any other answer is retarded

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4920102&forum_id=2#43104369)

Why Christianity? Why don't you want to learn if the other religions are true? Is it because you were born to Christian parents? Or did you choose Christianity on your own because it made the most sense?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4920102&forum_id=2#43106440)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4920102&forum_id=2#43104809)

Ehrman falsely claims in his book that there are no hyper-specialized historians of ancient Christianity who doubt the historicity of Jesus. So I named one: Arthur Droge, a sitting professor of early Christianity (previously at UCSD; now at the University of Toronto).

And of those who do not meet Ehrman’s irrationally specific criteria but who are certainly qualified, we can now add Thomas Brodie, a retired professor of biblical studies (as I noted elsewhere). Combined with myself, Richard Carrier—the first to publish a peer reviewed defense of the idea that Jesus didn’t really exist in On the Historicity of Jesus (Sheffield-Phoenix 2014)—and Robert Price, both of us fully qualified independent scholars; and Thomas Thompson, a retired professor of some renown. That is a handful of well-qualified scholars, all with doctorates in a relevant field, who are on record doubting the historicity of Jesus.

Most recently, Hector Avalos, a sitting professor of religion at Iowa State University, has also declared his agnosticism about historicity as well. Likewise Raphael Lataster joins the ranks of historicity-doubting experts, with a Ph.D. in religious studies from the University of Sydney. He’s since published the second ever peer reviewed book defending doubts about historicity, Questioning the Historicity of Jesus (Brill 2019). We can likewise Philip Davies (Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at Sheffield University), who publicly asserted doubt was a respectable academic position (per the category I enumerate below), but privately admitted that in fact he actually doubted the historicity of Jesus (posthumously confirmed by correspondence with Raphael Lataster); and David Madison, with a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies, who confirmed the same in Q&A at the GCRR eConference on the Historical Jesus.

That makes now nine fully qualified experts on the record, two of them sitting professors, three retired professors, and four independent scholars with full credentials. And there are no doubt many others who simply haven’t gone on the record (just like Davies, who feared admitting his doubt publicly).

We also have sympathizers among mainstream experts who nevertheless endorse historicity but acknowledge we have a respectable point, like Zeba Crook (Professor of Religious Studies at Carleton University), Kurt Noll, a sitting professor of religion at Brandon University (as I already noted in my review of Is This Not the Carpenter), Emanuel Pfoh, a sitting professor of history at the National University of La Plata (Ibid., p. 92), Justin Meggitt (Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge, who concludes that questioning historicity “does not belong to the past and nor is it irrational” and it “should not be dismissed with problematic appeals to expertise and authority and nor should it be viewed as unwelcome”), and Darren Slade, head of the Global Center for Religious Research, with a Ph.D. in theology and church history (confirmed to me personally and at the GCRR eConference on the Historical Jesus). Even Francesca Stavrakopoulou (Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Religion at the University of Exeter) says the historicity of Jesus is only “possible” and not certain. Which means she either agrees mythicism is plausible or is even an outright historicity agnostic. Likewise Dennis MacDonald, a sitting professor of New Testament and Christian Origins, agrees the historicity of Jesus is respectably debatable, and that there’s at least an 8% chance we’re right; and Richard C. Miller, with a Ph.D. in religion and a prominent peer reviewed monograph in the field, Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity by Routledge, whose preface supporting the forthcoming anthology by John Loftus, The Varieties of Jesus Mythicism: Did He Even Exist? declares there are only two plausible positions in the field now regarding Jesus: that he is entirely a myth, or nothing survives about him but myth. Further afield, historian Tom Dykstra, with a Ph.D. in Renaissance Christianity who has nevertheless published peer reviewed works in New Testament studies, similarly grants the plausibility of the mythicist position.

Which makes eighteen relevantly qualified experts now who concur mythicism is at least plausible.

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/1794#22

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4920102&forum_id=2#43116036)

The proto-indoeuropean invasion of Europe

The Bronze Age collapse

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4920102&forum_id=2#43104958)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4920102&forum_id=2#43108020)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4920102&forum_id=2#43108046)