judge

Finally...finally... after much encouragement you dealt with one of the issues I raised.

I went back as far as post #135 and you dont seem to be asking too many. There were 8 or so posts from you to me, but hardly a question. let alone a serious question.
You were not asking questions but preaching. :devil1:


Whic you have been no question of that.

Again.... when you cant win the argument the personal attacks start.

But I tell you what. Im not going to wade through every post to find these 'questions".

Why dont you post your top three questions, and if I haven't addressed them I'll answer them. How's that?

Just post them when you next come online, and ill address them when I see them.

spin

Is there a more accurate word than the "h"-word?

I don't hold high your evaluations of seriousness, judge, given your track record.

Of the actual discussion in the post you are responding to, you engage not once here. Talk about serious.

Trying to get you to partake in a discussion rather than watching you take potshots is asking you to be responsible. If you don't like that, that's your problem.

You claim not to care about things (duck and weave, duck and weave), but you go on and on and on and on. Avoid responding (duck and weave, duck and weave). Step further and further away from any content in the discussion (duck and weave, duck and weave).

You know all about dodging.

No personal attack. Accusing me of what you are doing when the accusation isn't true is just that, hypocrisy. Your flight from the content of the argument is another case in point.

You don't have to. You've already refused to answer them. I don't expect you to come good now.

Uh-huh.

spin

I quoted John, not as authority but as a perfectly acceptable alternate to your stated view

What does that have to do with the analysis of Mark in this thread? Apparently nothing.

Instead of pulling stuff out of your wherever, you should look at the Greek and realize you're talking rubbish. It actually says something like

Mary Magdalene,
and Mary of James the younger and of Joses mother,
and Salome.

Scratch that kludge.

(Like you did in your first statement in the post I'm responding to?)

The only thing I can guess you are responding to is this:

We are analyzing what we find in Mark and we know that Mark is directly related to Matthew, so we can discuss how Matthew reflects Mark. Bringing comments from John into the discussion is arbitrary and, so far, unjustified. As I understand it they have no value for the discussion. You needed to respond to that, as you have tried to inject John here a few times now.

judge

Ok there were two questions in the link you provided. One question asked me what your theory is, which ill pass on as a waste of time. Despite your whining the fact you finally answered one of my questions indicates you accept to a degree at least I do understand it. I do have life sorry, so im not going to waste my time with you on this point..

The second question I have dealt with please go back and re-read.

If you come up with some decent questions about the details of your theory I may reconsider my offer.

spin

Actually your whining on about my theory at the point you did was irrelevant to the particular conversation and made no sense, so I asked you to explain yourself and you refused.

You are just making yourself look worse.

You, as usual, have nothing to say. I wish you would stop wasting your time. You've shown no logic in quibbling your way through this thread. You repeatedly dissipate into no content whatsoever. If I chase you on your rot you clam up. If I try to return to the topic, you start up with rot again. You didn't even try with the content in post 179.

judge

Lets see. Mark has several refs to mary as a mother. The last three don’t mention this mary as the mother of Jesus even though the first one does.
Conclusion: The first one must be fake , and we’ve been trying to find an excuse to get rid of that for ages, because it causes real problems when we look at galatians 1:19
Problem: Matthew mentions that Jesus ‘s mother is mary, and its going to look suspicious if we say that’s a fake as well.
Solution:..lets say that matthew only saw the updated copy of mark which had the fake bit.
Problem: If we say that it was vital for mark to mention that mary was Jesus’s mother, then we should apply the same logic to matthew who we admit must have had the updated mark in front of him.
Solution. Put fingers in ears and sing La La La loudly.
Alternate solution: have more than one mary with similar sounding sons.
Problem: Then we have to agree with that dang apologist.

Solution: take cotton wool out of mouth (where it belongs) and stuff it into ears, and continue.

judge

delete

spin

Several here equals four.

What does Galatians actually have to do with this issue? You want to insinuate it into the argument to cloud the linguistic issues. Let's take it out and look at the discussion rather than simply cooking the books as you want.

You consistently ignore the fact that the three mentions of Mary later on do qualify her, yet not mentioning the obvious qualifier, Jesus. You surreptitiously forgot to mention the obvious. You want to ignore it.

There is no doubt that the Matthean writer had a text which had all four references to a Mary, only one of which was taken to be the mother of Jesus. I didn't claim any differently. However, I am analyzing the evidence.

Rubbish.

Do it again.

Deep.

Shit, what do you expect with this gooey kid's stuff?

[HR=1]100[/HR]

Jumped the rails there, judge.

Just more of the same contentlessness.

sschlichter

You can forget that the passage was from John if you want. what I was injecting was a scenario where the sister of mary being the mother of james is not reasonably discarded as you have done before you go on. You brought it up as if it was possible and then discard it as too unlikely then move on to your argument. Why is it unlikely when there are already two or three Mary's to wade through.

however, on the John tangent, I am interested why you think there could be 4 people in there. (or if you just want me to fumble around with my greek - which I have told you before I flunked).

I gave the wrong reference but I have the same question.

How many people are present in these two passages?

tou ihsou h mhthr autou kai h adelfh thj mhtroj autou maria h tou klwpa kai maria h magdalhnh
--------
[h] maria h magdalhnh kai maria h [tou] iakwbou kai salwmh

~steve

spin

So we can forget the passage altogether though, can't we?

You'll note that I based part of the analysis on the fact that this Mary was mother not only of James, but of Joses, this latter being a rare form of the name.

We could end up with the scene at the end of The Life of Brian with a dozen Jesuses on their crosses, but now let's throw in a few dozen Marys as well.

This genitive belongs to what came earlier.

Working from the appearance of pairs (as I pointed out with the disciples):

his mother and his mother's sister,
Mary of Clopas and Mary the Magdalene

Mary of Clopas could simply be overdefined as both sister of the mother and related to Clopas, though "Mary of Clopas" should be sufficient.

Straightforward:

Mary the Magdalene and Mary of James and Salome

About the only thing that's really interesting is how one can know that Clopas is a husband and James is a son.