Re: Jesus Christ -- Clashing Biblical Images

Martin wrote:
"Weland" <giles@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:494acaf5$0$17069$6e1ede2f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Martin wrote:

"Weland" <giles@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:4942e61a$0$17070$6e1ede2f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Martin wrote:


"Weland" <giles@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:493eb459$0$17070$6e1ede2f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



Martin wrote:



"Weland" <giles@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:493c301f$0$17068$6e1ede2f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




D. Spencer Hines wrote:




Pogue Gans makes a total mish-mash of things every time he attempts to
discuss Christianity - modern or mediaeval.

He always comes at it from a religiously uneducated atheist's POV --
which is emotionally reinforced by his ethnic Judaism -- therefore he
brings a truckload of emotional baggage to the table -- and many, many
scars and slights -- both Real and Imaginary.

Vide infra pro risibus.

Oh Davey.......grow up.






The Roman Catholic Church during the medieval period was one




of those. The reason was quite simple: the Bible was *never*
regarded as the only source of God's will. In addition was
both custom (mainly oral tradition) and the writings of the
elders.


No. Gans, who is an atheist, gets it wrong.

But then he would wouldn't he.

The three pillars of spiritual knowledge are SCRIPTURE, REASON and
TRADITION.

Um, actually dear boy, Paul got it right. He said the "MEDIEVAL PERIOD", Reason was not in the medieval period one of the three pillars of spiritual knowledge in Early or Medieval Christianity. The formulation you give is post-Reformation.


You sound surprised?





REASON is particularly emphasized in the Church of England [Episcopal
Church]. The Church is quite Cartesian with respect to Right Reason and certainly is not in conflict with Science.

Indeed, and you'll note that the COE was formed in 16th century (post-medieval) and Descartes lived in the 17th century (post-medieval), so once again Paul's characterization of the medieval church stands.


Yet you are still trying to insist that we all believe in your (positively medieval) assurances that the gospels are unsullied by editing or modification Larry.

Except I've never made such a claim. I claimed that *your* characterization of the editing and modification and the extent of it and the motivations for it were historically wrong, something far different than saying that it didn't happen.


Therefore (try applying a little *logic* Larry - it is clearly strange to you) you are claiming that said 'editing' never happened?

No, I'm saying the editing you said happened didn't and the motivations you described weren't the reasons why things were edited or changed and that we certainly can not claim wholesale rewriting of the texts as you claimed.


There is a 'logical anomaly' here - which will not save you.

Yes, it is called Martin's thought, synonymous with logical anomaly.


As so clearly pointed out above, not the case... and that will not save you either.

I'm afraid it is the case: your consistent use of logical fallacies illustrates it well. As for "saving", I don't need saving: you do. I know you'll shout tha tyou don't, but anyone who refuses to quote his opponent damning himself when invited to do so either knows he's been perpetrating a lie all along and knows he's about to be caught or he's just stupid. Likewise, anyone in a debate like this who refuses to go to neutral and qualified parties and put forth his ideas knows he has no leg to stand on.


Are you saying that there WAS editing and changing, or not here?

I've been saying that there was editing and changing, I've in fact been
saying it all along. You just haven't been listening. Let's see if that can sink into the block of granite you call a mind and then let's see if we can make progress. Not holding out a lot of hope though.


You have now changed your sorry, discordant tune entirely!

Nope. I pointed out that there had been editing and changing on the first day I was involved in this thread, Oct. 14. I know you can't understand that, too stupid to go look, too inergetic to verify things.

Admitting fault
and having the decency to do so is a manly quality Larry,

I know! I wish you were man enough to exercise it! But you're not, so no expectations here that you will.

which we should
all celebrate. I have been reading, I have been listening - but (unlike you) I have also been thinking.

Oh, Martin, what you call reading, listening, and thinking other people call sleeping, eating, and farting! Please learn English....you can't think!

On that score, not wishing to be rude, you seem to be as well equipped to think as a mummified Pharaoh...?

Huh, but all those mummy movies show a pretty crafty mummified Pharoah out to get those who got into his tomb....



The above

pare is as full of double negative as the worst Paston letter!

Actually it isn't. There isn't a single double negative in my paragraph
above.


Triple and quadruple negatives don't count then - I said 'worse than', not 'as bad as'!

Demonstrating that you've no idea what a double negative is, nor triple or quadruple. We know this stuff is above and beyond you, Martin, but I do have to give you points for trying.


The word 'wholesale' is not, and never has been one of mine... so very 'Woolworths'.

Considering it predates Woolworths by several centuries, I'm not sure what your concern is. However, if you stop straining at the word itself a moment and consider that it describes your oft repeated position that the documents of the NT have been highly edited, perhaps even manufactured in the third century?


And just about to go bust as well... hmmm, you may be right for once!


I wish I did know exactly what editing and alteration took place, I really do... but I don't, and nor do you.

Well, more particularly, you wish you knew what actually happened, but you don't. And we get around to your rejection of modern critical tools in favor of your suspicions again.


No, though 'modern critical tools' must be used and applied (as any other tools) objectively, and without fear or favour.

But we've seen over the course of this thread that you've no idea about modern critical tools, and certainly don't have a clue about applying anything without fear or favour. Oh, you make all the right noises, but when it comes down to it, your skirts show through your trousers.

For the benefit of anyone
who has just seen our 'correspendence' and assumed it to be some unseemly 'row', would you care to explain and detail your haughty and vehement objections and beliefs one last time Larry?

Well, I don't have any haughty beliefs. I do have vehement objections to your claims that first century literature was "manufactured" in the third century or that in the third century the whole manuscript tradition was edited to "suit Roman tastes" based on nothing more than your suspicions and against all the historical evidence we have just to name a could quick things. I'll point again to my message of Nov. 30: http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.medieval/msg/e13ae9d53be78d58?dmode=source

Oh yes, Martin, I know you "responded" to it, but since there was little historical or of value in your response, the message still stands. I'll get around to dealing with your reply.


This is a golden opportunity to
'sweep me from the board' with your self-proclaimed genius... can't be fairer than that?

Where have I declared myself a genius? You're projecting again.



If only those precious originals hadn't

been chucked away, what a shame...

Immaterial.


No material in fact...no evidence, no case and no hope. And NO ammunition!

Dealt with already. One wonders why you keep repeating unhistorical nonsense?


The fact is Larry, I knew this subject would bring forth suicidal "defenders of the faith". It surprised me you were one (Michael sensibly withdrew before the big shells landed ), but that was the only surprise. My victory was always assured by your lack of ammunition....

Except I haven't been defending anyone's faith, certainly not one I hold, and you're still talking past the issue, addressing "suicidal defenders of the faith" that aren't part of this discussion. Hence your "victory" is only over the strawmen you've constructed and beaten down. Nothing to do with me.


Why have you made such a fool of yourself then?

If I have, its simply because I don't believe obvious historical errors should go by and become part of the record without comment.

You are part of this
discussion, since you have chosen, of your own free will, to throw yourself into a catastrophically hazardous breach, with no weapons, ammunition or support! If there's any 'strawman' here, it is the one you are burning in right now, like Edward Woodward... so silly... I couildn't resist applying a richly deserved match...

Wow....too stupid for words.


By insidting I am


wrong, you are claiming you are right - which you aren't!

Well, I am, but not by mere insisting. By dint of familiarity with textual criticism and how ancient texts come down to us. Don't believe me?


'Belief' doesn't come into it... you must know that by now?

Sidestepping the issue.


Red herring...

I know! You're consistent side-steppings of the issues presented are red herrings! Good of you to FINALLY realize it.


There are any number of discussion places on the Net for textual criticism, some of them not even religious such as Classics-L, join one and make your claims there and see the response you get. Tell us what one you're joining so a few of us can go over there too and make certain that its a qualified place, and that you are really reporting the responses accurately. I'm sure you'll find a way to wriggle out of this simple test.


They need a damned thrashing too, eh? Do it yourself Larry, you boring fellow. This is about hypocrisy, obfustication and your bloody minded refusal to see sense -

Indeed....yours. I knew you'd find a way not to have your "history" tested by historians other than me. And so we have all the evidence needed to ignore you.


There is, and never be, any such 'test'! Can't you see that?

I know! You're too chicken *** to have the courage to undergo such a test, to have your ideas examined by other professionals. That indicates that you know you're full of bovine feces.


This a 'qualified place' you patronising fool, and you have lost badly...

You're still not on the same field.


Clearly not.

At least you admit it!!!!!

Your sorry remains were stretchered off, several days ago...

Really? You think your string of nonsense, non sequitur, straw man arguments and erroneous facts have any results whatsoever? Well, we did determine you were on a drug induced trip...that explains your overblown sense of success.




You make demands on me I have no intention, need or necessity to answer...

No, I made a recommendation to bring in some folk whom even you might recognize as expert and who haven't been hitherto involved in the discussion and so have no reason to take sides other than based on the evidence. And it would be an easy way for you to say "See, real historians think as I do." The fact that you so vehemently refuse this simple test reveals that you know you've not a leg to stand on in any of your claims as regards history.


I wish they would, but they are probably too busy laughing at your dismal Hinesian downfall.

So let's go. Sign on the Classics-L list and let's repeat your claims and see the response you get. I'm alread on there waiting for you, Martin. So sign up. Its free, its unmoderated. I'll comment only to ensure that you're quoting yourself and me accurately, otherwise, I'll say nothing. So go ahead. Sign up, see what the professionals (other than me) say to your claims.

You will receive no support here,

Support? Why would I need support? Besides, one of the points I've been making for a long, long time has already been made to you by a third party.

and it is nothing
'personal' I assure you. I welcome criticism, it encourages thinking, learning and excellence in the realm of historical analysis.

Oh, that's a nice sentiment, but we know that you don't. Otherwise you would have been thinking about history in this discussion rather than anything else. That you haven't and have spent a great deal of time and effort on everything except history demonstrates that you make the right noises, but your actions are the opposite.


Bring it on.
I notice you are using the 'v' word there - maybe even you can learn Larry, legless or not!
Legless Larry... has a nice, medieval ring to it?

Mindless Martin. Martin-drunk Martin. Martinetish Martin. Recalcitrant Reboul. Marbleless Martin. Yes, all have nice rings to them, don't they?


I

am not 'your obedient servant', or humble student - quite the opposite!

Surely you don't think of yourself as my master? How funny!


Perish the thought! Better maybe, 'conqueror' perhaps, superior quite obviously... but I don't go in for 'slave' stuff, very tacky...

HA! That's not what your ex said! Braggadacio will not save you, Marbleless Martin the Unchuffed Chufflehead.



You
couldn't teach a five year old with manners like that.

A pompous, arrogant windbag, unqualified and totally inadequate to debate, discuss or argue in the arena of Usenet or anywhere else.... that's you, that is!

The usual refuge of those who've lost the debate.


Oh Larry... humourless as well as ignorant and unworldly, you entirely miss the point again...

You had a point? Doubtful.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09NNMIpVlrw

That really is you, that is!

Its always been a funny bit....but it does show us what you think of history and historians...its no wonder you got it all wrong!


Clearly the 'Age of Reason' was just something that
happened to other people...

Apparently not to you.


I'm afraid it has just started Larry -

Your lack of experience with the Age of Reason? Yes, we can see that this is just the tip of iceberg.


Reason - something entirely alien to you? This is the Age of the Painfully Obvious...


I know! And you still can't get it when its staring you in the face!


Yet I can plainly see past the wood to the tress and beyond...

Sure you can, Machinating Martin the Oblivious.....self-delusions will carry you a long, long way.

when you are
stuck in a small cowpat, whining "there aren't any such things as leaves, its too foggy to see them anyway!", unaware your glasses have steamed up.

What? You've fallen face first in cow dung? Well, that explains a great deal about what you can and cannot see! Didn't the smell tell you anything...oh wait, you're oblivious.....

>>>you are witnessing the beginning of

it. Don't become one of its first victims!




<snip>


You may well 'snip'... but it will not save you!

Ah, Martin, take your medication please.


I always do, which is why I am obviously so much sharper and further ahead of you Larry.


Yes, most people who are high really think that the drug has made them sharper, better, more aware when the opposite is the case. Its called a trip, dude. Hope you're enjoying it.


Well, thank you for that Larry.... unfortunately for you, whether I am sober, mellow or tripping on acid, you have lost badly,

You've yet to engage in the discussion, so I've hardly lost, much less badly. Course if you continue in this vein, we may just have to say that your forfeit by reason of not showing up to the right field and I win by default.


But you can't even see the field? If you can, you've been cosistently avoiding it, going round in circles, laughed at by the crowd. Not my fault?

How would you know? That cow *** around your mouth is kinda revolting....besides, as I and others have now pointed out to ad nauseum you're mischaracterized my views and have been fighting the wrong battle on the wrong field for a long time now.



and that is clear for the world to see...

You and Antero are not the world.


I am enjoying it hugely!

Most people in the midst of drug induced hallucinations do, no surprise there.


Have you got some problem with drugs? I see signs of obsession here..

You have some self-awareness then! Yes, do get help with your obsession with drugs and your hallucinations. Please. Before you really hurt someone.


Sharpness should only worry you concerning the spike you are so cruelly impaled upon...

Looking at your strawman again....


Ahem! I could say "looking up your sorry behind", but wouldn't be so crude on a refined group such as this...

Well, that explains a good deal....that wasn't cow dung on your face! I just thought you were a stink flower and devicated, sorry, I didn't know it was your face down there! No wonder you can't see and smell so badly!

Sleep comfortably on your sharpened 'pillar of wisdom Larry'....

Actually, I put all seven of my pillars of wisdom together and cover their corinthian crowns with comfortable cushions and slumber peacefully and deeply. Enjoy your dung heap, Marbleless Martin....though in your state, you probably think its a palace. Martin's Motto: Edo faeces, Emitto faeces, Existimo faeces, Faeces Felicem Facit me.
.

Loading