Harmonious
Well-Known Member
No, Smoky. My understanding was my understanding. Your message intended was not the message received, and you did nothing to help get YOUR message across. You insulted me and my intelligence, and the post you pointed to as your "proof" to me was only more of the same.
That was not a lie. However, you were duly ungracious. I still believe that you lied, and there was no question that you DID insult me.
This is not up for debate. There is nothing you can say that will change my mind on this point, so don't bother trying.
This is true. I won't deny it.
However, this only came AFTER pages and pages and pages of what he considered sincere refutation.
You can't know that what he says isn't sincere. You can't know what is in his heart.
He presents his arguments better than you present yours. And after hundreds of posts on the same topic, his logic makes more sense to me than yours does.
Have I been duped? Only if you believe that someone believing in the argument that isn't yours is logically considered to be "duped" into anything.
You know, that can only be said by someone by someone who is unfamiliar with the process of gaining such a degree.
There are checks, balances, and other things of all sorts. A person can't acquire a PhD in anything without a LOT of work. I wonder if you have ever tried for such a thing.
It occurs to me that, for all your studying, you have NOT spent a lot of time in academia. You might have gotten a BA of sorts, but having worked on getting a Masters Degree, I know that it takes a LOT of work, reading, and proving all kinds of work.
And a PhD is that much harder to get. They aren't given out like after dinner mints, you know.
Actually... I would suggest that they are differences of opinion. You don't know that his theology is bankrupt. It is merely different than yours. And there are over 30,000 types of Protestantism. You are going to state that his different conclusion to yours is heresy and expect to be taken seriously?
Perhaps for your understanding of Christianity, I'm sure. Is that true across the board? Probably not.
I understand the feelings you are expressing, though. Torah Judaism is made up of various beliefs, and there are "Biblical scholars" who reach conclusions that Orthodox Jews never would. They are convinced that the Five Books of Moses are actually written by four different authors, and all kinds of bizarre things.
I would also say that their conclusions are bankrupt. For the same token, I would not say that they haven't studied. I WOULD say that they have come to the wrong conclusion, and that anyone who takes Judaism seriously would reject what they have to say.
But I've been told years ago (the last time I took part in this type of debate here in the Religious Education Forum), that my opinion was merely that: my opinion. There are opinions out there which are not Orthodox, and I would indeed consider heretical.
While it pains me to know that such people are out there that hold such beliefs... Their beliefs are their own. And while I would never agree with their conclusions, it would be ridiculous to assume that their scholarship doesn't exist.
It just wouldn't be in the same universe of my beliefs.
According to YOUR belief in the NT.
That may be. However, your using a known translation, albeit one you both consider is good, is not the same as understanding the words in their own language.
As long as you can only use a translation, you are not actually focused on the actual words at all. You are focused on an interpretation of the words.
No translation is perfect, and things do, indeed, get lost in translation. You both agree that the interpretation of the NIV translation is useful.
But as long as you can't read the actual Hebrew or Greek, you aren't doing all the work. You are using someone else's understanding.
And while that is perfectly okay, you can't say that someone who knows the translation of what he's looking at is less informed than you, who can only use a translation, even if you agree that it is a good translation.
Of course. Because every translation is an interpretation. And, apparently, angellous's belief is different than those who interpreted the translation through the NIV lens.
Understood. And while he agrees that they are good, they disagree with interpretation.
That much is also clear.
It takes two to sustain an argument. Angellous has frequently asked you to stop. And after a while of realizing that you were NOT going to stop, he decided to have fun at your expense.
While I don't agree with his tactic, I understand it.
My understanding of the issue is as I've seen it. And I believe other people who have been watching this agree with me.
I don't particularly care about the sources, one way or another.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I've never given an impression that I believe your interpretation, angellous's interpretation, the NIV's interpretation, or any such thing.
I HAVE stated that you presented the NIV's interpretation as YOUR OWN KNOWLEDGE, and while I'll readily agree that it is a resource you have at your fingertips, you can't say that you didn't presume to say that the NIV was YOUR knowledge.
It would have been correct to say that it was the source of your knowledge.
Don't care enough. Truly.
You seem to ignore the fact that I've said that I don't have a dog in this fight. You seem to believe that I'm "siding with angellous against you."
Actually, I've read what he said, and it makes sense to me.
Will I agree with it? Who knows? I'm not Christian, and ultimately, "the right interpretation" of the gospels is meaningless to me.
As far as I'm concerned, all of it is really bad fan fiction, conceived of by people who were unfamiliar with the customs, characters, and character types involved in the world they were writing in.
Again, I'll concede that it isn't the most flattering way to explain it, but that is my belief about the gospels.
That's true enough.
Of course I am. I'm not in it for the truth value of what either of you believes in the NT.
But I CAN read what you've written, and I CAN say that what I've read makes logical sense, whether or not I agree with it.
I've said as much, and even granted frubals over it.
And, on the whole, angellous's presentation is better than yours.
Last edited:
