(July 25, 2015 at 10:04 am)robvalue Wrote:(July 25, 2015 at 9:56 am)Randy Carson Wrote: 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.
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?
I do and I did - more clearly than you, obviously. Crossless1 wrote:
"What else can he do (aside from being honest about the nature of his source material)? If he were to stop conflating the two, he'd have little choice but to recognize that there is no sensible foundation to his religion [emphasis added[. Christianity depends on this conflation and True Believers like Randy will fight tooth and nail to avoid facing up to that. The Gospels must depict history; it can't be otherwise for them [emphasis added]. It's not a conclusion he arrived at rationally, despite his smokescreen of alleged "facts". It's his starting point."
In the first highlighted sentence, he alleges that there is "no sensible foundation" to Christianity. This is an assertion that there is no historical basis for it.
In the second highlighted sentence, he uses sarcasm saying, "The Gospels must[emphasis added} depict history" as if to say that "Well, we skeptics all know that the Gospels are really BS, but for the Christian, it must be true, 'it can't be otherwise"".
So, you see, rob, my response, which defended the historical aspects of Jesus and the Gospels, was dead on.
