RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 7, 2015 at 2:21 pm
(This post was last modified: June 7, 2015 at 2:21 pm by TheMessiah.)
(June 7, 2015 at 2:16 pm)Rhythm Wrote:(June 7, 2015 at 2:03 pm)TheMessiah Wrote: It's not so much an argument as it is a standard - the argument of ''No Jesus = No History'' is absurd - which is why I did not argue such, the standard however, of ''Evidence for Jesus needs to be a lot whereas other historical figures are not held to the same standard'' was the point; what you did was an oversimplification.
Yes, you did argue that, and it's there for anyone to see...so stop. The contention remains..even in this post, after having distanced yourself from it in the opening sentence..... that if there is not enough evidence for jesus, then there is not enough evidence for [insert pet personage here]. Your statements to this effect could -only- establish how laughably low a given standard may be...not that there was a "historical jesus" or that there was not a "historical hannibal". So it remains-
"no jesus, no history"
Shenanigans.
That is not what I argued - I specifically pointed out to you that I was mocking your standard of what constitutes as ''evidence'' in contrast to what a scholar considers evidence. That's not an argument I'm making, it's a standard I'm pointing out - what you're doing is a gross over-simplification and strawman:
Hence my initial point still stands as:
''Evidence for Jesus needs to be a lot whereas other historical figures are not held to the same standard''
