(January 28, 2016 at 7:21 pm)Rhythm Wrote:(January 28, 2016 at 7:12 pm)Aegon Wrote: No need to suggest they did? Yes there is? That's the whole "myth", no?No. Not that it matters what charicature of the mythicist position you have in mind, as criticism of that position, any position, would not be evidence of historicity.
Quote:And the only people I see from that link denying an historical Jesus are scholars from the 20th century. Otherwise I see arguments about the divinity of Christ and an argument over transubstantiation.You only see scholars in the 20th century talking about quantum physics as well...I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean? You didn't want to piss off mother church friend, like docetics did. Those that remain in the fold have disagreements within the approved boundaries of the fold. What does any of this have to do with the historicity of jesus? This smacks of a bare appeal to traditionalism, amusingly forgeting that it is -christian- traditionalism to which we are referring.
Because Ithe quote was referring to the lack of examples closer to Jesus' time period of people who didn't believe he was real. 20th century scholars are no more proof than Carrier.