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

[TheMessiah]

The experts evidence is far more important than what "the experts say".  We're not having a disagreement about what experts say, we're having a disagreement about the truth value of "what experts say". It is -entirely- out of place in this conversation.

@Messiah

Pick the most compelling bit from your link..I didn't find it very compelling myself. We can hash it out, the two of us?

The other side are similar to creationsists..shitlogic.
The debate isn't serious..shitlogic
The consensus of scholars...shitlogic

The claim was not that the ''other side'' is similar to Creationism. It was that the number of serious scholars who take the myth position is framed similarly to the number of scientists who proclaim themselves creationists. When I said the ''debate'' was not serious in scholarly circles, what I said was right. Whether Jesus existed is not a debate in historical circles, but whether an event was significant might generate a debate.

The historical Jesus is a nice, big topic many people could look at and attempt to answer; we have a controversial figure and a controversial religion. Match made in heaven to attract a lot of non-historians who feel more compelled to undermine opposing views.

If however, we were to discuss whether William Gladstone took an interventionist foreign policy during his second and third ministries, this would attract significantly less attention because the subject matter is complex; and suddenly, a historian's opinion is now trustworthy, however that's a debate many historians and scholars may take seriously. That's because you're debating something which can generate a range of view-points; by contrast, the *historical Jesus* ''debate'' is a simplistic, easy question because all an ancient historian needs to verify it is a few sources. That's it.

My point is because you are attached to the subject matter of Christianity/religion, you feel more compelled to laugh at the historical viewpoint of what is considered evidence; but if you were to look at a historical viewpoint in regards to any other topic which does not interest you, then you would simply accept a historian's viewpoint as more valid.

Me saying ''Gladstone did not have an interventionist policy because most historians don't think so'' would be an appeal to authority in an actual historical debate.