Vlad,
I'm sorry I don't understand what you are getting at.
If we have a historical Jesus then one of the things this man is supposed to have claimed is that he is the son of God. That takes us into the trilemma.
What strange little backwater are you trying to distract us down now? If you want to argue for a ”historical” Jesus (ie, a man who had some interesting things to say) that’s fine – the usual rules of historicity apply to test the claim but frankly it wouldn’t matter much whether he existed or not, any more than it would matter whether Shakespeare or someone else actually wrote the plays. The surviving work is the primary issue, not the authorship.
And none of this would have anything to do with leprechauns either.
If on the other hand you want to argue for a
divine Jesus then the usual, naturalistic rules of historicity are out of the window and you need to come up with something else. This is where leprechauns have something to tell us – whatever arguments you do want to attempt, just apply the leprechaun test (ie, does the same argument demonstrate leprechauns with the same facility that it demonstrates a divine Jesus?) and, if it does, that tells you that it’s probably a bad argument.
As you now finally understand that this has nothing to do with “comparing god with leprechauns” as you previously thought but rather it’s to do with comparing
the arguments used to demonstrate god with leprechauns, you’ll find this a handy short cut to identifying and thus discounting bad arguments.
You’re welcome.
