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reliability of the gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents.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?

[Acrobat]

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?

No, i’m not, what you’re doing is trying to pull a red herring.

Nearly all NT Scholars, and Near East historians, are confident that Jesus existed.
full stop. Which is all I have claimed as well.

Now while they tend to disagree about a variety of the details of his life, his words, etc… this has never been a part of my argument. Just that they do all agree on at least one detail, that Jesus was a historical person, unlike ahistoricist that suggest otherwise, or reject this.

You seem to now acknowledge this, that there is a consensus when it comes to Jesus existence.

And now want to suggest yes there’s a consensus view here, but it’s based on biases, flawed methodologies, unreliable sources, etc.. That the things that they use as the bases of such conclusion, can’t be called “evidence” etc…. This is straight out of a holocaust deniers, creationist playbook.

They note that there is no requirement of a man to explain the stories in magic book,

If there’s no requirement, then you should easily be able to offer an equally compelling ahistorical explanation of what transpired in that period here in the development of the early christian movement, which supposedly arose absent of a historical figure who was seen by his followers as the messiah, such as why a non-historical messiah would have died a humiliating death at the hands of the romans, or why we have an account of someone who claimed to have met his brother and disciples, or why Josephus mentions his brothers death, or why Tacitus wrote of him being crucified by Pilate, etc…

If you can make a non-credulous explanation for all this absent of a historical Jesus by all means, inquiring minds want to hear it.

But clearly you and others have failed to do so, and as a result have failed to validate your claim that such explanations can be formed absent of a historical 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?

No, i’m not, what you’re doing is trying to pull a red herring.

Nearly all NT Scholars, and Near East historians, are confident that Jesus existed.
full stop.  Which is all I have claimed as well.

Which "jesus" would that be?  

Now while they tend to disagree about a variety of the details of his life, his words, etc… this has never been a part of my argument. Just that they do all agree on at least one detail, that Jesus was a historical person, unlike ahistoricist that suggest otherwise, or reject this.

A consensus from lack of consensus sounds super solid to me too.

You seem to now acknowledge this,  that there is a consensus when it comes to Jesus existence.

And  now want to suggest yes there’s a consensus view here, but it’s based on biases, flawed methodologies, unreliable sources, etc.. That the things that they use as the bases of such conclusion, can’t be called “evidence” etc…. This is straight out of a holocaust deniers, creationist playbook.

So..the things in your wiki aren't actually to be taken as unimpeachable facts, after all?  The wiki says a bunch of holocaust denier and creationist type stuff? It's the "consensus of scholars" that little to nothing in magic book is historically reliable, not some novel proposition of ahistoricists.

If there’s no requirement,  then you should easily be able to offer an equally compelling ahistorical explanation of what transpired in that period here in the development of the early christian movement, which supposedly arose absent of a historical figure who was seen by his followers as the messiah, such as why a non-historical messiah would have died a humiliating death at the hands of the romans, or why we have an account of someone who claimed to have met his brother and disciples, or why Josephus mentions his brothers death, or why Tacitus wrote of him being crucified by Pilate, etc…

Which they do, and have, and offer contemporary additional examples of, yes.  Is there some specific explanation that you take issue with?  

If you can make a non-credulous explanation for all this absent of a historical Jesus by all means, inquiring minds want to hear it.

But clearly you and others have failed to do so, and as a result have failed to validate your claim that such explanations can be formed absent of a historical Jesus.

See above.

[Acrobat]

Which they do, and have, and offer contemporary additional examples of, yes.  Is there some specific explanation that you take issue with?  

All of them. Pick your favorite and defend it. Let’s see how quickly I can make you sound like a loon, a man in need of a tin foil hat.

Waiting....

Or if you want me to pick one how about the one in conspiracy series the Zeitgeist? Do you want to defend that one?

https://youtu.be/bmjQ1566ql0

Maybe we can go from there to the second topic in the series, about the global banking conspiracy, or how 9/11 was an inside job?

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, Okay?

There's little to nothing in magic book that we can take to be historically credible, and so there is no historical character of a jesus -in- magic book to consider...regardless of how the character of jesus in magic book was formed. You'll find that one in your wiki..which you certainly read, and take to be authoritative.


Why do you keep bitching about zeitgeist? Is that what you hoped to talk about? Why not just make a thread about it? We've got threads for those other things, too. We get alot of nuts, lol.