(July 25, 2015 at 12:01 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:(July 25, 2015 at 11:51 am)abaris Wrote: I'm not in absolute denial that a wandering preacher named Jesus might have existed. But there's no evidence of yes or no. So it's might. Even your new found love Ehrman can't take that leap. He's talking about his belief that Jesus was historical. Based on his study of the books. That will never go undisputed and Ehrman knows that.
Prove it. Cite a passage from one of Ehrman's books in which he claims that Jesus only "might have existed." Cause I'm reading his definitive treatment of the subject right now, and he is not waffling or sitting on the fence at all.
Quote:And yes, the pope and Ehrman speak about entirely different persons, since Ehrman does neither claim divinity nor supernatural capabilities for that Jesus person, whereas the pope just does that.
Kinda like the Jews and the Muslims and the Christians all worship different Gods because they view Jesus differently? Sorry. Doesn't work that way. Ehrman speaks of Jesus of Nazareth as a real person who really lived and was crucified by Pontius Pilate. Same as the pope.
Almost.... the pope would finish your sentence with "and was risen."
Bart, as far as I'm aware, doesn't.
I'll ask you again, Randy, what does Bart say about the resurrection?
