My blog

[robvalue]

Awesome! Thank you very much guys I really appreciate all the feedback. I will try and get on there soon and make some changes. Satanism is a good one, I forgot that. It is indeed a sad fact that propaganda can go so low as to say this.

Tim: welcome to the forum! My question about Historical Jesus is, can any action, event or quote be attributed to a real "jesus", beyond reasonable doubt?

My stance is this: I see no evidence that jesus is anything more than an entirely fictional character, and if it is "based" on someone, then this means as little as if Harry Potter is "based" on a Harry the writer knew. In other words, it's not a real character.

All the "evidence" about Jesus is hearsay. I do not know of any that isn't, if you know of some, please let me know! 1, 100 or 1,000,000 hearsay accounts are not sufficient evidence for anything, beyond reasonable doubt, in my opinion. And we have one book, the bible, with any real details. I consider the bible no more accurate of reality than any fictional book that happens to feature a few historical events, vaguely.

So yeah, I would say the burden of proof is to establish at least a handful of sayings, actions or events to the same "jesus". And I don't think it can be done. I'm happy to be proved wrong!

Otherwise, what does historical Jesus even mean? There were people back then called jesus? Well, sure. Pick any one and stick the story on him. It's still fiction.

---

To come back to the mythicist stance, watchamadoodle... I think I'm wondering what it actually is saying. I mean, my stance as above is the rejection of a HJ claim. But I'm not making a claim myself there, so far. So to be a mythicist, do I need to make the additional claim that jesus is mythical? And if so, what would be a suitable burden of proof for this? I don't know. Sounds like an impossible proving the negative; but a case can certainly be made for elements of jesus being nicked from earlier stuff, and Paul's jesus not being the same jesus but a different celestial myth. That's what I'm wondering... I mean... What would it mean to say I'm a Harry Potter mythicist? Do I have a burden of proof to demonstrate it's not real, but is based on "mythology" of sorts? If anyone has a decent answer to this, please let me know! But if you take the stance that mythicists are making a claim, then indeed, you comparing it to the jar of sweets analogy is a very perceptive one. Neither can meet their burden of proof, so we're left in the middle. But left with what? He's still not established to be anything other than fiction... Oh I'll just kick him in the nuts some more for now.