Mythicist Christ, what is the objection? II

[Free]

As I said, the biblical Jesus is clearly mythical.

Okay.  You've now made a positive claim.

Now prove it.

I'm sure you've been told this a dozen times matey, but as the claimant that a bloke called Jesus actually
existed, with the character and traits claimed, it's YOUR job to prove it.  It's NOT the task of the naysayers
to prove he didn't.     Your capacity for logic is severely lacking.     

And I'm sure you understand quite clearly that my position is not "He existed," but rather that the argument for his existence is a better argument than the Mythicist position, right?

Virtually all historians hold that position. Virtually none make the positive claim that he existed, but only that the evidence indicates that it's more probable that he did exist than he didn't.

But Minimalist made the positive claim of non-existence.

Therefore, he can now show actual evidence that demonstrates non existence.

[Dancefortwo]

There are plenty of posts where people say Jesus Christ existed even though he wasn't the magical Jesus of the Bible ... which makes no sense because that isn't Jesus Christ.

I tried to explain it repeatedly to Free on the last thread.

It's an equivocation if people think that the Jesus Christ didn't exist but the fact some other dude called the same thing who was similar existed means that Jesus Christ did. No, not X under the same name is still not X.

My example was Vlad the Impaler.  We know for certain Vlad the Impaler existed (not so much for Jesus) but we sure as hell know he didn't go around sleeping in coffins and drinking women's blood to keep alive. THAT part is myth and storytelling. Vlad existed, Dracula did not.

So the key point is that Dracula didn't exist because nobody with the abilities or traits of Dracula existed. It's the same with Jesus Christ. Doesn't matter what something or someone is called ... changing the name doesn't change the reality. We could change Jesus Christ's name to Julius Caesar and just because Julius Caesar existed it still wouldn't mean that Jesus Christ did.

You got it.       That's my argument.  Jesus/Vlad may have existed (actually, Vlad did exist)  but it almost doesn't matter because the Christ/Dracula character did not. That's a myth.

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

As I said, the biblical jesus is clearly mythical.

Okay.  You've now made a positive claim.

Now prove it.

I'm sure you've been told this a dozen times matey, but as the claimant that a bloke called Jesus actually
existed, with the character and traits claimed, it's YOUR job to prove it.  It's NOT the task of the naysayers
to prove he didn't.     Your capacity for logic is severely lacking.     

And I'm sure you understand quite clearly that my position is not "He existed," but rather that the argument for his existence is a better argument than the Mythicist position, right?

Virtually all historians hold that position. Virtually none make the positive claim that he existed, but only that the evidence indicates that it's more probable that he did exist than he didn't.

But Minimalist made the positive claim of non-existence.

Therefore, he can now show actual evidence that demonstrates non existence.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth

Definition of myth
1a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon creation myths

b : parable, allegory Moral responsibility is the motif of Plato's myths.

2a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society seduced by the American myth of individualism — Orde Coombs the utopian myth of a perfect society

b : an unfounded or false notion the myth of racial superiority

3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence the Superman myth The unicorn is a myth.

4 : the whole body of myths a student of Greek myth

[Minimalist]

Is that what happened to him? Or, are those things merely old wives' tales written about him?

That's what makes him a myth, you dumb fuck.  Kindly find an actual historical person who did any of those things.  Call me when you do.

Poor baby, can't handle the reality that your godboy was just made up shit, can you?

[Free]

Is that what happened to him? Or, are those things merely old wives' tales written about him?

That's what makes him a myth, you dumb fuck.  Kindly find an actual historical person who did any of those things.  Call me when you do.

I had to read this twice to convince myself that yes indeed, somewhere back in the history of time one of the two protons that collided and gave rise to the mass that eventuality became the substance that created you was most definitely fucked up on mushrooms.

Do you understand that you are agreeing with the position that Jesus did exist, but that the gospel records embellished his life into a myth-like status?

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

actually the gospels were an attempt to historicize a celestial being, as described and attributed to a Paul I guess

[Dānu]

"Whenever we admit one explanation but reject another that agrees equally well with the evidence, it is clear that we fall short in every way of true scientific inquiry and resort instead to myth."

Epicurus


(Thanks to Alan V)

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

"Whenever we admit one explanation but reject another that agrees equally well with the evidence, it is clear that we fall short in every way of true scientific inquiry and resort instead to myth."

Epicurus


(Thanks to Alan V)

since when is an appeal to popularity evidence?

[Minimalist]

Do you understand that you are agreeing with the position that Jesus did exist, but that the gospel records embellished his life into a myth-like status?

No I am not, stupid.  A celestial being who some fuckwad decides to euhemerize is never anything but a mythological character.

As Livy tells it Romulus was born of a vestal virgin who was raped by a god.  Later he was enveloped by a thunderstorm and flew up to heaven but he came back to tell Proculus Julius that Rome would be the leader of the world.  Livy also includes a secondary narrative in which Romulus was murdered by the senate!  

Do you believe that Romulus was a real person?  Or do you reserve your special pleading horseshit only for your godboy?

[Free]

Do you understand that you are agreeing with the position that Jesus did exist, but that the gospel records embellished his life into a myth-like status?

No I am not, stupid.  A celestial being who some fuckwad decides to euhemerize is never anything but a mythological character.

As Livy tells it Romulus was born of a vestal virgin who was raped by a god.  Later he was enveloped by a thunderstorm and flew up to heaven but he came back to tell Proculus Julius that Rome would be the leader of the world.  Livy also includes a secondary narrative in which Romulus was murdered by the senate!  

Do you believe that Romulus was a real person?  Or do you reserve your special pleading horseshit only for your godboy?

Muhammad was real, despite reports of him flying to heaven on a mount, splitting the moon in two, and numerous other embellishments of his life.

And he was a religious icon just like Jesus.

So what now? Muhammad didn't exist?

Dude, this shit's getting deep ...

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

the issue is not whether Jesus was a religious icon.
it is a matter of historicity of Jesus that is in question, albeit for some
if we accept your argument all religious icons are historic, meaning temporal manifestations
including Ramtha

[jerry mcmasters]

As I said, the biblical Jesus is clearly mythical.

Okay.  You've now made a positive claim.

Now prove it.

I'm sure you've been told this a dozen times matey, but as the claimant that a bloke called Jesus actually
existed, with the character and traits claimed, it's YOUR job to prove it.  It's NOT the task of the naysayers
to prove he didn't.     Your capacity for logic is severely lacking.     

It's not his job to "prove it."  This far into the several threads devoted to this, you think either side can "prove it"?  Feel free to prove there was no historical Jesus.

[jerry mcmasters]

the issue is not whether Jesus was a religious icon.
it is a matter of historicity of Jesus that is in question, albeit for some
if we accept your argument all religious icons are historic, meaning temporal manifestations
including Ramtha

Why "all"?  To argue that one religious icon is historic, why must that mean all?

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

Okay.  You've now made a positive claim.

Now prove it.

I'm sure you've been told this a dozen times matey, but as the claimant that a bloke called Jesus actually
existed, with the character and traits claimed, it's YOUR job to prove it.  It's NOT the task of the naysayers
to prove he didn't.     Your capacity for logic is severely lacking.     

It's not his job to "prove it."  This far into the several threads devoted to this, you think either side can "prove it"?  Feel free to prove there was no historical Jesus.

define historical jesus...

[Minimalist]

We have.  He's too fucking dumb to see it.

You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge but you can't make him think.

[jerry mcmasters]

I'm sure you've been told this a dozen times matey, but as the claimant that a bloke called Jesus actually
existed, with the character and traits claimed, it's YOUR job to prove it.  It's NOT the task of the naysayers
to prove he didn't.     Your capacity for logic is severely lacking.     

It's not his job to "prove it."  This far into the several threads devoted to this, you think either side can "prove it"?  Feel free to prove there was no historical Jesus.

define historical jesus...

Start another thread about this exact same thing, and I will.  I'm becoming obscenely curious about how many threads you can start on the same subject and yet not listen to, much less learn, from others.

[jerry mcmasters]

We have.  He's too fucking dumb to see it.

You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge but you can't make him think.

You can lead Minimalist away from S.O.'s cock but he'll always run back and suck it.

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

It's not his job to "prove it."  This far into the several threads devoted to this, you think either side can "prove it"?  Feel free to prove there was no historical Jesus.

define historical jesus...

Start another thread about this exact same thing, and I will.  I'm becoming obscenely curious about how many threads you can start on the same subject and yet not listen to, much less learn, from others.

clever but I am laying the case for mythical christ, I am asking you for clarification about the term historical Jesus.

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

We have.  He's too fucking dumb to see it.

You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge but you can't make him think.

You can lead Minimalist away from S.O.'s cock but he'll always run back and suck it.

Isn't this the same rooster that was confused about "ratchet"... err escalation?

[Free]

We have.  He's too fucking dumb to see it.

You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge but you can't make him think.

So ... did Muhammad exist or not?

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

We have.  He's too fucking dumb to see it.

You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge but you can't make him think.

So ... did Muhammad exist or not?

which has all fuck about Jesus existing?
relevance... the correct word is relevance

[jerry mcmasters]

define historical jesus...

Start another thread about this exact same thing, and I will.  I'm becoming obscenely curious about how many threads you can start on the same subject and yet not listen to, much less learn, from others.

clever but I am laying the case for mythical christ, I am asking you for clarification about the term historical Jesus.

I think another thread is in order.  There have been in your several threads created so far about the same topic, many many clarifications about opinions on the term "historical Jesus."  There is no reason not to suspect you somehow have these posts accidentally on ignore, or maybe your computer is just broken.  Start a new thread.

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

Start another thread about this exact same thing, and I will.  I'm becoming obscenely curious about how many threads you can start on the same subject and yet not listen to, much less learn, from others.

clever but I am laying the case for mythical christ, I am asking you for clarification about the term historical Jesus.

I think another thread is in order.  There have been in your several threads created so far about the same topic, many many clarifications about opinions on the term "historical Jesus."  There is no reason not to suspect you somehow have these posts accidentally on ignore, or maybe your computer is just broken.  Start a new thread.

well if you can't be bothered just sit this one out

[jerry mcmasters]

clever but I am laying the case for mythical christ, I am asking you for clarification about the term historical Jesus.

I think another thread is in order.  There have been in your several threads created so far about the same topic, many many clarifications about opinions on the term "historical Jesus."  There is no reason not to suspect you somehow have these posts accidentally on ignore, or maybe your computer is just broken.  Start a new thread.

well if you can't be bothered just sit this one out

This one?  Kinda like every other one?  Kinda implies you know you just repeat the same shit over and over and over and over, huh?  It's cool, bro, we all have our fetishes.

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

I think another thread is in order.  There have been in your several threads created so far about the same topic, many many clarifications about opinions on the term "historical Jesus."  There is no reason not to suspect you somehow have these posts accidentally on ignore, or maybe your computer is just broken.  Start a new thread.

well if you can't be bothered just sit this one out

This one?  Kinda like every other one?  Kinda implies you know you just repeat the same shit over and over and over and over, huh?  It's cool, bro, we all have our fetishes.

if you don't want to participate then don't
seriously do you want to suck my dick? that is a topic you brought up.......
you want to suck my dick?