Posted: May 02, 2015 9:15 am
MS2 wrote:IanS wrote:
... all that most sceptics are saying is that the bible, which is really the only primary source for even the bare mention of any messiah called "Jesus", is simply not good enough as a credible or reliable source for what it's anonymous late writers said about other peoples beliefs in a supernatural scion of God ... and not good enough by a very long way.
I don't want to enter a debate about who has tried to do what to who in this interminable debate. But I do want to say that I think it is legitimate for you to argue simply that the evidence is not good enough for HJ, and I want to say that taking that position does not make you an MJer. I don't agree with your argument, but that is a separate matter from acknowledging that your position is different from the MJ one.
(By the same token, it might be helpful if you didn't describe your position as the one held by 'the skeptics', as plenty of people who regard themselves as skeptical in general outlook happen to think the evidence points to an HJ. Perhaps you could say 'HJ-skeptics'?)
Well done. I agree entirely with your post. Even your suggestion that I describe people like me as HJ-sceptics, that's also fine by me (if I can remember that each time!).