Evidence: The Gathering

[Randy Carson]

What is your point, abaris? That there are no atheist scholars who admit that Jesus existed other than Ehrman? That's a losing argument as you can confirm for yourself with a quick Google search.

So you mean Gerd Lüdemann after all. Would do you good if you actually informed yourself on what he actually wrote. I may be wrong about his atheism, but his book certainly isn't an apologetic work, since he's arguing for the gospels being wrong. Assuming you're refering to his book "Der große Betrug", published in 1998.

My point is, you're presenting to us what you consider to be the safe side. And you quite obviously came up with Lüdemann by looking at and knowing Craig without doing a background check on what Lüdemann's writing is actually about.

And as for his being expelled in your link - wrong again. He left there in 2011, aged 65, as professor emeritus.

Um...no, actually...the Craig connection was just a coincidence. I just Googled "atheists who admit that Jesus existed" and got a whole bunch of names.

You can do the same since my efforts were so unsatisfactory.

[Randy Carson]

Because to us - it's just a discussion, with almost nothing at stake. Randy on the other hand is desperately fighting for his salvation and the eternal life he's been conned into believing in - and failing at it. It's morbidly fascinating - like watching a venomous spider trying to climb out of the bath-tub.

I mean the atheist Gerd Ludemann who has debated William Lane Craig on the resurrection. 

Lundmann is indeed and atheist.  Like Ehrman, he became one through historical study of the New Testament.   It's a common story.   Baptists and other evangelicals warn seminarians not to go on to get higher degrees in theology for fear the will lose faith.   I find that rather telling.

Then why do all those Baptist theological seminaries offer PhD programs?

Jenny, that wasn't your finest moment...

[Randy Carson]

No need to do all that.

Simply provide a single quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church which explains to me, a Catholic, how and why I should worship Mary.

Alternatively, perhaps you could lay out a convincing argument that ALL prayer is necessarily worship. Can you do that, pray tell?

A third choice would be to explain that there are no real distinctions between dulia, hyperdulia and latria.

Do you have a preference?

Fancy words to avoid looking at the substance: saints here are worshipped just like the Roman gods were, barring the sacrifices. Praying to the image or statue of a saint *is* worship, no matter how you try to rationalise it

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/worship

Also, Hail Mary?

Hail, Caesar.

Simply talking to someone who is already in heaven is not worshipping them. Not even all prayer to God is worship.

There's thanksgiving, intercession, listening, whining and complaining...all those and more are common in our communication with God.

[abaris]

You can do the same since my efforts were so unsatisfactory.

No, it's unsatisfactory that you present a person who's work you obviously don't know. Otherwise you wouldn't have presented that particular person. That's my point. You're not big on background checks and expect us to embrace whatever you're coming up with.

That's the main problem I have with you. Your air of presumtuousness without actually checking your sources.

[Jenny A]

Why are we wasting time with this idiot? He is obviously operating under the influence of a blow to the head with a heavy blunt object.
[...]

Because to us - it's just a discussion, with almost nothing at stake. Randy on the other hand is desperately fighting for his salvation and the eternal life he's been conned into believing in - and failing at it. It's morbidly fascinating - like watching a venomous spider trying to climb out of the bath-tub.

Lundmann is indeed and atheist.  Like Ehrman, he became one through historical study of the New Testament.   It's a common story.   Baptists and other evangelicals warn seminarians not to go on to get higher degrees in theology for fear the will lose faith.   I find that rather telling.

Then why do all those Baptist theological seminaries offer PhD programs?

Jenny, that wasn't your finest moment...

And yet it's a true statement.  Seminaries do indeed warn students from further study.  Why?

[Randy Carson]

You can do the same since my efforts were so unsatisfactory.

No, it's unsatisfactory that you present a person who's work you obviously don't know. Otherwise you wouldn't have presented that particular person. That's my point. You're not big on background checks and expect us to embrace whatever you're coming up with.

It isn't necessary to have read someone's books to know their views.

You asked for names beyond Ehrman. I gave you some. There are others, and you can find them if you really need to do so.

[pocaracas]

I keep reading this thing that you write... It keeps grinding my gears...
A Jesus did most likely exist, I'll grant you that.

But what qualities does that Jesus have? What did he do?
What does Ehrman say about that Jesus that did exist? What do the scholars say about that Jesus?

A good chunk...maybe 75% or so, accept the Five Minimal Facts which I posted in another thread.

errr.... 75% of scholars accept the Five Minimal Facts?... well, considering that more than 90% are christian believers, I'm not surprised.
But that wasn't the question.
My english must be a bit off, every once in a while...

Concerning the historical Jesus that atheist and theist scholars accept existed, what did he do?
Or rather, what do they agree that he did?
I don't want your evidences nor your facts... I want their evidences. I want to know what makes them say that such a person existed and what did that person do.

Because, if we are to assume a man lived in the Jerusalem Area, a preacher, who gathered a following and who died for claiming to be the leader of this cult, then... that description also fits the Teacher of righteousness.

This is a multi-step process, poca.

1. Provide evidence that Jesus existed. (A bigger ordeal than I imagined early on given the absurdity of mythicism.)
2. Provide evidence that Jesus was resurrected. (This is based on indirect evidence and based on probabilities and not certainties.)
3. Provide an argument that if Jesus rose from the dead, then his claims of divinity are worthy of consideration.

Maybe there are probably other steps...but you get the idea.

Getting past step one is a huge hurdle in this forum.

Of course it is...
It seems to me that you want to settle step 1 through a means that would invalidate both steps 2 and 3... would you not keep them separate... that's why we keep bringing everything together for you.

[Randy Carson]

A good chunk...maybe 75% or so, accept the Five Minimal Facts which I posted in another thread.

errr.... 75% of scholars accept the Five Minimal Facts?... well, considering that more than 90% are christian believers, I'm not surprised.
But that wasn't the question.
My english must be a bit off, every once in a while...

Concerning the historical Jesus that atheist and theist scholars accept existed, what did he do?
Or rather, what do they agree that he did?
I don't want your evidences nor your facts... I want their evidences. I want to know what makes them say that such a person existed and what did that person do.

Because, if we are to assume a man lived in the Jerusalem Area, a preacher, who gathered a following and who died for claiming to be the leader of this cult, then... that description also fits the Teacher of righteousness.

This is a multi-step process, poca.

1. Provide evidence that Jesus existed. (A bigger ordeal than I imagined early on given the absurdity of mythicism.)
2. Provide evidence that Jesus was resurrected. (This is based on indirect evidence and based on probabilities and not certainties.)
3. Provide an argument that if Jesus rose from the dead, then his claims of divinity are worthy of consideration.

Maybe there are probably other steps...but you get the idea.

Getting past step one is a huge hurdle in this forum.

Of course it is...
It seems to me that you want to settle step 1 through a means that would invalidate both steps 2 and 3... would you not keep them separate... that's why we keep bringing everything together for you.

If you want to know what Jesus said and did, you can learn these things by reading the gospels. Have you done this recently?

[pocaracas]

If you want to know what Jesus said and did, you can learn these things by reading the gospels. Have you done this recently?

I want to know what the "historical Jesus" said and did. Not the fairy tale one you can find in the gospels.
The same "historical Jesus" that Ehrman and others accept existed.

[Randy Carson]

If you want to know what Jesus said and did, you can learn these things by reading the gospels. Have you done this recently?

I want to know what the "historical Jesus" said and did. Not the fairy tale one you can find in the gospels.
The same "historical Jesus" that Ehrman and others accept existed.

What does Ehrman say about the historical value of the gospels, poca?

"Whatever one thinks of them as inspired scripture, they can be seen and used as significant historical sources. With this major comment in view, what can we say about the Gospels and their witness to the life of the historical Jesus?

"Once it is conceded that the Gospels can and should be treated as historical sources, no different from other historical sources infused with their authors' biases, it starts to become clear why historians have almost universally agreed that whatever else one might say about him, Jesus of Nazareth lived in first-century Palestine and was crucified by the Prefect of Judea. (Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 74-75)