RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 9, 2015 at 2:47 am
(This post was last modified: June 9, 2015 at 2:50 am by TheMessiah.)
(June 9, 2015 at 2:45 am)Stimbo Wrote: Historical Jesus vs. climate change... I'll take "false equivocation" for $200, Alex.
If the climate change hypothesis had as much compelling evidence as the HJ does, despite many years of searching, then yes I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to speculate about motivations (conspiracy is a bit presumptuous, and mischaracterises your opponents which you agreed not to do). Factor in the known and admitted forgeries and we're entitled to ask why the need to invent evidence if there is such overwhelming consensus?
You call it false equivalence yet the exact same comparison was used a few pages ago...except the ''Jesus existed'' argument was used as a comparison stick to climate change denial.
The HJ argument has about as much evidence as most Ancient Historians expect to verify a Jew who got the crucified. Either way, the comparison I used to illustrate the Scientific consensus and what they consider evidence for Climate-Change with the Historical consensus and how they consider evidence.
Both groups of people get shtick, Historians get accused of ''Christian propaganda'' and Scientists ''Leftist propaganda'' - the position of both establishments is continuously attacked by those who are not experts in the field.
