Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Does the 3ST solve the Synoptic Problem ?

Expand Messages
  • Chuck Jones
    Thanks for the clarification, Brad.  Your inclusion of human visitors guided by a sign is helpful to me; I ve not that about that before. Thanks, Chuck Rev.
    Message 1 of 67 , Apr 4, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks for the clarification, Brad.  Your inclusion of human visitors guided by a sign is helpful to me; I've not that about that before.
      Thanks,
      Chuck
      Rev. Chuck JonesAtlanta, Georgia
      --- On Mon, 4/4/11, Brad McAdon <brad@...> wrote:

      The list, briefly, includes: a birth narrative itself, Jesus’ lineage,

      Davidic descent, angelic announcement, Jesus’ alleged father, a

      genealogy, Mary and Joseph’s engagement, Mary’s pregnancy, holy spirit’s

      role, supernatural conception, Mary’s and Joseph’s standing before god,

      Mary as parthenos, Jesus as savior figure, the naming of the child,

      Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem, visitors guided by sign / messenger to see

      the child, visitors are overjoyed, visitors return from where they came,

      family settles in Nazareth.

















      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Chuck Jones
      Bob, Thanks for the follow up.  I did read the irony in the note backwards.  I hang around the group and usually only read.  I ve been amazed at the
      Message 67 of 67 , Apr 6, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Bob,
        Thanks for the follow up.  I did read the irony in the note backwards.  I hang around the group and usually only read.  I've been amazed at the conversation my post initiated.  I've made the comment before.  Weird but fun.
        Chuck

        --- On Tue, 4/5/11, Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...> wrote:

        From: Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...>
        Subject: Chuck Re: Hypothetical documents Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Does the 3ST solve the Synoptic Problem ?
        To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2011, 4:57 PM
















         









        At 12:09 PM 4/5/2011, Chuck Jones wrote:

        >Bob,

        >

        >Your post and the quote from Mark's post

        >underline how much our emotions are involved in

        >these discussions. Â It's hard to strive for

        >objectivity and root for a team at the same time.



        Chuck,

        You're relatively new around here, aren't you?

        And perhaps you didn't notice my "wink". My mock

        horror at the idea of abandoning Q was intended

        as a sly reference to Mark's book, *The Case

        Against Q* (2002). If you haven't read it, you

        probably should. The most prominent emotion

        involved was a chuckle of joviality.



        Oh, BTW, welcome to Synoptic-L!



        Bob Schacht

        Northern Arizona University



        >--- On Tue, 4/5/11, Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...> wrote:

        >

        >From: Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...>

        >Subject: Hypothetical documents Re: [Synoptic-L]

        >Re: Does the 3ST solve the Synoptic Problem ?

        >To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com

        >Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2011, 12:20 PM

        >

        >

        > At 08:41 AM 4/5/2011, Mark Goodacre wrote:

        >

        > >...Let me conclude with a provocative statement. If, as David suggests,

        > >the case is even-stephens, then I suggest that we prefer the case that

        > >dispenses with a hypothetical document.

        >

        >What?!? B-b-but that would mean a world without Q! How can that be?!?!?

        >

        >;-)

        >

        >Bob Schacht

        >Northern Arizona University



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



























        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.