Posted: Nov 05, 2015 12:12 pm
by Shrunk
I should know better than to start a thread on this subject, but here goes:

Jerry Coyne recently blogged about a BBC poll showing 40% of British people do not believe Jesus was a real person, in which he wrote:

What’s more galling is that the BBC is taking what “many scholars believe” as the gospel truth—pardon the pun—despite the fact that close scrutiny gives virtually no extra-Biblical evidence for a historical Jesus. I’m still convinced that the judgement of scholars that “Jesus was a real man” comes not from evidence, but from their conviction that the Bible simply couldn’t be untruthful about that issue.


This prompted another blogger, Bible scholar James McGrath, to accuse Coyne of engaging in "denialism."

Larry Moran then responded to that on his blog, and a spirited discussion between the two has ensued which is still ongoing there.

So is the evidence in favour of an historical Jesus so strong that someone holding the contrary position can justifiably be called a "denialist"? (If you want my opinion, I'm the commentator named "lutesuite" on Sandwalk.)