Genesis, you are right about one thing, the discussion is definitely getting rotund and maybe pointless. Wd U agree that at the end of the day one becomes a believer (in whatever brand of religion U choose) as an act of faith, not of rationality? I have friends who are sincere believers who agree with this. I respect them and their right to believe, as they respect my scientific rationalist outlook. Go your way in peace. I ask nothing more than that you and those like you do not seek to impose your views and values on me or others. I will not try to make you share mine. Surely if history has taught us anything it's the futility of trying to force belief or unbelief, or compliance with other people's values, on anyone thru the power of church and/or state (eg, Catholic Church and heliocentric astronomy, USSR and Marxist-derived atheism).

Thanks Bosk-very interesting link. I was particularly interested in the section about Papius.

Apart from the argument whether Jesus existed or not, Earl Doherty does highlight whether parts of the NT were referring to a 'spiritual' rather than a 'corporeal' resurrection of Jesus.
I think that it is relevant to compare this 'spiritual' resurrection with NDEs (Near Death Experiences) and ADCs (After Death Communications) which are well documented if not well understood.

Whether you believe these experiences are 'spiritual' or 'hallucinatory' the fact is many people believe it has happened to them.

There are some scientific studies being conducted into them but research on them is in its infancy.

Here's a link about some of the scientific research:

http://iands.org/research/vanLommel/vanLommel2.php

I'm not saying that this fits in perfectly with the teachings of the NT but there are many similarities.

The differences is that only Christ came back. Whereas with NDE and ADC many come back-it is nothing special that only a man/god could achieve.

Also if NDE is the explanation then the fact that Christ comes back in the flesh would mean he was actually corporeally alive like any NDEer and be living on the earth as a normal human being after the crucifixion. If you explain it as an ADC then he could not have come back in the flesh but only as a 'spirit'.

The knowledge and belief in NDE and ADC appears to be part of the makeup of many religions.

In a time that put emphasis on spiritual experiences where people would not just be told they were a nutter for having one it would have been widely known.

The insistence that only christ or people alive at the time of his crucifixion had this experience would actually supress others from talking about it for fear of being called blasphemous-or at least to be very careful to make it their explanation of it fit withing Church Doctrine.

Pericles, of course I know what scholars say about the Gospels. Remember I directed you to Mark Goodacre as an example of where scholars disagree, and used one example - the hypothetical Q document upon which rests a large portion of the edifice of modern biblical criticism. My advice was to not follow the latest fads that’s all.

I follow the Church’s teaching which has a lot to lose by following fashions, academics potentially a lot to gain.

Saying the Gospels are religious tracts and not historical records is begging the question. We are discussing whether what is written in the Gospels actually happened. You can’t argue that point while at the same time assume what we are trying to find out.

My understanding of a merely ‘religious tract’ is something like the Buddhist Gitas. But Christianity is an historical religion, its claims are grounded in history.

To understand the kind of claim you are making about the Gospels being ahistorical read ‘The impossible faith’

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html

So you can see if one was looking to invent a religion - Christianity would be the last thing someone would choose. No one could calculate Christianity into existence, its just not plausible. The much more parsimonious explanation is that it is true, that is the early Christians had the experiences they describe.

Its funny, after I became a Christian I realized that I’d just put myself in the same boat as most Westerners to have ever lived, I was now in the company of great geniuses and saints over the centuries, and that I left what was in fact a very radical, experimental and fashionable set of ideas. Paraphrasing GK Chesterton’s description of his conversion “it was like sailing out on a great journey and arriving at a far away land planting your flag and then realizing you had returned home.”

I respect your genuineness Pericles, and I don’t pretend to want to rob you of your journey if that is what you want. But don’t forget there are two ways of getting home, one is to never leave.

The problem of claiming tradition behind you, Martin, is that it is an illusory concept.

Individual christians have very different ideas of who christ was and what the bible means- as you admit yourself- you do not take the bible literally and do not think it all relevant for today.

If Christians can pick and choose what they believe and how they believe then you get radically different views from different Christians and that is certainly my experience talking to christians.

Beyond that, every moment a new sect or tradition starts. Something that has been happening since before Christianity came on the scene. I have read a lot about early christian sects and many of the writings that didn't make it into the bible and it is obvious that there were as many proliferations of Christian sects back then with very different beliefs as there is today even more so. Even if you read the early Church Fathers you recognise that they believed a very different christianity to the ones taught in churches today. Hitler had just as much church tradition behind him as you do. He was just one more crusader/inquisitioner who truly believed he was doing God's work.

If you add to that all the people who were converted by the sword or by punishments or bribery - which was no small amount, many of the ancestors of Christians today, then it negates the achievement of the Christian church. If you become a christian because you are afraid of being tortured or killed or thrown into prison or because you want a job or a promotion or to avoid tax then you never became a christian at all.

If a dictatorship adopts christianity as its religion you have to ask what was in it for them? And I would say that the fact that the NT continually exhorts christians to tow the line, work hard and do what they are told even if under a cruel tyrant and even if they are enslaved to a cruel master then I think you have a pretty neat answer there.

The Roman Empire adopted Christianity at a time when it was creaking at the seams with rebellion. When the gap between the rich and poor had become immense. The Roman Empire's success was built on slave labour but as it grew so did the oppression of the underclasses.

The fact that Christianity has inspired christians to persecute others on such a massive scale has to be addressed.

It is interesting that Islam has adopted so many of Christianity's ideas. They are both evangelical and they both believe that anyone who is not a member of their faith will go to hell. They also both believe in the apocolypse. Some Islamic countries still use some of the methods christianity used to convert people, by taxing non-moslems, not allowing them to build their churches/temples, and allowing open villification of other religions (they also have the death penalty for any moslem who converts away from Islam). But Chrisitanity was the first to use these methods and a whole range of more oppressive ones. Islam is just Christianity's child.

Aziliz: What a lot of tosh in your last, why do moslems try to latch onto Christianity they, moslems, came years later. The Old Testament has over 300 prophecies regarding the coming Messiah ALL! fulfilled, then along came brutal, pedophilc, robbing, lying mohamad and wrote his garbage. he used the Bible true but he never read it, he couldn't read. He got his stories second hand that's why its so different from the Bible. The koran is so mixed up regards personages from the Old Testament.The koran is a pack of incredibly silly lies and mis-truths. I see this miserable book as a hand book for terrorists only.
As for islam a child of Christianity NO! way Hosea. islam is a bastard child it is not - never has been - never will be - never could be a child of Christianity. numbat