Sabueso
From Kristos Vocabulary Booster
Spanish
Noun
sabueso m
- bloodhound
- (colloquial) detective, sleuth
In article
says...
>
>matthew_member@newsguy.com wrote:
>
>> In article <72AAB2A7-A938-DA89-8982-87C6944366BE@srcbs.org>, Bart
>> Goddard says...
>
>>>>>> But the free will is there, and obvious for all but the
>>>>>> blind.
>>>>
>>>>>Really? Where does it say that the believer does so
>>>>>because he made a choice to? It doesn't. In fact,
>>>>>in Greek the phrase is indicative. It's not a cause/
>>>>>effect phrase, but a "this is the state of things"
>>>>>phrase.
>>>>
>>>> This is a glaring example of your ignorance of the way Scripture
>>>> uses language. Grammatically, it is a "state of things" phrase, but
>>>> this does NOT give you the right to jump to the conclusion you jump
>>>> to.
>>>
>>>I'm not making conclusions here,
>>
>> Yes, you are. You are jumping to the conclusion that Mark 16:16 has
>> nothing to do with free will.
>
>At no point do I draw that conclusion above.
Yes, you do. Stop contradicting yourself.
> Gary claims that
>"free will" is in the passage.
That part you got right...
> I assert that it is not.
And this is the part where you go off kilter. If free will is "not in the
passage", then the passage has nothing to do with free will.
What is so hard to understand about that?
> This
>is far from tantamount to an assertion of the converse of Gary's
>claim.
I never said it was. That is just your misreading.
> It's funny that 1. you make such elementary errors in
>logic and 2. you yourself supply the linguistic authority
>that backs up my assertion.
No, what is 'funny' is that you think that is what I did. The linguistic
authority I gave does NOT back up your assertion. Not at all. On the contrary:
it shows that it is highly reasonable to take Mk 16:16 as _supporting_ Gary's
assertion, that Mk 16:16 implies free will.
>Not just funny, but toooooo funny.
>
>
>>>He's the one reading something into the passage which isn't there.
>>
>> No, he is not.
>
>A typical Matthew argument. Please don't ever post a response
>with actual content in it; I'd die of shock.
Then you should be dead already. For I have often posted responses with actual
content in it. Why, you even agreed that my previous response had 'content' in
it, since you vainly imagine that I supplied the linguistic authority to back up
_your_ assertion.
So you slipped up and agreed that I _do_ post responses with content. You just
refuse to see it.
You can only fool yourself with such refusal.
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))
