Responding to "HOW DO YOU KNOW?" that (any) historical issue is a settled issue(?)
]Note: I am NOT implying I want to, nor that I would have punched anyone in the face for so much disrespect. The point of that meme is that the REASON so much disrespect is common on social media IS that a particular breed of asshole doesn't have to worry about consequence. Moving forward from there, I'd be disrespecting the value of my time and peace, to keep playing their game. HOWEVER, ... This would be a great topic for a blog and a live-stream. As such, I've decided to talk about it here. Initially, this will be worded as a reply. But in a later draft, it will be rephrased independent of the discussion where this issue came up. -- [First draft] [citations, smoothing out some of the wording, and correcting typos will begin in 2nd draft]
When a fully accredited scholar commits (on the record) to the statement "this (any issue) is a settled issue among scholars", ...
they can't afford to be wrong about that. Because if they are, they'll end up being publicly humiliated by challenges from their academic peers, and then subject to reviews that ultimately (if they keep doubling down) could seriously injure their career.
Meanwhile, scholars find it frustrating (to the point of being almost infuriating)
when laymen attempt to handwave-away their claims by saying "How do you know it (whichever matter) is a settled issue among your peers?".
Qualified scholars know WHEN that's the case. And they know when it's not. How? Because all of their work is subject to peer-review; over the entire span of their careers.
Also, it's the job of fully accredited academic institutions (especially world-leading Ivy League Universities) to make sure their subjects matters are being correctly taught to students.
Qualified scholars also regularly attend academic seminars,
where they listen to lectures, give lectures, and have deep discussions about many relevant issues with their peers.
They also read constantly from available papers and books published by their peers.
They also make the time to go eyes-on and hands-on with available and relevant physical data; like viewing ancient manuscripts and viewing the lab-data used to date those materials.
This is how they stay actively engaged with all available and relevant data.
If some new piece of verified data, a new credible theory, or even mere claims of provocative material discovery gets published, all qualified scholars who are still gainfully employed or privately engaged with relevant scholarship will hear about it.
And if it's specific enough to their wheelhouse, they will review it.
they can't afford to be wrong about that. Because if they are, they'll end up being publicly humiliated by challenges from their academic peers, and then subject to reviews that ultimately (if they keep doubling down) could seriously injure their career.
Meanwhile, scholars find it frustrating (to the point of being almost infuriating)
when laymen attempt to handwave-away their claims by saying "How do you know it (whichever matter) is a settled issue among your peers?".
Qualified scholars know WHEN that's the case. And they know when it's not. How? Because all of their work is subject to peer-review; over the entire span of their careers.
Also, it's the job of fully accredited academic institutions (especially world-leading Ivy League Universities) to make sure their subjects matters are being correctly taught to students.
Qualified scholars also regularly attend academic seminars,
where they listen to lectures, give lectures, and have deep discussions about many relevant issues with their peers.
They also read constantly from available papers and books published by their peers.
They also make the time to go eyes-on and hands-on with available and relevant physical data; like viewing ancient manuscripts and viewing the lab-data used to date those materials.
This is how they stay actively engaged with all available and relevant data.
If some new piece of verified data, a new credible theory, or even mere claims of provocative material discovery gets published, all qualified scholars who are still gainfully employed or privately engaged with relevant scholarship will hear about it.
And if it's specific enough to their wheelhouse, they will review it.
They aren't guessing about the data they base their peer-viewed understandings upon.
They can sometimes get some details wrong.
But the peer-review process catches and corrects those mistakes.
Thus, it causes scholars to refine their historical analysis, per rigorous discovery and debate;
to align with the most probable explanations of available data;
-until that process runs its course (as much as it can); for any given issue.
The more room for interpretation there is on any subject's data, the less consensus there will be about it.
However, some matters DO reach the status of:
Overwhelming consensus; among leaders in a field and among their less-accomplished peers.
Also, some matters DO reach a slightly stronger status of:
settled.
And when that happens, those issues remain "settled" until-and-unless new archeological discoveries (and/or brilliant new arguments) are made which challenge the established narratives.
Thus, "settled" doesn't mean "can't be wrong".
NOR does it mean "can no longer be challenged".
Nor does it mean that literally everyone in the world who has a relevant diploma agrees.
It only means qualified scholars across the globe
have moved well-past an era when a given theory was still being debated among them.
They share a common satisfaction that a given theory has panned-out/won out.
Thus, they have since moved on to other issues.
So when you ask "How do you know?", you are actually challenging them. Because it's they who are making the claim.
All I'm doing is repeating what they claimed.
Take, for example, how Bart D. Ehrman says that it's a settled matter to say that there was a historical Jesus; and that some of his real-life facts made it into the mythos.
Now, please note, I agree with Ehrman about this.
I don't think all of his reasoning is great.
But I do agree with him (generally) about historicism.
I also realize (because "agree" would be the wrong word) that it is a settled issue among his peers.
And yet, at the same time,
he is choosing to ignore at least a few fringe (technically qualified) scholars who are mythicists.
Bart is unwilling to peer-review someone like Richard Carrier's papers and books about it.
Bart's attitude about that is basically:
If Carrier can make headway within the academic community by getting other scholars to peer-review his work, and by then sufficiently impressing at least SOME of those other scholars, ...
THEN Ehrman might consider reviewing Carrier's work.
But there's not much chance of that.
And until it happens, it will remain true that:
"it's a settled issue in scholarship". Because established scholars and universities aren't taking mythicism seriously.
-Exactly the same as they aren't taking Trinitarian dogma (being read into those texts) seriously.
At some point, scholars need to move on.
They can't keep treating every issue as a forever-controversy.
Thus, biologists aren't still arguing about if microorganisms "are a thing" or if they can sometimes cause disease.
So here we are.
When a laymen ends up with a religiously-biased theory that bucks against something that IS a settled issue among qualified academics,
they'll try to create a mental fog of uncertainty around the whole of academia. They'll attempt to legitimize their Dunning-Kruger understanding of the data, by telling the actual scholars "How do you KNOW all of your peers agree with you about this?" or "How do you KNOW all of your peers are right and that I'm wrong?".
From there, no answer will satisfy the person making that challenge; because:
the entire POINT of making such a challenge is:
to delegitimize a claim (any claim they don't like).
So then they'll say something really stupid like
"We can never really know for sure if something is "really" a settled issue among scholars. Because there might be some scholar you never heard of who disagrees. And if there is,
or
even if there just COULD BE, (somewhere out there, in the great big world; obscured like a needle in a haystack) (anyone with a relevant diploma who disagrees)...
(So then, literally always)
nobody should be citing scholarship to resolve a disagreements ABOUT the scholarship.";
except for whenever a scholar says something a religiot likes.
As for me, there isn't anything in the realm of academia that I've wagered my ego upon.
Nothing any scholar says,
nothing any religious groups says,
nothing any sociopolitical camp says
supplies my sense of worth or identity.
So if I think X = true,
but it turns out that X = false, then I can easily assess and assimilate that change into my worldview (aka: perceptions about what's real).
In fact, this issue is a great example. Because "I don't have a god in this race".
However, religious fundamentalists (anyone who assigns themselves to any religious-narrative's moral authority) have wagered and anchored their personal narratives of identity and worth on religion narratives and related identity politics.
They play gaslighting games because there's no other way to perpetrate their religion's grift.
It's how they create an artificial space where they can stand and preach upon a pedestal of "facts" (and "authority") which are entirely fabricated;
and which pre-nullify all challenge.
Meanwhile, it's not simply 'having credentials' that establishes someone as a qualified scholar.
They must earn their reputation among peers.
And this is an important point because:
Anyone who HAS the necessary diplomas BUT is self-obligated to defend some specific religious narrative rooted in "divine authority", then:
they are NOT going to get the 'special treatment' they feel entitled to.
Nobody in academia wants to waste their time (NOR do they) dignifying theories about religious history that are built-upon the presupposition of religious or "divine" authority.
--
Sometimes a very devout "believer" will attend the necessary schooling.
They will get the necessary credentials.
BUT they'll do so by:
lying about what they think the real answers are.
They'll do that when:
they give the CORRECT answers to pass tests with; while they secretly believe in DIFFERENT answers.
They have pre-planned to gain academic credentials as a way to legitimize their own religious conspiracy theories;
such as: conspiracy theories that: academia across the world is conspiring to suppress the truth that:
"evolution is a hoax",
or "global warming is a hoax",
or that a global flood (as described in bibles) actually happened,
or that Moses (as written) was real,
or that "all (or specified) bible writers believed Jesus was God".
--
So then, whenever one of their fellow cultists say "actually, I know of some qualified historians and/or scientists who agree with me",
...
they're really "completing the circle" of a socially engineered grift.
Although, in a pinch, they're always willing to cite (cherry picking; and/or quote-mining) someone from 50 or 150 years ago
(or from an irrelevant field),
as historical or scientific authority;
while intentionally ignoring modern scholarship (which is based on better data and methodology).
However, in many cases, they don't even have that much to fall back on. And that's when they start relying even more heavily on the Alt-Right playbook.
Ultimately, this helps illuminate the real reason why religious fundamentalism typically goes hand-in-hand with political far-right/alt-right conservatism; which does include (in fact, is ultimately designed to give cultural camouflage to) racism (but not limited to color-based racism).
It's all born from ideologically-rationalized
ugly bigotries, identity politics, Dunning-Kruger intellectualism, and clinical narcissism.
They can sometimes get some details wrong.
But the peer-review process catches and corrects those mistakes.
Thus, it causes scholars to refine their historical analysis, per rigorous discovery and debate;
to align with the most probable explanations of available data;
-until that process runs its course (as much as it can); for any given issue.
The more room for interpretation there is on any subject's data, the less consensus there will be about it.
However, some matters DO reach the status of:
Overwhelming consensus; among leaders in a field and among their less-accomplished peers.
Also, some matters DO reach a slightly stronger status of:
settled.
And when that happens, those issues remain "settled" until-and-unless new archeological discoveries (and/or brilliant new arguments) are made which challenge the established narratives.
Thus, "settled" doesn't mean "can't be wrong".
NOR does it mean "can no longer be challenged".
Nor does it mean that literally everyone in the world who has a relevant diploma agrees.
It only means qualified scholars across the globe
have moved well-past an era when a given theory was still being debated among them.
They share a common satisfaction that a given theory has panned-out/won out.
Thus, they have since moved on to other issues.
So when you ask "How do you know?", you are actually challenging them. Because it's they who are making the claim.
All I'm doing is repeating what they claimed.
Take, for example, how Bart D. Ehrman says that it's a settled matter to say that there was a historical Jesus; and that some of his real-life facts made it into the mythos.
Now, please note, I agree with Ehrman about this.
I don't think all of his reasoning is great.
But I do agree with him (generally) about historicism.
I also realize (because "agree" would be the wrong word) that it is a settled issue among his peers.
And yet, at the same time,
he is choosing to ignore at least a few fringe (technically qualified) scholars who are mythicists.
Bart is unwilling to peer-review someone like Richard Carrier's papers and books about it.
Bart's attitude about that is basically:
If Carrier can make headway within the academic community by getting other scholars to peer-review his work, and by then sufficiently impressing at least SOME of those other scholars, ...
THEN Ehrman might consider reviewing Carrier's work.
But there's not much chance of that.
And until it happens, it will remain true that:
"it's a settled issue in scholarship". Because established scholars and universities aren't taking mythicism seriously.
-Exactly the same as they aren't taking Trinitarian dogma (being read into those texts) seriously.
At some point, scholars need to move on.
They can't keep treating every issue as a forever-controversy.
Thus, biologists aren't still arguing about if microorganisms "are a thing" or if they can sometimes cause disease.
So here we are.
When a laymen ends up with a religiously-biased theory that bucks against something that IS a settled issue among qualified academics,
they'll try to create a mental fog of uncertainty around the whole of academia. They'll attempt to legitimize their Dunning-Kruger understanding of the data, by telling the actual scholars "How do you KNOW all of your peers agree with you about this?" or "How do you KNOW all of your peers are right and that I'm wrong?".
From there, no answer will satisfy the person making that challenge; because:
the entire POINT of making such a challenge is:
to delegitimize a claim (any claim they don't like).
So then they'll say something really stupid like
"We can never really know for sure if something is "really" a settled issue among scholars. Because there might be some scholar you never heard of who disagrees. And if there is,
or
even if there just COULD BE, (somewhere out there, in the great big world; obscured like a needle in a haystack) (anyone with a relevant diploma who disagrees)...
(So then, literally always)
nobody should be citing scholarship to resolve a disagreements ABOUT the scholarship.";
except for whenever a scholar says something a religiot likes.
As for me, there isn't anything in the realm of academia that I've wagered my ego upon.
Nothing any scholar says,
nothing any religious groups says,
nothing any sociopolitical camp says
supplies my sense of worth or identity.
So if I think X = true,
but it turns out that X = false, then I can easily assess and assimilate that change into my worldview (aka: perceptions about what's real).
In fact, this issue is a great example. Because "I don't have a god in this race".
However, religious fundamentalists (anyone who assigns themselves to any religious-narrative's moral authority) have wagered and anchored their personal narratives of identity and worth on religion narratives and related identity politics.
They play gaslighting games because there's no other way to perpetrate their religion's grift.
It's how they create an artificial space where they can stand and preach upon a pedestal of "facts" (and "authority") which are entirely fabricated;
and which pre-nullify all challenge.
Meanwhile, it's not simply 'having credentials' that establishes someone as a qualified scholar.
They must earn their reputation among peers.
And this is an important point because:
Anyone who HAS the necessary diplomas BUT is self-obligated to defend some specific religious narrative rooted in "divine authority", then:
they are NOT going to get the 'special treatment' they feel entitled to.
Nobody in academia wants to waste their time (NOR do they) dignifying theories about religious history that are built-upon the presupposition of religious or "divine" authority.
--
Sometimes a very devout "believer" will attend the necessary schooling.
They will get the necessary credentials.
BUT they'll do so by:
lying about what they think the real answers are.
They'll do that when:
they give the CORRECT answers to pass tests with; while they secretly believe in DIFFERENT answers.
They have pre-planned to gain academic credentials as a way to legitimize their own religious conspiracy theories;
such as: conspiracy theories that: academia across the world is conspiring to suppress the truth that:
"evolution is a hoax",
or "global warming is a hoax",
or that a global flood (as described in bibles) actually happened,
or that Moses (as written) was real,
or that "all (or specified) bible writers believed Jesus was God".
--
So then, whenever one of their fellow cultists say "actually, I know of some qualified historians and/or scientists who agree with me",
...
they're really "completing the circle" of a socially engineered grift.
Although, in a pinch, they're always willing to cite (cherry picking; and/or quote-mining) someone from 50 or 150 years ago
(or from an irrelevant field),
as historical or scientific authority;
while intentionally ignoring modern scholarship (which is based on better data and methodology).
However, in many cases, they don't even have that much to fall back on. And that's when they start relying even more heavily on the Alt-Right playbook.
Ultimately, this helps illuminate the real reason why religious fundamentalism typically goes hand-in-hand with political far-right/alt-right conservatism; which does include (in fact, is ultimately designed to give cultural camouflage to) racism (but not limited to color-based racism).
It's all born from ideologically-rationalized
ugly bigotries, identity politics, Dunning-Kruger intellectualism, and clinical narcissism.
[This becomes even more obvious once we realize that traditional Christianity doesn't merely camouflage racism. It IS a form of racism.
It's an artificial/contrived social construct designed and used as a way to validate the notion that: people within that demographic are due greater respect, more power, and have more worthiness to exist (longer and in better health) compared to anyone who isn't in their exclusive demographic. ]
--
Now, granted,
there are many theories about ancient religious histories that are still hotly debated among qualified scholars.
There are also legitimate academic outliers, for every issue where there is some wiggle-room for well-enough-reasoned disagreement.
However,
some issues don't leave that much room for debate.
The question of "Did the authors of Matthew, Mark, and Luke/Acts think Jesus was part of Tri-person Godhead, and/or think Jesus was the same "God" as the 2nd Temple Judaism's patriarchal deity" ... is one of those issues.
By "qualified" I mean:
scholars who currently have the necessary credentials to be considered an expert in a field that includes this issue,
AND whom are not under any pressures from religious obligations to push a contrary view.
Instead,
this is AS FAR AS some qualified scholars will go:
Some have suggested:
Jesus (as a literary character; part-real and part-mythical) (in the stories) either:
a.) was created as a finite being with divine qualities
or
b.) was eventually granted divinity" (meaning "a class of beings who have a divine or heavenly nature") BY a deity. So then he BECAME a deity, or a demi-god, or was granted divine qualities at some point.
But even THOSE scholars will admit:
they could not even argue that without citing the later book of "John" and then arguing possible interpretations and implications of "John".
They TOO realize Paul, along with the writers of Mathew, Mark, and Luke/Acts had not themselves considered such a thing.
Qualified academia does not include the idea that he (Jesus; as presented in those texts) was the same "God" as the patriarchal deity of the biblical Hebrews;
nor that he even believed he was.
Why not?
Because:
Firstly,
because it was incredible unlikely for anyone (in that time and place) to think so.
The religious beliefs of the Jews did not even allow for such a thing.
Nor is it likely that the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke/Acts (in addition to Paul) would have just forgotten to mention it.
Nor DO they mention any such thing.
NOR is Trinitarian rhetoric even a rational concept.
It would also mean REDUCING (not elevating) the death of Jesus to:
Meat-puppet theater.
Because it would mean:
One of an un-killable-God's three un-killable-person-alities (TWO of which he just oops/forgot to mention in the Hebrew religious texts)...
PUPPETTED a non-sentient kosher meat-suit,
Except it was more like ...
and then later pretends to get himself killed when
that meat-puppet is nailed to a cross and then he stops animating it for a couple of days.
Why in the fuck?
-So he can give himself PERMISSION to "forgive us" for how he made us.
[layer upon layer of non-sequitur propositions]
-BUT only for those of us who are lucky enough to:
a.) happen-across the "news" (which can only be correctly relayed by a tiny niche of "true Christians"; in a sea of equally impressive (or equally non-impressive) pretenders)
and then
[we must]
b.) pretend that any of it's even remotely rational,
and then
[we must]
c.) assume it actually happened in real life.
- "Or else" [you'll burn forever]
Meanwhile, scholars can-and-have tracked the development OF Trinitarian rhetoric within Christianities (plural).
And as such, they know it took further centuries to develop.
Although, some would argue that the author of "John" started that process via giving Jesus a higher "Christology";
- which blurred the lines between Jesus's relationship to the realm of men
vs his relationship to the realm of deities.
All of that matters here because:
It's literally the JOB of a scholar (it's their entire purpose. It's also what they are ethically bound by) to identify the most likely explanations for what historical persons existed, what events happened, and what actually-existing persons believed.
Whenever a given historical theory is understood (by any scholar) to be objectively NOT the most likely (to have been true)
(out of all available theories),
then:
it becomes:
automatically their ethical duty to reject it;
pending any new discoveries which could provide greater likelihood.
This is why they ALL reject the miracle claims.
They aren't saying "miracles didn't happen".
They're saying "As a historian, I am limited to supporting only the most likely explanations of any given claim about ancient history.
Miracles, by definition, are always the least likely explanation.
Thus, as a historian, I can never attest to any miracles claimed by historic writers.
Whereas, as a PERSON, on my own time, not leaning on my academic credentials, I'm allowed to believe and endorse anything I feel sufficiently good or intuitive about. ".
That means a historian can't vouch for the divinity of Jesus "as a historian".
They could endorse that reading "as literature".
But for that, they'd need that to be the most probable meaning of those texts.
And it's just simply not.
It's not even plausible.
For someone to suppose "I bet there are some who think it's not only plausible but probable",
that's like saying "I bet there are some astronomers who think the moon is made out of green cheese.".
IF there are any, then it changes nothing.
IF they submit papers (for peer review), it still changes nothing.
If Google returns search-results for it,
that doesn't change anything either.
It would still remain "a settled issue" that the moon is not made out of cheese.
The correlation between "Green Cheese Theory" and Christianity is explained here:
It's also important to note that:
most of the so-called "proof texts" that Trinitarians cite ... are either corrupted translations or are being illogically interpreted.
Note:
these allegations ARE matters of FACT; not mere opinion.
That's why:
ONLY Trinitarian Christians (and people raised by Trinitarians) think "those writers believed Jesus was the same God as the God of the biblical Hebrews".
They're basing that on a post-biblical religious narrative.
That's what believers have taken a personal oath of loyalty to.
From there, then they attempt to twist the available data into theological pretzels, trying to make it work.
That's the only way to get there.
But that's not something actual scholars include as part of their process.
--
For now,
I'll close with this point about it all:
Think about how ethically irresponsible, reckless, and utterly anti-strategic it would be
for an all-knowing,
perfectly-wise,
deeply invested
Super-Entity
to rely on:
conveying essential truths to all of humanity via TEXT MESSAGES.
-Even worse yet, ...
ALL of those text messages starting and circulating only as oral rumors (for many years; often decades; sometimes even centuries) before anyone finally wrote down whatever version they heard,
originating often from anonymous sources,
and (worse yet) often monstrous dudes (really bad people),
promoting just-a-few decent values (NONE of which were ground-breaking), while espousing MOSTLY clinically narcisisstic and psychopathic abuse,
from a time-and-place plagued with scientific illiteracy and magical thinking,
and while "just concidentally"
literally EVERY mystical claim made in bibles
echoes identical story-elements from other cultures' mythical stories.
Where story-claim originators claimed (without evidence) they just had a private conversation with The Creator Of the Universe.
Where, at other times, other random dudes claimed they heard from someone, who heard from someone, who saw fantastic things.
Meanwhile, various rival churches (over thousands of years) have "reserved the right" to decided FOR US how to interpret every word on those pages.
And WITH that,
they think they get to TELL you,
and me,
and our children ...
WHO we are,
what our LIFE is (and must be) all about,
and how to live it;
along with what we're supposed to think, and feel, and say, and do, ...
We can't really exercise our theoretically-"FREE" Will to "accept or reject" (a)"Him" until AFTER we "know" that any given God is real (as described).
No Christian has ever been given that.
Thus, no Christian has ever been able to make that choice.
They are only pretending they have.
We can't get THAT from just reading a book of poorly preserved and questionably-understood rumors.
Nor can we get that from miraculous and transformative personal experiences.
Because EVEN IF someone is being honest with themselves about the empirical facts (of what happened),
and about how it felt,
and about how it was transformative for them,
they'd still be drawing from local religious-cultural narratives to "inform" them that a specific Super-"who" caused it; and "why".
In other words, even if a GOD did do something great for you, that doesn't prove anything about Christianity. It's possible that "God" had other reasons and doesn't care about your religion.
Nor can we get that from any of the arguments for Deism; not even if we accept those arguments.
Nor can we get that from psychically begging into the ether;
not even with 'just the right' incantation.
Nor would it be ethically responsible and honest
to arbitrarily assume any rando's religiosity warrants serious consideration,
based on nothing by their say-so + our own emotional desperation to be thrown a (any) lifeline during some intense period of personal psychological vulnerability ...
and then cave-to that religious-person's social pressure;
when they attempt to get us to psyche ourselves into their religion via prayer-ritual that THEY script for us ("Don't pray that way. Used these words instead ...")
as a way to "confirm the bias" that we arbitrarily started with.
---
If there is anything that an all-knowing, perfectly wise, all-powerful Entity wants everyone to know, ... everyone would immediately know whatever that is.
So then,
the mere existence of religious evangelizers
is their unilateral confession
that they're full of shit.
It's an artificial/contrived social construct designed and used as a way to validate the notion that: people within that demographic are due greater respect, more power, and have more worthiness to exist (longer and in better health) compared to anyone who isn't in their exclusive demographic. ]
--
Now, granted,
there are many theories about ancient religious histories that are still hotly debated among qualified scholars.
There are also legitimate academic outliers, for every issue where there is some wiggle-room for well-enough-reasoned disagreement.
However,
some issues don't leave that much room for debate.
The question of "Did the authors of Matthew, Mark, and Luke/Acts think Jesus was part of Tri-person Godhead, and/or think Jesus was the same "God" as the 2nd Temple Judaism's patriarchal deity" ... is one of those issues.
Qualified scholars are really certain that this was not the case.
By "qualified" I mean:
scholars who currently have the necessary credentials to be considered an expert in a field that includes this issue,
AND whom are not under any pressures from religious obligations to push a contrary view.
Instead,
this is AS FAR AS some qualified scholars will go:
Some have suggested:
Jesus (as a literary character; part-real and part-mythical) (in the stories) either:
a.) was created as a finite being with divine qualities
or
b.) was eventually granted divinity" (meaning "a class of beings who have a divine or heavenly nature") BY a deity. So then he BECAME a deity, or a demi-god, or was granted divine qualities at some point.
But even THOSE scholars will admit:
they could not even argue that without citing the later book of "John" and then arguing possible interpretations and implications of "John".
They TOO realize Paul, along with the writers of Mathew, Mark, and Luke/Acts had not themselves considered such a thing.
Qualified academia does not include the idea that he (Jesus; as presented in those texts) was the same "God" as the patriarchal deity of the biblical Hebrews;
nor that he even believed he was.
Why not?
Because:
Firstly,
because it was incredible unlikely for anyone (in that time and place) to think so.
The religious beliefs of the Jews did not even allow for such a thing.
Nor is it likely that the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke/Acts (in addition to Paul) would have just forgotten to mention it.
Nor DO they mention any such thing.
NOR is Trinitarian rhetoric even a rational concept.
It would also mean REDUCING (not elevating) the death of Jesus to:
Meat-puppet theater.
Because it would mean:
One of an un-killable-God's three un-killable-person-alities (TWO of which he just oops/forgot to mention in the Hebrew religious texts)...
PUPPETTED a non-sentient kosher meat-suit,
and then later pretends to get himself killed when
that meat-puppet is nailed to a cross and then he stops animating it for a couple of days.
Why in the fuck?
-So he can give himself PERMISSION to "forgive us" for how he made us.
[layer upon layer of non-sequitur propositions]
-BUT only for those of us who are lucky enough to:
a.) happen-across the "news" (which can only be correctly relayed by a tiny niche of "true Christians"; in a sea of equally impressive (or equally non-impressive) pretenders)
and then
[we must]
b.) pretend that any of it's even remotely rational,
and then
[we must]
c.) assume it actually happened in real life.
- "Or else" [you'll burn forever]
Meanwhile, scholars can-and-have tracked the development OF Trinitarian rhetoric within Christianities (plural).
And as such, they know it took further centuries to develop.
Although, some would argue that the author of "John" started that process via giving Jesus a higher "Christology";
- which blurred the lines between Jesus's relationship to the realm of men
vs his relationship to the realm of deities.
All of that matters here because:
It's literally the JOB of a scholar (it's their entire purpose. It's also what they are ethically bound by) to identify the most likely explanations for what historical persons existed, what events happened, and what actually-existing persons believed.
Whenever a given historical theory is understood (by any scholar) to be objectively NOT the most likely (to have been true)
(out of all available theories),
then:
it becomes:
automatically their ethical duty to reject it;
pending any new discoveries which could provide greater likelihood.
This is why they ALL reject the miracle claims.
They aren't saying "miracles didn't happen".
They're saying "As a historian, I am limited to supporting only the most likely explanations of any given claim about ancient history.
Miracles, by definition, are always the least likely explanation.
Thus, as a historian, I can never attest to any miracles claimed by historic writers.
Whereas, as a PERSON, on my own time, not leaning on my academic credentials, I'm allowed to believe and endorse anything I feel sufficiently good or intuitive about. ".
That means a historian can't vouch for the divinity of Jesus "as a historian".
They could endorse that reading "as literature".
But for that, they'd need that to be the most probable meaning of those texts.
And it's just simply not.
It's not even plausible.
For someone to suppose "I bet there are some who think it's not only plausible but probable",
that's like saying "I bet there are some astronomers who think the moon is made out of green cheese.".
IF there are any, then it changes nothing.
IF they submit papers (for peer review), it still changes nothing.
If Google returns search-results for it,
that doesn't change anything either.
It would still remain "a settled issue" that the moon is not made out of cheese.
The correlation between "Green Cheese Theory" and Christianity is explained here:
It's also important to note that:
most of the so-called "proof texts" that Trinitarians cite ... are either corrupted translations or are being illogically interpreted.
Note:
these allegations ARE matters of FACT; not mere opinion.
That's why:
ONLY Trinitarian Christians (and people raised by Trinitarians) think "those writers believed Jesus was the same God as the God of the biblical Hebrews".
They're basing that on a post-biblical religious narrative.
That's what believers have taken a personal oath of loyalty to.
From there, then they attempt to twist the available data into theological pretzels, trying to make it work.
That's the only way to get there.
But that's not something actual scholars include as part of their process.
--
For now,
I'll close with this point about it all:
Think about how ethically irresponsible, reckless, and utterly anti-strategic it would be
for an all-knowing,
perfectly-wise,
deeply invested
Super-Entity
to rely on:
conveying essential truths to all of humanity via TEXT MESSAGES.
-Even worse yet, ...
ALL of those text messages starting and circulating only as oral rumors (for many years; often decades; sometimes even centuries) before anyone finally wrote down whatever version they heard,
originating often from anonymous sources,
and (worse yet) often monstrous dudes (really bad people),
promoting just-a-few decent values (NONE of which were ground-breaking), while espousing MOSTLY clinically narcisisstic and psychopathic abuse,
from a time-and-place plagued with scientific illiteracy and magical thinking,
and while "just concidentally"
literally EVERY mystical claim made in bibles
echoes identical story-elements from other cultures' mythical stories.
Where story-claim originators claimed (without evidence) they just had a private conversation with The Creator Of the Universe.
Where, at other times, other random dudes claimed they heard from someone, who heard from someone, who saw fantastic things.
Meanwhile, various rival churches (over thousands of years) have "reserved the right" to decided FOR US how to interpret every word on those pages.
And WITH that,
they think they get to TELL you,
and me,
and our children ...
WHO we are,
what our LIFE is (and must be) all about,
and how to live it;
along with what we're supposed to think, and feel, and say, and do, ...
"or else".
And yet, ...
Let's consider all of the
fallible story tellers,
fallible understand(ers),
fallible rumor-spreaders,
fallible paraphrasers,
fallible scribes,
fallible canon-book selectors (and excluders)
[always being chosen by people and churches under dramatic personal, social and political conflicts of interest]
[We're also supposed to ignore how none of those letters were supposed to BECOME a "Bible"]
Moving forward from there,
And yet, ...
Let's consider all of the
fallible story tellers,
fallible understand(ers),
fallible rumor-spreaders,
fallible paraphrasers,
fallible scribes,
fallible canon-book selectors (and excluders)
[always being chosen by people and churches under dramatic personal, social and political conflicts of interest]
[We're also supposed to ignore how none of those letters were supposed to BECOME a "Bible"]
Moving forward from there,
fallible translators (from dead languages and dead cultures) using their best guesses about what each snippet "probably meant" and thus how it "aught to be translated",
and fallible, super-biased religious groups each DECIDING for everyone else "what it all really means";
and yet ... each disagreeing with EACH OTHER about what it all really means.
-All while NOBODY has an objectively good reason to make ANY positive presuppositions about any of it.
- not even that we "aught" to assume gods exist,
nor that we "aught" to assume only ONE GOD exists,
nor that we "aught" to assume that God is playing a high-stakes game of 'Hide and Seek' with us,
nor that that he "surely" must have written some literal books for us to find, read, understand, and enslave ourselves to;
which automatically means enslaving ourselves to rival (mutually exclusive) randos who claim to speak (OVER us) in his name.
So if you want to argue that any scholars could be wrong, my response is:
YEP. They sure could be.
And that fact reveals the real core of the problem here.
I, along with most people,
are completely willing to CONSIDER
But we aren't really accepting or rejecting a "God".
We're each merely and subjectively evaluating the creditability of various random people's claims about "God".
and fallible, super-biased religious groups each DECIDING for everyone else "what it all really means";
and yet ... each disagreeing with EACH OTHER about what it all really means.
-All while NOBODY has an objectively good reason to make ANY positive presuppositions about any of it.
- not even that we "aught" to assume gods exist,
nor that we "aught" to assume only ONE GOD exists,
nor that we "aught" to assume that God is playing a high-stakes game of 'Hide and Seek' with us,
nor that that he "surely" must have written some literal books for us to find, read, understand, and enslave ourselves to;
which automatically means enslaving ourselves to rival (mutually exclusive) randos who claim to speak (OVER us) in his name.
So if you want to argue that any scholars could be wrong, my response is:
YEP. They sure could be.
And that fact reveals the real core of the problem here.
I, along with most people,
are completely willing to CONSIDER
and then CHOOSE how to RESPOND;
about ANY proposition.
about ANY proposition.
But we aren't really accepting or rejecting a "God".
We're each merely and subjectively evaluating the creditability of various random people's claims about "God".
We can't really exercise our theoretically-"FREE" Will to "accept or reject" (a)"Him" until AFTER we "know" that any given God is real (as described).
No Christian has ever been given that.
Thus, no Christian has ever been able to make that choice.
They are only pretending they have.
We can't get THAT from just reading a book of poorly preserved and questionably-understood rumors.
Nor can we get that from miraculous and transformative personal experiences.
Because EVEN IF someone is being honest with themselves about the empirical facts (of what happened),
and about how it felt,
and about how it was transformative for them,
they'd still be drawing from local religious-cultural narratives to "inform" them that a specific Super-"who" caused it; and "why".
In other words, even if a GOD did do something great for you, that doesn't prove anything about Christianity. It's possible that "God" had other reasons and doesn't care about your religion.
Nor can we get that from any of the arguments for Deism; not even if we accept those arguments.
Nor can we get that from psychically begging into the ether;
not even with 'just the right' incantation.
Nor would it be ethically responsible and honest
to arbitrarily assume any rando's religiosity warrants serious consideration,
based on nothing by their say-so + our own emotional desperation to be thrown a (any) lifeline during some intense period of personal psychological vulnerability ...
and then cave-to that religious-person's social pressure;
when they attempt to get us to psyche ourselves into their religion via prayer-ritual that THEY script for us ("Don't pray that way. Used these words instead ...")
as a way to "confirm the bias" that we arbitrarily started with.
---
If there is anything that an all-knowing, perfectly wise, all-powerful Entity wants everyone to know, ... everyone would immediately know whatever that is.
So then,
the mere existence of religious evangelizers
is their unilateral confession
that they're full of shit.
Comments
Post a Comment