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

[TheMessiah]

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?

You call it false equivalence yet the exact same comparison was used a few pages ago...except the ''Jesus existed'' argument was used as a comparison stick to climate change denial.

The HJ argument has about as much evidence as most Ancient Historians expect to verify a Jew who got the crucified. Either way, the comparison I used to illustrate the Scientific consensus and what they consider evidence for Climate-Change with the Historical consensus and how they consider evidence.

Both groups of people get shtick, Historians get accused of ''Christian propaganda'' and Scientists ''Leftist propaganda'' - the position of both establishments is continuously attacked by those who are not experts in the field.

[Silver]

I'm confused.

[robvalue]

The only people to whom HJ is really important are christian biblical scholars (thanks messiah), because they must be able to make the case or else their beliefs are clearly hogwash. But therein lies the problem, they have already concluded not just HJ but magic J exists so I tend not to trust them to be objective. They literally cannot conclude anything else.

I just find it interesting to see what we can learn with any reliability, and what these myths are based on in reality. Even I was surprised at the lack of evidence, until I'd looked into it I had assumed a lot more about Jesus could be verified.

Haha, magic J! Magic Johnson. He probably did have a magic Johnson.

[TheMessiah]

The only people to whom HJ is really important are biblical scholars, because they must be able to make the case or else their beliefs are clearly hogwash. But therein lies the problem, they have already concluded not just HJ but magic J exists so I tend not to trust them to be objective. They literally cannot conclude anything else.

I just find it interesting to see what we can learn with any reliability, and what these myths are based on in reality. Even I was surprised at the lack of evidence, until I'd looked into it I had assumed a lot more about Jesus could be verified.

Haha, magic J! Magic Johnson. He probably did have a magic Johnson.

I don't know why you make the assumption that scholars of Ancient History are Christian; yes many are, but many are also Atheist and Agnostic. Regardless, if being a Christian Historian would bias someone towards accepting his historicity, do you not see feasibility in Anti-Theists/Atheists feeling more compelled to reject his historicity because they want to undermine religion? Of course Atheism isn't a belief system, but being opposed to a particular belief system, by that logic would not entail that they feel more compelled to target it?

Furthermore, HJ has no relevance on Christian beliefs --- the historical Jesus, that most historians have accepted does not paint Christianity into a positive light; the HJ that they accept is that of a Jew that died a disgraceful death. That is an embarrassing death for a messiah - which is why so many Christians want to believe he is all-powerful.

[Silver]

Undermining religion does not help the case.

In actuality, I already showed that the Messiah is helping us in our cause and harming the theists.

Unless his tune has change.

Or am I mistaken?

[robvalue]

Whoops, I missed out a word there. I meant Christian biblical scholars, I shall add that in, thank you.

I will happily listen to a Christian biblical scholar, and if they have sound arguments backed with evidence, I'll believe them like any other. I'm just noting the rather absurd nature of studying something you already assume must be true. So if I haven't actually read their argument in detail, I'm going to be suspicious about it. But agreed, anyone can be biased. So it comes down to the individual arguments, of which I'm happy to listen to from anybody.

[TheMessiah]

Undermining religion does not help the case.

In actuality, I already showed that the Messiah is helping us in our cause and harming the theists.

Unless his tune has change.

Or am I mistaken?

This is an edit: never mind, I read your post wrong

[comet]

historian don't care because at this point it doesn't matter. The history of the region was formed, in part, by a belief in this guy, that's true no matter what we believe. So is the history of the world. The belief in this guy is not based on "factual" historical evidence anyway. The literal belief in this magic stuff fills emotional needs not historical understanding. The following of non ;iteral Christ also fills a human need. So getting in a fact fight is useless. they don't care.

[Brakeman]

At one time alchemy was unanimously real and several writers purported great advances in turning cheap metals to gold. But as time progressed, people slowly gave less credence to eyewitness testimony and anecdotal evidence. When this occurred, the original "evidence" and consensus died away.

We expect better quality evidence than the christian "historian's of yesteryear. We are OK with the answers "We're not sure" and "We don't know." We are especially happy to accept that our fathers and grandfathers were biased and dishonest snots when it comes to assessing the actual evidence of history.

[TheMessiah]

At one time alchemy was unanimously real and several writers purported great advances in turning cheap metals to gold. But as time progressed, people slowly gave less credence to eyewitness testimony and anecdotal evidence. When this occurred, the original "evidence" and consensus died away.

We expect better quality evidence than the christian "historian's of yesteryear. We are OK with the answers "We're not sure" and "We don't know." We are especially happy to accept that our fathers and grandfathers were biased and dishonest snots when it comes to assessing the actual evidence of history.

The premise behind this post is incorrect.

As time goes on, the ''evidence'' for ancient history becomes more scarce but our analysis becomes better; the historical standard for the ancient world has always been lower than that of modern times, hence why historians do not expect masses of evidence for Jewish preachers.

In modern times, the historical consensus for Jesus has stayed strong; even among Atheist/Agnostic scholars. The standard isn't ''Theist vs Atheist'' as I explained, but historian vs non-historian.

So when you say (not *we* --- you) that you're okay with ''We don't know'' etc, that's fine. But historians on the other hand, do have their own consensus; and it doesn't fit with *your* personal viewpoint.

Just as a climate-change denier might attempt to dismiss the academic consensus which undermines his own personal viewpoint.