So you keep saying while making a differentiation that I simply do not see justified.
Fine. But how many ancient sources or how much scholarship have your read that would qualify you to make such a distinction? Have you read Herodotus? Can you read greek or latin? Have you read scholarship on gospel genre? For example:
The New Testament in Its Literary Environment by David Aune
What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography by Robert Burridge
Evangelium als Biographie: Die vier Evangelien im Rahmen antiker Erzählkunst by Dirk Frickenschmidt
"Genre for Q and a Socio-Cultural Context for Q: Comparing Sorts for Similarities with Sets of Differences"
Journal for the Study of the New Testament by F. G. Downing
In other words, what qualifications or research are you bringing to the table when you say that "such a differentiation isn't justified"
If you haven't studied this, than I would suggest before you make claims on the historicity of the gospels, or compare them to other ancient historical texts, you either read the texts or scholarship on them, and preferably both.
But you do consider those fantastical elements to be true do you? The NT Jesus, in and of himself, is a fantastical element.
No he istn't. A large portion of the gospels consists soley of Jesus' teaching. As for the miracle working, their is no reason to suppose that they didn't actually happen, in that Jesus, like many other historical figure, was thought to work miracles and did things interpreted as miracles by others.
I dont see how your initial claim can be derived from the follow up here. If the intention was to record history accurately, as you claim, then surely by recording impossible events that claim must be seriously questioned?
That is only true if you are coming from a post-enlightenment background. History, since the term acquired its specialized usage (based largely on Herodotus) has meant an inquiry into "what happened" in the past. However, only within the last few centuries has this been further limited by the assumption that what is fantastical or miraculous cannot be historical. Plenty of historians started from the point of few that fantastical elements were an aspect of reality and therefore of history.
Well, yeah. You keep harping on about scholars and the way historical literature is processed, but from I see is that fantastic elements in historical records are treated with scepticism I just do not see why this isnt done so with the NT Jesus.
It is. What you don't seem to realize, or at least what you are wrong about, is that Jesus in the gospels is not "purely fanstastic." In fact, the bulk of the NT is entirely historically plausible, even the miracles. As I said before, there have been many, many, historical people who have been thought to perform magic or miracles. Jesus performing healings or exorcisms doesn't make him or these event implausible. All it means is that he was doing things plenty of others did before and continued to do after.
Also, a large portion of the NT is formed around Jesus' teachings, not anything fanstastic at all.
The point is, the criterion of "impossibility" IS applied to the gospels. However, with only a few exceptions (raising the dead, arising from the dead, etc) there is very little of Jesus' mission which may be deemed a prioiri "ahistorical" (even the miracles, for the reasons above. Just because the miracles cannot be said to have taken place historically, doesn't mean that the events themselves which were interpreted as miracles did not occut).
I do not believe those accounts to be independent as I have already said.
So how do you explain the sources? Why is it that Matthew and Luke contain common material apart from Mark, but both seem to be aware of Mark, while John and Thomas contain such independent material. Why do Paul's reporting of Jesus' teachings on divorce cohere with gospel accounts?
And even if the gospels aren't independent, the question is still a valid one. What mythic godman cult can you point to where an account is written of the godman's life and mission only 30-40 years after it took place? With Mithras, Orpheus, Dionysus, etc, all the cults have foundation myths that took place long, long ago in some unknown time. So even if the accounts aren't independent (which flies in the face of well over a century of scholarship) Mark itself would still be unique in that he describes his "godman" founder as living a mere 30-40 years ago.
I dont think this claim can be made since, for those writers, Jesus was to them a miracle.
Yet they clearly distinguish between pre- and post- easter terminology, not to mention recording events which would be embarassing in light of their beliefs. And even if they believed that Jesus was the son of god incarnate, that doesn't preclude the possibility that he was actually a person. In fact, given how early christianity appeared, it makes it just about impossible that he wasn't.
I really see you drawing a distinction here between Jesus and other figures believed to be mythical that I dont agree with.
Yes, but by your own admission you haven't studied this at all. I have. The gospels do not resemble greek myth (or roman, or indian, for that matter). Jesus is presented in the gospels primarily as a teacher and a wonder worker, and the gospel genre is clearly different than the
mythoi of the greeks or the
fabulae of the romans.
Obviously. While you may agree with Oberon on this issue I dont think either of ye can say with certainty that Jesus did exist.
We can say it with historical certainty. There is a reason why every expert in this field agrees that Jesus is historical. Before you make judgements on his historicity, I would recommend actually studying it.
So how do you explain the fact that all of the people who have studied the matter the most, whether Jewish, Muslim, agnostic, Christian, etc, disagre with you, when you by your own admission haven't studied the matter in any depth at all?
28), but only mentioned that he stayed with Jesus' followers. So we can look to Paul's words himself as evidence that he met with Jesus' brother. 
