I believe that you are already deeply within the Jesus-Myth, simply because you follow the faith based upon a mythical Jesus who was fashioned by Paul (and others), and later supported by the Johanine Gospel. You really ought to read up the scholars who show how the fourth evangelist steered away from Yeshua the healer, the exorciser towards Jesus the teacher........ the manipulation is there for all to see.
I am more realistic, and take interest in Yeshua the Healer, the Galilean who never knew or used the name 'Jesus'.
I've discussed and debated with a lot of Christians in my life, and the vast majority are patient, loving, understanding people, yet when I read your posts I seem to think of Inquisitive Dominican priests in dungeons...... just saying.......
Well shucks, once again, I am bewildered at how your faith and ability to discern personal traits magically through the internet ... contrasts with that desire for a personal, evidenced, and thus explainable, journey toward truth.
I mean at any point you could have simply laid out the case .. and have continuously failed to do so.
Instead, you employ overt fallacy:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion
Gee, I'd certainly lay out my diabolical (yes, yes ... ha ha) ... er, rational case against Jesus, but you see YOU are just too deep in the cups of the myth - which is evidenced by the fact that you asked me for evidence rather than just taking my word ... and you actually appear to know what the hell you are talking about ... so I'll just appeal to spite.
In fact, I'm just cross over into full on ad hominem by vacuously comparing you to a an Inquisitor. Because discussions based on evidence are actually ... torture?
At this point I feel its worth mentioning that there is a point where simple conspiracy, which employs absurdity to maintain an illogical belief, becomes something more ... simple abuse.
And I am beginning to see that in your posts.
Anyone who agrees with you is auto magically (huh, auto correct actually got that one right?) smarter than DaVinci, More loft than Jesus himself (who is apparently a myth, so that isn't saying much?), more beautiful than Cyndi Crawford, more profound than Abraham Lincoln.
The actual strength of the claim, even overt errors in claim don't matter, only agreement.
And disagreement?
Those who disagree are automatically dumb. They are ugly. Deceitful. Nasty. Or whatever pejorative an abuser can use to prevent sustained disagreement and assume control of the person.
Its a tactic that I find particularly distasteful, and one that I feel its worth reminding people about. Because the ultimate goal of such behavior is quite literally to cull the weak from the strong, to find those who who are susceptible to blind delivery of praise and insult and whose behavior can be modified by through this application.
Those who would cull people for such an intent are rarely of good intent.
Ergo, I humbly submit that you offer more in way of discussion than insults and derision toward disagreement and blind praise for any agreement no matter how loony. It sends a VERY bad vibe.
