Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Randy Carson]

Is Bart Ehrman, professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a respected NT scholar?

Does he say that Jesus existed as a real person?

If however, you are referring to my claim that professional NT scholars at accredited universities overwhelmingly accept the minimal facts as presented in the OP of this thread, then yes, I am. But not without sufficient reason for doing so.

The tide of opinion among academics has turned in the last 50 years or so, and the atheism that once reigned in the corridors of university philosophy departments is on the wane. This may not have trickled down to the howling masses in the streets, and it may not for other reasons, but it is true nonetheless.

Jesus really existed, and educated people know this to be true.

So, where do you stand?

#1 - Randy, whether or not Jesus actually existed as a real person or not isn't what we're debating, is it?  What is the title of this topic again?  When you make an argument like that pretending to have proved a point when in fact you've deviated from the subject matter altogether, you've only proved that you don't have an argument to make at all.  AGAIN, saying that somebody wrote down and believed in the account of some fantastic story is not sufficient evidence to prove such an incident as fact. There are thousands of stories written and BELIEVED by thousands of people regarding all kinds of fantastic things. YOU don't believe any of them unless they're in your bible. Why is that?  Your assertions are outlandish.

My "assertions" are accepted by the overwhelming majority of NT scholars. Please let me know if you have sufficient evidence to overturn the scholarship of all these professionals.

#2 - YOU have failed to outline the distinction.  You have given no reasonable arguments as to why your god is real and everyone else's is fake. Your god doesn't have the "goods".  The ONLY argument you've been able to make is that if the Greek gods were real, people would still worship them. That is not sufficient and I've already examined why.

Again, if you believe you have sufficient evidence to suggest that we should study the Greek gods for any reasons other than literary interests, please present it.

#3 - I was referring to your multiple posts yesterday inferring that other gods are not real because they're not widely worshiped or popular anymore. You made these inferences JUST YESTERDAY. You're playing dodge tactics, Randy. And it's in poor taste. If you want people to continue to discuss this subject matter with you, you should hold yourself to a higher standard of integrity than that. It's despicable.  Furthermore, I expect you to address ALL of my points in the future instead of picking out what you like. Everything I'm saying has context.

I will address your points in context when and where they interest me and are worth my time. IOW, make good arguments.

Nonetheless, to address your final statements:

Please cite the overwhelming number of accredited scholars who accept the resurrection of a man in the desert based on your so-called "facts".  They don't exist, Randy. There are certainly crack pots in every field and university who say all sorts of outlandish things. That certainly doesn't mean an overwhelming number of scholars share their opinions.

Ehrman destroys your position. See post #523 for full details.