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

[The Grand Nudger]

Lots of Tacitus and Josephus.  
(and "the bible says" -of course)

Yes Rythym.

Professional and expert scholars, who analyse the ancient world for a living have concluded that Tacticus and Josephus are generally reliable. P

"the experts say"

[abaris]

Professional and expert scholars, who analyse the ancient world for a living have concluded that Tacticus and Josephus are generally reliable. P

With or without the known forgery in Josephus which real professionals and expert scholars don't deny.

[TheMessiah]

Yes Rythym.

Professional and expert scholars, who analyse the ancient world for a living have concluded that Tacticus and Josephus are generally reliable. P

"the experts say"

Yes; the establishment of a particular field have a consensus.

Professional and expert scholars, who analyse the ancient world for a living have concluded that Tacticus and Josephus are generally reliable. P

With or without the known forgery in Josephus which real professionals and expert scholars don't deny.

They don't deny it, but it's not hard for them to pin-point what is the forgery and what isn't.

[Mudhammam]

Whew, good thing thats not the mythicist argument huh...nutcase. No need to repost what's already been discussed, but proponents of christ myth theory are perfectly comfortable saying "there may have been a jesus". Lets see what a mythicist actually does argue.....eh?

"the theory that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition."

Take a crack at that, rather than pitching straw?

I was replying to Parker... not making a statement about what "mythicists actually argue." Whew... try to keep up... dipshit.

[Mudhammam]

But it's interesting that mythicists accuse historists of relying on "the Bible says so" (dismissing Tacitus and Josephus, of course, because their theory forces them to and not for any very good reasons) when mythicists use the same texts to argue for their case... well, except the ones that clearly require a historical Jesus, to which the interpretations and stories mythicists come up are almost as ridiculous as the Gospels themselves, though unfortunately, far less artful.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'll let Min handle the tacitus and jospehus bits, if he can muster up the patience to do it for the hundredth time.  I'm glad that you and I agree that your comments are not the mythicist argument.  Seems a little perplexing now, though, since neither you nor mythicists argue that point....it was introduced, by you...because?  Hmn, let's check the tape.

I don't know about your comparison, but if it is anything like the irrational garbage that other mythicists here espouse, you might want to re-consider how similar the two are. It's a circular argument to say, "Jesus probably didn't exist because the texts about him are corrupt and include embellishment; therefore Jesus probably didn't exist."

lol...shameless.  If I hadn't already upvoted you I would.  Reconsider how similar what two are?  

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.

when mythicists use the same texts to argue for their case... well, except the ones that clearly require a historical Jesus,

and which ones.....if you would be so kind, are the ones which clearly require a historical jesus?

"The bible says so" isn't so great for historicity...it's perfectly fine for observing....what the bible says, which is the subject of the mythicist position. The mythicist position doesn;t argue in the manner that you're claiming. That the bible says something..to a mythicist, is just the acknowledgement of whats contained in the narrative, not it's historicity. Perhaps you'll appreciate the difference...and come to understand why you're still pitching straw?

Did you not want an opportunity to respond to what a mythicist position actually argued?  No objections to the quoted statement in my last response? Are we having a discussion about the mythicist position or your misapprehensions of it?

[TheMessiah]

I'll let Min handle the tacitus and jospehus bits, if he can muster up the patience to do it for the hundredth time.  I'm glad that you and I agree that your comments are not the mythicist argument.  Seems a little perplexing now, though, since neither you nor mythicists argue that point....it was introduced, by you...because?  Hmn, let's check the tape.

I don't know about your comparison, but if it is anything like the irrational garbage that other mythicists here espouse, you might want to re-consider how similar the two are. It's a circular argument to say, "Jesus probably didn't exist because the texts about him are corrupt and include embellishment; therefore Jesus probably didn't exist."

lol...shameless.  If I hadn't already upvoted you I would.  

when mythicists use the same texts to argue for their case... well, except the ones that clearly require a historical Jesus,

and which ones.....if you would be so kind, are the ones which clearly require a historical jesus?

"The bible says so" isn't so great for historicity...it's perfectly fine for observing....what the bible says, which is the subject of the mythicist position.  The mythicist position doesn;t argue in the manner that you're claiming.  That the bible says something..to a mythicist, is just the acknowledgement of whats contained in the narrative, not it's historicity.   Perhaps you'll appreciate the difference...and come to understand why you're still pitching straw?

Did you not want an opportunity to respond to what a mythicist position actually argued?  No objections to the quoted statement in my last response?   If you'd rather to continue airing your misapprehensions that's cool too.  I just figured I'd give you the opportunity.

By handle; you mean a person who isn't a historian nor a scholar tell historians/scholars why their analysis is wrong because they have an ideological axe to grind --- I think it's the historians who have painfully had to do this hundreds of times towards people who are almost never scholars nor have a hard grasp on how to analyse ancient evidence.

[The Grand Nudger]

"the experts say"

[TheMessiah]

"the experts say"

Damn right.

That's the only response you throw around --- these people are experts in their chosen field and can spend decades analyzing sources. These experts you so eagerly mock are the ones who fill up our history text books with information. Do you seriously think they are not aware of people who are clearly not scholars ranting about how Josephus and Tacticus aren't reliable?

''The experts say global warming is real - but it's a Leftist conspiracy to tax me more''.

[The Grand Nudger]

Then perhaps you can appreciate why your argument is unconvincing..as no one is asking you to demonstrate what the experts say (and you aren't bowing down to the mythicist position on the basis of it's experts either. eh?), rather, that what the experts say..is true.  Your continued response leaves you at step#1. If I -were- a loon, thanks for following the shitlogic script btw.......that still leaves you at step #1.