Did Jesus exist? (Poll)

[ruby sparks]

Or cure leprosy.

If he existed, he surely could not cure leprosy. That said, someone claiming to cure something by mysterious means is extremely common, even today. Back then, faith healing was readily resorted to and people believed in it, there being few if any alternatives. There were supposed cures for lots of things and magic men supposedly able to do them.

When I myself was about 10, in rural Ireland, I was taken to the local faith healer to get cured of warts on my hand. It involved the guy praying over a potato cut in half and the 'special half-potato' being rubbed on the warts, then the half-potato was buried in our garden and I was supposed to walk in a circle around it every day, saying certain words, until the warts went away. That was rural, catholic Ireland in the 1960's. These guys had reputations for curing all sorts of things and lots of believing customers.

What happens in Ireland, or used to happen right up until the 60's at least, was that there was almost a competitive thing going on between villages. If one village had a magic man, the next wanted one. They were everywhere.

As for turning water into wine.....well....every catholic priest in the country was (and still is to a lesser extent) widely believed to be able to actually turn wine into blood and the Pope or a senior-enough bishop can turn ordinary water into holy water.

Even supposedly raising dead people back to life goes on today in the USA.

See also: supposed control over the weather, casting out demons, claims of levitation, etc.

In other words, people with faith-healing and other abilities have often claimed, and still do, all over the world in almost every religion, to have some magic or divine credentials and were/are believed. There was no need to make up reports of miracles or of people doing them. They could just as easily be accurate reports, circulated orally (as things often were in that cultural context of the ancient mediterannean and middle east) and later written down.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Back to the OP:

In strict terms, the question is, 'do you think that the figure called Jesus existed?' This allows for cases where someone thinks the name itself was added later, but would allow for a figure who at least existed and did at least some of the things attributed to the figure given that name.

I'm fairly certain that a guy named Jesus didn't turn water into wine. Or cure leprosy. Was there someone named something close to "Jesus" that maybe sold himself as a messiah and wound up at the center of these myths?

The latter part doesn't seem beyond the realm of possibility.

But apparently that's not interesting.

It's not sexy enough. Not mysterious enough. There's not enough conspiracy for some. For others there's too much woo. 'Jesus probably existed' is just too boring.

Other messianic claimants and cult-starters existed, including several of that time (none of whom wrote anything and for whom we have no 1st hand accounts) and dozens if not hundreds of magic men since then, but not this one. There's a lot of special pleading, imo. In an odd way, Jesus is special, ironically. Jesus mythicism thrives on internet atheist forums. Go figure.

To me there is no conspiracy and I still find the phenomenon of Jesus belief fabulously interesting.

We don't have a word to describe a person who no longer thinks Santa is real, but we need one. It's like religion generally. For purposes of discussing religion the Supreme Court must treat atheism the same as religious belief. That's nothing short of amazing.

 

[whollygoats]

You bet there is a LOT of special pleading. In this thread, there is a raft of special pleading.

 

[ruby sparks]

.....I still find the phenomenon of Jesus belief fabulously interesting.

We don't have a word to describe a person who no longer thinks Santa is real, but we need one. It's like religion generally. For purposes of discussing religion the Supreme Court must treat atheism the same as religious belief. That's nothing short of amazing.

Classic example of confusing several issues. I have long thought that 'belief in Jesus', 'belief in god' and 'belief in woo' get conflated and connected with 'belief that Jesus existed' on atheist forums, and you are far from the only poster here, or on several other internet atheist discussion threads, who makes me wonder about that.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I have always seen Jesus as a composite figure, based on many historical people as well as some legendary stories of past cultures, not too unlike King Arthur and the Round Table.

 

[ruby sparks]

I have always seen Jesus as a composite figure, based on many historical people as well as some legendary stories of past cultures, not too unlike King Arthur and the Round Table.

I sort of agree, up to a point.

King Arthur tales, for me, are too far removed from the time we have record of them to be a good comparison.

If we allow that the writer of the epistles existed and that the prior followers he refers to in Jerusalem existed, and were following a recently dead guy (all of which I'm personally happy to think likely) then I think there was a time, in the very beginning, probably the early 1st C AD, when he wasn't a composite figure, he was just the guy they were following that had recently died, whoever that was. The alternative is that he was made up, already composite. That's not my favoured view, for a variety of reasons.

The stories told about him ...mostly in the gospels....are.....often based on various things, but mostly they are based on the legendary stories of the past of the most relevant culture, Judaism, in other words, the OT. We could say that things that were supposed to be part of a messiah got added and we could say that a messianic claimant would have done things that a messiah was supposed to do. Which was what other messianic claimants in the Messianic era in Judea did. They climbed up holy mountains and blew trumpets to get the walls of Jerusalem to fall down, cited OT scripture, etc. Or we could say it might have been a mixture.

Of course, even some of the stories in the OT have parallels with other stories from other places, and you can find parallels with other stories and the NT. Then there were new ideas floating around, such as we see in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Judaism at that time wasn't as well formed as it became later. But the main prior culture that was mined was Judaism, because this all happened in the Jewish heartland, and he was meant to be the Jewish messiah.

I would agree that old Jewish culture stories got added and I would say he got more composite as time passed, and looks especially composite to us now. And because the 'winning faction' of the early cult was the one that grew and expanded in the Greek and Roman world, and was not the apparently earlier Judean version, which died out, for a variety of reasons (destruction of Judea, being seen as heretical by both Judaism and the emerging orthodox Hellenistic Christianity which attacked other factions), some of the accretions were non-Jewish. No circumcision requirement was one of the first, I believe, and the first bone of contention (please excuse pun) between the two main early factions, as far as we can tell.

 

[humbleman]

Yes, he indeed existed.

What I think is that most of people who say Jesus didn't exist are not atheists neither skeptics but people with a malicious agenda.

 

[Juma]

Yes, he indeed existed.

Which something you cannot know. Ergo: you are a liar.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Yes, he indeed existed.

What I think is that most of people who say Jesus didn't exist are not atheists neither skeptics but people with a malicious agenda.

That Jesus is not an historical human being, but rather just another god like Apollo is a fairly new proposition. The ancients argued over this this very subject and not until the 4th century when the religion was made the state religion of the Eastern Roman Empire and then for a brief time the Unified Roman Empire were these disagreements suppressed.

So there is no malice involved, rather just the reawakening of an old idea that was never allowed to be tested in the agora of public discussion.

You can also consider ideas like Germ Theory, Evolution and Continental Drift as ideas that initially met with scorn and derision but that have proven to be true. That this Jesus of christian religion was never a real person is entirely possible.

 

[humbleman]

Yes, he indeed existed.

Which something you cannot know. Ergo: you are a liar.

I have the Tractate Sanhedrin 43a

http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html

MISHNAH. IF THEN THEY FIND HIM INNOCENT, THEY DISCHARGE HIM; BUT IF NOT, HE GOES FORTH TO BE STONED, AND A HERALD PRECEDES HIM [CRYING]: SO AND SO, THE SON OF SO AND SO, IS GOING FORTH TO BE STONED BECAUSE HE COMMITTED SUCH AND SUCH AN OFFENCE, AND SO AND SO ARE HIS WITNESSES. WHOEVER KNOWS ANYTHING IN HIS FAVOUR, LET HIM COME AND STATE IT.

GEMARA. Abaye said; It must also be announced: On such and such a day, at such and such and hour, and in such and such a place [the crime was committed], in case there are some who know [to the contrary], so that they can come forward and prove the witnesses Zomemim.

AND A HERALD PRECEDES HIM etc. This implies, only immediately before [the execution], but not previous thereto. [In contradiction to this] it was taught: On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover! — Ulla retorted: 'Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence could be made? Was he not a Mesith [enticer], concerning whom Scripture says, Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him? With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government [or royalty, i.e., influential].'

This is a court document from the second temple in the first century of the current era.

There is also another case of another Yeshu mentioned in a different folio of the Tractate Sanhedrin, but the other Yeshu is not the same than this Yeshu who was sent to death on the eve of Passover.

This document proves that Jesus (Yeshu) indeed existed and that he was judged and sent to death.

This is an outside document from Gospels and apostles letters, it comes from "the enemies of Christians" and it has the required historical value, same as records of Pilgrims who came to America and landed in Plymouth, and etc.

Where is the lie?

hmm?

Yes, Jesus indeed existed.

 

[humbleman]

Yes, he indeed existed.

What I think is that most of people who say Jesus didn't exist are not atheists neither skeptics but people with a malicious agenda.

That Jesus is not an historical human being, but rather just another god like Apollo is a fairly new proposition. The ancients argued over this this very subject and not until the 4th century when the religion was made the state religion of the Eastern Roman Empire and then for a brief time the Unified Roman Empire were these disagreements suppressed.

So there is no malice involved, rather just the reawakening of an old idea that was never allowed to be tested in the agora of public discussion.

You can also consider ideas like Germ Theory, Evolution and Continental Drift as ideas that initially met with scorn and derision but that have proven to be true. That this Jesus of christian religion was never a real person is entirely possible.

The theory of evolution started with the idea of current living organisms as more complex, better and superior than older living organisms which were simpler, worst and inferior. Kant and others who projected the idea of evolution stated with firm words that humans descended from chimpanzees and orangutans. So, how in the world you say that this theory has been proved to be true? Lol

The Continental drift is explained in the bible when it says that in the days of Peleg the earth was divided. (few generations after Noah) While the bible establishes a few thousands years for the split of Pangaea in smaller continents, the scientific theory implies millions of years. However, the famous scientific theory can't by any means prove the rate speed of the drift throughout the eras. Actually such is a key evidence that science can't put over the table and because this lack of evidence the biblical version of thousands of years is as valid as the scientific version of millions of years.

But, lets just put those aside and tell me, how in the world you compare the existence of such theories against the existence of a person like Jesus or Herod or Caesar or Attila or whoever?

Mixing apples with avocados?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Yes, he indeed existed.

What I think is that most of people who say Jesus didn't exist are not atheists neither skeptics but people with a malicious agenda.

That Jesus is not an historical human being, but rather just another god like Apollo is a fairly new proposition. The ancients argued over this this very subject and not until the 4th century when the religion was made the state religion of the Eastern Roman Empire and then for a brief time the Unified Roman Empire were these disagreements suppressed.

So there is no malice involved, rather just the reawakening of an old idea that was never allowed to be tested in the agora of public discussion.

You can also consider ideas like Germ Theory, Evolution and Continental Drift as ideas that initially met with scorn and derision but that have proven to be true. That this Jesus of christian religion was never a real person is entirely possible.

The theory of evolution started with the idea of current living organisms as more complex, better and superior than older living organisms which were simpler, worst and inferior. Kant and others who projected the idea of evolution stated with firm words that humans descended from chimpanzees and orangutans. So, how in the world you say that this theory has been proved to be true? Lol

The Continental drift is explained in the bible when it says that in the days of Peleg the earth was divided. (few generations after Noah) While the bible establishes a few thousands years for the split of Pangaea in smaller continents, the scientific theory implies millions of years. However, the famous scientific theory can't by any means prove the rate speed of the drift throughout the eras. Actually such is a key evidence that science can't put over the table and because this lack of evidence the biblical version of thousands of years is as valid as the scientific version of millions of years.

But, lets just put those aside and tell me, how in the world you compare the existence of such theories against the existence of a person like Jesus or Herod or Caesar or Attila or whoever?

Mixing apples with avocados?

Well okay, then. Best wishes for the new year!

 

[whollygoats]

I have the Tractate Sanhedrin 43a

http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html

MISHNAH. IF THEN THEY FIND HIM INNOCENT, THEY DISCHARGE HIM; BUT IF NOT, HE GOES FORTH TO BE STONED, AND A HERALD PRECEDES HIM [CRYING]: SO AND SO, THE SON OF SO AND SO, IS GOING FORTH TO BE STONED BECAUSE HE COMMITTED SUCH AND SUCH AN OFFENCE, AND SO AND SO ARE HIS WITNESSES. WHOEVER KNOWS ANYTHING IN HIS FAVOUR, LET HIM COME AND STATE IT.

GEMARA. Abaye said; It must also be announced: On such and such a day, at such and such and hour, and in such and such a place [the crime was committed], in case there are some who know [to the contrary], so that they can come forward and prove the witnesses Zomemim.

AND A HERALD PRECEDES HIM etc. This implies, only immediately before [the execution], but not previous thereto. [In contradiction to this] it was taught: On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover! — Ulla retorted: 'Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence could be made? Was he not a Mesith [enticer], concerning whom Scripture says, Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him? With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government [or royalty, i.e., influential].'

This is a court document from the second temple in the first century of the current era.

There is also another case of another Yeshu mentioned in a different folio of the Tractate Sanhedrin, but the other Yeshu is not the same than this Yeshu who was sent to death on the eve of Passover.

This document proves that Jesus (Yeshu) indeed existed and that he was judged and sent to death.

This is an outside document from Gospels and apostles letters, it comes from "the enemies of Christians" and it has the required historical value, same as records of Pilgrims who came to America and landed in Plymouth, and etc.

Where is the lie?

hmm?

Yes, Jesus indeed existed.

LOL...The Sandhedrin Tractate proves nothing other than that at some time in the third century CE, when the Talmudic documents were compiled, that Jewish authorities responded to some kind of assinine assertion by Christians...uh, 'christians'. Meeting polemic propaganda with polemic propaganda. Their God knows which group of whackjobs they were responding to, since the number of heretical claimants became dizzyingly complex, even at that early date. Marcion's church was still on the scene and quite important. Gnostics seemed to vex every 'christian' congregation. Docetics abounded, as did Adoptionists. Montanists were busily excising their testicles for Jesus. Heresy was in the air, everywhere. Even Paul cites the number of missionaries of 'other Jesuses'....and that was in a time a clear century and a half before the Sandhedrin Tractate saw the light of day.

Your claim that it is a document of the Second Temple is an out-and-out fabrication. A lie.

I remain relatively convinced that the Jesus figure is a mythic construct...a product of midrash and pesher...which slipped the leash from Diaspora Hebraic (probably Pharisiac) teachers in to the 'wannabe' gentile neighbors, and, when they were refused acceptance, the gentiles created their own more accepting savior from the sources they had at hand: the Septuagint foremost. The gospels are all "according to the Scriptures"....remember, it was all foretold.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I have the Tractate Sanhedrin 43a

http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html

MISHNAH. IF THEN THEY FIND HIM INNOCENT, THEY DISCHARGE HIM; BUT IF NOT, HE GOES FORTH TO BE STONED, AND A HERALD PRECEDES HIM [CRYING]: SO AND SO, THE SON OF SO AND SO, IS GOING FORTH TO BE STONED BECAUSE HE COMMITTED SUCH AND SUCH AN OFFENCE, AND SO AND SO ARE HIS WITNESSES. WHOEVER KNOWS ANYTHING IN HIS FAVOUR, LET HIM COME AND STATE IT.

GEMARA. Abaye said; It must also be announced: On such and such a day, at such and such and hour, and in such and such a place [the crime was committed], in case there are some who know [to the contrary], so that they can come forward and prove the witnesses Zomemim.

AND A HERALD PRECEDES HIM etc. This implies, only immediately before [the execution], but not previous thereto. [In contradiction to this] it was taught: On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover! — Ulla retorted: 'Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence could be made? Was he not a Mesith [enticer], concerning whom Scripture says, Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him? With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government [or royalty, i.e., influential].'

This is a court document from the second temple in the first century of the current era.

There is also another case of another Yeshu mentioned in a different folio of the Tractate Sanhedrin, but the other Yeshu is not the same than this Yeshu who was sent to death on the eve of Passover.

This document proves that Jesus (Yeshu) indeed existed and that he was judged and sent to death.

This is an outside document from Gospels and apostles letters, it comes from "the enemies of Christians" and it has the required historical value, same as records of Pilgrims who came to America and landed in Plymouth, and etc.

Where is the lie?

hmm?

Yes, Jesus indeed existed.

LOL...The Sandhedrin Tractate proves nothing other than that at some time in the third century CE, when the Talmudic documents were compiled, that Jewish authorities responded to some kind of assinine assertion by Christians...uh, 'christians'. Meeting polemic propaganda with polemic propaganda. Their God knows which group of whackjobs they were responding to, since the number of heretical claimants became dizzyingly complex, even at that early date. Marcion's church was still on the scene and quite important. Gnostics seemed to vex every 'christian' congregation. Docetics abounded, as did Adoptionists. Montanists were busily excising their testicles for Jesus. Heresy was in the air, everywhere. Even Paul cites the number of missionaries of 'other Jesuses'....and that was in a time a clear century and a half before the Sandhedrin Tractate saw the light of day.

Your claim that it is a document of the Second Temple is an out-and-out fabrication. A lie.

I remain relatively convinced that the Jesus figure is a mythic construct...a product of midrash and pesher...which slipped the leash from Diaspora Hebraic (probably Pharisiac) teachers in to the 'wannabe' gentile neighbors, and, when they were refused acceptance, the gentiles created their own more accepting savior from the sources they had at hand: the Septuagint foremost. The gospels are all "according to the Scriptures"....remember, it was all foretold.

I do like the midrash argument.

I still prefer the Chrestian vs Christian argument. These are two very separate Greek root words. The change from Chrestian to Christian is documented and can be viewed even today in early christian documents both secular and religious. Chrestus was a common name and title. There really were Chrestians who followed a personification of goodness, not a flesh and blood person that made magic tricks or was some militant guru.

Christian apologists and Jesus historicists have no response to this argument, only emotional dismissal, and the claim that it was merely a manifestation of Greek language, a pretty weak attempt at a rebuttal.

 

[Hermit]

There really were Chrestians who followed a personification of goodness, not a flesh and blood person that made magic tricks

Those Chrestians sure had a malicious agenda.

 

[Learner]

I remain relatively convinced that the Jesus figure is a mythic construct...a product of midrash and pesher...which slipped the leash from Diaspora Hebraic (probably Pharisiac) teachers in to the 'wannabe' gentile neighbors, and, when they were refused acceptance, the gentiles created their own more accepting savior from the sources they had at hand: the Septuagint foremost. The gospels are all "according to the Scriptures"....remember, it was all foretold.

It would undoubtedly be baffling from the psychology perspective - that these gentiles would seem quite willing to get battered and bruised faced from continously turning the other cheek or be flogged and beaten unless one was more partial to be fed to the lions. These gentiles must not of thought it through well enough just to have their own religion.

 

[Learner]

I do like the midrash argument.

I still prefer the Chrestian vs Christian argument. These are two very separate Greek root words. The change from Chrestian to Christian is documented and can be viewed even today in early christian documents both secular and religious. Chrestus was a common name and title. There really were Chrestians who followed a personification of goodness, not a flesh and blood person that made magic tricks or was some militant guru.

Christian apologists and Jesus historicists have no response to this argument, only emotional dismissal, and the claim that it was merely a manifestation of Greek language, a pretty weak attempt at a rebuttal.

Possibly arguments in error imo. Chrisitians as you probably know, was not the name they gave themselves as followers of Christ. This was given to them in a sort of mocking manner.

The followers of Christ were originally called SAINTS!

 

[whollygoats]

LOL...The Sandhedrin Tractate proves nothing other than that at some time in the third century CE, when the Talmudic documents were compiled, that Jewish authorities responded to some kind of assinine assertion by Christians...uh, 'christians'. Meeting polemic propaganda with polemic propaganda. Their God knows which group of whackjobs they were responding to, since the number of heretical claimants became dizzyingly complex, even at that early date. Marcion's church was still on the scene and quite important. Gnostics seemed to vex every 'christian' congregation. Docetics abounded, as did Adoptionists. Montanists were busily excising their testicles for Jesus. Heresy was in the air, everywhere. Even Paul cites the number of missionaries of 'other Jesuses'....and that was in a time a clear century and a half before the Sandhedrin Tractate saw the light of day.

Your claim that it is a document of the Second Temple is an out-and-out fabrication. A lie.

I remain relatively convinced that the Jesus figure is a mythic construct...a product of midrash and pesher...which slipped the leash from Diaspora Hebraic (probably Pharisiac) teachers in to the 'wannabe' gentile neighbors, and, when they were refused acceptance, the gentiles created their own more accepting savior from the sources they had at hand: the Septuagint foremost. The gospels are all "according to the Scriptures"....remember, it was all foretold.

I do like the midrash argument.

I still prefer the Chrestian vs Christian argument. These are two very separate Greek root words. The change from Chrestian to Christian is documented and can be viewed even today in early christian documents both secular and religious. Chrestus was a common name and title. There really were Chrestians who followed a personification of goodness, not a flesh and blood person that made magic tricks or was some militant guru.

Christian apologists and Jesus historicists have no response to this argument, only emotional dismissal, and the claim that it was merely a manifestation of Greek language, a pretty weak attempt at a rebuttal.

Well, interestingly, I came to it via the 'historicists', primarily Burton Mack and Bart Ehrman, but with plenty of leavening by mythcists Wells, Price, and Dolherty. What was the final touch for me was finding Father Thomas L. Brodie's musings on the topic in his Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus: Memoir of a Discovery, where he explained his coming to the mythic view over the course of his career as a biblical scholar. Brodie posits a development similar to what I had envisioned, but explains it much better, providing even an acceptable and credible explanation of 'Q', the mystery source. It is the Septuaguint...the Hebrew Bible. I have yet to garner the strength to undertake his Birthing of the New Testament: The Intertextual Development of the New Testament Writings, which I have in hand.

 

[whollygoats]

I remain relatively convinced that the Jesus figure is a mythic construct...a product of midrash and pesher...which slipped the leash from Diaspora Hebraic (probably Pharisiac) teachers in to the 'wannabe' gentile neighbors, and, when they were refused acceptance, the gentiles created their own more accepting savior from the sources they had at hand: the Septuagint foremost. The gospels are all "according to the Scriptures"....remember, it was all foretold.

It would undoubtedly be baffling from the psychology perspective - that these gentiles would seem quite willing to get battered and bruised faced from continously turning the other cheek or be flogged and beaten unless one was more partial to be fed to the lions. These gentiles must not of thought it through well enough just to have their own religion.

Well, Burton Mack has a book just for you. It is entitled, Who Wrote the New Testament?: The Making of the Christian Myth (NYC, 1995). I recommend it. Note that Mack is generally catagorized with the 'historicists' regarding Jesus, and is well-known for arguing arch-mythicist G.A. Wells in to accepting a possible historically obscure individual. And yet, Burton repeatedly refers to 'the Christian Myth' and to the Gospel of Mark as a 'Myth of Innocence'. I don't think his exposition shows it to be 'baffling from the psychology perspective' at all. Quite the opposite.

 

[whollygoats]

I do like the midrash argument.

I still prefer the Chrestian vs Christian argument. These are two very separate Greek root words. The change from Chrestian to Christian is documented and can be viewed even today in early christian documents both secular and religious. Chrestus was a common name and title. There really were Chrestians who followed a personification of goodness, not a flesh and blood person that made magic tricks or was some militant guru.

Christian apologists and Jesus historicists have no response to this argument, only emotional dismissal, and the claim that it was merely a manifestation of Greek language, a pretty weak attempt at a rebuttal.

Possibly arguments in error imo. Chrisitians as you probably know, was not the name they gave themselves as followers of Christ. This was given to them in a sort of mocking manner.

The followers of Christ were originally called SAINTS!

Geez....And here I thought those who arose from their graves were called zombies. Matthew 27: 51-53. Matt was quite the kidder.