Trump and racism

[Sparko]

That is, I believe, MM's point about my so-called "double standard." Except what is forgotten is that we have insufficient evidence to believe any of the evidence we have is anything other than hearsay. We do not know, definitively, the authors of most of the NT. We know Paul's letters were written by Paul, but Paul was not an eyewitness to Jesus' life/resurrection, and does not claim to be (AFAIK). The gospels were written well after the events they report, and we know the communities within which they were likely written. We know Acts and Luke were likely written by the same author and the author was likely a physician.

So most of the NT is actually hearsay - and not demonstrably eyewitness testimony. It is someone writing down what they heard from those who claimed to be eyewitnesses, or (sometimes) those who heard the preaching of eyewitnesses (which makes it even one-more removed).

At least, that is what I recall of my (somewhat dated) scripture studies. And that is why I have said repeatedly, the NT tells us about the beliefs of the communities within which they were written. They cannot tell us about the accuracy of the historical claims they make.

I guess that makes your source about Trump hearsay, since all you have is some reporter's article claiming what someone else said, with no actual evidence?

But Paul did witness the resurrected Christ and said so. John and Matthew were eye witnesses, Mark probably was. Luke reported from eye witness reports. And there was also no reason for them to lie, we already went over all that in another one of your threads, but there IS reason for people to lie about Trump, they hate him with a passion which makes any supposed eye witness testimony suspect.

[carpedm9587]

I guess that makes your source about Trump hearsay, since all you have is some reporter's article claiming what someone else said, with no actual evidence?

If you listen to the Embedded podcast series on this topic, the producer is interviewed and will tell you himself.

But Paul did witness the resurrected Christ and said so. John and Matthew were eye witnesses, Mark probably was. Luke reported from eye witness reports. And there was also no reason for them to lie, we already went over all that in another one of your threads, but there IS reason for people to lie about Trump, they hate him with a passion which makes any supposed eye witness testimony suspect.

Paul had a "vision," and I believe (IIRC) it was in the form of a voice. Many people, over the years, have reported "seeing ghosts." It does make them credible witnesses. We have no idea if the authors of the gospels attributed to Matthew and John were actually written by them. Indeed, since John dates to between 95 and 110 AD, it is highly unlikely. The same is true of the author of Mark, who isn't listed as an apostle, again IIRC. And we don't even have ANY original version of ANY of these texts - just copies of copies.

The bar of "we have eyewitness testimony" is simply not met, IMO.

[Sparko]

If you listen to the Embedded podcast series on this topic, the producer is interviewed and will tell you himself.



Paul had a "vision," and I believe (IIRC) it was in the form of a voice. Many people, over the years, have reported "seeing ghosts." It does make them credible witnesses. We have no idea if the authors of the gospels attributed to Matthew and John were actually written by them. Indeed, since John dates to between 95 and 110 AD, it is highly unlikely. The same is true of the author of Mark, who isn't listed as an apostle, again IIRC. And we don't even have ANY original version of ANY of these texts - just copies of copies.

The bar of "we have eyewitness testimony" is simply not met, IMO.

1. The people with Paul saw the light too and heard the voice. And Paul talked with the Lord on more than one occasion and he apparently saw Christ he counts himself as someone who does. 2. The gospels have been attributed to the 4 authors since the beginning of the church. We have literally thousands of manuscripts and fragments of the gospels from all over the region. If they were randomly assigned names you would assume we would have copies of the Gospel of Matthew being attributed to John, or vice versa. Also if they were just attaching names for credibility, why would they use Mark instead of Peter since Mark was Peter's scribe? And why not assign a closer source to Luke's gospel instead of Luke? say Paul or even some other apostle? There is zero evidence that anyone other than the attributed authors wrote the gospels.

[guacamole]

In that case, you calling someone in particular "racist" is utterly meaningless, and one wonders why you're bothering to push this particular narrative.

Saying it's "utterly meaningless" is utterly reductive. Qualities that large percentages of the population share matter when those qualities impact other people's lives.

As far as that goes, I'm not bothering to push any particular narrative. I couldn't care less if Trump is racist or not, especially since that seems to be a sin most people fall into. The degree might matter, but it doesn't seem to me to be affecting his immigration policies anymore than it has previous administrations -- excepting the quixotic quest to build the wall.

I find him to be average with respect to racism--not overt and probably not purposefully malign. The average racism might mean that he could stand to learn something about how his actions affect people of different races. It could mean that he could stand to learn how his speech impacts people in more vulnerable positions. It could mean that he needs to learn a little more humility. It matters more for the president than it does for the average person because the potential impact of a president is so much larger.

fwiw,
guacamole

[carpedm9587]

1. The people with Paul saw the light too and heard the voice.

And we have no testimony from them. In fact, I'm fairly sure that Paul vision is documented by Luke - not Paul, IIRC. Paul mentions it, but I don't remember there being any detail in his mention.

And Paul talked with the Lord on more than one occasion and he apparently saw Christ he counts himself as someone who does.

Visions, Sparko. Paul was not a witness to the life of Jesus of Nazareth. So what we know from his testimony is that he had visions of Jesus of Nazareth. Most people today, when they claim "visions" are held in a bit of a level of doubt.

2. The gospels have been attributed to the 4 authors since the beginning of the church. We have literally thousands of manuscripts and fragments of the gospels from all over the region. If they were randomly assigned names you would assume we would have copies of the Gospel of Matthew being attributed to John, or vice versa. Also if they were just attaching names for credibility, why would they use Mark instead of Peter since Mark was Peter's scribe? And why not assign a closer source to Luke's gospel instead of Luke? say Paul or even some other apostle? There is zero evidence that anyone other than the attributed authors wrote the gospels.

We have no evidence of this, Sparko, other than "tradition." Some modern scholars believe the names are a reference to the communities from which the gospel arose (as opposed to "random". Authorship of these texts has always been problematic. There are even suggestions that Paul's letters were actually written by two different authors. All of this may meet your level of criteria for "eyewitness." It does not meet mine. There is too much disagreement about authorship for me to believe this is "nailed down."

[Sparko]

And we have no testimony from them. In fact, I'm fairly sure that Paul vision is documented by Luke - not Paul, IIRC. Paul mentions it, but I don't remember there being any detail in his mention.



Visions, Sparko. Paul was not a witness to the life of Jesus of Nazareth. So what we know from his testimony is that he had visions of Jesus of Nazareth. Most people today, when they claim "visions" are held in a bit of a level of doubt.



We have no evidence of this, Sparko, other than "tradition." Some modern scholars believe the names are a reference to the communities from which the gospel arose (as opposed to "random". Authorship of these texts has always been problematic. There are even suggestions that Paul's letters were actually written by two different authors. All of this may meet your level of criteria for "eyewitness." It does not meet mine. There is too much disagreement about authorship for me to believe this is "nailed down."

They were not visions. They were physical manifestations. Christ appeared to him.

manuscripts: We do have evidence of this! I just told you about it. We have a LOT of manuscripts, copies, translations, fragments. There is more documentary evidence for the New Testament than any other historical document, ever. All of the complete gospel manuscripts HAVE name attributions on them. None have the wrong name on them. We are not even talking about Paul's letters here.

[carpedm9587]

They were not visions. They were physical manifestations. Christ appeared to him.

Again - based on letters of questionable authorship, of which we have no originals or even complete first generation copies. This is not the stuff of "eyewitnesses."

manuscripts: We do have evidence of this! I just told you about it. We have a LOT of manuscripts, copies, translations, fragments. There is more documentary evidence for the New Testament than any other historical document, ever. All of the complete gospel manuscripts HAVE name attributions on them. None have the wrong name on them. We are not even talking about Paul's letters here.

They have the names they have been attributed to. And the oldest NT fragment we have is a small piece (the size of a business card) piece from the gospel of John, which dates to sometime in the first half of the second century (that's as close as they can date it). There are 5 more fragments and one uncial dated to the second or 3rd century. After that we are into the third century, and still we only have fragments.

Sparko - there is no question we have a lot of pieces. There is no question we have a lot of copies. But the claim that we definitively know authorship is simply not sustainable. And if we do not know authorship, then we cannot make an eyewitness claim. If it is enough for you - so be it. I do not find it adequate. That does not mean we dismiss all of the claims. But it does mean we look for external corroboration, especially for the most unusual claims.

[Mountain Man]

Even Mussolini and Hitler "did some good." That's not a very high bar.

Trump is no Mussolini or Hitler.

[carpedm9587]

Trump is no Mussolini or Hitler.

I don't recall saying he was. My point was "did some good" does not excuse the other issues.

[lilpixieofterror]

Actually, there is significant evidence. You (and others) seem to confuse "evidence" with "proof."

Not really. What you have is roomers and hearsay. Sorry, takes more than that.

[Tassman]

Trump is no Mussolini or Hitler.

[carpedm9587]

Not really. What you have is roomers and hearsay. Sorry, takes more than that.

The only ones rooming with me are my wife and sons. I'm not sure how that applies

And the eyewiteness testimony of the former producer of the show is not a "rumor." You can hear it yourself at the Embedded podcast listed below. You can also find the legal definition for "hearsay" in that post or one around it.

[lilpixieofterror]

The only ones rooming with me are my wife and sons. I'm not sure how that applies

And the eyewiteness testimony of the former producer of the show is not a "rumor." You can hear it yourself at the Embedded podcast listed below. You can also find the legal definition for "hearsay" in that post or one around it.

[lilpixieofterror]

I don't think any of them are consecutive

As I believe I noted, broadcast television outlets lean left. Radio leans right. Internet/Cable are all over the map.

And, as I noted, every out-of-power party feels that their "face is shoved in the mud." If that is the excuse for voting for a man with such incredible moral and personal flaws, so be it. As I recall, there were about 18 candidates to choose from in the Republican primaries. Republicans chose the one they did...and there were candidates with a far better claim to moral fiber and quality personal characteristics.

1. Consertives are not the ones running around destroying lives for those unwilling to pull the party line. IE forcing Christian bakers to bake wedding cakes, punishing college students accused of rape without due process, publishing unverified stories that make your political enemies look bad, etc.
2. Only a handful of those candidates stood any chance of ever getting nominated let alone beating Clinton. You even said yourself that Trump is a media genius that was able to beat Clinton by using his superior media knowledge. Same applies to the primaries, Trump used his superior media skills to win the nomination too.

And I repeat, "what aboutism" is not really an argument or defense...

I don't see a difference here between the two parties.

They both suck in their own way.

What on earth makes you think I'm mad?

Obama didn't squeak by with less than 100,000 votes in 3 states. But we shall see...

Obama oozes charisma and was able to get people into the ballet box because of that. How many current democrat candidates are as charismatic?

[carpedm9587]

And does he have any evidence beyond his say do?

That is essentially the point of the discussion, Pix. He is an eyewitness, but does not control the disposition of the footage.

I'm pretty sure I do.

Then you are somewhat arbitrarily discounting the testimony of an eyewitness with no other basis than "you don't believe him." I have found nothing to suggest this man is dishonest, so my tendency is to give eyewitnesses the benefit of the doubt until I have cause not to. You, clearly, are making a different choice. That is certainly your right.