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

[Minimalist]

But WHERE is the evidence.  If a historian accepts a fairy tale it makes you feel all warm.

Are you certain you haven't just pissed your pants?

Here you go again --- you do realize that none of what you're saying sounds rational? It sounds incredibly anti-rational and desperate. Historians are ''accepting'' a fairy tale? These people are experts in their field - and it's pretty desperate for you to attempt to dismiss what they do because you personally don't agree with the same claims.

Do you think it's credible to say climate-change is a Liberal conspiracy?

Also, here is the /r/askhistorians page, aside from the Gospels etc (which are analysed in the historical world), there are several non-Biblical sources which historians analyse.

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/co...cal_jesus/

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/religion



From your citation:

sorted by:

best

[–]qed1 14 points 3 years ago* 
Well the real trick to this question is:

I'm curious about hard evidence.

Because depending on how you define hard evidence you can show both sides.
That being said, the generally held view is that there was a guy called Jesus who lived in the right place at the right time whose life roughly conforms to the biblical narrative (ie. he drew crowds and was killed by the romans).
The primary source for this is of course the bible, though the Jewish historian Josephus is another major source.

The bold part is exactly the problem.  Your bible is a pile of shit. 

The italic part is almost laughable.  We have one serious forgery and one minor forgery and THAT is your evidence.

Sorry, bozo.  Not near good enough.


P.S.  If that is the "best" answer you are really and truly fucked flat.