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.

How's the old boy doing these days?

Cheers,
Dan

**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.

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.

**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.

[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.

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

**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.

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

Shalom,
Dan

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

Care to debate me on the Trinity?

I gives what I gets, JP. 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.

Care to debate me on the Trinity?

**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!!!!

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?

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

**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

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?

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.

...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.

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!

<-----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 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 anyone?" WW(WTS)D? Speaking of Stafford, great job you did there, Heinz! ;). Surely Herod and Pharoah took "baths". Make sure to avoid those from here on out ;).

-Take care-

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!

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.

**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.

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

: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.

Cheddar
Dan