The elephant(s) in the room with us

[The Duke of Vandals]

Let's talk about what Christians don't want to talk about.

• Let's talk about the fact the early church had a vested interest in perpetuating the myth of Christ.
• Let's talk about the fact the things Jesus allegedly does are absurd, ridiculous, completely impossible and wouldn't be taken seriously in the slightest without heavy indoctrination (usually from birth, but sometimes from times of emotional stress).
• Let's talk about the fact Christians are indoctrinated to associate positive experiences with god and delude themselves into thinking they can "feel" Jesus.
• Most of all, let's talk about the fact humans... even intelligent humans... can be easily tricked. There are Ph.D.'s and captains of industry who, in spite of massive intellects, are still duped by con men. The entire mormon religion was started by a con man and now boasts millions of members worldwide without ever having a scrap of truth to it.

Without fail, these issues get tiptoed around in debate.

We're supposed to treat the obviously impossible claims of the gospel as though they're perfectly possible things... as common as the names of ancient places. "There were Egyptians and Hebrews... why not a red sea parting?" As though anything written down in an old book and claimed as true should be taken that way? We should believe it because some scholar has convinced you the author believed it?

Christians, you're too smart to be this stupid. I have tremendous respect for your intellect. You are the victims of a 1600+ year old con and here. There's absolutely no reason for 21st century intellectuals to be slaves to bronze age idiocy and second century propaganda.

Topic for debate: amirite?

[McCulloch]

Duke, I am not entirely sure that this topic will produce anything like a focused debate, but I'll give it a shot.

• The early church had a vested interest in perpetuating the myth of Christ.
  Usually answered by the claim that if it were really mythical and not true, why would the early church be willing to die for such claims and why didn't anyone at the time refute them (the argument from silence).
• Let's talk about the fact the things Jesus allegedly does are absurd, ridiculous, completely impossible and wouldn't be taken seriously in the slightest without heavy indoctrination (usually from birth, but sometimes from times of emotional stress).
  This one goes back to the many debates about the existence of God. If God is then it is not so much of a stretch to believe that he could have intervened in miraculous ways.
• Let's talk about the fact Christians are indoctrinated to associate positive experiences with god and delude themselves into thinking they can "feel" Jesus.
  We have some ongoing debate threads already about issues related to this one.
• Most of all, let's talk about the fact humans... even intelligent humans... can be easily tricked. There are Ph.D.'s and captains of industry who, in spite of massive intellects, are still duped by con men. The entire Mormon religion was started by a con man and now boasts millions of members worldwide without ever having a scrap of truth to it.
  I would think that believers in Mormonism would challenge this assertion. Just as believers in other forms of Christianity would challenge our assertion that there is no rational evidential basis for Christianity.
• Without fail, these issues get tiptoed around in debate.
  I have not noticed that here. I think that we have addressed some of these issues.

[Ghost_of_Amityville]

Honestly, I've never heard a sincere professional historian claim that Jesus was just a myth as opposed to an actual person who lived in the historical region of Galilee somtime between 10 BCE - CE 35 and was crucified under the Roman governor Pilate. And really no amount of websites or Internet documentaries is going to actually prove the concensus of historians wrong about that.

[SimonH]

Ghost: Honestly, I've never heard a sincere professional historian claim that Jesus was just a myth as opposed to an actual person who lived in the historical region of Galilee somtime between 10 BCE - CE 35 and was crucified under the Roman governor Pilate. And really no amount of websites or Internet documentaries is going to actually prove the concensus of historians wrong about that.

How do you define a "sincere professional historian"?

No amount of websites or internet documentaries are going to prove that I am not the President of the United Statres of America, either.

You can't prove it. It's very hard to "prove" anything.

However, we all agree flying spagetti monsters are ridiculous. Why? Can you prove that monster does not exist?

[Ghost_of_Amityville]

See, the examples of you as the President of the USA and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are arguments from absurdity which don't really have any value in any kind of discussion. When I open up any encyclopedia, it says that Jesus was really a historical figure. I'm going to go with the encyclopedia over websites and Internet documentaries.

[McCulloch]

Honestly, I've never heard a sincere professional historian claim that Jesus was just a myth as opposed to an actual person who lived in the historical region of Galilee sometime between 10 BCE - CE 35 and was crucified under the Roman governor Pilate. And really no amount of websites or Internet documentaries is going to actually prove the consensus of historians wrong about that.

It matters very little whether there was an actual historical person, Jesus of Nazareth. What most historians agree on is that much of what the gospels say about this Jesus, the circumstances of his birth, his miracles, his death, his resurrection, post-resurrection appearances and ascension, are mythical.

[The Duke of Vandals]

Honestly, I've never heard a sincere professional historian claim that Jesus was just a myth as opposed to an actual person who lived in the historical region of Galilee somtime between 10 BCE - CE 35 and was crucified under the Roman governor Pilate. And really no amount of websites or Internet documentaries is going to actually prove the concensus of historians wrong about that.

Nope. You're wrong. (emphasis mine)

• Professional historians are not necessarily engaged by any particular interest in the issue of Jesus – and are all too aware of its controversial nature. A scholar who announces that he thinks there was no historical Jesus is likely to face scorn, even ridicule, and will gain little for his candour.
  
  Thus most scholars, raised and educated in a Christian culture are content either to assume Jesus lived (and defer to the opinions of biblical specialists who are often men of faith) or, given the paucity of evidence for a great many historical personages, preface their uncertainty with a "probably". It is much safer for them to aver the "probability of a man behind the legend" even while arguing that layers of encrusted myth obscure knowing anything about him.
  
  This "safe" and gutless option maintains simultaneously the "obscurity" of a carpenter in an ancient provincial backwater ("absence of evidence is not evidence of absence") and an academic detachment from "faith issues" which raised that supposed obscure guru to an iconic status.

Source.

[Ghost_of_Amityville]

Honestly, I've never heard a sincere professional historian claim that Jesus was just a myth as opposed to an actual person who lived in the historical region of Galilee sometime between 10 BCE - CE 35 and was crucified under the Roman governor Pilate. And really no amount of websites or Internet documentaries is going to actually prove the consensus of historians wrong about that.

It matters very little whether there was an actual historical person, Jesus of Nazareth. What most historians agree on is that much of what the gospels say about this Jesus, the circumstances of his birth, his miracles, his death, his resurrection, post-resurrection appearances and ascension, are mythical.

And I don't believe that last part to be true (a.k.a. that most historians agree that all those things are mythical). The only thing I've come close to reading that proves that statement true is that historians use a different, non-theological means of examining Jesus. All the professional historians I've encountered personally have made a point not to pass judgment on the supernatural aspects of Jesus because that gets into theology, and they're not theologians. And to them, it matters a lot that there was an actual historical person, Jesus of Nazareth.

[Ghost_of_Amityville]

Honestly, I've never heard a sincere professional historian claim that Jesus was just a myth as opposed to an actual person who lived in the historical region of Galilee somtime between 10 BCE - CE 35 and was crucified under the Roman governor Pilate. And really no amount of websites or Internet documentaries is going to actually prove the concensus of historians wrong about that.

Nope. You're wrong. (emphasis mine)

• Professional historians are not necessarily engaged by any particular interest in the issue of Jesus – and are all too aware of its controversial nature. A scholar who announces that he thinks there was no historical Jesus is likely to face scorn, even ridicule, and will gain little for his candour.
  
  Thus most scholars, raised and educated in a Christian culture are content either to assume Jesus lived (and defer to the opinions of biblical specialists who are often men of faith) or, given the paucity of evidence for a great many historical personages, preface their uncertainty with a "probably". It is much safer for them to aver the "probability of a man behind the legend" even while arguing that layers of encrusted myth obscure knowing anything about him.
  
  This "safe" and gutless option maintains simultaneously the "obscurity" of a carpenter in an ancient provincial backwater ("absence of evidence is not evidence of absence") and an academic detachment from "faith issues" which raised that supposed obscure guru to an iconic status.

Source.

With all due respect, I can't take seriously a response to my point that no amount of websites or Internet documentaries are going to prove wrong the consensus among historians that Jesus existed, if your source is www.jesusneverexisted.com.

[twobitsmedia]

Honestly, I've never heard a sincere professional historian claim that Jesus was just a myth as opposed to an actual person who lived in the historical region of Galilee somtime between 10 BCE - CE 35 and was crucified under the Roman governor Pilate. And really no amount of websites or Internet documentaries is going to actually prove the concensus of historians wrong about that.

Nope. You're wrong. (emphasis mine)

• Professional historians are not necessarily engaged by any particular interest in the issue of Jesus – and are all too aware of its controversial nature. A scholar who announces that he thinks there was no historical Jesus is likely to face scorn, even ridicule, and will gain little for his candour.

Because of the impact that "Jesus" (whether one believes He existed or not) has had on people of many generations, I would question the "professionalism" of a historian who would overlook the issue.