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

[Minimalist]

If you prefer call it "one jesus freak lies and all the others swear to it."

These fuckheads couldn't pull off a conspiracy if their lives depended on it.

[Goosebump]

I was just saying endorsing the line "they do it for the money' isn't a good way. But, I don't think you care heh. Your pretty passionate.

[TheMessiah]

*Claps*

So convincing; you have now invalidated a historical consensus!

Consensus of people whose careers and funding come from university departments that would be disbanded when consensus that jesus was just a myth is met.

Woo Hoo! The bullshit is deep with this pretend atheist.

Wow, so apparently having a different view on History makes me a ''pretend Atheist!'' - better yet, by that logic, any Atheist which agrees with a historically accepted and proven view-point (considering Myther arguments have been destroyed for decadess) is now not a true Atheist!!!

You sound like an Atheist Plus nutjob who would say ''You don't believe in ___, you're not a true Atheist!'' --- this isn't an ''us vs them'' situation.

An Atheist is simply someone that does not believe in God. I do not believe in God nor do I entertain the supernatural.

P.S, discarding someone's arguments, or in fact, an entire group of people's arguments as ''they're getting paid to it, not valid'' is exactly what a religious nutjob would do, that is not a skeptical or rational viewpoint

Your argument has been just akin to a religious person who says ''God is real. Get over it'' --- you provided no counter claim because you have no argument. If the ''Jesus is a myth'' argument is so undoubtedly true, then provide proof and prove the historical consensus wrong; because you, an Atheist forum-poster on the internet, will have changed history forever.

[TheMessiah]

Thats a little conspiratorial. Like somebody claiming the moon landing wasn't real because all the rocket scientist jobs depending on it being real. I think the better go around is that his claim of consensus is just wrong. Seems like a lot of his historical evidence is based on the TF. And there is no consensus around that being genuine.

This is my point.

There's an Atheist You-Tuber who nailed it, he said ''Most Atheists aren't skeptics''.

And that is undoubtedly true - Brakeman's comments proved it. He provided and offered no argument whatsoever besides ''Get over it'' and then said I'm not ''Atheist enough'' --- what people fail to realize is that if they truly have evidence, then present it to a historical scholar. Most ''Jesus are myth'' argument proponents are almost never scholars, many of them have a very poor grasp of the evidence, and almost all have clear ideological objectives.

An interesting read:

http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist...rt-1-of-2/

More recently the "Jesus Myth" hypothesis has experienced something of a revival, largely via the internet, blogging, and "print on demand" self-publishing services. But its proponents are almost never scholars, many of them have a very poor grasp of the evidence, and almost all have clear ideological objectives. Broadly speaking, they fall into two main categories: (1) New Agers claiming Christianity is actually paganism rebadged and (2) anti-Christian atheist activists seeking to use their "exposure" of historical Jesus scholarship to undermine Christianity. Both claim that the consensus on the existence of a historical Jesus is purely due to some kind of iron-grip that Christianity still has on the subject, which has suppressed and/or ignored the idea that there was no historical Jesus at all.

There is an interesting divide - see, most Atheist and Theist historians agree that the general gist of Jesus as a man existed. But it differs when they're not historians.

More Atheist non-Historians deny the existence of Jesus than Atheist historians.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

More Atheist non-Historians deny the existence of Jesus than Atheist historians.

On the contrary, pangolins would probably be lousy pets.
Boru

[robvalue]

Have their been polls done then?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Do you have any evidence to suggest that the four gospels were intended to be included in the historical fiction genre of literature?

Do you have any evidence to indicate that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, or Paul were historians? Have they done any other notable work documenting any history at all?

As for whether they intended to write historical fiction, I'd say that accounts of zombies walking through cities would be the only answer you would need. Or -- do you think that actually happened? And if so, why wasn't it documented by, ahem, a historian?

[Thumpalumpacus]

So, you'll look less foolish with your head out of your ass.

I'm afraid you'll need a crowbar for that.

[Sweb]

The premise that there are scholars (claimants of a broad field of study who have been assessed as scholars by...whom?) on this topic at all lies purely in a speculative realm of context versus truth, desire versus truth and hopefulness versus truth. What we do not have is the second half of the argument resolved, no one capable of it's determination and a very heavy burden of temptation to rest the argument on the first half - aka blind faith.

There are no real scholars because there's no real knowledge to build a scholarly basis upon, never mind any attempt at a thesis. So, let's immediately dispense with the "experts say" premise going forward. This cat of atheist intent married to a 25 year study tells us exactly that. He took on a lengthy study and came up empty-handed regarding the truths relevant to substantiation of a jesus character. He's built his argument for the existence of such a character upon a questionable fellowship (theists and atheists in collaboration) on the topic. This is the blind leading the blind who, in the final analysis, can't even conjure up believable evidence for their own scholarliness. There just isn't enough data to build a scholarship upon.

The jesus myth must be sponsored as the only truth until is can be resolved by inarguable hard evidence. Or, we can be blinded by some claimed atheist who needs to think in the theistic sense, aka espousing answers without satisfying evidential criteria in hard fact.

If no hard facts are extant, neither was jesus. Deal with it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh, you could be a -little- more generous.  Supposing hard facts (or compelling evidence) does exist, but we can't agree on which those facts are or where to best source them, then, again.....no "jesus".   The situation we find ourselves in renders the "historical jesus" claim fundamentally silly, even after considering that there -may have been, and that it is possible -for there to have been, a kernel, a core to the character that survives in the narrative. There's simply no separating the two (the man/the myth).