Is it ethical for Jesus to marry at a Chick-Fil-A?

[Kaelik]

Actually, I've read people who do. That's fairly irrelevant though, because the actual problem with the procurator/prefect dichotomy is that it doesn't actually exist. Philo and Josephus both call Pilate a procurator too, because the distinction between the offices is not really that distinct.

Yeah, and William Lane Craig believes Jesus exists because the Bibles are the inerrant word of God and he's had visions that say they are, so Jesus must exist. Somewhere someone believes stupid things, but my point is that the actual argument as it was/is (I don't know if it still is being argued or that everyone now agrees they are the same thing/not important) by scholars was that it makes it a second hand report.

Though funny that you would cite to a filthy evangelical atheist with bad habits regurgitates apologia because he is emotionally invested in Jesus not existing for that point.

Or are you admitting that Richard Carrier is a valid historical scholar with legitimate points about early Christian origins and that there are actual points of contention on whether Jesus existed in stark contrast to your earlier claims?

[Redshirt]

Or are you admitting that Richard Carrier is a valid historical scholar with legitimate points about early Christian origins and that there are actual points of contention on whether Jesus existed in stark contrast to your earlier claims?

Well you've already done a great gatekeeping job of making any dirty religious scholar completely beyond the pale. That's what I'm allowed to use.

More to the point, I've never pretended there aren't points of contention, or that the historicity of Jesus is a slam-dunk. I think it is probable that there was in fact someone named Jesus, who led one of the several millinarian cults in the region and got killed by the authorities. He got a bunch of fables attached to him over time and his mythologized form acquired aspects of other religious figures like Mithras. Things like his sayings, on the other hand, likely survived intact, considering two of the evangelists are clearly drawing on a common document of sayings that hasn't survived. (Not surprising considering the hugely destructive war waged in Palestine not long after he's supposed to have died.)

You spent a lot of time in your earlier post trying claim the title of King Nuance, but that's a rhetorical bludgeon, not a credible claim. The claim that there is *no* evidence for a historical Jesus is not a nuanced argument, and it isn't the same as "there are disputes about these things." Paul, who we know existed, claims he hung out with Jesus' brother. Unlike other mythical figures, like Hercules, the people writing about Jesus describe him as living recently, and interacting with people we know existed, like Pilate, or are pretty sure of, like John the Baptist.

[hyzmarca]

You spent a lot of time in your earlier post trying claim the title of King Nuance, but that's a rhetorical bludgeon, not a credible claim. The claim that there is *no* evidence for a historical Jesus is not a nuanced argument, and it isn't the same as "there are disputes about these things." Paul, who we know existed, claims he hung out with Jesus' brother. Unlike other mythical figures, like Hercules, the people writing about Jesus describe him as living recently, and interacting with people we know existed, like Pilate, or are pretty sure of, like John the Baptist.

I must point out that Forrest Gump also interacted with people we know existed, like John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Dick Cavett; or are pretty sure of it, like the guy who invented the Shit Happens bumpersticker.


Using real public figures in your narrative is an old trick to improve voracity.

And as to the other point, Ed Greenwood, who we know exists, claims to have hung out with Elminster.

[Kaelik]

More to the point, I've never pretended there aren't points of contention, or that the historicity of Jesus is a slam-dunk.

The only events in the Biblical narrative that have overwhelming consensus among historians are [shit that doesn't matter], and the crucifixion. Everything else is highly debatable or definitively false.

...

Contemporary commentators . . . all state it was founded by a specific person who lived in Galilee. Overturning that consensus puts the burden of proof on the people claiming Jesus didn't exist.

Which is it? Is the cruxification and therefore Jesus's existence an overwhelming consensus of all historians and commentators or not?

If you are going to make stupid wrong claims and back down, please at least explain how far are you backing down.

I think it is probable that there was in fact someone named Jesus.

51% is an overwhelming consensus of all commentators and historians? Or are you using a largely unobjectionable personal opinion on the front end to smuggle in all the other stupid shit you said about how obviously Jesus existed and everyone that argued otherwise is a lying piece of shit.

The claim that there is *no* evidence for a historical Jesus is not a nuanced argument,

On the other hand, nuance might allow you to differenitate claims about the value of evidence from the existence of evidence. For example, right off the bat, qualifers like "reliable" or "early" or "first hand" remove huge as fuck chunks of claimed evidence, since the most common claim is that the person in question had visions.

Paul, who we know existed, claims he hung out with Jesus' brother.

Or didn't, depending on which side of the legitimate scholarly arguments you fall on. Hey, I wonder what Richard Carrier thinks about your claim that Paul claims he hung out with Jesus's (biological as opposed to adopted by conversion) brother? Do you think that guy you just cited to to support your argument earlier who you apparently think is a legitimate historian of early christianity thinks Paul said he hung out with Jesus's Brother?

Or do you think that maybe actual legitimate scholars often dispute that claim you just made?

Unlike other mythical figures, like Hercules, the people writing about Jesus describe him as living recently, and interacting with people we know existed, like Pilate, or are pretty sure of, like John the Baptist.

As stated by hyzmarca, fictional and mythological people often are described interacting with real people. And of course, mythological figures like everyone in the Bhagavad Gita are described as living recently (to the authorship) and interacting with people they knew existed.

In fact, so did Greek Mythology, and more down to earth quite possibly mythological figures like Ulysses are described the same way in that tradition.

[RobbyPants]

Oh for fucks sake. The fact that everyone in that time period believed Jesus was a historical figure doesn't make him real, it means he was *probably* real and the burden of proof is on someone who claims otherwise.

Everyone? Really?

Who do we know of that actually asserted he was real (within a reasonable time frame)?

• Paul - had a vision, with two supposed witnesses. We don't know who these guys are.
• Author of the Gospel of Mark - we don't know if he was an eye witness.
• Author of the Gospel of Luke - borrowed from Mark and perhaps Q. We don't know if he was an eye witness.
• Author of the Gospel of Matthew - borrowed from Mark and perhaps Q. We don't know if he was an eye witness.
• Author of the Gospel of John - written far enough after the fact that he likely wasn't an eye witness.
• Authors of other gospels - I'm not sure if this helps or hurts the case. Sure, it's more pieces of "evidence" of Jesus, but the stories vary more than the better-known four, and I'm not sure in what time frame they were written.
• The early Christians - is there any contemporary evidence they existed before the writings of Paul?
• Josephus - one of of the two mentions is believed to have been added after the fact, and the other is so vague that we can't know it's talking about Jesus.

What else am I missing? Who is this everyone you're talking about? A handful of people believed him to be real, and it wasn't until well over a hundred years later that people started talking about him in larger groups.

[Redshirt]

I must point out that Forrest Gump also interacted with people we know existed, like John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Dick Cavett; or are pretty sure of it, like the guy who invented the Shit Happens bumpersticker.

And if that movie was one of the only extant things about Forrest Gump, and we were 2000 years removed from it, maybe it'd be remotely comparable.

Even if Forrest Gump was a good analogy, which he is not, he would do absolutely nothing to negate the evidentiary value the gospels provide for the existence of Jesus in precisely the same way he does nothing to negate the evidentiary value Frost/Nixon provides for the existence of Jack Brennan. If an author claims "this is not a work of fiction, so-and-so existed and was walking around about 50 years ago", absent some kind of direct refutation, the available evidence points towards so-and-so being a historical figure.

Which is it? Is the cruxification and therefore Jesus's existence an overwhelming consensus of all historians and commentators or not?

If you are going to make stupid wrong claims and back down, please at least explain how far are you backing down.

The existence of controversy or contention doesn't mean there can't be an overwhelming consensus. I'm surprised that you of all people would need that explained to you.

Now, if we're just eliminating, a priori, every historian and biblical scholar who also happens to be Christian or Muslim, then maybe there isn't a consensus. I don't know, I haven't polled atheist and agnostic historians of the period. I'm assuming you haven't either.

If we do eliminate all those historians though, what else of theirs do we eliminate? They did most of the scholarship that dates the gospels, establishes authorship and what's copied from other works, established that the "golden paragraph" of Josephus is an interpolation, and a bunch of other things we rely on to have any debate at all.

What else am I missing? Who is this everyone you're talking about? A handful of people believed him to be real, and it wasn't until well over a hundred years later that people started talking about him in larger groups.

I was frustrated and imprecise. Everyone who writes about him for the first 200 or so years treats him as a historical figure. More likely than not, their opinion is grounded in fact. Now, it is certainly possible that they're wrong, that the pool is too corrupted by charlatans and the delusional to be worth anything, but if that's the argument you want to make, you're basically pleading away what evidence there is so you can fill the gaps in the record with speculation.

[Kaelik]

First off Redshirt, learn the basics of forum edicate. This shit is bad form:

I am

a piece of shit.

If you are going to change author, put the new author's name somewhere in the fucking post.

If an author claims "this is not a work of fiction, so-and-so existed and was walking around about 50 years ago", absent some kind of direct refutation, the available evidence points towards so-and-so being a historical figure.

Which is why we know that Ulysseess is a real figure who definitely existed and not a clearly fictional person. Because Ancient Greeks definitely didn't tell stories ostensibly about ancient people who totally existed interacting with real people and places, but that were actually about completely fictional individuals.

And there definitely isn't an entire name for this genre called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagiography or anything, and we definitely have no evidence that Chrisitians did it too.

The existence of controversy or contention doesn't mean there can't be an overwhelming consensus.

I see, so you are a lying sack of shit. Okay, let me be clear. There is not an overwhelming consensus. If you aren't backing down from that claim, then you are a lying piece of shit. There is a signficantly underwhelming consensus made up of a bunch of pastors, and outside of that there are a bunch of actual scholars who actually specialize in the area who do not have such a consensus.

Now, if we're just eliminating, a priori, every historian and biblical scholar who also happens to be Christian or Muslim, then maybe there isn't a consensus. I don't know, I haven't polled atheist and agnostic historians of the period. I'm assuming you haven't either.

No, we are just removing the ones that are obvious shitheads, like William Lane Craig and his "PhD." Because even the actual Chrisitian Scholars who are even remotely honest admit that their is not a consenus.

For fucks sake you could start with The Quest of the Historical Jesus by Albert Schweitzer and read a book or article every decade and end with Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus: Memoir of a Discovery by Thomas L. Brodie, and the central thesis of all of them would be that there is no consensus on a historical Jesus and they could still all be written by Christian authors.

Everyone who writes about him for the first 200 or so years treats him as a historical figure.

False.

[Mistborn]

I'm not sure what the big deal with this is? Does it really matter if their is an actual flesh and blood person under the centuries of accumulated myth and legend? Whether or not their was a 1st century cult leader called Jesus the narrative provided in the gospels is already bullshit.

[Redshirt]

For fucks sake you could start with The Quest of the Historical Jesus by Albert Schweitzer and read a book or article every decade and end with Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus: Memoir of a Discovery by Thomas L. Brodie, and the central thesis of all of them would be that there is no consensus on a historical Jesus and they could still all be written by Christian authors.

Ok, cool, let's start with Schweitzer.
Here's the list of people he mentions who claim Jesus never existed:
Bauer

Here's the list of people who who treat Jesus as a historical figure of some sort:
Bahrdt
Reimarus
Hase
Paulus
Venturini
Strauss
Schweitzer himself.

I'm not sure what the big deal with this is? Does it really matter if their is an actual flesh and blood person under the centuries of accumulated myth and legend? Whether or not their was a 1st century cult leader called Jesus the narrative provided in the gospels is already bullshit.

Because the internet is a good place to pick fights and I don't like the way people approach the historical record? Kaelik is a high-quality opponent, what other reason do you really need?

[Maj]

There is not an overwhelming consensus.

Wikipedia[/url]]Most modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. There is a significant debate about his nature, his actions and his sayings, but most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7-4 BC and died 30–36 AD, that he lived in Galilee and Judea and did not preach or study elsewhere, and that he spoke Aramaic and perhaps also Hebrew and Greek.

For fucks sake you could start with The Quest of the Historical Jesus by Albert Schweitzer

Wikipedia[/url]]The 1913 second edition of Quest included a rebuttal to the "mythicists" of his day, those scholars who maintain that no historical Jesus ever existed.

and read a book or article every decade and end with Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus: Memoir of a Discovery by Thomas L. Brodie, and the central thesis of all of them would be that there is no consensus on a historical Jesus and they could still all be written by Christian authors.

You cannot count Brodie as he is a Christian author and clearly cannot write objectively about Christianity's originator.

The Mythicists are listed here.

[DSMatticus]

Most modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. There is a significant debate about his nature, his actions and his sayings, but most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7-4 BC and died 30–36 AD, that he lived in Galilee and Judea and did not preach or study elsewhere, and that he spoke Aramaic and perhaps also Hebrew and Greek.

I know the thread is long and full of annoying bullshit, but that has already been covered. You see, this man is an actual scholar. He has a Ph.D. and everything. But if you had ever heard him speak about anything whatsoever, you would know he is totally full of shit and the only thing he is a scholar of is "how to lie like a douche in the furtherance of Christianity." But because he has a fancy title and writes on certain topics he gets to count as a scholar even though he is provably a lying douchebag. And there are a lot of people like him - deeply dishonest (either through intent or drinking too much of the koolaid) "scholars" with an agenda who still get counted because both sides! (Yes, I've linked to that before. No, I'm not going to stop. It's too perfect.)

So when you say there's a consensus about a religious matter among "scholars," unless you start throwing down qualifiers on that to suggest minimum requirements of credibility all you're really saying is that a bunch of Christian apologeticists believe X and saying nothing at all about what everyone else believes. But you could also just go read the citations on the part you're quoting and find that they are super-fucking weak - it tries to claim consensus based on quotations from three people. Amaaazingly dubious.

The 1913 second edition of Quest included a rebuttal to the "mythicists" of his day, those scholars who maintain that no historical Jesus ever existed.

Okay, this one's just straight up your bad. "X is true" and "there is no consensus on X" are completely and obviously compatible statements for someone to hold. Kaelik is pointing out works that he believes show no consensus, and which position those works themself hold and defend is completely irrelevant to what they have to say about the existence of a consensus. It's apples and oranges.

You cannot count Brodie as he is a Christian author and clearly cannot write objectively about Christianity's originator.

What? Okay, you really did not get what Kaelik was saying and need to reread that more carefully. Whether or not Brodie is a Christian author with a Christian bias has nothing to do with anything, because the part that actually matters is whether or not Brodie wrote something to suggest there was a consensus or not. And if he did write something to suggest there was not a consensus, then the fact that his bias goes in completely the opposite direction of that claim is helpful to Kaelik's point, not harmful. Which he already says.

[Kaelik]

Ok, cool, let's start with Schweitzer.
Here's the list of people he mentions who claim Jesus never existed:
Bauer

Here's the list of people who who treat Jesus as a historical figure of some sort:
Bahrdt
Reimarus
Hase
Paulus
Venturini
Strauss
Schweitzer himself.

And if you read the book, he argues that all of them are full of shit because they use invalid methods to find the Jesus they were looking for in the first place.

I have no idea how you could possibly read a book to which the Thesis is "light all current scholarship on fire and start from scratch and you will be more right" and use that in support of the conclusion that "the scholarly consensus is that real Jesus really existed." He is very clear that people who write that Jesus exists in 1906 truly believe it, and have no fucking actual scholarship to support their belief, including himself.

I'm not sure what the big deal with this is? Does it really matter if their is an actual flesh and blood person under the centuries of accumulated myth and legend? Whether or not their was a 1st century cult leader called Jesus the narrative provided in the gospels is already bullshit.

Because history exists? I mean, we can all agree that at no point did Alexander the Great ascend into heaven to sit at the right hand of God, but it still kind of matters (to the extend anything matters) whether he actually conquered India, or just sat in a house in Macedon writing about all the cool things he totally did.

Wikipedia[/url]]Most modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. There is a significant debate about his nature, his actions and his sayings, but most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7-4 BC and died 30–36 AD, that he lived in Galilee and Judea and did not preach or study elsewhere, and that he spoke Aramaic and perhaps also Hebrew and Greek.

Unsurprisinly, Wikipedia is not an accurate summary of contemporary biblical scholarship. For one thing, if you said most scholars agree that Jesus spoke Aramaic, you would be laughed out of the room. As for the proposition of historocity being the consensus, it cites Bart Ehrman, who is known for viciously attacking scholars who disagree with him (So when he says "every competent scholar" he doesn't mean "I don't know of anyone who disagrees who is qualified" he means "I will slit your throat and drink your blood if we are ever in the same room Richard Carrier."), a man who's only higher degree is in theology, and a 100 year old retired classicist.

Wikipedia[/url]]The 1913 second edition of Quest included a rebuttal to the "mythicists" of his day, those scholars who maintain that no historical Jesus ever existed.

Almost like there is a reason I cited a book more than a 100 years old for the proposition that the historocity was and is not settled, instead of for the proposition that he totally is definitely not historical.

He also included a rebuttal of all the "historicists" of his day too. Because he thought that everyone was doing bad history, and they needed to do better history in order to find out the answer. Which you'll notice is nearly exactly the opposite of saying "we generally know what the answer is."

You cannot count Brodie as he is a Christian author and clearly cannot write objectively about Christianity's originator.

Huh what? Are you trying to parody yourself? Do you understand the concept of bias? If, you can't count on him to write objectively, you can count on him to, where he were to err, err on the side of historicity.

You can count on well trained historians to at least in some cases recognize their biases, and come to the correct conclusion despite them. That is one of the main ways to differentiate real scholars from William Lane Craig, since that fucker claims to have a PhD and therefore be qualified to talk about whatever the fuck he wants.

More specifically, since the point I referenced Brodie's work to support is the claim "You can find a christian author arguing for the lack of consensus every decade of the last 110 years" the fact that Brodie is a Christian is not only not a problem, it is essential.

If you are going to contend that I am not allowed to cite Christians as examples of Christian authors who believe there is no consensus on the historical Jesus then you should just leave this thread, and this forum, forever, or at least until you have gathered the very basic knowledge of what constitutes a subset of another thing.

[Maj]

You see, this man is an actual scholar.

One dude. Not representative of an entire field of study. Bitch about him all you want. I don't care.

it tries to claim consensus based on quotations from three people. Amaaazingly dubious.

So read the citations of the other link I posted.

Okay, this one's just straight up your bad.

Yes.

And if he did write something to suggest there was not a consensus

Yeah, I misread. Stupid me. But now I'm confused... If someone writes a dissenting opinion, does that break consensus? Is there a specific percentage of consensus that needs to be met?

then the fact that his bias goes in completely the opposite direction of that claim is helpful to Kaelik's point, not harmful.

Not really. You should consider what Brodie has to gain. And the answer is a lot: He gains a Jesus that isn't questioned. It's in his best interest to create an argument for why the argument over Jesus' historic reality isn't relevant.

[Kaelik]

You see, this man is an actual scholar.

One dude. Not representative of an entire field of study. Bitch about him all you want. I don't care.

No he is extremely representative of the field, which you would know if you read the actual citations of your other article.

So read the citations of the other link I posted.

Oh, you mean the exact copy paste from your other article that added four more theologians who don't have history degrees in support of the contention of historical consensus?

Yeah, not impressed. If you keep citing to one actual historian, who doesn't mean what you are citing him for, one retired specialist in another area, and a bunch of people who don't have history degrees.... you are not making the point. You are making the point that a bunch of people who want to pretend that Jesus is definite, when writing for a Christian audience, choose to say that they can bypass that question, basically without citing to anything else.

Technically I think Maurice Casey was cited in there somewhere, to give you an idea what is wrong with this field, Maurice Casey does not have a history degree, and furthermore, he verbally abuses real historians and questions their scholarship whenever they disagree with his claim that all the gospels, not just Mark, but all, were written between 35-45 CE, a claim that is on it's face ridiculous. He has straightfacedly claimed in print that the historical consensus is for such a dating of the gospels, the fact that he also claims the historical consensus is for historical existence is not surprising, but also completely meaningless.

[Maj]

If you keep citing to one actual historian, who doesn't mean what you are citing him for, one retired specialist in another area, and a bunch of people who don't have history degrees.... you are not making the point.

Can we also eliminate all the Mythicists who don't have history degrees?

[Kaelik]

If you keep citing to one actual historian, who doesn't mean what you are citing him for, one retired specialist in another area, and a bunch of people who don't have history degrees.... you are not making the point.

Can we also eliminate all the Mythicists who don't have history degrees?

I'm not advocating for the instant removal of all people who don't have history degrees from the study of history. I am perfectly willing to accept their arguments in the field, addressing the arguments that exist.

For example,like Maurice Casey, James Crossley, who also doesn't have a history degree, makes arguments for an early Mark. But unlike Casey, he is a legitimate scholar who actually knows what the consensus is, and does not overblow his limited evidence into the claim that it is obviously true.

But implicitly in talking about the historical consensus on X, someone who's studies to obtain their degree didn't involve reading as much history, especially not history that disagrees with implicit biblical studies concepts, gets no more authority than a layman.

TL;DR People without history degrees can do history, but their authority for claims about the historical consensus starts from the same point as laymen, and so they would have to demonstrate a real understanding of the field and relevant literature before we take those claims as authoritative. And for example, anyone who tells you John and Luke were written at the same time between 35-45 CE is not demonstrating that.

[hyzmarca]

I'm not sure what the big deal with this is? Does it really matter if their is an actual flesh and blood person under the centuries of accumulated myth and legend? Whether or not their was a 1st century cult leader called Jesus the narrative provided in the gospels is already bullshit.

I don't know. Are you planning to create a clone of Jesus using DNA from the Shroud of Turin? If yes, then it matters. If no, then it doesn't.

[Redshirt]

And if you read the book, he argues that all of them are full of shit because they use invalid methods to find the Jesus they were looking for in the first place.

I have no idea how you could possibly read a book to which the Thesis is "light all current scholarship on fire and start from scratch and you will be more right" and use that in support of the conclusion that "the scholarly consensus is that real Jesus really existed." He is very clear that people who write that Jesus exists in 1906 truly believe it, and have no fucking actual scholarship to support their belief, including himself.

I have no idea how you could have a hard time distinguishing between "the current consensus is flawed" and "there is no consensus" but hey, we all have our blind spots.

Just because you think Ehrman is a big meanie doesn't mean he's wrong about the numbers in his field. The response to it I've seen from people like Dykstra is that Brodie and a tiny handful of others prove that Ehrman is only mostly right. Mythicists don't seem to be well represented among tenured professors in ancient history or world religions departments. Whether that consensus is fair or reflects advances in scholarship is profoundly irrelevant to the question of whether or not it exists.

[Kaelik]

Just because you think Ehrman is a big meanie doesn't mean he's wrong about the numbers in his field.

No, but it does explain why he is wrong about the numbers in the field. Ehrman specifically says that he "knows of no competent scholar" who believes Jesus was a Myth.

Are you honestly that much of an idiot that you think he doesn't know who Earl Doherty, and Richard Carrier are while he is citing them in his works?

He obviously knows of competent scholars who believe Jesus is a myth. So yes, his well known penchant for being an asshole explains the comment much better than presuming he doesn't know people who exist who he cites.

The response to it I've seen from people like Dykstra is that Brodie and a tiny handful of others prove that Ehrman is only mostly right.

No, Ehrman is 100% wrong. It is literally a syllogism that Ehrman is 100% wrong.

1) Richard Carrier exists.
2) Richard Carrier is a competent scholar.
3) Ehrman knows Richard Carrier exists.
4) Ehrman knows Richard Carrier is a competent scholar.
Therefore ~Q, where Q is Ehrman's comment being used in support of the claim.

Mythicists don't seem to be well represented among tenured professors in ancient history or world religions departments.

Oh I see, you are an idiot.

If you think the historical consensus on whether or not a historical Jesus existed is determined by tenured professors who study Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, or Islam, then no wonder you are so confused.

The historical consensus is not determined by who gets tenure and occasionally teaches about Jesus. I mean, biblical studies departments are mandatory at all sorts of tiny shitty schools with religious backgrounds. The relevant case for or against a historical consensus for historical Jesus is not determined by what some guy who publishes on Ancient Greece says when you ask him, it is determined by the current published articles specifically relating to the actual existence or not of a historical Jesus.

So for example The Jesus Project is highly relevant. But Donald Kagan's opinion, and the fact that he has tenure are not.

[...You Lost Me]

Just curious Kaelik, why do you know so much about these people (so much being enough to name historians and comment on their credibility)? Is it years of arguing on the internet, or a personal hobby, etc?

[Kaelik]

Just curious Kaelik, why do you know so much about these people (so much being enough to name historians and comment on their credibility)? Is it years of arguing on the internet, or a personal hobby, etc?

Personal Hobby. This is my first time arguing on the internet. But I basically only read for fun fantasy/sci fi, and non-fiction Jesus scholarship. (Kagan I know from undergrad/he is really famous, so I just picked a super famous guy who is tenured in the Ancient History department, but who doesn't have a worthwhile opinion on Jesus, and probably has never claimed to have one, because like 95% of his scholarship is on stuff before Jesus allegedly existed).

[RadiantPhoenix]

This is my first time arguing on the internet.

Bullshit.

[Kaelik]

This is my first time arguing on the internet.

Bullshit.

Careless omission on my part. This is my first time arguing this subject on the internet.

[Redshirt]

Well, I'm pretty out of my depth at this point. I'm still skeptical that Carrier and other mythicists aren't a minority in their discipline, but I'm not going to do the research necessary to prove that one way or the other, so there isn't a good reason for me to contradict Kaelik on it.

[nockermensch]

This is my first time arguing on the internet.

Bullshit.

Careless omission on my part. This is my first time arguing this subject on the internet.

Damn. Way to ruin the perfect sig quote.