Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 08:18 (Agree/Disagree?) Every religion uses mind tricks to make you believe. If they didnt everyone would be an athiest and just accept life and death as what they are.. natural and inevitable. All religions are based in an unfortunatly common trait of human nature, "People are Stupid" and they love a good story. How long do you figure it would have taken for david blane to rule the world if he was back in the year of christ.(another south park ep) I guess what im really trying to say is that all people that follow religion.. and I mean REALLY follow it, to the point they would die or kill for it, are ignorant misguided and unhappy. Humans follow a hierarchal structure of rule. There are the lowly peasants and people who rule them and some one above him and some one above him all they way up to King, President, Emperor. However the people dont want the top rung to be a man in a castle who is able to control there lives immediately and profoundly. They do not want a different leader ever 4 years or even every 40. So they made up God. He is above all kings, he never comes down and inforces new tariffs/taxes and hes not real so he stays in office forever, building a reputation. Is it useless to try and quell people away from their religion? Not always. There should always be a little part of a person that knows its all Bullsh|t. And speaking of, one of my favorite quotes, from Penn Gilette. "The Bible, dont read it to find a moral code, read it because we need more athiests, And nothing will get you there faster then reading the damned bible" (reply to this comment)

from Wolf Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 02:45 (Agree/Disagree?) While there is certainly doubt about the origins of the Bible and Jesus, in this text Emmett Fields is just as dogmatic, sensationalist and simplistic as your average Christian preacher, which in my mind makes him no better than them. For example, if you do some research on the Essenes, you will find that the stories about Jesus originally being an Essene are only speculation and not based on any solid evidence, as Mr. Fields would have us believe. In fact, there are many Jewish names that could have evolved into our modern "Jesus", so there are literally thousands of Jews who could have contributed to the legend that we know as Jesus. Apparently Jewish history mentions two unorthodox rabbis named Jesus who lived around that time, and both of them were eventually killed for their unorthodox teachings. One of them was apparently taught armed resistance against the Roman empire, and the other one actually did undergo proceedings similar to those described in the New Testament – i.e. first he was tried by a Jewish court, then he was sent to the Romans. A Jewish man I spoke with told me our modern Jesus is a blending of the legends about these two rabbis, with a lot of colorful additions from Christians, of course. (reply to this comment)

From Saturday, March 18, 2006, 09:56 (Agree/Disagree?) Christ's divinity was introduced somewhere in the 13th century Two books About Misquoting Jesus When world-class biblical scholar Bart Ehrman first began to study the texts of the Bible in their original languages he was startled to discover the multitude of mistakes and intentional alterations that had been made by earlier translators. In Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman tells the story behind the mistakes and changes that ancient scribes made to the New Testament and shows the great impact they had upon the Bible we use today. He frames his account with personal reflections on how his study of the Greek manuscripts made him abandon his once ultraconservative views of the Bible. Since the advent of the printing press and the accurate reproduction of texts, most people have assumed that when they read the New Testament they are reading an exact copy of Jesus's words or Saint Paul's writings. And yet, for almost fifteen hundred years these manuscripts were hand copied by scribes who were deeply influenced by the cultural, theological, and political disputes of their day. Both mistakes and intentional changes abound in the surviving manuscripts, making the original words difficult to reconstruct. For the first time, Ehrman reveals where and why these changes were made and how scholars go about reconstructing the original words of the New Testament as closely as possible. Ehrman makes the provocative case that many of our cherished biblical stories and widely held beliefs concerning the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, and the divine origins of the Bible itself stem from both intentional and accidental alterations by scribes -- alterations that dramatically affected all subsequent versions of the Bible. http://www.harpercollins.com/global_scripts/product_catalog/book_xml.asp?isbn=0060738170&bookpage=MostViewed About The Pope and the Heretic Giordano Bruno challenged everything in his pursuit of an all-embracing system of thought. This not only brought him patronage from powerful figures of the day but also put him in direct conflict with the Catholic Church. Arrested by the Inquisition and tried as a heretic, Bruno was imprisoned, tortured, and, after eight years, burned at the stake in 1600. The Vatican "regrets" the burning yet refuses to clear him of heresy. But Bruno's philosophy spread: Galileo, Isaac Newton, Christiaan Huygens, and Gottfried Leibniz all built upon his ideas; his thought experiments predate the work of such twentieth-century luminaries as Karl Popper; his religious thinking inspired such radicals as Baruch Spinoza; and his work on the art of memory had a profound effect on William Shakespeare. Chronicling a genius whose musings helped bring about the modern world, Michael White pieces together the final years -- the capture, trial, and the threat the Catholic Church felt -- that made Bruno a martyr of free thought. http://www.harpercollins.com/global_scripts/product_catalog/book_xml.asp?isbn=0060933887(reply to this comment)

From GoldenMic Saturday, March 18, 2006, 10:05 (Agree/Disagree?) No disrespect intended, but your assertion is ridiculous. At the very least, St. Paul was asserting the divinity of Christ within a few years of His death, and the apostles asserted the same immediately following His resurrection. While Christians may have been flat wrong in this, it is simply untrue that the question emerged so long after the life of Jesus. I am not trying to be confrontational here, and I frankly don't actually care when or if anyone started considering Jesus to be a Holy one, but despite all the mis-quotes and editorials of the Bible, you cannot seriously be suggesting that the divinity issue only emerged in the 1200's?(reply to this comment)

From Wolf Saturday, March 18, 2006, 16:33 (Agree/Disagree?) Can you please name the passage where Paul asserted to Christ’s divinity? Please note that resurrection and divinity are not one and the same. I think you seriously misread the post above (the one written by an anonymous person, not me). This person is not suggesting that the idea of Jesus’ divinity was first propagated in the 1200’s. As far as I know there is historical evidence that Jesus was considered divine by some of his followers as early as 100 years after he is said to have died. There is also evidence that stories of Jesus’ resurrection were fabricated by his followers, such as an older copy of the gospel of Mark with a different ending. Which begs the question, if the early Christians were willing to fabricate some things, why would they not be willing to fabricate anything and everything? Try to keep in mind that none of the original New Testament manuscripts are available, the only manuscripts available are copies made by the church, the same church that is known to have fabricated several key issues concerning Jesus. Also keep in mind that there were at least two versions of the Jesus story as early as 100 years after he is said to have died. The version that reached us was the one propagated by orthodox Christians, who won the struggle against the Gnostics. If the Gnostics had won out we would have a very different version of Christianity today. (reply to this comment)

From moon beam Saturday, March 18, 2006, 08:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Good point, I have heard that said before, sort of simular to the 'Robin hood' story, many men morphed into one.(reply to this comment)

from SeanSwede Friday, March 17, 2006 - 09:39 (Agree/Disagree?) Frankly...HELL NO!! (reply to this comment)

From Sean fan club Tuesday, March 21, 2006, 08:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Brilliant! Witty as usual! Keep it coming baby, you still got it.(reply to this comment)