"Secret Mark"
J Antero
news:gkgdvg$mfd$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
>J Antero wrote:
>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>> news:gk45e5$4bh$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
>>
>> You didn't even know who Professor Ehrman was, until I told you, you
>> ridiculous fraud.
>
> Really? You're this desperate for a positive emotional charge that
> you'll try this ploy? I think what you really meant was "I, J Antero,
> had no idea who Bart Ehrman was until I googled on Secret Mark."
It is plain that it is YOU who chronically and incompetently projects his
confused ploys onto others, moron.
I've been aware of Professor Ehrman and his views on various biblical issues
for a couple years.
I've got four of his Teaching Company courses - 48 hours of lecture.
I became aware of the "secret mark" issue via his lecture on it ( "The
Secret Gospel of Mark" lecture, in the course on "Lost Christianities:
Christian Scriptures and the Battles over Authentication" course).
Look it up, moron.
>
> Here's what's really going on here: it a nice bit of rhetoric to project
> onto your opponent your own faults.
You have been shown to be a lying ass before, and your own words again show
you to be a lying ass.
<snip>
>
> As for me, since you are so good at using Google to discover books
> you've not read and cannot assess, you might have stumbled across this
> one:
> http://books.google.com/books?id=7nPPmqAu4RwC&pg=PR9&dq=Ehrman+and+Swain
>
> You'll of course note that this takes you to page ix of Ehrman's
> edition of the Apostolic Fathers where he mentions me, Larry Swain,
Weland, you are now saying that you are actually "Larry Swain" (who even
Hines succesfully uses as an object of fun when it suits him).
In the first place, why would someone be posting in a newsgroup under two
different names?
You're stupidly revealing yourself to be an implicitly dishonest and
unreliable person - using "sockpuppets".
Second, in your reference link, all Ehrman does is give passing reference to
a number of people who read parts of his pre-publication manuscript for him.
One of them is a "Larry Swain".
A sockpuppet whose chief claim to fame is that he read parts of somebody's
manuscript (assuming it's the same "Swain") ?
Ehrman probably had his wife read it, too....
That's desperation.... what kind of a piker academic would even claim that
as a proof of anything?
> 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)".
A little test? From you, moron?
I'll do betther than that, you puerile insipid.
My ISP apparently won't post a binary to this group, so go to alt.binary
and look for "MacMullen book" subject; posted 1/12/08.
It has a note on the book, with my name, saying "look dummy" ;-)) .
Notice it didn't take me four days to come up with this reply, like it did
you - you were doing better when you were mute....
<snip>
>> Show us an Ehrman publication where he says that secret mark has been
>> conclusively determined to be a fraud.
>
> This works both ways. Show us an Ehrman publication penned in 2006 and
> published after where he says that Secret Mark has *not* been
> conclusively determined to be a fraud.
And this reveals what an unreliable fraud you really are.
You claimed in prior posts in the "Jesus Christ -- Clashing Biblical Images"
thread, that Ehrman had concluded that "secret mark" was a forgery.
I stated that he had a lot of questions about it, but that he had, at least
to 2003, not concluded it was a forgery, and had clearly stated such in his
2003 book, "Lost Christianities".
I challenged you to provide a publication by Ehrman SAYING he now thinks
"secret mark" is a forgery, as you said he has.
You can't do it, and instead of just admitting that, you give a self
discrediting reply of "Show us an Ehrman publication penned in 2006 and
published after where he says that Secret Mark has *not* been conclusively
determined to be a fraud."
This is a variation on it being up to atheists to prove that the "god"
doesn't exist.
Only the dumber theists use that type of argument, becasue it is of such
obviously flawed logic.
You make a claim, you can't back it up, and instead you try to project the
responsibilty for proving the negative of the claim onto someone else.
Poor show.
I'm tempted to forward this to Ehrman. If you ask me not to, I won't.
[Any readers- this will be continued in a new thread.]
<snip>
Martin
"J Antero" <webm...@doj.gov> wrote in message
news:mvednUgwNsXkbPbU...@earthlink.com...
Heh! If he relies on the word (or work) of Larry Swain, I'd have serious
reservations concerning Ehrman's accuracy and credibility?
Weland
> Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:gkgdvg$mfd$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
>
>>J Antero wrote:
>>
>>>"Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>>news:gk45e5$4bh$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
>>>
>>>You didn't even know who Professor Ehrman was, until I told you, you
>>>ridiculous fraud.
>>
>>Really? You're this desperate for a positive emotional charge that
>>you'll try this ploy? I think what you really meant was "I, J Antero,
>>had no idea who Bart Ehrman was until I googled on Secret Mark."
>
>
> It is plain that it is YOU who chronically and incompetently projects his
> confused ploys onto others, moron.
Ah, the ol' "you too" ploy....poor boy. But since the only thing I've
done when denigrating you is throw your own material back at you, so
your charge falls rather flat.
>
> I've been aware of Professor Ehrman and his views on various biblical issues
> for a couple years.
> I've got four of his Teaching Company courses - 48 hours of lecture.
Sure, you were, I believe you. If you really have those lectures, you
oughta listen to them.
>
> I became aware of the "secret mark" issue via his lecture on it ( "The
> Secret Gospel of Mark" lecture, in the course on "Lost Christianities:
> Christian Scriptures and the Battles over Authentication" course).
>
> Look it up, moron.
I first became aware of Secret Mark when Morton Smith published his 1973
books on it. I've been following this issue for 25 years.
>
>
>>Here's what's really going on here: it a nice bit of rhetoric to project
>>onto your opponent your own faults.
>
>
> You have been shown to be a lying ass before,
Not once.
and your own words again show
> you to be a lying ass.
Nope, only that you engage in wishful thinking.
> <snip>
>
>>As for me, since you are so good at using Google to discover books
>>you've not read and cannot assess, you might have stumbled across this
>>one:
>>http://books.google.com/books?id=7nPPmqAu4RwC&pg=PR9&dq=Ehrman+and+Swain
>>
>> You'll of course note that this takes you to page ix of Ehrman's
>>edition of the Apostolic Fathers where he mentions me, Larry Swain,
>
>
> Weland, you are now saying that you are actually "Larry Swain" (who even
> Hines succesfully uses as an object of fun when it suits him).
That's well known. I'm not alone in having been a Comcast customer who
lost Usenet access through Comcast. I had to find something else as a
newsgroup provider, and I don't really like to use googlegroups unless I
must. The new provider for some reason didn't like my name, so I chose
another. Nothing nefarious there, and in fact I publicly posted on it
to this group
>
> In the first place, why would someone be posting in a newsgroup under two
> different names?
That's easy. As explained back in Oct, Comcast stopped providing Usenet
service. Those of us who were Comcast customers had to find other
providers, and our user names changed accordingly...Tiglath is now
temp06 or something like that for example. As I said then, my new
provider didn't take my name, so I adopted a new one. But its obviously
been me. I also have a google groups account that lists me as
"theswain" that I use when I'm away from my main computer and reader.
No one's been terribly confused before. Not even you or Martin, both of
whom continued to post to me as Larry Swain even when the new account
took effect.
> You're stupidly revealing yourself to be an implicitly dishonest and
> unreliable person - using "sockpuppets".
See above.
>
> Second, in your reference link, all Ehrman does is give passing reference to
> a number of people who read parts of his pre-publication manuscript for him.
> One of them is a "Larry Swain".
Yep. But the point you raised was that I didn't know about Ehrman until
you mentioned him last month. The reference proves that that isn't the
case.
>
> A sockpuppet whose chief claim to fame is that he read parts of somebody's
> manuscript (assuming it's the same "Swain") ?
Who said anything about it being a claim to fame? Or important? It
simply demonstrates that your claim is false, simple as that.
>
> Ehrman probably had his wife read it, too....
Most likely, and a lot of other people too...just not you. And there's
the thing of it, Antero: you see, it might be unimportant, a very, very,
very small thing, but what internationally known scholar in any of the
fields touching on this newsgroup knows your name much less acknowledges
you in any book or article for anything?
>
> That's desperation.... what kind of a piker academic would even claim that
> as a proof of anything?
It doesn't prove anything, except this: if I did some reading of his
manuscript before 2003, it can not be true that I didn't know who he was
in Dec 2008--your claim is false as most of your claims are.
>
>
>>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)".
>
>
> A little test? From you, moron?
>
> I'll do betther than that, you puerile insipid.
>
> My ISP apparently won't post a binary to this group, so go to alt.binary
> and look for "MacMullen book" subject; posted 1/12/08.
I don't visit binary groups. A search of my Usenet provider and of
Google groups provided no such reference. So no reference on the Net to
it, no cut-and-paste here, no url....and this is supposed to be better
than providing evidence you've read the book? And I note no attempt to
address the test, which would have shown that you read it or at least
had it to hand. Guess we have our answer then: you've not read it.
> It has a note on the book, with my name, saying "look dummy" ;-)) .
In a binary group? Doubtful...produce the note.
>
> Notice it didn't take me four days to come up with this reply,
Ah, you missed me! But Antero, I have a life, I don't sit around just
to send you notes. You're kinda low on the priority list.
like it did
> you - you were doing better when you were mute....
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>Show us an Ehrman publication where he says that secret mark has been
>>>conclusively determined to be a fraud.
>>
>>This works both ways. Show us an Ehrman publication penned in 2006 and
>>published after where he says that Secret Mark has *not* been
>>conclusively determined to be a fraud.
>
>
> And this reveals what an unreliable fraud you really are.
No, it shows that you can't think you're way out of a paper bag.
>
> You claimed in prior posts in the "Jesus Christ -- Clashing Biblical Images"
> thread, that Ehrman had concluded that "secret mark" was a forgery.
That's what he's said publicly.
>
> I stated that he had a lot of questions about it, but that he had, at least
> to 2003, not concluded it was a forgery, and had clearly stated such in his
> 2003 book, "Lost Christianities".
Indeed, in *2003*. The works that demonstrate forgery that have shifted
the consensus were published in late 2005 and 2006 meaning that anything
Ehrman may have written on the subject of Secret Mark could not have
been written until 2006 and would only just now be appearing in print.
And the issue works both ways: since those books were written, and since
Ehrman has read them, and interacted with their authors, can you point
to anything where he has maintained his 2003 position? No? But I can
point to public statements he's made at SBL meetings....a couple hundred
people in the room with me heard it. Guess we must all be
propagandists...yeah.
>
> I challenged you to provide a publication by Ehrman SAYING he now thinks
> "secret mark" is a forgery, as you said he has.
The operative word there being *publication*. I've quite explicit that
Ehrman has *said* this in talks given at forums like SBL, including the
most recent conference at Boston in November.
>
> You can't do it, and instead of just admitting that, you give a self
> discrediting reply of "Show us an Ehrman publication penned in 2006 and
> published after where he says that Secret Mark has *not* been conclusively
> determined to be a fraud."
Well, first, I never claimed I could, stipulating that it was oral, at
conferences. Second, your demand works both ways: show us where he
continues to hold that position. If you can't, then you've discredited
yourself.
> This is a variation on it being up to atheists to prove that the "god"
> doesn't exist.
Yes but in reverse: you asked me to provide something I never claimed
existed, just as the atheist is asked to prove something about something
he never claimed existed.
>
> Only the dumber theists use that type of argument, becasue it is of such
> obviously flawed logic.
Indeed, and one wonders then why you did, when it was so easily turned
around on you.
>
> You make a claim,
But I didn't claim he had published it. Here, take this as one example
from Dec. 31:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.medieval/msg/c3005841ce9f4e96?dmode=source
4) I also pointed you to the most recent SBL conference where a session
was held and the objections addressed, and where Ehrman spoke against
Secret Mark being genuine and Birger Pearson, once a proponent of Secret
Mark who has been convinced by the books to which I refer....this took
place just at the end of November.
Please note the word "spoke".
Or this, you remember this one:
"Ask Bart Ehrman: he addresses, you fool, this very question in his book
Lost Christianities and in his JHEC article in 2003, plus the talk he
gave at SBL in November 2008. Or you could read the books I've
mentioned, you fool. Or other works on Secret Mark that discuss this
very issue, you fool. Too scary, eh? You might find out something
factual...."
Remember this is where you claimed that Ehrman doesn't address Smith's
motives in his book. And note again "the talk he gave".
you can't back it up, and instead you try to project the
> responsibilty for proving the negative of the claim onto someone else.
>
> Poor show.
You've given a poorer one by trying to make me say things I didn't say.
>
> I'm tempted to forward this to Ehrman. If you ask me not to, I won't.
Oh, please do. I've dropped him an email already today apprising him
that you'll be dropping him a note. So please, by all means do. Of
course, I'll follow up with the correct version of things since you
can't seem to keep them straight.
Weland
> J Antero wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm tempted to forward this to Ehrman. If you ask me not to, I won't.
>
>
> Oh, please do. I've dropped him an email already today apprising him
> that you'll be dropping him a note. So please, by all means do. Of
> course, I'll follow up with the correct version of things since you
> can't seem to keep them straight.
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.
J Antero
>J Antero wrote:
>> Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>> news:gkgdvg$mfd$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
>>
>>>J Antero wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:gk45e5$4bh$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
>>>>
>>>>You didn't even know who Professor Ehrman was, until I told you, you
>>>>ridiculous fraud.
>>>
>>>Really? You're this desperate for a positive emotional charge that
>>>you'll try this ploy? I think what you really meant was "I, J Antero,
>>>had no idea who Bart Ehrman was until I googled on Secret Mark."
>>
>>
>> It is plain that it is YOU who chronically and incompetently projects his
>> confused ploys onto others, moron.
>
> Ah, the ol' "you too" ploy....poor boy. But since the only thing I've
> done when denigrating you is throw your own material back at you, so your
> charge falls rather flat.
I haven't lied about anything - and I haven't been posting under sockpuppet
names either, then throwing up phony excuses for it - like you have.
And, all along, I plainly stated "secret mark" was controversial, and
unproven as to authenticity.
Now you brainlessly post material showing I have been right all along, while
pretending some sort of success for yourself. LOL!
>> I've been aware of Professor Ehrman and his views on various biblical
>> issues
>> for a couple years.
>> I've got four of his Teaching Company courses - 48 hours of lecture.
>
> Sure, you were, I believe you. If you really have those lectures, you
> oughta listen to them.
That's a rather stupid rely, since I stated I first heard about secret mark
in one his lectures, and that's the subject we're arguing about, and I'm the
one who raised it in another thread.
O b v i o u s l y,, you cretin, I have been listening and learning things
from Ehrman's lectures - it is you who has mindlessly disprove your own
position by posting what you claim is an email from Professor Ehrman about
whether "secret mark" is a forgery.
You're a rather slow person.
I plainly stated a number of times, that he was not certain if it was a
forgery or not (in his 2003 lecture and publication)..
From the email you post in posted, EHRMAN STILL ISN'T CERTAIN IF IT'S A
FORGERY OR NOT, ALTHOUGH HE LEANS MORE THAT WAY.
This is from what you say is an email reply from Ehrman (from a "Weland /
Swain post on 1/14/08, this thread).
Ehrman: " 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....) "
I've been explicit through the thread, fool, that I was referring to his
2003 lecture and book. Your post indicates I was right about his views in
that material.
A few days ago, I challenged you to furnish recent published material by
Ehrman saying he had conclude it was a forgery - you couldn't and tried a
weasily 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.
>> Weland, you are now saying that you are actually "Larry Swain" (who even
>> Hines succesfully uses as an object of fun when it suits him).
<snip>
>> In the first place, why would someone be posting in a newsgroup under two
>> different names?
>
> That's easy. As explained back in Oct, Comcast stopped providing Usenet
> service. Those of us who were Comcast customers had to find other
> providers, and our user names changed accordingly...Tiglath is now temp06
> or something like that for example. As I said then, my new provider
> didn't take my name, so I adopted a new one. But its obviously been me.
> I also have a google groups account that lists me as "theswain" that I use
> when I'm away from my main computer and reader. No one's been terribly
> confused before. Not even you or Martin, both of whom continued to post
> to me as Larry Swain even when the new account took effect.
Bullshit. I've changed ISPs three times in the last year or so, and have had
no problem keeping an identifiable name in Usenet.
Once, when "JA" showed up in postings instead of "J Antero", I corrected the
situation back to "J Antero".
I noticed Martin was calling you "Larry" and I sometimes did the same. I
never noticed Martin calling you "Swain" - there are plenty of "Larrys" in
the world .
You're not fooling anybody.
LOL - you just stick your head in the sand.
A search of my Usenet provider and of
> Google groups provided no such reference. So no reference on the Net to
> it, no cut-and-paste here, no url....and this is supposed to be better
> than providing evidence you've read the book? And I note no attempt to
> address the test, which would have shown that you read it or at least had
> it to hand. Guess we have our answer then: you've not read it.
You're a dishonest phony. If you're too feeble to go see it, why should I
care?
Other readers can check for themselves and see who is lying.
I got the book years ago and read it twice.
<snip further Weland / Swain weaseling>
J Antero
"Martin" <martin147...@outgun.com> wrote in message
news:sk3bl.55607$Oq2....@newsfe21.ams2...
"Swain" was just incidentally mentioned, along with a number of other
people.
That's not to say he was relying on him for much of anything.
I think Ehrman is a well qualifed honest scholar, unlike Weland / Swain..
J 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.
J Antero
about.
I posted the following to Hines weeks ago in the "Jesus Christ -- Clashing
Biblical Images" thread.
Secret Gospel of Mark controversy
How Morton Smith's Discovery of a Lost Letter by Clement of Alexandria
Scandalized Biblical Scholarship
http://www.gnosis.org/library/secm_commentary.htm
A controversial discovery of ancient manuscript fragments in 1958,
suggesting a homosexual tryst involving Jesus, that was excluded from the
Gospels.
The first fragment of the Secret Gospel of Mark, meant to be inserted
between Mark 10.34 and 35, reads:
" They came to Bethany. There was one woman there whose brother had died.
She came and prostrated herself before Jesus and spoke to him.
"Son of David, pity me!" But the disciples rebuked her. Jesus was angry and
went with her into the garden where the tomb was. Immediately a great cry
was heard from the tomb. And going up to it, Jesus rolled the stone away
from the door of the tomb, and immediately went in where the young man was.
Stretching out his hand, he lifted him up, taking hold his hand.
And the youth, looking intently at him, loved him and started begging him to
let him remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house
of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus gave him an order
and, at evening, the young man came to him wearing nothing but a linen
cloth. And he stayed with him for the night, because Jesus taught him the
mystery of the Kingdom of God. And then when he left he went back to the
other side of the Jordan. " [end]
A second fragment of Secret Mark is to be inserted into Mark 10.46. This has
long been recognized as a narrative snag in Mark's Gospel, as it awkwardly
reads, "Then they come to Jericho. As he was leaving Jericho with his
disciples..." This strange construction is not present in Secret Mark, which
reads:
" Then he came into Jericho. And the sister of the young man whom Jesus
loved was there with his mother and Salome, but Jesus would not receive
them. "
There's controversy over whether these fragments were originally in the
"Mark" Jesus story, or not.
However, there's no similar controversy over whether these following tracts
were original to the Jesus stories:
Thomas 114: Simon Peter says to them: "Let Mary go out from our midst, for
women are not worthy of life!"
Jesus says: "See, I will draw her so as to make her male so that she also
may become a living spirit like you males.
For every woman who has become male will enter the Kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 19:12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there
are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who
have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who
is able to receive this, let him receive it.
Weland
I did show you everything that wasn't personal. Here's what I said to
him to which he responded:
"I'm prompted to write because I have to apologize for something
else as well. Secret Mark has come on a Usenet group that I read.
The long and short of it is that a not very well read fellow cited
the excellent but somewhat outdated article on gnosis.org and said
the matter hadn't been decided (the article is 1995). I said that
the consensus had shifted and pointed to Carlson and Jeffrey and
reviews of them. His response was to cite you in _Lost
Christianities_, 2003. I said that especially given your recent
remarks at Boston and SBL that your position had since shifted more
toward the forgery side as well, given some of your remarks. So now
according to this fellow I'm a liar and he claims I'd never heard of
you until he mentioned you a few days ago. I pointed him to the
2003s Loeb Apostolic Fathers where you too kindly mention me along
with a number of others. He still thinks I'm lying and threatened to
contact you. I told him to go ahead and do so. But I figured I owed
you a heads up that this guy may actually follow through and send an
email to you. And for that I can only apologize."
Worth repeating Ehrman's response:
"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....)"
>> 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.
Really? Where did he say that? Let's look: "since then, (since _Lost
Christianities_) Carlson convinced me: it *probably* forged." That
hardly indicates that he has not concluded that its a forgery. Or is it
the "probably" that you've tripped up on? Let's review:
My first comment in response to you said: "What this (the gnosis.org
article) doesn't cover is that this is *most likely* a forgery...."
>> 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.
Never disputed your reporting of his 2003 material:
egarding my characterization of Ehrman, I said: "Ehrman didn't say it
was a forgery in 2003's Lost Christianities. I've not disputed that.
What I've said was that the books to which I referred demonstrating
forgery were published *AFTER* 2003 and that Ehrman has been more
explicit since."
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.medieval/msg/e0294345a7e9aeae?dmode=source
AND
"Writing again in 2003, 2 years before the publication of subsequent
works that poor Antero can't get on google books and hasn't read that
demonstrate it is likely a forgery and poor Antero doesn't have access
to Ehrman's more recent thought since those publications since he hasn't
been at the conferences where Ehrman spoke on the subject. "
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.medieval/msg/c22f39aacc7b1cdb?dmode=source
AND
"You do go round and round......and I pointed out that this book was
written in 2003, and that the works to which I referred were written
after and Ehrman has since been more explicit in public meetings
including 5 weeks ago in Boston."
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.medieval/msg/c77aa646fc72cdd1?dmode=source
Its his opinion subsequent to the 2005 and 2006 books to which I've
referred you to that I keep trying to get you to comprehend: Lost
Christianities and Ehrman's fence sitting there are no longer what
Ehrman thinks of Secret Mark.
>>
>> 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.
No, I actually simply demonstrated the emptiness of your demand. What I
instead pointed to was that I had consistently pointed to Ehrman's
public, oral remarks as evidenced by the above references among others.
We now have his own email. Don't believe me? He's waiting for your
email. Ask him.
>>
>> Now you have CONFIRMED THAT I WAS RIGHT, THAT HE WASN'T SURE IN THE
>> 2003 MATERIAL OF SECRET MARK'S AUTHENTICITY,
No one ever said you were wrong, I certainly didn't.
AND EVEN *NOW* REMAINS >> UNSURE -
How do you get that from "Carlson convinced me its probably a forgery"?
I suppose that lack of 100% certainty could be taken to be being
"unsure", but then, that would mean that I'm unsure since I
characterized it as *likely a forgery* and if you'd have thought of
that, you wouldn't still be yelling at us.
AND THAT *YOU* HAVE BEEN WRONG IN YOUR CLAIMS, NOT ME.
Actually, Antero, I don't think you have the foggiest idea about what my
claims have been.
>>
>> Readers - Weland / Swain has been claiming that "secret mark" was a
>> decided issue - that it is a fraud.
No, actually I've been claiming that it is likely a forgery and that
recent works, more recent than a 1995 article and a 2003 book, have made
very convincing cases that have caused a number of scholars to believe
to be likely a forgery, even former proponents such as Birger Pearson,
and fence sitters like Bart Ehrman. And I've pointed to people who
continue to contend it as genuine, while pointing out that those who do
so, do so because otherwise they have a lot to lose. Quite a bit
different than saying its a "decided issue".
>>
>> I have been claiming from the start, that it was controversial,
Yep, haven't disagreed there.
not
>> proven one way or the other,
and I furnished published material by
>> biblical scholar Professor Bart Ehrman (UNC Chapel Hill) to that effect.
Writing, once again, in 2003, not in 2008 or 2009.
>>
>> 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.
Yes, Ehrman stating "Carlson (the author of one of the books making the
case for forgery)convinced me its probably a forgery" really means he's
not convinced at all....sure, it does Antero. Wishful thinking there.
>>
>> The dishonesty, unreliability, and just plain wackiness of Weland /
>> Swain is more pitiful than humorous.
Certainly, but what does that make you?
>> 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.)
In other words, you're a coward like your chum Martin, on top of a liar,
and so senile you can't keep track of the points being made.
>> He certainly couldn't be agreeing with your claim that he has
>> *CONCLUDED* that "secret mark" was a forgery,
Ask him. He certainly has been more explicit and more on the side of
forgery.
becasue he goes on to
>> say he has NOT EVEN NOW, CONCLUDED THAT IT IS.
Poor Antero....take your meds now.
Martin
Poor Larry I'd say - I have met few in such dire need of 'meds' as you!
Your concentration is painfully poor, the first issue to address. There is
unfortunately little medication that will safely and reliably improve
that... some swear by cocaine, some by benzodiazepines, but I'd not suggest
duch chemical sledge hammers for a problem that can be simply cred by
opening the mind. Try meditating...
Cheers
Doctor Martin (with an 'i', not an 'e' - to avoid confusion
with boots)
Weland
> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:gkk1t1$vg6$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
>
>>J Antero wrote:
>>
>>>Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>>news:gkgdvg$mfd$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
>>>
>>>
>>>>J Antero wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:gk45e5$4bh$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
>>>>>
>>>>>You didn't even know who Professor Ehrman was, until I told you, you
>>>>>ridiculous fraud.
>>>>
>>>>Really? You're this desperate for a positive emotional charge that
>>>>you'll try this ploy? I think what you really meant was "I, J Antero,
>>>>had no idea who Bart Ehrman was until I googled on Secret Mark."
>>>
>>>
>>>It is plain that it is YOU who chronically and incompetently projects his
>>>confused ploys onto others, moron.
>>
>
>>Ah, the ol' "you too" ploy....poor boy. But since the only thing I've
>>done when denigrating you is throw your own material back at you, so your
>>charge falls rather flat.
>
>
> I haven't lied about anything - and I haven't been posting under sockpuppet
> names either, then throwing up phony excuses for it - like you have.
I don't think you know what "sockpuppet" means.....publicly
acknowledging a user name change does not a sockpuppet make.
>
> And, all along, I plainly stated "secret mark" was controversial, and
> unproven as to authenticity.
*YAWN* You are repititious aren't you? Yes, we know what you've
"plainly stated" and all along I've stated that recent work has shown
that it is likely a forgery, that the consensus has shifted. You've
made a big deal about it ever since.
>
> Now you brainlessly post material showing I have been right all along, while
> pretending some sort of success for yourself. LOL!
I posted material that shows that Ehrman's position has shifted. No one
questioned what he said in 2003.
>
>
>>>I've been aware of Professor Ehrman and his views on various biblical
>>>issues
>>>for a couple years.
>>>I've got four of his Teaching Company courses - 48 hours of lecture.
>>
>>Sure, you were, I believe you. If you really have those lectures, you
>>oughta listen to them.
>
>
> That's a rather stupid rely, since I stated I first heard about secret mark
> in one his lectures, and that's the subject we're arguing about, and I'm the
> one who raised it in another thread.
You stating it and it being true are not the same thing. And yes, you
raised it, as a red herring in response to something Hines was claiming:
thing is Secret Mark had NOTHING to do with what Hines was talking about.
> O b v i o u s l y,, you cretin, I have been listening and learning things
> from Ehrman's lectures -
Actually, that's not so obvious.
it is you who has mindlessly disprove your own
> position by posting what you claim is an email from Professor Ehrman about
> whether "secret mark" is a forgery.
Demonstrating, once again, that you've not a clue about what my position
is, just like ol' Martin the Cowardly Liar.
> You're a rather slow person.
Perhaps, but not as slow as the chap who after 2 months still hasn't
grasped a very simple and very true point.
>
> I plainly stated a number of times, that he was not certain if it was a
> forgery or not (in his 2003 lecture and publication)..
And I've plainly stated a number of times that that is true of his 2003
publications. Not hard to grasp, well, except for the moronic among us.
> From the email you post in posted, EHRMAN STILL ISN'T CERTAIN IF IT'S A
> FORGERY OR NOT, ALTHOUGH HE LEANS MORE THAT WAY.
Wow...wishful thinking. He explicitly says he's gone from being on the
fence to being convinced its probably a forgery. Certainty isn't a
luxury most of us can afford? I'm not certain. As I stated in my
original post on Secret Mark, that its *likely* a forgery.
>
> This is from what you say is an email reply from Ehrman (from a "Weland /
> Swain post on 1/14/08, this thread).
>
> Ehrman: " 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....) "
>
> I've been explicit through the thread, fool, that I was referring to his
> 2003 lecture and book. Your post indicates I was right about his views in
> that material.
Which was never contested, fool, moron, cretin, and senile old fart.
Not once have I said that you were wrong re: what Ehrman said in 2003.
Nor did I say that your posted article from gnosis.org was wrong. I
merely pointed out that both were written before more recent work
demonstrating the likelihood, the high degree of probability that Secret
Mark's a forgery.
>
> A few days ago, I challenged you to furnish recent published material by
> Ehrman saying he had conclude it was a forgery - you couldn't and tried a
> weasily 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.
You should know, since you asked me to produce a publication when I've
said all along that he's *stated* these things orally at conference, in
papers read to crowds. And I never said, "concluded", I said that he
had shifted his position from the fence to being more explicit about it
being a forgery.
>
> Now you have CONFIRMED THAT I WAS RIGHT,
Yep, sure did, except that I also never said you were wrong on that issue.
THAT HE WASN'T SURE IN THE 2003
> MATERIAL OF SECRET MARK'S AUTHENTICITY,
Yep, never contested that.
AND EVEN *NOW* REMAINS UNSURE -
Already addressed.
AND
> THAT *YOU* HAVE BEEN WRONG IN YOUR CLAIMS, NOT ME.
Except I haven't been. What I've claimed re: Ehrman is that his
position has shifted from 2003, and he says so: from sitting on the
fence to being convinced its probably a forgery. And he confirmed that
I was right about that shift in position.
>
> Readers - Weland / Swain has been claiming that "secret mark" was a decided
> issue - that it is a fraud.
No I didn't. Not once. I said that it was likely a forgery, that the
state of the field currently is that it is likely a forgery, that the
current consensus in large part influenced by books and papers published
in 2005 and 2006 and the reactions to them, that scholars by and large
have changed their positions to thinking it probably a forgery, that the
preponderance of evidence currently available points to forgery. I
never said it was "decided", one can only make those sorts of decisions
for oneself, and no body exists that makes those sorts of proclamations
in some kind of official capacity. All one can do is describe the
current state of the field: and that is that most scholars now think
Secret Mark to be likely be a forgery.
> 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.
Don't believe me? Email him and ask. As for my position, you have yet
to report it correctly, so saying that Ehrman says exactly the opposite
is hard since you don't know what the opposite of what I said is.
<snip>
>
>>>Weland, you are now saying that you are actually "Larry Swain" (who even
>>>Hines succesfully uses as an object of fun when it suits him).
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>In the first place, why would someone be posting in a newsgroup under two
>>>different names?
>>
>>That's easy. As explained back in Oct, Comcast stopped providing Usenet
>>service. Those of us who were Comcast customers had to find other
>>providers, and our user names changed accordingly...Tiglath is now temp06
>>or something like that for example. As I said then, my new provider
>>didn't take my name, so I adopted a new one. But its obviously been me.
>>I also have a google groups account that lists me as "theswain" that I use
>>when I'm away from my main computer and reader. No one's been terribly
>>confused before. Not even you or Martin, both of whom continued to post
>>to me as Larry Swain even when the new account took effect.
>
>
> Bullshit. I've changed ISPs three times in the last year or so, and have had
> no problem keeping an identifiable name in Usenet.
Goody for you. We're thrilled for you I'm sure. But I didn't change
ISPs, I still access the 'Net through Comcast. I had to change how I
got my Usenet feed, and have gone with a free service, and sometimes
with a free Internet service, you get what you pay for. Apparently they
already had customers with the various permutations on my name that I
find acceptable posting somewhere or didn't have enough letters....I
chose a different name...so what? Mentioning it here back in Oct,
everyone has pretty well figured it out...except you.
> Once, when "JA" showed up in postings instead of "J Antero", I corrected the
> situation back to "J Antero".
Upstanding citizen, good for you. Too bad that doesn't extend to
admitting you were wrong and apologizing. But hey, guess I can't have
everything.
>
> I noticed Martin was calling you "Larry"
shockingly even after I started posting under the new name....guess
Martin figured it out.....
and I sometimes did the same. I
> never noticed Martin calling you "Swain" - there are plenty of "Larrys" in
> the world .
Sure, but not many posting "More Medieval News" every week, or
participating in any of the threads in soc.history.medieval. Nice try.
>
> You're not fooling anybody.
Neither are you: you keep revealing that you're either just really
stupid like a box of rocks or you're a snake in the grass. Neither one
speaks highly of you.
Nope, as I state below, I did look for your magical disappearing post.
Not found, most likely because it never existed. Hey, I've posted
plenty of binaries on ISP, its bullshit that yours won't let you.
>
> A search of my Usenet provider and of
>
>>Google groups provided no such reference. So no reference on the Net to
>>it, no cut-and-paste here, no url....and this is supposed to be better
>>than providing evidence you've read the book? And I note no attempt to
>>address the test, which would have shown that you read it or at least had
>>it to hand. Guess we have our answer then: you've not read it.
>
>
>
> You're a dishonest phony. If you're too feeble to go see it, why should I
> care?
And again, your "argument" works both ways: If you're too feeble to cut
and paste it, provide a valid url to it, and there's no sign of it
either on my Usenet provider(s) or on Google groups or on a Google
search, why should I believe you, or anyone else for that matter?
> Other readers can check for themselves and see who is lying.
Anyone find it? No?
> I got the book years ago and read it twice.
Sure you did. That's why it was so easy for you to tell us what's on
page 122 or what's in the index after ascetic, cause you absorbed the
contents so well that you refer to a non-existent post in another group
having nothing to do with this one and avoid answering those basic
questions. Sure....we believe you, Antero, wink wink wink, say no more.
J Antero
You are a liar, and apparently you have misrepresented what this argument
has been about, to Professor Ehrman
They call what you're doing, "shifting the goal posts". You were saying
"secret mark" was discredited, now you've given up on that and are
pretending that you were arguing only about a change in consensus opinion.
Very weak.
I stated from the first post that 'secret mark" was controversial,
undecided.
I never addressed the subject of shifting opinions over time, or what the
current "consensus" might be.
That's not particularly relevent.
What would be relevant, is if it were a proven fraud - and it's not.
I claimed that "secret mark" has not been proven to be a fraud or a
forgery - and from what you have posted, Professor Ehrman agrees with that.
In the orginal thread, you said to the effect "secret mark" was discredited
by the Carlson book.
Then, I posted some peoples' opinions challenging the Carlson book - and
you pretended that was all from amateurs.
I replied, refering to Ehrman's published material in Teaching Comapany
lectures, and his "Lost Christianities" book (basically his 2003 material),
showing that he was undecided, and did not consider "secret mark" to be a
proven forgery.
You then posted material from what you claim is an email from Professor
Ehrman, WHICH AGRESS WITH ME, THAT SAYS THAT HE WAS UNDECIDED IN HIS 2003
MATERIAL, AND REMAINS UNDECIDED AFTER SEEING CARLSON'S WORK ON THE SUBJECT.
You misrepresented the discussion/argument to Professor Ehrman, as you are
doing here.
Previously, you were saying I was wrong to be posting the "secret mark", as
though it were a decided issue.
It is not a decided issue, at least according to Professor Ehrman.
"Secret Mark" remains an open issue since no one has proven it to be a
fraud, and I was entirely honest and accurate in my original post, and in
what I have been saying.
Again, here is my orginal post re. "secret mark".
In case anybody is interested, here's what this "secret mark" thing is
about.
I posted the following to Hines weeks ago in the "Jesus Christ -- Clashing
J Antero
Liars don't have to re-invent their positions. Consistency is an indication
of honesty.
>Yes, we know what you've "plainly stated" and all along I've stated that
>recent work has shown that it is likely a forgery, that the consensus has
>shifted. You've made a big deal about it ever since.
Is that the best you can do? I suppose it is.
You were arguing that "secret mark" is discredited.
But it's not been proven to be a forgery, and your own post of what you
claim Professor Ehrman says, shows that even with Carlson's work, he is
undecided.
You are a slithering worm, Weland/Swain - sockpuppet ."scholar".
I never said anything about what the shifting consensus might be - only that
it was not proven to be proven a forgery (even after many years of
analysis).
Have you gone and seen my picture of the book you claimed I don't own, worm?
Any reader can go to, so go to alt.binary and look for "MacMullen book"
subject; posted 1/12/08. I did this in reply to the "scholar's" accusation
that I didn't own the book. That was about hard to refute as every other
contorted claim he makes.
It has a note on the book, with my name, saying "look dummy", aimed at the
Weland / Swain sockpuppet "scholar" ;-)) .
Weland
> In case anybody is interested, here's what this "secret mark" thing is
> about.
>
> I posted the following to Hines weeks ago in the "Jesus Christ -- Clashing
> Biblical Images" thread.
A red herring since Hines' was talking about the Protestant 3 pillars of
Christian truth: Reason, Tradition, Scripture as though they were a much
older formulation. Then Antero introduces Secret Mark as if that issue
addressed Hines' contention in any way, shape or form. It didn't. It
still doesn't. Completely unrelated issue.
Antero also posted the article below,
>
> Secret Gospel of Mark controversy
> How Morton Smith's Discovery of a Lost Letter by Clement of Alexandria
> Scandalized Biblical Scholarship
>
> http://www.gnosis.org/library/secm_commentary.htm
as if he knew what he was talking about and completely unaware that
since this article was written in 1995 that 14 years of discussion and
movement in the field had taken place. When informed that recent work
had changed the face of the field substantially and that we, the
majority, now think it likely a forgery, poor Antero has been slipping
and sliding all over the map ever since trying to save his face.
The real issue then is really nothing to do with Secret Mark, but with
Antero's ego....
Weland
Nope. I reported to him what I've been saying since the beginning.
I've never said "secret mark" was discredited. 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"
categor (i. e. a change in the consensus). The reason this discussion
has continued so long is that in spite of repeated statements on my
part, you've yet to understand what I'm saying and instead have gone off
on all sorts of interesting tangents and engaged in all sorts of ad hominem.
> I stated from the first post that 'secret mark" was controversial,
> undecided.
Yep. And quoted out of date material while doing so.
> I never addressed the subject of shifting opinions over time, or what the
> current "consensus" might be.
No kidding. I did.
> That's not particularly relevent.
Certainly it is. Who after all do you think is "settling" the issue,
discussing the issue, making it controversial? If but one or two is
arguing about it, it certainly can't be called controversial, you need a
body of people arguing about its authenticity: you can't claim its
controversial and then toss out the opinions of the very people doing
the discussion of the controversy as if they had nothing to do with it.
> What would be relevant, is if it were a proven fraud - and it's not.
How do you know? You haven't read the recent work or heard the recent
comments, even by Ehrman, on the issue but keep quoting a paper written
14 years ago and Ehrman of 6 years ago....who says that he has now
shifted position. But until you catch up on your reading, you've no
basis to assess whether or not it is proven a fraud, and certainly not
from a book written before the 2005 and 2006 works.
>
> I claimed that "secret mark" has not been proven to be a fraud or a
> forgery - and from what you have posted, Professor Ehrman agrees with that.
A claim you made based on inadequate reading. Read the books I've
pointed you too and subsequent discussion, and *then* you can claim that
it hasn't been proven a forgery; otherwise, you're just blowing smoke.
>
> In the orginal thread, you said to the effect "secret mark" was discredited
> by the Carlson book.
Specifically, I said that it was likely a forgery. BTW, let me remind
you that Ehrman said it was probably a forgery. According to the
dictionary and the thesaurus, probably and likely are synonyms, do you
need me to explain to you what synonyms are?
> Then, I posted some peoples' opinions challenging the Carlson book - and
> you pretended that was all from amateurs.
But you didn't. You posted Wieland's page on Secret Mark: Latest News,
most of the commentary there is Wielands with the exception of some
abstracts. You, like Wieland, failed to take note of anyone, quite a
large number more, who affirm Carlson's book. But I know you find that
inconvenient. You, not having read Carlson's book or Jeffrey's, are
hardly in a position to speak to the issue.
>
> I replied, refering to Ehrman's published material in Teaching Comapany
> lectures, and his "Lost Christianities" book (basically his 2003 material),
> showing that he was undecided, and did not consider "secret mark" to be a
> proven forgery.
In 2003.....
>
> You then posted material from what you claim is an email from Professor
> Ehrman, WHICH AGRESS WITH ME, THAT SAYS THAT HE WAS UNDECIDED IN HIS 2003
> MATERIAL, AND REMAINS UNDECIDED AFTER SEEING CARLSON'S WORK ON THE SUBJECT.
Yep, a point I didn't dispute...not sure how many times I have to say
that before you get the point.
>
> You misrepresented the discussion/argument to Professor Ehrman, as you are
> doing here.
Shoe's on the other foot there.
>
> Previously, you were saying I was wrong to be posting the "secret mark", as
> though it were a decided issue.
No, I said the material you posted was outdated. I never said you were
wrong or wrong to post it.
>
> It is not a decided issue, at least according to Professor Ehrman.
Decided? Since one can only make decisions for oneself, hardly an apt
word. As for Ehrman, he said he was convinced it was probably a
forgery--and described that position as being different than what he
held in Lost Christianities. He's shifted his position. BTW, while
you're on about Carlson's book, you failed to note that Ehrman supports
it: it was in fact that book that convinced him Secret Mark was probably
a forgery. Why aren't you acknowledging that?
> "Secret Mark" remains an open issue since no one has proven it to be a
> fraud, and I was entirely honest and accurate in my original post, and in
> what I have been saying.
Honest and accurate in your original as of 1995, not as of 2008.
>
Weland
Yeah, just like G. W. Bush...consistent as the day is long and was and
is a liar, spun lies to the entire world.
>
>>Yes, we know what you've "plainly stated" and all along I've stated that
>>recent work has shown that it is likely a forgery, that the consensus has
>>shifted. You've made a big deal about it ever since.
>
>
> Is that the best you can do?
Yes, stating the same thing I have all along until you finally
understand is the best I can do. Wait: consistency is only an
indication of your honesty, but not of mine...forgot that you have
different sets of rules for the two of us.
I suppose it is.
>
> You were arguing that "secret mark" is discredited.
What I said was and is that it is likely a forgery. The preponderance
of the evidence now points in that direction.
> But it's not been proven to be a forgery, and your own post of what you
> claim Professor Ehrman says, shows that even with Carlson's work, he is
> undecided.
Uh, Antero? "Convinced" and "undecided" are not synonyms. He said he
was convinced now that it was probably a forgery. That doesn't sound
like he's undecided.
>
> You are a slithering worm, Weland/Swain - sockpuppet ."scholar".
Maybe, but less so than someone who wants to say that "convinced" and
"undecided" mean the same thing and who misrepresent consistently what
I've been saying.
>
> I never said anything about what the shifting consensus might be
Indeed. I did, from very early, 2nd or 3rd post from me on the subject.
- only that
> it was not proven to be proven a forgery (even after many years of
> analysis).
Again, until you read the recent works, and not snippets cited on
someone's web page, but read the books, read the reviews, read the
recent articles....then you're protestations might bear some weight.
Until they do, you're speaking from the basis of outdated information
and from ignorance.
> Have you gone and seen my picture of the book you claimed I don't own, worm?
Actually, I claimed you hadn't read it. I suggested that you didn't own
it and could only access it through google books.
>
> Any reader can go to, so go to alt.binary and look for "MacMullen book"
> subject; posted 1/12/08. I did this in reply to the "scholar's" accusation
> that I didn't own the book. That was about hard to refute as every other
> contorted claim he makes.
So post a URL to this. Interesting that you posted it on 1/12 but
didn't mention it here until 1/14 isn't it? ANd again, as I pointed out
before, having a picture only means you got someone to take a pic for
you, it doesn't prove *you* own the book much less read it. So tell us
what's on page 122, summarize the info there and tell us what comes
after ascetic in the index. That you keep not answering those basic and
easy (in fact easier and quicker than taking a picture and posting it to
a usenet group and then having to write a different message in a
completely different newsgroup days later) really suggests that you
don't have the book and far more importantly haven't read it. If its on
your shelf, go, pull it down, tell us what's on page 122 and what's in
the index after ascetic.
>
> It has a note on the book, with my name, saying "look dummy", aimed at the
> Weland / Swain sockpuppet "scholar" ;-)) .
Yep, always the best way to win an argument is to post in a completely
different group and fail to provide a link to your post, wait two days
before mentioning it....that all lends credibility to your claim.
Bryn
>
> - Show quoted text -
Te He! Loving it!
Bryn :-]
Martin
In fact, the 'real issue' is the way your ego has been so badly battered
Larry. Even with your remarkable stubbornness and arrogance in support, it
must be in poor shape by now?
How unfortunate it must be to have such a Hinesian inability to back down,
or admit fault... particularly when combined with a Nykosian lack of vision,
refusing to see anything you don't want to see, and distinctly Sepponic
tendencies when it comes to the blatant use of red-herrings, obfustication
and repetetiveness. A perfect recipe for humiliation.
Bryn
>
> - Show quoted text -
Better still... @:-]#
Bryn
J Antero
>> You are a liar, and apparently you have misrepresented what this
>> argument has been about, to Professor Ehrman
>
>
>> They call what you're doing, "shifting the goal posts". You were saying
>> "secret mark" was discredited, now you've given up on that and are
>> pretending that you were arguing only about a change in consensus
>> opinion. Very weak.
>
> Nope. I reported to him what I've been saying since the beginning. I've
> never said "secret mark" was discredited.
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.
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"?
<snip further Weland/Swain obfiscations, the above is yet another proof of
what his credibility>
J Antero
>>>*YAWN* You are repititious aren't you?
>>
>>
>> Liars don't have to re-invent their positions. Consistency is an
>> indication of honesty.
>
> Yeah, just like G. W. Bush...consistent as the day is long and was and is
> a liar, spun lies to the entire world.
Another sign of Weland/Swain's knowledge and "scholarship".
It's long been pointed out what an evolving series of "reasons" have been
given for the Iraq invasion.
Similar lack of consistency and honesty by Bush have been pointed out for
the excuses given during the other debacles, like Katrina, for instance.
Weland/Swain does as poorly on recent events, as he does on other issues...
>
>>>Yes, we know what you've "plainly stated" and all along I've stated that
>>>recent work has shown that it is likely a forgery, that the consensus has
>>>shifted. You've made a big deal about it ever since.
>>
>>
>> Is that the best you can do?
>
> Yes, stating the same thing I have all along until you finally understand
> is the best I can do. Wait: consistency is only an indication of your
> honesty, but not of mine...forgot that you have different sets of rules
> for the two of us.
>
>
> I suppose it is.
>>
>> You were arguing that "secret mark" is discredited.
>
> What I said was and is that it is likely a forgery. The preponderance of
> the evidence now points in that direction.
Liar.
If that were so, why would you go on for dozens of posts, when I have been
saying all along it was controversial and unproven as to authenticity?
Nobody knows what the probability is of it being real - 20pct, 50-50, 80
pct, we only know it hasn't been conclusively proven a fraud, or proven
real.
I have been saying from the start in early December, that it is still an
open issue - and it is.
You were trying to pretend there was no chance it wasn't a forgery.
You started running away from that when I started talking about contacting
Professor Ehrman..
You have been implying, and have said it was a decided issue - as certain as
the earth isn't flat.
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.
==
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/Swain:
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.]
==
>> Any reader can go to, so go to alt.binary and look for "MacMullen book"
>> subject; posted 1/12/08. I did this in reply to the "scholar's"
>> accusation that I didn't own the book. That was about hard to refute as
>> every other contorted claim he makes.
>
> So post a URL to this. Interesting that you posted it on 1/12 but didn't
> mention it here until 1/14 isn't it?
Weland/Swain apparently is having even more cognitive problems.
I uploaded the photo of the book with a note stuck on it mocking you, on
1/12/09, and immediately posted the first post of this thread telling you go
look at it in the alt.binary group. The Weasel/Swain replied that he never
went to binary groups.... ;-))
Here's what I posted to this fool on 1/12/09 (first post of this thread):
[Any readers: Weland/Swain had claimed that i didn't own a particluar book
on early christianity, by MacMullan. I quickly posted a photo showing I have
it.]
>
A little test? From you, moron?
I'll do betther than that, you puerile insipid.
My ISP apparently won't post a binary to this group, so go to alt.binary
and look for "MacMullen book" subject; posted 1/12/08. [my error - should
be 1/12/09]
It has a note on the book, with my name, saying "look dummy" ;-)) .
Notice it didn't take me four days to come up with this reply, like it did
you - you were doing better when you were mute....
<
<snip further Weasel/Swain refuse>
J Antero
>J Antero wrote:
>> In case anybody is interested, here's what this "secret mark" thing is
>> about.
>>
>> I posted the following to Hines weeks ago in the "Jesus Christ --
>> Clashing Biblical Images" thread.
>
> A red herring since Hines' was talking about the Protestant 3 pillars of
> Christian truth: Reason, Tradition, Scripture as though they were a much
> older formulation. Then Antero introduces Secret Mark as if that issue
> addressed Hines' contention in any way, shape or form. It didn't. It
> still doesn't. Completely unrelated issue.
Your mind is going.
Why would it be a "red herring" to post an explanatory post to show what the
basis of this 2 month argument has been about?
You don't make sense.
> Antero also posted the article below,
You're revealing your confusion.
I didn't "also post" "Secret Gospel of Mark controversy How Morton
Smith's Discovery of a Lost Letter by Clement of Alexandria
Scandalized Biblical Scholarship".... as you state, that was the piece I
posted originally, and that I again posted to clarify things for any new
readers.
>> Secret Gospel of Mark controversy
>> How Morton Smith's Discovery of a Lost Letter by Clement of Alexandria
>> Scandalized Biblical Scholarship
>>
>> http://www.gnosis.org/library/secm_commentary.htm
>
> as if he knew what he was talking about and completely unaware that since
> this article was written in 1995 that 14 years of discussion and movement
> in the field had taken place. When informed that recent work had changed
> the face of the field substantially and that we, the majority, now think
> it likely a forgery, poor Antero has been slipping and sliding all over
> the map ever since trying to save his face.
>
> The real issue then is really nothing to do with Secret Mark, but with
> Antero's ego....
Hardly. It has to do with having fun with an incompetent liar.
>
Weland
> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:gl19uk$enh$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
>
>
>
>>>You are a liar, and apparently you have misrepresented what this
>>>argument has been about, to Professor Ehrman
>>
>>
>>> They call what you're doing, "shifting the goal posts". You were saying
>>>"secret mark" was discredited, now you've given up on that and are
>>>pretending that you were arguing only about a change in consensus
>>>opinion. Very weak.
>>
>
>>Nope. I reported to him what I've been saying since the beginning. I've
>>never said "secret mark" was discredited.
>
>
> Liar.
> Weland/Swain, you said it was a "demonstrated" forgery, and that it was a
> "proven forgery" by Smith.
Yes, I said it had been demonstrated to be a forgery--and it has. I
object, and never made the claim, that it had been discredited--I
carefully and consciously avoided that word.
It works like this: Scholars have recently published works demonstrating
that its a forgery, this causes the consensus to shift, consensus shift
is never 100%, there are always a few who maintain the previous consensus.
> 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.
I note that you have to "explain" my meaning....in point of fact, I never
made any such statement. I drew an analogy to illustrate that even the
most certain of subjects yet have controversy surrounding them. I
certainly did not make an allegory or a comparison stating that the
degree of certainty that the earth is spherical is the same degree as
that Secret Mark is a forgery by Smith. That's you reading into it.
>
> You are caught.
You are putting words in my mouth.
You're worming around because Professor Ehrman, who you ran
> to after I threatended to email him,
So why didn't you email him? Put your money where your mouth is or shut up.
is himself plainly not decided on the
> issue, as I have said, over and over..
The only way you can come to that conclusion is if you think that when
he says "convinced" he means "undecided". That seems to be unique to
you. Don't believe me? Fine, email him, I told him to expect from you.
More below.
Well, according to what you say I say. See above.
>
> 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.
How would you know, since you blatantly refuse to read any literature
on the subject later than 2003 except a web page that cites a single
article on a single issue out of a plethora presented by the two books?
How would you know? The demonstrations have been made, successfully,
the consensus has shifted, there are those who argue otherwise. Your
1995 article, as I said way back then, doesn't cover this, mentioning
only Quesnell's suggestion. Sorry that offering that got your lacy
panties in a bunch.
>
> I wonder how biblical scholar Professor Ehrman would appreciate knowing that
> you are characterizing his opinion on "secret mark", as "artificial"?
Characterizing his 2003 opinion....and I haven't a problem with you
telling him. Go ahead, email him and tell him.
> <snip further Weland/Swain obfiscations, the above is yet another proof of
> what his credibility>
Replacing material Antero snipped since it shows the errors of his
statements. Antero's comments are preceded by a >:
Nope. I reported to him what I've been saying since the beginning. I've
never said "secret mark" was discredited. 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" category (i. e. a
No kidding. I did.
Company lectures, and his "Lost Christianities" book (basically his
Weland
> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:gl1apa$gab$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
>
>
>>>>*YAWN* You are repititious aren't you?
>>>
>>>
>>>Liars don't have to re-invent their positions. Consistency is an
>>>indication of honesty.
>>
>
>>Yeah, just like G. W. Bush...consistent as the day is long and was and is
>>a liar, spun lies to the entire world.
>
>
> Another sign of Weland/Swain's knowledge and "scholarship".
>
> It's long been pointed out what an evolving series of "reasons" have been
> given for the Iraq invasion.
Sarcasm is apparently lost on you....
>
>>>>Yes, we know what you've "plainly stated" and all along I've stated that
>>>>recent work has shown that it is likely a forgery, that the consensus has
>>>>shifted. You've made a big deal about it ever since.
>>>
>>>
>>>Is that the best you can do?
>>
>>Yes, stating the same thing I have all along until you finally understand
>>is the best I can do. Wait: consistency is only an indication of your
>>honesty, but not of mine...forgot that you have different sets of rules
>>for the two of us.
>>
>>
>> I suppose it is.
>>
>>>You were arguing that "secret mark" is discredited.
>>
>
>>What I said was and is that it is likely a forgery. The preponderance of
>>the evidence now points in that direction.
>
>
> Liar.
>
> If that were so, why would you go on for dozens of posts, when I have been
> saying all along it was controversial and unproven as to authenticity?
But it is so. I've been going on for dozens of posts because you keep
calling me a liar and then changing what I said. Your initial report
was fine as far as it went, which was 1995. In the intervening 14
years, the field hasn't stood still.
Of course one could ask you the same question.
> Nobody knows what the probability is of it being real - 20pct, 50-50, 80
> pct, we only know it hasn't been conclusively proven a fraud, or proven
> real.
Very few things are proven conclusively. You can't even prove gravity
exists, no one has seen it or measured it or detected it, we can only
look at its results time and time again to the point where we believe
and assign the highest probability that there is such a thing as gravity.
But it isn't conclusive, hard to be conclusive when it can't be
detected or measured. The preponderance of evidence points to Secret
Mark being a forgery by Smith. Conclusive? Absolutely certain? Of
course not, but then I never claimed it was conclusive.
> I have been saying from the start in early December, that it is still an
> open issue - and it is.
How would you know? The latest thing you keep citing is Bart's 2003
work, and you have neither read nor accounted for anything
subsequently....so how would you know what the latest state of play is?
>
> You were trying to pretend there was no chance it wasn't a forgery.
Yes, by using words like "likely" and "probably" and "consensus
shift"....oi, learn a few vocabulary words.
>
> You started running away from that when I started talking about contacting
> Professor Ehrman..
Liar. I in fact challenged you to email him after your empty threat.
You didn't. I did. And now you claim that "convinced" means the same
as "undecided".
>
> You have been implying, and have said it was a decided issue - as certain as
> the earth isn't flat.
Nope, never once did I say it was decided or as certain as the earth
isn't flat.
> 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.
>
> ==
>
> 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/Swain:
> 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,
Uh, no, you may recall that in the first post I made I pointed to those
who contend, and in the second post, I stated that the controversy
continues. I also said in those posts that it had been demonstrated to
likely be a forgery. I've said both things from my very first post.
The case has been made, it is convincing, it has convinced many
including those who once advocated the text's genuineness, those who
continue to argue that it is genuine are few and are largely those who
used the text as a foundation for their own work. These are the things
I said in the beginning, am saying now, and have said in between. The
difficulty lies in that you keep fixating on one part of what I said and
ignoring the rest.
>
>
>
>>>Any reader can go to, so go to alt.binary and look for "MacMullen book"
>>>subject; posted 1/12/08. I did this in reply to the "scholar's"
>>>accusation that I didn't own the book. That was about hard to refute as
>>>every other contorted claim he makes.
>>
>
>>So post a URL to this. Interesting that you posted it on 1/12 but didn't
>>mention it here until 1/14 isn't it?
>
>
> Weland/Swain apparently is having even more cognitive problems.
> I uploaded the photo of the book with a note stuck on it mocking you, on
> 1/12/09, and immediately posted the first post of this thread telling you go
> look at it in the alt.binary group. The Weasel/Swain replied that he never
> went to binary groups.... ;-))
So why can't anyone find it? Where's this photo? And why can't you
seem to post anything about what's in the book, rather than some photo
of a bookshelf? Its what's in the book that matters after all: so
what's on page 122? What's the next item in the index after ascetic?
And you didn't "immediately post" anything. Your first post on the book
in this forum was 1/14. If you posted something that no one can find
on 1/12, that's two days.
I also reported that Google groups has no record of your post, and
neither do two of the Usenet providers I have access too. And you
continue to fail to post anything that shows just where this is supposed
to be: after all most groups, esp. binaries, are web readable....so post
a URL where we can see this fabulous photo.
> Here's what I posted to this fool on 1/12/09 (first post of this thread):
> [Any readers: Weland/Swain had claimed that i didn't own a particluar book
> on early christianity, by MacMullan. I quickly posted a photo showing I have
> it.]
Interestingly, my Usenet provider, motzarella.org has no record of such
a post from you, and cnntp.org and aioe.org, both usenet providers,
don't either. Neither does Google Groups, Usenet Live, Usenet Replayer,
ngindex, binsearch.info. Even a general google search can't find your
alleged photo. And interestingly you keep failing to provide a URL for
it. Or even email it to me at the above email address. No evidence of
this photo with a note proving you own (but again the point is whether
you read it) the book exists other than your claim. Interesting that, no?
Weland
> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:gl16gl$6se$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
>
>>J Antero wrote:
>>
>>>In case anybody is interested, here's what this "secret mark" thing is
>>>about.
>>>
>>>I posted the following to Hines weeks ago in the "Jesus Christ --
>>>Clashing Biblical Images" thread.
>>
>
>>A red herring since Hines' was talking about the Protestant 3 pillars of
>>Christian truth: Reason, Tradition, Scripture as though they were a much
>>older formulation. Then Antero introduces Secret Mark as if that issue
>>addressed Hines' contention in any way, shape or form. It didn't. It
>>still doesn't. Completely unrelated issue.
>
>
> Your mind is going.
>
> Why would it be a "red herring" to post an explanatory post to show what the
> basis of this 2 month argument has been about?
>
> You don't make sense.
Only because you have difficulties with basic reading comprehension. I
was referring to your original post on Secret Mark, made clear by the
references to HInes and his posts on Scripture, Tradition, and Reason to
which you responded with Secret Mark as if they addressed what Hines was
saying.
>
>
>>Antero also posted the article below,
>
>
> You're revealing your confusion.
>
> I didn't "also post"
Quite. You "posted also".
"Secret Gospel of Mark controversy How Morton
> Smith's Discovery of a Lost Letter by Clement of Alexandria
> Scandalized Biblical Scholarship".... as you state, that was the piece I
> posted originally, and that I again posted to clarify things for any new
> readers.
>>
>
>
>
>>The real issue then is really nothing to do with Secret Mark, but with
>>Antero's ego....
>
>
> Hardly. It has to do with having fun with an incompetent liar.
You were pleasuring yourself when you wrote this? Dude, there are some
things we don't need to know about you.....
J Antero
>J Antero wrote:
>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>> news:gl16gl$6se$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
>>
>>>J Antero wrote:
>>>
>>>>In case anybody is interested, here's what this "secret mark" thing is
>>>>about.
>>>>
>>>>I posted the following to Hines weeks ago in the "Jesus Christ --
>>>>Clashing Biblical Images" thread.
>>>
>>
>>>A red herring since Hines' was talking about the Protestant 3 pillars of
>>>Christian truth: Reason, Tradition, Scripture as though they were a much
>>>older formulation. Then Antero introduces Secret Mark as if that issue
>>>addressed Hines' contention in any way, shape or form. It didn't. It
>>>still doesn't. Completely unrelated issue.
>>
>>
>> Your mind is going.
>>
>> Why would it be a "red herring" to post an explanatory post to show what
>> the basis of this 2 month argument has been about?
>> You don't make sense.
>
> Only because you have difficulties with basic reading comprehension.
I understand very well what a liar you are.
>>>The real issue then is really nothing to do with Secret Mark, but with
>>>Antero's ego....
>>
>>
>> Hardly. It has to do with having fun with an incompetent liar.
>
> You were pleasuring yourself when you wrote this? Dude, there are some
> things we don't need to know about you.....
The Weland/Swain pseudo scholar shows his degenerate thought processes.
He reveals the only fun he has - no surprise.
Most of us have fun all sorts of ways - including mocking fools....
Run along now little whanger, or is it "Dr." Whanger?
J Antero
>>>>Liars don't have to re-invent their positions. Consistency is an
>>>>indication of honesty.
>>>Yeah, just like G. W. Bush...consistent as the day is long and was and is
>>>a liar, spun lies to the entire world.
>> Another sign of Weland/Swain's knowledge and "scholarship".
>>
>> It's long been pointed out what an evolving series of "reasons" have been
>> given for the Iraq invasion.
>
> Sarcasm is apparently lost on you....
That won't work.
It wasn't "sarcasm" on your part.
You actually thought you were making a valid point.
Very lame.
<snip>
J Antero
>J Antero wrote:
>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>> news:gl19uk$enh$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
>>
>>
>>
>>>>You are a liar, and apparently you have misrepresented what this
>>>>argument has been about, to Professor Ehrman
>>>
>>>
>>>> They call what you're doing, "shifting the goal posts". You were saying
>>>> "secret mark" was discredited, now you've given up on that and are
>>>> pretending that you were arguing only about a change in consensus
>>>> opinion. Very weak.
>>>
>>
>>>Nope. I reported to him what I've been saying since the beginning. I've
>>>never said "secret mark" was discredited.
>>
>>
>> Liar.
>> Weland/Swain, you said it was a "demonstrated" forgery, and that it was a
>> "proven forgery" by Smith.
>
>
> Yes, I said it had been demonstrated to be a forgery--and it has. I
> object, and never made the claim, that it had been discredited--I
> carefully and consciously avoided that word.
>
> It works like this: Scholars have recently published works demonstrating
> that its a forgery, this causes the consensus to shift, consensus shift
> is never 100%, there are always a few who maintain the previous consensus.
No, Weland/Swain, it doesn't work like you would like to pretend.
It took you days to come up with another demonstration of how unreliable and
mangled your thinking is.
If you had any character you would just admit you were wrong, instead of
now *again* reversing yourself (I've quit counting your reversals in the two
threads), by saying that "secret mark" has been proven a "forgery" (but not
what you would call "discredited"???). ;-))
You have even posted part of what you say is an email from Ehrman, in which
you quote him saying it is not a decided issue (at least in his opinion).
As for emailing Professor Ehrman, I have had enough sense not to bother him
with your lame obfuscations and contortions.
In mentioning emailing him, I simply wanted to see if I could panic you,
and see if you were dumb enough to dig yourself a deeper hole, by conveying
your
unreliability to an actual scholar.
I suspect you have done that far better than anything I could have pointed
out.
Previously, you had described me as being "not very well read" - but
apparently not so unread that I can't have you, a self proclaimed scholar,
frantically emailing a well know known scholar in fear of what I might
say...
Have you ever heard of judo? It's a sport in which you use your opponent to
supply the momentum to defeat him.
You're clueless and arrogant enough to think that the obfuscations you post
in here can't be seen through.
It's likely you have done the same in your emails to Prof. Ehrman.
But go ahead - maybe you can anger me enough to (directly) present my side
of things to the professor.
<smile>
<snip>
Weland
> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:gmcntc$mdp$3...@news.motzarella.org...
>
>>J Antero wrote:
>>
>>>"Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>>news:gl16gl$6se$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
>>>
>>>
>>>>J Antero wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In case anybody is interested, here's what this "secret mark" thing is
>>>>>about.
>>>>>
>>>>>I posted the following to Hines weeks ago in the "Jesus Christ --
>>>>>Clashing Biblical Images" thread.
>>>>
>>>>A red herring since Hines' was talking about the Protestant 3 pillars of
>>>>Christian truth: Reason, Tradition, Scripture as though they were a much
>>>>older formulation. Then Antero introduces Secret Mark as if that issue
>>>>addressed Hines' contention in any way, shape or form. It didn't. It
>>>>still doesn't. Completely unrelated issue.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>>>Your mind is going.
>>>
>>>Why would it be a "red herring" to post an explanatory post to show what
>>>the basis of this 2 month argument has been about?
>
>
>>>You don't make sense.
>>
>>Only because you have difficulties with basic reading comprehension.
>
>
> I understand very well what a liar you are.
Your usual non sequitur....you're lack of comprehension does not mean
I'm lying, it means you lack understanding.
>
>
>>>>The real issue then is really nothing to do with Secret Mark, but with
>>>>Antero's ego....
>>>
>>>
>>>Hardly. It has to do with having fun with an incompetent liar.
>>
>
>>You were pleasuring yourself when you wrote this? Dude, there are some
>>things we don't need to know about you.....
>
>
> The Weland/Swain pseudo scholar shows his degenerate thought processes.
Dude, your the one who said you were having fun with a liar....and
you're the only liar in this discussion. 'Nuff said.
J Antero
No, it means you're lying.
>>
>>
>>>>>The real issue then is really nothing to do with Secret Mark, but with
>>>>>Antero's ego....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Hardly. It has to do with having fun with an incompetent liar.
>>>
>>
>>>You were pleasuring yourself when you wrote this? Dude, there are some
>>>things we don't need to know about you.....
>>
>>
>> The Weland/Swain pseudo scholar shows his degenerate thought processes.
> Dude, your the one who said you were having fun with a liar....and you're
> the only liar in this discussion. 'Nuff said.
Dudeless,, I've documented a number of times that you are a liar.
You said "secret mark" was a proven forgery, then you said you had never
said that, then you said it again, then you denied saying it again, etc.
You are whanger who projects.
>
Weland
> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:gmcns7$mdp$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>
>>J Antero wrote:
>>
>>>"Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>>news:gl19uk$enh$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>You are a liar, and apparently you have misrepresented what this
>>>>>argument has been about, to Professor Ehrman
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>They call what you're doing, "shifting the goal posts". You were saying
>>>>>"secret mark" was discredited, now you've given up on that and are
>>>>>pretending that you were arguing only about a change in consensus
>>>>>opinion. Very weak.
>>>>
>>>>Nope. I reported to him what I've been saying since the beginning. I've
>>>>never said "secret mark" was discredited.
>>>
>>>
>>>Liar.
>>>Weland/Swain, you said it was a "demonstrated" forgery, and that it was a
>>>"proven forgery" by Smith.
>>
>>
>
>>Yes, I said it had been demonstrated to be a forgery--and it has. I
>>object, and never made the claim, that it had been discredited--I
>>carefully and consciously avoided that word.
>>
>>It works like this: Scholars have recently published works demonstrating
>>that its a forgery, this causes the consensus to shift, consensus shift
>>is never 100%, there are always a few who maintain the previous consensus.
>
>
> No, Weland/Swain, it doesn't work like you would like to pretend.
How would you know? You paste things from Google books and pretend
you've read them, just how would you know how it works? And have you
proven that it doesn't work as I've described? I'm afraid your
insistence isn't enough to do that. Not that I expect anything more
than that....More importantly, scholars have recently published books,
2005 and 2006, and subsequent articles, reviews, and conference papers,
the books have caused many to change their minds causing a shift in
consensus, but not everyone.
> It took you days to come up with another demonstration of how unreliable and
> mangled your thinking is.
Aw...Antero is peeved that replying to his posts isn't my top priority....
> If you had any character you would just admit you were wrong,
Actually, you have that wrong--not admitting I was wrong about something
I never said shows character. On the other hand, consistently claiming
I said things I never said really demonstrates that you have a lack of
character.
instead of
> now *again* reversing yourself (I've quit counting your reversals in the two
> threads), by saying that "secret mark" has been proven a "forgery" (but not
> what you would call "discredited"???). ;-))
Hmmm, first day I replied I said that it had been demonstrated a likely
forgery though there were big names who continued to argue otherwise,
and just above I said it had been demonstrated a forgery---saying the
same thing consistently over and over isn't reversing oneself.
ANd no, I wouldn't. The word "discredited" has a meaning and
connotation that is inappropriate in this situation, its why I never
claimed Secret Mark was discredited. Please, learn some English.
Further, for something to be "discredited" it first has to be
"credited"--with regard to Secret Mark few credited the document and
those who did continue to do so, by and large.
> You have even posted part of what you say is an email from Ehrman,
Don't believe me? Ask him. Go ahead. I insist in fact. Invite you
with gold lettering.
> in which
> you quote him saying it is not a decided issue (at least in his opinion).
And where does he say that? Reading comprehension problems? He speaks
only of his own opinion on the issue and says he's convinced its
probably a forgery....where does he say he's undecided or that anyone or
anything else is undecided?
>
> As for emailing Professor Ehrman, I have had enough sense not to bother him
> with your lame obfuscations and contortions.
Or in other words, you're a coward.
> In mentioning emailing him, I simply wanted to see if I could panic you,
> and see if you were dumb enough to dig yourself a deeper hole, by conveying
> your
> unreliability to an actual scholar.
Liar. You threatened to email him thinking I'd back down, and surprised
you when I not only know him but emailed him because you wouldn't.
You're a coward. And a liar. And you still haven't dropped him a
line...could it be because once you do, you know he'll prove you wrong?
> Previously, you had described me as being "not very well read" - but
> apparently not so unread that I can't have you, a self proclaimed scholar,
> frantically emailing a well know known scholar in fear of what I might
> say...
It doesn't take one to be well read to lie: you have consistently put
words in my mouth that I never said and then when I correct you off you
go screaming like a 2 year old without his lolli. No, all you have to
be is willfully stupid to lie about what I've said and do so for months
at a time--that doesn't take being well-read, in fact, it simply
demonstrates how ill-read you are.
> Have you ever heard of judo? It's a sport in which you use your opponent to
> supply the momentum to defeat him.
Yes, like I let you make claims like "convinced" being equivalent to
"unsure" or that 2003 is later than 2005.....you've made an utter nut of
yourself over a mole hill.
> You're clueless and arrogant enough to think that the obfuscations you post
> in here can't be seen through.
Well, thing is, you haven't even perceived what I've said yet, much less
seen through it.
>
> It's likely you have done the same in your emails to Prof. Ehrman.
>
> But go ahead - maybe you can anger me enough to (directly) present my side
> of things to the professor.
Oh, why wait until you're angry? Go ahead, do it now. Go on. Do
remember that I can check up on your report and correct it. But please
do go right ahead. I insist.
Weland
How very logical and reasonable of you...of course, we all know you must
insist on this because otherwise you'd have to admit your own lies,
miscomprehensions, and efforts to change the course of things.
>
>>>
>>>>>>The real issue then is really nothing to do with Secret Mark, but with
>>>>>>Antero's ego....
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Hardly. It has to do with having fun with an incompetent liar.
>>>>
>>>>You were pleasuring yourself when you wrote this? Dude, there are some
>>>>things we don't need to know about you.....
>>>
>>>
>
>>>The Weland/Swain pseudo scholar shows his degenerate thought processes.
>
>
>>Dude, your the one who said you were having fun with a liar....and you're
>>the only liar in this discussion. 'Nuff said.
>
>
> Dudeless,, I've documented a number of times that you are a liar.
Dudeless? Not a word...Antero's degenerated into nonsense, typical of
the senile.
And Antero, you've documented the number of times that you've claimed
I've said something I didn't say, meaning that you're either stupid and
can't comprehend what's going on, or you're deliberately lying.
>
> You said "secret mark" was a proven forgery,
Yep, 2 books and several subsequent articles have done so successfully
enough to shift the field.
> You are whanger who projects.
Liar.
And before you whinge about how long it took me to answer your "posts",
it just shows you how low on the totem pole you are.....
J Antero
You are a boring dwarf.
Scat.
J Antero
That would be more along your line.
You've already been shown up numerous times.
Run along.
Weland
Sure....which is why you won't tell us what's on page 122 of Ramsay
McMullen's 1997 book or what comes in the index after ascetics....both
items not in the Google preview. You keep erasing requests for this,
wonder why that is....could it be because all you can do is access
Google books and not the item itself, the book you claim to have read?
That's the best explanation that fits the currently known facts. Of
course you could prove me wrong by simply providing the
information...but I'm pretty confident you won't.
Weland
Ah, poor Antero, no longer able to sustain his illogical claims must
resort to mere invective (what, too big a word for you Antero?).
J Antero
Correct it?
You've been proven a liar a long time ago.
Some "scholar" you are - your mind is so addled that your lies and
obfuscations become what's true in your mind.
Here's a proof of that again from a post weeks ago.........
Weland/Swain, you said it [secret mark] 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.
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
Weland:
==end 12/14 extract
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"?
<snip further Weland/Swain obfiscations, the above is yet another proof of
what his credibility>