« first day (453 days earlier)      last day (4297 days later) » 

Monica Cellio
Monica Cellio
12:14 AM
@swasheck Sorry, but which comment (or question) are you talking about? I'm being slow today.
Oh, never mind -- I see it now. (When SE added the "activity" tab to the profile they made things like this easier!) I don't think it's too harsh, though I wonder if the poster is coming back since he hasn't responded to other earlier comments either.
 
6 hours later…
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
6:36 AM
David, I find your answer to be based on a straw man ("All of the ecclesiastical authorities interpret eight days." who?), slides a bit of a slippery slope (the leavening comment, and a failure to recognize the inherent differences between the situations provided), and may even misrepresent the perspective of the aforementioned straw man (why can't eight days be "partial" days?). I'd personally appreciate a bit more thoughtfulness and substance (other than self-citations that contain scant secondary sources) rather than flimsy "I believe." This is not a place for creeds, but for research — swasheck 8 hours ago
I think it is this one
 
2 hours later…
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
8:22 AM
Was there a question on the 'Gospel of Jesus Wife' fragment discovery?
I didn't notice the follow-up in the press at the time:
guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/oct/16/…
Wondered if the question/answers had caught up?
 
9 hours later…
swasheck
swasheck
5:43 PM
@JackDouglas so was that bad? :)
@JackDouglas i remember there being a question about it
Monica Cellio
Monica Cellio
6:27 PM
@JackDouglas, here's a current example of an answer that seems to me to be doctrinal and not hermeneutical -- basically just his opinion and he doesn't bring sources for the part the question asked about. What's your take on this? (This isn't the "editing" discussion as it needs a rewrite; this is the "doctrinal answers" discussion.) hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/2869/208

« first day (453 days earlier)      last day (4297 days later) »