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

[Cyberman]

So we have an angel named Moroni and a planet named Kolob (Bolok in reverse). You don't even need the magic underwear at this point. Smith must have been laughing all the way to the bank.

[Minimalist]

The angel Moroni is the heavenly messenger who first visited the Prophet Joseph Smith in 1823. As a mortal named Moroni 2, he had completed the compilation and writing of the Book of Mormon.

Excellent analogy, man.

[Mudhammam]

I must say, it's rather entertaining to watch an ignoramus pat themselves on the back for having no knowledge of historical figures (but hey, as smaxypads clearly stated in post #403, he just doesn't care about facts! Inconsequential here! Lol), for which the documentary evidence is far less extent, while employing depressingly illogical analogies as argumentation which really only goes to show that the label of stupid he received was too charitable.

[smax]

 Before I read anything on the matter, I pretty much assumed that there was.  But in reading about it, I found the evidence less than compelling.

I think that pretty much sums up anyone who's done their DD on the subject.

[Minimalist]

Time to change tactics, Nestor.  Find some evidence rather than insist that the opinions of theologians are somehow relevant to the discussion.

[robvalue]

(Just for kicks)

I wonder if one of the reasons mythicists aren't taken seriously by some is that all Christian biblical scholars must categorically deny it as even a remote possibility?

Not all biblical scholars deny it as a remote possibility.  Some even affirm it as likely.  But most say that they believe in an historical Jesus.  (Though as Minimalist likes to point out, they disagree with each other on what, exactly, that means.  Some believe more detailed stories than others, and some believe different details than others.)  

The thing is, pretty much everyone entering the matter starts with the idea that there was an historical Jesus.  Before I read anything on the matter, I pretty much assumed that there was.  But in reading about it, I found the evidence less than compelling.  But I have no particular need to believe one way or the other, as it does not matter to me if there was or was not an historical Jesus.

I specified Christian biblical scholars I know not all biblical scholars are Christian, but many are and their opinion still holds weight. (Not so much with me, but in general ) They literally can't conclude anything that would justify the mythicist position in any form, can they? Or rather they won't, regardless of what the evidence is or isn't.

I suppose you could have some whacky Christian who doesn't believe Jesus was real... err...

[Minimalist]

I know not all biblical scholars are Christian, but many are and their opinion still holds weight.

Hmmm.....   Has a snake-oil salesman ever doubted the value of snake-oil?

[smax]

I must say, it's rather entertaining to watch an ignoramus pat themselves on the back for having no knowledge of historical figures (but hey, as smaxypads clearly stated in post #403, he just doesn't care about facts! Inconsequential here! Lol), for which the documentary evidence is far less extent, while employing depressingly illogical analogies as argumentation which really only goes to show that the label of stupid he received was too charitable.

I gotta be honest, I'm bummed, man. This was fun for a while, but you are getting more and more desperate and ineffective with your retorts. In fact, they aren't even direct now, you are sadly trying to appeal to others with your comments about me. 

I hate that I now have to add "Sad need for approval" to your growing list of pathetic personal characteristics. 

Oh well, at least you know how to call someone stupid without any real basis. That's a ....... uhhhhh ..... thing. 

[Pyrrho]

[Mudhammam]

Einstein answered George Sylvester Viereck when asked, “You accept the historical existence of Jesus?”:

“Unquestionably. No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. How different, for instance, is the impression which we receive from an account of legendary heroes of antiquity like Theseus. Theseus and other heroes of his type lack the authentic vitality of Jesus.”

Having read some of the ancient historians (including Plutarch's account of Theseus---btw, does anyone discredit his Lives simply on the grounds that it includes mythology? Nope.), philosophers, comedians, etc., and giving a fair hearing to the mythicist arguments put forth here, Earl Doherty and the few others, it's pretty obvious which side evidence and rational argumentation supports. Jesus was most assuredly a first-century Jewish teacher, however irrelevant that figure is to the dogmas written on account of his apparently noble life, writings that make no sense when the focus of their energy is removed entirely to the realm of fiction  . . . which serves, apparently, as motive for some, but evidently (and ironically) not the Gospel writers. That much is obvious as borne out of the ad hominems and non-sequitors mythicists seem too often to reply upon . . . does anyone have to explain to smaxypads that belief in a historical Jesus is in no way (logically) connected to a belief in an afterlife? And he (along with those who profess to "like" such illogical remarks) thinks that is anything but stupid?

But I'm somehow expected to take serious and engage with such nonsense? Ha. Children. Bless their little hearts.