Changes

A philosophical naturalist who does not utterly reject the reports or testimony of the eyewitnesses to the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as a reality in time and space <ref>See Luke 1:1-2; 2 Peter 1:16-18; 1 John 1:1.</ref> as a real man who lived during the first century in the Roman province of Judea, but who accepts the [[resurrection]] of [[Jesus Christ]] as a non-scientific and non-historical but (possibly) actual event, is one who denies that his resurrection from death had a supernatural cause and proposes instead an entirely natural cause which has been "misinterpreted" as being supernatural.  

A philosophical naturalist who does not utterly reject the reports or testimony of the eyewitnesses to the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as a reality in time and space <ref>See Luke 1:1-2; 2 Peter 1:16-18; 1 John 1:1.</ref> as a real man who lived during the first century in the Roman province of Judea, but who accepts the [[resurrection]] of [[Jesus Christ]] as a non-scientific and non-historical but (possibly) actual event, is one who denies that his resurrection from death had a supernatural cause and proposes instead an entirely natural cause which has been "misinterpreted" as being supernatural.  

By "non-historical", these writers mean "''not attested by independent secular historians outside of the Christian community'' (Church)". Some historians in the 19th and 20th centuries regarded Jesus as a "non-historical person" for whom there is no reliable historical record of his existence from A.D. mid-first-century in Rome or Jerusalem, but only historical evidence of the existence of the sect of the "''Christiani''" (Christians) who were perceived as making unsubstantiated and incredible claims about an obscure and unknown Jesus of Nazareth who was executed as a criminal. One possible exception is the passage in [[Josephus]]' ''Antiquities'' 18.3.3 (63), and possibly one in [[Tacitus]] in one page of his final work, ''Annals'', book 15, chapter 44 (written ''ca.'' AD 116), referring to Christ, his execution by [[Pontius Pilate]], and the existence of early Christians in Rome.  

By "non-historical", these writers mean "''not attested by independent secular historians outside of the Christian community'' (Church)". Some historians in the 19th and 20th centuries regarded Jesus as a "non-historical person" for whom there is no reliable historical record of his existence from A.D. mid-first-century in Rome or Jerusalem. One possible exception is the passage in [[Josephus]]' ''Antiquities'' 18.3.3 (63), and possibly one in [[Tacitus]] in one page of his final work, ''Annals'', book 15, chapter 44 (written ''ca.'' AD 116), referring to Christ, his execution by [[Pontius Pilate]], and the existence of early Christians in Rome. But these are not regarded by them as reliable historical evidence, but only as historical evidence of the existence of the sect of the "''Christiani''" (Christians) who were perceived as making unsubstantiated and incredible claims about an obscure and unknown Jesus of Nazareth who was executed as a criminal.  

While these are cited as historical statements made by authors roughly contemporaneous to the beginning years of Christianity, most current 21st century secular historians dismiss them as citations of unreliable reports and rumors about Jesus having no independently confirming evidence they can accept as historical fact. The writings of the [[New Testament]] and the [[Apostolic Fathers]] are not accepted by them as documents of reliable historicity ("''[http://www.bethinking.org/is-the-bible-reliable/the-historicity-of-the-new-testament Is the Bible reliable? The historicity of the New Testament]''").<ref>The following books support aspects of the "''Christ myth''" theory:

While these are cited as historical statements made by authors roughly contemporaneous to the beginning years of Christianity, most current 21st century secular historians dismiss them as citations of unreliable reports and rumors about Jesus having no independently confirming evidence they can accept as historical fact. The writings of the [[New Testament]] and the [[Apostolic Fathers]] are not accepted by them as documents of reliable historicity ("''[http://www.bethinking.org/is-the-bible-reliable/the-historicity-of-the-new-testament Is the Bible reliable? The historicity of the New Testament]''").<ref>The following books support aspects of the "''Christ myth''" theory: