Shit. What The Hell. Jesus Never Existed

[Mudhammam]

---

The point is that there is quite a bit written, and enough to establish reasonable certainty that a historical Jesus was - as all of the earliest writings related to Christianity, both religious and secular, attest - at the head and center of a budding theology. The mythicist interpretation is only equally as likely if you want to believe that there is a special criteria for reading ancient Christian writings and a separate criteria for reading everything else, rather than understanding the genre a particular work assumes and analysing it as the author intended it to be read, per his explicit words or the subtle clues experts are trained to detect. The original apostles, per Paul and the early church fathers, believed that Jesus was a human being who died on a cross. Why? (I hear a choir of mythicist morons insisting that the apostle Paul was a fictional creation too). Even the groups that denied Jesus was flesh and blood didn't dispute his human appearance. The problem with mythicism, apart from its dubious ad hoc methodology which is inherently biased against all texts affirming Jesus' historicity (including Josephus and Tacitus, who remain two extremely powerful witnesses after Paul and Mark's Gospel) is that it has nothing substantial to offer as an alternative explanation for the birth and growth of Christianity. Contrarily, the historicists possess a number of plausible scenarios for how the faith came to take the form it did, and none of them require special pleading and outlandish speculation.

The biggest problem is that even after we show them the "hard evidence" they claim "doesn't exist" they then insist on changing the rules to suit their argument. Instead of accepting the evidence, considering it, and possibly changing their minds they're idiots who like Holocaust deniers will never change their minds even in the face of overwhelming evidence from the qualified experts. Here's a vid of Michael Shermer lamenting these quacks:

http://youtu.be/VoXX9XqdVd8

I agree with your statement completely:

Yes, you've proven that it's not difficult to explain the rise of Christianity under the Christ Myth, so long as nobody asks for evidence or reason to assent to your speculation, which is quite suspect on other grounds, namely its confusion in how even Hellenistic Jews, let alone those in Palestine,  viewed the pagan myths. Christianity is, in fact, unique, though not in any elevated sense, but that's a topic for another time.

I wish these guys would shut up about the historicity of Jesus long enough to start schooling us on the non-historicity of the Holocaust and whatever else they think about in their tinfoil hats.

No I wish they would present some EVIDENCE. Min asked me for mine I gave it, I asked for his he refused to give any. Both Min and Redbeard have refused to give any credible quotes from new testament period historians to defend their positions.

---

Well, I'm not sure I'd put any single occurrence of the ancient world on par with events from the past 70 years, when MUCH more documentation and even personal testimony remains verifiable for the latter. I also think that, as stupid as 99% of internet trolls - I mean, mythicists - sound, some do make very good points that need to be confronted. I've read and listened to a few of the most outspoken and studied mythicists; I like Carrier myself and find him very intelligent; yet, it's impossible for me to see how anyone who is being objective cannot find him wanting in the most crucial of points - writing off this or that as interpolation on quite spurious grounds, or drawing comparisons from other cults and religions that seem specious at best.

Mythicists would definitely come across as more credible if they followed Carrier's lead and studied what they profess to be so enlightened about - while yet ignoring their hero's obvious and obnoxious slant.