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

[Mudhammam]

No more so than any other myth that has been brought to life. All the planets, long before the Jesus myth, were once believed to be gods. And, unlike Jesus, the planets existence could be verified. 

And yet we now know that they aren't gods, but rather the perception of them being such is an invention of the human mind. Just like Jesus. 

Likewise, the days of the week are named after those same gods (or planets). These gods (or days of the week), better known now by their Norse cultivated roots, make up our current calendar associations. 

Shall we now validate the beliefs of the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Norse religions, simply because their myths are now part of our culture? Or, would we be better suited to accept that myths are, as I said before, most often and most likely the invention of the human mind?

Whoa. Your logic is penetrating. However, in the future, try to avoid such blatant non-sequiturs.

If you're a historian, or someone moderately interested in understanding how it is that words and ideas developed over time, then yeah, all of those things would be relevant. No idea what you mean by "validate the beliefs," unless you think appreciating Homer the poet like some admire Jesus the man is validating belief in the Greek pantheon... which is just dumb. 

The only Jesus that would be worth considering would be one that:

Walked on water
Turned water into wine
Fed 5000 people with 2 fish
Raised Lazurus from the dead
Defeated death himself and walked among us

Something tells me a guy like that, however, doesn't need obviously unreliable and contradictory religious accounts to verify him as an historical figure. 

The very nature of religion is to make shit up, that's a mathematical certainty no matter which crap you are buying. Therefore, religious accounts are useless to anyone sincerely in search of truth.

 Oh, I love pathetic little tyrants who think everyone else is obligated to submit to their opinion!

[Pyrrho]

When people say, "there was definitely a man named Jesus" it's one of the most pathetic attempts often used to validate him as a historical figure. Of course there was a man named Jesus, many of them in fact. And there have also been many people named Hercules and Buddha. Does that validate them as historical figures of note?

Not at all.

The only thing that makes Jesus a relevant historical figure is some kind of credible substantiation of the bible's claims about him. Nothing like that, to my knowledge, exists.

Even the accounts of Jesus in the gospel are in clear contradiction of one another, which further discredits him as a historical figure.

Hmm... I think spawning a culture that boasts of more adherents and has had more influence in the world than any other figure or movement in history makes him somewhat relevant...

Christianity has had a great influence on the world, but whether there was a man named "Jesus" who had anything to do with it or not is another matter.  Even if there were such a man, how much of the influence of Christianity may be attributed to him versus those who wrote about him is yet another matter.

[Pyrrho]

LOL...I missed this before but...Nestor....the thing you thought that mythicists didn't have a good explanation for, that was an example of their laziness in describing things as fiction turned out to be what?

Fiction?

I'm pretty sure historians know that almost all ancient texts contain fiction in their accounts.

Fiction in text =/= text is fiction.

All you have to do to see an example of the laziness I'm referring to is scroll up to the post above yours:

Even the accounts of Jesus in the gospel are in clear contradiction of one another, which further discredits him as a historical figure.

The stupidity in that remark would be shocking if it wasn't so typical.

It depends on how you interpret that remark.  To "discredit" something is to "Cause (an idea or account) to seem false or unreliable."  There is, in that, two different ideas, as "false" and "unreliable" are two different things.  When a story is contradictory, it is automatically unreliable.  That, of course, does not make everything in it necessarily false.


Edited to add:

Furthermore, there is that pesky word "seem" in the definition, showing that to say that something has been discredited is not the same as saying that something has been proven to be completely false.

[smax]

Whoa. Your logic is penetrating.

Wish I could say the same of yours.

If you're a historian, or someone moderately interested in understanding how it is that words and ideas developed over time, then yeah, all of those things would be relevant. 

We are almost getting somewhere now. Just keep repeating: invention of the human mind.... invention of the human mind... invention of the human mind... 

You'll get it. 

No idea what you mean by "validate the beliefs," unless you think appreciating Homer the poet like some admire Jesus the man is validating belief in the Greek pantheon... which is just dumb. 

Given reasonable evidence of Jesus existence, you might have a point. But, as it stands, claiming Jesus existed is as baseless as saying he walked on water. Unless, and getting back to my original point, you are referring to one of many hundreds of thousands of people named Jesus that have existed. In that case, I'll let my realtor know how much you appreciate the work his parents put into naming him. 

Oh, I love pathetic little tyrants who think everyone else is obligated to submit to their opinion!

Not at all. Feel free to live ignorant

[Mudhammam]

Like I said, moronic mythicism exhibit A.

[smax]

When there is a lack of evidence to support something, and yet it is widely believed, it is obviously because people want to believe it. In the case of Jesus, we find that people do not necessarily agree about who or what he was, but we find that a large percentage of people take comfort in believing that he existed in one form or another.

For some, he was god himself. For others, he was the son of god. Some see him as great prophet, while others simply think he was a great man who inspired a great movement that impacted cultures around the world.

The belief in Jesus, regardless of it's various forms, is a simple case of emotion outweighing evidence.

Where is his birth certificate?
Where is the record of his public trial?
What did he even look like?
Where is his tomb?

Where is there ANY first hand account of ANYTHING Jesus ever did?

I guess the issue for some people, aside from the emotional desire to believe, is their inability to understand that sometimes, many times in fact, a movement can inspired by lies, deception, greed, envy, or simply the need to control the masses. Any of those things, among others, can father inventions of all kinds.

In the case of Jesus, I suspect his invention was the product of all of the above mentioned things.

[Mudhammam]

When there is a lack of evidence to support something, and yet it is widely believed, it is obviously because people want to believe it. In the case of Jesus, we find that people do not necessarily agree about who or what he was, but we find that a large percentage of people take comfort in believing that he existed in one form or another.

For some, he was god himself. For others, he was the son of god. Some see him as great prophet, while others simply think he was a great man who inspired a great movement that impacted cultures around the world.

The belief in Jesus, regardless of it's various forms, is a simple case of emotion outweighing evidence.

Where is his birth certificate?
Where is the record of his public trial?
What did he even look like?
Where is his tomb?

Where is there ANY first hand account of ANYTHING Jesus ever did?

I guess the issue for some people, aside from the emotional desire to believe, is their inability to understand that sometimes, many times in fact, a movement can inspired by lies, deception, greed, envy, or simply the need to control the masses. Any of those things, among others, can father inventions of all kinds.

In the case of Jesus, I suspect his invention was the product of all of the above mentioned things.

Everybody basically agrees that Jesus was a Jewish preacher out of Galilee who at some point followed John the Baptist, later acquired a following of his own, was crucified by Pilate during the reign of Tiberius, and then had disciples who started proclaiming that he had risen from the dead in a "spiritual body" to which they cited "appearances" of some form. From these persons spawned the Christian church. Beyond that, there is a lot of disagreement as to what Jesus' central message was, how much of his "biographies" contain any substantial records of historical fact, etc.

Can you answer any of the questions you posed concerning other first century Jewish rabbis? What about famous philosophers and scholars, such as Aristippus of Cyrene, Diogenes of Sinope, Philo of Alexandria, or Pliny the Elder? Can you show us the trial records of Socrates or Gaius Verres? How about the tombs of Plato, Aristotle, or Epicurus? Zeno of Elea or Zeno of Citium? Birth certificates? Do you think unless someone left writings it's more likely that others who attest to their existence are lying? That's a pretty incredible---and ignorant---standard to require.

It sounds to me like you may have some emotional investment in denying the probability that Christian dogmas originally developed from a early first-century crucified preacher, as all of the sources claim. You claim that Jesus was an invented figure to take advantage of “the masses” through “lies, deception, greed, envy, or simply the need to control.”

Evidence?

[Minimalist]

Like I said, moronic mythicism exhibit A.

And yet, here you are.....with nothing except the fucking bible ( edited and invented in turns) to back you up.

Perhaps you need to re-evaluate.

[Minimalist]

Everybody basically agrees that Jesus was a Jewish preacher out of Galilee who at some point followed John the Baptist, later acquired a following of his own, was crucified by Pilate during the reign of Tiberius, and then had disciples who started proclaiming that he had risen from the dead in a "spiritual body" to which they cited "appearances" of some form.

Not "everyone."

[Cyberman]

Beat me to it. If everyone agreed, this thread wouldn't be possible.