Jesus' Historicity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re-upping to see if our historicity defender will actually come back and engage in a real discussion and not cower away in other threads and make claims without the full context of the arguments.

If you think your position is true, why be afraid to engage?

Write a scholarly paper if you think the mainstream view of secular historians is wrong.

Which “secular historians”? Are you the PP who doesn’t know what secular means?

No, it's the PP who knows when the person who's responding to them is trying to be insulting.

So which “secular historians”?

The overwhelming consensus among professional historians, biblical scholars, and experts in ancient history is that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure—a 1st-century Jewish preacher from Galilee who was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified under Pontius Pilate.     

This view is held by scholars across the spectrum, including Christians, atheists, agnostics, Jews, and others, based on evidence from early Christian texts (like Paul’s letters, which reference Jesus as a human who had a brother and was executed), the Gospels (treated as biographical traditions with historical cores), and non-Christian sources like the Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus.  

The idea that Jesus was entirely mythical (known as the “Christ myth theory” or Jesus mythicism) is a fringe position, rejected as pseudoscholarship or methodologically flawed by virtually all experts in the field for over a century—it has no traction in peer-reviewed journals, academic handbooks, or mainstream historical discourse.   

There are a small handful of individuals with academic credentials in relevant fields (such as ancient history, biblical studies, or religious studies) who argue against Jesus’ historicity or express strong agnosticism about it. These are outliers, often criticized by peers for relying on arguments from silence, selective interpretations of sources, superficial parallels to pagan myths (e.g., Horus or Mithras), and outdated methodologies that don’t align with standard historical criteria like multiple attestation or embarrassment.

Many mythicists lack institutional affiliations or come from outside core disciplines like classics or New Testament studies, and their work is often self-published or appears in non-academic venues. Even proponents like Richard Carrier (a mythicist himself) acknowledge that only a tiny fraction of qualified scholars hold this view, estimating around a dozen who outright doubt historicity or are agnostic, with others merely saying it’s “plausible” to debate but not endorsing it.

Richard Carrier (PhD in ancient history from Columbia University): An independent scholar and full mythicist who argues Jesus was a celestial being mythologized into a historical figure, using Bayesian probability to claim a low likelihood of historicity. His work, like On the Historicity of Jesus (2014), has undergone peer review but is widely dismissed by mainstream scholars call his work deeply flawed. Richard is a professional historian by training, but his mythicist stance is considered fringe.

Robert M. Price (PhDs in systematic theology and New Testament from Drew University): A former Baptist pastor and independent scholar who views Jesus as a composite of myths and archetypes, with the Gospels as allegorical fiction. Books like The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems (2011) promote this, but peers regard it as outside scholarly norms. He qualifies as a professional in biblical studies, though his views are not taken seriously in academia.

Thomas L. Thompson (PhD in biblical studies from the University of Tübingen; professor emeritus at the University of Copenhagen): A biblical minimalist who expresses agnosticism or skepticism, arguing Jesus (like David) draws from Near Eastern myths without warrant for historicity. Works like The Messiah Myth (2005) support this, but he’s more focused on Old Testament and doesn’t fully deny a possible historical kernel.    He is a respected professional in his field, but his Jesus-related skepticism is fringe.

Raphael Lataster (PhD in religious studies from the University of Sydney): An independent scholar and lecturer who leans mythicist or agnostic, claiming evidence for historicity is probabilistically weak. His Questioning the Historicity of Jesus (2019) is peer-reviewed, but critics see it as unconvincing. He has professional credentials, but his position remains marginal.

Thomas Brodie (PhD in biblical studies from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas; retired Dominican priest and scholar): Argues the Gospels are fictional rewritings of Old Testament stories, with Jesus as a composite myth. His memoir Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus (2012) outlines this, but it’s not widely accepted. He is a professional biblical scholar, though his mythicist turn is atypical.

George A. Wells (philosophy background, deceased; later softened to agnosticism) or Earl Doherty (no relevant PhD), lack strong credentials in ancient history or are amateurs.   

In short, yes, these individuals are “truly professionals” in the sense of having advanced degrees and some publishing history in related fields, but their mythicist views are not credible to the broader academic community—often likened to flat-earth theories or young-earth creationism in terms of evidential support.

Emphasis here: you are welcome to your own research and opinion on this topic or any topic, but you should also recognize your view is not accepted by professional historians/academics/scholars without belittling/disparaging/attacking them as unprofessional or ignorant.

You don’t have their education or expertise and can’t read the sources in the original language as they can. We all have opinions and a right to express them, but the Christ myth is considered extremely fringe.

Most people look to experts that are accredited and respected in every field, and stating anonymous that you are equal to these experts is delusional. That being said, no one here has to prove this to you, it’s already accepted. If you choose not to accept it, that’s your pov.

No one is trying to change anyone’s mind about this subject, but it’s always pertinent and responsible to know what experts think and why they think that, and compare their findings with other experts. These experts agree that Christ walked the earth.

You could enter academia and scholarship and gain credibility and credentials so you could enter the ring (where it counts) and change the overwhelming majority position about Jesus historicity. If I felt as strongly about it as many here do, I wouldn’t waste my time arguing with strangers on the internet. Use your knowledge and become a scholar or professor and show the world the truth as you interpret it, get peer reviewed, learn those languages first though.

That didn’t answer my question.

Which “secular” historians are 100% sure about historical Jesus?

Hint: if they are a biblical “scholar” they aren’t secular.

“100% sure” is a fake standard

No ancient figure meets it.

If you insist on 100%, you must also deny Socrates and Alexander the Great

Historians don’t operate that way.

Biblical scholar doesn’t mean religious. “Biblical studies” is a textual-historical field, like classics. Many scholars in it do not believe the Bible is inspired.

Excluding them is like saying:
“Classicists can’t study Caesar because they read Latin texts about him.”

At some point, rejecting every qualified expert just becomes a philosophical choice, not a historical argument.

So how certain are they then? 99%? 80% “absolutely certain”? “Most likely”?

Someone who has spent their entire life studying the Bible is not an independent, secular historian.

How certain are the independent, secular historians?

If you don’t agree with the scholars and academics and historians, that’s your pov.

Anyone who reads this thread can make their own decision. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, but the consensus among scholars/academics/historians is unequivocal. The people who reject it (which is their right) are considered fringe and a distinct minority.

This thread has run its course because it isn’t about a historical fact, it’s about people who have a need to debate or argue.

You say that you trust professional opinions.

Why don’t you value the professional opinion of independent historians?

These are the independent historians who you agree with:

Richard Carrier (PhD in ancient history from Columbia University): An independent scholar and full mythicist who argues Jesus was a celestial being mythologized into a historical figure, using Bayesian probability to claim a low likelihood of historicity. His work, like On the Historicity of Jesus (2014), has undergone peer review but is widely dismissed by mainstream scholars call his work deeply flawed. Richard is a professional historian by training, but his mythicist stance is considered fringe.

Robert M. Price (PhDs in systematic theology and New Testament from Drew University): A former Baptist pastor and independent scholar who views Jesus as a composite of myths and archetypes, with the Gospels as allegorical fiction. Books like The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems (2011) promote this, but peers regard it as outside scholarly norms. He qualifies as a professional in biblical studies, though his views are not taken seriously in academia.

Thomas L. Thompson (PhD in biblical studies from the University of Tübingen; professor emeritus at the University of Copenhagen): A biblical minimalist who expresses agnosticism or skepticism, arguing Jesus (like David) draws from Near Eastern myths without warrant for historicity. Works like The Messiah Myth (2005) support this, but he’s more focused on Old Testament and doesn’t fully deny a possible historical kernel.    He is a respected professional in his field, but his Jesus-related skepticism is fringe.

Raphael Lataster (PhD in religious studies from the University of Sydney): An independent scholar and lecturer who leans mythicist or agnostic, claiming evidence for historicity is probabilistically weak. His Questioning the Historicity of Jesus (2019) is peer-reviewed, but critics see it as unconvincing. He has professional credentials, but his position remains marginal.

Thomas Brodie (PhD in biblical studies from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas; retired Dominican priest and scholar): Argues the Gospels are fictional rewritings of Old Testament stories, with Jesus as a composite myth. His memoir Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus (2012) outlines this, but it’s not widely accepted. He is a professional biblical scholar, though his mythicist turn is atypical.

George A. Wells (philosophy background, deceased; later softened to agnosticism) or Earl Doherty (no relevant PhD), lack strong credentials in ancient history or are amateurs.   

In short, yes, these individuals are “truly professionals” in the sense of having advanced degrees and some publishing history in related fields, but their mythicist views are not credible to the broader academic community—often likened to flat-earth theories or young-earth creationism in terms of evidential support.


If there are any more, list them and their qualifications. There might be some I don’t know about. It’s important to list their educational backgrounds and qualifications.

So the consensus for independent historians is that Jesus was a myth?

No, the pp gave you a list of independent historians that agree with your premise. That doesn’t mean all independent historians agree with them.

My premise? I haven’t shared any “premise”.

We are discussing professional opinions.

It’s very telling that the PP doesn’t share professional opinions from independent historians.

what is your premise?

My premise is that PP doesn’t have any independent, secular historians who support her view.

Do you support the PP’s view?

I am seeking professional opinions first before deciding my view.

The overwhelming consensus among historians, biblical scholars, and academics in relevant fields (including non-Christian and atheist/agnostic experts) is that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical person who lived in 1st-century Judea, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

This view is held by virtually all scholars of antiquity.

No formal poll provides an exact percentage, but statements from leading experts and surveys of the field describe the agreement as “nearly universal,” “virtually every competent scholar,” or “over 99%”, with the alternative (known as the Christ myth theory, or mythicism—that Jesus was entirely mythical and never existed) regarded as a fringe position rejected for over a century.

Fallacy of appeal to authority again.

Come up with specific rebuttal to the reasoning already presented throughout this thread. I have not seen one valid critique of any of the mythicist reasoning. Also, as also stated prior, the majority view for a long time was that the earth was the center of the universe. See how well that "overwhelming majority view" held out against history or actual facts.

You can argue better than continuing to use chatgpt to craft your responses.

Dcum posters are not deciding if JC was a real man or not. There is no argument that professionals believe JC was real. Anonymous posters don’t change that. If you don’t believe he was real, that’s your opinion. But the vast majority of professionals, experts, etc. believe he existed. If you can’t admit that you fall into the red flag zone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re-upping to see if our historicity defender will actually come back and engage in a real discussion and not cower away in other threads and make claims without the full context of the arguments.

If you think your position is true, why be afraid to engage?

Write a scholarly paper if you think the mainstream view of secular historians is wrong.

Which “secular historians”? Are you the PP who doesn’t know what secular means?

No, it's the PP who knows when the person who's responding to them is trying to be insulting.

So which “secular historians”?

The overwhelming consensus among professional historians, biblical scholars, and experts in ancient history is that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure—a 1st-century Jewish preacher from Galilee who was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified under Pontius Pilate.     

This view is held by scholars across the spectrum, including Christians, atheists, agnostics, Jews, and others, based on evidence from early Christian texts (like Paul’s letters, which reference Jesus as a human who had a brother and was executed), the Gospels (treated as biographical traditions with historical cores), and non-Christian sources like the Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus.  

The idea that Jesus was entirely mythical (known as the “Christ myth theory” or Jesus mythicism) is a fringe position, rejected as pseudoscholarship or methodologically flawed by virtually all experts in the field for over a century—it has no traction in peer-reviewed journals, academic handbooks, or mainstream historical discourse.   

There are a small handful of individuals with academic credentials in relevant fields (such as ancient history, biblical studies, or religious studies) who argue against Jesus’ historicity or express strong agnosticism about it. These are outliers, often criticized by peers for relying on arguments from silence, selective interpretations of sources, superficial parallels to pagan myths (e.g., Horus or Mithras), and outdated methodologies that don’t align with standard historical criteria like multiple attestation or embarrassment.

Many mythicists lack institutional affiliations or come from outside core disciplines like classics or New Testament studies, and their work is often self-published or appears in non-academic venues. Even proponents like Richard Carrier (a mythicist himself) acknowledge that only a tiny fraction of qualified scholars hold this view, estimating around a dozen who outright doubt historicity or are agnostic, with others merely saying it’s “plausible” to debate but not endorsing it.

Richard Carrier (PhD in ancient history from Columbia University): An independent scholar and full mythicist who argues Jesus was a celestial being mythologized into a historical figure, using Bayesian probability to claim a low likelihood of historicity. His work, like On the Historicity of Jesus (2014), has undergone peer review but is widely dismissed by mainstream scholars call his work deeply flawed. Richard is a professional historian by training, but his mythicist stance is considered fringe.

Robert M. Price (PhDs in systematic theology and New Testament from Drew University): A former Baptist pastor and independent scholar who views Jesus as a composite of myths and archetypes, with the Gospels as allegorical fiction. Books like The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems (2011) promote this, but peers regard it as outside scholarly norms. He qualifies as a professional in biblical studies, though his views are not taken seriously in academia.

Thomas L. Thompson (PhD in biblical studies from the University of Tübingen; professor emeritus at the University of Copenhagen): A biblical minimalist who expresses agnosticism or skepticism, arguing Jesus (like David) draws from Near Eastern myths without warrant for historicity. Works like The Messiah Myth (2005) support this, but he’s more focused on Old Testament and doesn’t fully deny a possible historical kernel.    He is a respected professional in his field, but his Jesus-related skepticism is fringe.

Raphael Lataster (PhD in religious studies from the University of Sydney): An independent scholar and lecturer who leans mythicist or agnostic, claiming evidence for historicity is probabilistically weak. His Questioning the Historicity of Jesus (2019) is peer-reviewed, but critics see it as unconvincing. He has professional credentials, but his position remains marginal.

Thomas Brodie (PhD in biblical studies from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas; retired Dominican priest and scholar): Argues the Gospels are fictional rewritings of Old Testament stories, with Jesus as a composite myth. His memoir Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus (2012) outlines this, but it’s not widely accepted. He is a professional biblical scholar, though his mythicist turn is atypical.

George A. Wells (philosophy background, deceased; later softened to agnosticism) or Earl Doherty (no relevant PhD), lack strong credentials in ancient history or are amateurs.   

In short, yes, these individuals are “truly professionals” in the sense of having advanced degrees and some publishing history in related fields, but their mythicist views are not credible to the broader academic community—often likened to flat-earth theories or young-earth creationism in terms of evidential support.

Emphasis here: you are welcome to your own research and opinion on this topic or any topic, but you should also recognize your view is not accepted by professional historians/academics/scholars without belittling/disparaging/attacking them as unprofessional or ignorant.

You don’t have their education or expertise and can’t read the sources in the original language as they can. We all have opinions and a right to express them, but the Christ myth is considered extremely fringe.

Most people look to experts that are accredited and respected in every field, and stating anonymous that you are equal to these experts is delusional. That being said, no one here has to prove this to you, it’s already accepted. If you choose not to accept it, that’s your pov.

No one is trying to change anyone’s mind about this subject, but it’s always pertinent and responsible to know what experts think and why they think that, and compare their findings with other experts. These experts agree that Christ walked the earth.

You could enter academia and scholarship and gain credibility and credentials so you could enter the ring (where it counts) and change the overwhelming majority position about Jesus historicity. If I felt as strongly about it as many here do, I wouldn’t waste my time arguing with strangers on the internet. Use your knowledge and become a scholar or professor and show the world the truth as you interpret it, get peer reviewed, learn those languages first though.

That didn’t answer my question.

Which “secular” historians are 100% sure about historical Jesus?

Hint: if they are a biblical “scholar” they aren’t secular.

“100% sure” is a fake standard

No ancient figure meets it.

If you insist on 100%, you must also deny Socrates and Alexander the Great

Historians don’t operate that way.

Biblical scholar doesn’t mean religious. “Biblical studies” is a textual-historical field, like classics. Many scholars in it do not believe the Bible is inspired.

Excluding them is like saying:
“Classicists can’t study Caesar because they read Latin texts about him.”

At some point, rejecting every qualified expert just becomes a philosophical choice, not a historical argument.

So how certain are they then? 99%? 80% “absolutely certain”? “Most likely”?

Someone who has spent their entire life studying the Bible is not an independent, secular historian.

How certain are the independent, secular historians?

If you don’t agree with the scholars and academics and historians, that’s your pov.

Anyone who reads this thread can make their own decision. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, but the consensus among scholars/academics/historians is unequivocal. The people who reject it (which is their right) are considered fringe and a distinct minority.

This thread has run its course because it isn’t about a historical fact, it’s about people who have a need to debate or argue.

You say that you trust professional opinions.

Why don’t you value the professional opinion of independent historians?

These are the independent historians who you agree with:

Richard Carrier (PhD in ancient history from Columbia University): An independent scholar and full mythicist who argues Jesus was a celestial being mythologized into a historical figure, using Bayesian probability to claim a low likelihood of historicity. His work, like On the Historicity of Jesus (2014), has undergone peer review but is widely dismissed by mainstream scholars call his work deeply flawed. Richard is a professional historian by training, but his mythicist stance is considered fringe.

Robert M. Price (PhDs in systematic theology and New Testament from Drew University): A former Baptist pastor and independent scholar who views Jesus as a composite of myths and archetypes, with the Gospels as allegorical fiction. Books like The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems (2011) promote this, but peers regard it as outside scholarly norms. He qualifies as a professional in biblical studies, though his views are not taken seriously in academia.

Thomas L. Thompson (PhD in biblical studies from the University of Tübingen; professor emeritus at the University of Copenhagen): A biblical minimalist who expresses agnosticism or skepticism, arguing Jesus (like David) draws from Near Eastern myths without warrant for historicity. Works like The Messiah Myth (2005) support this, but he’s more focused on Old Testament and doesn’t fully deny a possible historical kernel.    He is a respected professional in his field, but his Jesus-related skepticism is fringe.

Raphael Lataster (PhD in religious studies from the University of Sydney): An independent scholar and lecturer who leans mythicist or agnostic, claiming evidence for historicity is probabilistically weak. His Questioning the Historicity of Jesus (2019) is peer-reviewed, but critics see it as unconvincing. He has professional credentials, but his position remains marginal.

Thomas Brodie (PhD in biblical studies from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas; retired Dominican priest and scholar): Argues the Gospels are fictional rewritings of Old Testament stories, with Jesus as a composite myth. His memoir Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus (2012) outlines this, but it’s not widely accepted. He is a professional biblical scholar, though his mythicist turn is atypical.

George A. Wells (philosophy background, deceased; later softened to agnosticism) or Earl Doherty (no relevant PhD), lack strong credentials in ancient history or are amateurs.   

In short, yes, these individuals are “truly professionals” in the sense of having advanced degrees and some publishing history in related fields, but their mythicist views are not credible to the broader academic community—often likened to flat-earth theories or young-earth creationism in terms of evidential support.


If there are any more, list them and their qualifications. There might be some I don’t know about. It’s important to list their educational backgrounds and qualifications.

So the consensus for independent historians is that Jesus was a myth?

No, the pp gave you a list of independent historians that agree with your premise. That doesn’t mean all independent historians agree with them.

My premise? I haven’t shared any “premise”.

We are discussing professional opinions.

It’s very telling that the PP doesn’t share professional opinions from independent historians.

what is your premise?

My premise is that PP doesn’t have any independent, secular historians who support her view.

Do you support the PP’s view?

I am seeking professional opinions first before deciding my view.

The overwhelming consensus among historians, biblical scholars, and academics in relevant fields (including non-Christian and atheist/agnostic experts) is that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical person who lived in 1st-century Judea, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

This view is held by virtually all scholars of antiquity.

No formal poll provides an exact percentage, but statements from leading experts and surveys of the field describe the agreement as “nearly universal,” “virtually every competent scholar,” or “over 99%”, with the alternative (known as the Christ myth theory, or mythicism—that Jesus was entirely mythical and never existed) regarded as a fringe position rejected for over a century.

Fallacy of appeal to authority again.

Come up with specific rebuttal to the reasoning already presented throughout this thread. I have not seen one valid critique of any of the mythicist reasoning. Also, as also stated prior, the majority view for a long time was that the earth was the center of the universe. See how well that "overwhelming majority view" held out against history or actual facts.

You can argue better than continuing to use chatgpt to craft your responses.

Dcum posters are not deciding if JC was a real man or not. There is no argument that professionals believe JC was real. Anonymous posters don’t change that. If you don’t believe he was real, that’s your opinion. But the vast majority of professionals, experts, etc. believe he existed. If you can’t admit that you fall into the red flag zone.

Who said DCUM posters were deciding it? Do you not understand the purpose of a forum for discussion?

If you have nothing to add or contribute, why do you post?

Also, look up the appeal to authority fallacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re-upping to see if our historicity defender will actually come back and engage in a real discussion and not cower away in other threads and make claims without the full context of the arguments.

If you think your position is true, why be afraid to engage?

Write a scholarly paper if you think the mainstream view of secular historians is wrong.

Which “secular historians”? Are you the PP who doesn’t know what secular means?

No, it's the PP who knows when the person who's responding to them is trying to be insulting.

So which “secular historians”?

The overwhelming consensus among professional historians, biblical scholars, and experts in ancient history is that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure—a 1st-century Jewish preacher from Galilee who was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified under Pontius Pilate.     

This view is held by scholars across the spectrum, including Christians, atheists, agnostics, Jews, and others, based on evidence from early Christian texts (like Paul’s letters, which reference Jesus as a human who had a brother and was executed), the Gospels (treated as biographical traditions with historical cores), and non-Christian sources like the Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus.  

The idea that Jesus was entirely mythical (known as the “Christ myth theory” or Jesus mythicism) is a fringe position, rejected as pseudoscholarship or methodologically flawed by virtually all experts in the field for over a century—it has no traction in peer-reviewed journals, academic handbooks, or mainstream historical discourse.   

There are a small handful of individuals with academic credentials in relevant fields (such as ancient history, biblical studies, or religious studies) who argue against Jesus’ historicity or express strong agnosticism about it. These are outliers, often criticized by peers for relying on arguments from silence, selective interpretations of sources, superficial parallels to pagan myths (e.g., Horus or Mithras), and outdated methodologies that don’t align with standard historical criteria like multiple attestation or embarrassment.

Many mythicists lack institutional affiliations or come from outside core disciplines like classics or New Testament studies, and their work is often self-published or appears in non-academic venues. Even proponents like Richard Carrier (a mythicist himself) acknowledge that only a tiny fraction of qualified scholars hold this view, estimating around a dozen who outright doubt historicity or are agnostic, with others merely saying it’s “plausible” to debate but not endorsing it.

Richard Carrier (PhD in ancient history from Columbia University): An independent scholar and full mythicist who argues Jesus was a celestial being mythologized into a historical figure, using Bayesian probability to claim a low likelihood of historicity. His work, like On the Historicity of Jesus (2014), has undergone peer review but is widely dismissed by mainstream scholars call his work deeply flawed. Richard is a professional historian by training, but his mythicist stance is considered fringe.

Robert M. Price (PhDs in systematic theology and New Testament from Drew University): A former Baptist pastor and independent scholar who views Jesus as a composite of myths and archetypes, with the Gospels as allegorical fiction. Books like The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems (2011) promote this, but peers regard it as outside scholarly norms. He qualifies as a professional in biblical studies, though his views are not taken seriously in academia.

Thomas L. Thompson (PhD in biblical studies from the University of Tübingen; professor emeritus at the University of Copenhagen): A biblical minimalist who expresses agnosticism or skepticism, arguing Jesus (like David) draws from Near Eastern myths without warrant for historicity. Works like The Messiah Myth (2005) support this, but he’s more focused on Old Testament and doesn’t fully deny a possible historical kernel.    He is a respected professional in his field, but his Jesus-related skepticism is fringe.

Raphael Lataster (PhD in religious studies from the University of Sydney): An independent scholar and lecturer who leans mythicist or agnostic, claiming evidence for historicity is probabilistically weak. His Questioning the Historicity of Jesus (2019) is peer-reviewed, but critics see it as unconvincing. He has professional credentials, but his position remains marginal.

Thomas Brodie (PhD in biblical studies from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas; retired Dominican priest and scholar): Argues the Gospels are fictional rewritings of Old Testament stories, with Jesus as a composite myth. His memoir Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus (2012) outlines this, but it’s not widely accepted. He is a professional biblical scholar, though his mythicist turn is atypical.

George A. Wells (philosophy background, deceased; later softened to agnosticism) or Earl Doherty (no relevant PhD), lack strong credentials in ancient history or are amateurs.   

In short, yes, these individuals are “truly professionals” in the sense of having advanced degrees and some publishing history in related fields, but their mythicist views are not credible to the broader academic community—often likened to flat-earth theories or young-earth creationism in terms of evidential support.

Emphasis here: you are welcome to your own research and opinion on this topic or any topic, but you should also recognize your view is not accepted by professional historians/academics/scholars without belittling/disparaging/attacking them as unprofessional or ignorant.

You don’t have their education or expertise and can’t read the sources in the original language as they can. We all have opinions and a right to express them, but the Christ myth is considered extremely fringe.

Most people look to experts that are accredited and respected in every field, and stating anonymous that you are equal to these experts is delusional. That being said, no one here has to prove this to you, it’s already accepted. If you choose not to accept it, that’s your pov.

No one is trying to change anyone’s mind about this subject, but it’s always pertinent and responsible to know what experts think and why they think that, and compare their findings with other experts. These experts agree that Christ walked the earth.

You could enter academia and scholarship and gain credibility and credentials so you could enter the ring (where it counts) and change the overwhelming majority position about Jesus historicity. If I felt as strongly about it as many here do, I wouldn’t waste my time arguing with strangers on the internet. Use your knowledge and become a scholar or professor and show the world the truth as you interpret it, get peer reviewed, learn those languages first though.

That didn’t answer my question.

Which “secular” historians are 100% sure about historical Jesus?

Hint: if they are a biblical “scholar” they aren’t secular.

“100% sure” is a fake standard

No ancient figure meets it.

If you insist on 100%, you must also deny Socrates and Alexander the Great

Historians don’t operate that way.

Biblical scholar doesn’t mean religious. “Biblical studies” is a textual-historical field, like classics. Many scholars in it do not believe the Bible is inspired.

Excluding them is like saying:
“Classicists can’t study Caesar because they read Latin texts about him.”

At some point, rejecting every qualified expert just becomes a philosophical choice, not a historical argument.

So how certain are they then? 99%? 80% “absolutely certain”? “Most likely”?

Someone who has spent their entire life studying the Bible is not an independent, secular historian.

How certain are the independent, secular historians?

If you don’t agree with the scholars and academics and historians, that’s your pov.

Anyone who reads this thread can make their own decision. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, but the consensus among scholars/academics/historians is unequivocal. The people who reject it (which is their right) are considered fringe and a distinct minority.

This thread has run its course because it isn’t about a historical fact, it’s about people who have a need to debate or argue.

You say that you trust professional opinions.

Why don’t you value the professional opinion of independent historians?

These are the independent historians who you agree with:

Richard Carrier (PhD in ancient history from Columbia University): An independent scholar and full mythicist who argues Jesus was a celestial being mythologized into a historical figure, using Bayesian probability to claim a low likelihood of historicity. His work, like On the Historicity of Jesus (2014), has undergone peer review but is widely dismissed by mainstream scholars call his work deeply flawed. Richard is a professional historian by training, but his mythicist stance is considered fringe.

Robert M. Price (PhDs in systematic theology and New Testament from Drew University): A former Baptist pastor and independent scholar who views Jesus as a composite of myths and archetypes, with the Gospels as allegorical fiction. Books like The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems (2011) promote this, but peers regard it as outside scholarly norms. He qualifies as a professional in biblical studies, though his views are not taken seriously in academia.

Thomas L. Thompson (PhD in biblical studies from the University of Tübingen; professor emeritus at the University of Copenhagen): A biblical minimalist who expresses agnosticism or skepticism, arguing Jesus (like David) draws from Near Eastern myths without warrant for historicity. Works like The Messiah Myth (2005) support this, but he’s more focused on Old Testament and doesn’t fully deny a possible historical kernel.    He is a respected professional in his field, but his Jesus-related skepticism is fringe.

Raphael Lataster (PhD in religious studies from the University of Sydney): An independent scholar and lecturer who leans mythicist or agnostic, claiming evidence for historicity is probabilistically weak. His Questioning the Historicity of Jesus (2019) is peer-reviewed, but critics see it as unconvincing. He has professional credentials, but his position remains marginal.

Thomas Brodie (PhD in biblical studies from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas; retired Dominican priest and scholar): Argues the Gospels are fictional rewritings of Old Testament stories, with Jesus as a composite myth. His memoir Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus (2012) outlines this, but it’s not widely accepted. He is a professional biblical scholar, though his mythicist turn is atypical.

George A. Wells (philosophy background, deceased; later softened to agnosticism) or Earl Doherty (no relevant PhD), lack strong credentials in ancient history or are amateurs.   

In short, yes, these individuals are “truly professionals” in the sense of having advanced degrees and some publishing history in related fields, but their mythicist views are not credible to the broader academic community—often likened to flat-earth theories or young-earth creationism in terms of evidential support.


If there are any more, list them and their qualifications. There might be some I don’t know about. It’s important to list their educational backgrounds and qualifications.

So the consensus for independent historians is that Jesus was a myth?

No, the pp gave you a list of independent historians that agree with your premise. That doesn’t mean all independent historians agree with them.

My premise? I haven’t shared any “premise”.

We are discussing professional opinions.

It’s very telling that the PP doesn’t share professional opinions from independent historians.

what is your premise?

My premise is that PP doesn’t have any independent, secular historians who support her view.

Do you support the PP’s view?

I am seeking professional opinions first before deciding my view.

Historians like John Dickson and others have publicly wagered “99% or more” of professional ancient historians accept Jesus’ existence, challenging anyone to name a tenured professor in a relevant field who denies it.

While no precise percentage from a global survey exists, the expert consensus is effectively 99-100% that Jesus was a historical man, with the opposing view confined to the fringes. This is substantiated across Christian, Jewish, atheist, and agnostic scholars in classics, ancient history, and biblical studies.

Proponents like Richard Carrier (who argues for mythicism) acknowledge it’s a minority view, even among secular scholars. Reviews of his work (e.g., by Daniel Gullotta, Simon Gathercole) and others confirm it has not gained traction in academia, often described as lacking positive evidence from primary sources.

Galileo had a "fringe" position once too.

Guess who was right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re-upping to see if our historicity defender will actually come back and engage in a real discussion and not cower away in other threads and make claims without the full context of the arguments.

If you think your position is true, why be afraid to engage?

Write a scholarly paper if you think the mainstream view of secular historians is wrong.

Which “secular historians”? Are you the PP who doesn’t know what secular means?

No, it's the PP who knows when the person who's responding to them is trying to be insulting.

So which “secular historians”?

The overwhelming consensus among professional historians, biblical scholars, and experts in ancient history is that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure—a 1st-century Jewish preacher from Galilee who was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified under Pontius Pilate.     

This view is held by scholars across the spectrum, including Christians, atheists, agnostics, Jews, and others, based on evidence from early Christian texts (like Paul’s letters, which reference Jesus as a human who had a brother and was executed), the Gospels (treated as biographical traditions with historical cores), and non-Christian sources like the Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus.  

The idea that Jesus was entirely mythical (known as the “Christ myth theory” or Jesus mythicism) is a fringe position, rejected as pseudoscholarship or methodologically flawed by virtually all experts in the field for over a century—it has no traction in peer-reviewed journals, academic handbooks, or mainstream historical discourse.   

There are a small handful of individuals with academic credentials in relevant fields (such as ancient history, biblical studies, or religious studies) who argue against Jesus’ historicity or express strong agnosticism about it. These are outliers, often criticized by peers for relying on arguments from silence, selective interpretations of sources, superficial parallels to pagan myths (e.g., Horus or Mithras), and outdated methodologies that don’t align with standard historical criteria like multiple attestation or embarrassment.

Many mythicists lack institutional affiliations or come from outside core disciplines like classics or New Testament studies, and their work is often self-published or appears in non-academic venues. Even proponents like Richard Carrier (a mythicist himself) acknowledge that only a tiny fraction of qualified scholars hold this view, estimating around a dozen who outright doubt historicity or are agnostic, with others merely saying it’s “plausible” to debate but not endorsing it.

Richard Carrier (PhD in ancient history from Columbia University): An independent scholar and full mythicist who argues Jesus was a celestial being mythologized into a historical figure, using Bayesian probability to claim a low likelihood of historicity. His work, like On the Historicity of Jesus (2014), has undergone peer review but is widely dismissed by mainstream scholars call his work deeply flawed. Richard is a professional historian by training, but his mythicist stance is considered fringe.

Robert M. Price (PhDs in systematic theology and New Testament from Drew University): A former Baptist pastor and independent scholar who views Jesus as a composite of myths and archetypes, with the Gospels as allegorical fiction. Books like The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems (2011) promote this, but peers regard it as outside scholarly norms. He qualifies as a professional in biblical studies, though his views are not taken seriously in academia.

Thomas L. Thompson (PhD in biblical studies from the University of Tübingen; professor emeritus at the University of Copenhagen): A biblical minimalist who expresses agnosticism or skepticism, arguing Jesus (like David) draws from Near Eastern myths without warrant for historicity. Works like The Messiah Myth (2005) support this, but he’s more focused on Old Testament and doesn’t fully deny a possible historical kernel.    He is a respected professional in his field, but his Jesus-related skepticism is fringe.

Raphael Lataster (PhD in religious studies from the University of Sydney): An independent scholar and lecturer who leans mythicist or agnostic, claiming evidence for historicity is probabilistically weak. His Questioning the Historicity of Jesus (2019) is peer-reviewed, but critics see it as unconvincing. He has professional credentials, but his position remains marginal.

Thomas Brodie (PhD in biblical studies from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas; retired Dominican priest and scholar): Argues the Gospels are fictional rewritings of Old Testament stories, with Jesus as a composite myth. His memoir Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus (2012) outlines this, but it’s not widely accepted. He is a professional biblical scholar, though his mythicist turn is atypical.

George A. Wells (philosophy background, deceased; later softened to agnosticism) or Earl Doherty (no relevant PhD), lack strong credentials in ancient history or are amateurs.   

In short, yes, these individuals are “truly professionals” in the sense of having advanced degrees and some publishing history in related fields, but their mythicist views are not credible to the broader academic community—often likened to flat-earth theories or young-earth creationism in terms of evidential support.

Emphasis here: you are welcome to your own research and opinion on this topic or any topic, but you should also recognize your view is not accepted by professional historians/academics/scholars without belittling/disparaging/attacking them as unprofessional or ignorant.

You don’t have their education or expertise and can’t read the sources in the original language as they can. We all have opinions and a right to express them, but the Christ myth is considered extremely fringe.

Most people look to experts that are accredited and respected in every field, and stating anonymous that you are equal to these experts is delusional. That being said, no one here has to prove this to you, it’s already accepted. If you choose not to accept it, that’s your pov.

No one is trying to change anyone’s mind about this subject, but it’s always pertinent and responsible to know what experts think and why they think that, and compare their findings with other experts. These experts agree that Christ walked the earth.

You could enter academia and scholarship and gain credibility and credentials so you could enter the ring (where it counts) and change the overwhelming majority position about Jesus historicity. If I felt as strongly about it as many here do, I wouldn’t waste my time arguing with strangers on the internet. Use your knowledge and become a scholar or professor and show the world the truth as you interpret it, get peer reviewed, learn those languages first though.

That didn’t answer my question.

Which “secular” historians are 100% sure about historical Jesus?

Hint: if they are a biblical “scholar” they aren’t secular.

“100% sure” is a fake standard

No ancient figure meets it.

If you insist on 100%, you must also deny Socrates and Alexander the Great

Historians don’t operate that way.

Biblical scholar doesn’t mean religious. “Biblical studies” is a textual-historical field, like classics. Many scholars in it do not believe the Bible is inspired.

Excluding them is like saying:
“Classicists can’t study Caesar because they read Latin texts about him.”

At some point, rejecting every qualified expert just becomes a philosophical choice, not a historical argument.

So how certain are they then? 99%? 80% “absolutely certain”? “Most likely”?

Someone who has spent their entire life studying the Bible is not an independent, secular historian.

How certain are the independent, secular historians?

If you don’t agree with the scholars and academics and historians, that’s your pov.

Anyone who reads this thread can make their own decision. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, but the consensus among scholars/academics/historians is unequivocal. The people who reject it (which is their right) are considered fringe and a distinct minority.

This thread has run its course because it isn’t about a historical fact, it’s about people who have a need to debate or argue.

You say that you trust professional opinions.

Why don’t you value the professional opinion of independent historians?

These are the independent historians who you agree with:

Richard Carrier (PhD in ancient history from Columbia University): An independent scholar and full mythicist who argues Jesus was a celestial being mythologized into a historical figure, using Bayesian probability to claim a low likelihood of historicity. His work, like On the Historicity of Jesus (2014), has undergone peer review but is widely dismissed by mainstream scholars call his work deeply flawed. Richard is a professional historian by training, but his mythicist stance is considered fringe.

Robert M. Price (PhDs in systematic theology and New Testament from Drew University): A former Baptist pastor and independent scholar who views Jesus as a composite of myths and archetypes, with the Gospels as allegorical fiction. Books like The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems (2011) promote this, but peers regard it as outside scholarly norms. He qualifies as a professional in biblical studies, though his views are not taken seriously in academia.

Thomas L. Thompson (PhD in biblical studies from the University of Tübingen; professor emeritus at the University of Copenhagen): A biblical minimalist who expresses agnosticism or skepticism, arguing Jesus (like David) draws from Near Eastern myths without warrant for historicity. Works like The Messiah Myth (2005) support this, but he’s more focused on Old Testament and doesn’t fully deny a possible historical kernel.    He is a respected professional in his field, but his Jesus-related skepticism is fringe.

Raphael Lataster (PhD in religious studies from the University of Sydney): An independent scholar and lecturer who leans mythicist or agnostic, claiming evidence for historicity is probabilistically weak. His Questioning the Historicity of Jesus (2019) is peer-reviewed, but critics see it as unconvincing. He has professional credentials, but his position remains marginal.

Thomas Brodie (PhD in biblical studies from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas; retired Dominican priest and scholar): Argues the Gospels are fictional rewritings of Old Testament stories, with Jesus as a composite myth. His memoir Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus (2012) outlines this, but it’s not widely accepted. He is a professional biblical scholar, though his mythicist turn is atypical.

George A. Wells (philosophy background, deceased; later softened to agnosticism) or Earl Doherty (no relevant PhD), lack strong credentials in ancient history or are amateurs.   

In short, yes, these individuals are “truly professionals” in the sense of having advanced degrees and some publishing history in related fields, but their mythicist views are not credible to the broader academic community—often likened to flat-earth theories or young-earth creationism in terms of evidential support.


If there are any more, list them and their qualifications. There might be some I don’t know about. It’s important to list their educational backgrounds and qualifications.

So the consensus for independent historians is that Jesus was a myth?

No, the pp gave you a list of independent historians that agree with your premise. That doesn’t mean all independent historians agree with them.

My premise? I haven’t shared any “premise”.

We are discussing professional opinions.

It’s very telling that the PP doesn’t share professional opinions from independent historians.

what is your premise?

My premise is that PP doesn’t have any independent, secular historians who support her view.

Do you support the PP’s view?

I am seeking professional opinions first before deciding my view.

The overwhelming consensus among historians, biblical scholars, and academics in relevant fields (including non-Christian and atheist/agnostic experts) is that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical person who lived in 1st-century Judea, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

This view is held by virtually all scholars of antiquity.

No formal poll provides an exact percentage, but statements from leading experts and surveys of the field describe the agreement as “nearly universal,” “virtually every competent scholar,” or “over 99%”, with the alternative (known as the Christ myth theory, or mythicism—that Jesus was entirely mythical and never existed) regarded as a fringe position rejected for over a century.

Fallacy of appeal to authority again.

Come up with specific rebuttal to the reasoning already presented throughout this thread. I have not seen one valid critique of any of the mythicist reasoning. Also, as also stated prior, the majority view for a long time was that the earth was the center of the universe. See how well that "overwhelming majority view" held out against history or actual facts.

You can argue better than continuing to use chatgpt to craft your responses.

Dcum posters are not deciding if JC was a real man or not. There is no argument that professionals believe JC was real. Anonymous posters don’t change that. If you don’t believe he was real, that’s your opinion. But the vast majority of professionals, experts, etc. believe he existed. If you can’t admit that you fall into the red flag zone.

Who said DCUM posters were deciding it? Do you not understand the purpose of a forum for discussion?

If you have nothing to add or contribute, why do you post?

Also, look up the appeal to authority fallacy.

And yet the poster still makes no specific refutation of any of the afore argued points...

[Anonymous]

So if Jesus the human historical person didn't exist how did all those guys meet and decide to go write similar things and teach and mostly get tortured to death? Now THAT would be a good story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re-upping to see if our historicity defender will actually come back and engage in a real discussion and not cower away in other threads and make claims without the full context of the arguments.

If you think your position is true, why be afraid to engage?

Write a scholarly paper if you think the mainstream view of secular historians is wrong.

Which “secular historians”? Are you the PP who doesn’t know what secular means?

No, it's the PP who knows when the person who's responding to them is trying to be insulting.

So which “secular historians”?

The overwhelming consensus among professional historians, biblical scholars, and experts in ancient history is that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure—a 1st-century Jewish preacher from Galilee who was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified under Pontius Pilate.     

This view is held by scholars across the spectrum, including Christians, atheists, agnostics, Jews, and others, based on evidence from early Christian texts (like Paul’s letters, which reference Jesus as a human who had a brother and was executed), the Gospels (treated as biographical traditions with historical cores), and non-Christian sources like the Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus.  

The idea that Jesus was entirely mythical (known as the “Christ myth theory” or Jesus mythicism) is a fringe position, rejected as pseudoscholarship or methodologically flawed by virtually all experts in the field for over a century—it has no traction in peer-reviewed journals, academic handbooks, or mainstream historical discourse.   

There are a small handful of individuals with academic credentials in relevant fields (such as ancient history, biblical studies, or religious studies) who argue against Jesus’ historicity or express strong agnosticism about it. These are outliers, often criticized by peers for relying on arguments from silence, selective interpretations of sources, superficial parallels to pagan myths (e.g., Horus or Mithras), and outdated methodologies that don’t align with standard historical criteria like multiple attestation or embarrassment.

Many mythicists lack institutional affiliations or come from outside core disciplines like classics or New Testament studies, and their work is often self-published or appears in non-academic venues. Even proponents like Richard Carrier (a mythicist himself) acknowledge that only a tiny fraction of qualified scholars hold this view, estimating around a dozen who outright doubt historicity or are agnostic, with others merely saying it’s “plausible” to debate but not endorsing it.

Richard Carrier (PhD in ancient history from Columbia University): An independent scholar and full mythicist who argues Jesus was a celestial being mythologized into a historical figure, using Bayesian probability to claim a low likelihood of historicity. His work, like On the Historicity of Jesus (2014), has undergone peer review but is widely dismissed by mainstream scholars call his work deeply flawed. Richard is a professional historian by training, but his mythicist stance is considered fringe.

Robert M. Price (PhDs in systematic theology and New Testament from Drew University): A former Baptist pastor and independent scholar who views Jesus as a composite of myths and archetypes, with the Gospels as allegorical fiction. Books like The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems (2011) promote this, but peers regard it as outside scholarly norms. He qualifies as a professional in biblical studies, though his views are not taken seriously in academia.

Thomas L. Thompson (PhD in biblical studies from the University of Tübingen; professor emeritus at the University of Copenhagen): A biblical minimalist who expresses agnosticism or skepticism, arguing Jesus (like David) draws from Near Eastern myths without warrant for historicity. Works like The Messiah Myth (2005) support this, but he’s more focused on Old Testament and doesn’t fully deny a possible historical kernel.    He is a respected professional in his field, but his Jesus-related skepticism is fringe.

Raphael Lataster (PhD in religious studies from the University of Sydney): An independent scholar and lecturer who leans mythicist or agnostic, claiming evidence for historicity is probabilistically weak. His Questioning the Historicity of Jesus (2019) is peer-reviewed, but critics see it as unconvincing. He has professional credentials, but his position remains marginal.

Thomas Brodie (PhD in biblical studies from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas; retired Dominican priest and scholar): Argues the Gospels are fictional rewritings of Old Testament stories, with Jesus as a composite myth. His memoir Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus (2012) outlines this, but it’s not widely accepted. He is a professional biblical scholar, though his mythicist turn is atypical.

George A. Wells (philosophy background, deceased; later softened to agnosticism) or Earl Doherty (no relevant PhD), lack strong credentials in ancient history or are amateurs.   

In short, yes, these individuals are “truly professionals” in the sense of having advanced degrees and some publishing history in related fields, but their mythicist views are not credible to the broader academic community—often likened to flat-earth theories or young-earth creationism in terms of evidential support.

Emphasis here: you are welcome to your own research and opinion on this topic or any topic, but you should also recognize your view is not accepted by professional historians/academics/scholars without belittling/disparaging/attacking them as unprofessional or ignorant.

You don’t have their education or expertise and can’t read the sources in the original language as they can. We all have opinions and a right to express them, but the Christ myth is considered extremely fringe.

Most people look to experts that are accredited and respected in every field, and stating anonymous that you are equal to these experts is delusional. That being said, no one here has to prove this to you, it’s already accepted. If you choose not to accept it, that’s your pov.

No one is trying to change anyone’s mind about this subject, but it’s always pertinent and responsible to know what experts think and why they think that, and compare their findings with other experts. These experts agree that Christ walked the earth.

You could enter academia and scholarship and gain credibility and credentials so you could enter the ring (where it counts) and change the overwhelming majority position about Jesus historicity. If I felt as strongly about it as many here do, I wouldn’t waste my time arguing with strangers on the internet. Use your knowledge and become a scholar or professor and show the world the truth as you interpret it, get peer reviewed, learn those languages first though.

That didn’t answer my question.

Which “secular” historians are 100% sure about historical Jesus?

Hint: if they are a biblical “scholar” they aren’t secular.

“100% sure” is a fake standard

No ancient figure meets it.

If you insist on 100%, you must also deny Socrates and Alexander the Great

Historians don’t operate that way.

Biblical scholar doesn’t mean religious. “Biblical studies” is a textual-historical field, like classics. Many scholars in it do not believe the Bible is inspired.

Excluding them is like saying:
“Classicists can’t study Caesar because they read Latin texts about him.”

At some point, rejecting every qualified expert just becomes a philosophical choice, not a historical argument.

So how certain are they then? 99%? 80% “absolutely certain”? “Most likely”?

Someone who has spent their entire life studying the Bible is not an independent, secular historian.

How certain are the independent, secular historians?

If you don’t agree with the scholars and academics and historians, that’s your pov.

Anyone who reads this thread can make their own decision. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, but the consensus among scholars/academics/historians is unequivocal. The people who reject it (which is their right) are considered fringe and a distinct minority.

This thread has run its course because it isn’t about a historical fact, it’s about people who have a need to debate or argue.

You say that you trust professional opinions.

Why don’t you value the professional opinion of independent historians?

These are the independent historians who you agree with:

Richard Carrier (PhD in ancient history from Columbia University): An independent scholar and full mythicist who argues Jesus was a celestial being mythologized into a historical figure, using Bayesian probability to claim a low likelihood of historicity. His work, like On the Historicity of Jesus (2014), has undergone peer review but is widely dismissed by mainstream scholars call his work deeply flawed. Richard is a professional historian by training, but his mythicist stance is considered fringe.

Robert M. Price (PhDs in systematic theology and New Testament from Drew University): A former Baptist pastor and independent scholar who views Jesus as a composite of myths and archetypes, with the Gospels as allegorical fiction. Books like The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems (2011) promote this, but peers regard it as outside scholarly norms. He qualifies as a professional in biblical studies, though his views are not taken seriously in academia.

Thomas L. Thompson (PhD in biblical studies from the University of Tübingen; professor emeritus at the University of Copenhagen): A biblical minimalist who expresses agnosticism or skepticism, arguing Jesus (like David) draws from Near Eastern myths without warrant for historicity. Works like The Messiah Myth (2005) support this, but he’s more focused on Old Testament and doesn’t fully deny a possible historical kernel.    He is a respected professional in his field, but his Jesus-related skepticism is fringe.

Raphael Lataster (PhD in religious studies from the University of Sydney): An independent scholar and lecturer who leans mythicist or agnostic, claiming evidence for historicity is probabilistically weak. His Questioning the Historicity of Jesus (2019) is peer-reviewed, but critics see it as unconvincing. He has professional credentials, but his position remains marginal.

Thomas Brodie (PhD in biblical studies from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas; retired Dominican priest and scholar): Argues the Gospels are fictional rewritings of Old Testament stories, with Jesus as a composite myth. His memoir Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus (2012) outlines this, but it’s not widely accepted. He is a professional biblical scholar, though his mythicist turn is atypical.

George A. Wells (philosophy background, deceased; later softened to agnosticism) or Earl Doherty (no relevant PhD), lack strong credentials in ancient history or are amateurs.   

In short, yes, these individuals are “truly professionals” in the sense of having advanced degrees and some publishing history in related fields, but their mythicist views are not credible to the broader academic community—often likened to flat-earth theories or young-earth creationism in terms of evidential support.


If there are any more, list them and their qualifications. There might be some I don’t know about. It’s important to list their educational backgrounds and qualifications.

So the consensus for independent historians is that Jesus was a myth?

No, the pp gave you a list of independent historians that agree with your premise. That doesn’t mean all independent historians agree with them.

My premise? I haven’t shared any “premise”.

We are discussing professional opinions.

It’s very telling that the PP doesn’t share professional opinions from independent historians.

what is your premise?

My premise is that PP doesn’t have any independent, secular historians who support her view.

Do you support the PP’s view?

I am seeking professional opinions first before deciding my view.

The overwhelming consensus among historians, biblical scholars, and academics in relevant fields (including non-Christian and atheist/agnostic experts) is that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical person who lived in 1st-century Judea, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

This view is held by virtually all scholars of antiquity.

No formal poll provides an exact percentage, but statements from leading experts and surveys of the field describe the agreement as “nearly universal,” “virtually every competent scholar,” or “over 99%”, with the alternative (known as the Christ myth theory, or mythicism—that Jesus was entirely mythical and never existed) regarded as a fringe position rejected for over a century.

Fallacy of appeal to authority again.

Come up with specific rebuttal to the reasoning already presented throughout this thread. I have not seen one valid critique of any of the mythicist reasoning. Also, as also stated prior, the majority view for a long time was that the earth was the center of the universe. See how well that "overwhelming majority view" held out against history or actual facts.

You can argue better than continuing to use chatgpt to craft your responses.

Dcum posters are not deciding if JC was a real man or not. There is no argument that professionals believe JC was real. Anonymous posters don’t change that. If you don’t believe he was real, that’s your opinion. But the vast majority of professionals, experts, etc. believe he existed. If you can’t admit that you fall into the red flag zone.

Who said DCUM posters were deciding it? Do you not understand the purpose of a forum for discussion?

If you have nothing to add or contribute, why do you post?

Also, look up the appeal to authority fallacy.

By the 1910s–1920s, critical scholarship largely settled the question of Jesus’ historicity. Scholars like Albert Schweitzer (in his 1906 Quest for the Historical Jesus) and others applied historical methods to the sources and concluded that a historical Jewish preacher named Jesus existed, even if much of the Gospel material was legendary or theological.

The myth theory was rejected because:

-It relied on arguments from silence (e.g., lack of early non-Christian mentions) and outdated parallels to pagan myths that did not hold up under scrutiny.

-Sources like the Pauline epistles (dated ~48–62 CE) and Gospels, despite their theological bias, contained details consistent with a historical figure (e.g., baptism by John, crucifixion under Pilate).

-Non-Christian references (Josephus, Tacitus) provided independent corroboration, even if partially corrupted or brief.

[Anonymous]

History Hit did a pretty interesting deep dive on the rise of Christianity in the Roman empire.

https://youtu.be/HynJ2_9_Rmk?si=a_Ph9az0_bG8r19F

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re-upping to see if our historicity defender will actually come back and engage in a real discussion and not cower away in other threads and make claims without the full context of the arguments.

If you think your position is true, why be afraid to engage?

Write a scholarly paper if you think the mainstream view of secular historians is wrong.

Which “secular historians”? Are you the PP who doesn’t know what secular means?

No, it's the PP who knows when the person who's responding to them is trying to be insulting.

So which “secular historians”?

The overwhelming consensus among professional historians, biblical scholars, and experts in ancient history is that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure—a 1st-century Jewish preacher from Galilee who was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified under Pontius Pilate.     

This view is held by scholars across the spectrum, including Christians, atheists, agnostics, Jews, and others, based on evidence from early Christian texts (like Paul’s letters, which reference Jesus as a human who had a brother and was executed), the Gospels (treated as biographical traditions with historical cores), and non-Christian sources like the Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus.  

The idea that Jesus was entirely mythical (known as the “Christ myth theory” or Jesus mythicism) is a fringe position, rejected as pseudoscholarship or methodologically flawed by virtually all experts in the field for over a century—it has no traction in peer-reviewed journals, academic handbooks, or mainstream historical discourse.   

There are a small handful of individuals with academic credentials in relevant fields (such as ancient history, biblical studies, or religious studies) who argue against Jesus’ historicity or express strong agnosticism about it. These are outliers, often criticized by peers for relying on arguments from silence, selective interpretations of sources, superficial parallels to pagan myths (e.g., Horus or Mithras), and outdated methodologies that don’t align with standard historical criteria like multiple attestation or embarrassment.

Many mythicists lack institutional affiliations or come from outside core disciplines like classics or New Testament studies, and their work is often self-published or appears in non-academic venues. Even proponents like Richard Carrier (a mythicist himself) acknowledge that only a tiny fraction of qualified scholars hold this view, estimating around a dozen who outright doubt historicity or are agnostic, with others merely saying it’s “plausible” to debate but not endorsing it.

Richard Carrier (PhD in ancient history from Columbia University): An independent scholar and full mythicist who argues Jesus was a celestial being mythologized into a historical figure, using Bayesian probability to claim a low likelihood of historicity. His work, like On the Historicity of Jesus (2014), has undergone peer review but is widely dismissed by mainstream scholars call his work deeply flawed. Richard is a professional historian by training, but his mythicist stance is considered fringe.

Robert M. Price (PhDs in systematic theology and New Testament from Drew University): A former Baptist pastor and independent scholar who views Jesus as a composite of myths and archetypes, with the Gospels as allegorical fiction. Books like The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems (2011) promote this, but peers regard it as outside scholarly norms. He qualifies as a professional in biblical studies, though his views are not taken seriously in academia.

Thomas L. Thompson (PhD in biblical studies from the University of Tübingen; professor emeritus at the University of Copenhagen): A biblical minimalist who expresses agnosticism or skepticism, arguing Jesus (like David) draws from Near Eastern myths without warrant for historicity. Works like The Messiah Myth (2005) support this, but he’s more focused on Old Testament and doesn’t fully deny a possible historical kernel.    He is a respected professional in his field, but his Jesus-related skepticism is fringe.

Raphael Lataster (PhD in religious studies from the University of Sydney): An independent scholar and lecturer who leans mythicist or agnostic, claiming evidence for historicity is probabilistically weak. His Questioning the Historicity of Jesus (2019) is peer-reviewed, but critics see it as unconvincing. He has professional credentials, but his position remains marginal.

Thomas Brodie (PhD in biblical studies from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas; retired Dominican priest and scholar): Argues the Gospels are fictional rewritings of Old Testament stories, with Jesus as a composite myth. His memoir Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus (2012) outlines this, but it’s not widely accepted. He is a professional biblical scholar, though his mythicist turn is atypical.

George A. Wells (philosophy background, deceased; later softened to agnosticism) or Earl Doherty (no relevant PhD), lack strong credentials in ancient history or are amateurs.   

In short, yes, these individuals are “truly professionals” in the sense of having advanced degrees and some publishing history in related fields, but their mythicist views are not credible to the broader academic community—often likened to flat-earth theories or young-earth creationism in terms of evidential support.

Emphasis here: you are welcome to your own research and opinion on this topic or any topic, but you should also recognize your view is not accepted by professional historians/academics/scholars without belittling/disparaging/attacking them as unprofessional or ignorant.

You don’t have their education or expertise and can’t read the sources in the original language as they can. We all have opinions and a right to express them, but the Christ myth is considered extremely fringe.

Most people look to experts that are accredited and respected in every field, and stating anonymous that you are equal to these experts is delusional. That being said, no one here has to prove this to you, it’s already accepted. If you choose not to accept it, that’s your pov.

No one is trying to change anyone’s mind about this subject, but it’s always pertinent and responsible to know what experts think and why they think that, and compare their findings with other experts. These experts agree that Christ walked the earth.

You could enter academia and scholarship and gain credibility and credentials so you could enter the ring (where it counts) and change the overwhelming majority position about Jesus historicity. If I felt as strongly about it as many here do, I wouldn’t waste my time arguing with strangers on the internet. Use your knowledge and become a scholar or professor and show the world the truth as you interpret it, get peer reviewed, learn those languages first though.

That didn’t answer my question.

Which “secular” historians are 100% sure about historical Jesus?

Hint: if they are a biblical “scholar” they aren’t secular.

“100% sure” is a fake standard

No ancient figure meets it.

If you insist on 100%, you must also deny Socrates and Alexander the Great

Historians don’t operate that way.

Biblical scholar doesn’t mean religious. “Biblical studies” is a textual-historical field, like classics. Many scholars in it do not believe the Bible is inspired.

Excluding them is like saying:
“Classicists can’t study Caesar because they read Latin texts about him.”

At some point, rejecting every qualified expert just becomes a philosophical choice, not a historical argument.

So how certain are they then? 99%? 80% “absolutely certain”? “Most likely”?

Someone who has spent their entire life studying the Bible is not an independent, secular historian.

How certain are the independent, secular historians?

If you don’t agree with the scholars and academics and historians, that’s your pov.

Anyone who reads this thread can make their own decision. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, but the consensus among scholars/academics/historians is unequivocal. The people who reject it (which is their right) are considered fringe and a distinct minority.

This thread has run its course because it isn’t about a historical fact, it’s about people who have a need to debate or argue.

You say that you trust professional opinions.

Why don’t you value the professional opinion of independent historians?

These are the independent historians who you agree with:

Richard Carrier (PhD in ancient history from Columbia University): An independent scholar and full mythicist who argues Jesus was a celestial being mythologized into a historical figure, using Bayesian probability to claim a low likelihood of historicity. His work, like On the Historicity of Jesus (2014), has undergone peer review but is widely dismissed by mainstream scholars call his work deeply flawed. Richard is a professional historian by training, but his mythicist stance is considered fringe.

Robert M. Price (PhDs in systematic theology and New Testament from Drew University): A former Baptist pastor and independent scholar who views Jesus as a composite of myths and archetypes, with the Gospels as allegorical fiction. Books like The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems (2011) promote this, but peers regard it as outside scholarly norms. He qualifies as a professional in biblical studies, though his views are not taken seriously in academia.

Thomas L. Thompson (PhD in biblical studies from the University of Tübingen; professor emeritus at the University of Copenhagen): A biblical minimalist who expresses agnosticism or skepticism, arguing Jesus (like David) draws from Near Eastern myths without warrant for historicity. Works like The Messiah Myth (2005) support this, but he’s more focused on Old Testament and doesn’t fully deny a possible historical kernel.    He is a respected professional in his field, but his Jesus-related skepticism is fringe.

Raphael Lataster (PhD in religious studies from the University of Sydney): An independent scholar and lecturer who leans mythicist or agnostic, claiming evidence for historicity is probabilistically weak. His Questioning the Historicity of Jesus (2019) is peer-reviewed, but critics see it as unconvincing. He has professional credentials, but his position remains marginal.

Thomas Brodie (PhD in biblical studies from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas; retired Dominican priest and scholar): Argues the Gospels are fictional rewritings of Old Testament stories, with Jesus as a composite myth. His memoir Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus (2012) outlines this, but it’s not widely accepted. He is a professional biblical scholar, though his mythicist turn is atypical.

George A. Wells (philosophy background, deceased; later softened to agnosticism) or Earl Doherty (no relevant PhD), lack strong credentials in ancient history or are amateurs.   

In short, yes, these individuals are “truly professionals” in the sense of having advanced degrees and some publishing history in related fields, but their mythicist views are not credible to the broader academic community—often likened to flat-earth theories or young-earth creationism in terms of evidential support.


If there are any more, list them and their qualifications. There might be some I don’t know about. It’s important to list their educational backgrounds and qualifications.

So the consensus for independent historians is that Jesus was a myth?

No, the pp gave you a list of independent historians that agree with your premise. That doesn’t mean all independent historians agree with them.

My premise? I haven’t shared any “premise”.

We are discussing professional opinions.

It’s very telling that the PP doesn’t share professional opinions from independent historians.

what is your premise?

My premise is that PP doesn’t have any independent, secular historians who support her view.

Do you support the PP’s view?

I am seeking professional opinions first before deciding my view.

Historians like John Dickson and others have publicly wagered “99% or more” of professional ancient historians accept Jesus’ existence, challenging anyone to name a tenured professor in a relevant field who denies it.

While no precise percentage from a global survey exists, the expert consensus is effectively 99-100% that Jesus was a historical man, with the opposing view confined to the fringes. This is substantiated across Christian, Jewish, atheist, and agnostic scholars in classics, ancient history, and biblical studies.

Proponents like Richard Carrier (who argues for mythicism) acknowledge it’s a minority view, even among secular scholars. Reviews of his work (e.g., by Daniel Gullotta, Simon Gathercole) and others confirm it has not gained traction in academia, often described as lacking positive evidence from primary sources.

Galileo had a "fringe" position once too.

Guess who was right.

Galileo Galilei was a devout Christian, specifically a lifelong Catholic who believed in God and saw no inherent conflict between his scientific discoveries and his faith. He argued that God revealed Himself through both Scripture and the “Book of Nature,” and that science illuminated the beauty of God’s creation.
Historical evidence overwhelmingly supports this:
-Galileo remained a committed Catholic until his death in 1642, even after his 1633 trial and house arrest.
-He received Catholic rites and was buried in consecrated ground.
- His daughters became nuns, reflecting his family’s deep ties to the Church.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So if Jesus the human historical person didn't exist how did all those guys meet and decide to go write similar things and teach and mostly get tortured to death? Now THAT would be a good story.

Read the whole thread. Already answered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re-upping to see if our historicity defender will actually come back and engage in a real discussion and not cower away in other threads and make claims without the full context of the arguments.

If you think your position is true, why be afraid to engage?

Write a scholarly paper if you think the mainstream view of secular historians is wrong.

Which “secular historians”? Are you the PP who doesn’t know what secular means?

No, it's the PP who knows when the person who's responding to them is trying to be insulting.

So which “secular historians”?

The overwhelming consensus among professional historians, biblical scholars, and experts in ancient history is that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure—a 1st-century Jewish preacher from Galilee who was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified under Pontius Pilate.     

This view is held by scholars across the spectrum, including Christians, atheists, agnostics, Jews, and others, based on evidence from early Christian texts (like Paul’s letters, which reference Jesus as a human who had a brother and was executed), the Gospels (treated as biographical traditions with historical cores), and non-Christian sources like the Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus.  

The idea that Jesus was entirely mythical (known as the “Christ myth theory” or Jesus mythicism) is a fringe position, rejected as pseudoscholarship or methodologically flawed by virtually all experts in the field for over a century—it has no traction in peer-reviewed journals, academic handbooks, or mainstream historical discourse.   

There are a small handful of individuals with academic credentials in relevant fields (such as ancient history, biblical studies, or religious studies) who argue against Jesus’ historicity or express strong agnosticism about it. These are outliers, often criticized by peers for relying on arguments from silence, selective interpretations of sources, superficial parallels to pagan myths (e.g., Horus or Mithras), and outdated methodologies that don’t align with standard historical criteria like multiple attestation or embarrassment.

Many mythicists lack institutional affiliations or come from outside core disciplines like classics or New Testament studies, and their work is often self-published or appears in non-academic venues. Even proponents like Richard Carrier (a mythicist himself) acknowledge that only a tiny fraction of qualified scholars hold this view, estimating around a dozen who outright doubt historicity or are agnostic, with others merely saying it’s “plausible” to debate but not endorsing it.

Richard Carrier (PhD in ancient history from Columbia University): An independent scholar and full mythicist who argues Jesus was a celestial being mythologized into a historical figure, using Bayesian probability to claim a low likelihood of historicity. His work, like On the Historicity of Jesus (2014), has undergone peer review but is widely dismissed by mainstream scholars call his work deeply flawed. Richard is a professional historian by training, but his mythicist stance is considered fringe.

Robert M. Price (PhDs in systematic theology and New Testament from Drew University): A former Baptist pastor and independent scholar who views Jesus as a composite of myths and archetypes, with the Gospels as allegorical fiction. Books like The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems (2011) promote this, but peers regard it as outside scholarly norms. He qualifies as a professional in biblical studies, though his views are not taken seriously in academia.

Thomas L. Thompson (PhD in biblical studies from the University of Tübingen; professor emeritus at the University of Copenhagen): A biblical minimalist who expresses agnosticism or skepticism, arguing Jesus (like David) draws from Near Eastern myths without warrant for historicity. Works like The Messiah Myth (2005) support this, but he’s more focused on Old Testament and doesn’t fully deny a possible historical kernel.    He is a respected professional in his field, but his Jesus-related skepticism is fringe.

Raphael Lataster (PhD in religious studies from the University of Sydney): An independent scholar and lecturer who leans mythicist or agnostic, claiming evidence for historicity is probabilistically weak. His Questioning the Historicity of Jesus (2019) is peer-reviewed, but critics see it as unconvincing. He has professional credentials, but his position remains marginal.

Thomas Brodie (PhD in biblical studies from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas; retired Dominican priest and scholar): Argues the Gospels are fictional rewritings of Old Testament stories, with Jesus as a composite myth. His memoir Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus (2012) outlines this, but it’s not widely accepted. He is a professional biblical scholar, though his mythicist turn is atypical.

George A. Wells (philosophy background, deceased; later softened to agnosticism) or Earl Doherty (no relevant PhD), lack strong credentials in ancient history or are amateurs.   

In short, yes, these individuals are “truly professionals” in the sense of having advanced degrees and some publishing history in related fields, but their mythicist views are not credible to the broader academic community—often likened to flat-earth theories or young-earth creationism in terms of evidential support.

Emphasis here: you are welcome to your own research and opinion on this topic or any topic, but you should also recognize your view is not accepted by professional historians/academics/scholars without belittling/disparaging/attacking them as unprofessional or ignorant.

You don’t have their education or expertise and can’t read the sources in the original language as they can. We all have opinions and a right to express them, but the Christ myth is considered extremely fringe.

Most people look to experts that are accredited and respected in every field, and stating anonymous that you are equal to these experts is delusional. That being said, no one here has to prove this to you, it’s already accepted. If you choose not to accept it, that’s your pov.

No one is trying to change anyone’s mind about this subject, but it’s always pertinent and responsible to know what experts think and why they think that, and compare their findings with other experts. These experts agree that Christ walked the earth.

You could enter academia and scholarship and gain credibility and credentials so you could enter the ring (where it counts) and change the overwhelming majority position about Jesus historicity. If I felt as strongly about it as many here do, I wouldn’t waste my time arguing with strangers on the internet. Use your knowledge and become a scholar or professor and show the world the truth as you interpret it, get peer reviewed, learn those languages first though.

That didn’t answer my question.

Which “secular” historians are 100% sure about historical Jesus?

Hint: if they are a biblical “scholar” they aren’t secular.

“100% sure” is a fake standard

No ancient figure meets it.

If you insist on 100%, you must also deny Socrates and Alexander the Great

Historians don’t operate that way.

Biblical scholar doesn’t mean religious. “Biblical studies” is a textual-historical field, like classics. Many scholars in it do not believe the Bible is inspired.

Excluding them is like saying:
“Classicists can’t study Caesar because they read Latin texts about him.”

At some point, rejecting every qualified expert just becomes a philosophical choice, not a historical argument.

So how certain are they then? 99%? 80% “absolutely certain”? “Most likely”?

Someone who has spent their entire life studying the Bible is not an independent, secular historian.

How certain are the independent, secular historians?

If you don’t agree with the scholars and academics and historians, that’s your pov.

Anyone who reads this thread can make their own decision. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, but the consensus among scholars/academics/historians is unequivocal. The people who reject it (which is their right) are considered fringe and a distinct minority.

This thread has run its course because it isn’t about a historical fact, it’s about people who have a need to debate or argue.

You say that you trust professional opinions.

Why don’t you value the professional opinion of independent historians?

These are the independent historians who you agree with:

Richard Carrier (PhD in ancient history from Columbia University): An independent scholar and full mythicist who argues Jesus was a celestial being mythologized into a historical figure, using Bayesian probability to claim a low likelihood of historicity. His work, like On the Historicity of Jesus (2014), has undergone peer review but is widely dismissed by mainstream scholars call his work deeply flawed. Richard is a professional historian by training, but his mythicist stance is considered fringe.

Robert M. Price (PhDs in systematic theology and New Testament from Drew University): A former Baptist pastor and independent scholar who views Jesus as a composite of myths and archetypes, with the Gospels as allegorical fiction. Books like The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems (2011) promote this, but peers regard it as outside scholarly norms. He qualifies as a professional in biblical studies, though his views are not taken seriously in academia.

Thomas L. Thompson (PhD in biblical studies from the University of Tübingen; professor emeritus at the University of Copenhagen): A biblical minimalist who expresses agnosticism or skepticism, arguing Jesus (like David) draws from Near Eastern myths without warrant for historicity. Works like The Messiah Myth (2005) support this, but he’s more focused on Old Testament and doesn’t fully deny a possible historical kernel.    He is a respected professional in his field, but his Jesus-related skepticism is fringe.

Raphael Lataster (PhD in religious studies from the University of Sydney): An independent scholar and lecturer who leans mythicist or agnostic, claiming evidence for historicity is probabilistically weak. His Questioning the Historicity of Jesus (2019) is peer-reviewed, but critics see it as unconvincing. He has professional credentials, but his position remains marginal.

Thomas Brodie (PhD in biblical studies from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas; retired Dominican priest and scholar): Argues the Gospels are fictional rewritings of Old Testament stories, with Jesus as a composite myth. His memoir Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus (2012) outlines this, but it’s not widely accepted. He is a professional biblical scholar, though his mythicist turn is atypical.

George A. Wells (philosophy background, deceased; later softened to agnosticism) or Earl Doherty (no relevant PhD), lack strong credentials in ancient history or are amateurs.   

In short, yes, these individuals are “truly professionals” in the sense of having advanced degrees and some publishing history in related fields, but their mythicist views are not credible to the broader academic community—often likened to flat-earth theories or young-earth creationism in terms of evidential support.


If there are any more, list them and their qualifications. There might be some I don’t know about. It’s important to list their educational backgrounds and qualifications.

So the consensus for independent historians is that Jesus was a myth?

No, the pp gave you a list of independent historians that agree with your premise. That doesn’t mean all independent historians agree with them.

My premise? I haven’t shared any “premise”.

We are discussing professional opinions.

It’s very telling that the PP doesn’t share professional opinions from independent historians.

what is your premise?

My premise is that PP doesn’t have any independent, secular historians who support her view.

Do you support the PP’s view?

I am seeking professional opinions first before deciding my view.

The overwhelming consensus among historians, biblical scholars, and academics in relevant fields (including non-Christian and atheist/agnostic experts) is that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical person who lived in 1st-century Judea, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

This view is held by virtually all scholars of antiquity.

No formal poll provides an exact percentage, but statements from leading experts and surveys of the field describe the agreement as “nearly universal,” “virtually every competent scholar,” or “over 99%”, with the alternative (known as the Christ myth theory, or mythicism—that Jesus was entirely mythical and never existed) regarded as a fringe position rejected for over a century.

Fallacy of appeal to authority again.

Come up with specific rebuttal to the reasoning already presented throughout this thread. I have not seen one valid critique of any of the mythicist reasoning. Also, as also stated prior, the majority view for a long time was that the earth was the center of the universe. See how well that "overwhelming majority view" held out against history or actual facts.

You can argue better than continuing to use chatgpt to craft your responses.

Dcum posters are not deciding if JC was a real man or not. There is no argument that professionals believe JC was real. Anonymous posters don’t change that. If you don’t believe he was real, that’s your opinion. But the vast majority of professionals, experts, etc. believe he existed. If you can’t admit that you fall into the red flag zone.

Who said DCUM posters were deciding it? Do you not understand the purpose of a forum for discussion?

If you have nothing to add or contribute, why do you post?

Also, look up the appeal to authority fallacy.

By the 1910s–1920s, critical scholarship largely settled the question of Jesus’ historicity. Scholars like Albert Schweitzer (in his 1906 Quest for the Historical Jesus) and others applied historical methods to the sources and concluded that a historical Jewish preacher named Jesus existed, even if much of the Gospel material was legendary or theological.

The myth theory was rejected because:

-It relied on arguments from silence (e.g., lack of early non-Christian mentions) and outdated parallels to pagan myths that did not hold up under scrutiny.

-Sources like the Pauline epistles (dated ~48–62 CE) and Gospels, despite their theological bias, contained details consistent with a historical figure (e.g., baptism by John, crucifixion under Pilate).

-Non-Christian references (Josephus, Tacitus) provided independent corroboration, even if partially corrupted or brief.

Restating prior claims without addressing the counterclaums is not a rebuttal. And you are still appealing to authority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re-upping to see if our historicity defender will actually come back and engage in a real discussion and not cower away in other threads and make claims without the full context of the arguments.

If you think your position is true, why be afraid to engage?

Write a scholarly paper if you think the mainstream view of secular historians is wrong.

Which “secular historians”? Are you the PP who doesn’t know what secular means?

No, it's the PP who knows when the person who's responding to them is trying to be insulting.

So which “secular historians”?

The overwhelming consensus among professional historians, biblical scholars, and experts in ancient history is that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure—a 1st-century Jewish preacher from Galilee who was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified under Pontius Pilate.     

This view is held by scholars across the spectrum, including Christians, atheists, agnostics, Jews, and others, based on evidence from early Christian texts (like Paul’s letters, which reference Jesus as a human who had a brother and was executed), the Gospels (treated as biographical traditions with historical cores), and non-Christian sources like the Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus.  

The idea that Jesus was entirely mythical (known as the “Christ myth theory” or Jesus mythicism) is a fringe position, rejected as pseudoscholarship or methodologically flawed by virtually all experts in the field for over a century—it has no traction in peer-reviewed journals, academic handbooks, or mainstream historical discourse.   

There are a small handful of individuals with academic credentials in relevant fields (such as ancient history, biblical studies, or religious studies) who argue against Jesus’ historicity or express strong agnosticism about it. These are outliers, often criticized by peers for relying on arguments from silence, selective interpretations of sources, superficial parallels to pagan myths (e.g., Horus or Mithras), and outdated methodologies that don’t align with standard historical criteria like multiple attestation or embarrassment.

Many mythicists lack institutional affiliations or come from outside core disciplines like classics or New Testament studies, and their work is often self-published or appears in non-academic venues. Even proponents like Richard Carrier (a mythicist himself) acknowledge that only a tiny fraction of qualified scholars hold this view, estimating around a dozen who outright doubt historicity or are agnostic, with others merely saying it’s “plausible” to debate but not endorsing it.

Richard Carrier (PhD in ancient history from Columbia University): An independent scholar and full mythicist who argues Jesus was a celestial being mythologized into a historical figure, using Bayesian probability to claim a low likelihood of historicity. His work, like On the Historicity of Jesus (2014), has undergone peer review but is widely dismissed by mainstream scholars call his work deeply flawed. Richard is a professional historian by training, but his mythicist stance is considered fringe.

Robert M. Price (PhDs in systematic theology and New Testament from Drew University): A former Baptist pastor and independent scholar who views Jesus as a composite of myths and archetypes, with the Gospels as allegorical fiction. Books like The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems (2011) promote this, but peers regard it as outside scholarly norms. He qualifies as a professional in biblical studies, though his views are not taken seriously in academia.

Thomas L. Thompson (PhD in biblical studies from the University of Tübingen; professor emeritus at the University of Copenhagen): A biblical minimalist who expresses agnosticism or skepticism, arguing Jesus (like David) draws from Near Eastern myths without warrant for historicity. Works like The Messiah Myth (2005) support this, but he’s more focused on Old Testament and doesn’t fully deny a possible historical kernel.    He is a respected professional in his field, but his Jesus-related skepticism is fringe.

Raphael Lataster (PhD in religious studies from the University of Sydney): An independent scholar and lecturer who leans mythicist or agnostic, claiming evidence for historicity is probabilistically weak. His Questioning the Historicity of Jesus (2019) is peer-reviewed, but critics see it as unconvincing. He has professional credentials, but his position remains marginal.

Thomas Brodie (PhD in biblical studies from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas; retired Dominican priest and scholar): Argues the Gospels are fictional rewritings of Old Testament stories, with Jesus as a composite myth. His memoir Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus (2012) outlines this, but it’s not widely accepted. He is a professional biblical scholar, though his mythicist turn is atypical.

George A. Wells (philosophy background, deceased; later softened to agnosticism) or Earl Doherty (no relevant PhD), lack strong credentials in ancient history or are amateurs.   

In short, yes, these individuals are “truly professionals” in the sense of having advanced degrees and some publishing history in related fields, but their mythicist views are not credible to the broader academic community—often likened to flat-earth theories or young-earth creationism in terms of evidential support.

Emphasis here: you are welcome to your own research and opinion on this topic or any topic, but you should also recognize your view is not accepted by professional historians/academics/scholars without belittling/disparaging/attacking them as unprofessional or ignorant.

You don’t have their education or expertise and can’t read the sources in the original language as they can. We all have opinions and a right to express them, but the Christ myth is considered extremely fringe.

Most people look to experts that are accredited and respected in every field, and stating anonymous that you are equal to these experts is delusional. That being said, no one here has to prove this to you, it’s already accepted. If you choose not to accept it, that’s your pov.

No one is trying to change anyone’s mind about this subject, but it’s always pertinent and responsible to know what experts think and why they think that, and compare their findings with other experts. These experts agree that Christ walked the earth.

You could enter academia and scholarship and gain credibility and credentials so you could enter the ring (where it counts) and change the overwhelming majority position about Jesus historicity. If I felt as strongly about it as many here do, I wouldn’t waste my time arguing with strangers on the internet. Use your knowledge and become a scholar or professor and show the world the truth as you interpret it, get peer reviewed, learn those languages first though.

That didn’t answer my question.

Which “secular” historians are 100% sure about historical Jesus?

Hint: if they are a biblical “scholar” they aren’t secular.

“100% sure” is a fake standard

No ancient figure meets it.

If you insist on 100%, you must also deny Socrates and Alexander the Great

Historians don’t operate that way.

Biblical scholar doesn’t mean religious. “Biblical studies” is a textual-historical field, like classics. Many scholars in it do not believe the Bible is inspired.

Excluding them is like saying:
“Classicists can’t study Caesar because they read Latin texts about him.”

At some point, rejecting every qualified expert just becomes a philosophical choice, not a historical argument.

So how certain are they then? 99%? 80% “absolutely certain”? “Most likely”?

Someone who has spent their entire life studying the Bible is not an independent, secular historian.

How certain are the independent, secular historians?

If you don’t agree with the scholars and academics and historians, that’s your pov.

Anyone who reads this thread can make their own decision. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, but the consensus among scholars/academics/historians is unequivocal. The people who reject it (which is their right) are considered fringe and a distinct minority.

This thread has run its course because it isn’t about a historical fact, it’s about people who have a need to debate or argue.

You say that you trust professional opinions.

Why don’t you value the professional opinion of independent historians?

These are the independent historians who you agree with:

Richard Carrier (PhD in ancient history from Columbia University): An independent scholar and full mythicist who argues Jesus was a celestial being mythologized into a historical figure, using Bayesian probability to claim a low likelihood of historicity. His work, like On the Historicity of Jesus (2014), has undergone peer review but is widely dismissed by mainstream scholars call his work deeply flawed. Richard is a professional historian by training, but his mythicist stance is considered fringe.

Robert M. Price (PhDs in systematic theology and New Testament from Drew University): A former Baptist pastor and independent scholar who views Jesus as a composite of myths and archetypes, with the Gospels as allegorical fiction. Books like The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems (2011) promote this, but peers regard it as outside scholarly norms. He qualifies as a professional in biblical studies, though his views are not taken seriously in academia.

Thomas L. Thompson (PhD in biblical studies from the University of Tübingen; professor emeritus at the University of Copenhagen): A biblical minimalist who expresses agnosticism or skepticism, arguing Jesus (like David) draws from Near Eastern myths without warrant for historicity. Works like The Messiah Myth (2005) support this, but he’s more focused on Old Testament and doesn’t fully deny a possible historical kernel.    He is a respected professional in his field, but his Jesus-related skepticism is fringe.

Raphael Lataster (PhD in religious studies from the University of Sydney): An independent scholar and lecturer who leans mythicist or agnostic, claiming evidence for historicity is probabilistically weak. His Questioning the Historicity of Jesus (2019) is peer-reviewed, but critics see it as unconvincing. He has professional credentials, but his position remains marginal.

Thomas Brodie (PhD in biblical studies from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas; retired Dominican priest and scholar): Argues the Gospels are fictional rewritings of Old Testament stories, with Jesus as a composite myth. His memoir Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus (2012) outlines this, but it’s not widely accepted. He is a professional biblical scholar, though his mythicist turn is atypical.

George A. Wells (philosophy background, deceased; later softened to agnosticism) or Earl Doherty (no relevant PhD), lack strong credentials in ancient history or are amateurs.   

In short, yes, these individuals are “truly professionals” in the sense of having advanced degrees and some publishing history in related fields, but their mythicist views are not credible to the broader academic community—often likened to flat-earth theories or young-earth creationism in terms of evidential support.


If there are any more, list them and their qualifications. There might be some I don’t know about. It’s important to list their educational backgrounds and qualifications.

So the consensus for independent historians is that Jesus was a myth?

No, the pp gave you a list of independent historians that agree with your premise. That doesn’t mean all independent historians agree with them.

My premise? I haven’t shared any “premise”.

We are discussing professional opinions.

It’s very telling that the PP doesn’t share professional opinions from independent historians.

what is your premise?

My premise is that PP doesn’t have any independent, secular historians who support her view.

Do you support the PP’s view?

I am seeking professional opinions first before deciding my view.

Historians like John Dickson and others have publicly wagered “99% or more” of professional ancient historians accept Jesus’ existence, challenging anyone to name a tenured professor in a relevant field who denies it.

While no precise percentage from a global survey exists, the expert consensus is effectively 99-100% that Jesus was a historical man, with the opposing view confined to the fringes. This is substantiated across Christian, Jewish, atheist, and agnostic scholars in classics, ancient history, and biblical studies.

Proponents like Richard Carrier (who argues for mythicism) acknowledge it’s a minority view, even among secular scholars. Reviews of his work (e.g., by Daniel Gullotta, Simon Gathercole) and others confirm it has not gained traction in academia, often described as lacking positive evidence from primary sources.

Galileo had a "fringe" position once too.

Guess who was right.

Galileo Galilei was a devout Christian, specifically a lifelong Catholic who believed in God and saw no inherent conflict between his scientific discoveries and his faith. He argued that God revealed Himself through both Scripture and the “Book of Nature,” and that science illuminated the beauty of God’s creation.
Historical evidence overwhelmingly supports this:
-Galileo remained a committed Catholic until his death in 1642, even after his 1633 trial and house arrest.
-He received Catholic rites and was buried in consecrated ground.
- His daughters became nuns, reflecting his family’s deep ties to the Church.

Moron. It has nothing to do with his religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if Jesus the human historical person didn't exist how did all those guys meet and decide to go write similar things and teach and mostly get tortured to death? Now THAT would be a good story.

Read the whole thread. Already answered.

Be generous. Tell me where. Thank you.

[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.

See this previous post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Remember how turbulent the world of First-Century Judea was. This was a time of immense political tension and foreign occupation, leading to widespread Jewish apocalypticism, the belief that God would soon intervene dramatically to destroy evil forces, restore Israel, and establish His eternal Kingdom. There was also widespread discontent with the Jerusalem Temple establishment. This resulted in many competing Jewish sects at the time.

In addition, esoteric mystery cults were common in the wider Greco-Roman world. These groups offered a personal religious experience, often promising salvation or a blessed afterlife, which was distinct from the public, state-sponsored worship of the time. Within esoteric groups, members were often initiated into various levels of secret knowledge (Gnosis). Groups like the community at Qumran (associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls), had rigid hierarchical structures and specific titles for their leadership ("the Teacher of Righteousness," "Sons of Light," etc.).

At this time, it was also remarkably common for individuals to claim authority within a religion based on direct divine revelations or visions rather than inherited lineage or institutional appointment. Within the context of Jewish apocalyptic movements and the surrounding Greco-Roman mystery cults, personal charismatic experience was a powerful credential, often seen as a direct calling from God that superseded traditional structures. This emphasis on immediate spiritual insight facilitated a dynamic religious landscape where new leaders and sects could emerge rapidly, each validated by the claim of a unique and personal encounter with the divine.

Within all this context, the first “Christians” were a small group started in the Jewish capital, Jerusalem. They were devout Jews who adhered strictly to the Mosaic Law. These early “Jewish Christians” viewed themselves as the true remnant of Israel, called to a higher standard of holiness and adherence to the Torah.

These Jewish Christians were also an esoteric mystery cult, featuring secret teachings, hidden rituals, and an initiation process for members. A "brother" of the Lord might be a title reserved for those who had reached the highest level of understanding of the Christ, differentiating them from ordinary believers.

Within this community, one of their key leaders was James, referred to as "James the Just" (or James the Righteous) in early extra-canonical Christian sources (like Hegesippus, preserved in Eusebius's Church History). These sources describe him as an ascetic who never cut his hair, drank no wine, and spent so much time praying in the Temple that his knees became calloused like a camel's. This rigorous lifestyle and commitment to poverty provided a compelling model of piety that attracted like-minded Jews seeking a purer form of religious observance.

James, as a "pillar" (Galatians 2:9), was the top earthly authority, and his unique title reflected that supreme status. James’s authority (see previous point on authority through revelation) was reinforced by a visionary experience (mentioned briefly by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:7) that validated his role as the movement’s head. His title, “the Lord’s brother,” has sparked centuries of debate. In Koine Greek, adelphos (“brother”) could mean biological sibling, close relative, or spiritual kin. Many scholars argue that Paul used it as an honorific title, marking James as the primary leader of the sect, not necessarily a blood relative of Jesus. This interpretation aligns with the movement’s hierarchical structure, where titles signified levels of esoteric knowledge and authority.

Simultaneously, there was a Hellenistic Jew named Paul who was proselytizing throughout the Roman Empire. Paul was also a visionary mystic whose faith centered on a savior figure named "Christ" or "Jesus.” ***(Conveniently, the name Jesus is the English transliteration of the Greek name Iēsous (Ἰησοῦς), which is itself a transliteration of the Aramaic name Yeshua (ישוע). This was a common name among Jews in the First Century. The name's etymological meaning is significant, as it summarizes the core theological message of the New Testament: "YHWH is salvation" or "The Lord saves".)***

Paul’s Christ was revealed to him through spiritual visions (again, see point on authority through revelation) and scriptural interpretation (e.g., from Isaiah or the Book of Wisdom). Paul’s "Gospel" does not discuss a historical ministry in Palestine, but about a pre-existent divine being who died in the heavens to redeem humanity.

Paul also claimed authority through his dramatic vision on the road to Damascus which helped to propel him into the early leadership. Paul’s version was revolutionary - salvation by faith alone, apart from the works of the Law. For Paul, distinctions like “Jew nor Greek” were erased in Christ, creating a universal faith accessible to all. His theology centered on a cosmic savior, revealed through scripture and mystical experience. This message resonated with Gentiles across the Roman Empire, making Paul’s version of Christianity far more adaptable and expansive than James’s.

Another early leader, Peter (Cephas), was the movement’s spokesperson. His authority, like James’s and Paul’s, rested on mystical experiences interpreted as encounters with the risen Christ. Peter’s role was primarily as “apostle to the Jews,” but he also acted as a diplomat, navigating the growing rift between James’s law-observant faction and Paul’s radical, law-free mission. James insisted that “faith without works is dead,” emphasizing ethical action as the fruit of genuine belief. Paul countered that justification came “by faith, not by works,” defining works as ritual observances like circumcision. This resulted in the Incident at Antioch, where Paul rebuked Peter for withdrawing from Gentile fellowship under pressure from James’s delegates. Later theologians harmonized these views, but it shows the diversity and conflict within the earliest Christian movement.

James’s martyrdom around 62 CE and the catastrophic destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE decapitated the mother church. The Jerusalem based Jewish-Christian center dissolved, and Paul’s Gentile-friendly, portable theology became dominant. Christianity’s survival and global spread owe more to Paul’s universal vision than to James’s original, historically Jewish rooted form.

As the movement expanded, the Gospel writers faced a challenge of how to give their heavenly savior an earthly biography. Thus, they crafted narratives rich in symbolism and prophecy, weaving Old Testament motifs with Greco-Roman literary tropes. Luke’s census story and Matthew’s Star of Bethlehem and Massacre of the Innocents are prime examples of dramatic plot devices with no historical basis, designed to fulfill messianic prophecies and elevate Jesus as a new Moses-like figure. It is clear that these narratives are later literary creations, not part of the original tradition centered on visions and eschatological urgency.

The historical bedrock of Christianity begins not with a Galilean preacher, but with a visionary sect led by James the Just in Jerusalem. Its strict Jewish ethos and apocalyptic fervor shaped the earliest community. Yet, it was Paul’s radical reinterpretation, a faith unbound by the Law, centered on a cosmic Christ, that ensured Christianity’s survival and growth. The Gospels, written generations later, retrofitted this mystical savior with an earthly life, creating the Jesus of history as we know him today, a figure born as much from literary imagination as from historical memory.

This is your explanation for how it grew.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re-upping to see if our historicity defender will actually come back and engage in a real discussion and not cower away in other threads and make claims without the full context of the arguments.

If you think your position is true, why be afraid to engage?

Write a scholarly paper if you think the mainstream view of secular historians is wrong.

Which “secular historians”? Are you the PP who doesn’t know what secular means?

No, it's the PP who knows when the person who's responding to them is trying to be insulting.

So which “secular historians”?

The overwhelming consensus among professional historians, biblical scholars, and experts in ancient history is that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure—a 1st-century Jewish preacher from Galilee who was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified under Pontius Pilate.     

This view is held by scholars across the spectrum, including Christians, atheists, agnostics, Jews, and others, based on evidence from early Christian texts (like Paul’s letters, which reference Jesus as a human who had a brother and was executed), the Gospels (treated as biographical traditions with historical cores), and non-Christian sources like the Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus.  

The idea that Jesus was entirely mythical (known as the “Christ myth theory” or Jesus mythicism) is a fringe position, rejected as pseudoscholarship or methodologically flawed by virtually all experts in the field for over a century—it has no traction in peer-reviewed journals, academic handbooks, or mainstream historical discourse.   

There are a small handful of individuals with academic credentials in relevant fields (such as ancient history, biblical studies, or religious studies) who argue against Jesus’ historicity or express strong agnosticism about it. These are outliers, often criticized by peers for relying on arguments from silence, selective interpretations of sources, superficial parallels to pagan myths (e.g., Horus or Mithras), and outdated methodologies that don’t align with standard historical criteria like multiple attestation or embarrassment.

Many mythicists lack institutional affiliations or come from outside core disciplines like classics or New Testament studies, and their work is often self-published or appears in non-academic venues. Even proponents like Richard Carrier (a mythicist himself) acknowledge that only a tiny fraction of qualified scholars hold this view, estimating around a dozen who outright doubt historicity or are agnostic, with others merely saying it’s “plausible” to debate but not endorsing it.

Richard Carrier (PhD in ancient history from Columbia University): An independent scholar and full mythicist who argues Jesus was a celestial being mythologized into a historical figure, using Bayesian probability to claim a low likelihood of historicity. His work, like On the Historicity of Jesus (2014), has undergone peer review but is widely dismissed by mainstream scholars call his work deeply flawed. Richard is a professional historian by training, but his mythicist stance is considered fringe.

Robert M. Price (PhDs in systematic theology and New Testament from Drew University): A former Baptist pastor and independent scholar who views Jesus as a composite of myths and archetypes, with the Gospels as allegorical fiction. Books like The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems (2011) promote this, but peers regard it as outside scholarly norms. He qualifies as a professional in biblical studies, though his views are not taken seriously in academia.

Thomas L. Thompson (PhD in biblical studies from the University of Tübingen; professor emeritus at the University of Copenhagen): A biblical minimalist who expresses agnosticism or skepticism, arguing Jesus (like David) draws from Near Eastern myths without warrant for historicity. Works like The Messiah Myth (2005) support this, but he’s more focused on Old Testament and doesn’t fully deny a possible historical kernel.    He is a respected professional in his field, but his Jesus-related skepticism is fringe.

Raphael Lataster (PhD in religious studies from the University of Sydney): An independent scholar and lecturer who leans mythicist or agnostic, claiming evidence for historicity is probabilistically weak. His Questioning the Historicity of Jesus (2019) is peer-reviewed, but critics see it as unconvincing. He has professional credentials, but his position remains marginal.

Thomas Brodie (PhD in biblical studies from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas; retired Dominican priest and scholar): Argues the Gospels are fictional rewritings of Old Testament stories, with Jesus as a composite myth. His memoir Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus (2012) outlines this, but it’s not widely accepted. He is a professional biblical scholar, though his mythicist turn is atypical.

George A. Wells (philosophy background, deceased; later softened to agnosticism) or Earl Doherty (no relevant PhD), lack strong credentials in ancient history or are amateurs.   

In short, yes, these individuals are “truly professionals” in the sense of having advanced degrees and some publishing history in related fields, but their mythicist views are not credible to the broader academic community—often likened to flat-earth theories or young-earth creationism in terms of evidential support.

Emphasis here: you are welcome to your own research and opinion on this topic or any topic, but you should also recognize your view is not accepted by professional historians/academics/scholars without belittling/disparaging/attacking them as unprofessional or ignorant.

You don’t have their education or expertise and can’t read the sources in the original language as they can. We all have opinions and a right to express them, but the Christ myth is considered extremely fringe.

Most people look to experts that are accredited and respected in every field, and stating anonymous that you are equal to these experts is delusional. That being said, no one here has to prove this to you, it’s already accepted. If you choose not to accept it, that’s your pov.

No one is trying to change anyone’s mind about this subject, but it’s always pertinent and responsible to know what experts think and why they think that, and compare their findings with other experts. These experts agree that Christ walked the earth.

You could enter academia and scholarship and gain credibility and credentials so you could enter the ring (where it counts) and change the overwhelming majority position about Jesus historicity. If I felt as strongly about it as many here do, I wouldn’t waste my time arguing with strangers on the internet. Use your knowledge and become a scholar or professor and show the world the truth as you interpret it, get peer reviewed, learn those languages first though.

That didn’t answer my question.

Which “secular” historians are 100% sure about historical Jesus?

Hint: if they are a biblical “scholar” they aren’t secular.

“100% sure” is a fake standard

No ancient figure meets it.

If you insist on 100%, you must also deny Socrates and Alexander the Great

Historians don’t operate that way.

Biblical scholar doesn’t mean religious. “Biblical studies” is a textual-historical field, like classics. Many scholars in it do not believe the Bible is inspired.

Excluding them is like saying:
“Classicists can’t study Caesar because they read Latin texts about him.”

At some point, rejecting every qualified expert just becomes a philosophical choice, not a historical argument.

So how certain are they then? 99%? 80% “absolutely certain”? “Most likely”?

Someone who has spent their entire life studying the Bible is not an independent, secular historian.

How certain are the independent, secular historians?

If you don’t agree with the scholars and academics and historians, that’s your pov.

Anyone who reads this thread can make their own decision. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, but the consensus among scholars/academics/historians is unequivocal. The people who reject it (which is their right) are considered fringe and a distinct minority.

This thread has run its course because it isn’t about a historical fact, it’s about people who have a need to debate or argue.

You say that you trust professional opinions.

Why don’t you value the professional opinion of independent historians?

These are the independent historians who you agree with:

Richard Carrier (PhD in ancient history from Columbia University): An independent scholar and full mythicist who argues Jesus was a celestial being mythologized into a historical figure, using Bayesian probability to claim a low likelihood of historicity. His work, like On the Historicity of Jesus (2014), has undergone peer review but is widely dismissed by mainstream scholars call his work deeply flawed. Richard is a professional historian by training, but his mythicist stance is considered fringe.

Robert M. Price (PhDs in systematic theology and New Testament from Drew University): A former Baptist pastor and independent scholar who views Jesus as a composite of myths and archetypes, with the Gospels as allegorical fiction. Books like The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems (2011) promote this, but peers regard it as outside scholarly norms. He qualifies as a professional in biblical studies, though his views are not taken seriously in academia.

Thomas L. Thompson (PhD in biblical studies from the University of Tübingen; professor emeritus at the University of Copenhagen): A biblical minimalist who expresses agnosticism or skepticism, arguing Jesus (like David) draws from Near Eastern myths without warrant for historicity. Works like The Messiah Myth (2005) support this, but he’s more focused on Old Testament and doesn’t fully deny a possible historical kernel.    He is a respected professional in his field, but his Jesus-related skepticism is fringe.

Raphael Lataster (PhD in religious studies from the University of Sydney): An independent scholar and lecturer who leans mythicist or agnostic, claiming evidence for historicity is probabilistically weak. His Questioning the Historicity of Jesus (2019) is peer-reviewed, but critics see it as unconvincing. He has professional credentials, but his position remains marginal.

Thomas Brodie (PhD in biblical studies from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas; retired Dominican priest and scholar): Argues the Gospels are fictional rewritings of Old Testament stories, with Jesus as a composite myth. His memoir Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus (2012) outlines this, but it’s not widely accepted. He is a professional biblical scholar, though his mythicist turn is atypical.

George A. Wells (philosophy background, deceased; later softened to agnosticism) or Earl Doherty (no relevant PhD), lack strong credentials in ancient history or are amateurs.   

In short, yes, these individuals are “truly professionals” in the sense of having advanced degrees and some publishing history in related fields, but their mythicist views are not credible to the broader academic community—often likened to flat-earth theories or young-earth creationism in terms of evidential support.


If there are any more, list them and their qualifications. There might be some I don’t know about. It’s important to list their educational backgrounds and qualifications.

So the consensus for independent historians is that Jesus was a myth?

No, the pp gave you a list of independent historians that agree with your premise. That doesn’t mean all independent historians agree with them.

My premise? I haven’t shared any “premise”.

We are discussing professional opinions.

It’s very telling that the PP doesn’t share professional opinions from independent historians.

what is your premise?

My premise is that PP doesn’t have any independent, secular historians who support her view.

Do you support the PP’s view?

I am seeking professional opinions first before deciding my view.

The overwhelming consensus among historians, biblical scholars, and academics in relevant fields (including non-Christian and atheist/agnostic experts) is that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical person who lived in 1st-century Judea, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

This view is held by virtually all scholars of antiquity.

No formal poll provides an exact percentage, but statements from leading experts and surveys of the field describe the agreement as “nearly universal,” “virtually every competent scholar,” or “over 99%”, with the alternative (known as the Christ myth theory, or mythicism—that Jesus was entirely mythical and never existed) regarded as a fringe position rejected for over a century.

Fallacy of appeal to authority again.

Come up with specific rebuttal to the reasoning already presented throughout this thread. I have not seen one valid critique of any of the mythicist reasoning. Also, as also stated prior, the majority view for a long time was that the earth was the center of the universe. See how well that "overwhelming majority view" held out against history or actual facts.

You can argue better than continuing to use chatgpt to craft your responses.

Dcum posters are not deciding if JC was a real man or not. There is no argument that professionals believe JC was real. Anonymous posters don’t change that. If you don’t believe he was real, that’s your opinion. But the vast majority of professionals, experts, etc. believe he existed. If you can’t admit that you fall into the red flag zone.

Who said DCUM posters were deciding it? Do you not understand the purpose of a forum for discussion?

If you have nothing to add or contribute, why do you post?

Also, look up the appeal to authority fallacy.

By the 1910s–1920s, critical scholarship largely settled the question of Jesus’ historicity. Scholars like Albert Schweitzer (in his 1906 Quest for the Historical Jesus) and others applied historical methods to the sources and concluded that a historical Jewish preacher named Jesus existed, even if much of the Gospel material was legendary or theological.

The myth theory was rejected because:

-It relied on arguments from silence (e.g., lack of early non-Christian mentions) and outdated parallels to pagan myths that did not hold up under scrutiny.

-Sources like the Pauline epistles (dated ~48–62 CE) and Gospels, despite their theological bias, contained details consistent with a historical figure (e.g., baptism by John, crucifixion under Pilate).

-Non-Christian references (Josephus, Tacitus) provided independent corroboration, even if partially corrupted or brief.

Restating prior claims without addressing the counterclaums is not a rebuttal. And you are still appealing to authority.

They aren’t claims. They are consensus.

If you want to discuss a fringe argument that was discredited, that’s your choice. But any good faith discussion would include the fact that it’s not a debate that historians, scholars, and academics have. It’s just anonymous posters arguing about something that they believe, but in actuality was discredited over 100 years ago and is considered settled by the overwhelming majority of people who are the experts.