Re: Maybe SRQ did not degrade as much as I thought...
- From: David <pchristainsen@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 01:27:50 -0700
On Aug 29, 2:41 am, Ian <ian.gro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 29 Aug, 03:39, David <pchristain...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...my SRQ correspondents never
got to first base because virtually all of them with but rare
exception
were far too busy disputing with me as opposed to having NORMAL
CONVERSATION that average people do every day of the week.
And your method of normal conversation is to go up to a group of
people and say "Kindly start discussing marriage. I shall contribute
something later, when I think you are ready" and then start whining
when they don't do as you ask, is it?
Ian
Normal method on my part, contrary to your description, is to hold
regular discussion with my pastor and a few other Christian minister/
priest
friends on how marriage may be strengthened.
Also, you are too bold for your own good because the SRQ Archives
are open for 10 years of Dr. Thiering. The archives show that my
description
is the truth - way too much dispute over Thiering conclusions on
Christian
Origins with little, if any, understanding of her scholarly method.
So,
you are misleading at best.
In a nutshell a whole team of new, young scholars needs to detail the
Essene
connection to the earliest Christians. Some mainstream scholars
besides Dr. Thiering have already identified James as Essene.
Since a sharp eye can read James' NT Letter and spot James' reference
to the Tongue as Essene, isn't it in the realm of possibility that
Jesus
was Essene when he was with the Zadokite priest - John the Baptist.
When Jesus split with John after his re-baptism to a new doctrine
in 29 AD, Jesus split with the Essenes and formed the Christian Party.
Ask me questions if you want the evidence.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- From: David
- Re: I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- From: John
- Re: I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- From: David
- Re: I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- From: Yowie
- Re: I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- From: David
- Re: I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- From: Yowie
- Re: I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- From: David
- Re: I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- From: Whiskers
- Re: I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- From: David
- Re: I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- From: Whiskers
- Maybe SRQ did not degrade as much as I thought...
- From: David
- Re: Maybe SRQ did not degrade as much as I thought...
- From: Yowie
- Re: Maybe SRQ did not degrade as much as I thought...
- From: David
- Re: Maybe SRQ did not degrade as much as I thought...
- From: Ian
- I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- Prev by Date: Re: I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- Next by Date: Re: I strongly object to how much SRQ has degraded
- Previous by thread: Re: Maybe SRQ did not degrade as much as I thought...
- Next by thread: Re: Maybe SRQ did not degrade as much as I thought...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|