Layman

I do not intend to refight whatever personal vendetta you have, or facilitate your intent to disrupt and distort this thread.

If you wish to start a personal screed threat against me please do. But while posting in this thread, please try and stay on topic.

We are discussing the "We-Sections" in Acts and whether they can be explained by a claimed literary device purportedly in use in contemporaneous Hellenistic literature.

Sauron

As long as you're looking up Fitzmyer, do you have any further quotations to support your claim that he believes the ossuary to be genuine?

Layman

I do not intend to refight whatever personal vendetta you have, or facilitate your intent to
disrupt and distort this thread.

If you wish to start a personal screed threat against me please do. But while posting in this
thread, please try and stay on topic.

We are discussing the "We-Sections" in Acts and whether they can be explained by a claimed literary device purportedly in use in contemporaneous Hellenistic literature.

Sauron

Nice try, Layman. But I tried starting a thread that was both on-topic, as well as focused entirely on the questions at hand.

But you failed to respond on the question of the Israeli Geological Services inside the appropriately named thread.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=41793

Ditto for Fitzmyer - no response in that thread, either:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=41785

Apparently when faced with the refutation of your position, you run and start a new thread, and pretend the previous claims didn't exist.

Layman

Your actions are becoming harassing. Simply because you post a personalized thread at me does not make it worthwhile responding to. Nor am I obligated to such. Nor does my declining to do such entitle you to harass me on other threads while completely ignoring the topic at hand. Moreover, your antics here perfectly illustrate why I dislike responding to you at all--whatever the topic.

As I said:

I do not intend to refight whatever personal vendetta you have, or facilitate your intent to
disrupt and distort this thread.

If you wish to start a personal screed threat against me please do. But while posting in this thread, please try and stay on topic.

We are discussing the "We-Sections" in Acts and whether they can be explained by a claimed literary device purportedly in use in contemporaneous Hellenistic literature.

Sauron

Nonsense.

You have outstanding claims that apparently have not held up under investigation. If a person has stated a position that is no longer defensible, then they ought to have the moral character to admit that fact. I don't think anyone would disagree with that rather tame statement - do you?

Your credibility would be enhanced by either defending the claims, or admitting that you might have overstepped and retracting them. Such an admission is not the end of the world, you know, Layman. We've all done it, from time to time.

Are you obligated to respond? Of course you're not obligated. But then we're free to conclude that you blustered your way through the earlier ossuary debate, and that you're running and backpedaling now, to cover that mistake.


What you dislike is consistency and being held accountable. I bring a lot of both to the debate, which you evidently find annoying.

Toto

This is where I see a disconnect. You may be right that there is no classical convention to use 'we' in sea going voyages, and that gLuke does not confine 'we' to sea going voyages. But it would take a lot more than this to show that gLuke was written by a companion of Paul, as opposed to someone composing a legendary account and writing as if he were a companion of Paul.

But I will reserve judgment until I see Robbins essay. And Happy New Year to you all.

Layman

I do not think that ruling out literary convention necessarily proves that Acts was written by a companion of Paul. But it knocks down a favorite skeptical obstacle to getting there.

Layman

I do consider your actions to be harassing. But worse, you may have once again destroyed any hope this thread had of turning into a real discussion. And it seems clear that such was your sole intention.

As I said:

I do not intend to refight whatever personal vendetta you have, or facilitate your intent to
disrupt and distort this thread.

If you wish to start a personal screed threat against me please do. But while posting in this
thread, please try and stay on topic.

We are discussing the "We-Sections" in Acts and whether they can be explained by a claimed literary device purportedly in use in contemporaneous Hellenistic literature.

Toto

I think that there are many more obstacles, (and I wouldn't call this a "favorite", since I have only seen two religious liberals use it), which is why the scholarly consensus is that gLuke was not written by a companion of Paul. But I'm hoping to leave work early and avoid thinking about this until I see what Robbins actually said.