Thursday, December 18, 2014

Just in time for Christmas, an "historical Jesus" article as fresh as Albert Schweitzer's dirty socks

You knew the liberal media would not be able to resist poking a finger in the eye of the Christian community just prior to the celebration of the birth of Christ. However, if this Washington Post article by some character named Raphael Lataster is the best they can do this year, it's a pretty good indication that these Christ hating reprobates are running out of steam . . . and rapidly!
Did a man called Jesus of Nazareth walk the earth? Discussions over whether the figure known as the “Historical Jesus” actually existed primarily reflect disagreements among atheists. Believers, who uphold the implausible and more easily-dismissed “Christ of Faith” (the divine Jesus who walked on water), ought not to get involved.

Numerous secular scholars have presented their own versions of the so-called “Historical Jesus” – and most of them are, as biblical scholar J.D. Crossan puts it, “an academic embarrassment.” From Crossan’s view of Jesus as the wise sage, to Robert Eisenman’s Jesus the revolutionary, and Bart Ehrman’s apocalyptic prophet, about the only thing New Testament scholars seem to agree on is Jesus’ historical existence. But can even that be questioned?

The first problem we encounter when trying to discover more about the Historical Jesus is the lack of early sources. The earliest sources only reference the clearly fictional Christ of Faith. These early sources, compiled decades after the alleged events, all stem from Christian authors eager to promote Christianity – which gives us reason to question them. The authors of the Gospels fail to name themselves, describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources – which they also fail to identify. Filled with mythical and non-historical information, and heavily edited over time, the Gospels certainly should not convince critics to trust even the more mundane claims made therein.
Okay. You get the drift. That phony "Jesus of history/Christ of faith" dichotomy predates Albert Schweitzer, and that's going back a long way. Lataster is eager to knock down such low hanging fruit as Crossan, Eisenman, and Ehrman (somewhere John Shelby Spong is quietly lamenting not making the list), but seems blissfully unaware of the voluminous works of N.T. Wright, Ben Witherington, John Meier, and numerous other contemporary "New Testament scholars" who could easily swat away his skepticism and recommend a few competent counselors to help him deal with his obvious anger issues.

This pathetic essay, apparently an excerpt from a larger (and doubtless even more laughable) work, is useful only in that it illustrates the depths of depravity to which a Christ-denying malcontent can sink.