T1B

Diogenes wrote:

And because you believe the letter is a forgery, does not make it so. That is merely your opinion.

The handwriting is quite similar to that used by Morton Smith himself in marginal notes that he added in Greek to his private papers, which he requested to be burnt.

Many letters show a "forger's tremor", when the writer stopped his pen in the middle of a letter.

We have no alternative ancient evidence of such a Secret Gospel or of such a letter by Clement, and despite similarities, there are also disagreements between the letter and what Clement says elsewhere.

The similarities in style and vocabulary to Mark and Clement are certainly striking. However, in both cases statistical evidence has been presented that the similarities are too good to be true and suggest a deliberate imitation rather than an authentic work.

There are aspects that can be interpreted as clues left by Morton Smith that he had written the letter--a reference to (Morton?) salt, a quoted passage from scripture which skips a verse containing the word "smith".[citation needed]Stephen C. Carlson, in The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith’s Invention of Secret Mark (2005) suggests the work is a scholarly hoax by Morton Smith largely based on forensic handwriting analysis, backed by arcane clues supposed to be planted by Morton Smith. See the review by Roger Pearse] and aad that of Craig Blomberg, Denver Seminary, for brief surveys of some of the arguments presented in the book.


Just 'my opinion'.

Martyred wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

And because you believe the letter is a forgery, does not make it so. That is merely your opinion.

The handwriting is quite similar to that used by Morton Smith himself in marginal notes that he added in Greek to his private papers, which he requested to be burnt.

Many letters show a "forger's tremor", when the writer stopped his pen in the middle of a letter.

We have no alternative ancient evidence of such a Secret Gospel or of such a letter by Clement, and despite similarities, there are also disagreements between the letter and what Clement says elsewhere.

The similarities in style and vocabulary to Mark and Clement are certainly striking. However, in both cases statistical evidence has been presented that the similarities are too good to be true and suggest a deliberate imitation rather than an authentic work.

There are aspects that can be interpreted as clues left by Morton Smith that he had written the letter--a reference to (Morton?) salt, a quoted passage from scripture which skips a verse containing the word "smith".[citation needed]Stephen C. Carlson, in The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith’s Invention of Secret Mark (2005) suggests the work is a scholarly hoax by Morton Smith largely based on forensic handwriting analysis, backed by arcane clues supposed to be planted by Morton Smith. See the review by Roger Pearse] and aad that of Craig Blomberg, Denver Seminary, for brief surveys of some of the arguments presented in the book.


Just 'my opinion'.

No. It's Wikipedia's opinion.
You lifted that verbatim, and tried to claim it as your own, you shameless twat?

Diogenes wrote:No, you're just not very bright.

What part of 'my opinion' as opposed to my opinion do you not get.

Read more, post much less.

Martyred wrote:

Diogenes wrote:No, you're just not very bright.

What part of 'my opinion' as opposed to my opinion do you not get.

Read more, post much less.

You got busted, Wiki-ogenes.

Thanks for proving what an empty vessel you are.

SunCoastSooner wrote:
The Gospel of Phillip is atleast 2 decades older than any of those you just mentioned. Tell me again why it isn't used in the scripture? Oh yeah that's right, they couldn't edit it in the manner they did Mark.

Bishop Clement of Alexandria to his colleague Theodore wrote:For even if they should say something true, one who loves the truth should not, even so, agree with them. For not all true things are the truth; nor should that truth which seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true Truth - that according to the faith. To them one must never give way; nor, when they put forward falsifications, should one concede that the secret Gospel is by Mark but should deny it on oath. For not all true things should be said to all men

Yep they really wanted you to know about Jesus especially the way they conveinantly edited the part of Lazurus' raising, in Mark, where he was screaming from within his tomb for someone to release him which is what Clement was reffering to in this letter.

He's refering to the so called 'Secret Gospel' of Mark.

Martyred wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

And because you believe the letter is a forgery, does not make it so. That is merely your opinion.

The handwriting is quite similar to that used by Morton Smith himself in marginal notes that he added in Greek to his private papers, which he requested to be burnt.

Many letters show a "forger's tremor", when the writer stopped his pen in the middle of a letter.

We have no alternative ancient evidence of such a Secret Gospel or of such a letter by Clement, and despite similarities, there are also disagreements between the letter and what Clement says elsewhere.

The similarities in style and vocabulary to Mark and Clement are certainly striking. However, in both cases statistical evidence has been presented that the similarities are too good to be true and suggest a deliberate imitation rather than an authentic work.

There are aspects that can be interpreted as clues left by Morton Smith that he had written the letter--a reference to (Morton?) salt, a quoted passage from scripture which skips a verse containing the word "smith".[citation needed]Stephen C. Carlson, in The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith’s Invention of Secret Mark (2005) suggests the work is a scholarly hoax by Morton Smith largely based on forensic handwriting analysis, backed by arcane clues supposed to be planted by Morton Smith. See the review by Roger Pearse] and aad that of Craig Blomberg, Denver Seminary, for brief surveys of some of the arguments presented in the book.


Just 'my opinion'.

No. It's Wikipedia's opinion.
You lifted that verbatim, and tried to claim it as your own, you shameless twat?

Mister Bushice wrote:You kept a copy of that? ^^^^ Truly pathetic, that you keep copies of your inane insult posts.

And like I said before. Eiher directly or indirectly you constantly turn good threads here into shit, and as long as you keep that up you can expect to see your crappy baiting responses moved or cut.

No one wants to read your oh so clever taunts.

Diogenes wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:You kept a copy of that? ^^^^ Truly pathetic, that you keep copies of your inane insult posts.

And like I said before. Eiher directly or indirectly you constantly turn good threads here into shit, and as long as you keep that up you can expect to see your crappy baiting responses moved or cut.

No one wants to read your oh so clever taunts.

No, I didn't. I just repeated it.

So because I have takeless tards following be around in threads they have nothing useful to say in, my posts are all suspect.

I guessx you and SCS can just agree among yourself on why the entire Bible is bullshit, B_Suck, Dims and Mikey can all come to agreement on how much of a criminal Bush is and Marty and Nicky can continue to spout antisemetic crap in peace.

Aftyer all, I'm the problem, plus my bold font and flashing avatars are such threadkillers....

Gunslinger wrote:Bushice:

You took it as holier than thou?

I took it as the complete definition of lameness. He isn't creative with his ideas on how to insult people, he isn't creative with any of his other posts, they are just rehash's of a "Republican agenda".

Diogenes wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote: And just because people question something you believe in does not make them wrong, or right. It's just a difference of opinion.

As a general principle, that's true.

Except when they disagree with me they are invariably wrong.

Mister Bushice wrote:What I don't respect is the "I am 100% right and you are a fucking cocksucking tard" responses.

Mister Bushice wrote:

Gunslinger wrote:Bushice:

You took it as holier than thou?

I took it as the complete definition of lameness. He isn't creative with his ideas on how to insult people, he isn't creative with any of his other posts, they are just rehash's of a "Republican agenda".

Everyone has an agenda. I respect that part.

What I don't respect is the "I am 100% right and you are a fucking cocksucking tard" responses.

And you do that as much as any other, GS. It's Childish. How can I respect your takes if you make stupid crap up about mvscal and black cocks? It's fake and immature.

Dios "Holier than thou" comes from posts like this:

Diogenes wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote: And just because people question something you believe in does not make them wrong, or right. It's just a difference of opinion.

As a general principle, that's true.

Except when they disagree with me they are invariably wrong.

It's his attitude that no matter what, he can't accept that others have a different opinion than his, and that fucks this place up.

We should be better than that, smarter, and more capable of acceptance of others. We are not 14 year olds anymore.

25 to 50 year old people should not be posting like 12 year olds talk.

And if you want crotch grabbing humor, this is not the forum for it.

"The wind of change blows straight....."

With free speech also means your idea is going to be so ludicrous or ignorant, you have the potential of being laughed at.

So, what's your definition of immature? Black cock? or wanting to act like monkeys and start fighting everyone we see and not think it over?

Mikey wrote:I'll have to admit that I thought the bold font and flashing avatar were a big part of what made dio completely unreadable.

Now that he's dumped both I realize how wrong I really was.

Dinsdale wrote:

Mikey wrote:I'll have to admit that I thought the bold font and flashing avatar were a big part of what made dio completely unreadable.

Now that he's dumped both I realize how totally in my dome he really was.

RACK!