How Could Disciples Think Jesus Was A “God” When Jews Worshiped Only One God?

The idea Jews were monotheists is a bit misleading.  They recognized other gods.

The Ten Commandments say, “Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me.”  It does not say you shall have no other gods, period.

A number of angles appear in the Old Testament. These were other forms of spiritual beings that existed to Jews.

There are in the OT examples of these gods becoming humans.  And, there were humans who became gods.  This was not altogether different than the Pagans who lived in the neighborhood.  Earthly human/god combinations were all around.

The cultural setting at the time of Jesus’ life was for groupies to consider their hero a god.  But, not the chief god, a lower level god like angles.

It’s common in Christianity to consider Jesus as marked to become one of the Trinity from when he was born, or, as in the Book of John, before he was born.  A more accurate way of describing what went on is that he was considered one of the “entry level” gods.

This is the way the story would have ended, a lower level god forgotten by the sands of time, where is not for fortuitous events.  One was the story which got started that he rose from being dead.  His stock as a god went up.

This put in motion making up other stories to raise his status, the virgin birth, visits with God and all the rest.

Bart Ehrman, How Jesus Became God.

64 Responses

      1. entech

        Actually I find Ehrman doesn’t need interpreting, at least in his popular works – his works written for serious scholars is beyond me.
        But just think, if the Bible books were written as clearly and unambiguously as Fr. James likes to think all those people would out of work, writers, publishers, printers, priests none would be needed.

        1. Fr. James

          Pope Benedict’s books on Jesus are a fine antidote to Bart’s musings. If entech had his way all of us who disagree with him would be in prison or worse.

          1. entech

            Yawn, you admit you are boring us all to death with attempts to spread the load. Tu quoque is a bit of Latin I suppose you understand.

  1. entech

    Especially when they are brought with at least daily recitations of:
    Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is One.

  2. Henry

    Jon:“How Could Disciples Think Jesus Was A “God” When Jews Worshiped Only One God?”

    The Messiah is rooted and prophesied in the Old Testament.

    1. entech

      And quite clearly we are still waiting for the prophesied messiah.
      Not as a second coming but the first.
      Unless of course he came and went while we were blogging about it ?

        1. entech

          None of the above, just someone who does not think the collection of stories can be reconciled within themselves or one with the other. Or are completely factual anyway.

          The Pauline amendments break the rules, doesn’t it say in more than one place something about neither adding nor taking away. Paul did all of that. If you reject some how do you justify keeping the bits you need.

    2. Henry 1:41 “The Messiah is rooted and prophesied in the Old Testament.”

      Would have been nice if he had shown up with a letter of introduction from the Appointer. As it turned out, there was no proof this was the guy and we’re still arguing about whether he was or was not. If people has started a rumor about some other guy, or, Contantine had glopped on to some other religion, all this about the prophets would be buried in the sands of time.

      1. Henry

        Jon:“Would have been nice if he had shown up with a letter of introduction from the Appointer.”

        He did. The OT was provided.

          1. Henry

            You cannot even get the easy ones tonight. You should go for a walk and enjoy the sunny weather before dark, cold winter sets in. Be careful of rogue cyclists aiming to run you down.

          2. entech

            Yes I have read the morning paper too, I don’t everything there either.
            But really the OT and the OT prophets are hardly the basis for the real deal.
            Along comes this guy and says I am the messiah I have come to save you; all ready you get twitchy, sounds like a politician.
            Got anything to back it up you say.
            Of course we have the whole history of the Jews, here look where it says a saviour will be born, he will be born of woman. See I was born and I had a mother. There’s more!

            You remind me of a popular song from my youth, the last verse:
            As the images unwind
            Like the circles
            That you find
            In the windmills of your mind !

  3. Dan

    Not to change the subject but I came across an interesting article today:

    Saudi Arabia declares all atheists are terrorists in new law to crack down on political dissidents.

    I understand that atheists feel like America is a terrible place for them to live, having to see crosses on top of buildings and listen to people of tollerance speak about morality but thank your luck stars you don’t live in Saudi Arabia. You’d be hunted down like the Christians.

    1. entech

      Saudi is a strange place. An Australian (Syrian descent) was jailed in Saudi, on his way to Mecca, apparently he was on the wrong side of the divide and wearing the wrong colour hat, or some such insult to the dominant Muslim group.
      So, all you out there, demanding more and more religious freedom – interpreted as freedom to impose my particular branch of my particular religion, be aware that you too could finish up on the wrong side of the divide.

  4. Wolfy32

    There was the “God of Abraham”, Elijah the prophet (or God of Elijah), whom, Elijah got to escape earth, went into some light and was gone. (Probably a transporter beam or something. ??? First alien abduction? HA! :))

    There’s the tidbit in genesis that saraphim took on humans as mates. We’re not sure how to interpret that? Were these “angels” more or less aliens openly living on earth and mating with humans? Would that be aliens that were into beastiality? HA! I’m just full of ’em this morning.

    So, many times the bible refers to Elija and Abraham. Elite prophets, almost as reknowned as Jesus. They had much better lives than Jesus and were more powerful. Elija didn’t have to die, he just ascended. In my book, that’s way cooler and way more powerful than Jesus having to be tortured and posted on a cross. Much more believable about him just walking into a light and vanishing. There’s nothing left to the imagination. There one instant gone the next. None of this searching for a body, or worrying about body theft, etc.

    I’d find it pretty ironic that if in the end, there were actually numerous beings all vying for human worship. (Much like in the last 2 seasons of Stargate SG1) An ascended that wanted to see humanity grow and flourish and a fallen ascended that wanted to feed off of humanity’s passions and worship.

    All so very confusing, the Jews think Jesus is just an another prophet, similar to abraham and Elijah. The Christians think they have it all figured out. Jesus is God, period, there’s no more questioning, game over. We found God stop searching.

  5. Fr. James

    Jon, I see that instead of seeking the whole truth you remain content with spoon fed errors supplied by Bart. You continue to embarrass yourself.

    In fact Jews considered pagan gods to be demons or idols. We sometimes refer to things as “gods” when we mean that people use them in place of god, for example someone who worships money as a “god.” Jews were indeed monotheistic. The idea of worshiping something other then the one God was anathema to them. There was no chance that Jesus would have become some kind of lesser god in Jewish thought.

    The Christian belief in the Trinity was not the same as pagan concepts of God. Even the pagans knew that. They didn’t look at Christians and say “oh there is just another brand of paganism.” If they had they would not have persecuted them.

    If he had not risen from the dead he would have been forgotten. I don’t know where you have scientific evidence proving that these stories were “made up.” Perhaps you have a time machine and went back there yourself? So basically you make a faith statement of what you believe.

    1. Fr. James 3:15 “There was no chance that Jesus would have become some lesser god in Jewish thought.”

      The Jews knew there were other gods. It’s plain as day in the Bible. That is not to say the worshipped them in the same way as “the god”, but they were super natural being nevertheless. I don’t think Ehrman is at all far fetched to see the Jesus could have been seen as a lesser god in the earliest part of the whole saga.

      1. Fr. James

        What did they mean by “gods?” You have heard the phrase “he made a god of his belly.” Does that mean that his belly was a god? Or that he liked food too much.

        The other “gods” were idols. They were demons. Not like the one true God. To worship them was a sin.

        When Jesus claimed divinity they didn’t think “oh good another lesser god.” They knew what he was claiming, that he was the one God.

        Again, look beyond Bart who is a minority. Do some actual serious study of Christianity in a disciplined way. Read what Catholics really believe by real scholars. If I quoted one minor atheist scholar all the time and refused to read any others you would soon be quite annoyed. Do your homework and learn your subject.

        1. Fr. James 5:01 “look beyond Bart who is a minority.”

          So it is told, Jesus was a minority during his life. Ehrman in not a minority in some circles. He has published in the most competitive peer reviews jounals in the field. I read his book sales are in the range of 750,000.

          Obviously, there are other equally credentialed scholars who disagree. There is no ultimate “proof” and anything religious. There is but belief. What I am discussing is the appeal of Ehrman’s arguments to the general public and how that might influence the future popularity of the faith. I think he has something important to add in that venue.

          1. Fr. James

            You know that is not what we are talking about. Don’t be disingenuous. He writes mostly at a popular level. He is an agnostic and it shows. Pope Benedict’ sales are better, so why don’t you read him? Why do you quote Bart as if his books were sacred text? Because you have researched it? No, because he is a former evangelical who does his best to undermine Christianity and you like that. What is the reason you refuse to read anyone who is not like Bart? Afraid that you might find proof that refutes your beliefs?

            I realize that you might find Pope Benedict’s books a little difficult, but surely you can at least try to read something that you will not reflexively agree with. You like to challenge us, so I challenge you to get outside your comfort zone. You have nothing to fear but the truth itself.

            You might enjoy this:


          2. Fr. James 5:48 re Pope Benedicts books.

            Pope Benedict used in Christman message to the world to condemn gays or gay marriage. I will take a pass on reading Benedict.

            I did take a quick look at the Christian link you posted. It’s full of arguments that Ehrman found the Bible, and other documents, this way, I and people like me, the writer said, found them another way.

            So it goes. The facts are these:
            1.) Church membership among the young is plumeting.
            2.) Ehrman reflects, or contributes to, this change.

            I suspect most people who are skeptical think Ehrman wins these debates.

          3. Fr. James

            Jon, while I didn’t expect you to be open minded what you say is absurd. Because you disagree with the Catholic Church’s position on homosexuality you refuse to read what Pope Benedict wrote on scripture? You never ever read anything or anyone you disagree with eh? No wonder you are so ignorant about religion. No wonder you can’t even really debate since you won’t listen to the other side. Read what you just wrote and then think about what it says about you. Frankly I think you fear if you did read the Pope’s books you would be challenged beyond your capacity. You are right about that.

            Then you suddenly state that youth are not maintaining Church membership. If so then so what? What does that have to do with what we were discussing?

            And even if skeptics agree with Bart, so what? That does not mean Bart is correct. If they are already biased, and like you refuse to hear the other side, then their agreement means nothing. Many do not agree that he wins, except for those who already agree with him before the debate begins.

            This has to be the lamest response you have given me thus far.

          4. Fr. James 9:31 “You won’t read what Pope Benedict wrote because you disagree with the Catholic’s position on homosexuality you will not read what Pope Benedict wrote about scripture?”

            That is correct. If Pope Benedict cannot understand scripture does not condemn homosexuality, why should I think he knows anymore about it than the average guy walking down the street? Both he and Fred Phelps condemn homosexuality.

            “Does that mean Bart is correct?”

            No, it just means one groups says this and another says that. The link you provided criticizing Ehrman said, (paraphrasing)”He ridiculously thinks the resurrection was not a factually varified event.” There are no known witnesses to the event. Some ancients claim it never happened, some claimed otherwise. It is a theological concept, not a historical event.

          5. Fr. James

            Jon, again that is ridiculous. You say that scripture does not condemn homosexuality. How do you know! You won’t read anyone who does not agree with you! You don’t care what the truth is, you have already decided based on…your own personal prejudice. Atheists talk about being open minded, but you give the perfect example that such a claim is a lie.

            Then you compare Benedict to Phelps. That is simple and undiluted bigotry. You are an atheist. So was Stalin who killed over 30 million people. Ergo YOU are just like Stalin. You want to murder tens of millions. You are just as evil. You want to kill me and the rest of us. That is YOUR logic at work. Is it fair?

            Then you claim something was not historical even though there were witnesses who died for attesting. Okay, so were you there? If not, then how do YOU know for a fact it didn’t happen. That is your logic right back at you.

            Once again, I remind you that you did not express these things when you were mayor. Such bigotry would have gotten you run out of office. Instead you lied to gain office and pretended respect for religious people while plotting against them. And you wonder why people don’t respect atheists and are reluctant to vote for them?

          6. entech

            Jimmy, @ 6:59 what is this fetish you have with Stalin? You do know he was trained for the priesthood, perhaps something happened to him when he was a young boy that embittered him for life.

            What horrible thing happened to you that makes you so bitter and twisted?

          7. Fr. James

            entech, he didn’t become a murdered until he left the Church and became an atheist. What makes you and Jon so bitter and twisted that you compare Benedict with Phelps?

          8. entech

            FJ @ 5:51
            I must confess admit (a better word in context) that I do fall into the fallacy sometimes: and I always have Stan to fall back on and point out the error of my my ways, thank you Stan.
            You, and I am sorry if this sounds personal, that is probably because it is, are bound to it, you can’t put pen to paper without writing something ad hominem. A couple of things you are consistent with:-
            All atheists are intrinsically immoral
            Without God there can be no morality
            All atheists are murderers (by association)
            All atheists would like to be tyrannical dictators
            All atheists hate all Catholics Not true in my case it is just you)

            And the list goes on. Further you take almost everything and mould and massage it into whatever you think is the most investigating reply, so often demonstrating your own dishonesty. Here is a for instance;
            Jon says in answer to your suggesting he read Benedict on the church’s position on homosexuality; “Both he and Fred Phelps condemn homosexuality.” a simple statement of fact.
            Your response; Then you compare Benedict to Phelps. That is simple and undiluted bigotry. No it is simple and unadulterated comparison of two points of view – I am sure that even you would recognise the difference in the manner in which the condemnation is displayed. I can’t imagine in any way that the Pope would hold up a ‘God hates Fags’ sign, I don’t think he would even say or think it.
            Then you immediately carry on with; You are an atheist. So was Stalin who killed over 30 million people. Ergo YOU are just like Stalin. You want to murder tens of millions. You are just as evil. You want to kill me and the rest of us. Now this is “simple and unadulterated bigotry”, in no way is it comparable to what Jon said, this is so far off the track that it clearly demonstrates how far from reality your blind hatred of everything non-Catholic has taken you.

            You speak of multiple degrees, you must have eaten a lot of Cornflakes to collect all those tokens.

        2. Wolfy32

          I agree that evidence supplied by one scholar is insufficient. Science doesn’t take anything proven by one person as scientific law. It needs repeatable validation. That said, Both sides of the isle have nothing.

          There’s no repeatable scientific proof that jesus existed or was risen from the dead. No DNA from before and after death, no repeatable scientific experiment can be done to Jesus lived and/or rose from the dead.

          Now that said, there’s no repeatable scientific experiment to prove any human existed in history.. Unless we find their remains. Yet, we know many people have existed over time, and we’ve only proven a few of them. So, that’s to say that we have no way of knowing A) Jesus was a historical figure. Or B) that Jesus had divine powers.

          Why is the bible the only collection of documented evidence of Jesus. If Jesus were truly performing all these miracles wouldn’t there be hundreds if not thousands of the equivalent of the tabloids and newspapers (obviously no printing press, but there had to be some distribution of news…)

          Why is there nothing? There should be thousands of third party resources all documenting they saw jesus do different things. I would guess many of those documents (if they exist) are locked away in the private vatican library. Sealed away forever.

          One thing I wonder about is whether what is sealed away in the vatican library proves or disproves Jesus divinity, and /or first hand accounts of something else living amongst humanity? Or is void of documentation that really supports anything but a bunch of agricultural communities struggling to survive.

          Either way, there’s nothing validating or invalidating Jesus as a divine person if you eliminate the bible as a valid source. What other sources are there? Telling Jon not to use Bart Erhman as a valid source would be no different than me saying nope, you can’t use the bible as a source. Prove to me Jesus existed without using the bible! Just really is impossible.

          1. Fr. James

            Wolfy, okay if I claim that Alexander the Great, or Julius Caesar or any other historical figure never existed would you agree? Should we expunge them from the historical record because there is no “proof?”

            The mistake you make is by demanding scientific proof as if there is no other. There are other forms of proof and truth.

            We do have ancient records speaking of Jesus, including Tacitus for example. However, the NT is a plethora of evidence compared to any other historical figure. Since Jesus didn’t live in say the province of Hispania you would not likely find him mentioned there. The amazing thing is that he is written about at all, which is proof.

            You then wonder whether the Vatican is hiding things. Any scientific evidence for that? A quick google search will give you many “secrets” that no one is supposed to know. There is no secret. The NT is true. We hide nothing.

            What I am telling Jon is to notice that most scholars don’t agree with Bart and that maybe he should broaden his horizons. Commenting about scripture when he know nothing about it is not going to get him anywhere. If I were in a debate with a chemist I would study up on chemistry.

          2. entech

            There is a lot of evidence from almost all of the known world of the time for the existence of Alexander,for example, he conquered most of and was written into the archives and statues were built and so on , not a bad achievement for a gay, left handed midget. But his existence or not, or Caesar so and so is interesting history, the different versions are interesting, even those that say there was not such person. What tends to make the “facts” irrelevant is that no one is expecting you to base a whole theory of the origin of the universe and all life in it on the “facts”.

            The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate and the existence of early Christians in Rome.
            Josephus is supposed to have said that the followers of Jesus believed that he rose from the dead, clearly he did not believe that part to be true, how would it be possible for anyone to believe that and not be a Christian, the resurrection is the thing everything hangs on. No resurrection no divinity just a prophet/preacher who died for his cause, happens all the time.
            Ehrman is a strong proponent of the existence of Jesus and of his crucifixion, he has argued vehemently with the “Jesus is a Myth” people (some of whom are biblical scholars), he states quite categorically that the existence and crucifixion cannot be denied. He says he has lost his earlier belief in God (not denying, merely not believing – a distinction many Christians cannot or will not recognise) mainly for reasons of theodicy, and hence the divinity of Jesus is in doubt and he does say that there is no evidence to support the resurrection. There is nothing outside of Christianity to support that claim, there is a good amount about the existence of Christianity from very early on, there is some talk of Jesus or Yeshua and the Romans crucifying him. The actual evidence gets you off the ground, shows that an outright dismissal is unjustified and probably untrue, BUT, when you want to take it further create a whole cosmology based on your creator who created a universe and you in his image to have dominance over it all, then you add the idea that this Yeshua was always a part of this creator along with a spiritual aspect (oops can’t say aspect people have burned at the stake for that mistake) with an integral spiritual component, thus creating a three in one creator. Then after a possible starting point you have a lot of work to do to make the last parts even plausible.

        3. Wolfy32

          Father, what is your definition of a God?

          There’s tons of ways to describe and define God. I’m curious can you tell us what qualities does a God have to have to be a God? (A true the one God.)

          How tall? What powers? What knowledge? what abilities? What home location? E.g. a planet somewhere in our universe, or something else?

          Revelations says his temple (Which he’ll be in) will descen from the heavens upon earth. And Jon is asked to measure the temple’s size. It’s over a mile in length and width if I remember right. That’s a pretty fricken huge temple to be descending upon the earth.. I wonder where there’s room to park it?

          Since God resides in the temple, is he a physical being or some form of energy. If physical, does that mean he has two eyes a nose? Hands and feet (we were created in his image). If he’s like us, has hands and feet, a nose, a mouth, and eyes like us… Well, that to me sounds like a human with a really awesome space ship or a highly advanced alien being with well, a state of the art spaceship.

          Have you taken a moment to really understand the implications of what and who you worship what that God is?? Does it matter that Christians may be worshipping an advanced civilization that is not much different than us other than more advanced technology and capabilities? And the ability to modify and deposit their DNA on compatible worlds?

          What separates “God” from alien life (life not existing on Earth)?

          1. Fr. James

            “The holy, Catholic, apostolic Roman Church believes and professes that there is one true, living God, the Creator and Lord of heaven and earth. He is almighty, eternal, beyond measure, incomprehensible, and infinite in intellect, will and in every perfection. Since He is one unique spiritual substance, entirely simple and unchangeable, He must be declared really and essentially distinct from the world, perfectly happy in Himself and by his very nature, and inexpressibly exalted over all things that exist or can be conceived other than Himself” (Denzinger 3001).

            Each question you ask would take me hours to answer. Part of the problem is that you ask for example “where God is.” He is outside of creation. Where does not compute. He is not a being in creation, but “being” itself. He is not some kind of scifi channel alien. Don’t take movies that seriously.

            I suggest you look at:
            You might also find Theology and Sanity by by Frank Sheed or Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft of great help.

          2. Wolfy32

            So, I’m curious? Based on your description, we are not created in his image?

            If he is immeasurable, beyond our understanding, in a different state of being, we do not look like God as Genesis directly states we do?

            And then why is God’s temple (implied to be a large building of some sort that comes from the sky)…. well, a physical building if God is imeasurable and exists everywhere? Or is both Genesis and Revelations to be interpretted some other way? Funny how the beginning and the end speak of God as a physical being that can be seen, touched, has arms and legs, well looks like humans. Well, I’ll correct myself there, humans look like him.. (Why the reverse wouldn’t be true I don’t know.)

          3. Fr. James

            Wolfy, scripture uses anthropomorphic terms for God. It uses language we can understand to describe things we cannot fully understand yet. We are created in the image of God, but are not equal to him. We like him have memory, intellect, and will. Read the suggestions I gave you.

    2. entech

      Jon, shame on you, you embarrass yourself. Could be worse you could be an embarrassment to your church (if you had one).

      1. entech 2:31 “you embarrass yourself.”

        Yes, if I run into Pope Benedict on the street, I’ll have to admit I have not read a single one of his books. I would ask him if students could borrow his red slippers for the character Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz. :)

        1. Fr. James

          Jon, Wow, you are even more bigoted then I thought. And you actually pretended to be a professor? What a farce that must have been. In a way though I can’t blame you. Benedict’s books are way above your level of comprehension.

        2. entech

          Jon get it right, he is actually Pope Emeritus. I guess that is what you would call a retired Pope, no precedent is there.
          Is it blasphemy to reject the call?

          1. Fr. James

            Jon is a bigot. He equates Benedict with Phelps. So I equate all atheists with Stalin.

            Popes have he right to resign. It’s in canon law. Blasphemy is what you tend to do.

  6. H.P.Drifter

    Why Shorter Life Spans?
    January 1, 2001
    By Dr. Hugh Ross
    None of the explanations offered in the accompanying article imply that God randomly selected the life span of early humans or that He simply reacted to natural disasters in shortening human life. Rather, Genesis 6:3 states that God acted purposefully to shorten human life spans, and Genesis 6:5 and 11 imply that the shortening of human life spans at the time of the Flood served a specific spiritual purpose.

    Why did God allow for long life spans in the first place? Long life expectancies early in humanity’s history reflect God’s mercy and provision. Long life spans make it possible for human technology and civilization to emerge rapidly. Living 900 years gives people ample opportunity to make discoveries, develop technology, refine technological achievements, and teach all that has been learned to ensuing generations. Under these conditions, human civilization can make dramatic advances in relatively few generations.

    One benefit of a shorter human life span is that it serves to limit the spread of wickedness. An exceptionally evil person can hurt, destroy, or limit the effectiveness of a large number of righteous people during the course of 900 years. Moreover, wicked people find it easier and safer to wreak destruction upon the righteous than they do upon other wicked people. The net result of such long life spans is that the righteous tend to be exterminated whereas the wicked tend to survive. Over time, the balance of the population tilts toward the wicked, with only a few righteous people left. By truncating human life spans to only about 120 years, God mercifully limited the spread of evil, ensuring righteousness a presence in society after the Flood.

    As indicated in the Telomere Loss portion of the accompanying article, the amount of telomerase activity within a cell can shorten or lengthen the life of that cell. Limited telomerase activity within cells shortens the life span of cancer cells as well as normal cells. If telomerase levels were higher, cancer would quickly rise to become the number one cause of death in humans. By limiting the growth of cancer, and minimizing human suffering, God again showed His mercy toward the human race.

    The long life spans during the days before the Genesis Flood provide people today with a helpful object lesson. Many seem to think that “life’s too short,” that life would be better if people could just live a few more years. The human condition in the days just before the Flood suggests the opposite. It serves as a reminder that people are much better off with brief life spans. God allows people to live on Earth long enough to recognize and choose (or reject) Him, long enough to fulfill their destiny, and long enough to receive the training they will need for the new creation. Once that work and training are accomplished, however, Christians can move on to a life far more wonderful and blessed than anything possible on Earth (see 1 Corinthians 2:9). Therefore, believers can rejoice that God has shortened humanity’s race toward the heavenly prize.

    Subjects: Adam and Eve, Bible Difficulties, Biochemical Design, Human Origins and the Bible, Life Design, Long Life Spans, Noah’s Flood, Problem of Evil, TCM – Flood, TCM – Human Origins, TCM – Life Design

    Dr. Hugh Ross

    Hypernaturalism: Integrating the Bible and Science
    March 24th, 2014
    Are You Ready to Talk about Noah?
    March 20th, 2014
    When Is Y-Chromosomal Adam’s Birthday?
    March 13th, 2014

    Support Reasons to Believe

    Reasons to Believe is a ministry devoted to integrating science and faith and to demonstrating how the latest science affirms our faith in the God of the Bible. Your donation helps our ministry take this life-changing message to skeptics around the world while encouraging and strengthening the faith of Christians. Donate

    Just thought the Christians on the blog would like to more about advantages of being a Christian from one of your own

    1. Fr. James

      I don’t think the author is a Catholic. Tell me, are Amish the same as Hindu’s? Why is it that atheists don’t understand that obvious fact. I can easily find a blog written by an atheist who makes all kinds of comments you would not like.

      1. entech

        Oh dear, starting to sound like Catholic Supremacy all over again. If they are not Catholic they are not Christian, is that what you are saying. I seem to remember that it was quite recently that one of your Popes admitted that other denominations were possibly Christians but not as real as
        Catholics, Catholics the original and only true taste (or was that a drinking chocolate ad.)

        So you say say not all religions are the same (Hindu is quite nice in my view, stripped down it is a bit more plausible than yours) but as you keep saying this you keep speaking as if all atheists were identical all immoral incapable of any honesty or decency or, indeed, of any reasonable intellectual activity. All attributes which been shown to be demonstrated by some employees of the Catholic church; note I say some and I would add that I think it is very few – in the past you have said I was lying when I said this. think of the corollary to that statement.

        1. Fr. James

          Let’s see Mao was atheist and killed over 50 million people. You are atheist. So you must be exactly the same! You want to kill millions of us.

          That is what you do to us. You show no understanding that if one religious guy says something that doesn’t mean he speaks for us all. You project your own bigotry onto us Catholics. Look in the mirror and you will see what you condemn.

    2. entech

      Ross can be quite interesting, probably hated more than the atheist by young earthers, Henry or Michael could confirm that. The problem is that Ross accepts evolution which is deeply offensive to the ego of the special creation of a special creation.

    1. entech

      I agree with the basic premise, The God Delusion is not a very well researched or even well written book, that does not mean that most of what he says is not true. It was written by a non-believer for non-believers and it shows.

      On the other hand, perhaps Benedict’s books that you keep touting are written from a neutral and objective viewpoint 😆 Not written by the (actual or potential depending on publication dates) leader of the faith?

      Reminds me of a conversation with Henry once, he would have it that the apostolic fathers were an independent source of verification for the scriptures.

  7. H.P.Drifter
    Here is Dr, Hugh Ross’s website, many more interesting reasons here for Christians to be happy campers. Entech this fellow is coming to Australia April 17th 2014
    FJ this is not a Catholic website, everyone is welcome here on the Red River Freethinkers, If you have some facts (not conjecture) to debunk Dr Hugh Ross’s agenda please do so.

    1. entech

      Same thing, to some people. Even the Romans, as long ago as that, thought those that rejected their God(s) were atheists.

Comments are closed.