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

[TheMessiah]

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.

Double, triple..hell...quadruple down on your appeals to authority, and your defenses for them.  My response will remain unchanged so long as your replies continue that theme.   "The experts say" -is not capable- of answering the question.."is what the experts say accurate".  End of.  

We're on to my motives now?...shitlogic
You know how I'd respond to some other, as yet unmentioned claim?... shitlogic

Are we having a conversation about the historical jesus..and the mythicist position....or are you fantasizing about me Messiah?  I'll just offer again to discuss the most compelling portion (in your estimation) of the link you posted.  We can have that conversation.......or you can continue to do whatever it is you think you're doing.

I have thoroughly explained to you why it is not an ''appeal to authority'' --- because it isn't even a serious scholarly debate. Me pointing to the all but 7 scholars who agree on HJ is not an ''appeal to authority'' --- me pointing to 97% of the scientific community who agree upon climate change is not an appeal to authority, that is because these aren't debates in their respective fields; both are overwhelmingly considered true. They're not theories or arguments; someone existing is not an argument, nor is a global phenomena such as climate-change.

Me pointing to a majority of historians who could say the root cause of the civil war was slavery is an appeal to authority in an actual, scholarly debate.

My entire point is that the discussion has never been ''Is what the experts say accurate?'' --- it's more along the lines of ''What do I like about what the scholar says, and what do I not like?'' --- an ancient historian's grasp of evidence, especially a large group of ancient historians, will have a much better grasp of evidence and analysis. People constantly appeal to historians until it doesn't suit them.

Do you see why ''what the experts say'' is not a crude position because they are essentially the best equipped scholars in their respective field who have a much more extensive, analytical, critically examining and overall more reasonable view-point than someone who isn't an expert in that field? Do you see why people may be more likely to trust a Scientist's opinion over a non-Scientist? Or a Lawyer's opinion on legal matters opposed to someone who isn't a Lawyer/extensively rooted in Law?

As to your other part of the post, you generally dodged my points in the previous pages, generally misrepresented my position and shitposted.