Who was Heli?

Caroljeen

Well-known member
“I don't see any evidence that Paul adopted Onesimus as his son, at least in the sense which you seem to have in mind. This seems to be a florid way of Paul saying that he converted Onesimus (now his 'brother', v. 16, like Philemon himself) while he was in prison. Similar language is used of Timothy elsewhere in the Pauline corpus, and most telling is something like 1 Corinthians 4:14f:

14I do not write these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children (
τέκνα). 15For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father (ἐγέννησα) through the gospel. (NASB)

These are the same terms as used in verse 10 of Philemon.”
@The Pixie, I agree with Lucian's assessment of Onesimus as a "son" of Paul through the gospel. He was not adopted by Paul in anyway.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
@The Pixie, I agree with Lucian's assessment of Onesimus as a "son" of Paul through the gospel. He was not adopted by Paul in anyway.
So what does Paul mean when he uses the term "begotten"?

The Bible tells us Jesus was God's "begotten" son. How can we be sure that the author did not mean adopted, given the way Paul uses the term about a relationship that was certainly closer to adoption than to biological parent?

Are you saying it can mean a biological relationship, as between a father and son, and it can mean a a man converted into another man's faith, but it could never be used to describe adoption? That would seem strangely specific of two situations, whilst excluding something between the two.
 

Caroljeen

Well-known member
So what does Paul mean when he uses the term "begotten"?
In Philemon, Paul means exactly what Lucian wrote:

“I don't see any evidence that Paul adopted Onesimus as his son, at least in the sense which you seem to have in mind. This seems to be a florid way of Paul saying that he converted Onesimus (now his 'brother', v. 16, like Philemon himself) while he was in prison. Similar language is used of Timothy elsewhere in the Pauline corpus, and most telling is something like 1 Corinthians 4:14f:

[1 Cor 4:] 14I do not write these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children (
τέκνα). 15For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father (ἐγέννησα) through the gospel. (NASB)

These are the same terms as used in verse 10 of Philemon.”

Lucian is saying that the same Greek words used in Philemon 10 are used in 1 Cor 4. Paul considers those he converted and brought up in the ways of the Lord as his children in Christ. In 1Cor 1:1-3 Paul speaks of new converts as spiritual "infants". In John 3:1-8, Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus, a pharisee and ruler of the Jews, telling him that he must be born again if he wants to enter the kingdom of God. Newborn Christians are like babies, there is a lot of growing to do. You understand metaphorical language, right?
The Bible tells us Jesus was God's "begotten" son.
How can we be sure that the author did not mean adopted, given the way Paul uses the term about a relationship that was certainly closer to adoption than to biological parent?
Context. Matthew and Luke both wrote about how Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary. There is nothing about adoption. Try reading Matthew 1 in the NKJV of the Bible.

From Bible.org - Philemon 10 - I am appealing to you concerning my child, whose spiritual father I have become during my imprisonment, that is, Onesimus,

Morphology: VIAA--1S Strong's: 1080 Transliterated: egennēsa Root: γεννάω
1) of men who fathered children 1a) to be born 1b) to be begotten 1b1) of women giving birth to children 2) metaph. 2a) to engender, cause to arise, excite 2b) in a Jewish sense, of one who brings others over to his way of life, to convert someone 2c) of God making Christ his son 2d) of God making men his sons through faith in Christ's work

In context, 2b is the way Lucian is interpreting Phil 10.

As for adoption-Galatians 4: 4 But when the appropriate time had come, God sent out his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we may be adopted as sons with full rights. 6 And because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, who calls “Abba! Father!” 7 So you are no longer a slave but a son, and if you are a son, then you are also an heir through God.

Morphology: N-AF-S Strong's: 5206 Transliterated: huiothesian Root: υἱοθεσία
1) adoption, adoption as sons 1a) that relationship which God was pleased to establish between himself and the Israelites in preference to all other nations 1b) the nature and condition of the true disciples in Christ, who by receiving the Spirit of God into their souls become sons of God 1c) the blessed state looked for in the future life after the visible return of Christ from heaven


The word for adopted in Gal 4:5 is not the same word as fathered/begotten.
Are you saying it can mean a biological relationship, as between a father and son, and it can mean a a man converted into another man's faith, but it could never be used to describe adoption?
Yes, but I would not word it the way you do in the second part.

Onesimus and Timothy are both disciples of Jesus trained under Paul. They both work with Paul in spreading the gospel, just like Father /Son. A son at that time would take on the trade of his biological father. Jesus became a carpenter like Joseph his earthly father. Appy that concept to Paul to Onesimus and Timothy. This isn't speaking about a legal adoption.

You can believe what you want but to believe that Jesus was adopted is incorrect according to the Bible. To believe that Onesimus was adopted is incorrect as well.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
In Philemon, Paul means exactly what Lucian wrote:

“I don't see any evidence that Paul adopted Onesimus as his son, at least in the sense which you seem to have in mind. This seems to be a florid way of Paul saying that he converted Onesimus (now his 'brother', v. 16, like Philemon himself) while he was in prison. Similar language is used of Timothy elsewhere in the Pauline corpus, and most telling is something like 1 Corinthians 4:14f:

[1 Cor 4:] 14I do not write these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children (
τέκνα). 15For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father (ἐγέννησα) through the gospel. (NASB)

These are the same terms as used in verse 10 of Philemon.”

Lucian is saying that the same Greek words used in Philemon 10 are used in 1 Cor 4. Paul considers those he converted and brought up in the ways of the Lord as his children in Christ. In 1Cor 1:1-3 Paul speaks of new converts as spiritual "infants". In John 3:1-8, Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus, a pharisee and ruler of the Jews, telling him that he must be born again if he wants to enter the kingdom of God. Newborn Christians are like babies, there is a lot of growing to do. You understand metaphorical language, right?
Okay, fine. So what does that tell us about how the word "begotten" was used? It proves it was not used exclusively to indicate a biological relationship. That is all I am saying, and nothing you or Lucian have said seem to actually address that.

Context. Matthew and Luke both wrote about how Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary. There is nothing about adoption. Try reading Matthew 1 in the NKJV of the Bible.
I agree. By the time they were writing, a new concept of Jesus had appeared with Jesus divine from birth. This was significantly different to the earlier view of Paul and Mark, who believed Jesus was adopted.

The word for adopted in Gal 4:5 is not the same word as fathered/begotten.
Sure, but you presumably agree with me that Paul did not father Onesimus. So when the Bible says "begotten" it could mean father, but it could mean something else.

Onesimus and Timothy are both disciples of Jesus trained under Paul. They both work with Paul in spreading the gospel, just like Father /Son. A son at that time would take on the trade of his biological father. Jesus became a carpenter like Joseph his earthly father. Appy that concept to Paul to Onesimus and Timothy. This isn't speaking about a legal adoption.

You can believe what you want but to believe that Jesus was adopted is incorrect according to the Bible. To believe that Onesimus was adopted is incorrect as well.
To be clear, I am not using "begotten" to show Jesus was adopted, only that "begotten" does not imply "fathered".

The very earliest Christians believed Jesus was adopted as the son of God because that was the case for all the messiahs, ever since King David (see 2 Samuel 7:14). This is why Paul said Jesus was appointed by God:

Romans 1:4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.
 

Lucian

Active member
Okay, fine. So what does that tell us about how the word "begotten" was used? It proves it was not used exclusively to indicate a biological relationship. That is all I am saying, and nothing you or Lucian have said seem to actually address that.
Sure, but you presumably agree with me that Paul did not father Onesimus. So when the Bible says "begotten" it could mean father, but it could mean something else.
What is there to address? This latest (for it has not been 'all [you] are saying' consistently) is a painfully trivial claim, and it's unclear why you're making so much of a verse in Philemon if that's all you're trying to establish.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
What is there to address? This latest (for it has not been 'all [you] are saying' consistently) is a painfully trivial claim, and it's unclear why you're making so much of a verse in Philemon if that's all you're trying to establish.
I never claimed it was any more than "painfully trivial".

And yes, that really is all I have been saying (with regards to the passage in Philemon).

My original point:

Post #321: Anyway, the point is he calls Onesimus his "begotten" son, when Onesimus was certainly not his biological son.

That was it. Nothing more than that.

This is from my first response to you:

Post #323: That he uses the word "begotten". Hence the use of that word elsewhere does not prove the author believed Jesus was the actual son of God, rather than the adopted son of God.

The mystery here is why YOU made so much of this, given it is "a painfully trivial claim". Can you see why I have I concluded that your purpose here is just to jerk me around?
 

Lucian

Active member
I never claimed it was any more than "painfully trivial".

Well, duh: nobody who makes such claims would do so. But it's something to be avoided!
And yes, that really is all I have been saying (with regards to the passage in Philemon).

My original point:

Post #321: Anyway, the point is he calls Onesimus his "begotten" son, when Onesimus was certainly not his biological son.

That was it. Nothing more than that.
But this is false, since earlier (#314) you were claiming that Paul was alluding to his having adopted Onesimus, which you were using as evidence of adoption being in view elsewhere in the New Testament, namely where Jesus is referred to as having been begotten.

You seemed to partly retreat from the former view after reading my assessment of Philemon, and now have resorted to a completely trivial position that nobody would dispute, for which citing Philemon is unnecessary: that when (a still unidentified!) Biblical author says that Jesus was begotten, it's possible that that author is not referring to literal parentage. Note that you're not even citing the usage in Philemon as some kind of probative evidence that elsewhere literal parentage isn't in view, which would at least be non-trivial, even if a bad idea (see my #365).

And yet still you have the brass cheek to accuse me of 'jerki[ng] [you] around'. Isn't it the reverse?
 
Last edited:

The Pixie

Well-known member
Well, duh: nobody who makes such claims would do so. But it's something to be avoided!
Why? It it supports my position, then the point is worth establishing.

But this is false, since earlier (#314) you were claiming that Paul was alluding to his having adopted Onesimus, which you were using as evidence of adoption being in view elsewhere in the New Testament, namely where Jesus is referred to as having been begotten.
No I was not.

Caroljeen said "Jesus was begotten not adopted." and I pointed out that "begotten" has a much wider use; it does not necessarily imply fathered. What I said was "To Paul at least, "begotten" could include adopted." If you want to insist Onesimus was not formally adopted, then I will accept that, but still say that what Paul said supports my point that "begotten" does not necessarily imply fathered.

You seemed to partly retreat from the former view after reading my assessment of Philemon, and now have resorted to a completely trivial position that nobody would dispute, for which citing Philemon is unnecessary: that when (a still unidentified!) Biblical author says that Jesus was begotten, it's possible that that author is not referring to literal parentage.
Then you read more into it than I said.

Note that you're not even citing the usage in Philemon as some kind of probative evidence that elsewhere literal parentage isn't in view, which would at least be non-trivial, even if a bad idea (see my #365).
No I am not doing that.

And yet still you have the brass cheek to accuse me of 'jerki[ng] [you] around'. Isn't it the reverse?
I made a point that you said is "painfully trivial", and yet here were are still debating it. And I made it several times!

Me in post #321: Anyway, the point is he calls Onesimus his "begotten" son, when Onesimus was certainly not his biological son.

You in post #322: He does no such thing.

There are two points about this exchange. Firstly I stated something that you now admit is "painfully trivial", and yet you previously flat out said I was wrong. The second is that you chose not to say how I was wrong, to say what you think is right. Perhaps if you had deigned to do so, we would have got this discussion over with days ago. But no, you instead chose to jerk me around instead.

Later, I said it again.

Me in post #327: My point being that the Bible saying Jesus was God's begotten son does not tell us the author did not believe God adopted Jesus, given the term "begotten" is also used in one instance where it clearly means the guy was not the biological offspring.

How you can pretend I have changed me position ("This latest (for it has not been 'all [you] are saying' consistently) ") is beyond me.

So yes, I think you have been jerking me around.
 

Lucian

Active member
Later, I said it again.

Me in post #327: My point being that the Bible saying Jesus was God's begotten son does not tell us the author did not believe God adopted Jesus, given the term "begotten" is also used in one instance where it clearly means the guy was not the biological offspring.

How you can pretend I have changed me position ("This latest (for it has not been 'all [you] are saying' consistently) ") is beyond me.
But you have changed your position, so no pretence is needed:

Here you are arguing for a certain Christological position, namely that Jesus was among many earlier Christians, including Paul, thought to have been 'adopted' by God, rather than in some sense literally fathered by him:
He did believe Jesus was special. He (probably) believed Jesus was born an ordinary man, but he was chosen by God because God was especially pleased with him.

Mark 1:11 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

After the baptism, Jesus was the messiah, the man appointed by God to be the king of the Jews, and adopted by God as his son, so was even more special!

I think this is what Paul and Peter believed too - though they might have disagree with when Jesus was appointed messiah. This fits with the general beliefs of all the Jews - that God would one day appoint a man, of the seed of David, to be their new king. Where they diverged from mainstream Judaism was that they believed Jesus was that man.

That was a later belief. Mark, Peter and Paul believed Jesus was God's adopted son. in fact, all Jews believed the Jewish kings, the earlier messiahs, were the adopted sons of God.
Your interlocutor disagrees:
Jesus was begotten not adopted. As a Christian I am adopted by God through Christ.
You reply:
Bear in mind what Paul said of Onesimus

Philemon 1:10 I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten while in my chains,

To Paul at least, "begotten" could include adopted.
Here then you're making a substantive argument, suggesting that the early Christians (including Paul himself) held what we might call an 'adoptionist' Christology, and that the language of 'begetting', far from being any evidence against your position, may redound to it, since in fact it can denote, at least in Paul, an adoption, per Philemon 1:10.

But, as you now accept, Paul was not talking about adoption of Onesimus after all: the terminology has nothing to do with actual fatherhood or adoption. So, you're rather awkwardly left saying that Philemon 1:10 demonstrates that the language of 'begetting' doesn't necessitate that an author has literal paternity in mind. Alas, this is a truism (would we expect the thousands of cases of the language of begetting in Greek to all refer to literal paternity?) and so not in need of any demonstration, by Philemon or otherwise.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
But you have changed your position, so no pretence is needed:

Here you are arguing for a certain Christological position, namely that Jesus was among many earlier Christians, including Paul, thought to have been 'adopted' by God, rather than in some sense literally fathered by him:

Your interlocutor disagrees:

You reply:

Here then you're making a substantive argument, suggesting that the early Christians (including Paul himself) held what we might call an 'adoptionist' Christology, and that the language of 'begetting', far from being any evidence against your position, may redound to it, since in fact it can denote, at least in Paul, an adoption, per Philemon 1:10.

But, as you now accept, Paul was not talking about adoption of Onesimus after all: the terminology has nothing to do with actual fatherhood or adoption. So, you're rather awkwardly left saying that Philemon 1:10 demonstrates that the language of 'begetting' doesn't necessitate that an author has literal paternity in mind. Alas, this is a truism (would we expect the thousands of cases of the language of begetting in Greek to all refer to literal paternity?) and so not in need of any demonstration, by Philemon or otherwise.
There are two different things here.
  • Whether Paul believed Jesus was adopted
  • Whether the word "begotten" exclusively means fathered
I have been arguing yes to the form, and no to the latter. That was my position at the start, and it is my position now. I have certainly NOT changed that. And your post here utter fails to persuade.

In my discussion specifically with you, I have only been discussing the latter. As you say "that Philemon 1:10 demonstrates that the language of 'begetting' doesn't necessitate that an author has literal paternity in mind."

You can label that a "truism" or "painfully trivial" if you want, but the simple fact is that I was right about it.

Are you going to tell me you were talking about Paul's position on whether Jesus was adopted? That was certainly not the impression I got, and looking back I see nothing in your posts that would make me think that was the case. But of course, you seem to have taken a delight in keeping your position secret - all the better to jerk me around - so who knows?
 

Lucian

Active member
There are two different things here.
  • Whether Paul believed Jesus was adopted
  • Whether the word "begotten" exclusively means fathered
I have been arguing yes to the form, and no to the latter. That was my position at the start, and it is my position now. I have certainly NOT changed that. And your post here utter fails to persuade.
If you're unpersuaded by your own words, there's little anyone else can do.
In my discussion specifically with you, I have only been discussing the latter. As you say "that Philemon 1:10 demonstrates that the language of 'begetting' doesn't necessitate that an author has literal paternity in mind."
But our discussion doesn't occur in a vacuum, of course.
You can label that a "truism" or "painfully trivial" if you want, but the simple fact is that I was right about it.
Sure, in the same sense that it's a simple fact that I was right that the Sun rose in the east this morning.
Are you going to tell me you were talking about Paul's position on whether Jesus was adopted? That was certainly not the impression I got, and looking back I see nothing in your posts that would make me think that was the case. But of course, you seem to have taken a delight in keeping your position secret - all the better to jerk me around - so who knows?
You continue to accuse me of dialogical misconduct, while you engage in a great deal of your own. Note, again, that you complain that I'm not telling you what I think, while omitting to tell me what you want my opinion on: my 'position' on what?

This is really, really poor form, and you do yourself no credit by doing anything other than admitting you got something wrong.
 
Last edited:

The Pixie

Well-known member
I earlier said:
I have been arguing yes to the form, and no to the latter. That was my position at the start, and it is my position now. I have certainly NOT changed that. And your post here utter fails to persuade.
If you're unpersuaded by your own words, there's little anyone else can do.
I really hope you misread my post, but I have to be honest, I am doubtful.

But our discussion doesn't occur in a vacuum, of course.
Okay. So what?

See, here would be a great opportunity to show me you are not just jerking me around by making your point crystal clear. I guess we will see if you are willing to do that.

Sure, in the same sense that it's a simple fact that I was right that the Sun rose in the east this morning.
And yet we spent two weeks arguing it. If you could have just said I was right, but the point was trivial, we could have skipped all that pointless arguing. But I guess you just had to jerk me around, right?

You continue to accuse me of dialogical misconduct, while you engage in a great deal of your own. Note, again, that you complain that I'm not telling you what I think, while omitting to tell me what you want my opinion on: my 'position' on what?
I wanted your opinion on what you were discussing. If you could have said I was right two weeks ago, we could have avoided this. But you chose not. You chose to keep your position secret.

My position in our discussion has been that the word "begotten" does not exclusively mean fathered. I have stated that numerous times now. I still have no idea what your position was, or even if you actually had one.

This is really, really poor form, and you do yourself no credit by doing anything other than admitting you got something wrong.
As far as I can see, I got nothing wrong. I stated that the word "begotten" does not exclusively mean fathered. That was my position from the start, it is my position now, and you seem to have now conceded that that position is correct.

I will remind you you just said my position was analogous to saying "that the Sun rose in the east this morning". Do you think the sun rose in the west?

Further, your claim that I got something wrong is exactly my issue with your posts - once again, you are taking a position, but failing to say what the position is. I accused you earlier of failing to answer my questions. Let us see how you fare with these two.
  • What do you think I am wrong about?
  • Why can you not state it up front when you say I am wrong?
The second I am particularly interested in, because this does seem to be a feature of your posts, and is precisely why I believe you are just jerking me around.
 

Lucian

Active member
I really hope you misread my post, but I have to be honest, I am doubtful.
Evidently you misread mine, in which you were quoted directly, at length, and in context.
Okay. So what?
The point here is obvious: what you say to me can't be abstracted from what you say to others in a similar context, in order to support a claim that I'm misreading you.
And yet we spent two weeks arguing it. If you could have just said I was right, but the point was trivial, we could have skipped all that pointless arguing.
A mischaracterisation of our discussion: see above, on how your position has evolved (#394) in response to criticism (good!), but which you are now claiming hasn't changed at all, in order to avoid a simple admission of mistake, while accusing me of dishonesty in highlighting this (bad!).

I wanted your opinion on what you were discussing. If you could have said I was right two weeks ago, we could have avoided this. But you chose not. You chose to keep your position secret. My position in our discussion has been that the word "begotten" does not exclusively mean fathered. I have stated that numerous times now. I still have no idea what your position was, or even if you actually had one.
See above, on how your position has evolved (#394).

As for my own, again, I'm at a loss to understand what you want from me, and baffled by your accusations of secrecy. You say it's my 'opinion on what you were discussing' that you're after, but given that I've given you plenty of opinions on what we've been discussing, this is unhelpful. If you want to know what I think about something, you need to ask me, specifically, about what you're looking for, else I'll continue to conclude that you're just abusing me.
As far as I can see, I got nothing wrong. I stated that the word "begotten" does not exclusively mean fathered. That was my position from the start, it is my position now, and you seem to have now conceded that that position is correct.
See above, on how your position has evolved (#394). It's not a concession to agree with a truism, of course!
I will remind you you just said my position was analogous to saying "that the Sun rose in the east this morning". Do you think the sun rose in the west?
You've lost me here.
Further, your claim that I got something wrong is exactly my issue with your posts - once again, you are taking a position, but failing to say what the position is. I accused you earlier of failing to answer my questions. Let us see how you fare with these two.
  • What do you think I am wrong about?
Asked and answered: again, see #394.
  • Why can you not state it up front when you say I am wrong?
I have - I've not exactly been coy about it!
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Evidently you misread mine, in which you were quoted directly, at length, and in context.
Perhaps I did. But as you seem unwilling to clarify, I am going to continue to assume that is not true, and this is just you jerking me around again.

I earlier said:
Okay. So what?
The point here is obvious: what you say to me can't be abstracted from what you say to others in a similar context, in order to support a claim that I'm misreading you.
But what is the point specifically? I asked you: "So what?" and you have chosen not to say. What does this have to do specifically with our discussion?

Once again you choose to jerk me around rather than make yourself clear. It is a pattern.

A mischaracterisation of our discussion: see above, on how your position has evolved (#394) in response to criticism (good!), but which you are now claiming hasn't changed at all, in order to avoid a simple admission of mistake, while accusing me of dishonesty in highlighting this (bad!).
And yet again you are talking in generalities.

What do you think my position was originally? What do you think it changed to?

Why are you unable to be be specific? Pathologically unable, it seems to me. Right now, I am still going with the jerking-me-around hypothesis.

I can be specific:

Me in post #321: Anyway, the point is he calls Onesimus his "begotten" son, when Onesimus was certainly not his biological son.

Post #323: That he uses the word "begotten". Hence the use of that word elsewhere does not prove the author believed Jesus was the actual son of God, rather than the adopted son of God.

Me in post #327: My point being that the Bible saying Jesus was God's begotten son does not tell us the author did not believe God adopted Jesus, given the term "begotten" is also used in one instance where it clearly means the guy was not the biological offspring.

That is my position. It was my position at the start, it is my position now. I can do that because I was trying to debate this honestly and sincerely. I stated my position up front, and I did so several times to try to make it clear.

A stark contrast to how you approached the discussion.

See above, on how your position has evolved (#394).
And see above on how it has not, post #395.

Now, do you think that has helped the discussion at all? No, of course not. You have, once again, chosen not to clarify what you are saying, despite being asked to do so.

As for my own, again, I'm at a loss to understand what you want from me, and baffled by your accusations of secrecy. You say it's my 'opinion on what you were discussing' that you're after, but given that I've given you plenty of opinions on what we've been discussing, this is unhelpful. If you want to know what I think about something, you need to ask me, specifically, about what you're looking for, else I'll continue to conclude that you're just abusing me.
What I want is for you to make your position clear.

Do not just accuse me of changing my position - state what you think my position was originally and what it changed to. That should be easy if you are right. Of course, if you were making up, you will not be able to.

And yes, I think you are making it up.

If I ask you a question, answer it! Do not just point me to another post. If I asked it it is because the other post was not clear.

See above, on how your position has evolved (#394). It's not a concession to agree with a truism, of course!
It is a concession to agree with a truism if you originally took issue with it.

Me in post #321: Anyway, the point is he calls Onesimus his "begotten" son, when Onesimus was certainly not his biological son.

You took issue with that previously. Now you say it is true. Looks like a concession to me.

Lucian said:
This is really, really poor form, and you do yourself no credit by doing anything other than admitting you got something wrong.
I earlier said:
I will remind you you just said my position was analogous to saying "that the Sun rose in the east this morning". Do you think the sun rose in the west?
You've lost me here.
You have made it clear you do not understand what I said. I have a choice here - either I can try to clarify, or I cannot. We could consider one to be the Pixie approach, and one to be the Lucian approach.

The Lucian approach:
See post #397.​

The Pixie approach:
I was replying to a paragraph in which you indicated I was wrong about something, but referencing another paragraph in the same post where you indicated that what I said was trivially true. In your words my position was so trivially true it was analogous to saying, in your words, "that the Sun rose in the east this morning". Thus, I was highlighting the contradiction in your position whereby your are claiming that my position is wrong in one paragraph and yet claiming it is trivially true in another paragraph.​
If you are saying I am wrong when my position is analogous to saying "that the Sun rose in the east this morning", then your position is analogous to claiming the sun rose in the west.​

Can you see the difference? Which approach is more helpful? Which approach furthers mutual understanding? Which approach advances the discussion?

I am wanting everyone to understand what I am saying, so I make the effort to clarify when my interlocutor indicates he or she has not understood. You, on the other hand, refuse to do so, even when specifically asked to do so. I am here to debate; you are here to jerk people around.

I earlier said:
Further, your claim that I got something wrong is exactly my issue with your posts - once again, you are taking a position, but failing to say what the position is. I accused you earlier of failing to answer my questions. Let us see how you fare with these two.
  • What do you think I am wrong about?
  • Why can you not state it up front when you say I am wrong?
The second I am particularly interested in, because this does seem to be a feature of your posts, and is precisely why I believe you are just jerking me around.
Asked and answered: again, see #394.
I have looked at post #394, and I do not see your answer. This is why I have asked you to clarify. Given you are still refusing to make your position clear, I feel even more confident concluding you are just jerking me around.

I have - I've not exactly been coy about it!
You have not been coy about saying you think I am wrong, but I still do not know what you think I am wrong about, given you have conceded that what I said was a truism.

But of course that is deliberate.

Unless you deign to make your position clear, I will not bother to reply further.
 

Lucian

Active member
Perhaps I did. But as you seem unwilling to clarify, I am going to continue to assume that is not true, and this is just you jerking me around again.
What was unclear? You demand much, but it's seldom clear just what, and then oddly abuse me for being unable to read your mind.
But what is the point specifically? I asked you: "So what?" and you have chosen not to say. What does this have to do specifically with our discussion?

Once again you choose to jerk me around rather than make yourself clear. It is a pattern.
A pattern that exists only in your mind, of course: you asked me 'So what?', and I answered clearly and concisely. You may take issue with the answer, but it's perverse to suggest that one hasn't been given, and then (again) resort to abuse.
And yet again you are talking in generalities.

What do you think my position was originally? What do you think it changed to?

Why are you unable to be be specific? Pathologically unable, it seems to me. Right now, I am still going with the jerking-me-around hypothesis.
This is asked and answered, and repeatedly and specifically so, making your resort (again) to abuse here rather unfortunate.
And see above on how it has not, post #395.
A post which did nothing to show otherwise, and itself has been responded to.
Now, do you think that has helped the discussion at all? No, of course not. You have, once again, chosen not to clarify what you are saying, despite being asked to do so.
I don't know what you mean by 'helped the discussion': do you consider legitimate criticisms of your views unhelpful?

I've been as clear as I can be. Alas, at some point, I have to assume that the problem is in the receiving, not in the sending.
What I want is for you to make your position clear.

Do not just accuse me of changing my position - state what you think my position was originally and what it changed to. That should be easy if you are right. Of course, if you were making up, you will not be able to.
And yes, I think you are making it up.

If I ask you a question, answer it! Do not just point me to another post. If I asked it it is because the other post was not clear.
I've not accused you of changing your position; I've shown, in detail and repeatedly, where and how you have done so. If you find this is unclear nevertheless, I'm not sure what further clarification I can offer: I've already tried several times. I note, again, your resort to personal abuse.
It is a concession to agree with a truism if you originally took issue with it.

Me in post #321: Anyway, the point is he calls Onesimus his "begotten" son, when Onesimus was certainly not his biological son.

You took issue with that previously. Now you say it is true. Looks like a concession to me.
No, I don't say it's true at all. Such a bad misreading of what I've said suggests you are not reading my posts with attention (or equanimity?), and may explain much.
You have made it clear you do not understand what I said. I have a choice here - either I can try to clarify, or I cannot. We could consider one to be the Pixie approach, and one to be the Lucian approach.

The Lucian approach:
See post #397.

The Pixie approach:
I was replying to a paragraph in which you indicated I was wrong about something, but referencing another paragraph in the same post where you indicated that what I said was trivially true. In your words my position was so trivially true it was analogous to saying, in your words, "that the Sun rose in the east this morning". Thus, I was highlighting the contradiction in your position whereby your are claiming that my position is wrong in one paragraph and yet claiming it is trivially true in another paragraph.

If you are saying I am wrong when my position is analogous to saying "that the Sun rose in the east this morning", then your position is analogous to claiming the sun rose in the west.

Can you see the difference? Which approach is more helpful? Which approach furthers mutual understanding? Which approach advances the discussion?

I am wanting everyone to understand what I am saying, so I make the effort to clarify when my interlocutor indicates he or she has not understood. You, on the other hand, refuse to do so, even when specifically asked to do so. I am here to debate; you are here to jerk people around.
As I've said, I've explained, in detail and repeatedly, what I think and why I think it: precisely what you call 'the Pixie approach' is just what you've received. Your pretence that this hasn't happened is unfortunate, and your demand that I repeat and reword myself ad nauseam absurd.
You have not been coy about saying you think I am wrong, but I still do not know what you think I am wrong about, given you have conceded that what I said was a truism.
Far from being coy, I've been about as explicit as it's possible to be. As I've said, if you still find this unclear, I have to conclude the problem is with you, rather than with me. See above on the fact that you don't seem to have understood what I'm calling a truism, despite my spelling this out in painstaking detail.
But of course that is deliberate.
Yet more abuse! And all this rather than accept simply that your view changed in response to criticism, which is in itself no bad thing.
Unless you deign to make your position clear, I will not bother to reply further.
I've already done so, as we've seen. You're free to bow out, of course.
 
Top