Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 03-10-2008, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CountryPreacher

Quote:

Originally Posted by schilling.klaus

the gospel of Mark is a scribble from mid to late second century by Roman Stoic powermongers who try to forge Christianity into a Roman cosmopolitan ideology exploting the commonly respected ancient prophesies of the Jewish Scripture.

Do you come by such an ignorant conclusion by accident, or do you have to work at such abject stupidity?

What makes you think that it is ignorant? Or that it could have been arrived at by accident? Why "abject"? Even if wrong, I don't see anything that would make you think "stupidity". schilling.klaus has this penchant for making unsupported pronouncements that are at least sometimes based on a lot of scholarship. But then all you are doing is giving a knee-jerk reaction through your own lack of knowledge, having been here for only a few days.

I've asked you to show that the gospel must be earlier than the second century. I cited the fact that the earliest written gospel known from primary sources is that of Marcion, followed by that of Luke. You didn't deal with the issue, yet here you are taking offense at the proposition that Mark is a mid to late second century work. (Well, yes schilling.klaus did say it with more hype.)

spin

CountryPreacher · 03-10-2008, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CountryPreacher

Quote:

Originally Posted by schilling.klaus

the gospel of Mark is a scribble from mid to late second century by Roman Stoic powermongers who try to forge Christianity into a Roman cosmopolitan ideology exploting the commonly respected ancient prophesies of the Jewish Scripture.

Klaus Schilling

Do you come by such an ignorant conclusion by accident, or do you have to work at such abject stupidity?

To Klaus and board,

I was not aware that insults were out of order so I apologize.

Please allow me to restate in a more civil way what I trust will be viewed as an acceptable way to express my opinion of the original quote to which I responded.

I guess that when one is so far removed from reality and any rational understanding of the issue there is nothing to say.

spin · 03-10-2008, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CountryPreacher

Quote:

Originally Posted by CountryPreacher

Do you come by such an ignorant conclusion by accident, or do you have to work at such abject stupidity?

To Klaus and board,

I was not aware that insults were out of order so I apologize.

Please allow me to restate in a more civil way what I trust will be viewed as an acceptable way to express my opinion of the original quote to which I responded.

I guess that when one is so far removed from reality and any rational understanding of the issue there is nothing to say.

I can't really comment on insults being out of order, but there must be an effort for content and/or relevant analysis, when you attempt to take a person to task. This means argumentum ad hominem is definitely not kosher.

spin

spin · 03-11-2008, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

"Straight history" is a very hopeful category. Tacitus might be called "patronized" history, as might Dio Cassius also be.

Well, sure, but I was actually contrasting this kind of history, whatever you want to call it, with biography.

Sorry, yes, I gathered that. I was attempting to delineate what I considered the problem inherent in the terminology of "straight history". Nothing is straight in this field!

Quote:

Now please don't let me interrupt you anymore in whatever it was you were doing.

.

I suggest we start a long, tedious thread on the topic, in which we investigate the matter from every possible angle, argue from obscure Greek and Latin morphemes, and exchange insults whose meanings are apparent only to the initiated.

Oh, I'd prefer Hebrew, but no-one's gets into HB here. Remember, I'm the resident linguist, so you have to suffer the infrequent obscure philology, but it's better to get the starting material right than waffle on about something that's misunderstood. (Then again, the misunderstanding might be key to the argument, so it might be clung to and the discussion closes down in the minutiae before the real discussion could get going, for if it had it would have ended with the clarification of the original misunderstanding. This has happened at least twice to my knowledge.)

And the side comments are always for the initiated. That's just part of the entertainment value. <wave>

spin

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.