I guess my problem was that I didn't find them as kick ass as you did.

These are the sources historians reference when they're discussing Jesus' historicity. That's how they got in my database.

Really? That's interesting. When I read the original post, I got the impression he was asking for contemporary accounts, a fact he confirmed in his response. You gave him, without providing any context, a string of references, many of which said nothing about Jesus but rather just mentioned Christianity as a religion in passing. How is that not misleading?

I gave him what was available. The context is there when he looks up the sources (especially if he picks up a commentary, many translations include commentaries--by Josephus stuff does, for example). I preferred to not bias his reading experience a priori.

As for whether I can make authoritative pronouncements, I feel fully confident that, given I own copies of most of the sources you cited, I can make a pronouncement about whether or not citing the sources in response to the question asked is misleading or not.

Owning copies of books does not make anyone authoritative. It makes that person an owner of books. Being a professor of this branch of history does make one authoritative, or being a long standing professional in this are historian does. Are you either of those?

I've done PhD work in a field fairly close to this and I'm not claiming expertise. I'm calling for people to actually read the material--something you apparently have done and I applaud your effort. My position is not unreasonable and Ninja and Chora are just making absolute asses out of themselves on this one. They'll try to make it personal or respond by pulling a snide comment out of the air but their unwillingness to actually read what experts in the field have to say on this subject reveals them for what they are--people who aren't really interested in knowledge.


Heterodox but Orthoprax

As fast on the draw...
...as he is in the drawing room!