RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 9, 2015 at 2:05 am
(This post was last modified: June 9, 2015 at 2:10 am by TheMessiah.)
(June 9, 2015 at 1:58 am)Goosebump Wrote: Seems to me , a layman, after reading much of this thread and doing a little wiki searching to fill in the gaps what My take away was this.
Historians are in disagreement. Any testimony of Jesus the man or the myth is suspect and in doubt. There is no consensus. Which sounds a lot like hands in the air and nothing like concrete evidence.
I have no idea how the Wiki told you that ''Historians are in disagreement'' - the Wiki states that there is near unanimous agreement that Jesus existed, with few scholars really pushing the Myth position. His existence has never been a hotly debated topic in historical circles - certain aspects of early Christianity have, but not his general existence. Hence why there's a severe lack of mythist work among scholars.
From the wiki page:
''There is near unanimity among scholars that Jesus existed historically''
The reddit /r/AskHistorians page also says the same thing.
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/religion
