Where did the Jesus myth come from?

[Atom]

Strong evidence? All you've stated is that Bart Erhman thinks there was a historical Jesus. That's it. If I can produce just one 'serious historian' that concludes that Jesus is not a historical figure, your argument falls apart. I would hardly consider this 'strong' evidence.

To provide comparable testimony you would have to produce a Christian saying that Jesus didn't exist, which is impossible because the person wouldn't be a Christian if they said this. I admit this isn't fair.

I can do this, but you are missing the broader consideration. If I grant you a historical Jesus, what do you think 'serious' historians think regarding this dude's divinity? I suppose at this point you will jettison the previously useful tribe known as historians.

I'm not missing the broader consideration, this broader consideration is irrelevant to the question "was Jesus a real person?".

The methodology of professional historians assumes naturalism, an assumption I believe is proper for historical inquiries. The majority of historical scholars do not affirm that Jesus was divine or that he performed miracles. It should be obvious that the assumption of naturalism makes these conclusions necessary for a professional historian. One has to set aside the assumption of naturalism to make an assessment of these questions. Whether this is reasonable isn't relevant to the question "was Jesus a real person?"

Some examples of the criteria used by professional historians include giving more significance to data from:

1) multiple, independent sources
2) enemy attestation
3) principle of embarrassment
4) eyewitness testimony
5) early testimony

The following conclusions were also arrived at by the majority of skeptical scholars when they weighed the evidence using accepted historical methodology. In addition to "Jesus was a real person" these scholars believe the following are also true of Jesus:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
7. The resurrection was the central message.
8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
9. The Church was born and grew.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).

What is important about the majority of critical scholars and their publications is the fact that they have reasons for their conclusion and follow accepted methods in performing their historical research. Anyone wanting to argue a case for a conclusion they like (or seek to make money publishing) can write a book offering ad hoc explanations for historically unsupportable conclusions. This includes a lot of books written for lay audiences, including many recent publications written by Christian authors.

Please note that I am not saying that these accepted historical conclusion prove that Jesus existed. I am saying that the majority of even critical historians applying the accepted methods of their profession, including the assumption of naturalism, conclude not only that Jesus existed, but that the 12 points listed above are true. In other words, these historians conclude that these events occurred because it is the best explanation for the historical data.

In conclusion, I've presented an argument for the existence of Jesus as a real person. That argument uses the following facts:
1) Bart Ehrman, an outspoken critic of Christianity, states unequivocally that he believes the historical Jesus existed.
2) He further stated that his professional peers also believe that Jesus was a real historical person.
3) Peer reviewed scholars studying ancient history reach conclusions by applying the accepted methods of their profession to the available data.
Taking (1) and (2) combined, and applying the fact (3) leads to the inevitable conclusion that the existing evidence weighs very heavily in favor of the proposition that Jesus was a real person.

I invited those on this forum to refute the argument I provided rather than insisting that the opposite conclusion should be the default and asserting the burden of proof is mine. This assertion leaves my argument unrefuted, something I don't mind this a bit. In fact it makes me happy!

A good start would be to cite credible peer reviewed historical publications describing how acceptable historical practices lead to the conclusion that Jesus was a myth. That would give us something to discuss