Historical Jesus and Historical Tank Man: A Similitude?

[Mental flatliner]

We have a great deal of evidence that the gospels are highly fictive.

No, we don't.

What we have are people hundreds of years after the fact arrogantly placing themselves in positions of authority. The only true sources of history are primary in nature (eye-witness accounts, artifacts, etc.), items that can give us a direct line of information.

The gospels are the only direct evidence we have, and they claim they are not fiction.

You are going to have to come up with eye-witness testimony otherwise before you can make a claim of "a great deal of evidence".

(Keep in mind that I play fair. I understand that for every critic you can name, I can name 1000 or more believers and create a numeric consensus that you can only defeat through anti-religious selection, or the claim of anti-religious bias. The so-called "consensus" belongs to the group with 3 billion believers, not the 200,000 skeptics. I won't pull rank on you. Rather, I reject all sources, regardless of bias, if they date later than 70 AD, and I prefer those few 3-5 years after Jesus' death and resurrection. For me, there are no other authorities.)

[Diogenes the Cynic]

We have a great deal of evidence that the gospels are highly fictive.

No, we don't.

Yes we do. Are you sure you really want to go down this road? Have you ever been exposed to basic NT scholarship before?

What we have are people hundreds of years after the fact arrogantly placing themselves in positions of authority. The only true sources of history are primary in nature (eye-witness accounts, artifacts, etc.), items that can give us a direct line of information.

we have neither eyewitnesses nor artifacts for Jesus.

The gospels are the only direct evidence we have, and they claim they are not fiction.

Lots of fiction claims not to be fiction. We also have forged Epistles in the New Testament which claim not to be forged.

You are going to have to come up with eye-witness testimony otherwise before you can make a claim of "a great deal of evidence".

No, I can debunk plenty of Gospel claims without witnesses.

(Keep in mind that I play fair. I understand that for every critic you can name, I can name 1000 or more believers and create a numeric consensus that you can only defeat through anti-religious selection, or the claim of anti-religious bias. The so-called "consensus" belongs to the group with 3 billion believers, not the 200,000 skeptics. I won't pull rank on you. Rather, I reject all sources, regardless of bias, if they date later than 70 AD, and I prefer those few 3-5 years after Jesus' death and resurrection. For me, there are no other authorities.)

This is an ad populum fallacy with no meaning at all.

[Mental flatliner]

We have a great deal of evidence that the gospels are highly fictive.

No, we don't.

Yes we do. Are you sure you really want to go down this road? Have you ever been exposed to basic NT scholarship before?

What we have are people hundreds of years after the fact arrogantly placing themselves in positions of authority. The only true sources of history are primary in nature (eye-witness accounts, artifacts, etc.), items that can give us a direct line of information.

we have neither eyewitnesses nor artifacts for Jesus.

The gospels are the only direct evidence we have, and they claim they are not fiction.

Lots of fiction claims not to be fiction. We also have forged Epistles in the New Testament which claim not to be forged.

You are going to have to come up with eye-witness testimony otherwise before you can make a claim of "a great deal of evidence".

No, I can debunk plenty of Gospel claims without witnesses.

(Keep in mind that I play fair. I understand that for every critic you can name, I can name 1000 or more believers and create a numeric consensus that you can only defeat through anti-religious selection, or the claim of anti-religious bias. The so-called "consensus" belongs to the group with 3 billion believers, not the 200,000 skeptics. I won't pull rank on you. Rather, I reject all sources, regardless of bias, if they date later than 70 AD, and I prefer those few 3-5 years after Jesus' death and resurrection. For me, there are no other authorities.)

This is an ad populum fallacy with no meaning at all.

You have failed to meet your burden.

It takes about 12 brain cells to make a claim. Your tactic is to try to turn the tables and pretend that I have the burden of proof.

Fine:

"I am that disciple. I am a witness to these things..." John, in his gospel.

If you want the authority to call him a liar, you should have at least a modicum of respect and tell us why. Assumptions are empty, and nothing in the land of NT scholarship can help you if you fail in the most fundamental tasks: reading the gospels before you speak.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

You have failed to meet your burden.

You are confused about who has the burden. Anyone who thinks they can assign specific authorship to anonymous works with no provenance has the burden of proof. The Gospels themselves do not claim to be disciples or witnesses or to have known any disciples or witnesses.

"I am that disciple. I am a witness to these things..." John, in his gospel.

No such verse exists in the Gospel of John. Do you really think you can make up verses that don't exist and that people will fall for it? Not on this board they won't.

If you want the authority to call him a liar

The author doesn't say the words you attributed to him. You made that verse up, but no authority is needed to be able to tell if an ancient writer is lying or not.

[MrMacSon]

We have a great deal of evidence that the gospels are highly fictive.

No, we don't.

What we have are people hundreds of years after the fact arrogantly placing themselves in positions of authority. The only true sources of history are primary in nature (eye-witness accounts, artifacts, etc.), items that can give us a direct line of information.

The gospels are the only direct evidence we have, and they claim they are not fiction.

"they claim they are not fiction" ... bwahahahahahaha.

You're 'reasoning' is circular - a fallacy. Moreover, the gospels are not 'reasoning entities' - you also commit the hypostatization fallacy.

You are going to have to come up with eye-witness testimony otherwise before you can make a claim of "a great deal of evidence".

No. You are. There is an ethic that "he who avers must prove". The ball's in your court, buddy.

[Mental flatliner]

We have a great deal of evidence that the gospels are highly fictive.

No, we don't.

What we have are people hundreds of years after the fact arrogantly placing themselves in positions of authority. The only true sources of history are primary in nature (eye-witness accounts, artifacts, etc.), items that can give us a direct line of information.

The gospels are the only direct evidence we have, and they claim they are not fiction.

"they claim they are not fiction" ... bwahahahahahaha.

You're 'reasoning' is circular - a fallacy. Moreover, the gospels are not 'reasoning entities' - you also commit the hypostatization fallacy.

You are going to have to come up with eye-witness testimony otherwise before you can make a claim of "a great deal of evidence".

No. You are. There is an ethic that "he who avers must prove". The ball's in your court, buddy.

Excellent!! I love this game of the perpetually shifting burden of proof.

Why?

Because it demonstrates that Christians are the only intellectuals willing and able to bear it, and I will gladly offer my evidence.

Here it is:

The gospels are eye-witness accounts and demonstrate the activities of Jesus from 27-30 AD.

Your turn.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Excellent!! I love this game of the perpetually shifting burden of proof.

We've noticed.

[Mental flatliner]

Excellent!! I love this game of the perpetually shifting burden of proof.

We've noticed.

Pay attention some more and you might "notice" how to support a claim.

[Bernard Muller]

The gospels are eye-witness accounts and demonstrate the activities of Jesus from 27-30 AD.

Mental flatliner, how do you know the gospels are eye-witness accounts and demonstrate the activities of Jesus from 27-30 AD?
Cordially, Bernard

[Mental flatliner]

The gospels are eye-witness accounts and demonstrate the activities of Jesus from 27-30 AD.

Mental flatliner, how do you know the gospels are eye-witness accounts and demonstrate the activities of Jesus from 27-30 AD?
Cordially, Bernard

I have a rule:

When reading any original historical source, I treat it as written in good faith until proven otherwise. Without this rule, there is no such thing as knowledge of history.

The gospels state that they are eye-witness accounts, and they are in absolute agreement with each other (serving as confirmation).

In 35 years of debating the Bible, I have never seen a legitimate complaint otherwise, either from Bible readers, skeptics, archaeology magazines, scholars, atheist scholars, etc.

Show me one.

(After all, one is all it really takes, right?)