Phantastic Articles

[GodisonePerson]

I have been reading some of Phantasmo Sunlyk's articles on tekton, and just vibing on his groovy knowledge of the patristics. Only criticisms I have of the man's work is that he's a little quote crazy, he presents a one-sided view of the fathers, and he has totally misinterpreted Tertullian and other eminent fathers. Outside of that, Phantaz is really swingin', man. :rofl:

How's the old boy doing these days?

Cheers,
Dan

[phantaz sunlyk]

**7** WoN't YoU tAkE mE to (dah dah dah)
FuNkYtOwN!!!!!!
what's shakin' dan?

Only criticisms I have of the man's work

**8** It's yo Thang (thang)
Do What Ya Wanna Do (dah dah dah dah dah)
I Can't Tell Ya
Who To Sock It To!!!!!!!!!
nay; not "man", 'tis "manchild".


is that he's a little quote crazy,

**7** It's Yo' Night
Toooooonite
Everythang Gonna Be
Alllllllllright!!!!!!!
aye, rookie mistake. must be the "child" in me. i'll be sure and just throw together unsubstantiated claims next time. :thumb:

he presents a one-sided view of the fathers,

**8** WWWWWWWWahhhhhh!
Jump Back
Kiss M'self!!!!!!!!!!!!
placing trinitarian theology within the (interlinked) context of Christology -> Ecclessiology -> Soteriology, along with interpreting the padres in light of one another (within the above mentioned triadic template) is casting a pretty broad epistemic net into the ocean of patristics. the only thing that is missing is the idea of doctrinal development, which would hardly hurt what i've already written. other than 'dat, i have no apologies for it.
what would you recommend for changes?

and he has totally misinterpreted Tertullian and other eminent fathers.

**7** c'mon c'mon c'mon baaaaaaaby now
(come on baby)
twist and shout!!!!!!!!!!!
prove it, and try to do so utilizing as broad an epistemic framework as i have as opposed to proof-texting.

Outside of that, Phantaz is really swingin', man.

**8** rock-on-cool-man.
question: what is a booty and how do i know if i'm shaking it?

How's the old boy doing these days?

**7** very berry merry; yaself?
peace ouuuuuuuuuuuuut.

[phantaz sunlyk]

**7** yo Dan, wussup home - boy?
i was just wondering whether or not you're identical with Heinz Schmitz the quote-machine?
if so, i wanted to express my feelings of repulsion at your hypocritical underhanded tactic of playing the cry-baby when jp holding made a very innocent pun on your name (even trying to pull in Scripture in an attempt to indict him), yet you had no word of rebuke for your fellow Jehovah's Witnesses when they did the same to me at Mr. Ed(gar) Foster's cite.
p s--i've bashed two books listed on your cite (if "Dan and Heinz isOnePerson): the "brilliant" Edgar Foster's _Christology_, and Holt's "wonderful" _Jesus: God or the Son of God?_ (yet i have much respect for Brian, and don't wish to place him in the same category as you or Mr. Ed).
post, on your cite, a rebuttal to any of my articles and i'll tear you to shreds. feel free to include my sarcastic remarks on this thread in order to gain cheap victory points from your audience.
conversio ad phantasma!; personhood is a relational category.
adios chesta-cheese.

[GodisonePerson]

[QUOTE]03-10-2003 @ 10:31 PM
phantaz sunlyk:

**7** WoN't YoU tAkE mE to (dah dah dah)
FuNkYtOwN!!!!!!
what's shakin' dan?

Fortunately, not my bottom.

**7** It's Yo' Night
Toooooonite
Everythang Gonna Be
Alllllllllright!!!!!!!
aye, rookie mistake. must be the "child" in me. i'll be sure and just throw together unsubstantiated claims next time. :thumb:

Glad to see you admit that you made a "rookie mistake," Phantaz. It is a neophytic error, indeed, because only neophytes go quote crazy. A word of advice for you. Quoting someone does not mean that you've substantiated your argument. Try that stuff with any professor worth his salt and you'll find your bottom, not just shakin', but quivering.

**8** WWWWWWWWahhhhhh!
Jump Back
Kiss M'self!!!!!!!!!!!!
placing trinitarian theology within the (interlinked) context of Christology -> Ecclessiology -> Soteriology, along with interpreting the padres in light of one another (within the above mentioned triadic template) is casting a pretty broad epistemic net into the ocean of patristics. the only thing that is missing is the idea of doctrinal development, which would hardly hurt what i've already written. other than 'dat, i have no apologies for it.
what would you recommend for changes?

A little reflective skepticism would not hurt. This would entail looking at both sides of what the ante-Nicene "padres" actually wrote and not simply quoting what suits your pagan triune agenda.

**7** c'mon c'mon c'mon baaaaaaaby now
(come on baby)
twist and shout!!!!!!!!!!!
prove it, and try to do so utilizing as broad an epistemic framework as i have as opposed to proof-texting.

Why should one be committed to using a "broad epistemic framework" when the framework, in this case, is nothing more than a grid through which one illegitimately converts non trinitarian concepts or terms into ungodly triune gobbledy-gook?

Your presentation on Tertullian is clearly in error. Do I have to explain where you went wrong in your construal of "the master"?

**8** rock-on-cool-man.
question: what is a booty and how do i know if i'm shaking it?

Good question. What is a booty? Doesn't the answer depend on the context in which "booty" is used? Is there really any sure fire way to tell if you're shakin' your booty or not? Initially, we need to determine what we mean by the word "booty." You brought it up, Phantaz. Therefore, you tell us what a booty is.

Shalom,
Dan :yipee:

[GodisonePerson]

**7** yo Dan, wussup home - boy?

Not much, sir Phantaz. How is the monk business going?

:i was just wondering whether or not you're identical with Heinz Schmitz the quote-machine?:

You calling Heinz a "quote-machine"? Have you read your Nicene essay lately?

Am I identical with Heinz Schmitz? I wonder if Heinz Schmitz is even identical with Heinz Schmitz. Exactly what do you mean by identity? What type of identity do ya have in mind? Before I go spilling beans about myself, I'm curious about your background, Phantaz. I assume that Phantaz is not your real name. If it is, I sincerely apologize.

:if so, i wanted to express my feelings of repulsion at your hypocritical underhanded tactic of playing the cry-baby when jp holding made a very innocent pun on your name (even trying to pull in Scripture in an attempt to indict him), yet you had no word of rebuke for your fellow Jehovah's Witnesses when they did the same to me at Mr. Ed(gar) Foster's cite [sic].:

Who made fun of your name on Edgar's site? Can you please explain what you're talking about, Mr Phantaz, sir?

:p s--i've bashed two books listed on your cite [sic] (if "Dan and Heinz isOnePerson): the "brilliant" Edgar Foster's _Christology_, and Holt's "wonderful" _Jesus: God or the Son of God?_ (yet i have much respect for Brian, and don't wish to place him in the same category as you or Mr. Ed).
post, on your cite [sic], a rebuttal to any of my articles and i'll tear you to shreds. feel free to include my sarcastic remarks on this thread in order to gain cheap victory points from your audience. :

Not sure I want to rebut someone who hides behind a pseudonym. If your name is really Phantaz, I'll repent in dust and ashes. I got a feeling that your real name may be JP Holding or some other marker of self-identification.

:conversio ad phantasma!; personhood is a relational category. adios chesta-cheese. [/QUOTE]:

Personhood is a relational category in a certain context. It is not a relational category when applied to humans. Just ask the "brilliant" Angelic Doctor Tommy Aquinas. :bonk:

What is "chesta-cheese"? Does it taste anything like cheddar cheese? :argh:

Shalom,
Dan :rofl:

[jpholding]

Boy Dan, an actual argument out of you must require a pair of pliers, industrial strength. :bawl:

Care to debate me on the Trinity?:deal:

[GodisonePerson]

I gives what I gets, JP. :argue: I'd love to debate the Trinity with you. Anything particular that you're interested in hashing out, my man? :brow:

Shalom,
Dan

03-11-2003 @ 08:42 PM
jpholding:

Boy Dan, an actual argument out of you must require a pair of pliers, industrial strength. :bawl:

Care to debate me on the Trinity?:deal:

[phantaz sunlyk]

**7** say hey "Dan", wussup fatman?

Fortunately, not my bottom.

**8** "fortunately" not????
wussup wif dat?

It is a neophytic error, indeed, because only neophytes go quote crazy.

**7** yah, like Henri de Lubac's four volume _Medieval Exegesis?
you include alot of quotes in your work to substantiate it if either the audience is unfamiliar with you (and Nicene Christology was my first essay on Tekton; my other two don't quote in the same manner), or your audience is unfamiliar with the subject under discussion.
bee-Heinz, however, is in the habit of oversimplifying issues, begging the question, and then stacking quotes one atop another. witness his/your "rebuttal" to Holding's article on Wisdom, for example.

Try that stuff with any professor worth his salt and you'll find your bottom, not just shakin', but quivering.

**8** give me the e-mail address of any reputed professor you want, and we'll see whether or not i quiver from the wind or the boogie in me.

A little reflective skepticism would not hurt.

**7** i did do that; that's how i became Catholic.
born JW?

This would entail looking at both sides of what the ante-Nicene "padres" actually wrote

**8** anachronism which reads everything the padres wrote in the light of a "Nicene, Yes or No???!!!???" context.
ask "Dan"/Bee-Heinz what it means to not read the ante-Nicenes in light of post-Nicene theology, and he'll tell you that just because "God" is predicated of the Son, it doesn't necessarily follow that the author in question thought God to be three heads (with one brain) on one body.

and not simply quoting what suits your pagan triune agenda.

**8** i went through everything that Ignatius and Clement of Rome wrote, disregarded the Ignatian predications of Christ as "theos", focussing instead on soteriology and ecclesiology vis-a-vis Trinitarian theology, and you claim that i'm "simply quoting what suits" me?
"pagan triune agenda"? had the pagans believed in the Trinity, so much the better for them.

Why should one be committed to using a "broad epistemic framework"

**7** aye, indeed! why bother consulting a lexicon or a commentary when we have the trusty KJV????

when the framework, in this case, is nothing more than a grid through which one illegitimately converts non trinitarian concepts or terms into ungodly triune gobbledy-gook?

**8** which is another way of saying that you're unable to deal with things within their theological context. granting, that is, that you're aware that there was a context.

Your presentation on Tertullian is clearly in error.

**7** i never did a presentation on Tertullian, nor do i plan on it, as i don't think that his actual impact on the history of the doctrine of the Trinity, or Christology for that matter, was extremely influential.

Do I have to explain where you went wrong in your construal of "the master"?

**7** sure, go for it.
or let me see if i can anticipate the argument: The Son's perfect birth came when God said "let there be light". prior to that time, he (sic) existed as the Word. therefore, since he was just the Word/Sermo/Ratio, he was (necessarily) impersonal.
for words, being impersonal, only become persons when they are spoken.
on the side, tell me of Tertullian's understanding of the soul of the human being? personal or not?
next, when did he believe that the soul began to exist as the soul: before or after birth?
according to Jerome, Cyprian called Tertullian "the master". from the same author we see Tertullian's testimony dispelled of with a single sentence in _Against Helvidius_ for the reason that 'he was not of the Church'.

Doesn't the answer depend on the context in which "booty" is used?

**8** absolutely it does, my bad.
think disco-tech.

Therefore, you tell us what a booty is.

**7** its that thing that, in your case, probably always seems to get stuck in between the door jambs when you try to go from the computer to the kitchen.
peaceouuuuttttttttttt!!!!

[jpholding]

Dan Dan,

If it flicks your bic, let's discuss whether it is Biblically justified in the Nicean sense. If interested I put ye 4th on my list after 3 atheists now in line. May be able to start late this month. Whassay, porkchop?

[dizzle]

Hey get this negotiation going on in the Gym!!!!

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** say hey hunka-chunka--

How is the monk business going?

**7** ask me after the next pagan holiday that was introduced into the ever-straying Church of Christendom.

You calling Heinz a "quote-machine"?

**8** did i st-st-stutter?

Have you read your Nicene essay lately?

**7** nope.
as for the (brilliant and subtle) implications (interjected brilliantly, subtly) behind that question, re above post.

What type of identity do ya have in mind?

**8** um, let's see if we can grapple with this (brilliant, subtle) question (posed brilliantly, subtly).
are you and the person who who wrote a response to JP's article on Wisdom, at Heinz's website, the same spatio-temporal psycho-somatic entity, or is that person (who wrote the article) at this moment subsisting in a space other than the one you occupy at this moment?

Before I go spilling beans about myself,

**7** yikes, the fatman is raiding the chilli cabinet again!

I'm curious about your background, Phantaz

**8** first, take a moment and gather ya beans. it may be worth your time to see if you can't scrap a few marbles off the ground while you're at it.
i'm 25; philosophy major freshman in college (university of Montana), a woodworker; a Catholic; 5' 10"; 160 lbs; brown hair; very blue eyes; pretty-boy face; decent build; big golden lipring on the lower right (facing me); born in Glasgow MT; live near Canada; fan of techno and psychadelic music and Mozart; my favorite authors are Nikos Kazantzakis, Herman Hesse, Jack Kerouac, Henry Bugbee, Albert Camus, Hans urs von Balthasar, Walter Kasper, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, St. Symeon the New Theologian, Bonaventure, and Pseudo Dionysius; poor health (diabetes); and i dress like the dudes at Woodstock.
how about ya 'delf?

I assume that Phantaz is not your real name.

**8** assume, and call me, as ye wish.

If it is, I sincerely apologize.

**7** since you're so sincere, i hope you'll forgive my allowing you to sit in suspense.

Who made fun of your name on Edgar's site?

**8** can't remember the dude's name. i do remember him doing an about face (alongside Edgar's suddenly finding it appropriate to tell the crew that name calling wasn't acceptable conduct) when i showed up, however.

Can you please explain what you're talking about, Mr Phantaz, sir?

**7** of course i can :thumb:

Not sure I want to rebut someone who hides behind a pseudonym.

**8** since you don't know whether or not Phantaz Sunlyk is a pseudonym, why don't ya roll the dice?

I got a feeling that your real name may be JP Holding or some other marker of self-identification.

**7** ah, but as the poet asketh, "what are feelings that we should trust in them?"
is not the heart 'deceitful above all things'?

Personhood is a relational category in a certain context.

**8** tell me about that context, please.

It is not a relational category when applied to humans.

**7** prove it.

Just ask the "brilliant" Angelic Doctor Tommy Aquinas.

**8** i would, but talking to the dead is a false-pagan practice, unlike exchanging wedding rings.
see ya in Oz?

[jpholding]

Dee Dee,

I'll negotiate on this later in the month after I start with John Powell. Just wanted to make sure Dan was at least open.

[AVmetro]

...and not simply quoting what suits your pagan triune agenda.

Pagan equivocation. The atheists love it. God "begetting" a "son" is "pagan" in and of itself [e.g. Hercules]. Next, I imagine you'll explain to us the nuanced understanding in the case of Christianity regarding "God's only begotten son", whereas I'll in turn request one example of a Triune [as opposed to Triad] pagan god from which orthodox Trinitarianism was *copied*, fair? I'll even let you cheat and cite the SYBIT pamphlet ;).

And let us not forget the most pagan of them all (http://www.dbhome.dk/carlo/cat.htm).

A word of advice for you. Quoting someone does not mean that you've substantiated your argument. Try that stuff with any professor worth his salt and you'll find your bottom, not just shakin', but quivering.

Amen to that ;). Spread the word!

:cir: (http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/index.htm) <-----Click me.

Am I identical with Heinz Schmitz? I wonder if Heinz Schmitz is even identical with Heinz Schmitz. Exactly what do you mean by identity? What type of identity do ya have in mind?.

...which, interestingly enough, brings to mind this (http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/sorry4u.htm) particular writing I read a while back. I imagine JWs are being particularly careful as of late to keep their "feeding of the flock" of their *own accord* on a low level, eh? "Three Dissertations (http://www.elihubooks.com/) anyone?" WW(WTS)D? Speaking of Stafford, great job you did there, Heinz! (http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/birthdays.htm) ;). Surely Herod and Pharoah took "baths". Make sure to avoid those from here on out ;).

-Take care-

[AVmetro]

His sub-heading pokes fun at my name Heinz (57 Varieties), something that is disturbing and inappropriate in an text aimed at defending the word of God in a Christian manner (see 1 Peter 3:15). This is something I had noticed in his emails to me also. It is sad that ad hominem jabs must be taken by those who cannot control their emotions while failing to admit defeat.

...that his name is indeed "Heinz Schmitz" (as if that isn't obvious by now). At least this is what I can gather from the level of offense he took as portrayed in the above.

Hey JP, try and control those emotions from here on out, will ya! :teeth:

[dizzle]

03-11-2003 @ 07:11 PM
jpholding:

Dee Dee,

I'll negotiate on this later in the month after I start with John Powell. Just wanted to make sure Dan was at least open.


Okay great! You know you guys can always work something out and agree upon a start date some weeks out. A few persons have already done that.

[GodisonePerson]

**7** say hey &quot;Dan&quot;, wussup fatman?

Fatman? Do you know something that I don't?

:Fortunately, not my bottom.:

**8** &quot;fortunately&quot; not????
wussup wif dat?

Wussup wif whut, Mr needs some English lessons cause he tryin' to speak black, but he tired and lame.

:It is a neophytic error, indeed, because only neophytes go quote crazy.:

**7** yah, like Henri de Lubac's four volume _Medieval Exegesis?

Ya.

:you include alot of quotes in your work to substantiate it if either the audience is unfamiliar with you (and Nicene Christology was my first essay on Tekton;:

You mean that someone is actually not familiar with Mr Wonderful? Geez and wow!

:my other two don't quote in the same manner), or your audience is unfamiliar with the subject under discussion.:

There is such a thing as overquoting or quoting without backing up or critically analyzing a quote. You're guilty on all counts.

:bee-Heinz, however, is in the habit of oversimplifying issues, begging the question, and then stacking quotes one atop another. witness his/your &quot;rebuttal&quot; to Holding's article on Wisdom, for example.:

What do you consider oversimplifying? Any argument made by a non trinitarian?

**8** give me the e-mail address of any reputed professor you want, and we'll see whether or not i quiver from the wind or the boogie in me.

You said you're enrolled in an institution of higher learning. Why not ask one of your professors there to critique your work? That is, if you're not too chicken.

:A little reflective skepticism would not hurt.:

**7** i did do that; that's how i became Catholic.

I'm talking about including a little reflective skepticism in your papers. You did ask me for suggestions, Mr Precise. Don't you remember?

:born JW?:

Who me?

:and not simply quoting what suits your pagan triune agenda.:

**8** i went through everything that Ignatius and Clement of Rome wrote, disregarded the Ignatian predications of Christ as &quot;theos&quot;, focussing instead on soteriology and ecclesiology vis-a-vis Trinitarian theology, and you claim that i'm &quot;simply quoting what suits&quot; me?
&quot;pagan triune agenda&quot;? had the pagans believed in the Trinity, so much the better for them.

Neither Ignatius nor Clement of Rome were trinitarians. If you had weighed both sides of their writings, you'd be aware of this fact. But you did not, so you're not.

:Why should one be committed to using a &quot;broad epistemic framework&quot;:

**7** aye, indeed! why bother consulting a lexicon or a commentary when we have the trusty KJV????

I think you stopped reading too early, Mr Precise.

:when the framework, in this case, is nothing more than a grid through which one illegitimately converts non trinitarian concepts or terms into ungodly triune gobbledy-gook?:

**8** which is another way of saying that you're unable to deal with things within their theological context. granting, that is, that you're aware that there was a context.

It is another way of saying that trins like you love to filter ante Nicene writings through the "broad epistemic" grid of Nicea or Chalcedon. This results in retrojecting the categories and concepts of Nicea or Chalceddon back onto the apostolic fathers or the ante Nicene apologists. No wonder you prefer a theological context. As long as the context is Nicea, it suits your agenda just fine.

:Your presentation on Tertullian is clearly in error.:

**7** i never did a presentation on Tertullian, nor do i plan on it, as i don't think that his actual impact on the history of the doctrine of the Trinity, or Christology for that matter, was extremely influential.

In your paper at tekton, you seem to claim and assert that Tertullian believed God's being was eternally triadic before creation. You are wrong in this respect. Tertullian's "Trinity" is only economic and temporary like Moltmann writes.

:therefore, since he was just the Word/Sermo/Ratio, he was (necessarily) impersonal. for words, being impersonal, only become persons when they are spoken.:

Words never become persons, not even when they're spoken. What universe are you living in, Mr Precise? Is it Oz?

:on the side, tell me of Tertullian's understanding of the soul of the human being? personal or not?:

Is it possible for a human soul to be impersonal?

:next, when did he believe that the soul began to exist as the soul: before or after birth?:

He espoused a traducian psychology. What, therefore, does that tell you? Are you wanting to be fed with a spoon?

:according to Jerome, Cyprian called Tertullian &quot;the master&quot;. from the same author we see Tertullian's testimony dispelled of with a single sentence in _Against Helvidius_ for the reason that 'he was not of the Church'.:

That was Jerome's erroneous opinion. Cyprian and others knew better.

:Doesn't the answer depend on the context in which &quot;booty&quot; is used?:

**8** absolutely it does, my bad.
think disco-tech.

I believe that is the first time I've ever seen PS admit he's mistaken about something. This is a moment that will go down in TWeb history. :thumb:

Sorry I can't tell you more about booties in connection with disco-techs. JWs don't frequent such debasing and unwholesome places. :rofl:

:Therefore, you tell us what a booty is.:

**7** its that thing that, in your case, probably always seems to get stuck in between the door jambs when you try to go from the computer to the kitchen.
peaceouuuuttttttttttt!!!! [/QUOTE]

Not even gonna touch this one, Mr Imprecise. If you keep on glorifying Christ in this way, you'll convert all of Montana in a heartbeat. :bawl:

Cheddar
Dan

[dizzle]

You guys are cracking me up! Of course the easily offended and politeness police would be all over ya! Nice jousting :thumb:

[GodisonePerson]

JP

The later this month the better. Let's work out details in the Gym. I would also prefer to avoid getting into an ad hominem match which phantaz enjoys. His conduct reproaches the name of Christ and I will not continue to engage with "Christians" like sunlyk. If you want to have an intelligent discussion, fine. That is all.

Sorry Dee. We'll move to the Gym.

Cheddar
Dan

03-11-2003 @ 11:07 PM
jpholding:

Dan Dan,

If it flicks your bic, let's discuss whether it is Biblically justified in the Nicean sense. If interested I put ye 4th on my list after 3 atheists now in line. May be able to start late this month. Whassay, porkchop?

[dizzle]

AV, JP has no emotions. I can testify to that. :rofl:

[jpholding]

OK Dan,

I'll notify you when my time opens up and will start Gym negotiations at that time.

[dizzle]

Okay Dan.. I will see you there. I understand that you have a personal issue with Phantaz, but in all honesty, for my own personal opinion, I enjoy his style, and find him extraordinarily helpful. He is also a personal friend who has edified and encouraged me on numerous occasions.

[GodisonePerson]

**8** say hey hunka-chunka--

Don't talk bout your mama like that, phanny. I hate to see peeps disrespect their parents.

:How is the monk business going?:

**7** ask me after the next pagan holiday that was introduced into the ever-straying Church of Christendom.

Sure thang.

:You calling Heinz a &quot;quote-machine&quot;?:

**8** did i st-st-stutter?

Ye-ye-ah-ah. See above.

:What type of identity do ya have in mind?:

**8** um, let's see if we can grapple with this (brilliant, subtle) question (posed brilliantly, subtly).
are you and the person who who wrote a response to JP's article on Wisdom, at Heinz's website, the same spatio-temporal psycho-somatic entity, or is that person (who wrote the article) at this moment subsisting in a space other than the one you occupy at this moment?

You're a philosophy student, aren't you? I would expect better from such philosophically trained precise students of logic. Oh well, you takes what you gets. By initiating your query with the phraseology "you and the person who who [sic] wrote a response to JP's article" you already imply that the person who wrote the response to JP's article could possibly be distinct from the party you identify as "you" above. You (phanny), at least, make a distinction (whether formally or otherwise) between "you and the person who who [sic] wrote a response to JP's article." One problem here, however, is that if any entity (x) is possibly distinct from another entity (y) then entity y is necessarily other than entity x. I therefore favor giving you an "F" for the first part of your query. But the remaining part of your question seems to rate a "pass."

:Before I go spilling beans about myself,:

**7** yikes, the fatman is raiding the chilli cabinet again!

That would be a miracle. Especially since I don't have a chili cabinet and I'm not fat.

:I'm curious about your background, Phantaz:

**8** first, take a moment and gather ya beans. it may be worth your time to see if you can't scrap a few marbles off the ground while you're at it.
i'm 25; philosophy major freshman in college (university of Montana), a woodworker; a Catholic; 5' 10&quot;; 160 lbs; brown hair; very blue eyes; pretty-boy face; decent build; big golden lipring on the lower right (facing me); born in Glasgow MT; live near Canada; fan of techno and psychadelic music and Mozart; my favorite authors are Nikos Kazantzakis, Herman Hesse, Jack Kerouac, Henry Bugbee, Albert Camus, Hans urs von Balthasar, Walter Kasper, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, St. Symeon the New Theologian, Bonaventure, and Pseudo Dionysius; poor health (diabetes); and i dress like the dudes at Woodstock.
how about ya 'delf?

I'm a middle-aged male. I thoroughly love studying the Bible and irritating trins. Don't know how tall I am, don't know how much I weigh, but I ain't fat. I loves me some blues and classical music also, dude. I like reading Tertullian, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Augustine, Michel Servetus and other stalwart heretics. And I dress like the dudes on Wall Street some days, phanny.

:I assume that Phantaz is not your real name.:

**8** assume, and call me, as ye wish.

Will do.

**7** since you're so sincere, i hope you'll forgive my allowing you to sit in suspense.

I forgive you. After all, that is what my master told me to do.

:Who made fun of your name on Edgar's site?:

**8** can't remember the dude's name. i do remember him doing an about face (alongside Edgar's suddenly finding it appropriate to tell the crew that name calling wasn't acceptable conduct) when i showed up, however.

If Phantaz is really your name, I see no need to make fun of you. But so many people use pseudonyms these days on the internet that you never know.

:Can you please explain what you're talking about, Mr Phantaz, sir?:

**7** of course i can :thumb:

Can I explain something to you about English idioms, sir. Don't always take them literally. Ok?

**8** since you don't know whether or not Phantaz Sunlyk is a pseudonym, why don't ya roll the dice?

Might just do that, sir phan.

:Personhood is a relational category in a certain context.:

**8** tell me about that context, please.

:It is not a relational category when applied to humans.:

**7** prove it.

Easy. Is it possible to be a human person without being related to another human being? Do human relations totally exhaust human personhood? Is relationality an accident or a necessary property of human persons?

:Just ask the &quot;brilliant&quot; Angelic Doctor Tommy Aquinas.:

**8** i would, but talking to the dead is a false-pagan practice, unlike exchanging wedding rings.
see ya in Oz? [/QUOTE]

I guess you don't pray to "dead" saints then either, do ya? And if Tommy is so dead, why you worried bout him looking askance at ya for taking issue with his notion of personhood and relationality. Yes, I do think I'll be seeing you in Oz.

Blue Cheese
Dan

[GodisonePerson]

Dee Dee

You seem like a nice enough person and I appreciate your manner of comportment. I would therefore never ask you to call phantaz on the carpet for what he has said to me, but I seriously think his actions could hinder those who might lean toward Catholicism from ever acting on their inclinations. But I know that friendships can affect the way we view the actions of others. I'm sure Phantaz has a good side to him, somewhere. :argh:

Shalom
Dan

03-12-2003 @ 04:31 PM
Dee Dee Warren:

Okay Dan.. I will see you there. I understand that you have a personal issue with Phantaz, but in all honesty, for my own personal opinion, I enjoy his style, and find him extraordinarily helpful. He is also a personal friend who has edified and encouraged me on numerous occasions.

[dizzle]

Hey Dan and JP:

Maybe one of you guys could start the thread in the Gym so just that it is there and when time clears up you can get to it?? Also FYI Dan, all posts in the Gym are "moderated" meaning that when you post, it does not appear immediately but is "held" until a Moderator reviews and releases it. I wanted to let you know so that you do not think any posts were lost.

And I can tell you that to me, Phantaz is a gem and I am not, and am nowhere near being Catholic, which in many ways I strenuously disagree with.

[jpholding]

Dee Dee and Dan,

I would suggest that Dan read my article at

http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_AOA.html

and if he wants to debate from that platform -- since it is where I will argue my base from anyway -- he can issue a challenge in the Gym.

[AVmetro]

Wussup wif whut, Mr needs some English lessons cause he tryin' to speak black, but he tired and lame.

I don't think anyone appreciates the racial stereotype you have just put forth. I would suggest you retract that statement and apologize to the board.

Sorry I can't tell you more about booties in connection with disco-techs. JWs don't frequent such debasing and unwholesome places.

Yeah, just like the inter...oops!

Not even gonna touch this one, Mr Imprecise. If you keep on glorifying Christ in this way, you'll convert all of Montana in a heartbeat.

>

The later this month the better. Let's work out details in the Gym. I would also prefer to avoid getting into an ad hominem match which phantaz enjoys. His conduct reproaches the name of Christ and I will not continue to engage with "Christians" like sunlyk. If you want to have an intelligent discussion, fine. That is all.

(sarcasm) Because Phantaz can't read very well (/sarcasm), I'll simply link to the definition of a Hypocrite (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary).

Read the following excerpts from one of the "little flock":

See..

Don't talk bout your mama like that, phanny. I hate to see peeps disrespect their parents.

..and..

Seeing that you're working with limited gray matter, I'm not surprised that you conclude I'm Edgar Foster simply cause I intermingled Latin, Greek and oversimplified (in your humble opinion) issues in my earlier correspondence.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1583&perpage=15&pagenumber=2


..additionally..

Shouldn't that be "whom" or has all my mom's money for English lessons just gone to pot?

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1583&perpage=15&pagenumber=2


..you may also take interest in..

I'm a middle-aged male. I thoroughly love studying the Bible and irritating trins. .

Note carefully the absence of "evangelize" and and the presence of "irritate."

**7** since you're so sincere, i hope you'll forgive my allowing you to sit in suspense.

I forgive you. After all, that is what my master told me to do.

Evidently your NWT is missing those references to "consistency", eh? Brooklyn must be printin' 'em off so fast they're leaving out whole books! :whip:

[AVmetro]

Dee Dee and Dan,

I would suggest that Dan read my article at

http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_AOA.html

and if he wants to debate from that platform -- since it is where I will argue my base from anyway -- he can issue a challenge in the Gym.

"Dan" states here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=32998#post32998):

"Radio Station KKLA (Living By The Word Ministries) and their Improper Examination of a List on My Site, and the New World Translation

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/kkla.htm

Cheers,
Dan"

You can find "Dan's" critique here:

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/sophia.htm

Of course considering the quality of his last attempt perhaps he *should* give it another read :smile:.

[phantaz sunlyk]

**7** how's it hangin' fatman?

I would also prefer to avoid getting into an ad hominem match which phantaz enjoys.

**8** bogus. your last two posts to me are ad hom and nothing else. and what's the name of this thread?
you came here to try to burn the house down and ended up inhaling the smoke from the fire ya lit. cry baby cry!

Do you know something that I don't?

**8** prolly; just to be sure, why don't ya spend a paragraph and tell me all ya know.

he tryin' to speak black, but he tired and lame.

**7** are you saying that black people can't speak English properly?

There is such a thing as overquoting or quoting without backing up or critically analyzing a quote.

**8** viz bee-Heinz.

That is, if you're not too chicken.

**7** in other words, you can't back up your claim about me.

I'm talking about including a little reflective skepticism in your papers.

**8** in danese, this equals "simply admit that the Trinity is a pagan teaching, and the development of it as a doctrine is clearly a history of the teachings of men perverting 'the church' [sic]."
i quoted an entire paper of Edgar aimed specifically at me, word for word, (and as soon as he finishes his thang thang on Giles, he'll get a lickle mo'), and you don't think i show both sides?
point me to some articles that you've written and show me how its done.

Who me?

**7** yah.

Neither Ignatius nor Clement of Rome were trinitarians.

**8** thou doth opine.

If you had weighed both sides of their writings, you'd be aware of this fact. But you did not, so you're not.

**7** as ya boy Tertullian would say, "you use" the fathers "as a drunkard uses a lamppost--for support rather than illumination".
again, you're throwing an anachronistic lens, which i went some distance in rejecting in my essays at tekton, on the patristic map. tell me this--what is the vital context in which the issue of Icons must be understood in Catholic and Orthodox theology?

I think you stopped reading too early, Mr Precise.

**8** i think you wrote too much, Mr. Pecksniff.

It is another way of saying that trins like you love to filter ante Nicene writings through the "broad epistemic" grid of Nicea or Chalcedon.

**7** you could have said the same to Paul regarding his use of the Old Testament in light of Christ.
you like to filter your thought in the same place where ya filter your corndogs--ya gut; this also explains the end of ya body that ya thought seems to come out of.

you seem to claim and assert that Tertullian believed God's being was eternally triadic before creation.

**8** i still do claim this. did Tertullian believe that, though God was alone, he was not alone, for he always had with him his Word? did Tertullian believe that God's Word was eternal? did he believe that the Father's Word was identical with the Father? in what sense is the Word identical with the Son for Tertullian? what is the difference between the Word in Stoic and Christian thought, or Platonism and Christian thought, during the ante-Nicene period? what are the similarities?

Words never become persons, not even when they're spoken.

**7** then what of calling the spoken Word of God a person in virtue of the fact that he is spoken, yet rejecting his personhood when he exists in the mind? if no such transition exists anywhere at all, why is it so welcome in this case?

What universe are you living in, Mr Precise?

**8** nay, not universe; planet. and judging by your tone, i'd guess it was uranus, ar har har.

He espoused a traducian psychology. What, therefore, does that tell you?

**7** soul is the result of the meeting of the sperm and egg rather than a direct creation of God.
what it tells us is that, for Tertullian, personhood comes at the point of conception rather than expression.

Are you wanting to be fed with a spoon?

**8** got time?

That was Jerome's erroneous opinion. Cyprian and others knew better.

**7** yah, Cyprian's work on the unity of the Church really goes well with Tertullian's rejection of an historical Church constituted via apostolic succession in lieu of hyper-pneumaticism.

Sorry I can't tell you more about booties in connection with disco-techs. JWs don't frequent such debasing and unwholesome places.

**8** prolly can't afford it, with all the nice suits they buy to keep the outside of the cup clean, alongside the outrageous amount they spend on travel/dining expenses to go to they conferences.
atleast when they do they "theocratic ministry" speeches, the WT does they're homework for them. the money saved from not buying books can always go to new suits.

If you keep on glorifying Christ in this way, you'll convert all of Montana in a heartbeat.

**7** the agitation of the defeated.
cry baby cry!
cf. Gal. 5:12.
i've converted 2 people in the past two years, and am standing as sponsor to a person at Confirmation this Easter, alongside bringing a family of four to my Church weekly now.
how bout yaself? how is y'alls business of "worming" your "way into homes to make captives of silly women...always learning but never able to reach a knowledge of the truth" going? (2 Tim. 3:6f)
thus spake humpty-d --

Don't talk bout your mama like that, phanny.

**8** its on!
speaking of moms, tell your mother to quit crying about me going to the monastery.

I'm sure Phantaz has a good side to him, somewhere.

**7** ask ya wife; she'll tell ya all about it.

See above.

**7** which reminds me, tell ya sister she needs to "see beyond" me. tell her i need some time for me; some room to spread my wings. and if i am to spread both wings, that would also require your gramma to give me some space too.

By initiating your query with the phraseology "you and the person who who [sic] wrote a response to JP's article" you already imply that the person who wrote the response to JP's article could possibly be distinct from the party you identify as "you" above.

**8** aye, standard modus operandi for establishing the identity of indiscernables.

One problem here, however, is that if any entity (x) is possibly distinct from another entity (y) then entity y is necessarily other than entity x.

**7** category confusion between mental and physical entities. a distinction in predication doesn't necessarily entail a distinction regarding the object(s) indicated.
for example, "phantaz is at x" (='the run down trailer behind the bar') and "phantaz is at y" (= 'yo mama house').

I therefore favor giving you an "F" for the first part of your query

**8** typical JW--clumsy and dogmatic.
if a then b, if c then d; d, therefore a. it is decidedly so.

I thoroughly love studying the Bible and irritating trins.

**7** ...

Athanasius, Augustine, Michel Servetus and other stalwart heretics.

**8** ...

I forgive you. After all, that is what my master told me to do.

**7** again, typical JW. phoney, pompous, full of serpents, and pretentious.
but the suits do look sharp.
remove the plank from your own eye, and it shall likewise depart from the mirror that i'm holding in front of you.

I loves me some blues

**8** smokestack lightnin'! ya dig on howlin' wolf?

And I dress like the dudes on Wall Street some days

**7** the money would be better spent getting a tow truck to take away the el camino from your sister's lawn.

Might just do that, sir phan.

**8** since your passion seems to be beating about the bush, i'll throw the challenge out.
first things first, does Catholic Trinitarian dogma exclude the specific relationship between the Father and the Son as i articulated it in the link below?
http://www.tektonics.org/PS_FS.html
i'll consider a failure of a direct response on your part a refusal to engage me on this issue. an answer in the affirmative will move us to the gym.

Is it possible to be a human person without being related to another human being?

**7** no.

Do human relations totally exhaust human personhood?

**8** no, there is also the relating of the human to the Persons of God, and all other created thangs, via and to, God.

Is relationality an accident or a necessary property of human persons?

**7** necessary property, lo, even unto and from birth. "it is not good for the man to be alone". (Gen. 2:18)

I guess you don't pray to "dead" saints then either, do ya?

**8** dead saints i pray to every day; dead gods, such as your invisible man-deity jehovah, however, i don't pray to, as they are the fiction of perverse minds constructed by those who worship them. (cf. Isa. 44:12-17, a text ya should be familiar with, as you are "studying"/being told what to believe about, Isaiah right now)

why you worried bout him looking askance at ya for taking issue with his notion of personhood and relationality.

**7** i'm not worried about it. in fact, i pray that he interecedeth for me, that our God will grant me the same Spirit as he granted Thomas, that i might in some way, however small, contribute to the Church as he did.

Yes, I do think I'll be seeing you in Oz.

**8** heck, afor i can make it to the yellow brick road, i need someone to bring a crow-bar, quick, and get ya mom/sister/gramma/niece/wife off of me.
rollllllllllllll with the punches doughboy!

[AVmetro]

**8** say hey hunka-chunka--

Don't talk bout your mama like that, phanny. I hate to see peeps disrespect their parents

Compare with his statement here:

His sub-heading pokes fun at my name Heinz (57 Varieties), something that is disturbing and inappropriate in an text aimed at defending the word of God in a Christian manner (see 1 Peter 3:15). This is something I had noticed in his emails to me also. It is sad that ad hominem jabs must be taken by those who cannot control their emotions while failing to admit defeat.

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/sophia.htm

Yet right below this he makes such statements as:

"Words pertaining to Jesus take on a magical transformation in the mind of the brain-washed trinitarian.

..and..

"The trinitarian godhead is so crowded that it would embarrass the average Hindu.

Seems like he who smelt it dealt this one :no:

Feigned piety is a pet peeve of mine. Can you tell? :brow:

[AVmetro]

**There are to be no more derogatory references to family from either party.**

[phantaz sunlyk]

**7** say hey AV--

**There are to be no more derogatory references to family from either party.**

**8** no problem, peace.

[OldShepherd]

03-12-2003 @ 03:05 AM
GodisonePerson:

A little reflective skepticism would not hurt. This would entail looking at both sides of what the ante-Nicene &quot;padres&quot; actually wrote and not simply quoting what suits your pagan triune agenda.
Is this a private confab or can anybody join in? I saw this comment by Dan here, and there is also a similar blanket statement about "pagan trinities" at his website.

I believe AV Metro has already asked for documentation for a pagan trinity. Note he specified NOT a triad, but even triads are almost nonexistant. I have not been able to find a triad in any relgion which could remotely have influenced early Christianity, Tertullian for instance. Where did Tertullian come up with a Trinitas, when there was no such thing in any pagan religion near him.

The only place I can find an actual Trinity is in pre-Christian Judaism. And in which pro-Trinity Christian publication do you think I will find it? The Jewish Encyclopedia published in 1910.
Trinity-In the Zohar.

The Cabala, on the other hand, especially the Zohar, its fundamental work, was far less hostile to the dogma of the Trinity, since by its [i.e. the Zohar] speculations regarding the father, the son, and the spirit it evolved a new trinity, and thus became dangerous to Judaism. Such terms as "matronita," "body," "spirit," occur frequently (e.q., "Tazria'," ed. Polna, iii. 43b); so that Christians and converts like Knorr von Rosenroth, Reuchlin, and Rittangel found in the Zohar a confirmation of Christianity and especially of the dogma of the Trinity (Jellinek, "Die Kabbala," p. 250, Leipsic, 1844 [trans]. of Franck's "La Kabbale," Paris, 1843]). Reuchlin sought on the basis of the Cabala the words "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" in the second word of the Pentateuch, as well as in Ps. cxviii. 22 (ib. p. 10), while Johann Kemper, a convert, left in manuscript a work entitled "Matteh Mosheh," which treats in its third section of the harmony of the Zohar with the doctrine of the Trinity (Zettersteen, "Verzeichniss der Hebräischen und Aramäischen Handschriften zu Upsala," p. 16, Lund, 1900). The study of the Cabala led the Frankists to adopt Christianity; but the Jews have always regarded the doctrine of the Trinity as one irreconcilable with the spirit of the Jewish religion and with monotheism. See Christianity in Its Relation to Judaism; Polemics.

Bibliography: F. C. Bauer, Die Christliche Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit, etc., 3 vols., Tübingen, 1841-43;
H. Usener, Die Dreiheit, in Rheinisches Museum für Klassische Philologie, lviii. 1-47.K. S. Kr.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=338&letter=T

[dizzle]

Thank you OS!!

[GodisonePerson]

:I don't think anyone appreciates the racial stereotype you have just put forth. I would suggest you retract that statement and apologize to the board.:

My statement was not a racial stereotype and I am not retracting it. Mr Precise needs to apologize for all the jive, unless he is black. Otherwise, he is insultingly acting like Al Jolson. Seeing as phantaz is not his real name anyway, we have no way of knowing what he looks like unless he comes clean.

:(sarcasm) Because Phantaz can't read very well (/sarcasm), I'll simply link to the definition of a Hypocrite (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary).:

Both you and phantaz need to use a Webster to look up "hypocrite" since you're both good at playacting without realizing it. What love you Catholics and trinitarians have for those outside the fold. I just want to go out and become a Catholic tomorrow since I have such a wonderful example in Mr Precise.

:Note carefully the absence of &quot;evangelize&quot; and and the presence of &quot;irritate.&quot;:

All genuine Christians evangelize. That is a given. I saw no need to give Mr Precise a serious answer, however, since he is as dishonest as the day is long.

Bye
Dan

[GodisonePerson]

Dear JP

I'll read your article and see you in the Gym.

Yours
Dan

jpholding:[/i]

Dee Dee and Dan,

I would suggest that Dan read my article at

http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_AOA.html

and if he wants to debate from that platform -- since it is where I will argue my base from anyway -- he can issue a challenge in the Gym. [/QUOTE]

[GodisonePerson]

I can already see I'll not be able to receive fair treatment here. Phantaz starts a fight by calling me "fatman" (something that is untrue) and then I'm insulted and put down for giving him a taste of his own wretched medicine. I should have known that Mr Precise cannot abstain from ad hominem. Old dogs do not learn new tricks.

**7** how's it hangin' fatman?

:I would also prefer to avoid getting into an ad hominem match which phantaz enjoys.:

**8** bogus. your last two posts to me are ad hom and nothing else. and what's the name of this thread?

The title of the thread is not necessarily derogatory. I poked fun at your articles, but also offered serious suggestions to improve them. Never called you derogatory names and such until you got the ball rolling.

:Do you know something that I don't?:

**8** prolly; just to be sure, why don't ya spend a paragraph and tell me all ya know.

It would take much more than a paragraph to tell you all I know. Of course, I could opt to sum up your character and intellect in a word or sentence, but I'm a Christian and this is a family board.

:he tryin' to speak black, but he tired and lame.:

**7** are you saying that black people can't speak English properly?

Not saying that at all. I'm just saying that you are acting out your perception of what blackness is, but you end up coming across like Al Jolson cause I got a feeling that you ain't black, quoter boy.

:There is such a thing as overquoting or quoting without backing up or critically analyzing a quote.:

**8** viz bee-Heinz.

The hearer of the word, one who is not a doer, always listens to counsel from God's word and applies it to someone else. Teacher, are you teaching yourself?

:That is, if you're not too chicken.:

**7** in other words, you can't back up your claim about me.

Do you read anything in context? Do you ever avoid distorting what someone writes to you? Since you're a student in Montana, why not take some of your work to one of your professors and let them critique it? Maybe you're not being truthful about your background. Maybe that is why you intentionally mangled my words so badly.

:I'm talking about including a little reflective skepticism in your papers.:

**8** in danese, this equals &quot;simply admit that the Trinity is a pagan teaching, and the development of it as a doctrine is clearly a history of the teachings of men perverting 'the church' [sic].&quot;
i quoted an entire paper of Edgar aimed specifically at me, word for word, (and as soon as he finishes his thang thang on Giles, he'll get a lickle mo'), and you don't think i show both sides?
point me to some articles that you've written and show me how its done.

If you knew what reflective skepticism meant, then you'd not be presenting the silly response above. Sigh! I had a specific piece in mind, not your reply to Edgar. I'll be glad to point you to some articles and books, if you're really interested in improving your writing style.

:Neither Ignatius nor Clement of Rome were trinitarians.:

**8** thou doth opine.

My "opinion" is actually a fact that can easily be discerned by anyone reading Clement or Ignatius with a little bit of objectivity.

**7** as ya boy Tertullian would say, &quot;you use&quot; the fathers &quot;as a drunkard uses a lamppost--for support rather than illumination&quot;.
again, you're throwing an anachronistic lens, which i went some distance in rejecting in my essays at tekton, on the patristic map. tell me this--what is the vital context in which the issue of Icons must be understood in Catholic and Orthodox theology?

What do icons have to do with Tertullian or the Trinity?

:I think you stopped reading too early, Mr Precise.:

**8** i think you wrote too much, Mr. Pecksniff.

Sorry I made it too difficult for you. I'll have to start writing first grade sentences for you. "See Jane run."See Spot run." Is that better, Mr cloud of unknowing?

**7** you could have said the same to Paul regarding his use of the Old Testament in light of Christ.
you like to filter your thought in the same place where ya filter your corndogs--ya gut; this also explains the end of ya body that ya thought seems to come out of.

I noticed that you ended your sentence with a preposition. Sounds like your English is coming out da same place as my filtered corndogs. Maybe you should skip philosophy and take English 101.

**8** i still do claim this. did Tertullian believe that, though God was alone, he was not alone, for he always had with him his Word?

Yep.

:did Tertullian believe that God's Word was eternal?:

Word as Logos, rationality and Wisdom? Yep.

:did he believe that the Father's Word was identical with the Father?:

Is your thought or rationality identical with you?

:in what sense is the Word identical with the Son for Tertullian?:

The Word is not identical with the Son for Tertullian. The Word always existed. The Son came to be.

:what is the difference between the Word in Stoic and Christian thought, or Platonism and Christian thought, during the ante-Nicene period? what are the similarities?:

You asking me or simply posing rhetorical questions?

:Words never become persons, not even when they're spoken.:

**7** then what of calling the spoken Word of God a person in virtue of the fact that he is spoken, yet rejecting his personhood when he exists in the mind? if no such transition exists anywhere at all, why is it so welcome in this case?

Words normally do not become persons. Otherwise, the earth would be overpopulated by now. However, Tertullian believes that a word (God's word) became a person when the Lord spoke. I think what's tripping you up is Tertullian's use of metaphors for the word. But the word as Tertullian conceived it cannot be personal before God speaks.

**8** nay, not universe; planet. and judging by your tone, i'd guess it was uranus, ar har har.

If you're living on the planet earth, you're also living in the universe or a universe, Mr Dense. Maybe that point escapes his worship. Take a few seconds to reflect and call me in the morning. Your "anus" comment worries me a little bit. Maybe you need to review 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

**7** soul is the result of the meeting of the sperm and egg rather than a direct creation of God.
what it tells us is that, for Tertullian, personhood comes at the point of conception rather than expression.

I think you're confusing human birth with the word's prehuman nativity. No human being is conceived or born at the point of expression. The word was both expressed and born at the same time, says Tertullian.

:Are you wanting to be fed with a spoon?:

**8** got time?

I done raised my children.

**7** yah, Cyprian's work on the unity of the Church really goes well with Tertullian's rejection of an historical Church constituted via apostolic succession in lieu of hyper-pneumaticism.

Cyprian's ecclesiology doesn't have to mesh with Tertullian's in order for him not to have thought Tertullian to be a heretic. The church was not monolithic doctrinally or practically in Tertullian's or Cyprian's day. They could disagree between themselves without considering one another heretical. There was no pope to enforce orthodoxy at that time.

:Sorry I can't tell you more about booties in connection with disco-techs. JWs don't frequent such debasing and unwholesome places.:

**8** prolly can't afford it, with all the nice suits they buy to keep the outside of the cup clean, alongside the outrageous amount they spend on travel/dining expenses to go to they conferences.
atleast when they do they &quot;theocratic ministry&quot; speeches, the WT does they're homework for them. the money saved from not buying books can always go to new suits.

Are you speaking from experience and actual acquaintance with Jehovah's Witnesses or is this just hearsay? Don't Catholics also wear nice suits or do you just attend your animal sacrifice rites in filthy rags? How much do you "tithe" to the church every year? I'm sure the church needs a lots of money to pay all them lawsuits brought against her.

**7** the agitation of the defeated.
cry baby cry!
cf. Gal. 5:12.
i've converted 2 people in the past two years, and am standing as sponsor to a person at Confirmation this Easter, alongside bringing a family of four to my Church weekly now.
how bout yaself? how is y'alls business of &quot;worming&quot; your &quot;way into homes to make captives of silly women...always learning but never able to reach a knowledge of the truth&quot; going? (2 Tim. 3:6f)
thus spake humpty-d --

Some people are always winners in they own mind. So you've converted a few people to the synagogue of Satan. Big deal. You read the WT lately? Business is booming, Mr in the know.

**8** its on!
speaking of moms, tell your mother to quit crying about me going to the monastery.

She must be crying tears of joy. She told me about, well, you know.

**7** ask ya wife; she'll tell ya all about it.

So, you're going out with my wife now? May I shake your hand? Like the old Catholic priest said, "Take my secret wife, please!"

**7** which reminds me, tell ya sister she needs to &quot;see beyond&quot; me. tell her i need some time for me; some room to spread my wings. and if i am to spread both wings, that would also require your gramma to give me some space too.

You got wings now, lover boy? It figures. I just knew you were a product of unfinished evolution. Wings suit you well.

**8** aye, standard modus operandi for establishing the identity of indiscernables.

:One problem here, however, is that if any entity (x) is possibly distinct from another entity (y) then entity y is necessarily other than entity x.:

**7** category confusion between mental and physical entities. a distinction in predication doesn't necessarily entail a distinction regarding the object(s) indicated.
for example, &quot;phantaz is at x&quot; (='the run down trailer behind the bar') and &quot;phantaz is at y&quot; (= 'yo mama house').

there is no category confusion, Mr flealosopher. It does not matter whether an entity is an object or a predication, if x is potentially distinct, then it is also necessarily distinct. Faw instance, phantaz and the intelligent guy who really stays at my mom's house.

:I therefore favor giving you an &quot;F&quot; for the first part of your query:

**8** typical JW--clumsy and dogmatic.
if a then b, if c then d; d, therefore a. it is decidedly so.

In case you were mentally dozing, I'm talking about your grade andn not steps in logic.

:I forgive you. After all, that is what my master told me to do.:

**7** again, typical JW. phoney, pompous, full of serpents, and pretentious.
but the suits do look sharp.

We learned well from our Catholic predecessors. Except, we wear nice suits while Catholics wear whatever to mass. Got to keep the coffers full for the priests.

Dan

[jpholding]

Gee.

It's like Fat Albert trying to communicate with John Housman. :hrm: See ya later then, Dan.

[dizzle]

Okay guys... this thread has gotten way out of hand. I appreciate satire with the best of them, but there is no vitually no theological or substantive content whatsover left. When a thread degenerates merely into a contest of bettering the wit of another without a real point, it is time to be closed. I have enjoyed the posts of all of the posters here on this thread so please do not take this as a discouragement for further posting, I just think passions got a bit out of hand, and a breather is in order. Please feel free to start another thread with a specific theological goal and let's try to keep that theological goal in mind. I also do hope Dan that you take up JP on the Gym debate.

Thank you so much.