Atheists being asked about the existence of Jesus

[The Grand Nudger]

I thought we already discussed leaving out pertinent details...like the entirety of that wiki, which makes that one statement, and then goes on to describe everything that I have commented on previously.  

What you're doing is called quote mining, familiar?

Are you indicating that you will defer ultimately to whatever I may quote...from that wiki, because it's categorically authoritative?

---

although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.[nb 6][9][nb 7][11]:168–173 While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[nb 8] with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the  that Jesus never existed.

So. 

A "consensus of scholars" who can't agree with themselves..operating under a religious bias and saddled with methodological flaws...

The historical reliability of the gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents. Little in the four canonical gospels is considered to be historically reliable.[45][46][47][48][49]

....working from sources they take to be categorically unreliable......

There is widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings,[11] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptistand was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[9][11][54][55]

...producing widespread divergence about every potential historic legendary, and mythical detail of the narrative.......have decided that there are three things about their hypothetical historical man they don;t want to bicker about......his baptism and execution...

The mainstream profiles in the third quest may be grouped together based on their primary theme as apocalyptic prophet, charismatic healer, Cynic philosopher, Jewish Messiah and prophet of social change,[93][94][94] but there is little scholarly agreement on a single portrait, or the methods needed to construct it.[89][90][95] There are, however, overlapping attributes among the portraits, and scholars who differ on some attributes may agree on others.

..and that whoever "he" was..they have no idea who he was.

So much for the "consensus of scholars" on a "historical jesus". 

-and what, praytell, is the reason that they think even those two things? We have stories in magic book.

AKA, I've already commented on this shit. None of it poses any difficulty to the ahistoricist position. Ahistoricists don't deny that we have stories in magic book. They note that there is no requirement of a man to explain the stories in magic book, that we have no evidence of any such man, that the earliest christian stories make no reference to such a man, and that we can see that these narratives -don't- actually form that way by reference to ancient religions and modern well-documented phenomena like cargo cults. In sum, they posit that magic book itself strongly suggests that this myth arose like many other myths arise, and was historicized..like many other myths. It may even have become attached to charismatics who were grafted to the role of the mythical hero. Next?