The scrapblog of a theological noncognitivist.
Interesting second article, but I wish somehow he would confront them. I have no problem at all with the historicity of Jesus, indeed it is more plausible than his inexistence in my view, but 1)the Bible is no determining proof of either the particulars of his life or his existence, 2)his existence is in no way proof of his divine nature, 3)his existence is in no way proof of the existence of God and 4)his existence does not change the fact that the Gospels have their history wrong on many occasion, when they don't simply invent things up (such as the census). 5)even taking for granted that some of the Gospels are acurate, we know now that Jesus was mistaken on many account, for instance when he prophecised the end of days, something that was important enough to his message that it was kept in tge Gospels...years after he was proven wrong.
Adam did declare his atheism at the first session and he says that he sees his position as that of an observer rather than a saboteur. It will be interesting to see how this develops.