RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 5, 2015 at 3:41 pm
(This post was last modified: June 5, 2015 at 3:43 pm by Simon Moon.)
(June 5, 2015 at 1:53 pm)TheMessiah Wrote: Tim O'Neill, An atheist who has studied the scholarship on the historical Jesus, his Jewish socio-religious context and the origins of Christianity for over 25 years.
I wonder what Tim O'Neil has to say about this?
The 'Oxford Classical Dictionary', one of the foremost authorities on the Greco-Roman world, does not have an entry for Jeshua Ben Yusef?
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co...alify.html
"The 3rd. ed. continues the title: The Oxford Classical Dictionary: The Ultimate Reference Work on the Classical World includes more than 6,200 entries, but again fails to provided any entry on Jesus nor has it any use for the New Testament as a historical record. Although the entry on Josephus is expanded in the newer editions, the Dictionary dismisses the Testimonium Flavianum account on Jesus as reliable history in just one sentence: “The famous testimonium to Jesus is partly or even wholly an interpolation.” (p. 798)
Likewise, there are no entries on Gospels, New Testament, nor does the Dictionary list a single reference to any Biblical book under its section: Abbreviations Used in the Present Work A. General B. Authors and Books in its 75 pages."
I don't believe Oxford are in the 'fringe', are they?
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
