(October 9, 2013 at 12:10 pm)Zazzy Wrote: I don't care whether Jesus existed or not, and I don't think most Christians care, either. We will all still go about our daily business regardless.
I've officially decided to advocate for "The Jesus Moot" theory.
I've been officially worn down by the scholars-say shuffle and arguing over whether or not Tacitus is sufficient proof. I now regret the time and energy I spent on arguing for the Jesus Myth only for the reason that it would all be better spent on talking about the Bible.
Was he a miracle working godman? No.
Do we know anything about what he really taught? No.
Do we know any details about his life or ministry? No.
Do we have any detailed information at all outside the NT? No.
So basically, The Historical Jesus is some guy with a common name who was one of many doom-criers and messiah-wannabes of the time and got crucified like many other religious leaders under Pilate and we'll never know what the real story was beneath all the folklore. Oh, and he had a brother with a common name, too.
TM: The Historical Jesus is a trademark of Bart Ehrman, all rights to chase after him through the dusty scrolls in his ivory tower reserved.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist