Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Some might be interested to know that Unterbrink's book was first mentioned at the Secular Cafe in the thread 'John Remsburg and the mythicist/historicist debate', http://secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=21725. In post #84 there, Koyaanisqatsi is discussing Judas Iscariot, and the thread segues into...

No need for a new thread, as the answer to PO9's question is "no". As I mentioned, Unterbrink's work is not well written; his timeline graphics are extremely difficult to decipher, his chapter titles are often not descriptive of the material covered, and he desperately needs a comprehensiv...

Toejam's POV seems extremely close to my own. I do believe that Josephus was as honest and scholarly as any other historian of his day; he attempted to present the facts as best he knew them. But no man is capable of absolute truthfulness; we can't know all the facts, and our individual viewpoints o...

I agree that we ought not give Josephus a free pass as an unquestioned source of accurate history. He isn't. We know for sure that his works have been corrupted; the Testimonium is obviously a much later interpolation by some Christian looking to add historical validity to the tale of their god-man....

I have Unterbrink's book before me; I can scarcely recommend it as a well-written work, mainly because the organization of his ideas is atrocious. However, I find the ideas themselves extremely plausible, explaining many of the political and religious questions raised by the Christ story, and provid...