A Theology Question

[IBDaMann]

There is zero doubt He existed, it’s historical record, the only question they debate is whether He was God

Are you ready for a splash of cold water?

Question 1: Why do you think you can't find any historical record for Jesus?
Question 2: Why do you think belief in Jesus is a matter of faith, not one of settled science?

Any thoughts? (hint: if you begin insisting that there is certainly historical record, I will begin insisting that you post it here. I'll save you the time and trouble, there isn't any)

 

[Cypress]

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

Being able to restrain yourself from murdering, assaulting, and raping is not worth getting a pat on the back for.

It is the absolute bottom of the barrel, lowest ethical bar to clear. That has much more to do with criminal behaviour, than an acceptable ethical life.

If you read the Sermon on the Plain, the Dhammapada, the Bhagavad-Gita there is a whole lot more to being a righteous moral human being than resisting the urge to stab someone in the neck with a shiv.

 

[BidenPresident]

Being able to restrain yourself from murdering, assaulting, and raping is not worth getting a pat on the back for.

It is the absolute bottom of the barrel, lowest ethical bar to clear. That has much more to do with criminal behaviour, than an acceptable ethical life.

If you read the Sermon on the Plain, the Dhammapada, the Bhagavad-Gita there is a whole lot more to being a righteous moral human being than resisting the urge to stab someone in the neck with a shiv.

So, virtually all cultures throughout history had norms of behavior.

 

[IBDaMann]

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

Name-dropping doesn't work. Show the historical document that mentions John the Baptist and the document that specifies Jesus had a brother James.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.

You don't speak for the "scholarly consensus." Who told you that you do?

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.

In the historical context of humanity, the concept of "urban legend" is always the default presumption when there is no authentic (historical) documentation.

The Jewish messiah was supposed to be a formidable and powerful man who would deliver the Jews from oppression,

The Jewish Messiah was presumed to come about via human birth, like all humans, and was not presumed to come into the world as a strong adult. Additionally, the idea of being a king and of being powerful did not necessarily mean physically powerful, but rather politically or militarily powerful.

he wasn't supposed to be a humble peasant who meekly submitted to arrest, torture, and execution, while his followers abandoned him

Nonetheless, none of that is specified. What we have are the Jews claiming that the account of Jesus does not match their overembellished speculation based on a cryptically vague and overly lacking specification.

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

How people might have been fooled/mistaken is immaterial. There is no corroborating documentation from Jesus' time recording his deeds, outside the Bible. Belief in Jesus is a question of faith.

 

[IBDaMann]

IMO, it's not the actual written records that matter...

Exactly, Terry. Lack of actual written records don't matter when it's purely a question of faith.

 

[Ross Dolan]

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.

I could agree with everything you wrote there, Cypress...and still question the statement, " "There is zero doubt that he existed." or "it's historical record." IN fact, that is what I did.

My guess is there was a person named Jesus who did preach...and who formed the philosophical basis for the religion Paul and Peter helped establish...which became Christianity. But to say there is "zero doubt" is a step too far...as is "it is historical record."

In any case, whether it was one man...or a dynamic involving several people that saw a need for more loving, caring, consideration, and empathy...I am delighted it came into being. I only wish it had turned out better. It has become more a religion with all the attendant mythical bullshit...than a motivation for humanity to become more loving, caring, considerate, and empathetic.

That is my motive for disputing and questioning it as often as I do.

 

[Ross Dolan]

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).

There is nothing that exists at this time at all...except that the Church does actually exist. That last is more than just a small something.

But it is a far cry from "zero doubt."

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

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

You may find this article (and Kohlberg's and Piaget's theories of moral development) interesting. IMO our moral growth as children has much to do with nurture and example. The bones are there to begin with, but we need adult guidance to put the meat on them.Whether that guidance comes from religion or not probably makes no difference to the end result.

Piaget’s Theory Of Moral Development

 

[Dutch Uncle]

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?

Such as? You're the only mind-reader on this thread, Sybil. You'll have to post exactly what the fuck you are talking about to everyone but your "friends", Into the Night and gfm.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I could agree with everything you wrote there, Cypress...and still question the statement, " "There is zero doubt that he existed." or "it's historical record." IN fact, that is what I did.

My guess is there was a person named Jesus who did preach...and who formed the philosophical basis for the religion Paul and Peter helped establish...which became Christianity. But to say there is "zero doubt" is a step too far...as is "it is historical record."

In any case, whether it was one man...or a dynamic involving several people that saw a need for more loving, caring, consideration, and empathy...I am delighted it came into being. I only wish it had turned out better. It has become more a religion with all the attendant mythical bullshit...than a motivation for humanity to become more loving, caring, considerate, and empathetic.

That is my motive for disputing and questioning it as often as I do.

Agreed. Those who say Jesus was completely fabricated are only fooling themselves. That said, there is a lot of exaggeration going on around the life of Jesus (i.e. his birth, journey in the desert, miracles, etc.) What seems most well documented was that last week in Jerusalem.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

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

Apparently the "Lord of the Flies" scenario didn't actually take place when a group of boys were actually stranded on an island in 1965:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...-when-six-boys-were-shipwrecked-for-15-months

So maybe we aren't quite as literature imagines.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

You may find this article (and Kohlberg's and Piaget's theories of moral development) interesting. IMO our moral growth as children has much to do with nurture and example. The bones are there to begin with, but we need adult guidance to put the meat on them.Whether that guidance comes from religion or not probably makes no difference to the end result.

Piaget’s Theory Of Moral Development

Thanks for the link. I remember reading Piaget's studies, but 1) it's literally been decades, 2) child psychology wasn't an area of interest and 3)

From the link:

If you like young children have a very Old Testament view of punishment (“an eye for an eye”). Punishment is seen as a deterrent to further wrongdoing and the stricter it is the more effective they imagine it will be.

They also believe in what Piaget called immanent justice (that punishment should automatically follow bad behavior). For example one story he told was of two children who robbed the local farmer’s orchard (today we might take the example of children who robbed cars).

The farmer saw the children and tried to catch them. One was caught and the farmer gave him a thrashing. The other, who could run faster, got away. However on the way home this child had to cross the stream on a very slippery log. This child fell off the log and cut his leg badly.

Now when you ask younger children why the boy cut his leg they don’t say, “because the log was slippery,” they say, “because he stole from the farmer”. In other words young children interpret misfortune as if it were some kind of punishment from God of from some kind of superiour force.

For young children justice is seen as in the nature of things. The guilty in their view are always punished (in the long run) and the natural world is like a policeman.

Some would call that Karma.

This link about Piaget breaks down the groups: https://www.simplypsychology.org/piaget.html

1. Sensorimotor stage: birth to 2 years
2. Preoperational stage: 2 to 7 years
3. Concrete operational stage: 7 to 11 years
4. Formal operational stage: ages 12 and up

It fits that the cognitive development of children, and other animals, changes as they mature. There's one set of behaviors more fitting with a nest/den and another when they mature and are on their own.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

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.

Religions are made up all the time. We need only look to Scientology and Mormonism to see modern day analogues of this.

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

Agreed, that is what the Messiah was supposed to be in the imagination of the Jews of the time. But, again, the fact that Jesus didn't tick off those boxes would be more evidence that his story was leveraged by a small sect to create a new faith by upending th expectations. Take David Koresh as another example. One wouldn't necessarily expect Jesus to horde guns but clearly a small sect bought his claim to being Jesus.

I've got no real problem with some itinerant preacher named Joshua ("Jesus" in Greek) wandering around Palestine at the time and amassing a small group of followers. It's a whole 'nother thing to assume he was doing miracles or anything supernatural. We have so many examples of holy men (even at the time in Palestine there were apparently NUMEROUS wandering holy men, any one of which could have spawned a new faith).

I also think it is reasonable that Paul largely codified a faith leveraging this guy's story even though Paul never met Jesus.

Then there's the whole comparative religion thing in which Jesus' story shares enough commonalities with a number of pre-existing pagan traditions that Justin Martyr invented the truly mind-bending concept of "Diabolical Mimicry".

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Apparently the "Lord of the Flies" scenario didn't actually take place when a group of boys were actually stranded on an island in 1965:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...-when-six-boys-were-shipwrecked-for-15-months

So maybe we aren't quite as literature imagines.

Although the island was considered uninhabitable, it appears they were able to provide plenty of food and water for the six boys. More dire situations are seen in the aftermath of the 13OCT72 Uruguayan Air Force Fairchild F-227 crash with a teenage soccer team.

https://www.history.com/news/miracle-andes-disaster-survival
Miracle of the Andes: How Survivors of the Flight Disaster Struggled to Stay Alive
When an Uruguayan rugby team crashed in the Andes on October 13, 1972, cannibalism helped some survive two months in harsh conditions.

They worked together to survive even though there were disagreements.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Thanks for the link. I remember reading Piaget's studies, but 1) it's literally been decades, 2) child psychology wasn't an area of interest and 3)

From the link: Some would call that Karma.

This link about Piaget breaks down the groups: https://www.simplypsychology.org/piaget.html

1. Sensorimotor stage: birth to 2 years
2. Preoperational stage: 2 to 7 years
3. Concrete operational stage: 7 to 11 years
4. Formal operational stage: ages 12 and up

It fits that the cognitive development of children, and other animals, changes as they mature. There's one set of behaviors more fitting with a nest/den and another when they mature and are on their own.

Had to take psych, child psych, and human growth & development as part of the nursing curriculum. As a parent it was interesting to see Kohlberg's and Piaget's theories on moral development operate in real life. It has also been interesting to see how many adults have not managed to progress beyond Kohlberg's stage 3 or 4. This seems, to my biased eye, to be particularly common among RWers.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Had to take psych, child psych, and human growth & development as part of the nursing curriculum. As a parent it was interesting to see Kohlberg's and Piaget's theories on moral development operate in real life. It has also been interesting to see how many adults have not managed to progress beyond Kohlberg's stage 3 or 4. This seems, to my biased eye, to be particularly common among RWers.

Specifically, among Trumpers; full grown men acting like selfish teenagers threatening to burn the house down if they don't get their way.

Although not daily, I'm getting to observe the theories in action by watching my grandkids grow up. Mostly I'm relearning the old observation "By adult standards, all children are insane".

The youngest may be special needs although that hasn't been confirmed by his parents who were in late-30s at his birth. I'm trying to differentiate between "special needs" and "spoiled" as the baby. He does have a strong astigmatism(?) issue and his mother is overprotective.

 

[Cypress]

Apparently the "Lord of the Flies" scenario didn't actually take place when a group of boys were actually stranded on an island in 1965:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...-when-six-boys-were-shipwrecked-for-15-months

So maybe we aren't quite as literature imagines.

According to Wiki the boys were aged 15 to 17; young adults really, not children. They almost had certainly already been inculcated with adult western values for many years prior to being marooned for 15 months.

I don't really see that as an experiment to just let small children grow up without any moral instruction whatsoever or decent role models to see if the lessons of ethical righteousness in the Bhagavad-Gita and the Sermon on the Plain are just hardwired into their DNA

 

[Melchizedek = Michael]

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


Would you recommend a good Merlot with that?


Got it. No - Free - Will

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

My comments are for those Chosen! If called you can ignore your calling.

 

[Melchizedek = Michael]

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.

That's hilarious!

 

[Saint Guinefort]

According to Wiki the boys were aged 15 to 17; young adults really, not children. They almost had certainly already been inculcated with adult western values for many years prior to being marooned for 15 months.

I don't really see that as an experiment to just let small children grow up without any moral instruction whatsoever or decent role models to see if the lessons of ethical righteousness in the Bhagavad-Gita and the Sermon on the Plain are just hardwired into their DNA

To be quite fair, Lord of the Flies is a work of fiction and not a scientific study. While you may be correct on this, I don't necessarily see it quite that way. The children in LotF were not toddlers, the youngest being about 6 and the oldest being around 10-12. So it's not as if they were wholly bereft of any understanding of mutual support and care.

What about dog packs? Dog packs develop a sort of set of rules by which they function as a group to the mutual benefit of all members. Do they have a Bagavad Gita they are required to read to their puppies?

Do you see ANY role whatsoever to biology in establishing a "moral framework" by which a social animal exists?