Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Free]

The consensus of these historians is...

Motherfuckers have names?

Of course, and hundreds are listed in this thread.

[Rhythmcs]

False.

The consensus of these historians is virtually identical between religious and secular. 

Not, however, virtually identical between religious and secular scholars.....and the purportedly historical jesi in this thread.

[Phaedrus]

Hundreds of people wanting to direct false accounts.

[Free]

False.

The consensus of these historians is virtually identical between religious and secular. 

Not, however, virtually identical between religious and secular scholars.....and the purportedly historical jesi in this thread.

Really? Here's the list again.

Rudolf Bultmann, F. F. Bruce, C. H. Dodd, Neil R. Lightfoot, Joseph Fitzmyer, John Howard Yoder, Luke Timothy Johnson, John Dominic Crossan, Geza Vermes, Bruce Chilton, C. Stephen Evans, Craig A. Evans, Craig Blomberg, Leon Morris, Peter H. Davids, Peter Enns, Paul R. Eddy, Paul Wegner, John Walton, Jonathan Laansma, Darrell Bock, Dale C. Allison Jr., Richard B. Hays, Richard Horsley, Walter Brueggemann, James Charlesworth, Colin Hemer, Carey C. Newman, Michael W. Holmes, E. A. Judge, James S. Jeffers, Martin Hengel, Wayne Meeks, Dale B. Martin, Bart Ehrman, Rowan Williams, Marcus Borg, E. P. Sanders, Kenneth Bailey, Ben F. Meyer, N. T. Wright, James D. G. Dunn, Scot McKnight, Anthony Thiselton, Calvin Roetzel, Ben Witherington, Paul L. Maier, John P. Meier, Graham Twelftree, Birger Gerhardsson, Bruce Metzger, David L. Dungan, Ronald Nash, Leon McKenzie, Gary Habermas, J. Albert Harrill, Nicholas Perrin, G. K. Beale, Margaret Barker, Oscar Skarsaune, Andrew McGowan, Paul F. Bradshaw, John R. Lanci, Larry Hurtado, Gordon Fee, Birger Pearson, Karen Armstrong, Paula Fredriksen, James Robinson, Marvin Meyer, Markus Bockmuehl, Douglas Campbell, Peter Judge, Mark Goodacre, James Tabor, Hershel Shanks, Jean-Pierre Isbout.

And that's the tip of the iceberg, and they ALL agree that a man named Jesus, who was regarded as a Christ, was executed by Pontius Pilare circa CE 33.

Now let's see your list. I'll even start you off.

Robert Price, Earl Doherty, Richard Carrier...

And here is a short list of a mixed bag of these historians and others and their qualifications.

Michael Grant, eminent historian of the Roman Empire

Maurice Casey, Nottingham University

Prof Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina

NT Wright, Oxford & St Andrews Universities

Marcus Borg, Professor of Religion and Culture at Oregon State University

Geza Vermes, Oxford University

Prof James Charlesworth, Princeton Theological Seminary

Robert Van Voorst, Western Theological Seminary

M A Powell, Trinity Lutheran Seminary

Larry Hurtado, Emeritus Professor, Edinburgh University

Prof Craig Evans, Arcadia Divinity College, Arcadia University

J Paget, Cambridge University

Emeritus Professor Edwin Judge, Ancient History Research Centre, Macquarie University, Sydney

A.E. Harvey, formerly at Oxford University

EP Sanders, Oxford & Duke Universities

[Rhythmcs]

You're arguing against the specter of myth, but I'm noting that you reject the consensus of scholars, yourself, in this thread. You think that things not contained in that consensus, and not contained even in your three line description (which has an extra bit also not in the consensus of scholars)...and ideas explicitly rejected by the consensus of scholars are still..nevertheless..historic events.

They may be, the consensus of scholars may be wrong.

Me, personally, as I've said..I don't think there was any jesus the man, or at least no jesus the man we can piece together from what we have. As far as the mythicists go..I think they've done good work establishing that beliefs in christ are so disparate in how they arose and developed from any reality about a jesus the man, that there actually having been any such man would be a pyrrhic victory, for those it matters to, at best.

[Free]

You're arguing against the specter of myth, but I'm noting that you reject the consensus of scholars, yourself, in this thread.  You think that things not contained in that consensus, and not contained even in your three line description (which has an extra bit also not in the consensus of scholars)...and ideas explicitly rejected by the consensus of scholars are still..nevertheless..historic events.  

They may be, the consensus of scholars may be wrong.

Me, personally, as I've said..I don't think there was any jesus the man, or at least no jesus the man we can piece together from what we have.  As far as the mythicists go..I think they've done good work establishing that beliefs in christ are so disparate in how they arose and developed from any reality about a jesus the man, that there actually having been any such man would be a pyrrhic victory, for those it matters to, at best.

What I agree with, they all agree with. It's the one thing none of them disagrees with. Sure, some will say that the baptism by John likely happened, and others will disagree. In the end what they disagree about is all a matter of opinion because the evidence for all the other things is by far and wide inferior to the evidence that supports the crucifixion by Pilate.

It's not about the peripherals that we disagree about, but about that one common thing that has 100% agreement.

My position as always is this:

Q: Did Jesus exist?
A: Likely.
Q: Did he positively exist?
A: Fucked if I know.

[Phaedrus]

No, his historical existence is far from likely

[Free]

No, his historical existence is far from likely

According to who?

[Phaedrus]

No, his historical existence is far from likely

According to who?

Wrong question.

The proper question: according to what?
The answer: reason

[Free]

According to who?

Wrong question.

The proper question: according to what?
The answer: reason

And the same answer applies:

According to who?

[Phaedrus]

Irrelevant.

[Minimalist]

Just for the hell of it I took the first line of your list and did a little research.  By coincidence there were ten names in that line and here is the result.

Rudolf Karl Bultmann was a German Lutheran theologian and professor of the New Testament at the University of Marburg.
 
 
Frederick Fyvie Bruce FBA, usually cited as F. F. Bruce, was a Scottish biblical scholar who supported the historical reliability of the New Testament.
 
 
Charles Harold Dodd CH FBA was a Welsh New Testament scholar and influential Protestant theologian.
 
 
Neil R. Lightfoot (PhD, Duke University) serves as Frank Pack Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Abilene Christian University in Abilene, Texas.
 
 
Joseph Augustine Fitzmyer SJ was an American Jesuit priest and professor who taught at The Catholic University of America in Washington, DC. Fitzmyer specialized in biblical studies, particularly the New Testament.
 
John Howard Yoder was an American theologian and ethicist best known for his defense of Christian pacifism. His most influential book was The Politics of Jesus, which was first published in 1972. Yoder was a Mennonite and wrote from an Anabaptist perspective.
 
Luke Timothy Johnson is an American New Testament scholar and historian of early Christianity. He is the Robert W. Woodruff Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins at Candler School of Theology
 
 
John Dominic Crossan is an Irish-American New Testament scholar, historian of early Christianity, former Catholic priest who was a prominent member of the Jesus Seminar, and emeritus professor at DePaul University.
 
Géza Vermes, FBA was a British academic, Biblical scholar, and Judaist of Hungarian Jewish descent—one who also served as a Catholic priest in his youth—and scholar specialized in the field of the history of religion, particularly ancient Judaism and early Christianity.
 
 
Bruce D. Chilton is an American scholar of early Christianity and Judaism. He is Bernard Iddings Bell Professor of Religion at Bard College, former Rector of the Church of St John the Evangelist

What a surprise.  I went 10 for 10 in bible thumpers!  But what is their evidence for such beliefs?  Ultimately it is those fucking gospels which is all they or you have and I know you do not consider those to be primary sources.

But here is another example for you - one which will not run into your apparent confirmation bias. Surah 54:1 reports that "allah" split the moon.  This site:  https://lifeinsaudiarabia.net/how-prophe...n-in-half/  provides the names of "witnesses" who saw the moon split in half.
Am I to assume that your willingness to believe in silly religious shit extends to Islam?  Or do you draw the line in the sand?

So, no.  I am not impressed by your list of theologians who claim that it is all real.  I like to look at the evidence and think for myself without relying on people with an agenda.

And I think your gospels are a pile of shit.

[Phaedrus]

As usual, names tainted by clear bias.

Which is why whom is irrelevant.

[Rhythmcs]

-and on that note - since I suspect this will be a much more productive avenue between us...

Let's suppose john is the one that got the historical detail right, rather than john explaining his own theology, paralleling the OT. That would be fascinating. HJ researchers...and just biblical scholars in general, managed to get something so profoundly wrong that they mislabeled the gospels entirely. Matthew, mark and luke aren't the synoptics - it's john that provides a synopsis of the actual life of a historic man.

[Free]

Irrelevant.

Totally relevant. If it's your own reasoning, that's fine. People can accept or reject it depending on its value. Since you are not an expert on the subject, I prefer to defer to those who are and elevate their opinions due to their expertise.

To me it's no different with how most Democrats in the USA will listen and adhere to the expertise of Dr. Fauci, while most Conservatives reject his expertise, despite his impeccable credentials. And then the math shows the COVID killed more people per capita in Republican states than in Democrat states.

Caveat emptor, my friend.

[Phaedrus]

With ill reasoning like that, you might as well be a theist.

[Free]

With ill reasoning like that, you might as well be a theist.

Assertions like that are not evidence of anything.

[Phaedrus]

Much like villains don't view themselves as such, am I right?

[Inkubus]

...They may be, the consensus of scholars may be wrong...

For the millionth time the word "scholar" is not a protected term, anyone can call themselves a scholar. Most names on that list our lad chucked up are theologians.

Rowan Williams, The Archbishop of Canterbury?

Get the fuck out of here.

[Inkubus]

Not, however, virtually identical between religious and secular scholars.....and the purportedly historical jesi in this thread.

Really? Here's the list again.

Rudolf Bultmann, F. F. Bruce, C. H. Dodd, Neil R. Lightfoot, Joseph Fitzmyer, John Howard Yoder, Luke Timothy Johnson, John Dominic Crossan, Geza Vermes, Bruce Chilton, C. Stephen Evans, Craig A. Evans, Craig Blomberg, Leon Morris, Peter H. Davids, Peter Enns, Paul R. Eddy, Paul Wegner, John Walton, Jonathan Laansma, Darrell Bock, Dale C. Allison Jr., Richard B. Hays, Richard Horsley, Walter Brueggemann, James Charlesworth, Colin Hemer, Carey C. Newman, Michael W. Holmes, E. A. Judge, James S. Jeffers, Martin Hengel, Wayne Meeks, Dale B. Martin, Bart Ehrman, Rowan Williams, Marcus Borg, E. P. Sanders, Kenneth Bailey, Ben F. Meyer, N. T. Wright, James D. G. Dunn, Scot McKnight, Anthony Thiselton, Calvin Roetzel, Ben Witherington, Paul L. Maier, John P. Meier, Graham Twelftree, Birger Gerhardsson, Bruce Metzger, David L. Dungan, Ronald Nash, Leon McKenzie, Gary Habermas, J. Albert Harrill, Nicholas Perrin, G. K. Beale, Margaret Barker, Oscar Skarsaune, Andrew McGowan, Paul F. Bradshaw, John R. Lanci, Larry Hurtado, Gordon Fee, Birger Pearson, Karen Armstrong, Paula Fredriksen, James Robinson, Marvin Meyer, Markus Bockmuehl, Douglas Campbell, Peter Judge, Mark Goodacre, James Tabor, Hershel Shanks, Jean-Pierre Isbout.

And that's the tip of the iceberg, and they ALL agree that a man named Jesus, who was regarded as a Christ, was executed by Pontius Pilare circa CE 33.

Now let's see your list. I'll even start you off.

Robert Price, Earl Doherty, Richard Carrier...

And here is a short list of a mixed bag of these historians and others and their qualifications.

Michael Grant, eminent historian of the Roman Empire

Maurice Casey, Nottingham University

Prof Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina

NT Wright, Oxford & St Andrews Universities

Marcus Borg, Professor of Religion and Culture at Oregon State University

Geza Vermes, Oxford University

Prof James Charlesworth, Princeton Theological Seminary

Robert Van Voorst, Western Theological Seminary

M A Powell, Trinity Lutheran Seminary

Larry Hurtado, Emeritus Professor, Edinburgh University

Prof Craig Evans, Arcadia Divinity College, Arcadia University

J Paget, Cambridge University

Emeritus Professor Edwin Judge, Ancient History Research Centre, Macquarie University, Sydney

A.E. Harvey, formerly at Oxford University

EP Sanders, Oxford & Duke Universities

You were asked for the names of historians not theologians.

[Cavebear]

No, his historical existence is far from likely

According to who?

Well, you do have to admit that the existence of a god who essentially sent itself to be born human of a virgin woman IS among the more unlikely events in history...

[eider]

A book that begins with a talking snake cannot be trusted to be realistic with the rest of its contents.

A clear myth must never be mistaken for historical reality.

Come on! Any bright kid could tell you that Genesis is a story about how all came to be, not dissimilar to other primitive accounts.... I quite like the accounts that come from North American Indian tribes.

And so Genesis was one book and so you dump scores and scores of others, all written by different hands in different times?  

Oh well........

[Minimalist]

Ssshhh.....bible-thumping assholes....er "historians" say otherwise, I guess.

[eider]

Perhaps you misunderstand the mythicist position in general, and why mark sourcing from paul would be a problem for every version of a historical jesus?[

In general, the mythicist position isn't that "the whole account" is a myth..it's that jesus is a myth, for example.  Specifically - if mark is mythologizing a pauline tradition about jesus...as they suggest, then it doesn't really matter whether there are accurate historical details about other people, real events, or existent places.  The whole account, as you would put it.

Pauls candidate hj is, as you note, slim.  That jesus was a crucified descendent of david killed by the jews, who was betrayed, who asked his closest friends to eat and drink in ritual remembrance of him.  Notably absent, any miracles (as in..none, not even with a secular explanation), and no cleansing of the temple.

So because Paul didn't write a sentence about the bloke then he must be a myth. 
I'm not even sure that the guy actually died on a cross, so please leave the Pauline stuff out of HJ research, eh?

[eider]

According to who?

Well, you do have to admit that the existence of a god who essentially sent itself to be born human of a virgin woman IS among the more unlikely events in history...

......... and more ........  Mind boggling.

Now that we know about countless trillions of planets circulating countless stars in billions of galaxies in this one universe which might be a tiny fraction of everything, you'd think that the Abrahamic religions would just evaporate....... but .........

Folks who debate against Christ and Theism on Christian forums tend to get dismissed as irritations, nutters, lost souls in need of saving etc, but HJ researchers who debate for a real Jesus who had a small following and failed after a short time, they are are the ones who are dubbed 'Enemies of the Cross' and most hated.....

If it was all real and I had a choice I would definitely plump for the Islamic heaven of beautiful water gardens where I could lounge whilst being 'looked after' by gorgeous dark eyed houris (yes!...yes!), and be able to glance over the edge of heaven to see all those b-------s that I disliked in life as they writhe in eternal agony. Now who the hell would choose Christianity over all that? But they do.