6 Reasons Why It Takes Faith To Reject Jesus’ Deity.


1. We would need to reject that Jesus was a miracle worker of which is well attested in ancient sources.

This needs to be rejected even though the evidence is quite solid. It’s attested to in all levels of strata from pre-New Testament sources Q, L, M, pre-Mark, Pre-John Signs gospel, in our New Testament sources Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, and the Pauline epistles, as well as in our extra-biblical author Josephus Flavius. A creed found in the Pauline epistle 1 Corinthians 15 houses a tradition that goes back to within five years of Jesus’ death of which itself contains the miracle of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. This creed records implies the empty tomb, and Jesus’ resurrection appearances to the disciples, James and also Paul. Jesus’ miracle status is what best explains the crowds that were attracted to him, as Marcus Borg explains: “crowds flocked to him because of his reputation as a healer” (1)

In fact, if we were to reject the miracle workings of Jesus then we may as well reject everything else we know about him. That is how deeply embedded his miracle status is in the evidence. One could argue that the only reason this is rejected is because of an a priori antisupernatural bias, and mostly not on historical, evidential grounds.

“On historical grounds it is virtually indisputable that Jesus was a healer and exorcist.” -Marcus Borg (2).

“The earliest traditions about Jesus include accounts of his miracle working. They are intertwined with the earliest sayings traditions. Additionally, the attestations of Jesus’ miracles are uniquely diverse and numerous.” -Christopher Price (3)

“Most historical Jesus scholars today, regardless of their personal theological orientation, do accept that Jesus drew crowds who believed that he performed cures and exorcisms.” -Craig Keener (4)

“It is no longer seriously contested that miracles played a role in Jesus’ ministry.” -Craig Evans (5)

2. We would need to reject the fact that Jesus’ resurrection is by far the best explanation of the minimal facts, namely his empty tomb, post-mortem appearances to skeptics and followers, and 500 others alike, and their willingness to die and suffer for his sake. These are referred to as “minimal facts” because they are accepted by the vast majority of experts in the fields of expertise.

However, the resurrection theory thoroughly explains all the minimal facts listed above, whereas other naturalistic theories such as the wrong tomb theory, swoon theory, hallucination theory, stolen body theory all fail to explain two or more of the four facts. This would make Jesus’ resurrection one of the best, if not the most, well attested miracle of history.

Moreover, there is no naturalistic theory proposed as an explanation of these three facts which has garnered the allegiance of a significant number of scholars.” -William Craig (6)

3. We would need to deny that the truthfulness of the anti-Christian persecutor Paul, who murdered many early Christians, including Stephen as detailed in Acts, who converted to Christianity after he witnessed the risen Christ. We would have to believe that he was mistaken. But what could produce such as drastic change in this man who was a staunch anti-Christian Pharisee who wanted nothing more to destroy the early Christian movement? At minimum we must posit that he really did believe he witnessed the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus where he was going to squelch any presence of Christians there. This was not some isolated experience for Paul but was witnessed by others on the road with him who also heard the voice but could not see what Paul saw (Acts 9:4). This very same Paul suffered for the cause of Jesus, and was later killed for it.

“Most striking perhaps is that fact that Jesus appeared to Paul. Paul hated Christians and was hell-bent on destroying the church. What transformed him from a persecutor of Christians to a pastor, who was willing to endure extraordinary hardship to proclaim the Gospel? Paul claimed it was the resurrection.” -Christ Price (7)

4. We would need to reject the testimony of Jesus’ own brother James. James and Jesus’ family seemingly rejected him as a mad man because of his teachings. In Mark 3:21 they tell us that “He has lost His senses.” However, after the death of Jesus he appears to James (1 Corinthians 15:7) of who then ends up leading the early church. This leads to James’ death via stoning. At minimum we must conclude that he really believed Jesus appeared to him of which he willingly suffered, and then died for. This fact needs to be accounted for, and the resurrection would account for it best.

“It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’s death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.” -Gerd Ludemann (8)

5. We would need to reject the truthfulness of the dramatic change in Jesus’ disciples who were Jews themselves. It is quite extraordinary that an entire group of staunch Jews, as the earliest followers of Jesus were (as well as Paul and James), would make up such a shameful thing as a crucified and risen Messiah if it never actually occurred and convinced them. Jews had an entirely different concept of who the Messiah would be. This Messiah would be triumphant, would overthrow the shackles of Roman rule and oppression, and would rule with authority. However, this Messiah came in the form of Jesus, a backwater peasant of little education, and nothing more than a poor carpenter. This Jesus would eventually die on a cross – according to Judaism this was the ultimate form of disapproval from God (hence why Paul, prior to his conversion, persecuted the Christians that were claiming this since it was entirely blasphemous to Jewish ears). The apostle Paul tells us that “cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree,” (Gal 3:13) and that “we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.” (1 Cor.1:21-22) One would need to apply much faith to posit that such a thought of a crucified Messiah would manifest from 1st century Judaism.

“The social stigma and disgrace associated with crucifixion in the Roman world can hardly be overstated.” –Martin Hengel (9)

“That the centre and climax of the story of Jesus would be based on his shameful execution and death makes no sense if it evolved out of Jewish expectations about the Messiah, since they contained nothing about any such idea.” –Tim O’Niell (10)

Thus at minimum we must conclude that the post-mortem appearances of Jesus to his disciples, and to the skeptics Paul and James really convinced them. These appearances happened on multiple occasions, were physical in nature (Thomas touching Jesus, Jesus eating with the disciples etc.), and experienced in groups. This needs an explanation.

“They believed this, they lived it, and they died for it.” -E.P Sanders (11)

“That is why, as an historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him.”-NT Wright (12)

6. We would need to believe that Jesus was a madman. The truth is that Jesus never left any other options open for us, as the former atheist turned Christian C.S. Lewis once succinctly remarked:

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to” (13).

What we do have to accept if we reject Jesus’ deity is that he was some lunatic. Could that same lunatic so influence pious Jews around him to follow him, and some of them to embrace Christianity in place of their Judaism? Could all the miraculous and inspiring things Jesus did be done in just three years if he was a mad? Would such a lunatic cause such a raucous among the Jewish religious establishment that would inevitably end up with Jesus being pinned to a cross? To accept this as an explanation would stretch credulity.


I think we have sketched out a picture of what inevitably needs to happen if we would reject Jesus’ self claims and divinity. This list is not exhaustive, but suffices for our purposes. We would need to reject his miracle worker status and this would probably result from an antisupernatural bias. We would need to reject the resurrection hypothesis a priori even though it best explains the minimal facts. We’d need to reject the obvious truthfulness of the testimonies of Paul and James even though they were both against Jesus as the start. Paul would even murder Christians before becoming one himself after Jesus had appeared to him. Both Paul and James were martyred for their faith in Jesus. We’d need to reject the testimonies of the disciples, and then posit that such an unlikely notion as a crucified messiah would spring forth out of 1st century Jewish thought. We’d also need to reject their willingness to suffer for the cause of Jesus as for a lie, or a delusion. Lastly, we’d need to deduce that Jesus was lunatic judging by his teachings if they were not true.


1. Borg, M. The Mighty Deeds of Jesus. Available.

2. Borg, M. 1991. Jesus, A New Vision: Spirit. p. 61.

3. Price, C. 2004. The Miracles of Jesus: A Historical Inquiry. Available.

4. Keener, C. Will the Real Historical Jesus Please Stand Up. Available.

5. Evans, C. 1993. Life-of-Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology. p. 34.

6. Craig, W. 2012. Stephen Law on the non-existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Available.

7. Price, C. 2015. Resurrection: Making Sense of Historical Data. Available.

8. Ludemann, G. 1996. What Really Happened? p. 80.

9. Martin, H. 1977. Crucifixion.

10. Tim in an answer to “Do credible historians agree that the man named Jesus, who the Christian Bible speaks of, walked the earth and was put to death on a cross by Pilate, Roman governor of Judea?”

11. Sanders, D. 1993. The Historical Figure of Jesus. p. 279-280.

12. Wright, N. 1993. “The New Unimproved Jesus” in Christianity Today. p. 26.

13. Lewis, C. 1952. Mere Christianity. p. 54-56.

38 responses to “6 Reasons Why It Takes Faith To Reject Jesus’ Deity.

  1. Pingback: 7 major reasons why it takes great blind faith to reject the deity of Jesus. | Historical Jesus studies.·

  2. Or we could just reject the accuracy, truth, & historicity of the New Testament altogether, thereby negating 95% of this article…

    • And then throw out the accuracy, truth, & historicity of virtually every other event/person in the ancient world. The earliest written record we have of Alexander was written nine centuries after his death. The letters of Paul that confirm the minimal facts about the Resurrection were written within 20 years of the crucifixion. In First Corinthians, he also refers to an ancient creed that confirms the early belief in the Resurrection. This creed has been dated to as ealy as as SIX MONTHS after the crucifixion.There is an atheist NT scholar (I forget the name) who has dated Mark’s Gospel to A.D. 40, seven years after the crucifixion. This is solid gold for a historian. Luke lists 85 events, places, people in the book of Acts alone, and has been proven right on every one. He has been called “an historian of the first rank” by Sir William Ramsay, one of the greatest historians of his generation, who spent 20 years trying to disprove the Gospels and ended up becoming a Christian as a result. Ramsay said “Luke should be placed alongside the very greatest of historians.” It has been well-said that after studying the evidence for the truth of Christianity, you can still have doubts, but they are not reasonable doubts.

    • Coolvan,

      It might be reasonable because our sources are so problematic..

      Imagine trying to figure out what really happened in the early years of the Mormon Church if the only available sources were accounts written by fanatically devoted Latter Day Saints decades after the events. You would probably know nothing of the Kirtland bank fraud or the Mountain Meadows massacre. You might even be inclined to think that Joseph Smith was the faithful husband of one wife as the Mormons did not practice polygamy openly until after his death.

      The only reason we can have any confidence about our understanding of Joseph Smith and early Mormonism is because we have something that is completely lacking for Christianity: abundant contemporaneous sources from outside the Church, including non-Mormons who dealt with the Latter Day Saints and ex-Mormons who left the movement.

      I can see little reason for trusting fantastic stories written by true believers decades after the events. Imagine trying to figure out what happened in Roswell, New Mexico in 1947 using only the accounts written by UFO fanatics in the 1980’s. It couldn’t be done.

      I’m not sure whether it is right to reject the New Testament “altogether,” but I do think that a huge grain of salt is warranted.

  3. Pingback: Proving God; White Privelege; Elisabeth Elliot; Rachel Doezal, Tim Keller, D.A. Carson; and a Review of Pixar’s “Inside Out” | ChosenRebel's Blog·

  4. “1. We would need to reject that Jesus was a miracle worker of which is abundantly attested in ancient sources.”

    FALSE. The only extrabiblical sources we have for the historical Jesus are Josephus and Tacitus (along with a couple of others that are debated as to which figure the texts actually refer to), and neither mention anything “miraculous” whatsoever. They are sufficient to establish his historicity, nothing more. Neither mention a resurrection or healing the sick or raising the dead, etc.

    So the first point is a flat-out, easily identified lie. Should we go on?

    (The excerpt I quoted isn’t even a grammatically correct sentence.)

    Lastly, when people tell you the evidence is “extraordinary”, that’s reason enough right there to dismiss whatever comes next as hyperbole.

    Serious scholarship, please.

    • Actually Josephus mentions Jesus as a wonder worker, and the New Testament counts as historical evidence. Jesus’ miracles are also present in the pre-New Testament hypothetical sources.
      It’s your word against just about every scholar in the field. There is a reason for that.

      • False again. I will quote in full the two Josephus passages and single Tacitus passage:

        1. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews XX.9:

        “Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so (the High Priest) assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Messiah, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.”

        2. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, XVIII.5:

        “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of paradoxical deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ And when Pilate at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”

        3. Tacitus, Annals, XV.44:

        “Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.”

        Nothing supernatural whatsoever is mentioned in these texts. And there is considerable debate about the authenticity of certain sections of these passages. Most scholars subscribe to partial authenticity with partial interpolation by later Christian communities in charge of preserving these texts.

        • “paradoxical deeds” is what I was referring to. By the way my bad, I made a mistake. Sometimes I know so many quotes off by heart that I misplace them after not checking them – my quote was from scholar Luke Johnson, and I put him into the context of referring to Josephus. Johnson says even the most critical historian can “confidently” say that Jesus was a “wonder worker.”

          But the 2nd passage by Josephus is an interpolation, however scholars have confidently constructed the original. You can search that for yourself.

          Thirdly, Tacitus hasn’t got anything to do with the miracle status of Jesus even though he confirms other facts (so i dont know why you pasted it here…).

          Fourthly, although extra-biblical sources are important they don’t come near to the importance of our New Testament documents. So looking to confirm facts about Jesus solely from extra-bib sources is misplaced, and something I notice a lot with noobs.

          • Yes, please use more words like “noobs” to establish your scholarly superiority. It really lends you the credibility that would otherwise require intellect, humility and sophistication.

            I posted Josephus *as well as* Tacitus because those are the only three near-universally recognized extrabiblical sources for the historical Jesus. And I quoted them in full to debunk your claim that the miraculous aspects of Jesus found in the gospels are “abundantly attested” outside the Bible. They are not. That is a false claim. And moreover, as I mentioned, the language that is there is believed by most scholars to be at least partially interpolated. We are not reading the passages in their original authenticity.

            And you are missing the point about extrabiblical sources. Per my comment below, there is much in the gospels that, if true, we would EXPECT to find corroborated outside the gospels, such as the three-hour darkness, the rock-splitting earthquake and the throngs of corpses zombifying the streets. Yet not so much as a mention if these paranormal happenings are to be located in any surviving source today. This casts grave doubt on the other paranormal events narrated in the gospels.

            So actually, extracanonical texts are of great importance here, especially since Jesus belonged to what many historians have designated the most well-documented era in history.

            • I never argued that the miracles are “abundantly attested” outside the N.T. I said they are abundantly attested in it, and in our pre-NT hypotheticals to the extent that if you reject them, then you need to reject other established facts about Jesus.

              Regarding your other objections, they just matter in my case for Jesus’ resurrection as a historical events.

              • You said they “are abundantly attested in ancient sources”. By which you mean the gospel accounts only. Which are not written as history, but as religious mythology. There are just too many “just-so” parallels between the Hebrew texts and the New Testament gospels to go unnoticed, too many legendary tropes so common to ancient mythology.

                Put simply, there is very little history there, and what history there is is very difficult to establish die to the mythological tropes scattered throughout.

              • “Which are not written as history, but as religious mythology.”

                -That’s just blatantly false.

                “there is very little history there”

                -That is also false.

  5. “The resurrection theory thoroughly explains all the minimal facts listed above, whereas the other weak naturalistic theories such as the wrong tomb theory, swoon theory, hallucination theory, stolen body theory all fail to explain two or more of the four facts.”

    What about the more historically sensible theory that Jesus, as a penniless Jewish rabble-rouser, was probably thrown into a common grave and not a tomb at all? That would make the narrative about the empty tomb simply later legend with no basis in history. The fact that you leave out this perfectly sensible explanation of the facts reveals your bias and motivated reasoning, I’m afraid.

    • The reason is because all our evidence suggests the exact opposite to Jesus being thrown into a grave. That is a desperate hypothetical theory that fails to explain the 4th Minimal Fact – that of Jesus’ post mortem appearances to the disciples and skeptics. That is simply an imaginative reconstruction based on not one piece of evidence.

      • The only evidence that he was placed in a tomb is in the gospel accounts. Our knowledge of the 1st century Roman world is that common thieves, insurgents and the regular rabble-rousers were thrown into common graves, usually a ditch of some kind. Tombs were reserved for the upper crust of society–the “aristocracy” and the like. Given what we know of the period, it is more likely that Jesus would not have been placed in a tomb.

        For more, see “Ehrman’s How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee”.

        • Our Gospels, and Paul puts Jesus in a tomb. That’s 5 sources, and that is good data to use to make sense of. It’s also highly unlikely that Joseph of Arimethea was an invention, hence why Jesus was buried in a tomb. Again, our evidence just points the other way. Jesus being thrown into a common grave is just speculative. The evidence counts.

          • Now you’ve tipped your hand. The Pauline view of Jesus is something scholars have struggled with as long as there has been such a thing as biblical scholarship. It’s very far from clear what “kind” of Jesus Paul believed in, whether it was as a man or as a mystical experience. As the earliest writer on Jesus, it is important that he does not mention any of the miracles of Jesus and his only memory of Jesus is through visions.

            What kind of Jesus did Paul believe in is a difficult question to answer. So it’s not at all an open-and-shut case when arguing from the Pauline witnesses.

            • It is clear what “type of Jesus” Paul referred to: a physical blood and flesh Jesus. I rebutted Carrier on this point (see: Rebuttals -> Mysticism) – I wont repost that here. I guess this “mystical” Jesus had flesh brothers, after all Paul met James, and Jesus’ disciple Peter? Paul places Jesus on Earth on several occasions. The fact that you would suggest otherwise shows me that you’re definitely flirting with mysticism, or you’re just being unfairly critical, and trying to force the data fit your position.

              Anyway, when I referred to Paul he supports the empty tomb (1 Corinthians 15) which is consistent with the gospel accounts.

              • “Unfairly critical” is what it *means* to do serious scholarship. One could just easily throw the charge at you that you are being unduly credulous. It swings both ways, getting us nowhere.

                While 1 Cor. is of close proximity to the events in question, Paul was not an eyewitness. Paul is merely relaying the stories of others who apparently had visions of Jesus along with his own “vision” experience. It has been debated for decades among scholars whether Paul believed in a physical resurrection or a purely spiritual one (and mythicism, again, is irrelevant).

                For more see scholar Sarah Ruden’s book “Paul Among the People”, and any number of Ehrman’s scholarly works.

  6. Again with “lord, liar or lunatic” false trichotomy. How about legend? The answer is legend. We know with a good deal of confidence that much of the gospel accounts is mythology and metaphor (e.g., the darkness covering the whole world for three hours that no one else apparently saw (Mark 15); the rock-splitting earthquake and a parade of corpses leaving empty tombs behind that no one else apparently noticed (Mat. 27), and this leaves us with little confidence that the even more outlandish claims are historically credible.

    Stories about Jesus were disseminated in the wake of his death by disciples and acquaintances who were loyal to him. As Ehrman has said, Jesus’ followers didn’t make up the crucifixion story. They made up the notion that he had to die to fulfill some sort of spiritual narrative.

    • So what if the authors incorporate metaphor? Its a linguistic device that anyone can use. Even if I grant that they incorporated mythology into the texts, that does nothing to undermine the historical details…

      Secondly, it wasn’t the “whole world,” it was the local land that was covered in darkness. So what if Matt uses metaphor in his gospel? It doesn’t matter because it doesn’t undermine the 4 Minimal Facts…
      The is a reason that most scholars classify the gospels as Greco-Roman biography. They intended to write history even if they had theological agendas.

      None of these challenges undermine Christianity.

      • “Even if I grant that they incorporated mythology into the texts, that does nothing to undermine the historical details…”

        True, but it burdens the task of parsing the metaphor from the history. On what basis do you interpret one set of paranormal happenings as metaphor and the next passage over as history?

        “None of these challenges undermine Christianity.”

        And nothing can, right?

        At least you’re on the right track by acknowledging they are challenges.

        • Every worldview has challenges. Challenges don’t undermine the truth.
          ” On what basis do you interpret one set of paranormal happenings as metaphor and the next passage over as history?” – Multiple attestation. If Matthew is the only gospel author to mention saints rising from their graves then there is reason to question. But when all of the gospels, and Paul reference the empty tomb (which = the miracle of the resurrection) then we can be confident that it is historical. The same goes with any historical text, events etc.

          “And nothing can, right?”
          At least nothing you’ve presented here since it doesn’t even touch on the minimal facts. At most you’ve just made unsubstantiated statements about the gospels being myth (which is just wrong) etc. At most you’ve just attacked Biblical Inerrancy, not Christianity’s truthfulness.

          • “At most you’ve just made unsubstantiated statements about the gospels being myth (which is just wrong) etc.”

            Is there a reason that you need to lie in order to make your points. In fact, I have not said (and could not have been interpreted as saying) that the gospels are myth through and through. What I said (you may need to scroll up and read more slowly) is that the gospel accounts are a mixture of myth and history. We have good reasons to think there is historical foundation to be found there, but digging through to it is made difficult by the layers of myth and legend encrusted around that foundation.

            This is, and has always been, the task of the biblical scholar and the historian. It is not an easy task, and to reduce a wide-ranging field to a few cherry-picked conclusions is disingenuous at best and propaganda at worst. Again, the fact that apologists such as yourself must resort to these cheap tactics speaks volumes about the merits of your worldview, it seems to me.

  7. “That is also false.”

    Ah, the Courtier’s Reply. Very convincing.

    If you disagree, how do you explain the dozens of parallels between the gospel narratives and the Jewish scriptures? Coincidence? Clever use of metaphor? Literary ingenuity? Legendary accretion through oral tradition?

    We could argue all day about whether the gospels are “primarily” history or “primarily” mythology or literary embellishment. But let’s not pretend that the history is easy to parse from the myth. If it were, there would not be such rank disagreement among biblical scholarship. You know this is true. See: the Jesus Seminars as Exhibit A.

    The fact of the matter is that if the case for Jesus was nearly as strong as you pretend on this blog that it is, you would not see the level of disagreement among the scholarly community. And for that matter, I probably wouldn’t identify as agnostic.

    • I’m in no mood for debates, Daniel. I end up in an unfortunate number of them daily.

      To me it sounds like you are hopping on the mythicist Robert Price’s theory that the gospel authors formed a fictional Jesus coinciding with Old Testament events… The fact that you would reference the Jesus Seminar is also quite illuminating. Since they are bunch of atheist/naturalists/liberals with naturalistic presuppositions (see their statement), no wonder you are going to make these allegations. The vast majority of them don’t even teach or hold jobs at any accredited institutions (although a few do, such as Borg). To support them shows me your presuppositions.

      The irony is that this theory you are harping on about (that sounds very similar to Price’s one) was obliterated by Bart Ehrman in his book Did Jesus Exist? Its ironic then that you’d reference him further up.

      • “To me it sounds like you are hopping on the mythicist Robert Price’s theory that the gospel authors formed a fictional Jesus coinciding with Old Testament events.”

        Nope, not even close. I am not a mythicist in any respect (and have in fact argued strenuously against Carrier & Co. for several years now). One does not need to be a mythicist to espy the many striking parallels between the “New and “Old” scriptures. This is simply being an attentive observer.

        I am not a fan of Price’s thesis and find that Ehrman’s arguments are much stronger and more grounded in actual historical inquiry.

        “The fact that you would reference the Jesus Seminar is also quite illuminating. Since they are bunch of atheist/naturalists/liberals with naturalistic presuppositions (see their statement), no wonder you are going to make these allegations.”

        And there it is. I see you are now hoisting your ideological flag up the mast, conflating atheism and naturalism with liberalism. I swear, why is it so difficult to find even one Christian capable of having a rational discussion, without resorting to cheap shots, Gish gallops and silly antics like the above? The fact that it is says a lot about the underlying worldview, it seems to me.

        • It’s clear you’re trying to make this out to be an open-and-shut case by reducing difficult and impossibly nuanced matters to a few cherry-picked quotes and scholars, when anyone who has engaged the scholarship in detail knows that all of this is far from an open-and-shut case.

          If you’re interested in apologetics, be honest and up front about it, but don’t attempt to pass off apologetics as the sweeping conclusions of biblical scholarship writ large.

        • It’s a relief to hear that you’re not a mythicist. I was expecting you were.

          I again so not issue with the way that I painted the Jesus Seminar. They have anti-supernatural biases no matter how good the evidence is for Jesus’ miracles, resurrection etc. They immediately disqualify any words Jesus allegedly said after his death, et al. I stand by that.

          There are similarities between the New and Old Testaments. But, so what? It says nothing bout the minimal facts, or any other historical data.

          • Sorry, but you try as you might, you can’t claw your way back to credibility after the asinine comment you posted equating atheism and the Jesus Seminar with “liberalism”. Credibility is hard-won and your comment shows just how easy it is to flush it away.

            It’s sad, really. But it confirms my view that the only way devout Christians maintain a presence in the intellectual arena is through motivated reasoning, preying on the ignorance of their base, and appealing to the entrenched biases and prejudices of said base. If rationality is this difficult to come by in the Christian blogosphere, then perhaps there is something wrong with the worldview?

            So long.

Let me know your thoughts!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s