Did Jesus exist?

[The Grand Nudger]

"To varying degrees, A, B, C, D, and E mix fact with fiction in their writings when they mention F."
"Therefore, there is no evidence that F existed."

That's your logic. It's... really... dumb. That's probably all that deserves to be said about it.

Trouble is, that's not my logic.  But go ahead and argue that with yourself?  

Yeah... people tended to be deified and mythologized in the first century... I guess anyone who hailed the Caesars to be gods must be an unreliable source because, according to your logic, as we must not believe that any historical Caesars were gods, the ones that we are told were divine could not in fact have actually existed. Who was the historical Vespasian? Not the one who healed the blind and the lame. How many Vespasians do we have? Can we know if anything Seutonius wrote about him was true? Caligula and Nero? Hadrian's servant boy? All were claimed by their loyal followers to be gods, which is clearly fictional... therefore they must be fictional too. We are told that Plato was born with bees resting upon his lips because his words would later be so sweet... umm.. Which Plato is this again? Not the historical Plato. I guess we cannot tell the man from the myth. Herodotus and Pliny the Elder's encyclopedic volumes that historians have found immensely useful and important? Throw them out. They contain dog-headed people and magic. Therefore, they are all fiction.

That's your logic. It's... really... dumb. That's definitely all that deserves to be said about it.

-as above, also not my logic.....so you're 0/2 at calling me dumb just -this- post.  You can argue this with yourself as well, but gratz on the TQ defense of "historical jesus" all the same.

Sorry, I'm not in the business of healing the blind. That you've rejected the evidence without reason doesn't oblige rational people to do so... thankfully, when one observes the educated circles around the globe, we learn that they don't. It's only the uneducated, such as yourself, who seem to pride themselves on stupid theories like creationism and mythicism.

Is there some point where you make a cogent argument for jesus, here?  No?  Right.

Uh... Yeah, it kind of is your problem... since according to, well, sane, reasonable standards, the historicity of Jesus is beyond doubt.

Your lack of evidence is my problem......and invalid inference counts in a reasonable standard?  I think you're using a different meaning of the word reasonable than I am.  Beyond doubt, you say? So this is the part where, failing to provide evidence or argument, you double down and declare something to be "beyond doubt"?  

"A, B, C, D, and E include varying degrees of fiction in their writings."
"Therefore, there is no evidence that F existed."

Again, that's your logic. It's really, really dumb. That's all that...

Now I feel like you're just being lazy.........

What is this? Are you trying to be the least interesting troll here or.... what? Do you have anything else to say besides repeating this same idiotic garbage? 

No amount of calling me names will get you closer to historical jesus, you realize?

The details are important... once you have learned to use reasoning skills... have examined the texts... and have used those reasoning skills to establish that there are details to be ascertained.

Says the man who tried embarrassing details, then defended with an appeal to hypocrisy........while he argued against straw.

You're not at that stage yet, clearly.

And "the general portrait of the character" does not automatically mean a fictional character... again, B doesn't follow A.... but, we both know by this point, logic isn't your strong suit.

The general portrait of your jesus character appears to be fictional.  


Let's cut to the chase, do you actually have any argument for a historical jesus -other- than that you think I'm dumb Nestor? How long will we have to wait to see that?