RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 20, 2015 at 2:44 pm
(June 19, 2015 at 5:36 pm)Nestor Wrote:(June 17, 2015 at 6:10 pm)smax Wrote: When people say, "there was definitely a man named Jesus" it's one of the most pathetic attempts often used to validate him as a historical figure. Of course there was a man named Jesus, many of them in fact. And there have also been many people named Hercules and Buddha. Does that validate them as historical figures of note?Hmm... I think spawning a culture that boasts of more adherents and has had more influence in the world than any other figure or movement in history makes him somewhat relevant...
Not at all.
The only thing that makes Jesus a relevant historical figure is some kind of credible substantiation of the bible's claims about him. Nothing like that, to my knowledge, exists.
Even the accounts of Jesus in the gospel are in clear contradiction of one another, which further discredits him as a historical figure.
Christianity has had a great influence on the world, but whether there was a man named "Jesus" who had anything to do with it or not is another matter. Even if there were such a man, how much of the influence of Christianity may be attributed to him versus those who wrote about him is yet another matter.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
