FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-13-2006, 06:03 AM   #401
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wallack
I'll even repeat the central/major/main Question I have for you Jeff:

Looking through TJP I Am puzzled as to Where Mr. Doherty indicates that 4.4 is central/major/main to Mr. Doherty's case for MJ:

So Where is it Jeff?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibson
Overlooking the rhetorical excess above, it's here:

http://home.ca.inter.net/oblio/supp08.htm

JW:
It took 3 days/3 nights and rhetorical excess and this is all I get? You've been Disrespectful towards Mr. Doherty and said many not at all nice things about him. When I pointed this out you insisted on sticking to 4.4 and its Significance to Mr. Doherty's MJ Position. You are The One who characterizes 4.4 as central/major/main to Mr. Doherty's case for MJ. Yet when I press you for an explanation you can only give a link to a part of TJP.

I Am afraid I'm going to have to ask you HOW http://home.ca.inter.net/oblio/supp08.htm is central/major/main to Mr. Doherty's MJ Position. Considering how critical you've been of Mr. Doherty in General, all the way to Accusing him of Lying, and especially characterizing him of OVERSTATING conclusions I would expect your explanation here of HOW http://home.ca.inter.net/oblio/supp08.htm is central/major/main to Mr. Doherty's MJ Position to be unusually Clear. So clear that even all the Amateurs here can understand.

I'm especially interested in whether you know for starters what the "supp" from http://home.ca.inter.net/oblio/supp08.htm means.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibson
Now, may I ask a favour from you?

As I have indicated consistently in the way I sign my posts (save when I have used instead "JG"), and as I have specifically and directly noted on more than one occasion in the body of messages I have sent to several others here, my name is Jeffrey, not Jeff.

I would be grateful, then, if you'd do me the courtesy of addressing me with that name, and not with one that is not mine.

JW:
Well there ya go again asking for something you don't like to give. Moderators, per the rules here, do I have to address Jeff as Jeffrey?

Jeff/Jeffrey, your bifurcation complaint has gotten tiring as you continuously pull it out like a hankerchief, avoid addressing what you should be addressing, and the only thing that needs to be cleaned is your snottiness.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page
JoeWallack is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 06:50 AM   #402
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,060
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jgibson000
Overlooking the rhetorical excess above, it's here:

http://home.ca.inter.net/oblio/supp08.htm

Now, may I ask a favour from you?

As I have indicated consistently in the way I sign my posts (save when I have used instead "JG"), and as I have specifically and directly noted on more than one occasion in the body of messages I have sent to several others here, my name is Jeffrey, not Jeff.

I would be grateful, then, if you'd do me the courtesy of addressing me with that name, and not with one that is not mine.

Jeffrey Gibson
You have also asked to be called Dora, and we have your permission to call you Dora henceforth.

Jake Jones IV
jakejonesiv is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 07:18 AM   #403
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakejonesiv
You have also asked to be called Dora, and we have your permission to call you Dora henceforth.
:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: But, technically, only when Jeffrey is wearing a dress.
S.C.Carlson is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 07:24 AM   #404
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,060
Default En arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos.

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle
I found Dunn interesting and plausible when I first read him some years ago, but on reflection was uneasy about his final conclusion that preexistence is taught in John's Gospel and epistles but nowhere else in the NT.

Once I decided that Dunn's denial of the presence of an idea of preexistence is at least sometimes unreasonable (eg in Ephesians and Matthew), I became less convinced by his whole argument, although I still think that Paul's idea of personal prexistence is at best undeveloped.

Andrew Criddle
Hi Andrew,

Nothing undeveloped about Phil 2:6. Christ had always been in the form of God.

Oh yes, quite obviously the Johannine community believed in the pre-existence of Jesus.

No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. John 3:13 NIV
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man [which is in heaven]. John 3:13 KJV.
kai oudeis anabebhken eis ton ouranon ei mh o ek tou ouranou katabas o uios tou anqrwpou o wn en tw ouranw


For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. John 6:38. NIV
For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.John 6:38.KJV.
oti katabebhka ek tou ouranou ouc ina poiw to qelhma to emon alla to qelhma tou pemyantos me

"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" John 8:58. NIV
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. John 8:58. KJV.
eipen autois o ihsous amhn amhn legw umin prin Abraam genesqai egw eimi

Ephesians? Sure. But Colossians too. But what about GMatthew? Can you provide the passages?

Jake Jones IV
jakejonesiv is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 07:25 AM   #405
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,060
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson
:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: But, technically, only when Jeffrey is wearing a dress.
I will depend on Jeffrey to tell us when he is not.

Jake Jones IV
jakejonesiv is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 07:31 AM   #406
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ""
Posts: 3,863
Default

Alright, we need some rules here. Either you are substituted or you are not. We cant have two people posting junk simultaneously to ingratiate themselves with Jeffrey. I mean, once you have made way for way for Totti or Del Piero, you stay at the bench and cool off. You cant come back to the pitch to tackle the striker of the other team.
Seriously though, when you get tired of pouring cloying adulation at Jeffrey's feet, post something substantive rather than the predictable insults or the void back-patting blather. In any case, history has shown that real heroes get nauseated by the cloying adulation of little people, so this pompous elevation of a mortal to worship status may just incense the mortal.
Unless, of course, he needs the approval of little people to boost his self-image.
Ted Hoffman is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 08:27 AM   #407
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeWallack
It took 3 days/3 nights and rhetorical excess and this is all I get? You've been Disrespectful towards Mr. Doherty and said many not at all nice things about him.
Seems to me I only spoke about his "scholarship" and the quality of his arguments, not his person. There's nothing in what I wrote that even comes close to your recent remarks about me or Jakes's insinuation that I am a transvestite.

Quote:
When I pointed this out you insisted on sticking to 4.4 and its Significance to Mr. Doherty's MJ Position. You are The One who characterizes 4.4 as central/major/main to Mr. Doherty's case for MJ. Yet when I press you for an explanation you can only give a link to a part of TJP.
Actually, as this shows
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wallack
I'll even repeat the central/major/main Question I have for you Jeff:

Looking through TJP I Am puzzled as to Where Mr. Doherty indicates that 4.4 is central/major/main to Mr. Doherty's case for MJ:

So Where is it Jeff?(emphasis mine)
all you asked me to do was to show where Earl indicates that Gal. 4:4 is important for his argument.

So why you are now chiding me for giving you what you asked me to giver is beyond me.

And please note that what I've actually been claiming all along in regards to Earl and Gal. 4:4 is that Earl has pointed to Gal. 4:4 as a major plank in his argument that Paul believed in an MJ and not an HJ. This is something that is quite a bit different from the claim about what I've been saying that you are attributing to me.

Quote:
I Am afraid I'm going to have to ask you HOW http://home.ca.inter.net/oblio/supp08.htm is central/major/main to Mr. Doherty's MJ Position.
Leaving aside the matter, pointed out above, of how I've only been claiming that Earl's reading of Gal. 4:4 is a major plank in his argument about Paul and an MJ, and nothing more, "I'm afraid I'm going to ask you": Can you not read?

Quote:
Jeff/Jeffrey, your bifurcation complaint has gotten tiring as you continuously pull it out like a hankerchief, avoid addressing what you should be addressing,
Is this what I've done? And even if it is, it seems to me the question is not whether my "complaint" about how you continually engage in bifurcation is or is not tiring (let alone to whom), but whether it's accurate.

And to my eyes, if anyone is avoiding anything here, it's you -- in how you have not answed the "complaint" nor admitted what is clearly the case, namely, that it's true.

Jeffrey Gibson
jgibson000 is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 08:46 AM   #408
Bede
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakejonesiv
Bede, I would also like your opinion on one other issue. In discussions like this, should the KJV be utterly despised? In your opinion. What about the NIV or NASB?
I'm afraid I've only been following the Ted/Jeffrey discussion so can't really comment on your first question. On Bible translations, I would avoid the KJV for any sort of scholarly purpose. The best version, I believe, is the RSV rather than the NIV or NASB.

Best wishes

James
 
Old 07-13-2006, 09:38 AM   #409
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ""
Posts: 3,863
Default

Carlson joked that you are only Dorothy when wearing a dress. You ignore that and instead accuse mythicists of insinuating that you are a transvestite?
Sheesh. Scotsmen wearr skirts - that doesnt make them transvestites. In Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands, sarongs are worn by both men and women, in Greece, even Arabia, men wear some kinds of skirts: it does not make them transvestites.

Since, clearly, some people are tone deaf to artistic expressions, and probably never watch movies or read other interesting books, the expression "Buckle up Dorothy, ‘cos Kansas is going bye-bye" is used in The Matrix movie. Plus, Dorothy is a commonly used expression. For example, we find "You bet! Buckle up, Dorothy...this is gonna be one bumpy ride!" here.

Now put your skirt back on and stop complaining.
Ted Hoffman is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 09:55 AM   #410
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada
Posts: 2,612
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman
Carlson joked that you are only Dorothy when wearing a dress. You ignore that and instead accuse mythicists of insinuating that you are a transvestite?
Sheesh. Scotsmen wearr skirts - that doesnt make them transvestites. In Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands, sarongs are worn by both men and women, in Greece, even Arabia, men wear some kinds of skirts: it does not make them transvestites.

Since, clearly, some people are tone deaf to artistic expressions, and probably never watch movies or read other interesting books, the expression "Buckle up Dorothy, ‘cos Kansas is going bye-bye" is used in The Matrix movie. Plus, Dorothy is a commonly used expression. For example, we find "You bet! Buckle up, Dorothy...this is gonna be one bumpy ride!" here.

Now put your skirt back on and stop complaining.
Dorothy wore ruby slippers and a blue frock, not a skirt. The name under question is "Dora," which really isn't much of a common expression at all.

Regards,
Rick Sumner
Rick Sumner is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:58 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.