A Theology Question

[Saint Guinefort]

You got those ideas from reading Richard Dawkins,

Can you please point me to the Dawkins article discussing the development of morality? (I'm serious, I would very much like to read what he has to say on this. I don't recall ever reading about it from him, but it stands to reason.)

I'm sure I formulated my hypothesis based on numerous writings from others, but honestly I can't say I can recall exactly whom or where. I have, however, as noted, read widely in the area (so I could easily find articles about Neanderthals etc. which I used to support my point). But I don't recall Dawkins talking about it. I'm sure he must have at some place. If you could provide me the reference I'd love to read that.

 

[Cypress]

Not sure where you came up with the notion, "There is zero doubt that he existed" or "it's historical record."

Neither is true that I can see.

We truly do not know that a single individual, Jesus, existed. The only "historical" mention of him is the New Testament. The Josephus suggestion has been questioned by scholars totally.

So...if you have some actual historical records about the existence of Jesus...what are they?

Josephus confirms the historicity of John the Baptist, Pontius Pilate, and Jesus' brother James.

I think the scholarly consensus is the Josephus statement about Jesus may be embellished and enhanced. But it's not made up from whole cloth.

The Talmud describes Jesus as an itinerate magician

In the historical context of first century Palestine it makes no sense that a committee of men would sit around table and invent story about Jesus being crucified. The Jewish messiah was supposed to be a formidable and powerful man who would deliver the Jews from oppression, he wasn't supposed to be a humble peasant who meekly submitted to arrest, torture, and execution, while his followers abandoned him

It is precisely the implausibility of the story in a first century Jewish context that makes it seem authentic.

There are virtually no reputable scholars of antiquity who do not think Jesus was a real person.


On the other hand, the Gospels almost certainly embellish the deeds, actions, and nature ofeJesust.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Josephus confirms the historicity of John the Baptist, Pontius Pilate, and Jesus' brother James.

I think the scholarly consensus is the Josephus statement about Jesus may be embellished and enhanced. But it's not made up from whole cloth.

The Talmud describes Jesus as an itinerate magician

In the historical context of first century Palestine it makes no sense that a committee of men would sit around table and invent story about Jesus being crucified. The Jewish messiah was supposed to be a formidable and powerful man who would deliver the Jews from oppression, he wasn't supposed to be a humble peasant who meekly submitted to arrest, torture, and execution, while his followers abandoned him

It is precisely the implausibility of the story in a first century Jewish context that makes it seem authentic.

There are virtually no reputable scholars of antiquity who do not think Jesus was a real person.


On the other hand, the Gospels almost certainly embellish the deeds, actions, and nature ofeJesust.

The history of Jesus is sketchy, as to be expected of a minor Rabbi carpenter in those days.

IMO, it's not the actual written records that matter...which are understandably sketchy, but the ripple effect. Fabricated stories and rumors don't have many ripples except among the wackadoodles, not the majority.

Despite its growing pains, the Christian movement grew and became a dominant force of people.

 

[Melchizedek = Michael]

Josephus confirms the historicity of John the Baptist, Pontius Pilate, and Jesus' brother James.

I think the scholarly consensus is the Josephus statement about Jesus may be embellished and enhanced. But it's not made up from whole cloth.

The Talmud describes Jesus as an itinerate magician

In the historical context of first century Palestine it makes no sense that a committee of men would sit around table and invent story about Jesus being crucified. The Jewish messiah was supposed to be a formidable and powerful man who would deliver the Jews from oppression, he wasn't supposed to be a humble peasant who meekly submitted to arrest, torture, and execution, while his followers abandoned him

It is precisely the implausibility of the story in a first century Jewish context that makes it seem authentic.

There are virtually no reputable scholars of antiquity who do not think Jesus was a real person.


On the other hand, the Gospels almost certainly embellish the deeds, actions, and nature ofeJesust.

You like millions before you have confused the 1St coming with the second!

 

[Cypress]

The history of Jesus is sketchy, as to be expected of a minor Rabbi carpenter in those days.

IMO, it's not the actual written records that matter...which are understandably sketchy, but the ripple effect. Fabricated stories and rumors don't have many ripples except among the wackadoodles, not the majority.

Despite its growing pains, the Christian movement grew and became a dominant force of people.

It's actually remarkable we have so many sources attesting to Jesus. He is the most well attested Palestinian Jew of the first century.

The ancient world was largely illiterate and writing was expensive. The only people that generally got written about were the powerful, rich, and famous.

There was very little incentive to write about peasants; Jesus was a peasant from a backwater Roman province in Galilee. Apocalyptic mystics were a dime a dozen in first century Palestine. Religious leaders like Moses, Muhammed, and the Buddha great leaders of nations or social movements within their own lifetimes.

I also don't think it's correct to say no one wrote anything about Jesus for 40 years.

The fact is, that is only based on the surviving extant sources. Almost no writing from the first century survives. But it seems like people were writing about Jesus shortly after he died. Paul's epistles seem to refers to a now lost poem written about Jesus. Mark and Luke supposedly used the earlier, now lost, gospel of Q, and also perhaps the missing earlier written sources of L and M.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

It's actually remarkable we have so many sources attesting to Jesus. He is the most well attested Palestinian Jew of the first century.

The ancient world was largely illiterate and writing was expensive. The only people that generally got written about were the powerful, rich, and famous.

There was very little incentive to write about peasants; Jesus was a peasant from a backwater Roman province in Galilee. Religious leaders like Moses, Muhammed, and the Buddha great leaders of nations or social movements within their own lifetimes.

I also don't think it's correct to say no one wrote anything about Jesus for 40 years.

The fact is, that is only based on the surviving extant sources. Almost no writing from the first century survives. But it seems like people were writing about Jesus shortly after he died. Paul's epistles seem to refers to a now lost poem written about Jesus. Mark and Luke supposedly used the earlier, now lost, gospel of Q, and perhaps the missing earlier written sources of L amdyM.

Other than Josephus (which was probably a Medieval addition), what other writings do we have contemporarily with the life of Christ? I'm genuinely curious (other than the inferred Q et al).

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Other than Josephus (which was probably a Medieval addition), what other writings do we have contemporarily with the life of Christ? I'm genuinely curious (other than the inferred Q et al).

Ripple effect. Do you really have to see an object drop into the water to know a ripple was caused by something, Perry?

 

[Cypress]

Can you please point me to the Dawkins article discussing the development of morality? (I'm serious, I would very much like to read what he has to say on this. I don't recall ever reading about it from him, but it stands to reason.)

I'm sure I formulated my hypothesis based on numerous writings from others, but honestly I can't say I can recall exactly whom or where. I have, however, as noted, read widely in the area (so I could easily find articles about Neanderthals etc. which I used to support my point). But I don't recall Dawkins talking about it. I'm sure he must have at some place. If you could provide me the reference I'd love to read that.

I saw some documentary with Dawkins saying that human ethics is strictly a function of biology, so I don't have a book or article to refer you to

Same here....
I can't remember all the names of the scientists, historians, religious scholars I have read or listened to. I just know that the information in my head just didn't pop into my conciousness from out of the blue. I have synthesized, weighed, and processed information from recognized subject matter experts, and put that knowledge to use.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I saw some documentary with Dawkins saying that human ethics is strictly a function of biology, so I don't have a book or article to refer you to

Thanks. I'll look that up. I may have even seen it back when it aired.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I saw some documentary with Dawkins saying that human ethics is strictly a function of biology, so I don't have a book or article to refer you to

Same here....
I can't remember all the names of the scientists, historians, religious scholars I have read or listened to. I just know that the information in my head just didn't pop into my conciousness from out of the blue. I have synthesized, weighed, and processed information from recognized subject matter experts, and put that knowledge to use.

Sounds like Dawkins. He's purely logical on that point, of course. Still, such terse views don't explain everything.

 

[Cypress]

Sounds like Dawkins. He's purely logical on that point, of course. Still, such terse views don't explain everything.

Show me some three year olds that are sharing, unselfish, put the welfare of others above themselves, understand concepts of universal love, mercy, and temperance and I'll believe that human ethical imperatives are simply due to biology.

I think there was a kernel of truth to Lord of the Flies

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Show me some three year olds that are sharing, unselfish, put the welfare of others above themselves, understand concepts of universal love, mercy, and temperance and I'll believe that human ethical imperatives are simply due to biology.

I think there was a kernel of truth to Lord of the Flies

Biologically, do you agree there's a difference between a child and a mature adult human?

Agreed it's not completely biological and am not ready to put a percentage on the Nature vs. Nurture ratio but would agree most is Nurture.

 

[Cypress]

Biologically, do you agree there's a difference between a child and a mature adult human?

Agreed it's not completely biological and am not ready to put a percentage on the Nature vs. Nurture ratio but would agree most is Nurture.

agree, there's not enough information and data to assign percentages

If it's true that the moral and ethical expectations which have been cultivated for 2000 years in Christian,Jewish, Islamic, Hindu civilizations are just hard wired into our DNA, we could just let children grow up without any moral instruction,: without good role models, and they would wind up being recognizably ethical human beings.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

agree, there's not enough information and data to assign percentages

If it's true that the moral and ethical expectations which have been cultivated for 2000 years in Christian,Jewish, Islamic, Hindu civilizations are just hard wired into our DNA, we could just let children grow up without any moral instruction,: without good role models, and they would wind up being recognizably ethical human beings.

Well that certainly isn’t true

 

[BidenPresident]

agree, there's not enough information and data to assign percentages

If it's true that the moral and ethical expectations which have been cultivated for 2000 years in Christian,Jewish, Islamic, Hindu civilizations are just hard wired into our DNA, we could just let children grow up without any moral instruction,: without good role models, and they would wind up being recognizably ethical human beings.

Is it really hard for you to comprehend that most cultures believe harming others for no reason is bad?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Is it really hard for you to comprehend that most cultures believe harming others for no reason is bad?

Having discussed this topic with Cypress before, I think he knows that and agrees that societies that wantonly kill others don't survive.

 

[IBDaMann]

I didn't want anything to do with it! But once Chosen there's no way out!

So Christianity is like the Mafia, yes? So why do so many Christians drone on and on about "free will"?

I think everyone would be better off having the Holy Spirit,

Would you recommend a good Merlot with that?

but be prepared that you are giving up control of your life.

Got it. No - Free - Will

I'll have to think about this. Thanks for the info.

 

[IBDaMann]

Having discussed this topic with Cypress before, I think he knows that and agrees that societies that wantonly kill others don't survive.

So why is there so much emphatic support for killing living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die?

 

[IBDaMann]

I have been married twice. The first thought he could slap me and the second thought he could cheat on me so I took both of them for everything they were worth

I met an attractive woman once, and we were having a nice conversation ... and after we had talked for a couple of hours, she mentioned that she had been married three time prior, and that she had an awesome lawyer that cleaned house for her every time.

That conversation ended very abruptly as I had other things I suddenly needed to do.

 

[IBDaMann]

Ancient Jews made the story of Jesus. I do not find it compelling.

Jesus was a Jew.

I think BidenPresident is saying that ancient Jews made the story that Jesus was a Jew, and that he doesn't find it compelling. Terry, don't try to read before you learn to crawl.