Your definitions of mythicism started as the claim that Jesus was 100% mythological
This ^ is false, i said nothing about percentages, furthermore i have corrected you on this point three times now, if you havent been able to realise that i said nothing about percentages after being reminded three times, then you clearly lack the brain capacity to engage in meaningful conversation.
Speaking of a person as less than fully real is meaningless, a person is either real or unreal, there are no other options.
Mythicism is the claim that Jesus didnt exist, every mythicist agrees on this basic point, including Doherty.
then transformed into the claim that there was zero evidence for a historical Jesus
This ^ is also false, i said nothing about evidence, furthermore i have corrected you on this point three times now. If you cannot read my posts, then it is not possible to engage in meaningful discussion.
I never defined mythicism in terms of percentages or in terms of evidence, yet you keep repeating that i did (without ever providing quotes). You must be very slow to learn things.
At no point did your made up definitions conform to what mythicism actually means.
Mythicism just means the idea that Jesus didnt exist, it is very simple indeed. It is amazing that you are unable to understand such a simple, basic point.
Mythicism = no historical Jesus
Historicism = historical Jesus
it is that simple, any mythicist book would tell you this such as Doherty's book which you claimed to have read even though you obviously haven't.
And at no point could you support your made up definitions with a quote.
This ^ is also false, i provided several quotes which clearly prove my point that mythicism is the denial of the existence of historical Jesus, such as the following quote from Doherty's book which i have posted multiple times:
" "Jesus mythicism is the claim that no historical Jesus ever existed" "
So as you can see from this quote, Doherty agrees with me and with everyone else about what "mythicism" means, it is the denial of the existence of historical Jesus. It really isnt difficult to understand, try to think clearly.
Jesus could he based upon one or more real people and be substantially mythological.
If Jesus was one single real person, that is historicism (ie the existence of historical Jesus)
If Jesus was anything other than one single real person, that is mythicism (ie the denial of the historical Jesus)
These are the only 2 possibilities in this debate, it's one or the other
A mythicist can believe that there is some evidence for a historical Jesus
This ^ is irrelevant and nonsensical, whether a mythicist believes that "there is some evidence for a historical Jesus" or not, they believe that the historical Jesus himself did not exist. Every mythicist writer confirms this, such as Doherty as in the quote i just provided from his book.
Here is Doherty's quote again, where he defines what mythicism is:
" "Jesus mythicism is the claim that no historical Jesus ever existed" "
and that Jesus may be based on one ormore real people.
No mythicist believes that Jesus was one single real person, because that would be historicism and not mythicism. As Doherty points out, mythicism is the claim that no historical Jesus ever existed
Look at the definitions posted here from wiki, and see for yourself.
wiki defines it in exactly the same way, as the claim that historical Jesus did not exist
That is why I kept asking you for a quote - because NONE OF THE 'MYTHICISTS' YOU IDENTIFIED claim that there is no evidence for a historical Jesus, or that Jesus is 100% mythological.
again you bring up this fabricated reference to evidence and to percentages, which has no relevance to what i am saying.
I already provided multiple quotes that prove what i am saying, such as the quote from Doherty where he says that "Jesus mythicism is the claim that no historical Jesus ever existed"
Did you understand that? Doherty says in his book that "Jesus mythicism is the claim that no historical Jesus ever existed". It is that simple.