How much of the Jesus story do True Historians鈩?believe?

There's this nonsense at Wiki about how all academics accept an historic Jesus, despite the lack of any corroborative evidence.





Is there some type of consensus survey where the academics get together and make a list of Accepted / Questionable / Steaming Load parts of his character, based on the available descriptions?


How much of the Jesus story do True Historians鈩?believe?
As far as I can see, no serious scholars dispute the actual existence of a man named Jesus. It can be fun to point out the lack of corrobarative evidence for him, but it's not precisely honest in an intellectual sense.





However, there is no consensus at all on what he did, said, or most of the actions and events ascribed to him by the bible and the christian churches.





Wiki isn't often right about anything, but in this case, it's on the money.





Edit... how did I end up with 2 thumbs down on this? Honestly people a bad answer does not equal one you don't agree with. In any case, my way of thinking about this is summed up by this from Michael Grant, one of the greatest and most prolific English historians of the last century - as it happens, he was also an atheist.





This sceptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth.... But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. Certainly, there are all those discrepancies between one Gospel and another. But we do not deny that an event ever took place just because some pagan historians such as, for example, Livy and Polybius, happen to have described it in differing terms.... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.How much of the Jesus story do True Historians鈩?believe?
There's certainly no confirmation outside of the gospels and letters of Christians that Jesus was a real person. If it wasn't for the fact of all the improbable stuff attributed to him, I don't think there would be much question of his being a real person. We don't automatically doubt records unless there's something fishy about them. It seems to me that if there was a person going around healing sick people right and left, the authorities would make note of it.





It's like this. If a couple of accounts say there was a blacksmith in Boston who lived from 1853-1894 whose name was Charles Harding and he had a wife named Lydia and five children, it would be assumed to be true. Who would make that up? But if it said he was a god and could incinerate people with lightning bolts and control the weather, then you would doubt it, right? Not just the weather and the lightning, but the wife and kids too.






';Is there some type of consensus survey where the academics get together and make a list of Accepted / Questionable / Steaming Load parts of his character, based on the available descriptions?';





Actually....yes. It's called the Jesus Seminar and it has been meeting regularly for decades. About the only thing they all agree on is that there was a first century Jew from Galilee who went around preaching that the Kingdom of God had come.





Peace to you.
Most historians do not doubt the existence of a name named Jesus from Nazareth. I'd suggest you expand your search to more credible sources than wiki though. =] Try the library.





Even the most Anti-Christian group, like those that participated in the ';Jesus Seminar'; believe he was a real historical figure.
None of it!!





There is not one single mention of Jesus in the entire Roman record - that is right - not one!!! At the same time as he was supposed to have been around there were a number of Jews claiming to be the messiah - all of whom are well recorded!!





He was supposed to have been a huge problem to the Romans and produced wonderful miracles but still not one contemporary record? Pilot is recorded but there is no mention of Jesus or a crucifixion!!





Even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!!





At best he was an amalgam of those others!!
I think it's pretty hard to get accurate results of this nature. There is a certain reluctance for people to admit if they have any misgivings about the dominant religion of their home countries. People are quite likely to give answers to survey questions which they think will make the surveyor like them.
Most academics agree that there was a preacher by the name of Jesus who was sentenced to death in the first century CE.





But non-Christian historians dont believe the Bible as a historical source.
None of it whatsoever.


Most fully understand why and how Christianity came about, how it has evolved and how it functions today.
well, there are not many literature professors that will deny the existance of a character called Pinocchio. he's just another character in a book.
NONE. Nothing at all was written about a Jesus w/in 100 yrs of the supposed event, mass slave exodus, or any scientific proof of a big flood.
Considering that AD and BC are named for him, He may be difficult to ignore in history.
None. There's no contemporary proof.
Zip. Nada.
So you struck out with Professor Frink and you're giving Bart Simpson a whirl?
All of it