Jesus' Historicity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bart D. Ehrman
Religion: Agnostic (formerly evangelical Christian)
Position: Explicitly affirms Jesus’s existence; considers denial of historicity a failure of historical method.

Paula Fredriksen
Religion: Jewish
Position: Strongly affirms Jesus as a historical Jewish apocalyptic preacher crucified by Roman authority.

Maurice Casey
Religion: Non-religious
Position: Forceful defender of Jesus’s historicity; wrote extensively rebutting mythicist arguments.

Géza Vermes
Religion: Jewish (born Jewish, converted to Catholicism under pressure from antisemitic persecution, later returned to Judaism)
Position: Affirms Jesus as a historical Jewish charismatic figure within Second Temple Judaism.

Michael Grant
Religion: Non-religious
Position: Rejects Jesus mythicism as historically indefensible using classical historical standards.

Gerd Lüdemann
Religion: Atheist (formerly Protestant)
Position: Accepts Jesus’s existence and crucifixion while rejecting resurrection and divinity.

Grant might be the only non-religious historian here, but very little info about him.

The rest are all theologians and/or biblical scholars. Biased.

People who study the region and time when Jesus is believed to have lived can't study Jesus because they're biased?

Keep digging that hole. You seem to be approaching the core.

Strawman. These are not just people who study the region and time.

People who are deeply religious, including someone who was a priest, are biased.

The Bible is not an independent primary source.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bart D. Ehrman
Religion: Agnostic (formerly evangelical Christian)
Position: Explicitly affirms Jesus’s existence; considers denial of historicity a failure of historical method.

Paula Fredriksen
Religion: Jewish
Position: Strongly affirms Jesus as a historical Jewish apocalyptic preacher crucified by Roman authority.

Maurice Casey
Religion: Non-religious
Position: Forceful defender of Jesus’s historicity; wrote extensively rebutting mythicist arguments.

Géza Vermes
Religion: Jewish (born Jewish, converted to Catholicism under pressure from antisemitic persecution, later returned to Judaism)
Position: Affirms Jesus as a historical Jewish charismatic figure within Second Temple Judaism.

Michael Grant
Religion: Non-religious
Position: Rejects Jesus mythicism as historically indefensible using classical historical standards.

Gerd Lüdemann
Religion: Atheist (formerly Protestant)
Position: Accepts Jesus’s existence and crucifixion while rejecting resurrection and divinity.

Grant might be the only non-religious historian here, but very little info about him.

The rest are all theologians and/or biblical scholars. Biased.

Grant could have done an independent study but chose to rely primarily on the gospels as sources.

So not an independent analysis.

So give people reasons to believe you over educated and published historians. Start with your CV so we can compare your qualifications to the people on that list.

I haven’t made any claims.

I’m simply looking for an analysis by unbiased researchers using independent primary sources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bart D. Ehrman
Religion: Agnostic (formerly evangelical Christian)
Position: Explicitly affirms Jesus’s existence; considers denial of historicity a failure of historical method.

Paula Fredriksen
Religion: Jewish
Position: Strongly affirms Jesus as a historical Jewish apocalyptic preacher crucified by Roman authority.

Maurice Casey
Religion: Non-religious
Position: Forceful defender of Jesus’s historicity; wrote extensively rebutting mythicist arguments.

Géza Vermes
Religion: Jewish (born Jewish, converted to Catholicism under pressure from antisemitic persecution, later returned to Judaism)
Position: Affirms Jesus as a historical Jewish charismatic figure within Second Temple Judaism.

Michael Grant
Religion: Non-religious
Position: Rejects Jesus mythicism as historically indefensible using classical historical standards.

Gerd Lüdemann
Religion: Atheist (formerly Protestant)
Position: Accepts Jesus’s existence and crucifixion while rejecting resurrection and divinity.

Grant might be the only non-religious historian here, but very little info about him.

The rest are all theologians and/or biblical scholars. Biased.

Grant could have done an independent study but chose to rely primarily on the gospels as sources.

So not an independent analysis.

So give people reasons to believe you over educated and published historians. Start with your CV so we can compare your qualifications to the people on that list.

I haven’t made any claims.

I’m simply looking for an analysis by unbiased researchers using independent primary sources.

I am looking for a winning lottery ticket. You, PP, at least can get what you are "simply looking for" by looking yourself not repeatedly asking for shit to "challenge' others or "rebut" them. Your sell by date has passed I think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bart D. Ehrman
Religion: Agnostic (formerly evangelical Christian)
Position: Explicitly affirms Jesus’s existence; considers denial of historicity a failure of historical method.

Paula Fredriksen
Religion: Jewish
Position: Strongly affirms Jesus as a historical Jewish apocalyptic preacher crucified by Roman authority.

Maurice Casey
Religion: Non-religious
Position: Forceful defender of Jesus’s historicity; wrote extensively rebutting mythicist arguments.

Géza Vermes
Religion: Jewish (born Jewish, converted to Catholicism under pressure from antisemitic persecution, later returned to Judaism)
Position: Affirms Jesus as a historical Jewish charismatic figure within Second Temple Judaism.

Michael Grant
Religion: Non-religious
Position: Rejects Jesus mythicism as historically indefensible using classical historical standards.

Gerd Lüdemann
Religion: Atheist (formerly Protestant)
Position: Accepts Jesus’s existence and crucifixion while rejecting resurrection and divinity.

Grant might be the only non-religious historian here, but very little info about him.

The rest are all theologians and/or biblical scholars. Biased.

Grant could have done an independent study but chose to rely primarily on the gospels as sources.

So not an independent analysis.

So give people reasons to believe you over educated and published historians. Start with your CV so we can compare your qualifications to the people on that list.

I haven’t made any claims.

I’m simply looking for an analysis by unbiased researchers using independent primary sources.

I am looking for a winning lottery ticket. You, PP, at least can get what you are "simply looking for" by looking yourself not repeatedly asking for shit to "challenge' others or "rebut" them. Your sell by date has passed I think.

You seem triggered.

PP claimed:
“The overwhelming consensus among historians, biblical scholars, and academics in relevant fields (including non-Christian and atheist/agnostic experts).”

But that “overwhelming consensus” lies primarily within religious circles, not actual historians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bart D. Ehrman
Religion: Agnostic (formerly evangelical Christian)
Position: Explicitly affirms Jesus’s existence; considers denial of historicity a failure of historical method.

Paula Fredriksen
Religion: Jewish
Position: Strongly affirms Jesus as a historical Jewish apocalyptic preacher crucified by Roman authority.

Maurice Casey
Religion: Non-religious
Position: Forceful defender of Jesus’s historicity; wrote extensively rebutting mythicist arguments.

Géza Vermes
Religion: Jewish (born Jewish, converted to Catholicism under pressure from antisemitic persecution, later returned to Judaism)
Position: Affirms Jesus as a historical Jewish charismatic figure within Second Temple Judaism.

Michael Grant
Religion: Non-religious
Position: Rejects Jesus mythicism as historically indefensible using classical historical standards.

Gerd Lüdemann
Religion: Atheist (formerly Protestant)
Position: Accepts Jesus’s existence and crucifixion while rejecting resurrection and divinity.

Grant might be the only non-religious historian here, but very little info about him.

The rest are all theologians and/or biblical scholars. Biased.

People who study the region and time when Jesus is believed to have lived can't study Jesus because they're biased?

Keep digging that hole. You seem to be approaching the core.

Strawman. These are not just people who study the region and time.

People who are deeply religious, including someone who was a priest, are biased.

The Bible is not an independent primary source.

Nearly all sources from that period of time are biased. That isn't unique to the Bible. Ever read Herodotus? Do you think everything he wrote was true?

Please explain why people who do not believe in Christianity or the divinity of Jesus would be significantly biased towards concluding his historical existence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bart D. Ehrman
Religion: Agnostic (formerly evangelical Christian)
Position: Explicitly affirms Jesus’s existence; considers denial of historicity a failure of historical method.

Paula Fredriksen
Religion: Jewish
Position: Strongly affirms Jesus as a historical Jewish apocalyptic preacher crucified by Roman authority.

Maurice Casey
Religion: Non-religious
Position: Forceful defender of Jesus’s historicity; wrote extensively rebutting mythicist arguments.

Géza Vermes
Religion: Jewish (born Jewish, converted to Catholicism under pressure from antisemitic persecution, later returned to Judaism)
Position: Affirms Jesus as a historical Jewish charismatic figure within Second Temple Judaism.

Michael Grant
Religion: Non-religious
Position: Rejects Jesus mythicism as historically indefensible using classical historical standards.

Gerd Lüdemann
Religion: Atheist (formerly Protestant)
Position: Accepts Jesus’s existence and crucifixion while rejecting resurrection and divinity.

Grant might be the only non-religious historian here, but very little info about him.

The rest are all theologians and/or biblical scholars. Biased.

Grant could have done an independent study but chose to rely primarily on the gospels as sources.

So not an independent analysis.

So give people reasons to believe you over educated and published historians. Start with your CV so we can compare your qualifications to the people on that list.

I haven’t made any claims.

I’m simply looking for an analysis by unbiased researchers using independent primary sources.

I am looking for a winning lottery ticket. You, PP, at least can get what you are "simply looking for" by looking yourself not repeatedly asking for shit to "challenge' others or "rebut" them. Your sell by date has passed I think.

You seem triggered.

PP claimed:
“The overwhelming consensus among historians, biblical scholars, and academics in relevant fields (including non-Christian and atheist/agnostic experts).”

But that “overwhelming consensus” lies primarily within religious circles, not actual historians.

You're notion of "religious circles" includes anyone who ever expressed Christian beliefs, or claimed to express Christian beliefs. Not just people who believe in the Christian faith. That's absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bart D. Ehrman
Religion: Agnostic (formerly evangelical Christian)
Position: Explicitly affirms Jesus’s existence; considers denial of historicity a failure of historical method.

Paula Fredriksen
Religion: Jewish
Position: Strongly affirms Jesus as a historical Jewish apocalyptic preacher crucified by Roman authority.

Maurice Casey
Religion: Non-religious
Position: Forceful defender of Jesus’s historicity; wrote extensively rebutting mythicist arguments.

Géza Vermes
Religion: Jewish (born Jewish, converted to Catholicism under pressure from antisemitic persecution, later returned to Judaism)
Position: Affirms Jesus as a historical Jewish charismatic figure within Second Temple Judaism.

Michael Grant
Religion: Non-religious
Position: Rejects Jesus mythicism as historically indefensible using classical historical standards.

Gerd Lüdemann
Religion: Atheist (formerly Protestant)
Position: Accepts Jesus’s existence and crucifixion while rejecting resurrection and divinity.

Grant might be the only non-religious historian here, but very little info about him.

The rest are all theologians and/or biblical scholars. Biased.

Grant could have done an independent study but chose to rely primarily on the gospels as sources.

So not an independent analysis.

So give people reasons to believe you over educated and published historians. Start with your CV so we can compare your qualifications to the people on that list.

I haven’t made any claims.

I’m simply looking for an analysis by unbiased researchers using independent primary sources.

I am looking for a winning lottery ticket. You, PP, at least can get what you are "simply looking for" by looking yourself not repeatedly asking for shit to "challenge' others or "rebut" them. Your sell by date has passed I think.

You seem triggered.

PP claimed:
“The overwhelming consensus among historians, biblical scholars, and academics in relevant fields (including non-Christian and atheist/agnostic experts).”

But that “overwhelming consensus” lies primarily within religious circles, not actual historians.

You're notion of "religious circles" includes anyone who ever expressed Christian beliefs, or claimed to express Christian beliefs. Not just people who believe in the Christian faith. That's absurd.

False. Someone who is devout Christian and studied religion in college/seminary/theology school and then went on to become an expert in the bible is far beyond "anyone who ever expressed Christian beliefs".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bart D. Ehrman
Religion: Agnostic (formerly evangelical Christian)
Position: Explicitly affirms Jesus’s existence; considers denial of historicity a failure of historical method.

Paula Fredriksen
Religion: Jewish
Position: Strongly affirms Jesus as a historical Jewish apocalyptic preacher crucified by Roman authority.

Maurice Casey
Religion: Non-religious
Position: Forceful defender of Jesus’s historicity; wrote extensively rebutting mythicist arguments.

Géza Vermes
Religion: Jewish (born Jewish, converted to Catholicism under pressure from antisemitic persecution, later returned to Judaism)
Position: Affirms Jesus as a historical Jewish charismatic figure within Second Temple Judaism.

Michael Grant
Religion: Non-religious
Position: Rejects Jesus mythicism as historically indefensible using classical historical standards.

Gerd Lüdemann
Religion: Atheist (formerly Protestant)
Position: Accepts Jesus’s existence and crucifixion while rejecting resurrection and divinity.

Grant might be the only non-religious historian here, but very little info about him.

The rest are all theologians and/or biblical scholars. Biased.

Grant could have done an independent study but chose to rely primarily on the gospels as sources.

So not an independent analysis.

So give people reasons to believe you over educated and published historians. Start with your CV so we can compare your qualifications to the people on that list.

I haven’t made any claims.

I’m simply looking for an analysis by unbiased researchers using independent primary sources.

I am looking for a winning lottery ticket. You, PP, at least can get what you are "simply looking for" by looking yourself not repeatedly asking for shit to "challenge' others or "rebut" them. Your sell by date has passed I think.

You seem triggered.

PP claimed:
“The overwhelming consensus among historians, biblical scholars, and academics in relevant fields (including non-Christian and atheist/agnostic experts).”

But that “overwhelming consensus” lies primarily within religious circles, not actual historians.

You're notion of "religious circles" includes anyone who ever expressed Christian beliefs, or claimed to express Christian beliefs. Not just people who believe in the Christian faith. That's absurd.

False. Someone who is devout Christian and studied religion in college/seminary/theology school and then went on to become an expert in the bible is far beyond "anyone who ever expressed Christian beliefs".


Sure, go ahead and think that. You're not going to change anyone's minds by refusing to acknowledge the mainstream view, but have fun with whatever you think you're doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bart D. Ehrman
Religion: Agnostic (formerly evangelical Christian)
Position: Explicitly affirms Jesus’s existence; considers denial of historicity a failure of historical method.

Paula Fredriksen
Religion: Jewish
Position: Strongly affirms Jesus as a historical Jewish apocalyptic preacher crucified by Roman authority.

Maurice Casey
Religion: Non-religious
Position: Forceful defender of Jesus’s historicity; wrote extensively rebutting mythicist arguments.

Géza Vermes
Religion: Jewish (born Jewish, converted to Catholicism under pressure from antisemitic persecution, later returned to Judaism)
Position: Affirms Jesus as a historical Jewish charismatic figure within Second Temple Judaism.

Michael Grant
Religion: Non-religious
Position: Rejects Jesus mythicism as historically indefensible using classical historical standards.

Gerd Lüdemann
Religion: Atheist (formerly Protestant)
Position: Accepts Jesus’s existence and crucifixion while rejecting resurrection and divinity.

Grant might be the only non-religious historian here, but very little info about him.

The rest are all theologians and/or biblical scholars. Biased.

Grant could have done an independent study but chose to rely primarily on the gospels as sources.

So not an independent analysis.

So give people reasons to believe you over educated and published historians. Start with your CV so we can compare your qualifications to the people on that list.

I haven’t made any claims.

I’m simply looking for an analysis by unbiased researchers using independent primary sources.

I am looking for a winning lottery ticket. You, PP, at least can get what you are "simply looking for" by looking yourself not repeatedly asking for shit to "challenge' others or "rebut" them. Your sell by date has passed I think.

You seem triggered.

PP claimed:
“The overwhelming consensus among historians, biblical scholars, and academics in relevant fields (including non-Christian and atheist/agnostic experts).”

But that “overwhelming consensus” lies primarily within religious circles, not actual historians.

You're notion of "religious circles" includes anyone who ever expressed Christian beliefs, or claimed to express Christian beliefs. Not just people who believe in the Christian faith. That's absurd.

False. Someone who is devout Christian and studied religion in college/seminary/theology school and then went on to become an expert in the bible is far beyond "anyone who ever expressed Christian beliefs".

Sure, go ahead and think that. You're not going to change anyone's minds by refusing to acknowledge the mainstream view, but have fun with whatever you think you're doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bart D. Ehrman
Religion: Agnostic (formerly evangelical Christian)
Position: Explicitly affirms Jesus’s existence; considers denial of historicity a failure of historical method.

Paula Fredriksen
Religion: Jewish
Position: Strongly affirms Jesus as a historical Jewish apocalyptic preacher crucified by Roman authority.

Maurice Casey
Religion: Non-religious
Position: Forceful defender of Jesus’s historicity; wrote extensively rebutting mythicist arguments.

Géza Vermes
Religion: Jewish (born Jewish, converted to Catholicism under pressure from antisemitic persecution, later returned to Judaism)
Position: Affirms Jesus as a historical Jewish charismatic figure within Second Temple Judaism.

Michael Grant
Religion: Non-religious
Position: Rejects Jesus mythicism as historically indefensible using classical historical standards.

Gerd Lüdemann
Religion: Atheist (formerly Protestant)
Position: Accepts Jesus’s existence and crucifixion while rejecting resurrection and divinity.

Grant might be the only non-religious historian here, but very little info about him.

The rest are all theologians and/or biblical scholars. Biased.

People who study the region and time when Jesus is believed to have lived can't study Jesus because they're biased?

Keep digging that hole. You seem to be approaching the core.

Strawman. These are not just people who study the region and time.

People who are deeply religious, including someone who was a priest, are biased.

The Bible is not an independent primary source.

Nearly all sources from that period of time are biased. That isn't unique to the Bible. Ever read Herodotus? Do you think everything he wrote was true?

Please explain why people who do not believe in Christianity or the divinity of Jesus would be significantly biased towards concluding his historical existence.

Because their entire perspective and knowledgebase is centered on the bible.

Historians outside of religious circles have an independent perspectives and primary sources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bart D. Ehrman
Religion: Agnostic (formerly evangelical Christian)
Position: Explicitly affirms Jesus’s existence; considers denial of historicity a failure of historical method.

Paula Fredriksen
Religion: Jewish
Position: Strongly affirms Jesus as a historical Jewish apocalyptic preacher crucified by Roman authority.

Maurice Casey
Religion: Non-religious
Position: Forceful defender of Jesus’s historicity; wrote extensively rebutting mythicist arguments.

Géza Vermes
Religion: Jewish (born Jewish, converted to Catholicism under pressure from antisemitic persecution, later returned to Judaism)
Position: Affirms Jesus as a historical Jewish charismatic figure within Second Temple Judaism.

Michael Grant
Religion: Non-religious
Position: Rejects Jesus mythicism as historically indefensible using classical historical standards.

Gerd Lüdemann
Religion: Atheist (formerly Protestant)
Position: Accepts Jesus’s existence and crucifixion while rejecting resurrection and divinity.

Grant might be the only non-religious historian here, but very little info about him.

The rest are all theologians and/or biblical scholars. Biased.

Grant could have done an independent study but chose to rely primarily on the gospels as sources.

So not an independent analysis.

So give people reasons to believe you over educated and published historians. Start with your CV so we can compare your qualifications to the people on that list.

I haven’t made any claims.

I’m simply looking for an analysis by unbiased researchers using independent primary sources.

I am looking for a winning lottery ticket. You, PP, at least can get what you are "simply looking for" by looking yourself not repeatedly asking for shit to "challenge' others or "rebut" them. Your sell by date has passed I think.

You seem triggered.

PP claimed:
“The overwhelming consensus among historians, biblical scholars, and academics in relevant fields (including non-Christian and atheist/agnostic experts).”

But that “overwhelming consensus” lies primarily within religious circles, not actual historians.

You're notion of "religious circles" includes anyone who ever expressed Christian beliefs, or claimed to express Christian beliefs. Not just people who believe in the Christian faith. That's absurd.

False. Someone who is devout Christian and studied religion in college/seminary/theology school and then went on to become an expert in the bible is far beyond "anyone who ever expressed Christian beliefs".

Sure, go ahead and think that. You're not going to change anyone's minds by refusing to acknowledge the mainstream view, but have fun with whatever you think you're doing.

What mainstream view? By whom?

We have yet to see an independent historian support this "mainstream view".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, doesn't that tell you that even when Christians look at the history of Christianity carefully, they lose their religious beliefs?

It certainly happened to me. But it obviously doesn't happen to many people - otherwise there would be fewer Christians

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, doesn't that tell you that even when Christians look at the history of Christianity carefully, they lose their religious beliefs?

It certainly happened to me. But it obviously doesn't happen to many people - otherwise there would be fewer Christians

There are fewer Christians among the educated population, particularly if you discount the people that play along for community but don't actually believe it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bart D. Ehrman
Religion: Agnostic (formerly evangelical Christian)
Position: Explicitly affirms Jesus’s existence; considers denial of historicity a failure of historical method.

Paula Fredriksen
Religion: Jewish
Position: Strongly affirms Jesus as a historical Jewish apocalyptic preacher crucified by Roman authority.

Maurice Casey
Religion: Non-religious
Position: Forceful defender of Jesus’s historicity; wrote extensively rebutting mythicist arguments.

Géza Vermes
Religion: Jewish (born Jewish, converted to Catholicism under pressure from antisemitic persecution, later returned to Judaism)
Position: Affirms Jesus as a historical Jewish charismatic figure within Second Temple Judaism.

Michael Grant
Religion: Non-religious
Position: Rejects Jesus mythicism as historically indefensible using classical historical standards.

Gerd Lüdemann
Religion: Atheist (formerly Protestant)
Position: Accepts Jesus’s existence and crucifixion while rejecting resurrection and divinity.

Grant might be the only non-religious historian here, but very little info about him.

The rest are all theologians and/or biblical scholars. Biased.

Grant could have done an independent study but chose to rely primarily on the gospels as sources.

So not an independent analysis.

So give people reasons to believe you over educated and published historians. Start with your CV so we can compare your qualifications to the people on that list.

I haven’t made any claims.

I’m simply looking for an analysis by unbiased researchers using independent primary sources.

I am looking for a winning lottery ticket. You, PP, at least can get what you are "simply looking for" by looking yourself not repeatedly asking for shit to "challenge' others or "rebut" them. Your sell by date has passed I think.

You seem triggered.

PP claimed:
“The overwhelming consensus among historians, biblical scholars, and academics in relevant fields (including non-Christian and atheist/agnostic experts).”

But that “overwhelming consensus” lies primarily within religious circles, not actual historians.

You're notion of "religious circles" includes anyone who ever expressed Christian beliefs, or claimed to express Christian beliefs. Not just people who believe in the Christian faith. That's absurd.

False. Someone who is devout Christian and studied religion in college/seminary/theology school and then went on to become an expert in the bible is far beyond "anyone who ever expressed Christian beliefs".

Sure, go ahead and think that. You're not going to change anyone's minds by refusing to acknowledge the mainstream view, but have fun with whatever you think you're doing.

What mainstream view? By whom?

We have yet to see an independent historian support this "mainstream view".

I meant it when I said you should regroup. I think you know you've ventured so far to one extreme that no one-- no Christian and no Atheist-- is taking you seriously anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bart D. Ehrman
Religion: Agnostic (formerly evangelical Christian)
Position: Explicitly affirms Jesus’s existence; considers denial of historicity a failure of historical method.

Paula Fredriksen
Religion: Jewish
Position: Strongly affirms Jesus as a historical Jewish apocalyptic preacher crucified by Roman authority.

Maurice Casey
Religion: Non-religious
Position: Forceful defender of Jesus’s historicity; wrote extensively rebutting mythicist arguments.

Géza Vermes
Religion: Jewish (born Jewish, converted to Catholicism under pressure from antisemitic persecution, later returned to Judaism)
Position: Affirms Jesus as a historical Jewish charismatic figure within Second Temple Judaism.

Michael Grant
Religion: Non-religious
Position: Rejects Jesus mythicism as historically indefensible using classical historical standards.

Gerd Lüdemann
Religion: Atheist (formerly Protestant)
Position: Accepts Jesus’s existence and crucifixion while rejecting resurrection and divinity.

Grant might be the only non-religious historian here, but very little info about him.

The rest are all theologians and/or biblical scholars. Biased.

People who study the region and time when Jesus is believed to have lived can't study Jesus because they're biased?

Keep digging that hole. You seem to be approaching the core.

Strawman. These are not just people who study the region and time.

People who are deeply religious, including someone who was a priest, are biased.

The Bible is not an independent primary source.

Nearly all sources from that period of time are biased. That isn't unique to the Bible. Ever read Herodotus? Do you think everything he wrote was true?

Please explain why people who do not believe in Christianity or the divinity of Jesus would be significantly biased towards concluding his historical existence.

This has been explained. Most rely of Tacitus and Josephus, but they are under contest. Once you take them out of the equation, the evidence begins to fall apart for non-Christian sources.

Also, dont forget that once the church became better organized and more formal by the late 200s, they actively suppressed information that disagrees with what they eventally made the orthodox position. There were a wide variety of viewpoints on Jesus, including whether he was a real person or not, but that information is mostly lost to history.