User talk:JohnnyBillPants

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, JohnnyBillPants! Thank you for your contributions. I am Dougweller and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Dougweller (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC) You "corrected" my post on reeses pieces. I provided proof that they use Genetically Modified Corn, Sugar Beets and Soya Beans. Either provide proof that this is not true or leave the information I have put alone. Solatiumz (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

Talkback
Dougweller (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus
A good overview about the diversity of opinion and the whole spectrum of ideas in current thinking on the historicity of Jesus is found here.

If you're interested in the historicity of Jesus from a sceptical point of view, the go-to person in my opinion is Richard Carrier. Obviously he's biased, but every scholar can be suspected of bias, and even Wikipedia is biased in presenting excessive confidence in the historicity of Jesus, although that bias is to an extent systemic and only reflects the state of the field, as doubters (not only staunch mythicists, but even agnostic scholars) are being bullied into shutting up (which obviously doesn't work perfectly, but well enough to make doubt in the historicity of Jesus appear marginal). In any case, Carrier deserves credit for disseminating more widely awareness of the confused state of affairs in biblical studies. Any honest scholar should IMHO agree with the following points: My take is that what we know about Jesus is so little and generic that the distinction between a Generic Nobody Jesus and a Mythical Jesus is practically irrelevant, and he may essentially be an amalgam of multiple cult-leaders; however, certain points (such as Paul's essentially apersonal and ahistorical cosmic Jesus, the nature of early Christianity as an apocalyptic revelatory cult, and the cultural context, both Jewish and pagan) do point to mythicism. The case for a HJ is so weak that scepticism is not only justified, but also warranted, and excessive confidence in a HJ has no basis, certainly not enough for a strong consensus. At this point, the HJ position has essentially turned into mere dogma. There are already indications that this confidence is waning, mythicist arguments are being apprehended and agnosticism is going to gradually prevail. Scholars will have to acknowledge that – while popular inside and outside the field – the HJ is merely a hypothesis, and not even necessarily the most plausible one. As the seed is planted, doubt and dissent will trickle their way into the mainstream and gradually appear less and less radical. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The origins of Christianity are shrouded in mystery;
 * the evidence for a historical Jesus is so scant and ambiguous that the mere existence of a historical person at the basis remains anything but certain;
 * a purely mythical Jesus is a possibility to be considered seriously.