A
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Paul..fake liar or apostle?
- Thread starter astarath
- Start date
Do you ever tire of embarrassing yourself?
What he said.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
What he said.
That's why I refused to go into detail about one of his other demands.
It's bad enough when the explanation is simple.
Shermana
Heretic
What's embarassing is that the Lexicon appears to be continuing the trend of trying to cover up this discrepancy by saying that the phrase "Ears to hear" means that it can be used for "understand".
Anyone else however can see that nowhere else in the Koine corpus is it ever use for the word "Understand". If you think "Ears to hear" means "ears to understand", that's your opinion but it appears that there is indeed another word for "understand".
"Ears to hear" = "Ears to understand?"
I asked for a single Rabbinical source to show the word "Shema" being used for "understand" instead of simply "Hear", back up your claim or retract it.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
In spite of all this, I truly believe that if you slowed down you'd do much better.
You're very creative, but instead of expending the effort to actually think, you squander your creativity on nonsense.
I'd place him on my ignore list if I didn't believe that it's current residents deserve better.
No. On second thought, they'll just have to cope. I'm dumping him.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
No one else who can read.
Ahhh -- much better!
Shermana
Heretic
It's obvious you ignore requests to back up your claims like proving that Shema can be used for understand as well as "hear".
Shermana
Heretic
I appreciate your concern, but the fact is, the word is never really used for "understand", the sources your source uses don't use it as "understand" (unless you can back up your own sources' claims with a link to the material, please provide pt. 147a of the 4th Julian Oration, I only find 127 or so verses, maybe there's another 4th Oration of Julian?), and it is used over 300 times in the NT purely for physically hearing, and apparently only once in select translations of one verse. "Ears to hear" does not mean "Ears to understand", the word doesn't change meaning to suit the idiom.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
:biglaugh:
Shermana
Heretic
Gregory Nazianzen, "Julian the Emperor" (1888). Oration 4: First Invective Against Julian. Is this something different?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
You went for the one example that's dated in the 4th century CE.
I had thought about taking that one out, but I wanted to include all of the examples so you could get a balanced understanding, provided you had the gumption to do so.
In any case, if you base your "opinion" just on Gregory, you've missed the mark entirely.
Shermana
Heretic
You went for the one example that's dated in the 4th century CE.
I had thought about taking that one out, but I wanted to include all of the examples so you could get a balanced understanding, provided you had the gumption to do so.
In any case, if you base your "opinion" just on Gregory, you've missed the mark entirely.
I want to know why they said it has 147 verses, they must be using a different version with a different numbering I guess.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Yeah, that went to 121 or something. It's sections, not verses.
They could be citing a fragment. It would be much easier if you were looking for it in TLG.