I don't believe that mythicism is a counter apologetic and I suspect that most mythicists don't either. Most mythicists are atheists and when they engage in discussions of apologetic they usually grant a historical Jesus. This improves communication but also is important because mythicism has nothing to do with atheism. They are individual questions. Just as the historicity of Hercules has nothing to do with whether or not you believe Hercules is the son of Jupiter. Proving that Hercules was never historical wouldn't refute the claim that he is the son of Jupiter. Proving that Jesus was not historical does not mean that he was not the son of God.So, when engaging with the faithful, why *lead* with mythicism? Why do you *start* with mythicism, they very place that your evidence *ends*?
Statistics: Posted by jasonrollins — Sun Jun 16, 2024 8:10 pm