Weighing up the evidence for the ‘Historical Jesus’

[toejam]

^Of course. But I've yet to hear a better hypothesis than the one I presented. You don't think they were written with an eye to converting people?

[Sheshbazzar]

Not to the Christian religion, or if so, only as a convenient adjunct to the accomplishment of the original purposes.

[Bernard Muller]

They were written to convert people -

My study of the gospels led me to think those, initially, were more intended to keep their audience where they were & believing, rather than convert "pagans" or Jews to Christianity.

Cordially, Bernard

[John T]

I will be getting Carrier's OHJ book. Here is my 'apologist' contribution....

http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologe ... aviors.htm (part 1)
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologe ... orical.htm (part 2)

and an 'addendum' to Part 1
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologe ... arrier.htm

I take some cracks at Carrier. Hope I'm not too disrespectful.

PhilVaz

Welcome to the isle of misfit toys, where people parade themselves as intellectual, fair and open minded. Yet , somehow they just can't come up with the proof.

The core belief here is that Jesus is a myth.

Best of luck in convincing them otherwise.

John T

[Garon]

This thread sure ended suddenly.

[iskander]

This thread sure ended suddenly.

LOL The pied piper stopped playing.