Linguists will say that Christ didn't have a /k/, hence "ch", and then religiouss fanatics (what a pleonasm) will join in and give their versions of heavily rev

Linguists will say that Christ didn't have a /k/, hence "ch", and then religiouss fanatics (what a pleonasm) will join in and give their versions of heavily revisionist history, a few serious scholars will admit that nothing worthwhile is known about either as a living being, and the debate will be desolved by the notion that the onus of proof is on the claimant, who will be called wrong, if not lunatic, until proof is advanced. For one, dating of the stories does not really match, I believe.