RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 9, 2015 at 2:27 am
(This post was last modified: June 9, 2015 at 2:35 am by robvalue.)
Yeah, we've seen all that stuff before. It's not very convincing. It mainly tells you about what people believed at the time, if that.
It's not my fault if some historians don't make convincing arguments. Some do, some don't.
Either I'm convinced by them, or I am not. The only alternative is to just accept their conclusions because they are historians, which seems rather pointless.
People may generally agree that there was a HJ, but they don't agree on what that actually means.
It's not my fault if some historians don't make convincing arguments. Some do, some don't.
Either I'm convinced by them, or I am not. The only alternative is to just accept their conclusions because they are historians, which seems rather pointless.
People may generally agree that there was a HJ, but they don't agree on what that actually means.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum