spin

Destitute of response, judge. You cannot justify your bad attitude and now your back asking shallow questions when you won't respond to anything tangibly yourself.

What do doubts have to do with the issue?

Would you like to argue the contrary that Mk 6:3 is earlier than Gal 1:19??

This statement has no foundation.

You've become quite the expert at sleight of hand. It's probably all the practice you've had recently.

Why not admit that you've ballsed up your reading and drop the facade?

When you have nothing to say for yourself, attack, attack, attack. :wave:

spin

Gosh, what are you rabbiting on about? Remember the relative chronology that you have so little appreciation for? Matthew came after Mark, didn't it, judge?

:hysterical:

judge

You need to think about it more. You want mark 15 &16 to go from mark to matt and you want matt 13:55 to come from mark too.

You have no smooth way to do this. Thats your problem and why you sidestep it.

judge

Actually I haven't attacked, just asked a question.

It's you who are resorting to personal attacks as you did above..when you said...

Chili

That is just the point, Jesus was man but not hu-man and became fully man after he was raised = he died to his human condition and just walked away from it (or it may have raptured for all I care but they dramatize it to make it a religion induced event to increase its occurance in their civilization.

Born a man-child from woman who was not female and so not part hu-man and therefore without sin (sic) and in the Gosples this man-child, who is a new creation (sic) must become fully man to be Lord and God . . . and of course in Mark he slipped sideways and hence Mark's Jesus went to hell (in my version of hell).

Shakespeare has a nice line on this: Volumnia sprang not more in joy when he was born a man-child than now he had proved himself a man."

It is a 'yellow ripeness' that is native to man after MENO- pauze wherein the human condition is annihilated . . . which is about when the herd-bull is parked in cattle.

Edit to add that this is born from the 'woman who was not banned from Eden" and who was taken from his bones, remember?

sschlichter

I guess I do not disagree with your statement except I would suggest that other construals become necessary no matter how un-reasonable.

~Steve

spin

Yup. What you haven't done is to propose some sort of difficulty. Perhaps you can enunciate one.

Here's what you seem to be trying to take issue with:

[T2]Some form of Mark|.|Matt||
Mary, mother of J & J|->|Mary, mother of J & J/the other Mary||
Mk 6:3|->|Mt 13:55[/T2]
And a special case of this, based on the argument in this thread, may also be:

[T2]An early form of Mark|.|A later form of Mark|.|Matt||
Mary, mother of J & J|->|Mary, mother of J & J|->|Mary, mother of J & J/the other Mary||
-|.|Mk 6:3|->|Mt 13:55[/T2]

As you've actually described no problem, the reader is left wondering what you're talking about.

spin

You can package your refusal to ask questions while continuing to ask more yourself however you want. You don't answer questions, judge: you avoid them.

Perhaps you don't like my describing the unprovoked attacks of your early posts here an example of bad attitude. How else would you describe accusing me of "missing the obvious", of wanting "to be able to shift the goalposts when it suits you", of using "circular reasoning", accusing me of "trotting out" my "pet theory", claiming to be pointing out the "holes in my theory" and now accusing me of "throwing tantrums"? It seems to me a suitable description of your statements. If you don't like the smell of your own business, don't drop it under the public nose.

Chili

So the necessary condition here then is that both Jesus and Mary are sinless and so are reconciled in therefore paradise is regained and of course now the word sin is no longer subject to the Law from where liberation was found in Luke and John simply because they were nature driven (= by intuition) where so the manger in Luke and the fig tree in John are equivalent in that they spell origination.

The concept sin was only designed only to lead the believer astray and further away from Eden and West if West is opposite to East and therefore shepherds must lead sheep West instead of East with more bullshit from the pulpit with all the earnesty they can muster while remaining lost themselves as shepherd of the flock . . ..

Now notice please that females in their 'womanity' know exactly where Eden is at wherefore the soul of a woman is said to be 'as deep as wide waters are wide' and so 'new land' is found when she has no more to give which then is where she has emptied her man because that is where her world is at and there leads him to his own own end.

As for James? = no manger or figtree and just a brother of Jesus with no celestial sea to navigate but just the product of a [carnal] one night stand Billy Graham style.

Doug Shaver

And I would suggest that the reasonableness of any given construal always depends on the assumptions one is working under. I'm not claiming to work under no assumptions, just that I don't assume a couple of things that nearly everyone else does.