(November 24, 2014 at 6:16 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: The point is, if the sources are shaky, then why are so many historians, some of whom are non-Christian, saying that it is convincing enough for them?
You tell us. Why do you find them convincing, apart from the dubious fact that other people do as well?
You're still cloaking this in a thinly-veiled argument from authority whether you realize it or not. We all understand what historians believe these sources tell us. What's missing is WHY they think that, and HOW they came to those conclusions.
