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

[TheMessiah]

The claim was not that the ''other side'' is similar to Creationism. It was that the number of serious scholars who take the myth position is framed similarly to the number of scientists who proclaim themselves creationists. When I said the ''debate'' was not serious in scholarly circles, what I said was right. Whether Jesus existed is not a debate in historical circles, but whether an event was significant might generate a debate.

The historical Jesus is a nice, big topic many people could look at and attempt to answer; we have a controversial figure and a controversial religion. Match made in heaven to attract a lot of non-historians who feel more compelled to undermine opposing views.

If however, we were to discuss whether William Gladstone took an interventionist foreign policy during his second and third ministries, this would attract significantly less attention because the subject matter is complex; and suddenly, a historian's opinion is now trustworthy, however that's a debate many historians and scholars may take seriously. That's because you're debating something which can generate a range of view-points; by contrast, the *historical Jesus* ''debate'' is a simplistic, easy question because all an ancient historian needs to verify it is a few sources. That's it.

My point is because you are attached to the subject matter of Christianity/religion, you feel more compelled to laugh at the historical viewpoint of what is considered evidence; but if you were to look at a historical viewpoint in regards to any other topic which does not interest you, then you would simply accept a historian's viewpoint as more valid.

Me saying ''Gladstone did not have an interventionist policy because most historians don't think so'' would be an appeal to authority in an actual historical debate.

Double, triple..hell...quadruple down on your appeals to authority, and your defenses for them.  My response will remain unchanged so long as your replies continue that theme.   "The experts say" -is not capable- of answering the question.."is what the experts say accurate".  End of.  

We're on to my motives now?...shitlogic
You know how I'd respond to some other, as yet unmentioned claim?... shitlogic

Are we having a conversation about the historical jesus..and the mythicist position....or are you fantasizing about me Messiah?  I'll just offer again to discuss the most compelling portion (in your estimation) of the link you posted.  We can have that conversation.......or you can continue to do whatever it is you think you're doing.

I have thoroughly explained to you why it is not an ''appeal to authority'' --- because it isn't even a serious scholarly debate. Me pointing to the all but 7 scholars who agree on HJ is not an ''appeal to authority'' --- me pointing to 97% of the scientific community who agree upon climate change is not an appeal to authority, that is because these aren't debates in their respective fields; both are overwhelmingly considered true. They're not theories or arguments; someone existing is not an argument, nor is a global phenomena such as climate-change.

Me pointing to a majority of historians who could say the root cause of the civil war was slavery is an appeal to authority in an actual, scholarly debate.

My entire point is that the discussion has never been ''Is what the experts say accurate?'' --- it's more along the lines of ''What do I like about what the scholar says, and what do I not like?'' --- an ancient historian's grasp of evidence, especially a large group of ancient historians, will have a much better grasp of evidence and analysis. People constantly appeal to historians until it doesn't suit them.

Do you see why ''what the experts say'' is not a crude position because they are essentially the best equipped scholars in their respective field who have a much more extensive, analytical, critically examining and overall more reasonable view-point than someone who isn't an expert in that field? Do you see why people may be more likely to trust a Scientist's opinion over a non-Scientist? Or a Lawyer's opinion on legal matters opposed to someone who isn't a Lawyer/extensively rooted in Law?

As to your other part of the post, you generally dodged my points in the previous pages, generally misrepresented my position and shitposted. 

[The Grand Nudger]

If that's as far as you're willing to take it..yes..Messiah..I'm afraid that it is.    

This conversation, the question of whether or not what the experts say is accurate,  is the -only- conversation I've been having.  It is the only question I've asked.  It is the only question relevant to the disagreement between positions.  I don't personally care whether or not I -like- what a scholar says.  Nor do I care if you do...nor is it relevant to the historical jesus or mythicist positions. Do you have anything to say about those positions, other than "the experts say"...or was that the entirety of your intended contribution.......?

If that's all you have to say, my bad, my apologies..I concede (again) that the experts say things. Not sure where to take that...but there it is?

[TheMessiah]

If that's as far as you're willing to take it..yes..Messiah..I'm afraid that it is.    

This conversation, the question of whether or not what the experts say is accurate,  is the -only- conversation I've been having.  It is the only question I've asked.  It is the only question relevant to the disagreement between positions.  I don't personally care whether or not I -like- what a scholar says.  Nor do I care if you do...nor is it relevant to the historical jesus or mythicist positions. Do you have anything to say about those positions, other than "the experts say"...or was that the entirety of your intended contribution.......?

If that's all you have to say, my bad, my apologies..I concede that the experts say things.

Seems you didn't get the point. Disingenuously, I'm not sure.

Goodbye, take care.

[The Grand Nudger]

The point being?  Something other than "the experts say things" (a point upon which we both agree)?  Care to elaborate?

[TheMessiah]

The point being?  Something other than "the experts say things"?  Care to elaborate?

People will appeal to historians as long as it suits them. Your entire ''the experts say'' mockery has been disingenuous.

My entire point is that the discussion has never been ''Is what the experts say accurate?'' --- it's more along the lines of ''What do I like about what the scholar says, and what do I not like?'' --- an ancient historian's grasp of evidence, especially a large group of ancient historians, will have a much better grasp of evidence and analysis. People constantly appeal to historians until it doesn't suit them.

Do you see why ''what the experts say'' is not a crude position because they are essentially the best equipped scholars in their respective field who have a much more extensive, analytical, critically examining and overall more reasonable view-point than someone who isn't an expert in that field? Do you see why people may be more likely to trust a Scientist's opinion over a non-Scientist? Or a Lawyer's opinion on legal matters opposed to someone who isn't a Lawyer/extensively rooted in Law?

Read the second paragraph.

[The Grand Nudger]

People will appeal to historians until it suits them. Your entire ''the experts say'' mockery has been disingenuous. 

Other people appeal to authority, and?  

Read the second paragraph.

"the experts say".

What people may be more likely to trust is not a reliable indicator of truth, agreed?

(it's the paralegals, btw, that do all the work and generate all the expertise. Lawyers are presenters..unless otherwise forced or inclined. People often trust their lawyer completely unawares that their lawyer is, in actual practice, a composite figure. It's some girl named Jen they've only seen once that's actually got the clients case in their hands. Her words, his mouth.)

[Cephus]

But WHERE is the evidence.  If a historian accepts a fairy tale it makes you feel all warm.

Are you certain you haven't just pissed your pants?

Here you go again --- you do realize that none of what you're saying sounds rational? It sounds incredibly anti-rational and desperate. Historians are ''accepting'' a fairy tale? These people are experts in their field - and it's pretty desperate for you to attempt to dismiss what they do because you personally don't agree with the same claims.

Do you think it's credible to say climate-change is a Liberal conspiracy?

Also, here is the /r/askhistorians page, aside from the Gospels etc (which are analysed in the historical world), there are several non-Biblical sources which historians analyse.

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/co...cal_jesus/

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/religion

It doesn't matter what they accept, it matter what demonstrable, objective evidence they have and they just have nothing.  Historicity requires multiple independently verifiable sources.  The Bible is one.  There are no others.  There are only second, third and worse sources from people who were not eyewitnesses, they were just recording what they heard from others who also were not eyewitnesses.  By this logic, in another 2000 years, Harry Potter will be a historical person because there are a lot of people who have written about him.

It just doesn't stand up to any rigor, sorry.

[TheMessiah]

People will appeal to historians until it suits them. Your entire ''the experts say'' mockery has been disingenuous. 

Other people appeal to authority, and?  

Read the second paragraph.

"the experts say".

What people may be more likely to trust is not a reliable indicator of truth, agreed?

(it's the paralegals, btw, that do all the work and generate all the expertise. Lawyers are presenters..unless otherwise forced or inclined. People often trust their lawyer completely unawares that their lawyer is, in actual practice, a composite figure. It's some girl named Jen they've only seen once that's actually got the clients case in their hands.)

Yeah, you're clearly not getting the point - and if you do, which you might, you are being disingenuous about it.

I'm pretty much done.

[Cephus]

People may generally agree that there was a HJ, but they don't agree on what that actually means.

Yeah, what historians consider HJ, or what they generally agree upon is a Jew that got cruciced by the romans ---- in regards to ''what it means'' then there is a stronger debate/argument to be had.

Some historians think he was signifcant, others not so much.

I'm sure there were a lot of Jews who got crucified by the Romans.  There's no reason to believe that any of them were Jesus because no records exist to support it. This is just a bald-faced assertion without a shred of historical verification.

[The Grand Nudger]

The point is not..as you've -just- stated...that other people accept appeals to authority?  How am I supposed to get your point if you keep misstating it?  Try again?