Priestly apologetics in a sermon this a.m.

[Huggy Bear]

I'm guessing the pious fuck didn't know that story was a forgery added centuries later, huh?

http://garthright.blogspot.com/2014/02/f...hrman.html

That story in the Gospel of John about the adulterous woman (just the woman, naturally) brought to Jesus for judgment? You remember that famous line: "Let the one without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her"? Too bad that story isn't actually true, isn't it?

I mean, it's certainly questionable whether anything in the Gospel of John is true, but that particular story was not originally a part of the New Testament. It was added centuries later.

Do you always just choose from information which fits your narrative?

You claim (on multiple occasions) that Jesus never existed:

Jesus definitely existed. I know that a lot of people try to dismiss his existence entirely because the accounts we base his existence on are second-hand and/or written many years after he died, but people have to understand that by classical historical standards that's pretty good evidence.

But like others said, no, the miracle man definitely did not exist.

Read Richard Carrier's "On The Historicity of Jesus" and find out how wrong you are.

I'm simply asking if you think there was a man 2000ish years ago named Jesus who brought forth these new "ideas" that we now call Christianity.

No way.

Yet I see you referencing Bart Ehrman to prove your point. You do realize that according to Ehrman, Jesus did in fact exist?

http://www.bartdehrman.com/did-jesus-exist/

In Did Jesus Exist? historian and Bible expert Bart Ehrman confronts these questions, vigorously defends the historicity of Jesus, and provides a compelling portrait of the man from Nazareth. The Jesus you discover here may not be the Jesus you had hoped to meet—but he did exist, whether we like it or not.

Since you CLEARLY disagree with Ehrman on whether or not Jesus existed, Why do you all of the sudden agree with him in this case?