Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Well, just like with the case of Mr Rhodes Scholar referenced above, I cannot presume to say, or even guess at, what the actual opinions of individual "mainstream historians" might be.
Yet as a human being I do take responsibility for what I am personally able to believe, or to accept as being both reasonable and honest.
I have no problem with the fact that some professional historians accept Jesus as being a "historical" person if that is what seems reasonable to them, although it also seems that almost all of these very same historians, have their own skepticism, doubts and disbelief of that overworked form of mythical/heroic "Jesus" figure that Christianity has presented.
When they say that "Jesus" is "historical" (in some sense) that is one thing, however when they begin to claim

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

it is also "historical" that he had thousands of followers that he was able to feed with one loaf of bread a a couple of fish, and there were baskets of leftovers. or that when he was crucified the graves opened and long dead saints arose from their graves and wandered around the streets of Jerusalem. THAT is not "history", it is nothing but pure old bull-shit, no matter how respected the "historian" might be that presents it as being history.

I have lived as a bible believer most of my life (and in fact spent last Easter Sunday at the home of a close relative who is the Pastor at one of the larger local Church's._ No, I did not attend the services, I did however sit at his table eating and conversing with him, and also visted him again on Thursday.)

To maintain any degree of personal integrity, I can only believe what IS believable, and cannot "believe" in something just because some will insult and treat me with contempt just for not "believing" fantastic claims that any rational, reasoning person ought to find unbelievable.

I might have been able to remain a believer my entire life, but it was, and it is, the nature of the claims manufactured by Christianity that has turned me into a non-believer.
In short, the Christian Church added far too many fantastic stories ripped off from to many pagan sources, and theologically "cooked the Books" far too much and far too long, and in my view ended up turning their Jesusgawd into something that comes across as being less believable than a comic-book character.

And the tactics and evasions employed by Christian Apologetics has only succeeded in making the entire pot of slop to stink all the more.

Originally Posted by paarsurrey

Hi

I think there is no secular source available with the secular historians. If there would have been one CatholicsProtestants must have submitted it; there seem to be none.

There is one undoubtful source of Quran only which mentions name of Jesus and that is why I belive he existed. GodAllahYHWH has created this universe and has not left it unattended; He knows everything and its in and out , so His testimony must be accepted and his testimony is enough, no further testimony is needed logically.

However, there is no compulsion to believe in Jesus- one of the ProphetsMessengers and Chosen one of GodAllahYHWH; please treat (belief in Jesus) as optional.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

Originally Posted by DrZoidberg

What about this theory. Jesus actually lived. Did some of the stuff in the Bible. Some was added, and all of it was embroided. Like everything else in history.

Originally Posted by J-D

You're absolutely right about expert consensuses being discussed here.

But every time they're discussed, invariably somebody denies that there is, in fact, any expert consensus.

Thus, for example, despite reading discussion here, I still can't figure out whether there actually is any expert consensus or not.

Can you?

Originally Posted by spin

Try posts #7, #8, #9, #11 and #19 (that's as far as I checked) for brief statement and discussion of the consensus in the field.

The negative reactions you may find here to a consensus dominated by potentially apologetic interests is quite understandable on a forum of infidels. Such a consensus has little meaning other than to represent the common views of christians. We have difficulties accepting any history written by cold war warriors for similar reasons. Ideology is not a foundation for scholarship. And that is notwithstanding the skills that the ideologue may bring to the discussion.

Further, some of those here have recently left the constraints of the christian religion and are angry or bitter and have difficulty listening to reason. Some are just plain illogical. My approach with this last group, once it is evident further discussion will not have any effect on anyone (either those involved or spectators), is to put them on ignore.


spin

Originally Posted by J-D

...What is the evidence that the consensus is 'dominated by potentially apologetic interests' (what does 'potentially apologetic' mean, anyway?) or that it only represents the common view of Christians? To me, it appears that if the consensus is as stated in the posts you refer to, then it does not represent the common view of Christians, who would not commonly accept, for example, that the writings about Jesus 'contain very minimal, if any, true historical details'.

Originally Posted by Toto

This is the consensus opinion of liberal academic Christians (and some not so liberal) - that Jesus existed but that the gospels are heavily embellished and mythologized. This allows them to recognize the obvious about the NT while still claiming to believe in Jesus, who must have been a charismatic individual to have attracted the followers who started the religion that bears his name.

That is different from the Christian-in-the-street opinion, for whom this is too subtle.

Originally Posted by J-D

What is the evidence that the consensus is 'dominated by potentially apologetic interests' (what does 'potentially apologetic' mean, anyway?)

Originally Posted by spin

What do christian seminaries produce?


spin