Would Jesus Have known what Modern Science knows?

[blü 2]

You really can't understand that Jesus was talking about the difference between physical dirt and spiritual defilement?

You really can't understand that the passage reveals Jesus' ignorance of germ theory?

 

[Quagmire]

Whatever else (and to whatever extent we can believe the gospels) I think a lot of what he's supposed to have said reflects an understanding of human psychology that's at least on par with anything the moderns have come up with.

 

[Windwalker]

First, hail! I trust all's well at your place.

Great! How have you been?

Second, I have no argument with what you say; it's a clear example of Jesus being ignorant of germ theory, or he'd have chosen another metaphor, or at least a different phrasing.

I'm imagining this in King James English, "Dudes! Washest thou thine hands first beforest thou eatest! What, wast thou born in a manger? Oh... wait.... ".

The interesting thing is that once Mark had written the original story (Mark 11:15+) where he overturns the tables and drives the traders out, Matthew 21:12+ is the same, in Luke 19:45-6 he simply drives them out, then in John 2:14+ we have the added color of a "whip with cords", while he pours out their money and tips their tables over.

No doubt the intention was much as you say, but the effect for me is a thug assaulting people lawfully going about their business, with no hope of altering the system which he says is his motive because his victims have no power to change anything. He should have knocked on the CEO's door and said, 'Come, let us reason together.' If I ever write the gospel according to blü, that's how it'll go.

I like this version of it best.

 

[crossfire]

Whatever else (and to whatever extent we can believe the gospels) I think a lot of what he's supposed to have said reflects an understanding of human psychology that's at least on par with anything the moderns have come up with.

I would have to agree with you.

 

[crossfire]

<...>
The interesting thing is that once Mark had written the original story (Mark 11:15+) where he overturns the tables and drives the traders out, Matthew 21:12+ is the same, in Luke 19:45-6 he simply drives them out, then in John 2:14+ we have the added color of a "whip with cords", while he pours out their money and tips their tables over.

No doubt the intention was much as you say, but the effect for me is a thug assaulting people lawfully going about their business, with no hope of altering the system which he says is his motive because his victims have no power to change anything. He should have knocked on the CEO's door and said, 'Come, let us reason together.' If I ever write the gospel according to blü, that's how it'll go.

<...>
I see his cleansing of the temple, more along the lines of him going after these megachurch pastors who exploit religion for mountains of cash. Ever watch the Righteous Gemstones?

I don't think the story was simply recording history and Jesus lost his cool or something. The story was specifically created to emphasis that capitalizing on the sacred for profit, is uncool. The author wrote it with them as the bad guys, and Jesus as the hero.

I wouldn't mistake the story as a pure historical snapshot, but rather a story to tell a message, a parable like the character of the Good Samaritan and the uncompassionate priests who just ignored the injured stranger. These are stories with a message, not history lessons.

Jesus was metaphorically "throwing out the leaven" (chametz) as per the Passover custom.

 

[Windwalker]

If Adam wasn't real, he's useless as a representative of us.

Why do you say that? I love the story of Adam and Eve, the Garden and the Fall. I love it because it captures the human condition, knowledge of the Divine, yet awareness of our own death and shortcomings. It perfectly captures the existential dilemma of the human condition. "That which I would do, that thing I do not, who shall rescue me from this body of death?". So very much more could be said of it.

It's a wonderful story with legs that is embraced generation after generation. Not because it records "accurate history", Not at all. But because it speaks to the human condition. That's what makes it true. That's what makes it endure. That's what makes it endlessly referred to when speaking about our humanity. It's "historicity" is utterly besides the point, to the point it is irrelevant to the meaning of it.

He only represents us because he was the first human.

They represent us, because the author captured our story in a pair of characters in a garden of paradise. Do you miss the story of it, as you concern yourself with matters of history and science, nothing the ancient author or readers of the story themselves would have been concerned with one iota?

And if you believe Adam wasn't who scripture says he was, it casts doubt on the last Adam being who scripture says also.

I do believe Adam was who scripture says he was. The "father" of humankind. He represents all of us. That's what scripture says he is in the story. I think you're missing the story, getting distracted by whether it tells the truth about our origins or science does. As I said, no one back then would have approached it that way.

Plus the whole fall of man theology falls apart without a real fall of the first couple. If it's just an object lesson, it makes the biblical theology of original sin senseless.

Why? They capture symbolically the human dilemma. There is a quote I love from Plotinus of the 3rd century who said perfectly, "Mankind is poised midway between the gods and the beasts." That's the story of Adam and Eve. We were in Paradise walking with God, but now we are eating dust with the beasts of the field. That story captures our condition, and the solution is the spiritual Awakening, or Salvation that the Christ teaches as the solution to this Existential Anguish. It makes the whole story make perfect sense.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I am not a Christian, and on top of it, I am a strong atheist. People of his time, had much more knowledge than him - History of science in early cultures - Wikipedia. I do not think there were schools other than religious schools in Israel at that time, and I do not think his family had resources to pay a private tutor like the rich of that time might have been doing.

I think that the issue here is that it is difficult to support such a statement when as a strong atheist you almost certainly do not have a sound knowledge of the Christian world view concerning the nature of Christ or the historical record that supports it.

As a Christin who does read very deeply theological and external historical sources, I would make the claim that in an age where "the balance of probabilities" is a widely accepted practice not only in academic circles but in particular legal ones, we have a much stronger case in favour of the nature of Christ being God than those who claim otherwise.

For example, may i point you in the direction of at least the following two writers ... Josephus and Eusebius (there are many others). I urge you to read their writings for yourself and then tell me the biblical narrative is a fairytale.

- Once you accept that the bible account has extensive historical support from sources outside of the bible itself, and

- add to this in fact the evidence that has known been proven to show that the Bible is one of the few recognized historically accurate accounts for a couple of very significant lost civilisations (Assyrians and Hittites for example), then

- look at the consistency of the theme and theology in the bible and how well it gells together throughout the history shown within its pages...

I would argue that given the above, the statistical likelihood in the authenticity of the biblical account, on the balance of probabilities, is so high that anyone who doesn't believe in it is foolish!

Therefore the question "did Jesus know about modern Science" becomes insignificant...he created everything.

If one wants to argue about whether the Jesus as a child knew these things...that is an unfair question. The bible clearly explains that he took on humanity...this would mean that within the constraints of humanity (particularly a child), he would not have been fully self aware, however, clearly as he got older this awareness was obvious...he recognised he was far more than a mere man. An illustration of this...

If you read the account of Satan tempting Jesus immediately after his baptism...even Satan knew who Jesus really was and openly stated to him "for he has charged his angels concerning you, that they will lift you up least you dash your foot against a stone"

the demons who were cast out of men near the lake asked to be allowed to enter the herd of pigs...those demons openly stated they knew who Jesus really was and were afraid of Him (there were witnesses to this event...many of them. So much so, he was asked to leave the town by its leaders after the herd of pigs drowned itself in the lake)

I have not included the bible texts of the above accounts because it is my hope that honest individuals would google search for themselves and go on a journey to read for themselves. Those who don't wouldn't care anyway and its pointless pointing these things out to them even as included texts/quotes.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Therefore the question "did Jesus know about modern Science" becomes insignificant...he created everything.

Don't expect an atheist and a follower of science to accept this in this 21st Century.

 

[PruePhillip]

This question is mainly to Christians, but those of other faiths may share their thoughts to this. This question came up in another thread where I expressed my view while Jesus may be considered the Son of God to Christians, his knowledge of things that modern science knows would have been lacking for him, being a human being living 2000 years ago before modern science.

This caused great concern for one person of faith to consider that Jesus' knowledge of the natural world could possibly be limited to the understanding of those of his day. They seemed to believe Jesus would have had supernatural knowledge about all things, including whether or not evolution was valid scientifically. If this were true, then would Jesus have also known the earth orbits the sun, and the sun, not the earth, was the center of the solar system? Would Jesus have understood quantum mechanics? And so forth.

As a Christian, do you feel that Jesus, because he was a flesh and blood human being, that his knowledge of all things would have been limited as the rest of his fellows of his day? This isn't talking about spiritual insights, but technical information, such as how life evolved on this earth, such that he could be called upon as disagreeing with modern science because he spoke of the creation story instead, proving he proof he knew about evolution, but rejected it by referencing Genesis instead of talking about evolution.

As a Christian do you feel that saying Jesus' knowledge was limited to the knowledge of his day, is denegarating to him? If so, explain? Are you comfortable as a Christian to recognize that Jesus was a human being who didn't know everything magically or supernaturally?

Jesus spoke of the Romans taking away the Jews and pulling down the temple, with not a single stone left standing. This prophecy saved the lives of many people. And furthermore He said that the Jews will not be permitted to return until the Gentiles time is fulfilled. That time is now. So it seems this man had a huge command of world events - this tells me science wouldn't be a problem to him, it's just that it's irrelevent to His Gospel mission.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Don't expect an atheist and a follower of science to accept this in this 21st Century.

You clearly are not a person who takes any interest in any kind of history because according to your statement, anything outside of the 21st century isn't credible!

So now that we have established this, why do you follow darwinism...it came from the 1800's?

 

[blü 2]

Great! How have you been?

Can't complain!

I'm imagining this in King James English, "Dudes! Washest thou thine hands first beforest thou eatest! What, wast thou born in a manger? Oh... wait.... ".

Heh!

I like this version of it best.

Yes, a very satisfying notion! You remind me back in 2008 ─

For one lousy trillion, you donors
(said Fuld) are self-pitiful moaners!

It’s scarcely a crumb –
it’s a chicken-sh*t sum –​

just two thousand times of my bonus.​

 

[blü 2]

Jesus was metaphorically "throwing out the leaven" (chametz) as per the Passover custom.

I didn't detect any of that in any of the four versions. What clue did I miss?

 

[rational experiences]

Your Jesus the man is phi lying is no different to saying as a man today. Thinking as humans biology themes by my terms humans represent electricity.

Notice you give all terms labels meanings as humans only....when a human is only a human. No labels whatsoever.

And means it knowing exactly what the subject and title electricity is.... not any human.

Nothing at all to do with the human.

Yet as a human wants it so theories it as humans. We get hurt because you lied as just another human.

So history stated criminal brothers who overthrew enslaved humanity became rich men now using technology Satanism ...

Say exactly what they do. I can do whatever I want or choose to theme you by abstract unrealistic terms as no one can stop me.

Isn't a logical rational human. You are our opposition destroyer.

Phi was just a thought in his own mans sick head. Consciousness of man.

I don't exist as electricity.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You clearly are not a person who takes any interest in any kind of history because according to your statement, anything outside of the 21st century isn't credible!
So now that we have established this, why do you follow darwinism...it came from the 1800's?

I did not say that the Bible is nothing but untruth. It is surely not any God's word. It is result of wrong translations, additions, omissions, and editing over centuries of the folk tales of Jewish people. It takes a professional historian to sift out truth from it. Such is the case with all other so-called scriptures including the Vedas and BhagawadGita.

 

[Five Solas]

This question is mainly to Christians, but those of other faiths may share their thoughts to this. This question came up in another thread where I expressed my view while Jesus may be considered the Son of God to Christians, his knowledge of things that modern science knows would have been lacking for him, being a human being living 2000 years ago before modern science.

This caused great concern for one person of faith to consider that Jesus' knowledge of the natural world could possibly be limited to the understanding of those of his day. They seemed to believe Jesus would have had supernatural knowledge about all things, including whether or not evolution was valid scientifically. If this were true, then would Jesus have also known the earth orbits the sun, and the sun, not the earth, was the center of the solar system? Would Jesus have understood quantum mechanics? And so forth.

As a Christian, do you feel that Jesus, because he was a flesh and blood human being, that his knowledge of all things would have been limited as the rest of his fellows of his day? This isn't talking about spiritual insights, but technical information, such as how life evolved on this earth, such that he could be called upon as disagreeing with modern science because he spoke of the creation story instead, proving he proof he knew about evolution, but rejected it by referencing Genesis instead of talking about evolution.

As a Christian do you feel that saying Jesus' knowledge was limited to the knowledge of his day, is denegarating to him? If so, explain? Are you comfortable as a Christian to recognize that Jesus was a human being who didn't know everything magically or supernaturally?

Jesus is God. Jesus is the creator. How on earth can he not know?

 

[1213]

...
You think that Jesus believed the science of evolution was wrong? How do you suppose that?

BTW, as a point of correction for you, in science a "theory" is not a belief or a guess, or a hypothesis, or a supposition. Theory in scientific terms means a "model" which explains the evidence in hand. So a better way to understand it is the Scientific Model of Evolution. That's not a "belief", or a faith. It's science.

Ok, it is a theory, but it is also belief, because people believe it is the truth.

I believe Jesus knew that things were created as told in the Bible, which means all species didn't evolve to current diversity on their own.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I do believe Adam was who scripture says he was. The "father" of humankind. He represents all of us. That's what scripture says he is in the story. I think you're missing the story, getting distracted by whether it tells the truth about our origins or science does. As I said, no one back then would have approached it that way.

No you don't. You don't even believe he existed and you skipped over the fact that this casts doubt on Jesus being a real historical person who really was the son of God and really did die for us, not just some mythological story told to make a point.

 

[Wildswanderer]

. We were in Paradise walking with God, but now we are eating dust with the beasts of the field. That story captures our condition, and the solution is the spiritual Awakening, or Salvation that the Christ teaches as the solution to this Existential Anguish. It makes the whole story make perfect sense.

If it's just a story, if never happened and why should I believe we are now anything but beasts? After all, that's what the secular humanist believes. Why would a fairy tale change anyone's mind?
Is the resurrection just a parable too?

 

[Wildswanderer]

You really can't understand that the passage reveals Jesus' ignorance of germ theory?

Jesus knows everything about germs. He not only created everything, but he hold it all together.
And the passage is not about germs it's refuting the Pharisee's beliefs that you had to do certain rituals to be clean spiritually instead of actually walking with God.

 

[blü 2]

Jesus knows everything about germs. He not only created everything, but he hold it all together.
And the passage is not about germs it's refuting the Pharisee's beliefs that you had to do certain rituals to be clean spiritually instead of actually walking with God.

On what basis do you say that any Galilean or Judean Jew in the first century CE, of whom Jesus is one example, would know anything about germ theory?

I refer again to my citation of those passages to demonstrate that Jesus had no such knowledge; and that had he had such knowledge, he'd have chosen a different analogy.