I can. And not just against Christians.

Christian/atheist relationships

How reliable is the Western media when reporting on Asia.?

LOL@Metacrock

So you hate Christians - so what?

Yeah F*** you too

And probably many others...

CLB is a pain in the arse, and while his post on this thread was relatively civil, I can fully understand why Layman replied as he did.

As for me, I reckon the best way to respond to people like him is nearly always not to.

Ok, I tried to be civil, tried to be polite, attempted to instigate a reasonable, intelligent conversation. What happens? Assholes like Layman and Pantera show up just to bitch about me. Oh well. I suppose I should just take a different course of action instead in order to vent some anger. Sorry to everyone else here for this topic derailment (though keep in mind I never instigated it), but I just get angry easily. My bad.

Layman,

Yes, I know, thats why I and other people here refrain from presenting you with facts.

Really, I was being reasonable here, but you just wanted to act like an idiotic bitch a.k.a. your mother. I suppose you know that your ridiculous superstitious fantasy about some 2,000 year old dead guy being alive and well right now and looking out for your pathetic, worthless self has about as much factual support as the evidence for the nonexistence of your wife's dick, or, conversely, the evidence for the existence of yours, and so you attempt to obfuscate this issue by tossing out these uncalled for insults. Well, it won't work, so go back to tossing what you are good at: salad.

Pantera,

Name yourself after a band more washed up and insignificant than the now unemployed dog catcher who vainly tried to bring your girlfriend back to you after you broke up with her. That was about as smart a move as the one you made to America, driven by the quite stupid idea you had that a nonpussified nation like America would ever accept a complete pussy like you when a nation like England obviously wouldn't, even though its full of people such as yourself. Why don't you just go back and drown in the toilet you spawned from? Thanks.

[This message has been edited by Cute Little Baby (edited June 08, 2001).]

I think you just like saying that.

Luke mentioned this, not Matthew. Sorry, slip 'o the fingers. John is the only one who mentions Peter as commiting the act. Matthew and John record Jesus' reprimand.

Your questions are based on Mark being first. Like I have said before, I don't personally believe this. Early church fathers mention Matthew as the first. I believe Mark is a summary of sorts. Even if Mark was first, he might have left out details that the others remembered when writing their gospels. Matthew and Luke aren't necessarily "embellishing". That is pure speculation, especially if you can't prove that Mark wrote first.

Anyway... If the translation you quoted is what I think it is (based on the UBS4th greek text), then I'm happy you finally picked a decent one.

Since my first post apparently missed the point anyway, I'll make this my last on the subject.

Ish

IMHO, if anyone ever deserved to be banned from a website, I think it would have to be Cute Little Baby...

CLB doesn't seem to understand how first impressions color how people will respond.

CLB also doesn't seem to understand that it takes a while to redeem oneself from a bad first impression, especially if one keeps falling back on offensive, overkill tactics.

Ish

[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Cute Little Baby:
Ok, I tried to be civil, tried to be polite, attempted to instigate a reasonable, intelligent conversation. What happens? Assholes like Layman and Pantera show up just to bitch about me. Oh well. I suppose I should just take a different course of action instead in order to vent some anger. Sorry to everyone else here for this topic derailment (though keep in mind I never instigated it), but I just get angry easily. My bad.

Layman,

Quote:

Bigots don't need facts.</font>

Why don't you just go back and drown in the toilet you spawned from? Thanks.

[This message has been edited by Cute Little Baby (edited June 08, 2001).]

I take back what I said, Layman. It looks like you are more right than wrong.

Michael

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
BTW, nowhere does "Matthew" mention the name of the follower who struck the slave and cut off his ear. Nowhere does "Matthew" say that Jesus healed the ear. You have confused the embellishment of "Luke" with the embellishment of "Matthew."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Luke mentioned this, not Matthew. Sorry, slip 'o the fingers. John is the only one who mentions Peter as commiting the act. Matthew and John record Jesus' reprimand.

Let's just keep the facts straight.

Ish: Your questions are based on Mark being first.

There is no good reason to think "Mark" does not contain the most primitive Jesus tradition. If you think I am wrong, present a good argument.

Ish: Like I have said before, I don't personally believe this. Early church fathers mention Matthew as the first. I believe Mark is a summary of sorts. Even if Mark was first, he might have left out details that the others remembered when writing their gospels.

It seems that many Christians are rather choosy about what they believe and what they don't believe with respect to the NT. (Certainly, it would be to the advantage of an apologist to ignore "Mark" and focus on "Matthew," etc. "Mark's" Jesus is embarrassing to Christians.) It is ludicrous to argue that "Mark" may have left out significant details that others might have remembered. The most reasonable view is that of virtually all critical scholars: "Mark" wrote first and "Matthew" and "Luke" embellished "Mark" and added other material.

Ish: Matthew and Luke aren't necessarily "embellishing". That is pure speculation, especially if you can't prove that Mark wrote first.

All one has to do is read the three synoptic narratives side-by-side to see the truth of what I said.

Ish: Anyway... If the translation you quoted is what I think it is (based on the UBS4th greek text), then I'm happy you finally picked a decent one.

The word "decent" does not apply to translations, unless, of course, one is a Christian apologist. This just exemplifies what I have said all along--you are overtly biased.

rodahi



[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited June 09, 2001).]

Rodahi, like I said in the other thread, the translations you have used ("Scholar's Version", Ehrman's translation of a few verses, and MacDonald's translation of a few verses) pick badly supported greek variants and then pick english words geared toward controversy.

I provided my evidence for this assertion on two threads, so please prove me wrong if you see it differently. Explain to me why you think Ehrman's translation is still good even though he uses a variant supported by approximately 4 late MSS of the inferior "Western" text type when the majority of translations pick the variant with 100s, if not 1000s of earlier supporting MSS.

Spin it any way you like Rodahi, but you have not shown your translations to be free of incredible bias. Sayin' it is so, don't make it so. Just like the Dating P46 thread so far, you're all rhetoric and no evidence.

Ish

Turton,

No harm done.

I appreciate the statement.

Ish: Rodahi, like I said in the other thread, the translations you have used ("Scholar's Version", Ehrman's translation of a few verses, and MacDonald's translation of a few verses) pick badly supported greek variants and then pick english words geared toward controversy.

You are entitled to your opinion.

Ish: I provided my evidence for this assertion on two threads, so please prove me wrong if you see it differently. Explain to me why you think Ehrman's translation is still good

I have explained why I think Ehrman is correct.

Ish: even though he uses a variant supported by approximately 4 late MSS of the inferior "Western" text type when the majority of translations pick the variant with 100s, if not 1000s of earlier supporting MSS.

You have committed a major blunder (or two) here, Ish.

To my knowledge, Codex Bezae contains the earliest extant attestation of the angry Jesus passage (Mk. 1:41), BUT, and this is a big but, you cannot name 1000 extant MSS that date earlier than Codex Bezae which support the variant phrase which depicts a "compassionate" Jesus. You cannot even name 100 extant MSS that date earlier than Codex Bezae which support the variant reading. As a matter of fact, Ish, I don't think you can name more than FOUR, if that many, extant MSS that positively date earlier than Codex Bezae (Catholic Encyclopedia dates it to early fifth century) which attest the variant reading you think is correct.

Ish: Spin it any way you like Rodahi, but you have not shown your translations to be free of incredible bias.

I think the readers can tell who is putting a spin on the text of "Mark." I also think they know who exhibits "incredible bias."

Ish: Sayin' it is so, don't make it so.

That is precisely my point, Ish. You said that "Jesus' main message was one of love for one's neighbor which he demonstrated constantly." Sayin' it is so, don't make it so.

Ish: Just like the Dating P46 thread so far, you're all rhetoric and no evidence.

Sure, Ish. Feel better now?

rodahi