--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
Thank you [Nomad] for providing what Ish had not, i.e., Robert Funk's views.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: If you'll look back up to my second post, I presented two brief snippets from Funk. I thought that would suffice considering that his views are pretty well known and easy to find on the web.

Okay, now demonstrate that Robert Funk is biased.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
Now, would you [Nomad] provide, for Ish, evidence demonstrating the Scholars Version is biased?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: Now Rodahi's trying to be cute... Cool...

Now Ish is trying to be cute...Keep your day job, Ish.

Ish: First, I provided evidence on other threads. I talked to their controversial choice of words (e.g. "damn" for "woe"). I also carried on a drawn-out conversation with you about their choice of poorly supported textual variants.

Precisely how does this demonstrate bias? Does this mean that anyone who disagrees with you is biased?

Ish: Second, would you tell me exactly how else I am supposted to demonstrate that the Scholar's Version is biased?

That is your problem, not mine. You said the Scholars Version is biased. Prove it.

Ish: I'm assuming you want me to go verse-by-verse through the whole work? Doing so would still be a ridiculous request even if I knew all the exact variants they chose to use for their English text.

I guess you have to do what you have to do. You made the claim. Prove it.

Ish: However, I can't do that because (as far as I know) they have no such critical version of the Greek text that explicitly marks the the textual variants they chose to use for their translation.

Translation: "Sorry, I can't prove the Scholars Version is biased."

Ish: Finally, I may have made the claim that the "Scholar's Version" is biased, however, you have made the claim (several times I might add) that most (if not all) of the other versions are biased. If I must go verse-by-verse through the one translation that disagrees with most of the others, then I think it only fair that you go verse-by-verse through all the other translations you have labeled biased and prove it. Fair?

Who gets to decide which of the 300,000 plus variants are the correct ones? Who gets to decide what the archetype texts might have consisted of. Who gets to decide what all the obscure Greek words really mean?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi
Further, provide, for Ish, evidence that I reflect Funk's bias.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: I think Nomad covered this. Your views seem to line up pretty well with Funk's.

Nomad didn't cover anything. He hasn't even read Robert Funk's works. He is just repeating what he read on apologetic websites. Which reminds me. Where did you get your information to start this thread?

rodahi

Precisely why would Charles Verhoven be a favorite of yours, Layman? What do you actually know about the man?

rodahi

Toto

Verhoeven has a PhD in mathematics from the University of Leiden in (legal sex and drugs) Holland. He evidently had a plan to do a film on the life of Jesus, which is described here inAway with the Manger from Lingua Franca.

There's something for everyone in that article:

Ahhh... The good ole Jesus Seminar.

While others have cited such fine movie producers as that of the one who gave us "Showgirls" as their favorite member of the Jesus Seminar, I have a different choice.

Richard Pervo is my favorite member. Why? Because not only is he a scholar, but he's also into bigtime child pornography. Unfortunately, he was busted a few months ago after they found over 4000 kiddie porn files on his computer (I hate it when that happens) and has subsequently lost his job as a professor at the University of Minnesota (bummer, dude). Good thing the Jesus Seminar still has him as a member. They need such quality scholars in their group.

For verification of the information in this post please visit this link http://www.daily.umn.edu/daily/2001/05/04/news/new3/

If you don't trust the daily paper of the University of Minnesota as a source, then perhaps you're more biased than those of which you accuse the same. I can provide other sources upon request.

With a name like "Pervo" what else did you expect?

Peace,

Polycarp

Are you suggesting that "good" Catholics and Protestants should leave the Church because some priests and ministers have been found to be pedophiles?

Have you ever considered studying logical fallacies?

rodahi


[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited June 23, 2001).]

This is all funny and despicable and all, and I'm not about to defend this guy or anything, but aren't you committing a textbook ad hominem fallacy here? What do his extracurricular activities, reprehensible as they may be, have to do with the quality of his scholarship?

Yes, I did commit a blatant ad hominem argument. However, I did it for two reasons. First and foremost… it was to be very sarcastic. Secondly… it was to point out the fact that certain things are relevant as to whether or not a person is a true scholar. I hope rodahi (and others)recognizes that the same line he used against me can be turned against him when he spouts off about how Christian scholars can’t be trusted simply because of the fact that they’re Christians, yet he claims this somehow puts them (Christian scholars) in a separate category of bias-ness from which all other scholars are apparently excluded.

You gotta see the irony in a guy named Pervo caught with thousands of pictures of little naked girls having sex with grown men.

Peace,

Polycarp

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by rodahi: Are you suggesting that "good" Catholics and Protestants should leave the Church because some priests and ministers have been found to be pedophiles? Have you ever considered studying logical fallacies?

To answer your second question first... Yes, I have studied logical fallacies. Have you ever studied humor and/or sarcasm? I can assure you that I'm far more knowledgeable of the Jesus Seminar than you are. Having said that, let me state that I don't lump the entire JS together as if they all thought in the same way. I have a fair amount of respect for some JS members (Bruce Chilton, John Kloppenborg) while others are seemingly there as publicity generators. I have zero respect for guys who get off on watching little girls have sex with grown men. Such was the point of my original post.

Now to your first question... Your analogy is a false one. Had it been a valid analogy you would have said, "Should pedophiles who claim to be good Catholics and Protestants leave the Church?" If this was your question, then I'd say yes. However, if we use your analogy and apply it to my original post we'd have to say something like, "Robert Funk and Bruce Chilton should leave the Jesus Seminar because Richard Pervo likes to look at pictures of naked, little girls." Do you see the flaw in your analogy? Have you studied analogies? If so, then perhaps a refresher course is in due order.

Peace,

Polycarp

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
Are you suggesting that "good" Catholics and Protestants should leave the Church because some priests and ministers have been found to be pedophiles?
Have you ever considered studying logical fallacies?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Polycarp: To answer your second question first... Yes, I have studied logical fallacies. Have you ever studied humor and/or sarcasm?

As a matter of fact, I have. When I see humor in your posts, I will be the first to point it out. So far, this audience is as silent as a truckload of turnips.

Polycarp: I can assure you that I'm far more knowledgeable of the Jesus Seminar than you are.

I see. Are you a member? If so, for how long? BTW, there are books on humility. You might wish to get one and READ it.

Polycarp: Having said that, let me state that I don't lump the entire JS together as if they all thought in the same way.

Then why the post?

Polycarp: I have a fair amount of respect for some JS members (Bruce Chilton, John Kloppenborg) while others are seemingly there as publicity generators.

Are you a member? If so, for how long?

Polycarp: I have zero respect for guys who get off on watching little girls have sex with grown men. Such was the point of my original post.

What does this have to do with the Jesus Seminar?

rodahi

Polycarp: Now to your first question... Your analogy is a false one.

No, it was an apt analogy, based on the implication of your post.

Polycarp: Had it been a valid analogy you would have said, "Should pedophiles who claim to be good Catholics and Protestants leave the Church?" If this was your question, then I'd say yes. However, if we use your analogy and apply it to my original post we'd have to say something like, "Robert Funk and Bruce Chilton should leave the Jesus Seminar because Richard Pervo likes to look at pictures of naked, little girls." Do you see the flaw in your analogy? Have you studied analogies? If so, then perhaps a refresher course is in due order.

No, the analogy I used fits very well. You implied the Jesus Seminar is somehow suspect because one member made a mistake. Now, I will ask you again, Should "good" Catholics and Protestants leave the Church because some priests and ministers have been found to be pedophiles?

BTW, I did SEE the humor in your last three sentences. Good job.

rodahi