Doug Shaver

The question to which I responded asked whether there is a consensus. I responded correctly. Whether the consensus happens to be static or dynamic is irrelevant.

Maybe. Maybe not. I am not here defending the consensus. I am simply affirming its existence. My disagreement with it won't make it go away.

Doug Shaver

No, I didn't mean that. I meant what I wrote.

I'm not a bit surprised.

aa5874

Your reply is irrelevant. Deal with the issue. We are dealing with your fallacious and unsupported statement that Jesus most likely existed.

There is zero known information from any non-apologetic source of antiquity to support you. No non-apologetic extant writings have information or even anecdotes about Jesus of Nazareth, his teachings, his followers, his trial, his crucifixion, his so-called miracles or his parents and immediate family.

The Church fathers and the authors claimed Jesus was well known throughout Judaea and beyond, yet no non-apologetic writer of antiquity have been known to corroborate or even supply a legendary tale of Jesus.

Jesus' existence is most likely very, very close to ZERO.

spin

Slumming...
This is not striping away legend. The gospel Pilate bears no resemblance to the Pilate who was removed from his post for being so confrontational. Pilate made an impression so he was remembered in tradition.

"[A]round" passover is obfuscation. The gospels make it the day before the passover to explain why the body was taken down so quickly. Not striping away legend.

What's "apolocypticism"?

Umm, "give unto Caesar"?

Traditions can be quicksand. Perhaps there still something left once you strip away all the myth and legend... Anyone else wanna try their luck?


spin

Doug Shaver

Same here. But, until such a study is undertaken, I think a lifetime of reading mainstream history about that time and place justifies certain inferences about what the consensus probably is.

Let me note a couple of points about what I think can be justifiably inferred. I say there is a consensus that Jesus was an itinerant preacher. I don't claim there is any consensus about what he preached. I say there is a consensus that his followers founded the Christian religion. I don't claim there is any consensus about what his followers actually said about Jesus.

Solitary Man

This is your unsupported assertion.

Have you shown it to be legend? Oh no, just some more assertions without evidence by spin.

Sorry, apocalypticism. But of course, spin focuses on a single letter misspelling instead of actually dealing with the issues. No surprise, no surprise.

Exactly. But of course, refusing to read any secondary literature on the subject, you deliberately remain ignorant about any issues which surround it. Go you! Way to de-educate your mind!

If everyone is treated to the same hand-waving and logorrhea that you spew, I wouldn't blame anyone for not trying.

Amaleq13

Keep moving or you'll be charged rent.

Preached

Executed

J-D

Raising your voice does not add to the merits of your argument.

lmbarre

The consenus among New Testament scholars with the Jesus Seminar as a good indication, is that the historical Jesus existed. The big issue is whether he was apocalyptic or not. This generation of scholars genrally think not. I disagree. I hold he was robustly apocalyptic, indeed, a disappointed apocalyptic idealist.

spin

The consensus among Nazis with the SS as a good indication, was that the Jews were bad. Consensuses of interested parties are not indicative of very much. The trend around here is to try to deal with evidence rather than authorities.

When one deals with traditions whose origins lie in obscurity, it's very hard to get glimpses of any reality behind the traditions.


spin