judge

If you say so.

Good luck in the real world with this stuff.

spin

I couldn't get you into the real world. You stalwartly refused to consider the way Paul used the non-titular κυριος. As it seems to be a necessity to understand the significance of terms in the text under examination, why refuse?

Instead, you crabwise argued to insinuate Jesus in "James the brother of the lord". (Well, Jesus did have a brother called James according to Mark!?)


spin

judge

I considerd it, but as I mentioned you're problems prior to this were too great to put the amount of weight on it you wanted to.

I considered it but as I mention you had such enormous problems from the "get go", that I wouldn't give it the weight you do.
But, you are forced to put all your weight on that one leg, whilst ignoring the more pertinent issues, and, your table falls over.

Doesn't make you wrong. It's just not very convincing. But hey if you believe otherwise, then take it to the real world, and ,see how far you get.
I know you have mentioned here before that you abandoned ambitions to have another paper peer reviewed years ago. Why not try this out if you are so confident?

If I remember though, you behaved pretty confidently back then too, before quietly abandoning the idea.

spin

You shown no sign of having considered it. Your reaction in this thread is tantamount to a refusal to consider it. I'm sorry, I can only go on what you say and do here and they disagree with your statement in this post.

What are the more pertinent issues for understanding what Paul has to say, working from data that comes from the time of Paul? Please, I'm interested in knowing what you really have in mind as "the more pertinent issues" that I am ignoring. Do explain.

If you will not deal with the significance of an essential term, as is apparently the case here, you won't give the impression of trying to understand our text.

Why not deal with the task at hand, rather than continued changing of the subject?

How many times in this thread have I asked you to deal with what is being referenced with the non-titular κυριος? It can't hurt you to look at the data and report back your findings, can it? Why not show that you are willing to participate in the discussion?


spin

judge

Can you see, then , that you are jumping to conclusions?
Not having evidence that I did consider it is not the same as having evidence I did not.
This is the same kind of reasoning you seem to use throughout this thread on other matters.


Is there anyone else here who is interested? If there is anyone else here who is; I'll consider going back over it.

I really dont care what impression I am giving you. Its not important to me.


Depending who is interested it could be just a waste of time. If you want more discussion from me, lift your game.

spin

This does not follow... which is typical.

Agreed. But you are in a social situation and have responsibilities that you are not upholding.

Rubbish.

It would have been best had you not voiced unfounded accusations, as you are not prepared to give back-up to them.

Yes, typical evasion on your part.

There is no play here for me to lift my game for. The notion of quid pro quo seems not to be part of your forum behavior. A few arrows then run for cover seems to be.

Ignore will now be back in force.


spin