Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Gamera · 12-07-2007, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

I know,

Apparently you do *not* know, since you're asking me to answer for an argument that I haven't made.

It is not my problem. And since I haven't addressed any part of the linguistic argument, it is impossible for me to be 'talking through my hat' about it. You, however, do appear to be talking out your ass.

Oh, and since spin himself appears to have answered your objections directly - without any rebuttal from you, I might add - one has to wonder why you keep pushing these arguments.

Quote:

Mark wrote in Greek, not Hebrew,

I am not spin.

What is it with the bible crowd here? First Gibson mistakes me for Ted Hoffman, now Gamera mistakes me for spin.

I know. You haven't addressed the linguistic issue. Mooting your argument.

Both you and spin keep making the same mistake and ascribe Mark and the gospel writers for limitations on Hebrew morphology when in fact they aren't writing in Hebrew. What do they care about morphological developments in the Hebrew word for rabbi. They weren't writing in that language.

By the way, what is it with the "nonbible" crowd anyway. I'm not in any bible crowd. I think Mark is probably a later work. My point is there's nothing anachronistic in Mark's Greek, which means that your arguments about a Hebrew word don't show any anachronism.

Gamera · 12-07-2007, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

The quotes you used are all in reference to Christ or involving/referencing Christ. You missed that important distinction I drew above.

None of this is responsive to the issue.

Yes it is.

Quote:

You need to address these issues rather than beating your breast.

Excuse me? I "need" to do nothing at all, not until Jeffrey finishes his can of worms first.

And if the day ever comes when I am uncertain of what to do and require advice, it will take someone of far more skill than you to be able to provide it.

Yep, you can't address the issue, mooting your argument.

Gamera · 12-07-2007, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Perhaps another member of the "Fantastic" Four (Gibson, SM, NR) trying to Defend against error in this thread could translate this. Than again, perhaps not.

Hrm, what does Jeffrey Gibson, Solitary Man, No Robots, and Gamera have in common?

Methodological rigor lacking in the OP?

Sheshonq · 12-07-2007, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

What is it with the bible crowd here? First Gibson mistakes me for Ted Hoffman, now Gamera mistakes me for spin.

I know.

Apparently you still don't know, since you keep bringing spin's argument back to me, and asking me to make it sing and dance for you.

Quote:

You haven't addressed the linguistic issue.

I have no obligation to, since I didn't raise it.

Quote:

Mooting your argument.

Uh, no. And unlikely that you would ever be able to spot any such "mooting".

And as I told you previously, attempts by "Me, Too" to bait me are a waste of your time.

Sheshonq · 12-07-2007, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Yes it is.

Excuse me? I "need" to do nothing at all, not until Jeffrey finishes his can of worms first.

And if the day ever comes when I am uncertain of what to do and require advice, it will take someone of far more skill than you to be able to provide it.

Yep, you can't address the issue, mooting your argument.

1. I don't have to address an issue which I didn't raise.
2. spin already addressed your issue, and you haven't defended it.

Game, set, match - and I wasn't even playing in the game with you & spin.

Solitary Man · 12-07-2007, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Hrm, what does Jeffrey Gibson, Solitary Man, No Robots, and Gamera have in common?

Methodological rigor lacking in the OP?

Blasphemy! mythicists don't need no rigour. they got intuition! just like good ol' aristotle, when he said that heavier objects would fall faster than lighter objects. methodological rigour. what a joke.

spin · 12-08-2007, 03:55 AM

[QUOTE=Gamera;5016583]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Apparently you do *not* know, since you're asking me to answer for an argument that I haven't made.

It is not my problem. And since I haven't addressed any part of the linguistic argument, it is impossible for me to be 'talking through my hat' about it. You, however, do appear to be talking out your ass.

For some reason Gamera is trying to speak about linguistics. I don't really care from which end he is making this attempt. Besides, how does one know which end with Gamera?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Both you and spin keep making the same mistake and ascribe Mark and the gospel writers for limitations on Hebrew morphology when in fact they aren't writing in Hebrew. What do they care about morphological developments in the Hebrew word for rabbi. They weren't writing in that language.

By the way, what is it with the "nonbible" crowd anyway. I'm not in any bible crowd. I think Mark is probably a later work. My point is there's nothing anachronistic in Mark's Greek, which means that your arguments about a Hebrew word don't show any anachronism.

While it "is probably a later work", the contextualization of the term is what is anachronistic. As I've said, you've already admitted the anachronism. NEXT!

spin

No Robots · 12-08-2007, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You've flitted from one approach to another with gay abandon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

You appear to be jumping from horse to horse, whenever your current mount looks to be stumbling.

Hey, you guys were giving me hell before for sticking with a weak source. This is a complex issue with writers on all sides. I'm not an expert on this. I hadn't heard of Hezser's theory. To me it makes sense. When Sheshonq first argued that the Jewish Encyclopedia didn't support my position, I went and reread the article. My impression was that there is certainly some kind of chicanery going on among scholars of Judaism to conceal/deny/obscure any evidence of pre-Christian usage of "rabbi." This is exactly what Hezser is arguing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

So which author do you want to stand by? Gerhardsson or Sim?

I'll take Gerhardsson for $500. Sim does indeed seem to attribute the rabbi references to Matthew and not to Christ. I've learned not to try to hold on to texts that don't help my cause.

Gamera · 12-10-2007, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

[

While it "is probably a later work", the contextualization of the term is what is anachronistic. As I've said, you've already admitted the anachronism. NEXT!

spin

The dating of Mark has nothing necessarily to do with the use of the Greek transliteration of "rabbi,' which may be as old as 100 bcc for all the evidence you provided (which is exactly zero).

Try to focus on one topic at a time.

Gamera · 12-10-2007, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Yep, you can't address the issue, mooting your argument.

1. I don't have to address an issue which I didn't raise.
2. spin already addressed your issue, and you haven't defended it.

Game, set, match - and I wasn't even playing in the game with you & spin.

You do if you agree with the OP, which states that the use of "rabbi" in Mark is anachronistic. Mark is written in Greek.

So if you are backtracking, that's fine with me.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.