Couple concerns I have over the topic of the "historical Jesus":
1. What do you mean by "historical Jesus"? Jesus without the miracles and divinity? You don't have much of anything left. It's kind of like saying "historical Superman but without all the super powers".
2. The Gospels themselves have never offered a coherent story that can be reconciled internally, with each of the four accounts or with history. There's no need to look for any evidence to confirm the story if the story itself is incoherent.
3. Christian apologists will say there's no 1st century extra-Biblical accounts of Jesus because he was an obscure rabbi that only preached to the poor. Yet the Gospel accounts say that his ministry was both successful and controversial. Like with many other aspects of apologetics, they tie themselves into knots trying to have things both ways.
4. If you're going to debate the historical Jesus, be prepared for what I call "scholars say shuffle". You will waste an incredible amount of time and energy trying to nail them down while they try to portray you as some kind of conspiracy crackpot. Looking back at my own debates on the subject, it's not worth it. Stick with a critical review of the Bible. That's time better spent.
1. What do you mean by "historical Jesus"? Jesus without the miracles and divinity? You don't have much of anything left. It's kind of like saying "historical Superman but without all the super powers".
2. The Gospels themselves have never offered a coherent story that can be reconciled internally, with each of the four accounts or with history. There's no need to look for any evidence to confirm the story if the story itself is incoherent.
3. Christian apologists will say there's no 1st century extra-Biblical accounts of Jesus because he was an obscure rabbi that only preached to the poor. Yet the Gospel accounts say that his ministry was both successful and controversial. Like with many other aspects of apologetics, they tie themselves into knots trying to have things both ways.
4. If you're going to debate the historical Jesus, be prepared for what I call "scholars say shuffle". You will waste an incredible amount of time and energy trying to nail them down while they try to portray you as some kind of conspiracy crackpot. Looking back at my own debates on the subject, it's not worth it. Stick with a critical review of the Bible. That's time better spent.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
