Quote:
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
..the hell? Okay, I could've worded that more clearly, but you just made my point for me.
I agree there isn't much of a difference between "not a shabby argument" and "viable theory", which is why I don't think it matters that I said 'viable theory' the second time instead of 'not a shabby argument'.
What I meant by that last post: there's still a clear and obvious difference between "I know this" and "this is not a shabby argument". Do you really not see it? Is it really that fascinating a distinction?
I don't think anyone can truly claim knowledge of Jesus' mind and motives. And you were wrong to read that into my post.
|
So then I said-
Quote:
|
So if I changed "you don't think "it's a shabby argument" to "a viable theory" then would I have it?
|
And you said-
Quote:
No.
edit: which is to say that there's a sizable difference between those two things, also, that you're not recognizing.
|
And now you're saying-
Quote:
|
I agree there isn't much of a difference between "not a shabby argument" and "viable theory", which is why I don't think it matters that I said 'viable theory' the second time instead of 'not a shabby argument'.
|
Sorry I don't think anyone is proving your point, certainly not you or I.
I will say when I read you're first post it sounded like you seemed to know why Jesus decided to address certain issues and not others. I now understand you to be saying it's a "viable theory" that he based that on what was already covered in the OT. Do I have it right now?