I elemiated the post because all the side bar stuff was going to the bottom. I don't know why. I hope that fixes it.
I can't fix it. I need to hear from everyone wno post here If we just goon as iswould be ok Or shall I sart a new blog?
I watched your movie. I can't imagine why you would think it would debunk anyone. Ur's not intellectual although he's not dumb. He deals with most of the things people talk about when they are losing their faith. It had nothing intellectual daid nothing about the studies I use in my God arguments.
I was an atheist, I thought about all the things he talked about I found answers to them when I got saved.
Here's an idea: create a new tab, made the same way as the other tabs in your blog (not the Home tab). It should have the sidebar on the side. Then copy all the posts from the home tab to it. Then delete the current home tab.
I AM REALLY SCARE JOE TRUMP IS GOING TO BE OUR NEXT PRESIDENT AND THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO TO STOP IT WHAT CAN WE DO JOE WE STEARING A BEAR RIGHT IN ITS FACE WE HAVE TO STOP IT SOMEHOW TRUMP IS EVIL PUTIN LOVING DICTATOR WE MUST STOP HIM BUT HOW HE IS FOOLING MOST AMERICANS HE IS WINNING IN THE POLLS AND HAS AMMUNITION WE GOTTA FLEE THE COUNTRY I AM SCARE SHITLIEE JOE I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO HE IS GOING TO WIN!!!!
you are an idiot. Trump is a self-seeking criminal, he has no interest in helping anyone. Why do you blame Biden? Trump had one term as President He accomplished nothing.
first I was taken aback by the combination of (a) total rejection of and disinterest in even looking at a book directly and integrally material to your "On the Historicity of Jesus" work and niche in scholarship, sight unseen--on the stated grounds that it was written in the 19th century, combined with (b) the over-the-top bludgeoning, name-calling, and lecturing posture as if to a student when I am a colleague and a peer in a closely-related field to yours.
To get one thing out of the way quickly, scholars in collegial settings discuss unpublished work all the time. Scholars informally and formally routinely consider, respond to, and discuss ideas and proposals on the basis of experience with primary sources with no conscious restriction in conversation to "only what has been peer-reviewed published". Most papers presented at scholarly conferences, and much of the informal conversations at such and otherwise, concern work that has not yet been published. Comments to articles on this site at their best are something like those informal conversations and feedback at conference presentations.
The fact is your lack of knowledge of the argument of the George Solomon 1880 book, let alone addressing it, is a material omission in "On the Historicity of Jesus". It was a good-faith material omission since I have no doubt you, like I until recently, had never heard of it at the time you produced "On the Historicity". That however is not the case now, you have heard of it, and have given every indication that it is beneath you to look at it, or to understand its argument.
Whether after looking at it--if you do five years or ten years from now if ever--you do not find it convincing or that you disagree with it is beside the point here. The point is Solomon 1880 is not crank. It is as materially relevant to your niche of work as a published piece of work can be, but it was missed by you because not in the world of discourse with which
The over-the-top bludgeoning response combined with "I will not even look at it" (paraphrase) comes across as a reaction of perceived vulnerability. It is especially odd given what you wrote in "On the Historicity of Jesus", pp. 428-429, in which you yourself say that the Gospel of Mark's Passion Story of Jesus is drawn directly from Josephus's figure Jesus b. Ananias of the 60s:
"So the entire narrative of Mark is a fictional, symbolic construct, from beginning to end (. . .) Indeed, even how Mark decides to construct the sequence of the Passover narrative appears to be based on the tale of another Jesus: Jesus ben Ananias, the 'Jesus of Jerusalem', an insane prophet active in the 60s CE who is then killed in the siege of Jerusalem (roughly in the year 70). His story is told by Josephus in the Jewish War, and unless Josephus invented him, his narrative must have been famous, famous enough for Josephus to know of it, and thus famous enough for Mark to know of it, too, and make use of it to model the tale of his own Jesus. Or if Josephus invented the tale, then Mark evidently used Josephus as a source. Because the parallels are too numerous to be at all probable as a coincidence. Some Mark does derive from elsewhere (or matches from elsewhere to a double purpose), but the overall scheme of the story in Josephus matches Mark too closely to believe that Mark just came up with the exact same scheme independently. And since it's not believed that Josephus invented a new story using Mark, we must conclude Mark invented his story using Josephus--or the same tale known to Josephus."
That is reasonable and accurate analysis. But what you have not realized and evidently have not the least interest in learning, is that the stories of Jesus of the Gospel of Mark also draw no less substantially from Jesus b. Sapphat of the 60s, and are no less compelling as direct derivation, as you acknowledge in the case of Jesus b. Ananias of the 60s.
Again, the Jesus b. Sapphat source of Jesus stories of the Gospels is absolutely not crank. I know crank and this isn't. It is no more crank than Jesus b. Ananias as source of Jesus's trial and apocalyptic. Yet Jesus b. Saphat does not even appear in the index to your 696 pp "On the Historicity" addressing the question of whether the Christian Jesus was or was not a figure in history--not even mentioned in that entire study. With respect, failure to even mention, let alone address, Jesus b. Saphat in 696 pages addressing every other conceivable aspect to the question in "On the Historicity" is sort of like missing the barn door, or not seeing an elephant in the room. This is why I say your lack of discussion of the content of Solomon 1880--I do not mean agreement, but understanding and addressing the Jesus b. Saphat connections at all--is a material omission in your otherwise highly worthy discussion.
Both my m.a. advisor at Cornell, Martin Bernal, author of Black Athena, and then Thomas Thompson at Copenhagen with my dr. degree, talked a lot about the sociology of scholarship, not simply the content of scholarship. My first publication foray crossing over from Qumran to Christian origins is, "Was Josephus's John the Baptist Passage a Chronologically Dislocated Story of the Death of Hyrcanus II?", published in the 2020 Thomas Thompson festschrift and accessible on my page on academia.edu.
Back to tone, I will leave this discussion since the bludgeoning and threat-attack mode is so offputting. You can have any last word if you like. You will get no war from me.
You come here, take advantage of all our social institutions - education, welfare, social security, medical, dental, the best jobs on the planet, the best food and technology, freedom to say or do things that land you in jail in most other countries - then use the very rights our Constitution affords to openly call for "death" to our country, while trying to turn US into the third world shithole you escaped.
34 comments:
Sidebar is still at the bottom.
is it now? see it on the side
I see it on the side
I still see it on the bottom.
You don't have to have the sidebar information at the side. It's ok at the bottom.
You deleted your video cause' your were DEBOONKED. Here is a video that further debunks Sloppy Joe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idaRtqvOwm4
I thnk the intelligent people who post here, in other words not you , will know the reason is that side bar stuff
I watched your movie. I can't imagine why you would think it would debunk anyone. Ur's not intellectual although he's not dumb. He deals with most of the things people talk about when they are losing their faith. It had nothing intellectual daid nothing about the studies I use in my God arguments.
I was an atheist, I thought about all the things he talked about I found answers to them when I got saved.
btw atheist you said I deleted my video, I never put up a video..
It is at the bottom for me to, but not a problem for me.
pix
But you have a post missing "empty tomb dated to mid first century". What happened to that?
Pix
I eliminated it in an attempt to bring back the side bar
I eliminated it in an attempt to bring back the side bar
how does the side bar look now?
Joe: I eliminated it in an attempt to bring back the side bar
Sorry, should have read the post.
Pix
Does this look like a good resource to you Joe?:
https://www.amazon.com/Believers-Bible-Commentary-William-MacDonald/dp/0785212167/ref=asc_df_0785212167/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312154644197&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=2636474721076676942&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9019203&hvtargid=pla-582923598209&psc=1&mcid=bdb2757a88d13fda9e7e8aa2849bc9ea&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI6-qo3o_-hAMVVQutBh35own4EAQYBCABEgIs7vD_BwE
Where did all your links to other sites go?
I took them off. If I get to a minimal amount maybe it wont mtter if they are at the bottom
"Or shall I sart a new blog? "
Here's an idea: create a new tab, made the same way as the other tabs in your blog (not the Home tab). It should have the sidebar on the side. Then copy all the posts from the home tab to it. Then delete the current home tab.
The resurrection story makes no sense:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HM1cI2J8dc
the arguments on that site are just schlock. Not worth our attention.
I AM REALLY SCARE JOE TRUMP IS GOING TO BE OUR NEXT PRESIDENT AND THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO TO STOP IT WHAT CAN WE DO JOE WE STEARING A BEAR RIGHT IN ITS FACE WE HAVE TO STOP IT SOMEHOW TRUMP IS EVIL PUTIN LOVING DICTATOR WE MUST STOP HIM BUT HOW HE IS FOOLING MOST AMERICANS HE IS WINNING IN THE POLLS AND HAS AMMUNITION WE GOTTA FLEE THE COUNTRY I AM SCARE SHITLIEE JOE I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO HE IS GOING TO WIN!!!!
We are all scared.
Pix
I am afraid. Good time to trust God. If I could leave I would.
FWIW Radical Jihadists are at war with Israel.
Hamas has American hostages.
Pro-Hamas radicals have infiltrated American schools and communities, including SM; harassing and assaulting Jews and Christians.
Hezbollah terrorists have been apprehended at the US border.
ISIS is murdering Russians.
Islamic Terrorism is a serious problem.
If you support Biden, you're an idiot and a traitor.
you are an idiot. Trump is a self-seeking criminal, he has no interest in helping anyone. Why do you blame Biden? Trump had one term as President He accomplished nothing.
Mr Atheist wont be with us anymore. He contributed no intellectual content. We have two rules: be interesting be nice. he was neither.
R.I.P., Mr. Atheist
Congratulations on the return of the proper sidebar.
first I was taken aback by the combination of (a) total rejection of and disinterest in even looking at a book directly and integrally material to your "On the Historicity of Jesus" work and niche in scholarship, sight unseen--on the stated grounds that it was written in the 19th century, combined with (b) the over-the-top bludgeoning, name-calling, and lecturing posture as if to a student when I am a colleague and a peer in a closely-related field to yours.
To get one thing out of the way quickly, scholars in collegial settings discuss unpublished work all the time. Scholars informally and formally routinely consider, respond to, and discuss ideas and proposals on the basis of experience with primary sources with no conscious restriction in conversation to "only what has been peer-reviewed published". Most papers presented at scholarly conferences, and much of the informal conversations at such and otherwise, concern work that has not yet been published. Comments to articles on this site at their best are something like those informal conversations and feedback at conference presentations.
The fact is your lack of knowledge of the argument of the George Solomon 1880 book, let alone addressing it, is a material omission in "On the Historicity of Jesus". It was a good-faith material omission since I have no doubt you, like I until recently, had never heard of it at the time you produced "On the Historicity". That however is not the case now, you have heard of it, and have given every indication that it is beneath you to look at it, or to understand its argument.
Whether after looking at it--if you do five years or ten years from now if ever--you do not find it convincing or that you disagree with it is beside the point here. The point is Solomon 1880 is not crank. It is as materially relevant to your niche of work as a published piece of work can be, but it was missed by you because not in the world of discourse with which
were familiar when you did that work.
The over-the-top bludgeoning response combined with "I will not even look at it" (paraphrase) comes across as a reaction of perceived vulnerability. It is especially odd given what you wrote in "On the Historicity of Jesus", pp. 428-429, in which you yourself say that the Gospel of Mark's Passion Story of Jesus is drawn directly from Josephus's figure Jesus b. Ananias of the 60s:
"So the entire narrative of Mark is a fictional, symbolic construct, from beginning to end (. . .) Indeed, even how Mark decides to construct the sequence of the Passover narrative appears to be based on the tale of another Jesus: Jesus ben Ananias, the 'Jesus of Jerusalem', an insane prophet active in the 60s CE who is then killed in the siege of Jerusalem (roughly in the year 70). His story is told by Josephus in the Jewish War, and unless Josephus invented him, his narrative must have been famous, famous enough for Josephus to know of it, and thus famous enough for Mark to know of it, too, and make use of it to model the tale of his own Jesus. Or if Josephus invented the tale, then Mark evidently used Josephus as a source. Because the parallels are too numerous to be at all probable as a coincidence. Some Mark does derive from elsewhere (or matches from elsewhere to a double purpose), but the overall scheme of the story in Josephus matches Mark too closely to believe that Mark just came up with the exact same scheme independently. And since it's not believed that Josephus invented a new story using Mark, we must conclude Mark invented his story using Josephus--or the same tale known to Josephus."
That is reasonable and accurate analysis. But what you have not realized and evidently have not the least interest in learning, is that the stories of Jesus of the Gospel of Mark also draw no less substantially from Jesus b. Sapphat of the 60s, and are no less compelling as direct derivation, as you acknowledge in the case of Jesus b. Ananias of the 60s.
Again, the Jesus b. Sapphat source of Jesus stories of the Gospels is absolutely not crank. I know crank and this isn't. It is no more crank than Jesus b. Ananias as source of Jesus's trial and apocalyptic. Yet Jesus b. Saphat does not even appear in the index to your 696 pp "On the Historicity" addressing the question of whether the Christian Jesus was or was not a figure in history--not even mentioned in that entire study. With respect, failure to even mention, let alone address, Jesus b. Saphat in 696 pages addressing every other conceivable aspect to the question in "On the Historicity" is sort of like missing the barn door, or not seeing an elephant in the room. This is why I say your lack of discussion of the content of Solomon 1880--I do not mean agreement, but understanding and addressing the Jesus b. Saphat connections at all--is a material omission in your otherwise highly worthy discussion.
Both my m.a. advisor at Cornell, Martin Bernal, author of Black Athena, and then Thomas Thompson at Copenhagen with my dr. degree, talked a lot about the sociology of scholarship, not simply the content of scholarship. My first publication foray crossing over from Qumran to Christian origins is, "Was Josephus's John the Baptist Passage a Chronologically Dislocated Story of the Death of Hyrcanus II?", published in the 2020 Thomas Thompson festschrift and accessible on my page on academia.edu.
Back to tone, I will leave this discussion since the bludgeoning and threat-attack mode is so offputting. You can have any last word if you like. You will get no war from me.
Reply
If you don't love America, leave it.
You come here, take advantage of all our social institutions - education, welfare, social security, medical, dental, the best jobs on the planet, the best food and technology, freedom to say or do things that land you in jail in most other countries - then use the very rights our Constitution affords to openly call for "death" to our country, while trying to turn US into the third world shithole you escaped.
F**k you, creep.
Post a Comment