Simone could you respond to this week response to you think Simone is pre-assuming what is in a text (in my case, pre-assuming what I will say in my book), then reading the text against the grain of its actual wording and context to get it to fit that preconception, and then getting bewildered when they are told they didn't actually read the text as written and are projecting claims into the text that aren't there.
This is of course backwards epistemology. One should not pre-assume things, but read with charity and steel- man the text you intend to critique. This would result in far less pedantry and much more utility.
For example, consider the nuances of the evolutionary links between Phariseeism and later Rabbinical thought: one could acknowledge what I am saying accommodates all that (because it literally does), and recognize that it even strengthens the point I am actually making (as it demonstrates even less rigidity and even more innovativeness, than some scholars-usually Christian apologists-have claimed for Judaism, which is the entire purpose of my Element 5 to dispel), and then build-out a discussion of that with even more evidence proving my point.
Instead, Simone mistakes me for denying this, and burns tons of words on the futile task of "correcting" something that didn't need correcting, rather than building on the point already (actually) made so as to reinforce it.
This is what David Mitchell does with his sources, and thus why I find him so useful to cite. Which might be why Simone throws such shade at him. She doesn't want anyone (even herself) to recognize that he's better at this than she is. She has since confirmed her gender here. But I'll correct that to keep the article in a consistent neutral style.
Hi, yeah, sure - I think that this is an absolutely textbook case of accusation in a mirror - projecting one's own faults onto one's opponents, though I'd also like to know where he's saying this, if that's ok.
I might write something longer up in response, because this relates to something else I'm working on, and to the reason I haven't posted anything in a while - I've been working on 3 large, 10k+ word projects, but my research on each has hit blind spots that require me to read several books and a bunch of technical papers and archeological reports as a result, which I am doing because I need to actually be right, rather than just think I'm right. I need to check through all the sources and do a lot of grunt work before putting anything out there
I have a question who do you think founded Christianity Jesus or Paul some scholars I've read said Jesus just wanted to reform Judaism well Paul created a whole new religion
I think this question is entirely semantic. I think it is clear a new messianic sect coalesced around Jesus, and this persisted at least for some time separate from the Pauline sect, but the Pauline sect, with its mission to the gentiles, was both more successful, and over time became less "Jewish" due to its intake of gentiles.
This, then, produces a reaction within mainstream Judaism, with the Jewish religious establishment being threatened by the growing social influence of this other movement. Where, precisely, one places the "break" is largely a question of how you define both "Judaism" and "Christianity" and the weight you place on the differences between them - there's no answer that one can derive solely from empirical evidence.
I do, however, think that Roman documents distinguishing between Christians and Jews in the 2nd century indicates there was a separate social entity by that point (probably consisting near-entirely of Gentiles - that data is from Cohen).
Simone could you respond to this week response to you think Simone is pre-assuming what is in a text (in my case, pre-assuming what I will say in my book), then reading the text against the grain of its actual wording and context to get it to fit that preconception, and then getting bewildered when they are told they didn't actually read the text as written and are projecting claims into the text that aren't there.
This is of course backwards epistemology. One should not pre-assume things, but read with charity and steel- man the text you intend to critique. This would result in far less pedantry and much more utility.
For example, consider the nuances of the evolutionary links between Phariseeism and later Rabbinical thought: one could acknowledge what I am saying accommodates all that (because it literally does), and recognize that it even strengthens the point I am actually making (as it demonstrates even less rigidity and even more innovativeness, than some scholars-usually Christian apologists-have claimed for Judaism, which is the entire purpose of my Element 5 to dispel), and then build-out a discussion of that with even more evidence proving my point.
Instead, Simone mistakes me for denying this, and burns tons of words on the futile task of "correcting" something that didn't need correcting, rather than building on the point already (actually) made so as to reinforce it.
This is what David Mitchell does with his sources, and thus why I find him so useful to cite. Which might be why Simone throws such shade at him. She doesn't want anyone (even herself) to recognize that he's better at this than she is. She has since confirmed her gender here. But I'll correct that to keep the article in a consistent neutral style.
Hi, yeah, sure - I think that this is an absolutely textbook case of accusation in a mirror - projecting one's own faults onto one's opponents, though I'd also like to know where he's saying this, if that's ok.
I might write something longer up in response, because this relates to something else I'm working on, and to the reason I haven't posted anything in a while - I've been working on 3 large, 10k+ word projects, but my research on each has hit blind spots that require me to read several books and a bunch of technical papers and archeological reports as a result, which I am doing because I need to actually be right, rather than just think I'm right. I need to check through all the sources and do a lot of grunt work before putting anything out there
I have a question who do you think founded Christianity Jesus or Paul some scholars I've read said Jesus just wanted to reform Judaism well Paul created a whole new religion
I think this question is entirely semantic. I think it is clear a new messianic sect coalesced around Jesus, and this persisted at least for some time separate from the Pauline sect, but the Pauline sect, with its mission to the gentiles, was both more successful, and over time became less "Jewish" due to its intake of gentiles.
This, then, produces a reaction within mainstream Judaism, with the Jewish religious establishment being threatened by the growing social influence of this other movement. Where, precisely, one places the "break" is largely a question of how you define both "Judaism" and "Christianity" and the weight you place on the differences between them - there's no answer that one can derive solely from empirical evidence.
I do, however, think that Roman documents distinguishing between Christians and Jews in the 2nd century indicates there was a separate social entity by that point (probably consisting near-entirely of Gentiles - that data is from Cohen).