Does this explain religion?

[WalterTrull]

nope

 

[Trailblazer]

The messiah is a liberator, a war-leader or king, or a high priest. His title means he's been anointed.

Do you just happen to have the verses that say that handy?

 

[blü 2]

"Mark's Jesus" is no different, historically, to any other Jesus.
He simply did not mention the "Christmas story."
Just as others did not mention various aspects or incidents.
John didn't mention the virgin birth either.

Mark's Jesus did not pre-exist in heaven with God, as Paul's and John's Gnostic Jesuses did.

He was thus not the demiurge, so he didn't create the material universe, as Paul's and John's Gnostic Jesuses did.

He was not born because God had inseminated his mother, whereas the Jesuses of Matthew and Luke were expressly genetic sons of God and had God's Y-chromosome.

No, instead he was born of ordinary Jewish parents.

No virgin mother was involved, because it's not the sort of detail you omit.

No annunciation, no Magi, no fictitious census, no flight into Egypt, were involved. These too are not the sort of detail you omit.

Instead, and consistently, when Mark's Jesus sets out on his mission, and makes a scene, thus drawing the wrath of the authorities, his family think he's nuts. You don't think that if the angels have put you in the frame, or if the Lord has magically impregnated you.

Mark's Jesus is the only one not pretending to be of the line of David. He makes it clear that he's not.

Only when JtB has washed him clean of his ordinary person's sins does God appear and declare that Mark's Jesus is now his son, adopted on the model of Psalm 2:7 (confirmed at Acts 13:33). So Mark's Jesus is the only 'son of God' on the Jewish model ─ the other four are all from Greek models.

Mark's Jesus on the cross is a broken, despairing figure, forlorn and forsaken. The gospel of Matthew cheers him up a bit, the gospel of Luke denies by omission that he wondered why his god had forsaken him, and is more positive, and when we get to John, as I've said before, Jesus is the MC at the crucifixion, making sure it's all done as he'd like.

Mark's Jesus is the only one who has Salome in the open-tomb scene. (Only Matthew has an earthquake and some guards.)

As with Luke's Jesus but not the others, the ladies went into the empty tomb.

Mark's Jesus is the only one where they find a young man in white, and the only one where the ladies flee in fear.

Mark agrees with John but none of the others that the resurrected Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalen. But Mark's MM was fleeing at the time, unlike John's (who says, "Nice roses, buddy," thinking he's the gardener). Mark's Jesus is the only one who makes his second appearance to just two of the apostles. And those were the only pair who told the others but weren't believed. And Mark's Jesus is the only one who makes his third appearance to the eleven at table, teaches them the tricks of demons, tongues, serpents and poisons, and chooses that moment for his ascension (not hanging round for 40 days like a sixth Jesus, the one in Acts).

And so on.

You'd know these things if you read your bible.

You cannot dismiss so many hundreds of prophecies, like many Jews do.

Not one credible prophecy anywhere in the bible, not one mention or hint of Jesus in the Tanakh, nothing.

Stark motherless nothing.

 

[PruePhillip]

Mark's Jesus did not pre-exist in heaven with God, as Paul's and John's Gnostic Jesuses did.

He was thus not the demiurge, so he didn't create the material universe, as Paul's and John's Gnostic Jesuses did.

He was not born because God had inseminated his mother, whereas the Jesuses of Matthew and Luke were expressly genetic sons of God and had God's Y-chromosome.

No, instead he was born of ordinary Jewish parents.

No virgin mother was involved, because it's not the sort of detail you omit.

No annunciation, no Magi, no fictitious census, no flight into Egypt, were involved. These too are not the sort of detail you omit.

Instead, and consistently, when Mark's Jesus sets out on his mission, and makes a scene, thus drawing the wrath of the authorities, his family think he's nuts. You don't think that if the angels have put you in the frame, or if the Lord has magically impregnated you.

Mark's Jesus is the only one not pretending to be of the line of David. He makes it clear that he's not.

Only when JtB has washed him clean of his ordinary person's sins does God appear and declare that Mark's Jesus is now his son, adopted on the model of Psalm 2:7 (confirmed at Acts 13:33). So Mark's Jesus is the only 'son of God' on the Jewish model ─ the other four are all from Greek models.

Mark's Jesus on the cross is a broken, despairing figure, forlorn and forsaken. The gospel of Matthew cheers him up a bit, the gospel of Luke denies by omission that he wondered why his god had forsaken him, and is more positive, and when we get to John, as I've said before, Jesus is the MC at the crucifixion, making sure it's all done as he'd like.

Mark's Jesus is the only one who has Salome in the open-tomb scene. (Only Matthew has an earthquake and some guards.)

As with Luke's Jesus but not the others, the ladies went into the empty tomb.

Mark's Jesus is the only one where they find a young man in white, and the only one where the ladies flee in fear.

Mark agrees with John but none of the others that the resurrected Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalen. But Mark's MM was fleeing at the time, unlike John's (who says, "Nice roses, buddy," thinking he's the gardener). Mark's Jesus is the only one who makes his second appearance to just two of the apostles. And those were the only pair who told the others but weren't believed. And Mark's Jesus is the only one who makes his third appearance to the eleven at table, teaches them the tricks of demons, tongues, serpents and poisons, and chooses that moment for his ascension (not hanging round for 40 days like a sixth Jesus, the one in Acts).

And so on.

You'd know these things if you read your bible.
Not one credible prophecy anywhere in the bible, not one mention or hint of Jesus in the Tanakh, nothing.

Stark motherless nothing.

What I love about the Gospels is they vary. This used to be a Big Problem for me once. I now
can see what was obvious all along - it's Gospels ACCORDING to. Like Hannibal's account
the two authors saw him differently. I am related to General Paton - if I did my own book on
him I wouldn't copy and paste but write from my own impressions. And the variations in the
story of Jesus demonstrate there was no Redactor going over the texts to make them uniform.
There are many things which puzzle people - did two thieves on the cross rail against Jesus
or did one?

I don't think people "omitted" details (think John) but they understood that a number of them
were committing their accounts to paper (or velum, parchment, copper scrolls whatever.)
The only true "historian" of them all was Luke and he never met Jesus.

So if Mark and John don't mention the virgin birth story (and it seems the Pharisees heard
this story too) then that's fine. I read it with Matthew and Luke, plus the promise in Isaiah 7:14:
"Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel"
No, not your ordinary "young girl" - many "young girls" in Israel had sons. But a "virgin" who
would be a "sign", ie something to take note of.

 

[blü 2]

the variations in the story of Jesus demonstrate there was no Redactor going over the texts to make them uniform.

And the result is at least five irreconcilable Jesuses ─ which is the point.

Especially since it's the toss of a coin whether there was an historical Jesus at all; and if there was, was he any of the gospel versions?

I don't think people "omitted" details (think John) but they understood that a number of them were committing their accounts to paper (or velum, parchment, copper scrolls whatever.)

With the exception of Mark, I don't think they were attempting a Jesus narrative at all. Paul certainly didn't have one. The authors of Matthew, Luke and John were each trying to "improve" Mark to suit their own taste, to create the particular story (as distinct from history) that each personally favored. The role of Jesus in the resurrection scene is an easy example.

The only true "historian" of them all was Luke and he never met Jesus.

The closest thing to an historian would appear to be the author of Mark. Luke was simply giving Mark, as dealt with by Matthew, a workover ─ 'remold it nearer to the heart's desire', as FitzGerald's Omar put it.

So if Mark and John don't mention the virgin birth story (and it seems the Pharisees heard this story too) then that's fine.

If there was an historical Jesus, you don't seriously think he was a parthenological product, do you? He'd have to be a she, for a start.

I read it with Matthew and Luke, plus the promise in Isaiah 7:14: "Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel" No, not your ordinary "young girl" - many "young girls" in Israel had sons. But a "virgin" who would be a "sign", ie something to take note of.

Dear oh dear, that's an old chestnut. Despite what the KJV says, the word in Isaiah is 'almah which means 'young woman' and does not specify virginity. The Septuagint translates this into Greek as 'parthenos', which indeed indicates a virgin. And the authors of the bible again and again appear to have relied on the Septuagint rather than the originals in Hebrew.

And I don't know how it escaped your notice that Jesus' name was Jesus, and Jesus' name was not Immanuel.

 

[PureX]

I may have said this before, but anyway...

I make three basic assumptions. They have to be assumptions, because I can't demonstrate their correctness unless I've already assumed they're correct. They are these ─

That a world exists external to me;
That my senses are capable of informing me about that world.
That reason is a valid tool..​

But you don't just assume this, your believe it to be true. And because you believe it to be true, you can't see any difference between assumption and belief.​

 

[blü 2]

But you don't just assume this, your believe it to be true. And because you believe it to be true, you can't see any difference between assumption and belief.​

I face up to a basic problem, and I live by the consequences. So far so good.

As for the first two assumptions, so do you, as witness your posting here.

But you forgot to tell me whether you also assume that reason is a valid tool or not.

 

[PureX]

I face up to a basic problem, and I live by the consequences. So far so good.

As for the first two assumptions, so do you, as witness your posting here.

But you forgot to tell me whether you also assume that reason is a valid tool or not.

'Acting as if' is not 'believing in'. That's the difference. The former allows for alternative possibilities, while the latter does not.

And yes, reason is a valid tool (I assume you mean reasoning via logic), but it's not the only tool we have, and it's not always the best tool for the job at hand.

 

[blü 2]

'Acting as if' is not 'believing in'. That's the difference. The former allows for alternative possibilities, while the latter does not.

And yes, reason is a valid tool (I assume you mean reasoning via logic), but it's not the only tool we have, and it's not always the best tool for the job at hand.

Then we have the common ground necessary for this discussion. And we agree that there's a world external to the self and that the senses are capable of informing us of that world.

That's the starting point for the empiricism and inductive reasoning of the scientific method, the starting point for maximizing objectivity, the expressing of conclusions in falsifiable terms, the reliance on transparent and honest argument from examinable evidence ─ and so on.

Yes, there are no absolute truths. But mysticism never discovered aspirin or the double helix, landed a rover on Mars, or discovered the problems we call dark matter and dark energy. Without reasoned enquiry, the world is indeed flat and sits on the back of a tortoise, and snakes and donkeys can talk when they want to.

 

[stvdv]

Right on the point! Thanks.

Is it the case that you form your views through critical analysis, taking them apart and looking at the pieces and the combinations from all sides? Or are you guided by a sense of psychological/intuitive goodness of fit?

Thanks for pointing it out so clear, these 2 options.

For me it's a combination of what you said:
1) If I get into a situation, and my gut feeling tells me something is off
2) Then I first check if "my gut feeling is off", if not, I check it, like you said, from all sides
3) Using common sense and discrimination, most of the time I can solve it (some puzzle can take years though)

I do have the feeling that you are much better at "critical analysis" then I am though, so my main guide would be the second one. For me my feeling has been quite "spot on" most of the time, but due to being insecure, I tend to gather "many pieces to prove my point". Too many ... it would safe lots of time to just trust my feeling.

 

[blü 2]

Thanks for pointing it out so clear, these 2 options.

For me it's a combination of what you said:
1) If I get into a situation, and my gut feeling tells me something is off
2) Then I first check if "my gut feeling is off", if not, I check it, like you said, from all sides
3) Using common sense and discrimination, most of the time I can solve it (some puzzle can take years though)

I do have the feeling that you are much better at "critical analysis" then I am though, so my main guide would be the second one. For me my feeling has been quite "spot on" most of the time, but due to being insecure, I tend to gather "many pieces to prove my point". Too many ... it would safe lots of time to just trust my feeling.

Sounds okay to me. And it's the sort of thing you get better at with time.

 

[PureX]

Then we have the common ground necessary for this discussion. And we agree that there's a world external to the self and that the senses are capable of informing us of that world.

Yes and no. There is a world beyond and apart from my consciousness, yes, but it is not external to my physical being. It is in me, as I am in it. I am as much an aspect of the world as anything and everything else is.

That's the starting point for the empiricism and inductive reasoning of the scientific method, the starting point for maximizing objectivity, the expressing of conclusions in falsifiable terms, the reliance on transparent and honest argument from examinable evidence ─ and so on.

Yes, and that's why it's so limited, and is incapable beyond the realm of physical mechanics. It's why it cannot tell us what we really want to know.

Yes, there are no absolute truths. But mysticism never discovered aspirin or the double helix, landed a rover on Mars, or discovered the problems we call dark matter and dark energy. Without reasoned enquiry, the world is indeed flat and sits on the back of a tortoise, and snakes and donkeys can talk when they want to.

Increasing our functionality without increasing our wisdom is like tossing a box of loaded pistols into a cage full of frantic monkeys.

 

[blü 2]

Yes and no. There is a world beyond and apart from my consciousness, yes, but it is not external to my physical being. It is in me, as I am in it. I am as much an aspect of the world as anything and everything else is.

I'd say the entire difference between subjective and objective is the distinction between the sense of self, and the world external to the self.

Certainly the brain and its functions are physical, and thus part of (a) everyone else's world external to the self and (b) occasionally, something we can watch in action as though we were external as well ─ but the latter is very far from the norm.

Yes, and that's why it's so limited, and is incapable beyond the realm of physical mechanics. It's why it cannot tell us what we really want to know.

What do we really want to know in this sense, in your view?

Increasing our functionality without increasing our wisdom is like tossing a box of loaded pistols into a cage full of frantic monkeys.

Yes. We're not as good at thinking and acting in terms of the larger picture as we should be. Though as Steven Pinker argues, there are some signs of progress.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

That's a big call. What, for you, is 'Scripture' in this context?
Is that bad, in your view, or is that progress in human thought?
Why would first century Judean thought be automatically better than what's available to us now?

Not 1st-century Judean thought, but 1st-century Christian thought.
What is available now is 'Christendom' ( church traditions or customs outside of Scripture but taught as Scripture )
Whereas what is also available is 1st-century Christian thought as found in Scripture.
Adding or subtracting from Scripture is Not progress in biblical thought but tampering with Scripture.
Human thought varies about Scripture as to whether to obey Scripture.
When Jesus said to 'come be my follower' Jesus did Not mean to follow what is outside of Scripture.

 

[blü 2]

Not 1st-century Judean thought, but 1st-century Christian thought.
What is available now is 'Christendom' ( church traditions or customs outside of Scripture but taught as Scripture )
Whereas what is also available is 1st-century Christian thought as found in Scripture.
Adding or subtracting from Scripture is Not progress in biblical thought but tampering with Scripture.
Human thought varies about Scripture as to whether to obey Scripture.
When Jesus said to 'come be my follower' Jesus did Not mean to follow what is outside of Scripture.

I don't think there's any such thing as a single moral code of conduct to be found in scripture, just as there isn't a single Christology or a single biography of Jesus. The individual has to do his or her own edit if a single understanding is the goal. (Indeed, there's no clincher that there was an historical Jesus at all.)

But thanks for the clarification. It's your faith and it works for you, so go well.

 

[Milton Platt]

I find it is 'Christendom' ( so-called Christian ) who speaks of mysteries.
Whereas, Scripture has the overall theme about God's kingdom government of Daniel 2:44.
God's kingdom in the hands of Christ Jesus for a thousand years was also the theme of Jesus preaching and teaching and instruction for us - Matthew 24:14; Acts 1:8.
I find nothing boring but exciting about Earth to become a beautiful paradisical Earth as described the Isaiah 35th chapter.
​

Scriptures explain nothing...they only make unsubstantiated claims than are utterly unfalsifiable , so essentially useless.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

"... mysteries give an air of pleasurable profundity, whereas explanations always smack of the banal."

─ Robert Sheckley, Minotaur Maze, 14
​

Your views?

Sorry for coming late...
Doesn't seem like it to me. At least some of the time, religions were largely filling the role of 'explanatory' over history. Through a modern lens, we might prefer science to act in this role, but it doesn't change the fact that religion hasn't traditionally been about increasing mystery. At least, I should clarify, not universally. This might be an aspect of SOME religions, I would suppose.

 

[PureX]

I'd say the entire difference between subjective and objective is the distinction between the sense of self, and the world external to the self.

Sure, but that's the result of consciousness, not material physics. Physically, there is no "me" vs "not me". That's the difference between physics, and metaphysics: matter vs. consciousness. "Objectivity" is a manifestation of consciousness, not a property of matter.

Certainly the brain and its functions are physical, ...

Certainly they are not. They are the transcendent result of physical processes.

What do we really want to know in this sense, in your view?

What does it mean to "know" something? Isn't knowledge just supposition based on experience and imagination? How are these ever "objective"?

Yes. We're not as good at thinking and acting in terms of the larger picture as we should be. Though as Steven Pinker argues, there are some signs of progress.

The point is that science adds nothing to humanity in terms of wisdom, because it cannot address the real question that we humans need answered: that is the 'why' questions, as opposed to the 'how'. Science says 'here's how through sharing and mutual cooperation we can improve the lives of every human on Earth', but humanity says 'why would we do that?'

 

[Mock Turtle]

The point is that science adds nothing to humanity in terms of wisdom, because it cannot address the real question that we humans need answered: that is the 'why' questions, as opposed to the 'how'. Science says 'here's how through sharing and mutual cooperation we can improve the lives of every human on Earth', but humanity says 'why would we do that?'

Funny view of the world if you think that knowledge isn't a huge part of wisdom. And mostly, humans are more interested in what, who, when, and how rather than why, when in their daily lives the precedence of just living a reasonably happy life amongst others is more important than even asking all the why questions.

 

[Earthtank]

"... mysteries give an air of pleasurable profundity, whereas explanations always smack of the banal."

─ Robert Sheckley, Minotaur Maze, 14
​

Your views?

Only if you believe it.