Gamer4Fire

Perfect? He lacks canines.

thebeave

Well, when you can turn water into wine, then whitening your teeth is nuthin'.

LeoM

Here's an interesting discussion on Jesus here

On The psychic life of jesus

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/m...ychic-lif.html

AtheistVirus

I thought it's a fact that Nazareth didn't even exist in the time of "Jesus", isn't that a pretty good indicator?

Mal Malenkirk

No it's not a fact, it's a theory based on the fact that Nazareth is never mentioned in the OT.

We have archeological evidence that site was inhabitated since the bronze age (-2000 BC or so).

The question would be at which point in time did a jewish village named Nazareth could be considered to exist on the site? Outside the NT, the earliest source are two or three centuries AD. That's why some people speculate the place didn't exist until later. But that's silly IMO. If it's quoted in the NT (earliest is about 50-60 AD), we can expect it already exist at that point. How much of a stretch is it to assumne it existed in 0 BC?

In my opinion this is more an argument in favour of the village being insignificant at the time than inexistant. Yes it goes contrary to what the bible says, but it's in keeping with the supposed exploits of Jesus not having been recorded by any contemporary historian whereas those of John the Baptist were.

Tiny jewish hamlets and Jewish preachers were two dimes a dozen around 0 BC. It just seems easier to believe that Jesus was one of these preachers of no consequence who lucked out in an excellent post mortem reprensetation than to assume he didn't exist at all.

Mark's NT just isn't allegorical enough in my opinion. The first evangil written is the least fantastical of the four. It's not even clear if there was a litteral or just spiritual resurection, for example. The later ones are much more filled with fantastic elements.

If Jesus had started as a myth and was then accepted as truth, it would have been the other way around, IMO. Mark's evangil would be the most fantastic of them all and the later ones would have tried to ground the story in reality more.

Again, I like the Jesus Myth theory. I'd like for it to be true and it's not without meat on its bones. But it's not nearly as well established as you think it is. Quite a bit of wishful thinking on your part, IMO. You want it to be true so aren't being fair minded on the subject.

''Our faith is prone to lend its ear
To anything which we desire or fear.''
-The Wolf and the Fox, Lafontaine

-Jay-

This seems a better fit over in BC&H.

regards,

NinJay
GRD Mod

Doug Shaver

Because that is the prevailing opinion among people qualified to have opinions about Jesus' historicity. In particular, most professional historians accept it. Dawkins is not a historian, professional or otherwise, so you can't fault him for deferring to their judgment.

aa5874

There is no evidence that Jesus Christ was just a preacher who was executed, anywhere, either inside or external of the NT and early church writings.

Roland

Could it be that canines simply hadn't evolved yet at the time the picture was taken? :Cheeky:

Gamer4Fire

Sure, back when lions, tigers and bears ate fruit and veggies and the entire world was a fluffy happy place.