Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

There is an abundance of facts concerning the origins of Christianity, and those facts are the ink of the ancient manuscripts (even though the ancient claims are all untrustworthy).

Originally Posted by discordant

"Raw data" is the correct term.

Originally Posted by discordant

If scholarly journals are where consensus is to be looked for, then any further reference by you to a particular consensus will need to be accompanied by article citations. That is only fair.

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I strongly disagree. I have had a dispute with Toto and others about the amount of "evidence" for the origins of Christianity, and the disagreement stems from what the definition of "evidence" should be. I claim that there is actually an abundance of "evidence," but there is a disagreement because others believe that "evidence" only counts as "evidence" if it reinforces a particular theory.

So, I switched to using the term, "facts." There is an abundance of facts concerning the origins of Christianity, and those facts are the ink of the ancient manuscripts (even though the ancient claims are all untrustworthy). We have more than enough relevant facts to be able to draw conclusions, either toward a mythical Jesus, a historical Jesus, or something else. The output is not random, if you have an appropriate methodology. The critical HJ-scholars have consensuses on many more points than you may think. A consensus is reflected in the scholarly journals, not the bookshelves of public libraries or bookstores and not the Internet.

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

You are right, that does strike me as a better term.
I am willing to provide such citations at least if anyone doubts my claim of consensus or asks for the evidence.

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

And what exactly is this consensus?

Looking at THE SEARCH FOR THE HISTORICAL JESUS, Historical Jesus Theories and Historical Jesus Theories ECW, I see very little consensus.

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

I am a doubting asker anybody. Cite away.

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Is there any specific topic that you have in mind?

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Consensus of HJ scholars and evidence there of sounds about right.

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

That isn't a specific topic, so I will pick a topic with evidence on hand where the consensus of scholars is attested. In the book, The social setting of Jesus and the Gospels (or via: amazon.co.uk) (also found on Google Books), by Wolfgang Stegemann, Bruce J. Malina, and Gerd Theissen, on page 138, there is the heading, "The Consensus Position on Jesus' Baptism and Its Detractors," and the opening sentence is, "The judgment that John baptized Jesus but that Jesus' resulting vision is historically suspect goes back to the beginning of modern historical-critical study of the Gospels and has become the dominant view of several stages of historical Jesus scholarship."

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

There are a diversity of theories of early Christianity the same as there are diversity of theories of modern physics, and you would wrongly conclude that there is no consensus among physicists if you simply look at the list of physical theories that have been promoted. When I say, "consensus," I don't mean agreement among absolutely everyone, as there plainly is no such thing about any topic that you can imagine, but I mean agreement among the majority of experts. You will find many attestations to the consensus of scholars among the scholars themselves, including among both those who support the consensus and those who don't support the consensus. I suggest going on Google Scholar and doing a search that includes the word "consensus" or "majority" plus the key words for any given topic that you have in mind. For example, try doing a search for baptism john jesus consensus.