Circumstantial Evidence against BibleGod

[Flail]

Definitions:

Evidence: the available body of facts indicating whether a proposition is true.

Facts: things that are indisputably the case.

Direct evidence: that which directly proves truth.

Circumstantial evidence: that which merely suggests truth.

Hearsay: that which is repeated 'second-hand removed' from the original declarant which is propounded to prove the truth of an assertion via someone else who is either not known or not present and thus not subject to questioning. Hearsay is inadmissible in courts of law as having been demonstrated unreliable; and as dependent for veracity upon things not available for examination and testing such as: the identity, character, bias, motive, observation and reporting ability, mental acuity etc, of the original reporter or declarant.

Second hand 'testimony' that is not propounded to prove the truth of the matter at issue, but for some other purpose (such as demonstrating the basis for the oppositional claim) is admissible and may be considered as such.

Background:
Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof, or at a minimum, the burden of going forward with the evidence. Arguments can be made in the broadest sense that there is no such thing as direct evidence, and that all we have as 'proof currency' to support truth claims is circumstantial evidence.

The OP Proposition (claim): "BibleGod (JesusGod) does not exist.'

Assume that this claim does not refer to 'God', as in some as yet undefined supernatural creature that may or may not exist, and for which no coherent definition is available, and for which any claims of existence or non-existence are meaningless. Assume that the OP refers solely to BibleGod as presented in the NT and as supplemented by Christianity.

Assume for purposes of the OP that there is no verifiable, 'direct evidence' upon which to either prove or disprove this claim. What we are left with then is circumstantial evidence, ie, evidence which merely suggests the truth and for which an inference is required to connect it to a proposition of fact (claim).

Further presume that hearsay evidence, as defined above, is not admissible to prove the truth of the claim since such evidence is unreliable as emanating from un-trustworhty sources.

Question for debate(s): What available circumstantial evidence( if any) suggests (tends to prove) that BibleGod is fictional?

What available circumstantial evidence (if any) suggests (tends to prove) that BibleGod is actual and extant?

[Flail]

The Bible is replete with information upon which we can infer that Jesus/BibleGod is a fictional rendition meant to be taken metaphorically, not literally. Although in any rational sense the Bible information is hearsay and not admissible evidence, Bible stories about Jesus do offer enough such information to allow us to make circumstantial inferences tending to prove that BibleGod is a fiction.

If the only source for BibleGod is the Bible, we should examine that information to discern whether it offers any circumstantial evidence on either side of the question.

Does the story of Jesus being born of a virgin contain any circumstantial evidence tending to prove literal truth? None.
On the other hand, the story contains the obvious inference taken circumstantially, that Jesus is fiction.

[ThatGirlAgain]

Does the story of Jesus being born of a virgin contain any circumstantial evidence tending to prove literal truth? None.
On the other hand, the story contains the obvious inference taken circumstantially, that Jesus is fiction.

So Alexander the Great and Augustus Caesar were fictional too? They were also reputed (well after the fact) to have been born of virgins, as notachance tells us.

The virgin idea does not appear (in Matthew) until half a century after the putative date of the death of Jesus. Well before that Paul wrote a great deal about Jesus to many people who apparently had already heard about Jesus. Paul makes no mention of a virgin birth or even any of the miracles supposedly performed by Jesus according to the Gospels. That sounds like circumstantial evidence that there was a Jesus but not the virgin-born miracle worker of the Gospels.

[bjs]

The Bible is replete with information upon which we can infer that Jesus/BibleGod is a fictional rendition meant to be taken metaphorically, not literally. Although in any rational sense the Bible information is hearsay and not admissible evidence, Bible stories about Jesus do offer enough such information to allow us to make circumstantial inferences tending to prove that BibleGod is a fiction.

If the only source for BibleGod is the Bible, we should examine that information to discern whether it offers any circumstantial evidence on either side of the question.

Does the story of Jesus being born of a virgin contain any circumstantial evidence tending to prove literal truth? None.
On the other hand, the story contains the obvious inference taken circumstantially, that Jesus is fiction.

Okay, this topic caught my attention. However, as of yet we have nothing to debate. We only have the opinion that circumstantial evidence of some kind exists and that it is against Christianity. Please present this circumstantial evidence so that we might all consider it to see what, if any, weight it should receive.

[Mithrae]

Does the story of Jesus being born of a virgin contain any circumstantial evidence tending to prove literal truth? None.
On the other hand, the story contains the obvious inference taken circumstantially, that Jesus is fiction.

So Alexander the Great and Augustus Caesar were fictional too? They were also reputed (well after the fact) to have been born of virgins, as notachance tells us.

The virgin idea does not appear (in Matthew) until half a century after the putative date of the death of Jesus. Well before that Paul wrote a great deal about Jesus to many people who apparently had already heard about Jesus. Paul makes no mention of a virgin birth or even any of the miracles supposedly performed by Jesus according to the Gospels. That sounds like circumstantial evidence that there was a Jesus but not the virgin-born miracle worker of the Gospels.

Paul actually records that he met Jesus' brother in person (Gal. 1:19), which I'd say is rather strong circumstantial evidence that Jesus wasn't fiction

[Flail]

Does the story of Jesus being born of a virgin contain any circumstantial evidence tending to prove literal truth? None.
On the other hand, the story contains the obvious inference taken circumstantially, that Jesus is fiction.

So Alexander the Great and Augustus Caesar were fictional too? They were also reputed (well after the fact) to have been born of virgins, as notachance tells us.

The virgin idea does not appear (in Matthew) until half a century after the putative date of the death of Jesus. Well before that Paul wrote a great deal about Jesus to many people who apparently had already heard about Jesus. Paul makes no mention of a virgin birth or even any of the miracles supposedly performed by Jesus according to the Gospels. That sounds like circumstantial evidence that there was a Jesus but not the virgin-born miracle worker of the Gospels.

Precisely the point. The Bible has been co-opted by Christianity for the purposes of Church building and power and revenue. We can certainly build a circumstantial case that Paul and Jesus were not fictional characters. But as to Paul having a visitation from Jesus on the Road to Damascus, or Jesus being born of a virgin or walking on water, we can build a mountain of circumstantial evidence that this was literally not the case.

[McCulloch]

Paul actually records that he met Jesus' brother in person (Gal. 1:19), which I'd say is rather strong circumstantial evidence that Jesus wasn't fiction

Jesus may not have been wholly fictional, but like Robin Hood or King Arthur, most of what we know about him probably is.

[ThatGirlAgain]

Does the story of Jesus being born of a virgin contain any circumstantial evidence tending to prove literal truth? None.
On the other hand, the story contains the obvious inference taken circumstantially, that Jesus is fiction.

So Alexander the Great and Augustus Caesar were fictional too? They were also reputed (well after the fact) to have been born of virgins, as notachance tells us.

The virgin idea does not appear (in Matthew) until half a century after the putative date of the death of Jesus. Well before that Paul wrote a great deal about Jesus to many people who apparently had already heard about Jesus. Paul makes no mention of a virgin birth or even any of the miracles supposedly performed by Jesus according to the Gospels. That sounds like circumstantial evidence that there was a Jesus but not the virgin-born miracle worker of the Gospels.

Precisely the point. The Bible has been co-opted by Christianity for the purposes of Church building and power and revenue. We can certainly build a circumstantial case that Paul and Jesus were not fictional characters. But as to Paul having a visitation from Jesus on the Road to Damascus, or Jesus being born of a virgin or walking on water, we can build a mountain of circumstantial evidence that this was literally not the case.

Paul himself tells us very little about his revelation from Jesus. The commonly repeated, more elaborate story is from Acts, again written half a century or more after the putative event. It is fair to note that Acts disagrees with Paul's epistles in many ways and cannot be considered an accurate source.

[fredonly]

The Bible has been co-opted by Christianity for the purposes of Church building and power and revenue.

Present evidence that the 1st century church was motivated by Church buildings, power, and/or revenue.

FYI: 1st century "churches" were in homes.

[bjs]

Precisely the point. The Bible has been co-opted by Christianity for the purposes of Church building and power and revenue. We can certainly build a circumstantial case that Paul and Jesus were not fictional characters. But as to Paul having a visitation from Jesus on the Road to Damascus, or Jesus being born of a virgin or walking on water, we can build a mountain of circumstantial evidence that this was literally not the case.

Then do so! You have claimed that you can build a mountain of circumstantial evidence, but you have yet to present us with a pebble.

Stop boasting that you can make a case and make a case!