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

[Mr.wizard]

Ya so, Tim O'Neill has studied for 25 years and admits the evidence for a historical jesus is not very good, not sure it that helps your case. The consensus among historians is not "evidence" that anything happened and doesn't answer the question of whether jesus existed.

[Pyrrho]

I think mythers, HJers and everyone inbetween should all get along and just agree that religion is bullshit. No need for infighting about the exact level of fiction used in the bible

That isn't going to happen.  Once people agree about something, then they tend to talk about it less.  It is disagreements that tend to generate the most active discussions.  You can see that in this thread, in that there is little discussion about whether or not the miracles attributed to Jesus actually happened.  It is the points of disagreement that tend to get the most discussion.


Also, people do not even seem to get it when I am joking, though you clearly understood the joke that was directed at you.  Such a joke therefore can generate responses, where people disagree with what they take the joke to mean.

Of course, people not understanding my jokes will not stop me from telling them.

[smax]

Like I said, it's a really a debate between rationale and conformity, or fact vs speculation.

The fact is, there is no solid evidence that Jesus ever existed. Therefore, the belief that he did is purely one of choice. Obviously historians have an invested motivation in choosing/speculating in favor of a historical Jesus because the alternative is to be ostracized. This dilemma is nothing new in human history. At one point you could be ostracized or worse for saying the earth was round or that the earth revolved around the sun. Undoubtedly the knowledge of the truth was known by many long before it was acceptable to profess that truth.

I have no doubt that many of today's historians that accept an historical Jesus either do so because they are lazy, weak minded, and prone to unquestioned conformity, or because they don't consider the cause worth the potential price of being ostracized.

Either way, historical Jesus advocates cannot offer solid proof of his existence. Many of these historians are Christians, but even the ones that aren't are exercising faith in Jesus Christ.

[robvalue]

I think mythers, HJers and everyone inbetween should all get along and just agree that religion is bullshit. No need for infighting about the exact level of fiction used in the bible

That isn't going to happen.  Once people agree about something, then they tend to talk about it less.  It is disagreements that tend to generate the most active discussions.  You can see that in this thread, in that there is little discussion about whether or not the miracles attributed to Jesus actually happened.  It is the points of disagreement that tend to get the most discussion.


Also, people do not even seem to get it when I am joking, though you clearly understood the joke that was directed at you.  Such a joke therefore can generate responses, where people disagree with what they take the joke to mean.

Of course, people not understanding my jokes will not stop me from telling them.

Sure, I got your joke

I'm all for discussion, I have no problem with that. I just don't understand why this subject causes some people to get steam coming out their ears and resort to name calling.

[Minimalist]

Because they so desperately need to BELIEVE.

[Redbeard The Pink]

Like I said, it's a really a debate between rationale and conformity, or fact vs speculation.

The fact is, there is no solid evidence that Jesus ever existed. Therefore, the belief that he did is purely one of choice. Obviously historians have an invested motivation in choosing/speculating in favor of a historical Jesus because the alternative is to be ostracized. This dilemma is nothing new in human history. At one point you could be ostracized or worse for saying the earth was round or that the earth revolved around the sun. Undoubtedly the knowledge of the truth was known by many long before it was acceptable to profess that truth.

I have no doubt that many of today's historians that accept an historical Jesus either do so because they are lazy, weak minded, and prone to unquestioned conformity, or because they don't consider the cause worth the potential price of being ostracized.

Either way, historical Jesus advocates cannot offer solid proof of his existence. Many of these historians are Christians, but even the ones that aren't are exercising faith in Jesus Christ.

Being a "Christ-Myther" myself, I was going to contribute my own thoughts to this thread, but this guy pretty much nailed it. Just because something is the consensus belief, doesn't necessarily make it true. If the consensus is based on sloppy evidence or bad interpretations of that evidence, then a revisitation of the consensus claim is warranted and justified.


Some branches of the Christ Myth theory forward dubious historical claims and conspiracy theory crap; many of these can be easily dismissed by most historians. Even the stronger versions of the theory are subject to criticism and based on tricky evidence. Here's the thing, though...if you do turn it around and ask mainstream historians why they believe Jesus did exist, even the atheists start to sound like apologists. Their argument boils down to one thing: consensus. Aside from that, they have no legitimate claim to the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.

[Minimalist]

The concept of a consensus belief does not survive close scrutiny.

Who was Jesus? Crossan claims he was a revolutionary peasant, to Burton Mack he was a “cynic-like sage” [NOTE], to Tom Wright he is a Jewish prophet and to Marcus Borg a charismatic preacher (and definitely not an eschatological prophet). As Luke Timothy Johnson says, all this variety could mean that “virtually any hypothesis can sustain itself” and even Crossan admits that the “stunning diversity is an academic embarrassment.”

bede.org


Since this was written you can throw in Aslam's "revolutionary preacher" and Ehrman's "apocalyptic preacher" and pretty soon you should be able to come to the conclusion that they are all just pulling stuff out of their asses.


The one thing they do agree on is that this guy was no miracle-working godboy.  That silly shit is left to the fundie morons.