Jesus is a Myth!

[POI]

The Gospels are fiction and the Jesus character is a myth. There may have been a Jesus upon whom the character is based, but I doubt it.

Loosely, there was a church already in existence when Paul became an apostle (Galatians 2). I don't think we know anything about it, because that church was effectively destroyed by the sack of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Paul's Asian churches were effectively unmoored and they absorbed a sort of second- or third-hand tradition left over from the Jerusalem church. That tradition was allegorically retold in the Synoptics. Acts is a sort of theological textbook, allegorically describing the fusion of the Pauline churches and what little remained of the Jerusalem church through the conflict between its Peter and Paul characters and the resoliution of that conflict.

For debate: Was Jesus a real character from antiquity? If so, how do we know?

The stakes are very high for the Orthodox believer. Why? If Jesus never existed, it's completely game over. Christianity is dead before we ever get to ask if Jesus ever rose. If Jesus did exist, then we can still question his claimed actions(s) all the way up to him rising again....

**************************************

At the moment, I'm personally agnostic to this topic position. But I would sure love to see how this topic fleshes out among all the smarties who exchange within this arena

[SiNcE_1985]

Dude, I've explained multiple times. I even used the word 'contemporary' in quotes. Please stop committing the exact word fallacy. The objective is to verify writer(s) who actually saw or met a living Jesus.

Um, that's your objective.

Being a contemporary to the times and region is enough for scholars.

And Paul meets the criteria.

And according to YOU, you are "cool with the scholarly consensus" that he didn't.

I'm also cool with the scholarly consensus that Jesus existed.

The thread is about whether Jesus existed, not whether Paul met Jesus.

Since Paul certainly logically could not have been in two places at once, Paul never saw or met a claimed living Jesus.

You simply don't know where Paul was at any given time he isn't mentioned in the text.

And to make that claim^, you are insinuating that you know where he was, relative to where Jesus was.

You have no such knowledge, so stop speaking as if you do.

Nope. Because you have planted your flag and are rocking with scholarly consensus. Which means Paul never saw or met a living Jesus.

Im planting my flag and am rocking with the scholarly consensus that Jesus existed, which is the question of the thread.

Scholarly consensus says otherwise. Sorry, you are applying wishful thinking

Cool.

Yet, despite that, they still conclude that Jesus existed.

Wow, I guess whether or not Paul met/saw Jesus just isn't a consideration when actual scholarship is considered.

I already did that though. Aside from the (4) untrustworthy Gospels, Paul's writings, Josephus -- (where a verified forged paragraph exists), and another historian who reported what earlier people believed, what else do we actually have to verify a living Jesus? As I stated prior, I'm granting a major gift to apply the above as being 50% in favor of a living Jesus.

I don't recall you "already" doing anything, but passing off downright skeptical, critical unbelief as modest agnosticism.

This is why other interlocutors do not take your responses seriously. You have proven to be dishonest, fake, and phony.

I'm doing the right things in the eyes of God...that's the only opinion that matters.

Per the untrustworthy Gospels.

Whether or not the Gospels are trustworthy is irrelevant (as it pertains to Elvis).

I'm just comparing the narratives of both stories, and they are not equal.

[Pivotal moment for you here Venom. Please answer carefully.]

Great. I'll make you a deal 'Venom'.... If appealing to scholarly consensus IS your standard, then do I get to appeal to this standard too about all topics? Or, is appealing to scholarly consensus only applicable to certain topics? If yes, meaning, it's always applicable, then we can proceed. If no, meaning adhering to scholarly consensus is not always the standard, please explain why not?

That is actually a good question.

My answer is; it is case by case basis.

In this case, I'm appealing to scholarly consensus on the basis of; the vast majority of scholars on both sides (believers and unbelievers) of the equation agree on this one thing; that Jesus of Nazareth existed.

As I stated prior, for two sides that don't agree on most things, for them to come together on that point...this means that the evidence must be considerably more plausible than not.

That's where I'm at wit it.

LOL! I've been on here for years. This topic was only brough up, years later, since another interlocutor brought it up. Quite frankly, if it should turn out that a homeless apocalyptic preacher really did live, and was executed for 'treason', because the ancient world was quite superstitious -- (as they killed for many weird reasons), then my position changes none. My position is not disrupted at all, as your indoctrinated set of beliefs is still illogical all over the place, and also requires that you believe in many far-fetched and ridiculous claims. The stakes are only HIGH for the believer, not mine.

Cool. Whatever will help you sleep good at night.

Yes, one of Elvis Presley's graves has been reported as empty, specifically his original crypt at Forest Hill Cemetery, which has been empty since his remains were moved to Graceland in October 1977. I guess this means Elvis rose, right?.?.?.? I'll await another pivot...

One of his graves? How many graves does he have?

Seems to me; one Elvis, one grave.

Oh, I get it; if he has multiple graves, all that is required is one of them to be empty so you can say; see, just like Jesus!!!

Pathetic.

So, AGAIN, I ask...

How many irreconcilable discrepancies would have to exist between the Gospels before you reject them? 1, 3, 7, more? Please actually answer this time.

I'm a believer in Biblical inerrancy.

Now there, I just helped you.

I refer back to my original point. Had Constantine not ordained this religion, it's likely you would reject THIS religion for some of the exact same reasons you reject others, like Mormonism.

I refer to my original accusation..

Genetic Fallacy.

Nope. Instead, he claims to have received a divine sign. Kind of like Saul of Tarsus.

Cool. He received a divine sign, on the basis of an already poppin religion.

My point is not negated.

Christianity flourished after Constantine due to his imperial patronage and legal recognition, which transformed it from a persecuted minority religion into a powerful, state-supported faith with significant social, economic, and organizational advantages.

Two things can be true at the same time.

Christianity was flourishing under/despite Roman persecution, and it would obviously flourish even more without persecution under an emperor who gave the religion a stamp of approval.

[POI]

Um, that's your objective.

Um, it was your objective, until you got caught. See below for more details...

....enough for scholars.....

You are quickly digging your own proverbial grave Venom. See post 240, (in which you skipped), for details.

The thread is about whether Jesus existed, not whether Paul met Jesus.

Not anymore, because by using your own standard, and to remain consistent in your own applied epistemology, you can no longer appeal to the (possibility) that Paul may have saw or met a living Jesus, but just never mentioned it.

You simply don't know where Paul was at any given time he isn't mentioned in the text. And to make that claim^, you are insinuating that you know where he was, relative to where Jesus was. You have no such knowledge, so stop speaking as if you do.

LOL! See above. You are so (all-over-the place) Venom. I can see why Difflugia simply aborted many posts ago. You are the sultan of fallacious reasoning and handwaving.

Im planting my flag and am rocking with the scholarly consensus that Jesus existed, which is the question of the thread.

Then you must also plant your flag in that Paul never met a Jesus, even though you continue to argue that he might have anyways. Pick a lane Venom.

Wow, I guess whether or not Paul met/saw Jesus just isn't a consideration when actual scholarship is considered.

Your proverbial grave hole gets ever deeper every time you mention the above in bold.

I don't recall you "already" doing anything, but passing off downright skeptical, critical unbelief as modest agnosticism.

Venom, I've explained ad nauseum. It basically stems back to post 154 and beyond. You either have poor recall, or a reading comprehension issue. Since this topic is exploring the (50% chance that he didn't exist), it would be ludicrous to converse about why he may have existed. Again, I'm not a mythicist. In fact, up until a short time ago, I was more like 80/20 that he existed. However, the more I deep dive, the more I question. And now I'm 50/50. So, of course I want to steelman the (side) who asserts that he "didn't exist".

I'm doing the right things in the eyes of God...that's the only opinion that matters.

Breaking the forum rules, in which a fellow theist created, is in line with the "eyes of god"? Weaseling back on, under a different name, is also in line with the 'eyes of god.' Hmm? Okey dokey smokey...

I'm just comparing the narratives of both stories, and they are not equal.

But the narrative of the Gospels are not trustworthy. Hence, you are starting upon a false premise to begin with...

That is actually a good question. My answer is; it is case by case basis.

In this case, I'm appealing to scholarly consensus on the basis of; the vast majority of scholars on both sides (believers and unbelievers) of the equation agree on this one thing; that Jesus of Nazareth existed.

As I stated prior, for two sides that don't agree on most things, for them to come together on that point...this means that the evidence must be considerably more plausible than not.

That's where I'm at wit it.

I highlighted the spots, in bold, which again has sealed your fate.

Most Christian scholars and believers ALSO widely agree that many events described in the Bible's early books are better understood as mythology, theology, or allegory. And since you are a self-proclaimed biblical inerrantist, you have severely compromised your own epistemology, via post 240, in which you skipped.

Cool. Whatever will help you sleep good at night.

Another handwave...

One of his graves? How many graves does he have? Seems to me; one Elvis, one grave. Oh, I get it; if he has multiple graves, all that is required is one of them to be empty so you can say; see, just like Jesus!!! Pathetic.

What is pathetic, is to believe a Jesus storyline above and beyond an Elvis storyline.

I'm a believer in Biblical inerrancy. Now there, I just helped you.

I guess this explains why you skipped post 240.

I refer to my original accusation.. Genetic Fallacy.

Wrong again Venom. You have committed a classic example of special pleading.

My point is not negated.

"whatever helps you sleep at night."

Two things can be true at the same time.

Christianity was flourishing under/despite Roman persecution, and it would obviously flourish even more without persecution under an emperor who gave the religion a stamp of approval.

I already addressed this in post 227:

- The number of believers has no bearing on if the claim(s) <is/are> true.

- How fast a storyline spreads have no bearing on if the claim(s) <is/are> true.

[SiNcE_1985]

You are quickly digging your own proverbial grave Venom. See post 240, (in which you skipped), for details.

I skipped it for good reason. I'm not interested in your red herrings.

I'm keeping it right here.

Not anymore, because by using your own standard, and to remain consistent in your own applied epistemology, you can no longer appeal to the (possibility) that Paul may have saw or met a living Jesus, but just never mentioned it.

I wasn't appealing to that possibility. Let's get back to the scholarly consensus of Jesus of Nazareth existing.

You know, what the thread is actually about.

LOL! See above. You are so (all-over-the place) Venom. I can see why Difflugia simply aborted many posts ago. You are the sultan of fallacious reasoning and handwaving.

I've been pretty consistent.

And Diff aborted because he knows ain't nothing he can do wit me.

Then you must also plant your flag in that Paul never met a Jesus, even though you continue to argue that he might have anyways. Pick a lane Venom.

Ok, 1. Paul never met Jesus (scholarly consensus), yet 2. Jesus of Nazareth existed (also scholarly consensus).

Two things can be true at the same time.

#1 does not effect #2.

#2 is where the real contention lies, as that's what the question of the thread is.

And scholarly consensus is in agreement, that #2 is more probable than not.

So, this thread is hogwash.

Venom, I've explained ad nauseum. It basically stems back to post 154 and beyond. You either have poor recall, or a reading comprehension issue. Since this topic is exploring the (50% chance that he didn't exist), it would be ludicrous to converse about why he may have existed. Again, I'm not a mythicist. In fact, up until a short time ago, I was more like 80/20 that he existed. However, the more I deep dive, the more I question. And now I'm 50/50. So, of course I want to steelman the (side) who asserts that he "didn't exist".

Scholarship says he existed.

Laymen may think otherwise, but the scholarship in this regard, is pretty solid.

Breaking the forum rules, in which a fellow theist created, is in line with the "eyes of god"? Weaseling back on, under a different name, is also in line with the 'eyes of god.' Hmm? Okey dokey smokey...

A lion doesn't concern itself with the opinion(s) of sheep.

Call it what you want.

I'm here, dispelling the nonsense you and others have been spewing..as my custom.

But the narrative of the Gospels are not trustworthy. Hence, you are starting upon a false premise to begin with...

Opinions.

I highlighted the spots, in bold, which again has sealed your fate.

Most Christian scholars and believers ALSO widely agree that many events described in the Bible's early books are better understood as mythology, theology, or allegory. And since you are a self-proclaimed biblical inerrantist, you have severely compromised your own epistemology, via post 240, in which you skipped.

Despite all that, they still believe Jesus existed.

All of that other stuff you keep moving the goalposts towards, is for the birds.

What is pathetic, is to believe a Jesus storyline above and beyond an Elvis storyline.

Because one is true, and the other one isn't.

I already addressed this in post 227:

- The number of believers has no bearing on if the claim(s) <is/are> true.

- How fast a storyline spreads have no bearing on if the claim(s) <is/are> true.

Um, my statements were directed towards your insinuation that Christianity wasn't popping until Constantine...which, is untrue.

[POI]

I skipped it for good reason. I'm not interested in your red herrings. I'm keeping it right here.

Nah. You skipped it because post 240 exposes your inconsistent epistemology in this thread. You see Venom, you are smack dab in the middle of a rock and a hard place. You have two options. Spoiler alert... Both options are fallacious:

1) An appeal to authority/majority
2) Moving the goalposts

Right now, you are 'rockin' 1). You avoid post 240 because then you know you must immediately instead rock 2). You see Venom, the presence of post 240 alone exposes your poor epistemological skills. You (skip/ignore/handwave) accordingly, as usual, because that post alone exposes the crappy apologetics required to retain your position for a Jesus.

And BTW, there is nothing left to 'keep right here'. You opted to choose the one topic, out of so many I have created, for which I have not actually planted my flag. Yet again, I'm 50/50. At this point, I'm merely (steelmaning) the "Jesus doesn't exist' side. And all you have to offer, is that the majority of 'scholars say otherwise.' Hence, post 240 brings up how you will certainly not live by the phrase, 'live by the sword, die by the sword.' Nope. You will instead handwave, which IS your MO.

I wasn't appealing to that possibility.

Hmm? It wasn't you who raised the question as to whether or not Paul really saw or met a living a Jesus, but just didn't mention it? Hmm?

I've been pretty consistent.

You most certainly are not Venom. The mere presence of post 240, for which you know you must handwave, exposes why you are not consistent.

And Diff aborted because he knows ain't nothing he can do wit me.

If memory recalls, he has nothing to do with you because you are "all bark, no bite." When you self-proclaim yourself as a 'lion' or other, this is exactly what he is talking about. However, since your entire line of 'reasoning' stems upon one fallacious position, verses another, he does not look to be incorrect here.

Ok, 1. Paul never met Jesus (scholarly consensus), yet 2. Jesus of Nazareth existed (also scholarly consensus).

Great, you have opted to stick with option 1), (listed above), for NOW. But we all know you will only do so when it suits you. And further still, appealing to option 1) alone is fallacious.

So, this thread is hogwash.

In post 239, I stated I would make you a deal. (i.e.): "If appealing to scholarly consensus IS your standard, then do I get to appeal to this standard too about all topics? Or, is appealing to scholarly consensus only applicable to certain topics? If yes, meaning, it's always applicable, then we can proceed."

Let's test this now, in relation to options 1) and 2) listed at the top...

Here's the deal. Based upon your given epistemology, I'll just happily concede that a Jesus existed. Which means you must then happily concede that Christianity is false, as the exact same standard (in option 1)) defeats many topics which require to be true in Christianity.

Deal?.?.?.?.?.?

Scholarship says he existed. Laymen may think otherwise, but the scholarship in this regard, is pretty solid.

Leaving this 'double down' statement here as more evidence. The fight between options 1) and 2) will be quite entertaining, in posts to come...

Call it what you want.

Again, repeatedly breaking the rules of a fellow theist's created forum, which gets you kicked off, and then also weaseling back on under a different name, are both the acts of a 'lion'? Again, as I've stated prior, the misplaced self-assigned confidence to merely further expose your fallacious reasoning is quite astonishing.

Despite all that, they still believe Jesus existed. All of that other stuff you keep moving the goalposts towards, is for the birds.

Leaving this response here, to further expose your (struggle to come) between 1) and 2).

Because one is true, and the other one isn't.

That's right. We pretty much KNOW Elvis (at least) existed, based upon the historical method, in line with post 154.

Um, my statements were directed towards your insinuation that Christianity wasn't popping until Constantine...which, is untrue.

That was not my insinuation. Please re-read what I stated in post 239:

Christianity flourished after Constantine due to his imperial patronage and legal recognition, which transformed it from a persecuted minority religion into a powerful, state-supported faith with significant social, economic, and organizational advantages.

************************

The only reason you are applying fallacious reasoning for Christianity, verses another, is because you were raised in it. You were raised in this unsupported collection of claims mainly stemming from the acts of Constantine and beyond. Had Constantine pushed for another 'faith', you would likely be on some other forum pushing that 'faith', likely with similar crappy apologetics.

[SiNcE_1985]

I skipped it for good reason. I'm not interested in your red herrings. I'm keeping it right here.

Nah. You skipped it because post 240 exposes your inconsistent epistemology in this thread. You see Venom, you are smack dab in the middle of a rock and a hard place. You have two options. Spoiler alert... Both options are fallacious:

1) An appeal to authority/majority
2) Moving the goalposts

Right now, you are 'rockin' 1). You avoid post 240 because then you know you must immediately instead rock 2). You see Venom, the presence of post 240 alone exposes your poor epistemological skills. You (skip/ignore/handwave) accordingly, as usual, because that post alone exposes the crappy apologetics required to retain your position for a Jesus.

What?

Post 240 has nothing to do with the question of this thread...instead of a couple tidbits within it.

Red herrings, is what it is..and a waste of time.

And BTW, there is nothing left to 'keep right here'. You opted to choose the one topic, out of so many I have created, for which I have not actually planted my flag. Yet again, I'm 50/50. At this point, I'm merely (steelmaning) the "Jesus doesn't exist' side. And all you have to offer, is that the majority of 'scholars say otherwise.' Hence, post 240 brings up how you will certainly not live by the phrase, 'live by the sword, die by the sword.' Nope. You will instead handwave, which IS your MO.

If we're going off scholarship, then my side prevails.

If we're not going off scholarship, then your side prevails.

Scholars aren't 50/50. You are.

Hmm? It wasn't you who raised the question as to whether or not Paul really saw or met a living a Jesus, but just didn't mention it? Hmm?

Um, no.

When I used Paul as a reference to early Christianity and the the historicity of Jesus, that is when you began to go on a "But, Paul never met Jesus" campaign.

Bad move, because no one is relying on that^, anyway.

Not me, nor scholars.

Scholars are saying, "So what, Paul never met Jesus..but guess what; Jesus existed anyway".

That's what happened.

You most certainly are not Venom. The mere presence of post 240, for which you know you must handwave, exposes why you are not consistent.

Any Bible book that does not have the name "Jesus" in it, is irrelevant to the question of this thread.

And most of your precious post 240 doesn't...so it is a waste of my time...and as far as I'm concerned, a red herring.

If memory recalls, he has nothing to do with you because you are "all bark, no bite." When you self-proclaim yourself as a 'lion' or other, this is exactly what he is talking about. However, since your entire line of 'reasoning' stems upon one fallacious position, verses another, he does not look to be incorrect here.

I don't expect you to think anything different.

In post 239, I stated I would make you a deal. (i.e.): "If appealing to scholarly consensus IS your standard, then do I get to appeal to this standard too about all topics? Or, is appealing to scholarly consensus only applicable to certain topics? If yes, meaning, it's always applicable, then we can proceed."

And I've already addressed this.

Let's test this now, in relation to options 1) and 2) listed at the top...

Here's the deal. Based upon your given epistemology, I'll just happily concede that a Jesus existed. Which means you must then happily concede that Christianity is false, as the exact same standard (in option 1)) defeats many topics which require to be true in Christianity.

Deal?.?.?.?.?.?

Not so fast. I already expressed why I'm rocking with scholarly consensus on this one.

I said it is case by case basis.

In this case, I am.

And I explained why, on at least 3 occasions.

Again, repeatedly breaking the rules of a fellow theist's created forum, which gets you kicked off, and then also weaseling back on under a different name, are both the acts of a 'lion'? Again, as I've stated prior, the misplaced self-assigned confidence to merely further expose your fallacious reasoning is quite astonishing.

Opinions.

That's right. We pretty much KNOW Elvis (at least) existed, based upon the historical method, in line with post 154.

Whether or not Jesus existed is not debated among scholars.

That was not my insinuation. Please re-read what I stated in post 239:

Christianity flourished after Constantine due to his imperial patronage and legal recognition, which transformed it from a persecuted minority religion into a powerful, state-supported faith with significant social, economic, and organizational advantages.

************************

The only reason you are applying fallacious reasoning for Christianity, verses another, is because you were raised in it. You were raised in this unsupported collection of claims mainly stemming from the acts of Constantine and beyond. Had Constantine pushed for another 'faith', you would likely be on some other forum pushing that 'faith', likely with similar crappy apologetics.

Genetic Fallacy.

[POI]

What? Post 240 has nothing to do with the question of this thread...instead of a couple tidbits within it. Red herrings, is what it is..and a waste of time.

Nope. It has everything to do with it. I'm exposing your faulty selective process. See below...

If we're going off scholarship, then my side prevails. If we're not going off scholarship, then your side prevails. Scholars aren't 50/50. You are.

Well, I do not know if I agree with all of this, but there is no point quibbling over it. This is another nothingburger response anyways. Let's get back to it... Are you now willing to (die by your own sword) or (go down with your own ship), or, are you NOW going to severely pivot or move the goalposts? Remember what YOUR criteria is for a Jesus (from post 242):

A) "the vast majority of scholars on both sides (believers and unbelievers) of the equation agree"
B) "for two sides that don't agree on most things, for them to come together on that point...this means that the evidence must be considerably more plausible than not."

**************************

Well, post 240 gives many claims from the Bible, where your standard of both A) and B) are also clearly met.

Hence, which crappy epistemological answer are you "rockin" with for the rest? Please pick one, even though you know it sucks.

1) An appeal to authority/majority
2) Moving the goalposts

Um, no. When I used Paul as a reference to early Christianity and the the historicity of Jesus, that is when you began to go on a "But, Paul never met Jesus" campaign. Bad move, because no one is relying on that^, anyway. Not me, nor scholars. Scholars are saying, "So what, Paul never met Jesus..but guess what; Jesus existed anyway". That's what happened.

LOL! You mentioned "Caesar". Caesar has a verified true contemporary (who actually claims that he fought in battle with Caesar). This is a large step above and beyond a Jesus, (especially since we are limited by way of claims from ancient antiquity). No authors, from the Bible, are verified to have ever saw or known a living Jesus. This is one of the many reasons the claims to a living Caesar far outweighs the claims of a living Jesus.

Later on, you went off on another (rubber stamp) tangent, sighting an "argument from silence", because Paul never actually mentioned whether or not he ever saw or knew a living Jesus. You continued to argue that it is fallacious for me to argue that he had not, just because Paul avoids mentioning it either way. I then informed you why he could not have, and that most/all scholarship also agrees. You got royally owned, and that's all. So here, take this 'L'.

Any Bible book that does not have the name "Jesus" in it, is irrelevant to the question of this thread. And most of your precious post 240 doesn't...so it is a waste of my time...and as far as I'm concerned, a red herring.

Another massive handwave... I will not let this go. It's just too much fun, in light of the fact you stated you were going to "intellectually slap" me. Which is ironic, being you chose the ONLY topic where I do not make a claim. Doh!

You have no choice but to run, because you are clearly cornered. Again, as the OP states, it matters very little if a Jesus really existed or not for me. And I did not even plant my flag anyways. If you wanted to go after me, you had PLENTY of topics to choose from. And now I will just have fun watching as I continue to expose your bankrupt epistemology.

So again, based upon YOUR logical framework, if I just agree that a Jesus really lived, then you MUST agree that your version of Christianity is false. Otherwise, PIVOT accordingly. Your move buddy...

Not so fast. I already expressed why I'm rocking with scholarly consensus on this one. I said it is case by case basis. In this case, I am. And I explained why, on at least 3 occasions.

Yes, you did. And I laid out the criteria, via A) and B). So, do we have a deal? Meaning, based upon your given (logic tools), I accept that a Jesus really lived, and you reject Christianity - (and go back to the drawing board)

Opinions.

No answer, just more handwaving. Typical....

Whether or not Jesus existed is not debated among scholars.

Do we have a deal?

Genetic Fallacy.

Yet another misplaced rubberstamp.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to POI in post #246]

It's to the point now, where I'm repeating the same stuff over and over again.

I said all I have to say.

If anyone else has anything new to offer, holla at me.

Until then, POI..

Hold this L..

[POI]

1) An appeal to authority/majority
2) Moving the goalposts

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #247]

LOL! Yet again, you cannot have your cake and eat it too Venom. For me to hold the 'L' (of a position in which I've been steelmaning because I'm merely exploring the other side of the 50/50 proposition), you must make a choice. This is why you are now running fast in the other direction.

So, again, let's make a deal Venom.

By using YOUR own given epistemological framework, I will happily just concede that a living Jesus existed, but then you have no choice but to logically abort your Christian worldview, as post 240 demonstrates. Do we have a deal? If you do not accept and merely continue running from this exchange, I win. If you pivot to option 2), which is a major goalpost move, I still win. The only way I take an "L" here is for you to accept option 1), which means you still ultimately loose.

I know being backed into this corner sucks for you, but hey, you stated you were going to "intellectually spank me", or whatever. Hence, I saw it fit to just ends things in this thread. I will just bookmark and reference this thread-exchange, for every future time you start to handwave scholarly majority and/or handwave the theoretical sciences.

Your move...

[SiNcE_1985]

1) An appeal to authority/majority
2) Moving the goalposts

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #247]

LOL! Yet again, you cannot have your cake and eat it too Venom. For me to hold the 'L' (of a position in which I've been steelmaning because I'm merely exploring the other side of the 50/50 proposition), you must make a choice. This is why you are now running fast in the other direction.

So, again, let's make a deal Venom.

By using YOUR own given epistemological framework, I will happily just concede that a living Jesus existed, but then you have no choice but to logically abort your Christian worldview, as post 240 demonstrates. Do we have a deal? If you do not accept and merely continue running from this exchange, I win. If you pivot to option 2), which is a major goalpost move, I still win. The only way I take an "L" here is for you to accept option 1), which means you still ultimately loose.

I know being backed into this corner sucks for you, but hey, you stated you were going to "intellectually spank me", or whatever. Hence, I saw it fit to just ends things in this thread. I will just bookmark and reference this thread-exchange, for every future time you start to handwave scholarly majority and/or handwave the theoretical sciences.

Your move...

We don't need to make a deal (you're no Monty Hall, that's for sure), on something that is considered a historical fact.

I asked for something new; not same ole, same ole.

If you ain't got anything new to offer, then let's put this one to bed.

I showed up. I showed out.

And now the shows over.

[POI]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #249]

Post 248 stands unattested. Your epistemological framework has been exposed to be nothing more than a dismal failure. This is why you must abort accordingly. Welp, if you should change your mind, you know where to come. Otherwise, in the future, think long and hard about what you say before you say it. And moving forward, if you should engage me again in other topic(s), I will reference this exchange alone, to expose your abundance of handwaving to personal taste.

Ta ta