Posted: Feb 14, 2016 2:44 am
Shrunk wrote:So is the evidence in favour of an historical Jesus so strong that someone holding the contrary position can justifiably be called a "denialist"? (If you want my opinion, I'm the commentator named "lutesuite" on Sandwalk.)
Just revisiting the OP.
Aren't these "denialists" - by definition - some form of "conspiracy theorists"?
Thanks for any clarifications.