hater of nierenstein jokes (nprofile…y4a2) nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpqlw88p7q6wfkq8a4l8k4vuefv00exfdu6l2hya8tr2r3xfujm456qknkz2s (nprofile…kz2s) Mr. Cliff, B.Sc. 🇨🇦🇱🇧 (nprofile…66ct) no there are other reasons for late dating of the gospels. only one of which is that they are written with the temple being destroyed in mind.
there is no discussion concerning the temple cult as a present thing, apologetics for why the temple will be destroyed (parable of the fig tree), and both Paul and Clement are ignorant of the gospels. Clement passed up mentioning Judas when contrasting the meekness of the Lord with the betrayal at Corinth, and Paul didn't mention Jesus' teachings on paying taxes and to love thy neighbour as thyself summarising the law, but retreads over the same ground. implying the gospels took the teachings from Paul, rather than the other way around.
the gospels are not historic accounts. they revise each other for mythological and literary purposes (what happened to Mary breaking the box of ointment in Luke? moved and recreated), notably have only a single Joshua in them despite this name being very common, have a "then everyone clapped" scene where Pilate releases Barabbas (son of the father), have people abandon their lives to follow jesus after he speaks a single sentence and so forth. even if you believe in God this is fiction.
the gospels, Hebrews, Paul, Clement and Origen all write about reserving esoteric secrets for mature believers while new believers get milk. that literal interpretations of the gospels would be milk is no strange thing unless you have orthodox dogmas.
that storytelling from god's perspective genesis 1 interpretation is no less nonsense. earth before stars, a firmament dividing waters above from waters below, birds before land animals etc.
>yeah it's quite a shame that the Church wanted *Definitive proof* to convince them to change their whole cosmological and physics model they relied upon
and they had it. the phases of venus and moons of jupiter sunk Ptolemy's cosmology. the roman scientists that the christians neglected to preserve and study sunk Aristotle's physics a thousand years before Galileo.
I don't know where I said "dumb", but "ignorant" because of their religion is an accurate statement. the archetypical example is monks destroying Archimedes' method for scrap parchment to write prayers on.
it's not that deep, you said, and this is a quote, "remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". this is so shallow it shows you have never thought about epistomology past surface depth. (when you use the word "evidence" of course I will use a standard philosophical meaning. do I also need to check the meaning of "believe" as if you're Jordan Peterson?)
on the other hand before having heard of Bayes' theorem I figured a probabilistic measure of truth would be the solution to the epistemic foundation I was thinking about but couldn't reach, lo and behold it was already formalised.
I do not care about "the time". had christians cared about science, they would have preserved and studied Ancient Roman scientists. that their discoveries are counted in "another time" is a self-imposed problem by christianity's anti-intellectualism, not a gap in which you can assert that christianity did a great thing by recreating the thing it destroyed a thousand years prior.
>the problem of light and stellar parallax (which was the same reason Heliocentrism was not accepted at the time)
when something is very far away, you need very precise measurements to observe parallax. it's not complicated and they already knew this, they just ruled it out as a possibility apriori.
and very ironically in this context, absence of evidence is evidence of absence in proportion to the unlikelihood of the evidence being absent.
considering this a slam dunk is logically no different than stopping at the existence of Jupiter's moons and therefore immediately discarding geocentrism because it is more likely that another body than the earth is the centre of the universe (the earth is one body, but the heavens many).
it reduces the likelihood but not fatally so.
likewise to you, there's a reason I replied to Jeff Cliff but not to you.
πρώτος
npub1qs…lsjp9
2025-06-12 12:14:31 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…8t0s
Author Public Key
npub1qshd3qvuuu05378ahrfjdrqvjy9fvv09k62meayggwlut2et3r4sdlsjp9Seen on
wss://relay.mostr.pubPublished at
2025-06-12 12:14:31 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "301f25088e42899a5837185edcd601c9b6d43b1691729b1093a0903fd1a99d57",
"pubkey": "042ed8819ce71f48f8fdb8d3268c0c910a9631e5b695bcf48843bfc5ab2b88eb",
"created_at": 1749730471,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"c069bb51949bb9bbcdf1dbd0fd7f0ca4a9e910faa410c3591994b20a2ff1a81a",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"p",
"fb8e70f81a726c03f6bf3daace652c7bf264b79afaae4e9d6350e264f25bad34",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"p",
"41a996d1266cf1884908e69dd18df7d2a2c881f4a164289ff470cc6472d84a6d",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"e",
"18295e730421cf622bdab78fe07fbf27c4e64da08f2381ee722b86ff24cfd56a",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub",
"reply"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://lab.nyanide.com/objects/470b9662-5a46-4eb2-a0ad-1e15b898d35a",
"activitypub"
],
[
"client",
"Mostr",
"31990:6be38f8c63df7dbf84db7ec4a6e6fbbd8d19dca3b980efad18585c46f04b26f9:mostr",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
]
],
"content": "nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpqcp5mk5v5nwumhn03m0g06lcv5j57jy865sgvxkgejjeq5tl34qdqj9y4a2 nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpqlw88p7q6wfkq8a4l8k4vuefv00exfdu6l2hya8tr2r3xfujm456qknkz2s nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpqgx5ed5fxdnccsjggu6warr0h623v3q0559jz38l5wrxxgukcffksgw66ct no there are other reasons for late dating of the gospels. only one of which is that they are written with the temple being destroyed in mind.\nthere is no discussion concerning the temple cult as a present thing, apologetics for why the temple will be destroyed (parable of the fig tree), and both Paul and Clement are ignorant of the gospels. Clement passed up mentioning Judas when contrasting the meekness of the Lord with the betrayal at Corinth, and Paul didn't mention Jesus' teachings on paying taxes and to love thy neighbour as thyself summarising the law, but retreads over the same ground. implying the gospels took the teachings from Paul, rather than the other way around.\n\nthe gospels are not historic accounts. they revise each other for mythological and literary purposes (what happened to Mary breaking the box of ointment in Luke? moved and recreated), notably have only a single Joshua in them despite this name being very common, have a \"then everyone clapped\" scene where Pilate releases Barabbas (son of the father), have people abandon their lives to follow jesus after he speaks a single sentence and so forth. even if you believe in God this is fiction.\n\nthe gospels, Hebrews, Paul, Clement and Origen all write about reserving esoteric secrets for mature believers while new believers get milk. that literal interpretations of the gospels would be milk is no strange thing unless you have orthodox dogmas.\n\nthat storytelling from god's perspective genesis 1 interpretation is no less nonsense. earth before stars, a firmament dividing waters above from waters below, birds before land animals etc.\n\n\u003eyeah it's quite a shame that the Church wanted *Definitive proof* to convince them to change their whole cosmological and physics model they relied upon\n\nand they had it. the phases of venus and moons of jupiter sunk Ptolemy's cosmology. the roman scientists that the christians neglected to preserve and study sunk Aristotle's physics a thousand years before Galileo.\nI don't know where I said \"dumb\", but \"ignorant\" because of their religion is an accurate statement. the archetypical example is monks destroying Archimedes' method for scrap parchment to write prayers on.\n\nit's not that deep, you said, and this is a quote, \"remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence\". this is so shallow it shows you have never thought about epistomology past surface depth. (when you use the word \"evidence\" of course I will use a standard philosophical meaning. do I also need to check the meaning of \"believe\" as if you're Jordan Peterson?)\non the other hand before having heard of Bayes' theorem I figured a probabilistic measure of truth would be the solution to the epistemic foundation I was thinking about but couldn't reach, lo and behold it was already formalised.\n\nI do not care about \"the time\". had christians cared about science, they would have preserved and studied Ancient Roman scientists. that their discoveries are counted in \"another time\" is a self-imposed problem by christianity's anti-intellectualism, not a gap in which you can assert that christianity did a great thing by recreating the thing it destroyed a thousand years prior.\n\n\u003ethe problem of light and stellar parallax (which was the same reason Heliocentrism was not accepted at the time)\n\nwhen something is very far away, you need very precise measurements to observe parallax. it's not complicated and they already knew this, they just ruled it out as a possibility apriori.\nand very ironically in this context, absence of evidence is evidence of absence in proportion to the unlikelihood of the evidence being absent.\nconsidering this a slam dunk is logically no different than stopping at the existence of Jupiter's moons and therefore immediately discarding geocentrism because it is more likely that another body than the earth is the centre of the universe (the earth is one body, but the heavens many).\nit reduces the likelihood but not fatally so.\n\nlikewise to you, there's a reason I replied to Jeff Cliff but not to you.",
"sig": "a59726190fe4619a99a55f9d0d423636f563a26fa0c1a2c7115c32f359db3b52f85a98f66d8857444b0af0f070edd5b8b74224f223e92bf636c306a7ebc3bc01"
}