Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians

[CapnAwesome]

Mainstream historians who have studied that time period and region overwhelming think Jesus existed, regardless of their religious association.

Bold by me. Think being the operative word. Nobody can prove a positive or a negative. I also think, there has been a person or persons being at the source of the legend. Something probably happened that inspired the legend. But what it was is anyone's guess, since Judea was swarming with prophets and self proclaimed Messiahs at the time in question. Ultimately it doesn't matter. What matter are the decades between the supposed happenings and the putting it into writing. Campfire tales growing bolder and bolder with everyone telling them until someone finally decided them to be story material.

I think that is likely. Not only with the story of Jesus, but with lots and lots of ancient history. You ever read accounts of the battles in ancient greece? They give casuality lists that is something like 2000 greeks faced 500,000 persians. 12 Greeks perished and 100,000 persians were slain. Yeah right.

[The Grand Nudger]

Obvious bullshitters, and there probably wasn't any malice or intent to deceive involved in that at all.  That's just the way the story was told.  Hell...that's not even supernatural so I like it as an example......we don't believe them, of course.  We believe the NT though, for some reason, when it tells us that there was a "jesus".   I think, and this is just me drifting, that we equate the claim "there was a jesus" with the claim "there was a man" which seems intuitively and undeniably true. Men are possible, men are exist. That's not what we're being asked to believe though, we're being asked to believe that there was a -specific- man, not whether or not the existence of men is plausible. Jesus as anyman is the same as jesus as no man.

[CapnAwesome]

-and yet mythicists and those willing to be it's proponents have to constantly account for why they -haven't- made such an assumption......that their observations are equally mainstream when not combined into a single whole is lost.  Some of the mythicists evidence for their position is the same as the historical crowds evidence for why the "other historical crowd" is wrong.  All of a sudden, though, due to the mention of myth and legend, they're nutters, lol - and that very same evidence isn't serious or credible.

Well for the record I don't think that all mythicists are nutters and this position is taken seriously by many historians who disagree with it. Bart Erham wrote a whole book countering it. That's not a sign that he disrespects the position, but rather one that it's worth taking seriously and critiquing. The historical world isn't like the internet, where you confront every 9/11 truther and nutcase. There wouldn't even be a response to it if it wasn't taken seriously. That being said, on the internet you get a wide variety of beliefs mixed, and for whatever reason some nutcases have attached themselves pretty firmly to this one.

[Minimalist]

Mainstream historians who have studied that time period and region overwhelming think Jesus existed, regardless of their religious association. I mean that's just reality. It's pretty commonly used by people who are against mythicists. Although I do think it's a weak argument also and wouldn't normally use it beyond perhaps showing why mythicism hasn't really gone into the mainstream. Personally I didn't bring that up as an argument earlier because I think that facts are always more important than who believes in them, regardless of what the argument is.

Correct, Capn.  But as soon as you ask them to describe what the HJ was the consensus falls apart.  J. D. Crossan famously said that the sheer variety of opinions of what the HJ was  is an embarrassment.  But more telling to me is that they have no hard evidence.  I'm not interested in their opinions.  I want to see the evidence they used in coming to that conclusion and it always turns out to be the same gospel horseshit over and over.  That shit is not good enough.  I am capable of evaluating evidence if it is put in front of me.

A while back I started a thread on the Doctrina Jacobi which is a 6th century writing in which a forced convert to xtianity writes ( in what is hearsay to the third power ) that he heard of a "prophet among the saracens" c 534 AD which would be 2 years after mohammed supposedly died.  It's an absurd piece of shit and no muslim would recognize the "prophet" as their pal, Mo, but it does show that people living at the time had some idea of a religious element to the Arabic assault on Palestine even if they had no idea which religion it was!

Bad as it is, xtianity has nothing even close to it as far as timeliness or suggesting that first century people though someone came back from the fucking dead.

[abaris]

I think that is likely. Not only with the story of Jesus, but with lots and lots of ancient history. You ever read accounts of the battles in ancient greece? They give casuality lists that is something like 2000 greeks faced 500,000 persians. 12 Greeks perished and 100,000 persians were slain. Yeah right.

Yeah, but that's exactly how ancient literature and history worked. And the gospels are to be judged in that tradition. The Trojan war or wars probably happened. Archeological finds point in that direction, but that doesn't mean that Apoll swooped down to shoot Achill.

[The Grand Nudger]

Nutcases will be nutcases after all....., some of those "historical jesus" nutters believe in magic......

[Thumpalumpacus]

The jesus myth must be sponsored as the only truth until is can be resolved by inarguable hard evidence. Or, we can be blinded by some claimed atheist who needs to think in the theistic sense, aka espousing answers without satisfying evidential criteria in hard fact.

If no hard facts are extant, neither was jesus. Deal with it.

I think it's entirely possible that an itinerant preacher named Jesus, fathered by a man named Joseph, lived in the asserted time frame. Such a claim is not extraordinary and doesn't really need evidence of an extraordinary quality or quantity.

Now, when we get into curing the ill, raising the dead, walking on water, and all the other magic stuff that makes our guy Jesus meaning in the context of historical Christianity, I think your point is absolutely valid.

[CapnAwesome]

Mainstream historians who have studied that time period and region overwhelming think Jesus existed, regardless of their religious association. I mean that's just reality. It's pretty commonly used by people who are against mythicists. Although I do think it's a weak argument also and wouldn't normally use it beyond perhaps showing why mythicism hasn't really gone into the mainstream. Personally I didn't bring that up as an argument earlier because I think that facts are always more important than who believes in them, regardless of what the argument is.

Correct, Capn.  But as soon as you ask them to describe what the HJ was the consensus falls apart.  J. D. Crossan famously said that the sheer variety of opinions of what the HJ was  is an embarrassment.  But more telling to me is that they have no hard evidence.  I'm not interested in their opinions.  I want to see the evidence they used in coming to that conclusion and it always turns out to be the same gospel horseshit over and over.  That shit is not good enough.  I am capable of evaluating evidence if it is put in front of me.

A while back I started a thread on the Doctrina Jacobi which is a 6th century writing in which a forced convert to xtianity writes ( in what is hearsay to the third power ) that he heard of a "prophet among the saracens" c 534 AD which would be 2 years after mohammed supposedly died.  It's an absurd piece of shit and no muslim would recognize the "prophet" as their pal, Mo, but it does show that people living at the time had some idea of a religious element to the Arabic assault on Palestine even if they had no idea which religion it was!

Bad as it is, xtianity has nothing even close to it as far as timeliness or suggesting that first century people though someone came back from the fucking dead.

Exactly, that's why I don't speculate personally on what Historical Jesus might have been like. When Rythm was trying to get me to give an opinion on it, I'm comfortable saying that I don't know.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ergo the historical jesus that you are confident in (just that some guy probably existed) is no man in particular. Kind of leaves the term "the historical jesus" with no clear meaning, no method of attaching a truth value, eh?

[Minimalist]

EXACTLY.  If the term Historical Jesus has no meaning it is no different than MYTHICAL JESUS.