I took the time to read the essay. As expected, it contained the usual caricaturized portrayal of Christian belief [comparing Christ to the wizard of Oz].

"You cannot see from Nazareth the surrounding country, for Nazareth lies in a basin; but, the moment you climb to the edge of the basin--what a view you have [the cliff?]...you can see thirty miles in three directions.." [Smith, Historical Geography p.432]

If you recall the first time you brought this up, I said that I was willing to grant you [for arguments sake] that what you said was true. This consession on my part, would seem to beg a question that bears answering.

That is, if the apostles fabricated the name or town[?] of Nazareth, why would they willingly die for what the knew to be a lie? This would seem to erode any logical comparison to present-day Muslims [for ex] who willingly die for what they BELIEVE to be true.

Another thing, you seem to be in tacit agreement with my post below [titled unbelief as evidence] reagarding the existence of absolute truth. If I may state it again for other readers---If absolute truth exists and God exists, they must be the same.

Jesus-the ignorant carpenter from antiquity-if He was not God, He surely knew how to seamlessly merge theology and philosophy.

How did He know to do that?

• Because He was a myth. - alexander - April 11, 2001 - 16:52 UTC
  • The Holocaust - yanniru - April 12, 2001 - 11:53 UTC
• Early martyrs no proof of historicity of Jesus - johnpowell - April 11, 2001 - 17:05 UTC
• Seamlessly? I don't think so. - johnpowell - April 11, 2001 - 17:31 UTC