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

[robvalue]

Thanks for the explanation Rhythm

I don't know what exactly I'd call myself, but I certainly don't see the mythicisit position as absurd. That's an interesting point that there may not have been anyone who was being worshiped at that time for the reasons stated, even if someone loosely resembling the character did exist in some capacity. I mean, there could be a Jesus who wandered around claiming to be the son of god, no one listened except maybe a couple of people, and eventually he got so annoying he got executed. Sure, it correlates with the story a little bit, but only by coincidence.

The thing I find interesting is all the forgeries in the following centuries. Those who wanted to perpetuate the belief obviously felt the evidence was weak even then, to have to resort to that.