Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 09-28-2009, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimBowe

My point is that even Bart Ehrman, a textual critic, agrees with the scholarly consensus that supports the existence of a historical Jesus.

But, in the very NT where it is claimed Jesus was crucified, it is found that Jesus was raised from the dead and that it was the resurrection of Jesus that was the most important event for SALVATION.

Jesus must have been raised for people to be saved.

1 Corinthians15:17 -

Quote:

And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

A most implausible and fictitious event becomes the foundational element of salvation. The Salvation of mankind is based on fiction.

It must be obvious to you that it could have only been BELIEVED that Jesus was raised from the dead, and it was NOT necessary at all for Jesus to have actually resurrected.

But, the resurrection must be BELIEVED to have occurred for salvation.

Now, likewise, it was not necessary for Jesus to have been actually crucified, just that the crucifixion MUST BE BELIEVED.

And finally, it was NOT NECESSARY for JESUS of the NT to have existed but that he was BELIEVED to have existed.

Jesus of the NT was just a story that was BELIEVED to have existed and resurrected.

The historical Jesus is irrelevant, only belief is necessary, since Jesus must still resurrect to save mankind from sin.

And we know the historical Jesus cannot be raised from the dead.

show_no_mercy · 09-28-2009, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimBowe

My point is that even Bart Ehrman, a textual critic, agrees with the scholarly consensus that supports the existence of a historical Jesus.

Let's see an actual argument for the historical Jesus, and not just assumptions.

TimBowe · 09-28-2009, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Like most other writers on the subject, he accepts the idea that there was a historical Jesus and goes from there. That's not a totally unreasonable appraoch, but it is not a defense of the historical Jesus in the face of critical examination of the evidence.

Then why are so many secular historians in agreement with the fact that it is probable that there was a historical Jesus? Instead of them saying no there isn't any good evidence to support it.

show_no_mercy · 09-28-2009, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimBowe

Quote:

Like most other writers on the subject, he accepts the idea that there was a historical Jesus and goes from there. That's not a totally unreasonable appraoch, but it is not a defense of the historical Jesus in the face of critical examination of the evidence.

Then why are so many secular historians in agreement with the fact that it is probable that there was a historical Jesus? Instead of them saying no there isn't any good evidence to support it.

Name one secular historian who has critically investigated the historicity of Jesus the Nazarene. And then cite their scholarship on the issue.

TimBowe · 09-28-2009, 07:50 PM

The Evidence For Jesus
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc...discover2.html
Please guys, read some of this and respond.

Ktotwf · 09-28-2009, 07:54 PM

Oh god. It says that the webpage cannot be found.

Irony...too...powerful...

TimBowe · 09-28-2009, 07:57 PM

Bart Ehrman is a secular historian , he is not a believer. He wrote a book about the historicity of Jesus called Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium.

He portrays Jesus roughly as Albert Schweitzer did.

Quote:

This is a shorthand way of saying that Jesus fully expected that the history of the world as we know it (well, as he knew it) was going to come to a screeching halt, that God was soon going to intervene in the affairs of this world, overthrow the forces of evil in a cosmic act of judgment, destroy huge masses of humanity, and abolish existing human political and religious institutions. All this would be a prelude to the arrival of a new order on earth, the Kingdom of God."

Ehrman's book is a historical-Jesus book.

TimBowe · 09-28-2009, 07:59 PM

The Evidence For Jesus

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc...discover2.html

Please guys, read some of this and respond.

Transient · 09-28-2009, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimBowe

The Evidence For Jesus
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc...discover2.html

Please guys, read some of this and respond.

Listen mate. Last time I followed one of your links (one that actually worked), it refuted what you were saying. I posted that and you never responded lol.

Do you read the pages that you link to or are you playing some sort of silly game with us.

TimBowe · 09-28-2009, 08:01 PM

No I read them

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-28-2009, 07:50 PM	#85
TimBowe Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Oak Lawn, IL Posts: 1,620	The Evidence For Jesus http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc...discover2.html Please guys, read some of this and respond.

09-28-2009, 07:54 PM	#86
Ktotwf Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Indiana Posts: 2,936	Oh god. It says that the webpage cannot be found. Irony...too...powerful...

09-28-2009, 07:59 PM	#88
TimBowe Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Oak Lawn, IL Posts: 1,620	The Evidence For Jesus http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc...discover2.html Please guys, read some of this and respond.

09-28-2009, 08:01 PM	#90
TimBowe Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Oak Lawn, IL Posts: 1,620	No I read them

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.