If i knew how to speak ancient Greek then probably I would want to speak to one of the philosophers/mathematitians of that time and region. for example Plato, Archimedes, Aristotle, Zeno of Citium, Pytagoras, etc.
I want to talk to the first homospaien that ever came to be. Ask him/her where they came from.
A species isn’t an actual thing, it’s just an approach to classifying organisms that people find convenient to use. It has grey areas and isn’t always applied consistently.
It’s a little like the fallacy of the heap: if you drop a grain of sand, you don’t have a heap of sand. If you keep droppings of sand, you’ll end up with a heap. But then if you remove a grain of sand, it doesn’t suddenly stop being a heap: it’s kind of vague and ambiguous, there isn’t a definite boundary where you can add or remove a single grain of sand and transition between definitely a heap of sand/definitely not a heap of sand.
No one definition has satisfied all naturalists; yet every naturalist knows vaguely what he means when he speaks of a species. Generally the term includes the unknown element of a distinct act of creation.
Charles Darwin
I’m pretty sure most people understand what I mean; Let me talk to the first thing with human thought that lived in this on planet.
That’s still a continuum, but I get what you mean. I was just trying to explain their point.
I’d be curious how a homo from when we were physically modern thinks and acts. Or maybe right after a bottleneck. Or mitochondrial eve. You’d learn a lot about nature vs nurture.
Heck, I would just ask him about his take on the world, humanity, philosophy. His art and engineering has been studied already, and in 1 hour you would barely scratch the surface of the iceberg, but just how he viewed world, considering he was ahead of his times would be really interesting.
No one actually, because I am not able to understand the smart people and probably that hour of conversation will ending with silence. Will be enough look some of them, or just listening, but at this point I will prefer get in touch with some of my bloodline, like my grandfather that is not historical for the world but still it is for me.
No it is not. Militia is not defined. If it is a right for individuals or if it is a temporary provision for frontier life? What role if any does the state have? Does arms include any arms or only what a reasonable person would expect a local temporary militia to have?
As for the comma there are a few ways to look at the constitution. One is that each sentence feagment stands on its own another way is that the sentence fragment only stands in context. The rest of the expression mentions a well regulated militia which clearly isn’t there by accident. Under fragment school it is. So fix the comma. Make it one sentence so that it is clear that the purpose of this is for militias.
I think I’d like to have a chat with Teddy Roosevelt. Nothing political in nature, I just want to hear his stories and what it was like seeing Yosemite way back when.
If not Roosevelt, then maybe an ancient Greek philosopher. Socrates or Plato maybe.
I would have to say Jesus. Arguably the most influential figure in human history as far as how his story (whether you believe it or not) has shaped the world we live in now. Of course others would be in the conversation (Muhammad, Alexander the Great, Gandhi, etc. but if you could meet Jesus and see a miracle in person that would be quite the story to bring back
To me look a delusional plan meet Jesus. Probably so far from his legend, a normal poor guy traveling talking about visions and classical wish of revenge vs the local politicals. I think you can find a lot of Jesus in any time of human history, even now for sure there will be many who walks in deserts making their way.
Well what about all legends from Asia side then? Like India is full of gods. We are obsessed with Jesus because was inside the interest area of European dominioum and legend keep going with wars, almost 500 years of religion war before to export this obsession to America continent.
But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”
If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.
But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”
From your other replies I know you know the material well enough to know this is from a parable, which makes me think you’re being a tad disingenuous
If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.
And? Saying you have to renounce your family to be a disciple != go invade your nearest European neighbour
From your other replies I know you know the material well enough to know this is from a parable, which makes me think you’re being a tad disingenuous
Yeah guess who the king is supposed to be in the parable. Maybe the king of the Jews?
And? Saying you have to renounce your family to be a disciple != go invade your nearest European neighbour
The man was a cult leader. Demanding that people love him so much that they hate their own family by comparison. Hey when he was gathering up his apostles how many of those guys had families back home that they were supporting?
I don’t disagree, but I think you’re forgetting this particular thread is about Jesus not being the ideal figurehead of a war hungry european power… Paul perhaps. (“submit to the governing authorities… they don’t bear the sword for nothing”). But Jesus - thou shalt not even be angry at bad people - Christ. nah… telling a story (amongst many) about a king killing people he doesn’t like is not prime crusade rousing sermon material.
And yet the historical evidence is that it is. Jesus is mentioned more in the Korean than the Bible. So we have two religions that found him to be useful for that.
There is a distinct possibility that he never existed. Could have been a con by James combining local legends.
Me personally I would, if I were still a believer, go for St. Paul towards the end of his life. We have lots of evidence that he existed. Questions I would ask
What did the apostles really say to you? Specifically what were you and James discussing. I want to hear your side.
You were in Jerusalem why didn’t you even look at the tomb? I have a theory about that one.
I recite the ring of the cross dance and ask him if he has heard anything about it.
I show him the Gospel of Thomas and ask him if he can verify any of it as something he has seen
Get him to confirm/deny/modify that the big 6 are what he wrote and the rest are forgeries.
I don’t have a list off hand but I would get one. Ask him to outline what he wrote in the missing letters.
Finally, assuming he can’t lie, I would ask him point blank if he thinks his eschatology influenced his theology.
The puzzle is an enduring one because no explanation seems to tidy away all the loose ends
If Jesus was a figment of James’ imagination, what are we to make of Paul’s (who was definitely real) association with Peter (by Paul’s own writing)? and his separate association with Luke (by Luke’s own writing)? As late as Acts 1:14 Luke is saying Peter is hanging out with Mary mother of Jesus.
Explaining that away as a result of the actions of a third unknown party, James, seems far more convoluted than “a man Jesus basically existed, preached a spiritual interpretation of the Torah, was baptised, crucified and had a mother Mary”.
Which was essentially the position of the secular Jesus seminar.
Apostel Luke didn’t write the 3rd Gospel or Acts so any claim about Peter hanging out with Mary…well a copy of a copy of a copy.
I usually agree that there is a core to the legend but started to lean towards con recently. Paul meets the ministry in an area full of weird cults. That is all we really have. And when you look at the first Gospel 5 sources only one would have been original and then. A small claim that Peter or James could have just come up on their own. Especially given it had a lot of the structure already found in the minor prophets.
Markan Jesus, without the modified endings, was just a slightly altered version of Jeremiah. Anyone can do this, chatgpt can do this.
Part of the reason why I would ask Paul exactly what he heard and talked about during the meeting. Because if con is right finding holes should be trivial.
Paul meets the ministry in an area full of weird cults. That’s all we have…A small claim that Peter or James could have just come up on their own.
Far too simplistic. Why would either set about a forgery that results in their untimely death? (Acts 12) Or if you think the writer of Acts faked James’ death what would be the point of that when he was a prominent leader of the Jerusalem church? Same goes for the early church tradition of Peter’s martyrdom. The details of course may be embellished, but it’s substantially more reliable to conclude that both James and Peter were at least killed early.
Paul writes about learning from the community at Jerusalem that its leaders were “Peter, James and John” (Gal 2). Were all three in on the forgery?
Paul also writes of the terrible living conditions all apostles lived under (1 Cor 4:9-13). If we take Paul as at least genuine in his delusion, we have to also explain why he reports the Jerusalem church leaders enduring similar suffering.
The simplest explaination is that they were at least personally convinced of the truth of what they were doing. Convinced and wrong. But them being forgerers themselves makes no sense and has even less evidence that that various other scenarios.
Yeah sorry about calling him an apostle. Only made the same mistake about 9 times this year alone. Not sure why I keep thinking that.
Why would either set about a forgery that results in their untimely death?
Assuming they knew that would happen. Why does anyone do any crime knowing that it could ruin their life?
We’re all three in on the forgery?
Maybe? Not exactly a lot of job prospects there.
Paul also writes of the terrible living conditions all apostles lived under (1 Cor 4:9-13). If we take Paul as at least genuine in his delusion, we have to also explain why he reports the Jerusalem church leaders enduring similar suffering.
And? The vast majority of criminals I have had to deal with in my life aren’t doing very well. For every Bernie Madoff there are thousands of street level dealers getting attacked.
The simplest explaination is that they were at least personally convinced of the truth of what they were doing. Convinced and wrong. But them being forgerers themselves makes no sense and has even less evidence that that various other scenarios.
Your argument depends on people being homo economis. Yeah sorry about calling him an apostle. Only made the same mistake about 9 times this year alone. Not sure why I keep thinking that.
Why would either set about a forgery that results in their untimely death?
Assuming they knew that would happen. Why does anyone do any crime knowing that it could ruin their life?
We’re all three in on the forgery?
Maybe? Not exactly a lot of job prospects there.
Paul also writes of the terrible living conditions all apostles lived under (1 Cor 4:9-13). If we take Paul as at least genuine in his delusion, we have to also explain why he reports the Jerusalem church leaders enduring similar suffering.
And? The vast majority of criminals I have had to deal with in my life aren’t doing very well. For every Bernie Madoff there are thousands of street level dealers getting attacked.
The simplest explaination is that they were at least personally convinced of the truth of what they were doing. Convinced and wrong. But them being forgerers themselves makes no sense and has even less evidence that that various other scenarios.
Your argument depends on people being homo economis.
it was perfectly obvious to everyone that a) pissing off the jews (Yahweh’s Son loves me) and b) pissing off the romans (Caesar answers to someone greater) was going to end with violence being done to them. everyone was familiar with Caesar’s enemies being executed via crucifixion and the gospels (regardless of who you think wrote them) assume everyone is familiar with the Jews summarily executing blasphemers by stoning
the “apostles as forgers” theory assumes the following without being able to show any of it:
Peter, James, and John collude to write a fiction that all know will give the Romans and Jews cause to execute them - why?
They start a literary tradition in which they are dumb, hot-headed imbeciles with faltering faith - why?
They live in poverty and suffering, taking care of the poor and the permanently disabled, for something they know to be a lie - as documented by an independent witness Paul - why?
Why would forgers invent entirely an entirely selfless doctrine that they know to be founded on nothing - no riches, no multiple wives, no permission to wage war etc
Why would forgers invent really unhelpful details such as Jesus’ baptism, temple clearance, carrying of swords at his arrest, his crucifixion. When these render the basic gospel unbelievable to Jews and Greeks. A crucified Messiah? Actually physically crucified by the Roman state? was a nonsense. Why not invent a spiritual priest who sacrifices in the heavenly temple and renders the earthly one obsolete? (like is seen in Hebrews) Why involve any physical details whatsoever? Why invent embarrassment, shame and humiliation at cost to ones self? How on earth to keep this conspiracy pact together in the face of persecution, physical violence and death? And for what motivation?
Apostolic forgery is a nonsense really
It is far far simpler to allow that Jesus of Nazareth had a physical historical reality. That he preached a spiritual Torah, self-denial, and ideals controversial to both Jews and Greeks (because these are among the least likely things to have been invented). That he was popular with crowds and was crucified after causing a riot at the temple at Passover. His subsequent followers became convinced they had experienced him resurrected. Everything else easily follows from that. People who wrote, did so believing what they were writing. People Paul met (and persecuted) believed what they said. Peter and James believed what they said, to the point of being martyred.
None of this requires any spiritual belief. It’s purely naturalistic.
You are combining the argument from embarrassment with your older argument from poverty.
The argument from poverty doesn’t work because it assumes that humans get what they want. As I stated the vast majority of criminals are not successful people. Gallie was poor, a rural backwater of a backwater of an open air prison. James and Peter could do some preaching and make just enough off the suckers to keep going. They did flee Jerusalem which says enough. Literally couldn’t convince people to believe what they had personally witnessed? No one remembers the king of the Jews being killed right during this major holiday? If someone died on the field of the next Superbowl would you remember that?
No. Far more likely they left John the Baptist, setup shop in Jerusalem. We’re told to get lost. Fleed back to Gallie and tried again. Later on Paul comes along and wtf he is taking this seriously.
The argument from embarrassment also doesn’t work because Jews had plenty of leaders who were killed for what they did. Jeremiah and Samson for example. In fact a dead leader killed can be a source of strength. Almost all of religion is telling people that weakness is strength and who is more weak than someone dead? Someone who didn’t even manage to die of old age. Someone who was killed.
Also I never said Paul didn’t buy into it, I think he did. If nothing else the Eucharist. This ritual that must have boiled the blood of every monotheistic person who heard about it.
It’s easy to let your imagination run to whatever it likes. What you’re not doing it showing how your idea reasonably links into the text and traditions that we have from the era.
Can you cite any academic sources that support what you’re saying?
I leave you with (secular) Bart Ehrman:
“He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on certain and clear evidence.” B. Ehrman, 2011
Ooo yea, Jesus for me too if he existed. I would love to see his reaction to thr kind of a religion he spawned. Also the possibility of getting a lot of Christians to chill the fuck out with the bigotry and hatred if you write down what the actual beliefs of Jesus were.
Biblical Jesus fully supported the OT rules and Pharisees authority. He argued about specific details of the rules (which is sorta the job of a Rabbi) but that is about it. Think lawyer not anarchist. If you heard a lawyer argue in court about one technical aspect of copywrite law you really should not conclude that they are free culture piratebay type.
It’s funny how the editors of the bible spent 3 centuries trying to weaken the bigoted rule obsessed man.
Even the people from his one horse town didn’t believe in him. It is such a load that it wasn’t until the Roman Emperor made it mandatory and three centuries of refinement that it has any hope of catching on. And even then it took centuries more.
Alcohol free beer? By Zeus! An ale without the gift of Dionysus? You’d brew a concoction that lacks the divine elixir? It’s like crafting a lyre with no strings, an amphitheater with no stage! An absurdity, a paradox, a spectacle of mockery! I fear it’s the minds of your generation that have been graced by the touch of madness, not the other way around.
Alas, it is a peculiar notion to abandon the very essence of the brew that lends spirit to our celebrations and solace in our solitude. Surely this could only be the invention of an age that has strayed far from the wisdom of the ancients. My heart weeps for such detachment from the sublime offerings of Dionysus. The God of the grape harvest, wine, and ecstasy would certainly frown upon this aberration.
Such an invention, devoid of the spirit, may suggest an insidious plague upon your generation’s psyche. An affliction perhaps borne of a world fraught with complexities and contradictions, unlike our harmonious existence guided by the wisdom of the gods.
May Athena grant you the wisdom to appreciate the true essence of things and may Asclepius protect your wellbeing. Your generation, so advanced in many ways, seems to be wrestling with the inner turmoil of what truly gives pleasure and brings unity to your convivial gatherings. Please, heed my words, and seek balance and wisdom in all things.
I think someone like Hammurabi would be interesting. Are we restricted by language though? if so, I’d have to say someone like Aleister Crowley or “Mark Twain”
Add comment