Ted Hoffman

Yes he does. But he does not (himself) "allow" for an earthly coming of christ as you have been implying.

Layman

I've implied no such thing. I have no idea what Doherty's personal beliefs are. Everything said was in the context of Doherty's opinion about the beliefs of early Christains.

Are you really this dense or are you just trying to be annoying?

Sheesh.

Ted Hoffman

Insults layman?
Why dont you take a break - you are losing it.

Sauron

On another thread, Layman bemoaned the "adolescent chest-thumping" on this board.

Apparently he doesn't see the irony of him engaging in adolescent name-calling.

Ah, consistency. Thy name is not Layman.

Peter Kirby

Was there ever any doubt on the part of anyone that Doherty does not himself believe in the Parousia? That's a strawman.

best,
Peter Kirby

Ted Hoffman

Layman was equivocating and twisting what I admitted to to suit his arguments.
This is what Doherty wrote:
From that, Layman inferred:
I responded:
Note, that I objected because Layman attributed the belief to Doherty, not the author of Hebrews.
But Layman then twists his story and states:
And I agree:
Then he twists again and states:
Since he is misstating what I affirmed, I make things clear:
Aaah, Layman finally understands what my objection is. In spite of the emphasis I provided concerning the use of Doherty allows

And of course, he finnishes off his enlightenement with an insult:

For effect.

I see no strawman.

Ted Hoffman

A shorter version:

Doherty: The author of Hebrews cant be referring to a second coming because he has not mentioned a first one.

Layman: (I have proved that) Doherty says Jesus came once on earth or allows for at least one appearance of Jesus on earth.

IronMonkey: No he does not. He can't. He is a Christ Myther for Christs sake!

Layman: Doherty says the author of Hebrews did not believe in an earthly first coming.

IronMonkey: I agree with you that Doherty does believe that.

Layman: So you see, Doherty does allow for at least one earthly appearance.

IronMonkey: No, Doherty does not himself believe in any earthly appearance.

Layman: <awakening from a stupor>Of course he doesnt. I am referring to the author of Hebrews all along. Are you that dense?

NOTE: Layman switches between the author of Hebrews, the early christians and Doherty. And since Kirby is interested in strawman arguments, perhaps he should note that I never said "Doherty seems to think that the early Christians believed Jesus would finally come to earth during the Paurosia".
Those were Layman's words. All my arguments referred to the author of Hebrews and the epistle.

This mixture of amphibolies and strawman arguments is meant to muddy the waters, and while the reader tries to gain clarity, Layman shifts the argument from one point to another seeking a stronghold. A stonghold he has not been able to get these past few weeks. And he is getting impatient and frustrated as he reels out of balance so he lashes out at anyone who tells him he has missed the pillar he seeks for to support him. To be brutally honest, that pillar is nowhere in sight. And I am confident it doesnt exist.

His theatrics are evocative of a defensive, insecure little man groping in the dark. Hurling loud insults everytime he knocks down furniture. And when he is told the switch is behind him, he retorts "Of course the switch is behind me - are you that dense?"

That, my dear friends, is Layman. He has had better days though.

Peter Kirby

Everyone allows--Layman, Kirby, and Doherty at least--that the author of Hebrews believed that JC would come to earth at the end of time. That you can somehow make this a bone of contention and quibble about the use of the word "allow" simply means that you are contentious.

best,
Peter Kirby

Ted Hoffman

Yes, you do allow that the author of Hebrews believed that JC would come to earth at the end of time.
But you dont yourselves allow that JC would come to earth at the end of time.

I do not see why my basic assumption should have changed the meaning of what were very clear statements.
To imply that making an issue of clearly erroneous statements is a quibble is incorrect. Especially when the one making such statements is adamant that they mean what they dont express. I am not obliged to derive inexistent meanings from wrong statements. The burden of clearly stating an idea lies with the one making the statements.

In fact, asking me to ignore such errors is asking me to be reckless.

To be sure, I took issue with the sneaky use of the word allow because it challenged those very assumptions. And every time Layman made a correct statement, I agreed. Every time I agreed, he reverted back to the wrong statements. Until I used the word "himself". Then he jolted out of his stupor and hurled an insult to cover his embarrasment.

Peter Kirby

Once upon a time, in a different forum, I had said that it only made sense that Jesus had to spend time in Egypt as he does in Matthew because Israel, the Son of God, had also been delivered out of Egypt. On reading that, someone could draw the conclusion that I thought the story of Matthew was literally true, but that could hardly be more wrong headed.

Conducting an intelligent debate is like dancing. It requires considerable skill and knowledge of your partner to look good at it. You have to understand your own position, but you also have to understand what the other person says, and then on top of that you have to debate the matter. If both parties don't have a genuine interest in understanding the other person, the couple are just stepping on each other's toes and making a scene. Personally I think that you and Layman make an awkward debating couple and that you should give someone else the floor.

best,
Peter Kirby