Did Jesus exist?

[The Grand Nudger]

What specifically are you looking for? I've read a few pages in this thread now of how embarrassment is very present in the documents discussed and in the story of Jesus. What is it you want instead? Also...

-
-What I've asked for, explicitly, many times..... to many people in this very thread....is a valid means of inference from the "criterion of embarrassment" to historicity.  A way to go from a to b.  

They do not. I've been saying this since the beginning. Standard of evidence for ancient historians is lower than you and everyone else supporting you realize.

Are they below the standards of reason?  Because that's what you're describing.  Reason demands valid inference. You aren't asking me to accept the best evidence we have, you're asking me to accept irrationality -surrounding- what evidence we have, apparently on the basis of tradition......which you've described multiple times as having chronically low standards. I'm well aware of the things that pass for history, and the standards that led to that. That's not exactly a good argument for historical jesus...you realize?

I think its hilarious that we're even left to this..because the only reason we have to appeal to a reduction in standards, invalid inferences, and tradition...... is that even the hj'ers can't just provide some hj. At the very bottom of all of this...all that we are discussing, ultimately, all that -any- of you can offer is "the bible says". That's it. That's the sum total of evidence. That's not evidence....that's the claim, and it's a fairy tale.........

So, while you're busy feeling smug for no good reason..and likening me to a climate change denier, remember that climate scientists bring evidence that I accept, by a standard I have confidence in, arguing by valid means of inference....... you're just telling me why you accept the details of a ghost story as history....and I'm telling you why I find that far less compelling.