Clivedurdle

Is the irrelevancy and unresolvability because the set of possible jesi - from mythical to extremely minimalist model is generally agreed by us?

I would like to test if that assertion is correct - is anyone arguing for a more heavyweight jesus - ie someone who actually founded this religion, gave the sermon on the mount, told the parables, did a few psychosomatic and similar healings, got crucified and started this superstitio?

If the matter is unresolveable (is it?) what exactly is the point of principle about historicity or myth we are arguing about?

I go for the quacks like a duck scenario here! Superhero angel mythical beastie surely has to be the first port of call here and a revision to history requires strong evidence!

Biff the unclean

You are still making no sense. You have some sort of criteria that shows Jesus to be historic to your satisfaction.
Harry Potter we know for a fact is not.
Your criteria must then be able to distinguish between the two.

aa5874

That's right. Superhero angel mythical beastie, there's lots of those ducks in the Bible. Amen, brother!!

Chris Weimer

Why Harry Potter? I already told you that the genre of Harry Potter didn't exist in those days. It's a modernistic bias to assume it did.

jgibson000

Could we have some primary evidence for this please, especially when it is a case of a story about a demi god who lived and worked within living/recent memory of those who allegedly wrote the commentaries you refer to?. And by primary evidence I mean citations from these commentaries themselves -- not some modern secondary source.

Jeffrey Gibson.

Clivedurdle

Shh! You'll give away our roles in the GXC (Godly Xian Consiracy!)

Biff the unclean

Bull shitting has existed since the dawn of man. It doesn’t matter if young adult fantasy has or not.
I picked Harry because he does magic and other supernatural things like Jesus. But unlike Jesus we can agree that there is no historic Harry Potter. So he gives us a base line, a known quantity, that should enable us to see if the criteria you used to determine if someone is historic or not is a valid criteria.
If the criteria for an historic Jesus can also show a historic Harry then we can determine that this set of criteria isn’t valid.

Biff the unclean

Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster and Alien abductors. You can watch the commentaries most any night on basic cable.

GakuseiDon

Jeffrey Jay Lowder's article on historicity issues:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/indconf.html

"Although a discussion of the New Testament evidence is beyond the scope of this paper, I think that the New Testament does provide prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus. It is clear, then, that if we are going to apply to the New Testament "the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material," we should not require independent confirmation of the New Testament's claim that Jesus existed."

jgibson000

"Biff",

You wrote:

I responded:

"Could we have some primary evidence for this please, especially when it is a case of a story about a demi god who lived and worked within living/recent memory of those who allegedly wrote the commentaries you refer to?. And by primary evidence I mean citations from these commentaries themselves -- not some modern secondary source."

And now you reply:

How these creatures are the demi gods that you claimed were frequently spoken of and commented upon by ancients, is beyond me, as is the idea that "documentraies" on the Dicsovery Channel are the commentaries by the ancients on the stories of ancient demi gods that you referred to in your message above.

Shall I conclude from this that like "A what's his name", that despite the bravado you display in your poastings about matters ancient, you too are actually unable to back up your claims, that you are an equivocator, and that you really have no or a very poor grounding in the areas upon which you lecture us here?

Jeffrey Gibson