archibald

I'm not assuming anything, but if he existed, which I am slightly inclined to think he did, then I think it's much more likely he was minor.

Can you read?

archibald

Rational evidence for what? (see above post).

Btw, I am not emotional and huffy. I am having a ball, watching you guys pathetically trying to score a lame point.

Toto

But these tall tales cannot be evidence of an underlying story that has not been exaggerated, right? That's where the implicit assumption of historicity comes in.

Acts has him rising from the dead (following the prominent events in Luke), and his followers speaking in tongues in a public forum in Jerusalem,and Paul traveling all over the Mediterranean and causing trouble - not exactly a minor prophet there.

Toto

Rational evidence that historicity is even a possibility.

dog-on

Sure I can read. Can you?

My question is why is it much more likely he was minor? Based on what evidence? The actual evidences that we have for Jesus completely contradict your inclination.

I am trying to get at the root of your position so that I can consider it.

archibald

Sorry, not convinced. You appeared to think I asserted something as being true.

Well, look, even if he was famous in Galilee, and caused a stir in Jerusalem for a week, he would still be comparatively minor. Anyhow, personally, I think it unlikely, if he existed, he was even as famous as described.

It is boring to be expected to qualify every line with 'if he existed', by the way. My position has always clearly been not to assume historicity, by any means.

I set out my basic position way back. You just decided to try to turn it into something ekse.

jakejonesiv

Hi Archibald,

I am assuming you can read, since you are posting nonsense on this forum. But you better not read the gospels, since they are chock full of claims for Jesus' fame and immense following. So much for your proclaimed ability to be able to discern real history in the gospels. Because now, you have to chop away not only the supernatural, but any indication that Jesus was famous that happens clashes with your opinions. (And whats next?)Wouldn't you be better off admitting that trying to extract any meaniful history from the gospels is a dubious enteprise? if Jesus wasn't a myth, he might as well be the way you chop and slash the stories.

The only criteria I see you using is to eliminate anything that offends you modern sensibilities. Please tell me you have something better than that.

Jake

archibald

I've been making my cxase ever since I arrived here. You've read my posts. It's your job. Do you really think I'm going to do a recap or a summary, here, again?

By the way, can I ask you the same question?

archibald

Where would that be, Jake, my proclaimed ability to discern real history?

dog-on

Not sure where I ever said such a thing. I merely asked you what the foundation of your house looked like.
The supposed mentions in both Tacitus and Josephus would lead me to ask you this:

Minor compared to who?

Again, the positive evidence itself contradicts your current preference.