An interesting read . . .

[Owlswing]

A Christmas gift from a member of the Chrsitian side of my ex-wife's family is so ironic - a book titled "Nailed - ten Christian myths that show Jesus never existed at all" by David Fitzgerald.

An interesting read and presented complete with references etc.

I would dearly love for Sassy and Hope to read it and offer their views on the contents, but somehow I can't see them doing so.

[Hope]

A Christmas gift from a member of the Chrsitian side of my ex-wife's family is so ironic - a book titled "Nailed - ten Christian myths that show Jesus never existed at all" by David Fitzgerald.

An interesting read and presented complete with references etc.

I would dearly love for Sassy and Hope to read it and offer their views on the contents, but somehow I can't see them doing so.

I've not read this book, Owl, but I have - in the past - read similar ones (or at last ones that have claimed to do the same as the Amazon writeup suggests this does).  If it is like many of them, it's probably fairly weak in its argument, insofar as it ignores those historians who - without being religious, let alone Christians - would say that Jesus did exist.  In fact if I remember from a previous thread here, correctly, a majority of historians believe that there was a fairly revolutionary preacher named Jesus at the appropriate time and that it isn't the existence of such a person that's in question, but the nature of that person.

I notice that you didn't mention Jim (Anchorman) in your list of those who youd like to see reading the book.  Are you afraid that, as with many other matters religious, he'll pull your nicely constructed theory apart?

By the way, writers such as Bart Ehrman and Geza Vermes spring to mind in terms of similar material.

[Hope]

Kindle Version bought - already on my phone!!

[Nearly Sane]

I think it's a bit much (a) to expect people to buy a book to critique any arguments, and (b) to think that only Christians are relatively acceptive of the historicity of a Jesus. Could you summarise what you think his best argument on Jesus not being historical?

[Gordon]

Found this, which seems like a precursor to the (self-published) book.

http://www.nazarethmyth.info/Fitzgerald2010HM.pdf

Also found this review of the book, which seems to tie into the above essay, since the '10 reasons are the same and presented in the same order, and it raises various points of concern besides the arguments, such as plagiarism.

book review

Having glanced at both, I'd be inclined not to take this seriously. 

[Hope]

Found this, which seems like a precursor to the (self-published) book.

http://www.nazarethmyth.info/Fitzgerald2010HM.pdf

Also found this review of the book, which seems to tie into the above essay, since the '10 reasons are the same and presented in the same order, and it raises various points of concern besides the arguments, such as plagiarism.

book review

Having glanced at both, I'd be inclined not to take this seriously.

Fitzgerald acknowledges that parts of the material had appeared previously.

I've listened to the first quarter on my Kindle, and found it quite interesting.  In that first section Fitzgerald seeks to 'nail' 2 Christian myths that are so mythical, that I've never known any Christian theologians or apologists use them; he uses claims apparently made by Christians concerning 'contemporaries' of Jesus who were born long after his death, claims that I have never seen in any Christian document (and I accept that I've not seen all such items available). 

[Nearly Sane]

Fitzgerald acknowledges that parts of the material had appeared previously.

I've listened to the first quarter on my Kindle, and found it quite interesting.  In that first section Fitzgerald seeks to 'nail' 2 Christian myths that are so mythical, that I've never known any Christian theologians or apologists use them; he uses claims apparently made by Christians concerning 'contemporaries' of Jesus who were born long after his death, claims that I have never seen in any Christian document (and I accept that I've not seen all such items available).

Stuff that appeared before by the same author isn't plagiarism. Save yourself the trouble by reading the link under book review in Gordon's post

[Owlswing]

Stuff that appeared before by the same author isn't plagiarism. Save yourself the trouble by reading the link under book review in Gordon's post

The "Book Review" condemns itself in the first sentence - it is written by someone with a serious incentiive to rubbish the book!

[Nearly Sane]

The "Book Review" condemns itself in the first sentence - it is written by someone with a serious incentiive to rubbish the book!

That's an ad hominem and irrelevant to whether the points he makes are correct.

[Owlswing]

 That's an ad hominem and irrelevant to whether the points he makes are correct.

The items that he ignores are an indication of his attitude to the book!

Like the fact that no writer for nearly a century, except the gospel writers, even mentions Christ!

[Nearly Sane]

The items that he ignores are an indication of his attitude to the book!

Like the fact that no writer for nearly a century, except the gospel writers, even mentions Christ!

He's not ignoring that.  He's pointing out that the myth that is being used to challenge isn't a claim he thinks anyone makes.

[wigginhall]

This is quite a well-known review by Tim ONeill, who is an atheist writer and historian.

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/nailed-ten-christian-myths-that-show.html

Most of this stuff is very familiar, if you have ever dabbled in the myther debates, as I (unfortunately) have. 

[Hope]

The "Book Review" condemns itself in the first sentence - it is written by someone with a serious incentiive to rubbish the book!

Ironically, theat first review is someone who rates Fitzgerald VERY highly.  It isn't a negative review, Owl

[Hope]

Stuff that appeared before by the same author isn't plagiarism. Save yourself the trouble by reading the link under book review in Gordon's post

NS, I wasn't specifically responding to Gordon's post, but picking up and running with one of his points.

[Hope]

Like the fact that no writer for nearly a century, except the gospel writers, even mentions Christ!

I'd suggest the St Paul mentions Jesus, the writers of the pastoral epistles mention Christ - so that argument collapses even before the first hurdle, Owl.  What's more, the topic of the book is Jesus, not Christ!!

[Nearly Sane]

Ironically, theat first review is someone who rates Fitzgerald VERY highly.  It isn't a negative review, Owl

No, Hope, not the review on Amazon. The lunk in Gordon's post from the words 'book review', as in link below.



book review

[Owlswing]

I'd suggest the St Paul mentions Jesus, the writers of the pastoral epistles mention Christ - so that argument collapses even before the first hurdle, Owl.  What's more, the topic of the book is Jesus, not Christ!!

More Hope bollocks!

St Paul and the writers of the Epistles were CHRISTIANS! The authors point is that it is ONLY Christians who mention Jesus for at least one hundred years after his "crucifixtion"!

And what precisely id the difference between Jesus and Christ - I was always taught "Jesus Christ" was an inseparable phrase phrase NOT two separate words.

 

[Hope]

St Paul and the writers of the Epistles were CHRISTIANS!

Oddly enough, that has no bearing on your comment "Like the fact that no writer for nearly a century, except the gospel writers, even mentions Christ!"

The authors point is that it is ONLY Christians who mention Jesus for at least one hundred years after his "crucifixtion"!

OK, would you expect Jewish writers to reference a story that points out problems within their faith?  Would you expect Roman writers to reference a story that would make their military a laughing stock?

It is also worth remembering that for the first 200-odd years of the church was spent 'underground' and largely amongst the very poorest sections of society.  Even when Constantine considered becoming a Christian in the early 4th century, the faith had begun to grow amongst the military and other less-'acceptable' elements of society. 

And what precisely id the difference between Jesus and Christ - I was always taught "Jesus Christ" was an inseparable phrase phrase NOT two separate words.

Jesus was a Jewish name of the time that, whilst not that common, would have been shared by a number of Jewish men.  Christ is a Greek word, meaning 'Messiah'; that was applied to Jesus partway through his ministry.  If you look at the gospels, the 'main man' is regularly referred to as Jesus.  The term 'Christ' is used only in specific circumstances.

[Owlswing]

Oddly enough, that has no bearing on your comment "Like the fact that no writer for nearly a century, except the gospel writers, even mentions Christ!"
OK, would you expect Jewish writers to reference a story that points out problems within their faith?  Would you expect Roman writers to reference a story that would make their military a laughing stock?

It is also worth remembering that for the first 200-odd years of the church was spent 'underground' and largely amongst the very poorest sections of society.  Even when Constantine considered becoming a Christian in the early 4th century, the faith had begun to grow amongst the military and other less-'acceptable' elements of society. 
Jesus was a Jewish name of the time that, whilst not that common, would have been shared by a number of Jewish men.  Christ is a Greek word, meaning 'Messiah'; that was applied to Jesus partway through his ministry.  If you look at the gospels, the 'main man' is regularly referred to as Jesus.  The term 'Christ' is used only in specific circumstances.

Enough! I tried "duscussing with you and gain you discuss nothing you just reject anything that is not in synch wioth your beliefs!

Back to the "Ignore" list you go!

[Hope]

Enough! I tried "duscussing with you and gain you discuss nothing you just reject anything that is not in synch wioth your beliefs!

Back to the "Ignore" list you go!

Good to see that you can't cope with having your assumptions and beliefs challenged.

[Shaker]

Good to see that you can't cope with having your assumptions and beliefs challenged.

Coming from you that's richness of the Bill Gates/Sultan of Brunei level.

[Hope]

Coming from you that's richness of the Bill Gates/Sultan of Brunei level.

I'm happy to have my beliefs challenged, provided that people who challenge are willing to accept that I will challenge them in response.  I believe that that is called debate.

[Walter]

I'm happy to have my beliefs challenged, provided that people who challenge are willing to accept that I will challenge them in response.  I believe that that is called debate.

I keep telling you , the debate exists only in your mind . Don't you see how your 'argument' gets ripped apart every time you post it

You are under the misapprehension that what you have to say has  value and is in someway on equal terms with your 'challengers' If you could support any of your assertions with just one bit of evidence , then you might have the beginnings of a debate , until then all you attract is ridicule. 

[Owlswing]

Good to see that you can't cope with having your assumptions and beliefs challenged.

No more can you! Wriggle wriggle!

[Hope]

I keep telling you , the debate exists only in your mind .

Well, if that's the case, it obviously also exists in the minds of several other members of this board, not to mention the minds of a number of respected scientists, academics, public figures, etc.

Don't you see how your 'argument' gets ripped apart every time you post it

I see how people try to cast doubt on it, how they try to dismiss it, how they seek to ridicule it - but rarely does it get ripped apart, Walter, simply because it isn't only me posting 'it'.

You are under the misapprehension that what you have to say has  value and is in someway on equal terms with your 'challengers' If you could support any of your assertions with just one bit of evidence , then you might have the beginnings of a debate , until then all you attract is ridicule.

Again, you seem to think that I'm a lone voice, which is patently untrue.  If anything, you are a semi-lone voice, insofar as there are 2 or 3 here who make no attempt to debate anything related to religion - choosing instead to barrack and whine: then there are several who do seek to debate (they're the one's I respect, though I disagree with them on many things), and they have several people like me that they carry on debate with.