@Material_Atheist

"My burden of proof has already been met, many times over. The onus is now on you to prove why I am wrong."

Oh for goodness sake! You really no idea do you . You may not shift the burden of proof simply because you have met that burden. (See below)

It is the person making the claim who has the burden of proof, it's not to anyone else to prove you wrong.

You have NOT met the burden of proof because you have provided none..

"Bollocks! An historical Jesus is the most reasonable inference that can be made on the basis of the available evidence."

A bald dogmatic claim made without evidence, There is no consensus among biblical scholars on the historicity of Jesus. Although an absence of proof does not prove absence, neither is the converse true .

Although an absence from silence does not in itself prove absence, it may be a strong indicator.

BECAUSE there is no contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus, no dogmatic claims may be made one way or t'other.

Not an uncommon place for the ancient historian to find him/herself . When this occurs, secondary sources are studied .Those sometimes lead to an educated guess,.Even modern historians say such things as "it seems likely" "may be the case" and "is probably the case" - Most avoid dogmatic statements such as the one you have made .

MY position :

The best which can be reasonably claimed about an historical Jesus is: There MAY have been a wandering Rabbi in first century Judea, as such were common in that place and time. That his name MAY have been something like Yeshua/Yoshua bar Yusuf ,.,"Jesus" ' being the latinised version of his Greek name "Iesous". That he MAY have founded a small Jewish sect, much like the Jewish followers of "The Way" (Ebionites)

That Yeshua/Yoshua MAY have upset the wrong people and been crucified for sedition .Sadly, a common fate for many Jews in first century Judea < an aside; Christians tend to miss the point about crucification; it was an excruciating and shameful death especially a for a jew. Bodies were NOT usually removed ,but left to rot and be eaten by scavengers. Most unlikely Jesus' body would have been removed from the cross>

That the religion which became known as "'christianity' in the fourth century has little if anything do to with an historic person.

(((((((((((((((((((((((0))))))))))))))))

Ebionites (Greek: Ἐβιωναῖοι, Ebionaioi, derived from Hebrew אביונים ebyonim, ebionim, meaning "the poor" or "poor ones") is a patristic term referring to a Jewish Christian movement that existed during the early centuries of the Christian Era.[1] They regarded Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah while rejecting his divinity and his virgin birth[2] and insisted on the necessity of following Jewish law and rites.[3] They used only one of the Jewish–Christian gospels, the Hebrew Book of Matthew starting at chapter three; revered James, the brother of Jesus (James the Just); and rejected Paul the Apostle as an apostate from the Law.[4] Their name suggests that they placed a special value on voluntary poverty. Ebionim was one of the terms used by the sect at Qumran who sought to separate themselves from the corruption of the Temple. Many believe that the Qumran sectarians were Essenes.[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites

((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

BURDEN OF PROOF

Holder of the burden:

"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.[1] This is also stated in Hitchens's razor. Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion, the Sagan standard, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".[2]

While certain kinds of arguments, such as logical syllogisms, require mathematical or strictly logical proofs, the standard for evidence to meet the burden of proof is usually determined by context and community standards and conventions.[3][4]

Philosophical debate can devolve into arguing about who has the burden of proof about a particular claim. This has been described as "burden tennis" or the "onus game".[5][6][7]"

"Shifting the burden of proof

One way in which one would attempt to shift the burden of proof is by committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[8][9] "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

@Militant_Atheist

No, the burden of proof rests with your claim for an historical Jesus, I haven't made any claim, merely pointed out that I do not find the rhetoric you have supplied compelling, and thus withhold belief.

"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo."

Correct, and the claim is yours, I have not made a contrary claim either, though you seem to be implying I have.

"The last time I checked, there is a 300 year-old scholarly consensus on the historicity of Jesus."

That sounds like an appeal to authority fallacy to me.

"I don't "believe" in a historical Jesus...

...Jesus was an historical figure, "

Hmm, which is it? A belief is the affirmation of a claim, the claim is that an historical Jesus existed, you have claimed this is true, thus by definition you believe the claim to be true. I remain unconvinced, and you're wasting your time trying to pretend that withholding belief carries a burden of proof, it does not.

Militant_Atheist "That was dishonestly quoted out of context. I was responding to posters who dogmatically insist Paul not meeting Jesus is proof he wasn't a real person by pointing out other possibilities, not drawing any inferences from it."

No it wasn't, but here is the original context. No one dogmatically claimed any such thing, see Nyarlathotep's original post responding to your claim that the writings of Paul were "near contemporary accounts", but the claim Paul never meeting Jesus represented proof he didn't exist was your straw man.

Sat, 01/04/2020 - 01:13
Militant_Atheist "We have near contemporary references to Jesus by Paul,"

Sat, 01/04/2020 - 02:10#2
Nyarlathotep "As far as I know: Paul never met Jesus in the flesh."

Sat, 01/04/2020 - 02:40(Reply to #2)#3
Militant_Atheist "So what? This is a very fallacious use of the argument from silence. As far as we know, Paul never denied meeting Jesus."

So you did in fact infer something from your claim that Paul never denied meeting Jesus. When Nyarathotep responded to your claim his writings were "near contemporary references". A More cynical observer might point out that is the same as saying they were not contemporary references, which of course they weren't, and which was all Nyarlathotep was pointing out as far as I can see. The claim was not dogmatically made, and you simply made up that straw man, and have run with it since. You seem in too much of a blinkered hurry to me, again why you are so closed minded on this is baffling.

@ Militant_Atheist

"Why not quote from that tirade of abuse I was responding to? It's not like I'm using it as an argument, I'm merely pointing out that people should refrain from childish antics if they wish to participate in a grown-up discussion."

It is sad that this thread has so much attacking and ad hominem attacks, which I am also guilt of. But myself and others are responding and reacting to your actions. I suggest you back to page one and read the chronological order of posts, and you did not waste any time attacking anyone challenging your position. What followed was a response based on the level of respect you brought to this forum.

So don't cry when you get some poo on you face, because you started the slinging contest. It would have been an adult conversation if you had kept it civil.

Militant_Atheist "Maybe if you learned how to think logically, you would know that evidence of absence is not absence of evidence."

You do love your straw man fallacies, now tell me does an absence of evidence, represent evidence? You seem to infer this when you claimed Paul hadn't denied meeting Jesus to repudiate Nyarlathotep's assertion that as far as he knew Paul had never met Jesus? Incidentally that is an argument from ignorance fallacy, look it up.

"You say you "don't deny that Paul might have met Jesus," but then go on to contradict yourself with an argument from ignorance. Confused much? Evidence of absence is not absence of evidence."

There is no contradictions, you just seem not to understand the difference between a lack of belief in a claim, and making a contrary claim, until you can learn this you will continue to point out logical fallacies that have not been used. Do you believe invisible unicorns exist?

"Maybe because they enjoy knowledge for it's sake? Or educating people about history and the historical method? What makes you so sure about what an atheist would care about?"

I'll take your word for it, but you don't seem to be educating or enjoying to me. yet another straw man fallacy from you, where did I claim to be sure about what atheists would care about? Try calming down and reading what I wrote, as saying "it is unclear why" is hardly a claim, let alone one of certainty, and you have the temerity to make ad hominem remarks about my reading and comprehension skills.

Take a chill pill, a debate forum is not the place to come if you don't like people disagreeing with you.