Choice destroys peace

I find it sadly ironic that the word Planned Parenthood chose (no pun intended) to replace the word “Choice” is “Peace” since that is exactly what is destroyed by the choice of abortion which they promote and carry out…. “The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion.” ~ Mother Teresa
~ Blogger Reflections of a Paralytic, December 19

Here is American Life League’s take on Planned Parenthood’s 2007 “Choice on Earth” cards, which I posted a couple of weeks ago. The ALL video also shows a blasphemous soft porn commercial by PP:

In a press statement with release of the video, ALL’s vp Jim Sedlak said, “By changing the word ‘peace’ to ‘choice’, Planned Parenthood is effectively implying that Mary should have considered aborting Jesus…. King Herod sent soldiers out to slaughter babies because he wanted to kill Jesus. Two thousand years later, Planned Parenthood is still doing all it can to kill babies. That is what their motto ‘Choice on Earth’ really means.”
[HT: moderator jasper and ALL’s Michael Hichborn]
UPDATE, 1:10p: Read “release [of] some atheist angst” over my post at The Huntress’ Domain.

95 thoughts on “Choice destroys peace”

  1. What’s with this politically motivated fad to insert the word “choice” EVERYWHERE?
    Thanks for posting this Jill!

  2. Um, that whole Herod thing was way before baby Jesus’ time. Also, that whole census thing didn’t happen either. Man, am I sinking your ship or what?

  3. Yes Jeff, your cards do reflect the real PP, you might want to consider sending them copies. But of course, they have to disguise themselves to keep the lie going.

  4. Um…history? As in, Herod was dead before Jesus was born? And the fact that any actual massacre of that type would have been recorded somewhere other than the bible, which it isn’t?

  5. I am so excited.
    Straight A’s this semester, including Genetics! Not one A-.
    This hasn’t happened once before, all those dang A-‘s. I’m going crazy. That Genetics grade was a miracle from heaven, for reals.

  6. Wow, jasper. Um, anywhere. I can give you as many links as you want.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great
    Herod died in 4 BCE. The earliest that Jesus is believed to have been born is in 4 BCE. Also, the Massacre of the Innocents(I love that Rubens) isn’t corroborated in any other historical reference- not even in a different gospel.

  7. Thanks Erin, wikipedia sucks. Just because it was written in the bible, it is quetioned. Any other doc would be OK with them. Fkers.
    “The historical accuracy of this event has been questioned, since no other document from the period makes any reference to such a massacre.”

  8. Erin, I don’t think Wikipedia is a good source to site, but that’s just my opinion.
    Also, dates being vague and all we don’t really know about either the birth of Christ or the death of Herod in certainty. Also, Bethlehem was hardly New York and the number of children, let alone boys, was probably fairly small. I think they estimated the total population at 500 – 1000 people so the number of boys age 2 and under was probably 7 – 20.
    Herod was the “King of the Jews” because of the Jewish people he ruled. Some historians believe that the event was left out of the writings of Josephus (his biographer) because there would have to be a note as to WHY he killed the children, thereby admitting the Magi’s claim and probably didn’t want to do so since he was a Jew.

  9. *rolls eyes* jasper, it doesn’t even mean anything about Jesus himself. It just means that maybe a crazy king didn’t try to kill a bunch of babies. THAT’S ALL. It doesn’t matter if it’s the bible or not- there are plenty of other documents that are expected to authenticate themselves by other documents. Herodotus, Pliny, Cicero, they all have to agree with historical knowledge.
    Does it really matter that King Herod was dead and didn’t try to kill Jesus? Isn’t the whole important part that they killed him LATER?
    Herod did some massively nasty stuff, including killing a bunch of people that he blamed for him getting a nasty flu. But he didn’t kill a bunch of babies, hoping to get Jesus. He was too dead to do that. Sorry.

  10. theologytoday.ptsem.edu/oct1993/v50-3-article8.htm
    The writing that the quote (& apparent research) was pulled from

  11. Erin –
    Jesus was born in 6/5BC. Herod died in 4BC. Do the math. Herod was alive and well when Jesus was born. This is HISTORICAL FACT!!

  12. Midnite it was me who said I didn’t think Wikipedia was a good source and it isn’t. I’m not saying everything is wrong, I’m just saying that any Tom, Dick, and Harry can write something there, and there is no reference check that I’m aware of. I’m not saying he’s lying, I’m just saying….
    Anywho, maybe it happened, maybe it didn’t but I don’t think anyone can claim one way or the other absolutely.
    There was a reason that the story says he killed boys 2 years and under, because he didn’t know when the baby could have been born. It’s unclear.

  13. “historical knowledge.”
    You’re a history major, maybe you can tell me who wrote this “Historical knowledge” or where I find it? You don’t have to do this now, maybe when you get a chance some time…..
    You’re calling the apostles liars, so I want to do my research…..

  14. Tara, there isn’t any consensus on when(or if) Jesus was born. The ‘massacre of the Innocents’ is not a historical fact. Even going by the bible, Jesus was apparently conceived when John the Baptist’s mother was about 6 months along, in 5 BCE. That would place Jesus’ birth either very late in 5 BCE or early 4 BCE. And with Herod dying in 4 BCE, with his kidneys failing and all, he wasn’t really putting out proclamations. Sorry. Like I said, isn’t it kind of not the point? Why does it matter so much that some dead king tried to kill Jesus?

  15. jasper- I’m actually only calling one of the apostles liars. Matthew is the ONLY gospel that even brings it up. And either way, Matthew probably only meant it as a way to make Jesus seem more glorified. If he really was the son of God, I don’t think he really needs the help, do you?
    It’s ‘historical knowledge’ that the bubonic plague wiped out a bunch of people in Europe. It’s historical knowledge that the Battle of Hastings was in 1555. It doesn’t mean that NO ONE disputes it- but it does mean that it has general acceptance in the history community, just like the fact that Herod had nothing to do with Jesus. Most likely, however, his son did. His son was allegedly responsible for the death of John the Baptist.

  16. Erin, what/where is this “historical factual” document? where could I find it. Who deems it factual? I have 4 accounts of Jesus’s life in the new testament.

  17. “And either way, Matthew probably only meant it as a way to make Jesus seem more glorified.”
    How do you know he made it seem glorified?
    “It doesn’t mean that NO ONE disputes it- but it does mean that it has general acceptance in the history community, just like the fact that Herod had nothing to do with Jesus.”
    but what document do you have that says Jesus didn’t exist. what is the name of the document?

  18. Jasper- it’s the fact that other historical documents don’t corroborate it. Most of this type of ancient history we know because there are multiple accounts by various authors who authenticate each other. Romans were notoriously good historians and record keepers. This is how we know that there wasn’t a census carried out for Judea in 9 BCE, and it’s how we know with such precision the lineage of people like Herod and his descendants. Often what documents don’t say is much more important than what they do say.
    Jesus’ existence is a hot topic with historians. They’re pretty evenly split. There’s no real proof that he DIDN’T exist- but there isn’t anything to show that he did, either. It has nothing to do with the religion itself- it has to do with the standards of proof that the history-based community has to adhere to.

  19. jasper, please don’t think I’m trying to insult your religion or anything along those lines. I respect your right to believe in whatever you want to believe in terms of spirituality and belief. I think that a religion should be more about things like the soul and spirit and such- it shouldn’t have to be something that needs to warp actual history for a favorable story. The story of Jesus is a powerful one, obviously- Christianity is a huge religion. I’m pretty sure that certain details being wrong doesn’t matter. Jesus existing could be a big issue, but it’s one that even I am torn on. It’s all based on evidence. I’m not trying to dismantle your faith- I’m just putting things the way that I’m obligated to view them.

  20. Below is a partial list of historical sources that prove the existence of a man named Jesus.
    Cornelius Tactitus
    Tactitus was a Roman historian who wrote the following about Christians in 112 AD, regarding the fire in Rome during Nero

  21. Here’s another part of the ‘Got Questions’ article that I thought was relevant:
    “It is also important to recognize that in 70 A.D., the Romans invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and most of Israel, slaughtering its inhabitants. Entire cities were literally burned to the ground! We should not be surprised, then, if much evidence of Jesus’ existence was destroyed. Many of the eye-witnesses of Jesus would have been killed. These facts likely limited the amount of surviving eyewitness testimony of Jesus.”

  22. Thanks for all of that information Bethany.
    Erin,I understand, but what are the document names that claim Jesus didn’t exist? Or who are the historians? Or are you just going by the fact that some Historians failed to mention Jesus? therefore He did not exist. There are plenty that claim He did.

  23. *wince*
    Dang it, Bethany. People always pull those examples and I have to go to my handy dandy research folder and refute them.
    Josephus: This is probably the most popular extrabiblical source citing Jesus’ historicity. This has a TON of questions about its authenticity- lots of historians think that the notes about Jesus were added later, because the language is used much differently than in the rest of the passage. Personally, I pass no judgment on this either way, because I haven’t personally examined it.
    Pliny(and Trajan! You forgot Trajan!): These talk about the actual practices of early Christians. It really has nothing to do with either confirming or denying the historical existence of Jesus. It just notes the traditions of the very early followers of Christianity.
    Talmud: Oh, big dang mess here. The Talmud is so foggy you can’t tell what the blazes it’s talking about most the time. It’s generally supposed that references to Jesus were adopted after the fact. The Talmudic verses don’t necessarily represent Jesus or other biblical figures. Either way, it’s a jumble. Again, no judgment from me.
    Lucian: ouch. You killed it yourself by saying second-century. Accurate historical accounts are generally valued on a descending scale depending on how far from the date of the event they’re written. Lucian can’t really know for sure that there was a guy 200 years before he was born.
    OK, I have to go make cookies, and do laundry. You guys keep sucking me in. Stop it!

  24. jasper, I mean that there is not significant PROOF of his existence. Some historians say he did. Other say there isn’t enough evidence to make that affirmation. A bad historian makes claims without substantial evidence. Honestly, all you have to do is google “Jesus Myth” and you’ll get plenty of information. I don’t deny that Jesus existed. I just don’t assume that he did. It’s not for-Jesus vs. against-Jesus. It doesn’t work that way. It’s proof vs. non-proof. There isn’t animosity against him existing- if I found enough historical evidence for Jesus’ existence, I’d be all for it.

  25. I dont think she’s claiming he didnt exist Jasper.
    I think she’s saying that there is no definite proof that he did exisit and there is also no definite proof that he didnt exist.

  26. “jasper, I mean that there is not significant PROOF of his existence.”
    ok. ..oh well, thanks for the discussion. I don’t think we’ll agree on this.

  27. It’s ‘historical knowledge’ that the bubonic plague wiped out a bunch of people in Europe. It’s historical knowledge that the Battle of Hastings was in 1555. It doesn’t mean that NO ONE disputes it- but it does mean that it has general acceptance in the history community, just like the fact that Herod had nothing to do with Jesus. Most likely, however, his son did. His son was allegedly responsible for the death of John the Baptist.
    Posted by: Erin at December 20, 2007 11:54 AM
    _______________________________________________
    Erin —
    You are kidding about the Battle of Hastings being in the 16th Century aren’t you? Because it was in 1066 and very well documented too.
    I was a history major too, the Battle of Hastings was pretty important, you know the Norman Invasion and all, by 1555 I’m say the battle was pretty much decided.
    If you found your info on the Battle of Hastings in Wikipedia — you better review the other assumptions you have made.
    Cheers!

  28. LB- yeah, that was my bad. I was thinking of Augsburg. The Battle of Hastings was in my brain from “This is a Test”.

  29. “I cannot WAIT until God pours out his wrath on PP!!!
    Blasphemous, moronic idiots!”
    Yet wait you must. God apparently has his reasons for allowing PP to prosper for awhile longer. Don’t think that you understand everything, God’s tolerance of abortion is evident.

  30. 1066, 1588, 1215… Ah, those dates in history are imprinted on my brain never to be forgotten. Thank you Mrs. Everet, high school history teacher!

  31. I figured it was just a ‘slip o the keyboard’ thing. :)
    As far as proving historical certainty for most events before the printing press — it is difficult. Recordkeeping was sporatic and the the intentional burning of libraries and archives was (and still is) a major tactic in warfare. Only the appearance of multiple copies of sources, stored in numerous places has given us assurance of the historical record.
    Kudos to you as a history major, I was a double major with political science. I guess that makes me a glutton for paper writing, detail picking and debating. Good luck in your tests, and enjoy your studies. I wouldn’t trade my historical studies for any other training I’ve had. Nothing prepares you for the future, like a good understanding of the past!

  32. Hah, Kristen, I had three dates that Berry reamed into our little heads- 1066, 1555, and 1763. Man, that teacher was a jerk, but he was a wonderful teacher.

  33. Um…history? As in, Herod was dead before Jesus was born? And the fact that any actual massacre of that type would have been recorded somewhere other than the bible, which it isn’t?
    Posted by: Erin at December 20, 2007 10:58 AM
    ***********************
    You’d think that Roman historians would have made some mention of it.

  34. …..and I hope God, as he’s throwing them into the pits of hell says, “it was your CHOICE”!
    Posted by: AB Laura at December 20, 2007 11:25 AM
    ***************
    What a sickening disgusting thing to say …..

  35. What was 1555? 1588 was the defeat of the Spanish Armada, and (apparently) the end of the world… ;)
    I don’t remember 1555…

  36. Where is the commentary from Roman historians who were contemporaries of Jesus, who lived at the same time he did? Where do they mention him healing the sick, walking on water, raising the dead, etc etc etc ? By the way, the Josephus reference is pretty well established as a forgery. And as far as I can tell, depending on memory here, all the references are of people who werent even born until years after Jesus supposedly died.

  37. I started out as a history major in college but the Profs. were dry and boring. Mrs. Everet was amazing and why I wanted to be a history major. So smart, and tough, but the good tough – not the “nobody liked me in HS so now I’m going to take it out on all of you” tough.

  38. I started out as a history major in college but the Profs. were dry and boring. Mrs. Everet was amazing and why I wanted to be a history major. So smart, and tough, but the good tough – not the “nobody liked me in HS so now I’m going to take it out on all of you” tough.
    Posted by: Kristen at December 20, 2007 3:43 PM
    **************
    Almost all my electives were history courses. I have enough hours for a minor in history but not the “right” hours. I took what I was interested in instead of the departments ‘course requirements for a minor’.

  39. 1555 was the Peace of Augsburg, it ended the actual warring about the schism of the church between Lutheranism and Catholicism. In 1648(Westphalia) it gave them legal standing. I don’t really know why Bear thought it was such an important date per se, but he beat it into us. 1763 was the ‘end of salutary neglect’. I will never forget that phrase!

  40. TexasRed —
    Where are the commentaries on all aspects of life in Roman times? Who knows? Where are the commentaries of the critics of the emperors or the commentaries of the educated Roman women at the time? What did Ceasar have to say about the price of wheat in the forum or the shape of his big toe?
    It is an incomplete historical record. We don’t have everything. To the Romans, the Jews were just one small group within a vast empire — they were not documenting everything and even if they did, it is unlikely that it would have survived. You really can’t argue about an era with incomplete records.
    Also, none of this really has anything to do with the subject of this post anymore…
    I think we all agree that history is interesting and important, but it is one of the humanities — not a science.

  41. TexasRed —
    Where are the commentaries on all aspects of life in Roman times? Who knows? Where are the commentaries of the critics of the emperors or the commentaries of the educated Roman women at the time? What did Ceasar have to say about the price of wheat in the forum or the shape of his big toe?
    It is an incomplete historical record. We don’t have everything. To the Romans, the Jews were just one small group within a vast empire — they were not documenting everything and even if they did, it is unlikely that it would have survived. You really can’t argue about an era with incomplete records.
    Also, none of this really has anything to do with the subject of this post anymore…
    I think we all agree that history is interesting and important, but it is one of the humanities — not a science.
    Posted by: LB at December 20, 2007 4:02 PM
    ****
    Roman historians wrote about important things. They didnt think someone who could raise the dead was worth mentioning?

  42. ‘end of salutary neglect’. I will never forget that phrase!
    Posted by: Erin at December 20, 2007 3:59 PM
    She always said “Those who are ignorant of history are condemned to repeat it.” I forget who said it originally though…

  43. Texas —
    You still aren’t proving anything. It may have been writing about, we don’t know. Much is lost to history either not written and preserved, destroyed or decayed, lack of written record from the 1st Century means little. Do you think we have everything ever written about everything? It you are intending to make a logical argument here, give up — there is not evidence either way.
    I’m a librarian and while at times it seems like we have everything ever written (and it’s waiting on my desk for processing), we don’t. Do you have every paper and diary entry you have every written as well as all the stuff your ancestors wrote?

  44. Erin –
    From the historian Josephus on the Census:
    Cyrenius is Governor of Syria During the Census -Taxing
    “So Archelaus’s country was laid to the province of Syria; and Cyrenius, one that had been consul, was sent by Caesar to take account of people’s effects in Syria.Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance.”
    Josephus – Antiquities of the Jews – Book 18
    He revived the office of the Censor which had long been disused and whose duty it had formerly been to take an account of the number of people.”
    Seutonius Roman Historian – Augustus 23 – Lives of the Twelve Caesars
    “He took a census of the people three times” – Augustus 27
    “He took a census of the Roman people street by street “- Augustus 40
    “Since the consuls caused a law to be passed soon after this that he should govern the provinces jointly with Augustus and hold the census with him” Seutonius Roman Historian – Tiberias 21- Lives of the Twelve Caesars
    As for the exsistance of Jesus, here is ancient Non-Christian sources.
    Tacticus wrote about Nero blaming the Christians for the Fire in Rome (64AD).
    Pliny the Younger wrote to Emperor Trajan seeking advice on who to deal with Christians (112AD).
    Historian Josephus wrote in the “Jewish Antiquities” two interesting accounts. The first being about the trial of James the brother of Jesus the so called Christ. The second comming from “Testimonium Flavianum”. It talks about Jesus being a wise man, Pilate condemning him to crucifixion, resurrection and the beginning of the Christian tribe.
    Babyolonian Talmud that states that Jesus was hanged on Passover.
    There were more witnesses to Jesus then any other person before or after.
    Jews acknowledge Jesus as a wise man. Jews for Jesus belive He is the Messiah. Muslims believe that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, but deny His deity. Most religions acknowledge Jesus as being a great prophet or wise man. He has had the greatest impact on history then any other person.
    It is much easier to be in the denier camp.
    Acknowleging Jesus, as you and others have shown, leaves someone like me to be ridiculed, called less educated, intolerent, hateful and on and on. But that is okay, bc in the end I expect nothing less from the world. To try to live like Jesus did is the hardest way to live. It means giving up myself and sharing others burdens with them. It is often standing in direct opposition to what the world says is good. Saying I am a Christian means loving God with all my heart, mind, soul and strength and loving my neighbor as myself. I fail often but try all the more.

  45. Erin, I know that you’ve said there’s no proof either way that Jesus was/was not born. However, there is proof that he died. The calling for him to be crucified (before Pontius Pilate) the crucifixion, the two criminals crucified with him, etc… Historians agree he was crucified and the circumstances surrounding the crucifixion.
    One could argue that if he died he would have to have been born.

  46. Erin, I know that you’ve said there’s no proof either way that Jesus was/was not born. However, there is proof that he died. The calling for him to be crucified (before Pontius Pilate) the crucifixion, the two criminals crucified with him, etc… Historians agree he was crucified and the circumstances surrounding the crucifixion.
    One could argue that if he died he would have to have been born.
    Posted by: Kristen at December 20, 2007 4:53 PM
    ……………………………………
    I am unaware of historical documentation concerning a crucifixion of someone named Jesus. Where can this be found?

  47. “I am unaware of historical documentation concerning a crucifixion of someone named Jesus. Where can this be found?”
    The bible, in the new testament.

  48. Babyolonian Talmud that states that Jesus was hanged on Passover.
    Posted by: Tara at December 20, 2007 4:26 PM
    …………………………….
    Jews do not believe in a Messiah named Jesus. According to the Talmud, Yeshu’s father was known as Pandera/Panthera – which was also the name of a Roman Soldier who was believed to have been the father of Jesus. Yeshu’s mother was Miriam Stada – and is also known in the Talmud as Yeshu ben Stada – probably because his mother was not married. Yeshu was ousted by his teacher Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah because of his outlandish acts. Yeshu was thought to be a sorcerer, and one who led Jews astray. As a result, Yeshu was charged with crimes, and was stoned and hung up on the eve of Passover.
    This does not support a crucifixion nor was the Babylonian Talmud a contemporary writing to the time of a Christian Jesus.

  49. I am unaware of historical documentation concerning a crucifixion of someone named Jesus. Where can this be found?”
    The bible, in the new testament.
    Posted by: jasper at December 20, 2007 6:02 PM
    …………………………………..
    The Bible is not historical documentation Jasper.

  50. LOL Jasper!
    And Sally, educate yourself. There are several scholars who have written about it. The evidence was gathered in trying to disprove the existence of Jesus. Search the web go to a library, whatever… it’s there.

  51. I’m a librarian and while at times it seems like we have everything ever written (and it’s waiting on my desk for processing), we don’t. Do you have every paper and diary entry you have every written as well as all the stuff your ancestors wrote-LB
    You’re a librarian? Me, too! Where did you get your MLIS?

  52. LOL Jasper!
    And Sally, educate yourself. There are several scholars who have written about it. The evidence was gathered in trying to disprove the existence of Jesus. Search the web go to a library, whatever… it’s there.
    Posted by: Kristen at December 20, 2007 6:51 PM
    ……………………………………………
    You have not sighted one single solitary historical contemporary source referencing the Christian Jesus. Do your own research Kristen. It simply does not exist.

  53. Sorry, sweetie. I HAVE done my research and between baking cookies, wrapping, cleaning, etc… do not have the time nor inclination to do so for someone who’s too lazy to do it them self.

  54. Sorry, sweetie. I HAVE done my research and between baking cookies, wrapping, cleaning, etc… do not have the time nor inclination to do so for someone who’s too lazy to do it them self.
    Posted by: Kristen at December 20, 2007 8:20 PM
    ……………………………………………
    I’ve done quite a bit of reading on the subject snookums. If you cannot back up your assertions just say so. No reason to get snotty.

  55. Sally –
    I did not say that the Jews believe that Jesus is Messiah. What I said was Jews for Jesus does. They are Jews who belive that Jesus is the Messiah but want to continue in their Jewish heritage.
    I came across an interesting site today called nobelief.com. What you wrote sounded very similar to what they said. Is this the source you were using?
    So if Jesus isn’t real or not the Messiah, why would someone like Paul who hated Christians, who murdered Christians (one being Stephen) do a 180 when Jesus called him? What was in it for Paul to become a follower of Jesus? He was part of the Jewish elite, a Roman citizen. He gave up his standing and position. He was executed for his belief. Why would Peter, James, and the rest of Jesus’s disciples follow someone openly that would result in their deaths? The only one not to have been executed was John. He died in exile on Patmos. Then you have the Christians that were slaughtered by Nero in the Colossium by wild animals (men, women and children). Why would these people not convert to the Roman religion when their lives were on the line, if Jesus isn’t who He says He is.
    So it doesn’t matter if you think there is not enough evidence. There is plenty. Again it is easier to be a doubter then a believer. It is a harder life.

  56. Personally I get a kick out of these people who say that the historical record is so vague that we don’t know for certain whether or not Jesus really existed, but insist that the history is solid when they seek to “disprove” the historical events of the New Testament.
    It’s also great that these folks start from the assumption that the New Testament is a pack of lies, so anything that says otherwise must be correct.

  57. John —
    I agree with you. I find this whole ‘historical discussion’ silly.
    If these folks think that having a historical record is related to faith, then they really don’t understand the nature of faith.
    In general, there are some good and interesting people posting on this site, but the pro-choice advocates usually spend their time side-tracking the discussions here. They somehow think that pro-life people are just unaware of some little fact nugget that will turn them around. And some on our side will do the same by throwing a bit of faith out there. It’s like we argue using separate languages — not really trying to understand each other.
    It’s kind of frustrating sometimes to just wade through the swamp of it all, but at other times the confused babble lifs and the meanness subsides for a bit of honest discussion.
    Anyway, Merry Christmas and to the non-Christians have a pleasant day or two off work next week. :)

  58. So no “Merry Christmas” to the non-Christians, eh? That’s not very nice. I still say Merry Christmas to people and I am agnostic.
    That’s nice. Only people who believe the same as you get the “traditional” holiday greeting, while the rest of us (who disagree with you) only get a “have a pleasant day or two”?
    I am offended LB.

  59. Sally –
    I did not say that the Jews believe that Jesus is Messiah. What I said was Jews for Jesus does. They are Jews who belive that Jesus is the Messiah but want to continue in their Jewish heritage.
    I came across an interesting site today called nobelief.com. What you wrote sounded very similar to what they said. Is this the source you were using?
    So if Jesus isn’t real or not the Messiah, why would someone like Paul who hated Christians, who murdered Christians (one being Stephen) do a 180 when Jesus called him? What was in it for Paul to become a follower of Jesus? He was part of the Jewish elite, a Roman citizen. He gave up his standing and position. He was executed for his belief. Why would Peter, James, and the rest of Jesus’s disciples follow someone openly that would result in their deaths? The only one not to have been executed was John. He died in exile on Patmos. Then you have the Christians that were slaughtered by Nero in the Colossium by wild animals (men, women and children). Why would these people not convert to the Roman religion when their lives were on the line, if Jesus isn’t who He says He is.
    So it doesn’t matter if you think there is not enough evidence. There is plenty. Again it is easier to be a doubter then a believer. It is a harder life.
    Posted by: Tara at December 20, 2007 9:04 PM
    …………………………………………………..
    I disagree Tara. It was a great deal more difficult for me to be a believer when there are so many contradictions within Christianity.
    People join and switch cults/sects and denominations every day. I’m sure that each has their own reasoning to do so.
    I am familiar with Jew for Jesus. They spoke at a church I once attended. I found them religiously confused if not out right scytzo.
    I don’t use any particular source for info Tara. I was taught in grade school to use at least 3 sources for any report. I personally require many more sources than 3 before I form an opinion on any subject.
    Now why would ancient Romans prefer to die as martyrs than remain veritable slaves? To feel a sense of self worth perhaps? You are referencing a period of human history that viewed human lives as cheap and expendable. All human lives.
    And actually Tara, it is more difficult for a cult member to doubt than a non cult member. Believing whatever you are told is easy. Examining it for yourself requires effort.

  60. Personally I get a kick out of these people who say that the historical record is so vague that we don’t know for certain whether or not Jesus really existed, but insist that the history is solid when they seek to “disprove” the historical events of the New Testament.
    It’s also great that these folks start from the assumption that the New Testament is a pack of lies, so anything that says otherwise must be correct.
    Posted by: John Lewandowski at December 20, 2007 9:50 PM
    ………………………………………………………
    John,
    You assume a great deal. I was raised to be a Christian. I was raised with clergy all around me. I believed the NT to be the absolute truth until around age 15 when no one could answer the obvious discrepancies that I had the audacity to point out.
    I find your posts quite haughty. Not Christian at all.

  61. None of us should be surprised.
    The same demonic spirit that inspired Herod to attempt to kill the baby Jesus is the same demonic spirit that inspired the Planned Parenthood. The spirit is insane.
    As I posted what I think abortion is on this site back in April of 2007, here it is again….and reflects this same gastly spirit.
    “Abortion is an affront to the creative nature of God, it negates God as Creator.
    Abortion denies the power of God to right a wrong, to show forth His glory, it negates God as redeemer.
    Abortion makes that which is good, the birth of human life, into that which is evil, the death of human life, and then calls it good, the very definition of blasphemy.
    Abortion negates the resurrection power of God as it takes flesh that is alive in it’s earthly abode (the womb) and kills it, while God takes that flesh which is dead in it’s earthly abode (the grave) and desires to make it alive.
    Abortion’s desire is to take that which was composed from the chaotic array of elemental molecules into a symphony of life infused with an eternal soul, and turn it back to the entropy of randomness, chaos, nothingness, uselessness, decay, death.
    Abortion is against all that is hopeful, all that requires faith for success; for it’s solution; annihilation, it’s goal; death, it’s dream; breaking God’s heart, it’s vision, satan’s ultimate power. Abortion is a counterfeit, for the clawprints of satan are everywhere to be found in its performance.
    Abortion disguises hate as love, bondage as freedom, choice as maturity, sin as righteousness, political correctness as wisdom.
    Abortion pits men against women, mothers against their children, fathers against God.
    Yes, Abortion is satan’s feeble attempt at killing God himself, for Abortion is a metaphor for satan; it is his coat of arms, his family crest, his logo, his brand, it belongs to him……for he laughs at its willing proponents as they craft their own self-destruction, mantled in self-deception.”
    In 2008 I will be launching an anti-abortion web site. It will be hard hitting and unapologetic.
    http://www.ixoye.name

  62. Sally,
    I doubt your self-revealed ephiphany at age 15.
    So who are you to confront 6000 years of biblical history written in 66 books?
    You make one big whopper of a mistake to think of yourself as wise.
    Perhaps you were just asking the wrong people.
    Ask me any one of the so called discrepancies and I will find an answer for you.
    The Bible is not a text book. Christianity is not like Mathematic 101 where you do the lessons and get graded on the homework.
    It takes faith and trust to be a Christian. If your looking for the god of proof, no such god exists.
    Hovever, the God of the Bible promises that if You seek Him with all your heart you will find Him. Stop doubting and start believing. God has to prove nothing to you, in fact, you deserved death because of your sin. You’re lucky to be breathing and that he loved you enough to send His Son to die for you.
    If you can’t grasp the enormity of that, yes, you will be lost for eternity, because there is no other way.

  63. Hisman was kind enough to send this information to me by email- Thank you, Hisman:
    ************
    Josephus – Biblical Accounts Outside the Bible
    Josephus mentions New Testament events and people in some of his works. For many skeptics, this is viewed as significant evidence against the myth and legend theories that plague early Christianity. Here are some excerpts:
    Josephus mentions Jesus in Antiquities, Book 18, chapter 3, paragraph 3 (this paragraph is so phenomenal, that scholars now debate the authenticity of some of the more

  64. You have not sighted one single solitary historical contemporary source referencing the Christian Jesus. Do your own research Kristen. It simply does not exist.
    Posted by: Sally at December 20, 2007 8:05 PM
    Jesus was a Jew so why would they reference a Christian Jesus?
    I’ve done quite a bit of reading on the subject snookums. If you cannot back up your assertions just say so. No reason to get snotty.
    Posted by: Sally at December 20, 2007 8:47 PM
    There are many references to a crucifixion with the same circumstances told in the Bible. (i.e. Pilate, the two crucified with him, even the laying in the tomb.) Some historians have said that the man’s name was Jesus. Whether or not you accept this as the crucifixion of Jesus is immaterial to me.

  65. HisMan: In 2008 I will be launching an anti-abortion web site. It will be hard hitting and unapologetic.
    :: laughing ::
    Gee, and here I thought it would be apologetic.
    Good luck with it.
    Doug

  66. Texas —
    You still aren’t proving anything. It may have been writing about, we don’t know. Much is lost to history either not written and preserved, destroyed or decayed, lack of written record from the 1st Century means little. Do you think we have everything ever written about everything? It you are intending to make a logical argument here, give up — there is not evidence either way.
    I’m a librarian and while at times it seems like we have everything ever written (and it’s waiting on my desk for processing), we don’t. Do you have every paper and diary entry you have every written as well as all the stuff your ancestors wrote?
    Posted by: LB at December 20, 2007 4:12 PM
    ***********************
    I wasnt trying to ‘prove’ anything. Its a fact that there is no historical reference of jesus in the writings of Roman historians who would have lived the same time as jesus – there are quite a few references which dont start showing up until 100+ years after he supposedly died. But his contemporaries didnt mention him.

  67. “I am unaware of historical documentation concerning a crucifixion of someone named Jesus. Where can this be found?”
    The bible, in the new testament.
    Posted by: jasper at December 20, 2007 6:02 PM
    *****
    Thats not a historical document.

  68. “Tara, there isn’t any consensus on when(or if) Jesus was born”
    posted by Erin.
    Can we get Erin a job at Al Jazeera? Her fantasy that any historian rejects the fact that Jesus lived rates right up there with the overt denial in the Arab press of the “alleged Holocaust” of the Jews in Nazi Germany.
    Pseudo-intellectual crap.

  69. “I am unaware of historical documentation concerning a crucifixion of someone named Jesus. Where can this be found?”
    The bible, in the new testament.
    Posted by: jasper at December 20, 2007 6:02 PM
    *****
    Thats not a historical document.
    Posted by: TexasRed at December 21, 2007 3:39 PM
    The bible is easily the most scrutinized historical text of all time. It is also the most meticulously maintained for long before Jesus by Jewish scribes and rabbis to the present as well as by the orthodox and catholic churches. There is no evidence to cast doubt on the crucifiction of Jesus.
    The bible is most certainly a reliable historical text and is used by historians all the time to date and verify other texts, etc.

  70. Often what documents don’t say is much more important than what they do say.
    Jesus’ existence is a hot topic with historians. They’re pretty evenly split. There’s no real proof that he DIDN’T exist- but there isn’t anything to show that he did, either. It has nothing to do with the religion itself- it has to do with the standards of proof that the history-based community has to adhere to.
    Posted by: Erin at December 20, 2007 12:26 PM
    Erin makes excellent points Jasper.
    Posted by: midnite678 at December 20, 2007 12:29 PM
    No her points are absurd and do not reflect the doubts that historians have about Jesus.
    Historians disagree, but not about whether the man lived.
    When he was born, etc. etc. but not his existence.
    Real historians also don’t deny the holocaust.
    Shall we say holocaust deniers make excellent points?
    Check out this patently ridiculous argument.
    “Often what documents don’t say is much more important than what they do say.”
    This argument from the absence is the weakest of all arguments and any philosophy prof will caution strongly against it.
    I am not arguing religious faith, just intellectual honesty.

  71. Um…history? As in, Herod was dead before Jesus was born? And the fact that any actual massacre of that type would have been recorded somewhere other than the bible, which it isn’t?
    Posted by: Erin at December 20, 2007 10:58 AM
    ***********************
    You’d think that Roman historians would have made some mention of it.
    Posted by: TexasRed at December 20, 2007 3:34 PM
    Did you know that some texts from antiquity have been lost?
    Can you prove that everything that ever happened was recorded? much less preserved? What would it take to preserve all the documentation of everything?
    Does that even seem plausible?
    for all of you who memorized all those dates, too bad those teachers didn’t teach you to think!

Comments are closed.