Metacrock is still apologizing...

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Metacrock
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 2:33 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Post by Metacrock »

ghost wrote:
Diogenes the Cynic wrote:The Gospel of Thomas claims right up front that it was written by Judas Didymus Thomas, the twin brother of Jesus.
I'm not entirely sure, but "Thomas" seems to have been an allusion to Marcus Antonius, flamen Divi Iulii. Sounds crazy? :crazy:
no it's a reference to Thomas Wolfe who made up Jesus and put his fictional character back in time by use of the TARDIS.
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/
Diogenes the Cynic
Posts: 502
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:59 pm
Location: Twin Cities, MN

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Post by Diogenes the Cynic »

Metacrock wrote:what makes it spurious ace?
GThomas? Are you serious? Do you believe all pseudepigraphical claims at face value?
claims to authorship. do you have any idea what you are talking about? there is no claim to authorship. you are actual trying to say that the redactors didn't know who the leader of their community was. that's brilliant.
What makes you think the redactor was part of the community that produced it? The GJohn appears to be a catholic domestication of an originally Gnostic work, so who was the community that really produced it. The original Gnostics or the catholic redactors?
apparently you didn't see what I said about the book did not include "by John" when it was first put about. that was put on latter, even after the committee of redactors.
Who wrote 2 Peter? Who wrote 3 Peter?
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Metacrock is still apologizing...

Post by neilgodfrey »

Metacrock wrote:
neilgodfrey wrote:
Metacrock wrote:sorry to be so pedantic. I said "my view is" you said "what's the evidence for this" so being the pedantic fart that I am... it's a curse, and a blessing. :lol: :confusedsmiley: :mrgreen:
A true pedant would know that a demonstrative pronoun substitutes for a noun when the noun can be understood from the context. (He would also know the true meaning of "pedantic" and be able to show minimal competence in punctuation.) You just demonstrated grammatical and semantic ignorance and perverse silliness. You need a smiley wearing a dunce cap.
so what you are trying to suggest is that I really didn't know what he meant becuase I'm a Chrsitians and are stupid so therefore I don't know grammar. That's your little idea of a clever come back?

a true comedian would know humor when he sees. but then little atheists don't have humor. they just literalistic minds that take stuff literally and the urge to mock. funny now illiterate people take stuff literally. how does that work? :confusedsmiley:
Not at all. You explained that you did know what he meant. It was BECAUSE you knew what he meant but chose to "jokingly" mis-interpret it as a "pedant" -- because of your genuine ignorance of the true meaning of "pedant" and ignorance of the correct grammatical use of the demonstrative pronoun* -- that made your "joke" just plain childish silliness.


(* = "this")
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Post Reply