Quote:
For all we know they both descended from a common source, and that's why they're so similar, and its the Babylonians that turned the myth to fit their culture better, while the Hebrews retained a myth that stayed closer to its source. Careful with that sort of idea, though: its dangerous thinking.
Some asian countries have (had) myths that are similar to some western or middle-eastern myths, things like that still don't prove much nor which one was first, the others could simply have been the last to write it down...
Quote:
What's interesting to me is that its incredibly reliable when it comes to historical, geographical facts.
With the exception of the exodus, the massive field battles, the global flood, shape of the earth, and and and.. sorry, but there are really a lot of things that are questionable at least, so I wouldn't call the bible very reliable as a historical source. I understand why you wish to defend that point of view anyway though.
Quote:
The only "scholars" that reject a minimalist description of Jesus Christ in the antiquities, are the same who claim Jesus never existed. Otherwise scholars of all stripes concede that (with as much certainty as one can hope for), Josephus is making a pretty unambiguous reference to Jesus.
This is probably something you've picked up at one of those christian sites, because there's convincing evidence to be found inside some of the original writings about this source, which not only strongly suggest that some parts of that particular text were added as interpretations, not as translations, but also that it was added on a later date. I don't think I can convince you, but you should look it up. 
Cheers
| 
