Replies

In reading some of your previous posts, I had the impression that you were a serious person. Your attempt to set -up a straw man argument here, disabuses me of this notion.

You are the one attempting to set up strawmen. A very simple point about Semitic languages and what they may have meant by the terms that were translated into English becomes, to you, an attempt to say that we say the entire Bible is therefore unintelligble.

The man who calls himself Cronos puts Bible believing Christians with Moslems rather stupidly.

No, he merely pointed out that Islam began as a Christian heresey, exposing the historical ignorance of a "Bible" Christian.

And you make a false statement about how my position does not allow for any textual understanding of the Holy Bible because I do not agree that brothers and sisters means not brothers and sisters.

Why didn't you say that, instead of:

To make a snide comment about how the reader does not understand the terminology used in the Middle East is rather lame. If this is a prerequisite, then the whole Bible- thing is out since it is kind of based there and the terminology of THE ENTIRE THING would be , in your view, unintelligible.

In this passage you make no attempt to make a linguistic argument about what the words may mean. Instead, you call a Catholic pointing out that the words are not original in the English and may have a different meaning "snide" and "lame."

So who's using cheap tactics?

You then use the word "prerequisite" and dismiss the notion that one needs to have a knowledge of the original languages in some places to help us understand the English. You jump from there to saying that if we ask others to consider what the original words in some key sections mean, this means we are saying the entire Bible is unintelligible in English.

You know that you are simply avoiding the facts that I offer.

What facts have you offered? Do you mean this?

However, Islam holds this position, it is mentioned in the quran (3:47) that Mary remained a virgin, unlike the heretics who cannot understand the middle-eastern conotation of Matthew 1:25 and Luke 2:7 and come away thinking that the words mean what they say.

Pardon me for thinking this through, but it seems if other Semitic people can follow the language and conclude that Mary was a perpetual virgin this actually argues for our interpretation of the text and against your "plain English" methodology.

Your tactics are easy , cheap and false.

I merely returned what I saw from you.

The man who calls himself Cronos puts Bible believing Christians with Moslems rather stupidly.

No, he merely pointed out that Islam began as a Christian heresey, exposing the historical ignorance of a "Bible" Christian.

Certainly, ... such a view is quite debatable, ... as Mohammed was never a christian, ... and it is apparent that he only selectively referenced portions of either Jewish and/or Christian belief ... in the course of promulgating his new revelation (i.e. Islam).

In fact ... I believe that it would be more accurate to say that Islam is more connected to Judaism, rather than Chrisitanity ... seeing as Mohammed only accorded Jesus the role of prophet.

As the original scriptures were plainly not written in the language that we are using, the entire Bible is a translation. This is obvious. The questions arise when there are different possibilities of emphasis, nuance, contextual meaning, among other thing. For Cronos to simply bat away the question regarding the meaning of Brothers and Sisters with " you don't get that it means cousin" is not much of a response. You are plainly not interested in convincing others, as you are already on board what you believe to be the one true church and do not think you should try to make your points winsomely. The notion that one is historically illiterate not to concur with Bellocs premise that Islam and Protestantism are related " heresies" is more of you talking to yourself. That is an opinion, not a commonly held view.
I am confused by your then citing the ,in my opinion, false religion of Islam to bolster your Marian beliefs.
You stated in your " disclosure" that you had succumbed to the lies of the Navigators. To lie is to intend to deceive
this implies that they knew that what they told you was not so and did it anyway. Do you actually believe that? I do not believe that the serious Catholics here are lying. I believe that we both see the evidence of reality and Scripture and come away with different takes. Someone has to be wrong on the issues that are absolute. But to say they lied to you shows no charity, and will repel those trying to engage in discussion about points, both doctrinal and theological.