That was not the logical outworking of the gospels. As I said before, Jesus said, my kingdom is not of this world that men should fight over it.

It would be the illogical working out of Christianity to say, kill some one who does not accept Christ. Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world that men should fight over it. So it does not logically lead to the conclusion of the things your saying.

I believe they were.

If anything Hitlers catholicism was nominal. You never judge a philosophy by those who abuse it. Its not the logical outworking of the gospel.

Ok

Sounds good I would like to know what you think.

".... one may answer Flemming by noting that a philosophy should not be judged by its abuse. One could make a similar apologetic against atheism by naming atheists like Stalin, Mao, and the Khmer Rouge who were responsible for the killing fields of Cambodia. Every one of these despots and brutal governments embraced atheism and oppressed people. One could easily produce a “documentary” showing Flemming and his guests smiling and happy with their atheism, then turn to photographs of Stalin who killed 7 million, Pol Pot who killed 1.2 million, and of course Mao who killed more than 70 million. This is certainly a mixed bag. However, this would do nothing to prove atheism wrong.

If the representatives of that Deity, whether priest, televangelist or faith healer, can regularly be found guilty of child abuse, avarice or fraud, then one can hardly tout Christianity as the one effective guide and guarantor of proper moral behavior. Any philosophy, no matter what it may claim for itself in principle, is only as good as it works in practice. Christianity's track record gives us no reason to regard it as occupying a privileged position in regard to divine benefaction, and in that respect Licona's implication (if inadvertent) that we should regard it as part of a level playing-field is entirely correct."

There, I expected the film to be a somewhat scholarly (as far as these guys can get) review of the best case for the Christ myth.

What I got was so bad it makes The Bible Fraud look like peer-reviewed scholarship.

How does it actually break down? By percents:

20% a documentary on Earl Doherty's Christ myth theory (though Doherty does not appear in the main film!)
20% pagan copycat garbage (that's not an insult; he actually makes use of Graves' "16 Crucified Saviors" list as well as the Freke-Gandy "crucified Bacchus" forgery!)
20% objecting to the religious right
10% objecting to how bloody "The Passion" was
30% Flemming offering a tempter tantrum over his prior fundamentalist upbringing, to the point of him childishly ending the film in the chapel he was "saved" in and declaring his apostasy there in "nanny nanny boo boo" fashion
Some random thoughts otherwise, for a mostly random film:


Flemming appears to be a man with serious psychological problems. He has gone from being an Christian who was gullible and ready to believe anything to a Skeptic who is gullible and ready to believe anything. His eyes look more dead than toxic waste. He apparently lied to his former school principal about the purpose of his interview with him. He has recently (4/06) orchestrated a "War on Easter" in which his fans dump copies of the DVD and other related material into churches. A total of 666 DVDs are being distributed this way, according to a secondary source. This might be acceptable if the scholarship in the film were worth ten cents, but that is precisely the problem -- it isn't. Flemming is using his own ignorance to inflict error on people who are no more aware than he is how much in error he is.
I rather wonder if some of his interviewees (like Richard Carrier) know they were being used in a film that gave Graves' crucified saviors list a highlight. One of the links below notes that Flemming offers conclusions that Carrier in particular otherwise disagrees with (such as that Nazareth did not exist), which would be fine except that Flemming is offering a strongly counter-conesnsus position in which he'll need a solud and consistent mode of defense.
No new arguments, of course -- all Flemming uses has been refuted time and again on this website: late dates for the Gospels; Marcan priority and Q; appeal to the Sanhedrin trying Jesus at night, and especially use of Doherty's "silence" argument. Flemming has stated that the reaction of the church to the film has been to ignore it and hope it will go away. In that case, where is bad boy Flemming with his replies to all this stuff of his that we've refuted before? He claims that there has been no reply to Earl Doherty's Jesus Puzzle. Oh, no?

Read this article before or after watching the video

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html

"Biographical Sketch:
Edwin Yamauchi received his B.A. in Hebrew and Hellenistics from Shelton College in 1960. He later earned both his M.A. and Ph.D. in Mediterranean Studies from Brandeis University. He is currently the Professor of History Emeritus at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio.

Throughout his productive writing career, Yamauchi has authored seventeen books, written chapters for thirty-four books, and crafted 172 articles in thirty-six reference works, eighty-nine journal articles, and 107 reviews in twenty-seven journals.

In addition to his occupation at Miami University, Yamauchi serves as a high-ranking officer in five different scholarly societies and also works on five different editorial boards."

I love that verse.

We can agree to disagree. Truth is by definition non contradictory. That is why Jesus was making a very fair statement when He said I am the way, the truth, and the life.

I have not expressed any hate toward what you believe Krimsa, in fact I have agreed with you at times and changed my position.

What folklore are you referring to?
What about your posts, are they not hate crimes then. The only way to truly stay neutral is to keep your mouth shut. Your posts are hateful toward what I believe.

All religions cant possibly be true. THey may all be wrong, but they cant all possibly be true. It violates a law of logic called the law of non contradiction.

"The supposed parallels are spurious. In his important study The Post- Resurrection Appearance Stories of the Gospel Tradition (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1975), John Alsup has examined all the alleged parallels to Jesus' resurrection and shown them to be apotheosis stories, disappearance stories, etc., not resurrection accounts. The myths of dying and rising gods like Osiris or Adonis, for example, concern merely seasonal symbols for the crop cycle--the plants dying in winter and coming back to life in the spring. (ii) There is no causal link to the disciples' belief. This is evident in Dr. Washington's own examples from ancient Mexico or Nepal. According to Gerhard Kittel, there is "no trace" of myths of dying and rising gods in first century Palestine (Gerhard Kittel, "Die Auferstehung Jesu," Deutsche Theologie 4 [1937]: 159). Thus, no informed scholar would today argue that the original disciples came to believe that Jesus rose from the dead due to pagan influences. It is not surprising that as a philosopher Dr. Washington should be unfamiliar with the field of New Testament studies and historical Jesus research; but it is a shame that this sort of ignorance should be perpetuated among students."


This comes from a debate between Craig and Washington.


I have seen the video, I like to watch and read critical arguments to challenge my faith. If Christianity is not true I am done with it. I have not found any argument thus far that has weakened my faith in Jesus Christ.

"The supposed parallels are spurious. In his important study The Post- Resurrection Appearance Stories of the Gospel Tradition (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1975), John Alsup has examined all the alleged parallels to Jesus' resurrection and shown them to be apotheosis stories, disappearance stories, etc., not resurrection accounts. The myths of dying and rising gods like Osiris or Adonis, for example, concern merely seasonal symbols for the crop cycle--the plants dying in winter and coming back to life in the spring. (ii) There is no causal link to the disciples' belief. This is evident in Dr. Washington's own examples from ancient Mexico or Nepal. According to Gerhard Kittel, there is "no trace" of myths of dying and rising gods in first century Palestine (Gerhard Kittel, "Die Auferstehung Jesu," Deutsche Theologie 4 [1937]: 159). Thus, no informed scholar would today argue that the original disciples came to believe that Jesus rose from the dead due to pagan influences. It is not surprising that as a philosopher Dr. Washington should be unfamiliar with the field of New Testament studies and historical Jesus research; but it is a shame that this sort of ignorance should be perpetuated among students."


This comes from a debate between Craig and Washington.

What does it mean that Jesus fulfilled the law, but did not abolish it?



Question: "What does it mean that Jesus fulfilled the law, but did not abolish it?"

Answer: In Matthew’s record of what is commonly called The Sermon on the Mount, these words of Jesus are recorded: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished" (Matthew 5:17-18).

It is frequently argued that if Jesus did not “abolish” the law, then it must still be binding. Accordingly, such components as the Sabbath day requirement must be operative still, along with perhaps numerous other elements of the Mosaic Law. This assumption is grounded upon a misunderstanding of the words and intent of this passage. Christ did not here suggest that the binding nature of the law of Moses would remain forever in effect. Such a view would contradict everything we learn from the balance of the New Testament record (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15). Consider the following points.

Of special significance in this study is the word rendered “abolish.” It translates the Greek term kataluo, literally meaning to “loose down.” The word is found seventeen times in the New Testament. It is used, for example, of the destruction of the Jewish temple by the Romans (Matthew 26:61; 27:40; Acts 6:14), and of the dissolving of the human body at death (2 Corinthians 5:1). The term can carry the extended meaning of “to overthrow,” i.e., to “render vain, deprive of success.” In classical Greek, it was used in connection with institutions, laws, etc., to convey the idea of “to invalidate.”

It is especially important to note how the word is used in Matthew 5:17. In this context, “abolish” is set in opposition to “fulfill.” Christ came “...not to abolish, but to fulfill.” The meaning is this. Jesus did not come to this earth for the purpose of acting as an opponent of the law. His goal was not to prevent its fulfillment. Rather, he revered it, loved it, obeyed it, and brought it to fruition. He fulfilled the law’s prophetic utterances regarding Himself (Luke 24:44). Christ fulfilled the demands of the Mosaic law which called for perfect obedience, or else imposed a “curse” (see Galatians 3:10,13). In this sense, the law’s divine design will ever have an abiding effect. It will always accomplish the purpose for which it was given.

If, however, the law of Moses bears the same relationship to men today, in terms of its binding status, as it did before Christ came, then it was not fulfilled, and Jesus failed at what He came “to do.” On the other hand, if the Lord did accomplish what He came to accomplish, then the law was fulfilled, and it is not a binding legal institution today. Further, if the law of Moses was not fulfilled by Christ, and thus remains as a binding legal system for today, then it is not just partially binding. Rather, it is a totally compelling system. Jesus plainly said that not one “jot or tittle” (representative of the smallest markings of the Hebrew script) would pass away until all was fulfilled. Consequently, nothing of the law was to fail until it had completely accomplished its purpose. Jesus fulfilled the law. Jesus fulfilled all of the law. We cannot say that Jesus fulfilled the sacrificial system, but did not fulfill the other aspects of the law. Jesus either fulfilled all of the law, or none of it. What Jesus' death means for the sacrificial system, it also means for the other aspects of the law.

"The supposed parallels are spurious. In his important study The Post- Resurrection Appearance Stories of the Gospel Tradition (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1975), John Alsup has examined all the alleged parallels to Jesus' resurrection and shown them to be apotheosis stories, disappearance stories, etc., not resurrection accounts. The myths of dying and rising gods like Osiris or Adonis, for example, concern merely seasonal symbols for the crop cycle--the plants dying in winter and coming back to life in the spring. (ii) There is no causal link to the disciples' belief. This is evident in Dr. Washington's own examples from ancient Mexico or Nepal. According to Gerhard Kittel, there is "no trace" of myths of dying and rising gods in first century Palestine (Gerhard Kittel, "Die Auferstehung Jesu," Deutsche Theologie 4 [1937]: 159). Thus, no informed scholar would today argue that the original disciples came to believe that Jesus rose from the dead due to pagan influences. It is not surprising that as a philosopher Dr. Washington should be unfamiliar with the field of New Testament studies and historical Jesus research; but it is a shame that this sort of ignorance should be perpetuated among students."


This comes from a debate between Craig and Washington.

He is a visiting professor of philosophy at oxford.

You made a good point.