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

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, just a few posts back someone already cut you off in your tracks Randy.  "Historians" of the past were a whole hell of alot more like "historical fiction" writers of the present than historians.  They didn't even see a problem with that - it wasn't, necessarily, negatively valued...so far as we can tell.  If the authors -intended- to write history, they intended to write the kind of history they themselves were accustomed to. -Not- the kind of history you're angling for. I'm not even sure why you expect it from them, whoever they were.....it's ludicrous.

[Cyberman]

Are we headed for another "they didn't write fiction in bible times" argument? It was so funny the first time around. It's worth a reboot.

[Minimalist]

Charles Dickens and Margaret Mitchell were fiction writers not historians.

They weren't bible bullshitters, either.

[Cephus]

Are we headed for another "they didn't write fiction in bible times" argument? It was so funny the first time around. It's worth a reboot.

If that's true, then they didn't write fiction at the time that Homer wrote the Iliad.  That makes Zeus and other gods real.   

[Minimalist]

Remember the standard xtian argument:  Special Pleading.

"Our bullshit is DIFFERENT."

[abaris]

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 know what campfire tales are? Or do you have any evidence that your four wonder boys actually witnessed the act and weren't jotting down what the heard?

And no, bible proves bible isn't evidence. On a side note, it would be nice to present some factual evidence of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John actually having existed. Not because someone wrote the gospel, but because of the claim that these four characters, who by the way spin different tales, were involved in the creation.

[Minimalist]

Randy, I suggest you read Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus....specifically Chapter 10, from whence cometh:

So the entire narrative of Mark is a fictional, symbolic construct, from

beginning to end. He adapted many other literary motifs and techniques to
flesh it out, of course. Some we've seen here. Others we've noted before for
example, Mark borrows a framework from the Socratic-Aesopic mythotype
(Element 46) and many elements from traditional pagan heroic translation
fables (Element 47); and he has already co-opted more than half
the features of the Rank-Raglan hero-type (counting fourteen hits out of
twenty-two; or fifteen, i f Jesus' metaphorical marriage to the heiress of
h is predecessor is counted, per Mk 2.1 8-22; the remaining features might
already have been part of the core Jesus mythology and Mark simply omitted
them-unless those features were added by Matthew: see Element 48).

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

[Brakeman]

A theist could call my neighbor jesus and adjust his bible a little bit and "voila" evidence of a "real" jesus.

The idea of a "son of god" in human form greatly predates the jesus story. It is also likely that the story was a myth that later christians tried to tack on a persona for credence.  Thus the story is still a myth, even with a body.

The actually historical evidence for a jesus as described in the bible is nil. The actual historical evidence for a living person tacked on to the myth is weak and circumstantial despite the desperate, and I do mean desperate, bluster from the theist camp.

Jesus was a myth, get over it..

*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.

[Minimalist]

You nailed it, Brakes.  These "theologians" aren't going to smash their own rice bowl.  They make a nice living by assuring idiots that their fairy tales are true.

[Goosebump]

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.