According to Matthew 5:22 (NRSV) Jesus tells us:
Quote...if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell of fire.
Yet he says exactly that in Matthew 23:17 (NRSV)
QuoteYou blind fools!
And in Matthew 5:39 (NRSV) we are told:
QuoteBut I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also...
In John 18:23 (NRSV) Jesus is struck. Did he turn and offer the other cheek?
QuoteJesus answered, “If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong. But if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?â€
No, he didn't!
Why didn't Jesus take his own advice?
Why did Jesus disobey his own instructions and rules? Because he is a fiction and is a composite of what those who chose which writings to include (and in what order they appear in the finished 'book') in the bible--so Jesus says one thing for those who wanted him to say any particular saying(s) and another for those who wanted him to say that. The bible was not put together by one person, but a group and so Jesus is made to say conflicting things.
Did Superman fly so fast he went back in time?
It’s almost like the Jesus mythos is a compilation of stories and philosophies of contemporary figures rather than just the historical accounts of one individual... ðŸ¤"
Quote from: Shiranu on July 05, 2019, 12:06:20 PM
It’s almost like the Jesus mythos is a compilation of stories and philosophies of contemporary figures rather than just the historical accounts of one individual... ðŸ¤"
Yeah, funny thing about that, huh?
Quote from: Shiranu on July 05, 2019, 12:06:20 PM
It’s almost like the Jesus mythos is a compilation of stories and philosophies of contemporary figures rather than just the historical accounts of one individual... ðŸ¤"
Yes, it is just like that. Because that is what it is.
What I don't understand is why that isn't obvious to a lot more people. Probably because they never actually read the story.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 05, 2019, 10:04:25 AM
Why did Jesus disobey his own instructions and rules? Because he is a fiction and is a composite of what those who chose which writings to include (and in what order they appear in the finished 'book') in the bible--so Jesus says one thing for those who wanted him to say any particular saying(s) and another for those who wanted him to say that.
I think the theory you posted here is a viable historical theory for Jesus. The advantage of a fictional Christ is that there were no people who knew him who would dispute what was written and claimed about him. If different people were making up the gospel, then naturally they would not completely agree about what they said he said. If Jesus was historical, then I would expect more consistency in his story than what we read in the New Testament.
QuoteThe bible was not put together by one person, but a group and so Jesus is made to say conflicting things.
Real-Jesus apologists seem so naive claiming that different people mentioning Jesus is evidence for his historicity. But as you say, the source for Jesus was a group, and they had common beliefs and motives. So what consistency we do see in their writings about Jesus need not be based in common knowledge of a real Christ but in common beliefs about a Christ who need not be historical.
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 05, 2019, 01:23:45 PM
What I don't understand is why that isn't obvious to a lot more people. Probably because they never actually read the story.
I think the huge majority of church going christians simply go along with whatever the current minister says Jesus says; they don't read the bible as a whole--too much trouble.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 05, 2019, 10:04:25 AM
Why did Jesus disobey his own instructions and rules? Because he is a fiction and is a composite of what those who chose which writings to include (and in what order they appear in the finished 'book') in the bible--so Jesus says one thing for those who wanted him to say any particular saying(s) and another for those who wanted him to say that. The bible was not put together by one person, but a group and so Jesus is made to say conflicting things.
I don't see consistency as the same issue. Would a perfectly logical Vulcan be ipso facto … the Messiah?
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 05, 2019, 01:23:45 PM
What I don't understand is why that isn't obvious to a lot more people. Probably because they never actually read the story.
Correct. Traditionally it is a sin for non-clergy to read the Bible. And extra-sin for non-clergy to interpret it. So mostly people … what they know of Jesus is what the priest said. The notion of lay people reading the Bible is only 500 years old in Christianity. Judaism and Islam didn't have these problems. They are less composite (NT is a really different and incompatible scripture). So Jews and Muslims were encouraged to read and write. Christians were not. Paul even denigrates scholarship.
So do Jews see inconsistencies? Interpretation still insulates. It works that way for Muslims too. The interpretations/commentaries become primary eg: Talmud/Hadith.
Quote from: Jagella on July 05, 2019, 02:05:05 PM
I think the theory you posted here is a viable historical theory for Jesus. The advantage of a fictional Christ is that there were no people who knew him who would dispute what was written and claimed about him. If different people were making up the gospel, then naturally they would not completely agree about what they said he said. If Jesus was historical, then I would expect more consistency in his story than what we read in the New Testament.
Real-Jesus apologists seem so naive claiming that different people mentioning Jesus is evidence for his historicity. But as you say, the source for Jesus was a group, and they had common beliefs and motives. So what consistency we do see in their writings about Jesus need not be based in common knowledge of a real Christ but in common beliefs about a Christ who need not be historical.
That is why the Jesus Seminar attempted to tease out the "true" parts using a consistent technique. The results were controversial. John Dominic Crossan tried his own technique, though he was also a member of the Jesus Seminar, Modern scholarship would claim "community" rather than "individual". The Johannine writings are clearly different, so it is believed that they were a completely different group from that of Mark for example.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 05, 2019, 12:06:20 PM
It’s almost like the Jesus mythos is a compilation of stories and philosophies of contemporary figures rather than just the historical accounts of one individual... ðŸ¤"
Some people have noted that in addition to the things Jesus is said to have done being the acts of more than one figure, his "philosophies" as you say probably did originate in more than one source. For example, Jesus supposedly came up with the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, but in all probability this story is based in The Tale of Khaemwese, an Egyptian fable that long predated Christianity. So either Jesus borrowed all these older beliefs and stories, or several members of the early-Christian sect contributed them to what later became what we call "the teachings of Jesus." It seems unlikely to me that all that thought was confined to one person and originated in one source. If there was a Jesus, then he likely would have encountered many people who already would share his philosophy and theology--the "proto-Christians."
So who needs a (single) Jesus when we can more easily explain gospel-theology as coming from several people working together and contributing thought to create a "new" religion? If there was a Jesus, then he probably had help!
Quote from: Jagella on July 05, 2019, 02:05:05 PMReal-Jesus apologists seem so naive claiming that different people mentioning Jesus is evidence for his historicity. But as you say, the source for Jesus was a group, and they had common beliefs and motives. So what consistency we do see in their writings about Jesus need not be based in common knowledge of a real Christ but in common beliefs about a Christ who need not be historical.
Yeah, people who use the eyewitness analogy don't understand how that works. If the Gospel writers (if we even knew who they were) were gathered up, separated into different rooms, and were asked to provide their accounts independently, then maybe you could use that analogy. However, when chronologically later Gospels quote earlier ones verbatim, then it becomes obvious what is really going on. They weren't eyewitness providing their own versions of events by memory. They were taking already existing texts and adding and taking away from it. Contradictions between Gospel books were not accidental, but the result of one author disagreeing with another and "correcting" them as they pleased
I don't think the gospel writers ever expected their work to be gathered into one book, as if they were merely chapters in a longer literary effort. I doubt that Mark's gospel, at least, was intended to be considered as literally historical, either. His gospel is a lot like the writings of Homer, as though it was intended to be a theatrical performance.
Review of The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/homerandmark.html)
Quote from: Baruch on July 05, 2019, 04:12:32 PM
That is why the Jesus Seminar attempted to tease out the "true" parts using a consistent technique. The results were controversial. John Dominic Crossan tried his own technique, though he was also a member of the Jesus Seminar...
I should point out that the methods real-Jesus apologists employ to "tease out the truth" have never been demonstrated to be effective at letting us know what is history and what is baloney. See Richard Carrier's
Proving History for good critiques of those criteria of authenticity.
QuoteModern scholarship would claim "community" rather than "individual". The Johannine writings are clearly different, so it is believed that they were a completely different group from that of Mark for example.
It's good to hear that some scholarship regarding the origins of Christianity is starting to make sense. The contradictory doctrines attributed to Jesus are difficult to explain if we assume they originated in one guy, but they are easy to explain if we see them as the result of a group effort.
At this point many real-Jesus apologists might scream: "That's a conspiracy theory!" They can call it anything they want, but they can't accurately say they have a theory that is more probable.
Finally, I don't see any of this evidence as making the historicity of Jesus necessarily improbable. It just shows that we really don't need a Jesus to explain the evidence. We only need a Jesus to help people believe they have a ticket to heaven.
Quote from: Baruch on July 05, 2019, 04:05:18 PM
I don't see consistency as the same issue. Would a perfectly logical Vulcan be ipso facto … the Messiah?
I see your point. It is not uncommon for people to change their minds on issues as one ages. I have changed my outlook on many issues over the years and probably will change even more. But then, I am not god who can see all that was and all that will be. There is no reason for such a being to change anything about his instructions for they should have been perfect when they were issued. But then Jesus is a fiction and therefore reflects common people changes in thoughts--because he is a committee construct and is clearly a fiction.
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 05, 2019, 05:40:10 PM
Yeah, people who use the eyewitness analogy don't understand how that works. If the Gospel writers (if we even knew who they were) were gathered up, separated into different rooms, and were asked to provide their accounts independently, then maybe you could use that analogy. However, when chronologically later Gospels quote earlier ones verbatim, then it becomes obvious what is really going on. They weren't eyewitness providing their own versions of events by memory. They were taking already existing texts and adding and taking away from it. Contradictions between Gospel books were not accidental, but the result of one author disagreeing with another and "correcting" them as they pleased
In other words, the accounts we have of Jesus are not independent but resulted from Christians "borrowing" ideas from each other. It seems odd how "professional" scholars tell us that these accounts are independent.
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 05, 2019, 05:51:47 PM
I don't think the gospel writers ever expected their work to be gathered into one book, as if they were merely chapters in a longer literary effort. I doubt that Mark's gospel, at least, was intended to be considered as literally historical, either. His gospel is a lot like the writings of Homer, as though it was intended to be a theatrical performance.
Review of The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/homerandmark.html)
Paul in his letters somewhere … says he demonstrated the truth of his message to the gathered people. This would have been a passion play (as later shown in Medieval European cathedrals). The story of Hercules (aka Baal) of Tarsus, was a local mystery cult in Tarsus that Paul would have been familiar with. We don't know Paul's full message. And he never expected his letters to be gathered, edited and grouped … to be read 2000 years later. To him the world would end, shortly after he was executed in Rome.
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 05, 2019, 05:51:47 PM
I don't think the gospel writers ever expected their work to be gathered into one book, as if they were merely chapters in a longer literary effort. I doubt that Mark's gospel, at least, was intended to be considered as literally historical, either. His gospel is a lot like the writings of Homer, as though it was intended to be a theatrical performance.
Review of The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/homerandmark.html)
The Jews who wrote the NT writings, were Hellenistic. They were both Jewish and Greek literate. The Homeric Epics were the Greek Pagan Bible. The Greeks invented theater, and the Romans absorbed that practice.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 05, 2019, 07:06:55 PM
I see your point. It is not uncommon for people to change their minds on issues as one ages. I have changed my outlook on many issues over the years and probably will change even more. But then, I am not god who can see all that was and all that will be. There is no reason for such a being to change anything about his instructions for they should have been perfect when they were issued. But then Jesus is a fiction and therefore reflects common people changes in thoughts--because he is a committee construct and is clearly a fiction.
In Greek philosophy (and later Christian theology) Christianity is perfect. But that POV is perfect BS from the Jewish side. We find perfection in imperfection. As Mozart used to say about classical music that had no "life" to it … it shit marble.
Christian theology has been Jewish-ignorant and Jewish-hostile from the beginning, even with genuine Paul.
Quote from: Jagella on July 05, 2019, 08:20:40 PM
In other words, the accounts we have of Jesus are not independent but resulted from Christians "borrowing" ideas from each other. It seems odd how "professional" scholars tell us that these accounts are independent.
Apologists claim that. But they aren't professional scholars. Professional scholars are theologically and historically neutral. Theologians can't do that.
The Synoptic Gospels are clearly dependent, starting with Mark. The Gospel of John is clearly independent, but ties in with Paul. There were many other Gospels, Acts etc. Scholars deny it, but Mark is clearly dependent on the Gospel of Thomas.
In my own original research, I reverse engineered the Jesus Seminar results and the independent results of Crossan. There are two parts, the "life" and the "testimony". There is no evidence that the "life" has any confirmation. The "testimony" renders down to the core of the Gospel of Thomas. The Gospel of Thomas was initially written in Greek, had additional aphorisms added, and eventually translated to Coptic … to the form we have now.
Quote from: Baruch on July 06, 2019, 05:43:01 PMQuoteIn other words, the accounts we have of Jesus are not independent but resulted from Christians "borrowing" ideas from each other. It seems odd how "professional" scholars tell us that these accounts are independent.
Apologists claim that. But they aren't professional scholars. Professional scholars are theologically and historically neutral. Theologians can't do that.
I must disagree. Many scholars are Christians especially liberal Christians, and they are not "theologically and historically neutral." Even agnostics like Bart Ehrman claim that we have independent accounts of Jesus in the New Testament. Ehrman claims to be a historian, but he has no formal training in history. So he seems to have a pro-real-Jesus bias and often argues like an apologist.
So the moral of the story is to not put too much faith in Bible scholars.
Quote from: Jagella on July 06, 2019, 05:55:14 PM
Apologists claim that. But they aren't professional scholars. Professional scholars are theologically and historically neutral. Theologians can't do that.
I must disagree. Many scholars are Christians especially liberal Christians, and they are not "theologically and historically neutral." Even agnostics like Bart Ehrman claim that we have independent accounts of Jesus in the New Testament. Ehrman claims to be a historian, but he has no formal training in history. So he seems to have a pro-real-Jesus bias and often argues like an apologist.
So the moral of the story is to not put too much faith in Bible scholars.
Professional = neutral … in my language. Doesn't imply that they are stupid or incompetent. Please watch this ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3x2SvqhfevE
I don't have the degrees of Dr Carrier etc ... but I know as much about this subject as they do. My study of Hebrew, Greek, Ugaritic, Babylonian, Egyptian, Latin and ... Sumerian confirm it.
A good Jewish rabbi can out argue just about anyone. And I know more than they do, because I am neutral and they can't be.
Quote from: Jagella on July 06, 2019, 05:55:14 PMI must disagree. Many scholars are Christians especially liberal Christians, and they are not "theologically and historically neutral." Even agnostics like Bart Ehrman claim that we have independent accounts of Jesus in the New Testament. Ehrman claims to be a historian, but he has no formal training in history. So he seems to have a pro-real-Jesus bias and often argues like an apologist.
So the moral of the story is to not put too much faith in Bible scholars.
Agree 100%. I've read or listened to on audiobook all of Ehrman's books. He makes compelling arguments in every one of is books with the conspicuous exception of "Did Jesus Exist."
I've read a lot of really, really bad arguments against the historicity of Jesus, but there are a few good ones. Ehrman claimed that he could settle the matter once and for all in that book. When he got to the punch lines of his arguments, I recall distinctly thinking, "That's it!!!???" every time. The entire book was comprehensively unpersuasive. Ehrman grew up as a fundamentalist, has no scientific training, and seems to have a great deal of difficulty accepting ambiguity.
As far as Christian scholars, even ones who have lapsed away from Christianity being not neutral, also agree 100%. When a known huckster in Israel tampered with an ancient ossuary to increase its value claiming it was the ossuary of James the brother of Jesus, Christian scholars were falling all over themselves to authenticate it. His forgery was laughable and easily spotted. This is one example of many forgeries Christian scholars lined up to authenticate.
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 05, 2019, 05:40:10 PMThey weren't eyewitness providing their own versions of events by memory. They were taking already existing texts and adding and taking away from it.
Funny thing is, there's a bible verse which condemns adding or taking away from to these sacred texts - a pretty strong hint that that was exactly what was going on.
There is not a single event in the gospels that can be verified outside the gospels. There is no documentation, no list of credits, no sources mentioned in the gospels. and Mark, which most historians believed to be the first account, was written after the first Jewish-Roman war, 66-73 CE, some 40 years after the alleged events that are supposed to have taken place.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 04, 2019, 10:53:30 PM
There is not a single event in the gospels that can be verified outside the gospels. There is no documentation, no list of credits, no sources mentioned in the gospels. and Mark, which most historians believed to be the first account, was written after the first Jewish-Roman war, 66-73 CE, some 40 years after the alleged events that are supposed to have taken place.
Plus--there is not a single writer or historian that mentioned Jesus in the life time of this supposed real life character called Jesus. At best, this is quite odd--and for me it is one of the facts surrounding 'Jesus' that proves to me he is a fiction.
Quote from: aileron on August 04, 2019, 10:40:56 PMAgree 100%. I've read or listened to on audiobook all of Ehrman's books. He makes compelling arguments in every one of is books with the conspicuous exception of "Did Jesus Exist."
As far as Ehrman's books are concerned, I've only read
Did Jesus Exist? That was enough of Ehrman for me. I found it to be poorly argued, and even libelous in some ways making false accusations against DM Murdock. I suppose few people doubted the historicity of Jesus until "historians" like Ehrman tried to prove it.
QuoteI've read a lot of really, really bad arguments against the historicity of Jesus, but there are a few good ones.
The quality of mythicist arguments does vary.
Anyway, since I'm unsure if Jesus existed, I don't argue against his historicity. I let people like Robert Price and Richard Carrier argue that Jesus didn't exist. What I do argue against is the sloppy scholarship of those who claim to be able to make a good case for the existence of Jesus. Ehrman, for example, argues that Jesus existed because he had a brother!
QuoteEhrman grew up as a fundamentalist, has no scientific training, and seems to have a great deal of difficulty accepting ambiguity.
I'd recommend you read
Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth: An Evaluation of Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? if you haven't done so already. "The empire strikes back" as the mythicists respond to what Ehrman says about them and their work. What's said about Ehrman is very revealing.
QuoteAs far as Christian scholars, even ones who have lapsed away from Christianity being not neutral, also agree 100%.
Christian apologists eat up anything said by atheists and agnostics that favors Christian beliefs. The logic of apologists is that since scholars like Ehrman are atheists, then they could have no pro-Christian bias. I'm not so sure. As you say Ehrman grew up as a Christian, but more than that he was educated in a Bible school, Wheaton College. Ehrman may have never shed some of those Christian biases.
QuoteWhen a known huckster in Israel tampered with an ancient ossuary to increase its value claiming it was the ossuary of James the brother of Jesus, Christian scholars were falling all over themselves to authenticate it. His forgery was laughable and easily spotted. This is one example of many forgeries Christian scholars lined up to authenticate.
Forgeries "proving" the existence of Jesus are legion. Although such forgeries do not demonstrate that Jesus did not exist, they do demonstrate the desperation many people feel to find substantial evidence for Jesus. If we already had very good evidence that Jesus existed, then I'm wondering why Bible scholars want so badly to find evidence for him.
To conclude, allow me to quote the opening paragraph from Bart Ehrman's Huffington Post article, Did Jesus Exist? (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544)
QuoteIn a society in which people still claim the Holocaust did not happen, and in which there are resounding claims that the American president is, in fact, a Muslim born on foreign soil, is it any surprise to learn that the greatest figure in the history of Western civilization, the man on whom the most powerful and influential social, political, economic, cultural and religious institution in the world â€" the Christian church â€" was built, the man worshipped, literally, by billions of people today â€" is it any surprise to hear that Jesus never even existed?
That's not biased?
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 05, 2019, 09:51:57 AM
Plus--there is not a single writer or historian that mentioned Jesus in the life time of this supposed real life character called Jesus. At best, this is quite odd--and for me it is one of the facts surrounding 'Jesus' that proves to me he is a fiction.
Add to that we don't have the original text. What we have are copies from scribes, done over and over, often with mistakes, insertions and deletions. And what beats it all, it was written in Greek, not in Aramaic, Jesus' supposed language.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 05, 2019, 09:59:04 AM
Add to that we don't have the original text. What we have are copies from scribes, done over and over, often with mistakes, insertions and deletions. And what beats it all, it was written in Greek, not in Aramaic, Jesus' supposed language.
That is a very important fact. Most christians believe the bible was dropped from the sky from God, intact and perfect (and written in English, of course); and they have that belief despite the fact they have not even read most of it themselves. Christians don't like to think about the bible having a history.
You are right about the bible being crafted in Greek. When Paul was writing his letters, he referred to 'scripture', and quoted from it. Most think he is referring to the NT, when in fact, it had not been crafted yet, for he was the first writer of that yet to be collection of writings. And he was referring to the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew OT--Paul never read the NT. We know this because he repeated the mistakes the Greek Translators made in the Septuagint.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 05, 2019, 09:59:04 AM
Add to that we don't have the original text. What we have are copies from scribes, done over and over, often with mistakes, insertions and deletions. And what beats it all, it was written in Greek, not in Aramaic, Jesus' supposed language.
Funny thing about the Gospels. If you ran threm through the software professors use to detect plagiarism, I'm certain half of them would come up positive. The earliest Gospel, Mark, of course would be safe because it's the one the others are cheating off of. And the one remaining, Luke, appears to at least use it's own words when describing the same things.
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 05, 2019, 10:29:35 AM
Funny thing about the Gospels. If you ran threm through the software professors use to detect plagiarism, I'm certain half of them would come up positive. The earliest Gospel, Mark, of course would be safe because it's the one the others are cheating off of. And the one remaining, Luke, appears to at least use it's own words when describing the same things.
I might suggest that all of the Christian bible is plagaristic. I don't bother to remember stuff like that much (all religious texts are about the same to me), but the Noah story came from Sumeria and the whole Eden thing seems Babylonian IIRC.
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 05, 2019, 10:29:35 AM
Funny thing about the Gospels. If you ran threm through the software professors use to detect plagiarism, I'm certain half of them would come up positive. The earliest Gospel, Mark, of course would be safe because it's the one the others are cheating off of. And the one remaining, Luke, appears to at least use it's own words when describing the same things.
Mark borrowed the Q portion from Thomas.
Quote from: Jagella on August 05, 2019, 09:56:04 AM
An Evaluation of Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist
Thank you. I was not aware of this book and will get a copy.
The historicity question for me is a matter of curiosity. It's not as if it's settled in favor of the historical Jesus I'll become convinced of anything else, but it is an interesting problem.
Quote from: aileron on August 05, 2019, 12:05:44 PM
Thank you. I was not aware of this book and will get a copy.
The historicity question for me is a matter of curiosity. It's not as if it's settled in favor of the historical Jesus I'll become convinced of anything else, but it is an interesting problem.
History is bunk - Henry Ford
Quote from: Baruch on August 05, 2019, 11:46:14 AM
Mark borrowed the Q portion from Thomas.
The existence of the Q document has't been demonstrated, has it?
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 05, 2019, 03:01:46 PM
The existence of the Q document has't been demonstrated, has it?
It is hypothetical, but there are good reasons to think it existed. For example, Marc frequently interrupts his own narrative to incorporate specific topics, but there's nothing to suggest later interpolations for most of them (there is almost certainly an interpolation at the end of the book). It's like he thinks, "Oh, yeah, I've got to add this before I forget" as he's referencing the Q source and shoehorns them in where they don't seem to belong. That's just one of the reasons why textual critics have confidence in the hypothesis.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 05, 2019, 03:01:46 PM
The existence of the Q document has't been demonstrated, has it?
Nothing has been demonstrated ... no originals ... if that is the standard. That and signed confessions of fantasizing and plagiarism would be nice!
There is a whole literature on Q. But for Historical Jesus narrative, it is important to dismiss the relationship between Q and Thomas. Back in the day, I examined the relationship in detail (mid 90s) without the need for a controlling narrative. The excuse, technically, for the "establishment" to dismiss Thomas, is because:
1. we don't have a full copy of a Greek original, just fragments but ...
2. it is suggestive that the full Coptic version (which seems second generation), was translated from the Greek
3. the structure of Q is assumed to be that of Q-in-Luke, not Q-in-Matthew or Q-in-Mark.
4. if Mark has priority over Matthew or Luke, then implies academic arm twisting of the conclusion
5. so if the original order of sayings is random, because order should show "newer" rather than "older"
6. and given that the Q-in-Luke order is necessary to support the Luke "acts of Jesus" narrative ...
Then a Greek Thomas, original version (not based on second generation Coptic text) would be the original form. And given that a "Sayings" document (not a Gospel at all) is going to be, complexity wise, earlier ... then an original Greek Thomas is closest to the original Jesus "sayings" tradition. Some individual verse judgements by the Jesus Seminar put Thomas as before Mark (clue). And at one point I wrote out a color coded version of the "Q" per Jesus Seminar. Remembering that I was taking the orthogonal method of Crossan into account as well (control).
So one can reconstruct a Greek original Thomas, from the second generation Coptic Thomas, with observations of the other three comparable Gospels (not the whole apocryphal literature). This aren't the original words of Jesus, because there was no such person. But like trying many centuries on, trying to determine for Lawrence of Arabia which version of Seven Pillars of Wisdom reflects Lawrence's original vision. Lawrence rewrote and republished that book several times. And having done that, one is still left with whether any of what Lawrence describes (his rape by the Turkish governor in Daara in particular) as being factual or not.
So yes, there can never, even in orthodox circles, even be a universal agreement on Q ... because apologetics/polemics. And there can't be a plausible acknowledgement that original Greek Thomas has priority over the 4 Gospels ... again because of apologetics/polemics between Historical Jesus scholars. But I am utterly convinced both of Q and the priority of Thomas. For what it is worth. Because ancient literature is bollocks anyway.
A similar analysis of the acts of Jesus, show that basically none of it is plausible. Fantasy novellas. Also that the content of Paul's letters, would indicate that the views of the Johannine community came before that of the Mark/Matthew/Luke communities. And the Didache also speaks volumes as to how early Pauline Church went.
So why did this remnant heretical Jewish literature become so damn important? Could just as well have been Paul's wife's grocery list "A Canticle for Leibowitz"
The issue of Jesus' physical existence has never been resolved. At best, scholar's today accept a wondering rabbi, called something like 'Yeshua bar Yusuf' probably existed in first century Judea. That he may have upset the wrong people and gotten himself crucified. Judea was neck deep in wondering rabbis at that time. Literally thousands of Jews were crucified by the Romans during the Roman occupation. There's nothing very remarkable about the likely life and death of Yesua bar Yusuf
The collected writings known as the "New Testament" have little if anything to do with a real person. These writing are the mythology of Christianity.
Yeshua may have begun a small Jewish sect. Initially, one had to be Jewish or convert to Judaism to belong. That included the keeping the mitzvah of the bris (circumcision) and dietary laws. Yeshua apparently taught at he would return 'soon' That is, that his disciples believed he his return was imminent, or would at least return during the lifetimes of the disciples. When he did not return, the sect would have faded away. Then along came Paul----
The New Testament records Jesus as saying he would not change the law 'by a jot or a tittle'(Matthew 5;18) nor did he. But Paul did. It was he who abolished the ritual commandments, such as circumcision, and allowed gentiles to join. The new sect was very popular with the marginalised of society, especially slaves and women. It grew quickly.
The Religion called Christianity should perhaps be more correctly called 'Paulism'
To answer the question: I'm pretty confident that the man, the devout rabbi, Yeshua/Jesus probably lived as he taught. However, because we know nothing about this man ,we don't really know how he acted.
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))
*Matthew 5:18 "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
References;"Misquoting Jesus" Bart Ehrlman, 'Paul; The Mind Of The Apostle' A N Wilson.
Quote from: fredd47 on August 05, 2019, 10:19:00 PM
The issue of Jesus' physical existence has never been resolved. At best, scholar's today accept a wondering rabbi, called something like 'Yeshua bar Yusuf' probably existed in first century Judea. That he may have upset the wrong people and gotten himself crucified. Judea was neck deep in wondering rabbis at that time. Literally thousands of Jews were crucified by the Romans during the Roman occupation. There's nothing very remarkable about the likely life and death of Yesua bar Yusuf
The collected writings known as the "New Testament" have little if anything to do with a real person. These writing are the mythology of Christianity.
Yeshua may have begun a small Jewish sect. Initially, one had to be Jewish or convert to Judaism to belong. That included the keeping the mitzvah of the bris (circumcision) and dietary laws. Yeshua apparently taught at he would return 'soon' That is, that his disciples believed he his return was imminent, or would at least return during the lifetimes of the disciples. When he did not return, the sect would have faded away. Then along came Paul----
The New Testament records Jesus as saying he would not change the law 'by a jot or a tittle'(Matthew 5;18) nor did he. But Paul did. It was he who abolished the ritual commandments, such as circumcision, and allowed gentiles to join. The new sect was very popular with the marginalised of society, especially slaves and women. It grew quickly.
The Religion called Christianity should perhaps be more correctly called 'Paulism'
To answer the question: I'm pretty confident that the man, the devout rabbi, Yeshua/Jesus probably lived as he taught. However, because we know nothing about this man ,we don't really know how he acted.
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))
*Matthew 5:18 "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
References;"Misquoting Jesus" Bart Ehrlman, 'Paul; The Mind Of The Apostle' A N Wilson.
You know that when you quote the christian text, you are talking about things written a century or two after the alleged apostles' deaths, right?
Quote from: Cavebear on August 08, 2019, 01:59:53 PM
You know that when you quote the christian text, you are talking about things written a century or two after the alleged apostles' deaths, right?
Correct the first semi-complete copies are dated 200 CE, plus-minus 50 years.
And no one has the slightest idea who wrote any of the NT, it's completely anonymous.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 08, 2019, 02:04:06 PM
And no one has the slightest idea who wrote any of the NT, it's completely anonymous.
Correct. Spin agents added the names at the tops of the books, years later. All old copies are missing the authorship. While it is plausible that Paul wrote much of the Pauline letters, by style analysis, that doesn't mean that Paul ever existed either. Paul mentions himself, but that isn't disproof of hoax. This is why relying on historical evidence for religion is shaky.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 08, 2019, 02:04:06 PM
And no one has the slightest idea who wrote any of the NT, it's completely anonymous.
This is true for the Gospels and Acts (same author as Luke), but some of the Epistles are likely from Paul. Of course we know nothing about Paul other than from his letters.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Quote from: aileron on August 11, 2019, 12:45:36 PM
This is true for the Gospels and Acts (same author as Luke), but some of the Epistles are likely from Paul. Of course we know nothing about Paul other than from his letters.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Crossan did a nice reconstruction of what the world of Paul would have looked like, based on contemporary scholarship and archeology. Paul (at least the literary character ... remembering that we don't even know if Shakespeare authored Shakespeare) was a 1st century Hellenized Jew. Pro-Roman, pacifist, millennialist. And his anticipation of mass conversion of Jews never happened. His anticipation of apocalypse never happened. It is known, by reconstruction, what the world of such a person would be like. Paul was mostly recruiting Gentile associates (god fearers) and Gentile converts, out of the synagogues. That is why the rabbis wanted him dead.
Quote from: Baruch on August 11, 2019, 01:14:03 PM
Crossan did a nice reconstruction of what the world of Paul would have looked like, based on contemporary scholarship and archeology. Paul (at least the literary character ... remembering that we don't even know if Shakespeare authored Shakespeare) was a 1st century Hellenized Jew. Pro-Roman, pacifist, millennialist. And his anticipation of mass conversion of Jews never happened. His anticipation of apocalypse never happened. It is known, by reconstruction, what the world of such a person would be like. Paul was mostly recruiting Gentile associates (god fearers) and Gentile converts, out of the synagogues. That is why the rabbis wanted him dead.
You know your textual criticism much better than your philosophy of science.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the War Room!
-- President Merkin Muffley
Quote from: aileron on August 11, 2019, 01:23:13 PM
You know your textual criticism much better than your philosophy of science.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the War Room!
-- President Merkin Muffley
Ask Joe if reductionism is false. Bwahah.
Quote from: Baruch on August 11, 2019, 01:25:03 PM
Ask Joe if reductionism is false. Bwahah.
Iam a reductionist. I'm merely stating that you're misinterpreting it. Your textual criticism is obviously spot on.
Quote from: aileron on August 11, 2019, 01:30:16 PM
Iam a reductionist. I'm merely stating that you're misinterpreting it. Your textual criticism is obviously spot on.
Reductionism is a philosophy. Philosophy of science is a philosophy. Neither are science. Philosophy is one of the Humanities.
It is hard to avoid reductionism if you assume materialism.
Yes, as I have said even recently, if you don't even attempt to read the evidence in the original ancient languages, then you are pretty much at the mercy of academics who are pushing an agenda (say pro-Christian or anti-Christian). That and read opposing academics, to cancel out their agendas.
Quote from: Baruch on August 11, 2019, 01:34:11 PM
Reductionism is a philosophy. Philosophy of science is a philosophy. Neither are science. Philosophy is one of the Humanities.
It is hard to avoid reductionism if you assume materialism.
Yes, as I have said even recently, if you don't even attempt to read the evidence in the original ancient languages, then you are pretty much at the mercy of academics who are pushing an agenda (say pro-Christian or anti-Christian). That and read opposing academics, to cancel out their agendas.
The problem is you agreed with someone else that elements of reductionism are assumptions. They are not. They are working (in the sense of all "until and unless a better explanation comes along") conclusions, not assumptions. Your definition of science is far too restrictive of you think a working conclusion is philosophy.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the War Room!
-- President Merkin Muffley
Quote from: Baruch on August 11, 2019, 01:34:11 PM
Reductionism is a philosophy. Philosophy of science is a philosophy. Neither are science. Philosophy is one of the Humanities.
It is hard to avoid reductionism if you assume materialism.
Yes, as I have said even recently, if you don't even attempt to read the evidence in the original ancient languages, then you are pretty much at the mercy of academics who are pushing an agenda (say pro-Christian or anti-Christian). That and read opposing academics, to cancel out their agendas.
No you idiot, the opposite to reductionism is holism. Me thinks you don't even know the definition of reductionism - you just use as if it's fashionable or cool.
Quote from: Baruch on August 11, 2019, 01:34:11 PM
Philosophy is one of the Humanities.
Oh, the humanities! So, that's what the reporter was talking about when the Hindenburg burned up!
Gentlemen, you can't post in here. This is the forum!
LOL
Quote from: aileron on August 11, 2019, 02:34:37 PM
The problem is you agreed with someone else that elements of reductionism are assumptions. They are not. They are working (in the sense of all "until and unless a better explanation comes along") conclusions, not assumptions. Your definition of science is far too restrictive of you think a working conclusion is philosophy.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the War Room!
-- President Merkin Muffley
My assumptions are not assumptions. Your assumptions are assumptions. Why? Because I am woke and you are not (makes raspberry).
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 11, 2019, 04:22:14 PM
No you idiot, the opposite to reductionism is holism. Me thinks you don't even know the definition of reductionism - you just use as if it's fashionable or cool.
There are no opposites, just complements. Study Hegel. But yes, holism is a thing. Not being discussed, but it is what I experience.
The greatest reductionism is Pythagoreanism ... only math exists ... or better, only the positive integers exist (and no zero).
I think that reductionism works in many cases (where components are not tightly coupled). This starts to fail in QT. Probably totally fails in "totality". But we can't do holism as a science. We can't even compute the results of most realistic QFT equation situations. With the "big plate of spaghetti in the sky" aka Flying Spaghetti Monster ... you can't even write down the equations. The problem is a hammer thinks all of reality is just nails. Or Plato thinks all his students are stud muffins.
Quote from: Baruch on August 08, 2019, 02:25:40 PM
Correct. Spin agents added the names at the tops of the books, years later. All old copies are missing the authorship. While it is plausible that Paul wrote much of the Pauline letters, by style analysis, that doesn't mean that Paul ever existed either. Paul mentions himself, but that isn't disproof of hoax. This is why relying on historical evidence for religion is shaky.
You surprise me sometimes. Like now. So many biblical adherents assume the texts as currently written...
Quote from: Baruch on August 11, 2019, 06:32:42 PM
There are no opposites, just complements..
Get yourself an education, ignoramus. One reduces, the other sees as a whole.
QuoteStudy Hegel
Liar. It's clear to me you never read Hegel.
If I understand correctly, reductionism is reducing a complex argument to simple parts. I'm not sure that is a false way of examining complex problems. Examining difficult problems in detail seems reasonable.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 12, 2019, 05:48:48 AM
If I understand correctly, reductionism is reducing a complex argument to simple parts. I'm not sure that is a false way of examining complex problems. Examining difficult problems in detail seems reasonable.
Baruch is anything but reasonable. You have to take him as a holistic nutjob.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 12, 2019, 05:51:44 AM
Baruch is anything but reasonable...
He used to be "sort of". People change.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 12, 2019, 05:41:58 AM
You surprise me sometimes. Like now. So many biblical adherents assume the texts as currently written...
Projecting. Do you think I am the Pope, Chuck Hagee? It does't take a lot of maturity (but still uncommon) that texts are weak soup.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 12, 2019, 05:48:48 AM
If I understand correctly, reductionism is reducing a complex argument to simple parts. I'm not sure that is a false way of examining complex problems. Examining difficult problems in detail seems reasonable.
It works in some situations. When a thing has many parts, that are weakly coupled ... it is possible to "take it apart". But not every problem fits that profile. So materialism or naturalism is ... one of the thousands of ways to ... "all I have is a hammer, so you must be a nail". That is not to say, that using a hammer is wrong.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 12, 2019, 05:42:31 AM
Get yourself an education, ignoramus. One reduces, the other sees as a whole.Liar. It's clear to me you never read Hegel.
Endless old man "Get off my grass!".
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 12, 2019, 05:51:44 AM
Baruch is anything but reasonable. You have to take him as a holistic nutjob.
Holism works sometimes. It is my speciality. Just as reductionism is yours. Can't we all get along? Or does the Dental association have to kill off the Medical association?
Quote from: Cavebear on August 12, 2019, 05:53:20 AM
He used to be "sort of". People change.
Baruch's theory of Progressive relativity ...
So I am in a train car, and things start moving gently. I see another train on the other track moving opposite to me. So ... am I standing still and the other train is moving, or am I moving and the other train is standing still or are we both moving (and that option has sub options).
So by analogy ... have I changed, or has the crowd here changed, or both? People who point fingers get boogers on their fingers.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 12, 2019, 05:53:20 AM
He used to be "sort of". People change.
If one is interested, go back 2 years of more in Baruch's posts and read some of those. It is almost like two different people.
Quote from: Baruch on August 12, 2019, 06:27:13 AM
Holism works sometimes. It is my speciality. Just as reductionism is yours. Can't we all get along? Or does the Dental association have to kill off the Medical association?
That was not the issue. You claim there are not opposite when they are: one reduces to smallest part, the other looks at the whole. Now that you think the latter is better than the former, that's your take, not mine.
Quote from: Baruch on August 12, 2019, 06:25:45 AM
Endless old man "Get off my grass!".
No, it's "get on the train of education, dumbass." I know that you're helpless, but as an educator, I can't help myself when I see such sheer ignorance.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 12, 2019, 09:27:15 AM
If one is interested, go back 2 years of more in Baruch's posts and read some of those. It is almost like two different people.
Says you! Don't pay attention to the prior avatar, Spinoza ...
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 12, 2019, 09:35:15 AM
No, it's "get on the train of education, dumbass." I know that you're helpless, but as an educator, I can't help myself when I see such sheer ignorance.
I'll admit I don't have a lot of experience teaching. Probably said it before. Your personality doesn't come across as ... educator appropriate.
Quote from: Baruch on August 12, 2019, 09:38:13 AM
Your personality doesn't come across as ... educator appropriate.
....says the shit disturber. No one would be your educator appropriate. Most likely you would be thrown out class on the first day.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 12, 2019, 09:42:18 AM
....says the shit disturber. No one would be your educator appropriate. Most likely you would be thrown out class on the first day.
Not even as recently as 2017. I passed Egyptian Arabic, in an informal class taught by an Egyptian. And the teacher was probably a lot prettier than you. One of the most spectacularly beautiful women I have ever seen, and smart too.
Quote from: Baruch on August 12, 2019, 09:47:31 AM
Not even as recently as 2017. I passed Egyptian Arabic, in an informal class taught by an Egyptian. And the teacher was probably a lot prettier than you. One of the most spectacularly beautiful women I have ever seen, and smart too.
Sexist. You probably watch FoxNews because all the pretty women show their long legs. Any woman shouldn't come near you without a ten-foot pole.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 12, 2019, 09:54:09 AM
Sexist. You probably watch FoxNews because all the pretty women show their long legs. Any woman shouldn't come near you without a ten-foot pole.
Feminist beta male ;-) Do you give your woman any attention? Or are you too busy worshipping the ground she walks on ;-))
Quote from: Baruch on August 12, 2019, 09:59:06 AM
Feminist beta male ;-) Do you give your woman any attention? Or are you too busy worshipping the ground she walks on ;-))
Your world seems to be centered on worshiping - Trump, FoxNews, and assorted immaterial woo-woo things. Maybe you should get out more frequently...
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 12, 2019, 10:03:01 AM
Your world seems to be centered on worshiping - Trump, FoxNews, and assorted immaterial woo-woo things. Maybe you should get out more frequently...
Not at all. But it can seem that way. We have cognitive models in our heads, and we assess other people based on those cognitive models. I this case, more of a projection of some prior version of yourself. Doesn't match up well. On the other hand, I have had college physics. I remember what the professors are like. So I have maybe a better model of what you are like. You don't seem to have much commonality with me otherwise.
Quote from: Baruch on August 12, 2019, 10:07:18 AM
You don't seem to have much commonality with me otherwise.
And I don't wish anyone to have "commonality" with you. No one deserves to be so cursed...
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 12, 2019, 10:11:12 AM
And I don't wish anyone to have "commonality" with you. No one deserves to be so cursed...
See, you are obsessed. Should we date? You talk like my Ex.
Quote from: Baruch on August 12, 2019, 10:14:15 AM
See, you are obsessed. Should we date? You talk like my Ex.
Nice try to divert the conversation. Typical of your idol Trump isn't it, divert to avoid embarrassment or hide your ignorance. Like your idol, build a wall, you're being invaded...
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 12, 2019, 10:19:48 AM
Nice try to divert the conversation. Typical of your idol Trump isn't it, divert to avoid embarrassment or hide your ignorance. Like your idol, build a wall, you're being invaded...
Maybe continue this in the other thread, when it already is being waged? I don't mind you shagging politicians. The dogs deserve it.
Quote from: Baruch on August 12, 2019, 10:24:21 AM
Maybe continue this in the other thread, when it already is being waged? I don't mind you shagging politicians. The dogs deserve it.
And I thought kibitzing was your favorite game... oh well...
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 12, 2019, 10:28:35 AM
And I thought kibitzing was your favorite game... oh well...
Yes. But you aren't kibitzing. You are simply hijacking the whole thread. As a distraction from Jesus.
Quote from: Baruch on August 12, 2019, 10:31:06 AM
Yes. But you aren't kibitzing. You are simply hijacking the whole thread.
Oh how rich is that coming from the guy who has been hijacking just about every thread for the last 4 years...
Quote from: Cavebear on August 12, 2019, 05:48:48 AM
If I understand correctly, reductionism is reducing a complex argument to simple parts. I'm not sure that is a false way of examining complex problems. Examining difficult problems in detail seems reasonable.
At the risk of greatly oversimplifying, reductionism means that complex interactions up to and including human consciousness follow the same rules as simple interactions of fundamental particles. So for example we can describe and predict the behavior of a small collection of particles using Quantum Field Theory, often times using Path Integral Formulations devised by Richard Feynman. We can't use these techniques to describe and predict the behavior of a person, but it's not because somewhere up the chain from a few particles to a huge number of particles the particles start to behave differently. It's because the computational complexity is simply out of the question.
As a side note, in modern physics using terms like "prediction" needs a bit of explaining. Interactions between particles are probabilistic, not deterministic. This is not because of incomplete knowledge or computational complexity as is the case with the use of probability and statistics in domains like thermodynamics. The particles really behave probabilistically. So when discussing "prediction" the predictions are of the probability of future state given a present state.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 12, 2019, 09:54:09 AM
Sexist. You probably watch FoxNews because all the pretty women show their long legs. Any woman shouldn't come near you without a ten-foot pole.
That's probably true of most people who watch FUX Gnus.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 12, 2019, 02:48:19 PM
That's probably true of most people who watch FUX Gnus.
It has been demonstrated that the longer people watch faux the stupider they become.
And that they actually know less than people who watch no news at all.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 12, 2019, 10:35:23 AM
Oh how rich is that coming from the guy who has been hijacking just about every thread for the last 4 years...
Highjack not equal to kibitz. Also I respond mostly, not initiate. I am happy to add distraction to a string that has already gone astray.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 12, 2019, 02:48:19 PM
That's probably true of most people who watch FUX Gnus.
Are Democrats eunuchs? Sexless? Is that how you avoid all gender pronouns?
Quote from: aileron on August 12, 2019, 10:41:24 AM
At the risk of greatly oversimplifying, reductionism means that complex interactions up to and including human consciousness follow the same rules as simple interactions of fundamental particles. So for example we can describe and predict the behavior of a small collection of particles using Quantum Field Theory, often times using Path Integral Formulations devised by Richard Feynman. We can't use these techniques to describe and predict the behavior of a person, but it's not because somewhere up the chain from a few particles to a huge number of particles the particles start to behave differently. It's because the computational complexity is simply out of the question.
As a side note, in modern physics using terms like "prediction" needs a bit of explaining. Interactions between particles are probabilistic, not deterministic. This is not because of incomplete knowledge or computational complexity as is the case with the use of probability and statistics in domains like thermodynamics. The particles really behave probabilistically. So when discussing "prediction" the predictions are of the probability of future state given a present state.
That is the philosophy. But there are problems with it (it is a philosophy, not science). Philosophy only adds newer/better questions, it never provides answers.
Scientism is related, but one could follow "scientism" without being reductionist. Scientism is also a philosophy. It isn't the same as "current scientific method".
Epiphenomenalism is another. Namely that by combining simple elements, if you have enough elements in complicated enough arrangement, that new qualitative things happen like life and consciousness. This is also a philosophy, not a science.
Vitalism mostly is debunked, because organic molecules can be produced by non-organic means. However the manner in which advanced cells came about, is missing, because they weren't fossilized. That leaves an unavoidable pre-Cambrian gap. But we can accept that living cells/flora/fauna exist, even if we don't fully understand them. We won't get better info on this, unless we can extend exobiology to the newly discovered exoplanets. With mind, there is "The Consciousness Problem". The attempt is made, to skip over this problem (given that we don't have a lot of fossils details on brains) by assuming, that a computer program is conscious (AI).
The materialist argument for reductionism, scientism, epiphenomenalism ... is "there is no other choice". Much like the arguments in favor of superstrings.
I definitely don't support reductionism (as a panacea). I don't support in-organicism (rocks and cats are the same). I don't support AI (other than as flawed algorithms for video game non-human players).
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 12, 2019, 05:33:47 PM
And that they actually know less than people who watch no news at all.
If you avoid the news, you avoid both CIA and KGB brainwashing. But you have a dirtier mind ;-)
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 12, 2019, 02:48:19 PM
That's probably true of most people who watch FUX Gnus.
CNN, for total fools.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 12, 2019, 05:30:34 PM
It has been demonstrated that the longer people watch faux the stupider they become.
But they are helped in Bible studies and cleaning their assault weapons.
Quote from: Baruch on August 12, 2019, 06:15:39 PM
That is the philosophy. But there are problems with it (it is a philosophy, not science).
No, it's not. It's a scientific proposition. It's mathematically precise and makes quantifiable, testable predictions.
Quote from: aileron on August 12, 2019, 06:45:32 PM
No, it's not. It's a scientific proposition. It's mathematically precise and makes quantifiable, testable predictions.
If by that, you mean the three items I listed, then I must respectfully disagree. But that is philosophy for you ;-)
Current quantitative scientific method is very good at what it does. But those other things are not.
Quote from: Baruch on August 12, 2019, 06:52:19 PM
If by that, you mean the three items I listed, then I must respectfully disagree. But that is philosophy for you ;-)
Current quantitative scientific method is very good at what it does. But those other things are not.
The "other things" like the so-called conscientiousness problem? It's probably only a problem because of our conceit. Many long-intractable scientific problems turned out to be a problem of conceit.
Quote from: aileron on August 12, 2019, 07:07:07 PM
The "other things" like the so-called conscientiousness problem? It's probably only a problem because of our conceit. Many scientific problems were a problem of conceit.
Yes, materialists are expected to "talk down" humanity.
Quote from: Baruch on August 12, 2019, 07:09:11 PM
Yes, materialists are expected to "talk down" humanity.
Is-ought fallacy. Hume is waging a finger disapprovingly.
Quote from: Baruch on August 12, 2019, 06:05:03 PM
Highjack not equal to kibitz. Also I respond mostly, not initiate. I am happy to add distraction to a string that has already gone astray.
Oh so now you even play God with this forum. That alone deserves a ban.
Quote from: aileron on August 12, 2019, 07:17:29 PM
Is-ought fallacy. Hume is waging a finger disapprovingly.
I took an online philosophy survey a few years ago. Not greatly to my surprise, I was 100% Kant and 75% Hume. I just laugh reading modern philosophers.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 12, 2019, 09:01:55 PM
I took an online philosophy survey a few years ago. Not greatly to my surprise, I was 100% Kant and 75% Hume. I just laugh reading modern philosophers.
You know, that is a combination that tends toward spontaneous combustion? Kant + Hume = a priori Scottish skepticism? Might hurt your a posteriori if you do that ;-)
Quote from: aileron on August 12, 2019, 07:17:29 PM
Is-ought fallacy. Hume is waging a finger disapprovingly.
Haha ... good one. Oh shit .. you weren't kidding?
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 12, 2019, 07:23:00 PM
Oh so now you even play God with this forum. That alone deserves a ban.
Which is your only reason for returning, right? Because as Professor ... you get to F anyone you disagree with?
Quote from: Baruch on August 12, 2019, 11:17:08 PM
Which is your only reason for returning, right? Because as Professor ... you get to F anyone you disagree with?
No, the F is just for you...
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 12, 2019, 11:36:54 PM
No, the F is just for you...
Which is why ... you seem to be violating our truce.
Quote from: Baruch on August 12, 2019, 11:39:21 PM
Which is why ... you seem to be violating our truce.
That truce is not worth the paper it's written on... oh wait,
it's the internet, so it's worthless...
Quote from: Baruch on August 12, 2019, 11:17:08 PM
Which is your only reason for returning, right? Because as Professor ... you get to F anyone you disagree with?
The F was just a grade suggestion, right? We wouldn't want you to be "F"ing around with a retired Professor who gets things slightly wrong sometimes.
Quote from: Baruch on August 12, 2019, 11:16:25 PM
Haha ... good one. Oh shit .. you weren't kidding?
Not at all. It is an is-ought fallacy you're stating. I am not a reductionist because I want to "talk down" humanity. Humanity ought to be possessed of an immaterial, immortal soul... And Santa Clause ought to be real. That's the "ought". The "is" is that the best working conclusion leaves no room for the supernatural or the jolly old fat guy.
Quote from: Baruch on August 12, 2019, 07:09:11 PM
Yes, materialists are expected to "talk down" humanity.
Down from what?... oh wait, I get it, from spirituality, which exists only in your head. You should join Arik's debunked theory. The two of you would be a great match, like the Thompson twins, not the band, but in Tintin...Dupont et Dupont...
Quote from: aileron on August 12, 2019, 11:46:21 PM
Not at all. It is an is-ought fallacy you're stating. I am not a reductionist because I want to "talk down" humanity. Humanity ought to be possessed of an immaterial, immortal soul... And Santa Clause ought to be real. That's the "ought". The "is" is that the best working conclusion leaves no room for the supernatural or the jolly old fat guy.
OK. Please don't turn into Joe. And you might explore number systems with more digits than binary.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 12, 2019, 11:53:52 PM
Down from what?... oh wait, I get it, from spirituality, which exists only in your head. You should join Arik's debunked theory. The two of you would be a great match, like the Thompson twins, not the band, but in Tintin...Dupont et Dupont...
Everyone here is a misanthropist. But you didn't realize that. Actually I disagree with Arik on several things. But I at least respect him.
Quote from: Baruch on August 12, 2019, 11:57:17 PM
OK. Please don't turn into Joe. And you might explore number systems with more digits than binary.
I use decimal and hexadecimal all the time.
Quote from: Baruch on August 12, 2019, 11:58:26 PM
Everyone here is a misanthropist
.
Aren't you fed up of looking in the mirror and talking about yourself?
QuoteActually I disagree with Arik on several things. But I at least respect him.
The two of you should get a motel room.
Quote from: aileron on August 13, 2019, 12:00:33 AM
I use decimal and hexadecimal all the time.
No wonder you are confused ;-) Please use just one at a time. Or go Babylonian (base 60).
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 13, 2019, 12:03:52 AM
.
Aren't you fed up of looking in the mirror and talking about yourself? The two of you should get a motel room.
That was funny. Did you find where you put your humor?
Quote from: Baruch on August 13, 2019, 12:05:28 AM
No wonder you are confused ;-) Please use just one at a time. Or go Babylonian (base 60).
Fun fact... You can calculate any digit of pi in hexadecimal without having to compute the digits that precede it. I wish I could say I've read the proof, but I haven't. I'll take their word for it. It works when I programmed it.
Quote from: Baruch on August 13, 2019, 12:06:07 AM
That was funny. Did you find where you put your humor?
One doesn't need to find what one never lost. But anywhere there is compost, I find yours.
Wow, you leave a topic for an hour and then none of it makes any sense!
Quote from: aileron on August 13, 2019, 12:08:21 AM
Fun fact... You can calculate any digit of pi in hexadecimal without having to compute the digits that precede it. I wish I could say I've read the proof, but I haven't. I'll take their word for it. It works when I programmed it.
There is a mention of this in Wiki in the section covering the calculation of Pi. I believe this is true for all number bases. It is a very strange property. There are many transcendental numbers, and the digits are pseudorandom, but not all pseudorandom number sequences are equal. Some have properties not possessed by others. In particular, the idea that you don't have to pre-calculate prior digits is ... counterintuitive. I am pretty sure, that there is no equivalent property for "e". On the other hand, calculating a particular property for a particular number can be "hard" ... such as arithmetical combinations of even known transcendental numbers, we can't prove yet if the result is also transcendental.
And some number theory properties of a given number, only apply in certain number bases ;-( So basically the scope for exceptions is unlimited, since general rules are increasingly of limited scope.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 13, 2019, 12:15:16 AM
Wow, you leave a topic for an hour and then none of it makes any sense!
I think we've safely concluded that Jesus did not practice what he preached. Now it's just a spiral of escalating virtual violence. You know, the usual.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 13, 2019, 12:15:16 AM
Wow, you leave a topic for an hour and then none of it makes any sense!
It's called BARUCHIAN RHAPSODY.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 13, 2019, 12:15:16 AM
Wow, you leave a topic for an hour and then none of it makes any sense!
I prefer "free verse" ... Joe prefers strict "heroic hexameter".
Quote from: Baruch on August 13, 2019, 12:18:40 AM
I prefer "free verse" ... Joe prefers strict "heroic hexameter".
I prefer rhythm and blues, but why am I telling that, you tone-deaf...
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 13, 2019, 12:23:50 AM
I prefer rhythm and blues, but why am I telling that, you tone-deaf...
With improv? No, that is jazz. In comparison I prefer jazz. A riff on a common chord.
Quote from: Baruch on August 13, 2019, 12:25:17 AM
With improv? No, that is jazz. In comparison I prefer jazz. A riff on a common chord.
Inside joke: A blues guitarist plays 3 chords in front of thousands of people, a jazz guitarist plays a thousands chords in front of 3 people.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 13, 2019, 12:37:01 AM
Best Snark of the Year!
Better than you posers realize. Given "Bohemian Rhapsody" matches up with my Bohemian grandmother.
Quote from: Baruch on August 13, 2019, 01:54:38 AM
Better than you posers realize. Given "Bohemian Rhapsody" matches up with my Bohemian grandmother.
'Bohemian Rhapsody' isn't popular because of your grandmother any more than 'Stairway To Heaven' is a religious reference or 'White Rabbit' is about bunnies.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 13, 2019, 03:48:39 AM
'Bohemian Rhapsody' isn't popular because of your grandmother any more than 'Stairway To Heaven' is a religious reference or 'White Rabbit' is about bunnies.
Insult my grandmother .. you become bear rug ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on August 13, 2019, 05:52:16 AM
Insult my grandmother .. you become bear rug ;-)
You're straying away from the doctrine: Hitler loved German dogs. Get with the program...
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 13, 2019, 06:47:04 AM
You're straying away from the doctrine: Hitler loved German dogs. Get with the program...
So did Frederick the Great. That should have been a clue for his opponents.
Quote from: Baruch on August 13, 2019, 05:52:16 AM
Insult my grandmother .. you become bear rug ;-)
"Yo gramma so fat, she has to buy 3 airline tickets. And the seats cross da aisle, dude"...
(made that one up here and now)
Quote from: Baruch on August 13, 2019, 10:22:10 AM
So did Frederick the Great. That should have been a clue for his opponents.
and what clue would that be?
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 15, 2019, 01:17:24 PM
and what clue would that be?
Ooh, ooh, Baruch, that could be an "Adam Ruins Everything" episode.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 15, 2019, 01:17:24 PM
and what clue would that be?
Dog lovers. Reincarnated pit bulls ;-)
Quote from: Cavebear on August 15, 2019, 01:21:10 PM
Ooh, ooh, Baruch, that could be an "Adam Ruins Everything" episode.
You mean .. all conceptions of US society are false? But have a good laugh over that? I am already there.
Quote from: Baruch on August 15, 2019, 01:41:14 PM
You mean .. all conceptions of US society are false? But have a good laugh over that? I am already there.
I ignore half his stuff. The other half, I think about. I'll give Adam one thing, he plays a sincere host!
Quote from: Baruch on August 15, 2019, 01:39:34 PM
Dog lovers. Reincarnated pit bulls ;-)
I see your logic: Frederick the Great had dogs, which was a clue for his opponents, which were reincarnated pit bulls... Oh well, a lot shit in that brain of yours...
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 15, 2019, 02:49:16 PM
I see your logic: Frederick the Great had dogs, which was a clue for his opponents, which were reincarnated pit bulls... Oh well, a lot shit in that brain of yours...
Some shit is better than other shit.
Quote from: Baruch on August 15, 2019, 07:49:00 PM
Some shit is better than other shit.
Only if it contains gold...
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 15, 2019, 07:50:54 PM
Only if it contains gold...
Mine is pure gold. Your's is fools gold ;-))
Quote from: Baruch on August 15, 2019, 07:51:33 PM
Mine is pure gold. Your's is fools gold ;-))
Archimedes would differ...