avi

Correct.

And, I might add, this notion is also true for every single person, real or fictional, since time began....

Either there was a real human being, who could walk on water, cure blindness with spit, and raise the dead, including himself,

OR Else

there was no such human being.

There are only two choices. Not more. It is really very simple.

How do you know, blastula, that one cannot convert lead into gold?

Maybe the evidence is "inconclusive". Maybe we don't possess the best evidence to address this problem?

My point, which may be still back at the zygote level, is that there are TWO possibilities, and ONLY two possibilities:

JC was a genuine, real living person, breathing air on the planet earth,

OR

JC was NOT a genuine, real living person, breathing air on the planet earth.

It is a very simple question. Here it is: Do we have evidence persuasive of repudiating the laws of hydrostatics, to enable someone to walk on water?

Do we possess evidence supporting the notion that one can cure blindness by spitting on a blind person's eyes?

NO? Oh, well, then, blastula, if not, sorry, but that ends the discussion, doesn't it?

There are TWO choices, not n choices. Either we possess evidence that one can convert lead into gold, or we do not.

If we do not, then, those who argue that we lack sufficient evidence one way or the other, are missing the point.

We KNOW, absolutely, not relatively, ABSOLUTELY, that the laws of biology, which, judging by your handle, you would seem to be in possession of, do not encompass the concept of a human curing blindness by spitting on the eyes of a blind person.

Therefore, any text arguing for a human curing blindness by spitting, is false doctrine.

The sieve is closed to such falsehood, the contrary thus passes through, and the contrary is then admitted into evidence, i.e. that Jesus is a fictional character, because real people lack divine omnipotence.

There is no need, rationale, or benefit to be derived from arguing a "third path". There is no third choice. Either one can cure blindness by spitting, or one cannot cure blindness by spitting.

avi

Juststeve

Avi:

Nice strawman. No one around here has argued that there was a historical Jesus who could walk on water. What is being asserted is that there was an historical Jesus who people later claimed could walk on water. Sort of like an historical George Washington who people later claimed never told a lie.

Its not that hard a concept.

Steve

Toto

You are right that you are not claiming the existence of a supernatural Jesus Christ.

But avi's point (I think) is that the "evidence" for your historical Jesus basically comes down to the gospel descriptions of a supernatural Jesus Christ. You have to take the extra step of inferring the existence of this historical Jesus from the legendary materials. The dispute is over whether this inference can be made.

There are historical figures who have legends built up around them, including legends of supernatural characteristics. But there are also legends that have no historical core, such as William Tell. The issue is whether the historical Jesus is more like George Washington or William Tell.

Juststeve

Toto:

At last we agree at least in part. The issue is whether a real person is the more likely catalyst for the growth of the Jesus legends or is something else more likely. Mythers seem to have lots of candidates for the something else converging only in the confidence that it wasn't a real person if that's what you think.

Given our limited agreement we should also agree that arguments based on the highly improbable characteristics ascribed to Jesus are strawman arguments and should be eschewed. That would eliminate by no means all but lots of the arguments put forth on this forum, including Avi's.

The question properly framed is what is the best explanation for the growth of a cult worshiping Jesus beginning in the middle of the first century of the common era, together with all of its literature and other literature. Is it a historical figure Jesus who the Romans crucified, or is it something else? My main frustration with Mythers is their refusal to pick one something else and instead go for anything else. Seems like the defense of a preconceived notion to me.

Steve

Toto

To be fair, avi and aa argue that the only evidence is for a supernatural Jesus Christ, not a mere human. No one has yet persuaded aa to tackle the question of a historical core.

Precisely - the question of Christian origins.

What would that preconceived notion be?

There is no "myther" orthodoxy, so I don't know what you expect. A proper skeptic can look at the evidence, and decide that it weighs against a historical Jesus, but that there is insufficient evidence for any other alternative.

Various people who consider themselves mythicists do stick up for one alternative or another.

bacht

And the best explanation is an un-Jewish Jew who was executed for sedition?

Why should there be a rational explanation for anything that any cult believes? If these people were expecting the end of the world why should we give them any credibility? Both Romans and Jews saw Christians as wackos or worse.

Juststeve

Bacht chimes in for the myther camp by saying that he has no explanation for the growth of a cult worshiping Jesus in the middle of the first century C.E, why should he those Christiqans are wackos. except he is sure it wasn't an historical Jesus. Not a very comprehensive argument. Just a statement of Bacht's faith that there was no historical Jesus.

Steve

bacht

Right, and Steve is a sincere seeker of truth with no underhanded debating tricks up his sleeve. Is this how you work in front of a jury?

work it buddy, ad hominem never gets old does it?

ApostateAbe

Juststeve, please be civil.

bacht, there are actually very well known patterns concerning what cults believe. I invite you to review my thread, The Failed Prophecies of the Historical Jesus. The stuff that this cult believes is the entirety of the evidence concerning the origin of Christianity. The theory, that best explains the evidence reflecting what the cult believes, also best explains the origin of Christianity.

Juststeve

Bacht:

1. Yes, its worked very well in front of juries for a lot of years. Thanks for asking.

2. There is nothing ad hominem about suggesting that the Christians are wacko therefore Jesus didn't exist isn't much of an argument. It would be a lousy argument no matter who made it. Therefore not ad hominem.

Steve