Heaven

Originally posted by no1marauder
relying on passages distant in time and with different authors

Actually, I think some of St. Paul's epistles actually pre-date the Gospels chronologically.

Also, you haven't addressed the point of why something that connotes a denial in English usage should connote a denial in another language. A straightforward denial would be a denial in any other language.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Actually, I think some of St. Paul's epistles actually pre-date the Gospels chronologically.

Also, you haven't addressed the point of why something that connotes a denial in English usage should connote a denial in another language. A straightforward denial would be a denial in any other language.

Pre-dating doesn't mean NOT distant in time, LH.

I feel no need to deal with hypotheticals here; if someone who understands Greek and as the original words of Matthew wants to give a translation, I'll look at it. Until they do I'll assume that the translations, all of which I've seen put the passage in almost the same words, are correctly giving the sense of what was spoken.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Pre-dating doesn't mean NOT distant in time, LH.

I feel no need to deal with hypotheticals here; if someone who understands Greek and as the original words of Matthew wants to give a translation, I'll look at it. Until they do I'll assume that the translations, all of which I've seen put the passage in almost the same words, are correctly giving the sense of what was spoken.

Of course.

So, anyone know Greek or Hebrew here?

Nemesio? vistesd? Wulebgr?

Originally posted by Coletti
You can only come to that interpretation by ignoring the intent of the author - and you have given no reason for doing so. I have given two additional valid interpretations and shown how one is clearly consistent with the rest of the text. So it is your preconceived notions that dictate your understanding. You don't even apply your own standards of interpretation.

LMFAO! You are ASSUMING the intent of the author based on other writings not even penned by the same author! You have given an interpretation that says Jesus was saying the exact opposite of what his words would mean to any reasonable hearer of them. And your proof? Other writings distant in time and by different authors that don't even address the specific point! Only in Humpty Dumpty-Coletti Land is that a valid way to interpret documents.

I have no preconceived ideas on Christian dogma; it would be of little import to me if Jesus said he was God. Your whole belief system, however, is based on Jesus being God which is why you resist so strenously the clear meaning of the passage. BTW, you also never addressed the point if he was God how come he didn't know the hour and the day of his Second Coming as stated in Matthew 24.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Pre-dating doesn't mean NOT distant in time, LH.

I feel no need to deal with hypotheticals here; if someone who understands Greek and as the original words of Matthew wants to give a translation, I'll look at it. Until they do I'll assume that the translations, all of which I've seen put the passage in almost the same words, are correctly giving the sense of what was spoken.

The point is that it was a question in Greek translated as a question in English - and it was not translated as a denial. And you can not say that the question clearly connotes a denial in Greek (or English) or any other language the Bible has been translated to.

Originally posted by Coletti
The point is that it was a question in Greek translated as a question in English - and it was not translated as a denial. And you can not say that the question clearly connotes a denial in Greek (or English) or any other language the Bible has been translated to.

One more time, I'll put the conversation into plain English in the hopes that others aren't as far gone as you and may be able to understand it.

Lucifershammer comes up to me at the RHP Convention in sunny Las Vegas and says "Hey, Jerkwad, yadayadayada". This is an assertion that I have a characteristic; that of being a jerkwad (not true).

I respond: "Why callest me a jerkwad? There is only one who is a jerkwad and that is Coletti."

My response: A) Denies the characteristic of being a jerkwad; and B) Asserts that only one individual i.e. you - has the characteristics of being a jerkwad. Ergo, as I am denying that I have a characteristic essential to Colettiness (that of being a jerkwad), I am also implicitly stating that I am not you (shudder to think!). That, my dear Calvinistic clown, is how the English language works.

Originally posted by no1marauder
One more time, I'll put the conversation into plain English in the hopes that others aren't as far gone as you and may be able to understand it.

Lucifershammer comes up to me at the RHP Convention in sunny Las Vegas and says "Hey, Jerkwad, yadayadayada". This is an assertion that I have a characteristic; that of being a jerkwad (not ...[text shortened]... ou (shudder to think!). That, my dear Calvinistic clown, is how the English language works.

What an anology 😲

Originally posted by Nyxie
What an anology 😲

Thank you. I agree that it is a much better one than all those lottery ones Bbarr is always prattling on above; as he is a philosophy grad student and his only hope of ever feeding his family in that field would be hitting the lottery I understand his obsession with it, but it does get tiresome. I have already e-mailed this analogy to one of my old law school professors and it is being considered for inclusion in all the Trial Tactics and Methods courses for the coming academic year. About time those pointy heads saw the light!

Originally posted by no1marauder
Thank you. I agree that it is a much better one than all those lottery ones Bbarr is always prattling on above; as he is a philosophy grad student and his only hope of ever feeding his family in that field would be hitting the lottery I understand his obsession with it, but it does get tiresome.

Well, I could always become a personal injury attorney, and receive nourishment directly from the suffering of others. After all, law school is plan B for most of us philosophy grad students.

Originally posted by bbarr
Well, I could always become a personal injury attorney, and receive nourishment directly from the suffering of others. After all, law school is plan B for most of us philosophy grad students.

I guess if you wanted more respect in the community, you could go that route.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Pre-dating doesn't mean NOT distant in time, LH.

I feel no need to deal with hypotheticals here; if someone who understands Greek and as the original words of Matthew wants to give a translation, I'll look at it. Until they do I'll assume that the translations, all of which I've seen put the passage in almost the same words, are correctly giving the sense of what was spoken.

The American Greek Orthodox Church used the KJV, the last I looked.
Until I hear differently I will rely on the idea that they would correct mistranslations.

Originally posted by Nyxie
I guess if you wanted more respect in the community, you could go that route.

Ouch.

Originally posted by no1marauder
One more time, I'll put the conversation into plain English in the hopes that others aren't as far gone as you and may be able to understand it.

Lucifershammer comes up to me at the RHP Convention in sunny Las Vegas and says "Hey, Jerkwad, yadayadayada". This is an assertion that I have a characteristic; that of being a jerkwad (not ...[text shortened]... ou (shudder to think!). That, my dear Calvinistic clown, is how the English language works.

LMAO

Originally posted by bbarr
Ouch.

Sorry I owed you one, now we're even.

I actually agree with a lot of what you say, I just have a hard time following it. You must remember that some of us don't have a college degree, or much less a decent edjumacation.

What I'm asking, for my sake, and many others is : Could you dumb down a couple of these complicated issues ideas for us? I'd really like to take part in the debates without reaching for my 2 volume merriam webster.

I'd respond to you more often, but I feel intimidated by your use of the langauge. Perhaps the greatest achievement of any philisopher would be to take the greatest known truths, but yet say them in such a simple way that all could enjoy and share in thier wisdom.

Nyxie

Originally posted by no1marauder
One more time, I'll put the conversation into plain English in the hopes that others aren't as far gone as you and may be able to understand it.

Lucifershammer comes up to me at the RHP Convention in sunny Las Vegas and says "Hey, Jerkwad, yadayadayada". This is an assertion that I have a characteristic; that of being a jerkwad (not ...[text shortened]... ou (shudder to think!). That, my dear Calvinistic clown, is how the English language works.

I'm getting deja vu yet again, again.