...historical Jesus? I had the impression that Dawkins had previously denied that a historical Jesus was the source of the teachings attributed to him and the inspiration of the Christian religious. But in the debate with Lennox, he seemed to finally accept the long-standing conclusion of secular historians that whatever one's opinion of the "accuracy" of the Christian Gospel texts, a Jesus from Galilee lived and died in the first century and inspired his followers with teachings that led to millennia of religious devotion. But one Dawkins fan among my grad student colleagues tells me that Dawkins was just being facetious in order to emphasize his point that the historicity of Jesus didn't matter to him either way. (And therefore, he claimed that Dawkins considers the historical existence of Jesus irrelevant to his negative analysis Christianity and its God.)
I have not personally read the transcript of the Lennox-Dawkins debate. So I would like to know if my associate is correct in his summary of Dawkin's view of Jesus -- or are the many websites which relay the news of Dawkin's surprising concession to his debate opponents accurately reporting the debate?
OPTIONAL POINT OF CLARIFICATION:
==> Obviously, I am NOT asking for yet another rehash of everyone's personal diatribes about whether or not the Jesus Christ of the Bible lived in the first century. (I've taught in the Dept of Religious Studies on two major university campuses so I can assure you that I already know first hand what is the overwhelming concensus of modern scholarship, so save your venom.) Instead: I am asking WHETHER DAWKINS CHANGED HIS POSITION ON THE HISTORICAL JESUS.
I have not personally read the transcript of the Lennox-Dawkins debate. So I would like to know if my associate is correct in his summary of Dawkin's view of Jesus -- or are the many websites which relay the news of Dawkin's surprising concession to his debate opponents accurately reporting the debate?
OPTIONAL POINT OF CLARIFICATION:
==> Obviously, I am NOT asking for yet another rehash of everyone's personal diatribes about whether or not the Jesus Christ of the Bible lived in the first century. (I've taught in the Dept of Religious Studies on two major university campuses so I can assure you that I already know first hand what is the overwhelming concensus of modern scholarship, so save your venom.) Instead: I am asking WHETHER DAWKINS CHANGED HIS POSITION ON THE HISTORICAL JESUS.