pg's "theology" is a strawman.
Theology is nothing but a study of the implications of the historical events concerning Jesus of Nazareth, those events themselves being subject to the historical method.
Either I am missing something, or pg is essentially implying some or all of the following:
1. The person of Jesus Christ did not exist in history.
2. There is insufficient information concerning him.
3. Studying the historical person of Jesus Christ according to the historical method is akin to, or of similar value to, the study of alchemy, i.e. a waste of time.
I seriously doubt whether any historian interested in ancient history would make such claims.
It's pretty ignorant and reckless coming from pg.
Theology is nothing but a study of the implications of the historical events concerning Jesus of Nazareth, those events themselves being subject to the historical method.
Either I am missing something, or pg is essentially implying some or all of the following:
1. The person of Jesus Christ did not exist in history.
2. There is insufficient information concerning him.
3. Studying the historical person of Jesus Christ according to the historical method is akin to, or of similar value to, the study of alchemy, i.e. a waste of time.
I seriously doubt whether any historian interested in ancient history would make such claims.
It's pretty ignorant and reckless coming from pg.