Lets not forget that many businesses make 50% of their yearly earnings during the xmas shoping season - capitalism, materialism run rampant.

"How the Republicans Stole Christmas : The Republican Party's Declared Monopoly on Religion and What Democrats Can Do to Take it Back"

www.amazon.com/gp/product...039-9864866

I haven't read this book yet but thought I'd share it here. The name was funny since it fits the topic of the thread.

;

Well yeah, I'm fully aware that there exist folks within a variety of religious denominations that support a separation of church & state. However, many SDA's also believe that Bush is the anti-christ too. There's plenty for xian denominations to disagree over.

Anne "Stop defining Christianity to suit your cause"

- This is just false. I think Thomas Paine summed it up...

'The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun.'
~ Thomas Paine

IS WICCA A FORM OF SATANISM? www.religioustolerance.org/wic_sata.htm

"Time to Stand Up" - www.ffrf.org/timely/dawkins.php

;

Nolen maybe you could actually try to read the links on the subject before you debunk them just by claiming that they're 'bad'. This exemplifies the pattern I mentioned above. Folks try to debunk the evidence without ever even looking at it.

When the evidence is scientifically examined, it becomes clear that the entire Josephus passage regarding Jesus was forged, likely by Church historian Eusebius, during the fourth century. Rev. S. Baring-Gould remarked:

"This passage is first quoted by Eusebius (fl. A.D. 315) in two places (Hist. Eccl., lib. I, c. xi; Demonst. Evang., lib. iii); but it was unknown to Justin Martyr (fl. A.D. 140), Clement of Alexandria (fl. A.D. 192), Tertullian (fl. A.D. 193), and Origen (fl. A.D. 230). Such a testimony would certainly have been produced by Justin in his apology or in his controversy with Trypho the Jew, had it existed in the copies of Josephus at his time. The silence of Origen is still more significant. Celsus, in his book against Christianity, introduces a Jew. Origen attacks the argument of Celsus and his Jew. He could not have failed to quote the words of Josephus, whose writings he knew, had the passage existed in the genuine text. He, indeed, distinctly affirms that Josephus did not believe in Christ (Contr. Cels. I)."

there are no non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any known historian of the time during and after Jesus's purported advent. Walker says, "No literate person of his own time mentioned him in any known writing." Eminent Hellenistic Jewish historian and philosopher Philo (20 B.C.E.-50 C.E.), alive at the purported time of Jesus, makes no mention of him. Nor do any of the some 40 other historians who wrote during the first one to two centuries of the Common Era. "Enough of the writings of [these] authors...remain to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ."28 Their silence is deafening testimony against the historicizers.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"; yet, no proof of any kind for the historicity of Jesus has ever existed or is forthcoming.

'ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS -

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. Not a single contemporary Roman record shows that a Pontius Pilate executed a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus reveal that its authors wrote well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts. Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence

Pliny the Younger, a Roman official, born in 62 C.E. wrote well after the life of the purported Jesus. His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of the range of an eyewitness account.

Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although there occurs many disputes as to the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happend after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E., mentions a "Chrestus" in his writings, a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ." But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius birth occurred after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu (a common name in Jewish literature) in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Jesus, according to Gerald Massey actually depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus. [Massey] Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud derived from the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion! At best it can only serve as controversial Christian and pagan legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

Christians use above authors as the most "authoritative" sources for evidence for Jesus. Considering that none of them lived during Jesus' claimed life time, this brings up a glaring question of the reliability of Christian historicity. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian), also come well after the alleged life of Jesus, some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (cira 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - cira 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (cira 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.

As you can see, apologist Christians embarrass themselves when they unwittingly or deceptively violate the rules of historiography by using after-the-event writings as evidence for the event itself. Not one of these writers gives a source or backs up his claims with evidential material about Jesus. Although we can provide numerous reasons why the Christian and non-Christian sources prove spurious, and argue endlessly about them, we can cut to the chase by simply looking at the dates of the documents and the birth dates of the authors. It doesn't matter what these people wrote about Jesus, an author who writes after the alleged happening and gives no detectable sources for his material can only give example of hearsay. All of the post writings about Jesus could easily have come from the beliefs and stories from Christian believers themselves.'

www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

;

me: ...but you may have received a minority view or attitude.
-------------
That isn't to say such a view is so hard to find or dominant within certain SDA communities (either geographically or congregationally). Just talking broad strokes here.
MC

There seems to be a bit of a false dichotomy going on.

The original monotheistic apocolyptic religion is Zoarastrianism which then morphs into Mithraism. Jewish messianic tradition is a direct offshoot, both historically and characteristically, of these early belief systems.

Chopper,

i just want to let you know how much I enjoy the info you bring in. Hopefuly more of the peeps here will read it and our country will get out of the tail spin into Teocracy. Unfortunately being devoted to JC involves checking in the door at your chirch your critical/sceptical thinking.
Keep up the good thinng you are doing.

Are we really arguing this point?

C'mon folks, we've had slightly over 2,008 years of debate over *Christ's* birth and death. Is it still such an enigma?

It's a MYTH. A myth that is, as it's very foundation, pure metaphor. A metaphor that has metamorphosized into what we now perceive as modern Christianity. It hardly matters whether there was in fact a prophesied baby born on or near this day whose birth would save Israel (yes, that's what the prophecies said...of course "Israel" was initially the name bestowed upon Jacob after wrestling with God *himself*, it wasn't a *nation* or even a *people* until many generations later), because, much like the old campfire stories whispered into the next person's ear, this myth has undergone several mutations before reaching our ears.

On the bright side, we can interrogate this myth using current cultural constructs and historical understandings and therefor, to some degree, at least place its importance for THAT time and in THAT region. On the not so bright side, even 2,008+ years later, we still have editors and revisionists proclaiming that these myths were in fact *real* (whatever the fuck that means), are now global, and continually finding new and inventive ways of declaring that their perceptions are, in fact, the right one's. Or, the divine one's. My biggest issue with this very normal and almost rational chronology of human reasoning is that it, well...it is completely human.

The bible, taken as a whole, teaches that the human and the divine are very separate. And to question "God" is a human failing (remember Job?), yet the constant revisions (most likely due to absorbing another culture's religious perceptions and the recursive effect of that culture simply trying to make sense of this new religion) are nothing more or less than trying to be like God, or "God like"-- a sin, right? This begs the question of who came first...our concept of God, or God's concept of us. (Eeeek, don't get me started on other species aside from human...as if "God" didn't have a *plan* in mind for them as well IF *God* exists at all). And if "God" created all of US, then why would *he* create folks that question *him*? And IF we created "God" then why does God seem to undergo such a huge metamorphosis between the Old Testament and the New? Different *Gods*, or different human perceptions? You tell me.

-K