So, this guy talks about the criteria for “historians” and “scientists.” Ok, by their criteria, they conclude that Jesus is not “ well attested to?” Well, surprise surprise.

I note that Bart wrote a book about the historicity of Jesus.

So, I would suppose that AS would agree with Bart in that. Jesus was indeed an historical figure. Pretty well attested to as well.

Can’t replicate His miracles by the scientific method? Wouldn’t be miracles if you could and would not testify to the God nature of Christ either. Not surprising to me at all.

I will also note that I agree with Bart in my interpretation (paraphrase) of his conclusion..... that if you believe in Jesus as a worker of miracles and perhaps as the Son of God, it is for theological reasons not the historical record of the miracles. Yep, I agree with that.

Takes more than miracles to see Jesus who He is.

This guy is an entertainer and book seller.

The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”