An insurgent against the Roman order? Is that what they really say. Sometime back I wrote this post in opposition to some guy who was insisting on the criteria of embarrassment as "proof" of his godboy. It would help him to understand who is supposed to be embarrassed. Reading those gospel passages makes it clear that it was the Jews who were pissed off, not the Romans.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-45366-po...pid1405658
No. The jesus that emerges from the fucking gospels tells slaves to be good little slaves, tells the sheep to obey their masters because they are appointed by fucking god, tells them to render unto caesar, yada, yada, yada. The idea of jesus as a "revolutionary" figure is from Reza Aslan, not Ehrman. J. D. Crossan sees him as a "social revolutionary." Ehrman sees him as a failed apocalyptic prophet.
I think they are all nuts because you cannot use flawed sources to reach anything except a flawed conclusion.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-45366-po...pid1405658
No. The jesus that emerges from the fucking gospels tells slaves to be good little slaves, tells the sheep to obey their masters because they are appointed by fucking god, tells them to render unto caesar, yada, yada, yada. The idea of jesus as a "revolutionary" figure is from Reza Aslan, not Ehrman. J. D. Crossan sees him as a "social revolutionary." Ehrman sees him as a failed apocalyptic prophet.
I think they are all nuts because you cannot use flawed sources to reach anything except a flawed conclusion.
