Did Jesus Exist?

[Dark Virtue]

Quote[/b] ]Fantastic, thanks for your input. Now we can clearly agree that most historians and New Testament scholars relevant to the topic have concluded that “Jesus Mythers” are beyond reason and the statement should not be taken seriously since it offers no evidence for its assertion.

No, we can not. I have yet to see any evidence, supplied by you, that the MAJORITY of historians believe in historical evidence to support a divine Jesus. Nor I have given you any indication that I agree with that comment.

Nor I have admitted that "Jesus Mythers" are beyond reason and should not be taken seriously. If you would like to contend that notion, please supply evidence to support that. Also, please be sure to define "Jesus Myther".

Quote[/b] ]Now even though it is clear that Jesus did exist and the consensus among most historians testify to this fact, I think it is important to further refute the notion of a Jesus-myth and why it is clearly wrong to assert the theory.

How did we get to the point where we can agree that it is CLEAR that Jesus did exist? When did you give evidence to support that the majority of historians testify to this fact?

You are skipping WAY too far ahead and assuming facts that have not been supported. Before you can continue, you need to substantiate your claims.

Quote[/b] ]John Meier and Murray Harris have given several reasons why Jesus remained a marginal Jew about whom we have so little information.

Marginal Jew? Wasn't this the same man that visited Jerusalem many times, preaching in the temple on a DAILY basis? Not to mention his entourage of his twelve disciples, and multitudes of enthusiastic men and women. On the one hand, the people shouted hosannas in his honor, and on the other, priests engaged him in discussion and sought to take his life. Let's not forget the little money-changer incident. What were the consequences of that incident? No mention is ever made of it. All this shows that he must have been well known to the authorities. Indeed, he must have been one of the best known men in Jerusalem.

 

[Jim]

Marginal Jew?

To take the Bible at face value, Jesus must have been very much a celebrity. To take the NT seriously, Jesus rode into Jerusalem to the cheers of 'A great crowd'.

Quote[/b] ]
John 12:12
The next day the great crowd of people who had come up for the festival heard that Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem. 13 They took branches of palm and went out to recieve him...

We are also talking about a man who was inundated by eager listeners. Loaves and Fishes? And the time Jesus had to take a boat out and preach from the water? Do these not qualify him for celebrity status?

 

[Dark Virtue]

Thanks Jim

I don't know how one is able to contend that Jesus somehow was able to slip under the radar.

 

[Watcher]

Quote[/b] ]No, we can not.  I have yet to see any evidence, supplied by you, that the MAJORITY of historians believe in historical evidence to support a divine Jesus.  Nor I have given you any indication that I agree with that comment.

I have already given you a list of secular contemporary historians and scholars on page 2, which apparently, is not good enough for you. The fact that these men are not Christians seems to have no merit with you? My Grandfather always said, “You can lead a horse to water…”

The historians that subscribe to a historical Jesus are so numerous, it makes no sense to list them all here. Nor am I convinced it would matter to you since the few I’ve chosen to highlight were completely disregarded by you. In other words, you had no comment on the individuals I quoted on page 2.

Let me conclude this by saying you will be hard pressed to find a professional, relevant scholar of history that truly doubts the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, period. Read on…

Quote[/b] ]Nor I have admitted that "Jesus Mythers" are beyond reason and should not be taken seriously.  If you would like to contend that notion, please supply evidence to support that. Also, please be sure to define "Jesus Myther".

As I illustrated for you, there are four individuals that are responsible for the “Jesus-Myth” movement. I also illustrated for you that its number one proponent has now back peddled and changed his mind. Further, hardened skeptic, Emeritus Professor of History, and opponent to orthodox Christianity, Morton Smith wrote this about Wells:

"I don't think the arguments in (Wells') book deserve detailed refutation."
"...he argues mainly from silence."
"...many (of his arguments) are incorrect, far too many to discuss in this space."
"(Wells) presents us with a piece of private mythology that I find incredible beyond anything in the Gospels."

Clearly this is enough for one to determine the historical community does NOT support the Jesus-Myth. To stubbornly cling to the conflicting view is a result of the fallen and sinful human nature, and nothing more than a classic illustration of egotism and arrogance.

Quote[/b] ]How did we get to the point where we can agree that it is CLEAR that Jesus did exist?  When did you give evidence to support that the majority of historians testify to this fact?
You are skipping WAY too far ahead and assuming facts that have not been supported.  Before you can continue, you need to substantiate your claims.

Quote taken from Wikpedia Encyclopedia:

“Nearly all of our historical knowledge about Jesus is dervied from the New Testament, especially the Gospels and the letters of Paul, but there is for example a discussion of his brother James in the Antiquities of Flavius Josephus which most scholars accept as authentic.

The majority of historians believe the Gospel accounts to have originated from primary and secondary sources written within living memory of Jesus. Evidence for a historical Jesus considered more doubtful by modern historians is provided by other material, often fragmentary, such as the sayings Gospel of Thomas, the Egerton Gospel, the Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel, Morton's Smith's controversial Secret Mark, and the still more controversial and dubious Testimonium Flavianum.

Because of its firmly established status as a letter written by Paul himself, in which he speaks of meeting Peter and James, the letter of Paul to the Galatians is considered some of the best historical information we have, and by itself would settle the question of whether there was such a person for most historians.”

Quote[/b] ]Marginal Jew?  Wasn't this the same man that visited Jerusalem many times, preaching in the temple on a DAILY basis?  Not to mention his entourage of  his twelve disciples, and multitudes of enthusiastic men and women.  On the one hand, the people shouted hosannas in his honor, and on the other, priests engaged him in discussion and sought to take his life. Let's not forget the little money-changer incident.  What were the consequences of that incident?  No mention is ever made of it.  All this shows that he must have been well known to the authorities. Indeed, he must have been one of the best known men in Jerusalem.

You completely missed the point. He was of no importance to the Roman historians of His day. The items I outlined for you 1-6 clearly illustrate why. Please refute each point individually instead of assuming a blanket statement such as above is adequate.

 

[Rithkil]

Well these people had been waiting for AGES for a Messiah. Tehy were under the rule of the Roman Empire. If he siad he was the prophesied Messiah,wouldn't they be a little excited? This would be big news that somebody would stand up to the Romans.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Quote[/b] (Watcher @ Oct. 17 2004,2:14)]

Quote[/b] ]I have already given you a list of secular contemporary historians and scholars on page 2, which apparently, is not good enough for you. The fact that these men are not Christians seems to have no merit with you? My Grandfather always said, “You can lead a horse to water…”

The historians that subscribe to a historical Jesus are so numerous, it makes no sense to list them all here. Nor am I convinced it would matter to you since the few I’ve chosen to highlight were completely disregarded by you. In other words, you had no comment on the individuals I quoted on page 2.

We can both make lists of historians to fluff either of our sides. That's not what I am asking for. I'm asking for a cited source that shows a majority of historians agree to evidence supporting a historical, DIVINE, Jesus.

My point being, if the majority of historians that you are citing are Christian, wouldn't that weigh the outcome?

Quote[/b] ]Let me conclude this by saying you will be hard pressed to find a professional, relevant scholar of history that truly doubts the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, period. Read on…

What do you consider relevant? I'm sure I can find them, but I'd rather you not dismiss them meaninglessly.

Quote[/b] ]Clearly this is enough for one to determine the historical community does NOT support the Jesus-Myth. To stubbornly cling to the conflicting view is a result of the fallen and sinful human nature, and nothing more than a classic illustration of egotism and arrogance.

Once again I must ask. Is this community that you speak of made up primarily of Christians?

YIKES, now you are referring to us as egotistical and arrogant? So much for partiality.

Quote[/b] ]Quote taken from Wikpedia Encyclopedia:

“Nearly all of our historical knowledge about Jesus is dervied from the New Testament, especially the Gospels and the letters of Paul, but there is for example a discussion of his brother James in the Antiquities of Flavius Josephus which most scholars accept as authentic.

Are we going to confine the discussion to secular or biblical references? Or will it be open? There are MANY problems associated with Paul and his apparent support of a historical Christ.

Quote[/b] ]The majority of historians believe the Gospel accounts to have originated from primary and secondary sources written within living memory of Jesus. Evidence for a historical Jesus considered more doubtful by modern historians is provided by other material, often fragmentary, such as the sayings Gospel of Thomas, the Egerton Gospel, the Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel, Morton's Smith's controversial Secret Mark, and the still more controversial and dubious Testimonium Flavianum.

Because of its firmly established status as a letter written by Paul himself, in which he speaks of meeting Peter and James, the letter of Paul to the Galatians is considered some of the best historical information we have, and by itself would settle the question of whether there was such a person for most historians.”

I think it might be a good idea to come up with a game plan for this discussion. It has the potential to get ugly quickly.

Quote[/b] ]You completely missed the point. He was of no importance to the Roman historians of His day. The items I outlined for you 1-6 clearly illustrate why. Please refute each point individually instead of assuming a blanket statement such as above is adequate.

Are you saying that my assertion was incorrect? Or just no use to you in this discussion? The assertion covers more ground than just Roman historians.

 

[Watcher]

Quote[/b] ]We can both make lists of historians to fluff either of our sides.  That's not what I am asking for.  I'm asking for a cited source that shows a majority of historians agree to evidence supporting a historical, DIVINE, Jesus.  

My point being, if the majority of historians that you are citing are Christian, wouldn't that weigh the outcome?

Well let’s see, my list so far included 8 ‘secular’ scholars and professors of history to prove my point. Can you point to someone credentialed in ancient history that does support the Jesus-Myth? The truth is, the question of Jesus existing as a person is so axiomatic that typically, historians take it for granted and mention Jesus like anyone else. Now you placed your emphasis on a cited source focusing on the consensus for a historical, DIVINE, Jesus. Well, first of all, I did not even mention His divinity in the OP. I am merely stating the fact that most historians (I’ve yet to read of one that hasn’t) do not question the existence of the man Jesus. From independent surveys to my own extensive research, I have yet to find anything other than a consensus from the scholary community concerning His existence. If you are aware of any, I am sure the professors at these institutions would be very excited to learn about other collegues that may disagree. First rate scholars have shot the myth down again and again, and that my friend, is the absolute truth. I have provided you eight secular sources so I’ll add two more secular historians for the record: Michael Grant and Ian Wilson.

Your point regarding the majority of historians being Christian does not hold water since I have yet to list one. Regarding the term ‘Jesus-Myther,’ it’s pretty straightforward. The term is defined as someone who claims that Jesus of Nazareth the preacher, and the one who is believed to have performed the many miracles documented by the NT and other secular sources never existed and was a ‘mythological’ character [Osiris, Mithras, etc.]. We’ll move to the case for His divinity later.

Quote[/b] ]What do you consider relevant?  I'm sure I can find them, but I'd rather you not dismiss them meaninglessly.

Someone with credentials relevant to the subject such as an Emeritus Professor of History

Quote[/b] ]Once again I must ask.  Is this community that you speak of made up primarily of Christians?

YIKES, now you are referring to us as egotistical and arrogant?  So much for partiality.

I’ve yet to even cite a Christian source…if you are going to cling to the Jesus-Myth in light of the facts, then yes, the comment is applicable to you as well.

Quote[/b] ]Are we going to confine the discussion to secular or biblical references?  Or will it be open?  There are MANY problems associated with Paul and his apparent support of a historical Christ.

This discussion is open to any and all references.

Quote[/b] ]I think it might be a good idea to come up with a game plan for this discussion.  It has the potential to get ugly quickly.

I’m open for any suggestions you have.

Quote[/b] ] Marginal Jew?  Wasn't this the same man that visited Jerusalem many times, preaching in the temple on a DAILY basis?  Not to mention his entourage of  his twelve disciples, and multitudes of enthusiastic men and women.  On the one hand, the people shouted hosannas in his honor, and on the other, priests engaged him in discussion and sought to take his life. Let's not forget the little money-changer incident.  What were the consequences of that incident?  No mention is ever made of it.  All this shows that he must have been well known to the authorities. Indeed, he must have been one of the best known men in Jerusalem.

Quote[/b] ]Are you saying that my assertion was incorrect?  Or just no use to you in this discussion?  The assertion covers more ground than just Roman historians.

Your assertion does not accurately address any of the points contained in my post. You simply threw a blanket statement out there and assumed that it was an accurate one. You make Jesus out to be the ‘Rock Star’ of the ancient world and therefore He should have had volumes written about him. I have already addressed why there were not and you conveniently sidestepped each point.

The reality was, Jesus was despised and hated by the authorities and was considered a heretic. There is no question that the Sanhedrin was aware of Him, and yet they were aware of John the Baptist as well. John was just as ‘notorious’ as Christ and yet there is next to nothing written about him. Just because the Jewish people knew about Jesus, does not mean that we should have volumes of ancient texts about Him. I clearly illustrated for you the texts that do exist from the first century and made an accurate assessment of the records we have on many ancient persons. Again, the information we have that has survived about these figures in ancient history could fit on a few sheets of paper. As I said, compared to most ancient historical figures, we know a whole lot about Jesus, and we have quite a lot recorded about Him

On a side note, I will be absent over the next couple of weeks due to the birth of my first son Joshua. Please feel free to lay any groundwork or context for moving forward inthe discussion, and I'll follow up when I return.

Blessings.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Watcher, I'm afraid you missed my point.

Let's look at exactly what you said:

Quote[/b] ]The relevant scholary consensus among historians is that Jesus did in fact exist.

10 secular historians do not make a quorum. I am trying to figure out the evidence you have to support this claim. Who is the relevant scholarly consensus?

In order to get this discussion moving, I would be willing to concede this entire point if you merely change your statement to say "many historians believe that Jesus existed."

As far as Christ's renown goes, I was not trying to imply that he was a "rock star". I was only disagreeing with your statement that he was a "marginal jew", which I still disagree with.

Many, many congratulations on the birth of your son! I will make sure this thread doesn't disappear entirely

 

[Watcher]

Quote[/b] ]Watcher, I'm afraid you missed my point.

Let's look at exactly what you said:

The relevant scholary consensus among historians is that Jesus did in fact exist.

10 secular historians do not make a quorum.  I am trying to figure out the evidence you have to support this claim.  Who is the relevant scholarly consensus?

The 10 secular historians I gave you are considered authorities in their field. Do you honestly think so many with those credentials would hold this position if it was not academically sound? Many, such as yourself ask why ‘more’ academics do not take the time to even discuss the ‘Jesus Myth theory’ and what is discovered is that most historians and New Testament scholars relevant to the topic have concluded Jesus-mythers are beyond reason.

Why do I need another documented source to make my own logical conclusion that all relevant historians do in fact subscribe to an historical Jesus? Through my own exhaustive academic research on this topic, I am quite able to confidently conclude that there is in fact a consensus among relevant, credentialed historians. Now you mentioned you had your own list that could back your view that there isn’t a consensus? I’d love to see it. I’ve provided quite a compelling list of academic scholars that are accepted by virtually everyone that is a serious student of history. Why is this not good enough for you? I'd be willing to concede that there isn't a consensus if you can provide an Emeritus Professor of History or someone else relevant to the topic that does believe the "Jesus-Myth."

It leads me to believe no matter what evidence is presented to you, you will find some way to rationalize or distort it so it fits your own opinions on the matter. Whether He was divine or not is truly not the question at this time.

Quote[/b] ] In order to get this discussion moving, I would be willing to concede this entire point if you merely change your statement to say "many historians believe that Jesus existed."

I’m not interested in getting the discussion moving until I get a response to my OP. Who do YOU say Jesus is and why? In looking at one of your responses, I am unwilling to move on until you make your position known. You either believe Jesus was a man that walked this earth or not. Your post stated:

Quote[/b] ]I believe that there is a possibility that there existed a man named Jesus.  That he was a teacher that instructed those around him.  However, I do not believe this historic person is the same person found in the Gospels.  I do not believe that he was divine in any way.

I believe there may have been a real person at the core of all this, but through time and the editing of unscrupulous followers, the final product that we see today has been blown out of proportion.

This response seems lukewarm to me. When you say ‘a possibility of’ and ‘may have been’ this leads me to believe you honestly feel in your heart that in light of the multitude of scholarly research and consensus on the subject, you still do not believe Jesus lived and walked on this earth 2000 years ago and was the author of the Christian faith. If you would take a position for or against the myth, we could move on.

Quote[/b] ] As far as Christ's renown goes, I was not trying to imply that he was a "rock star".  I was only disagreeing with your statement that he was a "marginal jew", which I still disagree with.

There were six points listed explaining why Jesus remained a marginal Jew about whom we have so little information about. If you want to disagree please take the time to discuss each point and show me how they are wrong. I’ll list them again for you:

The fact that we have as much information as we do concerning Jesus from secular sources is nothing short of amazing. There are several reasons why Jesus remained a marginal Jew about whom we have so little information.

1. The historians of the day would have considered Jesus as a small blip on the radar screen. Jesus was not considered historically significant by historians of His time. He didn’t address the Roman Senate, or write Greek philosophical treatises; He never traveled outside of the regions of Palestine, and was not a member of any known political party. It is only because Christians later made Jesus a celebrity that he became known. Roman writers could hardly be expected to have foreseen the subsequent influence of Christianity on the Roman Empire and therefore to have carefully documented Christian origins.
2. Jesus was executed as a criminal, providing him with the ultimate marginality. This was one reason why historians would have ignored Jesus.
3. Jesus marginalized himself by being occupied as an itinerant preacher. Of course, there was no Palestine News Network, and even if there had been one, there were no televisions to broadcast it. Jesus never used the established "news organs" of the day to spread His message. He travelled about the countryside, avoiding for the most part (and with the exception of Jerusalem) the major urban centers of the day. How would we regard someone who preached only in sites like, say, Hahira, Georgia?
4. Jesus' teachings did not always jibe with, and were sometimes offensive to, the established religious order of the day. It has been said that if Jesus appeared on the news today, it would be as a troublemaker. He certainly did not make many friends as a preacher.
5. Jesus lived an offensive lifestyle and alienated many people. He associated with the despised and rejected: Tax collectors, prostitutes, and the band of fishermen He had as disciples
6. Jesus was a poor, rural person in a land run by wealthy urbanites. Yes, class discrimination was alive and well in the first century also!

Thanks for the congrats on the birth of my son, Joshua. I’m truly blessed and thankful for such a gift from the Lord.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Cut and dry is how you want it, that is how you shall have it.

Quote[/b] ]The 10 secular historians I gave you are considered authorities in their field. Do you honestly think so many with those credentials would hold this position if it was not academically sound? Many, such as yourself ask why ‘more’ academics do not take the time to even discuss the ‘Jesus Myth theory’ and what is discovered is that most historians and New Testament scholars relevant to the topic have concluded Jesus-mythers are beyond reason.

Why do I need another documented source to make my own logical conclusion that all relevant historians do in fact subscribe to an historical Jesus? Through my own exhaustive academic research on this topic, I am quite able to confidently conclude that there is in fact a consensus among relevant, credentialed historians. Now you mentioned you had your own list that could back your view that there isn’t a consensus? I’d love to see it. I’ve provided quite a compelling list of academic scholars that are accepted by virtually anyone that is a serious student of history. Why is this not good enough for you? I'd be willing to concede that there isn't a consensus if you can provide an Emeritus Professor of History or someone else relevant to the topic that does believe the "Jesus-Myth."

It leads me to believe no matter what evidence is presented to you, you will find some way to rationalize or distort it so it fits your own opinions on the matter. Whether He was divine or not is truly not the question at this time.

Once again you have totally avoided the point.

You have a made a claim which cannot be verified and claim it to be truth.

Until it can be verified, it is simply a theory and not truth.

Quote[/b] ]I’m not interested in getting the discussion moving until I get a response to my OP. Who do YOU say Jesus is and why? In looking at one of your responses, I am unwilling to move on until you make your position known. You either believe Jesus was a man that walked this earth or not.

I have been hesitant to answer because, contrary to your opinion, the verdict is still out. IF there is overwhelming evidence either way, I have not seen it. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it means I have not seen it. As you are asking for MY opinion, I have given you MY opinion. If the answer was not satisfactory to your liking, I suggest you show me evidence which will sway my decision.

Quote[/b] ]There were six points listed explaining why Jesus remained a marginal Jew about whom we have so little information about. If you want to disagree please take the time to discuss each point and show me how they are wrong.

As far as your assertation that Jesus wasn't significant enough for contemporary Roman historians, I will not argue the point. My suggestion was that Christ indeed accumulated a significant following and notoriety making him well known to a vast number of people. However, you have labeled him a "marginal jew" in the eyes of contemporary Roman Historians. Both of our assertions can be harmonious, therefore, there is no point in refuting your list.

 

[Watcher]

My claim has been verified by not only my own research but many others as well. Until you can produce a credentialed individual to refute my statement on the consensus, it stands. Whether you choose to accept it or not is your problem.

It's all quite simple DV. You either believe Jesus was a mythical figure or not. So which is it?

 

[Dark Virtue]

Aren't you, in turn, taking the stand you claimed I am taking?

Quote[/b] ]It leads me to believe no matter what evidence is presented to you, you will find some way to rationalize or distort it so it fits your own opinions on the matter.

There have been claims made to the contrary, have there not?

 

[Ember]

I'm too lazy to read the whole thread (I apologize, then, if I have no business posting or if I repeat something already said).

My understanding is that it is true that most historians agree that there was a historical Jesus.

I'm not convinced that most historians agree on a Divine Jesus.  Some, however, have pointed to "circumstancial evidence," as described in books like The Case of Christ (Lee Strobel) and The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (Josh McDowell).  Those are good (but heavy) reads, despite your position.  

That's just my .02.  If I were a good person I'd take the time to substantiate that, but I'm also a tired, busy student.  It's just what I've gathered from various readings, etc.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Just so you know ember, both books and authors have been critiqued repeatedly and have been found lacking.

 

[Ember]

I realize.  Moreso with the Strobel one, though.  Josh McDowell's is actually quite sound. Strobel tried to water it down to make it more easily consumed than New Evidence, but, in doing so, he left himself more open to critique.

Most critics who have real beef with those books are those that expect them to prove something, which, of course, they can't. They can only raise points that one may have never considered before.

I'm just saying that it's an interesting perspective, whether or not you agree with it or find it thorough.

These books aren't what I based my original post on. They just happened to be pertinent.

 

[Dark Virtue]

EDITED TO REFLECT EDIT

Actually the critics I had in mind didn't so much have a problem with their end results, but with the logic and reasoning used to derive them.

 

[Ember]

Sorry, poorly timed edit >_<

 

[Watcher]

I don't see how one can overlook all of the relevant scholarly research. I could sit here and list more scholars and you'd simply state that it's not a consensus.

If you are expecting me to track down every scholar in the world and cite their opinions on the matter, that's just simply outrageous. When I present examples from critical, secular scholars that Jesus was an historical fact, you simply won't acknowledge it. I liken this to an illustration of someone plugging their ears and closing their eyes, saying "I can't hear you, nah, nah, nah..."

How much more evidence do you need or do I need to pound you over the head with? I'd spend the time posting the hundreds of scholars on this page if I felt it would make a difference.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Just one credible, worthwhile, honest bit of evidence that cannot be disputed.

That's all I need.

What you are asking me to do though is to discount all the relevant scholarly research on the OTHER side.

I am NOT asking you for a preponderance of sources. You are actually making my point for me. One does not know how many sources there are. There are many on both sides. You claimed something that couldn't be proven, that is all I was concerned with. I asked how you arrived at the concensus on page 1, remember? I didn't ask who the concensus was, just how you arrived at your conclusion.

If you believe I have overlooked some evidence, just point me in the right direction. You don't have to talk down to me or beat me over the head until I pass out.

You are accusing me of being obstinate and refusing to believe in evidence. I've already spent a whole thread defending my virtue and honor and refuting claims that I am a liar and have been dishonest. I'd rather not go through that all again. If you have a point, then make it, share this information with me. If you're trying to play a game, forget it, I don't want to spend my time playing along.

 

[Watcher]

First of all, DV, we're all liars and that was pointed out to you. Everyone on this forum needs to realize the nature of religious discussions. They get heated and passionate. Instead of realizing the theological significance of "planks" posting, a select few completely blew things out of proportion. I can go back through many of your hundreds of posts and pull out many quotes where you were attacking the faith and members on this board directly and indirectly.

Now, regarding the consensus...I find it odd that you have yet to present one relevant scholar (eg. a professor of history) that supports the Jesus myth. The reality is, I've yet to ever see one. The topic is rarely debated anymore because of its lack of academic support. In otherwords, there is none. Whether you want to listen to authorities on the topic both secular or non is your choice. You've obviously made your choice and you're clinging to a fallacy without one shred of evidence. You claim I neglected to prove a consensus. I am simply pointing out a group of individuals, credentialed and relevant to the topic, and secular mind you, that state denying Jesus' existence is irrational and without reason, period.