spamandham

You said you were unaware of any mythicist positions that were self consistent. I gave you the predominant one, and it is self consistent. Whether there is evidence to support it or not is pretty much the subject of this thread.

Statistical correlation does not tell us cause and effect. Whether Luke is based off Josephus, Josephus off Luke, both off a third source, or one or both were redacted later by the same author, who knows?

Chris Weimer

Self-consistent? How is a position with absolutely no evidence self-consistent? What are the details of this position? Outlying a vague statement is no position.

There's a lot of follow up on that. I take it you didn't actually do that, though. It's alright, I can't blame you. The threads are very hectic here recently and information is scattered. If this does interest you, I do recommend you read the posts here.

spamandham

By not being self contradictory. Take a class on formal logic if you still don't get it.

I know this is complicated, but here's the details of the hypothesis - "There was not a historical Jesus. It's all a myth." I don't see how that's the least bit vague or complex.

Drop the condescending attitude lad. You're the one who's made a rediculous claim you can't support and are now attempting to act as though you're too stupid to comprehend it.

If you want to discuss evidence, that's fine, but it has no bearing on whether or not the premise contradicts itself. It clearly doesn't.

Amaleq13

How about we make an effort to tone down the rhetoric and focus on the facts, OK?


Amaleq13, BC&H moderator