Johnny Skeptic

I look forward to reading comments from readers.

hjalti

Define "settled".

DCHindley

Sans some sort of groundbreaking discovery (literature or archaeological), I don't think so.

DCH

aa5874

First DEFINE "DEFINE".

The HJ/MJ matter has been already settled it is just that HJers don't accept the settlement.

1. No one here can DENY that there is an ABUNDANCE OF evidence for MYTH JESUS, from Conception to Ascension..

2. No one here can DENY there is NO credible historical corroborative evidence from antiquity for HJ.

3. No one can DENY that the NT Canon cannot be trusted.

The matter has been settled. There is really NO HJ argument. Of course, HJers don't accept that and keep on repeating what they BELIEVE just like other BELIEVERS who have NO evidence for what they say or believe about Jesus.

ALL WE KNOW, not believe, is that Jesus was DESCRIBED as the child of a GHost and a Virgin in Matthew 1.18-20 and Luke 1.26-35.

WE KNOW that in Galatians 1.1 it is written that the apostle "PAUL" was NOT the apostle of a man but of one who was raised the dead.

WE KNOW the evidence for MJ has been DOCUMENTED in the NT CANON.

But, some people will always BELIEVE whatever they want to BELIEVE even when they have NO evidence.

WE KNOW there is no credible source of antiquity, and no credible biography of HJ.

Who here can DENY that there is NO HJ case based on WHAT WE KNOW?

The HJ/MJ question has been settled in favor of MJ since HJers AGREE and ADMIT that there is evidence of MYTH and that the NT is historically UNRELIABLE.

Johnny Skeptic

What I partly meant was "In 10 years, will the HJ/MJ issue probably be nearly as contentious at this forum as it is now?"

I do not understand why many skeptics at this forum are so fiesty over the issue. There is much ancient history that we will never know, including some less ancient history from as recently as the 1800's, or even the 1900's. It may never be possible to get near unanimous agreement on the HJ/MJ issue. There is surely a lot more to living life than just debating that issue. One would think that there is an organization called the History Police that polices this forum, and that the future of the universe depends upon the outcome of the debates.

sweetpea7

I do not really understand why it matters. Let's say that there was a historical Jesus, and there are a few things we could say with certainty about him. That is not even remotely close to proving that the Christ of faith existed, as they are very disparate entities. There is no way to historically prove miracles or whether or not Jesus was the son of god. It would not make the gospels accurate or reliable. It all comes down to faith anyway.

hjalti

Johnny Skeptic, there's a lot more to living life than just debating about religion. Why don't you stop doing that?

aa5874

The "historical Jesus" is really an EVOLUTION of beliefs about Jesus. Virtually ALL BELIEFS are centered around "Plausibility WITHOUT proof". Every kind of Jesus is PLAUSIBLE for the time period.

It was PLAUSIBLE to believe Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost.

It was Plausible to believe Jesus was the WORD and was God.

It was Plausible that Jesus walked on water , transfigured and was raised from the dead.

Now, BELIEVERS of today have EVOLVED, they, more and more, can NO longer ACCEPT the obvious myth fables and want to CHANGE the story and make it PLAUSIBLE for todays believers.

But there is a major PROBLEM, Jesus was not a man in the NT since such a character would be deemed HERETICAL.

The Church has IDENTIFIED that the claim Jesus was just a man was HERETICAL and a LIE.

Examine the words of Irenaeus in "Against Heresies" when he wrote about HERETICS including those who claimed Jesus was a man with a human father.

"Against Heresies" 1 BELIEVERS must believe in a PLAUSIBLE Jesus even without any evidence and the "historical Jesus" fits the criteria.

BELIEF DEMANDS PLAUSIBILITY not evidence.

Marcion proved it with his PHANTOM Son of God who "existed" but only seemed to exist in the flesh but did not actually exist as seen.

Marcion's Phantom was BELIEVED by many because it was PLAUSIBLE.

Who would believe HJ is PLAUSIBLE and without a shred of credible evidence from antiquity?

Even ATHEISTS.

It is DEJA VU all over again.

TODAY, People need a NEW PLAUSIBLE Jesus to BELIEVE in.

More and MORE BELIEVERS are realizing the Jesus in the NT is NOT PLAUSIBLE.

sweetpea7

aa5874, I find it distracting to read your posts with all of the caps. May I ask why you use them so frequently?

aa5874

To distract you!!:banghead::banghead::banghead: