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

Some List Confusion

Expand Messages
  • Michael Grondin
    Hi Paul, As you may note, this post has a different subject/title than yours. I ve taken the liberty of changing it, because what we re discussing isn t
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 13, 2009
      Hi Paul,

      As you may note, this post has a different subject/title than yours.
      I've taken the liberty of changing it, because what we're discussing
      isn't directly related to Jeff's string.

      In your note, you implied that the moderators had decided that the
      subject in question was speculation. That's not so. We haven't even
      discussed the matter, nor are there any plans to do so. Moderator
      decisions occur very rarely, and are always announced in such a
      way that everyone knows that that's what they are. Furthermore,
      they would never have to do simply with whether something was
      speculation; rather, they would be rulings about whether some
      subject was out of order for the list.

      The posts you cite contain my own thinking and in no way constitute
      any kind of ruling. They were also written before I read Chris' book.
      Now that I've read it, I see that it contains no comment at all on
      whether a Thomas community existed at the time of Gos.John,
      due to the intentionally-limited scope of his work. I don't think it's
      out of order to question him about that, though, and I assume that
      that might be one of the questions this coming week, after the posting
      of the interview on Andrew B's biblioblog.

      I'm not sure why you cited my message #8895, since that seems
      to be on a different matter entirely, and of course I've since disavowed
      the quoted section of message #8903, so that leaves #8915, where
      I was referring to pages 79-80 of _Resurrection Reconsidered_.
      Whether I was fair to Riley is certainly debatable, and if I get some
      time, I may initiate that debate myself, but it's a little late tonight to
      get that in. What I would like to see happen is that we take a close look
      not only at what Riley says about the issue, but also at the sources that
      he cites. Perhaps they provide that concrete something that I couldn't
      find in Riley. Or at least they might discuss the state of the evidence in
      detail. Or maybe we can find something reliable on the internet?

      Bottom line is that there's no prohibition on discussing the issue
      of early Thomas communities. Take my opinions for what they're worth,
      which - like those of anyone else - is just as much and no more than the
      evidence and reasoning behind them. Carry on.

      Regards, Mike
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.