The recognition of the reference connecting modern theories of influence to ancient texts is illuminating. — Paine

I googled it.

Well yeah, I mean it's both -- in engaging with a society you're helping shape it. — Moses

If there was a society building scheme there, it was later edited out. Roman Christians didn't need help building a society.

Jews have always had an idea that fixed societies are inherently evil, as if you're closer to God if you're detached from cities and able to dwell in the desert, free from the corruption that inevitably creeps 8nto city life.
— Tate

This idea was put forward in The Protocols of Zion. — Paine

That and the Old Testament, yeah.

The Pharisees give to charity, JC just criticizes the manner in which they give — Moses

He said they were like whitewashed tombs: appearing upright and clean on the outside, but full of decadence on the inside. Don't take it personally. He wasn't attacking all Jews, just the ones who pay more attention to how they appear than whether they show love, mercy, and ensure justice.

This went on to be a major theme in early Christianity.

There's a lot of material on your question in the NT but in short he envisions a society where people flex by asking "how can I help you?" as opposed to "look how many people I have under me. — Moses

He doesn't ever speak in terms of the content of a society or rules for how it operates. He and his followers were outsiders, probably influenced by desert dwelling Jews.

Jews have always had an idea that fixed societies are inherently evil, as if you're closer to God if you're detached from cities and able to dwell in the desert, free from the corruption that inevitably creeps into city life.

Think of Jesus as attempting to inject this ancient ideal back into a world that had become fixated on law to the exclusion of the kind of morality that comes from the heart.

It is a society of righteous people where outside behavior is apparently pretty rigidly constrained. It's kind of strange vision — Moses

It's more about how you engage the society you're in than how to build a functional society.

He definitely envisions a radically different type of society. — Moses

What kind of society do you think he envisioned?

JC paints a picture of a certain type of society, it's up to us to accept or reject that picture. — Moses

I don't think of Jesus as trying to provide social architecture. There was no need for that in his world. His target audience was oppressed and full of bitterness. That's what he and other preachers like him were trying to deal with. And of course, the end of the world was mixed in.

"In the beginning was the word" is false. — Srap Tasmaner

Do you have nonlinguistic experiences? I don't think everyone does.

This is rank theology.

Does the screw example make clear that the truth is up to us? — Luke

The way we carve up the world is probably a reflection of our make-up, physically, psychologically, culturally, etc.

To understand our language, an alien would have to put herself in our shoes and understand how our senses work. Then she could translate our statements into her language if that's possible. There's no guarantee than an alien would see us as distinct from the Earth's crust. You never know.

Since we can't see beyond our make-up, all we can do is work with the content of our interactions with our environment.

Michael Trouble is you would also have to agree that "snow is white" is true because the kettle is boiling. — Banno

Exactly.

This is a criticism of Davidson's version. Supposedly Godel's is the best, but I haven't looked at it.

The rejection of correspondence does not imply the acceptance of truth as will to power. — Banno

I think correspondence is the only truth theory Nietzsche knew about. It's not that truth is inherently about power. There's a natural drive to know things. It's that when one group gains power using lies, a call for truth-seeking goes up from the defeated.

Notice how Judaism and Christianity call Satan the Father of the Lie, where Jesus is the Truth, the Light, and the Way. Nietzsche says the way to understand why truth is so central to Abrahamic religions is to see how it relates to power.

And as said elsewhere, the power of truth derives from its illocutionary force, while the topic here has been the logical structure of true statements. — Banno

It may be that logic is the tail and the history of power relations is the dog. Maybe.

SO are you going to argue that what makes a statement true is one's willing it to be true? That might be fun. — Banno

Ugh. I'm no Nietzsche. Just recently on this forum, a bunch of posters ganged up on me and persistently misinterpreted what I was saying. When I tried to explain, it was rejected and more piled on. They were trying to control the truth through bullying.

So I put up a thread that proved them wrong and none of them even noticed, the assholes.

It would be hard for me to argue that the superior will controls the truth. I think some truth theorists wouldn't be able to escape that conclusion though.

As long as you deflate that, you agree with Nietzsche.
— Tate

What? — Banno

That truth is not about correspondence between a statement and uninterrupted reality. That's Nietzsche.

I'm interested in the idea of dropping the will to truth
— Tate

You hush your postmodern mouth! — Srap Tasmaner

It's just part of the death of God. You don't get a better condo in heaven for being a faithful truth seeker.

I agree, so long as you do not conclude that there are no true statements. — Banno

As long as you deflate that, you agree with Nietzsche. The only extra thing is the realization that truth is actually about power. Putin and Trump are doing something primal: using a thirst for truth as a weapon.

You want the kettle's boiling to be true yet uninterpreted. — Banno

I don't care either way. I've just been reading about Foucault and Nietzsche, so I'm interested in the idea of dropping the will to truth, which means dropping the assumption that truth-seeking is a good unto itself.

A side issue is that we never escape the bounds of language, so to speak. Truth is not a matter of comparing a statement to an uninterpreted reality. Particularly I was intrigued that when I told Michael that, he understands the question. For some reason, you don't.

There is no outside, nor inside. That terminology is fraught. — Banno

So you don't understand the question?

Always, already, interpreted. — Banno

So you're agreeing that we never make it outside language. Talk if truthmakers is language on holiday.

And why do statements have the truth value they do? Why is it “the kettle is black” which is true and not “the kettle is red”? Some non-linguistic feature of the world has to be a certain way. The object referred to by the phrase “the kettle” has to have the colour property referred to by the word “black”. — Michael

You didn't look at the slingshot argument, did you?

Sure. Correspondence theory is the correct definition of truth. If you want to explain to a toddler what truth is, just tell them it's when a statement corresponds to reality. :up:

The smallest letter and stroke of the pen refer to what is written. He goes on to discuss several specifs regarding the Law and how it is to be obeyed. He does not say to ignore all that written stuff. He says: — Fooloso4

He says the opposite elsewhere. Welcome to the Bible.

What’s the mystery about it? — Michael

One sign of mystery is a collection of arguments known as the slingshot. It's the reason we say the extension of any sentence is it's truth value. All truths designate the same Great Fact.

There's more to the world than just language. Those other things in the world are often what make a statement true. — Michael

It's just that we have a mystery box in the flowchart specifically regarding that last sentence. It looks like you've stepped out beyond the speaker and the world to affirm that this is what truth is.

I think you're happy with this mystery box. A number of philosophers from Nietzsche to Foucault weren't so happy with it.

Do we all basically agree that we never get "outside" of language. Truth is a matter of comparing a statement to another statement?

I think I prefer charity as it is more obviously a virtue, and assessable in public terms. — Banno

It's mainly needed where there isn't much of an institutionalized safety net.

Read him. Best book - Did Jesus Exist. He is not a mythicist - Richard Carrier is your guy for this position. Ehrman says there was likely a guy the myth was based upon but we don't have access to what he taught. — Tom Storm

Fascinating.

I generally take Professor Bart Erhman's lead on the historical Jesus. — Tom Storm

Which is what?

What pisses me off about threads such as this is that, from a philosophical vantage, if Jesus is a great moral teacher, then we ought be able to cite his great moral teachings. Hence my comment about charity. — Banno

He wasn't a great moral teacher if you define morality as a set of rules. He is supposed to have "replaced" the Mosaic Law with the law of love, which is a fairly radical thing to do. He's better seen as a spiritual leader for the oppressed than as a law giver.

Doesn't change my view on JC. There's really nothing much for us to consider. — Tom Storm

Nothing for you to consider, true.

Confirmation bias is a powerful force. — Banno

It is. Historians try to limit its effects.

Hm. Sounds like some, if not all, of the portraits are fictional. — Art48

Yes. Like Socrates.

I'd say there is no historical Jesus for us to access. — Tom Storm

Historical Jesus

The stories it and other gospels contain are influenced by Paul and the schism that led to the separation between Jews and Christians. — Fooloso4

This is a speculation.

Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 19:23)

This is counter to the traditional Jewish view, that adhering to the Covenant leads to blessings you can see in terms of health and wealth. The idea of delayed justice is important for people who feel oppressed.

The circular relationship refers to Jesus 'using' words from the Old Testament to establish his connection to prophecy and continuity with Yahweh. The New Testament makes frequent use of the Old Testament to establish Jesus' credentials. — Tom Storm

Mainly in Matthew. Each of the four gospels has a particular agenda. Matthew depicts Jesus as being a Messiah for the Jews only. Luke, being a gentile doctor, obviously is more sympathetic to gentiles. John is logos mysticism. Mark, the oldest of the gospels, is probably closer to the original Q.

My point is that you're in danger of getting theological if you draw your conclusions from the text alone. Focus on the historical Jesus if you want a relatively unbiased look at his teachings.

It's interesting that you sought to tell me that the scriptures cited in the OP was only OT when two NT quotes - Jesus purported words - were included. — Tom Storm

True.

His authority derives from prophesy in the Old Testament - kind of the point of the narrative. — Tom Storm

Probably more from supposedly being the Son Of God.

Hence the circular relationship between testaments — Tom Storm

There's no circular relationship. Jesus is supposed by Christians to have ended or fulfilled the Mosaic Law. It was replaced by a New Covenant. This, as I pointed out, is standard doctrine for both Catholics and Protestants.

It's about Jesus' authority and there is this: — Tom Storm

What does the Old Testament have to do with Jesus' authority?

For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ Matthew 15:4 — Art48

This was superseded by the New Covenant, Tim. Catholics and Protestants all agree to that.

The scriptures in the OP are from the Old Testament, Tim. It's not a NTS situation.

Jesus' teachings were for the challenges faced by the oppressed: how to become free of bitterness.

Those who need it will find it.

Maybe so, but I'm not talking about what caused the financial crisis. I'm talking about the Fed's response, and why it cannot be compared with what the Fed is doing today. — Tzeentch

True, it's a different situation. To Xtrix's point, even the Chairman of the Fed thought the economy was going to settle itself out of the COVID response without needing any unusual intervention. So it's not correct to say that everyone should have seen inflation coming.

Nobody saw Putin coming.