john-tassie,
I know for some time that the existence of a village of Nazareth existed was under scrutiny. However only recently verification of such a place has been uncovered by archeologists. I've been trying to find the article among my magazines to post its reference.

However look up this site: http://www.bibleplaces.com/nazareth.htm

From a philosophical angle one might ask why Mark complained about too much scientific thinking these days, when it was Aristotelian scientific reasoning presented to French monk Peter Abelard by travelling Muslim scholars around the First Millenium, that lifted our barbarian ancestors out of Dark age Christianity.

Renaamed by Abelard - Sic et Non, or the search for enquiry, it was later taken up by St Thomas Aquinas, but although the church was unsure about it, and still having faith dominate today, as well as not telling the tale about the gallant Peter Abelard. For to be sure as always the Christian church does not like too much questioning.

However, reason can be abused as the older Charles Darwin
warned when his friend Herbert Spencer turned Darwin's survival of the species into survival of the fittest, turning it back into a faith, and from which came the classic Social Darwinism, and from which historians say, came Nazism, Fascism, and also the worst aspects of Marxism.

It is here we find the crux of the matter, the difference between faith and reason, or having the commonsense for moderation in all things, as Aristotle tells us.

And in good Western history books you find in special dark-faced print, Darwin's warning that survival of the fittest only applied to the animal kingdom, for God for obvious reasons had allowed humankind the special gift of reason, which over the thousands of years of progress, through God's gift of reason must become more understandably intellectul as well as more compassionate to make for a better world.

Also remember that without reason, as Socrates would say, we might progress with the feet, but never sensibly with the mind.

What we are on about, Mark, is that reason and science go together possibly in all truth as a test for faith

Bushbred:

Sic et Non. Yes and No. My understanding is Abelard was concerned about Aristotelian dialogues, wherein, the conveying of knowledge centred on conversions. The master would instruct, and, the Learner, through a series of questions, led to the “truth”. If you have a copy of Conjectures and Refutations to hand, Popper provides a (clever, self-referencing) dialogue between Theaetetus and Socrates. But, perhaps, it is Popper himself, whose is playing Master.

I feel the point made by Abelard, in a Greek philosophical sense, is one cannot be led to (absolute) truth. Similarly, Michael Polanyi says people make a commitment to a conceived truth, perhaps, ratified at some future “indeterminate” (Polanyi) time. Herein, such a determination does not propose the same finality (for truth), as would a Greek dialogue.

My own view is an extension of Lakatos. I feel, we should hold multiple propositions, and assign values to those propositions. Thus, one should not have a “firm” thesis. Rather, you hold a dominant proposition, “but” simultaneously maintain degraded heuristics. Theists and atheists, please note.

(Geophysical) Evolution & Da Vinci… Leonardo did observe what marine palaeontologists call superposition (nothing to do with cats)... Why are there fossil sea creatures on/in mountains above sea level? The Church said, “The Flood”. Da Vinci saw, envisaged mountains once under the sea, adding The Flood would not have created multiple layers.

T-J,

Very interesting post. Especially concerning Hebrew marriage rites. I didn’t know these matters. In dynastic China, under Taoism, Yin and Yang, influenced happenings in the Imperial bedroom too.

For Mary, I agree with you, genetic material involving mitochondrial DNA is best viewed from the maternal perspective. Were Mary from the House of David: The Royal Line; David’s Non Recombinant DNA; would have been inherited by Mary’s brother via their shared father.
Same goes for DVC characters. Joseph can transmit Non Recombinant DNA.

Philo and John-Tassie,

I am sure J-T is correct in noting that as ancient documents come to light, people in small rooms are carefully unrolling first to fourth century scrolls and codexes and providing interpretations in scholarly publications. Much of that information could be of great value to society-at-large.

The Christian story is too important to basically skip centuries of detail between the crucifixion and Nicea. With Nicea offering canon (kanon), Biblical scholarship might offer precision in the absence of accuracy?

What we need is UNIX. UNIX? Yes, metaphorically. An open system. An open system is the antithesis of canon. Canon promotes a priori validation, the handmaiden of intellectual stagnation.

During the period in question, we have a Jewish Diaspora and more specifically a Christian-Jewish Diaspora offering differing interpretations of events and writing these down in gospels using nom de plumes. These Mark Twains seemingly provided their own twist to events, which occurred decades, even a century, beforehand. And as previously posted, much was going on, the fall of the second Temple and the Roman-Jewish War. “The times they were a-changing.” Not all writers framed the same opinions.

Agreed, Philo, much gnosticism is Zoroastrian, but there were Christian Gnostics. We shouldn't drop everything not in the Bible.

More importantly, Peter mentions compiling earlier works. It seems that in the early Church, there were housebound Jesus sects. Peter pulls these earlier patterns together, and seems to moving towards a building a Jewish-style church/temple?

TODAY: An open system inquiry - IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN – could evaluate and discuss the various ideas of the early Jesus sects. "Divinity" obviously the big one. We have the Quelle document, the Essenes and the Dead Sea scrolls too.

Probably DVC will go the way of Jurassic Park. Just the same, I would like to see serious open inquiry into all the Jesus accounts, before Nicea, without the need for a priori validation to the selected gospels and in the absence of canon.

Modern science and historians can bring enormous scholarship to the issue of the divinity of Jesus. Open inquiry isn’t an ‘ism.

Comments welcome.

Oliver,
If you have read my posts you will realise the Gospel and writings of John deals specifically with the divinity of Jesus. John does not give Jesus divinity based on his conception or natural parentage, he in fact denies that such makes one a son of God [John 1: 10 -13].

One is a son of God to use Jesus term when one is "born of the spirit of God". This is evident when our attitudes change toward God and fellowman and we endeavour to live lives pure in character and devoted to forgivness and love. Love and forgivness are hardly the elements of science.

"Modern science and historians can bring enormous scholarship to the issue of the divinity of Jesus. Open inquiry isn’t an ‘ism."

Thanks Philo,

I will revisit John.

My point has to do with the source documents upon which the gospels are based. I don't have any particular interest in the gnostic writing contra Nicea. Rather, I am saying, as would historians, I think, there are earlier writings. 1 Peter 1-4, I suggest alludes to earlier texts.

Regressing the chain of evidence can support Christianity too. Triangulating source documents (especially detatched third party) could prove very powerful.

I understand your earlier point that Jesus stands apart from the Christian-Jewish sect/Roman mysteries merger. Here, we agree, He is a separate construct (in an analytical sense). Investigations could use many writings externally converging on an independent focal point, rather have the focus of investigation embedded in selected writings (selection bias. A priori reliance on the Bible "alone" isn't good investigative design.

Cheers.