Posted by Janey on March 22, 1999 at 22:22:45 {MW/mrDAKQdkdU}:
In Reply to: ***Stafford's Response to White posted by J.H. on March 22, 1999 at 21:16:23:
Jan, your idiocy is staggering.
JANEY - : I have Staford's book and he does a pretty thorough job refuting the "Yahweh" position. He also quotes scholars who agree with him and who also make very convincing points which Stafford quotes. Have you read his discussion Jan?
JAN - No, I have not, and I don't have to, because I know enough facts about this question to know he is dead wrong. When you don't know the facts, even a NWT appendix may seem impressive.
See,
you just say things and you don't back anything up. On this point you show just how backwards you are when it comes to true biblical studies. Nice going Jan, you comment on things you have not even read.
JAN - Stafford wouldn't know
what a scholar is if one hit him in the head with an encyclopedia.
So now it comes out. Your only form of argument is to put other down.
Tell you what Jan, since you have not giving any real criticism of Stafford's comments on Jehovah or anything else, what are you doing posting at all? Is this what those "real scholars" you alway talk about teach you?
JANEY - : Jan, I think that is Stafford's point! Jesus is theos in a different sense than God, so for White and others to claim what they do is circular. THEY are the ones who say there is only one sense.
JAN - No, it's not circular. Check out a bit more about logic. Neither is the argument robust in any sense, but it isn't circular, since it doesn't refer back to itself.
Jan, can you read English at all? Here is what Stafford calls circular in White's argument:
STAFFORD - In his discussion of John 1:1c, White dismisses the translation "a god" because "certainly it cannot be argued that John would use the very word he always uses of the one true God, theos, of one who is simply a 'godlike' one or a lesser 'god' (The Forgotten Trinity, page 55). White's argument, then, runs like this:
Premise #1 - John "always uses" theos "of the one true God."
Premise #2 - John would not use the Greek word theos of a "godlike" or "lesser god."
__________________________________________________
Conclusion - Therefore, John must have meant
the "one true God" when he used the term theos for Jesus because John always uses theos for the "one true God" and he never uses this word for a "godlike" or "lesser god."
Now Jan, let pretend you are actually capable of understanding a basic logical point. Can you not see that the fact that White states in his premise that John "always uses" theos for the one true God is the same as his conclusion, that theos when used of Jesus means he is the one true God? In other words, James White starts uses the premise that theos can only refer to the true God to prove that theos can only refer to the true God. How can you not see this? Did someone smack you upside the head with a logic textbook and prejudice you against them in the process?
How is it that you also cannot see that his second premise also contains his conclusion? He uses as his argument the conclusion that John would not use theos of a "lesser god."
There is no question that brother Stafford nailed White to the wall, and he would nail you even easier, for you cannot see a simple point such as this.
But your style of argumentation is so pathetic that it is understandable.
Please let us know when you are through making empty claims and personal attacks. Tell us all about Jehovah and Yahweh Jan. What is amazing is that you quote Stafford again as if you don't even know what "Anglicized" means. You also seem to have totally missed his point about the "accepted practice of pronouncing biblical names." And then there is the issue of the syllables, which you again ignored.
Janey