rhadamanthus & co. will send you to your maker. *** warning *** Video of Piranahha eating a live mouse: http://www.bigducky.com/funny_extreme_videos/fish_mouse.wmv The mouse represents christianity. The Pirahanna are rhadmanthus & his crew of atheists.
I was defensive on purpose. I don't believe there was any borrowing by early Christian- writers that is, as far as the Biblical text.
I didnt mean to come off as defensive about the religion, peopole will believe what they want to believe, religious or non-religious beliefs are one fo the hardest things to change about people. I got into an argument with what I perceived to be insinuations that I was ignorant about these things. I've read and done some research on almost all the accussations before, so I didn't appreciate the perceived slight from some people. like I said, I dont mind being called a fool, just dont call me an ignorant one
Outside of the gospels? As for the gospels themselves it is impossible to pinpoint much other than they are after 70 CE. Considering that life expectancy until the modern health boom was around 20-35 years (even in 1901 in the US it was just 49) the odds are against living contemporaries from Jesus's active time of roughly 20-30 CE. You are right, though, that the majority of historians believe in some kind of historical figure. There is a smaller group that believes in the myth-man from the beginning but there is only one who presents well. That is the thing with this movie. It is an intgeresting concept to discuss (and not really a big deal, in my mind and for many of the time of early Christianity) but most likely this movie will be done very poorly - ala the Freke and Gandy books. Sloppy research, big leaps, etc.. twhy: Bastardized Sartre - "hell is defending Catholocism amidst other people such as agnostics, atheists, and liberal and conservative Protestants on a basketball forum. Cheers.
Yeah, I agree, this is weird- there's plenty of fuel for the debate about wheter he rose from the dead or not, or whether the bible is inerrant and the word of God. But to say that a dude named Jesus never existed at that place and time? That's a bit of a stretch, considering the historical record. I don't know of any bible historians, now matter how controversial, who have argued that point. Even the DaVinci Code, which is over the top in spots, doesn't go there.
Josephus is the one you're talking about I believe the one passage that refers to Jesus (Testimonium Flavianum) is highly controversal and its authenticity is in doubt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
Goodness, twhy, can you imagine this horror? In general, though, rhester, a pamphlet puslished in 1853 is not seen as a "scholarly examination" in today's world (or when many of the footnotes are flat-out lies). You must love the groundbreaking science of physiognomy as well. Just lunacy. Here is a fun recap of the book from wikpedia: Except for you, right?
