Moonwood the Hare wrote: ↑Thu Jun 14, 2018 5:08 pmI don't find arguments about what should have happened or what must have happened in the face of unusual events very convincing. They always seem to me to stem from a very simplistic assessment of both human psychology and epistemology. You are assuming that in any culture if a sufficiently unusual event happens it must compel belief even at second hand. I don't see any grounds for saying this must be the case.
Don't see any grounds? Not very convincing? A hero that was cheered into the city of Jerusalem, then turned on for no apparent reason, while the Romans released a murderer/insurrectionalist in his place, then crucified him between two lowly thieves, then the massive earthquakes, renting of temple veil and inexplicable darkness?
How could any Jew look on that Holywood spectacular, not be overawed for the rest of his life and tell everyone that he knew? That day of events would have been firmly etched on his mind forever. Then not hear about the zombie invasion and his resurrection appearances in front of huge crowds that would have impressed David Copperfield?
The only reasonable explanation for all this was that it was all made up and didn't happen.
Why would his God self and his Holy Ghost self want to keep his incarnate human self from knowing that his human self was not just his human self but also at the same time his God self and Holy Ghost self? It seems pretty selfish to me.
So he knew about it all along but kept it to himself? Maybe all the thousands of Jewish witnesses to the most amazing events in all history kept it to themselves too, but I doubt it. Very much.Moonwood the Hare wrote: ↑Thu Jun 14, 2018 5:08 pmYou are confusing two issues here. I am saying that in so far as Jesus is aware of his deity and his special relationship to the father, this awareness would not need to be couched in the language and conceptual framework of a later theology, not that he would have no awareness of this at all.