Starlord??

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 10:02:49 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 05:29:19 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Again, although I expect the concept is forever beyond you, the claim
that Jesus is mythical is not one disputed by any historians, because
that simply follows from the definition of "mythical". The
controversial assertion is that he's substantially fictional as well.
That is, that the Jesus of the bible is substantially unrelated to any
historical person. I don't personally assert that to be true, I only
say I believe it likely given the complete lack of contemporary
evidence of his existence, when in fact such evidence should exist
given the biblical claims about him.

Word salad.

Once processed by the big salad spinner between your ears, I have no
doubt that's true.

Your words are ambiguous at best, nonsense at worst.

The argument was clear and unambiguous.

It was rather vague, actually:

"controversial assertion"
"substantially fictional"
"Jesus of the bible"
"substantially unrelated"
"believe it likely"

On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 07:33:37 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 10:02:49 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 05:29:19 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Again, although I expect the concept is forever beyond you, the claim
that Jesus is mythical is not one disputed by any historians, because
that simply follows from the definition of "mythical". The
controversial assertion is that he's substantially fictional as well.
That is, that the Jesus of the bible is substantially unrelated to any
historical person. I don't personally assert that to be true, I only
say I believe it likely given the complete lack of contemporary
evidence of his existence, when in fact such evidence should exist
given the biblical claims about him.

Word salad.

Once processed by the big salad spinner between your ears, I have no
doubt that's true.

Your words are ambiguous at best, nonsense at worst.

The argument was clear and unambiguous.

It was rather vague, actually:

"controversial assertion"

That means an assertion that lacks wide acceptance, one which many
people who have examined the matter would agree with, and many would
not.

"substantially fictional"

That means that very little of the mythical character (the one found
in the NT) can be connected to any historical individual who said
things or did things that the NT assigns to the character.

"Jesus of the bible"

That would be the mythical character described in the NT.

"substantially unrelated"

That means that the words and events can't be tied to a real person by
any historical data.

"believe it likely"

That is a reference to the degree of my personal belief based on my
reading of the evidence.

I doubt any intelligent, reasonably well educated person actually
interested in a discussion would find any of these statements unclear
or ambiguous.

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 10:48:04 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 07:33:37 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:


"Jesus of the bible"

That would be the mythical character described in the NT.

You have not proved your claim that Jesus did not exist.

On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 08:52:34 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 10:48:04 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 07:33:37 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:


"Jesus of the bible"

That would be the mythical character described in the NT.

You have not proved your claim that Jesus did not exist.

And you have not proved he did. Which isn't the point. The question
involves evidence, and you have not bothered to say what evidence it
is that causes you to consider his historicity as likely. You'd rather
argue over what words mean than add any substantive ideas of your own.

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 12:09:59 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 08:52:34 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 10:48:04 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 07:33:37 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:


"Jesus of the bible"

That would be the mythical character described in the NT.

You have not proved your claim that Jesus did not exist.

And you have not proved he did.

I don't need to, since it isn't implausible that he did exist.

On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 09:16:37 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 12:09:59 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 08:52:34 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 10:48:04 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 07:33:37 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:


"Jesus of the bible"

That would be the mythical character described in the NT.

You have not proved your claim that Jesus did not exist.

And you have not proved he did.

I don't need to, since it isn't implausible that he did exist.

Neither is it implausible that he did not. It just comes down to how
we weigh the evidence. And you haven't made any effort to do that.

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 12:30:48 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 09:16:37 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 12:09:59 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 08:52:34 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 10:48:04 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 07:33:37 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:


"Jesus of the bible"

That would be the mythical character described in the NT.

You have not proved your claim that Jesus did not exist.

And you have not proved he did.

I don't need to, since it isn't implausible that he did exist.

Neither is it implausible that he did not.

It is implausible that he did not.

It just comes down to how
we weigh the evidence. And you haven't made any effort to do that.

You have provided no evidence. If you have none, then remain silent on the subject.

On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 09:43:21 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Neither is it implausible that he did not.

It is implausible that he did not.

An opinion, unsupported by any effort at argument.

It just comes down to how
we weigh the evidence. And you haven't made any effort to do that.

You have provided no evidence. If you have none, then remain silent on the subject.

What evidence would you suggest to demonstrate the non-existence of
something? I have argued that there is a lack of evidence, and that
such evidence should exist. If you disagree, you only need offer some
examples of evidence that we can then discuss. If you cannot do so,
you make my point that there is no evidence, and that my assertion of
non-historicity is reasonable.

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 1:18:54 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 09:43:21 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Neither is it implausible that he did not.

It is implausible that he did not.

An opinion, unsupported by any effort at argument.

Actually, I already supported it, you dumbass:

"There is nothing implausible about a preacher gaining followers, irritating the powers that be, being martyred and thereby inspiring a new religion."

Preaching was a common possibility, requiring little in the way of wealth. Persecution by the powers that be wouldn't be surprising. Martyrdom would be a possible result. A religion could form.

It just comes down to how
we weigh the evidence. And you haven't made any effort to do that.

You have provided no evidence. If you have none, then remain silent on the subject.

What evidence would you suggest to demonstrate the non-existence of
something?

That's YOUR problem!

On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:05:58 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 1:18:54 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 09:43:21 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Neither is it implausible that he did not.

It is implausible that he did not.

An opinion, unsupported by any effort at argument.

Actually, I already supported it, you dumbass:

"There is nothing implausible about a preacher gaining followers, irritating the powers that be, being martyred and thereby inspiring a new religion."

That is not supporting your position. I completely agree. And in the
absence of expected evidence, I still consider the historicity of
Jesus unlikely.

Where's the evidence? Many people in Palestine who were far less
visible than the Jesus of the NT are documented by contemporaneous
records. Similar criminal cases are documented in surviving Roman
records. But there's absolutely nothing. Not a single word.