Jeffrey Gibson

Which Catholic apologists say that the references to Jesus in the Talmud are nor references to Jesus of Nazareth. Please give names and text citations.

I take it you haven't read Peter Schafer's Jesus in the Talmud, correct?

And what is your level of competence in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin. Have you had formal training in these languages?

Jeffrey



Greetings

Littlejohn
.[/QUOTE]

James Hannam

May I appeal to you and ask for a reference to the Inquisition burning Jews in Paris. The Talmud was indeed banned, but even though I've studied the period in depth, I have not previously found reference to the 200 (or indeed any) burnings of Jews at the time.

As the Jews were not Christians, they were not under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition anyway which makes your assertion doubly surprising.

Best wishes

James

Read Chapter One of God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science

Littlejohn

What is?....... Do you want to denounce them?....

I did not believed that an "agnostic" was so close to its heart the fate of Catholics apologists ...

There are now more than 10 years from when I began posting in forums, and I have affronted apologists by all species and the clashes I had with them, have been they often at the limit of the "telematic" assassination! ..

Indeed! I have not read Peter Schafer. My "forsennate" (without pause) researches don't consent me to read the opinions of others, unless they are strictly functional to my researches. And anyway, always a matter of time, I can only read electronic texts. There are approximately 2 years since I bought the book "Angels and Demons" by Dan Brown and still have to read! (in the compensation I read "The Da Vinci Code" all at once breath!) <-------(translation of Google..is it just?)

"...And what is your level of competence in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin. Have you had formal training in these languages?.."

Whatever be my level of educational attainment, I am sure that your is greater than mine. However, I have been able to arrive where you would not arrive NEVER without my particulars: namely the indications of a "child of a lesser God "....


Greetings

Littlejohn
.

Jeffrey Gibson

It's a request for information.

I want to determine if there is any merit to your claim by seeing whether or not you actually have any evidence that backs it up. Apparently you do not.

One sure sign, I've learned, of the fact that people are laying claim to knowledge they do not possess, and do not wish to show that they do not know what they are talking about, is when they reply to a request for information not by giving the information requested but by speaking, as LJ has now just done, about the character of the one who asked for it.

:huh:

Shaffer isn't "functional" to your researches about whether Jesus is spoken of in the Talmud?

Good gawd. Another Pete Brown!

As we've all seen here, a sure indication of a poster not having the linguistic expertise he/she has intimated he/she has (weren't we supposed to accept as authoritative and true John's claims about Iaso and the root of Iesous and what Jerome was up to, etc. etc.?) is answers like the dodge above to direct questions about the nature and extent of their training in the languages they comment on and make claims about.

So it looks like what we have in "LittleJohn" is an Italian Pete Brown.

And what on earth are the "indications" that one is a "child of a lesser god", let alone the bases (and more importantly, the proof) of the claim that being one gives one greater insight into, and knowledge of, matters Ancient Greek and NT than is possessed by those who are not one such child?

Jeffrey

Ben C Smith

It is not impossible, nor did I say it was. What I am saying is that it is not certain or even more or less likely than the alternative, judging by the word usage alone. You are trying to use the words to imply a certain stance, and they do not do that.

That is all I am saying.

I agree, and, in that case, not naming eyewitness sources has little if anything to do with whether such eyewitnesses existed.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

I am very sorry, but I am having trouble understanding your English. I know that it is not your native tongue, and I am not belittling you for that, but I am not sure what you are asking me here.

Ben.

Doug Shaver

The remainder of the paragraph fails to demonstrate any inconsistency.

Yes, I can see that, because your response does not address the point I was making.

spamandham

Mentioning that there are eyewitnesses, but not referring to any details of those witnesses, is the hallmark of modern urban legends.

Sure, it's possible someone who knew those witnesses would refer to them so vaguely, but that isn't the most natural thing to do, and in spite of effort to do so, you have failed to demonstrate any other period author referring in vague terms to eyewitnesses they clearly knew, so there is no reason to suppose that was normal behavior.

aa5874

And not naming sources can also mean no eyewitnesses existed. And if no eyewitnesses existed, he could not have named them.

I would not expect that there were eyewitnesses who saw Vespasian used SPIT to make the blind see.

I conclude there were no eyewitnesses until further evidence can be found.

Ben C Smith

And modern journalism. And ancient history.

Ben.