IanS
What my quote says is that the bible is not a credible source of evidence because it’s extant copies were written centuries later by anonymous religious fanatics telling constant stories of the supernatural
"Stories of the supernatural" i.e. myths.
What on earth are you trying to argue about now!? You seem to be arguing with yourself!
Whether or not
you want to call the biblical claims of the supernatural as “myths”, is up to you. But the biblical writing is packed full of claims that, whilst once no doubt were the very thing that so convinced people that this legendary figure must have indeed been the divine messiah of God, were later found out, courtesy of modern science (no thanks to religion) to be impossible tales of the supernatural.
What are "copyist writers"? Do you mean "copyists"? How could these, working very much later, as you stress, ever have known a human Jesus? What point are you making? They had pre-existing, perhaps centuries-old, texts in front of them and copied them as best they could.
How do you know they copied it as “best they could”? You mean absolutely as accurately as possible? They never made any changes? How could you know anything like that? We don’t know what was written in any original first copies of any of the gospels or in Paul’s letters.
But even if the copies were exact in every detail, the names on the gospels are supposedly not the actual writers. The actual writers of those gospels are anonymous; unknown. And none of them wrote ever to say they had known any living Jesus.
And Paul’s letters also make clear that he never knew any living Jesus either.
Who is it that you think ever reliably wrote to confirm that they ever met any living messiah called Jesus?
Or if they were "writers" then they were responsible for the content of the "stories of the supernatural" which flowed from their pens, and they didn't replicate, but invented, material, inspired as you say by religious fanaticism. In this latter case they were mythmakers by definition, unless you want to call them novelists.
They were supposedly (according to bible scholars) copyists, i.e. people copying earlier written or spoken gospels and letters. So what is the point that you are trying claim?
Do you want to say that their stories were “mythical”? And that if I say they were writing “myth” then you want to claim that makes me a “Jesus myther“? You want to claim that means I am claiming Jesus was “mythical”? Is that what you are trying to claim?
Instead of making these silly attempts at trying to place bogus labels on people by erroneous word associations, your time would be better spent trying to produce genuine evidence of anyone who ever credibly wrote to say they had actually met a living Jesus such that they could provide actual evidence of him.
But what is a "copyist writer" if not one of the two things described above? A copyist who doesn't copy? A writer who doesn't compose?
They were supposedly people making written copies of previous written or spoken gospels and letters. But what they wrote as those copies, was filled with what turned out 1800 years later to be shown as impossible tales of the supernatural.
If
you want to use the word “myth” to say those gospel writers were producing “myth” when they wrote their stories of supernatural messianic deeds, then that’s
your choice and
your use of the word “myth”. But either way, unless you want to believe in physically impossible miracles, then the stories are simply untrue.
Do you have any evidence of anyone who ever credibly wrote to claim they had actually met a living human Jesus, and could thus produce their evidence of his existence?
And please don’t tell me again that your evidence is in the bible but that I won’t read it, because afaik the bible does not contain anything remotely like a credible written account from anyone who claimed ever to have met a living Jesus.
.