My Evolutionary Theory of Religion

[Jagella]

As we all should know, religion goes back for at least tens of thousands of years. Neanderthals may have practiced a kind of religion. Since religion is so old, it is likely a product of our evolution.

Thanks to Darwin, we know that evolution occurs largely by means of natural selection. Natural selection is nature selecting those individuals who by chance have genes that confer to those individuals traits that allow them to reproduce. When they reproduce, those individuals pass down those genes that confer the survival advantages to their offspring. This is the basis for biological evolution.

Natural selection probably "chose" our remote ancestors who were able to think of things that may not have existed. For example, if a hominid heard a rustle in the bushes, that hominid might think of a lion there and flee even though the rustle may have been only the wind. If it was a lion, then if that hominid didn't flee she would be supper and never reproduce. So those hominids who could imagine lions who may not exist would be more likely to reproduce than hominids who were unable to think of imaginary lions. The gene that caused hominids to imagine lions that may not exist would then be passed down to future generations.

The ability to imagine that which does not exist had other advantages as well. In addition to our ability to flee possible threats, we could imagine useful things we might create. We could imagine tools, weapons, and shelters we did not yet have but that we could fashion and build. In other words, we could plan. When we evolved the ability to plan by imagining those things that didn't exist but that we could make, we acquired a very important survival advantage.

Unfortunately, no survival advantage is perfect, and with our ability to imagine what doesn't exist, we evolved the ability to imagine gods, angels, devils, ghosts, fairies, heavens, and hells. In this way superstition was born, and when some individuals had the ability to shape superstition in others, religion was born.

So my evolutionary theory of evolution is that religion evolved when a trait in some individuals enabled them to shape superstition in others. This trait confers tremendous survival advantages to those individuals who influence superstition, and they are more likely to reproduce. My theory explains why religion just won't go away. It won't go away because those who benefit most from religion, the clergy and other religious leaders, won't go away. They are very likely to reproduce because their ability to influence superstition in others grants them many survival advantages. That's why the clergy and apologists defend their religion with such great tenacity.

What strengths and weaknesses do you see in my evolutionary theory of religion?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 28 by Clownboat]

Mine is backed up by psychology.

Did you actually read the article? Not much is said that is stated as a fact. Rather, most of what is said is qualified by saying, "it is suggested." So then, it would seem that "yours is backed by opinion."

Notice, I did not claim to have facts. I have the opinion (to use your word) of psychology and the reasoning behind it.
Your rebuttal is a straw man.

Feel free to pick a religion and claim it as truth

I have been on this site for a few years now, and have posted a fair amount, and I do not recall ever, "claiming that any religion was truth", and this would include Christianity.

Another straw man.
I have not claimed that you have done such a thing. Please try to be more accurate.

but don't pretend that our approaches are the same please.

They are not. I tend to never claim something as truth, unless I can demonstrate it to be truth. While you certainly seem to believe that, opinions, and suggestions, somehow constitute, truth.

You did say: "in the end, it really is on the same scale, I am afraid."
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser - Socrates

Notice how you did not even attempt to deal with the information that was provided? It would be better IMO if you tried that approach...

Notice, I did not claim to have facts. I have the opinion (to use your word) of psychology and the reasoning behind it.
Your rebuttal is a straw man.

You know, people love to use the "straw man" argument, as if it frees them from dealing with the facts. The fact is, you have no facts, and the article supplies very little facts.

Another straw man.
I have not claimed that you have done such a thing. Please try to be more accurate.

And there's the "straw man" again. It is not a "straw man." You made a statement which was,

Feel free to pick a religion and claim it as truth

I responded by making this statement,

I have been on this site for a few years now, and have posted a fair amount, and I do not recall ever, "claiming that any religion was truth", and this would include Christianity.

This is not an accusation against you claiming that you have claimed I had. Rather, it is simply a statement of fact, in response to your statement. Maybe someone else needs to be, "more accurate?"

Notice how you did not even attempt to deal with the information that was provided? It would be better IMO if you tried that approach...

I'm a thinking that I did deal with it, in that I rightly identified it as opinion, which everyone is entitled to. However, I only attempt to deal with the facts, and leave the opinions for others to debate. Maybe you need to try that approach, and when you have the facts, I will be glad to join in.

[Clownboat]

I don't feel the need to explain why your arguments were straw men as I believe it is clear to the readers.
There is literally nothing here for me to respond to.

If there is something you want me to address, just ask.
Be well.

[marco]

No, I intended to write the sentence out slangily, being confident that you would understand my intent,

Thanks for your confidence in my ability to unscramble messages.

Speech may well be an event

Agreed which demonstrates that your statement in your last post was incorrect, in that I am not confused over, "accounts of events and reported speech" since they would be one, and the same.

You are agreeing with your own words that I was quoting. Accounts of events and reported speech are not one and the same. It surprises me that you mistakenly say they are.

Correct! But again, our responsibility as interpreters, are also the "nuts and bolts" if we truly intend to come to a correct understanding. Let's look at an example from the writings of Paul.

Let's not but let's stick to the point. To make deductions about Christ it is important we are analysing what he actually said. This is the point in dispute. A description of a lake he walked on is interesting but we deduce Christ's message from Christ's words, not from an approximation of what he said, or where he said it.

I would make two observations here. First, we seem to have already agreed that, "verbatim" would not be a necessity.

You are mistaken if you think I agreed such a thing. In the case of Christ it is very important that we know whether or not he said exactly what he is reported as saying.
A simple change may alter an entire theology. And I cannot see how we can have confidence that words are given in verbatim form.

In other words, when I attempt to communicate to someone, what another has said, I really do not need to communicate this, "verbatim" but rather need to be sure that what is reported is exactly what was intended, no matter what words I use, as oppose to the speaker.

Well I suspect you are not Jesus, communicating divine truths. The form of Christ's communication is obviously important. Did he say:
"This is really my body and you can repeat the miracle I have done," or did he say "I'd like you to commemorate this last meal" or.... We need to know. If a doctor says: "Take 5mg of this medicine four times a day" it is not good enough to report that the doctor said the patient has to take this medicine. I am running out of ways of saying what seems to me to be very obvious.

In the same way, Jesus claims to be a, door but I think we both understand him not to be claiming to be an actual door. This is why I insist that it is important for all of us to be responsible interpreters.

Yes we know Christ was a shepherd, a highway, a light and umpteen other things because we have his alleged verbatim words, not a paraphrase. If you insist that one should be a good interpreter that's commendable, but you should also insist on having the right words to interpret.

At any rate, all I really need to know is, what the writer claims was the words of Jesus. From this point it is important for me to be careful to interpret what was claimed to be said by Jesus correctly, not concerning myself with whether Jesus actually said such words at this point.

Then that is rather remiss of you since it is exceedingly likely the words you are concentrating on were not the exact words of Christ, as I have said.

In the end, I may not be able to be absolutely certain that what is reported is the actual words of Jesus

So to an extent you're wasting your time on interpretation. In fact you can be almost certain the words are not exactly Christ's, since they are being reported long after Christ died. Memory is a fickle thing.

As for knowing of rumours that Paul was in Rome with Peter or that he once persecuted Christians and had a fantastic experience on the road to Damascus, that's all very well. When we realise that we know only the tiniest details of Christ's life we can see that we build assumption on top of assumption... or on ascension.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 93 by marco]

You are agreeing with your own words that I was quoting. Accounts of events and reported speech are not one and the same. It surprises me that you mistakenly say they are.

Okay, let's think through this. If Jesus did indeed die upon a cross, then this would certainly be an, "event" that may be reported upon. If this same Jesus, gave some sort of speech, before he was placed upon the cross, then this speech, would be an event as well, and could be reported, in the same way, and the speech, would be an historical event, just like, "the Gettysburg Address" was reported upon of Abraham Lincoln.

If the speech by Lincoln was indeed an historical event, and could be reported upon, and we can be fairly confident that the words were reported upon pretty accurately, then what would make us insist, that we cannot possibly know how close the words of Jesus was reported?

Of course, one could continue to argue that the words of Jesus was not recorded until years later, which may mean that some of the words may not exactly be the words of Jesus. But what is the evidence for this theory, anyway?

However, when we examine the reports of the author of Luke, and Acts, there is very strong evidence, that this author did not simply attempt to remember words, and events, but was rather a chronicler, and wrote down events as time went by, much as an historian may do.

The next two points concerning this author, would be the fact, that he would have had to write these letters, well within the lifetime of the Apostles. Couple this with the fact that his recordings of Christ's words are so very close to those of the others, so much so, that many of the scholars, must, and have to insist, that these men, must, and had to copy each other, in order for the words, and events to be so closely aligned. In other words, it does not cross their mind that the reports, could simply be that accurate, rather it must, and has to be, one copying the other.

So then, I do not simply have to assume that these authors are accurate, because there is certainly evidence to suggest they were, while the only evidence that they may not have been, would seem to be, the opinion of the scholars.

Let's not but let's stick to the point. To make deductions about Christ it is important we are analysing what he actually said. This is the point in dispute. A description of where he said it or what he did is interesting but has little bearing on Christ's words.

I have never argue that, "We have the words of Christ verbatim" an never would, because we do not need them, "verbatim." We would not insist upon such a thing concerning other reports, in order to understand if they may be credible, so then why would we do this concerning the words of Christ?

What we do know is, we have 3 different authors who report of the life of Jesus that is contained in the Bible, and even though the words may not be, "verbatim", they are so very close, the scholars insist they must have copied each other. However, if they indeed copied each other, then why are not the words, "verbatim" the same?

The point is, even though they are not, we still have the same meaning, so much so, there is an insistence upon copying.

In the case of Christ it is very important that we know whether or not he said exactly what he is reported as saying.

Does it have to be, "exactly" like in "verbatim?" I mean, when you report what another has said, do you ensure it is, "verbatim?" If it is not, "verbatim" do you think any meaning would have to be lost? Or do you understand that you can say things in different ways, and convey the same, exact meaning, so much so that there may be some who may insist that you copied?

A simple change may alter an entire theology.

You are correct, and the writers of the NT warned against such things, acknowledging that there would be those who would twist the words, and attempt to make the words say, "what their itching ears would like to hear." So then, this would not be unusual.

However, you are placing far more emphasis upon the words of Jesus, then the writers did themselves. In other words, these writers were not so much concerned with conveying the teachings of Jesus, as they were conveying the life of Jesus, and the events that lead up to His death, and more importantly, His Resurrection.

This point becomes plain, when the writers themselves admit that the closest followers of Jesus did not always understand His meanings. So then, it was not as though they were attempting to highlight the things that Jesus taught.

But, since you have brought this up, let us think about it for just a moment. If these men were not reporting the truth, and were lying, deceived, delusional, etc., these men would not only have to carry this sort of thing with them for the rest of their lives, as we know Paul, and the writer of Luke did, they would also have to come up with these things that Jesus said, and did, to report upon, that would continue to make the story convincing.

Of course, we would not have time to go through all that they actually concocked, so let us just touch upon one such story involved here, which would be the conversation Jesus was said to have with the, "woman at the well." The fact of the matter is, we would not have time to go through all that would be involved in this report, much less all the other reports concerning the things that Jesus was reported to have said, and done.

The point is, any pastor worth his salt at all, would be able to expound upon this one passage, for at least a, "month of Sundays", and still may not be able to unpack it all. So you see, it is quite easy to simply throw the accusation out there that these men may not have been reporting the truth. It becomes quite another when one begins to think through all that would have to be involved for this to be the case, keeping in mind all that they would have to come up with, remembering that we are dealing with ordinary, uneducated, fishermen, save one hated tax collector.

And I cannot see how we can have confidence that words are given in verbatim form.

Nor can I.

Did he say:
"This is really my body and you can repeat the miracle I have done," or did he say "I'd like you to commemorate this last meal" or.... We need to know.

Well, I believe we have the words reported as saying,

This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.

Seeing as how His blood had yet to be shed, a little common sense would go a long way here.

At any rate, the problem does not really seem to be the words, but is rather those who do not interpret carefully. As an example, I have been in a discussion with another member here, who insists that, "Christians are commanded to tithe." However, this person as of yet, has not, and cannot supply such a command from what is recorded in the Bible. In order to make such a claim, one would surely have to add to, and, or, twist the meaning of certain texts, way outside of their context.

The point is, it is not very difficult to understand what the NT has to say concerning tithing. However, since there are Christians who insist that we should tithe, unbelievers are happy to allow such things, even though it cannot be defended, thinking that it somehow demonstrates that the Bible is impossible to understand.

If a doctor says: "Take 5mg of this medicine four times a day" it is not good enough to report that the doctor said the patient has to take this medicine. I am running out of ways of saying what seems to me to be very obvious.

Again, you are placing far too much emphasis upon what Jesus is reported to have taught. One fact to point out here is the fact that Jesus Himself claimed to have been sent, "only to the house of Israel." With this being the case, much of what He would have said, would not even apply. And again, the focus is not so much upon what Jesus was teaching, as it was upon what He did, and said that lead up to the death, and Resurrection. In other words, the writers were not reporting what He said, in order for us as readers, to follow His teachings. This was not the point.

So then, it is not as though Jesus was telling anyone at all, "Take 5mg of this medicine four times a day", as you incorrectly suggest. In fact, we are told to let go of the sort of thinking, that there are certain rules, laws, regulations, etc., that we can follow, that would remedy our situation. Your point is moot.

Yes we know Christ was a shepherd, a highway, a light and umpteen other things because we have his alleged verbatim words

You are the one who seems to continue to argue for the, "verbatim words of Jesus." I have not made such an argument, so maybe you should save such things for those who may?

If you insist that one should be a good interpreter that's commendable, but you should also insist on having the right words to interpret.

You certainly seem to be insisting that we need the words to be, "verbatim" but I wonder if you would make such arguments in other cases? In other words, do you insist all reports be, "verbatim", and if they are not, do you refuse to trust them? Or, do you understand that there can be variations in wording that would not in any way change the meaning?

In fact, if we actually had the exact words reported, "verbatim" and all the reports had the same exact words, I can imagine their would be those who would argue that there was some sort of copying going on.......... Oh wait, we do have those who make such arguments, and the words are not exactly the same.

At any rate, a good place to start would be to interpret the words we do have responsibly.

At this point I would point out that I am not in any way attempting to argue that we have the exact wordings, and meanings of Jesus. Rather, I am arguing that there is good reason to believe that these men are simply reporting what they claim to have witnessed, and there are good reasons to believe they were reporting the truth.

Then that is rather remiss of you since it is exceedingly likely the words you are concentrating on were not the exact words of Christ, as I have said.

No, it is remiss of you, since you do not seem to have a very good understanding of Christianity, where the focus is not upon learning any sort of rules, laws, and regulations, to provide some sort of remedy.

As an example, Jesus is reported to have said, "you have heard it said, do not commit adultery, but I tell you, anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery." By the way, I did not look this up, or copy and paste, but rather attempted to recall it from memory, so I doubt it would be, "verbatim."

At any rate, do you imagine Jesus was giving some sort of rule here? Or, was He demonstrating that, the outward sins that are committed are not the problem, rather the problem is the heart, and there is no remedy for the heart, which means there can be no rules that can be followed that would remedy our situation?

In other words, when it comes to the act of adultery, I can stick my chest out proudly and say with confidence, "I have never done such a thing." However, when you bring in the lust of the heart, I am condemned, and the thing is, I have no control over it. I may be able to stop it once it starts, but I have no control over any sort of lust that springs up in my heart.

And again I will point out that, these are the sort of stories these men would have to make up, in order to keep the falsehood from being found out. In other words, it is not as simple as saying, "they may have been reporting, falsely." There would be far more to it than that.

So to an extent you're wasting your time on interpretation. In fact you can be almost certain the words are not exactly Christ's, since they are being reported long after Christ died. Memory is a fickle thing.

I am certain, "the words are not exactly Christ's", but I am not the one insisting that they must be. Also, since you state that these words, "are being reported long after Christ died" as if this would be a fact, what would be the evidence to suggest such a thing, besides the opinion of the scholars?

As for knowing of rumours that Paul was in Rome with Peter or that he once persecuted Christians and had a fantastic experience on the road to Damascus, that's all very well.

Is it simply, "rumors?" Or, is there pretty powerful evidence to suggest this was indeed the case?

When we realise that we know only the tiniest details of Christ's life we can see that we build assumption on top of assumption... or on ascension.

One thing we can know for a fact is, there were those at the time who claimed that Jesus was dead, buried, and that He rose again, and there is good reason to believe these claims.

Now, there certainly may be those who hold a different opinion concerning these facts, but it would be most unreasonable to suggest, "there are no good reasons to believe the claims."

[marco]

Okay, let's think through this. If Jesus did indeed die upon a cross, then this would certainly be an, "event" that may be reported upon. If this same Jesus, gave some sort of speech, before he was placed upon the cross, then this speech, would be an event as well, and could be reported, in the same way, and the speech, would be an historical event, just like, "the Gettysburg Address" was reported upon of Abraham Lincoln.

Let us think it through correctly, then. You said that speech and event are synonymous, and to show this you take some special examples where this might be so. That doesn't illustrate your point. When Tacitus has Calgacus delivering his famous speech about creating a wilderness and calling it peace, the speech is not an event; it is a literary device for Tacitus to make a point. We are interested in what Christ says so that we can draw conclusions about his theology. If we don't know precisely how he worded his speech there are no safe conclusions. The Sermon on the Mount may be taken as a famous speech of the Gettysburg Address type but generally we are not involved with an event but with Christ's preaching, and what he actually said.

If the speech by Lincoln was indeed an historical event, and could be reported upon, and we can be fairly confident that the words were reported upon pretty accurately, then what would make us insist, that we cannot possibly know how close the words of Jesus was reported?

I'm afraid you're just making a gross error, taking a specific case to illustrate a general rule. We can't do this. If we find an "event" in the life of Christ comparable to the Gettysburg Address, with due care taken to record the words for posterity, I have no problem agreeing with you. However, the NT accounts do not involve a specific event but they purport to follow Christ's course of action in his final three years, with exact quotations from here, there and everywhere, long after the event. Your argument is that we don't need the exact words but we do, in the case of Christ, whose words form a theology.

Of course, one could continue to argue that the words of Jesus was not recorded until years later, which may mean that some of the words may not exactly be the words of Jesus. But what is the evidence for this theory, anyway?

The Address was a prepared speech, written down. Christ wrote nothing down. There is no evidence that somebody followed him around writing down what he said. The information we have is that the first accounts were written many years after the man died. That puts a question mark over their verbatim nature.

In other words, it does not cross their mind that the reports, could simply be that accurate, rather it must, and has to be, one copying the other.

You are straying to another issue. Yes of course there is some concordance with Matthew, Mark and Luke but also discrepancies.

So then, I do not simply have to assume that these authors are accurate, because there is certainly evidence to suggest they were, while the only evidence that they may not have been, would seem to be, the opinion of the scholars.

I've no idea how you are deducing this from the statement that two authors must have copied from the third, whether or not this was accurate. There is nothing to suggest we have verbatim reports. Of course we can assume every word is accurate. I think it is wiser to place a question mark there.

I have never argue that, "We have the words of Christ verbatim" an never would, because we do not need them, "verbatim." We would not insist upon such a thing concerning other reports, in order to understand if they may be credible, so then why would we do this concerning the words of Christ?

I am not going to continue repeating and explaining what seems obvious. No, we don't need Napoleon's exact words nor is it essential to know whether Caesar actually said "iacta est alea" before he crossed the Rubicon. Normally the EVENT is important and the words supplementary. In the case of Christ, whom people take as God or a divine messenger, with words to impart from a divine source, it is clear we MUST have his words. Did he say "You are the shepherds" or did he say "You are my sheep"? So we don't need the exact wording in most cases; in the case of Christ, we do. Christ is presented almost solely as a dispenser of words.

However, you are placing far more emphasis upon the words of Jesus, then the writers did themselves. In other words, these writers were not so much concerned with conveying the teachings of Jesus, as they were conveying the life of Jesus, and the events that lead up to His death, and more importantly, His Resurrection.

That is your opinion. We do NOT have a normal biography; we have a tiny section of Christ's life, with the major presentation being his speeches. His presentation of the Ascension or the Resurrection is vastly important; so too are the exact words he uses to say when he will return. In any other biography we have full details of events through childhood and adolescence.

One thing we can know for a fact is, there were those at the time who claimed that Jesus was dead, buried, and that He rose again, and there is good reason to believe these claims.

There is no good reason to believe except by appeal to FAITH. We have people today who claim alien abduction; does their testimony mean truth? We have NO account of a resurrection but tales of an empty tomb. They are not the same. I can accept the ladies saw an empty tomb. So what?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 95 by marco]

Let us think it through correctly, then. You said that speech and event are synonymous

Did I say this, "verbatm?" I do not believe that I did. At any rate, if I planned to attend a certain speech by someone, that speech would be considered an "event", so much so that I may ask someone, "do you plan to attend the EVENT this evening."

and to show this you take some special examples where this might be so.

"Special examples?" At any rate, you do seem to agree that a speech, would be considered an, "event", and it does not have to be, "special" at all.

When Tacitus has Calgacus delivering his famous speech about creating a wilderness and calling it peace, the speech is not an event;

I am not sure we can be certain about the "event" you describe above, because I highly doubt that we have the words, "verbatim." This is really silly. The reason this speech would not be considered an, "event" is because the speech never happened. If the speech did indeed happen, then we would have a happening, which would be an event.

We are interested in what Christ says so that we can draw conclusions about his theology.

I do not know who "we" is? This may be what you are interested in. However, I am not so interested in knowing what the theology of Jesus may have been, because the writers were not in any way attempting to convey to us the theology of Jesus.

The Sermon on the Mount may be taken as a famous speech of the Gettysburg Address type but generally we are not involved with an event but with Christ's preaching, and what he actually said.

This is a good example of what I am talking about. Right, before Jesus was said to have given this speech, it is said that,

And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him, and he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,

So then, as you can see, Jesus was not teaching the multitudes. Rather, Jesus set down, and begin to teach his disciples. This report, is simply one of the many events, that is said to have lead up to, His death, and more importantly, His Resurrection. The focus is not upon the teaching.

In fact, here is what one of the writers actually had to say, at the end of his writing,

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

So then, if the words of Jesus were so important, and that we should actually know the exact words he used, and that the focus of the writers was upon His, theology, then it would seem as if they would have been sure to record all of His words. But the fact of the matter is, this was not the focus.

These writers were recording events, that lead up to the, "main event", and if there is enough evidence to suggest that a resurrection did indeed occur, then this would certainly tend to shed a whole different light upon the other things these men claim to have witnessed.

However, and again, you may look at this same exact evidence, and come to a different conclusion, but it would be most unreasonable to suggest, "there is no reason to come to a conclusion other than the one you have arrived at."

I'm afraid you're just making a gross error, taking a specific case to illustrate a general rule.

I am afraid it is you who is making the "gross error" because I did not attempt to "illustrate" anything at all. Rather, I am asking the question, "what would make us insist, that we cannot possibly know the words of Jesus?" If I were to guess, I would suggest that it is simply, and only because of the miraculous events involved. Otherwise, there would be no reason to doubt the reports at all, because there would certainly be enough evidence to suggest that the reports were accurate.

If we find an "event" in the life of Christ comparable to the Gettysburg Address, with due care taken to record the words for posterity, I have no problem agreeing with you.

Okay, let's think though this. I believe you have already illustrated that it could be difficult to understand if, "due care" would have been taken, since we know there are those who have, and could attempt to report in such a way as to deceive. In other words, one who is writing for "posterity" could have some sort of agenda, and there are examples.

However, what of those who are not in any way writing for, "posterity" but are rather simply writing to a friend at the time, with no idea that this letter would have been read by anyone else at all?

In other words, there is a such thing that is called, "propaganda" and we know this sort of thing has been done. However, when one is writing to a friend, with no intention, nor any idea, that what is being recorded to this friend would be used in any other way, then it could not be said to be, "propaganda." This is exactly what one of the writers in the NT did.

In fact, this writer goes on to tell this friend, exactly how he obtained this information, and in doing so, he never mentions God at all. So then, where would one get the idea that all that is contained in the Bible, is the very words of God? It certainly would not have been from this writer.

The point is, we may be able to understand those who may have an agenda, who attempt to persuade the masses. But, what would be the agenda, of one who writes, not one, but two long and detailed letters to a friend, and the reason he gives is, "so that his friend, can know the certainty of the things he has been taught?"

I will also point out that this writer at least claims to have taken, "due care." In fact, here is what he said, at the beginning of the letter,

it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus

Let's remember, this information was not intended for us. Rather, it was intended for Theophilus, who more than likely had reason to trust the author.

However, the NT accounts do not involve a specific event but they purport to follow Christ's course of action in his final three years, with exact quotations from here, there and everywhere, long after the event.

Can you demonstrate where it is said to be, "exact quotations?" Or, would this simply be an assumption on your part? Also, what would be the evidence that, it would have been, "long after the event?" I continue to pose these sort of questions to you, and you never seem to respond with any sort of evidence?

Your argument is that we don't need the exact words but we do, in the case of Christ, whose words form a theology.

You continue to say this, over, and over, but your point is moot, as I have demonstrated.

The Address was a prepared speech, written down. Christ wrote nothing down. There is no evidence that somebody followed him around writing down what he said. The information we have is that the first accounts were written many years after the man died. That puts a question mark over their verbatim nature.

You are the only one in this conversation who is insisting upon the words being, "verbatim." I am not making the argument, and never would. So then, you need to save this for others who may attempt to make such arguments.

Next, you continue to state as a fact, "the first accounts were written many years after the man died" and yet you have failed to supply any evidence to support such a claim? I can certainly sit here and type out statements as facts, but they would mean nothing if I cannot support these claims.

You are straying to another issue. Yes of course there is some concordance with Matthew, Mark and Luke but also discrepancies.

It is not, "straying to another issue" at all. If one attempts to make the argument that we cannot know the words of Jesus, then it would be legitimate to point out the fact that the reports are so close, there are those who insist that copying had to be the reason. However, as you have pointed out, there are also discrepancies, which would seem to rule out the copying?

So then, these writers are in a, "no win" situation. If their words are close, then they must have been copying. If there are discrepancies, this demonstrates that what is recorded cannot be trusted.

I've no idea how you are deducing this from the statement that two authors must have copied from the third, whether or not this was accurate. There is nothing to suggest we have verbatim reports. Of course we can assume every word is accurate. I think it is wiser to place a question mark there.

And again, here is that, "verbatim" word again? You seem to be in an argument with yourself, since you are the one who brought this word into the conversation in the first place. So then, I do not "assume" the words were, "verbatim." In fact, I would argue that they were not. I do not know how to say this any more plainly?

In fact, I am not attempting to argue that the words were the words of Jesus at all. Rather, I am simply claiming that there is indeed evidence that they were, and the only evidence that I can think of that they were not, is the miraculous content. If there is other evidence to suggest that they were not, then please advise?

However, up to this point your argument seems to be, "since we cannot be certain, "it is wiser to place a question mark there." This type of argument is pathetic, and I have pointed this out to fellow Christians who attempt to make it.

In other words, there are Christians who have attempted to make the argument that, "Christianity is a good way in which to live your life, and even if it was found to be false, you would not have lost much at all", which means it is better to err on the side of caution, and for them, as opposed to you, this would be to accept what is taught, since you would be safe, if it were indeed true.

As I said, this type of argument is, pathetic, and it certainly would be foreign to Paul. In fact, here is exactly what Paul had to say,

if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless

He goes on to say,

If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.

So, as we can see, Paul certainly understood the stakes involved, and he would have found such arguments, pathetic.

I am not going to continue repeating and explaining what seems obvious. No, we don't need Napoleon's exact words nor is it essential to know whether Caesar actually said "iacta est alea" before he crossed the Rubicon. Normally the EVENT is important and the words supplementary. In the case of Christ, whom people take as God or a divine messenger, with words to impart from a divine source, it is clear we MUST have his words. Did he say "You are the shepherds" or did he say "You are my sheep"? So we don't need the exact wording in most cases; in the case of Christ, we do. Christ is presented almost solely as a dispenser of words.

You are right, there is no need in continuing to say this, since the point is, moot. As I have demonstrated, there would be no difference between the report of Napoleon, as you say, as opposed to the words of Christ, since the words is not the focus. You are the one who is contending this, not me, and I have given a perfectly good argument that there is no need in insisting that the focus was upon the theology of Jesus, and the words are never claimed to be, "verbatim."

Again, if the focus is upon all that Jesus taught and said, then why would we have a writer who admits that, all was not included? If these words are as important as you suggest, it would seem as if they would be careful to ensure we had all of them, and they certainly would not make it known, that we may not have them all. Your point is defeated here.

We do NOT have a normal biography; we have a tiny section of Christ's life

Actually what we have was never intended to be, "a normal biography" but are letters written among and between different audiences at the time. In other words, these writers never had those of us, some 2000 years later in mind as they wrote.

So then, they never intended to compile a complete, and exhaustive account of the life of Jesus, which again defeats your point above.

His presentation of the Ascension or the Resurrection is vastly important

I do not recall Jesus ever "presenting the Ascension, of Resurrection?" Maybe you can advise upon where this may have happened?

so too are the exact words he uses to say when he will return

I do not recall Jesus ever being said to say, "when he will return?" What I recall is Him saying, "He did not know." At any rate, I cannot see how any of this would have any bearing at all, upon the truth of the content? In other words, even if we cannot know, or maybe understand what He may have said concerning His return, how would this have any bearing upon whether there may be evidence enough to believe that there may have been a, resurrection? Your logic does not follow?

In any other biography we have full details of events through childhood and adolescence.

As demonstrated above, the writers were not concerned about what you, and I may have, because they never had us in mind.

There is no good reason to believe except by appeal to FAITH.

This statement is, SO, SO, funny, to the point of being ridiculous. Allow me to explain some things to you.

I do not need faith to believe, and understand that there was a man named Jesus who walked the face of the Earth. I do not need faith to believe, and understand that, this man was crucified. I do not even need faith to believe, and understand that this same man, was resurrected.

The reason I do not need faith in order to believe these things, is because there is evidence to suggest that these things may indeed have occurred.

What I would need faith in order to believe, is that these events, caused the forgiveness of my sin.

You see, I can see, analyse, measure, weight, etc., the evidence concerning the former things. However, I cannot see, analyse, measure, feel, touch, or taste, forgiveness. I can only accept forgiveness, upon faith.

So then, I only need faith to believe, that I have been, forgiven. I have evidence for the other things.

We have people today who claim alien abduction; does their testimony mean truth?

It does not, and nor does the testimony of the Biblical writers. Are you claiming that this is all we have concerning the truth of Christianity? If so, you would be greatly mistaken.

We have NO account of a resurrection but tales of an empty tomb.

You would be incorrect here, but even so, what would be your explanation of the, "tales of the empty tomb?" There must and has to be an explanation for one who seems so opposed to the tales. So what is yours? And what would be the evidence to support your conclusion?

I can accept the ladies saw an empty tomb. So what?

So what? Really? What then would be the explanation for these "ladies seeing an empty tomb?"

Again, for one who is so opposed to these tales, there must, and has to be an explanation to explain them away, and it is certainly not good enough to tell us what seems easier for you to believe, because this would not be any sort of evidence.

I will also point out that it is not simply enough to suggest certain opinions of what may, or could have happened, without also going through all that would have had to be involved, for that particular scenario to be correct. In other words, you cannot simply say, "they could have stole the body" without going on to examine all this would have entailed.

My point has always been, there are no easy, and simple answers when if comes to these reports. In other words, there are Christians who want, and choose to believe these reports, and it is simple as that. On the other hand, it is not as simple as, these things are just to difficult to believe.

There are those who look, and seek for simple answers, and easy believism. But I am afraid it is not that simple at all.

[marco]

Did I say this, "verbatm?" I do not believe that I did. At any rate, if I planned to attend a certain speech by someone, that speech would be considered an "event", so much so that I may ask someone, "do you plan to attend the EVENT this evening."

Language is such a slippery animal. Taking a speech in the town hall as an event is fine, if we understand that strictly we mean that some personality appeared and gave a speech, so by association, speech becomes the event. Taking speech as an event, in general terms, is a misunderstanding. If you disagree let's just disagree.

On the point of verbatim reports you say:

"You are the only one in this conversation who is insisting upon the words being, "verbatim." I am not making the argument, and never would."


That is good that you are conceding the reported words might be inaccurate, which is what I have been saying. Once we have no faith in what Christ actually said we can go home. His metaphors of being a shepherd, a lamb, a road or whatever may not be the words he used.


Now that this has been clarified and we agree that we are building on guesswork, we can go on....

[marco]

His presentation of the Ascension or the Resurrection is vastly important

I do not recall Jesus ever "presenting the Ascension, of Resurrection?" Maybe you can advise upon where this may have happened?

Let us take:

Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

Simon Peter said unto him, Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered him, Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me afterwards.


Of course Christ may have said: I will destroy the Synagogue and rebuild it in three days. Or I will rise above the clouds and you won't be able to follow me. The point I am making is that we NEED to know exactly what the man did say. You maintain it doesn't matter.

[marco]

There is no good reason to believe except by appeal to FAITH.

This statement is, SO, SO, funny, to the point of being ridiculous. Allow me to explain some things to you.

I do not need faith to believe, and understand that there was a man named Jesus who walked the face of the Earth.

Well of course it is faith that allows you to accept events reported by people 2000 years ago which, were they narrated by people today, would be ridiculed. Reading and believing is faith all right. You have faith in Paul's tale of being knocked down by God and reforming. When Paul affirms the physical resurrection you have utter faith in what the man believes.

I can accept the ladies saw an empty tomb. So what?

So what? Really? What then would be the explanation for these "ladies seeing an empty tomb?"

Allow me to smile. Here's the substance of the tale:

"We went up and found the stone had been moved and when we went inside the clothes were neatly folded up and instead of Jesus there was an angel sitting in the sepulchre."

Ah, yes, that means that a corpse came to life and wandered off, having folded up its funeral garments, as it would! And the angel supplies further confirmation.

"Nope, he's not here, ma'am. Gone elsewhere."

And you ask what other explnation can there be. When people report seeing the Loch Ness Monster, what other explanation can there be?


I have no idea why you wish to change faith for something approximating proof but faith remains faith. And those who maintain Jesus rose from the dead and pointlessly ascended into the sky, unaided, demonstrate faith in abundance.


I accept that the wily Paul writes convincingly - so did Dickens and Dostoyevsky.

[Realworldjack]

Did I say this, "verbatm?" I do not believe that I did. At any rate, if I planned to attend a certain speech by someone, that speech would be considered an "event", so much so that I may ask someone, "do you plan to attend the EVENT this evening."

Language is such a slippery animal. Taking a speech in the town hall as an event is fine, if we understand that strictly we mean that some personality appeared and gave a speech, so by association, speech becomes the event. Taking speech as an event, in general terms, is a misunderstanding. If you disagree let's just disagree.

On the point of verbatim reports you say:

"You are the only one in this conversation who is insisting upon the words being, "verbatim." I am not making the argument, and never would."


That is good that you are conceding the reported words might be inaccurate, which is what I have been saying. Once we have no faith in what Christ actually said we can go home. His metaphors of being a shepherd, a lamb, a road or whatever may not be the words he used.


Now that this has been clarified and we agree that we are building on guesswork, we can go on....

Nice try, but this is not going to get it, I'm afraid.

Taking a speech in the town hall as an event is fine, if we understand that strictly we mean that some personality appeared and gave a speech, so by association, speech becomes the event. Taking speech as an event, in general terms, is a misunderstanding. If you disagree let's just disagree.

It is not simply that, "I disagree." Rather, it is clearly that, you are in the wrong. In other words, if I give a speech to my children this would be an event, whether anyone at all ever heard of this event. An event is a happening, and it does not have to be a spectacular happening. Any occurrence could be referred to as an event. As an example, I could tell you, "in the event I do not make it on time, proceed without me." As you can see, my not showing, could be correctly referred to, as an "event."

That is good that you are conceding the reported words might be inaccurate

Did I concede such a thing? Why, no I did not, because there would be a tremendous difference between agreeing that they words may not be, "verbatim", as opposed to agreeing that they would be, "inaccurate." Let's look at an example.

My wife could ask me, to tell my son, "to meet her at the grocery store at 3:00 PM." Now, if I were to tell my son that, "your mom wants you to get with her at the supermarket by 3:00 this afternoon", would these be her words, "verbatim?" Well no they would not. Would these words be, inaccurate? Well no, they would be extremely accurate, to the point that these different words, convey the same, exact, meaning. So again, your point is defeated, and it is not that I simply just, disagree. Rather here, you have reported that I have conceded something I have not.

Once we have no faith in what Christ actually said we can go home.

And again, there is no need to have faith in this sort of thing, when there is evidence for His words.

His metaphors of being a shepherd, a lamb, a road or whatever may not be the words he used.

They very well may not be, but we have evidence to suggest they were. So what would be the evidence to the contrary? The point is, you either have evidence that they may not have been, or you simply have faith.

Now that this has been clarified and we agree that we are building on guesswork, we can go on....

Right! You either base what you believe upon faith, or guesswork, or it is built on some sort of evidence. I have been pleading with you to supply some sort of evidence to back some of your claims, and as of yet, all I seem to have received, is "guesswork" (what seems easiest to believe), and, or faith.