Massacre of the Innocents

[Minimalist]

What about him?

From the review of How Jesus Became God.

New York Times bestselling author and Bible expert Bart Ehrman reveals how Jesus’s divinity became dogma in the first few centuries of the early church.

The claim at the heart of the Christian faith is that Jesus of Nazareth was, and is, God. But this is not what the original disciples believed during Jesus’s lifetime—and it is not what Jesus claimed about himself. How Jesus Became God tells the story of an idea that shaped Christianity, and of the evolution of a belief that looked very different in the fourth century than it did in the first.

Ehrman has no use for your bullshit miracle tales and especially the resurrection.  You don't want to trot out Ehrman.  Stick to morons like William Lane Craig or Gary Habermas.  They are more your speed.  Their charlatans but I know you love that shit.

[Huggy Bear]

As I just pointed out, they showed up two years after the birth...

I've never heard of this being two years, nor have I seen a nativity where Jesus was a two year old. Maybe they traveled two years, and made it there a few days after the birth?

Matthew 2:16

Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.

---

What about him?

From the review of How Jesus Became God.

New York Times bestselling author and Bible expert Bart Ehrman reveals how Jesus’s divinity became dogma in the first few centuries of the early church.

The claim at the heart of the Christian faith is that Jesus of Nazareth was, and is, God. But this is not what the original disciples believed during Jesus’s lifetime—and it is not what Jesus claimed about himself. How Jesus Became God tells the story of an idea that shaped Christianity, and of the evolution of a belief that looked very different in the fourth century than it did in the first.

Ehrman has no use for your bullshit miracle tales and especially the resurrection.  You don't want to trot out Ehrman.  Stick to morons like William Lane Craig or Gary Habermas.  They are more your speed.  Their charlatans but I know you love that shit.

The point is, he doesn't think Jesus didn't exist...

[Chad32]

Ok, then I don't know why the nativities in my town show the baby Jesus, as still being swaddled up in a cloth, and lying in a manger, instead of running around playing with the animals.

[Crossless2.0]

Ok, then I don't know why the nativities in my town show the baby Jesus, as still being swaddled up in a cloth, and lying in a manger, instead of running around playing with the animals.

Because people always conflate the Gospel accounts. Most nativity scenes I've ever seen mash up Matthew and Luke, as apparently both somehow being true. That's how you end up with shepherds, livestock, and the Magi all in the same display.

[Minimalist]

Yes, Huggy.  And years ago when reading through one of his books I was astonished to learn that he thinks the gospels are "evidence." 

Ehrman is a man who has made an entire career out of shitting on the reliability and authenticity of your fucking holy horseshit..... but then he thinks he can suddenly turn around and say that he can extract certain bits of history from what is, effectively, religious propaganda.

I have more respect for Carrier who began by thinking that there was at least a basic man behind the jesus legend and after studying the matter and all the evidence came to the conclusion that it is all horseshit.  Jesus is no more real than Romulus or Perseus.  Mythic horseshit designed to fool the ignorant.

But neither of them have any fucking use for your miracle bullshit and jesus, if you strip away the miracles, would at best be some shlepper who got himself killed.
Big fucking deal.

[Mister Agenda]

Huggy, I think "jesus" is a fictional character in a story which was invented in the 2d century.

Except no real historians think the same as you do... 

I lean towards there having been a historical figure named Yeshua on whose teachings and life influenced the early Christian church. Those historians you're talking about largely don't buy any form or part of the nativity story, though. They largely agree that the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist and his crucifixion ordered by Pilate actually happened; everything else is up for grabs. If you're going to cite the consensus of historians, you should stick to what they actually support.

[vorlon13]

Ok, then I don't know why the nativities in my town show the baby Jesus, as still being swaddled up in a cloth, and lying in a manger, instead of running around playing with the animals.

Because people always conflate the Gospel accounts. Most nativity scenes I've ever seen mash up Matthew and Luke, as apparently both somehow being true. That's how you end up with shepherds, livestock, and the Magi all in the same display.

LOL, and if you use the 'mash up' technique on the Crucifixion and conclude Jesus was nailed up twice, they have a big ole hissy fit.

Why is 'mash up' OK sometimes and not others ???

[Amarok]

Except no real historians think the same as you do... 

Your delusional

[Minimalist]

Huggy, like most xhristards, thinks "real historians" are those that tell him what he wants to hear.

[Amarok]

Huggy, like most xhristards, thinks "real historians" are those that tell him what he wants to hear.

Yup or ones who stick to bad evidence like freaking Q or M or think the Jesus had real contemporaries or even that frauds like Tim ONeil  are credible authorities on the NT.