Quote:

---

Jesus is nothing more then a personified thought construct.

---

Quote:

---

"To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?"

"As a child, I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."

"Have you read Emil Ludwig's book on Jesus?

"Emil Ludwig's Jesus," replied Einstein, "is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot."

"You accept the historical existence of Jesus?"

"Unquestionably. No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. How different, for instance, is the impression which we receive from an account of legendary heroes of antiquity like Theseus. Theseus and other heroes of his type lack the authentic vitality of Jesus."

"Ludwig Lewisohn, in one of his recent books, claims that many of the sayings of Jesus paraphrase the sayings of other prophets."

"No man," Einstein replied, "can deny the fact that Jesus existed, nor that his sayings are beautiful. Even if some them have been said before, no one has expressed them so divinely as he."

---

Quote:

---

The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[59] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[60][Need quotation to verify] As such, New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".[61]

---

Quote:

---

soldatheero said:

"You accept the historical existence of Jesus?"

"Unquestionably. No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.

---

Really? When I read the gospels I didn't feel any presence, sounds like more subjective bullshit to me.

Oh, and if you want a brief lesson on other myths(I find it funny how the guy you quoted refers to jesus as a myth) then might I suggest a very simple youtube video?

You may also be interested in mother goose and the three little pigs if you enjoy the jesus story. 

Quote:

---

soldatheero said:

During the first century thousands of Christains died for Jesus as matrys.

---

Haha, whats your point? Just because people die for a 'cause' justifies it? Oh and by the way, how do you know that people died for him during this 'first century'? Oh... you read it in a book? Hmm.... sounds like another circle of ignorance to me. I've heard it all before "Oh I can prove jesus' existence.... just go read the bible!" Yeah.... death anxiety...

Quote:

---

Haha, whats your point? Just because people die for a 'cause' justifies it?

---

Quote:

---

Examining some of specific claims made by the film, Forbes points out that while there are parallels between the story of Jesus and many other ancient mythological figures, many of the ones mentioned in the film are false, as are other aspects of the film's description of these myths. Forbes states that there is no evidence in Egyptian sources that Horus' mother Isis was a virgin, and claims that Ra was the Egyptian god of the sun, not Horus. Similarly, neither Krishna nor Dionysus nor Attis were ever said to be born of virgins, as Krishna was the eighth child of his parents, Devaki and Vasudeva, and Dionysus' mother, Semele, had slept with Zeus. Forbes asserts that Horus was not adored by three kings, and that neither he nor Attis were crucified nor resurrected. Forbes and interviewer John Dickson, founder of the Centre for Public Christianity, took issue with what they perceived as an argument centered on the homophony between the words "Sun" and "Son" in regards to Jesus, with Forbes dismissing this point as a pun, and pointing out that those words are not homophonic in ancient Egyptian, Latin or Greek. Forbes also points out that neither Horus, Attis nor Jesus were born on December 25, as the ancient Egyptian calendar did not include the month of December found in the Latin calendar, and that the date of Christmas is a celebratory tradition historically derived from Sol Invictus and Saturnalia, rather than the Bible.[25]

Forbes also criticizes the movie's use of Roman sources to suggest that Jesus did not exist, noting that the list of supposed contemporaneous historians alleged by the film to have not mentioned Jesus is actually a list of geographers, literature professors, poets, philosophers and writers on farming or gardening, who would not be expected to mention him, and that the modern sources cited in the film are either experts in fields other than ancient history, such as German literature, or uncredentialed amateur Egyptologists. Forbes challenges the film's allegation that Josephus' mention of Jesus was doctored by pointing out that Josephus actually mentions Jesus twice, and that only one of these mentions is believed by scholars to have been doctored in the Middle Ages, in order to change an already existing mention of him. Forbes also argues that while Emperor Constantine I legalized Christianity, it was Theodosius I who made it compulsory later in the 4th century, and that contrary to the film's thesis, Constantine did not invent the historical Jesus, as early records show that his historicity was already a key element of early Christianity prior to Constantine's conversion to it.[25]

---

Quote:

---

] S. G. F. Brandon and others argue that the very idea that early Christians would consciously incorporate pagan myths into their religion is "intrinsically most improbable,"[109] as evidenced by the strenuous opposition that Paul encountered from other Christians for even his minor concessions to Gentile believers.

---

Quote:

---

And for the most part, whether you believe zeitgeist or not, it's pretty easy to see that Christianity stole many of its aspects from pre-existing religions, especially Egyptian ones.

---

Quote:

---

If you honestly put your belief systems in ideologies that instill fear into you, and actually make you believe that the objective creator of everything is actually willing to judge its own creations

---