Atheists being asked about the existence of Jesus

[The Grand Nudger]

[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]

[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.