spamandham

...as I understood what he was saying, the point was that scholars would tell you Santa lives at the North poll, and I agree with him, because the question is 'where does Santa live', not 'does Santa exist'.

The first question is answered by textual analysis independent of whether or not Santa actually existed. The same would apply to Tom Sawyer, if you asked scholars 'what river did Tom Sawyer float down', they would answer 'the Mississippi'.

...and the same thing happens when you ask 'What was Jesus' profession'. Only a small fraction of scholars have even attempted to address the question of whether or not Jesus actually existed.

Solitary Man

It's still a biased and ignorant question. If asked, "Did Jesus exist", most historians have and will say "Yes", opposed to the unanimity of scholarly opinion against the existence now of Santa Claus. Moreover, Shesbezzar clearly shows his American biases as well - do the Dutch believe that Santa Claus lives in the North Pole? What about the Germans? Russians? Greeks? Has Shesbezzar taken any of their opinions?

Huon

Everybody knows that Santa Claus lives in the country of the reindeers, except on Dec. 24 and 25.

And I wrote "Everybody knows", not "Everybody believes".

Sheshbazzar

But that was not the question that was posed, was it Man?
Not whether they Santa Claus exists, or even whether Jesus exist(ed).

What is being discussed in this thread is IF, or whether there is any scholarly "Consensus on Jesus".

It is evident, that unlike that simple Santa's Home Address question, that when we inquire of various scholars and "experts" concerning their opinions on the accuracy and historicity of the Gospels, and on how accurately these writings portray any actual Jesus figure, their answers range all over the place, and like the weather, are constantly undergoing shift and change.

Thus in this thread, claims of any "consensus" of scholarly opinion come off as being quite bogus, hence my originally tongue-in-cheek observation about a scholarly consensus of where Santa Claus calls home.
Certainly on a lot of Biblical/Historical questions we can elicit a short off the cuff reply, that might be mistaken as a "consensus".
However, just as it is with questions about Santa, when things get serious, so it is with questions about Jesus.
These same scholars who would almost all certainly reply Santa lives at "The North Pole", would also deny any literal beliefe in that statement.

So also with the subject of Jesus. Ask by what means was Jesus put to death, and you will likely receive a "consensus" answer of, "by Crucifixion" even from most of those scholars who are convinced that the entire story is fiction.
Such a "consensus" is merely a concession to popular opinion, and not at all reflective of scholars real opinions.

Amaleq13

Yes, you focused early on an ignorant minority position. That was my point in providing the more informed objection to the general consensus.

Sheshbazzar

Yes, I admit that I am an American, and that my location and culture background does affect how I might compose any argument, naturally I use examples that are familiar to myself and most of this audience, and even of those who are based in other cultures, still have some understanding of how popular and well known an icon Santa is in these United States, and where the American tradition places his home base.
I am aware that other nations have different traditions concerning Santa, but in general, posts on this board are directed to a predominately English speaking audience, most of which will likely be better acquainted with the American traditions concerning Santa. The U.S. is the nation most responsible for promoting him to god-like proportions, and turning his fable into a billion dollar a year phenomenon.

I also agree with your observation that most historians will and do agree to the premise that Jesus existed and is a historical figure.
The problem becomes, that although they have a "consensus" that he existed, "He" whatever he was, is virtually unidentifiable through all of the legends, myths, and dogmas that Christianity has dressed him up in.
Myself, I believe that Paul existed, preached and wrote, about 20% of those texts that the Church has attributed to him, the remainder being pious Christian theological fabrication.
I do not believe there was ever any individual who did all those things that the NT attributes to Jesus, and that therefore any other, "Jesus" who does not at all fit this outlandish profile, and did not do all these claimed fantastic things, is by definition, Not the "Jesus" of the Gospels.

Solitary Man

So what it boils down to is that your opinion differs from mainstream historians, and so you think that you are somehow more qualified than they are. Yeah, no cracked pottery here.

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 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.

Solitary Man

I think your babble about what you used to believe is starting to make my eyes bleed. Do you have anything worthwhile to contribute, or do you still maintain that scholars think that Santa lives in the North Pole?

Sheshbazzar

Hmmm, well yes, I do still maintain that most American scholars would be likely to go along with the popular opinion that Santa Claus lives at the Nort Pole.
After all it is all only a fable, nothing to excommunicate or burn the heretics over.