Evidence for God from Science

Bart Ehrman, a popular agnostic (formerly evangelical) Biblical Scholar has come out with another book which as usual, attempts to bring issues of Biblical Scholarship to a lay level.

His most recent one comes from another direction and instead of attacking fundamental Biblical truth, this time he confronts those who attempt to deny Jesus as an historical figure.

Article here about it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/0 ... 00465.html

Key phrase in my opinion: It eventually dawned on him [Ehrman] that the Jesus deniers were the flip side of the Christian fundamentalists he had long ago foresworn. Both were using Jesus to justify their relationship to Christianity.

Not an endorsement of Ehrman. Just a reference to something out there that may generate some conservation.

I haven't read the book and have only followed the situation very lightly, but its kind of funny to see "hardcore" skeptics who trumpeted Ehrman for years turn on him so quickly because he won't go along with the ridiculous Jesus-myth story. From what I understand its been a real divide in some circles.

Of course Ehrman doesn't benefit in any way from calling out those who believe Christ didn't exist, if anything I've found that where he does slip up its on the other side- discounting certain things about Biblical accounts because of his skepticism/disbelief in the supernatural. So this really flies in the face of those skeptics who want to chalk up belief in Jesus' historicity to wishful thinking and confirmation bias. Not that a reasonable person needs Ehrman's book to tell them this, but it does help to expose the more radical skeptics as unreasonable people.

Bart is a bit enigmatic at times.
When his evangelical faith was tested he became agnostic BUT he is still an excellent scholar so to deny the historocity of Jesus is something that he really can't do.

I like this part:
What do mythicists argue?

If Jesus really existed, mythicists ask why so few first-century writers mention him. These mythicists dismiss the Gospel accounts as biased and therefore non-historical. To many mythicists, the Jesus story is based on pagan myths about dying and rising gods.

What does Ehrman argue?

Ehrman points out that only about 3 percent of Jews in Jesus' time were literate, and Romans never kept detailed records. (Decades after Jesus' crucifixion, three Roman writers mention Jesus in passing, as does the Jewish historian Josephus.) Though the Gospel accounts are biased, they cannot be discounted as non-historical. As for Jesus being a Jewish version of the pagan dying and rising god, Ehrman shows that there is no evidence the Jews of Jesus' day worshipped pagan gods. If anything, Jesus was deeply rooted in Jewish, rather than Roman, traditions.