Trent Horn debate with James White: watch here!

[PRmerger]

Good day Merger.

Firstly I see numerous other posters joined in here. You all must understand I neither have the stamina or time to answer every one. The extent to what my mere little opinionated post regarding opinions has brought, is somewhat mind blowing. I referred it to a certain poster whom I have conversed with many times and that was the intent.

So I see you have a tendency to only quote half my post when you reply. If you go and pick parts out I understand how you can reply this. I was not just stating that we are not proficient in Greek as an independent statement. You missed (also interestingly) the second part of that statement. The second part I have stated twice and now a third time is that

• Why did Trent not challenge that? - And also, why later on even referring to his own statements in the same way? So my question isn’t anything to do with a limitation on us when trying to understand Scripture, that’s a very funny thing to say to a Protestant. But rather that someone who is obviously proficient in many things, have all the reasons to want to challenge that, but didn’t? Maybe he didn’t agree with it, but that just means he didn’t think it mattered. So if you put all this together and hopefully understand my post now, you should see your question is pretty much as you like to state non sequitur.

Taking the above into account after you understand the post, the last 3 lines of your post becomes irrelevant as you can see I never said that (Maybe just seems that way if you quote/read half my post).

Regards

Perhaps you could just clarify, because it seems that I am not alone in being confused about your point.

Are you suggesting that it’s a requirement for someone to be a Professor in Greek in order to understand when a verse is prescriptive vs descriptive?

 

[PRmerger]

If the claim is merely “you’re not White, so you can’t possibly understand his argument”, then that’s an argument that simply doesn’t hold up.

Egg-zactly.

Or if the claim is merely, “You’re not a Professor in Greek, so you can’t possibly understand his argument”, then I’d like to know why it’s a requirement to be a Professor in Greek in order to understand JW’s argument of prescriptive vs descriptive verses.

 

[MichaelP3]

Perhaps you could just clarify, because it seems that I am not alone in being confused about your point.

Are you suggesting that it’s a requirement for someone to be a Professor in Greek in order to understand when a verse is prescriptive vs descriptive?

I think I should give up. Should I state my entire post a fourth (4th) time? Should I try to clarify it a third (3rd) time? These other posters, well one actually came back, taking everything into account and then giving a very respectful reply to me. (Maybe also read his entire post and not only quote the cheesy part)

Let me remind you Merger, firstly, I never intended to even correspond with you. Secondly, our correspondence for more than once, ends of with you picking out parts of my post and questioning these independent of the others. Please just read the whole thing, I am sure we both have better things to do. (Although I see you quote the entire one now, you still don’t reply to it).

So back to the first part of my reply, please please please please read all my posts and then ask your question. You will see there is a very crucial point you for some ironic reason totally missed. (I can see how you ask me now to clarify what that is so let me state it for that 4th time. I am making it very clear and visible now… WHY DIDNT TRENT CHALLENGE THAT AND EVEN LATER ON REFERRED TO HIS OWN ARGUMENTS IN THE SAME WAY?

I would hate to have to refer to it a fifth (5th) time.

 

[MichaelP3]

Just want to say I have enjoyed our numerous conversations. Even though we disagree, you are always respectful and I do believe, a real truth seeker.

God bless.

Thanks LA

I generally refrain from posting anything here, in my experience, I get a lot of attention because of my religious STAMP. I will learn… Hopefully…

Hope to have a lot of correspondence with you further on

 

[PRmerger]

I think I should give up. Should I state my entire post a fourth (4th) time? Should I try to clarify it a third (3rd) time? These other posters, well one actually came back, taking everything into account and then giving a very respectful reply to me. (Maybe also read his entire post and not only quote the cheesy part)

Let me remind you Merger, firstly, I never intended to even correspond with you. Secondly, our correspondence for more than once, ends of with you picking out parts of my post and questioning these independent of the others. Please just read the whole thing, I am sure we both have better things to do. (Although I see you quote the entire one now, you still don’t reply to it).

So back to the first part of my reply, please please please please read all my posts and then ask your question. You will see there is a very crucial point you for some ironic reason totally missed. (I can see how you ask me now to clarify what that is so let me state it for that 4th time. I am making it very clear and visible now… WHY DIDNT TRENT CHALLENGE THAT AND EVEN LATER ON REFERRED TO HIS OWN ARGUMENTS IN THE SAME WAY?

I would hate to have to refer to it a fifth (5th) time.

Can you please just answer the question?

It’s rather straightforward, Michael.

Thank you!

 

[PRmerger]

Should I try to clarify it a third (3rd) time?

Yes, please try to clarify because many of us are confused.

 

[PRmerger]

Perhaps you could just clarify, because it seems that I am not alone in being confused about your point.

Are you suggesting that it’s a requirement for someone to be a Professor in Greek in order to understand when a verse is prescriptive vs descriptive?

Here’s the question, again, for you Michael.

 

[MichaelP3]

Can you please just answer the question?

It’s rather straightforward, Michael.

Thank you!

Yes, please try to clarify because many of us are confused.

A fifth (5th) time. WHY DID TRENT NOT CHALLENGE THIS AND THEN EVEN REFERRED TO IT THE SAME WAY?

I can try a sixth (6th) time if you like? I myself see this as straightforward, even helping you to the answer somewhere if you care to ACTUALLY READ my posts!

 

[PRmerger]

A fifth (5th) time. WHY DID TRENT NOT CHALLENGE THIS AND THEN EVEN REFERRED TO IT THE SAME WAY?

I can try a sixth (6th) time if you like? I myself see this as straightforward, even helping you to the answer somewhere if you care to ACTUALLY READ my posts!

Michael, calm down.

Answer my question, please.

Thank you.

 

[MichaelP3]

Michael, calm down.

Answer my question, please.

Thank you.

Sixth (6th) time. WHY DID TRENT NOT CHALLENGE THIS AND EVEN REFERRED TO IT THE SAME WAY LATER ON?

This is getting old. Refer to the original posts and see this was part of the original reply. I am not doing anything out of order.

We are getting nowhere. If you want to talk to me ( taking note, you replied to me first) let us do this right. Please please please please. Think of me as a very old man pleading for some mercy in order to save his sanity at this moment.

 

[PRmerger]

Sixth (6th) time. WHY DID TRENT NOT CHALLENGE THIS AND EVEN REFERRED TO IT THE SAME WAY LATER ON?

This is getting old. Refer to the original posts and see this was part of the original reply. I am not doing anything out of order.

We are getting nowhere. If you want to talk to me ( taking note, you replied to me first) let us do this right. Please please please please. Think of me as a very old man pleading for some mercy in order to save his sanity at this moment.

No, Michael.

When you are asked a question, a very simple one, you do not respond with another question.

So, like this:

Michael ask: why do you believe that the book of Hebrews is inspired?
PR responds with: because of one reason only–because the Catholic Church discerned it to be and I defer to the authority of the CC.

What you are doing is like this:

PR: why do you believe that the book of Hebrews is inspired?
Michael: why did King Henry divorce Queen Catherine?

See? That’s a nonsequitur.

Please just try to answer my question.

I’ll pose it again:

“Are you suggesting that it’s a requirement for someone to be a Professor in Greek in order to understand when a verse is prescriptive vs descriptive?”

Thank you.

 

[MichaelP3]

No, Michael.

When you are asked a question, a very simple one, you do not respond with another question.

So, like this:

Michael ask: why do you believe that the book of Hebrews is inspired?
PR responds with: because of one reason only–because the Catholic Church discerned it to be and I defer to the authority of the CC.

What you are doing is like this:

PR: why do you believe that the book of Hebrews is inspired?
Michael: why did King Henry divorce Queen Catherine?

See? That’s a nonsequitur.

Please just try to answer my question.

I’ll pose it again:

“Are you suggesting that it’s a requirement for someone to be a Professor in Greek in order to understand when a verse is prescriptive vs descriptive?”

Thank you.

Actually that is the best question you asked so far since I have read your posts. Why do you think King Henry divorced Catherine? Was it just a male heir? Maybe we will get somewhere there… at least?

As to your actual post.

A seventh (7th) time. (By the way, I may try out new fonts just in case you see them)

Why did Trent not challenge this and later on refer to his statements the same way?

(PS. Don’t you think we are irritating other posters here?)

 

[PRmerger]

Actually that is the best question you asked so far since I have read your posts. Why do you think King Henry divorced Catherine? Was it just a male heir? Maybe we will get somewhere there… at least?

As to your actual post.

A seventh (7th) time. (By the way, I may try out new fonts just in case you see them)

Why did Trent not challenge this and later on refer to his statements the same way?

(PS. Don’t you think we are irritating other posters here?)

I think that in all of your posts you have tacitly acknowledged that you wish to rescind your reference to having to be a professor of Greek in order to understand the difference between prescriptive and descriptive verses.

Is this correct?

Do you wish to rescind?

If so, I will never mention it again and accept that it was a poor argument.

 

[MichaelP3]

I think that in all of your posts you have tacitly acknowledged that you wish to rescind your reference to having to be a professor of Greek in order to understand the difference between prescriptive and descriptive verses.

Is this correct?

Do you wish to rescind?

If so, I will never mention it again and accept that it was a poor argument.

Think of that old man almost losing his sanity. I am him now.

To your post, I happily rescind something I never stated. Just read my entire post. What I rescinded (never stated, it was an intro to my actual question) was stated together with my question that I asked 7 times. Can we go on now?

 

[ShanPO]

Think of that old man almost losing his sanity. I am him now.

To your post, I happily rescind something I never stated. Just read my entire post. What I rescinded (never stated, it was an intro to my actual question) was stated together with my question that I asked 7 times. Can we go on now?

All we need from you regarding PR’s question is a very simple yes or no. It seems you’re working yourself up with your crazy fonts and sizes and whatnot. I am also interested in your answer to this question as well, so I’ll repeat it for you here:

“Are you suggesting that it’s a requirement for someone to be a Professor in Greek in order to understand when a verse is prescriptive vs descriptive?”

As far as your question goes, maybe Trent has knowledge regarding prescriptive vs descriptive verse interpretations, but there are quite a few seasoned Catholic apologists here in this thread, myself included, who say this is something we’ve never heard of. Do you have any idea what James White was talking about in this, or is it your contention that because we don’t have knowledge of the Greek in question that we can’t understand the meaning.

If this is the case, and we can’t understand the meaning because of our lack of Greek knowledge, then why can’t JW offer a definition or something to clarify what he means so we can at least say “Hey, that makes sense” or “What? Dude, that’s wack”

Do you know what JW was talking about?

 

[MichaelP3]

All we need from you regarding PR’s question is a very simple yes or no. It seems you’re working yourself up with your crazy fonts and sizes and whatnot. I am also interested in your answer to this question as well, so I’ll repeat it for you here:

“Are you suggesting that it’s a requirement for someone to be a Professor in Greek in order to understand when a verse is prescriptive vs descriptive?”

As far as your question goes, maybe Trent has knowledge regarding prescriptive vs descriptive verse interpretations, but there are quite a few seasoned Catholic apologists here in this thread, myself included, who say this is something we’ve never heard of. Do you have any idea what James White was talking about in this, or is it your contention that because we don’t have knowledge of the Greek in question that we can’t understand the meaning.

If this is the case, and we can’t understand the meaning because of our lack of Greek knowledge, then why can’t JW offer a definition or something to clarify what he means so we can at least say “Hey, that makes sense” or “What? Dude, that’s wack”

Do you know what JW was talking about?

Good day ShanPO

I truly appreciate your request and to this I can answer a simple no. As I never stated that. My post was torn apart and only certain parts were taken under a magnifying glass and other ignored. You have to see this.

And referring to yourself as a seasoned Catholic Apologist (btw, I don’t know you at all, so don’t take this to heart), just googling the question would bring to light it is not a White “idea”. Although, this “White idea” wasn’t even what I was talking about in the first place.

Good day

 

[PRmerger]

Good day ShanPO

I truly appreciate your request and to this I can answer a simple no

Excellent. Finally.

So if we don’t need to be Professors in Greek, what was the point of bringing it up?

Here it is, again, to refresh our memories of what you proposed:

Well Merger, neither I or you would be a Professor in Greek. Not even Trent challenged this, actually referred to “his” points as the same in either way. I am not advocating any way, just pointing out the “more learnt” people and what they say.

All in all, you didn’t say much, there. Maybe point to something we can talk about on the same level.

Regards

Now, again, if you feel that it was a mistake to bring it up, since it has nothing to do at all, it turns out, with the prescriptive vs descriptive verse interpretation, that would be fine and no one would bring it up again.

 

[MichaelP3]

Excellent. Finally.

So if we don’t need to be Professors in Greek, what was the point of bringing it up?

Here it is, again, to refresh our memories of what you proposed:

Now, again, if you feel that it was a mistake to bring it up, since it has nothing to do at all, it turns out, with the prescriptive vs descriptive verse interpretation, that would be fine and no one would bring it up again.

So yes finally you got an answer to a question from you regarding a statement I never made or as it has been dissected into various parts (at least intended that way). I truly hope this can bring us onto the next point?

So Merger, why did Trent not challenge this? Why did he later refer to his own post in the same way? Why nothing if this is such a big deal (point of my original post in the first place)?

Or am I expecting “yet another” BUT FIRST?

Regards

 

[PRmerger]

I would advise you not to rely on other posters for your point all the way.

Of course. I never “rely on other posters for my point all the way.”

So yes finally you got an answer to a question from you regarding a statement I never made or as it has been dissected into various parts (at least intended that way). I truly hope this can bring us onto the next point?

So I think we can agree that any reference to “Professors in Greek” was quite irrelevant.

No one needs to be “Professors in Greek” in order to read and interpret the Scriptures.

All the Protestant reformers would be turning over in their graves if that were your point, Michael.

 

[MT1926]

, just googling the question would bring to light it is not a White “idea”. Although, this “White idea” wasn’t even what I was talking about in the first place.

Good day

Thanks for advice. I googled it and did find some info. You are correct this is not a “White idea” in fact everything I found pretty much contradicts White’s use of the prescriptive/descriptive theology. Is there anything this man won’t twist to push his agenda?

Some of the things I found.
“Descriptive literature is that which describes what happened. Narrative literature is basically descriptive. It is telling what happened, but not necessarily telling readers that they should do everything in the same manner.

Prescriptive literature commands the reader to a course of action. Prescriptive literature instructs the reader to do something, to act in such and such a way. Prescriptive writing is characterized by lots of imperatives, i.e., commands.”

In other words…
Descriptive = “what happened.” Past tense. Therefore, White’s theology of saying Jesus’ words are actually describing what the elect does instead of prescribing what the elect needs to do is a fail. Jesus uses present tense verbs not past tense statements. White just says they are past tense so it fits the descriptive model.
Prescriptive = “what to do.”

The writers actually pointed out that people will dismissively make everything descriptive. (as White does).

I think I liked best what this one writer said.

So I guess the best way I can summarize this post is as follows: If you’re never being challenged to grow, you’re making everything descriptive; if you’re being challenged to stab someone in the stomach until the dung falls out, you’re making everything prescriptive. Somewhere, in the middle, is where sweetness and light dwell.

I think he summed up the elect White (who believes if we think Jesus is challenging us to be better we aren’t saved) pretty well with that statement.