Advertisements
Follow via Twitter
Check out Religion Poisons on Twitter.Random Post
Surprise me with some random religious brainlessness!-
Recent Posts
Archives
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
Meta
It is not even whether there was some crazy guy wandering around believing he was the son of a god (there are plenty around today) but whether there was a guy as described in new testament. I.e the guy whose mother was a virgin, who went around turning H2o into plonk, feeding multitudes et etc etc
Didn’t Bart Ehrman write “Did Jesus Exist?:The Historical Argument *for* Jesus of Nazareth”
It’s not that I don’t believethat he said this but the image itself has … well … how to put it? … Zero! Zip References!
Hi Jono, in the book you refer to, Ehrman works mainly from New Testament text (as opposed to historical and archaeological evidence) to make a case for Jesus. In short, the man may have existed and he may have been charismatic, but magical powers still don’t exist.
Here’s a review of the book you mention:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R3G18QHXUF79QR/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0062204602&nodeID=283155&store=books
Last paragraph:
The historical Jesus that emerges from Ehrman’s mainstream defense is a purely human, miracle-free Jewish male with a very common name living in first century Palestine, who after an unremarkable youth went on to teach things that many others had taught before; one more apocalyptic preacher, among many others at the time, whose predictions were proven wrong within a generation; one more “troublemaker” crucified like countless others by the Romans after a drive-thru trial during the Pilate administration. Being such, the Jesus that can be reconstructed from history with any certainty is, for all practical purposes, as irrelevant as the mythical one, effectively shrinking the debate on his existence from a grandiose quest with theological implications to an inconsequential and endless exercise in academic hair-splitting.