N.T.WRONG

Official Blog of the Bishop of Durham

A Place for all Off-Topic Hobbyhorse Comments

Posted by NT Wrong on December 17, 2008

narcissusThere are a few people in this world who indulge themselves in their personal hobbyhorses at any opportunity. A few of them make comments on this blog. As I am not a censor of comments, I have created this post for you all to indulge in your cyber-self-gratification. You’re welcome to bookmark this post, and whenever you feel like going off on a tangent, please post your meandering ramblings and esoteric theories here. It may well be that one day we will look back and say, ‘Gosh, so-and-so was onto this well before any of us!’ It’s possible, but I’m guessing that even with the benefit of hindsight we will look back on these comments and go, ‘WTF?’.

(This will also be where I move off-topic hobbyhorse comments. Feel free to move any such comments found on your own blogs here, too.)

Advertisements

64 Responses to “A Place for all Off-Topic Hobbyhorse Comments”

  1. Geoff Hudson said

    [Comment moved]

    In Galations 3:2, the pauline editor didn’t completely cover the traces of the original. Thus he retained “Did you receive the Spirit by” where he could have had “Did you come to faith in Jesus Christ by” or “Did you come to the faith of Jesus Christ by”. “Receive the Spirit” is retained and is more than a clue that receiving the Spirit was the priority for the original author.

    3:3 would then read quite naturally in a Jewish prophetic context: “Are you so foolish? After receiving the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your cleansing by sacrifice? – where again “Spirit” is retained in the text.

    I suggest that original ‘Galations’ was written in Rome and sent to prophets in Jerusalem who were reverting to animal sacrifices, having rejected them previously by obeying the Spirit.

    Thus I would see Gal.2:16 in an original form something like: “A man is not cleansed by sacrifices, but in the Spirit” (not the extant “justified by faith in/of Jesus Christ”). The original writer was telling his readers that this was his verbal challenge (2:14) to someone who had visited Rome. That someone was not the fictitious “Peter” but more than likely the high priest Ananus the son of Ananus who was promoting the temple cult of animal sacrifices. Ananus was the eventual destroyer of James (while ‘Albinus’ was on his way, if you believe that). For me, James was the original author of the pre-pauline epistle.

  2. Man, I gotta get my hands on this book of ‘Galations’ one of these days!

  3. Geoff Hudson said

    [Comment moved]

    A better question might be: How did the pauline editors manage to get their hands on a load of original epistles all at once? One might well answer because they ALL happened to be in one place at the same time, namely Jerusalem, the place that the Romans took them from, along with the other scriptures the Emperor Vespasian collected, miraulously from a supposed inferno of the sanctuary. Of course they took their time to get what they wanted, including the gold and temple artifacts, then they set fire to the sanctuary.

  4. Geoff Hudson said

    [Comment moved]

    What context? That of the surrounding text? Consider Romans 3:22a. The pauline interpolation of 3:22b to 3:31 would have us believe that faith in Jesus was the way to being made right with God for Jews and Gentiles alike, and that obedience of the Jewish law was not the way.

    Then in Chapter 4 we get to Abraham who is used by the pauline editor as an example of justification by faith. Now I could well see that Abraham was mentioned in the pre-pauline text, but not as an example of justification by faith, but as an example of sacrifice not bringing about cleansing of the spirit before God. And the picture on the front of the book showing Abraham about to sacrifice Isaac, but prevented from doing so by God, speaks volumes.

    The original issue in the epistle to ‘Romans’ was an entirely Jewish one, being cleansing by the temple cult of animal sacrifice versus cleansing by the Spirit of God. Justification by faith in/of Jesus Christ was a later pauline concept for the Gentile mission in the apparent letter to Romans

    Clearly, the pauline editor wanted to use the example of Abraham, but he could not say in 4:2: “if in fact Abraham was justified by ‘law’”, because Moses came after Abraham. So the editor was stymied, and had to write ‘works’ instead of ‘law’, the word he had used previously in his interpolated texts of 3:27, 28, and 31.

    The point of the original prophetic writer about Abraham, was that Abraham could not have been cleansed by sacrifice because his righteousness was credited to him (4:3), not to God – in other words the righteousness did not come from God. So 4:4 and 4:5 probably originally read something like: “Now when a man sacrifices, his cleansing is not credited to God as a gift, but to him. However, to the man who does not sacrifice, but obeys the Spirit who cleanses the impure, his cleansing is credited to God.” In other words his cleansing come directly from God.

  5. 42

  6. Jim said

    i feel dirty even commenting here…

  7. Bwahaha!

  8. Geoff Hudson said

    Don’t tell me faith in/of Jesus Christ is not one of your hobbyhorses. I mean if anyone wants a cure for insomnia your book must be a dead cert. No wonder you can’t find a publisher. Pity the author’s surname wan’t Archer, then it might have sold a million.

  9. Geoff Hudson said

    As for Jim – he likes to write sludge – remember Jim!

  10. Geoff Hudson said

    As for Gibson, he doesn’t know what context is.

  11. If you’d only’ve set this page up long ago, some of us would’ve never’ve had to set up our own hobbyhorse blogs. Now I’m torn.

  12. Jim said

    hey now- my sludge is only sludge because it’s thick with meaning and not all watery goofiness unaware of how to spell ‘Galatians’!

  13. David Ker said

    Great post. I totally agree.

  14. Geoff Hudson said

    Jim I have yet to see you write anything original with regard to biblical studies.

  15. Geoff Hudson said

    And what we get from Wrong (Jeffrey B Gibson) is what he thinks is right in something as narrow as whether or not we should be reading faith of Jesus Christ or faith in Jesus Christ. And he supposedly has 100 reasons for it would you believe, no doubt all in the context of what he knows about the Greek, regardless of the literary context of related text. He is in cloud cuckoo land.

    With a book title 100 Reasons Pistis Christou is Objective Genetive it is no wonder he couldn’t find a publisher. The book must be a joke, a distraction from the really important questions which he avoids while apparently claiming to ask them on this blog.

    I dare say one click and all this will be gone.

  16. Geoff Hudson said

    [comment moved]

    Rom.1:13-17 is one complete pauline interpolation implying that the fictitious Paul had been so busy on his fictitious mission to Gentiles, that he didn’t have time to visit Rome. In fact the original writer and prophet James was longing to travel from Rome to visit his fellow prophets in Jerusalem (1:11), not of course to impart any spiritual gift, but that they may be mutually encouraged in the Spirit.

    ‘Romans’ was once a completely Jewish prophetic document.

  17. Geoff Hudson said

    [comment moved]

    “By contrast, there is no unambiguous evidence for the faithfulness of Christ to God in Paul’s epistles. Phil 2.6-11?”

    Blatantly, a later pauline fabricated interpolation.

  18. Geoff Hudson said

    [comment moved]

    What I want to know is when Gibson is going to talk to Wrong, like he talks to Gadda, Earl and a host of others.

  19. Geoff Hudson said

    [comment moved]

    Maybe a hobbyhorse of yours.

  20. Sounds like someone who has comments posted here intentionally and unintentionally needs a little nap.

  21. Geoff Hudson said

    If you have a problem with insomnia, instead of counting sheep, just think of Russell’s, er sorry Jeffrey’s, 100 Reasons Pistis Christou is Objective Genitive, yawn! Of course some strange individuals like Herr Flick of the Gestapo (aka Mark Goodacre) might take great pleasure in such nit-picking contemplations without being driven to study the reverse sides of their eyelids. What they don’t appreciate, is that they are trying to sort out the mess of an invented pauline theology written on the fly, not the natural outcome of experience. Papa’s children stick together.

  22. David Ker said

    NT, it’s OK to ban Geoff. Trolls are for squishing not expending time in managing their posts.

    Plus, I don’t like having someone call you names. Your anonymity is one of your charms.

  23. Geoff Hudson said

    So was the original writer of ‘Romans’ a priest as well as a prophet? Well a little thought about ‘Romans’ 11:1 shows that the writer was indeed a priest. In fact you don’t have to be a genius to realise the pauline editor was up to his tricks.
    The writer was not talking about “Israelites”, duh! He was talking about priests. James wrote from Rome to his fellow prophets in Jerusalem: “Did God reject his priests? By no means! I am a priest myself, a descendant of Aaron.” “Descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin” – my ass.

  24. Geoff Hudson said

    [comment moved]

    Take a look at Phil. 1:25 and 1:26 Jefferey. There you will see “joy ‘in’ the faith” and “joy ‘in’ Christ Jesus” which gives the editor’s little game away with his fast and loose adaptations for “in”, because in the prophetic tradition of Judaism, joy is usually joy ‘in’ the Spirit. Similarly, “faith ‘in’ Christ” was adapted from “obedience ‘in’ the Spirit”. Thus wherever one sees “in”, one should be prepared to consider that the original was about being “in” the Spirit.

    Phil.1:29 of the NIV has “believe ‘on’ him”, not “believe ‘in’ Christ”. I suggest the original 1:29,30 was something like: “For it has been granted to you in the Spirit not only to obey him, but also to suffer for him, since you are going through the same struggle I had, and still have.” James was writing from Rome to prophets in Jerusalem. He had experienced persecution from the priests when he lived in Jerusalem previously. The prophets of Jerusalem were then experiencing that same persecution.

  25. Geoff Hudson said

    [comment moved]

    Loren Rosson. There are large sections of text in ‘Romans’ that are pauline interpolated fabrications. Other more original text of ‘Romans’ contains many non-descript terms that have been substituted by the pauline editors to conceal specific meanings in the original, e.g. in Rom.10:14, we have the non-descripts: “they”and “one”

    Look at Rom. 10.3. Ask, how in Jewish terms can one submit to God’s righteousness, simply a noun? In Jewish terms you can submit to a person, or something with power. Something with power is either animated by spirit or is a spirit. I suggest therefore that 10.3,4 was originally like: “Since the priests did not hear the Spirit that comes from God, they did not submit to God’s Spirit. The Spirit is the end of sacrifices so that there may be cleansing for everyone who obeys.”

    And Rom.10:14 was originally like: “How, then, can the priests call on the Spirit they have not obeyed? And how can they obey the Spirit they have not heard?”

    The prophetic writer was writing to the prophets in Jerusalem about the priests.

  26. Geoff Hudson said

    Rom.2:29 is strange.

    “No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly
    ; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart,
    by the Spirit, not by the written code.”

    There was no “written code” then, unless the pauline editor put this in post 70 Mark Goodacre.

  27. Geoff Hudson said

    I’ll bet every Israeli archaeologist dreams that one day he/she might dig up a pre 70 copy of the “written code”. There is no evidence for the existence of a codified Law pre 70. Clearly the pauline editor of ‘Romans’ was not referring to scripture.

    Mark Goodacre dates documents according to the youngest data in them. On that basis, Goodacre must date ‘Romans’ with its reference to “written code” as post 70. Thus Goodacre is up the creek with his pre 70 dating for Romans and the other pauline documents.

    Along with the “written code”, references in “Romans’ to “the Law”, “circumcision”, “Israel”, “Israelites”, “Gentiles”, “Jews”, “faith”, “righteousness”, “justification”, “grace”, “sin”, “apostle”, “Paul” and “Jesus Christ” are mostly, if not all, post 70 pauline interpolations in what was an original Jewish prophetic document of the Spirit.

    Thus the original writer wrote about the priests of Jerusalem something like:

    “For although they heard the Spirit of God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their spirits of truth were darkened.
    Although they claimed to be pure, they became impure, and exchanged the glory of the Spirit of God for sacrifices of birds and animals.”

    “Birds” and “animals” are explicit. The original prophetic writer was taking issue with the priestly temple cult of animal sacrifice as a way of being made pure before God.

  28. David Ker wrote:

    NT, it’s OK to ban Geoff. Trolls are for squishing not expending time in managing their posts.

    On the other hand, I kind of like this idea of a hobbyhorse thread. It holds up a mirror to certain idiocies with a vengeance.

    Plus, I don’t like having someone call you names. Your anonymity is one of your charms.

    Poor Jeffrey Gibson must be having an identity crisis by this point.

  29. Geoff Hudson said

    I suppose if they had worn religious T-shirts back then just post 70 they would have had a company brand logo Flavian. The company promoted their designer religion which was pauline christianity with a lower-case “p”. It was almost completely fabricated with a semblance of having come out of Judaism to give it street cred. But essentially, it was no different from its competitor the later Islam, in that in was a fabricated state sponsored religion to unite the people of the Mediterranean.
    And the Flavians did it by adapting prophetic documents they found in Jerusalem, probably in the sanctuary, during the long period while they were stripping the gold plate off the sanctuary doors and ceiling beams.

  30. Geoff Hudson said

    Eisenman was right to focus on James as an important character in first century ‘christianity’. His hundreds of allusions in James The Brother of Jesus were, in effect, many of the important questions in relation to the history of early ‘christianity’, even if he didn’t come to the right conclusions. Eisenman, like myself, had the background of a physicist. He was used to thinking laterally in the tradition of physicists down the centuries.

  31. rey said

    Geoff Hudson, why not get your own blog? Call it Flavian Conspiracy Theories from the Pen of a Madman.

  32. Geoff Hudson said

    Here’s a little bit of lateral thinking for you Loren Rossen. Assume that ‘Romans’ 11:1 is about Aaron, not Abraham with a form like: “I ask then: Did God reject his priests? By no means! I am a priest myself, a descendant of Aaron, from the tribe of Levi.”

    In effect this would rule out Abraham all together from the NT as an example of faith. Abraham as an example of faith in both ‘Romans’ and Galatians (Jimmy) could be seen as later fabricated, pauline interpolations, created simply to support the idea of justification by faith in Christ.

    So how might Aaron have fitted into an original prophetic document of ‘Romans’. If the writer was a prophet but also a priest and therefore a descendant of Aaron, he could have referred to Aaron as his forefather, not Abraham in Rom.4:1,2 thus: “What then shall we say that Aaron, our forefather, discovered in this matter?
    If, in fact, Aaron was cleansed by sacrifice, he had something to boast about — but not before {he was anointed by}God.”

    I suggest ‘this matter’ above was about cleansing before God by the Spirit of God.

    Now Loren Rossen, read about the ordination of Aaron and his sons. (Lev.8;12,13). there you will see that Aaron and his sons were anointed with oil to “consecrate” them (a God process) BEFORE
    they sacrificed in 8:14.

    Now look at ‘Romans’ 4;10,11, which I suggest originally referred to the anointing of Aaron something like: “Under what circumstances was he cleansed? Was it after he sacrificed, or before?
    It was not after, but before! And he received the sign of the Spirit, a seal of the Spirit that he had by anointing before he sacrificed.”

    Abraham as an example of faith is pauline invention. The original ‘Romans’ was a prophetic document of the Spirit written by James from Rome to his fellow prophets in Jerusalem who were also descendants of Aaron.

  33. Geoff Hudson said

    Yeah! I’ve blown Abraham out of the water you stupid idiots, to put it mildly. You’ve all been duped by the pauline editors who used Abraham as an example of faith. Clearly, in ‘Romans’ the ‘forefather’ of the original writer was Aaron, not Abraham. Wake-up grasshoppers!

  34. Geoff Hudson said

    And Loren Rossen, me old cock sparrow, Aaron was an example of receiving the Spirit of cleansing from God, and that before he sacrificed. The prophetic writer James was arguing that the way to be clean before God was to receive the Spirit of God, and that animal sacrifice did not cleanse. The original argument was nowt to do with justification by faith in/of (whatever) Jesus Christ. Feeling sick then Jim?

  35. Geoff Hudson said

    “Many commentators have taken James 2.24 as a deliberate response to Paul, qualifying Paul’s approach to justification by faith.”

    “Many commentators” are wrong. Of course the pauline editors would have James the prophet confusing the issue, wouldn’t they! James wrote no such text as: “You see that a person is justified by what he does, and not by faith.” In a less than subtle way, the pauline editors were portraying James, the earlier leader of the prophets, as anti- ‘Paul’. Make no mistake, the pauline editors hated James.

    James would have originally written something like: “You see that a person is cleansed by the Spirit, and not by sacrifice.”

    I have previously blown Abraham out of the water as pauline fabrication of an example of faith. And I have shown that in Romans, the forefather referred to by the original writer was Aaron, not Abraham. It was Aaron who received anointing of the Spirit before he sacrificed – a difficult interpretation to squirm out of, given the wording of the extant text, unless you have your head in the sand.

  36. steph said

    Does anyone read these ramblings?

  37. Geoff Hudson said

    Well Steph, from you we don’t even get any ramblings, just mumblings. I have no idea what your ideas are. So here is a little challenge – just how did the Romans get all the gold (and scriptures) out of the sanctuary while, according to the extant record, it was ablaze. That gold was used to fund, for example, the building of the Collosseum. Like Martin Goodman, I expect you to have no answer.

  38. Geoff Hudson said

    Who is ‘Steph’?

  39. Geoff Hudson said

    Reason No. 81: Salvation by faith not law in Galatians 2-3

    “Paul makes an argument for salvation by faith versus law by utilising the example of Abraham in Gal 3.6ff. But before he does this, Paul makes an initial argument for salvation by faith not law from the Galatians’ receipt of the Spirit in 3.2-5.”

    We have above in a nutshell the nonsense of ‘Paul’s’ gospel. So receipt of the Spirit was evidence that one had believed in Jesus, i.e. that one had faith in Christ and thus entitlement to salvation. Yet Jews thought they had been receiving the Spirit throughout their history going as far back as they thought their records went, and that with no knowledge of the christ or Jesus. They believed that Moses had said, “I wish that all the Lord’s people were prophets and that the Lord would put his Spirit on them.” Num.11:29. Jews knew that the Lord’s intention for them was that they should receive his Spirit. The creator of the Jew ‘Paul’ seems completely oblivious to his inconsistency, i.e. that his ‘Paul’ could have been filled with the Spirit without any other conditon apart from obeying ‘what’ he ‘heard’, ‘what’ being the Spirit of God. (Gal.3:5)

  40. Geoff Hudson said

    [Comment moved]

    As the NT character Jesus never existed he was never born, and it is stupid to use at least BC.

    The birth story is a later fabricated myth not in Mark. No doubt the birth myth contained some semblance of the truth in that Zechariah and Elizabeth were the parents of the prophet Judas, not John. Fictitious John was written in to replace Judas (the original central chracter) and then John was quickly written out, to make way for the fictitious Jesus -the salesman’s trick – demonstrate the inferior product first, then bring out the superior version.

  41. Irritable said

    I agree with Rosson; under the “off-topic hobby horse” heading, this stuff becomes kind of amusing.

  42. Geoff Hudson said

    Who else could the prophet and leader of the prophets have been but the person who was made into the villain, Judas? He ‘went out’, presumably from the sanctuary, to confront the chief priests. The Gospel of Judas clearly has Judas in the sanctuary. He ‘fell headlong’ when he was stoned. He was replaced in his position of leadership by his son James, brother of Simon – that the two brothers were executed together is clearly disimmulation. The house of Judas on Straight Street was a house in Rome where the prophets led by James met after fleeing persecution by the priests. All the original epistles were written from Rome to prophets in Jeruslaem.

  43. Geoff Hudson said

    Like most literalistic biblical scholars, Loren Rossen must have graduated in a Sunday School.

  44. Geoff Hudson said

    [comment moved]

    You may not be in the Witherington camp, but be equally guilty of assuming the existence of Jesus, John the Baptist, Simon Peter, Paul, Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes. Thus you may still be able to talk the literalist theological talk that the writer or ‘Paul’ meant this or that according to the Greek, but you miss the obvious contextual logic in many cases that you are interpreting text that has been subjected to heavy, deliberate, editorial. After all, the talk keeps the books flowing like diarrhoea, which books, like diarrhoea, are fit for the toilet only, without mentioning names. Such folk should look to their own interpretations before squeaking about Witherington’s.

  45. Geoff Hudson said

    [comment moved]

    Antonio, Antonio, supposedly Antonio wrote:

    “Well said Steph. Could add myself that it´s discipline filled with far too many pompous, selfassured, charlatans.”

    Like the owner of this blog!

  46. Geoff Hudson said

    [comment moved]

    But unlike Elton, Witherington doesn’t look as though he has had a transplant, so maybe he is honest before the Lord – like a woman I know who let her hair grow grey after dyeing it. How’s yours doing these days Jeffrey?

  47. NT Wrong said

    Okay, Geoff, I’ll indulge you just for a moment. Who is Jeffrey? (I’m after a straightforward identification of the man and what he does, rather than some mystic allusions.)

  48. Geoff Hudson said

    Most who claim to be biblical scholars of whatever persuasion, Evangelical, Catholic, whatever, haven’t yet left Sunday School. They continue in their literalistic ways citing everyone who has gone before, building houses of cards. Your blog Jeffrey Baldwin Gibson is still of the Sunday School. It doesn’t do what it says on the tin, and I think I know why.

  49. NT Wrong said

    Jeffrey Baldwin Gibson? Could you give me a run-down on who he is.

  50. steph said

    Diarrhoea? I thought Geoff suffered from verbal diarrhoea.

  51. Geoff Hudson said

    He is the owner of this blog. He asks more questions than he has answers for, and one never knows what he really thinks. This enigma is much better placed to write his own biography, if he dared. But I have plenty of reasons (not quite 100) to think N T Wrong is Jeffrey B Gibson.

    I have yet to read anything that comes close to a good explanation of the origin of the earliest christianity. The attempts I have seen so far are too naively literalistic.

  52. NT Wrong said

    Geoff, you need to work on those communication skills. I was just trying to work out who you meant by “Jeffrey B. Gibson”. But, having looked into it, it seems that you mean the author of Temptations of Jesus in Early Christianity.

    I found your enlightening blog. I see that – over the last four years – you have identified Jeffrey B. Gibson with almost anybody you have come across on the internet. That’s a feat that even makes Eisenman’s identifications of New Testament characters look plausible. Apparently, according to your blog, Jeffrey B. Gibson is also:

    Peter Kirby
    Jack Kilmon
    Stewart DeHuff
    George Brooks
    Yuri Kuchinsky
    Martin Edwards
    Jason Gridley
    Robert Hoode
    David Christainsen
    Ian Hutchesson
    Dierk van den Berg
    Horace Jeffrey Hodges
    Martin Edwards
    Russell Gmirkin
    Ken M. Penner
    Greg Doudna
    Rochelle Altman
    Stephen Goranson
    Doug Weller
    Stephen S. Rives
    Stephen C. Carlson
    Earl Doherty
    Chris Weimer
    Charles Gadda
    Rod the Australian
    Itamar Bernstein
    serg_rysev the Russian
    Paul Kessler
    David Stacey
    Paul Kessler
    George Gomsel
    Antonio Jerez
    Pete (mountainman)

    and now N.T.Wrong.

    That’s a fantastic effort, Geoff. I love your work. You should approach Robert Eisenman to co-author his next book. It’d be a best seller.

    And now, just for you, I can reveal that I am also Rudolph Steiner (anthroposophist), Neale Donald Walsch, and Robert Eisenman. Please don’t reveal that on your blog though, will you.

  53. steph said

    Rudolf Steiner – you’re still alive!! I’m so happy. Now it makes so much sense – literally … 🙂

  54. Geoff Hudson said

    Come off it Jeffrey, your own communication skills are not exactly a joy! Robert Eisenman must hold the record for writing the most long sentences in a book. But his multiple allusions are most useful for lateral thinking. And he told me in conversation that he thought the Flavian writers were having fun when they produced the writings attributed to Josephus. I absolutely agree with him. But I also say the Flavians were editing original works of Josephus. Thus Idumeans approaching the walls of Jerusalem with shields held testudo fashion were in Josephus’ text Romans – Martin Goodman you idiot. And the shields were not keeping ‘rain’ off in a ‘storm’ were they Jeffrey! It was then the ‘Idumeans’ went home, and Vespasian decided not to proceed with the war for a time. I laugh, the war was over.

    Of course coming from a physics background, Eisenman had the good sense to provide a comprehensive subject index in his book James the Brother of Jesus, an essential for good communication in any textbook, and notably absent in The Temptations of Jesus in Early Christianity.

  55. Geoff Hudson said

    [comment moved]

    One thing I am sure of, and that is that christianity has been the subject of human develoment. The extant NT is the product of iterrations from what were original Jewish prophetic documents.

  56. Geoff Hudson said

    [comment moved]

    The UK truly needs a literal insurrection ‘Steph’. A party of Levellers is in order, honestly ‘Steph’.

    It looks as though the US might be about to have its own insurrection. Then everyone in the US will be equal with an economy like Zimbabwe’s – what Jimmy wants for his utopia.

    But never mind, in the resurrection we will all be the same up there as the angels, except for Jeffrey – when Jimmy and I have been taken, poor old Jeff will be left flogging, sorry blogging, I meant blagueing, honestly. And then I will know that Jesus never existed, literally ‘Steph’.

  57. Geoff Hudson said

    [comment moved]

    Yeah, but I wonder how many real academics Jeffrey is going to persuade to talk to his alias N T Wrong? Will Mark Goodacre or James Davila post here? Anyone with an academic reputation to keep must be stark raving bonkers if they do. And why does Jeffrey want to hide behind a false name? Come on Jeffrey, what have you done that causes you to behave so? Or more likely, what has the academic community done to offend you so?

  58. Geoff Hudson said

    [comment moved]

    In fact one has to wonder just how many ‘academic’ folk are not under treatment for some sort of depression, mental disorder or bipolarity. Do biblical studies lead to mental instability? Perhaps some feel persecuted by fellow academics. This is not a healthy field to be in.

  59. NT Wrong said

    Too much paint-sniffing by signwriters can’t be too healthy, either.

  60. steph said

    poor ‘Geoff’ needs help. He’s not an academic though – maybe he’s a paint sniffer.

  61. Geoff Hudson said

    Why do we always get Steph followed by Jeff or Jeff followed by Steph? Is it homophonic subliminal association? I can certainly sniff something, like Sherlock eh Jeff. Jeff, you must be hermaphrodite – a worm with no brain.

  62. Geoff Hudson said

    [comment moved]

    My ass!

  63. Geoff Hudson said

    [comment moved]

    William Dever sounds just up my Street.

  64. Geoff Hudson said

    [comment moved ]

    Now my broadband is working correctly I have been able to see the video here – great. William Dever makes perfect sense. He is not too enamoured with minimalist historians. I can see why professor Philip Davies @ co. are not enamoured with professor Dever.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

 
%d bloggers like this: