Jesus' Historicity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Historical, brilliant giants like Newton,
Pascal, Kepler, Galileo, Boyle, and Mendel were devout. Modern examples: Francis Collins (led Human Genome Project, evangelical Christian); John Polkinghorne (particle physicist turned Anglican priest); Arthur Peacocke (biochemist, Anglican priest); Nobel winners like Arno Penzias (physics, theist), William Phillips (physics, Methodist), or Gerhard Ertl (chemistry, Christian).

From 1901-2000, ~65% of Nobel laureates in sciences identified as Christian (or had Christian background), ~20% Jewish (many secular, but some theistic), and only ~10% atheists/agnostics overall (Shalev, 2003). Disbelief is higher in literature/peace categories.

Intelligence doesn’t dictate atheism or theism. Smart people land on both sides because God’s existence isn’t a settled empirical fact like gravity—it’s philosophical/metaphysical.

Eternal life does sound good. Whether it’s realistic is the real debate, not whether wishing for it makes someone foolish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Historical, brilliant giants like Newton,
Pascal, Kepler, Galileo, Boyle, and Mendel were devout. Modern examples: Francis Collins (led Human Genome Project, evangelical Christian); John Polkinghorne (particle physicist turned Anglican priest); Arthur Peacocke (biochemist, Anglican priest); Nobel winners like Arno Penzias (physics, theist), William Phillips (physics, Methodist), or Gerhard Ertl (chemistry, Christian).

From 1901-2000, ~65% of Nobel laureates in sciences identified as Christian (or had Christian background), ~20% Jewish (many secular, but some theistic), and only ~10% atheists/agnostics overall (Shalev, 2003). Disbelief is higher in literature/peace categories.

Intelligence doesn’t dictate atheism or theism. Smart people land on both sides because God’s existence isn’t a settled empirical fact like gravity—it’s philosophical/metaphysical.

Eternal life does sound good. Whether it’s realistic is the real debate, not whether wishing for it makes someone foolish.

"A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. "

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Some people need it to cope with uncertainty and to make good choices.

[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.

Does your memory have nice hair or just look good in pair of slacks?

[Anonymous]

Academics, scholars, historians, and professors in relevant fields overwhelmingly agree that Jesus was a real historical figure who lived in first-century Judea, and this consensus is so strong that professionals in the discipline do not seriously doubt his existence.

A very small number of individuals—often generously termed “independent” researchers despite typically lacking formal academic credentials in relevant fields, affiliation with established institutions, or publication in peer-reviewed journals—propose that Jesus was entirely mythical, perhaps derived from earlier legends or invented wholesale.

In professional circles, such views are not taken seriously.

From comprehensive lists and discussions in scholarly sources (including Wikipedia’s compilation of proponents, academic reviews, and blogs by both supporters and critics), the number of notable individuals who have publicly advocated for a purely mythical Jesus in modern times (post-1900) appears to be in the range of 10 to 30, depending on how strictly one defines “historian” or “independent researcher” and full endorsement of mythicism.
activists).

This is an educated guesstimate: likely fewer than 20 living individuals who fit the “independent historian/researcher” description and actively promote the full Christ myth theory today. The vast majority operate outside peer-reviewed academia, via blogs, self-published books, or online platforms, which is why they’re often described (even generously) as fringe. No formal census exists, and the group is tiny compared to the thousands of scholars who accept a historical Jesus as the consensus view.

A reasonable guesstimate is that several thousand (likely 5,000–10,000 or more) qualified academics, historians, and professors in relevant disciplines worldwide accept the historical existence of Jesus as the mainstream position. This consensus spans believers, agnostics, atheists, and non-Christians alike, and has been the standard view in professional scholarship for over a century. The tiny minority who reject it entirely are not representative of the field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Some people need it to cope with uncertainty and to make good choices.

Too bad more people don’t embrace it. Millions of people are making terrible choices every day that affect innocent people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Historical, brilliant giants like Newton,
Pascal, Kepler, Galileo, Boyle, and Mendel were devout. Modern examples: Francis Collins (led Human Genome Project, evangelical Christian); John Polkinghorne (particle physicist turned Anglican priest); Arthur Peacocke (biochemist, Anglican priest); Nobel winners like Arno Penzias (physics, theist), William Phillips (physics, Methodist), or Gerhard Ertl (chemistry, Christian).

From 1901-2000, ~65% of Nobel laureates in sciences identified as Christian (or had Christian background), ~20% Jewish (many secular, but some theistic), and only ~10% atheists/agnostics overall (Shalev, 2003). Disbelief is higher in literature/peace categories.

Intelligence doesn’t dictate atheism or theism. Smart people land on both sides because God’s existence isn’t a settled empirical fact like gravity—it’s philosophical/metaphysical.

Eternal life does sound good. Whether it’s realistic is the real debate, not whether wishing for it makes someone foolish.

I wish for eternal life too. I just know it's not gonna happen. It doesn't happen to any other living thing (like our beloved dogs and cats that we "put to sleep"), and it's not gonna happen to me, whether or not I'm religious and believe that I'll live forever with God in Heaven. I'm lucky to be alive and healthy right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Historical, brilliant giants like Newton,
Pascal, Kepler, Galileo, Boyle, and Mendel were devout. Modern examples: Francis Collins (led Human Genome Project, evangelical Christian); John Polkinghorne (particle physicist turned Anglican priest); Arthur Peacocke (biochemist, Anglican priest); Nobel winners like Arno Penzias (physics, theist), William Phillips (physics, Methodist), or Gerhard Ertl (chemistry, Christian).

From 1901-2000, ~65% of Nobel laureates in sciences identified as Christian (or had Christian background), ~20% Jewish (many secular, but some theistic), and only ~10% atheists/agnostics overall (Shalev, 2003). Disbelief is higher in literature/peace categories.

Intelligence doesn’t dictate atheism or theism. Smart people land on both sides because God’s existence isn’t a settled empirical fact like gravity—it’s philosophical/metaphysical.

Eternal life does sound good. Whether it’s realistic is the real debate, not whether wishing for it makes someone foolish.

I wish for eternal life too. I just know it's not gonna happen. It doesn't happen to any other living thing (like our beloved dogs and cats that we "put to sleep"), and it's not gonna happen to me, whether or not I'm religious and believe that I'll live forever with God in Heaven. I'm lucky to be alive and healthy right now.

Other people believe differently than you, and they have just as much right to their beliefs as you do yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Academics, scholars, historians, and professors in relevant fields overwhelmingly agree that Jesus was a real historical figure who lived in first-century Judea, and this consensus is so strong that professionals in the discipline do not seriously doubt his existence.

A very small number of individuals—often generously termed “independent” researchers despite typically lacking formal academic credentials in relevant fields, affiliation with established institutions, or publication in peer-reviewed journals—propose that Jesus was entirely mythical, perhaps derived from earlier legends or invented wholesale.

In professional circles, such views are not taken seriously.

From comprehensive lists and discussions in scholarly sources (including Wikipedia’s compilation of proponents, academic reviews, and blogs by both supporters and critics), the number of notable individuals who have publicly advocated for a purely mythical Jesus in modern times (post-1900) appears to be in the range of 10 to 30, depending on how strictly one defines “historian” or “independent researcher” and full endorsement of mythicism.
activists).

This is an educated guesstimate: likely fewer than 20 living individuals who fit the “independent historian/researcher” description and actively promote the full Christ myth theory today. The vast majority operate outside peer-reviewed academia, via blogs, self-published books, or online platforms, which is why they’re often described (even generously) as fringe. No formal census exists, and the group is tiny compared to the thousands of scholars who accept a historical Jesus as the consensus view.

A reasonable guesstimate is that several thousand (likely 5,000–10,000 or more) qualified academics, historians, and professors in relevant disciplines worldwide accept the historical existence of Jesus as the mainstream position. This consensus spans believers, agnostics, atheists, and non-Christians alike, and has been the standard view in professional scholarship for over a century. The tiny minority who reject it entirely are not representative of the field.

This seems like a good summation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Historical, brilliant giants like Newton,
Pascal, Kepler, Galileo, Boyle, and Mendel were devout. Modern examples: Francis Collins (led Human Genome Project, evangelical Christian); John Polkinghorne (particle physicist turned Anglican priest); Arthur Peacocke (biochemist, Anglican priest); Nobel winners like Arno Penzias (physics, theist), William Phillips (physics, Methodist), or Gerhard Ertl (chemistry, Christian).

From 1901-2000, ~65% of Nobel laureates in sciences identified as Christian (or had Christian background), ~20% Jewish (many secular, but some theistic), and only ~10% atheists/agnostics overall (Shalev, 2003). Disbelief is higher in literature/peace categories.

Intelligence doesn’t dictate atheism or theism. Smart people land on both sides because God’s existence isn’t a settled empirical fact like gravity—it’s philosophical/metaphysical.

Eternal life does sound good. Whether it’s realistic is the real debate, not whether wishing for it makes someone foolish.

"A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. "

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power, according to a survey of the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center in July 2006. Specifically, more than eight-in-ten Americans (83%) say they believe in God and 12% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. Finally, the poll of scientists finds that four-in-ten scientists (41%) say they do not believe in God or a higher power, while the poll of the public finds that only 4% of Americans share this view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Historical, brilliant giants like Newton,
Pascal, Kepler, Galileo, Boyle, and Mendel were devout. Modern examples: Francis Collins (led Human Genome Project, evangelical Christian); John Polkinghorne (particle physicist turned Anglican priest); Arthur Peacocke (biochemist, Anglican priest); Nobel winners like Arno Penzias (physics, theist), William Phillips (physics, Methodist), or Gerhard Ertl (chemistry, Christian).

From 1901-2000, ~65% of Nobel laureates in sciences identified as Christian (or had Christian background), ~20% Jewish (many secular, but some theistic), and only ~10% atheists/agnostics overall (Shalev, 2003). Disbelief is higher in literature/peace categories.

Intelligence doesn’t dictate atheism or theism. Smart people land on both sides because God’s existence isn’t a settled empirical fact like gravity—it’s philosophical/metaphysical.

Eternal life does sound good. Whether it’s realistic is the real debate, not whether wishing for it makes someone foolish.

"A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. "

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power, according to a survey of the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center in July 2006. Specifically, more than eight-in-ten Americans (83%) say they believe in God and 12% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. Finally, the poll of scientists finds that four-in-ten scientists (41%) say they do not believe in God or a higher power, while the poll of the public finds that only 4% of Americans share this view.

Wow, 41% vs 4%, that's a big delta, and works against the argument there is no link between science education and belief in some kind of god.

But the number of Americans is actually 28%, not 4%

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2024/01/24/religious-nones-in-america-who-they-are-and-what-they-believe/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Academics, scholars, historians, and professors in relevant fields overwhelmingly agree that Jesus was a real historical figure who lived in first-century Judea, and this consensus is so strong that professionals in the discipline do not seriously doubt his existence.

A very small number of individuals—often generously termed “independent” researchers despite typically lacking formal academic credentials in relevant fields, affiliation with established institutions, or publication in peer-reviewed journals—propose that Jesus was entirely mythical, perhaps derived from earlier legends or invented wholesale.

In professional circles, such views are not taken seriously.

From comprehensive lists and discussions in scholarly sources (including Wikipedia’s compilation of proponents, academic reviews, and blogs by both supporters and critics), the number of notable individuals who have publicly advocated for a purely mythical Jesus in modern times (post-1900) appears to be in the range of 10 to 30, depending on how strictly one defines “historian” or “independent researcher” and full endorsement of mythicism.
activists).

This is an educated guesstimate: likely fewer than 20 living individuals who fit the “independent historian/researcher” description and actively promote the full Christ myth theory today. The vast majority operate outside peer-reviewed academia, via blogs, self-published books, or online platforms, which is why they’re often described (even generously) as fringe. No formal census exists, and the group is tiny compared to the thousands of scholars who accept a historical Jesus as the consensus view.

A reasonable guesstimate is that several thousand (likely 5,000–10,000 or more) qualified academics, historians, and professors in relevant disciplines worldwide accept the historical existence of Jesus as the mainstream position. This consensus spans believers, agnostics, atheists, and non-Christians alike, and has been the standard view in professional scholarship for over a century. The tiny minority who reject it entirely are not representative of the field.

This seems like a good summation.

Only if you know nothing about what has been written in this thread.

Just another AI summary repeating the same tired arguments from previously. Still completely ignores addressing any of the valid criticisms of historicists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Historical, brilliant giants like Newton,
Pascal, Kepler, Galileo, Boyle, and Mendel were devout. Modern examples: Francis Collins (led Human Genome Project, evangelical Christian); John Polkinghorne (particle physicist turned Anglican priest); Arthur Peacocke (biochemist, Anglican priest); Nobel winners like Arno Penzias (physics, theist), William Phillips (physics, Methodist), or Gerhard Ertl (chemistry, Christian).

From 1901-2000, ~65% of Nobel laureates in sciences identified as Christian (or had Christian background), ~20% Jewish (many secular, but some theistic), and only ~10% atheists/agnostics overall (Shalev, 2003). Disbelief is higher in literature/peace categories.

Intelligence doesn’t dictate atheism or theism. Smart people land on both sides because God’s existence isn’t a settled empirical fact like gravity—it’s philosophical/metaphysical.

Eternal life does sound good. Whether it’s realistic is the real debate, not whether wishing for it makes someone foolish.

I wish for eternal life too. I just know it's not gonna happen. It doesn't happen to any other living thing (like our beloved dogs and cats that we "put to sleep"), and it's not gonna happen to me, whether or not I'm religious and believe that I'll live forever with God in Heaven. I'm lucky to be alive and healthy right now.

Other people believe differently than you, and they have just as much right to their beliefs as you do yours.

They may have a right to their beliefs. They dont have a right to impose those beliefs on others. Sadly, that is mostly what happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Historical, brilliant giants like Newton,
Pascal, Kepler, Galileo, Boyle, and Mendel were devout. Modern examples: Francis Collins (led Human Genome Project, evangelical Christian); John Polkinghorne (particle physicist turned Anglican priest); Arthur Peacocke (biochemist, Anglican priest); Nobel winners like Arno Penzias (physics, theist), William Phillips (physics, Methodist), or Gerhard Ertl (chemistry, Christian).

From 1901-2000, ~65% of Nobel laureates in sciences identified as Christian (or had Christian background), ~20% Jewish (many secular, but some theistic), and only ~10% atheists/agnostics overall (Shalev, 2003). Disbelief is higher in literature/peace categories.

Intelligence doesn’t dictate atheism or theism. Smart people land on both sides because God’s existence isn’t a settled empirical fact like gravity—it’s philosophical/metaphysical.

Eternal life does sound good. Whether it’s realistic is the real debate, not whether wishing for it makes someone foolish.

I wish for eternal life too. I just know it's not gonna happen. It doesn't happen to any other living thing (like our beloved dogs and cats that we "put to sleep"), and it's not gonna happen to me, whether or not I'm religious and believe that I'll live forever with God in Heaven. I'm lucky to be alive and healthy right now.

Other people believe differently than you, and they have just as much right to their beliefs as you do yours.

They may have a right to their beliefs. They dont have a right to impose those beliefs on others. Sadly, that is mostly what happens.

It'also sad because it is all based on fiction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Academics, scholars, historians, and professors in relevant fields overwhelmingly agree that Jesus was a real historical figure who lived in first-century Judea, and this consensus is so strong that professionals in the discipline do not seriously doubt his existence.

A very small number of individuals—often generously termed “independent” researchers despite typically lacking formal academic credentials in relevant fields, affiliation with established institutions, or publication in peer-reviewed journals—propose that Jesus was entirely mythical, perhaps derived from earlier legends or invented wholesale.

In professional circles, such views are not taken seriously.

From comprehensive lists and discussions in scholarly sources (including Wikipedia’s compilation of proponents, academic reviews, and blogs by both supporters and critics), the number of notable individuals who have publicly advocated for a purely mythical Jesus in modern times (post-1900) appears to be in the range of 10 to 30, depending on how strictly one defines “historian” or “independent researcher” and full endorsement of mythicism.
activists).

This is an educated guesstimate: likely fewer than 20 living individuals who fit the “independent historian/researcher” description and actively promote the full Christ myth theory today. The vast majority operate outside peer-reviewed academia, via blogs, self-published books, or online platforms, which is why they’re often described (even generously) as fringe. No formal census exists, and the group is tiny compared to the thousands of scholars who accept a historical Jesus as the consensus view.

A reasonable guesstimate is that several thousand (likely 5,000–10,000 or more) qualified academics, historians, and professors in relevant disciplines worldwide accept the historical existence of Jesus as the mainstream position. This consensus spans believers, agnostics, atheists, and non-Christians alike, and has been the standard view in professional scholarship for over a century. The tiny minority who reject it entirely are not representative of the field.

This really should end the thread. People can read it and make whatever decision they wish. I don’t think many people are reading anonymous online comments and making decisions off of the comments though, most of is here would do our own research and come to our own conclusions. Even Reddit has an upvoting feature and the ability to read a poster’s comment history before deciding to take their advice about something like fixing a leaking faucet or giving a pet medication. There’s a small level of whose advice am I taking there; here, it’s just completely anonymous. Nobody should feel comfortable taking advice from anonymous posts.