Ted Hoffman

But Jeffrey, you have responded severally to my posts yet I never sign them. Plus you know my name is not Ted Hoffman. Why the doublestandard when it comes to David?
Surely, you can get a better reason for copping out than these lame excuses?

The gospels are evidence of what exactly?

Jeffrey Gibson

Interesting. You deem it "waffle" without having read it.

Jeffrey

David

Not as interesting as the fact that you have again been asked direct questions relating to the topic of this thread, not to mention the subject you teach, yet you have chosen to attempt a derail to discuss a thread you started on another board (which everyone can clearly see doesn't even represent spin's position). Are you for real Jeffrey?

Amaleq13

Interesting? Not really.

He read your misrepresentation of his position, recognized it as a misrepresentation, and cleverly realized that going over a discussion based on a misrepresentation of his position would be a tremendous waste of time.

I would think it obvious that this is an entirely rational decision.

Jeffrey Gibson

Where does Spin say that what I wrote to the Classics list is a misrepresentation of his position? And where does he indicate that he's read all of what I sent to the Classics List about his stance?

Seems that would be necessary if he wants to make the claim you say he did.

Motreover, is what I wrote a misrepresentation? I have not yet been pointed out either by you or by Toto that, let alone how, it is.

Jeffrey

spin

What has this to do with me, Jeffrey Gibson?

Who "denies that knowledge of the ancient world is really obtainable"?

I expect more reasonable actions from you.


spin

spin

Stating things casually doesn't make it so. You need to get past bald statements and make a serious effort to answer a simple question in a scholarly manner. Where are the epistemological necessities to your statement? It's not good enough to make claims that you won't back up. That's the same as saying nothing.


spin

spin

When you start with misrepresentation, as you have, what can make anything based on your error of any value to us? Poor tactics, Jeffrey Gibson: go off to some other bunch, misrepresent the position you are trying to deal with, come back and say that your bunch agrees with you, so there. That deserves a doh!


spin

Jeffrey Gibson

You do -- in the admission that our interpretations of what our sources (texts) were saying of necessity always be subjective since in principle their accuracy can not be conclusively checked by consultation with with someone from the time in which the texts were written. This is where your position gets you.

Jeffrey

spin

I pointed out the error of your interpretation at the end of post #70.

ETA: Can you "extract significance from idiomatic phrases they have never seen before from an ancient text"?

You simply didn't understand the intention of what was said to you. You've overgeneralized. Can we get over it?


spin