RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 7, 2015 at 5:05 am
(This post was last modified: June 7, 2015 at 5:54 am by TheMessiah.)
(June 7, 2015 at 1:01 am)Goosebump Wrote: Thats a little conspiratorial. Like somebody claiming the moon landing wasn't real because all the rocket scientist jobs depending on it being real. I think the better go around is that his claim of consensus is just wrong. Seems like a lot of his historical evidence is based on the TF. And there is no consensus around that being genuine.
This is my point.
There's an Atheist You-Tuber who nailed it, he said ''Most Atheists aren't skeptics''.
And that is undoubtedly true - Brakeman's comments proved it. He provided and offered no argument whatsoever besides ''Get over it'' and then said I'm not ''Atheist enough'' --- what people fail to realize is that if they truly have evidence, then present it to a historical scholar. Most ''Jesus are myth'' argument proponents are almost never scholars, many of them have a very poor grasp of the evidence, and almost all have clear ideological objectives.
An interesting read:
http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist...rt-1-of-2/
Quote:More recently the "Jesus Myth" hypothesis has experienced something of a revival, largely via the internet, blogging, and "print on demand" self-publishing services. But its proponents are almost never scholars, many of them have a very poor grasp of the evidence, and almost all have clear ideological objectives. Broadly speaking, they fall into two main categories: (1) New Agers claiming Christianity is actually paganism rebadged and (2) anti-Christian atheist activists seeking to use their "exposure" of historical Jesus scholarship to undermine Christianity. Both claim that the consensus on the existence of a historical Jesus is purely due to some kind of iron-grip that Christianity still has on the subject, which has suppressed and/or ignored the idea that there was no historical Jesus at all.
There is an interesting divide - see, most Atheist and Theist historians agree that the general gist of Jesus as a man existed. But it differs when they're not historians.
More Atheist non-Historians deny the existence of Jesus than Atheist historians.
