RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 9, 2015 at 9:31 am
(This post was last modified: June 9, 2015 at 9:33 am by Alex K.)
(June 9, 2015 at 9:07 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:(June 9, 2015 at 8:56 am)Aoi Magi Wrote: Sorry, but I didn't read the 27 pages, but from the article in the OP it seems the basic summary is that JC, as people commonly understand from the bible, is primarily a myth, based on a probable actual person? or am I misunderstanding it?
I believe the conclusion is that there most likely existed some rabbi known as Jesus who claimed to be the messiah, and was crucified. Literally anything other than that is unconfirmable.
And he possibly had a different name
But seriously, can someone tell me what the difference between that and the position of a "myther" is as the OP uses the term? I'm pretty sure these "mythers" don't claim that no rabbi by the name of Jesus ever got crucified.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
