Quote: to spend the whole debate however long it lasts posting "scholars say..."

The problem is that some of those same scholars say that jesus was just some schlepper who got whacked by the Romans. Not very godlike.

Quote:7. "Either Jesus was a liar, a lunatic or he was LORD".

People who believe this shit are fucking lunatics.

(November 29, 2014 at 7:35 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The problem is that some of those same scholars say that jesus was just some schlepper who got whacked by the Romans. Not very godlike.

That's the only thing scholars say if they believe in the existence of an actual Jesus. The only one claiming differently are theologians and I would file them under the same scholarly category as Donaldists.

(November 29, 2014 at 1:34 pm)abaris Wrote: ]

So what? I already pointed out, I'm in agreement with Robert Price. But he certainly doesn't make your case.

Of course he doesn't, but he understands that his position isn't where the majority consensus is on this matter.

(November 29, 2014 at 1:34 pm)abaris Wrote: And it doesn't matter if they're christians, atheists or minions of the Flying Spaghetti monster. What matters is their work record and what their peers think of it.

I am talking about the general consensus here, and the general consensus is on my side.

(November 29, 2014 at 1:34 pm)abaris Wrote: The last one on your list is an obvious quack.

To who? To you? Or to someone where it actually matters what they think?

So what's the scholarly consensus regarding the resurrection of Jesus?

(November 29, 2014 at 2:04 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: If you were to go a little more in-depth, you'd find most of the historians you claim for your side don't base their opinion on the sources you've cited.

They don't base their opinion SOLELY on the sources I've cited...they use other supplementary sources...like the Gospels, Paul's Epistles...the origins of the Christian faith, and the testimony of the early Church...all of these things, PLUS the sources that I've cited is more than enough historical data for virtually all historians to agree that Jesus of Nazareth existed. It is not just one source, but a totality of all of those things.

I'm getting damn tired of yet another embarrassment to my faith beating about the bush. Sheesh, either crap or get off the pot already!

I'm going to take over. His Moronicry can sit down and let a real pro handle this topic. Everyone come join me in my thread...

The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part Deux) (Link to follow once I've posted)

(November 29, 2014 at 11:17 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 29, 2014 at 2:04 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: If you were to go a little more in-depth, you'd find most of the historians you claim for your side don't base their opinion on the sources you've cited.

They don't base their opinion SOLELY on the sources I've cited...they use other supplementary sources...like the Gospels, Paul's Epistles...the origins of the Christian faith, and the testimony of the early Church...all of these things, PLUS the sources that I've cited is more than enough historical data for virtually all historians to agree that Jesus of Nazareth existed. It is not just one source, but a totality of all of those things.

As far as I know, Ehrman pretty much only uses the NT as evidence for Jesus' existence (with a proper textual analysis, of course). He sees the evidence you cited in the OP as very weak.

Quote:the origins of the Christian faith, and the testimony of the early Church.

May as well use Grimm's Fairy Tales.