Any evidence?  What evidence.  That's what you've been asked to present, that's what you've declined to discuss, other than to say that you believe in the biblical narrative (hilarously, you decided of your own accord to add a caveat even to that....you don;t believe -all- of the narrative is historical).  Well, we know that you believe in the biblical narrative.  Your beliefs do not make it historical evidence, however. I don;t even know what evidence, of what jesus., you think exists...because you refuse to have the discussion. Yet, more, theater.

Let's be honest with ourselves, shall we>? When you discuss my "a priori" this or that's, you aren't even referring to any historical jesus. You are hinting at the historicity of magic, of miracles...complaining that I do not accept them -as history, or indeed even as existent. Well no shit, I don;t believe in magic...but take careful note of the corner you paint yourself into with this complaint. Is it your contention, that any historical jesus, for which there is evidence (or so you keep claiming)....must be the -magical- jesus? Must I first accept magic, before we can discuss whichever jesus you believe to be historical? Can they not be separated?

(October 3, 2016 at 10:42 am)Rhythm Wrote: I;m sorry, which one of us claims that there was some historical magical man?  You don't feel that this is the sort of thing you might have to establish?

I didn't say that, and I'm sure it would come out in discussing the position of mythicism.   However the discussion started with mythicism, and I think that you should have to support your position as well.

Which is easy.  What we have are a collection of myths, taken..in the sense of belief, by some to be legends.  We don;t have a jesus.  We don;t have historical records of -that guy-.  We -do- have the gospels, as we see them today, stories about a demi-god who saves the world with his magical blood. We -do- have historical evidence of the beliefs of various christian sects. What we have, is the history of the assumption of a belief that jesus was a man long after the purported events which the narrative describes, and out of a corpus in which he was not described -as such-. What we -have- is the history of one christian sect declaring the others heretical (notably, for the very belief that jesus was neither a man nor the god of the OT) while blatantly ripping their foundational myths, or legends......depending upon whether or not you or anyone else can -ever- drop some historical evidence on that table.

(see, I don't even complain when you shift the burden, lol.......I just pony the fuck up like I give a damn.......)

(October 3, 2016 at 11:32 am)Rhythm Wrote: Which is easy.  What we have are a collection of myths, taken..in the sense of belief, by some to be legends.  We don;t have a jesus.  We don;t have historical records of -that guy-.  We -do- have the gospels, as we see them today, stories about a demi-god who saves the world with his magical blood.  We -do- have historical evidence of the beliefs of various christian sects.  What we have, is the history of the assumption of a belief that jesus was a man long after the purported events which the narrative describes, and out of a corpus in which he was not described -as such-. What we -have- is the history of one christian sect declaring the others heretical (notably, for the very belief that jesus was neither a man nor the god of the OT) while blatantly ripping their foundational myths, or legends......depending upon whether or not you or anyone else can -ever- drop some historical evidence on that table.  

Thank you for the effort, however this appears to be much more narrative than anything else.  How did you come to these conclusions or what are you basing this knowledge on?  Where you do give details, I would disagree, and think it shows that you are not very well informed about the subject.  For instance, the statement that "jesus was a man long after the purported events which the narrative describes, and out of a corpus in which he was not described -as such" I would ask you to clarify here, and provide the reasons for this belief.  Also, the statement about different sects declaring the other heretical, I would ask you to clarify, to know exactly what you are speaking about.   I think that you have a misunderstanding here as well; also, some context and the reasons behind the claims may be important from a historical prospective.

(October 3, 2016 at 10:59 am)Rhythm Wrote: Let's be honest with ourselves, shall we>?  When you discuss my "a priori" this or that's, you aren't even referring to any historical jesus.  You are hinting at the historicity of magic, of miracles...complaining that I do not accept them -as history, or indeed even as existent.  Well no shit, I don;t believe in magic...but take careful note of the corner you paint yourself into with this complaint.  Is it your contention, that any historical jesus, for which there is evidence (or so you keep claiming)....must be the -magical- jesus?  Must I first accept magic, before we can discuss whichever jesus you believe to be historical?  Can they not be separated?

Since you brought it up, I think it wold be useful for you to define what you mean by "magic". 

Is this something which is beyond evidence for you?

Quote:Since you brought it up, I think it wold be useful for you to define what you mean by "magic". 

How about a dead jew coming back to life and flying up to heaven?  Let's start with that.

Yeah, that can;t be too mutch of a stretch as a candidate.  The question of a historical jesus is not whether or not a dead jew came back to life.  The question for legend would be whethr people -believed- he did, and the question for myth would be why they believed that...if, indeed, it was the stories upon which people believed rather than any event.  The mythicist position is the latter. That people believed in a legendary or historical jesus based upon the stories of such, not an event. Stories which were not, it seems, originally about any jesus-the-man..but about a christ.

You, RR, want to argue for the mythical christ, rather than a legendary jesus, or a historical jesus....which is so far beyond the bounds of the discussion that I'm surprised you think it's relevant at all.

(October 3, 2016 at 5:21 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Since you brought it up, I think it wold be useful for you to define what you mean by "magic". 

How about a dead jew coming back to life and flying up to heaven?  Let's start with that.

Your definition seems fairly specific, I would almost say ad hoc!   Is this your definition or an example?

Also, would you agree, that "magic" is beyond the bounds of evidence?  If so.... why?

Are you hoping to object to the mythicist position, in this thread, or the nature of evidence as it relates to the supernatural?

(October 3, 2016 at 5:34 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Are you hoping to object to the mythicist position, in this thread, or the nature of evidence as it relates to the supernatural?

They appear to be related..... so I am asking questions to clarify.