http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17345429/?GT1=9033

‘Tis a strange world, I tells ya!

Also, concerning the Gnostic gospels – most relate seeing visions of Jesus that were spiritual and not physical. They did not support the rumors of a physical resurrection; one of the many reasons they weren’t canonized.

It’s pure speculation, but one can speculate that the tomb would be venerated because it’s the location of where the prophet was resurrected. But there’s no certainty they absolutely WOULD have done that.

I find it more of interest in the topic of made-up historical locations. Many archaeologists, and even Biblical scholars, are certain that many of the supposed Biblical locations that are shown to tourists are not the actual locations (even if the said events happened.) Tombs, gardens, etc. Oh, this is not isolated to Judeo-Christianity! Muslim, Egyptian, all over the world, in China, South America, historical location making-up is a HUGE cottage industry! Obviously, some things are certain: They know exactly where the Temple of Jerusalem was before it was demolished, etc. But throughout history locals have invented locations of where events took place in order to draw money carrying pilgrims and tourists.

But that may be another digression.

There’s a lot of evidence that what was described in the gospels didn’t happen. Paul wrote his epistles before the first gospel was written, and his letters are extremely light and even downright devoid of any mention of events that would later be described in the gospels. Of course, there’s nothing to compel Paul to have to have mentioned any specific events! But it’s just one suspicious element. Then came the gospel of Mark which has all the literary hallmarks of fiction literature at the time. Mark contains almost no elements which tie Jesus to OT prophesy, very little writing elements that show an attempt at writing historical events–Mark was writing a story fan-fiction one could say, based on the figurehead and characters of a popular growing religion. It wasn’t until the Gospel of Matthew where an attempt was made to try to connect Jesus to OT prophesy, and Luke when he attempted to write something sounding more like a historical record (both texts based heavily on Mark’s.)

Other apocryphal gospels, Thomas, Mary, Judas, Nicodemus, etc., that were attempted to be destroyed by the Christian sects that were gaining political power (and welcomed into the Councils of Nicea which codified the religion with creeds and an Official text) are even less historical, even though their pedigree aren’t that different from the four gospels that made it into the Official version. Mark’s in fact has more in common with the gnostic gospels, and John’s has more in common with…uhm…contemporary science fiction maybe.

The gnostic sects of Christianity which arguably were almost as powerful at one point as the sect that would later become representative of The Church before they were put down, did not even believe Jesus existed in the flesh (and this was during the 1st through 4th centuries in Judea itself!!) When you take all of it into account: Lack of reference to specific events in the life and times of Jesus in Paul’s letters, Mark’s writing style of fiction and the four later canonized gospels based heavily on Mark’s text, a large segment of Christianity not believing in a literal Jesus even years after the supposed events, no record of any Jesus or events surrounding Jesus in any contemporary non-religious writings (the single references in Tacitus and Josephus’ writings have been found to be insertions by later scribes copying their writings), that even the Official canonized gospels have competing descriptions and contradictions that follow certain agendas each auther appeared to have, the fact that events and qualities attributed to Jesus by the early Christians are exact copies of events from competing mystery cults that existed prior to Jesus’ life (e.g. Mithras), the reason why there was no venerated tomb MAY very well be because there WAS no tomb.

You can’t prove a negative. You can’t prove Jesus DIDN’T exist. But the gestalt of the evidence doesn’t look good. There’s more evidence that Mohamed existed than Jesus. But, this is all speculation. To get theological for a moment, this all begs the question that IF Jesus is THE ONLY way to God, and God really DOES so love the world, why would he sow (or allow the sowing) of so much confusion? The reasonable is what all the evidence points to: Whether Jesus really existed or not, the cult that rose up around him, has all the hallmarks of a myth that survives because a few leaders in succession of the most powerful empire in the world at the time forced conversions to their religion from Greece to Briton and it took hold and spread like a meme.

The fact that humans from ancient South America to Iceland, to Spain to Russia, Australian Aboriginals to Egypt, have beliefs in death defeating afterlifes, world creating gods, and suffering saving heroes, is evidence that it’s only natural that we modern humans would also hold onto religion for the very same reasons! The fact most Westerners have Christianity as a religion instead of Islam, or Buddhism, or Shinto, or Zen Taoism, Hindi, or Native American, or Mezzo–(Mexican), is because we are descendants of a Roman occupation. It is by happenstance that Jesus is our deity and not Janus or Zeus or Allah or Ket or El or Odin or…. Would a one and only true God use the methods of a cult spread by the point of a spear to only a small section of a planet as a means to allow ALL people of the world to come to him??! It doesn’t make sense.

Answers: 1. It IS all true, and God is actually not very bright and/or not very loving in the agape sense.
2. Jesus is one of MANY MANY MANY “true” religions and anyone who believes in him OR Mohamed OR Buddha OR Vishnu OR the Sky Spirit OR Odin etc, will come to God equally (that’s a nice answer that would be cool. Except that, God has some ‘splainin to do if he’s sentient, all-loving, and still allows countless people to suffer and die in the name of Jesus and Allah , et. al.,)
3. All religions, including Christianity, or an anthropological answer to the human need to feel like there’s a purpose for All This and that death isn’t as scary as it is to sentient beings. (The most reasonable and rational answer, but not very fun or satisfying…unless you like the idea that there’s NOT a giant surveillance camera in the sky keeping tabs on us, ready to send us or loved ones to eternal damnation for not guessing the Right Answers.) I actually find a great deal of fulfillment in the idea that we humans are responsible for how we treat each other here and now. That there’s not a final quiz we have to get right or else a loving and merciful god will send us to eternal sadism because we didn’t have the right answers in a situation HE set up with skills and brains HE gave us.

I would like to believe in option number 2., but, is ALL the versions of the various gods and their prophets “right”? The Catholic Jesus and the fire-n-brimstone comin’ to exact flaming justice on the sinners Jesus, and the loving softly painted Jesus with children in his lap, all the right way to God? How do we know? If it IS only one of them…then…what about warlike Allah smiting the infidels or the poetry loving and moderate Allah? neither or both? If all, does that mean the Muslim who kills godless Americans is actually doing God’s work? Or the Christian who kills an abortion proving doctor? Or, is it only the moderate versions of the Gods? Because honestly, ALL versions of all Gods can be equally found and justified using the various tomes and texts and scrolls and books each religion is based on.
So, does God want us to figure it out for ourselves…should I be blamed for taking a look at this theological miasma and saying SHEESH! This is nuts! There is no personal and sentient (as we see it) god directing anything and we have to be good to each other because being mean sucks?

If whatever god is, allows for a world in which literally countless religions exist, each (well, most,) saying THEY’RE the RIGHT one, even amongst their own denominations, killing and judging and smiting and insulting and persecuting in “god’s” name, am I MORE WRONG for saying ALL religious intolerance and idol worship and myth belief is balderdash and we should just take care to take care of each other?!
1. Only ONE belief is right, and in a world where reasonable investigation points to each religion being a human created myth and each belief having to be spread by humans from small areas on the planet excruciatingly slowly across the planet, we have to try to figure it out…among those we come in contact with!! (I mean, if a Buddhist in China or a Muslim in Pakistan or an Aboriginal in Australia never even comes in contact with The Right Belief, can he be blamed for not believing in The One Right Belief?! If it’s Islam, and the average American raised by Christian parents doesn’t have access to finding out what Islam is all about and figuring out THAT’S The One Right Belief, will Allah send that person to Muslim hell for it? Same with the average sheltered Muslim if Lutheranism is The One Right Belief?)

2. ALL religions are acceptable, and will allow you to reach Heaven, er, Paradise, uh, Nirvana, uhm, a better reincarnation, ah, Gehenna, no, Valhalla, OK whatever. Then, what the heck is the freakin’ point having religious rules and doctrine at all??!! Might as well base your ethics and morality on good secular humanism which uses reason to say Hey! Hatin’ suXorz! Stop the hate, help each other, make yourself a better person, help humanity become better, don’t use Holy Texts to justifying beliefs that were popular in the Bronze Age.

3. No religions are right, as there’s no point. God either doesn’t exist or exists in a way completely alien to our human way of imagining what god could possibly be. In which case, no religious doctrine is necessary and might as well be a secular humanist to say Hey! hatin’ suXorz! etc….

But, that’s just how I see it.