I bought this book from Amazon.com kindle. I am trying to read it. I read the reviews on it and many were not favorable. She claims the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. The reader is supposed to be the judge and jury. She claims the gospels were written much earlier around 60 CE or before. She has a claim that a fragment or either Mark or Matthew was found in Qumran (I think scroll 7A), and that scrolls from Rome were found in those cave and the an efficient mail system existed in that day with a jar label “Roma”. The whole thing in my opinion rest on shaky science. Has anyone else read this? I read fellow attorney’s (she is an attorney) gave her scathing reviews. I also read that the practice of removing the crucified for burial was a common practice except for Infamous criminals. (I thought all who were crucified were infamous!). What about her supposed facts? Is this just a piece of apologetics?
Never read or heard of it, but she sounds incredibly and horribly misinformed. Or, she just wants to make money off a book she knows to be sensational. The rumor about the fragment of Mark found in the Dead Sea Scrolls has been around a while, but if it’s true no one has ever published it. I just re-read your post of her claims and I get the giggles. Some people….wow.
Thanks- I think this work is just a clever Christian apologetics manual. If anyone else has more thoughts please post. I think I am an agnostic. To me people who proclaim there is NO god are the same as the Jerry Falwells of the world. Fundamentalism is fundamentalism whether atheistic or theistic. Plain disbelief does not need defending but positive assertions do. Dawkins relies on science and theists rely on a holy book (you name it Bible, Quran, etc)
A lawyer on this site is actually writing a rebuttal book to this approach. He mentioned the Pam’s book. This is similar to the Habermas Licona book on the historicity of the ressurection. Habermas sounds intriguing when discussing Paul, etc, but when it came down to laying out their case, it’s an entirely separate matter. That it took two of them to produce such a horrible book is not encouraging.
I consider myself an agnostic as well, but an absolute statement that there is no god, is not the kind of statement that made Falwell the sort of Christian he was. Think of the opposite statement, There is a God. Does that define the person saying it as a fundamentalist?
The “Atheist” fundamentalists are the ones worried about whether our coinage says in God We Trust; the ones worried about
whether a graduating class has a religious speaker; the ones who think the first amendment which starts with Congress shall not
SOMEHOW means religion should be blocked from public life
John7 said
Thanks- I think this work is just a clever Christian apologetics manual. If anyone else has more thoughts please post. I think I am an agnostic. To me people who proclaim there is NO god are the same as the Jerry Falwells of the world. Fundamentalism is fundamentalism whether atheistic or theistic. Plain disbelief does not need defending but positive assertions do. Dawkins relies on science and theists rely on a holy book (you name it Bible, Quran, etc)
Well, John7, thanks for your opinion about those of us who think there is no god. Personally, I don’t think of myself as a fundamentalist, but more of a scientist. I hold an open but somewhat skeptical viewpoint about hypotheses and like to see relevant evidence before coming to a conclusion about a hypothesis.
So let’s hypothesize the existence of a god. What might be the characteristics of such a being? I’m not going to set up a strawman just to knock it down, I must rely on you for the list of characteristics.
John7 said
Thanks- I think this work is just a clever Christian apologetics manual. If anyone else has more thoughts please post. I think I am an agnostic. To me people who proclaim there is NO god are the same as the Jerry Falwells of the world. Fundamentalism is fundamentalism whether atheistic or theistic. Plain disbelief does not need defending but positive assertions do. Dawkins relies on science and theists rely on a holy book (you name it Bible, Quran, etc)
Atheists are like Christians and cover a broad spectrum of life. I am a Atheist simply because I do not and have not seen for a long long time the hand of any “Deity” in the Christian Churches.
Point me in the direction of a church that is less interested in it’s bank balance and what happens in the “next life” and more interested in helping out the people in this life and I am in. After all is that not what made Christianity so popular a proposition in the first place as opposed to Paganism.
Actually scrub that … I manage to work in the community and help out those that need it with out the dogma that comes with religion. 
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)