This new book proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus was a regular human, not divine. This cuts Mormonism off at the knees as well as all forms of Christianity- it is a myth.

I'm just as skeptical as the next person and I doubt that there was a single individual that resulted in the New Testament myth. Having said that I am skeptical of anyone who says or thinks the word "proves" when it comes to this topic. The only real proof is that Jesus wasn't god, after that it is all just educated guesses and sound logic.

Ironically, I think the shoddy interview with foxnews that went viral prolly sold a lot of books for this guy. I saw him on Bill Mahar and was impressed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/05/2013 01:14PM by deco.

I just finished the book on audio. He makes a great case that Jesus of Nazareth was one of a number of would be messiahs and magic workers, but that Jesus Christ is an invention of Paul. I found the historical context really interesting.

I am in the middle of the book, but found it fascinating how many others were delivering a similar message of the kingdom of God and being the messiah over roughly 100+ years around the time of Christ.

Very eye opening.

I haven't read it, I'd like to get it on my NOOK. I've believed, for some time, that "Jesus" was not a real person in the sense of the person portrayed by the New Testament...someone walking on water, healing the sick, raising the dead, etc. That stuff was obviously made up. A "composite" figure? I could buy that. Somebody made up to be the author of a new set of break off Jewish beliefs. I guess I'll get the book and be a bit better informed...

I just finished it and recommend it. However, his view that Jesus was a zealot is an educated guess. Many other scholars believe he was an apocalyptic . I tend to agree with that although there is not enough info to be sure.

I just started it. I'm enjoying it for how much context it sets the Jesus story in. But so far he's not been very analytical of his sources. He accepts without comment the Pliny, Tacitus and Josephus asides about Jesus for example.

I'm not finding him convincing on saying this is the historical jesus as I think his textual scholarship is weak--so far at least. But worthwhile at saying this is a reasonable probability for what a historically-based figure would be like who could have catalyzed the Christian myth.

IF Jesus (Yeshua) was not a supernatural being, then he was as insignificant as the rest of us (despite his politics, or effect in the first century). The fanatics who have used the New Testament to salve thier massive inferiority complexes, and established cathedrals in thier wake, are just fools who can not convince people of thier worth through reason, so they have established it through profundity.

The fact that some issue is debated a great deal lends no credence to the assertion that its true, or significant.

1 billion Catholics are fills of shit, just like they beleive the 1+ billion Muslims to be.

HH =)

Aslan's scholarship along with others like, Huddlestun, and Ehrman are speaking to the same point. Jesus of Nazareth existed, but was an apocalyptic preacher. Joseph Smith's prophetic mantle has not enlightened anyone. The only thing the church's good works provide is perfume to cover the underlying stench.

http://youtu.be/21NoQuKTB8Q

Joe Smith was no better, or worse, than a possible apocoliptic preacher in any century (be it Jesus, Mohammad, the Buddah, or any of the inordinate number of dillusional preachers). Those who wish to put Joe Smith below Jesus have only his philandering to trot out when thier bullshit is sowon to be equivalent.

A wandering charlatan in the first century,who is too cowardly to masturbate and have normal sexual devlopement, has nothing over the 19th century charlatan who nails everything he can.

HH =)