achristianbeliever

Ok are you saying they don't really believe Jesus was historical? Because if they really believe that he's a myth but pretend he isn't then why don't they pretend he really did rise from the dead instead of claiming in their books his actions were myths but he was real? Why not say both were myth? Does that make sense? What about supporters of the Jesus myth? Is Earl Doherty trying to sell Jesus but the only difference is his book is in the negative?

Ok so who are the types of historians that I should look at? I'm just confused here. It sounds like your saying most historians know he wasn't real but its just the biblical historians who say otherwise based on a confirmation bias. Can you show me the group of historians who quote "know" he didn't exist? Don't just give me names like Wells or Doherty that doesn't help. I need to know the historians you would classify as reputable that are not under what you call confirmation bias. Because these same people go against the resurrection. So why the inconsistency?

I hope I'm explaining myself good because this is the first time I've heard of such a thing as Jesus historical supporters are under a confirmation bias. So tell me where I should look for the non-confirmation bias historians because I've always heard otherwise:

example here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus-Myth

blues runner

It really makes no difference whether Jesus existed or not. The "idea" of him has been used to such unbelievable, controlling effect the world-over for two thousand years now. In those two thousand years, mediocre people requiring explanations and seeking satisfactory answers for all that is to be found in the gamut of life did live and are living as if the man Jesus Christ was of course real.

People believe what they want to believe. They choose to channel their "faith" into what they feel will ultimately benefit them, make them feel better. The validity/authenticity of their convictions to keep on living as they do usually, it seems, end up taking back seats to the more appealing, present moment situation of "What does god want me to do now?"

I don't think it even occurrs to most believers that fiction is a possibility when it comes to what they (or, more accurately, have been told to) hold most dear. Jesus was real or not? I could care less either way. And effectively, whether he was truly a righteous dude of flesh and blood or no more than an amalgamated myth of sorts doesn't change anything for those who, above all else, insist on him.

funinspace

Proof is such a strong word. Is there evidence? Sure a tiny bit, hints from what may not be falsified into Josephus's work. Outside of the Bible, there is essentially no evidence regarding Jesus. That is the interesting question in my view. There are a few more hints regarding his followers 60-120 years later. The view of Jesus existence is only seen thru the prism of the zealots of the new Way (aka Christians) cult, as slowly documented by his followers 30-90 years later (not counting Paul who admits to never meeting Jesus). Personally I think there is enough evidence to say the seed of Jesus probably existed as an specific individual human.

Toto

At this point, the only sure thing is what Robert Price said - if there was a Jesus of history, there is no more. The evidence is all lost or unreliable.

The best case for the Jesus Myth hypothesis: www.jesuspuzzle.com

There is no good case rebutting this. Christians who believe in Jesus base their belief on their religious experience, and do not always feel the need to construct a secular case that would convince non-believers. They tend to just pick out a few indications that there might have been a Jesus of Nazareth at the beginning of the Christian movement, but there is nothing approaching proof by the standards of modern critical history.

There is much discussion of this in BCH.

show_no_mercy

Of course a Jesus existed 2,000 years ago. Just like a "Bob" existed 60 years ago.

Doesn't really tell us anything, though

freigeister

If you are interested in a century-old rebuttal to the "Jesus-is-a-myth" proposition, go here.

Biff the unclean

If they do believe then they do so in the absence of evidence. This is something historians tend to shy away from on every other subject as it is not considered ethical behavior.
No it doesn’t make economic sense. One type of book will sell, the other won’t.
Their sales are terrible. Doherty is trying to teach history that’s documented instead of only speculative.

funinspace

There's a vast land between "proof of Jesus' existance" and "proof of pure mythos".

Jakanapes

Well, that's pretty much what I meant. Sort of like King Arthur. An amalgam of unknown figures...

Toto

WARNING:

If you follow the footnote to that quote, it comes from Chris Price, a lawyer with no credentials as a historian who used to post here as Layman, in an essay on Bede's site. Both are Christian apologists who are opposed to the Jesus Myth hypothesis on ideological grounds.

As sources, Layman lists a few scholars, but no one who has read Doherty's Jesus Puzzle except for Richard Carrier, whose favorable opinion on Doherty's thesis is omitted in favor of an ambiguous quote ripped out of context on the value of expert opinion.

That quote is worth nothing.