The Christian tradition from earliest times has affirmed God as both transcendent ("more than the universe") and immanent ("within the universe"). The idea of God somehow creating the universe and residing "outside" to come in from time to time to effect the universe is reinforced by Christian notions of prayer and adoration to some Thing sepatate from us, possibly "above" us.

This "supernatural theism" has become more and more problematic: The more transcendant God is seen to be, the less immanent. Both terms are now seen to be mutually exclusive opposites. Christian orthodoxy upholds the view that "God" is a personal god
that is both external and superior to the world. And it is this definition which most atheistic thinkers refer to in order to reject Christianity.

Thomas Jefferson, a deist who accepted rational explanations in the Bible (no miracles, etc.) was at loggerheads with the orthodox and the "supernaturalists" who argued that miracles were supernatural interventions from God. But both Jefferson and his opposers saw God as "out there" and not actively involved in the day to day.

Jefferson used scissors and paste to cut up a Bible and produce his own gospel of Jesus, which is still in print ("The Jefferson Bible"). He once wrote that it was easy to separate Jesus' ethical teachings from the bitter, often badgering cant placed into his mouth by the early church--like finding the "diamonds in the dunghill."

In this respect Jefferson was one of the first biblical scholars searching out the historical figure from ecclesiastical trappings.

"The church's meddlings have caused good men to reject the whole in disgust," he once wrote to a friend.

I'm late getting into this conversation, and for that I apologise.

"Jesus was a man".

That is not a fact, that is an opinion, and an contradictory one at that. Conventional Christian belief states that Jesus was entirely human, yet equally divine. That makes as much sense as my saying that I am entirely human, and entirely Cordulegaster Boltonii [sic] (Golden Ringed Dragonfly). "Jesus was a man" in the Christian sense is actually a statement of faith.

"Jesus is the Son of God".

Yup. That's a statement of faith. Not one supported by anything Jesus is alleged to have said according to the Bible, but still a statement of faith.

"Heracles is the son of God". If you believe in Zeus the Champion that is (I'm quoting Zeus' title from a letter by Julian the Apostate). Hey! That's a statement of faith also.

I was just joking. The main thing is that GOD is a creation of man, an ideal that man has the perfect individual. This individual should be all GOOD, All knowing, All powerful. The bible was created to describe this ideal. It was written by men to describe their highest aspirations and dreams. This being would be able to do stuff through will alone (Faith). Wow, so I have a hero I want to be like and emulate!!! Well, all of these religions now tell me that to get to know this hero, I have to do as they say. Religious organizations just want power and influence because they think they are justified in their actions.


[This message has been edited by Kharakov (edited January 24, 2001).]

aikido7,

You may, if you wish, start with the premise that Jesus was a man who really existed, but that does not make it a fact. If you insist that it is, then by your logic, any premise can be a fact, and I'll start with the premise that Heracles was a man, who was son of a god, and who upon dying shed his mortal flesh to become a god also. Now I'll state that these are facts.

I'll wager you would argue with this, but in fact these statements are no more, or at least as, depending on how you want to view it, absurd as your own facts.

What a obvious post, Let me know when you have something new to say....

There are other,independent and (secular,mostly)
historical accounts-- more or less contemporary with the gospel accounts--of Jesus' temporal existence. There are not many of them, but they are there to be evaluated. An intersting take on the "non-existence of Jesus" can be found in the writings of G.A.Wells. There is also a website under the name "The Jesus Puzzle," but I cannot recall the URL.

"Depending on how you WANT to view it!"

That sounded sacrastic. Did you mean it that way?

Please remember, what is obvious to one is not so to another.

Respectfully,
aikido7

Aikido7,

Contrary to what you think, there are no secular accounts of Jesus Christ written by those who were contemporaries of his. You may be referring to the passage in Josephus, but he was not a contemporary of Jesus. Furthermore this passage was not known to the early Christians, who were nontheless familiar with his work. One of them, I think it was Origen, even explicitly stated that Josephus never acknowledged that Jesus was the Messiah, which means one of two things. Either Origen was a liar, or the passage in Josephus didn't exist at the time, which means it was inserted later.

More than this, none of the major occurrences in Jesus life have any contemporary references. History is entirely silent on the darkness that occured on Jesus' death, the mass raising of the dead at the same time is never mentioned; the mass slaughter allegedly ordered by Herod is never mentioned either.

Now I could have missed some genuinely contemporary account, in which case I would be extremely interested to read them if you would care to supply them.

You are correct; But I did write "near contemporary."

You may be referring to the passage in Josephus, but he was not a contemporary of Jesus. Furthermore this passage was not known to the early Christians, who were nontheless familiar with his work. One of them, I think it was Origen, even explicitly stated that Josephus never acknowledged that Jesus was the Messiah, which means one of two things. Either Origen was a liar, or the passage in Josephus didn't exist at the time, which means it was inserted later. [/QUOTE]

The earliest manuscripts of the relevant passage in Josephus do not allude to Jesus' Messiahship. Additions found in later manuscripts are obviously theologically-driven redactions.

More than this, none of the major occurrences in Jesus life have any contemporary references. History is entirely silent on the darkness that occured on Jesus' death, the mass raising of the dead at the same time is never mentioned; the mass slaughter allegedly ordered by Herod is never mentioned either. [/QUOTE]

You seem to have already made up your mind about what kind of documents the gospels are before you ever open them. In the post-modern world, we tend to be "fact fundamentalists." The gospels are not CNN history or A&E Biography as many sometimes understand them to be. They are faith documents. They are a complex blend of history and haigiography.

The darkness and the resurrections that occur on the day of Jesus' death testify to his uniqueness in the minds of the gospel writers. They are theology--not history.


Now I could have missed some genuinely contemporary account, in which case I would be extremely interested to read them if you would care to supply them.[/QUOTE]

Again, perhaps I quibble: I wrote "near contemporary." I meant it that way.