Jesus Grave in India

[shian]

Greetings, i dont know much about Jesus Grave in India ? is any comentary from scholar ? have a research with it ? maybe DNA from the dead body with DNA in turin shroud or others? thank you ^_^

[Odion]

Do you mean the grave of Yuz Asaf, in Kashmir, or another one?

I'd love to do see a DNA comparison between the grave of Jesus in Israel, of the Turin shroud, and of the grave of Yuz Asaf. It'd be interesting to see the results! If you find something, send it this way? :)

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam:

In my opinion, and that of several others here and within Sanatana Dharma, Christ is irrelevant, has no bearing on our religion whatsoever. Why would we want to research it?

Personally, I don't think he existed.

Aum Namasivaya

[Sahasranama]

Jesus Christ and his disciples are not more important to Hinduism than Snow White and the seven dwarfs. The words of the bible are not more important to Hindus than that of Roald Dahl. What people think about Jesus is not more important to Hindus than what people think of Robin Hood.

I mean no disrespect towards Christians, but Christ was not a Hindu God, he was not a Hindu saint and he wasn't even a hindu. Just like there is no reason for a Christian to believe that Shiva and Ganesha are real dieties, so is there no reason for Hindus to believe that Jesus Christ even existed. There is no historical evidence for his existence and if there was, Hindus wouldn't care.

Please, don't come up with ridiculous theories that Jesus lived in India or that he even was a realised yogi or vedantin. If you want to become the next Dan Brown, go ahead and write a novel about it. It's pure fantasy and not worthy of serious investigation.

[BryonMorrigan]

1. As has been expressed by others, whether this "Jesus" existed or not is irrelevant to Hinduism or Hindus in general. If anything, the teachings of the New Testament, particularly the concept of Christian Exclusivism ("No one comes to the Father except through me.") is antithetical to EVERY OTHER RELIGION IN THE WORLD, especially Hinduism. It (Christian Exclusivism) is about the most horrible concept known to Humanity.

2. I personally, as a student of history (*), have examined quite a lot of information on the subject, and have concluded that there is almost no evidence supporting his existence, and that all of this "evidence" is second or third hand accounts by Christians, who are hardly to be regarded as reputable sources in such a case.

3. The "Shroud of Turin" was exposed as a medieval fake (http://www.physorg.com/news4652.html), years ago...(Like pretty much every Christian relic out there...)



________________________________________________________________

(*) As in, I have a Master's Degree in it...

[Darji]

Some speculate that Jesus was "created" to take over the role of John the Baptist after he was beheaded. Many people including the earliest commentaries on Christianity point towards John the Baptist as the cult leader and founder. It was his teachings that Jesus expounded upon, from the apocalyptic undertones to the purification of baptism.

So in reality, Mr Baptist was the man, but when you are publicly beheaded and your body torn asunder, it's hard to prove ones divinity by coming back from the grave.

[shian]

agreee ~~~~

yesterday i have hear my friends talk about Jesus is not resurrect , but he go to India and die in India.

and have grave in India.

This is make me remember discovery channels about Jesus in India

i only want to know many opinion about this , whatever opinion

from here i not only get answer about fake turin but also others, make me interseting is opinion "Jesus is fantasy icon" is not real person.

May i know more ?
i not interseting about "Jesus" whatever he is , no any believe or un believe in my head about this Jesus.
if i believe so what ? if i not believe so what?
i only interseting about the "opinion" and the proof.

But after i learn about Sanantana Dharma,
if we see a drop of water in ground, that is christian, and the great sea is Sanantana Dharma.

BUt unfortunately,
many peoples mindset is "Hinduism is about myth"
Christian is about real and great history.
That is really happened in here (where i stay)
i dont know, what about in other region ?

but is fact , christian spread and have popullar here in asia
but already forgotten in america

[saidevo]

The myth of Jesus Christ is a story cobbled up from various sources. Check this post for a compilation:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=22103&postcount=128

[BryonMorrigan]

Interestingly enough, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote a couple papers on the similarities between the Persian Mithras and "Jesus." They're available online, for anyone who feels like Googling it.

[ScottMalaysia]

I personallly believe that Jesus was an avatar sent to the Israelites at a time when their religion had fallen to the level of mere ritualism.

I do think he really existed. Whether or not he was God, or an avatar, is impossible to tell, but there is mention of him by the non Christian historian Josephus. I've read that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than there is for the existence of Alexander the Great. So, if you don't believe he is God, then he was at least a Jewish man who lived in the first century A.D. I don't think that he was a figment of the Apostles' imaginations. 10 out of the 12 Apostles chose to die rather than renounce their belief in Jesus and worship the Roman Gods. They wouldn't die for something that they knew to be false. If Jesus had been made up, surely one of the 10 Apostles who were killed would have let the cat out of the bag and confessed that they made Jesus up? But none did.

While Jesus is not central to Hinduism, since Hinduism was around before he was born, it is possible to be a Hindu and still pay him reverence or even worship him. Swami Vivekananda's book Christ the Messenger shows a picture of a Hindu altar contaning a picture of Jesus Christ and a picture of the Virgin Mary, both adorned with flower garlands.

[Sahasranama]

I personallly believe that Jesus was an avatar sent to the Israelites at a time when their religion had fallen to the level of mere ritualism.

I do think he really existed. Whether or not he was God, or an avatar, is impossible to tell, but there is mention of him by the non Christian historian Josephus. I've read that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than there is for the existence of Alexander the Great. So, if you don't believe he is God, then he was at least a Jewish man who lived in the first century A.D. I don't think that he was a figment of the Apostles' imaginations. 10 out of the 12 Apostles chose to die rather than renounce their belief in Jesus and worship the Roman Gods. They wouldn't die for something that they knew to be false. If Jesus had been made up, surely one of the 10 Apostles who were killed would have let the cat out of the bag and confessed that they made Jesus up? But none did.

You can believe what you want, that's your freedom. But don't call that particular belief Hindu. It's Christian.
I am just clarifying this, so that when newcommers read your post, they don't get confused about Hinduism. I have no problem with you believing partially in Hinduism and partially in Christianity.


While Jesus is not central to Hinduism, since Hinduism was around before he was born, it is possible to be a Hindu and still pay him reverence or even worship him. Swami Vivekananda's book Christ the Messenger shows a picture of a Hindu altar contaning a picture of Jesus Christ and a picture of the Virgin Mary, both adorned with flower garlands.That's what some of the modern swamis did. Hinduism is based on the Shastras like Vedas, Vedanta, Upavedas, Vedangas, Darshanas, Smritis, Puranas, Itihasas and Agamas. Not on a 19th century book called "Christ the Messenger." Maybe it's a great book, but it's not an authoritive Hindu text. Swami Vivekananda is a funny character. While he was very vocal about the worship of Tulasi Devi being blind belief, meanwhile he was worshipping a fantasy character of the bible. He became utterly confused about his own roots after contact with the western world.

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam:

Christianity is like cancer. First it starts in a small way, like having a shrine with a picture of a supposed historical man called Christ. This opens the crack in the door. They are sneaky, and subtle. Others see that picture when they come to your shrine, and they ask, then you have to explain. This is all part and parcel of the Christian tactic. Thank goodness most of us no longer fall for it.

To quote a Catholic Father in Sri Lanka of some 50 years ago. "We may not turn them into good Christians, but they will now NEVER BE GOOD HINDUS!"

So with the free will God has given us, if you want to worship Christ and get yourself confused from the mixed messages, go right ahead. If you want to take the 'confusion' drug, you can. Its a little like taking the headache pill, alcohol.

Aum Namasivaya

[BryonMorrigan]

Oh, you opened a can of worms here, brother.


I've read that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than there is for the existence of Alexander the Great.

Absolute, unadulterated, 100% NONSENSE!

Actually, there is NO evidence for the existence of "Jesus." (* I always use that word in quotation marks, as the alleged person in question was named Yeshua, not "Jesus." "Christ" was a title, like "Saint" or "Lord," and was Greek for "the anointed one" or "the messiah.") Obviously, you've been reading books written by Christian nutcases, and not real historians.

Even my favorite Christian, a friend of mine named Dr. Kim Paffenroth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Paffenroth) (* Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Iona College, a Christian university... You may have seen him in History Channel documentaries...) has admitted when we had this discussion once that the evidence just DOES NOT EXIST. All of the alleged "evidence" has either been conclusively proven to be fake, or is highly suspicious. During the Middle Ages, there was a concerted effort by many Christian monks and historians to rewrite minor passages in historical texts to "prove" the historicity of "Jesus." As we have found earlier copies through archaeology and what-not, historians have been able to compare the earlier versions and see where the later "revisions" were added.

On the contrary, Alexander III of Macedon is EXTREMELY well documented. We have multiple biographies of him which were written by his contemporaries. We have descriptions of him by the people he conquered. We have thousands of historical artifacts. Of all the people to compare historicity with, you couldn't have come up with a more PREPOSTEROUS example.

Now, we DO have more historical evidence for the existence of the Trojan War than "Jesus." Does that make The Iliad a book of "true" events?


I do think he really existed. Whether or not he was God, or an avatar, is impossible to tell, but there is mention of him by the non Christian historian Josephus.

Ah, the "Josephus Argument," the main one used by Christians and people with no academic background...

1. Flavius Josephus was no "Christian," per se...but he was a Jew, just like "Jesus" and most of his followers. Hardly the same as a Roman "Pagan" mentioning him.

2. Josephus wasn't even born until 7 years after "Jesus's" alleged death. He didn't start writing until many years later. Hardly a contemporary source. IOW, him mentioning "Jesus," even if he had...when there was already a Christian cult existing in Rome...is of no consequence at all.

3. The passage in question is almost certainly a forgery anyways. I don't feel like getting into the specifics, so here is a website debunking it, and many of the other alleged references: (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html)


So, if you don't believe he is God, then he was at least a Jewish man who lived in the first century A.D.

There were plenty of Jewish men in the first century C.E. named "Yeshua." There were also plenty of them claiming to be "The Messiah." Whoop-dee-doo.


I don't think that he was a figment of the Apostles' imaginations. 10 out of the 12 Apostles chose to die rather than renounce their belief in Jesus and worship the Roman Gods. They wouldn't die for something that they knew to be false. If Jesus had been made up, surely one of the 10 Apostles who were killed would have let the cat out of the bag and confessed that they made Jesus up? But none did.

Plenty of people died for David Koresh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh) as well. Or how about the Heaven's Gate cult (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_%28religious_group%29)? You do realize what a ridiculous argument this is, right? What a load of ****.

I'm beginning to understand TTA a lot better. Jeez.

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam Scott:

What do you believe?

A. The soul reincarnates until all karmas are resolved
B. The soul, after this lifetime either goes to heaven or to hell, depending on how this lifetime is lived

A. The goal of life is moksah, release from the pattern of rencarnation
B. The goal of life is to enter heaven

A. There is no way to heaven except through Christ the Saviour
B. Anyone can attain moksha, idn fact it is the destiny of all souls

A. It helps on the path to moksha to be a vegetarian
B. God created the animals for us to eat.

A. The Holy Bible is the foremost and only valid scripture on the planet.
B. The Vedas, as well as many supplementary scriptures are teh authority on life


So yes I too see TTA's POV.

Aum Namasivaya

[Ramakrishna]

Namaste,

I really don't know what to think about Jesus Christ. I initially held a view similar to Scott, that Jesus was an avatar of God. Then, I decided that Jesus was not God, but merely a gifted and enlightened man with great teachings. But now, after reading what some of you have said, I'm beginning to think that Jesus never existed.

It is hard to believe that two billion people worship someone that in fact never existed. I have referred to Jesus in the past as the greatest salesperson (as opposed to liar) that ever existed. I began thinking that when Jesus was on this Earth, he never actually said that he was God. He just said that he was a servant of God who was there to spread God's teachings. The book in the Bible that is full of the verses that say that Jesus is God (including the infamous verse that says nobody is saved unless they accept Jesus) is the Gospel of John, which was written about a hundred years after Jesus died. The earlier books that were written right after Christ died did not so much emphasize (if at all) that Jesus was God, but rather Jesus' actual teachings of love, compassion, and forgiveness.

I was about to undertake an even more in-depth study of the historicity of the Bible to determine if Jesus was God, but then I just stopped. The only reason I started in the first place was because I felt that Jesus had to in someway be relevant to Hinduism. I no longer believe he was an avatar of God (I never really did, only for a short while), and I do not think he was divine. But now I don't know to think if Jesus was a prophet or some sort of enlightened self-realized person, or if he in fact never existed!

For those of you who think that Jesus Christ never existed, what do you think of those Hindus who still choose to accept the supposed teachings of Jesus that include love, compassion, and forgiveness? I acknowledge that some of the things that Jesus preached completely contradict Hinduism, such as going to heaven or hell after one lifetime, and the exclusivity (although Jesus may never in fact had said that he was the only way to God). What do you think of Mohandas Gandhi, who found solace in the teachings of Jesus, especially the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount?

I personally believe that if somebody can find solace and inspiration in those teachings, then that is great for them! The Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount are just beautiful, and they go right in line with Hinduism.

Hare Krishna

[Eastern Mind]

I personally believe that if somebody can find solace and inspiration in those teachings, then that is great for them!


Vannakkam Ramakrishna:

I totally agree. If it works for you and you're not proseltysing incessantly, then I`m fine with it. I don`t want to come across as hateful towards Christians. I just don`t see it`s place in SD. You have to remember that it is the Christians that, via their proseltysing, would have induced those Hindus to speak of it. It is also certainly a good way to `get in good`with the westerners for political or economic reasons.

Aum Namasivata

[ScottMalaysia]

Oh, you opened a can of worms here, brother.



Absolute, unadulterated, 100% NONSENSE!

Actually, there is NO evidence for the existence of "Jesus." (* I always use that word in quotation marks, as the alleged person in question was named Yeshua, not "Jesus." "Christ" was a title, like "Saint" or "Lord," and was Greek for "the anointed one" or "the messiah.") Obviously, you've been reading books written by Christian nutcases, and not real historians.

Even my favorite Christian, a friend of mine named Dr. Kim Paffenroth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Paffenroth) (* Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Iona College, a Christian university... You may have seen him in History Channel documentaries...) has admitted when we had this discussion once that the evidence just DOES NOT EXIST. All of the alleged "evidence" has either been conclusively proven to be fake, or is highly suspicious. During the Middle Ages, there was a concerted effort by many Christian monks and historians to rewrite minor passages in historical texts to "prove" the historicity of "Jesus." As we have found earlier copies through archaeology and what-not, historians have been able to compare the earlier versions and see where the later "revisions" were added.

On the contrary, Alexander III of Macedon is EXTREMELY well documented. We have multiple biographies of him which were written by his contemporaries. We have descriptions of him by the people he conquered. We have thousands of historical artifacts. Of all the people to compare historicity with, you couldn't have come up with a more PREPOSTEROUS example.

Now, we DO have more historical evidence for the existence of the Trojan War than "Jesus." Does that make The Iliad a book of "true" events?



Ah, the "Josephus Argument," the main one used by Christians and people with no academic background...

1. Flavius Josephus was no "Christian," per se...but he was a Jew, just like "Jesus" and most of his followers. Hardly the same as a Roman "Pagan" mentioning him.

2. Josephus wasn't even born until 7 years after "Jesus's" alleged death. He didn't start writing until many years later. Hardly a contemporary source. IOW, him mentioning "Jesus," even if he had...when there was already a Christian cult existing in Rome...is of no consequence at all.

3. The passage in question is almost certainly a forgery anyways. I don't feel like getting into the specifics, so here is a website debunking it, and many of the other alleged references: (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html)

There were plenty of Jewish men in the first century C.E. named "Yeshua." There were also plenty of them claiming to be "The Messiah." Whoop-dee-doo.

I'm not a historian, so I'm not going to get into an argument here. Let's just say I was an ex-Christian and was told about these sources.



Plenty of people died for David Koresh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh) as well. Or how about the Heaven's Gate cult (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_%28religious_group%29)? You do realize what a ridiculous argument this is, right? What a load of ****.Yes, but those people genuinely believed that David Koresh and Marshall Applewhite were respecitvely a prophet or divine and blindly followed what they said. Nobody who believed that David Koresh was not speaking for God would willingly give up his life for him.

Yes, people die for various beliefs (such as Islamic suicide bombers). But they do it firmly believing that their religion and their God or prophet are true. If the Apostles got together and decided to make up Jesus Christ and start a religion with him as God, then they all died for something they KNEW to be a lie. The Romans tortured them horribly to make them change their beliefs, and when they refused, they were killed. All but one of the Apostles were martyred (John survived to old age) and none of them cracked under torture and confessed that they made Jesus up.



What do you believe?

A. The soul reincarnates until all karmas are resolved
B. The soul, after this lifetime either goes to heaven or to hell, depending on how this lifetime is lived

A. The goal of life is moksah, release from the pattern of rencarnation
B. The goal of life is to enter heaven

A. There is no way to heaven except through Christ the Saviour
B. Anyone can attain moksha, idn fact it is the destiny of all souls

A. It helps on the path to moksha to be a vegetarian
B. God created the animals for us to eat.

A. The Holy Bible is the foremost and only valid scripture on the planet.
B. The Vedas, as well as many supplementary scriptures are teh authority on life

I am a Hindu, so I believe the 'A' options, except the last one, where I believe that the Vedas and other Hindu scriptures are the authority on life.


I believe that Jesus Christ was an avatar of God. Ed Viswanathan, author of Am I a Hindu?, shares that belief. He writes the following in his book:


IS JESUS CHRIST AN AVATAR?
Of course, he is an Avatar like Krishna, Buddha or Mohammed. He came with a mission, delivered a mission and fially left unattached to anything or anyone. Avatars are not limited to India. They happen world-wide

With regard to the points you mentioned above, I said that I consider Jesus to be an avatar. I didn't say I agreed with Christianity's views on those points. The first gospels were not written until at least 30 years after Jesus had left this world. Do you think that the gospel writers, two of whom were not Apostles, would be able to accurately recall everything that Jesus said in exact detail? By this time, politics had entered Christianity and there were varying viewpoints. Those with a particular viewpoint could have distorted the truth or presented it in a way that showed their viewpoint. None of the New Testament books are dated, and the authorship of many is unknown. The four Gospels contain nothing that suggest they are written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - it was the Church who gave them those titles.

Much of the New Testament is written by St. Paul. He persecuted the Christians before his supposed "conversion" which occured when he was on the road to Damascus. He had gone to the High Priest and asked for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, asking them to help Paul round up and arrest Christians. However, neither the High Priest or the Sanhedrin (Jewish Council) had any authority in Damascus, which was an independent city free from Jewish rule. His supposed "conversion" after seeing Jesus was also improbable. I remember a Muslim man telling me that Paul converting to Christianity was about as likely as Hitler converting to Judaism. It is widely claimed by Muslims that Paul was the real founder of Christianity, and that Jesus' message was that of Islam (submission to God). Paul may have therefore used Jesus as a way of gaining political power. There is some historical evidence that Paul was being paid by the Roman Emperor Nero to create a peaceful messianic religion in Judea to pacify the Jews and their opposition to Roman rule.

So my point is that I accept Jesus himself as an avatar, but doing so does not mean that I accept the religion that arose with Jesus at the centre of it. The site hinduism.co.za has a very good article about this called Jesus verses Churchianity (http://www.hinduism.co.za/jesus.htm).

[sanjaya]

I personallly believe that Jesus was an avatar sent to the Israelites at a time when their religion had fallen to the level of mere ritualism.

Fair enough. My parents raised me to respect all religions' views of God, even if the religions in question are wrong. And so I try to do this. Whatever different Hindus think of Jesus, I think that we should all afford him the proper respect, regardless of whether Christians reciprocate (because let's face it, they won't).

Of course I was also raised with the understanding that we are Hindus, and that while we might go to someone else's house of worship, we're never going to convert. That, I think, is a fairly common Hindu view.


I do think he really existed. Whether or not he was God, or an avatar, is impossible to tell, but there is mention of him by the non Christian historian Josephus. I've read that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than there is for the existence of Alexander the Great.

Beware Scott, Christians have a tendancy to invent misinformation, and then keep repeating it when it's already been refuted. This is very common in creationism circles.

A Christian once told me the same line, except that he said there's more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than there is for the existence of President Abraham Lincoln. For those who aren't Americans, Lincoln was our President during the American Civil War in the 1860s. Photography was in its infancy then, so we have pictures of him. I think this statement is more than a stretch; it's a lie. Christians will say that there are extrabiblical references to Jesus. This too is an exaggeration. There's the statement by Josephus, which is a bit suspect because Josephus refers to Jesus as the Messiah (it may be sarcasm on his part). There are also statements by Tacitus and Pliny the Younger. Both refer to a sect of Christians who worship Christ, but neither individual knew Jesus. All the information about Jesus comes from Christian scripture. This isn't so bad, since all of our information about Lord Krishna comes from Hindu Scripture.

But then, we don't have a hell doctrine based on the supposed historical authority of our sacred texts.


So, if you don't believe he is God, then he was at least a Jewish man who lived in the first century A.D. I don't think that he was a figment of the Apostles' imaginations. 10 out of the 12 Apostles chose to die rather than renounce their belief in Jesus and worship the Roman Gods. They wouldn't die for something that they knew to be false. If Jesus had been made up, surely one of the 10 Apostles who were killed would have let the cat out of the bag and confessed that they made Jesus up? But none did.

If there is little evidence for Jesus' existence, there is less for the martyrdom of the apostles. Ask yourself: how do we know that the apostles were really martyred? When Christians make this argument, they're assuming the truth of the apostles' martyrdom. They rarely bother to cite primary sources, and to assess the reliability of those sources.

Again, I stress this: similar claims could be made about Hindu Scriptures. But we don't believe that someone will go to eternal hell for being a bad history student.


While Jesus is not central to Hinduism, since Hinduism was around before he was born, it is possible to be a Hindu and still pay him reverence or even worship him. Swami Vivekananda's book Christ the Messenger shows a picture of a Hindu altar contaning a picture of Jesus Christ and a picture of the Virgin Mary, both adorned with flower garlands.

In principle I agree with you. But this can be very dangerous. In evangelical Christianity, a common conversion tactic is to invite "unbelievers" to come to church. When we Hindus invite others to our temples, it's out of a desire for mutual religious understanding. Christians have no motive besides conversion. They poison other cultures by injecting their intolerant religious beliefs a little at a time. Eventually they Christianize the culture. Look what they did to Europe. First the church allowed Europeans to become Christians but maintain the holidays of their ancestors. Over time Europe became thoroughly Christian. Once Christianity gains political power, it becomes a dominating force. And it all starts with people practicing a little Christianity in their homes. That's why I personally prefer to have nothing to do with Christianity. Christianity is antithetical to family values (unless your entire family happens to already be wholly Christian), and I feel it has no ultimate good to offer us.

Ultimately the problem isn't Jesus, it's his followers.

[Sahasranama]

IS JESUS CHRIST AN AVATAR?
Of course, he is an Avatar like Krishna, Buddha or Mohammed. He came with a mission, delivered a mission and fially left unattached to anything or anyone. Avatars are not limited to India. They happen world-wide

Again, you are not quoting pramana from shastra, but some new agy touchy feely people pleasing populistic writer. You can come up with a petition with a million people signing that Jesus is an avatar, but that does not change the truth.

Of course, you are entitled to your belief, but that belief is not part of Sanatana Dharma.

[BryonMorrigan]

If there is little evidence for Jesus' existence, there is less for the martyrdom of the apostles. Ask yourself: how do we know that the apostles were really martyred? When Christians make this argument, they're assuming the truth of the apostles' martyrdom. They rarely bother to cite primary sources, and to assess the reliability of those sources.

And here I will quote another passage that really brings home to me how you always need to keep a skeptical eye open when reading about ancient Christianity and Rome. Here is a description of Christian practices by a "Pagan" Roman:


"Now the story about the initiation of young novices is as much to be detested as it is well known. An infant covered over with meal, that it may deceive the unwary, is placed before him who is to be stained with their rites: this infant is slain by the young pupil, who has been urged on as if to harmless blows on the surface of the meal, with dark and secret wounds. Thirstily--O horror!--they lick up its blood; eagerly they divide its limbs. By this victim they are pledged together; with this consciousness of wickedness they are covenanted to mutual silence. Such sacred rites as these are more foul than any sacrileges. And of their banqueting it is well known all men speak of it everywhere; even the speech of our Cirtensian testifies to it. On a solemn day they assemble at the feast, with all their children, sisters, mothers, people of every sex and of every age. There, after much feasting, when the fellowship has grown warm, and the fervour of incestuous lust has grown hot with drunkenness, a dog that has been tied to the chandelier is provoked, by throwing a small piece of offal beyond the length of a line by which he is bound, to rush and spring; and thus the conscious light being overturned and extinguished in the shameless darkness, the connections of abominable lust involve them in the uncertainty of fate." - Octavius, Minucius Felix, Chapter 9

Now, I don't really believe that the ancient Christians murdered infants and drank their blood, which then incited them to a wild orgy. But what it DOES show you is that you can't just accept the word of someone when they make an outrageous claim.

If you read that some guy is the "Son of God" and performed "miracles," then why are you taking that guy's word for it? As the aforementioned Dr. Paffenroth explained to me...to him it is about faith. His faith sustains him, and he doesn't need to see "proof." Good for him. But the idea that we, who do not believe in their religion...should be moved by their laughable attempts at "proving" the existence of "Jesus" or other Biblical events, is ludicrous. (*)

Frankly, the mere fact that they attempt to "prove" anything shows to me how desperate they are. I've never heard of anyone searching for the archaeological remains of Arjuna to "prove" the historicity of the Bhagavad Gita. Such "proof" is unnecessary.

________________________________________________________________

(*) Especially when they try to "prove" that "Noah's Ark" has been located on a mountain in Turkey. Yeah, I totally buy that.