That Sinaiticus Show

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 763
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: That Sinaiticus Show

Post by Jax » Tue Sep 03, 2019 12:49 pm

Steven Avery wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 11:55 am
Sort of a silly waste-of-time comment - especially since I accept the authorship attribution of the Pastorals.
Based on what? What evidence convinces you that the pastorals are authentic to Paul?

Steven Avery
Posts: 547
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: That Sinaiticus Show

Post by Steven Avery » Tue Sep 03, 2019 2:28 pm

We had a fine discussion of this on Xtalk back in 2005, on yahoogroups, still online.

Off-topic and a diversion on this thread.

User avatar
Jax
Posts: 763
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: That Sinaiticus Show

Post by Jax » Tue Sep 03, 2019 2:51 pm

Steven Avery wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 2:28 pm
We had a fine discussion of this on Xtalk back in 2005, on yahoogroups, still online.

Off-topic and a diversion on this thread.
Link?

Steven Avery
Posts: 547
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: That Sinaiticus Show

Post by Steven Avery » Tue Sep 03, 2019 3:28 pm

Here is a post where I discussed Paul quoting Luke as scripture in 1 Timothy 5:18

[XTalk] Re: Dating of Mark
Steven Avery - Sept 17,2005
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/cro ... pics/19565

There was actually some good support for Paul-Timothy-Luke reference, based on the sameness of words and probability.
However, I do not think I have the full discussion bookmarked as one unit.

There was also a discussion on Xianity, that one was on 2 Peter.

Beyond that, anything more needs its own thread separate from this Sinaiticus study.

User avatar
Jax
Posts: 763
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: That Sinaiticus Show

Post by Jax » Tue Sep 03, 2019 4:12 pm

Steven Avery wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 3:28 pm
Here is a post where I discussed Paul quoting Luke as scripture in 1 Timothy 5:18

[XTalk] Re: Dating of Mark
Steven Avery - Sept 17,2005
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/cro ... pics/19565

There was actually some good support for Paul-Timothy-Luke reference, based on the sameness of words and probability.
However, I do not think I have the full discussion bookmarked as one unit.

There was also a discussion on Xianity, that one was on 2 Peter.

Beyond that, anything more needs its own thread separate from this Sinaiticus study.
Thank you

Steven Avery
Posts: 547
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: That Sinaiticus Show

Post by Steven Avery » Tue Sep 03, 2019 10:06 pm

Yw. I should consider extracting the highlights of the thread. James McGrath made a legitimate contribution, and a poster or two on the more skeptical side was refreshingly honest about the probability question on the words 1 Timothy 5:8 being compared to the Luke verse. And we went over 5 or 10 arguments in general, if I remember right.

Maestroh
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: That Sinaiticus Show

Post by Maestroh » Sat Sep 28, 2019 4:17 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Sat Aug 31, 2019 4:57 pm
Potty-mouth vulgarity.

From a supposed Christian.
I presume you think God looks in passing at your own lying, eh?

Incidentally, you better familiarize yourself with Paul's own use of vulgarity.

Maestroh
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: That Sinaiticus Show

Post by Maestroh » Sat Sep 28, 2019 4:20 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Sat Aug 31, 2019 6:45 pm
Just curious Steve. I've come up with a lot of theories - many stupid. Does it ever cross your mind that you might be wrong? I understand it might be hard to speak candidly in front of a group of people you are obviously trying to win over to the correctness of your views. But I was wondering about what are the odds - do you think - you might be wrong? How likely to do think it might be that Sinaiticus WASN'T fabricated by Simonides? That it is exactly what it appears to be - i.e. from antiquity? What are the odds? 10 - 90? 20 - 80? Just wondering ...
You have to understand.....like Donald Trump won't admit to having sex with Stormy Daniels (he apparently paid her $130,000 for.......nothing), this guy is never under any circumstances EVER going to admit he's wrong.

He has zero knowledge of paleography.
He cannot even read the document about which he pontificates so uselessly.

But because he's a KJVO, you see, this lie to himself is necessary.

It is also necessary that he lie to others to protect his mind from the truth that as Nicholson said, he cannot handle.

Maestroh
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: That Sinaiticus Show

Post by Maestroh » Sat Sep 28, 2019 4:24 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Sun Sep 01, 2019 12:39 am
Secret Alias wrote:
Sat Aug 31, 2019 6:45 pm
Just curious Steve. I've come up with a lot of theories - many stupid. Does it ever cross your mind that you might be wrong? I understand it might be hard to speak candidly in front of a group of people you are obviously trying to win over to the correctness of your views. But I was wondering about what are the odds - do you think - you might be wrong? How likely to do think it might be that Sinaiticus WASN'T fabricated by Simonides? That it is exactly what it appears to be - i.e. from antiquity? What are the odds? 10 - 90? 20 - 80? Just wondering ...
Actually Sinaiticus does not appear to be from antiquity.

That is abundantly clear from pictures, videos, descriptions, the Morozov examination, and comparisons to actual ancient manuscrips. Also by textual connections. The overall condition, ink and parchment, and the colouring element, are only consistent with a modern ms.

This is before one examines the historical imperative.

Let’s clarify that key wrong assumption first.

======

Potty-mouth arguments are junque. If others see something they think is worthwhile, they are welcome to share the ponts in their own words. This is too important for the gutter approach.

Look, folks, this guy has been dodging basic questions asked NICELY for years.

He's little more than a guy with a search browser and an active imagination.

It wouldn't be so bad except he wants to be taken seriously.

Here's the difference: when he PICKED THE FIGHT WITH ME FIRST a dozen years ago, I challenged him to a public debate because it's pretty obvious he doesn't have a clue what he's saying. The thing is - he knows this, so this pretense of "being open" and "iron sharpeneth" and his other false pious cliches simply fall on deaf ears.

There's a reason he doesn't come back at me head-on but hides out and insults me on his own self-moderated forum. It's pretty easy for someone who has actually done legwork to understand how he doesn't even know the basics of any theological subject.

Thing is - he knows it, but he's never gonna admit it.


He figures, "As long as I never ADMIT it......it didn't happen!"
Last edited by Maestroh on Sat Oct 19, 2019 9:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

Maestroh
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: That Sinaiticus Show

Post by Maestroh » Sat Sep 28, 2019 4:26 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Sun Sep 01, 2019 12:51 am
Remember, I originally defended Sinaiticus authenticity, c. 2011.
Actually, I called you out on that, too because you PRETENDED you knew the story when you did not.

Steven Avery wrote:
Sun Sep 01, 2019 12:51 am
There is no faith-component issue involved. If Sinaiticus were a 4th-century ms., or 6th-7th century, it would have zero impact on my Bible and Christian views.
There are a whopping THREE readings in the modern NA28 found ONLY in Sinaiticus.

In other words, it wouldn't affect anyone else's, either.
Last edited by Maestroh on Sun Oct 20, 2019 6:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply