No Robots

Thanks for the response, Clive. I see now from whence you derive your position. I still consider it absurd, but I also see that it is widely held.

My own position is that the Pharisees represent the imitation of spirit. Their attempt to establish a comprehensive programme for unifying man with the Absolute results in a general system of laws that regulates every aspect of human activity. They thus destroy the freedom and love that are the true foundations of man's relation to the Absolute. It is this reification of spirit into an all-encompassing set of laws that Christ fights.

Doug Shaver

The OP didn't ask whether anybody here agreed with the consensus.

spin

Comments in a thread are not necessarily constrained directly by the OP, but, ah, did either of you notice the following?


spin

J-D

Of course comments are not constrained directly by the OP. You can say what you like. And I can say what I like. If I want to discuss how relevant your remarks are to the OP, I can. And you can say whatever you like about that.

The consensus of experts is not always correct, but being suspicious of it because it is a consensus of experts strikes me as perverse.

And as for your earlier remarks ...

J-D

... the SS were not subject-matter experts. The original question was about the consensus opinion of (presumed) subject-matter experts: again, it strikes me as perverse to be suspicious of the opinion of subject-matter experts on the grounds that being subject-matter experts makes them 'interested parties'.

(I don't know what the consensus of expert opinion on this subject is, and, for reasons already stated, I don't expect to be able to find out about it here.)

spin

spin

J-D

I hope that made you feel better.

Amaleq13

If I might move us along from the Nazi analogy, that isn't the case here. It is the basis of the consensus, or lack thereof, that is argued to be suspect. The experts are seen as having been excessively influenced by their personal preferences in their consideration of the evidence.

Sheshbazzar

"The experts are seen as having been excessively influenced by their personal preferences in their consideration of the evidence."

Perhaps it is because these "experts" are engaged in tippy-toeing carefully around the subject of the historicity of JC for those very same "social reasons" that they follow in their consensus regarding Santa?

To disparage, or to publicly challenge the historical truth of such popular cult figures, makes one extremely unpopular person, and still can quite easily get one killed, or at the minimum become a persona non grata.

Attempting to debunk Jesus myths at the "wrong time", is on the par with attempting to debunk Santa myths during the Christmas Season.
Thing is, with respect to "Jesus" myths, there are a whole lot more "wrong times", and occasions where it is considered to be "socially inappropriate" and "unacceptable" and "blasphemous" to point out any faults in the "accepted" teachings and social customs.
So we end up with what is the equivalent of a "Yes Virginia,........... "
A consensus of "players" who are willing to ever continue playing the game, with historical truth and reason always being a pawn for popularity.

Countless millions of words have been written, and speeches without end are composed, to shield men from having to deal with the reality of the cold hard facts of life, and the uncaring nature of the universe that we inhabit.

Those who are miserable in this life, want there to be a better one ahead, (though often, their state of misery is of their own making)
Feeling that they are victims, they dream of becoming the victors, but they can never be the victors unless others become the victims, thus the popularity of a heaven or hell theology.

Doug Shaver

I must confess to having missed that part. My bad.