The Big Debate -- Price versus Ehrman

[abaris]

So I suspect that what we have here is more of the customary xtian circular reasoning.  "Paul" HAD to live in the first century AD therefore he must have been referring to Aretas IV who we know died in 40 AD.  Therefore the Romans "MUST" have given the city to Aretas IV because FUCKING ST PAUL could never be wrong."  It's bullshit, of course, with nothing except the ravings of jesus freak maniacs to back it up.

The simple truth is, we don't know anything on Jesus existing or not existing. Which would be what you expect when it's about a wandering preacher. But not when it's about an insurgent against Roman order. And that's what the biblical tales want us to believe.

That, apart from his reception of the biblical sources, is where Ehrman loses me entirely. I wouldn't know where he takes his conviction of a real and existing Jesus from. I'm inclined to leave that question open. Such as so many in history. We will never be able to say yes or no to a historical Jesus. The only thing we know is that someone at some time created a myth.