(October 3, 2016 at 10:59 am)Rhythm Wrote: Let's be honest with ourselves, shall we>? When you discuss my "a priori" this or that's, you aren't even referring to any historical jesus. You are hinting at the historicity of magic, of miracles...complaining that I do not accept them -as history, or indeed even as existent. Well no shit, I don;t believe in magic...but take careful note of the corner you paint yourself into with this complaint. Is it your contention, that any historical jesus, for which there is evidence (or so you keep claiming)....must be the -magical- jesus? Must I first accept magic, before we can discuss whichever jesus you believe to be historical? Can they not be separated?
Since you brought it up, I think it wold be useful for you to define what you mean by "magic".
Is this something which is beyond evidence for you?