To believe in Jesus

[Elijah John]

Truit on another tread made some great points about what it means to "believe in Jesus":
------
"Jesus equated believing in Him with obeying His teachings:

Luk 6:46
And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

The NT teaches that people who follow the teachings of Jesus will be saved, even if they've never heard of Him:

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom.2:14"

-----

Now traditonally "believing in Jesus" meant believing that he died for our sins. Paul indicates as much when he says that "if one could be saved by works of the law, then Christ died in vain."

I would turn that and say that if Christ came in order to die for our sins, he taught in vain.

But assuming it is necessary to "believe in Jesus" to be saved, what does that mean?

Does it mean believing that he is the Messiah? The Son of God? God Incarnate? In his "blood atonement" on the cross?

Or does it mean to believe in his message, the Golden Rule, the Beattitudes, the two great commandments Love of God and Love of neighbor, the Lords prayer, in mutual forgiveness, in other words, his TEACHINGS.

Does "believing in Jesus" mean believing some tenants ABOUT Jesus, (as Paul and John seem to suggest) or does it mean accepting Jesus' teachings about the Father, and the way to live that is pleasing to Him, as Jesus is recorded to have taught in the synoptics.?

[Divine Insight]

In terms of Christianity the idea of "believing in Jesus" is to believe that he was indeed the "only begotten son of God". Which for a Christian means that Jesus was "The Christ", this is why it's called "Christianity" and not "Jesusianity".

Also, in terms of what Jesus taught, there is much diversity of beliefs. For example I don't focus on the things that you focus on. I focus on something entirely different.

From my perspective Jesus was most likely trying to teach the concept of karma that he most likely learned from Mahayana Buddhism which was quite prevalent in the time period in which he lived. Mahayana Buddhism was certainly well-known in the Middle East by the time Jesus was born.

You seem to focus on "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". But do you really even need to be taught that?

That seems to me to be pretty trivial common sense. You can hardly go around treating other people badly and then complain if they do the same to you.

I see far more value in Jesus' teachings of Karma.

Luke.6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

What you do is what you'll get. That's karma.

Matt.7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

How you judge is how you will be judged. That's karma.

Jesus was teaching karma. Period.

All the rest is just commentary.

Even "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is basically a teaching of Karma.

Jesus was teaching the principle of karma.

That was his message as far as I'm concerned.

I believe in karma, therefore I believe in the teachings of Jesus because Jesus was teaching karma. Thus I believe in the message of Jesus. And so I believe in Jesus in that sense.

But I don't believe in Jesus in the Christian sense. In other words, I don't believe that Jesus was "The Christ" or the only begotten demigod son of God. So I could never claim to be a Christian. On the contrary Jesus wasn't any different from Buddha when you get right down to it.

In fact, I always say, if you believe in the teachings of Jesus, then you believe in the teachings of Buddha, and vice verse, because they both taught the same fundamental thing - Karma.

You can't satisfy the teachings of either of these two men without automatically simultaneously satisfying the teachings of the other. They both had precisely the same message. So to believe in Jesus in this way is to also believe in Buddha, and vice versa. The teachings of these two men cannot be separated. They were both saying the same thing.

[Overcomer]

Elijah John wrote:

But assuming it is necessary to "believe in Jesus" to be saved, what does that mean?

It means that one is convicted of ones sin, confesses it and repents of it.

It means that one recognizes and accepts that Christ, the second person of the Triune Godhead, died on the cross to atone for ones sin and rose from the dead and now sits at the right hand of God.

It means that one is converted which, in turn, means that ones spirit, once dead in sin, is brought alive in Christ.

It means one enters into a relationship with God through Christ by the infilling of the Holy Spirit.

It means one embarks upon a life-long process of sanctification with the goal of becoming more and more like Christ. The process involves having the Holy Spirit point out what sin is. The Holy Spirit empowers the believer to resist temptation and overcome sin. The process involves following the teachings of Christ.

Good works are the outcome of ones faith in Christ. They do not earn salvation as salvation cannot be earned which is stated clearly in Eph. 2:8. It is a gift from Christ to those who grasp who he is, what he has done, and why they need him.


Elijah John wrote:

The NT teaches that people who follow the teachings of Jesus will be saved, even if they've never heard of Him:

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom.2:14"

That verse does not teach that people will be saved even if they dont know Jesus as long as they do good works. It is imperative to read verses IN CONTEXT. When you read the first two chapters of Romans, it becomes evident what Paul meant. He is not talking about salvation at all. He is saying that people are without excuse re: recognizing and acknowledging the Lord for two reasons.

First of all, he is evident in creation. Secondly, he is evident in the conscience of a person. This is because we are all made in Gods image. That means that we have some sense of right and wrong in us. However, since we are all born with sin natures, our ability to grasp fully and correctly what constitutes the holy and the unholy has been warped.

This means that Gentiles cant say, Hey! We didnt have the Law of Moses the way the Jews did! So how can we be judged for not following God? Pauls answer is " because God is evident in nature and your conscience, but you have suppressed that knowledge because you did not want to believe. You liked your sin too much to give it up.

I could go on to talk about the cosmological and teleological evidences for God from creation and the argument for his existence from morality which apply to this passage, but I think that would be getting way off-topic. So I point you to the following:

http://pleaseconvinceme.com/category/theism/

Also, for more information on that passage from Romans, check out these:

https://bible.org/seriespage/lesson-11- ... ans-212-16

https://bible.org/seriespage/study-and- ... mans-21-16

The bottom line is this: There is a difference between doing good and BEING good. Im talking about ontology " ones essence, ones very being. God cant have sinners in his presence. All human beings are born sinners. No doctrine in the Bible has as much empirical evidence to support it as that one. You have only to turn on the evening news to see it borne out. I have explained elsewhere why Christ alone saves, but will do so again for anybody who is interested and missed it the first time.

Animal sacrifices in the Old Testament covered sins, but they didnt eradicate them. Only a person could be the sacrifice to atone for the sins of humanity. Animals in the O.T. had to be unblemished to be fit for sacrifice. In human terms, that means only a sin-free man could atone for the sins of humanity. As I pointed out, there is no such thing as a sin-free man.

Enter Christ who, as God Incarnate, was 100 per cent man AND 100 per cent God. Being the latter, he was sin-free and being the former, he could die in our place " which he did. When we are convicted of Christs work on the cross and our own sinfulness and repent, we are given the gift of salvation. Christ gives us HIS righteousness in exchange for our sins. He brings our dead spirit alive. We are new creations in him. We have right-standing with God. This is why Christ and Christ alone saves.

I havent stopped to provide all the Scripture verses because I dont have time. But trust me! The Biblical support is there! However, since you seem to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you want to believe and which parts you dont, then I dont really think it matters that much whether I include them for you, Elijah John, since you can just dismiss them if they dont fit the theology you have created for yourself.

[Divine Insight]

This means that Gentiles cant say, Hey! We didnt have the Law of Moses the way the Jews did! So how can we be judged for not following God? Pauls answers is " because God is evident in nature and your conscience, but you have suppressed that knowledge because you did not want to believe. You liked your sin too much to give it up.

But why should anyone believe Paul's nonsense?

It's a lie that God is evident in Nature and in your consciousness. That's a lie. Or at the very best a really lame and unsupportable opinion.

Moreover, to accuse people who don't believe in God that they "like their sin too much to give it up" is even worse than a lie. It's an absolute false accusation on the part of Paul against people he doesn't even know well enough to pass that judgment on.

Who is Paul to pass such judgements on people?

These accusations that are being made by the authors of these ancient fables are totally without merit. They have basis whatsoever.

People who believe that the Bible is the "Word of God" believe these false accusations because they have convinced themselves that the Bible is the "Word of God".

But have they ever stopped to think if these accusations actually apply to them?

Is it true of you that you "like your sin too much to give it up"?

Is that true?

If it's true then you are confessing that you actually like to sin.

If it's not true, then my point has been made.

[Thruit]

Divine Insight posted,
On the contrary Jesus wasn't any different from Buddha when you get right down to it.

Then you're saying Jesus was lying about who He is.[/quote]

[Thruit]

Elijah John posted,
Now traditonally "believing in Jesus" meant believing that he died for our sins. Paul indicates as much when he says that "if one could be saved by works of the law, then Christ died in vain."

I would turn that and say that if Christ came in order to die for our sins, he taught in vain.

Jesus did die for our sins, but not for the reason main stream Christianity teaches. Jesus lived in sacrifice and taught us to do the same:
Jhn 14:21
He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

This is the faith Paul also taught about.

[Thruit]

Overcomer posted,
That verse does not teach that people will be saved even if they dont know Jesus as long as they do good works. It is imperative to read verses IN CONTEXT. When you read the first two chapters of Romans, it becomes evident what Paul meant. He is not talking about salvation at all.

Yes, he is:

Rom 2:6-7
Who will render to every man according to his deeds. To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life.

Rom 2:10
...glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good...

Rom 2:13
...the doers of the law shall be justified.

He is saying that people are without excuse re: recognizing and acknowledging the Lord for two reasons.

First of all, he is evident in creation. Secondly, he is evident in the conscience of a person. This is because we are all made in Gods image....

True, but you're missing Paul's point.

This means that Gentiles cant say, Hey! We didnt have the Law of Moses the way the Jews did! So how can we be judged for not following God?

No. Paul is addressing the Jews.

Rom 2:17
Behold, thou art called a Jew...

He's saying that Gentiles who obey the law in spirit are an indictment against those who attempt to obey the law by letter.

Rom 2:26
Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

Rom 2:27
And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

Pauls answer is " because God is evident in nature and your conscience, but you have suppressed that knowledge because you did not want to believe. You liked your sin too much to give it up.

True of some but not all.

[Divine Insight]

Divine Insight posted,
On the contrary Jesus wasn't any different from Buddha when you get right down to it.

Then you're saying Jesus was lying about who He is.

No, I'm not saying that at all.

To begin with we have no clue what Jesus might have actually said in detail. The New Testament is just hearsay rumors about him that clearly contained superstitious claims. Not the least of which was that God supposedly spoke from a cloud proclaiming Jesus to be his son.

It was clearly the authors of these rumors about Jesus that were trying to make a case for the divinity of Jesus. It is not clear at all that Jesus himself ever made any such claims. Saying something like "I and the Father are one" is not a claim of being a demigod born of a virgin. On the contrary it's far more of a statement of a belief in pantheism, just as any Mahayana Buddhist would suggest.

Moreover, even in the rumors of Jesus we see Jesus defending himself against charges of blaspheme by pointing to the scriptures of the Pharisees and stating, "It is not written in your law, I have said ye are gods".

Now if Jesus was proclaiming to be the "only begotten son of God" why would he defend himself by suggesting that everyone can say that they are the son of God?

Clearly there are serious problems with the rumors about Jesus. We have nothing written by the man himself, so we have no clue what his side of the story might even be.

The problem with your position is that you are taking the New Testament rumors to be the "Gospel Truth". In other words, you are taking the position that every jot and tittle of the Gospels must be accounted for. But that would only be the case if the Gospels were indeed the perfectly inspired word of God as the authors would like for you to believe.

However, once you recognize that Jesus may have simply been a mortal man, then there is no longer any need to give these rumors about him such extreme merit. On the contrary, not only do they most likely contain falsehoods, but they most likely don't even contain a correct interpretation of what the man stood for in the first place.

It's impossible to call Jesus a liar. He never wrote anything down and we have absolutely nothing that came from Jesus directly. At best you might be able to call the authors of the New Testament liars. But even the same thing applies to them. We don't even know for sure who wrote these texts or how much they were modified and twisted since they were originally written. In fact, we have clear evidence that they have indeed been modified and changed over time.

So it's impossible to call Jesus a liar, since we have no clue what the man might have even said.

Similarly it's impossible to believe in Jesus directly for the same reason.

It's impossible to accept Jesus, and it's impossible to reject Jesus.

If Jesus was God he made it impossible for anyone to accept or reject him directly. At best all you can do is accept or reject totally undependable hearsay rumors about him that are filled with blatant contradictions. So it's not even clear what you would be accepting or rejecting.

The myriad of disagreeing Christian denominations if a testament to this. Even they have no clue what this God supposedly wants from them.

If there were a God associated with these ancient rumors he would be a God who sends extremely adulterated mixed messages who is totally inept at communicating with his own creation. Even the most devout Christians have no clue what they are supposed to believe.

And let's face it, this Christian God's message would have been completely lost on the Jews and Muslims entirely.

In short, it's absolutely impossible for the Christian New Testament to be the truth of God. Any God who had created Christianity would have been the greatest failure who ever existed.

[Thruit]

Divine Insight said.
No, I'm not saying that at all.
To begin with we have no clue what Jesus might have actually said in detail.

So this is the road you want to go down, huh?

The New Testament is just hearsay rumors about him that clearly contained superstitious claims. Not the least of which was that God supposedly spoke from a cloud proclaiming Jesus to be his son.

I think when it comes to the heart of the matter, most rational people are all basically the same. I wouldn't bet my life on superstition. Would you?

It was clearly the authors of these rumors about Jesus that were trying to make a case for the divinity of Jesus. It is not clear at all that Jesus himself ever made any such claims.

The rabbis who interrogated Jesus disagree with you.

Saying something like "I and the Father are one" is not a claim of being a demigod born of a virgin.

Not by itself, but you've already decided you have no clue what Jesus might have said, so why bother quoting Him?

On the contrary it's far more of a statement of a belief in pantheism, just as any Mahayana Buddhist would suggest.

Not at all like Buddhism. Buddhists strive for enlightenment. Jesus was born that way. Buddhists don't believe in a Creator. Jesus is the Creator.

Moreover, even in the rumors of Jesus we see Jesus defending himself against charges of blaspheme by pointing to the scriptures of the Pharisees and stating, "It is not written in your law, I have said ye are gods".

Exactly. Why would Jesus have to defend His claim of Diety if He didn't claim it to begin with.

Now if Jesus was proclaiming to be the "only begotten son of God" why would he defend himself by suggesting that everyone can say that they are the son of God?

He didn't suggest everyone can make the claim. He said those to whom the word of God came came were called gods. He was mocking them.

Ps.82.1-2
A Psalm of Asaph.God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked?

Clearly there are serious problems with the rumors about Jesus. We have nothing written by the man himself, so we have no clue what his side of the story might even be.

Your position would force you to disregard any ancient body of oliterature. Are you prepared to discount what the Buddha reportedly said?

The problem with your position is that you are taking the New Testament rumors to be the "Gospel Truth". In other words, you are taking the position that every jot and tittle of the Gospels must be accounted for.

Not my position at all, but I will mention that among ancient textual criticism, the Bible far surpasses any other work. The stance that we can't really know what Jesus said is ridiculous.

However, once you recognize that Jesus may have simply been a mortal man, then there is no longer any need to give these rumors about him such extreme merit. On the contrary, not only do they most likely contain falsehoods, but they most likely don't even contain a correct interpretation of what the man stood for in the first place.

Well, call me crazy, but I think if my ass was on the line, I'd make damn sure what I was saying was true. How about you?

...In fact, we have clear evidence that they have indeed been modified and changed over time.

All ancient texts have some discrepancies. Scholars don't burn them for it.

The myriad of disagreeing Christian denominations if a testament to this. Even they have no clue what this God supposedly wants from them.

I think we'll have to wait until the reported judgment to see who the Christians were.

And let's face it, this Christian God's message would have been completely lost on the Jews and Muslims entirely.

Then no Jew or Muslim would ever convert to Christianity, but you and I know that isn't the case. Don't we?

In short, it's absolutely impossible for the Christian New Testament to be the truth of God. Any God who had created Christianity would have been the greatest failure who ever existed.

Tell that to the prophets.

[Divine Insight]

Divine Insight said.
No, I'm not saying that at all.
To begin with we have no clue what Jesus might have actually said in detail.

So this is the road you want to go down, huh?

This is the road of truth. We have no choice but to face the truth.

The New Testament is just hearsay rumors about him that clearly contained superstitious claims. Not the least of which was that God supposedly spoke from a cloud proclaiming Jesus to be his son.

I think when it comes to the heart of the matter, most rational people are all basically the same. I wouldn't bet my life on superstition. Would you?

I agree most rational people wouldn't bet their life on superstition, yet look around you at the world. The vast majority of the masses of humanity are betting their live on precisely that.

It was clearly the authors of these rumors about Jesus that were trying to make a case for the divinity of Jesus. It is not clear at all that Jesus himself ever made any such claims.

The rabbis who interrogated Jesus disagree with you.

And Pilate who interrogated Jesus disagreed with the rabbis. Pilate exonerated Jesus from the charges of the rabbis and found no fault in him. Check it out, it's in the New Testament clear as day.

And besides, didn't Jesus himself proclaim the rabbis to be hypocrites? Why would you believe hypocrites?

Saying something like "I and the Father are one" is not a claim of being a demigod born of a virgin.

Not by itself, but you've already decided you have no clue what Jesus might have said, so why bother quoting Him?

Well, these hearsay rumors most likely weren't created in a vacuum. There probably were things being said that people didn't understand, and that is what caused these superstitious rumors to evolve in the first place.

I'm just pointing out the self-contradictory flaws in these rumors.

On the contrary it's far more of a statement of a belief in pantheism, just as any Mahayana Buddhist would suggest.

Not at all like Buddhism. Buddhists strive for enlightenment. Jesus was born that way. Buddhists don't believe in a Creator. Jesus is the Creator.

Even according to these rumors Jesus never claimed to be the Creator. On the contrary, someone called Jesus "Good Master" and Jesus supposedly said to him:

Mark.10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Clearly, according to these hearsay rumors, Jesus was neither claiming to be God, nor even good, much less claiming to be the Creator.

Can you produce anything from these rumors where it is stated that Jesus specifically claims to be the Creator?

If you can then you will have just demonstrated a blatant contraction with Mark 10:18.

Moreover, even in the rumors of Jesus we see Jesus defending himself against charges of blaspheme by pointing to the scriptures of the Pharisees and stating, "It is not written in your law, I have said ye are gods".

Exactly. Why would Jesus have to defend His claim of Diety if He didn't claim it to begin with.

But he clearly wasn't defending any claim of deity. On the contrary his defense was that any mortal man can claim to be one with the Father. His defense was that he wasn't committing blasphemy. His defense was that he was not claiming to be any special deity.

Now if Jesus was proclaiming to be the "only begotten son of God" why would he defend himself by suggesting that everyone can say that they are the son of God?

He didn't suggest everyone can make the claim. He said those to whom the word of God came came were called gods. He was mocking them.

No, mocking them would not have been a defense on his behalf. So I totally disagree with your assessment here.

Moreover, if your position here were to be accepted as being true, then what you are actually saying is that Jesus was mocking the Old Testament as being total garbage that was clearly just made up by the scribes and pharisees and has nothing to do with God.

If you are claiming that Jesus was mocking the pharisees in this way, then you are necessarily also claiming that Jesus was mocking the Old Testament as well.

Ps.82.1-2
A Psalm of Asaph.God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked?

I have no clue why you posted this verse or what you intend to mean by it. I don't see how this connects with Jesus pointing out to the Pharisees that the Old Testament clearly states that they are also gods.

Clearly there are serious problems with the rumors about Jesus. We have nothing written by the man himself, so we have no clue what his side of the story might even be.

Your position would force you to disregard any ancient body of oliterature. Are you prepared to discount what the Buddha reportedly said?

I'm not concerned about Buddha. Buddha could be an entirely fictional character as far as I am concerned. There is no need for Buddha to have ever existed. It's the idea and the message behind these stories that is important. And yes, I feel very confident that this message contains contamination and misunderstanding too.

I don't "worship" Buddhism verbatim. I simply recognize that the main foundational ideas have at least some merit.

So there is no need to hold Buddha up as being something special like there is in the case of holding Jesus up as the demigod "Christ".

The problem with your position is that you are taking the New Testament rumors to be the "Gospel Truth". In other words, you are taking the position that every jot and tittle of the Gospels must be accounted for.

Not my position at all, but I will mention that among ancient textual criticism, the Bible far surpasses any other work. The stance that we can't really know what Jesus said is ridiculous.

Your claim that the Bible surpasses any other work is nothing other than a totally unsubstantiated personal opinion. It carries absolutely no weight or merit. It's just an opinion, and one that I most certainly do not share.

However, once you recognize that Jesus may have simply been a mortal man, then there is no longer any need to give these rumors about him such extreme merit. On the contrary, not only do they most likely contain falsehoods, but they most likely don't even contain a correct interpretation of what the man stood for in the first place.

Well, call me crazy, but I think if my ass was on the line, I'd make damn sure what I was saying was true. How about you?

I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to here. No one living today can know any "Truth" about these ancient rumors. Anyone who believes that they know truth is only fooling themselves.

I'm simply pointing out the fact that these ancient rumors are filled with extreme contradictions and absurdities. It's quite rational to conclude that they are highly questionable to say the the least. The conclusions that I've drawn concerning these ancient rumors is reasonable. And that's all I need to claim. I don't even need to delve into what "might" be true about them. That's not something that anyone today can determine.

...In fact, we have clear evidence that they have indeed been modified and changed over time.

All ancient texts have some discrepancies. Scholars don't burn them for it.

I'm not concerned with what scholars do. I don't agree with every scholar in the world, and I don't need to. Scholars don't even agree with each other. There are Christian Scholars, Muslim Scholars, Jewish Scholars, Atheist Scholars, and scholars from all other faiths and beliefs from all over the world. They can't all be right, and what is far more likely is that they are basically all wrong.

In fact, the Atheist scholars have the strong ground upon which to stand. They are rational enough to recognize that death, disease, and animals eating other animals has always been the way of nature since the beginning of life on earth. There is no reason to believe in any fairytale that some God designed this stuff and then mankind somehow corrupted it all by a fall from grace.

So among all the "scholars" the Atheist Scholars have the best possible position, IMHO.

The myriad of disagreeing Christian denominations if a testament to this. Even they have no clue what this God supposedly wants from them.

I think we'll have to wait until the reported judgment to see who the Christians were.

You could be waiting for something that is never going to happen.

In fact what are you even talking about? According to the New Testament Rumors any judgement that was predicted by Jesus has already been done thousands of years ago:

Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Mark 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

Luke 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

Also:

Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and enter not into any city of the Samaritans; but go rather to the lost sheep of IsraelYou shall not have gone through all the cities of Israel before the son of man comes. Matthew 10:6

You shall not have gone through all of the cities of Israel before the son of man comes.

There you go. Clearly these New Testament have Jesus returning for judgment before his very own disciples have had enough time to go through all the cities of Israel.

The very idea that Jesus might come back some 2000 years later isn't even compatible with these ancient fables.

This is an absurd notion of modern Christians.

And let's face it, this Christian God's message would have been completely lost on the Jews and Muslims entirely.

Then no Jew or Muslim would ever convert to Christianity, but you and I know that isn't the case. Don't we?

And there are Christians who have converted to Judaism and Islam not to mention Atheism and Buddhism, Taoism, and Wicca, etc.

If there were any truth to Christianity no Christian would ever convert away from Christianity, but this happens all the time. So your point is totally moot.

In short, it's absolutely impossible for the Christian New Testament to be the truth of God. Any God who had created Christianity would have been the greatest failure who ever existed.

Tell that to the prophets.

I certainly would if they were alive today. IMHO, they probably weren't all that much different from modern day evangelists. And some of them may very well have been as mentally deranged as people like Jim Jones, or David Koresh.

We've had religious fruitcakes with us since the dawn of time. Jesus himself may have been a religious fruitcake, we have no way of knowing what the man was truly like. All we can be sure of is that the rumors about him are highly contradictory and often extremely absurd.

And just as I have shown about in the words of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, even these rumors have Jesus himself proclaiming that all his prophecies would come true before the generation he was speaking to had passed.

So clearly these ancient rumors can have nothing at all to do with modern man. Anyone who is still waiting for Jesus to come back isn't paying attention. These rumors themselves have Jesus clearly stating that the son of man will come before the current generation had passed.

So there is no basis to Christianity at all. None whatsoever. The foundational fables upon which it is built don't even support the modern day claims of Christianity.

Does it really matter whether these stories were true or just superstitious rumors?

They'd be over with back in the same generation in which they were created anyway. If we are to believe these stories the only conclusion that can be had is that Jesus did indeed come back, grab the souls he was interested (which would have been very few according to Jesus) and then leave the rest of us here to die.

So if we are to believe in the Gospel Rumors we have no choice but to realize that we are nothing other than the descendents of the rejects. We have already been rejected, and there is nothing we could do now to change that anyway.

That's the only conclusion we can have if we're going to give this ancient stories any merit. Christianity is a done deal by Jesus "own Words" according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke.