John of Gamala Part 2
So - lawyers for both the priest and the atheist have had their say, and a judge is now deliberating on whether the priest should stand trial for criminally misrepresenting a fictional Jesus.
Was Jesus of Nazareth actually John of Gamala? Intellectually, it's a fascinating question, but it's meaningless in the larger scheme of things.
How on earth can this matter to anyone? The only religions that should be in a tizzy are those that interpret the Bible literally (which has always confounded me). The Catholic Church has long-since admitted that the Bible was put together from a host of choices, selected for inclusion based on their own agenda. So this won't be a problem for them.
Myself, I still see the entire situation as identical to ideological reactions to the Da Vinci Code. People are getting stuck in the details, and missing the larger message. If the point was to set a moral compass for society, does it really matter who said things?
Not to me - but it sure makes for some interesting discussions! I can't help but feel sorry for the priest, though.