DISQUS

Anonymous · 4 years ago

Ok, I was on staff at Fifth Avenue and know that Tom Tewell is a womanizer. He behaved inappropriately with me on several occassions and I resigned because of his behavior (lies and deceit). He is not the man that everyone thinks he is. He does have a big ego. He's an excellent speaker from the pulpit and is a trained actor. He wants everyone to like him and he finally got caught.

Anonymous · 4 years ago

What sadness I feel for Suzanne, their two sons and three grandchildren. Dr.Tewell was the messenger-not The Message. My prayers are with his wife, children and grandchildren. Yes, he scaled to the top of the Presbyterian mountain and he fell off. He's human.

Now, everyone is lining up to throw stones,piling on as it were. He is paying dearly for his actions, but has anyone stopped to think how their sarcastic remarks and reactions are affecting his FAMILY ?

We were members at MDPC and I DO know he gave that Church a renewed sense of ' Being the Difference,'and made a difference in the lives of those less fortunate.

Yes he will probably spend the proverbial 40 years in the wilderness. But please: think about his wife and sons the next time anyone is so inclined to pass judgement.

They are in this too, and they certainly did not choose to be.

Suzanne is a fine lady,an adopted 'Southern gentlewoman', who has always had incredible faith in God.

It is between them now. God has forgiven him. And something tells me, she has forgiven him as well.

And if she can forgive him and their sons can forgive him, then this is for them to work through and work out.

Anonymous · 4 years ago

It is hard for me to believe that Tom Tewell is a womanizer as anonymous above declares. There was never a hint of this at MDPC in Houston the years he was there. it seems to me that something like this would have come out. Also if he were a womanizer would he have just started at FAPC? Usually there is a history and I never heard of this in Houston.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

Thanks to Dave and others who have tried to convey the humanity of Tom Tewell. Though I was a rather infrequent visitor of FAPC, Tewell's intelligent (and non-canonical) approach to the complexities of living often provided much-needed spiritual sustenance. I have no "inside information" about his personal life, nor any idea about church politics, etc. .... yet, I do want to say that those who have villified him here might look to their own sanctimoniousness... your attacks sound very much like the ignorance you would eradicate... many who are exploring spirituality from various perspectives, whether Christian or Buddhist or ....?... understand that religion in all its guises has been misused, yet that doesn't negate the human desire for spiritual meaning... and shooting the "enemy" without giving him a face is a little like what war is about... is that what you want???

Though, again, I am only a "visitor" at FAPC, it is clear that Tewell has had an enormously positive impact on individuals and the community at large and I am very disturbed that this "incident" obscures all the good that Tewell has done. How many of us have done so much?

Dave8 · 3 years ago

anonymous 12/26/2005 8:40 PM: "Though, again, I am only a "visitor" at FAPC, it is clear that Tewell has had an enormously positive impact on individuals and the community at large and I am very disturbed that this "incident" obscures all the good that Tewell has done. How many of us have done so much?"

Hitler's had devoted followers that likely thought he had an "enormously positive impact on individuals and the community at large" for Germany, as he was marching through Europe... I suppose, you need to clarify "How many of us have done so much?"... if your standard is the "positive impact" for "humanity" as a whole... I dare say, he is humbled before "many" people, who don't preach using doctrine that is immoral, and exclusive, which begets intolerance and bigotry... uh, that would be the "exclusivity" of the bible, per the Old Testament and New Testament... It appears you assign positive impact, to those who receive some "benefit" from his preaching, i.e., pseudo-purpose of life, founded with a security blanket in the afterlife...

Anonymous · 3 years ago

Just to clarify... I should have said "thank you" to EnWyCee and Mark....I incorrectly identified Dave as a rational voice....

Anonymous · 3 years ago

Just to clarify... I should have said "thank you" to Dave... I incorrectly identified EnWyCee and Mark as rational voices....

NYCchurchgoer · 3 years ago

What have we learned about church governance? How to use the facts of life to run individual houses of worship is the challenge that all denominations are facing as they find ways to set policy and train leaders and congregations in how to use prevention rather than cure as the focus of church policy. Those that don't may find that the insurance companies will educate them as a requirement for writing the insurance policies. As these cases are publicized, two things happen: more people see the problem and more people will look for solutions. Insurance companies don't want to make pay-outs--they'd rather prevent the claims--they make money by not handing out a mil her, a mil there. As we know. So, the capitalists among us may be the trend-setters in helping houses of worship meet the demands of life with written policies and means to enforce them that everyone knows. Because it is a suprise to many people that there is such a thing as an "inappropriate relationship" that has actual meanings and definitions--until you find--as we did--your church the subject of widespread publicity. Then the laity learns what's what. That is, if they start educating themselves. Thinking it won't happen here, we're too sophisticated, or some claptrap is what will land you up a creek--far far up a creek--without a paddle.

Helen Locker · 3 years ago

I am a long time member of Memorial Drive Presbyterian Church in Houston and Tom Tewell was one of my pastors in the most difficult time of my life. My youngest son was killed in an automobile accident and I have to tell you the support and love that I received from Tommy (as Charlie Shedd called him) plus the care and love from staff and members of MDPC helped me to life again. It took a long time, but Tom never gave up on me and we should not give up on Tom. He is not a womanizer, he is a loving friend and pastor. Thankfully my pastors have always taught that I am a forgiven child of God and so are you and so is Tom, if indeed he had this relationship. I just want Tom to know that I love him and God loves him too. Helen

Anonymous · 3 years ago

I was a longtime member of Fifth Avenue Church and left after Tom Tewell had been there for two years. He is definitely a womanizer. He acted inappropriately with me, making passes at me on several occasions. It is possible that his ego (which is huge) had grown some since Texas days. I worked closely with him on several committees and spent a week outside of the country with him, so I had more than a casual knowledge of his behavior. I experienced him as shallow and insincere, with a deep desire to be in the limelight at all times. The amount of pastor-worship that was taking place at Fifth Avenue was nauseating. I left.

Suzanne is a fine person who deserves much better. I feel great sadness for her, and for her boys. Shame on Tom!

Anonymous · 3 years ago

I have known Tom Tewell for over 20 years and always found him to be a caring minister to all and an outstanding preacher. I for one am very sorry that Fifth Avenue accepted his resignation and feel the church will lose a lot of members. He's always been very devoted to his family and I feel this suit was initiated by a very vindictive man who chose to collect a lot of money and destroy a man's career. Mr. Vione had an affair and if Tom made a mistake, it was being too caring to others. Suzanne is a very special person and if anything, their marriage is stronger today than ever. All who know and love Tom hope that he will continue in the ministry. An elder friend once heard him many years ago preach in New Providence and stated "I've been looking for a minister like that all my life."
He was, and will continue to be, very special to all who know and love him.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

I learned today at church in Bonita Springs, Florida about Tom Tewell's alleged affair and resignation. While I don't know the details, I can say without hesitation that he had a very positive impact on my life and my children's lives. May God be with you Tom....Jim Schultz

Anonymous · 3 years ago

I don't know Dr. Tewell that well, but know that his preaching was amazing. Amazing to the point that when I moved from New York to Tokyo I would download his sermons every Sunday and listen to them. I still own all the tapes and every now and then pop one in to listen. I can't condone such behaviour, if it is indeed true, but I also know that I owe him a huge thank you for the difference he has made in my life.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

It is unfortunate that we have to visit a site like this to learn the truth and not from those who purport to believe in Truth above all else.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

One thing that puzzles FAPC churchgoers was the comment said to be in 1994 from the clerk of session of his Houston church to the clerk of session at FAPC that was repeated at a church event fall 2004 from the pulpit by someone, as giving advice of a sort. While we at FAPC are as puzzled by this turn of events as anyone, we wonder what, if anything, was different for him there and here. Did he change how he was, or did it just come across differently? It would be interesting to compare notes, if only to know what we could have done differently as prevention.

The congregation is mostly single people, not families, in Midtown Manhattan, typical of NYC, and those single people are mostly women, as in typical in NYC houses of worhip.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

Does anyone know what has happened to him? Is the suit pending? Is he living w/Suzanne?

Anonymous · 3 years ago

I just became aware of this situation. Two questions: first, do we know what Rev. Tewell is doing now? Second, is the allegation that he had an emotional fair, ONLY, with this woman? Has anyone proved a physical affair?

Anonymous · 3 years ago

I have knwon Rev. Tewell for his reign at Fifth Ave. While of course every high profile, big church minister must be a politician, fund raiser, hand shaker, in order to run a big church. That said, Tom was always down to earth with my family, delivered fantastic sermons consistantly each week and believed in his faith each and every day. While it seems that Tom had a brain freeze at some point here, lets give him the benefit of the doubt. Tom's ministry is not done. Look for even greater things from him in the future.

carol · 3 years ago

What a bunch of idiots these babble believers are. "He preached a good sermon." BFD!!! He is nothing but a nonsense salesman who cons sad people that need some type of crutch to get thru their lives.

"Look for even greater things for him in the future." Greater than adultery? What would that be? Child molesting, perhaps?

Then on another thread someone again is so hurt we are mocking their imaginary friend. Makes me want to just scream out of frustration!

Hello to Dave8, Boom, South and everyone!

Regards, carol

Ben · 3 years ago

These comments praising and supporting these preachers just astonish me, it's just amazing.

What can someone say with words that have made an impact in your life? Words are just noises made by people.

What one thing can someone say to you, that you could have gotten on your own, if you had just wanted to?

Words of comfort perhaps?
Words of encouragement?
Words of enlitenment?

In the end they are just words!!! you people, just like all Americans are being HERDED around by WORDS!!!

It was WORDS that were written down on clay tablets, by men, translated over 1600 times transcribed down in a BOOK, by men!

You people put your faith in MEN and their WORDS!!!

Preachers are just people, special people? NO! The bible says not one is worthy of the kingdom of god, yet you must elect a person that pretends that he is "Holyier" than thou!!!

This one person wrote about her son being killed in a car wreck and he supplied comfort to her, what could he have said? That his soul is resting in Heaven now? Does saying such a thing prove it's true? No it had to be a preacher saying it, that confirmed it in your mind.

Why can't you all see that it's just WORDS that you've allowed let dominate your very being?

Words do not supply truth!!!

It's all PRETENDING!!!
You're all pretending it's true!!!
You're all pretending that you believe in the bible!!!!
You're all pretending that you're someone special!!!!
Pretending is living in a LIE!!!

THe bible is the GREAT MAKE BELIEVE LIE!!!

IT's SANTA CLAUS with a BIG PROMISE!!!

You christians are a sick lot, the American people have become a spawn of mindless drivel'ers.

Whomever will get up and speak, we will follow!!!

Anonymous · 3 years ago

LIES!!! LIES!!! LIES!!! Tell me sweet little lies, Fleetwood Mac.

Preachers and politicians are professional LIARS!!!

Dave8 · 3 years ago

There is a difference between a preacher and a politician typically. A preacher many times actually believes what they preach, where politicians know better, but still sell their words to the masses. However, there are many preachers, who are also politicians, and they are the ones who move entire masses of people to commit crimes against humanity.

In the end, both preachers and politicians are word peddlers, and people have a responsibility to make them prove their words. However, that is where authority and force come into play, as both preacher and politician will engage in control behaviors, i.e., alienating, chastising, etc., anyone who takes a different view than they themselves hold.

Dave8 · 3 years ago

Oops, pardon, but preachers who also believe in their words, are likely to mislead the masses in acts of hostility, they just seem to do it through delusional ignorance, in the end, its a matter of determining accountability. I typically, would want to see the political punished far greater, than a delusional preacher who is just sorely ignorant, and a by-product of their upbringing most times. Still, I would isolate a preacher who obviously shows negative effects towards a society and humanity in general. Still, they're all word peddlers.

Michael · 3 years ago

As Christians, we shall not judge or condemn. Tom has left us. As hard as it may be, we forgive.
I am not ready to cast the first stone.
Who among us would like to see our sins made public.
I forgive as Christ would
Michael

.:webmaster:. · 3 years ago

I heard this same pathetic rhetoric when Jim Baker was arrested.

The way Christians worship their pastors is amazing.

Sad.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

Of course Tom Tewell was just a meesenger. How do some of you think we just worshipped Tom and not God. All I can say is that Rev. Tewell each week renewed my spirit and gave me a recharged spirit to start my week. Without Tom;s insight, ( which comes down from God) life was just muttled.
Regardless what he did, he was a conduit.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

First of all, it has not been said exactly what happened with Rev. Tewell and the woman. Tom has paid the highest price. God has forgiven him. I am sure Suzanne has forgiven him. This country always wants to hammer those who are down even deeper down. What would Jesus do? Please guys---get a life and forgive.

Christine · 3 years ago

I have known Rev. Tewell for many years and while I believe that he made a terrible mistake, the positive things that he gave us and the church should not be forgotten. He has helped many people and brough many people to Christ. While some of you call him a salesman--YES! ministers are! And so were the desciples and early church founders!!

Joel · 3 years ago

Lets hope that some of the contributors here do not make a bad decision one day. It would be a terrible world if we did not forgive. In fact God will forgive us all on the judgement day for our small and large sins if we confess our faith. We should all wish that we could convey the message as Rev. Tewell did. I guess we are all jealous?

Paul · 3 years ago

This is a sad site where all we do is bash ministers. Does one mistake make all ministers bad? No! Does a mistake by Rev. Tewell make him a bad person? No! We should all thank God for our ministers who day to day bring us closer to Christ. Like none of us has been tempted or swayed. Get a life people!

.:webmaster:. · 3 years ago

Okay, let me get this straight. Here's what I'm receiving from the last few posts:

Tom Tewell made me feel good. He made me feel so good that I want to feel that good again, and no one, absolutely no one, has the right to have an opinion contrary to mine, because, well, because, well, he made me feel good. And that's the way I feel about it.

Did I get it right?

I wonder if your supervisor at work were to have a similar "slip" if you would be so accepting? If your supervisor, or manager, made such a slip, would you expect your supervisor to be relieved of his/her position?

You see, people who take on the mantle of leadership are held to a higher standard than those in the trenches. It's like that in the military and in the workplace. It's interesting that leaders in the Church of the Living God are held to lower standard in the minds of some posters here.

Perhaps it's because supervisors, drill sergeants and so on, don't make people feel all that good most of the time. Let's see, managers tell you what do to do, and when you do it, you get money. Pastors tell you what to do and take your money. Supervision is hated - pastors are loved.

I'm sorry, it just doesn't make sense.

I guess that's why Swaggart is back on TV.

X-fundy · 3 years ago

The BW'ed fundy Paul wrote:

Does one mistake make all ministers bad? No!

Does one mistake two people did, Adam and Eve, make all people ever born, have to ask for forgiveness to pay for their sins? YES

NYCChurchgoer · 3 years ago

The civil suit against Dr. Tewell/Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church/Presbytery of NYC is currently in the courts. The judge will hear oral arguments next month and make the decision to dismiss the suit or accept one, two or three of the causes of action. There has been no ruling issued by the Presbytery of NY as of this date. Further "why's" are outside the scope of this post. At this writing everyone is still married to the same people they were married to 12 months ago.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

I think the "Webmaster" should GET A LIFE!

Anonymous · 3 years ago

Tom Tewell announced in August 2005 that the session of FAPC had voted to join the Covenant Network--an organization supporting ordination of gay pastors, elders and deacons. He was simultaneously slammed with a lawsuit. Coincidence?

Christians,"ExChristians" and everyone else who values civil liberty should consider whether this country is being looted by religious fanatics. Like him or not, Tom Tewell is just another casualty in the ongoing attack on individual rights.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

I'm sure many people do not know what to make of all this. I certainly do not know much about what has happened as I have been away for a while from New York City and am just coming back. I read the letters and have heard the talk. And still things are very confusing.

But I do know this. Tom Tewell is a very fine man. He changed my life. His love of Christ and His Church as expressed from the pulpit and from the small talk exchanged weekly at the shaking of hands soon thereafter, saved me from taking my own life when I thought everything was lost. The fact that I am alive and well this morning and able to write this letter is directly due to Tom's caring and his God given abilities which he shared with me and with so many others who were fortunate enough to know him.

I was a very lost man who had about given up on life despite being deemed a successful man by those who thought they knew me. Yet, I was lost and at the edge of the abyss until I quite by accident walked into Fifth Avenue one Sunday morning and heard a message that was nothing like anything I had ever heard before. I believed in him that day and I believe in him now.

If Tom did something wrong and I would think that he should be entitled to present his side of this matter before anyone makes any judgment whatsoever, I would think that we should all remember that Our Savior told us that not only should we not make jusgments on others but also that only we who are without sin should be the bearer of the stones to toss. Didn't King David in Psalm 103:12 comfort us with the thought that the love of God is so great and transcends sin that "as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us." We have all made mistakes in our lives. I do not know if Dr. Tewell made one in this instance but I know God loves him and has forgiven him if in fact he did.

My friends, I love Tom Tewell with all my heart. I pray from him and his family daily and for all that are involved in this matter. The vastness of God's love is supremely shown in His forgiveness of our sins. We should not forget that.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

I am 53 years old and I cannot figure out how people can develope such supreme loyalty to another human based on what he has told them. All preachers have figured out by observation, of other preachers that they can drag people around by their ears.

It's just like teaching to be a kamakazi, look at Jim Jones, David Koresh, Heavens Gate people.

I want to know just what a preacher can say with their lips that would cause someone either to kill themselves or someone else, or what a preacher could say with his lips to someone, to thwart a person from killing themselves.

Is it, GOD LOVES YOU, is this what everyone wants to hear?

Is it, JESUS LOVES YOU, is this what you want to hear?

Is it, YOU WILL GO TO HEAVEN, is this what you want to hear?

Is it, YOU ARE A SINNER, BUT YOU ARE SAVED, is that what you people want to hear.

WHAT IS IT THAT YOU WANT TO HEAR?
WHAT WORDS? WORDS OF COMFORT? WORDS OF HOPE? WORDS OF PRAISE? WORDS OF JESUS? WORDS OF GOD? WORDS OF A MAN? KIND WORDS? THOUGHTFUL WORDS? WHAT WORDS DO YOU ALL WANT AND DESIRE SO MUCH TO HEAR?

I had a dear friend, very devoted christian, we were young, we grew up togther and went to school together he was very intelligent, made straight A's in everything including church, I never heard a negative word come this mans mouth, people would tease him, because he could not see very well, he was legally blind, not totally blind, but he could not drive a car, he could only see close up things with the help of glasses, anyway he had a string of medals that he proudly wore that he acquired by perfect attendence having never missing Sundays at church at least 18 medals, and he would go up to the alter call every so often profess and re-dedicate his life to Christ, and all us not as religious, would wonder why, why would my friend go up and confess his sins and his love for Christ, the one friend and only friend since, that I considered to be pure and Holy. I considered him sinless, I believed in him as much or more than Jesus himself, because I knew this man very well, I spent a lot of time with this man. Anyway as time goes on, I got married and moved away for a couple of years, and one day I came back to my home town and heard that my good friend had killed himself, I said you must be mistaken, there is no way this man would kill himself, this man of God! this man of Jesus? Well apparently he fell in love with a woman and she left him and he felt rejected and decided life wasn't worth living without a woman. This is a true story. Of course I was devastated and it haunts me to this very day and that was 30 years ago.

I believe we've all been secured from birth, by words, by parents, by people, people actions, by false endearments, that we are so afraid to admit that we are all alone in this world, it's the fear of being rejected, by friends, by parents, by preachers, by god and jesus.

It appears that words validate us. Words make us worthy beings.
Words take us back to our childhood, because that is where it all began.

Word peddlers like preachers and politicians know this and use this knowledge to sway and to minipulate people to conform and to control.

One question is.
WHAT WOULD PEOPLE HAVE DONE IF THEY NEVER HAD HEARD OR SEEN A BIBLE?

WHAT WOULD PEOPLE DO WITHOUT A BIBLE?

THE BIBLE, MANS CURE ALL, MANS FALSE COMFORT, MANS FANTASY, MANS FALSE HOPE, MANS DREAM FOR THE HERE-AFTER, MANS MAKE BELIEVE FAIRYTALE

IS THE BIBLE IS SUPPOSED TO SAVE MAN FROM HIMSELF?

What is in words that control and sway amd minipulate so many?

Words are just noises made with the lips and are written down in books. Ben

Friend of Tom · 3 years ago

My wife and I became members of the New Providence Presbyterian Church in New Providence, NJ. My sister invited us to come one Sunday since we did not have a church. To our astonishment it was a standing room only service. My sister said it is always like this and if you want a seat be there at least a half hour early.

That Sunday began a friendship that has lasted nearly 30 years and still continues. Tom is the consumate Christian. He says what he believes and believes what he says, all of which is based on Christ.

During the 12 years we were at the church our friendship grew and we watched as hundreds came to Christ because of Tom. We had become Junior High Advisors at the hillarious request of Tom as there was no program for these kids. Thanks to Tom and his guidance we watched the group grow from 5 to 6 to as many as 50. Tom would regularly come to our sessions and special events and offer his advise and talk to the kids and answer questions. Because of Tom we advisors became very close and still are to this day. More importantly we saw these "kids" grow into young adults, some going into the ministry and some into other Christian activities.

I will be forever greatful to Tom for getting me through some very difficult times. I had become an alcoholic, suffered from depression, and thoughts of suicide. Tom literally gave me his shoulder to cry on on many occasions. When we moved away we knew that we would likely not find another Tom Tewell and so far have not. Tom will forever be in our hearts and minds.

For those of you who believe the acusations are true and are chastising him remember what the Bible says: let he who is without sin cast the first stone. How many of you are without sin? I am not and certainly Tom is not. If there was any sin in this God has already forgiven him. How many of you can say that?

Most of you have written negative comments about Tom's character, that he is evil, egotistical, and a womanizer must be talking about a different Tom because this is not the Tom we know and love. In August 2004 we were fortunate enough to make a visit to NYC and see Tom again preaching. He stirred us as always. It was wonderful to see him again, vibrant and alive as ever.

For anyone who could even think that Tom has done this you are sorely wrong. I have known Tom longer than most of you. That does not make me an expert on Tom but it does give me more insight into his character. You people have destroyed a true Christian, shaken his wife Suzanne, and left his sons in disbelief.

I will do anything I can to defend Tom. He is the best friend we have and will be with him as long as we both are here. I will not leave this as "anonymous" as most of you have. God is on Tom's side and so am I.

Tom and Janette Brenner
Eternal Friend of Tom

.:webmaster:. · 3 years ago

"You people have destroyed a true Christian, shaken his wife Suzanne, and left his sons in disbelief."

Ah, no.

Tom got himself into trouble, not us. No one destroyed your hero, he tripped up, that's all.

When you put yourself above others, and proclaim yourself a leader, then you are held to a higher standard. Tom was obviously a dynamic and charismatic leader, hense the passionate, loyal worship of his followers. However, Mr. Brenner, Tommy boy is just a man, nothing more. He is NOT the Lord's annointed, but he WAS/IS in the news. When you're in the news, it's public discourse time. It's called freedom of speech — get over it.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

I have to agree with Mr. Brenner 100 percent. The church and our family has felt such a large void since Tom left last fall. Tom always went the second, third and fourth mile for every endeavor he was involved with. He has brought many people to CHrist and has always recharged our family each sunday to meet the demands of this terrible world. Sure, Tom has tripped up here, to what extent we may not ever know. He has received forgiveness from God and from his family and from his flock. He has resigned and embarassed himself with will follow him throughout the rest of his life. I know God will find a place for him in HIS ministry in a very short time and he will be even a better preacher. My only hope is that it is in the New York area. I suggest to those who just want to throw stones to examine THEIR lives and ask forgiveness for your sins. Then and only then can you understand God's forgiveness for us all and our ability to take those back into the flock after a problem. If only all of us had a tenth of what Tom Tewell has, it would be a much better world. People here, I guess are just jealous and love to get on a person when he or she is down. I guess that is why they are "ex-christians" They certainly are............

FatherTyme · 3 years ago

You people just do not get it do you?

To fervently uphold compassion for a quack preacher just because he has tickled your ears and told you that you're going to Heaven, you will continue to lick his bottom up, because he was good to you, but yet has strung his (flock)you included and his flock (blindless-sheep) members along for the ride to your sweet endearment. You all never did grow up and get past the play pin mentally, because it's sweet endearment terms that you love to hear, you have never gone to church to hear the truth, one reason is, you'll never hear the truth at any church.


These preachers that you love so well, get up in public and profess to have some devine calling, and claim to hold a position that was granted to them by a god for being deemed worthy in a gods eyes, as all preachers do and take peoples money, on top of that, it's like Jesus hanging on the cross and suddenly saying, I was just kidding!

Someone said, if one apple in the barrell is bad, does that make all the apples bad? Yes it does! Because all the apples are claimng to be pure and without worms or rotten, now none of the apples can be trusted. If one preacher in the entire USA cannot abstain from committing crimes of the laws of this land, then this defrocks the whole entire bunch.

They're all crooks and total frauds and you might as well know it now.

All religions are a fraud and a hoax, it's all make believe child pretend for those that never grew up mentally.

All religions are for the sick and mentally ill. Sounds like you fit right in.

And yes anonymous brainwashed sheep of 11:37am, you're a total fraud yourself, you're a fake, and everything about you is a fraud and you know it, why else would you have to return to that idiots church because you want to hear how wonderful that your are, you have to get your religious fix.

FAPC Member · 3 years ago

Tom has paid the ultimate price for his sin (which has not yet been exactly stated as of yet)Anyone can say anything about anyone--it has to be proven. So whatever it is or was...he is forgiven. We all understand his reluctance to stay because of the controversey involved.

That said---you would have to go a long way to find anyone who is at least one half of what Tom Tewell is. Anyone who knows him (not through newspaper articles) certainly knows he is above the current problem and will come back stronger than ever.

This country loves to kick people who are having problems. I guess its the American way. So sad for a country who should still believe in the Motto " In God we trust"

Just watch and see.. Rev. Tewell will come back again stronger and without any remorse. Good people always rise to the top after trials and tribulations.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

Why do people do to church?

To hear what they want to hear.

Why would anyone pay another person money for no reason?

To hear just what they want to hear.

Why do people want to hear sweet endearment terms?

Because they never got them from their fathers.

So why is a preacher considered so special?

Because a preacher claims to have been called from his father(god).

Why is it that christians cannot see the hoax?

Because they've been told since childhood that god and religion is true.

Why does not anyone investigate and find out for themselves that all religions and god and preachers are all a hoax?

Because that would be like calling mother or father a liar.

No one ever called their parents liars about Santa or The Tooth Fairy, but still they found out it was all a lie.

What makes the Bible so much more believable?

It comes with a promise and a threat if you do not believe it.

Preachers keep people their flock scared, steeped in fear, knowing fullwell that it's all a lie and a hoax, but people are so afraid that they will get spanked by god for not believing such nonsense.

I cannot imagine living in constant fear of an imaginary god and support preachers that feed off their prey. All preachers are leeches, weasels, wolves in sheeps clothing.

.:webmaster:. · 3 years ago

"I love the way Tom Tewell made me feel — I WILL forgive him for anything!"

"I don't like the way ex-Christians make me feel — they have no right to an opinion!"

Christian, hear me! Hero worship is a sin!

Anonymous · 3 years ago

I think the title of this web site should be changed to: People that are mad.

Why is everyone so viicious against ministers? According to Ben if one is bad they are all bad? How does one condemn a whole part of our community in one shot?

Of course they are bad ministers. There are bad policemen, firemen, postal workers,bad husbands, bad wives, mayors etc. that does not condemn the whole human race.

The only way this web site can be looked at again, at least by me is for everyone look at both side objectivley and both sides of an argument.

Man, even if you dont believe in God...you have look at both sides and be reasonable to discussion without shooting from the hip.

Shannon · 3 years ago

Tom Tewell supposedly had god’s power on his side and what’s more he had should have had something even more powerful called self-restraint. He used neither.

I’m quite certain if I had a friend who seemed genuinely kind. Did things for me that were nice yet turned around and flagrantly seduce my sister away her husband, I’d have to reconsider his motivation for his previous kindness towards me. (I’d have some nasty things to say about my sister, too).

Dr. Tewell’s previous pious behavior should not be employed as an example of his true character because his earlier benevolence should be viewed with suspicion.

.:webmaster:. · 3 years ago

"Of course they are bad ministers. There are bad policemen, firemen, postal workers,bad husbands, bad wives, mayors etc. that does not condemn the whole human race."

Am I the only one who sees the irony in this comment?

Anonymous · 3 years ago

Shannon,

I understand exactly what you are saying, although this man does not have a history of this problem. No one is allowed to have brain freeze at some point? No one is condoning what he did (whatever it is)but does that codemn the man forever?

A father who makes a mistake and robs a bank, is still a father and no one can take away the excellent way he may have brought up his kids even though he has now robbed a bank. Yes he should not have robbed the bank, but he was a good father and could possible still be a good father.

Tom was a good minister, has had a major problem. Does that mean he cannot redeem himself now?

FatherTyme · 3 years ago

Dear preacher skeered anonymous, first off let me tell you I am a preacher, not of christianity, not of jesus, but of truth, which seems to you as being from hate, because you've never been told the truth before, you think that people telling you how wonderful that you are, is truth. It's not!


Here's the truth, before 1492, there was not a single Bible on American soil, before 1492,there was not a single church on American soil, before 1492, there had never been a christian on American soil, this land still belongs to the Native Americans, that the christians stole from them, there was estimated 150 million Indians, most all were killed, men women and children and elderly Indians, massacred in the name of God and Jesus Christ, and now you've got the gall to put some 2-bit preacher on high.

I personally dare you to got to:
http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm

and scroll down to Native Peoples and read the whole thing and come back and tell us all how much you love jesus and Tom Tewell.

Do you really think there exist a God and Jesus that wanted the Native Peoples killed so they can build churches all over America, so God and Jesus can be worshipped? including preachers being worshipped, many preachers living a life of Grandeur, and you and Tom Tewell could not recognize truth if it smacked you in the face.

I know I'm wasting my time, I can't seem to awake people from their religious mind fog.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

Ben,

Your rational still comes from your hate of christians taking away land from native indians. That is not the question here. The question is whether Rev. Tewell can still be effective in his career choosing. You are not comparing apples to apples.

You are still not allowing other sides an opinion...You are right period...no other opinions required? No one is doubting your conviction of the problems of the american indians, you just cant discount the rest of the world to further your cause.

Dano · 3 years ago

Posted by Anonymous to ExChristian.Net - News and Opinion at 3/20/2006 03:06:41 PM

"Tom was a good minister, has had a major problem. Does that mean he cannot redeem himself now?"

That is an oxymoron. You can't teach people mythology as if it were truth, and screw up their brains and lives and "Be Good"
Dan (Rationalist)

Anonymous · 3 years ago

OK-first of all...any Christian with good sound theology knows that a person does not redeem him or herself...it is God who is the redeemer. This is part of the problem with you people...you cannot distinguish between God and Tom Tewell. Tom Tewell is not the saviour...God is the Saviour. Please get that!
Yes-pastor worship or hero worship is idolatry and there is a lot of that going on here.
This is not a "he said, she said" situation...there has been an investigation and a report has been made...the only reason people don't know what is in the report [i.e. the truth] is because Tom Tewell has requested a "stay" in the process until the lawsuit has been settled. Once that happens the truth about what happened will be made known.
Yes-Tom Tewell made a "mistake" with this woman, but the real mistake he made was to lie about it and try to cover it up. He lied to the investigative committee, to his staff, to his wife and to his congregation. Had he told the truth in the beginning, things would have gone differently. His ego and his narcissism don't allow for anything or anyone to get in the way of his career. He's like the Wizard of Oz..."pay no attention to what's going on behind that curtain...just look at me!" Sickening!
If Tom Tewell wants to be a preacher in the future, perhaps he should start preaching sermons that are honest about the human condition and the fact that we ALL struggle. Instead of preaching Norman Rockwell sermons about his 'perfect marriage" and his "perfect family" he should be honest and say that marriage [and life] is hard work...that's the truth. Nobody's life [Christian or exchristian or whatever] is perfect...not even Tom's
Tom should practice some of the integrity that he so often preaches about and tell the truth about what he did.
His family and the congregation/staff at FAPC deserve at least that much. Then you can all "forgive him" and you'll know what you're forgiving him for.
There's no disputing that he has done good things in his ministry, but there is also no disputing that he has become a hypocrite. If we say we have no sine then the truth is not in us. Tom Tewell needs to confess, repent and ask for forgiveness...and be honest about what he is asking to be forgiven from. Otherwise it's just cheap grace.

Shannon · 3 years ago

Anonymous 3/20/2006 3:06 PM EST

-I’ve known my best friend since eighth grade, nearly 23 years. I whole-heartily love her. She is one of the most important persons in my life. I understand her character to be that she would not cheat on her husband.

-But if she were to flagrantly conspire to cheat on her husband and was caught, I - honestly, without doubt - would condemn her. Even if her husband would choose to stay with her, I would still divorce her from my life because there are certain things that morally I abhor. For me there are lines of behavior you don’t cross and if you do there is no redemption. After someone has taken the moral highroad and then precede right down to the lowroad without a blinker, there are no excuses. Zero.

“No one is condoning what he did (whatever it is) but does that condemn the man forever?”

-Seems to me that your god has a policy of condemning people FOREVER.

“A father, who makes a mistake and robs a bank, is still a father and no one can take away the excellent way he may have brought up his kids even though he has now robbed a bank. Yes he should not have robbed the bank, but he was a good father and could possible still be a good father.”

-So is this what you would tell your daughter if her husband was caught robbing bank? The mindset of someone, who thought the robbing a bank was his only recourse, is hardly someone who would be the best moral teacher. He could serve as what not to do but then I’ve always hated the do-as-I-say-and-not-as-I-do mantra.

FatherTyme · 3 years ago

Just as I thought! It doesn't matter to you that the christian religion has blood on it's hands, and your self-appointed preacher himself, has no idea that he is promoting a religion that was brought over here in USA and is responceable for the murder of innocent Indians all killed in the name of Jesus.

God is no savior, he allowed innocent Indians to be killed in his name. Get That!!

Apparently you do not consider Indians to be human beings either.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

What a relief to know that we are all perfect ! So glad none of us would have to ask for forgiveness. So glad that would never happen to us. ex christian.net is pretty much the same as ex-out of touch of reality.net no discussion allowed here I guess.

.:webmaster:. · 3 years ago

No discussion allowed?

You just posted for crying out loud!

What you don't like is people who disagree with you.

Have a nice day.

south2003 · 3 years ago

Annoy said: What a relief to know that we are all perfect ! So glad none of us would have to ask for forgiveness.

How about an apology first? This preacher did his womanizing on many occasions and now he's busted. If he was not busted, he would have continued.

So why look for forgiveness when you had the other option available i.e. personal responsibility - one that doesn't cause pain. That option is available to everyone, but apparently, he loved to self indulge on others expense.

Shannon · 3 years ago

ARGH! This is not a matter of perfection. We all say one thing and do another. We all crossed the gray lines of right and wrong but Dr. Tewell did not use the company credit card to buy a Metallic CD.

And yes, we, humans often fail each other miserably but we are not talking about shortcomings in emotional support here. Dr. Tewell didn’t just slip onto top of Mrs. Vione while she just happened to be horizontal and naked. This is not a failure in judgment; this is moral bankruptcy. He systematically chose each step, consciously. In his understanding of the standards that he chose to promote, he knew adultery to be wrong.

Dr. Tewell’s responsibility was to uphold the bar for the standards - no ifs, ands or buts about. His position, also, allowed him to lop guilt and condemnation onto others for the sins of lustfulness, adultery, and divorce.

The physical action of committing adultery is truly the lesser of his crimes. His high crime is the flagrant and systematical disregard for the standards that he was supposed to duly uphold.

south2003 · 3 years ago

"Dr. Tewell’s responsibility was to uphold the bar for the standards - no ifs, ands or buts about. His position, also, allowed him to lop guilt and condemnation onto others for the sins of lustfulness, adultery, and divorce."

"The physical action of committing adultery is truly the lesser of his crimes. His high crime is the flagrant and systematical disregard for the standards that he was supposed to duly uphold."

Well said Shannon

onlooker · 3 years ago

Actually Shannon,

Nicely said. Those in position of authority have not to sway. No if or buts.

good job

Friend of Tom · 3 years ago

Do any of you who are commenting about Dr. Tewell really know him. I find it amazing people can say such things about a person they do not even know.

I do know him. Perhaps when the courts finally rule on this situation everyone will have to find another person to talk about.

Dave8 · 3 years ago

Well, Friend of Tom, I'll ask you the hard question. If Tom were an Atheist, would you be on this site, supporting him? Or, would it be more accurate to say, that you would expect an Atheist to commit such a crime, and thus require no special support.

Now, if you choose to support the Atheist, then just remember...

2 Corinthians 6:14 - Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?"

2 Corinthians 6:15 - "And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?"

You see, Friend of Tom, before I was born, you were predisposed to shun everyone who doesn't believe as you do. Is it Tom, that has been betrayed or is it more likely, that you and Tom, have a belief founded in bigotry, and thus, shun all those who do not believe as you.

If justice is to be served, hopefully, it is by the hand of someone in a judges' position, that isn't as bigotted, as your bible promotes.

Whether Tom is guilty of this crime, or not, he is surely guilty for being an accessory and trafficker of bigotted hatred, based on the doctrine he must accept as truth, the bible. And you, Friend of Tom, are nothing but a supporter for one who has vowed their life to support the doctrine of bigotry.

When Tom is long gone, and you as well, there will long be the topic of christian bigotry to address, if history serves as an accurate measure.

If you would like to discuss, how you are able to reconcile the bigotry of the bible, and how you "choose" to behave in society, as tolerant of non-believers, then please, by all means, elaborate... as that would be something worthy of discussion.

Friend of Tom · 3 years ago

Dave, you still did not answer my question. "Do any of you who are commenting about Dr. Tewell really know him." I still don't think so.

As far as your question, "If Tom were an Atheist, would you be on this site, supporting him? Or, would it be more accurate to say, that you would expect an Atheist to commit such a crime, and thus require no special support."

I would be on this site and am on this site because I care for the person and his family. Whatever happened to presumed innocent until proven guilty. People who have been responding on this site have already judged and sentenced this man.

Tom and Janette Brenner

Anonymous · 3 years ago

We attended FAPC for the first time in 2 years, just this Sunday.

Tom's absence was palpable and it only took a quick look today via Google to get some background.

A dreadful situation notwithstanding, but maybe we need to invoke the famous and maybe shelfworn.. "WWJD"...I'm pretty sure he'd remind us that forgiveness is the ultimate expression that our faith demands..

I'm proud of being faithful for 35 years of marriage...however.. .. There but for fate goes anyone of us..


Our prayers are with Tom and his family.


MACMD

gordon thompson · 3 years ago

I am so glad that most people who are commenting against Tom Tewell are not on a jury in a capital case
He is convicted and he has not been given a chance to defend himself, what a great bunch of sanctimonious Christians you are, Joe MacCarthy has nothing on you guys.
Don't you know that 80% of law suits don't even go to trial, so let see if there is a trial and wait for the verdict instead of you convicting Tom, there has been enougth damage to the man allready.

Bentley · 3 years ago

By fervently and quickly ready and willing to forgive this preacher at the drop of a hat, condones and leaves the door open for you Christians should you perhaps find yourselves in the same situation some day, knowing that Tom Tewell will be there ready and willing to forgive you also, at the drop of a hat. This is the guise of Christianity.

Dave8 · 3 years ago

Gordon Thompson: "...so let see if there is a trial and wait for the verdict instead of you convicting Tom, there has been enougth damage to the man allready."

That's what many sexual predators say, when they have their name loaded on the crime database. They were convicted of a crime, they were punished, and they continue to live with the stigma for the rest of their life, as long as state laws enforce court release of records.

One question, why should this preacher be treated any different, "if" he is found guilty, as there is currently as much, if not more probability that some form of improper misconduct occurred. I suppose once a person, gets through their trials and tribulations, they should be allowed to recover and move on. However, for those who are shown to have stumbled, they require society to "help" them from being placed in a position that compromises their weakness, whatever it is.

Oh, and many cases don't go to trial, because many people; don't want to be victimized twice (or continuously) through the legal process which is part of the public record, don't have the money, or don't have the knowledge or support in order to know how to ensue a legal case in civil court.

Also, court cases that do go to trial, aren't perfect. Some guilty people walk free, and some innocent are gound guilty. The ones who will really deliberate on this case, will be the local community, based on this persons' actions and the testimonies of the plantiffs. There will be those in the end, who will have to choose between the testomonies of those who accuse, and the defendent.

I find it interesting, that a person paid to be a professional preacher, who by their very profession requires them to bear witness and testimony of a god, spirits (holy ghost), devils, heaven, hell, angels, etc., that have zero evidence.

How does one tell the difference between a lie, or false testimony, and the preachers' religious testimony? Neither one, would have evidence supporting the statements.

It would appear, when empty words become acceptable as the foundation for truth, that everything is possible, to include religion, etc.

Oh, and in this type belief system, its illogical to allow "some" unsubstantiated words to remain as truth, while they allow "other" words from the same person to be disregarded as untrue.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

Gordon...

There already has been an investigation and a report has been written and submitted in accordance with the Presbyterian system of governance. The only reason that you and others don't know what the report says is because Tom Tewell has requested that it not be made public because of the civil suit filed against him. He is hoping that interest in this will die down and he can just deal with this quietly. That way he can keep on living in denial about what really happened.

His guilt has already been established...it doesn't matter what happens in the civil suit. By continuing to defend him, you and his other "friends" are enabling him to continue on in this denial.

So go ahead and forgive him...just don't keep defending him as innocent...that's not really helping him at all. If you truly are his friends then help him to be accountable for what he has done and the damage his actions have caused.

Holding someone accountable does not mean you don't forgive them, but it also doesn't mean you stick your head in the sand and pretend that something didn't happen when it actually did.

Stop living in denial and stop worshipping Tom Tewell!

Friend of Tom · 3 years ago

Anonymous....so tell us all. You have first hand knowledge that this report shows that Dr. Tewell is guilty and is hiding behind this report until the civil suit is over. OR are you like the rest hiding behind the name "anonymous" and afraid to let everyone know who you are. We are some of those who still believe in innocent until proven guilty.

Tom and Janette Brenner

Anonymous · 3 years ago

Yes-I do have knowledge of the report. You will too, some day. Until then...keep on believing in his innocence until proven guilty. It seems to be working for you...it's less painful for you that way.

Here are some questions for you to consider while you're waiting for the report to be made...if he's innocent, why did he resign? If he's innocent...why didn't he say so? If he's innocent...why didn't he just tell the truth from the beginning? If he's innocent...why did he lie to cover up the truth in the first place?

Just asking.

So if you have the answers to these questions...please let us all know.

Many times...it's the cover up and the lies that come back to hurt someone in the end.[Think Bill Clinton] In this case "Dr." Tewell should have told the truth and then so many people would not have been hurt.

Gordon Thompson · 3 years ago

The last two anonoymous writer must have had a "LOBECTOMY" as they are not using brains they were born with.

Nowhere in my posting did I defend Tom Tewell, nor did I condem him, all I stated hold your comments until all the facts are out.

The last anonymous poster claims he has a report, so where did this report come from, and why doesn't he share it with the rest of the community, again a typical MacCarthy trick when he stated I have a list of 500 communist in the state dept. and none was ever convicted.

You are cowards hiding behind the mask of ANONIMTY, the ghost of the "Witches of Salem" appears, and Dave 8 writes about Hitler and sexual perverts, I note he got up at 403AM to answer my posting, or maybe he just STAGGERED in after a night around town all juiced up, because no sober man could write such drible.

To Mr&Mrs Brenner, I would suggest you not participate in the game of mental "MASTURBATION" as these guys are getting their jollies off, and this will be my final posting.

Dave8 · 3 years ago

Gordon Thompson: "Dave 8 writes about Hitler and sexual perverts, I note he got up at 403AM to answer my posting, or maybe he just STAGGERED in after a night around town all juiced up, because no sober man could write such drible."

You provided no direct response to either of the posts, you mention above from me. Yet, you call others cowards, as if that somehow removes the strength of their stance as they presented their argument.

And, you as the coward who doesn't address the responses to your comments directly, fall back to personal attacks, i.e., I've been out on the town obviously, etc.

I find it amusing, that you ask for the public to keep a mental abeyance in order to prevent creating a potentially erroneous picture of Tewell, because "no one" has the real truth, or information in the public purview. However, you are capable of accussing, trying, and passing judgement on my values, character, and person, using a time-stamp on a blog.

Not that I expect a cogent response, I have yet to get one, in regard to any of my replies to your posts. Therefore, I can only conclude, that you had no intention of discussing the issue, your goal seems to have been to continue to reinforce any doubt that may exist for as long as possible.

You have disengaged, when you found, that people are not backing away from this issue, they are staying alert, and waiting for more information to arise.

Gordon Thompson: "To Mr&Mrs Brenner, I would suggest you not participate in the game of mental "MASTURBATION" as these guys are getting their jollies off, and this will be my final posting."

As a final parting, Gordon, realizes that he can not impose doubt to the point, that a society become disinterested, and thus, attempts damage control, by pleading to the Brenner's to pull away from an open discussion on the topic.

Well, I won't return the childish name calling, and ad hominem attacks. I can only hope, that everyone keep a sharp situational awareness of their environment. It prevents, people from being victimized, and misled. Those who would like to postpone that observation, or suggest that it is somehow beneficial to remain unalert, do so, for their own purposes. As for me, I will continue to logically, ask questions, and dig as much as possible with the information available, relentlessly.

New Yorker · 3 years ago

Anonymous is misleading and running hard with an agenda. I, too, have some (but admittedly not complete) knowledge of the report. It was six months in coming, leaving Tewell to be publicly disgraced and expressly forbidden to defend himself. Don't assume the "Presbyterian system of governance" can't be manipulated. It is also easy enough to time a lawsuit to shut down public knowledge even longer, and you honestly can't blame Tewell for suing himself!

While sin is sin in God's eyes, and Tewell understands that, there are deep gradations in guilt and very broad definitions of misconduct in clergy codes of ethics. Anonymous enjoys blurring those. Within the strict limits imposed on him, Tewell did his best to admit wrongdoing and provide clarity to his congregation upon resigning. The fact that Anonymous and others want that wrongdoing to be something greater and truly salacious is a sorry commentary on them.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

Clearly, New Yorker has "a limited knowledge" about what is in the report. The report was delayed initially, because Tewell did not tell the truth right away...then he was told what he needed to do [i.e. resign] and still he delayed his actions. He preached throughout the spring and summer and "pretended" that nothing was wrong. He should have resigned long before he did.

How do you know what Tewell "understands" as far as sin goes? Perhaps it is you, New Yorker who is "running hard with an agenda."

By the way...are you sure that the report says "clergy misconduct?" Better be careful about what assumptions you make about that. Sure the Presbyterian system can be manipulated...that is exactly what happened here in that Tewell was allowed to continue to preach and teach for as long as he did. You have no idea how long this has been going on.

If you are so close to Tewell...since you seem to be an authority on what he "understands" then you should encourage him to tell the truth about what he did. Even now...the truth has not been told. He is not capable of facing it...perhaps you could help him.

You're right about one thing...the lawsuit was ill-timed, but that seems to have worked in Tewell's favor. It allows him to keep the truth from being told.

Encourage your "friend" to tell the truth. It's what he should have done all along.

New Yorker · 3 years ago

Hey, Anonymous, can you hold your innuendo for half a minute? No, I made no claim to quote verbatim the report, much less to be a special "friend" of Tom Tewell. I merely had to read what he wrote to the congregation. All this, I assume, from the same Anonymous who posted on March 20 presuming to know what Tewell had been telling his wife!

So, before we disregard you entirely, why don't you give out one more piece of your disinformation and let us "know" who told Tewell to resign last spring? The Investigating Committee? If they had already reached a conclusion, why did they not issue their charges, rather they leave the senior pastor of this flagship church to "twist slowly in the wind" while they took their summer vacations? As you know, the IC is merely charged with bringing an indictment which Tewell could have brought to church trial. Or did the Permanent Judicial Commission get involved at this early date? One wonders why then he was being invesigated and judged by people who already believed him guilty. We await your description of this so-called due process.

After that, I'll try to leave you alone to spew your garbage. Fortunately, readers here have recognized your McCarthy-like tactics for what they are.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

I am so sorry that Tom has left NYC. I loved his preaching, but I have come to the conclusion that his "affair" had to be going on for at least two years before the show down they (Tom and Suzanne and Clerk of Session) had at his apartment with Rachel and her husband in the spring of 2001. He will have to disavow the Presbyterian church so that the report doesn't get out.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

I got to know Tom very well at
MDPC & although I never knew him to be a womanizer I did learn about his HUGE ego & his insincerity...a revelation discovered only shortly before he left. I only hope that this "mess" has made him realize how important honesty, humbleness & sincerity are in any man...but especially a man of God. I believe in forgivness, so if he asks to be forgiven I would encourge everyone to do just that. I do think ministers are held to higher expectations.

Pennsylvanian · 3 years ago

I have been following this story for some time and I am very saddened for everyone involved. I have been listening to Dr. Tewell for a few years and loved to listen to and digest his sermons. I just have two questions: First, how long has this investigation been going on? Was this cloud over the church the entire last year? Were the congregants aware of this? Secondly, I am confused as to what Rev. Tewell could have said in his resignation letter. I know it is not a public document but anyone care to explain what he wrote?

Anonymous · 3 years ago

Who cares about Tom Tewell. he's destined straight to Hell, according to his own teachings.

New Yorker · 3 years ago

Pennsylvanian: I’m not sure if Tom Tewell’s letter is considered private, so I will lay off that. But, I’ll try my hand at the other stuff, and then do my best to shut up. The investigation, begun a year ago, was properly kept quiet from the congregation and all but a few elders, but it still probably cast a long shadow over the actions of the pastor and those who “knew.” It took longer than expected (one can argue about why), there was some substance to it (even if it was no longer about adultery), and it became an issue when time came for Tewell to return from summer leave. It was recommended that he take a leave of absence. So, it was in late August that the congregation was notified, but so, too, by someone, were the newspapers. One tabloid, the New York Post, took hold of it, running the absolutely false story that Tewell and Mrs. Vione had confessed to the investigating committee that they had committed adultery. The paper cited a “source close to the investigation,” a disturbing development suggesting at least the possibility that someone in high places was spreading slander (after all, even the tawdry Post is supposed to accurately place its anonymous sources).

After long delays, people expected a ruling from the “judges” (the Permanent Judicial Commission) when they were scheduled to meet in late October. On the same morning Mr. Vione filed his lawsuit, presumably because he didn’t “like” the results of the investigation; this shut down the process entirely because, well, lawyers—and not just Tewell’s lawyers—are overly cautious beings. Once you had this lawsuit and the inevitable delay and the now postponed possibility of his future suspension, Tewell did the proper thing and submitted his resignation. Upon accepting his resignation, the elders of his own church were finally allowed by the Presbytery to talk things out with him but apparently declined (Go figure—I’m guessing it was the lawyers again), so they remain in no better position to inform the congregation of what had occurred and are content to let rumors fly.

But when you ask, Pennsylvanian, if this cast a cloud, the answer is more complicated. Tewell had been the victim of a whispering campaign of rumors of sexual immorality for about three or four years prior to this (the same thing happened to his predecessor, who also left abruptly, presumably for other reasons). Some of these rumors involved his proximity to Mrs. Vione, but there were other tales of other women that were blatantly false. So, when a real investigation occurred, it was hard for most people to separate slander from truth. And perhaps that was the intention all along.

New Yorker · 3 years ago

Correction on the above post: I misplaced a quotation mark. It is better to say of the New York Post that "the paper cited sources that were close to the investigation."

Curious · 3 years ago

Dear Friends,

I'm actually a seminary student and find all these comments to be very interesting and instructive.

I've read all of the comments.

Does anyone have an update as to the "case" against Dr. Tewell?

One of our correspondents suggested that there was an internal Presbyterian investigation, but that those records are closed pending litigation.

Do any of you have an update as to Dr. Tewell's practical fate?

I'm not interested in a theological argument, just wondering if he's still able to practice as a Presbyterian minister.

Thank you so much!

Anonymous · 3 years ago

it is important to keep in mind
that until all of the information is out and Tom Tewell has had the chance to explain himself

(he is not allowed to say anything
in his defense at present while
negative talk is flying around
and out of control)

things should be clear as to what happened and the circumstances involved.

Of course we know not to use as credible information the stories / headlines in the NY Post from someone who betrayed the church's trust in their position !!!

It is fair to say that things most likely have been exaggerated as to what actually went on.

So we must all wait patiently
on God's timing for the truth to come out.


remember that as you judge so shall
ye be judged ( we all are in need of God's mercy as sin carries consequences that Jesus took for us on the cross)

knowing that we ALL have
fallen short of the glory of God
with such destructive sins such as gossip (a sin God hates)

Don't we all need to be treated
kindly when we do something wrong?

A critical attitude reveals
the condition of one's heart.
Thinking the worst.

Remember Jesus with the woman
caught in adultery and his attitude
"go and sin no more"
(not that Tom committed adultery)

NYC Churchgoer · 3 years ago

Absolutely amazing that no specifics from the report have made their way to the press, or blogs. He resigned in Nov 2005; it is now April 2006.

For any house of worship in the country, a "Misconduct Policy" is becoming a larger issue every day. If you want to know what "misconduct" means in the clergy world google "minister" and "misconduct" and start reading. More importantly than "what" is "why," and an congregation educated about misconduct prevention is just like a NYC populace educated about anti-terrorism measures. "If you see something, don't keep it to yourself," is what we NYC subway riders hear daily. Exactly the same point as printed and taught misconduct policies.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

yes that is called being accountable to each other
If you see something - say something.

and watching out for each other
especially ministers who are good
shepherds because Satan wants to pull them down and will work through people to accomplish this

caring enough to approach the person when we see that they are not really aware of what is going on - rationalizing things

That is a very big issue indeed in this situation when people observed Rachel.
But just about everybody assumed (expected) Tom had the situation under control -
rather than looking out for him.

Only a very few if any said anything at all to Tom directly that was helpful.

He thought that she was safe

Whereas many thought otherwise
but said nothing.

this is a lesson for everybody
in all churches to help your ministers and watch out for them as they are only human after all and can make mistakes. Tom said
in his final letter that God does bring good out of situations - a heightened sense of awareness after this.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

you are all missing the point! what do you think tom's role was in all of this? was he just the 'poor overworked minister who surrendered to the advances of the evil woman?
do any of you think that Mr. Vione's complaint has any merit?
How do any of you know what was said to Tewell before this happened? You are all making a lot of assumptions...once again thinking the best of Tewell.
Maybe he did do some if not all of the things that are in the press...maybe he didn't...until the report is made public...and Tewell does not want it to be...we wohn't know for sure.
Did any of you stop to think that Tewell may have been the aggressor here?
At the very least...the boundaries were clearly his to cross..and that he did do. To what extent he crossed those boundaries is really only known to the two parties involved...at least until the report is made public.
Tewell will be able to go on in ministry, just not in the PCUSA...at least not until the PJC gives its recommendation.
Stop saying that he "cannot talk about this because of the litigation." He could have and should have talked about it honestly from the beginning...had he done so, this would all be over by now. Instead...he lied and continued to lie about the situation...he called his staff and session and trustees together to "look them in the eye and tell them that it is absolutly not true!" He then had to go back and say that he had been "less than forthcoming with the truth" OPPS! Where's the integrity in that?

What about all the letters and voicemail messages that were part of the investigation? Does anyone know what happened to them? I'd also like to know whose money Tewell used to fund this relationship...his? the church's? HMMM.
I would say that Tewell still has some explaining to do...or as you Christians would say...some things to still be accountable for.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

Again this person is giving out misinformation - if you are so well informed then you know that Tom is not allowed to speak out in his defense because the process within the NYC Presbytery is not concluded.

So that people can take advantage of this and twist things around
and make all kinds of assertions about Tom Tewell's character is outrageous even by secular standards.

Tom whenever someone did something that was not right towards himself always responded with patience and kindness and a word of insight not cruelty or a condemning attitude.

He had a servants heart and that is what is important - truly caring about others.

Mature christians know that - there but for the grace of God go I
-and refrain from being harsh -
knowing that they too are capable of sinning.

It is clear that this person has a very selfish and negative agenda with regards to Tom Tewell when speaking of him in this way.

They show that they do not have a personal relationship with God nor understand Gods purposes in all of this. This person (and others like them)only show to others what kind of person they are by how they respond.


A person who has stumbled and been forgiven has a very strong testimony and can be even a greater blessing to others being an example of not giving into discouragement but being a witness of Gods grace and presence in their lives. Far more than self righteous people who have done nothing terribly wrong in their lives (so they think).

Again we must all wait for the truth to come out regarding the results of the investigation as well as Tom's explanation.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

the process in the Presbytery is concluded...except that Tewell has requested a stay.

stop preaching and start paying attention...

he should be forgiven...after he confesses his sin. untill then, he is living in deceit...and not because of any legal or judicatory process...but because of his own unwillingness not to be perfect.

NYC Churchgoer · 3 years ago

Not to be "perfect?" Whatever any of us are or are not, do or don't do, none of us on earth are perfect.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

You all sound like a bunch of preschoolers! You've got your fake god to thank and to blame, you've all been so conned into your silly beliefs.

Tom Tewell like all preachers, regardless of location and church are FAKES, Get IT! FAKES

You've all tossed your hard earned money into the ring, and now with much regret you've all been taken to the cleaners and you're all bolstering mad.

You've all let Tom Tewell and all other preachers tickle you ears with sweet lies and now you're all steamed because you been had, all of you christians.

You'll gladly sacrifice your hard earned money for lies, you're all a bunch little butt kissers, you kiss the preachers butt, the members butt, and any one who professes to be a christian, and then when they (sin) not unlike you, you start with your christian cliche's, thinking that repeating biblical chiche's will send god down here and repair things to the way they were, before your trusted conniving friend slit all of your throats.

All of you christians live in the days of when you were 5 years old and have been threatened with the fear of imaginary Hell by your insane preacher.

You're all completely insane, grow up and look for truth, and not what some two-bit money grubbing, womanizing preacher has to say.

Keep ye damned money, ye fools!

NYC Churchgoer · 3 years ago

We don't forgive others for them, we forgive for ourselves. And you can forgive how someone caused you to be sad at losing something, just like you can thank them for giving you something. It isn't a moral issue to forgive someone based on their actions, since it has nothing to do with you whether someone asks for forgiveness or not. His wife, his sons, his extended family have to make peace with whatever he said to them. But the rest of us? It became just a soap opera whose members of 5th Av became an unwilling audience, and the people who will foot the bill for any pay-outs, increased insurance premiums, preventative training programs for the congregaation, staff and clergy, and search costs for the Intermin and next Senior Pastor.
But, as people, we can just learn whatever anyone chooses to take as the lesson, and then move on. The point of religion is to live, personally a better life, not to debate whose relgiion is better or who lives more faithfully. And that's why churches and civil courts have laws. To be applied.

New Yorker · 3 years ago

Yes, Anonymous, some of us have seen Mr. Vione’s complaint; it is technically a public document. One doesn’t have to be a lawyer to see that it lacks merit (or even coherence). One almost feels sorry for the guy. Of course, we hope the judge sees it that way, but we must remember that the motion is for summary judgment, not necessarily a final verdict on the merits.

That’s quite a dramatic story about bringing the staff and session and trustees together and looking them in the eye! Too bad it ain’t true. Most of the church officers did not know about this investigation. Perhaps you are confusing it with the previous whisperings about adultery that harassed Tewell over the years. And if Tewell wasn’t as forthcoming with his staff as we would have liked, that’s unfortunate, but it is helpful to remember that the original charge was adultery, not “hanging out too much with a woman he was supposed to be mentoring.” It’s probably worth reserving judgment on that one.

Yes, granted, Tewell is the responsible party. If he didn’t know that before, he sure is learning the hard way! But the aggressor? It’s a big church with hundreds of witnesses. Please...don’t be silly.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

by way of clarification to those who are not well schooled

when satan works through someone
he puts an idea in their mind
that they think is their own

there is a book out called
"the battlefield of the mind"
that explains this.

and he places thoughts in all our minds but we must be able to discern these that they are not to be believed or acted upon.

so i am not calling rachel evil
at all.

We are to leave vengeance to the Lord and for good reason because he does a much better job of it.
And there has been alot of very destructive results from this that any sincere person would want to avoid at all costs.

I believe that the motives are not pure at all with regards to the civil suit.

Joe's financial situaion is certainly a relevant question considering the condition of his finances around 2002 which is a matter of public record.

And he need to be able to finance the payments that will go with the divorce settlement. Interesting that they keep postponing the meeting with the judge isn't it !!!

Jim Arvo · 3 years ago

Anonymous: "by way of clarification to those who are not well schooled..."

What an honor to have someone such as yourself, who is obviously "well schooled", come and instruct us.

Anonymous: "when satan works through someone he puts an idea in their mind that they think is their own..."

Please give me one concrete, verifiable, example of this phenomenon.

Anonymous: "there is a book out called 'the battlefield of the mind' that explains this."

Do you mean the book by Joyce Meyer? Her thesis seems to be that depression, anxiety, etc. stems from Satanic influence rather than the rather well-established scientific explanations. Her ideas also appear to be purely dogmatic, as she starts from the assumption that such supernatural beings exist, and that the Bible is the "word of god". Even if those two enormous assumptions were correct, her claims do not necessarily follow. Hence, I think here thesis has no credibility whatsoever.

Anonymous "and he places thoughts in all our minds but we must be able to discern these that they are not to be believed or acted upon."

And what evidence do you have that a single word of Meyer's fantastic explanation is correct?

Anonymous: "We are to leave vengeance to the Lord and for good reason because he does a much better job of it."

Can you give me a single verifiable instance of that?

Anonymous · 3 years ago

dear jim

I have studied the bible
and have found it to be true
and Joyce Meyers book is based on scriptures. I feel very fortunate to have done this - not superior.

I did not want to boast but it is hard to read comments by people who do not really follow the basic teachings of Jesus - spouting off about a man who is truly a human being who has helped many over the years.

yes, I can give examples of how Satan works. He wants us to feel discouraged and is the father of lies (Jesus says this) and the way we combat him is to know the character of God and his promises as found in the bible as well as how God has worked things through for us in the past - it is important to remember Gods faithfulness.

And Gods character is that he is all knowing and also truth and perfection and holy and his solutions are so beyond our poor ability to reason. That when we leave it to him to take care of the situation and trust - it leaves us more energy to direct towards what needs to be taken care of as well as not being so angry at the other person realizing how much gratitude we feel for the blessings God bestows on us every day - leaving that person in Gods hands. And then we have a better attitude and response to the person which is a great help also - we do not carry the burden.
I sit back in amazement seeing how God had worked things through at a much higher level than I ever could.

But people need to take the time to study Bible which they do not do
for the most part. That is what I was trying to say by "unschooled"



The key is to have a good teacher who really understands what scriptures say. Admittedly many churches have very confused teachings nowadays that are based on peoples comfort levels and are very misleading.

I hope this explains to you enough that you would want to explore further.

Watching Charles Stanley on television or intouch.org
and reading his books - particularly his study series of about 20 books ($8 each)is a wonderful way to gain a foundation.

boomSLANG · 3 years ago

Fundanoymous:

"it is important to remember Gods faithfulness."


Advice from an Atheist and former Christian:

It is important to remember to first provide objective evidence for God's existance before spouting off the same old tired Christian sound-bites---while at the same time using words like "blessing"; "holy"; "faithfulness"; "Satan"...ALL of which have no referant in reality.

' Glad I could help.

freeman · 3 years ago

Satan was jesus!!!!!
He lead god's choosen away from salvation by being the false prophet. "God forgive them for they know not what they do" refers to the soon to be christians! Satan has fooled you all and will gain strength through your ignorance.

lmao big time!

Anonymous · 3 years ago

YES INDEED!! Satan is alive and well. Satan is at the controls, he is pulling and tugging at your heart strings as we speak, and he's passing on Evil thoughts to Christians, to make them loose faith, and so he can claim (snatch)their souls,and drag them off to Hell, when they least expect it!

Just ask Sister Joyce Myers, she should know all there is about Satan, since she works for him.

Satan The Master Deceiver Of All Time has disguised himself as, RELIGION! Yes my friends in Christ, Satan has disguised himself as PREACHERS, and you've bought into the Jesus Lie purported by SATAN.

Jesus was possessed by Satan while on Earth and invented the story of Jesus the Christ savior. Jesus stole the attention away from God, that he Jesus himself, may be worshipped, instead of the true God, No one comes to the father except through ME, a total lie!

Isaiah 18 I am the only God and there is none other, not before and not after, I am the only God.

All you christ cultist's are going STRAIGHT TO HELL!! All you Jesus worshippers amd Preacher worshippers have been blindly deceived By the Master Deceiver SATAN!!!

It's Too Late, you've all confessed Christ as your personal savior, and you're destined to Hell, to Burn for all eternity.

You've all been fooled by your own selfish ignorance.

Once a fool always a fool!

Satan has you Christians now and you will Burn Burn Burn.

Unless you all denounce Jesus as your personal savior and start worshipping the real God, the God in Isaiah, there is no other God.

Whom so ever shall believe in the New Testiment Jesus, shall perish and never have everlasting life.

Satan and Jesus, has collected more souls to Burn, than the God of Isaiah.

We pity you Christians, denounce Jesus, denounce Preachers, denounce religion, denounce church, before it's too late!

I will be praying for your filthy rotten souls.

Stop casting swine before Pearls.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

yes-new yorker...it did happen. i was there when it did. i can recount it word for word...'i want to look you in the eye and tell you that it is absolutly not true...the first thing i did was to go home and tell suzanne[another lie...mr. vione told suzanne] and she stands by me 100 per cent' is the way he said it. i'll never forget that day. we all believed him...we wanted to. he has lost all credibility with his former staff. he did discuss the alegations..but he said there was no truth to them and asked that people not comment on them.

tewell as the victim...that's just silly. he's not the victim here. and as far as who was the aggressor...again you have to wait for the report.

why do you continue to defend someone when you clerly don't know what the hell you're talking about?

is that what you call blind faith?

Anonymous · 3 years ago

hey new yorker...since you have so many answers...what about answering the question about the tapes and the money.
i heard that the tapes were very damming in the investigation. what's the story there?
how much of the church's money did tewell spend on entertaining women?

Passerby · 3 years ago

NYC Churchgoer said, "Not to be "perfect?" Whatever any of us are or are not, do or don't do, none of us on earth are perfect."

Don't forget to include God as someone who is not perfect. The sadistic piece of shit God in the Bible drowned everything, including plants, animals, and innocent little babies...all because it "grieved" his heart for creating them in the first place. This God's heart is stone cold.

Jim Arvo · 3 years ago

Anonymous: "I have studied the bible and have found it to be true"

I've studied the Bible, and found it to be a collection of disparate largely anonymous and unsubstantiated Bronze-age stories, ranging from quaint to naive to ghastly. Calling a book that condones such grisly violence (even against children) "true" is repugnant to me.

Anonymous: "...and Joyce Meyers book is based on scriptures."

You seem to have missed my point. Islamic scholars also base their arguments on scripture, yet we can both agree that their conclusions are sometimes false, right? Unless you can demonstrate that your chosen holy book is somehow the real deal, and theirs is not, I have no reason to put much stock in any Christian claims. Having studied the history of the Bible, I find it incontrovertible that it is the work of man, just like every other holy book I am aware of.

Anonymous: "I feel very fortunate to have done this - not superior."

I'll wager that a good many of the regulars here have studied the Bible more seriously than you have. (In fact, judging by your comments thus far, I'd say the vast majority of the regulars here know more about your Bible than you do.)

Anonymous: "I did not want to boast but it is hard to read comments by people who do not really follow the basic teachings of Jesus..."

Do you follow the basic teachings of Jesus? Have you sold all your possessions to help the poor? When someone asks you for something (say, a $10.00 donation to support this web site), do you give it, and more? Do you "hate" your family so that you can be a follower of Jesus?

Anonymous: "...yes, I can give examples of how Satan works. He wants us to feel discouraged and is the father of lies...

I was fairly clear the first time I asked this, so I'll simply ask it again. Can you give me a SPECIFIC EXAMPLE (names, dates, places, events, etc.) of Satan influencing somebody's thinking? How do you know it is Satan, and not garden-variety psychology at work?

Anonymous: "And Gods character is that he is all knowing and also truth and perfection and holy and his solutions are so beyond our poor ability to reason."

Given that I don't believe in your deity, perhaps you would like to start by telling me how you know that such a being exists. Then we can discuss whatever attributes you want to assert about him/her/it.

Anonymous: "...That when we leave it to him to take care of the situation and trust - it leaves us more energy to direct towards what needs to be taken care of as..."

That's in sharp contrast to atheists and Deists, for example, who realize that they need to take responsibility for their own actions and the consequences of those actions. Leaving it "god" sounds like an excuse to me.

Anonymous: "I sit back in amazement seeing how God had worked things through at a much higher level than I ever could."

Can you provide a SPECIFIC EXAMPLE (names, dates, places, events, etc.) of how this deity has intervened in human affairs, and how you know it to be the actions of said deity?

Anonymous: "But people need to take the time to study Bible which they do not do for the most part. That is what I was trying to say by 'unschooled'.

I agree that most people have not read the Bible; but in my experience it's more often the *believers* who are ignorant of their own holy book. Frankly, you sound painfully naive to me, so you calling others here "unschooled" is completely incongruous.

Anonymous: "The key is to have a good teacher who really understands what scriptures say."

Surely you realize that there is substantial disagreement about what the scriptures say, even among believers. So I interpret your comment as an assertion that we ought to study scripture as YOU have, and as YOUR teacher has. Yet, I guarantee that I can find Christians who will disagree with your interpretations, and urge you to think like THEM.

Anonymous: "Admittedly many churches have very confused teachings nowadays that are based on peoples comfort levels and are very misleading."

But, I take it, you are not "mislead" at all, right? How did that happen? How is it that you managed to get the right picture, yet many (probably most) other Christians managed to get it at least partly wrong?

Anonymous: "I hope this explains to you enough that you would want to explore further."

Explains? I must have missed it; what did you "explain"? And explore *what* further? All you've done is to make a few vague and unsubstantiated assertions about an invisible being. I've studied the Bible and Christian apologetics rather extensively, for decades. What, exactly, do you think you have said that has not been dogmatically asserted hundreds of times?

Anonymous: "Watching Charles Stanley on television or intouch.org and reading his books..."

Have you read any scholarly books that examine Christianity critically? If so, can you please name a few? If not, can you please tell me why you have not availed yourself of them? I strongly suspect it's the latter, in which case I think it would be quite fitting to think of you as being "unschooled", having seen only one side of the argument. I can't think of a more effective way to deceive one's self than to read only the material coming from one narrow point of view.

P.S. If you intend to continue a dialog here, I suggest you learn to use the "other" button when you post, and pick a name other than "Anonymous".

Anonymous · 3 years ago

dear Jim
The best thing anyone can do
is to spend time in the Bible
and put things into practice. Getting further involved in discussion alone serves no purpose. One learns by ones own experience when we reach out and ask God to help us. There is a spiritual world that one cannot know just by scientific examination on the physical plane.

To study the Bible and become a part of a conservative Chrisitian Church that teaches and where you can ask questions is the best way to go. That's how people learn.

I pray that you find a supportive group of christians to come alongside you as you ask your questions. We all need that to grow

Anonymous · 3 years ago

to the person who posted at 4/19 at 4PM
If you remember the morning of the day that the presbytery was to hand down its ruling based upon the investigations
Joe put at stop to that by filing of his civil suit.

To me it is very clear that Joe is more concerned with his goals
than for alot of innocent people whom he has hurt especially his children - when it was certainly not necessary. Better to be wronged
than to be the agent of such harm.
It is a sad comment on Joe that he did not think about how it would affect his children for years to come.


Certainly there is a very good reason legally why Tom Tewells lawyers requested a stay considering whom they are dealing with.

Tom was not trying to postpone things in the fall from going through in the Presbytery.
The longer it takes the worse the talk becomes so Tom would certainly want to have the process completed
as soon as possible.

Regarding people who are portraying Tom as trying to supress things to hide something

I am surprised that they are so short term in their thinking because once people understand the reason behind the "stay" these people with their agendas will lose credibility with those they tell these things to.

Also with regards to the person referring to tapes "that are damning"

that is gossip and not substantiated at all. And we all know how inaccurate gossip can be
in our own life experience when things are said about us.

Again we all need to wait for the report to come out when it is the best time to do so. And to stop this willingness to believe the worst that is so typical of gossip
that gets out of control.

We all would want that for ourselves when accused of something


As for people writing in with negative comments in the last days - I can see how angry and hurt you are as shown by how you express yourselves. And so it is hidden from your understanding
how deep and wide is the love of God and how he longs to take care of you and have a personal relationship with you giving you a life of purpose and fulfillment.

Jim Arvo · 3 years ago

Anonymous (still!) said "The best thing anyone can do is to spend time in the Bible
and put things into practice...."

I'll take that as an admission that you are totally ignorant of the large body of literature that examines Christianity critically, and finds that it is nothing more than a man-made myth. If I'm wrong about that, please correct me. You are probably also ignorant of the world's other major religions. Again, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Anonymous: "Getting further involved in discussion alone serves no purpose."

That's disingenuous. At least admit to yourself that you are bowing out because you cannot answer simple, straightforward questions. You are also probably uninterested in contemplating anything that might challenge your faith. That's fine, you can do what you want, just don't put on airs.

Anonymous: "One learns by ones own experience when we reach out and ask God to help us."

One learns by WORKING HARD. One learns by READING WIDELY. One learns by CRITICALLY EXAMINING what others have to offer. One learns by continually ASKING HARD QUESTIONS and examining one's own assumptions. If you discount these other avenues, then I submit that you are actually being lazy, not pious.

Anonymous: "There is a spiritual world that one cannot know just by scientific examination on the physical plane."

So please tell me how you DO know of it. I'm not asking for "scientific" evidence, just EVIDENCE. But you cannot provide that, can you? You just "know" it's there by "faith" (i.e. without evidence or reason). That's lazy thinking. Personally, I think that is very irresponsible.

Anonymous: "To study the Bible and become a part of a conservative Chrisitian Church that teaches and where you can ask questions is the best way to go. That's how people learn."

See my comments above. Your prescription for "learning" is really just a recipe for being indoctrinated, not educated.

Anonymous: "I pray that you find a supportive group of christians to come alongside you as you ask your questions."

So let me see if I understand. You are asking your deity to intervene here, so that she will somehow cause a group of Christians to gather round me and answer my questions. Did I get that right? I thought your god was all-knowing? How is it that she needs your advice in this matter?

Also, why have you not even attempted to answer my questions? Why are you leaving that to some un-named "group" of Christians that your deity is going to somehow cause to gather at your command? I think you are up to your ears in self-delusion.

Anonymous: "We all need that to grow"

We all need religious indoctrination to grow? Hardly. In my view, growth as a person requires taking responsibility for one's actions, one's beliefs, and their consequences, to the extent humanly possible. If you blindly cling to some doctrine, without relentlessly testing it and challenging it, then you are taking the easy road, which inevitably leads to self-delusion. While you may feel content in your intellectual isolation, you are of little benefit to society (imho).

You are free to fill your brain with whatever you want. But don't come to a forum such as this and expect to be welcomed as a beacon of light when you clearly cannot even articulate your own position cogently.

Good day.

New Yorker · 3 years ago

Well, if you really were there at such a meeting, you weren’t taking very good attendance. I doubted, with good reason, your claim that Tewell denied these specific charges (in 2005) in a gathering together of his boards of elders and trustees. That is one more untruth that has been put forth. I did not deny that he discussed the charges with his staff, where he rightfully denied committing adultery (go back and read what I wrote; unlike you, I can maintain some credibility). I am sorry that the manner of his spending a clearly inappropriate amount of time with Ms. Vione has caused a credibility problem for him with his former staff, but I, for one, am quite willing to reserve judgment on that point. A man who for years has been deliberately hounded by false charges of adultery may be a bit defensive; there are cumulative effects to slander.

To this person I call McCarthy-Anonymous, I guess I do know enough to keep calling your bluff! Not that I enjoy it—you disgust me. Yes, I totally concede that you are well-informed, but the fact that you turn that information into lies, half-truths, and misleading innuendo should serve a purpose: If anyone doubted that Tewell had well-placed enemies harassing him with false charges, your presence on this website goes far to dispel those doubts.

Let me pause, call a truce, and say: As someone reminded us here, Satan is “the father of lies,” and he has clearly made a comfortable home in you. Does it go all the way back to the lies told about Tewell’s predecessor in that pulpit? That’s a long time and a lot of potentially ruined lives. But, as you know, the Good News is that it is not too late to repent of these years of deceit. Especially for you, especially now. God will have mercy on you. Disgust or no, I’ll try, with His Grace, to pray for you.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

Yes Jim, being on a purely intellectual basis is a real block to understanding.
C.S. Lewis was one of those people who hated Christianity.
Read his book - surprised by joy

I'll be praying for you !!!
please be open to what I shared with you and not so quick to
be critical. Putting into practice is the key and waiting on Gods answer which most likely is not the one you would expect.

Jim Arvo · 3 years ago

Anonymous (still!!!) said "Yes Jim, being on a purely intellectual basis is a real block to understanding."

I've asked you HOW YOU KNOW any of your dogma to be true. You answer by claiming that I impose too many constraints, such as asking for a "scientific explanation", or a "purely intellectual" explanation (when in fact I've asked for NEITHER). If you cannot answer that simple question with a direct and honest answer, then everything you say is unsubstantiated babble. I can go down to any coffee shop and get a million different opinions on any topic. Without something to base them on, they aren't worth the grounds left in my cup.

Anonymous: "C.S. Lewis was one of those people who hated Christianity. Read his book - surprised by joy"

I've read a great deal of C. S. Lewis. The odds are that I've read and studied much more Christian apologetics than you have. I hold Lewis in high regard as a writer, but I do not have a similar regard for his theology. While his apologetics may have broad emotional appeal, his logic was often abysmal (e.g. his "Lord, Liar, Lunatic" argument).

Anonymous: "I'll be praying for you !!!"

And I'll be hoping for you. By the way, what do you expect your deity to do on your behalf? Again, does she need your advice? Is announcing your intention to petition this deity in a public forum consistent with your theology?

Anonymous: "please be open to what I shared with you and not so quick to be critical."

You apparently have an inflated opinion of yourself. You've said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING interesting. All you've done is to assert things for which you haven't the slightest bit of evidence, and you've dodged most of my questions. What is it that you think you've "shared"?

As for being critical of you, you had better learn how to address questions. If you make a fantastic claim (e.g. Satan causes depression and anxiety), than you ought to be able to say HOW YOU KNOW THAT. Otherwise, you are just babbling. My water heater makes more useful noises.

Anonymous: "Putting into practice is the key and waiting on Gods answer which most likely is not the one you would expect."

And you assert this based on WHAT? All you have done is regurgitate various sound-bites of Christian dogma. Since there is apparently nothing to support any of it, I feel no obligation to believe a bit of it; no more so than stories of alien abductions or of great sea monsters in Scotland.

I have a challenge for you, Anonymous, before you disappear. Please answer the following questions directly and honestly:

1) Can you name a single book you're read that is critical of Christianity?

2) Have you read any holy book other than the Christian Bible? (e.g. the Koran, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Book or Mormon, etc.)

3) Can you admit that you may be wrong on fundamental points of theology?

4) Can you admit that there are honest well-educated people who know the Bible at least as well as you, and who have reached the honest conclusion that it is no more authentic than any other holy book?

I look forward to your direct and honest replies.

Jim Arvo · 3 years ago

New Yorker said "Let me pause, call a truce, and say: As someone reminded us here, Satan is 'the father of lies,' and he has clearly made a comfortable home in you."

You call that a "truce"?! What a thoroughly offensive thing to say to somebody, particularly after declaring a "truce". Good grief.

And, by the way, have you anything at all to back up that fantastic assertion? I won't hold my breath waiting for a cogent reply.

Pennsylvanian · 3 years ago

I understand that people are angry/annoyed/upset/bitter with all that has happened. That is to be expected and I understand completely. However, I think we might all need to take a step back and tone down the rhetoric. Pastors are humans, they make mistakes. Christianity and salvation are not events, they are processes. We all sin. I would highly recommend that you read one of Dr. Tewell's more popular sermons ("P.B.P.W.M.G.I.F.W.M.Y" -- Please be patient with me. God isn't finished with me yet). The sermon can still be read on www.fapc.org. He explains that none of us are a completed work; we are all striving to be better people -- preachers included.

Again, I completely understand the anger and disgust towards Rev. Tewell. However, we all sin, preachers included. Preachers struggle with gluttony (Baptists even get to joke about this), pride, anger, slothfulness, the list goes on and on. Sexual-related sins (and cover-ups) are especially troubling but I am not sure any of us can cast a stone. Let's forgive him. Let's also wait for the report to come out. Maybe it is not as bad as some are making it out to be. Please be patient with Rev. Tewell, God isn't finished with him yet (nor is he with the rest of us). After all, isn't gossip a sin as well?

south2003 · 3 years ago

Penn,

Do you know where you are and what do you think the lot of Atheists who will listen to a sermon about a pastor trying to convince himself that he is still in the "makings" will come away with? Are you hoping we will “see the light” LMAO!!!

What a bunch of shyster. When is this going to happen and what's taking your non-evident deity so long to "fix" it and why is this non-evident deity have so many cronies, child molesters, womanizers pedophiles and con artist representing it?

Yea, I think you might have forgotten where you are.

.:webmaster:. · 3 years ago

"We all sin."

Please define sin. What is sin?

Anonymous · 3 years ago

New YorkerThank you for all the name calling...I guess Satan is indeed alive and well. Thank you also for calling a "truce" and then calling me more names...please refer to the comment posted by Jim Arvo...I think he sums up pretty well what I think about you.

Now on to your other defensive comments...

What does what was said at a meeting have to do with "taking attendance?" Obviously you were not at the meeting with the staff [it stands to reason that you are not on the staff at FAPC] where Tewell denied any wrongdoing...that's the whole reson the investigative committee was formed in the first place...it was done so at the request of a staff member in a accordance with FAPC personnel policy. They thought that he would be exonerated..because he had them all so convinced that he was innocent. OPPS!
He did deny it...read the letter to the congregation from the clerk of session...it says so.

By the way...how do you know if he committed adultery? Were you there? I doubt it! What is your definition of adultery anyway?

Why is it that you think that you have credibility and I don't? Because you say so? Sounds like an ego problem to me. Isn't self-righteousness a sin? Or is it not a sin when you do it?

The credibilty problem Tewell has with his former staff is not because of the amount of time he spent with Mrs. Vione...it is because he lied to them about the nature of his relationship with her. And what does Tewell's predecessor have to do with any of this? Nothing as far as I'm concerned.

You suggested that I "repent of years of deceit" maybe you should take your own advice. By the way...isn't judgement a sin? Or again...not when you do it?

And before you pray for me...you might want to pray for yourself-that God would open your closed mind...I think closed mindedness is a sin also.

Pennsylvanian · 3 years ago

To South2003:

Yes, I do know where I am. I guess the problem is I work at a university, where ideas are debated and where I encourage my students to challenge thier beliefs and be open to differing points of view. I guess sometimes I fail to recognize that others do not work from that assumption. Sorry if I did not provide you with information you already agree with.

Bentley · 3 years ago

Where in the Bible does it say, Wait a minute, God is not finished with me yet?

Or is Tewell considered so high and mighty that he's rewriting the Bible as he speaks?

"And everybody sins!"

Then why pay a jackass preacher to get up and tell you that everybody
sins?

The sin being born in the first place!

Thats why Jesus said you must be born again, because your father lusted another female in his mind, at the exact moment of ejaculation of your mother.

Now send me some friggen money!


You stupid Christians better wake up to reality.

Jim Arvo · 3 years ago

To Pennsylvanian (a.k.a. New York),

Do you also teach your students to be arrogant and condescending? What a bunch of claptrap you've churned out. I have no quarrel with your attempts to defend Tewell, or in urging restraint in passing judgment. However, your rhetoric is so laden with presuppositions that I have also wondered if you had any appreciation at all for who you were addressing. You've also injected some really outrageous assertions, so forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical that you actually urge students to challenge their beliefs to any meaningful degree. Feel free to elaborate on that point and set me straight if you wish.

carol · 3 years ago

I can't decide what makes me sicker, the creepy, lying preachers or the sheep who follow them so damn blindly.

Satan puts thought in your heads? WTF? Why does gawd allow that if he supposedly loves you so much? Again, Satan beats their gawd.

Keep prayin for us sinners, fundies. Pray, pray, pray, pray and see how NOTHING will change. Morons.

Ben, just another example of xians making shit up as they go along to try and expain and justify their bull shit beliefs.

Regards, carol

south2003 · 3 years ago

Penn: “Yes, I do know where I am. I guess the problem is I work at a university, where ideas are debated and where I encourage my students to challenge thier beliefs and be open to differing points of view. I guess sometimes I fail to recognize that others do not work from that assumption. Sorry if I did not provide you with information you already agree with.”

The information that was provided is garbage. No substance whatsoever! For you to tell this forum that some non-evident being is still working his magic trick on this clergy man it is to say that all ethics and responsibility on the individual’s part should be null and void- he can’t help it ‘cause his missing parts are on back order….geeeeze.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

to the posting of 4/21 at 1:55 AM

the point is that two senior ministers have been falsely accused of adultery
in that church in a row !!
That is what is so relevant about the previous minister !!!

Tom Tewell was denying the charges that Joe was making against him that he was not involved in an affair when he met with the staff. And there is no proof of this (again as you know very well)

That Tom did not set a limit on Rachel's wanting to meet up with him is the issue.
She was always trying to get her foot in the door so to speak which is generally understood by all - it was her attempts to advance her career by trying to remain close to Tom
as well as having ambitions to work closely with him after graduation.

I think that the above is safe to assume is close enough to the truth

Anonymous · 3 years ago

Some years ago, I attended the FAPC while Bryant Kirkland was still the minister. In trying to find out on the internet what happened to Dr. Kirkland, I came across the sad story of Dr. Tewell. While I think it was the right thing for Dr. Tewell to resign, I also think as Christians we should not condemn him. The Bible says, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. The message of Jesus' death and resurrection is that through our faith, God will forgive us. If God can forgive Dr. Tewell, who I am assuming is still a believer, who are we to say that we cannot?

NYC Churchgoer · 3 years ago

There is no "story." There are, to date, only unsubstantiated allegations without evidence being offered, a dramatic paucity of verifiable facts of the type we know from childhoods playing "Clue": Who/what/when/ where. And it has been how long now since the civil suit was filed/Oct 2005? So, while a civil suit is public record and as such has been quoted in three major newspapers, interestingly, the passage of time has not brought alleged facts out of the woodwork to support the charges. Given the number of churchmembers in 2005, some 3500, one would think there would be some people who would have volunteered details that would have become general knowledge by now. So we know about his resignation, but as to why, who can say? Or as to what, same thing? So quoting a suit, is not the same thing as knowing the facts. So it's remarkable that everyone has spent so much time debating the theological issues, when the facts are fairly meager and not at all dramatic, so who can know what theology applies?

What has happened since his resignation to write about now? Nothing dramatic. One wonders if the husband who filed the suit ever discussed the wife's work at the church with her and his feelings about it and requested that she not do it due to his own misgivigs as to her motives. Now that would make sense; but we don't know because the husband's not talking as to what, if any, facts exist.

So suits can be filed, but that says nothing about whether there are facts to support them, and whether the law would support the charges with or without facts.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

Friends,

Notwithstanding these allegations, and the messages for and against, is there any update as to the case, for and against Dr. Tewell? Facts that have been proven?

John

NYC Churchgoer · 3 years ago

No update.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

I have come to New York this week and learned that Dr. Tewell is moving to Washington D.C. to work for the Red Cross in some capacity. I say "good for him, his family, and good for the Red Cross!" I would hope that the faithful at FAPC will wish him well and remember how much he meant to all of us. Methinks Jesus was speaking for the ages when He asked us to look at ourselves before we tossed a stone or in essence wrote a blog comment against anyone, especially someone whose "guilt" was not set in stone but was more in line with the gossip that for some lower case reason permeates our culture.

We can all choose how we think and what we stand for. After all, this is the land of "E Pluribus Unum." I, for one, will choose to proudly stand beside Tom Tewell and admire and respect and remember how wonderful he was and is and what type of person I was so blessed and fortunate to have met in my life. His message was extraordinary and if you ever were so fortunate to hear him speak God's words throuigh his human mouth, you would understand. If he made a mistake, so be it. Few people know what happened even though the truth will finally be revealed sooner or later. But who am I to judge anyone?

Tom's skills and talents and just inate goodness touched many lives and inspired so many people. I would hope we could hear from them and wish him a bon voyage and let him know of our support and love for himself and his wife and family.

Here's to Tom Tewell! Salute!


A friend.

Bentley · 3 years ago

God Bless This Man! Dr. Tom Tewell!
He's moving on to the Salvation Army to do battle against SATAN!!!!

I wonder how many Souls have been lost and claimed by SATAN, by throwing Tom a DIVERSION, this movement cleverly distracted poor ole Tom and his followers and SATAN slipped in and TOOK a few Souls to Hell while Jesus wasn't looking.

But we must look on the bright side, God must have had a plan, yes God knew that Brother Tom would soon be called to go where there is much need.

God knew that somewhere, there would be hole left in the gospel to be filled.

I have fervently prayed and fasted and deeply meditated about Dr. Tom Tewell, it's all in God's hands now and Dr. Tom will prevail and rise to be Glorified standing among the Heavenly Saints to be Annointed with the Holy Spirit of God and a Jewel will be placed in his Crown and his Mansion will Stretch-out among the depts of Heaven to be admired by all those that never took over the reins of Jesus's Holy Word and just sat there and warmed the pews and slipped into Heaven by the Skin of their Teeth.

Dr. Tom Tewell must be surely be a Man Of God, without question or appology! There is no question in my mind that Dr. Tom Tewell is a Living Patron Saint, whose shoes that I am worthy to unlatch!

If I could be so worthy to touch the hem of his Holy Immaculate Robe!

These things I pray! Amen and Amen

Anonymous · 3 years ago

it comes to mind about Jesus and the woman caught in adultery

how Jesus said to her - where are your accusers? Neither do I condemn you - go and sin no more !

When Tom Tewell's predecessor
had been falsely accused of adultery (a way of making trouble for him by someone - it has deja vu all over again over the past few years) and there was alot of talk about this with people believing it.
Tom did all he could to stop that talk when he came as the new Sr. Minister.
This should be the example to those presently in leadership positions with regards to Tom's situation.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

dear friend of Tom Tewell

you spoke so well for many of us
in how Tom touched so many lives
with his healing touch that gave validation. He never showed a critical attitude towards those who behaved badly.

Everyone should show him the same grace.

When a person stumbles - they are to be restored with meekness and gentleness.

Those who are so critical and rushing to judgement are certainly
"bench warmers"

Yes in the end the truth is going to come out that Tom was a trusting soul because of his own innate goodness and was not looking out enough for himself

Anonymous · 3 years ago

It would be nice to know that all congregations and pastors publish and support guidelines in misconduct policies. Without an acceptance and education of the do's and don'ts of church life these kinds of things are allowed to be whispered about rather than treated forthrightly. And being treated forthrightly may mean that they don't happen at all. What is acceptable in the giving of time to parishioners?

Anonymous · 3 years ago

that the correct attitude concerning what should have been in place about policies.

Not the current self interested attitude of some that if only Tom had come clean right away with them - then they could have worked together against Joe !
What a bunch of horse manure !!!

It was a process that occured last spring not deception.

This shows that the attitude of some is not one of what can we learn from this being humble.

Would Tom really have wanted to
trust people who are so ready to
be negative and show such a lack of spiritual maturity.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

I wish Tom and Suzanne only the very best in their future journey to wherever God would take them. Is it any wonder that Satan would want him out of NYC?

Observer in NYC · 3 years ago

The plaintiff's wife was a seminarian until she received a degree in May 2005, and who, at the time of the civil suit filing in October 2005, would presumably still have an ongoing career goal: ministry. It takes more than a degree to become a minister in the Presbyterian denomination. Effectively, people are "on trial" going through the system of the denomination that governs by the rules published on how future ministers are evaluated at each step, or to put it another way, judged by conduct polcies similar to those governing ministers, even though they have not attained a similar level of achievement.

So, when speculating about what's what, ministers and those aspiring to ministry learn early on that actions are consequential in this career.

And we have learned in life that when at least two people know something, it's only a matter of time often before many more know it too. There are the facts, and then the interpretation of the facts, and how the facts fit into the world you've chosen for yourself, in this case, to be, or to aspire to be, in the ministry.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

i was in seminary with the "plantiff's wife" we had several classes together while she was a seminarian. she commutted from a great distance to get her degree and showed great promise and gifts for the ministry. i know that tom tewell was a mentor to her as well as many others...she and her both showed alot of charisma,which literally means grace-gifted.

i don't know what she is doing now, but it is a shame to see two talented people be side-lined in the ministry....but god is not finished yet...there is more to this story.

i am a newly ordained pastor and i know we all have feet of clay...not of us are exempt from sin.

andy pts class of 2002

FAPC Friend · 3 years ago

Thank you for the update that Tom is heading for the Red Cross. It is good to know that he is out there starting over. He will be an asset to the Red Cross Community as well of the new lives that he will touch. We were blessed to have him at FAPC and I am still blessed to call him "friend". God's speed Tom!

Writing in Manhattan · 3 years ago

What is irrelevant is the "feet of clay" and "stone" comments. When you take a presigitious job, including a pension, you accept the rules that go along with it, same as when you aspire to a career. When you play a sport, you expect to have fouls called. Both families were into sports, both knew there are rules.

And given the opportunity to make statements to the church members in a letter in Nov 2005, to have their say and be quoted accurately, did they say anything to put a positive spin on it? What did they say about the other?
Church members know that answer.

And, here in the blogs, everyone is striving to put a positive spin on it.

Dictionarian · 3 years ago

Tom, yes, he has charisma, because it is "a rare personal quality attributed to leaders who arouse fervent popular devotion and enthusiasm" and hearing his sermons helps one see why people listened to the disciples in biblical times.

Personally, I don't use the word to mean a sunny disposition, but that's me.

Yes, Tom has a rare gift to make the Bible come alive, which does not need any paricular belief system to appreciate, although it helps. When you've heard the sermon, you are struck by how much Bible is in it, and how much self effacement. Many other preachers spend much too much time trying to describe their points, I feel.

If you know who you are and your message, you don't need to belabor the message, or present yourself in a way that says "look at me."

Do the work you are called to do, within the the laws of your society or career, the secret to happiness. Don't "covet." Don't be "foolish"; all OTestament wisdom that is true today. Find a cure for cancer, raise funds. There is a lot of God's work left to do and people who focus on their work and being respected for it probably have an easier time.

And don't forget, the law says you can print what's in a suit no matter what the content, on the front page of the Times or Post, the Examiner, the Globe or whatever is the big newspaper in your area. Remembering everyone has picture phones today and there is no privacy may keep people on the straight and narrow in ways unimaginable in biblical times.

A pulpit in a big steeple church is a privilege, a responsibility and a challenge and a highly visible opportunity to make a difference.

Trial by trials · 3 years ago

The legal suit has moved forward with the NY judge making her first decisions on the motions to dismiss the suit's 3 causes of actions as represented in the amended complaint filed by the plaintiff for the total sum of $6 mil (up from $5 in the first complaint), including punitive damages against the minister/church and Presbytery.

Commandment reader · 3 years ago

To be front page news of the Post with the headline "Hell to Pay," might be some people's fondest dreams. It just hasn't helped the church's fortunes at the moment.

And to those who act as though they have knowledge, or had knowledge, interestingly enough no one has mentioned any details to support anything. So one wonders why 1) people would belong to a church with goings-on they did not endorse and 2) where the courage of their convictions is, at the very least, to enforce a policy. Or whether people have changed their minds to support the worst case scenario.

So, it's as if people just looked the other way, if they did. Well WWII there was a lot of that and we called them collaborators. Or, maybe there was nothing to see in this instance. You can't have it both ways.

So, one wonders what truth people endorse? That to gossip about the worst without producing evidence? Or that the individual is powerless to effect change? Some coveting; some foolishness; both Old Testament words may apply. That's why the Bible has lasted so long; the basic admonitions to "men" don't change. Men compete and the 10 commandments tell them not to be so competitive. That it doesn't pay in the end and destabilizes society to have people wanting what the other person has. Now we have Playboy where you can look but not have. Nothing changes.

Thinking · 3 years ago

Perhaps this crisis with counseling was welcomed by the Tewells to improve their marriage. Maybe they didn't have the words to urge each other there before. And as the plaintiff's wife might be described as comporting herself as a middle-aged (43 this year) giddy schoolgirl, which is a free choice, a married mother of minor children--perhaps people should have regarded the amount of time away from her husband and children not as a positive, but to ask what was the point?

But to think that everyone didn't really get what they wanted in the end is naive. Just because you or I might think this is a crisis, does not necessarily mean that the people whose choices these were--four people--didn't get their lives changed in the directions they wanted, divorce for one (moving through the courts) and staying together with more time together (in another state), as he had talked about wanting.

Character · 3 years ago

"Pain in the neck," might be the characterization you would have gotten about her wanting to be mentored, from Tom's point of view. And "character" is the reason you would have heard in Tom's sermons for why he chose his wife whom he married in 1970. And do you think he would chose someone with minor children while he's in an empty nest, free-as-the-breeze marriage now? Get real. And the number of single, available women for whom he held some attraction meant there were many less problematic choices, if that had been the direction he was going. And he needed to get work done, mostly with volunteers, and she was interested so was at the church a lot, a fact left out of the suit and newspaper interviews. It wasn't as if she was recruited from the vast numbers of women at the church. She was going for a degree.

So did they use each other? Depends on how you look at it. Once one has a masters degree in divinity, one is required to take, and pass, the 5-part written exam of by the Presbyterian church as a next step. So there are objective standards one must meet if ministry is one's goal.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

It is a shame that the session did not look out for Tom (as they should have done)regarding any problematic situations that could arise.

They fell flat on their faces and then turned around and wrote a cover letter back last fall
that showed no remorse and was plainly self serving.

Tom was concentrating on taking care of the congregation and in the process made a difference in many people's lives.

Too bad he did not have the needed backup from the session to help him avert this situation with advice and keeping an eye out.
(which they well know they did not do)

We all need people along side us
to watch out for us especially someone in such a vulnerable position as a minister to such things.

Clearly it is a risky business to enter into such a profession considering the potential liabilities even when you feel called to such a service to God.

This will make people think twice about entering seminary. This will have repercussions within the church at a time when solid people are needed.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

Joe Vione obviously did not consider that - vengeance is the Lords - and how there are consequences to doing harm.

Over time it will be interesting to see how God moves regarding Joe's life. Having money is no protection against God's wrath.

Certainly he should be more concerned about where he will be for eternity which is very much in
question right now.

he will have no peace of mind
upon which there is no price tag
and can only come from God when
we do the right thing

Clearly money is an issue for him
considering his financial situation
and needing to finance his divorce

In ten years time or so
we will see how God works things out and if I were Joe - I would be plenty worried.

Victorian · 3 years ago

As of May 2006, the suit against the minister/church/Presbytery has less to it than it did in October because the judge has handed down her decision on which causes of action are sustainable under the law and not all of them made it as legally valid.

So legal theories have been ruled on and the next step is seeing what facts are there and what that means for a trial or a negotiated settlement. Or maybe an appeals process depending on how much patience any lawyers paid on contingency have vs trying to sew up a financial settlement and moving on. Because no one is getting any money unless 1) there is a settlement or 2) a judge or jury awards an amount in trial and the insurance and any un-insured parts of the award are paid out. And if a judge or a jury ruled that none of the defendants are culpable, then the plaintiff would receive no monetary award and might be responsible for court costs.

And the longer one waits for a trial, the greater the chance of loss of witnesses who might support your case, and the chance that the laws might change, making your case less sustainable or capping the award at a lower amount and new laws might be passed eliminating suits for what currently are valid.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

In response to babbling Ben........................
I would rather live my life as if there is a
God, and die to find out there isn't, Than
live my life as if there isn't, and die to
find out there is.

boomSLANG · 3 years ago

In response to babbling Anonymous........

...::NEWS FLASH::...

Firstly, Pascal's wager---the "just in case" argument---may seem really "clever" to you and your fundy friends, however, what you really have is one big cock-o-mamy contradiction. Here's why:

As it stands---you don't "know" that a God exists, otherwise, there'd be no reason to apply "Pascal's wager". Yet, interestingly enough, out of the bazillion Gods to choose from, you give the arrogant implication that you "know" which God will "save" your ass "just in case" a "God" happens to exist. Tell me....how's that bullshit work? Naah, it doesn't work.

So----if you're going to believe in God "just in case", welp, you'd better get off your knees 'n get your little ass down to the library and start brushing up on EVERY major religion known to man---JUST IN CASE. You wanna have all your bases covered....::wink::

Anonymous · 3 years ago

in response to victorian....

you better check your facts regarding what the judge allowed to move forward in the civil suit...
to say that the law suit has less merit now than it did before is also untrue
laws may change, but the facts remain

Anonymous · 3 years ago

I don't need your news flash filled with vulgarity and hatred. I am very sorry your parents didn't hug you more. Get a life.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

If these two things were happening simultaneously, cause for a civil suit that alone would not warrant it. So both must be true, and proven true. Or not. To go forward. Unless they all sign on the dotted line, give whatever to whomever and go home. Or whatever personal misconduct legal mavens might say are the potential scenarios.

Churchgoer · 3 years ago

To be clear, no one has issued any statements as to Tom's plans and the information is being passed word-of-mouth from outside the church to members in it. Working "for" and "doing work for" are not the same and I believe it is the latter that is the case.

The official announcement from the pulpit at church today about the suit was that the "breach" against Tom and the "supervisory negligence" against the church/Presbytery are going forward and that it is rare for motion to dismiss to actually result in a dismissal from a summary judgment as in for the whole suit to be thrown out of court.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

I've stayed in touch with this matter as best I can for quite some time and read the posts here on a daily basis. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a vehicle for obtaining accurate information and maybe it's not all that important that I, as just one member of the church, be up to any kind of speed.

I do think of Tom a great deal and how powerful his weekly message was to me and how much a difference it has made in my own life. His departure cut a part out of me and I've not been able to fill that empty place no matter how much effort I make. Yes, he was only a man but he was a truly remarkable one.

I have to say that there is a part of me that has become very angry that Mr. Vione decided to vent his own feelings in the manner that he chose to do. As an attorney, I've handled domestic cases for over twenty-five years and I know that there are normally many, many factors that go into a failed marriage. Quite often, the only people that really know what has happened is the couple themselves. That shouldn't be surprising to anyone. The old human failing of being reluctant to point a finger at oneself is never more exemplified than in this oft times contentious arena. I have no idea why their marriage failed and this is none of my business.

But I submit to all concerned that there is likely a plethora of reasons that the Vione marriage fell apart. If something Tom Tewell did was really one of those reasons, I actually would be surprised but I am also cognizant that where there is smoke, there's probably a little bit of fire. Again, probably only Joe and Rachel know the true story even though this has been looked into by the Presbyterian church. I am positive that at the end of the day there is a long list of factors that has nothing at all to do with Dr. Tewell.

I've thought about this for quite some time and yesterday while walking the beach, it struck me that it was very wrong for Mr. Vione to take this kind of action against Tom and the church. I believe that notwithstanding the role, if any, that Tom had in the demise of the Vione marriage, this was nothing but a calculated effort to destroy a man's career and in essence the man himself. And the slash at his neck took a broader stroke at those of us in the congregation who comprise the membership of FAPC. For Tom and FAPC, this was obviously only a "lose-lose" scenario and it appears that Mr. Vione and his legal entourage have played this to the hilt. And that Vione feels that he is entitled to millions of dollars from Tom and from the people who comprise the church that he is or was a member of as "recompense" makes me sick and it makes me angry.

The all consuming greed of the legal system which fuels this kind of fire is a sad part of all of our lives and no amount of protest will ever change that. But that does not give Mr. Vione a pass in my mind. To ask for monies that the church would otherwise use for the benefit of those who need help, be it a homeless person of the city or a member whose pocketbook is more secure but whose soul is in need of its own home, is a classless move. Greed and hatred are all over this lawsuit and isn't there enough of this already in this troubled world? Even assuming that every allegation he made against Dr. Tewell is correct (to only look at this in the light most favorable to Mr. Vione), what gives him the right to think that his marriage was worth so much money? Does the loss of funds for the missions of the church give him a moment of pause? Wasn't he listening along the way to the lessons in that Book which had a place in the pew where he sat each Sunday? Where is his shame in all of this?

I continue to pray for all involved as I am sure many of FAPC do daily. This will all be over soon and whether it goes to trial or there is a settlement, our collective lives will go on. That is a good thing. Yet I cannot help but be sad this morning that I, as I am sure many at FAPC will also, will have that empty place in my heart in the Sundays to come knowing that the magical days of sitting at 55th and 5th and hearing Dr. Tewell bring God's message in a way all of his own are behind me. I do thank God that I was lucky to have a few of those days in my life.

A friend of Tom

Anonymous · 3 years ago

The actual physical complaint and amended complaint are available--but not easily--to the public. For whatever reason, FAPC has not seen fit to make them available. Similarly the actual judge's pronouncment to date is also available, a bit more easily, but as a member of FAPC it is not my responsiblity, nor anyone else's to make it "easier" to know what's public. What people observed over the years, generally or specifically about anyone at FAPC--as a general principle--might be relevant only to say that no member of FAPC has been taught the misconduct policy in effect at the NYC Presbytery since 1998 so if I were to tell you what was told to me is in the report, it would not make your heart sing to know what misconduct--how little--can be.

So lawyers, especially, should get their faces into FAPC and find out why no one was minding the store and making sure that everyone knows what a violation of the misconduct policy includes. Do research as I did and educate yourselves. Apparently we like castigating one man against the responsibility of the group, and I think that is very un-Christian of us.

Have any of the Princeton Seminary preachers in our pulpit accepted any role in this? The woman was at the Sem for how many y4ears? So if you want to interview enough people, you will find that the general attitude was there for a long time. That it went from being OK to not...and became a huge waste of time for everyone because no one would demand that there be changes made at FAPC is our great tragedy. And should anyone forget, one of the FAPC pastors gave a TV interview that aired while the judge was deliberating. So, the church could have taken action to inform us and accept some responsibility but they have not! If not to the specifics, at least as to what misconduct is.

And members who sit by without demanding change--what comfort do we have that it won't happen again? So educate yourwself about 1) what happened and 2) what misconduct includes. Because if everyone refused to think the worst and demanded to know what DID happen, then we could move forward. Now there is senseless repetition of someone's fantasies. At least as far as proof goes.

So current members, how many have voiced your thoughts and stood up, as did our biblical forbears and demanded change if you do not like what you have seen to date?

Anonymous · 3 years ago

"actual document" what I meant.

No facts--because even were there any, anyone who didn't step in to keep things perfect, what excuse would they have--those who did go to seminaries where this is taught, misconduct.

So, if you don't know what the issue at the Presbytery was, how can you fix it for next time?

And the likely response is going to be his rebuke or suspension and that's all you will know, unless you have access to the actual Report. And as far as the civil court goes, the judge has some discretion as well. So better focus on prevention for next time.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

And did it ever occur to the plaintiff to take his family and up and leave the church years ago? "Lead us not into temptation," isn't that what we pray every week? So either this was all new news, or, not, in which case who stays in a situation harmful to his marriage? And how unhappy could he have been when they were named volunteers of the month one month? So she's about to graduate and then all xxxx breaks loose. Interesting timing.

So how much angst should we suffer on his behalf given how long they were church members and she a seminarian. We are supposed to believe that he was quietly suffering. And now not so quietly.

Maybe he wanted to leave and his wife refused. That would make sense that he'd be angry. No man likes to be shown disrespect and one could argue that he must have felt disrespected by his wife, and Tom's resignation of his trustee position and chair at Princeton, similarly were no doubt a reflection of a loss of respect he would have felt had he continued.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

While it is disappointing that the judge who reviewed the case clearly did not understand the points of law involved and decided to accept all points as being true by Joe.

So perhaps Tom's lawyer has a good chance at appealing this decision by the judge to allow this to go to trial.

(Joe was counting on the recent cases involving priests preying on parishoners to influence the judge and she fell for it hook line and sinker which does not speak well of her at all !!!)

we have to remind ourselves that everything that happens comes through the permissive will of God
and we are to wait patiently upon Him.

Remember Joseph and Potifer's wife
who wrongly accused him of attacking her and he was placed in prison. But in the end Joseph was raised to a high position of authority and helped many survive inspite of her lies.

God always has the last word !!

Remember that in the end
the truth will come out
although it will take time

Joe stated for tne newspapers back last fall that he wanted to see Tom defrocked.
So who is Joe to think that he can overule Gods sovereignty in Tom's life who has been a faithful servant helping many?

Joe was obviously just a doer while at FAPC not a follower of Jesus Christ when volunteering.

In the end Joe will find that it is himself that he has destroyed
even if he does get money he is so determined to get his hands on at the expense of many thinking only of himself. God's wrath will be upon this man for what he has done.

He obviously needs money as per his financial condition a few years ago if he is to finance a divorce settlement.
public records show that there was a lien on his house for non payment of taxes around 2002
courthouse of Mineola

Now that should be front page news!

Any woman who goes along with Joe's assertions about Tom clearly
has problems emotionally or psychologically and will only hurt themselves by getting involved.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

Back in September
Rachel's friend coming out of the house in Garden City made a statement to the NY Post saying

This has nothing to do with Tom Tewell

Joe has been living with another woman on the weekends in Connecticut.

Amazing that no attention or follow up is being paid to Joe's behavior
only his allegations
by the press

Are they brain dead ???

Anonymous · 3 years ago

The posting (5/30 - 6:19PM)by an attorney attending FAPC
is correct about the greed and dishonesty of Joe in filing a suit.

There is separation of church and state so the only way to "get" a minister is to claim he was a marriage counselor. That is why
Joe made up that part and stressed it.

And an incompetent judge
fell for it !!

That is why Tom's lawyer stated to the NY Post that they would be filing an appeal because marriage counseling was never given.

The judge has decided that "on a motion to dismiss, the facts alleged in the complaint are accepted as true and the plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of every favorable inference."

Whether this can be successfully appealed to prevent the suit from proceeding towards a trial is in doubt.
Evidence is to be considered in a courtroom.

Right now this is all about the law and are the charges suitable to go to trial.

So the judge really blew it big time allowing for the case to proceed rather than dismiss !!!

Let's hope that a more capabale
and smarter judge is assigned to review the appeal who will understand the errors in judgement the first judge made.

This could take 6-9 months till this takes place.

Keep up your petitions to God
everyone !! Prayer works !!

Anonymous · 3 years ago

One has only to google the name and church to see that mid-2004 the couple was volunteers of the month, then 6 months later, an infraction for a minister/ seminarian, then a few months later an accusation. Many of us now know what the infraction was. So she washed out of the system; that was a definite possibility for anyone. And that's why people are reviewed annually. So not everyone is cut out for the ministry and the demands it makes on your conduct. Tom has a long career and he was perhaps trying to help someone. The lesson. Help yourself. Never put yourself in harm's way. And there was an occasion for the plaintiff's wife to rethink her past actions, but she did not in the letter to the congregation and Tom did. Never think anyone has your best interests at heart but yourself is the lesson they can both take away from it. Because neither the platintiff nor the defendant have made any positive statements about the other. Nowhere was the minister, church or Presbytery thanked for their contribution to her life to date. Then there's a bump in the road, and that changes everything? As if the past were dead. So if you are only there in the good times what does that suggest. Fair weather friend.

Friend of friends of Tewell · 3 years ago

I was in NYC last week and I have religious friends who went to that church. They were talking about the lawsuit developments. So I googled, found this site, and laughed and laughed at the acrimony here.

With regard to the lawsuit, here's the court document in a pdf. I found it odd that the commenter who knew of the document wouldn't post the info, so I went to the trouble to find it so all in this discussion could read the PUBLIC document. There is no good reason to obscure or make difficult the access to public, legal information.

http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/fcas/FCAS_docs/2006MAY/30011500220051SCIV.PDF

Regarding the religious people vs. the atheists...this is funny stuff! I can't bring myself to believe in God on evidential grounds.

But, what's with all the anger by my fellow atheists? My friends are comfortable in their lack of belief, but many here seem angry and upset at religious people. Who cares if they believe their stories? If you're THIS angry about other peoples' religious beliefs, there is something DEEPLY screwed up with you. We're free, we don't have to live with the rules and guilt and neuroses. That's what religious people have. So why are my fellow free thinkers so screwed up on this comment thread? It's embarrassing to our side. We have NOTHING to be afraid of, no cause for alarm, no cause for anger.

friend of friends of Tewell · 3 years ago

here's the court case again. It looks like Blogger cut off the url on my previous comment.

http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/
fcas/FCAS_docs/
2006MAY/30011500220051SCIV.PDF

.:webmaster:. · 3 years ago

Excuse me FFT, but sanctimony and condescension are unattractive qualities in a True Atheist™ like yourself. You should do your best to shed that demeanor when coming into someone else's home—it makes you look bad.

As far as the civil suit being dismissed (thanks for the link, btw), that proves absolutely nothing about whether the allegations are true or not. All the court dismissal states is that the State of New York does not recognize the allegations as being addressed by any New York law. No law = no crime.

Now, can someone please explain what is up with the outright slavering worship of this Tewell dude? I mean, really... In the past six years I've never seen the defensive Christian zeal ever aroused to this heightened level over one preacher. This is preacher worship, pure and simple.
It's almost as if they are all saying: "No one can speak against 'God's Anointed!' It is a sin! It is wrong! It shouldn't be done! Tewell is a hero! Tewell is MY HERO!!!! WE LOVE TEWELL, HE'S OUR MAN...OF GOD"

Oh brother....

friend of friends of Tewell · 3 years ago

Webservant,

One atheist telling another atheist about sanctimony? You are a risible man. I don't believe in holiness, so "sanctimony" is as non-existent as a supreme being.

I was in a coffeeshop with friends when I looked up the Tewell stuff and found your site. Of the five of us, three are atheists, two supposedly believe in some sort of a God, but it has no real bearing on their lives (which is why we can be friends). Five of us, either having no belief or little belief in religion. That's context for this:

My demeanor may have been unattractive to you, but my friends, after laughing at the fulminations of your readers against religious types, urged me to criticize. It didn't take much urging, and we all thought it was an appropriate criticism.

Attractiveness is in the eye of the beholder, and our circle thought the comment was attractive and appropriate. I don't care if you or others disagree...it's 100% opinion. You have yours, we have ours. There is no objective standard. As much criticism as you dish out, I would think you would be more tolerant of criticism. Besides, the critique was only aimed at those who pathetically are living in reaction to religion instead of being free of religion. How is that NOT pathetic?

When I encounter religious people, which is not often in a university town, I just roll my eyes and move on. Who cares if they live in their little fairy tales? I don't. So when I see the gushing anger and disgust at religious types in this thread, I think, "Why are you so angry? Dude, let it go. Be free."

True atheists are free in our knowledge based on reason. We are free thinkers. We don't live by superstition, fear, or in reaction to religion. We make our own way, not reactive to religious ways.

Irony: the fulminating pseudo-atheists are still controlled by the religion they rail against. To live in reaction to something is still to be controlled, albeit indirectly, by that something.

Which brings me back to my original point: you are a risible man.

boomSLANG · 3 years ago

" Irony: the fulminating pseudo-atheists are still controlled by the religion they rail against. To live in reaction to something is still to be controlled...."


Sauce for the gander: The "True Atheist" in sheep's clothing is ironically "controlled" enough to react and respond to other's responses and reactions. Baa~aa~ah. LMAO!

.:webmaster:. · 3 years ago

Yes, the True Atheist™ is hyper-critical of other atheists, and has the audacity to demand conformity to his personal standards of opinion expression and word use. Whatever...

Since verbal subtleties seem to elude you, I'll explain my use of the word sanctimony—it was a wordplay of sorts on your use of the word acrimony. (Sanctimony—acrimony, get it?) Although it's true that sanctimony is generally and most accurately used in a religious context, Dictionary.com cites the following definition: hypocritical devoutness or high-mindedness. Since I was attempting to play on your polite use of the word acrimony, and since you are making polite dogmatic statements on how all non-believers in Christianity should think, act, or express their opinions, and in light of the fact that you have set yourself and your giggle-buddies up us as some sort of authorities over others, to quickly mock and criticize, after only a cursory glance at a few posts, I believe the word sanctimony not only appropriately fits you, but that you define it.

I also think you are a liar.

You tout freedom, and yet demand compliance with your view of how others should respond to Christianity. What an ass you are. What a pompous, pathetically arrogant, piece of work you are.

Sorry bud, but if you're not a trolling fake, then you are an embarrassment to your cause.

Have a nice giggle-festive day. Tee-hee.

.:webmaster:. · 3 years ago

Another comment:

Free thinking might be defined as thinking outside the box—any box.

You're preferred approach to the topic of Christian belief is your preferred approach, and you're entitled to that preferred approach. But, your approach is by no means the absolute standard approach.

Perhaps you should read some Ingersol, or some Thomas Paine. Those men will probably give you and your friends a few good chuckles too.

Bentley · 3 years ago

The problem with the whole thing is:

A preacher that is pretending that he is called by a god, which is a total lie!

People stupid enough to believe that the preacher is really called by a god.

A total myth (lie) being told as being truth.

A grand lie written down in a book by men and called being written by a god, a total lie.

People refusing to see that the bible is a total lie.

People resenting people like me telling them it's a total lie.

People rejecting the fact that what they've have been told since a little child, is a total lie and now when a GREAT PREACHER gets caught with another woman and there's a slight inkling that their silly childhood beliefs may become violated and proved to be false.

The whole problem lies with a grand fairytale being made to seem as the truth, and so many lies have to be told to back up even the grandest lie of all time, the bible.

A lie is a lie, no matter how many times you try to prove it's not a lie.

A LIE CAN NEVER BE PROVED IT'S NOT A LIE!

THE BIBLE CAN NEVER BE PROVED THAT IT'S NOT A LIE!

ALL PREACHERS ARE LIARS!

ALL CHRISTIANS ARE LIARS!

THERE IS NO TRUTH IN THE BIBLE!

THERE IS NO TRUTH IN ANY RELIGION!

THIS IS NOT MY OPINION, IT IS THE TRUTH!

BUT YOU PREFER TO PAY A PREACHER TO TELL YOU A LIE!

AND YOU WILL PRAISE A PREACHER FOR TELLING YOU LIES, BUT YOU WILL CHASTISE ME FOR TELLING YOU THE TRUTH

Anonymous · 3 years ago

the persons who posted about how much Tom meant to them - knew Tom well enough - that these allegations do not sit well with them and are mature people - not a worshipper of a person. Please !!

Tom has a very close walk with God and as such was an instrument of God's grace to many.

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Even you atheists believe in that!

Joe's allegations of marital counseling are false. Tom referred
them to existing church programs that would be appropriate. This Joe is claiming is marital counseling - not even close !!
In the end this case will collapse
as the truth will come out and that will take time.

What right do you have ?
Those of you who do not know Tom tobe be critical of those who are standing by Tom in his time of need?

You are so entrenched in your negative view of religion and so are in the dark - as evidenced by your comments so as to be totally devoid of any credibility

Tom Thumb & My Middle Digi · 3 years ago

Hey anonymous, don't take life so seriously, it ain't permanent. You'll change your mind, because your mind will change you, as it degrades over time, it appears your declination angle for mental degradation is sharper than most.

Its all a misunderstanding, we just need to say nony, nony, nony, about a million times while this all goes by, the less we know the better, no reason to observe the pooh fest, its what the religious do best - keep their eyes and mind shut.

.:webmaster:. · 3 years ago

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? OMG! This is a discussion forum, that's all! No one is going to jail.

Jesus H. Christ -- you guys worship this man, you absolutely worship him!

"Tom has a very close walk with God and as such was an instrument of God's grace to many."

And which god would that be, exactly? Allah? Oh I know, you mean Jezus. Which version of Jesus exactly? The Pope's version? The Jehova Witness's verison?

What right do we have to an opinion on this news topic? You're kidding, right? This is a NEWS topic. Everyone has a right to their opinion on it -- EVERYONE!!!

You worship this man -- you absolutely worship him!

Anonymous · 3 years ago

can any of you 'fot' say idolatry? how do you spell idolatry..."tom tewell"

it's the session's fault

it's the presbytery's fault

it's the church's fault

it's joe's fault...

it's the judge's fault

when is it tom tewell's fault?

when does he take responsibility for his own actions?

pedestal worship...tom needs a lot of help, but not more people to put him on a pedestal

au revoirist · 3 years ago

No one seems willing to write what the facts are...so why is everyone writing about what they don't know? If you never met him or listened to his sermons--why are you bothering to write? Why do you care what other people do? Get over it!

If you did meet him then you are guessing what, if anything, he did if you are criticizing. No one is bold enough to post the reality; he is neither on nor off a pedestal. He is living his life outside NY with his wife.

Windy City · 3 years ago

So, handy as it is I daresay few people will read the judge's decision. Because it doesn't tell anything except what the judge is letting go forward. And that much was in the Daily News and the Post. No one HAS to like Tom; it's a free country. So, tell your truth, your experience of him if you want, the rest are just spouting air about a stranger.

Some people had friends or spouses or co-workers who came and went or stayed in your lives. How is this any different?

Rock around the clock · 3 years ago

Lots of people have mid-life crises and the married people and the single people at church had different experiences of Tom. A smart preacher's wife stays close to her husband while he's working and gets to know people in her own home. To give your husband too much freedom, some would say trust, is asking for trouble. A man has to decide if he wants to be married to an all-trusting "mother" (read his sermons) or someone who sees him as a sexy man. So this is a HUGE surprise to the married people, probably less so to some single ones. A man has to decide how hard he wants to "work" to keep his wife and a woman her husband. Stay slim, exercise together, do things together--and stop going on about the grandchildren! Enough already! If Tom and Suzanne aren't "enough" for each other, they will get divorced. If this experience has taught them that they can be "enough" with each other by admitting how they have failed each other, they may stay married.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

to the posting of 6/5 - 7PM
Insurance companies have websites
explaining that the usual response is to blame the minister when they make a mistake like this-when in fact it is the failure of the entire church - ie. education and prevention and a watchful eye.

There are two kinds of people in the world - those who like to tear people down and those who like to build people up.

And what a person says about someone shows what kind they are - the focus is either on good or evil.

To stand up for someone who is under attack is not idol worship.

Tom is not a perfect human being and has admitted to making a mistake in judgement - he is a human being with shortcomings like the rest of us. But he is a very good soul who has helped many and God willing will continue to do so (that is what people are so concerned about). It is hurtful to see this kind of evil happening to someone and see them suffer. But Tom will from this experience be even more helpful to people.

Is that clear now? to those of you who are fixated on the mantra of idol worship?


The reason Joe went ahead with a civil suit is because the results of the investigation done by the church and the insurance company were not what Joe wanted to get - not because they were not true.

the findings were conclusive and showed that nothing really extremely terrible went on. Everything fit together in such a way as to give a great deal of confidence in the findings.

What actually happened - we will not know until the report is given when the legal proceedings are completed.


Regarding Tom and his wife - they are very close as a couple and have become even closer to each other during this ordeal - and that is a fact not conjecture.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

The person who made an attempt at analyzing the Tewell marriage is an amateur psychologist who draws the wrong conclusions mainly due to not understanding the roles of a minister and their spouse.

First of all no one really knows what goes on in a marriage except the two people involved.

Suzanne has been praised over the years many times and appreciated for being very patient and supportive because she allowed Tom time to attend to church matters and members without putting pressure on him. She is a caring and generous person.

Suzanne always appeardd to be very approachable and down to earth with a good word and consistent.
Not some sexy model type. That is what a minister needs as a helpmate one who listens and understands.
Tom knows what a gem he married and how good she has been for him.

Marrieds and singles have different needs and so naturally are ministered to differently.
Just as individuals receive advice tailored to their situation.

Ministers are to serve as role models for members. That is why they talk about their family life and dynamics knowing many people attending come from dysfunctional families and this is helpful for them. It is not about being self absorbed in one's own family and talking too much about it.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

how in the hell do youknow how close tom and suzanne are as a couple?

how do youknow why joe filed the lawsuit?

what about the fact that this has gone on for years?

to say that "nothing terrible" happened is beyond insanity...everything that has happened here is terrible.

if tom and suzanne are so close...why did this happen in the first place? why was she never around at church events or with him on speaking events?

i guess now she will be since they're "so close" and all.

sounds like a bunch a bs to me!

Anonymous · 3 years ago

sorry that you do not want to believe that Tom was not engaged in anything extremely terrible calling that insanity.

Joe is the person who overreacted creating the situation
and is a very confused person
(I am trying to be generous)

He is known to be more of a street fighter type as his style of handling situations.

What is insanity is to believe the allegations made that are so obviously false and intended to destroy Tom's career.

J. C. Samuelson · 3 years ago

It's absolutely ridiculous that so many of Tom Tewell's followers - and you are HIS followers - are here to defend him. The guy fucked up, demonstrating that Christianity changes nothing but perceptions.

Some of the comments are simply outrageous. The sheer volume of nonsensical anonymous postings professing love and admiration for this man precludes addressing them all, but a couple stand out.

"Tom has paid the highest price."

He did!? Where? What price would that be? Loss of credibility? His own fault!

"Tom has paid the ultimate price for his sin..."

Maybe you should go discuss what the "ultimate sacrifice" means with all the fallen heroes in Arlington. You make me fucking sick!

"...explaining that the usual response is to blame the minister when they make a mistake like this-when in fact it is the failure of the entire church - ie. education and prevention and a watchful eye."

When does it become the responsibility of the individual? Whatever happened to the professed Christian ideal of accountability, huh? Out the fucking door when it's someone you like on the chopping block, isn't it?

Incidentally, for all you Christians who came here to post you should know that the reason for posting news items like this is to point out that your religion changes nothing. Thousands of priests throughout history have professed their faith, only to succumb to human failings anyway.

All these nuts who showed up got my panties in a bunch, sorry.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

how can the allegations be so "obviously false" the only person who destroyed tom tewell's career is tom tewell.

if joe is the street fighter that you say he is then why didn't he just beat the shit out of tewell?
i seem to remeber that he taught sunday school and served on committees at the church. he and tom were even friends at one point.

you seem to be the one who is confused.

Wondering · 3 years ago

Of course in the end it was Tom's fault. He would tell you that. Of couse he is telling people (and you, I guess) that his marriage is "stronger." Men never tell the truth about their marriage and he isn't telling you now. Did he tell his pastor pals before and to what. Or stronger compared to what? Maybe it had nowhere to go but up!

His wife can go or stay and she has chosen to stay. In the end it was his choice at what times and where to talk Rachel. How much did the church help Suzanne by telling her how serious an infraction "helping" a seminarian could turn into? Or did she just choose to treat him like a boy with his toys, women who adored him, sports, and had given up giving him a bottom line. FAPC members don't really care about their marriage. We wanted to hear him preach and that she couldn't control him so that continued to happen doesn't help us. Or is his quitting and the investigation not related to each other? And Joe couldn't control his wife either. So, everyone got to be "right." This seminarian is no longer on the "Tom team," as she was regarded negatively for being a married mother who got herself into this situation, as did he, no matter how "similar" their accounts. So, for those wondering, yes, it cuts both ways!.

But no one has commented on the reason he quit FAPC as of Nov 20, 2006 (the letter of Nov 3), and for such a minor infraction--as it is--why not just stay and wait it out? But it is easier to just quit and start over, perhaps, then deal with whatever the real problem--having NOTHING to do with the Viones--he was having with the church in the first place. Just to quit--does seem like a macho thing to do? Hardly.

No one has come up with a good reason why he quit, and it certainly wasn't about a woman he didn't want.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

A person who responds to an assault by filing an assault charge would find themselves in criminal court and maybe that is why you haven't read anything along those lines because maybe that option was considered and dropped rather than there was NO cause. And some people choose to respond to fists with words. And then when is it "assault?" Just more we don't know.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

what do you mean by friends?
Joe was active enough and so that was appreciated by Tom certainly.
But Joe never "got it" about being a Christian - he was a doer without understanding what it is all about.

Doing something borderline wrong is not a career destroyer - if it was then we all would be in trouble career wise wouldn't we.

It is Joe's false accusations
designed to destroy Tom's career that are the problem. And his determination to blame Tom for his marital situation. It is easier to focus on someone else that to do the hard work of looking at oneself
and this will in time backfire on Joe badly.

Since Tom has such a legacy of being a minister who makes a difference in people's lives then
his career is not destroyed.
In fact he will be a better minister for having gone through this because of his attitude of learning from his mistake which was one of poor judgement. (not out of control as some postings suggest that Suzanne did not know where her husband was or give her consent to meeting with Rachel).

Malcom Forbes said it best : a mistake is success when we learn from it.

The point about Suzanne is that she did not hamper Tom from giving of himself to the needs of the church which is unusual when one considers how much time he gave!

And was herself very approachable on Sundays to talk to.
If Tom needed her at a certain function - she was there for him as a supportive presence.

And you know what? In the end after a time the Tewells will end up at a very fortunate church indeed. It was time for Tom to be in a smaller medium sized church where there is less intensity because of NYC and people with agendas - although he would rather have left under better circumstances.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

If one takes a vow as a clergy; or a husband, one has taken on certain obligations. At some point it isn't about interpretation but about fact.
He let down the church and his wife, and maybe if R hadn't met him, that marriage would have survived for their children. But no. Many 1000s of people spent many hours thinking about this--and for what?

preacherman · 3 years ago

I am a Presbyterian minister, Tom's age, and a graduate of Princeton Seminary, although I wasn't there the same time he was. I've known of his unusual skills for years, and have met him, although I wouldn't even call myself an acquaintance of his, much less a friend. After visiting this site for awhile (it is, interestingly, the only place I know of where news and discussion of this case can be found) I have become more and more distressed to learn that people like Tom and I are liars and charlatans who routinely manipulate people and try to convince them to believe in a lot of nonsensical crap, all for our own advantage. Maybe this is a surprise to me because, frankly, I haven't noticed all that many advantages to being a minister. Becoming a minister - a Presbyterian one, anyway - requires a long, rigorous, expensive process, after which most of us will never earn much more than an entry-level income. And it's a pretty tough job. If my information is correct, about half of us who enter the pastoral ministry don't survive in it beyond the first five years. Whatever else there is to say about them or what they believe, Christians can be a tough bunch to work for. Presbyterian-type Christians, anyway. There may be a few - like, maybe, Tom - who make incomes well above-average and who are idolized, put on pedestals, etc., but that's not the real world for most of us.

So, if we don't really get all the goodies we're supposed to get, why do we do it? I would say that most of us (and it's oly my opinion, I might be wrong) are not actually doing it so we can perpetuate a certain mythology or defend an outdated cosmology. I would say that, when all is said and done, we do what we do because we respect the tradition, because we actually believe it represents the "best" in the human spirit, because we believe that if people actually would follow the teachings of Jesus we probably could build the kind of world that we all, deep down, yearn to live in - a world of mutual respect, a world where the needs of all are taken seriously, a world of peace. We also realize that to believe this is kind of funny. Maybe even kind of pathetic. Because it doesn't represent the real world. Because the church often seems to be wroking for the other side. Nobody follows Jesus - not the church, not even we preachers. We keep at it because whether we like it or not we're idealists. It is an idealism, though, mixed with far more doubt and ambiguity than certainty. It has occurred to me since visiting this site that what we preachers actually aspire to is atheism. Then we could finally have the certainty we've wished for all along, being sure that everyone who didn't agree with us were complete nincompoops, and we would finally have the courage to speak boldly enough to simply lay the truth on the line - the truth that anyone with a different belief system than ours are simply fools.

I don't know what Tom Tewell did with Mrs. Vione or any other woman other than his wife. What I do know is that there is nothing particularly special about him, or me, or any other minister. We're just people, just like everybody else. And, just like everybody else, sometimes our religious convictions lead us to be "better" than we might otherwise be, and sometimes they don't. Where we are different is that by becoming ministers we have put ourselves in a situation where our indiscretions can be much more destructive than they might otherwise be. And we open ourselves up to far harsher criticism when our indiscretions become public.

There is nothing to be gained at this point, I don't think, from defending or criticizing anyone involved. Perhaps at this point this whole episode has become nothing more than a very sad story, one with no winners. FAPC and it's members have lost a lot - not only a fine minister, but also much of their hope for a productive ministry anytime in the near future. The Vione's as a family unit are, no doubt, shattered beyond repair. Their kids will probably have to carry the burden of this scandal all their lives. Even if Tom and Suzanne do salvage their marriage, well, it will be under a shadow. And even if Tom is completely vindicated, it is very unlikely that his profession will ever again be practiced at the same level of influence and opportunity.

What's all this episode about? At this point, it seems to me, it's all about one thing - sadness.

Moral Observer · 3 years ago

Preacherman: "FAPC and it's members have lost a lot - not only a fine minister, but also much of their hope for a productive ministry anytime in the near future."

Non-productive minister = non-productive ministry. Even the forest rangers know, you have to burn the underbrush every now and again to get the grass to grow back greener.

Preacherman: "The Vione's as a family unit are, no doubt, shattered beyond repair. Their kids will probably have to carry the burden of this scandal all their lives."

However, if this scandal wasn't exposed, the kids, may have lived a life following their fathers' footsteps, perhaps, its a natural blessing, that the children have been exposed to the justice side of such conduct, and are much more capable of making decisions with known, realistic consequences.

Preacherman: "Even if Tom and Suzanne do salvage their marriage, well, it will be under a shadow. And even if Tom is completely vindicated, it is very unlikely that his profession will ever again be practiced at the same level of influence and opportunity."

Lets see, I'm not realigious by a long shot, so forgive me for my heathen comment. Is it possible for Tom to "love" his wife and kids more than his "J.O.B.", and the prestige and influence that comes with the job? It seems Tom, no matter what the outcome, gets to make his decision on his priorities, based on his values. Albeit, his family also gets to decide on his trustworthiness as a father, and who better to make such a decision than those closest to Tom.

If Tom is truly innocent, and he has been a good father, then, Tom only looses a "J.O.B.", as long as his family, being the religiously devout people they are, give him the benefit of doubt based on their knowledge of him. In the wake of such turmoil, losing a job seems almost insignificant, unless the J.O.B., is somehow bigger than his family.

.:webmaster:. · 3 years ago

Preacherman,

You had me listening until you went here: "...aspire to, is atheism. Then we could finally have the certainty we've wished for all along, being sure that everyone who didn't agree with us were complete nincompoops, and we would finally have the courage to speak boldly enough to simply lay the truth on the line - the truth that anyone with a different belief system than ours are simply fools."

And the Bible says: "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no god."

Christianity touts itself as the absolute metaphysical authority—Every knee shall bow!

Do you think Muslims are right or wrong? Do you think Pagans are right or wrong? Do you think animists are right or wrong?

As soon as you point your theological finger at other magical religions and say those religions are false, and the followers destined to an eternity of torturous agony in the fire soaked bowels of hell, well, aren't you more-or-less calling those poor deceived souls something considerably worse than nincompoops? Aren't you calling them "the damned?"

I may think people who believe in talking donkeys; flying fiery chariots; talking snakes; pigs filled with demons; a flying, undead, man-god on a stick; angels, demons, and unicorns; are nincompoops for swallowing such fish stories (insert allusion to Jonah here), but my worldview never threatens them with eternal damnation for harboring those infantile beliefs.

Would I consider such superstitions naive, or even stupid? Absolutely. Would I consider embracing such nonsense as an offense deserving roasting on an everlasting spit? No.

You admitted that preachers are just like any other human. That is the foundational point of this entire article—preachers are no different than any other person in any other job. They are not magically filled with holiness, they should not be worshiped and idolized, and being a church minister is a career choice, like any other. To even hint toward the idea that "preacher" is any more honorable of a life career than "fry cook, lawyer, dancer, acrobat, writer, doctor, housewife, etc.," would be to admit to a definite lack of humbleness. Wouldn't you agree?

I'm always intrigued when posters open their comments be detailing educational credentials. I wonder what exatly that's intended to prove? Are you trying to say that people with Ivy League papers are smarter? Better? More sincere? Able to leap tall buildings with a single bound? Please, don't get me wrong. Education is absolutely essential to success in our society, but acquiring an education is considerably more than attending a school for a few years—any school. Education is a life-long endeavor. I've known entirely too many "titled" individuals who have been quite inept in their chosen fields and quite mentally lazy. Degrees do offer a hopeful beginning, but in the end are just peices of paper. Real education is in the product produced, not in the facts accumulated. As a recently graduated young colleague of mine frankly admitted, "Well, now I know the same as anyone who has read a bunch of books on this subject."

You've chosen religion as your job. Many people honestly think you've made a silly choice. I suggest you get over it.

Dano · 3 years ago

Hey Preacherman!
Anything you can do, or W/M of this site can do, or I can do, or anyone can do, to discredit religion, will help.

The religious crazies have been creating havoc all over the world for a very long time.

Cells of religious zealots are plotting to do damage to our way of life as we speak, because from birth they have been taught that their religion is the "only" true religion, and that we are a Christian Country, and Christians are heathens who want to take over the world (see the Crusades).

They are taught to hate us and anyone else who doesn't adhere their form of religious thought. They are taught to go out into the world and kill and wreak havoc upon all people who will not conform to their way of thinking.

Fundamental Christianity in it's most evangelical form preaches the same thing to it's disciples.

With the advent of the Internet, it is possible for the first time in history to disseminate ideas instantly to millions of people, and "Bloggers" are exposing the sham of religious thought, belief, and practice, at a rate never possible before.

It is virtually impossible today, for a power seeking phony, claiming to speak for God, to gain control over the minds of ordinary folks, like they once could. (God help us if the ever get complete control of the Internet)

So, Preacherman, now that you have come to the realization through the education you have received, here, and Princeton, that all religion is silly "Mind control," and not worthy of killing anybody for, why don't you use your credentials and education, to try help others get out from under the control these fearful death cults?

I don't think we need to be particularly concerned about one lying cheating preacher. They are all over the place!

Dan (Who thinks even an enlightened preacher can make a difference)

.:webmaster:. · 3 years ago

Be sure to check out the update in the orginal post above.

Commentator · 3 years ago

"As far as the civil suit being dismissed (thanks for the link, btw), that proves absolutely nothing about whether the allegations are true or not. All the court dismissal states is that the State of New York does not recognize the allegations as being addressed by any New York law. No law = no crime."

No webmaster, unless today June 8 it was. Only SOME of it was dismissed. That's why Tom's lawyer said he would appeal!

.:webmaster:. · 3 years ago

Thanks for the clarification Commentator.

From "just about had it land" · 3 years ago

The unrelenting gossip by the biddies at FAPC, male and female, stemming from Suzanne's non-appearance at a church event just before 9/11 is how Tom's name has been dragged through the mud since then; nothing to back up their assertions. I'm still a member, but I find it deplorable. And if you read the Post the day after the suit was filed, what was attributed to Rachel is in man's language, being graphic rather than descriptive, and so doesn't have much credibility. More to make a legal case. Or to go fishing, more to the point. That if they accused Tom of something, then would he be take them on? He did! That what was in the letter to the congregation on Nov 3.

Tom did not always remember in his chosen communication style that he was not a "good old boy" in NYC, as a minister is not (no matter where), but that is a far cry from what he has been accused of doing.

No Accounting for Taste · 3 years ago

The June 8 mtg "to be" was not.
And now nothing in the judge's chambers until after 4th of July. Unless they decide to make the plaintiff a GAM (go-away money) offer. But to do that would lessen the dramatic potential of having the suit be dismissed. Which it may not be. And who will earn a paycheck if there is no end in sight? We know. The lawyers. And awards are taxable, too.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

since there was definitely no marital counseling given and this is what Joe's case is built on

This vicious attempt will eventually collapse like a house of cards according to a very credible source close to the situation since all that needs to be shown is that there was no counseling just referral to existing church programs.

Joe and his lawyers are counting on the Insurance Company to buckle and settle giving him money
by putting in more false accusations in the newspaper that there were other women Tom couseled taking advantage of them.

Joe, how low can you stoop before it starts to destroy both you and your family !!

Joe will do anything to satisfy his misguided desire for revenge and money which is encouraged by greedy lawyers. He is not a well man.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

Preacherman,
Since you do not know Tom at all
why speculate? Crises tend to bring families closer together
as is the case with the Tewell family and it has made Tom and Suzanne closer by holding onto each other through this.
And what about crises being an opportunity for growth ?? This will only serve to deepen Tom spiritually not undo him which is what trials do.
Tom was ready to make a move out of NYC to a smaller church where he would have more time for his family and to write and teach as he enjoys the academic world.


You are right on one point only in that ministers if they make the slightest indiscretion (as what happened with tom last winter by mentoring Rachel before graduation)
then as Tom also mentioned in a sermon, the church tends to shoot its wounded where Tom told of how the minister became a better person for it.

The most important goal in life is to become more like Jesus
isn't it !! And that is what trials are allowed for !!

Firefighter · 3 years ago

Those talking to the Tewells, were talking to them before this happened, and did you suspect how bad things could get? No. Tom did NOT confide in you, did he?
Reading the Nov 3 letter tells why.
The plaintiff's wife was a "nothing" in his scheme of things, and her subsequent reactions confirm that she knew that well. Still, you don't know how "close" Tom and Suzanne were before this happened. Or were not.

Ironic that last night at FAPC we heard a song from the movie and musical "The Music Man," but it wasn't "We've Got Trouble...Right Here in River City [East River, Hudson River.] Because do Tom's imperfections matter if you got something from church--if not--why did you stay?

Observe and listen really closely to their conversation those of you who actually are talking to them. Look at where the concern is being placed.

What he put at risk: his wife, his family (adult sons), his reputation and his career. But maybe this was his "fire" way of cleaning up his "house." But that's why people have "inner" drives. They can't tell you "why."

One also has to wonder about the assoc pastors' vows at FAPC. Not very helpful or alert not to step in. Now an assoc pastor has quit, and not for another job. But as people go a bit "off" you can see the loss of their "perfect" demeanor, so let's just say the firestorm is sweeping through FAPC.

From "Just about had it land" · 3 years ago

In the Nov 3 letter to the congregation Tom said in essence, "PROVE IT" to his accuser, less than one week after the civil suit was filed. And so far nothing has come out from the plaintiffs, who do have the newspapers' ears. So seems like he called their bluff. If nothing happened, you can't prove something did, the point of the letter.

But these things have a way of fading away. In NYC people are confusing him with the Roman Catholic priest/secretary story.

Search for Tomorrow · 3 years ago

The FOMA (Freedom of Information Act) of years ago means that states now have public websites to follow along on court cases or check histories of people you are going to hire, or marry, for example, so readers, go to www.nycourts.gov/home.htm then "e-court" at the bottom, "civil" court cases then VIONE as the plaintiff. You can read all the documents as they are scanned and see the progress of the divorce case of the plaintiff. And it has escaped no one that only the husband is suing, and once he is divorced, any award would go to him alone (and his lawyer), unless it's covered in the divorce decree.

Divorce papers are not public documents, just the meetings, one of which was covered in the Post in 2005.

And the timing of the newspaper stories in May suggests that the papers are using those as their source. And the stories are appearing after the online doc appears, several days after the decision was handed down by the judge. So now no one need think anyone is being denied access to the information our Federal Government has been letting us have for years! Ah Internet! And you can look up your own clergy (or anyone) in your state by "state name" + court on google and seeing what pops up. Or maybe just replacing "NY" with the postal 2-letter state abbreviation in the URL above. In any case, anyone can write anything in a suit--it opens you up to a countersuit if you have no evidence to back you up.

So we can blog before the papers publish!
Happy hunting.

Search for tomorrow · 3 years ago

FOIA...Freedom of Information Act

http://www.gwu.edu/
~nsarchiv/nsa/
foia.htmlhttp:
//www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/
nsa/foia.html

And after 9/11, some docs that were public no longer are, since it made no sense to put public buildings blueprints online, for example as an educational tool when our buildings were attacked.

Search for Tomorrow · 3 years ago

Divorce meeting "dates" are public; not the content.

FAPC member · 3 years ago

6/06/06 4:06 "even a friend." is exactly the error Tom made in suggesting in his letters to the congregation that this was possible or desirable. Ministers minister and they are not "friends"; right out of the ethics of the profession and "best practices."

Being outside the church with one person alone for any reason, or too much time spent--are both possibilities for "charges" in a church setting, and gender doesn't matter as far as church charges go.

Tom's Nov 3, 2005 resignation letter said "boundaries" was a problem as a lesson learned.

The church has probably incurred a cost of over one million dollars now--in lost pledges and attorneys fees. Or it will, eventually.

So congregations need to learn what's involved. It is really easy to pin it all on this minister, but the reality is we just hired another empty-nester and can anyone recite the lessons learned to him? Doubtful, since people still don't get that "the minister is always wrong," and we can't afford too much more "non-prevention."

Follow-up Agreer · 3 years ago

Anonymous wrote:

That is for sure:
-------------------------------

to say that "nothing terrible" happened is beyond insanity...everything that has happened here is terrible.
------------------------------
Exactly my point!
------------------------------
if tom and suzanne are so close...why did this happen in the first place? why was she never around at church events or with him on speaking events?

posted: 6/06/2006 3:22 PM EST

Re: Infants Terrible · 3 years ago

Tom got a lot of approval from people at FAPC; did Suzanne give him the same in recent years? It's not like we're guessing now: We have the newspaper stories, the PBS TV interview "Churches in Trauma" with acting head of staff, suits in two places--civil and church--and an empty pulpit. You can't expect a man with all that he got from the congregation not to expect to have the wife he supports at least as admiring of him. But she had to be "on" all the time with him, we not so much.

Do we want to be put in our place by our spouses--or get support?

How many women would put on a party dress to be by his side if that was requested? Work may mean more to him than extra women, but that didn't mean he was happy at home. Not being forthright about his issues with his wife or a therapist meant he had a small infraction rather than something big, but for all the harm it did to the church, he might as well have had a harem he flew to Paris with on Mondays.

So, it was his problems that opened the door.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

Who said, "it's words?" But he has a presence, and if that is helpful, why judge?

The past is past. In civil court everyone shares the relevant facts with the other side.

I agree with you, webmaster, that there is a range of trust from none to 100% and the 100%ers have a different relationship to understanding factual reality than the rest of us.

People in public are "public." But it is amazing the amount of denial this has evinced, and I am one of his more ardent fans in thinking he can pull himself out of this and move forward. We're all only guessing. Up to him.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

Ben,
How do you live day to day? Do you have any friends? Do you ever smile or laugh? You seem so full of hate. Heck, the great thing about America is you are allowed to express that hate. I just hope you are not married and reproducing any children to pass along the hate. You scare me- more than the boogie man scares me.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

I wish there was an alternate forum whereas to express concern for Tom and his family (and/or Rachel and Joseph as the case may be) and to get updates about the situation in general. I am a memeber of FAPC and I am so sad as to what this has done to the church and to many people who go there.

I try to make no judgments about the previous post nor of the person who penned it but let's just say that that I won't be catching a Yankees game with him any time soon. Wow, what anger! And after I read his derisive posts, I just want to take a long, hot shower. I am so glad that I do not know this man.

Any update on Tom? Any other site where information on Dr. Tewell & family can be had?

Friend of Tom

Info seeker · 3 years ago

I suggest that some bold FAPC members organize a meeting where we can share concerns and facts. Blogs are public.

Are you a techie? The Tewells are living a private now. The Tewells are no longer part of FAPC, position: private citizens, so no information is given us. The public nature of this blog/any blog means that anything we are too factual we are reluctant to post. The Presbtytery will make a decision Sept 06 at least. Then after he finds another church we will know about it. Go to www.google.com and put in an "alert" for "Tewell" and you will find any public info, and some, but not all of the newspaper stories. When the stories are too small in the Post, they don't make the alert. You'll get some "Doug Tewell" (pro golfer) articles, but most will appear.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

to the person who keeps using the word "blog" you obviously have an issue with unresolved anger that Tom has departed and are needing to point the finger at his wife.

It is clear to others that people who talk this way show they have their own issues which are projected onto others.

And to say that you understand the dynamics of their marriage is unbelievable as to be ridiculous.
No one except the people involved know.

Suzanne was a supportive wife and a very approachable person at church and as such a very good wife for a minister to have.
Every church they have been with have absolutely grateful she was there.

New Yorker · 3 years ago

To Friend of Tom and others: I happened to speak with two old and very close friends of the Tewells recently. Quite independently of each other, they report that Tom is “very well”…and they really sound like they mean it. Of course it could be that Tom and Suzanne are just relieved to put New York City behind them, but I do sense it is much more than that. Tom was always a forward-looking fellow (“with great anticipation” was a favorite phrase of his), and he is eager to begin his new work in non-profit fundraising. Beyond that, Tom seems able to “wait on the Lord” even through what now seems like interminable litigation and to go to work with trust and hope (and maybe even joy). We should be grateful for God’s grace here! I don’t know more than that, but perhaps we should see it as inspiring as any sermon.

Bentley · 3 years ago

Yes there's certainly a lesson be be learned here!

Whenever a preacher gets up in front of his flock and preaches against adultery and sin for 20 or 30 years and then commits those same sins, we must quickly forgive him and not judge him, because we are all made of flesh and we all fall short of the glory of god, we must never condemn him because he was sent directly from God to preach the holey wird and to bilk you stupid fools out of your money.

But it's more important that we believe in a fairytale that was told to us by our parents, than to question the selfrighteous quacks that are for some reason allowed to preach their insane nonsense in America.

Why do we allow such filthy ignorant nonsense to be preached in America in 2006?

Can anyone answer this question?

New Yorker · 3 years ago

Ben, He didn't commit adultery or anything close to it, so Tom Tewell is not exactly a good example for your point. Some of us do know that (we are familiar with the results of the investigation), others suspect that something "smells" in this case, and still others believe in waiting for justice to take its course. So, pick on someone else, that's all.

.:webmaster:. · 3 years ago

"...not exactly a good example..."

Close, but not exactly. In fact, very close, but not exactly. In fact, "TOUCH NOT MINE ANOINTED!"

Got it.

Bentley · 3 years ago

New York Loony said;

" others suspect that something "smells" in this case, and still others believe in waiting for justice to take its course."

Could it be " a Sin?"

If something smells, and he voluntarly left the church, surely it could not be a "Sin"

Why else would the retard resign?
Because of "sin"?

No not this puritan! he is faultless in the eyes of his flock.

No Christian can commit a sin, but if they do, they can play the Jesus get out of Hell free card!

All you FABC members are all a bunch of brainwashed idiots.

Why not just admit you've all been taken to the cleaners, it's so obvious to any of us here.

Bentley · 3 years ago

FAPC, whatever! it's all the same1

California girl · 3 years ago

"Doing well" is the party line.

The people who see them on a daily basis through this saw some other feelings...so they said.

How this can be easy? Not!

A manly man with a boyish side...well he's taken.

PNP · 3 years ago

cynicism is the refuge of the emotionally broken

.:webmaster:. · 3 years ago

And rabid dogmatic loyality is the refuge of the willingly blind.

PNP · 3 years ago

From the last 6 months of rantings, it doesn't appear that you know the difference...there is a nuance here, and some obviously have strayed into the area you describe, but your anger towards Christ (or is it the "church"?) would still be there whether some pastor in Manhattan committed adultery or not.

Hope takes guts...

PNP · 3 years ago

There is a difference between the two...you know...between rabid loyalty and cynicism...your rantings of the last 6 months demonstrate that you're obviously in that angry camp of cynics.

There are several posters here (or are they poseurs?) who are of the "shiny happy" camp you obviously fear (for some reason)...but others are not.

I usually see Christians as being those who can't appreciate nuance in life, but atheists can be just as bad...

Hope takes guts.

California girl · 3 years ago

Nuance is all, I agree with you.

Tom preached hope and maybe he needed to step back and understand reality more.

That said, at FAPC we miss his brand of hope. And wish he could have toed the line.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

From my experience the ministers a person can look to as good examples are the ones who are ready to admit that they do not have it all together - that they have stumbled and how they have matured. These are the people with mature understandings. Tom preached a sermon - Be patient with me - Jesus is not finished with me yet.

Christians know that they are not perfect but they are forgiven.
That is the good news for everyone!

So when an atheist rants on about ministers being hypocrites - the ones who put on a show that they have it all together - i agree !!

PNP · 3 years ago

Don't get me wrong...I hope justice is done here. And if that means having to pay out the full $6MM and the rest of it, then so be it - let this serve as a lesson to all who are in authority - religious or not.

I've known Tom for 25 years, and the webmastah has a point regarding his cult of personality concerns. People in my own family (and many others I know personally) have come to value the messenger more than the message in Tom's case. Your comment about Tom's "brand of hope" makes me a little nervous.

There is only one brand of true hope and it comes from Him...not him(I'm guessing that's what you probably meant).

What I have little time for (OK, I've got a few minutes) are people like the webmastah who pimp personal tragedies like this one only to support their previously held hatred of the faith. It allows them to avoid the central, brutally difficult questions that religion pose.

Christ's question of Peter ("Who do you say I am?") is the most penetrating question ever posed. The answer to it (whichever answer) has changed lives, civilizations, and the course of human history. Allowing the actions of a pastor to avoid the necessary wrestling with its eternal significance is understandable, but tragic.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

yes Tom was the messenger and he had a gift for validation of people and strengthening them through his unconditional acceptance. But that is so true that there were too many people who were immature who wanted to focus on Tom but that does not take away from the fact that Tom helped a great number of people.

Joe really has no case here since there was no marriage counseling
just referral to existing church programs. There was not an affair (no evidence of at all)as Joe asserts since he has need to blame someone for his marriage falling apart that he boasted about many times at church and so He did not like the investigation results. Joe is in need of money to finance his divorce as his financial situtation resulted in a lien on the house for nonpayment of taxes.

.:webmaster:. · 3 years ago

"What I have little time for...are people like the webmastah who pimp personal tragedies like this one only to support their previously held hatred of the faith."

PIMP? So I'm getting paid for this? So allowing comments from news articles published in public papers is promoting prostitution? So pointing out that Christianity and its associated claims of magical transformation by an indwelling Holy Spirit give all the appearance of gross charlatanism is the same as whoring out innocents against their will?

Hmm... Interesting attempt at analogy — humorous too, thanks.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

As long as people can use the word God, to justify every crime that a preacher or christian commits, a preacher nor a christian can ever do any wrong.

A christian is not perfect, just saved!

By saying such nonsense, says that God is the ultimate authority above the laws of the land, and man may not necessarly abide by the laws of the land, thereby only having to answer to his imaginary god.

How convenient!!!

Brutal Questions? Nope! · 3 years ago

PNP: "It allows them to avoid the central, brutally difficult questions that religion pose."

Just because religions pose questions, doesn't mean that the questions are valid, especially for a question posed with the presupposition of a transcendent reality, where no answers can possibly be gleaned. On my weighted scale for valid questions, that rates a "zero" weight, as "nothing" other than information about the messenger can really be useful in any useful manner.

PNP · 3 years ago

Great...I'll take you both on...

Webmaster:

You atheists are so literal...I remember those days...life was so simple then...a black and white world...human/good - religion/bad...no spiritual dimension to life. Life on the "blue pill"...Christianity's a hoax...I mean, after all, look at what Christ got out of it...a big mansion...babes...uh...

well, look what the disciples got out of it...fame...fortune...uh...er

do you know where the word "martyr" comes from, webmaster?

Now to you "Brutal questions"...

My weighted scale happens to go to 11. And, in the immortal words of that great rocker, Geddy Lee (Rush): "those who choose not to decide you still have made a choice." To follow that song ahead (if you're not familiar), Geddy chooses free will. I believe in free will too, but I've also come to see first hand that there is a spiritual dimension to this life of ours, and after many years of avoiding Christ's question, I finally came to a place where I could no longer run. In that moment I turned and bent my knee...

boomSLANG · 3 years ago

Faith is cold as ice--
Why are little ones born only to suffer
For the want of immunity
Or a bowl of rice?
Well, who would hold a price
On the heads of the innocent children
If there's some immortal power
to control the dice? ~ Rush(the same band)

Quote: "You atheists are so literal..."

Firstly, we're not all Atheists. Secondly, being an Atheist myself, I'll tell you that, yes, I'm literal when it comes to the postion of neutrality. But of course, Christians and other religionists are literal too---they "literally" believe they have a monopoly on THEIR god, and all others are false; they have "Faith" in THEIR "God", but they claim absolute knowledge that they worship the "right" one, and are "literal" in telling all others that they're wrong.

Quote: "I remember those days..."

LOL! Of course you do, we are all born without the belief in gods(Atheist).I love it when religionists pull this one.

Quote: "but I've also come to see first hand that there's a spiritual dimension to this life of ours..."

I would contend that, no, you have not seen any such thing---other than in your own mind. You would have to BE supernatural to experience the supernatural; you would have to BE omniscient to know if an omniscient deity exists.

Quote: "..and after many years of avoiding Christ's question..."

What about Mohammad's question?...Buddha's?...Toth's?

Quote: "I finally came to a place where I could no longer run.."

You're running from yourself, and the fear of your own non-existance. The "Kingdom" is within you.

Quote: "In that moment I turned and bent my knee..."

That's lovely, but in doing so, you closed your eyes.

.:webmaster:. · 3 years ago

"Webmaster:

You atheists are so literal..."

So your use of the word Pimp was metaphysical?

I'm too literal? Are you, someone touting the unalterable, eternal, literal, unbending, Word of Deity, suggesting that I become more metaphorical?

I'm guessing here that you mean literal martyrs. I'm not sure I could relate to a phantasmagorical interpretation of the word martyr, but I suppose I'm willing to explore that possibility.

Well, regardless, could you please provide the individual histories of the early apostles and how they were martyred? Please avoid using hearsay reports gleaned from writings developed generations after their departure from history. Please provide reliable historical documentation.

Then, assuming you can find such documentation, let's talk about the Buddhist, Jewish, Mormon, Protestant, Catholic and Muslim martyrs of the last 2000 years.

Then, after we've discussed all that data, you can explain how martyrdom is evidential proof of ultimate spiritual truth.

Brutal Questions? Nope! · 3 years ago

PNP: "My weighted scale happens to go to 11."

You're obviously not into a cohesive reality. Here let me try to ask you a "Brutal Question". How old is the toothe fairy? How old is Santa Clause? How old do elves live to be? There is your weighted scaled questions, I hope the answers you receive really help you out in life. Personally, those asnwers have "zero" meaning in my life, along with questions about supernatural "gods".

PNP: "And, in the immortal words of that great rocker, Geddy Lee (Rush): "those who choose not to decide you still have made a choice."

Don't misunderstand me, I have made a choice. The reasons behind your questions, are faulty according to my logic. I decided that long ago, the only valid questions are the ones based on sound reasoning. You have made a choice, its to ask questions based on faulty reasoning, and because you have made that decision, you will never find answers, to each their own. I don't like my mind running in the hobby-trail hamster wheel, but, then, I have met many christians who reason as well as hamsters.

PNP: "To follow that song ahead (if you're not familiar), Geddy chooses free will. I believe in free will too,"

That's an absolute, well, lets see. Did you have free will to be born? No? Then it was "determined" beyond your control, thus determinism. Perhaps as you gain autonomy and awareness in your environment, and finally become capable of releasing yourself from dogmatic assumptions, you will realize you have choices in life. However, even those choices are limited based on your level of awareness and environment, of which, is "determined" as well, beyond your control. Your "free will", is only as free as Nature allows you, period. And, at birth, Nature gives you a big fat "zero" there, your range of freedom potentially increases from there.

PNP: "...but I've also come to see first hand that there is a spiritual dimension to this life of ours, and after many years of avoiding Christ's question,"

And, what is this question, and where did you get the question from? A person? Are they also able to be influenced by Satan? Yes, according to your belief. Then another persons' statement is prone to Satanic influence, even the information about Christ.

PNP: "I finally came to a place where I could no longer run. In that moment I turned and bent my knee..."

You finally came to a place, where your questions overwhelmed the answers in your life, and instead of you working through the underlying "reasoning" behind the questions, you found it easier to just give up.

"I'd rather die on my feet, than live on my knees"--Zapata

PNP · 3 years ago

Hey boomslang...if that is somehow connected to your real name...what I meant by "pimp" (do I really need to explain this) was simply to connote what it means when someone uses the personal tragedy of others only to make a point...there's no real caring or compassion for the others, just using it for their own gain...in this case, rhetorical gain...p-i-m-p...pimp

"they "literally" believe they have a monopoly on THEIR god, and all others are false; they have "Faith" in THEIR "God"...

of course Christians literally believe that...just like Atheists literally don't believe it...you have your belief system...make no mistake, Atheism is a religion.

"I would contend that, no, you have not seen any such thing---other than in your own mind. You would have to BE supernatural to experience the supernatural; you would have to BE omniscient to know if an omniscient deity exists."

Now you're really straying into areas (in this case my life) in which you have NO knowledge. I'm not going to pretend to know why you're an Atheist (although I've been a non-believer myself and have known many Atheists), don't pretend to know my reasons.

Your point about having to be omniscient to know one makes absolutely no sense. When one comes into contact with events/people/literature that speak to him/her in inexplicable ways that doesn't mean that they're omniscient it means that there are times in life when all logic and reason fail. The apostles weren't omniscient...they were living regular lives as fishermen, tax collectors, leather workers, etc., but they came into contact with a person that completely changed there lives by saying and doing extra-ordinary things. They simply became "witnesses" of what they saw...of diseases healed, eyes opened etc...

"What about Mohammad's question?...Buddha's?...Toth's?"

EXCELLENT POINT...boomslang...rather than dismissively throw these questions down, why don't we try to answer them. Now we know from comparative sripture reading (Bible v. Koran, etc.) that only Christ proclaims himself to be part of the Trinity - part man, part divine. And proved this divinity (although you certainly don't have to believe it) through miraculous acts. So when Christ acts Peter the question, he responds by saying he is God. Does Muhammad, Buddha, anyone else make such outrageous claims? If you asked Muhammad if he was God he would have cut your head off for he saw himself as the first among prophets. If you asked Buddha if he was God he would not know what you're talking about because Buddhism is a personal search for self-realization.

"You're running from yourself, and the fear of your own non-existance. The "Kingdom" is within you."

Kingdom is within me? easy boomslang...now who's got a God-complex...time to step away from the incense my friend. Are you trying to convert me or something???

"That's lovely, but in doing so, you closed your eyes."

Once again...you have no clue how I came to my faith...I can guaran-dam-tee you I wasn't born with it and I wasn't raised in it. My eyes were closed for 25 years until they were opened and believe me when I tell you...I can tell the difference.

Without getting in to all the gory details, what I learned, lo those 15 years ago is that there are 2 types of people in the world...those who've had their asses kicked...and those who haven't had their asses kicked yet. And for those who have been slapped around there are 2 responses...close your heart and your mind...or open them both...as I said earlier...after much reflection...Christianity is the red pill...

Brutal Questions? Nope! · 3 years ago

PNP: "of course Christians literally believe that...just like Atheists literally don't believe it...you have your belief system...make no mistake, Atheism is a religion."

Actually, Atheism is reasoned differently by different people, with a common result being, no belief in a supernatural deity in control over human destiny, etc.

I am an Atheist, because the term supernatural god, is created based on natural terms. Its not only that I don't believe that your god doesn't exist, I don't believe the noun "god", has any definitive meaning or underlying substance to validate it as an object worthy of discussion. What we have, is a "hypothetical" noun, used in language. I tend to not talk to the imaginary stuff.

Religion: "A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny;"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

I don't believe in the term "god", that's totally based on logic, and is not a "religion", unless you are going to say "logic" is a religion, and then, I suppose to you, "everything" is a religion, becuase of your inability to see anything in life other than your biased religion glasses.

Dano · 3 years ago

Brutal Questions? Nope! wrote:
"I am an Atheist, because the term supernatural god, is created based on natural terms. Its not only that I don't believe that your god doesn't exist, I don't believe the noun "god", has any definitive meaning or underlying substance to validate it as an object worthy of discussion. What we have, is a "hypothetical" noun, used in language. I tend to not talk to the imaginary stuff"

Religion: "A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny;"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

I don't believe in the term "god", that's totally based on logic, and is not a "religion", unless you are going to say "logic" is a religion, and then, I suppose to you, "everything" is a religion, becuase of your inability to see anything in life other than your biased religion glasses

Dan here!, Brutal Questions? Nope!
I like the way you answer brutal questions with such ease and fluid logic.

I pronounce you the winner of the Darwinian contest of natural selection, over PNP. He gave his heart and mind and soul to imaginary stuff, and you have kept yours, and seem to have no problem answering his questions, while staying true to your religion of logicism.

Here's hoping that the "NOUN" will bless you with a lot of children, and PNP will come back and try living here on earth again. You demonstrate how easy it is to live this life and not sell out to a death cult.

Dan (Agnostic, who questions: Why believe in a "NOUN?")

.:webmaster:. · 3 years ago

PNP: "The brutal tragedy of others for rhetorical gain?"

Do you mean that the pastor being caught on camera coming out of a motel with a pretty woman (not his wife) is a personal tragedy, and people shouldn't talk about that?

He's a religious leader that teaches against such behavior, and he was caught.

I suppose if a pastor were to be caught shoplifting, or peeking in windows, or flashing, or beating children, or beating his wife, or shouting obscenities and flipping the bird in traffic, or visiting prostitutes, or caught lying, etc., then that too would be a personal tragedy people should ignore, or at least not talk about?

Anyway, you made a snide martyr comment, a comment I assumed was intended to prove that Christianity is true. You haven't answered my post in response to that comment, and I'm really interested in reading it. Here is my comment again, for your convenience:

"Well, regardless, could you please provide the individual histories of the early apostles and how they were martyred? Please avoid using hearsay reports gleaned from writings developed generations after their departure from history. Please provide reliable historical documentation.

Then, assuming you can find such documentation, let's talk about the Buddhist, Jewish, Mormon, Protestant, Catholic and Muslim martyrs of the last 2000 years.

Then, after we've discussed all that data, you can explain how martyrdom is evidential proof of ultimate spiritual truth."

PNP, you and the other faithful posters on this topic really have hero worship confused with religious devotion. It's a normal human failing, one repeated over and over in history. When the worshiped hero is excused for improper behavior, that's when such fanatical loyalty can become dangerous. Hitler was quite the charismatic speaker, quite the hero. Osama has a pretty devoted following. Even Bush still has his core dogmatic faithful.

Be careful to whom you surrender your mind.

boomSLANG · 3 years ago

PNP said: "Hey boomslang...if that is somehow connected to your real name...what I meant by 'pimp'(do I really need to explain this)"

Actually, no, you don't need to explain it, and honestly, I really don't give a rat's ass what you meant by it, as I never mentioned the word, or inquired about anyone's use of the word "pimp". And no, "boomslang" is not connected to my real name, just like your bringing up the subject is not "connected" to anything relevant.

PNP said: "...you have your belief system...make no mistake, Atheism is a religion."

Typical fundy tripe. Atheism, again, means not having a belief in gods. If a person doesn't have a belief in the Tooth fairy, are they part of a "religion"? Do they gather in buildings, hold hands, and sing cute little songs about the Toothfairy NOT existing? Do they tell you that if you don't believe that the Tooth fairy doesn't exisit, that you will burn in some imaginary place? Completely assinine assertion, but yet, not completely suprising.

PNP said: "They simply became 'witnesses' of what they saw...diseases healed, eye opened etc..."

*But of course, YOU didn't see jack sh*t, did you? No---so you rely on "Faith" that this all happened---just like your christian hand-book tells you to do. And that's all peachy, but of course, if you rely on "faith", then this is an admition that you do not, and CANNOT, "know", with any degree of certainty, that what the bible tells you is absolutely true. Subsequently, if, by definition, one does not "know" that Christianity is a "truth", then they are agnostic, at best. Conversely, if one claims(falsely) to "know" that what the christian hand-book says is absolutely true, then they negate "faith" in it's fundamental(pun intended) sense, and in doing so, they go against what the bible teaches.(take a fire resistant suit. LMAO)

PNP said: "..only Christ proclaims himself to be part of the Trinity - part man, part divine. And proved this divinity through miraculous acts."

Christians claim that their christ is 100% man; 100% god. This is one of the many contradictions within christianity. It fails both in reality, and even in concept. A "square circle" comes to mind. As far as "proved his divinity", please find and re-read here *.(above)


BTW, when I said "the 'Kingdom' is within you", I didn't mention a "God", but funny how you, being infected with your religious meme, ass-umed I was relating it to something "divine". Afterall, I wasn't being "literal" when I used the word "Kingdom" = )

God 'less.

PNP · 3 years ago

What a great day! The US gets an important tie in the World Cup, Mickelson is in a tie for the lead for the Open and we just got back from Prairie Home Companio - great movie...now to some of the earlier points:

PNP: "My weighted scale happens to go to 11."
boomslang: :"You're obviously not into a cohesive reality..."

Now boomslang if you cann't get my "Spinal Tap" reference here, I'm not sure we can continue a dialog...but, I'll try...

boomslang: "You finally came to a place, where your questions overwhelmed the answers in your life, and instead of you working through the underlying "reasoning" behind the questions, you found it easier to just give up."

I'm not sure what you mean by "give up"...the only faith worth having is one that is constantly questioned and tested - and mine is no different. But the Christian faith (unlike Buddhism and many of the eastern religions) is a relational faith where like any deep relationship you come to a point where you're asked a question..."who do you say I am?" is the one Christianity asks. Once committed to it this doesn't mean that you stop questioning or testing, but you you say...as in a marriage, which is the central relationship analogy used in Scripture..."'til death do us part". This doesn't mean that there aren't doubts or fighting, but there's also elation, passion and peace.

What I find interesting about your argument bs is that, between the two of us, you've apparently stopped wrestling with questions regarding Christ's identity and the spiritual world...it is you who have stopped questioning not me.

boomslang: "I'd rather die on my feet, than live on my knees"--Zapata

Nice quotation...of course it's completely irrelevant here since (to be literal here) by saying to "live on my knees" meant to live under the oppression of a corrupt Mexican gov't. In the end (which is really important here) Zapata didn't decide how he died...(he died when his body hit the ground after being hit with about 50 bullets). For the rest of us...we will probably have little choice of how we die...chances are here in the lovely west, it will probably be of some disease as we're lying on a hospital bed hooked up to tubes...

Still it must feel nice having "dano" as a member of the boomslang fan club...

PNP · 3 years ago

Now to you webmastah:

WM: Do you mean that the pastor being caught on camera coming out of a motel with a pretty woman (not his wife) is a personal tragedy, and people shouldn't talk about that?

Absolutely NOT...to reiterate what I said in an earlier post, I hope if Tom's found guilty here that the max punishment is levied...and people are absolutely free to discuss it. Where the NUANCE is here is that when that story is used to somehow prove the fallacy of a religion just doesn't make logical sense. If Bill Clinton has 10 adulterous relationships does that mean that the principals of the democratic party are no longer valid? If Nietszche has a mental break down does that mean that his philosophy is wrong? There are plenty other of reasons for that other than pimping the guy's private life.

WM: Well, regardless, could you please provide the individual histories of the early apostles and how they were martyred? Please avoid using hearsay reports gleaned from writings developed generations after their departure from history. Please provide reliable historical documentation

"He (Ananias) convened a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned." - Josephus (AD 93) from "The Antiquities"

"He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life" - Josephus (AD 95-97) from "Testimonium Flavianum"

"Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again borke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome." Tacitus, Roman historian, 115 AD

"I have asked them if they are Christians, and if they admit it, I repeat the question a second and a third time, with a warning of the punishment awaiting them. If they persist, I order them to be led away for execution; for, whatever the nature of their admission, I am convinced that their stubbornness and unshakable obstinacy ought not to go unpunished." Pliny the Younger, Governor of Bithynia (NW Turkey) - 111 AD


WM: Then, after we've discussed all that data, you can explain how martyrdom is evidential proof of ultimate spiritual truth."

You're confusing some "ultimate spiritual truth" with a witness. Many of these early Christians of the early Church were not killed for what they believed, but for what they witnessed. Given a chance to renounce what they had witnessed they went to their death. Now a spiritual truth comes out of that witness, but it's more than that. I'm not saying martyrdom is some ultimate proof of any religion, I am saying, that Christianity arose in the midst of persecution and that's definitely unlike the history of Buddhism and Islam.

WM: "Hitler was quite the charismatic speaker, quite the hero. Osama has a pretty devoted following. Even Bush still has his core dogmatic faithful."

Now you're comparing the charisma of Christ with Hitler OBL and GWB...I know you're not comparing them personally, but please try to stick with my point...compare their biographies...none of these other comes close to both Christ's biography and the impression he made on his followers...

WM: Be careful to whom you surrender your mind.

Please read my earlier post to boomslang regarding this...my request to you is allow your heart to be surrendered and not closed.

Which makes me wonder...this "ExChristian.Net" thing...does that mean that you are an "ExChristian"?

Dano · 3 years ago

Hey Boom!
I apologize for the confusion of PNP for insinuating, that my remarks to "Brutal Questions? Nope!" , were to you.

PNP has gone the whole rout here from snide remarks about an ex-Christian website that he is using to try and witness to non Christians, to the same circular reasoning that all Christian apologists resort to.

Even though I admire your tenacity for fighting the Christian "Meme" I think PNP is just picking and choosing comments that he can reply to with another "Jesus loves me, this I know, because the Bible tells me" so answer.

Although PNP ignored the fact that "Brutal Questions? Nope!", totally obliterated his argument, I see that PNP is starting to look more unchristian with every post. I am sure that he is getting very close to the final post where he says we hate Christians, and he is leaving, and won't be back, but he will pray for us.

Dano (Your accomplice in fighting the "Fear Factor of religion")

.:webmaster:. · 3 years ago

PNP, except for James, the brother of Jesus, you failed to list the specific ends of the other Apostles from history.

Oh, and generally understood by nearly all modern scholars that the "Testimonium Flavianum" is an interpolation.

Your question about my ex-Christianity? Why not read my testimony? It's linked on every single page of this site.

.:webmaster:. · 3 years ago

PNP said: "Many of these early Christians of the early Church were not killed for what they believed, but for what they witnessed."

Quotations from 111 and 115 CE likely recount accurate history as to how the Romans were dealing with some early believers, but I sincerely doubt any of those believers were eye-witnesses to your Jesus in 33 CE. In fact, it's unlikely any of these "true believers™" were even alive in 33 CE.

The Mormons, in the USA, suffered quite a bit of persecution in the 1800's. Large numbers of JW's and Jews were martyred in the USSR in the decades of the last century. Islamic martyrs are dying every day, right now. Martyrdom is evidence of belief, nothing more.

.:webmaster:. · 3 years ago

PNP said: "...none of these other comes close to both Christ's biography and the impression he made on his followers..."

No? Please support this statement. All these men captured the minds of believers willing to lay down their lives for a cause. I see a striking similarity.

Ghandi was willing to lay down his life, and had quite a following too. He was persecuted too. Hmm.

.:webmaster:. · 3 years ago

PNP said: "my request to you is allow your heart to be surrendered and not closed."

My heart? You are talking about my mind. My heart is a muscle that pumps blood, that's all.

PNP, is your mind closed? Are you dogmatically convinced that your version of your religion is the one true path, and that all other versions of all other religions or worldviews are false?

I confess that my mind is closed to Christianity, now. However, your mind is closed to every worldview except Christianity. Look in the mirror. You may find that your intimation that others suffer closed-mindedness is nothing more than a reflection of your own mindset.

I don't believe in UFO's, Sasquatch, elves, or leprechauns. I would guess that you don't believe in those entities either. Perhaps we're just both too closed-minded?

For every other type of knowledge, people demand proof. You wouldn't accept my allegation that 3+3=7, no matter how much I claimed it to be true. You would refuse to believe such a statement unless I could absolutely show that it is true. My plea that you be open-minded about the sum of 3+3=7 would be met with considerable resistance, I would hope. Of course if I could show you the math, then you'd have to reassess.

The near-worship of fallen religious leaders coupled with the angry condemnation of those who point out the inconsistency in slavering loyalty to these people, is interesting to me. This topic has become a fascinating study of the human psyche. Thank-you.

Brutal Questions? Nope! · 3 years ago

PNP: "What a great day! The US gets an important tie in the World Cup, Mickelson is in a tie for the lead for the Open and we just got back from Prairie Home Companio - great movie...now to some of the earlier points:"

Right, well, although I watched some of the world cup myself, and know the golf tournie is getting hot, I didn't get so over-excited that I placed the wrong quotes under the wrong authors' handle. So, take all that the following questions you directed towards boomSLANG, and make them "Brutal Questions? Nope!" BoomSLANG still may reply to your obvious inattention to detail, but, that comes with the territory when people seem to not need the details to have "faith".

PNP: "PNP "My weighted scale happens to go to 11."

That quote is "not "PNP's", that quote would be "Brutal Questions? Nope!'"

PNP: "boomslang: "You're obviously not into a cohesive reality..."

That quote is "not boomSLANG's", that quote would be "Brutal Questions? Nope!'"

PNP: "Now boomslang if you cann't get my "Spinal Tap" reference here, I'm not sure we can continue a dialog...but, I'll try..."

At this point, I believe you need to get a spinal tap, to check out your methamphetamine level, you appear to lose your place in reality quite easily.

PNP: "boomslang: "You finally came to a place, where your questions overwhelmed the answers in your life, and instead of you working through the underlying "reasoning" behind the questions, you found it easier to just give up."

That quote is "not boomSLANG's", that quote would be "Brutal Questions? Nope!'"

PNP: "I'm not sure what you mean by "give up"..."

Stop the search, give up, throw your hands in the air, shut down the ol' brain housing group. You know, allow yourself to believe that you have all the answers you really need in life, because you have the one and only "absolute" truth.

PNP: "...the only faith worth having is one that is constantly questioned and tested - and mine is no different."

Your "faith", in a supernatural entity, can't be questioned in any valid manner. You can't possibly test an invisible and transcendent deity, its why your religion placed your "god" outside of this reality, so "god" Can't be tested. The only test you can make is, gee, I am thinking of a "god", yep, that proves it, "god" exists. Right, inside your imagination.

Telling people that you have "faith", in an object that can't be tested or questioned with any valid measure that would render better understanding, is ignorant.

Your "questions" of a transcendent and supernatural deity, are invalid, period, if your questions are supposed to render new information, for validation, for a closer relationship, for any reason.

I don't gain one iota of new information about Santa Clause, when I question whether or not Santa Clause is real or not, or if my last act caused him to put me on the Naughty or Nice list. The question, can't possibly lead to answers. To ask questions as you suggest to validate that you test your faith is based on the most ignorant of terms, I hope you really don't believe what you are saying, and you are only poking fun at this issue.

PNP: "But the Christian faith (unlike Buddhism and many of the eastern religions) is a relational faith where like any deep relationship you come to a point where you're asked a question..."who do you say I am?""

Say what? You can't have a "relational" faith, when the "other" half of your relationship doesn't talk to you, doesn't give you answers, basically, doesn't communicate to you in any qualitative manner that can be isolated to "just" your god alone. Yet, you have no problem suggesting that the question of "christians" is "who do you say I am?" And, how did you fiure this question out, as, I never asked that particular question when I was a christian of over thirty years. Hmmmmm, seems the questions I would ask were, "is grandma in heaven or hell", etc.

The "fact" that I, and no other mentally sane person doesn't get an answer, is what makes us different from other christians. So, how often do you ask questions of a transcendent "god", that you by definition can't possibly know, and get your answer?

PNP: "...is the one Christianity asks."

Nice, so, you speak for "all" christians on this matter, and not just yourself. I would suggest even the christians that come to this site, would disagree with you on the "question", you propose is "the one".

PNP: "Once committed to it this doesn't mean that you stop questioning or testing, but you you say...as in a marriage, which is the central relationship analogy used in Scripture..."'til death do us part". This doesn't mean that there aren't doubts or fighting, but there's also elation, passion and peace."

You could ask a million questions, of that supernatural deity, its a "fact" by its own definition, that your "god", can't answer your questions. Read your religious doctrine, you appear to believe you can actually have a relationship that connects the two of you together.

Ever wonder why the Legendary Jesus Hero was created? Uh, because "god" could not be said to have been in direct contact with humans, else, humanity would be overcome and perish at the site of such godly perfection. Read the Old Testament, god had to show up as a burning bush, to the non-god jews of old.

Your Jesus is the only one who had a real relationship in theory, and there is zero proof of "The" Jesus presented by christianity, as with many other Legends. There were a bunch of Jesus' with that name back in the day, but "Not", the one presented by christianity with his Legendary attributes.

Since, you can't have a relationship, per your own doctrine, than your in-fighting and scratching is within your own imagination.

PNP: "What I find interesting about your argument bs is that, between the two of us, you've apparently stopped wrestling with questions regarding Christ's identity and the spiritual world...it is you who have stopped questioning not me."

Okay, let me try while we are here. God, I mean, PNP's God, if you really exist, talk to me, tell me you are real, give me a sign, even though signs in the bible are considered both good things and bad things. Please, throw me a bone, try to help me see what I have missed somewhere? Try and establish the other side of this conversation, so that a "true" relationship can begin.

Okay, there we are PNP, is that enough questions, I mean, I have had so many questions posed to your god, without a response that its apparent your "god", is the one who doesn't establish the relaitionship connection. You say you have one, but you have "no" answers to provide outside of your own imaginative conscious. You can't determine your imagniary thoughts, from what you want to assign to a deity.

PNP: "boomslang: "I'd rather die on my feet, than live on my knees"--Zapata"

That quote is "not boomSLANG's", that quote would be "Brutal Questions? Nope!'"

PNP: "Nice quotation...of course it's completely irrelevant here since (to be literal here) by saying to "live on my knees" meant to live under the oppression of a corrupt Mexican gov't. In the end (which is really important here) Zapata didn't decide how he died..."

Uh, perhaps you miss the connection. Living under the oppression of a Mexican gov't, or living under the oppression of a religion, with many authoritative religious figures who hold "absolute" power are acting in their best interest and at the detriment of the people, and humanity.

Zapata did decide "How" he was do die, which was fighting against tyrannical and absolutist oppression. Now, this is real important... Zapata, like many other people who refuse to be controlled by oppressive religious leaders, also refuse to be controlled by occultist religions such as christianity.

Occultist: "Supernatural practices and techniques; "he is a student of the occult".
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

PNP: "(he died when his body hit the ground after being hit with about 50 bullets). For the rest of us...we will probably have little choice of how we die..."

Yet, in his mind, he knew the truth, as will many others who know the truth of christianity, and its fraudulent beginning, based on historical information in an era where there were plenty of other alternative to christianity per today's standards.

The fact that "one" religion wasn't established as the "absolute" religion in the "same exact" era that a Legendary Jesus Hero would have lived, means there wasn't enough evidence at that time, yet, we get people such as you, trying to suggest that "you" can get that information today, two thousand years later.

You call "all" people who lived during that era, as having "less" knowledge, than you, that's pretty arrogant. Perhaps, I should suggest that I know better than you, what you did three days ago, than you do, because you really didn't have your head on straight. No, that would be the epitome of ignorance, and arrogance, I'll let you handle those two departments.

PNP: "...chances are here in the lovely west, it will probably be of some disease as we're lying on a hospital bed hooked up to tubes..."

How, I physically pass this life is of little relevance to me, as long as its with an honest mind.

PNP: "Still it must feel nice having "dano" as a member of the boomslang fan club..."

Actually, Dano, is a fan of mental stability and those who are committed to that effort. However, it appears that you aren't part of the "mental in-crowd", as you continue to claim that my comments are boomSLANG's. Its a non-exclusive club, even you can join, if you finally reach a point in your life, that you realize that you have been mentally duped, or that you have psychological needs that are driving your to ignore your immediate environment which doesn't support your belief. Uh, no, if you are going to suggest intelligent design, that's Natural, not "supernatural" evidence. But, I think I could at least find a breakthrough if you are capable of seeing your deity as a Natural phenomenon, instead of a Supernatural phenomenon :=)

Again, what were those "Brutal Questions", you so desperately believe we need to have in order to establish ourselves with a coherent belief system? Oh, "who do you say I am?" is one of those Brutal Questions we need to ask ourselves?

I am, no more, no less... regardless of what some second party suggests I am. The truest me, is the one I know by experience, not the one described to me from someone who has yet to walk in my shoes.

Brutal Questions? Nope! · 3 years ago

PNP: "Now a spiritual truth comes out of that witness, but it's more than that. I'm not saying martyrdom is some ultimate proof of any religion, I am saying, that Christianity arose in the midst of persecution and that's definitely unlike the history of Buddhism and Islam."

Okay, I just can't let it slip. No, Christianity arose because early protestors of Judaism began to make their rounds, "They", create the persecution of themselves, by making statements they couldn't support. You have to be a moron to believe that anyone would "refuse" a "god", if they were presented with such evidence.

The "persecution" came from the inability of those people in the day of the Legendary Jesus Hero, to come up with supporting evidence for their claims, and they were attacking Judaism in the process. Of course, they were persecuted, based on their lies.

If you publicly tell my child he is going to hell, because he's a non-christian, I'd publicly humiliate you with every bit of vigor I could muster. You'd call is "persecution", I'd suggest you initiated a psychologically abusive attack on a child who has no defense. From you perspectiv, you want to believe you are doing what's best, from my perspective "you" don't have that right, unless you have "evidence" to present. Paul, nor the apostles had such evidence. And, it appears there were many fathers back in the day, that didn't take kindly to such verbal assaults and attacks.

It appears christians within the early church didn't like it either, when they became the target, hence, many of the early authorities "left" Rome, and started their "own" personal rendition of non-Catholic religion.

"The most widely known Montanist was undoubtedly Tertullian, who was the foremost Latin church writer before he defected to Montanism."

It always amazes me, at the half-truths that are presented to support some claim, as if there couldn't possibly be more to the story, that they weren't ever part of.

boomSLANG · 3 years ago

FOR THE LOVE OF BUH-JEBUS!!!!...what's with all the confusion about who said what? PNP dedicated an entire post to rebuting things that I never said. Boy, if he gets lost THAT easily maybe biblegod will subcontract him to write the NEW "newer" Testament!?!?!?! LMAO!

Dano · 3 years ago

Brutal Questions? Nope! wrote:

"How, I physically pass this life is of little relevance to me, as long as its with an honest mind"

Dan, Comments to Brutal Questions? Nope!

I am PROUD to agree with you that neither one of us, along with none of us, who have ever lived, know anything about God, except that it is a noun used to describe a supreme being that none of us, or anyone alive or dead has ever seen any evidence of having existed, other than the fact that we all realize that something created us.(maybe)

That, surprisingly, is enough for me!

Dan (An honest mind is a terrible thing to waste, and we must be tolerant of those who can not, or will not love the truth)

J. C. Samuelson · 3 years ago

Sometimes, I wish apologists would be a bit more careful in their research. It makes for a more reasonable, challenging, and accessible debate since most of the web populace isn’t comprised of historians.

BTW, sorry in advance for the long post.

In response to PNP’s implied comment that the apostles were martyred, the webmaster queried him for historical data on the fates of the apostles. It is PNP’s position that the men whom the Bible calls apostles died for “what they witnessed.” In reply, PNP provides four quotes from ancient sources to prove his point.

Unfortunately, only two are applicable and one of those is a bit short on details.

First, PNP quotes Josephus’ Antiquities book 20, chapter 9.

"He (Ananias) convened a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned." - Josephus (AD 93) from "The Antiquities"

For the sake of context, here is the portion in its entirety:

”AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23) who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.” (Josephus, Antiquities, Book XX, Chap. IX, Para. I, from The Works of Flavius Josephus as translated by William Whiston)

This passage is generally considered to be authentic by scholars, even with the somewhat suspicious description of Jesus as one "who was called Christ." The suspicious nature of the particular phrase can be easily dealt with, as the Greek used here legomenos in the phrase tou legomenou Christou (who is called Christ) doesn’t actually imply that Josephus agreed with the title. Sometimes, it is rendered as "so-called." But all this is beside the point.

Missing from the text is a description of what charges were being leveled against those (plural) that Ananus had brought before the Sanhedrin. Presumably (and I have no problem with this idea), James and his companions (if the others described in this passage were, in fact, his companions) were Christians and stoned to death for it. So, it would seem that PNP is on target.

However, this does seem to be the action of a recently appointed high priest zealous to pursue his duties. It didn’t go over well with "the most equitable of the citizens" or with Agrippa, and Ananus was removed from his position as a result.

This doesn’t exactly fit with the typical Christian description of widespread persecution. But that's not the topic at hand so I digress.

Next, PNP regales us with a quote from Book XVIII of Josephus’ Antiquities, commonly known as the "Testimonium Flavianum." Those who want to read the specific text can follow the link provided and scroll to Chapter 3 and read the text within which this quote is found. Context, people. Context!

"He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life" - Josephus (AD 95-97) from "Testimonium Flavianum"

What this has to do with the apostles’ alleged martyrdom is unclear. Methinks PNP thought this would add weight to his argument simply because it mentions Jesus. It would’ve saved him a few keystrokes not to include it since it does nothing for his argument.

In any case, the majority view among scholars is that the quoted passage is a later Christian interpolation, or at least partially spurious.

Next is the famous passage from The Annals of Tacitus, Book XV, Chapter 44.

"Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again borke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome." Tacitus, Roman historian, 115 AD"

The part PNP leaves out is that the crime Nero "fastened the guilt" to Christians for was arson. Tacitus, beginning in Book XV, Chapter XXXVIII describes a massive fire that consumed great portions of Rome and the surrounding area.

It was widely thought at the time that the fire was the result of an order by Nero, who was known to be unstable and prone to outrageousness. In order to appease the populace and deflect guilt from himself, he finds a scapegoat in the religious group known as Christians. See here for a description of Nero that includes a section on the Great Fire.

In other words, these Christians were not killed for their beliefs or for their witness. They were a group targeted because it was politically expedient to do so. As Tacitus notes, they were widely hated for what is described here as "their abominations."

In any case, what does this say about the apostles’ alleged martyrdom? Nothing. Is it possible that Peter was caught up in Nero’s dragnet? Sure. But again, this had nothing to do with their beliefs or what they may or may not have witnessed.

Finally, PNP quotes Pliny the Younger:

"I have asked them if they are Christians, and if they admit it, I repeat the question a second and a third time, with a warning of the punishment awaiting them. If they persist, I order them to be led away for execution; for, whatever the nature of their admission, I am convinced that their stubbornness and unshakable obstinacy ought not to go unpunished." Pliny the Younger, Governor of Bithynia (NW Turkey) - 111 AD

Is PNP asserting that the apostles were still alive when Pliny was consulting Trajan on what to do with the Christians in his jurisdiction? Since Trajan ruled from 98 – 117, how many of the apostles remained alive? Furthermore, who among the original apostles would Pliny have had an opportunity to interrogate and then execute?

History certainly demonstrates that large numbers of people suffered and died for their faith, whatever it may have been. However, PNP has failed to show that the apostles were martyred.

Back to the drawing board, PNP.

Brutal Questions? Nope! · 3 years ago

PNP: "PNP "My weighted scale happens to go to 11."

BQ?N!: "That quote is "not "PNP's", that quote would be "Brutal Questions? Nope!'"

Okay, PNP made the statement about a weighted 11 value for ignorant questions, not me. I stated that invalid questions had a value of "zero", and I still hold to that. Well, I wonder if Plug n' Play, is going to come back, and discuss further their views of impossibility and the reasons to hold such views so stringently - not holding my breath ;-)

California girl · 3 years ago

Monsignor Clark: motel and secretary...named in divorce. Perhaps an inspiration in our present circumstance, 1) That the Post ran with the FAPC story as soon as the letter to the congregation came out, not even waiting to name the accuser in the church, which as I recall was never printed it until the civil named Joe the plaintiff. Now it looks like someone who had a copy of the letter chose to provide that info to the press, and may not have known it, or why would it not also have been revealed? Because why wouldn't the Post have printed the source of the accusation, had they had it? And, as an FAPC clergy said to another person, "We never confirmed it was her," and 2) the plaintiff deciding to file a suit, seeing as it had divorce elements as well, which was the end of Oct 2005.

We can note that this was splashed over the papers BEFORE the FAPC letter to the congregation was sent a few days before Aug 31. The Daily News story ran Aug 11 on Monsignor Clark.

As long as the monsignor/secretary story (NYC) summer 2005 was raised, here William Buckley's take on it.

The whole text:

http://www.nationalreview.com/
buckley/wfb200509161512.asp

A piece of it:
September 16, 2005, 3:12 p.m.
The Monsignor Clark Problem

In New York City, and the greater environs of the city, which reach to Rome going east and to Los Angeles going west, Catholic men and women are up against a wrenching problem. It has to do with Monsignor Eugene Clark. How to deal with him?

Monsignor Clark has had a big tabloid hour. The husband of the monsignor's secretary engaged a private eye to follow them around. The detective made a videotape that showed the monsignor and the secretary entering a motel on Long Island and leaving five hours later, wearing different clothes. The husband turned the tape over as supporting data in a lawsuit asking the court to end his marriage and to assign to him ownership of their house and custody over their two children.

Wyoming woman · 3 years ago

To follow-up posters about him, in the book
Hitler's Mistakes (Hardcover)
by Ronald Lewin

the author says Hitler had no friends, one reason "why."

Curious · 3 years ago

Has anyone at FAPC learned anything, or is this all about Tom?Because he resigned, so our fate is now in our own hands.

And none of the people from his New Prov. church, his Houston church or FAPC have commented on how things could change. Because NONE of this was necessary.

PNP may be from New Providence, I don't know, of course. But I would be curious to know what steps people in New Prov. and Houston have taken to educate the members so the same thing can't happen there. For instance. Or were you aleady doing it long before this?

PNP · 3 years ago

To Ubergeek and Webmaster...to my original point concerning martyr...martyr is Greek for the word "witness" and my usage of it in my first argument was not that it only be applied to the disciples, but to the early (first century) Church. The point is to pose the question as to how a religion based on a historical belief (the life/death/resurrection of a man) could grow when it was so heavily persecuted and would have been so easy to de-bunk.

UG - thanks for filling out the excerpts first/second century history here. So here's what we've got: there is a historical man Jesus...his brother and one of the first disciples, James, PLUS other contemporaries were killed by a zealous priest. Now these other contemporaries were not disciples per se, but they were, apparently, believers. Could some, like James, have been first person contacts of Christ himself...maybe, maybe not, but to say that it's only relevant that James was the only original disciple martyred here seems to miss the main point of my argument. But let's concentrate on the original 12. You both are absolutely right in your argument that there is not much contemporary evidence - aside from oral Church history concerning their martyrdoms, but here's what we can surmise of some of the others:
1. Stephen's martyrdom is described in the book of Acts, which most historians date between 60-70 AD - 30-40 years prior to what we've accepted in Josephus. Paul is generally accepted as one of the writers, who, at the time was a persecutor of the Church and witnessed the execution.
2. James the son of Zebedee is also mentioned as being martyred in Acts by Herod of Agrippa as part of a larger persecution of the Church.
3. Peter is descibed by the early Church historian Origen (185-254AD) as being "crucified head-downwards; for he requested that he might suffer thus."
At this point, Fox's Book of Martyrs lists from the Church's oral history and traditions how the others perished:

Philip - crucified in Phygia - 54 AD
Matthew - beaten to death Nabadah - 60 AD
Mathias - beheaded in Juraselem - unknown date
Andrew - crucified in Edessa - unknown date
Paul - beheaded under Nero - late 1st C.
James - crucified in Edessa - 72 AD
Bartholomew - crucified in India - late 1st C.
Thomas - speared in India - unknown date
Luke - hung in Greece - unknown date
Simon - crucified in Britain - 74 AD
Barnabas - killed in unknown manner - 73 AD
John - not martyred - died in exile.

Now I completely understand if you guys want to discount the oral histories and these last from Fox's, but I hope you also notice that the greater point was that we have solid (given the time period) historical evidence that at least 3 plus many first generation Christians plus Christ were martyred.

On the Josephus commentary concerning the interpolation in Testomonium it's important that you explain exactly what this means. (context! people context!) First, not all scholars are agreed that interpolation (insertion of text at a later date in order to support Jesus' divinity) actually happened. But even if it did, even the skeptics see that he most probably wrote the following parts: "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and Greeks." The interpolation questions surround the statements: "He was the Christ", and "on the thrid day he appeared to them restored to life". Again these are disputed, but Jesus' life, impact on followers, death, and following thereafter are not in question.

On to Tacitus:
"The part PNP leaves out is that the crime Nero "fastened the guilt" to Christians for was arson. Tacitus, beginning in Book XV, Chapter XXXVIII describes a massive fire that consumed great portions of Rome and the surrounding area."

UG - This part of the argument doesn't seem to contradict my main point. You're absolutely right, Nero did scapegoat the Christians for the 64 AD fire, but you then dismiss Tacitus' own writing: "a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome." The Christians were a persecuted Church and this was barely 30 years after Christ's death. They were hated by Rome for not bowing before Nero as a God ("mischievous superstition")and by the Jews as a blasphemous sect. Tacitus makes my point - early Christians persecuted - Church grows.

Just to carry Tacitus further: "Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired."

These Chrisitan's were not "{pleading] guilty" to setting the fire, but to their Christian faith...for which they were martyred...was Nero a freak - yes...but that's not my main point here. To re-state: charismatic leader lives/ gets many followers who believe in his divinity/ dies/ church explodes under persecution from the dominant religion and dominant political regime of the era...not logical.

So, again, with the Pliny the Younger reference - we are not talking original disciples here, but second and third generation Christians. People who still died for a faith, which it would have been fairly easy to disprove.

Now to you, WM...the Mormons were definitely persecuted, but it's a little disingenuous to compare that early history to Christianity. Joseph Smith, Jr. who, like Muhammad, but unlike Christ, claimed to be a prophet developed a following in NY and parts of the midwest for 10-20 years. Smith was killed in prison in 1844 (and did not rise again), and within 2 years the church had moved to the edges of American civilization at that time (Utah) and for the next 50 years had a rather peaceful period of "incubation" in which to develop without persecution.

As we've been discussing, Christianity had 300 years (until Constantine) of state and religious persecution and, far, from removing themselves from society, deliberately took the approach of trying to spread this "good news" of a historical man who lived, taught powerful moral truths, performed miracles, was killed, and was resurrected.

Speaking of which...I haven't (and I'm not being snide here) heard a great explanation for the empty tomb. Why, when it was in both the Romans' and the Jews' highest interest to both guard the tomb and then, once he went "missing" , find the body, were they unable. The entire Christian faith is founded on this single historic principal. There was one simple way for the Jews and Romans to squash this "abomination" of a religion...Scripture states that the Jewish leadership was nervous about this possibility even before the crucifiction and begged Pilate to station guards by the coffin - this makes sense. If Christ is claimed to be divine, of course, it would make sense to try to steal the body - by versus the Romans and Jews, the Christians were a tiny sect.

The philosopher/economist, Karl Popper, was famous for declaring that any theory, to be deemed valid must have a "criterion of falsifiability" - some event that would deem the theory false. He was not a Christian, but I like this thinking. As it relates to my Christian faith...as much as I've wrestled and read, and tested, and pushed, I must say (even with personal supernatural experiences) that this is my criterion of falsifiabiltiy for Christianity...we know where Mohammad's buried, where Buddha's buried, where Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are buried...where is Christ's body?

.:webmaster:. · 3 years ago

Where is the Apostle John's body? Where is Herod Antipas' body?
Where is Julius Caesar's body?

You should rather ask yourself: why were the gospels written so many years after Jesus' demise? I mean, 40-70 years after his death?Think about it!

Do you suppose the gospels were written to carefully document the life history of Jesus -- GOD ON EARTH -- or were they written as an apologetic literary device for a fledgling religious movement?

Foxes Book of Martyrs records the Catholic traditional stories of the demise of the early apostles, not eye-witness history. Fox didn't witness these events, Those events were purported to take place centuries before Foxe. Regardless, people have died in droves for all kinds of movements since history began. Many of those early Christian Martyrs were Gnostic Christians, many didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus, many believed things that modern day Evangelicals would consider a heretical cult. Martyrdom is evidence of nothing but belief.

In a nutshell (no pun) Christianity started small and was persecuted. As a result, people ran from the persecution and spread their beliefs all over the place. The religion grew and spread.

After a few centuries the religion was declared the official religion of the Roman Empire. Christians took up arms and tried to institute the Kingdom of God on Earth, on pain of death -- for over 1000 years.

You want to believe that your hero is a god-man who can't be killed, that materializes at will, and that levitates. Fine. Your magical god-man will come back to slay all the unrighteous with a fiery sword shooting out of his mouth and reward you for your faithful service. You believe this. Good for you.

And you will never believe that Tom Tewell is a womanizer, no matter what evidence, stories, reports, or eye-witness accounts are posited.

Dano · 3 years ago

PNP wrote:
"Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are buried...where is Christ's body?"

It's pretty obvious PNP that since brilliant people all over the world have been arguing about the divinity of Christ for two thousand years, God has selected, before they were born actually, (see KJV Bible) a precious few of his creations (mostly graduates of bible colleges in the southern States of the US of A) to be able to truly believe that he impregnated Mary, a virgin, so he could have a boy child by one of his female creations, sans the filthy sex act, and avoid going to hell and burning forever and forever in a big lake of fire.

God has made the evidence of this event ambiguous on purpose. He wants humans, with their limited reasoning abilities to be forever confounded by the information that they can glean from the myriad of oral and written accounts of the event.

The reason God with all of his omnipotence decided on this method of communication is this. The whole thing is just a stop gap effort on his part to keep us entertained.

He knows we understand Pagan "Blood Sacrifices" to deities, and he knows we will do anything to get on his "Good Side," because of our ever present awareness of the fact that we are going to die, and our fear of the unknown.

He doesn't want us thinking about how silly the whole concept of an omnipotent omniscient supreme being, who needs or wants the sacrifice of anything to him, is.

He knows that in his great plan for the evolution of intelligent humans, that in another 50,000 years or so we will be able to understand concepts not so primitive as killing people in horrendous ways as sacrifices to him.

Sometime in the future our descendants may not live with the fear of death their whole lives. It is then that man will be ready for a more realistic understanding of God.

Dan (Agnostic,homosapienist)

Delaware diva · 3 years ago

"wom·an·ize ( P ) To pursue women lecherously.

Men, women have both taken the "can't be true..." but it is up to each woman to determine for herself what she felt. And no one can say that was, or wasn't true. Intent is up to the man, in this case, Tom.

How anyone can tell anyone else that their experience is invalid...not so!

I agree. There is a lot of hostility by people who did not have that "response" to his words and mien and those, some of the posters, apparently, who did.

He may not have been perfect "in the church sense," but that does not make him someone who seduced.

And I am one of those people who actually wrote or told Tom (some before this news broke, some after), what my evaluation was and if it can help him going forward, so be it. And this strictly on what my response was. Anyone else is welcome to their own. Many postings have been those trying to forcefeed a different viewpoint. I stand by mine.

Each person is welcome to have their own response to Tom, but you can't reinterpret mine. Get a life! Don't try to live ours!

PNP · 3 years ago

WM: "Where is the Apostle John's body? Where is Herod Antipas' body?
Where is Julius Caesar's body?"

I guess I wasn't being clear with the original point of the questions. It really doesn't matter where Herod's body is or the Apostle John's, or George Washington's for that matter since we all know they died and never claimed a divine nature. The central cause of Christ's arrest and execution was this claim. So, of course, you would think that the authorities who oversaw his execution would have been supremely interested in making sure they "had the body". Having this would have effectively destroyed a religion based on a belief in his divinity. There's no relevant correlation to Islam, Buddhism, or Hinduism here, because none of their earthly leaders ever had the audacity to make such a claim.

WM: "You should rather ask yourself: why were the gospels written so many years after Jesus' demise? I mean, 40-70 years after his death?Think about it!"

OK, I'll think about it...
1. Christianity first grew a sect of Judaism, which, also given the tremendous oral history tradition, usually relied on the transmitting of histories told verbally to preserve a civilization. Christianity was no different. Many scholars estimate that at the time of Christ's death there were only 100-300 followers. Why would you have to write anything down?
2. The Christian style of evangelism was the debate. Most of the first evangelists would go into a town and enter the local synagogue or temple and ask the local religious leaders to debate the validity of Christianity. In synagogues this meant discussing the several dozen OT prophecies that relate to Jesus. It wasn't like they came into town with tracts. They talked...just like we are.
3. It's not like the Scriptures are that old. First, most scholars believe the book of Acts was written within 25-30 yrs of Christ's death and resurrection. Most believe that Luke wrote at least part of this book. To make it currently relevant, this would mean that Luke and Paul were writing about events, which occurred during the late Carter and early Reagan administrations. You don't think you could reconstruct both from first person recollection and interviews what happened during the Iran hostage crisis even if you didn't have a shred of print/video/other media sources?
Secondly, the Gospels were, as you say written between 30-70 years after the actual events both from first person and second person accounts. Let's take the outside count for the book of John (around 70 years after). By today's perspective that would be like trying to write a history of D-Day. Again, even with the longer life expectancies of today, you don't think I could put together at least a general historical picture of D-Day from speaking with people who were there - soldiers and local residents?
4. Now, let's turn it up a notch...look at the claims of Christ compared to others and ask even with a 25-70 year lag time wouldn't there still be major questions? I'm a HUGE Green Bay Packer fan...they won Super Bowl I about 40 years ago. Suppose I wanted to write a history of that game from scratch with no print/media help...only from first person accounts. I checked the roster and about 75% of the players from the Packers alone are still alive today. Now suppose Jim Taylor (Packer RB) who's dead now, claimed after the game that he was God. I could speak with at least 30 guys (just from his team, not to mention family, friends) who could de-bunk this. They could also show me where his grave is. All this and we don't have near the facilities and tradition of story telling and transmission that they had in first century Jerusalem.
4. It's not just that what they wrote, but what the Church was saying during those 25-70 years from Christ's death to the writing of Scripture. I haven't heard anyone claim that the first books of the NT - especially Acts - contradicted the previously held teaching of the Church - they simply encoded it, which makes sense since this was the time when most first person witnesses were dying off.

WM: "Your magical god-man will come back to slay all the unrighteous with a fiery sword shooting out of his mouth and reward you for your faithful service. You believe this. Good for you."

I've noticed this tone from a couple of the posters on this page and from reading a couple of the testimonies you've got on this site. I hope I haven't come across as fire and brimstone in any of my posts here...if so, I deeply apologize. I'm not banking on rewards or hell-fire. I've been trying to talk about the character, person, history of Christ who, while God, considered it nothing submitted himself to a humiliating death on the cross for me and for you. I'm not saying that there's no hell and the Christian life is all lipstick and caviar, but I have seen a real lack of the appreciation of Christ's grace on this site and I can only surmise it comes from idiot Christians out there who honestly do use the faith as a crutch and then beat everyone else over the head with it. Christianity wasn't meant to be that way...

WM: "And you will never believe that Tom Tewell is a womanizer, no matter what evidence, stories, reports, or eye-witness accounts are posited."

I'll say for the third time now that I'm completely comfortable with the possibility that Tom is a womanizer. Again, I say this having known him for 25 years. In the very least it certainly appears that he had at least one affair. Again, for this I hope that the Church is sued for the full $5MM or $6MM and is held up as an example to other churches when this type of behavior is known and tolerated.

Dirty Harry · 3 years ago

PNP: "So, of course, you would think that the authorities who oversaw his execution would have been supremely interested in making sure they "had the body". Having this would have effectively destroyed a religion based on a belief in his divinity."

Per christian tradition, the authorities "did" have homeslices' body, they chucked him in a hole and threw a boulder over it. Its not until later on that the "non-existence" of the body in this theoretical tomb, uh, written about much later in the "New Testament", that a divine Jesus is being passed around as divine.

The Ebionites who lived in the area suggested by early christians, believed there existed no such divine Jesus. No body, nothing could really be written, but, obviously the New Testament was written, and Jesus was said to be returning during the apostles time, and numerous times in a short time, but, no! The dude, that was said to be divine, "DID NOT" show up, and has "yet" to show up. So, Paul is a liar at minimum, and the New Testament was built from his letters and travels starting in Antioch. Now, if you want to "prove" that Jesus lived, that he was divine, then you had better pull up something other than the bible as a reference, because I will slice that little book up using its own fallacious contradictions.

By all means, post your favorite biblical passage, and lets refute the bible as a credible source with tight internal consistency. There are plenty of external sources than the bible, that hold the Legend of Jesus in a much different light, and weren't taken in and synthesized by a Roman Council.

"Pastor declares kneeling a sin"
Since Vatican revised instruction on Mass, the argument over kneeling for blessings has arisen."
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060617/LIFESTYLE04/606170364

Yeah, I suppose you no longer need to kneel, the Roman Catholics are the purest of christianity.

PNP · 3 years ago

Dirty Harry...you just made my day...

DH: "Per christian tradition, the authorities "did" have homeslices' body, they chucked him in a hole and threw a boulder over it. Its not until later on that the "non-existence" of the body in this theoretical tomb, uh, written about much later in the "New Testament", that a divine Jesus is being passed around as divine."

Of course! "christian tradition"...let's make a deal, DH, you put your faith in your "christian tradition", and I'll put my faith in mine. Just so I understand what you believe let me see here...

Jesus lives, gets a bunch of fanatical followers who get persecuted by local church (Jewish) authorities during the life of Christ because they don't believe he's really God. The Jews are really ticked off that some of their brethren/sisters are following this guy around just because he's a wise guy (or "homeslice").

The church gets so angry at this guy for being a wise man that they have him crucified with the support of the local Roman authorities. Nobody thinks that Christ has divine aspirations...he's just the smartest Jew in town and they're jealous...nothing that would be called blasphemous or anything.

Then after he's crucified, because this homeslice has a couple followers who think he's God, the Roman and Jewish authorities know that the one way they can put these people down is by protecting the body, but they fall asleep or get paid off or something and a couple of these right wing Jesus freaks steal the body and, "chucked him in a hole and threw a boulder over it".

There's a split among the Jesus followers at this point and the Jesus freaks start running around saying, "the tomb's empty! the tomb's empty! yee hee!!" And they start making lots of money from people and get girls and stuff and they all retire in Boca...

But, wait a minute...if you're right...now there are 3 groups who want to find this body and destroy this "superstition" (Tacitus) before things get out of hand: the most powerful church in the area, the most powerful government in the world, and, now, a bunch of really ticked of Jewish heretics who just thought Jesus was a nice Jewish boy.

Those Ebionites...hooo-boy!!

DH: "Now, if you want to "prove" that Jesus lived, that he was divine, then you had better pull up something other than the bible as a reference, because I will slice that little book up using its own fallacious contradictions."

DH, don't know if you saw it earlier, but I already discussed with Ubergeek and Webmaster sources like Tacitus, Josephus, and Pliny the Younger. I think it's hard to refute that Jesus did indeed exist, that he had followers who followed him after his death, that there was a spiritual element to it (again "superstition") and that these early followers were martyred for their faith. I have trouble believing that any of the Ebionites - since they did, in fact, deny Christ's divinity - suffered any great persecutions from the Jewish church or Rome.

Now do any of these sources say that Christ was divine...nope...but I still haven't heard a good reason why anyone of his first disciples...even his OWN BROTHER would follow him to death. I don't know if you have any brothers DH, but I do, and if anyone comes at me wondering if my brothers the Christ...I've got some stories to tell.

And before you go off completely dismissing Scripture please refer to my earlier post to WM...it's not as if these things were written 100 years after the fact and there are perfectly good reasons why there's a lag between Christ's death and the writing it down.

Dano · 3 years ago

PNP wrote:
"Of course! "christian tradition"...let's make a deal, DH, you put your faith in your "christian tradition", and I'll put my faith in mine. Just so I understand what you believe let me see here..."

Dan says to PNP:
It's not you understanding of Jewish history that makes you intellectually mediocre, it is your cred·u·lous·ness.

Dan (Skepticism is the best brain growth hormone of all)





.

Dan

.:webmaster:. · 3 years ago

PNP, you've done some apologetic homework, I'll grant you that. Nothing new, or original, or that hasn't been posted here dozens and dozens of times already, but...

PHP said: "I guess I wasn't being clear with the original point of the questions. It really doesn't matter where Herod's body is or the Apostle John's, or George Washington's for that matter since we all know they died and never claimed a divine nature. The central cause of Christ's arrest and execution was this claim. So, of course, you would think that the authorities who oversaw his execution would have been supremely interested in making sure they "had the body"."

Assuming that the "central cause of Jesus' arrest... was this claim," which is only your inference based on anonymously written, apologetic, evangelistic, gospel accounts... the founders of the religion might have had the same urgency to disappear the body in support of their claim of deity.

Imagine, someone claims to be the REAL King of the Jews. He claims to have the pedigree, the bloodline, the right to the throne. For 200 years Judea had been looking for the Messiah. The Essences were big time into all that, as were the Zealots. Common people expected the messiah to show up. And everyone knew the Herods were not in the Davidic bloodline, so they were impostors. This Jesus makes some comments that some interpret to mean that he is more than just messiah, or "anointed one," but that he is Deity. On top of that, he appears to be rousing up quite a disturbance whenever he comes to a town.

Here we have this charismatic, inciting, peasant, rousing up the populace in a part of the world where almost any motivation quickly degenerates into violence. What would be an example of a place like that today? Try any middle-eastern country.

Back to 33 CE: There were at least half-a-dozen self proclaimed messiahs, with followers, who were put to death in the years proceeding and following the time when Jesus supposedly lived. Whether this Jesus intended to be viewed as a political revolutionary or not, it is likely that the Roman government, who couldn't have cared less about local superstitions, would have viewed him as simply another wild-eyed rabble-rouser, and a potential danger to law and order.

Why would his own brother follow him to death? His brother was the leader of the new religion now! Jesus was the King of the Jews, and after his death, that made James the King of the Jews. The true bloodline of David must be preserved; God had promised that a descendent of David would forever sit upon the throne in Jerusalem. Remember, this is a Jewish messianic movement, it took years before it mutated into a spiritual movement, and if it weren't for Paul, it'd likely have faded away from history altogether, as did all the other Jewish messianic movements.

"Tacitus, Josephus, and Pliny the Younger are NOT eye-witnesses that Jesus existed. They are eye-witnesses that Christians existed. The existence of Mormons proves the validity of the claims of Joseph Smith? The existence of Muslims authenticates the claims of Mohammad?

Most of the New Testament was written by Paul of Tarsus, who admittedly never met Jesus, except, supposedly, in a vision. And Paul didn't seem to have much respect for the men who were eye-witnesses, resisting their leadership, arguing with them on points of doctrine, and bragging to have done more than all of them put together! He wasn't an eye-witness to anything, and he was just a little self-important and rude.

You would like to distance yourself from fire and brimstone preaching, but the fact remains that the form of Christianity that was allowed to survive and grow damns all unbelievers to an eternal existence in horrific agony. There is simply no way around this idea.

The early Church fathers in the centuries before Constantine disagree on many things. There were many schism and isms that were eventually condemned as heresy, such as Gnostics and Monatists (Tertullian, a well respected, early Church father, followed the Monatist version). Some believed Jesus a god and some didn't. The deity of Jesus was a great topic of argument for years and years! Eventually those within the Church who held Jesus to be divine became governmentally and militarily strong, and those leading that branch of Christianity succeeded in crushing out most of the completion.

Still, some believed in hell, some didn't. Origen believed that all would eventually be saved, even Satan. His view was that a place filled with millions of humans being tortured under the reign of Satan as an absolute failure for God. Origen was criticized for this belief.

Nothing in the New Testament is written with the intention of preserving history. There is nothing written about Jesus' life from birth until his "ministry" except one quip from when he was 12 years old. The gospel accounts were written because Jesus wasn't returning like he promised, and so they wrote apologetic works to promote the movement and “prove” the gospel.

The divinity of Jesus isn't even slightly alluded to in the Book of James, the one supposedly written by Jesus' brother. Over time Jesus became more divine in the minds of many Christians. The earliest gospel, Mark, barely hints at divinity. By the time John is written we have a more bold and comprehensive claim of divinity. John was written at least 60-75 years after Jesus' demise.

Do you think the Book of Mormon is divinely authored? It claims to be divinely authored! Many, many people believe it to be of divine authorship. I look at Joseph Smith's life history and see a charlatan. Yet those who knew him best, who lived with him, saw him as a prophet. His church is the fastest growing in the world today.

People believe weird things, they always have, and apparently they always will.

You have every right to believe in a magical, flying, un-dead, god-man on a stick. You're free to do that!

Do you believe I am free to disbelieve in your messiah? Or do you believe I'll roast in hell for all eternity for disbelieving in your man-god?

Do you believe that your man-god loves me unconditionally? Or, do you believe there are conditions on receiving that love? Conditions, like, for instance, believing in your man-god, and not just believing in your man-god, but believing the right things about your man-god. If I think he’s a prophet but not a god, can I still get in on heaven?

He loves unconditionally unless you don't love him back? Is that it?

And in that case, he gets upset and tosses me, the infidel, into a nice hot sulfur pot where I can contemplate my terrible sin of unbelief, in torturous agony, forever.

You can't have “Love Jesus” without “Angry Jesus,” PNP. They go together like heads and tails, like smoke and fire.

Sassy · 3 years ago

All these non-witnesses. As a fact there was a church auction at a private club in May 2005 for some 250 people who paid $250/ticket. The Viones were also there. Why? May 2005! The accusation was made in March 2005, the "whatever" is the basis for the suit, Jan 2005--and why? So had Joe wanted to take a swing at Tom with 250 witnesses, that was his chance. If he had wanted to hurl loud accusations at Tom, lots of church leaders--what an opportunity. As a pair the Viones are the "showgirl and the short guy" couple. Free world.

And to the writer who said, "sexy, model type," how do YOU know what Tom finds sexy? Especially since men feast their eyes on 100s of women every day in NYC.

Quizzical · 3 years ago

You can't run into a store and take what you want without paying and expect not to be charged with a crime. But the "crime" is different depending on the "what" it is. Petty larceny and grand theft auto--different things. So the plaintiff's wife wasn't complaining about her church life. The plaintiff's husband was. Why was that? And no one has answered the question as to why they hung around FAPC. When did Joe stop being a happy camper?

So Tom and Joe are tussling, as sport, because that is what men do.

Whoever got to the bear first could support his family. So Joe gets more resources, if successful. Very primal. Our church loses resources. The lawyers get some.

And what did his wife think her future was going to be? Tom's gift was that he was outgoing and remembered names. So, they can't all be "somebodies" to him.

Let's assume for the moment he has the kind of marriage he wants; then what should his work life be like, the same or different? High maintenance people--he wouldn't have the time. He married when he was 21/his wife 22, and FAPC members get what I said, knowing both female parties in this.

And the writing here, no one has come out in favor of the plaintiff and his wife, not with positive details...why is that?

Tom preached at Ab. Baptist church 3/2/03 as part of a pulpit exchange and learned about "willing workers." The plaintiff's wife was put to work! That she chose to think there was more to it, well, that was her problem. Tom just had work to do, and he let her do some! That was his job to get the work done!

Anonymous · 3 years ago

response to quizical...

you have no idea what you are talking about...if tom had the marriage he 'wanted' he wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

you're right in saying he is a thief, though.

tom should have told the truth about his relationship with rachel in the first place, then it could have been dealt with accordingly.

instead he chose to lie and when his lies caught up with him he ran away like the coward that he is.

he ran all the way to washington, dc to p.l.p. and the am. red cross.

what a wolf in sheep's clothing.

fapc needs to take a step back and ask themselves as a congregation, 'why does this sort of thing keep happening at our church?'

the answer...pedestal worship. let's hope the next guy who comes to fapc understands that people are not there to worship him.

Friend of Tom · 3 years ago

I still can't believe those of you who write in this blog have so many negative things to say about Tom and others, but can't reveal who you are.... You are always signing anonymous and the like. Why not say who you are and stand up to what you believe and not hide behind the name anonymous.

Janette Brenner

J. C. Samuelson · 3 years ago

Hopefully my last response to PNP...

"The point is to pose the question as to how a religion based on a historical belief (the life/death/resurrection of a man) could grow when it was so heavily persecuted and would have been so easy to de-bunk."

This is a common apologetic, but unfortunately it fails to add validity to the Christian faith. See here for a refutation.

PNP, your entire premise seems to be that since there were a lot of people who died for the faith, while in the faith, or while associating with people in the faith, that it must be true. If that were really an indicator, Islam would be quite as true as Christianity. And no, I’m not talking about the suicide bombers of today. I’m talking about the Crusades.

Also by this logic, Judaism would be just as true. How many Jews have died because they were Jews?

Really though, this is little more than a morbid argumentum ad populum (argument by popularity). Since so many were willing to die for this idea, it must be true. This type of argument is a logical fallacy because popularity is not an indicator of the validity of an idea. Ever hear of a flat earth? A very popular idea at the time.

As for "easy to debunk," I think this argument is both anachronistic and culturally ignorant. Anachronistic because it places ancient non-believers into the same category as modern day skeptics. Culturally ignorant for a couple reasons.

First, because it displays a lack of knowledge of how Christians were viewed by their contemporaries. Robert Wilken, a Christian historian who wrote The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (1984), noted that "For almost a century Christianity went unnoticed by most men and women in the Roman Empire. ... [Non-Christians] saw the Christian community as a tiny, peculiar, antisocial, irreligious sect, drawing its adherents from the lower strata of society."

Even Edwin Yamauchi, a prominent apologist, contradicts this argument when he says, "When people begin religious movements, it's often not until many generations later that people record things about them" (as cited by Strobel, The Case for Christ p. 114).

In other words, I don’t think the Romans had any more interest in debunking Christianity than I do in debunking Santa Clause.

As for Jews, their culture and beliefs about the corpse don’t exactly lend themselves to the idea that they went to check on the body of Jesus, assuming that’s what you mean by disproving it. It is doubtful they would’ve paraded Jesus’ corpse around town to prove Christianity false, particularly when the body had several weeks to decay prior to the time Christians began spouting off about the resurrection (Acts 2:22-36).

Even if they had, Christians could simply deny it was Jesus. There would’ve been no way to conclusively identify the body even in this early stage of decay, and identifying marks (such as the holes in the hands and feet) could be explained away by saying the body was that of another crucified.

The point being that it is not reasonable to conclude that either the Romans or the Jews would take such steps to discredit Christianity at this early stage of its development. To the Romans, it was a strange cult not worthy of much attention (until they drew attention away from the pagan gods worshipped by Romans). To the Jews, they were another messianic cult that happened to be particularly annoying.

"...his brother and one of the first disciples, James, PLUS other contemporaries were killed by a zealous priest. Now these other contemporaries were not disciples per se, but they were, apparently, believers."

Actually, it isn’t apparent that they were believers. That was part of my point. I have no problem assuming they were his companions, or even that they were Christians. However, the text does not clearly say these others were James’ companions, or that they were Christian. The text says nothing about them, the charges, or their beliefs. Any conclusions that we might draw about them are nothing more than assumption. Of course, part of this is because English is such a lousy language for translation.

The passage focuses on Ananus, what he did, and the consequences he faced. What we do know from this passage is:

1. Ananus the High Priest assembled the Sanhedrin.
2. He brought James the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ before him.
3. He brought others before him as well (who may or may not have been Christian – sympathizers, perhaps?).
4. James and at least some of these others were stoned to death.
5. Ananus lost his status as a consequence.

Still, let us assume (for that is what we are doing) that they were his companions and Christian by faith. Again, where is the widespread persecution and martyrdom that would have prevented your faith from thriving? Some of James’ companions were caught and killed here.

Considering the biblical report of thousands of converts and/or witnesses, was this really a significant blow to the faith? Furthermore, it appears that Christians had some powerful allies; the most equitable of citizens (apparently numerous or influential enough to attract King Agrippa’s attention), King Agrippa, and the Roman Procurator Albinus. Naturally, these last two were probably more interested in keeping the peace, but if Christianity at this time was so weak and fragile, why would Agrippa or Albinus even worry about one insignificant cult being wiped out by some zealot?

"Now I completely understand if you guys want to discount the oral histories and these last from Fox's, but I hope you also notice that the greater point was that we have solid (given the time period) historical evidence that at least 3 plus many first generation Christians plus Christ were martyred."

Fox is dealt with in part in Richard Carrier’s essay that I linked you to above. But, while we may have – accepting Fox’s info as valid – evidence that "3 plus many first generation Christians" were martyred, you have yet to demonstrate your larger point sufficiently; that Christianity could not have grown under heavy persecution unless it was true.

"…not all scholars are agreed that interpolation (insertion of text at a later date in order to support Jesus' divinity) actually happened."

It’s not required for "all scholars" to agree. There will never be 100% consensus among humans as to particular facts. All that’s needed is a majority. With regard to the Testimonium, there are three positions:

1. The passage is entirely authentic – A minority position.
2. The passage is entirely a Christian interpolation – A smaller minority position.
3. The passage contains Christian interpolations into Josephus’ original material. – The majority position.

"…even the skeptics see that he most probably wrote the following parts: "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and Greeks." The interpolation questions surround the statements: "He was the Christ", and "on the thrid day he appeared to them restored to life"."

You missed one; "if indeed one ought to call him a man" is usually considered to be an interpolation. One scholar, Schlomo Pines, in An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and Its Implications (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1971) the following text of the Testimonium is offered:

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." (As cited by Jeff Lowder here)

Of course, it is still possible to dispute the final sentence. The point being is that a majority of scholars, both Christian and non-Christian, regard the passage as having been tampered with. Mostly because Josephus was a Jew, not a Christian, and any mention of Jesus would not be so overtly favorable.

In any case, I’m still at a loss as to what this has to do with 1st century Christian martyrs.

With regard to Tacitus, your argument is that they were persecuted and martyred because they were Christian. I don’t dispute that. What I dispute is that this was the primary reason for it. Nero found a convenient enemy upon which to shift the blame for a major calamity.

Sure, Christians suffered horrible treatment by Nero. However, this did not appear to hinder the spread of Christianity. On the contrary, Tacitus lends support to the notion that this persecution actually aided Christianity. In the final sentence of Book XLIV, Tacitus relates:

"Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."

Back to Pliny…

"So, again, with the Pliny the Younger reference - we are not talking original disciples here, but second and third generation Christians. People who still died for a faith, which it would have been fairly easy to disprove."

Now, hold on there! You stated quite clearly at the beginning that you were talking about 1st century Christians who either witnessed the events in the Gospels firsthand or were a short distance removed from those events. Didn’t you specifically say, "…my usage of it in my first argument was not that it only be applied to the disciples, but to the early (first century) Church?" Are you trying to pull a fast one?

Pliny consulting Trajan is also significant in that there were no laws against Christianity. That is, he had no knowledge of judiciary proceedings against Christians or the consequences to be levied against them. Romans weren’t "out to get" Christians any more than Jews were. Pliny was asking what to do because he’d never encountered the problem before. His interrogations and executions were his improvised method of dealing with a heretofore unknown "problem."

Even though he was largely ignorant of the movement, Christianity was quite widespread in Bithynia. Pliny reports that "…this contagious superstition is not confined to the cities only, but has spread its infection among the neighbouring villages and country." Although Pliny also seems to think it is possible to check the growth of Christianity, Trajan replied to Pliny saying, "Do not go out of your way to look for them." He also said that charges must be proven, anonymous witness wasn’t to be considered valid, and those who recant should be released.

Not exactly advice that encourages persecution, was it?

"…a historical man who lived, taught powerful moral truths, performed miracles, was killed, and was resurrected."

I’d revise this and take out "performed miracles" and "was resurrected." These things are not at all settled.

"Speaking of which...I haven't (and I'm not being snide here) heard a great explanation for the empty tomb."

See Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story by Jeff Lowder for a few possibilities.

"Why, when it was in both the Romans' and the Jews' highest interest to both guard the tomb and then, once he went "missing" , find the body, were they unable."

Where do you find it was their "highest interest?" What makes you think they went looking for it? Your argument is anachronistic in that it places non-believers of the day into the same category as today’s skeptics. Please cite some materials that support these assertions.

"...where is Christ's body?"

Nice red herring. Two-thousand years after the fact this question is answerable in only natural or supernatural terms. Take your pick.

.:webmaster:. · 3 years ago

Hey Uber, would you please message me and provide me an email to repsond to? I've got a question for you.

Thanks.

Bentley · 3 years ago

anonymous said,

"response to quizical...

you have no idea what you are talking about...if tom had the marriage he 'wanted' he wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

you're right in saying he is a thief, though.

tom should have told the truth about his relationship with rachel in the first place, then it could have been dealt with accordingly.

instead he chose to lie and when his lies caught up with him he ran away like the coward that he is.

he ran all the way to washington, dc to p.l.p. and the am. red cross.

what a wolf in sheep's clothing.

fapc needs to take a step back and ask themselves as a congregation, 'why does this sort of thing keep happening at our church?'

the answer...pedestal worship. let's hope the next guy who comes to fapc understands that people are not there to worship him."

________________________________________________________

This is the very thing I predicted on four of my posts.

2/18/2006 1:02 PM EST
3/18/2006 11:17 AM EST
3/20/2006 12:10 PM EST
6/04/2005 1:12 PM EST

and you still come up with this garbage!

"the answer...pedestal worship. let's hope the next guy who comes to fapc understands that people are not there to worship him."

Untill, Get this! Untill
You people quit glorifying people(preachers) with praise and money, you will always get the same type of preacher, because this is exactly just what you all want yourself!

Glorification and Praise!

This is exactly what you christians are looking for yourself!

Glorification and Praise!

That is the only reason that you go to a church!

You do not go to church to get "Saved" nor "Hear Any Truth" No, you go to get your praise!

You do not go to a church to praise a god, you go to get your praise!

You all gladly pay some jackass to tell you all how wonderful you are!

Thats all you are, a bunch of praise seeking religious zombies!

As long as you all pretend and are stupid enough to to think and believe that there is someone that "is called by a god! duh!!!" you will always get a silver tongued preacher.

As long as you throw your money and false praise at the next preacher that is exactly what you will get.

The next idiot you all elect, tell them you are not going to pay him, and see how long they last!

It's all about money for the preacher, but it's all about praise to the congregation!


I know, you all resent truth!

Not personal · 3 years ago

To the "anon" naysayers.

Exactly what negative facts are you reading here? Must be a different place. There are no facts listed, assertions about what Tom did or didn't do, particularly. Where are they, the facts? One person tried to explain the basis for the charge, but no one has followed up on that here except a few about mentoring. Do you actually know what is expected of clergy? Read the "Book of Order," the "Book of Discipline" and google misconduct + pastor and start reading. If you can stand it.

People at FAPC cried for months. I know I did. I highly resent OOTs (out-of-towners) telling us their truth, and denying us ours.

And I can tell you that his pastor pals are looking at him through the lense of ethics and how churches are "supposed" to work, but in the end, that of course was his job to do in the way he chose.

But the people who see black-white...it's a gray world.

If you want to go to the courthouse in NYC you can make a copy of the suit and maybe see them film "Law and Order" and understand the charges. Whatever Joe and his lawyer decided to submit.

The point is NOT personal. Change your church process so this NEVER happens again. Have you "named" people made sure that misconduct, the rules under which Tom is charged, is made known to all your members, so no one can ask for and receive so much time, for example?
Or, are you just accusing the writers here of being wrong?

The point here is not to detail what we learned from Tom. Write him care of the church, mark it "personal" or whatever current address you have. This is not for that.

Tom resigned. He didn't ask me first. Did he ask you? Whose opinion did he ask? Maybe Suzanne's. A fair guess.

He left the New Prov church 20 years ago or so I guess. A lifetime. He left Houston in 1994, over a decade of being an empty nester.

The point is what we GAINED from Tom stands firm.

What we have lost at FAPC is huge for many people.

The only verifiable "negatives" are that people have shared is based on people's feelings--which are inviolate and individual--and opinions--which can be based on anything or nothing.

I also respectively ask you to consider how much time you spent at FAPC and not criticize those current and recent members. Those few named are either couples or men, I wager, and pls do not extrapolate your experience to those women who wrote.

Tom resigned. He did not have to resign, and men and women spoke up against the resignation in public Nov 20, 2005 in the appropriately public forum before the vote was taken.

If he had the tape, he knows who we are. Some voted for the resignation "because Tom asked for it." Many opinions.

If you want to hear how bad gossip WITHOUT FACTS can get, don't criticize this little list of writings, just go to FAPC and ask a variety of people what they think. And then tell those people what YOU think. If you can stomach the discussion.

It will weaken your understanding
of Christian charity perhaps--it has mine--by how many church members "think" they know ill. Not anything from their own relationship with him, no, just what they "know," and will publicly repeat.

It is a gossip-ridden place,now, and any "named" people should come visit before writing again. Just a suggestion.

The previous writer makes a good point that if I take it one step further, you are going to have a "people person" pastor then you need a strong system to keep it working.

All you sunny people. We can be thankful for knowing Tom without thinking he is perfect. Or that maybe he should have made better choices.

But if you think that the seeds for this are not in your current church today, you are very misinformed. Look up the stats on misconduct and let Tom find his way.

Pls, you "named" people. When was the last time your church educated you on misconduct? How much insurance does it have. What does it cover? Do you know? Why don't you learn from this instead of talking about what you don't know much about--Tom's most recent church and the people in it!

Quizzical · 3 years ago

posted: 6/20/2006 3:41 PM EST

My point abt the "marriage he wants," is this: his homelife is "settled" so who knows what Tom and Suzanne say when the door is shut?

So, what you're saying is that if he were 1) married to someone else who 2) wouldn't stand for it it or who offered him a different way of being it 3) wouldn't have happened.

That is a major leap since it assumes he knows what he wants and knows Suzanne isn't giving it to him.

Suppose he wanted to be the "person he is" and wanted someone to accept it.

Maybe his marriage is what he wants. And that's a popular position here...maybe not accurate, but popular.

Dirty Harry · 3 years ago

PNP: Dirty Harry...you just made my day..."

Lets see, what we have, it appears Uber and the WM have provided supple amounts of information as a response to your comments, but... I'll throw out a little more.

PNP: "Of course! "christian tradition"...let's make a deal, DH, you put your faith in your "christian tradition", and I'll put my faith in mine. Just so I understand what you believe let me see here..."

Actually, we are what we claim to be, how we act, and the information we possess, and at this time, none of that includes christianity in my life.

PNP: "Jesus lives,"

Again, is that a supernatural Jesus, a mortal Jesus, or does Jesus live on in the minds of those who want to create the memory of such a character. Just because someone says "Jesus lives", doesn't make it real in the sense that external information can be presented to suport such a statement.

PNP: "...gets a bunch of fanatical followers who get persecuted by local church (Jewish) authorities during the life of Christ because they don't believe he's really God."

Who is presenting this case. Paul didn't know Jesus, he saw him in a vision per his epistles, I have yet to see an "authored" first person rendition showing Jesus' intent, perhaps you have one of those laying around? No. Well, then lets look at the most contradictory and logically "broken" books of all time - the bible.

Why would the Legendary Jesus Hero be berated? Well, he deliberately broke the sabbath, that didn't make him very many friends. He was idolized, uh, that would be called blasphemy, and a few other things, and if you need a list, I could suggest that the Jesus character didn't honor the "father", while questioning him with "father, why has thou forsaken me", etc., etc.

There are so many reasons the Orthodox Jews, who by the way, were there first, worshipping their god "first", and in their writings it states that false messiahs and prophets would show up on the scene, i.e., Jesus, one each, etc., Yeah, Jesus fit really nice into the mold of "idolized false messiah", and, he didn't fill any of the major messianich prophecies, else, the Jews are now living in their New Kingdom, and having enjoyed Hitler, they tend to disagree that they are in paradise.

PNP: "The Jews are really ticked off that some of their brethren/sisters are following this guy around just because he's a wise guy (or "homeslice")."

If you would like, no, here, let me provide you a link, so you can read, "why" Jesus, was considered in that "era", to be a charlatan.

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/jews-jesus/jews-jesus-index.html

"Jesus", was a stepping stone between Orthodox Judaism, and Roman Catholicism, the Old Testament and New Testament don't line up, in logic, in culture, nor in consistency. The god of the Old Testament was "El", the god of the New Testament was "YHWH", they were not the same god, yet, christians today, actually believe they are worshipping the "same" god as the Jews, making the "bible", one "book", under "one" god. Christians then like to claim that the Jews' god, the bull calf, was a "false" god, yet, the false god was enough, to suggest that the writings of the Old Testament were valid proof for the coming of Jesus, yet again, that is contradictory to the bible if one reads the bible from an historical perspective.

PNP: "The church gets so angry at this guy for being a wise man that they have him crucified with the support of the local Roman authorities. Nobody thinks that Christ has divine aspirations...he's just the smartest Jew in town and they're jealous...nothing that would be called blasphemous or anything."

Blasphemy is well established in the bible, if you would care to read the bible that is. If you are too lazy to pick it up, I will provide the passages, as I have, numerous times.

PNP: "Then after he's crucified, because this homeslice has a couple followers who think he's God, the Roman and Jewish authorities know that the one way they can put these people down is by protecting the body, but they fall asleep or get paid off or something and a couple of these right wing Jesus freaks steal the body and, "chucked him in a hole and threw a boulder over it"."

Don't know where you are going with this, "the milk carton Jesus picture" that is, but, the dude has to be proven to have existed. The Old Testament presents the description of false prophets, etc., later on, the character Jesus is presented in the New Testament. There is nothing but "words", that say a hole ever existed, or a boulder, or this conspiracy.

No body, oh, he must have been supernatural or stolen. Yeah, let me know when you find Jimmy Hoffa's body, I mean, obviously, he was supernatural.

PNP: "There's a split among the Jesus followers at this point and the Jesus freaks start running around saying, "the tomb's empty! the tomb's empty! yee hee!!" And they start making lots of money from people and get girls and stuff and they all retire in Boca..."

Uh, when was the NT written exactly, did Paul see Jesus and witness this account? No? Well, then, lets go to the next person who would have witnessed this crucifixiion, that would be "Mary", per the tradition? Any book of Mary in the bible? No? Hmmmmm, well, I am sure even Jesus the Legendary supernatural being, would have forseen his death, and "wrote" about it, right? No? Someone else wrote down Jesus' message, that's odd. I don't know, I would have to suspect, that if a "god" were killed on a pole, I would have written it down that day, and everyone would have known about it, but, no... not in his era, many years later, I wonder how "significant" this crucifixion really was? Obviously, not significant enough to write about it in the day.

The Jews, who would have been the ones to chronicle the play by play, as was their culture and tradition, seemed to have "missed" documenting a Jesus as well, in their Talmud until hundreds of years later. As a matter of fact, the only tellings of a Jesus, by outside sources, other than the supreme authority of the Roman Empire, is almost 'nil, unless one wants to include the gnostic writings, and a handful of coptic writings, that don't present Jesus as a "god".

PNP: "But, wait a minute...if you're right...now there are 3 groups who want to find this body and destroy this "superstition""

Milk Carton Jesus, seems to be a strategy of proof that is wearing thin, hopefully you have more than this further on...

PNP: "(Tacitus) before things get out of hand: the most powerful church in the area, the most powerful government in the world, and, now, a bunch of really ticked of Jewish heretics who just thought Jesus was a nice Jewish boy."

Don't you find it odd, that the Most Powerful Church in the Area, was headed by the most Powerful Gov't in the world at that time, and that "the" Roman Emperor Constantine I, was the one to "create" and "establish" a council to "vote" on the divinity of Jesus. It would seem, if the Roman Emperor, in an effort to establish a Unified Church using Jesus as a keystone to bridge Judaism, and unite Paganism and Christianity, that "they" would have been chomping it to bit, to have a "body", but... alas, "NO", no body.

As for the Jewish Heretics, they didn't care a rats', if a body was ever produced, by the "accounts" of the Roman Council, and the divinity that was voted upon at the first council of Nicaea, 325CE, they declared Jesus to be a lie, and "NOT" their messiah, based on their Old Testament, the Non-Unanimous vote on the divinity of Jesus at the First Council of Nicaea, and the Roman Empires' bloody and not so hidden Agenda to unite the empire.

PNP: "Those Ebionites...hooo-boy!!

Yeah, hoooo-boy, they were there, you weren't, I suppose there is little else you can say about those who lived in the time and place Jesus was supposed to have lived, yet, called him mortal.

PNP: "DH, don't know if you saw it earlier, but I already discussed with Ubergeek and Webmaster sources like Tacitus, Josephus, and Pliny the Younger. I think it's hard to refute that Jesus did indeed exist, that he had followers who followed him after his death, that there was a spiritual element to it (again "superstition")"

I don't associate "spiritual" with "superstition", I consider spiritual to mean metaphysical, which is held by many to be a reality for them. If you care to prove a supernatural claim, to support a "spiritual" connotation per your context, by all means, do so, this should be enlightening.

PNP: "...and that these early followers were martyred for their faith. I have trouble believing that any of the Ebionites - since they did, in fact, deny Christ's divinity - suffered any great persecutions from the Jewish church or Rome."

The Jewish Church of Rome? What church are you talking of, The "Church of Rome", became the Roman Catholic Church, and not at all part of Jewish Religion.

PNP: "Now do any of these sources say that Christ was divine...nope...but I still haven't heard a good reason why anyone of his first disciples...even his OWN BROTHER would follow him to death."

Dude, first of all, James doesn't elaborate on "following 'til the death", but lets put that aside. Are you suggesting you wouldn't follow or "protect" your brother 'til the death, if you thought your brother innocent of charges levied against him? I would, that doesn't make my brother supernatural, it means I have a value that I support, its about me at that point, not my brother.

PNP: "I don't know if you have any brothers DH, but I do, and if anyone comes at me wondering if my brothers the Christ...I've got some stories to tell."

However, as stated, if someone comes towards your brother to commit murder, which was a common occurrence for one committing blasphemy, then you may step in if in fact, your own brother wasn't suggesting he was a messiah but, that he was being labelled a messiah by others. Now, if I were to ask you if you were an idiot, and you refused to answer because you had some passive aggressive tendency to rebel against authority figures (or little ol' me), then, the statement stands, until stated otherwise. Now, if you never come back to this post, it may appear you are an idiot to others because of your non-response, does that "make" you an idiot? No. The legendary Jesus, was given his opportunity, and refused to comment, in law today, that's considered an indirect admission of guilt, nolo contendere, meaning "no contest". The legendary Jesus didn't contest the charges, "why?" That makes no sense at all, for one, who has forseen their own death, who believes they are there to die for humanity's original sin (which isn't in the bible), and wants to pass this information onto humanity for prosperity. Nope, didn't utter a word, but Paul, who never met him, well, he couldn't keep his mouth shut, his pie hole was gaping open and yelling the good news to everyone, uh, ridiculous.

PNP: "And before you go off completely dismissing Scripture please refer to my earlier post to WM...it's not as if these things were written 100 years after the fact and there are perfectly good reasons why there's a lag between Christ's death and the writing it down."

Name some "pretty good reasons", and why wasn't there "ever" a statue erected to signify such an event. By all means, explain why "all" historians just missed the boat on this one.

Again, explain why the authors of the bibe to include Paul, declared Jesus' return, in the lives of the apostles, in a short while, and in the life of the people listening to the apostles. Perhaps, this is why there is no "record" of Jesus, maybe, Jesus was not proven to have existed to the masses of people seeking their messiah, and they were promised if they joined the "true religion", they would eventually "see Jesus" before they died. Right, some did take the bait, but the Roman Emperor didn't like how long it took to try and convert using fabricated lies, so, making it a legal requirement to accept Jesus was the result.

Oh, thanks for making my day, I really like the Milk Carton Jesus approach, I mean, at least that appears to be more safe than trying to prove something metaphysical, right.

Quizzical · 3 years ago

..."he ran all the way to washington, dc to p.l.p. and the am. red cross."

OK I give up...what is p.l.p...Personal Loan Program, Pediatric Literacy Program...

Father Theresa · 3 years ago

I suspect P.L.P, stands for "Papacy Loves Pedophilia", but maybe I'm making a guess, like all these people talking about an invisible god.

I mean, PNP, seems to have a relationship with words that most people don't find in a marriage with a physical spouse. Some need words, and some need a little more, I suppose.

Quizzical · 3 years ago

To Father Theresa,

In the best possible way, I laughed out loud, and we at FAPC have not had much to laugh about...it could also mean the Progressive Labor Party.

Too bad you probably live in Spain or someplace, or Italy, since you could probably bring some levity to our church...and perspective..we really need!

Quizzical (just one of my aliases...depending...) I also like the spelling.

Quizzical · 3 years ago

To Father Theresa,

In the best possible way, I laughed out loud, and we at FAPC have not had much to laugh about...it could also mean the Progressive Labor Party.

Too bad you probably live in Spain or someplace, or Italy, since you could probably bring some levity to our church...and perspective..we really need!

Quizzical (just one of my aliases...depending...) I also like the spelling.

Quizzical · 3 years ago

"I mean, PNP, seems to have a relationship with words that most people don't find in a marriage with a physical spouse. Some need words, and some need a little more, I suppose."

6/20/2006 7:55 PM

The woman in question is now 43, hardly a child...age-wise...just to remind everyone. It was her children who were so small.

PNP · 3 years ago

DH: "Lets see, what we have, it appears Uber and the WM have provided supple amounts of information as a response to your comments"

Uh..."supple"? Let's not get distracted here...

DH: "Actually, we are what we claim to be, how we act, and the information we possess, and at this time, none of that includes christianity in my life."

Huh? Maybe we should talk about this over at the Ebionite church down at the corner...

DH: "If you would like, no, here, let me provide you a link, so you can read, "why" Jesus, was considered in that "era", to be a charlatan."

Of course he was considered that...I've never disputed this point, but his blasphemy was his declaration of divinity...proved in life through miracles, shown in after death by resurrection. Oh, that site you sent me to has nothing about why the Jews originally convicted him.

DH: "Blasphemy is well established in the bible, if you would care to read the bible that is. If you are too lazy to pick it up, I will provide the passages, as I have, numerous times."

I guess you're meaning the OT since you don't believe in the NT...if so...NO ONE picked up the OT or quoted more than Christ and his followers - it was part of Christ's claim to divinity and a central evangelizing tool by the early church to Jews.

DH: "Don't know where you are going with this, "the milk carton Jesus picture" that is, but, the dude has to be proven to have existed. The Old Testament presents the description of false prophets, etc., later on, the character Jesus is presented in the New Testament. There is nothing but "words", that say a hole ever existed, or a boulder, or this conspiracy."

Have you seen this God? "Milk carton Jesus"...nice. If you'd like to go back (again) to my earlier convos with WM and UG - even they agree from the historical writings of Josephus and Tacitus that Christ existed. Now if you want to get out on that limb and say he didn't even live, well, my friend that takes a little more faith than what I've got. "Nothing but words"...hmmm...not sure what this means other than if the words are ones you agree with then they're OK if not then it's "milk carton Jesus"-time.

DH: "Uh, when was the NT written exactly, did Paul see Jesus and witness this account? No? Well, then, lets go to the next person who would have witnessed this crucifixiion, that would be "Mary", per the tradition? Any book of Mary in the bible? No? Hmmmmm, well, I am sure even Jesus the Legendary supernatural being, would have forseen his death, and "wrote" about it, right? No? Someone else wrote down Jesus' message, that's odd. I don't know, I would have to suspect, that if a "god" were killed on a pole, I would have written it down that day, and everyone would have known about it, but, no"

Bro...please go back to the earlier posts on this...we've got confirmation from Josephus that Christ was killed under Pontius Pilate.

DH: "Dude, first of all, James doesn't elaborate on "following 'til the death", but lets put that aside. Are you suggesting you wouldn't follow or "protect" your brother 'til the death, if you thought your brother innocent of charges levied against him?"

Not sure what this means either...James' death is described also by Josephus. Jesus had been dead probably 20-30 years by this point...he's not dying to support his brother...James is a leader in the Church at this point and is targeted by a violent Jewish leader because of it not because he was just helping out his bro...

DH: "Again, explain why the authors of the bibe to include Paul, declared Jesus' return, in the lives of the apostles, in a short while, and in the life of the people listening to the apostles"

Finally, I can say...you're absolutely right...the disciples got this wrong...but you've got to ask yourself...why...if there was all this time to come up with this elaborate history of this miracle man with the coming back from the dead thing would you include this crucial mistaken theology in your final book on the faith?? Unless, the letters that eventually comprised the NT were authentic...that's my guess. If I was putting a bible together a couple hundred years after Christ, I would have deleted all that stuff that was obviously wrong...wouldn't you?

DH: "Right, some did take the bait, but the Roman Emperor didn't like how long it took to try and convert using fabricated lies, so, making it a legal requirement to accept Jesus was the result."

Dude...now we're talking 300 years after Christ's death...the Roman empire has lasted perfectly well without institutionalizing Christianity, in fact, they've spent most of the previous time attacking it. Why would a Roman Emperor spend so much time enforcing "fabricated lies" unless he really believed them...what does he get for it?

DH: "I mean, at least that appears to be more safe than trying to prove something metaphysical, right."

You're so right DH...your approach is much more safe.

OH...Have you seen this God? Just calling him "milk carton" is cute, but it's not an argument.

Mother Benedict XVI · 3 years ago

Wow, 43, maybe PLP stands for Preacher Lovin' Playboy, or Pastor Loves Poody, I suppose one must look at the signature of the words to get a deeper understanding.

So, PLP, what does it really mean? Like Billy Joel's , "Pressure" lyrics, "...sesame street, what does it mean". He's closer to Italy than I, but, maybe I'll go on tour :-) Another favorite song... 'We didn't start the fire', yep, its been burning since the world has been turning.

Trippin D's speakin' to the Trippin PLP's.

Dirty Harry · 3 years ago

PNP: "Why would a Roman Emperor spend so much time enforcing "fabricated lies" unless he really believed them...what does he get for it?"

Because, the empire had much infighting among the religious sects. Constantine I, had to unite the empire, because it had stretched so far outward, that he was losing control, hence, the downfall or fizzling out of the Roman Empire. Kind of like the strategy of Hitler, who, also strategically failed because he was too thinly spread over the globe. I'll quit there, I don't personally want to get into the "perfect" strategy to take over the globe, there seem to be plenty of people on the task.

As well, why do you suggest that Constantine I actually believed christianity... its a well documented fact, as much as one can trust historical record, that big daddy Constantine-I seemed to be fickle in his beliefs on the "truth" of a divine non-unanimous vote.

"The First Council of Nicaea, convoked by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in 325, was the first ecumenical[1] conference of bishops of the Christian Church.

The purpose of the council (also called a synod) was to resolve disagreements in the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was of the same or of similar substance as God the Father. St. Alexander of Alexandria took the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arian controversy comes, took the second."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

The Arians believed Jesus was of a similar (but yet different) substance than "god", kind of like a "mortal" substance leaning. Yet, Constantine-I, sided with St. Alexander, the Father to become the Son, and finally reside as the holy ghost, all of one substance. In the future, the trinity would be founded upon this claim, even though it is not so stated in the bible.

Not to draw this out, but, Constantine-I, before hist death, was baptised...

"Constantine died the next year, after finally receiving baptism, from an Arian bishop, and "with his passing the first round in the battle after the Council of Nicaea was ended."[25]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

So, obviously you missed the point I made earlier. The Roman Emperor Constantine-I, really didn't care how the vote went, he wanted his empire united, under one banner and under one "rule", hence the bible contains in its New Testament, many pagan, greek mythological, symbols, the Old Testament was kept to pull along the Jews. In the end, Constantine-I was baptised by the bishop of the man he murdered.

"Indeed, the exact meaning of many of the words used in the debates at Nicaea were still unclear to speakers of other languages; Greek words like "essence" (ousia), "substance" (hypostasis), "nature" (physis), "person" (prosopon) bore a variety of meanings drawn from pre-Christian philosophers, which could not but entail misunderstandings until they were cleared up."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

They couldn't figure it out then, yet, they created all kinds of documentation to support their votes. Many protested years later, you know, The Protestants, and they disagreed with the votes, hence, there are christian sects that do not agree with the earliest "vote" on christian doctrine. Yet, they had the best chance of knowing the truth. There was so much controversy and death, early on, based on the most simple questions of the nature of the legendary Jesus, that its comical to see it still going on, to this day, between religions who believe their view is the "true" christian view.

PNP · 3 years ago

UG...

UG: "PNP, your entire premise seems to be that since there were a lot of people who died for the faith, while in the faith, or while associating with people in the faith, that it must be true. If that were really an indicator, Islam would be quite as true as Christianity. And no, I’m not talking about the suicide bombers of today. I’m talking about the Crusades."

Well...you're kinda right...but it's a little more than that. It's not just people dying for the faith...unfortunately that's happened far too often (whichever faith), but I'm focusing here on the claims of Christ and how a faith based on the those divine claims (miracles, resurrection) could continue after the death of its founders. Once again, to bring in Mormons, Muslims, Ebionites, Yankee fans really isn't relevant, because none of those faiths are based on the same claims. WM and you are absolutely right to point out that other messianic religions were around during Christ's day, but you're making my point...where are they now? Put better, where were they within 10 years of their founder's death?

UG:"First, because it displays a lack of knowledge of how Christians were viewed by their contemporaries. Robert Wilken, a Christian historian who wrote The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (1984), noted that "For almost a century Christianity went unnoticed by most men and women in the Roman Empire. ... [Non-Christians] saw the Christian community as a tiny, peculiar, antisocial, irreligious sect, drawing its adherents from the lower strata of society."

I'm not sure what's your point here...if it's to say that Christianity was a minor sect at the time of Christ's death/resurrection I totally agree and have said so before. That's one of the reasons why I believe nothing needed to be written down during the first decades of the faith's growth. If your point is that nobody really cared about persecuting the Church or finding Christ's body...well, that's another story. Whether the "Roman on the street" knew about Christianity is irrelevant. Rome was and is hundreds of miles away from Jerusalem and Paul was one of the only Christian missionaries there during the first century. The fact is that the local Jewish leaders knew about Christianity and the LOCAL Roman authorities did. Still, enough Romans knew about them for Nero to blame the fire of 64AD on them...only 30 years after Christ's death/resurrection.

UG: "To the Jews, they were another messianic cult that happened to be particularly annoying."

Now we've already established from Josephus and Tacitus that Jesus was killed under Pontius Pilate and that he was regarded by his believers as "Christ". So we've established extra-Biblically that Christ was killed...so this is how you treat someone who's "particularly annoying"? Christ was front and center on the radar of the Sanhedrin...because they did not have the power to crucify him they had to force the Roman authorities to do it through rioting...so Christ was "particularly annoying"?

UG: "It’s not required for "all scholars" to agree. There will never be 100% consensus among humans as to particular facts. All that’s needed is a majority. With regard to the Testimonium, there are three positions"

This part of argument starts getting into the Ebionite dialog I've had with DH...in the end, you have faith in your scholars and I have mine...we could have them arm wrestle to see who's point would win, but all they do is reinforce your opinion or mine. At one point you mention Yamiuchi...he's one scholar who believes Josephus' line "if you can call him..." as being valid...so I guess you like him when he makes your point and disagree with him when he doesn't...

DG: "As for Jews, their culture and beliefs about the corpse don’t exactly lend themselves to the idea that they went to check on the body of Jesus, assuming that’s what you mean by disproving it. It is doubtful they would’ve paraded Jesus’ corpse around town to prove Christianity false, particularly when the body had several weeks to decay prior to the time Christians began spouting off about the resurrection (Acts 2:22-36)."

This part of your argument along with the linked website to Lowder is kinda weak...
1. the claims of Christ's disappearance began 3 days after his death - not several weeks. He may have appeared several weeks later, but the body was missing in days...
2. to say that the Jews didn't want to "parade" the body around is a nice straw dog, but irrelevant. These were the same people who's governing council met to convict him and then pushed the ruling authority (who could have cared less) to carry out the harshest punishment possible...the claims were of his divine nature...so I guess this is the way it went down...

Christ dies...3 days later people claim his body is gone...the Jews say, "wow...that's weird...we thought he was buried over there next to the other criminals...not that I want to look or anything...no we wouldn't want to disprove it or anything...

Lowder's arguments ask me to wonder if maybe Christ's body was never buried...which means nothing to the story since after 3 days someone could have said, "yeah he's over there in the trash heap...". His arguments, like yours, casually dismiss the interest of the Jews to make sure this thing was stopped...it's just not logical, to go through what they did to have him killed in order to end the heresy then to have it spring back up again less than a week later and not do the simplest (or not be able to do) thing to squash the heresy.

a "red herring"? You're asking me to believe a lot...

show me the body.

.:webmaster:. · 3 years ago

PNP, so messiah movements that survive are true and messiah movements that pass out of history are false.

Good logic PNP, excellent thinking.

PNP, all you're proving is that you believe in your god-man with a bulldog-like devotion.

Technically, your Jesus never made any claims, as he never wrote so much as a thank-you note.

"His arguments, like yours, casually dismiss the interest of the Jews to make sure this thing was stopped...it's just not logical, to go through what they did to have him killed in order to end the heresy then to have it spring back up again less than a week later and not do the simplest (or not be able to do) thing to squash the heresy."

Ah, the only place you're getting this is from your religious book, the four Gospels. The Gospels were written as an apologetic device to get people to believe. The Gospel of John states flat out, "These things are written so you will believe." The Gospels were written with apologetic, evangelistic intent. There is no doubt that the Gospel writers, whoever they were, frequently misapplied various Old Testament scripture to support their claim that their messianic leader was the correct messianic leader.

You're using a typical apologetic approach, and that is to avoid every topic except "CHRIST AND HIM CRUCIFIED."

You apparentlly refuse to answer this question: WHAT HAPPENS AFTER DEATH TO THOSE, WHO FOR WHATEVER REASON, DO NOT BELIEVE IN YOUR JEBUS????

Please answer this question -- now.

Dirty Harry · 3 years ago

PNP: "Christ was front and center on the radar of the Sanhedrin...because they did not have the power to crucify him they had to force the Roman authorities to do it through rioting...so Christ was "particularly annoying"?"

Uh, the Sanhedrin had much power to crucify if they wanted, unfortunately for them, it was against their "laws" to murder another one of the chosen, so, they turned the legendary Jesus over to the Roman authorities, per the literature.

PNP: "This part of argument starts getting into the Ebionite dialog I've had with DH...in the end, you have faith in your scholars and I have mine..."

Actually, I have faith in knowing, that most literature of that era, shows clearly the vast evidence of conflict when trying to talk about anything regarding the early christian origins, there was no evidence.

Let me show you PNP. Santa Clause lives, prove me wrong? What, you can't find a body, oh, well there must be a global conspiracy, we all know if Santa Clause's body can't be found there has to be a reason. You have been focusing on something, like the missing body of christianity, to "support" all of its claims.

So, PNP, where is the body? Oh, please, tell me you "know" where the body is, I mean, you are the apologetic, right. All I need do is ask, where the body is. So, if you can't show me the body, then you have no evidence, just like, I have no evidence of Santa Clause, because I have no body. Lets make it easier, where is a statue of Jesus, like the ones they had of greek gods, etc., No? No, Jesus statues, for the most popular guy in christendom, well, I wonder why not.

Your entire argument, is based on the "presupposition", that Jesus in fact did live. And you build your argument from there, with no support, except a missing body. You, knew more than those who attended the First Council of Nicaea, 325CE. Your scholars in theory "know more", than the people who lived in that era? That's absurd.

The Ebionites, didn't believe him divine, many on the council of Nicaea, didn't believe him to be divine, the gnostics didn't believe him to be the divine of Judaism as christianity claimed. How many groups of "that" era, do you need to "show", that there are many people, who did not believe in a "Jesus God". We are not talking of a mortal Jesus, there were plenty of mortal Jesus' running around, it was a common name.

You presuppose a mythical supernatural Jesus, a god no less, showed up, was crucified, and... fill in the presuppositional blank for the rest of the ad lib story.

Obviously, you didn't read my link, so, I will post the reasons "why" Jesus was "not" a messiah to the Jews.

"The Jewish tradition of "The Messiah" has its foundation in numerous biblical references, and understands "The Messiah" to be a human being - without any overtone of deity or divinity - who will bring about certain changes in the world and fulfill certain criteria before he can be acknowledged as "The Messiah"."

Yeah, unlike the christian verson of godly divine messiah with supernatural powers, The Messiah of the Old Testament which is claimed by christians to be Jesus, is a contradiction of the Jews' term Messiah.

"First of all, he must be Jewish - "...you may appoint a king over you, whom the L-rd your G-d shall choose: one from among your brethren shall you set as king over you." (Deuteronomy 17:15)"

Jesus sat on the throne? No, the Jews in fact did "NOT" place him as their king.

"He must be a member of the tribe of Judah - "The staff shall not depart from Judah, nor the sceptre from between his feet..." (Genesis 49:10)

To be a member of the tribe of Judah, the person must have a biological father who is a member of the tribe of Judah."

Uh, if one were to believe in the holy ghost fertility plan, then, of course Jesus didn't have a biological father, period.

"He must be a direct male descendant of King David and King Solomon, his son - "And when your days (David) are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall issue from your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will make firm the throne of his kingdom forever..." (2 Samuel 7:12 - 13)

The genealogy of the New Testament is inconsistent. While it gives two accounts of the genealogy of Joseph, it states clearly that he is not the biological father of Jesus. One of the genealogies is through Nathan and not Solomon altogether!"

"He must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel -"And he shall set up a banner for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." (Isaiah 11:12)

Are all Jews living in Israel? Have all Jews EVER lived in Israel since the time of Jesus?"

Right, there PNP, there must be some conspiracy going on. Jesus of course fulfilled all of these prophesies in order to close out the Old Testament, so that the New Testament/Covenant could be validated. Oh, that's right, Jesus didn't fulfill the Old Testament prophesies, gee, how was the New Testament created, then. Jesus wasn't ever mentioned in the Old Testament. When was the New Testament put together? If in fact, Jesus was the supernatural messiah, why wasn't he written about during this era, while the Jews were looking for Their Messiah, oh, that's right, the person suggested as fitting their Messiah description, was "NOT" a person named Jesus.

"He must rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem - "...and I will set my sanctuary in their midst forever and my tabernacle shall be with them.." (Ezekiel 37:26 - 27)

At last check, there is NO Temple in Jerusalem. And worse, it was shortly after Jesus died that the Temple was DESTROYED! Just the opposite of this prophecy!"

"He will rule at a time of world-wide peace - "...they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." (Micah 4:3)

Have you seen a newspaper lately? Are we living in a state of complete world peace? Has there ever been peace since the time of Jesus?"

"He will rule at a time when the Jewish people will observe G-d's commandments - "My servant David shall be king over them; and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall follow My ordinances and be careful to observe My statutes." (Ezekiel 37:24)

The Torah is the Jewish guide to life, and its commandments are the ones referred to here. Do all Jews observe all the commandments? Christianity, in fact, often discourages observance of the commandments in Torah, in complete opposition to this prophecy."

"He will rule at a time when all people will come to acknowledge and serve one G-d - "And it shall come to pass that from one new moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, says the L-rd" (Isaiah 66:23)

there are still millions if not billions of people in the world today who adhere to paganistic and polytheistic religions. It is clear that we have not yet seen this period of human history unfold."

"If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be "The Messiah." A careful analysis of these criteria shows us that to date, no one has fulfilled every condition."

PNP, your Jesus fails so miserably as the Jewish Messiah, that you coming here, makes you look intellectually inept, and in dire need of self reinforcement for your belief. I am using "YOUR" bible, you know, the one that doesn't support Jesus as the Messiah, in the Old Testament, the one that has all those prophesies, but doesn't mention "once" the name Jesus. The Old Testament that doesn't speak one iota of his name, but states that there will be those who come as false prophets, who do "NOT" fit the requirements of the Old Testament - like Jesus if he lived.

"Although Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, he died without fulfilling the Biblical criteria that define the Messiah. The essential concept of the Messiah is of a wise and righteous king who will reign over a restored Jewish homeland and bring about a utopian world of universal peace and universal knowledge of G-d. (Isaiah 11:1-9; Jeremiah 33:14-16; Ezekiel 34:23-30, 37:24-28; Micah 4:1-4; Zechariah 8:23; Psalm 86:9 and more.) In light of Jesus’ failure to fulfill these and numerous other prophesies, early Christianity proposed that Jesus would return in the future and bring about a redeemed world. Aside from the fact that this claim could be made for any failed Messiah, this concept simply does not appear anywhere in the Jewish Bible."

"If a man tells us to commit idolatry, he is a false prophet, no matter how many wonders he pulls out of a hat. G-d warned us about this in the Bible (Deut. 13:2):

“If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer, and he gives you a sign or a miracle. And the sign or miracle comes to pass, and he calls on you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods, whom you have not known, and let us worship them.’ You shall not listen to that prophet or dreamer. For G-d is testing you, to see whether you love the L-rd your G-d with all your heart and with all your soul.”
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/pdf/RealMessiahBookPages_v4ab.pdf

PNP, you have "no body", you have "no messiah per Jewish requirement", you are basically, bankrupt in your knowledge of your religion to a great extent, or you are just ignorantly parroting something given to you. No one need a scholar to choose from. Your "bible", itself, dismisses the notion of a supernatural Jesus as being a potential candidate as the christian lord and savior.

The Jesus presented in the New Testament didn't fulfill any of the requirements from the Jewish God, the legendary Jesus deliberately shunned the Sabbath which was blasphemy to Jewish Law, there are so many things Jesus failed to do as a Messiah for the Jews, that only a moron would believe that Jesus came to fulfill the Old Testament Prophesy, in order to establish a New Covenant. The New Covenant, wasn't even written by a Jesus, it consists of books taken after the First Council of Nicaea 325CE, and canonized to support the votes of the early Roman Church, which was supported by the Roman Emperor Constantine-I.

PNP, I can' tell if you are ignorant, or if you actually believe Jesus was the son of a God, that closed out the Old Testament prophesies. In either case, you don't have a body to lean on. You have "words" in a book, and those words as they are read today, suggest your Jesus is a false prophet and not a messiah, because the Old Testament Prophesies never passed. And, the Old Testament prophesies would have to have taken place, "before" a Newer Better Testament could be put in its place as the New Covenant. Jesus failed if you suggest he was the Jewish Messiah, and did so... miserably.

boomSLANG · 3 years ago

PNP: "...but I'm focusing here on the claims of Christ and how a faith based on those divine claims (miracles, ressurection) could continue after the death of it's founders."

How does it continue? *** Gee, here's a clue---it continues because people continue to blindly accept ancient SECOND-HAND information based on this thing called "faith"--and people continue to believe it based on "faith", because they aren't strong enough to challenge the threats of roasting in hell which are clearing delineated in the very book that they take by "faith", in the case that they DON'T believe, and thus, help the "claims" to "continue". THAT'S why it continues. It's circular lunacy, and it needs to be challenged, broken, and abolished from the face of the earth.

PNP: "Once again, to bring in Mormons, Muslims, Ebionites, Yankee fans really isn't relevant because none of those faiths are based on the same claims."

They might not be based on the exact same claims, but---with the exception of a baseball team---they ALL support their claims the same way....e.g..SECOND-HAND information based on "faith". See here***, and stick in your memory-bank.

God'less.

Rooting for Right · 3 years ago

For those who think Tom is perfect and want to support him financially, or don't think he's perfect and want to support him financially, remember:
The NY Post quoted
Herb Teitelbaum as being Tom's lawyer, and the public online court site says his current legal team is Bryan Cave in NYC.

I suggest that one choice would be to have bake sales/car washes, or just those with lots of spare to change to foot some of his legal bills. Let's see, $400/hour x 200 hours is $80,000. The suit was filed Oct 27, 2006.

If I know tax law, each person can give $10,000 to someone without that person incurring a gift tax.

Lots of people have lots of money, and rather than just calling us FAPCers wrong, use your ire for good!

Straight Shooter · 3 years ago

In a letter to Tom fall 2005 after the suit was filed, I wrote, "If I were Suzanne and the meeting had taken place in my home [near Central Park/low estimate $2.5-$3 million dollar-church-owned apt including living room, formal dining room, TV room, large entrance hall, study, eat-in kitchen (1994)], I would have said to you, 'If you come within 10 feet of that woman, I will be on the next train to [xx] and you can tell your lovey-dovey congregration why I an not there.'"

And maybe she did. Who's to say.

Dirty Harry · 3 years ago

Deut. 13:2 - “If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer, and he gives you a sign or a miracle. And the sign or miracle comes to pass, and he calls on you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods, whom you have not known, and let us worship them.’ You shall not listen to that prophet or dreamer. For G-d is testing you, to see whether you love the L-rd your G-d with all your heart and with all your soul.”
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/pdf/RealMessiahBookPages_v4ab.pdf

Again, the original god of the Jews was "El" dating back ~1750BCE. The years later, YHWH was created as their new and improved God.

YWHW = ~1,200 BCE, Southern tribe of Judah.

The word YHWH was created by the Southern tribes of Judah, to represent an ideal no earlier than ~1,200 BCE, YHWH didn't exist before then? The term YHWH was created as a response to the earlier god El, of the Northern tribes of Judah. El never died and the same Jews that believed in El, believed in YHWH eventually over hundreds of years, because of Southern Judean influence.
YWHW = ~1,200 BCE, Southern tribe of Judah.

Lets see, a thousand years later, we get... Jesus, a new and improved god Idol, yet, El was not said to have "not" existed, nor was YHWH "not" deposed of. El was said to be the father of YHWH, per historical records of the Jews. And Jesus, was said to be the "son" of god/YHWH in his era.

Let us continue, another thousand years pass, In Europe, marriage is now established among the nobility, yeaaah, religion has done something, commercialize marriage.

As well in that time frame... "The Investiture Controversy was the most significant conflict between secular and religious powers in medieval Europe. It began as a dispute in the 11th century between the Holy Roman Emperor and the Gregorian Papacy concerning who would control appointments of church officials (investiture). The controversy, undercutting the Imperial power established by the Salian Emperors would eventually lead to nearly fifty years of civil war in Germany, the triumph of the great dukes and abbots, and the disintegration of the German empire, a condition from which it would not recover until the reunification of Germany in the 19th century."

The crusades were going hot and heavy, nice stuff here, I mean, all of this progress of Jesus and all, and so many deaths.

Roll forward another thousand years, 2000CE, and what do we have... PNP, on a blog stating that Jesus was indeed the son of a god, and why? Because no one can find a body, and... that no one in their right mind would support a religious belief such as christendom's without some rationale. Yes, there was some rationale, it was called, power and the need to control.

The Northern tribe of Judah lost "El" as the "focus" of worship, and "YHWH" was established. YHWH was booted by the idolized name "Jesus", and said to be one in the same as YHWH by "some", and yet, many others say "nay", that Jesus was "not" the same substance as YHWH. From this point on, there is no conclusion on the matter, outside of a "forced" meeting by Constantine-I to settle the matter. And, from then on, nothing but blood and guts in battle to establish who is more right on their belief than another in regards to this New Idol Jesus.

The crusades happen, many are murdered for not adhering to Roman Law, which states Christianity is a state supported belief. Follow the timeline from 0CE, and entire religions pop up based on unique interpretation of the bible. In the more modern terms, the Mormons start their religion, based on the bible, in some parts, and based on the writings of a modern day prophet, nothing short of being a modern day Jesus.

PNP, knowing a little about the New Testament, and attempting to focus all of your belief on that one canonized book, places your belief out of context with the historical picture. Christianity never started as a "solid" religion, even after all the voting, much blood was shed. Christianity never "became" a solid religion, hence the crusades, and the Protestant revolution. And, today, Christianity, is "not", The True Religion, because it says it is.

No accounting for taste · 3 years ago

Tom was the kind of person who ususally responded as though he got what you said. The plaintiff's wife, all fizz, my individual response. Like when you talked, the response sort of dropped like a lead balloon. As if she pranced around enough, well, you get the point, this married mother of 2. The female clergy should have sat her down, but would she have listened? Her goal was employment, what people who would hire you think, matters. As the Post said, she'd been employed as a recruiter, she if anyone would know, theoretically about appearances. These two female clergy I'm thinking of have resigned in 2006, and well, how it is.

You think I'm critical. As I said. Visit the church. Just my observations.

In the first letter the church members got by Aug 30, that was the basis for the Aug 31 NY Post story (the first 5 in 6 days), we were told in the letter not to write Tom, but of course many of us, did, since it turned out that the only reason was that the plaintiff and his wife were (at least then) church members, so they thought they had to remain impartial. Why not just leave out the admonition not to write altogether?

Was that Christian charity, you tell me?

We're glad you like Tom. Many people did "not know what to think." Open your eyes wide and see his and our reality. And his reality now is that he has a new work opportunity, is waiting to see what happens at the next mtg with the judge, and the longer this continues one could expect the more his legal bills will be.

PNP · 3 years ago

Dh: "Actually, I have faith in knowing, that most literature of that era, shows clearly the vast evidence of conflict when trying to talk about anything regarding the early christian origins, there was no evidence."

You certainly must, because here's what we know - EXTRA-Biblically:
1. There was a man called Jesus
2. He was at the basis of a superstitious belief that He was the "Christ"
4. His first followers were Jews who were brought to the faith through the arguing from OT
5. He was killed under Pontius Pilate
6. The Church grew following his death and at the basis of their faith was the claim that Christ had re-appeared from the dead.
7. Christians proceeded to get their asses kicked for the next 300+ years yet still the Church grew - based on the central belief that Jesus was the Christ - that he was the fulfillment of OT teachings.

DH: "Let me show you PNP. Santa Clause lives, prove me wrong? What, you can't find a body, oh, well there must be a global conspiracy, we all know if Santa Clause's body can't be found there has to be a reason. You have been focusing on something, like the missing body of christianity, to "support" all of its claims."

OK, so we know the history behind Santa Claus right? A Christian monk called Nicholas ("St. Nick") around 280 AD...northern Turkey...did a lot of nice things for people...died with no claims to divinity other than believing in the One who was...not a great argument there...

DH: " So, PNP, where is the body? Oh, please, tell me you "know" where the body is, I mean, you are the apologetic, right. All I need do is ask, where the body is. So, if you can't show me the body, then you have no evidence, just like, I have no evidence of Santa Clause, because I have no body. Lets make it easier, where is a statue of Jesus, like the ones they had of greek gods, etc., No? No, Jesus statues, for the most popular guy in christendom, well, I wonder why not."

It's not just about showing the body (although I've said earlier this is my "criteria of falsifiability"), it's about coming up with a logical, rational, explanation of the events. And so far...you haven't done it.

DH: "Your entire argument, is based on the "presupposition", that Jesus in fact did live."

As I said in my earlier posts we have excellent EXTRA-Biblical evidence that he did in fact live. The Ebionites who you like to quote believed that...so your logic is: the Ebionites were wrong to believe that he lived, but they were right to believe that he wasn't divine? hmmmmmmm...Plus the fact that different people believed different things about Christ during his time is NOT proof that he wasn't, in fact, divine. The Gnostics thought Christ was only spiritual, the Ebionites believed he was only human...as for me, I like my Christianity "just right"...as did several hundred in the first Christian Church.

DH: "Yeah, unlike the christian verson of godly divine messiah with supernatural powers, The Messiah of the Old Testament which is claimed by christians to be Jesus, is a contradiction of the Jews' term Messiah..."

This is where you start getting weak...
The "seed of a woman": Genesis 3:15.... Galatians 4:4
Born in Bethlehem: Micah 5:2.... Matthew 2:1.... Luke 2:4-7
To be born of a Virgin: Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:18.... Luke 1:26-35.
Slaughter of the Innocent children: Jeremiah 31:15.... Matthew 2:16-18.
Flight to Egypt: Hosea 11:1.... Matthew 2:14-15.
Triumphal entry in Jerusalem on a donkey: Zechariah 9:9.... John 12:13-14.
Silent to accusations: Isaiah 53:7.... Matthew 26:62-63, Mark.15:4-5.
Spat and struck: Isaiah 50:6, Matthew 26:67.
Soldiers divided his garments and gambled for his clothing: Psalm 22:18... Matt.27:35 (2 Prophecies)
Crucified, "pierced through hands and feet": Zechariah 12:10, Psalm 22:16.... Matthew 27:35, John 20:27.
No bones broken: Psalm 34:20.... John 19:32-36.
Vicarious Sacrifice: Isaiah 53:4-5, 6, 12.... Matthew 8:16-17, Romans 4:25, 5:6-8, 1 Corinthians 15:3.
Deserted by his followers: Zechariah 13:7.... Mark 14:27.
The way prepared by John the Baptist: Isaiah 40:3,5.... John 1:23, Luke 3:3-6.
Rejected by his own people, the Jews: Is.53:3, John 1:11.
Not believed: Is.53:1, John 12:37.

DH: "PNP, your Jesus fails so miserably as the Jewish Messiah, that you coming here, makes you look intellectually inept, and in dire need of self reinforcement for your belief. I am using "YOUR" bible, you know, the one that doesn't support Jesus as the Messiah, in the Old Testament, the one that has all those prophesies, but doesn't mention "once" the name Jesus."

uhhh...well, you're right about one thing...Jesus wasn't much of a Messiah given the standards of many Jews at the time...the problem is many of those standards were not founded in OT prophecy and some, admittedly, have yet to be fulfilled. How you can read the prophetic books of the OT and not see the correlation to man who was at least "like" Jesus, again takes a little more faith than I've got

DH: "The Jesus presented in the New Testament didn't fulfill any of the requirements from the Jewish God"

hmmmm...well, I think we proved that he did...but, again, admittedly...some of these prophecies (Lord on an earthly throne, ruling during world peace, rebuilding the temple, etc) have yet to take place. Still, the Christ proclaimed in the OT had to be "pierced for our transgressions" first before he could return in power.

DH: "Jesus failed if you suggest he was the Jewish Messiah, and did so... miserably"
...Zechariah, Isaiah, Micah, David, etc...might disagree with you.

J. C. Samuelson · 3 years ago

I’ve got some time, so here’s a cursory response. If you want more, it’ll have to wait.

"It's not just people dying for the faith...but I'm focusing here on the claims of Christ and how a faith based on the those divine claims (miracles, resurrection) could continue after the death of its founders."

Yes, I think I understand your premise. It's your position that Christianity could only succeed in the face of massive, widespread persecution if Jesus' claims and the events surrounding his life were true and/or accurate. Furthermore, if Jesus' claims and the events were not true, then first century non-believers could have "delivered the goods" and proven Christianity false.

On your first point, there is precious little evidence that any persecution suffered by Christians during the first and early second centuries hindered the spread of the faith, regardless of the veracity of Jesus' or the apostles' words or deeds. History demonstrates that what persecution did take place was not akin to wholesale slaughter, meaning that many, if not most, Christians likely felt perfectly safe practicing their religion and spreading the "good news."

To recap:

Ananus as High Priest managed to arrange the killing of James and some of his companions. As a result, he lost his position as High Priest. I doubt the message was lost on his successors. Ergo, no mass persecution here.

The Testimonium Flavianum doesn't add anything except Jesus was killed but his disciples persisted. We already knew that. No persecution described here, unless you count Jesus. Since Jesus was neither a disciple or a follower of himself, I don't think this was really relevant to the discussion.

The situation described by Tacitus is closest to the death of Jesus, and was arguably the worst case of persecution among those you presented. Yet even this wound up backfiring. Nero failed in his persecution because his actions wound up generating sympathy for the poor Christians among the previously hostile populace as witnessed by Tacitus himself. Ergo, Christianity survived.

Pliny killed several, I'm sure (he doesn't say). He knew very little about Christians, and more than likely had gotten complaints about them before doing anything, according to Robert Wilken (see here for an excerpt from the book I mentioned last post. This one deals with Pliny). After adjourning his proceedings he wrote to Trajan for advice, and Trajan essentially told him don't bother with them (Christians). Considering how widespread Christianity was in Bithynia as witnessed by Pliny this is hardly a case of widespread persecution that could jeopardize the success of the faith, requiring multitudes of people to confess their allegiance to Christ in the face of horrible tortures and execution.

As to your second point, that's dealt with below.

"Once again, to bring in Mormons, Muslims, Ebionites...really isn't relevant, because none of those faiths are based on the same claims."

Each religion makes supernatural claims that are unique in some way. To say that the only relevant faiths are those that are identical to Christianity is ridiculous. Mormonism, Islam, Judaism - all are perfectly valid comparisons because of the similarities they share with Christianity. All are monotheistic, all of them have primary prophets who have had supernatural events ascribed to them, and all of them have had adherents who have died for their faith. In fact, they all even agree on Jesus as a prophet.

"WM and you are absolutely right to point out that other messianic religions were around during Christ's day, but you're making my point...where are they now? Put better, where were they within 10 years of their founder's death?"

So,as the WM observed, according to your logic:

If a messianic faith succeeds it is true.
Many other messianic faiths failed, but Christianity succeeded.
Therefore, Christianity is true.

Is this what you're saying?

"If your point is that nobody really cared about persecuting the Church or finding Christ's body...well, that's another story."

You're welcome to refute the supporting material I presented and the analysis of it anytime you like.

"Whether the "Roman on the street" knew about Christianity is irrelevant."

I wasn't talking about the average "Roman on the street." Roman authority was interested in Christiantiy spordadically, and only persecuted the faith when it was either politically expedient to do so (Nero) or in the absence of other guidance (Pliny/Trajan). I think you'd agree that even Pilate wasn't so much interested in the person of Jesus as he was interested in keeping the Jewish population happy.

"Rome was and is hundreds of miles away from Jerusalem and Paul was one of the only Christian missionaries there during the first century. The fact is that the local Jewish leaders knew about Christianity and the LOCAL Roman authorities did. Still, enough Romans knew about them for Nero to blame the fire of 64AD on them...only 30 years after Christ's death/resurrection."

Please explain what you're trying to say here. First, you say there were hardly any Christians in Rome during the first century (besides Paul), then point to Nero who arguably killed hundreds, maybe thousands. Which is it?

"Now we've already established from Josephus and Tacitus that Jesus was killed under Pontius Pilate and that he was regarded by his believers as "Christ". So we've established extra-Biblically that Christ was killed...so this is how you treat someone who's "particularly annoying"? Christ was front and center on the radar of the Sanhedrin...because they did not have the power to crucify him they had to force the Roman authorities to do it through rioting...so Christ was "particularly annoying"?"

No need to get emotional. We were addressing whether the Jews would be predisposed to disprove Christianity to the general populace by presenting evidence against it. In other words, post-crucifixion, not pre-.

You have yet to present any material that supports your claim that the Jews and/or the Romans were interested in presenting evidence against Christianity.

"...in the end, you have faith in your scholars and I have mine...we could have them arm wrestle to see who's point would win, but all they do is reinforce your opinion or mine. At one point you mention Yamiuchi...he's one scholar who believes Josephus' line "if you can call him..." as being valid...so I guess you like him when he makes your point and disagree with him when he doesn't..."

He does? Funny, on page 79 - 80 of The Case for Christ, Yamauchi says:

"For instance, the first line says, ‘About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man.’ That phrase is not normally used of Jesus by Christians, so it seems authentic for Josephus. But the next phrase says, ‘if indeed one ought to call him a man.’ This implies Jesus was more than human, which appears to be an interpolation."

I don't have "faith" in any scholar, except in the sense that I don't have access to much of the material that they do, and generally must rely on their scholarship.

In any case, I'm well aware of Yamauchi's views on the Christian faith. My point in quoting him here was to illustrate that it can take generations for people to begin taking a particular religion seriously enough to bother with it. I felt that coming from a fellow apologist his word might carry more weight with you than some skeptic.

Incidentally, just because a scholar says some things I don't agree with doesn't mean I think everything he/she says is garbage. That "all or nothing" attitude doesn't mesh well with reality.

"1. the claims of Christ's disappearance began 3 days after his death - not several weeks. He may have appeared several weeks later, but the body was missing in days..."

You missed the overriding point; Christians did not start proclaiming Jesus' resurrection until after the Pentecost - the 7th Sunday after Easter. A missing body is not automatically an indicator of supernatural interference, and the Sanhedrin could quite easily be satisfied with their own explanation - that Jesus' disciples stole the body.

In fact, this accusation alone could serve a dual purpose; to dismiss the missing body, and to cast an unfavorable light on Jesus' disciples among the general populace. This is because under Jewish burial customs it was considered a great wrong to disinter a corpse, unless it was to move the body to a place closer to the family.

"2. ...These were the same people who's governing council met to convict him and then pushed the ruling authority (who could have cared less) to carry out the harshest punishment possible...the claims were of his divine nature...so I guess this is the way it went down...Christ dies...3 days later people claim his body is gone...the Jews say, "wow...that's weird...we thought he was buried over there next to the other criminals...not that I want to look or anything...no we wouldn't want to disprove it or anything..."

Your sarcasm is amusing but no, they needn't have wondered at all. All they have to say is "Those dirty rats his disciples stole the body," and the controversy is settled as far as they're concerned. Again, this argument is anachronistic in that it casts the Sanhedrin as careful skeptics, eager to see/produce evidence. These are people who make pronouncements they expect to be believed and followed, not people who feel the need to convince anyone of anything.

For them to have taken seriously the claims of a risen Christ would've been to actually give credence to the Christian movement. Then as now, the empty tomb argument is only important to Christians, no one else.

To summarize, you've thus far provided no supporting materials, and have failed to demonstrate either of your points sufficiently. You've basically applied common apologetics techniques and materials, along with some emotional appeals in an attempt to score points.

Sorry if that comes off harsh or unfriendly, but I've got heartburn right now and not in a good mood. :/

J. C. Samuelson · 3 years ago

By the way, here's an interesting article on Jewish burial practices from The Jewish Encyclopedia. Some of the information presented in my last post was gleaned from this source.

You might also be interested in another article by Richard Carrier addressing the death and burial of Jesus. Apparently it's since been updated, but is only available in book form. Since I don't have the book this will have to suffice for now.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

no accounting for taste fits you well....

why is it that female clergy should look a certain way.

if male clergy are 'handsome or well dresseed' they get promoted...

female clergy...well let's just say they look a 'certain' way. did you ever say to male clergy..."hey, ease down on the hair gel buddy, cause your turning on the female members of the church"

no I don't think so!

you are all such women bashers it's not even funny!

.:webmaster:. · 3 years ago

I gotta hand it to you PNP, you've turned the proof wheel inside out.

"You can't produce a body, therefore that PROVES Jebus is alive!"

Show me your living messiah. To heck with showing you a body, show me your living 2000-year-old man.

Waiting...

Showgirl2 · 3 years ago

If you're going to dress like a showgirl off stage, it's a free country, and it doesn't mean that anyone will hire you as a minister, it's a free country.

That was the career she was going for, minister. Not go-go-dancer.

And can't a woman use the word "showgirl?" Why do you think the writer is a man? Someone will see her clothes of those of an "available" woman, which she will be after she's divorced.

I guarantee you have not 1) met her or are 2) married and attend a church.

But then we live in "Sex and the City" NYC and dang if that wasn't the title of a sermon, "Sects in the City," although they didn't "get" the difference. Not "in" but "and."

Showgirl2 · 3 years ago

She was gunning for a job in ministry, as a go-go-dancer but didn't look the part. At least not to be expected to be hired in a church where women, too, make the decision.

Showgirl2 · 3 years ago

This just in...
CALGARY, Alberta - A worker who accidentally tripped a shut-off switch at a major Ontario plastics plant will cost the manufacturer $11 million in lost profit, the company said Wednesday.

Candian dollars, but even so. xxxx happens.

Dirty Harry · 3 years ago

PNP: "You certainly must, because here's what we know - EXTRA-Biblically: 1. There was a man called Jesus"

There were a bunch of people called Jesus, yet, none stood out enough to be The Jesus, of Divine Origin, born of a ghost.

PNP: "2. He was at the basis of a superstitious belief that He was the "Christ"

Again, not sure I can separate metaphyiscal belief from superstition, I lump all non-Natural assertions into the hypothetical category. As well, I haven't read anything like an autobiography that suggests a Jesus, any Jesus, states they were the cornerstone of a "superstitious" belief system, or "any" belief system for that matter. All comments to such activity, are from second to umpteen hand sources.

PNP: "4. His first followers were Jews who were brought to the faith through the arguing from OT"

Do you find it odd in the least, that the Old Testament, does not mention Jesus. I mean, obviously, if Jesus were teaching to the Jews, one would assert that a culturally and historically fanatic community as the Jews, would have noted that little, okay, "Huge" event. They never did, nor did they even engage in the name Jesus, until it had to compete with Christian dogma that was released in the Roman Empire to convert Jews.

The arguing to the "faith", was started as early as Paul, but Paul never met Jesus, and stated as such. He was arguing totally based on a "vision" he claims to have had, with a person called Jesus. Paul, "taking" the Jewish Tanakh (Hebrew Old Testament), which doesn't mention once the name Jesus, and started preaching his own oral tradition along with the words in the bible. The Jewish religion was based on oral and written tradition.

The written was incomplete, without the metaphorical explanations through oral tradition. Paul exploited, the oral tradition, by taking the written words of the Old Testament, and filling in the gaps. Yes, kind of like what goes on today, with apologetics. People take the words, like many preachers, and pick and choose which words they want to preach from, and create entirely different stories based on their piecing together of biblical passages.

Paul, was a liar, and a thief. He started his antics the day he started preaching, with "zero" evidence of a Jesus or "god", as he exploited a another religions' written words based on his own druthers, because "He" didn't believe in their cause, or religious customs and laws.

The lying, stealing, etc., was the foundation of the christian religion, and Paul was the cornerstone. There is "zero" documentation of a Jesus, "IN THE ERA" that Jesus lived. Jesus as a character, doesn't show up on "any" documentation until much later after his "theoretical" death.

PNP: "5. He was killed under Pontius Pilate"

Per what documentation, ya' know, I really don't know which documentatino you pull out, but I'll bet you a cold soda, that whatever you pull out, is "after" the death of Jesus' theoretical life. So, are you pulling from the New Testamet? Why? Because you have nothing to support Jesus, during his theoretical life.

The only reason someone wouldn't write of a Jesus in his day, is because the "writings" could easily be "checked" for validity. And, there was 'zero' validity, hence, no documentation during his life. Everything of Jesus, was described "after" the theoretical death of Jesus, which left "zero" ability to verify "claims".

Its called, creating a reality in the past, and asking others to believe, "knowing" that no one can go back in the past to disprove anything, if "no evidence" exists. Christianity, states that Jesus' body descended into some transcendental reality, and couldn't be checked. Transcendental reality, is the "imagination", and, well, how does someone disprove someone elses' imagination? They can't. However, you can't "prove" your imagination either, and the Jews weren't buying, because they were looking for the goods if a Jesus was supposed to have been their Messiah, and carried through the prophesies. Someone's imagination, doesn't overcome the evidence of non-obtained prophesy.

PNP: "6. The Church grew following his death and at the basis of their faith was the claim that Christ had re-appeared from the dead."

However, Paul and other authors of the bible, clearly state that Jesus would reappear at different times in the lives of his followers, and... he lied, yet again. Not only did "he", Paul, Lie, but so did the other authors. Paul, didn't care what he had to do, to gain a following, lie, cheat, steal, it really didnt' matter, he believed in his "personal" cause. During Paul's time, christianity did "not" in fact flourish, many Jewish sects that Paul went to, went back to their beliefs, after Paul left their area. Christianity didn't flourish, until the might of the Roman Empire, and the buy-in of Constantine-I was established.

PNP: "7. Christians proceeded to get their asses kicked for the next 300+ years yet still the Church grew - based on the central belief that Jesus was the Christ - that he was the fulfillment of OT teachings."

Define Christian. Paul's followers? Jesus, didn't have a following, if you suggest a Jesus did, then, give me the reference for such a statement, and the era in which the document was written.

PNP: "OK, so we know the history behind Santa Claus right? A Christian monk called Nicholas ("St. Nick") around 280 AD...northern Turkey...did a lot of nice things for people...died with no claims to divinity other than believing in the One who was...not a great argument there..."

"Saint Nicholas is the common name for Saint Nicholas of Myra, who had a reputation for secret gift-giving. He lived in 4th century Myra in the Byzantine Empire's Lycia, the modern day Demre in Antalya province of Turkey. This is as much as is generally known about him in the West.

This historical character was the inspiration for a mythical figure known as Nikolaus in Germany and Sinterklaas in the Netherlands and Flanders, which in turn was the inspiration for Santa Claus."

So far, so good. A mortal no less, doing good deeds.

"A later writer claimed that after Arius had presented his case against Jesus' divinity to the Council, Nicholas hit Arius in the face out of indignation. Nicholas was kicked out of the Council for this offence, and jailed as well."

Uh, oh, now... it appears Santie seems to have a little temper, while all of this gambling and rolling the dice was going on when discussing the divinity of the "One"... However, Santa got his wish, even though he was naughty...

"The council lasted from May 20 to June 19, 325 and resulted in the declaration of the Nicene Creed and the formal condemnation of Arianism."

"Taking advantage of the confusion sailors from Bari, Italy seized the remains of the saint over the objections of the Orthodox monks then caring for them. Returning to Bari they brought the remains with them. The remains arrived on May 9, 1087. Some observers have reported seeing myrrh exude from these relics."

Oh, how heavenly. Santa's bones were moved, nice touch, at least they could "find" the bones, if they were indeed his. But, what was one of the gifts given by the wise men? Myrrh? Oh, right, and the sailors declared it was growing right out of his remains. I suppose that makes him deitical as well.

"A legend (Latin, legenda, "things to be read") is a narrative of human actions that are perceived both by teller and listeners to take place within human history and to possess certain qualities that give the tale verisimilitude."

"Verisimilitude (from Latin verisimilitudo, from verus true + similitudo similitude) is the state or quality of something which exhibits the appearance of truth or reality."

Hamlet, is a legend, based on a real person, the mythical Santa Clause is a legend, based on a person who is said to have been a priest, and then... Jesus... is nothing short of a Legend himself, except there is "zero" evidence from his "era", in either bones, or writings from "his" era.

Santa Clause, was made into a "legend", by attributing magical features to him. Jesus, without a physical body, or any evidence, was given "magical" aspects as well. Santa Clause, however, is much more believable than Jesus, as "there is evidence" for his existence, minus the supernatural powers. Santa smacked Arius, a much mortal thing to do, when trying to establish control of an empire. The legend of Jesus, is only where it is today, because of its "Own" Internal Controversy, among its "Own" followers, and because it has attempted to Externally "convert" everyone on this planet. Christianity is only well-known, because people have attempted to "rid" themselves of the lies, deceit, etc., that was used to catapult such a religion.

PNP: "It's not just about showing the body (although I've said earlier this is my "criteria of falsifiability"), it's about coming up with a logical, rational, explanation of the events. And so far...you haven't done it."

Done what? Jesus didn't exist, based on the evidence. What are you trying to figure out? I have provided a step by step explanation for the things that have come to pass, using your own bible. Take into account, the Roman Empire, and its influence of The First Council of Nicaea, and the many following synods, etc., to discuss and vote on Jesus, and rules of the church, and you don't need to hold a degree. By all means, ask me a question, and I'll provide a plausible answer. You have "yet" to provide a question that hasn't been given a "most" rational answer. Where did Jesus go after death? That presupposes that Jesus lived. How about, "What information do we have during Jesus' life to show, that he lived, so that people can "form" presuppositional questions on Jesus?" Now, good question, and here is the answer. "There is zero information, about a Jesus during his theoretical life, period, to establish a foundation to even assert that he lived, period."

You, assume without any information, except what was posed later on and in a highly controversial, even to this day, debate on the "divinity" of a hypothetical person. Those who lived when the News of a Jesus broke, as Paul and his followers were trying to "spread the good news", created their own writings, to counteract the blasphemy, that Paul was engaging in. Paul, like a good story teller, states that Jesus didn't partake of the Sabbath, and proceeded to use the name "Jesus", to break all of the Jewish laws. Why? Oh, glad you asked. Because Paul, didn't agree with the Jewish religion, and "that", was well known, by his own actions.

PNP: "As I said in my earlier posts we have excellent EXTRA-Biblical evidence that he did in fact live. The Ebionites who you like to quote believed that...so your logic is: the Ebionites were wrong to believe that he lived, but they were right to believe that he wasn't divine?"

First of all, I would call the Ebionite writings, "counter claims" to Pauline christianity. The Ebionites don't declare they "knew" Jesus either. Again, "No One", in their writings, state, "They" knew Jesus, first-hand. Give me a reference, oh please, in that era. Oh, that's not going to happen.

PNP: "hmmmmmmm...Plus the fact that different people believed different things about Christ during his time is NOT proof that he wasn't, in fact, divine. The Gnostics thought Christ was only spiritual, the Ebionites believed he was only human...as for me, I like my Christianity "just right"...as did several hundred in the first Christian Church."

The first few hundred, had no knowledge of Jesus, just the voice of Paul, and some of his followers. Again, all "documents" cited, after the fact of a Jesus' theoretical life, is nothing short of "counter claims", to prevent christian dogma from spreading into the smaller or more exclusive religious sects.

PNP: "This is where you start getting weak..."

You're kidding, right. Your entire argument has been destroyed based on evidence, you have provided nothing, not one shred of evidence during the lifetime of a theoretical Jesus. Therre is "zero" evidence based on archeology, temples, statues, etc. Jesus' own divinity had to be "voted" on... That Was How Weak the evidence for Christianity was...

PNP: "The "seed of a woman": Genesis 3:15.... Galatians 4:4
Born in Bethlehem: Micah 5:2.... Matthew 2:1.... Luke 2:4-7
To be born of a Virgin: Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:18.... Luke 1:26-35. Slaughter of the Innocent children: Jeremiah 31:15.... Matthew 2:16-18.
Flight to Egypt: Hosea 11:1.... Matthew 2:14-15.
Triumphal entry in Jerusalem on a donkey: Zechariah 9:9.... John 12:13-14.
Silent to accusations: Isaiah 53:7.... Matthew 26:62-63, Mark.15:4-5.
Spat and struck: Isaiah 50:6, Matthew 26:67.
Soldiers divided his garments and gambled for his clothing: Psalm 22:18... Matt.27:35 (2 Prophecies)
Crucified, "pierced through hands and feet": Zechariah 12:10, Psalm 22:16.... Matthew 27:35, John 20:27.
No bones broken: Psalm 34:20.... John 19:32-36.
Vicarious Sacrifice: Isaiah 53:4-5, 6, 12.... Matthew 8:16-17, Romans 4:25, 5:6-8, 1 Corinthians 15:3.
Deserted by his followers: Zechariah 13:7.... Mark 14:27.
The way prepared by John the Baptist: Isaiah 40:3,5.... John 1:23, Luke 3:3-6.
Rejected by his own people, the Jews: Is.53:3, John 1:11.
Not believed: Is.53:1, John 12:37."

Weak? In any of those passages, where is Jesus "named", in any Old Testament scripture? Nadda, you're comment was extremely weak. Thanks for making my point.

PNP: "uhhh...well, you're right about one thing...Jesus wasn't much of a Messiah given the standards of many Jews at the time...the problem is many of those standards were not founded in OT prophecy and some, admittedly, have yet to be fulfilled."

Uh, no. All of those standards were founded in Old Testament prophesy, and "none" had been fulfilled. As a matter of "fact", if "any" of them weren't fulfilled, then Jesus the character was "not" the True Messiah of the Jews, as portrayed by Paul, and the Roman Emperors' clergy.

PNP: "How you can read the prophetic books of the OT and not see the correlation to man who was at least "like" Jesus, again takes a little more faith than I've got"

Because, I am reading the bible, as it is written... not as I want it to appear. I could place a number of people in that era into that same spot and make an argument, as a matter of fact, there is an entire list of "false messiahs" of that era, who stated that they fitted the bill as the "True" Messiah.

DH: "The Jesus presented in the New Testament didn't fulfill any of the requirements from the Jewish God"

PNP: "hmmmm...well, I think we proved that he did...but, again, admittedly...some of these prophecies (Lord on an earthly throne, ruling during world peace, rebuilding the temple, etc) have yet to take place. Still, the Christ proclaimed in the OT had to be "pierced for our transgressions" first before he could return in power."

No, you didn't prove Jesus fulfilled prophesy, if you do show that to be the case, then we should be living in the Jewish New Kingdom. If Jesus was a false prophet, then we would "not" be living in the Jewish New Kingdom. So, which is it. The New Testament has "zero" authority, until the Old Testament prophesy was fulfilled, because a "GOD", gave that prophesy.

Are you going to suggest that the Jews' GOD somehow made a mistake, uh, coldn't see far enough ahead to make the right call regarding his laws, etc. This should be great, please expound on how the "Jews'" god, just up and messed up the entire Old Testament and prophesies, and had to "edit" his word so that a Newer and Better Testament could be created, where gentiles could be part of the great salvation army plan.

DH: "Jesus failed if you suggest he was the Jewish Messiah, and did so... miserably"

PNP: "...Zechariah, Isaiah, Micah, David, etc...might disagree with you."

:-) Show me in the Old Testament in Zechariah, Isaiah, Micah, etc,. where Jesus' name appears. Oh, you don't have that. And, again, the Jews of the Old Testament were looking for a mortal Messiah, its in their words, not mine. "All" of those old testament writers, would have spat in the face of anyone who declared they were the messiah, without having filled the prophesies. Paul tried making up his story, and what happened to Paul, right, stoned, lashed, and almost murdered a few times.

Paul is the shining cornerstone on which many Christians have placed their faith, as without Paul, stealing, lying, and exploiting, christianity would never have gotten off of its feet. It was the lack of evidence, and honest support from Paul, or his followers, that caused much of the controvery during the vote within a few hundred years of his preaching. Not having "any" reliable record, a "vote" had to be taken, that is what Christianity is built upon, weak, assertions from its onset, and because of this "lack" of "any" evidence during the time of Jesus' life, "faith" is required.

The "faith" that the person who told "YOU" PNP, that Jesus was real, knew something you didn't, and YOU have chosen to believe that person, or writing, whoever that would be. I have chosen to accept that the person who told me of a Jesus, did not in fact have any more knowledge of Jesus, than those who had to "vote" on his divinity.

The First Council of Nicaea "voters" on the divinity of Jesus, with insurmountable resources in their day, who could have conquered, taken, stolen, etc., entire countries to get evidence to support the existence of Jesus, for Roman Emperor Constantine-I, couldn't come up with "anything". Its "why"... they "voted", and was why, there was heated debate with Santa Clause, and all of the other priests at the voting booth.

PNP, you believe what you believe, because you have "faith", that you were not "lied" to, by someone who told you of Jesus. I believe, I need to know the truth, that has yet to be provided by "anyone" who claims to be a christian on this site for a Jesus having ever existed.

Unlike you, I have no problem calling someone a liar, if they make a statement of "fact", yet, hide under rhetoric without providing any substance to their claims. To me, they are no better than Paul, who himself, was a liar. If Paul approached me today, and asked me to believe something, and proceeded to tell me, that I'd have to take his word only, because he had a vision. I'd have to say, "no". You, may accept someone elses' delusions, and that's all the difference.

PNP · 3 years ago

DH: I really do want to get back to UG and WM here, but after looking at your last post I'm a little awestruck...

DH: "In any of those passages, where is Jesus "named", in any Old Testament scripture? Nadda, you're comment was extremely weak."

Is your point that the OT was supposed to prophesy a man by the actual name of "Jesus" or just the events that surrounded his life, death and resurrection? If so, that might be the goofiest argument I've ever heard...

First you ask me for proof that there's a connection between OT prophecy and Jesus's life. I give you about 10 or so out of dozens of other possible ones and you say "weak"? Did you actually read these verses?

I'll get back to the rest of your post later, but please tell me you're not saying this...

PNP · 3 years ago

UG...

UG: "Each religion makes supernatural claims that are unique in some way. To say that the only relevant faiths are those that are identical to Christianity is ridiculous. Mormonism, Islam, Judaism - all are perfectly valid comparisons because of the similarities they share with Christianity. All are monotheistic, all of them have primary prophets who have had supernatural events ascribed to them, and all of them have had adherents who have died for their faith. In fact, they all even agree on Jesus as a prophet."

I guess we're just not understanding the difference between a messianic religion that's based on prophecy (ie Islam, Mormonism, etc.) and one in which the supposed prophecy and messianic figure are one in the same (Christianity, Branch Davidians, recent beliefs of some in the Lubavitch community).

I think I've been pretty clear about the fact that lumping all these religions together is either an attempt to obfuscate their crucial differences or honest misunderstanding. For the first time in any of my posts I'm going to fully quote a verse from the NT...I don't think I'm saying to much to state that Paul's writing in his letter to the Church at Corinth (15:13-15)

"If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he has been raised from the dead."

The entire Christian faith rests on the belief in one man and his resurrection from the dead...no other major religion has bet EVERYTHING on this supposition. Now, again, that doesn't make it true, but to keep going on and on about, well they say weird things about a lot of people...this is more than weird...this is a belief in a God man who after living a life curiously close to OT prophecy, was killed and raised again. The question really is...where's the body?

1993 - David Koresh is killed at Waco...some of his followers believed that he would re-appear on Dec. 14, 1996...then, it was supposed to be Aug. 6, 1999, now we're looking at March 2012.

1994- Rabbi Schneerson dies, yet some believe that he's coming back to life at some point...so far nothing.

It's the resurrecting that would make these religions true (and all of us look pretty stupid).

UG: "If a messianic faith succeeds it is true.
Many other messianic faiths failed, but Christianity succeeded.
Therefore, Christianity is true.

Is this what you're saying?"

YES...that's what I'm saying...what other criteria could there be...looks like a duck, acts like a duck, might be a duck.

UG: "Please explain what you're trying to say here. First, you say there were hardly any Christians in Rome during the first century (besides Paul), then point to Nero who arguably killed hundreds, maybe thousands. Which is it?"

You had made an earlier point that nobody really seemed to care about Christianity throughout it's first century...I was just agreeing that might have been the case in some instances, but certainly not the case by 64AD or earlier in regards to Jewish authorities.

UG: "You have yet to present any material that supports your claim that the Jews and/or the Romans were interested in presenting evidence against Christianity."

Let me quote that link you sent me to on the burial: "the fact that the Jews enjoyed the practice of their laws at the time, especially ones taken so seriously as this, and the fact that Josephus writes as if the law was both observed under the Roman peace and regarded as especially vile to break..."

So the Jews only cared about killing him, they didn't care about all his followers that started circulating a rumor that this guy had risen...chop off the head and kill the snake...but not so here. You want me to believe that the Jewish authorities only cared about Christ's blasphemy but not that of his followers who continued to preach it? So Stephen was stoned because...and James was killed because...?

Just find the body, baby...we knew it was missing 3 days after...an entire branch of blashphemous Christianity is based on it...and you want me to believe that they just stopped caring about it?

UG: "don't have "faith" in any scholar, except in the sense that I don't have access to much of the material that they do, and generally must rely on their scholarship."

You're absolutely right about this...my bad.

UG: "that Jesus' disciples stole the body"

Finally! an explanation...let's test the logic...

Jesus dies, disciples really bummed out, come up with a plan to steal body even though the Sanhedrin would not want this to happen. They steal the body, and then start running around saying (again) "yeehee...He is Risen!" then the base a whole religion on it, make lots of money and retire to Sarasota...

Dirty Harry · 3 years ago

Yes, the point of the matter, is that "Jesus", by name was not named. In the midst of all of that prophesy of the Old Testament, from an omniscient and omnipotent, god, no name was given for the Messiah, imagine that.

And, just to get the party started, as you want to attempt to make a connection between the Old Testament and the New Testament, let me just go ahead, and shut down Matthew's virgin birth scenario.

Matthew attempts to suggest that the prophesy of Isaiah, and the messiah's coming (a mortal messiah per Isaiah), is established based on Matthews' statement that a child was actually conceived. Well, lets see what Isaiah, actually says, shall we.

"Question: Isaiah 9:5-6 says: "For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called A wonderful counselor is the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the ruler of peace; that the government may be increased, and of peace there be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it through justice and through righteousness from henceforth even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts does perform this." Who is the child the prophet speaks about?

Answer: Isaiah is known for the method by which he presents many of his messages through the use of prophetic names (Isaiah 7:3, 14; 8:3). In the verse under study, the prophet expounds his message by formulating a prophetic name for Hezekiah. The words of this name form a sentence expressive of God's greatness, which will become manifest in the benefits to be bestowed upon the future king in his lifetime. Thus, the name, though borne by the king, serves, in reality, as a testimonial to God.

Hezekiah is called "a wonderful counselor" because this name is a sign, which foretells God's design for him.

The Lord of hosts has sworn, saying: "As I have thought, so shall it be, and as I have purposed, so shall it stand, that I will break Asshur in My land, and upon My mountains trample him under foot; then shall his yoke depart from off them, and his burden depart from off their shoulder." This is the purpose that is purposed upon the whole earth; and this is the hand that is stretched out upon all the nations. For the Lord of hosts has purposed, and who will annul it? And His hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back? (Isaiah 14:24-27)

Be not afraid of the words that you have heard, with which the servants of the king of Assyria have blasphemed Me. Behold, I will put a spirit in him, and he shall hear a rumor, and shall return to his own land; and I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land. (Isaiah 37:6-7)
Hezekiah is called "the mighty God" because this name is a sign that foretells God's defense of Jerusalem through the miraculous sudden mass death of Sennacherib's army.

Therefore thus says the Lord concerning the king of Assyria: He shall not come to this city, nor shoot an arrow there, neither shall he come before it with shield, nor cast a mound against it. By the way that he came, by the same shall he return, and he shall not come to this city, says the Lord. For I will defend this city to save it, for My own sake, and for My servant David's sake. (Isaiah 37:33-35)
Hezekiah is called "the everlasting Father" because this name is a sign, which foretells that God will add years to his life. "Go, and say to Hezekiah: Thus says the Lord, the God of David your father: I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; behold, I will add to your days fifteen years" (Isaiah 38:5).

Hezekiah is called "the ruler of peace" because this name is a sign, which foretells that God would be merciful to him. Punishment for lack of faith in the Almighty will be deferred and peace granted during the last years of his rule. "Then said Hezekiah to Isaiah: 'Good is the word of the Lord which you have spoken.' He said moreover: 'If but there shall be peace and security in my days'" (Isaiah 39:8).

The fulfillment of the above-stated declarations is foretold in Isaiah 9:6, when, after the Assyrian defeat, Hezekiah's glory increased and peace reigned for the rest of his life (2 Chronicles 32:23). Archaeologists have found that there was a sudden expansion of Judean settlements in the years following the fall of the northern kingdom. This indicates that many refugees fled south, thus giving added significance to the statement "that the government may be increased."

Hezekiah's kingdom is declared to be forever, for through his efforts to cleanse the Temple ritual of idolatry, even though apostasy followed under his son Menasseh, the Davidic dynasty was once more confirmed as the only true kingly rule that God would accept over his people "from henceforth and forever." The greatness of Hezekiah lies in his setting the stage for Israel's future. Hezekiah was a true reformer. He cleansed religious worship of foreign influence, purged the palace and the Temple of images and pagan altars, and reestablished pure monotheistic religion.

In the long run Hezekiah's achievements would outlive him, leaving an everlasting, indelible impact on the history of his people. Thus, God, through Isaiah, bestows upon Hezekiah this name which honors the king by proclaiming the great things God will do for him, and, through him, for the people of Israel."

By all means, there PNP, please continue this, I'm almost amused. This site, alone, has heard about every iota of someones' suggestions to "their truth". The Jews, did "not" believe in the New Testament, Hezekiah, was "not" Jesus, and Matthew's account, if taken by his words is fraudulent.

Dirty Harry · 3 years ago

PNP: "I guess we're just not understanding the difference between a messianic religion that's based on prophecy (ie Islam, Mormonism, etc.) and one in which the supposed prophecy and messianic figure are one in the same (Christianity, Branch Davidians, recent beliefs of some in the Lubavitch community)."

Once again, the Authors of the Old Testament, the Jews, believed "their Messiah", was a mortal. The christian version is a messianic "God". Do you not, understand the difference between a man, and a super-being, a supernatural deity who can perform magic tricks beyond human comprehension? The only way you can connect the Jewish Messiah meaning to the Christian Messianic meaning, is for "you" to lump them together as if the term Messiah means the same thing. You, attempting to do this, is obfuscation.

"In Judaism and Jewish eschatology, the Messiah (Hebrew: Mashiah, Mashiach, or Moshiach, "anointed [one]") has traditionally referred to a future Jewish king from the Davidic line who will be "anointed"... with holy anointing oil and inducted to rule the Jewish people and bring about the Messianic Age. In Standard Hebrew, the messiah is often referred to as... literally meaning "the Anointed King."

King, a mortal, a Jewish mortal nonetheless. Christianity, messiah, a "god". So, I suppose god didn't believe he could send a Jewish messenger/messiah to fulfill his plan, nope, god had to come down here, and commit euthanasia, because he screwed up humanity, and didn't have enough power to correct his act, so goes the christian logic.

And, just to be sure we put this into context. God, made himself Jesus, by impregnating his daughter Mary with his ghost sperm - deitical incest. His other son, Joseph, becomes his uncle, but, he himself is illigetimate, as he is his own father.

Anywho, PNP, I hope you are not actually looking this stuff up, I mean, that does seem to challenge your blind faith that seems to have kept you in the dark all of these years.

Dirty Harry · 3 years ago

PNP, I found out that if Jesus was a god, then, you still have the ability to search for his body parts.

"Christians claim that in the birth of Jesus there occurred the miracle of the incarnation of God in the form of a human being.

To say that God became truly a human being invites a number of questions. Let us ask the following about the alleged truly man- truly god Jesus."

The Holy Foreskin trick...

"What happened to his foreskin after his circumcision (Luke 2:21)? Did it ascend to heaven, or did it decompose as with any human piece of flesh?"

The amazing ascension of foreskin, foretold...

"During his lifetime what happened to his hair, nails, and blood shed from wounds?"

Yeah, what about those nails on the cross, and all, the pole and nails didn't fly off into space also, did they? Perhaps, they transformed into sparrows, and followed the dove... and the foreskin was like, an "albatross"...

"Did the cells of his body die as in ordinary human beings? If his body did not function in a truly human way, he could not be truly human as well as truly God. Yet, if his body functioned exactly in a human way, this would nullify any claim to divinity."

Uh, oh, lets look up in the bible, where it gives the recipe for the foreskin rule, and blood, etc. By the way, did Jesus use the bathroom, in all of his days? I wonder if all that passed, was divine as well.

"It would be impossible for any part of God, even if incarnate, to decompose in any way and still be considered God."

And there we have it, that's why the bible talks about covering ones' fecal matter with a hole and some dirt, his fecal matter was infinite...

"Deuteronomy 23:12 Thou shalt have a place also without the camp, whither thou shalt go forth abroad: 13 And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee."

Bury that dung, or the lord will not be pleased, good advice for the most holy of holy books.

Continuing...

"By definition, not mystery, the everlasting, one God, in whole or in part, does not die, disintegrate, or decompose: "For I the Lord do not change" (Malachi 3:6). Did Jesus' flesh dwell in safety after his death? 1 Peter 3:18 states Jesus was "put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit." 1 Corinthians 15:44-45 claims Jesus was "raised a spiritual body," that is, he "became a life-giving spirit." No mention of the survival of the flesh is alluded to. In Acts 2:31, it is claimed Peter stated that following the alleged resurrection Jesus' body did not see decay. Paul is alleged to have also made this claim (Acts 13:34-37). However, unless Jesus' body never underwent "decay" during his lifetime he could not be God, but if it did not undergo "decay" then he was not truly human."

And if Jesus wasn't truly human, he could not really have been tempted, now, could he, there PNP, but, I'll wait for you to come to some decision, of course, without biblical reference, as usual. Ciao

Dirty Harry and Clueless Mary · 3 years ago

Hello PNP, well, here, some light reading material.

"Question: Did Mary and Joseph claim that Jesus was conceived in a supernatural way?

Answer: Who more than Mary and Joseph should have remembered the "miraculous" events surrounding the birth of Jesus? One can reasonably expect that when a woman goes through a virginal conception, she would remember it, and that a man whose wife becomes pregnant while they are engaged, without any effort on his part, does not easily forget it. Yet, the evangelists relate several strange lapses of memory.

According to Luke, Mary finds Jesus in the Temple teaching the teachers (Luke 2:42-50). She scolds him for causing so much trouble, whereupon he replies with the enigmatic questions: "Why is it that you were looking for me? Did you not know that I must be concerned with the affairs of my Father?" Luke's Gospel adds: "And they did not understand the saying which he spoke to them." Mary does not understand; Joseph does not understand. If Mary and Joseph were both visited by angels before their son's birth, how is it that they are so completely surprised only twelve years later? Does not Mary remember that Jesus was supernaturally conceived in a way never experienced by any other creature?

It is inconceivable that Mary would forget Elizabeth saying to her: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And why is this [granted] to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:42-43); and especially her own words: "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. For He has looked upon the humble state of His slave girl; for, behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed; because the Mighty One has done great things to me; and holy is his name . . . (Luke 1:46-49). After all this, she still does not know what Jesus meant when he said that he must be concerned with his Fathers affairs!

Mary and Joseph did not remember that the wise men (Magi: Members of the Zorastrian priestly caste variously associated with interpretation of dreams, astrology, and magic) worshiped Jesus and presented him with gold, frankincense, and myrrh (Matthew 2:11). They did not recall how an angel appeared to Joseph telling him to go to Egypt with Mary and Jesus (Matthew 2:13), and that Herod slew all the children two years of age and under in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:16). Besides the fact that it "fulfills" Scripture (Hosea 11:1), why did they have to flee to Egypt? According to Luke 2:39, they went to Nazareth and were not even in the dangerous vicinity of Bethlehem when Herod allegedly had the children slain. Perhaps Matthew's placing them in Egypt in order to fulfill Scripture was too quick for Joseph and Mary to remember, for Luke 2:22 has them in Jerusalem forty days after the birth (cf. Leviticus 12:1-8), and then in Luke 2:39 they return afterwards to Nazareth. Yes, they forgot how the shepherds "made known the saying which had been told to them about this child" (Luke 2:17). Mary and Joseph even forget how they marveled ten months after the angelic visitations, that is, only one month after the events surrounding Jesus' birth. At that time they already were surprised when Simeon and Anna, the daughter of Phanvel, spoke of Jesus' future while he was yet a mere infant (Luke 2:25-38).

If these events are historical, why is it that later, during Jesus' active period, no one, not even his family, seems to know of his marvelous origins (Matthew 13:54-55)? If a virginal conception took place would it not carry for Mary some implications as to who Jesus was? Would she not convey this vital information to at least her nuclear family? Yet we find that Jesus' relatives, who come to seize him (Mark 3:21, 31), are not told by Mary who joins them) that, contrary to what they think, Jesus is not crazy. The Gospel of John explicitly states: "For neither did his brothers believe in him" (John 7:5). Did Mary not inform them of his divine origins? Is it conceivable that Mary would not have informed them that Jesus was the Messiah so that they too might believe in him and thereby enjoy salvation? And what of her own reaction toward Jesus?

In the few appearances Mary herself makes in the Gospels, during Jesus' lifetime, there is no indication that she showed any understanding that Jesus was the "Son of God" by virtue of a unique conception (Mark 3:31-35, John 2:3-4). She certainly communicated no such understanding to his followers. In fact, Jesus' earliest followers proclaimed that Jesus had become Son of God through the resurrection and never mentioned a virginal conception. Paul declared Jesus to be "the son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead" (Romans 1:4, see also Acts 13:33 where Psalms 2:7 is applied to the resurrection). The doctrine of a virginal conception seems to have had no effect upon Christian teachings prior to its appearance in the last third of the first century. On the basis of the New Testament record it is doubtful that Jesus' family, or the first Christians, and, most of all, Mary herself knew of the virginal conception she is alleged to have undergone. "Did you not know that I must be concerned with the affairs of my Father?" No, Mary and Joseph did not know it. They did not know it because they had never heard of their son's "miraculous" conception. There is no doubt that the story of the virginal conception came into circulation long after the deaths of the principal participants in this drama."

Dirty Harry All Over Hosea · 3 years ago

Here, is Jesus really a sinner, per Hosea?

"Question: What are the implications of the author of Matthew using Hosea 11:1 to describe Mary, Joseph, and Jesus being called out of Egypt?

Answer: Matthew 2:13-15 makes the claim that Mary, Joseph, and Jesus fled to Egypt until recalled by an angel. This is supposedly in fulfillment of a prophecy: "Out of Egypt did I call My son." The source of the so-called prophecy is Hosea 11:1. However, in the context of the verse as found in Hosea there is no prophecy, but simply a restating of Israelite history.

What is more, the following verse in Hosea is a continuation of the prophet's statement. It says of those called out of Egypt that they sinned against God: "The more they [the prophets] called them, the more they went from them; they sacrificed to Baalim, and offered to graven images" (Hosea 11:2). The application of Hosea 11:1 to Jesus would, on the basis of verse 2, describe him, as well as Mary and Joseph, as sinners. If one reads Matthew's so-called fulfillment of prophecy within the context of that "prophecy" then one must consider that Jesus was a sinner."