Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Free]

You're arguing against the specter of myth, but I'm noting that you reject the consensus of scholars, yourself, in this thread.  You think that things not contained in that consensus, and not contained even in your three line description (which has an extra bit also not in the consensus of scholars)...and ideas explicitly rejected by the consensus of scholars are still..nevertheless..historic events.  

They may be, the consensus of scholars may be wrong.

Me, personally, as I've said..I don't think there was any jesus the man, or at least no jesus the man we can piece together from what we have.  As far as the mythicists go..I think they've done good work establishing that beliefs in christ are so disparate in how they arose and developed from any reality about a jesus the man, that there actually having been any such man would be a pyrrhic victory, for those it matters to, at best.

What I agree with, they all agree with. It's the one thing none of them disagrees with. Sure, some will say that the baptism by John likely happened, and others will disagree. In the end what they disagree about is all a matter of opinion because the evidence for all the other things is by far and wide inferior to the evidence that supports the crucifixion by Pilate.

It's not about the peripherals that we disagree about, but about that one common thing that has 100% agreement.

My position as always is this:

Q: Did Jesus exist?
A: Likely.
Q: Did he positively exist?
A: Fucked if I know.