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:

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.

Jesus as a historical person is not considered fiction by mainstream scholarship.

Jesus the man existed and walked the earth, according to the overwhelming consensus of historians, including:
Christian scholars
Jewish scholars
Atheist and secular scholars

The idea that Jesus was entirely invented (the “mythicist” position) exists, but it is fringe and not the academic norm.

So you're the "walked the earth" person. OK -- That doesn't mean Jesus was God. I walk the earth too. So do you and everyone else. We're not God.

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:

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.

Jesus as a historical person is not considered fiction by mainstream scholarship.

Jesus the man existed and walked the earth, according to the overwhelming consensus of historians, including:
Christian scholars
Jewish scholars
Atheist and secular scholars

The idea that Jesus was entirely invented (the “mythicist” position) exists, but it is fringe and not the academic norm.

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:

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.

Jesus as a historical person is not considered fiction by mainstream scholarship.

Jesus the man existed and walked the earth, according to the overwhelming consensus of historians, including:
Christian scholars
Jewish scholars
Atheist and secular scholars

The idea that Jesus was entirely invented (the “mythicist” position) exists, but it is fringe and not the academic norm.

Yes, the people who studied religion and use the bible as a source believe he existed.

How about the real historians who use unbiased primary sources?

List them so we can read their work and see what they say. I am open to reading their work.

I would like to read their work too. Can you list them so the people posting here have the option to explore the Christ Myth theory?

You are assuming that real historians who use unbiased primary sources will come to the conclusion that Jesus was a myth?

They will say any historian who doesn't is a religious person, Bible scholar, fringe, or discredited.

Then this loop will go over and over. Time to say c ya wouldn't want to b ya. 🥎🏠

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:

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.

Jesus as a historical person is not considered fiction by mainstream scholarship.

Jesus the man existed and walked the earth, according to the overwhelming consensus of historians, including:
Christian scholars
Jewish scholars
Atheist and secular scholars

The idea that Jesus was entirely invented (the “mythicist” position) exists, but it is fringe and not the academic norm.

Yes, the people who studied religion and use the bible as a source believe he existed.

How about the real historians who use unbiased primary sources?

List them so we can read their work and see what they say. I am open to reading their work.

I would like to read their work too. Can you list them so the people posting here have the option to explore the Christ Myth theory?

You are assuming that real historians who use unbiased primary sources will come to the conclusion that Jesus was a myth?

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:

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.

Jesus as a historical person is not considered fiction by mainstream scholarship.

Jesus the man existed and walked the earth, according to the overwhelming consensus of historians, including:
Christian scholars
Jewish scholars
Atheist and secular scholars

The idea that Jesus was entirely invented (the “mythicist” position) exists, but it is fringe and not the academic norm.

Yes, the people who studied religion and use the bible as a source believe he existed.

How about the real historians who use unbiased primary sources?

List them so we can read their work and see what they say. I am open to reading their work.

I would like to read their work too. Can you list them so the people posting here have the option to explore the Christ Myth theory?

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:

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.

Jesus as a historical person is not considered fiction by mainstream scholarship.

Jesus the man existed and walked the earth, according to the overwhelming consensus of historians, including:
Christian scholars
Jewish scholars
Atheist and secular scholars

The idea that Jesus was entirely invented (the “mythicist” position) exists, but it is fringe and not the academic norm.

Yes, the people who studied religion and use the bible as a source believe he existed.

How about the real historians who use unbiased primary sources?

List them so we can read their work and see what they say. I am open to reading their work.

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:

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.

Jesus as a historical person is not considered fiction by mainstream scholarship.

Jesus the man existed and walked the earth, according to the overwhelming consensus of historians, including:
Christian scholars
Jewish scholars
Atheist and secular scholars

The idea that Jesus was entirely invented (the “mythicist” position) exists, but it is fringe and not the academic norm.

Yes, the people who studied religion and use the bible as a source believe he existed.

How about the real historians who use unbiased primary sources?

List them so we can read their work and see what they say. I am open to reading their work.

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:

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.

Jesus as a historical person is not considered fiction by mainstream scholarship.

Jesus the man existed and walked the earth, according to the overwhelming consensus of historians, including:
Christian scholars
Jewish scholars
Atheist and secular scholars

The idea that Jesus was entirely invented (the “mythicist” position) exists, but it is fringe and not the academic norm.

Yes, the people who studied religion and use the bible as a source believe he existed.

How about the real historians who use unbiased primary sources?

Anonymous wrote:

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

This isn't reddit. And, no one said anything about making people make decisions. It is an open forum to discuss ideas. I dont recall anyone trying to force people to "take advice".

The idea that Jesus is a myth is a fringe claim that was discredited over 100 years ago.

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:

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.

Jesus as a historical person is not considered fiction by mainstream scholarship.

Jesus the man existed and walked the earth, according to the overwhelming consensus of historians, including:
Christian scholars
Jewish scholars
Atheist and secular scholars

The idea that Jesus was entirely invented (the “mythicist” position) exists, but it is fringe and not the academic norm.

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:

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.

Jesus as a historical person is not considered fiction by mainstream scholarship.

Jesus the man existed and walked the earth, according to the overwhelming consensus of historians, including:
Christian scholars
Jewish scholars
Atheist and secular scholars

The idea that Jesus was entirely invented (the “mythicist” position) exists, but it is fringe and not the academic norm.

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:

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 wrote:

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 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.

This isn't reddit. And, no one said anything about making people make decisions. It is an open forum to discuss ideas. I dont recall anyone trying to force people to "take advice".

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 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.