RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 7, 2015 at 2:19 pm
(June 7, 2015 at 2:13 pm)Minimalist Wrote:(June 7, 2015 at 1:42 pm)TheMessiah Wrote: The historical consensus on Jesus is not debating whether he's worthy of worship - it's simply showing who he was, which was an obscure preacher in 1st century Judea.
Once again we see trotted out The Great Christian Paradox
"Jesus was so fucking dangerous and had such a following that his enemies, the priests, could not wait one more day but had to hold a fucking trial on passover and thus break every rule in their own book to kill him BUT, at the same time he was so fucking insignificant that no one alive at the time took the slightest notice of him or his movement."
Yeah, Mess. Very believable....for people who are desperate to believe.
By that logic, the vast majority of respected Atheist Historians and scholars (who accept his historicity) are not ''true Atheists'' either because they do not toe the line.
You are proving my point right; by being ideologically opposed to Christianity, you feel more compelled to dismiss any dissenting opinion as ''not a true Atheist'' --- by doing this, you are attempting to dismiss your opponent as being ideologically biased.
That is a problem that can occur with Atheism; and it happened with the now defunct Atheism Plus movement. People were accused of ''not being Atheists'' for silly reasons --- which is the exact rhetoric which Muslims use when they accuse other Muslims of being traitors.
Atheism is a non-belief in God. I do not believe in any deity; therefore I'm an Atheist. You're not ''anymore'' Atheist than I - Atheism is not an identity to take, it is literally a concept you do not believe in.
