http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html

The author of this article has some very convincing arguments to prove
that the bible depicts stories that never occured.  Could anyone
figure out if his arguments are valid, and help me decide whether or
whether not the millions of christians in the world believe in
something that never was?

If it is true... imagine how so many people could've believed in
nothing.. its crazy...

---

Request for Question Clarification by politicalguru-ga on 21 Apr 2006 02:55 PDT

Does these answer your question: 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

---

Request for Question Clarification by tutuzdad-ga on 27 Apr 2006 20:02 PDT

Here is the best answer I can give, albeit from a Christian's point-of-view: 

The question that must be asked here is what manner of proof is
acceptable? There is no PHYSICAL evidence that Plato or Socrates or
Julius Caesar existed either. Ancient historical figures (such as
Cleopatra, Aristotle, Muhammad, etc) that few people dispute as having
once existed, are almost universally understood to have lived based
exclusively and entirely on the surviving testimony and documentation
of others, though no physical evidence of their lives remains.
Confucianism has about 5.6 million followers in the world and by this
we don't hesitate to believe Confucius actually lived. Yet, oddly
enough, the man upon whose life and wisdom Christianity is mostly
based cannot be proven by the same yardstick - though almost one third
of the living world, and at least that many who have already died,
fervently believe it to be so.

You have to believe that the rain is coming because there are "many"
clouds, or that winter is approaching because "many" leaves fall from
the trees. None of these are "phsycial evidence" that these things
exist, but the presence of the many indicators leads us to believe it
is true simply because we know it to be so. By the same token it is
not "physical evidence" that Jesus Christ lived that justifies the
population's belief that He lived; rather it is the existence of the
many Christians THEMSELVES that provides the physical evidence that
proves this to be so.

For less than $20 you have asked us to prove what hundreds of
generations have stuggled with for centuries. Assuming you are looking
for "the best answer" as opposed to "the answer", please let me know
if this suffices in lieu of something more convincing - (which is the
only thing here, in my opinion, that really DOESN'T exist).

Regards;
tutuzdad-ga

---

Clarification of Question by spax-ga on 01 May 2006 15:56 PDT

Thanks politicalguru, the second link was new to me and helped me in
my thought process. Now I realize that this is too difficult of a
question to offer $19 for. Everyone's posts and speculations on the
subject have aided me in what I now believe. I am leaning more to the
Jesus probably did not exist/ did not have God-like powers side. I am
a Roman Catholic. and to tutuzdad: on your request for clarification I
THINK you are trying to tell me that the millions of people who are
devout christians are more enough to provide proof of his existence. I
kinda don't find that as a good reason. Well, I got plenty of ideas
for some more mind boggling questions if anyone wants to challenge
themselves, or whatever. Thanks everyone.

There are several books and articles on this topic.

Whether or not Jesus ever existed, there is no doubt that every myth
imaginable has been attributed to him.

As an argument from the other fence here are some articles.

"Can we trust the New Testament as a historical document?"
http://www.carm.org/questions/trustbible.htm

"When were the gospels written and by whom?"
http://www.carm.org/evidence/gospels_written.htm

"Hasn't the Bible been rewritten so many times that we can't trust it anymore?"
http://www.carm.org/questions/rewritten.htm

"Non biblical accounts of New Testament events and/or people"
http://www.carm.org/bible/extrabiblical_accounts.htm

"Could anyone figure out if his arguments are valid, and help me
decide whether or whether not the millions of christians in the world
believe in
something that never was?"

Wow, Google Answers can finally put to rest this eternal argument and
replace a thousand years of theological study.  And all for $19.69! 
What a deal!

Sure he exists. I saw him last weekend in Lafayette Park across from
the White House. He had a few interesting things to say but when I
tried to ask him something in Hebrew, he said he only spoke English.
Maybe he was having a bad day. Even Kris Kringle can speak a few
languages.

Is Kris Kringle Jesus?

"If it is true... imagine how so many people could've believed in
nothing.. its crazy..."

To be fair, it could be pointed out that most  - if not all - 
religions that have personified gods suffer from this problem.  The
Greeks, Hindus, Egyptians, Aztecs and others have even more extensive
"stories".

But if all the undocumented stories about saints are included, maybe
Christianity is not far behind.

It might also be mentioned that Mary's immaculate conception and the
virgin birth of Jesus are related to the Christian concept of Original
Sin, something that apparently Paul introduced.  The Jewish faith
refers to the "first sin of man", not to an "original" sin that is
passed down to all men (and women, of course).
Once this concept had be come established a tenet of faith, I can
imagine that a justification for Mary's and Jesus's not being subject
to Original Sin could have developed and been introduced into the
Scriptures.

At the time of Jesus's birth, into the Jewish faith that did not worry
about Original Sin, there would have been no need for this miraculous
origin.

The Catholic Encyclopedia admits to difficulties with this.  Scroll
down to Modern Theology:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15448a.htm

There may have been a problem with Mary as the "espoused" wife of
Joseph having a child, since as the Cath. Encyclodeia also explains,
young Jewish girls were espoused  - promised -  to their future
husband, but only married a year later.
Scroll down to the fifth paragraph under "Her betrothal" on this site:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm

Perhaps this was introduced to clarify that Joseph could not have been the father. 
To some extent, I believe this was a matter that bothered the Arians,
followers of Arius.  Arianism was a interesting problem for the early
church for a couple of centuries, as you can read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm

HOpe this helps a bit.

The writings of Josephus confirm that Jesus did exist. The prophecies
of the Bible foretell the 'coming' of a 'Messiah' [Messiah=Christ] and
the very first mention is at Genesis 3;15. [15 And I shall put enmity
between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed. He will
bruise you in the head and you will bruise him in the heel.?] A
question arises. Who is "He" and who is "Him" and who is "You". And it
is Almighty God speaking. Verse 14 indicates that God is speaking to
the 'serpent'. It can only be Satan, in his role as the serpent in the
garden of Eden. So the "You" is Satan. Satan will 'bruise' the "He" in
the 'heel'[ a non fatal wound] and "He" will bruise "You" [Satan] in
the head. [ a fatal wound]. Eventually, as we all know, from the
Bible, Satan was instrumental in having Jesus [He] killed, but God
resurrected him. Thereby it was a non-fatal 'bruise'. Jesus still
exists. On the other hand, Jesus cast Satan, with his demons, out of
heaven [Revelation 12; 7-9&12] and finally totally destroyed him
permanently [not happened yet] Revelation 20;10.
Now considering the Bible was written by 40 writers under God's
inspiration over a 1500 year period, and is still in existence, It has
not been changed all that much. God has stated in it that He will
ensure that it is NOT altered significantly [Revelation 22;18]. Now if
I can work it out from the scriptures, surely others more intelligent
can also do so, PROVIDING they consider ALL the scriptures, and not
take singular ones out of context. To answer the question. Of course
Jesus existed. He was sent to EXPLAIN God to us, so we are able to
understand. The excuse that God is a " mystery" is a cop-out to cover
up ignorance and a closed mentality. How many times do you hear the
main religions tell their 'flocks' that Jesus had a pre-human
existence? [Proverbs 8;22-31] They don't, because it would clash with
their mistaken belief that Jesus is God himself. Part of the false
'Trinity' teaching.

No, the writings of Josephus do not confirm the historical Jesus... he
merely references the early Christians and what they believe. There is
no historical contemporary accounts of Jesus outside of the Gospel
accounts, and those are not contemporary accounts.. Anything that
actually confirmed the existance of Jesus would truly be an amazing
archeological or scholarly find, and the "press" would be huge.

Remember the recent "Jammes ossuary" fake...that was big news because
for a time it seemed like a real physical connection to the
"family"... but it turned out to be a fogery...

and every time I hear the "enmity" portion of Genesis portrayed as a
prophecy of jesus I have to laugh... talk about a stretch..

SLAKEMOTH. And why would a HISTORIAN like Josephus even mention
someone " that never existed" or " was only in the imagination of
early Christians". Someone in that era was so important that it would
cause such a 'stir'. Why is it that there are 600 prophecies in the
Bible aimed straight at a "Messiah" [ who turned out to be Jesus]. So
much so that the Jews, through Old Testament prophecies, were able to
date Jesus' birth to within a couple of years. So much so that King
Herod, himself a Jew, believed so strongly in this 'Messiah', that he
felt his throne and power were threatened. This 'Messiah' was the hope
that the Jews had to free them from the Romans, and they thought that
this one would rise up and lead a Jewish army to do just that. Herod,
a a Roman 'lackie', would have been usurped [ kicked out]. So Herod
ordered that all Jewish boys two years and under be slaughtered, to
make sure that the promised 'Messiah' was among them. From the Bible,
we know that an angel warned Joseph and Mary to flee to Egypt and not
come back until told to. This could have been a number of years. This
raises another question!. Why would a simple Jewish family have to
leave a relatively comfortable existence in Judah and have to flee to
Egypt, and even to be able to flee, with enough warning.? Who else
might have known of Herod's intent? Why were ALL the young Jewish
families not ALSO warned. It can only be because Jesus was " Special".
The angel returned to them eventually and told them that Herod had
died and they could return. The Bible story all fits very neatly and
includes historical figures who had nothing to gain from promoting a
'false' idea or story. The whole point of the 'enmity' theme is that
God, Jesus' Father [ in heaven, whom no man has seen] has put in place
a 'solution' to solve the dual problems of sin and death [ by man] and
rebellion [ by Satan]. Ask any doctor, why do we grow old and die? If
our bodies can renew themselves up to the age of thirty, WHY do they
not continue to do so? Doctors do not know. The Bible does. Back to
Genesis, God said nothing to Adam and Eve about ever having to die.
This matter only came up AFTER they had been warned about
disobedience. Ask yourself [ and I hope you do not have a closed mind]
What would have been the situation if Adam and Eve HAD NOT DISOBEYED?
Their sentence of death [eventually,in old age, after having a family]
would NOT have been imposed. Using your free will, if you choose to
not believe ALL the Bible, I can do nothing about it. Except tell you
what it really does say, and without all the frills of mainline
faiths. One final point. In whose interest is it that the story of
Jesus is promoted as a 'myth' and the non-existence of 'himself' is
promoted. Its the base cause of ALL our troubles. Satan.

Many religions and various school of thought believe different things.
Where Christianity is concerned however, the entire 11th Chapter of
The Book of Hebrews (Holy Bible) will be of interest to you. It
actually explains the issue of belief vs. non-belief in great length.
Much of the untangible aspects of Christianity is based on a single
premise: faith.

The book begins with this simple, but very profound statement:

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen."
HEBREWS 11:1

BIBLE GATEWAY
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=HEBREWS%2011;&version=9;

Let me know if this provides an answer in lieu of actual evidence.

tutuzdad-ga

PUGWASH...have you actually looked at the Josephus account? Removing
the portions historians know were added at a later date to embellish
Jesus we are left with:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, for he was a doer of
wonders. He drew many after him. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the
principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that
loved him at the first did not forsake him, and the tribe of
Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day
(Antiquities 18:63-64)."

Now that is hardly a "me and Jesus hung out at the market together and
here's a picture of us juggling cantaloupes".. Now add to this that
Josephus was born in the year 37 a.d. and the above account was
published in the year 93 a.d. it is a simple passing reference in his
History of the Jews that mentions the Christian movement and the man
that inspired it. IT IS NOT A CONTEMPORARY ACCOUNT OF THE MAN JESUS...
simple enough.. My original statement stands. Josephus' account was
later embellished by the Christian Church to add more "divinity" to
Jesus.. This in and of itself shows the vagueness of the original
account, such that the Christians had to fluff it up to make it
better.

Now, personally I do not doubt the historical existence of Jesus. I
believe him to be a real person that was at the root of a new
religious philosophy, But I do not believe in any divinity or
supernatural aspects. I give credit to Paul for tirelessly promoting
the new ideas and spreading the religion.

Now on to prophecy, I will pose a simple question to you... All of
this amazing obvious prophecy throughout all of the Old testament
writings, yet the Jews denied Jesus' divinity?! Jesus fulfilled 600
obvious prophecies so amazingly perfectly, yet the very people who
hold these prophecies dear, supposedly witnessed Jesus fulfill them,
yet rejected him outright....hmmmmmm...Its all rubbish... Did it ever
occur to you that the Gospel writers, composing their writings decades
after Jesus' death, and needing to portray and sell Jesus as a
messiah, might have written the accounts of Jesus' life around these
prophecies?... Hmmmmm didn't think so..... Prophecy in the biblical
writings served a completely different purpose than you are trying to
give it. The Genesis writings ( which are not prophecy) are the oldest
stories of the ancient Hebrews, and frankly its a bit disgusting the
way New Testament Christians co-opt these stories to serve their own
end.. You can contend all day long that the Serpent account in Genesis
is Satan and a prophecy of Jesus... But you know what ... you are flat
wrong. To listen to you talk about the Adam and Eve story like its a
documentary, and treating it like actual events completely misses the
entire point of the first book of the sacred TORAH... but having read
your posts all over the Answers boards it doesn't surprise me.

The main question presented in this thread has nothing to do with
"Faith" in Jesus and his divinity... it asks for physical, historical
evidence of the man Jesus... To date there is nothing like this
around... but archeologists and scholars are looking every day, and
one day that evidence may surface....

SLAKEMOTH. I appreciate the response. But have another look at the
original question. DID JESUS EVER EXIST? The simple answer is that he
did. I personally believe the Bible account that he was the Son of
God. The question did not ask about his divinity. Just DID he exist.
And you yourself stated that Josephus confirms that " a wise man
called Jesus was condemned by Pilate". This answers the question.

Again, look at my posts, I say "while there is no contemporary
evidence to his existence, I believe him to have been a real man" (
thats a summary).. I will say again, there is no evidence outside of
the Bible ( which isn't really evidence) of Jesus, the fact that I
think he was a real person is merely speculation on my aprt... I
cannot prove that.

 You say "DID JESUS EVER EXIST? The simple answer is that he did."
that is simply not a true statement. Did King Arther exist? We have
lots of books talking about his great tales, surely he did....

There are accounts of the early Chrsitians, and what they believed,
but not of jesus... Josephus wasn't even born when Jesus was
crucified.. so on a simple level it is impossible for him to write any
account of Jesus other than what he was told... But instead he is
simply repeating the early Christian party line, not supporting their
beliefs, or affirming what they are saying... Josephus does not
confirm the real Jesus.

The proper answer to they question asked is "We do not know if Jesus
really existed"... now feel free to speculate along those lines...but
until true evidence is found... its just speculation...

The initial article linked to says this:

"Whether Christ did, or did not live, has nothing at all to do with
what the churches teach, or with what we believe, It is wholly a
matter of evidence. It is a question of science. The question is --
what does history say?"

I agree with this in the context of the post... and as the article
says there is none of this evidence.

So the writers conclusion is this:

 "The Jesus Christ of the Gospels could not possibly have been a real
person. He is a combination of impossible elements. There may have
lived in Palestine, nineteen centuries ago, a man whose name was
Jesus, who went about doing good, who was followed by admiring
associates, and who in the end met a violent death. But of this
possible person, not a line was written when he lived, and of his life
and character the world of to-day knows absolutely nothing."

That is a true statement and this writers conclusion.. One I happen to
agree with. I am not as harsh as the author, but my years of Biblical
study, especially of the Gospel accounts, reveals very clearly what
was going on when they were composed...

Slakemoth,

You have shown your true colors in your assertion,

I will say again, there is no evidence outside of the Bible (which
isn't really evidence) of Jesus

And on what basis do you make your assertion that the Bible isn't
really evidence?  That is just prejudice.  The number of ancient
manuscripts available and their proximity to the time the original
manuscripts were written, is better than that of many other ancient
works that are accepted without question.  Furthermore, the gospel
accounts of Matthew and John were written by disciples who were
eyewitnesses of Jesus's life and ministry.  The gospel account of Mark
was written by John Mark who knew Peter.  Luke knew the apostle Paul
and sometimes traveled with him.  He interviewed eyewitnesses of Jesus
to gain a "perfect understanding of all things from the very first"
and set it down in an "orderly account."  Finally all the disciples
except John were martyred for their faith.  Why would they die for
what they knew to be a lie rather than recant?  The remaining
discpile, John, wasn't martyred only because when they tried to boil
him in oil he miraculously didn't die.  Instead, he lived to an
advanced age and was in a position to personally refute inaccuracies
and heresy until approximately the end of the first century.  By then
all the books that would become the New Testament had already been
written.

So we have a great body of writings by eyewitnesses in the Bible and
many more extrabiblical writings by those who knew the eyewitnesses
and who affirm what they had to say.  Again, for you to say that the
Bible isn't really evidence is just plain prejudice.

ANSEL -

Ansel - wrong, wrong, and wrong... I would urge you to study the
gospel accounts, and NT history.. I would also be curious to have you
answer when the earliest copies of the NT books we have date from...
I'll give you a hint... it isn't the week after Jesus' death... If you
believe the 4 gospel books to be eyewitness accounts of Jesus' life
then you are sadly mistaken and missing the point of their  being
written in the first place....

I know this is not a debate forum, so I am cutting it short, but to
truly answer the question asked in this thread you have to show
outside evidence of Jesus' life , the old "Bible is true because the
Bible says so" cannot be that evidence... As I said, to date we have
nothing, but that does not mean its not there.. The same question was
asked about Pontius Pilate for years... and then one day a dedication
was discovered on the ruins of an ancient theater....

and my true colors are those of someone who loves Biblical history and
scriptural analysis.... but I got your shot....

From the (Christian New Testament) Pauline letter to the Heberews,
eleventh chapter, first verse:

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

So, on the question of whether the man Jesus ever existed, I would say
that to the believer, no evidence is necessary; to the unbeliever no
evidence would ever be enough.

So choose.

The existence of Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy are more convincing. 

At least, they leave tangible evidence of their visitations.

Byrd,.. I disagree 100% with your assertion. Forget the "divine"
aspect of Jesus for a second... and focus on the question at hand...
that being did the man Jesus exist in history. Faith has nothing to do
with this.. either he did or he didn't, and what historical proof do
we have of his life on earth to support this claim.....

Absolutely we could find some sort of an archeological, or literary (
outside the Bible), evidence of his life. I mentioned earlier that
there was a recent "discovery" of an ossuary ( a stone burial box for
bones ) that purported to be that of James, Jesus' brother, and had
such an inscription on its side. This would absolutely be a concrete
physical historical connection to the man Jesus, and would have been
an awesome discovery.... But unfortunately if was found to be a fake..
( the ossuary was real, the inscription forged), and the guy who sold
it was arrested and found to be part of other religious based
forgeries..

My belief in Jesus' divinity has nothing to do with whether this man
existed, two separate issues.

"Faith has nothing to do with this.. either he did or he didn't, and
what historical proof do we have of his life on earth to support this
claim"

Wrong. From a Christian's prespective, faith has EVERYTHING to do with
it. It's true there's no physical proof Jesus lived, but likewise
there's no proof that He didn't. The question now is this:
"Is your faith Jesus did not exist as strong as a believer's faith that He did?" 

Is this it a trick question? Maybe. But the result clearly speaks for
itself. Regardless of what your answer is, you will have admitted that
absent physical proof, faith alone (for or against) is sufficient
enough to establish the fact. If you respond that you have no faith
one way or the other, then you admit that you cannot comprehend the
concept of "faith as proof" no matter how it is presented to you, and
this whole conversation is futile.

It's not up to Christians to make an unbeliever's case for him.
Christians accept Jesus on faith, but unbelievers have absolutely
nothing. They have neither faith nor hope that what they are saying is
true, so they speak on a belief to which they do not susbscribe just
to hear themselves speak. Since we know now that faith is sufficient
enough to establish the fact and faith is all there is, the burden of
proof is now on the unbeliever to support his "claim" that Jesus never
existed; not on Christians to prove that he did.

For lack of a better phrase, if they don't believe Jesus existed,
prove it. . .We're all ears.

....and like it or not THAT, my friend, is THE answer.

Have a nice day.

PS:  Most of us know a "stump-the-researcher" question when we see it.
Certainly there are more challenging conundrums than this one; but
perhaps the "asker" will be a bit more clever next time. :)

Well I guess we can leave it at that... Your answer shows perfectly
your mentality and inability to understand a clearly asked question, a
perfect end to this thread.

Yea, you're right slakemoth. I kinda just wanted to check if all of
that guy's arguments were valid, like if his sources were real. But
uh, unless anyone feels like doin that, we might as well end it here.

Spax, I can tell you that for the most part the article is on track,
but the author is approaching the subject from a very cynical point of
view. His overall assertion is in fact correct, that there is no clear
evidence for Jesus, but as with all things biblical in nature, things
are never as clear cut as they seem. For instance he chooses the most
extreme dates for the Gospel's composition. Most biblical scholars
actually place their writing a bit earlier than what he stated, but
the main point, that the Gospel books were not contemporary writings,
but at minimum 40 years after Jesus execution for the first book (
Mark) and up from there..... is true. But I think you will better off
choosing certain aspects of the article and looking into them on your
own. You will enjoy it.

anyway here are a few links to give you more info on some of the
general subjects mentioned in the article you linked to. I am choosing
the "Straight Dope" website because the articles are easy to read,
well researched and fun to read.

Who Wrote the Bible - Part 4 the New Testament
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible4.html

Then go to the main Straight Dope page, then click on "archive".. once
there do a search for "Jesus" and you will find lots of great
articles, then search "Bible" for more...
http://www.straightdope.com/

There was a man named Jesus Existed in the world, you know history is
divided into two AD and BC only his birth divided the history in to
two,if you believe all that written in history is true the beleive it
There existed Jesus.

Uhhhhhmmmmm our modern calendar was created in the year 525 by a monk,
who had been asked by the Pope to work out a better way to calculate
Easter... Most didn't adopt it until after the year 1,000 and then
others not until 1,400... but with the Vatican on teh job you had to
know it was gonna be Jesus based...

The calendar used in the time of Jesus was a Roman calendar that was
based upon the founding of Rome... ( so Jesus was born around the year
750 anno urbis conditae)

'So', says Slakemoth-ga, 'Jesus was born around the year 750 anno urbis conditae'.

Slakemoth-ga, Are you really sure?

Then prove it!

A Birth Certificate will do nicely.

Thanks!

Hey now..., thats not fair... I've been the guy contending all along
here that there is no evidence for the "actual Jesus"..

what I posted there was simple conversion of the year "one" to the old
Roman calendar... no belief required..

OK, Slakemoth, my mistake ...

I thought that you had 'seen the light'.

Bryan, do you mean "enlightened", as in religion, or as in
Enlightenment of the 18th century?

Myo

Where I live: 

'Seen the Light' means that you stop on red.

'Enlightened' means that you've lost weight.

You really must get an English Dictionary.

Bryo

Christians believed in the existence of Jesus because they were given
the Gift of Faith. For those who believed, no explanation is
necessary; but to those who do bot believed, no explanation is
possible. This is because, they have not been given the gift of faith.
But the fact that you are asking question about the existence of
Jesus, what is your motivation, is it to prove or disprove His
existence?
If your motive is to know about Jesus, then ask the Father (GOD) to
give you the gift of faith. He is the only one who can answer your
question. God promised, "Ask and you will receive, seek and you shall
find, knock and it will be opened to you". But first, you need to
check your intention. If your motive is to disprove the existence of
Jesus, you can stop your search right now and just read the Da Vince
Code, because they have done a good job of dismantling the truths
about christianity, but they will not succeed because people that were
given the faith will never waiver in their beliefs. It is a gift from
God that no one can get except when God himself decides to give it to
you.

clairerubin, 

when in doubt try reading the actual question posted at the beginning
of the thread... and here's another quote for you...

"Faith is no excuse for ignorance!
Adherence to any tradition in disregard for textual evidence is sheer superstition."

Ironic how you would choose to quote a Professor of Theology (Mahlon
H. Smith, Department of Religion at Rutgers) in an attempt to make
your case. The quote you offered is WAY out of context. Here Smith is
making the point that anyone who believes anything OTHER than the
Biblical "textual evidence" to support their belief is practicing
"sheer superstition". It is THEY (i.e. YOU, for example - no offense
intended), that he is calling the "ignorant".

Uh, you have a little egg on your face there...let me get that for you.  :)

Uhmmmm no I am perfectly aware of the context of Mahlon's quote, as
well as his background and position. I reference his Synoptic Gospel
primer all the time for classes I teach. I have no problem with people
who take the time to study the history, and background of the biblical
texts they choose to quote. Usually when this happens we do not hear
the typical empty blather that tends to creep into questions like
this. Thats all I have ever asked of "Christians", that they take the
time to learn about their faiths history, background and context of
the scriptures they quote.....

and the quote chastises those who stand on faith alone and cannot
intelligently speak about what stands behind their "beliefs"...

no egg here..

and you were so quick to assume a "trick question" earlier in this
thread, did you actually ever read the poster's question and linked
article? I think if you had you would find very clear straight forward
questions and statements to address..... but we wouldn't want an real
"work" or thought to intrude on faith... easier to rest on that.