dsgrue3 said:
My comment was about the Bible. The topic is about a particular point of contention in the bible. Seems very relevant. If you wanted my take on whether or not Atwill is correct, you could have asked. I side with the consensus of historians/biblical scholars as they have the appropriate credentials to make an intelligent, informed statement. Not forum posters. |
So if we're talking about the battle of bunker hill, it's totally on topic to talk about how Ben Franklin liked to have sex with prostitutes, since both things are about the revolutionary war?
As for your take... so you believe in a historical jesus then. Well either that or don't just generally know the consesnus.
Though i'd actually point out that something like this needs a very strong consensus. (which thankfully it does).
Because quite honestly I wouldn't trust a lot of historians/biblical scholars.
Since most of the people who specialize in the area tend to be Christians. Which seems to be ripe for bias, both intentional and subconsious.
Even most secular scholars not affiliated with a religion still tend to be Christian.
I find the agnostic historians best on the subject since they more or less divorce any postive and negative feelings from the religion allowing them to review the works more soberly.
