Page 3 of 4

Re: resurrection and theological significance

Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2015 2:19 pm
by Metacrock
sgttomas wrote:Obviously Jesus was a real person. It's not even possible to question whether or not Jesus was a real person.



.....the Quran clearly states that Jesus was real.

Peace,
-sgttomas
:idea: :mrgreen: :!: :P

Re: resurrection and theological significance

Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2015 3:04 pm
by Michael Hill
How am I contradicting myself? So he wants to make a buck and he has his opinions. So what?

Ehrman does not claim to be perfect. No one is, especially not the mythical Jesus or the imaginary god.

Re: resurrection and theological significance

Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2015 7:17 pm
by Metacrock
Michael Hill wrote:How am I contradicting myself? So he wants to make a buck and he has his opinions. So what?

Ehrman does not claim to be perfect. No one is, especially not the mythical Jesus or the imaginary god.
you really don't understand what argument is about. you impugned his motives when I pointed out that he's against the myther thing. So you can't have it both ways, either you respect his view or his motives are bad and colors his findinjgs.

Re: resurrection and theological significance

Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2015 12:32 am
by Michael Hill
The truth is the truth, no matter who writes it. Even creationists have got it right some times.

When Ehrman can produce links and the bible to back up what he says, I trust him.

When he gives an opinion which he cannot back up, I do not trust him because if it were true, he would back it up.

Re: resurrection and theological significance

Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2015 2:30 am
by KR Wordgazer
Michael Hill, I thought this was a discussion about the historicity of the Resurrection. The whole "Jesus was a mythical character" thing goes way past that, into denial of historical consensus. Here is a synopsis of the evidence by a non-Christian:

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com.au/2 ... again.html

Re: resurrection and theological significance

Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2015 5:39 am
by Metacrock
KR Wordgazer wrote:Michael Hill, I thought this was a discussion about the historicity of the Resurrection. The whole "Jesus was a mythical character" thing goes way past that, into denial of historical consensus. Here is a synopsis of the evidence by a non-Christian:

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com.au/2 ... again.html

excellent article

Re: resurrection and theological significance

Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2015 5:45 am
by Metacrock
Michael Hill wrote:The truth is the truth, no matter who writes it. Even creationists have got it right some times.

When Ehrman can produce links and the bible to back up what he says, I trust him.

When he gives an opinion which he cannot back up, I do not trust him because if it were true, he would back it up.
Truth can't contradi9ct itself. Ehrman can't be biased when attacking Jesus mythers and unbiased when attacking Christianity. good scholars don't allow their biases to cloud their work,

Re: resurrection and theological significance

Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2015 6:03 am
by Metacrock
this is the kind of bull shit I left CARM to get away from. Little feeble minded atheists can't argue in a straight li8ne so they start brining in their pet excuses when they can't answer something,

we have said nothing about theological significance, but this thread is about the resurrection,

Re: resurrection and theological significance

Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2015 11:15 am
by Metacrock
this thread should not be here, I tried to move Mike's myther stuff to the myth thread and missed. I cut and pasted it to that thread,

Re: resurrection and theological significance

Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2015 11:18 am
by Metacrock
I moved mike's post to the myth thread because I told him not to post myther stuff here. I will answer his pot on that thread.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2731