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

[Mudhammam]

Everybody basically agrees that Jesus was a Jewish preacher out of Galilee who at some point followed John the Baptist, later acquired a following of his own, was crucified by Pilate during the reign of Tiberius, and then had disciples who started proclaiming that he had risen from the dead in a "spiritual body" to which they cited "appearances" of some form.

Not "everyone."

"Basically everyone," meaning, anyone who has reviewed the data and published their research---with the exception of those I can count on two hands. Just like one may say, "basically everyone" with a degree in chemistry or biology accepts the theory of evolution, or "basically everyone" concurs that the earth is spherical. If I was including every nutjob with a voice on the internet, then technically you're correct.

[Minimalist]

But I have reviewed the data and find no evidence...(actual evidence, mind you) to support any of the myriad positions for a HJ.  Carrier has systematically taken the evidence apart and, as with Price, concluded that it is a fantasy.

When the HJ-ers can agree among themselves what their godboy was maybe a rational discussion would be possible.  But right now they each seem to see whatever they wish to see.

And THAT is a huge red flag for historicity.

[smax]

Nestor:
Everyone basically agrees.....

Ah yes, the old "everyone is doing it" argument. Case closed! 

Can you answer any of the questions you posed concerning other first century Jewish rabbis? What about famous philosophers and scholars, such as Aristippus of Cyrene, Diogenes of Sinope, Philo of Alexandria, or Pliny the Elder? Can you show us the trial records of Socrates or Gaius Verres? How about the tombs of Plato, Aristotle, or Epicurus? Zeno of Elea or Zeno of Citium? Birth certificates? Do you think unless someone left writings it's more likely that others who attest to their existence are lying? That's a pretty incredible---and ignorant---standard to require.

None of the verifications I called for are even remotely close to be "incredible". And, I'll be quite frank in saying that I don't care about any of the figures you mentioned or the validity of their historical existence. In other words, it's irrelevant whether they can be verified or not because it's basically inconsequential. It falls in the category of "who cares?". Given the cultural and social significance of an alleged Jesus Christ, however, I see great significance and relevance in the need to verify his existence as an actual historical figure.  And, to that end, I find the evidence to be overwhelmingly lacking, as you have unwittingly acknowledged by meeting not one single burden of proof. 

It sounds to me like you may have some emotional investment in denying the probability that Christian dogmas originally developed from a early first-century crucified preacher, as all of the sources claim. You claim that Jesus was an invented figure to take advantage of “the masses” through “lies, deception, greed, envy, or simply the need to control.” 

Not at all. But I will note yet another completely baseless conclusion reached on your part. Not that it was needed, but your assessment does serve as reinforcement to my position.

[Mudhammam]

Ah yes, the old "everyone is doing it" argument. Case closed! 

Uh... no stupid. The point was a rebuttal of your claim that a consensus formed around Jesus' existence has little to do with historiography and much to do with "comfort," which one might also derive from insulating themselves from logical thought, as seems to be the case here in your inability to follow a rather straightforward exchange of statements that began with you saying:

When there is a lack of evidence to support something, and yet it is widely believed, it is obviously because people want to believe it. In the case of Jesus, we find that people do not necessarily agree about who or what he was, but we find that a large percentage of people take comfort in believing that he existed in one form or another.

None of the verifications I called for are even remotely close to be "incredible". And, I'll be quite frank in saying that I don't care about any of the figures you mentioned or the validity of their historical existence. In other words, it's irrelevant whether they can be verified or not because it's basically inconsequential. It falls in the category of "who cares?". Given the cultural and social significance of an alleged Jesus Christ, however, I see great significance and relevance in the need to verify his existence as an actual historical figure.  And, to that end, I find the evidence to be overwhelmingly lacking, as you have unwittingly acknowledged by meeting not one single burden of proof. 

In other words, no, you're not able to. I had assumed as much, based on your ignorance of ancient records, in which you thought that by asking to be shown Jesus' birth certificate and trial records, and that no one being able to produce them, credible doubt of his historical existence would therefore be established. Lol. Go read an introductory text on ancient history before you make yourself appear a bigger dimwit than you already have.

Not at all. But I will note yet another completely baseless conclusion reached on your part. Not that it was needed, but your assessment does serve as reinforcement to my position.

A position which you have, like religious fundamentalists, nothing but faith to rely upon.

[smax]

Uh... no stupid. The point was a rebuttal of your claim that a consensus formed around Jesus' existence has little to do with historiography and much to do with "comfort," which one might also derive from insulating themselves from logical thought, as seems to be the case here in your inability to follow a rather straightforward exchange of statements that began with you saying:  

Look at you, getting upset, frustrated to the point of name calling.... Aww...... LOL. Would you like me to go easier on you?

It's you that have failed to follow. Or, perhaps I should say you refuse to follow because your weak position here dictates that you do so. You have no compelling evidence to support your position, so your entire argument is based around deflection. 

Sadly, there are far better deflectors than you, so this hasn't been much of a debate at all. But, I get bored sometimes, so keep trying. 

In other words, no, you're not able to. I had assumed as much, based on your ignorance of ancient records, in which you thought that by asking to be shown Jesus' birth certificate and trial records, and that no one being able to produce them, credible doubt of his historical existence would therefore be established. Lol. [/size]

Perfect example of your attempts to deflect. I gave several types of proof that would be compelling and you failed to present a single one. And here in your address you chose to ignore most of them entirely......

Deflection. 

Go read an introductory text on ancient history before you make yourself appear a bigger dimwit than you already have. 

This is your problem right here. Your frame work is weak. You think simply because you can read about something, it must be true on some level. It reminds me of a book written by W.P. Crozier called Letters of Pontius Pilate. Many seeking to validate the historicity of Jesus cited this book as a verification of his existence and the claims about him. 

Problem is, the book was a work of fiction. And so is the bible, a book that claims to be an account of ANCIENT HISTORY. 

Do you see the problem yet? .......

I didn't think so. I can tell you aren't the objective or open minded type, nor are you sharp enough to see the fundamental flaw in your position. And that's good, because I'm having a lot of fun at your expense, which would not be possible if you were a man of good reason. 

A position which you have, like religious fundamentalists, nothing but faith to rely upon.

Faith, to me, is the act of not questioning something. You are only the one here exercising faith in something. If you questioned your position, for even a second, you'd abandon it in a heart beat as anyone with good reason would. 

I'm perfectly willing to accept that hundreds (or possibly thousands) of people named Jesus existed during the early centuries in Rome. Some of them were probably religious teachers and leaders too. There is absolutely no reason, however, to believe that any one of them was significantly more relevant than the next. 

I'll tell you another thing, Nesty, Christians have a much stronger basis for their position on Jesus than you do. They accept their bullshit at face value. You are creating your own bullshit from their bullshit in some pathetic attempt to establish an early century Ghandi. No, in fact, it's worse than that for you: your bullshit is just the product of weak minded conformity. Remember, "Everyone" is doing it.

In short, all you have is bullshit born of bullshit. But if it makes you feel like a more dedicated and cooler hippy, go for it. You only live once..... Oh, wait, you probably don't believe that.... Sorry.

[Mudhammam]

It sounds like you'd rather, quite shamelessly, make excuses for your ignorance of historiography and the materials available to historians rather than acknowledge how pathetically hilarious your previous arguments were. But as you said, you just don't care to make informed arguments. Pretty typical of your clan, which is the actual reason nobody takes your position very seriously while the religious fundamentalists on the other side of your coin justifiably criticize the dogmas of such pseudo-skepticism. Thanks for the exemplary demonstration of that in a nut shell.

[robvalue]

(Just for kicks)

I wonder if one of the reasons mythicists aren't taken seriously by some is that all Christian biblical scholars must categorically deny it as even a remote possibility?

[smax]

It sounds like you'd rather, quite shamelessly,  make excuses for your ignorance of historiography and the materials available to historians rather than acknowledge how pathetically hilarious your previous arguments were. But as you said, you just don't care to make informed arguments. Pretty typical of your clan, which is the actual reason nobody takes your position very seriously while the religious fundamentalists on the other side of your coin justifiably criticize the dogmas of such pseudo-skepticism. Thanks for the exemplary demonstration of that in a nut shell.

I gotta tell you, I get a good laugh from seeing you use the term "ignorant" from such an obvious position of stubborn ignorance. You are obviously incapable of truly considering the nature of invention in religion. 

Nevertheless, it's rare to find someone so eager to defend his ignorance with absolutely nothing. LOL. So let's try another quick hand at it:

1. The angel Moroni is the heavenly messenger who first visited the Prophet Joseph Smith in 1823. As a mortal named Moroni 2, he had completed the compilation and writing of the Book of Mormon.
   

Real person or not?

According to your logic, he must be real for the following reasons:

#1. You can read about him
#2. A massive movement has been established around his existence


But, wait, is everyone doing it? Oh no, they aren't. There are estimated to be over 15 million followers of the religion this person's alleged existence established, but historians still largely reject the notion of his existence based around a lack of credible evidence. 

Interestingly enough, there is far more compelling evidence for a Moroni 2 then there is a Jesus Christ. We have first hand accounts and a physical description. However, for some of us, who accept that it is the very nature and, in fact, necessity of religion to make shit up, it's easy to dismiss Moroni as a necessary invention of the Mormon religion, much like Jesus is the necessary invention of the Christian religion. 

You seem very attached to your personal belief that you are a responsible and well educated historian, but your inability to use sound logic in discerning truth make that an allusive designation. Sadly, your poor foundation will likely prevent you from every achieving it. Between your "everyone" is doing it approach and your inability to utilize critical and objective analysis, I think you are stuck where you are, which is just a gullible hippy. 

But at least you created a cool topic to smash to pieces. That's something.

[smax]

(Just for kicks)

I wonder if one of the reasons mythicists aren't taken seriously by some is that all Christian biblical scholars must categorically deny it as even a remote possibility?

You are asking our thread starter here to exercise critical thinking and deductive logic, two things he clearly lacks.

[Pyrrho]

(Just for kicks)

I wonder if one of the reasons mythicists aren't taken seriously by some is that all Christian biblical scholars must categorically deny it as even a remote possibility?

Not all biblical scholars deny it as a remote possibility.  Some even affirm it as likely.  But most say that they believe in an historical Jesus.  (Though as Minimalist likes to point out, they disagree with each other on what, exactly, that means.  Some believe more detailed stories than others, and some believe different details than others.)  

The thing is, pretty much everyone entering the matter starts with the idea that there was an historical Jesus.  Before I read anything on the matter, I pretty much assumed that there was.  But in reading about it, I found the evidence less than compelling.  But I have no particular need to believe one way or the other, as it does not matter to me if there was or was not an historical Jesus.