Yes, very interesting. I used to work for a large bookstore chain, and large publications like National Geographic and Time seem to always be putting out new Biblical/Jesus Historical analyses.

Oh okay, we may be on different points, then.

Whether or not we ever became self-aware of its tentative historical accuracy plays no part in whether it really ever was accurate at all. That baseline accuracy is what I was getting at.

It has definitely played a crucial part in shaping Western society (especially), but not in ways unique to it. I fail to see how that would somehow put it above criticism, even if they were unique to it. Are you saying that because the Bible's historicity has come into question so have all the principles we have derived from it for the production of our society? While I would agree that is essentially what has been happening, any principles worth keeping could be kept simply because they're worth keeping. If they get us where we want to go, then that pragmatism is arguably justification enough.
Just because the people before us accepted the whole Bible does not mean that the whole is actually worth accepting. It's more so that parts of Christianity, which they accepted in the whole, were generally beneficial. Their belief that it was historical did little more than motivate them to continue with the system as a whole, that system containing the parts that did well for them as a society (and that they arguably already accepted as beneficial, thus accepting them in their religion was merely a second self-affirmation). The reason I say the beneficial parts are not unique is that those parts are mostly, "Don't murder," "Don't steal," which are almost universally agreed on throughout the history of civilization. Not murdering each other is a requisite to successfully living together, after all, and people were living together and had laws about not murdering each other long before any Abrahamic laws came around. Too much credit is given to the Bible for shaping Western thought and especially Western progress. The Renaissance and wide-spread acceptance of coffee did leagues more for creating the progress of the West than a belief in the Bible, though the Bible was an integral part of pretty much everyone's lives.

If other religions started majorly questioning their historicity, the societies heavily influenced by a belief in the historicity of those religions would probably have a similar development, such as if that were to happen en mass in Saudi Arabia; however, people would find other motivations, like mere pragmatism, to continue with the parts that undoubtedly work for them. Thing is, some of them have already moved on from that troubled phase. We can see the effects of Buddhist, Taoist, and Confucian thought permeating Asian culture whether or not the general populace ascribes to them as a whole or think that Buddah, Lao Tzu, or Confuscious actually existed as real people.

Same, but I'm confident we both crosscheck what any, one historian might say. Historical science is also a developing one as we discover new relics and such too, of course.

Oh okay, and big thanks for filling me in on all that. A lot of old arguments don't hold much value, despite being widely used, but this one seems still relevant imo

The New Testament does, at least in some parts, have some notable historical accuracies, but things like the supposed people needing to go to their ancestral homes to be censused for taxing, which as far as I know has no base and would be a disaster and very illogical if actually played out, really makes a good case to question the historicity of what it is saying. After all, if we can't verify something so major happening, why should we accept that a single individual described in great detail was also actually as described? Not trying to repeat myself, but it seems pretty sound, even if it is an old argument.

That it is a mixture of ideas, or that Jesus is a mixture of people, is just one possibility. Jesus being a mixture could, theoretically, be separate from Christianity being a mixture of things.

I think modern Christianity, especially in its traditions, can be said to be much more a fusion of those things than one might argue original Christianity was, but that alone isn't really a case to justify taking a stance of accuracy in the Bible though imo

If you're saying I am making an assumption, I said "possible," which is very much not making an assumption lol

What do you mean? I haven't heard of Bauer, but I'll go check them out.

Its also possible "Jesus" was a mixture of different, anti-Pharisee/Sadducee teachers from around the same time. Word of mouth, amongst and with other things, can blend figures like that. I've read that King Arthur is treated similarly, in that we aren't sure if he was one person, several people, or entirely made up as a figurehead.

As far as Jesus existing, @StreetlightX mentioned the passing references by Tacticus and Josephus. The first was actually just a mention of Christians existing and being the followers of one Christus (which has its own possibility for not even being equivalent to Christ as we know it), and the latter is thought to be near certainly doctored due to its super disjointing placement. Seriously, if you haven't read it yet, it's worth it for a laugh. Josephus is like, "And the Jews suffered greatly during this time. Oh yeah, and there was this Jesus guy who was the Messiah. Hurrah. Anyways, we kept on suffering..."

What are your thoughts on "structure equals function" in relation to this? On a cellular level, there is not much variance in use for a particular piece unless it is, for example, a duplicate. Something's function and shape influence and match each other, a process that is seen in natural selection. But larger, more complex, and aware things generally have more leeway into what something's usefulness can entail.

We can attribute usefulness to something, that is, a door can be useful for keeping things out or it can be used as a life raft in a flood. Things can also be useful insomuch as we value them. Keepsakes and sentimental trinkets are a good example, as their "usefulness" is in the value we place on them for physically embodying memories and emotions. The door example is more practical, while the trinket one is more arbitrary; however, both are ways something can be considered useful.

The context something is in can also determine usefulness. Fins are useful for moving through the water, but hardly for moving on land. I think it would be possible to conceive a situation where fins could be useful on land, but it probably would not be for movement. This is another idea seeable in natural selection. Things are only more useful, that is, more adapted if they pair well with the environment they are in. I think it was in The God Delusion that Dawkins talked about bird wings and their usefulness. He was saying that having 50% of a wing could still be useful in that, though it couldn't be good for flying, if that bird was in a state of free fall the air resistance it would cause would help to break the fall, even if by just a little bit, which could be the difference between surviving the fall or dying.

I think it is important for us to not count things out based on our current understanding of them. Everything changes, too, so someone that can barely lift an ax today could in theory be the world's strongest lumberjack later in life. I think our potential to change is an inseparable part of what we are and is much broader than we often realize.

Sorry if this is not what you were trying to get at, though.

The idea that dreams are other dimensions or higher planes, stuff like that, seems to be like how people think hallucinogens open gateways to the same. Sensory data is processed in the brain, but stimulating the brain can produce sensation too. It's a two-way street. I think dreams work relatively the same, except that instead of "random" chemical fluctuations it is more structured, as the brain goes about its business.