f you are unhappy with a comment or an approach, just say so plainly. This is a dialogue. No need to embroider your comments with imputations of a person's motives or intentions. That isn't good manners, doesn't demonstrate good faith and muddies an otherwise interesting conversation. — Tom Storm

You're really something. As I explained:

It isn't out of character for you to omit text from my posts that is germane to the discussion, then criticize what you've quoted as if it were written without the omitted text. Have you considered that perhaps if you had it sitting in front of you, you wouldn't keep losing track of what I've written? Regardless, your omitting text isn't "inadvertent". As such, it's "intentional". — ThinkOfOne

Evidently you're hellbent on characterizing it as an " imputation of a person's motives or intentions".

What's more, how does your ongoing failure to keep track of what I've written show "good manners" or " demonstrate good faith"? You're really something.

↪ThinkOfOne Oh, and are you able to address my response? Particularly this which you can't avoid with a scenario which doesn't remotely match the situation we are discussing.

Where is the equivalent of a journal with actual words in it as source material for the gospels which are copies of translations of copies of translations, written decades after the events? Your thought experiment is predicated on a real and ordinary person who has left direct first hand source material via a written record of actual words said. And only one person involved in the process which took those words and recast them in fiction. Can you demonstrate that Yeshua kept a diary? Can you demonstrate that any notes were ever taken of Yeshua's itinerant preaching? Can you demonstrate that there is any connection at all between any words as they appear in the gospels and any words said by any actual person?
— Tom Storm — Tom Storm

I did address your response with the following:

Well, perhaps you don't understand thought experiments. Or you've lost track of the context of this thought experiment. Perhaps it's once again due to the fact that you "read this stuff quickly during breaks at work." — ThinkOfOne

If you kept track of what I've written, understood thought experiments and kept track of the context of the thought experiment, perhaps you'd understand that your response is irrelevant to the point of the thought experiment.

If you kept track of what I've written, understood thought experiments and kept track of the context of my thought experiment, perhaps you'd understand that your response is irrelevant to the point of the thought experiment. — ThinkOfOne

Thought experiments are only useful if they provide insight on the matter you are trying to illustrate. We disagree about whether you were successful in this attempt. I'm not 'hellbent' on anything, just bemused at your imputations.

I did address your response with the following:
Well, perhaps you don't understand thought experiments. Or you've lost track of the context of this thought experiment. Perhaps it's once again due to the fact that you "read this stuff quickly during breaks at work."
— ThinkOfOne — ThinkOfOne

I see this as avoiding the argument by claiming it doesn't count.

Maybe you could explain why you think your thought experiment/scenario is of use here.

Well, it's clear that you can't be bothered to keep track of our discussion. Why should I be bothered to keep explaining what you keep missing because you "read this stuff quickly during breaks at work"?

You're really something.

You're really something. — ThinkOfOne

Interesting that you choose again to attack and belittle rather than to clarify. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that perhaps you are challenged by this kind of discussion. Take care.

It's kind of ironic because as far as we know there are no records of Yeshua ben Yosef words or whoever the first century figure/s was who may have inspired the legends. So how much should we care about this? — Tom Storm

, so far as I can see, you have not given a reply to this point.

So is your argument that we cannot trust the gospels, but can trust what they say Yeshua ben Yosef said? ...Or is it that only the stuff that is the same in all four gospels is true...? — Banno

Nor addressed this directly.

Your posts have reinforced the view that apologetics resorts to ad hom and insult when challenged.

Do you have anything substantive to say here?

Interesting that you choose again to attack and belittle rather than to clarify. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that perhaps you are challenged by this kind of discussion. Take care — Tom Storm

As I explained in my previous post as you've once again intentionally omitted from my post:

Well, it's clear that you can't be bothered to keep track of our discussion. Why should I be bothered to keep explaining what you keep missing because you "read this stuff quickly during breaks at work"? — ThinkOfOne

And yet another low quality post from @banno. What else is new?

Seems reasonable to place import on the quality of the underlying concepts conveyed. — ThinkOfOne

Is your claim that concepts you deem to be of superior quality are those taught by Jesus, and those of lesser quality are not his own?

Seems reasonable to place import on the quality of the underlying concepts conveyed.
— ThinkOfOne

Is your claim that concepts you deem to be of superior quality are those taught by Jesus, and those of lesser quality are not his own? — Fooloso4

To understand that sentence you'll need to read it in the context of the entirety of that post within the context of @Tom Storm's post. He seemed place import on the quantity of records kept instead of the quality of the underlying concepts conveyed. Go figure. Tried to explain the fallacy of that to him, but he kept getting lost.

I did read what Tom wrote. He made the point that we do not know whether or not Jesus actually said the things attributed to him. You lay emphasis on:

the importance of HIS words. — ThinkOfOne

The words He spoke while He preached His gospel. — ThinkOfOne

But you go on to say:

From what I gather, the words attributed to Jesus from the beginning of His ministry through His crucifixion as documented across the four gospels: Mark, Matthew, Luke and John are the only extant records. — ThinkOfOne

The words attributed to Jesus are not records of what he actually said but records of what these anonymous gospels writers said he said.

You then introduce your thought experiment, the point of which seems to be that it does not matter who said these things, that what is important is the quality of what was said. There is a shift here from "HIS" words to the words themselves.

And this brings us back to my question:

Is your claim that concepts you deem to be of superior quality are those taught by Jesus, and those of lesser quality are not his own? — Fooloso4

You lay emphasis on:

the importance of HIS words.
— ThinkOfOne

The words He spoke while He preached His gospel.
— ThinkOfOne — Fooloso4

The above was written in an entirely different context. To understand those snippets you'll need to read them in the context of the entirety of that post within the context of @Art48's post.

Why do you keep taking everything out of context? Have you not yet realized that it's a poor methodology that often results in false conclusions? You really need to reassess your critical thinking skills. Wouldn't hurt to brush up on your reading comprehension skills as well.

Curiously, it's a methodology often employed by Christians when interpreting scripture. They often take verses or snippets of verses out of context, then cobble them together as if the individual contexts don't matter. As such, they also often draw false conclusions.

And yet another low quality post from banno. What else is new? — ThinkOfOne

And yet another ad hom post from you. nothing is new?

Why do you keep taking everything out of context? — ThinkOfOne

Funny, that you repeat this accusation at all who disagree with you. Perhaps your writing lacks clarity. Perhaps you do not wish to consider any criticism. Either way, you avoid addressing the issues that your critiques have raised.

You seem to think we can rely on the words of Jesus, despite not knowing what they are.

Address that.

lol. From what I gather, most are well aware of your low quality posts. For example, from a mod:

Banno will never change.

But despite the rudeness and lack of substance in many of his posts, he has a proper education in philosophy and is expert in analytic philosophy. I guess this means that his misbehaviour is sometimes tolerated by the staff.

Take this a wake-up call to step up the quality of your posts. Thus far, in your responses to me on this thread and others, it's been nothing but a steady stream of low quality posts and baseless accusations. Seriously, in the main they have been laughably bad.

You seem to think we can rely on the words of Jesus, despite not knowing what they are.

Address that. — Banno

There's no real way out of that one other than playing a speculative game about the text holding underlying concepts, which hasn't gone so well.

Hence 's continuing stream of ad homs.

It's the congenital problem with the notion of "revealed" scripture. "It's the word of God, but only under my interpretation". It's partly why I listed

...using scripture, revelation or other religious authority in an argument — Banno

as a reduction of philosophy to mere theology, in one of my insubstantial threads.

But there is something to be said for an archeology of the concept of "doctrine", alluded to earlier. Is the notion of "one, true doctrine", worthy of persecuting the heretic, a contribution from Christianity?

?

Yes, that is interesting. Keep up those flimsy contributions, Cobber! :wink:

Why do you keep taking everything out of context? — ThinkOfOne

Why do you keep evading the issues?

lol. From what I gather, most are well aware of your low quality posts. For example, from a mod:
Banno will never change.

But despite the rudeness and lack of substance in many of his posts, he has a proper education in philosophy and is expert in analytic philosophy. I guess this means that his misbehaviour is sometimes tolerated by the staff.

Take this a wake-up call to step up the quality of your posts. Thus far, in your responses to me on this thread and others, it's been nothing but a steady stream of low quality posts and baseless accusations. Seriously, in the main they have been laughably bad. — ThinkOfOne

Why should anyone take you seriously? You're nothing more than a troll as you keep demonstrating.

Why do you keep evading the issues? — Fooloso4

Present a cogent argument that isn't a straw man and I'll be happy to address it.

Present a cogent argument that isn't a straw man and I'll be happy to address it. — ThinkOfOne

Sage advice.

You're nothing more than a troll as you keep demonstrating. — ThinkOfOne

Then your best approach would be not to reply to my posts, or to report them to the mods.

You really need to take that advice.

There doesn't seem to be much point in reporting your posts to the mods as this was the response I was given from a mod:

Banno will never change.

But despite the rudeness and lack of substance in many of his posts, he has a proper education in philosophy and is expert in analytic philosophy. I guess this means that his misbehaviour is sometimes tolerated by the staff.

In a way it's kind of funny. You, @Tom Storm and @Fooloso4 are like a group of school girls who back each other and think that what they believe is true simply because they each have the backing of the other girls. Also like them, for all intents and purposes, you're fungible.

Present a cogent argument that isn't a straw man and I'll be happy to address it. — ThinkOfOne

I have not presented any argument, cogent or otherwise. I asked a question. You did not answering it.

Why should anyone take you seriously? — ThinkOfOne

The fact of the matter is that many members do take him seriously. Over the years he has demonstrated why he should be taken seriously.

You make the sophomore mistake of confusing disagreement and disregard.

In the short time you have been here, however, you have amply demonstrated that you cannot be taken seriously. If you cannot address the questions and problems posed then you cannot be taken seriously as someone capable of reasoned discourse.

I wish we were able to hear more about @ThinkOfOnes notion of ‘underlying concepts’. I think he is sincere and he really can’t believe that others don’t see his point. Which seems to mean they must be dumb or bad people. An opportunity to clarify has been refused or avoided. I’d like to try and steel man his argument. What did you make of the thought experiment and the underlying concept argument?

I wondered the same thing, quietly. His first reply implies he thinks '"true Christian doctrine" futile', but the second implies that despite this it is possible to 'Hear His word', supported by scriptural examples, his third post says we ' place import on the quality of the underlying concepts conveyed', but doesn't tell us how we fathom what these underlying concepts are. Further posts dissolve in defensive rhetoric.

Looks like some sort of holistic gnosticism, but in the absence of clarity that's mere surmise.

A while back he was arguing for a metaphorical interpretation, but despite repeated attempts to get him to explain the meaning of the metaphors, was unable or unwilling to do so.

He attempts to root out the influence of Paul, but fails to see the influence of and on the author of John and how what he takes to be the teachings of Jesus are actually the teachings of John, or how John differs significantly not only from Paul but from Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

As to his thought experiment: on the one hand he seems to be arguing that it does not matter whether these are the words of Einstein or the fictitious scientists, what matters is not who said it but what is said. But this seems to imply that what is important is not whether Jesus actually said the words attributed to him, what is important is the "underlying concepts".

As far as I can see, he accepts the underlying concepts found in John and rejects those found not only in Paul but also those he suspects come from the influence of Paul. One obvious problem is that in the thought experiment the actual words of Einstein are preserved and transmitted, but we have no idea the extent to which the words of Jesus have been preserved and transmitted.

It stands to reason that the further we get from the source the less likely it will be that there will be an accurate transmission. There is then good reason to suspect that what @ThinkOfOne calls "HIS" word is the word of the pseudonymous John not Jesus.

:fire: :100:

Thanks. :up: Yep. This notion of 'underlying concepts' needs to be made coherent.

I grew up in a house where the red-lettered words of Jesus were distinguished from everything else. I get the claim for the centrality of those words compared to the other narratives.

Once I found out that the two elements could not be separated, it became difficult to understand any of it.