Jesus' Historicity

[Anonymous]

Can’t believe this is being debated by intelligent adults in 2026.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Which professionals? Are there any real historians who have analyzed this? Maybe they couldn’t find enough unbiased evidence to publish one way or another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can’t believe this is being debated by intelligent adults in 2026.

Why wouldn’t it be debated? There is virtually no evidence that Jesus lived.

[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).

There's no proof of the Loch Ness Monster either. Or Johnny Appleseed. Do you believe in them? Neither Johnny nor Nessie offer everlasting life. Maybe that's why not so many people believe in them.

[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).

There's no proof of the Loch Ness Monster either. Or Johnny Appleseed. Do you believe in them? Neither Johnny nor Nessie offer everlasting life. Maybe that's why not so many people believe in them.

Most people would laugh at the idea of actually believing in Johnny Appleseed or the Loch Ness Monster. They are clearly fictional characters. Plus they don/t do anything valuable for anyone - no living forever in heaven with them and seeing all your dead friends and relatives again. If I ever see the Loch Ness Monster rise out of Loch Ness, I hope other people are there to see him too, Otherwise no one will believe me. Meanwhile, people talk about God as if he's real. As if they've seen him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Which professionals? Are there any real historians who have analyzed this? Maybe they couldn’t find enough unbiased evidence to publish one way or another.

It's hard to keep track of who is responding to who, but I can tell when it's time for an intelligent person to take his ball and go home, realizing you're discussing with someone who is determined to always have the last word so he can declare victory, and does so not through reasoned discussion or critiques but a nah nah nah fingers in ears rejection of everything. It's boring and tiresome. Go ahead and have the last word. Shriek hysterically that nothing is still proven while ignoring the questions actually asked of you. Good luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Which professionals? Are there any real historians who have analyzed this? Maybe they couldn’t find enough unbiased evidence to publish one way or another.

It's hard to keep track of who is responding to who, but I can tell when it's time for an intelligent person to take his ball and go home, realizing you're discussing with someone who is determined to always have the last word so he can declare victory, and does so not through reasoned discussion or critiques but a nah nah nah fingers in ears rejection of everything. It's boring and tiresome. Go ahead and have the last word. Shriek hysterically that nothing is still proven while ignoring the questions actually asked of you. Good luck.

You’re projecting. Big time.

Discussion goes dead anytime someone asks for evidence or unbiased analysis.

[Anonymous]

Discussion becomes uninteresting when too many responses are one liners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Which professionals? Are there any real historians who have analyzed this? Maybe they couldn’t find enough unbiased evidence to publish one way or another.

It's hard to keep track of who is responding to who, but I can tell when it's time for an intelligent person to take his ball and go home, realizing you're discussing with someone who is determined to always have the last word so he can declare victory, and does so not through reasoned discussion or critiques but a nah nah nah fingers in ears rejection of everything. It's boring and tiresome. Go ahead and have the last word. Shriek hysterically that nothing is still proven while ignoring the questions actually asked of you. Good luck.

You may be intelligent - good at math or maybe have a photogenic memory or something, but if you believe in God, you're dumb about that. Maybe you like the idea of living forever. I can see why. It sounds good to me too, but I know it's not realistic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Which professionals? Are there any real historians who have analyzed this? Maybe they couldn’t find enough unbiased evidence to publish one way or another.

It's hard to keep track of who is responding to who, but I can tell when it's time for an intelligent person to take his ball and go home, realizing you're discussing with someone who is determined to always have the last word so he can declare victory, and does so not through reasoned discussion or critiques but a nah nah nah fingers in ears rejection of everything. It's boring and tiresome. Go ahead and have the last word. Shriek hysterically that nothing is still proven while ignoring the questions actually asked of you. Good luck.

You may be intelligent - good at math or maybe have a photogenic memory or something, but if you believe in God, you're dumb about that. Maybe you like the idea of living forever. I can see why. It sounds good to me too, but I know it's not realistic.

NP. Just popped in, read the last comment, and it's an ad hominem. The previous PP was right to take her ball and go home, which makes her more intelligent than the immediate pp. Taking my ball too, great to see y'all!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Which professionals? Are there any real historians who have analyzed this? Maybe they couldn’t find enough unbiased evidence to publish one way or another.

It's hard to keep track of who is responding to who, but I can tell when it's time for an intelligent person to take his ball and go home, realizing you're discussing with someone who is determined to always have the last word so he can declare victory, and does so not through reasoned discussion or critiques but a nah nah nah fingers in ears rejection of everything. It's boring and tiresome. Go ahead and have the last word. Shriek hysterically that nothing is still proven while ignoring the questions actually asked of you. Good luck.

Yes, that was my conclusion as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Discussion becomes uninteresting when too many responses are one liners.

It became uninteresting 20 pages ago after it was clear the one poster didn't have anything else to say.

[Anonymous]

🥎🏠

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Discussion becomes uninteresting when too many responses are one liners.

It became uninteresting 20 pages ago after it was clear the one poster didn't have anything else to say.

Ran out of ChatGPT prompts.

[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.

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.

Truth about metaphysical claims like God’s existence isn’t determined by popularity polls; it’s a separate philosophical question (arguments for/against include cosmological, ontological, problem of evil, etc.).

Billions still find religion consequential for morality, community, meaning, and well-being—studies show regular practice correlates with lower depression, stronger families, and charitable behavior.

Belief doesn’t create truth, but it profoundly shapes human experience.