By: LARRY SITES Re: Messiah Gate 1 [From the WWW. Notice how this effectively deals with A

By: LARRY SITES
Re: Messiah Gate 1

[From the WWW. Notice how this effectively deals with Al and 
Michael's claims about the disciples. LGS]

Reproducible Electronic Publishing can defeat censorship.

This file made available by the Internet Infidels for The 
Freethought Web. 


MessiahGate

A Tale of Murder and Deception

by Larry A. Taylor

Originally printed in HUMSIG
newsletter, Number 7, August 1987;
Larry A. Taylor, ed..

Lecture delivered at Humanist Society of
Friends (Los Angeles), August 27,
1987.

Larry A. Taylor
11743 E. North Circle Drive
Whittier, CA 90601
(310) 695-6252.

Copyright HUMSIG, 1987.

Jerusalem; it's a tough town, but it's my beat.

I knew it was going to be a tough case when the dame walked into my 
office. She tough and she was cool. I could tell from her looks that
she wasn't going to take "no" for an answer. She said she wanted me
to do an historical investigation, but I knew that her type would be
satisfied with nothing less than my soul. She was a missionary. Her
boss had been murdered. She wanted the impossible "proved" from history:
that this Jewish carpenter's son - Jesus, she called him - had risen
from the dead. If I didn't take the case, then I could go to hell for
all she was concerned.

The Historian as Detective

I've made up the above little mystery novel scenario to emphasize the
similarity between a shamus and a historical investigator. A historian
is like a detective - both of us have to be tough about the facts, and
not take the first story offered to us. Who said so? Why? What's the
angle? What's in it for them?

Historian R.G. Collingwood argues that the fundamental attribute of 
the critical historian is skepticism regarding testimony about the
past.1 All we have are documents and artifacts. Documents can be
propaganda, or real evidence but biased, or completely forged in a
later century. Examples of famous forgeries include the "Donation of
Constantine," supposedly a deed of gift of Vatican lands to the 
Pope by the Roman Emperor, but actually fabricated
in the eighth century; the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion;" and 
Minnesota's famous Kensington Rune Stone.(2)

The treatment of Tiberius, emperor from 14 to 37 CE, is an example 
of the bias of writers. Nearly all ancient writers
whose works have survived agree that Tiberius was a monster in 
human form. They depict him at an age of eighty
indulging in a variety of vices that seem even physically 
impossible, much less likely. What would be our knowledge
of Tiberius if other ancient sources had survived?(3)

How does this apply to the story of Jesus? Simply that all of the early
critics are dead. Skeptical opinions were banned. Christian opinions,
other than those of the establishment, were banned. Books were destroyed,
and later, heretics were burned.

The Case

The following is a composite of a typical, traditional argument for 
believing that the resurrection of Jesus was a fact
provable from history: 

     The twelve disciples were eyewitnesses to the resurrection of 
Jesus. 
The earliest accounts of the
     resurrection speak of the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

     The canonical gospels record the eyewitness accounts of the 
disciples. 
The gospels are to be regarded
     as at least ordinary historical documents, substantially if not 
completely true. The eyewitness accounts
     are accurate because they are clear and consistent. Early 
Christians 
regarded these accounts as
     inspired, or at least literally accurate and truthful.

     The sincerity of the disciples is proven by the martyrdoms they 
endured. The Christian story must be
     regarded as truthful because the Jews and Romans, threatened 
by the 
growing movement, could have
     easily presented contrary evidence had if it existed.

     It is therefore logical to believe in Jesus' resurrection. The 
historical evidence proves that Jesus was
     resurrected.

Let's investigate the above claims. Just the facts, mam.

The Girlfriend

The story is a good story, too. Like all good detective stories, 
there is a 
love interest. Did you know about Jesus'
girlfriend? Imagine Mary Magdalene suddenly showing up at a trial to 
deliver surprise testimony. This account has
been suppressed by centuries of orthodox Christianity: 

     The companion of the [Savior is] Mary Magdalen. [But Christ 
loved] her 
more than [all] the disciples,
     and used to kiss her [often] on her [mouth]. The rest of [the 
disciples were offended]. They said to
     him,"Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Savior 
answered and 
said to them, "Why do I not
     love you as (I love) her?"(4) 

The easy way

In a strict sense, no "miracle" can ever be proved by a historian. 
Anthony 
Flew summarizes the arguments as put
forth by David Hume: 

     [F]irst, that the present relics of the past cannot be 
interpreted at 
all unless we presume the same
     fundamental regularities obtained then obtain today.

     Second, the historian must employ as his criteria all his 
present 
knowledge, or presumed knowledge,
     of what is probable or improbable, possible or impossible.

     Third, that since the word "miracle" has to be defined in 
terms of 
practical necessity and practical
     impossibility the application of these criteria inevitably 
precludes 
proof of a miracle.(5) 

Notice that Hume/Flew is not saying that "miracles are impossible." 
What 
could that possibly mean, anyway? But a
historian, dealing with accounts of events, and explanations of 
those 
events, has to rank these events as "probable"
and "improbable." Because a "miracle" by definition is contrary to 
the 
ordinary experience, it always has to be
classified as "improbable." A report of a resurrection is so 
improbable, 
that the historian must rank a literal
interpretation as less probable than that the reports are the 
results of 
illusion, deception, garbled transmission, and
so forth.

Even Christian apologists admit that certainties cannot be 
established by 
historical arguments. Origen, one of the
earliest educated Christians, wrote: "An attempt to substantiate 
the truth 
of almost any story as historical fact, even if
the story is true, and to produce complete certainty about it, is 
one of 
the most difficult tasks, and in some cases
impossible."(6)

In fact, it is doubtful that any amount of testimony could way so 
heavily 
as to overcome the strength of our present
experience. I regard Hume's argument as correct and sufficient.

Case closed?

No! Christians which to use history say that I would have a 
anti-supernatural bias to begin with. Who do I think I
am to dismiss all reports of miracles? But such critical thinking 
is common 
to modes of thinking other than
scholarship.

What if ones pregnant daughter said she was still a virgin and the 
father 
was Jehovah? I think that most
fundamentalist fathers would exhibit an "anti-supernatural bias." I 
did not 
say that no "miracle" was "possible". I
merely say that no "miracle" can be "proved." because alternative 
explanations, likely and unlikely, are still more
probable than that observed relations so regularly established be 
violated. 
But to satisfy everyone, the case must go
on.

Historians must judge the past by the present. What could be more 
natural? 
No other method seems logical. We
judge the unfamiliar by the familiar, the far by the near.

Some people claimed some things. It is valid to investigate 
"miracle-claims." Let us find out who said what to whom
and when.

Let me put on my tough detective hat again. "I've seen a lot of 
things in 
my time, lady," I would say. "But I never
saw a dead person get up. No detective (or historian) has got any 
business 
claiming that he or she can 'prove' a
miracle. I think that the evidence will show that someone has been 
telling 
you stories. I tell you what I am going to
do. I'll investigate all the facts and lay them out. After I give 
you all 
the facts and you still think you can find a miracle
in all of this, then that's your business.

"I get one hundred dollars a day plus expenses."

Who is Jesus?

Let's go back to the method of the historian, who necessarily 
criticizes 
his or her own sources. What do we know
about the historical Jesus? Let's lay out the facts that are 
available.

Writings of Jesus: none. Contemporaneous records, such as tax 
receipts, or 
Roman administrative documents: none.
Books or other accounts written by eyewitnesses (more on the gospels 
further on): none. Physical descriptions,
such as height, weight, eye and hair color: none.

What do we have? Dozens of "gospels" composed by later followers, 
four of 
which were canonized into the New
Testament. These were written between thirty and two hundred years 
after 
the claimed date of Jesus. But we also
have references in the letters of Paul. Paul was a second generation 
Christian who probably never met Jesus. Most
of the letters which bear his name are approved by scholars as 
really 
having been written by him.

Incidental references to Christians and Jesus can be found in 
Tacitus and 
Suetonius.(7) Suetonius spells the name,
"Chrestus"; either this is a confusion on his part, or it refers to 
someone 
else.

Suppose we use the canonical gospels for evidence of biographical 
detail 
about Jesus. Where was Jesus born? The
writers of the gospels disagree among themselves. Matthew and Luke 
support 
the usual notion that the event took
place in Bethlehem; while John and Mark give the impression that 
they had 
never heard of such a thing.(8) Jesus
was commonly known as a Nazarene, an inhabitant of Nazareth, a 
hundred 
miles away.

When was Jesus born? According to Luke, it was during the reign of 
the 
Roman governor Quirinius,during a census
ordered by Augustus throughout the whole world.(9) According to 
both Luke 
and Matthew it was also during the
reign of king Herod "the Great."(10) The problem is that Herod died 
in 4 
B.C.E., and this was fully ten years before
Quirinius' census. Furthermore, during Herod's reign, no Roman 
census could 
have been held in his territory, which
included both Judaea and Galilee, the locations of both Bethlehem 
and 
Nazareth.(11) Herod would have collected
his own taxes, and given tribute to the Romans. Lastly, the 
existence of a 
census throughout the whole empire is
contrary to the practice of the Romans, who collected taxes 
province by 
province, often subcontracting the process
to "publicans."

It would seem that a genealogy would a simple and straightforward 
thing. 
Both Matthew and Luke both give
accounts.(12) Unfortunately, they contradict each other, and the Old 
Testament, too; disagreeing even over the
name of the father of Joseph. As good detectives, we are driven to 
the 
conclusion: almost no authentic biographical
information is known about Jesus. That which is not included in the 
Christian Bible is extremely sketchy, while that
which is regarded as "inspired" is contradictory to itself and to 
historical facts.


The Disciples: Missing Persons

Did not the disciples provide testimony of Jesus, and prove their 
sincerity 
by martyrdom? If Jesus is doubtful, the
disciples are positively obscure. Other than James the brother of 
John,(13) 
no claim is made for the fate of any of
the disciples in the Bible. No clues are provided by any 
contemporary 
author, either.

When Prophecy Fails

Sometime in the 1950's ( the researchers have obscured the exact 
year, as 
well as the identity of the subjects),
sociologists at the University of Minnesota read in a major city's 
newspaper that messages from the planet Clarion
received by a suburban housewife prophesied that the city would 
swamped by 
a flood from the great lake on a
specific date only two months away. Similar cataclysms at the same 
time 
would amount to the end of the world.
Faithful believers would be saved by boarding flying saucers.

The researchers decided to join the group, taking notes of behavior 
before 
and after the date of the proclaimed
disaster. The record of the group's torment has enormous 
implications for 
the so-called "Easter event."

The authors of When Prophecy Fails observed a cultic group that had 
made 
predictions about the end of the world.
They looked for the following conditions in that group:

   1.A belief must be held with deep conviction and it must have 
some 
relevance to action, that is, to what the
     believer does or how he behaves. 
   2.The person holding the belief must have committed himself to 
it; that 
is, for the sake of his belief, he must
     have taken some important action that is difficult to undo. In 
general, the more important such actions are,
     and the more difficult they are to undo, the greater is the 
individual's commitment to the belief. 
   3.The belief must be sufficiently specific and sufficiently 
concerned 
with the real world so that events may
     unequivocally refute the belief. 
   4.Such undeniable disconfirmatory evidence must occur and must be 
recognized by the individual holding the
     belief. 
   5.The individual believer must have social support. It is 
unlikely that 
one isolated believer could withstand the
     kind of disconfirming evidence we have specified. If, however, 
the 
believer is a member of a group of
     convinced persons who can support one anther, we would expect 
the 
belief to be maintained and the
     believers attempt to proselyte or to persuade nonmembers that 
the 
belief is correct.(14) 

The expectations of the theory were dramatically confirmed. The 
prophetic 
lady continued prophesying, the
believers believed, and the researchers took notes, right through 
the date 
of the expected disaster. The gathered
believers were not taken on their flying saucers. Suddenly, 
proselyting 
increased. Normally shy members of the
group took to phoning newspapers with new rationalizations.

Committed to secrecy previously, members now sought publicity of 
all kinds. 
In the words of the researchers,
proselytizing increased "meteorically."(15)

If anything is known about Jesus, it would be the following. He was 
a 
wandering rabbi and perhaps also a magician
in first century Palestine. He gathered a movement of thousands of 
Jews who 
had Messianic expectations. A small
group of followers had forsaken family and fortune.(16) After a 
dramatic 
march on the capital, Jesus was suddenly
arrested and executed.

Christian apologists assert that the subsequent force of the 
movement could 
only be supplied by the dramatic force
of miraculous resurrection and appearance to the disciples. But the 
sociological experiment thirty years ago show
that the opposite is true. The researchers considered that their 
theory 
applied very well to early Christianity, only
that the historical record was too obscure to determine whether all 
the 
conditions applied.(17) 

Mistaken Identity?

Early Christians differed in their views of the resurrection. As 
evidenced 
by the original, short, version of Mark, the
idea of a "spiritual resurrection" as opposed to a bodily one goes 
back to 
the very beginning. This is supported by
the stories from Emmaus that disciples had seen him "in another 
form"(18) 
--not his former earthly form; and the
gardener in whom Mary Magdalene senses the presence of Jesus.(19)

Why not see simply, that these emotionally wrought disciples 
recently 
deprived of their leader, saw Jesus
everywhere, even in an ordinary stranger and a gardener?

This same Mary Magdalene is said to have been possessed of "seven 
devils," 
and later exorcised; in modern terms,
she would considered to be either schizophrenic or psychic. In some 
of the 
versions, she is said to be the first to see
Jesus. According to Elaine Pagels, So if some of the New Testament 
stories 
insist on a literal view of resurrection,
others lend themselves to different interpretations. One could 
suggest that 
certain people, in moments of great
emotional stress, suddenly felt that they experienced Jesus' 
presence. 
Paul's experience can be read this way.(20)

Paul, of course, never saw Jesus alive so far as we know. But the 
account 
of his vision of Jesus makes clear that it
was a spiritual presence, not physical. One account of his 
experience 
contradicts the other on a crucial point: did
bystanders hear the voice?(21)

But what of the Christian claim that a risen Jesus appeared to more 
than 
five hundred brethren at once?(22) First of
all, where or when did this take place? Although Paul intimates 
that some 
of the persons involved were still alive, he
does not name them. Also, what is the likelihood that Greek 
converts would 
travel to Palestine to check up on his
story, in an age when such travel was expensive and dangerous? If 
such a 
Greek had actually done such a thing,
would his individual word be worth much to the Christians if he had 
caught 
out Paul in a fib? Our experience with
modern groups based on charismatic leaders shows us the incredible 
flexibility of credulity.

Was it a bodily appearance? Paul did not distinguish his own 
hallucinogenic 
vision from those of the twelve or the
other claimants.

But instead, suppose the following happened. Five hundred 
Christians are 
gathered somewhere near a cliff or bluff
in Palestine. Suddenly, a figure comes around the edge in white 
robes, 
leading most of the crowd to believe that he
had appeared from nowhere. Just as mysteriously, he disappears. 
Voil`! 
Instant miracle. Farfetched? Perhaps, but
given the state of mind of the early believers, it would account 
completely 
for this story.

Bodily Resurrection - Not the Earliest Story

The claims of various apostles, singly and in groups, that they had 
seen 
Jesus in the flesh, were added later. If there
were multiple eye witness accounts of these events available to 
"Mark", why 
did he stop at 16:8 and not include
them? It is harder for me to believe that they did occur and were 
left out 
by "Mark", than that did not occur but
were included by the other writers. In such books as the Gospel of 
Phillip, 
the Gospel of Thomas and other
Christian books as ancient as any in the canon, a literal belief in 
the 
bodily resurrection is ridiculed as a "faith of
fools." "Those who say they will die first and then rise are in 
error." 
Instead they must "receive the resurrection while
they live."23

The Ebionites - the Forgotten Jewish Christians

Early Jewish Christians in Palestine did not believe that Jesus is 
God?

Stranger and stranger! After all, Jesus never claimed to be God. 
This claim 
was not taken seriously by his friends,
but promoted by others who did not know him, to the ends of the 
Roman 
Empire.

Who represents the original tradition of Christianity? Surely the 
Jewish 
Christians, not those of foreign lands who
heard stories second and third hand. In my opinion, this group, 
branded as 
heretical by the later gentile followers of
Paul, represents the original belief of the small band of Jesus' 
followers. 
There is every reason to believe that the
Ebionites, whose name means "poor people", were the continuous local 
Christian group in Judaea, including those
who knew Jesus. According to history,the Ebionites did not believe 
that 
Jesus was God, did not believe in the virgin
birth, and rejected the writings of Paul.(24) It seems that they 
also 
rejected all of the gospel writers, using only a
stripped down version of Matthew.

Furthermore, Irenaeus includes the Ebionites in a list of heretics 
he 
claims were associated with the Gnostics.
According to Elaine Pagels, the chief doctrinal difference the 
Gnostics had 
with "orthodoxy" was that they did not
believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus, but a spiritual one, 
like a 
vision.(25)

It is my conclusion that this represents the earliest story.

The early Jewish Christians did not believe Jesus was God?

It's a Revelation!


The Story Was Changed

Elaine Pagels poses and answers a crucial question:

If the New Testament accounts could support a range of 
interpretations, why 
did orthodox Christians in the second
century insist on a literal view of resurrection and reject all 
others as 
heretical? I suggest that we cannot answer this
question adequately as long as we consider the doctrine only in 
terms its 
religious content. But when we examine its
practical effect on the Christian movement, we can see, 
paradoxically, that 
the doctrine of bodily resurrection also
serves an essential political function: it legitimizes the 
authority of 
certain men who claim to exercise exclusive
leadership over the churches as the successors of the apostle 
Peter.(26)

Revisions of the stories even deprived Mary Magdalene of the 
primacy she 
receives in other versions, the first to
see a resurrected Jesus. In the revision, Jesus is said to have 
appeared to 
Cephas (Peter) first.(27)

You've never heard an old fisherman exaggerate a story a little, 
have you?

Gospels Not Accounts of Eyewitnesses

An astonishing passage in Matthew's account shows how completely 
new events 
can be manufactured to fit
"prophecies" from the Old Testament. Jesus instructs the disciples 
in 
preparation for the "triumphal entry" of
Jerusalem, "Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you 
will find 
an ass tied, and a colt tied with her.
[T]hey brought the ass and the colt, and put their garments on 
them, and he 
sat thereon." (Mat. 21:2-5)

Did you catch that? Jesus is supposed to have sat on two animals at 
once! 
Hosanna, that must have been hard to
do. If not impossible to accomplish, or at least ackward, this feat 
would 
also be a contradiction of John 12:14-15,
which states that Jesus was riding only one animal, a "young ass."

I think the obvious conclusion is that "Matthew" was not an 
eyewitness to 
such a strange procession, nor could he
have gotten this detail from any reliable source.

Where, then did it come from?

He got it from having a copy of Zechariah 9:9 and using it to alter 
his own 
account in order to make a "fulfilled
prophecy." The passage reads, "Lo, your king comes to you; 
triumphant and 
victorious is he, humble and riding on
an ass, on a colt the foal of an ass." This sort of repetition is 
natural 
to Hebrew poetry. Matthew misunderstood this,
and wrote that Jesus rode on two different animals.

"Some things that can not take place"

Origen, an early church father who was one of the first to obtain 
to some 
education, wrote a defense of Christian
claims. In Origen's systematic treatment of inspiration and 
exegesis, he 
tells us that where spiritual truths did not
correspond to historical events, " the scripture wove into the 
historical 
narrative what did not take place at some
points what cannot take place and at others what can take place but 
did 
not."(28)

The distortions of the New Testament writers were detected as soon 
as 
Christians came to public prominence.
Porphyry [c. 200 CE] convicted the evangelists of false references 
to the 
Hebrew prophets, pointed out
contradictions between the different Gospel narratives, and the 
inconsistencies of St. Paul.(29)

Why can't you read Porphyry or the other critics today? Why, 
indeed, can 
you not read the works of the Gnostics
or other alternatives? Their works were all ordered to be destroyed 
after 
"faithful" Christians took over political
power.

Likely Stories

Neither the claim to Messiahship, nor the resurrection is unique in 
history. The great early critic of Christianity
mentioned above, Porphyry, admits that the Christians "have 
performed some 
wonders by their magic arts," but
adds that 'to perform wonders is no great thing.' Apollonius and 
Apuleius 
and countless other have done as much.
In a world where every one believed in magic, miracles were both 
commonplace and morally suspect. (30)

The accounts we have of Apollonius of Tyana resemble those of 
Jesus. It 
shows that the gospels were following a
standard formula of hero worship writing.

It is not yourself that perpetrates this insult, but the demon who 
drives 
you on without your knowing it.

[T]he ghost swore that he would leave the young man alone and never 
take 
possession of any man again 'I will
throw down yonder statue!'(31)

Compare the same literary elements present in the story of the 
Gadarene 
swine (Matt. 8:31).

In our day, the Self-Realization Fellowship believes that its 
founder, 
Paramahansa Yogananda, has appeared to
scores of followers both in bodily form and in visions.

In addition, the book, Autobiography of a Yogi, presents the 
appearances of 
several other dead masters of their
faith.(32) 

The Romans: The Dog that Did Not Bark

A favorite argument of Christian apologists is this: Why didn't the 
Romans 
prove that Jesus did not rise from the
dead? Couldn't they have exhibited the body? Solve the problem of 
the empty 
tomb, and rid themselves of this
pesky sect. This becomes like the detective story, "The Dog that 
Did Not 
Bark," with the Romans in the role of
slothful canines.

The fact is, the Romans were known for their tolerance of religions. 
According to Gibbon, "The various modes of
worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by 
the 
people as equally true; by the
philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally 
useful."(33) It was the Christians who introduced
intolerance.

Every religion was the object of benign neglect. In a few cases, 
cults such 
as that of the Great Mother, or of Isis, or
others, were temporarily banned from the city of Rome. These were 
perceived 
as local political threats.

Instead of being a great threat to the Roman Empire, Christians 
were not 
numerous in the first century. It was not
necessarily dangerous if one kept a low profile. Instead, it was 
much more 
dangerous to be a Jew in Palestine about
70 C.E.., when hundreds of thousands of them were killed in the 
rebellion.

So far as is known, the only Christians punished for their faith in 
the 
first century were those who refused to sacrifice
to the emperor, which, tragically was perceived as a political 
threat. 
Christians, for those who were Jews as well,
received a blanket exemption accorded to that community.

Problems only developed later, as Gentile converts grew. The 
earliest 
administrative notice of Christians took place
circa 112 C.E. The Roman provincial administrator Pliny ("the 
Younger") 
wrote to Trajan about how to handle
them. The general tenor is, "Who are these guys?"(34) At the end of 
the 
first century, Christians were being
persecuted - but only on a provincial basis, not empire wide.

The Decian persecution of 249 C.E. was the first systematic attempt 
to 
exterminate Christianity. The great
persecution was under Diocletian between 303 and 305.(35) By the 
time the 
Romans took notice, it was at least a
hundred years past the time the "empty tomb" claim could be dealt 
with in 
terms of artifacts and contemporary
documents. The dog who did not bark did not do so because all it 
saw was a 
mouse.

Gathering All the Suspects

Like any good (or bad) detective novel, we should have a final 
scene in 
which the detective confronts the suspects
and makes his accusation.

Is there anything here we could prove to the satisfaction of a 
criminal 
court - "beyond a reasonable doubt?" - even
the existence of the chief character, Jesus?

"Insufficient evidence!" would have to be the verdict. As many 
eminent 
historians have concluded, Jesus probably
lived in Palestine in the first century, and was executed, as 
Tacitus 
records. But how did the followers of Jesus begin
to announce that their leader had been raised from the dead must 
remain 
under a shroud of obscurity because of the
lack of contemporary, objective testimony. A charismatic rabbi with 
messianic pretentions and a following of
thousands was suddenly executed. Under these conditions, it is 
natural to 
conclude that loyal band of insiders may
continue to feel the presence of their leader. That they continued 
to see 
Jesus in visions wouldn't suprise anyone this
is exactly what happened to the followers of Paramahansa Yogananda 
and many 
others. in When Prophecy Fails,
we have sociological evidence for continued and increased 
prosyletizing in 
such conditions.

Further, from the evidence in the Gnostic Gospels, we can see how 
the story 
might have changed from a spiritual
interpretation of visions, to a story of bodily resurrection under 
the 
steady pressure of political interests.

   1.Van Harvey, in Jesus in History and Myth, p. 199; R. G. Coll
Collingwood, 
"Who killed John Doe? The
     Problem of Testimony," from The Idea of History, reprinted in 
The 
Historian as Detective: Essays on
     Evidence, Robin W. Winks, ed. (New, York: Harper and Row, 
1970), pp. 
39-60. 
   2.Norling, Towards a Better Understanding of History, (Notre 
Dame, Ind.: 
Notre Dame University
     Press,1960), p. 47. 
   3.Norling, ibid., p. 45. 
   4.Gospel of Phillip 63.32-64.5, in Nag Hammadi Library 138; as 
quoted by 
Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic
     Gospels, (New York: Random House, 1979; New York: Vintage Books 
edition, 1981), p. xiv. 
   5.Anthony Flew, "Historical Credentials and Particular 
Revelation," in 
Jesus in History and Myth, R. Joseph
     Hoffmann and Gerald A. Larue, ed., p.202. 
   6.Contra Celsum I, 42; cited by Grant, Earliest Lives of Jesus, 
p. 71; 
also Mircea Eliade, Myth and
     Reality, p. 166. 
   7.Tacitus, Annales, 4.44; Suetonius Vita Claudii, 25.4, Vita 
Neronis, 
16. 
   8.John 7:41-42; Mark 1:9; Michael Arnheim, Is Christianity True? 
(Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books,
     1984), p. 9. 
   9.Luke 2:1-3. 
  10.Luke 1:5; Matthew 2:1. 
  11.Arnheim, p. 11. 
  12.Matthew 1:1-17; Luke 23-38. 
  13.Acts 12:1-2. 
  14.Leon Festinger, Henry W. Riecken and Stanley Schachter, When 
Prophecy 
Fails (New York: Harper &
     Row, 1956), p. 4. 
  15.Festinger, et al., p. 212. 
  16.Mat. 4:19-22, Mark 2:14, etc. 
  17.Festinger, et al., p. 23-25. 
  18.Mark 16:12, Luke 24:13-32. 
  19.John 20:11-17. 
  20.Elaine Pagels, "The Controversy over Christ's Resurrection: 
Historical 
Event or Symbol," in The Gnostic
     Gospels (New York: Random House, 1979; Vintage Books edition, 
1981), 
p.6. 
  21.Cf. Acts 9:7, 22:9. Pagels, p. 6. 
  22.I Cor. 15:6. 
  23.Origen, Commentarium in I Corinthians, in Journal of 
Theological 
Studies 10(1909), 46-47; Gospel of
     Phillip 73.1-3 in the Nag Hammadi Library. 
  24.Tertullian, De Carne Christi, 14.18; Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 
1.26.2; 
3.21.2; 4.33.4; 5.1.3; also references in
     Origen and Eusebius. 
  25.Pagels, pp. 3-31. 
  26.Ibid., p.7. 
  27.I Cor. 15:5; Pagels, pp.57-83. 
  28.De principiis 4, 2, 9; cited by Grant, p.66; Eliade, p. 166. 
  29.Adv. Christ. frs. 9 & 10; 12, 15, 16; 30-33; cited by E. R. 
Dodds, 
Pagan and Christian in an Age of
     Anxiety (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1965; Norton Lib. 
pap., New 
York: W. W. Norton, 1970),
     p. 126. 
  30.Adv. Christ. fr. 4; Dodds, p. 125. 
  31.Philostratus, Life of Apollonius, iv.20. 
  32.Self-Realization Fellowship, 3880 San Rafael Avenue, Los 
Angeles, CA 
90065. In chapter 43, "The
     Resurrection of Sri Yukteswar," the dead master of that name 
appeared 
at the Regent Hotel, Bombay, at
     three o'clock in the afternoon, June 19, 1936. 
  33.Edward Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire II. 
  34.Plin. Epp. (ad Traj.),10.96; quoted in Bettenson, ed., 
Documents of 
the Christian Church, 2nd ed., (New
     York: Oxford University Press), p. 3. 
  35.Dodds, p. 108; Bettenson, p. 14. 


Page maintained by the Internet Infidels.

Email: infidel@freethought.tamu.edu
BGL

Copyright © 1995 Internet Infidels. HTML Reproduction Rights 
Reserved.