Preparing to share...

Full Picture

Extension usage examples:

Here's how our browser extension sees the article:
Appears strongly imbalanced

Article summary:

1. Paul's letter to the Romans contains a statement that Jesus was a descendant of King David, which indicates he believed in an earthly, historical and human Jesus.

2. Most Jesus Mythicists claim Paul only believed in a celestial figure, so they have to find ways to make the text fit their theories.

3. Paul's other letters also indicate he believed in an earthly, historical and human Jesus, but Mythicists have contorted arguments to explain away these passages.

Article analysis:

This article is written from a biased perspective that is clearly against the idea of Jesus Mythicism. The author does not present both sides equally or explore counterarguments in any meaningful way; instead they focus on presenting evidence for their own point of view while dismissing any evidence that contradicts it as “contorted” or “unconvincing” without providing any real analysis or explanation as to why this might be the case. The author also fails to mention any potential risks associated with accepting their own point of view, such as the risk of relying too heavily on one source (Paul’s letters) or ignoring other sources that may provide different perspectives on the issue. Furthermore, there is no discussion of how Paul’s statements about Jesus being descended from David could be interpreted differently by those who do not subscribe to the Mythicist viewpoint. In addition, there are several unsupported claims made throughout the article which lack evidence or citation; for example, when discussing Earl Doherty’s work on Mythicism, the author makes sweeping statements about his qualifications and reception by scholars without providing any evidence for these claims. Finally, there is some promotional content in this article which detracts from its overall credibility; for example, when discussing Richard Carrier’s work on Mythicism, the author refers to him as “the inevitable Dr Richard Carrier PhD” which implies bias towards his work over other scholars who may disagree with him.

In conclusion, this article lacks objectivity and fails to present both sides equally or explore counterarguments in any meaningful way; therefore it should not be relied upon as an authoritative source of information on this topic.