home
RSS
August 11th, 2010
09:37 PM ET

soundoff (113 Responses)
  1. Starr

    Hmmmm..Gee David Johnson...why wear it..are you to lazy to carry it? According to you..why bother
    and all the small minds wondered at the fact that Ronald McDonald put salt on his french fries! lol So...it goes round and round, has no beginning and no end.....

    August 13, 2010 at 10:40 am |
    • Luke

      What? No thoughts on my rebuttal to your arguments above?

      August 13, 2010 at 10:44 am |
    • David Johnson

      @Starr

      You said, "All the small minds wondered at the fact that Ronald McDonald put salt on his french fries"

      For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: My fries were unseasoned, and ye gave me salt. Need I say more on this?

      You said, "So...it goes round and round, has no beginning and no end....."

      Maybe. No one is sure if there is sufficient material in the universe, to halt the outward travel and then cause everything to contract back into a single mass. Dark matter is promising. It is just one theory.
      Remember that not even time exists (no movement) at the singularity. See Lukes comment about the M theory.

      You said, "why wear it..are you to lazy to carry it? According to you..why bother"

      I do question the reasoning behind carrying a wooden cross 2000 miles. It doesn't prove that Jesus was the Redeemer. Should I say, "Wow! That fellow carried that hunk of wood 2000 miles. There must be a god!" ?

      Note:
      (AP) SAN FERNANDO, Philippines — Filipino devotees had themselves nailed to crosses Friday to remember Jesus Christ's suffering and death. 4/2/2010

      Religion makes people do the darndest things.

      August 13, 2010 at 12:18 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Luke

      I think you are too sophisticated/intelligent for Starr. It is easier to hate me. LOL

      August 13, 2010 at 12:20 pm |
  2. theskinnyapple

    Yeah, but 'the cross' was a stake, or was it?

    August 13, 2010 at 2:44 am |
    • David Johnson

      The cross looks better, when worn as a necklace.

      August 13, 2010 at 9:18 am |
  3. Nicole

    @Reality – When you stated your list of New Testament scholars, I think you meant Elaine Pagels, not Karen Pagels. I don't think that Elaine Pagels necessarily states that the trial of Jesus did not occur. In fact, although she does suggest other explanations for abrupt end to the gospel of Mark besides the resurrection of Jesus, I don't think she rules out the Resurrection completely. I think its important to note that these New Testament scholars offer alternate explanations of the events described in the gospels that oppose what is usually interpreted by fundamental Christians, but often this does not necessarily mean that the these alternate explanations can't also be reconciled with the traditional meaning of the text.

    August 13, 2010 at 12:33 am |
    • Reality

      In The Gnostic Gospels (1988), Elaine Pagels presented gnosticism as an interpretation of the life, death, resurrection, and teachings of Jesus which for many years was a powerful alternative to the interpretation set forth by the documents which became the New Testament. In contrast to the majority of early Christians, who saw God primarily through male images and who insisted on the reality of Jesus' human body and his literal (bodily) death and resurrection, gnostic Christians used both male and female metaphors for God. They distrusted the body concept in favor of inner experience, and understood Jesus' death and resurrection in a symbolic way. Each of these doctrines, Pagels argued, had important social and political implications. The views of the majority, which were better suited to the development of an institutional structure, eventually displaced the views of the gnostics, ensuring the survival of New Testament Christianity through the centuries

      August 13, 2010 at 9:38 am |
    • Reality

      A short synopsis characterizing the conclusions of many contemporary NT exegetes:

      Jesus the Myth: Heavenly Christ
      Earl Doherty
      Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy

      Jesus the Myth: Man of the Indefinite Past
      Alvar Ellegård
      G. A. Wells

      Jesus the Hellenistic Hero
      Gregory Riley

      Jesus the Revolutionary
      Robert Eisenman

      Jesus the Wisdom Sage
      John Dominic Crossan
      Robert Funk
      Burton Mack
      Stephen J. Patterson

      Jesus the Man of the Spirit
      Marcus Borg
      Stevan Davies
      Geza Vermes

      Jesus the Prophet of Social Change
      Richard Horsley
      Hyam Maccoby
      Gerd Theissen

      Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet
      Bart Ehrman
      Paula Fredriksen
      Gerd Lüdemann
      John P. Meier
      E. P. Sanders

      Jesus the Savior
      Luke Timothy Johnson
      Robert H. Stein
      N. T. Wright

      August 13, 2010 at 9:39 am |
    • Reality

      In Elaine Pagel's New York Times bestseller, Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas (2003), focuses on religious claims to possessing the ultimate truth. In it, Pagels contrasts the Gospel of Thomas with the Gospel of John, and argues that a close reading of the works shows that while the Gospel of John emphasizes that Jesus is the "light of the world", the Gospel of Thomas teaches individuals that "there is a light within each person, and it lights up the whole universe. If it does not shine, there is darkness." On Pagels' interpretation, the Gospel of Thomas reveals, along with other apocryphal teachings, that Jesus was not God but rather a teacher who sought to uncover the divine light in all human beings. Pagels argues that the Gospel of John was written as a reaction and rebuttal to the Gospel of Thomas. She bases this conclusion on her observation that, in the Gospel of John, the apostle Thomas is portrayed as a disciple of little faith who cannot believe without seeing and, moreover, that the Gospel of John places a very strong emphasis on accepting Jesus as the center of belief, which Pagels views as a hallmark of early orthodoxy. Beyond Belief also includes Pagels' personal exploration of the meaning of loss and tragedy.

      August 13, 2010 at 9:45 am |
  4. Reality

    And then there is the Big Bang followed by Gib Gnab followed by another Big Bang followed by yet another Gib Gnab as we recycle for eternity. Expand today, shrink tomorrow repeating the cycle every 20 billion years or so!! Someone should write a book on the theology of the Three R's, Reduce, Reuse, Recycle!!!

    August 12, 2010 at 11:56 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Reality

      Yes, think of it! Big Bang followed by Big Crunch. Each time resulting in different configurations. A different universe with different "laws"? WoW!

      August 13, 2010 at 9:16 am |
    • Grant

      No no no...you have it all wrong. There was a single universe invented once perfectly! Otherwise, how will the crutch "fine-tuning" argument be employed anymore?

      August 13, 2010 at 10:37 am |
  5. David Johnson

    Actually Starr, you owned me on that "have I seen my brain argument..."

    You said, "So if you can't see something, you don't believe it exists"

    My disbelief is based on more than sight. Let me ask you this: Do you believe Mohamad rode to heaven on a winged horse? I bet you don't. Do you not believe it, just because you weren't there to see it?

    A magician cuts the woman in half. You saw it! Do you believe it actually happened just because you saw it? No, you don't believe it actually happened. You know that some things are not possible. I know this to. Cheers!

    August 12, 2010 at 10:52 pm |
    • DontDistort

      Actually, the brain argument is weak. It can be PROVEN that every living person has a brain, it is required for basic bodily functions. We have the medical ability to maintain certain of those functions in the event the brain stops functioning properly. The reality is that we don't have to see something to believe it exists, we know that gravity exists because we can replicate it over and over with certainty. We know that wind exists because we have means to measure it, we know that the air around us exists because tests prove it. We know that a virgin can not have a baby because it is medically impossible, and we know you can't rise from the dead after 3 days, again a medical impossibility.

      Certain theories and rules that apply to the world can be proven and dis-proven. The crux of christianity violates rules that we KNOW are true, things that can be proven over and over again without fail.

      August 13, 2010 at 8:52 am |
    • David Johnson

      @DontDistort

      You are making it really hard to maintain my faith...

      August 13, 2010 at 9:22 am |
    • Grant

      DontDistort, I'm on your side, but you overlooked the one thing that lets believers ignore logic: miracles.

      Miracles: the convenient catch-all explanation for the impossible – when the natural laws of the universe are temporarily stayed for an extraordinary thing to occur.

      See also: God's Plan, Intelligent Design, Divine Intervention, Illogical Beliefs.

      August 13, 2010 at 10:34 am |
    • DontDistort

      @Grant,

      Actually, miracles can't be proven. Again, the concepts that are held up as the foundations of christianity have either NO PROOF, or absolute proof that they are impossible.

      August 13, 2010 at 10:53 am |
    • Grant

      Hi DontDistort – I think you misinterpreted me. Again, I'm completely on your side, but I was trying to point out the fall-back argument that religious people have when faced with an impossibility which they will rely on time and time again to avoid having to use logical reasoning.

      August 13, 2010 at 11:08 am |
    • Grant

      Ironically, it's these impossibilities that actually STRENGTHEN beliefs. There is seldom questioning as to whether or not it actually happened, only acceptance that it happened and voila – faith.

      August 13, 2010 at 11:09 am |
  6. David Johnson

    @Luke

    Oh heck yeah!!!

    August 12, 2010 at 10:30 pm |
  7. Luke

    Television waves are not invisible. We as humans just have a very narrow view of the radiation around us. We see what is known as the visible light spectrum, a narrow band of waves around us. Below visible light is ultraviolet and above visible light is infrared. We use machines to see into these lower and higher spectrums. Furthermore, we use common machines to see even higher spectrums above infrared such as x-rays and gamma rays. Unfortunately, exposure to these wavelengths higher above visible light is dangerous to cell replication and can result in death. That is why we lead vests when getting an x-ray. We don't want to die do we? Nevertheless, in small quantities, we can see higher wavelengths using machines to make our eyes better – so to speak. We can also see lower wavelengths using technology in the same manner. Interestingly, this is how the Hubble Space Telescope works. Those beautiful pictures are what the universe looks like if our eyes could see with a much higher range of radiation other than just visible light.

    August 12, 2010 at 9:42 pm |
  8. Starr

    Like a computer disk, DNA has no intelligence. The complex, purposeful codes of this “master program” could only have originated outside itself. In the case of a computer program, the original codes were put there by an intelligent being, a programmer. Likewise, for DNA, it seems clear that intelligence must have come first, before the existence of DNA. Statistically, the odds are enormously in favor of that theory. DNA bears the marks of intelligent manufacture.
    God??
    "So if you can't see something, you don't believe it exists? Have you ever seen your brain? We believe in many things that we can't see. Have you ever seen the wind? Have you seen history? We see the effects of the wind, but the wind is invisible. We have records of history, but it is by 'faith' we believe that certain historical events happened. Television waves are invisible, but an antenna and a receiver can detect their presence.

    So, your just here for nothing, huh? Hmmm...How do know your here for nothing?
    Do you believe that as nothing-nothing=nothing...? Thats not to smart...Can you prove "nothing" exists? Just here without a purpose,huh?

    August 12, 2010 at 9:14 pm |
    • Luke

      Utterly false and poor logic. In scientific terms, there is no prerequisite of intelligence preceding DNA. Very simply, DNA has the markings of common elements found abundantly in the cosmos in an advanced chemical state. And I don't know what statistics you reference, but they are undoubtedly incorrect. The most abundant elements in the universe are Hydrogen, Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen and Helium. Within the belly of all stars in the universe resides Hydrogen being fused into Helium. When stars explode, they shoot their seeds across the universe – spraying Hydrogen, Helium, Nitrogen, Oxygen and Carbon in all directions at speeds that approach the speed of light. You'll find it interesting that your body is mainly composed of Hydrogen, Oxygen (water), Nitrogen and Carbon. The theory that star dust seeded life on this planet overwhelmingly surpasses your theory of design in all universities and among the intellectual elite.

      To answer your questions:
      I have seen my brain. I had a Cat Scan and an MRI in the past. Furthermore, i don't need to see my brain. I am a human, 99% identical to all other humans. We have, through science, opened bodies to examine what's inside. I have in person, a dead brain in a cadaver.

      I have seen the wind. Tornados are a good example for the lay folk. But to better understand, you don't need to see the wind, you can measure it using any number of techniques. We also map it. Wind, very simply stated, is nothing more than moving air. Since we known undoubtedly that air exists on this planet in the form of oxygen and nitrogen mainly and that we know that air will always move from high concentrations to low concentration, we measure the pressure between two points on a map to see which direction it will move. The greater the difference between these two pressures results in higher wind speeds. That is why hurricanes with the lowest pressure have the highest wind speeds. Air rushes to the center and whips around it at great speeds because it is being suck in from high concentrations to an extreme low.

      Television waves are not invisible. We as humans just have a very narrow view of the radiation around us. We see what is known as the visible light spectrum, a narrow band of waves around us. Below visible light is ultraviolet and above visible light is infrared. We use machines to see into these lower and higher spectrums. Furthermore, we use common machines to see even higher spectrums above infrared such as x-rays and gamma rays. Unfortunately, exposure to these wavelengths higher above visible light is dangerous to cell replication and can result in death. That is why we lead vests when getting an x-ray. We don't want to die do we? Nevertheless, in small quantities, we can see higher wavelengths using machines to make our eyes better – so to speak. We can also see lower wavelengths using technology in the same manner. Interestingly, this is how the Hubble Space Telescope works. Those beautiful pictures are what the universe looks like if our eyes could see with a much higher range of radiation other than just visible light.

      Your nothing logic doesn't even make sense. It's irrelevant to rational debate. I think you are trying to start the something from nothing debate, but I can't really tell. I suggest you study Einstein's famous theory of E=MC^2. Simply stated, it means that Energy = Mass*Speed of Light Squared. So, we take a massive object and multiply it by the speed of light squared. Very simply algebra shows us that the equation works backward too. That is, Energy and the Speed of Light Squared can create Mass. Since the Big Bang Theory collapses at the singularity, a few new theories have arisen. The most popular is M-Theory. Do some digging there, you'll learn a lot.

      August 12, 2010 at 9:39 pm |
    • Luke

      Utterly false and poor logic. In scientific terms, there is no prerequisite of intelligence preceding DNA. Very simply, DNA has the markings of common elements found abundantly in the cosmos in an advanced chemical state. And I don't know what statistics you reference, but they are undoubtedly incorrect. The most abundant elements in the universe are Hydrogen, Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen and Helium. Within the belly of all stars in the universe resides Hydrogen being fused into Helium. When stars explode, they shoot their seeds across the universe – spraying Hydrogen, Helium, Nitrogen, Oxygen and Carbon in all directions at speeds that approach the speed of light. You'll find it interesting that your body is mainly composed of Hydrogen, Oxygen (water), Nitrogen and Carbon. The theory that star dust seeded life on this planet overwhelmingly surpasses your theory of design in all universities and among the intellectual elite.

      August 12, 2010 at 9:41 pm |
    • Luke

      o answer your questions:
      I have seen my brain. I had a Cat Scan and an MRI in the past. Furthermore, i don't need to see my brain. I am a human, 99% identical to all other humans. We have, through science, opened bodies to examine what's inside. I have in person, a dead brain in a cadaver.

      Continues...

      August 12, 2010 at 9:41 pm |
    • Luke

      I have seen the wind. Tornados are a good example for the lay folk. But to better understand, you don't need to see the wind, you can measure it using any number of techniques. We also map it. Wind, very simply stated, is nothing more than moving air. Since we known undoubtedly that air exists on this planet in the form of oxygen and nitrogen mainly and that we know that air will always move from high concentrations to low concentration, we measure the pressure between two points on a map to see which direction it will move. The greater the difference between these two pressures results in higher wind speeds. That is why hurricanes with the lowest pressure have the highest wind speeds. Air rushes to the center and whips around it at great speeds because it is being suck in from high concentrations to an extreme low.

      August 12, 2010 at 9:41 pm |
    • Luke

      Your nothing logic doesn't even make sense. It's irrelevant to rational debate. I think you are trying to start the something from nothing debate, but I can't really tell. I suggest you study Einstein's famous theory of E=MC^2. Simply stated, it means that Energy = Mass*Speed of Light Squared. So, we take a massive object and multiply it by the speed of light squared. Very simply algebra shows us that the equation works backward too. That is, Energy and the Speed of Light Squared can create Mass. Since the Big Bang Theory collapses at the singularity, a few new theories have arisen. The most popular is M-Theory. Do some digging there, you'll learn a lot.

      August 12, 2010 at 9:43 pm |
    • Luke

      Television waves are not invisible. We as humans just have a very narrow view of the radiation around us. We see what is known as the visible light spectrum, a narrow band of waves around us. Below visible light is ultraviolet and above visible light is infrared. We use machines to see into these lower and higher spectrums. Furthermore, we use common machines to see even higher spectrums above infrared such as x-rays and gamma rays. Unfortunately, exposure to these wavelengths higher above visible light is dangerous to cell replication and can result in death. That is why we lead vests when getting an x-ray. In small quantities, we can see higher wavelengths using machines to make our eyes better – so to speak. Interestingly, this is how the Hubble works. Those beautiful pictures are what the universe looks like if our eyes could see with a much higher range of radiation other than just visible light. Check out the Ultra Deep Field. I recommend searching for it on your google machine and take a good look. That photograph was taken by staring into deep space for about a week using a number of difference cameras that see other than just visible light and make it into something we, as puny human beings, can see. It's truly lovely.

      August 12, 2010 at 9:48 pm |
    • DontDistort

      I don't believe in things I KNOW are impossible. I know it is impossible for a virgin to give birth, I know it is impossible to die and rise after 3 days.

      I know I have a brain and can think for myself. I know there is wind, because I see leaves blown from a tree. I know there are radio waves because we can see them on an oscilloscope. I know that DNA morphs (which is how we end up with bacteria that becomes resistant to antibiotics over time), so there is intelligence in DNA. I know that the absence of a verifiable answer as to where life began is not statistical proof that 'god' must be the reason (your logic is flawed).

      I never said we are here for nothing. What is wrong with existing just to further mankind? You make your own heaven and hell right here on earth; by the way you treat others, the way you live your life, and the impact that you leave on others. Why isn't that enough?

      August 13, 2010 at 6:43 am |
    • Gary

      Starr, agree with Luke horrible logic. computer discs are created by human brains not a God. The poor anology of having faith in a invisible non speaking, God and the understanding scientifically of invisible things such as gravity. Science experiments can be conducted by all senses....heat,smell,weight ect. religion is based on books written by humans and humans only. Bible,koran and all other religious texts are no proof of any God....

      August 13, 2010 at 11:08 am |
  9. Ray101

    Can you say... Forrest Gump?

    August 12, 2010 at 7:43 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Ray101

      That's funny! Cheers!

      August 12, 2010 at 7:58 pm |
  10. Tyler V

    Reality,

    You should try these books too:

    Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
    Bruce Metzger's The Canon of the New Testament
    Robert Van Voorst's Jesus Outside the New Testament
    I. Howard Marshall's I believe in the Historical Jesus
    Ben Witherington III's What Have They Done with Jesus?
    Craig Evans'Fabricating Jesus
    Bock and Wallace's Dethroning Jesus
    NT Wright's Resurrection of the Son of God

    p.s. many of your scholars listed wouldnt be caught dead affirming your reductionistic statements (like Bultman) , have been overturned (like Schweitzer) or should not even be listed among reputable scholars (like Pagels). Even Erhman wouldnt be so reductionistic and while is a noteworthy scholar in the field of textual criticism, his popular books have come under much fire from all schools in the field. (See the blogs of Witheringon or Wallace for great treatments of his popular level work where he commonly misrepresent statistics, and even his conclusions disconfirm his thesis – that the text has been corrupted beyond repair yet he is able to point out precisely where the variants are and what they SHOULD read as.)

    August 12, 2010 at 6:47 pm |
    • DontDistort

      Can you find any scholars that can explain how a virgin woman has a child? Or how a man walks on water? or how someone turns 5 fish into hundreds of fish? or how someone rises from the dead after 3 days?

      You can't because all of these things are impossible. We have SOLID 100% verifiable EVIDENCE that none of these things are possible. You can argue the historical accuracy of the books all you want, but the FACT is that there are some things in the bible (one of which is absolutely necessary for 'salvation') are IMPOSSIBLE.

      So the reality is that the historical accuracy doesn't even matter. It's all a farce, made up by man to control man, for the benefit of a few, like all religions.

      August 12, 2010 at 7:36 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @DontDistort

      Amen, brother! Cheers!

      August 12, 2010 at 7:56 pm |
    • Luke

      DontDistort

      One usually has to ask himself, "What's more likely – a virgin girl gave birth to a child, or a Jewish girl lied about getting pregnant?" Usually clears things up.

      August 12, 2010 at 9:16 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Luke

      You said, "One usually has to ask himself, "What's more likely – a virgin girl gave birth to a child, or a Jewish girl lied about getting pregnant?" Usually clears things up."

      WoW! A true acid test! Cheers man!

      August 12, 2010 at 10:34 pm |
    • Grant

      Luke, Dawkins would be proud.

      August 13, 2010 at 8:44 am |
  11. DontDistort

    It never ceases to amaze me that people do this stuff, and for what? To convince the rest of the world to suspend facts that we know are true so that we can believe in their messiah... Religion is such a farce.

    August 12, 2010 at 4:15 pm |
    • David Johnson

      How would his carrying a cross 2,000 miles, make me believe in Jesus? Would carrying a giant easter basket make me believe in the Easter bunny? LOL, LOL 'till my sides ache.

      August 12, 2010 at 6:37 pm |
  12. NEON whip

    as long as he got that gatorade

    August 12, 2010 at 3:14 pm |
  13. Gary

    Catholic mom, if I may some of us need proof of a matter before we take a leap of faith and live our lives over something we have no proof it exists.

    August 12, 2010 at 9:32 am |
    • Mike

      I would disagree that you need proof before taking a leap of faith.

      Being the first one to sit down in a new chair before proving its going to hold your weight?

      Driving to work without proving that the people around you can also drive at your skill level?

      Taking a new job not knowing the new people or what it is really like to work for company X?

      I am sure you can think of other leaps of faith you take every day.

      August 12, 2010 at 10:16 am |
    • peace2all

      @Mike

      Are you the Mike I posted with yesterday.....?

      Anyways, "taking a leap of faith" as you say, and the examples that you used are all based on some proof or physical phenomenon or evidence. With your reasoning, then just 'living' requires a "leap of faith."

      But, I think what @Gary and others are taking issue with is taking a "leap of faith" into something that is an 'intangible' with no proof, and so open to everyone's interpretation anyway.

      You are mixing logical-levels in your argument..... i.e... apples and oranges comparison.

      Peace and Respect to You....

      August 12, 2010 at 2:26 pm |
    • Reality

      Mike,

      Your list involves not leaps of faith but are trusts in your common sense and rational thinking. What does your common sense and rational thinking say about "angels", bodies rising from the dead and miracles which have no attestations other than the word of a few writers of semi-fictional tales from the first century CE?

      August 12, 2010 at 2:29 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Mike

      I can always count on you to use faulty logic. Reality and Gary said, what I would have said.

      August 12, 2010 at 2:51 pm |
    • NEON whip

      haha i agree with everyone except mike.

      those were the worst examples.

      August 12, 2010 at 3:19 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @peace2all

      @Mike

      You asked, "Are you the Mike I posted with yesterday.....?"

      Who else would come up with such lame analogies? LOL

      August 12, 2010 at 3:34 pm |
    • peace2all

      @David Johnson

      Yeah..... I just wanted to make sure, and give him the benefit of the doubt. A lot of Mike's on these posting's.

      Peace buddy.....

      August 12, 2010 at 7:59 pm |
    • Luke

      Mike

      Seriously? Sitting in a chair? Taking a job? That's your rationale for following the words of the bible and the impact on society it has? I usually indulge in intelligent debate (those of you that have followed my debates know I take the time to thrash people nicely), but I have to take a pass on this one. Your logic doesn't even warrant a reply.

      August 12, 2010 at 8:30 pm |
    • Sue

      Mike

      Being the first one to sit down in a new chair before proving its going to hold your weight? – The chair passed quality inspections.

      Driving to work without proving that the people around you can also drive at your skill level? – they got their license the same place I did.

      Taking a new job not knowing the new people or what it is really like to work for company X? – DUH, they pay me !!

      Seriously ? If those were your arguments for the "leap of faith" you want others to take, dude, you need serious counselling.

      August 18, 2010 at 5:07 pm |
  14. Frogist

    I can't access the video, but I am curious why he did this? It seems quite a difficult task requiring astonishing vigilance. I suppose if he did it to bring attention to world poverty or AIDS in Africa or some worthy cause, I can only call it heroic.

    CatholicMom, I realize it's a personal question, but why do you believe?

    August 12, 2010 at 9:29 am |
    • Selfish Gene

      Heroic would have been to build homes for the homeless. To cook for the hungry. To defend the innocent.
      What he did is called exercise.

      August 13, 2010 at 3:26 pm |
  15. Mike

    Reality where do you come up with this stuff? So your saying that NT experts dispute the NT what makes them a NT expert.

    August 12, 2010 at 8:29 am |
    • Reality

      Typically, PhD's in History and/or Religion. Some names:

      H.S. Reimarus
      R. Bultmann
      E. Kasemann
      Earl Doherty
      Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy
      Alvar Ellegård
      G. A. Wells
      Gregory Riley
      Robert Eisenman
      John Dominic Crossan
      Robert Funk
      Burton Mack
      Stephen J. Patterson
      Marcus Borg
      Stevan Davies
      Geza Vermes
      Richard Horsley
      Hyam Maccoby
      Gerd Theissen
      Bart Ehrman
      Paula Fredriksen
      Gerd Lüdemann
      John P. Meier
      E. P. Sanders
      Robert H. Stein
      Karen Armstrong
      Albert Schweitzer (The Quest for the Historical Jesus)
      Mahlon Smith
      Karen Pagels

      August 12, 2010 at 11:56 am |
    • David Johnson

      @Mike

      I randomly googled some of the names Reality listed. He owned you dude!

      Cheers!

      August 12, 2010 at 6:49 pm |
    • Luke

      Might be a little mainstream, but Sam Harris certainly needs to be on that list. I found his works and speeches extraordinary and beyond insightful.

      August 12, 2010 at 8:26 pm |
    • Stay on Target

      ...most of those scholars don't dispute the crucifixion of Jesus.

      stations of the cross, yes...but crucifixion, no...although a couple of dissents do insist that Jesus may have been stoned to death.

      listing names does not correlate with "owning" anybody.

      August 13, 2010 at 11:36 am |
    • Reality

      "That Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, as the Creed states, is as certain as anything historical can ever be.

      “ The Jewish historian, Josephus and the pagan historian Tacitus both agree that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea. And is very hard to imagine that Jesus' followers would have invented such a story unless it indeed happened.

      “While the brute fact that of Jesus' death by crucifixion is historically certain, however, those detailed narratives in our present gospels are much more problematic. "

      “My best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety.

      I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. No doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset. And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."– Professor JD Crossan

      See also Professor Crossan's reviews of the existence of Jesus in his other books especially, The Historical Jesus and also Excavating Jesus (with Professor Jonathan Reed doing the archeology discussion) .

      Other NT exegetes to include members of the Jesus Sem-inar have published similar books with appropriate supporting references.

      August 13, 2010 at 11:55 am |
    • Stay on Target

      @Reality

      I misconstrued your first comment. I thought you were disputing death by crucifixion as well, not only the stations of the cross.

      ...in that case we have little to disagree on in this matter.

      August 13, 2010 at 12:52 pm |
    • Paul

      @Reality: Many argue, with good reason, IMO, that the mention of Christ by Josephus and Tacitus is a later Christian interpolation (even including the same factual error relating to Pilate's title).

      Again, there is absolutely no contemporaneous evidence for the existence of a historical "Jesus Christ." "He" is an amalgamation of myths, fleshed out in the later gospels, more than a century after his supposed lifetime.

      August 13, 2010 at 7:57 pm |
  16. Huh?

    Talk about a burden to society...

    August 12, 2010 at 6:25 am |
  17. peace2all

    The christian churches just received a lot of free advertising from this guy. He commented on the fact that people gave him food, he stayed in hotels, etc..etc.... I mean common' who is going to turn Jesus away and run the risk of burning in the fiery hot place. That is also one way of certainly losing weight......

    But, as he said, everyone has their calling.... and this was his..... Hmmmmmmm

    People never seem to stop fascinating me !!

    I didn't hear..... Is he planning to just keep walking for good..... or is he finally done...?

    August 12, 2010 at 1:24 am |
    • NEON whip

      he has to wait til god tells him to stop

      August 12, 2010 at 3:16 pm |
    • DontDistort

      walk forest walk

      August 12, 2010 at 4:13 pm |
    • peace2all

      @NEON whip

      LOL..!!!!!

      August 12, 2010 at 8:00 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @NEON whip

      Yeah man, that was funny!

      August 12, 2010 at 10:56 pm |
    • David Johnson

      So, you are saying it might be beneficial to keep a cross like this in the trunk? I could carry it in at check out time and hope for the best?

      August 13, 2010 at 9:25 am |
  18. Christian_Beauty

    He should go lay it on the steps of the building the Muslims want to use as a mosque near ground Zero!

    August 12, 2010 at 1:20 am |
    • Selfish Gene

      You mean the one they have been using as a mosque for months already? Or are you really that obtuse?

      August 13, 2010 at 3:23 pm |
  19. Reality

    2000 miles to honor an act that never occurred. As per many contemporary NT experts, Jesus acted up in the temple, was captured by the Roman guards and then summarily crucified as were all trouble makers. No trial and no stations of the cross.

    August 11, 2010 at 11:13 pm |
    • CatholicMom

      Reality
      …. Is it because you haven’t seen God that you don’t believe? What is the reason you don’t believe?

      August 12, 2010 at 9:01 am |
    • Reality

      Catholic Mom,

      Once again, common sense, rational thinking and the studies of many contemporary NT experts.

      August 12, 2010 at 10:09 am |
    • Mike

      Reality, please list some of these NT experts and there works (names of books, websites whatever) so we can learn what you have learned.

      August 12, 2010 at 10:12 am |
    • Reality

      Mike,

      It is a very long list and my attempts to enter it here met with the dreaded "waiting for moderation" warning. A comparable list is posted at newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/eboo_patel/2010/05/drawing_muhammad.html . Once there, scroll down to the obvious lists of references that are broken down from one to 35 separate citations.

      August 12, 2010 at 11:49 am |
    • Frank

      CatholicMom, I don't believe in your God because my God told me yours is the devil in disguise

      August 12, 2010 at 3:03 pm |
    • NEON whip

      .. why isn't he carrying a tree instead?

      August 12, 2010 at 3:15 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @CatholicMom

      You said, "Is it because you haven’t seen God that you don’t believe? What is the reason you don’t believe?"

      Extraordinary positive assertions require extraordinary evidence before they can be embraced. You have no evidence. You have only a book and a feeling in your heart.

      Don't accept anything as real, simply because you want it to be true.

      August 12, 2010 at 3:25 pm |
    • Paul

      Actually, most objective scholars agree that there was no historical "Jesus Christ," but that the Gospels character is an amalgamation of various prior myths.

      There is absolutely no contemporaneous historical records or other evidence that such "Christ" existed.

      The Romans as well as the Jews kept reasonably detailed records during the time of "Jesus," and we can find more than a dozen other rabble-rousers named Jesus in the records, but not a peep about the "Son of God" who walked on water....

      August 13, 2010 at 5:28 pm |
  20. TheRationale

    And remember kids, this is why you study – so you don't end up walking around because you heard some voices in your head.

    But I think he's in better shape than pretty much everyone, I'll give him that much.

    August 11, 2010 at 10:48 pm |
    • Camsteerie

      I will bet this guy is in really great shape. Based on the picture, he is either walking backwards or pushing the cross with the long end pointing forward.

      August 12, 2010 at 4:34 pm |
1 2
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.