Seeing as I was one of the "stupid" ones that clicked on the link, I will take what you have said here to be your version of an apology, and now I will wait for you to post your thoughts on dating P46 to c. 200AD.

Nomad

Take it any way you want, Nomad. BTW, I am still wondering why you believe P46 should date to around 85 CE.

rodahi

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
It was not my intent to link the Secular Web to an inappropriate website. (My posting and all those that referred to it have been deleted.) My intent was to tell Ish what I think of his recent commentary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: Good grief, Rodahi. You are seeming like more and more of a bitter person. I was just poking a little fun at you. Check the smiley faces... That's why I put them there.

Ask any of my friends if I seem like a "bitter person." Also, I don't look at "smiley faces." I look at what is actually written.

Ish: All I was doing was jokingly pointing out the fact that you seem to like to tell people what they have and have not read. It's beginning to seem kinda funny (at least to me).

Would you like for me to start pointing out what I think is "kinda funny" in your posts. I can start today. I have avoided it because I thought you might find it offensive.

Ish: Despite a few somewhat bitter posts on the Morton Smith stuff, I realize you have your opinions and I have mine. I'm holding no grudge...

I hold no grudge.

Ish: I guess the point of this is simply to say, "Lighten up Rodahi!"

If there's one thing this website is teaching me, it is exactly that, to lighten up.

See below.

Ish: BTW. what in the world did you link to anyway? It was apparently removed before I even got to see it.

Ask Nomad. He was the only person stupid enough to click on it.

Your humor leaves a lot to be desired, Ish. What seems funny to you might be offensive to someone else. Do you think making fun of others is "kinda funny?" I don't.

As to "lightening up," do you want to trade "humorous" remarks, or do you wish to offer serious commentary and debate serious issues? I can do either.

rodahi

Ulrich

Well those ten experts are not present on this board, at least not to my knowledge. So all we have are the posts being made by yourself and Nomad. In scholarly circles the experts would win the argument hands down. This forum is much more informal, however, and the measurement that matters is the weight of the argument itslef, not the weight of the credentials of the person making the argument.

That is because magazines rely upon their popularity in order to survive, scholarly and scientific periodicals do not. It is quite often the case that people outside of the area of study with which these periodicals deal have heard nothing about them.



As I said, I am not interested in the topic. What has caught my attention are the debating techniques being used by the two of you.



I'm not really in a hurry, I don't make it to this board more than once every day or two, and I find it moves a little bit too fast for me to keep up at times. I would think you would want to hurry, though, as it seems to me that the longer you delay, the less tenable your position becomes.

Nomad has at least made an attempt to present the evidence of his expert, regardless of whether you think his expert has the proper credentials. You have read the paper that Kim wrote yourself, and apparently agree that Nomad is at least representing that position properly. Now it is your turn to refute that position. So far as I can see, that refutation has come only in the form of attacks on the credibility of the author. Usually when people resort to those tactics it is because they can not, for whatever reason, attack the position the author has taken. The longer you go on attacking the author rather than his position, the worse you look in regards to having any ammunition to attack the postion with.



First, the fact remains that Kims evidence for his dating of the text has been displayed for all to see in this forum. The opposing evidence has yet to see the light of day, unless the sole evidence is that ten experts disagree without knowing why. Somehow I think these experts have more evidence than that, but at this point I haven't seen it.

Secondly, in the grand tradition of 10,000+ years of human history, I think 120 years can be viewed as "a bit".



Wrong and right. I don't have any further interest than that which I have already elaborated, and that interest has nothing to do with the dating of P46. I really don't see how an earlier dating of the MSS helps the Xtian position. They are constantly trying to push back the dates of various scriptures in order to get them closer to the time in which Jesus supposedly lived, as if that somehow gives them more creedence. As far as I am concerned they could have been written they day after he was executed, or even before the day he was born, and I still wouldn't believe that he was a God. When confronted with the question "Lord, liar, or lunatic?" my answer is:

"I don't know, be he damn sure wasn't a God."

In a non-face-to-face forum it is difficult to understand people's intent and it is very easy to take things the wrong way. I think this is why there are "emoticons". The "smiley faces" help say, "Hey, I'm just kiddin'!".

Sure. If done in a relatively polite way, it can lighten an over-serious debate and possibly point out your weaknesses.

Offensive!? I said nothing offensive. Considering what you were going to post, you must have inferred something that I did not intend. Is there some problem with "liking" someone? I fail to see how this warrants the word "offensive" (or the contents of the deleted post). I can take a playful jab in the ribs (and have done so here at the SecWeb, though some haven't been real playful). I'm sure you can too, Rodahi.

I don't have much to offer yet until you provide the counter-information that you say you are going to present.

And I don't see a problem with you using your God-given sense of humor (and some "smiley faces) once in a blue moon.


Ish


[This message has been edited by Ish (edited May 04, 2001).]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think you understand what Kim is saying--of course, how could you?--you haven't even read his article. Virtually all paleographers date P46 to around 200 CE. Kim dates the MS to around 80-85 CE. And you call Kim's dating "a bit earlier."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ulrich: First, the fact remains that Kims evidence for his dating of the text has been displayed for all to see in this forum.

I will say it again: Nomad has presented nothing directly from Kim's article. He has read a few paragraphs from a Christian evangelical's analysis of P46 and repeated a portion of what that person (Daniel Wallace) wrote. Do you really think Nomad has made an "argument?" Also, Why do you find Nomad's "argument" persuasive? Is it because you don't know what P46 is, and you will accept the word of anyone who puts forth what appears to be an argument?

Ulrich: The opposing evidence has yet to see the light of day, unless the sole evidence is that ten experts disagree without knowing why. Somehow I think these experts have more evidence than that, but at this point I haven't seen it.

Presuming that I present "evidence" which refutes Kim's dating of P46, what criteria will you use to determine whether or not it is convincing?

Ulrich: Secondly, in the grand tradition of 10,000+ years of human history, I think 120 years can be viewed as "a bit".

This perfectly illustrates that you have no idea what the real issue is.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is only my opinion, but I think you have a greater interest in this debate than you are willing to admit. And I don't think it has anything to do with scientifically dating P46.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ulrich: Wrong and right. I don't have any further interest than that which I have already elaborated, and that interest has nothing to do with the dating of P46.

Your lack of interest in the dating of P46 is part of the problem.

Ulrich: I really don't see how an earlier dating of the MSS helps the Xtian position.

If you truly knew what P46 is and what it represents to apologists like Nomad, you would.

Ulrich: They are constantly trying to push back the dates of various scriptures in order to get them closer to the time in which Jesus supposedly lived, as if that somehow gives them more creedence.

That is correct, and that IS the problem.

Ulrich: As far as I am concerned they could have been written they day after he was executed, or even before the day he was born, and I still wouldn't believe that he was a God.

Neither would I, but apologists will use any misinformation (Kim's dating of P46) available to further their cause.

Ulrich: When confronted with the question "Lord, liar, or lunatic?" my answer is:

"I don't know, be he damn sure wasn't a God."

Of course he wasn't a god, but that is not the issue. Dating P46 correctly IS.

rodahi

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

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
Ask any of my friends if I seem like a "bitter person." Also, I don't look at "smiley faces." I look at what is actually written.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a non-face-to-face forum it is difficult to understand people's intent and it is very easy to take things the wrong way. I think this is why there are "emoticons". The "smiley faces" help say, "Hey, I'm just kiddin'!".


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
Would you like for me to start pointing out what I think is "kinda funny" in your posts. I can start today. I have avoided it because I thought you might find it offensive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure. If done in a relatively polite way, it can lighten an over-serious debate and possibly point out your weaknesses.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
Your humor leaves a lot to be desired, Ish. What seems funny to you might be offensive to someone else. Do you think making fun of others is "kinda funny?" I don't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offensive!? I said nothing offensive. Considering what you were going to post, you must have inferred something that I did not intend. Is there some problem with "liking" someone? I fail to see how this warrants the word "offensive" (or the contents of the deleted post). I can take a playful jab in the ribs (and have done so here at the SecWeb, though some haven't been real playful). I'm sure you can too, Rodahi.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
As to "lightening up," do you want to trade "humorous" remarks, or do you wish to offer serious commentary and debate serious issues? I can do either.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't have much to offer yet until you provide the counter-information that you say you are going to present.

And I don't see a problem with you using your God-given sense of humor (and some "smiley faces) once in a blue moon.

Since I don't find your "sense of humor" particularly amusing, please "humor" me by not alluding to me or what I have said in any of your "humorous" posts to others. I will follow the same practice for you. (I guess my sense of humor is not given by any god.)

rodahi



[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited May 04, 2001).]

If you insist. Geesh... What a spoilsport.

You just don't know it yet.

Ok, I'll try to make that my last unhumorous comment. From now on I'll be "serious Ish".

Seriously,
Ish

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

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
Since I don't find your "sense of humor" particularly amusing, please "humor" me by not alluding to me or what I have said in any of your "humorous" posts to others. I will follow the same practice for you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: If you insist. Geesh... What a spoilsport.

I insist, and I am not a "spoilsport." You haven't shown yourself to be very funny.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
(I guess my sense of humor is not given by any god.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: You just don't know it yet.

Why are you trying so hard to sell your belief system? I used to be a believer. I became much happier and satisfied with my life AFTER putting away "childish notions."

Ish: Ok, I'll try to make that my last unhumorous comment. From now on I'll be "serious Ish".

Great.

rodahi

Ask any of my friends, really...

I've always enjoyed the cliche "childish notions" comeback, but it seems a little tired and old-fashioned to me now, especially when it is obvious that we are both pretty educated.

Rodahi, I believe in God. I believe that Jesus was God as a human (giving him the ability to relate personally to us). I believe that Jesus died in payment for the bad things that we have all done and will do in life. Through acceptance of Jesus' loving gift of life, we can have eternal life after death with God.

Why do I want to share this with people I meet? Because it is wonderful news that I personally believe can benefit everyone. Aside from all my joking, I care... (otherwise, why bother?)

Ish


[This message has been edited by Ish (edited May 05, 2001).]