@McReal
>"biblical scholars (such as NT Wright) have confirmation bias: that is not ad hom in the context of discussing bias in a grey area such as biblical historicity"
- It is absolutely fallacious ad hominem to imply that someone's work is by default of no value and biased because of their area of study. Until such time as you actually demonstrate bias in action, it is fallacious.

>"some might, but but to claim all do is spurious, and such claims are not based on objective analysis such as what a well-designed survey of Christian and secular historians might provide."
- I didn't say all, actually. But never-the-less, Gary Habermas did a broad literature review of about 1400 published works written in the last 30 years on this issue, and he concluded that the overwhelming majority of scholars, including those who reject the supernatural, accept the existence and crucifixion of Jesus.

>"the argument there is scant evidence for Jesus is valid and sound."
- No, it is a combination of fallaciously disregarding several sources a priori and goal-shifting, and completely ignoring the historical fact of the early Christian movement which is otherwise unaccountable for.

>"The point I made was not about Jesus v Ron Hubbard, but in relation to your point Christianity was valid because its "founder" was considered real. Using *your* spurious argument, that makes Scientology valid."
- Strawman. I never made such an argument. I said that the existence of the early Christian movement is not sufficiently explained without an historical Jesus.

cont...

cont...

>"In summary - I stated "There is no evidence for Jesus of the Bible outside the Bible narrative"."
- And I maintain that this is absolutely fallacious goal-post shifting. It is the equivalent of saying "There's no evidence for person x apart from the sources that talk about him". In summary - your argument relies completely on simply disregarding all the sources! Most professional historians are used to dealing with texts that contain supernatural elements that they might be ideological opposed to, yet find an historical core - they don't simply just throw the whole thing out (another example is Gilgamesh). Even the majority of historians that don't accept the resurrection or miracles think that the gospels are sufficient attestation for his existence.

>"You weighed in with spurious comments re appeal to authority, ad hom, and shifting the goal posts, which ironically you have done, repeatedly."
- The comments regarding ad hominem and goal-shifting are valid and I've shown why. I have not used ad hominem or shifted goal posts or fallaciously appealed to authority that I am aware of - if you think I have, please demonstrate so.

>"In the context of the changing texts of the canon over a couple of centuries, and changes form the early texts to the current bibles, as well as the failure to verify form other sources, the supernatural claims are implausible."
- Just a second! Nice bait-and-switch there! This is not and has not been about whether the supernatural claims are plausible or not; it has been about whether there is sufficient historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. As I've said, later concepts of 'canon' are actually irrelevant. Accusation of changed texts are basically unfounded - due to the quantity and quality of manuscripts there is virtual certainty about 95% of the NT - and the bits in question have little impact. Even Ehrman, despite his tendancy to overplay his hand, appears to have agreed with Metzger on this point.

cont...

cont...

Both you and AJPhilips have presented your arguments and I can see why the scholarly consensus finds them very wanting. No doubt you think the scholarly consensus arguments are to be found wanting to.

The summary of historical evidence for the existence of Jesus is this:
Multiply attested: by the various gospels and epistles, Josephus and other Jewish sources, some greco-roman sources, church fathers - no competing accounts, and even the hostile writers do not deny existence. Existence is not questioned until the C12th.
There is James Jesus' alleged brother, also referred to by Josephus.
There is the church - unlikely and with rapid expansion which makes no sense if it was simply a myth that developed over a century or so, plus there is no evidence of any such development, and evidence that the claims about him were there from the very beginning. This movement is not sufficiently explained without an historical figure of Jesus.

http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm
http://www.bede.org.uk/price8.htm#H
http://www.bede.org.uk/price8.htm#F

If you want to try and dismiss all that, I think it merely betrays a prejudice and agenda to do so. I'm not too interested in going around in any more circles on this

What about the connection between Buddhism and Christianity?

The gospel of John in the Bible contained some Buddhist concepts.
There are many comparable situations between the bible, Jesus , Buddha and Confusious. Many people seem to take the bible as evidence thing is this appears to only be by choice of those who feel that this is the case. Jesus stories appear throughout different cultures as a way for people to live a certain life contextual for the times. The bible and many religions is the first in creating law abiding citizens. Jesus is just as real as Santa. I mean he existed and the myth still goes on. The bible was just a book of laws for the time. It is past that now as we have governments and a justice system in place. The myth of god just keeps people contained, it is a mass control mechanism based in a lie.

Religion does not does not solve social issues, places with the highest percentage of drug users,child pedophiles,some even encourage domestic violence in the home, causes gender and sexuality issues, broken homes,criminals, wars usually have some religious base to them. So churches make money but don't solve anything in their communities, many people feel that religion does more harm than good.Having a belief in god allows some people to not feel so alone. What does Christmas represent ? the author may look for the good things and want to only have them in her life. Thing is people are good and bad at the same time. She may want to celebrate Christmas and feel that it has been taken over by the Christians and refer to it starting out as a pagan festival. Is that still okay? Does people still celebrate Australia day and ignore the fact it was a invasion of a land and go ah well stuff happens?

I have been following the "did he, didn't he?" discussion with great interest. My thanks to AndrewFinden, McReal and AJ Philips for an entertaining diversion into ancient scriptures and their shortcomings, history-wise.

(Hint, guys: I don't think you are likely to bring the other to your point of view. Just saying.)

But I really do think the last word has to go to AndrewFinden, for this little gem.

>>If you want to try and dismiss all that, I think it merely betrays a prejudice and agenda to do so<<

Had a good chuckle at that.

Until we master time-travel (which is, like, never), we will remain in total ignorance of the full story. Trying to fill in the missing parts with scholarly invention is only convincing, I'm afraid, to someone with both prejudice and agenda. Because there's simply not enough evidence to convict.

"If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit".

To me, the real mystery is that someone who managed to do all those amazing things with lepers, and dead people, and jugs of water, didn't get so much as a tiny by-line in any contemporary documentation.

There must have been at least one observer who either a) was literate or b) had friends who were.

Recalling a couple of centuries later that this guy was put to death is one thing.

Not mentioning that he raised people from the dead, quite another.