Taylor posting anonymously asks< why would 2 non-believer historians say the following?

The people you've quoted are misinformed, or not informed at all, about the actual evidence.

"no Jew or Gentile from the first-century ever denied the existence of Jesus."

That's an odd thing to say when there's no evidence of anyone in the first century outside Christianity being aware of him. And those NT writers (Paul, and whoever really wrote Revelation and Hebrews) don't seem to think Jesus visited Earth outside dreams. People in the second century DID question Jesus' existence -- Celsus and Trypho are at least two. Sadly, their works outside what Justin Martyr was arguing against (for Jesus' existence) were destroyed. Isn't it strange how that happens? Who knows what else got destroyed. 2 Peter mentions a group of "heretics" who believed the Gospels were myths. Irenaeus, late second century, mentions more "heretics" who think the same. There is evidence people questioned Jesus and the Gospels being historical pre-orthodoxy, even people who considered themselves Christians.

I admit I never questioned it for decades after becoming an atheist. Firstly because it doesn't matter to atheism (Jesus can be a real person and Christianity is still false), but mainly I couldn't believe people wouldn't have pointed out all the false assumptions and total lack of documentation and forgeries. Let this be a lesson -- don't assume. The entire field is a house of cards. Learned people _outside_ the field don't realize, they assume a certain level of rigorousness, competence and intellectual honestly exists in Biblical Studies, like in their own academic fields. [I think it has a reached a Tipping Point of awareness to outsiders now.]

I'm a historian and an atheist. In fact, my colleagues and I don't doubt that someone called something like "Yeshua ben Yosef" did exist and that he was the leader of a small, apocalyptic Jewish sect with a possible anti-Roman agenda. There is no contemporary documentation for his existence, but the indirect evidence is reasonably strong.

I don't know why you'd find that surprising.

What most of us do NOT believe is that this Yeshua (Jesus is the Latinized version of the Greek version of the name) was any sort of divine being. We certainly don't think he was the son of a god. We think he was just a man.

The point is not if a Man existed , but a MAN/GOD existed with Special powers . and the ASSERTIONS of Powers are not CONFIRMED .

so in comparison a Man similar to say BUDDHA or mahatma Gandhi , may have existed , promoting a gentler approach or a Non Violent approach ,

. Mosaic law promoted STONING people to death for finite crimes . the FACT is that a "Jesus " was VOTED DIVINE and the son of a god , By MEN in 325 AD at the Council of Nicaea , some 292 Years after the supposed event .based on writings of men who wrote their IDEAS 40 , 60 110 years after the supposed date

so there is question who the writers are ? were they present or first hand witnesses . take the Birth of a Jesus we know the writers were NOT present for that event , so its second hand stories and we know the people who VOTED a Jesus DIVINE were not witnesses 292 years after the date of events

Prior to the establishment of Orthodox Christianity by order of the Emperor Constantine about 300 years after the alleged death of Jesus, there were a substantial number of small religions which were at that time merged into the single New Testament Christianity from which all of the modern sects of Christianity descend.

At that time, great masses of "heretical" documents were burned to come to a coherent single story.

Its not that there was no historical Jesus.

Rather, there was an overabundance of Jesuses.

The Hebrew names that translate to Jesus were among the most popular names in the period, in just 4 pages of his autobiography, Josephus Flavius mentions five guys named Jesus who were all leaders of anti-Roman rebel groups.

The character of Jesus in what became Christianity after Constantine combined a number of distinct real and supernatural originators of distinct and sometimes contradictory groups.

There was the Samaritan Jesus who was captured by the Romans at an evening outdoor feast and Crucified,

there was the basically mainstream charismatic Jewish Jesus who led a synagogue in the Northern Israel village of Capernaum that was taken over by his brother Jacob (who came to be known as James),

there was the completely anti-Jewish cult leader Jesus who said that the entirety of Judaism came from the Devil,

there was the Jesus who prophesied against Jerusalem during the Roman siege and was killed by a Roman catapult missile,

there was the Jesus who was a completely disembodied spirit of love and healing

...

etc.

First, neither of those were non-believers. Second, the first statement is an outright lie. Third, why would someone deny the existence of someone they never heard of?

Are you going to claim that the fact that no one has denied the existence a mile high hamster named Charlie, proves that there is one.

I think Jesus probably did exist, but it is amazing how much historians will take for granted, just because other historians accept it.

I don't doubt Jesus lived. There were hundreds, if not thousands, of people in the Levant claiming to be messiah.

Here's a short list of the best-known.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_cl...

Well, gee ... I guess someone finally figured out how to use a Ouija Board correctly, and has summoned

and interviewed all of those idiots who thought they remembered someone named `jesus` 2,000 years ago.

Why are we not surprised that even non-christians will sometimes say just about a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g ...

Taylor. Grow up, you fukwit. jesus never existed.

http://www.inquisitr.com/1504964/jesus-never-exist...

Stfu loser, what kind of name is taylor you fag