[3] Jesus’ Illegitimacy. My point was not biological; rather it was political. Jesus’ claim to the House of David would have been diminished by having been born to Mary as a Nun in preparation for marriage vows.

The above said, if the formation Jesus’ zygote from gametes or otherwise, deviates away from natural biology, he is not God made Man. Rather The Jesus Unit becomes something of a hybrid: A god tethered simulation of human.

Way off topic? Yet, we do bring issues to interpretation. What we can reasonably believe given the evidence provided. Herein, perhaps, many a secularist has tested for the evidence of God and found it wanting. But would Boaz be willing to test "the other man's shoes" and consider the secular position valid, as a degraded heuristic, merely, not exclusionary.

0OOOOOk.... a light hearted distraction..

I think this thread has reached its end..so.. its joke time.

You have to imagine the pictures.

"Pericles (an Atheist) is walking through the wildneress in Canada..
he is appreciating all the natural wonder around him...
'What majestic trees!'

'What powerful rivers!'

'What beautiful animals!'

He said to himself.

As he was walking alongside the river, he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. He turned to look. He saw a 7-foot grizzly bear charging towards him

(IMAGE OF FEROCIOUS BEAR APPROACHING)

He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was closing in on him.

He looked over his shoulder again, and the bear was even closer. He tripped and fell on the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up but saw that the bear was right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw and raising his right paw to strike him.

(IMAGE OF FIERCE BEAR WITH OPEN MOUTH -GLARING TEETH)

At that instant Pericles cried out, 'Oh my God!'

Time Stopped.

The bear froze.

The forest was silent.

As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky. 'You deny my existence for all these years, teach others I don't exist, and even credit creation to cosmic accident. Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer?'

Pericles looked directly into the light and said, 'It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask you to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps you could make the BEAR a Christian?'

'Very Well,' said the voice.

(IMAGE OF DOCILE PEACEFUL BEAR)

The light went out. The sounds of the forest resumed. And the bear dropped his right paw, brought both paws together, bowed his head & spoke:

"Lord bless this food, which I am about to receive from thy bounty Amen."

Boaz, I dunno what that story about Pericles and a bear was aimed at, but I suspect your 'interpretation' is rather different to most, anyway.

Boaz, you claim your point is this:

"I'm not sure what you mean by 'discredited'.. after all, my "position" from which I'll move for no man, or woman.. is very simple. That text has meaning."

But there's more to it than that isn't there?

My point would be thus - yes, text has meaning. But when that meaning is disputed, there isn't an objective way of assessing particular texts. Sure, sometimes people come to an agreement on things like legal texts as to what they mean, but in those cases, they are recent texts and there is frequent communication.

So Boaz, what we've been getting at with your religious texts, is that you claim there is an objective manner in which they can be assessed.

No, there isn't.

Clearly, there is a great degree of disagreement, such a conclusion must be obvious to you. Therefore, there is not a 'meaning' that is not disputed.

So, there is no single way to read these texts. As has been very aptly highlighted by other posters, different translations of biblical passages sound very different, so before you can even start interpreting meaning yourself, you need to select which already interpreted meaning is there, then decide for yourself.

And each person will decide subjectively. So no - your 'interpretations' are just that.

One more opinion amongst the morass, no more qualified than any other. You may have religious or textual schooling, but most do not recognise the superiority of this method of interpretation.
That's what has people bothered here, boaz. The fact that you're positioning yourself as being better at reading these texts, and fail to grasp how this could be seen as incredibly arrogant by others.

I heard a different version, Boaz

"Boaz (a Christian) is walking through the wildneress in Canada..
he is appreciating all the natural wonder around him...

'What majestic trees!'

'What powerful rivers!'

'What beautiful animals!'

He said to himself.

As he was walking alongside the river, he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. He turned to look. He saw a 7-foot grizzly bear charging towards him

(IMAGE OF FEROCIOUS BEAR APPROACHING)

He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was closing in on him.

He looked over his shoulder again, and the bear was even closer. He tripped and fell on the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up but saw that the bear was right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw and raising his right paw to strike him.

(IMAGE OF FIERCE BEAR WITH OPEN MOUTH -GLARING TEETH)

At that instant Boaz cried out, 'Oh my God!'

Time Stopped.

The bear froze.

The forest was silent.

As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky. 'You've been a devout Christian for all these years, teach others I am merciful and forgiving, and credit me with sending my son to earth to cleanse your sins. I guess you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Because you deserve it, right?'

Boaz looked directly into the light and said, 'Absolutely not, O Lord, if it pleases you that I am to die, then die I shall, safe in the knowledge that I have done thy bidding'

"Spoilsport" said the voice.

The light went out. The sounds of the forest resumed. And the bear walked away, muttering to himself how atheists were so much more fun to eat than Christians.

Hello Boazy and Peracles,

Good joke. Good retort.

Why would God wait until Peracles' seemly pending demise to come to him as an epiphany?

Boazy, based on known secular history what parts of the Bible would you remove owing to inaccuracies: e.g., Herod being alive at the time of Jeses' birth, there being no record [and there would be] of an Egypian Pharoah and his army dying in the Red Sea?

In response, Boazy, it does not suffice to say that Historians would not believe in ancient cities until these cities are discovered. Herod's past existence is known in secular text.

I can write a book and in said Book claim its content is special. Special in that it is not to be doubted, absolutely, and it, the Book, is religious; and the reason it is not be doubted and subject to the rules of evidence and testing is, because it, the Book, says so.

Boazy, what would you think about the people who believe me? Should my claims be tested? What about people who have faith and faith alone in Olyism, stop? Is my text, religious or secular, in fact? An Olyist might trust in the textwork, adding it is a sin to be a Muslim, Christian or Jew. Each day, I thank the Olyist god that I am an Olyist.

Hmmm What is that behind me? A bear or an epiphony? [Turn, Check pulse, check sight and hearing, All A-OK] Nothing is behind me, neither bear nor god.

TurnRightThenLeft,

Yep. Agree text has meaning. Here, I have mentioned at least twice to our OLO colleague Boazy, Polanyi's notion that meaning is the co-efficent expression of tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge. Theists seem to "indwell" [Polanyi again] in their religion, perhaps representing the tacit nature of the equation in determining meaning from explicit facts, to which tacit knowlege is enjoined.

Where monotheist religious vis-a-vis secular texts differ is perhaps in the recognition of the alternatives. A Christian and a Muslim might have a greater a disinclination of recognising each others' validity in face of disagreement regarding the ousia of god, than might say would a Physicist's vis-a-vis a Biologist's perspective regarding a quality such as "conscienceness". The former has fights on the bases of religious dissimilarities; whereas, with the latter, secular script might lead to disagreement among the scientific disciplines, yet; co-operation towards ultimate knowledge discovery exists.

Herein, one can imagine a Physicist and a Biologist working together to understand the nature of conscienceness, but, it would hard to see a Muslim and Boazy co-operating to better understand godhood, based on the collective knowledge of the respective religious texts, as known to each party.

Modern science seems closer in approach to dualism, as seen in Greek and Roman religions; wherein, in those ancient days, religion could be used to fuse communities, say the Greeks under Roman occupation. Herein, the Dogma of the Egyptians, Romans and Greeks, perhaps, was more pliable than under the monotheism of the Christians, Muslims and Jews. On this topic; the words, "inclusionary" [science and the ancient high religions] and "exclusionary" [monotheism steming from tribal religiosity]comes to mind.

Cheers.

O.