Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians

[CapnAwesome]

You'd be the first to deny that all the other gods ever written about had a similar historical grain of truth, Mess.  If we don't need a historical Osiris or Vishnu to create religions we don't need any fucking jesus, either.

There is such a world of difference between saying that God is real and that Jesus is likely based on a real person. What's crazy is that the people on these boards can't seperate it. For many Internet Atheists Christ-Mythism has become Dogma. Doubt it (despite the fact most Atheist and Agnostic historians also doubt it) and you are cast out of the tribe and somehow your Atheism is called into question. I'm totally secure in being an Atheist. Probably more virulent about it than most people on these boards. But I still think it's likely that the Jesus figure was based on someone. There is really no reason for him not to be. If the historical standard that Jesus-mythisists hold him to was what was used in history, then there is no evidence for Ghenghis Khan.