Jesus Lied. He Was Only Human - Debunking of the Christian myth. (by CJ Werlemen)

(2Pe 3:3-5) Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, [...] For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water [...]

"But residing in the heart of [CJ Werlemen's] journalistic mediocrity was a quiet discontent. An irritation greater than the discomfort of a long taxi ride with 'Delhi belly'. And what irritated him most was other people's mindlessness. To him, nothing exceeded the mindlessness of seemingly intelligent people believing they were eating a dead Jew in the form of shi$$y wine and stale crackers." (About CJ)
http://www.cjwerleman.com/about-cj.html

(This will be the first of many posts, as I go through and review CJ's assertions about "mindless" Christians.)

I will take CJ's statement at face value, "seemingly intelligent people believing [...]" leads me to believe he has a beef with the Catholic Church and not Jesus. Any serious student of the Scripture can readily observe that communion was meant to be symbolic. (Transubstantiation, the Catholic doctrine does not align with Scripture. Where in Scripture does it say the wine and bread are literally turned into the blood and body of Christ?)

(Mat 26:26-29) And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

(Attention to detail reveals, "I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine." Why didn't he say blood, if it was meant to be literal?)

(1Cr 11:24-26) And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

Reading the above passages, their straight forward interpretation is, the bread and wine represented his body. How foolish, how silly, to insist, literally, one is eating the body and blood of Christ. How absurd!

I suppose in the end it will turn out, that he, like Dawkins, is nothing more than a silly little boy whose never grown up and accepted the reality that he is accountable to his Creator. For, as it stands, the foundation upon which all philosophy sits is, "How did we get here?", has yet to be empirically proven.  And I suppose, just as Dawkins admitted, intelligent being(s) (i.e. aliens) seeded earth (Expelled: No Intelligence Required. - Stein), so too CJ must first defend his thesis, that Jesus lied, by first convincingly bringing forward evidence of humankind's genesis. (By the way, it's funny to watch Dawkins squirm as he queried about his beliefs. CJ likes funny, right?) And to date, I have not seen evidence to support a non Intelligent being theory on humankind's origin. (I am product of the Public school system and State undergraduate / graduate degrees.) To this day, I have found the theories of Big Bang chemical evolution, stellar and planetary evolution, organic evolution, macro-evolution lacking.  (Micro-evolution or adaptation to one's environment can be readily observed.  But lateral, specie to specie, macro-evolution, has not been observe red, nor found to be defensible as would hold up in a court of law.  (Again, I've taken all the courses, and read the rebuttals to the various, so-called "missing" links.  (Read Bones of Contention by Lubenow for an excellent breakdown.)

“Creation and evolution are inferences based on circumstancial evidence.  Creation and evolution are thus theoretical inferences about history.  […] neither qualifies as a scientific theory (both are outside of empirical evidence).”  “Creation and evolution are best characterized as explanatory scientific models which are employed to correlate and explain data related to origins.” (Gish)

The task then, is to weigh the evidence, and find which theory is best supported.
As I've said, I've been through the programming (school) and found by questioning everything, evolution as a satisfactory theory on origins, to be lacking.

Guaranteed we'll find that CJ is "willingly ignorant" of Scripture (as I've shown above, let's read Scripture, and not mix Catholic doctrine, "Solo Scriptura").

Can't wait to get my mind on CJ's book, "Jesus Lied"!

(Oh, I'm praying for ya buddy!)