The Existence of Jesus Christ

Iason, there is so much disinformation in your posts, I am not sure where to start.First of all, I reject the idea that someone predisposed already to reject belief in Jesus, but who nonetheless decides to spend their lives studying about Jesus is more impartial than someone that has taken a vow to serve in the ministry.And the proof of this is that plenty of ministers that have taken a vow nonetheless have rejected a literal Resurrection and things like that. Your claim that they would never do something like that is thus completely refuted, and I hope you would thus concede that point. It's not like there is monolithic belief concerning everything about Jesus, the Bible, etc,....among ordained clergy.But I ask you once again and think this needs to be clarified first before moving on to any other points, why would a person that does not believe, is passionate about not beleiving want to spend their lives studying something they don't believe in? Should we assume such a person is less impartial than the believer doing the same thing?I would contend that you cannot substantiate a claim the atheist is less impartial, or the agnostic, and that in fact, it may well be a psychological analysis would show the opposite, that someone highly motivated to debunk something is just as, if not more, impartial than someone highly motivated to believe in it.Take one of the links you cite. Those guys claim non-belief in a literal Jesus has strengthened their faith. While others including myself would probably not see it that way, it is clear that Christians can change their beliefs as ordained clergy, lay-persons, researchers, etc,....and still feel they are faithful to the truth and to "Christ" as they see it. So you are quite wrong to assert otherwise, as your own evidence proves.I would hope you would concede this point, and admit the unbeliever studying these things is not more impartial and objective than the believer. Will you concede that?Moving on..."Notably Paul, (like all the 1st century writings), show NO mention of a historical Jesus of Nazareth as found in the Gospels - there is no 1st century mention of any of these major elements of the Gospel story - "This is just wrong. Paul does mention Jesus' earthly life, and specifically denounces those that deny Jesus ever existed and the bodily resurrection.Furthermore, the idea that the gospels are not first century writings is a fantasy. The evidence indicates they were indeed all first century writings.Furthermore, Paul says in his letters that he does preach "Christ crucified." Your thesis is that Paul's letters are all that he preached and spoke of, when clearly he references more than what is contained in his letters. It would make sense that the letters making it to the canon would be the areas that were particularly inspired by the Holy Spirit, and that the gospel writers wrote of their experience and other's experience of Jesus.So duh, Paul's letters represent the parts he received from the Risen Christ, Jesus whom he persecuted.Keep in mind that Paul (Saul) specifically mentions being ashamed of having persecuted the believers that claimed a literal resurrection of Jesus. Think about it for a minute. He unequivocally indentifies himself now with "the literalists". Unless you are just claiming that Paul's letters were all corrupted, and we do not have valid evidence for what he preached, then there is no way you can claim what you do.Moreover, if you claim that the letters were all corrupted, then we virtually would have no idea if he even existed.Your thesis rests with false assumptions, namely that most of the New Testament was not written in the 1st century, and that's just false and unproven. There are no valid reasons for why this would be the case. Insisting that because some make that case, that it must be true is not a good argument, and unless you can discount the gospel accounts, and argue that the Jerusalem church was gnostic, rejected the historical and Resurrected Jesus, your argument does not hold water.

Iason, I could fill pages of quotes from Paul that refute the claims you put forth, but how about just a few, and these are not necessarily the most telling ones, but just some from opening any page practically of Paul's letters."He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all-how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? ...Christ Jesus, who died-more than that was raised to life-is at the right hand of God, is also interceding for us."Romans 8:32-34 (NIV)NIV is not my favorite version btw.Pretty much, all of what you are saying here is provably wrong."1 Thess 4:9 - Paul tells Christians to "love one another" WITHOUT a mention of Jesus! Even though Jesus supposedly taught exactly that."Wrong, Paul mentions Jesus specifically as commanding this in verse 4:2 and verse 4:9 is part of the instructions "of Jesus Christ."Also, take note that Paul once again reiterates the bodily death, resurrection and return of Jesus Christ in verse 4:13."We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him."You also claimed:"* 2 Cor. 6:1 - Paul talks about the the "day of deliverance" (quoting Isaiah 49:8) without the slightest mention of what Jesus had said on this very important topic!"Wrong, Paul quotes this verse as an appeal to walk in grace right now, not as an eschatological teaching, and he precedes this with clear references to Christ in the preceding verses over and over again. Take a look at 2 Cor. 5: 13:14."For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, ...."Heck, look at 1 Cor. 15: 3-6. Paul specifically and unequivocally refers to the gospels message, completely contrary to the claims of scholar's you quote."For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep."If you are going to quote these letters as truly being from the apostle Paul, it is absurd on the face of it make the claims these guys are doing. Specifically, Paul:1. Confirms the historical life, death and bodily resurrection of the man Jesus Christ.
2. Confirms there were 12 apostles and others that witnessed this event, that saw Jesus in a Resurrected form.
3. That at the time of writing Corinthians, most of these men were still alive and their testimony available to the people Paul was preaching to.You claim:"* Rom. 6:2 - Paul talks of Christian baptism - NO MENTION of the baptism in the Jordan."There is no need to mention the baptism into Jordan since Paul is referring to their baptism, not how Jesus was also baptized. Furthermore, the reference is Rom. 6.3, not 6.2 as stated. It would make no sense to mention Jesus's baptism into Jordan here since Paul is talking really of the Cross and being baptized spiritually into the death of Jesus in order to walk in "new life.""* Rom. 133 - Paul encourages Paul to trust the authorities - yet those authorities allegedly just crucified his God!"Exactly what one would expect. Jesus eschewed political revolution and Paul does the same. Note though the concept of separation here, which on it's own is quite radical for that time. He speaks of those entrusted as ministers of justice, but which is distinct and separate from the ministers of the gospel. Early on, there is total separation between ecclesiastical matters and secular matters in the sense they are 2 different spheres with 2 different sets of authority, one ministers through the truth of the gospel and the other through "the sword"."* 1 Cor. 1:7 - Paul talks of the coming of Christ in the future tense - no hint he had recently been."Wrong again. Paul refers to Jesus having already come once and died in the immediate preceding sentences and within the same paragraph, verse 1:6 (in light of verse 15-3-6) which says what his "testimony" is. He further alludes to Jesus coming as the Messiah in his earthly ministry in the following verses:1 Cor. 1:13-17, 1:23, 2:2, 2:8, 3:11, 5:7, 7:23, 8:4 (which mentions Jesus' natural brothers, .....This is getting tiring. Paul refers specifically, repeatedly, and moreover underlies his entire theology with the basic gospel message of Jesus Christ, an actual man that lived, was crucified and was buried."* Rom. 6:17 - Paul talks of Christian teaching being "handed on to you" - no mention here of Jesus' teachings."Wrong. Romans 6 specifically refers to the gospel of Jesus Christ as the form of teaching handed down to them."* Gal 2:14 - Paul talks about the Jewish laws and the Gentiles - no mention of what Jesus had allegedly said on these very subjects."Wrong again. Paul clearly and unequivocally refers to Jesus in the following verses:1:1 "Paul, an apostle-sent not from men or by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead..."
1:6-9
1:11-2:13 (heck nearly the entire book)Pretty much Paul's entire line of reasoning is that the actual and real death of Jesus removed the need for adherence to the letter of the Law. He does quote a lot from the story of Aberaham, and is he often did in explaining his theology.He claims this message came from Jesus and then refers to men that could quote the earthly Jesus' words, and says that he confronted them and they agreed about the "truth of the gospel", Jesus' gospel, and thus although he does not quote the sayings of Jesus, he quotes the message and life of Jesus, and how those that did hear the sayings of Jesus agree that the message he heard was indeed in accordance with what Jesus said.This message has been edited by randman, 05-29-2005 02:25 PM

Although I am not convinced of the mythicist position I do respect it. I think there remains an equally likely possibility that there was a teacher whose life and death form the core of the Jesus myths.Christianity like all religions developed over time with input from many people. You might like to look at the Yahoo Group: JesusMysteries - Was Jesus a Historical Figure?Though I imagine you will prefer to read the apologists for your particular sect so that you will feel your group is right and Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Hindus, atheists, whoever else are wrong and need to be persuaded to change their beliefs to yours.lfenThis message has been edited by lfen, 05-29-2005 11:30 AM

One problem with the claim about Nero, is the writing was NOT from Nero's time, but from much later. Tacitus was writing in 115 C.E, which is 51 years after the event. There is no way to tell what Tacitus's source was. What is known is that Tacitus was high critical of Nero in many of his writings. Another thing, it is known that Tactitus has
reported a report or rumor that he knew was false (Mellor, 1993, page).Because of the vaguness of his sources, the fact that Tacitus was known to have reported rumor or reports he knew as false, and because of the fact that Tacitus also had a large contempt, and poor knowledge of anything Jewish/Christian or Egyptian, using Tactitus as evidence is desperate at the very best.

Greetings all,

quote:

---

My first reference pointed to the list of people who had made reference to Jesus, a list offerred by a skeptic. This was offerred as evidence, which was refuted by my point.

---

No it wasn't.
You made a claim totally at variance with the evidence, and provided no supporting argument at all.
There is a vast body of contemporary evidence for Caesar - none for Jesus.

quote:

---

My second mention was to Nero's recognition of them at 64, a scant 30 years following the historically agreed year that would be Jesus' crucifixion (and resurrection), which year helps aid or debunk the existance of same.

---

Wrong again.
Nothing was recognised in 64CE.
The legend about Nero and the Christians dates to 2nd century, and is found in only ONE source and does not match the external history.

quote:

---

The third reference was to the fact that all the historical followers believed in the fact of the resurrection enough (not just Messiahship) to go to martyrdom.

---

The Heaven's Gate cult believed in the facts of the space-ship enough to go to martyrdom.
Suicide bombers believe in their faith enough to go to martyrdom.
Religious loonies often die for crazy beliefs - so what?

quote:

---

And I listed the writings of Polycarp as well, a contemporary of John, meaning the one who wrote the gospel of John.

---

Wrong.
Polycarp's letter does NOT mention John at all.
Later LEGENDS say he met John.

quote:

---

So then the last paragraph, approximately 5 to 7 percent of my post, gave the evidence of my own transition based on this and the other evidence to belief, which I think counts as evidence. Granting the last six words as "evangelizing", how can you make such a generalization about that post. After all, empirical evidence is what brought me to my present beliefs.

---

No.
You preached several faithful claims, all wrong, not backed by evidenceIasion

Greetings Deut.32.8,

quote:

---

Agree with whom?

---

(Acts)
Oh, I guess I was thinking of Doherty and Price etc.

quote:

---

And would you likewise agree that the - let's call it tension - between Paul and the Jerusalem cult was likewise historical, with Paul insisting on legitimacy despite his dubious backgroung, Gentile mission, and separation from the Jerusalem center?

---

Yes, I do think the tension, the argument, was historical.Its not clear to me exactly what the real origin was - yet it does seem to be based on a split between -
* Jerusalem / Jewish
* elsewhere / gentile.

quote:

---

I understand that, and I have no trouble viewing Christianity as a Pauline invention. What I asked, however, was your views on the Jerusalem cult. I would thing that the historicity of this cult and, given cult dynamics, the historicity of an initial cult leader, would be good candidates for IBE. Conversely, arguing against historicity impresses me as dogma-driven speculation with no redeeming quality, somewhat reminiscent of Christian apologetics.

---

Yes, that is a good point - I think the tension is best seen as historical.In fact, this tension may have been the engine for initial growth -
various seekers are having experiences of the Risen Christ,
different visions lead to different views, which leads to different preaching.Paul claims there are other Christs beign preached, and expends great effort preaching HIS version - so succesfully, it became dogma.So,
in that sense, I would see the founding figure not as Jesus -
but as Paul, and the Jerusalam sect, PREACHING and ARGUING about Jesus.Kirby/Wells: "However, in his latest books, Wells allows that such a complex of tradition as we have in the synoptic gospels could not have developed so quickly (by the end of the first century) without some historical basis; "I just cannot agree.
Myths and legends can develop in days.
How long did it take for The Golden Ass to be written?
Was Lucius real because this book appeared quite quickly?The Gospel legends appeared late 1st century - the legendary development phase reaches right back to the Tanakh, and brackets the Maccabean writings, Philo, the Stoics etc.The idea that the Gospels legends could not have delevoped so "quickly" assumes the conclusion - that Jesus existed in early 1st century.In reality - if Jesus did NOT exist in early 1st century, then there is room for centuries of development.Of course, it IS also possible there was a much earlier historical figure on which Jesus was based, as Wells et al argue.Iasion

Greetings,

quote:

---

Iason

---

Hmm .. still can't get my name right, even after I pointed it out to you.You don't actually READ my posts, do you?

quote:

---

First of all, I reject the idea that someone predisposed already to reject belief in Jesus, but who nonetheless decides to spend their lives studying about Jesus is more impartial than someone that has taken a vow to serve in the ministry.

---

Gee - what a surprise !You claim independent scholars can not be impartial,
and
you claim faithful believers ARE impartial.This is the very epitome of close-minded religious bigoty.I won't be answering any more of randman's preaching.Iasion

LOL. No, I asked why should men predisposed to reject Jesus, thinking it is a myth and yet decide to make the New Testament or Church history their life's work be more impartial than a believer.We know of beleivers holding many different views.You claim that the believing scholar cannot be trusted to be objective and that unbelieving scholars claim can, but:You offer no evidence for that claim.You offer no rebuttal to how your logic is refuted by the fact that we know believing scholars can develop a wide range of views, and even one of your links contains Christians that developed one of the views you espouse, and yet they feel their faith is stronger.Lastly, you mischaracterize my comments claiming something I have not claimed.

Iasion,Thank you for responding.

quote:

---

Its not clear to me exactly what the real origin was - yet it does seem to be based on a split between -
* Jerusalem / Jewish
* elsewhere / gentile.

---

Presumably so. But I am more interested in your views concerning the origins of the Jerusalem cult. Why would you acknowledge its historicity yet exclude the possibiity of a cult leader named Yeshu'a bar Yosef? In fact, I previously noted: to which you respond: "Yes, that is a good point - I think the tension is best seen as historical." ... and then proceed to ignore most of the point.As for your comment:

quote:

---

The Gospel legends appeared late 1st century - the legendary development phase reaches right back to the Tanakh, and brackets the Maccabean writings, Philo, the Stoics etc.

---

This seems less than forthcoming. You may reject 'Q' and an early date for the Passion narrative and the Gospel of Thomas, but many would place these core elements mid-1st century if not earlier. Furthermore, if you acknowledge a real history underlying the tensions between the Jewish and Gentile mission, those tensions come in the context of a relationship. and that would seem to imply areas of commonality as well as disageement. If the Jerusalem cult had nothing close to a Jesus tradition, what was the basis of Paul's relationship with them. Again, is not the most reasonable inference that there was, indeed, a Torah observant Yeshu'a bar Yosef, later Hellenized and Christianized by Paul and those who followed?

Greetings,

quote:

---

But I am more interested in your views concerning the origins of the Jerusalem cult.

---

I think it started as an initiatory cult, focussed on spiritual experiences of something they called "Iesous Christos".

quote:

---

Why would you acknowledge its historicity yet exclude the possibility of a cult leader named Yeshu'a bar Yosef?

---

Pardon?
I do NOT "exclude the possibility" of such a cult leader.
I examined the facts and concluded there was no such leader.OK, back to your earlier passage -

quote:

---

Conversely, arguing against historicity impresses me as dogma-driven speculation with no redeeming quality, somewhat reminiscent of Christian apologetics.

---

Let's see -
I posted pages of detailed evidence and argument,
you ignore the vast majority of it,
then you call my posts "dogma-drive speculation".Gee thanks.
Way to engender polite discourse.

quote:

---

...and then proceed to ignore most of the point.

---

Well pardon me if I missed something.Yes,
I agree a historical cult leader Yeshua is a POSSIBLE candidate.But,
No,
having investigated the evidence, I do not believe there is room for such a figure - he is completely missing from Paul and the other 1st century writings.I consider the most plausible origin is several people competing for prominance in a new Iesous Christos cult (with the cult probably having developed for some time prior.)

quote:

---

This seems less than forthcoming. You may reject 'Q' and an early date for the Passion narrative and the Gospel of Thomas, but many would place these core elements mid-1st century if not earlier.

---

I don't reject such views.But,
why would dating these elements in mid 1st century argue for a historical Jesus?If there was NO historical figure Jesus, then a 1st century date is as useless as a 2nd century date in arguing for such a Jesus.A 1st century dating is only important if we assume there WAS an early 1st century Jesus.

quote:

---

Furthermore, if you acknowledge a real history underlying the tensions between the Jewish and Gentile mission, those tensions come in the context of a relationship. and that would seem to imply areas of commonality as well as disageement. If the Jerusalem cult had nothing close to a Jesus tradition, what was the basis of Paul's relationship with them.

---

Hmmm.
I never said the Jerusalem cult had no Jesus tradition.I think there was a new initiatory cult forming, based especially on the new Logos and son-of-god figures.Compare the foundings of such organisations as the Golden Dawn or Theosophy - ego clashes abound, visions and beliefs compete as disciples vie for who is closest to their gods...So,
your argument here seems to be about there being both :
a) tension, disagreement
and
b) commonality, shared viewsThat the COMMONALITY must have been Yeshua - a historical figure.My answer is -
why?Why does the something in COMMON have to be a historical person?Why can it not be a shared idea, theme, vision, initiation?My argument is that the commonality is they all shared the same initiation in Iesous Christos - the one that climaxed :Awake O sleeper,
and arise from the dead
and the Christos will shine on youThey all shared the same cult, but differed in views - perhaps James was the church leader and Paul was the one with the best "visions".Paul seems to be saying just this when he emphasizes his own spiritual credentials, and dismisses the pillars.There just isn't any place for a historical Jesus in Paul's visit to Jerusalem.

quote:

---

Again, is not the most reasonable inference that there was, indeed, a Torah observant Yeshu'a bar Yosef, later Hellenized and Christianized by Paul and those who followed?

---

No.I don't think so.Where is the human Jesus in Paul?
Or in any 1st century writing?IasionThis message has been edited by Iasion, 05-30-2005 02:12 AM

quote:

---

I think it started as an initiatory cult, focussed on spiritual experiences of something they called "Iesous Christos".

---

And why would you think this? Why would an apparently Torah observant cult, presumably operating within the synagogue structure of the time (i.e., before the malediction/expulsion) choose to call the focus of their experience "Iesous Christos"?

quote:

---

Let's see -
I posted pages of detailed evidence and argument,
you ignore the vast majority of it,
then you call my posts "dogma-drive speculation".
Gee thanks. Way to engender polite discourse.

---

You're quite correct. My comment was poorly worded and I apologise. At the same time, I've read your evidence more than once in the past, and my intent was certainly not to ignore it. I am simply concerned that this evidence may be reducible to a well researched argument from absence. My comments here are to suggest that the Jerusalem cult was a piece of (admittedly inconclusive) circumstantial evidence that you had not adequately addressed.

quote:

---

Yes, I agree a historical cult leader Yeshua is a POSSIBLE candidate.
But, No, having investigated the evidence, I do not believe there is room for such a figure - he is completely missing from Paul and the other 1st century writings.

---

Have you not just said that it's 'POSSIBLE' yet deemed not possible? As for being absent from 1st century writings, why would that suggest, much less insure, that "there is no room for such a figure". Paul's Gentile mission was clearly focused on a myth in progress. As for 2nd Temple Jews, one would hardly expect a literary legacy. What do we have from or about the Galilean, the Samaritan, the Egyptian, Hanina ben Dosa or Honi the Circle-Drawer, and are these references any less vulnerable to the type of arguments you've raised above?

quote:

---

So, your argument here seems to be about there being both :
a) tension, disagreement, and
b) commonality, shared views
That the COMMONALITY must have been Yeshua - a historical figure.

---

"Must have been"? And where have I said this. Iasion? I merely point out that an historical Yeshu'a seems to me a more reasonable inference, while ...

quote:

---

My argument is that the commonality is they all shared the same initiation in Iesous Christos

---

... impresses me as a less satisfying (or, perhaps, more forced) presumption. What is the foundation of this theory of a Jewish initiation cult committed to Kashrut, not particularly excited about fraternizing with non-Jews, yet possessing some Greek-titled Gnostic focus? And what are we to make of the persistent Ebionites and 'Judaizers'? Finally, if you acknowledge the viability of "Q", where in this early tradition do we find evidence of an initiation cult divorced from a human cult leader?

quote:

---

Where is the human Jesus in Paul? Or in any 1st century writing?

---

Iasion, at issue is not the absense of a human Jesus in Paul or the absense of 1st century writings. At issue is the probity of that absence given the existence of a Torah-observant Jerusalem sect and a mid-1st century sayings tradition. You have suggested one story to explain what we see. People such as Crossan, Mack and Vermes have offered another. Both are, in my opinion, necessarily speculative, but I continue to feel that yours is more strained, more of an apologetic, i.e., a consequence of your position rather than a basis for it.I am in no way a committed historicist, nor am I an expert on 2nd Temple Judaism. I would very much appreciate any elaboration on the reasoning behind positing a Gnostic Jerusalem initiation cult focused on "something they called Iesous Christos'", and the evidence upon which that reasoning is based.This message has been edited by Deut. 32.8, 05-30-2005 11:10 AMThis message has been edited by Deut. 32.8, 05-30-2005 11:13 AM

You are making several invalid assumptions. First of all, the Temple based Judaism was not the only one. There was the rabbitical based version, which became dominate when the temple was destroyed by the Romans.The synoguoge based Judaism would not be using any Greek terminolgoy for their messiah. That indicates that those who started the Jesus cult were
Hellenistic based, and probably gentile converts. Paul appears to have gone after the Gentiles after the native born Jewish people rejected him.

quote:

---

You are making several invalid assumptions. First of all, the Temple based Judaism was not the only one. There was the rabbitical based version, which became dominate when the temple was destroyed by the Romans.

---

Thank you for sharing, but you presume too much while having embarrassingly little understanding of my comments.

quote:

---

No, I asked why should men predisposed to reject Jesus, thinking it is a myth and yet decide to make the New Testament or Church history their life's work be more impartial than a believer.

---

Randman, who do you think is generally more likely to give a accurate and less biased description of the alien abduction phenomena; a person who believes they themselves has been abducted by aliens, or an investigative reporter?If you already believe that you have been abducted by alens, you are NOT open to the idea that it might be all in your head. You are strongly biased and invested in the idea that alien abductions really do occur and that what happened to you was real.Are you saying that an investigative reporter who is predisposed to think that the alien abduction phenomena is myth is going to be LESS impartial than someone who believes they have been abducted themselves?Just what are you trying to have us swallow here?

Shrafinator, but the reporters reports everything. In the case of New Testament studies, we have someone that doesn't just do a story, but makes something their life's work.So I don't see the analogy as helpful. Take a step back and just try and consider the psychological motivations of a non-believing academic predisposed to reject Jesus and yet deciding to focus their lives on the study of the New Testament.I would argue that person is at least as non-objective as the believer, and I give some evidence for that, namely that believers' often have some elasticity in their faith. For example, the 2 writers of one of the books linked to on this thread, that argue the historical Jesus is a myth, believe that their faith has been strengthened in coming to that belief.I will grant you that perhaps most people are not that elastic in their faith, but there are other examples of Christian academics with views along the entire range of scholastic views on just about every area of research.In other words, it is a fact that believers exemplify a wider range suggesting greater openness than the atheist scholar, and perhaps even the agnostic scholar, though that less point is proven.While on the face of it, your suggestion may seem sensible, but the evidence supports the other view, that believer scholars in these fields may be more open-minded, including ordained clergy, and if you do not wish to accept that, well, I have at least given anecdotal evidence which I think an objective person familiar with the various fields would agree with me on.Just to give you an example in a different area, of the wide range of divergence of opinion within the believing camp in a different arena, there are Marxist Christian scholars, pacifist Christian scholars, and scholars that love George W. Bush, that all feel the Bible is more supportive of their political views.Lastly, once again, I would ask anyone thinking of this just to imagine what would be the motivation of a young, bright academic that thinks the New Testament is fabricated and Jesus is a myth, and yet chooses to focus their life's work on that study.Can they be pure and do it for love of truth and just have a fascination for the subject and not a prediposed agenda?Sure, but those same people still approach with a predisposition, just like the believer, and some could be approaching it with an agenda formed by personal experience and negative feelings towards belief in God as well.