Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Peter, Paul and Mary! pt1

Expand Messages
  • pmcvflag
    >>>again, you are quoting me out of the context and totally missed my point.<<<< No Ernst, it is you who missed the point. Let me
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 8, 2001
      >>>again, you are quoting me out of the
      context and totally missed my
      point.<<<<<br><br>No Ernst, it is you who missed the point. Let me try
      again.....<br><br>>>>>All I was asking was where is this accertion being
      discussed?<<<<br><br>There is no assurtion... not from scholors, not from
      me, not from anyone. What I said was "It could be
      argued". The parts that scholors have assurted (such as
      the probable connection between the Bogimils and the
      Cathars, or the idea that Marcionites are... or are
      not.... Gnostic) I state as such. As you have said these
      ideas are so common, and in nearly every book on the
      subject, that one need not quote. <br><br>The problem is,
      those are the only "assurtions" made. The point you are
      argueing, you are doing so out of context, as in this
      point.....<br><br>>>>If you thought they were at first then I think (and
      your diction implies this and I'm sure it might be
      mistake) that was bit silly.<<<<br><br>And where
      did I say that? I didn't... you are *assuming* I
      meant this or that, and arguing them as fact, as
      "assurtions"..... *that is the point*, the one you are missing. My
      "diction" implies no such belief on my part.<br><br>You see
      Ernst....<br><br>>>>I for one thing NEVER seen it discussed
      anywhere.<<<<br><br>.... is wrong. You have seen it discussed here in a
      format where no one ever said it was a fact, or even a
      prevailing scholastic (or even oddball off the wall
      "scholastic") theory. <br><br>Now, if you go back to my post,
      the one that is giving you trouble, and read it
      closely (with concious attention to nuance that is
      natural to a native English speaker), then you will
      notice that I very deliberately state where things come
      from scholors. I also deliberately state where things
      do not, where things are only there for the sake of
      arguement, and where in fact there are things that *YOU OF
      ALL PEOPLE* should know that I don't even agree with
      (considering we had this discussion in depth the last time you
      visited, a discussion in which you stated your belief that
      Manichaeans were "Gnostic" BTW, and was agitated that I
      didn't think so).<br><br>>>>All I stated was
      don't quick to assume Manichaeans, Marcionits and
      Paulicians as monolithic entity and static in
      time.<<<<br><br>and this was in fact never an assumption I made.
      SO... if that is in fact all you stated, then the
      statement is a mute point and THAT part of the discussion
      is obviously over, correct? Now, if you want to
      discuss the merits or flaws of the plausability, I'm
      willing to *discuss* this point.<br><br>PMCV
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.