RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 10, 2015 at 11:24 am
(This post was last modified: June 10, 2015 at 11:29 am by TheMessiah.)
(June 10, 2015 at 12:04 am)Nestor Wrote:(June 9, 2015 at 11:28 pm)Brakeman Wrote: I haven't seen any of these examples of illogic, issue obfuscation, or data ignorings, what I've seen is theistic bluster and repeated appeals to authority without regards to the bias of the claimed authorities as a group..Do you know what theism means? It doesn't appear you do. Anyway, it's irrelevant to any of the arguments made in the OP or elsewhere in this thread. And if by "ease of research," you mean looking up and regurgitating what some amateur mythicist (like D.M. Murdock) writes on the internet, you might want to look into the volumes of textbooks that have been written by, you know, both secular and religious academics---unless you think the latter are unqualified to make an argument, in which case you might want to look up the definition of ad hominem after you've finished grasping what theism means.
The ease of research of today will destroy your precious "consensus" of dishonest christians masquerading as "historians." The percentage of superstitious nonsense believers is dropping but is still the majority. When the enlightenment continues and the social pear pressure of the christians is broken, then the freedom to read the evidence will decide what we do and do not have sufficient reason to claim as historical.
As for your claim that there is a conspiracy barring mythicists from intelligentsia (strange, I swear I've heard other people make that appeal to pity before too), you do realize mythicism is not new, right? It was once held by some respectable scholars... in the 19th century. Yeah, you're a little slow to this game in more ways than one.
I have to admit, the conspiracy theories I haven't seen before until now. They did give a good laugh.
