h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

And here's the response!

1. OK, let's look at it from your point of view. If Christ was only one, that lessens the number of time that the "star" had to stay put. This actually would strngthen my case. The other point is that it is fairly unlikely that Mary & Joseph, who had only come to Bethlehem for a census would remain there. The event may have moved position - and gone the same way they did. As for a stellar event staying stationary for that amount of time, the North Star has pointed the way north for centuries. Venus always appears in the east at dawn. Two solid examples of astral objects which stay, if not in exactly in the same place, close enough to be used for navigational aids by sailors for a very long time.

2. I love this book! The number is not meant to be a literal number. It is used simply to represent a large number of people. You'll notice that this is simply an echo of Moses 12 tribes of 12,000 from Exodus. At that time, this was a fairly respectable number of folks. Its kind of like us saying that there may someday be 10 billion people on this planet. We all know that its possible but the number is so big that we have trouble comprehending. And don't forget, in John's time there was very little difference between the Jews and the Christians. I know that I'm saved, because that's what the whole thing is about. Besides I'm not actually planning on being around for the apocalypse.

3. The modern world doesn't have the care for detail and excellence that the ancient one did. Looking at a more recent example, squires were assigned to knights from age seven until their twenties to learn the same basic things that modern Marines learn in two weeks of Basic Training. People took the time in those days to learn soemthing and learn it well. And my ages fro the Jews were based not only in the Bible's description of ages, but also on archaelogoical findings made while examining skeletons from the time.

4. And finally, my personal favorite! First off, yes the translations of the Bible into modern languages has stated that the nail hole was in his hand. However, ancient Hebrew wass not very exact in the words used to describe body parts. For example, one of the favorite phrases in the Old Testament is that someone pleadged their support by "placing his hand under the other's thigh". Kind of a weird tradition, no? The Hebrew word that was translated as "thigh" in these phrases actually refered to anywhere from the knees to the...um...er...genetalia, shall we say. Now which is more likely, that a man pledging loyalty would bury his hand under another man's thigh - kinda tough to do since the second man was normally standing - or that he would...umm...*cup* the other fellow? Sick traditions, eh? As for the Bible being the cornerstone of the Christian faith, yes it is. But that doesn't mean that we have to take everything in it literally. It is a series of parables, histories and proficies. It is meant to tell us where we came from, where we are going and why. Kinda cool, over all, but no single section of the Bible is the end-all and be-all of our faith.

This is so much fun! Thank you, GargleBlaster!

Round four (I think)....DING!

1. This entire argument has yet to address one issue, namely, "How do you follow a star to anywhere?" True, stars can be used for navigational purposes, but all they'll tell you is general direction, not precise location. If a sailor didn't know where he was, but he knew land should be somewhere to the east, then he located Polaris, turned to the east, and took his chances. If you move in the direction of a specific star, you'll notice it moves with you...likewise the moon, or any celestial body. This is an optical illusion caused by the tremendous distances involved. To say that a star hung over Jesus in Bethlehem when it is a couple of hundred of light years away is just rediculous. And you're not talking about Polaris or Venus, you're referring to a specific astrological event that hung suspended over Bethlehem for an unspecific amount of time, and then moved on. And if you give weight to the astrologers' ability to locate Jesus, you validate the 'science' of astrology.

2. Now you're just taking license with your interpretaions. If the almighty god really did inspire this work, don't you think he'd understand that the world population would be higher? So either it's the word of god, and we're all screwed, or it's rubbish. You already know where I vote.

3. Detail and excellence are gone? Have you seen those buildings those kids are erecting? Everything is more complicated nowadays...everything. And how you intend to get evidence of apprenticeship lengths from skeletal remains, I don't know.

4. Well, we have no way of verifying this, because there are no ancient Hebrew copies. The oldest known copies are in Greek, and date from the 4th century, and are known to be copies of copies of... And yet one would think that the words of god, as delivered by Jesus' own disciples, would be holy relics to be treasured and preserved. An oddity no biblical scholar has never been able to satisfactorily address.

Anyway, it seems that everyone in Christianity is taking quite a bit of license in their interpretations. Anything that can be absolutely disproven is meant to be a figurative example, but if it can't be conclusively disproved, it is Gospel truth (oxymoron). What if Jesus' rise from the dead is symbolic? There are some good arguments for the case.

And as for the gospels, I read of a challenge that I'd love the world to take up. If you can read the gospels, Acts, and Paul's work, and put everything that happened from the crucifixion to the ascension into a simple chronological story, I would be impressed. Because here is where all the sources divide the most. No two agree on the events, which makes the entire chain of events look like fabrication.

Well, my little pan galactic. We meet again! this post is going to be rather long, but I think that you'll find it entertaining if not enlightening. most of the paragraphs separated in quotation marks are yours, some are Gw7en's, and somewhere in there are quotes from the bible as well. I trust you'll use your common sense to pick through my ramblings.

"...So what does this prove? Nothing, and neither do your two little episodes. Many has been the time that I've known what someone was about to say to me, be it a job offer, or a break-up, or a hook-up, without any prior knowledge. This just means I can read people."

Did the job offer give you specific salary knowledge in advance? And note, the last episode was not based on my observation of that person - when I got the word I thought that it was for someone else! I only realised that I was mistaken here when people later told me that it had exactly(!) spoken to the quiet girl at the back who I hadn't paid any attention to all.

"...you cannot possibly conduct biblical research, because you refuse to question its integrity."

On the contrary, I find it enlightening to question parts of the Bible I don't understand. Don't make personal slurs of this nature please. Just because I reach different conlusions, this is because I 1) approach it with an attitude of revelation rather than history, and 2) I do not dismiss something offhand merely because I do not immediately grasp its relevance. The first four screens on the article you referred to, in my opinion, did both. Furher down I found more evidence of the same. I therefore conlcuded that the bits in between would be equally badly argued.

BTW, if I cannot conduct Biblical Research because I refuse to question it, should not your own work be heavily criticised because, as you yourself said, you are intending to disprove the bible, not postulating a theory and testing it. Hardly scientific, but very journalistic.

"And by the way, I wasn't always like this. I was a fervent Christian at one time of my life, but I've always had an open mind, and the preponderance of evidence has shattered all my illusions."

Hmm. This is an interesting argument. I have about 12 close friends who were firm atheists involved in drugs - one was a raver who spent his life of cannabis, another was an LSD junkie who lost all of his friends to drug abuse and suicide - and are now Christians convinced by the "preponderance of evidence" which they have observed that God is real. Which of you is correct?

"I have maintained my open mind, and when people have pointed out my mistakes, I've acknowledged them, and made the necessary corrections in the article."

I have noticed some degree of sway in your arguments, which is commendable.

"I'm not saying all scientists are infallible, but Christians do believe their pastors are infallible,"

Any human being is fallible. You make such big rash statements about "Christians" when I have never met any of these people you talk about - and I should know, I get about a bit! As for Papal infallibility, well, even most of the Catholics I know disagree with THAT concept.


"I have offered irrefutable evidence of the tampering with the Gospels in my article. An actual letter by an actual church father describing actual deletions from the Gospel of Mark, which leaves no room for misinterpretation. The Gospels are edited. Period."

Well, smite me with a feather. Two whole sentences. Actually, if you ever get the impression that I am defending "the church" in my posts please get that impression out of your mind. I am defending my faith, and the good old fashioned tradition of argument. If the Bible has been edited, which is in all likelyhood true, then this is wrong. However, your edit is hardly groundbreaking.

While I am on the concept of the church, might I also please point out that if any church breaks the 10 commandments (as opposed to the "law" laid down for survival in the desert) then that is, technically, falling short of the Glory of God. Advice on how churches can fail is presented succinctly in your favourite acid trip (which, by the way, does not resemble any of my mate's acid trips as he describes them, nor his experiences with Shrooms)

"Never in there is there any indication that he was whipped, and I challenge you to find one."

Matt 27:26. "But he had Jesus flogged, and handed over to be crucified."

In your article you say that there is no indication that Jesus was whipped on the way to the cross. This is true. I, however, wonder who told you that there was. The "flogging" mentioned here is also considered by people with knowledge of Roman Customs reading the Bible to be considerably more violent than "being slapped upside the head with a birch rod," as you put it.

"Besides, if he were suffocating, where would he have gotten the wind to do all that talking?"

All _what_ talking? He is recorded as saying "eloi, eloi etc." before being given a drink. Then he gives out a loud cry, which is recorded as Tetelestai , often misquoted "it is finished", which should more accurately mean, "the deal is done." Luke, always one whose literary style is more elaborate than the other three, retranslates this as "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit" This is two sentences. If you are trying to disprove that Jesus actually died, you are falling far short.

Quick question: How did the half-crucified Jesus move the stone? How could the disciples have stolen the body from two armed guards?

"As for trauma, Inquisition torturers had victims surviving far worse trauma than this."

Inquisition torturers were trained to keep people alive.

"And for John's little spearing exercise, I think I've already demonstrated that the whole episode is completely unbelievable, and why."

No, you gave another rant. As I have pointed out, The Bible is not a science textbook. It does not give post-mortem reports of the body. I have heard and read reports by qualified pathologists stating that the description was what they would expect an amateur to describe in the situation I put above. Note, no lung was mentioned there. You appear to claim that the only Christian "hypotheses" of interpretations of scripture are the ones you have heard. There are many, many, many as to the "exact" nature of the death, without ever calling into doubt the fundamental details.

Gw7en:
"and I agree, the man was definitely smoking something in prison when he wrote that one"

Nah. It's not as bad as Daniel, or indeed any other visions inspired by God.


"The astrologer visit must then be within one season of Jesus' birth."

Unless, as posited earlier, it was a supernova. This event, not based upon planetary movements, would maintain a fixed, or semi-fixed position in the sky for as long as it needed to.

"We employ 18 year-old kids to build skyscrapers with little training and experience."

And give them 'puters to do the maths. How hard is it? Tell you what, using the tools at the disposal of a 2000 year old carpenter, build me a table and then ask this question.


"How do you follow a star to anywhere?"

The answer? (seemingly in direct contradiction of an above post, but in fact pointing out that there are more than one way of looking at things even from _our_ persepective) Why, that the ancient texts of a certain tribe of nomadic people said "when x astrological event happens, go to y, for the king of the Jews will be born here." God uses all sorts of wierd and wonderful people to do his work for him (a donkey, for instance) so using astrologers is entirely believable.


2."If the almighty god really did inspire this work, don't you think he'd understand that the world population would be higher?"

Divinely inspired/written by God. NT/Tablets of the covenant.

"To Moses, apart from my prophets, I speak clearly, not in signs and visions" (paraphrase)

Symbolism is EVERYWHERE in the Bible. Also, numbers rarely, if ever, actually mean the quantities they represent in visions. The numbers are representative of concepts. Also, if you take ANY vision by a prophet written by the Bible, you will find it flawed because you are not reading it like you should. Visions are NOT clear. We see through a glass darkly.

"Everything is more complicated nowadays...everything."

Where are you? Ever been to Durham Cathedral? Show me modern workmanship which even comes close to that beauty, and which an an equivalent amount of human brain-power and elbow grease has gone into.

"And how you intend to get evidence of apprenticeship lengths from skeletal remains, I don't know."

Don't misquote people. He said he got the ages from skeletal remains, not the lengths of apprenticeships. He got those elsewhere.

"What if Jesus' rise from the dead is symbolic? There are some good arguments for the case."

You again take far-fetched caricature points to back up your claims. Most people I know interpret the Bible with common sense - Psalms, parables, visions are not intended to be "truth" but more a guideline to the mind of God. The historical parts are truth, recorded and translated with God behind them. The biblical scholars use divine guidance and inspiration as to why we can take the Bible as God's Word.

Your challenge on the gospels, just as soon as I have finished my exams in six months time, is taken! Before then, I will not have time to complete the task, so I cannot promise anything before then. You might however, want to take into consideration such pieces of information as "target," "circumstances," "style" etc when considering just how different the gospels are....

A quick point to finish off:

Hindus and Muslims are historically as violent and fundamentalist as Jews and Christians. Where is your attack on their Holy Book? Why do you feel that our Bible is the only one worth attacking?

First of all, I'll thank you to avoid making this personal. The "my little pan galactic" snide comments have no place in this discussion.

"Just because I reach different conlusions, this is because I approach it with an attitude of revelation rather than history." What is a revelation? That's just a buzzword, nothing more. But the rest of Christianity insists that the New Testament is history, which is why I study it as such.

Personal note: the odds of picking 6 consecutive winners = 1:30^6, or 1: 46,656,000,000. But reasonable assumptions can reduce the number of teams with a legitimate shot to roughly 6 each year, which lowers the odds to 1:46,656.

"you are intending to disprove the bible, not postulating a theory and testing it." I am postulating a theory, or rather several of them. And this forum is my test bed. If you can manage to disprove any of my points, you will see it disappear.

"12 close friends who were firm atheists involved in drugs" First of all, I've never had 12 close friends, let alone 12 ex-druggy close friends, so I suspect this is something of an exaggeration. But faith has an effect on the psyche that simulates the effects of drugs, so your friends have only substituted one addiction for another. This is what people call the "personal experience with god." All it really is is a chemical release caused by the brain. I know because I used to be Christian, and have felt that power, and have been able to recreate the sensation through meditation that had nothing to do with god-stuff. Buddhists and Taoists and Yoga masters experience that same thing.

"Two whole sentences" Incorrect. The first passage about Lazarus takes up several verses. The second deletion is a single line. And the church labored long and hard to keep their tampering secret; all other documents which would prove this have undoubtedly been destroyed or confiscated by them years before.

"Matt 27:26. "But he had Jesus flogged, and handed over to be crucified." The Catholics have it reading this way: "Jesus, however, he first had scourged; then he handed him over to be crucified." True, scourged may mean the same thing, and yet may not. I'd have to do some research into this matter. I would think though, that a modern translation would have been plainer in its speech; if they meant whipped, he'd have been whipped. Might I inquire as to which version you pulled that from?

"All _what_ talking?" A comprehensive list of things said by Jesus while on the cross:"Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani" (translated "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" A curious quote for the son of God.) "Father, forgive them; they do not know what they are doing." "I assure you: this day you will be with me in paradise." "Father, into your hands I recommend my spirit." "Woman, there is your son. There is your mother." "I am thirsty." "It is finished." Lots of words for a man who can't breathe or swallow. And a curious contradiction exists in your argument, because in all the gospels he is able to speak just before expiring. Suffocating men can't speak.

"Quick question: How did the half-crucified Jesus move the stone? How could the disciples have stolen the body from two armed guards?" Why would we need to? There are no witnesses who can testify that Jesus was ever placed there in the first place. Why would he have had to move it himself? Why ould guards be standing over a dead man in the first place?

"No, you gave another rant." If dismissing evidence offhand as a rant helps you sleep better at night, so be it. But if you have another interpretation, I'd love to hear it.

Supernova's are no less subject to the movements of the earth than any other celestial body. It would take place in a fixed spot (actually, nothing in space is fixed.) but the turning of the seasons would put it in a different location relative to Bethlehem.

Durham Cathedral was built much later than AD 30 and was not built in Israel, where they built rather crudely out of brick and straw. And that Cathedral was built by a church that had all the resources in the world, so expense was no concern. And if it was built early enough, it had no plubing, no air conditioning, no electricity...

"Most people I know interpret the Bible with common sense." A false statement if there ever was one. And while I am in here doing this, you are calling me a lunatic. I'll thank you once again to keep this thing from becoming personal, or I shall no longer debate you.

"Hindus and Muslims are historically as violent and fundamentalist as Jews and Christians. Where is your attack on their Holy Book? Why do you feel that our Bible is the only one worth attacking?" A fair question, and deserves a fair answer. I live in the United States, where neither Islamic nor Hindu oppression has ever occurred. However, I am constantly bombarded with Christian dogma. It's on TV. It's on the radio. But that's okay, because I can change the channel, and people have the right to believe what they will. They call my house. They knock on my door. That's going to far. Makes me want to scream "leave me the f**k alone!" Then it gets worse. They're lobbying to get religion crammed into our kids as part of a science education. That's not only disgusting, it's also unconstitutional. They've managed to taint several political leaders (check out Al Gore's latest statement about "those arrogant atheists" on the homepage of that infidels site I posted earlier if you don't believe me.). And they feel an overpowering need to convert me personally. So my answer is, Hinduism and Islam have never done anything to me, but Christianity is s pervasive in society, and so dangerous, that I feel the need to share what I've learned. In this way I hope to chip away the power of Christianity, and maybe I'll get a bit more peace.

All right, you've won a concession. It seems that he was whipped, for that is precisely the meaning of "scourge" given by Merriam-Webster. Odd isn't it, that only Matthew and Mark mentioned such an important event? In any case, the rest of the argument still stands, and the argument against suffocation stands firmest of all.

And no it's time to backpeddle. Now, taken in its proper context, the alleged whipping is nothing more than what I desribed already. Pilate orders him scourged. The next scene is of Jesus being smacked upside the head with the reed, and the crowning with thorns. The crowning of thorns and the reed-whacking are the scourging, as described in better detail. I therefore stand by my previous interpretation. So I guess I was too quick to apologize, and for that, I apologize.

And now, after seeing your infantile insults on your homepage, I refuse to debate you any longer, and hereby retract my apology. You are exactly what is wrong with christianity and society in general.

Gargleblaster:

I am sorry if you feel insulted. I do not see how you could have taken these things personally "my little pan galactic" was intended to be a joke to show you that, whatever the outcome, I take no comments made here seriously enough to get personally offended by them.

As for the home page "insults," well, those were just my jaded comments on the way most internet debates go - they either go very well, and the people aruing against each other become friends with difering views, or they go badly, with people screaming blue murder and calling each other names. This has appeared to go wrongly here, and so for anything I siad which has been misconstrued when you read it, I can only say that I intended no personal insult and can only apologise if I have come across as arrogant.

Perhaps at this point, a little information on myself to prevent such misunderstandings from ocurring again would be in order.

I have been a Christian now for close to ten years. I was "converted" at an early age, because I had a church upbringing. However, for about 4 years of that time, on and off, I have slid in and out of the church mentality. However, my ability to gain contacts for my career through the church kept me in, rather than what I coud give to them, which was _wrong_. However, over the past three, maybe four years, I have been moving much more strongly in this. I cannot explain to you why this is without you claiming brain chemistry on me. It is one of the insurmountable obstacles of the Christian Faith that until you can see with 400 degree vision, as I call it, which is the basis of revelation, you may as well try and look through walls. During the last four years, I have worked with drug abusers, ex-prostitutes, homeless people, and, worst of all, cagoule-wearers with earnest expressions, open toed sandals and brown socks. Many of my friends who I talk to regularly, open up to go out with (this is my definition of "close") have come out of these situations. The "chemical response" in the brain cannot adequately explain the reduction in many of them of class A withdrawal symptoms to well below average as soon as they gained their faith. Trust me, people who leave our church rarely get shakes and vomiting attacks Nor does it explain the sudden ceasing of interest in these people by the resolutely unchristian Drug Pushers around Newcastle. But this is all academic, really, as I cannot really give other peoples "testimonies" for them (intrestingly, the origin of this word has already been mentioned on this board, above ). During this time, I have come across many people who have been as earnest in their atheism as I have been in my Christianity. Many of them brought up difficult questions which I couldn't answer, so I went and found out more so that I could answer them. I have looked at many things in the past few years, and one of the things I have learned is that most of what "the church" en masse holds to be important is not really that important, and some of the things it does not bother with are more important. Personally, I dislike it when people argue "catholics believe this, Lutherans believe this" etc etc. In the end, we are all following the fundamental parts of the gospel, and everything we do around that is only judged as a hinderance or a help to doing the fundamentals. Thus, although I will argue the Cre/Evo argument, I don't think it is important whether we agree that Moses was using a metaphor for evolution, or whether he was telling the truth. The way science advances, I honestly don't think we'll ever know. Similarly, did the flood take place in the black sea, the mediterranean sea or the whole world? Answer: who cares, really, because although it might be an interesting debate, does this affect us loving other people? If it does, in a positive way, then keep it. If it is in a negative way, then get rid of it. This is the fundamental of Christianity, and this is what I said earlier. The fundamental of Christianity is love (as for Jesus "hate" quotes, you'd be advised to look up the original greek, as it is considered to be more literally translated "love less," indicating that you have to put everything second to God.) If anything stops us doing this, even if it is part of the "church" or part of our lives, then unless we get rid of it, we are falling short. _This_ is how I see Christianity. I don't care how you interpret the NT, I cannot find any other way of reading it. Perhaps I am deluded? There is nothing I can say to convince you otherwise - I am certainly abnormal, I certainly do not subscribe to normal ways of thinking, even within "the Church."

If you decide that you would like to debate further, without either of us grabbing hold of the wrong end of a stick to beat the other round the head with, say so. Otherwise I'll go back over to the physics boards.

Actually asphyxiation would be a likely way to go on the cross. For if the feet weren't secured, you wouldn't have been able to relieve the pressure on the chest (you are hanging from the thing after all). In fact as a mercy the executioners would break the legs of the victim to speed up the process. Otherwise, the victim would suffer a gruelling couple of days before dying from either exhaustion or, if nails were used, blood poisoning. And I believe that whipping usually accompanied crucifixions, regardless of whether it is in the Bible or not..

This info is from "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" which I think you may have read (BTW have you read my Entry on the Merovingians - http://www.h2g2.com/A178210 ?).

And yes the New Testament was heavily edited around the 4th C. The question we have to ask is, why? It's more likely that the infant Church, only just getting official recognition (from Constantine), was trying to transform a loose band of bishops and crazies (like that nutter St Antony or the Stylites) into an institution, and thus wanted to establish a bit of orthodoxy. Especially when it came to fending off the growing power of the Arians.

I accept your apology, and am glad to see that the spirit of your comments on your homepage have changed. I too know how quickly these debates can degenerate, which is why I was quick to act when I saw this one slipping. But when these debates are entered into with mutual respect, they are often educational, and always entertaining.

I do not doubt that the power of faith has some benefits to humanity. Christianity does have its merits. However, it does tend to make people rather narrow minded, and this is what I'm really fighting against. When a non-believer asks a believer questions his faith cannot anwer, one of two things happens: he loses faith, or restructures his faith. It sounds like you have restructured yours, and most of the people who I debate who are interesting have done this as well. The best thing about these types of people (I'm speaking in generalizations right now, so disregard) is that they have thrown away fundamentalism for good, and generally let others believe as they will, at least to a greater degree than avverage Christians. They're also able to take the Bible with a grain of salt, but look at it as a guide for living rather than a factual account. This is not a bad thing. If more fundamentalists could come around to this type of reasoning, then maybe we could get Pat Robertson off the air. Maybe the Jehovah's Witnesses would quit bugging people (they were in the neighborhood again today). Maybe our kids would stop getting creation shoved down their throats as true science. This is really what I'm fighting for...the elimination of the intrusion of religion on all other aspects of life. Religion has its place, for those who want it. And for those who don't, they shouldn't have to be ashamed of it.

"The fundamental of Christianity is love." Sad how little Fundamentalists understand this.

Ok, I have finished everything. And while I was reading, I thought that McDuff was taking it a bit to personally, I scrolled down and GB said the 'not taking things personally' thing. Anyway...

About the differences between the gospels, two things. They are human and are prone to make mistakes. The other thing is that, ask four people to write a history of your life and you'll see that there are many differences.

I was also wondering what you (all of you!) thought about the Virgin of Guadalupe. What happened (according to legend, or whatever you want) was that an indian went to church one saturday, say a beautiful lady, talked to him in perfect Nahuatl, told him to tell the bishop to build a church where he met her. (The Virgin presents herself as the mother of Omeotl, the Aztec High god ) The bishop doesn't believe him for obvious reasons. The guy returns to her, she tells him to try again, same result. They guy's uncle gets really sick, he doesn't report back to her. The uncle gets sicker, he goes towards the church to ask for a priest to do the Last Sacrament, taking another way as not to run into her and loose time. The Virgin appears to him, and tells him that the uncle is OK and tells him to ask again. The guy asks for proof to give to the bishop, the Virgin tells him to go for flowers on the hill (the time was December 9-12 1531, near Mexico City, no flowers, and flowers did not grow on the hill). The indian (named Juan Diego) gets the flowers and places them on his blanket (closest word I found for 'manto'). Takes them to the bishop, lets the blanket (tied to his waist) drop, showing the flowers and a painting of the Virgin on the cloth.

Now, this painting is very special. It has survived for centuries when it should have been lost in only twenty years. The cloth was not of very good quality. It has also been subject to humidity, touched by many people, acid was spilt on it, etc... A few colours cannot be recognized as either mineral or organic. If you have seen the copies of the painting, the blue 'cape' she is wearing has the stars exactly as they are on the night sky of winter in Mexico of that year. Not too hard. The sun light and the clouds in the painting is the least preserved part, but the hands and face are very preserved. The most impressive part of all are the eyes. Everyone knows that the eyes reflect light, and artists tried to reproduce that. But in the eyes, studied by a german I think and zoomed many many times, sillioutes of people are seen, including what is thought to be the Bishop Sumarraga (Zumarraga? I don't remember the spelling), the one that didn't believe Juan Diego. This was impossible to do with a brush! What do y'all think? I can't wait for your responses!

Welcome to the forum Frood! After getting into intense debate for a couple of weeks, I was disappointed to see it end.

I agree whole heartedly about the Gospels, but most Christians will disagree. It has been a fundamental cornerstone of Christian dogma for centuries that everything in the Bible is the uncompromised word of God. Since he is all-powerful, he personally inspired these works, as well as the translations, to assure that his word would remain uncorrupted throughout the ages. Pointing out discrepancies helps dispell that myth. But when blatant contradictions are apparent, that's when the thing looks less like a history and more like mythology. After all, if you ask two people to describe a well known event, their details might wander, but the key points will remain the same throughout. But when two criminals are seperated and asked to explain themselves, the fabrications are so totally at odds that it is readily apparent that one or both are lying. In this article, I point out those areas where someone has to be lying, although I think it's the whole lot of them. I'm just a Biblical detective, searching for a grain of truth.

I had only gotten cursory information on the Virgin prior to your post. It came to my attention a week ago when one of the twenty copies that were blessed by the pope came touring through my neck of the woods, but the newsmen did a poor job of explaining the artifact. In fact, although it was attributed to a miracle, they never mentioned anything resembling your story. Just goes to show how poor the media is...

So I cannot argue too much about the legend, knowing almost nothing of it. I am a "see for myself" kind of person, and I would have to see these magnifications of the eyes, studies done by respectable scientists (ie. one that is neither sponsored by nor conducted by people in any way assosciated with the church) on the paint pigments, etc. As for the stars, that's really not all that miraculous, when you consider that it could have been painted recently.

I do know of another article that has this same aura about it, maybe even more so: the Turin Shroud. Studies by christian scientists have concluded that it is the real deal, based on pollens discovered in the cloth. They argue the carbon dating is skewed by a special type of bacteria that exists on the shroud. The photo-negative qualities the shroud possesses are a tribute to the power of Jesus' soul

Very reasonable arguments, indeed. But another study conducted has determined that the bacterias have no affect on carbon dating, that the shroud was indeed manufactured in the 15th or 16th century, and that furthermore the photo-negative qualities are easily explainable...it appears to be a photo negative because that is precisely what it is! It then goes on to describe the process of making the shroud through the use of a simple, primitive pinhole camera, along with the chemicals required for this, and details of their discovery in the shroud itself.

So it comes down to who you want to believe. An atheist trusts the non-christian more, because he has no hidden agenda. A christian trusts his christian scientists more, because they are defending the word of God against the heathens. Just one of those endless continuous loops that keeps the question of Life, the Universe, and Everything a mystery.

I think that one of the scientists was an atheist. Can't find my book with all that info there, though. It was just besides my bed since I read it. Anyway, the magnification of the eyes appear in the book. I'll tell you the scientist's religions once I find the book.

Anyway, on the differences. As said before, there are many reasons for the differences: different people, time passing, problems with translations, few things being edited, and other things. There have to be differences and what matters in the Bible are not the actual events, but what they mean.

Ah, but if the message is corrupt, how can we be sure we're getting the interpretation of it right?

Hello y'all. Sorry I've missed so much of this, but at the moment I have to connect my modem by dragging a cable through two rooms to the computer - trip-hazard heaven!

I'd just like to make a few points:

The Bible is divinely inspired, correct. But you have said that you have evidence for "editing" by some bishop of the early church. Now, if this practice of "editing" was common, would the people doing it not have spotted some of your "discrepancies" as you call them, and changed them? You assume that Peter's "mysoginistic" comments were edited out, because his church won, but if you look at Peter in the Gospels, you'd realise that everything else he ever said to Jesus was as much tripe, and they are full of Jesus getting a headache about Peter. (Example - "master, let us build three huts"). If editing was common, these things would not be there, so we can assume it was not common, and that events of the type you describe were isolated incidents.

It was however, inspired by God under revelation, not written by God. There is a subtle difference, but it means that we cannot rule out that in our texts available to us, there may be a few errors in the translation. For instance, I was not aware that there was another translation for the Greek word used for carpenter, as you pointed out in your article. Of course, in reality it makes no difference whatsoever as to whether Jesus was a Rabbi or a Carpenter, except that when he overturned the money-changer's tables at the synagogue it would have been nice to picture him with big-ol carpenter's shoulders. However, assume that there has been some light editing (not condoned by yours truly, but remember that an awful lot of crap has been done in the name of Jesus, such as the inquisition), assume that there are some errors which can be put down to translation. Now does the NT make more sense? It seems to me that some of your own arguments tend to grind against ytour main point, that all God-based religion is bunk.

Turin shroud, painting in mexico. Does it matter? The Turin shroud could be a hoax, or not. I think it probably was. Does this disprove Christianity? What about this painting dewbry. If it's real, does it prove Christianity? Answer: no. As I have said before, any attmept to use "science" to prove something inherently unprovable results in very dodgy science and very dodgy religion. If you drew a venn diagram of things which science could tell us and things which "religion" (I hate that word) could tell us, the intersection would be about 25%. In the parts which do not intersect, it is detrimental for all concerned for one to try and interfere with the other. Anyway, is it any more miraculous that a painting paints itself or the universe builds itself? Atheists will always find an answer to stuff like this, and Christians will always find an answer to stuff which supposedly "disproves" God. The only "proof" you have is your personal experience.

That's it for now. See you later.

"Now does the NT make more sense?" - Ummm....no. This continues my argument, it doesn't hamper it. Whatever the original point of Christianity, its message has been so skewed that we have no idea what it was originally. Well, that's not entirely true, the Nag Hammadi stuff hasn't been tinkered with, so we can see exactly what Jesus was trying to set up. It's much like the mystery schools floating around in his day, with heavy influence from Egypt. They believed sex was sacred (sort of like Tantrism). There was a strict hierarchy in his group, and only an inner group was allowed to hear the ultimate secrets. Incidentally, Peter was not a mamber of this group. And James is mentioned as Jesus' successor and second-in-command. As you said, the Bible abounds with episodes of Peter pissing off Jesus, and the Nag Hammadi collection contains several more. Peter was an ambitious hothead that was a thorn in Jesus' side, and he engineered a scism in the group after Jesus departed. Where you find references from Paul talking about liars teaching different things about Jesus, you are uncovering evidence of the competition with James' sect. Paul's aggressive proselytizing eventually gained him the backing to oust the original followers of Jesus. The only remaining descendants of those people are the Manicheans, living in private communities in the southern no-fly zone in Iraq.

So now the question is, if you believe Jesus is divine, whose message do you trust? The one that has been tinkered with, or the one that was not? The one that was recorded by the members of his inner circle (Gospels of Phillip, Mary, and Thomas all indicate that they received personal, secret teachings from Jesus), or the one that was an outcast?

The very renaming of Simon to Peter by Jesus is a start to indicate that he was not a "thorn in Jesus side" as you put it, any more than the other disciples were. He had "foot and mouth" disease, as it is commonly known around these parts - can't open one without putting the other inside it. However, Peter was hotheaded because of his fervent belief and love for Jesus. "wash not just my feet, but my head and hands as well" etc etc. He was a bit dozy, but he suffered from the inescapable crime of being a human being. He was neither outcast nor leader until pentecost, at which point all disciples became "leaders" so to speak.

Last time I spoke to Jesus, He was reasonably happy with what Paul had managed to achieve, so I am unsure as to whether your argument is on that solid ground here. However, I have never read the Nag Hammadi, so I cannot comment on what might be gained from it. Is there a copy of the text on the internet?

Coincidences, coincidences....it was from the 'Holy Blood and Holy Grail' that I got the argument for exposure. As you said, asphyxiation only enters the equation when the legs are broken, otherwise, the body has plenty of support.

As for your Merovingians article, I'll take a look, but I believe I already made the statement that, although well argued, I don't really believe their thesis. After all, in a world that has wholeheartedly rejected divine right, who would care to restore a lost line of kings on evidence of descent from Jesus?

"Last time I spoke to Jesus" - He he he he...no, I won't go there....

For more on the early development of the Christian faith, I recommend "The Templar Revelation" by Picknett and Prince, with a word of warning: the book assumes you''ve already read the wildly famous "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail." But this isn't important for you to understand what they uncover about the church in its first days. They draw on available info from the NT and the Nag Hammadi, just as I do, along with a few contemporary histories that are available, and some documents recovered from the church.

As far as the Nag Hammadi, the useful bits are gems buried in the sandbox of mystery school writings, and it's a pretty tough read, but if you can find a copy on the net, more power to you. I seriously doubt someone published the entire mass on the web.

I stepped across this post you made two weeks ago and totally disagree. Religions do not deal with a "Why?" question! They don't explain WHY Jesus was, WHY God is and WHY we are. The explain (very poorly) HOW events happened - HOW the world was created; HOW Jesus healed.
So you can't trust a photograph yet you can trust a two thousand year old book that contradicts itself hundreds of times - that makes sense.
It is hard for archeology to disprove religion as religions have no relation to the real world. But because christianity has no physical evidence, found or not found, archeology does not prove it right. To you it means Christianity is not disproved to me it means Christianity is not proved.
What I hate about your opinion about scientific evidence is that as science disproves religion at the moment you dismiss it. But if science proved God, I wonder what your view about it will be then.
That wraps it up for today - oh look, it's that festival again, have fun celebrating your pagan festival of over-indulgence.