Jesus studied buddhism in India and studied with Celtic Druids in England?

Ahh. Okay. That makes more sense.

Indeed. That is pleasantly surprising, especially for Catholics, and certainly not their reputation.

I think it was C.S. Lewis that said before preachers can graduate from seminary, they should be forced to deliver a clearly communicated Gospel message in everyday street language. I couldn't agree more. The Bible is worthless if it cannot be communicated clearly.

My apologies. That was an inference I made from your comment about the Bible being nothing more than a collection of stories to illustrate human nature.

There's no getting around the fact that it is a step of faith to believe Jesus was God incarnate. According to the evidence, even people who knew Him for 20+ years didn't believe He was God -- people who lived with Him, spent time with Him, and watched Him perform miracle after miracle. So you're not alone in that doubt. One of His own disciples refused to believe until he stuck his fingers into the wounds of His resurrected body.

You may want to check out a book called, The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. Strobel was the court editor for the Chicago Tribune and a staunch atheist. He set out to disprove the Bible's claims about the identity of Jesus and wound up becoming a believer himself. Whatever you decide, it's a fascinating read.

Determining which parts of the Bible are metaphorical and which are literal is one of the more difficult skills for a preacher to acquire. It comes through long hours of study of both the Bible itself and the corroborating evidence that supports it.

That depends. If we say that Jesus was just a man and not the Messiah, but Judaism is true, then we all face God's judgment based on our every word, deed, and thought as compared to our own conscience. And at the very least, there must be a rudimentary belief in God Himself. Deny God, and that person is toast on Judgment Day no matter how many times he's walked old ladies across the street. At least, if I understand the standard of judgment correctly.

Not for me. I try to celebrate Jesus every day. In fact, a strange thing happened after I really started to develop my faith -- Christmas seemed to lose some of it's significance. Truthfully what happened is that Christmas wasn't lessened, the other 364 days increased in significance.

 

Not corny, just extremely unlikely. Every historical record available indicates if Jesus went anywhere, He walked or rode a donkey. As you've pointed out, His ministry wasn't that long, and there is evidence placing Him with Mary and Joseph in Nazareth at age 12. There is the issue of the 'missing' 18 years of His adolescence, but the culture He was a part of would dicatate that as firstborn son, His place was to stay at home, learn His father's trade, and help take care of the family, eventually becoming the provider once His father died (which he did at some point before His ministry began).

 

I'm not saying that because He wasn't a threat doesn't mean He wasn't perceived as one. After all, He was called "King of the Jews". Occupying authorities tend to frown upon that kind of thing.

My understanding of Pilate is that he did rule with an iron fist, and was certainly not above executing Hebrew troublemakers. But I also think he was caught between a rock and a hard place. He was likely stationed in Jerusalem because he wasn't exactly favored in Rome. Jesus entered Jerusalem during the Passover celebration, which brought about a million extra people (literally, I think) into the city, creating a logistic and law enforcement nightmare. By that time, Jesus had dozens, if not hundreds (or more) of followers of His own. So here Pilate has to determine what to do with this man. Some of his charges are calling Him 'King of the Jews', which would suggest revolution. The religious authority (whom Pilate is cooperating with to maintain order) is saying He's a heretic and needs to 'disappear'.

Either way, Pilate is screwed. If he executes Jesus to placate the Pharisees, he risks rioting and anarchy, which (if he even survives) will make him look bad in Rome under the perception he can't maintain control of his territory. But he can't let someone calling himself "King" amass a significant following and do nothing about it, either, as that would project weakness to both the Jews and Rome. He tried to pass the decision to King Herod, but he would have none of it. So my take is that Pilate chose the lesser of the two evils out of pure self-preservation.

 

People who know the truth and are not afraid to say that they are right about it bother you don't they Harry. You are more comfortable if eveyone is conflicted and unsure of themselves. I think that is what irritates you most about me, not the perceived judgementalism or the supposed bible thumping but the fact that I have the audacity to think I am right and that others are wrong.

 

Nope, you've got it completely backwards. Hasbeen is very sure of his beliefs, yet I dont find him troubling at all. Just you. For being the "bible thumper" type.