Stu is the making the moon is made of swiss cheese argument. There is no reason to engage him. ... For this reason, many scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time,[107] comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.[108]...
That sure is a fancy new alias choice. How long you think you can keep this one Mr. "logic class" LOL!!!!
No scholar, no historian, no one, at any time, any place, has ever been able to confirm by ordinary formal standards applied to establishing historicity, that Jesus was anything other than fictional. That is why there is no reason to engage. There is nothing to engage about - zilch, nada, to disprove Jesus a fictional character. Never has been. It's why you cannot find anything but bluster from apologists, after frantically and desperately searching the internet. Therefore no substance in any of your cut & pastes. Lol yep, sure is a fancy new alias. The new screen name suits you Jem - res judicata in your case being final pre judgment......so finding you worse than wrong in all appeals against your brainless illogicality. Next time you might try res-ligious maximus inconditus.
Actually, eye witness accounts are considered primary sources by professional historians. Not ideal, but we are dealing with events 2000 years past.
Actually, there is more evidence of Jesus' existence than William Shakespeare's... lots of "scholars" in all areas of life are very muchly willfully ignorant..
... For this reason, many scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time,[107] comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.[108]...
Nothing Stu can do is accurate. He even mis applied the term res judicata. Its not a "pre judgment"... its a fully adjudicated judgment. Res judicata or res iudicata (RJ) is the Latin term for "a matter [already] judged", and may refer to two things: in both civil law and common law legal systems, a case in which there has been a final judgment and is no longer subject to appeal.[1]; and the term is also used to refer to the legal doctrine meant to bar (or preclude) continued litigation of such cases between the same parties, which is different between the two legal systems. In this latter usage, the term is synonymous with "preclusion". In the case of RJ, the matter cannot be raised again, either in the same court or in a different court. A court will use RJ to deny reconsideration of a matter.[2] The legal concept of RJ arose as a method of preventing injustice to the parties of a case supposedly finished, but perhaps mostly to avoid unnecessary waste of resources in the court system. Res judicata does not merely prevent future judgments from contradicting earlier ones, but also prevents litigants from multiplying judgments, so a prevailing plaintiff could not recover damages from the defendant twice for the same injury.
You beggar belief Jem. You've created another alias to beef up support for yourself because you cannot make any real argument for a non-fictional Jesus, the simple reason being that , well, he is a fictional character who you cannot show to be otherwise. So you' ve now started to cut and paste another futile non-argument about your new screen name. Incredible. RJ can be appealed, you don't have the last word you must have childishly thought your new alias gave you. That was the message you would have understood from my frippery about the whole silly thing in my previous post , if you had any idea at all that is. I didn't mis-apply anything dufus. You're becoming more pathetic over time. How bad do you intend to get? It's ok, don't bother...it's just rhetorical...or res torical if you prefer.
Actually that's not true. There are court and church records , marriage certificates formal records of which same process has not altered to this day, and many independent documents about Shakespeare by his contemporaries. There is only one account of Jesus in what could be a version of a bad Shakespearean play, if it hadn't already been called the bible. Yes I agree with you, many scholars are very ' muchly willfully ignorant ', particularly theologian ones.