>>37939638>You mean historians? Ok then yeah, there are historians who believe in the vision to the 500.
I believe that a few historians at some Christian Universities believe in the acts of Jesus Christ as literal fact. Though, I'd be interested in seeing some historical documentation (that isn't the bible) that proves Christ walked on water, fed the many, healed the sick, etc.>Well, that's the thing, not every historian, archaeologists, sociologists, psychologists and geologists are researching the Bible.
And why do you think secular scholars (see: The vast majority of scholars) aren't studying the bible? If it were such a foundational document, and could be verified as being true across the board, ours would be a drastically, drastically different path. There would be no "secular" scholarship, because biblical pursuit would be so foundational. We'd devote all of our time to understanding and researching the bible. But we don't. It's a niche area of interest for a reason.>We're just talking about from those who do study it.
Would you ask a creationist to explain evolutionary theory?>Ok, now you're the conspiracy theorist.
Do go on.>This is literally a unanimously agreed fact among atheist, agnostic and theist Bible scholars and historians.
So basipally, they believe that people believe they saw Jesus do those things? Good to know.>Bible Scholars and historians
Hey, at least you're being honest about your "unanimous" agreement among "scholars"
Now, how would you like to hear about how the Ark and the flood is bullshit?