Elijah

There is no credible evidence for either of our positions. It was 2000 years ago. Your method of “you have no evidence so I win” is insane when you have no evidence of your own, much less a coherent theory.
But you can’t present any credible information that says the story originated from a myth and not a man. Not one piece of credible evidence.
Are you a real person or somebody’s chat bot experiment? You can’t be that unable to understand the point I’m trying to make. Do you really think I’m saying Jesus was born of a virgin or that your demands of what we know are ridicules when we know nothing for certain?
Yea, actually you do, to even get close to saying you know for certain and even then there would have to be discussion because the evidence is based on personal experience. When you say you know there were no miracles in the past you are basing that on that you know of no miracles now. You don’t know there aren’t any miracles even today you just are unaware of any so assume that it consistent throughout time. It’s correct thinking to assume that IMO but you don’t know for sure, you are just basing probability on your experience.
It would appear that you want to believe it’s pure fiction no matter how little evidence you have to support it or how little you understand the story.
No way you could know if you were.
Take your time with it. Think about what you can expect to know today about some guy from 2000 years ago before you go trying to figure out what you really know about today.
You assumed there was no way I could provide evidence because for you I would need an actual artifact that provides some undeniable proof that I can’t even imagine. And it’s a good assumption because it’s unlikely that I do have Jesus’ missing gospel and corpse stashed in the basement but you didn’t know for certain. You made an easy prediction based on probability.

Like I don’t know if the messiah story is based on a myth or an actual messiah claimant, I’m just going with what I consider most likely considering the little evidence we do have and my experience.

aa5874

To claim Jesus is fiction, I need fiction or information about Jesus that is not credible.

I have tons of fiction as evidence to support my position. I have tons of information that is not credible and implausible.

I have what I need. Justin Martyr wrote that Jesus was born without sexual union. This is not credible.

You have nothing as you have admitted. You have no support.

The game is over. It would be insane to continue with this when you have admitted you have nothing.

Elijah

And credible information that says the source is fiction or you’re just going to be repeating the same few lines over and over.
But not a drop of evidence that shows the origin of the story being based around fiction. Do you understand the difference? Do you understand why you have failed to support your position at all?
So??? Being wrong about someone doesn’t make them non existent. This doesn't help your case at all. Just the same tired irrelevant comments.
Yea just reason on my side, which I’ll take over the wishful thinking on yours.
The game never started in my mind. You haven’t ever even presented a coherent theory much less provide any evidence to support it. All you are capable of is asking for evidence that there is no reason to expect to be around and then declaring yourself the winner. You demonstrate no understanding of the most basic religious concepts involved and yet are positive that you know what is correct... because you recognize fiction… even though you are unable to understand the basic story in question much less provide any evidence. Blind faith is what you have going on.

aa5874

The game is over.

You have already admitted you have no evidence for your position and that you don't know any thing for certain.

Elijah

The game never started. You don’t have a complete competing theory to even start the game. Right now the evidence that the historical theory is the correct one, is that the mystical side can’t even come up with a complete theory to put forward, much much much less provide evidence for it. The historical side wins out of default, since you can’t get your game together and have to resort to just going “prove it” to the other side as a diversionary tactic so no one notices the swiss cheese theory you pray is right. The mystical Jesus believers are no different than the magical Jesus believers; you just believe what you want to despite the lack of evidence or possibility that they are right.

Ben C Smith

:rolling:

Can you two at least agree that the game, for whatever reason, is not being played right now?

Ben.

Elijah

He needs as much practice with metaphors as he can get.

bacht

Well, the historical Jesus crowd have more of a challenge don't they? They have to prove that not only did someone like Jesus exist, but try to fit him into the New Testament stories about him. This means that Jesus was

- a Palestinian Jew
- publicly active ca 30 CE
- a teacher and/or prophet and/or excorcist and/or miracle worker
- a leader of a following who claimed he was some sort of Messiah
- remembered after his death and celebrated (by non-Jews a century later) as one of the greatest Jews who ever lived
- ignored as an historical figure by the earliest Christian writers (epistles)

All of this is based on the surviving writings of his followers, people who believed that Jesus a) became Son of God after his resurrection or b) became Son of God after his death or c) became Son of God after absorbing the spririt of God or d) was born Son of God (take your pick)

There is no unbiased confirmation of any of these points, including the existence of Christian believers (before Pliny)

The mythicist can fall back on the known tendency of religious believers to exagerrate or invent attributes of their idols and to focus on the supernatural/mystical/irrational. The mythicist can point to the lack of external attribution for either Jesus or his followers and ask "Why?" The mythicist is free to scan the contemporary scene to seek parallels or alternate explanations for all this.

dog-on

Simple version of "mystical Jesus".

An individual has an idea, a "revelation", about a heavenly savior and proceeds to preach it.

Some time later, another individual decides to give this heavenly savior an earthly biography.

The rest, as they say is, well, you know...

Elijah

He doesn’t have to be any of that, just a guy with a messiah complex and a death wish. The historical core doesn’t have to match up to anything in the narrative. Teachings or miracles. All of that could have been added after the self sacrifice meme was making believers... even the messiah complex actually.
I think it would be a long conversation about what that title means to the specific authors that used it. I don’t think it’s meant to be understood as simply as anthropomorphic genie god’s biological offspring.
Argument from silence again? Hasn’t that already been put to rest?

The mythicist needs to fall back on myths getting confused for history. Religious leaders’ tendency to exaggerate attributes to their idols or leaders is probably supporting the historical side.

If the mythicist really thinks that there should be this extra evidence they should reconsider the historical core they are searching for and the lack of evidence we have from that time and area. There is no reason to ask why at all, it’s obvious.

What is the parallel that you have found in the contemporary scene?