Review! Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All

Posted: November 30, 2012 in 4 star, Book Reviews, Non-Fiction
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

NailedNailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All

By: David Fitzgerald
Paperback: 248 pages
ISBN-10: 0557709911
ISBN-13: 978-0557709915
Overall: 4 out of 5 stars
I first heard about Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All while listening to The Dogma Debate. The Dogma Debate is an absolutely outstanding Spreaker internet radio show hosted by David Smalley, the author of Baptized Atheist (and his partners in crime Daniel Moran and Shayrah Akers). The show explores Atheist subject matter in a professional manner, free of the condescending attitudes that close the door on intelligent debate. By the way, I am the 4th listener. The author of Nailed, David Fitzgerald, was a guest on the show and was just as compelling on air as he is in his book.
Nailed explores the legend of Jesus in the same lens that we explore so many other things in history, with facts and rationality. There is no way that any sane mind can come away from reading Nailed with the believe that Jesus ever existed, was influential in that time, or that there is even evidence that his story coincides with what is know about the first century. There is no doubt that apologists will continual to dismiss the evidence presented by Fitzgerald. If only they could be so critical in their self analysis because if the empirical evidence that Jesus never existed isn’t enough, I can not see any way possible to argue that Nailed does not demonstrate that the Biblical stories about Jesus never happened.
Sadly, there will never be anything that completely proves that Fitzgerald is right because you simply cannot kill what never existed. Some will walk away from reading Nailed and say, “AH HA it doesn’t prove Jesus didn’t exist, only that your SCIENCE doesn’t prove that he did!” Well, okay then, let Jesus join the ranks of Santa Claus, Leprechauns, The Easter Bunny, and whatever other mythical creatures of folk lure that you can think of.
If any of this offends you, then please read Nailed and come back to comment on here.
Some of my favorite things that a reader needs to contemplate…
Why does no one else in history document the biblical events, despite many with tremendous motivation to do so?
Why did the Christians feel that it was necessary to forge so many things and destroy so many others that may have shed light on the subject?
Why is there so much Christian anger?
Why is it that despite the millions who claimed to be Christians, I have never met a single one that followed anything Biblical?
Some problems with Nailed
Jesus (pun intended), why is it so expensive? I read the Kindle version because, despite buying many books, I couldn’t justify the paperback price. The benefit of having the paperback would have been being able to break it out in debates with the blind to reference, but I have many like this and the blind will fight you before they try to listen for a moment.
It is very dry and held my intention only because of my personal interest. You need to be wanting this knowledge to read it all, but hey, the knowledge is worth it.
Please, I am begging you, no matter what your back ground, read Nailed. If you are stuck on being Christian, you can learn where Atheist are coming from. If you are Atheist, you will understand more of why you are, and if you are just curious, the break down here is excellent. Everyone benefits from taking the time to learn.
About these ads
Comments
  1. I will be looking for your book in a public library ASAP, but I do know this. Jesus did exist. I know for a fact because historians of the day wrote about him. Take Josephus for example.

    “Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.”

    This specific quote is known by scholars to be authentic, because James’ death is different in the quote than it is in the Bible.

    The reason why Josephus calls Him “Jesus, who was called Christ” is because he mentions other people who have the name Jesus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

    • I am sorry, Luke the Wolfe, but I have to suggest that you further your research on this subject. I am no expert but upon unbiased analysis I have not seen anything that holds up. Conversely, there is a plethora of information that has every reason to mention Jesus but does not. I am positive that looking at this book will help explain this to you or anyone else with questions. I, admittedly, came in already an atheist, and left shocked how much information there is that discredits the belief in a living Jesus.

      • Tell me, what does this book say about when the people “made up” Yahshua?

      • I can’t tell you in a few words. Read it or be an apologist, it’s up to you, I can’t change that.

      • Okay. Guess I’ll have to wait. Thanks anyway.

      • Some more historians who mention Jesus:

        Cornelius Tacitus- “Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.” -(the Annals 15.44)

        Tacitus mmentions that “Christus” is the founder of the Christians. This shows that he is talking about Jesus and not some other religious figure like Mithras.

        Pliny the Younger states in a letter to his superrior:
        “[The Christians] affirmed, however, that the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up.”

        —————————————————————–

        I have to ask, does the book say something about Jesus’ story being a copy of other earlier Gods, such as Horus and Mithras?

      • I do not understand why you simply don’t just read the book, which solidly addresses what you just mentioned. Imagine after all this time you only pulled two offhand remarks written well after the supposed Jesus’ death. Talk about context.

      • Watch the movie Zeitgeist Part 1. Not only does it totally deny Jesus’ existence, but says that Jesus’ story is a copy of many other legends and myths. It also talks about the historians of whom I mentioned. After you watch it, comment back. (All that I ask you to watch is Part 1, which is only about 30 minutes long.)

        As for getting the book, I’m working on it.

    • Josephus was born after Jesus’ death. He was not a ‘historian of the day.’ No contemporary wrote about Jesus.

  2. Thanks for the review. While I haven’t read this, I have read Bart Ehrman’s work on the historical Jesus. It seems more likely some of the stories are based on a real historical figure. Legend heaped upon a real person is easier to construct as history than a pure fiction.

  3. Albert says:

    @reasoningpolitics,

    You said, “No contemporary wrote about Jesus.”

    What do you consider to be a contemporary?

    We have many documents written by those that have claimed to lived and walked with Jesus himself. Why are those writers not included in your list of contemporaries?

    Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, all lived at the time when Jesus was to be on earth. These are men that made the claim of seeing Jesus rise from the dead. These are men that claimed to be eye witnesses or in Luke’s case documenting the details from those that were eye witnesses.

    Why do you dismiss the books of the bible as not historical documents of antiquity?

    If anything, we have to compare them to all the other manuscript evidence we have for other books of antiquity, don’t you think? If so, how do you think they fair up?

    • Thanks for commenting….

      What are these many documents that you speak of?

      I am no expert on this matter, but I know of no writers that walked with Jesus that actually wrote at the time and there are a plethora of people that should have been writing of such events that made no mention of it. Can you imagine if Jesus lived today, but the New York Times and every other news outlet made no mention? Essentially that is what happened.

    • Bible historial document?… Sure, Historically accurate? There is nothing that would suggest that.

      There is nothing that makes the same accounts as the Bible, the is no physical evidence of the events occurring. I understand people want to believe, but if I changed the name of the characters, I can’t believe that people would find it to be nothing more than bedtime stories.

  4. Albert says:

    michaelawoodjr,
    You said, “but I know of no writers that walked with Jesus that actually wrote at the time and there are a plethora of people that should have been writing of such events that made no mention of it.”

    Your presumption that a plethora of people should have been writing about the events is not taking into account the times they were in.
    They didn’t have Facebook and twitter or any other media as we have it today. News traveled a lot slower and it took time for events to be documented.

    Another key thing to remember was that while Jesus was on earth, the apostles were not thinking that he was leaving them any time soon. They really believed that he was going to setup the Kingdom in front of their eyes. They didn’t understand a lot of what Jesus meant until after he rose from the dead. This is evident in how they responded to so many events before and after the resurrection.

    But we actually don’t know that they didn’t write down all that he was telling them at the time.

    It’s very conceivable that the information in the New Testament is taken directly from writings or notes that were taken on their three year journey with Jesus before his crucifixion. It might not have been put into a book until later. We can only go based on the oldest found manuscript documents that we have found today.

    Something that is interesting though is a couple of things that Paul mentioned.

    Consider what Paul says here in 1 Corinthian 15:3-5 “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.”

    Many critical scholars hold that Paul received these “Scriptures” from the disciples Peter and James while visiting them three years(Galatians 1:18-24) after his conversion. That meant Paul was given Scriptures, of some sort, that were within five years of Jesus’ crucifixion.

    Some believe this might have only been the apostles creed, but we just don’t know for sure. But, we do know that he received some scriptures of some kind.

    That’s really late by today’s standards, but in those days, that is almost like doing a twitter post of an event that just happened, don’t you think?

    And there were eyewitness accounts. The apostles, Matthew and John, both wrote a Gospel. Those were two people that walked with Jesus when he was on this earth.
    Mark and Luke, wrote about information conveyed to them from first hand eyewitness accounts. Basically they were our “Man on the street” reporters of the time.
    Paul, a zealous persecutor of the early Christian church even made the claim that he had seen the risen Jesus Christ himself, and explains that is why he converted to Christianity.
    And then accounts about and from James, the brother of Jesus, who is mentioned in many places to be a skeptic until after he saw Jesus risen from the dead.

    You said, “There is nothing that makes the same accounts as the Bible, the is no physical evidence of the events occurring.”

    Which events occurring are you talking about?

    • You are convinced and I respect that.

      As a logical argument you cannot use to bible as reference that the bible is true. Come on now. 2+2=3, it’s true, you don’t believe? Just look at what Michael Wood wrote on 3-20-13 see I told you 2+2=3. Oh and let’s not mention….how can you REALLY know that 2+2 doesn’t =3?? Maybe it is just because the Lord works in mysterious ways or because he’s testing your faith with evil mathematics?

      If you want the answers to your questions then please just read the book. Until then any debate is pointless, because I suspect, like most Christians you will not educate yourself outside of your narrow viewpoint.

      We actually do know of people that should have written about Jesus, their writings exist today with no mention of Jesus. The references and citations and proof are all in the book, I’m not going to retype the book when the author spent plenty of time doing his homework.

      Nothing was written until long after the supposed Jesus’ death. This is known.

  5. Albert says:

    michaelawoodjr,
    You said, “Bible historial document?… Sure, Historically accurate? There is nothing that would suggest that.”

    There are many things in the canonical bible that are shown to be historically accurate.

    Are there specific things that you are saying are not accurate?

  6. Albert says:

    michaelawoodjr,

    You said, “As a logical argument you cannot use to bible as reference that the bible is true.”

    How do you come to that conclusion?

    Using that logic, we can’t trust anything we read ever. And to say, “This document has been confirmed as true by other writers which were their contemporaries.”, doesn’t help you either because you would have to prove that there wasn’t cohesion.

    Plus archeological evidence shows many things in the bible to be factual. Those things that can’t be show as true through physical evidence has to be determined by textual criticism. By doing that, there is very good reason to 1) believe that the apostles really did believe they experienced a risen Christ and 2) that the books of the bible can be show is very accurate historical documents not based in myth.

    The other thing that should be understood is that events like the empty tomb are very strongly documented to show it to be a valid selling point. And there is also silence on the other side of this argument. All the Roman’s or Jews had to do was produce a body and they would have shown the empty tomb to be a hoax. At yet, they didn’t do that. The most they could do was accuse the apostles of taking the body. But if they did that, this would not explain the change in themselves from men that would run from the Jewish solders in the garden of Gethsemane to men that were not only zealous to preach the good news, but into men that would tell the Jews that they could not do anything else but preach what they were witness to.

    There is plenty of historical documentation that shows the apostles did exist and even that there was someone named Jesus that died on a cross in relation to these men.

    Take the time to look for it. Because most critical scholars believe that a historical Jesus existed.

    I could get this book from the library and refute each assertion it makes but that would never convince you.

    What you need to do is decide if you are wanting to really follow where truth leads or if you want to believe what David Fitzgerald has written without looking into these facts yourself.

    It’s very easy to say, “Look at all the time and energy Mr. Fitzgerald has taken to do research on this subject, it must be true.” But many people spend many hours twisting facts and figures to meet an agenda they have in mind, don’t they.

    I’m not even expecting you to believe what I’m writing. I’m hoping that what I have done in these short comments is show you that there are other ways to look at something that is totally logical and reasonable and is based on facts. I’m not appealing to any inspired book and just saying I believe it so it must be true. No, what I’m saying is you need to really look into it yourself. Don’t rely on me or Mr. Fitzgerald to give you the details. Read everything on both sides of the arguments and with an honest look for the truth, find out what really is true.

    Leave your presumptions behind and I’m sure the truth will jump out at you. The question then will be, are you willing to follow where it leads you?

    • If you really believe this stuff that you are typing, then there is no point in having a discussion.

      You said, “As a logical argument you cannot use to bible as reference that the bible is true.”
      How do you come to that conclusion?
      Using that logic, we can’t trust anything we read ever. And to say, “This document has been confirmed as true by other writers which were their contemporaries.”, doesn’t help you either because you would have to prove that there wasn’t cohesion.

      Do you really believe that I can take anything that you say seriously with that type of logic?

      As for the rest, I am telling you that none of it is true. I cannot prove a negative. Which is what you apologist continue to fall back on. You cannot say “prove it didn’t happen” You have to prove it happened! You have given nothing, not a single drop. Stop speaking in hypotheticals and say something…

      Apologist and Christians in general have a tragic flaw in logic, you tend to confuse correlation and causation.

      There is plenty of historical documentation that shows the apostles did exist and even that there was someone named Jesus that died on a cross in relation to these men.

      Where? Where? Where? If something is so blatantly obvious, why can’t you just say it?

      No, what I’m saying is you need to really look into it yourself. Don’t rely on me or Mr. Fitzgerald to give you the details. Read everything on both sides of the arguments and with an honest look for the truth, find out what really is true.

      Here’s something that may surprise you. Most atheist know much more about Christianity than Christians, that’s exactly why we don’t believe, because we actually studied it, we actually do know about it. I went to Catholic private school and was an alterboy for crying out loud. As a young child I immediately realized how much of it is preposterous.

      The next step in human evolution is dropping this religion crap, need I remind you that nothing has caused more bloodshed and oppression in the history of humanity, than your Christianity.

  7. Albert says:

    michaelawoodjr,

    It’s interesting that you call this site the Critical Critic, because you fail to look at facts yourself. You watch a video like Zeitgeist consider that Jesus was based off of old recycled myths.

    If you did a little digging on your own, you would see that there a many things that are incorrect in the video. For instance:

    1) There is no record Osiris rose bodily from the dead. Instead, he became a god of the netherworld. As one put it, Osiris is not a dying god, but a dead god, always depicted as a deceased, mummified king. He may be “alive” in the spirit realm, but this would be true of anyone passing into the next life who’s physical body lies decaying in a tomb. Indeed, Egyptian religion had no concept of resurrection, only of immortality beyond the grave. These are two entirely different concepts.
    2) Horus was not born of a virgin, but was the son of Osiris and Isis (not Mary). Horus never dies, so he could have no resurrection, though in his union with Rah, the sun God, one could say he “dies” every night and is “resurrected” every morning. Clearly, though, this is no help to the copycat messiah crowd.
    3) Neither the Bible nor Christianity claim Jesus was born on December 25th, so any parallels with ancient myths are completely inconsequential. The date was chosen by emperor Aurelian in the third century.
    4) Mithras was not born of a virgin, but emerged from a rock, and there is no textual evidence of his death, so there could be no resurrection.
    5) Mithras was a god, not a teacher, so he had no disciples.
    6) There is no evidence of an account of a bodily resurrection of Attis, the Phrygian god of vegetation.
    7) There is no evidence for a virgin birth of Dionysus.
    8) Krishna was his mother’s eighth son, so his virgin birth is unlikely.

    This is just a small list that you are welcome to critically look into for yourself. This doesn’t even cover the fact that many mythical accounts of dying and rising gods actually postdate the time of Christ.

    You have to look at each story on its own to confirm whether it is true or a myth. Comparisons like those in that video Zeitgeist don’t prove anything.

    Let me give you an example:
    In 1898, Morgan Robertson published a novel entitled Futility. The story was a fictional account of a transatlantic voyage of the cruise ship Titan traveling between England and New York. The largest vessel afloat displacing 45,000 tons, the Titan was considered virtually unsinkable. Yet in the middle of the night in April, with three massive propellers driving the ship forward at the excessive speed of 25 knots, it collided with an iceberg and sunk. Since the number of lifeboats was the minimum the law required (though twice that was needed for its 3,000 capacity), more than half of its passengers perished.

    Fourteen years later in April, the world’s largest luxury liner with a displacement of 45,000 tons—the indestructible Titanic—departed from England on a transatlantic voyage to New York. In the middle of the night, the Titanic’s triple screws drove the ship at the excessive speed of nearly 25 knots into an iceberg and sunk. Since the Titanic was fitted with less than half the number of lifeboats needed for its 3,000 capacity (the minimum the law required), more than half of its passengers were lost.

    This real-life coincidence makes a crucial point. Regardless of the similarity between two accounts of different events, the second cannot be summarily dismissed as an invention simply because the first turns out to be fiction. Whether or not the details of the Titanic’s disaster are accurate is determined by its own body of evidence, unrelated to the fictional story of the ill-fated Titan that came before.

    Just a little something to think about.

  8. Albert says:

    michaelawoodjr,

    You said, “Do you really believe that I can take anything that you say seriously with that type of logic?”

    What is wrong with my logic?

    You said, “Stop speaking in hypotheticals”

    What did I say that was hypothetical?

    You said, “1.) I did not post the video.”

    I know. I was simply showing faults with the video. Take them as you will.

    You said, “2.) If you are going to come on here and make your claim, then please state something of relevance.”

    What am I saying that is not relevant?

    You said, “Where? Where? Where? If something is so blatantly obvious, why can’t you just say it?”

    Writings from the early church fathers, Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Mathetes, Polycarp

    All of those people knew the apostles. They took what was passed down to them and continued writing. Their writings are not included in the bible because most of them, from what we know, are not close enough to have witnessed themselves the risen Christ. And then there are many more that lead into the 2nd century from men that knew those mentioned above. Basically a trail from person to person showing that they existed and are not just made up.

    The point was that these men, that are in the bible did exist. If they existed, then that gives additional reliability to the writings of the bible. It doesn’t explain everything, but it does show that it was from men that did exist in time.

    You said, “Here’s something that may surprise you. Most atheist know much more about Christianity than Christians, that’s exactly why we don’t believe, because we actually studied it, we actually do know about it.”

    Actually, what I have found more times then not with all the atheists I speak to, and there are many, is that they don’t really know the bible but just bits and pieces. They don’t do textual criticism on the bible in the same way they do other books of antiquity. And because of that, they get many things incorrect. I have found more times then not is that they hold to their presumptions that the bible isn’t true and dismiss things they care not to discuss.

    I get a lot of comments just like yours. Instead of addressing what I have said, they make accusations that what I have written is obviously wrong, so there is no reason to even entertain the idea that there might be some validity to it.

    But a real seeker of truth, wouldn’t do that, would they? They would look at all the evidence and then figure out what is the truth or at least try to get as close to the truth as they can. No starting with presumptions but looking at everything before making a decision.

    No, what I see more then anything is that atheists start with a presumption that the bible is not true and then go from there. That isn’t very scientific, is it?

    I have no problem saying that I could be completely wrong that Jesus really wasn’t who he claimed to be. But so far, I have not see any real evidence that shows me a better answer.

    Yes, you didn’t post that video above, but did you even bother to look at it with regards to what I stated were fallacies? No, you commented without even considering that I might have some valid points.
    As an atheist, as I’m assuming you are based on what you have said, how is that being intellectually honest?
    Shouldn’t you be using your intelligence to refute every claim that is put before you?
    Should you be looking at everything objectively and determining its validity based on the facts and not presumptions?
    Isn’t that what a scientist does when he looks for evidence in proving a theory? Dismiss those things that don’t work and keeping those things that do?

    I’m not asking you to believe what I have said. What I’m asking you to do is to consider it as possible data for a conclusion and evaluate it. If it comes back as false, then fine, refute it.

    But if it comes back showing that it is true, are you willing to follow that truth where ever it leads?

    I have asked many atheists to answer a question. That question is if God came down and revealed himself to you so that you have no physical, logical or mental reason not to believe he is real, would you believe there is a God?
    You would be surprised at how many of those intellectual honest atheists told me ‘no’.

    Now I ask you the same question. Would you follow truth where it leads or will you hold to your presumptions?

    That is essentially what I am asking you to do when I present these arguments for the historically reliability of the bible. It is up to you to either follow where truth leads or stay hidden in your own presumptions.

    Where do you want to go with truth?

    • I hear you. What I am saying is that this book directly answers most of the points that you have mentioned. The author wrote it with an investigative and open mind. I do not believe that I could touch on the thoroughness and quality that this book contains. I agree with the author’s conclusions and see no reason to cut and paste his research when it is you that is asking the questions. The answers that I agree with are in this book. Read it and then post back, otherwise this conversation does not make sense as this is a book review site not the Dogma Debate.

      I beg you to read this as it has the same answers that I would give you and it does the author a disservice to discuss his work if you won’t read it.

      I have a bible, I’ve read your side. Try doing the same.

  9. Albert says:

    michaelawoodjr,

    That is a very fair and honest answer. I will find the time to read the book.

    Are you open to discussing these points in the book once I have read it?

    • Absolutely, but I also have to say that this discussion is over my review of this book, for me personally the research is overkill. I do not need this level of investigation and evidence to formulate my stance. I do not go around trying to convince people of my views, but there are fundamental flaws that are enough to turn me off, off the top of my head:

      An omniscient god that is perfect, but yet completely changes his personality and purports free will. If you already know, as god, then there is no free will, it is all predetermined by his foresight.

      Adam & Eve

      Genesis

      Noah’s Ark

      God sending an angel to essential ghost rape Mary and devirginize her.

      A religion whose number one rule is to not kill but yet god killed plenty and whose disciples (not the twelve) are the most violent group of people in the last 2,000 years.

      People that lived hundreds of years.

      A view of science that was limited to the science known at the time… god should know the real science.

      “My god, my god, why have you forsaken me?” when it is said that the trinity is one in the same, so really “Me, Me why I have forsaken myself?” WTF?

      Every account of the resurrection being completely different from each other.

      This is just what I can think of in a flashing moment, there are thousands of fundamental flaws.

      • Albert says:

        michaelawoodjr,
        In regard to the issues that turn you off….

        You said, “An omniscient god that is perfect, but yet completely changes his personality and purports free will. If you already know, as god, then there is no free will, it is all predetermined by his foresight.”

        Predetermined is different than knowing what will happen. This I think is the issue here. Free will means we are the ones making the choice. The fact that God knows what we will choose simply means he knows us well.

        I can guess by looking at a wall of clothes or shoes what my wife would pick out. My knowing that doesn’t mean I am making the choice for her. There is a difference.

        You said, “Adam & Eve, Genesis, Noah’s Ark”” Why does these turn you off?

        You said, “God sending an angel to essential ghost rape Mary and devirginize her.”
        This is a misunderstanding of the text. And he was not devirginized, it specifically says she stayed a virgin.

        You said, “A religion whose number one rule is to not kill but yet god killed plenty and whose disciples (not the twelve) are the most violent group of people in the last 2,000 years.”

        I made this cup one time in an art class at school(many years ago). I loved that cup. I used it all the time to put hot tea in, water or whatever. I enjoyed it because it held a lot. I made it. Then, one day I hit it too hard against the edge of a table and it cracked. Cracked so much it wouldn’t hold liquids anymore. And I didn’t feel like gluing it. But I could have if I wanted to. It was my cup. Then one day some kid came by a grabbed my cup and smashed it on the floor. That was wrong of him to do, he didn’t make the cup, I did. Now, if I smashed the cup, it would have been fine for me to do so, but it was not okay for him to smash it because he did not make it.

        If the Bible is true then God would have made all of us. That means he can do with us as he pleases. The fact that he tells us we can’t kill each other is simply a matter of perspective. What is wrong for us to do isn’t wrong for him. And if he chose to use his creation to smash his creation, that is his choice, not ours. Does that make sense?

        You said, “People that lived hundreds of years.” And?

        You said, “A view of science that was limited to the science known at the time… god should know the real science.”

        Yes, he should. That doesn’t mean those that he wrote his word through understood it enough to put it into words. Plus, where is it stated that the Bible is a science book? the details given we to present an explanation of events that were happening around those that wrote, not to prove science or the world to you.

        You said, ““My god, my god, why have you forsaken me?” when it is said that the trinity is one in the same, so really “Me, Me why I have forsaken myself?” WTF?”

        Why is this a conflict? The Bible does not depict Jesus as just fully God, he is also fully Human. That means the humanity of him was what was calling out on the cross, the sacrifice, not the deity. You have to take the Bible as a whole to make sense of some of these concepts. Cherry picking one verse will get you nothing but misunderstanding.

        You said, “Every account of the resurrection being completely different from each other.”

        Really? How so? Seems to me Jesus was tried, convicted of a crime he didn’t commit, was hung on a cross, died and rose again on the third day. Isn’t that the account from all of the Gospels?

        You said, “This is just what I can think of in a flashing moment, there are thousands of fundamental flaws.”

        Or misunderstandings?

  10. Daniel Moran says:

    Lol. I Google “Nailed” and find this review, which mentions me. Small world.

  11. Tim O'Neill says:

    “Compelling”? Let’s see if you’ve still think that after you’ve read this detailed demolition of Fitzgerald’s smoke and mirrors thesis:

    http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com.au/2011/05/nailed-ten-christian-myths-that-show.html

  12. Antgingell says:

    Well, Albert, a great defence of the historical existence of Jesus. Sadly, the critical critic only seems to reserve criticism for view points that disagree with his world view. It would be nice to see him agree with Albert on his devastating deconstruction of the zeitgeist video. Instead, the critic sweeps it all under the carpet and will no doubt never revisit the video to apply the same standards of critique. Instead, it will fall out of memory so he can continue promoting the god man myth without inconvenient truth getting in the way. Come on, critical critic apply your intellect and reasoning to both sides of the argument. Open minds are the only ones capable of true criticism.

    • michaelawoodjr says:

      Zeitgeist video is silly and not convincing, I didn’t post it, I didn’t support it.

    • Albert says:

      Antgingell, Yes, thank you for the kudos. But as michaelawoodjr stated, the video was suggested by lukethewolf3654.

      And I’m glad to hear that michaelawoodjr does not support the video. I would hope that there would be some way he could be removed and never seen again as it is seriously flawed and made simply to misdirect the truth of those issues.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s