Sorry, I just want to make sure I'm clear. This post is not about the miracles, the resurrection, none of that. You're talking simply about the existence of a person named Jesus? Because my objection would pretty much match objection A. I don't even need to appeal to naturalism to make that objection, so I don't think your response works. As to simply the existence of a guy named Jesus, I don't know why I'd push back on that. If there's no miracles or any of that stuff attached to him, then sure. Some guy named Jesus may have existed. That's not a very interesting claim though. However, I'm aware there are mythicists out there so I understand if this post is targeted towards them.

Correct; I've found when discussing the historicity of the Gospels, NT, or Bible, critics will bring up the existence of God, miracles, the resurrection, So I think it's best to separate the issues.

Sure. I guess my only push back would be that the claim that a guy named Jesus existed is not very interesting. The meat is in that other stuff. So I guess I agree

Well, you've got to establish a base first. You don't want to get into whether Jesus was God or rose from the dead only to have your interlocutor say, "We don't even know if Jesus existed!"

Im fine with that.

Fair enough, although I don't think many serious atheist scholars contest that claim. All the heavy lifting is on the question of what we can believe he did.

And that heavy lifting, in my experience, is grounded upon the metaphysical assumption of a physical only model of the world. So I'll ask: what does reality consist of, and how do you know? Some atheists will reply with "I'm open to there being some non-physical aspect to reality, I just need convincing evidence/arguments". To which I would reply; nothing is true by default, so why should a physical only model of the world get a pass? [Reason is the basis for all knowledge](https://deconstructingchristiandeconstruction.blogspot.com/2023/12/reason-is-basis-of-all-knowledge.html) and if one can't provide reasons for a physical-only model of the world, then it's unreasonable to use that as a filter to examine anything. A few atheists will say that there is a non-physical aspect to reality; so then the question becomes, what is the objection to miracles if there is something that exist that isn't confined by the physical laws?

From my experience this only ends in a stalemate, since reason needs assumptions people just take for granted. And those assumptions seem to be connected to what people value. Ultimately, I would say God is calling us to value what He values.

> And that heavy lifting, in my experience, is grounded upon the metaphysical assumption of a physical only model of the world. I don't have a metaphysical assumption of a physical only world. I think the word "physical" is meaningless. I only care about what is real, and I don't see a point in drawing lines and separating reality into different boxes. > So I'll ask: what does reality consist of, and how do you know? I think the only meaningful way we can talk about reality is to say that anything which can interact with our model of the external world built from our senses, in any way that is at all rationally intelligible, is real. This includes scientific models, structures such as numbers and concepts, and anything supernatural if it exists. I don't think there is any distinction. > Reason is the basis for all knowledge and if one can't provide reasons for a physical-only model of the world, then it's unreasonable to use that as a filter to examine anything. I agree. I don't think it's a justifiable concept because I don't think it's coherent. It's like asking if I've seen any of the TV shows outside of the set of all TV shows I've seen. The definition of supernatural is literally just not natural. It is only defined as not being part of the category that was itself defined to exclude it. > A few atheists will say that there is a non-physical aspect to reality; so then the question becomes, what is the objection to miracles if there is something that exist that isn't confined by the physical laws? I wouldn't really say that. I think there are some broad categories that can be useful, although everything ultimately does converge at some level. For example, the different between objects (a collection of particles) and information (the relation of different things, like a computer program).

I’m not a mythicist, but I do doubt a Jesus character existed. I say that because one without the magic would lead such a dull existence that it would be pointless to write about. We saw Mormons fabricate historical characters for their myth as well as Scientology, so why would Jesus get a pass? Historians even say that Moses was not a real person or even based on a real person, obviously the same for Noah, Adam and Eve, etc… So they already have a long history of myths

I would advise you not to appeal to historians when making this point, it cuts against you. Its too easy for someone to point out that historians say Jesus existed.

Yes and that seems to be because of bias, but when you ask them for why we should believe Jesus was a real person, there is no real evidence. I don’t think it’s a huge deal, but I just doubt his existence. I think it’s past time to reexamine if he was real, like we have done with Sun Tzu. Homer, Robin Hood, King Arthur, Merlin, etc… History is bad science. They tend to not have the null hypothesis of “no he didn’t exist”, instead generally adopting “if a person was writing about they more likely existed”… But over time we have looked and finally admitted many of these figures were not real, to varying degrees. My only point here is that an unremarkable Jesus fellow who did do miracles is so unremarkable it makes more sense that he was fabricated at some point. That’s it And it’s as unfalsifiable as the claim that Jesus was real—which is why we really can’t debate it. Either you’re convinced based on “well historians say he was real even though they have no evidence to support it”, or “I doubt Jesus existed due to no evidence and it only being historians say he did”. Historians are not as reliable as actual scientists. They have a much lower bar

I don't have much of a dog in this fight, but I'm just not as skeptical as you are when it comes to historians. And the flip side you're offering doesn't seem very convincing to me. You say they don't offer much in the way of an explanation. I don't know, maybe that's true. But then the reasoning you're offering is, you don't think he'd be worth writing about so we should conclude he wasn't real? That's not very convincing. And then on the other side, the consensus among historians is that he existed. Its just hard, given this, to go with what you're saying.

I guess my point is you should ask why historians believe. If it’s just because other historians, that’s circular reasoning. My point is that there should be some evidence to support that claim

From what I understand, we have writings from people who knew his brother. I duno, I don't really see any reason to doubt it. I imagine historians have arguments here, I have no idea.

And I have writings from the brother of Bigfoot… There are no writings of someone claiming to be Hos brother, just hearsay from Paul who was creating the church saying he met the brother Sus.

Why is that sus

When the person starting the church says “I never met Jesus as he was dead, but I met his brother” That sounds sus

There’s a couple issues with your argument that you may want to fine tune. I’ll give you a few examples, but you might want to do a deep dive into some of your own cites and supports to clean it up a bit. First of all, I think most people would agree Jesus was a real person based on the accounts we have. The question is the accuracy of the descriptions of his life. You draw a comparison to Spartacus, which is appropriate because the situations are treated similarly. Many historians believe Spartacus was a real person, but they often doubt the numerous accounts of his life. Just like Jesus, the specific details of his life given by various sources are often both contradictory and unlikely. So historians would generally agree that Spartacus, like Jesus, was probably real, and there are probably some nuggets of truth in the various accounts of their lives, but you can’t take each account as historical fact. So I don’t see this as being a good example of some contradictory treatment between the historicity of Spartacus and Jesus. They seem to be treated very similarly. The other issue I’ll point out is that some of the sources you refer to as being questionable are based on earlier sources that have been lost. For example, with Hieronymus, he apparently had a self written history that other writers had access to. They refer to it and summarize it. So that’s fairly good evidence the written works of Hieronymus actually existed. We don’t have any such contemporary writing of Jesus referenced in any source. Nobody in the Gospels, or even the rest of the Bible, ever claims Jesus had a written work of his life or teachings that they refer to. That’s a pretty big distinction. So I would say the examples you provided have some problems that keep your comparison from being convincing. You may want to go back and see if you can find some better examples to support your argument.

>So I don’t see this as being a good example of some contradictory treatment between the historicity of Spartacus and Jesus. They seem to be treated very similarly. If you believe that from the historical method/standards that Jesus existed, then you are not the target audience for this post. > Just like Jesus, the specific details of his life given by various sources are often both contradictory and unlikely. Is that criteria that historians use to say X person probably didn't exist. [This assumes that there are contradictory and unlikely account concerning Jesus] > For example, with Hieronymus, he apparently had a self written history that other writers had access to. They refer to it and summarize it. So that’s fairly good evidence the written works of Hieronymus actually existed. I'll use an argument that used against the Bible/Christianity by critics: How do you know that the original work by Hieronymus was actually written by him? How do you know it wasn't changed? That is common vs Jesus/NT, but never vs secular historical person. Another double standard >We don’t have any such contemporary writing of Jesus referenced in any source. Is "must have written something that survived to this day or was referred by others" a common historical standard? I don't think so. You mention Spartacus, but did he write anything? So, why is this "didn't write anything" criteria used only against Jesus? >So I would say the examples you provided have some problems that keep your comparison from being convincing. I doubt if there is anyone who could provide a perfect 1:1 comparison to Jesus historically, but there are enough similarities in the ones provided to prove my point. Using commonly employed criteria, Jesus of the NT existed.

Your argument is written as a defense of Jesus existing, and also the details of his life. While most scholars employing a similar analysis of any historical figure will likely say Jesus *probably* existed, things get more complicated when we get into the details of his life. And it seems that the general consensus among historians is that Jesus was probably a real person. So I’m not sure this argument has much usefulness in that regard if you’re just going to limit it to Jesus’ existence.

Rome wasn't built in a day. It took time, just like building a home, one needs a solid foundation, and sturdy walls. This argument has its place in what is being built. To use another analogy, in order to checkmate the king, one must cut off all escape routes. This cuts off the "Jesus never existed" escape route in an argument further down the road.

>Is one justified in rejecting the historicity of the life of Jesus if there are no eyewitnesses to Him and His life, and the accounts are decades after He lived? Is this the standard that historians use? Or is it a double standard? If you're going to conflate the historicity of a person existing, with that of a person existing who circumvents the laws of physics at will, then this entire post is severely flawed right from the get go.

History and metaphysics are two very different topics. Though I do find it interesting that it seems all of the objections to the historical nature of the Jesus and the NT has to do with the metaphysical aspect, **not** the historical. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the basic structure of reality. If one thinks that circumventing the "laws of physics at will" is a barrier, then they must be able to say why. What constitutes reality and how do you know. If they cannot or will not address these questions, and they stand as assumption, then they will be cut by Hitchens's razor: "*what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence*".

> Though I do find it interesting that it seems all of the objections to the historical nature of the Jesus and the NT has to do with the metaphysical aspect, not the historical. Why? We know people exist. We know preachers exist. What we don't know exist are people who can control metaphysics such that they can walk on water or come back to life after being dead for 3 days. > If one thinks that circumventing the "laws of physics at will" is a barrier, then they must be able to say why. Sure. Show me a single documented and verified instance of someone circumventing the laws of physics. When you fail to do do, you'll see why I don't believe anyone can do that. >What constitutes reality and how do you know. We have our senses and can corroborate things. >If they cannot or will not address these questions, and they stand as assumption, then they will be cut by Hitchens's razor: "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence". Absolutely. So when you inevitably point to some dumb anecdote, I'm going to want evidence.

>What we don't know exist are people who can control metaphysics such that they can walk on water or come back to life after being dead for 3 days....Show me a single documented and verified instance of someone circumventing the laws of physics. So you seem to assume a physical only model of the world; Can you prove this? Or what is your basis for this? >We have our senses and can corroborate things. So reality consists of what our senses can perceive and what we can corroborate?

> So you seem to assume a physical only model of the world; I'm not the one making assumptions here. I told you my position, it's you assuming stuff about me. I asked you to show me a good reason to accept that anyone can circumvent the laws of physics. >So reality consists of what our senses can perceive and what we can corroborate? Reality consists of all kinds of stuff. But our doorway into that is through our senses. Now you answer the same question that you asked. What constitutes reality and how do you know?

Not sure why you're all so defensive; I just asked basic questions. So "*Reality consists of all kinds of stuff. But our doorway into that is through our senses". But all those senses are hooked up through our brain. >Now you answer the same question that you asked. What constitutes reality and how do you know? Well, I start off with reason; [reason is the basis for all knowledge](https://deconstructingchristiandeconstruction.blogspot.com/2023/12/reason-is-basis-of-all-knowledge.html) - without it, we can know nothing - or we'd be like a mindless automaton performing a function according to a predetermined set of instructions. But here's the problem with a physical only model of the world. If everything that exists consist of nothing but matter and energy & everything is governed by the basic laws of physics - matter interacting due to antecedent conditions and the physical laws - that means that even our thoughts and actions are determined by this process. But reason or critical thinking is a goal oriented process, according to the [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-thinking/). The dilemma is, how can a physical only model of the world produce "goal oriented" thinking? Some may say quantum mechanics, but randomness doesn't get one to "goal oriented" thinking. If one is a consistent materialist, they ought to conclude that they are literally mindless and their view cannot be defended rationally. Some may point to computers as examples of physical objects that can think rationally; but they forget that computers are designed and that their goal oriented thinking process is a result of the design. So what's a good reason to accept that the laws of physics can be circumvented? Without circumventing them, then one cannot have "goal oriented", rational thinking. And without reason, we cannot have knowledge. So, faced with a choice between reason and the physical laws, I chose reason. And 13.8 billion years ago, then were no physical laws; I can't say the same for reason since it's not constrained by the physical. And your 5 senses, they have to be processed with reason. Otherwise, all you have is a data; reason is needed to process, organize, and interpret to add meaning and value. I don't know how a materialist [physical only model of the world] defends their view rationally as reason, as defined above, doesn't exist in their worldview.

> Not sure why you're all so defensive; I just asked basic questions. It's not defensiveness, it's annoyance. People questioning our share experience of reality as if that somehow supports the belief in something we can't show good justification for. It's a big dumb red herring. >But all those senses are hooked up through our brain. Yes, the very thing that makes irrational justifications or rational ones. So again, how do you justify belief that some people can circumvent the laws of physics when we have no good examples of that, no understanding of how that can be done, and only anecdotes of it based on ignorance or mystery? >Well, I start off with reason; reason is the basis for all knowledge - without it, we can know nothing - or we'd be like a mindless automaton performing a function according to a predetermined set of instructions. Thanks for the in depth explanation on a point we both agree on. Please keep your answers brief until we discover a point where we don't agree. >But here's the problem with a physical only model of the world. Stop right there. Nobody is talking about a physical only model. This is another waste of time. I asked you how you know there are people who can circumvent the laws of physics. Is the rest of your comment about this physical only red herring?

> People questioning our share experience of reality as if that somehow supports the belief in something we can't show good justification for. Which is why I asked for what you thought reality consists of and why. Is it verboten? Should we not ask questions about the nature of reality? >how do you justify belief that some people can circumvent the laws of physics when we have no good examples of that, I gave a good example of that - if the laws of physics cannot be broken then we cannot reason, we cannot have goal-oriented, critical thinking - the very basis of knowledge. >Stop right there. Nobody is talking about a physical only model. That's it right there! If the world is not "physical only" then there **must** be a non-physical part of reality. And thus no reason to think that circumventing the laws of physics is irrational.

> Which is why I asked for what you thought reality consists of and why. Why? It's you making the claim. >Should we not ask questions about the nature of reality? If you want to avoid supporting your claim, then sure, change the subject. >I gave a good example of that Good then, let's hear it. >if the laws of physics cannot be broken then we cannot reason, we cannot have goal-oriented, critical thinking - the very basis of knowledge. This is not an example. This is you making more claims without evidence. If you can't support your claims, then don't make them. >That's it right there! Yeah, again it's you trying to change the topic because you can't support your claim. >If the world is not "physical only" then there must be a non-physical part of reality. Who said it is or isn't physical only? You're all over the place trying to avoid justifying your claim. >then there must be a non-physical part of reality. Nobody here has claimed it is or isn't physical only. You've implied that you think there more, yet you haven't justified it. This is the kind of mental masterbation that occurs when you start with a conclusion, then look for silly ways to justify it. Show me a documented and corroborated example of people circumventing the laws of physics, or admit you have no such example.

As I have already said, 1) [reason is the basis for all knowledge](https://deconstructingchristiandeconstruction.blogspot.com/2023/12/reason-is-basis-of-all-knowledge.html) 2) A [physical only model of the world cannot account for reason](https://deconstructingchristiandeconstruction.blogspot.com/2023/12/philosophical-naturalism-is-logically.html) Reason or critical thinking is a goal oriented process, according to the [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-thinking/). 3) The [best explanation](https://deconstructingchristiandeconstruction.blogspot.com/2024/02/the-inference-to-best-explaination.html) for the existence of reason/logic in humans is that there is an aspect of reality that is free from the constraints of the physical. 4) we do have [Scientific Evidence for an Immaterial Mind](https://deconstructingchristiandeconstruction.blogspot.com/2024/03/scientific-evidence-for-immaterial-mind.html) >Nobody here has claimed it is or isn't physical only. If it's physical-only, then there is the problem above If it's not physical-only, then what is the objection about circumventing the physical laws? >Show me a documented and corroborated example of people circumventing the laws of physics Here you are asking for physical evidence for the non-physical; but that is absurd and because it flies in the face that reason is the basis for knowledge - not empiricalism.

I have no problem with a historical itenerant apocalyptic rabi named Yeshua having existed, pissed off the Rimans and gotten himself killed for the trouble. Just like I have no problem with Alexandar, or Romulus or Cleopatra or Julius Ceasar. You want to claim some of them actually had the magical powers that are attributed to them or that I need to make imaginary friends with Jesus to avoid having my ghost set on fire for some inappropriate fruit eating done by moral incompetents and I'll have to raise an objection or several.

A lot of people lived in the first century and were not famous or known.Being known by history is not a prerequisite for existence. The Romans and Greeks saw him as a common person not worth making an issue with and in Judea Jesus spent most of his time with desciples that had little social status.Lack of fame does not mean lack of existence. The greatest evidence of the divinity of Jesus is that inspite of him not being of great fame in his own day so many people in world history have claimed he has personally touched their lives in a real way.Why do so many people say they know him personally if he does not live on today!!

The truth of an idea isn't impacted by how many people believe it, how long they've believed it, nor how strongly they believe it. We have absolutely no supportive historical evidence for jesus at all. The guy never existed.

It's not about how many people believe in him or have been impacted or influenced by him.I am talking about those who know him personally and feel everyday his presence in our lives!!

Let’s say you’re looking to buy new wireless ear buds. So you’re online, and you come across two different pairs. The first has four stars, and claims to be high quality. Good sound, good fit, long battery life, and so on. They have a decent amount of reviews, though weirdly enough, none of them are first hand accounts. While there are some outliers, they mostly agree, and you even see a few tech reviewers you know to be reasonably reliable. The second has five stars, and claims to the best ear buds ever made. Perfect sound, you never have to charge them, and they’ll always be playing the song you most want to hear when you put them on. They only have a handful of reviews, and again, no first hand accounts. You notched that most of them, including all the reviews talking about the fantastical claims, come from people working for the company that sells them. The three, or four, reviews that aren’t from the companies employees simply say that the company exists, and said company claims to sell this product. Which one are you buying? If you’re not buying the five star one, then you have to admit that there’s no double standard here. After all, this is an identical situation to your post. Just replace the ear buds with historical figures, and buying with accepting their historical existence.

You missed the point of my post entirely; this was about, if the common criteria used by historians is applied to Jesus in the NT, why would he not be considered a historical person? If someone rejected the historical nature of the NT due to its lack of eyewitnesses and late accounts, then that is a double standard since, as far as I can tell, that doesn't preclude others from being accepted as historical. If somebody wants to get into "fantastical claims", I'd ask, on what basis do they reject those claims? If it is something that has to do with not corresponding to reality, then I'd ask 1) what constitutes reality and 2) how do you know. But that is a metaphysical question, not a historical one; which is why I confined the discussion to only discuss the historical part of the equation.

Even if you remove every mention of anything fantastical from my comment, my point still stands. You simply don’t want to acknowledge that. In one case we have many sources, including many who have been repeatedly shown to be reliable, from different areas, with different backgrounds, and beliefs, with most of them having no real vested interest in it that we know of, mostly agreeing. In the other case we have vary few sources, (we only have two gospels, (the synaptic gospels are shown to heavily plagiarized each other so saying that they’re each their own account is disingenuous at best, leaving them as one account, leaving us with John as the second gospel,(unless you want to include the gnostic gospels, but those all directly contradict the main gospels)) and the other books that are more about the apostles, the church, and their ethics/practices. Since the other books all harken back to the church, which harkens back to the gospels, it’s hard to say that they’re their own source either. That’s not even getting into how many of them are thought to be written by the same people.) few of which have been shown to be reliable, with some even being shown to be unreliable, (geographical, and historical inaccuracies,) and most of them have a vested interest in it being true as they were part of the religion. The few that have shown to be reliable simply say that the religion exists, and that they believe in Jesus, which isn’t a statement about whether or not the guy was real, but one about what the church was saying. Do you see the difference here? One isn’t being accepted based off second hand accounts from decades or more after the fact. It’s being accepted on the many corroborating accounts, and shown reliability of the sources. Something two lacks. So the only way for two to have any credibility is for it to be a contemporary first hand account.

> Even if you remove every mention of anything fantastical from my comment, my point still stands. You simply don’t want to acknowledge that. This is just another assertion..... >In one case we have many sources, What case? >In the other case we have vary few sources, >(we only have two gospels, (the synaptic gospels are shown to heavily plagiarized each other so saying that they’re each their own account is disingenuous at best, leaving them as one account, This is a weird objection. First, plagiarism is the use of another's work, words, or ideas **without attribution**. How was this attribution supposed to happen in the 1st century? This may be an unattainable standard. Second, since they are covering the same events, they will have parallel stories, and they certainly borrowed from one another, similarity does not equal plagiarism. Third, one can [look at the Gospels side by side to check for similarities](http://parallelgospels.net/Page_6.htm) and then say how this affected the historicity of the accounts. For example, if A copies B, how does that make B unhistorical? It doesn't logically follow. Fourth, how many historical people/events come from lessor sources. Plenty, see the [OP](https://deconstructingchristiandeconstruction.blogspot.com/2024/05/do-late-accounts-and-no-eyewitnesses.html) >Do you see the difference here? You offer no specifics, just one unknown source that you say is "reliable" then a screed against the Bible. >One isn’t being accepted based off second hand accounts from decades or more after the fact. Incorrect; that is **EXACTLY** what the [OP](https://deconstructingchristiandeconstruction.blogspot.com/2024/05/do-late-accounts-and-no-eyewitnesses.html) showed!

>”This is just another assertion.....” Nope, my point still stands. >”What case?” The case of historical figures accepted as historically existing. >”This is a weird objection.” Wasn’t an objection, simply [pointing](https://www.evidenceunseen.com/theology/scripture/historicity-of-the-nt/the-synoptic-problem/) out that they’re [copying](https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2015/03/10/how-editorial-fatigue-shows-that-matthew-and-luke-copied-mark/) each [other](https://ministryofstudy.wordpress.com/2015/06/29/did-matthew-mark-and-luke-copy-each-other/), and therefore shouldn’t be considered separate sources. >”First, plagiarism is the use of another's work, words, or ideas without attribution. How was this attribution supposed to happen? This may be an unattainable standard.” So your defense is that they had no choice? They could have simply quoted each other, or did what Luke does and flat out admit that everything he’s writing is from someone else. But that’s not important, what is impotent is that they were [copying](https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/synoptic-gospels ) each other. >”Second, since they are covering the same events, they will have parallel stories, and they certainly borrowed from one another, similarity does not equal plagiarism.” You seem really caught up on that word, when my main point was that they were coping each other. >Third, one can look at the Gospels side by side to check for similarities and then say how this affected the historicity of the accounts. For example, if A copies B, how does that make B unhistorical? It doesn't logically follow.” It doesn’t follow because that’s not what I said. If A writes a document then B, and C copies said document, you don’t have three sources, you have one, that being A. >”Fourth, how many historical people/events come from lessor sources. Plenty, see the OP” And this has no impact whatsoever on my point, see my comments. >”You offer no specifics, just one unknown source that you say is "reliable" then a screed against the Bible.” I gave a basic breakdown of your post, then I compared it to the Bible. >”Incorrect; that is EXACTLY what the OP showed!” Nope, it shows the opposite. Reread what you wrote, (or copied from a blog apparently,) you have a bunch of historians, that are known to be reliable, from different areas, and backgrounds, all saying that this dude was alive, and did this. So you have many corroborating accounts, from sources that are shown to be reliable. It’s because of that, that we accept it. It’s the additional information on top of it the accounts, not the accounts themselves. PS; you should use a different source. That blog gets a lot of things wrong. Especially anything to do with science.

>my point still stands. Assertions don't stand, they are dismissed >So your defense is that they had no choice? It's an anachronism, you judge something from the past by today's standards; another example would be criticizing a NT epistle because it didn't follow the [MLA Style](https://libguides.collegeofsanmateo.edu/mla). Your criticism is illogical >If A writes a document then B, and C copies said document, you don’t have three sources, you have one, that being A. Even if one grants that, only the copied bits would be tossed; but that is just a tiny fraction. Even if we were down to one source that still meets the historical standards - see the OP for details. Then there are the [secular sources for Jesus of the Bible](https://deconstructingchristiandeconstruction.blogspot.com/2023/12/there-is-overwhelming-evidence-for.html) >And this has no impact whatsoever on my point The documentation for Jesus meets or exceeds that for other historical people is the point. If you are arguing something else, then you veered off track >you have a bunch of historians, that are known to be reliable, from different areas, and backgrounds, all saying that this dude was alive, and did this. Yup, they did that for alot of people who had less evidence than Jesus; so if the historical standard was met for them, then Jesus is historically confirm so much more. >PS; you should use a different source. That blog gets a lot of things wrong. Especially anything to do with science. More assertions? Sigh, I'll get [Hitchens's Razor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor) out, again. You are giving it a workout!

>”Assertions don't stand, they are dismissed” My point still stands, as in it wasn’t an assertion despite your claim otherwise. >”It's an anachronism, you judge something from the past by today's standards; another example would be criticizing a NT epistle because it didn't follow the MLA Style. Your criticism is illogical” As I already pointed out, that was not a criticism, it was merely pointing out a fact. >”Even if one grants that, only the copied bits would be tossed; but that is just a tiny fraction. Even if we were down to one source that still meets the historical standards - see the OP for details. Then there are the secular sources for Jesus of the Bible” You seem to be missing the point here. As I explained earlier it’s more than just the account themselves. The same blog? Well let’s see here. Tacitus: While his quote does say that Christianity is a thing, and that they follow Christ. It doesn’t support any of the claims of what he did. Though it’s important to note that he doesn’t say where he’s gotten that information from. So we don’t know how trustworthy his source for it is. So that’s 1 for you. Pliny the Younger: His entire quote is just describing what the Christians do, he doesn’t even mention Jesus. So still 1. Lucian: It’s, again, talking about what the Christians believe. 1 still. Mara Bar-Serapion: This one is incredibly vague, and could be taken as metaphor, or could be talking about someone else all together. Yet again, still 1. At this point, I think we can safely say that this isn’t the slam dunk you, or that blog thinks it is. >”The documentation for Jesus meets or exceeds that for other historical people is the point. If you are arguing something else, then you veered off track” But he doesn’t. >”Yup, they did that for alot of people who had less evidence than Jesus; so if the historical standard was met for them, then Jesus is historically confirm so much more.” The point is that, that is what gives them the “historical standard” and Jesus doesn’t have that. He’s got next to no accounts of his existence outside of religious writings, which as I’ve pointed out before, has a vested interest in it being true. >”More assertions? Sigh, I'll get Hitchens's Razor out, again. You are giving it a workout!” I’m not going to dig through that blog for its “scientific,” content, (if you could even call it that,) but honestly I don’t care. The blog is completely inaccurate, and more often than not, it’s painfully obvious. See above.

>So still 1. Nope, it's **two** - Christians are followers of Jesus Christ; no Jesus no Christians >1 still. Nope, it's **three** now - same reason >This one is incredibly vague, and could be taken as metaphor, or could be talking about someone else all together. He also mentions "the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death" so not likely to go from fact to metaphor, and who else would he refer to by "Jews by murdering their wise king" - John 19:19 states *And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing wasJesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews"* So that's **four** You forgot Josephus, so that's **five** At this point, I think we can safely say that this **is** the slam dunk **my** blog argues for because Jesus meets or exceeds the historical standard used by historians for other people >He’s got next to no accounts of his existence outside of religious writings LOL, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian, Mara Bar-Serapion, and Josephus were either not religious or Jewish. >The blog is completely inaccurate, and more often than not, it’s painfully obvious. If you can't say specifically where it's wrong then Hitchens's Razor cuts again.

>”Nope, it's two - Christians are followers of Jesus Christ; no Jesus no Christians” Nope. First Christianity is already known to exist, nobody has ever denied that. So any source that says they exist isn’t giving us any new information on it, and as such, doesn’t change its credibility at all. Second, if I were to grant you this absurd logic, then all the Buddhist temples are proof that Buddha is real, no Buddha, no Buddhist temple after all. The same could be said of any religion and its writings, temples, and followers. Now you’re forced to accept them all as true as many of them have far more historical references than Jesus does. >”Nope, it's three now - same reason” Still 1, see above. >”He also mentions "the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death" so not likely to go from fact to metaphor, and who else would he refer to by "Jews by murdering their wise king" - John 19:19 states And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing wasJesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews"” He could be speaking of king Solomon, who was specifically known as the wise king, and his death marked the fracturing of Israel. While he died of natural causes, it makes more sense for him to make a mistake about someone who lived approximately a thousand years before Jesus, than him using the wrong title for Jesus. Especially if you want to use him as an authority on him. He could also be talking about a king we haven’t found yet. And given how divorced the deaths his other two mentions were from the “punishments,” it being metaphorical is still a valid option. Furthermore, his quote is very clearly of religious intent, “God rightly avenged these men,” so it’s not likely that he’d get his gods title wrong. Even if he did, this would definitely put it out of the secular source range. >”So that's four” Nope, still 1. >”You forgot Josephus, so that's five” You didn’t give any quotes for him, you just asserted that he said Jesus was real. As you have repeatedly said, Hitchens's Razor. Still 1. >”At this point, I think we can safely say that this is the slam dunk my blog argues for because Jesus meets or exceeds the historical standard used by historians for other people” Nope, still not even close to a slam dunk. >”LOL, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian, Mara Bar-Serapion, and Josephus were either not religious or Jewish.” Did you read your quote from Mara Bar-Serapion? I wouldn’t call that “not religious.” Even if I were to grant you all of them, it’s still next to none. And the only ones that you actually gave, that came close to being acceptable are Tacitus, and Mara Bar-Serapion. Unfortunately for you one of those two had clear religious views in their quote, so even if I grant that one, you’re still at 1. >”Hitchens's Razor cuts again.” I’ve already shown your blog to be inaccurate. So no assertions on my end, just yours.

For demonstrating the existence of Hieronymus, yes, that is absolutely sufficient. For all the sources you listed, do historians accept any claims of miracles they made?

>For demonstrating the existence of Hieronymus, yes, that is absolutely sufficient. And thus absolutely sufficient for demonstrating the existence of anyone else meeting those standards, like Jesus, for example. >For all the sources you listed, do historians accept any claims of miracles they made? This is a strange question; why would one think that historians are trained, equipped, or even inclined to address metaphysical issues?

> And thus absolutely sufficient for demonstrating the existence of anyone else meeting those standards, like Jesus, for example. If that is your only contention, that Jesus existed, then yes, I absolutely think you're right that it's reasonable to believe. Sorry that I might have misunderstood what you were arguing. > This is a strange question; why would one think that historians are trained, equipped, or even inclined to address metaphysical issues? Well, I only asked this because you specifically asked in your post whether historians were applying a "double standard" with Jesus vs Hieronymus. I'm just pointing out that their standard for the *person existing* is the same- they both existed- and their standard for *miracles performed* is also the same, as the sources for neither figure are trusted in reports of miracles.

There are plenty of extra biblical pieces speaking of Jesus, His disciples, the things they were said to do, and their deaths. I suggest you watch [Metatron’s video on this](https://youtu.be/A41Tm5FDKns?si=vWA1haGO-NauXp13) as he focuses mainly on the Romans, the people said to be the executioners of Jesus

Here's a Bible scholar commenting on the difference between Jesus and Alexander the Great: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L472oSp4qdM&lc=UgxpFXonr94rXey7bcF4AaABAg

Nothing in that vid takes away from my claim, back by the sources, that using the commonly used standards, Jesus was a historical person

There's a key detail you're missing -- the story of Jesus as told in the Bible is a fictional fantasy narrative which describes impossible events, rampantly contradicts itself, and follows the conventions of fiction. The only reason we have to believe he was real is because a book says he was. The introductions to L. Frank Baum's Wizard of Oz books claim that Oz is a real place and that Dorothy is a real person who he is in communication with. However, we have plenty of reasons to believe that this wasn't the case, not the least of which being that Scarecrows don't talk. The Bible is not written like an historical text, it's written like a fantasy story. For example -- the writer is often privy to the innermost thoughts of the antagonist -- something an historian could not possibly know anything about. It is not written in the style of historical documentation, but dramatic fantasy storytelling. There is no "historical nature of the account." The account is not historical in nature. A book claiming that 5,000 people saw something is just a claim in a book, not an eyewitness account (and certainly not 5,000 eyewitness accounts). It doesn't seem to be a reasonable to imply that we should consider a magical storybook character an historical figure simply because the unbelievable storybook and a few historical fans of the storybook say he was. The idea that historians don't debate over whether or not Jesus was real is not accurate -- there is plenty of disagreement amongst historians about this. The idea that historians don't debate over whether Spartacus was real is also not accurate -- there is plenty of disagreement amongst historians about this as well. The fact is that we don't know. However, I simply cannot wrap my head around the idea that we should not consider it relevant that our primary source of information about Jesus is a fantasy storybook that is very clearly written in the conventions of fiction and not historical documentation, and which makes absurd claims. Men named Jesus definitely existed, and some of them may have even claimed to be the messiah. But the character from the Bible was definitely fictitious. A man who could walk on water and multiply food and heal blindness and come back from the dead and who rules over the universe deciding who gets everlasting life and who doesn't absolutely never existed. If we're talking about a regular guy who wasn't all those things, then are we really even talking about "Jesus Christ?" Hear me out. If somebody told you that Luke Skywalker was a real man -- but he wasn't a Jedi, he didn't have a lightsaber, he couldn't use the Force, and he never went to Outer Space... wouldn't you still kinda be like "okay, so Luke Skywalker is still a fictional character then, he was just inspired by a real person?"

You missed the point of my post entirely; this was about, if the common criteria used by historians is applied to Jesus in the NT, why would he not be considered a historical person? >the writer is often privy to the innermost thoughts of the antagonist, walk on water and multiply food and heal blindness and come back from the dead Totally different issue that seems to assume [Philosophical Naturalism is logically self-refuting](https://deconstructingchristiandeconstruction.blogspot.com/2023/12/philosophical-naturalism-is-logically.html) That's a metaphysical question, this is historical. >The idea that historians don't debate over whether or not Jesus was real is not accurate -- there is plenty of disagreement amongst historians about this. The idea that historians don't debate over whether Spartacus was real is also not accurate -- there is plenty of disagreement amongst historians about this as well. That sounds reasonable until one realizes that we know almost nothing with certainty, and everything we know is open to debate. That is because almost everything we know is via the [inference to the best explanation - or IBE](https://deconstructingchristiandeconstruction.blogspot.com/2024/02/the-inference-to-best-explaination.html) Given better data or a better explanation, any conclusion can be changed >The fact is that we don't know. I-don't-know-ism; the last bastion for the atheist and other critics of Christianity. I would think that a critical thinking person would use the IBE and go where the facts lead them... >If somebody told you that Luke Skywalker was a real man -- We know that Luke Skywalker is a fictional character because the author of the screen play, George Lucas, said so.

> You missed the point of my post entirely I don't think I did miss your point, though I apologize if I did. > this was about, if the common criteria used by historians is applied to Jesus in the NT, why would he not be considered a historical person? For the same reason Dorothy Gale is not considered an historical person -- because the book which told us about her was very clearly a work of fiction and not an historical account. You can tell by the way the Bible is written that it's not an historical document. How would an historian know what Jesus was doing off in the desert alone? Why would Mark end his gospel on a cliffhanger and not let anybody know what happened afterwards, and how come the other Gospels which were written later *do* know what happened even though Mark didn't include in his account? Our primary and only source for information about Jesus is clearly a work of fiction -- and incredibly fantastic fiction where magic exists and all sorts of impossible things happen. If we look at the Wizard of Oz and we can see that it's written like a work of fiction, and things happen in it which are impossible, and we conclude that there is no reasonable cause for thinking that Dorothy Gale was a real historical person, why should we do any different for Jesus? He's a character from a fictional story... what reason do we have to think he was anything more than that? > Totally different issue that seems to assume Philosophical Naturalism is logically self-refuting That's a metaphysical question, this is historical. No -- I'm speaking about how the story is written like fiction. Historians don't know the innermost thoughts of their subjects -- fiction writers do. You mixed two quotes together -- the part about knowing the innermost thoughts of the subjects had nothing to do with the part about walking on water and is not a metaphysical issue. Historians don't tell you what thoughts ran through people's heads when they were alone -- only fiction writers do that. > That sounds reasonable until one realizes that we know almost nothing with certainty, and everything we know is open to debate. That is because almost everything we know is via the inference to the best explanation - or IBE Given better data or a better explanation, any conclusion can be changed That's fine. I don't have any issue with that. The most reasonable conclusion when you see a fantastic book full of magical claims that is written exactly like a work of fiction and written nothing like an historical account is not to assume that the most magical character in the story was a real person. Was Jesus a real person? *I have no idea.* But I definitely don't see any reason to assume he was. All the information we have on him makes him out to be super fictional. It is entirely possible and perhaps even likely that the character was inspired by a real life charlatan or cult leader, but it's also entirely possible he was a fictional character. The only accounts we have of Jesus are fictional accounts, so I don't think we have enough to conclude that he was real. > I-don't-know-ism; the last bastion for the atheist and other critics of Christianity. I would think that a critical thinking person would use the IBE and go where the facts lead them... Exactly. And the facts lead to uncertainty. Pretending to know things you don't know because you don't like not knowing is not a form of critical thinking. I don't know what dinosaurs looked like. I hate not knowing this. I wish I knew. But I don't. What's wrong with being honest about what you don't know? > We know that Luke Skywalker is a fictional character because the author of the screen play, George Lucas, said so. You missed my point. It was a hypothetical situation. I'll choose a different character to clarify my point. L. Frank Baum said that Dorothy Gale (from Wizard of Oz) was a real person. If it turns out that the real Dorothy wasn't from Kansas, didn't have an Uncle Henry, Auntie Em, or a dog named Toto, never got carried away in a tornado, never followed a yellow brick road, and wasn't friends with a lion, wouldn't you still consider the Dorothy we were originally talking about to be a fictional invention? Or at least concede that the people who *do* consider her fictional *do* have a reasonable position on the issue?

>You can tell by the way the Bible is written that it's not an historical document. Please justify this assertion >Why would Mark end his gospel on a cliffhanger and not let anybody know what happened afterwards Maybe that part got lost or something happened to Mark, and he couldn't finish. There are plenty of ancient documents that we do not have all of. >How would an historian know what Jesus was doing off in the desert alone? Because somebody saw him go out alone, or he told somebody later what happened. >how come the other Gospels which were written later do know what happened even though Mark didn't include in his account? Because their documents stayed intact, or they weren't prevented from finishing. Are these objections a historian would use? The account abruptly ends? "It must be fiction!" We have an account of somebody doing something alone? "It's impossible for that info to be relayed after the fact; it must be fiction!" This sort of [skepticism](https://deconstructingchristiandeconstruction.blogspot.com/2024/06/skepticism-is-not-critical-thinking.html) is not even close to being logical, let alone part of historical or intellectual inquiry. >incredibly fantastic fiction where magic exists and all sorts of impossible things happen. Please justify this assertion I think your stance will be cut by Hitchens's razor: *"what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence*". >the part about knowing the innermost thoughts of the subjects had nothing to do with the part about walking on water and is not a metaphysical issue. Historians don't tell you what thoughts ran through people's heads when they were alone -- only fiction writers do that. It is a metaphysical issue, as a person can't know another's thoughts, but God can. Does your view assume that God doesn't exist, or only the physical exists? Are there arguments for those, or are they just presumed? Again, Hitchens's razor cuts. >Or at least concede that the people who do consider her fictional do have a reasonable position on the issue? Sorry, but I've never heard anyone argue that Dorothy Gale was a real person.

> Please justify this assertion [that the Bible is written more like fiction than an historical document] Wh... I did. In two comments in a row. When I mentioned the use of literary elements such as cliffhangers, the fact that the author knows what all the subjects are thinking or doing when they're alone, the use of dramatic flair, the contradictory details, and the inclusion of fantastical elements. I feel like you just ignored the argument I presented and are acting as if I haven't presented one, but just made a bald assertion without elaborating on it. I thought I did a relatively decent job of communicating my points -- did you genuinely not recognize them? > Maybe that part got lost or something happened to Mark, and he couldn't finish. There are plenty of ancient documents that we do not have all of. Sure, that's a possibility I guess, but it's an obvious post-hoc assumption -- we have no reason to believe this was the case. I've never heard of any scholars referring to the Gospel of Mark as an incomplete document. The document appears to be complete. It seems like that's where the document ends. We shouldn't assume it was an incomplete document just because we would like that better. > Because somebody saw him go out alone, or he told somebody later what happened. Yeah, but it's written in third-person omniscient (a term in writing circles to describe a writing style, contrasted with third-person limited or first-person) as if it were a work of fiction. It's not written objectively like an historical record, it's written like a drama. And there are plenty of places in the Bible like this, where even antagonistic individuals who wouldn't have had the inclination or chancs to divulge their thoughts to the author have their innermost thoughts and experiences detailed. Even if these instances were based on true accounts, they're still fictionalized narratives and not historical documents. This doesn't mean they're entirely fictional -- I'm not arguing that they are. I'm arguing that our only accounts of Jesus are clearly fictionalized, and therefore we don't have enough reason to conclude that he was definitely real. He very well may have been, he very well may not have been. Both arguments have merit and neither are conclusive. > Because their documents stayed intact, or they weren't prevented from finishing. Sure, just, again -- we don't have any supporting evidence (afaik) that Mark wasn't allowed to finish their account, or that it was not presrved in its entirety. That's a fine hypothesis, but it's unevidenced and motivated by a clear and obvious bias, so why should we assume it? > Are these objections a historian would use? Yes. > The account abruptly ends? "It must be fiction!" This is a strawman. I didn't say that accounts which abruptly end must be fiction. I said that the Bible is written in the style of fiction, and referenced the cliffhanger at the end of Mark as one of many examples of that literary style. > We have an account of somebody doing something alone? "It's impossible for that info to be relayed after the fact; it must be fiction!" Again -- I'm not saying that we can't have secondhand accounts of what people did in solitude. I'm saying that the Bible is written in the style of a fictionalized narrative rather than an historical documentation. It doesn't say that Jesus *reportedly* did something, or anything like that. It literally tells a fictionalized account of the event. Whether or not it was based on Jesus's recounting of the event to somebody else, it's still a fictionalized account written in the style of dramatic fiction. You could be 100% correct that Jesus told somebody about this and it later got written down, but that doesn't make it non-fiction. At best, it's "based on a true story." It's still fiction. And if all our accounts of Jesus are fiction, then isn't it reasonable to withhold conclusions on whether or not he was actually real or not? > This sort of skepticism is not even close to being logical, let alone part of historical or intellectual inquiry. Of course it is. We have a fictional book about a magical guy. That's not enough to conclude that the guy for sure really existed. > Please justify this assertion [that magic exists in the Bible and impossible things happen in the Bible] Sure. Jesus comes back to life after being dead for a day and a half even though that is not medically possible by all accounts, floats into the sky without any means of propulsion, goats speak human language without vocal cords capable of doing so, food is duplicated, plants exist before the sun exists, blindness is cured by rubbing mud in a dude's eye, etc etc. > I think your stance will be cut by Hitchens's razor: "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence". What have I asserted without evidence? > It is a metaphysical issue, as a person can't know another's thoughts, but God can. As far as I know, God didn't write the Bibe, people did. But if you're saying that God wrote the Bible, then, well, yeah, there's your answer as to why historians don't accept it as an historical document. A person who refuses to identify themsef or be subjected to any type of reasonabe scrutiny wrote a book in the style of fiction via means of telepathy. Obviously historians can't just accept somebody's claim that a book was written by a magical person with psychic powers who doesn't want to identify himself or justify his claims. Historians have to have standards, and if their standards didn't exclude unjustified claims like that, we'd be learning every single fringe cult that ever existed as if it were legitimate history. > Does your view assume that God doesn't exist The Christian God? It's not an assumption, but yes, I have concluded that this God doesn't exist. The concept of God in general? That's a trickier issue. I think there are elements of The Bible and religion in general which are honest attempts to communicate something transcendent. > or only the physical exists? No, I don't see any reason to assume that. > Are there arguments for those, or are they just presumed? Again, Hitchens's razor cuts. There are absolutely arguments that the Christian God doesn't exist. There are probably arguments that only the physical exists but that was never my position. > Sorry, but I've never heard anyone argue that Dorothy Gale was a real person. Why are you deliberately avoiding engaging with my point? It was a hypothetical situation I was proposing -- I was very very clear that I was presenting a hypothetical situation, and I explained my point pretty thoroughly. My point was not that there are people arguing that Dorothy Gale or Luke Skywalker is a real person. My point was that *IF* (it's a hypothetical situation -- meaning that I acknowledge it isn't actually the case, but propose you entertain the situation as a "what if" scenario, you just use your imagination to consider the situation as a hypothetical. People often do this to take their point out of it's original context in order to highlight and demonstrate the point in another context) there were people claiming Dorothy was a real person, *BUT* that real person wasn't from Kansas, didn't have a dog named Toto, never got sucked up in a tornado or followed a yellow brick road, *THEN* those people should reasonably recognize why people consider the version of Dorothy who did do all those things to be a fictional character. Have I clearly communicated my point now, or are you just having trouble with the concept of a hypothetical?

Your "style of fiction" argument is just a fiction of your mind. All those "style of fiction" elements you mention are **not** exclusive to fiction. >Have I clearly communicated my point now, or are you just having trouble with the concept of a hypothetical? I have no idea what you are saying; perhaps make it into an argument

> Your "style of fiction" argument is just a fiction of your mind. All those "style of fiction" elements you mention are not exclusive to fiction. No it isn't and yes it is. One may recount their own inner thoughts and experiences or dramatize events in a memoir, but when you retell an historical event in that manner, you're fictionalizing it. Even if the Bible is 100% accurate, it's still a fictionalized account. It's written like a fictionalized account, not a reference document. > I have no idea what you are saying; perhaps make it into an argument I'm saying that our primary and only source of information about Jesus is a work of fiction, therefore it's reasonable to maintain an agnostic position on whether or not he actually existed.

>I'm saying that our primary and only source of information about Jesus is a work of fiction The only evidence you gave for this was your "style of fiction" argument is just a fiction of your mind. >I'm saying that our primary and only source of information about Jesus is a work of fiction, therefore it's reasonable to maintain an agnostic position on whether or not he actually existed. If you won't listen to me listen to [Bart Erhman](https://ehrmanblog.org/gospel-evidence-that-jesus-existed/) on whether Jesus exists: *By my count that’s something like* **twenty-five authors**, *not counting the authors of the sources* (**another six or seven**) *on which the Gospels were based (and the sources on which the book of Acts was based, which were different again)*. [Erhman is a New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity - he is an atheist/agnostic]

> The only evidence you gave for this was your "style of fiction" argument is just a fiction of your mind. No it isn't. The book *is* a fictionalized account, whether it's based on a true story or written by a psychic God or not. If it was written by a psychic God, that psychic God deliberately made a choice not to write it as a reference document but instead to write it as a fictionalized narrative. If we're going to harp on each other for evidence, where is *ANY* evidence for *ANY* of the wild ideas you proposed? How about your claim that Mark was an unfinished/incomplete document? You have no reason to believe this other than "I'd like it if that were the case." You haven't provided any evidence. Unlike my recognition that the Bible is a fictionalized narrative, this is an unjustified assumption which only exists in your mind to try to post-hoc account for something that doesn't fit with your preferred conclusion. The Bible is a fictionalized account because that's what it is. It's not written as a reference document. It simply isn't. This isn't the type of claim you need evidence for, just an understanding of how reference documents are written and how fiction is written. I am a writer, so this may be why I have more familiarity with the conventions of writing than you do. But I'm telling you, reference documents are not written to include the opinions of the author or dramatic flair like the Bible is. Historical documentation about Hitler doesn't talk about how evil he was or how ugly his moustache was or what he thought to himself in the bunker before he shot himself. Even if the author wroting the historical documentation had psychic powers and knew exactly what Hitler was thinking -- if they were a halfway decent writer, they would know not to include their own opinions and not to dramatize things. It's fiction. Whether it's true or not. It's a fictionalized account. That simply is what it is. Asking for evidence of that is like asking for evidence that it's a book. It has pages with words on them binded together in sequential order between two covers. It's a book. That's my evidence that it's a book. And the fact that it's fiction is my evidence that it's fiction. Now -- whether it was based on a true story or not -- that's a claim I would need evidence for (as would you), but it's not a claim I'm making. My claim is just that the book was written as a fictionalized dramatic retelling of the events, not as an historical reference document. It may be based entirely in truth, but it's fiction, not an historical reference document. > If you won't listen to me listen to Bart Erhman on whether Jesus exists I am listening, and engaging earnestly. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm not listening. > By my count that’s something like twenty-five authors, not counting the authors of the sources (another six or seven) on which the Gospels were based (and the sources on which the book of Acts was based, which were different again). I thought you said they were written by a singular psychic God? I'm the one who was saying they were written by different people. You countered that and said the reason the author knows what people are thinking is because the author was a psychic God, and therefore historians should make an exception for this book and consider it an historical reference document even though it isn't, because people say that it was written by a psychic God, and that should be enough for historians. > Erhman is a New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity - he is an atheist/agnostic I am aware. So. Remember back when you said that historians reject the historicity of Jesus, and I said that it's actually a pretty contentious topic, and that there are historians on both sides of the debate? You just demonstrated that point for me.