A link to this article popped up in my news-feed. Lying?
Although some skeptics have called Jesus a myth, historians acknowledge he was a real person. In fact, nine non-Christian historians and writers mention Jesus within 150 years of his death, the same number who mention the contemporary Roman Emperor, Tiberius Caesar.
In addition to that, over five thousand eight hundred New Testament manuscripts tell us about Jesus’ life and words. That’s far more than for any other person in ancient history.
New Testament scholar, John A. T. Robinson concludes that the New Testament was originally written while eyewitnesses of Jesus would still have been alive.
Regarding the reliability of the accounts about Jesus he states, “The wealth of manuscripts, and above all the narrow interval of time between the writing and the earliest extant copies, make it by far the best attested text of any ancient writing in the world.”
Hmmm.
Nine non-Christian historians and writers
who are not named so you can't check this claim but have to take their word for it.
The only verifiable claim is that "New Testament scholar, John A. T. Robinson concludes that the New Testament was originally written while eyewitnesses of Jesus would still have been alive." So, who is this John A. T. Robinson? Presumably, given the emphasis in the earlier paragraph on "non-Christian historians and writers", he must also be an unbiased source, somebody who has nothing to lose from the possibility that Jesus is entirely fictional, right?
John A. T. Robinson at Wikipedia:
John Arthur Thomas Robinson (16 May 1919 – 5 December 1983) was an English
New Testament scholar, author and the
AnglicanBishop of Woolwich.
Lying? I don't know, but the entire thing has all the hallmarks of being hugely untrustworthy - most of it is written such that it cannot be checked - it is just a collection of placeholders for evidence, rather than being evidence - and the one claim that
can easiliy be checked chooses to omit crucial information that strongly implies massive bias, despite having (in practically the same breath) implied that the writer knows that such bias is undesirable.
A bunch of non-Christian folks we don't name agree that Jesus is real, the New Testament says he's real*, as does a real and unbiased proper genuine historian (who we didn't mention is also a fucking BISHOP).
Yeah, this isn't suspicious at all. I guess we should just take their word for it.
That article proves the radical and controversial idea that
devout Christians don't think Jesus is mythical, and are happy to conceal critical evidence in their efforts to persuade others of this claim. Colour me shocked.
* The New Testament is evidence that Jesus is real in exactly the same way that DC Comics are evidence that Superman is real