FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-02-2001, 04:59 PM   #11
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Ish:
Rodahi, now I started with a friendly tone and presented my views and my request of solid follow-up information from you. I haven't seen anything much more than insults.


(I just got back from being out of town for several days.)

I have given my position, and I have not insulted you.


Ish: Did you read my post in full?

Yes, I did. Frankly, I was not impressed.

Ish: You have mentioned twice now that I should have included Smith's reply (reply is the correct term and title of his response in CBQ, not "rebuttal"), but I have only covered those main points that Smith did not sufficiently address in his reply as pointed out by Quesnell's reply to Smith's reply (as well as my own observations).

Why are you presenting only Quesnell's opinion?

Ish: Once again, Rodahi, you accuse me of not having read something: Dr. Smith's doctoral dissertation. This seems to be becoming a standard debating tactic of sorts.

I asked you a question; I didn't "accuse" you of anything.

Ish: If you reread my post, I state that I found his dissertation and read it. It was not misquoted and it is not "my imagination". Some phrases and ideas from Smith's dissertation are suspiciously mirrored in Secret Mark. If you would like, I can (in time) present full quotes from Smith's dissertation which can be found in a really good library.

I think it would be a good idea to present both sides of the issue.

Ish: Next, many scholars do seem to question Smith's work, but in a scholarly subdued fashion. My first post addresses this as well.

Why do you keep repeating the same thing? So what if a few scholars question Smith's work? What does that prove?

Ish: Once again, there is enough questionable information for scholarly concern over the genuineness of Secret Mark.

This is just your opinion, isn't it?

Also, documented scholarly principles (see above post) entail making the original MS available to scholars in order to test its genuineness or spuriousness. Secret Mark is lost to this very day.

I think you have said this several times now. So what!

Ish: So as I said before, rodahi, I need more information to make a more informed decision.

Great! Keep researching and reading.

Ish: You seem to have come to a different conclusion and think I should as well judging by the insults.

I have not insulted you. I do disagree with you with respect to Morton Smith.

Ish: If Smith forged Secret Mark, then appealing to his book about it will not help me or anyone else.

Who has demonstrated that Smith has forged anything? I am not "appealing" to anything. I have merely suggested reading Smith's own account to those who wish to be best informed.

Ish: So instead of using harsh rhetoric and insults, please direct my attention to better documented information. It would be much more appreciated.

Again, I have not insulted you. Personally, I think your mind is made up.

For everyone else, I suggest reading everything available and making up your own mind.

rodahi


 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:19 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.