TrueFreeThinker – Page 866 – Worldviews in view reviewed: Atheism, Theology, Occult, UFOs, Cultural Commentary, etc.

“the right of the stronger, a right which, as we see in Nature, can be regarded as the sole conceivable right, because it is founded on reason”
-Adolf Hitler1

The Topics Covered in This Essay Are As Follows:
Imagine Utopia

Imagine Utopia
From Stephen Sackur’s interview with Richard Dawkins:

“‘Stalin, Mao – maybe they happen to be atheists. But they did not do their deeds in the name of atheism. They were kind of religious in a way, in the sense that they had a belief system which was idealistic, which was utopian in a warped kind of way. They really believed that the end justified the means.’ After offering the additional analysis that religious fanaticism motivated the September 11th terrorist attacks in 2001, Dawkins went on: ‘I would challenge you to find a single case where anybody has done something like that, motivated specifically by atheism. They happen to be atheists, but that is different.'”2

It is interesting to note that Richard Dawkins is religious in a way, in the sense that he has a belief system which is idealistic, which is utopian in a warped kind of way. Consider that he wrote the following:

“Imagine, with John Lennon, a world with no religion. Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition (religious riots between Hindus and Muslims where more than a million people were massacred), no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as ‘Christ-killers’, no Northern Ireland ‘troubles’, no ‘honour killings’, no shiny-suited bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing gullible people of their money (‘God wants you to give till it hurts’). Imagine no Taliban to blow up ancient statues, no public beheadings of blasphemers, no flogging of female skin for the crime of showing an inch of it.”

John Lennon also stated (March 4, 1966 interview with Maureen Cleave for the London Evening Standard),
“Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn’t argue with that; I’m right and I will be proved right. We’re more popular than Jesus now; I don’t know which will go first – rock ‘n’ roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It’s them twisting it that ruins it for me.”

Imagine, with reality and history, a world with no religion. Actually, forget imagination and know for a fact that a world without religion would still be a world in strife, pain and suffering due to riches, poverty, territory, material goods/resources, politics, racism, emotions, abortion, sexism, science, rage, jealousy, envy, lust, hopelessness, domestic violence, gang violence, freedom, atheism, natural disasters, disease, insanity, mass/serial murders, drug abuse, etc., etc., etc. In a world without religion we would still have everything that we have today but done in the name of _____________ (fill in the blank). It is no less than astonishing that Richard Dawkins can even entertain such a thought after the 20th century, the most secular and the bloodiest century in human history.

Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic magazine, Arguing for Atheism

“I am not convinced by Dawkins’s argument that without religion there would be ‘no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition, no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as ‘Christ-killers,’ no Northern Ireland ‘troubles’_.’ In my opinion, many of these events-and others often attributed solely to religion by atheists-were less religiously motivated than politically driven, or at the very least involved religion in the service of political hegemony.”

Not that Richard Dawkins is unaware of the various completely unreligious causes, for instance he wrote “war might be motivated by economic greed, by political ambition, by ethnic or racial prejudice, by deep grievance or revenge, or by patriotic belief in the destiny of a nation.”3 So then, why imagine an irreligious utopia?

It may be of interest to not that the Encyclopedia of Wars (New York: Facts on File, 2005) was compiled by nine history professors who specifically conducted research for the text for a decade in order to chronicle 1,763 wars. The survey of wars covers a time span from 8000 BC to 2003 AD. From over 10,000 years of war 123, which is 6.98 percent, are considered to have been religious wars.

Indeed, in his 30 Worst Atrocities of the 20th Century Matthew White writes:

“We’ve got rich countries and poor countries; industrial and agrarian; big and small. We’ve got people of all colors – white, black, yellow and brown – widely represented among both the slaughterers and the slaughterees. We’ve got Christians, Moslems, Buddhists and Atheists all butchering one another in the name of their various gods or lack thereof. Among the perpetrators, we’ve got political leanings of the left, right and middle; some are monarchies; some are dictatorships and some are even democracies.”4

The organization Jews for Jesus has made the following statement:

“The reality of anti-Semitism should not be discounted, but the reality of true Christian love should not be written off, either. Those who have God’s peace in their hearts will follow the example of Jesus and show love, not hate, for Jewish people and for all people_Perhaps no one is facing the fact that the problem is not one religion, one political system, or one philosophy which is so warped and perverted that it causes a holocaust. Perhaps the most horrible fact of the Holocaust is that it serves as further evidence that man’s very nature is warped and perverted, carrying within it mankind’s greatest curse.”5

Angels in Philo of Alexandria, part 2

Herein we continue, from part 1, providing quotations and citations on Angels from Philo of Alexandria (20 BC-50 AD). The fuller complete result consists of quotations of those sections within the text that refer to Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Devil, Satan, demons, serpent and dragon. The point is not to elucidate these references but to provide relevant partial quotations and citations. See my section on Angels here, Cherubim and Seraphim here, Satan here and Demons here.

Angels in Philo of Alexandria’s Allegorical Interpretation and On Dreams, that they are God-Sent.

Allegorical Interpretation, III
LXII But these men pray to be nourished by the word of God: but Jacob, raising his head above the word, says that he is nourished by God himself, and his words are as follows; “The God in whom my father Abraham and Isaac were well-pleased; the God who has nourished me from my youth upwards to this day; the Angel who has delivered me from all my evils, bless these Children.” This now being a symbol of a perfect disposition, thinks God himself his nourisher, and not the word: and he speaks of the Angel, which is the word, as the physician of his evils, in this speaking most naturally… good things have been given to him by the Angels and by the word of God…a deliverance from evil, he gives by means of his Angels and his word.

On Dreams, that they are God-Sent Book 1

I “And Jacob dreamed, and behold a ladder was firmly planted on the Earth, the head of which reached up to heaven; and the Angels of God were ascending and descending on it…”

XII For God, not condescending to come down to the external senses, sends his own words or Angels for the sake of giving assistance to those who love virtue.

XIII When this light shines upon the mind, the inferior beams of words (that is of Angels) set.

XIX the archetypal and incorporeal beams of the rational spring of the all-perfecting sun; but when it descends and becomes unproductive, then it is again illuminated by those images of those beams, the immortal words which it is customary to call Angels.

XXII “And he dreamed a dream. And behold a ladder was planted firmly on the ground, the head of which reached to heaven, and the Angels of God were ascending and descending along It”…Now philosophers in general are wont to call these demons, but the sacred scripture calls them Angels, using a name more in accordance with nature. For indeed they do report (diAngellousi) the injunctions of the father to his children, and the necessities of the children to the father.

XXIII But the Angels–the words of God–move about in the minds of those persons who are still in a process of being washed, but who have not yet completely washed off the life which defiles them, and which is polluted by the contact of their heavy bodies, making them look pure and brilliant to the eyes of virtue.

XXV But the dream also represented the Archangel, namely the Lord himself, firmly planted on the ladder.

XXXIII “The Angel of God spake unto me in a dream…”…those also which are seen through the operation of his interpreters and attendant Angels, who are thought by the father who created them to be worthy of a divine and blessed lot.

XXXIV And he said unto him, Take now thy beloved son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and offer him up.” And when he had brought the victim to the altar, then the Angel of the Lord called him out of heaven, saying, “Abraham, Abraham,” and he answered, “Behold, here am I. And he said, Lay not thy hand upon the child, and do nothing to Him.” Also the practiser of virtue is also called one of this company dear to God, being deservedly accounted worthy of the same honour; for, says the scripture, “The Angel of God said to me in my sleep, Jacob: and I answered, and said, What is It?”

XL …those souls which are still in the body he must appear in the resemblance of the Angels, though without changing his nature.

XLI Why then do we any longer wonder, if God at times assumes the likeness of the Angels, as he sometimes assumes even that of men, for the sake of assisting those who address their entreaties to him? so that when he says, “I am the God who was seen by thee in the place of God;” we must understand this, that he on that occasion took the place of an Angel, as far as appearance went, without changing his own real nature…those who are unable to bear the sight of God, look upon his image, his Angel word, as himself. Do you not see that encyclical instruction, that is, Hagar, says to the Angel, “Art thou God who seest Me.

In the next segment, we will consider Philo’s On the Life of Moses, On the Confusion of Tongues, Questions and Answers on Genesis, On the Migration of Abraham and On the Giants.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

Angels in Philo of Alexandria, part 1

Herein are quotations and citations on Angels from Philo of Alexandria (20 BC-50 AD). The fuller complete result consists of quotations of those sections within the text that refer to Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Devil, Satan, demons, serpent and dragon. The point is not to elucidate these references but to provide relevant partial quotations and citations. See my section on Angels here, Cherubim and Seraphim here, Satan here and Demons here.

Angels in Philo of Alexandria’s The Cherubim, On Flight and Finding and On the Unchangableness of God.

The Cherubim Part 1

I …she returned to see her master’s house, having been met by an Angel, as the holy scriptures read: but the second time, she is utterly cast out, and is never to be brought back again.

On Flight and Finding
I And Sarah afflicted her, and she fled from before her face. And the Angel of the Lord found her sitting by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by a fountain which is in the way to Shur. And the Angel of the Lord said unto her: æThou handmaiden of Sarah, whence art thou come? and whither art thou going?’ And she answered and said: æI am fleeing from the face of Sarah, my mistress.’ And the Angel of the Lord said unto her: æReturn unto thy mistress, and be thou humbled beneath her hands.’ And the Angel of the Lord said unto her: æBehold, thou art with child, and thou shalt bring forth a son, and shall call his name Ishmael, because the Lord has heard the cry of thy humiliation…And a proof of this is, that the Angel, that is the word of God, met her, with the intent to recommend her what she ought to do, and to guide her in her return to her mistress’s house…But this Angel, who is reproof, at the same time friendly and full of advice, out of his goodwill teaches her not to feel only shame, but also to entertain confidence, for that modesty is but half a virtue, when separated from proper boldness.

XIII And the practicer of virtue, Jacob, bears his testimony in support of this doctrine of mine, where he says, “The God who has nourished me from my youth up, the Angel who delivered me from all my Evils.”

XXII Having now, therefore, said what was proper on the subject of fugitives, we will proceed with what follows in the regular order of the context. In the first place it is said, “The Angel of the Lord found her in the Way,”{28}{#ge 16:7.} pitying the soul which out of modesty had voluntarily committed the danger of wandering about, and very nearly becoming a conductor of her return to opinion void of error.

XXXII Having now said thus much on the subject of discovery, we will proceed in due order to what comes next in the context. Moses proceeds, “Therefore the Angel of the Lord found her sitting by a fountain of water.”

XXXVII Therefore its convicter, speaking to the soul, says, “Whence comest thou, and whither goest thou?” And it says, not because it doubts, and not so much by the way of asking a question, as in a downcast and reproachful spirit, for an Angel cannot be ignorant of anything that concerns us, and a proof of this is, that he is well acquainted even with the things that are in the womb, and which are invisible to the creature.

XXXVIII But the Angel describes the characteristics of the disposition which is born of Hagar, by saying that he will be a rude man…And the Angels are the servants of God, and are considered actual gods by those who are in toil and slavery; on this account, says Moses, she called the well, “The well where I saw in front of me.”

On the Unchangableness of God
I “And after this,” says Moses, “it came to pass that the Angels of God went in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children unto them.”1 It is worth while, therefore, to consider what is meant by the expression, “And after this.” It is therefore a reference to something that has been said before, for the purpose of explaining it more clearly; (2) and a mention of the divine spirit has already been made, as he has already stated, that it is very difficult for it to remain throughout all ages in the soul, which is divisible into many parts, and which assumes many forms, and is clothed with a most heavy burden, namely its bulk of flesh; after this spirit, therefore, the Angels of God go in unto the daughters of men.

XXXIV Nor therefore would he drink out of a cistern to whom God gives draughts of unmixed wine; at one time, by the ministrations of some Angel whom he has thought worthy to act as cupbearer, and at another time by his own means, placing no one between the giver and the receiver.

XXXVII Balaam…”saw the Angel of God standing against him in the way”…this is the word of God, coming as his Angel and as our guide, and removing the obstacles before our feet.

On the Change of Names
XIII But it was an Angel who altered the name of Jacob, being the Word, the minister of God.

In the next segment, we will consider Philo’s Allegorical Interpretation and On Dreams, that they are God-Sent.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

Serpent in the Targumim

Herein are quotations and citations on Serpent (within a Satanic context) in the Targumim. The Targumim, plural of Targum (Strong’s H8638 meaning interpret as in Ezra 4:7), are Aramaic paraphrases of the Old Testament that began to be produced beginning at the time of the Second Temple period (530 BC and 70 AD). The fuller complete result consists of quotations of those sections within the text that refer to Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Devil, Satan, demons, serpent and dragon. The point is not to elucidate these references but to provide relevant partial quotations and citations. See my section on Angels here, Cherubim and Seraphim here, Satan here and Demons here.

Serpent in the Targumim.

Targum of Palestine aka Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel
From the Genesis portion:

III And the serpent was wiser unto evil than all the beasts of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, Is it truth that the Lord God hath said, You shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said to the serpent, From the rest of the fruits of the trees of the garden we have power to eat; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden the Lord hath said, You shall not eat of it, nor approach it, lest you die. In that hour the serpent spake accusation against his Creator, and said to the woman, Dying you will not die; for every artificer hateth the son of his art: for it is manifest before the Lord, that in the day that you eat of it, you will be as the great Angels, who are wise to know between good and evil…
And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me with his subtilty, and deceived me with his wickedness, and I ate. And the Lord God brought the three unto judgment; and He said to the serpent, Because thou hast done this, cursed art thou of all the cattle, and of all the beasts of the field: upon thy belly thou shalt go, and thy feet shall be cut off, and thy skin thou shalt cast away once in seven years; and the poison of death shall be in thy mouth, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. [JERUSALEM…Nevertheless there shall be a medicine for the sons of the woman, but for thee, serpent, there shall be no medicine: but it is to be that for these there shall be a remedy for the heel in the days of the king Meshiha]…And the Lord God made to Adam and to his wife vestures of honour from the skin of the serpent, which he had cast from him, upon the skin of their flesh, instead of that adornment which had been cast away; and He clothed them.

From the Isaiah portion:

XIV:29 …from the children of Jesse shall come forth the Messiah, and His works among you shall be as a flying serpent.

Targum Onkelos From the Genesis portion.

III And the serpent (chivja) was more crafty than all the animals of the field which the Lord God bad made. And he said to the woman, Is it in truth (that) the Lord said, You shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said to the serpent, Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, the Lord hath said, You shall not eat of it, nor approach to it, lest you die. And the serpent said to the woman…And the woman said, The serpent led me astray, and I did eat. And the Lord God said to the serpent, Because thou hast done this, more accursed art thou than all cattle, and than all the beasts of the held; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and the dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.

Targum on Psalms
Psalm 58:5 Poison is theirs like the poison of the serpent; like the deaf adder that stops up his ears.

Targum on Ruth
4:22 He lived a long time, until the serpent’s counsel to Eve, Adam’s wife, to partake of the fruit of the tree, the eating of which resulted in wisdom to distinguish between good and evil, was recalled before God.

In the next segment, we will consider Angels in Philo of Alexandria.

Nephilim in William G. Most’s commentary

From William G. Most (1915-1999 AD)

v. 6:1-4: Sons of God and daughters of men: Many Fathers in the first 4 centuries thought angels had bodies, and so these lines meant real children of angels: St. Justin, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, St. Augustine. St. Justin thought Psalm 78.25 meant that angels have food in heaven: “men ate the bread of angels”. He even added, that the offspring were demons. Now God could not create beings evil from the start. But Justin was fond of Plato, who spoke of daimones, beings intermediate between the secondary gods and the great God on the one hand, and humans. Later Platonists even spoke of good and bad daimones (cf. Augustine, City of God 9. 19). Then Julius Africanus proposed they were children of Seth.

But today we consider it a fragment, within the mythic genre spoken of by John Paul II, which the inspired writer used, without asserting its truth, to show the decline of the race leading to the deluge. On Feb. 13, 1905 the Pontifical Biblical Commission said we may consider the possibility of implicit citations if there are solid reasons, and if it does not contradict the Church. Our case meets those standards. Cf. EB 160 and 181-86.

Indeed, not only do “Many Fathers in the first 4 centuries” think that Angels have bodies but this is the only biblical option and conclusion.

So, as per Justin the Genesis 6 affair’s sons of God are Angels and their offspring are demons. Well, this is not clear within the Bible and main speculations range from that fallen Angles are the demons and that the soul of dead Nephilim are demons (I will propose my own speculation on this matter in a book that I hope to publish soonish).

Then the Sethite view is noted but both it and the Angel view are abandoned in typical Catholic style: not based on the Bible but based on thus saith the Pope.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Chart: early authors on Genesis 6 – Angels or Sethites?

I ran across a chart in Robert I. Bradshaw’s Creationism & the Early Church who in turn had cited as sources Robert C. Newman’s The Ancient Exegesis of Genesis 6:2, 4 (GTJ, Vol. 5.1, 1984 AD: 13-36) and Richard J. Bauckham’s Jude, 2 Peter (WBC, Vol. 50., Waco: Texas, 1983 AD, 51).

I have added some references to it, made some corrections and added footnotes.

It notes which early commentators, both Jewish and Christian, held to the Angel view of the Genesis 6 affair, as I term it, and which held to other views which mostly consist of the Sethite view or misc. (such as Noblemen view, Judges view, etc.).

The date range is from 250 BC to the 5th century AD. Out of 39 authors the results are: 25: Angel view 10: Misc. views

4: uncertain

Also, some would add Jude and Peter to the list on Angels view holders as per Jude 6-7 and 2 Peter 2:4-6.

Consider this a work in progress.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter
page, on my Facebook page, on my Google+ page and/or the “Share/Save” button below the tags.

Angels in Babylonian Talmud aka Talmud Bavli’s tractate Erubin & Pesachim

Herein we continue, from part 1, proving quotations and citations on Angels from the Babylonian Talmud aka Talmud Bavli. The fuller complete result consists of quotations of those sections within the text that refer to Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Devil, Satan, demons, serpent and dragon. The point is not to elucidate these references but to provide relevant partial quotations and citations. See my section on Angels here, Cherubim and Seraphim here, Satan here and Demons here.
The Talmud consists of a combination of the Mishnah (oral traditions) put into writing circa 200 AD and the Gemara (the commentary on the Mishnah) put into writing circa 500 AD.
There are many terms used within the Talmud that will surely be unfamiliar to the general public. Yet, this does not diminish from the context of noting wherein references are made to paranormal entities. Two things to note may be that “R.” refers to Rabbi, “b.” to ben which is Hebrew for son and is used within a person’s name and “tractate” refers to section. That which follows is from Michael L. Rodkinson’s 1819 AD translation.

From the tractate Erubin.
II Rabbi was asked why he had ordained thus, for after the second mending, the same condition existed in the sandal as after the first. He answered: Nay; when the other ear was broken off the sandal was virtually destroyed and after it had been mended it assumed a different appearance. This statement can also be applied to the wall, which with each successive breach of one ell assumed a different appearance. The answer was: Such explanations are superhuman (and can only be made by an Angel). According to another version, the answer was: “This is a man (who has knowledge).”

From the tractate Pesachim.
X R. Johanan said again: The earning of a man’s daily bread is beset with more difficulty than the redemption; for concerning the redemption it is written [Gen. xlviii. 16]: “The Angel who redeemed me from all evil,” while concerning a man’s daily bread it is written [ibid. 15]: “The God who fed me from my first being unto this day,” whence we see that for redemption it only required an Angel, while for the sustenance of a man it required God’s providence…

“The truth of the Lord endureth forever,” was said by the Angel Gabriel, because it was said that when Nimrod the wicked threw Abraham our father into the fiery furnace, the Angel Gabriel said to the Lord: “Permit me to go and make the furnace cold, that it may do no harm to Abraham”…

R. Simeon of Shiloni preached: When Nebuchadnezzar the wicked threw Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah into the fiery furnace, the Angel Jurqami, master of the waters, came before the Lord and said: “Permit me to go and cool the furnace, so that I might rescue the righteous from death”…

And the Lord said to the Angel Gabriel: “Rebuke the wild beasts” [Psalms lxviii. 31].

In the next segment, we will consider tractate Hagiga.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Are atheist activists gaining ground on college campuses?, Part 9 of 9

We now conclude considering the article Atheism Groups Grow on College Campuses, from which we are gleaning certain issue of interest. Find this whole series here.

Apparently, Dave had a discussion wherein he and a theist had agreed that “Hitler wasn’t an atheist at all.” Who would know more about Adolf Hitler: Dave, the theist or Adolf Hitler’s biographer? “Adolf Hitler’s biographer,” would probably be a good guess.
Adolf Hitler’s worldview / philosophy was certainly a chaotic a concoction, one that was explored in the essay Was Adolf Hitler a Christian or an Atheist? However, one thing to note is that his biographer did state that Adolf Hitler was “a man who believed neither in God nor in conscience” (Richard Cavendish, The Powers of Evil in Western Religion, Magic and Folk Belief, p. 77-78).

The issue is that if Hitler was a Christian then he was not really a Christian but was merely referred to as such. This is because considering that which he believed and did, he violated that which would rightly have lent him the label Christian. Whoever, if he was an atheist then he violated nothing at all (except, perhaps, that which Dave saith).

Again, atheism does not have to, or does not necessarily lead to a Adolf Hitler, Stalin, etc. but the door is wide open for their likes. Moreover, atheism makes evil and suffering even worse. Consider Adolf Hitler: he enjoyed his power, had thousands of adoring adherents, did as he pleased, murdered circa 12 million people, and in the end, when he decided that it was over, he took his own life and…and nothing, the end. According to atheism, Adolf Hitler died and went on to enjoy a sort of perfect peace of annihilation. No judgment, no condemnation, no damnation, just nothing. As per atheism, he enjoyed evil, he enjoyed suffering and…he simply got away with it. Since atheism can provide no justice, it is unjust itself.

The fact of evil and suffering is one of the very best reasons for rejecting atheism.

Lastly, let us consider that Dave noted:
I’m not convinced Jesus existed at all — there are enough people I respect on both sides of the debate. Supposing he existed, I don’t really know — I would guess he was buried, but maybe he was burned at Gehenna, maybe he was left in the desert to die, who knows?

motivational20poster2c20secular2c20atheism2c20new20atheists-6395615
You can purchase this design on a shirt, sticker, etc. at this link

With this, Dave ensconces himself to the left of the likes of Bart Ehrman. Imagine being to the left of Bart Ehrman and you can imagine what it must be like to be Dave. For another example of being to the left of Ehrman consider that Reginald Finley aka The Infidel Guy, also falls to his left and discussed the issue with him—see this link for the audio.
Also, consider an essay which chronicles Two Centuries Worth of Citations to Jesus
As for “who knows?” well, perhaps the very people who knew Jesus, who walked with Him, who talked with Him, who knew of His burial place, who saw it empty, who saw Him resurrected and who saw Him ascend. You know, the ones whose words are recorded in the circa 24,000 New Testament manuscripts—see The Destroyed Bible – On How to Reconstruct the Bible, part 2.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter
page, on my Facebook page, on my Google+ page and/or the “Share/Save” button below the tags.