RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 27, 2015 at 2:32 am
(June 26, 2015 at 12:45 pm)Nestor Wrote:(June 26, 2015 at 11:37 am)Pyrrho Wrote: Correct. But he did not think the historical Jesus mattered. At least, that is what he wrote.He didn't think the historical Jesus was relevant to modern Christian theology. And I would agree. Which is why, Rob, the attempts of mythicists to paint any historical quest as propagandistic, wishful, and religious in nature is desperate, dishonest, and irrational, to say nothing of politeness.
If one dismisses the magical claims, then in what way is the existence of a shabby, itinerant preacher in any way important?
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Science is not a subject, but a method.