
( , Wed 31 Dec 2008, 17:00, archived)

Not terribly good, sadly.
I do not care whether one believes that Jesus was God or not, the fact that a man existed who was believed to be powerful at least around 30 years after his death is pretty fucking certain.
I love the way his list of historians exclude any who write about the life of Jesus. That kind of helps a lot with his theories, but they are not really very scientific, but borne from a desire to show that Jesus did not exist.
There is the possibility that Jesus was a name selected for its common touch, after the event, but the man existed - too many people followed his name too soon after his reported death for him to be entirely a myth, regardless of the documented evidence of his life (including his birth).
I do doubt a lot of the scripture (for example, the young boy at the temple) but not that there was a man who was preaching at the time who had his acts recorded and is our modern Christ.
( ,
Wed 31 Dec 2008, 17:07,
archived)
I do not care whether one believes that Jesus was God or not, the fact that a man existed who was believed to be powerful at least around 30 years after his death is pretty fucking certain.
I love the way his list of historians exclude any who write about the life of Jesus. That kind of helps a lot with his theories, but they are not really very scientific, but borne from a desire to show that Jesus did not exist.
There is the possibility that Jesus was a name selected for its common touch, after the event, but the man existed - too many people followed his name too soon after his reported death for him to be entirely a myth, regardless of the documented evidence of his life (including his birth).
I do doubt a lot of the scripture (for example, the young boy at the temple) but not that there was a man who was preaching at the time who had his acts recorded and is our modern Christ.