Virtual walking tour of the vicinity of Alaska's largest city, settled in 1915 on the Cook Inlet.

Virtual walking tour of the vicinity of Alaska's largest city, settled in 1915 on the Cook Inlet.

In article <154.05.16.05.368363000@srcbs.org>, Bart Goddard says...
>
>
>
>matthew_member@newsguy.com wrote:
>
>
>> Some "socratic method"! Yours is the "Euthyphro method", not the
>> "Socratic method"!
>
>Showing your true colors again. Please tell the group exactly
>how many of my courses you've taken, so that they'll know
>that you speak from knowledge, rather than just making up slander.

I do speak from knowledge, Bart. I speak from the knowledge of the mockery of
the Socratic method you have consistently shown in this newsgroup. Since I have
that, I do not need the knowledge of how you teach your courses. That is really
quite beside the point.

>
>Troll.

Your mockery of the socratic method is trolling. What I do is not.

>Bart
>
>((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))


--
---------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

In article <090.08.15.05.768863000@srcbs.org>, basicallyblues says...
>

[snip]
>So, what's your argument that the trinity existed prior to the 3rd
>Century (you will alos notice that I've never said "before Nicea"!!!!!.

And what is _your_ argument for ending a question with exclamation points!

>I've said the 3rd Century nobody has proven this assertion wrong.

That is not true. We have proved it wrong. You just refuse to take notice and
admit the truth.

>The fact that certain "early church fathers" spoke in language that
>"sounds" like the Father and Son are both "God" in the Trinitarian
>sense- and THAT IS THE ISSUE ALL ALONG- a further review shows that the
>so-called "ante-Nicene" fathers routinely CONTRADICT what later became
>the trinity doctrine!!!!

This is not even a sentence! And you claim to have proved _us_ wrong? Not with
malformations like that!

But whatever that gibberish was supposed to mean, it is simply FALSE that your
'furhter review' shows that they contradict the later Trinity doctrine. On the
contrary: the 'further review' shows, if it is _genuine_, unlike your so-called
'review', that the language you -thought- contradicted it does not. It is, at
best, ambiguous. So when read IN CONTEXT, we see that no, it does not contradict
Trinity.

I have shown this, for exmaple, with the early citations of the LXX of Proverbs
8:22.


--
---------------------------
Subudcat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habe