However in my view it offers a coherent undestanding of 'mind and cosmos' as it provides for a vision within which h. sapiens has a role, rather than being the 'accidental byproduct' as it is depicted by scientific materialism. And if indeed it can be discerned across so many cultures and periods of history in the forms of literature of those traditions, then that literature should be regarded as evidence and not simply dismissed as myth. — Wayfarer

Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed the entire world. And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved the entire world. — Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin 4:1 (22a) Attributed to Hillel

If there is no God, there is no teleos and there is no good. "Good for what? " is a meaningless question if there is no what, no aim, no objective. — Hanover

... cognitive dissonance ...just a subjective preference just means we've arrived at an interesting coping mechanism in order to navigate this godless world. — Hanover

It's not from reason and not from the heavens, so I'm running out of options. — Hanover

Romans killed Jesus as a political threat, as they had killed many other prophets, brigands, rebels during the first century. Josephus the Jewish historian recounts many examples in his Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities.

Some (note “some’) Jewish leaders (Sadducees and Pharisees) owed their positions to their patron/client relation to the Roman authorities. The emperor appointed the procurator of Judea who appointed the High Priest. Other Jewish parties, including teachers and prophets in rural Galilee and the Dead Sea Scrolls community of Qumran, either rejected or rebelled against the Jerusalem leaders’ tainted relationship with Rome.

Mark, the earliest Gospel we have, was written ca. 60-70 CE. He shows Jesus’ death as a collusion between the compromised leaders and Pilate, kind of 50/50, but Mark 15:15 makes it clear that it was Pilate who had him crucified.

Matthew and Luke were written much later, ca. 80-95, and reflect different interests and viewpoints. Matthew portrays Jesus as a Super Teacher or Rabbi on the model of Moses. Being a Jewish follower of Jesus (the word “Christian” first occurs in Antioch), Matthew also reflects a period after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE when conflicts broke out between rabbinic Yavneh Jews and the Jewish followers of Jesus. Surviving rabbis at the Council Yavhneh (ca. 90) tried to exclude “Nazoreans” (followers of the man from Nazareth) from partaking in the synagogue. The rabbis may not have been too successful. Recent archeological research indicates that later Jewish Christians partook in the synagogue until the 7th century! (I always point out to my students that a Christian can go to any Jewish Sabbath service and say all the prayers with full religious sincerity.) Matthew goes to some length to remove blame from the Roman authorities. He has Pilate’s wife interceding for Jesus (many emperor’s wives interceded for Christians in Rome) and Pilate washing his hands as a sign of innocence. Probably because of intra-Jewish rivalry, puts the ultimate blame squarely on the shoulders of the Jewish authorities by adding the verse “His blood be upon us and our children” (Matthew 24:25).

In Luke, the “whitewash” of the Romans becomes nearly complete. The Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts should be read as one work. Luke/Acts is unfolds in ascending dyptychs and was written for a Roman audience, probably a noble audience. We can now use the word “Christian” which occurs at Acts 11:26 for the first time, but the term was almost certainly a pejorative epithet in origin. Luke/Acts unfolds according to the following pattern: from John Baptist to Jesus, from Galilee to Jerusalem, from Peter to Paul, and from Jerusalem to Rome. Luke is trying to justify Christianity in the face of criticism by the Romans who accused it of being “superstition.” Luke goes beyond Matthew to establish Roman innocence. The crowning with thorns and mocking of Jesus passages are removed. Then three times Pilate declares Jesus’ innocence to the crowd. Luke finesses Pilate’s responsibility: “But Jesus he [Pilate] delivered up to their [the crowd’s] will” (Luke 23:26). Perhaps I should say “Romanwash” instead of “whitewash.” Other souces tell us that Pontius Pilate was a particularly cruel govenor who brooked no opposition.

The Gospel of John, as most scholars maintain, stands by itself but one of the signs of its lateness in its present form (ca. 100-110 CE) is that John does not lay Jesus’ death so much on Pilate, or Pilate Jewish authorities, or even the Jewish authorities alone, but “Jews” as a whole (John 19:12). The break with Judaism is nigh complete. The stereotype is set for the later, fateful charge that “the Jews killed Jesus” although John does not say this. — Romans are to Blame

Jews, on the other hand, lacked a motive for killing Jesus. The different factions of the Jewish community at the time — Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and others — had many disagreements with one another, but that did not lead any of the groups to arrange the execution of the other allegedly heretical groups’ leaders. It is therefore unlikely they would have targeted Jesus. — Who Killed Jesus?

Jesus was crucified as a Jewish victim of Roman violence. On this, all written authorities agree. A Gentile Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, condemned him to death and had him tortured and executed by Gentile Roman soldiers. Jesus was indeed one of thousands of Jews crucified by the Romans.

The New Testament testifies to this basic fact but also allows for Jewish involvement in two ways. First, a few high-ranking Jewish authorities who owed their position and power to the Romans conspired with the Gentile leaders to have Jesus put to death; they are said to have been jealous of Jesus and to have viewed him as a threat to the status quo. Second, an unruly mob of people in Jerusalem called out for Jesus to be crucified—the number of persons in this crowd is not given, nor is any motive supplied for their action (except to say that they had been “stirred up,” Mark 15:11).

Whatever the historical circumstances might have been, early Christian tradition clearly and increasingly placed blame for the death of Jesus on the Jews, decreasing the Romans’ culpability. — Crucifiction of Jesus and the Jews

I'd submit it demands a morality that transcends time and place. — Hanover

When you go forth to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God has delivered them into your hands, and you have taken them captive,
And you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and desire her, and take her for a wife -
Then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and do her nails,
And she shall remove the garment of her captivity from her, and remain in your house and weep for her father and mother a for month, and after that you may approach her and have intercourse with her, and she shall be your wife.
And if you do not want her, you shall send her out on her own; you shall not sell her at all for money, you shall not treat her as a slave, because you "violated" her. — Deuteronomy 21:10-14

There is no historical evidence for a Hebrew king of the name “David”. — Apollodorus

David and Solomon are legendary. — Apollodorus

was known throughout the region; this clearly validates the biblical description of Judahite kings in Jerusalem.

If kingdoms ruled by people named “David” and “Solomon” did not exist in Israel at the suggested time, what of the “religion of Israel”? — Apollodorus

In any case, given that like other religions, much of Judaism was transmitted orally, there is no logical reason why Jesus couldn’t have followed an oral tradition within Hellenistic Judaism that contained both Greek and Egyptian elements. — Apollodorus

the notion that Jesus MUST have been “an ignorant peasant” who didn’t know what he was talking about — Apollodorus

who should have kept his mouth shut, and who deserved to be executed for speaking the truth, is an anti-Christian stance that is totally untenable and unacceptable IMO. — Apollodorus

Alright, so for all here who have settled upon relativistic morality, explain the basis of your moral outrage against the rapist and why I should find your reasons compelling. — Hanover

It is a dark stain across most of the Protestant denominations. — Paine

Only man placed values in things to preserve himself—he alone created a meaning for things, a human meaning. Therefore he calls himself 'man', which means: the esteemer. To esteem is to create: hear this, you creators! Esteeming itself is of all esteemed things the most estimable treasure. Through esteeming first is there value: and without esteeming, the nut of existence would be hollow. Hear this, you creators! — Thus Spoke Zarathustra, On the Thousand and One Goals

Kierkegaard did not say that it leads one astray, necessarily. It is more of a kind of horizon where the past and present is related to what has been created can be seen as something given to us whereas a relationship to the future cannot be approached that way. — Paine

the desire to rip out Judaism, root and branch. — Paine

Choose your judge well; and your interpreter... — Banno

Even if one presumed that some given creed is the indubitable word of god, and that it sets out what we God proposes we ought do, it remains open to us to reject that proposal. — Banno

A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes. — Wittgenstein

This movement requires more than a universal good of a person to be recognized because that life is happening within a process where there is an interaction with the Creator who can change the cosmos and the creatures within it. — Paine

Centuries later, Kierkegaard says that once one has left the cosmos of the world as being what it already is, it is a departure, whether one follows Paul or not. — Paine

If the condition for experiencing truth is outside of one's innate package, then one cannot use that package as a testimony for it. — Paine

the proponents of a 'nothing but Greek' thesis has the author of much of what is commonly understood to be Christian standing in the way. — Paine

What is the value of conflict on this forum? I'd say ideally it allows for deeper examination and reflection. — frank

We don't recognize them until we start doing a little exploration of history. — frank

“The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” — Genesis 3:22

The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. — Genesis 11:6

If the role of religion is really to bind people in a tribal group then dependency on the group is essential. Personal development of virtue leads to independence and is therefore at odds the purpose of religion. — praxis

Most of these concepts were transmitted by religious traditions, so we could say that's the role of religion here. — frank

The notion that one needs a reason for being good is... problematic. — Banno

The overwhelming evidence is (a) that the OT narrative is largely mythical and (b) that even its true teachings have been misinterpreted and misunderstood. — Apollodorus

And in the same way the OT authors and later editors felt free to modify the true history of Judaism — Apollodorus

the Hebrew Bible is not a history book — Fooloso4

From the least to the greatest,
all are greedy for gain;
prophets and priests alike,
all practice deceit. — 8:10

The total lack of evidence is not the only problem of the Exodus narrative. — Apollodorus

Why would God hide in a bush? And why would he “appear” and “hide” at the same time? — Apollodorus

But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.” — Exodus 33:20

So, to a rational person, the story is not credible. This is why it is imperative to get to the bottom of it and see what the whole mythology is actually trying to hide and why. — Apollodorus

As no kingdom of Israel (or Judah) existed at the supposed time of Solomon, this takes us right back to the possibility, or probability, that the biblical “King Solomon” was himself an Egyptian king. — Apollodorus

As an Egyptian prince or pharaoh, “Moses” was naturally initiated into the highest teachings or mysteries — Apollodorus

Moreover, if the founder of the new religion was a member of the royal family or even a pharaoh — Apollodorus

In Egypt itself, the secret of the true God — Apollodorus

Jesus himself represented the same tradition based on truth, justice, and ethical conduct. — Apollodorus

... it becomes clear that its true origins can no longer be suppressed — Apollodorus

truth eventually comes to light — Apollodorus

You're joking, right? — Agent Smith

The notion of arithmos emerges from the experience of counting. When we count, we always have a multiplicity of things before us. When faced with a single thing, we do not countit. If we say that it is “one,” we are speaking about its unity or we are asserting that it exists. One is not many. Therefore, “one”is not an arithmos.The first arithmos is “two. — An’ a one, an’ a two …

Also interesting is the whole number sequence: 0, 1, 2,...

From 0 to 1: That's something from nothing! Creatio ex nihilo. — Agent Smith

'Supernatural claims' must consistently account for nature (which is ineluctable and universally accessible to us as natural beings) or else such 'claims' – category which includes "God" – do not make sense, at best, and are false otherwise. — 180 Proof

There must've been a very good reason why the Greeks were so reluctant to incorporate infinity into their math. — Agent Smith

I wouldn't say that this redemptive action is completely missing in Paul. — Paine

... works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up — Ephesians 4:12

And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. — Ephesians 4:30

The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. — Romans 8:6

What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short.

For this world in its present form is passing away. — 1 Corinthians 7:29 and 31

The anti-Christian position seems to be that Christianity is a criminal perversion of Judaism that shouldn’t have existed and must not be allowed to exist. — Apollodorus

This subsequently resulted in the Temple Taliban’s demand that Jesus be executed for his “blasphemous” teachings — Apollodorus

And in the same way the OT authors and later editors felt free to modify the true history of Judaism — Apollodorus

...attempts were also made to suppress the history of Christianity. — Apollodorus

Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God

While in the OT, the emphasis is on the perfection of God and his actions, in the NT the emphasis is on human perfection. This is one of the key distinctions that sets Christianity apart from Temple Judaism. — Apollodorus

In the Hebrew text, the word perfect is tamîm (Strong's #8549), and its basic meaning is "complete" or "entire." It does not mean "perfect" as we think of it today, as "without fault, flaw, or defect." Other English words that translate tamîm better than "perfect" are "whole," "full," "finished," "well-rounded," "balanced," "sound," "healthful," "sincere," "innocent," or "wholehearted." In the main, however, modern translators have rendered it as "blameless" in Genesis 6:9.

This does not mean that Noah never sinned, but that he was spiritually mature and that he had a wholehearted, healthy relationship with God, who had forgiven him of his sins, rendering him guiltless. The thought in Genesis 6:9 extends to the fact that Noah was head-and-shoulders above his contemporaries in spiritual maturity. In fact, the text suggests that he was God's only logical choice to do His work.

The New Testament concept of perfection, found in the Greek word téleios (Strong's #5056), is similar to tamîm. Perhaps the best-known occurrence of téleios occurs in Matthew 5:48: "Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect." Certainly, Jesus desires that we become as flawless as we can humanly be, using the utter perfection of the Father as our model, but His use of téleios suggests something else. His aim is that a Christian be completely committed to living God's way of life, maturing in it until he can perform the duties God entrusts to him both now and in His Kingdom. In harmony with this idea of spiritual growth toward completion, téleios is well translated as "mature" in I Corinthians 2:6, and in Hebrews 5:14, itis rendered as "of full age." — Perfection

In contrast, the Hebrew Bible has no clear reference to life after death and it is not known whether Moses, the founder of Mosaic Judaism, even believed in afterlife at all. If he did, the OT does not say. — Apollodorus

“But your dead will live; their bodies will rise.
Those who live in the dust will wake up and shout for joy! — Isaiah 26:19

And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. — Daniel 12:2

... inconsistency in philosophy is common and pervasive ... — Metaphysician Undercover

And Heschel…. Never heard of him. Any books of his that you recommend? — Dermot Griffin

What exactly are you referring to though? — Dermot Griffin

How could a person be wrong, in one's judgement that they cannot understand something. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's not a matter of rejecting what is read — Metaphysician Undercover

If this is not the judgement then we really ought to reject the proposition. — Metaphysician Undercover

When a person judges a proposition as inconsistent with truth, this is grounds for the person to reject it ... — Metaphysician Undercover

The fact that the person might make a mistake, does not negate the judgement, — Metaphysician Undercover

"His thoughts are divided into distinct periods", indicates an artificial act of division, so that the divisions produce distinct periods, which have become conventional. Think about the way that the day is divided into morning and afternoon. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sorry if I came off a tad short in my prior response to you — Dermot Griffin

This assumption undergirds Plato’s Euthyphro and other dialogues in which Socrates pushes his interlocutors to make that hidden, defining property explicit ...The traditional assumption is that every entity has some essence that makes it the thing it is

What has happened in Western religious discourse, according to Karen Armstrong, is that the emphasis on belief and believing have distorted this meaning — Wayfarer

I don’t think I’m interfering with anything. — Dermot Griffin

You can argue as much as you want after the gavel falls, but it won't do you any good. — Hanover

Legal definitions are easy to come by. It's whatever the legislature and judges say it is. — Hanover