Re: Religion is tiresome toxic bullshit
J Antero
"Roger Pearse" <roger....@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:6102bbda-97ae-4d33...@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 21, 11:52 pm, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
> "Roger Pearse" <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7a43a035-44e0-4401...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 21, 1:45 am, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
>
> > "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:he6qlk$2lp$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > > Weland wrote:
> > > I should note too that you've done nothing here:
>
> > > 1) if you want to show that Christianity borrowed elements and
> > > practices
> > > from the Greco-Roman world, well, so what...not only is it nothing
> > > new,but
> > > you did it badly
>
> > Well, pseudo-scholar, ...<abuse>
>
> <smile>
>
> > > 2) The things you choose to focus on have little to do with the
> > > central
> > > tenets of the Christian faith and so at best you've nibbled around the
> > > edges a bit.
>
> > Sure sure. That's why you feel so threatened by it.
> > What I posted shows that christianity is just a patchwork of facets and
> > customs from pre-exisiting cults and "religions".
>
> ====Evidently not, considering that it was full of factual errors which
> you ignored.
>
> It is unfortunate that convenience seems to be the keynote in all
> these posts.=====
>
> This, from the fool <abuse, reposts>
===No answer? I thought not. <smile>
Isn't it weird how all the scum are absolutely certain of something
that the scholars reject, and start yelling abuse and trolling and
fouling themselves. Enough said, really.===
Scum?
Your hysteria is showing through, liitle fellow...
Is your shrieking related to being shown up for what you are?
Mendacious twat that you are, you deleted my reply, liitle fellow...
Here it is, again, you mendacious nitwit.
>
====Evidently not, considering that it was full of factual errors which
you ignored.
It is unfortunate that convenience seems to be the keynote in all
these posts.=====
This, from the fool who has shown he didn't know what Mithraism was, then
tried to cover it all up with a lie which compunded his dilemma.
The first embarassing stupidity (this thread 11/20)
Pierce: === All bullshit. None of this is recorded about Mithras in any
ancient source; not even any mention of him pre-AD! ====
Pierce, we've had arguments about religion before, and you've always managed
to reveal yourself to be a pretentious clown.
Here, you do it more clearly than usual.
"Mithra" dates back before AD times.
How could Pearse NOT know that?
Even an American grade schooler exposed to History Channel emmissions would
probably not make that mistake... <chuckle>
Ency. Britannica, 2002
MITHRA
also spelled Mithras, Sanskrit Mitra,
in ancient Indo-Iranian mythology, the god of light, whose cult spread from
India in the east to as far west as Spain, Great Britain, and Germany. (See
Mithraism.) The first written mention of the Vedic Mitra dates to 1400 BC.
His worship spread to Persia and, after the defeat of the Persians by
Alexander the Great, throughout the Hellenic world. In the 3rd and 4th
centuries AD, the cult of Mithra, carried and supported by the soldiers of
the Roman Empire, was the chief rival to the newly developing religion of
Christianity. The Roman emperors Commodus and Julian were initiates of
Mithraism, and in 307 Diocletian consecrated a temple on the Danube River to
Mithra, "Protector of the Empire."
According to myth, Mithra was born, bearing a torch and armed with a knife,
beside a sacred stream and under a sacred tree, a child of the earth itself.
He soon rode, and later killed, the life-giving cosmic bull, whose blood
fertilizes all vegetation. Mithra's slaying of the bull was a popular
subject of Hellenic art and became the prototype for a bull-slaying ritual
of fertility in the Mithraic cult.
As god of light, Mithra was associated with the Greek sun god, Helios, and
the Roman Sol Invictus. He is often paired with Anahita, goddess of the
fertilizing waters.
xxend
The second compounding embarassing stupidity (this thread 11/21).
Pierce: ===Perhaps you don't know the difference between the ancient Persian
cult
of Mitra -- which certainly is NOT the deity described above -- and
the Roman cult of Mithras, the usual candidate for these misleading
sorts of stories? See for example Manfred Clauss,"The Roman cult of
Mithras" (the standard undergraduate textbook).===
Not only is what you say not true, but you are stupid enough to compound
your demonstration of ignorance with one of a low lying character.
You are an incompetent who has been shown up, and is now lying, rather than
admitting a stupid and revealing error.
You don't have the brains to play this game.
Another cite from the Britannica (2002): """ Mithraism:
the worship of Mithra, the Iranian god of the sun, justice, contract, and
war in pre-Zoroastrian Iran. Known as Mithras in the Roman Empire during the
2nd and 3rd centuries AD, this deity was honoured as the patron of loyalty
to the emperor. After the acceptance of Christianity by the emperor
Constantine in the early 4th century, Mithraism rapidly declined. """"
And by the way, idiot, ancient myths and their myriad variations, were not
documented over the many centuries like a transcript of a court trial. Your
clueless reference to supposedly important differences about what Mithra was
carrying is another sign of just how far over your head all this is.
Now, go away, scummy fool.
J Antero
On Nov 24, 1:12 am, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
> "Roger Pearse" <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> On Nov 21, 11:45 pm, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
>
> > "Roger Pearse" <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> > On Nov 21, 1:04 am, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Roger Pearse" <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > On Nov 19, 12:59 am, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Nothing in Christianity is original.
> > > > "The vestiges of pagan religion in Christian symbology are
> > > > undeniable.
> > > > Some examples:
> > > > The pre-Christian God Mithras - called the Son of God and the Light
> > > > of
> > > > the
> > > > World - was born on December 25, died, was buried in a rock tomb,
> > > > and
> > > > then
> > > > resurrected in three days.
>
> > > Pierce: === All bullshit. None of this is recorded about Mithras in
> > > any
> > > ancient source; not even any mention of him pre-AD! ====
>
>
> > > "Mithra" dates back before AD times.
> > > How could Pearse NOT know that?
>
> > cult
> > of Mitra -- which certainly is NOT the deity described above -- and
> > the Roman cult of Mithras, the usual candidate for these misleading
> > sorts of stories? See for example Manfred Clauss,"The Roman cult of
> > Mithras" (the standard undergraduate textbook).===
>
>
> ===You aren't disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with the experts.
> Good luck with that.====
>
> You can find 'experts' that claim all sorts of things...
Indeed so.
> You claimed that the mithras cult of the Romans had nothing to do with the
> mitra/mithra cults that existed from 1400 BC in the east, and spread
> westward.
===Not me. That's what the professionals say. And they say it for very
good reasons; which, evidently, you don't know.===
Mitra, Mithra, Mithras. Does that hint anything to you, as to association?
> I furnished a couple quotes from the Britannica that showed you don't know
> you are talking about.
===So you say. If this is the Britannica, it's wrong. ===
If you are incapable of checking to see whether the Britannica actually says
what I have claimed, then that in itself sheds light on your research
capabilites - very dim, indeed.
=== Do you not
understand the difference between a general encyclopedia and a scholar
who devotes his whole life to the subject? Read Clauss.===
Bullshit.
Britannica articles usually relfect consensus opinions of recognized
authorties in a field.
This is the key indentifier of every usenet hack that ever polluted the
medium::
"Encyclopedias can't be relied on". "All these published authors are non
credible, but I (the usually unpublished usenet hack) do have credibility".
I'm sure mithraism had many variations over its appx. 1700 year span (like
christianity does), and many geographic variations from India to the
Mediterranean. I'm sure the Romans emphasized and deveoped their own
"soldiers' " strain of it, with its emphasis of loyalty to the emperor.
But this isn't even the issue.
The issue was about early christianity borrowing/stealing
customs/beliefs/holidays from pre-exisitng religions, mithraism being one.
That's an embarrassing issue for christianity - and is a motive for
"scholars" over time to have produced obfuscating "studies" designed to
confuse the issue and deny it. Sort of like what you're trying to do....
It was YOU, who brainlessly went off on a tangent that early christians
could only have only borrowed/stolen from the roman variety of mithraism -
not the eastern varieties, and then pretended the Roman variety had nothing
in common with the eastern varities and couldn't have served as a source.
As I've said before - you make big noises, but that's all they are - noises.
Here it is again, since you keep hiding it in your replies:
Ency. Britannica, 2002
MITHRA
also spelled Mithras, Sanskrit Mitra,
in ancient Indo-Iranian mythology, the god of light, whose cult spread from
India in the east to as far west as Spain, Great Britain, and Germany. (See
Mithraism.) The first written mention of the Vedic Mitra dates to 1400 BC.
His worship spread to Persia and, after the defeat of the Persians by
Alexander the Great, throughout the Hellenic world. In the 3rd and 4th
centuries AD, the cult of Mithra, carried and supported by the soldiers of
the Roman Empire, was the chief rival to the newly developing religion of
Christianity. The Roman emperors Commodus and Julian were initiates of
Mithraism, and in 307 Diocletian consecrated a temple on the Danube River to
Mithra, "Protector of the Empire."
According to myth, Mithra was born, bearing a torch and armed with a knife,
beside a sacred stream and under a sacred tree, a child of the earth itself.
He soon rode, and later killed, the life-giving cosmic bull, whose blood
fertilizes all vegetation. Mithra's slaying of the bull was a popular
subject of Hellenic art and became the prototype for a bull-slaying ritual
of fertility in the Mithraic cult.
As god of light, Mithra was associated with the Greek sun god, Helios, and
the Roman Sol Invictus. He is often paired with Anahita, goddess of the
fertilizing waters.
xxend
I think the Britannica and its contributors are light years more reliable
than you, Rogi Dogi ...
<snip further wriggling>
Matt Giwer
> Bullshit.
> Britannica articles usually relfect consensus opinions of recognized
> authorties in a field.
In the late 1960s Brittanica would pay $50 per answer to questions
they presented. I presume they pay more these days. I learned this from a
man who was made the offer. He did not consider himself an expert in the
field. He justly ridiculed it thereafter.
"If they are asking people like me..."
--
A biblical archaeologist is like an astrological astronomer
or an alchemical chemist. None are scientists.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4199
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/ a12
Wed Nov 25 03:49:48 EST 2009
J Antero
"Matt Giwer" <matt@localhost> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@dawn.a.b.c...
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, J Antero wrote:
>
>> Bullshit.
>> Britannica articles usually relfect consensus opinions of recognized
>> authorties in a field.
>
> In the late 1960s Brittanica would pay $50 per answer to questions
> they presented. I presume they pay more these days. I learned this from a
> man who was made the offer. He did not consider himself an expert in the
> field. He justly ridiculed it thereafter.
>
> "If they are asking people like me..."
Well, in terms of some of the 'academic experts" seen on usenet, maybe that
wasn't a totally bad approach...
J Antero
> such a fine mind and yet are quoting The Da Vinci code, a book you have
> claimed is both mangled history and "*probably* contains some historical
> facts* and then use The Templar Revelation as evidence of your
> contentions. You are a true believer, you poor thing.
Weasel/Swine makes up his own facts.
The clearest and most unrefutable example is he continues lying about my
proving that I owned and had on hand, a book by Ramsay MacMullen
(Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eight Centuries).
I immediately posted a photo of it, and then he went pretending I didn't
own it, and claimed he never went to binary groups so couldn't see the
picture.
Is how reliable people act?
Weasel/Swine - I like keeping things simple.
First you pretend christianity didn't take anything from the pagan
religions, then you admit they did, then you pretend that
centuries old religions would have been borrowing from a new religion.
That's your usual level.
Theoretically, that's possible. But most scholars of the period accept that
in those days, something being old confered a high status on it that new
things lacked. The Romans gave Judaism a preferred status becasue they knew
it was ancient.
If some new belief system wanted credibility, it's logical and more likely
that it would borrowed from older and already accepted ones.
Here's something on that .
Source: Teaching Co., Religion in the Ancient Mediterranean World,
Professor Glenn S. Holland
(Ph.D. in the Bible and New Testament Studies from the Divinity School of
the University of Chicago)
Lecture # 37. Mystery Religions from the East
Gleaned from the professor's lecture:
Mithras, an Indo-Aryan god, incorporated into the west including Rome,
earliest Roman mentioning of him is first century BCE.
We only have the outlines of the roman myth version, no written sources.
From many inscriptions relating to the Roman Mithra myth:
* Mithras' birth was witnessed by shepards or by two men who served as his
torch bearers.
* Mithras' birth is associated with the re-birth of the sun (around winter
solstice, Dec. 25th).
* Mithra had a ritual banquet or communion, where attendees drank from a
common cup, ate bread, and made vows to the god.
* This Roman version of Mithrism became popular with soldier, sailors and
merchats and became widely spread through the empire.
Now, tell us that Professor Holland is a hack like you're claiming all the
others I've sourced on this issue are.
Much more likely, Weasel/Swine - you are the h a c k.
When I showed you numbers of Google book references giving examples of
christian
borrowings from preceding religions, you claim all the authors are bogus,
and it means nothing.
That's your usual level. Much more likely, Weasel/Swine - you are the h
a c k.
You go on that Roman mithraism (just one of the pagan religions
christianity borrowed from) was totally distinct from the ancient mithraism
it had developed from, and neither the old form or the Roman form could have
been a source.
The Britannica indicates otherwise.
Britannica, 2002
MITHRA also spelled Mithras, Sanskrit Mitra,
in ancient Indo-Iranian mythology, the god of light, whose cult spread from
India in the east to as far west as Spain, Great Britain, and Germany. (See
Mithraism.) The first written mention of the Vedic Mitra dates to 1400 BC.
His worship spread to Persia and, after the defeat of the Persians by
Alexander the Great, throughout the Hellenic world. In the 3rd and 4th
centuries AD, the cult of Mithra, carried and supported by the soldiers of
the Roman Empire, was the chief rival to the newly developing religion of
Christianity. The Roman emperors Commodus and Julian were initiates of
Mithraism, and in 307 Diocletian consecrated a temple on the Danube River to
Mithra, "Protector of the Empire." xxend
Common sense, and this Britannica piece, show that you have now retreated to
raising false issues - or maybe you don;t know they're false...
LOL. Some of us are familiar with you Swain. Like the Secret Mark thread in
which I showed you up as a fool and a liar.
Remember my reference to the Ramsay MacMullen book, that you claimed I
didn't own, so I immediately posted a photo of my copy? (Weasel/Swine
wouldn't go look at it, claiming he never visited binary usenet
groups.....like a child with its head under the blanket
<chuckle>...
HI LARRRRRY OUS.
You're a phony Weland/Swain.
Instead of arguing history, you are going from a theological position of
arguing against an embarrassing aspect of christian history - how it
borrowed customs and ideas from pre-existing myths and religions and
maintianing the pretence they are original to it - to lying and mangling
history to avoid the truth.
You have FAILED (again). HI-LARRY-OUS
Oh, speaking of MacMullen, dummy, here's something for you that he has about
this subject of christianity taking over pagan holidays and practices (are
you going to try and discredit him too, you dwarf?):
Book: Christianity and paganism in the fourth to eight centuries, MacMullen,
1997, Yale University Press.
Page 155
""Augustine called the sum total of imported paganism among his congregation
their mother, while what he himself would teach them was the father. They
must choose; or he hoped they would. But he could not make them do so. He
conceded that they must be allowed some latitude in their manner of worship.
At just about the same time, toward the beginning of the fifth century,
Jerome made the same acknowledgment: better, worship of saints in the pagan
manner than none at all. ....""
[
""" The same need forced the invention of many celebrations during the year,
since Christians' attendance at events like the Kallends proved too much for
the Church leadership to control except by competition. """
[
""" A 12th-century Syrian Bishop explained:
The reason, then, why the fathers of the church moved the January 6
celebration of epiphany to December 25 was this, they say: it was the custom
of the pagans to celebrate on this same December 25 the birthday of the sun,
and they lit lights then to exalt the day, and invited and admitted
Christians to these rights. When, therefore, the teachers of the church saw
that Christians inclined to this custom, figuring out a strategy, they set
the celebration of the true sunrise on this day ... """
Again, here's what I posted that the Weland/Swain pseudo-scholar is trying
to discredit, followed by verifying mentions from a google book search..
"" The pre-Christian God Mithras - called the Son of God and the Light of
the World - was born on December 25, died, was buried in a rock tomb, and
then resurrected in three days. By the way, December 25 is also the birthday
or Osiris, Adonis, and Dionysus. ""
Here's examples of mention of these same factors in various historical
books. The very least of any book that one is likely to find touching on the
various Mitra, Mithra, Mithras cults, is exponentially more reliable than
anything coming from you.
1) In Search of Zarathustra: Across Iran and Central Asia to Find the
World's ... - Page 122
Paul Kriwaczek - History - 2004 - 288 pages
Over the following centuries, as the religion evolved beyond Zarathustra's
inspiration, Mithra came to be seen as the **Son of God** - the three
aspects of
...
2) The Emperor Julian - Page 31
Constance Head - History - 1976 - 229 pages
Mithra was the Persian **god of light**. His story, far older than the
official
Zoroastrian religion of Persia and incorporated into it, told of his birth
from .
3) A brief history of Western man - Page 99
Thomas H. Greer - History - 1968 - 594 pages
(Long before Christ, **December 25** was celebrated as the date of his
birth.)
Mithra was also associated with the sun, and his followers marked Sunday as
his
4) The Templar Revelation: Secret Guardians of the True Identity of Christ?
Lynn Picknett - Religion - 2004
His resurrection took place, like that of Mithra, from a **rock-tomb**...13
[our
italics] There is not a conception associated with Christ that is not common
to
5) Chinese Religion Through Hindu Eyes; A Study in the Tendencies of Asiatic
...? - Page 146
Wu Ting-Fang, Benoy Kumar Sarkar - History - 2009 - 362 pages
... dying and **resurrected saviour-god**, an Osiris, an Adonis, an Attis, a
Mithra.
Religions of this type were everywhere displacing the old national faiths.
...
6) A brief history of Western man? - Page 88
Thomas H. Greer - History - 1972 - 546 pages
The divine Mithra was believed to be a lieutenant of Ahura Mazda, ... all
told
of a god who had died and was **resurrected**, as the cold death of winter
is ...
7) Human values from the Greeks to modern times: a continuing circle? -
Page 46
Glenn Shillington Visher - Philosophy - 1997 - 254 pages
... their dead were **resurrected**, to a heaven above or a hell in the
bowels of
the earth; their god Mithra had made a sacrifice which saved the human race;
...
And again, these are just examples from search returns - any of these
authors has far more credibiltiy than this "Weland/Swain".
Professor Bart Ehrman went to the trouble of writing a book pointing out the
errors contained in "The Da Vinci Code" book.
Similar to my opinion of the book, he found fault with the mingling of
truth and fiction in it.
In "Truth and Fiction, The Da Vinci Code", Oxford press, 2004, Professor
Ehrman covers a number of topics.
Did he address Brown's claims re. borrowing from mithraism and other pagan
religions that you are trying to pretend din't happen?
Not that I can find in the book. Mithraism (its variants) is not in the
index nor does it show in a Google word search of the book.
That doesn't prove Ehrman agrees with the claims, but it should make one
wonder if an **actual authority** on the subject and history of the times,
in addressing errors in the Brown book, left the mithraism borrowing claims
out, well, maybe he is in agreement with Ramsay MacMullen that a lot of that
sort of thing did happen.
I don't see anything except wriggling and obfuscation in the rest of what
you wrote.
I've furnished supporting clips from published books in a Google book
search.
I went to the trouble of furnishing supporting text from the highly
credible MacMullen book.
I pointed out that a book specifically dealing with the errors in the Brown
book (au: Ehrman) apparently didn't include the issues that you are saying
are in error.
I think this dispute is going to end like the one a year ago where you
claimed that "Secret Mark" had been *proven* to be a fraud.
And of course, in that year ago episode, you claimed that I didn't own the
MacMullen book - so I immediatletly posted a picture of it in a binary group
with a note on it - and you showed just how credible you are by repeating
your false claim and saying you never go to binary groups.... ;-)
You lost that one, and you're losing this one.
Here's a clip from a recent meeting on "Secret Mark", by a real historian.
As I maintained a year ago, "Secret Mark" remains an unsettled issue:
http://www.tonyburke.ca/apocryphicity/category/secret-mark/
The BAR articles succeed at bringing the text to a wide audience and at
keeping the debate in the attention of academics who read the magazine, but
it fails in advancing the discussion beyond the impasse that has gripped it
for decades, even despite the important works in the last decade by Brown,
Carlson, and Jeffery. The real debate should involve the principle writers
on the text-including the aforementioned scholars, Allan Pantuck, and a few
others-but they either refused or were not asked to participate. Last year's
SBL panel was a well-meaning effort to get the scholars in a room to discuss
the text, but Carlson largely refused to answer Brown's and Pantuck's
criticisms, and most of the others who spoke (including Pearson and Ehrman)
were not aware of the current arguments about the text. When is a real
scholarly debate about Secret Mark going to happen?
Now, I asked a year ago that you post your email exchange with Professor
Ehrman (less anything personal) so that we could see what you had said about
the Secret Mark argument we were having.
You claimed that it was a settled matter with it being a proven fraud, I
said it was a controversial UNSETTELD matter.
Now, Weasel/Swine, post those email exchanges you had with Prof. Ehrman,
unless you lack the courage.
I want to see what's in them, and see if you gave him an honest rendition of
the argument, and then I will be happy to email prof. Ehrman.
Let's go sport - do it.
<snip>
J Antero
J Antero
> such a fine mind and yet are quoting The Da Vinci code, a book you have
> claimed is both mangled history and "*probably* contains some historical
> facts* and then use The Templar Revelation as evidence of your
> contentions. You are a true believer, you poor thing.
Weasel/Swine makes up his own facts.
The clearest and most unrefutable example is he continues lying about my
proving that I owned and had on hand, a book by Ramsay MacMullen
(Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eight Centuries).
I immediately posted a photo of it, and then he went pretending I didn't
own it, and claimed he never went to binary groups so couldn't see the
picture.
Is that how reliable people act?
J Antero
Matt Giwer
> "Matt Giwer" <matt@localhost> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@dawn.a.b.c...
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, J Antero wrote:
>>> Bullshit.
>>> Britannica articles usually relfect consensus opinions of recognized
>>> authorties in a field.
>> In the late 1960s Brittanica would pay $50 per answer to questions
>> they presented. I presume they pay more these days. I learned this from a
>> man who was made the offer. He did not consider himself an expert in the
>> field. He justly ridiculed it thereafter.
>> "If they are asking people like me..."
> Well, in terms of some of the 'academic experts" seen on usenet, maybe that
> wasn't a totally bad approach...
It shows the reality of the sources you claim are expert. He was a working
engineer of no particular reputation outside the community.
--
A biblical archaeologist is like an astrological astronomer
or an alchemical chemist. None are scientists.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4199
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/ a8
Fri Nov 27 04:45:54 EST 2009
J Antero
"Martin Edwards" <big_m...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:SoSPm.31614$lb6....@newsfe19.ams2...
> Weland wrote:
>> Weland wrote:
>>> Weland wrote:
>>> from
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is my reply to all that rubbish you put out.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, repeating your errors over and over again is entertaining, so
>>>> please, repeat them again so we can enjoy your idiocy.
>>>
>>> I should add the following:
>>>
>>> Antero's errors in his OP on the subject fall into two categories.
>>>
>>> 1) Things never borrowed or influencing Christianity
>>
>> One more time...hit send by accident.
>>
>> So things that simply didn't come from paganism
>>
>> 2) Things that were borrowed into Christianity or Christian culture, but
>> not from the sources that Antero claims
>>
>> What poor Antero is ignorant of...well, there's a lot that he's ignorant
>> of...is that in the periods of conversion some elements judged benign
>> were allowed to enter Christian practice in order to ease the conversion
>> process of pagans into the faith.
>
> A masterpiece of understatement. There is nothing Jewish about it, except
> for the locus of its founding myth.
He's retreating by a little obfuscationg mini-steps.
That's the same thing he tried in the "Secret Mark" argument about one year
ago.
You were in on that, right?
>
> --
> As through this world I've rambled, I've met plenty of funny men,
> Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen.
>
> Woody Guthrie
>
J Antero
"Matt Giwer" <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4b0fa02c$0$5116$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>J Antero wrote:
>> "Matt Giwer" <matt@localhost> wrote in message
>> news:Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@dawn.a.b.c...
>>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, J Antero wrote:
>>>> Bullshit.
>>>> Britannica articles usually relfect consensus opinions of recognized
>>>> authorties in a field.
>>> In the late 1960s Brittanica would pay $50 per answer to questions
>>> they presented. I presume they pay more these days. I learned this from
>>> a
>>> man who was made the offer. He did not consider himself an expert in the
>>> field. He justly ridiculed it thereafter.
>>> "If they are asking people like me..."
>
>> Well, in terms of some of the 'academic experts" seen on usenet, maybe
>> that wasn't a totally bad approach...
>
> It shows the reality of the sources you claim are expert. He was a working
> engineer of no particular reputation outside the community.
So you're pretending that the Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't use experts in
the subject for preparation of its articles on various subjects.
Ride that tiny little horse.
J Antero
On Nov 26, 5:01 pm, Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
> Roger Pearse wrote:
> > On Nov 25, 6:46 pm, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
> >> "Matt Giwer" <matt@localhost> wrote in message
>
> >>news:Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@dawn.a.b.c...
>
> >>>> I think the Britannica and its contributors are light years more
> >>>> reliable
> >>> God forbid you should ever go to college and be disabused of that
> >>> quaint belief. The disabuse occurs in the freshmen orientation
> >>> lectures.
> >>> It
> >>> is one of the first things they try to get out of your head.
> >> If the choice is between listening to shlubs or scholars with
> >> recognized
> >> expertise in an area, it's no choice.
>
> > Indeed not. That's why you go with the shlubs, is it?
>
> Why else would he quote The Da Vinci Code and conspiracy theorists as
> fact?
Indeed. Although I think he's just a troll.
===Note how he claims to know everyone, yet a google search of his
posting history reveals it starts recently. ===
I think the worm is refering to me, indirectly.
If he is, note that his research abilities lead him to think that I'm new in
usenet.
He also can't verifiy if what I posted about mithraism from the Britannica
is real or not (it is from a 2002 CD edition).
The "trolls" are the jesus shills posing as having academic knowledge
superior to anyone who dares expose uncomfortable realties about their
favored myth.
Martin Edwards
Martin Edwards
J Antero
"Martin Edwards" <big_m...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> On Nov 27, 9:49 am, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>> J Antero wrote:
>>>> "Matt Giwer" <matt@localhost> wrote in message
>>>> news:Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@dawn.a.b.c...
>>>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, J Antero wrote:
>>>>>> I think the Britannica and its contributors are light years more
>>>>>> reliable
>>>>>> than you, Roger...
>>>>> God forbid you should ever go to college and be disabused of that
>>>>> quaint belief. The disabuse occurs in the freshmen orientation
>>>>> lectures.
>>>>> It
>>>>> is one of the first things they try to get out of your head.
>>>> If the choice is between listening to shlubs or scholars with
>>>> recognized
>>>> expertise in an area, it's no choice.
>>> Please
>>> be
>>> specific in your response.
>>
>> ==Not to mention that we only have his word for it that any of this crap
>> ever appeared in Britannica.==
>>
>> That says a great deal.
>>
>> The crap pusher not only can't verify that it's a Britannica article, he
>> also doesn't know how to find out who authors Britannica articles.
>>
>> You're just a jesus shill, posing as someone making scholarly posts.
>>
>> Go away - nobody with any brains believes anything you say.
>>
>>
> That is not entirely fair. He has done some research, but his conclusions
> are always are always refracted through his beliefs.
Well, the term "scholar', to me, means someone who puts aside his personal
inclinations as much as humanly possible, and honors the facts and logic of
what is known about the subject he speaks or writes on.
Propagandists, are something quite different, and libraries are filled with
books assuming 'divinity" and the reality of magical acts performed by
their favored supernatural beings.
Weland
>> Oh, how true to form...thing is, though, Anturdo, you're the one claiming
>> such a fine mind and yet are quoting The Da Vinci code, a book you have
>> claimed is both mangled history and "*probably* contains some historical
>> facts* and then use The Templar Revelation as evidence of your
>> contentions. You are a true believer, you poor thing.
Rather than respond to his use of unqualified, bad sources to support
his contentions, Anturdo resorts to ad hominem speeches. Not surprising.
>
The clearest and most unrefutable example is he continues lying about my
> proving that I owned and had on hand, a book by Ramsay MacMullen
> (Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eight Centuries).
As posted in another message where you make this charge, and I cut and
pasted what I said, which was about whether or not you *READ* the book.
Ownership is insufficient, if you own it. You still haven't
demonstrated that you've actually read it, and the proof is that when
talking about Christianity and Paganism in the ancient world you didn't
reach for a book you've supposedly read by a world-renowned scholar
titled CHRISTIANITY AND PAGANISM and instead quoted Dan Brown's The Da
Vinci Code, a book you yourself had already characterized as "mangled
history."
Further on this issue, you made the charge that I hadn't heard of Bart
Ehrman until you mentioned him in late December last year and were quite
befuddled to find that he mentioned me in a 2003 book. You still
haven't retracted your claim though.
?
>
> Weasel/Swine - I like keeping things simple.
Simple things for simpletons, Anturdo. Would that rather than simple
being your primary value, it was factual and accurate.
> First you pretend christianity didn't take anything from the pagan
> religions,
Nope and as already posted in a previous response, quoting myself from
response to your OP, I explicitly stated the opposite. I noted, many
times, that the things you claim that Christianity took from paganism
either didn't come from paganism or didn't come from the sources you
claim they did. Well, it wasn't you, you plagiarized others and
presented it as your own, likely not even aware of what you were citing.
>then you admit they did, then you pretend that
> centuries old religions would have been borrowing from a new religion.
LOL! WOW, you are an ignorant soul. Try a little logic, then maybe
some facts. As already demonstrated, Roman Mithraism wasn't a centuries
old religion. Second syncretism was the norm during the Hellenistic
period as everything shifted and moved and melded....and the movement
was toward amalgamating the whole into a single system and a single
divine. Centuries old religions borrowed from new religions and were
transformed and given new life throughout the period.
> Theoretically, that's possible. But most scholars of the period accept that
> in those days, something being old confered a high status on it that new
> things lacked.
Non sequitur, argues from general to the specific, and demonstrates a
gross misunderstanding of the period. But you can't teach a rock.
> The Romans gave Judaism a preferred status becasue they knew
> it was ancient.
> If some new belief system wanted credibility, it's logical and more likely
> that it would borrowed from older and already accepted ones.
Non sequitur again, as well as demonstrated ignorance of the period.
Many "new" religions, in fact many of the mystery religions were new,
and retrojected some sort of connection to the ancient past...as did
Christianity by continuing to tie itself to Judaism. And these new
religions drew adherents, were syncretistic, and rubbed shoulders with
each other, influencing each other.
<snip anturdity already dealt with>
> Now, I asked a year ago that you post your email exchange with Professor
> Ehrman (less anything personal) so that we could see what you had said about
> the Secret Mark argument we were having.
Which I did, more than once. In a previous posting, I pointed to
exactly one place where I explicitly did so and did so again. I can be
patient, I know you're slow on the uptake.
>
> You claimed that it was a settled matter with it being a proven fraud, I
> said it was a controversial UNSETTELD matter.
False, but I'll deal with that later.
Weland
nothing new or true
Weland
nothing new or true or related to what was posted
Weland
Wrong Martin, doofus. But I'll post all about Secret Mark tomorrow so
you don't mislead people in a new newsgroup either.
Weland
Ah, you mean to not be like you.....
J Antero
>J Antero wrote:
>
> nothing new or true
It's all true and it's the liar who constantly needs something "new'.
J Antero
>J Antero wrote:
>>> Oh, how true to form...thing is, though, Anturdo, you're the one
>>> claiming
>>> such a fine mind and yet are quoting The Da Vinci code, a book you have
>>> claimed is both mangled history and "*probably* contains some historical
>>> facts* and then use The Templar Revelation as evidence of your
>>> contentions. You are a true believer, you poor thing.
>
> Rather than respond to his use of unqualified, bad sources to support
> his contentions, Anturdo resorts to ad hominem speeches. Not surprising.
Weasel/Swine means that I have cited a number of sources that refute what he
has said.
> The clearest and most unrefutable example is he continues lying about my
>> proving that I owned and had on hand, a book by Ramsay MacMullen
>> (Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eight Centuries).
> As posted in another message where you make this charge, and I cut and
> pasted what I said, which was about whether or not you *READ* the book.
This is typical Weasel/Swine.
Instead of admitting being worng, he tries to shift and obfuscate.
A year ago, after I cited the MacMullen book, you claimed I didn't own
it.
I quickly postred a pic of it with a note on it, and you pretended that you
couldn't look at it, becasue you never go to binary usenet groups.
Now you retreat to pretending to know whether I have read a book you
previously claimed that I didn't own.
And, moron, you do that after I have recently posted material in it that
refutes your position that the early christians weren't adopting customs,
ideas and holidays from pre-existing pagan religions/cults - which is what
this argument is basically about.
You are an absurd person.
Here's the macMullen piece again, fool:
Page 155
> Ownership is insufficient, if you own it. You still haven't
> demonstrated that you've actually read it,
Right, fool, I just quoted it in a number of posts, but I didn't read it....
this is NOT a 'scholar".
and the proof is that when
> talking about Christianity and Paganism in the ancient world you didn't
> reach for a book you've supposedly read by a world-renowned scholar
> titled CHRISTIANITY AND PAGANISM and instead quoted Dan Brown's The Da
> Vinci Code, a book you yourself had already characterized as "mangled
> history."
>
> Further on this issue, you made the charge that I hadn't heard of Bart
> Ehrman until you mentioned him in late December last year and were quite
> befuddled to find that he mentioned me in a 2003 book. You still
> haven't retracted your claim though.
I think you're losing it.
Regrading Secret Mark, a year ago , I claimed that prof. Ehrman, in his
books and Teaching Co. lecture material, indicated that Secret Mark was an
unsettled issue.
You said it was a settled issue, that it was a proven fraud.
We argued.
I have posted a recent description of the Secret Mark issue from an actual
scholar that indicates it IS UNSETTLED.
You claimed to have emailed Prof Ehrman about this a year ago.
I have repeatedly asked that you post that email exchange (less any personal
material) becasue I think you probably lied about the discussion in
recounting it.
Now - post that email exchange, Weasel/Swine.
The rest of what you have posted is just red herrings, obfuscation and
wriggling.
<snip>
J Antero
>J Antero wrote:
>
> nothing new or true or related to what was posted
J Antero
I've posted information from a number of good authorites that refute you.
It wasn't even hard.
Weland
Yes, Dan Brown in The Da Vinci Code and his source conspiracy
writers.....well, *you* consider those to be good authorities, but it
would seem no one else is about to agree with you.
>
> It wasn't even hard.
>
> Here's the macMullen piece again, fool:
Reading too hard for you, Anturdo? Already addressed.
J Antero
J Antero
Swine turd runs away again.
Not everything in Brown's book was in error, as indicated by Prof Ehrman's
title "Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code".
>> It wasn't even hard.
>>
>> Here's the macMullen piece again, fool:
>
> Reading too hard for you, Anturdo? Already addressed.
Larry Swineturd runs away again.
He deleted the macMullen quote - it's not hard getting Swine turd to show
just how much a "scholar"he is...
It's fun manipulating him into it.. again
J Antero
That's why I asked the question, fool.
And you claimed Secret Mark was a proven fraud, and it wasn't and isn't,
doofus.
Weland
A year ago, our Anturdo introduced the topic of Secret Mark into a
discussion that had nothing to do with that subject. The original
message is found here:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.medieval/msg/7e4e945b59f18e7b?dmode=source
The discussion was over a point of medieval theological thought and
whether the Reformation would be a useful marker with which to say the
Middle Ages ended and the Modern period begins, and troll Hinesy was
defending that the truth was defined by Scripture, Reason, and
Tradition, a non-medieval formulation. In response to Hines' claims on
this method of divining truth, Anturdo introduced Secret Mark; he has
yet to explain after many requests why he thought it related to the
topic under discussion. I suspect it was something he had recently run
across and couldn't wait to show how "informed" he was; it didn't matter
that it was off topic.
The article he points to in that post is good enough for something
written several years ago, outlines what Secret Mark is and how it was
discovered etc. My first reply to Anturdo was:
"What this doesn't cover is that this is likely a forgery perpetrated by
Morton Smith, in spite of Helmut Koester's and Scott Brown's truculant
and illogical attempts to claim it as genuine."
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.medieval/msg/2cb5687462d35904?dmode=source
Anturdo's reply came swiftly, stating that his original source covered
the forgery ground:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.medieval/msg/b33b8eccdf300b06?dmode=source
A few others jumped in, but my next reply to Anturdo was to elucidate
further:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.medieval/msg/c0aa5af12ae939c4?dmode=source
Note my statement there: "The controversy continues by the way....again
none of which is mentioned in the link. "
In an effort to save his face, Anturdo next looked up Wieland Wilker's
page on Secret Mark and found that Wieland was in support of Secret Mark
and so that disproved, according to Anturdo, what I said:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.medieval/msg/ea3bfb58546a64fe?dmode=source
I replied, noting that Wieland, a doctor, has supported authenticity for
years and doesn't offer a balanced view on his web site. In addition I
reiterated again that "I certainly didn't dispute that there's
controversy and
that it continues: I merely pointed out that the link you cited doesn't
cover the more recent cases for forgery, and that the pendulum has swung
away from almost universal acceptance (whether as an expansion of Mark,
or as a portion excised from Mark, or whether an independent tradition
that was still being discussed) ten years ago to now those arguing for
authenticity find themselves on the ropes....including making very
emotional arguments such as Koester's oh so convincing "If it isn't
genuine than I'm the biggest fool..." and misrepresentations of
positions etc. Leading the charge is Scott Brown, who did his
dissertation on Secret Mark and all his subsequent scholarly work...he
has a great deal to lose if Secret Mark is accepted as a forgery."
Anturdo proceeds from there and anyone interested can pursue the thread
in which Anturdo misrepresents, lies, bops around the 'net looking for
anything to support his claims. Note that my original "recent works
show that this is most likely a forgery...." quickly becomes in
Anturdo's understanding "you said it was a fake" and that quickly
becomes "you said it was a settled issue"; note too that neither of
Anturdo's oft repeated claims are what I said. Further, Anturdo claimed
I said it was a "settled issue" when in fact in two of the messages I've
already pointed to I state specifically that it is controversial and the
debate continues. That the consensus has shifted is also true. The
typical Anturdo tactics follow: misrepresentation, lies, pointing to any
old thing that supports his position, but can't do his own research,
lack of engagement. Read the thread. Make up your own mind.
Weland
More nonsense from Anturdo.
J Antero
Said like the type of "scholar" you are, Swineturd.
J Antero
It was quite easy to come up with this post in which I gave a series of
quores that show you did indeed state to the effect that Secret Mark had
been disproven.
I really wonder what kind of a mind is so full of obfuscation, wriggling and
just plain weasling.
I posted this on Jan, 19, 2009, in the course of an ongoing argument over
Secret mark, which I claimed was controversial and undecided, and
Weasel/Swine had been claiming was a proven forgery (except when he was
trying to pretend he didn't say it)..
"""" Liar.
Weland/Swain, you said it was a "demonstrated" forgery, and that it was a
"proven forgery" by Smith.
You compared the level of certainty of "secret mark" being a forgery to the
level of certainity that the earth isn't flat. You own words are given
below, with reference given to thread and date, all within this newsgroup.
[soc.history.medieval ]
You are caught. You're worming around becasue Professor Ehrman, who you ran
to after I threatended to email him, is himself plainly not decided on the
issue, as I have said, over and over..
12/13/08 post in: Re: Jesus Christ -- Clashing Biblical Images
JAntero:
> Again, here's what I initially said, and it stands: [original post stating
> secret mark was controversial.]
Weland:
Again, not disputed, and it still doesn't cover recent work demonstrating
forgery.
== end 12/13 extract
12/14/08 post in: Re: Jesus Christ -- Clashing Biblical Images
JAntero:
> Idiot, you were initially claiming that "secret mark" had been proven a
> forgery done by Smith,
******
Weland:
It has been. Just because there are a few who still don't agree, in
large part because most of their publications on which they've based
their careers would suddenly be proven bogus and go up in smoke, isn't
quite the same as saying that the case has not been successfully made.
******
JAntero:
> then you backed off,
Weland/Swain:
No. Recognizing that some people contend the issue is not the same as
"backing off". After all, that the earth is not flat is under
contention--there are those who contend that it is in fact flat--but
that doesn't mean they've a leg to stand on and recognizing that they
exist and that they do so contend isn't the same as backing off that the
earth is not a flat planet.
[Weland/Swain here says that "secret mark" being a forgery, is as likely as
the earth being a sphere, versus falt.]
==end 12/14 extract
In the following, Weland/Swain claims biblical scholar Bart Ehrman's
ambivalent opinion on the issue
of "secret mark" being a forgery, is "artificial".
Unlike Weland/Swain, I suspect Ehrman's opinion is in fact more based on
what evidence and logic can be *truthfully* applied to the issue.
12/16/08 post in: Re: Jesus Christ -- Clashing Biblical Images
Weland/Swain:
The point of the quote of the review is not to dispute that Ehrman
didn't explicitly state that it was a forgery, but to illustrate a
problem with Ehrman's seeming ambivalence: he spends his time in that
section discussing all the reasons why its a forgery and clearly implies
that it is a forgery making his ambivalence an artificial one.
==end 12/16 extract
>I said that recent work has demonstrated that it is likely a forgery and
>that the thought of many, even those who once supported its authenticity,
>have been convinced and shifted their positions into the "probably a
>forgery"
Well, "Weland/Swain", if that were true, then it would only be "probably"
true that the earth isn't flat, according to what you say in your post on
12/14.
Weasel around all you want, but your own words indicate that you were
implying and saying that "secret mark" was a decided issue - right from the
start, I have been saying it is an undecided issue..
I wonder how biblical scholar Professor Ehrman would appreciate knowing that
you are characterizing his opinion on "secret mark", as "artificial"?
Now, I again post a recent summary discussion on the subject of the
controversy over Secret Mark, from an actual scholar, versus a Weasel/Swine
turd.
It's quite plain it's an unsettled issue from this clip, but anyone can go
to the site and look around.
http://www.tonyburke.ca/apocryphicity/category/secret-mark/
The BAR articles succeed at bringing the text to a wide audience and at
keeping the debate in the attention of academics who read the magazine, but
it fails in advancing the discussion beyond the impasse that has gripped it
for decades, even despite the important works in the last decade by Brown,
Carlson, and Jeffery. The real debate should involve the principle writers
on the text-including the aforementioned scholars, Allan Pantuck, and a few
others-but they either refused or were not asked to participate. Last year's
SBL panel was a well-meaning effort to get the scholars in a room to discuss
the text, but Carlson largely refused to answer Brown's and Pantuck's
criticisms, and most of the others who spoke (including Pearson and Ehrman)
were not aware of the current arguments about the text. When is a real
scholarly debate about Secret Mark going to happen?
J Antero
In my first post I didn't indicate the end of the Jan, 19, 2009 post.
It was quite easy to come up with this post in which I gave a series of
quores that show you did indeed state to the effect that Secret Mark had
been disproven.
I really wonder what kind of a mind is so full of obfuscation, wriggling and
just plain weasling.
I posted this on Jan, 19, 2009, in the course of an ongoing argument over
Secret mark, which I claimed was controversial and undecided, and
Weasel/Swine had been claiming was a proven forgery (except when he was
trying to pretend he didn't say it)..
**Start Jan, 19, 2009 post
JAntero:
JAntero:
******
Weland:
******
JAntero:
> then you backed off,
==end 12/14 extract
**end Jan, 19, 2009 post
Weland
That's why I answered it for you, dimwit.
>
> And you claimed Secret Mark was a proven fraud, and it wasn't and isn't,
> doofus.
Like you would know? Really? Read any good web pages lately?
What I said was that recent work had shown that it was likely a forgery.
I also pointed out that the controversy continues, though the
consensus has shifted to seeing it as a forgery. I know you'll
misrepresent what I said again, but for the record and anyone reading
this, there it is.
> Here's a clip from a recent meeting on "Secret Mark", by a real historian.
> As I maintained a year ago, "Secret Mark" remains an unsettled issue:
>
Already addressed. Interestingly Tony explicitly says that Bart Ehrman
is in the forgery camp, contrary to your claims....wonder why you didn't
also cite that part.
> http://www.tonyburke.ca/apocryphicity/category/secret-mark/
<snipped material already dealt with>
Weland
You have an odd definition of running away: you see, the one running is
the one who won't fess up to plagiarizing The Da Vinci Code and passing
it off as history.
>
> Not everything in Brown's book was in error, as indicated by Prof Ehrman's
> title "Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code".
Dealt with already.
>
>>> It wasn't even hard.
>>>
>>> Here's the macMullen piece again, fool:
>> Reading too hard for you, Anturdo? Already addressed.
>
> Larry Swineturd runs away again.
Still already addressed: ignoring that I addressed it, more than once,
is running away; pointing out that I addressed it AGAIN is pressing you
to the wall.
Just to please Anturdo Retardo...but once again there is nothing there I
disagree with nor does it address anything that was objected to in your OP.
Weland
> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:hev2h6$r4f$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> It was quite easy to come up with this post in which I gave a series of
> quores that show you did indeed state to the effect that Secret Mark had
> been disproven.
>
> I really wonder what kind of a mind is so full of obfuscation, wriggling and
> just plain weasling.
>
> I posted this on Jan, 19, 2009, in the course of an ongoing argument over
> Secret mark, which I claimed was controversial and undecided, and
> Weasel/Swine had been claiming was a proven forgery (except when he was
> trying to pretend he didn't say it)..
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.medieval/browse_frm/thread/7297b48ce2a939c6/2153ab4f151e7b33?hl=en&q=secret+mark+group:soc.history.medieval
A very clear demonstration of your weak mindedness and inability to read
plain English. Thank you for posting this demonstration of your own
stupidity.
Weland
> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:hev2h6$r4f$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> In my first post I didn't indicate the end of the Jan, 19, 2009 post.
>
> It was quite easy to come up with this post in which I gave a series of
> quores that show you did indeed state to the effect that Secret Mark had
> been disproven.
>
> I really wonder what kind of a mind is so full of obfuscation, wriggling and
> just plain weasling.
Look in the mirror and you'll discover it quite quickly.
> I posted this on Jan, 19, 2009, in the course of an ongoing argument over
> Secret mark, which I claimed was controversial and undecided, and
> Weasel/Swine had been claiming was a proven forgery (except when he was
> trying to pretend he didn't say it)..
Thank you for posting the clear example of your weasling, obfuscation,
wriggling, lying, and generally lack of honesty in any discussion.
Weland
> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:hev2tc$s83$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> J Antero wrote:
>>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>> news:het647$hja$7...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>>> J Antero wrote:
>>>>
>>>> nothing new or true
>>> It's all true and it's the liar who constantly needs something "new'.
>> More nonsense from Anturdo.
>
Indeed, one of the many services scholars like me provide is pointing
out the historical errors of nut cases like you and setting the record
straight. As usual, you read something on the net that you took as fact
and are now trying desperately to defend yourself.
J Antero
>>>> I've posted information from a number of good authorites that refute
>>>> you.
>>
>>> Yes, Dan Brown in The Da Vinci Code and his source conspiracy
>>> writers.....well, *you* consider those to be good authorities, but it
>>> would seem no one else is about to agree with you.
>>
>> Swine turd runs away again.
>
>
> You have an odd definition of running away: you see, the one running is
> the one who won't fess up to plagiarizing The Da Vinci Code and passing it
> off as history.
You really are irresponisble.
Using a minor quote from a book is hardly plagarism, particularly in a
usenet post, and I've show that what was contained in the quote has
historical support.
Prof Ehrman, an *actual* biblical scholar, wrote a book entitled 'Truth and
Fiction in the Da Vinci code", and apparently did not refute the "mithra"
quote which you are pretending has to be wrong.
That doesn't prove he agrees with it, but it may indicate that he agrees
with Prof Ramsay MacMullen that that sort of thing was going on.
If you had any brains or self respect you would just shut up.
You just go on and on revealing how untrustworthy you are.
Like the Secret Mark argument of a year ago, you are not going to win this
by your copious obfuscation and lying.
>> Not everything in Brown's book was in error, as indicated by Prof
>> Ehrman's title "Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code".
>
> Dealt with already.
Incompetently. you're pretending everything in the book is untrue.
The title of Ehrman's book is 'Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci code".
You tried to pretend he had no control over the title, that his publisher
would have misrepresented his internt.
That shows that you haven't read the book.
Preface, page xx:
Prof. Ehrman:
" It is the goal of my discussion to separate the fact from the fiction, the
histroical realities from the flights of fancy, "
If you had any brains or self respect you would just shut up.
<snip>
J Antero
You're no scholar.
Here's another actual scholar, in addition to the others, who shows you know
nothing about the relationship of mithraism to early christinaity.
Instead of admitting you're wrong you lie and accuse others.
You're no scholar.
And here's yet another piece that demonstartes that.
A history of the Middle Ages, 300-1500, 2008, by
John M. Riddle, retired Chair of the History Department and Alumni
Distinguished Professor, North Carolina State University.
Page 37:
""" Mithra: From Persia came the story of Mithra, son of the god of light,
who was put on earth to fight against the god of evil.
Shepherds saw a bright star, followed it, and saw Mithra born with a flash
of light out of a rock.
They wrapped him in swaddling clothes and took him to lie in a manger,
according to pictures of his birth as shown in Mithraic churches. As a
youth, Mithra was slain in combat with the god of darkness, but, incarnated
in the form of a bull, he was brought back to life and in the renewed fight
was victorious.
[]
We do not know whether the Mithraism practiced in the Roman Empire came from
Persia or whether it was a Roman creation based on the Persian story. """"
You're no scholar, Swain.
J Antero
I knew well enough to show you up as an incompetent liar, Swineturd
> What I said was that recent work had shown that it was likely a forgery.
It was quite easy to come up with this post in which I gave a series of
quores that show you did indeed state to the effect that Secret Mark had
been disproven.
I really wonder what kind of a mind is so full of obfuscation, wriggling and
just plain weasling.
I posted this on Jan, 19, 2009, in the course of an ongoing argument over
Secret mark, which I claimed was controversial and undecided, and
Weasel/Swine had been claiming was a proven forgery (except when he was
trying to pretend he didn't say it)..
JAntero:
JAntero:
******
Weland:
******
JAntero:
> then you backed off,
==end 12/14 extract
http://www.tonyburke.ca/apocryphicity/category/secret-mark/
The BAR articles succeed at bringing the text to a wide audience and at
keeping the debate in the attention of academics who read the magazine, but
it fails in advancing the discussion beyond the impasse that has gripped it
for decades, even despite the important works in the last decade by Brown,
Carlson, and Jeffery. The real debate should involve the principle writers
on the text-including the aforementioned scholars, Allan Pantuck, and a few
others-but they either refused or were not asked to participate. Last year's
SBL panel was a well-meaning effort to get the scholars in a room to discuss
the text, but Carlson largely refused to answer Brown's and Pantuck's
criticisms, and most of the others who spoke (including Pearson and Ehrman)
were not aware of the current arguments about the text. When is a real
scholarly debate about Secret Mark going to happen?
> I also pointed out that the controversy continues, though the consensus
> has shifted to seeing it as a forgery. I know you'll misrepresent what I
> said again, but for the record and anyone reading this, there it is.
>
>> Here's a clip from a recent meeting on "Secret Mark", by a real
>> historian.
>> As I maintained a year ago, "Secret Mark" remains an unsettled issue:
>>
>
> Already addressed. Interestingly Tony explicitly says that Bart Ehrman is
> in the forgery camp, contrary to your claims....wonder why you didn't also
> cite that part.
You're a liar. I said his 2003 material indicated that he thought the matter
was undecided.
If I had to guess than and now, I would guess he leans toward forgery - but
that wasn't the argument - the argument was whether it was a settled -
proven matter..
A year ago, you claimed it WAS a settled matter (as shown above), with it
being a proven fraud.
You said, a year ago you had emailed Ehrman about it, but wouldn't post the
emails, and then went on to say:
==start 12/16/08 extract
Weland/Swain:
The point of the quote of the review is not to dispute that Ehrman
didn't explicitly state that it was a forgery, but to illustrate a
problem with Ehrman's seeming ambivalence: he spends his time in that
section discussing all the reasons why its a forgery and clearly implies
that it is a forgery making his ambivalence an artificial one.
==end 12/16/08 extract
Idiot. LOL
http://www.tonyburke.ca/apocryphicity/category/secret-mark/
J Antero
>J Antero wrote:
>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>> news:hev2h6$r4f$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> In my first post I didn't indicate the end of the Jan, 19, 2009 post.
>>
>> It was quite easy to come up with this post in which I gave a series of
>> quores that show you did indeed state to the effect that Secret Mark had
>> been disproven.
>>
>> I really wonder what kind of a mind is so full of obfuscation, wriggling
>> and
>> just plain weasling.
>
> Look in the mirror and you'll discover it quite quickly.
I think everybody knows who the lying weasel is.... turd...
It was quite easy to come up with this post in which I gave a series of
quores that show you did indeed state to the effect that Secret Mark had
been disproven.
I really wonder what kind of a mind is so full of obfuscation, wriggling and
just plain weasling.
I posted this on Jan, 19, 2009, in the course of an ongoing argument over
Secret mark, which I claimed was controversial and undecided, and
Weasel/Swine had been claiming was a proven forgery (except when he was
trying to pretend he didn't say it)..
J Antero
>J Antero wrote:
>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>> news:hev2h6$r4f$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
It was quite easy to come up with this post in which I gave a series of
quores that show you did indeed state to the effect that Secret Mark had
been disproven.
I really wonder what kind of a mind is so full of obfuscation, wriggling and
just plain weasling.
I posted this on Jan, 19, 2009, in the course of an ongoing argument over
Secret mark, which I claimed was controversial and undecided, and
Weasel/Swine had been claiming was a proven forgery (except when he was
trying to pretend he didn't say it)..
**Start Jan, 19, 2009 post
"""" Liar.
JAntero:
JAntero:
******
Weland:
******
JAntero:
> then you backed off,
==end 12/14 extract
**end Jan, 19, 2009 post
Slag310
> Centuries old religions borrowed from new religions and were
> transformed and given new life throughout the period.
I always wondered what the specifics were about what was borrowed from
paganism into xianity. Apparently everything. Anyway, here is a very
brief list of the some of the saints and the pagan gods they are based
on.
If either one of those URL's is correct....
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2438110/pagan_saints.html?cat=37
<A HREF="http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2438110/
pagan_saints.html?cat=37">Pagan Saints</A>
Slag310
Weland
> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:hf12jl$7nj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> J Antero wrote:
>>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hev2h6$r4f$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>> In my first post I didn't indicate the end of the Jan, 19, 2009 post.
>>>
>>> It was quite easy to come up with this post in which I gave a series of
>>> quores that show you did indeed state to the effect that Secret Mark had
>>> been disproven.
>>>
>
>>> I really wonder what kind of a mind is so full of obfuscation, wriggling
>>> and
>>> just plain weasling.
>> Look in the mirror and you'll discover it quite quickly.
>
> I think everybody knows who the lying weasel is.... turd...
Yes, we do...AnTURDO....you got caught several times this week alone.
>
> It was quite easy to come up with this post in which I gave a series of
> quores that show you did indeed state to the effect that Secret Mark had
> been disproven.
Too bad you didn't come up with anything factual to support you OP...ah
well. You keep using "proven" "settled" "uncontroversial" and their
opposites as if they all mean the same thing. They don't.
> I really wonder what kind of a mind is so full of obfuscation, wriggling and
> just plain weasling.
>
> I posted this on Jan, 19, 2009, in the course of an ongoing argument over
> Secret mark, which I claimed was controversial and undecided, and
> Weasel/Swine had been claiming was a proven forgery (except when he was
> trying to pretend he didn't say it)..
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.medieval/browse_frm/thread/7297b48ce2a939c6/2153ab4f151e7b33?hl=en&q=secret+mark+group:soc.history.medieval
>
> **Start Jan, 19, 2009 post
>
> """" Liar.
> Weland/Swain, you said it was a "demonstrated" forgery, and that it was a
> "proven forgery" by Smith.
Yeah, I did. The demonstrations are the books and articles I referred
to MANY times. Whether you accept those demonstrations is another question.
> You compared the level of certainty of "secret mark" being a forgery to the
> level of certainity that the earth isn't flat. You own words are given
> below, with reference given to thread and date, all within this newsgroup.
> [soc.history.medieval ]
No, I compared the fact of controversy about Secret Mark to the fact of
controversy about whether the earth is flat. Both have controversy
about them. It tells us nothing at all about the state of the question
on either subject.
>
> You are caught.
Telling the truth and representing the field accurately, we know.
You're worming around becasue Professor Ehrman, who you ran
> to after I threatended to email him, is himself plainly not decided on the
> issue, as I have said, over and over..
Which is why he said he was convinced, that means he's uncertain.
J Antero
>J Antero wrote:
>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>> news:hf12jl$7nj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> J Antero wrote:
>>>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:hev2h6$r4f$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>
>>>> In my first post I didn't indicate the end of the Jan, 19, 2009 post.
>>>>
>>>> It was quite easy to come up with this post in which I gave a series of
>>>> quores that show you did indeed state to the effect that Secret Mark
>>>> had
>>>> been disproven.
>>>>
>>
>>>> I really wonder what kind of a mind is so full of obfuscation,
>>>> wriggling and
>>>> just plain weasling.
>>> Look in the mirror and you'll discover it quite quickly.
>>
>> I think everybody knows who the lying weasel is.... turd...
>
> Yes, we do...AnTURDO....you got caught several times this week alone.
No SwineTURD, everybody following this thread knows you tried to say that
"Secret mark" was a settled issue, with it being a proven fraud.
SwineTURD, you said that a year ago, and then tried to weasel around it when
I showed you to be wrong and a liar, SwineTURD.
SwineTURD, the pseudoscholar, continues it's weaseling.
It's quite plain it's an unsettled issue from this clip, but anyone can go
to the site and look around.
http://www.tonyburke.ca/apocryphicity/category/secret-mark/
The BAR articles succeed at bringing the text to a wide audience and at
keeping the debate in the attention of academics who read the magazine, but
it fails in advancing the discussion beyond the impasse that has gripped it
for decades, even despite the important works in the last decade by Brown,
Carlson, and Jeffery. The real debate should involve the principle writers
on the text-including the aforementioned scholars, Allan Pantuck, and a few
others-but they either refused or were not asked to participate. Last year's
SBL panel was a well-meaning effort to get the scholars in a room to discuss
the text, but Carlson largely refused to answer Brown's and Pantuck's
criticisms, and most of the others who spoke (including Pearson and Ehrman)
were not aware of the current arguments about the text. When is a real
scholarly debate about Secret Mark going to happen?
Now, run along you lying little SwineTURD of a jesus shill.
Weland
LOL!! Such delusions of grandeur! You read a couple snippets on web
pages and suddenly you're an expert!!! LOL!!!
>
>
>> What I said was that recent work had shown that it was likely a forgery.
>
> It was quite easy to come up with this post in which I gave a series of
> quores that show you did indeed state to the effect that Secret Mark had
> been disproven.
It is always easy to cut and paste out of context and to misunderstand
concepts and words too big for you. It is much more difficult to seek
knowledge and understanding.
>
> I really wonder what kind of a mind is so full of obfuscation, wriggling and
> just plain weasling.
Look in the mirror, instant answer to your wonderment.
>>
>> I also pointed out that the controversy continues, though the consensus
>> has shifted to seeing it as a forgery. I know you'll misrepresent what I
>> said again, but for the record and anyone reading this, there it is.
>>
>>> Here's a clip from a recent meeting on "Secret Mark", by a real
>>> historian.
>>> As I maintained a year ago, "Secret Mark" remains an unsettled issue:
>>>
>> Already addressed. Interestingly Tony explicitly says that Bart Ehrman is
>> in the forgery camp, contrary to your claims....wonder why you didn't also
>> cite that part.
>
>
> You're a liar. I said his 2003 material indicated that he thought the matter
> was undecided.
You eventually came to that position, one that wasn't debated. In this
post you say:
"Professor Ehrman, a biblical scholar and a skeptic of "secret mark",
does not think its authenticity is decided one way or the other."
http://books.google.com/books?id=URdACxKubDIC&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=ehrman+%22secret+mark%22+authenticity&source=web&ots=059GTvavFW&sig=Y_tl98724ZyGctnQ5V9dqssLqv4&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA83,M1
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.medieval/msg/9e176e14a03562dc?dmode=source&pli=1
No indication there that you were restricting your comments to only his
2003 remarks.
I replied:
"Bart is only a single voice. What about Mark Goodacre? Birger Pearson?
Dennis McDonald? Robert Price? Ehrman himself has twice since Lost
Christianities and the lectures been involved in discussions of Secret
Mark where he has been witness for the prosecution (i. e. spoken in
favor of forgergy), though without making a full commitment. Still
voluntarily witness for the forgery side. Loren Rossom? Quesnell?
Jacob Neusner? Bruce Chilton? von Campenhausen? To name a few who
consider it a forgery. "
and ". In
any case, Lost Christianities came out in 2003, Carlson published in
2005 and Jeffrey in 2006. "
You followed up:
As i have posted before, Ehrman is a recognized, heavily published
authority
on the New Testament.
Here is a link to a piece by him dealing with "secret mark" - he is
skeptical of it, but says the issue is still undecided. He discusses a
meeting with a biblical scholar who went to the monastery where it was
found by Smith, and verified the document's exitence.
Again no indication there that you're only talking about his 2003 work,
but rather making a larger point that Ehrman supposedly disagrees with me.
I responded to you again:
"Indeed, but Bart's book came out 2 years *BEFORE* the current books on
forgery. Interesting though that in 2008 Ehrman appeared in a session
at the Society of Biblical Literature meeting in a session devoted to
Secret Mark. The panelists were intended to be even: 2 papers for, 2
papers against, 1 respondent for, 1 respondent against. Guess who the
respondent against Secret Mark (i. e. its a forgery) was on Nov. 22,
2008? Yes, Bart Ehrman, who spoke about the issue of Smith's motives,
and agreed, and explicitly said he agreed with Carlson and Jeffrey on
Smith's motives for forgery. Nice try, Antero.... "
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.medieval/msg/e8afe360c4240cfd?dmode=source
and again on Jan 6: My comment to you: "No fool, he doesn't." addressed
the fact that Ehrman has not CONCLUDED that "secret mark" is a fraud."
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.medieval/msg/5e9a60ddb7a4f1ff?dmode=source
Well, I could pull out more quotes, but you contended for some time that
Ehrman's 2003 work in which he discusses Secret Mark proves that it was
not shown to be a forgery and that Ehrman was uncertain. You didn't
back off on that and change the goal posts about how only in 2003 you
were reporting his views until Jan 12, after I reported on his remarks
at SBL in 2008. You then said you were going to email him unless I
asked you not to. But then I asked you to, nay, I BEGGED you to email
him. Since you wouldn't, you coward, I did, and
reported his response that he is now convinced it is probably a forgery.
You called me a liar and all sorts of things, but now Tony confirms it
in the very post you keep pointing us too referencing the same session I
told you about nearly a year ago.
> If I had to guess than and now, I would guess he leans toward forgery -
As recently as March you said: "... becasue Professor Ehrman, who yona
to after I threatended to email him, is himself plainly not decided on
the issue, as I have said, over and over..."
So now you think he "leans" toward forgery? In spite of the fact that
he said he is convinced? Liar.
but
> that wasn't the argument - the argument was whether it was a settled -
> proven matter..
>
That was never the argument. That was an argument you had only with
yourself. You posted about Secret Mark in a thread about medieval
theology, a topic obviously having nothing to do with medieval theology.
When you were informed that your 1995 article was good but outdated
not covering more recent work that demonstrated that SM is likely a
forgery in spite of efforts by Brown and Koester among other to argue
otherwise, you spent loads of time moving goalposts, pretending that
citing Publisher's Weekly book reviews on Amazon proved you were
informed about the topic, changing the nature of the argument,
misrepresenting, lying, and generally showing your ignorance.
Far more importantly, if you want to say that it isn't "proven", you
*HAVE* to read the books and *ALL* reviews of the books and *ALL* the
literature pertaining to the topic, then you can make assessments about
the whether or not it is proven. Bopping around the web cherry picking
web sites isn't the same thing.
> A year ago, you claimed it WAS a settled matter (as shown above), with it
> being a proven fraud.
What I said was that it was likely a forgery. The proofs have been laid
out and the cases successfully made. Since you are unfamiliar with them
since they aren't on google books, you wouldn't be aware of that. I
never said it was "settled" and I never said it was not controversial
(just the opposite and in fact pointed to several layers of
controversy). I did say that it was proven to likely be a forgery.
>
> You said, a year ago you had emailed Ehrman about it, but wouldn't post the
> emails, and then went on to say:
Actually, you idiot and liar, I not only posted it, but you responded to
it!!!!
Ah heck....imagine my surprise this morning when Bart Ehrman wrote me
back and said:
"On Secret Mark, you're absolutely right. When I wrote Lost Xties I was
much more on the fence, leaning toward forgery but not sure (I was sure
of one thing: if I came out and claimed it was forged by Smith, two
weeks later the damn thing would show up, someone would test the ink,
and it would be 18th century vintage!); since then, Carlson (who now is
one of my students)convinced me: it's *probably* forged (though I still
would not say certainly; would love to see the ink....)"
Gosh, straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Don't believe me?
Of course you don't. So email him and ask him if that's what he said to
me. Go ahead, I'll wait. Remember though, any fudging on your part of
what he replies, I can readily check."
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.medieval/msg/f89813c245171b7c
And again here:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.medieval/msg/8965b6d5b9c1b114?dmode=source
These are but 2 examples, and you responded to each.
> ==start 12/16/08 extract
> Weland/Swain:
> The point of the quote of the review is not to dispute that Ehrman
> didn't explicitly state that it was a forgery, but to illustrate a
> problem with Ehrman's seeming ambivalence: he spends his time in that
> section discussing all the reasons why its a forgery and clearly implies
> that it is a forgery making his ambivalence an artificial one.
> ==end 12/16/08 extract
Actually, idiot, that was almost a month before anything was said about
emailing Bart. What you're quoting here from 12/16 was about a
quotation from a book review published at the Review of Biblical
Literature re: Lost Christianities that addresses Bart's remarks about
Secret Mark.
> Idiot. LOL
Idiot and Liar. LOL!
>
> http://www.tonyburke.ca/apocryphicity/category/secret-mark/
> but Carlson largely refused to answer Brown's and Pantuck's criticisms, and
> most of the others who spoke (including Pearson and Ehrman) were not aware
> of the current arguments about the text. When is a real scholarly debate
> about Secret Mark going to happen?
Brown was trollish. He was practically spitting trying to get his
"questions" out...considering the vituperative manner, I don't Carlson
for not answering. Pantuck was much better. Even if Carlson never
answers another question on the issue, it changes nothing at all about
his publications on the question.
Weland
> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:hf11v7$18c$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> J Antero wrote:
>>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hev2h6$r4f$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Sheer repetition will get you nowhere.
Weland
> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:hf12jl$7nj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> J Antero wrote:
>>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hev2h6$r4f$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>> In my first post I didn't indicate the end of the Jan, 19, 2009 post.
>>>
>>> It was quite easy to come up with this post in which I gave a series of
>>> quores that show you did indeed state to the effect that Secret Mark had
>>> been disproven.
>>>
>
>>> I really wonder what kind of a mind is so full of obfuscation, wriggling
>>> and
>>> just plain weasling.
>> Look in the mirror and you'll discover it quite quickly.
>
> I think everybody knows who the lying weasel is.... turd...
Yes, we do...AnTURDO....you got caught several times this week alone.
And it is plain to see why you keep making this about me and attacking
me, it's because you are unable to win using the actual facts whether
we're talking about describing and being aware of the academic field
pertaining to Secret Mark or whether we're talking about Christianity
and Paganism. If you could because you're actually familiar with the
field instead of being a net bopper, or had even reached for a book you
*claim* you own and have read instead of plagiarizing from a novel and
the web inaccuracies and falsehoods, you wouldn't feel the need to
consistently and continually engage in mere ad hominem. That you do
engage in ad hominem so constantly is evidence that even you know you're
beaten; this personal attack mode is the only thing you have left. How
pathetic.
>
> It was quite easy to come up with this post in which I gave a series of
> quores that show you did indeed state to the effect that Secret Mark had
> been disproven.
Too bad you didn't come up with anything factual to support you OP...ah
well. You keep using "proven" "settled" "uncontroversial" and their
opposites as if they all mean the same thing. They don't.
> I really wonder what kind of a mind is so full of obfuscation, wriggling and
> just plain weasling.
Look in the mirror, you'll discover the mind so full of obfuscation,
wriggling, weasling, and other trollish activity. When you posted about
Secret Mark, you were 13 years out of date, you are now claiming on the
basis of snippets from an amateur blog and a half understood
professional blog that you know the state of the field. No one is
fooled by that, well, someone probably is but not the intelligent
readers here. Let's face it, you started this whole "Weland lies" crap
after I proved you hadn't read Ehrman's Lost Christianities, and now
I've given good reason to believe that you haven't read MacMullen's
Christianity and Paganism. Misrepresentation, plagiarism, straw man
arguments, ad hominems are all forms of lying...and you've been caught.
So you want to shove the spotlight onto someone else....and so you
post nonsense to hide from scrutiny.
>
> I posted this on Jan, 19, 2009, in the course of an ongoing argument over
> Secret mark, which I claimed was controversial and undecided, and
> Weasel/Swine had been claiming was a proven forgery (except when he was
> trying to pretend he didn't say it)..
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.medieval/browse_frm/thread/7297b48ce2a939c6/2153ab4f151e7b33?hl=en&q=secret+mark+group:soc.history.medieval
>
> **Start Jan, 19, 2009 post
>
> """" Liar.
> Weland/Swain, you said it was a "demonstrated" forgery, and that it was a
> "proven forgery" by Smith.
Yeah, I did. The demonstrations are the books and articles I referred
to MANY times. Whether you accept those demonstrations is another question.
> You compared the level of certainty of "secret mark" being a forgery to the
> level of certainity that the earth isn't flat. You own words are given
> below, with reference given to thread and date, all within this newsgroup.
> [soc.history.medieval ]
No, I compared the fact of controversy about Secret Mark to the fact of
controversy about whether the earth is flat. Both have controversy
about them. It tells us nothing at all about the state of the question
on either subject.
>
> You are caught.
Telling the truth and representing the field accurately, we know.
You're worming around becasue Professor Ehrman, who you ran
> to after I threatended to email him, is himself plainly not decided on the
> issue, as I have said, over and over..
Which is why he said he was convinced, that means he's uncertain. Yeah,
right.
>
> 12/13/08 post in: Re: Jesus Christ -- Clashing Biblical Images
>
>
> JAntero:
>
>
>
>> Again, here's what I initially said, and it stands: [original post stating
>> secret mark was controversial.]
>
>
> Weland:
> Again, not disputed, and it still doesn't cover recent work demonstrating
> forgery.
> == end 12/13 extract
>
> 12/14/08 post in: Re: Jesus Christ -- Clashing Biblical Images
>
>
> JAntero:
>
>
>
>> Idiot, you were initially claiming that "secret mark" had been proven a
>> forgery done by Smith,
>
I said that recent work has shown it is likely a forgery by Smith.
>
> ******
> Weland:
>
> It has been. Just because there are a few who still don't agree, in
> large part because most of their publications on which they've based
> their careers would suddenly be proven bogus and go up in smoke, isn't
> quite the same as saying that the case has not been successfully made.
Yep, quite so.
> ******
>
> JAntero:
>
>
>
>> then you backed off,
>
>
> Weland/Swain:
> No. Recognizing that some people contend the issue is not the same as
> "backing off". After all, that the earth is not flat is under
> contention--there are those who contend that it is in fact flat--but
> that doesn't mean they've a leg to stand on and recognizing that they
> exist and that they do so contend isn't the same as backing off that the
> earth is not a flat planet.
>
> [Weland/Swain here says that "secret mark" being a forgery, is as likely as
> the earth being a sphere, versus falt.]
If you have to "explain" what I said, it usually means that you're
putting words in my mouth. And this is just what you did here as I
pointed out long ago. The analogy is about controversy: controversy
tells us nothing about what is factual or what the state of the field
is. Even things that are solidly known, such as the earth being
spherical, has qualified people with degrees in the actual field
claiming that it isn't. That's controversy. The controversy itself
doesn't mean that we should question whether that the earth is not flat
or that the case for Secret Mark as a likely forgery has not been
successfully made. What matters is the content of the controversy. At
the moment, no real counter case has been made to Secret Mark being a
forgery, and while there are issues and problems with certain
presentations of the case, overall the demonstrations so stand. I know
you'll distort this *AGAIN*, but for the record....
>
> ==end 12/14 extract
>
>
> In the following, Weland/Swain claims biblical scholar Bart Ehrman's
> ambivalent opinion on the issue
> of "secret mark" being a forgery, is "artificial".
It is, nor was I the only one to think so. Had you read the book review
I pointed you and quoted from at the time, you'd have found that out. I
note you don't quote the entirety of what I said either.
>
> Unlike Weland/Swain, I suspect Ehrman's opinion is in fact more based on
> what evidence and logic can be *truthfully* applied to the issue.
>
>
> 12/16/08 post in: Re: Jesus Christ -- Clashing Biblical Images
>
>
> Weland/Swain:
> The point of the quote of the review is not to dispute that Ehrman
> didn't explicitly state that it was a forgery, but to illustrate a
> problem with Ehrman's seeming ambivalence: he spends his time in that
> section discussing all the reasons why its a forgery and clearly implies
> that it is a forgery making his ambivalence an artificial one.
> ==end 12/16 extract
>
>
>
>> I said that recent work has demonstrated that it is likely a forgery and
>> that the thought of many, even those who once supported its authenticity,
>> have been convinced and shifted their positions into the "probably a
>> forgery"
>
>
> Well, "Weland/Swain", if that were true, then it would only be "probably"
> true that the earth isn't flat, according to what you say in your post on
> 12/14.
No, as usual your twisted logic makes no sense.
> Weasel around all you want, but your own words indicate that you were
> implying and saying that "secret mark" was a decided issue - right from the
> start, I have been saying it is an undecided issue..
"Decided" "settled" "proven" are not synonyms. Quit putting words in my
mouth, much less in your own.
>
> I wonder how biblical scholar Professor Ehrman would appreciate knowing that
> you are characterizing his opinion on "secret mark", as "artificial"?
Ask him. You won't, you intellectual fraudulent coward.
> **end Jan, 19, 2009 post
>
>
> Now, I again post a recent summary discussion on the subject of the
> controversy over Secret Mark, from an actual scholar, versus a Weasel/Swine
> turd.
But it isn't a summary discussion. It's a summary of a Biblical
Archaeological Review issue and its contributors. The issue treated
each side as equal, which at the moment they aren't. I've covered this
before, but oh well....
> It's quite plain it's an unsettled issue from this clip, but anyone can go
> to the site and look around.
Yes, because "clips" are always the best way to familiarize oneself with
a whole field of though, the books, the articles, the conference papers,
the people....reading snippets makes people experts but reading the
primary literature in its original languages, reading all the secondary
literature and reactions to the secondary literature, hearing conference
papers, talking to the people involved in the discussion is a sure fire
way to be called a liar by our "clips expert." Yeah.
Weland
> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:hevr38$m6i$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>>>>> I've posted information from a number of good authorites that refute
>>>>> you.
>>>> Yes, Dan Brown in The Da Vinci Code and his source conspiracy
>>>> writers.....well, *you* consider those to be good authorities, but it
>>>> would seem no one else is about to agree with you.
>>> Swine turd runs away again.
>>
>> You have an odd definition of running away: you see, the one running is
>> the one who won't fess up to plagiarizing The Da Vinci Code and passing it
>> off as history.
>
> You really are irresponisble.
I don't think you know what that means.
>
> Using a minor quote from a book is hardly plagarism,
It certainly is when you quote it verbatim as if it were own like you did.
particularly in a> usenet post,
You plagiarized, and now you seek to excuse it. Plagiarism is a form of
lying, liar.
> and I've show that what was contained in the quote has
> historical support.
Yeah, no, you've shown that lots of people who aren't experts in Roman
religions or Mithraism have said some things that are wrong, but beyond
that....nothing.
>
> Prof Ehrman, an *actual* biblical scholar, wrote a book entitled 'Truth and
> Fiction in the Da Vinci code", and apparently did not refute the "mithra"
> quote which you are pretending has to be wrong.
He also didn't say that it was true, did he. Nice try, but that's an
argument from silence and works both ways.
> That doesn't prove he agrees with it, but it may indicate that he agrees
> with Prof Ramsay MacMullen that that sort of thing was going on.
What sort of thing? If you generally mean that religions influenced
each other in the ancient world, they did. If on the other hand you're
talking about that load of bullshit you unloaded on these groups in your
OP, like the crap on Mithraism, and where Christmas cookies don't come
from, and Christmas trees coming from the Near East...all material you
plagiarized...neither Ehrman nor MacMullen would agree with it.
>
> If you had any brains or self respect you would just shut up.
Aw, poor J'tardo Anturdo is flummoxed...would like nothing better than
not be corrected for making just really stupid errors....
> You just go on and on revealing how untrustworthy you are.
>
> Like the Secret Mark argument of a year ago, you are not going to win this
> by your copious obfuscation and lying.
Projection. Last resort of the desperate.
>
>
>
>>> Not everything in Brown's book was in error, as indicated by Prof
>>> Ehrman's title "Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code".
>> Dealt with already.
>
> Incompetently.
Which is why you don't address any of it....usually a sign of hitting
the nail on the head when the only defense you have left is try and
dismiss what I said. Too bad.
>you're pretending everything in the book is untrue.
More particularly, I'm quoting *YOU*
>
> The title of Ehrman's book is 'Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci code".
> You tried to pretend he had no control over the title, that his publisher
> would have misrepresented his internt.
Bart has said several times that he doesn't control that. Don't believe
me? Of course not. So ask him. He's still waiting for your email.
>
> That shows that you haven't read the book.
>
> Preface, page xx:
> Prof. Ehrman:
> " It is the goal of my discussion to separate the fact from the fiction, the
> histroical realities from the flights of fancy, "
>
Which demonstrates that he chose the title exactly how?
Weland
> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:hf12lp$7nj$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> J Antero wrote:
>>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hev2tc$s83$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> J Antero wrote:
>>>>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:het647$hja$7...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>
>>>>>> J Antero wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> nothing new or true
>>>>> It's all true and it's the liar who constantly needs something "new'.
>>>> More nonsense from Anturdo.
>>> Said like the type of "scholar" you are.
>
>> Indeed, one of the many services scholars like me provide is pointing out
>> the historical errors of nut cases like you and setting the record
>> straight. As usual, you read something on the net that you took as fact
>> and are now trying desperately to defend yourself.
>
> You're no scholar.
Well, considering that you're the one who cited Dan Brown rather than
Ramsay MacMullen and some web site instead of a number of scholars who
have discussed the area, much less the fact that you cited a conspiracy
theorist pseudohistorian that even you had to back off
from...considering this, I don't think you're in a position to say
whether anyone is or is not a scholar.
We don't let yutzes like you have a vote.
>
> Here's another actual scholar, in addition to the others, who shows you know
> nothing about the relationship of mithraism to early christinaity.
>
> Instead of admitting you're wrong you lie and accuse others.
The only person I've accused is you for not knowing how to assess your
sources.
>
> You're no scholar.
> And here's yet another piece that demonstartes that.
>
> A history of the Middle Ages, 300-1500, 2008, by
> John M. Riddle, retired Chair of the History Department and Alumni
> Distinguished Professor, North Carolina State University.
And dealt with this in another post.
> You're no scholar, Swain.
Immaterial. Neither are you. And you're still wrong about Mithraism
and are just repeating whatever favors you you find on the web. That's
not research, that's not knowledge, that's not expertise.
Weland
> On Nov 28, 10:59 pm, Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
>> Centuries old religions borrowed from new religions and were
>> transformed and given new life throughout the period.
>
> I always wondered what the specifics were about what was borrowed from
> paganism into xianity. Apparently everything.
No, this isn't right anymore than the OP was. There are some things,
but not everything.
Anyway, here is a very
> brief list of the some of the saints and the pagan gods they are based
> on.
>
> If either one of those URL's is correct....
>
> http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2438110/pagan_saints.html?cat=37
This one is wrong in several areas. Take the Martin reference. Martin
of Tours was a real fourth century person, former soldier who became a
Christian. That doesn't mean everything said about him is historical,
but we do have historical information about him. Thus, as a real person
he is not "Mars" transformed into a saint. "St Martin in the fields"
isn't a saint, it's a church in London. The original 13th century
church was built "in the fields" between the city of London as it was
then and Westminster, thus "St Martin in the fields". Likewise their
treatment of the Gemini...Santiago de Compostela is so named after St
James the Great, brother, but not twin, of John, both sons of Zebedee.
He has nothing to do with sailors, so any connection to the Roman Gemini
is wishful thinking. Similarly with Nike, the Greek goddess of victory,
who was not transformed into an elderly male saint who looks after
children, reformed thieves, and pawn brokers. And so on down the line....
When we compare pagan deities and demigods to Christian saints we look
for far more than similarity in name or names: association of places,
association of deeds attributed to both, other links. So for example if
we have a local deity associated with a town who is known to have say
butchers as his especial concern and we have a later saint who is from
that same town, has the same name, and is concerned with butchers, well
we likely have a transformation there. In the case of the examples on
this website, that doesn't work in a quick review of their list.
Such is possibly the case with St. Brigid of Ireland for example.
But in reality the number of such deities and demigods who transitioned
were fairly few in number. The influence isn't as pervasive as that:
look for influence in art, music, prayer, liturgy, in the repurposing of
buildings, worship centers, holy wells, etc.
J Antero
>J Antero wrote:
>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>> news:hf12lp$7nj$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> J Antero wrote:
>>>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:hev2tc$s83$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>> J Antero wrote:
>>>>>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:het647$hja$7...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> J Antero wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> nothing new or true
>>>>>> It's all true and it's the liar who constantly needs something "new'.
>>>>> More nonsense from Anturdo.
>>>> Said like the type of "scholar" you are.
>>
>>> Indeed, one of the many services scholars like me provide is pointing
>>> out the historical errors of nut cases like you and setting the record
>>> straight. As usual, you read something on the net that you took as fact
>>> and are now trying desperately to defend yourself.
>>
>> You're no scholar.
>
> Well, considering that you're the one who cited Dan Brown rather than
> Ramsay MacMullen
Weasel/Swine is showing the signs of stress....
I "cited" the well known scholar Ramsay MacMullen to show you don't know
what you are talking about.
I also proved I owned the MacMullen book after you stupidly claimed I
didn't.
The quote from the Dan Brown book about christianity adopting beliefs and
holidays from pagan religions (specifically Mithraism) is hardly a "cite",
.... it was boob bait, you fool..
And the boobs who contested it got proven wrong.
Even Dan Brown's "Da vinci Code" book is a better source than you are... HI
LARRY OUS !
>and some web site instead of a number of scholars who
> have discussed the area,
You're flailing around, again.
It was results from a google book search, and all but one of the authors was
credible.
As for the rest, you have "already dealt with" nothing, succesfully.
As for paganism serving as a source for early christian beliefs and
holidays, I've furnished backup from the Britannica, scholar Ramsay
MacMullen, from a scholar who was Chairman of the History Dept. of N.
Carolina University, from a google book search.
All we have from you is the usual christian shill weaseling, lying and
misdirection.
Here it all is again:
Weasel/Swine makes up his own facts.
The clearest and most unrefutable example is he continues lying about my
proving that I owned and had on hand, a book by Ramsay MacMullen
(Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eight Centuries).
I immediately posted a photo of it, and then he went pretending I didn't
own it, and claimed he never went to binary groups so couldn't see the
picture.
Is how reliable people act?
Weasel/Swine - I like keeping things simple.
First you pretend christianity didn't take anything from the pagan
religions, then you admit they did, then you pretend that
centuries old religions would have been borrowing from a new religion.
That's your usual level.
Theoretically, that's possible. But most scholars of the period accept that
in those days, something being old confered a high status on it that new
things lacked. The Romans gave Judaism a preferred status becasue they knew
it was ancient.
If some new belief system wanted credibility, it's logical and more likely
that it would borrowed from older and already accepted ones.
Here's something on that .
Source: Teaching Co., Religion in the Ancient Mediterranean World,
Professor Glenn S. Holland
(Ph.D. in the Bible and New Testament Studies from the Divinity School of
the University of Chicago)
Lecture # 37. Mystery Religions from the East
Gleaned from the professor's lecture:
Mithras, an Indo-Aryan god, incorporated into the west including Rome,
earliest Roman mentioning of him is first century BCE.
We only have the outlines of the roman myth version, no written sources.
From many inscriptions relating to the Roman Mithra myth:
* Mithras' birth was witnessed by shepards or by two men who served as his
torch bearers.
* Mithras' birth is associated with the re-birth of the sun (around winter
solstice, Dec. 25th).
* Mithra had a ritual banquet or communion, where attendees drank from a
common cup, ate bread, and made vows to the god.
* This Roman version of Mithrism became popular with soldier, sailors and
merchats and became widely spread through the empire.
Now, tell us that Professor Holland is a hack like you're claiming all the
others I've sourced on this issue are.
Much more likely, Weasel/Swine - you are the h a c k.
When I showed you numbers of Google book references giving examples of
christian
borrowings from preceding religions, you claim all the authors are bogus,
and it means nothing.
That's your usual level. Much more likely, Weasel/Swine - you are the h
a c k.
You go on that Roman mithraism (just one of the pagan religions
christianity borrowed from) was totally distinct from the ancient mithraism
it had developed from, and neither the old form or the Roman form could have
been a source.
The Britannica indicates otherwise.
Britannica, 2002
MITHRA also spelled Mithras, Sanskrit Mitra,
in ancient Indo-Iranian mythology, the god of light, whose cult spread from
India in the east to as far west as Spain, Great Britain, and Germany. (See
Mithraism.) The first written mention of the Vedic Mitra dates to 1400 BC.
His worship spread to Persia and, after the defeat of the Persians by
Alexander the Great, throughout the Hellenic world. In the 3rd and 4th
centuries AD, the cult of Mithra, carried and supported by the soldiers of
the Roman Empire, was the chief rival to the newly developing religion of
Christianity. The Roman emperors Commodus and Julian were initiates of
Mithraism, and in 307 Diocletian consecrated a temple on the Danube River to
Mithra, "Protector of the Empire." xxend
Common sense, and this Britannica piece, show that you have now retreated to
raising false issues - or maybe you don;t know they're false...
LOL. Some of us are familiar with you Swain. Like the Secret Mark thread in
which I showed you up as a fool and a liar.
Remember my reference to the Ramsay MacMullen book, that you claimed I
didn't own, so I immediately posted a photo of my copy? (Weasel/Swine
wouldn't go look at it, claiming he never visited binary usenet
groups.....like a child with its head under the blanket
<chuckle>...
HI LARRRRRY OUS.
You're a phony Weland/Swain.
Instead of arguing history, you are going from a theological position of
arguing against an embarrassing aspect of christian history - how it
borrowed customs and ideas from pre-existing myths and religions and
maintianing the pretence they are original to it - to lying and mangling
history to avoid the truth.
You have FAILED (again). HI-LARRY-OUS
Oh, speaking of MacMullen, dummy, here's something for you that he has about
this subject of christianity taking over pagan holidays and practices (are
you going to try and discredit him too, you dwarf?):
Book: Christianity and paganism in the fourth to eight centuries, MacMullen,
1997, Yale University Press.
Page 155
""Augustine called the sum total of imported paganism among his congregation
their mother, while what he himself would teach them was the father. They
must choose; or he hoped they would. But he could not make them do so. He
conceded that they must be allowed some latitude in their manner of worship.
At just about the same time, toward the beginning of the fifth century,
Jerome made the same acknowledgment: better, worship of saints in the pagan
manner than none at all. ....""
[
""" The same need forced the invention of many celebrations during the year,
since Christians' attendance at events like the Kallends proved too much for
the Church leadership to control except by competition. """
[
""" A 12th-century Syrian Bishop explained:
The reason, then, why the fathers of the church moved the January 6
celebration of epiphany to December 25 was this, they say: it was the custom
of the pagans to celebrate on this same December 25 the birthday of the sun,
and they lit lights then to exalt the day, and invited and admitted
Christians to these rights. When, therefore, the teachers of the church saw
that Christians inclined to this custom, figuring out a strategy, they set
the celebration of the true sunrise on this day ... """
Again, here's what I posted that the Weland/Swain pseudo-scholar is trying
to discredit, followed by verifying mentions from a google book search..
"" The pre-Christian God Mithras - called the Son of God and the Light of
the World - was born on December 25, died, was buried in a rock tomb, and
then resurrected in three days. By the way, December 25 is also the birthday
or Osiris, Adonis, and Dionysus. ""
Here's examples of mention of these same factors in various historical
books. The very least of any book that one is likely to find touching on the
various Mitra, Mithra, Mithras cults, is exponentially more reliable than
anything coming from you.
1) In Search of Zarathustra: Across Iran and Central Asia to Find the
World's ... - Page 122
Paul Kriwaczek - History - 2004 - 288 pages
Over the following centuries, as the religion evolved beyond Zarathustra's
inspiration, Mithra came to be seen as the **Son of God** - the three
aspects of
...
2) The Emperor Julian - Page 31
Constance Head - History - 1976 - 229 pages
Mithra was the Persian **god of light**. His story, far older than the
official
Zoroastrian religion of Persia and incorporated into it, told of his birth
from .
3) A brief history of Western man - Page 99
Thomas H. Greer - History - 1968 - 594 pages
(Long before Christ, **December 25** was celebrated as the date of his
birth.)
Mithra was also associated with the sun, and his followers marked Sunday as
his
4) The Templar Revelation: Secret Guardians of the True Identity of Christ?
Lynn Picknett - Religion - 2004
His resurrection took place, like that of Mithra, from a **rock-tomb**...13
[our
italics] There is not a conception associated with Christ that is not common
to
5) Chinese Religion Through Hindu Eyes; A Study in the Tendencies of Asiatic
...? - Page 146
Wu Ting-Fang, Benoy Kumar Sarkar - History - 2009 - 362 pages
... dying and **resurrected saviour-god**, an Osiris, an Adonis, an Attis, a
Mithra.
Religions of this type were everywhere displacing the old national faiths.
...
6) A brief history of Western man? - Page 88
Thomas H. Greer - History - 1972 - 546 pages
The divine Mithra was believed to be a lieutenant of Ahura Mazda, ... all
told
of a god who had died and was **resurrected**, as the cold death of winter
is ...
7) Human values from the Greeks to modern times: a continuing circle? -
Page 46
Glenn Shillington Visher - Philosophy - 1997 - 254 pages
... their dead were **resurrected**, to a heaven above or a hell in the
bowels of
the earth; their god Mithra had made a sacrifice which saved the human race;
...
And again, these are just examples from search returns - any of these
authors has far more credibiltiy than this "Weland/Swain".
Professor Bart Ehrman went to the trouble of writing a book pointing out the
errors contained in "The Da Vinci Code" book.
Similar to my opinion of the book, he found fault with the mingling of
truth and fiction in it.
In "Truth and Fiction, The Da Vinci Code", Oxford press, 2004, Professor
Ehrman covers a number of topics.
Did he address Brown's claims re. borrowing from mithraism and other pagan
religions that you are trying to pretend din't happen?
Not that I can find in the book. Mithraism (its variants) is not in the
index nor does it show in a Google word search of the book.
That doesn't prove Ehrman agrees with the claims, but it should make one
wonder if an **actual authority** on the subject and history of the times,
in addressing errors in the Brown book, left the mithraism borrowing claims
out, well, maybe he is in agreement with Ramsay MacMullen that a lot of that
sort of thing did happen.
I don't see anything except wriggling and obfuscation in the rest of what
you wrote.
I've furnished supporting clips from published books in a Google book
search.
I went to the trouble of furnishing supporting text from the highly
credible MacMullen book.
I pointed out that a book specifically dealing with the errors in the Brown
book (au: Ehrman) apparently didn't include the issues that you are saying
are in error.
I think this dispute is going to end like the one a year ago where you
claimed that "Secret Mark" had been *proven* to be a fraud.
And of course, in that year ago episode, you claimed that I didn't own the
MacMullen book - so I immediatletly posted a picture of it in a binary group
with a note on it - and you showed just how credible you are by repeating
your false claim and saying you never go to binary groups.... ;-)
You lost that one, and you're losing this one.
Here's a clip from a recent meeting on "Secret Mark", by a real historian.
As I maintained a year ago, "Secret Mark" remains an unsettled issue:
http://www.tonyburke.ca/apocryphicity/category/secret-mark/
The BAR articles succeed at bringing the text to a wide audience and at
keeping the debate in the attention of academics who read the magazine, but
it fails in advancing the discussion beyond the impasse that has gripped it
for decades, even despite the important works in the last decade by Brown,
Carlson, and Jeffery. The real debate should involve the principle writers
on the text-including the aforementioned scholars, Allan Pantuck, and a few
others-but they either refused or were not asked to participate. Last year's
SBL panel was a well-meaning effort to get the scholars in a room to discuss
the text, but Carlson largely refused to answer Brown's and Pantuck's
criticisms, and most of the others who spoke (including Pearson and Ehrman)
were not aware of the current arguments about the text. When is a real
scholarly debate about Secret Mark going to happen?
Now, I asked a year ago that you post your email exchange with Professor
Ehrman (less anything personal) so that we could see what you had said about
the Secret Mark argument we were having.
You claimed that it was a settled matter with it being a proven fraud, I
said it was a controversial UNSETTELD matter.
Now, Weasel/Swine, post those email exchanges you had with Prof. Ehrman,
unless you lack the courage.
I want to see what's in them, and see if you gave him an honest rendition of
the argument, and then I will be happy to email prof. Ehrman.
Let's go sport - do it.
J Antero
>J Antero wrote:
>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>> news:hevr38$m6i$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>>>>> I've posted information from a number of good authorites that refute
>>>>>> you.
>>>>> Yes, Dan Brown in The Da Vinci Code and his source conspiracy
>>>>> writers.....well, *you* consider those to be good authorities, but it
>>>>> would seem no one else is about to agree with you.
>>>> Swine turd runs away again.
>>>
>>> You have an odd definition of running away: you see, the one running is
>>> the one who won't fess up to plagiarizing The Da Vinci Code and passing
>>> it
>>> off as history.
>>
>> You really are irresponisble.
>
> I don't think you know what that means.
One facet of irresponsibiilty is creating a strawman argument since I've
shown you are a fool, again.
>>
>> Using a minor quote from a book is hardly plagarism,
>
> It certainly is when you quote it verbatim as if it were own like you did.
>
> particularly in a> usenet post,
>
> You plagiarized, and now you seek to excuse it. Plagiarism is a form of
> lying, liar.
Weasel/Sine wants to pretend that casual usenet posts need to be rigorously
cited.
Another stupid lie.
>> and I've show that what was contained in the quote has
>> historical support.
>
> Yeah, no, you've shown that lots of people who aren't experts in Roman
> religions or Mithraism have said some things that are wrong, but beyond
> that....nothing.
Another lie from Weasel/Swine - MacMullen wasn;t an expert? The scholar who
wrote the Britannica article?
The scholar who is a past Chairman of the History Dept at N Carolina U.?
You are a J O K E.
>> Prof Ehrman, an *actual* biblical scholar, wrote a book entitled 'Truth
>> and
>> Fiction in the Da Vinci code", and apparently did not refute the "mithra"
>> quote which you are pretending has to be wrong.
>
> He also didn't say that it was true, did he. Nice try, but that's an
> argument from silence and works both ways.
You're at you usual level. You omiited the next sentence in which I stated
it didn't prove he thought it was correct.
Where are the emails between you and Prof. Ehrman from a year ago re.
"Secret Mark"?
Post them.
<snip further weaseling>
The Britannica indicates otherwise.
HI LARRRRRY OUS.
Oh, speaking of MacMullen, dummy, here's something for you that he has about
this subject of christianity taking over pagan holidays and practices (are
you going to try and discredit him too, you dwarf?):
Book: Christianity and paganism in the fourth to eight centuries, MacMullen,
1997, Yale University Press.
Page 155
""Augustine called the sum total of imported paganism among his congregation
their mother, while what he himself would teach them was the father. They
must choose; or he hoped they would. But he could not make them do so. He
conceded that they must be allowed some latitude in their manner of worship.
At just about the same time, toward the beginning of the fifth century,
Jerome made the same acknowledgment: better, worship of saints in the pagan
manner than none at all. ....""
[
""" The same need forced the invention of many celebrations during the year,
since Christians' attendance at events like the Kallends proved too much for
the Church leadership to control except by competition. """
[
""" A 12th-century Syrian Bishop explained:
The reason, then, why the fathers of the church moved the January 6
celebration of epiphany to December 25 was this, they say: it was the custom
of the pagans to celebrate on this same December 25 the birthday of the sun,
and they lit lights then to exalt the day, and invited and admitted
Christians to these rights. When, therefore, the teachers of the church saw
that Christians inclined to this custom, figuring out a strategy, they set
the celebration of the true sunrise on this day ... """
J Antero
first to say that.
It amuses me that you spend all this time weaseling around and away from
your own words.
I have no problem (again) showing what you have said....
It was quite easy to come up with this post in which I gave a series of
quores that show you did indeed state to the effect that Secret Mark had
been disproven.
I really wonder what kind of a mind is so full of obfuscation, wriggling and
just plain weasling.
I posted this on Jan, 19, 2009, in the course of an ongoing argument over
Secret mark, which I claimed was controversial and undecided, and
Weasel/Swine had been claiming was a proven forgery (except when he was
trying to pretend he didn't say it)..
**Start Jan, 19, 2009 post
"""" Liar.
Weland/Swain, you said it was a "demonstrated" forgery, and that it was a
"proven forgery" by Smith.
You compared the level of certainty of "secret mark" being a forgery to the
level of certainity that the earth isn't flat. You own words are given
below, with reference given to thread and date, all within this newsgroup.
[soc.history.medieval ]
You are caught. You're worming around becasue Professor Ehrman, who you ran
to after I threatended to email him, is himself plainly not decided on the
JAntero:
JAntero:
******
Weland:
******
JAntero:
> then you backed off,
==end 12/14 extract
Weland/Swain:
The point of the quote of the review is not to dispute that Ehrman
didn't explicitly state that it was a forgery, but to illustrate a
problem with Ehrman's seeming ambivalence: he spends his time in that
section discussing all the reasons why its a forgery and clearly implies
that it is a forgery making his ambivalence an artificial one.
==end 12/16 extract
the text, but Carlson largely refused to answer Brown's and Pantuck's
criticisms, and most of the others who spoke (including Pearson and Ehrman)
were not aware of the current arguments about the text. When is a real
scholarly debate about Secret Mark going to happen?
> I also pointed out that the controversy continues, though the consensus
> has shifted to seeing it as a forgery. I know you'll misrepresent what I
> said again, but for the record and anyone reading this, there it is.
>
>> Here's a clip from a recent meeting on "Secret Mark", by a real
>> historian.
>> As I maintained a year ago, "Secret Mark" remains an unsettled issue:
>>
>
> Already addressed. Interestingly Tony explicitly says that Bart Ehrman is
> in the forgery camp, contrary to your claims....wonder why you didn't also
> cite that part.
You're a liar. I said his 2003 material indicated that he thought the matter
was undecided.
If I had to guess than and now, I would guess he leans toward forgery - but
that wasn't the argument - the argument was whether it was a settled -
proven matter..
A year ago, you claimed it WAS a settled matter (as shown above), with it
being a proven fraud.
You said, a year ago you had emailed Ehrman about it, but wouldn't post the
emails, and then went on to say:
==start 12/16/08 extract
Weland/Swain:
The point of the quote of the review is not to dispute that Ehrman
didn't explicitly state that it was a forgery, but to illustrate a
problem with Ehrman's seeming ambivalence: he spends his time in that
section discussing all the reasons why its a forgery and clearly implies
that it is a forgery making his ambivalence an artificial one.
==end 12/16/08 extract
Idiot. LOL
J Antero
It's the liar who has to keep changing, and wriggiling, and weaseling.....
not I...
J Antero
>
Antero:
>> I really wonder what kind of a mind is so full of obfuscation, wriggling
>> and
>> just plain weasling.
>
SwineTURD:
> Look in the mirror, you'll discover the mind so full of obfuscation,
> wriggling, weasling, and other trollish activity.
You're so deficeint, you have to plagarise the insults that have been
correctly directed at you...
HI LARRRY OUS..... actually, you are a sad case...
It was quite easy to come up with this post in which I gave a series of
quores that show you did indeed state to the effect that Secret Mark had
been disproven.
I really wonder what kind of a mind is so full of obfuscation, wriggling and
just plain weasling.
I posted this on Jan, 19, 2009, in the course of an ongoing argument over
Secret mark, which I claimed was controversial and undecided, and
Weasel/Swine had been claiming was a proven forgery (except when he was
trying to pretend he didn't say it)..
**Start Jan, 19, 2009 post
"""" Liar.
Weland/Swain, you said it was a "demonstrated" forgery, and that it was a
"proven forgery" by Smith.
You compared the level of certainty of "secret mark" being a forgery to the
level of certainity that the earth isn't flat. You own words are given
below, with reference given to thread and date, all within this newsgroup.
[soc.history.medieval ]
You are caught. You're worming around becasue Professor Ehrman, who you ran
to after I threatended to email him, is himself plainly not decided on the
issue, as I have said, over and over..
12/13/08 post in: Re: Jesus Christ -- Clashing Biblical Images
JAntero:
> Again, here's what I initially said, and it stands: [original post stating
> secret mark was controversial.]
Weland:
Again, not disputed, and it still doesn't cover recent work demonstrating
forgery.
== end 12/13 extract
12/14/08 post in: Re: Jesus Christ -- Clashing Biblical Images
JAntero:
> Idiot, you were initially claiming that "secret mark" had been proven a
> forgery done by Smith,
******
Weland:
It has been. Just because there are a few who still don't agree, in
large part because most of their publications on which they've based
their careers would suddenly be proven bogus and go up in smoke, isn't
quite the same as saying that the case has not been successfully made.
******
JAntero:
> then you backed off,
Weland/Swain:
No. Recognizing that some people contend the issue is not the same as
"backing off". After all, that the earth is not flat is under
contention--there are those who contend that it is in fact flat--but
that doesn't mean they've a leg to stand on and recognizing that they
exist and that they do so contend isn't the same as backing off that the
earth is not a flat planet.
[Weland/Swain here says that "secret mark" being a forgery, is as likely as
the earth being a sphere, versus falt.]
==end 12/14 extract
In the following, Weland/Swain claims biblical scholar Bart Ehrman's
ambivalent opinion on the issue
of "secret mark" being a forgery, is "artificial".
Unlike Weland/Swain, I suspect Ehrman's opinion is in fact more based on
what evidence and logic can be *truthfully* applied to the issue.
12/16/08 post in: Re: Jesus Christ -- Clashing Biblical Images
Weland/Swain:
The point of the quote of the review is not to dispute that Ehrman
didn't explicitly state that it was a forgery, but to illustrate a
problem with Ehrman's seeming ambivalence: he spends his time in that
section discussing all the reasons why its a forgery and clearly implies
that it is a forgery making his ambivalence an artificial one.
==end 12/16 extract
>I said that recent work has demonstrated that it is likely a forgery and
>that the thought of many, even those who once supported its authenticity,
>have been convinced and shifted their positions into the "probably a
>forgery"
Well, "Weland/Swain", if that were true, then it would only be "probably"
true that the earth isn't flat, according to what you say in your post on
12/14.
Weasel around all you want, but your own words indicate that you were
implying and saying that "secret mark" was a decided issue - right from the
start, I have been saying it is an undecided issue..
I wonder how biblical scholar Professor Ehrman would appreciate knowing that
you are characterizing his opinion on "secret mark", as "artificial"?
**end Jan, 19, 2009 post
Now, I again post a recent summary discussion on the subject of the
controversy over Secret Mark, from an actual scholar, versus a Weasel/Swine
turd.
It's quite plain it's an unsettled issue from this clip, but anyone can go
to the site and look around.
http://www.tonyburke.ca/apocryphicity/category/secret-mark/
The BAR articles succeed at bringing the text to a wide audience and at
keeping the debate in the attention of academics who read the magazine, but
it fails in advancing the discussion beyond the impasse that has gripped it
for decades, even despite the important works in the last decade by Brown,
Carlson, and Jeffery. The real debate should involve the principle writers
on the text-including the aforementioned scholars, Allan Pantuck, and a few
others-but they either refused or were not asked to participate. Last year's
SBL panel was a well-meaning effort to get the scholars in a room to discuss
the text, but Carlson largely refused to answer Brown's and Pantuck's
criticisms, and most of the others who spoke (including Pearson and Ehrman)
were not aware of the current arguments about the text. When is a real
scholarly debate about Secret Mark going to happen?
> I also pointed out that the controversy continues, though the consensus
> has shifted to seeing it as a forgery. I know you'll misrepresent what I
> said again, but for the record and anyone reading this, there it is.
>
>> Here's a clip from a recent meeting on "Secret Mark", by a real
>> historian.
>> As I maintained a year ago, "Secret Mark" remains an unsettled issue:
>>
>
> Already addressed. Interestingly Tony explicitly says that Bart Ehrman is
> in the forgery camp, contrary to your claims....wonder why you didn't also
> cite that part.
You're a liar. I said his 2003 material indicated that he thought the matter
was undecided.
If I had to guess than and now, I would guess he leans toward forgery - but
that wasn't the argument - the argument was whether it was a settled -
proven matter..
A year ago, you claimed it WAS a settled matter (as shown above), with it
being a proven fraud.
You said, a year ago you had emailed Ehrman about it, but wouldn't post the
emails, and then went on to say:
==start 12/16/08 extract
Weland/Swain:
The point of the quote of the review is not to dispute that Ehrman
didn't explicitly state that it was a forgery, but to illustrate a
problem with Ehrman's seeming ambivalence: he spends his time in that
section discussing all the reasons why its a forgery and clearly implies
that it is a forgery making his ambivalence an artificial one.
==end 12/16/08 extract
Idiot. LOL
http://www.tonyburke.ca/apocryphicity/category/secret-mark/
Weland
> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:hfi7tf$o2h$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> J Antero wrote:
>>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hevr38$m6i$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>>>>>> I've posted information from a number of good authorites that refute
>>>>>>> you.
>>>>>> Yes, Dan Brown in The Da Vinci Code and his source conspiracy
>>>>>> writers.....well, *you* consider those to be good authorities, but it
>>>>>> would seem no one else is about to agree with you.
>>>>> Swine turd runs away again.
>>>> You have an odd definition of running away: you see, the one running is
>>>> the one who won't fess up to plagiarizing The Da Vinci Code and passing
>>>> it
>>>> off as history.
>
>>> You really are irresponisble.
>> I don't think you know what that means.
>
> One facet of irresponsibiilty is creating a strawman argument
Ah, you mean like you do with every post! Got it!
since I've
> shown you are a fool, again.
LMAO!!!!! What you've shown is that you can cut and paste. That's
about it.
>
>>> Using a minor quote from a book is hardly plagarism,
>> It certainly is when you quote it verbatim as if it were own like you did.
>>
>> particularly in a> usenet post,
>>
>> You plagiarized, and now you seek to excuse it. Plagiarism is a form of
>> lying, liar.
>
> Weasel/Sine wants to pretend that casual usenet posts need to be rigorously
> cited.
Plagiarist! BTW, that's a form of lying....and now you squirm and have
to invent yet another straw man.....
>
> Another stupid lie.
>
>
>>> and I've show that what was contained in the quote has
>>> historical support.
>> Yeah, no, you've shown that lots of people who aren't experts in Roman
>> religions or Mithraism have said some things that are wrong, but beyond
>> that....nothing.
>
> Another lie from Weasel/Swine - MacMullen wasn;t an expert? The scholar who
> wrote the Britannica article?
> The scholar who is a past Chairman of the History Dept at N Carolina U.?
>
> You are a J O K E.
Except your MacMullen quote doesn't say what you claim it says, who is
the "scholar" who wrote the Britannica article which also doesn't say
what you claim it says and why did she co-author another article in the
same work that says explicitly that you were wrong. And no, John Riddle
is not an expert IN MITHRAISM! He's an expert in medical history. If
you weren't badly misrepresenting everything, you're errors would be funny.
>
>
>>> Prof Ehrman, an *actual* biblical scholar, wrote a book entitled 'Truth
>>> and
>>> Fiction in the Da Vinci code", and apparently did not refute the "mithra"
>>> quote which you are pretending has to be wrong.
>> He also didn't say that it was true, did he. Nice try, but that's an
>> argument from silence and works both ways.
>
> You're at you usual level. You omiited the next sentence in which I stated
> it didn't prove he thought it was correct.
Except I didn't omit it, it was in the next paragraph. Oh well, not
surprisingly you don't READ either.
>
> Where are the emails between you and Prof. Ehrman from a year ago re.
> "Secret Mark"?
> Post them.
Further evidence that you don't read, and you're going senile. Posted
last Jan, posted again in this discussion, and you even responded to them!
> <snip further weaseling>
He means he snipped further material showing him wrong....note how he
doesn't even bother anymore to defend his OP, he knows he can't. It's
easier just to engage in ad hominem.
Weland
> SwineTURD, no one should ever rely on anything you say - and i'm not the
> first to say that.
Sure, you trolls hate me because I point the spotlight at your nonsense.
> It amuses me that you spend all this time weaseling around and away from
> your own words.
>
> I have no problem (again) showing what you have said....
*YAWN* I note again how you cower from letting people read the whole
thread and make up their own minds rather than read your version of
events. You're running scared Anturdo, but that's not surprising.
<snip material already dealt with>
Weland
> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:hfi7ta$o2h$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
> Antero:
>>> I really wonder what kind of a mind is so full of obfuscation, wriggling
>>> and
>>> just plain weasling.
>
> SwineTURD:
>> Look in the mirror, you'll discover the mind so full of obfuscation,
>> wriggling, weasling, and other trollish activity.
>
> You're so deficeint, you have to plagarise the insults that have been
> correctly directed at you...
I at least know how to spell the words correctly.....and I was just
answering your question where you'd find a mind so full of obfuscation,
wriggling, and just plain weasling: in your mirror. I know, big words
are hard for poor J'Tardo the Turdo to understand....
And Turdo repeats himself again.....material already dealt with.
Weland
> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:hfi7l3$meo$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> J Antero wrote:
>>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hf11v7$18c$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> J Antero wrote:
>>>>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:hev2h6$r4f$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Sheer repetition will get you nowhere.
>
> It's the liar who has to keep changing, and wriggiling, and weaseling.....
> not I...
Yeah you do: once you're initial posts are shown to be DEFICIENT (that's
how you spell it btw), you then back up to some generic, general stand
that was never questioned in the first place. That's wriggling,
weasling, lying, and all those other insults you toss my way: a typical
troll will always project his own faults onto others. Congratualations,
Turdo Troll.
Weland
Not in your original OP you certainly didn't. It took you days to look
at MacMullen, a book you claim to have read and is on your shelf, and
even when you did, you couldn't provide anything that supported any of
your contentions.
> I also proved I owned the MacMullen book after you stupidly claimed I
> didn't.
No you didn't. You at best took a picture of a book on a shelf, that
doesn't prove you own it, and as pointed out several times before, the
issue wasn't your ownership but WHETHER YOU READ IT! You've already
shown clearly in this thread that you haven't.
> The quote from the Dan Brown book about christianity adopting beliefs and
> holidays from pagan religions (specifically Mithraism) is hardly a "cite",
> .... it was boob bait, you fool..
Sure it was....and if you believe that, I have some swamp land in
Florida I can let you have cheap...prime real estate.
>
> And the boobs who contested it got proven wrong.
Except that not one Mithraic expert agrees with you...ah well, guess
they all must be wrong too.
> Even Dan Brown's "Da vinci Code" book is a better source than you are... HI
> LARRY OUS !
And that just proves the point!!! LMAO!
>
>> and some web site instead of a number of scholars who
>> have discussed the area,
>
> You're flailing around, again.
No, you just can't remember your own OP and what it says or where you
got it from.
>
> It was results from a google book search, and all but one of the authors was
> credible.
None of whom are or were experts on the issues in question.....
> As for the rest, you have "already dealt with" nothing, succesfully.
Sure....proven of course by the fact that you conveniently snip it and
ignore it. Yep, that's proof that is.....
>
> As for paganism serving as a source for early christian beliefs and
> holidays,
>I've furnished backup from the Britannica,
Which didn't say what you claimed
scholar Ramsay
> MacMullen,
Who didn't say what you claimed
from a scholar who was Chairman of the History Dept. of N.
> Carolina University, from a google book search.
Who is a historian of medicine, not of ancient Roman period religions,
and really really muffed it on Mithraism.
>
> All we have from you is the usual christian shill weaseling, lying and
> misdirection.
And multiple quotes from the world's best known experts on Mithraism,
but gee golly gee we should overlook those, shouldn't we.
<snip Anturdisms already dealt with>
Martin
OMG... is he still at it?
I stand amazed! "Pearls before Swain" takes on a whole new meaning!
Larry deat fellow, your sticky wicket sank through the ice years ago - have
the dignity to give it up, please... you are looking little better then
Seppo the Clown!
Martin
"Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in....
Yawn. Have you finally realised the Truth Larry?
About time....
Weland
idiot....prepared to *FINALLY* read what I actually write, or are you
back to join your buddy Anturdo in making things up as you go?
Weland
Ridiculous Reboul, these are history groups. Come back when you're
prepared to discuss history, rather than stupidity. Perhaps you too
would like to cite Dan Brown again as authoritative history.
J Antero
"Martin" <martin147...@outgun.com> wrote in message
news:NmvTm.63738$3O3....@newsfe29.ams2...
>
> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in....
>
> Yawn. Have you finally realised the Truth Larry?
Swineturd is well into flowering into a full usenet troll. ;-))
He has plenty of time on his hands...
>
> About time....
>
Weland
> "Martin" <martin147...@outgun.com> wrote in message
> news:NmvTm.63738$3O3....@newsfe29.ams2...
>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in....
>>
>
>> Yawn. Have you finally realised the Truth Larry?
>
> Swineturd is well into flowering into a full usenet troll. ;-))
Aw, poor Anturdo would prefer to go into history groups and just spout
any ol' non-historical nonsense he thinks he read.
J Antero
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> J Antero wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> nothing new or true or related to what was posted
>>>>>> Larry, that's the nice thing about sticking with the truth - you
>>>>>> don;t have to be constantly making new things up.
>>>>> Too bad you aren't relating anything true then, isn't it. You just
>>>>> keep repeating the same old tired material already dealt with and
>>>>> shown wrong. But oh well, simple things for simpletons.
>>>> Larry, that's the nice thing about sticking with the truth - you don;t
>>>> have
>>>> to be constantly making new things up.
>>> I know, that's why I've stuck to the truth the whole time, unlike you
>>> who keeps moving the goal posts.
>>>
>>
>>>> The material I repeat shows you to be an incompetent liar.
>>>
>>> No it doesn't.
>>
>> Oh yes it does, SwineTURD.
>>
>> It shows a) your lack of comprehension of even simple
>>> English, placing words as synonyms that aren't b) that you misrepresent
>>> yourself and your position c) that you don't have the courage
>>
>> I have the courage and sense to keep showing you are a two bit liar.
>
> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You mean
> like the time you said Ehrman didn't deal with Smith's motives in his 2003
> book when in fact he does on pages 88-89, and you didn't know that even
> after claiming to have read the book twice!!!!
>>
>> For a year, you have lacked the *courage* to post the emails 9less
>> anything private) that you said went between you and prof. Ehrman on the
>> Secret Mark issue.
>
>
> LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!! Here's one of your own messages whining about it:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.medieval/msg/b1efcc7181af8e5c?dmode=source
God, you're stupid.
You're losing it - you're going from being a fool who gets caught in lies,
to being an outirght
usenet "troll".
From the above link for a Jan., 2009 post:
Antero:
Weland / Swain, show us the WHOLE email, What was Prof. Ehrman saying you
were right about?
It certainly couldn't be your claim that he has *CONCLUED* that "secret
mark" was a forgery, becasue he goes on to say he has NOT CONCLUDED THAT IT
IS.
I've been explicit through the thread, fool, that I was referring to his
2003 lecture and book. Your post of Professor Ehrman's reply indicates I was
right about his views given in that material.
A few days ago, I challenged you to furnish recent published material by
Ehrman saying he had concluded it was a forgery - you couldn't and tried a
weasely tactic of saying it was up to me to prove he hadn't published to
that effect - a ploy similar to (the dimmer variety of) theists claiming
it's up to atheists to prove the nonexistence of a god. A really sophomoric
ploy.
Now you have CONFIRMED THAT I WAS RIGHT, THAT HE WASN'T SURE IN THE 2003
MATERIAL OF SECRET MARK'S AUTHENTICITY, AND EVEN *NOW* REMAINS UNSURE - AND
THAT *YOU* HAVE BEEN WRONG IN YOUR CLAIMS, NOT ME.
Readers - Weland / Swain has been claiming that "secret mark" was a decided
issue - that it is a fraud.
I have been claiming from the start, that it was controversial, not proven
one way or the other, and I furnished published material by biblical scholar
Professor Bart Ehrman (UNC Chapel Hill) to that effect.
Weland /Swain now says he emailed Ehrman and got a reply that he SAYS
supports the position Weland / Swain has been stating - but in fact does the
exact opposite.
The dishonesty, unreliability, and just plain wackiness of Weland / Swain is
more pitiful than humorous.
Now Weland / Swain, show us the WHOLE email, what was Prof. Ehrman saying
you were right about? (I want to see that before I contact him, if I do at
all, since your quote of him shows I have been right all along about his
position.)
He certainly couldn't be agreeing with your claim that he has *CONCLUDED*
that "secret mark" was a forgery, becasue he goes on to say he has NOT EVEN
NOW, CONCLUDED THAT IT IS.
xx end material from Jan., 2009 post that the pseudoshcolar so unwisely
brought foprward....
>
> YOU EVEN RESPONDED TO MY POSTING OF THE EMAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!! SENILE FOOL!!!
Jesus Christ, you idiot!
Here's the post title that I HAD ALTERED TO REFLECT THAT YOU HAD LOST THE
ARGUMENT:.
" "Secret Mark" Weland / Swain generously shows that he has been wrong (but
doesn't realize it)"
All you posted was a short extract from what you claim was an email, that
showed Ehrman agreed with me, not you, you mendacious fool.
I want and have wanted to see the full exchange, you mendacious twat.
The reason is, that you were saying in the newsgroup, that it was a settled
issue. From the email, it seems evident that you were saying you thought
something
different than that, to Prof. Ehrman. I want to see the entire exchange.
And, of course, you idiot, what you posted AGREES THAT IT WASN'T A SETTLED
ISSUE - just as I have been saying.
Prof. Ehrman: " it's *probably* forged (though I still would not say
certainly; would love to see the ink....)"
If Ehrman had decisive info on Secret Mark, he would have made a decisive
statement.
I was the one saying it was not a settled issue - you said it was settled,
and I want to see the whole email exchange to see how you set the issue up,
not because I disagree with Ehrman, but because I suspect you backed off
the certainty you were portraying in the newsgroup, when communicating with
him (Ehrman).
Here's a clip from a recent meeting on "Secret Mark", by a real historian.
As I maintained a year ago, "Secret Mark" remains an unsettled issue:
http://www.tonyburke.ca/apocryphicity/category/secret-mark/
The BAR articles succeed at bringing the text to a wide audience and at
keeping the debate in the attention of academics who read the magazine, but
it fails in advancing the discussion beyond the impasse that has gripped it
for decades, even despite the important works in the last decade by Brown,
Carlson, and Jeffery. The real debate should involve the principle writers
on the text-including the aforementioned scholars, Allan Pantuck, and a few
others-but they either refused or were not asked to participate. Last year's
SBL panel was a well-meaning effort to get the scholars in a room to discuss
the text, but Carlson largely refused to answer Brown's and Pantuck's
criticisms, and most of the others who spoke (including Pearson and Ehrman)
were not aware of the current arguments about the text. When is a real
scholarly debate about Secret Mark going to happen?
Now, I asked a year ago that you post your email exchange with Professor
J Antero
SwineTURD - nobody respects you, nobody believes you.
You're up in the middle of the night posting like the panicked cowering liar
you are.
Did McDonalds have a layoff, and you now have nothing better than post this
rubbish?
J Antero
I think it's clear who the lying turd is, SwineTURD.
You like to weasel around instead of just admitting your errors.
As for the rubbish you post below, trying to alter the argument from what it
was, here:
It was quite easy to come up with this post in which I gave a series of
quores that show you did indeed state to the effect that Secret Mark had
been disproven.
I really wonder what kind of a mind is so full of obfuscation, wriggling and
just plain weasling.
I posted this on Jan, 19, 2009, in the course of an ongoing argument over
JAntero:
JAntero:
******
Weland:
******
JAntero:
> then you backed off,
==end 12/14 extract
http://www.tonyburke.ca/apocryphicity/category/secret-mark/
J Antero
> Where are the emails between you and Prof. Ehrman from a year ago re.
> "Secret Mark"?
> Post them.
==Further evidence that you don't read, and you're going senile. Posted
last Jan, posted again in this discussion, and you even responded to
them!===
Bullshit. You posted a short one-sided cliped reply from what you said was
an email.
You didn't post an entire email showing what the dialog was - you're afraid
to.
You're going from being a fool who gets caught in lies, to being an outirght
usenet "troll".
If you actually posted the entire emails, less any private stuuf, post them
along with the google group address so we can verify it.
Do it, Swineflu.
<snip swineturdisms>
J Antero
>
> Yawn. Have you finally realised the Truth Larry?
>
> About time....
Swineflu is having late night panic attacks.... ;-))
J Antero
You're cowering behind phony issues.
WeaselTURD tried to pretend a year ago that I did'nt own a particiular book
on history, which I proved I did by quickly posting a picture of it.
Now he's cowering behind a stupid PSEUDO-argument that I haven't *read* it,
even though i've used what's in it to make a fool of him.
The fool is up in the middle of the night, posting in a panic attack - HI
LARRYYYY OUS.
Pseudoscholar, instead of arguing history, you are going from a theological
position of
arguing against an embarrassing aspect of christian history - how it
borrowed customs and ideas from pre-existing myths and religions and
maintianing the pretence they are original to it - to lying and mangling
history to avoid the truth.
Here's my reply supporting the adoption of pagan rituals / holidays etc. by
christianity from pagan cults that had existed many centuries beofre
christianity was created.
Think of what I have just below as something I'm rubbing into your distorted
troll face,,, to humliate you further...
1] Book: Christianity and paganism in the fourth to eight centuries,
MacMullen, 1997, Yale University Press.
(This is the book the Swineturd is pretending I don't own and haven't read
;-)) )
Page 155
""Augustine called the sum total of imported paganism among his congregation
their mother, while what he himself would teach them was the father. They
must choose; or he hoped they would. But he could not make them do so. He
conceded that they must be allowed some latitude in their manner of worship.
At just about the same time, toward the beginning of the fifth century,
Jerome made the same acknowledgment: better, worship of saints in the pagan
manner than none at all. ....""
[
""" The same need forced the invention of many celebrations during the year,
since Christians' attendance at events like the Kallends proved too much for
the Church leadership to control except by competition. """
[
""" A 12th-century Syrian Bishop explained:
The reason, then, why the fathers of the church moved the January 6
celebration of epiphany to December 25 was this, they say: it was the custom
of the pagans to celebrate on this same December 25 the birthday of the sun,
and they lit lights then to exalt the day, and invited and admitted
Christians to these rights. When, therefore, the teachers of the church saw
that Christians inclined to this custom, figuring out a strategy, they set
the celebration of the true sunrise on this day ... """
xx
2] A history of the Middle Ages, 300-1500, 2008, by
John M. Riddle, retired Chair of the History Department and Alumni
Distinguished Professor, North Carolina State University.
Page 37:
""" Mithra: From Persia came the story of Mithra, son of the god of
light, who was put on earth to fight against the god of evil. Shepherds saw
a
bright star, followed it, and saw Mithra born with a flash of light out of a
rock.
They wrapped him in swaddling clothes and took him to lie in a manger,
according to pictures of his birth as shown in Mithraic churches. As a
youth, Mithra was slain in combat with the god of darkness, but, incarnated
in the form of a bull, he was brought back to life and in the renewed fight
was victorious.
[ ]
We do not know whether the Mithraism practiced in the Roman Empire came from
Persia or whether it was a Roman creation based on the Persian story. """"
3] Source: Teaching Co., Religion in the Ancient Mediterranean World,
Professor Glenn S. Holland
(Ph.D. in the Bible and New Testament Studies from the Divinity School of
the University of Chicago)
Lecture # 37. Mystery Religions from the East
Gleaned from the professor's lecture:
Mithras, an Indo-Aryan god, incorporated into the west including Rome,
earliest Roman mentioning of him is first century BCE.
We only have the outlines of the roman myth version, no written sources.
From many inscriptions relating to the Roman Mithra myth:
* Mithras' birth was witnessed by shepards or by two men who served as his
torch bearers.
* Mithras' birth is associated with the re-birth of the sun (around winter
solstice, Dec. 25th).
* Mithra had a ritual banquet or communion, where attendees drank from a
common cup, ate bread, and made vows to the god.
* This Roman version of Mithrism became popular with soldier, sailors and
merchats and became widely spread through the empire.
xx
4] You pretend, or actually think, that Roman mithraism (just one of the
pagan religions
christianity borrowed from) was totally distinct from the ancient mithraism
it had developed from.
You're too dumb to understand that it doesn't really matter whether early
christians were adopting ideas from the Roman variety of mithraism, or the
older varities found to the east.
But in any case, the Britannica indicates you are WRONG.
Britannica, 2002
MITHRA also spelled Mithras, Sanskrit Mitra,
in ancient Indo-Iranian mythology, the god of light, whose cult spread from
India in the east to as far west as Spain, Great Britain, and Germany. (See
Mithraism.) The first written mention of the Vedic Mitra dates to 1400 BC.
His worship spread to Persia and, after the defeat of the Persians by
Alexander the Great, throughout the Hellenic world. In the 3rd and 4th
centuries AD, the cult of Mithra, carried and supported by the soldiers of
the Roman Empire, was the chief rival to the newly developing religion of
Christianity. The Roman emperors Commodus and Julian were initiates of
Mithraism, and in 307 Diocletian consecrated a temple on the Danube River to
Mithra, "Protector of the Empire." xxend
5] Swain the pseudo scholar has been harping on the Google book search
results
on mithraism that i posted - he thinks it's something to hide behind.
It was a Gooble *book* search, not an "internet" search as he incompetently
claims, which showed that
there's nothing rare about authors discussing traditions/ideas / holidays in
christianity that were adopted from mithraism.
He pretends the authors have no credibiity (but he does?).
I searched out bios on all seven. One author that the Goggle search gave,
even with a "history" entry, does seem non-credible.
The other 6 out of 7 appear credible.
1) In Search of Zarathustra: Across Iran and Central Asia to Find the
World's ... - Page 122
Paul Kriwaczek - History - 2004 - 288 pages
" Over the following centuries, as the religion evolved beyond
Zarathustra's
inspiration, Mithra came to be seen as the **Son of God** - the three
aspects of..."
Paul Kriwaczek
was born in Vienna in 1937 and, with his parents, narrowly escaped the
Nazis in 1939, fleeing first to Switzerland and then to England. He grew up
in London and graduated from London Hospital Medical College. After several
years spent working and traveling in the Middle East, Central Asia, and
Africa, he joined the BBC, where he spent the next quarter of a century as a
program producer and filmmaker. Since leaving television in the 1990s, he
has devoted himself to writing full-time, catching up on the unfinished
business of a life spent exploring places, times, and ideas.
2) The Emperor Julian - Page 31
Constance Head - History - 1976 - 229 pages
" Mithra was the Persian **god of light**. His story, far older than the
official Zoroastrian religion of Persia and incorporated into it, told of
his birth
from .""
Book pubs by author:
+ Justinian II of Byzantium. Head, Constance Madison, University of
Wisconsin Press [1972]
+ The Emperor Julian / by Constance Head Boston : Twayne Publishers, c1976.
229 p. : ill. ; 22 cm. Twayne's world leaders series ; TWLS 53
+ Imperial twilight : the Palaiologos dynasty and the decline of Byzantium /
Constance Head Chicago : Nelson-Hall, c1977.
3) A brief history of Western man - Page 99 Thomas H. Greer - History -
1968 - 594 pages
"" Long before Christ, **December 25** was celebrated as the date of his
birth.) Mithra was also associated with the sun, and his followers marked
Sunday as
his "
Thomas H. Greer
studied at the University of California, Berkeley, and was Pofessor Emeritus
of Humanities at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan; he
joined the MSU faculty in 1947 and retired in 1977. His publications include
American Social Reform Movements: Their Pattern Since 1865, A Brief History
of the Western World, and Classics of Western Thought. Professor Greer
passed away in February, 2004.
4) The Templar Revelation: Secret Guardians of the True Identity of Christ?
Lynn Picknett - Religion - 2004
" His resurrection took place, like that of Mithra, from a
**rock-tomb**...13
[our italics] There is not a conception associated with Christ that is not
common
to "
****** Does not seem like a credible author.
5) Chinese Religion Through Hindu Eyes; A Study in the Tendencies of Asiatic
...? - Page 146
Wu Ting-Fang, Benoy Kumar Sarkar - History - 2009 - 362 pages
"... dying and **resurrected saviour-god**, an Osiris, an Adonis, an Attis,
a
Mithra.
Religions of this type were everywhere displacing the old national faiths.
... "
Benoy Kumar Sarkar
(sometimes Binoy Kumar Sarkar) (1887-1949) was an Indian social scientist,
professor, and nationalist. He founded several institutes in Calcutta,
including: the Bengali Institute of Sociology, Bengali Asia Academy, Bengali
Dante Society, and Bengali Institute of American Culture. Sarkar graduated
from the University of Calcutta in 1905 with dual degrees in English and
history. The following year he received his master's degree.
In 1925 Sarkar started as a lecturer at the Department of Economics of
University of Calcutta. In 1947 he became a professor and head of the
department. He died on a trip to the United States in Washington, DC, in
November 1949.
6) A brief history of Western man - Page 88
Thomas H. Greer - History - 1972 - 546 pages
" The divine Mithra was believed to be a lieutenant of Ahura Mazda, ... all
told of a god who had died and was **resurrected**, as the cold death of
winter
is ... "
Thomas H. Greer
studied at the University of California, Berkeley, and was Pofessor Emeritus
of Humanities at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan; he
joined the MSU faculty in 1947 and retired in 1977. His publications include
American Social Reform Movements: Their Pattern Since 1865, A Brief History
of the Western World, and Classics of Western Thought. Professor Greer
passed away in February, 2004.
7) Human values from the Greeks to modern times: a continuing circle? -
Page 46
Glenn Shillington Visher - Philosophy - 1997 - 254 pages
... their dead were **resurrected**, to a heaven above or a hell in the
bowels of
the earth; their god Mithra had made a sacrifice which saved the human race;
...
I can't find a bio on this author. Here's the link, readers can form their
own opinion.
SwineTURD: instead of arguing history, you are going from a theological
position of
arguing against an embarrassing aspect of christian history - how it
borrowed customs and ideas from pre-existing myths and religions and
maintianing the pretence they are original to it - to lying and mangling
history to avoid the truth.
You have FAILED (again). HI-LARRY-OUS
By the way, for anyone who's interested, it makes common sense that the
dating of when the Roman version of mitra/mithra/mithras was flourishing in
Rome would have been sometime after it was first introduced to Rome,
probably by slaves captured in the east.
J Antero
>J Antero wrote:
>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>> news:hfi7l3$meo$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> J Antero wrote:
>>>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:hf11v7$18c$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>> J Antero wrote:
>>>>>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:hev2h6$r4f$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Sheer repetition will get you nowhere.
>>
>> It's the liar who has to keep changing, and wriggiling, and
>> weaseling..... not I...
>
> Yeah you do: once you're initial posts are shown to be DEFICIENT (that's
> how you spell it btw),
The pseudoscholar is down to acting as a spell checker.....
SwineTURD, with a minimum of effort, I've again shown you up as a lying
obfuscating cowering weasel..
J Antero
>J Antero wrote:
>> SwineTURD, no one should ever rely on anything you say - and i'm not the
>> first to say that.
>
> Sure, you trolls hate me because I point the spotlight at your nonsense.
>
>> It amuses me that you spend all this time weaseling around and away from
>> your own words.
>>
>> I have no problem (again) showing what you have said....
>
> *YAWN* I note again how you cower
Weasel/swine it is YOU WHO COWERS - I intentionally specified news group,
date, searchable quotes so that anyone who could use google group search
could verify everything.
It is you who is cowering from posting the supposed email exchange between
you and prof. Ehrman on whether Secret Mark was a settled issue.
I've been asking to see those emails for over a year, and you have been
cowering and lying all that time.
Disgusting fat mendacious turd that you are.
Weland
Aw, Anturdo once again avoids dealing with history....
Weland
> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:hfkta3$mor$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> J Antero wrote:
>>> SwineTURD, no one should ever rely on anything you say - and i'm not the
>>> first to say that.
>> Sure, you trolls hate me because I point the spotlight at your nonsense.
>>
>>> It amuses me that you spend all this time weaseling around and away from
>>> your own words.
>>>
>>> I have no problem (again) showing what you have said....
>> *YAWN* I note again how you cower
>
> Weasel/swine it is YOU WHO COWERS - I intentionally specified news group,
> date, searchable quotes so that anyone who could use google group search
> could verify everything.
Well, not quite....only the things you cherry picked unless they're
inclined to read elsewhere. On the other hand, I pointed to the
beginning of the threads, let anyone interested make up his or her own
mind.
>
> It is you who is cowering from posting the supposed email exchange between
> you and prof. Ehrman on whether Secret Mark was a settled issue.
LOL!!!!! Wow, what a dolt!
> I've been asking to see those emails for over a year, and you have been
> cowering and lying all that time.
>
> Disgusting fat mendacious turd that you are.
What's really hilarious is your panic attack here!
Weland
> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:hfkte5$mor$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> J Antero wrote:
>>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hfi7ta$o2h$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>>
>>> Antero:
>>>>> I really wonder what kind of a mind is so full of obfuscation,
>>>>> wriggling and
>>>>> just plain weasling.
>>> SwineTURD:
>>>> Look in the mirror, you'll discover the mind so full of obfuscation,
>>>> wriggling, weasling, and other trollish activity.
>>> You're so deficeint, you have to plagarise the insults that have been
>>> correctly directed at you...
>> I at least know how to spell the words correctly.....and I was just
>> answering your question where you'd find a mind so full of obfuscation,
>> wriggling, and just plain weasling: in your mirror. I know, big words are
>> hard for poor J'Tardo the Turdo to understand....
>>
>> And Turdo repeats himself again.....material already dealt with.
>
>
> SwineTURD - nobody respects you, nobody believes you.
You speak for everyone now, eh? Or was it rather that you've changed
your name to Nobody. So why do you keep making it about me instead of
history in history groups?
>
> You're up in the middle of the night posting like the panicked cowering liar
> you are.
>
HMMM, considering that you just posted at 12:25 AM-a bit late for you
isn't turd breath?-and how very insistent you are, this seems more like
a self-description on your part.
> Did McDonalds have a layoff, and you now have nothing better than post this
> rubbish?
Ah! That explains your late hour! You lost your job at MickeyD's!
Careful what you say Anturdo, you reveal your own life!
Weland
> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:hfktkv$mor$4...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> J Antero wrote:
>>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hfi7l3$meo$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> J Antero wrote:
>>>>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:hf11v7$18c$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>> J Antero wrote:
>>>>>>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:hev2h6$r4f$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> Sheer repetition will get you nowhere.
>>> It's the liar who has to keep changing, and wriggiling, and
>>> weaseling..... not I...
>> Yeah you do: once you're initial posts are shown to be DEFICIENT (that's
>> how you spell it btw), you then back up to some generic, general stand
>> that was never questioned in the first place. That's wriggling, weasling,
>> lying, and all those other insults you toss my way: a typical troll will
>> always project his own faults onto others. Congratualations, Turdo Troll.
>
> I think it's clear who the lying turd is, SwineTURD.
Oh yes, quite clearly you.
Weland
> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:hfktkv$mor$4...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> J Antero wrote:
>>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hfi7l3$meo$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> J Antero wrote:
>>>>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:hf11v7$18c$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>> J Antero wrote:
>>>>>>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:hev2h6$r4f$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> Sheer repetition will get you nowhere.
>>> It's the liar who has to keep changing, and wriggiling, and
>>> weaseling..... not I...
>> Yeah you do: once you're initial posts are shown to be DEFICIENT (that's
>> how you spell it btw),
>
> The pseudoscholar is down to acting as a spell checker.....
aw, poor J'Tardo, the best he can do is seize on a parenthetical...poor boy.
>
> SwineTURD, with a minimum of effort, I've again shown you up as a lying
> obfuscating cowering weasel..
>
> It's the liar who has to keep changing, and wriggiling, and weaseling.....
> not I...
LOL!!! Says the plagiarist!!!! PLAGIARISING IS LYING!!!
Weland
Not as stupid as an idiot who demands to see an email he's already seen
and responded to!!
>
> You're losing it - you're going from being a fool who gets caught in lies,
> to being an outirght
> usenet "troll".
>
> From the above link for a Jan., 2009 post:
All already addressed at the time, little dancing monkey. Read through
the thread and you'll soon discover what you're looking for and that you
even responded to it. And again, as 11 months ago, you think I
misrepresented Bart? Good, go email him, like I've begged you to many
many times already. You won't, you gormless intellectual gnat, because
you simply haven't the testicular fortitude much less the intellectual
honesty.
>> YOU EVEN RESPONDED TO MY POSTING OF THE EMAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!! SENILE FOOL!!!
>
> Jesus Christ, you idiot!
Oh yes, I'm the idiot who backed up my statements, as opposed to some
jackass who read a web page and presents himself as an expert.
>
> Here's the post title that I HAD ALTERED TO REFLECT THAT YOU HAD LOST THE
> ARGUMENT:.
Exactly, you altered the post, thanks for the confession.
>
> " "Secret Mark" Weland / Swain generously shows that he has been wrong (but
> doesn't realize it)"
>
> All you posted was a short extract from what you claim was an email, that
> showed Ehrman agreed with me, not you, you mendacious fool.
As before, you don't believe me. Good. EMAIL EHRMAN! Go ahead, do it
now. We'll wait.
>
> I want and have wanted to see the full exchange, you mendacious twat.
>
> The reason is, that you were saying in the newsgroup, that it was a settled
> issue.
Good misrepresentation. I said it was so settled that controversy
continues and that there was debate...funny how you never quote those
words of mine.
From the email, it seems evident that you were saying you thought
> something
> different than that, to Prof. Ehrman. I want to see the entire exchange.
>
> And, of course, you idiot, what you posted AGREES THAT IT WASN'T A SETTLED
> ISSUE - just as I have been saying.
>
> Prof. Ehrman: " it's *probably* forged (though I still would not say
> certainly; would love to see the ink....)"
Nice snip: what he said was: I am now CONVINCED that it's probably
forged. Just as I said: "...recent work that it is likely a forgery."
> If Ehrman had decisive info on Secret Mark, he would have made a decisive
> statement.
Yes, because being convinced just isn't decisive enough.
>
> I was the one saying it was not a settled issue - you said it was settled,
> and I want to see the whole email exchange to see how you set the issue up,
> not because I disagree with Ehrman, but because I suspect you backed off
> the certainty you were portraying in the newsgroup, when communicating with
> him (Ehrman).
Oh you mean like saying "it's likely a forgery" because that's different
than "probably a forgery."
What a roob.
Weland
No, that was the issue, you illiterate muck raker.
>
> WeaselTURD tried to pretend a year ago that I did'nt own a particiular book
READ!!! READ!!! READ!!!! I SAID YOU HADN'T READ THE BOOK!!! I EVEN
PASTED THE URL INTO A POST TO THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE JUST FOR TO SEE!!! IT
SAYS READ!!!!! R E A D Are you so thick that you don't know that
R E A D is *NOT* OWN?? Apparently so.
Here again is the original post:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.medieval/msg/8f7aa66cd566f84c?dmode=source
The paragraph in question is:
"So here's a little test for you, prove to us that you've actually
*read* the book you cited instead of read about the book. You pointed
to _Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries_. So
tells us about page 122, how many paragraphs are there? Quote the first
two sentences of the first paragraph that begins on that page. Tell us
what the is the entry in the index after "ascetics (pagan)"."
Note *AGAIN* the word *READ*, not own.
> on history, which I proved I did by quickly posting a picture of it.
Which doesn't prove you own it much less READ it.
>
> Now he's cowering behind a stupid PSEUDO-argument that I haven't *read* it,
That was always the argument....and it isn't a "pseudo-argument." Any
jackass can buy a pretty book and put on the shelf. The question is
whether you've read it and understood it. And the answer is an obvious
negative: otherwise when discussing the issue of Christianity and
Paganism in the ancient world you would have used MacMullen or
information gained therefrom rather than The Da Vinci Code and some crap
you plagiarized from elsewhere on the 'net.
>
> Pseudoscholar, instead of arguing history, you are going from a theological
> position of
> arguing against an embarrassing aspect of christian history - how it
> borrowed customs and ideas from pre-existing myths and religions and
> maintianing the pretence they are original to it - to lying and mangling
> history to avoid the truth.
Yeah, which is why I actually pointed to the *REAL HISTORICAL ROOTS* of
some of those practices that come from paganism rather than the
historical falsehoods you perpetrated, and pointed to several books that
cover specifically that topic....sure, Anturdo, sure.
>
> Here's my reply supporting the adoption of pagan rituals / holidays etc. by
> christianity from pagan cults that had existed many centuries beofre
> christianity was created.
>
> Think of what I have just below as something I'm rubbing into your distorted
> troll face,,, to humliate you further...
>
> 1] Book: Christianity and paganism in the fourth to eight centuries,
> MacMullen, 1997, Yale University Press.
>
> (This is the book the Swineturd is pretending I don't own and haven't read
> ;-)) )
11 months later you went to a library and photocopied a page out of the
conclusion. That sure proves you read it, just like plagiarizing The Da
Vinci Code proves you know ancient history.
> Page 155
>
> ""Augustine called the sum total of imported paganism among his congregation
> their mother, while what he himself would teach them was the father. They
> must choose; or he hoped they would. But he could not make them do so. He
> conceded that they must be allowed some latitude in their manner of worship.
> At just about the same time, toward the beginning of the fifth century,
> Jerome made the same acknowledgment: better, worship of saints in the pagan
> manner than none at all. ....""
Material not under dispute or question, immaterial to the discussion.
> [
> """ The same need forced the invention of many celebrations during the year,
> since Christians' attendance at events like the Kallends proved too much for
> the Church leadership to control except by competition. """
Material not under dispute or question, immaterial to the discussion.
>
> [
> """ A 12th-century Syrian Bishop explained:
> The reason, then, why the fathers of the church moved the January 6
> celebration of epiphany to December 25 was this, they say: it was the custom
> of the pagans to celebrate on this same December 25 the birthday of the sun,
> and they lit lights then to exalt the day, and invited and admitted
> Christians to these rights. When, therefore, the teachers of the church saw
> that Christians inclined to this custom, figuring out a strategy, they set
> the celebration of the true sunrise on this day ... """
> xx
Which of course is a 12th century bishop's view, not a modern
historian's. But oh well, someday you'll learn. What am I saying, of
course you won't. Oh and by the way, this doesn't say what you claim it
does.
>
> 2] A history of the Middle Ages, 300-1500, 2008, by
> John M. Riddle, retired Chair of the History Department and Alumni
> Distinguished Professor, North Carolina State University.
And again Riddle is a historian of medicine and a late medievalist, not
an expert in Mithraism. He neither footnotes nor includes in his
bibliography anything on Mithraism. His "information" is misleading and
wrong. As proven by multiple quotes provided earlier by the world's
leading authorities on Mithraism.
<snip repetition of material already dealt with>>
>
> 3] Source: Teaching Co., Religion in the Ancient Mediterranean World,
> Professor Glenn S. Holland
> (Ph.D. in the Bible and New Testament Studies from the Divinity School of
> the University of Chicago)
> Lecture # 37. Mystery Religions from the East
And the same problems as before: a) the above isn't the source, the
source is you claiming that this is what Holland says and means and b)
it's a general lecture on Roman mystery religions, and Holland isn't an
expert on the subject. Once again....
>
> 4] You pretend, or actually think, that Roman mithraism (just one of the
> pagan religions
> christianity borrowed from) was totally distinct from the ancient mithraism
> it had developed from.
>
Yes, me and the world's leading authorities on Mithraism.
I've dealt with the rest of this several times already, I'm not doing so
again.
Weland
> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:hfkt3q$mor$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> Where are the emails between you and Prof. Ehrman from a year ago re.
>> "Secret Mark"?
>> Post them.
>
>
>
> ==Further evidence that you don't read, and you're going senile. Posted
> last Jan, posted again in this discussion, and you even responded to
> them!===
>
> Bullshit. You posted a short one-sided cliped reply from what you said was
> an email.
I posted Bart's reply to my laying out the issue. I later posted
exactly what I said to him and again his reply. Don't believe me? You
once again can email him and ask. You won't, but that's expected.
J Antero
>J Antero wrote:
>> "Martin" <martin147...@outgun.com> wrote in message
>> news:NmvTm.63738$3O3....@newsfe29.ams2...
>>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in....
>>>
>>
>>> Yawn. Have you finally realised the Truth Larry?
>>
>> Swineturd is well into flowering into a full usenet troll. ;-))
>
> Aw, poor Anturdo would prefer to go into history groups and just spout any
> ol' non-historical nonsense he thinks he read.
Sure, troll-turd.
Still cowering from posting that email exchange with prof. Ehrman, for over
a year.
You are pathetc.
Weland
> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:hfncjv$egv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> J Antero wrote:
>>> "Martin" <martin147...@outgun.com> wrote in message
>>> news:NmvTm.63738$3O3....@newsfe29.ams2...
>>>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in....
>>>>
>>>> Yawn. Have you finally realised the Truth Larry?
>>> Swineturd is well into flowering into a full usenet troll. ;-))
>
>> Aw, poor Anturdo would prefer to go into history groups and just spout any
>> ol' non-historical nonsense he thinks he read.
>
> Sure, troll-turd.
The proofs already there.
>
> Still cowering from posting that email exchange with prof. Ehrman, for over
> a year.
Oh, you mean the one I posted but you snipped and are so senile you
can't now remember, not to mention that you're too cowardly to email
Ehrman yourself, even when he's expecting your email.....yeah, go hide
in the corner. You're all bluster, no substance.
> I are pathetc.
Here, I fixed that for you.
J Antero
You're an obvious liar, trollTURD
As for senility, you're the one making a fool of youself telling obvious
confused lies, not me.
All you posted was clip from an email, that omits what the clip was
responding to.
You know why I want to see the whole exchange - it's going to further reveal
you as an incompetent liar.
Run along, senility turd.
J Antero
That is a plain lie.
All you posted was clip from an email, that omits what the clip was
responding to.
You know why I want to see the whole exchange - it's going to further reveal
you as an incompetent liar.
Run along, turd.
J Antero
Troll-turd, I've buried you in relible cites that show you for what you
are - a troll-turd.
J Antero
The troll acknowledges he didn't post the email exchange, as he had
prviously claimed he did.
The troll cowers from a reasonable request.
You know why I want to see those emails - I have every reason to think they
will reveal even further, what a phony troll you are.
J Antero
I've thrown plenty of historical cites from relible sources at you, and
pointed out your weaseling, lying and obfucations.
You are a troll Swine, a troll.
>> You're up in the middle of the night posting like the panicked cowering
>> liar
>> you are.
>>
> HMMM, considering that you just posted at 12:25 AM-a bit late for you
> isn't turd breath?-and how very insistent you are, this seems more like a
> self-description on your part.
Actually, shit mouth, it isn't. I waited tp post around 11:25pm.
Can you figure out why, you shit mouth troll?
You are my puppet, shit mouthed troll.
>> Did McDonalds have a layoff, and you now have nothing better than post
>> this
>> rubbish?
>
> Ah! That explains your late hour! You lost your job at MickeyD's!
> Careful what you say Anturdo, you reveal your own life!
lol.
Keep responding to the strings I pull, troll, as I provoke your late night
panic attacks....
J Antero
How clever, but it's late there isn't it, and it's dificult to think clearly
while having a late night panic attack, isn't it, troll puppet....
And still no posting of the email exchange with Prof. Ehrman... after a
year...
J Antero
This is the best the that the troll who is afraid of posting his email
exchange between prof. Ehrman and himself, can do...
J Antero
>J Antero wrote:
>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>> news:hfkta3$mor$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> J Antero wrote:
>>>> SwineTURD, no one should ever rely on anything you say - and i'm not
>>>> the
>>>> first to say that.
>>> Sure, you trolls hate me because I point the spotlight at your nonsense.
>>>
>>>> It amuses me that you spend all this time weaseling around and away
>>>> from
>>>> your own words.
>>>>
>>>> I have no problem (again) showing what you have said....
>>> *YAWN* I note again how you cower
>>
>> Weasel/swine it is YOU WHO COWERS - I intentionally specified news group,
>> date, searchable quotes so that anyone who could use google group search
>> could verify everything.
>
> Well, not quite....only the things you cherry picked unless they're
> inclined to read elsewhere.
You are a *troll*.
The following shows that you repeatedly claimed that "Secret Mark" had been
proven to be a fraud, which it had not, and one year later is still an
unsetteld issue, as I claimed.
Showing some fool his definitive statements that he is trying to cower from,
is not cherry picking, troll.
And you still lack the courage to post the email exchange you say you had
with Prof. Ehrman.... you are a troll...
I really wonder what kind of a mind is so full of obfuscation, wriggling and
just plain weasling.
I posted this on Jan, 19, 2009, in the course of an ongoing argument over
Secret mark, which I claimed was controversial and undecided, and
Weasel/Swine had been claiming was a proven forgery (except when he was
trying to pretend he didn't say it)..
**Start Jan, 19, 2009 post
"""" Liar.
Weland/Swain, you said it was a "demonstrated" forgery, and that it was a
"proven forgery" by Smith.
You compared the level of certainty of "secret mark" being a forgery to the
level of certainity that the earth isn't flat. You own words are given
below, with reference given to thread and date, all within this newsgroup.
[soc.history.medieval ]
You are caught. You're worming around becasue Professor Ehrman, who you ran
to after I threatended to email him, is himself plainly not decided on the
issue, as I have said, over and over..
12/13/08 post in: Re: Jesus Christ -- Clashing Biblical Images
JAntero:
> Again, here's what I initially said, and it stands: [original post stating
> secret mark was controversial.]
Weland:
Again, not disputed, and it still doesn't cover recent work demonstrating
forgery.
== end 12/13/08 extract
******
Weland:
******
==end 12/14 extract
12/14/08.
Weland
> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:hfq25g$alo$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> J Antero wrote:
>>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hfncjv$egv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> J Antero wrote:
>>>>> "Martin" <martin147...@outgun.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:NmvTm.63738$3O3....@newsfe29.ams2...
>>>>>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yawn. Have you finally realised the Truth Larry?
>>>>> Swineturd is well into flowering into a full usenet troll. ;-))
>>>> Aw, poor Anturdo would prefer to go into history groups and just spout
>>>> any
>>>> ol' non-historical nonsense he thinks he read.
>
>>> Sure, troll-turd.
>> The proofs already there.
>
>
>>> Still cowering from posting that email exchange with prof. Ehrman, for
>>> over
>>> a year.
>> Oh, you mean the one I posted but you snipped and are so senile you can't
>> now remember, not to mention that you're too cowardly to email Ehrman
>> yourself, even when he's expecting your email.....yeah, go hide in the
>> corner. You're all bluster, no substance.
Nothing worth commenting on, except to point out the truth of the above
paragraph.
Weland
> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:hfng7j$4r7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> J Antero wrote:
>>> "Martin" <martin147...@outgun.com> wrote in message
>>> news:NmvTm.63738$3O3....@newsfe29.ams2...
>>>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in....
>>>>
>>>> Yawn. Have you finally realised the Truth Larry?
>>>>
>>>> About time....
>>> Swineflu is having late night panic attacks.... ;-))
>> Aw, Anturdo once again avoids dealing with history....
>
Nothing worth responding to, except to point to the truthfulness of the
last statement above this one.
Weland
> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:hfngfs$4r7$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> J Antero wrote:
>>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hfkta3$mor$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> J Antero wrote:
>>>>> SwineTURD, no one should ever rely on anything you say - and i'm not
>>>>> the
>>>>> first to say that.
>>>> Sure, you trolls hate me because I point the spotlight at your nonsense.
>>>>
>>>>> It amuses me that you spend all this time weaseling around and away
>>>>> from
>>>>> your own words.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no problem (again) showing what you have said....
>>>> *YAWN* I note again how you cower
>
>>> Weasel/swine it is YOU WHO COWERS - I intentionally specified news group,
>>> date, searchable quotes so that anyone who could use google group search
>>> could verify everything.
>> Well, not quite....only the things you cherry picked unless they're
>> inclined to read elsewhere.
Third message in a row with nothing worth responding to. You're losing
it Anturdo. Heck, you can't even give me a decent insult that doesn't
use terms I've already used of you. Desperate and pathetic. Go ahead,
paste material already disproven again, waste our time some more.
Weland
> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:hfngfs$4r7$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> J Antero wrote:
>>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hfkta3$mor$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> J Antero wrote:
>>>>> SwineTURD, no one should ever rely on anything you say - and i'm not
>>>>> the
>>>>> first to say that.
>>>> Sure, you trolls hate me because I point the spotlight at your nonsense.
>>>>
>>>>> It amuses me that you spend all this time weaseling around and away
>>>>> from
>>>>> your own words.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no problem (again) showing what you have said....
>>>> *YAWN* I note again how you cower
>
>>> Weasel/swine it is YOU WHO COWERS - I intentionally specified news group,
>>> date, searchable quotes so that anyone who could use google group search
>>> could verify everything.
>> Well, not quite....only the things you cherry picked unless they're
>> inclined to read elsewhere.
Poor Anturdo thinks that sheer dint of repetition makes his claims true.
Dementia has set in.
Weland
LOL!!! I love delusions of grandeur.....it's so much fun to watch you
spin thinking that you have anything to offer. Keep it up, Anturdo.
You're pathetic, you can't even keep your McDonald's job, and now much
flood usenet with desperate replies that have already been dismissed as
no more than nonsense! Oh, how funny!
Weland
I wouldn't know, but you appear quite familiar with the phenomenon.
>
> And still no posting of the email exchange with Prof. Ehrman... after a
> year...
>
*YAWN* If only you'd read instead of yell,...ah well.