RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 9, 2015 at 6:23 pm
(This post was last modified: June 9, 2015 at 6:36 pm by TheMessiah.)
(June 9, 2015 at 6:10 pm)Secular Elf Wrote:(June 7, 2015 at 3:11 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: That is a good question. This is not his first thread that deals with this topic:
A strange but curious question: if you had a time machine...
The arguments are pretty much the same, over and over again. I guess he figures that doing the same thing again will give him a different result than it did before.
I am late to this thread, and I have noticed this pattern with the OP too. He reiterates the same point over and over. It is aWhat is the saying? Oh yes, "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results = the definition of insanity.
This is a strawman --- I am reiterating the same point (in this thread) because I am met with the same response in regards to what is considered evidence/why the source is supposedly not reliable. The argument in this OP was a more comprehensive and substantiated data-base, hence your premise is incorrect.
Either way, as I said on the previous page - I am done with this topic.