I have a hard time believing atheists are “free thinkers” if they ignore the evidence and believe that the person Jesus of Nazareth never existed.
Their “arguments” are on par with AIDS deniers. (Hint: AIDS exists)
It’s sad that people are willing to go to this length to avoid Christianity are so indoctrinated with anti-theism. No serious scholar of history or of the New Testament, Christian or not, actually questions this issue.
I suppose it could be a coincidence, but I’ve been seen an awful lot of coincidence in the Christian trolls lately.
EDIT: Oh my Sagan, I had to turn it off. The agnostic “expert” has done no research at all on redaction criticism or has chosen to simply ignore it. Luke is not a different “view” of Jesus. It is a politically motivated update to Mark.
In response to your two post on historical Jesus: Bart Ehrman is actually one of the most accomplished New Testament scholars around. Maybe it was the editing or him just not being clear but he’s extremely well versed in all things about the gospels. Anyway I think the problem with this post is the comparison to AIDS denial.
I believe Jesus existed just as I do Socrates and Diogenes even though we only have second and third hand documents about them. However there is a vast difference between saying historical figures like Socrates or Jesus, who were before even the onset of reliable history, didn’t exist and saying something which is ongoing, testable and verifiable doesn’t exist which you can go to a lab and demonstrate right now. Further saying Jesus existed as an apocalyptic Jew doesn’t prove anything of substance about divinity just as believing Diogenes existed as a Greek philosopher doesn’t prove he really told Alexander the Great to get out of his light or that he really lived in a tub on the streets. The evidence for all of these figures is scant still most every historian really believes they all existed but the denial that they really did isn’t insanely crazy like AIDS denial.
Not that I think doubt Jesus existed but its much closer to denying that Socrates existed given we only have second and third hand reports of both of them although they are numerous. That’s not remotely like denying AIDS.