5 ms·

> Wow, you must be a hit at parties. Ad hominem attack. > The way I phrased that sentence is how some some dialects of English, like the one I speak, express

> Wow, you must be a hit at parties. Ad hominem attack. > The way I phrased that sentence is how some some dialects of English, like the one I speak, express agreement. Consider it shorthand for "I agree,". There is no English dialect that does not include the adverb, "yeah," etymologically formed from drawling the affirmation, "yes," colloquially and informally. More often, however, "yeah" is employed as a common filler in the same way as, "um," or "uh," used as a pause to think when not finished speaking, as such, when written, it is meaningless and superfluous. In modern usage, however, it may most often be correctly replaced with the phrase, "as a Millennial, I informally affirm." > And perhaps consider the limits of your experiences and that wisdom is (partially) knowing what you don't know, and not attempting to speak with authority in such areas. Ad hominem attack. > In wording my response to you, I've deliberately avoided other expressions from my dialect that may confuse you, but are very applicable. Like "twat" or "tosser", or "tu meke". Ad hominem attack. > Yeah, nah. Thanks for contributing nothing that a basic Google of "Jesus Yeshua" wouldn't have. Contradiction of informal colloquialisms and an ad hominem attack. > In my dialect, "yeah, nah" often means "I'm experiencing fremdschämen". False. An affirmative placed with a negative is a contradiction, but the assertion here is a clumsy ad hominem attack. > You're going to need an awful lot of citations there. While I agree with anjbe that this is moving the goalposts, it is also an ad hominem attack. > Firstly, define the scholars you're referring to. While I have not referred to any particular scholars, making your employment of such a straw man, I would define scholars in the ordinary sense as academics. > Also, what sources are they working from? This is further development of the previous straw man. > Josephus, the closest there is to a contemporaneous source, doesn't mention baptism. Neither do Seutonius, Pliny the Younger, Mara bar-Serapion or Tacitus. Though this is a continuation of the previous straw man argument, in fact, the closest contemporaneous sources, in chronological order, are the letters of Paul, the Gospel of Mark, the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, Acts of the Apostles, and the Gospel of John. > Maybe the scholars you refer to are extrapolating from the title "Anointed", or from the fact that, gosh, if you're saying this Jesus is sinless, and baptism is for the remission of sins, then why would you include a story in your holy writings that Jesus was baptised? It makes no sense, so you must've included it to be historically correct! Also known as proof by mortification. Or maybe, you're just referencing crap you garnered from a 5 minute speed read of Wikipedia that really needs more citations? Who knows? Tu meke au. It its entirety, this is a straw man argument which happens to include ad hominems.

EdwardDiego 4y ago
> ...as such, when written, it is meaningless and superfluous. In modern usage, however, it may most often be correctly replaced with the phrase, "as a Millennial, I informally The distinction between spoken and written seems a) arbitrary and b) entirely irrelevant to a comment section on a website. I'm writing conversationally, comments aren't technical documentation or tenders, they're comments. Observations in passing. Being honest, when you opened with... ...whatever your thinking there was, I immediately shut down on engagement. Genuine feedback - you know your shit, so just lead with that, not the part where you decide to lead with "You started a sentence with 'yeah', and that's wrong". It helps establish a rapport. Anyway, you got your chronology slightly wrong but only slightly, so very much well done, and I mean that genuinely, and it only erred in where you placed Acts, which contains the earliest Christian writings. (That we know of (so far)) Anyhoo, I'm a big fan of this book if you've not read it yet: https://www.amazon.com/Reading-New-Testament-Pheme-Perkins/dp/0809129396 https://www.amazon.com/Reading-New-Testament-Pheme-Perkins/d... But I suspect you may have.
- Maursault 4y ago
  > Being honest, when you opened with... ...whatever your thinking there was, I immediately shut down on engagement. My thinking was the tenor of your comment was overly informal and self-gratifying considering the subject, a major theme of whose teachings was humility. It doesn't quite follow that being antagonistic is not engagement. > Anyway, you got your chronology slightly wrong but only slightly, so very much well done, and I mean that genuinely, and it only erred in where you placed Acts, which contains the earliest Christian writings. (That we know of (so far)) "The earliest possible date for Luke-Acts is around 62 AD,[citation needed] the time of Paul's imprisonment in Rome, but most scholars date the work to 80–90 AD on the grounds that it uses Mark as a source, looks back on the destruction of Jerusalem, and does not show any awareness of the letters of Paul (which began circulating late in the first century); if it does show awareness of the Pauline epistles, and also of the work of the Jewish historian Josephus, as some believe, then a date in the early 2nd century is possible."[1] "The Gospel of Mark... is usually dated through the eschatological discourse in Mark 13: most scholars interpret this as pointing to the First Jewish–Roman War (66–74 AD) that would lead to the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD, with the composition of Mark taking place either immediately after the destruction (the majority position) or during the years immediately prior."[2] "A majority of scholars agree that Galatians was written between the late 40s and early 50s, although some date the original composition to c. 50–60."[3] "The Epistle to Philemon was composed around AD 57-62 by Paul while in prison at Caesarea Maritima (early date) or more likely from Rome (later date) in conjunction with the composition of Colossians."[4] "Regardless of the literary unity of the letter, scholars agree that the material that was compiled into the Epistle to the Philippians was originally composed in Greek, sometime during the 50s or early 60s AD."[5] The earliest surviving subject materials are the authentic Pauline Epistles, and the oldest surviving Gospel is the one attributed to John Mark. It has been theorized and argued that a lost Gospel, a gospel of sayings, known as the Q source,[6] was composed earlier or around the same time as Mark, with the Gospel of Thomas a candidate for the Q source, but most place the date of Thomas' composition after the 2nd Century, and there is no consensus on whether the Q source existed. The earliest recorded words attributed to Jesus are found in Matthew 5-7, portions of the Sermon on the Mount[7] ("Blessed are the cheesemakers...")[8] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_Apostles#Title,_unity_of_Luke_–_Acts,_authorship_and_date https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_Apostles#Title,_un... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark#Authorship,_date_and_genre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark#Authorship,_dat... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Galatians#Date https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Galatians#Date [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_Philemon#Composition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_Philemon#Compositio... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Philippians#Composition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Philippians#Com... [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatitudes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatitudes [8] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFPIGNua5WM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFPIGNua5WM

EdwardDiego 4y ago

> ...as such, when written, it is meaningless and superfluous. In modern usage, however, it may most often be correctly replaced with the phrase, "as a Millennial, I informally The distinction between spoken and written seems a) arbitrary and b) entirely irrelevant to a comment section on a website. I'm writing conversationally, comments aren't technical documentation or tenders, they're comments. Observations in passing. Being honest, when you opened with... ...whatever your thinking there was, I immediately shut down on engagement. Genuine feedback - you know your shit, so just lead with that, not the part where you decide to lead with "You started a sentence with 'yeah', and that's wrong". It helps establish a rapport. Anyway, you got your chronology slightly wrong but only slightly, so very much well done, and I mean that genuinely, and it only erred in where you placed Acts, which contains the earliest Christian writings. (That we know of (so far)) Anyhoo, I'm a big fan of this book if you've not read it yet: https://www.amazon.com/Reading-New-Testament-Pheme-Perkins/dp/0809129396 https://www.amazon.com/Reading-New-Testament-Pheme-Perkins/d... But I suspect you may have.

Maursault 4y ago
> Being honest, when you opened with... ...whatever your thinking there was, I immediately shut down on engagement. My thinking was the tenor of your comment was overly informal and self-gratifying considering the subject, a major theme of whose teachings was humility. It doesn't quite follow that being antagonistic is not engagement. > Anyway, you got your chronology slightly wrong but only slightly, so very much well done, and I mean that genuinely, and it only erred in where you placed Acts, which contains the earliest Christian writings. (That we know of (so far)) "The earliest possible date for Luke-Acts is around 62 AD,[citation needed] the time of Paul's imprisonment in Rome, but most scholars date the work to 80–90 AD on the grounds that it uses Mark as a source, looks back on the destruction of Jerusalem, and does not show any awareness of the letters of Paul (which began circulating late in the first century); if it does show awareness of the Pauline epistles, and also of the work of the Jewish historian Josephus, as some believe, then a date in the early 2nd century is possible."[1] "The Gospel of Mark... is usually dated through the eschatological discourse in Mark 13: most scholars interpret this as pointing to the First Jewish–Roman War (66–74 AD) that would lead to the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD, with the composition of Mark taking place either immediately after the destruction (the majority position) or during the years immediately prior."[2] "A majority of scholars agree that Galatians was written between the late 40s and early 50s, although some date the original composition to c. 50–60."[3] "The Epistle to Philemon was composed around AD 57-62 by Paul while in prison at Caesarea Maritima (early date) or more likely from Rome (later date) in conjunction with the composition of Colossians."[4] "Regardless of the literary unity of the letter, scholars agree that the material that was compiled into the Epistle to the Philippians was originally composed in Greek, sometime during the 50s or early 60s AD."[5] The earliest surviving subject materials are the authentic Pauline Epistles, and the oldest surviving Gospel is the one attributed to John Mark. It has been theorized and argued that a lost Gospel, a gospel of sayings, known as the Q source,[6] was composed earlier or around the same time as Mark, with the Gospel of Thomas a candidate for the Q source, but most place the date of Thomas' composition after the 2nd Century, and there is no consensus on whether the Q source existed. The earliest recorded words attributed to Jesus are found in Matthew 5-7, portions of the Sermon on the Mount[7] ("Blessed are the cheesemakers...")[8] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_Apostles#Title,_unity_of_Luke_–_Acts,_authorship_and_date https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_Apostles#Title,_un... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark#Authorship,_date_and_genre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark#Authorship,_dat... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Galatians#Date https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Galatians#Date [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_Philemon#Composition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_Philemon#Compositio... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Philippians#Composition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Philippians#Com... [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatitudes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatitudes [8] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFPIGNua5WM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFPIGNua5WM