Christianity is dying out in the West

[paulindian 0]

 

sir,

 

how can you say that christ has founded a religion?

christ has never spoke of a religion or has never asigned anybody to spread a religion called christianity he was here to be sacrificed for the sin of man, neither budha nor zoraster has did that. one can never point out from the bible any word spoken by jesus as -christian religion- Religion is clearly a part of the worldly politics and the church-religion as we can see today has nothing to do with christ or his gospel(study the bible-It is all about the sacrifice of the lamb of the god)

[paulindian 0]

 

dear friend,

If god tell you this is the way and you dont want it you will come up with such arguments. There are many like you... you will meet them later..in asura-loka.. going the other way.

however remember there is only one way to salvation---christ--

god bless you

[narayanadasa 0]

Jai Sriman Narayana:

 

Moksha as spoken of in Hinduism and Salvation as spoken in christianity are different. Salavation is deliverance from Sin and may be this means if you get delivered from Sin you reach heaven and if not hell for eternity. Moksha is freedom from rebirth (in very simple terms) that Christians dont believe in. Heaven and Hell are not eternal in Hinduism.

 

Please dont confuse the two. FYI, Moksha is not even a word in the English dictionary, so dont take the Hindu word, assume your own meanings and then make your own theories out of it.

 

Lastly, in my opinion Christ himself had lot of knowledge but he never did complete his teachings.. was killed before he could do that (may be because he spoke of rebirth and was killed just like some great Philosphers (Socrates? sorry..dont remember their names!)). If he had completed his teachings, may be he would have preached whatever was already there in Hinduism. Today most Christ followers are busy advertising, marketing their religion just like a commodity or business service. Anyway, it doesnt matter whether Christ lived or not, it more matters whether he completed his teachings fully or not. It appears not as most Catholic Priests, Pastors etc are actually scared to even debate about simple topics with our great Aacharya's. They just want to keep away from the truth and increase numbers.

 

[Guest guest]

Christ never was. He's a fictional

character created by plagiarists. So

why waste your time.

 

Your character, conduct and actions

should concern you more. You should

continually improve and refine yourself

throughout your life. You should be

better tomorrow than you are today.

 

Not only should you help other people

in need but also recognize that you have

a special responsibility to preserve

the environment and protect the

habitats of all other living creatures.

[Guest guest]

First of all, "scholar", you say:

 

"The quote from Flavius Josephus is no quote

at all. It is a forgery by church insiders

and has been declared to be so by some of

the best of New Testament scholars."

 

Name these scholars, please. What are their credentials? What religion are they? What preconcieved notions do they have?

 

By your logic, we can't trust a single thing passed down to use by our forefathers. Everything is corrupt. If it is true that the Church destroyed and re-wrote everything, then we'd never be able to know.

 

And, if the Church destroyed and re-wrote everything, then they most assuredly would have made sure to do it RIGHT. If they were planting references, why plant just a few? Why didn't they totally recreate EVERYTHING, so that EVERYONE mentions Jesus? Why do they only scatter a couple little references about?

 

Secondly, there can be no doubt that the early Christian community was a threat to traditional Judaism. The Bible mentions Jesus being tried by the high priest.

 

IF Jesus never existed, then why didn't the high priest just stand up and declare: "I never knew this Jesus guy, and I've never heard of Him?" That would have convinced most of the new adherents to Christianity that the religion was a forgery, and they all would have returned to Judaism. It would have been the end of the Christian threat.

 

But they don't. Instead, when confronted with this new religion, they all just say, "well, His body must have been stolen from the tomb!"

 

Obviously, if Jesus didn't exist, there would never BE any tomb!

 

Thirdly. There are TONS of extra evidence, outside of direct mentions in writing, that Jesus existed. For example, think about this:

 

-Why are there no Babylonians, Assyrians, or other such peoples today, but yet there are still Jews?

 

The answer is simple: these civilizations were conquered, intermarried, and lost their national identity. Not so with Jews. They had (and have) a unique system that kept them racially separate from other cultures. It had been so for thousands of years.

 

Yet, within a few years of Jesus' "supposed" death, suddenly things change. Hundreds, if not thousands, of Jews suddenly start abandoning their traditions! There is a massive upheaval, a change so drastic it has never occurred before!

 

What causes this change? Christianity. The first Christians were Jew. BECAUSE of Jesus, they no longer felt the need to continue their thousand-year-old traditions.

 

Furthermore, within several years of Jesus' death, there was also a brand new law against GRAVE ROBBING that was set up by the Roman authorities. Why? Because there was so much uproar over Jesus's MISSING BODY.

 

Obviously, if Jesus never existed, then this would have been found out. And Christianity would have disappeared completely.

 

You simply can't base a religion off of a non-existent person! New religions make enemies. And, with the Bible talking about "Jesus met the high priest" and "Jesus met Pontius Pilate", surely these officials could have noticed and refuted any alleged meetings.

 

Furthermore, Christianity was a smaller religion around that time, although it did create a big uproar in the Holy Lands. However, other scholars of that era could have cared less about what happened in Israel! Israel was an ordinary province in an enormous Roman empire, and they had other things to busy themselves with.

 

By your logic, half the people around the world shouldn't of ever existed! The BIG, BAD CHURCH has destroyed everything!

 

WHY did Paul start a religion after a Guy Who doesn't exist, rather than base his new forgery-religion after himself?

 

Finally, IF Christianity was a mere forgery, why do the four separate accounts of Christ all differ on some points? It is highly doubtful that Paul, the ringleader of the group, would have said, "be careful not to make it look like we've been collaborating!" Rather, he probably would have been more concerned about "we better make sure that our accounts don't differ in any way".

 

So why then do the Gospels differ sometimes? Memory. The writer, an actual eye-witness, or else writing from an eye-witness's testimony, remembered the same thing, but not the same way! If they were forgeries, then they would have agreed entirely.

 

The simple fact is that you, "scholar" (are you REALLY a scholar, i wonder?) are merely grasping at straws. You want desperately for history to fit into your pre-concieved notions, that you're willing to believe any gobbly-gook that you read and hear. THINK FOR YOURSELF! Don't just read that internet .!

 

And don't feel so superior about your own atheistic beliefs. While Christianity is dwindling in some countries (Great Britian, for example), the new non-converts are not all going to atheism. They are just as likely to revert to PAGANISM and WICCAN beliefs!

 

You simply can't defeat Jesus if He's real. At least you have the tact to admit that much. So instead, you've thrown your good awuld blankie over your head, and you sit in you bed, sucking your thumb and muttering: "It's not real, it's not real, it's not real..." like you're afraid of the boogeyman.

 

Why are you so terrified of a historical figure that you want to deny His very EXISTENCE?

[Guest guest]

This is one of many sources that deal with the

forged passage about Christ in Josephus's

"Antiquities of the Jews."

 

http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm

 

You say if early church fathers had wanted to plant

references they would have done so in many other

works. They planted it in Antiquities and look

what happened. Scrutiny proved it a forgery. Any

other attempts would have met with the same

fate and would have been discarded as

interpolations.

 

You cite a number of items from the Bible itself

to prove that the story of Christ is true. You

cannot use what's false to prove that the false

is true. You must use non-Christian, non-Biblical,

secular sources to argue your point.

 

Historicity of Christ is a dead issue. Further

there is nothing new or original in the

New Testament. Almost everything in it can be

traced to older sources elsewhere in world

literature. It's a plagiarists' compilation.

 

Here is Christian philosopher Augustine(354-430)

and Bishop of Hippo, now in Algeria, on the

Christian religion:

 

That which is known as the Christian religion

existed among the ancients, and never did not

exist ... and when Christ came ... at which time

the true religion, which already existed,

began to be called Christianity.

 

Here is Eusebius(263-340), church historian,

Christian theologian and Bishop of Caesarea:

 

These ancient Therapeutae(or Theravada Buddhists)

and their writings are our Gospels and Epistles.

[Guest guest]

Actually, Scholar, you are the one who is wrong.

 

That quote from Augustine is NOT saying that Christ never existed. I don't know where you got such a bizarre idea, but it obviously says "And then Christ came"--so Augustine HAD to believe that Christ really existed! Secondly, Augustine is mentioning the ideals of Christianity "among the ancients" not as "the specific religion we know as Christianity and all of its rituals have existed since time immemorial", but rather as saying "the same truths Christianity knows has always existed, and when Christ came they were all fulfilled".

 

Furthermore, IF there were a great conspiracy, i highly doubt that Augustine, a devout Christian himself, AND living in 300s AD, far past the life of Christ, would have known and--even if he was told so--BELIEVED that Christ did not exist. Augustine had once been a pagan, and he converted to Christianity later in life. What kind of stupid fellow converts to a religion when he knows it's Founder and Main Focus isn't even real?

 

That you can quote Augustine saying "and when Christ came", and yet claim that it means Augustine somehow knew Christ didn't exist, shows heaps about your logic!

 

Although you can say "this Christian ritual is often mimicked by other religions" or "these rituals are alike", you can find no other religion that has all of Christianity's theology together. You can pick and pocket about anything you desire in the whole world, and find an equivalent somewhere. That some Christian rituals APPEAR to follow other religion's rituals shows nothing. I could do the same for buddhism, mormonism, hinduism, mohammadism, et cetera if i tried.

 

The uniqueness of Christianity stands out for itself. You are attacking something using an argument that shows you own ignorance. All other religions are "do" religions. Of every religion in every nation since time began, ONLY Christianity is a "done" religion. That is unique and total proof that Christianity has to be MORE than just pure plagarisms.

 

Also, you have refused to answer my question: IF THE CHURCH REPLACED AND MESSED WITH EARLY LITERATURE, **WHY** DID THEY NOT PLANT EVIDENCE FOR CHRIST *****EVERYWHERE****? They would have had NO idea that later people would have scrutinized it, and so they would have gone nuts, rewriting everything. Why can't you acknowledge this question, and try to dodge it?

 

Also, very importantly,

 

SILENCE DOES ****NOT***** IMPLY **NON-EXISTENCE**!!!!!!!

 

Let me show you an example. Take the following statement:

 

"Aliens aren't real. If they were real, they would have visited ancient man long ago, and ancient man would have written about it. Since we have no ancient writings about aliens, that means aliens don't exist."

 

First of all, this sounds logical. But while the point of the statement (aliens aren't real) may be right, the *argument* for it is all wrong. This person is not basing their argument off "aliens don't exist because conditions of the universe prove life is very rare, so rare that it could only be on our planet" or anything else like that. This person is making an ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE.

 

But SILENCE doesn't prove NON-EXISTENCE. Perhaps aliens did visit Earth, but ancient peoples couldn't write about them because they had no WAY of writing! Or perhaps aliens DO exist, and they haven't even visited Earth at all!

 

Just because we have no evidence of aliens DOESN'T mean that there is no way that aliens couldn't ever exist. Maybe they're out on their own planet somewhere, doing their own thing.

 

If you want to argue against the existence of aliens, you have to first prove that conditions in the universe aren't right. Likewise, if you want to argue against the existence of Jesus, you can't just say "He's not ever mentioned" (an argument from silence) and leave it at that.

 

You also cannot simply discount the Bible. Discounting the NT is like saying:

 

"Evolution doesn't exist. And because Darwin made it all up, you can't use anything written by Darwin to defend it."

 

THAT'S PURE STUPIDITY! If the Bible is FALSE, the BEST source to prove it false WOULD BE THE BIBLE *ITSELF*!

 

Truth can stand up to any lie. But lies cannot stand up to truth.

 

Furthermore, everything about the Bible, every historical place, historical name, & historical event inside it has been proven 100% TRUE. Those things that are iffy are ONLY iffy, not wrong, and eventually evidence will also surface to prove them right, too.

 

THE BIBLE IS **THE** MOST HISTORICALLY VALIDATED DOCUMENT OF ALL TIME. To discount it shows a bias that is bizarre at best and crippling at worst.

 

If the "Historicity of Christ is a dead issue", then why do a full majority of scholars accept His existence, and why have only scholars who are OUT OF THEIR OWN FIELDS been the only ones to write about His non-existence?

 

Eusebius appears to be connected with the gnostics. Anything gnostic is not Christian and is disregarded by the Church as a whole. Just because one wacko gnostic cultist accepts buddha doesn't mean that all Christianity is founded off buddha.

 

Also, if Christianity is founded off of buddha, why are you attacking it? If buddha is so great, then how come you aren't supporting something founded off of him and trying to show how he is its founder? Your own vicious attacks show that you yourself do not believe in the Eusebius theory, so why are you bringing it up?

 

You appear to be nothing more than a conspiracy theorist. I suggest you do some more in-depth research, not only on those crazy sites made by people with an agenda that supports your own, but also on neutral sites and some sites that oppose your own pitiful preconcieved notions.

[Guest guest]

The emphasis in the Augustine and Eusebius quotes

should be: Christianity has nothing new or original

in it. And we can verify that today by comparing

the contents of the New Testament(NT) to much

older sources elsewhere in world literature.

 

The reason for quoting Augustine and Eusebius is

that they were church insiders from the 3rd and

4th centuries and they wrote what I quoted. I don't

know why they wrote it but they wrote it.

 

They could have written for example that Christianity

is an authentic and original religion. They did not.

Because it is not. It's a "me too" religion. A shallow

imitation of the great faiths that preceded it.

 

Augustine does not give us a list of the sources from

which the plagiarists of the New Testament hijacked

their material. Neither does Eusebius. But today we

know the sources they used.

 

Eusebius too is only partially right. Buddhist texts

are not the only sources of the Gospels and the

Epistles. There are passages in the New Testament

borrowed from Mahabharata, Gita, Upanishads, and

John's Gospel, for example, begins with a verbatim

quote from the Rigveda which is the world's oldest

book(4,000 BCE).

 

The New Testament copies from many older sources.

Its primary sources are the Old Testament and

Hindu-Buddhist literature.

 

This is not just about some similar rituals

between religions as you seem to think. But

Christianity has borrowed them too.

 

Augustine says that when Christ came the true

religion that already existed began to be called

Christianity. That means Christ had nothing new

to say. The reason I quoted Augustine is

is to stress this point. And he was right.

 

Augustine was born in 354. He was not a contemporary

of the fictional Christ. So whether he believed

Christ came or came not means nothing.

 

The real question is what we can establish, ascertain,

verify and confirm ourselves through scholarship.

 

If early Christian luminaries like Augustine and

Eusebius were hinting that they knew Christianity

was not an original creation, then we must investigate

what they were suggesting. They were right on that

point.

 

If they wrote that they believed Christ was a

historical person and a messiah, we must investigate

that too. And they were wrong in their belief. He

never was. He's a fictional messiah.

 

You ask why someone like Augustine would embrace

Christianity if he knew that it was not an authentic,

genuine religion. I don't know. It reminds me of a

candid admission by a pope whose name I cannot

recall at the moment who said: This fable of Christ

has been very profitable for us.

 

Regarding your question why did the early church

fathers not plant references to Christ everywhere,

the simple answer is we don't know. In esablishing

whether Christ was a historical figure or not, we

have to go by the available evidence. They did

what they did. And they did not do what they did

not do. Eusebius planted the reference to Christ

in Antiquities and that is the one always trotted

out as irrefutable evidence by apologists.

[Guest guest]

The following article gives a small sample of New Testament borrowings from Indian literature.

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1994/3/3hare94.html

[Guest guest]

This proves nothing.

 

AS I SAID, you can find look-alikes in every religion. And not just religion. For example, many people today say:

 

"The Iraqi war is just like vietnam."

 

That may be true. But, because they are alike, does that mean that they are related? Does the current Iraqi war stem from the vietnam war?

 

No. Just because two things looked alike, doesn't mean that they originate from the same thing, or even that one originates from the other. The current iraqi war and vietnam may be alike, but one stemmed from communist agression and the other to combat muslim extremists. That they are alike is also a moot point, because one was most certainly lost (in the past), and the future of the other remains to be seen. Thus, even though two things may look alike, this similarity in itself proves nothing.

 

Christianity is the most unique religion in the world. As i said before, all other religions are "do" religions. You have to meditate, give the right sacrifices, follow the 5 pillars, not eat pork, give to the poor, accumulate good karma, etc, etc. The point is, you have to DO SOMETHING to get to Heaven.

 

Christianity isn't like that. Christianity is a "DONE" religion. Do you want to pray yourself to Heaven? You can't! Do you want to abstain from pork to get to Heaven? You can't! You want to meditate to Heaven? You can't!

 

Christ is NOT earned. It doesn't matter how many good works you do, or how much you spend on charity. It's not enough. It's never enough. Even the man who discovers the cure for cancer can't earn his way to Heaven.

 

Why?

 

Because God is SO good! Man is so far below God that it doesn't matter HOW much good man does, he can't compete! Man can try as hard as he wants to climb out of his pit, but he can't.

 

That, according to Christian theology, is why Christ came. To do what we can't. What did He say on the cross, again?

 

"It is finished!"

 

Christianity is a "DONE" religion. That is unique. And no amount of "this is similar" or "that seems to echo that" or "this seems to be a copy of this" can erase this main, most fundamental message behind my religion. It's the fundamental message! All the rest is just fluff. IT IS FINISHED. It is done. Final. Over, through, and complete. And Jesus doesn't demand a price for it. It's a gift. It's already been given. All one has to do is recieve it.

 

You DON'T have to do your meditation or follow your pillars or any of that other .. That's not even icing on the cake. Jesus is it ALL! Cake, icing, *and* fork!

 

This is why the gnostics are so far removed from Christianity! Theirs is a "do" religion! AND EUSEBIUS WAS A GNOSTIC! Anything Eusebius says, wrote, or did CANNOT be considered part of Christianity! Saying "Eusebius said it, so it's part of Christianity" is like saying "Paul said it, so it's part of buddhism". The two are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. Any time you read anything about Eusebius and Christianity, theirs is not a benevolent link, but a falsified one.

 

*I* can tell you why Augustine wrote what he did. He was mentioning that the "knowledge of God" and "knowledge about man" that Christians believe has always existed. In essence, this is what his statement means:

 

"What we Christians know today is not some recent discovery. God made the world and all in it, and man, no matter how lost he has become, has always somehow known this. Then Christ came, and man was reminded of the Old Truth (God)."

 

You have no idea whether or not Augustine DID write that Christianity was an "authentic and original religion". I don't either, because i haven't yet read all his works. But from what i have read, he has said this, if not directly, then often indirectly, multiple times. If i wanted to, i could dig out the quotes, but i'm lazy. If you're honestly curious, i'll get some books on him from the library and quote them to you.

 

Gee, the New Testament copies from the Old Testament? Duh.

 

The only real ritual Christianity has is the Bread and Wine. All of the other stuff is fluff incorporated by the Catholics when they were busy trying to get the pagans to identify with them and convert. They aren't mentioned in the Bible. And rituals, as a whole, really have no part of a lot of Christianity, unless you count prayer.

 

If Christianity copies from buddhist/hindu philosophy, you should be happy to provide some examples, right?

 

You are taking Augustines quote out of context. He did NOT say that "Christ has nothing new to say". He says that Christ illuminated some Old Truth(s). Nowhere in that quote does he say Christ was nothing new.

 

Augustine was also NOT hinting that he somehow knew Christ wasn't real. That is also a misuse of the text.

 

And if you can say so certainly that "they" were right on that point, how can *you* claim to have fully and impartially investigated both sides? If it is so certain that Jesus never existed, then why do an enormous majority of true scholars disagree with you on that point?

 

Any exclamations of popes about Christ's being profitable is understandable. A lot of popes were not very nice fellows. Some even produced (bastard) children. And, what with the "buying your way out of purgatory", and other such lies (which apparently reeeaaalllllly reankled none other than Martin Luther), it is easy to see why one pope would say that. What was the name of the pope?

 

Regarding Christ's being "profitable"...

 

Are you aware that 11 of the 12 disciples, plus Paul, all met with grusome fates?

 

Imagine a young benchwarmer on a baseball team, who, hoping to get a part in some commecial, tells the interviewer;

 

"Oh, oh yeah, I'M the star pitcher of my team! One day I'll even be the best in the league!"

 

It is easy for him to maintain this lie while in a postition to make money. But suppose in the middle of the night a group of thugs break into his home and threaten him:

 

"Are you REALLY the star pitcher, or not? 'Cause if you are, we're going to kill you."

 

How long would that benchwarmer maintain his lie?

 

This is what you expect that Paul has done. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, all of the following things are true:

 

-Christ never existed.

-Paul made it all up for profit.

-Paul used imitations of other faiths to accomplish this.

 

Well, then, where was Paul's profit?

 

If i recall correctly, he was jailed, whipped, shipwrecked, arrested, and he also chose to become homeless. He devoted his LIFE to this lie. And he didn't make all of his sufferings up, either. He showed the scars to the Churches he visited. If he didn't have any scars, then the moment someone said "prove it!", he would have been exposed as a liar, and nobody would have followed him or his lies. That would have ended Christianity on the world scene.

 

Where was Paul's profit?

 

Why didn't he just abandon his fabrications when he discovered that he would get no profit?

 

Why would a group of men create a fabricated story and give up everything they had for it, all in order to die for said fabication?

 

You, scholar, have 2,000 years of history against you. And all you can think of to defend your bizarre position is: "well...it was a conspiracy!" That's not logical. Your entire position is one of predetermined outcomes, and you will twist and ignore any facts you have to in order to reach it.

 

You say:

 

"In esablishing whether Christ was a

historical figure or not, we have to

go by the available evidence."

 

Why then do you persist in discounting the Bible, the singularly most proven historical record in history, from said evidence?

[Guest guest]

 

 

Why then do you persist in discounting the Bible, the singularly most proven historical record in history, from said evidence

 

 

This statment is not correct for any religious text in the world. Religious books are not written to be historical records -- their goal & motivation are completely different. They are always hagiographical and allegoric. In other words, facts & fable are interwoven making their historical value practically worthless.

 

Academia does not list Jesus as a historical person. Never mind whether they are right or wrong. The fact reamins that the authenticity of Jesus is under dispute for the simple reason that no strong evidence rests on either side, which is not the case with Mohammad and the Buddha.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

Even an inveterate liar speaks the truth

at times. Even a lunatic has lucid moments.

 

The Christian Bible is similar. There are

verifiable historically correct facts in it

scattered here and there. But it is not a

history book. Not even remotely so. And there

is nothing in it that proves Christ was a

real person.

 

I don't agree with the comment that the

historicity of Christ is in dispute because

no strong evidence rests on either side.

 

This is a dead issue. Christ never was. One

side has all the evidence. The other side

does not want to accept it.

[Guest guest]

Exactly. Your side does not want to accept it.

 

If "no strong evidence rests on either side", how can you then say "This is a dead issue. Christ never was" and "one side has all the evidence"?

 

Your illogic and self-contradictions are appalling.

 

When Galileo had his theory of heliocentricity, he did not simply march down to see the pope, pound his fist on the altar, and declare,

 

"YOU are the one who must produce evidence that the sun revolves around the Earth! Because if you don't, then MY theory is right by default!"

 

Why didn't Galileo do this?

 

Because the flow of history was against him. Since the corrupt greek times, people had believed the Sun revolved around the Earth.

 

GALILEO was the opposing theorist. He was opposing history. Thus, his evidence needed to be stronger than history. HE WAS THE ONE WHO NEEDED PROOF. He needed to DIS-prove geocentricity in order to THEN proceed to prove heliocentricity.

 

You, scholar, are the opposing theorist. You are opposing 2,000 years of history. In order to be counted more than just a maniac, you need to have stronger evidence than history if you're going to prove your theory. So: PROVE IT.

 

You are returning to your "argument from silence", it seems.

 

What evidence does your side have? Nothing. An argument from silence. An argument from silence is NO argument at all.

 

You say:

 

"Even an inveterate liar speaks the truth

at times. Even a lunatic has lucid moments."

 

True enough. So what?

 

Then you say:

 

"The Christian Bible is similar."

 

Wrong. The Bible is a document, not a person. Even if one of the disciples was insane, for all of them (plus Paul and all the other first-generation Christians) to have been insane is far too big a gambit. It is statistically unfeasible.

 

It also would have meant that the Church would have died out within a generation, because nobody gets converted by a group of obviously crazy people.

 

Then:

 

"There are verifiable historically

correct facts in it scattered here

and there."

 

Have you even read the Bible? There is certainly more than a few "scattered" facts! They're ALL OVER THE PLACE!

 

What you are attempting to do is piddle down my argument and thus reduce its clout. In doing so you show your own weakness, because you cannot argue with the perfect historical credentials of the Bible.

 

You then have the gall to say:

 

"But it is not a history book. Not

even remotely so."

 

ARE YOU AN IDIOT?!

 

(Let me rephrase that)

 

DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT?!

 

Of COURSE the Bible is a HISTORY BOOK! It is PART of HISTORY! It has to be historical! It is the ****HISTORY**** of the beginning of the Christian movement!

 

The Bible was written in 1st century AD by the Disciples, who figured out, "hey, you know, one day we're all gonna die, so we better write down what we know so the next generation remembers it all." The express PURPOSE of the Bible is to TELL of how the Christian movement started! As such, IT IS ****MOST**** CERTAINLY a HISTORY BOOK!!!!

 

Then, continuing your rediculous line of thought:

 

"there is nothing in it that proves

Christ was a real person."

 

Apparently, *your* Bible seems to say, "this Jesus fellow appeared out of nowhere, told us some fun stuff, and disappeared. But He was God, i tell ya!"

 

The Gospels are nothing less than a biography of Jesus. They give His birthplace, His hometown, a story from His childhood, the name of His parent, His bloodline, the HISTORY of His ministry, and how He died. All of this is 100% verifiable, simply by the fact that Christianity even exists today!

 

For example, scholars used to think that "Nazareth", Jesus' hometown, was a fake city. Then, guess what? They DISCOVERED the actual town of Nazareth. Look the story up yourself.

 

In that instance, people thought the Bible was wrong (and, since Jesus couldn't have come from a non-existent place, by extension they thought that He didn't exist). But not only were the Gospels right, but they actually KNEW of something BEFORE scholars ever did!

 

Details like this suggest that Christ WAS a true historical Figure, and that He was certainly more than an idle fabrication.

 

Hmmmm.....why have you ignored my 3 questions?

 

-Why did the disciples (+ Paul) make up a fiction about a Man Who never existed, so that they could suffer and die for it?

 

(Hmmm....you appear to have COMPLETELY ignored that one.)

 

-Why are you throwing away the Bible as evidence so quickly? You would think that you would try to disprove it, internally--after all, if it is nothing but lies, then that should be easy. That you refuse to do this shows one of the following:

---You, for some reason, are too afraid.

---You cannot find anything to support you, and thus bringing it up will only tear your thesis down. Which, of course, means that this fact defeats you entirely.

---It is not worth your time to discover the truth and treat it as a source anyway, since your opinion on the matter is personally motivated by your preconcieved desires and not any actual evidence.

 

Also, in your last post you failed to answer this question:

 

-Why, if the Church was planting evidence of Christ, did they only do so in a few trace amounts, and not everywhere?

 

While i can commend you for being honest and saying that you don't know, that is *not* an answer. If you were facing a bunch of scholars who asked that question, not answering it would provide a severe crippling effect on your case.

 

"I don't know" just doesn't cut it. People do things for REASONS. If your theory doesn't logically fit, then there is something wrong with the theory.

 

The way your theory works is as follows:

 

You make big, sweeping claims ("This is a dead issue. Christ never was"), yet can't back them up. Your argument goes like this:

 

You: Christ never was. There was a gigantic conspiracy to create Him.

 

Christian: but the Bible, a historical document, says that He did.

 

You: the Bible was forged. You have to use secular documents.

 

Christian: Okay, what about the secular documents?

 

You: you can't use those, either. They're also forged.

 

Christian: but what about all the other evidences? The massive Jewish upheaval, and the new grave laws, etc.?

 

You: um....they were forged. It's a conspiracy!

 

Do you see your own absurdity now?

 

You have a preconcieved idea about the existence of Christ. In order to validate this idea, you visit highly biased sites that are all too willing to foster your grudge. You are nothing but a Christ-hating bigot.

 

If you want to argue against Christianity, then do so. Even if Christ exists, that would not automatically make Christianity right or wrong.

 

But if you want to believe in this bizarre theory, then do so. It's YOUR life, YOUR soul. But don't try to strut about declaring, "I know everything, yes I do. The facts are on my side"--because they most certainly ARE NOT.

 

Before you continue and post, why don't you sit down, lock away your notions for a moment, and logically think FOR YOURSELF. Ask yourself this question:

 

-Does the theory that there was a gigantic Church conspiracy sound any more logical than the theory that the government covers up existence of aliens?

 

In all, that all that you are really arguing for. In fact, i might even say that there is more evidence for the existence of aliens that evidence that Christ didn't exist.

[Guest guest]

You are confusing comments from two different

posts made by two different people.

 

One post, not mine, said, that there is dispute

about the historicity of Christ because no

strong evidence rests on either side.

 

I said: I don't agree with that comment. One side

has all the evidence. The other side does not want

to accept it.

 

Calm down. Relax. You seem to be rattled and

agitated. Read the following and commit it

to memory. Repeat it every day until you've

got it.

 

Here's the summary:

 

Christ:

 

Never was.

 

The New Testament:

 

A plagiarists' compilation.

 

The New Testament sources:

 

Many. The primary sources

are the Old Testament and

and Hindu-Buddhist literature.

Christianity:

 

Not an authentic, original religion.

A shallow imitation of the great faiths

that preceded it and without borrowing from

which it would never have come into

existence.

 

 

Adios.

[Guest guest]

 

 

-Why did the disciples (+ Paul) make up a fiction about a Man Who never existed, so that they could suffer and die for it?

 

 

Only the first part is history. The second part is from the Bible and is not history. It can very well be fiction, which is most likely the case here. Btw, you cannot use the Bible to prove the authenticity of it's contents. That is circular logic.

 

Your arguments indicate you consider the Bible as a history book. Like I said earlier, that is not true. In fact, if you can understand this, most of your arguments are gone. The Bible talks about miracles, prophecies, curses and what not. None of these are characterestics of a historical record. Virgin births, wine from water, blind men getting magically cured do not happen in real life and have no place in a history record which is supposed to state facts and not someone's wild, fanciful imaginations.

 

What is more likely? A savior predicted in the OT actually appearing or some ambitious writer shaping a character like Jesus by writing his life story to match the predictions in the OT, to then declare him as the predicted savior to start a new religion?

 

This is how history reasons and it is for the same reasons that Hindu records like Ramayana and Mahabharata are not considered historical records, although they may very well be dealing with some real events. The religious motivation made the authors include fanciful accounts as well, thus reducing their historical quality.

 

A tip: Avoid long posts with words typed in upper case. It makes your post very hard to read -- at least, by me.

 

Cheers

 

[Guest guest]

The only reason i ever get agitated is because people like you create false information and spread it about like fact. i hate having people like you parade about, declaring your own superiority. Naturally i am going to get very upset when bigots like you parade about and declare with your stupid conspiracy theories how my own beliefs are worthless.

 

If there IS facts out there that the Bible is unauthentic, then PROVE IT.

 

You keep making vague statements ("the NT is a plagarist's compliation", "Christ never existed", "Christianity is not an authentic religion"). Vague statements don't prove a single thing.

 

PROVE IT. You said you have all the evidence! SO PROVE IT. Cut out the generalized statements and the vague assertions. Give me real evidence. And don't link it to any of your bizarre sites. Speak for yourself (for once).

 

Here's YOUR summary:

 

-You started out with a preconcieved notion

-You found wackos that support it

-You believed said wackos due to your own desires

-You parade your idea out like fact

 

Then you defend yourself with vague statements and arguments from silence. Some of what you say is even blatant lies ("The historicity of Christ is a dead issue").

 

If this is a dead issue, why do a straight majority of scholars completely disagree with you?

 

You appear to be stuck in a rut. If were a true scholar, you would be responding to these questions:

 

-Why did the NT writers create something for no profit if they were only going to die from it?

 

-Why do you persist in avoiding the Bible as a historical source?

 

-Why, if there was a giant conspiracy, are the the supposed "planted" accounts of Jesus only in a few sources?

 

While i may be emotional and mistaken about one of your statements, that does not excuse your falling back on the mantra of "conspiracy, conspiracy, conspiracy" and vague statements.

[Guest guest]

In response to Shiv:

 

You "circular arguements" point is incorrect.

 

The Bible is MOST certainly history. It contains factual information about its day and is continually being proven true. It lists things like who ruled what province and when, and why and how.

 

Just because the Bible mentions miracles does not remove it from being a history book. Most history books are biased. Even today. Thus, if history books are biased today, how can you be expected history books of the past to be unbiased?

 

ALL ancient books we have are biased. People back then believed that miracles and superstitions were a part of daily life. The sun? It's not a star, it's a horseman in a chariot... People back then believed that every little thing was an omen, or a miracle, of some kind.

 

To claim that "because a book claims miracles means that it can't be considered historical" is to claim that every book from Jesus's era backward is completely and utterly false, through and through.

 

You are looking at this in a biased way. You are looking at the Bible and immediately thinking "modern Christians". Not so. The Bible, whether true or not, was written during the 1st century AD. It is part of history. It is a history book. It is the record of the early Christian movement. Nobody else was going to write it down. So the Christians did. Just because they are biased does not make the entire thing null and void.

 

Look all of its historical records up, if you don't believe me. Please do. Don't just take my word for it.

 

Just because a book is religious doesn't disqualify it. If you have any intelligence at all, which i am certain you do, you would be able to sift through the Bible and get rid of any "miracles" in order to get to the true history.

 

Unlike all other religious books, the Bible is capable of being considered a true biography. Most of the miracles can easily be explained away by skeptics as imaginings or stretches, which is appropriate for the time period. But the actual, HISTORICAL Jesus is still there, PAST all the miracles.

 

Jesus was born in Bethlehem. He grew up in Nazareth. He began a 3-year ministry in his 30s, where He may have helped some people (miracles), and where He told a lot of stories (parables) on how to live and about God. Then He got in the way of the authorities, who had Him killed.

 

Miracles or no, this biography still remains true.

 

Why do you believe in your religion if you don't see it as history? You say your own religion is a lot of allegorical tales. What makes you think that? And how do you know if your own religion is true or false if all it is is a bunch of allegorical tales? Could *I* could write up a bunch of allegorical tales, and be considered a new prophet? Of course not. A religion without history is not a true religion. It's nothing but bedtime stories. If there is a God, would not He be in charge of the history of the world He made?

 

Finally, if you want to look at, say, one of the ancient gnostic religions, you would look at their actual records to see what happened in said religion. Why? Because people record things that matter to them. To the gnostics, their religion was certainly important. Thus, if the gnostics had a record that said "on this date of this month, so-and-so died to protect the faith", you would have to accept that so-and-so really DID die for his faith. To deny otherwise is to make a bizarre conclusion that the record you have is unreliable, while you have no evidence to the contrary. That is not what historical scholars do. Until proven otherwise, you *have* to accept a historical source.

 

The gnostics wrote about their religion. You don't dispute *their* accounts of what happened. The muslims wrote about their religion. Yet you don't dispute that Muhammad existed. The buddhists wrote about buddhist things. Yet you don't dispute that some buddhists might have died in this situation or that situation.

 

Why is Christianity the only one being here disputed?

 

Which is more likely?

 

That the Christian movement made everything up in a great, gigantic conspiracy, or that, at the very least, a real Jesus existed and His followers might have blown Him out of proportion?

 

The idea that a Savior appeared isn't so very far off. There were others, aside from Jesus, who claimed that status. It simply is that Jesus's account, somehow, has survived time, while theirs has faded so far than none remember them.

 

Thank you for the writing tip.

 

By the way, Shiv, you say:

 

"Only the first part is history. The second part is from the Bible and is not history. It can very well be fiction, which is most likely the case here."

 

What proof do you have of this? It is logically and historically inconsistent.

 

And i have not used the Bible to prove its own contents. The Bible is a proven historical source, proven by archeology and Church records. THOSE give authenticity to the Bible.

 

To take anything and hold it up, saying, "This is true!" is stupid. But i don't have to do that with the Bible. Since the Bible is proven historically, it can, at the very least, be considered historical proof.

 

FYI, the *Bible* isn't what says that the disciples & Paul died. Acts actually ended with Paul still alive.

[gurukul 0]

I,as a hindu who is a christ bhakta cant stop believing (just because someone says jesus never existed) that history begins with the most authoritative dating with Jesus christ.The events of the histories is calculated based on Before christ (BC) and Anna-domini (AD).was this dating a great forgery done by the scholars of that time?.If that is so then the whole world is a fool except for our few "wise" freinds who denies Jesus existence.both -those who forged and those who found it out ("wise mens") to be forged be nominated for an oscar.Rest watch the function.

 

If I wanted to forge a religion why should I use a criminal (The romans usually placed only criminals on the cross) who was mercilesly whipped ,spat,beaten and brutally killed with other criminals.I could have used a better person like superman or phantom or spiderman who triumphed over all evils.what gain is there to create and die a brutal death which I know it to be absolutely false?.history records the brutal killings of the followers of Jesus chirst that includes Thomas who came to India and was killed while spreading a "false religion".that sounds too absurd for me.I am sure he could have been better at home than to be killed (which he knew to be false) in the thick forests of India during that time.

 

Commenting against the two thousand years of well established ,verified ,scrutinised and authoritative history is like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

The whole problem today is that the ancient history is faultily placed into the modern context of seeing everything politically motivated.

 

When I look at hospitals,schools,colleges,printing press,railways,orphanages,old age homes,ramabai's mukti mission for the helpless girls,ashrams ,leprosorums etc started by christians ages back in India (for whatever reasons may be )bringing India into recent developments with other countries and also seeing lives of many christians who sacrificed their homes,comfort,family,relatives, wealth, status to work selflessly -requires of me a great faith to accept its a forged faith that is based on lie.

 

[Guest guest]

We are all anonymous. You may announce

here that you are a Hindu. In truth, you

may be a Christian. Whatever you say about

yourself will be automatically discarded.

 

I am responding only to the content of your

message.

 

Ordinary believers are not scholars.

The overwhelming majority of ordinary

Christians have not read the Bible.

They cannot express themselves articulately

about anything of substance about their

faith. This is true of ordinary Hindus and

Buddhists as well. Ordinary people are

not the best sources of information about

their faith.

 

You are obviously an ordinary person. Your

comments make that clear. What you believe

is your personal matter. But what say

about Hinduism will not have much weight.

And your comments about Christianity are

not worth anything. Zero. Zip city.

 

To keep this post short, I'll address two

points.

 

The Catholic church itself does not recognize

the Thomas you are talking about ever came

to our country. Please study this matter. It is

a fabricated story. Just like the story

of Christ. Forgeries and falsifications are the

foundations of Christianity.

 

Our country was one of the richest in the world

until the time of the Muslim invasions. Muslims

destroyed it. Colonial control by the Christians

who came after the Muslims robbed the country

of whatever wealth was left both in terms of

natural resources as well as industry and

manufacturing. Please study history.

 

It was during colonial times Christian

charity work started. It's like a robber who

takes possession of the store, then gives

the storeowner some change to go and have

a cup of coffee.

 

[Guest guest]

It´s easy to blame the others for all the decline of a country, that doesn´t mean that the religion is over. It´s correct to discuss the fact of Thomas, but you cannot quote "Forgeries and falsifications are the

foundations of Christianity", it is your hipotesis. You say that christians don´t read the Bible...see the uprising of fundamentalist christianism in USA, with the New testament in their hands as a holy truth, they are not catholics, who are loosing a lot of terrain against the protestants. The majority of the catholics may not read too much the Bible, but they got their priests and there isn´t a compulsary law to read the Holy book. They pray a lot, and it reminds a lot a buddhist connection.

In my personal point of view religion in the west (not in the east because is the land were all main religions came from) should be teach from hinduism to bahaism if possible. There is a great amount of ignorance in the west (and I pressume in the east as well) about what´s going on spiritually in the world. I can see a lot of hate reflected on ypour message, scholar, I hope you don´t teach that way.

"Self-important, obstinate, swept away by the pride of wealth, they ostentatiously perform sacrifices without any regard for their purpose. Egotistical, violent, arrogant, lustful, angry, envious of everyone, they abuse my presence within their own bodies and in the bodies of others. -" Bhagavad Gita

[Guest guest]

Explain why the following passages from the

New Testament describe Christian behavior and

Christian history almost exactly, but all those

Christians you are telling me who do read the

Bible never quote them. Christian actions

by churches as we see them even today are inpired

by these words no doubt. And there is equally bad

material in the Old Testament.

 

scholar

Unregistered

 

Look beneath the surface [re: kwaka]

01/05/06 01:23 PM Edit Reply

 

Kwaka, you have been interpreting Christianity for us. What do you think

of these passages from the New Testament which more or less sum

up the violent history of Christianity.

 

 

SOWING SEEDS OF DIVISION, DESTROYING FAMILIES AND PROMOTING WAR

 

Luke 22:36

 

... he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

 

Luke 12:49

 

I am come to send fire on the earth.

 

Matthew 12:30

 

He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

 

Luke 12:51

 

Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but

rather division.

 

Matthew 10:36

 

...a man's foes shall they be of his own household.

 

Luke 12:52

 

...from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against

two, and two against three.

 

Matthew 10:35

 

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter

against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

 

Matthew 10:21

 

And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the

child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them

to be put to death.

 

 

INTOLERANCE FOR OTHERS' POINTS OF VIEW

 

Matthew 23:33

 

Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye

escape the damnation of hell?

 

Matthew 24:27

 

Woe to you, scribes and ... hypocrites!

 

Luke 10:13-15

 

Woe unto thee ... it shall be more tolerable for

Tyre and Sidon at the judgment, than for you.

 

And thou ... shalt be thrust down to hell.

 

Revelation 2:12

 

These things saith he which hath the sharp sword

with two edges.

 

Revelation 2:16

 

I will come ..., and will fight against

them with the sword of my mouth.

 

 

PUNISHMENT FOR CONSENSUAL SEX BETWEEN ADULTS

 

Revelation 2:20-23

 

... I have a few things against thee, because

thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which

calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to

seduce my servants to commit fornication, and

to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

 

And I gave her space to repent of her

fornication; and she repented not.

 

Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them

that commit adultery with her into great

tribulation, ...

 

And I will kill her children with death ...

 

 

CURSING THE FIG TREE

 

Christ was hungry and looked around for something to eat.

He saw a fig tree some distance away. But it was not the

season of figs yet. Being out of season, the tree bore only

leaves but no fruit. Here's what happened.

 

Matthew 21:19-20

 

And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it,

and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said

unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for

ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.

 

And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled,

saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away!

 

Mark 11:13-14 , 11:20-21

 

And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came,

if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he

came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of

figs was not yet.

 

And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit

of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it.

 

And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig

tree dried up from the roots.

 

And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master,

behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered

away.

 

 

APOCALYPSE, ONLY BELIEVERS WILL BE SAVED

 

... ye shall hear of wars ...

 

For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against

kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences,

and earthquakes, in divers places.

 

Then shall be two in the field; the one shall be taken,

and the other left.

 

Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall

be taken, and the other left.

 

And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that

give suck, in those days!

 

... for there shall be great distress in the land, and

wrath upon this people.

 

And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall

be led away captive into all nations ...

 

there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

 

For in those days shall be affliction ...

 

then ... great tribulation ...

 

no flesh should be saved ...

 

And except those days should be shortened, there

should no flesh be saved ...

 

but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he

hath shortened the days.

 

... after that tribulation ... shall he send his

angels, and shall gather together his elect from

the four winds, from the uttermost part of the

earth to the uttermost part of heaven.

 

 

GENOCIDE, WORLD CONQUEST AND DOMINATION

 

Revelation 2:26-28

 

And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end,

to him will I give power over the nations:

 

And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels

of a potter shall they be broken to shivers ...

 

And I will give him the morning star.

 

Luke 19:27

 

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should

reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

 

[Guest guest]

Christianity has 2000 years. Figure out who were living there at that time. Thousands of miles from the places where all religions started. The Bible mentions passagges which really sounds like destruction, you are right, but the historical situation of the mediterranean was different from the India peninsula. The Bible compilation doent´s call for war or anything similar. It´s the way it should be interpreted, the word of God. I don´t think all christians take those passages literally. Let the history itself make a path for christianity.

PD: What is this? "Generally the hymns of the Rig Veda praise the gods and ask them for worldly benefits such as wealth, health, long life, protection, and victory over the Dasa peoples."

anf this:

In Rig Veda III:34:9 Indra killed the Dasyus and "gave protection to the Aryan color." Not only did the Aryans shamelessly pray for booty in war, but they based their militarily won supremacy on the lightness of their skin color compared to the dark colors of the native Dasyus. They arrogantly proclaimed, "Let those who have no weapons suffer sorrow." (Rig Veda IV:5:14.)

Mostly all of the Holy Books speak of blood, but that´s not the escence we should find.

 

 

[gurukul 0]

scholar ,your ignorance is leading you to not only Judge the established accounts of history but also in your attempt to prove your theory to be right you are judging what I am and am not.

 

let me ask you humbly-Are you a hindu or an aethist? which religion and faith is yours? It will help me to know through what worldview you are speaking all these things.

 

I am a hindu by my birth and remain a hindu till I die as that's how parameshwar has placed me here in India.In my faith for now I am a christ bhakta.For long I followed many gods who could bring me assurance of forgiveness from my sins ,peace within ,freedom from guilt,transformation within ,hope of life with God after death etc.no amount of karma ,faith could satisfy my hungry soul to assurance of all the above.further -neither my gods whom i revered were following the dharma sutras fully to offer me freedom.

 

Finally as a hindu, following and knowing christ as his bhakta liberated me from the bondage,fear of guilt and sin and further it transformed my life to a new way with great assurance of life ahead.the presence of christ is real to me everyday and i experience him everyday.

 

Namaste

[Guest guest]

Those translations are by two-bit colonial

scholars who didn't understand Sanskrit

especially the archaic Sanskrit of the Rigveda.

Some translations made by colonial scholars

were deliberately malicious.

 

Rigveda is the work of ten gifted families

of writers and poets and their descendants.

The Aryan rishis describe themselves

matter-of-factly as brown, dark or black.

Arya means a person of noble character and

virtue. Dasyus are the opposite. People who

do not practice piety and who do not hold

themselves to a high moral standard.

 

If you are leading up to the Aryan Invasion

Theory, forget it. It is dead.

 

Early parts of the Rigveda actually describe

a civil war or The Battle of the Ten Kings.

The war ended with two groups being driven

out of the country. The victorious Aryas

went on to develop the Vedic civilization

in Punjab.

 

You did not provide any explanation at all

for the morally evil passages from the New

Testament. The Old Testament has far too many.

It has many more pages than the thin New

Testament. The passages come right out of

Christ's mouth. They are not in archaic

Sanskrit, are they? They call for war,

destruction of families, hell for non-believers,

genocide, conquest and domination. What is

your problem? They are in English. There is

no ambiguity about what they mean.

 

Instead of answering the question posed

to you, you dug up some old translations

of passages from the Rigveda. Early parts

of the Rigveda date back to 4,000 BCE,

and the Vedic literature becomes more and more

refined and sophisticated. Its finest expression

is found in the Upanishads.

 

After the initial goody-two-shoes image you

presented to us, I think you are beginning to

show your true colors. Those passages from the

New Testament I posted represent Christian

behavior and Christian history almost exactly.

They reveal the true nature of Christianity

and of those who practice it.

 

 

[Guest guest]

I don´t want to show any true colors, you can notice that my english is not very rich.

The New Testament shows a lot of those passages you mention, but the intention is not embrace or hell. It is not interpreted to say that. Christian basic is love, and even the new german Pope speaks about it in the new "enciclicas". Probably the people of those times in that part of the world needed more aggresive words, but for sure they don´t mean to menace in the way it seems. India counts with thousends of years ahead on evolution in terms of spirituallity. 2000 years ago the mediterranean area was a confusion of faiths, sacrifices, druids, etc.

The passages you mention don´t represent 100% christian behaviour, I can assure you that love prevails in the common citizen of the street. I am happy to participate and learn from this site, there are no intentions to offend anyone and sorry if by my still great ignorance in english didn´t express well.

Saludos desde las canarias a todos.