Comments

  • Jesus and Greek Philosophy
    It is a dark stain across most of the Protestant denominations. — Paine

    I think it can be traced back to a growing animosity that develops with the followers of Paul. A question of birthright.
  • The Concept of Religion
    ↪ZzzoneiroCosm


    In support of what you said:

    Only man placed values in things to preserve himself—he alone created a meaning for things, a human meaning. Therefore he calls himself 'man', which means: the esteemer. To esteem is to create: hear this, you creators! Esteeming itself is of all esteemed things the most estimable treasure. Through esteeming first is there value: and without esteeming, the nut of existence would be hollow. Hear this, you creators! — Thus Spoke Zarathustra, On the Thousand and One Goals
  • Jesus and Greek Philosophy
    Kierkegaard did not say that it leads one astray, necessarily. It is more of a kind of horizon where the past and present is related to what has been created can be seen as something given to us whereas a relationship to the future cannot be approached that way. — Paine

    We should consider how this relates to:

    the desire to rip out Judaism, root and branch. — Paine

    It is an inherited prejudice. A deep seated hatred that continues to be perpetuated. There is no rebirth without death. Will the future bring death to this hatred or is it necessary for the death of this hatred to bring forth the future?

    Before posting this I decided to look into Kierkegaard's attitude toward Judaism. Peter Tudvad's 2010 Stadier paa Antisemitisms Vej: Søren Kierkegaard og Jøderne (Stages on the Way of Antisemitism: Søren Kierkegaard and the Jews) shows Kierkegaard shared the prejudice against the Jews that we are dealing with here.
  • The Concept of Religion
    Choose your judge well; and your interpreter... — Banno

    On a secular level, in the US there are accusations from both sides of judges acting as legislators.

    In hermeneutics there is the question of the extent to which an interpretation creates meaning rather than explicates the meaning found in the text.

    Somewhere Nietzsche reverses the meaning of "seek and you will find". To what extent is what we find a matter of what we put there to be found?

    To what extent does religion give us meaning as opposed to us giving meaning to religion?
  • The Concept of Religion
    Even if one presumed that some given creed is the indubitable word of god, and that it sets out what we God proposes we ought do, it remains open to us to reject that proposal. — Banno

    Even if one accepts the word of God, the word of God remains necessarily open to interpretation. As Moses learned while leading the people to Sinai, judges are needed to interpret and administer the law.
  • The Origin of Humour
    A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes. — Wittgenstein
  • Jesus and Greek Philosophy
    This movement requires more than a universal good of a person to be recognized because that life is happening within a process where there is an interaction with the Creator who can change the cosmos and the creatures within it. — Paine

    I have not looked into it, but on the one hand Paul seems to accept the possibility of obedience to the law at least for some, but on the other even here grace plays a role, that is, obedience is made possible by grace.

    Centuries later, Kierkegaard says that once one has left the cosmos of the world as being what it already is, it is a departure, whether one follows Paul or not. — Paine

    Is he saying that when we no longer accept the world as it is and as all that is, we have already made a departure from it, moved beyond it to other possibilities?

    If the condition for experiencing truth is outside of one's innate package, then one cannot use that package as a testimony for it. — Paine

    If I understand this correctly, I see two points. First, the truth is not accessible by our own efforts. Second, without experiencing truth anything we think or imagine it to be will not only fall short of it but will lead us astray.

    the proponents of a 'nothing but Greek' thesis has the author of much of what is commonly understood to be Christian standing in the way. — Paine

    One of those proponents here also includes the Egyptians in his efforts to bypass and exclude Judaism from our understanding of Jesus. In his case it is him more than anything else that stands in his way.
  • The Concept of Religion
    What is the value of conflict on this forum? I'd say ideally it allows for deeper examination and reflection. — frank

    I agree. And the fact that it takes place on a forum rather than in private is important. All too often there are some who are more interested in defending their claims then in reflecting on them. Those who are reading without having a stake in a particular outcome may be the ones who most benefit.
    (
    We don't recognize them until we start doing a little exploration of history. — frank

    Some people are puzzles why an atheist would know the Bible. Until recently (20th century?) educated people in the West were very familiar with the Bible, whether they agreed with it or not. A favorite example of mine is from Descartes. What he is doing in the Meditations can be seen in a different light when one is familiar with the theme of being like God in Genesis, and how this relates to what Descartes says about knowledge, will, immortality and perfectibility.

    “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” — Genesis 3:22

    The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. — Genesis 11:6

    By willing only what one knows Descartes says we cannot err. His geometric method of solving for any unknown makes it possible, given enough time, which is assured by an immortal soul/mind, to leave nothing unknown. Thus man is infinitely perfectible, that is, more and more like the gods. Nothing we plan to do will be impossible.
  • The Concept of Religion
    If the role of religion is really to bind people in a tribal group then dependency on the group is essential. Personal development of virtue leads to independence and is therefore at odds the purpose of religion. — praxis

    There is a tension here. On the one hand, one must be obedient, but on the other there are cases, as with the prophets of Israel, where the people are corrupt and the prophet stands against them. In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah because the people are corrupt God is about to destroy them. Abraham stands with the righteous among them and against God, questioning him: "Will you wipe away the righteous with the wicked?" (Genesis 18:22)
  • The Concept of Religion
    Most of these concepts were transmitted by religious traditions, so we could say that's the role of religion here. — frank

    I agree that religion has played a role in transmission. Certainly claims of divine origin and authority have proven to be effective. They place moral authority above man.

    A more fundamental question has to do with the origin of these concepts. Do they come from the gods or from men using the gods as a guise? What do we know of what the gods demand of us? All that has been transmitted to us has been through the work of men. What do we do when these works tell us different and conflicting things?

    Much of religion has been exclusionary even when it strives to be universal. A morality that may work for an insular group can come into conflict with that other groups that either hold different or no religious beliefs.

    There is no necessity that what has historically been transmitted by religious tradition must be transmitted by religious tradition. In fact, for those who have become suspicious of it or outright reject it, religion can be an impediment to ethics.
  • The Concept of Religion
    The notion that one needs a reason for being good is... problematic. — Banno

    I agree.

    We do not need a reason for wanting what is good for ourselves. Although what we want may not actually be good for us, we want it for no other reason than because we regard it as good.

    The more our desire for what is good is motivated by the question of what is good, the closer the connection between what we seek and what we are. The desire for what is good becomes inextricably linked to the desire to be good. The reason for being good is for no other reason than that we regard it as good.

    But there is a much simpler answer. Being good is not the result of finding some reason for being good. We do not need a reason to care or be empathetic. If we lack those capacities there is no reason that will make us care or become empathetic. If we are completely devoid of goodness there is no reason that will provide us or compel us to do what we have no capacity for.

    Although religion may play a role here, it is not a necessary role.
  • Jesus and Greek Philosophy
    The overwhelming evidence is (a) that the OT narrative is largely mythical and (b) that even its true teachings have been misinterpreted and misunderstood. — Apollodorus

    Let's compare this to what you said in your last post before this one:

    And in the same way the OT authors and later editors felt free to modify the true history of Judaism — Apollodorus

    To which I responded:

    the Hebrew Bible is not a history book — Fooloso4

    It is nice to see that I have helped you learn from your mistake. It is telling, however, that you did not bother to even check in order to find that overwhelming evidence before making your accusation about modifying "the true history of Judaism".

    Your claim that Jeremiah 8:8 is an admission of forgery is not supported by the text or the scholarship. First it should be noted that a ‘scribe’ does not mean simply someone who copies text. A scribe is a scholar and teacher.

    Jeremiah’s condemnation of the scribes is part of a larger condemnation:

    From the least to the greatest,
    all are greedy for gain;
    prophets and priests alike,
    all practice deceit.     — 8:10

    God has forsaken the people and Jeremiah is urging them to turn back to God. (8:4-5) It is in this context that we should interpret “a lying pen”. Jeremiah makes a distinction later used by Paul for a different purpose. He opposes what the scribes write with their pens to the law God writes in the heart. (31:33) The scribes “have the law” but have “handled it falsely”. (8:8)

    A lying pen might refer to what they teach or it may be that what they do puts the lie to what they have written down. In the latter sense, by their actions they have falsified what is written. Having the words from the pen does not make one wise. The law must be internalized.

    The total lack of evidence is not the only problem of the Exodus narrative. — Apollodorus

    If the story is " a myth and cannot be treated as history in any verifiable sense" then the lack of evidence is only a problem for someone like you who misunderstands and misinterprets it as historical.

    Why would God hide in a bush? And why would he “appear” and “hide” at the same time? — Apollodorus

    The answer to the first question:

    But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.” — Exodus 33:20

    As to the second question, God hides in the way he appears. God is not a burning bush.

    So, to a rational person, the story is not credible. This is why it is imperative to get to the bottom of it and see what the whole mythology is actually trying to hide and why. — Apollodorus

    You are still confusing history and mythology. Why would you attempt to apply historical standards to what you acknowledge is mythological? And what is behind your accusation of hiding something?

    As no kingdom of Israel (or Judah) existed at the supposed time of Solomon, this takes us right back to the possibility, or probability, that the biblical “King Solomon” was himself an Egyptian king. — Apollodorus

    This makes no sense. You argue that the kingdom of Solomon did not exist and conclude that this king without a kingdom was an Egyptian king. Except you go on to question the existence of Solomon. A king without a kingdom who did not actually exist was actually an Egyptian king.

    As an Egyptian prince or pharaoh, “Moses” was naturally initiated into the highest teachings or mysteries — Apollodorus

    Is this the"Moses" who you say did not exist?

    Moreover, if the founder of the new religion was a member of the royal family or even a pharaoh — Apollodorus

    Judaism traces its roots back to the patriarch Abraham, from Ur of the Chaldees. Although Abraham may not have existed, the story points to an origin of Judaism that is not Egyptian.

    In Egypt itself, the secret of the true God — Apollodorus

    A tenuous conspiracy theory.

    Jesus himself represented the same tradition based on truth, justice, and ethical conduct. — Apollodorus

    The tenuous threads fray. The attempt to link Jesus to the Egyptians based on the universal concepts of truth, justice, and ethical conduct is nothing more than pulling shit out of your ass.

    ... it becomes clear that its true origins can no longer be suppressed — Apollodorus

    What is clear is that the origins of Judaism are unknown. However murky those origins are, by the time of Jesus Judaism has distinguished itself from paganism.

    Why you are hellbent on creating conspiracy theories intended to portray the Jews as the enemies of the light and truth also seems clear, even though you attempt to hide behind a thin and cracked veneer of scholarship. If it is not clear to anyone they need look no further than your touting the work of
    Kerry Bolton

    So, after all, in this case at least it is true that:

    truth eventually comes to light — Apollodorus
  • What is mysticism?
    You're joking, right? — Agent Smith

    Nope. We retain a vestige of this. When we say we have a number of things we do not mean one thing.

    The notion of arithmos emerges from the experience of counting. When we count, we always have a multiplicity of things before us. When faced with a single thing, we do not countit. If we say that it is “one,” we are speaking about its unity or we are asserting that it exists. One is not many. Therefore, “one”is not an arithmos.The first arithmos is “two. — An’ a one, an’ a two …
  • What is mysticism?
    Also interesting is the whole number sequence: 0, 1, 2,...

    From 0 to 1: That's something from nothing! Creatio ex nihilo.     — Agent Smith

    For Greek mathematics 2 is the first number. Two tells us how many ones or units of the count. They did not have the concept of zero. There cannot be an infinite number of things because a number tells us how many. But this is not to reject what is unlimited, that is, without number.

    Modern physics would not be possible without symbolic mathematics. In modern number theory a number 'n' need not be the number of any particular thing existing or not.
  • The 'New Atheism' : How May it Be Evaluated Philosophically?
    'Supernatural claims' must consistently account for nature (which is ineluctable and universally accessible to us as natural beings) or else such 'claims' – category which includes "God" – do not make sense, at best, and are false otherwise. — 180 Proof

    If one begins with the assumption that the existence of the natural world cannot be explained in terms of the natural world, then a supernatural necessity cannot be rejected in principle. That there is or can be a consistent account for nature that does not take nature as a given is not something that has been demonstrated.

    This does not mean that one should accept a supernatural explanation, for the simple reason that it is not an explanation. It is a claim in need of an explanation. It may be, however, that the existence of natural world does not make sense. [added: with or without supernatural claims].
  • What is mysticism?
    There must've been a very good reason why the Greeks were so reluctant to incorporate infinity into their math. — Agent Smith

    It is because, for the Greeks, a number is a count (arithmos). It tells us how many of whatever thing you are counting. There can be no counting without a unit of the count, some one thing that is counted, apples, oranges, or fruit. An infinite or unlimited amount is not a number, it does not tell us how many.
  • Jesus and Greek Philosophy
    ↪Paine


    Could you clarify a few things?

    What did Paul say about the Greek understanding of the universal nature of truth?
    How does the narrative of the messianic relate to this?
    Is it that the advent of the kingdom of heaven seems to be at odds with the cosmos, the well ordered whole?
    How does this relate to the Covenant? Is this part of the problem of Christian self understanding?
  • Jesus and Greek Philosophy
    I wouldn't say that this redemptive action is completely missing in Paul. — Paine

    It is true he talks about rightful action:

    ... works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up — Ephesians 4:12

    But to be a part of the whole is not an act of redemption.

    And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. — Ephesians 4:30

    The day of redemption is not something Christians are responsible for. It is coming and one can either be a part of it or not. It seems as if there are competing forces within us:

    The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. — Romans 8:6

    The Spirit may be in you but it is not of you. In other words, you are not in the driver's seat. We can, however, go along for the ride.

    What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short.

    For this world in its present form is passing away.     — 1 Corinthians 7:29 and 31

    It is not by one's own actions that they save or are saved, not by one's actions that the are redeemed or can redeem the world. It is not up to us. And, of course, the world in its present form has not passed away. The bus never arrived.The first generations of Pauline Christians believed it would happen in their lifetime, but as time went on it was eventually pushed to some future time that has not been disclosed.
  • Jesus and Greek Philosophy
    The anti-Christian position seems to be that Christianity is a criminal perversion of Judaism that shouldn’t have existed and must not be allowed to exist. — Apollodorus

    This hyperbolic rant has nothing to do with anything that has been said by anyone here.

    This subsequently resulted in the Temple Taliban’s demand that Jesus be executed for his “blasphemous” teachings — Apollodorus

    No educated person today would perpetuate this pernicious accusation unless they have an ulterior motive. If the Jewish authorities demanded he be put to death they would have stoned him.
    THIS

    And in the same way the OT authors and later editors felt free to modify the true history of Judaism — Apollodorus

    First of all, the Hebrew Bible is not a history book by the standards and practices of contemporary history. Second, it is not surprising that a group of books written over a long period of time contains changes reflecting various beliefs. Only some sort of fundamentalist would think otherwise.

    Do you think what was said about Jesus, what he said and what he did, did not change during the time before and during the time the gospels were written?

    ...attempts were also made to suppress the history of Christianity. — Apollodorus

    Evidence and specifics are needed.

    Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God

    And do you think 'you' includes you? What do you know of the kingdom of God? Do you think you are excluded from the majority of readers Origen refers to? If there are mysteries you do not have access to them. At best this shows that you do not understand the NT to the extent it contains mysteries.

    While in the OT, the emphasis is on the perfection of God and his actions, in the NT the emphasis is on human perfection. This is one of the key distinctions that sets Christianity apart from Temple Judaism. — Apollodorus

    Before posting stuff you make up it would be a good idea to do a little research:

    In the Hebrew text, the word perfect is tamîm (Strong's #8549), and its basic meaning is "complete" or "entire." It does not mean "perfect" as we think of it today, as "without fault, flaw, or defect." Other English words that translate tamîm better than "perfect" are "whole," "full," "finished," "well-rounded," "balanced," "sound," "healthful," "sincere," "innocent," or "wholehearted." In the main, however, modern translators have rendered it as "blameless" in Genesis 6:9.

    This does not mean that Noah never sinned, but that he was spiritually mature and that he had a wholehearted, healthy relationship with God, who had forgiven him of his sins, rendering him guiltless. The thought in Genesis 6:9 extends to the fact that Noah was head-and-shoulders above his contemporaries in spiritual maturity. In fact, the text suggests that he was God's only logical choice to do His work.

    The New Testament concept of perfection, found in the Greek word téleios (Strong's #5056), is similar to tamîm. Perhaps the best-known occurrence of téleios occurs in Matthew 5:48: "Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect." Certainly, Jesus desires that we become as flawless as we can humanly be, using the utter perfection of the Father as our model, but His use of téleios suggests something else. His aim is that a Christian be completely committed to living God's way of life, maturing in it until he can perform the duties God entrusts to him both now and in His Kingdom. In harmony with this idea of spiritual growth toward completion, téleios is well translated as "mature" in I Corinthians 2:6, and in Hebrews 5:14, itis rendered as "of full age."     — Perfection


    In contrast, the Hebrew Bible has no clear reference to life after death and it is not known whether Moses, the founder of Mosaic Judaism, even believed in afterlife at all. If he did, the OT does not say. — Apollodorus

    Again, it would be a good idea to do some research first. Neither the Hebrew Bible nor Judaism ends with Moses. It is from Jewish sources that Jesus the Jew inherited the idea of resurrection and life after death.

    “But your dead will live; their bodies will rise.
    Those who live in the dust will wake up and shout for joy!     — Isaiah 26:19

    And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. — Daniel 12:2
  • Sophistry
    ↪Metaphysician Undercover


    You have convinced me of one thing: what you say should be rejected because it is inconsistent. But according to you, you are in good company:

    ... inconsistency in philosophy is common and pervasive ... — Metaphysician Undercover
  • Personalism and the meaning of Personhood
    And Heschel…. Never heard of him. Any books of his that you recommend? — Dermot Griffin

    Man is Not Alone
    God in Search of Man
    Who is Man
  • Personalism and the meaning of Personhood
    What exactly are you referring to though? — Dermot Griffin

    Again, I will wait to see where this goes. I will say this much. There is in Catholic ethics an argument that proceeds from the concept of persons to draw conclusions about an issue that is contentious and unresolved. But maybe that is not a direction you are going in.

    [Added]

    I did not address your question about Buber. Back in the mid-seventies when I was finishing college there was a lot of talk about Buber. As a result I think my expectations might have been too high. I read him and not much stuck or resonated with me. At about the same time I found Abraham Joshua Heschel. I particularly liked the way he flipped the script, from man in search of God to God in search of man. I have not read him in a long time and do not know how well he would hold up for me.
  • Sophistry
    How could a person be wrong, in one's judgement that they cannot understand something. — Metaphysician Undercover

    But your claim is not that you don't understand but that what you are reading is inconsistent. If you do not understand there is still the possibility that someday you will. But you think you understand well enough to reject what you have read, Again, you are not being consistent.

    It's not a matter of rejecting what is read — Metaphysician Undercover

    And yet you say it is:

    If this is not the judgement then we really ought to reject the proposition. — Metaphysician Undercover

    More inconsistency.

    When a person judges a proposition as inconsistent with truth, this is grounds for the person to reject it ... — Metaphysician Undercover

    In that case you are no longer talking about one's judgment that they cannot understand but that one understands well enough to reject it. It may still be the case that a person still does not understand.

    The fact that the person might make a mistake, does not negate the judgement, — Metaphysician Undercover

    It means that the judgment was wrong.

    "His thoughts are divided into distinct periods", indicates an artificial act of division, so that the divisions produce distinct periods, which have become conventional. Think about the way that the day is divided into morning and afternoon. — Metaphysician Undercover

    The question is: what significance and conclusion do you draw from the conclusion that some dialogues are placed in the early period, some in the middle, and some in the late period?
  • Personalism and the meaning of Personhood
    Sorry if I came off a tad short in my prior response to you — Dermot Griffin

    I did not read it that way.
  • The Concept of Religion
    This assumption undergirds Plato’s Euthyphro and other dialogues in which Socrates pushes his interlocutors to make that hidden, defining property explicit ...The traditional assumption is that every entity has some essence that makes it the thing it is

    I think there is another way to look at this. The question is epistemological rather than ontological. Euthyphro cannot demonstrate that what he is doing is pious if he cannot say what piety is. I don't know that family resemblance gets us further, for we would first have to agree that 'x' and 'y' are pious in order to conclude what he is doing is pious based on resemblance. But 'x' and 'y' might be contested. On my reading of Plato this is consistent with his skepticism, his knowing that he does not know. The best we can do is have opinions that stand up to examination, opinions that seem most likely to be true.

    What has happened in Western religious discourse, according to Karen Armstrong, is that the emphasis on belief and believing have distorted this meaning — Wayfarer

    In that case Paul and Christianity are at the center of this distortion. According to Paul, one is saved by belief. The "way-of-being for those who are saved is no longer the way of being of us who are still under the power of sin. Neither way of being is within our power.
  • Personalism and the meaning of Personhood
    I don’t think I’m interfering with anything. — Dermot Griffin

    It is not that you are interfering but that if I tell you where I think you are going with this thread that might interfere.But maybe my hunch is wrong.
  • Personalism and the meaning of Personhood
    ↪Dermot Griffin


    Telling you would interfere with the results. I will just wait to see how things develop.
  • Personalism and the meaning of Personhood
    ↪Dermot Griffin


    I have been waiting since you started the thread for the other shoe to drop. Perhaps I'm wrong, but my suspicion is that you are inching toward it. We'll see.
  • The Concept of Religion
    You can argue as much as you want after the gavel falls, but it won't do you any good. — Hanover

    The fact of the matter is that there is case after case, some reaching all the way to the Supreme Court, dealing with what counts as a religious exemption. Cases including such things as whether discrimination is permissible because of religious exemption, whether vaccination (either all or only particular vaccines) is covered under religious exemption, and whether refusal to seek medical care for children is covered under religious exemption. In some cases arguments are made with regard to widely recognized religions, but in others whether what some individual or group does should be considered a religion and thus covered under exemption.
  • The Concept of Religion
    Legal definitions are easy to come by. It's whatever the legislature and judges say it is. — Hanover

    This only points to the problem.
  • The Importance of Clarity
    The problem with clarity is that it reveals how unclear our thinking is.
  • The Concept of Religion
    the example being that a religion has at least the characteristic of "a belief in superempirical beings or powers", together with some combination of other criteria. This is taken as answering the question as to why Buddhism is a religion but not Capitalism. — Banno

    Adam Smith's "invisible hand" is a superempirical power.
  • The Concept of Religion
    Does the term "religion" refer to nothing? — Banno

    Nothing specific.

    I thought it an odd post by you because the riddle of "what is a religion" is no more a curiosity than "what is X," meaning religion doesn’t pose a special case anymore than any other word, and the riddle (as the article points out) was solved by Wittgenstein. Words simply don't have essences, and their meaning is based upon usage and context. That's that. — Hanover

    It can very much be a problem when it comes to religious exemptions.
  • Jesus and Greek Philosophy
    ...focusing on the claim that Paul's encounter with the resurrected Jesus was with the one said to be the fulfillment of the prophecies. — Paine

    That, of course, is true. Paul quite ingeniously came up with a new version in which death was not a sign of the failure of Jesus to fulfill the prophecies but the way in which they were fulfilled. Two keys points: 1) The death of the messiah becomes a necessary condition for the fulfillment. 2) It is not the people who are saved but the individual who might not even be of the people of Israel.

    That participation in the change is why Augustine condemned Athens but praised the 'city' of the Israelites. The City of God is the vanguard of the change. — Paine

    This is what Apollodorus misses when he rejects the distinction between Athens and Jerusalem. He points to Kavka for support, but completely misunderstands the project. For Kavka the messiah is yet to come. The messiah is for him the people rather than one person. In this sense he reverses Paul. It is not the hope that the passive, helpless individual will be saved but that the actions of the people will save the world.
  • Sophistry
    Yes, if it is unintelligible to one's own mode of interpretation, it ought to be rejected for that reason. — Metaphysician Undercover

    Is it possible that one is wrong? That one's own mode of interpretation in this case misses or misunderstands something? If so then rejecting what is read as inconsistent is itself inconsistent.

    Consistent with the truth" is a judgement made by an individual subject. If this is not the judgement then we really ought to reject the proposition. — Metaphysician Undercover

    Is the judgment of the individual subject always consistent with the truth? If it is not then it is inconsistent to say in this case that we really ought to reject the proposition.

    I don't think there are "distinct periods" — Metaphysician Undercover

    So Plato's works are carefully ordered chronologically, and his thoughts are divided into distinct periods. — Metaphysician Undercover

    There is a clear inconsistency here. A contradiction. First you say there are distinct periods then you don't think there are distinct periods. Are you saying that there are distinct periods but you don't think there are?

    What you say contains several inconsistencies. It should be rejected.
  • Sophistry
    It's safer to say that conclusions cannot be drawn, due to inconsistency, then to assume consistency and draw a false conclusion. — Metaphysician Undercover

    Saying that conclusions cannot be drawn is not the same things as what you do when you draw conclusions about Metaphysics Book Lamba.

    You draw a conclusion when you say:

    This leaves us in a position to accept whatever an author says, which appears to be consistent with the truth, and reject whatever one says which appears to be inconsistent with the truth. — Metaphysician Undercover

    What may appear to you to be an inconsistency may not be. But rather than any further attempt to understand or even leave it open as problematic you have concluded that it should be rejected.

    There is a clear inconsistency in saying a) conclusions cannot be drawn and b) concluding that what the author says should be rejected.

    The person who does not see the possibility of inconsistency — Metaphysician Undercover

    I have claimed no such thing. What I am saying is that we should not be too quick in deciding there is an inconsistency that a philosopher like Plato is unaware of.

    I can't understand this. — Metaphysician Undercover

    You say that there are distinct periods in Plato's development. Does he change his mind about Forms?If so, in what way?
  • Jesus and Greek Philosophy
    To recap, it is beyond dispute that all or most of Jesus’ teachings are consistent with Hellenistic tradition which was on the rise at the time. — Apollodorus

    Saying it is beyond dispute does not make it so. The fact of the matter is, we do not have any reliable, direct evidence of his teachings. We can, however, piece some things together.

    What is not in dispute is that he was seen by his followers as the messiah. This is not part of the Hellenistic tradition.

    Whatever influence you might imagine Hellenistic tradition had on Jesus you have not provided any evidence that extended to his teachings regarding the law. If we accept the authenticity of Paul's account, his dispute with Peter shows that James and the Jewish Christians sided with Peter against Paul regarding the law. Jesus' disciples would not have learned from Jesus' teachings to disregard the law.

    The fact of the matter is that Jesus was a Jew and no amount of Hellenic influence can change that. If he was thought by his followers to be the messiah, this was a Jewish messiah. Not God's son in a biological sense. Not a son in the pagan sense of a god impregnating a woman. Not a half man half god or full god. A man.

    Why would Jesus be called “Emmanuel”? — Apollodorus

    It is an attempt to use the prophecy in Isaiah to support the claim that Jesus is the messiah. But the virgin in the prophecy does not name him Jesus. In addition the gospels of Mark and John say nothing about virgin birth.

    the whole narrative from Jesus’ sojourn in Egypt — Apollodorus

    This is a story told only in Matthew,. Luke tells a different story that contradicts this. Although some scholars claim Matthew's story is reliable, others reject it. In any case Matthew does not tell us how long they stayed there, only that they returned when Joseph had a dream assuring him it was safe to return. That they stayed there long enough for Jesus to be influenced by Egyptian beliefs and practces is completely without supporting evidence.

    Your continued attempt to separate Jesus from Judaism is suspect. Of course Egypt plays a role in Judaism. Much of Genesis and Exodus takes place in Egypt. What you seem unable to grasp is that Egypt is used as a foil. It is not a matter of accepting Egyptian beliefs and practices but rejecting them. The story of Judaism is not about assimilation to Greece or Rome or Egypt.

    “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven. — Sermon on the Mount

    "You" does not refer to the Greeks or Romans or Egyptians. Those he is addressing, the Jews, sons of their father in heaven, stand apart. They are the chosen people because they adhere to the laws and prophets. Jesus' teaching is not about assimilation but about shining a light and standing as an example for other nations to follow.
  • Sophistry
    If we assume the the appearance of inconsistency is a deficiency in reading skills, when the inconsistency is real, and within the material, due to a deficient understanding of the writer ... — Metaphysician Undercover

    The problem is that you wildly overestimate your reading skills. Although there may be cases where an inconsistency is real, you are all too quick to declare inconsistencies where the real problem is evidently a deficient understanding on the part of the reader. Modesty and humility are hermeneutic virtues.

    So Plato's works are carefully ordered chronologically, and his thoughts are divided into distinct periods. — Metaphysician Undercover

    The chronology of when the dialogue were written is not the same as the chronology of when the dialogues are set to have taken place. Parmenides is a "late dialogue" but it takes place when Socrates was young. The chronology of events raises serious questions about dividing Plato's work into distinct periods. Why would he situate what is supposed to be a late development, his criticism of the the theory of forms, at the beginning of Socrates' philosophical education?
  • Jesus and Greek Philosophy
    I am not sure if the middle paragraph does. The focus on suffering is clear in Paul's testimony. He did not claim it made sense. — Paine

    Although Paul used the term 'kurios', that is, Lord, he did not claim that Jesus was God.

    There is no God but one.” For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. — Corinthians 8:4-6

    What comes from God comes through Jesus. Some interpret John to be saying that Jesus is God. The Nicene Creed is clear that Jesus is God. For Paul, Jesus is a man who suffered physically, but God does not suffer physically. With the claim that Jesus is God either God can suffer physically and die or there is an irreconcilable contradiction between saying that Jesus suffered and Jesus is God.
  • Jesus and Greek Philosophy
    It should be noted that Paul himself readily admits the differences between a resurrected savior and the expectations of the Messiah as was hoped for by the first witnesses. — Paine

    Paul had to tie in the fact that Jesus was crucified. Jesus' crucifixion was central to Paul's story of the Messiah. The claim that it was necessary for the messiah to die, to suffer, to be sacrificed by God for our sins is not something found in the accounts of the messiah in the Jewish scriptures.

    The idea that Jesus is God undermines this story. Paul's God could neither physically suffer nor die. If Jesus is God or a manifestation of God then Jesus' suffering and dying was a sham, pretend, an act. Show business.

    And, of course, his resurrection was a new invention. While the idea of resurrection was not new, it was new to the promise of a messiah. New because death had never been part of the story.
Home » Fooloso4