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

[smax]

Uh... no stupid. The point was a rebuttal of your claim that a consensus formed around Jesus' existence has little to do with historiography and much to do with "comfort," which one might also derive from insulating themselves from logical thought, as seems to be the case here in your inability to follow a rather straightforward exchange of statements that began with you saying:  

Look at you, getting upset, frustrated to the point of name calling.... Aww...... LOL. Would you like me to go easier on you?

It's you that have failed to follow. Or, perhaps I should say you refuse to follow because your weak position here dictates that you do so. You have no compelling evidence to support your position, so your entire argument is based around deflection. 

Sadly, there are far better deflectors than you, so this hasn't been much of a debate at all. But, I get bored sometimes, so keep trying. 

In other words, no, you're not able to. I had assumed as much, based on your ignorance of ancient records, in which you thought that by asking to be shown Jesus' birth certificate and trial records, and that no one being able to produce them, credible doubt of his historical existence would therefore be established. Lol. [/size]

Perfect example of your attempts to deflect. I gave several types of proof that would be compelling and you failed to present a single one. And here in your address you chose to ignore most of them entirely......

Deflection. 

Go read an introductory text on ancient history before you make yourself appear a bigger dimwit than you already have. 

This is your problem right here. Your frame work is weak. You think simply because you can read about something, it must be true on some level. It reminds me of a book written by W.P. Crozier called Letters of Pontius Pilate. Many seeking to validate the historicity of Jesus cited this book as a verification of his existence and the claims about him. 

Problem is, the book was a work of fiction. And so is the bible, a book that claims to be an account of ANCIENT HISTORY. 

Do you see the problem yet? .......

I didn't think so. I can tell you aren't the objective or open minded type, nor are you sharp enough to see the fundamental flaw in your position. And that's good, because I'm having a lot of fun at your expense, which would not be possible if you were a man of good reason. 

A position which you have, like religious fundamentalists, nothing but faith to rely upon.

Faith, to me, is the act of not questioning something. You are only the one here exercising faith in something. If you questioned your position, for even a second, you'd abandon it in a heart beat as anyone with good reason would. 

I'm perfectly willing to accept that hundreds (or possibly thousands) of people named Jesus existed during the early centuries in Rome. Some of them were probably religious teachers and leaders too. There is absolutely no reason, however, to believe that any one of them was significantly more relevant than the next. 

I'll tell you another thing, Nesty, Christians have a much stronger basis for their position on Jesus than you do. They accept their bullshit at face value. You are creating your own bullshit from their bullshit in some pathetic attempt to establish an early century Ghandi. No, in fact, it's worse than that for you: your bullshit is just the product of weak minded conformity. Remember, "Everyone" is doing it.

In short, all you have is bullshit born of bullshit. But if it makes you feel like a more dedicated and cooler hippy, go for it. You only live once..... Oh, wait, you probably don't believe that.... Sorry.