Was Jesus a Progressive Socialist?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Stop trying to B.S. your way through this. You read the entire post that tab posted some excerpts from or else you couldn't have made this remark



How would you have known it was from 2015 unless you went back and read the original?

So you clearly saw that I had indeed provided numerous supporting citations when you made your initial false claim that I had provided none.

Oh grow up man please. You repeatedly fail to provide supporting evidence as evinced by your allegations about Ian Howard Marshall a few pages back on this very thread.

Your first reference to Howard Marshall at post #264 is a definite statement it has no qualification and no caveat, It states . "At least according to Ian Howard Marshall, the late Professor Emeritus of New Testament Exegesis at Scotland's University of Aberdeen as well as president of the British New Testament Society. He says that prior to 44 A.D. there were no Roman troops in Galilee, meaning that the Centurion would therefore almost certainly have been a member of Agrippa's military (which was modelled after the Roman's)."

Then comes the wriggling with "IIRC" and "Going from memory and don't own the source". Furthermore if Howard Marshall was referring to Agrippa I he referencing post 37 CE.

tabibito posted this link https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...817#post368817 which took me to post # 50 made by you dated 10-10-2015. at 11.19 a.m. Nothing on that post shows any link or citation. It is simply a cut and paste.

[tabibito]

Oh grow up man please. You repeatedly fail to provide supporting evidence as evinced by your allegations about Ian Howard Marshall a few pages back on this very thread.

Your first reference to Howard Marshall at post #264 is a definite statement it has no qualification and no caveat, It states . "At least according to Ian Howard Marshall, the late Professor Emeritus of New Testament Exegesis at Scotland's University of Aberdeen as well as president of the British New Testament Society. He says that prior to 44 A.D. there were no Roman troops in Galilee, meaning that the Centurion would therefore almost certainly have been a member of Agrippa's military (which was modelled after the Roman's)."

Then comes the wriggling with "IIRC" and "Going from memory and don't own the source". Furthermore if Howard Marshall was referring to Agrippa I he referencing post 37 CE.

tabibito posted this link https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...817#post368817 which took me to post # 50 made by you dated 10-10-2015. at 11.19 a.m. Nothing on that post shows any link or citation. It is simply a cut and paste.

Well - at least you're consistent. Rogue's post supports your argument, and you are still complaining about his lack of citations.

Oddly enough, it is Rogue's post that convinced me not to continue investigating this little farce of yours; that, and the fact that the matter has no impact on the veracity of scripture.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Well - at least you're consistent. Rogue's post supports your argument, and you are still complaining about his lack of citations.

At post # 264 rogue06 stated with no qualification or caveat "At least according to Ian Howard Marshall, the late Professor Emeritus of New Testament Exegesis at Scotland's University of Aberdeen as well as president of the British New Testament Society. He says that prior to 44 A.D. there were no Roman troops in Galilee, meaning that the Centurion would therefore almost certainly have been a member of Agrippa's military (which was modelled after the Roman's)."

That post effectively parroted what I had already written in two separate posts but he made an error over the name of the ruler of Galilee at that period and I pointed out his mistake.

It seems rogue06 could not simply admit he had made an error but replied with a fudge "Going from memory and don't own the source so I can't confirm, but IIRC, Marshall referred to Agrippa".

If Howard Marshall was indeed referring to Agrippa I then he was referencing the period from 39 CE and not the period when this alleged event, which is recounted in both Matthew and Luke, is supposed to have occurred.

Oddly enough, it is Rogue's post that convinced me not to continue investigating this little farce of yours; that, and the fact that the matter has no impact on the veracity of scripture.

Who says the scripture is veracious? We have no supporting documentation of this supposed event and Luke's version is different. In Luke the centurion sends Jewish elders to Jesus to ask on his behalf whereas in Matthew he makes the appeal to Jesus in person.

[tabibito]

At post # 264 rogue06 stated with no qualification or caveat "At least according to Ian Howard Marshall, the late Professor Emeritus of New Testament Exegesis at Scotland's University of Aberdeen as well as president of the British New Testament Society. He says that prior to 44 A.D. there were no Roman troops in Galilee, meaning that the Centurion would therefore almost certainly have been a member of Agrippa's military (which was modelled after the Roman's)."

That post effectively parroted what I had already written in two separate posts but he made an error over the name of the ruler of Galilee at that period and I pointed out his mistake.

There you go jumping to conclusions again - such a scholarly approach. It could be that Rogue accurately cited what appears to be a write up ABOUT Marshall's work, and possibly from a eulogy. Without knowing precisely which of his books is cited, it is not possible to say with certainty whether it is a comment about troops whose organisation is inherited from Agrippa. Yes it recounted your prior posts - such an offensive action that. He pointed out that the information he had matched yours - unconscionable.

It seems rogue06 could not simply admit he had made an error but replied with a fudge "Going from memory and don't own the source so I can't confirm, but IIRC, Marshall referred to Agrippa".

It could be that he does remember correctly.

If Howard Marshall was indeed referring to Agrippa I then he was referencing the period from 39 CE and not the period when this alleged event, which is recounted in both Matthew and Luke, is supposed to have occurred.

Well lookee there - not a citation to be found.

Who says the scripture is veracious? We have no supporting documentation of this supposed event and Luke's version is different. In Luke the centurion sends Jewish elders to Jesus to ask on his behalf whereas in Matthew he makes the appeal to Jesus in person.

Goodness - you have actually posted a reference to a genuine conflict in the Biblical record. I am impressed.

[rogue06]

mickey.jpg

Stop acting like a big baby and just admit that your snarky remark blew up in your face.

You declared that

[...]

And we see that the tendency for rogue06 to make comments with no supporting citations goes back to at least 2015.

Only to have it shown that I had actually cited and quoted from the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Philadelphia Inquirer and the Journal of American History (the first and last source twice) as well as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the book Damned Lies and Statistics. I also cited the San Francisco Examiner but didn't quote them.

Then you claimed that they weren't in the quotes from my post that tab provided so you couldn't be faulted for missing them

In the link provided by "our mutual friend" there were no links that I could discern.

Only one problem with that.

There is no way you could have known that post was from 2015 unless you looked at the original post. The one that had all of the citations you declared I didn't provide. So you can't hide behind tab's not including them in his snippets when you obviously saw the original post.

Moreover, you tried a bit of bait and switch here. You moved the goal post when you said here that I didn't provide any links because you hadn't said that I hadn't given any "links" but rather that I hadn't provided any "supporting citations."

I guess you thought you could slip that one past since I established that I had provided "supporting citations" in spades.

So, in the end, as the posts clearly reveal, you thought that you would slip a snarky comment in only for it to backfire which led you to keep on digging the hole you placed yourself in, first by trying to shift the blame for your screw up onto tab, and also by trying to change what you falsely claimed I had not done.

Now put your big girl pants on and take responsibility for your actions rather than trying to gaslight your way out.

[rogue06]

Well - at least you're consistent. Rogue's post supports your argument, and you are still complaining about his lack of citations.

Oddly enough, it is Rogue's post that convinced me not to continue investigating this little farce of yours; that, and the fact that the matter has no impact on the veracity of scripture.

It isn't the first time she has tried to pick a fight over a post where I agreed with her

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It isn't the first time she has tried to pick a fight over a post where I agreed with her

You repeated what I had already written re the background of this centurion but you got the name of the ruler of Galilee wrong. If Howard Marshall was discussing Agrippa I he was discussing the period from 39 CE.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Stop acting like a big baby and just admit that your snarky remark blew up in your face.

On the contrary. You tried to wriggle by alleging that Howard Marshall was referencing Agrippa at this period i.e. pre 39 CE.

[rogue06]

There you go jumping to conclusions again - such a scholarly approach. It could be that Rogue accurately cited what appears to be a write up ABOUT Marshall's work, and possibly from a eulogy. Without knowing precisely which of his books is cited, it is not possible to say with certainty whether it is a comment about troops whose organisation is inherited from Agrippa. Yes it recounted your prior posts - such an offensive action that. He pointed out that the information he had matched yours - unconscionable.

It could be that he does remember correctly.



Well lookee there - not a citation to be found.




Goodness - you have actually posted a reference to a genuine conflict in the Biblical record. I am impressed.

It would be similar if, by going from memory, I noted that Shakespeare included several anachronisms in the opening of his play Julius Caesar including the mention of there being chimneys. This was something I learned during a class long discussion back in High School. While other examples were given the one I remember from nearly half a century ago was chimneys.

Now, while looking up something in Shakespeare's plays is easy enough to do^[1] doing so with someone less known and from a work I'm not sure of the title is would obviously be far more difficult.




1. And here is the reference to chimneys:

MARULLUS:

Wherefore rejoice? What conquest brings he home?
What tributaries follow him to Rome,
To grace in captive bonds his chariot-wheels?
You blocks, you stones, you worse than senseless things!
O you hard hearts, you cruel men of Rome,
Knew you not Pompey? Many a time and oft
Have you climb'd up to walls and battlements,
To towers and windows, yea, to chimney-tops,...

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

There you go jumping to conclusions again - such a scholarly approach. It could be that Rogue accurately cited what appears to be a write up ABOUT Marshall's work, and possibly from a eulogy.

As rogue06 has conveniently been unable to source his citation we shall never know, shall we?

In his his initial post it would have been more judicious for rogue06 to have initially stated something along the lines of "I may be mistaken as I do not have the source to hand but if I recall correctly, according to Ian Howard Marshall, prior to 44 A.D. there were no Roman troops in Galilee, meaning that the Centurion would therefore almost certainly have been a member of Agrippa'smilitary (which was modelled after the Roman's)."

However, he would still have been wrong about Agrippa.

[rogue06]

On the contrary. You tried to wriggle by alleging that Howard Marshall was referencing Agrippa at this period i.e. pre 39 CE.

I guess you missed this like you missed all of the citations I provided that you falsely claimed I didn't provide.

Stop acting like a big baby and just admit that your snarky remark blew up in your face.

You declared that

[...]

And we see that the tendency for rogue06 to make comments with no supporting citations goes back to at least 2015.

Only to have it shown that I had actually cited and quoted from the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Philadelphia Inquirer and the Journal of American History (the first and last source twice) as well as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the book Damned Lies and Statistics. I also cited the San Francisco Examiner but didn't quote them.

Then you claimed that they weren't in the quotes from my post that tab provided so you couldn't be faulted for missing them

In the link provided by "our mutual friend" there were no links that I could discern.

Only one problem with that.

There is no way you could have known that post was from 2015 unless you looked at the original post. The one that had all of the citations you declared I didn't provide. So you can't hide behind tab's not including them in his snippets when you obviously saw the original post.

Moreover, you tried a bit of bait and switch here. You moved the goal post when you said here that I didn't provide any links because you hadn't said that I hadn't given any "links" but rather that I hadn't provided any "supporting citations."

I guess you thought you could slip that one past since I established that I had provided "supporting citations" in spades.

So, in the end, as the posts clearly reveal, you thought that you would slip a snarky comment in only for it to backfire which led you to keep on digging the hole you placed yourself in, first by trying to shift the blame for your screw up onto tab, and also by trying to change what you falsely claimed I had not done.

Now put your big girl pants on and take responsibility for your actions rather than trying to gaslight your way out.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I guess you missed this like you missed all of the citations I provided that you falsely claimed I didn't provide.

tabibito provided a link that took me to post #50 of a particular thread from 2015. On that post [i.e. #50] there were not links. It was a cut and paste.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It would be similar if, by going from memory, I noted that Shakespeare included several anachronisms in the opening of his play Julius Caesar including the mention of there being chimneys. This was something I learned during a class long discussion back in High School. While other examples were given the one I remember from nearly half a century ago was chimneys.

Now, while looking up something in Shakespeare's plays is easy enough to do^[1] doing so with someone less known and from a work I'm not sure of the title is would obviously be far more difficult.




1. And here is the reference to chimneys:

MARULLUS:

Wherefore rejoice? What conquest brings he home?
What tributaries follow him to Rome,
To grace in captive bonds his chariot-wheels?
You blocks, you stones, you worse than senseless things!
O you hard hearts, you cruel men of Rome,
Knew you not Pompey? Many a time and oft
Have you climb'd up to walls and battlements,
To towers and windows, yea, to chimney-tops,...

What you are singularly failing to acknowledge is that in your initial post [i.e. post # 264] you made a definitive statement with no reference to "going from memory".

You stated unequivocally that "At least according to Ian Howard Marshall, the late Professor Emeritus of New Testament Exegesis at Scotland's University of Aberdeen as well as president of the British New Testament Society. He says that prior to 44 A.D. there were no Roman troops in Galilee, meaning that the Centurion would therefore almost certainly have been a member of Agrippa's military (which was modelled after the Roman's)."

You were wrong over Agrippa.

However, both yourself and several here regularly rush in where angels fear to tread.

[rogue06]

tabibito provided a link that took me to post #50 of a particular thread from 2015. On that post [i.e. #50] there were not links. It was a cut and paste.

You didn't say there weren't any links. You claimed that there were "no supporting citations." You were wronger than wrong.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You didn't say there weren't any links. You claimed that there were "no supporting citations." You were wronger than wrong.

At post #50 in the relevant thread there was nothing but an uncredited and unsupported cut and paste. Is that clear enough for you?