RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 9, 2015 at 1:57 pm
(June 9, 2015 at 9:00 am)Nestor Wrote: I don't know about your comparison, but if it is anything like the irrational garbage that other mythicists here espouse, you might want to re-consider how similar the two are. It's a circular argument to say, "Jesus probably didn't exist because the texts about him are corrupt and include embellishment; therefore Jesus probably didn't exist."
Well, it's a good thing I didn't say that, then. What I said was that given its obvious bias, the Bible is useless as evidence. Certainly you may argue that "they wouldn't have written it if he didn't exist", but that is simply an assumption, and not evidence, nor does it elevate the Bible as evidence.
If you had read some of my earlier posts ITT, you would have learnt that I am not a mythicist.
Quote:Keep in mind that we have sources about Jesus' life and influence that are not written by his followers, and the multiple attestations by disciples that we do have exist in such abundance that the argument that a lot of the texts were changed is a non-sequitur---we know, for the most part, what and where those changes occurred.
Perhaps that is so. Perhaps those sources are accurate. That's fine. As I wrote earlier, I don't have a problem with the idea of HJ. I simply think that using the Bible to evidence that claim is poor argumentation.
