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

[TheMessiah]

Then replace charge with accusation if you like. Can you support it?

Yes, I have said absolutely nothing which shows that I am a misogynist.

[Cyberman]

Denying the alleged accusations is not the same as supporting a counter-accusation of libel. Either support it or drop the accusation.

[TheMessiah]

Denying the alleged accusations is not the same as supporting a counter-accusation of libel. Either support it or drop the accusation.

What do you mean by ''counter accusation''?

He made the claim towards me; thus the burden of proof rests with him. If someone makes a claim about something, it is their job to provide evidence for their claim; you do not make claims of people, and then ask the other person to disprove the claim. The burden of proof rests with the person making the claim.

This is why the Flying Spaghetti Monster basically took off.

His claim was made here.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-33871-p...#pid959570

[Cyberman]

I agree he has the burden of proving his allegations. You could have cut the whole thing off there and asked for that proof, but by counter-alleging libel you have adopted with it the burden of proving those allegations. He doesn't have to prove his comments aren't libellous. Sorry but that's how it works.

[TheMessiah]

I agree he has the burden of proving his allegations. You could have cut the whole thing off there and asked for that proof, but by counter-alleging libel you have adopted with it the burden of proving those allegations. Sorry but that's how it works.

Libel was the wrong word, which is why I immediately clarified and acknowledged it in post #339.

Also, I did ask for proof - atleast two or three times prior but he chose not respond. The burden of proof is for him to explain why his comments have validity, otherwise they are just baseless accusations.

[Secular Elf]

"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.

Appeals to authority is not always negative nor untrustworthy.  I would trust the writings and words of an Oscar Handlin or David McCullough as opposed to a David Barna, as the first two are or were prominently known and degreed historians and the latter is a geologist who fancies himself as a historian and is a revisionist fundie at best.  And though I am yet extensively or well-read in D.M Murdoch's material, I know she is a degreed archaeologist who is trained in the Classical World and as such her realm of expertise is in ancient Greek and Roman culture, of which Palestine was once part, and since she is a mythicist, I have a certain amount of trust that I think she has earned of me as a person interested in what she has to say.  She has even gone so far as to learn how to read ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, which as far as I am aware not many Classical archaeologists do unless their point of expertise is Roman Egypt (and I think that particular line of study is geared to demotic and Coptic writing).

Murdock herself has spoken on her own credentials: http://www.truthbeknown.com/credentials.html

[Cephus]

Don't jump the gun Cephus...Messiah may be referring to some -other- citation....making some -other- point.

Then he can present it but until it is actually presented in a manner which can be rationally evaluated, it doesn't exist.

[Cephus]

Because neither were an eyewitness  and Josephus was a forgery?

Eyewintess accounts are not needed for people in the Ancient world; there are no eye-witness accounts for Hannibal. The first mentions come 60 years after his death - what is needed is at-least a few good mentions of whether Jesus existed, as a feasible human, which is what we have.

P.S, the Josephus passage should not wholly be discarded. We can decipher what was said by Josephus and what wasn't.

It really doesn't matter to me whether Hannibal existed or not, you cannot make a case without evidence.  Likewise, it really doesn't matter if Aristotle was real or just a created character.  The case for Jesus, however, is incredibly weak.  All of the writers in the ancient world are going off hearsay, retelling stories that they heard at least second or third hand without any corroboration, late enough that a mythology had already started to spring up.  That isn't impressive at all.  As for Josephus, the passage most talk about, with Jesus being the Messiah, is a complete fabrication. Josephus never said any of it and that passage does not exist in any copies of Jewish Antiquities that were around while Josephus was alive.
Honestly why does it make a bit of difference if Jesus ever lived since the Jesus that might have lived has nothing at all to do with the Jesus described in the Bible?

[Brakeman]

Whew! The desperation of these theists trying to hold one to their superstitions!

These "thousands" of history "experts" must expand quite a ways back. I wonder how many of these "history" experts partook in actions of the inquisitions? I wonder how many were christian, stating like William Lane Craig that where evidence and logic cross the bible, the evidence and logic are always the error?

How many of these "expert" Historians would have their funding revoked if they dared write against their benefactors?

The very recent environment of a relatively safe atheistic voice in a sea of christian hatred would certainly herald in a new wave of historian voices. Lets see what becomes of their "consensus" in the coming decade. Ha Ha!

[Dystopia]

I am late to this thread, and I have noticed this pattern with the OP too.  He reiterates the same point over and over.  It is a    What is the saying?  Oh yes, "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results = the definition of insanity.

Yes.  But recognizing a pattern does nothing to prevent it from occurring again.  I expect another thread on the subject of whether there was a historical Jesus or not within a few months of this one being abandoned.  And I expect the arguments to be pretty much the same. It is not as if it is likely that anyone is going to dig up a new document in the next couple of months.

And topics complainig about A+, feminism and muslims. Bonus points for a video from neo-conservative/libertarian sources and mentioning 'cultural marxism'