A tale of two statements

How is their argument naive?
I didn't say their argument was; I said yours was. As for the 'why', I covered this earlier.
The Apostles Creed.
ὅτι does not occur in the standard Greek version of the Apostles' Creed.
No, I am not saying that that particular phrase was common in creeds, I and the scholars I reference are saying that the repetition of certain phrases was common in ancient Christian creeds. Creeds like the Apostles Creed.
You said just this earlier: "It uses the phrase "in accordance with the scriptures" twice, this was common in ancient Christian creeds."

If you're now abandoning that claim, which phrases are you talking about?
The basics is that the text contains non-Pauline terms and therefore is unlikely to have been written by Paul. That is the basic argument and the main point, IMO.
Understanding a headline, and understanding the basics of the argument, are not quite the same thing.
The fourfold use of the term "that" is common Aramaic narration.
Which Aramaic 'narration'?
Which ones?
My comments on your appealing to the phrase 'in accordance with the scriptures'.
 
The human spirit.
This is not evidence or an argument.
God has explained to us that the human spirit/mind has a beginning but not an end.
Provide an example of something that has an origin that does not have a beginning.
The Son. The father is the origin of the son, but the Son can have no beginning unless the Father begin to be a father. The Eternal Father cannot become a father to the Son.
Technically no, the Father is not the origin of the son since they have both coexisted for eternity. He is the origin of the Son's human incarnation but not His being. Nevertheless the Father is a father to the son.
Existence is eternal. Existence or being can have its origin in God, but cannot have a beginning or end without one wandering into contradictions. To claim existence doesn't exist is to violate the law or principle of non-contradiction. Existence cannot be equivalent to non-existence.
Not all existence is eternal. The universe is not eternal as both science and scripture teach. Of course, existence cannot be equivalent to nonexistence.
Yes, The transcendent Christian God has neither.
Which precludes Absolutes as well as existence.
In what way?

No, if it fits and has the victims blood on it then you must convict.
A jury does not have to convict. It's called jury nullification.
True but they should have as we all know now.
So it is with God, there is more than one piece of evidence for His existence.
False. The burden of proof is upon you to provide this evidence. We're still waiting.
The BB theory and the law of sufficient cause.
Thanks for conceding the point.
the cause of the universe does not have eyes and ears. He is not a physical being because He is "outside" the realm of the physical universe.
Air quotes don't prove your point. There is no such thing as an "outside" or "inside" of the universe. Again, the burden of proof is upon you to provide your evidence.
How do you know that there is no such thing? But I am not saying literally outside the universe. He transcends the universe. From dictionary.com: existence or experience beyond the normal or physical level. The evidence is that He has told us He transcends it.
See what above?
The point made. Repeating yourself doesn't advance the argument.
No, the cause of the universe is most likely also a diversity within a unity.
Why? Why is this most likely?
Because generally artistic creators incorporate aspects of themselves into their creations so that others can know it was he that created it.
The only known God with that characteristic is the Christian God.
False. Paul refutes your claim when he explicitly refers to him as "the unknown god".
He was just referring to the statue had that label on it and that the Christian God was not fully known to the pagans he was speaking to. But because they had made a statue to the unknown god, they did know subconsciously that there was one supreme God.
 
He also corrects himself when he says, "we know God or rather are known by God...etc. " Galatians 4:9

ec: He is referring to believers who had started to backslide so he was not correcting himself.
By definition, any god that can be known cannot be omniscient. Omniscience precludes the possibility of being known. There is the Knower, the faculty of knowing, and whatever can be known. Omniscience refers exclusively to the faculty itself.
An omniscient God cannot be known exhaustively but He can be known partially especially if He has communicated some aspects of himself to us, as the Christian God has.
Not sure what you are trying to say here.

Having multiple names for your one God doesnt make you polytheist.
It's how scholars, historians, archeologists etc. refer to them.
Not all scholars, historians, and archaeologists are correct.
No, He is just saying dont go after false gods.
Correction. the term used is "before"
Before is a term referring to admire or worship. Someone would appear before an authority figure such as a king or god. And going after them refers to bascially the same thing.
We know from other texts like Isaiah 40:12-31, that God does not acknowledge the existence of other gods.
And yet he refers to them anyways.
Because He knows that humans worship them.
Moreover, what it actually says is that there is nothing beside God. We also know that all of creation is sustained by God, and could all be obliterated in a moment as if it never existed.
True.
No, I was saying that polytheists, ie pagans, dont believe there is a unity among the gods, they are all different.
I haven't forgotten what you posted. I addressed what you posted. Are you going to address my response or not?
I thought I did. How did I not?
But yes those four religions have the other problem, they believe all is unified and there is no real diversity.
False. They simply point out that when the parts are distinguished, they're going to need names.
Look them up, they all teach that ultimately all is ONE. No real diversity.
But the Christian God has both characteristics like the universe He created.
False. The biblical God does not bear the characteristics of creation. The biblical god is the origin of creation that is the primary characteristic.
You have it reversed. Creation bears the characteristics or "fingerprints" of God.
No contradiction,
A blatant contradiction.
In what way?
you just misunderstood,
I comprehended it perfectly.
Well your answer made it appear you misunderstood.
Diversity is not an illusion that is why those religions that teach that all is one are wrong and their god cannot be the creator.
shnarkle: Double standards are your forte. Paul makes the exact same claim when he points out that when Christ has placed all his enemies below him, and reconciled the world to God the father, the result will be 'all in all' 1 Corinthians 15:28That is just referring to everything being restored to its original fullness and spirit of God will fill creation. But we know from other texts that our individuality (diversity) will not be destroyed.
No, I just proved it above.
No, you didn't.
In what way?
God does transcend everything that physically exists.
By definition, transcendence is not confined to physical existence.
True, but it appeared you were implying that He transcends himself which is impossible.
That is not what I claimed. I didnt say logic is transcendent, I said God is. But as a rational being, God is constrained by logic.
Correction: Your god is constrained.
Yes, He is constrained by multiple things, such as logic and His own character.
God is not part of me.
This is why I pointed to Christ's words when he will say, "I never knew you".
But as a follower of Him He does know me and I know Him. He was referring to people who never knew Him and therefore He never knew them.
We are not God. Jesus never said we are God.
False. He quotes explicitly quotes scripture which says, "Ye are gods."
Depending on what verse you are refering to you are misinterpreting it or taking it out of context. Nowhere in the Bible does it say we are literally gods.
Moreover, after healing others and performing numerous miracles, he then says, "Greater things than these you will also do."
Yes, we will be able to save people from Hell thru evangelism, which is far greater than any of the miraculous healings and etc.
His spirit indwells us as a guide but He is still a separate being from us.
False. He openly points out that "apart from me, you can do nothing." and "whatever you do to the least of my brethren, you do it to me"
He is referring to spiritual separation, ie rejecting the indwelling power of the holy spirit, not that He takes over your identity. As seen throughout scripture we never lose our identity. Your second quote is a metaphor.
This passage
What passage???????????????
I Corinthians 15:3-8.
 
How did I concede to you?
, see my post above.
Ditto.
Again how did I concede?
Actually it uses Aramaic terms that point to an Aramaic original
Fallacy of Begging the Question. All it points to is the fact that they spoke Aramaic.
No, when there is a section within a greek letter in the form of a creed and parts of it are in Aramaic, that is evidence it originally was probably in Aramaic.
Ok name the point you are trying to make here.
Which one? The fact that you're conflating a particular figure of speech with figurative language in general, or something else?
That is not what I did.
In what way is it not a fact?
I just explained why. A claim is not proof or evidence.
Read any good book on mythology.
Myths use overblown and fantastical descriptions, the gospels are nothing like that.
So walking on water, filling containers full of water and then giving them to guests who marvel at the best tasting wine being saved for last, raising people from the dead, etc. etc. etc. are not fantastical descriptions according to....your opinion?
No, not like most myths where the Giant trees walk and talk. The gospels are laconic, myths are verbose. Everything fits in, everything is meaningful in the gospels unlike myths. Psychological depth is at a maximum in myths it is at a minimum. Also, myths dont form within 30-40 years of the events.
el cid: A very good portrait of Jesus' character is created.

It provides a character that shows love and kindness combined with toughness and courage
Tarot card readers provide characterizations which are no less vague and ambiguous.
Evidence? C.S. Lewis who was an expert on myth has pretty much demolished the myth argument against the gospels. Read his take in "Modern Theology and BIblical Criticism".
that has influenced and inspired millions to change the world.
Look around at the state of the world today. Your own bible points out this would happen, and it doesn't present it as an improvement.
Huh? The followers of Christ produced modern science, modern universities, modern hospitals, the concept of human equality and human rights. Just because we may be starting to lose these things today, people inspired by Christ have brought about most everything good about human civilization.
The GOT has a 100 foot tall cross come out of the tomb with Jesus, this is a perfect example of an overblown and fantastical description that is how most myths are but unlike the NT.
Myths don't allow for people to rise from the dead? Again, you're presenting a ridiculous double standard.
See above. A myth would make a much bigger deal out of a resurrection than the gospels do, like the giant cross walking out the tomb like the Gospel of Thomas.
See above.
Ditto.
The passage in I Corinthians is the only scripture I was referring to.
Then you're not presenting much of an argument. It's just simply Begging the Question.
How is it begging the question?
Why would he assume anyone else?
You're missing the point. I'm referring to his use of the Genitive of Possession.
What else should he use?
If at first in the reasoning steps you are the only one there.
False. He never makes this assumption. He's simply assuming that the thoughts he is aware of are his own.
Well in my use of his argument that is my assumption. You have no basis for thinking there are other beings around you until you have first established your own existence
And since thinking can only occur in someone that exists, it is rational assumption.
Again, your own bible points out that one's life is not their own. All things are created in, with, through and FOR Christ. The whole world belongs to Christ. He paid for it, therefore it belongs to him and no one else.
True but none of that precludes the existence of individuals.
The point with Descartes is that he never defines or details what he means by referring to himself. There is the person or the physical body which exists, but he would admit that the body belongs to him. It is his body, but he would not say that he is the body itself. To do so is to conflate the Verb To Be with the Genitive of Possession. This is grammatical blasphemy.
He is referring to his mind. And minds are generally connected to bodies though that is not required absolutely. But he is more than a body.
It also spotlights the fact that most people who do this have lost touch with reality.
Not necessarily.
No one is born with an identity or a sense of self. All identities are fabricated during infancy. They are nothing more than abstract constructions of the mind.
I disagree. We are all born with an identity and gradually gain a sense of self which is influenced by the environment and biology though not as much as was thought in the past.
Descartes never identified who he was referring to, and no one ever asked him. You seem to feel that you have this all figured out, but you've yet to identify who or what you're referring to either. Please be so kind as to point out what you're talking about.
He was referring to himself, as I stated above he cannot demonstrate the existence of others until he demonstrates his own existence.
In other words, if you identify with a physical body, then who are you? You can't be the physical body you identify with due to the fact that identification is NOT identity. Moreover, if the body belongs to you, then it is yours and cannot be who you are.
I identify with a physcial body and a nonphysical mind or personality. As I stated above, I am more than physical body but I am also a physical body and a mind.
 
How is their argument naive?
I didn't say their argument was; I said yours was. As for the 'why', I covered this earlier.
As I explained their and my argument is more than just using Cephas showing its Aramaic origin.
The Apostles Creed.
ὅτι does not occur in the standard Greek version of the Apostles' Creed.
The fourfold use of the term "that" (hoti) is common in Aramaic Christian creeds.
No, I am not saying that that particular phrase was common in creeds, I and the scholars I reference are saying that the repetition of certain phrases was common in ancient Christian creeds. Creeds like the Apostles Creed.
You said just this earlier: "It uses the phrase "in accordance with the scriptures" twice, this was common in ancient Christian creeds."
I was referring to the repetition of phrases. The emphasis was on the word twice. Not the specific phrase. I admit my statement could have been more clear.
If you're now abandoning that claim, which phrases are you talking about?
See above.
The basics is that the text contains non-Pauline terms and therefore is unlikely to have been written by Paul. That is the basic argument and the main point, IMO.
Understanding a headline, and understanding the basics of the argument, are not quite the same thing.
What headline? I am referring to the main thrust of the argument.
The fourfold use of the term "that" is common Aramaic narration.
Which Aramaic 'narration'?
In Aramaic creeds.
Which ones?
My comments on your appealing to the phrase 'in accordance with the scriptures'.
See above how that was not what I was referring to.
 
As I explained their and my argument is more than just using Cephas showing its Aramaic origin.
I hope so. But this particular argument is dead on arrival.
The fourfold use of the term "that" (hoti) is common in Aramaic Christian creeds.
It's poor form to see a factual correction to a claim you've made, but not acknowledge it, and then come out with a different claim entirely.

That aside, hoti is a Greek word, so obviously wouldn't occur in Aramaic creeds, fourfold or otherwise.

I was referring to the repetition of phrases. The emphasis was on the word twice. Not the specific phrase. I admit my statement could have been more clear.
Okay: which phrases? Which creeds?

What headline? I am referring to the main thrust of the argument.
But you don't understand the 'main thrust' of the argument, because you can't tell me a single term you're talking about. Rather, you understand the headline - "the text contains non-Pauline terms and therefore is unlikely to have been written by Paul" - and literally nothing else.
In Aramaic creeds.
Which creeds?
 
As I explained their and my argument is more than just using Cephas showing its Aramaic origin.
I hope so. But this particular argument is dead on arrival.
No, while it may not prove it, it is evidence that the creed was originally in Aramaic. If creed had called him Peter, then we would know that it probably was not originally Aramaic and therefore not as old.
The fourfold use of the term "that" (hoti) is common in Aramaic Christian creeds.
It's poor form to see a factual correction to a claim you've made, but not acknowledge it, and then come out with a different claim entirely.
I didnt change anything, you asked me to name an ancient Christian creed and I said the Apostles Creed, I didnt say that it contained that term.
That aside, hoti is a Greek word, so obviously wouldn't occur in Aramaic creeds, fourfold or otherwise.
I was referring to the translated word "that", not the greek term itself.
I was referring to the repetition of phrases. The emphasis was on the word twice. Not the specific phrase. I admit my statement could have been more clear.
Okay: which phrases? Which creeds?
My sources don't go into that much detail, they just provide the sources for further research that I provided on the previous page.
What headline? I am referring to the main thrust of the argument.
But you don't understand the 'main thrust' of the argument, because you can't tell me a single term you're talking about. Rather, you understand the headline - "the text contains non-Pauline terms and therefore is unlikely to have been written by Paul" - and literally nothing else.
Well I consider that the main thrust of the argument. More detail is provided in the references I provided.
In Aramaic creeds.
Which creeds?
My sources dont provide that specific information just references that do. They are not written for Biblical scholars just the ordinary Christians.
 
No, while it may not prove it, it is evidence that the creed was originally in Aramaic. If creed had called him Peter, then we would know that it probably was not originally Aramaic and therefore not as old.
For the reasons I've outlined, it's no evidence at all.
I didnt change anything, you asked me to name an ancient Christian creed and I said the Apostles Creed, I didnt say that it contained that term.
Yes, you did; and I didn't, for obvious reasons, just ask you to name a random Christian creed.

I said:

I don't know what I'm supposed to be seeing: you've said that "use of the Greek term hoti is common in creeds", namely Christian ones. So, I've asked you to tell me which creeds you're talking about. If you don't know, and are just repeating a claim you've heard others make, you should say so.

You replied:

The Apostles Creed.

But hoti doesn't occur in this creed at all. It would be proper of you to acknowledge the mistake, rather than pretend that you didn't make one. If you didn't mean to say what you said, that's fine. But it remains a mistake.

I was referring to the translated word "that", not the greek term itself.
Yes, you were, since you said:

The fourfold use of the term "that" (hoti) is common in Aramaic Christian creeds.
My sources don't go into that much detail, they just provide the sources for further research that I provided on the previous page.
Okay: so the answer to my question is that you don't know.
Well I consider that the main thrust of the argument.
But it isn't the main thrust at all, as I've explained.
More detail is provided in the references I provided.

My sources dont provide that specific information just references that do. They are not written for Biblical scholars just the ordinary Christians.
Okay: so the answer to my question is that you don't know.
 
God has explained to us that the human spirit/mind has a beginning but not an end.
What are you referring to. Do you have a biblical reference?
Technically no, the Father is not the origin of the son since they have both coexisted for eternity.
You're conflating "origin" with "beginning". The Father and Son have no beginning, but the Father is the origin of the Son. As the Son points out, "I came from the father". John 16:28
He is the origin of the Son's human incarnation
The introduction to John's gospel points out that the Father is the origin of everything that exists.
but not His being.
False. See the proof above from Christ's own mouth.
Nevertheless the Father is a father to the son.

Not all existence is eternal.
False.
The universe is not eternal
False dichotomy. The universe is something that exists. It is not existence itself which is necessarily eternal.
as both science and scripture teach.
False.
Of course, existence cannot be equivalent to nonexistence.
They are both eternal. Non-existence doesn't exist eternally and existence exists eternally. To claim otherwise leads inevitably to violating the law or principle of non-contradiction.
In what way?
Absolutes are not transcendent. Transcendence transcends absolutes along with everything else.
True but they should have as we all know now.
Your speculation is beside the point.
The BB theory and the law of sufficient cause.
That's not evidence. That's a synopsis of a theory you can't even begin to articulate.
How do you know that there is no such thing?
Because, by definition the universe is inclusive. You're just redefining the term to suit your claims.
But I am not saying literally outside the universe.
You literally just said exactly that.
He transcends the universe. From dictionary.com: existence or experience beyond the normal or physical level. The evidence is that He has told us He transcends it.
Agreed. Therefore He doesn't exist. Read your definition again until you see that simple fact.
Because generally artistic creators incorporate aspects of themselves into their creations so that others can know it was he that created it.
Non Sequitur. Please connect the dots if you disagree.
He was just referring to the statue had that label on it and that the Christian God was not fully known to the pagans he was speaking to.
He's not even partially known to anyone. Paul points out that one can only be known of God. Unless your god is anything less than omniscient, it is impossible to know him. Moreover, there can be no other mediator between God and humanity than Christ. If you want to inject knowledge into the equation it can only be a superfluous mediator.
But because they had made a statue to the unknown god, they did know subconsciously that there was one supreme God.
Pure speculation. There is nothing in the text that even remotely suggests your claim. If it were as you say, they would have labelled it "the Supreme god".
 
No, while it may not prove it, it is evidence that the creed was originally in Aramaic. If creed had called him Peter, then we would know that it probably was not originally Aramaic and therefore not as old.
For the reasons I've outlined, it's no evidence at all.
None of your reasons prove that it is not evidence.
I didnt change anything, you asked me to name an ancient Christian creed and I said the Apostles Creed, I didnt say that it contained that term.
Yes, you did; and I didn't, for obvious reasons, just ask you to name a random Christian creed.

I said:

I don't know what I'm supposed to be seeing: you've said that "use of the Greek term hoti is common in creeds", namely Christian ones. So, I've asked you to tell me which creeds you're talking about. If you don't know, and are just repeating a claim you've heard others make, you should say so.

You replied:

The Apostles Creed.

But hoti doesn't occur in this creed at all. It would be proper of you to acknowledge the mistake, rather than pretend that you didn't make one. If you didn't mean to say what you said, that's fine. But it remains a mistake.
I was just giving you an example of an ancient Christian creed. I never said it contained the term.
I was referring to the translated word "that", not the greek term itself.
Yes, you were, since you said:

The fourfold use of the term "that" (hoti) is common in Aramaic Christian creeds.
Fraid not. You misunderstood.
My sources don't go into that much detail, they just provide the sources for further research that I provided on the previous page.
Okay: so the answer to my question is that you don't know.

Well I consider that the main thrust of the argument.
But it isn't the main thrust at all, as I've explained.
Yes, it is. Your explanation does not refute that fact.
More detail is provided in the references I provided.

My sources dont provide that specific information just references that do. They are not written for Biblical scholars just the ordinary Christians.
Okay: so the answer to my question is that you don't know.
Correct. But if you really are open minded enough I have provided the references.
 
God has explained to us that the human spirit/mind has a beginning but not an end.
What are you referring to. Do you have a biblical reference?
All the verses dealing with birth and death combined with knowledge from His other book, Nature.
Technically no, the Father is not the origin of the son since they have both coexisted for eternity.
You're conflating "origin" with "beginning". The Father and Son have no beginning, but the Father is the origin of the Son. As the Son points out, "I came from the father". John 16:28
In John 16:28, the Son is referring to location as he refers coming to the world. And returning to the Fathers location. He is not referrng to the origin of His existence.
He is the origin of the Son's human incarnation
The introduction to John's gospel points out that the Father is the origin of everything that exists.
No, the Word refers to the Son and God in verses 1 and 2 refer to the Father, so they are both the origin of everything that exists.
but not His being.
False. See the proof above from Christ's own mouth.
No, See above.
Nevertheless the Father is a father to the son.

Not all existence is eternal.
False.
Evidence that all existence is eternal?
The universe is not eternal
False dichotomy. The universe is something that exists. It is not existence itself which is necessarily eternal.
You just contradicted yourself, you said all existence is eternal above.
as both science and scripture teach.
False.
Evidence?
Of course, existence cannot be equivalent to nonexistence.
They are both eternal. Non-existence doesn't exist eternally and existence exists eternally. To claim otherwise leads inevitably to violating the law or principle of non-contradiction.
Evidence?
In what way?
Absolutes are not transcendent. Transcendence transcends absolutes along with everything else.
Not Gods transcendence, He only transcends the physical universe. His absolutes are part of who He is. He cannot transcend himself.
True but they should have as we all know now.
Your speculation is beside the point.
He was convicted of the murder in the civil trial, that is not speculation.
The BB theory and the law of sufficient cause.
That's not evidence. That's a synopsis of a theory you can't even begin to articulate.
I understand the basics of the BB theory. So it is evidence.
How do you know that there is no such thing?
Because, by definition the universe is inclusive. You're just redefining the term to suit your claims.
The universe is everything that exists physically, God is a nonphysical entity, so by definition He transcends it.
But I am not saying literally outside the universe.
You literally just said exactly that.
No, the surrounding quotes mean not to take the word literally. It means ontological transcendence.
He transcends the universe. From dictionary.com: existence or experience beyond the normal or physical level. The evidence is that He has told us He transcends it.
Agreed. Therefore He doesn't exist. Read your definition again until you see that simple fact.
See above. Ontological transcendence does not mean non existence.
Because generally artistic creators incorporate aspects of themselves into their creations so that others can know it was he that created it.
Non Sequitur. Please connect the dots if you disagree.
That is how art experts determine who created a particular work of art.
He was just referring to the statue had that label on it and that the Christian God was not fully known to the pagans he was speaking to.
He's not even partially known to anyone. Paul points out that one can only be known of God. Unless your god is anything less than omniscient, it is impossible to know him.
Why? He is partially known because He has partially revealed Himself to us.
Moreover, there can be no other mediator between God and humanity than Christ. If you want to inject knowledge into the equation it can only be a superfluous mediator.
The mediator for our salvation must be a person, knowledge is not a person so it cannot save us.
But because they had made a statue to the unknown god, they did know subconsciously that there was one supreme God.
Pure speculation. There is nothing in the text that even remotely suggests your claim. If it were as you say, they would have labelled it "the Supreme god".
We know from other texts such as Romans 1.
 
None of your reasons prove that it is not evidence.
I'm afraid they do. I encourage you to read them with care, and then frame a reasoned response to them, rather than dismiss them out of hand.
I was just giving you an example of an ancient Christian creed. I never said it contained the term.

Yes, you did; and I didn't, for obvious reasons, just ask you to name a random Christian creed.

I said:

I don't know what I'm supposed to be seeing: you've said that "use of the Greek term hoti is common in creeds", namely Christian ones. So, I've asked you to tell me which creeds you're talking about. If you don't know, and are just repeating a claim you've heard others make, you should say so.

You replied:

The Apostles Creed.

But hoti doesn't occur in this creed at all. It would be proper of you to acknowledge the mistake, rather than pretend that you didn't make one. If you didn't mean to say what you said, that's fine. But it remains a mistake.
Fraid not. You misunderstood.
I'm afraid so. I understood what you said, but I may have misunderstood what you believe, as there's sometimes a mismatch between the two.

Again, your unwillingness to admit even the most basic mistake suggests a rather prideful approach to our conversation. Is that the right attitude to adopt when trying to defend Christianity?
Yes, it is. Your explanation does not refute that fact.
I'm afraid it does, as we've seen. I encourage you to read that explanation with care, and then frame a reasoned response to it, rather than dismiss it out of hand.
 
None of your reasons prove that it is not evidence.
I'm afraid they do. I encourage you to read them with care, and then frame a reasoned response to them, rather than dismiss them out of hand.
I did, I still dont see it disproving that it is not evidence. So I said if it used his greek name Peter then it would be evidence it was originally in Greek. But it was his Aramaic name.
I was just giving you an example of an ancient Christian creed. I never said it contained the term.

Yes, you did; and I didn't, for obvious reasons, just ask you to name a random Christian creed.

I said:

I don't know what I'm supposed to be seeing: you've said that "use of the Greek term hoti is common in creeds", namely Christian ones. So, I've asked you to tell me which creeds you're talking about. If you don't know, and are just repeating a claim you've heard others make, you should say so.

You replied:

The Apostles Creed.

But hoti doesn't occur in this creed at all. It would be proper of you to acknowledge the mistake, rather than pretend that you didn't make one. If you didn't mean to say what you said, that's fine. But it remains a mistake.
I was just mentioning it as an example of an early Christian Creed.
Fraid not. You misunderstood.
I'm afraid so. I understood what you said, but I may have misunderstood what you believe, as there's sometimes a mismatch between the two.

Again, your unwillingness to admit even the most basic mistake suggests a rather prideful approach to our conversation. Is that the right attitude to adopt when trying to defend Christianity?
I dont think I made a mistake, other than maybe lack of clarity.
Yes, it is. Your explanation does not refute that fact.
I'm afraid it does, as we've seen. I encourage you to read that explanation with care, and then frame a reasoned response to it, rather than dismiss it out of hand.
I havent seen you refute it yet. Try again.
 
I did, I still dont see it disproving that it is not evidence. So I said if it used his greek name Peter then it would be evidence it was originally in Greek. But it was his Aramaic name.
For the reasons given, to which you haven't responded, this doesn't go through.
I was just mentioning it as an example of an early Christian Creed.
But that wasn't what you were asked for. Your inability to admit you made a mistake does you no credit.
I dont think I made a mistake, other than maybe lack of clarity.
Alas, you did, as we've seen.
I havent seen you refute it yet. Try again.
Rather, you don't agree that I have. That disagreement is no reason for me to 'try again', and you should in any case be more polite.
 
I did, I still dont see it disproving that it is not evidence. So I said if it used his greek name Peter then it would be evidence it was originally in Greek. But it was his Aramaic name.
For the reasons given, to which you haven't responded, this doesn't go through.
What reasons have I not responded to?
I was just mentioning it as an example of an early Christian Creed.
But that wasn't what you were asked for. Your inability to admit you made a mistake does you no credit.
Well we will just have to disagree on that one.
I dont think I made a mistake, other than maybe lack of clarity.
Alas, you did, as we've seen.
Where?
I havent seen you refute it yet. Try again.
Rather, you don't agree that I have. That disagreement is no reason for me to 'try again', and you should in any case be more polite.
Sorry if you think I was rude. You are free not to try again.
 
Back
Top