It happened again today.
My Jesus Timeline video series has attracted another Ehrman groupie who felt inspired to leave yet another butthurt post, claiming indignantly that I have no business cross-examining the Bible and concluding the Christians have never told a coherent story about Jesus that would hold up in the very courtrooms the apologists are so fond of alluding to.
In the video itself I explicitly state on no freaking uncertain terms that this video is NOT about "The Historical Jesus" (which I always thought meant there was a mortal religious teacher crucified by the Romans and later deified by his followers). I can't think of any way I could be more clear that the series is directed at the "Revealed Word of God" crowd who believe that the Gospels are biographies of a miracle-working godman, penned by "reliable eye-witness accounts". But that doesn't seem to satisfy them. Frankly, I don't know what they want.
I'm starting to rethink my "Jesus Moot" strategy.
My thinking on this new approach was that the skeptic should not care whether or not some vague notion of some-religious-leader-named-Yeshua is truly part of the historical timestream in first century Judea. Our concern is with the assertions about a miracle-working godman and the veracity of the Gospels as an account of the life he lived and the teachings he imparted. Bart Ehrman is welcome to sift through the dusty scrolls in his Ivory Tower as he chases after the allusive and poorly defined Historical Jesus.
I'd grown tired of wasting my time wrangling over an oblique reference in the 2nd century Annals of Tacitus, of enduring the barrage of ad hominems and false comparisons to Holocaust Deniers, of trying to keep up with the fancy footwork of the Scholars-Say-Shuffle. I thought it was better to stick to the Bible and expose its contradictions and absurdities. I decided to concede for the sake of argument that a mortal Jesus may have existed but we'll never know anything about him or be able to reliably sift the true story from the myths and legends. Thus, his existence was moot.
That doesn't seem to satisfy.
Their reaction seems rather ironically evocative of the pre-reformation Catholic Church, "How DARE you read the Bible? That's OUR job! This is heresy, er, I mean a polemic!"
A choice quote after I had replied what was stated in the video, that this video is not about The Historical Jesus but rather a cross-examination of Christian beliefs about the miracle-working-godman.
This particular Ehrman groupie would have done well to spend less time reading Ehrman's books and more time reviewing an English grammar textbook. In fairness, others of his kind have proven to be more eloquent. I don't mean to suggest that they all write at a 3rd grade level. What I found striking about his/her posts, aside from the horrid butchery of the English language and the near-incomprehensible sentences, is the defense of the Gospels as "Historical Documents".
Historical fucking documents?
Seriously?
While I have not yet read Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?", his groupies like this one have led me to believe that Ehrman not only defends the fuzzy notion of a mortal religious leader being the source of Christian mythology but the mythology itself. After writing so many books tearing the Gospels a new one, exposing the problems of "pseudo-epigraphy" (forgery) and "interpolation" (changes to the text) as well as debunking the Christian dreamscape of the "early church", has Ehrman now suddenly became as the Thermians from the movie Galaxy Quest, embracing these very same Gospels as "HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS!"
You can see why I'm having trouble distinguishing the fundamentalist Christian apologists from the so-called "secular historists" who carry their water. Where do the "historists" draw the line? What sort of skepticism of the Christian tale is allowed in their circles? What do they want?
My Jesus Timeline video series has attracted another Ehrman groupie who felt inspired to leave yet another butthurt post, claiming indignantly that I have no business cross-examining the Bible and concluding the Christians have never told a coherent story about Jesus that would hold up in the very courtrooms the apologists are so fond of alluding to.
In the video itself I explicitly state on no freaking uncertain terms that this video is NOT about "The Historical Jesus" (which I always thought meant there was a mortal religious teacher crucified by the Romans and later deified by his followers). I can't think of any way I could be more clear that the series is directed at the "Revealed Word of God" crowd who believe that the Gospels are biographies of a miracle-working godman, penned by "reliable eye-witness accounts". But that doesn't seem to satisfy them. Frankly, I don't know what they want.
I'm starting to rethink my "Jesus Moot" strategy.
My thinking on this new approach was that the skeptic should not care whether or not some vague notion of some-religious-leader-named-Yeshua is truly part of the historical timestream in first century Judea. Our concern is with the assertions about a miracle-working godman and the veracity of the Gospels as an account of the life he lived and the teachings he imparted. Bart Ehrman is welcome to sift through the dusty scrolls in his Ivory Tower as he chases after the allusive and poorly defined Historical Jesus.
I'd grown tired of wasting my time wrangling over an oblique reference in the 2nd century Annals of Tacitus, of enduring the barrage of ad hominems and false comparisons to Holocaust Deniers, of trying to keep up with the fancy footwork of the Scholars-Say-Shuffle. I thought it was better to stick to the Bible and expose its contradictions and absurdities. I decided to concede for the sake of argument that a mortal Jesus may have existed but we'll never know anything about him or be able to reliably sift the true story from the myths and legends. Thus, his existence was moot.
That doesn't seem to satisfy.
Their reaction seems rather ironically evocative of the pre-reformation Catholic Church, "How DARE you read the Bible? That's OUR job! This is heresy, er, I mean a polemic!"
A choice quote after I had replied what was stated in the video, that this video is not about The Historical Jesus but rather a cross-examination of Christian beliefs about the miracle-working-godman.
Some Ehrman Groupie Wrote:You are using arguments from the mythicists for your video. It is textual criticism that you failed at [sic]. Which these arguments was debunk in many of Erhman's books [sic]. You keep saying it isn't historical Jesus [sic]. No it is the sources for the historical Jesus that you get wrong [sic].
This particular Ehrman groupie would have done well to spend less time reading Ehrman's books and more time reviewing an English grammar textbook. In fairness, others of his kind have proven to be more eloquent. I don't mean to suggest that they all write at a 3rd grade level. What I found striking about his/her posts, aside from the horrid butchery of the English language and the near-incomprehensible sentences, is the defense of the Gospels as "Historical Documents".
Historical fucking documents?
Seriously?
While I have not yet read Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?", his groupies like this one have led me to believe that Ehrman not only defends the fuzzy notion of a mortal religious leader being the source of Christian mythology but the mythology itself. After writing so many books tearing the Gospels a new one, exposing the problems of "pseudo-epigraphy" (forgery) and "interpolation" (changes to the text) as well as debunking the Christian dreamscape of the "early church", has Ehrman now suddenly became as the Thermians from the movie Galaxy Quest, embracing these very same Gospels as "HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS!"
You can see why I'm having trouble distinguishing the fundamentalist Christian apologists from the so-called "secular historists" who carry their water. Where do the "historists" draw the line? What sort of skepticism of the Christian tale is allowed in their circles? What do they want?
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
