Religions > Bible > For Darrell Stec, was: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
" Tom P" |
| Date: |
06 Nov 2006 01:18:54 PM |
| Object: |
For Darrell Stec, was: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels |
"Darrell Stec" <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote in message
news:4r17s0FothchU1@individual.net...
After serious contemplation, on or about Thursday 02 November 2006 3:30
pm Tom P perhaps from wrote:
While I have no prior experience with you, my experience with Mr. Stec
is that he is woefully uninformed as to the subject of ancient
manuscripts and their contents. In the past (See the thread "Whither
Philo" from last July and August for example), Stec made the rather
astonishing claim that no punctuation existed before the 4th century
and the equally absurd claim that the internal and paleographic
datings of manuscripts were inaccurate.
In Act III of Mozart's "The Marriage of Figaro" (more properly "Le Nozze Di
Figaro"), Figaro sings what translates roughly from Italian as "I do not
dispute what I do not know." That is sage advice, Mr. Stec. Perhaps you
should consider heeding it. Merely because you attended a minor seminary or
the equivalent at a monastery you will not or cannot name does not qualify
you as an expert in the Classics, classical languages, the dating of
manuscripts, or any other field. And your ignorance of ancient history is,
as you have demonstrated repeatedly, profound. I took Latin in high school
too. For four years. I remember the Latin rite too. And I also recall
that the Latin missals had facing page translations into the vernacular. So
what?
And yet you have failed to provide even one manuscript of the first or
second century that contained such punctuation.
How soon you forget, Mr. Stec. Actually, the catalogue data of certain of
many manuscripts containing punctuation was posted during our exchange on
June 15th, 2006. And, actually, I provided links to pages containing
facsimiles of more than one manuscript dated from the first and second
centuries that contain punctuation, Mr. Stec. You never did respond to that
insurmountable evidence which proved you were and are mistaken. It is all
archived at Google groups, Mr. Stec. You can find these messages containing
our exchange concerning punctuation at
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=whither+philo+punctuation&start=0&num=50&hl=en&lr=&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=6&as_miny=2006&as_maxd=16&as_maxm=6&as_maxy=2006&safe=off&filter=0
The information at that link above conclusively proves you are, to put it
charitably, mistaken. Not so charitably, you lie. Are you a nincompoop,
Mr. Stec? Why would you post such a silly and so easily proven lie when the
evidence is archived where anyone can view it? But to save you the effort
of looking it up, I have copied certain portions below. Happy Reading.
TomP wrote:
"By the way, how do you handle the
punctuation and spelling changes across the centuries,"
Stec wrote:
"Early manuscripts had no punctuation."
TomP wrote:
"Is that right? Are you restricting your declaration of immutable fact
to
early manuscripts in Greek and Latin? How do you define 'early'?"
Please name a 2nd century Greek or Latin manuscript that contains no
punctuation. Can you?"
Stec wrote:
"Please name a Greek first century Christian text that has been
carbon-dated as such. To my knowledge there are none."
TomP wrote:
"Radiocarbon dating is irrelevant. Oh, and you neglected to name 'a 2nd
century Greek or Latin manuscript that contains no punctuation.'"
Stec wrote:
"I don't think
there any for the second century either. If my memory serves me, I
believe 6th century is as early as they get with the vast majority
falling during or after the eleventh century."
TomP wrote:
"You again neglected to name a 2nd century Greek or Latin
manuscript that contains no punctuation."
Stec wrote:
"At any rate maybe you can point out the punctuation here:
http://www.igl.ku.dk/~bulow/Oxy1622.jpg"
TomP wrote:
"How can you conceivably make any assertion about what is or is not missing
from the numerous and large lacunae in a fragment such as this which is from
book ii of Thucydides?"
TomP wrote:
"Why not examine the photograph of ff. 15 and 90 of P. Chester Beatty II,
dated to the second half of the second century at
http://www.cbl.ie/imagegallery/gallery.asp?sec=3&order=1? Kindly explain
what the mark above and to the left of the omega in the seventh line from
the bottom? Kind of looks like a breathing mark to me. What do you think?
Or is a breathing not punctuation?"
Stec wrote:
"Maybe this is a bit more fair:
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/images/1235-1.jpg although
even the website this is found on doesn't admit to a first or second
century date
(http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/general.html)."
TomP wrote:
"Do you not know the date of Codex Vaticanus? Astounding . . . A hint:
it is not from the first or second century. So it is probably a good thing
"even the website this is found on doesn't admit to a first or second
century date." Do you honestly assert that punctuation was not used in the
4th century?"
TomP wrote:
"Why would you choose a 4th century manuscript, and especially Vaticanus?
There are stray marks all over the pages because of the pressing done during
the binding process and the marks of at least 3 correctors or editors.
Besides, Metzger claimed that: 'The Bodmer papyri and the Chester Beatty
papyri have only an occasional mark of punctuation. [Metzger then provides a
foot note which reads: 'For a list of papyri which have marks of
punctuation, see Guilelmus Flock, 'De graecorum interpuctionibus,'Diss.
Bonn, 1908, pp. 14 ff.].' In "Text of the New Testament," Oxford: Oxford U.
Press, 1992, p. 27. Do you think Metzger lied?"
Stec wrote:
"This one is dated to third or fourth century CE (sorry but first or
second century is about impossible to find)"
TomP wrote:
"Not if you know where to look. Books and articles in journals are far
better sources than google. Try any volume of the Oxyrhynchus or
Herculaneum papyri published by Oxford. If your library does not have these
on the shelves, they can obtain them via inter-library loan. Lots of
photographs of early manuscripts. You see, the research conducted by
various universities, museums, libraries, and private organizations such as
the Egypt Exploration Society are partially funded by the sale of the
photographs in editio princeps of the manuscripts they acquire. Thus they
often do not release very many to the internet to be bandied about, changed
at will by anyone with photoshop, and generally corrupted. I thought a
scholar such as yourself would know such things."
TomP wrote:
"However, to assist you, I offer this link to
http://163.1.169.40/cgi-bin/library?e=d-000-00---0POxy--00-0-0--0prompt-10---4------0-1l--1-en-50---20-about---00031-001-1-0utfZz-8-00&a=d&c=POxy&cl=CL5.1.55&d=HASH0180ea2c2d535dd853aa4971,
and gaze upon this heretofore unknown comedy of Menander. The manuscript is
dated to the late first/early second centuries."
TomP wrote:
"There is also a photograph of a fragment of Euripides' 'Alcestis' dated to
the first century B.C./first century A.D. at
http://163.1.169.40/gsdl/collect/POxy/index/assoc/HASH018c.dir/POxy.v0067.n4546.a.01.hires.jpg.
Do you think those nasty old Christians corrupted this one too? By the way,
what do you think that mark is between the theta and eta on the first line
is? What do you think the high dot just below and to the right of the first
mu on the fourth line and between the nu and the delta on the fifth line is?
You claim experience with ancient manuscripts, give us your learned opinion,
can you?"
TomP wrote:
By the way, there is a petition to a prefect dated to March, 179 here:
http://163.1.169.40/gsdl/collect/POxy/index/assoc/HASHcaaa/0d15c233.dir/POxy.v0065.n4481.a.01.hires.jpg
This manuscript has not been radiocarbon dated, so of course you don't
accept the dating, right? Don't you think the petitioner and the prefect
knew the date? Petitions to government officials are often reasonably time
sensitive, at least I would think so. Wouldn't you?"
And go back a few weeks, I posted some quotes by experts in the field of
paleography who explictly state the field is nothing but a guessing
game with no corroboration from science.
One difference between us, Stec, is that while I understand the limitations
of paleographic dating of manuscripts, I also understand certain of the
difficulties with dating manuscripts using Accelerator Mass Spectrometry,
which is the specific method of radiocarbon dating used to date what are
commonly called the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient manuscripts.
In what thread and on what date did you post these "quotes by experts in the
field of paleography who explictly state the field is nothing but a guessing
game with no corroboration from science"?
I posted quotes on June 28, 2006, in the "Whither Philo" thread by the
physicists who actually conducted the exact studies you yourself referred to
in your fruitless attempt to defend your position. I repost this extract
now:
These extracts are from "Atiqot," vol. 20 (1991), G. Bonani, et al.,
"Radiocarbon Dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls," pp. 27-32:
The fourth paragraph of this article on page 27, reads in part: "Paleography
is often a more accurate method of dating [than archaeological] -- the
history of Jewish scripts can be delineated in great detail, and
paleographers are in a position to ascribe dates within ranges of a half, or
even a quarter, of a century."
"The seventh paragraph on page 28 reads: 'The introduction of Accelerator
Mass Spectrometry (AMS) techniques, which requires amounts of 0.5-1.0 mg. of
carbon for dating (Wolfi 1987:1-13) has overcome the disadvantages of
standard radiocarbon dating.'"
"On the bottom of page 29, column 2, in the section titled "Results and
Discussion," reads: 'Good agreement between radiocarbon and paleographic
dates is also obtained.'"
"The last sentence of this article at the bottom of page 31 reads: 'Our
research put to test both the radiocarbon method and paleography; seemingly,
both disciplines have fared well.' Well Stec, that means that the
physicists who conducted these AMS analyses indeed do find paleographic
datings to be credible. So tell us, Stec, who does support your idiotic
supposition that paleographic datings are worthless?"
And then of course there are these lines by physicists at the University of
Arizona which appeared in "Radiocarbon," vol. 37, No. 1, 1995, pages 15-16,
in an article titled, "Radiocarbon Dating of Scrolls and Linen Fragments
from the Judean Desert," in the section titled "Comparison of Results with
the Calibration Curve." "The individual points are obtained by plotting the
measured conventional 14C (carbon 14) ages of the samples on the ordinate
vs. the estimated paleographic ages of the samples on the abscissa. The
fact that the individual points plot within 2 sigma of the calibration curve
indicates that the 14C (carbon 14) and paleographic ages are in reasonable
agreement. It is interesting that the three date bearing papyri are all of
approximately the same age, and there is a tendency for our measured age
ranges to be on the younger side of these known ages. It is possible that
the calibration curve for AD 135 should be slightly lowered, as its position
appears to be determined by a single point in the 20 yr calibration curve
(Stuiver and Pearson 1986)."
Read that again, Stec, slowly so you actually understand it. A physicist
who actually conducted the radiocarbon dating analyses during a study you
tried to cite during our June exchange wrote those words. And, Stec, "Good
agreement between radiocarbon and paleographic dates is also obtained" and
"Our research put to test both the radiocarbon method and paleography;
seemingly, both disciplines have fared well." And again Stec, "The fact
that the individual points plot within 2 sigma of the calibration curve
indicates that the 14C (carbon 14) and paleographic ages are in reasonable
agreement." Not only that, but the physicist who conducted the radiocarbon
datings suggested that the calibration curve should be adjusted to agree
with internally dated manuscripts. And that, Stec, is what paleography and
physics have in common, and how closely paleographic dating and radiocarbon
dating are related, and how radiocarbon and paleographic dating complement
and reinforce each other. And these quotations by named physicists clearly
contradict your "experts in the field of paleography who explictly state the
field is nothing but a guessing game with no corroboration from science."
Who should your readers believe, Stec? The physicists who actually
conducted the radiocarbon dating tests on ancient manuscripts whose work I
cited fully and can be examined by anyone, or Darrell Stec who has proven
himself consistently mistaken in all facets of manuscript dating?
By the way, Stec, you spent much of your posts last June whining about your
inability to find sources. Strange, isn't it, how this "uneducated truck
driver from the Deep South" as you inaccurately phrased it, can find and
obtain copies of articles from the scholarly journals reporting the results
of radiocarbon analyses of ancient manuscripts, but you are unable to keep
up or even do it yourself. Why do you think you are unable to keep up with
this "uneducated truck driver," Stec?
I also wrote this back in June, Stec:
"You might also consult S. Ivy, et. al.'Radiocarbon Dating of Fourteen Dead
Sea Scrolls,' 'Radiocarbon' vol. 34, pages 843-49, and A. Jull, et. al.,
'Radiocarbon Dating of Scrolls and Linen Fragments from the Judean Desert'
in 'Atiqot' vol. 28, pages 85-91. There is also much useful information in
G. Doudna, 'Dating the Scrolls on the Basis of Radiocarbon Analysis,' in
'The Dead Sea Scrolls After 50 Years,'
1:452. And you obviously need all the useful information you can get. You
might also consult "The Boon and Bane of Radiocarbon Dating" by
Guilderson, et al., in 'Science' 21 January 2005, 307: 362-364. I can
refer you to more studies concerning the radiocarbon dating of manuscripts
from classical antiquity. Much work has been done on the Dead Sea Scrolls
since Robert Eisenman and Philip Davies prodded the Israel Antiquities
Authority into allowing the destruction of small samples from certain of the
Dead Sea Scrolls in 1991 for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry analysis. Do you
have any idea how any of those AMS analyses turned out relative to the
paleographical datings? A very well referenced and heavily end noted
discussion can be found in Chapter 2 of the J. Vanderkan & P. Flint 2002
book 'The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls.'"
No lies. Anyone can obtain copies of these articles. Anyone can read these
articles. Anyone can read my original post, even you, Mr. Stec. It and our
entire exchange is
archived at
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.atheism/browse_thread/thread/d330462ecf6020f4/a8d50643c5544f74?lnk=st&q=whither+philo+radiocarbon&rnum=2&hl=en#a8d50643c5544f74.
Gosh, rereading that exchange between you and me, I see you also got the
oldest manuscript of Tacitus' "Annals" wrong by a couple centuries or so
too. You are a hoot, Mr. Stec.
You sir are a fundie liar and perhaps know a little something of late
middle age manuscripts but beyond that your education is abysmal.
Actually, I hold no fundamentalist religious beliefs at all. Never did. You
have made a fundamental error, Mr. Stec (pun intended).
You jumped to an unwarranted conclusion and presumed that because I can
point out the really obvious gaps in your knowledge and gaffes in your
presentation, that I must be at the opposite extreme of the theist spectrum
from yourself. The fault here is not with my education, but with your
obvious lack of information concerning those areas you try to dispute. You
should take Figaro's advice and not dispute what you do not understand.
Whatever faults there are with my education, I have always been able to stay
a step ahead of you.
As
you yourself claim, you are an uneducated truck driver from the Deep
South bible belt.
You should read more carefully, Mr. Stec. I am indeed a truck driver from
the Bible Belt. But I never claimed to be from either the "Deep South" nor
did I claim I was uneducated. You have a tendency to exaggerate what you
have read.
And actually, I have no idea what you mean by"middle age manuscripts." Do
you mean manuscripts from the Medieval period of history? Sorry, but other
than having read a couple dozen histories and a couple dozen or so literary,
philosophical, and theological
works, I have no other background in the study of the Middle Ages. I am far
better read in the classics, ancient history, and the modern period than I
will ever be in Medieval studies. But I can get by in Greek and Latin, and
at least I do recognize punctuation when I see it on a page. Don't you wish
you had learned that skill before you posted your nincompoopery that, "Early
manuscripts had no punctuation"?
A thought just occurred to me, Stec. I posted links to Greek manuscripts
from the first and second centuries that clearly and obviously contain
punctuation, and referred you to photographs in books of manuscripts which
contain even more punctuation from the first and second centuries. You
never replied indicating that you had examined the manuscripts that clearly
and obviously contain punctuation to anyone capable of reading them. Was it
just embarrassment that you had been exposed as either mistaken or
dishonest? Well, that is understandable, Stec. But considering all of
these early manuscripts were written in Greek uncials, they are difficult to
read. And unless one does have experience reading Greek uncials, the letters
are a hopeless jumble. And certain early punctuation marks can look very
much like parts of partly obscured uncial letters or even stray marks on the
page. So quite naturally, someone trained only in the modern minuscule
Greek commonly taught in colleges and universities, or even in monasteries,
would not be able to recognize punctuation. I suspect that is the case with
you, Stec. You don't have sufficient training to recognize Greek
punctuation, and you are too proud to admit it.
You have always been cagey about your actual education, implying that
because you were resident in a Roman Catholic monastery for a time in your
youth you possess some extraordinary experience and training in classical
languages. You likely took instruction in Latin as part of your monastery
experience. But it is problematic as to whether you had any instruction in
Greek beyond a bare bones Koine course of one or two terms, especially in
religious orders of the Western Rite. Perhaps if you would reveal what
order you attempted to join and what monastery you served at and the length
of time you spent there, your story would be more credible. But claiming
such information is double super secret is just a lot of nincompoopery. And
harms your credibility, Mr. Stec.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
| User: "Kendall K. Down" |
|
| Title: Re: For Darrell Stec, was: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels |
07 Nov 2006 01:47:43 AM |
|
|
In message <454f8439$0$14820$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>
" Tom P" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote:
You have always been cagey about your actual education, implying that
because you were resident in a Roman Catholic monastery for a time in your
youth you possess some extraordinary experience and training in classical
languages.
Thanks, Tom. Most atheists dismiss the inhabitants of monasteries as
ignorant and bigoted. It would seem that in Darrell's case the allegation is
true.
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: " Tom P" |
|
| Title: Re: For Darrell Stec, was: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels |
08 Nov 2006 07:03:20 PM |
|
|
"Kendall K. Down" <webmaster@diggingsonline.com> wrote in message
news:201ef0814e.diggings@diggingsonline.com...
In message <454f8439$0$14820$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>
" Tom P" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote:
You have always been cagey about your actual education, implying that
because you were resident in a Roman Catholic monastery for a time in
your
youth you possess some extraordinary experience and training in classical
languages.
Thanks, Tom. Most atheists dismiss the inhabitants of monasteries as
ignorant and bigoted. It would seem that in Darrell's case the allegation
is
true.
Ken Down
Apparently so . . . now he will attack me again. Just watch . . .
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: For Darrell Stec, was: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels |
08 Nov 2006 04:32:55 PM |
|
|
After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 07 November 2006 2:47
am Kendall K. Down perhaps from wrote:
In message <454f8439$0$14820$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>
" Tom P" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote:
You have always been cagey about your actual education, implying that
because you were resident in a Roman Catholic monastery for a time in
your youth you possess some extraordinary experience and training in
classical languages.
Thanks, Tom. Most atheists dismiss the inhabitants of monasteries as
ignorant and bigoted. It would seem that in Darrell's case the
allegation is true.
Ken Down
You idiot. If anything inhabitants of monasteries would be bigoted
TOWARDS faith and religion not away from it.
And TomP by his own admission states he has had little formal education,
in fact he stipulates (or rather like most fundies wears it as a badge
of admiration) he is an uneducated truck driver living in the Deep
South Bible Belt.
And I have covered my education somewhat extensively over the years on
Usenet. There was nothing vague about it. His comments are simply
referencing what little I said in one thread.
And by the way, you might be confused as was he about monasteries.
Seminarians and priests live in a monastery if they belong to one of
the Religious Orders. Parish priests do not. As a rule, religious
orders give a longer, deeper education that that of a parish priest.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
| User: " Tom P" |
|
| Title: Re: For Darrell Stec, was: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels |
08 Nov 2006 09:07:52 PM |
|
|
"Darrell Stec" <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote in message
news:4rf48aFqlvmfU1@mid.individual.net...
After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 07 November 2006 2:47
am Kendall K. Down perhaps from wrote:
In message <454f8439$0$14820$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>
" Tom P" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote:
You have always been cagey about your actual education, implying that
because you were resident in a Roman Catholic monastery for a time in
your youth you possess some extraordinary experience and training in
classical languages.
Thanks, Tom. Most atheists dismiss the inhabitants of monasteries as
ignorant and bigoted. It would seem that in Darrell's case the
allegation is true.
Ken Down
You idiot. If anything inhabitants of monasteries would be bigoted
TOWARDS faith and religion not away from it.
And TomP by his own admission states he has had little formal education,
in fact he stipulates (or rather like most fundies wears it as a badge
of admiration) he is an uneducated truck driver living in the Deep
South Bible Belt.
You still haven't quoted that correctly. Go back to the "Whither Philo"
thread about June 15, 2006 or so and you can find what I really wrote. But
honestly, Stec, what kind of nincompoop mocks someone as "uneducated" and
then lets his "uneducated" opponent run circles around him. What does that
say about your education?
And I have covered my education somewhat extensively over the years on
Usenet. There was nothing vague about it. His comments are simply
referencing what little I said in one thread.
And by the way, you might be confused as was he about monasteries.
Seminarians and priests live in a monastery if they belong to one of
the Religious Orders. Parish priests do not. As a rule, religious
orders give a longer, deeper education that that of a parish priest.
Actually, Stec, I am not at all confused about the training institutions for
Roman Catholic clergy. I have a close friend who attended a minor seminary
operated by the Sons of the Sacred heart, a novitiate year, and then
attended a Catholic university in preparation for major seminary and
graduate school. He is now a missionary in Africa. He certainly belongs to
a religious order, but has never resided in a monastery, and never will
unless he resigns from his current religious order and joins a monastic
order. Because, Stec, only those who enter a monastic order live in
monasteries, and while all monastic orders are religious orders, not all
religious orders are monastic orders. I think you are mistaken again, Stec.
And anyone who actually did spend time in a monastery should know the
difference between belonging to a religious order, a monastic order, and a
diocese. Can't you get anything right? Didn't you make the silly claim
someplace that missals were only in Latin until Vatican II? Why the lie? I
have my grandmother's missal published in 1959, before Vatican II, and it
contains Latin with facing page English translation. And the Sacrosanctum
concilium, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, which allowed the mass in the
vernacular languages was not promulgated and published until 1963. Isn't
that right, Stec? Anyone who actually spent time in a religious order, even
a monastic order, would know these kind of details. Why are you making such
elementary mistakes of fact, Stec? You have been so factually mistaken
about so many things, I doubt you ever were a member of any religious order,
monastic or not. Do you wonder why your veracity is questioned when not
even your own autobiography hangs together?
I noticed you still haven't commented on the comments by the physicists who
conducted the radiocarbon analysis of the documents in a study you brought
up. Is that because these physicists flatly contradict your silly notion
that paleography is useless? These physicists all agreed that paleographic
dating is entirely consonant with radiocarbon dating. One physicist even
suggested the calibration curve should be adjusted so radiocarbon dating
will be as accurate internally dated manuscripts. And I even cited the
studies in their original, peer-reviewed, professional journals. Well, we
have been waiting five months for your response, Stec. Cat got your tongue?
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kendall K. Down" |
|
| Title: Re: For Darrell Stec, was: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels |
09 Nov 2006 02:15:39 AM |
|
|
In message <45529513$0$14814$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>
" Tom P" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well, we
have been waiting five months for your response, Stec. Cat got your tongue?
Be kind to him, Tom. It can be very unsettling to have your long-standing
religious views upset and it will take a while for Darrell to adjust. He's
probably going through the denial phase at the moment.
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Opie" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: For Darrell Stec, was: Re: Eyewitness To Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About The Origin Of The Gospels |
08 Nov 2006 05:42:05 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 17:32:55 -0500, Darrell Stec
<darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:
After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 07 November 2006 2:47
am Kendall K. Down perhaps from wrote:
In message <454f8439$0$14820$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>
" Tom P" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote:
You have always been cagey about your actual education, implying that
because you were resident in a Roman Catholic monastery for a time in
your youth you possess some extraordinary experience and training in
classical languages.
Thanks, Tom. Most atheists dismiss the inhabitants of monasteries as
ignorant and bigoted. It would seem that in Darrell's case the
allegation is true.
Ken Down
You idiot. If anything inhabitants of monasteries would be bigoted
TOWARDS faith and religion not away from it.
And TomP by his own admission states he has had little formal education,
in fact he stipulates (or rather like most fundies wears it as a badge
of admiration) he is an uneducated truck driver living in the Deep
South Bible Belt.
And I have covered my education somewhat extensively over the years on
Usenet. There was nothing vague about it. His comments are simply
referencing what little I said in one thread.
And by the way, you might be confused as was he about monasteries.
Seminarians and priests live in a monastery if they belong to one of
the Religious Orders. Parish priests do not. As a rule, religious
orders give a longer, deeper education that of a parish priest.
You'd be better off trying to teach a cow to fly.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
