Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth

[ElFenix]

I don't understand what you're disputing. The video is there for anyone to see. D:

and it's clear that you didn't watch it prior to posting. :hmm:

this interviewer is an idiot and needs to be fired along with all of that show's fact checking staff. did she really read what some bumpkin wrote on twitter about azlan on the air?

but then, this is from the same network that thinks anthony weiner is sending dick pics to hefty coeds because bin laden.

 

[Jhhnn]

because bin laden.

Yes! Yes! It's all because bin laden! and Obama! And Leftist, Leftist, Leftists! who make the baby Jesus cry while trying to impose Sharia Law! Links to the Muslim Brotherhood! And Benghaaaazi! It all fits!

 

[Ryan]

 

[woolfe9998]

http://www.theatlantic.com/national...-more-biased-than-a-christian-scholar/278175/

The author of that piece has an extremely good point. If Muslims are too biased to write about Jesus, then so are Christians. How can a Christian write objectively about Jesus?

 

[sandorski]

 

[Retro Rob]

He simply has an opinion, which he is free to discuss. Muslims do recognize Jesus as a prophet too.

 

[justoh]

He simply has an opinion, which he is free to discuss. Muslims do recognize Jesus as a prophet too.

Sure, but people are free to ask questions such as, "why is a muslim writing a book about jesus" ? Or at least, why should we be taking it seriously? Why the hell is that guy a bonefide muslim anyway. He seems otherwise pretty reasonable, based on other television appearances.

 

[berzerker60]

No, he doesn't 'simply have an opinion,' he has an expert argument backed by decades of research and exhaustive referencing of evidence. There's a difference.

Sure, but people are free to ask questions such as, "why is a muslim writing a book about jesus" ? Or at least, why should we be taking it seriously? Why the hell is that guy a bonefide muslim anyway. He seems otherwise pretty reasonable, based on other television appearances.

People can ask what they want, that doesn't make it any less of a stupid question. He's not a Muslim writing about Jesus, he's a historian writing about Jesus who happens to be a Muslim.

 

[fskimospy]

Sure, but people are free to ask questions such as, "why is a muslim writing a book about jesus" ? Or at least, why should we be taking it seriously? Why the hell is that guy a bonefide muslim anyway. He seems otherwise pretty reasonable, based on other television appearances.

Why would a Muslim be less qualified to write a scholarly work about Jesus than a Christian? If you believe a Muslim would be biased against Jesus, wouldn't a Christian be biased towards him?

 

[jackstar7]

He simply has an opinion, which he is free to discuss. Muslims do recognize Jesus as a prophet too.

Not an opinion.

 

[justoh]

Why would a Muslim be less qualified to write a scholarly work about Jesus than a Christian? If you believe a Muslim would be biased against Jesus, wouldn't a Christian be biased towards him?

I didn't say a muslim would be less qualified than a christian, though now that you mention it, i'd say he'd probably be more qualified.

 

[Incorruptible]

Yes! Yes! It's all because bin laden! and Obama! And Leftist, Leftist, Leftists! who make the baby Jesus cry while trying to impose Sharia Law! Links to the Muslim Brotherhood! And Benghaaaazi! It all fits!

Nice to see you don't have a problem with 4 Americans being murdered while obama did nothing.

 

[surfsatwerk]

Nice to see you don't have a problem with 4 Americans being murdered while obama did nothing.

He got Bin Laden.

 

[Retro Rob]

No, he doesn't 'simply have an opinion,' he has an expert argument backed by decades of research and exhaustive referencing of evidence. There's a difference.


People can ask what they want, that doesn't make it any less of a stupid question. He's not a Muslim writing about Jesus, he's a historian writing about Jesus who happens to be a Muslim.

If he doesn't have facts Jesus was a troublemaker, its only an opinion, period.

Secondly he oversold his credentials as a "historian" and was called out on it as he has no degree in history.

 

[justoh]

I don't think anybody could say, with a straight face, that jesus was a trouble maker.

 

[berzerker60]

If he doesn't have facts Jesus was a troublemaker, its only an opinion, period.

Secondly he oversold his credentials as a "historian" and was called out on it as he has no degree in history.

What do you mean "doesn't have facts"? He does have facts. They're written out in the book with supporting evidence listed in the back via footnotes. He then uses facts to make an argument. You can dismiss a scholarly argument as "just an opinion" if you want, I guess, but that's a really silly stance to take. By the same token, saying the Pilgrims came to the US largely for religious reasons is 'just an opinion' and any guy the street is just as welcome to have his own opinion with no additional knowledge.

The word on the degree is not especially relevant. There's no strict demarcation, lots of people with religious studies degrees work in history departments and history PHDs work in religious studies departments. There's overlap among most social sciences.

I don't think anybody could say, with a straight face, that jesus was a trouble maker.

Well, you're very wrong. That's a pretty common characterization, both among historians and separately among theologians. What do you think throwing over the moneylenders' tables in the Temple was, him helping clean up at the end of the day? Do you think the Romans crucified him for sitting around and twiddling his thumbs? You might learn a lot from this book, even if you don't end up agreeing with every argument he makes.

 

[justoh]

Well, you're very wrong. That's a pretty common characterization, both among historians and separately among theologians. What do you think throwing over the moneylenders' tables in the Temple was, him helping clean up at the end of the day? Do you think the Romans crucified him for sitting around and twiddling his thumbs? You might learn a lot from this book, even if you don't end up agreeing with every argument he makes.

If it's a pretty common characterization then why do we need yet another version of it?

 

[fskimospy]

I didn't say a muslim would be less qualified than a christian, though now that you mention it, i'd say he'd probably be more qualified.

So if his faith isn't relevant to his qualifications to write such a work, why are such questions meaningful or important?

 

[justoh]

So if his faith isn't relevant to his qualifications to write such a work, why are such questions meaningful or important?

I think it is relevant, and I at least implied that it was several times.

 

[Retro Rob]

What do you mean "doesn't have facts"? He does have facts. They're written out in the book with supporting evidence listed in the back via footnotes. He then uses facts to make an argument. You can dismiss a scholarly argument as "just an opinion" if you want, I guess, but that's a really silly stance to take. By the same token, saying the Pilgrims came to the US largely for religious reasons is 'just an opinion' and any guy the street is just as welcome to have his own opinion with no additional knowledge.

The word on the degree is not especially relevant. There's no strict demarcation, lots of people with religious studies degrees work in history departments and history PHDs work in religious studies departments. There's overlap among most social sciences.

So scholars can't be wrong, biased, opinionated? I beg to differ.

Of course his degree isn't relevant, but he boasted about having "20 years" as a historian.

He was leading us on to believe his historical credentials gives him some sort of valid opinion. As we've seen, people can be badly mistaken, no matter how smart they are.

 

[berzerker60]

If it's a pretty common characterization then why do we need yet another version of it?

Because people still aren't aware of this common scholarly interpretation, as you've demonstrated yourself. It's interesting stuff and I'm sure he has a lot of subtle nuances to his argument that are different from the stuff I've read in the past that makes largely similar arguments (as far as I can tell from what I've read about this book).

So scholars can't be wrong, biased, opinionated? I beg to differ.

Of course his degree isn't relevant, but he boasted about having "20 years" as a historian.

Of course they can, in which case you actually read their argument and pick it apart when the bias or incorrect information leads it astray. Academics do that all the time to each other, and people outside academia are welcome to do so as well (they just often haven't read all the minute sources and dozens of related books to be able to spot the minor problems that are inevitable in any work). But what you can't do (of course literally you can, I'm really arguing you shouldn't do) is dismiss the argument because of the author's religion, race, gender, or other superficial characteristics. If those have led to bias, then go into the argument and point out where the argument isn't actually well supported by the evidence and show what other evidence points to a better alternative. Don't go "oh but he's a Muslim he can't write about Jesus"

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

So scholars can't be wrong, biased, opinionated? I beg to differ.

Of course his degree isn't relevant, but he boasted about having "20 years" as a historian.

He is a historian though. Religious studies has a lot of overlap.

Bottom line, he is eminently qualified to write the book that he wrote and his "opinion" carries far more weight than anyone on this forum.

 

[Retro Rob]

Well, you're very wrong. That's a pretty common characterization, both among historians and separately among theologians. What do you think throwing over the moneylenders' tables in the Temple was, him helping clean up at the end of the day? Do you think the Romans crucified him for sitting around and twiddling his thumbs? You might learn a lot from this book, even if you don't end up agreeing with every argument he makes.

So innocent men have never been killed? You have to do something to be wrongly tried and murderd?

You're a conspiracy theroists, just like he is.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

So scholars can't be wrong, biased, opinionated? I beg to differ.

Of course his degree isn't relevant, but he boasted about having "20 years" as a historian.

He was leading us on to believe his historical credentials gives him some sort of valid opinion. As we've seen, people can be badly mistaken, no matter how smart they are.

Bottom line you want to discredit the man because you are a White Christian who feels "attacked" by a Muslim. You feel that because he is Muslim he cannot objectively write a book about Jesus that does not denigrate Christianity.

It is your small mindedness on display here sadly.

 

[thraashman]

Nice to see you don't have a problem with 4 Americans being murdered while obama did nothing.

Of course we should have sent in a massive military force and gotten WAY more than 4 Americans killed and 20 times that death toll in Libyans, all on Libyan soil. I'm sure that would have gone great for foreign relations while massively increasing the death toll. Man, you're brilliant, Incorruptible for President ... of the world from Idiocracy!