Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[robvalue]

So you respond to the accusation that you're conflating historical and magic Jesus by doing the exact same thing again and adding an appeal to authority fallacy. Historians are not an authority on supernatural events. No one is. That is the problem.

You just don't care about integrity at all, do you?

That's crap and you know it.

NO ONE and I mean NO ONE has posted more sourced material than I have. The majority of the posts in this thread have come from empty-headed individuals such as yourself simply popping off anything and everything that comes to mind on the spur of the moment. You are easily among the worst offenders in this regard.

Your posts are emotional and not rational.

You know damn well Ehrman does not believe in the ressurection for one second, so even your intended fallacy is dishonest. Do you have any idea what you are doing?

More poorly reasoned crap from you. Duh, of course I know what Ehrman's position on the resurrection is...that's what makes him such an outstanding source for me to quote. He's a hostile witness, rob...ever heard of the concept? Despite his views on the divinity of Jesus, he is invaluable as a witness to the historical existence of Jesus and the gospels as historical sources.

And since you have never read a book on the subject, you are flummoxed as to how to put together a coherent argument to refute Ehrman.

My response to Crossless1 shows that REAL scholars (as opposed to idiots on the Internet and this forum especially) agree that Jesus really existed.

This directly refutes Crossless1's allegations that Jesus was a myth.

What you replied to was us talking about you conflating historical and magical Jesus. Do you even read what you reply to?