Constanze,
During the Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 the unarmed people did not face the invading Russian tanks with anti-Communist or anti-Russian slogans, because they knew it would be counterproductive to attack the soldiers’ fundamental beliefs and adherence. Instead, people carried slogans that translated meant something like “Lenin wake up, Brezhnev lost his marbles”. This, allegedly, had a psychologically disruptive effect on the soldiers.

Maybe something like “Mohammed wake up, XY lost his marbles” (where XY stands for islamists in general or one particular islamist) would be more helpful to bring about changes in the tacit support extremists among them get from their masses, than direct attacks on what 1.5 billion Muslims believe Islam is all about.

Well, it turned out that there was no such thing as “Communism with a human face” but maybe there might arise something like “Islam with a more human face (especially towards their women)” for the sake of, among others, the 1.5 billion Muslims themselves.

Constance,

You make some highly interesting comments.

One might contemplate as to where Jesus’ own religiosity and attachments were fixed, before his final three years. Obviously, Jesus was a Jew with exceptional knowledge of the Torah. Divine birth aside, Jesus was of the House of David, which would have him minister to the god fearing Gentiles. Were he an Essene, Jesus may have been lived aspects of asceticism and monastic-like community at Qum’ran. Were he a radical Pharisee, he might have been isolated the main body and put on a course towards an independent mission.

Either way, Jesus’ mission laid the foundation for revisionist Judaism, allowing the Religion to be less ethnically-based and more tolerate towards others, who were not strictly under the rites of the followers of Moses. Paul, by buttressing the deification of Jesus, has Jesus’ substitutionary ransom the only way to be saved for the after-life. Were a Buddha to have lived Jesus’ life, said Buddha would not be Paul’s god of salivation. Paul places Jesus as heaven’s only gatekeeper.

If I interpret Robin Lane Fox correctly, very early Christians were what we would call lower working class. Those people higher in the picking-order would have seen belonging to an unorthodox religion ruinous to social mobility, while missions to smaller centres, where the paupers lived, were less assessable, for financial reasons. In the fourth century, Constantine gave the “green light” to being Christian, allowing Christians to have socially mobility.
With Constantine came the codification of Christianity doctrine.
Perhaps, Paul would have seen a personal response to the Word of God, while the Holy Roman Empire (Constantine’s legacy), grew to reinforce, the Church’s“intercession”.

Without Paul, the affirmation of Jesus’ godhood would have been weaker. Without Constantine, Christianity might not survived the Fall of Rome.

Relda,

Sorry, I have replied to you under Constance.

Constance,

Excuse me, for mis-posting above. You are welcome comment, of course.

Where would you have neo-Christianity, without its warts begin, 1970s?

I don't deny that there have been good Christians (and non-Christians) throughout history.

George,

Do believe Jesus would have known advanced physics when on Earth? In the 640s, Emir Amrou Ibn el-Ass askedJohn Philoponus, whether God governed world from Mary's womb? The question has trinitarity under currents. The cry from the cross might suggest Jesus did not have the total picture at that specific moment.

Geometry would have been known to the Romans. A basic model of celestial mechanics would have been understood. Jesus, if knew better than the Romans, he could have presented a simple model.

Alternatively, I guess the lesson for the Churches might be that Christianity is about the Message not Science.

Oliver,
>> Do (you) believe Jesus would have known advanced physics when on Earth?<<
I am not sure what you would call “advanced physics” at the time and location where Jesus lived; he certainly was not what today you would call a scientist.

If you are hinting at the Christian perception of Jesus as God’s incarnation, then you are asking what God knows, which nobody can answer: it is even more futile than asking a three year old about what Einstein meant by his General Relativity.

What our theologians and metaphysician’s are contemplating and speculating about are OUR, human, attempts to understand what He can understand. If God knows “everything”, then he knows about you, and your understanding of physics. However omniscience can easily be made self-contradictory (like the concept of the set of all sets, see Russell’s paradox). So it depends on what one calls “everything”.

See also http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9423#150700 or http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9292#151106 and http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9292#151188.

(I once asked my father: If Aquinas saw a TV programme, would he have thought there were little devils in the box, or real people captured by a devil? He convinced me that that was a silly question to ask. Well, I was 12 at that time.)

Dear George,

I was pondering to theologians, whether or not Jesus would have had knowledge of the fundamentals of the universe, beyond his time period. As a mere man, would his knowledge of the physical universe be only to his own time? If the latter, a distinction would need be drawn between Jesus in time and the Son of God in non-time.

I thought your question to your father had merit. I recall reading somewhere that if Julius Caesar were to appear in our time television would have been more astonishing than seeing our cars and aircraft. When I was twelve I was chided by a teacher for suggesting that a TV cathode ray tube could form the basis of rocket propulsion system in the space. He actually hit me.

Thanks for the links. I will have a look.

George,

Sorry for my tardy response but it can be difficult to keep up with the momentum of these posts when time does not always allow. I understand what you are getting at. Yes, we shall hope that a more human face will appear eventually.

By the way, thanks for the link of St Augustine and your thoughtful insights. I didn't even know of what he was about at all. He is very interesting and must have been a very original thinker for his time. You see, I am not at all theological, just more practical of my upbringing as a tyke (and not really very conscious at that) - and to what I have grasped,is more symbolic and mystical I suppose. I did actually post one of Augustine's thoughts (visa wikepaedia) re fundamentalism to one of our very atheist friends, who did not get it at all, so my post just ended up (predictably) being garbaged. Should I have spelled it out?