Posts: 341
Threads: 26
Joined: February 6, 2015
Reputation:
4
RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 9, 2015 at 2:26 am
(June 9, 2015 at 2:23 am)robvalue Wrote: 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.
You're right that it's not as verifiable as Science, however the historical opinion is far more informed. Either way, I'm fine with you not agreeing with what a historian thinks.
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/religion
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 9, 2015 at 2:27 am
(This post was last modified: June 9, 2015 at 2:35 am by robvalue.)
Yeah, we've seen all that stuff before. It's not very convincing. It mainly tells you about what people believed at the time, if that.
It's not my fault if some historians don't make convincing arguments. Some do, some don't.
Either I'm convinced by them, or I am not. The only alternative is to just accept their conclusions because they are historians, which seems rather pointless.
People may generally agree that there was a HJ, but they don't agree on what that actually means.
Posts: 341
Threads: 26
Joined: February 6, 2015
Reputation:
4
RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 9, 2015 at 2:33 am
(This post was last modified: June 9, 2015 at 2:34 am by TheMessiah.)
(June 9, 2015 at 2:27 am)robvalue Wrote: Yeah, we've seen all that stuff before. It's not very convincing. It mainly tells you about what people believed at the time, if that.
It's not my fault if some historians don't make convincing arguments. Some do, some don't.
Yeah, Historians don't just posit ''what people believed'' as evidence; they use reliable and trustworthy sources. They have a stronger and more insightful grasp on evidence for the ancient world. It's because of historians that we know so much detail about the ancient world. Much of what we know about the ancient world, once you look into it, might not seem ''convincing'' because the evidence used isn't what you'd expect
It's not so much an ''argument'' as it as a consensus --- arguing over what caused the civil war? That's a historical argument. Jesus existing isn't even an argument in historical circles --- they argue over the crusades and things like, that etc. Saying ''some do'' and ''some don't'' can amount to what opinion I like and what I don't like.
Anyway, as I said, I'm fine to agree to disagree.
Posts: 341
Threads: 26
Joined: February 6, 2015
Reputation:
4
RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 9, 2015 at 2:37 am
(June 9, 2015 at 2:27 am)robvalue Wrote: People may generally agree that there was a HJ, but they don't agree on what that actually means.
Yeah, what historians consider HJ, or what they generally agree upon is a Jew that got cruciced by the romans ---- in regards to ''what it means'' then there is a stronger debate/argument to be had.
Some historians think he was signifcant, others not so much.
Posts: 7318
Threads: 75
Joined: April 18, 2015
Reputation:
73
RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 9, 2015 at 2:38 am
Can somebody tell me why it's so important whether Jboy existed or not? 
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 9, 2015 at 2:38 am
(This post was last modified: June 9, 2015 at 2:41 am by robvalue.)
OK then, we'll agree to disagree. I'm quite happy to be convinced, when anyone (historian or not) backs up their conclusions with evidence and arguments. On the whole, when they go beyond a few basic facts, I find this not to be the case. But they can keep trying 
Neim: I have no idea. It isn't important at all. Even if magic Jesus existed, it makes no difference to me. Whatever shit was going on then is long since over.
Posts: 341
Threads: 26
Joined: February 6, 2015
Reputation:
4
RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 9, 2015 at 2:40 am
(This post was last modified: June 9, 2015 at 2:42 am by TheMessiah.)
(June 9, 2015 at 2:38 am)robvalue Wrote: OK then, we'll agree to disagree. I'm quite happy to be convinced, when anyone (historian or not) backs up their conclusions with evidence and arguments. On the whole, when they go beyond a few basic facts, I find this not to be the case. But they can keep trying
Well, we've already seen as from the link I posted, what Ancient Historians consider reliable evidence --- Ancient Historians don't expect to needs tons of evidence to prove that a 1st century Jew named Jesus got crucified.
Historical 'arguments' only come into play once they have to debate what HJ meant, not whether a vague figure existed.
But okay, agree to disagree.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 9, 2015 at 2:43 am
(This post was last modified: June 9, 2015 at 2:48 am by robvalue.)
That's exactly what I said. Crucifixion comes under "a few basic facts". I think you misunderstand my position, I'm not saying nothing can be learned. And I already said earlier that I'm not disputing that particular point.
Anyhow, I've beaten the horse and myself to death and beyond now so I'll climb back in the cupboard.
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 9, 2015 at 2:45 am
Historical Jesus vs. climate change... I'll take "false equivocation" for $200, Alex.
If the climate change hypothesis had as much compelling evidence as the HJ does, despite many years of searching, then yes I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to speculate about motivations (conspiracy is a bit presumptuous, and mischaracterises your opponents which you agreed not to do). Factor in the known and admitted forgeries and we're entitled to ask why the need to invent evidence if there is such overwhelming consensus?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 341
Threads: 26
Joined: February 6, 2015
Reputation:
4
RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 9, 2015 at 2:46 am
(June 9, 2015 at 2:43 am)robvalue Wrote: That's exactly what I said. I think crucifixion comes under "a few basic facts". I think you misunderstand my position, I'm not saying nothing can be learned.
Okay, thanks for clarifying.
|
