Yes it is indeed exactly what I had said!
I did not need to previously write “with yourself” - look at what I actually wrote (which you yet again, for the umpteenth time, conveniently omitted to actually quote at all … you must have tried that ruse at least a dozen times now). Here is what I had actually written quoted verbatim -
What that says is that I am replying specifically to a point made earlier by Davefoc, and emphasising to him that since there actually is really no reliable or credible evidence of Jesus in the gospel writing (for all the reasons so very clearly explained in full reply to him, as well as many times before in this thread), that it would, on that basis of no credible evidence, be “highly illogical and lacking objective honesty“ when on that basis "There is simply no good reason to believe it” for anyone in general to conclude that such non-evidence is a basis for positive belief in a human Jesus. And that is not only what that sentence very clearly says, but it is also something you should in all honesty admit if you were not in a state of denial and delusion about the non-existent evidence.
It was not YOU who stated that . It was me that stated it right from the beginning of all these three most recent threads, and in fact also in all the previous posts that I have ever written on this subject on this forum (and before that also on RDF and RatSkep) - it was not YOU who stated there is no genuine reliable or credible evidence of Jesus, for all the reasons I have so painstaking explained a hundred times in microscopic detail, it was me who explained that, not you!
No. I just explained the difference to you. Look again very carefully at what I actually wrote, here it is verbatim -
Firstly notice that I am talking there about what I think dejudge has stated as his position throughout this thread. Not necessarily my own position, but saying in specific reply to davefoc what I understand to be dejudge’s position on that point.
And what I say there about my impression of what dejudge has repeatedly emphasised, is that the HJ argument appears to have been deliberately created by people such as bible-scholars, theologians and Christian leaders themselves sometime around say 1800 (I suggested that sort of date in the earlier sentences), without any form of supporting evidence at all for anyone ever claiming to see or know any HJ, and seemingly therefore from that sort of date as a “fig leaf” attempt at maintaining the credibility of Christianity and Christian belief in Jesus even though by that date science was progressively showing that the immediately earlier belief which had stretched back to biblical times and which had always staunchly claimed that Jesus was indeed just exactly as described in the bible with the miracles etc all being believed as literal fact. The sentence is talking about how that idea of HJ appears to have been invented around 200 years ago (or whenever) specifically to counter the growing realisation (from science) that the biblical accounts must actually be untrue.
What I declined to read from you, after we had all already read literally what must be 500 pages of these various threads without any of the promised “evidence” ever being produced, was something you were claming as evidence from the bible. I told you there very specifically that if it was from the bible, then I was not interested in reading yet more absurd nonsense like that the 100th time, for the very clearly and frankly unarguable reason that the biblical writing is not, and never could be, reliable and credible evidence for it’s anonymous hearsay authors who never knew Jesus, having any evidence of their own ever to produce for Jesus.
If you have now changed that story to say your evidence comes not from that hopelessly discredited biblical writing of the gospels and Paul’s letters, as you now appear to suggest in the highlight, then instead of doing what you did before (and what indeed someone else just invited me to do a few page back) and just provide me with various links telling me to read all sorts of religious clap-trap, which I am not inclined to waste even more time on, then just name the non-biblical source that you are relying upon for what you just called “other valid evidence” … because if you mean writing from the likes of Tacitus and Josephus then that is, if anything, as has been explained countless times already, even more laughably absurd than the bible as evidence of either of those authors personally having any evidence at all which they can give about witnessing anything whatsoever to do with Jesus.
Did you actually read what you just wrote?
