Skeptical are we? — Bartricks

Indeed!

How would my telling you those things do anything to reduce your skepticism? — Bartricks

My question was rhetorical. It is evident that you do not have a PhD in philosophy.

Anyone could just make up such answers. — Bartricks

They could. Is that what you would do rather than tell the truth?

Here's a more reliable test: try and refute my argument. — Bartricks

The problem is, more than once you have demonstrated that you are incapable of seeing that you have been refuted.

I will go back to ignoring you, just as most other members do who are familiar with your "arguments.

Undergrad are we? — Bartricks

SEE. That stands for Stanford Encyclopedia Educated. — Bartricks

PhD in philosophy are you? From where? what was your dissertation on?

Oh well, maybe someone else will take something from this conversation even if Apollodorus is unable to. — Seppo

I often work under that assumption. Some people have a vested interest in things being as they believe them to be and will go to extraordinary lengths to attempt to discredit the work of generations of scholars because their work leads to conclusions at odds with how they want things to be.

What someone ignores what is said in the very sources they quote to support their claims things will seem to be other than they are. Daniel Wallace was selectively quoted. This is what he said in the wiki article:

Daniel Wallace has praised Ehrman as "one of North America's leading textual critics" and describes him as "one of the most brilliant and creative textual critics I have ever known". [emphasis added][ /quote]

I pointed this out months ago, but as he often does, he ignored it and now repeats this misrepresentation.

The trinity seems be a confluence of influences. Three plays an important role in Pythagoreanism, Plato, Aristotle, and Neoplatonism. It is not simply a number in the Greek sense of a count, of how many, but geometrically and with the connection is Plato's Timaeus between the elements and Platonic solids, with the tetrahedron being the most solid. Aristotle distinguished three kinds of substance (ousia). Plotinus was fond of threefold divisions, for example, the three hypostasis, the one, intelligence, and soul.

In time Jesus came to be seen not a human with the honorific son of God, or even as the only begotten Son of God, but full God, the same ousia as the Father. How could it be explained that the monotheistic God was both one and more than one? While some sought a rational explanation, others regard it as a mystery worthy of contemplation, and still other Christians simply reject trinitarianism.

It's not at all arbitrary and with all due respect I feel there's a major conceptual issue you're not seeing in regards to this issue. — Wayfarer

The distinction reflects an historical development. There are indications that cross-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary approaches will become more common. Neurophilosophy is a good example. Philosophical biology is another.

But don't agree that my criticism amounts to nothing more than polemics. — Wayfarer

Did I say it did?

Just so you know who you are dealing with. From Apollodorus:

Most US colleges and universities are notoriously dominated by atheists and anti-Christians like Ehrman. The same applies to journals of "Biblical scholarship".

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/544386

The temple housed God, so the incorporeality question wasn't fully resolved, but obviously the tension had begun regarding that issue. — Hanover

I don't think such questions are ever really resolved though. While it may be that most today will understand this figuratively, the idea of God's presence is still common. When pressed some may deny that it is a physical presence and appeal to something like energy, which they think is non-physical.

Some disputes that come up on the forums from time to time: divine personalism, divine simplicity, whether God is the supreme being or not a being but the ground of being.

And to turn this back to the topic: whether God and Jesus are one and the same ousia.

That’s the fundamental difference between cognitive science and philosophy. — Wayfarer

Some use the term cognitive philosophy. The old divisions are not immutable.Some question the usefulness of such arbitrary divisions.

Where do you date the theory of the incorporeality of God? Philo is 1,000 years before Maimonides, but it might be sooner. I point this out because I think it's a pretty ancient concept. — Hanover

Sometime between the Babylonian exile and the Second Temple. But Maimonides thought it necessary to make such ideas clear.

Actually there is a way to settle this, and that is to understand and accept the very obvious reality, and simple truth, that consciousness is fundamental. — Metaphysician Undercover

This issue is not settled by restating the claim and insisting that it is obvious. The only thing that is obvious is that there are very many people working on such issues who do not think it is obvious.

But look at the way post-Galilean (i.e. 'modern') science goes about that: by the division of the world into the 'primary attributes' of mass, velocity, momentum and so on, and 'secondary qualities' presumed to inhere in the mind, thereby subjectivizing them. That is precisely the paradigm wiithin which the question arises. — Wayfarer

Are you claiming that cognitive science labors this paradigm?

It was essential to leave out or subtract subjective appearances and the human mind -- as well as human intentions and purposes -- from the physical world in order to permit this powerful but austere spatiotemporal conception of objective physical reality to develop. — Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos, p 35-6

This is exactly backwards. Cognitive science does not leave out subjective appearances or the human mind from the physical world. It attempts to understand the mind and experience as part of the physical world. It simply rejects supernatural claims.

Phenomenological explanations are reflections on the nature of first person experience. — Janus

Is this an explanation or a description? What is being explained? Why is it that the biological functions that give rise to the experience can never be adequately explained?

Do you think that such experience comes from a source other than the organism?

You've now switched from "adequate" to "complete". How would we ever be able to tell whether any explanation, whether physical or phenomenological, is complete? — Janus

An adequate explanation is one does not leave wide gaps still to be explained. You are right, we might not be able to determine whether it is complete, but that supports my point. In that case we cannot conclude that physical explanations cannot substitute for phenomenological explanations.

Also, you seem to be implying that if we had an adequate explanation (for one or the other?) that physical explanations would substitute for phenomenological ones. — Janus

No, what I am saying without such an explanation we cannot say whether or not it would.

But I'm curious to know what in particular you think is inadequately explained and why. — Janus

I am not aware of any complete explanation of either physics or consciousness. If you have one or know of one we can start there.

The point is that physical explanations cannot substitute for phenomenological explanations ... — Janus

That is because we do not have an adequate explanation for either.

I'm not getting your objection.. all of this points to polytheistic origin.. — schopenhauer1

Yes, that is my point. Polytheistic rather than henotheistic. As you say: a pantheon.

It seems as though in time it because henotheistic and eventually monotheistic, but its origins are in polytheism.

You pointed to the Persian influence. I would add the importance of the Ugaritic/Canaanite influence.

Progress on the easy problem is made, sure. — RogueAI

Incremental progress can lead to major breakthroughs. I think it is a mistake to draw conclusions one way or another based on the current state the art of cognitive science. It is, after all, a very young science.

Yes, no doubt that Judaism started as a henotheistic religion (pantheon with El-Yaweh and variation on Canaanite/Midianite religions) — schopenhauer1

I think that assumption is questionable. See Exodus 3:15: "God also said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites, `The LORD, the God of your fathers--the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob--has sent me to you.' This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation."

Why would the author(s) attempt to unify what appears to have been the worship of different gods?

In addition there is the problem of the many names of God:

Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?”

God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’” (3:13-14)

In addition the various names: El, Elohim, El Shaddai, YHWH

Do you see this as a problem for science? If science still has not made progress on these fundamental questions, say, a century from now, do you think people will start questioning the assumption that consciousness can come from matter? — RogueAI

Progress is being made every day. Consider, for example, advances in understanding the visual and auditory systems. Whether we will have a complete explanation of consciousness in material or physical terms remains to be seen. Let's revisit this question then.

Many of the disputes that arise here are the result of the failure to distinguish between the commitment to find physical explanations and the premature assumption that all explanations must be or cannot be physical.

Some claim that consciousness or intelligence is fundamental, but at present we have no way to settle the issue one way or the other. We cannot even come to agreement on terms. What does it mean to be conscious? What counts as evidence of consciousness? It the self-organization of matter an intelligent process? Is the ability to complete complicated tasks an indication of intelligence?

Depending on one's concept of such things one might think it evident that materialism must fail to account for such things. But it is not simply a matter of given an account of things in terms of our concepts but of the adequacy of those concepts themselves.

This is seen as a blessed period and Cyrus is called 'messiah' in the Bible (ie indeed: anointed by God) for it. — Olivier5

For citation:
2 Chronicles 36:23
Ezra 1:1
Isaiah 44:28 and 45:1

There are just too many theological problems with positing an actual location of God. — Hanover

It is not as if incorporeal version are free of theological problems. It could be argued that "theology" is part of the problem. Why should God conform to human reason?

But what you say hasn't been borne out. What has happened is the opposite ... — Hanover

I think it is an open question if when Maimonides denied the physicality of God and interpreted all physical aspects of the divine, whether this elevated the status of the "holy" or whether something primitive and fundamental was lost. That as a result we became something less human. That in the process we literally lost touch. What it meant to be made in God's image made us strangers to both what it means to be human and to be a god. The sacred was diminished when the tangible and immediate experience of being alive were downplayed in favor of an imagined transcendence.

Everything that I have seen or heard gives me the conviction that no man has ever been far from the earth. Nothing in my picture of the world speaks in favour of the opposite. — Witt, On Certainty

I want to use this to support some claims about hinges before:

It is not that a hinge cannot be doubted, but that they are not doubted. So much hangs and turns around them that there would have to be a major change in the riverbanks of knowledge to make a hinge doubtful.

Hinges are not all timeless and immutable. It was only a few years later, in 1961, that a man had been far from the earth.

They have not functioned as hinges for all peoples everywhere.

All of this adds weight to the suggestion that hinge propositions are unlike ordinary propositions in that hinge propositions are indubitable, unknowable, unjustifiable and lack a truth value. — Luke

I do not think it is the case that hinges are unknowable and lack truth value:

655. The mathematical proposition has, as it were officially, been given the stamp of
incontestability. I.e.: "Dispute about other things; this is immovable - it is a hinge on which your
dispute can turn."

Certainly we know that 12x12=144 and that this is true.

That is a damn good question. — Banno

Actually two questions, both about Moore's "Here is a hand".

With regard to Wittgenstein, I agree that what is beyond doubt is only within a given game. For one of Wittgenstein's tribes very different things might be beyond doubt, just as in earlier times different things were beyond doubt in western culture.

SO in so far as Moore was setting up a langauge game in which this counted as a hand, yes. — Banno

Is that what he was doing? Is it only in certain games that it to count and not others?

I gather that you do not think "This is a slab" a suitable example of a hinge proposition, but I am unable to see why. — Banno

I would only be repeating myself. In the builder's language "slab" means more than "This is a slab." Knowing what a slab is is requisite, but knowing what to do with it is as well.

Do you think Moore's "here is a hand" is a hinge proposition?

I wasn't attacking you. Sorry you took it that way. — frank

It seemed so, at least me me when you said:

It's really obvious that your knowledge of the Jesus cult doesn't come from religion scholarship. It comes from Matthew. :lol: — frank

But you added a cute picture of a non-human primate, so I'll move on.

Possibly not all that much but it is interesting to read about Prauss. — Tom Storm

I did not mean to imply that he is not worth reading. But if one wants a better understanding of Kant, the old complaint applies: too much to read and too little time. As I indicted, I quickly glanced at the article and cannot say whether it is a good source for understanding the basic questions for Kantian or not.

Just to be sure you guys aren't talking around each other — Hanover

@frank

This is why I asked him to provide sources. He has not. The two different ways in which the term is used does not tell us specifically what was believed and practiced, how widespread it was, and whether it referred to some specific group of followers rather than all . At what point did the Jesus cult distinguish itself from the Jewish followers of Jesus and become a separate religion? Were they mostly those who were Jewish or gentile? Did they hold the same animosity toward Jews as Christians did over time?

Although frank considers it proper to attack me (he seems to have been nursing a grudge for quite a while) he has not said anything to demonstrate his knowledge of the historical situation.

Bringing a slab is not an explanation. — Banno

It is an explanation of what to do when you hear "slab!".

What they actually expected was a warlord who would throw off Roman domination. — frank

This is what Jesus' Jewish followers would have understood based on messianic tradition. What we find in the gospels is something quite different.

It's frequently referred to as the Jesus cult. — frank

What are your sources of religious scholarship that inform what you imagine to be your superior knowledge?

Strictly speaking, "block", "slab", "beam" are the commands. What to do when you hear ""Slab!". is not a command but an explanation.

Both what a slab isis and what to do with it are learned ostensibly. Both what a slab is and what to do with it must be the same for both of us.

As some here would say: :100: :fire:

A better parsing would be "This counts as a slab". — Banno

A better parsing would be: "Bring me this when I call slab".

Believe whatever you want frank if that gives you some kind of perverse satisfaction, but the truth is far from what you imagine.

You asked about the phrase Kingdom of Heaven. If comes from Matthew. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Reference to "the Jesus cult" suggests you have a particular theory of the early Jesus movement that you accept. Based on what?

I'll show you mine if you show me yours:

A few of the texts and scholars I have read that have informed my views include:

The anthology: The Historical Jesus in Context
Elaine Pagels
Bart Ehrman

There are others, but these come to mind at the moment.

Prior to the Church Fathers establishing the Catholic Church Christianity was pluralistic. The authority of personal inspiration was not questioned.

"Creating a narrative", not "narrative". — Noble Dust

A narrative must have a source. The idea that man invents narratives is not a new idea. Consider the problem of false prophets and false messiahs.

You're using the gospel account as a source for the expectations of Jesus' followers prior to his death, and then you argue that we can't rely on that same account because it's a post hoc narrative. — frank

The expectation of the coming of the messiah does not originate with the followers of Jesus. His followers believed he was the messiah. What seems to have originated with them is the story of the death of Jesus being an essential part of a larger plan.

I'm talking about the fact that "creating a narrative" is a post-modern concept — Noble Dust

A narrative is not a post-modern concept. Either man creates narratives or they are given to us. Are you claiming they come directly from God?

Note that Heaven is in parentheses. Matthew is the only one who who uses the term kingdom of heaven. More common is kingdom of God, which Matthew uses as well. There is no consensus as to what the difference may be.