sent by Rhode Island desk
Most scholars seem to agree that Mark, Luke, and Matthew used a common source, a sayings source. A list or record of Jesus sayings. This now lost source is called Q, from the German Quelle, meaning source.
The stories about John Belushi in this book were written down at about the same time distance as the stories about Jesus in the Gospel of Mark.
Though the oldest written fragments of the Gospels are on papyrus from 100-200 CE, most scholars seem to agree Mark was written around 70 AD.
Richard Bauckham, author of this book:
and this one:
makes a strong case, I believe, that one of Mark’s main sources was Peter. Directly or indirectly, who knows. But in Mark we’re getting something like Peter’s version. Peter himself is a character in the story. Mark tells stories only Peter (or only Peter and a few others) could have known.
There are times in Mark when Jesus is angry and frustrated with Peter. In a way Mark tells Peter’s version of a story of a complicated bromance with Jesus.
How much was Mark getting his stuff from Peter? Or other eyewitnesses to Jesus? Here is a lowkey fiery debate on this topic. Gets very hot around 19:54 as these guys try to jab each other over how many people were literate in Palestine two thousand years ago. (Hard not to root for the American tbh.)
Luke alone has receipts:
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
It feels infuriating that Paul says that the time he’s writing 1 Corinthians (15:6) there are 251 at least (?) eyewitnesses still alive who saw Jesus after the crucifixion:
New International Version
After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
New Living Translation
After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.
and yet Paul doesn’t bother interviewing any of them! Paul was a better philosopher than a reporter I guess.
Going back to the source is a passion here at Helytimes.
gotta check this out one of these days.
“The first $100,000 is a bitch, but you gotta do it. I don’t care what you have to do—if it means walking everywhere and not eating anything that wasn’t purchased with a coupon, find a way to get your hands on $100,000. After that, you can ease off the gas a little bit.”
found that Munger quote in this long but interesting post about Jim O’Shaughnessy on 25iq by Tren Griffin.
There’s a trick of capitalism, which is if you have capital, it’s not that hard to multiply it into more capital. The hard part is getting capital in the first place. Charlie Munger acknowledges that yes, that is a challenge, there’s no easy solution.
If you prefer Oprah to Munger, 25iq has a roundup on her lessons as well!
Begun to learn about The Hague, the name of which in Dutch means (I guess) “The Hedge”:
Little is known about the origin of The Hague. There are no contemporary documents describing it, and later sources are often of dubious reliability. What is certain is that The Hague was founded by the last counts of the House of Holland. Floris IV already owned two residences in the area, but presumably purchased a third court situated by the present-day Hofvijver in 1229, previously owned by a woman called Meilendis. Presumably, Floris IV intended to rebuild the court into a large castle, but he died in a tournament in 1234, before anything was built.
He married before 6 December 1224 Matilde of Brabant, the sister of his stepmother, daughter of Duke Henry I of Brabant and Mathilde of Flanders also referred to as Maud of Boulogne and Alsace.
How do we decide what’s good or bad, right or wrong?
A interesting question obvs. One every person answers for themselves somehow.
But how many of us can articulate our answer?
Would you come up with something like “not harming anyone else”? Living with honor and honesty and compassion?
Really, I doubt most of us bother to articulate a moral philosophy or definition of morals. We sorta just go with what feels right or wrong.
About morals, I know only that what is moral is what you feel good after and what is immoral is what you feel bad after.
This is a quote attributed to Hemingway.
One thing I think is wrong is quote sites that don’t include the source or context for the quote.
(Brainy Quotes has the nerve to suggest how you can cite Brainy Quotes itself as the source.)
As always, hunting the source proves enriching. Hemingway said this in chapter one of his book Death In The Afternoon.
Back up just a few pages. Here’s how Hemingway starts the book:
In Hemingway’s day, what was most repugnant about bullfighting was the suffering of horses.
Horses (this is described in the book) would get gored and have their entrails hanging out and trailing like grotesque ribbons.
At what bullfights remain this problem has been mostly eliminated, I believe, by armoring the horses. At the only bullfight I ever saw in person, the horses were unharmed, though nine bulls were killed, one of them especially tortured because of the incompetence of the matador (lit. “killer”). (This video is upsetting if you don’t like seeing bulls hurt, but you can see how horses are now protected.)
Hemingway continues, justifying why he got into bullfighting even though he likes horses:
I was trying to write then, and I found the greatest difficulty, aside from knowing truly what you really felt, rather than what you were supposed to feel, and had been taught to feel, was to put down what really happened in action; what the actual things were which produced the emotion that you experienced.
A theme Hemingway came back to frequently.
He mentions Goya’s Los Desastros de la Guerra.
So I went to Spain to see bullfights and to try to write about them for myself. I thought they would be simple and barbarous and cruel and that I would not like them, but that I would see certain definite action which would give me the feeling of life and death that I was working for. I found the definite action ; but the bullfight was so far from simple and I liked it so much that it was much too complicated for my then equipment for writing to deal with and, aside from four very short sketches, I was not able to write anything about it for five years — and I wish I would have waited ten. However, if I had waited long enough I probably never would have written anything at all since there is a tendency when you really begin to learn something about a thing not to want to write about it but rather to keep on learning about it always and at no time, unless you are very egotistical, which, of course, accounts for many books, will you be able to say: now I know all about this and will write about it. Certainly I don not say that now ‘ every year I know there is more to learn, but I know some things which may be interesting now, and I may be away from the bullfights for a long time and I might as well write what I know about them now. Also it might be good to have a book about bullfighting in English and a serious book on such an unmoral subject may have some value.
So far, about morals, I know only that what is moral is what you feel good after and what is immoral is what you feel bad after and judged by these moral standards, which I do not defend, the bullfight is very moral to me because I feel very fine while it is going on and have a feeling of life and death and mortality and immortality, and after it is over I feel very sad but very fine. Also, I do not mind the horses; not in principle, but in fact I do not mind them.
Just thought is was interesting, this succinct definition of morality came in the context of why it shouldn’t bother us to see horses mangled during the ritual killing of bulls.