ApostateAbe

The evidence I provided attests to a consensus of scholars regarding the historical point that "John baptized Jesus," which is a positive aspect of Jesus.

According to the consensus of critical scholars, Jesus preached the imminent doomsday to his disciples. Bart Ehrman wrote on the first two pages of his preface of Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (or via: amazon.co.uk), also on Google Books:

What has struck me over the years, though, is that the view shared probably by the majority of scholars over the course of the century, at least in Germany and America, is equally shocking for most nonspecialist readers. And yet it is scarcely known to the general reading public. This is the view that is embraced in this book. In a nutshell, it's a view first advanced most persuasively by none other than Albert Schweitzer. It claims that Jesus is best understood as a first-century Jewish apocalypticist. This is a shorthand way of saying that Jesus fully expected that the history of the world as we know it (well, as he knew it) was going to come to a screeching halt, that God was soon going to intervene in the affairs of this world, overthrow the forces of evil in a cosmic act of judgment, destroy large masses of humanity, and abolish existing human political institutions.

To be fair, Marcus Borg has also claimed that this "consensus" had once existed but has since evaporated, in favor of his own model, of course. There is more division than usual about the teachings of Jesus than other aspects of the life of Jesus, probably due to the ideological stakes wound up in that particular topic.

Toto

When scientists talk about a consensus, they generally refer to an idea that has been tested and accepted by an overwhelming majority of scientists, and can be treated as reliable. It is much more than a mere majority opinion. It implies that the consensus is robust and can stand up to challenges.

When HJ scholars talk about a "consensus" it seems that they often refer to what would otherwise be called the "conventional wisdom." They identify this in order to attack it or disprove it, as is the case here. This is a completely different use of the term "consensus." It might even be a misuse of the term.

When Christian apologists use the term consensus, they are generally trying to pull the wool over your eyes, by confusing these two uses of the term.

ApostateAbe

Remember that I am not using these consensuses as evidence for a historical Jesus or anything like that. I am only countering the false premise of a non-consensus used for an argument that the outputs of HJ scholarship are random or arbitrary.

Toto

Who is arguing that? The outputs of HJ scholarship are not random, they are determined by the ideological and economic stance of the particular scholar.

But if you agree that there is no meaningful consensus that indicates historicity, maybe we can move on to a real issue.

ApostateAbe

Toto, this conversation doesn't seem to be relevant for you.

jgoodguy

In that context, what about ideas that has been tested and accepted by an overwhelming majority of HJ scholars. I am not concerned at the moment about the historical or analytical accuracy of the consensus, but a list of positive attributes of Jesus an overwhelming majorityHJ scholars agree on.

In that context, the fact that many if not most of the majority of HJ agree that the JtB baptism did not occur is not what I am interested in. I am not interested in what did not happen. I am interested in the type of ministry for example. What sayings can be attributed to Jesus and so on.

Let me start the list.

Jesus existed as a historical figure in the early first century Judea.

jgoodguy

Toto said
I'd say that consensus is properly used by the HJers, but actual research by the consensus is lacking and while a consensus exists it is flawed. It is difficult to apply scientific terms to history because instead of empirical evidence it is ofter very fragmented, biased and intangible evidence. Apply the same inputs to a human and different results occur. That would negate replication of experiments needed for scientific proof from the get go.

ApostateAbe

jgoodguy, please excuse me, but I think you misunderstood some of the evidence I previously provided. It shows that here is a consensus in favor of the positive point that Jesus really was baptized by John, historically, though there is also consensus that the subsequent visions are historically unreliable.

Toto

Your use of this forum to spread misimpression and misinformation is relevant to me. You have tried to claim that mythicism is fringe nutter pseudoscholarship supported only by ideological atheists for improper motives. I have demonstrated the fallacious nature of these claims, but you keep repeating them.

Toto

How do HJ scholars test ideas? I think they just write papers and go to conferences and say to each other "I think you're right, by golly!"

A lot of these people are Christians and don't believe in actively challenging other's faith positions.