No Robots

Not bad for a fictional character that he still causes acute embarrassment to our best and brightest 2,000 years after first being set to paper.

aa5874

It is the complete opposite. There is more than enough evidence to settle the HJ/MJ question but HJers refuse to accept the evidence for the settlement.

1. There is NO credible evidence of antiquity to support HJ.

2. The existing sources of antiquity describe Jesus as the Child of a Ghost, the Word that was God, the Creator who walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended in a cloud.

3. No supposed contemporary of Jesus stated that they actually interacted with Jesus or personally saw him while he was supposedly alive.

4. Based on " Paul" Jesus MUST resurrect for the Salvation of Mankind.

The matter is settled. We have enough evidence to theorize that the NT is most likely a myth fable rather than history.

Remember we are only developing a theory based on the existing data.

Solo

....just in case anyone wondered what a skeptic sounds like when 'candy flipping'.

Jiri

hjalti

They "hate" doing that?

Ok, Toto has pointed out that Huller isn't a mythicist. And your depiction of Earl isn't very fair. Sure, he often points out his books, but the guy has so much stuff on his site, that if you want to know the basics (and more!) of his position, you don't need to pay him a dime. Does arguing against "Biblicist Christianity" make one anti-religious? That doesn't make sense. Price goes to church and is a member of the episcopal church! Sure, he doesn't think any of it is factually true, but he likes religion. He just doesn't like the pseudo-scholars known as apologists, like Craig and Habermas.

steve_bnk

The key word is myth.

judge

So if an actual scholar trained in these matters thinks there is a possibilty jesus existed he should just admit he's wrong and you are right?

This doesn't seem very rational.

jgoodguy

It'd be nice, but you misread me. Is there any primary historical, credible secondary historical or tangible evidence of a HJ? The answer is no. We have at best religious documents-the gospels-which may after textual analysis using one of several methodologies result in a HJ. No methodologies = No HJ.

Assuming a actual historian/scholar trained in these matters-textual analysis and methodologies produces a work asserting the possibility of a HJ then he has really done very little unless he can assert what the influence of that HJ had on Christianity, especially orthodox Christianity. The existence of a HJ however inconvenient to the JMers don't mean much unless that HJ influenced Christianity.

Steven Carr

Why can't we let Christians tell us what it means?

Why can't we let Paul explain to us that something happened which changed Romans from being oppressors to becoming God's agents, who do not bear the sword for nothing, holding no terror for the innocent, and sent to punish wrong-doers?

We can't - because Paul is silent.

No matter how much Paul talks of a Jesus who existed before the world began, and no matter how much Paul talks of Roman authorities as though they had never crucified the Son of God in the most humiliating way possible, he is deemed to be silent, so that scholars of the historical Jesus no longer have to listen to him.

aa5874

That is a fundamental problem of the HJ argument.

HJ existed but he played NO role in the development of Christianity.

In the NT Gospels, based on gLuke we know nothing of Jesus for 30 years until the Holy Ghost descended upon him at the Baptism and within one Passover he vanishes from earth after his disciples had ABANDONED him.

jgoodguy

Do you have any primary, secondary historical evidence or tangible evidence of the interpolations you claim? Apparently the answer is none.