Zorananda, Demystifying Yoga |559|

So Mathew 27:16-17 is most fully translated as:

At that time they had a prisoner serving to distinguish whose name was Jesus the Son of the Father. So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus the Son of the Father, or Jesus who is called the Anointed One?”
 
It's like something straight out of Monty Python...

You can see why many of the manuscripts obviously censored that there were so obviously and ludicrously two Jesuses here......

And the translations I've provided from the Greek make the scene even more absurd than Atwill realised
 
Hard to say. The first time, when the shark ripped off one of the octopus' arms, I might have been tempted. But on the second occasion, when the octopus won out by riding on the back of the shark, I might have regretted intervening.

I think the guy was right: this was not his natural ecosystem, and there are moral questions about intervening. Why, for instance, wouldn't he intervene to save the fishes that the octopus killed and ate? And why don't the sharks have just as much right to live as octopuses, or any other creature? Necessarily, to do so, they all have to eat other creatures, or at least exploit their environments as best they can, and not necessarily always in benign ways.

In microcosm, we can perhaps get an insight into why mind at large doesn't intervene, and why what we think of as "evil" continues to exist. It only exists because we focus on what seems to be happening in front of our faces, accepting its literal reality. But one could make the case that, if suffering and death isn't a permanent reality, "evil" is actually a mechanism for providing opportunities to evolve. There would seem to be little chance for that if everything were perfectly congenial all the time.

Agree. I appreciate the nuance.
 
Why do you think this aspect of history is less " provable"?
In regard to the existence of Jesus, it appears to me to be almost a personal choice as one can find arguments for or against Jesus' existence. I imagine this is similar for lots of historical figures to varying degrees.
 
In regard to the existence of Jesus, it appears to me to be almost a personal choice as one can find arguments for or against Jesus' existence.

That's a cop out. One has to engage with the evidence

I imagine this is similar for lots of historical figures to varying degrees.

Yes, 'varying degrees', such as an almost 0% chance of a miracle man Jesus existing as described in the New Testament
 
That's a cop out. One has to engage with the evidence
Or the lack thereof.
Yes, 'varying degrees', such as an almost 0% chance of a miracle man Jesus existing as described in the New Testament
Agreed, whether you like the guy or not, the rationale that Richard Carrier brought to the table pushed me squarely into the Jesus is a myth camp.

 
Back
Top