the one Gospel of Jesus Christ: Finding the Historical Christ. Christianity in the Making by James D. Christianity in the Making , Volume 1 by James D. On the Historicity of Jesus Kindle ed. On the Historicity of Jesus. Chapter 4 and Chapter The Case Against Christianity.
Temple University Press, , p.
A Failure of Facts and Logic". Retrieved 27 August Retrieved 24 September What is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels. The Quest of the Historical Gospel: Mark, John and the Origins of the Gospel Genre. What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography. The Problem of the Markan Genre: The Gospel of Mark and the Jewish Novel. Society of Biblical Literature. Tomson , If This be from Heaven Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus: The Philosophy and Politics of Bruno Bauer.
Cambridge University Press, , p. A Very Short Introduction. Origins and Evolution to AD Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research. An Introduction and Survey by Craig L. Jewish Traditions in Early Christian Literature. Scott Kellum; Charles L. The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament.
Olson, Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum.
Jesus comes into conflict with the Jewish elders, such as when they question his authority and when he criticizes them and calls them hypocrites. The Oxford Dictionary of Islam. Retrieved June 10, Doherty agrees with Bauckham that the earliest Christology was already a "high Christology," that is, Jesus was an incarnation of the pre-existent Christ, but deems it "hardly credible" that such a belief could develop in such a short time among Jews. The four canonical gospels Matthew , Mark , Luke , and John are the foremost sources for the life and message of Jesus. Can a scientist believe in the resurrection? As of right now as far as I know there are none.
The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61 2: Jesus Outside the New Testament: Josephus, the essential works: Habermas, College Press, An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence , Wm. Check date values in: Evidence for Jesus Jesus Library. An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Jesus being a preexisting archangel: The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross. Prometheus , first published The End of Biblical Studies. Indo-European Mythology as Ideology and Science. University of Chicago Press, Bader, Christopher, et al. American Piety in the 21st Century.
Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion, Seeing Through the Eyes of Jesus: Baggett, John , Seeing through the eyes of Jesus: Jesus and the Logic of History. Messiah Jesus — the evidence of history. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. Hahn; Dave Scott, ed. Richard Bauckham , Jesus and the Eyewitnesses ". The Hermeneutic of Continuity: Christ, Kingdom, and Creation. Bauckham, Richard , Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony , Wm. Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy eds. In Search of Jesus: Insider and Outsider Images. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels.
De Evangelische Jozua , Fortress, , first published The Messiah Formerly Known as Jesus. Baylor University Press, In Bromiley; et al. Explicit use of et al. Lutterworth, , first published Harvard University Press, Jesus Now and Then. The Eclipse of the Historical Jesus. Earl Doherty and the Argument to Ahistoricity". Retrieved 25 April Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism. Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus. On the Historicity of Jesus: Mark Elliott, Patricia Landy. Retrieved 6 October Jesus Did Not Exist: A Debate Among Atheists.
Casey, Maurice , Jesus: Easter Survey , February , Retrieved August 3, Mercure de France in French. Couchoud, Paul Louis The Creation of Christ: The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church 3 ed. Crossan, John Dominic , Jesus: An Examination of the Evidence.
Religious perspectives on Jesus
Book Tree, , first published Doherty, Earl a , The Jesus Puzzle. Who was Christ Jesus? Doherty, Earl d , The Jesus Puzzle. Apollos of Alexandria and the Early Christian Apostolate". Archived from the original on November 27, Pieces in a Puzzle of Christian Origins". Institute for Higher Critical Studies. The monthly newsletter of the Internet Infidels. Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? Retrieved 5 October Age of Reason Publications.
The End of an Illusion: The Christ and the Spirit. Price" in James K. The Origin of All Religious Worship. Kessinger, , first published Ehrman, Bart [], Lost Christianities: Ehrman, Bart , How Jesus became God: Time to Discard the Christian Story? A Study in Magic and Religion. The Evidence for Jesus.
From Jesus to Christ. Yale University Press, Freke, Timothy ; Gandy, Peter Fox, Robin Lane An Epic History from Homer to Hadrian. Translated by Frederick Stephens. Mythe ou Histoire in French.
Related Posts
An Historian's Review of the Gospels. Grant, Michael []. Jude and 2 Peter.
Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Habermas, Gary; Licona, Michael The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. Letter to a Christian Nation: A Challenge to Faith. God, Revelation, and Authority. God Is Not Great. A century of Theological and Religious Studies in Britain. Oxford University Press, Compelling Evidence For God and the Bible. Harvest House Publishers, A Study of Christian Origins. Johnson, Luke Timothy The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation 3 ed.
Representing Early Christian Differences for the 21st Century". Bloch, ; first published The Whole Rosenberg Story Again? Sheffield Phoenix Press, ; pp. Journal of Religious History.
The Christ myth theory is "the view that the person known as Jesus of Nazareth had no .. According to Doherty, the Jesus of Paul was a divine Son of God, existing in a spiritual realm where he was crucified and resurrected. This mythological. The religious perspectives on Jesus vary among world religions. Jesus' teachings and the Christianity teaches that Jesus is the Messiah (Christ) foretold in the Old Testament . Judaism also holds that Jesus is not the Messiah , arguing that he had not .. Jesus in comparative mythology · Christ myth theory · Jesus in Islam.
Intermountain West Journal of Religious Studies. Bart Ehrman and the Elusive Historical Jesus". Lataster, Raphael 29 March Date and year link Langenbach, Christian G. Actually, Jewish midrash is a very broad genre, and while there are slight parallels between the genre and some passages in the gospels e. Lots of scholars, including Jewish scholars, have written about some of the midrashic elements of the gospels, but rather than centering the narrative around the Old Testament text, the gospels center around the biography of Jesus.
A more apt parallel is drawn between the gospel texts and the ancient Greek biography. Midrash was the well-known way of writing at that time, for sure. It is not because Christianity was not aware of it that it is not so. Christianity integrated the Jewish book into their own theology not the other way round so they totally ignored the Talmud, with which they lost all affinity. Josephus wrote history, not Midrash of course. His history is not unbiased, we know he wrote with the purpose of giving an explanation for the embarrassing position of the Jews in the Judean anto-Rome wars besides other purposes.
This has little to do with Midrash. Myths are real stories represented in the form of myth — and this does change the real stories. Neither does this have to be so in the case of the mother of Jesus unless we are already in a position of wanting to believe so. This, in my opinion, does not make the myth or both myths, if you want a lie. Both are, in a way, true. There are always elements of truth in it, as far as we can see. In the case of Mary though, there is an aspect of borrowing from an older myth or story. The purpose is clear enough: I agree that ancient Greek biography is also full of mythology.
The whole cosmic view at that time, everywhere, was mythical. The whole cosmic view today is just as mythical, or maybe more so, than it was back then. Where are all the stories with different endings? Not to mention, there were powerful enemies of the Gospel early on namely, the Jewish and Roman authorities who, if they could, would have quashed the whole thing by simply producing a body.
Shrines were common for venerated leaders in those days, and if the resurrection were a myth that developed later on, you would expect to find some kind of shrine in the historical record. But we find nothing of the sort. In fact the disciples were totally shocked and surprised by the resurrection. The purpose is clear: Of course, if it is absolutely clear that it would be against all the rules to offer a second chance, it would be unfounded. Nevertheless, history has its examples when even the most ardent limitations turned out less determinate than they were supposed to be.
Some things would never have happened in the course of history unless there was someone who started believing in the impossible the possibility to put an end to legal slavery would be one out of many good examples here. I would agree though, that much depends on a justified way to work with the story. But if this belief in Jesus gives the believer hope and joy, without specific negative effects such as fanaticism, apocalyptic fears, conspiracies of all sorts etc. I then consider it a spiritual guide of some kind.
Jesus was more often than not telling tricky parables and claiming to be God. GJD Sorry for my late answer. But, to be brief and honest: What most reasonable people are doing while others try to look at Jesus from the worst possible side, and still others are looking at Jesus from the best possible side , is trying to make the best possible sense of the stories that we inherited. This is a well reasoned albeit overly aggressive reply. However, I think you largely missed the point of the original article: This is not a proof that the resurrection must have occurred.
However, in case it does not:. Is it an argument from authority? But to say that makes his point invalid is a fallacy fallacy, especially since he uses his authority to support his augment, not to make it. His third supposition is for this same reason: And yet I assume that you agree with my hypothesis due to the overwhelming historical evidence. It carries a special meaning not transferable to other contexts.
Hutchinson lists suppositions or proposed explanations that an outside observer might make after hearing that he believes in the Resurrection, and he uses them as a starting point for further investigation. It is not cognitively dissonant, because it is not scientific to believe that science can explain everything. Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable to believe something that science cannot explain, but which is backed by a body of historical evidence.
Specifically, if one believes that there is a God who created nature not congnitively dissonant , it would makes sense to believe that He could break the laws of nature. The existence and death of Christ are well documented by both Jewish and Greco-Roman historians. Again, this article is not to sway non-Christians to faith. It merely addresses the paradigm that all rigorous scientists must be non-theists — a paradigm which you seem to share. As a scientist, I find that incredibly close minded.
If we must only believe what we can rigorously test and verify, then all of history is out the window. Supernatural explanations are unnecessary. Death is, presumably, unpleasant and scary. Gathering food as a group feeds more people, which is pleasant. Sharing a large cave or tree with others offers increased protection from wildlife and the elements, which is better than being cold, wet, or eaten.
Most importantly, you have the assumption that Christians believe in the resurrection simply from the standpoint of history. Here is the reality — if Jesus was truly resurrected then He is alive today. Therefore, a Christian can interact with Him today as the early disciples and followers interacted.
That is why the essence is not a religion, but a personal relationship with God through Christ. That is what real Christianity is about and the only reason why there are believers years later all over the world. And the reality still is that science is a wonderful tool of acquiring knowledge about the natural world but can say nothing to any existence outside of it.
In terms of knowing Christ, it is simply a question of whether you decide to learn this for yourself or not. Finally a sane voice. Very nice reply I hope in future more people see the truth and accept science. In reality I fit right in. The more exacting the science, the more rigorous the science, the more likely that science was represented in those Bible studies. How about raising everyone from the dead? I miss my brother, and he has missed out on everything since Why did he conveniently disappear before people started telling his story?
The intention of Jesus was to pass this ministry of miracles on to His disciples which we see in Matthew After Christ was resurrected from the dead, He commissioned His disciples to go and proclaim that Jesus is the long awaited Messiah. Which we see in most of the eyewitness accounts recorded in the Gospels Matthew, Luke, and Mark. We have to keep in mind that Christianity is a Messianic movement centered around Jesus.
Jesus was not doing miracles for entertainment, money, or fame. But to confirm what he said about Himself and His stated mission which He outlines in Matthew 5: The goal of Jesus was to fulfill the prophecies previously spoken as the Messiah, that He would be born in Bethlehem Micah 5;2, born of a virgin Isaiah 7: His resurrection Psalm As well as His message The Gospel reaching out to the nations Isaiah Basically Jesus told His disciples who lived with him and were eyewitnesses to His teachings, miracles, death, resurrection and Ascension.
From whence He will return and establish His eternal Kingdom in our midst. Then His disciples went out proclaiming that Jesus is the Messiah, by appealing to prophecies spoken of in the bible and appealing to their own eyewitness accounts stated explicitly by Peter:. And, contrary to what you stated, I do suspect that if you saw someone anyone actually literally raised from the dead, you would recant what you said about it not being a miraculous demonstration of power.
What is he waiting for? The larger issue is that he allowed death in the first place. He watched my brother expire from diabetic ketoacidosis. Even if he raises him from the dead he was negligent and cruel in doing nothing when he died. You get no points for loosening a cord that you put around my neck.
God is good because He created us with free will. We are not good because we use that free will as a weapon against Him and others. And it also puts us in a very weak position to argue that God is not good. Much suffering comes from natural causes, not human choices. Animals who die of burns from lightning strikes in pre-human history or uninhabited places, for example.
As for free will, give God some credit. We could have free will without sin flowing down the generations. It was not necessary for God to have infants be born with birth defects because others sinned. Second, even suffering caused by free will is limited by the power God gave us. God could have set human power lower and reduced suffering dramatically, while still giving us free will.
Several people in the Bible who ask God the same question, and try to hold him to account for his allowance of pain, suffering, evil to exist and in some cases thrive. Job and Habakkuk are two examples. Mary, sister of Lazarus, calls Jesus to defend his decision to not come save her brother Lazarus who he later resurrected …. That sound silly to most people, and I get that. However, the alternative is almost more frightening. We can be skeptical of whether He is fulfilling this promise, but this is the promise seen in the Bible.
On the other hand, we can conceive of a world were pain is simply random and meaningless. There is no point or purpose to pain. Losing people still hurts. Injustice is still wrong, hateful. Then you find that your wife knew the brakes were about to fail but did nothing because she wanted the life insurance money.
This explains your suffering, but has made it far worse. This is our situation. With no god in the picture, suffering is terrible and we humans do all we can to reduce or eliminate it. But with God in the picture, we learn that there is a superbeing who could help us, but instead just watches kids like little Leo Sanchez suffocate.
By my values, that is far worse. Just imagine your EMT showing up at your car accident, but only to watch. He might even weep with you or hold your hand, but does nothing to stop your bleeding or ease your pain. Even if everyone is raised, they still died, many from agonizing conditions. So the issue is not how the story ends, it is whether God could have written a kinder story.
Can a scientist believe in the resurrection? Three hypotheses.
We know he could have because some people suffer far less than others. I firmly believe that all the evil that we see in the world is because we chose to shut God out and do our own thing. Evil does not exist in and of itself, but is merely the absence of Good. We forget that the human beings that God created were extremely powerful creatures, not helpless automatons. By exercising their free will to shut God out, they shut Good out, and what is the absence of Good?
The only way I can understand it is that God created his own rules when he created physical existence, and agreed that his power would be bound by his own rules, and he cannot violate his own commitment to limit his own power. Among those rules was the rule that humans would have absolute free will. He wanted free agents. So He literally had to jump through hoops to save his beloved humans who had voluntarily separated themselves from him without violating the rules which make physical existence and free humans possible and thus destroying his own integrity and the integrity of physical existence itself.
In order to be truly human, the fully human Jesus had to experience the same separation from God that humans experienced because of their rebellion. Thanks for the reply. I think I need to form my thoughts into a more precise question. There are five confounding facts about the resurrection that do NOT depend on divine revelation or supernatural events. They are historical facts as established as any others of ancient history, and in fact better established than most.
And they are agreed to be historical by non-Christian historians as well. The sudden and immediate founding of the Church following the death of the man called Jesus of Nazareth. Many other people also said they saw Jesus risen from the dead, especially Paul and James the brother of Jesus, called James the Just. None recanted even when it would have saved their lives.
Note that none of these facts rely on supernatural authority. They are historical facts documented as well or better than accounts of other ancient figures or events. Stories are the way we cope with the often harsh reality of our world — our brain works like this. Ultimately it is scientifically justified to say we all believe in certain things and we have to an atheist for instance may believe in a greater good, a common sense, a social dependency that outperforms our individualist views. By the way, hypothesis 3 is also bogus: But why mentioning this as if it is part and parcel of an argumentation pro christianity?
Those are great human characteristics which I as a non-theist can fully respect. I just wonder why you guys at Veritas seem to refuse to get as close as possible to the reality of our world. I believe we humans can do much better. As an atheist, I think true atheism means just one thing: You grow out of something and then you need to deal with those things in a new way.
We can connect in a non-exclusivist way of looking at the world, at life, at human longing, hope, compassion etc. When jesus gave his life on the cross , his spirit energy , love light and consciousness , his soul , left his physical body and returned to heaven , jesus was god in a physical body , and god incarnated his spirit energy into the body of jesus , and then returned to heaven. God never left us ,god was in spirit form omnipresent , and around all of us , and when god left the body of jesus , he returned to spirit form and was still around all of us in fact even in the body of jesus god was still all around us in spirit form.
I was reared in the church, with weekly Sunday school, church, fellowship, Bible study, and choir. When I made the break in my senior year of high school, I found the paradigm shift from religious to non-religious to be the most freeing experience of my life. I now see religion as bigoted, judgmental, intolerant, inflexible. Sin is no longer a part of my life.
A single first-person eyewitness report of any events in the life of Jesus has never been found or presented. An untruth could support high or low moral character. The apostles could have sincerely believed falsehoods. Celebrating a myth could be consistent with scientific integrity as long as you admit that the myth is just symbolic.
Of course a literal miracle like the resurrection of Jesus is possible! It is unreasonable to believe today that Jesus came back to life in the first century. They made the same mistakes in interpretation which you have made. Besides, most scientists and philosophers in the modern world are atheists or agnostics. Reason and science together show that Jesus almost certainly did not come back to life. The resurrection was never impossible!
What is the historical evidence that Jesus Christ lived and died? | World news | The Guardian
If God came to Earth and caused a person to come back to life in front of a mixed crowd under controlled conditions, that would be one hell of a demonstration. But there is no reason to believe that something like this has ever happened. But science can demonstrate the reproducible pattern of people dying and not coming back to life.
And so we are entitled to believe that probably nobody in the history of humanity has ever come back to life. And if you claim that somebody is able to cause somebody else to come back to life, then give us a demonstration under controlled conditions. But so far nobody has presented evidence sufficient to believe that any has actually occurred. They may have occurred, but it is unreasonable to think they have.
The evidential bar for a miracle should be set higher than for a non-miracle. This has nothing to do with the hypothesis that Jesus came back to life. Early indoctrination is not the only explanation why a scientist might believe fanciful ideas. There are so many scenarios in which evidence could be provided which would be convincing to me, but here is just one:. I recently have been reading John, and chapters are very interesting…it starts with the story of the feeding of the 5, Most of these are normal Jewish families who heard about some guy who could do crazy stuff and came to see.
So the next morning they basically chase him around the lake, and ask for more miracles. And to be honest, if Jesus is who he says he is, he could have done so much more…i mean, so many incredible things. So I begin to wonder if that is not really the point of miracles at all.
Actually, it makes more sense in the recorded narrative of the Gospels to think that miracles are not performed to prove power, but to reveal his character, desires, purposes. All Jesus ever does is heal people. No fancy displays, no jedi-style combat skills. His message and his choice of exercising power are consistent—restoration. Yes, I see the pattern. However, if he were divine he would have performed miracles frequently, regardless if he were asked.
If Jesus were divine, he would frequently perform miracles to validate his divinity and his message, with and without a request, and the documentation would be outstanding. God would not be incompetent. Not only that, but either he or God would be performing miracles today to you, me, and others. That drawer is either empty, or jammed. As an atheist, my problem is not the fact that people so many, too many!
What others believe is none of my business: How about taking religion out of public life? Take it out of schools, let the kids grow up first and decide for themselves. Why do you abuse, corrupt their minds, huh? Are they old enough to consent? How hypocrits can you be? And one more thing. They reported He talked with them, walked among them, broke bread with them. Throws my sanity into question.
I get tired of people trying to make reasonable statements sound unreasonable by changing the language originally used. Millions of scientists believe in the Resurrection? Evidence for this claim? I find it rather bold. When we look through a telescope at distant objects, we see them not as they are, but as they were. Similarly, distant observers looking at Earth would see us in the past, perhaps before we came to be. What we are observe are not objects or events, but memories radiating from those objects and events. Every moment, our thoughts, our actions, our movements, our history, perturbes space, creates a signal that is essentially uploading information into space itself.
Someone five light years away can see us as we were five years ago. Between us and them, the entire five years is stored, intact, and radiating outward at the speed of light. Only an observer who is everywhere present, ecompassing all of space, can access this information in its entirety in order to reconstitute it much the way a lens reconstitutes a real image of an object. Coming in late to this.
Historical Christ, according to my reading is more than a character in some fiction. That is based on faith. And yes, figuring that science explains the non-existence of the resurrection is also based on faith. With quantum physics, we now know such things are theoretically possible. Spontaneous generation once was deemed science. Yes, kill an organism and all-known science says that organism is forever dead.
Well, explain the existence of life then in a sterile universe. We might think we know what happened, but there surely are some mysteries left. No I am not sprouting Creationism, but to suggest that all believers are superstitious and unlearned fools is rather insulting.
- A Christian Library: Volume 23 (John Wesleys Christian Library);
- Christ myth theory;
- Death of an Activist.
- Pope Leo X - Wikiquote!
- Jesus in comparative mythology.
- Navigation menu!
- Pope Leo X.
Whatever gets you through the day huh? March 25, Can a scientist believe in the resurrection? What to Read Next: March 27, at 4: March 27, at 5: March 27, at 6: March 28, at 3: March 27, at 7: March 27, at March 28, at 2: March 27, at 9: March 28, at 4: March 28, at March 28, at 1: March 28, at 6: March 28, at 7: March 28, at 8: March 28, at 9: March 30, at March 29, at 2: April 1, at 8: April 1, at March 31, at 2: March 31, at April 1, at 7: June 16, at 5: April 17, at 1: April 19, at 8: March 29, at 9: Can a scientist believe in the resurrection?
We're here for you - St Paul's and Gnadenberg. March 29, at March 29, at 1: March 30, at 2: March 31, at 8: Aidan's Anglican Church Parkdale. March 30, at 1: September 6, at Mind your Maker says: April 2, at 3: April 2, at 7: April 2, at 8: April 2, at 9: April 2, at April 23, at August 9, at 8: April 17, at 3: April 5, at 6: April 7, at 1: April 17, at 6: April 19, at April 7, at 4: April 8, at April 8, at 7: May 21, at March 30, at 8: March 31, at 7: March 31, at 9: March 31, at 1: April 1, at 1: April 17, at 8: April 19, at 3: April 7, at 3: