Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The academics compare you to a skinhead denying the holocaust or a loon denying climate change, I was being diplomatic.

No, you are interpreting their comments incorrectly. No one here has denied that he existed. Plus, even if they did, it's an invalid comparison because we have eyewitness accounts & physical evidence for the Holocaust and the shape of the earth.

A poor interpretation of an invalid comparison.

share your qualifications to assess the evidence and where you earned your degrees

Do you think we have any independent, eyewitness accounts or archaeological artifacts? Any primary evidence here?

The most detailed record of the life and death of Jesus comes from the four Gospels and other New Testament writings. “These are all Christian and are obviously and understandably biased in what they report, and have to be evaluated very critically indeed to establish any historically reliable information,” Ehrman says. “But their central claims about Jesus as a historical figure—a Jew, with followers, executed on orders of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius—are borne out by later sources with a completely different set of biases.”

What are your qualifications to assess the evidence?

So that’s a no?

why do you think we need those things? The scholars and academics don’t need.
What makes your opinion more important than there opinions? What qualifications do you have?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The academics compare you to a skinhead denying the holocaust or a loon denying climate change, I was being diplomatic.

No, you are interpreting their comments incorrectly. No one here has denied that he existed. Plus, even if they did, it's an invalid comparison because we have eyewitness accounts & physical evidence for the Holocaust and the shape of the earth.

A poor interpretation of an invalid comparison.

share your qualifications to assess the evidence and where you earned your degrees

Do you think we have any independent, eyewitness accounts or archaeological artifacts? Any primary evidence here?

The most detailed record of the life and death of Jesus comes from the four Gospels and other New Testament writings. “These are all Christian and are obviously and understandably biased in what they report, and have to be evaluated very critically indeed to establish any historically reliable information,” Ehrman says. “But their central claims about Jesus as a historical figure—a Jew, with followers, executed on orders of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius—are borne out by later sources with a completely different set of biases.”

What are your qualifications to assess the evidence?

So that’s a no?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The academics compare you to a skinhead denying the holocaust or a loon denying climate change, I was being diplomatic.

No, you are interpreting their comments incorrectly. No one here has denied that he existed. Plus, even if they did, it's an invalid comparison because we have eyewitness accounts & physical evidence for the Holocaust and the shape of the earth.

A poor interpretation of an invalid comparison.

share your qualifications to assess the evidence and where you earned your degrees

Do you think we have any independent, eyewitness accounts or archaeological artifacts? Any primary evidence here?

Lawrence Mykytiuk, an associate professor of library science at Purdue University and author of a 2015 Biblical Archaeology Review article on the extra-biblical evidence of Jesus, notes that there was no debate about the issue in ancient times either. “Jewish rabbis who did not like Jesus or his followers accused him of being a magician and leading people astray,” he says, “but they never said he didn’t exist.”

There is no definitive physical or archaeological evidence of the existence of Jesus. “There’s nothing conclusive, nor would I expect there to be,” Mykytiuk says. “Peasants don’t normally leave an archaeological trail.”

“The reality is that we don’t have archaeological records for virtually anyone who lived in Jesus’s time and place,” says University of North Carolina religious studies professor Bart D. Ehrman, author of Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. “The lack of evidence does not mean a person at the time didn’t exist. It means that she or he, like 99.99% of the rest of the world at the time, made no impact on the archaeological record.”

Archaeologists, though, have been able to corroborate elements of the New Testament story of Jesus. While some disputed the existence of ancient Nazareth, his biblical childhood home town, archaeologists have unearthed a rock-hewn courtyard house along with tombs and a cistern. They have also found physical evidence of Roman crucifixions such as that of Jesus described in the New Testament.

The most detailed record of the life and death of Jesus comes from the four Gospels and other New Testament writings. “These are all Christian and are obviously and understandably biased in what they report, and have to be evaluated very critically indeed to establish any historically reliable information,” Ehrman says. “But their central claims about Jesus as a historical figure—a Jew, with followers, executed on orders of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius—are borne out by later sources with a completely different set of biases.”

Within a few decades of his lifetime, Jesus was mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians in passages that corroborate portions of the New Testament that describe the life and death of Jesus.

https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence

“The reality is that we don’t have archaeological records for virtually anyone who lived in Jesus’s time and place,” says University of North Carolina religious studies professor Bart D. Ehrman, author of Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. “The lack of evidence does not mean a person at the time didn’t exist. It means that she or he, like 99.99% of the rest of the world at the time, made no impact on the archaeological record.”

Exactly. As I’ve said before, we have limited evidence for most of ancient history.

No primary sources.

No independent, eyewitnesses.

No archeological artifacts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The academics compare you to a skinhead denying the holocaust or a loon denying climate change, I was being diplomatic.

No, you are interpreting their comments incorrectly. No one here has denied that he existed. Plus, even if they did, it's an invalid comparison because we have eyewitness accounts & physical evidence for the Holocaust and the shape of the earth.

A poor interpretation of an invalid comparison.

share your qualifications to assess the evidence and where you earned your degrees

Do you think we have any independent, eyewitness accounts or archaeological artifacts? Any primary evidence here?

The most detailed record of the life and death of Jesus comes from the four Gospels and other New Testament writings. “These are all Christian and are obviously and understandably biased in what they report, and have to be evaluated very critically indeed to establish any historically reliable information,” Ehrman says. “But their central claims about Jesus as a historical figure—a Jew, with followers, executed on orders of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius—are borne out by later sources with a completely different set of biases.”

What are your qualifications to assess the evidence?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The academics compare you to a skinhead denying the holocaust or a loon denying climate change, I was being diplomatic.

No, you are interpreting their comments incorrectly. No one here has denied that he existed. Plus, even if they did, it's an invalid comparison because we have eyewitness accounts & physical evidence for the Holocaust and the shape of the earth.

A poor interpretation of an invalid comparison.

share your qualifications to assess the evidence and where you earned your degrees

Do you think we have any independent, eyewitness accounts or archaeological artifacts? Any primary evidence here?

Lawrence Mykytiuk, an associate professor of library science at Purdue University and author of a 2015 Biblical Archaeology Review article on the extra-biblical evidence of Jesus, notes that there was no debate about the issue in ancient times either. “Jewish rabbis who did not like Jesus or his followers accused him of being a magician and leading people astray,” he says, “but they never said he didn’t exist.”

There is no definitive physical or archaeological evidence of the existence of Jesus. “There’s nothing conclusive, nor would I expect there to be,” Mykytiuk says. “Peasants don’t normally leave an archaeological trail.”

“The reality is that we don’t have archaeological records for virtually anyone who lived in Jesus’s time and place,” says University of North Carolina religious studies professor Bart D. Ehrman, author of Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. “The lack of evidence does not mean a person at the time didn’t exist. It means that she or he, like 99.99% of the rest of the world at the time, made no impact on the archaeological record.”

Archaeologists, though, have been able to corroborate elements of the New Testament story of Jesus. While some disputed the existence of ancient Nazareth, his biblical childhood home town, archaeologists have unearthed a rock-hewn courtyard house along with tombs and a cistern. They have also found physical evidence of Roman crucifixions such as that of Jesus described in the New Testament.

The most detailed record of the life and death of Jesus comes from the four Gospels and other New Testament writings. “These are all Christian and are obviously and understandably biased in what they report, and have to be evaluated very critically indeed to establish any historically reliable information,” Ehrman says. “But their central claims about Jesus as a historical figure—a Jew, with followers, executed on orders of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius—are borne out by later sources with a completely different set of biases.”

Within a few decades of his lifetime, Jesus was mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians in passages that corroborate portions of the New Testament that describe the life and death of Jesus.

https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence

“The reality is that we don’t have archaeological records for virtually anyone who lived in Jesus’s time and place,” says University of North Carolina religious studies professor Bart D. Ehrman, author of Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. “The lack of evidence does not mean a person at the time didn’t exist. It means that she or he, like 99.99% of the rest of the world at the time, made no impact on the archaeological record.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The academics compare you to a skinhead denying the holocaust or a loon denying climate change, I was being diplomatic.

No, you are interpreting their comments incorrectly. No one here has denied that he existed. Plus, even if they did, it's an invalid comparison because we have eyewitness accounts & physical evidence for the Holocaust and the shape of the earth.

A poor interpretation of an invalid comparison.

share your qualifications to assess the evidence and where you earned your degrees

Do you think we have any independent, eyewitness accounts or archaeological artifacts? Any primary evidence here?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stanton (2002, p. 145): Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher.

"Accept" isn't quite "absolute certain".

I'm sure if there were some primary sources, and not just interpretations of second-hand sources, there would be a higher level of confidence.

Ehrman (2012b, pp. 4–5): "Serious historians of the early Christian movement—all of them—have spent many years preparing to be experts in their field. Just to read the ancient sources requires expertise in a range of ancient languages: Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and often Aramaic, Syriac, and Coptic, not to mention the modern languages of scholarship (for example, German and French). And that is just for starters. Expertise requires years of patiently examining ancient texts and a thorough grounding in the history and culture of Greek and Roman antiquity, the religions of the ancient Mediterranean world, both pagan and Jewish, knowledge of the history of the Christian church and the development of its social life and theology, and, well, lots of other things. It is striking that virtually everyone who has spent all the years needed to attain these qualifications is convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure."

Anonymous wrote:

The academics compare you to a skinhead denying the holocaust or a loon denying climate change, I was being diplomatic.

No, you are interpreting their comments incorrectly. No one here has denied that he existed. Plus, even if they did, it's an invalid comparison because we have eyewitness accounts & physical evidence for the Holocaust and the shape of the earth.

A poor interpretation of an invalid comparison.

share your qualifications to assess the evidence and where you earned your degrees

The academics compare you to a skinhead denying the holocaust or a loon denying climate change, I was being diplomatic.

No, you are interpreting their comments incorrectly. No one here has denied that he existed. Plus, even if they did, it's an invalid comparison because we have eyewitness accounts & physical evidence for the Holocaust and the shape of the earth.

A poor interpretation of an invalid comparison.

Anonymous wrote:Stanton (2002, p. 145): Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher.

"Accept" isn't quite "absolute certain".

I'm sure if there were some primary sources, and not just interpretations of second-hand sources, there would be a higher level of confidence.

Stanton (2002, p. 145): Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher.

Ehrman (2012b, pp. 4–5): "Serious historians of the early Christian movement—all of them—have spent many years preparing to be experts in their field. Just to read the ancient sources requires expertise in a range of ancient languages: Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and often Aramaic, Syriac, and Coptic, not to mention the modern languages of scholarship (for example, German and French). And that is just for starters. Expertise requires years of patiently examining ancient texts and a thorough grounding in the history and culture of Greek and Roman antiquity, the religions of the ancient Mediterranean world, both pagan and Jewish, knowledge of the history of the Christian church and the development of its social life and theology, and, well, lots of other things. It is striking that virtually everyone who has spent all the years needed to attain these qualifications is convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure."

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:Have you guys thought about comparing the length of your private parts and calling it a day?


Seriously though, I think the only actually interesting question brought up by this topic is how we got from Jesus, a dude who preached radical poverty and acceptance, to a mega religion infused with Paul's obsession with sex?

I’m mostly in reactive mode myself. Atheist pp posts yet again about how it’s only “likely” and I do a cut and paste about the vast scholarly consensus and paste the evidence summary.

Otherwise atheist pp keeps trying declare a “DCUM concensus” that it’s just “likely.” As if the real world cares or something. I don’t even really care about a DCUM concensus, but it’s super-easy to keep pasting the reasons why atheist pp is wrong.

Nothing you post is “hard evidence” - first-hand, contemporaneous reports or archaeological artifacts - so irrelevant.

Who is requiring hard evidence?

I would need some hard/primary evidence to say 100% certainty. For anything, really, not just this.

"If you want certainty, go into mathematics. Don’t go into ancient history."
-Hershel Shanks

Why do you keep repeating this? We get it. You're alone against the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus existed with certainty. You can stop repeating yourself now.

I'm simply replying to questions other people have posed.

If you are concerned about people repeating themselves, why not rag on the PP who keeps copying and pasting the same (irrelevant) info?

Nope. You keep bumping posts--most recently one from yesterday--to repeat the same line about how you're not sure. You still haven't identified your own scholarly credentials.

And nope. The cut-and-past is incredibly relevant because these are the arguments the vast majority of scholars, including Bart Ehrman and other atheist and Jewish scholars, use when they say they're certain Jesus existed. Since you mentioned it, here it is again.

I finally had time this morning to reply so I replied. PPs were repeatedly grilling me to explain my perspective so I did. Pretty funny that you copy & paste countlessly but then complain about me "repeating" myself.

You can post those examples of soft evidence as often as you like, but unless I see some hard evidence (eyewitness account/archaeological artifacts), then I'm not at 100%. Yes, he very likely existed. That is the most likely scenario. But we don't have hard evidence of it.

Philosophically speaking, you can't have hard evidence of anything. Your perception of the world is through your fallible senses.

Sure. Can we ever be absolutely certain of anything?

But eyewitnesses and archeological artifacts sure go a long way.

DP. The evidence we do have is good enough for the vast majority of scholars. For example, Paul writing in 50 AD personally knew Jesus’ brother and Jesus’ two disciples Peter and John.

The fact that some DCUM rando with zero scholarly qualifications isn’t convinced is funny but irrelevant.

Good enough to be “reasonably certain”? Sure. “Absolutely certain”? Naw.

No eyewitness accounts. No archeological artifacts.

Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure.

Jesus existed:
Stanton (2002, p. 145): Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher.
Wells (2007, p. 446):"Today, most secular scholars accept Jesus as a historical, although unimpressive, figure."

Ehrman (2012b, pp. 4–5): "Serious historians of the early Christian movement—all of them—have spent many years preparing to be experts in their field. Just to read the ancient sources requires expertise in a range of ancient languages: Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and often Aramaic, Syriac, and Coptic, not to mention the modern languages of scholarship (for example, German and French). And that is just for starters. Expertise requires years of patiently examining ancient texts and a thorough grounding in the history and culture of Greek and Roman antiquity, the religions of the ancient Mediterranean world, both pagan and Jewish, knowledge of the history of the Christian church and the development of its social life and theology, and, well, lots of other things. It is striking that virtually everyone who has spent all the years needed to attain these qualifications is convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure."

The Christ myth theory is rejected by mainstream scholarship:
Robert E. Van Voorst, referring to G. A. Wells: "The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted".[26]
While discussing the "striking" fact that "we don't have any Roman records, of any kind, that attest to the existence of Jesus", Ehrman dismisses claims that this means Jesus never existed, saying, "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on clear and certain evidence."[27]

Robert M. Price, a former fundamentalist apologist who is now a Christian atheist, says the existence of Jesus cannot be ruled out, but is less probable than non-existence. He agrees that his perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[28]

Michael Grant, a classicist, states: "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus', or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."[29]
"There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more."[30]

Maurice Casey, an irreligious Emeritus Professor of New Testament Languages and Literature at the University of Nottingham, concludes in his book Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? that "the whole idea that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical figure is verifiably false. Moreover, it has not been produced by anyone or anything with any reasonable relationship to critical scholarship. It belongs to the fantasy lives of people who used to be fundamentalist Christians. They did not believe in critical scholarship then, and they do not do so now. I cannot find any evidence that any of them have adequate professional qualifications."[31]

Bockmuel: "[F]arfetched theories that Jesus' existence was a Christian invention are highly implausible."[32]


I am sure you think your “naw” refutes these scholars and their works; but that’s patently untrue. Saying no to all the evidence means you are the outlier and likely deluded and uncaring about the actual evidence. (The academics compare you to a skinhead denying the holocaust or a loon denying climate change, I was being diplomatic.)

I am glad this was debated here. Anyone perusing this thread will see the overwhelming scholarly and academic evidence for Jesus as a historical figure, and the “naw” that supposedly negates it all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you guys thought about comparing the length of your private parts and calling it a day?


Seriously though, I think the only actually interesting question brought up by this topic is how we got from Jesus, a dude who preached radical poverty and acceptance, to a mega religion infused with Paul's obsession with sex?

I’m mostly in reactive mode myself. Atheist pp posts yet again about how it’s only “likely” and I do a cut and paste about the vast scholarly consensus and paste the evidence summary.

Otherwise atheist pp keeps trying declare a “DCUM concensus” that it’s just “likely.” As if the real world cares or something. I don’t even really care about a DCUM concensus, but it’s super-easy to keep pasting the reasons why atheist pp is wrong.

Nothing you post is “hard evidence” - first-hand, contemporaneous reports or archaeological artifacts - so irrelevant.

Who is requiring hard evidence?

I would need some hard/primary evidence to say 100% certainty. For anything, really, not just this.

"If you want certainty, go into mathematics. Don’t go into ancient history."
-Hershel Shanks

Why do you keep repeating this? We get it. You're alone against the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus existed with certainty. You can stop repeating yourself now.

I'm simply replying to questions other people have posed.

If you are concerned about people repeating themselves, why not rag on the PP who keeps copying and pasting the same (irrelevant) info?

Nope. You keep bumping posts--most recently one from yesterday--to repeat the same line about how you're not sure. You still haven't identified your own scholarly credentials.

And nope. The cut-and-past is incredibly relevant because these are the arguments the vast majority of scholars, including Bart Ehrman and other atheist and Jewish scholars, use when they say they're certain Jesus existed. Since you mentioned it, here it is again.

I finally had time this morning to reply so I replied. PPs were repeatedly grilling me to explain my perspective so I did. Pretty funny that you copy & paste countlessly but then complain about me "repeating" myself.

You can post those examples of soft evidence as often as you like, but unless I see some hard evidence (eyewitness account/archaeological artifacts), then I'm not at 100%. Yes, he very likely existed. That is the most likely scenario. But we don't have hard evidence of it.

Philosophically speaking, you can't have hard evidence of anything. Your perception of the world is through your fallible senses.

Sure. Can we ever be absolutely certain of anything?

But eyewitnesses and archeological artifacts sure go a long way.

DP. The evidence we do have is good enough for the vast majority of scholars. For example, Paul writing in 50 AD personally knew Jesus’ brother and Jesus’ two disciples Peter and John.

The fact that some DCUM rando with zero scholarly qualifications isn’t convinced is funny but irrelevant.

Good enough to be “reasonably certain”? Sure. “Absolutely certain”? Naw.

No eyewitness accounts. No archeological artifacts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you guys thought about comparing the length of your private parts and calling it a day?


Seriously though, I think the only actually interesting question brought up by this topic is how we got from Jesus, a dude who preached radical poverty and acceptance, to a mega religion infused with Paul's obsession with sex?

I’m mostly in reactive mode myself. Atheist pp posts yet again about how it’s only “likely” and I do a cut and paste about the vast scholarly consensus and paste the evidence summary.

Otherwise atheist pp keeps trying declare a “DCUM concensus” that it’s just “likely.” As if the real world cares or something. I don’t even really care about a DCUM concensus, but it’s super-easy to keep pasting the reasons why atheist pp is wrong.

Nothing you post is “hard evidence” - first-hand, contemporaneous reports or archaeological artifacts - so irrelevant.

Who is requiring hard evidence?

I would need some hard/primary evidence to say 100% certainty. For anything, really, not just this.

"If you want certainty, go into mathematics. Don’t go into ancient history."
-Hershel Shanks

Why do you keep repeating this? We get it. You're alone against the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus existed with certainty. You can stop repeating yourself now.

I'm simply replying to questions other people have posed.

If you are concerned about people repeating themselves, why not rag on the PP who keeps copying and pasting the same (irrelevant) info?

Nope. You keep bumping posts--most recently one from yesterday--to repeat the same line about how you're not sure. You still haven't identified your own scholarly credentials.

And nope. The cut-and-past is incredibly relevant because these are the arguments the vast majority of scholars, including Bart Ehrman and other atheist and Jewish scholars, use when they say they're certain Jesus existed. Since you mentioned it, here it is again.

I finally had time this morning to reply so I replied. PPs were repeatedly grilling me to explain my perspective so I did. Pretty funny that you copy & paste countlessly but then complain about me "repeating" myself.

You can post those examples of soft evidence as often as you like, but unless I see some hard evidence (eyewitness account/archaeological artifacts), then I'm not at 100%. Yes, he very likely existed. That is the most likely scenario. But we don't have hard evidence of it.

Philosophically speaking, you can't have hard evidence of anything. Your perception of the world is through your fallible senses.

Sure. Can we ever be absolutely certain of anything?

But eyewitnesses and archeological artifacts sure go a long way.

DP. The evidence we do have is good enough for the vast majority of scholars. For example, Paul writing in 50 AD personally knew Jesus’ brother and Jesus’ two disciples Peter and John.

The fact that some DCUM rando with zero scholarly qualifications isn’t convinced is funny but irrelevant.