Rethinking My Stance on the "historical Jesus"

[Aught3]

Well he cites two but the first one doesn't say very much, more emphasis is put on the longish quote from vol. 18 of the Antiquities. I'm guessing that corresponds to the Testimonium Flavianum reference. Ehrman does point out the problems with this source but still thinks it provides some useful information about Jesus and the following he built up.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Again, I'm still not convinced that there was a historical Jesus but I don't plan to spend my more time or energy on the "Jesus never existed" line. Now it will be "assuming Jesus existed, there's still no reason to take Christian mythology seriously".

Good call. After all no Christian claims that Muhammad never existed, yet they have no problem dismissing the claims of the Muslim faith.

 

[justsomefnguy]

This was always a sort of 'pin cushion' tactic I used when debating christians, to casually remark when jesus came up; 'It hardly matters if he existed or not, lots of people believe that he did and act according to that belief.'. To the atheist, a historical jesus is nearly irrelevant, but it seems to matter a great deal to believers, so I would grant the point and relegate it to trivia at the same time. I suppose it was a jerk move, but its my actual position and a valid point. The fact they find it annoying is just a bonus.