sock puppet wrote:Historical Jesus is irrelevant and insignificant, not even a footnote in the most obscure history book--except as a prerequisite for those attached to a belief in mythical, resurrected Jesus. Outside of that, this insignificant man was just the vortex around which others have spun quite a myth.
Have you used Bayes Theorem to reach that point of view?
If not, why? If yes, why?
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
sock puppet wrote:Historical Jesus is irrelevant and insignificant, not even a footnote in the most obscure history book--except as a prerequisite for those attached to a belief in mythical, resurrected Jesus. Outside of that, this insignificant man was just the vortex around which others have spun quite a myth.
How long does it take for such a myth to arise. Is such a development compatible with the growth of Christianity in the first and second centuries AD.
sock puppet wrote:Historical Jesus is irrelevant and insignificant, not even a footnote in the most obscure history book--except as a prerequisite for those attached to a belief in mythical, resurrected Jesus. Outside of that, this insignificant man was just the vortex around which others have spun quite a myth.
How long does it take for such a myth to arise. Is such a development compatible with the growth of Christianity in the first and second centuries AD.
Given the speed with which the Mohammed myth developed and Islam grew, sure.
sock puppet wrote:Historical Jesus is irrelevant and insignificant, not even a footnote in the most obscure history book--except as a prerequisite for those attached to a belief in mythical, resurrected Jesus. Outside of that, this insignificant man was just the vortex around which others have spun quite a myth.
How long does it take for such a myth to arise. Is such a development compatible with the growth of Christianity in the first and second centuries AD.
In the case of Halei Sawassi, within his own living lifetime! And he TOLD people to stop deifying him and they did it anyway. In other cases perhaps only 30-40 years after they died, similar to Jesus.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
Jersey Girl wrote:In case my intention wasn't clear and apparent. It looked to me like you were blurring the lines between the historical/resurrected Jesus.
Blurring wasn't the intention, but tethering any significance for historical Jesus to resurrected Jesus was.
Jersey Girl wrote:In case my intention wasn't clear and apparent. It looked to me like you were blurring the lines between the historical/resurrected Jesus.
I have no idea if either existed. So far as our background knowledge for probability, the resurrected Christ is dismally low in the probability. No evidence of any kind for anything or anyone like it in reality. Plenty of made up stories though. The historical Jesus ain't much higher.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
my intention was to ask him (and I did quite clearly so) if he thought that the resurrected Jesus cancelled out the historical Jesus. In response, I got what appeared to be defenses/arguments. I sequenced the concepts as well as my intention at least twice, in order to boil it down. I demonstrated how simple the question was by posting the responses of two other posters to the question that I posed.
To them perhaps it was a simple answer, but not to me. It's not that simple. Religion has done a gigantic disservice to us by simplifying everything way out of control and pretending it is simple. History is never simple. Logic is never simple. Belief might be, but then that has nothing to do with what is real. It's why I answer the way I do. Sorry, that's just the way I am.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
sock puppet wrote:Historical Jesus is irrelevant and insignificant, not even a footnote in the most obscure history book--except as a prerequisite for those attached to a belief in mythical, resurrected Jesus. Outside of that, this insignificant man was just the vortex around which others have spun quite a myth.
Have you used Bayes Theorem to reach that point of view?
If not, why? If yes, why?
No, not consciously anyway. I think that explains the why as well.
Are you thinking about the historical Jesus? Are you thinking about the resurrected Jesus?
Yes, but what are these? Seriously. The Bible doesn't clarify much on this anymore than an actual look at the historic situation. Belief doesn't mean anything about whether they are real or related or diametric opposites. There is precious little to go on with this subject. Just because a book talks about someone has precious little to verify if there is any reality to what it says. Plutarch's story of Romulus (which incidentally provides a near flawless skeleton outline to the story of Jesus, hence the real possibility it's just a story) is in the same boat. Just because it's in print means nothing about what it is, or what it means, or whether its real or not. There is just too much we can never know about this Jesus character. Simplistic questions based on assumptions with simplistic yes/no answers get us nowhere to seeing what was or is real. Not trying to insult, just attempting to keep it real within the parameters of what we know about what is real and how we know it.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."