Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
The problem is that you have understood the process of coming to "truth" incorrectly. You do not have the luxury of simply starting with the claim that what you say is right and must be defeated. Instead, unless you are quite clear that it is just an opinion and not clear doctrine, you must prove that it is what you claim.
I have no requirement upon me to disprove something that I have not seen evidence that it is true. The requirement is on you to make the theological, scriptural, logical, etc. argument, including evidence that does not rely on the writings of Nee or Lee. (Their words are similarly subject to being proved, therefore they do not mean anything on their own.)
|
OBW,
All my previous discussions on female preachers involving Wallace did not rely upon the writings of Nee or Lee. I have made it my practice for a while now that I don't quote Nee or Lee, but seek freely available theological resources. Wallace was one of them.
You have it backwards I'm afraid. My approach is mathematically and theoretically sound.
In statistical hypothesis testing, the null hypothesis, H0 is the commonly accepted view; it is the opposite of the alternate hypothesis. The task is to reject, nullify or disprove the null hypothesis.
The commonly accepted fact in the discussions involving Wallace was my view, the traditional view, Wallace's view, that Jane and you all were trying to argue against. Therefore it was up to Jane, you and others to reject, or disprove this null hypothesis.
The view that all the bible translations are wrong, and the majority of male theologians, is NOT the "commonly accepted view", therefore the onus is upon you to disprove my view.
If I said "aliens exist", then the onus would be upon me to disprove you, because aliens existing is not a commonly accepted view. But in this case, Jane/you/etc were the ones that believes in the "aliens" (the uncommon view that the bible translations are wrong), so the onus was upon you to disprove me.
On the subject of denominations, the commonly accepted view, is that there were no denominations in the bible. Therefore, it is up to you to disprove me that denominations are okay, by providing a bible verse or theological resource that says denominations existed in the early church.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
You recently claimed that I dismissed "even Wallace." But you are looking back into a topic that is potentially a landmine of biased history that none of us can see through. Therefore, just like the long arduous fight to turn the God-fearing from slave-owners into slave-freers, there is no such thing as finding a prior statement by anyone on the subject and presuming that they are not simply stuck in the old bias. In that context I must have more than a repetition of the tired arguments put forth over the centuries by men who have benefitted from a patriarchal view of everything.
|
In the previous discussion you made clear that you distrusted theologians in general.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
There is significant evidence that you are not engaged in a search for the truth. My evidence is that you make statements without support but clamor for everyone else's support. That shows that you have already concluded that you are right. What I think that you will see is that the only "right" that the rest of us are claiming is that it is not so dogmatic and is based on something simpler. Like love your neighbor as yourself. Or obey the commands of Christ. Oneness — which has become a hot topic in the midst of a discussion of Hank — is not based on a formula other than our common faith in Christ. And if you think there is more to it than that, or that we don't have a "common faith" then there is much to worry about concerning your positions relative to what I see in the scripture.
|
In previous discussions I quoted from theological resources extensively. My approach is logical, factual, what anyone searching for the truth would do.
A person not searching for the truth would do what you are doing - discount or distrust theologians, bible commentaries, etc and provide little by way of theological counter-argument.
So it was a renowned theologian (Wallace) versus Jane. You could have backed up Jane with a reputable theologian. She quoted a pastor who happens to agree with her views, but is in no way a theologian or expert in Greek.