[bentley]

> What's the consensus view of homeopathy scholars on the efficacy of homeopathic "medicine"?

Near East historians have an agenda? News to me. What’s the proportion of Christians versus non‐Christians in that field?

Even if that group is replete with biased theists (something you seem to be suggesting but haven’t presented any evidence for), surely there is some scholarly group whose views on historical science you can agree would be worth listening to. So what’s their consensus on the historicity of Jesus?

[malvosenior]

Did you listen to the history podcast in my original comment? He presents a very strong case for there not being a Jesus. Everyone keeps saying there’s some sort of consensus on his existence yet I’ve posted a very thorough argument that argues the opposite. Last I checked, Stanford was pretty reputable.

[antidesitter]

See my top-level comment. There is a historical consensus on Jesus’ existence and some basic facts about his life (with wide disagreement beyond that).

And Thomas Sheehan, the philosopher and presenter of the podcast you linked to, accepts the historicity of Jesus.

[owens99]

This article does a great job of explaining why you should question that consensus.

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/5553