For Historical
Against Historical
contradiction is such a bitch
Fully quoting the first one you find:
"I'm someone who believes Jesus was a historical figure, as real, or unreal, as any other human being. "
I'm saying he is not more, or less historical than any other human being who is making, or who has made an appearance to other eyeballs. I believe, not more or less, that i too am historical. Historical is real to you and most everybody else, but is unreal to me. Meaning, i question my own existence, as a man, and question whether any man, including Jesus, actually exists.
Historicity is like phenomenon. It is something that is taken for real and/or true, but which is based in imagination, not reality, time itself being an illusion.
The idea that Jesus was an "appearance" (illusion) versus actual fleshly reality is one of the disputed debates they were having within the first couple hundred years, those arguing for "appearance" being shunned as heretics of sorts.
The fact that they argued over the qualities of appearance versus concrete reality is itself an argument for his historicity, which is valid, even as an "appearance".
At the very least, i'm saying he appeared, as much as any man appears to exist, while i'm saying no man really exists. For that reason, all historicity, all "incarnation" is as questionable as any "re"-incarnation, or the appearance of any elves or unicorns.
It's the proof that is your/our problem. As a thought experiment, i would challenge you to prove to us right now that you exist, even if i do grant you historicity. It's not the same thing, relative to the reality of Christ, which actually exists. Tell me how something that is constantly changing actually exists, especially after the rapid radical change i call death. Now prove, to a crowd 3000 years into the future that you exist, let alone had any historicity. 3000 years ago, 99.99 of all peoples could not prove any kind of historicity to us today. Why do you think Jesus has to jump over a higher hurdle? We are lucky indeed to have an inscription naming Pontius Pilatus in stone. Not likely to be found for many others besides Roman rulers. Is paper stories sufficient to prove the existence of Sidartha Guatama, 300 years before Jesus time?
For example, if you are constantly changing, who, exactly, are "you"? What, exactly, was historical? Today, people are arguing what was exactly historical about the Trump administration, what he said, versus what he meant. Jesus has been at least as controversial as Trump. I think the controversy is evidence of historicity, not necessarily existence. These are different things. Time, again, is an illusion. And a reminder, believing is not the same as knowing. Believing anything about Jesus historicity is not the same as knowing who or what the True Self is, a Self i call Christ.
By appearance, i mean something our own mind projects in front of our eyeballs. We project mirages in the desert, making a hot surface look like it contains water. Those appearances, you might argue, have something to do with physics. But all physics are controlled by our mind. Similarly, just as physics seems to put things in front of our eyes that are not there, human beings are appearances projected by mind power. They are not actually "there", so to speak. There is no there there, in modern FBI parlance.
For appearances, and historicity. Skeptical you can prove anything.
For those (heretics) who argued Jesus was an appearance, against those who try to make "flesh", his or anyone's flesh, some kind of existing reality.
So no, no contradiction. I offer consistency.
Last edited:
