(March 23, 2014 at 8:58 am)Confused Ape Wrote: Found a relevant blog entry by someone who accepts that Jesus existed.
I can relate. I regret all the time and energy spent on this disucssion that would have been better spent on discussing The Wholly Babble. Let Ehrman and other divinity scholars sit in their ivory towers and chase after The Historical Jesus through their dusty scrolls. I shall not disturb their devotion or book writing tickets any more.
But I would like to ask them just one question.
"What, if anything, can we actually know about this man?"
I've never heard any definition of The Historical Jesus which is any more detailed than "um, you know, he was named Yeshua and well, you know, he was a religious leader of some kind and stuff." Oh, well, then! Since Yeshua was a common name and apocalyptic doom crier messiah wannabe a fairly common pastime, you'd likely find several over the course of the first century in Judea. But don't let me disturb you professors. Do continue your quests in the ivory tower. Let me know if you ever find anything of substance. I won't hold my breath.
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
