I'd just love to know what Bart Ehrman means by "historical Jesus".
I've said before it's like arguing for a "historical Superman". Just like Superman but without all the superpowers? Then he's not Superman then.
Seriously, what's left once you've stripped out all the miracles and divinity? And what can we know about him even if we were to assume he existed? How can we ever know what he really taught, when exactly he really lived and what his ministry really was about?
The only details we have at all come to us from Christian mythology, and if we throw that out, we also throw out any sources we have to answer any of these questions.
I've said before it's like arguing for a "historical Superman". Just like Superman but without all the superpowers? Then he's not Superman then.
Seriously, what's left once you've stripped out all the miracles and divinity? And what can we know about him even if we were to assume he existed? How can we ever know what he really taught, when exactly he really lived and what his ministry really was about?
The only details we have at all come to us from Christian mythology, and if we throw that out, we also throw out any sources we have to answer any of these questions.
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
