Brother Daniel

...and...

Relax, guys. Check your sarcasm detector.

TySixtus

How about if you don't have anything constructive to say, say nothing?

That's not sarcasm. It's a rhetorical question. Something we writers like to call a 'literary device'.

For reference, here is sarcasm:

Oh boy! I really like when people pop into a forum and have nothing creative to say, except that we should 'be nice' to people. I really, really do like that! Especially when they don't even have valid point! Gee, I wish it would happen more often!

How is that sarcasm? Really?!? It's a statement of someone's (as I like to call it) dubious deductive reasoning skills.

I'm getting the impression you have nothing to add to the actual topic?

Ty

Amaleq13

Ty,


The sarcasm was on the part of Steven Carr.

Brother Daniel was trying to point that out by suggesting the use of a detector in considering the post.

Welcome to IIDB. Eventually, you will not need a roster to keep track of the players.

TySixtus

I dunno.... it sounded to me like the comment was directed towards Me and SLD. He Brother Daniel quoted us, then wrote his 'Relax' thing. Looks to me like he was referring to us... but oh well. Don't really care either way. And thanks for the welcome.
Ty

Yahzi

I thought it was quite obviously directed at Carr. But then, misunderstandings often occur, especially in close proximity to sarcasm.

The point is not that you misread him. The point is Carr was being sarcastic, and actually agrees with you.

Steven Carr

I think I may have misremembered Wright in 'What St. Paul really said'. My apologies if I have done so.

If I remember correctly, Wright concludes , on the basis of the word 'zeal', that Paul was a zealous Shammaite Pharisee.

Wright continued 'Thus, while for modern Christians, zeal is "something you do on your knees, or in evangelism, or in works of charity," says Wright, "for the first-century [Shammaites] 'zeal' was something you did with a knife."
, according to the quote of him in http://www.wisdomofsolomon.com/ap.html

SLD

Wright is picking and choosing here; his sense of history is poor. There is no basis for concluding that Paul meant that he was part of the Jewish revolutionary movement of that time period. Such a conclusion contrasts with some simple other statements by Paul: 1) He was not from Israel, but in fact from Tarsus in Cilicia. 2) He was a roman citizen. 3) His family came from tent makers (probably were Defense contractors). 4) He was allied with High Priest - who supported the Roman rule (or at least did not oppose it). The idea that Paul was an agent of the High Priest but a member of the Jewish resistance is utterly contradictory. It's like saying he was white, but a black man.

Furthermore, the word zeal or zealous is used several other times in Paul's letters and in Acts - in places it clearly does not mean what Wright would have it mean. In 2 Corinthians, Chapter 9, he praises the zeal of Christians; in Galatians he says it is good to be zealous in good things; in 1 Corinthians, chapter 14 he encourages people to be zealous in spiritual gifts. Wright's case is thus extremely weak. Nowhere does Paul even hint he ever opposed Roman Rule of Judea.

SLD