Why do you think any of the above is relevant to anything I said?
What I am pointing out, and it should be obvious to everyone here, is that (a) Jesus is described entirely and completely in terms of the supernatural & is claimed to be the supernatural offspring of Yahweh in heaven, and where (b) nobody who ever wrote about him had ever known him in any way at all, and where (c) there is absolutely not one shred of genuine credible evidence of his human existence.
That is emphatically not the case with any of the other figures that have been mentioned here as comparable.
If you take Roman emperors such as Julius Caesar as an example (and Caesar is the most common example claimed by Christian apologists) then Caesar was known primarily not as a supernatural god who nobody had ever seen and for whom there is zero evidence. On the total contrary, Caesar is known overwhelmingly for the very human actions he engaged in, where he was personally known to many people of the time who wrote about all manner of interactions with him … his armies left museums full of their remains, and there is a vast mountain of evidence for his existence.
So although Caesar, like other Roman emperors of that time, may have been occasionally praised by sycophantic courtiers telling him he had become a God etc., is not remotely comparable with the case of Jesus.
But instead of Roman emperors like Caesar, it was suggested that the more obscure ancient philosophers might be comparable to Jesus.
Well “none” of them are comparable to Jesus either. Because, like Caesar (and completely unlike Jesus), they were (a) known overwhelmingly for the human things they were said to have done, and were not famous for being miraculous supernatural gods, and (b) they left extensive philosophical theories that were not supernatural and which have survived to this day, and where (c) afaik, many of those philosophers were described in the writing of their contemporaries of the time.
And that’s apart from the fact that (as I explained before), even if there are/were cases of the most obscure of ancient philosophers and/or the most obscure of national leaders (eg Roman emperors) where little or no evidence existed for them, then nobody today would care for even one second about that. So there would be no great debate of the kind that we see for Jesus, because none of those other figures has any relevance at all to the daily lives of 99.999% of the people alive on earth today! IOW, to spell it out - even if some such ancient figures were likely to be no more than fiction, nobody today can be bothered to investigate it and argue about it, because those figure are utterly irrelevant and of no interest to virtually anyone alive today!
To put all that another way - can you think of any other person in history who is actually comparable to the Jesus story, and yet where genuine academics have claimed to have a solid believable case for their actual existence? ....
.... that figure would need to be - (a)described entirely for their supernatural feats, (b) not known to anyone who ever saw, heard or otherwise ever met or knew them, (c) where there is actually no evidence of any kind for their existence except in 2000 year old written religious preaching of the supernatural, (d) where there is only one completely religious source of their existence in which, the almost all completely anonymous writers, openly and repeatedly say that they obtained and justify their beliefs in this figure from what was written (or what they believed to have been written) many centuries before in their most holy of guiding books of God where the ancient prophets of God had for at least 500 years previously been certain that God would send just such a supernatural saving messiah?? Can you think of any other figure like that in history, where academics nevertheless say they are convinced that this person actually existed??
There are of course plenty of other claimed figures just like that in ancient history. I.e., just like Jesus. But they are now known all to be entirely fictional mythical gods, spirits, angels, demons and devils etc. Those figures are indeed very much like Jesus, where they too are (a)devoid of any credible evidence on earth, (b) never reliably seen by any contemporary writer, (c ) only or mainly described in holy beliefs and preaching of the supernatural realm of Yahweh, (d) described entirely or almost entirely in term of their supernatural miraculous acts.
In short and in summary - the idea that Jesus is comparable to ancient philosophers or ancient Roman Rulers etc., is utterly untrue and manifestly absurd. And nobody here should entertain such obviously untrue and frankly disingenuous comparisons for one moment (or waste any more breath on such completely bogus claims).
