Forgive me if I missed something, but, in reading over this very long thread, I attempted to find out where the ad hominem began.

I'm impressed that you went to that trouble.

If I have read correctly, I first noticed that you indicated Pilgrim made a "booboo" (your word), an error which he admitted and then further explained his position. Following that post was when the first personal (ad hominem) attack was hurled.....by you. Somthing about Pilgrim's ability to read greek unaided. So I guess if responding in kind is okay for you to do, you can't blame others, you might call that hypocracy by your definition.

Yes I used the word "booboo" because it was the most charitable word I could find to indicate what was a terrible blunder which should not have been made by anyone with any ability to read Greek. If you think that was ad hominem than I think that is really funny!! no offence. Now then, I was also confronted with OTHER blunders in the Greek, such as calling hoi a relative clause (it is translated in English this way but the Greek means "These ones," defining an aorist as though it had to be pluperfect, when by definition an aorist is undefined, plus getting the word wrong. When confronted with all these by someone who claims to read Greek, I naturally asked, "no offence, but can you actually read Greek unaided, because i am having a hard time believing that?"

Do you consider this an ad hominem?

Pilgrim was offended by my question, no doubt about it. He wrote,

Let me only say in regard to your ad hominem slur, that if you are asking if I need a walker to read Greek, the answer is no. Doubtless, I have forgotten more from my many years of Greek study than you have learned in your one semester study.

I was taken aback by this, since it had simply been my intention to gauge his level of knolwedge - i had never actually heard from Pilgrim as to whether he can read the Greek fluently. His arguments strongly suggested to me that he couldn't, and so I asked.

In reply to try to diffuse the situation somewhat I wrote,

Congragulations on you advanced Greek study. My comment was far from being a slur. I have had people before claim Greek when it was obvious they had no clue. I have been honest about my lack of Greek (one semester completed, grade a). You are quoting from the Greek as though you know what you are talking about...whilst making some blunders. I accept that blunders can be made, but calling gennesthai an aorist, at least i think warrants me asking about your abilities in the language without you taking it as a personal attack (ad hominem). Don't you think? so don't get worked up because i dared to ask. i accept that you are well trained in greek.

Do you still accuse me of starting this?

Pilgrim in his defence quoted from a book on grammar which said that the aorist CAN (though most of the time isn't) used in a way in which it is best to use the English pluperfect. I checked the book and found that this is only in rare cases, and only in narrative passages. My suspicisions were again aroused, and so I took all what Pilgrim had said to a friend who has a masters degree in Greek language and philosophy, who also reads Hebrew, Chaldee, and Latin, and is fluent in half a dozen European languages. He was stunned by Pilgrim's claims, and basically said that many of these seminary "advanced" courses are not worth the paper they are written on. I now am personally convinced that pilgrim tried pulling a fast one on me, and I don't appreciate it. Dogmatically stating that an aorist means "had been" without an iota of self doubt, when he had memorised a grammar which says the complete opposite, left me unimpressed by his integrity. But still, you will find no attacks from me at this point. I simply carried on asking some pointed questions about the Greek and quoted the grammar he used.

I then continued to press the fact that he was reinterpreting the quickening in different passages to avoid the conclusion that it was through faith. His reply contained a clear slur:

Perhaps you are having difficult comprehending these things which the Protestant churches everywhere which came out of the Protestant Reformation have understood, believed and taught for centuries, because you have only had one semester of hermeneutics too?

At this point I realised that discussion is impossible. I replied

Underneath all the talk about the "Bible," your true authority is revealed to be the Reformers. To these everybody must bow down and give place, even if it means we are born again, then believe, then as a result of believing are born again again children of God. Faced with the impossibility of justifying such nonsense you are forced to appeal to your true authority. I am disappointed in you, I thought you were better than this. But now I know.
The anabaptists were the true people of God at the Reformation, and they would have none of such nonsense as two being born agains, two quickennings to suit preconceived ideas depending in what context your philosophy has to be defended, two accounts of having your heart purified, uhhh it goes on and on, this double vision.

All for what? so you can maintain a theological system which enables you to feel superior and more learned than everybody else. What a tragedy and a waste. Jesus said the day will come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and hearing will live. I suppose the Calvinists of the day were saying "hang on, you can't hear if you are dead, you have to be made alive first."

Well, obviously you have appealled to Calvin, so to Calvin I leave you.

Of course what is a self evident truth here may be considered as ad hominem. So you finally have one to nail on me!!! However, as I said before, faced with such nonsense, I will speak the truth and expose the carnal mentality of those who resist the truth. I will speak the truth in the hope that the wise will turn from their foolishness and unChristian behaviour. I won't speek lies and slanders and false accusations as you people have done though. If that means I have to be booted off of here, so be it. It's a waste of time anyway <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> (though I am working on Susan's reply and it would be shame to not be able to post it, I admit that.)

So there it is. I trust this post will enable you to take another look, and that you may reconsider your false accusation that I was the one who started these ad hominems. Let's see how much integrity YOU have.


Last edited by ZionSeeker; Sun Mar 28, 2004 9:53 PM.