Someone recently passed this article on to me, which I posted on another board. It was promptly removed. So sad . . .

Frightening News from France

Once again, the real news in France is conveniently

not being reported as it should. To give you an idea

of what's going on in France where there are now

between 5 and 6 million Muslims and about 600,000 Jews,

here is an email that came from a Jew living in

France. Please read! Will the world say nothing - again - as it did in Hitler's time?

"I AM A JEW -- therefore I am forwarding this to

everyone on all my e-mail lists. I will not sit back

and do nothing." Nowhere have the flames of

anti-Semitism burned more furiously than in France:

Lyon, a car was rammed into a synagogue and set

on fire. In Montpellier, the Jewish religious center

was firebombed; so were synagogues in Strasbourg and

Marseilles; so was a Jewish school in Creteil - all recently.

A Jewish sports club in Toulouse was attacked with

Molotov cocktails, and on the statue of Alfred

Dreyfus in Paris, the words "Dirty Jew" were

painted. In Bondy, 15 men beat up members of a

Jewish football team with sticks and metal bars. The

bus that takes Jewish children to school in

Aubervilliers has been attacked three times in the last 14 months.

According to the Police, metropolitan Paris has seen

10 to 12 anti-Jewish incidents PER DAY in the past

30 days. Walls in Jewish neighborhoods have been

defaced with slogans proclaiming "Jews to the gas

chambers" and "Death to the Jews."

A gunman opened fire on a Kosher butcher's shop

(and, of course, the butcher) in Toulouse , France;

a Jewish couple in their 20s were beaten up by five

men in Villeurbanne , France . The woman was

pregnant; a Jewish school was broken into and

vandalized in Sarcelles , France . This was just in

the past week.

So I call on you, whether you are a fellow Jew, a

friend, or merely a person with the capacity and

desire to distinguish decency from depravity, to do,

at least, these three simple things:

First, care enough to stay informed. Don't ever let

yourself become deluded into thinking that this is

no t your fight. I remind you of what Pastor

Neimoller said in World War II: "First they came for

the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I

wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and

I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they

came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up,

because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me,

and by that time there was no one left to speak up

for me".

Second, boycott France and French products. Only the

Arab countries are more toxically anti-Semitic and,

unlike them, France exports more than just oil and

hatred. So boycott their wines and their perfumes.

Boycott their clothes and their foodstuffs. Boycott

their movies. Definitely boycott their shores. If

we are resolved we can exert amazing pressure and,

whatever else we may know about the French, we most

certainly know that they are like a cobweb in a

hurricane in the face of well directed pressure.

Third, send this along to your family, your friends,

and your co-workers. Think of all of the people of

good conscience that you know and let them know

that you and the people that you care about need

their help. The number one best selling book in

France is "September 11: The Frightening Fraud,"

which argues that no plane ever hit the Pentagon."

An interesting site titled "Did a Historical Jesus Exist".

If you can't prove the man existed, you can't prove he fulfilled prophecies.

I just spent the past very long few hours reading what's been going on here. Good Lord!

I have met a lot of Christians who believe that they must witness their faith to others. Never, never have I been exposed to such a complete and utter pompous self-righteous, insulting, name-calling person as I have here. This person who claims to be all knowing, completely spiritual and Christian is an embarrassment to his "faith". For him to refer to some of the women here as "Darling" and "Sweetheart" among other things, simply provides positive proof that he doesn't deserve the energy or time that has been put in here to rebuff him for his indelicate and incredibly condescending remarks.

I have a feeling that we've all been had! This is obviously some kid who is having fun getting people all riled up. He's found a subject that people have strong feelings about, used his few buzz words to push peoples' buttons and off we go. This guy, whoever he is, is certainly no intellectual. He does not deserve respect from anyone here which he obviously hasn't received. But let's cut him loose. He's a complete and utter fool.

If anyone gives him anymore time, I'm ashamed of them. We should all just be laughing at his stupidity and his proclivity to show his a$$.

Let me just sat this! If you were to carefully and hionestly examine just one biblical topic - messianic prophecy - you might feel very differently. Since I don't have the time tonight to expound on that, let just add that the mathamatical odds of a single man at a given point in history fulfilling just a handfully of the scripitual messianiac requirements, and far, far beyond the possibility of chance. Yet, Jesus not only fulfilled a handful, he fulfilled all of the hundreds of such prophecys.

The other religious books that you mentioned cannot claim and do not display devine origin, and were authore b y a single man. The Bible, however, was written by about 40 authors over aprox. 6000 years, with each writting or book neatly fitting together to form a single spiritual tapestry. The difference between the Bible and the other books is devine inspiration. Even the fact that these works have been preserved for many hundreds of years is further indication of divine intervention. As I am sure that you know, the Dead Sea Scroll showed that many of the Old Testaments Books that are part of Bible canon today, are identical to those used pre first century. The evidence of devine inspirition of the scriptures is without question upon close honest scrutiny.

Fulfilled prophesies don't impress me, since the books were written retrospectively. People so inclined who seek to find prophesy fulfillment in past events can always do it. There is still no evidence that Jesus was anything more than a popular teacher, an earthly cult leader like so many others. He had an immense impact on humanity, but then so did Genghis Khan.

So, what do you learn from all of the UNfulfilled prophesies that have come and gone over the millenia?

There will always be some left-wing kooks who make these types of claims about Jesus and many other aspects of history. You can liken them to the nut jobs who, and there are still a few around, claim that the world is flat or that we never actually landed on the moon, it was a big hoax. If the argument that Jesus never existed is the foundation of ones objection to Him, it has absolutely no merit.

If the Bible was the only record of evidence that jesus existed and did things that He did, it would be something to ponder. However, there are many other non-religious accounts of this man like, such as that of the 1st century historian Josephus! That argument has no validity.

An interesting site titled "Did a Historical Jesus Exist".

If you can't prove the man existed, you can't prove he fulfilled prophecies.

Virtually all other claims of Jesus come from sources outside of Christian writings. Devastating to the claims of Christians, however, comes from the fact that all of these accounts come from authors who lived after the alleged life of Jesus. Since they did not live during the time of the hypothetical Jesus, none of their accounts serve as eyewitness evidence.

Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E., well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Pliny the Younger, a Roman official, got born in 62 C.E. His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of the range of eyewitness accounts.

Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which got written around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E. mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu (a common name in Jewish literature) in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Jesus, according to Gerald Massey actually depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus. [Massey] Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud got written between the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion! At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian and pagan legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

The above sources get quoted the most as "evidence" for Jesus by Christians. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian), some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (cira 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - cira 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (circa 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). All these people got born well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.

As you can see, apologist Christians embarrass themselves when they unwittingly or deceptively violate the rules of historiography by using after-the-event writings as evidence for the event itself. Not one of these writers gives a source or backs up his claims with evidential material about Jesus. Although we can provide numerous reasons why the Christian and non-Christian sources prove spurious, and argue endlessly about them, we can cut to the chase by simply looking at the dates of the documents and the birth dates of the authors. It doesn't matter what these people wrote about Jesus, an author who writes after the alleged happening and gives no detectable sources for his material can only give example of hearsay. All of these anachronistic writings about Jesus could easily have come from the beliefs and stories from Christian believers themselves. And as we know from myth, superstition, and faith, beliefs do not require facts or evidence for their propagation and circulation. Thus we have only beliefs about Jesus' existence, and nothing more.

Josephus, huh?

So you explain away Josephus' account of Jesus with COULD HAVE, SOME THINK, etc. Is that the best you can do?? You consider that an intelligent argument?? Supposition is all you can offer when you have not evidience to support an outragious statement.

And you discount all the other legimate historians because the lived after Jesus died, and were not first hand witnesses?? Well Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and others WERE FIRST HAND WITNESSES but you also discount them because their first hand accounts of the life and deeds of Jesus became canon in the New Testament. Another intelligent argument!!

Historians tell us of countless people and events that took place thousands of years ago based upon recorded evidence, tradations, archaeology and other sources, so by your misguided reasoning, we should disregard all of their works because they were not contempory with the historical events and persons they report on. Hey, why don't we burn all our history books! All they contain is fairy tails. Do you realize how stupid this argument is??

Except for a few fringe nut jobs and wacko's, no one challenges that Jesus existed. His existance is accepted by all mainstream historians, but you know better. Have you joined the Flat Earth Society yet??

Josephus, huh?

ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.

If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a crime which you know you did not commit. You feel confident that no one can prove guilt because you know that there exists no evidence whatsoever for the charge against you. Now imagine that you stand present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case, everyone who takes the stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness themselves, but solely because other people said so. None of these other people, mind you, ever show up in court, nor can anyone find them.

Hearsay does not work as evidence because we have no way of knowing whether the person lies, or simply bases his or her information on wrongful belief or bias. We know from history about witchcraft trials and kangaroo courts that hearsay provides neither reliable nor fair statements of evidence. We know that mythology can arise out of no good information whatsoever. We live in a world where many people believe in demons, UFOs, ghosts, or monsters, and an innumerable number of fantasies believed as fact taken from nothing but belief and hearsay. It derives from these reasons why hearsay cannot serves as good evidence, and the same reasoning must go against the claims of a historical Jesus or any other historical person.

Authors of ancient history today, of course, can only write from indirect observation in a time far removed from their aim. But a valid historian's own writing gets cited with sources that trace to the subject themselves, or to eyewitnesses and artifacts. For example a historian today who writes about the life of George Washington, of course, can not serve as an eyewitness, but he can provide citations to documents which give personal or eyewitness accounts. None of the historians about Jesus give reliable sources to eyewitnesses, therefore all we have remains as hearsay.

THE BIBLE GOSPELS

The most "authoritative" accounts of a historical Jesus come from the four canonical Gospels of the Bible. Note that these Gospels did not come into the Bible as original and authoritative from the authors themselves, but rather from the influence of early church fathers, especially the most influential of them all: Irenaeus of Lyon who lived in the middle of the second century. Many heretical gospels got written by that time, but Irenaeus considered only some of them for mystical reasons. He claimed only four in number; according to Romer, "like the four zones of the world, the four winds, the four divisions of man's estate, and the four forms of the first living creatures-- the lion of Mark, the calf of Luke, the man of Matthew, the eagle of John (see Against the Heresies). The four gospels then became Church cannon for the orthodox faith. Most of the other claimed gospel writings were burned, destroyed, or lost." [Romer]

Elaine Pagels writes: "Although the gospels of the New Testament-- like those discovered at Nag Hammadi-- are attributed to Jesus' followers, no one knows who actually wrote any of them." [Pagels, 1995]

Not only do we not know who wrote them, consider that none of the Gospels got written during the alleged life of Jesus, nor do the unknown authors make the claim to have met an earthly Jesus. Add to this that none of the original gospel manuscripts exist; we only have copies of copies.

The consensus of many biblical historians put the dating of the earliest Gospel, that of Mark, at sometime after 70 C.E., and the last Gospel, John after 90 C.E. [Pagels, 1995; Helms]. This would make it some 40 years after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus that we have any Gospel writings that mention him! Elaine Pagels writes that "the first Christian gospel was probably written during the last year of the war, or the year it ended. Where it was written and by whom we do not know; the work is anonymous, although tradition attributes it to Mark..." [Pagels, 1995]

The traditional Church has portrayed the authors as the apostles Mark, Luke, Matthew, & John, but scholars know from critical textural research that there simply occurs no evidence that the gospel authors could have served as the apostles described in the Gospel stories. Yet even today, we hear priests and ministers describing these authors as the actual disciples of Christ. Many Bibles still continue to label the stories as "The Gospel according to St. Matthew," "St. Mark," "St. Luke," St. John." No apostle would have announced his own sainthood before the Church's establishment of sainthood. But one need not refer to scholars to determine the lack of evidence for authorship. As an experiment, imagine the Gospels without their titles. See if you can find out from the texts who wrote them; try to find their names.

Even if the texts supported the notion that the apostles wrote them, consider that the average life span of humans in the first century came to around 30, and very few people lived to 70. If the apostles births occured at about the same time as the alleged Jesus, and wrote their gospels in their old age, that would put Mark at least 70 years old, and John at over 110.

The gospel of Mark describes the first written Bible gospel. And although Mark appears deceptively after the Matthew gospel, the gospel of Mark got written at least a generation before Matthew. From its own words, we can deduce that the author of Mark had neither heard Jesus nor served as his personal follower. Whoever wrote the gospel, he simply accepted the mythology of Jesus without question and wrote a crude an ungrammatical account of the popular story at the time. Any careful reading of the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) will reveal that Mark served as the common element between Matthew and Luke and gave the main source for both of them. Of Mark's 666* verses, some 600 appear in Matthew, some 300 in Luke. According to Randel Helms, the author of Mark, stands at least at a third remove from Jesus and more likely at the fourth remove. [Helms]

* Most Bibles show 678 verses for Mark, not 666, but many Biblical scholars think the last 12 verses came later from interpolation. The earliest manuscripts and other ancient sources do not have Mark 16: 9-20. Moreover the text style does not match and the transition between verse 8 and 9 appears awkward. Even some of today's Bibles such as the NIV exclude the last 12 verses.

The author of Matthew had obviously gotten his information from Mark's gospel and used them for his own needs. He fashioned his narrative to appeal to Jewish tradition and Scripture. He improved the grammar of Mark's Gospel, corrected what he felt theologically important, and heightened the miracles and magic.

The author of Luke admits himself as an interpreter of earlier material and not an eyewitness (Luke 1:1-4). Many scholars think the author of Luke lived as a gentile, or at the very least, a hellenized Jew and even possibly a woman. He (or she) wrote at a time of tension in the Roman empire along with its fever of persecution. Many modern scholars think that the Gospel of Matthew and Luke got derived from the Mark gospel and a hypothetical document called "Q" (German Quelle, which means "source"). [Helms; Wilson] . However, since we have no manuscript from Q, no one could possibly determine its author or where or how he got his information or the date of its authorship. Again we get faced with unreliable methodology and obscure sources.

John, the last appearing Bible Gospel, presents us with long theological discourses from Jesus and could not possibly have come as literal words from a historical Jesus. The Gospel of John disagrees with events described in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Moreover the book got written in Greek near the end of the first century, and according to Bishop Shelby Spong, the book "carried within it a very obvious reference to the death of John Zebedee (John 21:23)." [spong]

Please understand that the stories themselves cannot serve as examples of eyewitness accounts since they came as products of the minds of the unknown authors, and not from the characters themselves. The Gospels describe narrative stories, written almost virtually in the third person. People who wish to portray themselves as eyewitnesses will write in the first person, not in the third person. Moreover, many of the passages attributed to Jesus could only have come from the invention of its authors. For example, many of the statements of Jesus claim to have come from him while allegedly alone. If so, who heard him? It becomes even more marked when the evangelists report about what Jesus thought. To whom did Jesus confide his thoughts? Clearly, the Gospels employ techniques that fictional writers use. In any case the Gospels can only serve, at best, as hearsay, and at worst, as fictional, mythological, or falsified stories.

From http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm.

Except for a few fringe nut jobs and wacko's, no one challenges that Jesus existed. His existance is accepted by all mainstream historians, but you know better. Have you joined the Flat Earth Society yet??

The "Holy Qur'an" does not challenge the existence of Jesus. The "Holy Qur'an" equates Moses, Noah and Jesus as people sent by God to teach the people of their time the constant rules of how God wants his children to behave. Martin Luther King Jr. also did that and led my example as all the others mentioned did. They were all great men, and their greatness did not depend on any of them being a Deity or a son of a Deity, although we are all sons (or daughters) of a Deity.

BJean,

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and yet, like some others here, seem to have a need to attack me personally, rather than considering weather the issues being discuss are worthy of merit or not.

You think me condesending because I addressed someone as "Darling" yet you don't mention others calling me "Putz? amoung other things. Hve you considered how that person addressed me?? Does not seem like an even playing field here.

I make no apoligies for defending and /or sharing my faith, perhaps in a spirited way. I have presented theological evidence for many of the things that I wrote about, asked for evidence for positions expressed by others, and when none could be offered, have been attacked primarily by a multitude of folks who proudly proclaim to be athiests. That is their right, but allow me the same right to proclaim what I believe, and if attacked, to respond in an aggressive manner. I may have indicated that some of the arguments or lack of arguments that were directed at me were stupid or lacking of merit, but I have not knowingly directed my remarks toward anyone character. The same can not be said of many others here.

BJean,

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and yet, like some others here, seem to have a need to attack me personally, rather than considering weather the issues being discuss are worthy of merit or not.

You think me condesending because I addressed someone as "Darling" yet you don't mention others calling me "Putz? amoung other things. Hve you considered how that person addressed me?? Does not seem like an even playing field here.

I make no apoligies for defending and /or sharing my faith, perhaps in a spirited way. I have presented theological evidence for many of the things that I wrote about, asked for evidence for positions expressed by others, and when none could be offered, have been attacked primarily by a multitude of folks who proudly proclaim to be athiests. That is their right, but allow me the same right to proclaim what I believe, and if attacked, to respond in an aggressive manner. I may have indicated that some of the arguments or lack of arguments that were directed at me were stupid or lacking of merit, but I have not knowingly directed my remarks toward anyone character. The same can not be said of many others here.

Did Jesus teach to respond to an aggressive manner with more aggression, or was "turning the other cheek" something made up by a religious zealot?

That is their right, but allow me the same right to proclaim what I believe, and if attacked, to respond in an aggressive manner.

Back at ya, bud.

BOTH! Jesus did teach to "turn the other cheek", but He also reacted with anger at the money changers when they were diseacreating the temple. This was righteous indignation which has it's place with Christian witness and practice. My aggression has been directed at what I consider to be an assualt against my faith, but I have not reacted with aggression against the many assualts against my person, nor will I. I perhaps have labeled some arguments and comments as stupid or unfounded, but I have never assailed the person offering them.

Did Jesus teach to respond to an aggressive manner with more aggression, or was "turning the other cheek" something made up by a religious zealot?

BOTH! Jesus did teach to "turn the other cheek", but He also reacted with anger at the money changers when they were diseacreating the temple. This was righteous indignation which has it's place with Christian witness and practice. My aggression has been directed at what I consider to be an assualt against my faith, but I have not reacted with aggression against the many assualts against my person, nor will I. I perhaps have labeled some arguments and comments as stupid or unfounded, but I have never assailed the person offering them.

Telling someone that you feel like you are in Sodom while here, saying that atheists came crawling out of the woodwork, and comparing some with "thieves, liars, murderers and yes, even bigots", sounds like assailing to me.

The Anger of Jesus shown while money changers were desecrating a temple does not equate with your abusive innuendo while debating on-line.

I have abused no one here! This whole this started when I asked the moderator about her seld-proclaimed tital of "token athiest" and why she came to believe there was no God. In no time at all, many other athiets came crawling out of the woodwork and I found myself having to defend my beliefs and the tenents of Christianity. And yet, I never cried that I was abused. It's interesting that you feel that way. Kind of like the pot calling the kettle black, so to speak!

OK for starters, those who "came crawling out of the woodwork" are all people who have been here much longer then you. So they didn't really crawl out of anywhere. Second, not everyone here challenging you are atheists. And third, you were the one who made an issue of your faith and your beliefs. I think you get a charge out of feeling like a poor persecuted Christian.

Here is an portion of an interview that Richard Dawkins, the author of The God Delusion did.

TM: Could you address a couple of reactions that I see in the media, either to atheism, in general, or to you and your book? One, people ask why are atheists so angry?

RD: That's a very curious misperception. We get accused of being angry or of being intolerant, but, if you were to look at critiques of one political party by the other... when Democrats criticize Republicans, or Republicans criticize Democrats, nobody ever says, "You're being intolerant of Republicans, or angry." It's just normal, robust argument.

People have gotten so used to the idea that religion must be immune to criticism that even a very mild and gentle criticism of religion comes across as angry and intolerant. That's yet another piece of consciousness raising that we've got to undertake.

TM: You and others are accused of being arrogant, condescending. What would you say to that?

RD: Exactly the same thing. Nobody says that a Democrat who dismisses Republican ideas is arrogant. They just assume that's what politicians do. They attack each other's ideas with good, robust give and take. That's exactly what people like me and Sam Harris are doing with respect to religion. Once again, the accusation of arrogance comes about because religion has acquired this weird protection that you're not allowed to criticize.