Did Pontius Pilate exist?

[outhouse]

They wouldn't be Jewish if they didn't convert, they would have known what "Judaism" means.



Then that is not converting to Judaism, there is a difference.



No, they would have viewed themselves as non-Jews practicing a faith similar to Judaism.




No, "Jews" up until recently were only considered such if they were ethnic Jews or straight converts, not Christians or any other non-Jews practicing a faith similar to Judaism. 'Judaism' as I've stated before is reliant on the Torah laws to distinguish itself from other sects of Abrahamic religions.

Your missing the point.

these Hellenistic people were worshipping Judaism for generations. They knew the religion as well and understood it as any other Jew does. Some of these people did convert fully to Judaism, but the majority of these people did not, and that is exactly who Paul took his message too.

If your father had worshipped the monotheistic god under Judaism, and you did all your life born into it, and you taught your children Judaism, you would think you were Jewish as you were a follower of Judaism and it was all you had known.


Again one more time, Judaism before the temple fell was wide and diverse and open. There were almost as many beliefs as there is imagination for such. All based on geographic location more then anything else. Typical Judaism in one place was much different then others during this period. Saducees had is so perverted it didnt even ressemble typical Judaism nor the beliefs they followed, but viewed thmeselves as Jews. You had sects like John teaching one way, Jesus teaching his way, and a thousand others all teaching their own version.

Wide diversity with different levels of adherance to the Noahide laws, so when some Hellenistic people wanted to worship the same way, they could and did.


the names they were called all had to do with who was calling said name or phrase

 

[steeltoes]

To a point, yes. The Gospel writers and Paul both saw Jesus as Christ. Now, they did have different perspectives on what this meant. Even the Gospel writers had different perspectives on what this meant. Even today, when talking about scholars on the subject, they have different perspectives on the issue.

So it is the same Jesus, the perspective just changes. While the Gospels give a biographical glance at the life of Jesus (and really, the focus is still the death and resurrection), Paul's focus is the resurrected Jesus. And for the Gospel writers, this is really what mattered as well. If it wasn't believed that Jesus was resurrected, no one would have written a Gospel about him.

What Jesus did Paul see? Was Paul's Jesus from Nazareth? I ask because he never mentioned Nazareth, disciples, Mary, Judas, Joseph, Galilee, nor do any of the epistle writers. G. A. Wells brings this up as well as few others, Doherty, Price, and so I was wondering if Paul was aware of this Jesus from Nazareth. Wells see an historical Jesus behind Q but does not think that Paul's Christ is the same. How can we know for sure, or can we know for sure?

 

[Quagmire]

If you'd rather call it an underlying religious assumption, that's fine with me.

No: I'd rather call it what I called it. That's why I called it that.

How about addressing it in that context?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

No: I'd rather call it what I called it. That's why I called it that.

How about addressing it in that context?

Sorry but you've lost me. You're welcome to formulate a specific question, though, and I'll try to answer as best I can. What is your question?

 

[Desert Snake]

Wide diversity with different levels of adherance to the Noahide laws, so when some Hellenistic people wanted to worship the same way, they could and did.

Noahide laws= "righteous Gentiles". 'gentiles' being the key word here.

the names they were called all had to do with who was calling said name or phrase

O.k.

 

[Quagmire]

Sorry but you've lost me. You're welcome to formulate a specific question, though, and I'll try to answer as best I can. What is your question?

OK, I'll backtrack then.

Outhouse posted this:

But in its native language if it was ever told in aramaic, would have lost some meaning going to hebrew, then to greek, then to english. who knows how much it may have been facricated or redacted along the way.

You responded with this:

Yeah, that's the way I feel about virtually all of the Bible. Plus, I don't really get the underlying assumption -- that words themselves can somehow be holy, that they can somehow contain a set meaning which we can all reliably find if only we work hard enough.
.

In the above post, it seems clear that you're suggesting that there's some sort of universally shared predisposition to view the bible as the literal "Word of God" among all people in all places. Now, while this is undeniably the case in many cultures and subcultures--- that of the American Bible Belt being the one that most immediately comes to mind---I would suggest that this is a region specific or culturally specific handicap (and IMO, for the sake of researching anything biblical it's fair to call it a handicap).

To suggest that all scholars everywhere are laboring under the same handicap is, IMO, extremely unreasonable.

What I'm saying in my previous reply here. . . :

That isn't an underlying assumption, it's a religious assumption.

. . . is that it isn't an assumption that's somehow just naturally and unavoidably inherent in the human psyche (although I can understand how it might seem that way to anyone who was raised in an area or culture that meets the descriptions I gave above), it's am underlying assumption specific to people raised in certain places under certain conditions. So, to dismiss all bible scholars everywhere on those grounds is also extremely unreasonable.

 

[Desert Snake]

Your missing the point.

these Hellenistic people were worshipping Judaism for generations. They knew the religion as well and understood it as any other Jew does. Some of these people did convert fully to Judaism, but the majority of these people did not, and that is exactly who Paul took his message too.

O.k... and? btw are you getting Roman and Greek converts to Judaism mixed up with B'nei Noah? Because I'm not getting your point, you're right.

 

[fallingblood]

What Jesus did Paul see? Was Paul's Jesus from Nazareth? I ask because he never mentioned Nazareth, disciples, Mary, Judas, Joseph, Galilee, nor do any of the epistle writers. G. A. Wells brings this up as well as few others, Doherty, Price, and so I was wondering if Paul was aware of this Jesus from Nazareth. Wells see an historical Jesus behind Q but does not think that Paul's Christ is the same. How can we know for sure, or can we know for sure?

Exactly what Paul thought of Jesus we can't know. We just don't have that information. It must be remembered though that we only have a very small portion of what Paul thought and preached. And even with the letters, we only have one side of a conversation, and sometimes not even that (as we do miss much of Paul's thoughts as we only have a few letters, and in some cases, he does refer back to those that we don't have). It must also be remembered that Paul was pretty much only addressing the concerns and questions that were brought up. This should lead one to the safe assumption that either people already knew the life of Jesus, or it just wasn't too important for the time being.

We can't be sure if Paul knew that Jesus was from Nazareth. It is a possibility he did, but there doesn't seem to be reason for him to mention such if he did. Paul also doesn't mention the name of the mother of Jesus, as you point out. This could actually be because, as some have suggested (and this goes even more convincingly for Joseph) because no one actually knew who the mother and father were (as in their names. Joseph disappears very early on in the Gospels, and Mary doesn't play a large role either). But Paul does mention the disciples. Specifically, he mentions Peter (Cephas), and John. He also mentions James, the brother of Jesus (and briefly mentions other brothers, but doesn't say much about them or their names).

Paul does not really go on about the disciples though, besides the most basic information (such as Jesus appearing to them). It could be that many of them simply dissented after Jesus died, and only a few were left (such as Peter and John). He also makes a mention of the disciple who betrayed Jesus, but he does not name him. However, all of this could be because it simply wasn't important to name the names of individuals everyone already knew. That, or maybe there was a rift that was created, and no one wanted to talk about the people who left. But Paul does make brief mentions.

We can be sure that the Jesus/Christ Paul is talking about is the same as the one that the Gospel writers are though. The main connection is what Paul finds most important; the crucifixion and resurrection. This was not a common occurrence, and the fact that both Paul, and the Gospel writers place this in pretty much the same time period (the Gospels do this much easier by giving the details, but Paul, by telling us that the brother of Jesus was still alive, does do this as well). Add to that that we do know that a lead disciple was Peter (both the Gospels and Paul agree on this), and that he was claimed to be the descendant of David, there is good reason to accept that both Paul and the Gospel writers are talking about the same person. If there was any doubt left, Acts really solidifies this as Acts directly places the two into conjunction.

 

[steeltoes]

Exactly what Paul thought of Jesus we can't know. We just don't have that information. It must be remembered though that we only have a very small portion of what Paul thought and preached. And even with the letters, we only have one side of a conversation, and sometimes not even that (as we do miss much of Paul's thoughts as we only have a few letters, and in some cases, he does refer back to those that we don't have). It must also be remembered that Paul was pretty much only addressing the concerns and questions that were brought up. This should lead one to the safe assumption that either people already knew the life of Jesus, or it just wasn't too important for the time being.

We can't be sure if Paul knew that Jesus was from Nazareth. It is a possibility he did, but there doesn't seem to be reason for him to mention such if he did. Paul also doesn't mention the name of the mother of Jesus, as you point out. This could actually be because, as some have suggested (and this goes even more convincingly for Joseph) because no one actually knew who the mother and father were (as in their names. Joseph disappears very early on in the Gospels, and Mary doesn't play a large role either). But Paul does mention the disciples. Specifically, he mentions Peter (Cephas), and John. He also mentions James, the brother of Jesus (and briefly mentions other brothers, but doesn't say much about them or their names).

Paul does not really go on about the disciples though, besides the most basic information (such as Jesus appearing to them). It could be that many of them simply dissented after Jesus died, and only a few were left (such as Peter and John). He also makes a mention of the disciple who betrayed Jesus, but he does not name him. However, all of this could be because it simply wasn't important to name the names of individuals everyone already knew. That, or maybe there was a rift that was created, and no one wanted to talk about the people who left. But Paul does make brief mentions.

We can be sure that the Jesus/Christ Paul is talking about is the same as the one that the Gospel writers are though. The main connection is what Paul finds most important; the crucifixion and resurrection. This was not a common occurrence, and the fact that both Paul, and the Gospel writers place this in pretty much the same time period (the Gospels do this much easier by giving the details, but Paul, by telling us that the brother of Jesus was still alive, does do this as well). Add to that that we do know that a lead disciple was Peter (both the Gospels and Paul agree on this), and that he was claimed to be the descendant of David, there is good reason to accept that both Paul and the Gospel writers are talking about the same person. If there was any doubt left, Acts really solidifies this as Acts directly places the two into conjunction.

OK, that's understandable but Wells challenges every one of your points, for example none of the epistle writers mention disciples, Paul refers to apostles as no different than himself other than that some were apostles before him. He describes those that have witnessed a resurrected Christ as having the same experience as his. No one in Pauls' recent past witnessed a crucified Christ. Wells points out that many assume Peter, James, and John were disciples because they have read the gospels however Paul did not have the luxury of reading the gospels, they weren't written until after he died and not well known for going on one hundred years after he died. There could be reasons why the names of the apostles are repeated in the gospels as disciples of Jesus but not necessarily for the reasons most people assume. We learn from Paul that apostles such as himself and Peter were appointed by God with no mention of any Jesus in the process.

Basically what Wells does is read the epistles without any preconceived ideas from having read the gospels, he reads about a Christ that Paul described without any preconceived ideas of already knowing all about this Christ, which no one could have known since they did not have the luxury as we have of having read the gospels. The author of GMark placed Jesus' time just before Pauls' but from reading Paul it appears that it could have been news to him. I didn't cover all of your points but these are plenty for now. I understand your view but there are other views out there, and reading the epistles for what they say with fewer assumptions about what they mean from our perspective might be a view worth looking closer at.

 

[Desert Snake]

I think there is skepticism of some of the Gospels for these reasons, in fact much of the criticism of Saul-Pauls writing is from the perspective of more nebulous Scripture such as the Gospel of James and even outside of Biblical canon. If anything the realistic focus of analytical doubt pertaining to Scripture should rather be on the Gospels instead of the Epistles and Acts, I can only suspect the reason this isn't the case is that in the Gospels we have 'Jesus's teachings, and traditionally Christians were probably hesitant to call any attention to discrepancies in Scripture that would jeopardize the 'validity' of the words ascribed to Jesus himself.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

In the above post, it seems clear that you're suggesting that there's some sort of universally shared predisposition to view the bible as the literal "Word of God" among all people in all places.

OK, but I have no idea how you've come up with such an interpretation of my words. Your paraphrase of my thought is as foreign a creature as I can imagine.

Most people don't even think about the Bible, do they? I'm under the impression that Christians make up much less than half of the world population.

So we might have to hit the reset button. I'm really not understanding what you’re saying.

Now, while this is undeniably the case in many cultures and subcultures--- that of the American Bible Belt being the one that most immediately comes to mind---I would suggest that this is a region specific or culturally specific handicap (and IMO, for the sake of researching anything biblical it's fair to call it a handicap).

If I'm understanding you right, it seems obviously a region-specific or culturally-specific outlook regarding the Bible. I don't see how the Chinese or the Indians or the Indonesians would view the Bible as the literal 'Word of God.'

To suggest that all scholars everywhere are laboring under the same handicap is, IMO, extremely unreasonable.

OK. But I have no idea who would make that suggestion. I don't even understand the handicap which you seem to be discussing.

. . . is that it isn't an assumption that's somehow just naturally and unavoidably inherent in the human psyche (although I can understand how it might seem that way to anyone who was raised in an area or culture that meets the descriptions I gave above), it's am underlying assumption specific to people raised in certain places under certain conditions.

Are you still talking about the Bible? And people taking it literally? If so, we'll have to talk about what it means to 'take words literally.' That concept itself seems like magical thinking to me. No words can actually be taken literally in my view. Minds just deceive themselves into believing that words can be taken literally.

Anyway, if you and I are to exchange ideas, I think we'll have to go back and start from some shared solid ground somewhere. I'm glad to try that if you like.

 

[Quagmire]

OK, but I have no idea how you've come up with such an interpretation of my words. Your paraphrase of my thought is as foreign a creature as I can imagine.

Well then, instead of just telling me I'm wrong, how about telling me what you did mean?

Most people don't even think about the Bible, do they? I'm under the impression that Christians make up much less than half of the world population.

If you remember, we were talking specifically about people who actually do think about the bible quite a bit.

So we might have to hit the reset button. I'm really not understanding what you’re saying.

If I'm understanding you right, it seems obviously a region-specific or culturally-specific outlook regarding the Bible. I don't see how the Chinese or the Indians or the Indonesians would view the Bible as the literal 'Word of God.'

Yes, that's exactly my point (putting aside the fact that there are huge Christian populations in all of those countries).

OK. But I have no idea who would make that suggestion. I don't even understand the handicap which you seem to be discussing.

I realize you don't, but I would suggest that it might benefit you greatly if you attempted to.

Are you still talking about the Bible? And people taking it literally? If so, we'll have to talk about what it means to 'take words literally.' That concept itself seems like magical thinking to me. No words can actually be taken literally in my view. Minds just deceive themselves into believing that words can be taken literally.

We were talking about the alleged universal assumption that the Bible is supposed to be considered the literal word of God, or: literally the word of God (works either way).

For the sake of that discussion the fact that words themselves are merely symbols shouldn't matter.

Anyway, if you and I are to exchange ideas, I think we'll have to go back and start from some shared solid ground somewhere. I'm glad to try that if you like.

That's way too vague for me to give it a yea or a nay, but if you want to start I'll take a look.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Well then, instead of just telling me I'm wrong, how about telling me what you did mean?

Because I have no idea what you are asking me. Could you possibly formulate some specific question and ask me the question? Otherwise, I've got no clue how to respond to you.

If you remember, we were talking specifically about people who actually do think about the bible quite a bit.

No, I don’t remember that. I can only remember you claiming that we were talking about such people.

Anyway, could you just ask whatever question you’re wanting to know about?

Yes, that's exactly my point (putting aside the fact that there are huge Christian populations in all of those countries).

OK, but I’m wondering why it is your point. It seems so obvious, as if your point is that the moon is roundish. If it will help us move forward, I'll be happy to concede that the moon seems roundish and that Bible belief seems mostly culture-specific.

I realize you don't, but I would suggest that it might benefit you greatly if you attempted to.

To understand you? But that is exactly what I am doing. It’s just that you don’t seem to be talking at all about what I’m talking about, plus you are using language in ways which seem so vague to me. Can you ask me some specific question about my beliefs? Then maybe we can align our minds onto the same general subject.

We were talking about the alleged universal assumption that the Bible is supposed to be considered the literal word of God, or: literally the word of God (works either way).

Well, I don’t remember talking about that. To me, it seems that you suddenly, out of the blue, began talking about it as if it were the topic of discussion.

I’m entirely lost. What do you want to discuss exactly?

 

[Quagmire]

Because I have no idea what you are asking me. Could you possibly formulate some specific question and ask me the question? Otherwise, I've got no clue how to respond to you.

No, I don’t remember that. I can only remember you claiming that we were talking about such people.

Anyway, could you just ask whatever question you’re wanting to know about?

I wasn't trying to ask you a question, I was just commenting on some things that you said. Now you're saying you never said them so I don't know where to go from here.

OK, but I’m wondering why it is your point.

Because it's my point and it seemed like you needed to have it pointed out.

It seems so obvious,

You were acting like it wasn't.

as if your point is that the moon is roundish. If it will help us move forward, I'll be happy to concede that the moon seems roundish and that Bible belief seems mostly culture-specific.

No need to get snippy . I'm being as clear as I can be.

To understand you?

No, to understand the mindset I described.

But that is exactly what I am doing. It’s just that you don’t seem to be talking at all about what I’m talking about, plus you are using language in ways which seem so vague to me. Can you ask me some specific question about my beliefs?

OK. I'll try to go back to my original point and see if there's any way to phrase it as a question, Alex.

Then maybe we can align our minds onto the same general subject.

Well, I don’t remember talking about that.

OK, here ya go then:

Yeah, that's the way I feel about virtually all of the Bible. Plus, I don't really get the underlying assumption -- that words themselves can somehow be holy, that they can somehow contain a set meaning which we can all reliably find if only we work hard enough.

To me, it seems that you suddenly, out of the blue, began talking about it as if it were the topic of discussion.

I’m entirely lost. What do you want to discuss exactly?

Never mind then. Although I have to say if you're this reluctant to discuss the points you bring up, why bring them up in the first place?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I wasn't trying to ask you a question, I was just commenting on some things that you said. Now you're saying you never said them so I don't know where to go from here.

Maybe you could go back and try to figure out why you believe that I said things which I never actually said? I'm afraid that's really all I can suggest.

Because it's my point and it seemed like you needed to have it pointed out.

Well, OK. I learned as a child that the moon is roundish and that Bible belief is culture-specific, but thanks for pointing it out again, I guess.

You were acting like it wasn't.

Well, that's not how it seems to me. As best I can determine, you just got confused about how I was acting. Really I have no idea where you got the notion about the cultural specificity of Bible belief.

Never mind then. Although I have to say if you're this reluctant to discuss the points you bring up, why bring them up in the first place?

Actually I'm overjoyed at the thought of discussing the points I bring up. I am even elated at the thought of discussing the weird stuff which you incorrectly claim that I have brought up. But I can't discuss matters which don't even make sense to me.

Do you have any specific question you'd like to ask me about my beliefs?

If not, just for fun, I am willing to defend the weird and seemingly indefensible position that "Bible-belief is not cultural specific."

Or I'll defend the opposite side, although that would be pretty boring for me, like defending the roundness of the moon.

Whatever. Just let me know what you want to discuss.

 

[Quagmire]

Maybe you could go back and try to figure out why you believe that I said things which I never actually said? I'm afraid that's really all I can suggest.

I've actually shown you what you said a couple of times now. (Heck, maybe third times a charm):

OK: you said:

Yeah, that's the way I feel about virtually all of the Bible. Plus, I don't really get the underlying assumption -- that words themselves can somehow be holy, that they can somehow contain a set meaning which we can all reliably find if only we work hard enough.

Which, in light of the post you were responding to, I took to mean that you were applying some sort of universal predisposition among scholars to interpret the Bible as "holy", which, in light of the usual implications of the term in reference to the topic would also mean literal.

If that isn't what you meant to imply, my bad. Feel free to clarify.

Anyway, my counter-point was/is:

that isn't an underlying assumption, it's a religious assumption

And I've already explained in great deal what I meant by that.

Well, OK. I learned as a child that the moon is roundish and that Bible belief is culture-specific, but thanks for pointing it out again, I guess.

You're welcome.

Well, that's not how it seems to me. As best I can determine, you just got confused about how I was acting. Really I have no idea where you got the notion about the cultural specificity of Bible belief.

(emphasis mine)

Wait, so now you're denying that certain elements of "Bible belief" are specific to culture? correct me if I'm wrong but in the previous paragraph you not only acknowledged it you basically implied that it's a given.

Actually I'm overjoyed at the thought of discussing the points I bring up. I am even elated at the thought of discussing the weird stuff which you incorrectly claim that I have brought up. But I can't discuss matters which don't even make sense to me.

You're entitled to that opinion, I guess.

Do you have any specific question you'd like to ask me about my beliefs?

Not really. I'd rather discuss the point you brought up and the counter-point I offered.

If not, just for fun, I am willing to defend the weird and seemingly indefensible position that "Bible-belief is not cultural specific."

No need to play devil's advocate. I'd settle for a clear reply to my counter-point.

Or I'll defend the opposite side, although that would be pretty boring for me, like defending the roundness of the moon.

Whatever. Just let me know what you want to discuss.

Okie doke.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Which, in light of the post you were responding to, I took to mean that you were applying some sort of universal predisposition among scholars to interpret the Bible as "holy", which, in light of the usual implications of the term in reference to the topic would also mean literal.

Ah. You thought I was talking about Biblical scholars? And about the Bible specifically? And you thought I was saying that all scholars everywhere interpret the Bible literally, or try to?

None of that stuff reminds me of anything I was trying to say at the time. As I recall, I didn't even have scholars on my mind. I was thinking of regular people when I spoke about the way people think of language as capable of holding a set meaning.

But let me say one more time that if you want to ask me any clarifying question about my thought and my meaning, I encourage you to do that. I love to be questioned about that stuff.But going back to a dialogue I was having with outhouse and trying to translate what I was saying to him in a certain body of text into the language and thought of Quagmire?

Why not simply ask me what I think? Then we can have a clean dialogue about our worldviews.

If that isn't what you meant to imply, my bad. Feel free to clarify.

I'm happy to clarify. Just ask me a specific question. Asking me 'to clarify' is kinda like when my mama would walk up to me and ask me to explain myself. I always had to ask her, "What part?"

So if you have questions about the thing I said to outhouse, please ask them, but you'll have to make your questions specific.

Wait, so now you're denying that certain elements of "Bible belief" are specific to culture? correct me if I'm wrong but in the previous paragraph you not only acknowledged it you basically implied that it's a given.

Yo. We really do seem to speak different languages, even if the words appear to be similar.

No, I was wondering where you came up with the subject of the culture-specificity of Bible belief. It had nothing to do with anything I said, so I was wondering how and why you began talking about it. From my perspective it just seemed pretty weird that you starting talking about it. I still don't understand which dots you connected to bring us to a discussion of it.

But whatever. It's not important to me. I was just a little curious.

 

[Quagmire]

Ah. You thought I was talking about Biblical scholars? And about the Bible specifically? And you thought I was saying that all scholars everywhere interpret the Bible literally, or try to?

Actually, since your post was in response to this post by Outhouse. . .:

But in its native language if it was ever told in aramaic, would have lost some meaning going to hebrew, then to greek, then to english. who knows how much it may have been facricated or redacted along the way.

. . . we would have to include anyone who's ever translated, edited, studied, or for that matter even read the Bible.

None of that stuff reminds me of anything I was trying to say at the time. As I recall, I didn't even have scholars on my mind. I was thinking of regular people when I spoke about the way people think of language as capable of holding a set meaning.

Hmmmmm, I'll take your word for that, but I still think this is an odd way of expressing that idea:

that words themselves can somehow be holy, that they can somehow contain a set meaning which we can all reliably find if only we work hard enough.

If that actually is what you were trying to say, it seems like there are all kinds of unnecessary connotations thrown in with it.

So you weren't talking specifically about the alleged "holiness" of the writings in the Bible itself (even though the person you were responding to was in fact talking specifically about the Bible) you were just talking about language in general?

In that case, referring to it as "an underlying assumption" seems a rather inappropriately specific designation.

But let me say one more time that if you want to ask me any clarifying question about my thought and my meaning, I encourage you to do that. I love to be questioned about that stuff.But going back to a dialogue I was having with outhouse and trying to translate what I was saying to him in a certain body of text into the language and thought of Quagmire?

Well, any recognizable dialect of Earthling would probably be a big step in the right direction.

Why not simply ask me what I think? Then we can have a clean dialogue about our worldviews.

Well, tbh, considering the linguistic labyrinth that just developed over such a simple and specific observation on my part, I'm a little hesitant to spark a discussion on any topic with a broader scope.

I'm happy to clarify. Just ask me a specific question. Asking me 'to clarify' is kinda like when my mama would walk up to me and ask me to explain myself. I always had to ask her, "What part?"

So if you have questions about the thing I said to outhouse, please ask them, but you'll have to make your questions specific.

Thats OK. Looks to me like you've already answered my question as clearly as you intend to.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Thats OK. Looks to me like you've already answered my question as clearly as you intend to.

OK, thanks. I always intend to answer 100% clearly (except for those instances when I mean to obfuscate, I mean, which this is not an instance of), so I'm happy that I've clarified it for you.

All things work out in the end.

 

[Quagmire]

OK, thanks. I always intend to answer 100% clearly (except for those instances when I mean to obfuscate, I mean, which this is not an instance of),

I'll go ahead and have this conversation bronzed then.

so I'm happy that I've clarified it for you.

Well, be happy anyway. :yes: