I just thought I'd start an extra thread for people to address thoughts in the actual "Comments on the Jesus Puzzle Debate" thread.

In this thread, other people can address issues raised in the original "Comments" thread without overwhelming that thread. Everyone please only post relevant questions or comments to Nomad and Earl Doherty on that thread...

My first comment is to Lance. Lance, please don't post material in the original thread that is irrelavant and doesn't address a question or comment to the debaters. Also, you might want to pick a Jesus scholar that is a little more up-to-date. Remsburg lived from 1848 to 1919, and his works will mostly be out of date. There are big problems with the list that you put up by Remsburg anyway.

Again, feel free to make any comments on the comments in the original thread here.

Ish

Lance

Ish: Good idea. I didn't know if it belonged there or not. I figured if it didn't, the moderators would set me straight.

Does it matter that Remsburg lived from 1848 to 1919 because all of the people he is saying *should have noticed* lived hundreds of years earlier.

The only issue might be is that we had unearthed more material by some of those authors that did indeed contain some reference to the Christ myth. I figure they haven't as Christians would be trumpeting it from the rooftops if they had.

Up to date would only matter if there was really new material that contradicted the older. This is a rather classical disingenious ploy used by a lot of Christians to discard stuff they really don't want to talk about. For example, is Paine's critique of the O/T less valid today than when it was written?

Now...what are the *BIG* problems? The whole point is that the secular history of Jesus is almost blank and it should not be, or as its called, the argument from silence.

And some of the events, particularly the earthquakes, darkness, et al that is mentioned in the resurrection scenes SHOULD have been remarked on world-wide. Or region-wide anyway. The fact that we can find nothing that really supports those events is at least suspicious in nature.

Lance, thanks for acknowledging this post and coming over here to talk over sideline issues.

I really don't want to get into much detail on this issue here on this thread. If you read them, there are mentions of Jesus (or at least Christ) in the texts. They might be bitterly disputed but have by no means been proved as complete interpolations. Also, were some of the writers even in a position to have ever heard about Jesus within their lifetimes? If you haven't, read some of those texts, find scholarly books with opposing viewpoints, and weigh the evidence for yourself.

Ish

Ulrich

Is this the place where I make comments on the comments on the comments on the Jesus puzzle debate, or should I start a new thread for that?

Just wondering, but I would also like to make a comment on the fact that I take issue with Ish's refusal to comment on Lances' misplaced commentary, which was subsequently moved to this comments on the comments thread, when Ish was the one who wanted the comment moved to the new commentary section to begin with. And, of course, I wasn't sure if this commentary section was the proper one in which to place a comment on a comment of a comment. Any comments would be appreciated.

Commentary edited for readability

[This message has been edited by Ulrich (edited May 07, 2001).]

Ulrich, now I like your sense of humor!

I already commented briefly on Lance's post, however, his post really didn't have much to do with the debate which is just starting up. It didn't ask a question of the debators, nor did it direct a comment at the debators. Besides, I didn't "move" his comment here, I simply commented on it here. If he wants his post formally addressed, it might be preferable to start a thread on that topic.

Again, for those who don't get it, this thread's ultimate purpose in life (though I intentionally gave it a silly name) is to provide a place where people can address other posters' questions without turning the original thread into a mess of irrelevant comments and discussions like this one. Take it as a recommendation or not. Get it? Got it? Good. I knew you could understand.

Got any more comments on my comments about your and Lance's comments on the original comments thread, or can we only comment on the original comment thread about the debators' comments?

Ish

Ulrich

As you have already commented upon Lance's comments, as indicated in your commentary above, I respectfully withraw my comment that your commentary was in any way lacking. I would, however, like to comment that you have yet to answer my question as to whether a comment on a comment of a comment should be placed in this commentary section, or if a new commentary section, devoted wholly to comments upon comments of previous comments should be created.

Ulrich, I'll leave that up to you, but the moderators might not like too many more threads.

Hopefully, we can move on in this thread once the debate really gets underway...

Ish