This is the old anti-HJ argument, isn't it? As soon as Jesus is labelled as the Christ, or the son of God, then HJ falls. Or as soon as Jesus is described as carrying out miracles, HJ falls.
It's clearly not correct, and confuses descriptions with reality. Jesus might be described as the son of God or the messiah or a miracle worker, but that doesn't mean that he was.
It baffles me how this basic error keeps resurfacing. The odd thing is that it shows the same conflation as shown by evangelicals - that is, that since Jesus is described as the Christ, therefore he was/is.
Re. the highlight, the point is this -
- your only known primary source of any mention of Jesus, is the bible. But what the bible describes is not a figure who on one or two occasions did things which a few people might have mistakenly interpreted as miracles. On the contrary, the whole basis of the biblical writing was to portray Jesus as overtly miraculous in almost every significant sentence it ever wrote about him. He was constantly and repeatedly miraculous in front of countless eye-witnesses ... or so the bible account goes.
That however is not remotely an account of anything called a HJ. That is the very opposite of a human HJ.
So in all honesty you should then ask,
“well where did any mention of a HJ come from then?". And the answer to that appears to be that it is simply an invention created by Christian church hierarchy in relatively recent times (say c.1800 onwards) after they could no longer maintain what they had previously insisted upon as the literal and absolutely certain truth of the bible with it's overtly superhuman Jesus.
But that should immediately make you ask "
what then is the evidence of anyone every claiming to know, witness, or otherwise have evidence of this so-called HJ?". And that the answer to that appears to be that there is absolutely not one microscopic spec of any such external independent non-biblical evidence of this notional HJ. Nobody every claimed see or know any such person.
Instead, you are straight back in the same concentric circular reasoning to the biblical writing again, and left claiming that is the evidence of a HJ!
Well that is simply not credible for all the many dozens of reasons all ready spelt out in detail in all these recent HJ threads. I.e. not least because that biblical writing describes the very opposite of a HJ, and because the only "evidence" it provides is evidence of peoples 1st century ignorant superstitious beliefs, not any actual evidence for anyone who ever claimed to know or witness Jesus in any way at all ... its' also a chain of completely anonymous hearsay from unknown people who themselves never knew a single thing about anyone named Jesus, but where they all swore the certainty of God-given belief that there had once lived a messiah of ancient OT legend who was described as impossibly superhuman in virtually every sentence they wrote about him.
That is not reliable or credible evidential writing about Jesus. And it is certainly not writing about a HJ at all.
