Peter Kirby

No.

best,
Peter Kirby

Metacrock

i know. I'm just in a wired mood. I've been wrong before and I will be again. No biggie.


thanks man!

unknown4

I've been reading this thread, and I want to talk about the alleged early gospel of John fragment. First, does the fragment totally correspond to present day gospel of John (even this is problematic, as there are many variant copies)? I know that it's only a small fragment, so it would only be corresponding to a small portion of that gospel. Isn't there a lot of conjecture in order to say it's a part of that gospel? Not only that, isn't it possible that this passage was a source that John used, or perhaps just an earlier unknown gospel?

I see why an apologist would use the fragment as an argument for his beliefs, but to me it seems to be an assumption, which one could choose to believe or disbelieve. Also, I have doubts about just how accurate the dating is for these old texts.

Anyway, any info is appreciated. Thanks.

Vorkosigan

We all have a great sense of humor. But we can't tell your jokes apart. Try smilies -- no reflection on you, BTW, text doesn't convey emotions very well.

Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman

So, Tell us Toto, how did it go? Did you get a chance to ask Doherty questions?

Toto

There wasn't a lot of chance to question him. It's best to email him if you have questions.

Doherty has been distracted by having to earn a living and the technicalities of publishing his books, and has nothing new on the academic front right now. But he is an interesting person with unexpected talents.

spin

It would be helpful if you got more control on yourself and calmed down generally. You put some atrociously presented material out to represent yourself, material which shows that you rarely edit or even reread what you write. Beside that, you make recourse to ad hominem because others don't agree with your <ad hominem>harebrained</ad hominem> presuppositions. Do you think people really want to debate with a person who comes out with stuff like: "casue I'm a peice of shit. us peices of shit are always wrong. And being wrong on that fact just I'm wrong on everything right?"

You apparently neither reread nor edited these thoughts before you posted them in all their gory glory. And if they had been written to you, do you think you would appreciate them? I would think not. Nor would the casual reader. Such statements are crass and ill-thought out and so they must reflect badly on the writer by anyone's standards.

"Wired"? You sometimes give the impression of being certifiable.

You would get a better response here, if you showed yourself and others a bit more respect. I know that is hard because there are some angry people here who have just lost their religion and are smarting over their perceptions of being deluded, so they can say loud things. Well, you it seems have gone the other way. There isn't so much difference between you. Alternating current.


spin

Rick Sumner

I wouldn't be interested in a "debate" of that sort if I'd been the one going Nomad either Doherty managed to weasel his way out of a beating he pretty clearly hadn't prepared for. Rather surprising that he was seemingly so oblivious to what many--if not most--of his detractors consider the most serious caveat with his position. Equally startling was his clear desire to get onto what he considered more secure, which, again ironically, isn't what most of his supporters seem to endorse.

The invective made for an overall disappointing preformance by both parties, however for Brian it was largely a weapon, for Doherty it quickly became an excuse (how, exactly, he thought he could possibly be taking some sort of high road is beyond me, take this gem):
http://www.iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimate...c&f=8&t=000003

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Ted Hoffman

Your gift of seeing things differently is fascinating.

Metacrock

I really thought Nomad cleaned his clock. But I was dissapointed because he spent so much time on things that he himself wanted to see argued and ignored a lot of stuff that I felt would have been the real streangth of the ant-Doherty case.

But I'm so mystified as to why this is guy has the cult following that he has,and why for this fans, he can do no wrong. Even more preplexing, why is he so adored by people who don't buy his theory? Ask them, about 99% go "I think there was a historical guy Jesus, his story is lost to us and he's been embellished." I can even agree with that to some extent. But then they turn around and embrace Doherty as some kind of great scholar.

I'm sorry, I really don't mean to put anyone down, but everything I see the guy say is just plain wrong. I don't think his methods are very honest. But what I know?