English law seems to require that all writers 'prove' Jesus would agree with them.* But in fact, as one such writer admitted, we do not know what Jesus taught. We do not even know for sure that a man by that name taught at the time in question. It seems possible, looking at the earliest Christian documents we have, that Paul meant something else entirely. But this theory may require other unproven assumptions (like the existence in Paul's time of a belief that the Teacher of the Essenes died on the cross.) In which case, Newton's Rule I may not come into play. Here, again, nothing seems certain about the alleged life and teachings of Jesus. The various theories agree on not one point, except perhaps the existence of "Paul". (If that is his real name.) We literally have more historical information about the Bavarian Illuminati. Yet so many people, whether they call themselves religious or atheist (or other, in some cases), seem certain of their pet hypotheses. I suspect it would help if each of us would use the word 'maybe' a little more often.
*This law applies even when the writer explicitly denies the existence of Jesus, as Aleister Crowley does.