RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 6, 2015 at 4:08 am
(This post was last modified: June 6, 2015 at 4:14 am by TheMessiah.)
(June 6, 2015 at 4:06 am)jesus_wept Wrote: I don't think what I said is the point you're trying to get across.
I think it is. I made the point several times.
The Jesus that really existed doesn't prove Christianity; in fact, it does nothing for Christianity, because all it shows was that a poor Jew who preached died a disgraceful and embarrassing death.
There's a reason why there's a disconnect between the historical consensus that Jesus did exist and the consensus we see around Atheist blogs. Some people think saying ''There's no evidence!'' or writing a blog shows skepticism, but it really doesn't. As if saying ''There's no contemporary evidence for Jesus'' is some kind of revelation, without considering Historians also know there weren't contemporary references to:
Gamaliel
Honi the Circle Drawer
Hillel
Shammai
Hanina ben dosa
Confucius
Buddha
Hannibal
The ''Jesus was a myth'' is not something which is mainstream among Historians; and if bloggers have something which could truly disprove Jesus, feel free to provide - because for at-least half a decade, the same arguments have been recycled and they aren't convincing.
