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

[Goosebump]

Seems to me , a layman, after reading much of this thread and doing a little wiki searching to fill in the gaps what My take away was this.

Historians are in disagreement. Any testimony of Jesus the man or the myth is suspect and in doubt. There is no consensus. Which sounds a lot like hands in the air and nothing like concrete evidence.

[TheMessiah]

Seems to me , a layman, after reading much of this thread and doing a little wiki searching to fill in the gaps what My take away was this.

Historians are in disagreement. Any testimony of Jesus the man or the myth is suspect and in doubt. There is no consensus. Which sounds a lot like hands in the air and nothing like concrete evidence.

I have no idea how the Wiki told you that ''Historians are in disagreement'' - the Wiki states that there is near unanimous agreement that Jesus existed, with few scholars really pushing the Myth position. His existence has never been a hotly debated topic in historical circles - certain aspects of early Christianity have, but not his general existence. Hence why there's a severe lack of mythist work among scholars.

From the wiki page:

''There is near unanimity among scholars that Jesus existed historically''

The reddit /r/AskHistorians page also says the same thing.

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/religion

[robvalue]

I agree. Most detailed conclusions I have heard are not based on evidence, but on an awful lot of assumptions, mainly about people's motivations at the time. I feel people would rather have some story than no story, even if it's not well supported. Historians are important though for establishing things like document authenticity, and which things were all written by the same person, that sort of thing.

[TheMessiah]

I agree. Most detailed conclusions I have heard are not based on evidence, but on an awful lot of assumptions, mainly about people's motivations at the time. I feel people would rather have some story than no story, even if it's not well supported. Historians are important though for establishing things like document authenticity, and which things were all written by the same person, that sort of thing.

Historians analyse the historical world and tell us what constitutes as evidence; hence why I previously cited you 2 historical references. Nearly everything you know about the ancient world would in the eyes of a non-Historian not be considered ''good evidence''. Historians are not just ''good at establishing documents'' --- they give you the most likely and reasonable answer.

What you have basically done is told a person (historians) in their specialist field, which they have studied for perhaps decades that what they do/the way they do it isn't good enough; this is akin to me trying to lecture a Scientist climate-change.

Here is a historian from /r/AskHistorians, with the flair of 'Roman Archaeology' explaining that a non-Historians grasp on what is considered evidence differs from what Ancient Historians consider evidence.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/c...us_christ/

[Minimalist]

I have no idea how the Wiki told you that ''Historians are in disagreement'' - the Wiki states that there is near unanimous agreement that Jesus existed

We know.  You are desperate for someone to tell you that your bullshit is right.  You seek vindication, not enlightenment.  I don't blame you for clinging to bullshit so thoroughly but by the same token I'm not going to let you feel comfortable about it.

Let's see the evidence that those "historians" use.  If it is just your fucking bible, you are screwed.

[robvalue]

What I mean to say is that detailed conclusions tend to overreach the evidence. People can support it so far, then just go on to extend the story and that's why the phrase "historical Jesus" means next to nothing because it means something different to so many people.

Obviously there is some evidence, but not enough for what people want to tell me actually happened, in the detail they generally go into.

I still have to be convinced by their arguments, and generally I am not, if they go beyond a few bullet points of "facts" about Jesus.

[TheMessiah]

I have no idea how the Wiki told you that ''Historians are in disagreement'' - the Wiki states that there is near unanimous agreement that Jesus existed

We know.  You are desperate for someone to tell you that your bullshit is right.  You seek vindication, not enlightenment.  I don't blame you for clinging to bullshit so thoroughly but by the same token I'm not going to let you feel comfortable about it.

Let's see the evidence that those "historians" use.  If it is just your fucking bible, you are screwed.

Damn right I seek verification from historians; it'd be utterly ignorant not to do so and priding yourself on not doing that does not make you look skeptical, it makes you look desperate and hyper-aggressive. I seek verification from historians because not doing so would be ignorant. They analyse the historical world and give us information.

They are literally experts in their chosen field

This is akin to a climate-change denier saying ''I don't care about the Scientists, what I'm saying is right. Their grasp of evidence is nonsense'' --- or should I deny myself a doctor and choose faith healing instead? Would I be ''enlightened'' by not seeking out the experts?

[Minimalist]

But WHERE is the evidence.  If a historian accepts a fairy tale it makes you feel all warm.

Are you certain you haven't just pissed your pants?

[robvalue]

I've aware of all the evidence, I believe. There isn't much, and it isn't good. The extrapolations aren't convincing. A historian still needs to explain why they come to any particular conclusion, and if I think the reasoning is flawed then I reject it. Sure, that's just my opinion. All we can have is opinions, it's not like science where we can actually test any of them.

[TheMessiah]

But WHERE is the evidence.  If a historian accepts a fairy tale it makes you feel all warm.

Are you certain you haven't just pissed your pants?

Here you go again --- you do realize that none of what you're saying sounds rational? It sounds incredibly anti-rational and desperate. Historians are ''accepting'' a fairy tale? These people are experts in their field - and it's pretty desperate for you to attempt to dismiss what they do because you personally don't agree with the same claims.

Do you think it's credible to say climate-change is a Liberal conspiracy?

Also, here is the /r/askhistorians page, aside from the Gospels etc (which are analysed in the historical world), there are several non-Biblical sources which historians analyse.

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/co...cal_jesus/

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/religion