Consensus among historians about the existence of Jesus - authority fallacy?

The ultimate irony of modern scholarly consensus historical opinion is that they fail to realize that Jesus’s own contemporary historians had no idea WTF he was  or that he even existed. It took some two, three hundred years, a zealous emperor, and some servile religious fanatics to piece together one of the most ludicrous and laughable theological constructions of humankind:

That, somehow, the Supreme Creator of the Universe, arguably, the greatest theoretical physicist who ever existed came up with a “special” plan to rape a mortal woman, give birth to himself and contrive to have himself mercilously slaughtered at the hands of barbarians to save His own creation from a 6,000 year-old curse he levied upon them.

Good luck with that, and go peddle your horseshit elsewhere. 

One important question I think is "which Jesus existed?"

We need to spell it out. Did there ever exist a person that was divine and had supernatural powers, that rose from dead etc. as described in the Bible?

I think the probability is very low that this is the case. And I don't think the consensus revolves around the existence of a divine person. I think it's reasonable to consider such a person as mythological.

If there was a preacher named Jesus I think he most probably was not divine, just a normal human being without supernatural powers. But I'm not sure if such a person ever existed, I would need good evidence and arguments, not a consensus. Evidence and good arguments should in my opinion hold more weight than consensus.

And I don't think the consensus revolves around the existence of a divine person. I think it's reasonable to consider such a person as mythological. 

This is an issue I've always had with the "Jesus Myth" debate. At what point do we say a person did not exist? For example, in 100 years, if someone claimed that I walked on water, does that mean that that Bo never existed? Does anyone really exist in that sense since we all have somewhat skewed perceptions of everyone? Heavy stuff :) Even Bart Ehrman doesn't clearly address this in his books and courses (that I know of or can recall). He believes the Jesus figure existed in some sense but also rejects the supernatural claims about him, which one could argue that the supernatural Jesus and the man Jesus would be so different that it would be reasonable to claim Jesus (the supernatual Jesus from the Bible) did not exist. Given all this, one person can believe that Jesus did exist and one can believe that he didn't exist, yet both people would believe the same things.

"if someone claimed that I walked on water, does that mean that that Bo never existed?"

No, that doesn't mean you never existed, but that person's claim would be false.

I'd like to ask like this: "has there ever existed a divine man by the name of Jesus Christ who was a part of a divine trinity, that could walk on water, turn water to wine, resurrect from the dead, cast out demons, heal the sick and blind, fly up in the air..."

I'd say no.

[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

The other side to the Jesus Myth argument you make is if the preponderance of biographical statistics described in that person's hagiography e.g. birth date, death, name, likeness, parentage, birthplace, geographical details, etc. have proven to be contrived, assigned, interpolated, falsified, forged, and revised with little to no alternative legitimate sources for support, it is much more probable that you are dealing with a fictional character than an historical one.

Lord Raglan and Otto Rank devised a scale for measuring such mythological personages known as the Rank Raglan scale, for which Jesus wins a whopping 18 out of 22 points.

1. Hero's mother is a royal virgin;
2. His father is a king, and
3. Often a near relative of his mother, but
4. The circumstances of his conception are unusual, and
5. He is also reputed to be the son of a god.
6. At birth an attempt is made, usually by his father or his maternal grand father to kill him, but
7. he is spirited away, and
8. Reared by foster -parents in a far country.
9. We are told nothing of his childhood, but
10. On reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future Kingdom.
11. After a victory over the king and/or a giant, dragon, or wild beast,
12. He marries a princess, often the daughter of his predecessor and
13. And becomes king.
14. For a time he reigns uneventfully and
15. Prescribes laws, but
16. Later he loses favor with the gods and/or his subjects, and
17. Is driven from the throne and city, after which
18. He meets with a mysterious death,
19. Often at the top of a hill,
20. His children, if any do not succeed him.
21. His body is not buried, but nevertheless
22. He has one or more holy sepulchers.

Mithradates VI of Pontus(22) / Krishna(21) / Moses(20) / Romulus(19) / King Arthur(19) / Perseus(18) / Jesus(18) / Watu Gunung of Java(18) / Heracles(17) Mohammad(17) / Beowulf(15) / Buddha (15) / Czar Nicholas II (14) / Zeus(14) / Nyikang, a cult-hero of the Shiluk tribe of the Upper Nile(14) / Samson(13) / Sunjata, the Lion-King of Ancient Mali(11) / Achilles(10) / Odysseus(8) / Harry Potter(8)

[To mchasewalker]

Lord Raglan and Otto Rank devised a scale for measuring such mythological personages known as the Rank Raglan scale, for which Jesus wins a whopping 18 out of 22 points.

LOL. I devised a scale for measuring BS, for which this gets a whopping 22 out of 22.

Francis Utley cleverly demonstrated how silly this is by applying the criteria to other historical figures. Abraham Lincoln fits all of the 22 points, so apparently he is a myth. Ditto John F. Kennedy, Winston Churchill, Napoleon and William Wallace.

Damn! I so wanted to believe Braveheart was a true story. Freedooooom!

I would say those are too separate question.

Did Jesus exist? If Jesus exist was he supernatural?

Their is no fallacy in accepting the opinions of experts. We do this all the time especially with history.

The Jesus we can read about in the gospels is supernatural, or portrayed as it.

Yes, there's no fallacy in accepting the opinions, or arguments of experts, but they still have to make their arguments and present evidence. "Expert X thinks Y is true, ok that settles it, then it must be true."

You are right, but I would note that we need to be careful not to make the fallacy of poisoning the well .
I'm not saying that you made that fallacy in your answer, but if someone reads the answer, their opinion can very easily turn into this fallacy.
If the evidence for the existence of Jesus (Jesus of Nazareth) is good, if the reliable sources and the scientific method really indicate it, and we are able to be convinced of that, then the claim should be accepted even if it is made by non-secular historians.

If the evidence for the existence of Jesus (Jesus of Nazareth) is good,...

If we are looking at the evidence, and not experts telling us how they interpret the evidence, then it is very different. If we are only going by consensus (it is a reasonable heuristic to generally trust expert consensus) without becoming an expert ourselves, enough to evaluate the evidence and understand it, then the biases and motivations of the experts should be considered.

I'm going to break my personal rule for punching down because I cannot allow this kind of deceptive nonsense to go on unaddressed:

1.) There are detailed, firsthand accounts of the existence of Jesus in the New Testament. (False)

I n his recent book, Did Jesus Exist,  Jesus historicist, Bart Ehrman forcefully declares that the gospels "were not written by eyewitnesses or by people who knew eyewitnesses" and that "in the entire first Christian century, Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet." 

2.) There are also several accounts of the existence of Jesus outside of the New Testament (e.g. in the writings of the first-century Jewish historian Josephus) that corroborate those accounts. (False)

The dubious reference to Jesus by Josephus in Book XVIII of the Antiquities of the Jews the Testimonium is as follows:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man.  For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease.  He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him.  And the tribe of the Christians, so-called after him, has still to this day not disappeared. 

Needless to say, this obvious forgery has been thoroughly debunked and attributed to the fanatic apologist Eusebius who openly confessed his willingness to forge and deceive in his zeal to authenticate the historicity of Jesus. So much so that R. M. Grant wrote:

In ancient and modern times Eusebius of Caesarea has found severe critics of his historical reliability, but there is a question whether or not these critics have gone as far as they should go. It seems highly probable that under the influence of his apologetic purposes Eusebius suppressed, neglected, or falsified a good deal of the information available to him. “Eusebius and his Church History”  in Understanding the sacred text (Valley Forge: Judson, 1972), 235.

It should also be noted that it is extremely improbable that Josephus would compose such a passage since he openly attested that Vespasian was the predicted Messiah of the Jews. And for which Vespasian rewarded him greatly.

Therefore, Jesus existed.  (meh, not so much)

[To mchasewalker]

I'm going to break my personal rule ... 

Oh no, guys! He’s breaking his personal rule! Now I've gone and done it.

... for punching down ...

Wow. How do you fit your head through the door?

I cannot allow this kind of deceptive nonsense to go on unaddressed

Imperious and skilled in a priori reasoning. Quite the combo.

 In his recent book, Did Jesus Exist,  Jesus historicist, Bart Ehrman forcefully declares

This is an ad novitatem and an ad verecundiam rolled into one. An esteemed scholar forcefully declared something in a new book? Well then, let’s throw out all the old scholarship! What other scholars think must be false. I always wondered what the inverse of an argumentum ad numerum would sound like. Now I know.

The dubious reference to Jesus by Josephus in Book XVIII of the Antiquities of the Jews the Testimonium ... [is an] obvious forgery [that] has been thoroughly debunked

Except it isn't at all obvious to "the majority of scholars ... [who] hold that it contains an authentic nucleus referencing the execution of Jesus by Pilate," per Wikipedia. Also: "Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the second reference to Jesus in the Antiquities."
 
But I guess those scholars don't matter. I mean, if R. M. Grant says it seems highly probable that Eusebius of Caesarea falsified stuff, and some other scholar (left unnamed) attributes Antiquities of the Jews to Eusebius, then who are we to question that?

But wait: Grant's book was published in 1972, so I suppose if there is a newer book by an esteemed scholar that disagrees with him, we'll have to ignore his old opinions and go with that instead.

Sorry, I had to break my personal rule against using sarcasm in debates. See what you did!

No, my personal rules are:

1.) Never wrestle with pigs:

a.) You just get dirty.

b.) The pig likes it.

2.) Never play Chess with pigeons.

a.) They just knock over the Chess pieces

b.) And crap all over the Chess board.

3.) Don’t bother arguing with ignorant religionists.

a.) See all of the above

[To mchasewalker]

Jesus said it better: "Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before pigs." (Matthew 7:6)

If you agree, then QED!

Is there a logical fallacy when one opponent in a debate stops addressing the issue in favor of calling 

his opponent names?

ad hominem abusive

it’s not exactly bereft of confirmation bias.

Speaking of confirmation bias:

“Price is a professor of biblical criticism ... He is a religious skeptic, especially of orthodox Christian beliefs, occasionally describing himself as a Christian atheist.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Price

An avowed critic’s views of Jesus are no less biased than an avowed follower’s views.

Thankfully, in the information age the consensus is rapidly changing to a more balanced view.

This is an argumentum ad novitatem. It is also illogical to conclude that accounts of historical events would become better as time goes on since we get further away from the events.