Not in the slightest, random strange person.

I have no fucking idea who you are. I do care, however, about accurate history.

Or, just perhaps, you don’t like the fact he’s telling you that you’ve had some ideas about the Galileo Affair that are wrong.

“AI”? No. Michal is a historian of science who knows what he’s talking about. You should pay some attention to what he’s telling you.

Not common, still fringe. And rejected, thus the modern consensus. It was considered and found weak, which is why it’s now the province of tedious wankers and loons.
You also failed to account for that consensus for the fourth time. So, blocked as a troll.

Is Google broken or are you just lazy?

“Determining the Authenticity of the Paulines” (2005),

... theories) or get blocked as boring troll.

Pretty much noone agrees with him. You still haven't explained why. I read one of his books and decided not to waste any time on any others. Does the one you mention magically transform his crappy arguments? I suspect not.
Explain why he is so widely rejected (without recourse to conspriacy ...

But this isn't an argument, it's just wishful thinking.
And I gave you an example of some of the critiques of Detering. You've now failed *multiple* times to explain why, if he's so bombproof, virtually no scholars agree with him.
Fail again and I'll block you for being a tedious twat.

A "fad" that's been established and maintained since the beginning of critical analysis on the topic. And held by pretty much every scholar, regardless of background or belief. Strange sort of "fad". Crackpot fringe contrarians always fall back on "x used to be the consensus but we now accept y".

*The Falsified Paul*. And Verhoef's critiques. You still haven't explained why, if Detering's arguments are so wonderful, they have had zero traction among his peers. Why is it only online wankers with no credentials hold him up as the last word on this? Doesn't that ring any alarm bells for you?

Noting a consensus is not "an appeal to authority". I'm not saying you should accept that a historical Jesus existed *because* of the consensus (an actual argument from authority). I'm asking you to account for the consensus if Mythicism is convincing. You've failed to do so twice now.

Reviewed? No. Read? Yes.
Again, why is he and the other miniscule handful of fringe Mythicists found wholly unconvincing by the people best qualified to assess their work? Explain.

I’ve studied this stuff for over 40 years and am pretty familiar with Detering’s fringe views and why they were rejected by his peers. Noting one of the tiny and pathetic handful of marginal contrarians just proves my point. Nice work. 👍😉

“In doubt” by whom? Virtually no scholars in any relevant field conclude this historical Jesus didn’t exist. What does that tell you?

What?

Please cite the ancient or medieval sources that mention her being “goddess of spring dawn” and telling us about eggs being her symbol.
Also, how exactly am I making money here? Or elsewhere? Explain.

Eggs were given up in Lent so people had lots of them on Easter Sunday. Bunnies are a new addition, derived from Easter hares, along with Easter foxes, storks and geese - all animals that become noticeably active around Easter. Nothing “pagan” in any of this.

Sorry, misrepresenting and sealioning loon. That’s more accurate. 👍🏻 Now fuck off.

Bart Ehrman - Jesus Mythicism YouTube video by History for Atheists

Just uploaded to the History for Atheists channel, my long awaited interview with Prof. Bart Ehrman on Jesus Mythicism.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKP_...

Coming soon to the History for Atheists channel …

Already have. Time to ignore you. Improve your reading comprehension skills, or be silent. Silly boy.

bsky.app/profile/timo...

More like that many things we think are normal would have been incomprehensible to the ancients because they were introduced to our culture by Christianity. Slightly different to your summary. And worth noting. If it’s so “obvious”, why so much objection to it? 🤔

Again, try summarising the argument of the book in one sentence. If you’ve read and understood it, this should be easy to do. Try now.

Try this: summarise the argument of Dominion in one sentence. Let’s see if you can get this right.

So you’re saying you *did* read it, but failed to understand it. Okay. Sounds like a *you* problem.

You could have just written “I didn’t actually read Dominion,but I want to sound all edgy about it.”

Yes, anyone can do that. But if we want to do this as part of useful historical analysis, someone trained in the historical method is going to be able to use a database more effectively than an untrained amateur.

How would anyone do the latter usefully without the former?

I apologise for writing such fascinating stuff.