people who actually want to spend $ hunt down that liquidity it will stay locked down on someones imaginary goldpile

Can’t do that… That would ruin everything. Just take out a loan against your imaginary goldpile.

It might be in the sense that the algorithm recognizes that it’s a new bubble to dump money into for a quick return. But that’s just what the stock market is nowadays. Corporations have cornered the rest of the markets through conglomeration or monopolistic exploitation, and have cut cost as much as possible. There’s not really a lot of ways to keep line going up other than throwing it into a new bubble and hoping you can get out before it pops.

Investment companies are just running out of places to keep their investments, which is why basically all tech corporations are massively over valued.

Hi there, I actually work in orthotics and prosthetics and handle the majority of my clinics foot and ankle patients.

So, from what you’ve described I’m guessing you are having medial ankle pain from overstressing your posterior tibial tendon. It’s very common for people who have flat feet and are increasing their activity levels.

The first thing I would recommend is a good shoe, which is not an easy ask now a days. Shoe companies found out that if you make a super flexible and soft soled shoe it feels great as soon as you put it on in the store which gets people to buy them. However, the flexible sole and soft foam will allow people with fallen arches to over-pronate even more, eventually stressing out the hind foot.

The soft soled shoes will feel great for the first hour or so, and then they will start to overstress your tendon and ligaments. Where as a good quality show with a nice stiff sole can take a week or so to break in until they get really comfortable, but support you all day.

As far as a good show, I’m not particular towards any brand as long as it’s stuff from the balls of the feet back. But a decent shoe to control overpronation is the adrenaline from brooks. I always suggest looking up last year’s model online for savings.

For a good OTC insert for pes planus I usually fit my patients with this insert, they can be a bit pricey but they’ll last a lot longer than other OTC inserts and do a better job.

I’m not too particular with OTC inserts either. Just be sure that the material in the arch is strong enough to support your weight without being so stiff that it feels like your stepping on a rock.

Lol, my dude thinks we’re going to have millions of people in space before California finishes their high speed rail project, the project that was started 10 years ago…

You give a guy billions of dollars because he figured out how to put Barnes and Noble out of business and he suddenly thinks he’s a genius at everything.

do not think any elected official would go around telling any member of their constituency that they diddles their kids

How do you think the elected officials found out? Do you think that the kids or the coach told these officials and no one else?

The four officials — the former principal of Ninnekah High School, a former superintendent, a former athletics director and a former secretary — were dismissed from the lawsuit as part of the settlement.

^Word of Akins’ relationship with Jane Doe No. 2 began to spread in the school district. Multiple adults and former students told authorities district staff were aware of the rumors but brushed it off, according to law enforcement reports.

I currently live in OK, Ninnekah is a tiny shithole in the middle of nowhere with like 700 people in it. If more than a couple of adults knew about it, the whole town knew about it.

You just don’t get it because you’re not an alpha…Only betas are good at maintaining lasting employment.

/s

You were claiming John couldn’t have been written by John because it was written in AD100. I did the maths and shown how it definitely could have been written in AD100

I’m not making a claim, I am rebutting one. I am merely stating there is no evidence to support that John the apostle actually wrote John. There are inferences that lead people to believe that John wrote it, but again, these are oral traditions and are prone to embellishment or errors over time.

The second quote doesn’t even contradict anything I said. Just because stories were exchanged orally first, doesn’t mean the written accounts are firsthand.

Lol, it contradicts the claims you made about the first quote? It’s silly how often your position changes.

The main reason people say it is a forgery because Josephus was a practicing Jew and a Jew wouldn’t say that (circular reasoning)

That’s not circulatory reasoning… That’s just reasoning. Why would a Jew believe in the resurrection of Christ? Plus, the reason historians almost unanimously agree it’s been edited is because how out of place the claims and passages about Jesus are in the original text. We also know that the translators we receive the text from are not reliable narrators.

Is it possible for a non Christian to write something in defence of Christianity, or not?

In defense of Christianity…yes, but they wouldn’t believe in the holy resurrection of Christ, as that would make them a Christian.

If it isn’t, then you cannot dismiss the new testament and Church Fathers, lest you be irrational

That’s a false dichotomy… Even though I and most historian believe it to be a forgery, if I didn’t I could still make a claim that Jesus was simply a historical figure and that there still is no evidence miracles or evidence that’s supports him as a diety.

There are plenty of historical records we utilize as important works of history, but understand the authors may not be reliable narrators. Naram-Sin declared himself a diety, and these claims are backed by other contemporary sources… We use these sources to validate his existence as a historical figure, but does that also mean he was really a diety?

I don’t really think you understand rationality, you are only using a narrow scope of logic instead of the broader understanding of rationality. Pure logic can lead to logical fallacies like your uses of false dicotomy and circular reasoning.

This is a pretty reasonable assumption? No?

Nah, just circular reasoning.

you just quote Wikipedia? The admins on there are neckbeards such as Tgeorgescu who basically had a “no Christian apologists”

"In one sense the entire Christian message is based on oral tradition and is only augmented by using the written revelation of the Old Testament. From this perspective, perhaps 90 percent of the New Testament is based on authoritative oral tradition " catholic.com

“While it might be comforting to imagine that the Scripture was dictated directly from the mouth of God to the hands of the writers, that is just not the way it happened historically. The stories that are collected in our Bible were shared by word of mouth for years, decades, or even centuries before they were written down. This process of telling and retelling these passages from the religious life of God’s people is called oral tradition.” Ministrymatters.com

The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3 From The Works of Josephus,

Lol, and you have the gall to talk about forgeries…

Again, nothing you have talked about is actual evidence of Christianity being factual. And again, I don’t really care about your personal beliefs. I just don’t think it’s okay that you think your make believe time allows you to harsh other people’s make believe times. If society grants you the right to play make believe, you should have the decency to do unto others.

In your land, an 83 year old dude writing something is a “wild assumption”. ok.

What makes you assume he’s 83? The only thing informing your assumptions are your conclusions. He must be the author, so he must have lived to 100ad, which means he must have been 16 when Jesus died…

You know what a scribe is… Right? Someone who sits with you as you dictate to them? You know a lot of news report articles about people aren’t actually written by that person, but a journalist themselves… And even then, a scribe is more reliable than a journalist 🤦

A scribe can also be some writing down an oral tradition…

Eusebius was quoting Clement of Alexandria from AD 150

Clement was born in 150ad… Eusebius utilized different sources to propose that there were at least two different johns. John the apostle who he supposed wrote the book of John and Presbyter John, who he believed wrote revelations.

Yes, because within the timeframe it was written in. The likes of Mark and Luke would have had those aspects, possibly some in Matthew, but even then, oral tradition isn’t unreliable and it takes centuries for supernatural claims and legends to show up.

“is widely agreed amongst Biblical scholars that accounts of Jesus’s teachings and life were initially conserved by oral transmission, which was the source of the written gospels”

In this case, anything arguing in favour or showing the resurrection of Christ is automatically “biased” by your definition.

No, if we had records from the Romans claiming the guy they crusified a couple days ago is back…that would be a source from outside his fellowship.

It’s like arguing with someone about global warming who doesn’t trust scientists or the scientific method

Lol, you are comparing magic to the scientific method?

Any science you do show them they dismiss as “biased” because they don’t trust scientists. In the same way, if anyone believed that Jesus rose again, they’d rationally be a Christian.

You don’t have to trust science, science is repeatable, it’s self explanatory… If I saw someone who was publicly executed and then I saw them again three days later, I wouldn’t automatically think they’re the son of God. I would rationally think it’s a different dude posing as him, or that they didn’t actually kill him.

the Gospels were biased, they wouldn’t have had bad stories about their leaders at the time. Such as peter denying Jesus, Peter cutting off a dude’s ear and Jesus rebuking him, or James and John trying to get priority status in Glory.

If scientology was biased they wouldn’t have bad stories about their leaders at the time…

Josephus couldn’t have written it, as Jesus didn’t rise from the dead"

Still have no idea what you are babbeling about?

Because those gnostic texts were known forgeries.

How so? The earliest evidence of the gospel of Mary is from the 3rd century and was thought to be written in the 2nd.

reason would have they had to pick and choose the four Gospels over the gnostic texts anyway?

Because it didn’t fit within church doctrine.

That’s still a political dispute between the left and right?

You can’t address class without engaging in politics.

His whole thing was about discussing politics in a civilised manner.

No, his whole thing was personally hiding behind civility while empowering and promoting people and ideas that are steeped in political violence.

Left vs Right is part of the class war. Class consciousness is a political concept of the Left, a concept that the Right has invested a tremendous amount of time and effort to subvert.

John was, let’s say 16 at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion in 33 AD, then he’d be 83 years old if it was written in 100 AD. A reasonable age. I’m not disputing the possibility of a scribe.

Ahh yes, let’s make wild assumptions that fit my own narrative…

Evidence that John wrote John would be evidence to support this.

“I’m not disputing the possibility of a scribe.”

You’ve got no evidence to support this than an argument from silence. That is the earliest RECORDED evidence. And from that time frame, that’s pretty damn close.

Eusebius’s argument was an ongoing debate between scholars in the early church. However it’s widely recognized as how the church canonized John the apostle as the author.

Historians accept Julius Caesar was born in Suburra, yet the earliest record of that was written by Suetonius, around 200 years after the fact.

No they largely do not. In most histories they say he was born in Rome, some go as far as saying likely in Suburra, but that’s more of an inference as his family was known to be impoverished.

Suetonius is historically valuable, but known as a bit of a gossip, and prone to hearsay.

Then there’s Alexander the great - born in 300 BC but the records of his biography we use were written in the second century AD, by Arrian and Plutarch.

Yes, but those were written from lost primary and contemporary sources from people like Ptolemy, Aristobulus, and in some cases the king’s journal.

You’re the one working off of assumptions

You’re claiming the new testament that the new testament didn’t first get passed down by oral tradition?

So you’re basically asking me to find you sources documenting the resurrection of Jesus Christ from people who didn’t believe it happened?

No, just saying that you can’t use biased sources to make claims about his motivation.

That, and whenever someone were to propose someone like Josephus, you’ll just cry “Christian interpolation”, while most people are crying that using circular reasoning that he mustn’t have written about it because “someone can’t rise from the dead”.

I have no idea what you are trying to accuse me of?

We’d have to throw out almost everything we know about Julius Caesar with that logic as it was either written by him or someone in his country at the time.

Being in the same country as someone is not the same as being in the same cult as someone… Also, plenty of people doubt the accuracy of Caesars commentary on the Gaelic wars. Especially like with most ancient commentaries about the size of opposing armies.

There have been. Are you talking about non Christian sources?

I’m saying that just saying that all religions pick and choose their own doctrine. It’s not like the church adopted the gospel of Mary.

90-100ad isn’t decades after the death of people it’s about.

I’m guessing you are claiming the John lives to be nearly a hundred years old? Even though there is no evidence to support this…

And it wasn’t authored anonymously.

Yes… It was. He did not assign his name or identify himself as the author. Most people believe him to be the author through contextual clues as you suggested. These contextual clues first put forth in 185ad have shaped the ways people reintertpred and translated the Bible every since.

Which the writer of John clearly was.

John did not write it… He may have orally transferred the story to someone who later wrote it down after the time of his death. You’re working off of assumptions that are highly disputable.

There are four detailed accounts of Jesus.

From his own cadra of followers… That’s like saying everything scientology claims about L Ron Hubbard is true because it was witnessed by 4 different scientologist.

Mormonism has been debunked by the finding of the “original” papyrus to one of their scriptures. The Qur’an claims to be in agreement with the Bible yet contradicts the hell out of it. Mohammed and JS had numerous wives because “god told me” and Mohammed was a warlord, JS tried to set up “deseret”

And all Christian text are non contradictory…? There haven’t been any ancient scripts found about Christianity that the church hasn’t adopted?

How do you define “primary source”? The section I quoted was written by someone who knew Jesus personally

It’s a reinterpretation of oral accounts passed down decades after the deaths of the people it’s about, and was first attributed to John nearly 180 years later. The gospel of John was first authored anonymously around 90-100ad and attributed to John by Irenaeus in 185ad

That is definitely contemporary for accounts at this point in history.

Not really, contemporary sources are generally limited to people involved with the actual history.

A lot of what we know about other people were written down centuries after.

When combined with other contextual sources.

Okay then, do you have any evidence on the contrary? That those weren’t His motivations?

I’m not the one making the claim that other religions are wrong and Christianity is true. Do you have evidence that Joseph Smith, Muhammad, or Buddha had alternative motives?

What temple did He destroy? The temple was destroyed in 70AD

I meant the first time… Not literally destroyed, but trashed, fucked dudes up, flipped tables.

Jesus was not looking for political power.

First of all… The Bible is not a primary source, it wasn’t even a contemporary source when first written down, which was at least a century after his death.

Secondly, demagogues and those who follow them don’t exactly announce their true motivations. So it doesn’t really make sense to use their own claims as evidence of their innocence.

Lastly, I could just as easily claim Jesus was not killed for his faith, but because he destroyed a temple…

You aren’t exactly making the most logical arguments here.

Couldn’t Jesus have been lying for political power? That is what his fellow Jews and the Romans accused him of. Joseph Smith was “merked” and his followers persecuted for their faith, does that make their beliefs true?

You can’t selectively apply logic to your perspective alone. I’m not denying your beliefs, just the logic that you use to argue their validity.

The reason they call it faith is because it is something you believe in despite not being able to offer any proof. You have faith, not knowledge that what you believe is true. Imo that’s fine, but you can’t have faith in something and then force your beliefs on others, claim them to be definitive truth, or deny other people their own beliefs.

My man, following your logic this means that Buddhism is real because Siddhartha Gautama, Islam is real because the prophet Muhammad, and Mormonism is real because Joseph Smith’s lying ass. Just because a historical figure claims there’s a god does not mean that it’s actual evidence that a god exists.

You have plenty of non-profit newspapers. ProPublica. The Guardian. The Colorado Sun. The Salt Lake Tribune. Mother Jones. Le Devoir. La Presse. Mediapart

And how much of the market do these networks control? Just because there are non profits available doesn’t negate their claim.

Also, if a journalist writes total bullshit, they lose their job. It’s career suicide. Their articles follow them for their entire career. So they have to be careful.

Depending on what network they are submitting their work to… It’s not like “journalists” on Fox News are being shamed for submitting fake stories.