SUBSCRIBE TO CPX SERVICES

1. Anon's superman analogy is cute but it misses the point that there is no evidence for Superman nor rational case for Krypton, whereas there is good evidence for Jesus' existence and reputation as a healer, and a strong rational case for God.

2. Glad to see some of you repeat our (really, Greg's) statement that "the best case for Christianity is Jesus" but disappointed that you have misunderstood it. Greg didn't mean anything like the circular straw man devised above. He meant that, given the obvious existence of God (granted: a minority of you don't see the obviousness), Jesus' life and teaching, not to mention death and resurrection, are powerful draw cards for those wanting to pursue their hunches about God.

3. No one is 'attacking' Prof George Wells. Such inflationary language doesn't help the discussion. We are, however, critiquing Dawkins' citation of Wells as someone who has made a 'serious historical case' that Jesus never lived, without acknowledging Wells' academic specialty--German language.

4. Still on Wells. We are always happy for the whole truth to be told. In this case, the whole truth is even more troubling for those who continue to quote him as an expert in this area: the man has completed several degrees, none of which relate to the history of Roman Palestine! As for the statement that Wells has written 10 books on Christianity, what does that prove? Ken Ham has written about the same number of books on science. That doesn't make him an expert.

Hi again, 5. There is nothing 'interesting' about a Christian historian admitting Josephus has been (partly) tampered with--we all acknowledge that, and have done so for decades. But you misunderstand both Chris Forbes and just about every expert in this area if you think the Testimonium Flavianum is wholly a forgery. The consensus of non-Christian historians is that the references to Jesus’ teaching, wonders, execution and disciples are authentic. And there are excellent reasons for this conclusion. Almost no one thinks the second passage (about James) has been tampered with. I know this is frustrating for people eager to rule out evidence for Jesus, but it is the reality.

6. The stuff about Philo or Justus not mentioning Jesus is a little naïve. Other figures whom we know lived in this period also failed to rate a mention in contemporary records. John the Baptist was a revered prophet-figure in Palestine. He died shortly before Jesus. He is mentioned by the Jewish writer Josephus but not by Philo or any other Jewish rabbinic text. Again, Paul of Tarsus, the greatest of the early Christian missionaries whose authentic letters we have in our possession and who got around a lot more than Jesus, is mentioned by no non-Christian author. The Teacher of Righteousness was a revered leader of the Essene Jews at Qumran and is a central character in the Dead Sea Scrolls, yet none of the ancient reports about the Essenes (in Philo, Josephus, Pliny the Elder) mention him. Perhaps most surprising is the fact that Rabbi Hillel, the greatest of the Jewish teachers in the tradition of the Pharisees, is never mentioned by Josephus who was himself a Pharisee. The point of all this is to say that the absence of Jesus from some ancient writings is no more significant than the absence of other important (and certain) figures from similar writings.

7. Finally, accusing Christians of 'special pleading' for denying Attis while accepting Jesus is rather ironic and underscores how far some of you will go to reject the obvious. Attis is a deity of Phrygian mythology and there is nothing like 'historical writings' for his earthly existence. You will have to accuse all historians, not just Christians, of special pleading on this one. Scepticism is just getting sillier and sillier - which is fine with me.

1. You portrait Prof. Wells in this podcast and in your book as an amateur who does not know anything about Christianity. Based your answer you seem to think you portrait him fairly. I guess that is your Christian view of telling the whole truth. Nice.

2. You compared Wells' books about history to Ham's books about "science". This is of course a false analogy as in science hypothesis and theories can be tested and falsified. On the other hand historical method is slightly different for example when considering writers integrity and credibility. Why don't you show where Wells is clearly wrong, and not poison the well and using false analogies. BTW ironically your fellow Christian Ham is considered a science expert even among some of your fellow Sydney Anglicans...

3. In the podcast "Brother of James" passage is claimed to be "obviously genuine", now you are saying that "almost no one thinks [it] has been tampered with". Maybe you should add this "whole truth" to your podcast before the opinion gravitates towards the real truth.

4. Your statement "The consensus of non-Christian historians is that the references to Jesus’ teaching, wonders, execution and disciples are authentic" is at least disputable, but I guess you start arguing who meets you criteria of being a historian.

5. So lets look at my "naïve" comment about Justus. Justus was a contemporary of Jesus and lived next to Nazareth. Jesus must have walked through Tiberius many times on his way to Capernaum and back while Justus was gathering his material. Justus wrote about the history of Jews, but missed the most important Jews Jesus who made truck load of miracles around the area where Justus lived and got his material. Justus did not hear or bothered to mention this one in history of the universe event. Maybe he was an amateur. Call me naïve, but I find this a bit odd.

6. Attis is a deity of Phrygian mythology just like Jesus is a deity of Christian mythology. And sorry, non-Christian historians do not need to make a special pleading for Jesus as a deity in Christianity. Your argument was a non sequitor. I guess it is no surprise Christians don't see a special pleading when they do it, it is part of every faith. I hope you have an academic degree in the cult of Attis or pre-Roman Phrygian making those statements without caveat that you are an "amateur" on the subject and should be dismissed as you claim about others in this podcast and your book. BTW, is Chris Forbes an Egyptologist or an "amateur" as he seems to mix up Horus and Osiris "cut to pieces and scattered" story? Can you also spot another mistake he made about Horus?

1. Anon, I know the point you were making in the Superman analogy. It’s just that it works only for the small minority of atheists. Fair enough. Each subgroup has its own plausibility structures.

2. Greg’s stuff is not misleading because, in the context of the quotation (on the Life of Jesus DVD), he is saying precisely what I said he said.

3. Dear oh dear, Peter, still trying to revive Prof Wells as an authority on early Christianity. Glad to be judged by my readers as to how fair I have been. But, really, doesn’t it disturb you a little that you can’t find a professor of history to help your cause? You seem the mirror image of the six-day creationists you deride: only quoting kin, never engaging mainstream academia; and, when asked to explain this, talk of an academic conspiracy against them.

4. I think the non sequitur might be yours, Peter. Please, look back at your post. The discussion was whether Jesus was an ‘historical figure’—your words. You said that when Christians deny Attis as ‘mythical’ but accept Jesus as ‘historical’, they were engaged in ‘special pleading’. I pointed out that, by your logic, non-Christian historians must also be involved in special pleading because they too think Attis is mythical and Jesus historical. So, my point is in fact a sequitur. The way you then slipped into the most recent post the words “special pleading for Jesus as a deity” (instead of ‘historical figure’) seems an attempt to move the goal posts and save face. Others can judge.