Jesus' Historicity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here. I do have to ask why you would want to be so determined to believe that Jesus never existed as a real person in some form? Which is completely separate from anything religious. I am not a person of faith but I have some knowledge of the classical world. We know Pontus Pilate was real, inscriptions have been found with his name on it. The earliest documented writers are within a few decades of Jesus's death. The Roman historians never rejected the existence of Jesus and they were much closer to the times. The Romans kept meticulous records, and while much has been lost, the historians of the centuries after Jesus did have access to records.

If a group of men got together and said let's invent a fake messiah, pretend he was crucified (a very dramatic event reserved for the most hardcore criminals) and hoodwink people, you'd have to ask yourself what for? The early Christians completely shunned wealth, so it wasn't for personal gain. And they put themselves at risk of prosecution by an intolerant Roman state who didn't like people challenging Roman hegemony and rejecting official state cults and gods. And the Roman historians never casted doubt on that there was a real person even when they saw Christianity as nothing more than a pesky weird cult. If Jesus had really been made up, the historians would have seen right through it.

The better question to ask is why you think there was no such person as well as the motivation for inventing him and the ability to get so many people to believe in a fake man so soon after he theoretically died when there were no shortage of other real cults and preachers.

Have you actually read through the posts? Most of your questions were already answered.

I've skimmed through the posts to know there is someone very determined to believe what he/she wants to believe despite the significant circumstantial and anecdotal evidence that there was a real person. The only credible question to be asking is how much that person was changed and evolved by others in his memory and name. There is, ironically, a zealous belief being shown here to disregard everything suggesting there really was a person in some form and capacity.

Citation from independent/non-Christian sources?

Quite a few historians were named early in this thread, both secular, non Christian, Jewish, ancient Roman and modern. We do have the archeological record to assist, proving the existence by name of Pontus Pilate. I guess those aren't good enough for you? I suspect nothing will ever be good enough for you. I can see why someone else said this thread is getting repetitive because it's arguing with someone for who nothing is ever good enough. I can see why this is just like arguing with a different kind of believer, who thinks the earth is really flat because it looks flat, and God created the world 5,000 years ago and put in those dinosaur fossils to fool people.

Incorrect. The only sources named were Tacitus and Josephus. That's it for non-Christian. And they have been thoroughly refuted.

Just because Pilate was real doesn't make Jesus real. Its like Forrest Gump. Lots of real moments in history but he and his story are complete fiction.

[Anonymous]

Large surveys in the U.S. and Europe consistently show that academics are less religious than the general population, but Christianity is still the largest single affiliation.
United States (rough ranges):
Christians: ~30-45%
No religion ("nones"): ~40-55%
Other religions: ~10-15%

These figures come from faculty surveys conducted by organizations like Pew Research Center, UCLA'S HERI faculty studies, and similar academic census projects.
By comparison, the general U.S. population is ~63-68% Christian, so academics are clearly less religious, but not overwhelmingly Atheist.

Historians specifically
Historians skew more religious than scientists, especially compared to physics, biology, or engineering.
U.S. historians (approximate):
Christians: ~40-55%
No religion: ~30-45%
Other religions: ~5-15%

Why historians differ:
History deals heavily with religion as a historical force
Many historians specialize in periods where religion is unavoidable (ancient, medieval, early modern).

Biblical studies (Hebrew Bible / New
Testament scholars)
Christians: likely 60-75%
Jews: especially strong in Hebrew Bible scholarship
Non-religious: a meaningful minority
Many biblical scholars are:
Christians who do not read the Bible literally
Comfortable with critical methods without abandoning faith
Religious studies (broader field)
Much less Christian
Often majority religiously unaffiliated
Methodologically secular by design

The vast majority of scholars and academics in relevant fields—New Testament studies, ancient history, and classics—believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical person who lived in 1st-century Judea, was baptized by John the Baptist, gathered followers, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate.
This consensus includes Christian, Jewish, atheist, agnostic, and non-religious experts. Virtually all qualified historians and biblical scholars accept his existence as a human figure, though they widely reject supernatural claims (e.g., miracles, resurrection, divinity) as legendary or theological developments.

Statements from leading scholars describe it as “virtually all,” “nearly all,” or “overwhelming.” Estimates place dissenting views (known as “mythicism,” the idea that Jesus was entirely mythical) at well under 1% among experts, often described as a fringe position with no significant support in mainstream academia for over a century.

[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.

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.

I don't care if Jesus-the-man existed or not. He certainly wasn't the son of God, because God does not exist.

You can surmise, based on all available evidence that he, or anyone from that long-ago time, existed, but there's no way to prove that Jesus is the son of God. In fact, a lot of people don't believe that at all. Some of them are atheists and some of them are people of other religions, e.g., Muslims or Jews.

Nobody knows if God exists.

You state constantly that God doesn’t exist.

The question of whether God exists is one of the oldest and most profound in human thought, spanning philosophy, theology, science, and personal experience. There is no definitive proof either way—neither empirical evidence that conclusively demonstrates God's existence nor disproof that rules it out entirely.

Science deals with the natural world and cannot directly address supernatural claims, as noted by many scientists and philosophers (e.g., the domain of science is testable hypotheses about the physical universe, while God is typically conceived as transcendent).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here. I do have to ask why you would want to be so determined to believe that Jesus never existed as a real person in some form? Which is completely separate from anything religious. I am not a person of faith but I have some knowledge of the classical world. We know Pontus Pilate was real, inscriptions have been found with his name on it. The earliest documented writers are within a few decades of Jesus's death. The Roman historians never rejected the existence of Jesus and they were much closer to the times. The Romans kept meticulous records, and while much has been lost, the historians of the centuries after Jesus did have access to records.

If a group of men got together and said let's invent a fake messiah, pretend he was crucified (a very dramatic event reserved for the most hardcore criminals) and hoodwink people, you'd have to ask yourself what for? The early Christians completely shunned wealth, so it wasn't for personal gain. And they put themselves at risk of prosecution by an intolerant Roman state who didn't like people challenging Roman hegemony and rejecting official state cults and gods. And the Roman historians never casted doubt on that there was a real person even when they saw Christianity as nothing more than a pesky weird cult. If Jesus had really been made up, the historians would have seen right through it.

The better question to ask is why you think there was no such person as well as the motivation for inventing him and the ability to get so many people to believe in a fake man so soon after he theoretically died when there were no shortage of other real cults and preachers.

Have you actually read through the posts? Most of your questions were already answered.

I've skimmed through the posts to know there is someone very determined to believe what he/she wants to believe despite the significant circumstantial and anecdotal evidence that there was a real person. The only credible question to be asking is how much that person was changed and evolved by others in his memory and name. There is, ironically, a zealous belief being shown here to disregard everything suggesting there really was a person in some form and capacity.

Citation from independent/non-Christian sources?

Quite a few historians were named early in this thread, both secular, non Christian, Jewish, ancient Roman and modern. We do have the archeological record to assist, proving the existence by name of Pontus Pilate. I guess those aren't good enough for you? I suspect nothing will ever be good enough for you. I can see why someone else said this thread is getting repetitive because it's arguing with someone for who nothing is ever good enough. I can see why this is just like arguing with a different kind of believer, who thinks the earth is really flat because it looks flat, and God created the world 5,000 years ago and put in those dinosaur fossils to fool people.

Incorrect. The only sources named were Tacitus and Josephus. That's it for non-Christian. And they have been thoroughly refuted.

Just because Pilate was real doesn't make Jesus real. Its like Forrest Gump. Lots of real moments in history but he and his story are complete fiction.

Your claim consists of two main parts: (1) that the only non-Christian sources for the historical Jesus are Tacitus and Josephus, and
(2) that these have been "thoroughly refuted."

Based on scholarly analysis, neither part is accurate according to the mainstream academic consensus in fields like ancient history, classics, and New Testament studies.

While a small fringe of mythicists (those who argue Jesus was entirely mythical) challenge these sources, their arguments are not widely accepted and do not constitute a "thorough refutation."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still waiting on that “secular” historian list.

Look at the reference list.

The first person listed is Ehrman so clearly not a list of secular historians.

He's agnostic.

Aside from questioning the supernatural aspects later in life, he’s about as Christian as you can get. Evangelical. Wheaton. Seminary school. New Testament scholar.

Not secular. Not an unbiased historian.

Give us the list of secular historians you believe are unbiased.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here. I do have to ask why you would want to be so determined to believe that Jesus never existed as a real person in some form? Which is completely separate from anything religious. I am not a person of faith but I have some knowledge of the classical world. We know Pontus Pilate was real, inscriptions have been found with his name on it. The earliest documented writers are within a few decades of Jesus's death. The Roman historians never rejected the existence of Jesus and they were much closer to the times. The Romans kept meticulous records, and while much has been lost, the historians of the centuries after Jesus did have access to records.

If a group of men got together and said let's invent a fake messiah, pretend he was crucified (a very dramatic event reserved for the most hardcore criminals) and hoodwink people, you'd have to ask yourself what for? The early Christians completely shunned wealth, so it wasn't for personal gain. And they put themselves at risk of prosecution by an intolerant Roman state who didn't like people challenging Roman hegemony and rejecting official state cults and gods. And the Roman historians never casted doubt on that there was a real person even when they saw Christianity as nothing more than a pesky weird cult. If Jesus had really been made up, the historians would have seen right through it.

The better question to ask is why you think there was no such person as well as the motivation for inventing him and the ability to get so many people to believe in a fake man so soon after he theoretically died when there were no shortage of other real cults and preachers.

Have you actually read through the posts? Most of your questions were already answered.

I've skimmed through the posts to know there is someone very determined to believe what he/she wants to believe despite the significant circumstantial and anecdotal evidence that there was a real person. The only credible question to be asking is how much that person was changed and evolved by others in his memory and name. There is, ironically, a zealous belief being shown here to disregard everything suggesting there really was a person in some form and capacity.

Citation from independent/non-Christian sources?

Quite a few historians were named early in this thread, both secular, non Christian, Jewish, ancient Roman and modern. We do have the archeological record to assist, proving the existence by name of Pontus Pilate. I guess those aren't good enough for you? I suspect nothing will ever be good enough for you. I can see why someone else said this thread is getting repetitive because it's arguing with someone for who nothing is ever good enough. I can see why this is just like arguing with a different kind of believer, who thinks the earth is really flat because it looks flat, and God created the world 5,000 years ago and put in those dinosaur fossils to fool people.

There was only one non-Bible-based historian mentioned and the only source he used was…the bible.

It’s getting “repetitive” because believers keep pushing the same obviously-biased “experts”.

Meanwhile, there's no response to the "who cares" poster who points out that it doesn't matter if Jesus existed or not because there can be no proof that he's the son of god, because that's a belief - not subject to proof.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here. I do have to ask why you would want to be so determined to believe that Jesus never existed as a real person in some form? Which is completely separate from anything religious. I am not a person of faith but I have some knowledge of the classical world. We know Pontus Pilate was real, inscriptions have been found with his name on it. The earliest documented writers are within a few decades of Jesus's death. The Roman historians never rejected the existence of Jesus and they were much closer to the times. The Romans kept meticulous records, and while much has been lost, the historians of the centuries after Jesus did have access to records.

If a group of men got together and said let's invent a fake messiah, pretend he was crucified (a very dramatic event reserved for the most hardcore criminals) and hoodwink people, you'd have to ask yourself what for? The early Christians completely shunned wealth, so it wasn't for personal gain. And they put themselves at risk of prosecution by an intolerant Roman state who didn't like people challenging Roman hegemony and rejecting official state cults and gods. And the Roman historians never casted doubt on that there was a real person even when they saw Christianity as nothing more than a pesky weird cult. If Jesus had really been made up, the historians would have seen right through it.

The better question to ask is why you think there was no such person as well as the motivation for inventing him and the ability to get so many people to believe in a fake man so soon after he theoretically died when there were no shortage of other real cults and preachers.

Have you actually read through the posts? Most of your questions were already answered.

I've skimmed through the posts to know there is someone very determined to believe what he/she wants to believe despite the significant circumstantial and anecdotal evidence that there was a real person. The only credible question to be asking is how much that person was changed and evolved by others in his memory and name. There is, ironically, a zealous belief being shown here to disregard everything suggesting there really was a person in some form and capacity.

Citation from independent/non-Christian sources?

Quite a few historians were named early in this thread, both secular, non Christian, Jewish, ancient Roman and modern. We do have the archeological record to assist, proving the existence by name of Pontus Pilate. I guess those aren't good enough for you? I suspect nothing will ever be good enough for you. I can see why someone else said this thread is getting repetitive because it's arguing with someone for who nothing is ever good enough. I can see why this is just like arguing with a different kind of believer, who thinks the earth is really flat because it looks flat, and God created the world 5,000 years ago and put in those dinosaur fossils to fool people.

There was only one non-Bible-based historian mentioned and the only source he used was…the bible.

It’s getting “repetitive” because believers keep pushing the same obviously-biased “experts”.

Meanwhile, there's no response to the "who cares" poster who points out that it doesn't matter if Jesus existed or not because there can be no proof that he's the son of god, because that's a belief - not subject to proof.

Wrong thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still waiting on that “secular” historian list.

Look at the reference list.

The first person listed is Ehrman so clearly not a list of secular historians.

He's agnostic.

Aside from questioning the supernatural aspects later in life, he’s about as Christian as you can get. Evangelical. Wheaton. Seminary school. New Testament scholar.

Not secular. Not an unbiased historian.

Give us the list of secular historians you believe are unbiased.

For starters, the ones who didn’t study theology and go seminary school. The ones who don’t use the Bible as their primary source.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Large surveys in the U.S. and Europe consistently show that academics are less religious than the general population, but Christianity is still the largest single affiliation.
United States (rough ranges):
Christians: ~30-45%
No religion ("nones"): ~40-55%
Other religions: ~10-15%

These figures come from faculty surveys conducted by organizations like Pew Research Center, UCLA'S HERI faculty studies, and similar academic census projects.
By comparison, the general U.S. population is ~63-68% Christian, so academics are clearly less religious, but not overwhelmingly Atheist.

Historians specifically
Historians skew more religious than scientists, especially compared to physics, biology, or engineering.
U.S. historians (approximate):
Christians: ~40-55%
No religion: ~30-45%
Other religions: ~5-15%

Why historians differ:
History deals heavily with religion as a historical force
Many historians specialize in periods where religion is unavoidable (ancient, medieval, early modern).

Biblical studies (Hebrew Bible / New
Testament scholars)
Christians: likely 60-75%
Jews: especially strong in Hebrew Bible scholarship
Non-religious: a meaningful minority
Many biblical scholars are:
Christians who do not read the Bible literally
Comfortable with critical methods without abandoning faith
Religious studies (broader field)
Much less Christian
Often majority religiously unaffiliated
Methodologically secular by design

The vast majority of scholars and academics in relevant fields—New Testament studies, ancient history, and classics—believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical person who lived in 1st-century Judea, was baptized by John the Baptist, gathered followers, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate.
This consensus includes Christian, Jewish, atheist, agnostic, and non-religious experts. Virtually all qualified historians and biblical scholars accept his existence as a human figure, though they widely reject supernatural claims (e.g., miracles, resurrection, divinity) as legendary or theological developments.

Statements from leading scholars describe it as “virtually all,” “nearly all,” or “overwhelming.” Estimates place dissenting views (known as “mythicism,” the idea that Jesus was entirely mythical) at well under 1% among experts, often described as a fringe position with no significant support in mainstream academia for over a century.

Who are you defining as a “historian”?

Link for the historian #s?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here. I do have to ask why you would want to be so determined to believe that Jesus never existed as a real person in some form? Which is completely separate from anything religious. I am not a person of faith but I have some knowledge of the classical world. We know Pontus Pilate was real, inscriptions have been found with his name on it. The earliest documented writers are within a few decades of Jesus's death. The Roman historians never rejected the existence of Jesus and they were much closer to the times. The Romans kept meticulous records, and while much has been lost, the historians of the centuries after Jesus did have access to records.

If a group of men got together and said let's invent a fake messiah, pretend he was crucified (a very dramatic event reserved for the most hardcore criminals) and hoodwink people, you'd have to ask yourself what for? The early Christians completely shunned wealth, so it wasn't for personal gain. And they put themselves at risk of prosecution by an intolerant Roman state who didn't like people challenging Roman hegemony and rejecting official state cults and gods. And the Roman historians never casted doubt on that there was a real person even when they saw Christianity as nothing more than a pesky weird cult. If Jesus had really been made up, the historians would have seen right through it.

The better question to ask is why you think there was no such person as well as the motivation for inventing him and the ability to get so many people to believe in a fake man so soon after he theoretically died when there were no shortage of other real cults and preachers.

Have you actually read through the posts? Most of your questions were already answered.

I've skimmed through the posts to know there is someone very determined to believe what he/she wants to believe despite the significant circumstantial and anecdotal evidence that there was a real person. The only credible question to be asking is how much that person was changed and evolved by others in his memory and name. There is, ironically, a zealous belief being shown here to disregard everything suggesting there really was a person in some form and capacity.

Citation from independent/non-Christian sources?

Quite a few historians were named early in this thread, both secular, non Christian, Jewish, ancient Roman and modern. We do have the archeological record to assist, proving the existence by name of Pontus Pilate. I guess those aren't good enough for you? I suspect nothing will ever be good enough for you. I can see why someone else said this thread is getting repetitive because it's arguing with someone for who nothing is ever good enough. I can see why this is just like arguing with a different kind of believer, who thinks the earth is really flat because it looks flat, and God created the world 5,000 years ago and put in those dinosaur fossils to fool people.

Incorrect. The only sources named were Tacitus and Josephus. That's it for non-Christian. And they have been thoroughly refuted.

Just because Pilate was real doesn't make Jesus real. Its like Forrest Gump. Lots of real moments in history but he and his story are complete fiction.

Your claim consists of two main parts: (1) that the only non-Christian sources for the historical Jesus are Tacitus and Josephus, and
(2) that these have been "thoroughly refuted."

Based on scholarly analysis, neither part is accurate according to the mainstream academic consensus in fields like ancient history, classics, and New Testament studies.

While a small fringe of mythicists (those who argue Jesus was entirely mythical) challenge these sources, their arguments are not widely accepted and do not constitute a "thorough refutation."

Yes, they were, in this very forum. Get off chatgpt and go read them. Provide YOUR response, not an AI generated one. I want your perspective. Find the faults in the arguments already presented.

[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.

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.

I don't care if Jesus-the-man existed or not. He certainly wasn't the son of God, because God does not exist.

You can surmise, based on all available evidence that he, or anyone from that long-ago time, existed, but there's no way to prove that Jesus is the son of God. In fact, a lot of people don't believe that at all. Some of them are atheists and some of them are people of other religions, e.g., Muslims or Jews.

Nobody knows if God exists.

You state constantly that God doesn’t exist.

The question of whether God exists is one of the oldest and most profound in human thought, spanning philosophy, theology, science, and personal experience. There is no definitive proof either way—neither empirical evidence that conclusively demonstrates God's existence nor disproof that rules it out entirely.

Science deals with the natural world and cannot directly address supernatural claims, as noted by many scientists and philosophers (e.g., the domain of science is testable hypotheses about the physical universe, while God is typically conceived as transcendent).

God doesn't exist, at least not by any normal, majority view of what god is supposed to be and do.

Name one thing that god has done that does not have a natural explanation.

[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.

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.

I don't care if Jesus-the-man existed or not. He certainly wasn't the son of God, because God does not exist.

You can surmise, based on all available evidence that he, or anyone from that long-ago time, existed, but there's no way to prove that Jesus is the son of God. In fact, a lot of people don't believe that at all. Some of them are atheists and some of them are people of other religions, e.g., Muslims or Jews.

Nobody knows if God exists.

You state constantly that God doesn’t exist.

The question of whether God exists is one of the oldest and most profound in human thought, spanning philosophy, theology, science, and personal experience. There is no definitive proof either way—neither empirical evidence that conclusively demonstrates God's existence nor disproof that rules it out entirely.

Science deals with the natural world and cannot directly address supernatural claims, as noted by many scientists and philosophers (e.g., the domain of science is testable hypotheses about the physical universe, while God is typically conceived as transcendent).

God doesn't exist, at least not by any normal, majority view of what god is supposed to be and do.

Name one thing that god has done that does not have a natural explanation.

Wrong thread.

[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.

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.

I don't care if Jesus-the-man existed or not. He certainly wasn't the son of God, because God does not exist.

You can surmise, based on all available evidence that he, or anyone from that long-ago time, existed, but there's no way to prove that Jesus is the son of God. In fact, a lot of people don't believe that at all. Some of them are atheists and some of them are people of other religions, e.g., Muslims or Jews.

Nobody knows if God exists.

You state constantly that God doesn’t exist.

The question of whether God exists is one of the oldest and most profound in human thought, spanning philosophy, theology, science, and personal experience. There is no definitive proof either way—neither empirical evidence that conclusively demonstrates God's existence nor disproof that rules it out entirely.

Science deals with the natural world and cannot directly address supernatural claims, as noted by many scientists and philosophers (e.g., the domain of science is testable hypotheses about the physical universe, while God is typically conceived as transcendent).

God doesn't exist, at least not by any normal, majority view of what god is supposed to be and do.

Name one thing that god has done that does not have a natural explanation.

No one can definitively know whether God exists in the sense of having irrefutable proof. The existence of God is not something that can be empirically proven or disproven like a scientific hypothesis, because God (in most conceptions) is supernatural and beyond the scope of direct observation or experimentation. Science explains the natural world remarkably well, but it neither confirms nor rules out a divine being.

This leaves room for faith, doubt, agnosticism, and ongoing debate.
That said, billions of people do believe in God (or a higher power), often with deep personal conviction, while others are firmly atheist or agnostic. Recent surveys show globally, large majorities in most countries believe in God — a median of around 83% across dozens of nations in a 2025 Pew Research study. In the U.S., belief has declined but remains high: about 81-83% say they believe in God (Gallup and Pew, 2022-2025). Atheism and strict agnosticism are minorities worldwide (estimated 7-16% non-believers or unaffiliated with strong disbelief), concentrated in places like Europe, China, and parts of East Asia.

Philosophically, the question has been debated for millennia without resolution.

So when you unilaterally declare repeatedly there’s no God, you are sharing your opinion. You don’t believe there is a God. But the majority of people worldwide do believe there is a God. Nobody knows who is right, and does it matter? No, because people have the right to believe or not believe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still waiting on that “secular” historian list.

Look at the reference list.

The first person listed is Ehrman so clearly not a list of secular historians.

He's agnostic.

Aside from questioning the supernatural aspects later in life, he’s about as Christian as you can get. Evangelical. Wheaton. Seminary school. New Testament scholar.

Not secular. Not an unbiased historian.

Give us the list of secular historians you believe are unbiased.

For starters, the ones who didn’t study theology and go seminary school. The ones who don’t use the Bible as their primary source.

Who? Give us their names please? You have avoided naming these professionals for pages/days. You just keep repeating the same comment over and over again like a bot or troll.

[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.

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.

I don't care if Jesus-the-man existed or not. He certainly wasn't the son of God, because God does not exist.

You can surmise, based on all available evidence that he, or anyone from that long-ago time, existed, but there's no way to prove that Jesus is the son of God. In fact, a lot of people don't believe that at all. Some of them are atheists and some of them are people of other religions, e.g., Muslims or Jews.

Nobody knows if God exists.

You state constantly that God doesn’t exist.

The question of whether God exists is one of the oldest and most profound in human thought, spanning philosophy, theology, science, and personal experience. There is no definitive proof either way—neither empirical evidence that conclusively demonstrates God's existence nor disproof that rules it out entirely.

Science deals with the natural world and cannot directly address supernatural claims, as noted by many scientists and philosophers (e.g., the domain of science is testable hypotheses about the physical universe, while God is typically conceived as transcendent).

God doesn't exist, at least not by any normal, majority view of what god is supposed to be and do.

Name one thing that god has done that does not have a natural explanation.

No one can definitively know whether God exists in the sense of having irrefutable proof. The existence of God is not something that can be empirically proven or disproven like a scientific hypothesis, because God (in most conceptions) is supernatural and beyond the scope of direct observation or experimentation. Science explains the natural world remarkably well, but it neither confirms nor rules out a divine being.

This leaves room for faith, doubt, agnosticism, and ongoing debate.
That said, billions of people do believe in God (or a higher power), often with deep personal conviction, while others are firmly atheist or agnostic. Recent surveys show globally, large majorities in most countries believe in God — a median of around 83% across dozens of nations in a 2025 Pew Research study. In the U.S., belief has declined but remains high: about 81-83% say they believe in God (Gallup and Pew, 2022-2025). Atheism and strict agnosticism are minorities worldwide (estimated 7-16% non-believers or unaffiliated with strong disbelief), concentrated in places like Europe, China, and parts of East Asia.

Philosophically, the question has been debated for millennia without resolution.

So when you unilaterally declare repeatedly there’s no God, you are sharing your opinion. You don’t believe there is a God. But the majority of people worldwide do believe there is a God. Nobody knows who is right, and does it matter? No, because people have the right to believe or not believe.

For all intents and purposes, god has become so inconsequential that he has effectively been ruled out.

Millions of people think that if they wear special socks on Sunday, their favorite NFL team will win. Belief doesn't make something true.