Dear David,

I am a former-Christian and a newly reformed agnostic. The claims that I have heard from documentaries such as Zietgiest and Religulous (Bill Mahr), have influenced me to rethink my ideas and the existence of Christ and religion. I have taken a couple of questions from these documentaries in hopes that you may help me find my way back to the light...

If I could give You $1,000, I would ask you provide evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ.

Here are a few questions from one of the documentaries that I found interesting:

1. "Are you ever bothered by many things that are in Christianity that are not in the bible like; original sin, immaculate conception, the virgin birth (is only in two of the gospels), popes... Are you worried that these things came not from the founders, the people who wrote this book, but from 'men'- from human beings who came after them?"

2. Why is faith good? Why is believing in something without evidence good?

There are plenty of questions that fill my head and keep me up at night. However, after reading your rebuttals and responses, you have not provided any references to prove your claims to be true. Sure, you can say you were an atheist until you were 20, but like religion, how can you prove that? Do you have any kind of records or documentations stating that you were? Which leads to the point of, why should we believe in something that cannot be proven? For all we know, you could be just saying that you were once atheist to support your cause by having the public relate to you. Can your word be accepted in a laboratory as absolute evidence? I do not think so. You cannot say that you know what will happen after death. As a matter of fact, nobody knows. You preach certainty when in fact, all we know is what is unknown.

However, I was blown away from your example of the Eiffel Tower painting. You made a very valid point. I totally understand your point of view and where you are coming from. However, by doing tests of combustions of oil cans or paint cans and what not, it can be proven that that painting of the Eiffel Tower did not come from an explosion. And we can run tests over and over and over again proving your statement to be false. It is hard for me to believe that you became a Christian after taking an astronomy subject. That is my opinion, which you have stated many of your own opinions in your responses as well. And I will not buy your or other people's 'opinions'.

So basically, what I am asking you is for proof. I have been asked this question many times by non-believers and I always came up with the answer of having faith. That answer just would not cut it because again, why is faith good? Moving on...

Written in 1280BC, the Egyptian Book of the Dead describes a god, Horus, "which he is the son of the god Osiris born to a virgin mother. He was baptized in a river by Anup the Baptizer who was later beheaded. Like Jesus, Horus was tempted while alone in the desert, healed the sick, the blind, cast out demons, and walked on water. He raised Asar from the dead,("Asar" translates to "Lazarus"), and he also had 12 disciples. Horus was crucified first, and after 3 days, two women announced Horus, the savior of humanity had been resurrected."

Your response to Zeitgeist is not backed up by evidence or references but claims of your own. Peter Joseph was clearly making a reference to the Egyptian Book of the Dead. A book that was discovered long before the time of Christ. A fact that cannot be denied. Sure, he may have made a few mistakes. Why? Because after all, he is just a 'man'. The same kind of 'man' that wrote the bible. Man, that is prone to mistakes. In my former belief, we did not acknowledge Christ's actual birth date. Again, I believe Joseph is just using dates as an example. But as Christians, we all believe, according to the bible, that he was born sometime when it was cold. All the examples of other deities (or stories of other deities) before Christ are absolutely valid. Not saying that they are true, but it is definitely recorded and written in books from different nations long before the bible was even discovered. I also noticed that all of your links direct you to another one of your responses. Again, with your responses lacking references and further evidence.

The only records we have of Christ's existence are all gospels. Gospels are not 'history'. Gospel writers never met Jesus. Neither did St. Paul. No one who wrote about Jesus ever met him. And no one who wrote the bible were eyewitnesses.

I do apologize, I can go on and on with questions. But let me leave you with this quote from Bill Mahr from his documentary Religulous.

"... Religion is dangerous because it allows human beings who don't have all the answers to think that they do. Most people would think it's wonderful when someone says, "I'm willing, Lord! I'll do whatever you want me to do", except that since there are no gods actually talking to us, that void is filled in by people with their own corruptions and limitations and agendas. And anyone who tells you they know... they just know what happens when you die, I promise you- you don't. How could I be so sure? Because I don't know. And you do not possess mental powers that I do not. The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big question is- is not the arrogant certitude that is the whole mark of religion, but doubt. Doubt is humble and that's what man needs to be..."

Sincerely,

J.P.

Jason,

Thanks for writing.

"I am a former-Christian and a newly reformed agnostic. The claims that I have heard from documentaries such as Zietgiest and Religulous (Bill Mahr), have influenced me to rethink my ideas and the existence of Christ and religion."

If you haven't already seen it, I've written a response to Zeitgeist: http://www.kingdavid8.com/Zeitgeist.html

"If I could give You $1,000, I would ask you provide evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ."

Easy enough. Within 150 years of Jesus' existence, we have about fifty different people, including non-Christian historians, who wrote about Him. We have more about Him than we have for practically anyone else who existed in His day or earlier. That may not be "proof", but it is evidence.

"1. "Are you ever bothered by many things that are in Christianity that are not in the bible like; original sin, immaculate conception, the virgin birth (is only in two of the gospels), popes... Are you worried that these things came not from the founders, the people who wrote this book, but from 'men'- from human beings who came after them?""

Not really, since I go where the evidence points, and the evidence suggests that they were in the original books.

"2. Why is faith good? Why is believing in something without evidence good?"

Believing without evidence is "blind faith", which, IMO, isn't good. But regular faith (believing with evidence, but not absolute proof) is good. When you get on an airplane, you don't have absolute proof that it won't crash, but the evidence says it probably won't. So getting on an airplane is "faith", but not "blind faith". If you had no faith in anything, you would never do anything. When you get a job, you have faith that they will pay you for your work. When you get married, you have faith that your spouse will love you. When you sit down in a chair, you have faith that it won't break beneath you.

"Sure, you can say you were an atheist until you were 20, but like religion, how can you prove that?"

Nope. And if you choose not to believe it, that's fine with me. Let me ask you this, though - do you always doubt claims that people make about themselves, or only in certain situations? If so, what situations? I said on my website that my name is "David", and you apparently believe that, since you addressed me as "David" in your letter (which is my name). Why do you believe me when I say my name is David, but have doubts when I tell you that I used to be an atheist (which is also true, btw). What standards do you use to decide when to believe what someone says about himself?

"Which leads to the point of, why should we believe in something that cannot be proven?"

You believe in many things which cannot be proven. We all do. Can you "prove" that Christopher Columbus sailed across the Atlantic in 1492? All evidence says he did, but we certainly can't "prove" that he did. Do you believe he did? Can you "prove" that we aren't living in "The Matrix"? When you get a job, can you "prove" that you will be paid for your work? Can you "prove" that I didn't kill Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman and frame O.J. for the murder? Can you "prove" that your memories about your own childhood are real, and not something that some scientist has instilled in your head? Can you "prove" that the people you believe are your parents are actually your parents? I suppose you could get a DNA test, but if the results came back positive, could you "prove" that someone at the lab didn't fabricate the results? Can you prove that I am a human being writing to you, and not a robot that was programmed with some sort of A.I.?

If we waited for absolute proof to believe anything, and not simply go where the evidence points, then our lives would be pretty pointless.

"You cannot say that you know what will happen after death. As a matter of fact, nobody knows. You preach certainty when in fact, all we know is what is unknown."

When have I ever said that I was certain about what will happen after death? It's a fallacy to say that if we can't be 100% certain of something, then we should just reject it. Going where the evidence points, even if the evidence isn't 100% conclusive, is rational.

"However, by doing tests of combustions of oil cans or paint cans and what not, it can be proven that that painting of the Eiffel Tower did not come from an explosion. And we can run tests over and over and over again proving your statement to be false."

Actually, no, we can't. Each time you do the test, the results will be a little bit different. There are a practically infinite number of ways that the exploding paint cans will result. Only once we've run the test enough times that *every* possible result that could possibly happen has occurred, could we say for sure what all possible results will be. The chance of the explosion resulting in a painting of the Eiffel Tower could be 1 in a googol (that's a 1 with 100 zeroes after it), and still be a possible result, but would likely never come up again in any test.

"It is hard for me to believe that you became a Christian after taking an astronomy subject. That is my opinion, which you have stated many of your own opinions in your responses as well. And I will not buy your or other people's 'opinions'."

You're welcome to your opinion. But I was there when it happened.

"So basically, what I am asking you is for proof. I have been asked this question many times by non-believers and I always came up with the answer of having faith. That answer just would not cut it because again, why is faith good? Moving on..."

I have no proof, any more than I have proof for most of the things I believe in. I have no proof that Christopher Columbus sailed across the Atlantic. I have no proof that the people I call my parents are really my parents. I have no proof that we aren't living in "The Matrix"...

But I go where the evidence points, even if the evidence isn't conclusive.

"Written in 1280BC, the Egyptian Book of the Dead describes a god, Horus, "which he is the son of the god Osiris born to a virgin mother. He was baptized in a river by Anup the Baptizer who was later beheaded. Like Jesus, Horus was tempted while alone in the desert, healed the sick, the blind, cast out demons, and walked on water. He raised Asar from the dead,("Asar" translates to "Lazarus"), and he also had 12 disciples. Horus was crucified first, and after 3 days, two women announced Horus, the savior of humanity had been resurrected." "

Here's a link to the Egyptian Book of the Dead: http://www.thenazareneway.com/index_egyptain_book_dead.htm

I know it's a lot to go through, but you can use your computer's "find" function to look for keywords in that book (you don't have to search through each book individually - at the bottom, there's a link to the full text version). If you can find me even *half* of those things in the book of the dead, I'll give you the full $1000. I've already looked for them myself, and they weren't there. None of them. Not one. I didn't read the whole book, but I read all paragraphs that related to Horus.

Whoever told you that Horus did these things in the Book of the Dead was lying to you.

"Your response to Zeitgeist is not backed up by evidence or references but claims of your own."

Which is why my primary response is to invite the people making these claims to find them for themselves, even offering them $1000 for them if they do. If I say I can't find them, you might conclude that I didn't look very hard. But if the very people making these claims can't find them, even when offered $1000 for them, then obviously they don't exist. I've already had about a dozen people e-mail me to tell me that they would find the claims and win the $1000, and I never heard from any of them again.

"The only records we have of Christ's existence are all gospels."

Incorrect. We have about fifty different authors who wrote about Jesus, including several non-Christian historians, within 150 years of Jesus' time.

"And no one who wrote the bible were eyewitnesses."

Also incorrect. John, Matthew, James and Peter all were writers of the Bible, and had known Jesus. Mark was probably a witness to the resurrected Jesus as well. Again, I'm not saying I know this for 100%, but I go where the evidence points, and all evidence says that those people wrote those books.

Peace,

David