RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 6, 2015 at 4:05 am
(This post was last modified: June 6, 2015 at 4:06 am by TheMessiah.)
(June 6, 2015 at 3:58 am)jesus_wept Wrote: They go on about a historical Jesus like it actually proves something. I personally don't believe in the historical Jesus, but I'm willing to concede one for the sake of argument, just like I'd be willing to concede a historical Harry Potter, because it proves nothing. It doesn't mean there were any miracles, it doesn't mean Jesus was the son of god and it doesn't lend any credibility to the "truth" of Christianity. All we've established is that someone lived, and the tall stories were based on him. So what?
That's the point I'm trying to get across, and what, disappointingly, so many Atheist bloggers do not seem to get. People bang on about ''No physical evidence for Jesus'' etc but fail to realize that all Jesus was, was a historical preacher who tried to reform the faith and got killed for it - there are others who claimed to be the messiah, yet are expected to have existed but there's less evidence for them than there is Jesus.
As a historical figure, there needn't even be much evidence for him to verify someone so insignificant.
