Nazareth

teilhard

Posts: 42,734

Nov 5, 2010 -- 11:33AM, Dennis wrote:

It's sad when one hasn't the memory to compose anything substantial of their own, just having to snip and paste, add a comment, snip and paste.

LOL ...

I believe it's called, "disseminating," as opposed to being, "spokesman for" ... ??? LOL ...

Dennis

Posts: 1,433

Let me catch you up on some terminology, Teil...

Spokesperson: One who speaks on behalf of others. I don't do that.

Disseminate: to spread ideas. I do that.

That being said, I have been mistaken for both a scholar and a spokesperson here... Though neither were meant to be complimentary, that is very gratifying. I am honored. Makes me realize I am doing what I need to be doing.

Annie, I started a new thread in your honor, about "sacred" as it relates to biblical studies. You should be thrilled.

Nov 5, 2010 -- 11:56AM, teilhard wrote:

Nov 5, 2010 -- 11:33AM, Dennis wrote:

It's sad when one hasn't the memory to compose anything substantial of their own, just having to snip and paste, add a comment, snip and paste.

LOL ...

I believe it's called, "disseminating," as opposed to being, "spokesman for" ... ??? LOL ...

teilhard

Posts: 42,734

LOL ... No ... Not by ME ... !!!

You DO come across, though, as VERY un-Critical of The Jesus Seminar Stuff ...

Just sayin' ...

Nov 5, 2010 -- 1:48PM, Dennis wrote:

That being said, I have been mistaken for ... a scholar ... here...

Nov 5, 2010 -- 11:56AM, teilhard wrote:

Nov 5, 2010 -- 11:33AM, Dennis wrote:

It's sad when one hasn't the memory to compose anything substantial of their own, just having to snip and paste, add a comment, snip and paste.

LOL ...

I believe it's called, "disseminating," as opposed to being, "spokesman for" ... ??? LOL ...

Jenandew7

Posts: 9,233

Nov 5, 2010 -- 11:33AM, Dennis wrote:

I am not a spokesperson for the Jesus Seminar. (I agree with about half of their literature.) I disseminate their findings, as well as those from dozens of other scholars. Other than that, I didn't read and don't read crap by "negative ones" who have to break up what someone has written in order to feebly attempt to rebut it. It's sad when one hasn't the memory to compose anything substantial of their own, just having to snip and paste, add a comment, snip and paste.

Who is doing that, Dennis?

You're the one that resorts to insults because you haven't the wit to discuss things that challenge your views.

A.

Dennis

Posts: 1,433

Doing what? If I write paragraphs, you can't answer it with paragraphs. Look at your preceding posts. You must break them up. OH! You must mean "negative one." Should have written it in numerals, like -1. (See "normal curve.")

But, there is nothing going on about "Nazareth" here, so I move to the two threads just begun. I click the "notify me" box off for this thread. It is established that finding a house in what is now called Nazareth merely means there was a house found in what is now called Nazareth and adds nothing to the historical Jesus discussion.

Nov 5, 2010 -- 9:47PM, Jenandew7 wrote:

Nov 5, 2010 -- 11:33AM, Dennis wrote:

I am not a spokesperson for the Jesus Seminar. (I agree with about half of their literature.) I disseminate their findings, as well as those from dozens of other scholars. Other than that, I didn't read and don't read crap by "negative ones" who have to break up what someone has written in order to feebly attempt to rebut it. It's sad when one hasn't the memory to compose anything substantial of their own, just having to snip and paste, add a comment, snip and paste.

Who is doing that, Dennis?

You're the one that resorts to insults because you haven't the wit to discuss things that challenge your views.

A.

Dennis

Posts: 1,433

I wasn't speaking of you Teil, but you might try really diligently to remember your post below when you accuse my posts of being "unscholarly," as you have a fondness of doing. That certainly implies... Well, one can not be accused of being unscholarly unless one is thought to be a scholar. But, then again, you never were too good on beliefnet at logic, were you?

Nov 5, 2010 -- 1:49PM, teilhard wrote:

LOL ... No ... Not by ME ... !!!

You DO come across, though, as VERY un-Critical of The Jesus Seminar Stuff ...

Just sayin' ...

Nov 5, 2010 -- 1:48PM, Dennis wrote:

That being said, I have been mistaken for ... a scholar ... here...

Nov 5, 2010 -- 11:56AM, teilhard wrote:

Nov 5, 2010 -- 11:33AM, Dennis wrote:

It's sad when one hasn't the memory to compose anything substantial of their own, just having to snip and paste, add a comment, snip and paste.

LOL ...

I believe it's called, "disseminating," as opposed to being, "spokesman for" ... ??? LOL ...

Jenandew7

Posts: 9,233

Nov 6, 2010 -- 7:18AM, Dennis wrote:

Doing what? If I write paragraphs, you can't answer it with paragraphs. Look at your preceding posts. You must break them up. OH! You must mean "negative one." Should have written it in numerals, like -1. (See "normal curve.")

Dennis, I know it is a waste of my effort and time to write in paragraphs because you don't read what I write. And now that I have stopped bothering to try, you turn it into an insult.

But, there is nothing going on about "Nazareth" here, so I move to the two threads just begun.

There is nothing going on here about Nazareth because you won't let discussion about Nazareth occur.

teilhard

Posts: 42,734

In YOUR Opinion ...

Nov 6, 2010 -- 7:18AM, Dennis wrote:

But, there is nothing going on about "Nazareth" here ... It is established that finding a house in what is now called Nazareth merely means there was a house found in what is now called Nazareth and adds nothing to the historical Jesus discussion.

Nov 5, 2010 -- 9:47PM, Jenandew7 wrote:

Nov 5, 2010 -- 11:33AM, Dennis wrote:

I am not a spokesperson for the Jesus Seminar. (I agree with about half of their literature.) I disseminate their findings, as well as those from dozens of other scholars. Other than that, I didn't read and don't read crap by "negative ones" who have to break up what someone has written in order to feebly attempt to rebut it. It's sad when one hasn't the memory to compose anything substantial of their own, just having to snip and paste, add a comment, snip and paste.

Who is doing that, Dennis?

You're the one that resorts to insults because you haven't the wit to discuss things that challenge your views.

A.

teilhard

Posts: 42,734

There DOES seem to be some "kind" of Agenda in Play ...

Nov 6, 2010 -- 10:19AM, Jenandew7 wrote:

Nov 6, 2010 -- 7:18AM, Dennis wrote:

There is nothing going on here about Nazareth because you won't let discussion about Nazareth occur.

Yeshua

Posts: 1

You need more than 50 families to have a city or a town, hence the absence in the Census of that day. Jesus being a Nazarite would be more to the point and no doubt it is all allegorical.

Beliefnet On Facebook

What's Hot