A
Al Klein
Guest
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:33:04 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:
>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>news:1pte23dfplppk24shj876ivgiu4f1sftgu@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:30:29 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>>>news:hgld239n87sn95hqggoiahlut9njq3nm4n@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:50:40 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>It is not shifting anything .. you claimed to have evidence Jesus did
>>>>>not
>>>>>exist .. and you've not provided any.
>>>>>Only evidence that certain events or anecdotes about him are not
>>>>>correct.
>>>>
>>>> Evidence that ALL the assertions about him that can be verified turn
>>>> out to be false.
>>>
>>>Although that does make a case for Jesus not existing
>>
>> Shifting the burden again. The only case that needs to be made for
>> "no Jesus" is "there's no evidence for the case of "yes Jesus".
>
>I'm not shifting anythings
"a case for Jesus not existing" is shifting the burden. The burden is
to prove that he DID exist.
>> And that's all I'm doing - rejecting your claim
>
>What claim?
That there may be a real person on whom the stories were based.
>> because you can't back
>> it up with actual evidence. The fact that there's so much evidence
>> against any real Jesus is just another reason I'm rejecting it.
>There is NO evidence against a real Jesus.
Except for all the claims that we know are false.
>There is lack of good evidence FOR a real jesus
There's not even enough evidence to consider that the stories may have
been based on a real Jesus. There's no actual evidence at all, except
that the name was a common one, meaning that they didn't invent a new
name for their character.
>So .. it is imposibble for a jew to come up with any ideas that are
>different to what Judaism was currently believed to be.
It would not make sense for a Jew to come up with ideas that totally
repudiate Judaism. It would be like a Christian preaching that he's
still a Christian but he believes that there never was a Jesus,
disciples, a crucifixion or a resurrection. It's a contradiction in
terms. "I still believe in X but I believe that X never existed".
People who are even marginally sane don't do things like that.
>This sounds like you're using a 'no true scotsman' fallacy here. If a jew
>(lets call him Jesus for sake of argument) comes up with something that is
>different to jewish doctrine, he cannot then be a true jew and so that means
>he does not exist.
If a Jew claims to be a Jew but not believe in the basics of Judaism,
he's contradicting himself.
>That is the essence of your argument there .. and that is not valid
Only if you think that, while claiming that the entire NT is false
makes a person claiming to be Christian not a Christian, claiming that
the entire OT is false still allows a person claiming to be a Jew to
be a Jew.
>>> .. can you cite the biblical verse that suport that
>>>view? If not then it is irrelevant.
>> How can a tenet of Christianity be irrelevant to Christianity?
>Strawman attack .. I did not say that
First, whether it's relevant or not has nothing to do with whether I
can cite anything. Second, it's not Biblical, it's Christian.
You're going to have to decide whether we're discussing the Bible or
Christianity - you keep bouncing back and forth between them and
between evidence and accepted "wisdom". Pick a position and stay
there.
>So .. I take it that means you cannot cite a biblical verse where Jesus says
>that the OT teachings no longer apply.
I can, but that's not relevant to the people basing the stories about
a fictional Jesus on a real Jesus who never said anything we have any
record of.
>If not, the your argument is irrelevant, as what Christians may have later
>believed has no bearing on what Jesus himself said
And, according to your argument of the fictional Jesus being based on
him, we have absolutely no record of.
>You seem to confuse the biblical embellishments and fictions, and later
>theological beliefs with the notion of a real human person that was a basis
>for the gospel stories
I'm not confusing anything - you're bouncing back and forth to
whatever seems to back up your claims. I'm just trying to follow you.
>(just like galilee and jerusalem were real places
>that were the settings for the stories)
They still exist - there's no evidence that a "real Jesus" ever did.
>>>> That's the whole point - the only "evidence" that they were based on
>>>> an actual first century man is the need people have for the stories to
>>>> be true.
>>>We have the stories of his teachings and of his disciples. Of course,
>>>they
>>>are not very reliabl evidence .. but there is more "evidence' than wishful
>>>thinking.
>> The stories are evidence that the stories are true?
>
>I did not say that. I said the stories are very unreliable evidence for the
>existence of a Jesus.
The stories are evidence that part of the stories are true. Not so.
>I did not claim they were evidence for themselves.
You're claiming that they're evidence that part of them - the parts
claiming a Jesus - are.
>> "claims that he doesn't [exist" is shifting the burden. The burden
>> being to prove that he (the Biblical Jesus or the real Jesus the Bible
>> stories were based on) existed.
>I'm not shifting the burden
Saying "claims that he doesn't exist" IS shifting the burden. You're
saying "I'm standing on 1 foot, but I'm not standing".
The burden is to prove that he DOES exist. Talking about proving that
he doesn't exist is what "shifting the burden" means.
> .. I am saying that we cannot know.
If he exists, not "if he doesn't exist" - that's shifting the burden.
>I am saying that it is a possible explanation
So is "Zeus drove Odin off Mt. St. Helens", but there's no actual
evidence to lead us to think about Zeus or about a real Jesus.
>>> .. as there is no good evidence either way
>>
>> Shifting the burden again.
>
>you really have this thing about burden shifting, when I am not shifting it.
Talking about evidence for an existentially negative assertion is
called "shifting the burden". And it's a fallacy in logic.
>>> there is nothing provable.
>> About their existence, so there's no reason to believe that they
>> existed. Lack of evidence of an existentially negative assertion is
>> the expected state.
>Yes.. one can assume or presume lack of existence
One does nothing, it's the default.
> .. but it is not proof ..
No, it's just the default position. One doesn't speak about the
existence of something, or the possibility of the existence of
something, without some objective reason to do so. In the case of a
real Jesus, there is none.
>it is just an assumption for practical purposes.
There's nothing practical about assuming that the stories of Jesus
were based on a real person - they're stories, period.
>> But at least two of the Gospels are out of the running as far as being
>> evidence of anything goes. "What we believe" is renouncing any claim
>> to being evidence.
>No .. it is not .. belief does not mean there is no evidence
Saying "this book is what we believe" means that it can't be used as
evidence of anything other than the existence of the beliefs expressed
in it.
> .. it means
>that the statements are held to be true. Indeed belief often implies that
>there is strong evidence to support it.
As far as evidence goes, belief is merely opinion, it's NOT evidence.
(which is why it's inadmissible as evidence in a court of law or in
science).
>You're playing word games here .. and that is not proof
I'm not the one claiming that opinion is evidence.
>You cannot use a no-later-than date in an argument where what you need is a
>no-earlier-than date
There's no earlier confirmed mention-of-Jesus-as-a-man date than
around 170 AD.
>its not a logical argument
It's not an argument, it's a statement of fact. If you have an
earlier confirmed date, post it.
>>>But if YOU thought it was important enough, you would.
>>
>> If I were a first century tradesman? Probably not. Writing things
>> down wasn't for the common person. If you thought it was important,
>> would you have a large stone monument erected to mark some event?
>
>Only if you could afford one, and had a place to put it.
Which is why no one recorded any contemporaneous reports of Jesus - no
one thought the subject was important enough to spend the money on
paper. No one thought that a real man named Yeshua did anything
important enough to record for posterity.
Yet 140 years later, they remembered him? Do you come from this
planet? You don't seem to have a very good understanding of how human
beings work.
>> We're talking about evidence. No reason to think there might have
>> been earlier writings about Jesus other than the need for there to
>> have been.
>No reaons to assume there were not
It's the default position if there's no evidence that there were.
> and then base your arguments on that. it
>is not logical
No, shifting the burden (which is what you DID at that point) is the
illogical (actually "logically fallacious") stance. Barring evidence,
the logical stance on the existence of something is "it
{doesn't|didn't} exist". There's no logical reason to assume that
something does (or might) exist when there's not a scrap of actual
evidence of it.
>> No evidence that anyone heard of him until 140
>> years after he supposedly died.
>Exactly .. NO evidence.
So the logical stance is "didn't exist". It's the logically default
state.
>>>[snip same assumptions that are contrary to accepted datings]
>> Are we talking about evidence or "accepted datings"? If the latter,
>> there was a supernatural Jesus who performed miracles, was killed and
>> rose on the third day.
>Strawman argument. Using accepted datings does NOT imply believing
>christian myths.
The SOLE reason to even have dates is the Christian myth. There's no
actual evidence.
>> You can't have it both ways. "Accepted datings" or evidence?
>Yes .. You can have accepted datings and evidence.
You can argue that way but you can't consistently (or rationally)
argue that way.
>> What you call "generally accepted" is only generally accepted by
>> Christians
>No
Non-Christians don't "generally accept" the Jesus myth at all, so the
only people who accept this part of it or that part of it are
Christians.
>> so either we're talking about the "Facts" that are
>> generally accepted or
>Yes.. that's what I'm talking about. Although in this case it is the
>educated opinions of historians and scholars, not definitely proven facts.
Christians. Non-Christian scholars don't accept the Jesus myth.
>The only facts we have is a latest possible date for the writing that comes
>from the physical evidence of actual texts
And the earliest known dates. All else is guesses and hopes.
>> we're talking about evidence. There's no
>> evidence of a human Jesus prior to 170, and it's generally accepted,
>> by those who generally accept that any Jesus existed - Christians -
>> that Jesus was a supernatural being.
>Just because someone claims something else about jesus does not invalidate
>my claims.
Your claim - one - that the mythical Jesus may be based on a real
Jesus, has no basis. There's as much reason for it as "the Jesus myth
is based on an Egyptian with a different name".
>>> .. so that is not a valid argument
>> It's your choice - either "generally accepted" - by Christians
>No .. i am not saying to accept what christains say about Jesus.
Then we ignore everything except the actual evidence, since the rest
is the myth "generally accepted" by Christians.
>I am saying that we cannot make an exact dating based only on a
>no-later-than date.
If we're only looking at the evidence, we look at the earliest
actually dated evidence. If we're looking at the myth, we're looking
at claimed dates, not evidence, since there's NO evidence to back up
the myths.
> And especially when the accepted dating by historians
>is earlier (note christian do not accept the "generally accepted" dates
>either, they insist they are much earlier .. I am not suggesting we accept
>the dates claimed by Christians)
The "historians" are Christians. Non-Christian historians don't
credit the myth at all.
>> We know that every single assertion that matters that we can verify is
>> false.
>I didn't say otherwise .. but that does not mean then that everything is
>false .. only that the things proven false are false.
No - only that everything that CAN BE verified has been proved false.
EVERY SINGLE claim that's verifiable, one way or the other, has been
found to be a lie.
In historical scholarship, that brings the value of the entire piece
into deep question. It's not simply "the verifiable claims are lies,
but the ones that can't be verified may be true", it's "since ALL the
verifiable claims are lies, the piece as a whole is useless".
>You're really not very good at logical argument
Logical argument, yes - biased argument, no. I don't come to the
table with the viewpoint that there may be some evidence to support my
view. I start with the evidence and see where it leads. And there's
no evidence, so it doesn't lead to any possibility.
>>>Unless we ever do get any solid evidence that the
>>>gospel stories were completly works of fiction with no basis on fact
>> Shifting the burden again.
>
>you keep saying that
Because you keep doing it. Speaking of evidence of non-existence is
the logical fallacy of shifting the burden, since the burden is
proving the existence - proving the non-existence, evidence of
non-existence, etc., is shifting the burden from existentially
positive to existentially negative, where no such burden exists.
>> The burden of proof is on those who claim
>> there's something other than make-believe there.
>I am not claiming it .. I am saying there is no evidence that shows it is
>incorrect
there needn't be. Barring evidence that shows it's CORRECT, the
default position is that it's not.
>and it is a posisbility that is not contrary to the known
>evidence
That's religion, not logic.
>and that it is a possible scenario that does neatly explain what
>we do know.
Evidence explains what we don't know, make-believe doesn't 'explain'
anything.
>I am not saying Jesus definitely existed.
>I am not saying that Jesus existence can be proved.
>I am not saying that lack of evidence means Jesus must exist.
>I am saying that many of the events in the gospels andother jesus stories
>are ficticious.
>I am saying that there is no good contemporary evidence for Jesus
>I am saying that the lack of evidence does not rule out Jesus existing.
That's shifting the burden. The default logical position is that,
barring evidence that Jesus existed, we don't address the possibility
of his existence. there's no logical reason to. Stop confusing the
logical position with your desire that some reality attached to Jesus
is possible.
wrote:
>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>news:1pte23dfplppk24shj876ivgiu4f1sftgu@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:30:29 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>>>news:hgld239n87sn95hqggoiahlut9njq3nm4n@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:50:40 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>It is not shifting anything .. you claimed to have evidence Jesus did
>>>>>not
>>>>>exist .. and you've not provided any.
>>>>>Only evidence that certain events or anecdotes about him are not
>>>>>correct.
>>>>
>>>> Evidence that ALL the assertions about him that can be verified turn
>>>> out to be false.
>>>
>>>Although that does make a case for Jesus not existing
>>
>> Shifting the burden again. The only case that needs to be made for
>> "no Jesus" is "there's no evidence for the case of "yes Jesus".
>
>I'm not shifting anythings
"a case for Jesus not existing" is shifting the burden. The burden is
to prove that he DID exist.
>> And that's all I'm doing - rejecting your claim
>
>What claim?
That there may be a real person on whom the stories were based.
>> because you can't back
>> it up with actual evidence. The fact that there's so much evidence
>> against any real Jesus is just another reason I'm rejecting it.
>There is NO evidence against a real Jesus.
Except for all the claims that we know are false.
>There is lack of good evidence FOR a real jesus
There's not even enough evidence to consider that the stories may have
been based on a real Jesus. There's no actual evidence at all, except
that the name was a common one, meaning that they didn't invent a new
name for their character.
>So .. it is imposibble for a jew to come up with any ideas that are
>different to what Judaism was currently believed to be.
It would not make sense for a Jew to come up with ideas that totally
repudiate Judaism. It would be like a Christian preaching that he's
still a Christian but he believes that there never was a Jesus,
disciples, a crucifixion or a resurrection. It's a contradiction in
terms. "I still believe in X but I believe that X never existed".
People who are even marginally sane don't do things like that.
>This sounds like you're using a 'no true scotsman' fallacy here. If a jew
>(lets call him Jesus for sake of argument) comes up with something that is
>different to jewish doctrine, he cannot then be a true jew and so that means
>he does not exist.
If a Jew claims to be a Jew but not believe in the basics of Judaism,
he's contradicting himself.
>That is the essence of your argument there .. and that is not valid
Only if you think that, while claiming that the entire NT is false
makes a person claiming to be Christian not a Christian, claiming that
the entire OT is false still allows a person claiming to be a Jew to
be a Jew.
>>> .. can you cite the biblical verse that suport that
>>>view? If not then it is irrelevant.
>> How can a tenet of Christianity be irrelevant to Christianity?
>Strawman attack .. I did not say that
First, whether it's relevant or not has nothing to do with whether I
can cite anything. Second, it's not Biblical, it's Christian.
You're going to have to decide whether we're discussing the Bible or
Christianity - you keep bouncing back and forth between them and
between evidence and accepted "wisdom". Pick a position and stay
there.
>So .. I take it that means you cannot cite a biblical verse where Jesus says
>that the OT teachings no longer apply.
I can, but that's not relevant to the people basing the stories about
a fictional Jesus on a real Jesus who never said anything we have any
record of.
>If not, the your argument is irrelevant, as what Christians may have later
>believed has no bearing on what Jesus himself said
And, according to your argument of the fictional Jesus being based on
him, we have absolutely no record of.
>You seem to confuse the biblical embellishments and fictions, and later
>theological beliefs with the notion of a real human person that was a basis
>for the gospel stories
I'm not confusing anything - you're bouncing back and forth to
whatever seems to back up your claims. I'm just trying to follow you.
>(just like galilee and jerusalem were real places
>that were the settings for the stories)
They still exist - there's no evidence that a "real Jesus" ever did.
>>>> That's the whole point - the only "evidence" that they were based on
>>>> an actual first century man is the need people have for the stories to
>>>> be true.
>>>We have the stories of his teachings and of his disciples. Of course,
>>>they
>>>are not very reliabl evidence .. but there is more "evidence' than wishful
>>>thinking.
>> The stories are evidence that the stories are true?
>
>I did not say that. I said the stories are very unreliable evidence for the
>existence of a Jesus.
The stories are evidence that part of the stories are true. Not so.
>I did not claim they were evidence for themselves.
You're claiming that they're evidence that part of them - the parts
claiming a Jesus - are.
>> "claims that he doesn't [exist" is shifting the burden. The burden
>> being to prove that he (the Biblical Jesus or the real Jesus the Bible
>> stories were based on) existed.
>I'm not shifting the burden
Saying "claims that he doesn't exist" IS shifting the burden. You're
saying "I'm standing on 1 foot, but I'm not standing".
The burden is to prove that he DOES exist. Talking about proving that
he doesn't exist is what "shifting the burden" means.
> .. I am saying that we cannot know.
If he exists, not "if he doesn't exist" - that's shifting the burden.
>I am saying that it is a possible explanation
So is "Zeus drove Odin off Mt. St. Helens", but there's no actual
evidence to lead us to think about Zeus or about a real Jesus.
>>> .. as there is no good evidence either way
>>
>> Shifting the burden again.
>
>you really have this thing about burden shifting, when I am not shifting it.
Talking about evidence for an existentially negative assertion is
called "shifting the burden". And it's a fallacy in logic.
>>> there is nothing provable.
>> About their existence, so there's no reason to believe that they
>> existed. Lack of evidence of an existentially negative assertion is
>> the expected state.
>Yes.. one can assume or presume lack of existence
One does nothing, it's the default.
> .. but it is not proof ..
No, it's just the default position. One doesn't speak about the
existence of something, or the possibility of the existence of
something, without some objective reason to do so. In the case of a
real Jesus, there is none.
>it is just an assumption for practical purposes.
There's nothing practical about assuming that the stories of Jesus
were based on a real person - they're stories, period.
>> But at least two of the Gospels are out of the running as far as being
>> evidence of anything goes. "What we believe" is renouncing any claim
>> to being evidence.
>No .. it is not .. belief does not mean there is no evidence
Saying "this book is what we believe" means that it can't be used as
evidence of anything other than the existence of the beliefs expressed
in it.
> .. it means
>that the statements are held to be true. Indeed belief often implies that
>there is strong evidence to support it.
As far as evidence goes, belief is merely opinion, it's NOT evidence.
(which is why it's inadmissible as evidence in a court of law or in
science).
>You're playing word games here .. and that is not proof
I'm not the one claiming that opinion is evidence.
>You cannot use a no-later-than date in an argument where what you need is a
>no-earlier-than date
There's no earlier confirmed mention-of-Jesus-as-a-man date than
around 170 AD.
>its not a logical argument
It's not an argument, it's a statement of fact. If you have an
earlier confirmed date, post it.
>>>But if YOU thought it was important enough, you would.
>>
>> If I were a first century tradesman? Probably not. Writing things
>> down wasn't for the common person. If you thought it was important,
>> would you have a large stone monument erected to mark some event?
>
>Only if you could afford one, and had a place to put it.
Which is why no one recorded any contemporaneous reports of Jesus - no
one thought the subject was important enough to spend the money on
paper. No one thought that a real man named Yeshua did anything
important enough to record for posterity.
Yet 140 years later, they remembered him? Do you come from this
planet? You don't seem to have a very good understanding of how human
beings work.
>> We're talking about evidence. No reason to think there might have
>> been earlier writings about Jesus other than the need for there to
>> have been.
>No reaons to assume there were not
It's the default position if there's no evidence that there were.
> and then base your arguments on that. it
>is not logical
No, shifting the burden (which is what you DID at that point) is the
illogical (actually "logically fallacious") stance. Barring evidence,
the logical stance on the existence of something is "it
{doesn't|didn't} exist". There's no logical reason to assume that
something does (or might) exist when there's not a scrap of actual
evidence of it.
>> No evidence that anyone heard of him until 140
>> years after he supposedly died.
>Exactly .. NO evidence.
So the logical stance is "didn't exist". It's the logically default
state.
>>>[snip same assumptions that are contrary to accepted datings]
>> Are we talking about evidence or "accepted datings"? If the latter,
>> there was a supernatural Jesus who performed miracles, was killed and
>> rose on the third day.
>Strawman argument. Using accepted datings does NOT imply believing
>christian myths.
The SOLE reason to even have dates is the Christian myth. There's no
actual evidence.
>> You can't have it both ways. "Accepted datings" or evidence?
>Yes .. You can have accepted datings and evidence.
You can argue that way but you can't consistently (or rationally)
argue that way.
>> What you call "generally accepted" is only generally accepted by
>> Christians
>No
Non-Christians don't "generally accept" the Jesus myth at all, so the
only people who accept this part of it or that part of it are
Christians.
>> so either we're talking about the "Facts" that are
>> generally accepted or
>Yes.. that's what I'm talking about. Although in this case it is the
>educated opinions of historians and scholars, not definitely proven facts.
Christians. Non-Christian scholars don't accept the Jesus myth.
>The only facts we have is a latest possible date for the writing that comes
>from the physical evidence of actual texts
And the earliest known dates. All else is guesses and hopes.
>> we're talking about evidence. There's no
>> evidence of a human Jesus prior to 170, and it's generally accepted,
>> by those who generally accept that any Jesus existed - Christians -
>> that Jesus was a supernatural being.
>Just because someone claims something else about jesus does not invalidate
>my claims.
Your claim - one - that the mythical Jesus may be based on a real
Jesus, has no basis. There's as much reason for it as "the Jesus myth
is based on an Egyptian with a different name".
>>> .. so that is not a valid argument
>> It's your choice - either "generally accepted" - by Christians
>No .. i am not saying to accept what christains say about Jesus.
Then we ignore everything except the actual evidence, since the rest
is the myth "generally accepted" by Christians.
>I am saying that we cannot make an exact dating based only on a
>no-later-than date.
If we're only looking at the evidence, we look at the earliest
actually dated evidence. If we're looking at the myth, we're looking
at claimed dates, not evidence, since there's NO evidence to back up
the myths.
> And especially when the accepted dating by historians
>is earlier (note christian do not accept the "generally accepted" dates
>either, they insist they are much earlier .. I am not suggesting we accept
>the dates claimed by Christians)
The "historians" are Christians. Non-Christian historians don't
credit the myth at all.
>> We know that every single assertion that matters that we can verify is
>> false.
>I didn't say otherwise .. but that does not mean then that everything is
>false .. only that the things proven false are false.
No - only that everything that CAN BE verified has been proved false.
EVERY SINGLE claim that's verifiable, one way or the other, has been
found to be a lie.
In historical scholarship, that brings the value of the entire piece
into deep question. It's not simply "the verifiable claims are lies,
but the ones that can't be verified may be true", it's "since ALL the
verifiable claims are lies, the piece as a whole is useless".
>You're really not very good at logical argument
Logical argument, yes - biased argument, no. I don't come to the
table with the viewpoint that there may be some evidence to support my
view. I start with the evidence and see where it leads. And there's
no evidence, so it doesn't lead to any possibility.
>>>Unless we ever do get any solid evidence that the
>>>gospel stories were completly works of fiction with no basis on fact
>> Shifting the burden again.
>
>you keep saying that
Because you keep doing it. Speaking of evidence of non-existence is
the logical fallacy of shifting the burden, since the burden is
proving the existence - proving the non-existence, evidence of
non-existence, etc., is shifting the burden from existentially
positive to existentially negative, where no such burden exists.
>> The burden of proof is on those who claim
>> there's something other than make-believe there.
>I am not claiming it .. I am saying there is no evidence that shows it is
>incorrect
there needn't be. Barring evidence that shows it's CORRECT, the
default position is that it's not.
>and it is a posisbility that is not contrary to the known
>evidence
That's religion, not logic.
>and that it is a possible scenario that does neatly explain what
>we do know.
Evidence explains what we don't know, make-believe doesn't 'explain'
anything.
>I am not saying Jesus definitely existed.
>I am not saying that Jesus existence can be proved.
>I am not saying that lack of evidence means Jesus must exist.
>I am saying that many of the events in the gospels andother jesus stories
>are ficticious.
>I am saying that there is no good contemporary evidence for Jesus
>I am saying that the lack of evidence does not rule out Jesus existing.
That's shifting the burden. The default logical position is that,
barring evidence that Jesus existed, we don't address the possibility
of his existence. there's no logical reason to. Stop confusing the
logical position with your desire that some reality attached to Jesus
is possible.