(February 7, 2016 at 7:28 am)robvalue Wrote: They are not independent though. They are also non-eye witness reproductions of stories.
Again, if you find them viable as sources of evidence, that's fine. I won't argue with you. Personally, I think they are next to worthless, except where they can be independently verified. And even then, I wouldn't trust their version of events to be accurate.
No, sorry, but Mark is independent. Q is independent. Paul is independent. James is independent. Otherwise, what do you mean by "independent" then?
Yes, they're not first-hand testimonies, but they regardless all treat Jesus as historical, not as a comic book figure or a mythology hero. Some even provide historical context for him. And no evidence that his existence was disputed.
Add to that other points for historicity of Jesus, such as criterion of embarrassment, of dissimilarity, and historical Jesus would seem more likely than pure myth Jesus.
