Did Jesus practice what he preached?

[Baruch]

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.

[aileron]

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

[Baruch]

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.

[aileron]

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.

[Baruch]

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.

[aileron]

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

[josephpalazzo]

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.

[Unbeliever]

Philosophy is one of the Humanities.

Oh, the humanities! So, that's what the reporter was talking about when the Hindenburg burned up!

[Unbeliever]

Gentlemen, you can't post in here. This is the forum!

LOL

[Baruch]

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).

[Baruch]

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.

[Cavebear]

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...

[josephpalazzo]

There are no opposites, just complements..

Get yourself an education, ignoramus. One reduces, the other sees as a whole.

Study Hegel

Liar. It's clear to me you never read Hegel.

[Cavebear]

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.

[josephpalazzo]

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.