dado

i'm sure the rest of it is wonderful, but my bible doesn't have any stories about Jesus so i'll pass. but thanks for the offer!

Toto

BigKahoona: Why the emotional caps and maddies? The work is expressing an interpretation. If you disagree with it, explain why. There is a lot more to prejudice that saying that your sacred scriptures are wrong.

Toto

River: the formatting of that page makes it difficult for me to read. But I started near the end, and I found this:

This is not true. Josephus relates one person who survived crucifixion with the best medical care available; two others taken down at the same time did not. This is not "commonplace" - it is unique.

But I see that there is a wealth of argument there about what is usually described as the "swoon" theory.

River

Sorry about the formatting. I suggest printing the article if possible....

Thank you for clarifying the position of Josephus....perhaps it was an error in deduction/inference on the part of the author. However, provided that Jesus Christ was a powerful Healer and Exorcist...and the article also mentions 100 lbs of Aloe that covered Jesus' body....I would imagine that ..that was the equivalent of the "best medical care available".

Yes, I've heard about the "swoon theory" before and I somewhat dismissed it in the past but after reading this article ...I am more than convinced...this is the most elaborately detailed breakdown of the "swoon theory" that I have encountered....and many of the side issues raised can potentially open the case for even more interesting tangents in the life of Jesus Christ (pbuh)....


---River

TheBigKahoona

"BigKahoona: Why the emotional caps and maddies? The work is expressing an interpretation. If you disagree with it, explain why. There is a lot more to prejudice that saying that your sacred scriptures are wrong."

I dont take offense when someone comments about the authenticity of the Bible. I just thought that the paragraph I quoted insinuated that the Clergy/Reverends/Pastors knew all of this information concerning Jesus but simply chose to withhold it from everyone else. I do apologise though my answer was alittle strong.
"After presented with what i am telling you there will be two options: One, admit that perhaps you were wrong about your interpretation of the Bible, and that you wrongly trusted the clergy, priests, Vatican and whoever else has concealed these truths from you.

"Moreover, we must never forget the ruthless terror campaigns on the Church in the form of the Crusades and more enduringly, the Spanish Inquisition. Without question, this was one of the most ruthless and prolonged campaigns in human history, for the purpose of establishing the Church dogma as the uncontested religious doctrine on Earth."

Iv'e read alot of books on the Crusades, they were terrible things. However, the Muslim invasions were not the nicest things either.

reprise

River, there are ample resources available with which to challenge the accuracy of the "the Christian viewpoint" and the myth of the crucifixion in particular. Even Reader's Digest was challenging the Crucifixion myth 30 years ago when I was teenager. So I'd like to know why you regard this particular essay published on a jihadist website as the "ultimate" refutation of Christianity and the crucifixion myth.

If you cannot explain why this is the "ultimate" refutation - as opposed to the many other refutations - then perhaps you will understand why some of us atheists perceive your chosen position as one of comparing one work of fiction to another and doing so without even adding any valuable viewpoints of your own to the debate of whether pixies or elves are more real.

River

A former Jew leading a Jihadist website? Seems too ironic to be true.

However, given the sheer volume of details...this is by far the most comprehensive/coherent rebuttal of the crucifixion that I have come across. It also brings about several important "scholarly" issues in a user friendly interface. And the author himself is very fluent with dozens and dozens of scriptures and languages.

River

I am very very familiar with atheist literature. Believe me the methodology that the system of "Islam" utilises is very similar to the way atheists formulate their arguments. There is one simple , but obvious difference.

Islamic Shahada: "There is no god but God."

Atheist Shahada: "There is no God"

reprise

Perhaps you would like to share with us the other rebuttals with which you are comparing this one. You will note that at the top of this forum there is a list of "recommended reading" materials. Many of them include extremely coherent, "user-friendly", "scholarly", opinions on the Bible, the Crucifixion et al.

I don't care how many languages your author speaks (BTW, are you taking his word for the languages in which he is fluent), and perhaps he's just a victim of bad translation, or perhaps you speak fluent Arabic and read his "essay" in the original language (in which case, can you please send me a copy, because we have many fluent Arabic speakers on this board), but while your "reference material" might well be the most coherent argument against the Crucifixion which you have encountered, I find it sadly lacking in all of the elements which constitute "a rebuttal", or even an well reasoned opinion.

I'm pretty capable of following an argument or a rebuttal. I'm pretty good at disregarding the hyperbole and distilling the essence of any argument. But my eyes started glazing over as I was reading what you consider a "user-friendly" refutation of the Crucifixion.

I've always wanted to use this line :

I don't have a god in this race....

but the fact that I don't believe in God doesn't disqualify me from being able to evaluate the validity of the arguments made for and against the existence of a God or criticism of the various holy books.

If you didn't have so many posts, I would think that perhaps you have just wandered into the higher fora by mistake. Both your registration date and your post count tell me that this is not so. No-one who has been registered for the amount of time you have on these boards and been actively posting here can validly claim a fundamentalist religious website as a resource and at the same time claim that they didn't know it is a fundamentalist religious website.

Anyone who's been around here as long as you have knows to check out the credibility of the resources you are quoting - ESPECIALLY when they seem to be supporting your viewpoint.

I'm not a great fan of pro-Zionist websites, either, but if you're going to claim some kind of credibility for Taliyah Al Mahdi, then I'd like to see you refute the accusations made against them by Internet Haganah.

You're the one quoting Abu Jamal as some kind of authority. It's up to you to demonstrate to us his credentials.

GermanHeretic

Wait, this scholar prooves the Bible to be crap by analysing names from another pile of crap?