On "Scholarly Consensus"

[DeistPaladin]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehr...f=religion

Just read the first paragraph:

In a society in which people still claim the Holocaust did not happen, and in which there are resounding claims that the American president is, in fact, a Muslim born on foreign soil, [...]

Nice. Open by poisoning the well via false association.

is it any surprise to learn that the greatest figure in the history of Western civilization, the man on whom the most powerful and influential social, political, economic, cultural and religious institution in the world -- the Christian church -- was built, the man worshipped, literally, by billions of people today -- is it any surprise to hear that Jesus never even existed?

Argument from incredulity.

This unusually vociferous group of nay-sayers maintains that Jesus is a myth invented for nefarious (or altruistic) purposes by the early Christians

Straw man.

These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.

Ah, so anyone asking questions is going to be black listed?

"Are you now or have you ever been a mythicist?"

Historical sources like that are is pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind. Moreover, we have relatively extensive writings from one first-century author, Paul, who acquired his information within a couple of years of Jesus' life and who actually knew, first hand, Jesus' closest disciple Peter and his own brother James. If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it.

Finally, we've gotten past all the ad hominems and fallacies and have an interesting argument to consider.

My question is two-fold:
1. How authentic is the reference?
2. Does "brother" mean biologically or in the Christian sense, brother in Christ?

Moreover, the claim that Jesus was simply made up falters on every ground. The alleged parallels between Jesus and the "pagan" savior-gods

Back to straw men. The mythicist argument isn't based on this assertion. The basis is that there is no proof.

But prior to Christianity, there were no Jews at all, of any kind whatsoever, who thought that there would be a future crucified messiah.

Neither did Jesus fit very many of the other characteristics of "messiah". Neither did the Jews have any concept of salvation or an intercessor deity. The latter was completely blasphemous if the OT is any indication. Christianity is an amalgamation of pagan and Jewish concepts, with frankly more coming from pagan ideas.

based on a range of compelling historical evidence

Did I miss it?

EDIT TO ADD HIS CONCLUSION:

Whether we like it or not, Jesus certainly existed.

It's not a matter of liking. It's a matter of what we can know.