Dear Banjo,

Unlike AJ, I can "conceive" of a historical Jesus historical or some one like him. Yet, like AJ, outside of the Bible would agree that there is little evidence of a "Jesus". "Christus" as used Roman source documents refers an "Annointed One" or "Massiah", not someone's name. Some of the alleged Jesus' actions do seem to fit the Jewish expectation,some don't. The House of David claim is consitent but it could be argued the situation supports, James the brother of Jesus, over Jesus; because of the issue the legitimacy of James' claim, as Messiah, would be stronger, as James was born after wedlock.

The rules to enter of the Kingdom of Heaven would havemeant even keeping the Ten Commandands and the Jewish Law inadequate. The rich must give away their wealth to the poor, thus, having the potential of underminding the economic system. Less would renderd unto Caesar, lower taxes.

Could one imagine Justin Bieber and his personal entourage sleeping alone overnight in Hyde Park, Sydney? I think it is interesting the Jesus Group were seemigly alone (no groupies) in the public Garden of Gethsemane, when just beforehand it said Jesus was mobbed as The Messiah - at last!.

The Jew in the foreign court is a common Biblical theme, e.g., some common person meets Pharoah. Pilate was certainly capable of just about anything, except unsetting Rome with a riot (even if the orthodox Jews would agree to crucify him, there were His supporters). I think Herod would have hired a few thugs and had Him murdered. Else, if the Crucifixion did happen, Pilate was genuinely concerned. The question is about what: The orthodox Jews rioting? or.. The Jesus Movement growing?

Dear George,

This has been an excellent thread with many thoughtful contributions.

As previously alluded towards, I think many scriptures actually cloud the picture, especially on the issue of Creation. Also, how God relates to all of humanity at all times, rather than abn exclusive pocket.

The more recent debate an External Creation Agent versus bounded existence is free of the religions. Albeit, of course, we still need to address metaphysical and onological issues, if one weights an End of Science (closed physicallity) against a divine Causal Agent.

My view, I think you know, is that even if you hold a tentative posit as thick as a cable on a major city suspension bridge one needs retain the gossimer thin weave of one thread of a spider's webb, as to the direct opposite. I believe in degraded propositions over infallibility of opinion.

Never have felt you are trying to convert me, yet, I do reflect upon your arguments. You appreciate than their are other "world-views" and thinking is not closed.

Hello Severin,

I feel a little undeserving of your assessment being just one cog in this thread's machine.

It good to see you here as a "regular".

George,
Whether you used the example of the Magi metaphorically or not, I don’t think it was an appropriate example. When making a metaphor, it helps if the objects involved are clearly being used metaphorically and are sufficiently distanced from the actual subject in question.

I would agree that the definition you found for special (or specific) revelation doesn’t forego discovering truth by reason or other means. I don’t have a low view of science. In my high respect for science, I would go along with the, so called, majority of Christians. When scientists, as you say, remain within their levels or domains of expertise, and with easily testable subject matter, they will commonly arrive at verifiable conclusions. As in the case of electronic gadgetry and electrical charges, the tools and possibility for repeated experiments are readily available to all, and technology advances relentlessly.

Not so with the more distant questions, such as the creation of the universe. It’s a bit harder to try and repeat the big bang with some kind of repeatable experiment. I know some experts are attempting some types of simulations. But the conditions and parameters are not readily available and lean towards the philosophical and the worldview dependent. This accounts for why, on the more distant questions, opinion varies so much, even amongst those that are supposedly experts.

-

While on the subject of metaphors, can anyone out there, please, try and explain to me what on earth Oliver was trying to say about Russian Babushka dolls? (The first time I read it, I thought he must have fallen off the plank.)

-

David,
You responded to my previous post without addressing its central point.

When I said that Genesis is history, that was in the context of literary genre, of which the Bible contains a variety. George seems to have caught on the idea (perhaps him and me are more easily able to think along similar lines).

So to your question, “Why don't you accept the Bible as literal truth?” I say, Who does?

Severin,
I asked why you, as an atheist, might study theology.

- To understand why apparently intelligent people believe such stuff.

I’ll take that as a compliment. “Apparently intelligent people.” It’s been a while since I’ve been so flattered. May everyone out there be encouraged in their efforts and persistence!

However, I’m not enamored with that answer. You wish to study nonsense in order to understand why people accept that nonsense. Maybe you have a sneaking suspicion that there is something more real and substantial behind the nonsense.

Saying, “Believe what you want, but at least allow the rest of us to live and learn,” seems to express the notion that you don’t think I have the right to participate in this Forum. What else could it mean? Perhaps people of my opinion ought to keep quiet and not participate in public debate?

I believe that I participate here with sincerity. Occasionally I poke (provoke) people a little, but that is to try and stimulate thinking.

I try to match my opinions with supportive argument. If you are offended by this, then I don’t think the problem lies with me.

Dear Dan,

Considering Genesis as history is taking the Bible literally as far as I am concerned. When you deny evolution because you take the creation story in the beginning of Genesis as other than legend you are taking the Bible literally.

Dear Oliver,

There is historical verification for the existence of Pontius Pilate. He is mentioned in the Roman archives. In fact it is recorded that he was removed from his position because of excessive cruelty. That was most unusual. Since he was pictured in the New Testament as a wishy-washy character responding to the wishes of the mob it is reasonable to assume the account in the New Testament of Jesus' execution because of mob demands is not true.

Dear David,

I did not wish to imply Pilate was non-historical. I hadn't realised he had been removed from Office. Thanks for the infomation. I had seen on a documentary that he had been involved in a massacre as a soldier. I agree it is doubtful that the Prefect Pilate would have been "wishy-washy". Regarding civil order and taxes Pilate would have acted. If there was even a minor reason regarding these matters, he would have crucified Jesus in the blink of an eye.

Dear George,

I have just looked through Gell-Mann's, "The Quark and the Jaguar". In fact, he does address the case of no dots connnected as simple complexity. Previously, I didn't wish to posit a false citation and wrongful attribution. Gell-Mann is clearly the author, and, in his shadow, I presented a residual memory as original. Sorry. I did confirm everything else about his remarks on complexity.

Dear Dan,

The fall from the plank didn't hurt much. What I was saying by playing God's advocate, to George's remarks, is that a timeless, bounded, self-created universe could exist "as if inside" the workings of a hypothesised eternal, omnipotent God. Don't forget common world perceptions of causality and time would not be in play. A skeptic would see no need for the aforementioned elaboration, yet, I recognise the concept. Here, we are weighing of evidence of various Creation Agents, without redress to human scriptural writers.