Is every religion's origin story to be believed prima facie? It seems whatever explanation a non-believer in one religion can bring to bear against that religion can be brought to bear against their own.
If one believes, then one's non-belief in anything else is entirely predicated on that surely? The non-belief of believers is a matter of religion, in which all explanatory processes are safely circular.
There are plenty of ordinary explanations for Christianity;
Thanks for the reply, again.
I would insist, however, that none of your given scenarios are plausible as explanations for the origins of Xianity within Judaism in the form they took.
here's one: wishful thinking.
Wishful thinking vanishes the moment a group of large bald men start to do free facial surgery using baseball bats. Multiple sources and forms from the NT and beyond say that the earliest Xians suffered for what they were saying.
Here's another: someone made it up when they were on drugs.
Drugs? Are you really suggesting that one? As Martin says, “When, where, who, how, why did someone ordinarily make up Christianity on drugs?”
one person in a messianic passion...<snip>...baked cake.
But we already have the full fat resurrection+++ in Paul's letters, written 20-25 years after the events, when large numbers of witnesses were alive and talking. Watch a couple of episodes of this if you think that 20-25 years is enough time for your explanation.
Or any more than one can sensibly work out a timeline of the QAnon nonsense.
There are obvious plausible alternative explanations about how QAnon's story got started. I'm still waiting for one for the origins of Xianity. Added to which, Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
And, again, why is the resurrection so unlikely? We're not talking about a normal human coming back to life here.
Unless one can show a priori there cannot be a creator God, then we must do evidence. Judaism was expecting that God would come to earth, and act within history to save His people and bless humanity. The means by which He did these things was very unexpected, for sure, but how does one even begin to say it's improbable?
You realise that other religions exist, do you? You know, the ones which believe things you don't believe.
Isn't wishful thinking a reasonable explanation for all those other religions you don't believe in? Including quite a number where people died for their confession of faith.
Also it's weird to be accused of something (quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur) when you are the one asserting the historicity of impossible events. As I said previously, I don't need reasons to not-believe in your collection of impossible things.
Also it's weird to be accused of something (quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur) when you are the one asserting the historicity of impossible events. As I said previously, I don't need reasons to not-believe in your collection of impossible things.
You are entitled to believe whatever you like.
Well, that’s your point of view. From several other people’s point of view, you are the one asserting the impossibility of historical events.
It's not my opinion that these are impossible events.
Yes it is. You may believe it is an informed opinion, but it is still an opinion. Incidentally, others with different opinions believe theirs to be informed too - and have explained why they think as they do.
It's not my opinion that these are impossible events.
Yes it is. You may believe it is an informed opinion, but it is still an opinion. Incidentally, others with different opinions believe theirs to be informed too - and have explained why they think as they do.
You are entitled to believe whatever you like.
There are plenty of religious views you don't believe in. For many of these, you don't have reasons to not believe, you just don't.
You presumably do not believe the stories of the old Norse gods. I can't insist that you give reasons not to believe them, you likely just believe that they are made up.
There's nothing that you say about Christianity that makes it any more inherently believable than Norse religion or anything else.
It's not my opinion that these are impossible events.
Yes it is. You may believe it is an informed opinion, but it is still an opinion. Incidentally, others with different opinions believe theirs to be informed too - and have explained why they think as they do.
You are entitled to believe whatever you like.
There are plenty of religious views you don't believe in. For many of these, you don't have reasons to not believe, you just don't.
You presumably do not believe the stories of the old Norse gods. I can't insist that you give reasons not to believe them, you likely just believe that they are made up.
There's nothing that you say about Christianity that makes it any more inherently believable than Norse religion or anything else.
Judging them to be made up is a reason. That judgment derives from other views I have about the world. All together these comprise a worldview wherein I judge certain claims to be true and others to be false. All of these judgments have reasons, and if I have a belief that is unsupported by a reason then that would be shoddy thoughtmanship on my end and something to be fixed.
You may believe that the resurrection and all of the attendant claims of Christianity are false, but that's a belief of the same epistemic quality as the beliefs of faithful Christians.
Non-religious and secular observance requires accepting truths that would not be accepted in other circumstances.
Like what?
Virtually all truths of the established political and ethical order. For instance, the claim that democracy is the best political system. The claim that one person is deserving of only one vote, so on and so forth. It seems like almost all systems of thought rely upon the acceptance of truths that are context dependent.
Many truth claims are context dependent. Logical truths seemingly aren't.
You presumably do not believe the stories of the old Norse gods. I can't insist that you give reasons not to believe them, you likely just believe that they are made up.
There's nothing that you say about Christianity that makes it any more inherently believable than Norse religion or anything else.
You believe that the texts and traditions that support Christianity have no qualitative differences from those that, for example, preserve Norse myths. Others believe they are quite different and have given plenty of reasons why.
Atheist observance requires living within a worldview and denying truths that would be accepted in other circumstances.
You presumably do not believe the stories of the old Norse gods. I can't insist that you give reasons not to believe them, you likely just believe that they are made up.
There's nothing that you say about Christianity that makes it any more inherently believable than Norse religion or anything else.
You believe that the texts and traditions that support Christianity have no qualitative differences from those that, for example, preserve Norse myths. Others believe they are quite different and have given plenty of reasons why.
Atheist observance requires living within a worldview and denying truths that would be accepted in other circumstances.
You are entitled to believe whatever you like.
I suppose imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
But that doesn't mean anything you wrote makes any actual sense.
You believe in many impossible things before breakfast. You assert things as fact which cannot be proven. You are the believer in miracles and so on.
Non-religious and secular observance requires accepting truths that would not be accepted in other circumstances.
Like what?
Virtually all truths of the established political and ethical order. For instance, the claim that democracy is the best political system. The claim that one person is deserving of only one vote, so on and so forth. It seems like almost all systems of thought rely upon the acceptance of truths that are context dependent.
Many truth claims are context dependent. Logical truths seemingly aren't.
Ok yes, if you are within a particular worldview, you think within a certain framework and accept ideas which make little sense to those who are not familiar with the framework.
I'm not sure what the point is you are making, other than to agree that it is possible to have complicated structures of ideas that are internally consistent whilst being unintelligible to anyone else.
You presumably do not believe the stories of the old Norse gods. I can't insist that you give reasons not to believe them, you likely just believe that they are made up.
There's nothing that you say about Christianity that makes it any more inherently believable than Norse religion or anything else.
You believe that the texts and traditions that support Christianity have no qualitative differences from those that, for example, preserve Norse myths. Others believe they are quite different and have given plenty of reasons why.
Atheist observance requires living within a worldview and denying truths that would be accepted in other circumstances.
You are entitled to believe whatever you like.
I suppose imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
But that doesn't mean anything you wrote makes any actual sense.
You believe in many impossible things before breakfast. You assert things as fact which cannot be proven. You are the believer in miracles and so on.
Things that don't happen.
You seem to have quite precise beliefs about what I believe. I have no idea how you reached such conclusions. A leap of faith?
Non-religious and secular observance requires accepting truths that would not be accepted in other circumstances.
Like what?
Virtually all truths of the established political and ethical order. For instance, the claim that democracy is the best political system. The claim that one person is deserving of only one vote, so on and so forth. It seems like almost all systems of thought rely upon the acceptance of truths that are context dependent.
Many truth claims are context dependent. Logical truths seemingly aren't.
So these 'truths' somehow validate, elevate the truth value of (only) Christian religious claims to be on a par with logical truths? More true even than scientific truth?
It i may but in—being in the middle of a sleepless night—there is one remarkable difference between Christianity and religions of the Norse god type. Christianity is solidly set in history—all of its saving events are claimed to have happened in dateable years in known locations among identifiable people groups and even individuals. That makes it falsifiable (or not!) in a way that the hazy mythologies, or even the tenuously connected religions of Buddhism and Islam, just can’t match. (As for the later two, I’m not denying the birth or life of either Buddha or Mohammed; but their teachings are not rooted in historical events the way Christianity is. Presumably one could be just as good of a Buddhist or Muslim by following the ethics and rites regardless of the events of the founders’ lives. This is not so for Christianity.
It's a strange argument, for me, that associates complexity with truth; in the sense that something is more likely to be true if the story is complicated and depicted to have occurred in a specific time and place.
Maybe I'm the term "truth" in my last comment was misplaced. I'm meaning "believability", so that Christianity is somehow more believable than Old Norse religion because of complexity.
It's a strange argument, for me, that associates complexity with truth; in the sense that something is more likely to be true if the story is complicated and depicted to have occurred in a specific time and place.
Aye, but we are the minority, and I've only been in it for less than 10% of my life here in my latest 60s.
And I do associate the ineffable complexity of meaningless infinite existence with truth. Because it's infinitely simpler.
No, I’m not trying to get at complexity. What I was trying to indicate is that the fundamental doctrines of Christianity are rooted in historic events, that is, Jesus’ death and resurrection. While the events of Buddha’s or Mohammed’s lives are doubtless important to those who follow them, my understanding is that failing to believe those things occurred as specified doesn’t pose an insuperable problem to carrying on in their ways. For example, compare the pillars of Islam and the apostles creed of Christianity. One is all about doing; the other, about what God has done for us, most of it in history.
I just don't think that's an accurate reflection of Islam. The life of the Founder is considered critical to Muslims. I can't see how one could be a Muslim without an interest in his life and actions.
To say it isn't "rooted in historic events" seems nonsensical.
Non-religious and secular observance requires accepting truths that would not be accepted in other circumstances.
Like what?
Virtually all truths of the established political and ethical order. For instance, the claim that democracy is the best political system. The claim that one person is deserving of only one vote, so on and so forth. It seems like almost all systems of thought rely upon the acceptance of truths that are context dependent.
Many truth claims are context dependent. Logical truths seemingly aren't.
Ok yes, if you are within a particular worldview, you think within a certain framework and accept ideas which make little sense to those who are not familiar with the framework.
I'm not sure what the point is you are making, other than to agree that it is possible to have complicated structures of ideas that are internally consistent whilst being unintelligible to anyone else.
If that's what you mean, then I agree.
I was responding to what I perceived to be a hidden claim within your comment that non-religious observance is more reasonable or of greater rationality. If you weren't making that claim then all well and good, but if you were, it's an elementary observation that we all think within systems.
Non-religious and secular observance requires accepting truths that would not be accepted in other circumstances.
Like what?
Virtually all truths of the established political and ethical order. For instance, the claim that democracy is the best political system. The claim that one person is deserving of only one vote, so on and so forth. It seems like almost all systems of thought rely upon the acceptance of truths that are context dependent.
Many truth claims are context dependent. Logical truths seemingly aren't.
So these 'truths' somehow validate, elevate the truth value of (only) Christian religious claims to be on a par with logical truths? More true even than scientific truth?
No? I didn't say anywhere that there is any truth on the level of a logical truth. And, to be clear, I don't think particularly highly of 'scientific truth' and so wouldn't regard that with any special authority.
Those Jesus events, even less than Jesus, aren't historical. Muhammad is nearly as historical as Caesar (the Moon didn't split, except by remotely possibly mass hypnosis). The C5th Indian aristocrat Siddhartha Gautama as historical as such a figure can be.
I don't need to believe in the complexity of the serially impossible Trinity and incarnation, that God has done anything for us, to find the Beatitudes of a Jewish country carpenter timelessly, naturally, moral. Love is transcendent, but only in human affairs.
Those Jesus events, even less than Jesus, aren't historical. Muhammad is nearly as historical as Caesar (the Moon didn't split, except by remotely possibly mass hypnosis). The C5th Indian aristocrat Siddhartha Gautama as historical as such a figure can be.
I don't need to believe in the complexity of the serially impossible Trinity and incarnation, that God has done anything for us, to find the Beatitudes of a Jewish country carpenter timelessly, naturally, moral. Love is transcendent, but only in human affairs.
I mean they definitely are historical because they're attested by other historical authors and witnesses. At least that there was a fellow named Jesus who was killed by the Romans. Everything else is more murky, of course.
I also never understand the claim that the beatitudes are a good moral system outside the theological claim made before them. Actually, giving your cloak to a neighbor who is suing you for your shirt is a bad move. Similarly, counting yourself an adulterer for entertaining lustful thoughts about someone is a strange decision. It seems to me that Jesus' moral system outlined in the sermon on the mount and the like only makes sense within a larger theological framework.
Those Jesus events, even less than Jesus, aren't historical. Muhammad is nearly as historical as Caesar (the Moon didn't split, except by remotely possibly mass hypnosis). The C5th Indian aristocrat Siddhartha Gautama as historical as such a figure can be.
I don't need to believe in the complexity of the serially impossible Trinity and incarnation, that God has done anything for us, to find the Beatitudes of a Jewish country carpenter timelessly, naturally, moral. Love is transcendent, but only in human affairs.
I mean they definitely are historical because they're attested by other historical authors and witnesses. At least that there was a fellow named Jesus who was killed by the Romans. Everything else is more murky, of course.
I also never understand the claim that the beatitudes are a good moral system outside the theological claim made before them. Actually, giving your cloak to a neighbor who is suing you for your shirt is a bad move. Similarly, counting yourself an adulterer for entertaining lustful thoughts about someone is a strange decision. It seems to me that Jesus' moral system outlined in the sermon on the mount and the like only makes sense within a larger theological framework.
Which historical author documents Jesus' historically irrelevant death?
Morality only makes sense in the articulation of love. If you need a theological framework, beliefs, still to explain a very effective ancient articulation of it, that's because you believe. I don't believe, apart from in the 'truth' of unconditional positive regard. The perfectly natural aetiology of the Beatitudes by a radical Jewish priestly class on the Jerusalem-Pella-Damascus-Antioch arc doesn't need beliefs. That it may well have been started by two Messianic kinswomen 80 years before doesn't require theology.
Jesus' death is historically irrelevant? My goodness, what a ridiculous claim. It may be metaphysically irrelevant, it may be theologically insignificant insofar as all theological claims are insignificant to a non-believer, but Jesus' death is clearly historically relevant. We're arguing about it 2000 years after the fact on a website that was founded to discuss aspects of the vast thought and social system developed around his death. Hell, Jesus' death is arguably the most important death in human history, up to this point.
Jesus' death is historically irrelevant? My goodness, what a ridiculous claim. It may be metaphysically irrelevant, it may be theologically insignificant insofar as all theological claims are insignificant to a non-believer, but Jesus' death is clearly historically relevant. We're arguing about it 2000 years after the fact on a website that was founded to discuss aspects of the vast thought and social system developed around his death. Hell, Jesus' death is arguably the most important death in human history, up to this point.
Jesus' death is historically irrelevant? My goodness, what a ridiculous claim. It may be metaphysically irrelevant, it may be theologically insignificant insofar as all theological claims are insignificant to a non-believer, but Jesus' death is clearly historically relevant. We're arguing about it 2000 years after the fact on a website that was founded to discuss aspects of the vast thought and social system developed around his death. Hell, Jesus' death is arguably the most important death in human history, up to this point.
Again, your belief gets in the way of the truth.
In what way? How is the death of Jesus the man historically irrelevant? That Jesus was a real person is accepted by the overwhelming majority of scholars, including resolutely atheist scholars. So let’s just say that he was an itinerant apocalyptic Jewish preacher that was executed by the Roman state for being a rabble rouser. Within a few decades of his death a cult of worship had sprung up around him and was gaining notice. Within a few centuries that cult had so penetrated the Roman elite that the Emperor converted. Surely that’s historically significant. The entirety of Western history after the death of Jesus has been influenced by that death.
Jesus' death is historically irrelevant? My goodness, what a ridiculous claim. It may be metaphysically irrelevant, it may be theologically insignificant insofar as all theological claims are insignificant to a non-believer, but Jesus' death is clearly historically relevant. We're arguing about it 2000 years after the fact on a website that was founded to discuss aspects of the vast thought and social system developed around his death. Hell, Jesus' death is arguably the most important death in human history, up to this point.
Again, your belief gets in the way of the truth.
In what way? How is the death of Jesus the man historically irrelevant? That Jesus was a real person is accepted by the overwhelming majority of scholars, including resolutely atheist scholars. So let’s just say that he was an itinerant apocalyptic Jewish preacher that was executed by the Roman state for being a rabble rouser. Within a few decades of his death a cult of worship had sprung up around him and was gaining notice. Within a few centuries that cult had so penetrated the Roman elite that the Emperor converted. Surely that’s historically significant. The entirety of Western history after the death of Jesus has been influenced by that death.
So what belief is obstructing my view?
I think it is clear in the way stories work that they get imbibed with meaning as they get retold.
Are you familiar with the Piers Ploughman tradition? It's a folk English narrative.
The whole thing is interesting because of the amount of different stories and poems were riffed on the theme for different reasons (for example as a Lollard text).
This doesn't therefore mean Piers was a real character. Most scholars today accept that the original was associated with and/or written by William Langland in the late 14 century. Who he was and what the poem is about is a subject of academic discussion.
In modern parlance, though, Piers Ploughman was a meme which had meaning for people over an extended period.
And like almost all stories, myths and religious morality tales, the stories of Jesus Christ are memes which resonated.
Jesus' death is historically irrelevant? My goodness, what a ridiculous claim. It may be metaphysically irrelevant, it may be theologically insignificant insofar as all theological claims are insignificant to a non-believer, but Jesus' death is clearly historically relevant. We're arguing about it 2000 years after the fact on a website that was founded to discuss aspects of the vast thought and social system developed around his death. Hell, Jesus' death is arguably the most important death in human history, up to this point.
Again, your belief gets in the way of the truth.
In what way? How is the death of Jesus the man historically irrelevant? That Jesus was a real person is accepted by the overwhelming majority of scholars, including resolutely atheist scholars. So let’s just say that he was an itinerant apocalyptic Jewish preacher that was executed by the Roman state for being a rabble rouser. Within a few decades of his death a cult of worship had sprung up around him and was gaining notice. Within a few centuries that cult had so penetrated the Roman elite that the Emperor converted. Surely that’s historically significant. The entirety of Western history after the death of Jesus has been influenced by that death.
So what belief is obstructing my view?
I think it is clear in the way stories work that they get imbibed with meaning as they get retold.
Are you familiar with the Piers Ploughman tradition? It's a folk English narrative.
The whole thing is interesting because of the amount of different stories and poems were riffed on the theme for different reasons (for example as a Lollard text).
This doesn't therefore mean Piers was a real character. Most scholars today accept that the original was associated with and/or written by William Langland in the late 14 century. Who he was and what the poem is about is a subject of academic discussion.
In modern parlance, though, Piers Ploughman was a meme which had meaning for people over an extended period.
And like almost all stories, myths and religious morality tales, the stories of Jesus Christ are memes which resonated.
I’m familiar with that and don’t deny that the Jesus story is a meme, in this usage. That there was a death by crucifixion of a Jewish peasant named Jesus is much more historically plausible than Piers Ploughman tradition. I’m just saying Jesus’ death is a historical significant event.
Comments
I would insist, however, that none of your given scenarios are plausible as explanations for the origins of Xianity within Judaism in the form they took.
Wishful thinking vanishes the moment a group of large bald men start to do free facial surgery using baseball bats. Multiple sources and forms from the NT and beyond say that the earliest Xians suffered for what they were saying.
Drugs? Are you really suggesting that one? As Martin says, “When, where, who, how, why did someone ordinarily make up Christianity on drugs?”
But we already have the full fat resurrection+++ in Paul's letters, written 20-25 years after the events, when large numbers of witnesses were alive and talking. Watch a couple of episodes of this if you think that 20-25 years is enough time for your explanation.
There are obvious plausible alternative explanations about how QAnon's story got started. I'm still waiting for one for the origins of Xianity. Added to which, Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
And, again, why is the resurrection so unlikely? We're not talking about a normal human coming back to life here.
Unless one can show a priori there cannot be a creator God, then we must do evidence. Judaism was expecting that God would come to earth, and act within history to save His people and bless humanity. The means by which He did these things was very unexpected, for sure, but how does one even begin to say it's improbable?
Isn't wishful thinking a reasonable explanation for all those other religions you don't believe in? Including quite a number where people died for their confession of faith.
You are entitled to believe whatever you like.
Well, that’s your point of view. From several other people’s point of view, you are the one asserting the impossibility of historical events.
You are entitled to believe whatever you like.
That's not how these things work. If you make massive assertions, you need reasons to believe it, I don't need reasons to not-believe it.
That, if I may say so, begs the question. If the event happened then it’s not impossible.
Yes it is. You may believe it is an informed opinion, but it is still an opinion. Incidentally, others with different opinions believe theirs to be informed too - and have explained why they think as they do.
You are entitled to believe whatever you like.
If it's not ordinarily impossible, it isn't a miracle.
There are plenty of religious views you don't believe in. For many of these, you don't have reasons to not believe, you just don't.
You presumably do not believe the stories of the old Norse gods. I can't insist that you give reasons not to believe them, you likely just believe that they are made up.
There's nothing that you say about Christianity that makes it any more inherently believable than Norse religion or anything else.
Judging them to be made up is a reason. That judgment derives from other views I have about the world. All together these comprise a worldview wherein I judge certain claims to be true and others to be false. All of these judgments have reasons, and if I have a belief that is unsupported by a reason then that would be shoddy thoughtmanship on my end and something to be fixed.
You may believe that the resurrection and all of the attendant claims of Christianity are false, but that's a belief of the same epistemic quality as the beliefs of faithful Christians.
I'm not sure what that means.
Like what?
Sorry, what's surprising about it?
Virtually all truths of the established political and ethical order. For instance, the claim that democracy is the best political system. The claim that one person is deserving of only one vote, so on and so forth. It seems like almost all systems of thought rely upon the acceptance of truths that are context dependent.
Many truth claims are context dependent. Logical truths seemingly aren't.
You believe that the texts and traditions that support Christianity have no qualitative differences from those that, for example, preserve Norse myths. Others believe they are quite different and have given plenty of reasons why.
Atheist observance requires living within a worldview and denying truths that would be accepted in other circumstances.
You are entitled to believe whatever you like.
I suppose imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
But that doesn't mean anything you wrote makes any actual sense.
You believe in many impossible things before breakfast. You assert things as fact which cannot be proven. You are the believer in miracles and so on.
Things that don't happen.
Ok yes, if you are within a particular worldview, you think within a certain framework and accept ideas which make little sense to those who are not familiar with the framework.
I'm not sure what the point is you are making, other than to agree that it is possible to have complicated structures of ideas that are internally consistent whilst being unintelligible to anyone else.
If that's what you mean, then I agree.
You seem to have quite precise beliefs about what I believe. I have no idea how you reached such conclusions. A leap of faith?
So these 'truths' somehow validate, elevate the truth value of (only) Christian religious claims to be on a par with logical truths? More true even than scientific truth?
Many other religions have important dates and events; for example the Mormons.
Exactly my thoughts re Islam. And yes, Mormonism is a faint echo of the same phenomenon.
https://fs.blog/complexity-bias/
Aye, but we are the minority, and I've only been in it for less than 10% of my life here in my latest 60s.
And I do associate the ineffable complexity of meaningless infinite existence with truth. Because it's infinitely simpler.
To say it isn't "rooted in historic events" seems nonsensical.
I was responding to what I perceived to be a hidden claim within your comment that non-religious observance is more reasonable or of greater rationality. If you weren't making that claim then all well and good, but if you were, it's an elementary observation that we all think within systems.
No? I didn't say anywhere that there is any truth on the level of a logical truth. And, to be clear, I don't think particularly highly of 'scientific truth' and so wouldn't regard that with any special authority.
I don't need to believe in the complexity of the serially impossible Trinity and incarnation, that God has done anything for us, to find the Beatitudes of a Jewish country carpenter timelessly, naturally, moral. Love is transcendent, but only in human affairs.
I mean they definitely are historical because they're attested by other historical authors and witnesses. At least that there was a fellow named Jesus who was killed by the Romans. Everything else is more murky, of course.
I also never understand the claim that the beatitudes are a good moral system outside the theological claim made before them. Actually, giving your cloak to a neighbor who is suing you for your shirt is a bad move. Similarly, counting yourself an adulterer for entertaining lustful thoughts about someone is a strange decision. It seems to me that Jesus' moral system outlined in the sermon on the mount and the like only makes sense within a larger theological framework.
Which historical author documents Jesus' historically irrelevant death?
Morality only makes sense in the articulation of love. If you need a theological framework, beliefs, still to explain a very effective ancient articulation of it, that's because you believe. I don't believe, apart from in the 'truth' of unconditional positive regard. The perfectly natural aetiology of the Beatitudes by a radical Jewish priestly class on the Jerusalem-Pella-Damascus-Antioch arc doesn't need beliefs. That it may well have been started by two Messianic kinswomen 80 years before doesn't require theology.
Again, your belief gets in the way of the truth.
In what way? How is the death of Jesus the man historically irrelevant? That Jesus was a real person is accepted by the overwhelming majority of scholars, including resolutely atheist scholars. So let’s just say that he was an itinerant apocalyptic Jewish preacher that was executed by the Roman state for being a rabble rouser. Within a few decades of his death a cult of worship had sprung up around him and was gaining notice. Within a few centuries that cult had so penetrated the Roman elite that the Emperor converted. Surely that’s historically significant. The entirety of Western history after the death of Jesus has been influenced by that death.
So what belief is obstructing my view?
I think it is clear in the way stories work that they get imbibed with meaning as they get retold.
Are you familiar with the Piers Ploughman tradition? It's a folk English narrative.
The whole thing is interesting because of the amount of different stories and poems were riffed on the theme for different reasons (for example as a Lollard text).
This doesn't therefore mean Piers was a real character. Most scholars today accept that the original was associated with and/or written by William Langland in the late 14 century. Who he was and what the poem is about is a subject of academic discussion.
In modern parlance, though, Piers Ploughman was a meme which had meaning for people over an extended period.
And like almost all stories, myths and religious morality tales, the stories of Jesus Christ are memes which resonated.
I’m familiar with that and don’t deny that the Jesus story is a meme, in this usage. That there was a death by crucifixion of a Jewish peasant named Jesus is much more historically plausible than Piers Ploughman tradition. I’m just saying Jesus’ death is a historical significant event.