RE: On "Scholarly Consensus"
September 18, 2013 at 11:42 pm
(This post was last modified: September 18, 2013 at 11:43 pm by Minimalist.)
Ehrman thinks that jesus was an apocalyptic preacher. He is smart enough to dismiss all the miracle shit and thinks - much as Thomas Jefferson tried to do - that he can get closer to the historical jesus.
But jesus exists in the pages of only one novel. Just like Scarlett O'Hara in Gone With The Wind. What if someone were to argue that Scarlett did not own Tara? What justification would there be for that?
Ehrman is trying to make a cow's ear out of a silk purse. He takes the magical tale that idiot xtians claim to believe and wants to boil it down to some dumb shit who walked around and got himself killed.
He talks much about the mythicists.....but offers little in the way to support his own position.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehr...f=religion
You know that I think the xtians are batshit crazy to believe such utter nonsense that is in their fucking bible. But when he goes off on this tack Ehrman wants us to believe in a story that isn't even written in the fucking bible. Maybe we can call it The Gospel of Bart?
But jesus exists in the pages of only one novel. Just like Scarlett O'Hara in Gone With The Wind. What if someone were to argue that Scarlett did not own Tara? What justification would there be for that?
Ehrman is trying to make a cow's ear out of a silk purse. He takes the magical tale that idiot xtians claim to believe and wants to boil it down to some dumb shit who walked around and got himself killed.
He talks much about the mythicists.....but offers little in the way to support his own position.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehr...f=religion
You know that I think the xtians are batshit crazy to believe such utter nonsense that is in their fucking bible. But when he goes off on this tack Ehrman wants us to believe in a story that isn't even written in the fucking bible. Maybe we can call it The Gospel of Bart?
