What are you babbling about? Were you high when you wrote this comment?

And what are we supposed to be discussing that I'm avoiding? I wrote a long article on the Christ myth theory. Your response to it was two sentences long, consisting of a quibble about whether it's fair to say that NT history is biased in Christianity's favour, when there may not be a "research and analysis study" of the matter.

I then said the point is commonsensical and no study is needed, although a study of it would be great. It's commonsensical because no one on Earth thinks history is a hard science with a foolproof method for circumventing human subjectivity and prejudice. Just look at Schweitzer's review of the literature and his assessment of the historical quest for Jesus. He said there are as many historical Jesuses as there are historians. The whole thing is a Rorschach test.

History is somewhere between literature and a soft science. This is especially true with respect to ancient history, which has less hard evidence to consider.

What subject am I supposed to be dodging here? What are you even supposed to be talking about with no spell-checker? Again, I wrote three long articles on the Jesus myth theory. My views on the matter are out there. What's your view of it? Is Jesus's existence in history probable? If so, what kind of Jesus was he?

If you want to keep me interested, you have to say something interesting. Is that too much to ask?