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

[Silver]

I am uncertain why I should be concerned IF a historical figure named Jesus actually existed as a normal man. What does that have to do with worshipping him as the son of god, for either way, divine or merely human, he is unworthy of worship.

[TheMessiah]

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.

Thanks for proving my point:

''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.''

This is akin to me (who has not studied Science) telling a Scientist he has no idea what he's talking about; in an attempt to undermine his authority, I am pushing my ideological viewpoint so that I can assert my opinion. That of course, is not a valid form of debate --- what you consider ''evidence'' isn't what a scholar considers evidence. Most figures in the ancient world didn't have ''eye witness/first hand'' accounts that we assume (i.e. non scholars) to be the standard.

If there are ''no real scholars'' then much of what you learn about Hannibal, Greek or Rome is non-existent.

If ''hard, eye witness'' evidence is needed for an obscure Jewish preacher - then the same standard must be applied for Hannibal, Gamaliel, Hanina ben dosa or Buddha did not exist. By this train of ''logic'' (if one would call it that), literally three-quarters of the historical figures we now know about today did not exist, which in itself, is absurd.

[TheMessiah]

I am uncertain why I should be concerned IF a historical figure named Jesus actually existed as a normal man. What does that have to do with worshipping him as the son of god, for either way, divine or merely human, he is unworthy of worship.

The historical consensus on Jesus is not debating whether he's worthy of worship - it's simply showing who he was, which was an obscure preacher in 1st century Judea.

[TheMessiah]

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).

Again - this is what non-historians don't seem to understand. ''Compelling'' evidence isn't needed to prove that an obscure, poor preacher from 1st century Judea existed --- you do not use the same standard as evidence for a significant conqueror-like figure as you do for figures like Jesus; who in historical context, was not that important.

This is a snippet from another paper; which puts into context that what you consider ''compelling'' evidence isn't what the standard is for the ancient world.

1. "There are no contemporary accounts or mentions of Jesus.  There should be, so clearly no Jesus existed."

This seems a good argument to many, since modern people tend to leave behind them a lot of evidence they existed (birth certificates, financial documents, school records, etc.) and prominent modern people have their lives documented by the media almost daily.  So it sounds suspicious to people that there are no contemporary records at all detailing or even mentioning Jesus.

But our sources for anyone in the ancient world are scarce and rarely are they contemporaneous—they are usually written decades or even centuries after the fact.  Worse still, the more obscure and humble in origin the person is, the less likely that there will be any documentation about them or even a fleeting reference to them at all.

For example, few people in the ancient world were as prominent, influential, significant and famous as the Carthaginian general Hannibal.  He came close to crushing the Roman Republic, was one of the greatest generals of all time and was famed throughout the ancient world for centuries after his death down to today.  Yet how many contemporary mentions of Hannibal do we have?  Zero.  We have none.  So if someone as famous and significant as Hannibal has no surviving contemporary references to him in our sources, does it really make sense to base an argument about the existence or non-existence of a Galilean peasant preacher on the lack of contemporary references to him?  Clearly it does not.

So while this seems like a good argument, a better knowledge of the ancient world and the nature of our evidence and sources shows that it's actually extremely weak.

[The Grand Nudger]

By that logic we cannot say that -we know- that those figures existed, or that what we know of those figures is accurate.  Both statements are true..and isn't it amusing that the "anti-myther" doesn't respond by making a case for a historical jesus, he plays the slippery slope instead.

"No jesus, no history!"

-Typical.

[Silver]

I am uncertain why I should be concerned IF a historical figure named Jesus actually existed as a normal man. What does that have to do with worshipping him as the son of god, for either way, divine or merely human, he is unworthy of worship.

The historical consensus on Jesus is not debating whether he's worthy of worship - it's simply showing who he was, which was an obscure preacher in 1st century Judea.

I imagine that would be of more concern to theists, whose beliefs hinge on the divinity of Jesus, than atheists.

[TheMessiah]

By that logic we cannot say that -we know- that those figures existed, or that what we know of those figures is accurate.  Both statements are true..and isn't it amusing that the "anti-myther" doesn't respond by making a case for a historical jesus, he plays the slippery slope instead.

"No jesus, no history!"

-Typical.

By this logic, Hannibal, who nearly crushed the Roman empire, didn't exist, because there were no contemporary mentions of him.

[The Grand Nudger]

"No jesus, no hannibal"  

[TheMessiah]

The historical consensus on Jesus is not debating whether he's worthy of worship - it's simply showing who he was, which was an obscure preacher in 1st century Judea.

I imagine that would be of more concern to theists, whose beliefs hinge on the divinity of Jesus, than atheists.

The Historical Jesus actually undermined the Christian viewpoint of him; because once you read into the historicity of Jesus; he really was quite insignificant, and not as grand as Christians believe him to be.

Either way - it's not so much a ''concern to Theists'' as it is a concern to Historians. You can be an Atheist Historian who still takes interest in the historical world; Historian is a profession.

[TheMessiah]

"No jesus, no hannibal"  

No Jesus becomes no Hannibal once we apply the evidence standard of a non-Historian to a Historian.