PhilosopherJay

The thing I learned from watching the movie Jurassic Park was never to stand in the middle of three velocoraptors when they attack.

I thiink it is sad that the moderators do not stop personal attacks which prevent learning and real exchanges of points of view. In such an atmosphere no learning can take place. These personal attacks are often couched slyly/stupidly in questions, but that does not make them any less distasteful and imbecilic. It prevents both Christians and Non-Christians from learning.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

jgibson000

So I take it that's a "NO" to both of the questions I asked in my most recent message to you.

Perhaps if you spent less time characterizing questions asked of you and more time actually answering them, some "learning" might take place.

My sweet aunt fannie.

Jeffrey

PhilosopherJay

Hi Steven,

If you take time to read the article and to read what I wrote, I do not think you will see any real discrepancy.

Here is the abstract from the article in question:

Please note the last sentence... "Clement of Alexandria's title for Basilides's work...supports the inferences that this writing comprised "explanations" of Basilides' theological system."

This supports the contention that Basilides' was writing about his own theological system. If we take this general proposition seriously and apply it to the specific comments of Origen, then it appears most likely that Origen was misinterpreting a text about Basilides theological system as a text refering to something in Paul. Living a century after Basilides, one cannot blame Origen for not understanding Basilides. One can see often see the same thing in his attacks against Celsus. We should not forget that not living in our times, Origen did not have the benefit of understanding how textual and logical systems evolve and change constantly. There would have been no reason for him to see things through Basilides eyes and the logic of Basilides time, rather than his own eyes and his own time.

So I do not see this as a flying leap to the idea that Basilides wrote no biblical commentary at all. It is a rather sound deduction that in this particular instance Basilides was not writing a Biblical Commentary.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Steven Avery

Thank you. I'll add that to the litany (of insults) list.

When you get a chance you might want to share how you read the Josephus pronoun. Your kvetch here might have a little more pizazz after we see your comment on that question, rather than the dance-step routine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 But I think you are quite correct in your assessment of what "Philosopher" Jay has done with what Kelhoffer says.

Boy, that must have been rough.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

jgibson000

What insult? As more than one person has noted here, it's the truth.

How my commenting on the antecedent of a pronoun in Josephus JA has anything to do with, let alone somehow negates, the truth of the fact that your "research" is primarily limited to what you find on the internet, and that you are not, and hardly ever make yourself, directly acquainted with relevant periodical and other published literature on the matters on which you declaim, is also beyond me.

And even assuming that I actually have been doing any kind of a dance step routine, let me remind you that you seem to think that such a tactic is a perfectly legitimate thing for you to do, as is evident from your antics in this thread:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=159132

So may I suggest, that if you wish not to be accused of a double standard, you drop this ad hominem from your "argument" arsenal.

Not at all. Contrary to what you allege, I have no trouble in noting that you have hit the nail on the head when you've actually done so. And if I don't do it very often, it's not because I'm adverse to doing so; it's that your hitting anywhere near the nail, let alone knowing where (or even what) the nail is, is so rare an event.

JG

Steven Avery

Your various kvetches vary. While I do have a fair layman's library I don't hide the fact that I learn a lot on the Internet. Often quite sucessfully, as in the thread where we just disassembled the Richard Carrier pretension about the "Scroll of Fasting".

In generaly your kvetches vary, that is why I find "Pronoun-Challenged" (spin) and "Article-Challenged" rather humorous. My English comprehension ain't the best, but it ain't bad either, and the complaints are generally more ideologically based (ala spin) than anything else.

Maybe you were being cutesie, with "Article-Challenged" referring to articles in periodicals. Dunno.

You see, Jeffrey, your posts are often so unhelpful and hostile that often it is not worth the effort to try to follow your rabbit trails.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 And even assuming that I actually have been doing any kind of a dance step routine,

A reasonable conclusion in that case, and your frequent modus operandi.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000 let me remind you that you seem to think that such a tactic is a perfectly legitimate thing for you to do, as is evident from your antics in this thread: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=159132

Ahh, the thread from awhile back. Where everybody was so upset that I didn't take a doctrinaire position and defend this and explain that. Actually it was a very informative thread and hopefully will become more so in the future.

(snip some Jeffrey-Junque)

Shalom,
Steven Avery

jgibson000

Oh. Is "upset" what people were with you? And it was that you "didn't take a position" on something you were asked to take a position on, and you "didn't defend or explain" what people called you to explain and defend that was the cause of their being so? And their being up set was unjustified, was it? I see.

If so, why are you are being with me the very thing that you apparently thought people had no real cause to be with you?

JG

Steven Avery

Sure. I was being asked to do a large-scale and laborious defense of a position I hadn't even articulated, with a wide group of folks, some of whom are known much more for ugliness and insults than dialog. Instead I preferred to simply keep the dialog going so we all could learn. And the thread was extremely fine overall.

You were asked a simple question about a pronoun, that should take five minutes maximum to give an informed response. (Even a "I dunno, its
unclear" if that was your view.)

You danced and skipped, yet as usual continued your sniping,
with which most folks here are familiar.

Dancing and skipping is your privilege. And I can point out how unhelpful you are, as when you don't even address a simple straightforward English comprehension issue that is the heart of the thread. A question that spin asked for others to comment on, and I seconded the request. A rather rare agreement.

Jeffrey, you are a first-class sniper and skipper, however your HPQ (helpful posting quotient) is low.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

jgibson000

You have a very selective memory.

At the heart of the thread is what Josephus said in AJ 1.7. And since he wrote in Greek, not English, then not addressing a English comprehension question is not only not unhelpful; it is not even relevant to the issue at hand. The only question of any relevance was (and is) the one that I posed to you regarding the Greek text, found here -- a question which notably you refused to answer and continued to skip when it was posed to you a second time.

So if anyone has done any skipping and dancing, or has been unhelpful here, it's you.

Jeffrey Gibson

Steven Avery

Not addressing the English comprehension issue (the base of spin's "Pronoun-Challenged" accusation) noted.

The ability to mention the Greek multiple times without simply supplying whatever he considers significant, if anything, also noted.

Thanks, a condensed and perfect example of Jeffrey's posting skills.

a) skipping and dancing
b) sniping
c) unhelpful

Shalom,
Steven Avery