Quote:Why are historical scholars so reluctant to admit what obviously can't be reconciled with a basic reading of scripture?
Don't overlook the obvious, D-P. There are NO first century sources. It is like trying to look for references to Alexander the Great in the 5th century BC...you won't find him. They thus have a vested interest in pretending that this gospel horseshit is "history" because they need it to give themselves something to do.
There is one original story of this jesus guy. What is now known as 'mark.' The rest of them are embellishments or re-writes written for different audiences. Mark has little to say about history. He names Pilate which gives a ten year placement in time. It correctly notes that the Sadducees did not believe in resurrection. He doesn't mention any birth-story...something left to the later expansionists matthew and luke to provide for the dolts. Mainly it is a lot of healings and pious blather about the kingdom of fucking 'god.'
However, I do lose patience with people like Reza Aslan and even Ehrman when they start trying to comb through the story looking to pick out bits and pieces for their particular visions of what this 'historical jesus' would have been. It is the classic sharpshooter fallacy. They pick out what they want and paint a bulls-eye around it - ignoring everything else. Would you read The Wizard of Oz and make an argument that Dorothy did not go to Oz? She really went to Wichita and was giving blowjobs to soldiers and then took a bus home? Sure, that is probably a more realistic story of a teenage runaway but it is not what the story says.
Mark claims his boy was the "son of god" who ran around doing miracles. This is what the story says even if it is nothing but superstitious bullshit. But it isn't history.
