I feel like having a moment of silence and a lifting of our various glasses, goblets, bottles or whatever to the Purg Hosts. Thank the Good Lord and the Admins I am in Heaven.
What would happen if Shipmates would only discuss each other's posts and ignore Errant James?
I really do try to not be evil, but, there you go!
I feel like having a moment of silence and a lifting of our various glasses, goblets, bottles or whatever to the Purg Hosts. Thank the Good Lord and the Admins I am in Heaven.
What would happen if Shipmates would only discuss each other's posts and ignore Errant James?
I really do try to not be evil, but, there you go!
I think the silent treatment would be only somewhat effective. Often times he seems to be dialoguing with just himself, so who knows how it’d work.
You may be right, @ECraigR - I did make a feeble attempt on one of 'his' threads to engage only with the other posters, but he very soon shouldered his way in again...
Would it be worth a try, ECraigR?
I admit that tl;dr is why I haven't been following much of the goings on. Besides, Errant James' multitudes of words give me a huge headache.
Would it be worth a try, ECraigR?
I admit that tl;dr is why I haven't been following much of the goings on. Besides, Errant James' multitudes of words give me a huge headache.
Could be. Of course, we’d need to get Rublev and Martin on board with the plan. Rublev in particular seems to not mind his pedantic posts and one-track thinking.
If I recall correctly, one sparkling day we all mutually agreed, as if by telepathy, to turn a troll-ridden thread to a discussion of baking. From that point forward no trollish interruption was met with anything but a discussion of the best way to prove yeast, or what the best substitute for castor sugar was in North America. It went on for pages. We knew we had won when the troll gave in and began offering recipes himself.
I feel like having a moment of silence and a lifting of our various glasses, goblets, bottles or whatever to the Purg Hosts. Thank the Good Lord and the Admins I am in Heaven.
What would happen if Shipmates would only discuss each other's posts and ignore Errant James?
I really do try to not be evil, but, there you go!
I think the silent treatment would be only somewhat effective. Often times he seems to be dialoguing with just himself, so who knows how it’d work.
Perhaps we need yet another new board. Its participants are restricted to Martin 54, rublev(,) and James Boreswell II (though the rest of us may, if suffering from insomnia, drop in to be paralyzed with boredom as inclined). Boreswell is restricted to this board; the other 2 may wander the ship as they do now..
COUNTER ARGUMENT
I will now present the reason for why I'm pretty much convinced that Jesus really did utter "the cry of dereliction" from the cross.
Let's begin by reviewing the text in Mark 15:33-37:
At the sixth hour* darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour.** And at the ninth hour Yeshu cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"*** which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
When some of those standing near heard this, they said, "Listen! He's calling Eliyah!"****
One man ran, filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a stick, and offered it to Yeshu to drink, saying, "Leave him be! Let's see whether Eliyah does come to take him down!"
With a loud cry, Yeshu breathed his last.
____________
*Ca.. twelve noon.
** Ca., three pm.
***Aramaic. For some reason, Matthew changes the first two words to Hebrew (Eli, Eli) leaving the rest in Aramaic.
****Elijah.
I here render the Greek Yesous and the Greek Elias into Aramaic/Hebrew.
James Boswell IIJames Boswell II Shipmate 4:06PM
First, I have to agree with those scholars who point out that there was indeed a strong tendency to read scriptural passages into the Passion Narrative, either as allusions or in direct citations, and some good arguments have been put forward by scholars to suggest that this could be the case here.
Second, although that could be the case, I agree with several of you that the fact that Mark has given us Jesus' words in Aramaic carries considerable weight. Every other time in his gospel when Mark does that -- "Talitha koum," "Ehphatha," "Corban," "Abba" -- we have no reason to think those were not Jesus' actual words. I could more easily imagine Mark might "falsely" have ascribed those scriptural words to Jesus in Septuagint Greek, than that he would go so far as to falsely report his words in his own native spoken Aramaic.
Third -- and this is something I have never seen in any scholarship I have ever read -- it seems to me that although there was a strong doctrinal reason for wanting Jesus to cry out in fulfillment of Psalm 22:1 by putting those words in his mouth, I can see no doctrinal reason for reporting the words about Elijah. True, even the Roman soldiers must have known that there was a strong tradition among the Jews to the effect that before the "great and dreadful day of the Lord," Yahweh himself had promised to send them the prophet Elijah to help them out (Malachi 4:5-6). For that reason, I can imagine that the soldiers, or someone else standing there -- perhaps already made nervous by the unnatural darkness that had settled across the land -- mistook Jesus' last outcry as a call for Elijah.
All we have to do is imagine Jesus in all his final pain groaning and having difficulty as he cries, "Eloi-ah! Eloi-ah! -- and it would be quite easy to see why someone could have thought that he was crying "Eli-yah! Eli-yah!."
Further, it is puzzling that Matthew chose to render the opening words as "Eli, Eli" in Hebrew. Could it be that Matthew thought it might be even clearer that those words, followed by a groan of agony ("Eli-ah! Eli-ah!) could even more easily have been mistaken for "Eliyah! Eliyah!"?
Conclusion: The fact that Mark gave us Jesus' words in Aramaic is itself a strong argument for historicity, and I think the scale is further, even decisively, tipped in favor of historicity by the inclusion of someone's mistaken assumption that Jesus was calling for Elijah, for which the church tradition had no Tendenz (no doctrinal reason for wanting to include it).
After giving up on reading JBII's last post, may I propose a toast to the Hell hosts as well? <notworthy>
To all admins and hosts, a worthy drink. Might I suggest instead of Oxford commas we discuss appropriate drinks or drink recipes for a given post. Given the stodginess of some recent ones perhaps a dry white wine.
I am not a fan of JBIII's posting style. It offends me and makes me feel angry and upset. Its a pity, because I have a passing interest in theology and biblical interpretation, as well as theories about how the Bible developed. So most of the topics he raises really are interesting to me.
It's also good to see many more overtly Christian matters being discussed in Purg, in part a result of his arrival and in part because (I think) something happened in Dead Horses that I haven't paid attention to. There is such a wealth of knowledge and perspectives here.
Also, when discussions are framed in terms of 'did this thing in the Bible really happen', or 'were these exact words said', they tend to put me off. I have no cultural or religious connection with the idea that the Bible is literally true. My faith has no relation to whether this or that event happened as described, but rather that the broad brush of salvation history is happening, and the Bible is an important record of how people have interpreted the salvation history they witnessed or were told about.
So this thing that I just had to do, trying to express what I believe, what the Bible is, and how that all fits together, that's a good thing for me and it strengthens my faith. But I don't get that with James' threads because I am too busy being pissed off.
I'd like to see these threads being less combative than I imagine they are, and I'd like to see James develop his style and the way he frames issues so that it is less annoying for people like me, who regarded, through my Catholic ignorance, anyone affiliated with Protestant churches other than Anglicans, Methodists and Presbyterians as fruit loops.
@James Boswell II
I am minded, given that your latest excreta didn't also appear in the appropriate thread in Purg, that your posting them here is an accident caused by ... hell, I don't know what. Psychoactive drugs, possibly. But I'm certainly not minded to put them in the right place, because, being USAn, you couldn't afford the surgery to have them re-extracted.
Do it again and I'll assume you're on your way to a C1 and will refer you to Admin.
@James Boswell II
I am minded, given that your latest excreta didn't also appear in the appropriate thread in Purg, that your posting them here is an accident caused by ... hell, I don't know what. Psychoactive drugs, possibly. But I'm certainly not minded to put them in the right place, because, being USAn, you couldn't afford the surgery to have them re-extracted.
Do it again and I'll assume you're on your way to a C1 and will refer you to Admin.
Hostly furry hat off
Doc Tor
Hell Host
I really LOVE how you phrased that. Specially the USAn caveat. Much respect.
@Doc Tor
Your reference to excreta makes me wonder how objective you and @Barnabas62 above may or may not even seek to be regarding all that goes on here on this blog.
As for what I posted above. I did it on purpose just to P. O. people here. I will not do it again but I'm wickedly glad I did.
@ Several others:
And by the way, vibrant Bloomington-Normal is where I live because my lovely wife (and she is very lovely) teaches at ISU, not me.
@Simon Toad
I greatly appreciate what you said and would urge you to try to get less pissed off and try to consider what I say on its merits. You say you are Catholic. I would recommend to you one of the best historical Jesus scholars that I know of, the Catholic John P. Meier. He and the Protestant Dale C. Allison both claim to be Christian believers (!) and, more important for historical Jesus studies, both are incredibly erudite and knowledgeable.
And please take note of the fact that if someone did not have the temerity occasionally to ask, "Did this really happen? Was this really said?" and seek to establish historically that some of it did, then the field would be owned by the mythicists, who hold it all to be legendary, and some of whom claim Jesus never even existed.
I appreciate much of what you said, and would hope that we might meet again congenially sometime above ground.
@Doc Tor
Your reference to excreta makes me wonder how objective you and @Barnabas62 above may or may not even seek to be regarding all that goes on here on this blog.
As for what I posted above. I did it on purpose just to P. O. people here. I will not do it again but I'm wickedly glad I did.
I'm the host of this board, and my objective is make sure people follow the few, very simple rules here. Well done on being so stupid and/or arrogant that you have failed to do this.
Having given you the benefit of the doubt, I am withdrawing that and referring you to Admin.
Well, it does look as though the H&As are aware of what's going on, so, Class of 2019, we are in safe hands.
Meanwhile, poor Martin54 (yes! I did say that!) and I are being treated to yet more Purgatorial Pains for having the temerity to come up with Opinions Of Our Own, which we think are valid.
Well, it does look as though the H&As are aware of what's going on, so, Class of 2019, we are in safe hands.
Meanwhile, poor Martin54 (yes! I did say that!) and I are being treated to yet more Purgatorial Pains for having the temerity to come up with Opinions Of Our Own, which we think are valid.
O the shame! O the disgrace!
Oh Bishops Finger, when will you learn. We who are unworthy of Blessed James’ glorious insights into the work of glorious scholars needling the glorious, we can only listen in gape-mouthed astonishment at Blessed James.
I thank you, @ECraigR, for your kind sympathy on hearing of my disgrace, and humiliation, in front of all the Class (well, Martin, anyway).
Your words, if somewhat fawning as regards Our Glorious and Insightful Leader, are, nevertheless, both perspicacious, and true.
I have, in hope, rather than expectation, directed Blessed James The Errant, to the Wikipedia article on Occam's Razor. Maybe a true philosopher will help BJ the E to mend his ways.
Meanwhile, I am wondering if it's worth my while directing BJ the E to my Sense-of-Humour Recalibration Service. For those living in howling intellectual deserts such as Bloomington-Normal, the rates are modest - $99.99 for the first hour's work, and just $99.99 for each subsequent hour.
The whole Class, I expect, awaits, with bated breath, the outcome of BJ the E's baiting of the H&As. Not the most sensible thing he's ever done...
@Doc Tor
Your reference to excreta makes me wonder how objective you and @Barnabas62 above may or may not even seek to be regarding all that goes on here on this blog.
As for what I posted above. I did it on purpose just to P. O. people here. I will not do it again but I'm wickedly glad I did.
I'm the host of this board, and my objective is make sure people follow the few, very simple rules here. Well done on being so stupid and/or arrogant that you have failed to do this.
Having given you the benefit of the doubt, I am withdrawing that and referring you to Admin.
DT
HH
Admin tiara on
This isn't "a blog" where you can post your deep, meaningful thoughts and others discuss them in the comments field. It's a discussion forum where everyone who has registered can join in. Provided they follow the rules. Maybe two weeks shore leave will help you understand these two things. One lives in hope ...
Admin tiara off
[ETA: Taken the liberty of closing this thread as you can't have a Hell call without the callee. Isn't fair]
Well, the Professor is back, sprawling over so many threads that he doesn't know which one he's supposed to be posting on!
The result is threatspromises of more long screeds, the setting of further exam questions, personal attacks, and so on - the mixture as before, IOW.
I really think it would be a Good Idea™ to kill off ALL 'his' threads, and for someone - even the Professor, perhaps - to start a fresh thread along the lines of 'Did God get it all wrong?'.
Threads can also be dead to you. It's a clayton's ignore button.
You're both right, of course - but the subject/s is/are interesting, and worth exploring, albeit preferably in a less prolix way.
Pleas to keep it simple, and to refrain from constantly referring to books (which are mostly not available to read online), are met with yet more tl;dr 'replies'.
Comments
Could be worse.
I see that on 'My God, my God', we have now been treated to a drearily lengthy COUNTER ARGUMENT - which, presumably, is not THIRD ARGUMENT...
What would happen if Shipmates would only discuss each other's posts and ignore Errant James?
I really do try to not be evil, but, there you go!
My god.
Truly, they must feel as though Purgatory is exactly where they are...
@mousethief - it's not god who I wish would forsake us...
I think the silent treatment would be only somewhat effective. Often times he seems to be dialoguing with just himself, so who knows how it’d work.
I admit that tl;dr is why I haven't been following much of the goings on. Besides, Errant James' multitudes of words give me a huge headache.
Could be. Of course, we’d need to get Rublev and Martin on board with the plan. Rublev in particular seems to not mind his pedantic posts and one-track thinking.
I'll get me coat.
What topic could we use this time, do you think?
Plus Rublev seems to really enjoy him.
ETA: Oh wait. You already said that.
Or if nothing else funny examples of where it's left out, and hilarity ensues.
Guests at the party included two hookers, George W. Bush and Jim Bakker.
See? I knew the Oxford Comma had its uses, and misuses!
Perhaps we need yet another new board. Its participants are restricted to Martin 54, rublev(,) and James Boreswell II (though the rest of us may, if suffering from insomnia, drop in to be paralyzed with boredom as inclined). Boreswell is restricted to this board; the other 2 may wander the ship as they do now..
It's a bit like 99, 100, change hands.
If there was ever a shortage of toilet paper, however... mwahahahahahahaha!
Oh, absolutely! (Perhaps we can bring in lilbuddha as well.)
By the way, this probably belongs on the Styx, but... what does "tl;dr" stand for?
Merci!
I will now present the reason for why I'm pretty much convinced that Jesus really did utter "the cry of dereliction" from the cross.
Let's begin by reviewing the text in Mark 15:33-37:
At the sixth hour* darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour.** And at the ninth hour Yeshu cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"*** which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
When some of those standing near heard this, they said, "Listen! He's calling Eliyah!"****
One man ran, filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a stick, and offered it to Yeshu to drink, saying, "Leave him be! Let's see whether Eliyah does come to take him down!"
With a loud cry, Yeshu breathed his last.
____________
*Ca.. twelve noon.
** Ca., three pm.
***Aramaic. For some reason, Matthew changes the first two words to Hebrew (Eli, Eli) leaving the rest in Aramaic.
****Elijah.
I here render the Greek Yesous and the Greek Elias into Aramaic/Hebrew.
First, I have to agree with those scholars who point out that there was indeed a strong tendency to read scriptural passages into the Passion Narrative, either as allusions or in direct citations, and some good arguments have been put forward by scholars to suggest that this could be the case here.
Second, although that could be the case, I agree with several of you that the fact that Mark has given us Jesus' words in Aramaic carries considerable weight. Every other time in his gospel when Mark does that -- "Talitha koum," "Ehphatha," "Corban," "Abba" -- we have no reason to think those were not Jesus' actual words. I could more easily imagine Mark might "falsely" have ascribed those scriptural words to Jesus in Septuagint Greek, than that he would go so far as to falsely report his words in his own native spoken Aramaic.
Third -- and this is something I have never seen in any scholarship I have ever read -- it seems to me that although there was a strong doctrinal reason for wanting Jesus to cry out in fulfillment of Psalm 22:1 by putting those words in his mouth, I can see no doctrinal reason for reporting the words about Elijah. True, even the Roman soldiers must have known that there was a strong tradition among the Jews to the effect that before the "great and dreadful day of the Lord," Yahweh himself had promised to send them the prophet Elijah to help them out (Malachi 4:5-6). For that reason, I can imagine that the soldiers, or someone else standing there -- perhaps already made nervous by the unnatural darkness that had settled across the land -- mistook Jesus' last outcry as a call for Elijah.
All we have to do is imagine Jesus in all his final pain groaning and having difficulty as he cries, "Eloi-ah! Eloi-ah! -- and it would be quite easy to see why someone could have thought that he was crying "Eli-yah! Eli-yah!."
Further, it is puzzling that Matthew chose to render the opening words as "Eli, Eli" in Hebrew. Could it be that Matthew thought it might be even clearer that those words, followed by a groan of agony ("Eli-ah! Eli-ah!) could even more easily have been mistaken for "Eliyah! Eliyah!"?
Conclusion: The fact that Mark gave us Jesus' words in Aramaic is itself a strong argument for historicity, and I think the scale is further, even decisively, tipped in favor of historicity by the inclusion of someone's mistaken assumption that Jesus was calling for Elijah, for which the church tradition had no Tendenz (no doctrinal reason for wanting to include it).
His mighty brain has too much in it to also remember what board he's on.
I can only pity him.
Thank you all for the tl;dr explanation. I shall sleep tonight for the knowledge.
To all admins and hosts, a worthy drink. Might I suggest instead of Oxford commas we discuss appropriate drinks or drink recipes for a given post. Given the stodginess of some recent ones perhaps a dry white wine.
It's also good to see many more overtly Christian matters being discussed in Purg, in part a result of his arrival and in part because (I think) something happened in Dead Horses that I haven't paid attention to. There is such a wealth of knowledge and perspectives here.
Also, when discussions are framed in terms of 'did this thing in the Bible really happen', or 'were these exact words said', they tend to put me off. I have no cultural or religious connection with the idea that the Bible is literally true. My faith has no relation to whether this or that event happened as described, but rather that the broad brush of salvation history is happening, and the Bible is an important record of how people have interpreted the salvation history they witnessed or were told about.
So this thing that I just had to do, trying to express what I believe, what the Bible is, and how that all fits together, that's a good thing for me and it strengthens my faith. But I don't get that with James' threads because I am too busy being pissed off.
I'd like to see these threads being less combative than I imagine they are, and I'd like to see James develop his style and the way he frames issues so that it is less annoying for people like me, who regarded, through my Catholic ignorance, anyone affiliated with Protestant churches other than Anglicans, Methodists and Presbyterians as fruit loops.
@James Boswell II
I am minded, given that your latest excreta didn't also appear in the appropriate thread in Purg, that your posting them here is an accident caused by ... hell, I don't know what. Psychoactive drugs, possibly. But I'm certainly not minded to put them in the right place, because, being USAn, you couldn't afford the surgery to have them re-extracted.
Do it again and I'll assume you're on your way to a C1 and will refer you to Admin.
Hostly furry hat off
Doc Tor
Hell Host
I really LOVE how you phrased that. Specially the USAn caveat. Much respect.
Your reference to excreta makes me wonder how objective you and @Barnabas62 above may or may not even seek to be regarding all that goes on here on this blog.
As for what I posted above. I did it on purpose just to P. O. people here. I will not do it again but I'm wickedly glad I did.
@ Several others:
And by the way, vibrant Bloomington-Normal is where I live because my lovely wife (and she is very lovely) teaches at ISU, not me.
@Simon Toad
I greatly appreciate what you said and would urge you to try to get less pissed off and try to consider what I say on its merits. You say you are Catholic. I would recommend to you one of the best historical Jesus scholars that I know of, the Catholic John P. Meier. He and the Protestant Dale C. Allison both claim to be Christian believers (!) and, more important for historical Jesus studies, both are incredibly erudite and knowledgeable.
And please take note of the fact that if someone did not have the temerity occasionally to ask, "Did this really happen? Was this really said?" and seek to establish historically that some of it did, then the field would be owned by the mythicists, who hold it all to be legendary, and some of whom claim Jesus never even existed.
I appreciate much of what you said, and would hope that we might meet again congenially sometime above ground.
Some peoples' clue receptors appear to be insensitive.
I'm the host of this board, and my objective is make sure people follow the few, very simple rules here. Well done on being so stupid and/or arrogant that you have failed to do this.
Having given you the benefit of the doubt, I am withdrawing that and referring you to Admin.
DT
HH
Meanwhile, poor Martin54 (yes! I did say that!) and I are being treated to yet more Purgatorial Pains for having the temerity to come up with Opinions Of Our Own, which we think are valid.
O the shame! O the disgrace!
Oh Bishops Finger, when will you learn. We who are unworthy of Blessed James’ glorious insights into the work of glorious scholars needling the glorious, we can only listen in gape-mouthed astonishment at Blessed James.
Your words, if somewhat fawning as regards Our Glorious and Insightful Leader, are, nevertheless, both perspicacious, and true.
I have, in hope, rather than expectation, directed Blessed James The Errant, to the Wikipedia article on Occam's Razor. Maybe a true philosopher will help BJ the E to mend his ways.
Meanwhile, I am wondering if it's worth my while directing BJ the E to my Sense-of-Humour Recalibration Service. For those living in howling intellectual deserts such as Bloomington-Normal, the rates are modest - $99.99 for the first hour's work, and just $99.99 for each subsequent hour.
The whole Class, I expect, awaits, with bated breath, the outcome of BJ the E's baiting of the H&As. Not the most sensible thing he's ever done...
Admin tiara on
This isn't "a blog" where you can post your deep, meaningful thoughts and others discuss them in the comments field. It's a discussion forum where everyone who has registered can join in. Provided they follow the rules. Maybe two weeks shore leave will help you understand these two things. One lives in hope ...
Admin tiara off
[ETA: Taken the liberty of closing this thread as you can't have a Hell call without the callee. Isn't fair]
Tubbs
Admin
The result is threatspromises of more long screeds, the setting of further exam questions, personal attacks, and so on - the mixture as before, IOW.
I really think it would be a Good Idea™ to kill off ALL 'his' threads, and for someone - even the Professor, perhaps - to start a fresh thread along the lines of 'Did God get it all wrong?'.
You're both right, of course - but the subject/s is/are interesting, and worth exploring, albeit preferably in a less prolix way.
Pleas to keep it simple, and to refrain from constantly referring to books (which are mostly not available to read online), are met with yet more tl;dr 'replies'.