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

[TheMessiah]

Then perhaps you can appreciate why your argument is unconvincing..as no one is asking you to demonstrate what the experts say, rather, that what the experts say..is true.  You;re still at step#1.

It's not my argument, nor did I claim such --- it was that of an actual scholar debunking a position favored among non-scholar circles, hence the OP.

[The Grand Nudger]

"the expert says" -he says..in response to criticism of his "the experts say" nonsense........

[TheMessiah]

"the expert says" -he says..in response to criticism of his "the experts say" nonsense........

Someone hasn't read page 1...

[The Grand Nudger]

You've been hovering over my shoulder?  I'd ask you how you could know that, just as I've asked you how those experts have determined that there was a historical jesus.  Step #1..chop chop.

[Dystopia]

"the experts say"

I don't think considering what "the experts say" is wrong because - Duh - They're experts. Sometimes there is an appeal to authority fallacy involved ("Someone is right because they're X") but I take opinions of specialists more seriously than the common citizen. I'm a law student - Not the best one in the world - But I expect people to take my opinion more in consideration than the guy in the coffee shop chatting about how much he thinks the law is unfair. If it were otherwise, we wouldn't trust anyone for anything.

[TheMessiah]

You've been hovering over my shoulder?  I'd ask you how you could know that, just as I've asked you how those experts have determined that there was a historical jesus.  Step #1..chop chop.

This was posted in the link I cited and I repeated the relevant bits of info several times throughout the thread.

In history, there are certain debates which generate strong disagreement; such as the civil war. Historical Jesus has never been a serious scholarly debate (as Nestor pointed out, there are, by the admission of a mythist, only 7 serious scholars who have taken the myth position, and that is out of thousands, similar to about the number of Scientists that proclaim themselves Creationists) - an appeal to authority would be more relevant in an actual historical debate.

Such as debating the rise of Christianity - or whether the civil war was because of slavery, etc.

[The Grand Nudger]

The experts evidence is far more important than what "the experts say".  We're not having a disagreement about what experts say, we're having a disagreement about the truth value of "what experts say". It is -entirely- out of place in this conversation.

@Messiah

Pick the most compelling bit from your link..I didn't find it very compelling myself. We can hash it out, the two of us?

The other side are similar to creationists..shitlogic.
The debate isn't serious..shitlogic
The consensus of scholars...shitlogic

I'm impressed that you appealed to authority in defense of your appeals to authority....but we're still at step#1

[TheMessiah]

The experts evidence is far more important than what "the experts say".  We're not having a disagreement about what experts say, we're having a disagreement about the truth value of "what experts say". It is -entirely- out of place in this conversation.

@Messiah

Pick the most compelling bit from your link..I didn't find it very compelling myself. We can hash it out, the two of us?

The other side are similar to creationsists..shitlogic.
The debate isn't serious..shitlogic
The consensus of scholars...shitlogic

The claim was not that the ''other side'' is similar to Creationism. It was that the number of serious scholars who take the myth position is framed similarly to the number of scientists who proclaim themselves creationists. When I said the ''debate'' was not serious in scholarly circles, what I said was right. Whether Jesus existed is not a debate in historical circles, but whether an event was significant might generate a debate.

The historical Jesus is a nice, big topic many people could look at and attempt to answer; we have a controversial figure and a controversial religion. Match made in heaven to attract a lot of non-historians who feel more compelled to undermine opposing views.

If however, we were to discuss whether William Gladstone took an interventionist foreign policy during his second and third ministries, this would attract significantly less attention because the subject matter is complex; and suddenly, a historian's opinion is now trustworthy, however that's a debate many historians and scholars may take seriously. That's because you're debating something which can generate a range of view-points; by contrast, the *historical Jesus* ''debate'' is a simplistic, easy question because all an ancient historian needs to verify it is a few sources. That's it.

My point is because you are attached to the subject matter of Christianity/religion, you feel more compelled to laugh at the historical viewpoint of what is considered evidence; but if you were to look at a historical viewpoint in regards to any other topic which does not interest you, then you would simply accept a historian's viewpoint as more valid.

Me saying ''Gladstone did not have an interventionist policy because most historians don't think so'' would be an appeal to authority in an actual historical debate.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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."

Well, it's a good thing I didn't say that, then. What I said was that given its obvious bias, the Bible is useless as evidence. Certainly you may argue that "they wouldn't have written it if he didn't exist", but that is simply an assumption, and not evidence, nor does it elevate the Bible as evidence.

If you had read some of my earlier posts ITT, you would have learnt that I am not a mythicist.

Keep in mind that we have sources about Jesus' life and influence that are not written by his followers, and the multiple attestations by disciples that we do have exist in such abundance that the argument that a lot of the texts were changed is a non-sequitur---we know, for the most part, what and where those changes occurred.

Perhaps that is so. Perhaps those sources are accurate. That's fine. As I wrote earlier, I don't have a problem with the idea of HJ. I simply think that using the Bible to evidence that claim is poor argumentation.

[The Grand Nudger]

The claim was not that the ''other side'' is similar to Creationism. It was that the number of serious scholars who take the myth position is framed similarly to the number of scientists who proclaim themselves creationists. When I said the ''debate'' was not serious in scholarly circles, what I said was right. Whether Jesus existed is not a debate in historical circles, but whether an event was significant might generate a debate.

The historical Jesus is a nice, big topic many people could look at and attempt to answer; we have a controversial figure and a controversial religion. Match made in heaven to attract a lot of non-historians who feel more compelled to undermine opposing views.

If however, we were to discuss whether William Gladstone took an interventionist foreign policy during his second and third ministries, this would attract significantly less attention because the subject matter is complex; and suddenly, a historian's opinion is now trustworthy, however that's a debate many historians and scholars may take seriously. That's because you're debating something which can generate a range of view-points; by contrast, the *historical Jesus* ''debate'' is a simplistic, easy question because all an ancient historian needs to verify it is a few sources. That's it.

My point is because you are attached to the subject matter of Christianity/religion, you feel more compelled to laugh at the historical viewpoint of what is considered evidence; but if you were to look at a historical viewpoint in regards to any other topic which does not interest you, then you would simply accept a historian's viewpoint as more valid.

Me saying ''Gladstone did not have an interventionist policy because most historians don't think so'' would be an appeal to authority in an actual historical debate.

Double, triple..hell...quadruple down on your appeals to authority, and your defenses for them.  My response will remain unchanged so long as your replies continue that theme.   "The experts say" -is not capable- of answering the question.."is what the experts say accurate". End of.

We're on to my motives now?...shitlogic
You know how I'd respond to some other, as yet unmentioned claim?... shitlogic

Are we having a conversation about the historical jesus..and the mythicist position....or are you fantasizing about me Messiah? I'll just offer again to discuss the most compelling portion (in your estimation) of the link you posted. We can have that conversation.......or you can continue to do whatever it is you think you're doing.