But everything we do is for a good. — Metaphysician Undercover

But that does not mean that everything we do is good.

As I explained in a post above, every act is inherently good. — Metaphysician Undercover

That is an assertion. One that is wrong and is not supported by Plato.

I don't know if you read that post, but this is fundamental to Christianity — Metaphysician Undercover

Sin is fundamental to Christianity, although that problem was supposed to have been fixed, Christianity does not claim that people no longer sin.

The good itself is what motivates the act, what Aristotle calls "that for the sake of which". Knowledge of the good itself, is knowing what motivates one's own actions. — Metaphysician Undercover

Knowledge of the good itself is not knowledge of what motivates one's own actions but rather what distinguishes between those actions that are good and those that are not. Actions can be motivated by the desire for power, greed, anger, and on and on. Plato was not blind to these motivations. He discusses them in the Republic and elsewhere.

There is no such thing as an overarching "the good" — Metaphysician Undercover

It is clear that you have not read or perhaps just not understood what Plato says about the good itslef in the Republic.

We need the category of difference to account to perceive things as different to begin with. — Tobias

Do we see things differently according to a priori categories or did difference become a category as the result of seeing differences? Kant claims the former. This is not the prevailing view today.

Well Parmenides did not have the categories of thought, or the 2000 whatnot years of philosophical development that came after him. — Tobias

That supports my point. They are not invariant a priori categories. Or, more generally, it is not the case that thinking and being are the same if thinking leads to the denial of change.

It took Herclitus to clear it up — Tobias

The relationship between Parmenides and Heraclitus is an open question. Some maintain that Heraclitus was responding to Parmenides and others that Parmenides was responding to Heraclitus.

What he did not realize is that becoming is a category of thought as well. — Tobias

It not that he did not realize it, he just thought that becoming is a false opinion. His monastic thinking led him to reject change and difference. This is a good example of why we should not accept the premise that thinking and being are the same.

However. tiny slivers of matter that make us ill are thinkable, they conform to our categories of though — Tobias

You have got this backwards. They do not conform to a priori categories of thought. It is, rather, that thought was forced to change to accomodate what did not fit existing categories.

the identity of thinking and being stipulates that the categories of thought necessarily mirror that which we find in our world. That is at least what I take to be Parmenides' point, read charitably. — Tobias

Parmenides "categories of thought" exclude change.

If your interest is in being argumentative, I am not interested. If your interest is in trying to understand views that differ from your own then you should begin by not misrepresenting what I have said.

What is at issue is not the division but that there are these very small and very large things that were unknown and unthought.

The division is human, the classification of one thing as different from another is a human made distinction predicated on the way humans perceive their world. — Tobias

The divisions are a way of referring to things that existed prior to anyone thinking such things exist. Whether you think the very small and the very large are the same thing or not has not bearing on the fact that such things as neutrinos and neutron stars exist.

Well up until recently there was no wheel either. What is, is limited by what can be thought. — Tobias

The wheel is a human invention, the micro and macroscopic world is not.

Not really, because that which is not cannot be thought. — Tobias

The problem is not with thinking that which is not, although more on that below, but with the assumption that what is is limited by what is thought. Until quite recently what was thought did not include quantum physics or astrophysics. We still to understand them and there may be things beyond our capacities of understanding.

As to non-being and indeterminacy see this discussion of Plato's metaphysics:

Plato's Metaphysics

The presupposition underlying much of this argument is the same one underlying the thread on Aristotle and time. An early formulation of this presupposition is found in Parmenides claim:

To think and to be is the same.

It is the height of human hubris and folly to think that what is, was, and will be are limited by what we can think or comprehend or give an account of.

The presupposition underlying much of this argument is the same one underlying Rasmussen's paradox. An early formulation of this presupposition is found in Parmenides claim:

To think and to be is the same.

It is the height of human hubris and folly to think that what is, was, and will be are limited by what we can think or comprehend or can give an account of.

I think what Aristotle is doing is similar to what Kant does with the antinomies. He is not arguing to a conclusion that will resolve the issue one way or another. He is, rather, laying out arguments that point to the limits of reason. The arguments lead to aporia.

But he is well aware of the danger of leaving such questions open. Others will rush in to proclaim the "truth".

As Al-Farabi notes:

Whoever inquires into Aristotle’s sciences, peruses his books, and takes pains with them will not miss the many modes of concealment, blinding and complicating in his approach, despite his apparent intention to explain and clarify.

(Harmonization) Quoted in David Bolotin's "Approach to Aristotle’s Physics".

This results in a misguided anthropomorphism. So when chemicals pass between trees through the fungal network, it's reported that the trees are talking to one another, conveying information. — Daemon

The misguided anthropomorphism seems to be your own. "Talking to each other" as it is used here should not be taken to mean that trees are doing what we do when we talk. "Conveying information" can be a simple process. A thermostat conveys information to the furnace. The furnace turns off and on in response to information about the temperature.

Information is communicated between persons, not objects. — Daemon

This is a clear example of anthropomorphism. Birds are not persons and yet they communicate information. They can warn of predators. They can also use false alarm calls, that is, lie: https://academic.oup.com/beheco/article/21/2/396/322287

It is when you use what humans do as the proper model of what the communication of information means that you end in a muddle.

Notice, that when we are discussing the good of an act, we are discussing something attributed to or directly related to the act. — Metaphysician Undercover

There is a distinction between the intent of or motivation for an act and the evaluation of that act. Not everything we do is good.

A human act is directed toward an end, the good. — Metaphysician Undercover

Being directed toward an end is not the same as attaining that end. Not every act is good.

We are talking about opposing qualities, like pleasure and pain, we are not not talking about opposites themselves, as independent ideals.. — Metaphysician Undercover

When you say:

... "the good" must have a contrary is the very idea which Plato ends up demonstrating to be faulty — Metaphysician Undercover

When Plato talks about "the good" he does not mean some quality that is good but the good itself. The good itself cannot be opposite of itself. The good itself is not some thing or act that is good. Knowledge of the good itself is that by which we can truly determine whether a particular act is good.

So chemicals travel through the fungal network: can you say what the information does, in addition to what the chemicals do? — Daemon

This is like asking what information does in addition to what propositions do. Both are means of conveying information.

Truth is perceived as “bad” only by those who are afraid of it and seek to impose their own mythology on reality. — Apollodorus

And yet you ignore it when the untruth of your own mythology that you seek to impose on reality is pointed out to you.

The way I see it, the discovery of truth can only happen through the elimination of untruth. — Apollodorus

If you really saw it that way you would eliminate the untruth of your own untrue claims.

As pointed out by many scholars, some of whom I have mentioned here, archaeology doesn’t lie. — Apollodorus

Once again you demonstrate that you do not know what you are talking about. Archaeological evidence must be interpreted. That interpretation is not free of historical and other assumptions.

udaism and Early Christianity were heavily influenced by Greek culture — Apollodorus

And what do you point to in order to show this influence? That they ate the Passover dinner while reclining! Unlike most Christian you know this does not come as a shock to Jews who celebrate the Passover. Does it come as a shock to you that Jesus ate with his right hand because he wiped his ass with his left hand? Or do you think he did not shit? Or that what came out of his ass was a manifestation of the Holy Spirit?

And what is the other thing you point to in order to show this influence? That Greek was spoken in Galilee! The language that may have been used tells us nothing about what was said in that language. or how religious beliefs were influenced.

If we take the mainstream Christian position (1) that he was the Son of God, then it stands to reason (a) that he knew Greek and (b) that he taught in Greek ... — Apollodorus

But it does not stand to reason that he was the Son of God. That is an article of faith not reason.

Psalm 84:11 literally reads “Lord Yahweh [is the] Sun” (Shemesh Yahweh Elohim). — Apollodorus

You left out the rest of the statement: "and shield". Now if we take this literally then just as God is literally the sun he is also literally a shield. God is then literally a physical entity both a sun and a shield.

But if we recall that “Yahweh” (YHWH) is articulated as “Adon-ai”, — Apollodorus

Another fabrication. Adonai is not an articulation of YHWH. It is articulated as "Yahweh" or some variant, although many Jews regard the name as too sacred to articulate. Adonai means lord. Often Adonai is combined with Elohim, another name for God, as it is in the Psalm - Lord God.

The same idea occurs in Plato's Republic where the divine Form or Idea of the Good which is the source of truth, knowledge, and justice, is compared to the Sun which is the source of life on earth. — Apollodorus

In the Republic it is explicitly stated that:

The good is not the source of everything; rather it is the cause of things that are in a good way, while it is not responsible for the bad things.

(379b)

It is also explicitly stated that the sun is an image of the Good.

Whatever similarities there are between the God of the Hebrew Bible and Plato's Good, they are not the same.

Of course, if we look at it from a modern Western perspective, we may find it difficult to accept that the authors of the Hebrew Bible could have equated the God of Israel with the Sun in any other way than metaphorically. — Apollodorus

Again you ignore what was pointed out. In Genesis 1 the sun is created on the 4th day. It did not create itself and it is not the main source of light.

Why do you ignore this? It is because you are afraid of the truth?

The OT itself says: “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High” (Psalm 82:6). — Apollodorus

Things take on a very different meaning when taken out of context. Who are the assembly of gods who know nothing and understand nothing and walk about in the darkness? (82:5) What kind of gods die like mortals? (82:7)

Name dropping should not substitute for understanding. Kavka is not denying the difference between Athens and Jerusalem. His is a project for the future, for what is not-yet. This not to be done by denying differences or an attempt to make what is different appear to be the same.

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.”

His project is not what you claim "remains to be considered":

What remains to be considered is the relation between universal and particular realities (or experience of them), or between Father (universal) and Son (particular). — Apollodorus

It is not about a universal and particular reality, but rather about “a meontology which affirms a meaning beyond Being, a mode of non-Being (m¯e on)". What it shares with Plato is indeterminacy, open-endedness. This was discussed in my thread Plato's Metaphysics

Your own negative comments there show that you do not understand what is at issue either for Plato or for contemporary thinkers like Kavka.

Click on the link.

So can you say what the "information" does there, in addition to what the water and nutrition do? — Daemon

The information is about water, nutrients, and temperature. That information can be transmitted throughout the network and adjustments made.

However could not the “Christian humanism” that rose during the Renaissance be a kind of spiritual humanism? — Dermot Griffin

The author of the essay points to 'humanism' and 'scholasticism' as a "deeply controversial terms". I don't see how adding 'Christian' or 'spiritual' helps. In fact, it is indicative of the problem. It is still an attempt to divide history into distinguishable periods and fit the work of a thinker into a period.

The author of the essay is not arguing against events but against concepts such as "historical periodisation":

...such grand statements as the outline of a period such as the Renaissance are futile and empty. The arbitrariness of assigning the term ‘Renaissance philosophy’ to a period in time can be easily seen if we have a look at the historical development of the term itself.

Renaissance philosophy is often presented as a conflict between humanism and scholasticism, or sometimes it’s simply described as the philosophy of humanism. This is a deeply problematic characterisation, partly based on the assumption of a conflict between two philosophical traditions – a conflict that never actually existed, and was in fact constructed by the introduction of two highly controversial terms: ‘humanism’ and ‘scholasticism’. A telling example of how problematic these terms are as a characterisation of philosophy in the 16th century can be found in Michel de Montaigne (1533-92). He was critical of a lot of philosophy that came before him, but he didn’t contrast what he rejected with some kind of humanism, and his sceptical essay An Apology for Raymond Sebond (1580) wasn’t directed at scholastic philosophy. In fact, both these terms were invented much later as a means to write about or introduce Renaissance philosophy. Persisting with this simplistic dichotomy only perverts any attempt at writing the history of 14th- to 16th-century philosophy.

Information isn't everywhere in the universe, it's in minds. It isn't in the tree stump. — Daemon

It is in the acorn that grows into the tree that is cut down to a stump. It is in the stump that sends forth new shoots. It is in the roots that communicate with other trees. It is in the mycorrhizal networks:

By analyzing the DNA in root tips and tracing the movement of molecules through underground conduits, Simard has discovered that fungal threads link nearly every tree in a forest — even trees of different species. Carbon, water, nutrients, alarm signals and hormones can pass from tree to tree through these subterranean circuits. Resources tend to flow from the oldest and biggest trees to the youngest and smallest. Chemical alarm signals generated by one tree prepare nearby trees for danger. Seedlings severed from the forest’s underground lifelines are much more likely to die than their networked counterparts. And if a tree is on the brink of death, it sometimes bequeaths a substantial share of its carbon to its neighbors.[/quote Trees

Interesting read. — Dermot Griffin

"Interesting" but based on what you say, you reject the premise.

The initial argument needs to be amended:

1. Everything must have some explanation (PE).
2. Reality in total cannot have an explanation (PU).
3. Therefore, there is no reality in total [everything must not have an explanation] — lish

Remember, Plato demonstrates that the good cannot be equated with pleasure, by showing how pleasure has an opposing condition, pain, and the good cannot have such an opposite. — Metaphysician Undercover

See the distinction between opposite things and the opposites themselves in the Phaedo.

“… you do not understand the difference between what is said now and what was said then, which was that an opposite thing came from an opposite thing; now we say that the
opposite itself could never become opposite to itself, neither that in us nor that in nature. Then, my friend, we were talking of things that have opposite qualities and naming these after them, but now we say that these opposites themselves, from the presence of which in them things get their name, never can tolerate the coming to be from one another."

(103b-c)

And, we see that morality is induced through faith, rather than through knowledge — Metaphysician Undercover

A good example! Unfortunately for you it points to the opposite of what you claim. Euthyphro believes he is acting piously by indicting his father. Socrates argues that Euthyphro does not know what piety is. He turns the discussion to the question of the just. Whether what Euthyphro was doing was good turns on knowledge of the just and good.

Immoral things are often induced through faith. Atrocities done in the name of God. Acting as though one is doing the will of God. In such cases it is not a lack of faith but a lack of knowledge. They are doing what they think is good but what they are doing is the opposite.

Good luck with this one Tom.

For you yes. For me no. — EugeneW

You still do not understand what apodictic means:

"clearly established or beyond dispute" — EugeneW

Not just for me or you but:

necessarily true and can be demonstrated to be true. — Fooloso4

So, if I say that you are wrong about everything and won't dispute it then it follows that it is beyond dispute that you are wrong about everything. Exactly. Beyond dispute.

An apodictic proposition is necessarily true and can be demonstrated to be true. Not arguing about it does not make it beyond dispute, it simply means you won't dispute it. If I claim that a circle must have a diameter that equals its circumference that does not mean it is beyond dispute if I won't argue about it.

I would rather not insult you so I am not going to continue with an exchange that has taken a turn to the absurd.

Good. Now you have to figure out what that means. Hint: it in not enough that one person or group of people to regard it as beyond dispute

Again, you need to look up the definition of apodictic.

You need to look up the definition of apodictic. Holding a moral theory in no way makes it apodictic.

Sounds like an essay question. — Bartricks

For once I agree. I was about to post the same thing.

As to the question itself: We are told that the consequences were unforeseen, but not being told what the actions were we do not know if the action was irresponsible, that is, that there was a reasonable expectation that the consequences would be bad.

If, for example, a vaccine is developed and after rigorous testing of efficacy and safety it is approved but some small percentage of patients develop serious and possibly life-threatening side-effects, it is clear that the consequences for that population are bad. But if the majority of people who are vaccinated benefit we cannot simply say that administering the vaccine is bad. Further, if protocols are in place and have been followed those who developed and administered the vaccine should not be held morally responsible.

As with other moral theories, consequentialism has its limits. No moral theory yields unequivocally or apodictically correct answers.

That source, according to all- as in, every single bit, that I know of- established evidence from which to draw conclusions, suggests that such source is, in fact, the human brain itself. — Deleted User

There is a common assumption that intelligence has its source in the brain. But this may be looking at the science from the wrong end of evolutionary development.Intelligent decision-making doesn’t require a brain.

Intelligence is not something that happened at the tail end of evolution, but was discovered towards the beginning, long before brains came on the scene.

From the earliest metabolic cycles that kept microbes’ chemical parameters within the right ranges, biology has been capable of achieving aims. Yet generation after generation of biologists have been trained to avoid questions about the ultimate purpose of things. Biologists are told to focus on the ‘how’, not the ‘why’, or risk falling prey to theology. Students must reduce events to their simplest components and causes, and study these mechanisms in piecemeal fashion. Talk of ‘goals’, we are told, skirts perilously close to abandoning naturalism; the result is a kind of ‘teleophobia’, a fear of purpose, based on the idea that attributing too much intelligence to a system is the worst mistake you can make.

But the converse is just as bad: failing to recognise intelligence when it’s right under our noses, and could be useful. Not only is ‘why’ always present in biological systems – it is exactly what drives the ‘how’. Once we open ourselves up to that idea, we can identify two powerful tricks, inspired by computer science and cybernetics, that allowed evolution to ‘hack’ its way to intelligence from the bottom up. No skyhooks needed.

The claim here is not that there is an "ultimate purpose of things" but that biological systems work toward biological rather than metaphysical ends.

In this way, pattern completion enables connections between modules at the same and different levels of the hierarchy, knitting them together as a single system. A key neuron in a lower-level module can be activated by an upper-level one, and vice versa. Like changing the march of an army, you don’t need to convince every soldier to do so – just convince the general, who makes the others fall into line. Consistent with the many parallels between neurons and non-neural signals, pattern completion shows us how a single event – say, a mutation – can change an army, or build an eye.

God equated to the Sun — Apollodorus

Where do we find God equated to the "Sun" or the sun in any way that goes further than metaphor? In Genesis 1 God does not create the sun until the fourth day. The sun gives light to the earth (1:17) but on day one God says: "Let there be light". This is clearly a rejection of any religion that worships the sun.

You continue to avoid addressing the crucial issues that on the one hand separate Judaism and paganism and on the other Jesus' Jewish teachings from pagan Christianity.

Not everything needs to be empirically established to be true. — Blake4508

You quote Rommen regarding objective truth. How are we to determine that what you claim to be objectively true is? Simply asserting something is true does not make it true. This has nothing to do with "Empiricist-positivism".

The good is shown as the motivation for action, and there is really nothing which is contrary to this. — Metaphysician Undercover

What is contrary to this is what prevents the fulfillment of the motivation. We seek the good but if we do not know the good then what we do may be contrary to it. This is the connection between knowledge and virtue.

In this way the good is shown to be the cause of existence. — Metaphysician Undercover

From the Republic:

The good is not the source of everything; rather it is the cause of things that are in a good way, while it is not responsible for the bad things.

(379b)

You might find this essay interesting: What Renaissance?

Renaissance philosophy started in the mid-14th century and saw the flowering of humanism, the rejection of scholasticism and Aristotelianism, the renewal of interest in the ancients, and created the prerequisites for modern philosophy and science. At least, this is the conventional story. But, in fact, there was no Renaissance. It is an invention by historians, a fiction made in order to tell a story – a compelling story about the development of philosophy, but nevertheless a story. In fact, all periodisation is ‘mere’ interpretation. This view is called historiographical nihilism.

there is a lot of mythology involved in the mainstream perception of Judaism as an absolutely unique religion that developed in complete isolation from all external influence. — Apollodorus

That is not a mythology that any educated person holds. It is not a mythology that anyone here has supported. Quite the opposite! You have given a lot of effort, however, to minimize or negate what is unique about Judaism and its ineliminable influence on Jesus, an influence that far exceeds whatever "possible" influence of Hellenism you might conjure out of you own Platonism.

This may have been ancient Hebrew tradition. But it was also the tradition of neighboring peoples like the Egyptians and the Canaanites. — Apollodorus

You completely miss the point:

Moses stood in the gate of the camp and said, “Who is on the Lord’s side? Come to me.” And all the sons of Levi gathered around him. And he said to them, “Thus says the Lord God of Israel, ‘Put your sword on your side each of you, and go to and fro from gate to gate throughout the camp, and each of you kill his brother and his companion and his neighbor.’ ” And the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses. And that day about three thousand men of the people fell.

(Exodus 32:26–28)

From the time of Moses the worship of idols was expressly forbidden. The story does not show that the people of Israel were like their neighbors. To the contrary, this distinguishes them from their neighbors.

Does Jesus have anything to say about this? In the Sermon on the Mount he says:

"You are the light of the world" (5:14). As you acknowledge, Hellenistic influence was widespread, and yet, it is only the righteous who are the light.

It is also entirely possible that he had knowledge of Greek wisdom — Apollodorus

They are not the light of the world because of Greek wisdom but because of "the law and the prophets". (5:17) In this they stand apart from and against other nations.

In Proverbs the contrast is made between the wisdom of Solomon, that is, fear of the Lord, and the "foreign woman", that is, Sophia. We are told from the start that we must "understand a proverb and a figure, the words of the wise and their riddles." (1:6)

"My child, be attentive to my wisdom; incline your ear to my understanding, so that you may hold on to prudence, and your lips may guard knowledge. For the lips of a strange woman drip honey, and her speech is smoother than oil; but in the end she is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword.

(5:1-5)

"Drink water from your own cistern, running water from your own well.

(5:15)

So, I think the curious hypothesis to the effect that Jews hated Greeks and therefore couldn’t have spoken Greek or adopted elements of Greek culture including philosophy, can be safely dismissed as bogus. — Apollodorus

When one ignores differences everything appears to be the same.

As stated by Plato, knowledge and truth are of divine origin. So, I think it makes sense to assume that divine truth is universal and that different aspects of it are revealed at different points in time and space, and under consideration of the prevalent culture. — Apollodorus

Elsewhere you point to reincarnation as central to Platonism, but reincarnation and resurrection are incompatible. If divine truth and knowledge is universal then it cannot be true both that the soul is reincarnated and that it is resurrected, either with or without the body.

But before that, in Jesus’ time, Judaism, i.e., Hellenistic Judaism which was the dominant form of the religion, was very similar to Greek and Roman religion, being centered on animal sacrifice. — Apollodorus

Ritualistic sacrifice was a part of Judaism but Judaism was not centered on animal sacrifice. For a general idea of what is involved see: Sacrifices and Offerings

You are still evading the fundamental theological differences between Judaism and Christian paganism.

You quote Jewish Virtual Library but skip this very important point:

Ultimately the Jews organized their culture and their political life on their own terms, as witnessed by the rise of the Essenes and Pharisees. The independence of Jewish intellectual life in the Hellenistic age is partly explained by the fact that while Jews took a great interest in Greek ideas, the outside world took relatively little interest in Hebrew ideas ... The isolation in which the Jews lived, especially in Judea, was conducive to the creation ofa style of thought and life which can be (and was) considered competitive with Hellenistic civilization.

(emphasis added)

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

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

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

More precisely, the Church designated itself as the mouthpiece.

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

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

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

From the publisher:

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

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

In Gruen's own words:

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

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

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

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

As to Porter:

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

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

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

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

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