Which doesn't matter as it doesn't define contemporaneous. What does matter, for reasons having to do with
history, is Paul's knowledge of Jesus' brother and followers.
he recounts his experiences with a disembodied ghost
Despite using specific lexemes for "body" and "bodily flesh", as well as "human form", "ancestry", and other terms indicating you read some amateur bunk and rather do real research. Do you know Greek and/or Aramaic?
do you really count that as contemporary evidence?
Given your descriptions of our historical sources, you do. You are just to ignorant of the evidence to realize this.
If I find evidence of somebody dreaming about dragons in 1456, does that evidence the historicity of dragons?
Another wonderful indication that you are utterly incapable of using formal reasoning and completely unfamiliar with logic (by "another", I refer to your ridiculous analogy comparing evidence of absence/proving the negative to evidence). My grandfather was a WWII vet in the CIC. He never met most of those who lived in concentration camps, most soldiers in WWII, and most living involved in most of the entirety of the events of the war. That is true of my other grandfather as well. In fact, it's true of every individual contemporary with every other individual who participated or was otherwise involved in WWII. One soldier could have died in 1944, and another written in 1994, yet the two be contemporaneous.
This is called using the definition of words in order to make logical arguments, rather than mistaking logic and misusing words to regurgitate nonsense under the pretense of understanding.
I have not at any point made an appeal to my own authority
Well my field is history. Sapeins is correct.
Here you indicate that your authority is enough to support an obviously incorrect assertion about what historians require.
historians never make such silly claims - except when it comes to Jesus, for whom the evidence is pitiful in comparison to that for Ceaser.
Here is you making claims about what historians do based upon...your own authority. It's wrong, but it is an example.
LegionOnamomo
Before you give any more lectures about how history works, let me give you a friendly heads-up.
Historians catalogue and interpret the data, the historicity of Jesus (or any other character) is what is called an 'inference to the best explanation'', which is a guess, a tentative conclusion of what that particular researcher believes to be the most likely explanation.
This is called ABDUCTIVE REASONING, and it gives only a best guess, not an actual conclusion or proof.
When a person mistakes a guess drawn from abductive reasoning for an actual firm conclusion as you are doing - that is a fallacy called 'affirming the consequent'.
If anyone imagines that the historicity of Jesus has been established evidentially, or that historians agree that the historicity of Jesus is conclusively evidenced - then they are wrong, they are commiting the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
I've covered in depth both the ways in which you contradict yourself here and the ways in which your reliance on no authority (apart from wiki) amounts to nothing but inaccuracies and misrepresentations.
Many serious scholars have done so, you are wrong.
I know better than you every scholar who has weighed in on this issue in the last 300 years. I cited sources to back my assertion that you are wrong, and you regurgitated the same nonsense you have continued to rather than support your views.
How many times do I have to repeat the ways in which you make unsubstantiated claims that you back up with repetition and/or inaccuracies? Have you acknowledged that you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to adbductive reasoning? No. Have I given real sources and quotes rather than just asked you to read online sources? Yes. Have you supplied the historians who use the criterion you assert historians do? No. Have you supplied anything other than your own authority for your claims about whether there are "many serious scholars" who doubt that Jesus was historical? No. Have you given any references, sources, or anything else other than your own authority and two wiki pages to support your claims? No.
r(ər)i/
