Originally Posted by dog-on

Let's start at the beginning of your post.

Why do you call Jesus a minor figure, exactly?

Originally Posted by archibald

Ah yes. It's Toto's (non) dilemma, isn't it?

And it's hardly my fault if you can't spot a canard.

Originally Posted by archibald

You may ignore jake's post. It's a load of crap, containing the usual bunch of canards. I do hope you are not going to start up with the same tune.

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. Local. Galilee in those days was not Piccadilly Circus, apparently.

It would also fit a pattern for new cults. He hadn't, apparently, been on the circuit for very long.

Even Acts, from which we might expect some exaggeration, suggests there were initially, after his death, only 120 followers.

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Hi dog-on,

This is another instance of the historicist limbo. The historicist shrinks Jesus (hence temporarily a minor figure in Archibad's post) to "explain away" the lack of independent confirmation. We see this again and again with the healing miracles, feeding of the multitudes, the Triumphal entry, the Cleansing of the Temple, etc. If there were a shred of historicity to these events as described in the gospels, the fame and notoriety of the deeds of Jesus could never have escaped notice.

But rather than come to the reasonable conclusion that we are dealing with ahistorical material, it is assumed the gospel version must be an exaggeration of a historical core. But the “core” turns out to be so trite and pointless that no one would care about Jesus to begin with it.

So as soon as they think they have passed safely under the bar, they immediately start to "dance" the incident back up again, investing it with much symbolism and significance as they can without realizing that they have inadvertently raised the level of the Limbo bar so recently passed under.

Originally Posted by dog-on

For someone not assuming anything, you do make a lot of assumptions!

That aside, the evidence (that is the texts, the only evidence I have ever seen) all clearly state that Jesus was very well known when his noteriety happens to be mentioned.

Do you have some positive evidence from the relevant period that would contradict this?

Originally Posted by archibald

I haven't assumed anything.

This is getting tiresome. Aren't there any rationalists in here that I can chat to?

Originally Posted by dog-on

Yes, this has been my experience as well. I simply attribute this to the general assumption of historicity, recognized or not.

Originally Posted by dog-on

Why didn't you answer the question?

Again:

Do you have some positive evidence from the relevant period that would contradict this?