aslans live all around me here and you argue if you ever heard that before!

The only in-depth account of the life of Christ is in the gospels. I don't see what source he could use to justify that it is telling an untrue story, other than by suspicion (like the one you present). It's weak at best, and the story told by the gospels actually make perfect sense in light of the old testament and the purpose Jesus (as messiah) was meant to fulfill, as a human.

Looking at the old testament prophecies, and contrasting them with the Jewish political powers of Jesus' time, it was a time-bomb waiting to blow. We don't even need the gospels really to see that the messiah was going to pose a serious problem to the politics of that age.

Isaiah 9:6 (from the same book used by the jews)

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Jesus was crucified for blasphemy, on pretext of insurrection.

jesus was a nutjob with a cult, wasnt the first, wasnt the last.

~Mod Edit~

This post has been moderated.

-Smeags

He answers her question as to why he chose to write a book about Christianity and yet she continues to ask the same question...

Have I ever told you the definition of insanity?

"Why would a democrat want to promote democracy by writing about a republican?"

lol.....

Also, enjoyed the author calling her out on not reading the book and that it states he is a Muslim on the 2nd page.  Just made this bitch look dumb just like all the other good looking dumb bitches fox news has as anchors.  Only thing missing is an annoying guest that speaks while he is speaking.

Cringeworthy indeed.

No, wasn't Aslan the guy who taught Clark Kent how to be Batman?

next time at fox news:

"why did you write a book about george bush? you are not george bush!"

"why did you write a book about the american history? you didn't live in 1776"

"why did you write a book about hitler? are you a nazi?

This.

People read the bible believing it is a factual account.  It isn't.  The Great Flood, for example, didn't happen.  It's a story that is common in the middle-eastern region and has its origins in Mesopotamia long before even biblical scholars can attribute it to happening in the biblical time-line.

There are historical facts in the bible, but the bible isn't a true historical document.

New Testament is a bit different, though. There are 20,000 manuscripts that have been found and utilized to make up what we read today. Between the 20,000 source manuscripts, there is almost no variance between them, aside from translation differences between the languages they are written in. They all say the same thing about Jesus, and the writings thereafter by Paul, Peter, and the writers of the Gospels.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any document from antiquity that is even close to that kind of relaibility - even the works of the historical scholars that make up our understanding of the ancient world. Even then, the 3rd party, non-religious accounts of Christianity agree with what the NT says, where the statements are available.

Having said that, a book writen by a Muslim on Christ is going to be heavily biased against Christ's claims. Much in the same way if a Christian wrote about Mohammed.