Jesus' Historicity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hey red letter summary guy, you ignored previous points posted in this thread while making a number of bad arguments.

First, whether current scholars overwhelming support historicity is not evidence that they are correct. This is akin to saying that Galileo was wrong for supporting heliocentricity even though that was the minority (and considered heretical) position at the time.

Second, you seem prone to attacking the scholars trying to engage in an honest debate, but you have done nothing to make counterpoints to their actual arguments.

Third, and this is my attempt to summarize your many posts, so I apologize in advance if I don’t capture everything, but you essentially argue there are 4 main sources backing up your view of Jesus’ historicity. Two non-Christian (Tacitus and Josephus) and two Christian (Paul’s letters and canonical gospels) sources.

Let’s review the arguments.

Tacitus – we can rule this one out completely as evidence for historicity. All this does is confirm what we already know – there was a small sect within the Jewish community in the early part of the millennium that later evolved into what we call Christians. Tacitus in no way confirms a historical Jesus.

Josephus – there are supposedly two mentions historicists cite. The main reference, the Testimonium Flavianum (Book 18), is a complete Christian forgery. The second portion is more debated (Book 20). This is most likely an interpolation or, if authentic, simply indicates the existence of a prominent figure named James. It is NOT evidence for a historical Jesus.

Paul's Letters – These are generally considered the earliest Christian documents. However, the Christianity/Jesus of Paul is very different than the canonical version of today. Paul speaks of Jesus as a divine, celestial being, and his knowledge comes from mystical revelations, not from meeting an earthly person or eyewitnesses. It was very common for people to claim they had religious insights through “revelation”. It is also conspicuous and notable that there are no details of Jesus' earthly life, ministry, miracles, teachings, or specific locations, which a reasonable person would expect to find if he were a contemporary of a well-known figure. It is also notable that we have no record of who or what Paul was responding to in those letters.

Canonical Gospels – Really, we are discussing a single gospel, not multiple as Mark was the first (written after the fall of the 2nd temple), and all the others are re-tellings of the story. It is like Superman movies – 1978, 2013, and 2025. They all have the same basic story but with their own twists. And, the gospels are similar in that it’s a made for TV story. They are legendary fiction and an amalgam of motifs from the Hebrew Bible and Greco-Roman myths, such as those about "dying and rising gods" – like the popular and well known story of one of Rome’s mythical founders, Romulus.

No, the claim as stated is not accurate. It reflects a common mythicists’ (Jesus-never-existed) position, but it is an overstatement that does not withstand critical scholarly scrutiny. Here’s a balanced breakdown of the current consensus among secular, non-confessing historians and classical scholars (i.e., people who are not doing apologetics):

The Testimonium Flavianum (Antiquities 18.63–64)
Current scholarly consensus: Partially authentic with Christian interpolation. The passage as it stands in all surviving Greek manuscripts contains obviously Christian-sounding phrases (“He was the Messiah,” “he appeared to them alive again the third day…”) that virtually no secular scholar thinks Josephus (a non-Christian Jew) originally wrote.

However, the majority of specialists in Josephus and Second Temple Judaism (including Louis Feldman, Steve Mason, John P. Meier, Gerd Theissen, James Carleton Paget, Alice Whealey, and most recently Serge Bardet and Ken Olson in different ways) believe there was an original, shorter, neutral core written by Josephus that was later expanded by a Christian scribe, probably in the early 4th century.

Key evidence for a partial-authentic view:
1. A 10th-century Arabic version (Agapius) and a Syriac version (Michael the Syrian) preserve a more restrained text that lacks the most blatant Christian affirmations.
2. The passage’s vocabulary and style are largely Josephan except for the obviously interpolated clauses.
3. Removing the three or four most suspicious phrases leaves a notice that fits perfectly with what a 1st-century Jew might say about a messianic claimant who was executed by Pilate and had followers afterward.
4. A minority (e.g., Richard Carrier, Paul Hopper, Ken Olson in his most recent work) argue it is a wholesale forgery, but this remains a minority position even among non-Christian scholars.

The James Reference (Antiquities 20.200) Greek: “the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James.” Current scholarly consensus: Overwhelmingly regarded as authentic (or at worst only very lightly touched by a scribe).
Reasons: The phrasing “who was called Christ” (τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ) is exactly the kind of distancing, non-committal formula Josephus uses elsewhere when mentioning things he doesn’t personally endorse (e.g., “Jesus who was called Messiah” instead of “Jesus the Messiah”). The passage has no obvious Christian theological agenda and is embedded in a context about the illegal execution of James by the high priest Ananus in 62 CE. No manuscript variant omits the phrase, and Origen (3rd century) already quotes this exact passage from Josephus, showing it existed before Eusebius. Virtually every specialist in Josephus (Feldman, Mason, Whealey, Paget, etc.) and almost all New Testament scholars (even skeptical ones like Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey, Paula Fredriksen) accept its authenticity.

Mythicist attempts to dismiss it usually involve claiming “Christ” is a marginal gloss, but there is zero textual evidence for that, and the grammar works perfectly without it being an addition.

Summary of the scholarly consensus (2020s.) Among secular historians and classicists who publish on this question (not theologians or apologists):
- ~85–95 % accept that Josephus originally mentioned Jesus twice: once briefly in Book 18 (core of the Testimonium) and once unambiguously in Book 20.
- Even most scholars who are agnostic or skeptical about the historical Jesus (e.g., Ehrman, Casey, Crossley) treat both passages (or at least the James passage) as independent corroboration that a historical Jesus existed and was executed under Pilate.
-The “complete forgery” position on the Testimonium and the “probably interpolated / only shows a James existed” position on Book 20 are defended almost exclusively within mythicist circles (Carrier, Doherty, Price, Lataster, etc.) and are rejected by the broad mainstream of ancient history and classics departments.

So the short answer: No, the claim you made is not true according to the current consensus of non-confessing scholars. The James passage in particular is considered solid evidence that a Jesus known as “Christ” existed and had a brother James, and the Testimonium is now widely seen as containing an authentic core.

[Anonymous]

He had a psychotic break as a young man (probably schizophrenia would make the most sense) and started a cult. It was based on some good things so that’s cool. But obviously nothing else about him is true except he was a dude who got enough power to threaten the Romans and they killed him.

If there was this whole thing where the world knew the son of god was born, how on earth was he allowed to live in complete obscurity until he was an adult? I also believe that if anything about Mary is true, it’s likely she was raped by her father (or an adult Joseph while she was a child) got pregnant and had to “marry” to make do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hey red letter summary guy, you ignored previous points posted in this thread while making a number of bad arguments.

First, whether current scholars overwhelming support historicity is not evidence that they are correct. This is akin to saying that Galileo was wrong for supporting heliocentricity even though that was the minority (and considered heretical) position at the time.

Second, you seem prone to attacking the scholars trying to engage in an honest debate, but you have done nothing to make counterpoints to their actual arguments.

Third, and this is my attempt to summarize your many posts, so I apologize in advance if I don’t capture everything, but you essentially argue there are 4 main sources backing up your view of Jesus’ historicity. Two non-Christian (Tacitus and Josephus) and two Christian (Paul’s letters and canonical gospels) sources.

Let’s review the arguments.

Tacitus – we can rule this one out completely as evidence for historicity. All this does is confirm what we already know – there was a small sect within the Jewish community in the early part of the millennium that later evolved into what we call Christians. Tacitus in no way confirms a historical Jesus.

Josephus – there are supposedly two mentions historicists cite. The main reference, the Testimonium Flavianum (Book 18), is a complete Christian forgery. The second portion is more debated (Book 20). This is most likely an interpolation or, if authentic, simply indicates the existence of a prominent figure named James. It is NOT evidence for a historical Jesus.

Paul's Letters – These are generally considered the earliest Christian documents. However, the Christianity/Jesus of Paul is very different than the canonical version of today. Paul speaks of Jesus as a divine, celestial being, and his knowledge comes from mystical revelations, not from meeting an earthly person or eyewitnesses. It was very common for people to claim they had religious insights through “revelation”. It is also conspicuous and notable that there are no details of Jesus' earthly life, ministry, miracles, teachings, or specific locations, which a reasonable person would expect to find if he were a contemporary of a well-known figure. It is also notable that we have no record of who or what Paul was responding to in those letters.

Canonical Gospels – Really, we are discussing a single gospel, not multiple as Mark was the first (written after the fall of the 2nd temple), and all the others are re-tellings of the story. It is like Superman movies – 1978, 2013, and 2025. They all have the same basic story but with their own twists. And, the gospels are similar in that it’s a made for TV story. They are legendary fiction and an amalgam of motifs from the Hebrew Bible and Greco-Roman myths, such as those about "dying and rising gods" – like the popular and well known story of one of Rome’s mythical founders, Romulus.

Tacitus is not merely repeating what Christians were saying in Rome in 64 CE (the time of the Nero persecution). He is reporting what Roman official tradition knew about the origins of the sect: that it traced back to an executed founder named Christus in Judea under Pilate.

That is independent corroboration of the same core historicist claim found in the Gospels and in Josephus.

So no, you cannot “rule Tacitus out completely” as evidence for a historical Jesus. Among professional ancient historians, it is one of the strongest pieces of extra-biblical evidence we have.

Tacitus Annals 15.44 is accepted as authentic by essentially 100 % of specialists in Roman history (e.g., Ronald Syme, Ronald Mellor, Anthony Barrett, Michael Grant, etc.). It is routinely cited as independent, non-Christian evidence that: A historical person regarded as the founder of Christianity was executed by Pontius Pilate under Tiberius. The movement originated in Judea.

Even strongly skeptical scholars who are open to mythicist arguments (e.g., Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey, James Crossley) treat the Tacitus passage as reliable confirmation of those basic facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He had a psychotic break as a young man (probably schizophrenia would make the most sense) and started a cult. It was based on some good things so that’s cool. But obviously nothing else about him is true except he was a dude who got enough power to threaten the Romans and they killed him.

If there was this whole thing where the world knew the son of god was born, how on earth was he allowed to live in complete obscurity until he was an adult? I also believe that if anything about Mary is true, it’s likely she was raped by her father (or an adult Joseph while she was a child) got pregnant and had to “marry” to make do.

Your take on Jesus is a mix of modern speculation, mythicist leanings, and alternative interpretations that pop up in skeptical circles, but it doesn’t align well with the mainstream scholarly consensus on the historical Jesus (drawn from ancient historians, archaeologists, and textual critics, not theologians). Keep in mind, the “historical Jesus” refers to the non-supernatural reconstruction: a 1st-century Jewish preacher from Galilee who gathered followers, preached about the Kingdom of God, and was crucified by the Romans around 30 CE. Miracles, divinity, and resurrection are seen as later theological additions by most secular scholars.

However, this is far from scholarly consensus—it’s more of a fringe hypothesis in psychology and history. Most historians of ancient Judaism (e.g., Bart Ehrman, Paula Fredriksen, John Dominic Crossan) view Jesus as a rational, charismatic apocalyptic prophet, not someone with a clinical mental illness. His teachings fit squarely into 1st-century Jewish eschatology (end-times expectations), influenced by figures like John the Baptist, and don’t require a “psychotic break” to explain.

Labeling him schizophrenic is anachronistic—ancient people didn’t have modern psychiatric categories, and behaviors like prophecy or ecstasy were often seen as divinely inspired, not pathological.  

As for starting a “cult”: Yes, he led a small apocalyptic sect within Judaism, emphasizing ethical reforms (love your neighbor, care for the poor) that had broad appeal. But “cult” implies something sinister or manipulative; scholars see it more as a reform movement that grew posthumously into Christianity. The “good things” (e.g., Sermon on the Mount ethics) are indeed core to his historical message, but the power threat to Romans is spot-on—he was executed for sedition, likely for claiming kingship in a messianic sense, which challenged Roman authority.

Your theory captures some edgy, rationalist angles that challenge traditional Christianity, and parts (like the Roman execution and ethical core) match historical consensus. But the psychosis and rape elements are more hypothesis than fact, often used in anti-religious polemics. If you’re interested in deeper dives, books like Ehrman’s “Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium” or Schaberg’s work lay out the evidence without dogma.

[Anonymous]

“Canonical Gospels – Really, we are discussing a single gospel, not multiple as Mark was the first (written after the fall of the 2nd temple), and all the others are re-tellings of the story. It is like Superman movies – 1978, 2013, and 2025. They all have the same basic story but with their own twists. And, the gospels are similar in that it’s a made for TV story. They are legendary fiction and an amalgam of motifs from the Hebrew Bible and Greco-Roman myths, such as those about "dying and rising gods" – like the popular and well known story of one of Rome’s mythical founders, Romulus.”


You are channeling a pretty common “mythicist-adjacent” or hyper-skeptical take that was popular in some corners of the internet circa 2010–2015 (think Carrier, Doherty, or the old Freke & Gandy “Jesus Mysteries” crowd). A lot of those talking points sound punchy, but they don’t hold up well against the current scholarly consensus (even the secular one).

“There’s really only one gospel—Mark—and the others are just fan-fiction rewrites”
That’s a huge oversimplification.
—>Yes, Mark is the earliest (ca. 70 CE, right after the Temple’s fall). Matthew and Luke both used Mark and a lost sayings source (“Q”) plus their own unique material (M and L). John is independent and much later (90–100 CE).

So we actually have at least four independent streams of tradition (Mark, Q, L, M, and John), not just one story with cosmetic changes. That’s why historians can do things like the “criterion of multiple attestation” instead of treating it like a single script being rebooted.

“It’s just legendary fiction stitched together from dying-and-rising-god myths (Romulus, Osiris, etc.)”


This is the old 19th-century “parallelomania” that modern scholarship has largely abandoned. The actual dying-and-rising god category has been dismantled (look up Jonathan Z. Smith’s work or Tryggve Mettinger’s careful re-examination); most of those gods either don’t die, don’t rise, or the stories post-date Christianity.

Romulus specifically: his “ascension” in Livy and Ovid is a political legend cooked up centuries later to legitimize the empire; it has almost nothing in common with the passion narrative except “important guy disappears and is later said to be divine.”

The passion story, on the other hand, is embarrassingly Jewish and anti-triumphalist: a crucified messianic claimant who dies in shame. That’s the opposite of what any Greco-Roman mythmaker would invent if they were trying to sell a hero cult.

“Made-for-TV legendary fiction”

The Gospels are ancient biographies (bioi), not modern novels or screenplays. They’re short, poorly written by literary standards, full of Aramaic substrata, and contain details that only make sense in a 30s–50s CE Palestinian Jewish context (e.g., disputes over Sabbath grain-plucking, purity laws, etc.). If someone were just spinning a myth in the 70s–90s, they did an astonishingly good job of faking 20–40 years of earlier oral tradition that no one called them out on.

Bottom line (even from completely secular scholars like Ehrman, Paula Fredriksen, Amy-Jill Levine, etc.):
1. A historical Jesus who was crucified under Pilate is more probable than the mythicist alternative.
2. The Gospels contain legendary embellishment and theological shaping—no serious scholar denies that.
3. But they’re not 1:1 copies of pagan myths, and they’re not a single Markan script with new special effects.

You have bought into a package of older, mostly debunked talking points on the “pagan parallel” side. If you are open to updating the model, Mark Goodacre’s The Case Against Q (for the literary relationship) and Bart Ehrman’s How Jesus Became God (for how legend grows around a real person) are two very readable places to see the current mainstream secular view.

[Anonymous]

The criterion of embarrassment is one of the most useful tools historians use when trying to figure out what actually happened in the life of Jesus (or any ancient figure). It’s important because it helps us cut through theological propaganda and later legend-making.

If a story contains details that would have been embarrassing, inconvenient, or counterproductive for the early Christians who wrote it down, those details are unlikely to have been invented. Why would you make up something that makes your movement look weak, foolish, or wrong—unless it was too well-known to deny?

Early Christianity was trying to convert people. They had every motive to make Jesus look as powerful, wise, and obviously divine as possible from day one. Yet the earliest sources (especially Mark) keep including these awkward, unflattering moments. The best explanation historians have is: those things really happened, and the tradition was too strong to suppress even when it was inconvenient.

That’s why even completely secular, skeptical scholars (Ehrman, Crossan, Sanders, etc.) treat the crucifixion, the baptism by John, the family conflict, and a few other “embarrassing” items as basically bedrock facts. The criterion of embarrassment is one of the main reasons the total “Jesus never existed” position is considered fringe in academia.

[Anonymous]

Ehrman is not “completely secular”.

He’s super Christian but stopped believing in the woo woo supernatural crap the more he studied it.

[Anonymous]

Crossan is also super Christian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:-Socrates: Everyone accepts he existed, yet we have zero words written by him and zero contemporary documents mentioning him.

-Pythagoras: Famous theorem, religious cult that lasted centuries—yet not a single text or inscription from his lifetime or the century after.

-Spartacus: One of the most famous slave rebels in history, but no Roman historian writing while he was alive or within a century afterward left a detailed account that survives.

Jesus is actually on the stronger end of the spectrum for a non-royal, non-elite person from the early 1st century CE. The combination of multiple independent sources (hostile, neutral, and friendly) appearing within 20–90 years is better than what we have for many other accepted ancient figures who were far more powerful or famous in their own lifetimes.

You seem very smart and you type well, too.

Thanks! I am an old guy who has spent decades studying this stuff. I think the worst thing I have seen is the Horus, Mithras, etc, meme crap that people somehow actually believe. Those are memes that someone probably made as a joke. And they are everywhere on the internet and people use them as “evidence.”

Evidence doesn't matter when it comes to religion. It's what people believe - or not.

Yup. People can believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster if they want.

Do we have any non-religious contemporary writings to prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster existed?

If people told the story of the FSM thousands of years ago, I'm sure some suckers would believe it and repeat the tale.

We have exactly just as much concrete evidence for the FSM as we do for Jesus.

No, we do not have “exactly just as much concrete evidence” for the Flying Spaghetti Monster as for Jesus. That claim is simply false.

Mentioned in multiple 1st–2nd century sources? Jesus: yes. FSM: no.


Referenced by non-followers / hostile sources? Jesus: yes. FSM: no.


Has a specific time and place in history? Jesus: yes. FSM: no.

Left a verifiable historical movement that rapidly grew? Jesus: yes. FSM: no.

Year the figure is first claimed to have existed? Jesus: ~4-6 bce. FSM: 2005 (Bobby Henderson’s open letter)

Serious academic debate about whether the figure existed? Jesus: yes. FSM: no.


The FSM was invented in 2005 explicitly to mock the idea that Intelligent Design should be taught in schools. It is a deliberate parody with zero pretense of historicity.

Jesus is a 1st-century Jew whose existence, baptism by John, and crucifixion under Pontius Pilate are accepted by essentially 100% of relevant scholars — including atheist, Jewish, and agnostic ones (Bart Ehrman, Geza Vermes, Paula Fredriksen, etc.).

Saying “we have the same evidence for both” is like saying we have the same evidence for Julius Caesar and Darth Vader. One is a documented historical person; the other is an openly admitted 21st-century joke.

The FSM argument only works if you completely ignore chronology, sources, and basic historical methodology. Once you apply the same standards we use for any other ancient figure, the comparison collapses instantly.

So no — not “exactly the same evidence.”

One has early, multiple, and hostile corroboration.

The other has a 2005 blog post that says “I made this up to make a point.”

That’s the difference.

No, concrete evidence isn't stories retold centuries later.

There is zero concrete evidence that either existed.

The “zero concrete evidence” claim is simply false, and the “centuries later” claim misrepresents the actual timeline of the sources by hundreds of years. The historical existence of Jesus is about as solid as anything from that era gets.

Incorrect. The evidence historicists are relying on is debated and not concrete. Most, if not all of what we do have was altered by Christians to support their beliefs.

For claims that there is as much evidence as there are for other historical figures, many of those other historical figures have archaeological evidence, in addition to written sources. There is no archaeological evidence in support of Jesus.

You are raising two common objections that sound strong at first but don’t hold up when you look at how ancient history actually works. Let’s look at them with the facts most secular historians (not apologists) accept.

“All the evidence was written and altered by believers, so it’s worthless”

Yes, the Gospels and Pauline letters were written by believers. That’s true of almost every source we have for every religious founder (Buddha, Muhammad, Joseph Smith, etc.). But historians don’t treat religious texts as inspired scripture; we treat them as normal ancient documents and apply the same critical tools we use on Tacitus, Josephus, or Plutarch. The alterations and theological spin are real and obvious (compare Mark’s very human, screaming Jesus with John’s calm, divine Logos). Scholars spend entire careers charting that development. The key point: the presence of later theological layering does not erase the presence of earlier, inconvenient historical details that the later editors failed to remove completely (see the criterion of embarrassment again). That’s how we still recover usable data even from heavily redacted sources.

“There’s no archaeological evidence, and other ancient figures have archaeology”

This is the single most widespread misunderstanding about ancient history.

Here’s the reality for the early 1st century CE in the Roman Empire:

Jesus of Nazareth was an itinerant Galilean peasant preacher. What archeological evidence do historians expect to find from an itinerant peasant with his social status? None. Absolutely none.

Pontius Pilate was a Roman Prefect. High status. What archeological evidence do we have for PP? A single limestone inscription. It was discovered in 1961.

Caiaphas, the High Priest:

“Caiaphas: An Archaeological Biography – Bible Archaeology Report
The Caiaphas ossuary was discovered in Jerusalem in 1990 by workers in a construction project in the Peace Forest near a neighborhood in the southeast of the city. The ornate limestone bone box contains the remains of several people, including a man around 60 years old, and is inscribed with the name "Joseph son of Caiaphas," leading scholars to believe it belonged to the high priest Caiaphas who is mentioned in the Gospels. Authentication efforts have confirmed the inscription's authenticity and its age, placing it in the first century CE.”

That’s what we have for him.

Hillel the Elder (famous rabbi)- zero archaeological evidence for this famous teacher.

Apollonius of Tyana, very famous, zero direct archaeological evidence.

Hannibal Barca, one of the if not most famous generals in antiquity- zero contemporary inscriptions of images

Spartacus, leader of the largest slave revolt in Rome- literally zero archaeological evidence.

Most Galilean villagers mentioned by Josephus: zero archaeological evidence.

99% of people below the elite level in antiquity leave zero archaeological trace. No statues, no inscriptions, no coins—nothing. A lower-class Jewish apocalyptic preacher from rural Galilee who never held office, never led an army, and was executed as a criminal is exactly the kind of person we would expect to leave no archaeological footprint.

The only reason we have the Pilate stone or the Caiaphas ossuary is that they were high officials with money and power. Jesus had neither.

Expecting archaeological evidence for Jesus is like expecting archaeological evidence for any of the dozens of other 1st-century messianic claimants Josephus mentions (Theudas, the Egyptian, etc.). We have none for them either—and nobody doubts they existed.

What we actually have (even by strict secular standards):

Multiple independent literary attestations within 20–90 years (Paul ca. 50–60 CE already knows the crucifixion under Pilate, brother of Jesus named James, etc.; Mark ca. 70; Josephus’s Antiquities 18 and 20, even if 18 has some later interpolation, the core is accepted by almost everyone; Tacitus Annals 15.44 ca. 116 CE). That’s normal or better than normal for a non-elite figure of that era.

Mainstream secular scholarship (Ehrman, Casey, Dunn, Levine, etc.):

The total absence of archaeology is exactly what is predicted for someone of Jesus’ social class and lifespan. The literary evidence we do have is early, multiply attested, and contains the usual signs of authentic historical memory mixed with later legendary development—just like virtually every other figure from antiquity we accept as historical.
The historicist position isn’t built on “certainty” or “inerrant documents.” It’s built on the fact that the evidence fits the normal pattern for a real 1st-century person far better than it fits the pattern for a purely mythic invention.

If you want a single book that lays this out from a completely non-believing scholar, Bart Ehrman’s Did Jesus Exist? (2012) directly addresses every one of these objections in detail. It’s written for exactly this kind of skeptical audience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Crossan is also super Christian.

Crossan was a Catholic priest who left the priesthood in the late 1960s, finding that he was unable to hold to orthodox Christian beliefs concerning the divinity of Jesus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ehrman is not “completely secular”.

He’s super Christian but stopped believing in the woo woo supernatural crap the more he studied it.

In a 2008 interview he said, "I simply didn't believe that there was a God of any sort". Ehrman has said that he is both agnostic and atheist but that "I usually confuse people when I tell them I'm both". "Atheism is a statement about faith and agnosticism is a statement about epistemology", he said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ehrman is not “completely secular”.

He’s super Christian but stopped believing in the woo woo supernatural crap the more he studied it.

In a 2008 interview he said, "I simply didn't believe that there was a God of any sort". Ehrman has said that he is both agnostic and atheist but that "I usually confuse people when I tell them I'm both". "Atheism is a statement about faith and agnosticism is a statement about epistemology", he said.

Ok. Now describe his upbringing, education, and career.

Dude now doesn’t think Jesus had super powers but everything in his life is super Christian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crossan is also super Christian.

Crossan was a Catholic priest who left the priesthood in the late 1960s, finding that he was unable to hold to orthodox Christian beliefs concerning the divinity of Jesus.

Right. Far from secular. A priest is about as Christian as you can get. He no longer believes in the magical powers but that doesn’t change his education, career, and historical beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ehrman is not “completely secular”.

He’s super Christian but stopped believing in the woo woo supernatural crap the more he studied it.

In a 2008 interview he said, "I simply didn't believe that there was a God of any sort". Ehrman has said that he is both agnostic and atheist but that "I usually confuse people when I tell them I'm both". "Atheism is a statement about faith and agnosticism is a statement about epistemology", he said.

Ok. Now describe his upbringing, education, and career.

Dude now doesn’t think Jesus had super powers but everything in his life is super Christian.

Bart Ehrman is not a Christian; he identifies as an agnostic and a former evangelical who left the church. He no longer attends church or considers himself a Christian, and attributes his change in belief to the "problem of suffering.”

Why I Am Not A Christian: Is Bart Ehrman a Christian?

https://ehrmanblog.org/why-i-am-not-a-christian-is-bart-ehrman-a-christian/#

He has a blog and can communicate his thoughts and feelings directly to anyone who can read.

I suppose you think you are the authority on Bart, and can tell everyone about him and what he believes.

But, if anyone is interested in reading directly from Bart, his blog link explains how he feels.

You don’t need an internet stranger to translate his writing, or tell you what to think about Bart, you can read it yourself and come to your own conclusions. That’s how people should form their own opinions, not by listening to anonymous interpretations from anonymous people online.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crossan is also super Christian.

Crossan was a Catholic priest who left the priesthood in the late 1960s, finding that he was unable to hold to orthodox Christian beliefs concerning the divinity of Jesus.

Right. Far from secular. A priest is about as Christian as you can get. He no longer believes in the magical powers but that doesn’t change his education, career, and historical beliefs.

What education do you have? What is your career?