Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[IanS]

Ian,

I sympathize with the frustration that can be caused from working with religious logic, indeed, their belief is as it stands in spite of any logic to you, myself, or anyone who may not agree with the logic of their articles, creeds, and their collective understanding of those.

In that spite, indeed, rests their faith regardless of our admiration of its rationality in comparison to any text; they remain set as they are, and capable of impact consequently.


As to myself; don't worry about me. I don't consider myself to be waisting time.

Most of my studies are in Ancient Middle East anthropology, and not specifically Christian theology itself (for instance, I'm not quite as versed in Christian apologetics of the Medieval period in great detail, and especially not very well in the Renaissance period).

I study for the enjoyment of fascination and inquiry, but I don't really study Christianity.

I did, for a number of years, spend a considerable amount of time studying Christianity due to being raised in it and finding no real satisfaction in the belief I was raised in really ever.
I wanted to be certain that there was not some variation within reasonably thorough search which would offer meditative respite without ethical or logical conflict. I found none capable of enduring such test, so after trying several variations I changed religions entirely to satisfy the curiosity that I had missed some other form which would work.
After Hinduism, Buddhism, and neo-druidism, I found nothing remarkable in satisfaction; only lots of overly complicated personifications of ontological existence with constructs of propositions for how to leverage best one's relationship to the personified ontology.

However, even having gone through this for a large part of my early life, I do not consider that it was ever a waist of my life.
It was an incredible array of experiences and education culturally.

Further, being so diversely immersed eventually offered me a perspective of critiquing religion as a behavioral function and to begin to examine the neuroscience of the human and reflect upon the systemic functions of the varied ritualized actions (what I have labeled, "proanisotropic" - that is, 'that which is immaterially for the provocation of an ontological experience').

Without going greatly into length further; my end result could be said to be like Bruce Lee's end result of formed and rigid martial arts surveying.
Where he walked away from those and decided that a sampling of that whichever works best for the efficiency of the individual body is the best martial art (meaning; no such thing as a singular form), I likewise find the same is applicable to ontological pursuits.

To my view, religions and their various beliefs are like tendons; leverage for movement.
The difference, as I see it, is that such movement is emotionally and psychologically centered around an ontological dance.

I consider, as a result, religions to be ontological art forms, and I find no real drawback to studying art.


These days, however, I do spend more time studying the ancient anthropology instead of the general function of ontological reverence in human behavior.

Either way, I am assured to not be wasting my time.
If I did not spend it on such topics as these, I would spend it on something someone else would consider a waste of time (like, the entropic relationship of the universe and pressure tension models, plasma bombs and their odd relationship to light sabers, cinematography, the foundation of Western music in Grecian scientific proofs, and several other like valued concepts).

OK, good. Well I’m pleased to hear that you are not getting drawn into years studying religious issues.

Of course we could all disagree for ever about what sort of academic studies would be a sorry waste of people’s decades of efforts. But that does not make every pursuit equally worthy. It’s probably true to say, for example, that it’s a sad waste of peoples time devoting years of study to crystal healing or homeopathy, when they could be genuinely learning what mankind has truly and painstaking discovered by real research in physics, maths or chemistry for example .... that is if they actually wanted to understand the world around us.

Obviously, one genuine reason why anyone might study the origins and history of major religions such as Christianity or Islam, is simply because those religions continue to have great influence over the lives of billions of people. So anyone, inc. atheists, might very well wish to know more about why people continue to believe such things.

As far as “religious logic” is concerned - it rarely seems to be “logical” at all in the sense of ever genuinely attempting to understand what is likely to be true in it’s own ancient origins. It seems instead to be more concerned with maintaining superstitious belief in gods and devils … and that really is not very educational or logical at all. 2:cents, and YMMV of course.

 

[pakeha]

In the 1560s the Low Countries rebelled against Spain and this trade was intercepted. Also the Holy Foreskin disappeared during rioting in the city in 1566. Then Dutch control of the mouth of the River Scheldt cut Antwerp off from the sea until 1863. Things are better now.

All very true, but we're talking about the Antwerp that "attracted Italian and German sugar refiners by 1550, and shipped their refined product to Germany, especially Cologne.[9] Moneylenders and financiers did a large business loaning money to the English government in the 1544–1574 period. London bankers were too small to operate on that scale, and Antwerp had a highly efficient bourse that itself attracted rich bankers from around Europe. After the 1570s the city's banking business declined; England ended its borrowing in Antwerp in 1574.[10]"

Things change, even in Belgium.

 

[Craig B]

All very true, but we're talking about the Antwerp that "attracted Italian and German sugar refiners by 1550, and shipped their refined product to Germany, especially Cologne ...

Things change, even in Belgium.

May be; but sometimes they change back again, and Antwerp is once more the dominant European exporter of sugar, which is what I thought you were referring to. See http://www.portofantwerp.com/nl/node/5355

 

[JaysonR]

OK, good. Well I’m pleased to hear that you are not getting drawn into years studying religious issues.

Of course we could all disagree for ever about what sort of academic studies would be a sorry waste of people’s decades of efforts. But that does not make every pursuit equally worthy. It’s probably true to say, for example, that it’s a sad waste of peoples time devoting years of study to crystal healing or homeopathy, when they could be genuinely learning what mankind has truly and painstaking discovered by real research in physics, maths or chemistry for example .... that is if they actually wanted to understand the world around us.

Obviously, one genuine reason why anyone might study the origins and history of major religions such as Christianity or Islam, is simply because those religions continue to have great influence over the lives of billions of people. So anyone, inc. atheists, might very well wish to know more about why people continue to believe such things.

As far as “religious logic” is concerned - it rarely seems to be “logical” at all in the sense of ever genuinely attempting to understand what is likely to be true in it’s own ancient origins. It seems instead to be more concerned with maintaining superstitious belief in gods and devils … and that really is not very educational or logical at all. 2:cents, and YMMV of course.

My interest is the Levant region itself.
I find this spot simply intangibly awe shocking in human history.

You can sit on the Levant coastline from 9,000 BCE through 1st c CE (and this really could keep going) and touch every major (western, and some "eastern") civilization through time, as well as capture all primary cultural mixes and events.

That is absolutely mind boggling if you stop and think about that for a moment; really reflect on it.

There's no other place that I'm aware of where this has happened on Earth.

In just sitting in that one spot, I can study a dozen different languages, about twice that (at least) in count of theologies, several times that amount in Civil organization and orchestration, and all tangentially related to each other.

I can look at the Battle of Kadesh, for example, and look at cultural impacts that event and the plague there derived back to Hattusa from the Egyptians that nearly wiped out the Hittites entirely and then look at what impression that had upon the Hebrew culture itself quite clearly.

I can look at the Phoenicians, track them to the Canaanites, and there I can run into the Hittites, and there I can eventually run into the Gauls of Galatia...I'm running into CELTS by sitting in the Levant region!

I am on one side dealing with Egyptians and Indians and on the other side Greeks and Gauls!
That is a very unique perching spot to look at the growth of civilization over time.

The Hebrews, in this perspective, are a very fascinating culture.
They are a hybrid mix of all of these wide ranging cultures slamming together, and at the same time - like all of their time - attempting to be distinct and established.

The Hittites themselves are truly fascinating; they stand alone in the Ancient world holding more alliances and treaties than all other civilizations of their time combined; during an age where military campaign was the preferred method to political solution.

At the early stretches of our capacity, we also have the Indus Valley, which led into the Levant region over time, and there we are of no shortened enigma as their script is able to strike one to look back over our shoulder at the later Phoenician, but yet no one has been able to discern how the script actually functions.
Further, here we find fully laid out public plumbing - well before Rome and or the Hittites...oh, right, yes, they had that too...as well as heated flooring via building structures on top of rocks on the top of the surface and stoking a fire inside of the rock below them!

Then we have Anatolia...oi! What a colorful array of stubborn, decorative and theatrical culture!
So much, so much!

And that is nothing to speak of Arabia either!

I could keep going and going, but I'll stop myself and just say that I don't think I will ever be out of really fascinating humans to learn about in this region, and every year something else truly delights me from it.

 

[JaysonR]

Oh, and Ian,

On relation to this:

As far as “religious logic” is concerned - it rarely seems to be “logical” at all in the sense of ever genuinely attempting to understand what is likely to be true in it’s own ancient origins. It seems instead to be more concerned with maintaining superstitious belief in gods and devils … and that really is not very educational or logical at all. 2:cents, and YMMV of course.

I could go on at great length on this subject, but I don't really think this thread is the appropriate place for me to do so.
Sufficing myself to brevity, I can just say that if we approach religion as we approach math or scientific inquiry, then it fails horribly.
On the other hand, if we understand it as an ontological art consequent of our neurological function to empathize and thus personify, then we begin to see a function involved that is comprehensible despite the irrational articulation of the medium.
A phrase I have compiled to attempt to convey the long discussion of the matter into one "sound bite" is, "It is the human act of shaking hands with existence".

As to the unintelligible nature of the religious language:
A related riddle:
A man has 3 square blocks.
He has arranged them into a specific arrangement.
He wants to convey how to place the blocks into this arrangement to someone else.
He is not allowed to discuss the blocks or any physical description related to them or their environment at all.
He may only use how the experience felt when he first saw the blocks, derived the arrangement, and placed them into the arrangement.
Now he will write an instruction to another for how to put the blocks into that arrangement using these confines.

Replace the blocks with one's ontological experience with existence intimately (blocks that cannot be shown, nor directly described for they are within our own mind and nowhere else) and you have the fascinating result of what religious writing is attempting to accomplish at its root motive - no simple task.

How do I convey to you what it is to be me in relation to all of existence as a sense, and in a manner which you can then don me into you, or from which I can don you into me.

How do I evoke a specific existential experience at my will and for my gain, and how do I know that I have done so without setting before myself a means of harm?

 

[Brainache]

Oh, and Ian,

On relation to this:


I could go on at great length on this subject, but I don't really think this thread is the appropriate place for me to do so.
Sufficing myself to brevity, I can just say that if we approach religion as we approach math or scientific inquiry, then it fails horribly.
On the other hand, if we understand it as an ontological art consequent of our neurological function to empathize and thus personify, then we begin to see a function involved that is comprehensible despite the irrational articulation of the medium.
A phrase I have compiled to attempt to convey the long discussion of the matter into one "sound bite" is, "It is the human act of shaking hands with existence".

I call it "Vestigial Cosmology" from a time when no one knew any better.

 

[JaysonR]

Brainache, I added more, but in short...I don't think it has much to do with not knowing better - though in some respects yes.

I skip past the natural events issues and focus on the ontological angles of religion that absolutely saturate every aspect of it; even in versions created today.

Simple matters that are not simple in result, such as, why did humans ever have the consideration of a spirit or soul in the first place?
By that, I mean, neurologically; how was it permitted and consequent of what provisional functions? Which systems in our brain relay information in manners mistakable as this sensation?

In more direct line, even if we rip out all of the allegory; we are still finding spiritual practices which are meditative upon existence and prescribe actions for alignment to evoke some experiential sensation.

Again, why does this kind of brain want for these actions (as a species, not every individual), and how are those wants derived and formed?
From which biological processes did this kind of want form and what purpose does it serve to the self individual gainfully?


These are not really simple questions, and I have quite a length of writing on the subject from my own studies, but again...I feel that while truly fascinating, I may be tipping the thread off topic...

 

[maximara]

The HJ argument is tantamount to moronic gibberish.

The HJ argument is IMBECILIC and cannot get better because of lack of evidence from antiquity.

HJers seem to have forgotten that in writings of antiquity there were Multiple versions of the supposed Jesus character.

HJers have NO idea who they are looking for.

Are they looking for Jesus the son of Panthera, the son of Joseph, Jesus the son of Ananus, Jesus the son of Damneus, Jesus the son of Pandera, Jesus the son of Sie, Jesus the son of Gamala, Jesus the son of Gamaliel, Jesus the Rabbi, Jesus the high Priest, Jesus the Criminal, Jesus of Bethlehem.....

The HJ argument is in complete confusion.

Robert Price pointed out this problem nearly 20 years ago:

"The "historical Jesus" reconstructed by New Testament scholars is always a reflection of the individual scholars who reconstruct him. Albert Schweitzer was perhaps the single exception, and he made it painfully clear that previous questers for the historical Jesus had merely drawn self-portraits. All unconsciously used the historical Jesus as a ventriloquist dummy. Jesus must have taught the truth, and their own beliefs must have been true, so Jesus must have taught those beliefs." (Price, Robert (1997) Christ a Fiction)

The fact this keeps happening shows just how little definitive information on Jesus there is in Paul's writings and the Gospels.

Price points out the problem and its result:

"What one Jesus reconstruction leaves aside, the next one takes up and makes its cornerstone. Jesus simply wears too many hats in the Gospels – exorcist, healer, king, prophet, sage, rabbi, demigod, and so on. The Jesus Christ of the New Testament is a composite figure (...) The historical Jesus (if there was one) might well have been a messianic king, or a progressive Pharisee, or a Galilean shaman, or a magus, or a Hellenistic sage. But he cannot very well have been all of them at the same time. (Price, Robert (2000) Deconstructing Jesus, pp. 15-16)

My point here is simply that, even if there was a historical Jesus lying back of the gospel Christ, he can never be recovered. If there ever was a historical Jesus, there isn't one any more. All attempts to recover him turn out to be just modern remythologizings of Jesus. Every "historical Jesus" is a Christ of faith, of somebody's faith. So the "historical Jesus" of modern scholarship is no less a fiction." (Price, Robert (1997) Christ a Fiction)

This is why the minimal Jesus everybody out ide of the apologists seems to be going for is a majorly bad idea. If the previous "reconstructions" of Jesus were little more then the academic equivalent of Gerry Anderson and his various Supermarionation puppets then this minimal Jesus is even more of an empty vessel. If you thought Buddhist teacher and trapped spaceman were off the wall views of Jesus well you haven't seen anything yet.

As I said this minimal Jesus effectively reduces him to the level we see for King Arthur and Robin Hood where the actual person behind the myth (if there ever was a single one) has been so obliterated it has become a game of pick your candidate and provide evidence...and said candidate can even be as much as 200 years outside the time the stories traditionally place in. This is a an improvement?!?

 

[dejudge]

You are again stating that as if it were a known fact. But it is by no means clear that Paul thought Jesus was a normal human preacher.

Earl Doherty, and now also Richard Carrier, have both written several books explaining at great length and in great detail why they think Paul actually thought of Jesus as some sort of spiritual messenger of Yahweh, who had never actually been on the earth.

Before that, Ellegard had also reached an essentially similar conclusion when simply pointing out that everything that Paul’s says about “the Christ” is really theological, and not actually a description of what Paul knew to be a human preacher on earth.

We have Apologetic writings AGAINST so-called Heretics so we know that there were multiple versions of the Jesus character.

There is no documented heavenly Jesus who was crucified in the sub-lunar.

Let us not waste time. No manuscripts or Codices that have survived state that Jesus Christ was believed to have been crucified in the sub-lunar.

There were at least three fundamental versions of Jesus Christ the Son of God in Apologetic writings.

1. Jesus was 100% God and 100% man [God Incarnate]

2. Jesus was 100% God but only APPEARING to have Flesh. [A Phantom]

3. Jesus was 100% man but the Spirit of God entered him on Baptism. [ A man who became the Son of God]

In the Canonised NT, the Jesus character was God Incarnate--A myth character believed to be a figure of history.

It is extremely important that Jesus, God Creator, was claimed to be on earth since there was a vicious propaganda campaign that the Jewish Temple fell c 70 CE because the Jews KILLED the Son of their Own God.

Even a Pauline writer stated the Jews KILLED the son of God.

In Acts, the supposed Peter told the Jews that they must repent for killing the Son of God.

The Killing of the Lord Jesus the Son of God by Jews was considered a most heinous crime.

There is no need to invent another myth Jesus.

We have multiple versions of myth Jesus in existing manuscripts and Codices.

 

[dejudge]

Robert Price pointed out this problem nearly 20 years ago:

"The "historical Jesus" reconstructed by New Testament scholars is always a reflection of the individual scholars who reconstruct him. Albert Schweitzer was perhaps the single exception, and he made it painfully clear that previous questers for the historical Jesus had merely drawn self-portraits. All unconsciously used the historical Jesus as a ventriloquist dummy. Jesus must have taught the truth, and their own beliefs must have been true, so Jesus must have taught those beliefs." (Price, Robert (1997) Christ a Fiction)

The fact this keeps happening shows just how little definitive information on Jesus there is in Paul's writings and the Gospels.

Price points out the problem and its result:

"What one Jesus reconstruction leaves aside, the next one takes up and makes its cornerstone. Jesus simply wears too many hats in the Gospels – exorcist, healer, king, prophet, sage, rabbi, demigod, and so on. The Jesus Christ of the New Testament is a composite figure (...) The historical Jesus (if there was one) might well have been a messianic king, or a progressive Pharisee, or a Galilean shaman, or a magus, or a Hellenistic sage. But he cannot very well have been all of them at the same time. (Price, Robert (2000) Deconstructing Jesus, pp. 15-16)

My point here is simply that, even if there was a historical Jesus lying back of the gospel Christ, he can never be recovered. If there ever was a historical Jesus, there isn't one any more. All attempts to recover him turn out to be just modern remythologizings of Jesus. Every "historical Jesus" is a Christ of faith, of somebody's faith. So the "historical Jesus" of modern scholarship is no less a fiction." (Price, Robert (1997) Christ a Fiction)

HJ is a product of Mythology.

HJers don't know who their HJ was. That is precisely why there is an on-going Quest after 250 years with multiple irreconcilable versions of an assumed HJ and multiple failures.

 

[Brainache]

Brainache, I added more, but in short...I don't think it has much to do with not knowing better - though in some respects yes.

I skip past the natural events issues and focus on the ontological angles of religion that absolutely saturate every aspect of it; even in versions created today.

Simple matters that are not simple in result, such as, why did humans ever have the consideration of a spirit or soul in the first place?
By that, I mean, neurologically; how was it permitted and consequent of what provisional functions? Which systems in our brain relay information in manners mistakable as this sensation?

In more direct line, even if we rip out all of the allegory; we are still finding spiritual practices which are meditative upon existence and prescribe actions for alignment to evoke some experiential sensation.

Again, why does this kind of brain want for these actions (as a species, not every individual), and how are those wants derived and formed?
From which biological processes did this kind of want form and what purpose does it serve to the self individual gainfully?


These are not really simple questions, and I have quite a length of writing on the subject from my own studies, but again...I feel that while truly fascinating, I may be tipping the thread off topic...

Meh. I think it's possible you are overthinking this. Humans are social animals, we need to fit into a group to survive.

As children we are told things by Authorities and we believe them. Most people are content with that most of the time, until something proves that authority wrong and people start looking for a new authority to tell them how to live.

Short answer is: Most people don't want to think about it, so they just go along with the herd. That is the safest way to survive, most of the time, until the herd starts running off a cliff...

And this isn't nearly as far off-topic as the sugar trade in Antwerp...

 

[JaysonR]

Meh. I think it's possible you are overthinking this. Humans are social animals, we need to fit into a group to survive.

So are Apes.
Our brains, however, are different and capable of sensing its existence differently and thus, construct a different understanding of the input coming in.
As simply as we are able to construct self-identity, that is to say not simply at all, so too are we capable of our ontological markup.

It may not be interesting to everyone, but it isn't over-thinking to note that our brain provides the capacity to hold ontological perception and to examine how that is in itself accomplished.

As children we are told things by Authorities and we believe them. Most people are content with that most of the time, until something proves that authority wrong and people start looking for a new authority to tell them how to live.

I'm used to this perspective as a response, but if we stop and think about this for a moment; this really is no different than the Creationist solution of God to the origin of the universe. That is, it only slides the issue a step back and does not really address how humans ever were able to construct ontological self-identity in the first place.

Short answer is: Most people don't want to think about it, so they just go along with the herd. That is the safest way to survive, most of the time, until the herd starts running off a cliff...

And this isn't nearly as far off-topic as the sugar trade in Antwerp...

Sure, people go with the herd; that's obvious.
But just as obviously I could say that everyone learns mathematics and yet that does not stop us from examining how that is facilitated in the brain.

It's very simple to just write-off religion as some lesser way of looking at reality and a "sheep" sort of social environment, but it doesn't really answer the questions regarding how we are capable of this, and from which systems do these senses derive?

In a term: "Neurotheology"

 

[Brainache]

So are Apes.
Our brains, however, are different and capable of sensing its existence differently and thus, construct a different understanding of the input coming in.
As simply as we are able to construct self-identity, that is to say not simply at all, so too are we capable of our ontological markup.

It may not be interesting to everyone, but it isn't over-thinking to note that our brain provides the capacity to hold ontological perception and to examine how that is in itself accomplished.


I'm used to this perspective as a response, but if we stop and think about this for a moment; this really is no different than the Creationist solution of God to the origin of the universe. That is, it only slides the issue a step back and does not really address how humans ever were able to construct ontological self-identity in the first place.


Sure, people go with the herd; that's obvious.
But just as obviously I could say that everyone learns mathematics and yet that does not stop us from examining how that is facilitated in the brain.

It's very simple to just write-off religion as some lesser way of looking at reality and a "sheep" sort of social environment, but it doesn't really answer the questions regarding how we are capable of this, and from which systems do these senses derive?

In a term: "Neurotheology"

My bold: Language.

Religions are stories told and elaborated over time.

The Dreamtime, Yahweh, Xenu, Moroni all have a common source in peoples' ability and affinity for making narratives. A compelling narrative will hold an audience in rapt attention, a bad narrative is gone with the wind... (not "Gone With The Wind", that is a ripping yarn).

So look no further than peoples' ability to spread culture through our capacity for communication of abstract ideas in the form of stories.

 

[zugzwang]

I think religion may also satisfy the human craving for the beyond; I think this craving exists, whether or not the beyond actually exists. In fact, you could say that the craving is the beyond. Of course, there are many other ways of slaking it, e.g. utopian political ideas, alcohol, drugs, sex, music, blah blah blah.

Possibly these desires have some important function in human life, not sure. Eastern religions would probably describe it as going beyond the prison of the ego.

O/t.

 

[JaysonR]

My bold: Language.

Religions are stories told and elaborated over time.

The Dreamtime, Yahweh, Xenu, Moroni all have a common source in peoples' ability and affinity for making narratives. A compelling narrative will hold an audience in rapt attention, a bad narrative is gone with the wind... (not "Gone With The Wind", that is a ripping yarn).

So look no further than peoples' ability to spread culture through our capacity for communication of abstract ideas in the form of stories.

Stories are fine for conveying ideas and they do indeed carry through time, but this does not address the issue, but steps to its side.

How did the human brain derive that the state of existing for existence was itself a reactive relationship to feel and relate unto?
How did the human brain derive that it was more than the body alone which it resided in?

Really consider for a moment how complicated of a thought a spirit or soul construct truly is - fully. I don't mean the legends, myths, and tales of creeds.
I mean the sense of it that people are compelled to claim possession from.

As viscerally as they look in the mirror and say, "That is me", they feel a spirit or soul and say to themselves, "That is me".

That is no simple task to accomplish.
Or rather, if we claim that such is a simple task to accomplish, then we are equally claiming that it is of no great difficulty to heal subjective capgras syndrome; which to this day has no definitively successful prognosis.

 

[JaysonR]

...In fact, you could say that the craving is the beyond...

Very well described.
So then we must ask why that craving exists; which systems produce such craving which craves its own craving?

 

[Brainache]

Very well described.
So then we must ask why that craving exists; which systems produce such craving which craves its own craving?

A little Pixie told me: "Self referential information processing".

The feedback in the brain that is constantly checking if we still have all our limbs attached. The feedback in the brain that creates the illusion of a persistent consciousness and the illusion of conscious control over our decision making.

The brain takes an action before we are consciously aware of making the decision and our mind tells us a story: "I did this", about a second or so later.

I don't have a link to the scientific studies which demonstrate this to be true, but it does seem to be the case that the conscious mind is the tail, not the dog.

So, we all create narratives of our lives inside our brains which give us an illusion of control. We also apply this same "agency" thinking to the natural world and assume that it all has controller/s. Thinking this way about the outside world isn't compulsory, but it is natural.

I'm probably getting in too deep now, and this is a derail, so I'll just leave it. It's just my bit of speculation anyway.

 

[JaysonR]

You really are not that far off of the mark there Brainache; our preconscious processing definately plays a role, but as you say...we are off topic.
Should we start a thread?

 

[Brainache]

You really are not that far off of the mark there Brainache; our preconscious processing definately plays a role, but as you say...we are off topic.
Should we start a thread?

I don't think so. It will just turn into one of those "what happens in a Star Trek Transporter?" type threads.

I think we should just get back to discussing Jesus' foreskin and whether or not his bones are in the ground somewhere, or up in heaven with his Mum...

Y'know, sensible stuff...

 

[pakeha]

You really are not that far off of the mark there Brainache; our preconscious processing definately plays a role, but as you say...we are off topic.
Should we start a thread?

Keep it here, please.
I think all this has a great deal to do with the discussion about an MJ as opposed to an HJ.

May be; but sometimes they change back again, and Antwerp is once more the dominant European exporter of sugar, which is what I thought you were referring to. See http://www.portofantwerp.com/nl/node/5355

Ahhh.
My bad, then. But it's fascinating the wheel turned yet again in the case of the sugar exportation.

[ . . . ]As I said this minimal Jesus effectively reduces him to the level we see for King Arthur and Robin Hood where the actual person behind the myth (if there ever was a single one) has been so obliterated it has become a game of pick your candidate and provide evidence...and said candidate can even be as much as 200 years outside the time the stories traditionally place in. This is a an improvement?!?

Dunno if it's an improvement, but maybe it's as close to the truth as we're likely to get.

I think religion may also satisfy the human craving for the beyond; I think this craving exists, whether or not the beyond actually exists. In fact, you could say that the craving is the beyond. Of course, there are many other ways of slaking it, e.g. utopian political ideas, alcohol, drugs, sex, music, blah blah blah.

Possibly these desires have some important function in human life, not sure. Eastern religions would probably describe it as going beyond the prison of the ego.

O/t.

Actually, I think you'd think Buddhism would describe that desire as being well within the prison of the ego.
But I could be wrong on that, of course.