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

[TheMessiah]

The premise that there are scholars (claimants of a broad field of study who have been assessed as scholars by...whom?) on this topic at all lies purely in a speculative realm of context versus truth, desire versus truth and hopefulness versus truth. What we do not have is the second half of the argument resolved, no one capable of it's determination and a very heavy burden of temptation to rest the argument on the first half - aka blind faith.

There are no real scholars because there's no real knowledge to build a scholarly basis upon, never mind any attempt at a thesis. So, let's immediately dispense with the "experts say" premise going forward. This cat of atheist intent married to a 25 year study tells us exactly that. He took on a lengthy study and came up empty-handed regarding the truths relevant to substantiation of a jesus character. He's built his argument for the existence of such a character upon a questionable fellowship (theists and atheists in collaboration) on the topic. This is the blind leading the blind who, in the final analysis, can't even conjure up believable evidence for their own scholarliness. There just isn't enough data to build a scholarship upon.

The jesus myth must be sponsored as the only truth until is can be resolved by inarguable hard evidence. Or, we can be blinded by some claimed atheist who needs to think in the theistic sense, aka espousing answers without satisfying evidential criteria in hard fact.

If no hard facts are extant, neither was jesus. Deal with it.

Thanks for proving my point:

''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.''

This is akin to me (who has not studied Science) telling a Scientist he has no idea what he's talking about; in an attempt to undermine his authority, I am pushing my ideological viewpoint so that I can assert my opinion. That of course, is not a valid form of debate --- what you consider ''evidence'' isn't what a scholar considers evidence. Most figures in the ancient world didn't have ''eye witness/first hand'' accounts that we assume (i.e. non scholars) to be the standard.

If there are ''no real scholars'' then much of what you learn about Hannibal, Greek or Rome is non-existent.

If ''hard, eye witness'' evidence is needed for an obscure Jewish preacher - then the same standard must be applied for Hannibal, Gamaliel, Hanina ben dosa or Buddha did not exist. By this train of ''logic'' (if one would call it that), literally three-quarters of the historical figures we now know about today did not exist, which in itself, is absurd.