This question is almost always asked whenever atheists and agnostics are trying to confound or confuse a New Christian. It comes from a reading of: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them. Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth..." (Genesis 1:27-28) Men have theorized for years about the possibility of the co-existence of another race of human beings upon the earth during the time of Adam. It must be recognized that there is considerable evidence to show that the earth was not only inhabited by a race(s), but as a result of the earth becoming void and without form, that race or races were apparently destroyed. But first let's look at the word "Replenish": Replenish: 1). to make full or complete again, as by furnishing a new supply. 2). to supply again...or the like. 3). of people. (New World Dictionary of the American Language, Second Edition page 1205)

Jeremiah the Prophet refers briefly to the existence of such a race(s), but he states that, as a result of the earth becoming void and without form, that race(s) were apparently destroyed. "I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld, and, lo, there was no man...I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by his fierce anger... For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black..." (Jeremiah 4:23-28) Job also makes reference to a past age, a former time: "For enquire... of the former age, and prepare thyself to the search of their fathers." (Job 8:8) Job then relates: "For want and famine they were solitary; fleeing into the wilderness in former time desolate and waste." (Job 30:3)...

Most religious people and Bible scholars would agree that the centerpoint of the Christian Bible is the life and message of Jesus Christ. Many people often wonder who he really was. Was he just another prophet? Just a man who happened to be a really good person? The very Son of God? Personally, when I read his message I see wisdom that was much before its time. He not only taught the basic spiritual principle of loving your fellow man - he also seemed to have some real insight into scientific principles:

- He demonstrated an understanding of how the human body works as evidenced with healings. - He shared knowledge of future events such as the destruction of Jerusalem and catostrophic visions of the "end times". - He understood and saw spiritual forces that were at work in the world - forces that to this day many people don't even realize exist and mainstream science in our society is just beginning to study. The authors of the gospels recorded the events they saw surrounding the life of Christ in the best way they knew how. But they couldn't understand everything that they were seeing. Could looking at certain events during the life of Christ using our advanced knowledge of technology shed some light on what might the authors of the Biblical gospels were witnessing?

Star Of Bethlehem: You know what a star looks like, right? You also know what airplane lights look like, right? I'm assuming all of you could easily answer yes to both questions. Now think about this: What if you knew what stars looked like but didn't know what an airplane was? What would you call the airplane lights? Ok, I'm going to play the part of the person who doesn't know what an airplane is. Now, if I were to tell you that last night I saw a set of flashing stars that moved across the sky, what would you say? Would you agree that they were stars, or would you tell me that I really saw an airplane? With this in mind, look at the following passages. Remember, the wise men knew what stars were, but probably didn't know what UFOs were...

Until the twelfth century, Christians took it for granted that Mary was conceived in original sin. Pope Gregory the Great said emphatically: ‘Christ alone was conceived without sin.’ Again and again, he said all human beings are sinful, even the holiest, with the sole exception of Christ. On the eighth day of December 1854, Pope Pius IX, the first infallible Pope defined the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary in Ineffabilis Deus: We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which liolds that the most blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful. This act of devotion towards the Mother of Jesus was also the most contrived political decision of any pontiff in recent times.

Throughout much of its history, the Christian Church has taught that Jesus was conceived by the Virgin Mary by the action of the Holy Spirit, without sexual intercourse. This doctrine is usually called the virgin birth, although the term virgin conception would seem to be more accurate. This has long been one of the church’s foundational beliefs, along with the indisputable truth of the Bible, the atonement, resurrection, and the second coming of Jesus. Liberal Christian churches typically teach that Jesus was conceived by Mary and Joseph normally Other Protestant churches generally believe that Jesus was conceived by Mary and the Holy Spirit she and Joseph later had additional children. The Roman Catholic church teaches that Mary remained a virgin at the conception of Jesus, after his birth, and throughout her life. The "brothers" were in fact step-brothers fathered by Josef in a previous marriage. The Eastern Orthodox churches generally teach that Mary remained a virgin; Jesus’ "brothers" we in fact his cousins. The Baha’I World Faith and of Islam believe that Jesus was conceived by the Holy spirit, and that Joseph and Mary had additional children later in their marriage. The Temple of the Christos teaches that Mary was based on the constellation of Virgo, Mother of the Universe, who births the light of the sun on December 25^th . The Virgin Mary is the soul of the world diffused through all nature which Plato called, the Anima Mundi, the only vital force in the universe...

Though the Bible does not specifically describe the instrument that Jesus died upon, tradition has it that he was put to death on a cross; consisting of a stake and a crossbeam. The Greek stauros is sometimes used to describe a simple stake, and other times a more complex form such as the cross. To determine what appearance the stauros took in Jesus' death, we need to consider what the Greek language tells us, what history tells us, and most importantly, what the Bible tells us. Furthermore, we must consider the significance of the stauros to the Christian, and whether it is a subject of shame or of great joy.

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology says this about the Greek stauros: Corresponding to the vb. (stauroo) which was more common, stauros can mean a stake which was sometimes pointed on which an executed criminal was publicly displayed in shame as a further punishment. It could be used for hanging (so probably Diod. Sic., 2, 18, 2), impaling, or strangulation. stauros could also be an instrument of torture, perhaps in the sense of the Lat. patibulum, a crossbeam laid on the shoulders. Finally it could be an instrument of execution in the form of a vertical stake and a crossbeam of the same length forming a cross in the narrower sense of the term. It took the form either of a T (Lat. crux commissa) or of a + (crux immissa). (Vol. 1, page 391) The Greek word xylon can mean "wood, a piece of wood, or anything made of wood," and can refer to a cross as well, as pointed out in Vine's Expository Dictionary, Vol. 4, p. 153. Historical findings have substantiated the traditional cross. One finding is a graffito1 dating to shortly after 200 A.D., taken from the walls of the Roman Palatine. It is a drawing of a crucified ass; a mockery of a Christian prisoner who worships Christ. The Romans were no doubt amused that Christians worshiped this Jesus whom they had crucified on a cross. In June of 1968, bulldozers working north of Jerusalem accidentally laid bare tombs dating from the first century B.C. and the first century A.D. Greek archeologist Vasilius Tzaferis was instructed by the Israeli Department of Antiquities to carefully excavate these tombs...

by Jim Walker

Amazingly, the question of an actual historical Jesus rarely confronts the religious believer. The power of faith has so forcefully driven the minds of most believers, and even apologetic scholars, that the question of reliable evidence gets obscured by tradition, religious subterfuge, and outrageous claims. The following gives a brief outlook about the claims of a historical Jesus and why the evidence the Christians present us cannot serve as justification for reliable evidence for a historical Jesus.

All claims of Jesus Derive From Hearsay Accounts: No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts. Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a crime which you know you did not commit. You feel confident that no one can prove guilt because you know that there exists no evidence whatsoever for the charge against you. Now imagine that you stand present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence....

( Click here to Read Part 1 )

Comparing Jesus to other Historical Figures: Many Christian apologists attempt to extricate themselves from their lack of evidence by claiming that if we cannot rely on the post chronicle exegesis of Jesus, then we cannot establish a historical foundation for other figures such as Alexander the Great, Augustus Caesar, Napoleon, etc. However, there sits a vast difference between historical figures and Jesus. There occurs either artifacts, writings, or eyewitness accounts for historical people, whereas, for Jesus we have nothing.

Alexander, for example, left a wake of destroyed and created cities behind. We have buildings, libraries and cities, such as Alexandria, left in his name. We have treaties, and even a letter from Alexander to the people of Chios, engraved in stone, dated at 332 B.C.E. For Agustus Caesar, we have the Res gestae divi augusti, the emperor's own account of his works and deeds, a letter to his son (Epistula ad Gaium filium), Virgil's eyewitness accounts, and much more. Napoleon left behind artifacts, eyewitness accounts and letters. We can establish some historicity to these people because we have evidence that occurred during their life times. Yet even with contemporary evidence, historians have become wary of after-the-fact stories of many of these historical people. For example, some of the stories of Alexander's conquests, or Nero starting the fire in Rome always get questioned or doubted because they contain inconsistencies or come from authors who wrote years after the alleged facts. In qualifying the history of Alexander, Pierre Briant writes, "Although more than twenty of his contemporaries chronicled Alexander's life and campaigns, none of these texts survive in original form. Many letters and speeches attributed to Alexander are ancient forgeries or reconstructions inspired by imagination or political motives. The little solid documentation we possess from Alexander's own time is mainly to be found in stone inscriptions from the Greek cities of Europe and Asia." [Briant]...