Under normal circumstances I hope not. Then again, in the context I was aiming for, I hope not. Mind you, I've had tingles in Tesco's so anything's possible.

I absolutely fracken love that film! "You can't Torquemada anything!" Pure Shakespeare!

Back down to boring old Earth for a moment, anyone interested in the origins of the early xtian church and especially its supposed explosive growth might find this little titbit useful:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1mR72L2B9w?rel=0

From Ken's description: "The purported "phenomenal growth" of the early church is a pious and deceitful fantasy. The multiple and rival Christ cults were a marginal element in the cities of the eastern empire and remained so until Constantine found them useful."

(August 10, 2012 at 2:00 pm)Stimbo Wrote: From Ken's description: "The purported "phenomenal growth" of the early church is a pious and deceitful fantasy. The multiple and rival Christ cults were a marginal element in the cities of the eastern empire and remained so until Constantine found them useful."

So the Jesus myth was invented on the Black Sea?

(June 9, 2012 at 11:06 pm)cratehorus Wrote: Jesus was not a real person, so where did this Jesus myth come from? Was it based on a single other faith? Was it a combination of other faiths? Or was it completely invented out of nothing?

Here is Bart Ehrman answering your question. It seems he and virtually all academic historians disagree with the presupposition that Jesus was not a real person.





http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...F0AY#t=12s

Min, it's yer birthday. Fill yer boots.

(August 24, 2012 at 9:16 pm)Atom Wrote:

(June 9, 2012 at 11:06 pm)cratehorus Wrote: Jesus was not a real person, so where did this Jesus myth come from? Was it based on a single other faith? Was it a combination of other faiths? Or was it completely invented out of nothing?

Here is Bart Ehrman answering your question. It seems he and virtually all academic historians disagree with the presupposition that Jesus was not a real person.

...

Fallacy of appeal to majority, authority, and consensus. I'm not a mythicist (neither am I an historicist; I'm undecided) but there are in fact some (admittedly few) true credentialed scholars who have come to the conclusion that Jesus' existence is at best doubtful. Robert M. Price and Richard Carrier, are probably the best examples from my observations. And when you read the historicist vs. mythicist debates (example: the recent online squabble between Erhman and Carrier) the historicist arguments and their characterization of mythicist position appear rather flakey and fallacious. Who's right? I don't know yet. But this appeal to authority and majority/consensus on this issue I find really annoying.