Someone complained that this review does not contain enough stuff about the book.
So I would break it down to two parts.
Part I would be about the book, and Part 2 about the writer's interview on Fox and other stuff.
Part I - the book
This book is boring. If you are looking for really contradicting stuff, you will be disappointed.
The writer relied a lot on the Bible itself to validate a supposing historical version of Jesus. But he relied too much on Paul's writing, and forgotten that Paul never met the supposing historical Jesus.
That's is the big mistake.
You know how eye witness could not be trusted to be accurate. And this is not even a friend of a friend version. This is someone who thought he see god, while having a mental breakdown and a hallucination, and then thought that he was someone special doing something for the non-existing god.
Mistake number 2, inconsistency. He should have known better. Gospel stories are not history, and should not be treated as such.
If he found gospels to be inconsistent, yet relied on it as "historical proof", it would not make any sense. It does not make much sense to me how he treated the materials.
Make up your mind please.
The bit about if this supposing historical Jesus had lived after he was killed, was confusing. Where did he get the idea that the stories about some anti-Roman Jewish guy.
I thought everyone know this. There were quite a few Jewish spiritual leaders at the time, someone already wrote about that the Jesus in the Bible could be a composite of these men who have done good deeds for the Jews a that period of time.
OK. Enough said. Overall comment. Boring. Nothing new. Not worth the time.
Part II - the writer's interview on Fox and other more interesting stuff.
"...trumpets his credentials with an air of self-importance that one usually only finds in characters met in fairy tales -- or dreams." -- Sam Harris
Don't believe me?
See this interview. (I hate Fox news, but the writer is not doing so good either.)
REZA ASLAN stuns foxnews presenter about his book The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth
And he got a lot of responses and attention.
Reza Aslan Knew Exactly What He Was Doing in That Fox News Interview
So full of himself.
This book is written by religious deluded of Islam on the main character in another bullshit religion.
Debate on virgin birth (fake). I don't like arrogant religious deluded, and it makes it hard to like the book.
For those who like this kind of thing.
One, being a religious deluded Muslim would not disqualify this writer to write about the fictional character of the Christian religion. It is the same shit. It is all bullshit.
The interview on Fox is bad. Doesn't mean the writer is good.
This writer is really full of himself. I would update this from time to time.
Here is one example.
Sam harris vs Reza Aslan
And for the two assholes who got deleted because they left troll comments. You could leave comment again if you have anything valuable to say besides trolling.
Which reminds me, why he could write a book on the fictional Jesus and not so with the prophet of Islam Mohammad.
Why are there so many trolls that said bullshit with the assumption that if I read this crap of a book, I wouldn't dislike it.
Here is the image fit for this book.
I would also remind these trolls that readers have rights too.
Update. Kind of related to the subject matter, but not so much to the book.