Yes, I do think that a man Jesus existed in the first century. But no one really knows whether he was the son of God or just a good speaker or a good person who later people makes into the son of God.
Sure Professor, and by "no one" you really mean everyone that agrees with you. However, I do not agree with you. Folks are able to interpret historical facts, what did and did not happen, and draw their own conclusions. That Professor - is history, yesterday and today. Virtually all ancient near eastern writings had a theological purpose - that should not be news to you.
Do you have to be saved to properly teach Christianity?
It certainly would lend to the quality of what is being taught. From a theological determinist's viewpoint, God is the primary mover, or the church, or a particular faith. As a believer I recognize that all of history is God's story, the good and the bad. If you, as an unbeliever, are teaching Christian history you will obviously miss the relationships that divinely marry the Old Testament and New Testament texts into the universal pronouncement of a sovereign God’s incarnation into our human world –Jesus Christ. The two hundred plus year process of canonization may have been a church task involving men with varying degrees of theological perspectives, but its results- the canon of scripture, was anything but worldly.
As F. F. Bruce writes,“Those who are interested in the Bible chiefly as historians of religious literature have naturally little use for the concept of a canon” - i.e you Professor, not a believer. The canon of scripture is a historical fact. "Individuals or communities may consider that it is too restricted or too comprehensive; but their opinion does not affect the identity of the canon. The canon is not going to be diminished or increased because of what they think or say: it is a literary, historical and theological datum”
If folks claim to be followers of Christ but dismiss the very text Jesus Himself referred to, what have they gained? Nothing. “What was indispensable to the Redeemer must always be indispensable to the redeemed”(G.A. Smith, Modern Criticism and the Preaching of the Old Testament (London, 1901), p.11). Some of your "gay christian" commenter's would do well to chew on that a bit.
Lastly, all historians have an agenda Professor. Your agenda is anti-Christ, that is a fact of reality just as Jesus lived, died, and was resurrected. The evidence is there, do with it what any good church historian would do - give it a synthesis, use it as a pragmatic instrument, use it has a guide, and use it as stimulation to inspire and encourage others. Of course you won't do this, your worldview does not include God. That's why a unbelieving church historian like yourself will miss the reality, the unmistakable prophecies laid before you in ancient texts, the blood of men, and the revelation of God's word equating to truth. Indeed, all you have is an opinion.
Lastly, being "saved" would necessitate you being a priest to yourself, and Jesus being the High Priest. If you're not positive you're saved, positive the Bible is God's word, positive you're a sinner going to Hell without Christ's atonement on the cross, positive there is nothing you can do to save yourself, positive of Christ's Resurrection and positive He will return again to judge the wicked, chances are - you're not saved at all. But don't take my word, study those writings you got a Doctorate in. Or in your case, just make a guess.