Jesus Is A Myth and Curiosity
So, I thought it was great when marcguvyer was asking me questions about my beliefs. For example, he asked a great question about Jewish writer Josephus, and I spent over two hours researching and writing a response.
Well, in the comments on that post, he never mentioned my research, but gave me a pile of similar type questions. Wow, I thought, this is going to keep me busy for a month! He also mentioned that he started a discussion of the topic of Jesus/myth on his blog. Of course, I went to check it out.
At first I was really surprised. Marc tends to write posts designed to hit your emotions, and here was scholarly-type writing. After I spent a while reading it, I realized it didn't address the question. The main argument seems to be that since many people copied the bible by hand, its contents should be considered historic. Then I started wondering. Why such a strange approach to prove Jesus existed? Why not link to the sources of the 'facts' he provides? What is it they say, 92.5% of all statistics are made up? Well, I google'd a bit and found that Marc's post isn't original research, it's duplicated far and wide across theological type sites. No bias there, certainly not, right??
I feel so disappointed and slightly sickened about this. On my post, I linked to four neutral sites because I want people to read what I write, and read where I form these opinions, and make up their own minds. I have nothing to hide. I guess I assumed this is what people do.
Duplicating prose from a biased point of view and calling them facts is an interesting way to argue. He could have dug up some interesting research, there are tons out there. And I find it frustrating that no one read my links on Marc's site and said, "that point of view leaves out ..." or "did you consider ...?". That would be an interesting, fun conversation! Instead, I found the attitude "There Must Be A Jesus no reason still There Must Be A Jesus."
What if we found a diary written by Pontius Pilate that said in part:
I've met and condemned many criminals in my life. Most I can't remember, but there was one, who as I recall had not committed any crimes, but yet the gathering insisted that he be put to death. Funny thing, that one. Anyway, after a hard day of work, I would call for some wine...That's the kind of independent evidence anyone would love to see.
In that thread's comments, Dan Trabue speaks about how his faith isn't threatened by the lack of evidence of a Jesus. Why aren't more people curious? Is it considered too cynical to even imagine for a minute that someone who claims to have a Magic Book might just be after your money?