Zeitgeist part I - "The Greatest Story Ever Told" (Christianity,et al)

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
To change the world, the makers of this movie should unite Christians to their cause rather than hide in their parent's basement where the aliens can't find them.

[/ QUOTE ]

False dichotomy. Get out of the basement, and unite the rational thinkers.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the Christian Gospels are an historical account of the life and acts of Jesus Christ written from four different perspectives. That they don't contradict while telling the same story is proof enough of their veracity as a historical document.

[/ QUOTE ]


"There are actually some 200 gospels, epistles and other books concerning the life of Jesus Christ. Writing such material was a popular literary form, particularly in the 2nd century. The pious fantasies competed with Greek romantic fiction. Political considerations in the late 2nd century led to the selection of just four approved gospels and the rejection of others. After three centuries of wrangling 23 other books were accepted by the Church as divinely inspired. The rest were declared 'pious frauds'. In truth, the whole lot belongs to a genre of literary FICTION."
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/


Read about the gospels here:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/fabrication.html

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Viewcount of the movie: 530K.

[/ QUOTE ]
The fact that you have quoted viewcounts twice now makes me extremely skeptical before I even look at the first frame. Is the fact that lots of people watched this supposed to be evidence of something other than the fact that lots of people watched it? (Note that we don't even know how accurate the viewcounts are as those could easily be fudged or inflated.)

[/ QUOTE ]


It is supposed to be evidence that a lot of people have gotten exited about this movie (and thus are spreading the word in various ways). It's very hard to get such kinds of viewcounts.

[Matt R.]

Is www.jesusneverexisted.com a neutral site?

Do you have any other, non-biased, sources providing evidence that Jesus brought down the world trade center? I'd like to read up on it.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Is www.jesusneverexisted.com a neutral site?

[/ QUOTE ]

Neutral compared to what?


[ QUOTE ]
Do you have any other, non-biased, sources providing evidence that Jesus brought down the world trade center? I'd like to read up on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

JNE provides sources just about everywhere. Good luck with the investigation.

[Matt R.]

Neutral compared to a scholarly journal.

For example, when I clicked on the link, the first thing I noticed in bold letters was the phrase, "Jesus - the imaginary friend". This phrase implies the site is not neutral, i.e. they aren't interested in an honest investigation. I'm sure it's fun to read though and good for a few chuckles, so knock yourself out.

You could also compare its neutrality to a fundie site claiming to have disproven evolution. Those sites are clearly not neutral. Since www.jesusneverexisted.com is about equivalent in neutrality, it is safe to say that neither website is neutral.

[Phil153]

While the site probably isn't impartial (I don't know), the idea itself isn't that ridiculous. Here's the (completely impartial) straight dope on the issue of who killed Jesus:

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mjesuskill.html
[ QUOTE ]
Jesus looms so large in world history that it may come as a shock to realize his unimportance during his lifetime.... Tacitus and other non-Christian writers offer no evidence about Jesus, his life, or his death--only about the religion of his followers....The primary non-biblical resource concerning Israel at that time is Josephus...Another problem is that we have no originals of Josephus' work. We have copies preserved (and edited) by Christian scribes. Thus, passages in Josephus proclaiming that Jesus "was the Messiah" who "taught the truth" and was "restored to life" after his death are viewed by almost all scholars as later edits.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think if you were a betting man, you'd have to put the line at >10% that Jesus never existed based solely on the strange lack of evidence.

[Matt R.]

>10% seems incredibly high (I'm kind of curious to what odds Nielsio would give, since he thinks www.jesusneverexisted.com is a good non-biased source for finding truth).

I own a book titled Jesus as a Figure in History (Powell). It's a completely neutral academic discussion on the man Jesus. It discusses, among other things the "Jesus Seminar", a seminar devoted to collecting and discussing every fragment of historical evidence mentioning Jesus. The possibility of Jesus being entirely made up is, to put it bluntly, completely dismissed by the historians. Most of them have no religious devotion whatsoever to Christianity. Given that the only people who honestly claim that jesusneverexisted(.com) belong to fringe internet sites and the idea is never taken seriously among academicians, I think it is safe to say it is almost certain that Jesus existed. If I had the time and inclination, I could put together a site www.georgewashingtonneverexisted.com. I bet I could get some people to bite.

Arguing about the details of his life is very different than saying he never existed in the first place, by the way. I would certainly give action on anyone giving >9:1 that Jesus never existed. Given the common opinion of modern historians I think I would easily give as much as 1000:1.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it is safe to say it is almost certain that Jesus existed. ... Arguing about the details of his life is very different than saying he never existed in the first place, by the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, depending on how many of the details are argued, it could be the same thing. No sane person thinks that nobody named Jesus ever existed. So, which details of the Biblical Jesus' life have to be true in order to say that "Jesus existed"?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Neutral compared to a scholarly journal.

For example, when I clicked on the link, the first thing I noticed in bold letters was the phrase, "Jesus - the imaginary friend". This phrase implies the site is not neutral, i.e. they aren't interested in an honest investigation. I'm sure it's fun to read though and good for a few chuckles, so knock yourself out.

You could also compare its neutrality to a fundie site claiming to have disproven evolution. Those sites are clearly not neutral. Since www.jesusneverexisted.com is about equivalent in neutrality, it is safe to say that neither website is neutral.

[/ QUOTE ]


Like I said:

[ QUOTE ]
JNE provides sources just about everywhere. Good luck with the investigation.

[/ QUOTE ]


FWIW, I couldn't care less about 'scholarly' or not. There is a lot of crap coming out of the 'scientific' community, and it's always better to make up your own mind.