"Well, gosh, when a historian, or anyone for that matter says that: "Jesus did not die on the cross" it is a blasphemy. "
No, it is something else: a theory. It can, presumably, be proven or disproven by facts and observations of events and records. If the statement can be disproven by OTHER facts and observations, then do so, by all means. Simply calling it "blasphemy" however, misses the point. I presume that it also relieves you of the burden of providing proof that the statement is false, which I note that you have not.
"I'm not aware of this artifical separation of history and theology clause you seem to be citing as a defense of blasphemy."
It is hardly artificial. Or do you deny ANY difference between proven fact and belief based upon faith? It is hardly possible to equally compare the two.
"Either "Jesus did not die on the cross" is a blapshemy or it is not. "
It is not. It could be offensive to one of the faithful, but that hardly constitutes blasphemy. It also does NOT invalidate the statement.
"Make a stand man and quit wiggling around like a spineless worm."
Unworthy of response. I can see that you are unwilling to discuss this with any degree of objectivity. Does one unproven hypothesis so shake your faith, that you attack it so? Refute it on the merits, use some facts, but please, spare us the Hellfire and Brimstone. It hardly contributes to the debate.
|
All I can say is wow. The mere fact that there are those from your side of the argument who have called such blasphemous screed fascinating and interesting leads me to believe that many on your side of the argument don't even believe the Bible.
If, Jesus did not die on the cross, then the Bible itself is a lie and anybody who believes that they can find any comfort in what it contains is a fool.