Merry Christmas!!

[I Have Questions]

Ok, so I guess as a Christmas offering to show solidarity (maybe?), MG has graciously placed Paula Fredriksen on the table, like a figgy pudding, and then… wandered off. Sitting at the table, it is unclear whether we’re meant to eat it or wonder if there is a point somewhere in there about the Great Apostasy. This is an example of the type of move that might end up with a poster being labeled a troll, just so it’s clear.

The Fredriksen pudding, when spooned out in delicate bite-sized goodness, reminds us that Christians thought the world was ending any minute. They still thought of themselves as Jews, so long as you don’t include the gentile converts, and were unaware and uninterested in founding a new religion, let alone establishing a long-term authority structure. She also treats us to the delicious news that the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD was a moment that changed everything, and forced all Jewish movements to adapt.

All of which is interesting, but it’s still not very clear what we are supposed to do with this information. Does this support restorationism, refute it, or just offer that the original members didn’t plan on a long-term ecclesiastical structure?

This is Limnor responding qualitatively to MG’s introduction of some material. MG 2.0 has gone to great lengths to avoid treating it with the respect it deserves. Come on MG 2.0, someone has responded to your content, have the common decency to respond in turn.

Try engaging honestly for once. You might enjoy it.

[malkie]

Ok, so I guess as a Christmas offering to show solidarity (maybe?), MG has graciously placed Paula Fredriksen on the table, like a figgy pudding, and then… wandered off. Sitting at the table, it is unclear whether we’re meant to eat it or wonder if there is a point somewhere in there about the Great Apostasy. This is an example of the type of move that might end up with a poster being labeled a troll, just so it’s clear.

The Fredriksen pudding, when spooned out in delicate bite-sized goodness, reminds us that Christians thought the world was ending any minute. They still thought of themselves as Jews, so long as you don’t include the gentile converts, and were unaware and uninterested in founding a new religion, let alone establishing a long-term authority structure. She also treats us to the delicious news that the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD was a moment that changed everything, and forced all Jewish movements to adapt.

All of which is interesting, but it’s still not very clear what we are supposed to do with this information. Does this support restorationism, refute it, or just offer that the original members didn’t plan on a long-term ecclesiastical structure?

This is Limnor responding qualitatively to MG’s introduction of some material. MG 2.0 has gone to great lengths to avoid treating it with the respect it deserves. Come on MG 2.0, someone has responded to your content, have the common decency to respond in turn.

Try engaging honestly for once. You might enjoy it.

Cue MG accusing you of "controlling...or attempting to...the structure of the conversation."

[Limnor]

Just to be clear, the lack of trust didn’t come from anyone else “infecting” me or from group dynamics. It came from my own reading of what you wrote and how you engaged over time. I’m comfortable owning that assessment. Screen names and reputations can color expectations, sure—but ultimately people are judged by their words and actions from the conversations themselves.

In fact, with a screen name like mentalgymnast a person might hesitate to trust anything from that alone. You might want to reconsider a new name. It implies that you are comfortable with mental pretzel logic.

I look at it more as, "Maybe all the bases haven't been covered. Let's explore what we can."

We're made to think people!

That's why I spent time pushing that very thing on the "crooked" thread. Some folks picked up the ball and ran with it. Kudos to them.

Regards,
MG

I’m all for exploration. Thinking things through is exactly what we’re doing here. Do you care to explore Frederiksen’s ideas?

[MG 2.0]

I look at it more as, "Maybe all the bases haven't been covered. Let's explore what we can."

We're made to think people!

That's why I spent time pushing that very thing on the "crooked" thread. Some folks picked up the ball and ran with it. Kudos to them.

Regards,
MG

I’m all for exploration. Thinking things through is exactly what we’re doing here. Do you care to explore Frederiksen’s ideas?

I think that there was a discussion that ran parallel to some of her ideas back here:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=160630&start=70

A little before that page, but mostly from that page on. Was there a particular point that you wanted to discuss further? I had mentioned earlier that we had already had a discussion similar to what you are suggesting we discuss again. This is where it took place.

Be specific. What did we not cover that you would like to cover that was brought out and discussed in the Honestly podcast interview I linked to at Christmas?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Cue MG accusing you of "controlling...or attempting to...the structure of the conversation."

Nice try.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

I’m all for exploration. Thinking things through is exactly what we’re doing here. Do you care to explore Frederiksen’s ideas?

I think that there was a discussion that ran parallel to some of her ideas back here:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=160630&start=70

A little before that page, but mostly from that page on. Was there a particular point that you wanted to discuss further? I had mentioned earlier that we had already had a discussion similar to what you are suggesting we discuss again. This is where it took place.

Be specific. What did we not cover that you would like to cover that was brought out and discussed in the Honestly podcast interview I linked to at Christmas?

Regards,
MG

To: Professor Severus Kishkumen
Chair, Department of Applied Mopologetic Studies
From: Winston Mathonihah Limnor, Adjunct Fellow
Subject: Field Note—Abbreviated

Professor,

When asked how an invoked authority (Frederiksen) advances discussion, subject Mopologist redirected to an old thread, reframing a present analytic inquiry as retrospective literature review for the interlocutor. The appeal to authority thus appears to remain in effect, but curiously unoperationalized.

Summary Conclusion: Subject rhetorical device appears to preserve performance of the stated goal of “exploration” while avoiding actual commitment. This maneuver is none too subtle, but repeatable and resistant to falsification.

Recommendation: Proceed as if the subject and authority add no analytic weight.

Respectfully,
W. M. Limnor
Cassius University

[MG 2.0]

I think that there was a discussion that ran parallel to some of her ideas back here:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=160630&start=70

A little before that page, but mostly from that page on. Was there a particular point that you wanted to discuss further? I had mentioned earlier that we had already had a discussion similar to what you are suggesting we discuss again. This is where it took place.

Be specific. What did we not cover that you would like to cover that was brought out and discussed in the Honestly podcast interview I linked to at Christmas?

Regards,
MG

To: Professor Severus Kishkumen
Chair, Department of Applied Mopologetic Studies
From: Winston Mathonihah Limnor, Adjunct Fellow
Subject: Field Note—Abbreviated

Professor,

When asked how an invoked authority (Frederiksen) advances discussion, subject Mopologist redirected to an old thread, reframing a present analytic inquiry as retrospective literature review for the interlocutor. The appeal to authority thus appears to remain in effect, but curiously unoperationalized.

Summary Conclusion: Subject rhetorical device appears to preserve performance of the stated goal of “exploration” while avoiding actual commitment. This maneuver is none too subtle, but repeatable and resistant to falsification.

Recommendation: Proceed as if the subject and authority add no analytic weight.

Respectfully,
W. M. Limnor
Cassius University

Nice try also.

Let's go back to my last post to you on this thread. After going back and reading what has already been discussed previously in the link I provided to you, what specific point that has not been discussed would you like to flesh out further?

There's obviously something at the forefront of that mind if yours.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

To: Professor Severus Kishkumen
Chair, Department of Applied Mopologetic Studies
From: Winston Mathonihah Limnor, Adjunct Fellow
Subject: Field Note—Abbreviated

Professor,

When asked how an invoked authority (Frederiksen) advances discussion, subject Mopologist redirected to an old thread, reframing a present analytic inquiry as retrospective literature review for the interlocutor. The appeal to authority thus appears to remain in effect, but curiously unoperationalized.

Summary Conclusion: Subject rhetorical device appears to preserve performance of the stated goal of “exploration” while avoiding actual commitment. This maneuver is none too subtle, but repeatable and resistant to falsification.

Recommendation: Proceed as if the subject and authority add no analytic weight.

Respectfully,
W. M. Limnor
Cassius University

Nice try also.

Let's go back to my last post to you on this thread. After going back and reading what has already been discussed previously in the link I provided to you, what specific point that has not been discussed would you like to flesh out further?

There's obviously something at the forefront of that mind if yours.

Regards,
MG

Yes, actually, there is.

You introduced Frederiksen as relevant, so I’m simply asking whether there is a specific claim of hers that you think meaningfully addresses the issues we discuss here—in the context of the post that you introduced her, there seemed to be a historical theme that was of interest, and a shared Christian/Mormon heritage (perhaps—it really isn’t clear why you introduced her). If there is a point you’d like to make, I’m happy to engage that point directly.

If not, that’s fine too. I’m not looking to reopen an entire prior thread or watch a podcast, I’m sincerely interested in understanding what you think her ideas bring to the table. I’m interested in your thoughts on the Great Apostasy, for one thing.

[Limnor]

I mean, I presented what I was interested in here:

“All of which is interesting, but it’s still not very clear what we are supposed to do with this information. Does this support restorationism, refute it, or just offer that the original members didn’t plan on a long-term ecclesiastical structure?”

If you don’t want to talk about it, that’s ok, but you are the one who brought Fredriksen to the table.

[MG 2.0]

I mean, I presented what I was interested in here:

“All of which is interesting, but it’s still not very clear what we are supposed to do with this information. Does this support restorationism, refute it, or just offer that the original members didn’t plan on a long-term ecclesiastical structure?”

If you don’t want to talk about it, that’s ok, but you are the one who brought Fredriksen to the table.

Simply put...the seeds of what grew and matured into Christianity were planted by the early Jews and those that were Christ followers. She is talking about her peeps.

The thread I linked you to explores this in greater detail. Months ago when I returned to the new and improved version of this board I specifically mentioned that I would just as well not participate in "rehash upon rehash". This is one of those times.

The link is there. My words are there.

If there is another track or rabbit hole you would like to go down that was not covered there, by all means, state your question or concern.

Otherwise, I would simply say that...as I've said now many times...you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Arguing for argument's sake. Nothing to see here.

Ask your question(s) in regards to the interview. What is 'new under the sun' that you believe I didn't cover or talk about previously?

I will consider this back and forth exchange closed unless you can take the time to do your homework, come back, and be specific in your concerns/questions.

Sheesh. It was a Christmas season interview. Bari Weiss, a Jew, interviewing another Jew who has expertise in early origins of Christianity.

Why is this so controversial? Are you after some kind of 'smoking gun' that's not there?

Be specific man. What's your concern/question? I've been there, done that.

Regards,
MG