...it is always logically possible that the inconsistency belongs to your interpretation. — Paine

When that possibility is not taken seriously the whole of the text or texts may be distorted in order to accomodate an interpretation. That is just bad hermeneutic practice. I follow the advise of those who say that when there is an apparent contradiction look to see if it is or can be reconciled based on further consideration and closer examination.

More on the trial of Jesus: Trial

If we wish to understand what lies behind this version of the story, we have to remind ourselves once again that Mark—the oldest Gospel, though the second in the Canon—was written in Rome at a time (around the year 70 of the current era) when the small community of Christians living there was in constant danger of persecution. Already in the 40's, Christian missionary preaching had provoked the Emperor Claudius to expel all Jews from the capital city, those who believed that the Messiah had appeared and those who did not share such a belief (the Romans were as yet unable to distinguish between messianist Jews—that is, Christians—and other Jews), and in Nero's reign the persecution of the Christians took an even grimmer form. Since Mark was composed either at the end of Nero's reign or shortly afterward, the evangelist had every reason to try to ingratiate himself and his co-religionists with the Romans. The fact that Jesus had been sentenced to the cross by Pilate—a death penalty which carried opprobrium in Roman eyes, as being reserved for the most heinous crimes, and for slaves and despised foreigners—could not be concealed. But the evangelist could portray Pilate as having been unwilling to pass a death sentence and as having recognized the innocence of the man whom Christians now worshipped. For this purpose Pilate had to be presented as acting under Jewish pressure against his own better conviction. The evangelist's tendency was not “anti-Semitic,” as some might say; it was defensive and apologetic. He was concerned with promoting the fortunes of his little group, and was anxious to avoid suspicion and counter hostility on the part of the authorities. Accordingly, he presented the Roman authority of Jesus's own day, Pontius Pilate, as professing that he had found “no fault in this man.” The writer of the Second Gospel and those who came after him never realized what results this shift in the responsibility for Jesus's crucifixion would have in future generations.

Many Christian scholars:

.. will say that the political accusation was a “trumped-up charge,” invented by the Jewish authorities of the day who had found Jesus “worthy of death” for religious reasons, but who could not act on their own authority because while the Sanhedrin had the right to pass sentences of death, it had no right to carry out such sentences. This argument is faulty. At the time when Judaea was under procuratorial rule, from the year 6 to the year 66 C.E., Jewish law courts did pass death sentences upon Jewish inhabitants of Israel, and did carry out such sentences on their own authority, without referring the cases to the Roman political administrator of the country.

... Even in later centuries, several Fathers of the Church preserved knowledge of the fact that in the time of Jesus Jewish law courts in Judaea exercised unlimited jurisdiction over Jews who were being tried for capital offenses. Origen describes the condition of the Jewish judiciary after the year 70, and explains that it lost its capital jurisdiction as a result of the victory of Roman arms in that year. In another passage, Origen mentions that Jewish law courts continued to administer the death penalty even after the year 70, but were now compelled to do so clandestinely in order not to risk a conflict with the Roman rulers whom they were defying.

... Still later, Augustine of Hippo, when commenting on the passage of the Fourth Gospel which denies the Jewish leaders any right to carry out sentences of death, offers the following explanation: “This is to be understood in the sense that the Jews could not carry out an execution because they were celebrating a festival.” Thus according to Augustine, the Jews of Jesus's time were not deprived of the right to put sentences of death into effect; they voluntarily refrained from exercising it on a holy day. John Chrysostom of Antioch has the same explanation.

I said "he got killed by the Temple Taliban", — Apollodorus

Yes, you did. But he didn't. He was sentenced by Pilate and the sentence was carried out by Roman soldiers in Roman fashion, crucifixion. Not by the high priest and his allies.

I never said "he got killed by Herod". — Apollodorus

And I never said you did.

Herod simply feared a potential challenger to the throne. — Apollodorus

Hence my point about political expedience. The real issue for both Pilate and Herod was political. It has nothing to do with religion.

Also, Pilate didn't sentence Jesus for his own religious reasons, but for the religious reasons of the Temple Taliban who objected to Jesus' claiming to be the Son of God. — Apollodorus

That is not the story the gospel of John tells. Why would Pilate carry out the wishes of the Jewish leaders?

As far as Pilate was concerned, he wanted to avoid civil unrest instigated by the Temple Taliban. — Apollodorus

Are you claiming he did not have the power to prevent or stop civil unrest?

And yes, the fact is that ultimately, the Temple Taliban lost and Hellenistic-influenced Christianity won.
Which shows why fanaticism isn't a good idea and why Jesus' more inclusive views were right. — Apollodorus

It is simply not true that history is always determined by those with more inclusive views and fanaticism never prevails.

Nope, I'm not "avoiding" anything at all. YOU are denying the fact that NT teachings like “son of God”, “moral and spiritual perfection”, “resurrection and immortality”, etc., were already extant in Hellenistic tradition at the time of Jesus ... — Apollodorus

Once again you try to erase the fact that Jesus was Jewish. You have not provided any evidence that the influence of Hellenism on Judaism extended to belief in the existence of men who become gods or gods who become men or the idea that God impregnated a woman who gave birth to a man/god. Such beliefs run counter to Jesus' Jewish beliefs. They are not Jewish beliefs, they are pagan.

there is no logical necessity to assume that they must have been retroactively superimposed on Jesus' teachings by later “Hellenized” Christians. — Apollodorus

Once again, it was largely gentiles, under the influence of Paul, who brought their pagan beliefs to bear on their understanding of the messiah and God. It was these pagan beliefs that informed and so deformed the Jewish notion of a 'son of God'. It has nothing to do with retroactively superimposing anything on Jesus teachings. It was simply the way they understood the teachings of Jesus as they heard it as it was told to them.

The Greek origin of most of these teachings is precisely why they were rejected by fundamentalist rabbis, even though some of them — Apollodorus

First of all, it is not because the are of Greek origin but because they are beliefs that are contrary to Judaism. Second, unless you can provide evidence otherwise, it is likely that Jesus, who stresses the law and the prophets would have rejected it as well.

"Son of God" do occur in the writings of the Essenes and even in the Hebrew Bible — Apollodorus

Yes, we went through this before. More than once. You are actually demonstrating my point. The Gentiles, and you as well, understood 'Son of God' in a pagan sense that is foreign to Jewish literature and tradition, especially as it was at this time.

The article you link to refutes your claim and supports mine:

In ancient Israel, kings were also called sons of God. The Bible quotes Yahweh, Israel’s one God, saying of David, “I will be his father, and he shall be my son” (2 Samuel 7:14) and, more generally, “I have set my king on Zion, my holy hill…You are my son; today I have begotten you” (Psalm 2:6–7).

It seems natural that Israel would appropriate language and motifs of kingship that were compatible with its monotheistic worldview

The language of kings is appropriated and used to refer not to gods but to human kings.

So, if Jesus was a descendant of King David as stated in Matthew 1:1-16, then he was correctly following tradition! — Apollodorus

So, once again you have undermined your own argument. If Jesus was a descendant of King David, then Jesus was a descendant of a man. A son of God in the sense consistent with Judaism, a man not a god or a literal son of God.

So, arguably, the NT does have a point in some key respects. — Apollodorus

And what is that point? Taking a statement from Isaiah and telling a story of the virgin birth of Jesus in order to make it appear that Isaiah was talking about him is an example of retroactive superimposing Jesus on Isaiah. Except one problem, the man's name is Immanuel not Jesus. Of course apologists attempt to explain this discrepancy away

I think it is obvious that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

The fact is that the Temple Taliban lost and Hellenistic-influenced Christianity won. This may be inconvenient to anti-Christian activists, but there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Get over it. — Apollodorus

See below:

There is no doubt that fundamentalist rabbis were opposed to such developments, but the political leadership was fully aware that it could not afford to isolate the country or risk being perceived as anti-Roman by Rome. — Apollodorus

Let's look more closely. You said:

He got killed by the Temple Taliban precisely because of his unorthodox teachings like being the Son of God and equal with God — Apollodorus

In Matthew "King Herod" attempts to have Jesus killed when he was born. He asks:

Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews?

(2.1)

This was not fundamentalist rabbis but the Roman established king of the Jews who was threatened by "the one who has been born king of the Jews". Herod's concern was not religious. In fact, Herod, being thoroughly Hellenized, seemed to have little or no regard for Judaism. As you quote:

Herod himself seems to have been to the Greek elementary school in Jerusalem, in which the sons of the Jewish aristocracy were probably instructed. At an advanced age he then pursued philosophical, rhetorical and historical studies under the direction of Nicolaus of Damascus; he also had his sons brought up completely in the Greek style.

According to the gospel of Luke, Pontius Pilate sent Jesus to Herod. When Herod sent him back to Pilate, they became friends, when before they had been enemies (Luke 23:6-12) Their friendship had nothing to do with fundamentalist rabbis but with political expediency. Like Herod, Pilate was hated by the Jews.

If Pilate gave into pressure from the Jews it was not for religious reasons but as a matter of expediency. According to the gospel of John, Pilate was threatened:

If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.

(19:12)

While the Jewish authorities might have wanted him dead, they had no authority sentence him to death. Pilate had no regard for the Jews or their religion. He acted in order to save his own precarious position. He had Jesus crucified in Roman fashion.

In any case, key NT teachings — Apollodorus

You are still trying to avoid the issue. Where does the influence of Hellenism on Judaism extend to belief in the existence of men who become gods or gods who become men or the idea that God impregnated a woman who gave birth to a man/god?

Thanks. I may not bother responding much longer. It's been fun but it gets tedious. I haven't decided whether he can't see when he is wrong or just won't admit.

I have received enough support from different members to quiet any concerns that I might be the one getting it wrong and not being able to see it. And, of course, in his somewhat more sophisticated version of "I know you are but what am I?" that he plays this is likely to be what he says or maybe even genuinely believes.

If Jesus had preached "strict adherence to the Laws and prophets" as understood by the religious authorities, he wouldn't have got killed by them in the first place — Apollodorus

There were no laws forbidding capital punishment and plenty of cases where it was given as the proper response to infractions.

He got killed by the Temple Taliban precisely because of his unorthodox teachings like being the Son of God and equal with God (John 5:18,10:25-38) — Apollodorus

You ignore historical sources and appeal to the gospel of John.

As pointed out by Justin Martyr, such teachings were already found in Hellenistic tradition. — Apollodorus

And appeal to a Christian apologist born 100 years after Jesus. In any case, you've got it backwards. Martyr tells a story of an old man who corrected his Platonism and told him of the Hebrew prophets:

more ancient than all those who are considered philosophers ... who alone saw an declared the truth to mankind — Dialogue with Trypho 7.1-2

I think it is evident from Jesus' statements that he was a pretty open-minded person — Apollodorus

You may think so, but if we accept the Sermon on the Mount as indicative of his views, he was more rigorous and demanding than the Pharisees.

Obviously, his teachings were rejected by Jewish fundamentalists and extremists, but they were accepted by sufficient numbers of Jews and non-Jews to start a religious movement that sought to unite all believers and establish a universal faith, which is exactly what Christianity became. — Apollodorus

Without Paul's claims about the Law and his conversion of Gentiles it is likely there would be no Christianity. His teachings run counter to Jesus'. According to Matthew Jesus said:

Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritan’s, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. — Matthew 10:5-6

(Matthew 10:5,6 ESV).

This is consistent with what Paul says about his split with Peter.

As previously pointed out, which of course you ignored because it runs counter to your claims:

But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. — Matthew 7

This is not Paul's message of salvation through faith or belief. It is a matter of obedience to the law and prophets. A matter of being perfect. In Hebrew: Tamim

You refuse to accept this because, as a committed anti-Christian, you like to paint Jesus (and, presumably, all Jews) as a narrow-minded and petty fanatic who couldn't have been a Christian and who would have rejected everything "Pagan" or Greek including language, philosophy, and culture! — Apollodorus

When you cannot adequately defend your claims you resort to personal and false accusations. Disagreeing with you does not make me anti-Christian. I paint Jesus as a man, not a god. This is against the Nicene Creed, but what was decided at the councils never was and is still not accepted by all Christians.

What you may presume about my view of "all Jews" finds no support in anything I have actually said, and is very far from my actual opinion. It has, however, been noted by several participants in this discussion that you have attempted to erase Judaism, going right from neoPlatonism to Jesus as if Judaism is little more than a collection of foreign influences. This seems like a case of projection on your part.

You might have some success with your rhetorical tactics might work with some but I have been quite clear and consistent in saying that what is at issue is not "everything Pagan" but theological claims about divinity.

It certainly doesn't make sense for Christians to have "falsified" and "Paganized" the teachings of some Jewish fundamentalist when many other religious teachers of all denominations and creeds were available for that purpose. — Apollodorus

What makes no sense is your claim. It is not as if Christians went in search of someone whose teachings they could falsify and paganize. The Jewish followers of Jesus believed he was the Messiah. It was largely gentiles, under the influence of Paul, who brought their pagan beliefs to bear on their understanding of the messiah and God. It was these pagan beliefs that informed and so deformed the Jewish notion of a 'son of God'.

We might regard each individual life as having equal value but in this case we are not dealing with an individual. It is not 1=1. It is 1=5.

On a societal level the consequences of saving or loosing five lives is greater than saving or loosing one. Although things might be different if the contribution of one person greatly outweighs that of the others.

At the root of the problem is the conflict between individualism and the common good. That is not a conflict we can resolve, but how one answers the question of who gets the drug may depending on where one stands on individualism.

That's why most people give up on trying to understand Plato — Metaphysician Undercover

I have been reading and studying Plato for close to fifty years. I have started several threads here on Plato. Why people give up on trying to understand Plato has nothing to do with you.

we move ahead by solving the hopelessly twisted puzzles. — Metaphysician Undercover

What you fail to see is that your hopelessly twisted puzzles are of your own making. This is true not only of your perverse reading of Plato but for your perverse reading of Wittgenstein as well.

She wasn't asked about transgender people. She was asked to define a woman. — Harry Hindu

Hence the trap. Why did Blackburn ask her to define the word woman? She brought up Lia Thomas, a transgender athelete.

All USA Today did is pull the rug out from under the left's own push to nominate a black woman. — Harry Hindu

All USA Today did is make a clumsy rhetorical argument that either misrepresents or misunderstands what is at issue. There is no ambiguity as to whether Jackson is a black woman.

Actually it is people like you who have become religious in accepting the claims by certain people without questioning those claims. — Harry Hindu

Actually it people like me who studied biology long before this became a hot button issue. People like me who do question those claims and are aware that things are not always binary. People like me who think that what we should do in such cases is something that does not yield clear answers. People like me who know politicians will use this to their advantage.

It is like a religion in that everyone on one side believes that they are the righteous and the other side are not. — Harry Hindu

This cuts both ways. It is not everyone and its both sides not one side. Has it escaped your notice that you are the one who with righteous indignation talking about "people like you"?

This is all hopeless twisted. On a number of different topics several of us having tried to help you untangle your confused thinking. I am done trying.

You obviously have zero knowledge or understanding of textual criticism, archaeology, history, epigraphy, or anything else for that matter. — Apollodorus

An internet search followed by cut and paste is not textual criticism, archaeology, history, epigraphy, or anything else for that matter other than cut and paste.

Time after time I have pointed to your misunderstandings, misinterpretations, and misrepresentation. But you just ignore it and more on to something else. I could point them out but what would be the point. You would not acknowledge and move on to something else. Although sometimes you do come back to it and repeat the same thing.

I think I have demonstrated (1) that much of the OT narrative cannot be taken at face value ... — Apollodorus

You may be the only one who has argued otherwise. For example:

If the Egyptians, Babylonians, Canaanites, and Greeks, all saw the Sun as a deity, what are the chances of their Hebrew neighbors seeing it as a “metaphor”? Probably, zero. — Apollodorus

The Psalms are not a theological doctrine. The fact of the matter is the Psalms are metaphorical.

that the notion that the Jews in general were resistant to Greek thought or impervious to its influence is total bogus. — Apollodorus

First, the statement contains weasel words such as "in general". What is at issue is something specific, something you continue to evade. Greek names and Greek language are not the same a theological influence. Second, there is evidence of resistance. I pointed to an example from Proverbs. Of course you ignored it.

As per the OP, the issue at hand is Greek influence on Jesus. IMO Jesus' belief in moral and spiritual perfection (Matthew 5:48) — Apollodorus

None of the examples you cite show a clear influence on Jesus. They do not show an influence on Jesus' Judaism. They show an influence on the authors of the NT texts. No one has dispute that influence.

I addressed the concept of perfection. Once again you ignored it and now repeat the same false claim. The term had a specific meaning:

In Jewish scripture certain individuals such as Abraham and Noah are referred to as perfect because of their obedience to God. In these passages perfect is used as a synonym for complete, and perfect obedience to God is simply complete obedience to God.

— Wiki Matthew 5:48

Perfect obedience to God is not the result of Greek influence.

resurrection and immortality — Apollodorus

In typical fashion you omit what does not fit your claim. Right above what you quoted from Wiki is a section on resurrection in ancient religions in the Near East including Egypt and Canaan, that is, in the lands the ancient Israelites. The influence does not come from the Greeks.

Hades — Apollodorus

Jesus might have used the term if he was addressing a Greek audience, but is more likely to have used the term 'Sheol' when talking to Simon Peter. The author is likely to have know the Hebrew Scriptures from Greek translation where Sheol is translated as Hades.

Well, that's precisely why these beliefs must be assumed to be due to Greek influence on Jesus and other Christians!!! — Apollodorus

No, that is precisely why these beliefs must be assumed to be due to the Greek influence on pagan Christians!!! If Jesus preached strict adherence to the Laws and prophets he would not have accepted
the existence of men who become gods or gods who become men or the idea that God impregnated a woman who gave birth to a man/god.

Keep digging.

By “Judaism” I meant Judaism in its historical form in the period under discussion, i.e., from its beginnings in Ancient Canaan, not Modern Judaism which is a totally different story! — Apollodorus

What is the "period under discussion'? From its beginning around 1250 BCE to the temples you point to build between 1,500 and 1,700 years ago?

“A Roman cult” can be ANY cult observed by inhabitants of the Roman Empire, e.g. the worship of a particular deity. “Imperial cult” is the worship of the emperor. They are two TOTALLY different things. — Apollodorus

Have you forgotten what is at issue? You pointed to the article about the temples which were not built until 1,500 to 1,700 years ago and underlined that Hellenistic Judaism is best understood as a Roman cult in order to support of your claim that:

Given that Jewish religion was not very different from Greek religion at the time, most Jews had no reason to resist Hellenistic influence ... But the Jewish God they worshiped was "portrayed as a solar deity", exactly as in the First Temple period and before, because that was how Hellenistic Judaism, the dominant form of the religion, conceived of God at the time.

The issue is not different Roman cults but rather what significance Hellenistic Judaism being a Roman cult had for the question of pagan belief in Judaism at the time of Jesus. This is a central question. You have not addressed it. Instead you have gone on page after page after page attempting to bury it

Hellenistic Judaism “flowered” in the 4th and 5th centuries in the sense that it increased in influence and appeal, not that it started at that time! — Apollodorus

Correct. See the definition of 'rise':

The rise of a movement or activity is an increase in its popularity or influence. — Rise

The start of a movement is not the rise of the movement. But such semantic differences distract from the issue. The question is how influential Hellenism was for Judaism at the time of Jesus?

The Jewish religion did not accept the existence of men who become gods or gods who become men. They do not accept the idea that God impregnated a woman who gave birth to a man/god. They did not accept a trinity of gods.

From the introduction to Jewish Messianism and the History of Philosophy

1. What is not? Everything that has not yet actualized its potential. Most viscerally, me.

2. What is meontology? The study of unmediated experiences of lack and privation. This study inaugurates self-critique and the realization that I live in a moment best described as not-yet. I thereby begin my path toward human perfection and toward God.

3. How do I live in this not-yet? In manic desire for what appears to me to be stable, for what displays a comfort in its own skin that I have never experienced. For you.

4. What is the effect of this desire? In the hope against hope that my desire will come to fulfillment, I keep you in mind, near me. I take care of you and work to engender political reforms that allow our conversation and relationship to perdure. I act to delay your death – even, perhaps, if this contributes to the skyrocketing proportion of the GDP taken up by the cost of medical care – and the death of your friends, and their friends, ad infinitum. In these brief moments when I break free of my narcissistic chains, I act messianically and redeem the world that is responsible for your suffering and your death, which will always be premature for me. I engender a world that my tradition (and perhaps yours) says God engenders, and I articulate my resemblance to God.


This argument makes a long journey from Athens to Jerusalem. It moves from a philosophy of nonbeing to the passionate faith in a redeemer still to come ... whom I represent. Indeed, the notion of a redeemer to come – the difference between Judaism and Christianity – cannot be defended without turning back to the analysis of nonbeing in the Greek philosophical tradition. Without Athens, Jerusalem (Judaism) risks being unable to articulate the meaning of its own religious practices, becoming no more than a set of customs divorced from their ultimate source, a sedimented series of rote actions that can create an identity for its practitioners only through the profane category of “culture.”

And Kafka’s The Trial is a great book. — Dermot Griffin

Not Franz Kafka. Martin Kavka. Author of Jewish Messianism and the History of Philosophy.

No wiki entry but this will give you an idea of his work:

https://religion.fsu.edu/person/martin-kavka

I prefer the redemptive or ethical theology of Jewish thinkers such as Levinas and Kavka. The focus is on man rather than speculation about a divine being and a messiah who has or will save us. Messianic responsibility is ours. It is our task to redeem the world.

I also prefer to drop the metaphysical trappings.

I keep asking you to justify this claim, but you do not. If there is some simple, clear and distinct principle, other than "thinking something is good", which makes the thing actually and truly good, then please produce it. — Metaphysician Undercover

My claim is that thinking or believing something is good is not the same as knowing that it is good. Thinking or believing something is good does not make the thing actually and truly good. You make the distinction yourself when you point out:

He rejects pleasure because obviously, some pleasures are bad — Metaphysician Undercover

If we pursue pleasure and some pleasures are bad then pursuing pleasure does not make it good.

We often willingly do what we believe, and know to be bad. How is this possible? — Metaphysician Undercover

You are now making the argument you rejected! If we willingly do what we believe, and know to be bad then what we are pursuing in such cases cannot, as you previously claimed, be good because we pursue it.

Previously you said:

every act is inherently good. — Metaphysician Undercover

and:

everything we do is good — Metaphysician Undercover

but now you admit that we often do what is bad. If every act is inherently good then how can an act that is inherently good be bad?

You say:

It is possible because we do not have a true understanding of "the good" — Metaphysician Undercover

How do you know that every act is good if we do not have a true understanding of the good?

So, what defines something as "good" is the fact that it is pursued, — Metaphysician Undercover

A true understanding of the good cannot be that the good is whatever we pursue. You now say that we do not have a true understanding of the good:

What is the case is that we really and truly do not know what "the good" is, — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree, but you seem to disagree with yourself. You previously said :

Accordingly, your phrase "Knowledge of the good itself is that by which we can truly determine whether a particular act is good" makes no sense at all. — Metaphysician Undercover

If it is not by knowledge that we can truly determine whether a particular act is good then in what way can we determine that it is good? Certainly not by the fact it is done.

The proper conclusion is that the belief that virtue is a knowledge is the deception. — Metaphysician Undercover

The proper conclusion is that virtue is problematic. Lacking knowledge we do not have the true measure of virtue.

Virtue is the cause of knowledge — Metaphysician Undercover

Is your claim that virtue is the good?

How can we distinguish between virtuous and non-virtuous acts? By virtue of virtue? If virtue is the good and we cannot know the good then we cannot know virtue.

Wrong. — Harry Hindu

And yet you go on to give support for my point. She was not about to let the hearings turn into a dispute about transgender people.

The biology of gender is not a simple matter of male vs female.
— Fooloso4
It's actually very simple — Harry Hindu

It's not that simple. A bit of online research based on the scientific literature rather than religious or political claims will bear out that sex and gender are not binary.

Will people have the skills to tell good ideas from bad ideas (however that looks in practice)? — Tom Storm

Not all people but some, but hasn't it always been that way? I think the notions of democracy and egalitarianism can be harmful with regard to this. There should be an equality of opportunity, but above some level of minimum competency maybe less emphasis should be put on getting everyone to do better, and perhaps more than they are capable of, and more resources on helping students excel at what they are good at and interested in.

As to critical thinking, I think that a more practical integrative approach would be better for some students than courses in abstract critical thinking. Although the latter should not be neglected. One example is the process of troubleshooting. Another might be, how to feed a family in one hour with only the limited ingredients on hand. Or how to feed a family with only a certain amount of money.

Instead of Shakespeare video/movies/TV that addresses some of the same issues can be effective.

Do you see a solution to this, or does it belong to the culture wars and the general malaise in Western culture? — Tom Storm

I think that teaching students how to actively read and interpret starting from the time they learn to read can help. There will always be those search and question and the numbers wax and wane.

I also think that too much emphasis is put on higher education. Too many people who are either not well suited or not well prepared end up in college where they don't belong. Part of problem is humanities requirements There is a recognition of the value of the humanities, but as a requirement it has become in too many cases just a matter of checking the box and getting it out of the way. The sciences support the continued teaching of humanities. The humanities are financially difficult to sustain on their own and humanities requirements is a way of justifying their continued existence. It fills seats.

The other side of the problem is that each year more humanities graduates with higher degrees enter the job market than there are jobs available. The push from the administration is to keep enrollment numbers up while at the same time replacing retiring teaching faculty with adjuncts whose dreams of gainful employment has been crushed.

Although painful in the short term, part of the solution may be to shrink humanities departments. This is already happening but the outdated model of department growth and a supply of graduates to meet the demands of growth is not sustainable.

Rather than optimism and solutions I ended up painting a cheerless picture of despair.

I agree with much of this.

I wonder if the era of the Great Conversation has ended and amounts to anachronistic liberalism in our postmodern, tradition hating culture? — Tom Storm

It is the liberal tradition that has led to the hatred of tradition - "dead white guys". Individualism, autonomy, and equality have led to the idea that no one has greater moral or intellectual authority then I do.

I'm sure the hardest thing to do these days is engage students. Better they watch a TV show and explore its themes and characters with interest than stare hatefully and blankly at a page of Shakespeare before zoning out. — Tom Storm

I think the lack of interest in reading and the lack of knowledge of how to read as a participant. They learn to passively in order to gather information. It they question a text it is often only to reject it rather than to see if the argument holds up.

But I do think that it is still possible to have great conversations in class, but requiring them read a book and discuss it usually a non-starter. You can pull out interesting ideas and issues, but some will not say anything for fear it will become clear they have not read the material, some will be afraid to admit that they do not understand something, some will be reluctant to say anything that others will object to.

When I was teaching I considered it a success if I had a few students in a semester who was interested and engaged.

Most Americans, North and South, were Christian. Most slave-owners were Christian. Both those who supported slavery and those opposed used the Bible to support their views and believed that God was on their side.

There is not much questioning the cultural power of religion in America in the Civil War years. Americans at the midpoint of the 19th century were probably as thoroughly Christianized a people as they have ever been. Landscapes were dominated by church spires, and the most common sound in public spaces was the ringing of church bells. American churches jumped to exponential levels of growth. Between 1780 and 1820, Americans built 10,000 new churches; by 1860, they quadrupled that number. Almost all of the 78 American colleges which were founded by 1840 were church-related, with clergymen serving on the boards and the faculties. Even a man of such modest religious visibility as Abraham Lincoln, who never belonged to a church and never professed more than a deistic concept of God, nevertheless felt compelled, during his run for Congress in 1846, to still the anxieties of a Christian electorate by protesting that “I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or of any denomination of Christians in particular … I do not think I could myself, be brought to support a man for office, whom I knew to be an open enemy of, and scoffer at, religion.”

-----

But Southern preachers and theologians chimed in with fully as much fervor, in claiming that God was on their side. A writer for the Southern quarterly, DeBow’s Review, insisted that since “the institution of slavery accords with the injunctions and morality of the Bible,” the Confederate nation could therefore expect a divine blessing “in this great struggle.” The aged Episcopal bishop of Virginia, Richard Meade, gave Robert E. Lee his dying blessing: “You are engaged in a holy cause.”

-----

I see it now as I have never seen it before. You are at the head of a mighty army, to which millions look with untold anxiety and hope. You are a Christian soldier—God thus far owns and blesses you in your efforts for the cause of the South. Trust in God, Gen. Lee, with all your heart,” and placing his palsied hands on the General’s head, he added in a voice never to be forgotten by the bystanders, “you will never be overcome—you can never be overcome.”

-----

When, by 1864, defeat was looking the Confederacy in the eyes, the arms of the pious dropped nervelessly to their sides, and they concluded that God was deserting them, if not over slavery, then for Southern unbelief. “Can we believe in the justice of Providence,” lamented Josiah Gorgas, the Confederacy’s chief of ordnance, “or must we conclude we are after all wrong?” Or even worse, wailed one despairing Louisianan, “I fear the subjugation of the South will make an infidel of me. I cannot see how a just God can allow people who have battled so heroically for their rights to be overthrown.”

-----

Appeals to divine authority at the beginning of the Civil War fragmented in deadlock and contradiction, and ever since then, it has been difficult for deeply rooted religious conviction to assert a genuinely shaping influence over American public life. — Civil War and Christianity

I am in favor of a great books (lower case) approach, but this must be tempered by an acknowledgement of the fact that the majority of students at both the high school and college lever do not and in many cases cannot read these kinds of books. They have been taught and trained to read textbooks and to read for information.

You might have some success with a "great videos" approach. Good conversations can take place with the right set-up. Short statements in terms that they can relate to. "The unexamined life is not worth living". "All men are created equal". At various points introduce more of what various people from various disciplines and cultures said about this

In my opinion what you want to do at this stage is introduce them to ideas and get them involved in thinking. You will lose them if you give long, complex quotes. You want to leave them with questions and an awareness of the problems. Any answers or resolutions should be more material for questioning and examining.

As you are already aware "Great Books" might act as a trigger. It may be best to avoid such terms if asked about your educational philosophy in an interview. They might not even be interested in your ideas on content since you probably won't be making decisions on curriculum as a new teacher. What they might be more interested in is what you have to say about learning and a holistic view of students that includes problems and issues they bring to school from their home and social environment.

The Democratic President specifically asked for a woman rather than a man, and yet the nominee cannot explain the difference between a woman and a man. — RussellA

Political Trap

In Jackson's befuddlement when asked the question she seemed at least understand that it has to do with biology as she she said, "I'm not a biologist. — Harry Hindu

She is well aware of the trap that was laid. It has to do with the Republicans obsession with transgender people.

The biology of gender is not a simple matter of male vs female.

It is clear that things are not pursued because they are thought to be good, as "the good" escapes the grasp of reasonable thinking — Metaphysician Undercover

Thinking something is good is not the same as grasping the good. Believing something is good is not the same as knowing it is good.

we do not think "X is good therefore I'll pursue it" — Metaphysician Undercover

Let's see what Plato's Socrates has to say about this:

No one goes willingly toward the bad or what he believes to be bad; neither is it in human nature, so it seems, to want to go toward what one believes to be bad instead of to the good. — Protagoras 358c

As the quote from the dialogue Protagoras makes clear, it is what one believes to be good that one pursues and what one believes to be bad that one avoids.

So, what defines something as "good" is the fact that it is pursued — Metaphysician Undercover

One might believe the pleasant is good (358b) and pursue it, but, as you point out:

He rejects pleasure because obviously, some pleasures are bad — Metaphysician Undercover

So, it cannot be what defines something as good is that it is pursued since we do pursue pleasure.

Socrates concludes:

Well then, by ignorance do you mean having a false opinion and being deceived about matters of importance? — 358c

A false opinion and being deceived about what is good leads one to pursue what is bad. Here we see the connection between knowledge and virtue.

It was a simple statement, not a Venn diagram. You're trying to alter the premise. — Metaphysician Undercover

It is a simple statement that can be represented in a Venn diagram.

It's easy to make a bold assertions like "every soul pursues the good some of the time, but not all of the time" — Metaphysician Undercover

That is not the assertion. The assertion is the one you quote from Plato. The point is, the fact that you pursue something does not make it good. It is pursued because it is thought to be good, but pursuing something because you think it is good does not make it good.

Suppose for example a person is working on a good project and is therefore pursuing the good. — Metaphysician Undercover

Suppose a person is working on a bad project.

But since the person is actively stealing, is the person pursuing the not good at the very same time that the person is pursuing the good? — Metaphysician Undercover

Then what the person is doing, stealing, in pursuit of what is good, the project, is bad. The means, stealing, is bad even though the ends, the project, is good.

First they worshiped the Sun as God, then God as the Sun, and then God as God. — Apollodorus

More backpedaling. When you say:

Judaism has many elements in common with Egyptian and other religions and cultures in the region, including the following ...God equated to the Sun — Apollodorus

that is quite different than saying that at one time Judaism had such beliefs.

The article places the rise of Hellenistic Judaism after the death of Jesus.
— Fooloso4

Nonsense. — Apollodorus

So, the article you present as authoritative is nonsense? You even quoted from it:

After flowering in the fourth and fifth centuries – as attested by the synagogues built in this period

Nope. NOT "the Roman cult", but "a Roman cult" ... It was a form of the Roman cult. — Apollodorus

No particular Roman cult is the Roman cult. The Roman cult is a term that cover the particular cults. Such hairsplitting is tediously argumentative.

Nevertheless these same rabbis continued to reject any compliance with the imperial cult.

There you go. Once again you undermine your own argument!

Though Jews adopted aspects of the Roman or Greco-Roman cult, it doesn't mean they adopted emperor worship. — Apollodorus

Exactly! And yet you underline that the article said it was a Roman cult.

The question remains in what way Judaism in the time of Jesus was influenced by paganism? Not by worshipping the sun and not by worshipping a man. Unless you can identify these pagan practices and beliefs at this time then any pagan influence evident in Christianity was foreign to Jesus' Judaism.

So, you need things, plural, for being. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Does this mean anything more than that there needs to be things for there to be things?

Propositions about things are not the things they are propositions about. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Right, that is why your assertion that it:

... isn't question begging unless you are claiming that the proffered proposition "I claim there is being in the absence of thought," is identical with the reality of being without thought. — Count Timothy von Icarus

makes no sense.

Maybe some terminology would help here. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It doesn't. Distinguishing types of conceivability, the notion of ideal rational reflection, better reasoning, justification, etc. does not show nothing exists if there is no explanation for reality in total, or that thinking and being are the same, or that existence necessitates thinking.

A theist at the point he was writing this, then? — Tom Storm

Maybe, but not in the traditional sense. His notebooks were what he described as "thinking with a pen". Rather than a supreme Being most of this thoughts on God are centered around his relationship to the world.

No one is saying that the Jews worshiped the Greek or Greco-Roman Sun-God — Apollodorus

You said:

If the Egyptians, Babylonians, Canaanites, and Greeks, all saw the Sun as a deity, what are the chances of their Hebrew neighbors seeing it as a “metaphor”? Probably, zero. — Apollodorus

And:

Judaism has many elements in common with Egyptian and other religions and cultures in the region, including the following ...God equated to the Sun — Apollodorus

And:

Similarly, in the Hebrew Bible we find statements like “God is the Sun”: — Apollodorus

And:

Given that Jewish religion was not very different from Greek religion at the time — Apollodorus

You are trying to backpedal on your claim that they worshipped the literal sun.

It should be noted that the temples in question were built between 1,500 and 1,700 years ago. Long after the period in question. You skipped over this important fact. The article you are relying on said:

As Roman religion was changing, so too was the religion of Judea. Following the destruction of Second Temple Judaism in the disastrous anti-Roman revolts in the 60s and 130s C.E., the dominant form of Judaism practiced in Judea at the time, a Judaism centered around the Temple, disappeared. Hellenistic Judaism became the dominant form of Judaism in the Holy Land in the following centuries, as the mosaic-adorned synagogues attest.

The article places the rise of Hellenistic Judaism after the death of Jesus.

As to the Roman cult:


EMPEROR WORSHIP, the Roman cult established during the reign of Augustus, first in the provinces but not in Italy, and practiced throughout the Roman Empire. It is the direct continuation of the Hellenistic worship of the ruler. Emperor worship first appeared in Palestine during the reign of *Herod the Great. Although it was completely unacceptable to the Jewish population, Herod could nevertheless not afford to lag behind other vassal princes in establishing the cult. Roman Cult

So it is clear based on this evidence that the one like a son of man was indeed interpreted as the Messiah even in Rabbinical Judaism, as is shown in the Talmud and Rashi. — schopenhauer1

I am not sure where you are going with this. Are you making a distinction between a son of god and a son of man? And/or between a son of man and one like a son of man?

I don't know how much of an of emphasis was put on distinctions between these terms.

Angels do in some cases to look like men. The story of Abraham's visitors is puzzling. The Lord appeared but when Abraham looked up he saw three men. A bit later:

The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the LORD. — Genesis 18:22

Genesis 19 begins:

The two angels arrived at Sodom ...

Is this just two stories joined together without due care? Or is the ambiguity intentional? Are they men or like a son of man? Men or angels? Perhaps it has something to do with what you suggested earlier, to keep the average person from speculating. Or maybe such speculation leads not just the average person but rather human beings from speculating about divine matters.

In most cases 'son of man' refers to a human being. I do think it possible that some regarded son of man as it referred to the messiah as a reference to an angelic rather than human being. But this creates all kinds of problems if one also regards Jesus as the messiah and that he suffered and died on the cross.

Then again, perhaps none of these issues was of much concern. What was of concern an anointed one who would save or redeem the righteous or the people. I think it is even possible that Jesus' disciples may have held differing beliefs and expectations of the kingdom at hand.

Yep, you've already exposed your total ignorance of the subject, so there is no need do it again. — Apollodorus

Anyone who reads through this knows what's what.

However ... — Apollodorus

Do you think that by repeating this yet again it becomes true? You attempt to give a literal reading to something that makes no sense when read literally.

Obviously, the importance of the Sun in Jewish thought decreased over time ... — Apollodorus

And yet you go on and on and on. None of this makes any difference to the issues you are trying to bury. Namely, the influence of paganism on Christianity. Whatever views may have been held hundreds of years earlier, does not address the view of Judaism at the time of Jesus.


From the article in Haaretz:

“At the time, it was evidently considered permissible to use imagery of people, animals and even pagan godsas long as it was in the service of Jewish tradition and adopted Jewish meaning,” says Prof. Moti Aviam, an archaeologist at Kinneret College and an expert on ancient religious structures. (Emphasis added because of your deceptive habit of skipping the parts that run counter to your fabrications)

They would have presumably objected to representations of pagan gods, however, hence the solar deity in the synagogues was meant to represent the God of Israel, most scholars agree.
(Emphasis added)

Aviam suggests that Helios doesn’t represent Yahweh per se but the sun. “Together with the moon and stars, the 12 months and seasons, the image is representative of the power of god in the universe he created,” he says.

(Yup, more stuff you skipped)

All of this stands in opposition to your claim that they worshipped the sun as a god.

Given that Jewish religion was not very different from Greek religion at the time — Apollodorus

It is not a given. It is a claim you have failed to substantiate. The Jewish religion did not accept the existence of men who become gods or gods who become men. They do not accept the idea that God impregnated a woman who gave birth to a man/god. They did not accept a trinity of gods.

To strive to become perfect — Apollodorus

The term had a specific meaning:

In Jewish scripture certain individuals such as Abraham and Noah are referred to as perfect because of their obedience to God. In these passages perfect is used as a synonym for complete, and perfect obedience to God is simply complete obedience to God./quote]

Now your game of word association may reveal something about your psychological make-up but says nothing about Judaism at the time of Jesus. — Wiki Matthew 5:48

But clearly being is contingent on some things existing, as if absolutely nothing exists, there is no being. — Count Timothy von Icarus

So, being is contingent on being?

But if the claim doesn't flow from logic then it needs empircle support, but empircle support in the absence of experience is definitionally impossible. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Again, question begging. There are no claims in the absence of thought. And no logical or empirical support in the absence of thought.

Now, arguably, being without thought is inconceivable ... — Count Timothy von Icarus

Right, conceivability necessitates thought.

By definition, being without conception can't be conceived. That would be the crux. — Count Timothy von Icarus

A tautology is necessarily true. How is this the crux of the matter? Conceivability marks a limit of human thought. It does not mark a limit of what is.

There is no difference between these unless it is specified either I see more than I eat, or I do not see more than I eat. — Metaphysician Undercover

A Venn diagram with one circle being the things you eat and the other circle being the things you see shows that there is an area of overlap but also an area that does not overlap. They are not the same.

A Venn diagram with one circle being the things you pursue and the other circle being the things that are good shows that there is an area of overlap but also an area that does not overlap. They are not the same.

It is your failure to see the difference that leads to your absurd conclusion that everything we do must be good. A claim that Plato not only does not make but one he rejects.

So being without thought is unprovable and unverifiable. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Once again, you beg the question. Proof and verifiability are not necessary conditions for being. Being, however, is a necessary condition for proof and verifiability.

Thought can be discussed in the same way, without a reference to thinking something concrete. — Tobias

Eating can be discussed without reference to anything that is eaten, but there is no eating without something eaten.

Yes, the former, but what is than being thought is equally empty, the same emptiness you object to. — Tobias

The object is thought itself. Thinking is what is being thought. As you say:

we think while we examine thinking. — Tobias

Thinking is both subject and object.

The activity of thinking is still qualitatively the same. — Tobias

The activity of thinking changes with what is thought. Thinking is not a content free activity.

It uses the same concepts, just applies them differently. — Tobias

The concepts of nuclear physics are not limited to:

It uses identity, difference affirmation, denial etc. — Tobias

The fact of the matter is we could not do nuclear physics based solely on these concepts.

Or do you think there is some qualitative jump, now not with QM but the emergence of the scientific method? — Tobias

Let's see what Hegel has to say:

11. Spirit has broken with the previous world of its existence and its ways of thinking ... just as with a child, who after a long silent period of nourishment draws his first breath and shatters the gradualness of only quantitative growth ... This gradual process of dissolution, which has not altered the physiognomy of the whole, is interrupted by the break of day, which in a flash and at a single stroke brings to view the structure of the new world.

12: Yet this newness is no more completely actual than is the newborn child, and it is essential to bear this in mind. Its immediacy, or its concept, is the first to come on the scene.

In the same way, science, the crowning glory of a spiritual world, is not completed in its initial stages. The beginning of a new spirit is the outcome of a widespread revolution in the diversity of forms of cultural formation ... — Preface to the Phenomenology

...can you clarify the last 'regarded as mystical'? — Tom Storm

A few quotes from the Tractatus:

6.41
The sense of the world must lie outside the world. In the world everything is as it is, and everything happens as it does happen: in it no
value exists—and if it did exist, it would have no value.
If there is any value that does have value, it must lie outside the whole sphere of what happens and is the case. For all that happens
and is the case is accidental.
What makes it non-accidental cannot lie within the world, since if it did it would itself be accidental.
It must lie outside the world.

6.422
So our question about the consequences of an action must be unimportant.—At least those consequences should not be events. For there must be something right about the question we posed. There must indeed be some kind of ethical reward and ethical punishment, but they must reside in the action itself.
(And it is also clear that the reward must be something pleasant and the punishment something unpleasant.)

6.43
If the good or bad exercise of the will does alter the world, it can alter only the limits of the world, not the facts—not what can be expressed by means of language.
In short the effect must be that it becomes an altogether different world. It must, so to speak, wax and wane as a whole.
The world of the happy man is a different one from that of the unhappy man.

From his Notebooks:

Being happy means being in agreement with the world (NB 8.7.16)
Living in agreement with the world is living in accord with one’s conscience, which is the voice of God.

I am then, so to speak, in agreement with that alien will on which I appear dependent. That is to say: “I am doing the will of God” (NB 8.7.16)

More from the Notebooks on God:

God is how all things stand, how it is all related (NB 1.8.16)

To believe in a God means to see that the facts of the world are not the end of the matter. To believe in God means to see that life has a meaning (NB 8.7.16)

There are two godheads: the world and my independent “I”. (NB 8.7.16)

Being happy means being in agreement with the world (NB 8.7.16)
Living in agreement with the world is living in accord with one’s conscience, which is the voice of God.

I am then, so to speak, in agreement with that alien will on which I appear dependent. That is to say: “I am doing the will of God” (NB 8.7.16)

From his Lecture on Ethics. In no particular order:

I believe the best way of describing it is to say that when I have it I wonder at the existence of the
world. And I am then inclined to use such phrases as 'how extraordinary that anything should exist'
or ‘how extraordinary that the world should exist.'

I will mention another experience straight away which I also know and which others of you might
be acquainted with: it is, what one might call, the experience of feeling absolutely safe. I mean the
state of mind in which one is inclined to say 'I am safe, nothing can injure me whatever happens.'

This running against the walls of our cage is perfectly, absolutely hopeless. Ethics so far as it
springs from the desire to say something about the ultimate meaning of life, the absolute good, the
absolute valuable, can be no science. What it says does not add to our knowledge in any sense. But
it is a document of a tendency in the human mind which I personally cannot help respecting deeply
and I would not for my life ridicule it.


Now instead of saying “Ethics is the enquiry into what is good” I could have said Ethics is the enquiry into what is valuable, or, into what is really important, or I could have said Ethics is the enquiry
into the meaning of life, or into what makes life worth living, or into the right way of living. I believe if you look at all these phrases you will get a rough idea as to what it is Ethics is concerned with.


Now when this is urged against me I at once see clearly, as it were in a flash of light, not only that no description that I can think of would do to describe what I mean by absolute value, but that I would reject every significant description that anybody could possibly suggest, ab initio, on the ground of its significance. That is to say: I see now that these nonsensical expressions were not nonsensical because I had not yet found the correct expressions, but that their nonsensicality was their very essence. For all I wanted to do with them was just to go beyond the world and that is to say beyond significant language.

The question is to what extent the apocalyptic angels were widespread in all Jewish circles. — schopenhauer1

According to Stavrakopoulou it was not at that time widespread. Of course much of the evidence for such beliefs comes from written works, that is from scribes. These works reflect their views and not necessarily what initially were more commonly accepted views. In what she writes she does not identify scribal circles and apocalyptic groups with particular sects,

I think there has been a tendency in modern times to ensure that emphasis on angels were simply a Christian thing. — schopenhauer1

She places the development of changing beliefs in angels in the third century BCE and eschatological beliefs in the second century BCE, well before Jesus.

layer upon layer. — schopenhauer1

An important layer is pagan belief in human gods and offspring of men and gods. We do find the sons of gods and daughters of women in Genesis 6. Whatever this might mean, such a thing was not part of Jewish beliefs during the time of Jesus. We do find, however, the pagan misunderstanding of the HB term 'son of God' and 'sons of God'

That is why they condemned the average person from speculating what is above and below and beginning and end of time. — schopenhauer1

Yeah, leave it to the professionals. I think there was probably more that a little jockeying for power and authority here.

In a way, Jesus is trying to check all the boxes that were popular at the time for what the messiah was to be.. — schopenhauer1

I think it is an open question how much are things ascribed to him rather than things he took to be true of himself.

Of course, Jesus died and the End of Times did not occur and this posed an existential dillemma for a group centered around a charismatic leader. — schopenhauer1

And the explanations his followers found to overcome what might have been the end rather than the beginning for them was quite a feat!

Trivial — Tobias

Really? Can there be thinking without something that is thought? Even if thinking about something there is still an object of thought, that which is thought.

Well, Hegel tries to articulate thinking, thinking itself. — Tobias

Do you mean thinking thinking itself or thinking itself? If the former then there is something thought, some object of thought, that is, thinking itself. If the latter then it refers to the activity of thinking rather than the activity. We do not walk by examining walking.

Suddenly the way we thin changed because of nuclear weapons? — Tobias

Splitting the nucleus of an atom was the result of several scientific discoveries. It was the result of the development of scientific thought, of changes in thought. In addition, the threat of total or near total annihilation of all human life has changed the way we think. This is not something people think about every day but these days, with Putin's invasion of Ukraine it is something must be thought about.

Just yesterday my wife told me that our neighbor has the same table we bought. I said that is impossible, it's right here and has not been out of the house. She expects that kind of thing from me.