The Historical Jesus III

[Joey McGee]

Finally, you have admitted that you really have nothing to contribute to the HJ argument but ********** up stories of Jesus and an irrelevant fallacy that there is a consensus of an HJ.

I've admitted it? Oh this is hilarious. You have a little fantasy going where you are "crushing" the arguments of others, right? I'm not admitting anything, I'm not conceding anything, you're running that little narrative in your head all by yourself.

The true consensus of Scholars universally is that the stories of Jesus are really ************up.

Why can't you separate the fact that Jesus was a person with the fact that the bible is full of ****** It doesn't give it any power that those events were true. This is called subtlety, a critical thinking necessity.

It would appear that Skeptics of antiquity were right since at least the 4th century.

1. Julian's Against the Galileans ------It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish...

2. Against Hierocles ----And this point is also worth noticing, that whereas the tales of Jesus have been vamped up by Peter and Paul and a few others of the kind,--men who were liars and devoid of education and wizards

Even those who argue for or against an historical Jesus on this very thread will CONCEDE the Jesus stories are *********** up.

Why is concede capitalized here? Is it a big deal for you to get people to ADMIT and CONCEDE things? The yes no question of did Jesus exist, it has nothing to do with the validity of the teachings of the bible or the miracles written in them. Could this be why you are so confused and emotional about this subject?

 

[maximara]

This kind of elementary logic is not how scholars of history approach their profession.

Have you SEEN some of the nonsense that comes out of Bible Studies (ie NT "history")?

Thallus is the poster child of when the Pro-HJ side goes off the rails trying to prove the existence of the Triumphalist (ie Gospel) Jesus rather then a possible Reductive (Historical) Jesus as this work is used to show that the three hours of darkness really happened.

Eddy and Boyd's 2007 Jesus Legend (Baker Academic) is a case in point. The reality is that what we have is a ninth century Byzantine writer named George Syncellus quoting the third-century Christian historian named Julius Africanus who is in turn quoting an unknown writer named '''Thallus'''.

Of this Thallus we know NOTHING.

Eusebius (fourth century) mentions something about a “_allos Samaritanos.” (the manuscript is damaged) who wrote a history that ranged ranged from the sack of Troy (1184 BCE) to the 167th Olympiad (which ended in July, 109 BCE). To claim this is the Thallus Africanus used the "scholars" say that the numbers are messed up and Eusebius actually ment 207th Olympiad (ending in July, 52 CE) or the 217th Olympiad (which ended in July, 92 CE)

In short they fudge the numbers and name to make it fit.

WHAT scholar of history does this? Why scholars of Biblical history.

Thallus is the smoking gun that the 'fix is in' and that a large part of the pro-HJ side is a total joke.

 

[Craig B]

Have you SEEN some of the nonsense that comes out of Bible Studies (ie NT "history")?

Thallus is the smoking gun that the 'fix is in' and that a large part of the pro-HJ side is a total joke.

What proportion of the pro-HJ side should in your view be treated as a total joke because of Thallus?

 

[IanS]

This kind of elementary logic is not how scholars of history approach their profession. Why do I get the feeling in this thread like I'm being preached to? So many posts are like a performance, with careful bolding, highlighting and emphasis.

Joey - I explained to you before something which as an un-arguable fact, and that is - you are not talking about neutral non-religious "scholars of history" in this subject. The people you are talking about are biblical New Testament scholars and Theologians.

The only reason that any of them can be associated with the word "history" at all, is because they are studying religious writing about the life of Jesus in documents that were originally written almost 2000 years. They are not interested at all in the general subject of history per se. They are instead interested only in studying the life of Jesus. If Jesus had been born in the 1950's then they would be studying material from the 1950's.

And the only reason they are studying Jesus at all is not because of any non-religious interest in the history of 1st century Judea or early Roman rule. But purely and entirely because of their own background as devout theists with an extreme interest in Jesus and the holy bible.

 

[Joey McGee]

Joey - I explained to you before something which as an un-arguable fact, and that is - you are not talking about neutral non-religious "scholars of history" in this subject. The people you are talking about are biblical New Testament scholars and Theologians.

This is false. "There is no scholar in any college or university in the Western world who teaches classics, ancient history, new testament, early christianity, any related field, who doubts that Jesus existed" That's who I'm talking about. Don't tell me what I'm talking about, and that I'm not paying attention...

The only reason that any of them can be associated with the word "history" at all, is because they are studying religious writing about the life of Jesus in documents that were originally written almost 2000 years. They are not interested at all in the general subject of history per se. They are instead interested only in studying the life of Jesus. If Jesus had been born in the 1950's then they would be studying material from the 1950's.

And the only reason they are studying Jesus at all is not because of any non-religious interest in the history of 1st century Judea or early Roman rule. But purely and entirely because of their own background as devout theists with an extreme interest in Jesus and the holy bible.

I'm well aware that this is what you tell yourself, and the narrative that you are married to, however, there is another world out there that you're not seeing because, of course, you've already decided that this is so.

More recently the "Jesus Myth" hypothesis has experienced something of a revival, largely via the internet, blogging, and "print on demand" self-publishing services. But its proponents are almost never scholars, many of them have a very poor grasp of the evidence, and almost all have clear ideological objectives. Broadly speaking, they fall into two main categories: (1) New Agers claiming Christianity is actually paganism rebadged and (2) anti-Christian atheist activists seeking to use their "exposure" of historical Jesus scholarship to undermine Christianity. Both claim that the consensus on the existence of a historical Jesus is purely due to some kind of iron-grip that Christianity still has on the subject, which has suppressed and/or ignored the idea that there was no historical Jesus at all.

In fact, there are some very good reasons there is a broad scholarly consensus on the matter and that it is held by scholars across a wide range of beliefs and backgrounds, including those who are atheists and agnostics (e.g. Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey, Paula Fredriksen) and Jews (e.g. Geza Vermes, Hyam Maccoby).


http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/

This is the reality of the situation. This is how the debate is framed. There may be a worthwhile debate about how good the evidence is. But what can't be argued is that a) Most people who are fighting against Jesus being a real person are of the "activist" mentality and are highly emotionally motivated to "expose" and "destroy" using this angle, a highly dubious strategy. And b) They are highly attached to their belief that only because of Christian influence does anyone seriously believe Jesus existed. Whatever the truth of the matter, this is the social reality.

 

[Joey McGee]

I personally want to take this chance to discourage my fellow atheists who are not historians from publicly making a big deal out of the historicity of Jesus, especially when engaging with Christians. Why? Because the historical consensus is that there was a historical Jesus. Responsible, mainstream, qualified history scholars who judiciously disregard supernaturalistic claims about Jesus and have no agenda to promote Christianity nonetheless, as a matter of academic consensus, believe there was a historical Jesus. Could they be wrong? It’s possible. But if they are, that is for qualified historians to prove, not laypeople. And it is for the field of ancient history to be persuaded to change its consensus before laypeople go around making claims that Jesus did not exist.

- See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camels...ny-the-historical-jesus/#sthash.zTBfYVRQ.dpuf

This is common sense. But that hasn't stopped a certain segment of people from running with it, all they have to do is claim that the academy is corrupted by Christian influence, completely denying that this is actually the case in ancient history, and then they feel free and justified to start pushing their personal conspiracy theories about how the wool has all been pulled over our eyes, all the while eying the goal that if you can just convince the world he never existed, you will make a major dent in the hold the religion has on society. It's all a complete fantasy.

We shouldn’t be giving the impression that disproving Jesus’s historical existence is at all integral to disproving Christianity. We should be making abundantly clear that Christianity is just as obviously false if Jesus did exist as if he didn’t and so the possibility or even great likelihood (if it’s demonstrated) that Jesus did exist does not hurt the core atheist arguments one bit. Arguing to them as though this is a central issue gives the opposite impression and makes our position seem way way more uncertain and vulnerable than it is.

It also pits us, for the time being, against the consensus of historians which makes us look willing to discard scholarship out of prejudice against Christians and, for the time being, leads us into guilt by association with a number of cranks.

Big time. Looks and smells very bad, someone has to step up and make fun of it, you should be thanking me.

 

[Belz...]

What absurdities you post!!!

Since you have not demonstrated that the people on the HJ side are Christians, I will assume that you are lying.

 

[tsig]

This is common sense. But that hasn't stopped a certain segment of people from running with it, all they have to do is claim that the academy is corrupted by Christian influence, completely denying that this is actually the case in ancient history, and then they feel free and justified to start pushing their personal conspiracy theories about how the wool has all been pulled over our eyes, all the while eying the goal that if you can just convince the world he never existed, you will make a major dent in the hold the religion has on society. It's all a complete fantasy.Big time. Looks and smells very bad, someone has to step up and make fun of it, you should be thanking me.

I see, on the subject of an HJ us laymen cannot have an opinion lest we be labeled Holocaust deniers, 911 truthers or flat
Earthers.

Saying "There's just not enough evidence" means we are committing lese majeste to the kings of academe.

 

[tsig]

This is common sense. But that hasn't stopped a certain segment of people from running with it, all they have to do is claim that the academy is corrupted by Christian influence, completely denying that this is actually the case in ancient history, and then they feel free and justified to start pushing their personal conspiracy theories about how the wool has all been pulled over our eyes, all the while eying the goal that if you can just convince the world he never existed, you will make a major dent in the hold the religion has on society. It's all a complete fantasy.Big time. Looks and smells very bad, someone has to step up and make fun of it, you should be thanking me.

Yes all that bit about trying to overthrow Christianity is a fantasy.

 

[Joey McGee]

I see, on the subject of an HJ us laymen cannot have an opinion lest we be labeled Holocaust deniers, 911 truthers or flat
Earthers.

Don't cry... I don't think this is a serious problem that you can count on having with sensible people. What is striking, and I think you'll have a hard time disagreeing with me, is that there is a certain kind of "mythical Jesus" proponent that shares the same kind of reasoning and motivations and attitudes and reasoning as your classic conspiracy theorist. Plenty of reasonable people doubt that he was a real person, but many also believe, or know that he was not. And they are highly emotionally charged about it, outraged about it really, and are hellbent on "exposing" this fraud and making a major dent in the religion that they hate. If you don't want to be made fun of as a loon, don't act like one. No one is actually persecuting you and shutting down debate with ad hominem attacks, persecution fantasies...

Saying "There's just not enough evidence" means we are committing lese majeste to the kings of academe.

That's taking things a little far and being a little too butthurt.

 

[tsig]

This is common sense. But that hasn't stopped a certain segment of people from running with it, all they have to do is claim that the academy is corrupted by Christian influence, completely denying that this is actually the case in ancient history, and then they feel free and justified to start pushing their personal conspiracy theories about how the wool has all been pulled over our eyes, all the while eying the goal that if you can just convince the world he never existed, you will make a major dent in the hold the religion has on society. It's all a complete fantasy.Big time. Looks and smells very bad, someone has to step up and make fun of it, you should be thanking me.

This is false. "There is no scholar in any college or university in the Western world who teaches classics, ancient history, new testament, early christianity, any related field, who doubts that Jesus existed" That's who I'm talking about. Don't tell me what I'm talking about, and that I'm not paying attention...

I'm well aware that this is what you tell yourself, and the narrative that you are married to, however, there is another world out there that you're not seeing because, of course, you've already decided that this is so.

This is the reality of the situation. This is how the debate is framed. There may be a worthwhile debate about how good the evidence is. But what can't be argued is that a) Most people who are fighting against Jesus being a real person are of the "activist" mentality and are highly emotionally motivated to "expose" and "destroy" using this angle, a highly dubious strategy. And b) They are highly attached to their belief that only because of Christian influence does anyone seriously believe Jesus existed. Whatever the truth of the matter, this is the social reality.

Don't cry... I don't think this is a serious problem that you can count on having with sensible people. What is striking, and I think you'll have a hard time disagreeing with me, is that there is a certain kind of "mythical Jesus" proponent that shares the same kind of reasoning and motivations and attitudes and reasoning as your classic conspiracy theorist. Plenty of reasonable people doubt that he was a real person, but many also believe, or know that he was not. And they are highly emotionally charged about it, outraged about it really, and are hellbent on "exposing" this fraud and making a major dent in the religion that they hate. If you don't want to be made fun of as a loon, don't act like one. No one is actually persecuting you and shutting down debate with ad hominem attacks, persecution fantasies...That's taking things a little far and being a little too butthurt.

You have a strange idea of a sensible conversation.


You seldom see such fervent preaching outside a pulpit.

 

[Leumas]

Tim ONeil forgot to tell us the proponents of the HJ hypothesis are almost always Christians who worship Jesus as a God and pray to him for Remission of Sins in order to go to heaven.

In addition, Christians must tell people that Jesus existed without evidence [by Faith] so that Jesus will bless them and give eternal life in heaven.

What utter lies you write!!!
Support that claim or retract it.

Since you have not demonstrated that the people on the HJ side are Christians, I will assume that you are lying.

Do yourself a favor and read this book

• Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed At All

If you have bothered to watch the video below (especially minute 0:57:30 to 1:02:30 as I have suggested before) you would know that the lying is done by the historicists and buybullical "scholars" and buybullical theologians and they have been doing it for centuries upon centuries and not too long ago they were not just lying they were also killing and torturing and burning people alive in Jesus' defense.

So please before you start calling people liars do yourself a favor and STUDY AND READ about what you are trying to talk about before you start talking about it so that your participation can be of value to the discussion other than ad hominems and red herrings.

I recommend this video for any people utterly bewildered by all the wrangling and vitriolic squabbling over RUBBISH and words with one letter difference and what appears to be "scholarly" analysis of what is no more than the 1001 Arabian Nights equivalent of tall tales and fables and fairy tales and myths.

If you wish to clear all the confusion and shed off the pall of sophistry and illogic being laid on people's brains then watch this video (and part 2).

Also watch minute 0:57:30 to 1:02:30 for a very good description of how the buybullical "scholars" FANFIC of Jesus tries to bamboozle people.

Watch minutes 0:40:00 to 0:47:00 for how forgery and circular reasoning are the mainstay of apologetics.

Part 1


Part 2



Also it would behoove you to try to read these books

• Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 Years
  
• On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt
  
• Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus
  
• Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth: An Evaluation of Ehrman s Did Jesus Exist?
  
• Killing History: Jesus in the No-Spin Zone
  
• Jesus Is Dead
  
• The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus
  
• The End of an Illusion: How Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" Has Laid the Case for an Historical Jesus to Rest
  
• Jesus: Neither God Nor Man - The Case for a Mythical Jesus
  
• The Christ-Myth Theory And Its Problems
  

If reading books is not your cup of tea then watch these videos

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUZOZN-9dc
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFW-1vPHnY
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5MUUP4l6l4
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3jvINxIcwc

 

[Joey McGee]

Also it would behoove you to try to read these books

• On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt
• Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus

Bayes's theorum? Sweet Jeebus... I see that Carrier has calcuated a 1 in 12 000 chance that Jesus was real. Hilarious. That guy has a reputation... did you ever catch the fact that he says

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4733

Fincke makes a sound case for two basic points: (1) amateurs should not be voicing certitude in a matter still being debated by experts (historicity agnosticism is far more defensible and makes far more sense for amateurs on the sidelines) and (2) criticizing Christianity with a lead of “Jesus didn’t even exist” is strategically ill conceived–it’s bad strategy on many levels, it only makes atheists look illogical, and (counter-intuitively) it can actually make Christians more certain of their faith.

So please. Learn from science. Dump the strategy of arguing that Christianity (or the New Testament, or this or that teaching, or anything whatever) is false “because Jesus didn’t exist.”

Fincke elaborates on this point, in ways you seriously need to consider. He’s right: first, “atheists should be properly cautious, disciplined, patient, and deferent to scholarship before committing strongly to beliefs one way or the other about the historical Jesus,” and second, “there are overwhelmingly clear strategic reasons not to get into fights about [this] issue with Christians.” He explains that last point even better than I do

Hmmmm Carrier pretty much says what I am saying all along here...

(There is a growing division, BTW, but it’s not yet wide…although I know other historians who privately confess they are willing to concede agnosticism about historicity but who won’t admit it in public, so the division is wider than we know–but until more go public, we can’t know how wide.)

Even Carrier concedes a consensus, and of course, fantasizes that it is smaller than is publicly known.

 

[Leumas]

Bayes's theorum? Sweet Jeebus... I see that Carrier has calcuated a 1 in 12 000 chance that Jesus was real. Hilarious. That guy has a reputation... did you ever catch the fact that he says

Hmmmm Carrier pretty much says what I am saying all along here...Even Carrier concedes a consensus, and of course, fantasizes that it is smaller than is publicly known.

It would be infinitely better for the Jesus FANFIC if Jesus was in fact a myth, because then he would be just as much of a god as any of the other gods that ever emanated out of the hyperattributive hyperactive benighted imaginations of quivering fearful sheep during the infancy of humanity.

If he were, as they foolishly want to prove, a human being then they would also be proving that their vanquished pathetic ancestors and themselves have been and still are being duped for all these centuries by a vile huckster no different from any of the charlatans throughout the annals of human folly like say Muhammad or Joseph Smith or Jim Jones or any from the long list of pernicious vile poltroons and brigands and mountebanks that have vitiated and retarded humanity on so many occasions and in so many ways.

If one takes the NT (as they have to do) as any kind of reference to this nothing of a normal flesh and blood deluded blaspheming great fool, we would not be able to conclude anything other than that the pathetic great fool was basically a servile coward who would, if given half a chance at power, be a vile despotic and xenophobe racist.

Moreover, according to the NT he was narcissistic, fatalistic, rude, arrogant, hateful and an egotistical show-off.

Additionally the NT tells us that he was a deluded, schizophrenic and blaspheming hoboing fool who went around raving about the imminent end of the world and how he was to sit on a throne next to his sky daddy in the clouds and anyone who fell for his insanity would also be rewarded with riches but people who thought him nothing but a pathetic moron would burn and scream and gnash their teeth in an eternal torture fest... much like his cultists used to do to humanity and would love to be able to manage to do it again now.

I must agree entirely with C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.”

That is the one thing we must not say. A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell[/HILITE].

You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse.
You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God.

But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.​

 

[Elagabalus]

Do yourself a favor and read this book

• Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed At All

....

I believe almost everyone on here is familiar with the book in question. It might behoove you to review some of the previous threads:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=269572

 

[Joey McGee]

It would be infinitely better for the Jesus FANFIC

honestly, wtf

if Jesus was in fact a myth, because then he would be just as much of a god as any of the other gods that ever emanated out of the hyperattributive hyperactive benighted imaginations of quivering fearful sheep during the infancy of humanity.

Quivering, fearful sheep... you're really into this stuff as a hobby you enjoy I guess.

If he were, as they foolishly want to prove, a human being then they would also be proving that their vanquished pathetic ancestors and themselves have been and still are being duped for all these centuries by a vile huckster no different from any of the charlatans throughout the annals of human folly like say Muhammad or Joseph Smith or Jim Jones or any from the long list of pernicious vile poltroons and brigands and mountebanks that have vitiated and retarded humanity on so many occasions and in so many ways.

I can tell you're mad bro! By saying that Jesus was a real person, that means I'm saying my ancestors were pathetic and vanquished? Well, I don't want that!

If one takes the NT (as they have to do) as any kind of reference to this nothing of a normal flesh and blood deluded blaspheming great we would not be able to conclude other than this moron was basically a servile coward who would, if given half a chance at power, a despotic racist xenophobe.

Moreover, according to the NT he was narcissistic, fatalistic, rude, arrogant, hateful and egotistical show-off.

Additionally the NT tells us that he was a deluded, schizophrenic and blaspheming hoboing fool who went around raving about the imminent end of the world and how he was to sit on a throne next to his sky daddy in the clouds and anyone who fell for his insanity would also be rewarded with riches but people who thought nothing but a pathetic moron would burn and scream and gnash their teeth in an eternal torture fest.

I must agree entirely with C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.”

That is the one thing we must not say. A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell[/HILITE].

You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse.
You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God.

But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.​

How incredibly unhinged... whether or not he was a real person, the bible is still immoral, and full of impossible stories. Whether or not he was just another cult leader, or it somehow was fabricated whole cloth, this really doesn't say anything different about our ancestors, what is the major difference? After the guy is dead, it stops meaning anything, everyone is being duped by it the same way... Anyway, please more incredibly verbose ranting about your hatred of the religion please.

 

[dejudge]

How incredibly unhinged... whether or not he was a real person, the bible is still immoral, and full of impossible stories. Whether or not he was just another cult leader, or it somehow was fabricated whole cloth, this really doesn't say anything different about our ancestors, what is the major difference? After the guy is dead, it stops meaning anything, everyone is being duped by it the same way... Anyway, please more incredibly verbose ranting about your hatred of the religion please.

What a load of nonsense!!! You have presented no evidence of an historical Jesus and have already admitted that your supposed consensus proves nothing.

 

[dejudge]

The Pauline Corpus is completely useless to argue for an historical Jesus since it is a pack of lies and fiction.

If Jesus did exist as a mere man then he did not and could not have resurrected on the THIRD day after he was dead.

In the Pauline writings it is claimed that Paul was a WITNESS that God raised Jesus from the dead.

The resurrection of Jesus was a fictional account yet the supposed Paul writer not only claimed he was a WITNESS of the resurrected Jesus but that he and OVER 500 persons was SEEN of Jesus after he was raised from the dead.

If the Pauline writer did actually preach, teach and document in the Roman Empire that he and OVER 500 persons were WITNESSES of the resurrected Jesus then we would expect the supposed later Gospels writers to use the Pauline post resurrection story as evidence.

No such thing happened.

There is no evidence that any author of the Gospels heard or read Paul's post resurrection story.

There is no evidence that any author of the Gospels attended a Pauline Church.

 

[Peregrinus]

"These words are found in "Against Heresies"."

A meaningless claim, since there were nearly as many "Against Heresies" as there were early church figures to write them - and some such polemics we know indirectly only through quotations, the originals having been lost. Your selected quote may or may not represent an orthodoxy; it may or may not represent a heresy; it may or may not even be an accurate quote regardless of its import.

See E-Sword for just one site which offers numerous free downloads of early church writers' manuscripts as well as accompanying commentaries. (Multiple biblical translations which can be viewed in parallel as well.) Time-consuming but worthwhile.

http://www.e-sword.net/downloads.html

 

[Joey McGee]

What a load of nonsense!!! You have presented no evidence of an historical Jesus and have already admitted that your supposed consensus proves nothing.

There is a long list of things that I'd rather do than argue the evidence with you, you've been saying the same things for years, over and over again, would be a giant waste of time. I prefer to point out certain other aspects of this debate that are important. You think you've got some kind of win that I understand the fact that consensus doesn't mean that the consensus is right? That's really funny. Wait, are you admitting that the consensus exists now?