Why read the Bible?

A friend asked me why I'm interested in the Bible.

So many reasons. Here are 10 not in any order:

1. The Bible is one of the, if not the most, influential books ever written. And I've never read the entire book Bible. I plan to read it at least two times through. 
2. I argue about religion, mostly Christianity, with a few friends. Those friends maintain a flow of my interest.
3. The Bible is fascinating.
4. The more I learn, the easier the Bible gets to read and understand. The more I understand, the more engaging the Bible is. I'm more knowledgeable than ever before. For most of my adulthood, I didn't have the skills or background to engage in the Bible. I'm able to read the Bible more like I could a contemporary text.
5. I don't get how some people can literally believe the Bible is historically and theologically accurate. I get why most people believe it, but then there are some people where it doesn't make sense. Trying to empathize and understand how people can believe the Bible is interesting to me. It fits into broader questions and answers about why people believe what they believe. I have some conclusions here, but I'll save those for another post.
6. The Commentaries on the Bible are very interesting. I like the commentaries even better than the primary sources. I find it very engaging to read and consume the commentaries. I prefer to pair them together. Sometimes sandwhiching the two. I'm currently listening to a Great Courses lecture series and a podcast series while doing a slow read of the Old Testament. The lectures and podcast complement each other very well.
7. I'm a natural born know it all. I dislike being wrong. Learning more means I'm wrong less, allowing me to signal how smart and well read I am.
8. Learning is fun.
9. The Bible is entertaining.
10. Reading the Bible will increase my writing. I'll have a lot deeper range of metaphors and allusions to utilize for creating meaningful literature. 

If I spent more time, I could find many more reasons. 

Response to Ep 50

Introduction

After editing and producing Ep 50 of Jimbo Radio. I wanted to make a couple responses that I would have like to said during the episode. Listen here. 

Making Shit Up

I should rephrase. The people who created religions and progressed the ideas were not just "making shit up." They were mostly genuine. People follow their intuitions and resources they have available. People for most of human history had excellent reasons to believe, think, and create what they did. We still do. 

But with all the information I have available to me. There are way better explanations than what the greatest thinkers of antiquity came up with.

When I read Genesis (I'm rereading it now), it's stories. Similar to reading Homer. There are combinations of literary, mythical, allegorical, and, in general, creative techniques at hand. The words and ideas were most likely crafted over time. Changing a word here or rephrasing there to make it more poetic, easier to remember, etc. Like with Genesis, There is a Priestly creation account that is allegedly a later addition than the garden narrative. The Priestly account is like a prologue someone added later for a reason. Either way, two separate stories are combined into one work. And it's not hard to imagine why or how scribes could revise here and there to create a more unified piece. There is a lot more to this story too. See a review of Who Wrote the Bible by Richard Elliott Friedman for a fuller analysis.

Fine Tuning

It would be a way greater sign of God if we lived in a universe that wasn't suitable for life!

There are good and bad arguments on both sides. This is another example of people can find reasons and logic to support whatever they want to believe (not whatever, but many views can find something to support what they want). Here is a one stop shop for more philosophical engagement on the topic.

Child Birth: Eve vs Evolution

Why do women suffer during childbirth? 

I'm going to give two explanations. One from religion and one from evolution. This question must have bothered people for thousands of years. Having sex is pleasurable under most conditions. And then childbirth for most of human history is an event where women can die and suffer greatly (modern healthcare has changed the game). Stories help people understand why women suffer so much to keep our species propagating.

1) Women suffer during child because God is punishing all women for Eve's disobedience.

To the woman he [God] said, “I will make your pangs in childbirth exceedingly great; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” - Genesis 3:16

2) Because humans have big brains and stand upright, women have a bio-mechanical challenge. How does one get a baby out of the birth canal? One solution is small helpless babies that takes a year to walk. But that isn't enough. Childbirth still creates strong contractions that compress blood vessels and create strong and intense pain signals. Women pay the price for big brains and bipedalism, both great tradeoffs for humans as a species. 

One of these stories is just obviously way better at explain why women suffer during childbirth. 

Pain Is Good

More on pain, pain is a helpful signal. There is a condition called congenital insensitivity to pain (CIP). If you're unfamiliar with the condition, the wiki link has a short video that captures the tragedy of painlessness. Once again, evolution and biology provide excellent explanations and stories. 

Objective Morals (aka Moral Realism)

Background

A friend and I were discussing objective morals. I thought all his claims and ideas were wrong. Of course, I liked my ideas. That lead me to look into the topic more. I looked up the leading logical arguments for moral realism, and I didn't find them very compelling compared to the arguments against moral realism.

Introduction

This is going to be a brainstorming post. I want to explain my ideas, thinking, and ask questions to guide the next phase of my inquiry.

My Biases

I don't believe in any creator, god, or religion. So the arguments built on a creator or attributes of a god are rejected because I reject the existence of those ideas. With that said, moral realism is not contingent on deism.

Evolution is one of the strongest theories in biology, if not all of science.

I believe in objective reality. Physical structures are undeniable. Ideologies and other abstract ideas are very much open for debate.

Epistemology wise, I'm a skeptic who leans heavily on 1) empiricism for knowledge that can be measured and 2) rationalism for knowledge that cannot be measured.

Logic is the best system of thinking.

The scientific method is the best system for understanding processes.

Questions (and how do we know?)

Are all, most, some, or few behaviors moral truths?

How many people have to agree for something to be a moral truth?

If people cannot agree, how do people decide what the moral truths are?

If there are moral truths, how can people know what they are? 

How do non human animals fit into the discussion?

How do psychopaths and or other sociopaths fit into the discussion?

How does the history of slavery and the abolishment of slavery prove/disprove moral realism?

How do laws prove/disprove moral realism?

If something like, do not murder, is a moral truth, how do we explain why people murder?

Even if everyone agrees murder is morally wrong, how do we know that's an objective truth and not culture?

For deist, what does it mean when a religion's god commands someone to break a moral truth?

If x is claimed to be a moral truth, does one situation where x is moral disprove x as a moral truth? 

My Priors

People do not agree.

The disagreement seems undeniable. I know that disagreement doesn't necessarily rule out moral realism, but it makes it obvious to me that people aren't going to agree. If we cannot agree, then how can we know which, if any, moral truths are true?

Let's look at killing.

A jainist might say killing a tree or plant is morally wrong. The US legal system might say killing is allowed in self defense. An army might say killing is allowed to protect and or conquer an area. Most people eat meat, so they think it is moral to kill animals for food. Hunters might hunt for sport. Many vegans stop eating meat because they decide it's morally wrong that animals have to suffer in factory farming conditions. And the list goes on. People have varying morals about killing. Maybe a moral realist would agree that killing isn't one of the moral truths.

It feels like I only need to find one black swan. Maybe this is a logical fallacy. But if a moral realist says x is a moral truth, I should only have to find one situation where x is moral.

What's Next?

Here are my next two stops. I'll add further resources as I find them. 

Moral Anti-Realism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Moral Realism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) 

“The Legendary Muhammad Ali”

She watched her eldest son, Muhammad Ali, sharpen his knife. The woman knew Ali would avenge his father’s murder. Ali and his brother received news of their rival’s location. Ali sheathed his knife in the sash of his robe.

As her sons were leaving their home, the woman said, “Keep an eye out and a knife sharp.”

“Of course, yamma,” Ali said.

The woman tore papyrus leaves, like limbs from a body, from the old books next to her oven.

The day before, Ali had found the books in a six-foot jar while digging for fertilizer. Ali hesitated to break the jar because he feared an evil spirit might be inside. When he considered there could be gold inside, he smashed the jar to pieces with his mallet. Instead, the jar contained 13 papyrus-bound books. He took them home and placed them next to his mother’s oven.

The woman continued to tear, crinkle, and burn the leaves as kindling. The leaves smoldered. The edges curled inward as they turned from brown to gray to white. She added more leaves until a flame ignited. The words, written in Coptic, an ancient Egyptian language using the Greek alphabet, became smoke, disappearing for the final time. Neither the woman nor her sons knew the monetary, historical, or spiritual value of the words being burned.

The sons returned. Their robes and beards were stained. Ali was excited to tell his mother the good news. “Yamma,” Ali said, “I chopped his limbs off and dug out his heart. We all ate it.”

She was proud of her sons. She said, “My sons, have some bread while it is fresh. I will heat water for you to wash.”

The woman tore more leaves to start another fire.

Ali said, “We have to get rid of these old books. The authorities will search the house.”

The next day, the books were taken to a local Coptic priest. Ali was arrested. The priest's brother, a schoolteacher, saw one of the books and recognized its value. The teacher took the book to Cairo and showed it to a physician interested in Coptic. The doctor alerted the Department of Antiquities (DoA). The DoA seized the book from the teacher.

The rest of the books were taken to Cairo and sold to antiquity dealers. The sales and rumors of the books increased investigations from authorities. The DoA bought one of the books and confiscated another ten. The DoA gave the books they obtained to the Coptic Museum in Cairo. The thirteenth book escaped Egypt through a Belgian antiques dealer. The Belgian tried to sell the remaining book in New York, eventually selling the remaining book to the Jung Institute of Zurich. Today, all the surviving books and fragments are at the Coptic Museum in Cairo.

What were these ancient Coptic books discovered by the heart-eating murdering Muhammad Ali? They were mostly Gnostic texts with a few other philosophical works, including an excerpt from Plato’s Republic. The majority of the texts had been lost for close to 1,500 years. Today, anyone can read all of these texts online for the price of their internet connection.

5k Warmup

I've been very focuses on my running the last several weeks. For the first time in over 15 years that I have created and followed a training plan. I have not missed a workout or run in the last six weeks. Now, that I finished my last quality workout yesterday, I have transitioned to my tapering. And I'm focusing on other aspects of the race. I made this warmup routine specific to me.  My usual warmup for workouts includes more lunges and a few other mobility/yoga poses. But I cut everything that isn't directly preparing me for running a 5k. Here is my sheet if anyone wants to copy and paste it. 

 

Notes from Episode 41: Knowing about Knowing

In my recent episode, Ep 41 Knowing about Knowing, with Brendan Howard, we continued our discussion about knowing. Our conversation was based on a survey about epistemology I created with the assistance of GPT. We also listened and discussed an episode of Theories of Everything with Professor Jennifer Nagel.

Human Memory

In the episode, I slightly misremembered a study on memory related to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Below are the main ideas related to my episode reference brought to you by GPT:

1. Memory decay slows after one year: Flashbulb memories (the personal context: where you were, who told you, etc.) and event memories (facts about the attack itself) both show a forgetting curve that flattens significantly after the first year.

2. Emotional details fade more than factual ones: Emotional responses associated with flashbulb memories (e.g., how shocked or upset you felt) are remembered less accurately over time than non-emotional details like location or the person who told you.

3. Subjective confidence remains high despite inaccuracies: By multiple follow‑up points (1 week, 11 months, 35 months), many participants recalled different details from their original reports—and yet they continued to express high confidence in their recollections. 

After the initial decay, both flashbulb and event memories tend to become more stable—though not necessarily more accurate—over time.

Cumulative Selection

Cumulative selection can explain how a small advantage can build over time through natural selection. Ronald Fisher, a relatively unknown genius and polymath, developed mathematics that explain how small mutations that increase fitness, even with a very small advantage, can survive over time.

Using population genetics, a gene with a 0.1% selective advantage can dominate a population of 10,000 within 20,000 generation. That would be about 500,000 years for humans. 

In the podcast episode, I generally explained why babies should look like their fathers. In theory, if babies, who looked like their fathers, had even a very small advantage, like 0.1%, that advantage would dominate human populations after 20,000 generation, or 500,000 years. If the advantage was larger, it would dominate faster. 

Links 

• https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mrMGHtNcRD3LMFhVeiMdlrqoEv-XXe-2XHwu4VIVVwA/edit?usp=sharing

• https://open.substack.com/pub/curtjaimungal/p/why-universal-skepticism-is-philosophys?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

• https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2925254/

Top 500 Companies with Time

Background

I referenced the top corporations longevity, or lack there of, in a recent podcast episode, click for the episode link.

I wanted to express how the top companies change and die off over time. Here are some links, quotes, and visuals. Here is my GPT searching for the topic.

Introduction

The Fortune 500, not the S&P 500, is a list of the top 500 US companies by revenue. The magazine Fortune has been publishing a list since 1955. 

As of 2024's list, 49 companies have been on the list every year since 1995.

The S&P 500 is an index fund of top US companies. The S&P 500 was created in 1957. Today, 53 of those original companies are still in the S&P 500.

Main Idea

Companies come and go. Less than 10% of the top 500 companies in 1955 were top 500 companies in 2024. A little over 10% of S&P 500 companies in 1957 are still top 500 companies.

There are lots of factors and disruptions, but over time, it is hard for companies, even if they buy out smaller companies and merge with other large companies to stay on top.  

The image below shows the changes in S&P 500 companies over time. At times companies stay for a long time, and then at other times they quickly disappear. If we averaged and leveled off the trend, we'd see a steady and slight decrease with time.  

For More

https://www.axios.com/2019/07/22/fortune-500-corporations-extinction

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/how-the-top-sp-500-companies-have-changed-over-time/ 

Rereading Song of Solomon by Toni Morrison

Rereading Favorite Books

I've been slowly rereading my favorite books. My friend AJ has joined me for most of them.

Song of Solomon by Toni Morrison is one of favorite rereads so far. Here is a lightly revised review from when I first read the book in 2020.

This book had me hooked. I read Beloved and liked it, but it was a tough read. This book is easier to read and follow, but one can also dive deeper and be jealous and amazed at how skilled Toni Morrison was. I'm going to binge her work for a while (and I did).

The dialogue is excellent. I don't always pay close attention to dialogue. It's easy to notice when it's bad. But I can't recall a book or movie with better dialogue. The characters' voices are unique and funny, and their conversations are fresh.

The plot and drama builds and reveals. I was content the whole read. And then every other chapter or so there were surprises I never expected. Everything connects and comes back. The craft is perfect.

Rereading Song of Solomon 

As much as I liked it last time, it was even better this time. Knowing the story and characters had me especially attentive to all the details Morrison puts into her craft, seeing more clearly how characters are formed and evolved throughout the story.

The plot is full of action and suspense.

It's a male centered point of view, but the female characters stand tall. The main character Milkman is finding his way through two opposing extremes of his day. Milkman is born into a rich northern black family. He journeys to the rural south for something and if you want to find out if he finds it, you'll have to read the novel.

Here is a taste of the dialogue:

“Like a riverboat pilot?” Macon asks.
“No not like no riverboat pilot. Like a Christ-killer Pilate. You can’t get much worse than that for a name. And a baby girl at that.”
“That’s where my finger went down at.”
“Well your brain ain’t got to follow it. You don’t want to give this motherless child the name of the man that killed Jesus, do you?”
“I asked Jesus to save me my wife.”
“Careful, Macon.”
“I asked him all night long.”
“He give you your baby.”
“Yes. He did. Baby name Pilate.”
“Jesus, have mercy.”
“Where you going with that piece of paper?”
“It’s going back where it came from. Right in the Devil’s flames.”
“Give it here. It comes from the Bible. It stays in the Bible.”
And it did stay there, until the baby girl turned twelve years old and took it out, folded it up into a tiny knot and put in a little brass box, and strung the entire contraption through her left earlobe (19).

Here are a couple other quotes that stood out to AJ and I:

A glimpse at the theme of love:

“Gimme hate, Lord,” he whimpered. “I’ll take hate any day. But don’t give me love. I can’t take no more love, Lord. I can’t carry it...It’s too heavy. Jesus, you know, you know all about it. Ain’t it heavy? Jesus? Ain’t love heavy?" 

Milkman's feelings toward Hagar:

She was the third beer. Not the first one, which the throat receives with almost tearful gratitude; nor the second, that confirms and extends the pleasure of the first. But the third, the one you drink because it's there, because it can't hurt, and because what difference does it make?

Guitar trying to comfort Hagar:

“You can't own a human being. You can't lose what you don't own. Suppose you did own him. Could you really love somebody who was absolutely nobody without you? You really want somebody like that? Somebody who falls apart when you walk out the door? You don't, do you? And neither does he. You're turning over your whole life to him. Your whole life, girl. And if it means so little to you that you can just give it away, hand it to him, then why should it mean any more to him? He can't value you more than you value yourself.” 

The opening of the book:

The North Carolina Mutual Life Insurance agent promised to fly from Mercy to the other side of Lake Superior at three o'clock. Two days before the event was to take place he tacked a note on the door of his little yellow house:

At 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday the 18th of February, 1931, I will take off from Mercy and fly away on my own wings. Please forgive me. I loved you all.
 

(signed) Robert Smith,
Ins. agent

 

More on flying:

“How come it [peacocks] can't fly no better than a chicken?"
"Too much tail. All that jewelry weighs it down. Like vanity. Wanna fly, you got to give up the shit that weighs you down.” 

 

The last sentence of the book:

If you surrendered to the air, you could ride it.

 
I could keep going. The book is full of great writing. 

Teaching Tools

If I ever find myself teaching again and I'm lucky enough to teach this book, I want to save these resources. I briefly skimmed them and might read some later. 

https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/ebos-landing/

https://commons.hostos.cuny.edu/columbiacommoncoreathostos/song-of-solomon/

https://scalar.lehigh.edu/toni-morrison/song-of-solomon-1977-overview-and-links

https://corebooks.commons.gc.cuny.edu/song-solomon-2/

Knowledge (Epistemology Step 1)

These are visuals for my podcast episode Knowledge and Self Deception.

According to traditional philosophy definitions, knowledge is based on three criteria: belief, truth, and justification. 

I found the following visuals to be helpful in understanding the concept of knowledge better. I put the visuals in order by simplicity.

 

The Gospels, Fuck Yeah!

Background

A few of my closest friends are Christians who I argue with about religion, mostly their religion. Because of them, I'm often reading, listening, and thinking about religions, especially Christianity. More recently it started with Wes Huff on Rogan's podcast. That sparked an ongoing discussion about Christianity. One that has included Alex O'Connor.

Huff and O'Connor led me to Elaine Pagels. Her book, Miracles and Wonder: The Historical Mystery of Jesus, was a great introduction into the varying sources of information about Jesus and the early Christians. Overall, I think Bart Ehrman has better historical scholarship.

Pagels became famous for her book The Gnostic Gospels (1979). This book was heavily awarded and recognized. The following is from the book's description:

In 1945 an Egyptian peasant unearthed what proved to be the Gnostic Gospels, thirteen papyrus volumes that expounded a radically different view of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ from that of the New Testament. In this spellbinding book, renowned religious scholar Elaine Pagels elucidates the mysteries and meanings of these sacred texts both in the world of the first Christians and in the context of Christianity today.

Introduction

Everything I present is ignoring divine intervention. With divine intervention anything is possible. Logic doesn't matter with divine intervention. If one can believe in divine intervention they can easily any issues I would have.

Without divine intervention, how can and does anyone know if the Gospels and early Christian texts are accurate?

Here is a very good argument:

Premise 1: The New Testament documents were written by eyewitnesses or close associates of eyewitnesses.

Premise 2: Eyewitnesses are generally reliable sources of historical information, especially when accounts are consistent and corroborated.

Premise 3: The New Testament writings have been reliably preserved through manuscript transmission.

Premise 4: The New Testament accounts are internally consistent and externally corroborated (by archaeology, early Church Fathers, etc.).

Conclusion: Therefore, the New Testament is a historically legitimate and trustworthy source for the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

I would generally agree that the NT is a historically legitimate and trustworthy source. 

What about the Gnostic texts and gospels? 

Back to Pagels

Pagels is not an atheist. I do not think she would consider herself a Christian either (maybe she would?). Either way, she outlines the progression of ideas about Jesus from the canonical and non-canonical texts. When analyzing from this progression, it becomes clear that the early Christians were a diverse group of followers. Followers with many opposing and varying views on who Jesus was and what Jesus said.

When viewing the early Christian texts in chronological order, it is clearer to see how and why details about Jesus could have been added without being literally true. The early Christian writers had agendas. They wanted to legitimize their messiah. They added details to solve some of the biggest concerns about who Jesus was. They used the Old Testament and prophecies to fill gaps. They elevated Jesus’ status to Son of Man, like other great men of his time, and eventually that grew into Jesus being God. When tracking the progression in order, it’s clear.

Pagels outlines the progression magnificently in her book. She offers multiple explanations and builds context for readers to understand better how the early Christians, authors, and audience may have thought and understood the ideas and events in the texts.

Due to recency bias, a lot of my ideas will be heavily influenced by Pagels.

Some Problem with Jesus

A gigantic problem with Jesus was that he died! How could he be the Messiah if he was dead?

Jesus was born illegitimately.

Jesus was from Nazareth. 

Jesus was killed by the Romans.

Jesus gave secret teachings to his closest followers.

The list goes on...

Fixing the Problems

The NT solves these problems. 

Yes, Jesus died, but he was resurrected. He wasn’t just the Messiah; He is God. He knew He was going to die, and He died for humanity's salvation.

Yes, Jesus was an illegitimate child because he was born of immaculate conception.

Yes, Jesus was from Nazareth, but he was born in Bethlehem. He either had to move because people wanted to kill him or his parents had to go to Bethlehem for a census.

Yes, Romans crucified Jesus, but that is because the Jewish authorities made poor Pilate do something against his will.

Yes, Jesus says in Mark 4:11, "He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables." 

The most likely earliest Gnostic text is The Gospel of Thomas. In it, the author claims to be sharing the secret teaching of Jesus. 

Some of the Secret Teachings from Thomas

(1) And he said: “Whoever finds the meaning of these words will not taste death.”

(3) Jesus said, "[If] those who lead you [say to you, 'See], the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky [will precede you. If they say that] it is under the earth, then the fish of the sea [will enter it, preceding] you. And, the [kingdom of God] is inside of you, [and it is outside of you. Whoever] knows [himself] will discover this. [And when you] come to know yourselves, [you will realize that] you are [sons] of the [living] father. [But if you] will [not] know yourselves, [you dwell] in [poverty] and it is you who are that poverty."

(13) I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended.

(70) When you bring forth that which is within yourselves, this that you have shall save you. If you do not have that within yourselves, this which you do not have within you will kill you.

(77) It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all. From me did the all come forth, and unto me did the all extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there.

According to Thomas, Jesus has a different theology about salvation. One that doesn't rely on churches, bishops, or priests. One based on knowledge and not belief.

John solves this problem by turning Thomas into Doubting Thomas. John discredits the Gospel of Thomas and the followers of Thomas by turning Thomas into the dummy that doesn't believe anything. Mark, Matthew, nor Luke mention anything about Thomas’ character. This isn't proof of anything, but it begs the question. Did John add Thomas' doubts to delegitimatize Thomas and his gospel.

The Rise of Christian Orthodoxy

Bishop Irenaeus, an extremely influential early Christian, wrote Against Heresies. He was against the Gnostic teachings and ideas. He is the first known Christian to make a case for the four canonical Gospels today: Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. At Irenaeus’ time, Christians followed varying numbers of Gospels. Groups might have followed just one gospel or mixed and matched. Irenaeus loved the Gospel of John and thought John was the most important Gospel. With time, orthodoxy was shaped by the varying groups and ideas in the early church.

By the 4th century, the NT became a set canon that has mostly been unaltered. The canonization created several obstacles for the non-canonical texts, including censorship and destruction. Few would survive.

Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria stands out for his condemnation of the heretical texts. In his Easter letter, he listed the 27 books of the New Testament for the first time in the exact form we have today. In the letter he also condemned the heretical texts. There isn't evidence for this, but his influence is likely a contributing factor in the destruction of the heretical books, Gnostic texts and non-canonical texts. To keep it very simple, this was the rise of Christian Orthodoxy and the New Testament (NT) as we know it.

Along with the destruction of the heretical texts, was the destruction of alternative interpretations. Gnosticism became heretical. The church started an ideological cleansing. With the imperial support of Emperor Constantine, the bishops and churches had the power to enforce orthodoxy.

There is a huge problem here. The church and bishops denied access to information. Information that many early Christians were persecuted and died for. People for over 1,500 years were ignorant of the non-canonical texts. They accepted the claims of early Christian scholars, like Irenaeus, who said the non-canonical texts were dangerous and heresies. But for over 1500 years people couldn’t decide for themselves.

Luckily, some Christian monks hid some of these texts (divine intervention??). Are they the dangerous heretical texts Irenaeus and Athanasius feared?

Non-Canonical Texts

People can read some of the destroyed heretical texts. The texts can be scrutinized and analyzed by the same logic that is used on the NT. People can choose for themselves how likely, heretical, or dangerous the texts are.

Most of the non-canonical texts seem to be 2nd to 3rd century. It's difficult to say because the books were banned and destroyed. For some of the texts only fragments have been discovered, for most only references from ancient Christian writings. Still, although debated, scholars seem to mostly agree that most of the known non-canonical texts are most likely from the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

This would make them further removed from eyewitnesses and associates, and thus would make them less reliable. But still, following the formal logic above for the canonical gospels, they could still be a useful sources of information. They can add corroborations to both non-canonical texts and the NT.

Is is possible that Jesus gave secret teachings? Is it possible that one or some of these Gnostic texts have preserved any of Jesus' secret teachings?

It is possible. The followers of Thomas certainly thought so. It unclear exactly what early Christians thought. They were obviously a diverse group of people with diverse and wide ranges of ideas. But it is not clear how prevalent the ideas were.

If the early Christians were closer to eye witnesses and associates shouldn’t they know better than 4th century bishops? It’s important to consider the early Christian when analyzing the life and teachings of Jesus.

There are over 30 known non-canonical gospels of Jesus. These texts were mentioned by early church fathers, like Irenaeus and Eusebius. Today there are at least fragments of 15 non-canonical gospels of Jesus.

The following is a table of know Gospels, estimated dates, and a very brief note of each book.

Gospel	Estimated Date	Notes
Mark	65–70 AD	Likely the earliest; written shortly before or after the destruction of the Temple (70 AD).
Matthew	70–90 AD	Uses Mark as a source; likely written in a Jewish-Christian context.
Luke	80–95 AD	Also uses Mark; connected to Acts; written for a Gentile-Christian audience.
John	90–110 AD	Theologically mature; likely composed in stages; reflects a developed Christology.
Gospel of Thomas	Early form: 50–70 AD	A sayings gospel. Some sayings may be early, but the final collection reflects Gnostic tendencies.
	Final form: 100–140 AD
Gospel of Peter	100–150 AD	Fragmentary; contains a dramatic passion/resurrection narrative; likely anti-Jewish and docetic.
Infancy Gospel of Thomas	120–140 AD	Not the same as the Gospel of Thomas; legendary stories of Jesus’ childhood.
Protoevangelium of James	130–150 AD	Focuses on Mary’s early life and virginity; not about Jesus’ teachings.
Gospel of the Hebrews	Early 2nd century	Quoted by early Fathers like Jerome; only fragments survive.
Gospel of the Egyptians	120–150 AD	Gnostic; quoted by Clement of Alexandria. Fragmentary.
Gospel of Mary (Magdalene)	120–180 AD	Survives only in fragment; portrays Mary as a key disciple with secret knowledge.
Gospel of Judas	**Written: 130–180 AD	Gnostic; reinterprets Judas as the one who truly understood Jesus.
	Manuscript: c. 250–280 AD**
Gospel of Philip	180–250 AD	Found at Nag Hammadi; emphasizes mystical union and sacraments.
Egerton Gospel	50–130 AD	Fragment with some early Jesus sayings and events; possibly independent tradition.
Secret Gospel of Mark	Claimed 1st century; likely a modern forgery or 2nd-century	Referenced only in a 20th-century letter (Morton Smith); authenticity debated.

Almost Final Thoughts

The 30 plus gospels cannot all be true because they have direct contradictions. This proves that people could write inaccurate gospels and texts about Jesus. God and or the universe allowed it. So people have to decide which gospels, which ideas, etc are more or less likely and or true.

A friend of mine thinks God put everything in the Bible exactly how it should be. This is the divine intervention that cannot really be debated.

Would that make the Monks saving the Gnostic texts also divine intervention? Man tried to destroy it, but God wouldn’t allow it. We can imagine a future with more texts and fragments discovered, would that be divine intervention too?

Is God or men saving and destroying these texts and ideas?

Why should and shouldn't we accept the 4th century conclusions?

Using the formal logical above, we could broaden the scope of the NT. The non-canonical texts could have been written by or preserved from eyewitnesses or close associates of Jesus. Most of the ideas are consistent with and could corroborate other canonical and non-canonical texts.

Conclusion

Monks in Egypt saved these books for a reason. They thought they were too important to destroy. If humanity is lucky, the remaining fragments and texts will be discovered too. Then scholars and people in general can have a fuller picture of Jesus and the early Christians.

In the end, men wrote these texts. Men vetted the texts. Men successfully and unsuccessfully tried to destroy the texts. Men decided on the heretical and canonical texts. It's all men. 

With divine intervention, one just opens a new can of worms. How does one separate divine intervention from what humans do? It's not possible.

If one wants to use divine intervention for peace of mind, I'm all for that. But is that any different than saying I like this better because I like this better? It's just following a gut feeling, and that is fine too. I think we all do that naturally anyway. We pick what we like without using logical or reason, then we use logic and reason to justify out choice.

The difference is, people don't admit they just like it better. I don't either. I honestly think I scrutinize the information and make logical conclusions. The ideas presented here are the result of countless books, lectures, articles, hours of thinking, and discussions with friends. I do not take these topics lightly. I'm always learning and improving my understanding, especially of Jesus.

But there is no reason I have found to accept divine intervention. It doesn't solve any problems for me. It only raises more unanswerable problems. Collective knowledge, systems of logic, and the scientific method have allowed humans do answer so many questions about the world. Questions that used to be explained by Gods. The more humans learn, the less God is needed to explain.

The Book of Enoch Chapter 71

Introduction

Chapter 71 of The Book of Enoch is controversial. There may or may not be a claim that Enoch was supposed to be the "Son of Man." And that claim may or may not have been added later on by some transcriber.

Background

I recorded an interview with Greg Dizzia, here is the link. He wrote The Book of Enoch: An Antediluvian Account. I asked him a question about the narrator Enoch referring to himself as the "Son of Man" in his narrative. This baffled Greg, and I didn't have the text available. We skipped the question and moved on. Now, I'm looking back over the text.

The Book of Enoch is closely tied to The Book of Genesis. It tells a story of Fallen Angels and the years leading up to the flood story of Noah. The Book of Enoch has been mostly forgotten. It was likely written in Aramaic and or Hebrew. The the most complete surviving copies are in the Geʽez language. The Books were most likely written in the Second Temple Period although the story is possibly a lot older. Listen to the interview with Greg to hear his take

The Controversy

No surprise to me, there is a controversy and conspiracy that involves a section of the text that relates to Jesus.

The Book of Enoch is written in first person. The narrator claims to be Enoch. In Chapter 71, and only in Chapter 71, Enoch (narrator) states that the Head of Days (God) calls Enoch the "Son of Man." The "Son of Man" is mentioned many other times and not identified directly as Enoch.

But! Some translation do not translate this passage, line 14 specifically, the same.

Others claim Chapter 71 verse 14 is an interpolation.

The Dead Sea Scrolls fragments do not include chapters 37-71 of Enoch. So the interpolation of 71:14 will remain a debate among scholars.

Translations

Here is a link to the original Geez. It appears to me that there might be multiple Ge'ez versions of Enoch too. This would make sense if it was translated from another language. The below translation on the right is from Google Translate.

Here is parallel translation of three English texts.

I'm sure there are several other translation we could cross reference too. For my purposes this is enough.

Conclusion

It's odd that the "Son of Man" is referenced so many times in Enoch, but, then, only directly linked to Enoch once. This makes an interpolation seem probable. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be enough evidence or surviving sources to give a great answer. For most people, I think theology will influence their conclusions.

If the 71:14 belongs, it sounds like Enoch is who God is calling the "Son of Man." Even in the far right translation in the parallel image, it is unclear who the son of man is. A Christian would assume it's Jesus for obvious reasons, but anyone else could very easily assume it was God announcing Enoch to the thousands of angels.

I doubt scholars/people will come to any consensus on this topic without additional archeology findings. 

 

Rereading Anna Karenina

I reread Anna Karenina. The book didn't live up to the hype I gave it the first reading. Below is my review from 2019 when I first read it. Since reading AK for the first time, I have reread War and Peace twice and read more of Tolstoy's nonfiction. I also finished reading The Neapolitan Quartet by Elena Ferrante prior to rereading AK. It might be unfair to any book to have to follow Ferrante's Quartet!

Overall, I dropped AK from 5 stars to 3 stars. I still liked it, but the characters all kind of sucked in one way or another. I think this was very intentional by Tolstoy. Tolstoy thought the elites sucked. It's clear to see now after learning more about Tolstoy.

Below is my original 2019 5 Star Review

Anna Karenina has all the drama and philosophy of War and Peace. Pending a reread of War and Peace, I like Anna Karenina better.

The relationships, character perspectives, and descriptions are perfect. Most books I read now, I can critique and find problems with. Tolstoy is flawless. His descriptions don't drag. The ideas are still fresh and relevant; it's hard to believe it was written 150 years ago. From feminism to class issues to existential crises, the book keeps you engaged and caring about all the characters and relationships. It's hard for me to care about rich people, but Tolstoy pulled it off!

The juxtaposition between the main characters and two main relationships provide a lot of food for thought both literally and philosophically. The story was originally called Two Marriages. Good call changing it, that titled sucks.

2025 5 Star Rereads

Update on a previous post. I want to reread all my favorite books. My friend AJ joined me. We were on a roll for a few months and then fell off. We are currently almost done with Anna Karenina.

5 Stars Leftovers from 2024 Reread

• Half a Yellow Sun
• Waiting for the Barbarians
• Zen in the Martial Arts
• Dispatches
• Song of Solomon

5 Stars Reread Results

Here are my five star rereads that kept their five stars:

• Siddhartha 
• Into the Wild
• War and Peace 
• Sapiens
• The Color Purple
• Gilgamesh
• The Catcher and the Rye
• The Stranger
• The Poisonwood Bible

The following are still really good, but not five stars after rereading:

• Tuesdays with Morrie
• Enlightenment Now
• White Fang
• Anna Karenina
  

Here are the nowhere near five stars:

• It's Not About the Bike

Reigning in Hell

Background

I'm slowly reading The Odyssey with a friend. There is a great line by Achilles that reminded me of John Milton's Satan from Paradise Lost. These literary giants have opposing ideas about what it means to rule in hell.

Introduction

 

Is it better to reign in hell or serve in heaven? How important is having glory if the cost is dying young/younger?

Milton's Satan on Reigning in Hell

"The mind is its own place, and in it self
Can make a Heav'n of Hell, a Hell of Heav'n. [ 255 ]
What matter where, if I be still the same,
And what I should be, all but less then he
Whom Thunder hath made greater? Here at least
We shall be free; th' Almighty hath not built
Here for his envy, will not drive us hence: [ 260 ]
Here we may reign secure, and in my choyce
To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heav'n.
But wherefore let we then our faithful friends,
Th' associates and copartners of our loss [ 265 ]
Lye thus astonisht on th' oblivious Pool,
And call them not to share with us their part
In this unhappy Mansion, or once more
With rallied Arms to try what may be yet
Regaind in Heav'n, or what more lost in Hell? [ 270 ]"

Homer's Achilles on Reigning in Hell

"βουλοίμην κ᾽ ἐπάρουρος ἐὼν θητευέμεν ἄλλῳ,
ἀνδρὶ παρ᾽ ἀκλήρῳ, ᾧ μὴ βίοτος πολὺς εἴη,
ἢ πᾶσιν νεκύεσσι καταφθιμένοισιν ἀνάσσειν."

"I would rather be a laborer working for another man—some poor man who has little to live on—than rule over all the dead who have perished." GPT Literal Translation

A Brief Look at Milton's Interpretations

One way to read Satan is as the hero of Paradise Lost. Satan is the individualistic, defiant hero representing personal freedom. "The mind is its own place." Even if in Hell, in Paradise Lost, Satan has freedom to choose.

The flip side is that Satan is a tragic figure. Satan has deluded himself into thinking the ideas from the previous paragraph are great. His love for his personal freedom creates his downfall. Satan is delusional about the reality of his situation.

Another interpretation that blends the previous two ideas is that Satan is a political allegory for Milton. Milton was a political activist who supported Oliver Cromwell in the Puritan revolution against the monarchy. The monarchy was abolished and King Charles executed. After Cromwell's death, the monarchy was restored and Charles II became king. Milton was arrested, briefly imprisoned, and placed on house arrest. Milton is the fallen and tragic hero. Satan is an allegory for Milton.

Obviously, readers can choose for themselves how to interpret Satan's statement.

A Brief Look at Homer's Interpretation

In Homer's Illiad, Achilles is given the choice between two fates. In book 9, Achilles tells Odysseus, Phoenix, and Ajax:

"For my mother the goddess, silver-footed Thetis, tells me
that two fates sweep me on to my death. If I stay here and fight,
I shall not return alive, but my glory will be undying forever.
If I return home to my dear fatherland, my glory is lost,
but my life will be long, and death will not come to me quickly."

According to what Achilles says, he gets to choose. He eventually chooses kleos (glory) after his friend Patroclus is killed in battle by Hector. Achilles dies young but his glory lives on. (He was played by Brad Pitt in Troy!)

In The Odyssey, when Odysseus goes to the underworld, Achilles has a change of heart or mind, or whatever the dead possess. As the dead, Achilles regrets his kleos. Not only would he have preferred his long peaceful life, he would even prefer the life as a servant of a poor man.
 

The literal reading is Achilles thinks kleos is overrated: life is greater than kleos.

 

Another idea, is that The Iliad and The Odyssey are different stories with different main ideas. The Iliad is a story about the heroics of war and glory of dying in battle. Where The Odyssey is about life and nostos (homecoming). Achilles is a foil character for Odysseus.

 

Another reading is that death striped Achilles of his identity. All his strength, power, and agency are gone. Achilles went from being the baddest dude on the planet to just another dead guy. He has no power or agency. He's just dead, so he is bitter. A interesting note, the other characters in the underworld do not share Achilles's dread, bu they other characters were Achilles.

 

The funnest interpretation is that Achilles is just an angry asshole. If you continuing reading the passage, Achilles seems like his angry self from The Iliad. Achilles is rage and anger, so why shouldn't he be mad and bitter in the underworld?

 

 

Conclusion

 

I love all the passages and lines shared above. I love Miltion's take on Satan. I love Satan's desire for freedom. I love his defiance. I also love how Achilles possibly regrets his kleos.

 

It's not an easy choice for me. I want to be remembered when I'm dead. I do not like the idea of being forgotten, but I don't like the idea of dying either.

 

If given Achilles original fates, I'd choose a long forgettable life. I agree with Satan that the mind is a place. We can create a heaven of hell or a hell of heaven. I'll take my chances with a long life.

 

 

The Odyssey Book 11 lines 489-491 Translations

Samuel Butler (1900) – More Direct, Readable

"Say not a word," he replied, "in death’s favor; I would rather be a paid servant in a poor man's house and be above ground than king of kings among the dead." 

Robert Fitzgerald (1961) – Formal and Poetic

"Let me hear no smooth talk of death from you, Odysseus,
light of councils. Better, I say, to break sod as a farm hand
for some poor country man, on iron rations,
than lord it over all the exhausted dead."

Richmond Lattimore (1965) – More Literal, Preserves Greek Structure

"O shining Odysseus, never try to console me for dying.
I would rather follow the plow as thrall to another
man, one with no land allotted him and not much to live on,
than be a king over all the perished dead."

Robert Fagles (1996) – Lyrical and Poetic

"No winning words about death to me, shining Odysseus!
By god, I’d rather slave on earth for another man—
some dirt-poor tenant farmer who scrapes to keep alive—
than rule down here over all the breathless dead."

Emily Wilson (2018) – Modern, Iambi

"Odysseus, don’t try to sell me on death.
I’d rather be a hired hand back up on earth,
Slaving away for some poor dirt farmer,
Than lord it over all these withered dead."

The Iliad, Book 9, lines 410–416 English Translations:
 

Richmond Lattimore (1951):

"For my mother the goddess, silver-footed Thetis, tells me
that two fates sweep me on to my death. If I stay here and fight,
I shall not return alive, but my glory will be undying forever.
If I return home to my dear fatherland, my glory is lost,
but my life will be long, and death will not come to me quickly."

Robert Fagles (1990):

"Two fates bear me on to the day of death.
If I hold out here and I lay siege to Troy,
my journey home is gone, but my glory never dies.
If I voyage back to the fatherland I love,
my pride, my glory dies…
true, but the life that's left me will be long,
the stroke of death will not come on me quickly."

Things I've Changed My Mind On (Rough Draft/Running List)

Introduction

I like to think of myself as a critical thinker who is open to changing my mind based on evidence and better information. I acknowledge that I most likely delude myself into thinking I am more rational, open minded, and critical of myself than I actually am. So I admit, I must be less critical and rational than I think I am.

Most people think they're open minded. But I see most people very closed off to differing ideas. We all use my side biases, selection biases, confirmation biases, etc. Changing our minds is a good indicator of our open mindedness. It's very unlikely that we knew or know everything at 20, 30, 40 years old, or anyone other age of our lives.

This is going to be a running list of examples of when and how I've changed my opinion about topics of at least some importance.

College was a huge change for me ideologically. Then learning about economics has transformed the way I think. For the most part I feel I haven't changed much at all. When I read things I wrote 10-20 years ago, I'm surprised how much I agree and or think the same. I would say I'm just a lot better informed.

I'm not sure my values have changed. I've always valued freedom, honesty, and generally being a good person.

THE LIST 

Vegan- I stopped eating animals in 2008 as an experiment. I kept it up (on and off, somewhat because of traveling) for environmental reasons. Around 2013, I recommitted for animal welfare. I eat mostly vegan to minimize the suffering of animals.

Evolution- I thought evolution was nonsense until I went to college (~2006-7). I don't remember learning about it, but, eventually I learned the theory in biology. Since then, I have read or listened to multiple books on evolution. 

Environmentalism- in college (~2008) I took a sustainability course. The professor taught us and played a lot of the alarmism. I remember arguing with people about all the forests being covered in cities in 50-100 years. I think my initial motivation was my love for the outdoors. As I learned more over the years the alarmism wore off. During the pandemic, I read a couple books that made me realize how the issue has been politicized and used by the media to sell fear. I still think it is a big issue, but not the biggest, probably not top five. 

Abortion- (college ~2007-2008) I was against abortions until I learned more about human development. When I learned how often women naturally abort/miscarriage and how long it takes for a fetus to be physically distinguishable from other mammals, I quickly altered my opinion. Over the last few years (~2022), I've had a growing sympathy for pro life arguments.

America- (2001) I was an extremely patriotic young man. In college, again (~2005-9), I grew more and more disgusted with America. I flopped again. I'm an American apologist now (~2024). I think American is one of the greatest countries in human history for multiple factors, even considering her many horrors. People vote with their feet.

Capitalism- (~2008-2018) in my idealist phase, I blamed capitalism for many of the problems in the world. Around 2016, I started informally studying economics. I completely flopped my opinion. Capitalism is awesome!

Exploitation of Factory Workers- (~2008-2018) I used to think corporations exploited workers. But factory jobs are way better than farming, That is why you don't see factory workers running back to the fields. People want to move to cities and provide more opportunities for their family. Back to the beauty of capitalism. If you do not have two consenting parties agreeing, it isn't capitalism. US companies go to other countries for cheaper labor (among other factors), but the workers go to those companies because the wages are worth it.

Racism in the US (~2016-2021)- I used to think America was super racist. After trying to prove how racist America is, I found the topic very difficult to prove. The evidence exists, but it isn't as strong as I thought. I'm not saying America isn't racist, but it's not 1968. Too many American act like it's still 1968.

Police Brutality- (2018-2021) Similar to racism. As I argued with other people and got more informed, I changed my mind. I believed a lot of the media about policing. Now I think police have an extremely difficult job. The bad apples, who are few, make a bad name. The police union helps protect bad cops because local governments do not have the funding to pay higher wages. I would personally make the use of force less strict, but I don't think the main narrative is correct.

US Constitution- I thought it was so outdated. Now I admire the achievement, and it's ability to evolve (slowly) and keep the US thriving. The separation of power and checks and balances have been great. Being hard to change is a feature not a bug.

Free Will- I used to love free will. I first encountered serious free will discussions in the early 2010s. Now, I like the idea and live my life as if it is true. See post here.

God- I grew up believing there was a God as a default position. I seriously didn't know it was optional. I never believed in any religion. I remember thinking the idea of only one of the religious being correct and all others being wrong was very unlikely. As I learned and experienced more, the idea of a God became less and less likely. Depending on how God is defined, I doubt there is a God, especially not a God anything like one from a religion.

Jesus- (~2013) I was a more militant atheist for a while. While arguing with a friend about mostly Jesus, I let my confirmation and selection bias get the best of me. For a short while, I believed the person Jesus was completely fictional. It's hard to maintain such a crazy idea, and I quickly realized that Jesus was a Jewish man crucified by the Romans with a group of followers who became the Christians.

Helping Others- I used to think you could help people change by caring and trying. If I gave them the right argument or information or showed them something, they would change a bad behavior. I still think people can help others, but I realize now it is really hard and most importantly the person has to want to change. Not just say they want to change, but want to change. People can help nudge others.

Following Your Passion- terrible idea alert! I believed my teachers and adults who said follow your passion. After trying to follow my passion and failing to find anything close to happiness, I reevaluated. Don't follow your passion! Analyze and evaluate many options and make an informed choice based on realistic probabilities and statistics. Follow likely and reasonable outcomes. If you want to shoot for the stars have a deadline and backup plan.

Having Kids- I used to think having kids was dumb because of environmental reasons. Then I figured less people would have better lives because there would be more resources available. After studying economics more, I see population differently. Higher populations have many benefits, economic growth and technological innovations for name two. As stated above, I think depopulation is a bigger concern. Ties to capitalism and economics.

Over/de population- In college during my environmentalism phase, I thought that humans were going to ruin the planet (we still might), I thought there were way too many people. If we had less people, everyone alive would benefit. Due to a few ideas and topics already mentioned above. I think depopulation is a biggest risk than overpopulation. People and growth improve human quality of lives. Unless robots can step up.

Rationality- I used to think people were extremely irrational. Now, I've realized more that people are very rational when you adjust for their backgrounds, education, environment, etc. I, or you, might think a person is being irrational, but we don't know how they feel or think.

Death Penalty- I've gone back and forth on this too. 

CONCLUSION

I feel like I've changed my mind a decent amount. Still, I don't think I have changed much as a person.

For most of the ideas above, I've just become more moderate. My media has also become more moderate. So maybe, I've just adapted to my media consumption more than I've actually changed my mind.

I don't see any of these topics having influenced my values. Most of my ideas have swayed to what creates a world with less suffering. I was more of a utilitarian well before I knew what utilitarianism was.