Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians

[TheMessiah]

At one time alchemy was unanimously real and several writers purported great advances in turning cheap metals to gold. But as time progressed, people slowly gave less credence to eyewitness testimony and anecdotal evidence. When this occurred, the original "evidence" and consensus died away.

We expect better quality evidence than the christian "historian's of yesteryear. We are OK with the answers "We're not sure" and "We don't know." We are especially happy to accept that our fathers and grandfathers were biased and dishonest snots when it comes to assessing the actual evidence of history.

The premise behind this post is incorrect.

As time goes on, the ''evidence'' for ancient history becomes more scarce but our analysis becomes better; the historical standard for the ancient world has always been lower than that of modern times, hence why historians do not expect masses of evidence for Jewish preachers.

In modern times, the historical consensus for Jesus has stayed strong; even among Atheist/Agnostic scholars. The standard isn't ''Theist vs Atheist'' as I explained, but historian vs non-historian.

So when you say (not *we* --- you) that you're okay with ''We don't know'' etc, that's fine. But historians on the other hand, do have their own consensus; and it doesn't fit with *your* personal viewpoint.

Just as a climate-change denier might attempt to dismiss the academic consensus which undermines his own personal viewpoint.