This is very interesting. I’ve been reading quite a few discussions which hinge around historical evidence for the biblical Jesus and various offshoots of the same and then suddenly up pops a question: Jesus?
So far there hasn’t been much of a discussion, but based on the heat about this I suspect it should prove to be quite interesting to those who wondered about the following questions:
I read that most scholars agree that Jesus existed.
Which scholars would these be?
Which scholars don’t agree and who would they be?
Here’s a link to the current discussion: Jesus?
—
"Tea, anyone?"
The Mad Hater’s Tea Party:
Forums comments are bound to result in the ‘capillary effect’ occurring and unless one is wide awake the arguments can get covered up in scores of divergent arguments, ribbing, troll-posting and the general mayhem. Here are links to a few related posts (some as a result and others which were already active at the time.)
1. There is no evidence for a biblical jesus (that should be with a capital ‘j’, thus ‘Jesus’) – As I’ve previously referred to this post in earlier blogs, namely that it is bloated and decidedly off-topic, suddenly it’s back on topic after 1 thousand, 3 hundred and 88 posts. The t-webber ‘sometimesketic’ 
has addressed ‘Tassman’ with regard to the ‘little’ creed in 1 Corinthians 15 and is referring to a post in the Biblical Languages 301.
2. 1 Corinthians 15 – Reasonable ‘seeings’ in the little creed? I doubt if there’ll be a massive response, as this sort of thing has bound to be covered in the vast archive of BL301.
3. Adrift’s classic ‘Whatever!’ post in Marcan priority and (Q?)
4. Still one of my favorite posts by one of my favorite t-webbers ‘My review of Doherty’s “Jesus: Neither God Nor Man” – The man’s a legend!
Tea time, folks.
Blue
