Bart Ehrman accepts Crucifiction

[thirddec]

Bart Ehrman has recently been quoted by Muslims as vindicating them and their beliefs but how can they quote Bart in any arguement as someone reliable that can be trusted if he also believes the Crucifiction occurred.

dougbeaumont.org/2010/01/21/can-historians-prove-that-jesus-rose-from-the-dead-licona-v-ehrman-debate-2/

Ehrman gave the example of the crucifixion event—it could be proved by historians but what it accomplished (death for mankind’s sin) could not.

Ehrman’s later admission that the resurrection would be the best explanation if God existed was surprising.

So Ehrman says Christ was Crucified and if You believe in God then the Resurrection is a must too.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

If I am not mistaken, he also accepts the historicity of the empty tomb. When I first started looking into the case for the Resurrection, I was surprised by how many skeptical scholars accepted as historical things like the crucifixion, the empty tomb, and the postmortem appearances. Rather than accept the Resurrection, they propose alternative explanations for these events, like the hallucination hypothesis.

 

[jlmagee]

Ehrman has made his celebrity turning textual criticism into biblical skepticism. He has done what the Jesus Seminar folks started out to do and been more successful due to the high profile he has attained. He may have a book coming out about the Jesus of Islam and how the quran is a better reliable witness.

 

[thirddec]

Still waiting for Big Dummy who asked me to start this thread so he could refute this?