1. Comment #94877 by ross on December 6, 2007 at 11:50 pm

At last.
The "Achilles Heal" of Christianity starts to go mainstream.

Other Comments by ross

2. Comment #94878 by dazzjazz on December 6, 2007 at 11:54 pm

where can I see this - anyone got the video?


dazzjazz

Other Comments by dazzjazz

3. Comment #94883 by ADH on December 7, 2007 at 12:40 am

I haven't had the pleasure of reading this book yet, but just before everyone starts saying: "there you are you see, Christianity is not based on a historical event at all - it's just cobbling together of pre-Christian pagan myths!" maybe it would not be a bad idea to check out this link.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycatwho2.html

Other Comments by ADH

4. Comment #94897 by Edanator on December 7, 2007 at 1:21 am

Well, Dr Bart Ehrman, New Testament scholar, was interviewed on the Infidelguy show, and he didn't budge an inch when pressed about the existence of a historical Jesus. He knows most scholars and claimed to not know of ANY serious historian who doubted the existence of Jesus. Dr Ehrman's an agnostic, btw, so he has no hidden motives in covering up the non-existence of Jesus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_Ehrman
http://infidelguy.libsyn.com/

Other Comments by Edanator

5. Comment #94906 by ross on December 7, 2007 at 1:45 am

Oh please.
Your single pet agnostic scholar says such and such: therefore it's true.
What about Robert Price or Earl Doherty?
And what about common sense? The Son of God shows up on Earth - virtually the creator of the universe, cures lepers 'n all, raises the dead, feeds thousands of people loaves and fishes, creates havoc, and no one notices? Not a single CREDIBLE reference to this possible source of insurrection found in Roman documents?

Other Comments by ross

6. Comment #94909 by Bonzai on December 7, 2007 at 1:51 am

And what about common sense? The Son of God shows up on Earth - virtually the creator of the universe, cures lepers 'n all, raises the dead, feeds thousands of people loaves and fishes, creates havoc, and no one notices? Not a single CREDIBLE reference to this possible source of insurrection found in Roman documents?

Bart Ehrman never says any such thing, he is actually an atheist. But saying that Jesus was not God is not the same as saying the guy never existed, I think the mainstream opinion among scholars is that he did exist.

Other Comments by Bonzai

7. Comment #94924 by tieInterceptor on December 7, 2007 at 2:27 am

Christianity is a rehash of astrology/Egyptian myths... sounds very much like the first 1/3 of "Zeitgeist the movie"

interesting... link to the Zeitgeist film if anyone wants to check it out.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331


.

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

8. Comment #94940 by will young on December 7, 2007 at 3:06 am

Outside of biblical writing and a controversial reference made by the 1st century Jewish historian Josephus what other documents from the same time period mention Jesus of Nazareth? Without any the case for a historical Jesus is thin.

Whatever the case, Jesus, as described in the bible, most certainly did not exist. Beyond that it really doesn't matter much…it is mythology.

Other Comments by will young

9. Comment #94941 by Conrad on December 7, 2007 at 3:06 am

Bonzai, you are quite correct to state that the mainstream historian view is that Jesus did exist. After that of course, it is quite clouded. It is those who wish to state that he didn't exist at all though that have their work cut out for them. Not that I would begrudge the finding that Jesus never existed, but the simple fact that people rewriting jesus happened to take from existing myths is nothing unsurprising. Their doing so says nothing about the actual existence of the man.

Other Comments by Conrad

10. Comment #94944 by Jaffas85 on December 7, 2007 at 3:10 am

There are numerous previous Gods around the medeterranen who had very similar stories to 'Jesus' yet none of them were based on 'historical figures' and no one genuinely asserts that a historical Horus, Krisna or Dionysis actually existed. It is only because the mythological figure of 'Jesus Christ' is so central to Christianity that many people like to assume or 'leave the door open' that a historical Jesus existed.

Other Comments by Jaffas85

11. Comment #94970 by elise97 on December 7, 2007 at 4:38 am

the 'mainstream' historical view is that jesus did exist, due to the fact that most biblical historians are christian apologists with vested interests and nice non christian historians dont bother getting involved in the task of destroying the legitimicy of a subject (which is already false by categorisation as religion). the average layman just assumes its impossible to know either way so takes the agnostic view about it, but thinks there must be 'something in it' (and cant be bothed to look into it). well, if you look into the evidence, there is not 'anything in it'. the only evidence is some alleged paragraph by josephus which was added to later by a christian, and proven by textual analysis to be a fraud.

how about the 'acharya s' books and website. seems to know whats shes talking about (i think she should drop the rather new age like name however).

Other Comments by elise97

12. Comment #94982 by ADH on December 7, 2007 at 5:22 am

It is sooooo typical of contributors to these threads to airbruch out of existence that which it is inconvenient to take on bard. As I hinted in my earlier "preemptive" contribution, this reaction does not in the least surprise me. It is the well-worn strategy o historical revisionism. Take David Irvine for example.

Other Comments by ADH

13. Comment #94988 by Aaron on December 7, 2007 at 5:48 am

I don't mean to just espouse the middle of the road stance here but couldn't it be that Jesus actually existed and well after his death many of the attributes of the pre-Christian gods were applied to his legacy to strengthen his character as a spiritual leader?

I second Edanator's remarks. I listened to the Infidel Guy interview with Bart Ehrman yesterday. He has said himself he's an agnostic. That coming from a former evangelical to me means he's an atheist. He provided Paul's letters in Galatians which are known to be authentic in which Paul mentions in an off-handed fashion that he met with "James the brother of the lord". To that my atheism replies "Who cares?" There is still zippo for evidence that supports the supernatural claims of his existence.

Other Comments by Aaron

14. Comment #94991 by monoape on December 7, 2007 at 6:01 am

For those of us outside the USA: the TV channels / times - are they 'mainstream / primetime' viewing?

Other Comments by monoape

15. Comment #94997 by Murray Keedis on December 7, 2007 at 6:21 am

Monoape, the CBC stands for the "Canadian Broadcasting Corporation". This was aired on a mainsream channel in a primetime slot.

Harpur's book, "The Pagan Christ", was also a best-seller in Canada. The booked generated (and continues to generate) a fair amount of debate regarding the (non) existence of Christ and Christianity's co-opting of other religious traditions, festivals and icons. A fascinating read.

Harpur, incidentally, is not an atheist. He's a former Anglican minister who is disgusted by the literal treatment of the Bible.

Other Comments by Murray Keedis

16. Comment #95014 by djspideyspinster on December 7, 2007 at 7:09 am

I love truth. It is my desire to learn the truth, which is why I read articles and comment boards such as these and others written by atheists, agnostics, and Christians. I enjoy credible scholarship and exploring both sides of a debate. I don't care what the person believes that is writing an article, I want to know, as Mr. Dawkins often says, "Is it true?"

Tom Harpur may be many things, but a scholar he is not. The following links will expose that to any willing to read and consider the points made:

1) http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html
2)http://www.tektonics.org/harpur01.html

I realize those that are fimiliar with the author, J.P. Holding, may not like his approach, however, it's apparent that most of you have NO problem with name calling and I encourage you to actually consider the points he makes and not how he makes them.

Other Comments by djspideyspinster

17. Comment #95017 by monoape on December 7, 2007 at 7:14 am

Thanks, Murray - I should've spotted the URL (www.cbc.ca) to know it was Canadian. Good to hear that it had a prime time airing.

Think I'll add this book to my reading list.

Other Comments by monoape

18. Comment #95032 by monoape on December 7, 2007 at 7:45 am

@ djspideyspinster - I scanned most of the first link you provided and found it a rather meandering, waffly sermon that provides little in the way of fact or reasonable argument. However, I picked out one piece of clear language:

"Highly reliable sources. There are two of these: Tacitus and Josephus."

I would suggest anyone who considers Josephus to be a 'highly reliable' extra-biblical source of evidence for Jesus' existence to read a little further, perhaps starting with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Testimonium_Flavianum. I recall someone describing the paragraphs describing Jesus as though "someone had inserted a chewing gum advert in to a book written by Chaucer".

Both articles appear to me to be more of the "I know Jesus is the son of (a) god, I just need to find the evidence" variety.

Other Comments by monoape

19. Comment #95045 by bamafreethinker on December 7, 2007 at 8:18 am

For a very thorough (and free) examination of all of the contemporary historians of the first century – it's hard to beat John Remsberg's almost 100 year old book - The Christ. A link to it is here: http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg00.htm

This is the one book that absolutely ripped faith from its already weakening hold on me. I remember finishing the last sentence in this exhaustive criticism of Christianity and feeling the weight of over 30 years of doubt worry, and fearful study being lifted off of me and an amazing change in my perspective on life, love and the world around me. It's a little out-dated, but it's hard to find anything like it. And did I mention it's free?

Remsberg spends an entire chapter on the almost certainly erroneous reference to Jesus in Josephus here: http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg02.htm

Other Comments by bamafreethinker

20. Comment #95047 by USA_Limey on December 7, 2007 at 8:25 am

Shouldn't the fact that there is a debate AT ALL be enough to cast doubt on the story of Christ? After all, this was meant to be the most momentous event in human history, a direct intervention by god; sending us his son to save us right?

You'd think he would have made the paper trail a bit more convincing.

Oh, and shame about those Aboriginal Austrailians who had to wait another 1,700 years for the 'good news'

What bollocks.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

21. Comment #95048 by ADH on December 7, 2007 at 8:41 am

I'm sorry but I'm not going to let you get away with this monoape.

This is the quote from Josephus in question. It is taken from his Jewish Antiquities.

"3.3 Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, IF IT BE LAWFUL TO CALL HIM A MAN; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; FOR HE APPEARED TO THEM ALIVE ON THE THIRD DAY; AS THE DIVINE PROPHETS HAD FORETOLD THESE AND TEN THOUSAND OTHER THINGS CONCERNING HIM. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

If you check this out you will find that the parts of the quote that I have rewritten in block capitals were indeed a 4th century interpolation. Nevertheless the consensus is that the rest of the text was indeed written by Jsephus.

The main support for the authenticity of the passage as having been written by Josephus comes from another of the Antiquities - namely nº 20.9.1:
"He (Ananus) concened the council of judges and brought before it the brother of Jesus - the one called the "Christ" - whose name was James, and certain others. But those of the city considered to be the most fair-minded and strict concerning the laws were offended at this and sent to the king secretly urging him to command Ananus to take such actions no longer".

For a number of reasons scholars do not doubt the authenticity of this second passage. The point of the text is not to reflect on who Jesus or his followers were but to report on the reasons for Ananus having been deposed as High Priest. There is therefore nothing specifically Christian about it. It seems safe to assume that this second passage presupposes an earlier reference to Jesus in the Antiquities. Most scholars believe the earlier reference to be the one earlier cited from Antiquities 18.

You should know bay now that Wikipedia articles have to be taken with a barrel or two of salt. I'm sure that if I had used Wikipedia to support any of my points you would have quite ightly told me the same.

Other Comments by ADH

22. Comment #95051 by USA_Limey on December 7, 2007 at 8:51 am

Comment #95048 by ADH Comment #95048.

ADH, can't you recognize that that the fact alone that this is all debatable and questionable and shrouded in antiquity makes the likelihood of it being true rather suspect.

Based on the available evidence what is more likely?

A) Jesus was the divine some of god sent to redeem us.

B) He was just some guy who's story got spun out of all recognition into a new religion for political reasons.

Again, based on the paucity of evidence, which is more LIKELY? It's really that simple.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

23. Comment #95053 by steve99 on December 7, 2007 at 8:56 am

USA_Limey makes a good point. There is evidence that Roman Emperors were historical figures. Many were proclaimed to be Gods. The senate deified Julius Caesar, and Augustus styled himself "Son of a God". The difference between them and Jesus is that we know this from contemporary writings. So, if you are going to believe that someone was a God because of words in old books, surely it would make more sense to believe that of the Roman Emperors? This is a serious question.

Other Comments by steve99

24. Comment #95061 by monoape on December 7, 2007 at 9:18 am

I remember finishing the last sentence in this exhaustive criticism of Christianity and feeling the weight of over 30 years of doubt worry, and fearful study being lifted off of me and an amazing change in my perspective on life, love and the world around me.

I find that words written by those who have de-programmed themselves some of the most poignant and compelling. Bravo, bamafreethinker.

I'm not going to let you get away with this monoape.

[goggle-eyed look] I'm not, or attempting to, 'get away' with anything! I'm purely putting forward a very commonly held assessment of the authenticity of the claimed 'Jesus paragrpahs' in Josephus' writings.

You should know bay now that Wikipedia articles have to be taken with a barrel or two of salt. I'm sure that if I had used Wikipedia to support any of my points you would have quite ightly told me the same.

No one is claiming Wikipedia to be a 'gospel' of information, it's simply a well-organised, peer-edited resource. There is certainly inaccuracy and disinformation, but that doesn't mean you can dismiss it all out of hand. Your reaction smacks of some form of fallacious argument (not sure which variety - perhaps someone could help me?).

No, if you had referenced Wikipedia I would have addressed the content and not the source.

Oh, and shame about those Aboriginal Austrailians who had to wait another 1,700 years for the 'good news'

What bollocks.

Nice one, centurion.

Other Comments by monoape

25. Comment #95063 by ADH on December 7, 2007 at 9:25 am

Steve, therein in act lies the challenge that Jesus indircetly issued to Caesar, as Paul later points out in Romans. "You think you are the Son of God. You are not - I am!". By entering Jerusalem as he did, by going into the temple he was, in a sense, claiming possession of the "throne" at the centre of the holy of holies he was claiming that the Kingdom of God had come with himself as King, that the prophecies about the Kingdom of God were being fulfilled right in front of them. He knew that by doing that he would be bringing upon himself the wrath of Rome, not only of the Jewis authorities - there wasn't room or two kingdoms in the Roman territories. Rome had a pretty brutal way of dealing with what they perceived as sedition. That's how the Jewish leaders got the Romans on their side: "If you don't deal with this guy you'll be no friend of Caesar's" they said to Pilate. And in a sense they were right. Caesar, for the reasons you pointed out, could brook no rivalry.

Other Comments by ADH

26. Comment #95064 by monoape on December 7, 2007 at 9:31 am

As we have a couple of the 'opposing team' in this thread, perhaps they would like to respond to a question I posed on another forum recently (I'm assuming that you subscribe to the Christian overseer):

Finally, a question for the Jeebus Gang: did it ever occur to you that the god you believe in is almost always dependent on when and where you were born? It has nothing to do with fact and validity. If you'd been born in Iran, you'd be on your little carpet 5 times a day, bobbing up and down to Mecca. If you'd been born in Denmark 2000 years ago, you'd been damn sure Odin and Valhalla was The Real Deal.

If anyone has a few minutes to kill, taken from http://forums.courier-journal.com/viewtopic.php?t=86665

Other Comments by monoape

27. Comment #95065 by USA_Limey on December 7, 2007 at 9:32 am

ADH,

Did anything you just say in Comment 95063 give us any reason to accept the divinity of Christ?

Jesus was a political activist who didn't like the Roman occupation or the Jewish leadership. Great - ok great, I could be persuaded to go with that. Do we need to go further? Why make him god?

Can we just drop that rubbish?

Other Comments by USA_Limey

28. Comment #95071 by steve99 on December 7, 2007 at 9:41 am

Steve, therein in act lies the challenge that Jesus indircetly issued to Caesar, as Paul later points out in Romans. "You think you are the Son of God. You are not - I am!".

You are missing the point of my post. The statements about the activities, and divinity, of the Roman emperors was contemporary. This is a non-contemporary report from Paul.

I think as a general principle, we take contemporary reports over those written decades or centuries later.

(If this sounds like I am being deliberately provocative here, I hope you don't mind. I think that this is the way ideas should be tested)

Other Comments by steve99

29. Comment #95072 by monoape on December 7, 2007 at 9:44 am

Oh, and shame about those Aboriginal Austrailians who had to wait another 1,700 years for the 'good news'

Actually USA_Limey, if we accept that the 'Aussie locals' arrived on the continent ~45,000 years ago, they had to wait (along with the rest of us) a feckin' long time before they received the 'good news' and became aware of their status as sinners in need of redemption! And there they were, catching fish, fornicating and chillin' out, with no knowledge that Yahweh wasn't happy with them. Lucky they were saved by those righteous Christians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generation). [sigh]

Other Comments by monoape

30. Comment #95073 by elise97 on December 7, 2007 at 9:47 am

i think its pretty ironic that ADH goes all sceptical about wikipedia articles, that have at least to endure a modicum of 'peer review' by possibly experts in their field but seems happy to defend the veracity of much of what is after all a scrappy 2000 year old account, written by someone whose 'journalistic' integrity we havnt the foggiest about, and whose very account of whatever he was on about you agree has been fiddled about with in some way.

Other Comments by elise97

31. Comment #95075 by USA_Limey on December 7, 2007 at 10:00 am

Monoape wrote:

if we accept that the 'Aussie locals' arrived on the continent ~45,000 years ago, they had to wait (along with the rest of us) a feckin' long time

Quite right.

Consider my time scale as beginning with the final revelation of God.

Well, almost final. I suppose the messages of Mohammed and Joseph Smith with have to join the queue.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

32. Comment #95077 by ADH on December 7, 2007 at 10:12 am

Steve, good question. Paul was not a contemporary in the sense that he was not one of Jesus' followers - not one of the twelve. But he was a contemporary in terms of time frame. After his conversion he became one of the same group as Peter and James (Jesus' brother) and all the rest. So some of his letters are at no more than 2 decades remove. Like someone now giving an account of the start of the peace process in Northern Ireland, on the basis of his or her association with Trimble or Hume. And besides, Paul became a member of a group made up almost wholly of eye-witnesses. He himself was an eye-witness of the resurrection if you give any credence to the Lucan account of Jesus' post mortem appearance to him on the Damascus road. It would have been very dificult for Paul to get away with a deliberate fabrication, given his association with James (Jesus' own brother) and with the rest of the Jerusalem church. It would have been likewise impossible for the Jerusalem church to get away with a fabarication given the degree of the opposition their preaching faced. All the authorities would have needed would have been to provide the people with a clear demonsration that the whole thing had been invented. That the Jesus they revered was never anything more than an itinerrant preacher!

Other Comments by ADH

33. Comment #95078 by a tree with roots on December 7, 2007 at 10:21 am

Comment #95061 by monoape
--about the wikipedia thing, you probably meant the genetic fallacy: dismissing a claim solely because of its origins, not by adressing the claim itself.

(I have a philosophy test on this stuff tomorrow! haha)

On another note,
I wish I could've seen this doc. If only I would've got home four days sooner...

Other Comments by a tree with roots

34. Comment #95083 by Bonzai on December 7, 2007 at 10:26 am

ADH

Josephus merely said that there was a man named Jesus and that he had a following among Jews and some gentiles. This is like saying there is a man named Rev. Moon and he has a large following, his followers think that he is the latest prophet. Nothing can be inferred from it about Jesus' divinity.

Paul was a Christian propagandist, not a historian. You can no more quote him to prove that Jesus was God than Mohammad's companions to prove that Mohammad was a Prophet.

Others (I don't mean all of the rest),

As rational people we are supposed to respect evidence. The evidence is in favor of Jesus' existence. I don't know why it is necessary to embrace a minority opinion to insist that the man didn't exist and insinuate that mainstream scholars are all Christians and thus unable to engage in honest scholarship, it is an ad hominem argument when you come down to it.

Other Comments by Bonzai

35. Comment #95085 by Elli on December 7, 2007 at 10:26 am

Jesus had a brother James? I wonder if he ever got jealous that his father was playing favourites. I mean that's a pretty tough gig. "So James, your telling me you want to be a column builder eh? Why can't you be more like your brother... being a god not good enough for you is it?"

Other Comments by Elli

36. Comment #95086 by ADH on December 7, 2007 at 10:29 am

Your right about my committing the genetic fallacy Monoape. We need to engage with the content not with the medium. It reminds me of those who dismiss ID per se because some of its proponents are uneducated fundamentalists.

Other Comments by ADH

37. Comment #95089 by ADH on December 7, 2007 at 10:34 am

"Jesus had a brother James? I wonder if he ever got jealous that his father was playing favourites. I mean that's a pretty tough gig. "So James, your telling me you want to be a column builder eh? Why can't you be more like your brother... being a god not good enough for you is it?"

Ha ha. I like it Elli! Actually, Anne Rice has written a lovely novel where she brings Jesus' childhood to life, and in fact dramatises this sibling tension. I recommend it

Other Comments by ADH

38. Comment #95094 by steve99 on December 7, 2007 at 10:43 am

Steve, good question.

I'll come back to Paul later. The thing is, you haven't really answered my question. There is vastly more contemporary 'evidence' that Julius Caesar was a god than Jesus was. So why don't you believe it?

Anne Rice has written a lovely novel where she brings Jesus' childhood to life, and in fact dramatises this sibling tension. I recommend it

I am a fan of Anne Rice - could you name the book?

Bonzai:

I fully agree with your position on the existence of Jesus.

Other Comments by steve99

39. Comment #95098 by Conrad on December 7, 2007 at 10:50 am

It has been said and should be often repeated that if jesus did exist it adds no more evidence to his miracles than the existence of New York is evidence for Spiderman. As to the case of jesus actual existence, I leave that to the historians. It's irrelevant for my purposes.

Other Comments by Conrad

40. Comment #95099 by ADH on December 7, 2007 at 10:52 am

You're right of course Bonzai. Josephus was not one of Jesus' followers and he probably did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah, so he wouldn't have recorded him as such, would he? The credibility of his claims can hardly be made to depend on the word of witnesses he did not believe him to be who he claimed to be! Many of his contemporaries did not believe him to be the Messiah or the Son of God, and they had him arrested and executed for so claiming. The credibility of his claims lies rather in the coherence of his words (including his claims), the congruence between his words and his actions, the way he naturally showed the all-embracing breadth of the Kingdom that he had come to inaugurate. No Jew would have invented a Messiah who lashed out as he did at the religious establishment or welcomed those who were beyond the margins of acceptable society. And the resurrection is the ultimate vindication of his claims to be the King of this new Kingdom that God was bringing about on the earth. Remember that took his followers by surprise too, so they didn't have a "theology of the resurrection" that they could quickly enact around this figure that they were going to "reinvent" out of the shadowy form of an insignificant itinerrant preacher.

Other Comments by ADH

41. Comment #95101 by ADH on December 7, 2007 at 10:54 am

Yes Steve. Anne Rice's book is called "Christ the Lord - Out of Egypt"

Maybe my latest answer to Bonzai goes some of the way towards answering your other question. I could add a comment about the nature of the two claims to "divinity", and what became of those who made them, and how they set about asserting these claims. For 300 years or so Christians were hounded by the Roman state for not offering their allegiance to Caesar, the self-appointed Son of God, and for claiming that Jesus was who Caesar claimed to be. The arrival of Costantine on the scene actually did not help much, in the long term (though other Christians would dispute this). It is sometimes claimed that Christians now believe Jesus is the Son of God because of the Council of Nicea convened by Constantine. That is not true. The Council of Nicea merely gave the imperial stamp to a conviction that had been central to Christianity since the start (witnesss the letters of Paul fom c50 AD to c66 and the preaching of Peter in Jerusalem at Pentecost), even though it had come under pressure from sundry Gnostic creeds from the end of the 1st century.

Other Comments by ADH

42. Comment #95103 by Bonzai on December 7, 2007 at 10:58 am

Steve,

I am a fan of Anne Rice - could you name the book?

I read the vampire chronicle. IMO the first book was good, second was so so, the rest were crap. The "Vampire" in the series seems like a representation of homosexuals and the books at times read like homoerotica (albeit very tame)

I heard Rice has become a born again Catholic and has repented for writing those unholy books. In the future she will only write about Jesus.

Other Comments by Bonzai

43. Comment #95110 by steve99 on December 7, 2007 at 11:11 am

I heard Rice has become a born again Catholic and has repented for writing those unholy books. In the future she will only write about Jesus.

Oh dear. Only read a couple of books. Somewhat discouraged now!

Other Comments by steve99

44. Comment #95112 by ADH on December 7, 2007 at 11:18 am

Anne Rice has become a Christian. Her book on Jesus as a child has been well received by critics. But it is also worth noting that to write the book she immersed herself in cutting edge New Testament scholarship. Her book largely arose out of that quest.

She has not repented of her vampire phase. She recently was present at and celebrates on her website the première of the musical based on one of her vampire characters. She even says that her vampire books were actually an integral part of her search for God. The Vampire is like a mirror-image, an antithesis of Christ: killing his victims by drawing their blood and rendering them like himself, as opposed to Christ quickening (giving life to) those he calls by giving them his blood (allowing his blood to be drawn for them) and rendering them like himself.

Other Comments by ADH

45. Comment #95115 by elise97 on December 7, 2007 at 11:24 am

"The evidence is in favor of Jesus' existence. I don't know why it is necessary to embrace a minority opinion to insist that the man didn't exist and insinuate that mainstream scholars are all Christians and thus unable to engage in honest scholarship, it is an ad hominem argument when you come down to it. "

it is certainly not mainstream opinion that jesus existed, you dont say why you place some historions opinions above others as to whether all the parts mentioning jesus are forged or just some. certainly if one was going to forge a document, thats the bit i'd forge, and if the original mentioned jesus acceptably to convince people a thousand years later id be inclined to leave well alone. but if it is accepted that parts of the josephus document mentioning a jesus are not the forged parts so what. there could have been 100's of the buggers about at the time but that is not evidence that the jesus we mean by jesus existed. any attributes of the jesus we mean by jesus are the bits considered by you are the forged parts and that is why it is not mainstream opinion that jesus existed. sorry but im just assuming you really mean jesus, not just, erm jesus lol! im of the (uncontentious and quite mainstream) opinion all is most likely a forgery.

Other Comments by elise97

46. Comment #95119 by ADH on December 7, 2007 at 11:37 am

Steve, you might be interested in this.

http://www.annerice.com/AnneRice-ColmesInterview.wav

Other Comments by ADH

47. Comment #95127 by djspideyspinster on December 7, 2007 at 12:04 pm

Found a great resource here that reviews the non-biblical references to Jesus from antiquity. Gary Habermas (has debated Anthony Flew on the resurrection of Christ) has studied this topic like no other.

See Chapter 9 "Ancient Non-Christian Sources"

http://www.garyhabermas.com/books/historicaljesus/historicaljesus.htm#ch9

Also, check out Habermas' results after reading over 1400 sources by scholars on the resurrection since 1975 to the 2005! Interesting stuff! Enjoying the dialogue.
Check it out:

http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005.htm

Habermas honestly approaches the topic of the reliability of Josephus (and the other sources) and I believe brings clarity to the topic. Enjoy and have a great one.

Other Comments by djspideyspinster

48. Comment #95129 by ADH on December 7, 2007 at 12:11 pm

djspideyspinster. Gary Habermas is a very able scholar. I wonder how much ice his scholarship will cut on this site. I sense a "genetic fallacy" in the making. Watch this space!

Other Comments by ADH

49. Comment #95138 by djspideyspinster on December 7, 2007 at 12:26 pm

ADH,
I have always enjoyed Habermas' work. It will be interesting to see the response. I hope it's not, "Oh, he's a Christian therefore can't be taken seriously."

One more for everyone:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html

Here's a little preview for you:

"We have a good deal of information about the polemical and often bitter arguments Christians, Jews, and pagans had with one another in the early centuries. But the early Christians' opponents all accepted that Jesus existed, taught, had disciples, worked miracles, and was put to death on a Roman cross. As in our own day, debate and disagreement centred largely not on the story but on the significance of Jesus.

"Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first- or second-century Jewish or pagan religious teacher."

Later

Other Comments by djspideyspinster

50. Comment #95143 by steve99 on December 7, 2007 at 12:38 pm

ADH:

You STILL have not answered my question. You can trace things through carefully researched historical documents in an attempt to prove things about Jesus, but the evidence that Julius Caesar was deified, and worshipped as a god is vast - FAR more than that for Jesus.

So why do you believe the 'Jesus' story, as against the 'Julius' story?

Other Comments by steve99