Resurrection Discussion with Ecclesian. 

G’day Ecclesian

I have briefly noted a few comments.  I know that breaking up what you have written may well interfere with the flow, but I found it helpful in order to address a few of your thoughts.  I will re read them and edit them before adding it to the site.

Regards  Mike

Ecclesian: G'day again Mike - quite a long page here, but I wanted to send it to you as well - I'm sure that as you have done theological training that you would be familiar with this basic arguement but the main points are interesting - that there are contridictions in the gospels actually points to their authenticity because fakers would try to be more consistent!!  It seems quite imposible for the fakery (if there was any) to have been perpetuated by the disciples themselves - they believed and died for what they were certain of in their experience - there was no body, they saw a resurrected Jesus and were absolutely certain of the fact. 

Mike:  Firstly I have addressed this a little in “Dying for a cause”. 

The contradictions are between the gospels more than from within them.  In other words, each gospel is contradictory in many areas.  It’s not as if the four writers actually collaborated, although the synoptics (Matt, Mark and John) did use a common source for much of their material.  This is a bit odd especially when so many make the claim that they are eyewitness accounts.  It could be that they are accounts, but that of other people who they had no way of checking the authenticity of the information.

Fakers would be more consistent.  Well the problem with that is that they may not have been fakers.  I think that we limit ourselves when we don’t scan the range of possible options.  They may not have been fakers but unintentionally misrepresenting the events.  They could also have been misinformed or even adding their own interpretation to events.

As for the disciples being prepared to die for what they believed.  How do we know they died for what they believed?  The Bible does not provide this information.  Instead we are left with the stories of tradition.  Of course they may have died for their cause, but that doesn’t mean their cause was authentic or true.  Just because Jim Jones’ disciples were prepared to die for him doesn’t make their message true.  They stood by their experience as much as any world religion has their own experiences.  In my opinion, this argument lacks credibility in that it ignores the other religions, philosophies and cults that claim enlightened experiences and a preparation to die for their beliefs.

Ecclesian: Now, the other question could be that it was not the disciples who gave us the stories at all - but rather Paul or disciples of Paul who built their ideas of a resurrected Messiah upon Paul's Damascus vision - but this again would come up against a challange from those in Jerusalem would it not if not true? 

Mike:  Not necessarily.  There was a lot of disagreement in the early church and many divisions, schisms and sects.  Although corrections were attempted they were not always resolved.  There were many competing ideas including Gnosticism (secret knowledge) and the groups that contested the deity of Jesus (Arians).  These were more developed in the late 1^st and 2^nd centuries but their roots can be found in the early church of the 1^st century.

Ecclesian: Even if the gospels themselves were not eyewitness accounts, they were researched by people who spoke to eyewitnesses. 

Mike:  Who says? Even if this was the case there is a lot of reliance on eyewitness accounts.  The problem with eyewitness accounts are that they are notoriously unreliable.  Eyewitness accounts are subject to all sorts of influences which distort the actual story.  The things described may seem real but the fact is they are not always actual.

Ecclesian: If Paul was telling a different set of stories in Asia Minor, there would have been a lot more arguement.  In the lifetimes of the people involved there could not have been "mythological" elements added, although some errors in detail would seem possible. 

Mike:  The Greco-Roman world was filled with mythological stories that people swallowed hook line and sinker.  People seemed to believe anything.  They believed that Gods visited them that certain people and things had magical powers. 

Ecclesian: If the stories were invented much later, then what really happened to produce Christianity, including many who died for their faith - what did they die for?  If the myth came later, upon what story was it built that made the new story acceptable in the transition period between the two tales?  The story had to start from somewhere. 

Mike:  So where did the stories of Hermes visiting the people start from?  Where did the stories of Krishna’s missions on earth start from?  Where do the stories of the miracles of Mohammed start from?

There does not have to be a basis for a story or myth to start in my opinion.  Children invent stories, and wild ones at that.  Where do they start from?  Often, not always, they begin in the creative minds of our children.

Ecclesian: Often the problem we have is a problem with miracles - but if there is no issue with that, then why bother with this argument.  Let's say that Jesus really did die (or appear to die) and really did somehow end up alive a few days later?  How might that be achieved?  Did Jesus and a small inner circle of friends actually fake his death - that he actually knew beforehand that he would survive.  Some whould say that his injuries and a spear thrust to the side puts that idea to rest.  Nevertheless, Jesus appears to have predicted his own death - he even seems to have provoked it with his determined arrival in Jerusalem.  He personally seems to believe that his suffering is something he must do and he said that he was to be resurrected - the disciples DID NOT BELIEVE HIM.  Jesus was crucified, but the only actual witnesses were John and his mother and Mary Magdalen - was Jesus alive (unconscious?) or dead when they brought him down from the cross?  Did Jesus really have Divine power?  Did he have power of some other kind? 

Mike:  The stories of Jesus are reliant on the gospel accounts.  The problem with the gospel accounts are that they are not able to be authenticated.  As many say it requires faith.  In other words to accept the Jesus story we have to assume that the gospels are correct.  There is no way of authenticating the gospels.

Ecclesian: The problem I think is that Christianity assumes that if we accept the resurrection then we must accept the religious package deal of Christianity as well - but do we?  I don't think we do.  Rather I think that Jesus was something completely different - Messianic yes, but not Christian.  Throughout the ages there have always been those persecuted few whom the religious system hunted down and murdered.  Why?  Because they knew something the religious system could not tollerate - real spiritual community that transcended all the crap of the judaism that was, the Christianity that would be, and was something really new - spirituality without religion. 

Mike:  Well there are many reasons why the Jewish and Christian sects were not tolerated.  One, they had a measure of untouchability.  Because the Jews were able, under Roman law, to worship their God, this caused a bit of jealously amongst other groups for obvious reasons.  After the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD this was not tolerated and Jews and Christians were acting against the Roman authorities.  Also there was a lot of propaganda around about the new Christian sect.  They were labelled as incestuous and atheists amongst other things.  Just like Islam today this propaganda is taken up by the unthinking.

Ecclesian: I believe something happened and that Jesus, the same Jesus who had been crucified did indeed appear again - whether recovering from his wounds or gloriously and miraculously resurrected is immaterial - he had the guts to face down death for the sake of love, that is someone worth following and believing in,

                 Ecclesian

Mike:  I often say that even if the Jesus story is myth, saga, legend or otherwise it still has value as truth.  Truth is different to what is true.  The boy and the wolf story may well be a fairytale but it doesn’t stop it portraying truth.  So for me I am not sure if that stuff did happen or not.  Even so I still can live my life by the principles of that story just like the boy and the wolf story.

G'day Ecclesian

I too have studies history at uni.  It was one of my majors.  

There are ways of determining the big picture ideas in history, but the details of people and specifics are often hard or near impossible to determine.  Archaeology help verify the big picture but rarely gives us opportunities to verify personal details.  There are exceptions of course.  For major historical figures there are sometimes multiple sources that can be checked off with each other.  However, when those sources originate from the same source they lose their credibility as separate accounts.  This is the case with the gospels of the New Testament.

I think that assuming that the Biblical record is a good one is not really good enough.  When the claims of Christianity fall into the extraordinary realm, we need to have extraordinary reasons for believing, not just assumptions. 

I like you feel that I am a social prophet of sorts.  We all should be.

Regards

Mike

G'day Mike,

Having just recently watched the Da Vinci code, the question that is raised is "what the hell really happened?!" at least in the minds of some people.  In fact, while it is true that the book itself is fictional, the author Dan Brown claims to have drawn his ideas from actual historical sourses - I am aware of some of these sourses and the "holy grail" literature is bountiful on the web - I have also read the works of (Sir) Laurence Gardener who claims to have detailed genealogies and historical documents that proves that Jesus had children.  In fact he got the Messianic heir himself to write the forward of one of his books, none other than Prince Michael Stewart of Albany, heir to the throne of Scotland and decendant of the Stewart Kings of Scotland and England.  This actual prince really believes that he is a decendant of Jesus!  The Da Vinci code also raises the idea that Constantine actually "created Christianity" - that he was actually a pagan who for political reasons "legalized" Christianity but with conditions attached, including some doctrinal changes of his own. 

 Since studying church history I have seen that this is, in my opinion, a factual account (that Constantine created what we know today as Christianity).  If you take the Jesus accounts as relevevant, he did not go about to create a new religion.  In fact, most believe that Jesus did not want to create a religion.  The Pre-Constantinian religious groups are a far cry from what is called Christianity today.  Some were Jewish sects that adopted some of the new ideas put forward while others are vastly different in their worship and beliefs.  Constantine galvanised the various Jewish and Greek sects that had come loosely under the banner of the new Messiah.  He created the modern version of church and, as I believe, created Christianity as it is now known.  There is obviously a lot more I could say to justify this idea. 

 I find Gardener’s thoughts about “detailed genealogies” just as questionable as other documents.  The problem is that in isolation none of these prove anything.  The same goes for the gospel of Judas.  So which gospel are you going to believe?  Seems as though people just decide which one they will believe without giving it much thought, if any.

 This idea is often very popular with ultra fundamentalists who hate the Roman and other big church systems.  For example I recently got my copy of "Tomorrows World" put out by the "Living Church of God".  They ask the question - do we practice the true religion as Jesus and his disciples did?  Of course this group claims that they do - that they obey the Law (Torah), keep the Sabbath and all the other festivals and ordinances - and we should still be doing so ourselves.  The reason why we don't, because the evil Emperor Constantine corrupted the true faith, changed the law (Sabbath law in particular) and created the harlot religious system. 

 I hear the words “true faith” a lot from people.  Funny how everyone (not quite) claims to have the true faith.  When you think about it it’s the height of arrogance to claim others are wrong and only I and my little group have it right.

 The problem with this, for the fundamentalists, who insist that the Bible as we have it is infallible and uncorrupted, is that our Bible was essentially put together by those same "Catholic fathers" that Constantine had corrupted!!  Sorry, they can't have it both ways!!  You can't keep the Bible yet toss out the religious system which created it.  Now, historically it is important to know that the Gospel letters as well as the various epistles we now find in our New Testament were widely read and popular quite early, long before Constantine, but so were a lot of other writtings which were not accepted into the cannon.  But it is also true that so-called heretical groups continued to flourish, but when the church system got political power, they used it to persecute those groups, just as the Roman Emperors had persecuted them.  Now this might seem strange - but I think that the truth is more likely to be found among the heretical groups, some of which still exist in some form.  But we need to be careful, there are lots of strange and weird people who are trying to claim that they are the real thing, like The Living Church of God and many of the more orthodox pentecostal and charismatic groups who claim that they are the true revelation - the true Bride of Christ manefested before Jesus returns.  This brings me to so-called "church history" courses done in Bible colleges.  The usual pattern is this - that Jesus started "the church" in Jerusalem and that his apostles then set up more "churches" all over the Roman Empire.  The the "church of Rome" (founded by Peter and Paul?) took up a leadership role.  This leadership continued after the conversion of Constantine when the Roman Empire became Christian.  What followed then were barbarian invasions and most of the barbarians were converted to Christianity (Roman style Christianity).  Christendom ruled until the Reformation when all the different Protestant church systems came into existance, and here we are today with lots of denominations all over the place.  Other groups like the Orthodox, Coptic and Nestorian communities are seen as sidelines or as irrelevant.  Groups like the anabaptists, Lollards and Cathars are either lumped into the Reformation, or called heratics (who deserved to be destroyed by the Inquisition!).  Little information is given as to what these little non conformist groups were actually like, nor what they believed.  Yet I tend to think that the true history of what I call "Messianic spirituality" is largely lost. 

 Or was it ever acquired in the first place?

 There has just been too much killing, too much censorship, too much revisionist history.  Still, Jesus must have been a remarkable man - he has cetainly made a huge impact on the whole world. 

 That is definitely not certain.  The certainty is that a band of followers and adherents took a message that may or may not have been based on Jesus onto a new level.  Jesus may not have been a remarkable man.  Jesus may have been like the thousands of other religious leaders who had a thirst for power or some other perverted reason.  On the other hand, he may have been quite remarkable.

 Almost everyone wants a piece of him - to Jews he's Jewish, to Muslems he's a prophet, to the Hindus and Budhists he's an avatar of Brahma or an incarnation of the Budha.  New Agers claim him as an assended master and Christians call him God. 

 Not only Jesus.  Hindu’s and Buddhists will also lay claim to any other social reformers too.  This is not something that’s only peculiar to Jesus.

 But there is also a problem with being a great sceptic and debunker.  It is easy to say that ancient historical documents like the Bible, including the writings about Jesus are not relyable, are unsubstanciated or just plain "made up" - it is the same old argument we all hate, that there is no evidense aganst it. 

 This is an old argument which does not face the “what is the evidence for it?”.   If you are going to make outlandish claims the weight of proof is on your shoulders, not on the one opposing it.

  But the same can be said about EVERY historical document. 

 Exactly!  That’s why history is not the science many believe it is.  If you have read some of the famous quotes about history on my site you will see.

  How do we know for example that Julius Caesar ever lived, or that the stories told about him were truth or fiction? 

 The difference with Julias Ceasar and Jesus is that there are many more authenticating documents and records which provide better reliability.  Christians have erected a straw house by citing the thousands of “authenticating documents” that have been recovered.  Still these are copies of other documents.  Just because the document gets published and distributed widely, does not give the document credibility.  If it did the newspapers of the world would be deemed ultra accurate.  Other historic “facts” are given more substance by other sources and documents. 

 Well we can't, but as history deals with probabilities and not certainties, we have a working assumption that he probably did exist and do the things that he supposedly did - until we discover further evidence to the contrary. 

 As I said, assuming something is true because of the absence of contrary proof is highly suspicious and childish.  It’s like if I said to you that there is no evidence that Santa Clause does not exist. Or fairies or aliens etc because there is not sufficient evidence against them.  What we have to do is turn our assumptions and arguments like these and see if they are consistent and reliable.

 By your argument you would have to assume that Mohammed did the miracles that are attributed to him.  What do you think.

Just because Jesus was a religious figure and powerful people still believe in religion in his name, doesn't mean that we should just automatically distrust the stories we have.  The Gospels are the best we have.  They may be "made up stories", but then they may not - who really knows?  Can we prove any of it?  We can substanciate some of it from other sourses - descriptions of places and events in the Bible, references to rulers and customs of the times have been found in other sourses. 

 No we should not automatically distrust, but we should approach such stories with care.  Just because we can substantiate places or events does not mean that the story about the people is correct.  I could describe a situation that is absolutely incorrect but place it in the context of actual places and happenings.  Again I think these ideas have not been thought our very carefully and do not do any good to the furtherance of Christian apologetics.  Instead they demonstrate the flawed reasoning that is allowed to flourish, even among Christian academics. 

There is a high probability that the man Yeshua Ben Yosef really did live and die - and that he was a remarkable spiritual teacher with radical new ideas.  Most historians, even those who don't like Christianity, have come to that concensus - not just because they believe, because often they do not believe, but rather because there are just too many witnesses to ignore. 

 Who are some of those secular historians that have said this?  Lots of people make this statement but I have never seen a comprehensive list of those that do say these things.  I, like many used to accept these sorts of statements  “by faith” not really knowing if it was in fact true.

 Now get this - I'm NOT talking about the majority believes it then it is true arguement, we have already dispelled this.  People used to believe that the world was flat, and they were wrong, but the same can also be said that there have also been lots of people who always believed it was round, and they were right.  It does not come down to a vote, but rather a reasoned concensus - for now most historians who have actually studied the ancient documents, dug up Israel and are familiar with other references to Jesus, such as Josephus, have the working theory (and it is open to revision and change as new evidense appears) that Jesus was a real person. 

 I am not the person who would be interested in disproving that Jesus was a real person.  However, your terms consensus and majority seem to mean the same thing.  So I’m a little confused here.

 It’s funny when people talk about the other references for Jesus, presumably what are called extant documents, Josephus is the only name they can come up with.  Besides this, the one sentence which is referred to in the Antquity of the Jews seems a little lean.  So what are the other sources?  There seems to be a vacuum of data in these extant sources.

 As for the radical claims of Jesus followers - that he was the Messiah, that he was crucified and rose from the dead, no, these claims cannot, directly at least be substanciated beyond all reasonable doubt - but there is circumstancial evidense.  For example, we know from other documents of the times (eg, the war scrolls found at Qamran) that there were significant Messianic sects operating in Palestine, who were awaiting a decendant of David to save Israel from the Roman occupation.  Jewish apocalyptic literature was everywhere.  We have the writtings of rabbis like Hillel and others from around that time who sound very similar to Jesus.  Many of these rabbis were faith healers - it was a common practice, substanciated by scientific experiment that psychosomatic, psychological and even some physical illnesses can be healed by faith and even real diseases, or the pain associated with those diseases can be dealt with effectively.  These rabbis also had various folk remedies (including hypnosis and nerve pressure points, etc.) that also really worked as well.   That Jesus may have been a member of one of these sects, like the Essenes or a Messianic group is likely.  The existance of Pontius Pilate as governor of Judea has been historically verified from reliable sourses from outside the Bible - he was a vicious and cruel bastard of a man who was notorius for crucifying people at the drop of a hat. He constantly mocked Jewish religious sensibilities and the Jews hated him. 

 Again, I’m not sure how this information verifies or dispels any untruths.

 The infamous story of his arrival in Judea is a Jewish story, not a Christian one, where Pilate brought Roman insignia into the Temple in Jerusalem, to provoke the Jews, who then bared their necks in readiness for death rather than submit to his sacrelige - and Pilate backed down. 

 It is therefore not difficult to believe that this man, aware of the sensitive political situation as he was, would have quite happilly and without much thought nor concern, crucified just another Messianic prophet.  So far so good, but this Jesus it seems didn't just go away after this.  His teachings and the community he founded in Jerusalem survived him and became a significant religious movement. 

 If this was the only significant religious movement it might be different.  However there are countless other religious movements that were developed both in previous and subsequent years.  I think it is worth noting that if the story of Jesus is reliable in any way, he did not form a religious movement at all.  Instead he remained a Jew and sort to reform some of the religious traditions of some of the Jewish sects, particularly the Pharisees and Saducees.  His lack of talk regarding the Essenes may indicate that he was an Essene even.

 The Gospels and the Epistles claim that the reason for this was that Jesus rose from the dead.  This is the crux (excuse the pun) of the issue!  Of course guys like Josh McDowell like to claim that they were convinced by the proof, that there is good evidense that demands a verdict.  That may be the case with them, but it is also obvious that much of this so-called evidense isn't all it's stacked up to be - there are huge holes, inconsistencies of logic and false assumptions behind many of the ideas. The main problem is with the Gospel stories themselves, they are not in themselves evidense, but the plea!  There needs to be other sourses to confirm what the Gospels are saying, and no such evidense exists.  For example there is no Roman record of Jesus crucifixion (except for Josephus's brief reference), nor the order by Pilate to put a guard on his tomb. The Jews do not record any great disturbance in the Temple (like the curtain being ripped!) nor is there a record of any period of darkness, nor an earthquake, nor other post resurrection events.  In fact, there is practically no reference to the Messianic community in Jerusalem until the time of the destruction of Jerusalem (70 CE), and references to Christians (Gentile conversions) in the Roman Empire do not appear until after that time.  The only accounts that MIGHT BE from that time are the Gospels and the Epistles - all other stories, legends and tales are from much later  and the only hope for the Gospels and Epistles themselves is that carbon dating and scriptography has confirmed them to be early records - while it can't be said that Constantine falsified the New Testament (the Gospels and Epistles were not tampered with as such), it can be certainly said that the Gospels only survived because Constantine and his councils approved them as cannon while rejecting other records. 

 Personally, I think the arguments about Constantine falsifying the records is a bit of a stretch.  However the New Testament documents are late enough to allow for legend and myth top creep in.  I suppose we have to ask the question of how many years would it take for an actual story to develop embellishment and additions.  Well not even years or even months.  Days!

 I do not trust the Catholic Fathers nor the religious system that came into being after the time of Constantine.  A lot of fundamentalist Christians would aggree with me, but the problem as I said, is that the cannon, the whole Catholic and Protestant ediface, directly resulted from this system.  Another saving virtue for the New Testament cannon is that it is radically different from the Roman model church system - it is fundamentally Jewish, it promotes spiritual simplicity, family community and it is quite anti-authoritarian.  Jesus, while remaining very Jewish, is distinctive and unusual in ways that was practically ignored by the religious systems which followed - his style of leadership was humble - what we call "servant leadership", he DID NOT preach a salvation gospel that offered "going to heaven after you die", but he spoke of the coming Kingdom, a Kingdom that is within - a spiritual way of life and a community that lived that life out in the practice of practical love, even love willing to sacrifice all for the sake of others.  Jesus also had a high value of women, much more than any of his contemporaries, and certainly more than the Roman church would have allowed - the radicalness of the Jesus as revealed in the gospels was so embarrassing that organised religion wouldn't allow the common man to read the Bible, lest he get seditious ideas!  The Medieval doctrine was that only the professional religionist could have access to the Bible - and that the Bible could only be interpreted by them.  Despite the increased access we have to the Bible - the professional religionists are still "interpreting the Bible for us" and expecting us to obey their version of things - but the plain radical teachings of Jesus are all but ignored - we still live by the assumptions of the old Roman model.  Judaism has of course done exactly the same thing to the Old Testament - there are just so many layers of interpretation we have to cut through to find what it really says, so many assumptions that our religious culture insists upon, and a modern dialectical paradigm, a sacred secular dichotomy, and of course layers of history and tradition - We must remember that Jesus was anti-talmudic (like the Essenes), and while he shared some of the views of the Pharisees, he was not strictly speaking Judaic, but appears to have looked back to another more ancient Hebrew spiritual tradition, a simpler spirituality that even questioned the value of the legalistic Torah, and longed for a New Covenant, where spiritual Torah (not written) is written upon people's hearts.  Now, for me - and I could be stupid and blind - that is how I understand Jesus and what he was on about.  I don't think that the religious people and I have even been reading the same book - we come to such differnent conclusions.  But it is these wonderful ideas that have convinced me.  I believe that the Gospels, while not necessarilly historically and scientifically perfect, are nevertheless spiritually valuable and trustworthy. 

 Yes I do agree mostly.  As I always say, even though I have many difficulties with the reliability and credentials of Jesus, I do not have a problem following, in part, the myth of Jesus.  Something doesn’t have to be true to extract truth from it.

 Did Jesus rise from the dead?  Was there some other explaination?  Is the Da Vinci code right?  Who knows and for me, who cares. 

 Yes I know many Christians who don’t believe in a resurrection.  And others who call themselves Christians and don’t believe Jesus was God.  I would have rejected these people once upon a time but find their claims to be Christian just as valid as other’s more conservative ideas and claims.

 I may not have proven my faith in historical terms, but I believe we can prove it in human terms - the hidden history of the radical Messianic communities was that they too believed in the ideas and values of Jesus and they built communities that were so different that the religious system hunted them down and murdered them.  That I think is evidense.  As for "other religions", I think that they already like Jesus and his ideas too - they might not swallow all the Christian dogma, but they almost all include him in their list of spiritual heros, using their own terms and frame of reference to try and understand.  But there is also, I am certain of it, a difference between spirituality and religion - the exoteric (external) and the esoteric (internal) life.  Any spiritual person in any religious tradition knows this - we all know this, it isn't just me.  Religion will always persecute the spiritual.  Religion will always be dogmatic, legalistic, authoritarian and absolutist - right and wrong.  But truth is transcendant, it is beyond us, we are still looking - I am still looking.  So why not believe that Jesus rose from the dead?  Why not believe that the Divine was in him? (what ever that means) - for now.  It is a good theory for the meantime, and it isn't "unreasonable", as long as I'm humble enough to recognise that I'm ignorant, stupid and still know very little of this universe or the possibilities of spirit.   

 When I read the stuff you write I can’t help but feeling there are two Ecclesians.  One is conservative and one is a liberal.  I suppose this is reflected in your handle Ecclesian which may even elaborate a congregation of ideas within the one person.

 This may not be the answer you are looking for.  I don't know, I really don't know - and painfully I don't want to give a pat answer nor be dogmatic - but I do believe in love, and I do believe in community and that I can draw upon the Divine Life and share that life with others - I believe in grace, forgiveness, and eternal life.  I got these ideas from Jesus and while the religious systems of this world go on and on perpetuating evil in the name I God, I will nevertheless choose to do good and my God is pleased with me and not with them!  One day I think I will meet that God - and I'm quite happy to find out that I was wrong on some things, but I'm open to corection now and in the future.  In the meantime, I am going to make a go at living well.

 It’s not that I’m looking for a particular answer.  Different people give different answers.  I suppose it comes down to the bold claims of Christianity versus the unequally weak answers.  I like to weigh up what everyone has to say and respond with the challenges that these claims deserve.  The reality is that Christians often lie about their faith and about the basis of their faith.  I saw this recently where a girl told me that my web site really encouraged her and gave her strength.  She later told another friend how much she hated my site.  She was not wanting to reveal her true feelings to me because she possibly felt that it would give me some advantage.  How sad that she would need to lie to me about this.  How do you think I feel about the faith she possesses now?  It holds little if any credibility!

 Anyway, I’ll go through your letter again in case there is anything I’ve failed to address.  Thanks again for taking the time to respond.

 Mike

G'day Mike,

                  I am often talking to people about you and some of my Christian friends ask why I would want to keep this dialogue up, but I am one of those guys that just can't let an idea go once I get it into my mind - I absolutely MUST find an answer!! 

 It’s those sorts of Christians that really lack integrity, in my opinion.  They say they believe the Bible (be ready to give an answer in every opportunity) but when the kitchen gets a bit hot they’re outta there.  Know what I mean.  I appreciate the dialogue and it helps me to hone my thinking.

 Would those Christian friends like to write to me and explain their position?  I am always open to what people may have to say.

 I'm not just talking about intellectually but on a spiritual level as well - I've been Messianic all my life and I don't want to be living  a lie.  I must come to terms with the evidense you have presented to me - can I honestly remain part of Christianity? 

 I don’t know if I’ve presented any evidence per se.  I have raised, what I consider to be valid objections to many of the tenants of Christian thinking.  I am all for spirituality, and you have a deep spirituality from what I have seen.  However, I would, as you probably do, encourage people to toss their religion.  My opinion is that in this modern, rather post-modern world, we should be redefining our spirituality learning to put the myths of the past in perspective.  Building up religious hope on half baked and embellished stories is only going to damage people and their spiritual lives.  That might be a good topic to diverge on.

 When you said that there seems to be two of me -  a conservative me and a liberal me, yes, you are right.  But there are things about both conservative and liberal Christianity that I have serious issues with.  My usual way of seeing the world goes like this - myths always have elements of truth to them - where there is smoke there is always fire.  So, I am always trying to get past the smoke to find the truth within. 

 Hhhmmmm????  Not sure about that. There us a difference between what is true and truth.  Maybe you are right???  I too have some issues with liberals who seem to want to have a bit both ways.  On one hand they call themselves Christians while saying they follow Jesus, but then deny everything that most of us have called Christian.  Then on the other hand I have said that I follow the ethic (generally) of the (possible) myth of Jesus.

 One way to do this is to look at the evidence or perspectives of all the competing voices in any debate as edges of a bigger paradigm, and instead of looking at the edges, look at the centre - the truth is usually somewhere in the middle of the extremes.  A lot of this sounds very intuitive, but I am a good post modernist and have no problem with the use of intuition especially when dealing with metaphysics.  So, when I refered to the general concensus of historians about Yeshua, I was refering to actual historians that either I have met or seen on tv or read in articles - Christian and non-Christian - the kinds of historians that get articles in Time Magazine, which the conservatives hate because they are too liberal or "secular" (the boogeyman!!) - and we are not just talking about pop history.  I actually have a cousin who is a professional historian and going to his parties (back when I lived in Brisbane) was always an experience - I got to meet real historians and philosophers!  While many of them were agnostics or liberals, none that I have ever spoken to ever claimed that the essential elements of the "Jesus story" were historically falacious, just that we shouldn't be gullible historically speaking.  But, I think that I might just reconnect to my cousin and see what he might have to say - he might be able to contribute to the dialogue from a more professional stance. 

 That would be great!  It would be very interesting to have him as part of the discussion.

 He might know some people to talk to as well.  This is why concensus is important - the more minds that can examine an issue, the better it is.  Maybe we can have some real fun!!

 thanks for the adventure,

 I agree although consencus is not everything.  You did say important and that is where the truth is.  Many thousands have conceded to do atrocities in the past.  We all agree that it doesn’t make them right.  The journey is interesting.  One of the aspects that I find strangely curious are people’s reaction to the stuff we talk about.  Some people just turn and run.  A lot actually. 

 So do persist.  I sensed a degree of frustration in another email when you said we had reached some sort of impasse.  In my opinion it’s not about being right or wrong or winning and losing.  What it is about is making a positive difference to people and their lives.  Sometimes we rattle people’s cages and upset them.  It is inevitable as we change and grow.  Growing pains if you like.  When the religious refuse to even talk about their beliefs they only condemn their own beliefs.  From a non-believers point of view it looks like they’ve got something to hide or be afraid of.

 This is one of the things that impresses me about you, your abilty to face some of these issues and look them in the eyes, so to speak.  So yes lets keep up the dialogue, and hope it encourages others to engage with the tuff stuff.

 Regards

 Mike