Comment: You seem to be implying that

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Buddah man (see in situ)

You seem to be implying that

You seem to be implying that this book is somehow a critique of Jesus. The fact is that we haven't a single word written by the hand of Jesus in the historical record. All we have is the written word of witnesses. That's it. So, any scholarship of the man Jesus, has to not only look at the Gospels (all of which were written many years after the death of Jesus), but look at the entire historical record.

As the man repeatedly stated, many of the evidences he chronicles fly in the face of ISLAMIC beliefs as well, namely, that Jesus was not crucified. I really don't understand your assertion that the man refused to have his credentials questioned. He stated over and over again that he's simply presenting a scholarship of the man Jesus and the historical origins of Christianity, and that there are other scholars who agree with some of his conclusions, while other equally qualified scholars disagree. I don't get why the idea of scholarship is still so difficult for you to grasp. The whole point is to present arguments and attempt, to the best of your ability, to back them with cited pieces of evidence.

Pat Buchanan wrote a brilliant book on the origins of World War II and called it an "unnecessary war." In his argument he meticulously cited what he felt was compelling evidence to bolster that claim. He was roundly attacked by the court historians out there who cling to the traditional narrative. The point is, it's scholarship. It's subject to debate and discussion. The test is whether or not your scholarship stands up to scrutiny by being sufficiently researched and evidence of your claims sufficiently laid out.

This woman wasn't the least bit interested in discussing the arguments. She was out to discredit him by calling his MOTIVE and personal background into question. Murray Rothbard was an atheist. Does that mean his ethical arguments are tainted? His telling of history?