If you are against gay marriage, you are a bad Christian.

[Servus Dei]

Skip the damned side jab and get to the verses, dammit. stare

[Eshmasesh]

Pockyautomatron

PoeticVengeance

Ah so being thorough isn't legitimate?

Or maybe you're the one showing intellectual snobbery?

I'm sorry that I want to make sure that neither of us are reading mistranslations, since we are reading English translations.

Do you actually have a real complaint to raise?

Irrelevant is thorough? And I'll ask to you please refrain from "NO U" type retorts.

When the hell was evaluating any text in its original language ever irrelevant when checking the accuracy of translations?

[PoeticVengeance]

Servus Dei

Skip the damned side jab and get to the verses, dammit. stare

I should be doing my homework, Servus.

You don't mind if I go to that and read them tomorrow? Impatience is not a useful emotion and its not like this is horribly time sensative.

But I do promise to avoid the little argument with the other guy and work on my homework now.

^^

[Pockyautomatron]

PoeticVengeance

Pockyautomatron

PoeticVengeance

Ah so being thorough isn't legitimate?

Or maybe you're the one showing intellectual snobbery?

I'm sorry that I want to make sure that neither of us are reading mistranslations, since we are reading English translations.

Do you actually have a real complaint to raise?

Irrelevant is thorough?

You have yet to establish that its irrelevant to check the translational issues before disputing semantics in a religious text.

Do try if you wish.

And if you can't (something I think is likely) perhaps you'd like to stop whining about things that aren't an issue?

Quote:

And I'll ask to you please refrain from "NO U" type retorts.

It was a perfectly valid jab, considering its intellectually snobbish to act as though one person's method of establishing accuracy in a comparision of religious text is irrelevant without once justifying that assertion.

So once again, do you actually have a valid complaint? Or have you just been wasting my time?

Because I'll find that irritating.

By your own silence of citing any translational issue you yourself have already established that you had no legitimate reason to bring up the Koine. My own tone aside, your intention for bringing it up seems quite clear to me but again I will avoid such subjectivity.

[Pockyautomatron]

Eshmasesh

Pockyautomatron

PoeticVengeance

Ah so being thorough isn't legitimate?

Or maybe you're the one showing intellectual snobbery?

I'm sorry that I want to make sure that neither of us are reading mistranslations, since we are reading English translations.

Do you actually have a real complaint to raise?

Irrelevant is thorough? And I'll ask to you please refrain from "NO U" type retorts.

When the hell was evaluating any text in its original language ever irrelevant when checking the accuracy of translations?

I didn't say it was, I just asked her what translational issues she was referencing.

[Eshmasesh]

Pockyautomatron

I didn't say it was, I just asked her what translational issues she was referencing.

Translations inherently distort the meaning of original texts to some degree. Would that be the issue?

[lord Shafen]

Elf Lord Chiewn

That's the legal version, at least in the U.S.
The Christian version involves having sex. And not much else (except, presumably, waking up to one another's company on subsequent mornings).

hmmmm good point mayhap thats why they would refuse the mariages though after all sodomy IS on the books as a crime in 30+ states << just like oral sex is a crime in 17+ states >> and do you think that congress is ever going to actually agree to remove a law AND piss off a major political bloc like the christian/ catholic groups at the same time just to please some peeps??

not no but ******** NO

[Ananel]

Servus Dei

Skip the damned side jab and get to the verses, dammit. stare

I see, when the chips came down and "I know I'm right" didn't suffice with your actual interpretations of the various passages dealing with homosexuality in the biblical context that you resorted to papal authority. You then spent the last three to four pages dragging us off topic to defend papal authority.

Why don't we skip the part where I crush you under my heel, remind you that the full context of at least one of the passages ("You are Peter..." wink is vastly underweighted by you (his immediate apostasy), indicating that it is His confession, and not his person that is referenced as the rock, to which you will universally respond that "that's not what Papa says" and imply or call me a heretic?

(That's not a straw man, folks, btw. That's almost verbatim the argument we had on these verses the last four times we talked on this subject.)

It gets tired to have to repeat the same arguments to a man who never actually listens, even to himself.

[Servus Dei]

Ananel

Why don't we skip the part where I crush you under my heel, remind you that the full context of at least one of the passages ("You are Peter..." wink is vastly underweighted by you (his immediate apostasy), indicating that it is His confession, and not his person that is referenced as the rock, to which you will universally respond that "that's not what Papa says" and imply or call me a heretic?

Which would have been an awesome argument, had it been a good idea the read the bible in isolation. Ananel, did you read the other verses I previously gave?

New verses = new evidence.

[TrunkstheSlayer]

Lord Shafen

Elf Lord Chiewn

That's the legal version, at least in the U.S.
The Christian version involves having sex. And not much else (except, presumably, waking up to one another's company on subsequent mornings).

hmmmm good point mayhap thats why they would refuse the mariages though after all sodomy IS on the books as a crime in 30+ states << just like oral sex is a crime in 17+ states >> and do you think that congress is ever going to actually agree to remove a law AND piss off a major political bloc like the christian/ catholic groups at the same time just to please some peeps??

not no but ******** NO

Lawrence V Texas kiddo. Read up on it.

[Ananel]

Servus Dei

Ananel

Why don't we skip the part where I crush you under my heel, remind you that the full context of at least one of the passages ("You are Peter..." wink is vastly underweighted by you (his immediate apostasy), indicating that it is His confession, and not his person that is referenced as the rock, to which you will universally respond that "that's not what Papa says" and imply or call me a heretic?

Which would have been an awesome argument, had it been a good idea the read the bible in isolation. Ananel, did you read the other verses I previously gave?

New verses = new evidence.

1) Now I did. Last night I did not.
Did I mention something about services? (hint: yes)
You know, where you worship God?
Did I mention a need to sleep? (hint: yes)
You know, so I don't disrespect God's house by sleeping and snoring in the pastor's sermon or the children's program we did today?
I mean, do you actually listen to a word I say? (hint: probably not)

You ain't more important than worship or my walk with God.

2) The verses. Ezekial 47:1-12 to Apocalypse 22:1-4 to Apocalypse 21:1-14 to Matthew 16:18 <--I see no new verses. These are the same four passages you dragged out the last three times we talked on the subject. I'm sorry that your memory is fogged.

Matthew 16:18, to imply that "this rock" is Peter is grammatically inaccurate, and contextually unwise, as the 'rock' would then immediately Apostasize. Your sole response over the years has been to cite the vatican decrees regarding the verse which justifies their authority as verification that it is correct.

What was the word... petitio principii?

Revelations 21:1-14

To assume that "New Jerusalem" = the Roman see is ... what was that word?

Petitio Principii.

Verses without some form of more specific relation to why a particular portion of the church will stand in authority over the others would be needed for vatican authority (or Constantinople's for that matter) to be establishable. Such a reference is lacking here. Furthermore to imply that anyone who disagrees with you is an unbeliever as referenced in v. 8 is Petitio Principii as well, and cheap polemics to boot.

Revelations 22:1-4

To say Rome = "The twelve crops of fruit" simply by saying Rome is the sole form of the true catholic church is Petitio Principii. It assumes the answer before entering the equation and justifies its position by finding a phrase that makes its position sound good. The passage makes no reference to the singular authority or headship of anyone but the Lamb.

Papa ain't the lamb. I know no pope who ever claimed to be the Lamb of God. And I know you ain't saying Rome is the water of life flowing from the Lamb's side... not with Christ's repeated reference to Himself as the water of life.

Ezekiel 47:1-12
All three passages together easily fit Christ as the Water of Life, and God's holy temple as the source of life, with Christ being that temple reborn, torn down as he prophesied in the gospels and rebuilt. Given his repeated use of this imagery to refer to Himself, any attempt to use it to say that Rome is the fresh water and the marshes are non-Roman churches is highly assumptive and not in fitting with Christ's own usage of the imagery.

Worse, it smacks of Petitio Principii as it seeks any example of "us v. those outside us" as 'proof' that Rome is right, and all must return to Rome, when an easily explainable variation which comes from Christ's own usage of the water of life indicates that it is "Believers" and "unbelievers."

By the way: Latin phrases and using old forms of the name of the book of revelations doesn't actually make you sound smarter.

These are not new verses.
This is not new theology from you.
You have learned nothing from before.
I addressed these before.
You responded by saying that the Vatican and the Catholic Councils disagreed with me, viewing that as sufficient to disagree with me.
When pressed, you started the use of the cute phrase "Papa says you're wrong."
You never offered new justification for what was borderline Petitio Principii (Begging the Question) and highly suspect eisegesis at best, eisegesis that both ignored local context within the passages and broader context of the teachings of Christ regarding Himself.

This is nothing new, so I say again: Why don't we skip to the part where you call me a heretic, I call you a Papal bootlicker and we call it a day? It's a worthless argument, since you use your own interpretation as justification and evidence that your interpretation is correct, even if it comes from the Council of Bishops. You defend yourself with yourself, or the Council with the Council. This is nothing new, Barraketh. Why do you insist upon prattling the same arguments verbatim and demanding I respond to them with verbatim, studied protestant teachings regarding the false doctrines associated with Roman authority?

[Ananel]

Pockyautomatron

Are you actually going to cite a translational issue or is this a failed attempt at intellectual snobbery? He's saying that because Peter is the rock of the church the entire Christian church should adhere to the bishop of Rome to which I won't weigh in on. I usually try to avoid this type of subjectivity.

While I agree that Poetic Vengeance is guilty of a little bit of intellectual snobbery, the fact remains that he is still presenting the usual assumptive papal bootlicking version of Catholic doctrine concerning Vatican authority. This is not to be confused with the average Catholic's understanding, which is usually more nuanced and studied. His is simply a vulgar petitio principii that treats any reference to all believers or the body of christ as = Rome, and all else as Not Rome and heretic. He ignores any reference Christ makes to the Water of Life, or the nature of the distinctions between believer/unbeliever present within Christ's teachings that help understand passages like Revelations 21-22. He reads them in isolation, taking three similar passages, finding references to the saved and says, 'see, here's the roman church, there's you.' And then he takes a bad understanding of the grammar that borders on the foundation of the church subsequently apostacizing to the Lord's face and uses it as the pinnacle of the little shell game.

PV may be behaving like a snob towards Barraketh, but Barraketh generally earns it.

Edit: ...huh, wow... you two do sound alike, but you aren't Barraketh apparently. *shrugs* strange world.

[Servus Dei]

Ezekial 47 is about the water of life, as is Apocalypse 22, except that 22 is about how the water of life flows through the New Jerusalem. Apocalypse 21 says that the New Jerusalem is founded upon the 12 Apostles. Matthew 16:18 ties in to Apoc 21, showing that he is Chief among the twelve apostles, and that the New Jerusalem is founded primarily upon him, and likewise shows that the Church and the New Jerusalem are the same, and 1 Tim 3:15 shows that this Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth.

[Ananel]

Servus Dei

Ezekial 47 is about the water of life, as is Apocalypse 22, except that 22 is about how the water of life flows through the New Jerusalem. Apocalypse 21 says that the New Jerusalem is founded upon the 12 Apostles. Matthew 16:18 ties in to Apoc 21, showing that he is Chief among the twelve apostles, and that the New Jerusalem is founded primarily upon him, and likewise shows that the Church and the New Jerusalem are the same, and 1 Tim 3:15 shows that this Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth.

Or the 12 tribes, indicating the New Israel and the fruits of the vineyard which is God's church. We've also been over my views of Matthew 16, and defenses to the ministerium remain petitio principii (begging the question).

Your petitio principii is the statement that Rome = universal. None of these passages justify that, so much as lead one to certain interpretations if that is one's preconceived hermeneutical model.

[Servus Dei]

Ananel

Or the 12 tribes

Except, of course, that the verse comes right out and says 12 Apostles. You are just grasping at straws now, Ananel.

Quote:

We've also been over my views of Matthew 16

I don't really care what your views are. The point is clear that when Christ said "Upon you I shall build my Church," he meant it literally. Apocalypse 21 says as much. "Upon this foundation I shall build my Church." "The city had 12 foundations, upon which were inscribed the name of the 12 Apostles."