RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 7, 2015 at 4:35 pm
(This post was last modified: June 7, 2015 at 4:40 pm by TheMessiah.)
(June 7, 2015 at 4:32 pm)abaris Wrote:(June 7, 2015 at 4:27 pm)TheMessiah Wrote: It's not a Theist claim. It's a Historical claim. There is a difference.
On the same lines as global warming denying is a scientific claim. Truth is there's neither evidence for Jesus existing nor for his non existence. There can be a lot of speculations, but there's no evidence to be presented, since - to our present knowledge - there is none.
That comparison is disingenuous and makes no sense.
On one hand, global warming has the backing of 90% of the Scientific establishment; whereas denying it comes from vague and discredited sources. On the other hand, Jesus's existence is also backed up by most credible scholars and historians (just as global warming is backed up by the Scientific consensus), with most deniers coming from....discredited sources
The same people who deny global warming, once faced with the Scientific consensus, often say ''I don't need that Scientific consensus'' and attempt to debunk a Scientist's own argument in his expert field - much like a non Historian would do to a Historian. If there was literally no evidence for Jesus, the historical establishment would know about it.
One of the reasons why global warming is so well-attested is because of the consensus around the experts; the same holds true for historians, who use their own methods to find out details about the historical world. If you're going to make the comparison between two establishments, then I presume you would apply the same standard.
Also, I don't know why you said there is ''no evidence'' for Jesus - there's about as much evidence as one would expect for a 1st century preacher - we have 2 historical references to him which I explained.
