Amaleq13

Sorry, I thought the sarcasm was obvious. I'll try to be less subtle in the future.

The rest of your response is just more false claims as anyone who read the earlier thread knows. There was nothing vague about the links or the questions. Certainly nothing more vague than the multiple-link Easter egg hunt you want to send SaintCog on.

Integrity indeed.

PS Calling members on game playing, hypocrisy, and false assertions is part of the job of moderator.

Orthodox_Freethinker

I see the point and acknowledge that it produces a rather interesting dilemma.

Steven Avery

For the umpteenth time, if you feel there are questions that need more complete answers, simply cut-and-paste them in the thread or rewrite them in your own words. Either one. To just say "go back and answer", and link to various earlier posts, each of which has their own subsequent dialog, and where the thread does have various answers to various questions, is simply a non-functional and arrogant methodology. Made that much worse by your dual moderator hat.

So again, I invite you to be a mentsch and do exactly that.. indicate what questions you would like me to answer in your current post on the thread.
Nuff said.

See above. Cog has done fine in our dialog, apparently appreciates the research, and has acknowledged one of the critical issues as posing a 'rather interesting dilemma.' His posts speak for himself much better than yours.

Shalom,
Steven
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

yummyfur

You do realize that SaintCog has not responded to you since your link post. No one has voiced apreciation for your links. It's Orthodox_Freethinker who said "it produces a rather interesting dilemma.", but his point had nothing to do with your link post. Your posts speak about yourself better than anyones.

Steven Avery

Thanks for the correction.

And you are the only one who <deleted insult> about a good bibliography of study for the ending of Mark, suprisingly calling an excellent list an "Easter-egg hunt". <deleted insult>

Now, Orthodox Freethinker is welcome to share back any way he wants. Perhaps extract one or two significant question from his original list. And at least he should indicate whether he is familiar with the Jim Snapp web pages since they definitely answer many of his questions and he many have never seen them before.

It is rather standard procedure to try to not to reinvent the wheel here. If we need another ending of Mark discussion, then take his post, and my original reply, and this one, and start another thread. Would be fine by me, as OF will probalby be far more sensible than the previous protaganist fighting the traditional ending.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery

Saint Cog, not OF. When there are substantive threads, it is hard to justify spending much time on amaleq <deleted insult>, however apology for the rush on the last post. Appreciate the correction, Yummyfur, I had noticed it after the post, but consider this all Shakespearan, much ado about less than nuttin.

Apikorus

Perhaps praxeus could try to answer SaintCog's carefully articulated points with summaries, rather than unhelpful links to ten pages of exchanges on other boards.

I'm always suspicious when someone responds with a barrage of links. Usually it means they themselves have no compelling response and just want to cloud things up so as not to lose face.

Amaleq13

praxeus,

There is no need to keep repeating your blatantly false description of your refusal to return to defending your position after the thread was derailed. As is plain to see there was no "dialogue" subsequent to the last two posts on the subject by Diogenes and myself. You simply stopped responding and took offense when I brought it to your attention. There is also no need to keep dragging in the irrelevant red herring of my moderator status. The request for me to rewrite all three posts is nothing more than a variation of the easter egg hunt you with SaintCog to endure and I am pleased that I am not the only member who recognizes the tactics for what they are.

I apologize to the other members involved in this thread for introducing this tangent and I do not intend to contribute to its existence beyond this post. I simply could not ignore the tremendous hypocrisy being displayed by someone who laments the lack of integrity in others so often. :wave:

SaintCog

I actually did, on Prax's recommendation, read the previous IIDB Mark ending thread in its entirety (I did not, however, read the material posted in the other 10 links as I have a life outside of this discussion board as well). And having done so, I concluded that there is simply nothing more to say on the issue. Praxeus points to the multiple patristic attestation and overwhelming late MS evidence and is content with that as conclusive evidence. His argument rests solely on external evidence and apparently dismisses internal evidence wholesale. Others, including myself, have found the internal and early MS evidence to be decisive, and that the patristic evidence only shows the long ending of Mark to have been added at an early date, say 2nd century.

The discussion at this juncture seems pointless. We cannot carry on a meaningful discussion about a specific text critical problem when we disagree so fundamentally about text critical methods and procedures. The result, as I just reviewed in the previous thread, is people talking past one another and resorting to ad hominem remarks. I'll pass on that, thanks. It seems to me that if something akin to the ending of Mark discussion is to continue, and be in any way productive, it would have to take the form of a method/theory discussion of textual criticism.

That's a discussion I wouldn't mind seeing at this point, and eventually participating in. But for my part, such participation would have to wait as the holiday season has now come into full effect and I must now spend my time with holiday-related activities and preparing/traveling for holiday-related activities.

Hasta for now.

Steven Avery

Amaleq, I noticed your little <edit> linking post when I returned from a few months abscense. The rest of the threads have mostly all been fine. For some reason you go on about this, and I will say it again.. .

SIMPLY ASK YOUR QUESTIONS ON THE THREAD ...

I will not go back and try to review a thread to try to figure out what questions YOU think need more input, when the thread goes in all sorts of directions with all sorts of questions and answers, answers that one person might consider satisfactory and another would not.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic