Posted: May 06, 2012 5:30 pm
by Corky
dogsgod wrote:
The possibility that Jesus is mythical should not be ruled out by the likes of Ehrman and his followers, but they do rule it out. It's no surprise though, after all, we are discussing a religious figure from The Bible, and we know how passionate and superstitious people can be when it comes to The Bible, as if there is a rule that it must contain some truth about history and its characters that play a role in the stories.

Trying to explain how a mythical Jesus could arise while not being able to read the minds of the con-men preachers who invented him is the reason Jesus is historical - it's easier to explain that way.

Then there is the assumption that there are true facts to be found in the Bible, when there isn't. The only truth about it is that over a period of several centuries a bunch of religious con-men made that shit up out of thin air. There was no Genesis flood, there was no tower of Babel, no Exodus from Egypt, no conquest of Canaan and last but not least, there was no "revelations" of a Jewish god-man and the ones who claimed to have witnessed a resurrection were liars.

Knowing that these people were lying about seeing a resurrection - why would anyone in their right mind believe any damn thing else they said? But Ehrman does - Ehrman thinks Paul is an honest man.