Moving Forward with the (a)Historical(ist) Jesus, or, shoot, I need better titles

This seems to be a day for it… Anyway, there are three posts I want to call your attention to.

The first is by Rick who has posted it here. The second is here, posted by a student of Brodie and all around great guy, Gislebertus Hieronymus Anonymous to whom I owe at least three, may be six beers. Both of these sum up my position pretty well, at the moment.

Also, check out Tom Verenna’s post.

I’d hate for someone to check out Verenna’s post and come up with “cry me a river” while writing a mile long post that is nothing more than an Amazon full of tears.

Wait… better… Someone may respond to Tom with a river… the De-Nile.



You Might Also Like

7 Replies to “Moving Forward with the (a)Historical(ist) Jesus, or, shoot, I need better titles”

  1. From what you wrote and linked here, would you say that historical Jesus agnosticism is a plausible position to hold? I want to make sure I interpret you fairly, as Rick says he is agnostic and GHA is a reserved historist. At the very least, blogs like this look like the sorts of thoughts and discussions that ought to happen.

      1. Sure. By agnosticism I mean “I don’t know if Jesus was a historical figure or not”/”the evidence is too ambiguous to know either way”. On the other hand, ‘apathetic’/’apathy’ is the word that comes to mind when I see the phrase “I don’t care”.

        Also for clarity, I am more asking about if you think Jesus agnosticism is a respectable position, even if you don’t buy it.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.