'Amir Alzzalam
Šayṭānist
- Messages
- 1,129
- Reaction score
- 342
- Points
- 83
I'm not, where am I "misrepresenting his stance"?Then why are you misrepresenting his stance about the physical existence of Jesus or Yeshua?
I'm not, where am I "misrepresenting his stance"?Then why are you misrepresenting his stance about the physical existence of Jesus or Yeshua?
I'm not, where am I "misrepresenting his stance"?
Yeshua Never Existed . . . Change my Mind
Erhman does a good job of criticizing most things about historical YeshuaBart Ehrman is not your witness. He believes Jesus existed. He believes the opposite of what you say ...
Typical of someone who has nothing to add . . . if you're done, please move along.Magic mushroom time of year, lol
Oh right. So that's your point? Bart Ehrman does not believe in God -- so of course he does not believe Jesus was the son of godTherefore, he does not accept Yeshua as the Son of God thing
OK, but those are two altogether different matters.Erhman does a good job of criticizing most things about historical Yeshua
He may have stated he believes that Yeshua existed but has yet to provide any real evidence
He also no longer accepts Christianity
Therefore, he does not accept Yeshua as the Son of God thing
Because there's no evidence Yeshua physically existed, if someone can provide that evidence then we can move onto him not being the son of Yahweh or anything else divine.So why dodn't you change the thread title to something like "Yeshua was not the son of God ... change my mind"?
The majority of 21st Century historians do not support what you say. I prefer to believe people like Ehrman who read Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic etc, and are familiar with all the documents and scraps -- who work for prestigious universities in international contact and ongoing research on daily basis with other respected scholars and historians ... so ...Because there's no evidence Yeshua physically existed ...
Of course you do . . . but do let me know when any of these 'experts' provide some archeological artifact that proves Yeshua's physical existenceThe majority of 21st Century historians do not support what you say. I prefer to believe people like Ehrman who read Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic etc, and are familiar with all the documents and scraps -- who work for prestigious universities in international contact and ongoing research on daily basis with other respected scholars and historians ... so ...
There are plenty of scholars who dismiss Yeshua's existence as well . . . Kenneth Humphrys wrote an entire book destroying this alleged claimThe majority of 21st Century historians do not support what you say. I prefer to believe people like Ehrman who read Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic etc, and are familiar with all the documents and scraps -- who work for prestigious universities in international contact and ongoing research on daily basis with other respected scholars and historians ... so ...
Then you can stop quoting Ehrman to support your argument?There are plenty of scholars who dismiss Yeshua's existence as well . . . Kenneth Humphrys wrote an entire book destroying this alleged claim
He also successfully criticizes Erhman's book
Review: Bart Ehrman – Did Jesus Exist?
Sacred pageant of celestial origin, miraculous birth, astounding deeds. Uncompromising exposure of the counterfeit origins of Christianity and of the evil it has brought to the world.www.jesusneverexisted.com
It's not a popularity contest, it's about bringing actual physical evidence to the table, not simply conjecture and theory.Then you can stop quoting Ehrman to support your argument?
Of course there are those who disagree. The question is how well they are regarded by other historians?
I almost forgot about this guy . . . thanks!
Would you like to have your mind changed?Change My Mind