mountainman

Its called faith and belief.

aa5874

You don't seem to even understand the difference between "consensus" and "popular opinion".

You very well know that Scholars do NOT agree about the nature of Jesus but is engaged in promoting propaganda.

The CONSENSUS among virtually ALL SCHOLARS, HJ, MJ, AGNOSTICS, is that THERE IS LITTLE OR NOTHING known about the historical Jesus and that the Sources to provide the details of HJ are historically UNRELIABLE.

jakejonesiv

Hi MCalavera,

You set up the OP as a contest between you and aa5874.

If this were a martial arts movie, aa5874's Kung Fu is better than yours.
aa5874 has whipped you and wiped out your arguments, yet you keep playing his punching bag. Your message above doesn't even have a point.

Shouldn't you admit aa5874's superior intellect and become his disciple?

gurugeorge

Yes but that's just the point, there is no common consensus apart from "he existed", and possibly "he was crucified".

IOW, there is no common consensus as to the nature or characteristics of the hypothetical human being that's supposed, by HJ pundits, to be at the root of the Jesus myth.

All you have is scholars publishing their own opinions and interpretations of things.

You're far too trusting of the sociological process that puts "experts" in biblical studies where they are. That's not to say they are idiots, or not trying to be objective; rather it's just to say "this is not the scholarly consensus you are looking for".

It's like a dank, dark corner of academe that hasn't really had much scrutiny as to value; it's a legacy form of academic study from a believing age, and mushrooms have been growing there, and all sorts of weird insects ...

Toto

The Jesus Seminar is full of people with PhD's in new Testament studies, most of whom agree that Jesus existed - but they never discussed the issue. They assumed that Jesus existed.

It seems clear that you have just taken someone's word that there is a consensus of experts, but you've never looked into the question for yourself. Am I right?

TedM

Exactly. I read it the same way. I read Paul the same way. The folks that want to claim we have allegories and plays instead of theologically embellished histories, have to interpolate away the bits that say the opposite. Maybe they are right, but without strong evidence for those interpolations it looks more like they are pushing their emotionally based agendas instead of using their brains.

aa5874

Your are ridiculously wrong. This is so basic.

ALL Experts do NOT agree that Jesus did exist and was possibly crucified.

There are EXPERTS who support HJ, MJ and some who are Agnostics and are RIGHT NOW engaged in the DISPUTE of whether Jesus existed or not.

The quest for the historical Jesus was ALREADY abandoned because Experts could NOT find any credible historical sources for HJ.

Nothing has changed for the LAST 1800 years when Celsus UTTERLY FAILED to provide any credible historical sources when he argued AGAINST those who claimed Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost.

It would have been expected that such a ridiculous claim that Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost to have been EASILY REFUTED with documented historical evidence but Celsus FAILED Miserably.

The situation is the same today, 1800 years later. The claim that Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost cannot be refuted by HJers using credible historical sources.


Again, The common CONSENSUS among virtually ALL SCHOLARS, HJ, MJ, and AGNOSTICS, is that THERE IS LITTLE OR NOTHING known about the historical Jesus and that the Sources to provide the details of HJ are historically UNRELIABLE.

Sheshbazzar

And made sure that anyone not conforming to that pre-determined assumption would not be allowed to participate or to raise any questions or objections.
Convenient, to the maintaining hegemony of the party line, No?






.

Toto

They didn't even have to do that. They just declared the question not interesting. John Dominic Crossan said that there was no way to prove the existence of Jesus since all of the evidence could have been false or forged.

Doug Shaver

Here is a proposition. Do you agree with it if we set aside the question of exactly what percentage we're talking about?

It is essentially undisputed by competent authorities, relying on strong evidence, that some percentage of the New Testament writings, specifically including the Pauline corpus, consists of scribal interpolations, and these interpolations were apparently motivated by a desire to make the writings appear more supportive of a historically subsequent orthodoxy than the writings were in their original versions.