"Jesus is a myth."
"OK, give me evidence for that, because there's lots of myth theories."
"Yes, but I'm not proposing any specific myth; I'm just saying he's a myth. So I don't need to provide evidence." Mmm.
What you are saying is, you don't need to provide evidence for tsig's "doctrine committee", and tsig doesn't need to provide evidence for dejudge's hoax forger falsifying fabricators, and neither of you needs to give evidence about the author copyists and none of these people needs to tell us anything about the metaphysical crucifixion perpetrated by the Archontes of Woo in the Sublunary Superterrestrial Cloud Cuckoo Land; and if people in general can't give evidence for other people's theories, and don't give any for their own, then anyone can say anything whatsoever, and no evidence needs to be advanced at all. Great!
Actually, Remsburg stated "(i)t is often difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish a historical from a philosophical myth. Hence the non-agreement of Freethinkers in regard to the nature of the Christ myth. Is Christ a historical or a philosophical myth? Does an analysis of his alleged history disclose the deification of a man, or merely the personification of an idea?"
Jesus
is a myth; that is not in debate. The question is where on the spectrum I. Howard Marshall talks about does that myth fall. Remsburg, Barker, and Eddy-Boyd all came up with categories which roughly fall into these:
Christ Myth theory (Philosophical myth)
"Jesus Christ is a pure myth—that he never had an existence, except as a Messianic idea, or an imaginary solar deity."
"Jesus never existed at all and that the myth came into being through a literary process."
All trace of a historical person, if there was ever one was to begin with, has been lost. (Jesus agnosticism)
Jesus began as at a Myth with historical trappings possibly including "reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" being being added later.
Christ Myth theory (Historical myth via the narrative is essentially false) or Minimalist
"Many radical Freethinkers believe that Christ is a myth, of which Jesus of Nazareth is the basis, but that these narratives are so legendary and contradictory as to be almost if not wholly, unworthy of credit."
"Other skeptics deny that the Jesus character portrayed in the New Testament existed, but that there could have been a first century personality after whom the exaggerated myth was pattered."
There is just enough to show there was a first century teacher called Jesus and little else.
Moderate Historical
"Jesus of Nazareth is a historical character and that these narratives, eliminating the supernatural elements, which they regard as myths, give a fairly authentic account of his life."
"Jesus did exist, and that some parts of the New Testament are accurate, although the miracles and the claim to deity are due to later editing of the original story."
A historical Jesus did exist but was very different from the gospel Jesus.
Total/Extreme Historical
"Christ is a historical character, supernatural and divine; and that the New Testament narratives, which purport to give a record of his life and teachings, contain nothing but infallible truth."
"The New Testament is basically true in all of its accounts except that there are natural explanations for the miracle stories."
It is the "Christ Myth theory (Historical myth via the narrative is essentially false) or Minimalist" position the HJers seem to have problems with because it puts him on par with King Arthur or Robin Hood. The idea that yes there likely is a man behind the myth but the myth tells us
next to nothing (other than the man existed) seems to terrify them because that mean the entire Gospels account from birth, through sayings, to death
may not be true!
In other words if the Gospel accounts is on par with stories like George Washington and the Cherry Tree; Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn; and Jesse James and the Widow then they essentially describe a Jesus who in reality didn't exist and cannot be used to determine anything about the actual man.
