Smile.Sorry, Nate, your latest offering appears to have left all but Moi cold!
Seems unless you are stoking (Christian) bonfires no one want to visit. 😉
Which is a shame because this was a darn good post.
Write your own take, maybe?
Yeah, I may do that. You’re right, this was a very good post. I’ve had discussions like this with people before too, but I don’t think I phrased things as eloquently as this article did.
He definitely is, though his Wikipedia page is rather short and doesn’t note some notable views held by him (he dates gMark around 40, gMatthew before 70 and a chaotic theory of Q, which would consist of both Greek and Aramaic sources). If you ever want to read another history book about Jesus from a non-theistic perspective, his Jesus of Nazareth from a few years ago is a good pick, since it makes a number of fairly new though controversial insights available to the wider public. It provides a lot of food for thought.
This is why I have such contempt for ignorantianescia and his ilk. He will recommend a book like this because the author champions many beliefs of his type of christian, and wishes to demonstrate god knows what to blokes like Nate. Why would a christian recommend such a book to an atheist? It boggles the mind.
Yet Casey, like Ehrman emphatically denies the divinity of Yashua. This is the type of cherry picking that is insidious, as Ehrman and Casey are dropped like hot potatoes when it is time to rustle up a ‘consensus’ for the resurrection to demonstrate the validity of Yashua the man-god.
Finding Truth 
Yes, an excellent post. I commented but I always begin life at a new blog in Spam….until people go look!
LikeLike
Smile.Sorry, Nate, your latest offering appears to have left all but Moi cold!
Seems unless you are stoking (Christian) bonfires no one want to visit. 😉
Which is a shame because this was a darn good post.
Write your own take, maybe?
LikeLike
Yeah, I may do that. You’re right, this was a very good post. I’ve had discussions like this with people before too, but I don’t think I phrased things as eloquently as this article did.
LikeLike
Nate, perhaps this question comes out of the blue, but have you heard of Maurice Casey?
LikeLike
No, I haven’t. Is he worth a wikipedia lookup?
LikeLike
He definitely is, though his Wikipedia page is rather short and doesn’t note some notable views held by him (he dates gMark around 40, gMatthew before 70 and a chaotic theory of Q, which would consist of both Greek and Aramaic sources). If you ever want to read another history book about Jesus from a non-theistic perspective, his Jesus of Nazareth from a few years ago is a good pick, since it makes a number of fairly new though controversial insights available to the wider public. It provides a lot of food for thought.
LikeLike
This is why I have such contempt for ignorantianescia and his ilk. He will recommend a book like this because the author champions many beliefs of his type of christian, and wishes to demonstrate god knows what to blokes like Nate. Why would a christian recommend such a book to an atheist? It boggles the mind.
Yet Casey, like Ehrman emphatically denies the divinity of Yashua. This is the type of cherry picking that is insidious, as Ehrman and Casey are dropped like hot potatoes when it is time to rustle up a ‘consensus’ for the resurrection to demonstrate the validity of Yashua the man-god.
LikeLike