Yes. That is clear. You are the person making an extraordinary claim. It is upon you to provide evidence to support that claim.
Of course. Let me try this again. My claim is that I believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, did all the miracles and was crucified and resurrected.
Here is the proof of that claim. I believe it. There you go. I have just proven the claim I made, that I BELIEVE IT.
Ecco, I did NOT claim, categorically, that Jesus was born of a virgin, did all the miracles and was crucified and resurrected. I claimed that I BELIEVE THAT HE WAS. Do you understand the difference?
Clearly you do not, or you wouldn't keep this asininity up. I am being extremely careful in my word choice here, and in the claim I make. If I had categorically claimed that He absolutely was as I believe He was, and that you have to believe it because it happens to be fact, by George, you would have a point.
But that isn't my claim. I am not insisting that you believe as I do. I am not insisting that you agree about Jesus and His life. I am claiming that I BELIEVE it. That is a very, very different thing.
YOU, however, are making the 'positive' claim....that..."I made the claim that the Jesus of your Bible is a myth. That is no more of an extraordinary claim than saying that Atlas or Mithras are mythical characters. I am under no obligation to provide any evidence."
Yes. You are. you aren't telling me that you BELIEVE that He is mythical. You are out and out claiming that he never existed either as a divine being OR as a mortal character.
For that, Ecco, you need to provide proof.
Now I suggest that if you can't figure out the difference between claims here, that you go find a logic teacher or a philosophy professor and get him or her to explain it to you.
I don't care that a man named Jesus existed. The entity under discussion is the 1/3 god who was created by another 1/3 god impregnating a virgin.
That is not the impression I got. However, if that is where you are at the moment, that a man named Jesus may well have existed and is who all the stories are about, probably, that's fine with me.
His mere existence certainly doesn't mean that any of those extraordinary stories about him are actually true. You don't have to believe any of 'em. However, if you are going to claim that none of them are true, period, then yeah, you do have to provide some proof.
Because you made the 'positive' claim.
Now, if you had restricted yourself, as did I, to merely claiming a belief; that you do not BELIEVE that Jesus was at all divine or that any of the extraordinary stories about Him are true, we wouldn't be arguing here. One cannot argue, logically or empirically, about what one believes, if the claim is 'I believe' or 'I don't believe,' any more than one can argue with the statement 'I like vanilla better than chocolate ice cream."