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

[Mudhammam]

Seems to me , a layman, after reading much of this thread and doing a little wiki searching to fill in the gaps what My take away was this.

Historians are in disagreement. Any testimony of Jesus the man or the myth is suspect and in doubt. There is no consensus. Which sounds a lot like hands in the air and nothing like concrete evidence.

Historians disagree as to what particulars we can know about Jesus' life beyond things like his baptism by John and his death by crucifixion under Pilate. The number of historians who disagree that this Jesus really existed is, according to mythicist demigod Richard Carrier, about seven.

Seven

There are thousands of historians. To say that is not a consensus would be tantamount to viewing the number of scientists who are creationists and proclaiming that there is no agreement as to whether or not macroevolution really took place.

[Aoi Magi]

Sorry, but I didn't read the 27 pages, but from the article in the OP it seems the basic summary is that JC, as people commonly understand from the bible, is primarily a myth, based on a probable actual person? or am I misunderstanding it?

[Mudhammam]

The problem with that is that the Bible was written and compiled by his followers. I don't think it's a coincidence that they never mention Jesus farting, or how irritated Mary got with having to change his diapers after eating figs, or whatnot.  The followers of any hero tend to be biased towards presenting the good side and obscuring the not-so-good.

The Gospels have been doctored for centuries by people with an agenda. Regarding them as evidence of a human Jesus would be like regarding For Whom the Bell Tolls as evidence of Robert Jordan.  Everything sounds in place, but none of it is proven real, because we have no other evidence of either protagonist.

It's circular argumentation.

Fabrications intended to create a picture about a man, a picture that actually does includes mundane biographical details, doesn't negate the likelihood of that person's historical existence when those fabrications and mundane details ONLY make sense in the context of that person having really existed. I don't know about your comparison, but if it is anything like the irrational garbage that other mythicists here espouse, you might want to re-consider how similar the two are. It's a circular argument to say, "Jesus probably didn't exist because the texts about him are corrupt and include embellishment; therefore Jesus probably didn't exist."

Keep in mind that we have sources about Jesus' life and influence that are not written by his followers, and the multiple attestations by disciples that we do have exist in such abundance that the argument that a lot of the texts were changed is a non-sequitur---we know, for the most part, what and where those changes occurred.

[FatAndFaithless]

Sorry, but I didn't read the 27 pages, but from the article in the OP it seems the basic summary is that JC, as people commonly understand from the bible, is primarily a myth, based on a probable actual person? or am I misunderstanding it?

I believe the conclusion is that there most likely existed some rabbi known as Jesus who claimed to be the messiah, and was crucified. Literally anything other than that is unconfirmable.

[abaris]

I believe the conclusion is that there most likely existed some rabbi known as Jesus who claimed to be the messiah, and was crucified.  Literally anything other than that is unconfirmable.

Or some, or many, who grew into one mythological elephant when the tales made the rounds on the trade routes until someone decided to pen down what they had heard.

As I said, you can neither prove a positive nor a negative. Absent every contemporary accounts or archeological findings, there's only speculation. And the mention of real historical figures doesn't add to the credibility of the gospels. People knew who the Roman governor was and they knew the high priests name and they knew Herod.

The city of Troy also existed, but that doesn't mean that Achill was a real person, let alone that Apoll swooped down from mount Olympus to shoot him. And for everyone pointing at the longevity of the christian religion, look up Egyptian history and mythology. Their gods had an even longer lifespan and you still don't believe them to be real.

[FatAndFaithless]

I believe the conclusion is that there most likely existed some rabbi known as Jesus who claimed to be the messiah, and was crucified.  Literally anything other than that is unconfirmable.

Or some, or many, who grew into one mythological elephant when the tales made the rounds on the trade routes until someone decided to pen down what they had heard.

As I said, you can neither prove a positive nor a negative. Absent every contemporary accounts or archeological findings, there's only speculation. And the mention of real historical figures doesn't add to the credibility of the gospels. People knew who the Roman governor was and they knew the high priests name and they knew Herod.

The city of Troy also existed, but that doesn't mean that Achill was a real person, let alone that Apoll swooped down from mount Olympus to shoot him. And for everyone pointing at the longevity of the christian religion, look up Egyptian history and mythology. Their gods had an even longer lifespan and you still don't believe them to be real.

Well..I wasn't really throwing my hat in the ring, I was just trying to summarize what the conclusion of the argument seemed to be.

But..one thing,

Their gods had an even longer lifespan and you still don't believe them to be real.

I don't think anyone is talking about any god or savior or messiah here... just "some rabbi".

[Aoi Magi]

...so the bottomline is that biblical Jesus is a myth.

[Alex K]

Sorry, but I didn't read the 27 pages, but from the article in the OP it seems the basic summary is that JC, as people commonly understand from the bible, is primarily a myth, based on a probable actual person? or am I misunderstanding it?

I believe the conclusion is that there most likely existed some rabbi known as Jesus who claimed to be the messiah, and was crucified.  Literally anything other than that is unconfirmable.

And he possibly had a different name

But seriously, can someone tell me what the difference between that and the position of a "myther" is as the OP uses the term? I'm pretty sure these "mythers" don't claim that no rabbi by the name of Jesus ever got crucified.

[FatAndFaithless]

...so the bottomline is that biblical Jesus is a myth.

I believe everyone in this thread is in agreement on that.

[abaris]

I don't think anyone is talking about any god or savior or messiah here... just "some rabbi".

And I was only adressing you with the first paragraph of my post. The rest was directed at those who constantly moan and bitch about how many historical figures made it into that book and how long christianity is existing, as if this proves anything.