E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Baz Ratner / Reuters
A clay seal recently unearthed by Israeli archaeologists is displayed by Eli Shukron, who directed the excavation on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority, just outside Jerusalem's Old City on May 23, 2012.
Reuters reports — Israeli archaeologists said on Wednesday they had discovered the first physical evidence supporting Old Testament accounts of Bethlehem's existence centuries before the town became revered as the birthplace of Jesus.
The proof came, they said, in a clay seal unearthed near the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem and imprinted with three lines of ancient Hebrew script that include the word "Bethlehem".
Experts stumped by ancient Jerusalem stone carvings
Eli Shukron, who directed the excavation on behalf of the Israel Antiquities
Violent storm reveals ancient art on the coast of Israel
"This is the first time the name Bethlehem appears outside the Bible in an inscription from the First Temple period," Shukron said in a statement, referring to the years 1006 BC to 586 BC.
The coin-sized remnant of the seal proves that Bethlehem - first mentioned in the Book of Genesis - "was indeed a city in the Kingdom of Judah, and possibly also in earlier periods", he said.
Baz Ratner / Reuters
The tiny clay seal is imprinted with three lines of ancient Hebrew script that include the word "Bethlehem".
Leave a Comment:
Ha, ha. Yes, finally, some more evidence from the bible comes to life. Even though it's small it's still evidence nonetheless
I'm confused here ... do Christians think atheists believe there's no historical accuracy found in the Bible? Do they think we don't understand that real cities and real people are found in biblical context?
They do realize a lot of atheists, including myself, understand that there more than likely was a real man based on the accounts of Jesus, right?
Here's the kicker, we also understand that other religious figures (Buddha, Muhammad, etc) were real, too.
You want in on a little secret ... there's real history found in the Qu'ran, too. But something tells me they won't be telling us all it's "evidence" for Islam, am I right?
do you believe ghosts/spirits exist?
What's really puzzling is why the need to exhaustively search for bits and pieces to support the outlandish myths of the Bible? If there really were a god/goddess who wants us to love, honor and obey them for some self-serving purposes why not make it obvious? Where's the ark and the commandments, why didn't Jesus write anything down himself and leave us wondering what He was doing for half his earthly life? The whole purpose was to save us from eternal damnation and so far less than a third of the planet buys into the myths of Christianity- talk about a public relations FAIL.
Jesus was not a scribe. He did , however, have 3 people write for him.. Read .. Pistis Sophia
Yes, because the best way to save the world is to let others take notes for you. I have read, and I find it ridiculous. Slavery, murder, talking snakes, incest, polygamy- the book should be kept out of the hands of anyone who takes it seriously.
Chad, over a dozen historians (late 18 early 19th century - some converted to Islam) have questioned whether Muhammad actually existed. Some have written that the translation of "the 70 virgins" waiting for those who martyr themselves may actually (based original translations) receive "grapes" or "raisens", won't that be a hoot!
Al Knowing ..... you have not read the Pistis Sophia . none of the topics you mention are addressed there..
spider man was from NYC... so.... spider man exists? fricken awesome!
Wally, as with anything, there's no black-or-white answer or smoking gun on the matter. Just like there are many historians who actually think Jesus never existed. Personally, I believe that both he and Muhammad were historical figures. In most accounts, they were actually incredibly deep-thinkers and well ahead of their time as well.
But in the end, they were just men ... for better or for worse, they were just men.
I think we all should take inspiration from where we can. Just like politics, there's no one single ideology that defines me, or my beliefs as a whole. We need to separate the good from the bad in all aspects of life. Keep the love and tolerance, shed the slavery and hate. Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad ... take what is good.
That's the true irony of it all.
As an atheist, I can look to all philosophy and enrich my life as such ... I'm more spiritual than any man of "faith" I've ever met.
Valid point, I haven't read the Pistis Sophia, I'm too busy reading books about reality. Jim Wilson, again I ask why the hidden mysteries that have to be sought out, sorted through, translated, deciphered, only to still be interpreted in multiple ways by multiple biases? The Gnostic texts, lost books of the bible, dead sea scrolls, etc. If it was such an important message, just make it clear, unarguable, and pertinent. If this Pistis Sophia is so important why would any god leave it hidden until 1773? That's a lot of souls that could have benefited from this magical knowledge you feel is so important.
@chad-1841583 Thank you!! I've been telling christians these things for a while now, for some reason they think that atheists are just ignorant to history.
and you have a greater holier-than-thou attitude than any spiritual person I've ever met.
Al Knowing .. The books were not so much hidden as destroyed as herisy by the catholic church as they interfered with their narrow teachings..They did not teach reincarnation for obvious reasons.. It is important to realise that the world they were going out into was extremely ignorant in those time periods. mostly loin cloths. they needed to keep it simple..
some guy... Satan is pretty spiritual too. wouldn't you say..
Al knowing, there is an interesting theory that the 'missing' years of Jesus' life were possibly spent in India or the far east, perhaps both, studying, learning and practicing the mystic meditative traditions of those lands. Later, upon his return to his homeland, Jesus sought to integrate these teachings into the spiritual lives of his fellow Jews, and unfortunately met with little success and a whole lot of later misunderstanding.
Here's a link to a film on this topic:
http://www.jesus-in-india-the-movie.com/
"they needed to keep it simple.."
This is a common argument from xians (not necessarily accusing you Jim) when confronted with illogical consequences of a simple understanding of their theology, "It's dumbed down for the masses." Anyone that thinks xian theology is simple doesn't understand it. In many ways, pagan cultures subsumed by xians were just as complex, roman propaganda not withstanding. Anyone interested should check out Terry Jones (yes, the Pythonian) series called the Barbarians. This view of primitive and brutish 'barbarian' cultures during the roman period sticks in his craw a lot and he does a good job of presenting the latest archeology on the subject.
@ some guy
Yes ... it's much better to ascribe to one book, one tradition, and filter all life experiences through that tiny spectrum, isn't it?
Realizing religions are petty superstitions and instead seeking betterment through multiple disciplines isn't "holier-than-thou" ... but more common sense.
Al Knowing - They are not looking for things to support the Bible specifically, they are looking for old artifacts and happen to find things that do support the Bible. They found the city of Troy too, and other ancient sites that were just known through reading. Now they are finding actual artifacts to support all sorts of old writings and stories.
Does it bother you that there is evidence, or just that they are putting in effort and it ends up supporting the Bible?
Jim Wilson - Wow, that is a heavy burden you are putting on the Catholic Church, and wrong at that. yes, there were many teachings and writings that were dismissed, but they were not hidden. The Dead Sea Scrolls were hidden because of invasion. Most of the 'found' artifacts were of this nature, hidden for prosperity and protection. Most of the writings the Church dismissed could be and still be read. They just were not taught or included in the Bible, thus not published nor circulated.
If Jesus would just produce his long-form birth certificate, it would end all this arguing.
Lee. just because these ancient cities existed does not mean they provide proof that the scriptures int he Bible are entirely true. No one argues that Bethlehem did exist, that Jesus was a real person. What we are contending is that the spiritual and divine parts of the book, the stuff that there is no change in hell of proving, is in fact not what really happened. For example that Jobe was not smitten with boils by God or any other divine power but that he merely contracted some kind of illness like measles or chicken pox or small pox.
I thinks equal time should be devoted to interpreting findings that would support pink Unicorns.
It is obvious that we have some out there ascribing to gnosticism, mentioning the Pistis Sophia and the hidden years of Jesus. Here is the scoop on gnosticism:
The gnostics were those in the Greco-Roman world that sought to blend Greek philosophy (most notably Plato) with the Gospel as taught by Jesus and the Apostles. The result was the syncretism known as gnosticism. This ensuing faith denied the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith, which were the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, His blood atonement and His bodily resurrection. What's left of the original Christian message without these doctrines? Nothing except the ethical teachings of Christ such as the Sermon on the Mount.
The early Christian writers such as Paul and John recognized the danger of this watered down gospel and vehemently wrote against it. Paul's letter to the Colossians was written around 62 AD to combat this heresy which was already appearing in seed form in the church at Colossae. Later, around 90 AD, the Apostle John wrote his Gospel and epistles, perhaps while he was the bishop at Ephesus, again to refute the gnostic belief system, which was becoming more refined. Later, when gnosticism became full-blown in the middle of the 2nd century (when most of the gnostic writings began cropping up), it took the best minds of the Christian church such as Irenaeus and Justin Martyr to finally turn the tide against it. Gnosticism gradually died down, but has continued to exist throughout the last 1800 years in one form or anther. In recent years, it has experienced a revival, first with Mary Baker Eddy and Christian Science, later with Unity, Divine Science, Religious Science, the New Age movement and most recently with the Da Vinci Code. All deny the three foundational doctrines already stated.
Here's what the New Testament writers said concerning the three cardinal doctrines:
1. The Incarnation, which is that of the eternal God becoming a human being.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1
"The Word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." John 1:14
"In Him (Jesus Christ) dwells all the fullness of the Godhead (deity) in bodily form" Colossians 2:9
"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, which our hands have handled, of the Word of Life". I John 1:1
That last statement by John was a direct refutation to the brand of gnosticism known as Docetism, which asserted the divinity of Christ, but denied His humanity since they believed that matter was evil so divinity cound not take on human flesh. Therefore, they concluded, Jesus just seemed to be a man, but was in fact a phantom. John says, no, this is not true. He and his fellow actually reached out and touched Jesus. He had a real physical body.
2. The blood atonement.
This is attested to by the writers of the Bible, starting with David in Psalm 22 which describes crucifixion in graphic detail. Isaiah the prophet wrote about the blood atonement 700 years before it became a reality in Isaiah 53:5,6. John the Baptist taught it (John 1:29) as did Jesus Himself (Matthew 20:28; 26:28). The writer of the book of Hebrews devotes his entire epistle to the change in covenants from Old to New, which was ushered in by the blood atonement. Look especially at chapters 9 and 10 to see his thoughts on it. The writings of the Apostle Paul are riddled with references to it. Peter also taught it (I Pet 1:18; 2:24)
The Apostle John wrote the phrase "God is Love" in I John 4:8 and 4:16, which the gnostics loved to quote. What is interesting is that sandwiched in between those verses is 4:10, which says, "Herein is love: not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His son to be the propitiation (atoning sacrifice) for our sins". Gnostics today completely ignore the latter verse since they deny the blood atonement. My question is, what right to they have to quote verses 8 and 16 and reject verse 10? That's picking and choosing what you want and ignoring what doesn't fit in your theology. In other words, my faith is made up; don't confuse me with facts.
3. The bodily resurrection of Christ
This is attested to as a physical body in Luke 24 and John 20-21, a body that could be touched and handled and even ate food! Paul devotes a whole chapter to it (I Corinthians 15), stating that it was part of the Gospel (v3, 4) and even going on to state that if it was not a reality, we were not forgiven, but were still in our sins (v17). Without the bodily resurrection, the Christian faith is meaningless.
In short, far from it being just the Roman Catholic church that condemned gnosticism and rejected gnostic writings to maintain their power, the Christian church as a whole recognized its danger as denial of the Incarnation, blood atonement and bodily resurrection of Christ. This included the church in the east, which became the Eastern Orthodox church as well as the later reformers. Those that want to believe the gnostic message can do so if they wish. But it is no mystery why it was rejected by the church, starting with the New Testament writers. They saw it as an affront to what Jesus Himself taught as related by those that heard Him. I will personally take their witness over any other.
@Ajahn
Do you believe the Adam and Eve story as literal truth?
Chad,
First of all, none of us know for certain either way, since none of us were there at the time.
Second, I DO NOT believe the world is only 6000 years old a la Bishop Ussher.
Third, Jesus Himself ascribed a certain amount of truth to the story as He used it as an illustration for His teachings on marriage in Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9.
Fourth, I think that even if you don't take it literally, there is much in it that reveals what man's problem is today. Read the book Whatever Became of Sin? by Karl Menninger for more on this. Unlike Adam and Eve who "passed the buck" onto others, we need to take personal responsibility for our sin, which is nothing more than rebellion against God. The gnostics do not do this. Mary Baker Eddy's famous quote was "There is no sin, sickness or death". She then disproved the latter two premises by dying herself, and if she was wrong about the them, then was she wrong about sin as well?
Finally, here is a song written and recorded by Don Francisco maybe 35 years ago. It describes the human condition as no other song that I have heard. It's entitled "Adam, Where Are You?" if you want to go on Youtube and listen to it. The words are:
Unashamed and naked in a garden that has never seen the rain
Rulers of a kingdom full of joy, never marred by any pain
The morning all around them seems to celebrate the life they’ve just begun
And in the majesty of innocence, the king and queen come walking in the sun
But the Master of Deception now begins with his dissection of the Word
And with all his craft and subtlety, the Serpent twists the simple truth they’ve heard
While hanging in the balance is a world that has been placed at their command
And all their unborn children die as both of them bow down to Satan’s hand
But just before the evening, in the cool of the day,
They hear the sound of God as He is walking
And they can’t abide His presence, so they try to hide away,
But still they can hear His voice as He is calling,
Adam, Adam, where are you?
Adam, Adam, where are you?
In the stifling heat of summer now, the gardener and his wife are in the fields
And it seems as thorns and thistles are the only crop his struggles ever yield
Well, he eats his meals in sorrow, till he sinks into the dust from whence he came
But all down through the ages, he can hear his Maker calling out his name,
Adam, Adam, where are you?
Adam, Adam, where are you?
Well, the curse has long been broken, but the sons are still the prisoners of their fears
Rushing helter-skelter to destruction, with their fingers in their ears
While a Father’s voice is calling now with an urgency I’ve never heard before
To come in from the darkness now, before it’s finally time to close the door!
Adam, Adam, where are you?
Adam, Adam, where are you?
Adam, Adam, I LOVE YOU!
The simple truth of the matter is, it isn't literal. And it isn't meant to be literal (and you know that).
No sophisticated theologian will try and tell you that the story is meant to be taken literally.
Also, you do realize we can prove (scientifically) that it is biologically impossible for the entire human genome to be extrapolated from a single homologous unit ... right?
So here's the problem.
If there was never (literally) an Adam and Eve ... where did "original sin" come from?
How do you account for "the fall", if we now know (and now can admit) that the Adam and Eve story was either 1.) metaphor, 2.) allegory, (or both) ... how do you explain the need for Jesus?
Why did god need to give his only begotten son for man's salvation?
No original sin ... no need for salvation ... no need for Jesus.
Tell me how I'm wrong?
Hmmmm let me see.
No original sin
Human nature is a sin because what hold fear, curiosity, ignorance, etc. All the things that makes us bad
No need for salvation
No moral teachings means no real understanding of morality.
No need for Jesus
There plenty of evidence of his existence; type in "the flesh of Jesus is real", "blood of Christ found" and the only reason he died for our sins because he CHOOSE to save us late I cannot stress how anyone can mess this up.
Tell me how I'm wrong? Yes, I think you need to do more research because you don't know everything of Christianity
there's real history found in the Qu'ran, too. But something tells me they won't be telling us all it's "evidence" for Islam, am I right? Again, no. Islam evidence lacks the DNA proof of Muhammad since Islam change their view and now accept Jesus as the of God OF THEIR OWN CHOICE. Not all just some.
If there was never (literally) an Adam and Eve ... where did "original sin" come from?
Again, Human nature is where sin is born and type in the adam fossil.
I can't believe how you can miss that. I'm a researcher all my life and I've never been wrong of what I've look into. I'm a catholic as well but even a child can prove that Jesus existed.
Your comments were a little painful to read, I'm not sure if English is your first language (so I won't harp on its syntax)
And you wonder why people call your faith a poison?
This type of ideology is the bane of man's existence. It's a mental illness that needs cured, not a virtue that needs instilled or praise.
You can go about your business believing you were created sick (which in your case, may be true). But leave the rest us out your pact with ignorance and fear.
And your sarcasm are as painless as flea bite on a rhino's hide. Ideology is the very reason of our existence yet you call it mental illness? Sad but false because if that's that case then we're the antibiotic to ignorance and truth-denying people.
I'm not going to explain to you why fossil record is phony because we're not descendents from apes because I know that you're going to tell me that I'm delusional for saying. Face it, my friend, evolution is coming to an end and soon more evidence of Christianity will keep popping up little by little. :)
Mock our evidence all you want cuz it'll bite right back at you.
1.) Quit liking your own comments ... it shows a lack of credibility
2.) Yup, thanks for proving my mental illness comments with more ramblings.
1.) Quit assuming that I'm liking own comments, it's degrading enough but at least someone is liking it so stop assuming.
2.) You, sir, are no more intelligent then the average chimpanzee solving a very complex calculus problem but thanks for pointing out your ignorance.
I don't why you can't accept that I have rights to believe there is evidence out proving that god existed yet many atheists want him to be a man to study him. For starters, atheists don't make good scientists since all they can come up with evolutionary theories, natural selection, and disproving god yet another I noticing in your other comments were the fact that you are spiritual. False, atheism don't believe in the supernatural because that deny the existence of a intelligent design so think about that before anyone calls you a hypocrite. Secondly, my friend website is a genius because unlike any would be secular scientists he done his homework thousand times and given us his answer
Face it when you read you'll be awe on how his facts prove that God exist for a reason plus I'm writing a book about fallacy of the secular argument. Sooner or later the age of evolution will be over.
You're writing a book?
I sure hope you have an editor capable of proper grammar, syntax and clarity.
Really, that's the best you can come up with?
I sure hope you have an editor capable of proper grammar, syntax and clarity
.................?
Just a small (and I mean small) sample of how incoherently you write.
I'm not pointing it out to be mean (I'm by no means a great writer), but nor do I claim to be ... unlike certain people on this thread {looks in your general direction}
I'd be happy to have an intelligible discussion with you, but you need to ask me questions if you would like a reply. So far, all you've done is tell me what atheism is .... yet you haven't got a clue. We can't have a reasonable debate if all you bring to the table are straw man arguments.
Tried staying up late at night studying and looking for a job yet they discriminate me because of my belief and I know I have some spelling error but my mind is too tire correct them and I miss that sometime. Thanks for pointing out though I'll be sure to be extra cautious of my typing and I do apologize if I came out too blunt. LOL you know, you and I (Catholics and Atheists) have one thing in common (or more in case I forget which I do again apologize) is....... we both infidels ;)
It's really hard to write a book because you have to take precaution of what you are saying. Reason so, I'm planning to be a debater because of Dinesh D'souza influence me to become one. Here; I'm unable to hold an arguments due to fact that I don't like to type so much. secondly if we talk in person then we actual have, as you put it, an intelligible discussion over coffee. It's ironic that my typing argumentative skills is bad that it makes everyone thinks that I'm horrible in English but I'm not I just re-proofread that much when my mind is tired. LOL So please forgive me if I'm not displaying good character here, ok?
I did not need confirmation.I AM A BELIEVER
LOL
Translation: "I am immune to any and all facts that might contradict my stubborn faith in the impossible!"
*sticks fingers in ears, shuts eyes tight, and mutters bible verses until the bad facts go away*
That's the thing about religious belief: no evidence required...or accepted.
This is very interesting. As the years go by we are seeing more and more evidence that the Bible is what it says it is ; the word of God. I've seen nothing that science has to offer that shows the bible is any less relevant today than it was when it was written. Those who arrogantly proclaim otherwise are only fooling themselves.
So...the parts about owning slaves, genocide, shellfish, clothes made out of multiple materials...are all still relevent?
Careful when you call others arrogant. It might not reflect well on yourself.
Yet again a zealot comes forward to spew how the bible is the undisputed word of and, therefore, proof of God. As pointed out, if this zealot is correct in his/her assertion, that means that ethnic cleansing, murder, genocide, and subjugation of entire races and nationalities of people are therefore "right" and "just" in the eyes of God and his followers.
Just keep that in mind as more and more religious zealots run for political office in this country.
Fundamentalist Christianity is the same currency as radical Islam... the names of the persecutors, the peoples persecuted and subjugated change, but the cost to humanity is the same. All in the name of abject idiocy on the part of those who can't and/or don't want to handle being responsible for their own actions made on the basis of their own free will.
"In God's name" has been used to justify countless human evils throughout time by those who "think" they know what's right and just, all predicated on some collection of books that they believe provides proof of an almighty higher power who dictates their every action instead of being just another form of mythology.
They dug up something that shows evidence that Bethleham was around before Jesus birth, and since the city is mentioned in the Old Testament that makes it evidence that the Bible is true? Now that is quite the stretch of deductive reasoning.
Greek mythology says the gods were based on Mt Olympus.. what? Mt Olympus is real? That must mean the Greek gods are real as well!
Following the Bible so blindly as people do makes me realize how gullible the majority of man is. Follow this book and do not question the god that is mentioned in it. Sure, sounds like the perfect con game to me.
Religion is nothing but something composed by man to control the masses by exploiting man's fear of their own mortality. Until some celestial being comes down and shows they exist, there is no human being that can convince me otherwise. Definitely not by a book that has been translated and interpreted in so many ways by people deciding what man needs to hear that no one really knows what the truth is anymore. For those that believe, good for you, just make sure you keep tithing your 10% so the church is happy with you.
The most relevant passage in the bible today, I would argue, is Ezekiel 23:20.
Open your eyes, go read it.
Ah, but that's in the Old Testament. Most Christians prefer to believe that the New Testament is God's true voice, showing him as compassionate and caring.
But your point is clear: If the ENTIRE bible is the undeniable word of God then he's got either a great sense of humour or he was drunk or stoned out of his gourd when he dictated that one to the scribes...
Terry how does this small object in the article prove that the Bible is the word of God?
Your delusional. god is Imaginary. Religions have constantly been revising it's interpretations to try and align itself with science. What a joke. Your religion in time will be reference as another myth.
And why should it not have?
How is this evidence the bible is true?
Harry Potter references London - a real city that no one doubts - but that doesn't mean Harry Potter is real. It just means they use real locations to make the fictional story more realistic.
Bap-1805135: You have the choice to believe in what you want to believe, and that also gives us believers the choice to believe in the Creator/Jesus. We were all given a choice of the paths we take. I will give you two quote's that I try to live by. "The best way to predict your future is to create it" and "The future is pre-determend by the character of the people who shape it"
Good quotes, sure...but I'm sorry, your response doesn't really answer anything Kelly. Sure, people have the right to believe whatever they want. I'm a strong advocate for that. Doesn't mean I have to sit still and quiet when someone makes claims that bigfoot is real, or UFOs are real, or even more far-fetched claims.
If someone bothers to tell me such a thing, i will ask questions and give them a chance to explain why they believe something. If what they say is legit, they should have no problems with that - in fact it should strengthen their own point of view.
Just because I question doesn't mean i'm being confrontational about it.
I understand what you are saying and I even question things. In the way I think, most religious groups/people would disagree.
Good to hear. I feel (honest, respectable) questioning only leads to mutual understanding, even if it doesn't change anyone's opinion, and thus is good for all of us.
Those who stifle questioning seem to have something to hide.
Kelly / North carolina
Charlotte NC and the county it is in Mecklenburg county are both named after people, so to find an old seal from the 1500's or 1600's with those words does not prove that the city or county existed long before we thought, it proves only that the name did. They must have had some way or reason to give places the names they did back in old days, just as they do today, I am sure, many were named after local people.
Religions are man made - Religions divide - God unites. To those who do not believe in God, I just say you are not thinking or expanding your mind big enough.
I lost some respect for Stephen Hawking when he said he did not believe in a god because before the big bang there was no time, and without time you cannot have god. Well that is just the point of God, he was before time, before matter before anything, He is the is that always is and always was.
Science is great, it all reflects God, but science doesn't have all the answers either. How many scientific theories have changed over the centuries? Quite a few, and we cannot reconcile Einsteins relativity theory with nano-particals. They both cannot exist with the theories we have today.
How many scientific theories have changed over the centuries? Quite a few, and we cannot reconcile Einsteins relativity theory with nano-particals. They both cannot exist with the theories we have today.
First, this process of change is the very essence of how science works. When better information is understood, whether through brand new discoveries or simply through more precise measurement, if the theories which attempt to explain it don't work any more, the old theories are set aside and new theories are developed which agree with the new, more accurate data. The new theory often subsumes and embraces the old, as with Einstein's theory agreeing with but expanding upon Newton's theories of energy and motion in order to explain how gravity works at the very large scale. This is not a weakness in science. This adaptability is the hallmark of science's great power to continue to be the very best way to understand our complex world and our universe as we learn more and more about it.
In contrast to this, religion takes a bunch of 2,000 year old cultural folk tales and claims that they are the unerring truth which without any corroborative information or verifiable data must be accepted without question on the basis of "faith".
Secondly, I am unaware of any conflict between Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and the existence of nano particles, which are extremely tiny and are hardly subject to gravity at all, they are much more influenced by the small and large electromagnetic forces which govern the structure and function of individual atoms and their constituent parts.
You may be thinking of quantum mechanics, which is the indeed the best theory we currently have to explain exactly how and why tiny particles such as protons and electrons behave in the ways that they do, and it is true that quantum mechanics cannot explain the motion of planets, any more than Relativity can explain the action of protons and electrons.
These limitations of the two thories does not mean that either one is wrong. They simply apply to differing scales of reality as we know it. There are efforts currently underway to form a Grand Unified Theory, which will be able to encompass both the very large and the very small, but so far that has not been accomplished. If it is ever achieved, it will likely agree with both quantum mechanics and relativity while also providing a means of understnding how both the very tiny and the very large fit together in perhpas some sort of self reflexive fractal relationship, but that's a story for another blog...
This is only proving that the bible was actually accurate about the existence of a city. This does not prove that the stories are true or that the people in it actually existed. And it is less relevant now than it was then. We no longer stone people for working on the sabbath, we eat shellfish even though is specifically says in Leviticus that it is an abomination. The outlook on homosexuality is still the same among most Christians in that it is an abomination, we they need to grow out of. Christianity is nothing but infantile thinking in a world that is constantly changing and growing up.
How do the traditions of men effect the relevance of the Bible?
The changes man makes has no impact on the relevance of God's word.
God does not change the rules to please man.
So you believe that we should have slaves and kill others according to that standards God said in Leviticus? That is the word of God so by not stoning up blasphemers to death, you are not fulfilling the will of God, true? What would be the point of having that written if you are not going to obey it?
You are leaving some important things out of your interpretation.
Here is my belief based on my understanding of what I have read.
1st of all you are speaking of the law from the old testament. Born Again Christians are not under the law they are in Christ. That is not a license to sin but it is a means to forgiveness for our sins thru repentance.
In my opinion Jesus made it clear we were not to stone anyone, unless we are without sin. I have yet to meet a human who is without sin. So I have yet to meet a human who could stone another. So that leaves God and Jesus for they are without sin.
You are probably right I don't fulfill God's word but I pray and grow closer as I read and learn.
Christ said he came to bury the law and with that he brought "the Spirit" for the time of "the Gentiles", until the Church is caught up.....and then the 70 th week (seven years for the Jews) to finish this existence and all be renewed who chose life
"That is not a license to sin but it is a means to forgiveness for our sins thru repentance."
So... if we are forgiven our sins based on an act of repentance or forgiveness, then does that mean that Hitler is in heaven now? Or, if you want to kick him out because he committed the unforgivable sin (according to Catholicism anyway) of suicide then how about Stalin (who was an even greater mass murderer than Hitler due to his longer time in power)? How about Pol Pot?
So you either have a vengeful, wrathful God as depicted in the Old Testament who is petty and cruel but one that holds mankind accountable for its actions to the point of demanding wholesale subjugation of peoples and nations to get His point across, or you have a kind, loving, forgiving God who deems that everyone can be saved if they only acknowledge their sins and seek His loving forgiveness.
Another dogmatic problem with most forms of Christianity - they believe only what they WANT to believe in accordance with the idiosyncrasies of their own objectives, finding and interpreting verses in the scriptures to justify their position. IF the bible truly is the irrefutable word of God (or Dog if you're dyslexic) then how arrogant must man be to "interpret" it to suit his own purposes? Isn't the sin of arrogance one of the greatest sins mankind can exhibit?
Michael - Did Hitler repent and ask for forgiveness? Did he accept that Jesus is the Son of God, come to take on our sin? If yes, then he could be in Heaven. If no, then he isn't.
Nice... which should give people pause. Hitler, Stalin, Pot... basically the absolute lowest form of "human" you can find would be allowed in heaven IF they repented before dying.
Let's look at some basic numbers, and to help out I'll exclude Hitler because everyone knows his impact on the world.
Stalin was responsible for the deaths of 15 million (15,000,000 - that's a CONSERVATIVE estimate - it could be higher than 30,000,000) people in the course of his 31 years as the leader of the Soviet Union. Pol Pot was responsible for the deaths of approximately (again conservative estimate) 1,500,000 people in the THREE years as the Premier of Cambodia.
Now while I have no direct evidence that either of them sought forgiveness before they died, is is inherently troubling to think that two "people" who violated one of God's commandments (as recorded in His unerring word and law the Bible) not once, not twice, but 16.5 MILLION TIMES COMBINED could be absolved of that simply because they COULD have asked for FORGIVENESS before they died.
Nice... and zealots think that those of us who refuse to believe what they tell us to believe are stupid.
This is the greatest hypocrisy of all. "I don't have to be perfect, just forgiven" and on this basis, so called christians engage in all kinds of heinous and hateful behaviors, selfish and egotistical pursuit of their own personal agendas, and many other things that their so called 'savior' would have condemned. Then they go to church and pray for forgiveness and their consciences are wiped clean. A pretty nice deal if ya ask me. No personal responsibility whatsoever. Just a few magic words, and I can get away with anything.
Exactly. What the typical zealot does is justify their actions based on the argument that "God says so" or "it's in the Bible" which, in their minds, absolves them of the guilt and outcomes of their actions.
If you can be forgiven for the cold-blooded murder of another human being, just by asking for it then exactly what is the point of the Commandments?
One of the reasons they had to create the image of "God" as portrayed in the New Testament is because people probably began to figure out that it was impossible to keep all of the commandments and therefore would be going to hell anyway (Thou shalt not lie... every politician has broken that one), so nobody would be attending church/mass/whatever. So you create an "out" by creating a more merciful and kind "God" who would forgive your transgressions - as long as you were "trying" to be good.
Actually Tether man impacts religion in a rather powerful way. At no point in history have we ever taken a concept or phenomenon that we felt we had a rational explanation for and then later, through evidence, came to the realization that it was actually super-natural, or mystical. However we progressively find subjects that we once answered via the supernatural and now have found rational/scientific explanations for.
As time goes on man learns more and depend less and less on superstition for our answers.
This by default means that religion has to adjust to humanity. When religions fail to do so they fade away.
Duh? Didn't it have to be there for him to be born there? How much did this study cost?
What study? They found a pebble and someone read what was written on it.
bap-1805135
- you must be a teabagger - concerned only with money and the cost of things - must be a very bleak existence.
Very stupid assumption Bill, troll harder next time.
It is very sad that some are so fixated on their biblical beliefs that they think this lends any credence whatsoever to a compilation of oral traditions and very early writings that span thousands of years and many different cultures - that wasn't already there. Of course the bible is an extremely significant work - however this has nothing to do with belief. The bible is an amazing collection of wisdom, philosophy, and myth that teaches incredible lessons that are so basic to our human condition, that they were true even thousands of years ago, in the dawn of mankind. But as far as being something you can hold over other people, judge others, and say, well, God said so, it's in the BIBLE... this is sad. God does not agree with you, I assure you.
Matthew, Mark , Luke and John were written within 40 years off Jesus's death and resurrection, and they were killed because they would NOT deny Christ
Tera-
Who is judging anyone?
Let's say your employer gives you an employee hand book and it says you must wear steel toed shoes.
You show up for work one day with the wrong shoes on. One of your co-workers notices and points out to you that you are in violation of the dress code. They offer to let you borrow a pair from them.
Did they judge you, or were they trying to help you keep out of trouble?
They simply reminded you of what the rules are.
They didn't convict you of anything and they did not render a punishment. Not a judgment.
Did he tell you that himself?
Tether - EXCELLENT analogy.
So Tether, when a slightly effeminate boy shows up at school and a bunch of other kids threaten to beat him up because their parents told them that being gay is evil in the eyes of god (whether or not the particular kid may or may not be gay, he's just perceived that way in my example), this would be a good way for kids to "remind" each other "what the rules are"?
yes Mikey it would be a great time for a 'godly' (christian??) to step up and protect the victim of bulling and hate. That is what we as humans are to do. The parents are obviously teaching wrong, and no church teaches that anyway. Gay behavior is not blessed, is supposed to be the message.
Sorry, Wally, but most scholars believe the book of Mark was not written before AD 60. They agree that Matthew was written after AD 70. Most say Luke was written no earlier than AD 60 and very few think John was written before AD 90. Basically, this says that those who know what they are talking about agree that the gospels were not written by the so-called authors.
This is kind of like the issue of Obama's birth certificate. There are those who look at the facts, see the truth and walk off shaking their heads as the others keep whining that Obama is not a real American.
For God's sake, don't ever let facts get in the way of your religious brainwashing. If you do, you will have to go through some painful angst before the truth finds home.
Oh, I am so glad you clarified that. Silly me, I had totally misunderstood the message of those signs that supposedly christian people carry around that say "God Hates Fags" and things like that.
So, it's about behavior... OK, for further clarification could you point out the biblical passages, chapter and verse please, where it says that men may not wear colorful clothes (so long as they are made of only one type of fabric), black leather chaps (even if the ass part is missing), dance together to bad disco music, or simply show their affection for one another by hanging out together at the mall? I've seen a lot of this kind of behavior going on and it always seemed kind of gay to me, but I figure, heck, if it's not specifically mentioned as wrong then it must be OK. I mean, the bible goes to such GREAT lengths to detail exactly what is and isn't acceptable, certain kinds of fish are OK, other are not... certain kinds of animals are OK, others are not. I'm so glad to know that it is only certain gay behaviors which are not OK, and that everything else about gay people is just fine and dandy with all you christians.
Excellent. I'm so glad we had this little chat. Please go and tell all your friends.
Sorry but religions (myths) don't have the corner on honesty, morality and other good characteristic humans have. As a matter of fact we would still have these good qualities without the myths and a better world.
This is a fascinating, SCIENTIFIC, archeological find. Nothing more and nothing less. To prove that Bethlehem was a city, or town, that existed long before the birth of Jesus took place there (and that's the part that has not been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt) is an exciting thing to know. Any extrapolation from that fact that "Proves the accuracy and truth of the Bible" is mere fancy and completely subjective.
Today's date is 5/23/2012 AD. A.D. stands for Anno Domini, which is Latin for "year of our Lord,"
Something significant must have happened to convince the world to base our date system on it.
Jesus Christ was here.
Yes, something significant happened... a Scythian monk named Dionysius Exiguus (Dennis the Small) in approximately 525 created a dating method in order to identify several Easters in his Easter table - now this next part is important - HE DID NOT USE IT TO DATE ANY HISTORICAL EVENT.
In a gross oversimplification of a much more complicated discussion, Dionysius created his numbering scheme to replace the Diocletian years that had been previously used to calculate Easter because Diocletian (Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus Augustus) was a tyrant who persecuted Christians during his reign as Roman Emperor.
Just another example of how the actual history of something has been twisted by various religious entities to suit their political purposes.
In actuality, IF Jesus Christ WAS born, biblical scholars (from several Christian faiths) calculate his birth year at 4 A.D. So how could you have years of our Lord 1, 2, and 3 if he didn't exist yet?
maybe there was a misprint on His birth certificate.. those stone presses were hard to operate..
Whether or not there may be physical evidence of the existence of an ancient city of Bethleham which is named in the bible, or whether or not there may have actually been a person named Jesus who lived about 2,000 years ago and who was a wise and compassionate teacher, these facts function as absolutely no proof whatsoever of the other claims and implications of the christian religion, such as the notion that this man may have been the half breed son of some sort of invisible yet omnipotent sky spirit, or that he was re-vivified after being killed and has the power to grant eternal life if one telepathically invites him 'possess' their body and purported soul in some kind of mystical transmogrification.
Golly, a good number of Mexican and Central American cultures and cities must not have existed because they weren't mentioned in the bible.
johnc-3839132
- you sound like a mormon
Why's that?
bill1942-3876944 - Then you don't know much about Mormons.
People also need to realize that the bible was written AFTER Christ died!!! People knew of the city and had heard stories, myths, truths, whatever you want to call it. This doesn't prove that the bible is true. It proves that there was a city that is named in the Bible. There have been incredible story tellers throughout time. Maybe the people that wrote the bible were just some of the best ones of their time.
AJC1979
- Most of the New Testament was written down after Christ's death and resurrection. The Old Testament predates that time by up to several thousand years.
Most of the New Testament? Can you enlighten us to exactly which New Testament books were written before Christ's supposed death and resurrection?
I'm not sure what the point of this article is anyway. Has there been any doubt as to the existence of Bethlehem?
So back when the old testament was written and they foretold of John the Baptist and the coming of Jesus, and many other things that happened were those just a result of lucky story telling?
Today's date is 5/23/2012 AD. A.D. stands for Anno Domini, which is Latin for "year of our Lord,"
Something significant must have happened to convince the world to base our date system on it.
Yes, something significant happened... a Scythian monk named Dionysius Exiguus (Dennis the Small) in approximately 525 created a dating method in order to identify several Easters in his Easter table - now this next part is important - HE DID NOT USE IT TO DATE ANY HISTORICAL EVENT.
In a gross oversimplification of a much more complicated discussion, Dionysius created his numbering scheme to replace the Diocletian years that had been previously used to calculate Easter because Diocletian (Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus Augustus) was a tyrant who persecuted Christians during his reign as Roman Emperor.
Just another example of how the actual history of something has been twisted by various religious entities to suit their political purposes.
In actuality, IF Jesus Christ WAS born, biblical scholars (from several Christian faiths) calculate his birth year at 4 A.D. So how could you have years of our Lord 1, 2, and 3 if he didn't exist yet?
Michael... maybe there was a misprint on His birth certificate... those stone presses were hard to operate..
I am not saying that the seal isn't real, but what data do they have that proves that the seal is from 700 bc? Didn't the Christian community denounce carbon dating?
John Holt-5500417
- there is no Christian community. There are millions of individual Christians who share the tenets of common belief (for the most part). I am an individual and not an absolute subject to any church or organization. I am subject only to my belief in Almighty God and his saving Grace through his son, Jesus Christ. I am not a body with a soul - I, like you, am a soul with a temporary body. My concern for my body is immaterial. My concern for my soul is eternal. My faith is a belief in things unseen. I do not expect nor require proof that I can hold in my hand.
There are thousands of Christian communities... they're called churches, they're called cathedrals, they're called conventions (Southern Baptist Convention as an example). Anywhere like-minded people come together to share their beliefs, you end up with a community.
Community is taken to mean a broader context than the dogmatic definition of "community" like what the Amish, Mennonite, Shaker (extinct) communities illustrate.
As I said: as the years go by the evidence mounts. Christianity is far from infantile and is quite complex. Are there questions to be answered? Yes there is and as I said before they are being answered every day. The writings in the Bible evolved till the last page and if you read it with the idea that it is all a bunch of hooey then that is all you will get out of it.
So lets see...
An all powerful yet invisible super-duper spirit being, who we'll call Sky-Daddy, has the ability to do or create anything he wants to and who knows in advance everything which will happen, decides to make the universe, just for fun. Then, just when he gets finished, which takes exactly six days, plus some rest, because even for an omnipotent spirit being, creating the universe is hard work, a talking snake convinced the first woman, who had magically materialized from the first man's rib, to eat some magic fruit and share it with her boyfriend, but when their Sky-Daddy caught them sneaking bites of the magic fruit he kicked them out of paradise, and later after they had a bunch of kids who apparently mated with each other to produce further generations of people, Sky-Daddy got so angry that the people weren't following his instructions that he drowned all but a few of them in a giant flood. The few that he picked to save were given special instructions how to build a magic wooden boat which even though it was only something like 500 feet long, was big enough to hold a couple of every single kind of animal there was, except for the dinosaurs who were too dumb to get on board so they ended up getting buried in the mud.
Many, many years later, after much repopulation, again apparently by mating of closely related family members, there were several different tribes and nations established. Sky-daddy liked some of these very much and they were considered special, and Sky-Daddy hated many others, because they believed in a different Sky-Daddy, so the good Sky-Daddy magically made bad stuff happen to them, but he was still good. Next, Sky-Daddy supposedly made some special stone tablets with ten very important rules to follow, most of which were concerned with how super important Sky-Daddy himself was, and none of the other Sky-Daddies were important at all, but he also somehow communicated a huge list of other trivial rules to follow that had to do with what to eat, how many wives one man could have, which bodily orifices one was allowed to put ones pee-pee into, and whether or not it was OK to wear blended fabrics.
But apparently the people still had problems following all these rules, so Sky-Daddy was obligated, as per the rules, to send most of the people to burn in a lake of fire when they died, and this made him very sad. So, to fix the problem, he decided to magically impregnate one of the human people with his half breed Spirit-Son, who would then try to talk the people into changing their ways. But Sky-Daddy knew in advance, because he knew EVERYTHING, that wouldn't listen anyway, and instead they would heinously torture and kill the half-breed son. But that was OK, and it was all part of "The Plan", because Sky-Daddy had the power to magically bring Spirit-Son back to life like an invisible zombie, plus, Spirit-Son would then gain the extra superpower of being able to grant eternal life to people who telepathically invited him to posses their souls.
Those who still didn't follow these instructions and take advantage of this special escape clause would still unfortunately be condemned to burn for eternity in the fire lake while being poked in the butt with a pitchfork by a horny red-skinned guy with a forked tail, but hey, that's the breaks, they were warned after all weren't they?
Yep. Definitely sounds like a bunch of hooey to me.
Unfortunately -- Living in the Past will NOT Bring PEACE for the Future!
Who is judging anyone?
Say your employer has a dress code that says no shorts, and you wear shorts to work. One of your coworkers says hey your going to get in trouble for wearing those shorts and tells you its in the employee handbook. Did they judge you or were they trying to help you?
That's not a good comparison.
It'd be more like the coworkers are telling everyone, not just the people at the your company, that they can't wear shorts.
I respect your opinion but we will have to agree to disagree given that God would represent the employer and the company is the world which he created.
Tether, I don't like the dumb rules that your employer made for his company, and also I found that, contrary to the stated rules in the Corporate Policy Manual many employees fo your company were extremely disrespectful to one another, so rather than continue in such an unfriendly and harassment encouraging work environment, I quit long ago and joined a new company, along with many others who didn't agree with those rules either.
We don't have a boss in our company. We make our own collaborative policies according to what is best for everyone. We expect all the employees of our company to treat each other with respect, and to devote their best efforts to productivity while they are here and alive.
However, there is one one caveat: We do not offer any Afterlife Pension Plan because there is no proof of any need for such coverage (No matter what it may say in your company's Corporate Policy Manual), and those companies, such as yours, who do claim to offer such fringe benefit packages, we believe are guilty of false advertising and outright fraud. We do not condone such misleading practices.
If you would ever like to quit your company and come join ours, that would be fine, we have an open door hiring policy.
Even a caveman knows that a good settlement site is a good settlement site. Indians had to be bribed to get off Manhattan.
This does not have anything to do with some sort of proof of the existence of Jesus. It is just a seal found in the first temple level of stratification. Previous digs in Bethlehem have proved the town was probably a Canaanite town prior to conquest by the Hebrews. It was probably not a very important center in Judah, so it's name has not surfaced in written form previously. There are many towns in the Levant that we know are very ancient but have never been mentioned in documents other than the Bible, which I think is fairly accurate about geography and historical events
don't see the point...not like they just built the city just for Jesus to be born in because it made a better story...
Today's date is 5/23/2012 AD. A.D. stands for Anno Domini, which is Latin for "year of our Lord,"
Something significant must have happened to convince the world to base our date system on it.
And the answer is, Jesus Christ.
Yes, something significant happened... a Scythian monk named Dionysius Exiguus (Dennis the Small) in approximately 525 created a dating method in order to identify several Easters in his Easter table - now this next part is important - HE DID NOT USE IT TO DATE ANY HISTORICAL EVENT.
In a gross oversimplification of a much more complicated discussion, Dionysius created his numbering scheme to replace the Diocletian years that had been previously used to calculate Easter because Diocletian (Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus Augustus) was a tyrant who persecuted Christians during his reign as Roman Emperor.
Just another example of how the actual history of something has been twisted by various religious entities to suit their political purposes.
In actuality, IF Jesus Christ WAS born, biblical scholars (from several Christian faiths) calculate his birth year at 4 A.D. So how could you have years of our Lord 1, 2, and 3 if he didn't exist yet?
Michael, you cannot use logic and reason to convince those whose religious beliefs require the SUSPENSE of logic and reason. If you figure out how, come over my house and convince my daughter that there are no monsters in her closet so I can get some decent sleep.
Was there any doubt?
What if, 100,000 years from now, someone finds the front cover of a Superman comic book completely intact with a drawing of Superman zipping across the skyline of Manhatten? I wonder if a religion would be created exaulting Superman? Things to ponder on a rainy day.
It's already happened in our history. He is called by some "Jesus Christ". He walked on water, he rose from the dead, performed amazing feats of strength...
That is exactly what will happen. And the followers of Supermanity will argue you and anyone else down who dares question the validity of it.
Either that or they'll end up taking over the government, then do what they've done throughout time, they'll arrest/torture/kill anyone who questions their beliefs.
Of course it's not like that could ever happen in this country now is it?
So broken pottery means talking snakes? Peolpe who thought forest fires and disease were punishment from the boogie man! Get an ADULT grip people! No Santi Clause, Easter Bunny and water walking, fish splitting, floating man! You dumbass that believe, please prove, go see your god, leave this planet! See Ya!
Now you asked for the one thing that zealots want... to be told they have to provide "proof". All that does is let them engage in all types of circular logic about how one thing (like finding a pottery shard mentioning 'Bethlehem' on it) coupled with another thing (like the designation Anno Domini clearly means that Jesus existed otherwise why would it be called Anno Domini) and that several cities and settlements mentioned in the Bible actually exist in Israel and the Middle East obviously PROVES that God exists.
Belief in "God" requires an act of "faith". It's not supposed to be something based on "proof" or "evidence" of existence. That's another aspect of their religion that most zealots don't understand. It's not about "proof", it's about believe in and of itself. As was made clear to Thomas when he asked for "proof", faith doesn't require proof, it just requires blind commitment.
The driving, obsessive need of zealots to demonstrate the various examples "proof" that they say clearly exists not only demonstrates their clear lack of uncompromising "faith"; it also demonstrates their ultimately destructive need to justify to everyone around them that they were "right".
It's sad that they don't know their own religion, it's teachings, and it's basis in history as well as they think they do...
I'm confused, why would it have NOT existed? Also what does this have to do with the bible being "true" or not?
In the real world, it has nothing to do with the Bible being "true" or not, it just shows that they've found a pottery shard that has the word "Bethlehem" on it. In the world of the zealot, it clearly demonstrates that the Bible is true because they've found a pottery shard that has the word "Bethlehem" on it.
Maybe an analogy will help: Suppose some day a zealot and a non-zealot are at the beach and one of them digs a hole in the sand and finds a penny in it.
The non-zealot will look at the penny and notice that it has a profile relief of Abe Lincoln on one side and a relief of the Lincoln Memorial on the other. The non-zealot will simply conclude that the penny recognises Abe Lincoln existed and the Lincoln Memorial exists, and this is a means to recognise the man for his contributions to the country that the non-zealot learned about in history class in school.
The zealot will look at that same penny and come to the same conclusions. But... because the penny has the words "In God we Trust" written on the front of it, AND because Abe Lincoln DID exist, AND because the Lincoln Memorial DOES exist, then obviously that MUST mean that God exists too because everything else on the penny either existed at one time or does currently exist.
You can keep the "Christ" in "Christmas" only if I can keep the "Satan" in "Santa Claus"...
Michael . . you make an excellent point.. Only satan could turn the birth of Christ into a materialistic orgy..
Actually, the traditional date for the celebration of "Christ's birth" can be argued to be a co-opt of a collection of various pagan holidays celebrated at the same basic time in Europe way back in the earliest days of Christianity. It wasn't until Pope Julius I sometime around 336 AD decreed that December 25th would be celebrated as the date of Christ's birth (for the Catholic faith anyway).
And I can think of way more illustrative examples of materialistic orgies practised within mainstream religions throughout their histories (the purchasing of salvation - indulgences - by Catholics during the middle ages) that are way more persuasive of how holy tenets have been twisted by mankind than the concepts of "Satan" and December 25th.
Michael ... you do realize these points you seem so hung on are very insignificant.. It's not like calenders were common place..And you must realize the modern materialistic orgy that is Christmas has much more effect on more people than the old pay for salvation tenet.And that the forbidding of birth control by the church is fully Satanic in nature...
The forbidding of birth control is "fully Satanic in nature"? Oh, do please explain what you mean. I'd love to hear this.
all you smart people can say and think what you like but in the end if your wrong to hell with you.
I'll keep your seat warm for you...
Does that mean that all you not so smart people cant say and think what you like?
LOL
You do realize American Ninja that the same logic applies to you from the perspective all the other religions right? If Mohammed was right you're basically screwed. What about the pagans? The Muslims and Christians pretty much obliterated those religions. So what happens if Jupiter IS the big boss man? I'm sure he'll have a special place in his heart for the butchers of his followers.