The Da Vinci what?

Anth is fired up against Jesus.

• Anth wrote: "Christians, including our author here, are arcing up because it departs from the 'truth' of Jesus. But how do they know?" How do you know anything about anybody who lived in the first century A.D.? Use the same methods of verification as for James Cook.

• "I mean really, beyond having blind faith that the gospels are somehow the authoritative story of what happened two thousand years ago, how can they tell what is truth and what is not?" This is a classical example of imposing one's presuppositions on another writer (in this case Bill Muehlenberg). Assuming that it is "blind faith" about the gospels as being an authoritative story from ancient history, is a classic of imposed assumptions. Take a read of Craig Blomberg's, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Inter-Varsity Press, UK, 1987). While you are at it, your bigotry against the Jesus of history might be educated by reading Australian historian, Paul Barnett: (1) Jesus and the Logic of History (Apollos, UK, 1997); (2) Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity (InterVarsity Press, USA, 1999); (3) Is the New Testament History? rev. ed., Aquila Press, Sydney South; (4) The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years (Eerdmans, USA, 2005). This "blind faith" hypothesis comes crashing down on the evidence of history.

• "And don't give me that 'because God says so' crap. Blind faith is blind faith, no matter how you dress it up." Paul Barnett states that "the earliest surviving records of Christianity are the letters of Paul, which began appearing twenty years or less after the crucifixion of 'rabbi' Jesus. Good historical method suggests that the earliest written evidence is the place to begin one's inquiry" (2005, p. 2).

• "Why does any of this matter?" Read the primary source documents of the New Testament to find out.

While you are at it, why not go the whole hog and investigate the reliability of the Old Testament? See Walter C. Kaiser Jr. (2001); K. A. Kitchen (2003)?

Serious investigation makes more sense than presuppositional blind faith.

Strewth - LOL

Snowy - "but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" but first you have to believe in JC.

Francis - ad hominen attacks are indicative of an empty mind. If you have nothing constructive to offer the debate suggest you get back to reading your favourite work of fiction, the bible and leave debating to those who know how to do it.

Scout,
There is more historical evidence and implication from the life of Jesus than there is for Julius Caesar, and I suppose you are skeptical that he also existed.

Julius Caesar sent a possee of guards to have Pilate brought before him in Rome after learning that Pilate had allowed the death of one whom he had earlier reported to Caesar, "this man Jesus performs miracles greater than any of our Roman gods".

Pilate had massacred Jews by crucifixion for objecting to taxes to build a viaduct being imposed by Rome upon the Temple sacrifises. Jesus was one of those objecting to secular taxes being placed upon the worshippers at temple [John 2: 16]. Pilate took his own life when he heard he was to stand trial before Caesar for the death of an innocent man.

The gospels were formulated from a collection of writings and reports by the apostles, Jesus followers and Jesus relatives namely Mary and James. The book of James and the Gospel of James were written by James himself a son of Joseph from his first wife who grew up in the same household with Jesus. The Gospel of James was not accepted as Cannon because he is descriptive of the emotions of panic by having birds fly backwards. Even his letter to Christians was questioned originally as acceptable Cannon.

Principally the revelation of God is not about a human Jesus but the principles of divinity. The revelation of the divine is defined by character, attitudes, actions, behaviour, wisdom and consequence. To understand the heart and mind of God in revelation and incarnation is to study the life, attitudes and teachings of Jesus and evaluate for ourselves is it pure, graceous and just, and what we uphold as optimum.

>>There is more historical evidence and implication from the life of Jesus than there is for Julius Caesar<<

Really? I wish I'd known this when I was fifteen and had to wade through De Bello Gallico.

Do you actually have some basis for this statement? Or is it just today's fashionable christian rhetoric to deflect examination of the evidence?

Caesar wrote books, which are still used today. Contemporaries wrote about him, frequently. We have portraits and statues that are also contemporary. We have coins bearing his image. Which of these do you see as dubious or challengeable?

The amount and nature of evidence for the existence of Jesus contains none of these items. He wrote no books, no contemporary wrote about him, there are no contemporary pictures or likenesses.

Have I missed anything?

The furore created by Browns Book The DaVinci Code is itself amazing when one considers several things:
(1) The existence or otherwise of Jesus Christ can never be completely proven or disproven by historical evidence alone - it just doesn't exist. While historical information is useful and even enlightening, ultimately it's only through personal revelation via the spirit that one can gain a sure knowledge of Christ. Christ himself said that.
(2) If Christ is who he said he was, then he hardly needs a secret organisation organised by man to protect him or knowledge about him, especially through death and destruction.
(3) The DaVinci Code is a clever thriller novel intended to warm the heart of every conspiracy buff...and make money. It's a free society.
(4) As Gamaliel said to the Jewish Elders - if the work be of man it will amount to nothing - this work hardly claims to be of God, so let it alone and it will eventaully fade into the bookshelf. It won't affect those who really believe or who will believe.