Death to the Pixies said:
: Hi AlanF, you too are way off base here, at least when it comes to this thread, I was not defending whether Vines was a "Modern Scholar" but that he was quoted to answer the challenge, not to buttress a theolgy .
Well duh! Of course thirdwitless quoted Vine to answer my challenge. That's hardly an issue. If that's all you meant to say, then you might as well have not posted anything.
: I believe I used the word "alleged" (snickering at AlanF). Remember I said:
: DTTP:If you are merely trying to show 3rd the difference in opinion amongst scholars, then why exactly are you pointing to Vine's take on ecclesiastical authority? Does this somehow show that a Vine, an alleged modern scholar (the original context of the introduction of Vine mind you)
Yes, and in a context like this thread, your use of "alleged" can be taken as serious or as sarcastic. Your other comments in this thread and others show me where your opinons lie, namely, that you agree with thirdwitness, and so your use of "alleged" would have to be serious. Unless, of course, you're just a troll. If you're not a mere troll, then try stating what you mean in clear terms. You're not nearly as clever as you think.
: This and the previous posts in t his thread show that this was an attempt at derailment.
Derailment of what? The only attempts at derailment you've made have been with respect to Hillary_Step's comments. As for those comments, in view of my own in the above post, it should be clear to you that Vine is not a modern scholar with respect to his views on parousia, because these views are based on outmoded scholarship, and they are not objective, because they are based on his pre-existing theology as a Dispensationalist and member of the Open Brethren.
: But, hey you threw in some insults (shocker!), so at least you got to exercise some of them inner demons. Good for you :>)
Actually my insults toward demonstrated liars and people who make extremely stupid comments is a fairly objective attempt to slap them upside the head with a dose of reality. It has worked on many a JW, who, when he gets over being insulted, and exercises a bit of common sense, realizes that the insults were dead on.
: Just as a side, and indulge me here, why do you feel the need to belittle 3rdWitness?
He is a demonstrated liar and almost stereotypical JW defender who, as has been said by several other posters, is interested only in preaching the destructive cultic message of the Watchtower Society. There is nothing wrong with calling a liar a liar, wouldn't you say? And experience shows that calling a braindead cultist by appropriate terms often wakes him up. It certainly makes lurkers sit up and take notice a lot more than dry exposition does.
: If he truly is a moron, won't that be self-evident?
Generally, yes. But several posters commenting on thirdwitless' threads obviously have not yet come to that conclusion. Why? Because they're still greatly steeped in the JW mindset and show lack of critical thinking.
: Let me guess, you are calling him a moron for the benefit of the other morons to moronic to decipher the moronic nature of 3rd?