RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 9, 2015 at 2:40 am
(This post was last modified: June 9, 2015 at 2:42 am by TheMessiah.)
(June 9, 2015 at 2:38 am)robvalue Wrote: OK then, we'll agree to disagree. I'm quite happy to be convinced, when anyone (historian or not) backs up their conclusions with evidence and arguments. On the whole, when they go beyond a few basic facts, I find this not to be the case. But they can keep trying
Well, we've already seen as from the link I posted, what Ancient Historians consider reliable evidence --- Ancient Historians don't expect to needs tons of evidence to prove that a 1st century Jew named Jesus got crucified.
Historical 'arguments' only come into play once they have to debate what HJ meant, not whether a vague figure existed.
But okay, agree to disagree.