Originally Posted by IanS
... If the bible is your evidence, then that bible claims to be evidence not of a HJ but of a very overtly and repeatedly non-HJ.
That is complete nonsense. I have stated before that "the bible" doesn't exist in this sense; merely various often disparate and contradictory works compiled together. The Bible claims David killed Goliath. The Bible claims Elhanan killed Goliath. The Bible says Michal had no children. The Bible says Michal had five sons. the Bible says YHWH made David number the people. The Bible says Satan made David number the people.
On the contrary what is manifest and provable
"nonsense", is for anyone to say that the bible describes a Jesus who was not supernatural.
Quote:
Notice also that in the full quote, the part of the sentence which you deliberately omitted, makes clear that it refers to 1st century religious fanatics believing in a supernatural messiah … it does not say that you or people here still believe in a supernatural messiah!
See the full quote below.
It says "anyone here". I'm here.
It also says, in the rest of the sentence which you just deliberately left out yet again! -
“….as if it were reliable evidence for a supernatural messiah figure believed by religious fanatics none of whom had ever known any such person in any way at all (except through religious faith)”
- and that makes quite clear that I am referring to those 1st century religious fanatics as the ones who believed in a supernatural messiah (see the highlighted part). It says it’s naïve for people like you to accept the biblical writing as evidence for what was actually described as the supernatural messiah believed in by 1st century ignorant superstitious religious fanatics like Paul and the gospel writers.
What you are trying to do, as you have tried to do constantly throughout this thread, as indeed have several on the HJ side here, is to try to make a mountain out of a molehill on minor side issues of exactly what was meant by various phrasings in different posts where the wording of the sentence may have been ambiguous or vague or not entirely clear, and then try to argue vehemently and endlessly about trivia such as that whilst at the same time spending many hundreds of pages failing yourself ever to produce the faintest scintilla of reliable or credible evidence of anyone who ever claimed to know or describe a first century HJ …
… and where instead of any such evidence, you just repeatedly make the absurd claim that writing as manifestly untrustworthy and non-credible as the bible, is in fact genuine evidence not of the supernatural figure that it absolutely insists upon as true, but of some other figure called a HJ which it does not describe at all, and which appears to be a complete invention from Christians themselves in relatively recent times (say c.1800) after they could no longer maintain the unarguable untrue fiction which until that time they had sworn was absolutely certain fact and truth about the supernatural messiah of the bible.
If you are going to claim belief in something called a HJ, then you have to show some evidence of anyone who ever claimed to be an eye-witness to any such HJ or else claimed to have other directly known evidence such as physical artefacts etc. But you have failed totally and utterly ever to produce any such external independent evidence of any HJ whatsoever …
… instead you are just going around in circles repeatedly claiming the biblical writing as your evidence of a HJ. Well that biblical writing is absolutely not admissible in any objective honest sense at all for all the dozens of reasons that I and others have set out here so many times before.
If you are going to claim belief in a HJ on some actual evidence, and not just on faith, then you must produce some reliable & credible independent evidence of anyone ever having known a HJ.
You simply have no evidence (only evidence of peoples 1st century beliefs in a supernatural messiah, not any HJ).
