Your post must have been cut off. You were saying that you can think of lots of things that theologians agree on but the part where you listed those things didn't make it through.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No it is not.
I can think of a lot of things theologians agree on.
Your post must have been cut off. You were saying that you can think of lots of things that theologians agree on but the part where you listed those things didn't make it through.
Divinity of Christ - with the exception of Unitarians and JWs
The Ressurection of Christ
Original Sin
Baptism
Omnipotence of God
Why list if it isn't universally accepted?Omiscience of God - with the exception of a recent heresy called open theism.
Aseity of God
The universe was created by God (whether in 6 days or otherwise)
The Atonement
Ressurection and judgement
Love that you start your list of things every theologian agrees on with something that you admit there is disagreement about. And then repeat that a few points down.
Nope, not universally accepted by theologians - see the list here Christ myth theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Even the Bible contradicts this - Judges 1:19 for example.
Why list if it isn't universally accepted?
Okay, have it as something 99% of theologians agree on.
Prove it.The people who trot out that crap are always atheists
Yep, another example of an area where Christian theologians can't agree with each other. Thanks for helping my case.Without clicking on that link, I would guess that it is about a debate over infant baptism; not baptism itself.
So now you're saying Christian theologians universally disagree with parts of the Bible? The literalists might have a problem with that approach.We are not debating biblical exegesis, we are talking about the opinions of Christian theologians.
"Pretty universally"? Is that like "kinda pregnant"? Why the need for weasel-words if all theologians agree on these sorts of things?Because the perpetrators have been pretty universally shouted down, and with good reason.
Yep, so it is another example of Christian theologians being unable to agree on something.
Prove it.
Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says - The Boston Globe
Clearly, scientists can't agree about anything can they? Of course, any sane person would say that he was a maverick, but you can't say that without being a hypocrite, can you?
i don't have to; it is just a fact. Even Mr Carrier admits to being in a tiny minority. On another forum somebody took it upon himself to email historians in various universities, asking whether Jesus of Nazareth had ever existed as a historical person, and the replies were unanimously in the affirmative. But did that fact have any opinion on the numskull atheists on that forum? What a silly question. They knew what they wanted to believe, didn't they?
Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says - The Boston Globe
Clearly, scientists can't agree about anything can they? Of course, any sane person would say that he was a maverick, but you can't say that without being a hypocrite, can you?
Thanks for agreeing with me that this is another example where theologians can't seem to come to agreement.i don't have to; it is just a fact. Even Mr Carrier admits to being in a tiny minority.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?