home
RSS
The pastor who shaped Hillary Clinton's politics
Hillary Rodham Clinton with the Rev. Don Jones, a pastor who had a lasting influence on her politics.
April 25th, 2014
01:43 PM ET

The pastor who shaped Hillary Clinton's politics

By Dan Merica, CNN

Washington (CNN) – In the spring of 1962, Martin Luther King Jr. was one of the most controversial men in America. One night in Chicago's Orchestra Hall after delivering a stirring speech on civil rights and the future of America, he shook hands with a standout 15-year-old with conservative parents, Hillary Rodham.

More than 50 years later, the moment still resonates profoundly with Clinton, who has had an illustrious political career and could again seek to make history as the first woman president.

"Probably my great privilege as a young woman was going to hear Dr. Martin Luther King speak," Clinton said earlier this year at an event at the University of Miami. "I sat on the edge of my seat as this preacher challenged us to participate in the cause of justice, not to slumber while the world changed around us. And that made such an impression on me."

Clinton has traced much of her life in politics and activism to King's words that night. But there was another minister, not famous like King, who also influenced her views on social justice and stoked an intensity for action.

Don Jones was the Methodist youth pastor who organized the trip of like-minded teens to see King, and mentored her for the rest of his life.

"Don opened up a new world to me," Clinton said in 2009, the year he died, "and helped guide me on a spiritual, social and political journey of over 40 years."

FULL STORY

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Christianity • Hillary Clinton • Methodist • Politics

soundoff (205 Responses)
  1. bostontola

    1. Jesus' death by crucifixion.

    "One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate." – Bart Ehrman quote shown in his debate with Michael Liconia ("Ehrman vs. Licona (2009)") on YouTube.

    That statement by Dr. Ehrman is hyperbolic. While it is likely that a Jewish eschatological speaker that was crucified, it is very far from one of the most certain facts of history. Facts: there are precious few first hand recordings of the Jesus events by professional historians. Thousands of other events have that, Jesus is captured in nth hand hearsay.

    2. Appearances to the Disciples

    This is short for saying that shortly after Jesus's death, a number of Jesus's followers had experiences both individually and in group settings that they perceived were of the risen Jesus who appeared to them.

    "Why, then, did some of the disciples claim to see Jesus alive after his resurrection? I don't doubt at all that some disciples claimed this. We don't have any of their written testimony, but Paul, writing about twenty-five years later, indicates that this is what they claimed, and I don't think he is making it up. And he knew at least a couple of them, whom he met just three years after the event Galatians 1:18-19)." – from Bart Ehrman's book, Jesus Interrupted

    Hearsay.

    3. Appearance to Paul

    Short for saying that Paul had an experience that he perceived was of the risen Jesus appearing to him.

    ""there is no doubt that [Paul] believed that he saw Jesus' real but glorified body raised from the dead."
    - Bart Ehrman quote shown in his debate with Michael Liconia ("Ehrman vs. Licona (2009)") on YouTube.

    Again, Dr. Ehrman is expressing his opinion. To say there is no doubt is hyperbole.

    April 27, 2014 at 9:54 am |
    • Akira

      To me, it should be emphasized thusly:

      "“”there is no doubt that [Paul] believedthat he saw Jesus’ real but glorified body raised from the dead.”

      I don't doubt he believed it, either. Without that, all of the Paulian writings would rather fall apart...

      April 27, 2014 at 2:09 pm |
    • Akira

      I also find it odd that tf would find nothing wrong taking something out of context to support her position, yet takes umbrage when people take verses out of the Bible in the same manner to support theirs.

      April 27, 2014 at 5:17 pm |
      • bostontola

        I wonder if hypocrisy is a Christian virtue.

        April 27, 2014 at 5:46 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Hypocrisy for them is not a virtue as much as it is a trademark. They need it in order to survive their mass delusion.

          April 27, 2014 at 5:59 pm |
        • Akira

          Not sure about that, but it seems to be one of tf's virtues. If you can call it that.

          April 27, 2014 at 10:58 pm |
    • StevePage

      And so the anti-Christ appears at yet another Christian blog intent on wooing others to go with him to hell. I pray the Lord has mercy on you.

      April 28, 2014 at 7:47 pm |
  2. Reality

    But where would HC be without that zipper-down Billy "Boy"? Just another hick lawyer from Arkansas !!! Time to cleanse Washington of all the Texas and Arkansas power-playing families !!!

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    April 27, 2014 at 12:10 am |
  3. Doris

    @Russ: you should understand that Ehrman's agnosticism comes from far more than copying errors. Ehrman's various presentations go a long way to show there is more than enough reason to be highly skeptical of available NT writings as being able to prove or even suggest a high probability that supernatural events took place.

    @truthf: again, you're obviously attempting to color Bart's view to meet your beliefs. Bart agreeing that he thinks Paul's claims are sincere do not make a likely historical case that he experienced something supernatural. You conveniently left that argument from Ehrman out. That Ehrman agrees that there were most likely claims that a risen Christ appeared to others again does not make a likely historical case that a supernatural event occurred. Ehrman, of course, has pointed this out numerous times.

    truthf: "Bart's stance on the information in Corinthians 15:3-7 being one year from the cross."

    What stance? I believe, with regard to this, you mentioned that Bart places a creed from Corinth. as being one year from the cross? That's not much information in the way of evidence for an alleged supernatural event. I doubt seriously Bart would call this any kind of "stance".

    April 26, 2014 at 5:24 pm |
    • Doris

      This was a reply for just below which I have copied.

      April 26, 2014 at 5:26 pm |
    • truthfollower01

      Doris,

      It shows that resurrection data was extremely early. What you need to do is tell why those who sincerely believed they'd seen the risen Jesus were mistaken. Why do you think they came to sincerely believe this?

      April 26, 2014 at 7:50 pm |
      • Akira

        Where are the written accounts from these witnesses? Can you link those for me? Thanks.

        April 26, 2014 at 10:39 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Akita,

          In case you are unfamiliar with the past conversation, below is some of the info.

          In a debate between Bart Ehrman and Michael Licona, 3 facts are given pertaining to Jesus's fate and what occurred afterward that nearly 100% of all scholars studying this subject at the time of the debate accepted. This includes Christians, Jews, agnostics and atheists.

          1. Jesus' death by crucifixion.

          "One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate." – Bart Ehrman quote shown in his debate with Michael Liconia ("Ehrman vs. Licona (2009)") on YouTube.

          2. Appearances to the Disciples

          This is short for saying that shortly after Jesus's death, a number of Jesus's followers had experiences both individually and in group settings that they perceived were of the risen Jesus who appeared to them.

          "Why, then, did some of the disciples claim to see Jesus alive after his resurrection? I don't doubt at all that some disciples claimed this. We don't have any of their written testimony, but Paul, writing about twenty-five years later, indicates that this is what they claimed, and I don't think he is making it up. And he knew at least a couple of them, whom he met just three years after the event Galatians 1:18-19)." – from Bart Ehrman's book, Jesus Interrupted

          3. Appearance to Paul

          Short for saying that Paul had an experience that he perceived was of the risen Jesus appearing to him.

          ""there is no doubt that [Paul] believed that he saw Jesus' real but glorified body raised from the dead."
          - Bart Ehrman quote shown in his debate with Michael Liconia ("Ehrman vs. Licona (2009)") on YouTube.

          April 27, 2014 at 7:29 am |
        • Doris

          truthf: "3 facts are given pertaining to Jesus's fate..."

          3 facts are not given. Bart and many NT scholars agree that a man named Jesus existed and was crucified. Although Bart believes that Paul is sincere in his writings (the earliest of which are decades after Jesus' death) regarding the claims for himself and others, Bart does not believe there is sufficient evidence to verify the claims of after-death appearances of said Jesus. Your reply does not address Akira's question, truthf. Paul's claims, written decades later, are no secret. I believe Akira's question was regarding witnesses that would help explain what you termed "resurrection data was extremely early".

          Also, truthf, you keep mentioning agreement on your three "facts" to include Jewish and atheist scholars. Please reference an atheist scholar and a Jewish scholar who show why they accept your "facts".

          April 27, 2014 at 9:26 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Iga,

          "You are concerned with the minutiae of the circu.mstances. If I concede your three points, since they do not matter anyway, it does not change the fact that you do not know happened."

          What do you propose to account for the data?

          April 27, 2014 at 10:52 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          follower....how about people making up things in order to further their agenda? Couldn't be....that's never happened before. Once again...if you have verifiable proof that there is a god, please produce it. Remember....verifiable proof, and not a bunch of made up stories in a 2000 year old book.

          April 27, 2014 at 10:58 am |
        • igaftr

          What "data"? You have a story. Jesus likely existed. He likely was crucified. Whether or not he died there or not, or what happened after the alleged crucifiction is part of a story, legend...there is no "data"...only a story.

          April 27, 2014 at 10:59 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Doris,

          "Bart does not believe there is sufficient evidence to verify the claims of after-death appearances of said Jesus."

          This is not the question. This is amazing! Is the cost of agreeing with the three statements (if you're more comfortable with that) AS presented to high for you?

          April 27, 2014 at 11:06 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Gullible,

          Do you believe people make up stories and them suffer and/or die for something they KNOW is a lie?

          April 27, 2014 at 11:39 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          follower.....I don't believe that jesus died for anybody's sins, so that is a moot question. I do know, however, that Nelson Mandela spent 27 years in prison for what he believed in. I know that Martin Luther King was killed for what he believed in. And I know of many, many others that died as a result of being a political prisoner, just like Jesus (if he really existed) did. Jesus is no different than any other person that died for a cause.

          April 27, 2014 at 12:02 pm |
        • igaftr

          belief follower

          You are misrepresenting what is said, and what is inferred.

          You claim DEATH by crucifiction...all that is agreed is that the crucifiction was ordered. You do not know if it was actually carried out, and you do not know if he died there.

          point 2 is NOT evidence of anything. It says some people "experienced" things...nothing verifiable, so the only fact is that they reported the experience...not verification of the claims of the reports...only the reports themselves are being accepted.

          point 3 acknowledges the report only. It does not accept the validity of the claim

          You are going a long way down a dead end, and misrepresenting what is accepted and what is not.

          We accept that the crucifiction was ordered. you do not know what happened, if it was carried out, if he died there..anything...all you know is that it was ordered.

          as far as the other two points, we accept that those reports were made, but cannot accept the validity of the claims.

          Do you have anything of substance or are you going to keep chasing smoke?

          April 27, 2014 at 11:42 am |
        • Doris

          @truthf: Of course it's not proof, but it's reasonable to think, as Bart indicates, that claims were made. Big deal. We can all go ourselves and read Paul and see the claims right there. So what? That they should be historical evidence for something that should require extraordinary evidence is another matter. That you have painted Bart's opinion about Paul's writing as "data" to support your belief, when in my opinion, there is no data. Why talk about some agreement of "near 100%.." of scholars agreeing on your points if you're only indicating that Paul has made claims? So what? Anyone can read Paul and see that he made claims.

          The problem is that you are leaving out the more important aspects of Ehrman's presentations – that there are important reasons not to believe there is any historical basis for the supernatural claims made in the NT.

          April 27, 2014 at 12:15 pm |
        • Akira

          I'm aware of this circular conversation, tooth.

          Doris captured it when she said: "I believe Akira’s question was regarding witnesses that would help explain what you termed “resurrection data was extremely early."

          Where is the link? Who are these witnesses?

          April 27, 2014 at 2:02 pm |
        • StevePage

          John was an eyewitness and wrote about it. Peter was an eyewitness as well and testified that Jesus rose from the dead.

          April 28, 2014 at 7:54 pm |
      • truthfollower01

        Doris
        What data? A creed commonly known to some people? Is that your "data" – your evidence?

        April 26, 2014 at 11:10 pm |
        truthfollower01
        The resurrection appearances were extremely early, not generations removed from the event. Again, what you need to do is tell why those who sincerely believed they'd seen the risen Jesus were mistaken. Why do you think they came to sincerely believe this? Are you dodging this?

        April 27, 2014 at 7:31 am |

        April 27, 2014 at 7:32 am |
        • Doris

          truthf: "The resurrection appearances were extremely early, not generations removed from the event. Again, what you need to do is tell why those who sincerely believed they'd seen the risen Jesus were mistaken. Why do you think they came to sincerely believe this? Are you dodging this?"

          You really don't seem to understand. I'm not arguing that Paul alleges claims in his writings. That's what Bart agrees with. But when it comes to the likelihood that those claims can be seen as historic events, they fail. Bart also discusses that in his various presentations where he explains how historians use available data against various types of claims. Also, you are claiming as association between something Paul wrote where he makes an association to something within a year after the cross. It's still simply claims made by Paul and it's still something that was not recorded until many years later.

          And I'm not dodging anything. As Akira had asked – give us some names and writings of alleged witnesses that Paul speaks of and we can then address the likelihood that anything from that can help make a historical case for the resurrection. If there is no evidence to back up the claim of witnesses then there is nothing to dodge. Your reply to Akira shows that you are the one dodging.

          April 27, 2014 at 8:38 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Doris,

          Let's clear the air before going any further. I'll put this straight to you. Do you or do you not agree with the three statements as presented? Bart Ehrman agrees with these. Do you or do you not?

          April 27, 2014 at 9:15 am |
        • igaftr

          belief follower.
          Since none of the reports can be verified, you do not know if Jesus was actually dead, you do not now if it was a trick, you do not know what happened. You have a story from a book.
          Nothing you say will change the FACT that you have nothing that can be verified. Arguing the minutiae is pointless, since you have nothing but hearsay and uncorroberable "testimony".

          The truth is, you have no idea what happened, if ANY of the story is true or not, and if parts are true, how much is true, and which parts.

          One thing is certain, if Jesus existed, we have no evidence supporting either the death on the cross (alleged) or the even more alleged "resurresction".

          April 27, 2014 at 9:21 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Iga,

          I'm flabbergasted concerning all of the misconceptions in your post.

          The fact that you question Jesus' existence is fringe scholarship at its best. This may be something you'd hear on a popular level, but scholars as I've indicated are nearly unanimous on this subject. Even John Dominic Crossan says, "“That he [Jesus] was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”
          - Skeptical scholar John Dominic Crossan, “Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography” pg.145"

          Do you believe any of ancient history? Do you believe Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great existed?

          April 27, 2014 at 9:37 am |
        • igaftr

          Belief follower
          the point is, whether or not the man existed, you still have nothing verifying he actually dies, nor any "resurrection". You do not know, since NOTHING CAN BE VERIFED about the supernatural claims. George Washington existed, but there are MANY false legends surrounding him as well.

          Even if he was crucified, you do not know if he died then, or not...nothing verifiable.

          April 27, 2014 at 9:57 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          iga....they have no verifiable evidence that, even if Jesus did exist, he was the son of god. They have no verifiable evidence in pretty much everything in the bible, but that is not stopping them from making outlandishly unprovable claims about eternal life.

          April 27, 2014 at 10:10 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Iga and Gullible,

          Do you believe the 3 facts that nearly 100 percent of scholars (including Bart Ehrman) agreed with as presented above?

          April 27, 2014 at 10:18 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          follower....you worded that wrong. A fact is not a fact unless it is verifiable. And, exactly what scholars are you referring to that believe this nonsense with no proof? Theological scholars?

          April 27, 2014 at 10:21 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          follower....I forgot to answer your question. My answer is....absolutely not. People have made up stories about far less in order to push their agenda's forward. I refuse to believe in hearsay. I really need proof of something before I jump into a life changing experience like you have. If you have proof, present it. If not, you really need to stop pushing such a bizarre fairly tale.

          April 27, 2014 at 10:26 am |
        • igaftr

          belief follower
          What I am saying is NONE of your three points say anything to the validity of the claim of death or resurrection. Those thinga cannot be verified, so your three points are completely moot.

          You are concerned with the minutiae of the circu.mstances. If I concede your three points, since they do not matter anyway, it does not change the fact that you do not know happened. You do not know if Jesus died or not, you do not know what happened after that. There is no evidence to see, nothing to verify.
          Your three pionts are pointless. Why you latch on to things that are completely moot I have no idea.

          April 27, 2014 at 10:29 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          iga....he is doing nothing different than every religious nut I've ever seen. They want to believe so badly, either because their current life sucks (half of my family) or they have been indoctrinated at an early age and don't want to admit they have been wasting their time for years believing such nonsense (the other half of my family), so they latch onto crazy notions with no proof and convince themselves that it is real. The odd thing....if David Copperfield were to proclaim that he is the second coming of Jesus (he did make the statue of liberty disappear) those same nut jobs would insist on lots and lots of proof. A strange lot, those people.

          April 27, 2014 at 10:36 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Gullible,

          Do you not know who Bart Ehrman is? The one Doris posts videos of? You need to do some research.

          April 27, 2014 at 10:36 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          follower....thank you for confirming what I suspected....you are a condescending jerk. Of course I know who Ehrman is. I just don't happen to fall for anything that anybody says without proof! Unlike you, I need something other than one 'scholar' telling me something is true. He has no more cognitive powers than I do, regardless of his education.

          April 27, 2014 at 10:41 am |
        • truthfollower01

          "I just don't happen to fall for anything that anybody says without proof!"

          Are you insinuating that Bart Ehrman, possibly the leading New Testament critic in the world does?

          April 27, 2014 at 10:48 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          follower....yep.

          April 27, 2014 at 10:49 am |
        • igaftr

          belief follower.
          You are trying out the logic fallacy "argument from authority". Which does not work.
          You are taking what Bart Erhman says and are trying to twist it into something it is not. He concedes that Jesus likely existed. he also concedes he was likely crucified. He cannot say with any certainty to those things. that is as far as he goes anyway. He does not know if jesus actually died on the cross, and he does not know what happened after the alleged death. No one does. There are only unconfirmable stories, and it is extremely unlikely what you have in your book coincides with what may have actually happened.

          Ypur points are moot...you still have no evidence of the supernatural claims...none. And it does not matter what any scholar says...no evidence is no evidence.

          April 27, 2014 at 10:55 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Iga,

          "You are concerned with the minutiae of the circu.mstances. If I concede your three points, since they do not matter anyway, it does not change the fact that you do not know happened."

          What do you propose to account for the data?

          April 27, 2014 at 10:52 am |

          April 27, 2014 at 10:55 am |
        • igaftr

          What "data"?
          data refers to facts, so what of your story is actual fact?
          Jesus likely existed...never proven, so not a fact.
          Jesus was likely cricified...not verifiable, so again, not a fact.

          Everything after that, and even the events leading up to and surrounding the story, are all unverifiable, so you have no data.

          April 27, 2014 at 11:04 am |
        • Doris

          Actually, Bart is quite honest about previously wanting to believe so badly. But in his quest to learn as much as possible about any evidence supporting the supernatural aspects of the NT, he discovered not only a lacking of verifiable evidence, but a vast history of NT copying errors, added text, seemingly intentional modifications, etc. I'm pretty sure that Bart does not claim any "facts" regarding resurrection. He is an agnotic after all. In fact, he has made several presentations to show that the resurrection is highly unlikely. truthf attempts to show when Bart is speaking to the consistency or sincerity of Paul's writings, that this somehow verifies the claims made by alleged witnesses that Paul claims.

          truthf goes a long way to make a case supporting evidence for the supernatural aspects of the NT, carefully injecting terms like "facts" and "perceived", and sometimes interchanging those terms when challenged on them.

          April 27, 2014 at 11:10 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Doris....follower has a definite misunderstanding of the word 'fact'. He is unable to distinguish between the words 'fact' and 'conjecture' and frequently interchanges one for the other. He just wants to believe so bad that he, like every other religious nut I know, is looking for any bit of evangelical help he can find. But...no evidence and no proof are still the earmarks of the god that they are trying to prove so heartily exists.

          April 27, 2014 at 11:15 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Iga,

          If Bart Ehrman and the majority of scholars agree on something, I'd say there is really convincing evidence to support this.

          April 27, 2014 at 11:14 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          follower....earlier you said that 100 percent of scholars believe what you are spouting, but you never really pointed out who these scholars are, except to mention Ehrman. Are these biblical scholars you are referring to? Because 96% of the worlds true scholars (you know, actual scientists) don't believe the bible at all.

          April 27, 2014 at 11:20 am |
        • igaftr

          Again, argument from authority.

          Also, what part are you saying is correct?

          there is still nothing showing jesus actually died on the cross, or was "resurrected. You do not knwo what actually happened.
          Stop trying to misrepresent those you are attempting to cite from your argument from authority aain.

          Serious question. Have you ever heard of logic?

          April 27, 2014 at 11:22 am |
        • Doris

          truthf: "If Bart Ehrman and the majority of scholars agree on something, I'd say there is really convincing evidence to support this."

          (the "this" truthf is speaking of is that, based primarily on Paul's writings, it appears that there were claims; as others have pointed out, nothing that is verifiable; also that Ehrman considers not capable of being verified based on the "data" available)

          April 27, 2014 at 11:35 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Gullible,

          They are referred to as "facts" in the debate between Bart and Michael Licona.

          Fact:

          1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
          2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
          3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.

          From dictionary.com

          April 27, 2014 at 11:35 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Ken Ham, in his debate with Bill Nye referred to the story of Noah's ark as a 'fact'. Of course, just proclaiming something as a fact does not indeed make it a fact.

          April 27, 2014 at 11:59 am |
        • truthfollower01

          "follower....earlier you said that 100 percent of scholars believe what you are spouting, but you never really pointed out who these scholars are, except to mention Ehrman. Are these biblical scholars you are referring to? Because 96% of the worlds true scholars (you know, actual scientists) don't believe the bible at all."

          Please read the initial opening statement.

          April 27, 2014 at 11:37 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Doris,

          "Bart does not believe there is sufficient evidence to verify the claims of after-death appearances of said Jesus."

          This is not the question. This is amazing! Is the cost of agreeing with the three statements (if you're more comfortable with that) AS presented to high for you?

          April 27, 2014 at 11:40 am |
        • MidwestKen

          @truthfollower01,

          My understanding is that most historians agree on three main things about Jesus, as far as historians can judge. Jesus existed, he preached/gathered disciples, he was crucified. The reported appearances on the other hand are less assured.

          In addition, even if all historians agreed that the disciples all claim to have experienced a resurrected Jesus, that does nothing to support an actual resurrection.

          Furthermore, it is not the responsibility of your opponents to rationalize "why" such claims would be made. Asking 'how else do you explain...' is just a variation on an argument from ignorance

          April 27, 2014 at 11:55 am |
        • MidwestKen

          Sorry, it was Jesus' baptism, not preaching, that is nearly universal.

          April 27, 2014 at 12:07 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Ken,

          If you do not believe that the believers witnessed a resurrected Jesus, what's the alternative you put forth to explain the data?

          April 27, 2014 at 2:07 pm |
        • igaftr

          belief follower
          You do not have data, and your "witnesses" are quite suspect. Offering alternative possibilities does nothing for the validity of the supernatural claims, and speculating on alternatives is moot.
          You have nothing showing Jesus actually died on the cross, and you do not know what actually happened. There is nothing but a story.

          April 27, 2014 at 2:10 pm |
        • Akira

          WHAT DATA?

          You have not presented any data. I keep reading your posts, and you keep repeating things you cannot back up. Is that your data? And I'm not going to go on another scavenger hunt for answers, so just state your data as requested.
          You Bart Ehrman post isn't data, btw.

          April 27, 2014 at 2:25 pm |
        • Vic

          Just noticed this thread from the end without following it. Judging from the few replies I saw, I believe the following is pertinent:

          "There is more evidence for the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ than for just about any other event in history."

          Dr. Simon Greenleaf
          Former Professor of Law at Harvard University

          Dr. Greenleaf used the laws of legal evidence to arrive at the above quoted conclusion.

          Quick Reference:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimony_of_the_Evangelists
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Greenleaf

          April 27, 2014 at 2:42 pm |
        • igaftr

          Vic.
          He is wrong. Plain and simple. There is no evidence of any "resurrection". There is no confirmation that Jesus died on the cross, nor for anything around those circ.umstances.
          Your statement is simply false.

          April 27, 2014 at 2:47 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          @truthfollower01,
          The rest of the descriptions in the Bible?

          Ultimately, I don't know what happened. That being said anything from fraud to misunderstandings to wishful thinking to self-delusion to other explanations are possibilities.

          April 27, 2014 at 2:48 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          @Vic,
          Ancient Doc.uments in law are generally doc.uments related to disposition of property, e.g. wills and such, and doesn't seem appropriate in the case of the Bible. In for no other reason than there is no original "Ancient Doc.ument".

          "By admitting an ancient docu[]ment into evidence, it is presumed only that the doc[]ument is what it purports to be, but there are no presumptions about the truth of the doc[]ument's contents. A jury can still decide that the author of the doc[]ument was lying or mistaken when the author wrote it." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_docREMOVEument)

          April 27, 2014 at 3:07 pm |
        • Akira

          Wait, wait...this is the data you're talking about? "The resurrection appearances were extremely early, not generations removed from the event."
          Of course they said it happened right after the event! Who has said otherwise?
          They were written about decades after.

          So again, please post where I can find the written accounts of all of these witnesses.

          Thank you.

          April 27, 2014 at 5:06 pm |
      • nclaw441

        And "sincerely believe" means that they were willing to be cruelly mistreated and executed because of that belief. If they did not truly and sincerely believe in Christ's resurrection they would never have been willing to endure the agony they endured.

        April 28, 2014 at 7:28 am |
        • Akira

          Many people have died for what they sincerely believe. That doesn't make what they sincerely believe necessarily what actually happened. This is, by far, one of the weakest arguments.

          April 28, 2014 at 11:17 am |
  4. flightfromfrostmtn

    If you know anything about Hillary Clinton, you would realize she is as hard nosed and connected as anyone in Washington.
    From 86 to 92 she sat on Walmart's board while a extremely antiunion campaign was waged. In 93 Bill pushed many tariffs out of the way for China for Walmart and threw his weight behind their full membership in the WTO. As you may have noticed, things haven't exactly worked out for the US since Walmart really took off. We have Hillary and Bill to thank for setting the stage for the gutting of American manufacturing and the loss of protections for the American worker. Republican, Democrat....two sides of the same coin.

    Gender shouldn't matter...but you have mindless fools who will vote for her just because she is a woman, completely unaware of what she has done in her career.

    April 26, 2014 at 3:29 pm |
    • observer

      flightfromfrostmtn,

      It's not exactly the same coin. One party is complaining that too much in taxes is paid by executives like the guy getting $95 million to NOT run a company.

      April 26, 2014 at 5:12 pm |
      • flightfromfrostmtn

        I view it as a good cop/bad cop situation. The republicans are blatant in their motives for the most part, they openly represent the wealthy when they push things too far in come the democrats to at least give us peons a few scraps.

        the whole system operates like a pressure cooker – controlling public anger – we switch between the two parties accordingly.

        If we ever switched to a true democracy – any US citizen 18 and over gets a vote with no special interests or corporations interfering, this nation would fight less wars, our people would get better pay and be at the very least on even footing with foreign interests within our own borders. And just maybe we could detach the bankers (The Fed) from the Treasury.

        April 26, 2014 at 5:35 pm |
  5. Doris

    David Wood destroyed by Bart Ehrman

    Bart Ehrman, from the video [regarding the Gospel of Mark]: "These lots and lots of copies are from many centuries after Mark was written. How could we know that these copies stemmed from a correct copy, instead of an errant copy? Our earliest ones are all highly errant."

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-IG05dQ88Y&w=640&h=390]
    Published 04-14-2014

    NT scholar Bart Ehrman holds a PhD from Princeton Theological Seminary (magna cum laude). He is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He currently serves as co-editor of the series New Testament Tools, Studies, and Documents (E. J. Brill), co-editor-in-chief for the journal Vigiliae Christianae, and on several other editorial boards for journals and monographs.
    .

    April 26, 2014 at 2:51 pm |
    • Russ

      @ Doris: from his review of Ehrman's "Forged" (2011)...

      "In the final analysis, 'Forged' is a book with a mix of positives and negatives. Ehrman’s helpful overview of the various kinds of early Christian forgeries and his excellent treatment of early Christian views of pseudepigraphy are bright spots in this volume. However, Ehrman’s level of confidence that the NT definitely contains forgeries is not commensurate with the arguments he puts forth to prove that thesis. In this regard, he regularly goes beyond what the evidence can sustain. For this reason the book, like many of his others, comes across as more autobiographical than academic; more polemical than historical. Ehrman still seems to be chasing the ghosts of his evangelical past. One wonders how many more books he will need to write before they go away."

      -Michael J. Kruger

      http://thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/review/forged_writing_in_the_name_of_godwhy_the_bibles_authors_are_not_who_we

      April 26, 2014 at 3:37 pm |
    • Russ

      @ Doris: similarly...

      "How do we distinguish the original text from textual changes or corruptions? Can this even be done?

      Ehrman would suggest it cannot. The reason for his skepticism is that the copies we posses are "error-ridden" and contain "thousands" of differences. In other words, the manuscripts are in such poor shape, so full of corruptions, that no methodology could extract the original text from them.

      Again, this is a vast overstatement. While there are certainly many, many textual differences (hundreds of thousands, in fact), the key point is that the vast majority of these scribal changes are minor and insignificant—e.g., spelling mistakes, use of synonyms, and word-order changes. In the end, these do not substantively change the meaning of the text."

      - Michael Kruger

      http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/05/15/the-difference-between-original-autographs-and-original-texts/

      April 26, 2014 at 3:40 pm |
    • truthfollower01

      Doris,

      You seem to think highly of Bart Ehrman. Remember the three points that I've referenced multiple times that Bart agrees with. Remember Bart's stance on the information in Corinthians 15:3-7 being one year from the cross. You should watch the debate between Bart Ehrman and Michael Liconaif you haven't already.

      April 26, 2014 at 4:51 pm |
    • Doris

      @Russ: you should understand that Ehrman's agnosticism comes from far more than copying errors. Ehrman's various presentations go a long way to show there is more than enough reason to be highly skeptical of available NT writings as being able to prove or even suggest a high probability that supernatural events took place.

      @truthf: again, you're obviously attempting to color Bart's view to meet your beliefs. Bart agreeing that he thinks Paul's claims are sincere do not make a likely historical case that he experienced something supernatural. You conveniently left that argument from Ehrman out. That Ehrman agrees that there were most likely claims that a risen Christ appeared to others again does not make a likely historical case that a supernatural event occurred. Ehrman, of course, has pointed this out numerous times.

      truthf: "Bart's stance on the information in Corinthians 15:3-7 being one year from the cross."

      What stance? I believe, with regard to this, you mentioned that Bart places a creed from Corinth. as being one year from the cross? That's not much information in the way of evidence for an alleged supernatural event. I doubt seriously Bart would call this any kind of "stance".

      April 26, 2014 at 5:25 pm |
      • truthfollower01

        Doris,

        It shows that resurrection data was extremely early. What you need to do is tell why those who sincerely believed they'd seen the risen Jesus were mistaken. Why do you think they came to sincerely believe this?

        April 26, 2014 at 7:19 pm |
        • Doris

          What data? A creed commonly known to some people? Is that your "data" – your evidence?

          April 26, 2014 at 11:10 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          The resurrection appearances were extremely early, not generations removed from the event. Again, what you need to do is tell why those who sincerely believed they'd seen the risen Jesus were mistaken. Why do you think they came to sincerely believe this? Are you dodging this?

          April 27, 2014 at 7:31 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          follower....they firmly believed because they both wanted and needed to believe. It's the same reason that some nuts believe they've seen Jesus riding rainbow ponies in heaven when they have operations. And probably the same reason you believe...because some coincidence happened in your life that made you think it was divinely inspired, or because you had some vision in your imagination that convinced you it was real, when in reality, it was just your imagination.

          April 27, 2014 at 10:16 am |
        • Akira

          were extremely early, not generations removed from the event.

          This is proof of exactly nothing.
          They were written about decades after the event.

          Again, you need to provide the link to these written witness accounts of the people who saw the risen Jesus. Because thus far, you haven't provided any.

          April 28, 2014 at 11:23 am |
      • Doris

        truthf: "The resurrection appearances were extremely early, not generations removed from the event. Again, what you need to do is tell why those who sincerely believed they'd seen the risen Jesus were mistaken. Why do you think they came to sincerely believe this? Are you dodging this?"

        You really don't seem to understand. I'm not arguing that Paul alleges claims in his writings. That's what Bart agrees with. But when it comes to the likelihood that those claims can be seen as historic events, they fail. Bart also discusses that in his various presentations where he explains how historians use available data against various types of claims. Also, you are claiming as association between something Paul wrote where he makes an association to something within a year after the cross. It's still simply claims made by Paul and it's still something that was not recorded until many years later.

        And I'm not dodging anything. As Akira had asked – give us some names and writings of alleged witnesses that Paul speaks of and we can then address the likelihood that anything from that can help make a historical case for the resurrection. If there is no evidence to back up the claim of witnesses then there is nothing to dodge. Your reply to Akira shows that you are the one dodging.

        April 27, 2014 at 8:39 am |
        • Doris

          (This is a reply to truthfollower's reply at April 27, 2014 at 7:31 am just above and more indented.)

          April 27, 2014 at 8:40 am |
  6. Vic

    I believe Hillary Rodham Clinton is a very intelligent woman of high caliber. The only thing she needs to do if she runs again for President in 2016, IMHO, is to tone down her rhetoric, she comes across as a doctrinaire and a bit of an exaggerator. Other than that, I believe she would make a very good president. I guess the Land of Lincoln would be happy to bring about another President from that neck of the woods.

    April 26, 2014 at 2:07 pm |
    • Vic

      BTW, Methodists took the Christian lead in Abolition of Slavery.

      April 26, 2014 at 2:33 pm |
      • MidwestKen

        Strange that Jesus didn't.

        April 26, 2014 at 2:54 pm |
  7. Rainer Helmut Braendlein

    Rights for Gays and Lesbians (United Methodist Church):

    Regarding the denomination’s particular stance on ho-mo-se-xuality, the 2012 Book of Discipline states:

    “The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of ho-mo-se-xuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. We affirm that God’s grace is available to all. We will seek to live together in Christian community, welcoming, forgiving, and loving one another, as Christ has loved and accepted us. We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons.”

    Unquote.

    This statement of the UMC indludes a "yes" and a "no" concerning the same issue. That is typical for modern theological texts. Imagine at a job interview the boss would ask you, if you had undergone higher education. You would answer: "yes, no." His reaction: "What now, yes or no?" If you would tell him again: "yes, no", he would certainly abandon the interview, and chu-ck you out.

    Ain't it very strange that theologians are allowed to do things, which no ordinary man is allowed to do?

    Bottom line the statement of the UMC is a "yes" to gay behaviour whereby the "yes" is hidden skilfully.

    Better they had formulated as follows: "Our confessional docu-ments and the Bible actually prohibit gay behaviour, gay marriage, and gay church goers (church members). However, we don't want to resist the tenets of the UNO and the worldwide society, and therefore we welcome gay church members.

    That way they had told plainly and clearly what they mean.

    Yet, St. Paul says that fornicators are not allowed to be churchmembers.

    1 Cor. 5

    It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife. 2 And ye are pu-ffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole l-ump? 7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lu-mp, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: 10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. 12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? 13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

    We have to distinguish between the general society and the church. Inside the church gay behaviour is not allowed at all.
    Outside the church a Christian shall love his gay neighbour (workmate, classmate, etc.) despite his or her sin. This love includes the communicaton of the gospel. The gay neighbour should become aware that his lifestyle doesn't please God, and that there is still time to repent. Even if somebody doesn't accept the gospel immediately, we are supposed to keep on loving him. Yet, if our neighbour wants to become a church member, he has to repent before.

    Another drought? Do you really want to feel God's wrath. You will regret that.

    April 26, 2014 at 2:06 pm |
    • Doris

      Motor-mouth Paul, for purposes practical and unpractical, was the Joseph Smith of his day. Aside from all the authorship issues for the Gospels, we most likely don't have that "stamp of approval" by Peter for Paul's ministry in Peter 2, as most NT scholars agree that Peter did not author Peter 2.

      April 26, 2014 at 2:50 pm |
    • Akira

      You posted this again?? Do you think your bigoted propaganda of the worldwide Christian churches needs to be repeated? You're your own one-person war against Christianity.

      Stop bashing churches. You are coming across as anything but Christian. You use of Bible verses notwithstanding, you appear to be a bigoted, self-righteous prig.

      April 26, 2014 at 2:53 pm |
    • Akira

      And lay off gay people. You appear obsessed with people who impact your life exactly none.

      Work on your own rabid bigotry of all things not the great Rainier Helmut Braendlein.

      April 26, 2014 at 2:56 pm |
  8. Reality

    Seek knowledge and be free. Might want to review: http://www.webmd.com/se–x/features/se–x-drive-how-do-men-women-compare

    April 26, 2014 at 1:55 pm |
    • MidwestKen

      @Reality,
      I'm almost afraid to ask but, what's your point?

      April 26, 2014 at 2:03 pm |
      • Reality

        I could say that HC is a cold-heartless woman who drove her Billy "Boy" to seek other women and although that is true, it was a response to another comment on p. 1 later corrected.

        April 26, 2014 at 3:25 pm |
        • Akira

          You could say that in an attempt to justify BC's infidelity, but that would be a seist, cowardly, misogynist, typical guy dick move that I'm sure you would never do; blaming the victim went out in the 50's, and I know you're a 21st century type a guy who would never slander the victim of adultery with such trite sayings as "she's cold and made her husband cheat" just because he disagrees with her politics.

          Right?

          Did WebMD diagnose the cause of adultery as cancer? That's usually their go-to Dx.

          April 26, 2014 at 3:42 pm |
        • Akira

          Should be, "would be a sexist, cowardly, misogynist..."

          Apologies.

          April 26, 2014 at 3:47 pm |
1 2

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.