judge

No worries. But I'm not sure it has much to do with atheism IMHO. We all do it.
I know atheists and agnostics who I admire and who are a great example for me.

Chris Weimer

I have already before told you that appeals to authority do not work here, without sarcasm, and in a very friendly manner. It was one of the first posts I made towards you, perhaps even the first. Since then, you have been rude and condescending and unworthy of even common courtesy. Any comments you make at this time are hypocritical and further distancing yourself from the respect of this forum.

Chris

spin

This is really impressive, isn't? You look at the only reference supplied -- and I hope there are more supplied in the original -- and you look the reference up and you find that you are dealing with a name: Josephus uses "Asartha" instead of $b(t, the Greek pentekosth, for which the Syriac gives pn+qws+) [+ = tet], directly derived from the Greek. The closest to a possible etymology for "Asartha" is a word in Jastrow's dictionary, )$rt), a greeting "health". The non-use of $b(t by Josephus is hardly convincing, especially when he gives actual Hebrew words on other occasions. In the same book, AJ 3.6.5, he correctly gives "eron" for the ark of the covenant, )rwn and in the same place he also gives "cherubim" which reflects the Hebrew version, which ends up in Syriac krwb) in Hebrews 9:5 (in which the Greek gives the Hebrew form as well, ie it isn't derived from the Syriac).

The Encyclopaedia Judaica, which originally was written over a century ago, continues the old tradition of seeing Aramaic wherever it can. As the citation given stands it provides little to think that Josephus confused Hebrew with Syrian.


spin

spin

Religionists,

You are here at a site calling itself the internet infidels. What for? Why do you come and post your stuff here? It's not that I want to discourage you posting here, but that I want to understand what benefit you can get coming here and complaining about the material you find here. Why bother? You know that you won't get christian stuff. You won't get your beliefs pacified or stimulated. You won't get edification and no-one is going to pay you. You come here and give die-hearted defences of old scholarship or just weird lack of scholarship. You're not interested in developing the ideas that people struggle with here, You usually just try to put sticks in the wheels of others' efforts. Could I have an honest justification for your actions?


spin

spin

We work on evidence here, not people's opinions. Cite the expert's evidence and you'll have no trouble. We'll just pull the evidence apart to see its validity.


spin

judge

I find it helpful as there are posters here who seem absolutely deperate to defend their position (they probably think the same of me )

They will spend hours poring over ideas I present, and in doing so are a great help to me.
Take the argument WRT Matthews geneology. If anyone is going to find agenuine flaw in the arguments I present it will probably be someone here.

An infidel is more likely IMO to want the geneology not to add up. A believer is perhaps quite happy to have the contradiction resolved.

So I can learn something from you.

Says who?

Anyone who keeps the rules of the forum has just as much right to be here as anyone else.

Chris Weimer

Already have, multiple times, by multiple people.

Ad hoc/ad hominem - c'mon judge, got any better fallacies you'd like to employ? :down:

cass256

I come here to see various opinions. I can learn from my mistakes. I did not'study reilgion in college.I didn't studay arguing and philohilosopy.. I do not know the rules of the game, Philosophy or whatever. Pull the evidence apart, but the snide comments are not nececessary.

spin

Some posters here have just shrugged off the chains of their oppression and find a certain amount of companionship here, though this is debased somewhat by fundamentalists coming here and attempting to shout their fundamentalism.

Others here are trying to work out historical or literary problems, neither of which are of interest to most religionists.

The only person who wastes time with you judge is me. I do so in order to make sure any new people will not get sucked in by your own problems.

But you are basing this analysis on a religious commitment to an erroneous position which you are not able to change.

Consult any scholarly analysis of the text, will you?

Apparently not.

You have consistently pushed your own agenda, nothing more.

Certainly. That's not at issue. It's why bother peddling your religionist ideas here at an infidels site?


spin

spin

You get what you paid for, making facile comments about atheists.

I would suggest that opinions in themselves are not too important. Seeing various opinions I would hope means seeing how people use evidence to support their analyses. It is always the evidence. We try to operate under the rule of evidence, or perhaps the tyranny of evidence. It doesn't matter what the status quo is, nothing is free from query and investigation. If any currently held position can be seen as not supported by sufficient evidence then out it comes and over it gets turned to see what is going on, why it is the status quo, and whether it should be there at all.


spin