RE: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1)
December 3, 2014 at 9:04 pm
(This post was last modified: December 3, 2014 at 9:05 pm by Mudhammam.)
(December 3, 2014 at 7:44 pm)robvalue Wrote: Let's see if I got this right now...Well, the mythicist case largely seems to rely on interpreting Paul's frequent saying "according to the flesh" to mean something else than what would appear obvious, and his references to Jesus being born of a woman and one under the law (a Jew) as being little more than something like spiritual qualities. Eh. I'm also skeptical about dismissing any passage that contradicts one's theory as a forgery, or as Bart Ehrman calls it, invoking the "principle of convenience."
I think in the non forged parts, Paul only refers to a celestial Jesus (carrier). It's another mythology that got shoe horned in and that's part of the reason they had to be sewn together into the ludicrous trinity.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza