« Why Peter Cresswell is, in fact, PC | Main | I Don't Like Mondays - the Helen Clark version »
March 24, 2006
Russell, Russell, Russell
Russell Brown rants about our previous coverage of Helen Clark..his problem is that our sources were (and still are) close to Clark. Of course I'm not going to name them because that would breach the assurance I gave them. However, I know who they are and their relationship to the Prime Minister.
Secondly, how is it inappropriate to investigate the PM's worldview and how it impacts on her job, when the Brown's of this world constantly hold George W's worldview against him and have done so even before he was elected? If it is relevant for one, it is equally so for the other. Get over it.
Thirdly, Russ got on breakfast TV the other day and got his facts wrong, while accusing me of getting my facts wrong. He talked about Investigate promoting the Moon Landing Conspiracy...in fact, Investigate published a story shooting the Conspiracy theory down.
Brown's other bleats about stories will be dealt with in my response to Cresswell, coming soon.
But Brown promotes atheist fundamentalist conspiracy theories of his own.
In today's Hard News, he writes:
I don't happen to believe in the founding myths of the major religions (and there's a decent case for saying Jesus never existed as a single individual), but at least they have some stature and grace.
I'm sorry Russell, the only certified New Testament scholar (out of about 13,000 worldwide) that I'm aware of who subscribes to the idea that Jesus didn't exist is Michael Martin...and few of his colleagues take his conclusions seriously. The only other people pushing that barrow are secular humanism's tin-foil hat wearers who publish their own conspiracy books that people like Russell Brown appear to subscribe to.
There may be scholarly disagreement about how much of the real Christ can be distilled from history, but only fringe-dwellers try and argue he didn't exist.
There is more evidence for the existence of Christ and a contemporaneous belief of his deity than there is for virtually any other historical figure of his time.
Get your facts right Russell, then maybe people will take you more seriously.
Posted by Ian Wishart at March 24, 2006 03:46 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://WWW.investigatemagazine.com/mt/mt-tb.pl/314
Comments
there's a book out there in most public libraries called Lewis vs Freud (i think) where it details both of these men's thoughts on God etc. one for and one against, i reckon it's quite a good book to read if you want to make a judgment looking from both sides. and if you're even more interested you can read more of their books, like for example C S Lewis has a book called Mere Christianity which explains more about his faith
Posted by: stan at March 24, 2006 07:30 PM
(that was a comment directed at people who don't believe in God, not you Ian as i'm sure you've probably already read them!
oh yeah also there is a good site www.insidelook.co.nz which details reasons for the existence of God, Ian has an article there too if anyone would be interested in reading them - Owen Jennings (former ACT MP) has written one there too
Posted by: stan at March 24, 2006 07:33 PM
Great you're getting back on that sycophantic leftie Ian. That democracy hating Saddam-lover has his rant-of-the-week against G.W. Bush long enough. And isn't it scary that the people who are against advancing democracy are now defending the very people in our country who are turning this beautiful country into a banana republic?
Posted by: Berend de Boer at March 25, 2006 10:59 AM
Nope, not more evidence for the existence of Jesus. There are many contempareaneous figures for whom multiple independent sources exist. Jesus has no independent sources except two potential interpolations in Josephus. The New Testament just cannot count as an independent source. That said, the evidence is probably compelling that someone called Jesus existed, but his exact beliefs are quite possible poorly reflected in the NT. There is good scholarly evidence that Jesus was essentially preaching a messaniac version of the standard Jewish faith, never preached to gentiles at all, and never intended his message for gentiles. It is to Paul that one must look for the universal nature of Christianity.
Posted by: Ed Snack at March 25, 2006 02:58 PM
Some of you might be interested in the new 'Man Who Sued God', AKA, Luigi Cascioli, to be found at www.luigicascioli.it/prove2_eng.php
His is a fascinating site filled with fact as opposed to opinion on the matter.
Cheers
David.
Posted by: David at March 26, 2006 06:37 AM
I wouldn't get too excited about Luigi's site. He's spent an awful long time putting his "data" up, and padding it out with prolixity...but I can promise you many of his facts are nowhere near factual.
Perhaps one day when I get time I'll deal with some...or alternatively if you wish to break them down into digestible bits you can hit me one at a time and I'll show you if and where his facts are wrong in each particular case.
Posted by: ian at March 28, 2006 11:40 PM