RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 9, 2015 at 2:33 am
(This post was last modified: June 9, 2015 at 2:34 am by TheMessiah.)
(June 9, 2015 at 2:27 am)robvalue Wrote: 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.
Yeah, Historians don't just posit ''what people believed'' as evidence; they use reliable and trustworthy sources. They have a stronger and more insightful grasp on evidence for the ancient world. It's because of historians that we know so much detail about the ancient world. Much of what we know about the ancient world, once you look into it, might not seem ''convincing'' because the evidence used isn't what you'd expect
It's not so much an ''argument'' as it as a consensus --- arguing over what caused the civil war? That's a historical argument. Jesus existing isn't even an argument in historical circles --- they argue over the crusades and things like, that etc. Saying ''some do'' and ''some don't'' can amount to what opinion I like and what I don't like.
Anyway, as I said, I'm fine to agree to disagree.
