First, what does the scientific community have to do with anything? Correct me if I am wrong, but is this not history? It is kind of like a history teacher walking into a biology class and saying evolution is nonsense.
Secondly, what do you have against secondary sources? These sources are written after Christ's death but they may be taking there info from primary sources that have since been lost. So yes, these sources do support the existence of Christ.
Also from what I can tell Christ was only given the title after he died. As we have lost the real name of Christ, this would make finding a primary source written about him pretty hard. This means that secondary sources from the mid-first century are the best we are going to get. As I have stated before, we could have a truck load of papers with the Christs real name on it and we would not know.
I would also like to hear your (Giff) opinion as to how the Christ 'myth' came about. If it is credible you might even convince me of your myth hyppthesis.
Secondly, what do you have against secondary sources? These sources are written after Christ's death but they may be taking there info from primary sources that have since been lost. So yes, these sources do support the existence of Christ.
Also from what I can tell Christ was only given the title after he died. As we have lost the real name of Christ, this would make finding a primary source written about him pretty hard. This means that secondary sources from the mid-first century are the best we are going to get. As I have stated before, we could have a truck load of papers with the Christs real name on it and we would not know.
I would also like to hear your (Giff) opinion as to how the Christ 'myth' came about. If it is credible you might even convince me of your myth hyppthesis.
