New Page 0

Response to comment [from an atheist]: "Not only am I TOL's self-proclaimed resident anti-Christ, but I'm also the self-proclaimed chief proponent of the Jesus Myth argument...[T]here is no historical record of the alleged man Jesus...[T]he Bible is unpopular as an objective historical record of Jesus' life because it has been shown to be a work of fiction and easily misled religious fervor... I believe that he is a myth...There are ancient historians who exhibit knowledge of belief in Jesus, but none of them attest to his (alleged) historicity..."

"It is easy to demonstrate that the earliest Christians believed Jesus to be a purely spiritual being. Paul says that Jesus wasn't a human in 1st Corinthians 15:45, so it's actually a slam dunk... or a no brainer, whichever you prefer."

Description of Christ's own body: Prepared by God (Heb. 10:5); Conceived by the Holy Spirit Luke (1:34, 35); Subject to growth (Luke 2:40, 52; Heb. 5:8, 9); Part of our nature (Heb. 2:14); Without sin (2 Cor. 5:21); Subject to human emotions (Heb. 5:7); Raised without corruption (Acts 2:31); Glorified by resurrection (Phil. 3:21); Communion with (1 Cor. 11:27).

Jesus was 100% man and 100% God (not 50% man and 50% God--that would make him only half God).

McGee, J. Vernon: Thru the Bible Commentary. electronic ed. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1997, c1981, S. 5:79

Response to comment [from a pagan]: "Metaphysically...the 'Christ' is also the light/spirit/divinity of 'God' in 'Man'."

Compare your view (perhaps pan-en-theism) to the Christian worldview which is:

"[C]oherent, consistent and comprehensive...[Interpretation:] it gives us glasses through which we can see meaning to life; [Stabilization:] it gives us an anchor to which we can hold, a mooring in life; [Proclamation:] it gives us a platform from which we can speak a message of life...

...It answers: What is real? (Ge 1:26-27; Ps 19; Isa 45:18-19; 55:6-11; Jn 1:1-4-9; 14, 18; 7:16-17; 14:6; Ac 14:14-17; 17:22-31;Ro 1:16-32; 3:21-31; 2 Ti 3:10-4:4) Is there a God? (Ex 3:13-14; Isa 40:21-32; 45:18-19) Where did we come from? (Ge 1-2, Ps 8; 139; Ro 1-8; 1 Cor 11:7-12; Jas 3:8-9; [our need of a savior] Ge 1-3; Ro 8; Ge 3; Ps 51:5; Isa 52:13-53:12; 64:6; Jer 17:9; Hab 1:13; Jn 3:1-36; Ro 1-8; Eph 2:1-10; Tit 3:3-8) How should we live? (Ge 2:15-16; Isa 45:18-19; Mt 5:17-48; Mk 12:28-34; Ro 1:18-32; 2:1-16; 8:1-4; 13:1-14; 1 Ti 1:8-11) Where are we going? (Jn 3:16-21; 5:24; 8:21-24; 11:25-26; 14:1-3; Ro 2:1-16; 1 Thess 4:13-18; 2 Thess 1:3-10; Heb 2:14-18; 9:27-28; Re 20:11-16; Isa 40-48; Ac 6:8-7:60; 10:42; 17:22-31; Ro 9-11; 1 Cor 15-1-58; 2 Ti 4:1; Re 20-22)." (Worldviews Comparison, Rose Publishing 2007. McFarland).

See:

Worldviews Comparison

Response to comment [from an atheist]: "The legendary Josephus quotes only appear in copies of his works made after the 4th. century - after the Roman Church took control of the intelligencia of Roman society (after brutally purging out the Pagans that built it, BTW). Prior to the take-over of the Roman Church those quotes don't appear anywhere..."

How about the gospel according to Luke?

"Luke was the beloved physician of Colossians 4:14, “Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you.” He used more medical terms than Hippocrates, the father of medicine. The choice of Luke by the Holy Spirit to write the third gospel reveals that there are no accidental writers of Scripture. There was a supernatural selection of Luke. There were “not many wise” called, but Luke belongs to that category. He and Paul were evidently on a very high intellectual level as well as a high spiritual level. This explains partially why they traveled together and obviously became fast friends in the Lord. Dr. Luke would rank as a scientist of his day. Also he wrote the best Greek of any of the New Testament writers, including Paul. He was an accurate historian, as we shall see. Luke was a poet—he alone records the lovely songs of Christmas. Luke was an artist; he sketches for us Christ’s marvelous, matchless parables.

A great deal of tradition surrounds the life of Dr. Luke. He writes his gospel from Mary’s viewpoint, which confirms the tradition that he received his information for his gospel from her. Surely he conferred with her. Also, there is every reason to believe that he was a Gentile. Most scholars concur in this position. Paul, in the fourth chapter of Colossians, distinguishes between those “who are of the circumcision” and the others who are obviously Gentiles, in which group he mentions Luke. Sir William Ramsay and J. M. Stifler affirm without reservation that Luke was a Gentile. This makes it quite interesting to those of us who are Gentiles, doesn’t it?

Remember that Luke wrote the Book of Acts where we learn that he was a companion of the apostle Paul. In Acts 16:10 he says, “And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia….” He was with Paul on the second and, I think, the third missionary journeys. From this verse on he writes in the first person—it is the “we” section of the Book of Acts. Prior to this verse he writes in the third person. So we can conclude from Acts 16 that Luke was with Paul on that historical crossing over into Europe. He probably was a convert of Paul, then went with him on this second missionary journey. and stayed with him to the end. When Paul was writing his “swan song” to Timothy, he says, “Only Luke is with me …” (2 Tim. 4:11). All this explains why Paul calls him the beloved physician.

Jesus is the second man, but the last Adam. “And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit…. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven” (1 Cor. 15:45, 47). God is making men like Jesus: “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2). Therefore, Jesus is the second man—for there will be the third and the fourth—and the millionth. However, He is the last Adam. There will not be another head of the human family. Jesus was “… made like unto his brethren …” (Heb. 2:17) that His brethren might be made like unto Him.

At the close of the nineteenth century there was a wave of skepticism that swept over Europe and the British Isles. There was delusion and disappointment with the optimism which the Victorian era had produced. There was, on the lighter side, a rebellion against it which produced the Gay Nineties. Also it caused many scholars to begin a more serious investigation of the Bible, which had been the handbook of the Victorian era. They were skeptical before they began. Among them was a very brilliant young scholar at Cambridge by the name of William Ramsay. He was an agnostic, who wanted to disprove the accuracy of the Bible. He knew that Luke had written an historical record of Jesus in his gospel and that he had written of the missionary journeys of Paul in the Book of Acts. He also knew that all historians make mistakes and that many of them are liars.

Contemporary authors Will and Ariel Durant, who spent forty years studying twenty civilizations covering a four thousand year period, made the following statement in their book, The Lessons of History: “Our knowledge of the past is always incomplete, probably inaccurate, beclouded by ambivalent evidence and biased historians, and perhaps distorted by our own patriotic or religious partisanship. Most history is guessing; the rest is prejudice.”

It is safe to say that this was also the attitude of Sir William Ramsay when he went as an archaeologist into Asia Minor to disprove Dr. Luke as an historian. He carefully followed the journeys of Paul and made a thorough study of Asia Minor. He came to the conclusion that Dr. Luke had not made one historical inaccuracy. This discovery caused William Ramsay to become a believer, and he has written some outstanding books on the journeys of Paul and on the churches of Asia Minor.

Dr. Luke wrote his gospel with a twofold purpose. First, his purpose was literary and historical. Of the four Gospels, Luke’s gospel is the most complete historical narrative. There are more wide-reaching references to institutions, customs, geography, and history of that period than are found in any of the other gospels. Secondly, his purpose was spiritual. He presented the person of Jesus Christ as the perfect, divine Man and Savior of the world. Jesus was God manifest in the flesh.

Matthew emphasizes that Jesus was born the Messiah.

Mark emphasizes that Jesus was the Servant of Jehovah.

Luke stresses the fact that Jesus was the perfect Man.

John presents the fact that God became a Man.

However, it is interesting to note that John did not use the scientific approach. Dr. Luke states that he examined Jesus of Nazareth, and his findings are that Jesus is God. He came to the same conclusion as John did, but his procedure and technique were different.

Matthew presents the Lord Jesus as the Messiah, King, and Redeemer.

Mark presents Christ as the mighty Conqueror and Ruler of the world.

John presents Christ as the Son of God.

Luke presents the perfect, divine Son of God as our great High Priest, touched with the feeling of our infirmities, able to extend help, mercy, and love to us.

Luke wrote to his countrymen, just as Matthew wrote to his. Luke wrote to the Greek mind and to the intellectual community.

In the fourth century b.c. the Greeks placed on the horizon of history the most brilliant and scintillating display of human genius the world has ever seen. It was called the Periclean Age, pertaining to Pericles and the period of the intellectual and material preeminence of Athens. The Greeks attempted to perfect humanity and to develop the perfect man. This attempted perfection of man is found in the physical realm in such work as the statues of Phidias, as well as in the mental realm. They were striving for a beautiful as well as a thinking man. The literary works of Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes, and Thucydides all move toward the picture of perfect man and strive to obtain the universal man.

The Greeks made their gods in the likeness of men. In fact, their gods were but projections of man. The magnificent statues of Apollo, Venus, Athena, and Diana were not the ugly representations that have come out of the paganism of the Orient. They deified man with his noble qualities and base passions. Other Greek gods include Pan, Cupid, Bacchus (the god of wine and revelry), and Aphrodite. Not all of their gods were graces; some of them were the avenging Furies because they were making a projection of mankind.

Alexander the Great scattered this gripping culture, language, and philosophy throughout the lands which he conquered. Greek became the universal language. In Alexandria, Egypt, the Old Testament was translated into Greek. We call that translation the Septuagint. It is one of the finest translations of the Old Testament that we have. The New Testament was written in Greek. The Greek language provided the vehicle for the expression and communication of the gospel to all of mankind. It has been the finest language to express a fact or communicate a thought.

Even though Greek culture, language, and philosophy were the finest ever developed, the Greeks fell short of perfecting humanity. The Greeks did not find Utopia. They never came upon the Elysian fields, and they lost sight of the spiritual realm. This world became their home, playground, schoolroom, workshop, and grave.

Dr. F. W. Robertson said this of the Greeks: “The more the Greek attached himself to this world, the more the unseen became a dim world.” This is the reason the Greeks made an image to the UNKNOWN GOD, and when the apostle Paul preached the gospel to them, this is where he began. The cultivated Athenians were skeptics, and they called Paul a “babbler” and mocked him as he endeavored to give them the truth.

Paul declared that the gospel is foolishness to the Greeks, but he also wrote to the Greek mind. He told them that in times past they were Gentiles, having no hope and without God in the world. That is the picture of the Greek, friend. But Paul also told them that when the right time had come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the Law, and that this Son of God died for them. Paul walked the Roman roads with a universal language, preaching a global gospel about the perfect Man who had died for the men of the world. The religion of Israel could produce only a Pharisee, the power of Rome could produce only a Caesar, and the philosophy of Greece could produce only a global giant like Alexander the Great who was merely an infant at heart. It was to this Greek mind that Luke wrote. He presented Jesus Christ as the perfect Man, the universal Man, the very person the Greeks were looking for.

Note these special features of Luke’s gospel:

1. Although the Gospel of Luke is one of the synoptic gospels, it contains many features omitted by Matthew and Mark.

2. Dr. Luke gives us the songs of Christmas.

3. Dr. Luke has the longest account of the virgin birth of Jesus of any of the Gospels. In the first two chapters, he gives us an unabashed record of obstetrics. A clear and candid statement of the Virgin Birth is given by Dr. Luke. All the way from Dr. Luke to Dr. Howard Kelly a gynecologist at Johns Hopkins, there is a mighty affirmation of the Virgin Birth, which makes the statements of pseudo-theologians seem rather puerile when they unblushingly state that the Virgin Birth is a biological impossibility.

4. Dr. Luke gives us twenty miracles of which six are recorded in no other gospel.

5. He likewise gives us twenty-three parables, and eighteen of them are found nowhere else. The parables of the Prodigal Son and the Good Samaritan are peculiar to this third Gospel.

6. He also gives us the very human account of the walk to Emmaus of our resurrected Lord. This proves that Jesus was still human after His resurrection. Dr. Luke demonstrates that the Resurrection was not of the spirit, but of the body. Jesus was “… sown a natural body … raised a spiritual body …” (1 Cor. 15:44).

7. A definite human sympathy pervades this gospel, which reveals the truly human nature of Jesus, as well as the big-hearted sympathy of this physician of the first century who knew firsthand a great deal about the suffering of humanity.

8. Dr. Luke uses more medical terms than Hippocrates, the father of medicine..." Full text: Gospel of Luke Introduction J. Vernon McGee

McGee, J. Vernon: Thru the Bible Commentary. electronic ed. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1997, c1981, S. 4:238-241

See:

The Gospel of Luke

"The gospel of Luke is a late invention (2nd century) and doesn't qualify as an early Christian document. I'm talking about the genuine Paulines, the Didache, the Pastor of Hermas, the work of Athenagoras of Athens, etc."

You'll accept anything except what the church fathers decided was worth dying for?

"The best example of this reliability that has been uncovered in recent years is the evidence that Paul was the author of at least the major works that bear his name.^7...

Reports from such an early date would actually predate the written gospels. A famous example is the list of Jesus’ resurrection appearances that Paul supplies in 1 Corinthians 15:3–8. Most critical scholars think that Paul’s reception of at least the material on which this early creedal statement is based is dated to the AD 30s.¹⁴ Other examples are supplied by the brief creedal statements that many scholars find embedded within the book of Acts, which Gerald O’Collins dates to the AD 30s.¹⁵ Another instance is the statement of high christology found in Matthew 11:27 and Luke 10:22, which some scholars date to the AD 50s.¹⁶ Paul’s earliest epistles also date from the AD 50s.

(2) One of the strongest evidences possible for reliability is when early sources are derived from eyewitnesses who actually participated in some of the events. Historian David Hackett Fischer dubs this “the rule of immediacy” and terms it “the best relevant evidence.”¹⁷ Ancient sources that are both very early and based on eyewitness testimony are a combination that is very difficult to dismiss.

One reason critical scholars take Paul’s testimony so seriously is that his writings provide a very early date as well as eyewitness testimony to what Paul believed was a resurrection appearance of Jesus. This is conceded even by atheist scholar Michael Martin.¹⁸ Other crucial instances would concern any eyewitness testimony that can be located in the Gospel accounts..." Full text: Recent Perspectives on the Reliability of the Gospels by Gary Habermas.

"First, we have an unbroken line from the eyewitnesses of the Resurrection, through Paul and the other apostles, into the early second century with Papias, Polycarp, Ignatius, and the Didache (an early apostolic teaching document). Even liberal critics such as those Doherty quotes agree that some of Paul’s letters were written well within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses to Christ, including his testimony of the bodily resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15. The apostle Peter, himself an eyewitness, commended Paul’s letters and includes them with other Scripture (the Old Testament) as God’s Word: “…our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures” (2 Pet. 3:15–16, emphasis added)..." Full text: Challenging the Verdict: Summary Critique by Bob and Gretchen Passanino.

The Pastor of Hermas, "[I]t's a good but dull novel..." Full text: Introductory Note to the Pastor of Hermas [Translated by the Rev. F. Crombie, M.a.]

"Various cults claim that the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) inaugurated belief in Christ’s deity. The Da Vinci Code, a fictional work on the New York Times “Best Sellers” list, has recently popularized this view. The New Testament, however, explicitly uses the Greek term theos (“God”) in reference to Jesus Christ. Further, there was a consistent application of theos to Jesus Christ throughout the second century. Authors such as Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Melito, Athenagoras, and Irenaeus all spoke of Christ as “God.” They were equally convinced of an indispensable monotheism inherited from Judaism and of the deity of Jesus Christ, the risen Lord. Even though these second-century writers did not clarify the person and nature of Christ as precisely as subsequent theologians, their works demonstrate that the Council of Nicaea did not originate the doctrine of His deity. The early church witnessed developments in terminology and explanatory nuances regarding this doctrine, but a definite continuity of theology and worship related to it flowed throughout the first four centuries as well...Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Melito, and Athenagoras frequently used the term theos of Jesus, as did the early biblical theologian, Irenaeus of Lyons." Full text: Jesus as God in the Second Century by Paul Hartog.

Response to comment [from an atheist]: "I have zero interest in responding to links. If you want to engage me in a discussion that would be great."

It is as if you would like to open an ancient Oprah book review club--consider anything but the claims of the Bible. There are very good reasons why only 66 books make up what we know as the Bible (e.g. the books claim to be inspired, they do not contain historical errors, etc.) We don't cherish counterfeit bills, why would we cherish these other ancient writings?

[Heb 2:7]

Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands [Heb. 2:7].

"God made man lower than the angels at the time of creation. Psalm 8 makes it abundantly clear that man was made lower than the angels. The One who was superior, higher than the angels, was willing to come down below angels. He became not an angel but a man!

Many of us believe that the One called the “angel of the Lord” in the Old Testament is Christ. I went across the Brook Jabbok not long ago (Jabbok is in the kingdom of Jordan) and remembered that somewhere along that little creek (and that is all I would call it) the Angel of the Lord wrestled with Jacob. That Angel of the Lord we believe is Christ.

We read in the New Testament that when Christ came to earth He became lower than the angels. Apparently angels are the measuring rod; they are the standard of the bureau of standards. Christ was above the angels, but when He became a man, He became lower than the angels. Why did the Lord do it? He did it so that He could reveal God. Also He is the representative of man before God. He brought God to earth and took man back to heaven. If you and I get to heaven it will be because we are in Christ.

This is God’s original purpose with man—“Thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands.” Man is going to do something that angels have never been able to do. Angels do not rule God’s universe. They are God’s messengers. There was an angel who attempted to rebel against God. He tried to set up his own kingdom. He attempted to become a ruler. His name was Lucifer, son of the morning. We know him today by the name of Satan, or the Devil. He was an angel of light, but he rebelled and said in his heart, “…I will exalt my throne above the stars of God…. I will be like the most High” (Isa. 14:13–14). God does not intend him or any angel to rule; but He has created man to rule.

Man, however, as we see him today is not capable of ruling. He is demonstrating this in all the capitals of the world—so much so that it makes me bow my head in shame. Man cannot rule, but he thinks he can—he has adopted Satan’s viewpoint. He is attempting to rule without God. God could bless our nation today, as He blessed it in the past when men recognized their dependence upon God. But man in and of himself is not capable of ruling.

Because of making trips to England, I have studied a great deal of English history. I wanted to look at the abbeys, the castles, and the cathedrals with some degree of intelligence as to their background. I did not realize just how bloody the kings of England had been. The minute a man became king, he killed all his relatives so no one could take the throne away from him. If you were a brother or a cousin of a king, you were in trouble. He was apt to take you to the Tower of London—many a man lost his head there. Man, regardless of his race, is not capable of ruling this earth as God intended.

However, by redemption, God is going to bring man back to the place where he can rule. In Psalm 8 is the statement: “thou … hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands.” Man lost that dominion in the Garden of Eden when he disobeyed God, but Christ has recovered it."

McGee, J. Vernon: Thru the Bible Commentary. electronic ed. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1997, c1981, S. 5:516

[1 Cor 15:47]

The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven [1 Cor. 15:46–47].

"The first man is of the earth and is earthy—choikos, meaning “clay,” rubbish if you please. There is so much talk of ecology today. Who messed up this earth anyway? Man. Because man is earthy. Everything that is the refuse of man is rubbish. He is that kind of creature. He fills the garbage cans. But the Second Man is the Lord from heaven."

McGee, J. Vernon: Thru the Bible Commentary. electronic ed. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1997, c1981, S. 5:79

[Heb 8:4]

For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law [Heb. 8:3–4].

"This verse makes it clear that at the time the Epistle to the Hebrews was written the temple in Jerusalem was still in existence and that in it priests were still going about their duties."

McGee, J. Vernon: Thru the Bible Commentary. electronic ed. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1997, c1981, S. 5:557

Response to comment [from a pagan]: "The whole canonization process itself is a wonderful study and obviously governed by those who had control of the church-state..."

It is not a matter of control (which God has by the way). It is a matter of credibility--which books belong in the Bible and which books do not? And why? Although other works of ancient times may be of historical interest, they were not inspired. Extra-biblical works do however; authenticate the Bible.

Hank Hanegraaff writes:

"Many of the events, people, places, and customs in the New Testament are confirmed by secular historians who were almost contemporaries with New Testament writers. Secular historians like the Jewish Josephus (before A.D. 100), the Roman Tacitus (around A.D. 120), the Roman Suetonius (A.D. 110), and the Roman governor Pliny Secundus (A.D. 100-110) make direct reference to Jesus or affirm one or more historical New Testament references. Early church leaders such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Julius Africanus, and Clement of Rome — all writing before A.D. 250 — shed light on New Testament historical accuracy. Even skeptical historians agree that the New Testament is a remarkable historical document. Hence, it is clear that there is strong external evidence to support the Bible’s manuscript reliability..."

One thing that separates the Bible from any other works is its predictive prophecy. Hanegraaff continues:

"Old Testament prophecies concerning the Phoenician city of Tyre were fulfilled in ancient times, including prophecies that the city would be opposed by many nations (Ezek. 26:3); its walls would be destroyed and towers broken down (26:4); and its stones, timbers, and debris would be thrown into the water (26:12). Similar prophecies were fulfilled concerning Sidon (Ezek. 28:23; Isa. 23; Jer. 27:3-6; 47:4) and Babylon (Jer. 50:13, 39; 51:26, 42-43, 58; Isa. 13:20-21)..."

We can trust the Bible. There is no other work of antiquity like it. Hanegraaff says: "The Bible was written over a span of 1500 years by forty different human authors in three different languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), on hundreds of subjects. And yet there is one consistent, noncontradictory theme that runs through it all: God’s redemption of humankind." Full text: M-A-P-S to Guide You Through Bible Reliability (Manuscripts, Archaeology, Prophecy, Statistics)
Which books belong in the Bible? Bob Reed writes:

"It is important to recognize a distinction between "inspiration" and "canonization." Inspiration is the means by which God revealed His thoughts through the writings of mortal men. Canonization is the process by which mortal men discovered which writings were inspired. In practice, the process of identifying which books were inspired consisted of identifying whether the author of the book was an acknowledged prophet of God. As best as can be determined, every book in the Bible was immediately accepted as canonical--or genuinely inspired by God--by the contemporaries of the author. That is, no book in the Bible was originally doubted as being inspired by those who knew the author, but later came to be accepted as inspired..." Full text: How Do We Know Which Books Belong in the Bible?; How Do We Decide Which Books Belong in the Bible Since the Bible Does Not Say Which Books Belong in the Bible?

See:

The Apocrypha: The Apocryphal Books of the Catholic Bible

Which Books Belong in the Bible? by F. Furman Kearley, Ph.D.

"This thread is about most of the 'support' for Jesus of Nazareth mostly or 'only' existing within the body of Christian tradition and records, but having little historical evidence outside the cult of Christianity."

We trust on the Bible because of its accuracy, its inspiration and its time-tested ability to hold up to relentless scrutiny. No other book has been put through the ringer like the Bible. Still, it stands. It has never been disproven. When the archeologist unearths something new, it only proves the veracity of the Bible again. Earth will pass away before it does (Mt 5:18).

You can believe less creditable works of antiquity and hold it as gospel truth. Perhaps it is wishful thinking.

Early Christians beliefs are included in the apostles' creed (Note: "Catholic" refers to the universal church):

"This well-known creed lies at the basis of most other religious statements of belief. Although it bears the name of the apostles, it did not originate with them. It was written after the close of the New Testament, and it held an important place in the early church. This creed has been appealed to by all branches of the church as a test of authentic faith.

Apostles’ Creed

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth,

And in Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. The third day He rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting."

Youngblood, Ronald F. ; Bruce, F. F. ; Harrison, R. K. ; Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Nashville : T. Nelson, 1995

"We've covered Josephus and others and provided links for further study.."

Josephus works for, not against, the historical Christian. "The existence of Jesus Christ as recorded by Josephus, Suetonius, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, the Talmud, and Lucian..."

See:

Is There Any Confirmation of Biblical Events from Written Sources Outside the Bible?

Response to comment [from an atheist]: "The existence of a movement that believed in Christ is documented. Those historians do not speak to the historical existence of Jesus at all. Big difference."

The first-century Roman Tacitus...; Flavius Josephus...; Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus...; Pliny the Younger...; The Babylonian Talmud...; Lucian of Samosata...; Mara Bar-Serapion...; the Gnostic writings (The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection, etc.) that all mention Jesus...

In fact, we can almost reconstruct the gospel just from early non-Christian sources: Jesus was called the Christ (Josephus), did “magic,” led Israel into new teachings, and was hanged on Passover for them (Babylonian Talmud) in Judea (Tacitus), but claimed to be God and would return (Eliezar), which his followers believed, worshipping Him as God (Pliny the Younger).

There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular and biblical history. Perhaps the greatest evidence that Jesus did exist is the fact that literally thousands of Christians in the first century A.D., including the twelve apostles, were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ. People will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be a lie..." Full text: Did Jesus Really Exist? Is There Any Historical Evidence of Jesus Christ?

Recommended Reading:

The Case for the Real Jesus by Lee Strobel

Response to comment [from a pagan]: "I continue to hold Jesus the Christ within 3 perspectives.....1) Historical, 2) Mythic, and 3) Mystical...Metaphysically...the 'Christ' is also the light/spirit/divinity of 'God' in 'Man'."

Do you still maintain that light itself is something worthy of worship? Jesus is the second person of the trinity--worthy of all worship.

The Light (John 1:4–13)

"Life is a key theme in John’s Gospel; it is used thirty-six times. What are the essentials for human life? There are at least four: light (if the sun went out, everything would die), air, water, and food. Jesus is all of these! He is the Light of life and the Light of the world (John 8:12). He is the “Sun of righteousness” (Mal. 4:2). By His Holy Spirit, He gives us the “breath of life” (John 3:8; 20:22), as well as the Water of life (John 4:10, 13–14; 7:37–39). Finally, Jesus is the Living Bread of Life that came down from heaven (John 6:35ff). He not only has life and gives life, but He is life (John 14:6).

Light and darkness are recurring themes in John’s Gospel. God is light (1 John 1:5) while Satan is “the power of darkness” (Luke 22:53). People love either the light or the darkness, and this love controls their actions (John 3:16–19). Those who believe on Christ are the “sons of light” (John 12:35–36). Just as the first Creation began with “Let there be light!” so the New Creation begins with the entrance of light into the heart of the believer (2 Cor. 4:3–6). The coming of Jesus Christ into the world was the dawning of a new day for sinful man (Luke 1:78–79).

You would think that blind sinners would welcome the light, but such is not always the case. The coming of the true light brought conflict as the powers of darkness opposed it. A literal translation of John 1:5 reads, “And the light keeps on shining in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it or understood it.” The Greek verb can mean “to overcome” or “to grasp, to understand.” Throughout the Gospel of John, you will see both attitudes revealed: people will not understand what the Lord is saying and doing and, as a result, they will oppose Him. John 7–12 records the growth of that opposition, which ultimately led to the crucifixion of Christ.

Whenever Jesus taught a spiritual truth, His listeners interpreted it in a material or physical way. The light was unable to penetrate the darkness in their minds. This was true when He spoke about the temple of His body (John 2:19–21), the new birth (John 3:4), the living water (John 4:11), eating His flesh (John 6:51ff), spiritual freedom (John 8:30–36), death as sleep (John 11:11–13), and many other spiritual truths. Satan strives to keep people in the darkness, because darkness means death and hell, while light means life and heaven.

This fact helps explain the ministry of John the Baptist (John 1:6–8). John was sent as a witness to Jesus Christ, to tell people that the Light had come into the world. The nation of Israel, in spite of all its spiritual advantages, was blind to their own Messiah! The word witness is a key word in this book; John uses the noun fourteen times and the verb thirty-three times. John the Baptist was one of many people who bore witness to Jesus, “This is the Son of God!” Alas, John the Baptist was martyred and the Jewish leaders did nothing to prevent it.

Why did the nation reject Jesus Christ? Because they “knew Him not.” They were spiritually ignorant. Jesus is the “true Light”—the original of which every other light is a copy—but the Jews were content with the copies. They had Moses and the Law, the temple and the sacrifices; but they did not comprehend that these “lights” pointed to the true Light who was the fulfillment, the completion, of the Old Testament religion.

As you study John’s Gospel, you will find Jesus teaching the people that He is the fulfillment of all that was typified in the Law. It was not enough to be born a Jew; they had to be born again, born from above (John 3). He deliberately performed two miracles on the Sabbath to teach them that He had a new rest to give them (John 5; 9). He was the satisfying manna (John 6) and the life-giving Water (John 7:37–39). He is the Shepherd of a new flock (John 10:16), and He is a new Vine (John 15). But the people were so shackled by religious tradition that they could not understand spiritual truth. Jesus came to His own world that He had created, but His own people, Israel, could not understand Him and would not receive Him.

They saw His works and heard His words. They observed His perfect life. He gave them every opportunity to grasp the truth, believe, and be saved. Jesus is the way, but they would not walk with Him (John 6:66–71). He is the truth, but they would not believe Him (John 12:37ff). He is the life, and they crucified Him!

But sinners today need not commit those same blunders. John 1:12–13 gives us the marvelous promise of God that anyone who receives Christ will be born again and enter the family of God! John says more about this new birth in John 3, but he points out here that it is a spiritual birth from God, not a physical birth that depends on human nature.

The Light is still shining! Have you personally received the Light and become a child of God?"

Wiersbe, Warren W.: The Bible Exposition Commentary. Wheaton, Ill. : Victor Books, 1996, c1989, S. Jn 1:4

Response to comment [from a pagan]: "I continue to maintain that 'God' is light, indeed,...the One Universal Light of Truth. (Existence, Consciousness, Bliss). - Infinite, Eternal, Indivisible, One, All-pervading, All-inclusive, All-encompassing. 'God' is 'This'. 'This' is 'All'. One Reality...Yes,...All is Light..."

Worshipping light is idolatry. It is changing the truth of God into a lie (Ro 1:25; Isa 44:20). Idolaters swear by their idols (Am 8:14), but they are gods that cannot cannot save (Isa 45:20). Worshipping idols leads to abominable sins (Ro 1:26-32; Ac 15:20).

"...How can 'that' which is already Light, receive Light? I Am 'that'...There is Only One Infinite being."

Response to comment [from a Satanist]: "Josephus's passage is in large part a well-known forgery, which is very old news..."

The above link discusses the difference between interpolations and forgeries and the views of Louis Feldman, a leading scholar on Josephus.

"Oh, I see. So you differentiate between the lies of an overzealous Christian and outright fakery. Gotcha."

Response to comment [from a pagan]: "No, the truth that 'God is light' remains. It's not idolatry, because this what God is...One Presence...God is One..."

51. Captivity of Judah on account of. 2Ki 17:19-23.

"If Jesus has a positive influence in one's life..."

Jesus has a positive influence in one's life when one comes to him in repentance. When a person has the indwelling spirit, he is guided into all truth (Jn 16:13). A proper understanding of John 1:1 is important.

Jn 1:1–14. The Word Made Flesh.

"1. In the beginning—of all time and created existence, for this Word gave it being (Jn 1:3, 10); therefore, “before the world was” (Jn 17:5, 24); or, from all eternity.

was the Word—He who is to God what man’s word is to himself, the manifestation or expression of himself to those without him. (See on Jn 1:18). On the origin of this most lofty and now for ever consecrated title of Christ, this is not the place to speak. It occurs only in the writings of this seraphic apostle.

was with God—having a conscious personal existence distinct from God (as one is from the person he is “with”), but inseparable from Him and associated with Him (Jn 1:18; Jn 17:5; 1Jn 1:2), where “the Father” is used in the same sense as “God” here.

was God—in substance and essence God; or was possessed of essential or proper divinity. Thus, each of these brief but pregnant statements is the complement of the other, correcting any misapprehensions which the others might occasion. Was the Word eternal? It was not the eternity of “the Father,” but of a conscious personal existence distinct from Him and associated with Him. Was the Word thus “with God?” It was not the distinctness and the fellowship of another being, as if there were more Gods than one, but of One who was Himself God—in such sense that the absolute unity of the God head, the great principle of all religion, is only transferred from the region of shadowy abstraction to the region of essential life and love. But why all this definition? Not to give us any abstract information about certain mysterious distinctions in the Godhead, but solely to let the reader know who it was that in the fulness of time “was made flesh.” After each verse, then, the reader must say, “It was He who is thus, and thus, and thus described, who was made flesh.”

2. The same, &c.—See what property of the Word the stress is laid upon—His eternal distinctness, in unity, from God—the Father (Jn 1:2).

3. All things, &c.—all things absolutely (as is evident from Jn 1:10; 1Co 8:6; Col 1:16, 17; but put beyond question by what follows).

without Him was not any thing—not one thing.

made—brought into being.

that was made—This is a denial of the eternity and non-creation of matter, which was held by the whole thinking world outside of Judaism and Christianity: or rather, its proper creation was never so much as dreamt of save by the children of revealed religion.

4. In Him was life—essentially and originally, as the previous verses show to be the meaning. Thus He is the Living Word, or, as He is called in 1Jn 1:1, 2, “the Word of Life.”

the life … the light of men—All that in men which is true light—knowledge, integrity, intelligent, willing subjection to God, love to Him and to their fellow creatures, wisdom, purity, holy joy, rational happiness—all this “light of men” has its fountain in the essential original “life” of “the Word” (1Jn 1:5–7; Ps 36:9).

5. shineth in darkness, &c.—in this dark, fallen world, or in mankind “sitting in darkness and the shadow of death,” with no ability to find the way either of truth or of holiness. In this thick darkness, and consequent intellectual and moral obliquity, “the light of the Word” shineth—by all the rays whether of natural or revealed teaching which men (apart from the Incarnation of the Word) are favored with.

the darkness comprehended it not—did not take it in, a brief summary of the effect of all the strivings of this unincarnate Word throughout this wide world from the beginning, and a hint of the necessity of His putting on flesh, if any recovery of men was to be effected (1Co 1:21).

6–9. The Evangelist here approaches his grand thesis, so paving his way for the full statement of it in Jn 1:14, that we may be able to bear the bright light of it, and take in its length and breadth and depth and height.

7. through him—John.

8. not that Light—(See on Jn 5:35). What a testimony to John to have to explain that “he was not that Light!” Yet was he but a foil to set it off, his night-taper dwindling before the Dayspring from on high (Jn 3:30).

9. lighteth every man, &c.—rather, “which, coming into the world, enlighteneth every man”; or, is “the Light of the world” (Jn 9:5). “Coming into the world” is a superfluous and quite unusual description of “every man”; but it is of all descriptions of Christ amongst the most familiar, especially in the writings of this Evangelist (Jn 12:46; 16:28; 18:37; 1Jn 4:9; 1Ti 1:15, &c.).

10–13. He was in the world, &c.—The language here is nearly as wonderful as the thought. Observe its compact simplicity, its sonorousness—“the world” resounding in each of its three members—and the enigmatic form in which it is couched, startling the reader and setting his ingenuity a-working to solve the stupendous enigma of Christ ignored in His own world. “The world,” in the first two clauses, plainly means the created world, into which He came, says Jn 1:9; “in it He was,” says this verse. By His Incarnation, He became an inhabitant of it, and bound up with it. Yet it “was made by Him” (Jn 1:3–5). Here, then, it is merely alluded to, in contrast partly with His being in it, but still more with the reception He met with from it. “The world that knew Him not” (1Jn 3:1) is of course the intelligent world of mankind. (See on Jn 1:11,12). Taking the first two clauses as one statement, we try to apprehend it by thinking of the infant Christ conceived in the womb and born in the arms of His own creature, and of the Man Christ Jesus breathing His own air, treading His own ground, supported by substances to which He Himself gave being, and the Creator of the very men whom He came to save. But the most vivid commentary on this entire verse will be got by tracing (in His matchless history) Him of whom it speaks walking amidst all the elements of nature, the diseases of men and death itself, the secrets of the human heart, and “the rulers of the darkness of this world” in all their number, subtlety, and malignity, not only with absolute ease, as their conscious Lord, but, as we might say, with full consciousness on their part of the presence of their Maker, whose will to one and all of them was law. And this is He of whom it is added, “the world knew Him not!”

11. his own—“His own” (property or possession), for the word is in the neuter gender. It means His own land, city, temple, Messianic rights and possessions.

and his own—“His own (people)”; for now the word is masculine. It means the Jews, as the “peculiar people.” Both they and their land, with all that this included, were “His own,” not so much as part of “the world which was made by Him,” but as “the heir” of the inheritance (Lu 20:14; see also on Mt 22:1).

received him not—nationally, as God’s chosen witnesses.

12. But as many—individuals, of the “disobedient and gainsaying people.”

gave he power—The word signifies both authority and ability, and both are certainly meant here.

to become—Mark these words: Jesus is the Son of God; He is never said to have become such.

the sons—or more simply, “sons of God,” in name and in nature.

believe on his name—a phrase never used in Scripture of any mere creature, to express the credit given to human testimony, even of prophets or apostles, inasmuch it carries with it the idea of trust proper only towards God. In this sense of supreme faith, as due to Him who “gives those that believe in Himself power to become sons of God,” it is manifestly used here.

13. Which were born—a sonship therefore not of mere title and privilege, but of nature, the soul being made conscious of the vital capacities, perceptions, and emotions of a child of God, before unknown.

not of blood, &c.—not of superior human descent, not of human generation at all, not of man in any manner of way. By this elaborate threefold denial of the human source of this sonship, immense force is given to what follows,

but of God—Right royal gift, and He who confers must be absolutely divine. For who would not worship Him who can bring him into the family, and evoke within him the very life, of the sons of God?

14. And the Word, &c.—To raise the reader to the altitude of this climax were the thirteen foregoing verses written.

was made flesh—became man, in man’s present frail, mortal condition, denoted by the word “flesh” (Is 40:6; 1Pe 1:24). It is directed probably against the Docetae, who held that Christ was not really but only apparently man; against whom this gentle spirit is vehement in his Epistles (1Jn 4:3; 2Jn 1:7:10, 11), [Lucke, &c.]. Nor could He be too much so, for with the verity of the Incarnation all substantial Christianity vanishes. But now, married to our nature, henceforth He is as personally conscious of all that is strictly human as of all that is properly divine; and our nature is in His Person redeemed and quickened, ennobled and transfigured.

and dwelt—tabernacled or pitched his tent; a word peculiar to John, who uses it four times, all in the sense of a permanent stay (Rev 7:15; 12:12; 13:6; 21:3). For ever wedded to our “flesh,” He has entered this tabernacle to “go no more out.” The allusion is to that tabernacle where dwelt the Shekinah (see on Mt 23:38,39), or manifested “Glory of the Lord,” and with reference to God’s permanent dwelling among His people (Le 26:11; Ps 68:18; Ez 37:27). This is put almost beyond doubt by what immediately follows, “And we beheld his glory” [Lucke, Meyer, De Wette which last critic, rising higher than usual, says that thus were perfected all former partial manifestations of God in an essentially Personal and historically Human manifestation].

full of grace and truth—So it should read: “He dwelt among us full of grace and truth”; or, in Old Testament phrase, “Mercy and truth,” denoting the whole fruit of God’s purposes of love towards sinners of mankind, which until now existed only in promise, and the fulfilment at length of that promise in Christ; in one great word, “the sure mercies of David” (Is 55:3; Ac 13:34; compare 2Sa 23:5). In His Person all that Grace and Truth which had been floating so long in shadowy forms, and darting into the souls of the poor and needy its broken beams, took everlasting possession of human flesh and filled it full. By this Incarnation of Grace and Truth, the teaching of thousands of years was at once transcended and beggared, and the family of God sprang into Manhood.

and we beheld his glory—not by the eye of sense, which saw in Him only “the carpenter.” His glory was “spiritually discerned” (1Co 2:7–15; 2Co 3:18; 5:16)—the glory of surpassing grace, love, tenderness, wisdom, purity, spirituality; majesty and meekness, richness and poverty, power and weakness, meeting together in unique contrast; ever attracting and at times ravishing the “babes” that followed and forsook all for Him.

the glory as of the only begotten of the Father—(See on Lu 1:35); not like, but “such as (belongs to),” such as became or was befitting the only begotten of the Father [Chrysostom in Lucke, Calvin, &c.], according to a well-known use of the word “as.”"

Jamieson, Robert ; Fausset, A. R. ; Fausset, A. R. ; Brown, David ; Brown, David: A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. Oak Harbor, WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997, S. Jn 1:1

Response to comment [from an atheist]: "[T]he earliest Christians did believe Jesus existed, they simply believed that he was a spiritual being who had descended through the levels of heaven to the lowest realm where he was sacrificed at the behest of his father by evil spirits. the human Jesus of the gospels would have been quite foreign to the earliest Christians. It was only towards the beginning of the 2nd century, when the oral tradition was as good as purple monkey dishwasher, that biographical details and vague gospel material began to surface."

Early Christians believed that Jesus was the promised Messiah:

The Apostles' Creed
"The Old Roman Creed"
BELIEVE in God almighty [the Father almighty—(Rufinus)]
And in Christ Jesus, his only Son, our Lord
Who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
Who was crucified under Pontius Pilate and was buried
And the third day rose from the dead
Who ascended into heaven
And sitteth on the right hand of the Father
Whence he cometh to judge the living and the dead.
And in the Holy Spirit
The holy church
The remission of sins
The resurrection of the flesh
The life everlasting. [Rufinus omits this line.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Apostles' Creed (sixth-century Gallican version)
BELIEVE in God the Father almighty,
I also believe in Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord,
conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary.
suffered under Pontius Pilate, crucified, dead and buried; he descended into hell,
rose again the third day,
ascended into heaven,
sat down at the right hand of the Father,
thence he is to come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost,
the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,
the remission of sins,
the resurrection of the flesh and life eternal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Apostles' Creed (as usually recited today)
BELIEVE in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth: And in Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Apostles' Creed vs. Gnosticism
By James Kiefer, L-Soft list server at ASUACAD
CREED generally emphasizes the beliefs opposing those errors that the compilers of the creed think most dangerous at the time. The Creed of the Council of Trent, which was drawn up by the Roman Catholics in the 1500's, emphasized those beliefs that Roman Catholics and Protestants were arguing about most furiously at the time. The Nicene Creed, drawn up in the fourth century, is emphatic in affirming the Deity of Christ, since it is directed against the Arians, who denied that Christ was fully God. The Apostles' Creed, drawn up in the first or second century, emphasizes the true Humanity, including the material body, of Jesus, since that is the point that the heretics of the time (Gnostics, Marcionites, and later Manicheans) denied. (See 1 John 4:1-3)

Thus the Apostles' Creed is as follows:

* I believe in God the Father Almighty,
* Maker of Heaven and Earth,

The Gnostics held that the physical universe is evil and that God did not make it.

* And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, Our Lord,
* Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
* Born of the Virgin Mary,

The Gnostics were agreed that the orthodox Christians were wrong in supposing that God had taken human nature or a human body. Some of them distinguished between Christ, whom they acknowledged to be in some sense divine, and the man Jesus, who was at most an instrument through whom the Christ spoke. They held that the man Jesus did not become the bearer or instrument of the Christ until the Spirit descended upon him at his baptism, and that the Spirit left him before the crucifixion, so that the Spirit had only a brief and tenuous association with matter and humanity. Others affirmed that there was never a man Jesus at all, but only the appearance of a man, through which appearance wise teachings were given to the first disciples. Against this the orthodox Christians affirmed that Jesus was conceived through the action of the Holy Spirit (thus denying the Gnostic position that the Spirit had nothing to do with Jesus until his Baptism), that he was born (which meant that he had a real physical body, and not just an appearance) of a virgin (which implied that he had been special from the first moment of his life, and not just from the baptism on.

* Suffered under Pontius Pilate,

There were many stories then current about gods who died and were resurrected, but they were offered quite frankly as myths, as non-historical stories symbolic of the renewal of the vegetation every spring after the seeming death of winter. If you asked, "When did Adonis die, you would be told either, "Long ago and far away," or else, "His death is not an event in earthly time." Jesus, on the other hand, died at a particular time and place in history, under the jurisdiction of Pontius Pilate, Procurator of Judea from 26 to 36 CE, or during the last ten years of the reign of the Emperor Tiberius.

* was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into Hades.

Here the creed hammers home the point that he was really dead. He was not an illusion. He was nailed to a post. He died. He had a real body, a corpse, that was placed in a tomb. He was not merely unconscious — his spirit left his body and went to the realm of the dead. It is a common belief among Christians that on this occasion he took the souls of those who had died trusting in the promises made under the Old Covenant — Abraham, Moses, David, Elijah, Isaiah, and many others — and brought them out of the realm of the dead and into heavenly glory. But the creed is not concerned with this point. The reference to the descent into Hades (or Hell, or Sheol) is here to make it clear that the death of Jesus was not just a swoon or a coma, but death in every sense of the word.

* The third day he rose from the dead, he ascended into heaven,
* and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.
* From thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead.

* I believe in the Holy Ghost,
* the holy catholic church,

The Gnostics believed that the most important Christian doctrines were reserved for a select few. The orthodox belief was that the fullness of the Gospel was to be preached to the entire human race. Hence the term "catholic," or universal, which distinguished them from the Gnostics.

* the communion of saints,
* the forgiveness of sins,

The Gnostics considered that what men needed was not forgiveness, but enlightenment. Ignorance, not sin, was the problem. Some of them, believing the body to be a snare and delusion, led lives of great asceticism. Others, believing the body to be quite separate from the soul, held that it did not matter what the body did, since it was completely foul anyway, and its actions had no effect on the soul. They accordingly led lives that were not ascetic at all. Either way, the notion of forgiveness was alien to them.

* the resurrection of the body,

The chief goal of the Gnostics was to become free forever from the taint of matter and the shackles of the body, and to return to the heavenly realm as Pure Spirit. They totally rejected any idea of the resurrection of the body.

* and the life everlasting. Amen. http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/apostles.htm.