Sheshbazzar

So do I old boy. So do I.

Anything that has ever been worth saying or defending, or standing up for has always had its price.
It comes with the territory if you're going to speak like a man.

Adam

Still no responses to the content of my posts #102, 103, 104, 106, and 108. Shesh on his Post #109 does repeat his objection to the meaning I get from John 7:50-52. Lots of people read this thread, but that few post makes me prevail by default?

Toto

No, you do not prevail by default. In fact, you lose because people have given up engaging with you.

How do you know when you prevail? You get comments like "good work" or "now I see what you are saying."

Sheshbazzar

I suspect that most are just enjoying occasionally checking out the ongoing spectacle of this sinking ship-wreck.

You're not getting anywhere by just referencing the numbers of your previous posts. If they didn't stir any interest when fully written out, and you cannot provide any further cogent arguments, no one is going to be impressed by your resorting to just listing a meaningless and boring string of numbers.

Are you going to present any further arguments or evidence here or not?

You're going to need to start bailing one hell of a lot harder than what you have been recently if you want to keep this old wreck afloat.



I'll mention here that I read every single thread that is posted in BC&H, but I do not participate in all of them.
That people occasionaly look in on this thread out of curiosity, or merely to keep up with its content is no indication that they find it anything more than mildly amusing, or simply like to remain informed on what is going on in the various threads. That does not constitute any endosement of your pet theories.

Adam

You're saying I should expect "attaboys" on an atheist website? That seems unreasonable to me. Broadsides at me should not count against me when unaccompanied by specifics and/or footnoting or linking to external refutation. I expected to be able to hone my case for eyewitnesses by finding out what is weak or untenable, but no one seems to document any such.

And the broadsides often called for documentation, which is where this thread comes in. Here I give footnotes for the sources in gJohn, the weaker part of my case. That does not prove that I am right about the sources, but leaves uncontested that they are evidence (not proof) of something. Seven underlying sources make unlikely a fictional provenance for all of them, so at least the three or four of them free of supernaturalism refute the case for strong MJ. No one can rationally hold any longer that there is no evidence for a historical Jesus. One can only hold that the evidence is not good enough (or better to state, "the evidence for the historical Jesus is not sufficient to determine what he was like, just that he existed"). The case for MJ is not strong enough to engage me on any thread or post I have made.

Sheshbazzar

Good scholarship and well reasoned and supported arguments earn the praise and respect of honest men no matter whom they are presented by.

I myself Yahwhist Hebrew that I am, am considered to be quite the a bit of a weirdo and a pariah to some on this site, but that has prevented the atheist here from on many occasions giving me many 'well done's' and 'attaboys' both on the Forum, and in private messages.

You arguments have not been persuasive, and your presentations have been dull, unimpressive and boring. You are simply not 'connecting' with your audience Adam.

Although I don't believe that you are correct in your analysis of these texts, I do believe that you could develop a much more persuasive manner of presenting your views, if nothing more than simply 'turning down the pace and volume' and concentrating on only a few verses at a time.
No one cares to have to dig through and look up volumes of verse numbers, links to long past dead threads, and huge walls of texts.
People don't think you are smart when you do that, they are more likely to think that you're just 'trying to pull a fast one' on them.

Its really up to you if you want to continue on with just talking past, and insulting your audience, or get down to work on figuring out how to connect with them and influence their opinions.

Adam

Maybe Jeff Gibson will see this, give me what-for, and then I'll have to refrain from claiming I have won:

From my Post #104, still without a meaningful response

Stringbean

How do you figure? An historical character based on a math equation hardly makes an historical character.

Yeah it is.

Adam

Thank you for rationally displaying that there is no evidence for a historical Jesus.

This thread contains no math equations. You are probably thinking of my response to your Post #140 on
Mythicists - what if we discover people?
which in turn links back to my #170 in

Gospel Eyewitnesses which is probably the thread where you thought you were posting this. Yes, there is math there, but only as an afterthought after demonstrating seven written eyewitness records about Jesus. The statistical probability that Jesus really existed increases as the number of proposed eyewitnesses increases, but it is not a math equation with apodictic certainty.

Stringbean

Simple question. How many of them saw a Jesus?