>>Mmmmm - Looks very much like a hung jury in the court of law example! There is evidence - but some believe it and others don't. Pretty much like black holes realy. There is plenty of evidence that they should exist, some would even say must exist, but no substantiated proof. I think until Mr Wells lends us his clever machine we will never 'know'.<<

Once again, this fails to address the basic premise of having a court of law: one side must prove something through the presenting of evidence while the other must defend against that evidence or offer counter-evidence. We're not worried about hung juries right now. We're concerned about the fact that the historists have not yet presented a viable case. Until that happens, it is never going to go before a jury. It's going to be thrown out at the hearing stage for lack of evidence.

>>I still believe that the balance of evidence is in favour of there being an historic JC.<<

And we're asking you to present that evidence to us for our study but, other than a couple of very weak and questionable examples, you have not complied.

>>I still think it is no great step of 'faith' but a reasonable supposition that the powers that were at the time used an historic rather than fictional character on which to base their messiah.<<

Powers? Who were these powers?

>>I think that although the Jesus myth was created as an analogy their is no reason to assume the character himself is a figment of someones imagination.<<

You have backasswards. Because the story is clearly a myth, we have no reason to assume the main character of such a story is real when he doesn't turn up in any other non-mythical accounts.

>>If someone chooses to hold a differing viewpoint then that is fine by me. As long as they don't try to force it on me and as long as I am not derided for my own views.<<

I get that a lot from believers even though they seem to practice that least of anybody.

>>Remember of course that most, if not all, of 'history' is based on someones viewpoint. And when we get two people chronacling events those viewpoints rarely co-incide.<<

That doesn't invalidate evidence. Two historians may not agree on how Pearl Harbor was planned and carried out or why but the documents concerning the attacks, the eyewitness accounts, the statements of people involved in the decision-making, etc. once set down are preserved and there for anyone to peruse. That evidence doesn't change, no two people may agree on the implications of the evidence but the evidence itself is objective and there for study and analysis. Two historians may not agree about exactly how or why Pearl Harbor happened but both agree it happened and when it happened and who the major players were.

It that evidence in the historist case of Jesus that is entirely lacking. There is no history to write for Jesus simply because we have no historical account. If we did, we wouldn't nned to construct a history for Jesus because we already have one. But all we have here is mythology and that is not evidence.