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

[Mudhammam]

I'll let Min handle the tacitus and jospehus bits, if he can muster up the patience to do it for the hundredth time.  I'm glad that you and I agree that your comments are not the mythicist argument.  Seems a little perplexing now, though, since neither you nor mythicists argue that point....it was introduced, by you...because?  Hmn, let's check the tape.

Yeah, it must be so difficult for Min to reproduce Carrier quotes. Such hard work.

Nota bene: Richard Carrier is not a god. Mythicists should stop quoting him like Christians quote Jesus.

Let's "check the tape." By which I mean, don't selectively edit the conversation. Here, I'll repeat it for you:

The Gospels have been doctored for centuries by people with an agenda. Regarding them as evidence of a human Jesus would be like regarding For Whom the Bell Tolls as evidence of Robert Jordan.  Everything sounds in place, but none of it is proven real, because we have no other evidence of either protagonist.

It's circular argumentation.

To which I said:

I don't know about your comparison, but if it is anything like the irrational garbage that other mythicists here espouse, you might want to re-consider how similar the two are. It's a circular argument to say, "Jesus probably didn't exist because the texts about him are corrupt and include embellishment; therefore Jesus probably didn't exist."

lol...shameless.  If I hadn't already upvoted you I would.  Reconsider how similar what two are?  

I've learned over the past couple of weeks what a dumbass you are but at least I thought you were being insincere. Guess not.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.

when mythicists use the same texts to argue for their case... well, except the ones that clearly require a historical Jesus,

and which ones.....if you would be so kind, are the ones which clearly require a historical jesus?

Gee, I dunno, maybe their claims that he had a human father and mother? (The former whom they said practiced carpentry). That he had brothers and sisters? (one mentioned by Josephus). That he was baptized by John, a character also confirmed by Josephus to be historical, a point all the Gospel writers go through pains to explain in the context of their theology? That he died by crucifixion... a claim so central to the Christian ethos that it turns up on almost every page? (Hint: celestial beings don't usually die a common criminal's death by known historical executioners).

Need I say, "derp"?

"The bible says so" isn't so great for historicity...it's perfectly fine for observing....what the bible says, which is the subject of the mythicist position. The mythicist position doesn;t argue in the manner that you're claiming. That the bible says something..to a mythicist, is just the acknowledgement of whats contained in the narrative, not it's historicity. Perhaps you'll appreciate the difference...and come to understand why you're still pitching straw?

Did you not want an opportunity to respond to what a mythicist position actually argued?  No objections to the quoted statement in my last response? Are we having a discussion about the mythicist position or your misapprehensions of it?

When the mythicist is not creating a story out of thin air, he relies on the same texts that historists do to construct his narrative. So which part should I oblige? The texts about Jesus' divinity and post-mortem celestial existence, the texts about Jesus' humanity that mythicists dismiss ad hoc, or their silly and groundless explanations for why the texts say what they do?