07-11-2005, 12:40 PM
Really Dave, that was unfair to the readers, since you did not give any information in the quote.
Here is the title of the article:
Tampering with the Trinity?
Is Matt. 28:19 a Late Interpolation?
James Patrick Holding
Here is the website where the article came from:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.tektonics.org/lp/matt2819.html">http://www.tektonics.org/lp/matt2819.html</a><!-- m -->
And here is some interesting information about the author:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/2002/4/024jph.html">http://www.infidels.org/library/magazin ... 24jph.html</a><!-- m -->
He basically did about most of the same things you did Dave,
1) Pick out some scholars, use them to refute for you, hide behind them.
2) Use an "authority" type theory that paints the name of Jesus in a broader sense than just literal terms.
3) Refute the quoted church father(s) with other church father quotes around the same timeframe.
4) State the mound of manuscript evidence surrounding the baptism/trinity formula.
5) Claim complete inerrancy of the bible.
Other than use the syriac text instead of the greek, what did he not do that you did?
He also did what you did not do, use scripture to provide adequate documentation to support your position.
Sorry Dave, maybe you were on one of your "revelation" instances, but this one does not pan out.
I mean, I gotta laugh here, what your doing is completely against what any solid Christian is directed to do by our Lord, you refuse to quote scripture to solidify your position/view. The only hard evidence that you have provided to "try" and support yourself in this is a theory. "It means something other than what it says, it is tied to this other scripture over here and it has a broader meaning than the literal sense of what you read."
That is what you just said in a nutshell to us. Now if I tried that sort of dishonesty on here with you guys, you would be all over me in a heartbeat. You would be requiring me to use scripture?!
What about that new one I found Dave?:
Doesn't that go against what The Lord commanded here in your syriac text?:
That one is not part of ploughmans test. Is that keyed in with your "revelation" theory somehow though Dave? Do tell.
I do understand the essential aspect of baptism after the born again experience, but it is far from the main thing in our journey. Eusibius's quote points to teaching and discipleship as being foremost.
Anyways, your actions are telling here Dave, your choices and theories are reaching, and your refusal to use scipture for your stance was only in your worst interest here.
Ploughman has no aspect in this other than he provided a source of scripture quotations that I could utilize quicker than finding them myself. Other than that, he had no bearing on the outcome of this being in my favor, scripture did.
Here is the title of the article:
Tampering with the Trinity?
Is Matt. 28:19 a Late Interpolation?
James Patrick Holding
Here is the website where the article came from:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.tektonics.org/lp/matt2819.html">http://www.tektonics.org/lp/matt2819.html</a><!-- m -->
And here is some interesting information about the author:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/2002/4/024jph.html">http://www.infidels.org/library/magazin ... 24jph.html</a><!-- m -->
He basically did about most of the same things you did Dave,
1) Pick out some scholars, use them to refute for you, hide behind them.
2) Use an "authority" type theory that paints the name of Jesus in a broader sense than just literal terms.
3) Refute the quoted church father(s) with other church father quotes around the same timeframe.
4) State the mound of manuscript evidence surrounding the baptism/trinity formula.
5) Claim complete inerrancy of the bible.
Other than use the syriac text instead of the greek, what did he not do that you did?
He also did what you did not do, use scripture to provide adequate documentation to support your position.
Sorry Dave, maybe you were on one of your "revelation" instances, but this one does not pan out.
I mean, I gotta laugh here, what your doing is completely against what any solid Christian is directed to do by our Lord, you refuse to quote scripture to solidify your position/view. The only hard evidence that you have provided to "try" and support yourself in this is a theory. "It means something other than what it says, it is tied to this other scripture over here and it has a broader meaning than the literal sense of what you read."
That is what you just said in a nutshell to us. Now if I tried that sort of dishonesty on here with you guys, you would be all over me in a heartbeat. You would be requiring me to use scripture?!
What about that new one I found Dave?:
Quote:"For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words,...."
Doesn't that go against what The Lord commanded here in your syriac text?:
Quote:Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
That one is not part of ploughmans test. Is that keyed in with your "revelation" theory somehow though Dave? Do tell.
I do understand the essential aspect of baptism after the born again experience, but it is far from the main thing in our journey. Eusibius's quote points to teaching and discipleship as being foremost.
Anyways, your actions are telling here Dave, your choices and theories are reaching, and your refusal to use scipture for your stance was only in your worst interest here.
Ploughman has no aspect in this other than he provided a source of scripture quotations that I could utilize quicker than finding them myself. Other than that, he had no bearing on the outcome of this being in my favor, scripture did.