Yes I have seen the video. If I'm not mistaken, it's a clip from Empire of the City. I like some of what is presented in that video, mostly the
stuff about the last 100 years or so. This part about jesus is just embarrassing though.
I have read many books that elaborate on this and many other alternative Jesus theories, all of which have nothing but anecdotal and speculative
reasoning as evidence - no historical texts, no ancient manuscripts, no oral history, nothing that links them with the past in any way. These
'alternative theories' about Jesus are contemporary fabrications which are either dreamed up by people who claim to have 'special knowledge'
(think Madam Blavatsky, Edgar Cayce etc etc), OR are claimed to be great underground secrets passed down through the centuries by occult societies etc
(think Dan Brown, Jordan Maxwell etc etc). Or a combination of the two...
One thing all these theories have in common is misrepresenting historical facts to suit a new agenda/narrative. They always rely on bending the facts
and figures, say, 40 years or more to line up unrelated events and historical personages, and then they say - "Ohh history is a shady thing, we
can't rely on things that have an historical basis, but we can be certain that this new interpretation of unrelated things with no historical basis
is not shady at all!". Just silly.
Well, for one, overturning literally hundreds of years of painstaking research means very little when its been bastardized over and over ad
infinitum throughout history to begin with so who's to say it was right to the 't' to begin with? Everything based on records - records destroyed,
records altered, records made up, best guessed translations of records, etc.
Speaking from a historical and intellectual point of view - this is simply not the case. Why do people have such warped ideas of how the bible came to
To say that the bible has been bastardised 'throughout history' is just plain uninformed. The bible we have today does not come from monks who
copied it and copied it 'throughout history'. That was the old Catholic vulgate and the old King James translation. No one uses them any more
because their edits and mistranslations have become apparant (even though they are relatively minor). The modern bible translations we have today come
directly from collections of literally 1000s of manuscripts that existed 100s of years before the Roman Church ever existed.
This site gives a good general overview of the vast areas of research that have gone into
Textual Analysis and Biblical Criticism
Also check out the Wiki entries for Higher
I don't advocate these particular approaches to studying the Bible, except to say that A LOT of work has been done to scrutinise and dismantle the
bible, and still it performs exceptionally well as a reliable historical resource.
I'm not defending the bible or the traditional story of jesus either, I'm just giving a comparison of a theory with a sound historical basis and
many lifetime's worth of work behind it, and a theory that has zip, and continues to have zip, because there is zip to confirm it except the
speculations of a few axe-grinders and soothsayers who have little to no regard for actual scholarship.
Not blasphemy. Just a theory without so much as a pegleg to stand on.
[edit on 20/7/2008 by sollie]