... truth is objective ... truth stemming from God — Blake4508

This is an assertion. The truth of that assertion may not be questioned by Rommen, but it has not been objectively established

Since the Church was designated as the mouthpiece of God — Blake4508

More precisely, the Church designated itself as the mouthpiece.

Hellenistic Judaism was a form of Judaism that combined Jewish religious tradition with elements of Greek culture. — Apollodorus

In support of this you cite Gruen, but things are not so simple and straightforward.

- Erich S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition — Apollodorus

From the publisher:

How did the Jews accommodate themselves to the larger cultural world of the Mediterranean while at the same time reasserting the character of their own heritage within it? Erich Gruen's work highlights Jewish creativity, ingenuity, and inventiveness, as the Jews engaged actively with the traditions of Hellas, adapting genres and transforming legends to articulate their own legacy in modes congenial to a Hellenistic setting.

https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520235069/heritage-and-hellenism)

In Gruen's own words:

How did ancient societies come to articulate their own identities? The question presents numerous difficulties and stumbling blocks. One topic of inquiry, however, may bring some useful results. I refer to the manipulation of myths, the reshaping of traditions, the elaboration of legends, fictions, and inventions, the recasting of ostensibly alien cultural legacies with the aim of defining or reinforcing a distinctive cultural character.

(https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/id/b7e85690-e10d-49f4-9127-698f80b7c1fe/1001727.pdf)

Gruen does not show that Hellenistic Judaism simply combined Jewish religious tradition with elements of Greek culture. His claim, as quoted above, is that the aim was to define or reinforce a distinctive cultural character. This is quite different than combining elements.

[Added: note the manipulation of (Greek) myths, the reshaping of (Greek) traditions, the elaboration of (Greek) legends, fictions, and inventions, the recasting of ostensibly alien cultural legacies .

As to Porter:

... it is likely that Jesus' primary language was Aramaic ...

This evidence clearly points to the presumption that Jesus' productive bilingual capacity included the ability to speak and possibly to teach in Greek ...

(file:///home/chronos/u-99af47985f8715d9d2e97f4e9de2f1803413812c/MyFiles/Downloads/30458-did-jesus-ever-teach-in-greek.pdf)

If we grant that Jesus could speak Greek this does not address the question of whether he was and to what extent and in what way he might have been influenced by Greek thought. Although Porter suggests he "possibly" taught in Greek, it is not a question of a possibility that he taught in Aramaic. There is widespread agreement on this, including Porter's agreement.

Once again, what is at issue is not language or art but thought, or more specifically, theology. Christian theology as it developed misunderstood and altered the meaning of 'son of God' and created a pagan religion in the name of a Jewish man, a teacher, a rabbi who would have been outraged if he knew what would be done in his name.

As already stated, Greek "influence" on Jesus consisted in his making use of the Greek language and the Hellenized culture of Roman Palestine. — Apollodorus

Your claims go far beyond that. It is not a matter of language or art.

In any case, it is clear from the NT text that, in Christianity, Jesus had the external appearance of a human, but in reality he was the Son of God manifested by the power of the Holy Spirit. — Apollodorus

This is what you have been doing your best to avoid. First, either this claim can be found in the Jewish literature or it is pagan. Either it is found in Judaism or it is foreign. Second, either Jesus claimed this about himself or it is foreign to his teachings. Third, either Paul claimed this about Christ or it is foreign to his teaching.

Much rests on how the term 'son of God' is to be understood. If it is to be understood in the sense in which it is used in the Hebrew Bible, then claims about a man becoming God or God becoming a man are foreign and pagan. It remains to be seen how it is used in the NT. I addressed this already:
son of God

What about your claim that Jesus only had the appearance of man? If Jesus was not a man then he did not suffer on the cross, did not die, and was not resurrected.

As I see it, there is a crucial difference a religious experience and whatever meaning and significance that might have for the person experiencing it and a claim that what is experienced is an experience of the "ultimate" that reaches "beyond to infinity."

It is not positivism. You tend to see things that are opposed to your own view through that lens. The notion of verification is much much older than positivism.

You claim:

Personally, I have no particular interest in demonstrating Greek influence on Jesus beyond language ... — Apollodorus

and:

I think the main Greek influence on Jesus was linguistic ... — Apollodorus

At one point you admit:

What seems clear is that Hellenistic culture had more influence on later Christianity than on Jesus himself. — Apollodorus

And yet:

What is unquestionable is that the concept of divine knowledge as an enlightening force is central to Christianity as it is in Platonism where the Good, the Source of Knowledge and Truth, is compared to the Sun who illumines the world (cf. "I am the Light of the world", etc.) — Apollodorus

This notion of divine knowledge is quite different than a linguistic influence. In addition, it ignores the fundamental difference between Athens and Jerusalem. There is no revelation from God in Plato. He was not a prophet.

As Christianity develops attempts are made to reconcile reason and revelation, but this was on "later Christianity rather than on Jesus himself". Moreover you have not shown that those later developments, most importantly, of man becoming God or God becoming man, were not pagan ideas, that they were not foreign, and can be found in Judaism.

If that's what you think then you're on the wrong thread! : — Apollodorus

Have you read your own posts? For example:

IMO what happened was that in later times a new narrative emerged that was based on the "Athens-vs.-Jerusalem" polemic and sought to paint any Greek influence as "alien" or "Pagan". — Apollodorus

The expression "Athens and Jerusalem" refers to the difference between the authority of reason versus revelation. It is not a polemic against Greek influence.

Most Christians believe that Jesus is both human and the Son of God

The point you are evading is not about what most Christians believe but about what the term 'son of God' meant to Jesus and his disciples.

The Lord's Prayer does not say "my father" or "the father of the only begotten son" but simply "our Father". Jesus referred to "the children of God". In John Jesus defends himself by saying:

Is it not written in your Law, "I have said you are ‘gods’’

(10:34-36)

He is most likely referring to Psalms 82:6-7:

‘I said, ‘You are ‘gods’; you are all sons of the Most High.’ But you will die like mere mortals; you will fall like every other ruler.’

If Jesus understood himself to be a son of God in this sense then he is not the one unique Son". And, of course, those who die like mere mortals are mere mortals. Jesus goes on to say, according to John, that he does the work of his father. (10:37-38) He makes the distinction that later Christians do not pay proper attention to on the basis of something he said a bit earlier:

I and the father are one

(10:30)

this expression of unity is later taken to mean one and the same. But this can only be done at the expense of ignoring the distinctions between him and the father that he repeatedly makes. It is only when his words are heard with foreign ears that his words come to take on a very different meaning. A pagan meaning where the distinction between man and God is obliterated.

The decisive issue here is not whether Hellenism influenced Jesus but what Jesus, his disciples, and Paul understood by "son of God". To assert or imply that because of Hellenistic influence Jesus or his disciples rejected monotheism and embraced instead the pagan notion of a human god or accepted the tortured and convoluted logic of trinitarianism is nothing more than an attempt to distort the beliefs of these messianic Jews to conform to beliefs that emerged only in later Christian developments.

The term 'son of God' as it is used in the Hebrew Bible always refers to a human being, not to a man who becomes a god or a god who becomes a man. The fact that such notions were accepted in Greco-Roman culture does not mean they were accepted by the Jews of Galilee.

The problem is that without a verifiable ground of experience then whatever one might imagine can become a "manifestation" of the "Ultimate". Hicks does note these cultural constructs but attempts to explain them away.

I don't see how your statement and mine are in conflict. — T Clark

Perhaps my mixed metaphor confused you. Judaism and Greece are the foundations of the west not Christianity. Christianity is built on those foundations.

Collingwood claims that western science would not be possible without a belief in a God like the Christian's. — T Clark

I can't comment without reading what he said in context. What is a God like the Christian's? The God Jesus, and Paul, and the disciples called Father? In that case, it is the God of Judaism. Or is it the man/god of Greek apotheosis?

The question of whether religious institutions are more warlike than secular ones has been argued here many times before without resolution. — T Clark

I did not ask or address that question. What I said was, religious people often do not see eye to eye and so it cannot be said they understand the universe more clearly. How can they both understand the universe more clearly and yet understand it so differently?

My knowledge about the history of philosophy is limited, so I can't provide a very good defense of this position, but it always strikes me that people fail to understand the extent to which Christianity provides the foundation for western culture and philosophy. — T Clark

If you knowledge of the history of philosophy were less limited you would know that there is no basis for this claim. The roots on which Christianity is founded are in the Greeks and Judaism. Plato's influence on Augustine and Aristotle's influence on Aquinas is evident.

This is one of my primary arguments against rabid atheism. — T Clark

What about the mild mannered atheism of those who simply do not believe in gods?

there is an important sense in which religious people understand the universe more clearly than those who reject the spiritual dimension you're talking about. — T Clark

First of all, one need not be a theist to be "spiritual". Second, religious people often do not see eye to eye and so it cannot be said they understand the universe more clearly when throughout history their disagreement has often been deadly. Each may believe that they to the exclusion of others are in possession of the truth.

Jesus would have used the language that had the widest currency at that point in time and space. — Apollodorus

That might be if it was Jesus's intention to spread a universal message and establish a universal religion, as you assume. It is clear that Paul sought to establish a universal church, but it is also clear, according to Paul himself, that he was opposed by Peter.

You say that if Jesus':

... intention was not to establish a universal religion but a small Jewish sect, all of which IMHO seems to undermine the very foundations of Christianity. — Apollodorus

But you also cite in Matthew Jesus saying that Peter is the rock upon which the church is built. In Matthew we also find Jesus saying:

For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

(5:20)

and:

Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

(7:13-14)

Indeed, this undermines Paul's Christianity, but Paul's Christianity is not the rock on which the church is to be built according to Matthew. Far from being universal, the gate is small and the road narrow and only a few who are exceedingly righteous find it.

But nor do I think that the whole of Christianity deserves to be condemned on that basis. — Wayfarer

The whole of Christianity? The story is far older than Christianity. By the time Deuteronomy was written in the 7th century BCE human sacrifice was expressly forbidden. How this troubling story is to be understood and whether in earlier versions he was sacrificed is still in dispute.

So - whence this idea that every human life is sacred in the first place? I would suggest that a large part of it originated from Christian social philosophy and their doctrine of universal salvation ... — Wayfarer

Hillel is credited with saying:

Whosoever destroys one soul, it is as though he had destroyed the entire world. And whosoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved the entire world.

Spiritual is a nebulous term. What I take issue with is the transfer of human concerns to the transcendent, as if we can look elsewhere to find answers to the problems of life, to a savior or to some set of rules that come from man but are regarded as having a supernatural origin. On the one hand we abdicate responsibility and on the other imbue what we are responsible for with divine authority.

Here we come back to the original topic of aporia and the Socratic problem of learning to live in ignorance. We are limited beings with limited capacities. We need to work within those capacities rather than hope for a god or book or lost wisdom that might be recovered to save us. In acknowledging our limits we should not give them false divine authority:

The muses tell Hesiod that they speak lies like the truth. (Theogony 27)

But all ancient cultures were built around sacrifices. Sacrifice was a way of repaying to God or the gods what man had been given or had taken. — Wayfarer

First, what you skip over is that not only was this a human sacrifice, it was a sacrifice of his own son. Second, Abram's unquestioning obedience continues to be held up to this day as the highest example of faith. Third:

You must not worship the Lord your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the Lord hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods.

(Deuteronomy 12:31)

What he was about to do, and in earlier versions might have done, is expressly forbidden by God. It may be that this reflects later changes regarding human sacrifice, but this together with claims about what was then common practice relativizes and shifts from divine to human standards. The connection between the spiritual and what transcends the human is severed.

I would still like to think that the Christian religion is not inherently corrupt or wicked. — Wayfarer

My next question was going to be, which version of Christianity.

an internal struggle within the Church ... rejected by the redactors ... — Wayfarer

This understates the case to the point of misrepresentation. The Church Father's suppression of other beliefs, witnesses, testimonies, practices, and gospels was ruthless. Their methods point to a corruption that began early on. But of course from the perspective of what you call "Churchianity" the kind of spirituality you were seeking was a corruption.

Humans are capable of corrupting anything. — Wayfarer

One question that arises is to what extent the original message is corrupt. For example, Abram's sacrifice of his son Isaac is held up as the height of faith. It seems to me that at best this should have occasioned aporia. How could God demand such a thing? Have I (Abram) understood it correctly? But there is no evidence in the story of even a moment of hesitation or questioning.

It is not as if he never questioned God. With regard to Sodom and Gomorrah:

Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked?

(Genesis 18:23)

His concern for the people of Sodom and Gomorrah seems odd in contrast to his seeming lack of concern for his son.

Socrates questions Euthyphro regarding his self-proclaimed knowledge of piety. An aporia arises regarding the problem of reconciling what it is he imagines the gods want of him and what is just. This raises the question of what is to serve as the measure of the corruption of spirituality? Was the Inquisition a corruption or the logical response to the importance of saving the eternal soul, even if it comes at the cost of pain and suffering during the short time we are on the earth?

I am more interested in what you have to say about your own perceptions of your own mind which includes its thought, beliefs and knowledge and the forms they take, without any influence from others. — Harry Hindu

None of us are without influence. That influence extends to everything we think and believe and know ... or at least that is what my influences say.

What is the similarity that all your beliefs have that you point to when you say "I have a belief"? — Harry Hindu

Wittgenstein actually gives a very good and influential answer to that, but he's a dead philosopher.

I can only speak for myself. I read and attempt to understand the philosophers whose work interests me because of what I can learn from them. Their work does not come with an expiration date. Unless you have some understanding of a philosopher you are not in a position to judge whether his work is useful.

What are you pointing at when you say that you believe, or know, such-and-such. — Harry Hindu

That depends on what it is I say I believe or know. The statement may be about me or what I say I believe or know or both.

Prove it to yourself that you believe something, and tell me how you did it. — Harry Hindu

I don't know what you are getting at. Why would I prove to myself that the things I believe are things I believe? What role do you think proof plays here?

Propositions are those effects (written scribbles, drawn pictures and behaviors) that we observe that we then use to get at the causes of these effects - which is the beliefs of the one causing the scribbles, pictures and their body to move in certain ways, which can include making sounds with your mouth. — Harry Hindu

As Wittgenstein uses the term 'proposition' it is not its expression. According to the Tractatus a thought with a sense is a proposition (4). It does not become a proposition when it is expressed. The belief is not the cause of a proposition. The belief or thought is the proposition, it is expressed in symbols or words or scribbles or pictures.

You missed my point — Harry Hindu

I'm afraid that I still miss your point. On the one hand, I don't see how it relates to the discussion. On the other, telling someone that telling someone something they already know is a waste of time is itself wasting our time since this is already known.

I think that his criticism is what I have in mind when I mention sophistry. — Average

Well, that settles it!



Here is one that highlights Socrates' irony and irreverence. In the Apology the oracle says that no one is wiser than Socrates. Socrates changes this into the claim that the oracle said 'Socrates is the wisest' (21c). The two statements are not the same. It is like the difference between 'no one scored higher than Sally on the test' and 'Sally scored higher than everyone else on the test'. It may be that several students have the same high score, and so it is true that no one scored higher that Sally, but it is not true that Sally scored higher than everyone else.

In the Apology Socrates distinguishes between human wisdom and divine wisdom. His human wisdom consists in his knowing that he does not know. In the Symposium the philosopher is a lover of wisdom, but does not possess wisdom. In the Republic, however, the philosopher is not someone who desires wisdom but one who possesses it, and it is for this reason that the philosopher should rule. The wisdom the philosopher is said to possess in the Republic is the wisdom that Socrates elsewhere denies that anyone possesses.

We must understand how a term or symbol is being used in order to understand how it is being used to represent a state of affairs. The same term can be used in the representation of different states of affairs.

The proposition: 'it is raining' is not used only to convey meteorological information. It can be an expression of exasperation or pleasure or surprise.

“From Plato's assessment of sophists it could be concluded that sophists do not offer true knowledge, but only an opinion of things”. This is the notion of sophistry I have in mind. — Average

But Socrates too offered only opinion, including the opinion that knowledge of divine things is not something he found in human beings. His criticism of the Sophists is that their concern is with persuasion rather than an attempt to determine the truth.

Socrates believes that people need philosophy to teach them what is right, — Average

The philosopher teaches those who would be philosophers to inquire via an examination of opinions in order to determine what seems good, and just, and beautiful/noble. In the case of Plato he also tells those who are interested in such things but not well suited for philosophy by temperament and intelligence what opinions to hold as true.

The art of persuasion which is separated and disconnected from the truth.

But there is a connection. Socrates employed sophistic arguments in order to persuade, but persuasion was not divorced from what he thought best for those he was persuading.

I seem to remember a whole section where he is criticising the way a picture is entailed by a proposition or something like that. — Apustimelogist

Can you find the section you are referring to? He rejects the idea that meaning is a picture or representation of reality, in favor of the idea that meaning is determined by use. But the issue here is about the relationship between beliefs and propositions. Sam's contention is that non-verbal beliefs are not propositional, on the assumption that propositions are are verbal statements, and so pre-verbal beliefs are not propositions.

See above: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/662920

I wonder if you are talking about the same thing I am. — T Clark

The limits of reason is a common theme. How one responds to that may differ. I don't think there is anything equivalent to enlightenment through surrender in Plato or Aristotle.

It's etymological roots are impassable passage — Agent Smith

This is a more reliable indication of what the term means. Reasoning encounters a point beyond which it cannot go. A point at which we are confronted by our ignorance without a way to move past it to truth and knowledge.

Plato's dialogues typically end in aporia. In order to see this in a positive light we need to consider Socrates' "human wisdom", his knowledge of his ignorance. This means more than simply acknowledging that he does not know. It is an inquiry and examination into how best to live knowing that we do not know what is best.

Paul's vision excluded other views as a denial of his truth. That is different from simply saying other people don't get it. it is the spirit of that sort of condemnation that has called forth Christianity's darkest aspect. — Paine

I think this is more a reflection on Saul/Paul than on what Christianity might have been and in some cases was. He seems to have had conflicting impulses. On the one hand he sought unity but on the other he sowed division and divisiveness.

We see this in John too. According to the author Jesus said to Thomas:

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

(John 14:6)

Only in John are we told of "doubting Thomas". And only in John are we told that Jesus stands between man and God, and of this claim of exclusivity.

As with all movements, factions develop. John's message of exclusivity seems to reflect one such division. John's message is not simply that Jesus is the way but that to follow Thomas and his writings is the way of doubt.

... the definition of a proposition shouldn't be seen as some one essence that governs what we mean by all propositions. — Sam26

But you seem to be doing exactly what you council against doing. You restrict the term to what is expressed in words. You say, for example:

They are belief states revealed in a non-propositional way ... They are non-linguistic beliefs — Sam26

Unless you can show that Wittgenstein limited propositions to verbal statements, your distinction between beliefs and propositions does not hold.

In any case, what I was pointing to in OC 90 was the distinction he makes between a primitive meaning of knowing (related to "I see" "wissen", "videre") and believing. The difference between knowing as a relationship between me an a fact and believing as a relationship between me and the sense of a proposition. If I understand it correctly, the difference between seeing something and representing something.

Finally, there is not going to be some final correct interpretation of W. which we can all agree is what W. meant by this or that. — Sam26

This is true of philosophers in general. Each year there are hundreds of books and articles on Plato, for example.

Wittgenstein's writing style, in particular, doesn't lend itself to easy interpretations. — Sam26

This is what attracted me to him. Everyone is reading the same book and coming up with very different interpretations. It is not, in my opinion, a matter of a final correct interpretation, but rather, on the one hand, of improving my understanding of what he is saying and showing us, and, on the other, of working on my own way of thinking, seeing, and interpreting things.

As he put it:

Work on philosophy – like work in architecture in many respects – is really more work on oneself. On one's own interpretation/conception. On how one sees things. (And what one expects of them).

(CV p. 16)

He acted on his own authority when he represented himself as an apostle and direct witness of Jesus. — Paine

I agree, but I don't think he saw it that way.

it seems to me that what is claimed matters. — Paine

Indeed! But when one believes he is doing God's will he may draw no sharp line between acts that benefit and acts that harm. Acts that hard may not be seen as an indication by him that he is not doing God's will. The most celebrated and disturbing example is Abram's sacrifice of Isaac.

But it is not just such extreme cases that I was pointing to. When one is convinced that his own beliefs and opinions cannot be wrong his absolute certainty remains the same even if the content of those convictions were to become their opposite.

If one limits propositions to spoken statements then the belief that we will find the parts of animals is not propositional if it is not expressed. But is this what Wittgenstein means by a proposition?

In the Tractatus he says:

4: A thought is a proposition with a sense.

4.01 A proposition is a picture of reality.
The proposition is a model of the reality as we think (denken) it is.

4.1: Propositions represent the existence and non-existence of states of affairs.

Although Wittgenstein later rejected the idea that propositions are built from simple elements,
he not reject the idea that propositions are pictures of reality that need not be expressed in words.

I'm not sure I follow. It seems that he did not believe he was acting on his own authority in either case.
Before his conversion he believed the right thing to do was to persecute the followers of Jesus in the name of the Law, afterwards he believed the right thing to to was to persuade everyone to become followers of Jesus.

But my point is not simply with regard to Paul but with regard to anyone who believes absolutely that they possess the truth and cannot be wrong. The content of one's convictions seems to be secondary to the absolute certainty of those convictions. If conviction is the measure of truth than both Saul who persecuted Jesus' followers and Paul who attempted to persuade them to put their faith in Christ were in possession of the truth.

A quick observation and a pointed question.

Some will argue that black and white are the same. They are, after all, colors.

Was Saul any less convinced of the rightness of what he said and did before his conversion than Paul was afterwards?

Why did the serpent want Eve to know about the good also? — EugeneW

It is a package deal. One tree, one fruit. The ability for man to do good is the same ability to do evil.

Why not make her, and her descendants, pure evil? — EugeneW

Neither the serpent nor knowledge makes us good or evil. Fixity and freedom of motion plays an important part in the Genesis stories. Note that the serpent moves in one direction in order to move in the opposite direction.

Why is the good good? — EugeneW

Good and evil are tied to benefit and harm. It is largely androcentric.

We disagree about the nature of a belief. — Sam26

A few remarks from OC:

478. Does a child believe that milk exists? Or does it know that milk exists? Does a cat know that a mouse exists?

Some, Danièle Moyal-Sharrock, for example, take this to mean we should consider these things to be a matter of belief rather than knowledge. But:

90. "I know" has a primitive meaning similar to and related to "I see" ("wissen", "videre") ... "I know" is supposed to express a relation, not between me and the sense of a proposition (like "I believe") but between me and a fact. So that the fact is taken into my consciousness.

Wittgenstein's point here is not simply etymological. The relationship is between the child and the milk It sees the milk and reaches for it. The cat sees the mouse and chases it.

Clearly Wittgenstein is connecting beliefs and propositions here. Does he distinguish between propositional beliefs and non-propositional beliefs elsewhere?

424 ... One says too, "I don't believe it, I know it". And one might also put it like this (for example): "That is a tree. And that's not just surmise."

But much of this is bound to be misunderstood unless we keep the following in mind:

482. It is as if "I know" did not tolerate a metaphysical emphasis.

My point is that W. never finished developing his ideas in OC. — Sam26

I agree, but my point is that more generally we should not read the later Wittgenstein in the same way we read someone whose work leads from premise to conclusion.

So, if a primitive man picks up a stone, that shows that he or she believes something about his or her environment, something fundamental, something very basic. — Sam26

This is something that we should not assume. We should not impose the way we look at things on him. We do not know how he might see the world on him. He might regard all things as animistic. The way he sees a stone at a basic, fundamental level may be very different than your own.

For example, it shows that they believe there is a stone there, that they have hands, that they are a body distinct from other bodies or objects. — Sam26

I don't want to get into the quagmire that is the concept of 'belief'. I would say he sees a stone there, not that he believes there is a stone there or that he believes he sees a stone there. He does not believe he has hands, he uses them. Neither certainty or doubt play a part. Lack of doubt does not mean certainty, but rather that to doubt in such cases does not make sense. There is here no basis for doubt.

Existence is cause or existence is energy - the ability to be/ do. — Benj96

I don't think that existence is the ability to be. We say of things that are or that we claim are that they exist. It is not the ability to be but that fact of being.

To put it in a way that may seem paradoxical or contradictory - existence does not exist. But there is nothing paradoxical or contradictory about that statement.

Other options - please elaborate. — Benj96

There can be no cause of existence. For there to be a cause something must exist.

Your unwillingness to examine anything that does not fit your long entrenched beliefs appears to be engendered by fear and existential self-preservation.

I will let you be.

Then go read about the time Nicodemus ... — Joe Mello

In response to my questioning the reliability of John as an historical account you repeat a story from John.

And bring with you your great learning, in particular where you taught me that "[Jesus] says nothing about being born again". — Joe Mello

What I said was:

... when in the sermon on the mount Jesus says:

theirs is the kingdom of heaven

he says nothing about being born again or the necessity of belief in himself or himself as "his only Son". Instead Jesus emphasizes human capacities. — Fooloso4

So where in the sermon does he say that or that no one comes to the father except through him?

Quoting John does not reconcile what Jesus said in the sermon with what Paul said, or for that matter with what John said.

And, of course, you didn't "read" from someone else that the Gospel of John was not a good source. — Joe Mello

Of course I read other sources! That is a fundamental part of scholarship. Closing your eyes to what modern scholars say is not scholarship but a display of close mindedness. I see nothing wrong with reading the NT inspirationally, but that is something different than biblical scholarship.

Jesus explicitly said that a person must be born again in the spirit to see the kingdom of God. — Joe Mello

First, if you were the scholar you claim to be you would know that it is standard practice to cite your sources. Second, you would know that quoting John as a reliable source of what Jesus said, is questionable, but, of course, you dismiss any biblical scholarship that does not support your beliefs. Nowhere in the synoptic gospels do we find such a claim. Third, and perhaps most important, when in the sermon on the mount Jesus says:

theirs is the kingdom of heaven

he says nothing about being born again or the necessity of belief in himself or himself as "his only Son". Instead Jesus emphasizes human capacities.

Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

(5:28)

Jesus never preached a single word about observing a religious observance. Not one. — Joe Mello

If he did not preach a single word about "observing a religious observance" then you have undercut your own tenuous distinction between the Law and religious observance The Law includes religious observance. Jesus said nothing to the contrary.

And you ignore this to get to some opinionated nonsense about Jesus telling people they must obey all the Old Testament Laws, which are myriad and detailed. — Joe Mello

There was the Law, and the laws were myriad and varied. Hence:

not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law ...

You take one line from Jesus, which don't even understand to begin with, and you claim it's proof that Jesus was preaching ever Mosaic Law. — Joe Mello

The burden is on you to show that he was preaching something other than the Mosaic Law. As you said:

Jesus was telling the people before him that the Old Testament laws governing their behavior were not only still valid, but he was making them even stricter because he was internalizing them. — Joe Mello

Those laws governing their behavior included the practices of religious observance. Problems and disputes regarding interpretation of the Law existed long before Jesus started preaching. Soon after Moses brings the Law to the people the need for judges to interpret and administer God's will becomes apparent. See Exodus 18:13-26.

You have nothing else but a single sentence. — Joe Mello

Let's take a look at what Paul said:

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law

(Romans 3:19)

Paul made a distinction between those who were under the Law and those who were not. He did not understand the Law to be limited to the Ten Commandments and "moral preachings" to the exclusion of religious observance. He did, however, think the gentiles were not under the Law.

He goes on to say:

For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

(Romans 3:28-31)

Making the point even clearer:

For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.

(Romans 6:14)

Paul claims the power of grace over observance of the Law. Jesus made no such claim. It is not a question of which laws but of whether those who do not observe the Law will enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus says no. Paul says yes.