These research questions regarding the resurrection never take a step back to a more fundamental issue; did Jesus actually exist? I'm sure most would reply absolutely yes, but only because we've been conditioned to think it, and asking the question may sow seeds of doubt.

I don't know if there was a real Jesus, but there's a lot of perfectly valid academic opinion that supports the mythical position. Without doubt, the evidence either way is actually weak. By asking this question it inevitably leads to a dawning realisation that talk of the resurrection of a person whose existence can't be verified is absurd.

… there's a lot of perfectly valid academic opinion that supports the mythical position.

I'm curious; does that literature explain why Jesus was imagined to be of the character that the Gospels allege? I've done a little studying of this matter, aided by Otto Borchert's The Original Jesus, and it seems that Jesus is a rather odd character for anyone to invent. Are there rational explanations for his being a fictional invention, which are somehow falsifiable? (That is, they need to be distinguishable from just-so stories. I realize this works differently in historical work than scientific.)

Actually they are not 'radical' and nor are they fringe. I'm not sufficiently well informed to be able to form an opinion, and nor I'd suspect are you, but the fact is that Jesus as myth is an academically sound position. Even if it's wrong, it's based on such a dearth of evidence that it renders detailed stories of Jesus essentially inconceivable.

Even if it's wrong, it's based on such a dearth of evidence that it renders detailed stories of Jesus essentially inconceivable.

I'm curious; why do the limits of your ability to conceive, or mine, or those in the academy, in any way influence what is likely to be true? It seems to me that the existence of a God who might perform teleologically understandable but mechanistically unique actions is presupposed away by this reasoning. (For more, see Leibniz's theistic case against Humean miracles.)

I take your point, but the issue is one of what can be evidenced. Of course, if there's a god, and he can perform supernatural magic tricks, then it may well involve things that I can't 'conceive'. The problem is that these 'miracles' don't ever withstand detailed scrutiny.

… the issue is one of what can be evidenced.

That's not the only issue—or rather, that issue has more facets than you may be admitting. We are the instruments with which we explore reality; any defects, miscalibrations, or limitation in what we can sense will restrict "what can be evidenced". So often though, I find people not willing to admit that they could be limited in all of these ways. They demand "more evidence", as if that's the only thing that should possibly be required.

Of course, if there's a god, and he can perform supernatural magic tricks, then it may well involve things that I can't 'conceive'.

Sure, but that's not the only possibility. There are plenty of things which you can just barely conceive, and would have to work hard to well-conceive. And there are plenty of things that once you well-conceive those things, start to be barely conceivable.

The problem is that these 'miracles' don't ever withstand detailed scrutiny.

Ahh, but detailed scrutiny by what instruments according to what metaphysics? If you assume that the only kind of causation is that impersonal laws which act the same everywhere at all times, then the very essence of one-off miracles makes them impossible by assumption. Perhaps you have run across the following from Karl Popper:

Every experimental physicist knows those surprising and inexplicable apparent 'effects' which in his laboratory can perhaps even be reproduced for some time, but which finally disappear without trace. Of course, no physicist would say that in such a case that he had made a scientific discovery (though he might try to rearrange his experiments so as to make the effect reproducible). Indeed the scientifically significant physical effect may be defined as that which can be regularly reproduced by anyone who carries out the appropriate experiment in the way prescribed. No serious physicist would offer for publication, as a scientific discovery, any such 'occult effect', as I propose to call it – one for whose reproduction he could give no instructions. The 'discovery' would be only too soon rejected as chimerical, simply because attempts to test it would lead to negative results. (It follows that any controversy over the question whether events which are in principle unrepeatable and unique ever do occur cannot be decided by science: it would be a metaphysical controversy.) (The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 23-24)

Your points boil down to saying 'there are odd things happen, for which we have no immediate explanation, and can't be investigated'. Incidentally, I'm aware of Karl Popper but I don't know the quotation you cite, nor do I know its context.

I'm sure many scientists have had puzzling results during experiments. That doesn't in any way suggest a supernatural event, simply one that isn't immediately explicable, and I don't see this as adding to your case. The trouble is that there are many things, and events, that we can't presently explain, but are so 'one off' in nature that they are hard to investigate. There are very few that don't have possible explanations, meaning there is no need to add in the supernatural, and those few that don't seem to present alternative explanations aren't accompanied by supernatural evidence. What I mean is that they are observations, peculiar phenomena, but that doesn't mean you can impute the supernatural as a cause, because nobody has ever detected that there is such a thing as the supernatural.

I'm never convinced when I read arguments that try to minimise the importance of evidence. Such arguments, when taken to their logical conclusion inevitably trip themselves up. If I say I had a couple of beers yesterday you'll not bother to query it. If I said I had a couple of beers yesterday with Barack Obama you'd probably want a few more details, and perhaps you'd be sceptical. If I said I had a couple of beers yesterday with Elvis you'd want video evidence, impeccable witnesses, and probably blood tests. Then you'd still be doubtful. Any miracle, such that the normal forces of nature are interrupted in some way, needs evidence of an impeccable nature. None has ever been forthcoming.

Your points boil down to saying 'there are odd things happen, for which we have no immediate explanation, and can't be investigated'.

That depends on your definition of 'investigated'. A murder cannot be investigated by repeated experiment. A murder is a one-off event; that person can never be murdered again. Murders also aren't expected to be finally explainable by impersonal laws of nature. To counter these scientific weaknesses, the criminal justice system can speak in terms of intent and other teleological properties of human behavior. This permits a whole new kind of pattern-recognition, which can render mechanistically unique events intelligible.

I'm sure many scientists have had puzzling results during experiments. That doesn't in any way suggest a supernatural event, simply one that isn't immediately explicable, and I don't see this as adding to your case.

'Supernatural' is a fun word. How would you like to define it? For example, would quantum tunneling to be super-natural to 18th century scientists? Feel free to consult Jeffery Jay Lowder's The Nature of Naturalism.

What I mean is that they are observations, peculiar phenomena, but that doesn't mean you can impute the supernatural as a cause, because nobody has ever detected that there is such a thing as the supernatural.

When you say, "I chose the black suit", are you talking as if at least one causal chain originated in the entity indicated by "I"? If the answer is "no" and you believe that you can distinguish between what is true and what is false, I'm going to claim that you yourself believe in the super-natural, based on an argument of mine which concludes, "(5) Therefore, truth and falsity of belief is unknowable."

I'm never convinced when I read arguments that try to minimise the importance of evidence.

I don't mean to that. I mean to increase the importance of the theory with which you interpret the evidence. This will end up reducing the importance of evidence among those who are unaware of e.g. Theory and Observation in Science, but 'reducing' ⇏ 'minimizing', except to the ideologue.

Any miracle, such that the normal forces of nature are interrupted in some way, needs evidence of an impeccable nature.

Nope. The reason is that many people over-estimate the epistemological warrant of a mere miracle. The Bible is smarter than that, as one can see by glancing at Mt 24:23–25 and Rev 13:11–15. Christians do not worship pure power. They violate the fact/​value distinction.

"That depends on your definition of 'investigated'. A murder cannot be investigated by repeated experiment. A murder is a one-off event; that person can never be murdered again. Murders also aren't expected to be finally explainable by impersonal laws of nature. To counter these scientific weaknesses, the criminal justice system can speak in terms of intent and other teleological properties of human behav ior. This permits a whole new kind of pattern-recognition, which can render mechanistically unique events intelligible."

A murder is, indeed, a one off event, but that doesn't affect the way in which it's investigated. Every solved murder involves collection and assessment of evidence, and no murder has ever been solved in any other way. The term 'pattern recognition' is actually just an evolutionary behaviour we have developed, that assists in evidence gathering, but can also trip us up much of the time; just ask a gambler.

"Supernatural' is a fun word. How would you like to define it? For example, would quantum tunneling to be super-natural to 18th century scientists? Feel free to consult Jeffery Jay Lowder's The Nature of Naturalism."

Supernatural is something that exists, by definition, outside that we define as natural. A supernatural event is one that interferes with the natural order of the universe. Arthur C Ckarke observed that to primitive people science would be indistinguishable from magic, but that doesn't make science either magic or supernatural. So now matter how strange quantum physics might appear to 18th century scientists it wouldn't be supernatural. I've read Jeffery Lowder's article and it appears to me to endorse this point.

"When you say, "I chose the black suit", are you talking as if at least one causal chain originated in the entity indicated by "I"? If the answer is "no" and you believe that you can distinguish between what is true and what is false, I'm going to claim that you yourself believe in the super-natural, based on an argument of mine which concludes, "(5) Therefore, truth and falsity of belief is unknowable.""

Oh wow, you're getting well into determinism here, and why I think it must be true. Again, I've read your linked comment and I agree; if determinism is wrong then it might be hard to argue how you distinguish true and false, or what you believe. Where I think you're wrong is that I don't think it's possible to ever identify a causal beginning. No matter how far you go there is always something else, right back to the beginning of the universe.

"I don't mean to that. I mean to increase the importance of the theory with which you interpret the evid ence. This will end up reducing the importance of evidence among those who are unaware of e.g. Theory and Observation in Science, but 'reducing' ⇏ 'minimizing', except to the ideologue."

I suspect that you are conflating theory and observation, to which I would say that theory (in the sense of hypothesis) post-dates the observation, but that evidence is based on trying to show that the hypothesis is false. So I would argue that evidence should be as independent of the theory as possible, not more so.

"Nope. The reason is that many people over-estimate the epistemological warrant of a mere miracle. The Bible is smarter than that, as one can see by glancing at Mt 24:23–25 and Rev 13:11–15. Christians do not worship pure power. They violate the fact/​value distinction."

The bible can be moderately intelligible in parts, but I don't think the word 'smart' can ever be attributed to it (I know that's perhaps a little contentious here). The bible is riddled with claimed miracles, most performed for little obvious purpose, and every one implies an entity that is either separate from, or a person empowered by, the normal universe. If that's not power worship then I don't know what is.

A murder is, indeed, a one off event, but that doesn't affect the way in which it's investigated.

When scientists get strange results, they try to replicate them. They try to find the circumstances under which the strange thing happens every time. This cannot be done with murders. Well, perhaps it could, but it would be exceedingly unethical.

Supernatural is something that exists, by definition, outside that we define as natural.

That who defines as 'natural'? Perhaps it would help for you to read Randal Rauser's Not even wrong: The many problems with Naturalism.

A supernatural event is one that interferes with the natural order of the universe.

Your use of "natural order of the universe" seems to presuppose a theory of everything, which we do not have. It also presupposes that the universe is a closed system, which seems to be a faith-based claim. (We have only ever observed open systems; we extrapolate to closed systems.)

Where I think you're wrong is that I don't think it's possible to ever identify a causal beginning.

An interesting stance. So have you ever chosen something, such that you aren't just a conduit for causal chains which originated well before you ever existed?

I suspect that you are conflating theory and observation, to which I would say that theory (in the sense of hypothesis) post-dates the observation …

But does it post-date? If we are the instruments with which we explore reality, and theory characterizes aspects of those instruments, then does it only post-date observations?

The bible is riddled with claimed miracles, most performed for little obvious purpose, and every one implies an entity that is either separate from, or a person empowered by, the normal universe. If that's not power worship then I don't know what is.

Curious; so the story of Gideon & the fleece is power worship?

I note that you've substantially changed your comment. My reply is based on what you wrote previously.

I'll start by saying I have no horse in the myth debate. I've been brought up to assume the reality of Jesus, albeit an uneducated and insignificant (in his time) itinerant preacher, and only recently realised that the evidence for historicity is weak. I don't really care either way.

Your opening, and indeed whole comment essence, is as to the character of Jesus. Why is Jesus portrayed in the way he is if he's only an imagined person? I think the answer to this lies in a combination of factors. There's the view that Jesus may have been based on an amalgam of people, so that may have influenced it. Then there's a major issue, in that both the character and stories attaching had to be contrived so as to appear to match up with prophecy. Lastly, there's the way in which both his character and 'history' had to be 'tweaked' so as to suit the prevailing requirements of the time, and the message that religious leaders wanted to convey.

As for your falsifiability point, I'm not sure that falsification is the most important method in assessing the evidence, though I note that you do express there are limitations to the technique in regard to history. I suppose the problem is that much of the reason for supporting a mythical Jesus is that the evidence in favour of historicity is so weak. The lack of eyewitness testimony, the lack of contemporaneous documentation, the lack of historical record, doubts over the authenticity of Josephus in regard to Jesus, enormous inconsistencies in the various narratives, even within themselves, and considerable doubt as to the writings of Paul.

I know that this isn't a particularly historically or theologically informed opinion, but I think it probably sums up the position as most see it.

I note that you've substantially changed your comment. My reply is based on what you wrote previously.

Ok, I think you mean this comment:

LB: I'm curious; does that literature explain why Jesus was imagined to be of the character that the Gospels allege? I've done a little studying of this matter, aided by Otto Borchert's The Original Jesus, and it seems that Jesus is a rather odd character for anyone to invent. Are there rational explanations for his being a fictional invention, which are somehow falsifiable? (That is, they need to be distinguishable from just-so stories. I realize this works differently in historical work than scientific.)

I shall assume that for my reply.

I'll start by saying I have no horse in the myth debate. I've been brought up to assume the reality of Jesus, albeit an uneducated and insignificant (in his time) itinerant preacher, and only recently realised that the evidence for historicity is weak. I don't really care either way.

It's interesting that you don't care either way; this seems to imply that you do not think that the relevant causal chains Christians claim flow from Jesus death/​resurrection could possibly flow from it. Or at least, the probability is so low as to be negligible and lead to a "don't care". One could summarize this with the assertion, "There is no normative causation." So sin, repentance, forgiveness, and all that don't really exist, but are mere approximations to a foundationally impersonal reality. Would you agree to that?

Why is Jesus portrayed in the way he is if he's only an imagined person? I think the answer to this lies in a combination of factors.

I'm sure there are a plethora of explanations, but the question is what kind of rigorous testing and analysis they've been exposed to. Surely you know that conspiracy theories can be quite elaborate. So how do we protect against such things? Note also that if normative causation is denied, that might undermine so much in the Bible that it cannot possibly stand without normative causation. And yet, the existence of normative causation could be one way to increase one's confidence that Jesus was as described, did die, and was resurrected. Indeed, the lack of more empirical evidence could force us to explore normative causation.

The lack of eyewitness testimony …

Ahh, do you completely reject Richard Bauckham's argument in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony?

… enormous inconsistencies in the various narratives …

What do you believe is the most damning such inconsistency? I read Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus and he didn't raise anything I considered particularly damning. But perhaps I missed something, or he noted something that I mis-evaluated?

I know that this isn't a particularly historically or theologically informed opinion, but I think it probably sums up the position as most see it.

If you scope "most" appropriately (e.g. [noisy] atheists or certain segments of biblical scholars), that matches what I've observed.

I note that you've substantially changed your comment. My reply is based on what you wrote previously.

I'm sorry; what are you talking about? I left two comments in reply to yours; here's the other one. They both start with "I'm curious;" which may have been confusing.

Sorry, my bad. Got confused. Probably age!

no it is not,
The Jesus myth imposition is considered idiocy by most historians, My committee chair called them idiots. no hesitation. He just said why waste your time with idiots?"

Jesus mythers are telling you it's accepted, they are not historians,

Here is Habermas quotimngWells saying Most historians don';t accept Jesus myth theory

http://www.garyhabermas.com...

No it isn't considered idiocy at all, don't be ridiculous. Traditionally historians have been brainwashed and bullied into accepting the historicity of Jesus, but now we are realising just how weak the evidence is. Calling people names for holding a particular viewpoint that withstands reason is a badge of the uneducated.

That's all he has. Bluster and insults. You're not going to get a serious discussion from him.

I know, I fall into the trap every time.

At least he hasn't mentioned his book yet, the one where he proves god via anecdotal delusions.

If you want a good laugh, go over his blog. It's a riot!

I see what you mean!

I am slightly puzzled. His blog, whilst pretty delusional, is largely grammatical and isn't riddled with the silly errors that litter his comments. I still say that I can see nothing to convince me that he has genuine academic qualifications, and that feeling is only made stronger by his continuous ad hominem attacks.

I do think he has a certain amount of dyslexia. But it gets worse when he becomes angry, and much worse the more "Jesus juice" he's had (he gets much less coherent as the comments drag on, and is much better earlier in the course of the day).

I note without passing any judgment that he lists himself as a PhD "candidate"...and also declare there should be a time limit on such "candidacies" before "failed" should be the appropriate adjective.

your the one one who wont answer the evidence

1. You're
2. won't
3. What "evidence"? I have stated plainly over and over again that I would accept the corporeal existence of Jesus if contemporaneous eyewitness corroboration of the secular events outlined in the gospels was presented. Josephus doesn't count -- he was born after the events in question, and the problems with the rest of that are well known. Paul doesn't count -- he never saw the corporeal Jesus. Where is the credible eyewitness testimony from a non-canonical third party that there was an incident one Passover where a preacher rode into town to great acclaim as the new King and then was executed?

I linked to a whole page full of arguments already you are too cowardly and silly to read then. you are afraid to confront any real evidence.

here it is again Einstein

http://religiousapriorijesu...

you going to pretend not to wee it again?

Yeah, this is what happens when people don't care if what they are saying is true. It is embarrassingly amateurish

why did the historians on my committee tell me it was? did you your Ph,D work in history?

You are counting morons like Doherty as historians,

he deoesn't answer when the evidence comesout

no it's the mythers who are not real historians who say that,Carrier is about the only real historian and he is not taken seriously outside of atheist circles.I just quoted Wells saying most historians don't take it seriously,

Now I did my Ph,D work in History, I asked the historians with whom I dealt what they thought and all of them the atheists included said it's ridiculous, My committee chair said don't waste your time with idiots."

Myther invented their own tailor made criteria designed to reflect basely on Jesus, but historians don't use it. If we used their method with other figures we would hardly know anything about first century,

I did my Ph,D work in History, I asked the historians with whom I dealt what they thought and all of them the atheists included said it's ridiculous, My committee chair said don't waste your time with idiots."

How long ago? If say, the best mythicist case has only crystallized in the last 10 years then its fairly irrelevant if they weren't responding to that case.

Look I don't want to seem cynical but your comment is a bit of a conundrum. It lacks academic depth and, quite frankly, is not something I would expect from someone claiming to have a Ph.D.

If you want to enter genuine debate then please offer a comment with evidence. As it stands I have nothing other than an appeal from authority; some person, of whom I have no knowledge, says that mythicists are idiots! Maybe the person saying this is the idiot? I have no way of knowing. In any event, it's not actually evidence of anything.

It lacks academic depth and, quite frankly, is not something I would expect from someone claiming to have a Ph.D.

bullshit those guys are better historians than you will ever be and some are big names, you don't even know where I went. where did you do your doctoral work in history?

If you want to enter genuine debate then please offer a comment with evidence. As it stands I have nothing other than an appeal from authority; some person, of whom I have no knowledge, says that mythicists are idiots! Maybe the person saying this is the idiot? I have no way of knowing. In any event, it's not actually evidence of anything.

well that;s about as stuid as shit,

(2) THERE IS NO JESUS MYTH EVIDENCE. NOT ONE SINGLE PIECE OF HARD EVIDENCE IT'S CONJECTURE AND ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE (sorry about caps)

(2) you presented no evidence

(3) the issue was the opinion of historians since I am a trained historian my expedience of other historians is evidence of the way historians think. Since you don;t where I studied you have no right to assert they are bad historians

Okay, I'll have one last attempt in trying to engage you in a meaningful way, then I'll dismiss you as a troll, and certainly not one with an earned Ph.D.

You refer to 'those guys are better historians', but I have no idea who 'those guys' are. Given their penchant for dismissing people as idiots I'll suggest that they are bloody awful historians.

You refer to hard evidence for the Jesus myth, when I challenged you to explain the evidence for Jesus' existence. The burden of proof is yours. Incidentally don't apologise for using caps (though it's pretty crude) but you might want to apologise for your awful spelling and grammar.

I'm really not convinced that you have any training whatever in history. I am not alone in doubting you have any academic credentials.

By all means provide evidence showing why I am wrong.

I think Ph.D. in warp mechanics from Starfleet Command is just as valid as this troll's Ph.D. in history. BTW, once I get to Walmart and buy some new ink and paper I will be having a special on Ph.D. just send me $14.95 for my free booklet (:

Okay, I'll have one last attempt in trying to engage you in a meaningful way, then I'll dismiss you as a troll, and certainly not one with an earned Ph.D.

You actually think you've been trying to? how?\

You refer to 'those guys are better historians', but I have no idea who 'those guys' are. Given their penchant for dismissing people as idiots I'll suggest that they are bloody awful historians.

exactly,examine your own behavior for once!!! you implied first that they are stupid and and loudly historians without even knowing who they are.

You refer to hard evidence for the Jesus myth, when I challenged you to explain the evidence for Jesus' existence. The burden of proof is yours. Incidentally don't apologise for using caps (though it's pretty crude) but you might want to apologise for your awful spelling and grammar.

the burden of proof is not mine! you don't any thing about argument, you are seeking to make the change, Jesus as a man in history is status quo, you seek to change comely accepted sophistical fact,,that gives you the burden of proof.

I'm really not convinced that you have any training whatever in history. I am not alone in doubting you have any academic credentials.

you are clearly an idiot,you are not scholar you don;t know anything I don't care what you think

you can play this little self congratulatory game all you want Jesus'; mythers are great at hiding from the truth

go ask Loftus, He knows I was a phd candidate in UT system

atheists are so funny,you need so desperately to believe that you are smarter than every single christian, you need so desperately to get back at religion,

http://www.garyhabermas.com...

Habermas:
"Seldom have recent scholars questioned or denied the historical existence of Jesus. Of the very few who have done so, G. A. Wells is probably the best known. In this article, I will outline and then respond to some of his major tenets."

"Before turning to this topic, I will first note that the vast majority of scholars, both conservative and liberal alike, generally disdain radical theses that question the very existence of Jesus. For example, theologian Rudolf Bultmann asserted, "By no means are we at the mercy of those who doubt or deny that Jesus ever lived." [i]

Historian Michael Grant termed the hypothesis that Jesus never lived an "extreme view." He charges that it transgresses the basics of historiography: "if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned." Grant summarizes, after referring to Wells as an example: "modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory." These positions have been "annihilated" by the best scholars because the critics "have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." [ii]

Digressing to a personal story, a potential publisher once asked me to contact a reviewer. An influential New Testament scholar at a secular university, he had voted to publish my manuscript, but only if I deleted the section dealing with Well's hypotheses. He said that Well's suppositions were virtually devoid of serious historical content. He only relented after I convinced him that Wells still had some popular appeal.

Wells is aware of these attitudes towards his works. He acknowledges that "nearly all commentators who mention the matter at all, [set] aside doubts about Jesus' historicity as ridiculous." [iii] He adds, "the view that there was no historical Jesus, that his earthly existence is a fiction of earliest Christianity . . . is today almost universally rejected." [iv] He concludes the matter: "serious students of the New Testament today regard the existence of Jesus as an unassailable fact" (HEJ 223). Even Michael Martin, one of Wells' few scholarly supporters, draws the rather restrained conclusion that "Wells' thesis is controversial and not widely accepted . . . ." [v]

again they do not answer evidence.

Yes, and that was probably the only argument he had either against their position or for the historicist one

Mythicism -- the proposition that the Jesus of Nazareth depicted in the gospels does not represent any actual person -- is well-established and has been argued since the late 1700's. Its proponents have primarily consisted of academics, mostly theologians or philologists and even a few clergy. The arguments of mythicist thought are firmly grounded in exegetical principles, are carefully argued with scholarly precision and nuance, and offer compelling solutions to otherwise intractable problems with the NT.

Despite the internet-based notoriety of an handful of unlettered, amateur hacks, mythicist research today continues to be conducted by bona fide scholars relying on a vast wealth of material ranging from apocrypha and patristic writings to the Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea Scrolls, not to mention archeological finds.

You are trying to spin it, The Jesus mythers of the 18th and 219th cetury were not acquiesces they were considered crack pots,people Bauer they were not accepted.
Despite the internet-based notoriety of an handful of unlettered, amateur hacks, mythicist research today continues to be conducted by bona fide scholars relying on a vast wealth of material ranging from apocrypha and patristic writings to the Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea Scrolls, not to mention archeological finds.

BULLShIT!Q Bullfuckijgshit!!!I jjust quoted Wells saying there are almost none, read the quotes blow

why don't you name some of these guys?

they shut their faces when you confront them with evidence

Yet, how many of the "mainstream" also hold the belief that somebody actually came back to life after being dead for three days?

Irrelevant the mythers try to weld those two things together like you can't have a historical man named Jesus without him doing miracles and rising from the dead.

But you can.

It is relevant.

Apparently, anyone who doesn't agree with the majority of historians is a crank, but anyone who disagrees with the majority of doctors can't have their judgement called into question.

when have I supported people disagreeing with doctors?

I didn't say mythers are all cranks if i did was carried away, Carrier has real credentials,I knew him when he was only a grad student. I would;t call him a Crank, But he's not a major figure beyond the ranks of atheism. It was you guys who were trying to present the image of an academic bursting with major scholars who agree with mythicism that' is crap,

when have I supported people disagreeing with doctors?

The majority of doctors will tell you it's impossible for somebody to come back to life after being declared dead for three days. Yet people seem to disagree with them and aren't called cranks.

that is trucking studio! we are not talking about the normal run of nature we are stalking about transcending natural law. what Doctors! Doctors are now experts on what God can do?

WE never see any son of God be resurrected. 9 sons of God out of 10

it's a matter of logic.there is no reaom to think he didn;t, His existence s considers fact by historians,

No, most Historians have made no effort to look at the matter. It is considered a fact by theologians and biblical scholars

it's a matter of logic.there is no reaom to think he didn;t, His existence s considers fact by historians,

It's a matter of logic evidence. There is no reason to think he didn't. His existence is considered fact by some, but not all historians, mainly those who were born and raised Christian. There are no corroborating eyewitness reports of him being anything other than a myth, like Hercules, another half-god of the era.

Fixed it for you. You're welcome.