First you have to justify your total identification of the Jesus mythos as you would have it, with modern fiction as we know it today. Fiction simply was not written in those terms at that time.
Firstly what we have to do is come to an actual basis with which to conduct the discussion. To be honest with you, you seem to be to'ing and fro'ing from what stance to the other to such degree that I am having difficulty understanding exactly where we stand.
When it comes to the attributed miracles, your latest statement:
"I did not in fact mean (as I thought I made clearer in later posts) that the events did not happen"
This seems to imply that you believe they did happen. However, when I browse back through your posts I see much that contradicts your latest stance:
"I have repeatedly stated that obviously I don't believe in any of the miraculous parts of the tale."
So what exactly do you believe or not believe? Your most recent attempt, (other than the virgin birth on the basis that it's unlikely anyone did a smear test), is to say that the events did indeed happen but the writers fudged it up. So, when it comes to walking on water, Jesus was actually just stood in a puddle during a rainy Sunday. This in my opinion is a weak way of trying to support the story and existence of characters within that story. You say that:
"Almost everything said about Jesus in the Gospels is undoubtedly fictional"
And yet stop short. You say Jesus existed, and yet everything else is nonsense. Why? Your arguments to answer that "why" come in the form that "people did not write fiction like that back in those days", which I again personally find to be a rather weak argument. Nobody ever really wrote about ents and hobbits until Tolkien came along, but that doesn't mean anything in those stories is true - including the character.
You also argue that if we are to state that Jesus is fictional then we must do so for countless other supposed historical figures. I have no issues with that, as I pointed to earlier - indeed using other figures from ancient texts and asking why you seemingly dismiss them instantly. But suffice it to say for now we are not talking about other people. We are talking about the character Jesus.. nobody else.
So let's be clear about this.. When we are talking about Jesus, we are talking about a character that was the son of god, born of a virgin, did miracles, got killed, got up again and ascended to a nice big throne in heaven. You simply
cannot say "well, Jesus did exist but the rest is all bollocks or mistaken".
You say you expect to be read precisely in accordance with what you write, and having done just that I find myself confused as to what you attest to and what you don't. We need to clear that up.
In my opinion, the Gospel stories are more than sufficient evidence that there was such a person around whom the religion of Christianity was drawn, and there are many instances of things said about him which would not be the case if he was simply a fictional character
"Almost everything said about Jesus in the Gospels is undoubtedly fictional".
See my point? I can't keep up with your constant changes in stance. You tell me that the gospels are sufficient evidence while telling me "almost" everything is fiction. If, from your own words, almost everything is undoubtedly fiction, why stop one short of saying Jesus himself was fictional? Please, justify it.
like making him a Galilean carpenter who is simultaneously a Bethlehem-born descendant of David.
I'm sorry, but this is fiction at it's finest. Some poor peasant individual that rides an ass that turns out to be heir to the throne and kingdom. Or Arthur, a commoner that turns out to be the greatest king in English history.
Or describing him pathetically nailed to a cross to die like a dog, instead of heroically at the head of an uprising against Rome.
I think you have misunderstood the story, or are purposely playing it down.
As far as you are concerned, the Bible says, "he was born of a Virgin", which is obvioulsy impossible, so you throw out everything else that the books say about him.
Not exactly, and yet I understand the makings of good fiction whereas you are seemingly dismissing "almost all" of it as fiction and yet unjustifiably accepting one part because.. well, I still don't know why.
There is sufficient agreement amongst all four Gospels for us to be quite specific about one man named Jesus.
Certainly. A Jesus that was born of a virgin, was son of god, did miracles etc etc. What Jesus are you talking about?
I don't conclude the story is "entirely" fictional simply because it is littered with fictional elements.
You said almost everything is fiction, dismissed all the 'miraculous' aspects - and have since contradicted that and started playing down the miracles: "everyone can come back to life if you know how, it's no big deal", which is - imo - turning this discussion into a farce somewhat. You need to decide once and for all what you consider fictional and what you consider factual. Then you need to answer your own earlier statements concerning witnesses being able to know if it was fictional - and how those witnesses didn't manage to find out the "almost all" fictional part was indeed fictional.
The histories of Tacitus, for example, do not exist in anything older than an 11th Century manuscript! If Tacitus is to be read as reliable history, then the Gospel of Luke has at least equal claim
We can debate Tacitus later. For now let's stick to Jesus.
I'm afraid I'm not actually aware of any fictional characters of whom things have been written by different people, and not only have stories been told by those different people, but those stories differed in some details and not others.
Robin Hood, King Arthur, yada yada yada.
But enough of this.. Please, come to a conclusion as to what you consider fictional and what you consider factual and we'll take it from there.
