1 You have failed to explain what the quote does for the article besides trying to say Well theyre just theists so why listen to them As I said before the reasoning for keeping the quote would also allow us to find and add quotes along the lines of it must be considered that only atheists and those with a grudge against Christianity support this theory  and I doubt that you would so wholeheartedly support such a quote hmm2 Then where is this majority of scholars that are not historiansRichard Burridge Graham Gould Van Voorst Graham Stanton RT France are heads of theology departments I can not find whether they were taught in a divinity school thoughMichael Grant is an atheist and a fullfledged historianJames Frazer studied myth and religion in generalAn excerpt from online detailing some of those who oppose the hypothesisMeier MeieMarJ 23 notes that what we know about Alexander the Great could fit on only a few sheets of paper yet no one doubts that Alexander existed Charlesworth has written that Jesus did exist and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 CE CharsJesJud 1689 Sanders SandHistF xiv echoes Grant saying that We know a lot about Jesus vastly more than about John the Baptist Theudas Judas the Galilean or any of the other figures whose names we have from approximately the same date and place On the Crucifixion Harvey writes It would be no exaggeration to say that this event is better attested and supported by a more impressive array of evidence than any other event of comparable importance of which we have knowledge from the ancient world HarvJesC 11 Dunn DunnEvJ 29 provides an anecdote similar to the one above regarding Shakespeare Referring to Wells thesis he writes     The alternative thesis is that within thirty years there had evolved such a coherent and consistent complex of traditions about a nonexistent figure such as we have in the sources of the Gospels is just too implausible It involves too many complex and speculative hypotheses in contrast to the much simpler explanation that there was a Jesus who said and did more or less what the first three Gospels attribute to him The fact of Christianitys beginnings and the character of its earliest tradition is such that we could only deny the existence of Jesus by hypothesizing the existence of some other figure who was a sufficient cause of Chrstianitys beginnings  another figure who on careful reflection would probably come out very like JesusFinally lets seal the coffin on consenus with these words from a hardened skeptic and an Emeritus Professor of History Morton Smith HoffJesH 478  Of Wells work this historian and skeptic of orthodox Christianity wroteI dont think the arguments in Wells book deserve detailed refutationhe argues mainly from silencemany of his arguments are incorrect far too many to discuss in this space Wells presents us with a piece of private mythology that I find incredible beyond anything in the GospelsNone of these scholars we emphasize are friends of fundamentalism or evangelical Christianity Contrary to the protestations of the Jesusmyth consortium they make their statements based on evidence not ideology Conspiracy and bias exist only in their own imaginationAgain the fact is is that the complaint isnt relevant The mainstream historian position which would hardly be mostly Christian supports the claim that Jesus was a historical person All that quote does is try to attack the speakers instead of the evidence and it would be blatantly dishonest to try to include it Provide all the arguments for the claim that you want  but this isnt one of them Koromon survived intact 

    ####Prompt- Does the next message are offensives ? reply with a JSON object (without carriage return or new lines)
    with keys :
    isoffensive (True if it's offensive).
    This this the message : 
1 You have failed to explain what the quote does for the article besides trying to say Well theyre just theists so why listen to them As I said before the reasoning for keeping the quote would also allow us to find and add quotes along the lines of it must be considered that only atheists and those with a grudge against Christianity support this theory  and I doubt that you would so wholeheartedly support such a quote hmm2 Then where is this majority of scholars that are not historiansRichard Burridge Graham Gould Van Voorst Graham Stanton RT France are heads of theology departments I can not find whether they were taught in a divinity school thoughMichael Grant is an atheist and a fullfledged historianJames Frazer studied myth and religion in generalAn excerpt from online detailing some of those who oppose the hypothesisMeier MeieMarJ 23 notes that what we know about Alexander the Great could fit on only a few sheets of paper yet no one doubts that Alexander existed Charlesworth has written that Jesus did exist and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 CE CharsJesJud 1689 Sanders SandHistF xiv echoes Grant saying that We know a lot about Jesus vastly more than about John the Baptist Theudas Judas the Galilean or any of the other figures whose names we have from approximately the same date and place On the Crucifixion Harvey writes It would be no exaggeration to say that this event is better attested and supported by a more impressive array of evidence than any other event of comparable importance of which we have knowledge from the ancient world HarvJesC 11 Dunn DunnEvJ 29 provides an anecdote similar to the one above regarding Shakespeare Referring to Wells thesis he writes     The alternative thesis is that within thirty years there had evolved such a coherent and consistent complex of traditions about a nonexistent figure such as we have in the sources of the Gospels is just too implausible It involves too many complex and speculative hypotheses in contrast to the much simpler explanation that there was a Jesus who said and did more or less what the first three Gospels attribute to him The fact of Christianitys beginnings and the character of its earliest tradition is such that we could only deny the existence of Jesus by hypothesizing the existence of some other figure who was a sufficient cause of Chrstianitys beginnings  another figure who on careful reflection would probably come out very like JesusFinally lets seal the coffin on consenus with these words from a hardened skeptic and an Emeritus Professor of History Morton Smith HoffJesH 478  Of Wells work this historian and skeptic of orthodox Christianity wroteI dont think the arguments in Wells book deserve detailed refutationhe argues mainly from silencemany of his arguments are incorrect far too many to discuss in this space Wells presents us with a piece of private mythology that I find incredible beyond anything in the GospelsNone of these scholars we emphasize are friends of fundamentalism or evangelical Christianity Contrary to the protestations of the Jesusmyth consortium they make their statements based on evidence not ideology Conspiracy and bias exist only in their own imaginationAgain the fact is is that the complaint isnt relevant The mainstream historian position which would hardly be mostly Christian supports the claim that Jesus was a historical person All that quote does is try to attack the speakers instead of the evidence and it would be blatantly dishonest to try to include it Provide all the arguments for the claim that you want  but this isnt one of them Koromon survived intact 

