• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Trump should be leading, not lying.

Petty moves from a petty man.

Yeah, with this crowd one never knows.

Sitting here in limbo waiting for the dice to roll

When they say they are pro-life, they do not mean yours.

“woke” is the new caravan.

“The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.”

Jack be nimble, jack be quick, hurry up and indict this prick.

Republicans: The threats are dire, but my tickets are non-refundable!

Fear or fury? The choice is ours.

Republicans in disarray!

Innocent people do not delay justice.

Usually wrong but never in doubt

So it was an October Surprise A Day, like an Advent calendar but for crime.

There is no compromise when it comes to body autonomy. You either have it or you do not.

Thanks to your bullshit, we are now under siege.

Never entrust democracy to any process that requires republicans to act in good faith.

Take hopelessness and turn it into resilience.

The willow is too close to the house.

Republicans cannot even be trusted with their own money.

This must be what justice looks like, not vengeful, just peaceful exuberance.

I’m starting to think Jesus may have made a mistake saving people with no questions asked.

When you’re in more danger from the IDF than from Russian shelling, that’s really bad.

A democracy can’t function when people can’t distinguish facts from lies.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / God in the News

God in the News

by John Cole|  January 4, 20063:58 pm| 50 Comments

This post is in: Politics, Popular Culture

FacebookTweetEmail

Two stories of note. First, Intelligent Design is officially dead in Dover:

The Dover Area School District’s policy of treating the concept as an alternative to evolution was officially relegated to the history books Tuesday night. Newly elected board members unanimously rescinded the policy on a voice vote and with no discussion beforehand. A judge ruled it unconstitutional two weeks earlier.

“I will feel comfortable again teaching what I’d always felt comfortable teaching,” Miller said.

A different group of school board members had been in control when the policy was approved in October 2004. The policy required that a statement be read that said Darwin’s theory is “not a fact” and has inexplicable “gaps.” It also referred students to an “intelligent-design” book, “Of Pandas and People.”

Eight families sued, and on December 20, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III sided with their argument that the concept of “intelligent design” — which attributes the existence of complex organisms to an unidentified intelligent cause — is religious, not scientific. The judge said that violated the establishment clause in the First Amendment.

“This is it,” new school board president Bernadette Reinking said, indicating the vote was final and the case was closed.

Insert your own ‘survival of the fittest’ quip.

In other news, the proverbial you-know-what is about to hit the fan in Italy (thanks for the tip, NJ):

An Italian court is tackling Jesus — and whether the Roman Catholic Church may be breaking the law by teaching that he existed 2,000 years ago.

The case pits against each other two men in their 70s, who are from the same central Italian town and even went to the same seminary school in their teenage years.

The defendant, Enrico Righi, went on to become a priest writing for the parish newspaper. The plaintiff, Luigi Cascioli, became a vocal atheist who, after years of legal wrangling, is set to get his day in court later this month.

“I started this lawsuit because I wanted to deal the final blow against the Church, the bearer of obscurantism and regression,” Cascioli told Reuters.

Cascioli says Righi, and by extension the whole Church, broke two Italian laws. The first is “Abuso di Credulita Popolare” (Abuse of Popular Belief) meant to protect people against being swindled or conned. The second crime, he says, is “Sostituzione di Persona,” or impersonation.

“The Church constructed Christ upon the personality of John of Gamala,” Cascioli claimed, referring to the 1st century Jew who fought against the Roman army.

Courts deciding whether Jesus existed- that would go over well here in the heartland. How do you say ‘activist judge’ in Italian?

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « The Mining Tragedy
Next Post: Pet Blogging »

Reader Interactions

50Comments

  1. 1.

    sean

    January 4, 2006 at 4:26 pm

    How do you say ‘activist judge’ in Italian?

    Alito??

  2. 2.

    Cyrus

    January 4, 2006 at 4:48 pm

    So Cascioli is suing the current Church for the actions committed by its incarnation at a time when the current legal system didn’t exist. If this doesn’t get laughed out of court, then it sets the precedent for a pretty big class action lawsuit against the Church by all Sephardic Jews for the Inquisition. But maybe they’ll pass the buck to Spain… And does Cascioli have any evidence of a conspiracy to deliberately hide the truth about this John of Gamala, or is he suing them for making a mistake in good faith?

    OK, I count two unintentional puns in there. Anyone see any I missed?

    And

    sean Says:

    How do you say ‘activist judge’ in Italian?

    Alito??

    I should really stop coming here at work. I get strange looks when I break out chortling like that.

  3. 3.

    srv

    January 4, 2006 at 4:56 pm

    Courts deciding whether Jesus existed- that would go over well here in the heartland.

    Me thinks he has a better case in Italy:

    Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts, Alito – Catholic
    Ginsberg, Breyer – Jewish
    Souter – Episcopalian
    Stevens – Protestant

  4. 4.

    Rob

    January 4, 2006 at 4:57 pm

    I have been doing a little reading about Historical Jesus (HJ). I had always assumed that it was historical fact.

    I’m still fairly new to looking at this, but what I have found is NO references to Jesus except the bible. All the people in the bible that talk about him never actually met him. I may have so far only looked at biased writing. But that is what I have read so far.

  5. 5.

    gator

    January 4, 2006 at 5:01 pm

    No wonder the founding fathers thought that separation of church and state is a good idea.

  6. 6.

    Fersboo

    January 4, 2006 at 5:08 pm

    No wonder the founding fathers thought that separation of church and state is a good idea.

    Shouldn’t that be, No wonder the founding fathers thought that the State will not establish a State religion or prohibit its citizens from worshiping the religion or thier choice?

    …Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…
    Establishment and free-exercise clauses of the First Amendment

  7. 7.

    jg

    January 4, 2006 at 5:10 pm

    Fersboo Says:

    No wonder the founding fathers thought that separation of church and state is a good idea.

    Shouldn’t that be, No wonder the founding fathers thought that the State will not establish a State religion or prohibit its citizens from worshiping the religion or thier choice?

    …Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…
    Establishment and free-exercise clauses of the First Amendment

    Shouldn’t that be that the founding fathers didn’t think a church should have power of government.

  8. 8.

    Davebo

    January 4, 2006 at 5:14 pm

    It’s all a bit silly, but especially the story out of Italy.

    But, even as an avowed Athiest, I would be willing to attend every Sunday if Jesus can just assist in a Longhorn victory tonight.

  9. 9.

    Fersboo

    January 4, 2006 at 5:15 pm

    Shouldn’t that be that the founding fathers didn’t think a church should have power of government.

    Pretend I am from Missouri and SHOW ME.

  10. 10.

    Pooh

    January 4, 2006 at 5:27 pm

    “respecting an establishment of religion” certainly gets us pretty far. Especially when the next part says “Or preventing free exercise thereof”. You can neither promote nor denigrate religion through the government. I’ll promise not to denigrate if you stop trying to promote.

    But theocracy is fine as long as you ride with the cool kids.

  11. 11.

    Pb

    January 4, 2006 at 5:43 pm

    Fersboo,

    Notes on the Founding Fathers and the Separation of Church and State

  12. 12.

    jg

    January 4, 2006 at 5:43 pm

    Fersboo Says:

    Shouldn’t that be that the founding fathers didn’t think a church should have power of government.

    Pretend I am from Missouri and SHOW ME.

    Or I could pretend your from Missouri and ignore you. ‘I’ll be dead and buried before I recognize Missoura!’ (Who said it?)

    Anyway show you what? IMO the lines you quoted come from a need to prevent a governemnt that is run by the church. The same governmental structure they were all running away from when they set out for the new world. The government as an institution must be neutral on the subject of religion.

  13. 13.

    Shygetz

    January 4, 2006 at 6:01 pm

    Pretend I am from Missouri and SHOW ME.

    *sigh* Just look. Google “Separation of Church and State.” You’ll see that Thomas Jefferson first said that when he was president. You’ll see that Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, which was passed unanimously in Congress and signed by the President in 1797 without any controversy (and thus became the law of the land), states (in part) that “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” You’ll note that Ben Franklin’s motion during the Constitutional Convention to have clergy pray at the meetings was voted down! And you’ll see that the founding fathers were deists and heretics of the worst kind, with Jefferson having the gall to redact all portions of the gospels that referred to miracles, and to distribute this secularized moralistic text to incoming members of Congress.

  14. 14.

    Fersboo

    January 4, 2006 at 6:05 pm

    I have yet to see one example of any “Church” having the power of government within the United States. Have I missed something? Don’t we still hold elections? If we do, is there a requirement that those running must belong to said “Church” and be in good standing?

    Was England run by the Church or was the Church run by the King? Many of the colonists emigrated to the New World to escape religious persecution. The kind of religious persecution of the variety of State Sponsored religion; you know Catholic v. Protestant.

    Again, provide me with examples of where the State has attempted or succeeded in establishing a State religion or has prohibited or attempted to prohibit the free exercise of a religion.

  15. 15.

    jg

    January 4, 2006 at 6:12 pm

    I have yet to see one example of any “Church” having the power of government within the United States.

    And you won’t because of the establishment clause you quoted.

    What’s your point?

  16. 16.

    The Other Steve

    January 4, 2006 at 6:16 pm

    I’m still fairly new to looking at this, but what I have found is NO references to Jesus except the bible. All the people in the bible that talk about him never actually met him. I may have so far only looked at biased writing. But that is what I have read so far.

    Tacitus and Josephus, who were Roman authors mention him. But they too were not contemporary, and may just have been repeating stories. Tacitus was not kind and merely mentioned the Christians started from Pilate killing someone named Christus. Josephus is more flattering, bu there is suspicion that what we have supposedly written by Josephus may have been a forgery.

    As to the lawsuit. If you follow the evidence presented by Holy Blood, Holy Grail(the book which I think is the foundation of the DaVinci Code), they argue that Jesus may very well have been the Eleazar who led at Masada. Perhaps instead he was John of Gamala?

    Regardless, while such a thing may matter to the Catholics, it really is not that important to true Christians, for what is signifigant is the word and that is beyond dispute.

  17. 17.

    Gary Sugar

    January 4, 2006 at 6:18 pm

    I may have so far only looked at biased writing.

    I won’t argue whether Arnold Toynbee was biased or unbiased about Christianity; but there’s a long article on this in his Study of History.

  18. 18.

    Jody

    January 4, 2006 at 6:22 pm

    All the people in the bible that talk about him [Jesus] never actually met him. I may have so far only looked at biased writing. But that is what I have read so far.

    Huh?

    I guess you haven’t made it to the Gospels of Matthew or John yet. Would’ve seemed like places to start to me.

    Now 1 Peter and Jude (a brother of Jesus) come a little later, so perhaps you’re yet to get there. Then, there’s that other book most likely by a brother of Jesus – James (for whom I am named – Jody is a nickname – long story) and even if James the brother of Jesus didn’t write James the other candidates all knew Jesus)

    I did leave out 2 Peter out of the list as it’s the only one which I believe has any significant doubts to the authorship. But that doesn’t change my bewilderment…

  19. 19.

    rayabacus

    January 4, 2006 at 6:23 pm

    I’m still fairly new to looking at this, but what I have found is NO references to Jesus except the bible. All the people in the bible that talk about him never actually met him. I may have so far only looked at biased writing. But that is what I have read so far.

    Read “Jesus the Man” by Australian Barbara Thiering for relevance to Jesus as an individual. Also see “Jesus of the Acopalypse” also by Thiering and “The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception” by Baigent and Leigh.

    As an Atheist of many years, I highly recommend these books for historical content of the times and the political infighting between Jesus and the Church and the tribes of Israel.

  20. 20.

    The Other Steve

    January 4, 2006 at 6:25 pm

    I have yet to see one example of any “Church” having the power of government within the United States.

    Yup, because of the Separation of Church and State codifyied in the 1st amendment.

    Thank you, Mr. Obvious.

    Are you now going to claim you are being oppressed because the facts don’t support your statements? That would be the typical behavior of a Bushite.

  21. 21.

    Tim F.

    January 4, 2006 at 6:27 pm

    provide me with examples of where the State has attempted or succeeded in establishing a State religion or has prohibited or attempted to prohibit the free exercise of a religion.

    Read my AFA link. Service academies are an extension of the State.

  22. 22.

    jg

    January 4, 2006 at 6:29 pm

    Regardless, while such a thing may matter to the Catholics, it really is not that important to true Christians, for what is signifigant is the word and that is beyond dispute.

    That makes no sense. Why would only Catholics be concerned if Christ actually lived? Is this some weird way to get out of the conflict with the whole thou shalt worship no gods before me conundrum? If you think Jesus ain’t that important because truly you worship God then you are a muslim.

  23. 23.

    Zifnab

    January 4, 2006 at 6:30 pm

    But, even as an avowed Athiest, I would be willing to attend every Sunday if Jesus can just assist in a Longhorn victory tonight.

    Go Horns!

  24. 24.

    Zifnab

    January 4, 2006 at 6:36 pm

    I have yet to see one example of any “Church” having the power of government within the United States.

    My god? Are you serious? You don’t think that James Dobeson, Jerry Fallwell, or Pat Robertson have any political sway on this nation? You don’t think they have Congressmen in their pockets? You don’t think their campaign contributions have any effect on legislation? That their Justice Sundays have no impact on court nominees? That their endorsements don’t make or break Presidencies?

    Perhaps laws against sodomy and gay marriage stem from mainstream secular values and “faith based initatives” are commonly confused misnomers.

    …
    …
    …

    Seriously. Give me a break.

  25. 25.

    The Captain of the O

    January 4, 2006 at 8:59 pm

    http://www.thegodmovie.com/

  26. 26.

    Ancient Purple

    January 4, 2006 at 9:35 pm

    Here is another “God in the news” story… well… kinda.

    OKLAHOMA CITY – An executive committee member of the Southern Baptist Convention was arrested on a lewdness charge for propositioning a plainclothes policeman outside a hotel, police said.

    And then, the money quote:

    “I was set up. I was in the area pastoring to police.”

    Is that what they are calling oral sex these days?

  27. 27.

    capelza

    January 4, 2006 at 9:41 pm

    Haha…I just read about the OK SBC pastor elsewhere..seems they impounded his 2005 Mercedes, too.

    Jeez, when I was a little girl growing up in SW MO, the Baptist preachers drove Buick Regals.

  28. 28.

    demimondian

    January 4, 2006 at 9:47 pm

    when I was a little girl growing up in SW MO, the Baptist preachers drove Buick Regals

    When I was a teenager coming of age in NW AR, the Baptist preachers drove the cheapest jalopies money could buy — until their church took off.

  29. 29.

    capelza

    January 4, 2006 at 9:53 pm

    demimondian, where at in NW AR? Anywhere around Berryville or Eureka Springs? Spent summers in Grandview of all places.

    Yeah, I guess you are right, pretty much. My grandfather was a SB preacher, but he was one of the good guys. He bult more than one church, but when he got the Buick Regal..it was a step up for him.

  30. 30.

    smijer

    January 4, 2006 at 10:14 pm

    Jody…

    The author of Matthew makes no claim to having known Jesus in life. Nor does the author of John. Neither Gospel indicates who might have written it in any discernible way. Claims of authorship made by the church are little more than guesswork – and in the case of Matthew, very uninformed guesswork.

    The author of 1st Peter makes a claim to apostleship, but that claim is not settled conclusively, and may at least as well be false as true.

    The author of Jude claims to be a brother of James – probably meaning James the brother of Christ, but not necessarily. Jude is thought to be pseudepiraphic as well.

    In fact, there are no writings in or out of the Bible that can boast a strong a claim of authorship by someone who knew Jesus in life. On this point, Rob is closer to being correct.

    That doesn’t necessarily imply that Jesus never existed… I personally believe that Christianity actually does refer to a person who existed historically – although I believe that, like Paul Harvey and Albert Einstein now, this person said and did many fewer things than were attributed to him later.

  31. 31.

    Rob

    January 5, 2006 at 12:11 am

    I guess you haven’t made it to the Gospels of Matthew or John yet. Would’ve seemed like places to start to me.

    What I have read indicates that Mark was written before Matthew, and was written in 70AD.

    What in Matthew indicates he actually knew Jesus?

    Philo Judaeus 20BC-50AD lived in Jerusalem and was a well known and prolific historian, yet he never mentions Jesus. I have found no evidence that anyone in the historical record mentioned Jesus, it the time he lived.

    Please refer me to any writing, not from the bible, that references Jesus.

  32. 32.

    BadTux

    January 5, 2006 at 12:22 am

    The web site “Jesus Never Existed” claims that “Jesus” was a common name in Judea for wanna-be prophet-priests, and that a Jesus who was part of the Nazarene sect (an offshoot of the Essene sect) was most likely the inspiration for the Biblical Jesus, noting that early drafts of the Gospels in the original Greek refer to “Jesus the Nazarene” rather than “Jesus of Nazareth” (apparently there was no such town as Nazareth until the Christians created one to match the Gospels). Note that the Gospels were written over 100 years after the supposed death of Jesus Christ, by people who never saw Jesus in real life, based upon oral traditions that had been passed down over the years, so it’s not as if they are themselves viable history texts. They are, at best, a documentary of a philosophy that developed over the course of decades amongst an offshoot sect of the Jews that eventually broke away from Judaism to be the largest religion in the world after Paul had his revelation that “Hey,we could convert *everybody*, not just Jews!”.

    The actual physical existence (or not) of Jesus is personally a matter of profound disinterest to me, to tell you the truth. Either you accept the Gospels as a text describing a philosophy to guide your life by, or you don’t. Your beliefs in the physical existance of Jesus Christ have little to do with whether you philosophically accept the teachings of the Gospels, as the numb-nuts at Westboro Baptist Church (of “God Hates Fags” fame) go to show (Jesus taught “Love thy neighbor”, He didn’t teach “Go parade outside your neighbor’s house with offensive signs while hurling curses at them”). While personally I believe that this would be a far better world if we all lived life according to the teachings of Jesus, the sad and simple fact is that even the majority of those who believe there was an actual historical Jesus and profess to be Christians don’t follow His teachings. That, not any bogus history issues, should be the biggest cause of concern amongst true Christians.

    – Badtux the Christian Penguin

  33. 33.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    January 5, 2006 at 12:39 am

    I really didn’t think this thread would start a debate about the Seperation of Church and State…

    First of all, there is absolutely no mention of “God”, whatsoever in the US Constitution. Now, there was the mention of a “creator” in the Declaration of Independence, but the Declaration is not the law of the land. Furthermore, the fact that the founders purposely left out the mention of a creator in the Constitution, after mentioning one in the Declaration is telling.

    Now to the first amendment.

    The first amendment reads…

    Amendment I

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    Notice the first words in this amendment. It states : “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” That means there shouldn’t be any law that respects the establishment of religion at all. Many argue that this means only that there should be no state religion, unfortunately for them, they are mistaken.

    If that is what the founding fathers meant then they would have wrote “no law respecting THE establishment of A religion.” It does not say that. Therefore the amendment means: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion [in general]”.

    That means, not one single law that derives from religion. Thus, we are a secular nation.

    There is also concrete evidence that the US was not even founded on Christian principles. It is called the Treaty of Tripoli. The treaty states: “As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

    This treaty was written under Washington’s presidency, and approved by the Senate under John Adams.

    As of right now, we are a Christian “country” (since a majority of the population identifies as Christian) but We are, and always have been, a Secular Nation. It is just a damn shame that people have been violating our Constitution for so long.

  34. 34.

    Jody

    January 5, 2006 at 1:30 am

    A discussion of the authorship of Matthew is here. (And yes, it discusses the issues brought up)

    Nut graf:

    Although there are some difficulties with Matthean authorship, none of them presents major obstacles, in spite of some scholars calling Matthean authorship “impossible.” On the positive side, the universal external evidence which seems to lack motivation for the choice of Matthew (as opposed to any other apostle), coupled with the subtle internal evidence, makes the traditional view still the most plausible one.

    A discussion of the authorship of Mark is here.

    Nut graf for Rob:

    In sum, Mark should be dated before the production of Luke’s gospel which we date no later than 62 CE. Sometime in the mid-50s is most probable.

    A discussion of the authorship of John is here

    In conclusion, although John’s Gospel is, as one author put it, “a maverick gospel,”22 the traditional view of Johannine authorship is still the most reasonable hypothesis. The four strongest reasons, it seems, are (1) the strong external evidence, (2) the most plausible identification of the beloved disciple (coupled with the absence of John’s name in this gospel), (3) the authoritative independence from the synoptic tradition, and (4) the amazing pre-70 topographical accuracy. Perhaps the reasons for fighting so hard against authenticity have to do with the theological import that must be wrestled with if this gospel is indeed a historically reliable document.

    A discussion of the authorship of Jude is here.

    Nut graf:

    In conclusion, there is no reasonable doubt that Jude, the brother of the Lord, was the author of this epistle.

    A discussion of the authorship of 1 Peter is here

    Nut graf:

    We may summarize this discussion on authorship by pointing out that in the last twenty years some scholars have argued that 1 Peter was produced as a means of mediation or hybrid between Pauline and Jerusalem Christianity, or to promote a more universal Christianity by invoking the support of one of Paul’s coworkers for a letter by Peter.33 Once again, there is an element of truth in these theories. But the most satisfactory solution is that Peter did intend to make this letter look Pauline. Judging by the rash of critical essays on 1 Peter, it is obvious that he accomplished his task!

    Also I note that no one responded to James. However, here too is a discussion of the authorship of James.

    It is our conviction that the traditional view, that James, the Lord’s brother, authored this epistle, has the least amount of internal problems. And in light of the unanimous (though admittedly not widespread) patristic testimony for Jacobean authorship,58 coupled with the lack of virtually any other view for the first eighteen centuries of the church, this is still the most plausible view.

    BadTux:

    1) Read through the links I just supplied and you’ll see a discussion of dates when the books were written. For all the books I cited, all were published before 100 AD and thus all were within 70 years of Jesus’s death. If you don’t believe me on the date, at least consider the date given by Rob in the comment that precedes yours (which puts its publication within 40 years of Jesus’s death).

    2) The physical resurrection of Christ is very important aspect of Christianity and is of course premised on the physical existence of Jesus.

  35. 35.

    Tulkinghorn

    January 5, 2006 at 2:27 am

    The only sense we are a Christian country is that a significant revival took place in the 1830s – the Great Awakening. Of course certain skeptics like Samuel Clemens, and later, Ambrose Bierce show that a strong streak in opposition to the rightiousness has always been there even when Christian Political Correctness became the norm by the late 19th century.

    Given this established historical fact, why to wingnutters go on and on about how Christian the founders were? At best they were deists, at least as far as the founders that mattered.

    It says something of the quality of those founders that modern religionists shamelessly try to coopt them. It says something less flattering about those religionists that they are making profoundly dishonest arguments, but that is standard practice for them, whether talking about evolution, health policy, or the actual content of the scriptures.

  36. 36.

    BadTux

    January 5, 2006 at 3:46 am

    Erm, quoting Bible.com as your source for the notion that the Gospels were written within 70 years of Jesus’s putative death isn’t exactly going to an unbiased source. How about quoting some actual, like, *HISTORIANS*?! Given the variety of internal and external evidence, it seems apparent that the Gospels were written after the post-135AD destruction of what remained of Jewish Israel.

    But in the end it does not matter whether there was an actual physical Jesus and an actual physical resurrection. It’s sort of like that whole evolution thingy. Evolution is science. The fact that evolution occurs and appears to be the most plausible scientific explanation for the existence of life on Earth is a matter of science, not of faith, and of supreme disinterest for someone interested in the Bible as a guide to faith rather than as a history book. If more people were interested in the Gospels as a guide to faith — as a guide to a religious philosophy as to how to live one’s life — the world would be a much better place.

    – Badtux the Christian Penguin

  37. 37.

    TM Lutas

    January 5, 2006 at 7:39 am

    Deriving the existence of Jesus from non-biblical historical documentation should, to be fair, be normalized for his social status of the time. How easy is it to find documentation of any random jewish carpenter of the era? How about those claiming to be prophets for approximately the duration of Jesus’ claimed career? How about minor rebels of the level of Jesus’ rebellion against provincial authority. If you look at it objectively, the answers have to come back that it would be highly unusual for any mention to be made of him at the time. In fact, unusual would be putting it mildly.

    As far as contemporaneous Roman historians and social commentors go, Jesus was a nonentity. It is only once his movement took root that it is reasonable that the social effects caused by christianity would draw attention. It might be reasonable to pick up christianity and draw the early growth curve to get an idea when it was started to see whether it fits the right time frame but historically documentation of a figure that wouldn’t have normally been documented contemporaneously is unfairly setting the bar high for christianity.

    As for real christians only needing the Word, who wrote the Word? Who decided that the Didache was out and Corinthians was in? The Bible’s creation is not wrapped in mystery except to those for whom the existence of Tradition with a capital ‘T’ is anathema. The existence of bishops is biblical as is apostolic succession (see Acts). Unless you want to boss God around and say he changed his mind about the miracles and wonders he has promised, the succession holds to today.

    Finally, I find claims of monolithic belief or disbelief on the part of the founders of the US to be, well, silly. Can anybody name a Congress that was monolithic about theology? I doubt that the Constitutional convention is the only exception. They held various views, some of them quite christian. What united them was the belief that persuasion and not the cudgel of the State was the way of resolving those differences.

  38. 38.

    Gary Sugar

    January 5, 2006 at 8:59 am

    “Jesus” was a common name in Judea

    Jesus is the Greek for the Hebrew name otherwise translated Joshua. Bible translators use the Greek name to distinguish the Christ figure from so many other biblical Joshuas.

  39. 39.

    BIRDZILLA

    January 5, 2006 at 9:27 am

    Two storoes DUMB IN DOVER and IDIOTIC IN ITALY those in dover must have those dumb fish with the stupid legs on them on their cars and in italy they are risking something perhapes a nice hailsorm to kock the judge over the head and get some common sense into his thick noggin

  40. 40.

    ImJohnGalt

    January 5, 2006 at 9:45 am

    Deriving the existence of Jesus from non-biblical historical documentation should, to be fair, be normalized for his social status of the time. How easy is it to find documentation of any random jewish carpenter of the era?

    Very difficult. I went to 5551212.com and didn’t find a single listing for Jesus [no last name] in Nazareth.

    Also, while I found a bunch of Jesus’ at Classmates.com, I couldn’t find the one of virgin birth.

    Finally, not one person linked to me on friendster had Jesus in the network.

    I therefore conclude that he never existed.

  41. 41.

    chef

    January 5, 2006 at 10:44 am

    Even the Young Hegelians, using historical method to de-mythologize the synoptic gospels, did not doubt the existence of an historicial Jesus. Flavius Josephus etc. were proof enough for them. Bruno Bauer, the “Messiah of Atheism,” believed Jesus existed as did David Friedrich Strauss (Das Leben Jesu).

    The best source is DIE FREIEN (Three Continents Press).

  42. 42.

    Shygetz

    January 5, 2006 at 11:04 am

    Jody–I’m sorry, are you citing an evangelical Christian ministry website as your unbiased historical evidence? Of course you aren’t; that was just a little humor, right? Historians (those who actually study history, rather than start from the assumption that anything labeled “Mark” was written by Mark) have pretty much concluded that the Gospels were written in the second century CE. Your “nut graphs” essentailly state that the evangelical Christians have not been convinced by the historical evidence that they are wrong–not very convincing to me (and yes, I did read the very unconvincing “evidence” they presented and noted that they did not address most of the historical evidence suggesting second century authorship). Not to mention, do you have any idea how many “gospels” there are that claimed to be written by a contemporary of Jesus? And do you know why the ones that are in your Bible are there? It’s a fascinating subject, and beyond the scope of an online comment.

  43. 43.

    SeesThroughIt

    January 5, 2006 at 1:13 pm

    Historians (those who actually study history, rather than start from the assumption that anything labeled “Mark” was written by Mark) have pretty much concluded that the Gospels were written in the second century CE.

    Not only that, there are additional books in thte Bible that are not included because the church at the time didn’t want to include them for various political reasons. So what’s that again about the Bible being the word of God? It isn’t even complete, and it was selectively edited by church officials with an eye to the political landscape at the time.

  44. 44.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    January 5, 2006 at 1:54 pm

    Noone of the gospels were written by people who knew Jesus. That is pretty much agreed upon by all scholars. The person who wrote most of the New Testament was Paul, and Paul never met Jesus, he only saw him in a vision.

    If you guys want a very good and very objective source about early Christianity I suggest Early Christian Writings.

    They have both sources from scholars and Christian scholars.

    They also have a page about the various theories on the Historical Jesus, which can be found HERE.

  45. 45.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    January 5, 2006 at 1:55 pm

    *Noone=None

  46. 46.

    JR @ RightFaith

    January 5, 2006 at 4:31 pm

    I think the existence of Jesus is pretty secure–that is, unless Italy has activist judges too.

    Here’s my analysis of the whole thing: Could Jesus Suffer His Father’s Fate?

  47. 47.

    TM Lutas

    January 6, 2006 at 11:14 am

    SeesThroughIt – There were plenty of books up for consideration as part of the Bible. You’ve really got to provide more than a blank assertion to demonstrate that it was for political reasons that they were not included. I think that the Didache is the most famous of the books that were not included. That doesn’t mean that the Didache was false or that it is not studied by millions of devout, conventional christians into the present age. It’s just not the kind of thing that needed to go into the Bible according to those in authority. By broad christian tradition those in authority who made those decisions were anointed by the Holy Spirit and the creation of the Bible was a miracle.

    You want to debunk that? Fine. Present evidence please.

  48. 48.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    January 6, 2006 at 7:10 pm

    I think the existence of Jesus is pretty secure—that is, unless Italy has activist judges too.

    Well you thought wrong. There is little to no historical evidence of JC.

  49. 49.

    S Noel

    January 8, 2006 at 3:57 am

    There is historical data available outside the Bible to verify the existence of Jesus.
    Josephus was a Jew who was very diligent about recording the history of the times. Following are some comments about Josephus, as well as some of the comments he recorded.

    Flavius Josephus, a Jewish priest and Pharisee, was put in command of the national resistance in Galilee at the time of Israel’s revolt against Rome, but was captured at Jotapata; his life was spared when he predicted that Vespasian would become emperor and he agreed to provide his captors with a history of his people. His works are an indispensable source on first century Jewish life and history: explaining, to the Romans, the history of the Jews from Creation to the revolt of A.D.66, the Jewish Wars (explaining the history of the wars from the Maccabean revolt to 66 A.D), the Mesopotamian Jews, and the Contra Apion (defending Judaism against the misstatements of anti-semitic writers from the third century B.C. to Apion).

    Josephus’s second work, the “Jewish Antiquities” (Ioudaike Archaiologia), contains in twenty books the whole history of the Jews from the Creation to the outbreak of the revolt in A.D. 66. Books I-XI are based on the text of the Septuagint, though at times he also repeats traditional explanations current among the Jews in later times. He also quotes numerous passages from Greek authors whose writings are now lost. On the other hand he made allowance for the tastes of his Gentile contemporaries by arbitrary omissions as well as by the free embellishment of certain scenes. Books XII-XX, in which he speaks of the times preceding the coming of Christ and the foundation of Christianity, are our only sources for many historical events. In these the value of the statements is enhanced by the insertion of dates which are otherwise wanting, and by the citation of authentic documents which confirm and supplement the Biblical narrative. The story of Herod the Great is contained in books XV-XVII. Book XVIII contains in chapter iii the celebrated passage in which mention is made of the Redeemer in the following words:

    About this time lived Jesus, a man full of wisdom, if indeed one may call Him a man. For He was the doer of incredible things, and the teacher of such as gladly received the truth. He thus attracted to Himself many Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. On the accusation of the leading men of our people, Pilate condemned Him to death upon the cross; nevertheless those who had previously loved Him still remained faithful to Him. For on the third day He again appeared to them living, just as, in addition to a thousand other marvellous things, prophets sent by God had foretold. And to the present day the race of those who call themselves Christians after Him has not ceased.

    Works of Josephus may be placed, at least, on a level with the most esteemed monuments of ancient learning. Josephus was esteemed in the first ages of Christianity as an author deserving a high degree of respect for research and integrity. Pious and learned men of later ages have continued to view him in the same light.” – Henry Stebbing in “Introduction to Josephus’ Works”

  50. 50.

    Troy

    January 11, 2006 at 12:06 pm

    Responding to S Noel. Noel said “Works of Josephus may be placed, at least, on a level with the most esteemed monuments of ancient learning. Josephus was esteemed in the first ages of Christianity as an author deserving a high degree of respect for research and integrity. Pious and learned men of later ages have continued to view him in the same light.” – Henry Stebbing in “Introduction to Josephus’ Works”

    My verdict about exist the historical existence of Jesus is still out. But the reliablity of Josephus is in question. Jesus died in approxiately 33 AD, Josephus was not born until 37/38 AD.

    Bible.org says “The question of the historical reliability of Josephus can only be answered by attempting to correlate what he asserts in his writings with other sources (some of which he used), whether literature, archaeology, etc. And, when no such external knowledge exists to confirm or deny his report, we must consider internal evidence, his habits, what kind of man he says he was, etc. to see whether certain of his claims are credible.16 At this point we are closer to guessing than in the first situation. Given the above canons, it is no mystery that many scholars hold that Josephus is woefully inaccurate at times. And, it would appear from the work of Schurer, Broshi, Mason, Mosley and Yamauchi that such a conclusion is fairly warranted.17 Yet this skepticism does not need to be thorough-going, for there are many places where it appears that he has left for us a solid record of people and events—especially as regards the broad movements in history at this time. These might include facts about the Herodian dynasty, the nature of the Jewish religious sects, Roman rule over Palestine and the fall of Jerusalem. Boshi agrees that in many places Josephus errs, regarding numbers and names, but this is no grounds for dismissing all that he said as without foundation. Once again, the historical trustworthiness of Josephus, is perhaps not a flat declaration, “he is” or “he is not” but rather it proceeds on a case by case basis.18”

    Josephus may well have been more of a political activist than a historian.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - PaulB - Olympic Peninsula: Lake Quinault Loop Drive 5
Image by PaulB (5/19/25)

Recent Comments

  • Manyakitty on Monday Night Open Thread (May 20, 2025 @ 12:09am)
  • Marc on Monday Night Open Thread (May 20, 2025 @ 12:05am)
  • Bupalos on Monday Night Open Thread (May 20, 2025 @ 12:03am)
  • bluefoot on Monday Night Open Thread (May 20, 2025 @ 12:02am)
  • Manyakitty on Monday Evening Open Thread: Perspective (May 19, 2025 @ 11:59pm)

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
War in Ukraine
Donate to Razom for Ukraine

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Meetups

Upcoming Ohio Meetup May 17
5/11 Post about the May 17 Ohio Meetup

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Hands Off! – Denver, San Diego & Austin

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!