You wrote: “That’s some beef I had nothing to do with, nor would raise any challenges whatsoever to anything which I DID say.”
I had posted - and you quoted and then responded to: “A claim was made that is directly refuted by the very existence of certain texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It’s just that simple.”
And your response was: “The very existence? Not hardly, as I pointed out, and did take some effort to explain just why. Obviously enough you cannot refute my own grounds of refutation of this claim you are making.”
Remember, “The very existence? Not hardly...” Clearly, if the Deuterocanonicals are in the Dead Sea Scrolls, then Origen didn’t write them nor did Eusebius. It’s just that simple. And just as I noted previously, “Nothing you posted in any way overturned what I said. A claim was made that is directly refuted by the very existence of certain texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It’s just that simple.”
What I posted was true. Iscool was wrong and you were wrong to say, “The very existence? Not hardly...”
But nice try at shifting the argument to ground you think you can claim a victory upon (since you lost so badly on grounds which I myself did engage yourself, but more chiefly others upon).
Go back to #56. My own comment there, although quoting the "claim" that was made by another, I immediately departed from (having spied that one as being ridiculous on it's face, although having copy/pasted it, moved forthrightly directly away from it, making no comment aimed towards it).
Instead, in effort to redirect the conversation (my attempt to direct us all away from that --a key point which you missed :comprehending:) I had there turned to raising other issues, going beyond just briefest mention of the grounds for my own demurral towards how you had previously sought to have mention of Dead Sea scrolls apply. When you later said "points which were raised" not stipulating which of those you were referring to, I mistakenly assumed you had taken the trouble to read what I had posted to you, and had comprehended the "redirect" aspect, along with all the rest. Otherwise, nothing I had to say there would have made sense.
Perhaps it can now? --Grocery lists do not suddenly turn canonical for reason one of those may have been secretly stashed away with cherished items actually canonical.--- What else could I have been taking about when I made example such as that BUT the religious writings found at Qumran (in this case, fragments of religious writings) ---belonging to nobody's list of canonical writings, yet found also adjacent to, sort-of among uncontested OT canon fragments (including both a complete and near-complete book of Isaiah) along with fragments of (3 different books, was it?) OT Apocrypha.
The "other religious writings" do not suddenly fall into consideration for being somebody's canon of Scripture simply for being present among fragments which are, so why should fragments of so-called deuterocanon be thought of along lines of "the persons who stashed this here MUST have considered this to be part of their collection of Holy Writ because it is with other items which are" when it is also abundantly clear, as I have taken pains to re-establish on this thread that so-called deuterocanon was considered by many within the Church as "ecclesiastical writings" explicitly spoken of to not be canonical. The deuterocanon did not get that name for nothing -- being second, secondly, not first rate, that kind of thinking could well have been the Essenes own view of those writings here in dispute, we do not know they were not. Mere presence alone is not sufficient to establish the "claim" you'd pressed, and which claim I thought you were referring to.
I was never attempting to support any idea along lines that Origin or Eusebius was author of the books of OT Apocrypha, which on this thread have had many claims made concerning OT Apocrypha.
I do see though, how I had misunderstood at one point, from your own perspective just how you had sought the phrase "the very existence of" to apply, and what specific "claim that was made", you were referring to. My mistake was thinking instead you were attempting to address something you had said yourself, as towards the existence of a few fragments of the books comprising the OT Apocrypha being held up by yourself as supposed evidence such writings were/must have been considered "canonical" scripture by those who had hidden them. I mean, that was (generally speaking) your argument at one point wasn't it? And was your own underlying premise Iscool had provided response to.
It was to that premise, and comments I had made towards that premise and argument of yours I was left with, in trying to decipher your short cryptic replies from that point on-- which by the way, contained no real effort on your part (that I could discern in context) to comprehend what it was I was saying (yourself being too caught up in focus upon conversation you were having with Iscool, where you thought you had all the "wins" of the thread neatly in your grasp?) as evidenced by lack on your part of providing any acknowledgement of what my own initial comment to you was all about, towards which you could have then either conceded some point, or else made some attempt towards refutation of the points which I had tried to draw (redirect) your attention towards.
Your own lack of specificity and clarity in this regard (while you apparently have been ignoring (studiously?)) what else I did say, has been a major factor in this misunderstanding. You want everything to revolve around yourself? Then be more clear as you go along, rather than making vague comments, expecting others to always be able to understand what you intend to mean.
It's funny though, Elsie can do something of the same, and I usually understand him perfectly well, though many others over the years have seemed frequently unable to. Perhaps he is easier to understand (in wide ranging commentary, where one must continually go to other thread pages to read comments being replied to, etc.,) because he doesn't try to play games.
The way YOU recount/replay conversations can be very difficult to decipher just who is saying what to who, and what it all means, in part due to your posting style itself alone, and yet more also in the way you have of quoting a sentence fragment of what someone has said, figuratively pointing to that fragment as if it is truly representative of what somebody did actually intend to say. Often your treatment of others statements is truncated to the extreme it would seem you were trying to shove just one sentence fragment back at them -- and you do-- specially when it serves to help everyone be distracted from things you'd apparently rather prefer people not get a close look at. As such, it comes across to me as 'forum technique' and cynical manipulation Other than failure on my part to explicitly stipulate I was not supporting that 'Origin and Eusebius' comment when highlighting it, nor intending my own comments to revolve somewhere in vicinity of that (I was expecting you'd be able to grasp that on your own, mr. reading comprehension) it is no real fault of my own beyond what I have just mentioned. Nor is some alleged lack of reading comprehension on my part chief cause, but as much or even more what's at fault is your own periodic, yet frequent lack of clarity, and seeming lack of comprehension which seems to crop up only when it would be convenient to you to ignore something --so you could focus instead upon a perceived weakness --in order to exploit the same to the fullest -- and here we are. Are you happy now? You thought you found what you were hoping to find? In regards to myself, you missed it as surely as you missed my attempt to redirect away from nonsense.
You failed to catch sight of that effort on my own part to redirect away from the patently ridiculous claim, seeming now to insist that I be saddled with it. Guess what? I am not...had never even tried the blasted contraption on for size.
=Another factor leading to this most recent misunderstanding, is that you've long been so poisonous, I can hardly stand the sight of anything you care to write. There's always some faulty statement, some flawed premise a person stumbling upon a 'religion forum' thread will commit to, that if you are present, you will zero-in upon, causing everything to be polluted by discussions of that, coupled with the usual generous insults towards the intelligence of any who dare oppose your own positions.
It appears to me that you do so on purpose, milking it for all it's worth quite deliberately, thus was an underlying motivation FOR my initial attempt to redirect the conversation away from that sort of thing, and try to bring it back towards contemplation of overlooked, neglected factors that served to rebut your own initial, apparent premises.
Get it, now?