Hi Barth,
My point is, the reason why Gibbon and Julian are historical figures, means Jesus is not.
Furthermore, reasons which make things historical are missing in what Gibbon and Julian say about Jesus. It means Jesus as a real person is still not historically based .
In your post you mentioned 2 historical figures, (Gibbon and Julian) so I use them as examples.
If you were asked to prove both of them are historical, that is â once real and therefore not fictional people â for each historical figure or event you would retrieve separate and independent validated evidence which provides incontrovertible confirmation of whether , or in what way, they are historical.
Those then make the reason (demonstrable confirmation) for their being historical.
If you were then asked to prove as historical what both those historical figures themselves claimed, you would have to likewise produce the same value evidence as reason which showed them to be historical figures. Correspondingly separate and independent validated evidence to support what they say.
The subject of what they wrote about is not itself necessarily historical just because they, as proven historical figures, wrote it.
The characters in the Bible are not historical just because they are in the Bible.
That makes reason (separate and independent) why historical figures and historical events are indeed historical . If they do not have that reason for being historical then they are not actually historical.
You will not be able to justifiably and legitimately give any of those same reasons of value which confirm Gibbon and Julian as historical people, to the fictional Jesus person as described in the Bible.
Non of those reasons are there to make Jesus actually historical as they are to make both Gibbon and Julian so.
You wonât find the reason for King Arthur either.
Until you do then bottom line, Jesus cannot be shown to be anything more real than a fictional character in a story, in a book. Just like King Arthur is.
Both can only really be described historical as fictional characters. But the word for that is legend or fabled.
If Bible Jesus is a(n) historical person, then so is King Arthur and so is Thor and so is just about any other fictional character.
Jesus, King Arthur and Thor would in that state of affairs make the word historical , the meaning of it, the reasons for it and what it really is, quite pointless.
Therefore my point is , because of all the significant reasons actual people and events existed in the real world and therefore are called historical...... Jesus is not.
My point is, the reason why Gibbon and Julian are historical figures, means Jesus is not.
Furthermore, reasons which make things historical are missing in what Gibbon and Julian say about Jesus. It means Jesus as a real person is still not historically based .
In your post you mentioned 2 historical figures, (Gibbon and Julian) so I use them as examples.
If you were asked to prove both of them are historical, that is â once real and therefore not fictional people â for each historical figure or event you would retrieve separate and independent validated evidence which provides incontrovertible confirmation of whether , or in what way, they are historical.
Those then make the reason (demonstrable confirmation) for their being historical.
If you were then asked to prove as historical what both those historical figures themselves claimed, you would have to likewise produce the same value evidence as reason which showed them to be historical figures. Correspondingly separate and independent validated evidence to support what they say.
The subject of what they wrote about is not itself necessarily historical just because they, as proven historical figures, wrote it.
The characters in the Bible are not historical just because they are in the Bible.
That makes reason (separate and independent) why historical figures and historical events are indeed historical . If they do not have that reason for being historical then they are not actually historical.
You will not be able to justifiably and legitimately give any of those same reasons of value which confirm Gibbon and Julian as historical people, to the fictional Jesus person as described in the Bible.
Non of those reasons are there to make Jesus actually historical as they are to make both Gibbon and Julian so.
You wonât find the reason for King Arthur either.
Until you do then bottom line, Jesus cannot be shown to be anything more real than a fictional character in a story, in a book. Just like King Arthur is.
Both can only really be described historical as fictional characters. But the word for that is legend or fabled.
If Bible Jesus is a(n) historical person, then so is King Arthur and so is Thor and so is just about any other fictional character.
Jesus, King Arthur and Thor would in that state of affairs make the word historical , the meaning of it, the reasons for it and what it really is, quite pointless.
Therefore my point is , because of all the significant reasons actual people and events existed in the real world and therefore are called historical...... Jesus is not.