SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: 2MAR$ who wrote (17868)7/10/2001 12:28:54 PM
From: Solon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
home.inu.net

"All of this lends heavy credence to the view currently held by many Bible scholars that the canonical gospels are fiction pure and simple. The Jesus they depict is a myth and nothing more."

The Mystery of Paul's Ignorance 1

Louis W. Cable

Paul's writing is no better than the jargon of a conjurer who picks up phrases he does not understand to confound the credulous people who come to have their fortune told.

Thomas Paine2

Let us consider the question of Paul's ignorance, perhaps the most perplexing problem confronting the defenders of the historical Jesus. The Apostle Paul, often referred to as the founder of Christianity, seems to have been totally unaware of any details of Jesus' life and teachings as they are presented in the gospels. Nowhere does Paul equate his hero, Jesus Christ, with a man from Nazareth recently put to death in Judea. Why?

Paul's dates are not definitely known, but he is believed to have lived from somewhere around 53 to around 674. Although these dates may not be exact, the traditional dates of Jesus’ ministry (27-30) fall well within them. When Jesus was supposed to have been active in his ministry, Paul was a grown man in his early to mid twenties living and working in Jerusalem. He claims to have studied under the famous rabbinical teacher, Gamaliel, and to have been closely associated with the political and religious leaders of that day (Acts 22:3-5).

During the alleged time of Jesus, Jerusalem was a city of approximately 120,000 people5, not significantly large. Therefore, Paul must have heard of the miracles allegedly performed by Jesus. How could he have missed Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem which, according to Matthew 21:9-11, attracted great multitudes6. How could he not have heard about Jesus’ cleansing of the temple which incurred the wrath of the chief priests and the scribes (Matthew 21:15)? As an enforcer of the law, how could Paul not have known of Jesus’ betrayal by Judas Iscariot resulting in his arrest by soldiers and police from the chief priests and the Pharisees (John 18:3). He does not refer to Judas' accidental death which, according to Acts 1:19, was known to all of the residents of Jerusalem. Paul must have been aware of Jesus' trial before Pontius Pilate and the ensuing crucifixion with its attendant anomalies such as darkness at noon and earthquakes. Why didn't he mention the resurrection of the saints (Matthew 27:52-53), certainly the most astounding event in history. He never mentions the amputation by Peter of the right ear of Malchus, the chief priest's slave (John 18:10) and its miraculous reattachment by Jesus (Luke 22:51)? Surely Paul encountered Jesus sometime during those years so crucial to what was to become the Christian religion. Yet, not a single reference to these important events appears anywhere in his writings. What makes it stranger still is that in Luke 24:18-20 Cleopas says that everybody in Jerusalem knew about Jesus whom he described as "a prophet mighty in deed and word."

According to Paul, the only encounter he ever had with Jesus was that famous incident which allegedly occurred on the road to Damascus. The Book of Acts records three separate versions of this encounter none of which agrees with the other two. For example, in Acts 9:7, Paul says that the men with him "heard the voice." But in Acts 22:9 he says they "did not hear the voice." The other contradiction lies in the manner in which Paul claims to have received his instructions. According to the first two accounts, Jesus didn't say very much. He told Paul to go into the city where he would be told what he must do (9:6 and 22:10). However, in his defense before King Agrippa (26:12-18) Paul tells a different story. Here he says that Jesus instructed him in great detail right there on the spot.

The accounts of Paul's experience on the road to Damascus are second-hand testimony recorded by an unknown author long after the events are alleged to have taken place. There are no affidavits or other legal documents confirming the experience. Besides, if the accounts are accurate, the witnesses could not have agreed to anything except that they saw a bright light.

Paul tells in II Cor. 11:32-33 how he made a daring escape from the agents of King Aretas who were out to arrest him. Aretas is known to have died in the year 407 thus putting Paul’s conversion and the beginning of his career as an evangelist in the very late 30s, less than ten years after the alleged crucifixion. Therefore, he should have been personally acquainted with many who had had direct contact with Jesus during his lifetime. For example, he went to Jerusalem where he spent fifteen days with Peter (Galatians 1:18), whom Jesus had personally selected to be his earthly successor (Mt. 16:17-19). What did they talk about if not Jesus?

Those Pauline epistles considered to be genuine (Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, and perhaps Philippians and Philemon) were written between 50 and 60. They predate the gospels and are among the earliest extant Christian writings. Therefore, one would expect them to contain a wealth of details about Jesus' life and teachings, details confirming the gospel accounts. But this is far from the case. Concerning the alleged virgin birth Paul says only that, "Jesus was born of a woman, born under the law" (Galatians 4:4). The time, place and circumstances of Jesus’ birth, recorded in such great detail in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, are never mentioned. Paul says not one word about Joseph, Jesus’ surrogate father who figures so prominently in the birth narratives. Also, Paul apparently never heard of John the Baptist who not only baptized Jesus, but who is said to have been instrumental in the fulfillment of certain Old Testament prophecies said to confirm Jesus as the long awaited messiah. The most interesting of them all, however, is that in Romans 1:4 Paul says that Jesus was not officially recognized as "the Son of God" until after the resurrection.

"Jesus was made of the seed of David according to the flesh," says Paul in Romans 1:3. This statement flies in the face of everything we are told in the gospels. In Matthew 1:20 and Luke 1:35 we learn that Mary was made pregnant with Jesus not by Joseph, to whom she was betrothed, but by the Holy Ghost. This creates a really big problem for Bible believers. First, although Joseph was of David's line, he was not Jesus' father. Second, the Holy Ghost is a spirit and spirits do not have flesh and blood. Third, "according to the flesh" could not have been referring to Mary's flesh because she was not from David's line. So if the birth narratives are to be believed, Jesus did not come from the seed of David, and Paul told another big lie.

In Matthew 23 Jesus bitterly denounces the scribes and the Pharisees, accusing them of being nothing more than a bunch of worthless hypocrites out to get him. Apparently Paul was unaware of this because when testifying before the chief priest and the Council he proudly proclaims, “Brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee” (Acts 23:6).

First Corinthians 15:45 begins with the familiar words, “So it is written . . .” But where? Here Paul claims to quote scriptures that are nowhere to be found. There is no mention anywhere in the Hebrew Bible of a second Adam. This second Adam, according to Paul, is none other than Jesus who came directly from heaven as a man, an adult (1 Cor. 15:47). Therefore, Paul’s Jesus could not have been born of a virgin in Bethlehem.

In Philippians 3:10-11 Paul declares with great emotion, “That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; if by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.” Yet when he returns to Jerusalem it is merely to visit Peter, as mentioned above. He never expresses the slightest desire to see Bethlehem, Jesus’ birthplace, Nazareth, his home town, the sites of his preaching, the upper room where he is supposed to have held the fabled Last Supper, nor Calvary where the ultimate sacrifice was allegedly made. Most astonishing of all, however, is that there is not one hint of a pilgrimage to the tomb in which the resurrection, the center piece of Paul’s theology, is supposed to have taken place.

Paul makes no references to Jesus' ethical and moral teachings in situations where it would have been in his best interest to have done so. He, in fact, contradicts some of them. For example, Paul held that gentile Christians need not obey Jewish law to be saved (Gal. 3:8-9 and 5:6). Evidently he was unaware that this was a direct contradiction of the teachings of Jesus on this matter (Matthew 5:17-19). Furthermore when Paul does make such ethical pronouncements as "Bless those who persecute you" (Romans 12:14), he does not cite the authority of Jesus (Matthew 5:10-12). Apparently Paul never heard of the Sermon on the Mount. When Paul, in Romans 8:26, says “we do not know how to pray as we should,” does this mean he was unaware that Jesus taught the Lord’s Prayer to his disciples (Matthew 6:9-13 and Luke 11:2-4)? Did Paul not know of Jesus’ prayer against temptation (Mark 14:35-36 and parallels) or the famous farewell prayer (John 17)?

In 2 Cor. 12:12 Paul states, "The signs of a true apostle were performed among you . . . by signs and wonders and miracles." Surely Paul would have cited Jesus' miracles at this point, had he been aware of them. We can only surmise that Paul had no knowledge of the life and teachings of Jesus as they are presented in the gospels.

In his first Epistle to the Thessalonians (4:15-17) Paul assures his audience that the kingdom of God is at hand and will, in fact, take place during their lifetime. "Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together," he tells them. Why at this point did he not appeal to the authority of Jesus himself who in Matthew 16:28 tells his listeners, "There are some of those standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." The answer is obvious. Paul never heard of the man, Jesus of Nazareth. At the time Paul was preaching the Jesus myth had not yet been concocted.

Those Pauline epistles which do characterize Jesus in a way corresponding to the gospels such as the pastorals (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) have been shown to be forgeries written not by Paul but by persons unknown probably early in the second century. By that time the gospels had been written and distributed throughout the Christian communities of that day. The authors of these epistles undoubtedly relied on them as a source of information.

All of this lends heavy credence to the view currently held by many Bible scholars that the canonical gospels are fiction pure and simple. The Jesus they depict is a myth and nothing more.



To: 2MAR$ who wrote (17868)7/10/2001 12:47:49 PM
From: Solon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
WOULD YOU BUY A USED CAR FROM THIS MAN, MARS!

home.inu.net

WOULD YOU BUY A USED CAR

FROM ST. PAUL?
1

Paul is like the man who comes into a court of law today to swear that everything he swore to yesterday was a lie.

Thomas Paine2

Louis W. Cable

What follows was derived in part from New Testament Fallacies by Shmuel Golding of the Jerusalem Institute of Biblical Polemics, Jerusalem, Israel. All Bible citations are from the King James version of the Bible and are underlined for the convenience of the reader.

First let us consider the three accounts of Paul's conversion as recorded in Acts chapters 9, 22, and 26. There is an obvious contradiction between the first two accounts. In chapter 9 we are told that the men accompanying him heard the voice whereas in chapter 22 it states that they did not hear the voice. Another contradiction is the inconsistency in the manner in which Paul claims to have received his instructions. According to the first two accounts he is told to go into the city where instructions will be given to him. When testifying before King Agrippa, however, Paul embellishes the story. Here he says that Jesus himself instructed him in great detail right there on the spot (Acts 26:15-18). This passage bears all the earmarks of a forgery.

Something that has always puzzled me about the story of Paul's conversion is that after the shock of seeing the bright light and hearing the disembodied voice ask, "Why persecutest thou me?," his first comment was, "Who are you?" Now considering that the sole purpose of his mission was to persecute Jesus' followers, shouldn't it have been obvious?

Acts 23:3 ~ In a fit pique Paul openly curses the high priest. When reminded that it is unlawful to curse the rulers (Exodus 22:28), Paul replies, "I was not aware that I was talking to the high priest." This is hard to believe indeed when one considers that he had recently been an agent of the high priest and had in fact directly petitioned him for letters authorizing the arrest and persecution of Christian Jews living in Damascus.

Romans 1:3 ~ "Jesus was made of the seed of David according to the flesh," says Paul. Although this statement agrees fully with the one made by Jesus in Revelation 22:16, it flies in the face of everything we are told in the gospels. In Matthew 1:20 and Luke 1:35 we learn that Mary was made pregnant with Jesus not by Joseph, who was of the Davidic line, but by the Holy Ghost. This creates a really big problem for Bible believers. First, although Joseph was of David's line, he was not Jesus' father. Second, the Holy Ghost is a spirit and spirits have neither flesh nor blood. Third, "according to the flesh" could not have been referring to Mary's flesh because she was not from David's line. She was a Levite. So, if the birth narratives are to be believed, Jesus did not come from the seed of David, and Paul told another big lie. If, on the other hand, Revelation 22:16 is true and Paul is right, the writers of Matthew and Luke lied.

Romans 1:16 ~ Paul announces that, "The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth." Salvation from sin through the blood of a man who died on a Roman cross is alien to everything in the Old Testament and to everything that is Jewish. When a fundamentalist Christians say that God made a new covenant with the Jews and sealed it with the blood of his son who is supposed to have died a sacrificial death one need simply tell them to read Jeremiah 31:29-30 , "In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge." Note that this passage makes no provision for anyone to die for the sins of others. Everyone shall die for his or her own sins, it says. Therefore, Jesus' death is in no way a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. The Jewish way to salvation is given in Ezekiel 18:27 where it says. "When a wicked man turns away from his wickedness and practices justice and righteousness he will save his life." Notice that there is no mention of Jesus or a messiah.

Romans 2:11 ~ Paul claims that, "There is no respect of persons with God." This statement contradicts Deut. 7:6 where it states that God selected a chosen people from among all the people of the world. Also, God had respect of persons between Cain and Able (Gen. 4:4-5). In Malachi 1:2-3 God openly expresses his love for Esau and his hatred for Jacob, Esau's brother?

Romans 2:13 ~ According to Paul, "The doers of the law shall be justified." Later in 3-20 he contradicts this statement by saying, "Therefore by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified."

Romans 12:14 ~ Paul says, "Bless them that persecute you, bless and curse not." Although he preached this doctrine to others, Paul did not practice it. The truth is that he had a violent temper and held grudges. In I Corinthians 16:22 he openly cursed those who disagreed with him. He did it again in Galatians 1:9. These incidents show Paul to be a pious hypocrite. Another very revealing thing about Romans 12:14 is its close similarity to Matthew 5:10-12. Yet Paul never invokes Jesus nor the Sermon on the Mount from which it apparently came.

Romans 14:1-8 ~ Here Paul says, "Let every man be persuaded in his own mind." In this chapter Paul outlines the code of law for Christian living according in which every one is free to do just as he or she pleases. Thus the law of the Old Testament is abandoned. This directly contradicts Jesus' unqualified endorsement of Old Testament law as recorded in Matthew 5:17-19.

Romans 15:29 ~ "When I come unto you I will come in the fullness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ." But when Paul did eventually go to Rome, he went as a prisoner under guard (Acts 28:16).

I Corinthians 5:1 ~ Paul scolds the Corinthians, "It is reported that there is fornication among you." Here he is rebuking his followers because they took Romans 14:1-8 seriously. Paul is here put in the embarassing position of having to turn to the very law which he had earlier abrogated. In verse 5 he even orders the execution of a man who took his dead father's wife. It might be of interest here to note that according to I John 3:9, "He who is born of God cannot sin." Therefore Paul's converts could not have been born again believers.

I Corinthians 6:5 ~ Paul asks, "Is it so that there is not one wise man among you?" Has he already forgotten his own exaltation back in 3:18? There he said, "If any man among you seem to be wise in this world, let him become a fool that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is but foolishness with God."

I Corinthians 6:7 ~ True to the words of Jesus in Matthew 7:1 (Do not judge) or Matthew 5:39 (Do not be opposed to evil), or Luke 6:30, (If robbed, do not ask for your goods back), Paul recommends that his followers not go to the law to settle their disputes. "It is preferable," he says, "to suffer yourself to be defrauded." Had these recommendations been observed it would have robbed the world of its civilization and created a society dominated by lawless thugs. What this passage actually shows is that the early Christians were indeed capable of defrauding one another. All of these rebukes from Paul only go to show that his doctrine of free from the law (Romans 8:2) and saved by grace (Ephesians 2:8) did nothing more than give men the license to sin.

I Corinthians 7:1 ~ Here Paul says, "It is good for a man not to touch a woman." This edict violates Jewish law. In Genesis 1:28 God's command is, "Be fruitful and multiply." If, however, all of Paul's followers had obeyed him in this matter, Christianity surely would have died out early in the second century for a lack of followers.

I Corinthians 7:39 ~ "The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth." This shows how little Paul knew of Jewish law for nowhere in the five books of Moses (the Pentateuch) can such a statement be found. According to Deut. 24:1-2 a man has the right to divorce his wife after which she is free to remarry.

I Corinthians 9:20-22 ~ In this passage Paul is saying that it is okay to intentionally deceive people in order to convert them to Christ.

I Corinthians 13:2 ~ "If I have not charity (love) then I am nothing." Paul showed very little charity toward those who disagreed with him. In Galatians 1:9 he says, "If anyone preach any other gospel, let him be accursed." So according to his own teachings he is nothing.

I Corinthians 13:11 ~ Paul says, "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Obviously he was unaware of Luke 18:17 where Jesus claraly says, "Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein."

1 Corinthians 15:3 ~ Paul says, "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scripture." Such a scripture has never been located.

I Corinthians 15:5-6 ~ Here we have Paul's brief rendition of the resurrection of Jesus which contradicts that of the gospels. Paul says, "First he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve (no mention of Mary Magdalene). After that he appeared to more than five hundred at once." This claim has been questioned by many, however, the earliest of which there is any record is that of Thomas Paine. In his great work, The Age of Reason Paine points out that, "It is only Paul who says that (the resurrected) Jesus was seen by five hundred at once. It is not the five hundred who say it for themselves. Who were they? Could their testimony be relied upon? It is, therefore, the testimony of only one man, Paul." Paine reminds us that Paul did not believe one word of the matter at the time it allegedly happened. "Paul's evidence," Paine points out, "is like that of a men who comes into a court of law today to swear that everything he swore to yesterday was a lie."

II Corinthians 4:2 ~ Paul says, "We have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty not walking in craftiness nor handling the word of God deceitfully but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." But in 12:16 he says of himself, "Being crafty, I caught you with guile." What a hypocrite!

Galatians 1:18-19 ~ Paul recalls that, "After three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Peter and stayed with him for fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I not except James, the brother of the Lord." This contradicts the account given in Acts 9:27 where it says that Paul was brought to the apostles by Barnabas and was with them (the apostles) coming in and going out of Jerusalem.

Galatians 3:15-16 ~ Paul's pronouncements come from Genesis 17:19. But consider what Paul does. God promises Abraham that his wife, Sarah, will bear him a son to be named Isaac. God then says he will establish an everlasting covenant with Isaac and with Isaac's seed after him. Paul claims that seed refers to Jesus. This amounts to nothing more than deceitful trickery. As used in Genesis, the word "seed" is a collective noun which implies the plural. It is referring not to an individual such as Jesus but to the Jewish people who will be the descendants, or seed, of Isaac. The process of secretly manipulating certain Old Testament passages so that they appear to be referring to Jesus is a technique widely used in Christian apologetics. It is easily recognized and refuted.

Galatians 4:4 ~ Paul says, "God sent forth his son, made of a woman, made under the law." Jesus was not born according to the law. His real father was the Holy Ghost as noted above. Therefore Jesus was born of an adulterous union. He was, in effect, a bastard. In that regard, see Exodus 20:14 and Deut. 23:2.

Philippians 1:18 ~ Paul says, "Whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached I therein do rejoice." So Paul is here saying that it is okay to be deceitful so long as the message gets out. Here again II Cor. 4:2 and 12:16 are contradicted (See above.)

Philippians 3:2 ~ Paul says, "Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of concision." Concision means any mutilation of the flesh. This, as it turns out, is a timely warning in view of Leviticus 22:20, where the Lord tells Moses that regarding sacrifices, "Whatsoever hath a blemish is not acceptable." But Jesus was circumcised (Luke 2:21), and this amounts to a mutilation of the flesh, a concision. Therefore Jesus was unacceptable according to Jewish law.

Philippians 3:10 ~ Paul declares with great emotion, "All I care for is to know Christ, to express the power of his resurrection, to share in his suffering." Yet when he returns to Jerusalem it is merely to visit Peter. He never expresses the slightest desire to see Bethlehem, Jesus' birthplace, Nazareth, his home town, the sites of his preaching, the upper room where he is supposed to have held the fabled Last Supper, nor Calvary where the ultimate sacrifice was allegedly made. Most astonishing of all, however, is that there is not one hint of a pilgrimage to the tomb in which the resurrection, the center piece of Paul's theology, allegedly occurred.

II Thessalonians 2:9 ~ It says, "Even him whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders." But in Matthew 28:18 we learn that, "All power in heaven and in earth was given unto Jesus." Again in Luke 21:27 we read that, "Jesus is coming with power and great glory." Now if all power belongs to Satan yet Jesus is the one with all of the power, doesn't that mean that Jesus and Satan are one and the same?

I Timothy 2:15 ~ "Despite their many shortcomings, women can be saved through childbearing if they continue in faith, charity, and holiness with sobriety." Although degrading, this seems to offer women access to salvation. But they shouldn't get their hopes up because in I Corinthians 7:8 Paul announces that it is better to remain unmarried. So if a woman doesn't have children, she is denied salvation. But she can't have children legally unless she is married. If she elects to have children out of wedlock, she will be declared a fornicator and thus denied salvation again (I Corinthians 6:9). For women this amounts to a catch 22.

I Timothy 5:8 ~ Paul warns us that "If any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel." This directly contradicts Matthew 19:29 where Jesus tells Peter and the other disciples, "And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life."

So after reading all of this would you buy a used car from the likes of Saint Paul? The writer of James 1:8 must have had Paul in mind when he wrote, "A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways."



To: 2MAR$ who wrote (17868)7/10/2001 5:22:49 PM
From: Greg or e  Respond to of 82486
 
You are the one who said Paul witnessed no miracles, not me. I said He was not an eyewitness to Jesus earthly,(that would be pre-resurrection) miracles. Paul did many similar miracles himself, but he did them through the power of the risen Christ, not on his own. They were allowed him, in order to demonstrate that his message was from God. The fact that Paul doesn't mention the sermon on the mount is next to meaningless. You are arguing from silence, which is one of the very weakest forms of reasoning. Frankly, you couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag, Marrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrs. Weak, weak, very weak.



To: 2MAR$ who wrote (17868)7/10/2001 7:31:11 PM
From: Solon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
Good points, Mars.

I think you will really enjoy this article. It is full of tidbits of provocative insight.

infidels.org

What an interesting article of plain talk and common sense. A very long article but well worth the reading for the knack of exposing the obvious.

______________________________

"Let it be borne in mind that all the religions of the world were born in the childhood of the race.

Science was not born until man had matured. There is in this thought a world of meaning.

Children make religions.

Grown up people create science.

The cradle is the womb of all the fairies and faiths of mankind.

The school is the birthplace of science.

Religion is the science of the child.

Science is the religion of the matured man.

In the discussion of this subject, I appeal to the mature, not to the child mind. I appeal to those who have cultivated a taste for truth -- who are not easily scared, but who can "screw their courage to the sticking point" and follow to the end truth's leading. The multitude is ever joined to its idols; let them alone. I speak to the discerning few."

...

"If I do not believe in dogma, it is because I believe in freedom. If I do not believe in one inspired book, it is because I believe that all truth and only truth is inspired. If I do not ask the gods to help us, it is because I believe in human help, so much more real than supernatural help. If I do not believe in standing still, it is because I believe in progress. If I am not attracted by the vision of a distant heaven, it is because I believe in human happiness, now and here. If I do not say "Lord, Lord!" to Jesus, it is because I bow my head to a greater Power than Jesus, to a more efficient Savior than he has ever been -- Science!"

...

"The fact that Jesus' death was accompanied with the darkening of the Sun, and that the date of his resurrection is also associated with the position of the Sun at the time of the vernal equinox, is a further intimation that we have in the story of the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus, an ancient and nearly universal Sun-myth, instead of verifiable historical events. The story of Jesus for three days in the heart of the earth; of Jonah, three days in the belly of a fish; of Hercules, three days in the belly of a whale, and of Little Red Riding Hood, sleeping in the belly of a great black wolf, represent the attempt of primitive man to explain the phenomenon of Day and Night. The Sun is swallowed by a dragon, a wolf, or a whale, which plunges the world into darkness; but the dragon is killed, and the Sun rises triumphant to make another Day. This ancient Sun myth is the starting point of nearly all miraculous religions, from the days of Egypt to the twentieth century."

...

"we know that in December there are no shepherds tending their flocks in the night time in that country. Often at this time of the year the fields and hills are covered with snow. Hence, if the shepherds sleeping in the fields really saw the heavens open and heard the. angel-song, in all probability it was in some other month of the year, and not late in December."

...

"But that was precisely the way the day for the festival of the pagan goddess Oestera was determined. The Pagan Oestera has become the Christian Easter. Does not this fact, as well as those already touched upon, make the story of Jesus to read very much like the stories of the Pagan deities."

...

"In other words, the only proofs Origin can bring forth against the rationalistic criticism of Celsus is, that to deny Jesus would be equivalent to denying both the Pagan and Jewish mythologies. If Jesus is not real, says Origin, then Apollo was not real, and the Old Testament prophecies have not been fulfilled. If we are to have any mythology at all, he seems to argue, why object to adding to it the myths of Jesus? There could not be a more damaging admission than this from one of the most conspicuous defenders of Jesus' story against early criticism."

and on and on and on and on...

this "once upon a time" world truly seems infantile. I suppose that Whitman was right to wish to turn and live with the animals...