Book News: Outrage After Fox News Interview With 'Zealot' Author
48 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Conspirator;41638322]That interviewer was really rude.
Seems like every day Fox is less of a news network and more of a political propaganda machine. I recently read that one corespondent thinks that Anthony Weiner's wife is a prominent member of the Muslim Brotherhood.[/QUOTE]
Always good for explaining absurdity of everything, with Fox as a main target:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaSYIJn2VUE[/media]
If you've actually read the book it's written as a Muslim description of Jesus. It literally just takes the Islamic idea of who Jesus is and pretends that it's historical.
The author is NOT a historian. He's been trained in theology, not history. At any point in time when the facts are slim he takes his Islamic assumptions and simply treats them as fact.
[QUOTE=sgman91;41649985]If you've actually read the book it's written as a Muslim description of Jesus. It literally just takes the Islamic idea of who Jesus is and pretends that it's historical.
The author is NOT a historian. He's been trained in theology, not history. At any point in time when the facts are slim he takes his Islamic assumptions and simply treats them as fact.[/QUOTE]
Except that if you knew anything about the Jesus story in the Koran, you'd know that it has a [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism#Islam_and_docetism"]docetic view of Jesus[/URL]. Muslim orthodoxy believes Jesus did not get crucified and ascended to Heaven. The Zealot hypothesis for a Historical Jesus goes against the Koran's view. You obviously know nothing about this at all, so please don't yap about stuff way over your head :)
And I'm saying all this while opposed to the thesis of a Zealot Jesus and [I]even[/I] a Historical Jesus! Aslan's mistake like many other reconstructions of a non-gospel Jesus is that you get everything and it's opposite. You want a Jewish Cynic Jesus? There you go! Apocalyptic Prophet Jesus? We got that too! Davidic Warrior King Jesus? Of course! Marxist Jesus? Anarchist Jesus? We got all flavors!
This is because they start out with historicity assumed when it's not that clear. When you clear out the Gospels as pure fiction as they are creative rewrites of OT prophesies&miracles mixed with Hellenistic stories, take into account the massive amounts of forgeries which are no mystery to liberal scholars, [I]and[/I]the sparse historical evidence left after clearing the table, you are left with the name Jesus and the Passion.
What we have do left are the epistles of Paul and others, dated 50CE, our earliest evidence from Christians themselves.
(The Gospels are after 70CE, the first being Mark written after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, with Matthew and Luke expanding on Mark's story. And since they are mythic tales adding to Mark's own mythical tale, the fact that they can agree on the big outlines like Pilate crucifying Jesus then him resurrecting to appear to his apostles means absolutely nothing.)
But then you are faced with Paul and other texts dated before the Gospel stories talking about Jesus. And then, you realize they barely talk about the human Jesus; and entire passages that talk about Jesus [I]in history[/I] are agreed to be interpolations by later Christian scribes.
Then we have Paul that insists him and other apostles getting [I]direct[/I] revelations from Jesus:
[QUOTE=Galatians 1:11-12]I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. [B]I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.[/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=1 Corinthians 15:1-5]Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. [B]For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.[/B][/QUOTE]
And then, you have to deal with what we find in Philo of Alexandria, contemporary of Paul and of Jesus:
[img]http://s16.postimg.org/5qxrlwdlh/1070107_510088799061337_308272950_n.jpg[/img]
Source: [url]http://vridar.org/2010/07/28/how-philo-might-have-understood-christ-in-the-nt-epistles/[/url]
This Jesus is also called the Logos...
And pretty much right there, big alarms should go off. What are the chances that this Jesus-Logos Philo and the epistles are talking about was an actual real being that was crucified and died in Palestine in 33CE?
But then, we have the Ascension of Isaiah, which confirms something is really wrong. [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbTbEvFSSF8"]Here.[/URL]
I'm under the impression that the census among historians and theologists is that Jesus was a real person. I'm also under the impression that the census among 15 year old atheists most likely is the opposite.
[QUOTE=Falchion;41651183]I'm under the impression that the census among historians and theologists is that Jesus was a real person. I'm also under the impression that the census among 15 year old atheists most likely is the opposite.[/QUOTE]
That is correct, the former cite overwhelming historical evidence, primarily Roman legal records and historical accounts, while the latter cite a strong desire to be edgy.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;41651787]That is correct, the former cite overwhelming historical evidence, primarily Roman legal records and historical accounts, while the latter cite a strong desire to be edgy.[/QUOTE]
LOL overwhelming
[editline]30th July 2013[/editline]
good one
[QUOTE=sgman91;41649985]If you've actually read the book it's written as a Muslim description of Jesus. [/QUOTE]
Take a picture of your hand holding the book and we'll see.
From what I think my Muslim friend has told me, isn't Jesus still present in the Islamic faith?
Only he's seen as a prophet rather than as a son of god, since there is no other gods or semi gods than Allah
[QUOTE=Simski;41652874]From what I think my Muslim friend has told me, isn't Jesus still present in the Islamic faith?
Only he's seen as a prophet rather than as a son of god, since there is no other gods or semi gods than Allah[/QUOTE]
That is correct, according to Islamic beliefs Jesus was one of the prophets of God and is seen as the precursor to Muhammad, memory serving they also believe he will return near the end of the world to slay the antichrist. As has already been mentioned they also hold that he was not crucified.
[QUOTE=Simski;41652874]From what I think my Muslim friend has told me, isn't Jesus still present in the Islamic faith?
Only he's seen as a prophet rather than as a son of god, since there is no other gods or semi gods than Allah[/QUOTE]
-Snip Fucking ninja'd-
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;41652953]That is correct, according to Islamic beliefs Jesus was one of the prophets of God and is seen as the precursor to Muhammad, memory serving they also believe [b]we[/b] will return near the end of the world to slay the antichrist. As has already been mentioned they also hold that he was not crucified.[/QUOTE]
I eagerly await your arrival.
What makes this thing so stupid is the fact that Jesus is actually a prophet of Islam.
That would be like being outraged about a Christian writing a book about Moses because he's not Jewish.
[QUOTE=BaguetteThug;41650945]post destroying sgman91[/QUOTE]
that was absolute slaughter, your first post is great and you should feel great
i wonder if lauren green did any followup or at least explain her dumbass pov later
[QUOTE=Thrasher1018;41653283]I eagerly await your arrival.[/QUOTE]
Oops, hehe, how did I even mess that up?
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;41653541]that was absolute slaughter, your first post is great and you should feel great
i wonder if lauren green did any followup or at least explain her dumbass pov later[/QUOTE]
Someone else at Fox News wrote about it: [url]http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/07/30/liberal-media-miss-reality-in-jabs-at-lauren-green-interview-with-zealot-author/[/url]
My amusement in this comes from the fact that his last name is identical to that of the lion in the [I]Chronicles of Narnia[/I].
[QUOTE=kooper44;41654550]Someone else at Fox News wrote about it: [url]http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/07/30/liberal-media-miss-reality-in-jabs-at-lauren-green-interview-with-zealot-author/[/url][/QUOTE]
[quote]that he was supporting the principle tenet of his faith, that Jesus is not divine
[/quote]
his tenet said jesus was never crucified according to aslan, and aslan says jesus WAS crucified, what more do you need lol
and jesus is a messiah in the quran
lol fox news
[QUOTE=valkery;41656160]My amusement in this comes from the fact that his last name is identical to that of the lion in the [I]Chronicles of Narnia[/I].[/QUOTE]
Wasn't the lion suppose to be Jesus in the story?
[QUOTE=BaguetteThug;41650945]Except that if you knew anything about the Jesus story in the Koran, you'd know that it has a [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism#Islam_and_docetism"]docetic view of Jesus[/URL]. Muslim orthodoxy believes Jesus did not get crucified and ascended to Heaven. The Zealot hypothesis for a Historical Jesus goes against the Koran's view. You obviously know nothing about this at all, so please don't yap about stuff way over your head :)
And I'm saying all this while opposed to the thesis of a Zealot Jesus and [I]even[/I] a Historical Jesus! Aslan's mistake like many other reconstructions of a non-gospel Jesus is that you get everything and it's opposite. You want a Jewish Cynic Jesus? There you go! Apocalyptic Prophet Jesus? We got that too! Davidic Warrior King Jesus? Of course! Marxist Jesus? Anarchist Jesus? We got all flavors!
This is because they start out with historicity assumed when it's not that clear. When you clear out the Gospels as pure fiction as they are creative rewrites of OT prophesies&miracles mixed with Hellenistic stories, take into account the massive amounts of forgeries which are no mystery to liberal scholars, [I]and[/I]the sparse historical evidence left after clearing the table, you are left with the name Jesus and the Passion.
What we have do left are the epistles of Paul and others, dated 50CE, our earliest evidence from Christians themselves.
(The Gospels are after 70CE, the first being Mark written after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, with Matthew and Luke expanding on Mark's story. And since they are mythic tales adding to Mark's own mythical tale, the fact that they can agree on the big outlines like Pilate crucifying Jesus then him resurrecting to appear to his apostles means absolutely nothing.)
But then you are faced with Paul and other texts dated before the Gospel stories talking about Jesus. And then, you realize they barely talk about the human Jesus; and entire passages that talk about Jesus [I]in history[/I] are agreed to be interpolations by later Christian scribes.
Then we have Paul that insists him and other apostles getting [I]direct[/I] revelations from Jesus:
And then, you have to deal with what we find in Philo of Alexandria, contemporary of Paul and of Jesus:
[img]http://s16.postimg.org/5qxrlwdlh/1070107_510088799061337_308272950_n.jpg[/img]
Source: [url]http://vridar.org/2010/07/28/how-philo-might-have-understood-christ-in-the-nt-epistles/[/url]
This Jesus is also called the Logos...
And pretty much right there, big alarms should go off. What are the chances that this Jesus-Logos Philo and the epistles are talking about was an actual real being that was crucified and died in Palestine in 33CE?
But then, we have the Ascension of Isaiah, which confirms something is really wrong. [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbTbEvFSSF8"]Here.[/URL][/QUOTE]
That was one hell of a first post, my man.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.