The more interviews of Reza Aslan that I hear, the more upset I am regarding their interview. There is so much I disagree with him about but the way Fox News handled the interview really sucked badly. Instead of really engaging him on what he wrote and what he believes about the origins of Christianity, they butchered their chance at really getting the truth out there. I wonder if this was calculated because that interview put him on the map and he sold more books than he would have otherwise. And while the following interview is good, I want to see an interview challenging him on his conclusions and "facts". Here is hoping he will do some of those type interviews.
▶ Jennifer Crumpton interviews Reza Aslan, author of "Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth"
John Loftus has recently posted an article discussing two books by Richard Carrier and Robert Price challenging the Historicity of Jesus' existence. Carrier has finally decided to write a book trying to explain what he thinks about Jesus. Price has been up front and honest that he does not think that Jesus existed and that most historians and scholar (Christians or not) disagree with him. However up until now Carrier has not been as dogmatic about it, but just suggested that Jesus did not exist. Loftus posted the following video. Carrier does not make a point to allege that he can prove emphatically that Jesus did not exist, but now he has written a book. I won't try to say that he is now saying the he can prove that Jesus did not exist because I have not read the book. However, the video does seem to explain that Carrier thinks that it is reasonable to hold the idea that Jesus may not have existed.
Richard Carrier's version
However Bart Ehrman says something qualitatively different
Bart Ehrman's Version
So which is it? Ehrman is an Agnostic. Carrier is an atheist. They both reject the Bible as being infallible. They both reject Christianity. They both reject Jesus' Resurrection. They disagree about Jesus' existence as a living person. They both can't be right. How do you know? The preponderance of evidence is on Ehrman's side. What about other professional historian?