I’m just saying you can’t be certain that a conversation did or didn’t happen 2000 years ago man. You can posit. You can assign as high a probability as you want, but you can’t be certain, which is again what brings it back to faith, which can’t be separated from History when it comes to religion.
Well then I guess I would ask you to clarify your position? Because I take it that you’re saying the gospel author, John or otherwise, is the one who decided to write it that way and that historically it would have been said in Aramaic but afaik have no proof of how it was said and what that could have lead to the word choice of the author? Faith would say it’s divinely inspired. My point remains that you can’t separate the History from the faith. But maybe I’m reading you wrong.
@KyleGrimm366261@mark_petereit@Adam_FaithfulM See, I think we’re just on different wavelengths here. Are you debating any facts about it indeed being written in Greek whatever conclusion you want to draw from that fact may be? My point is, you’re throwing aside the faith piece as if faith isn’t core to the entire doctrine?
@KyleGrimm366261@mark_petereit@Adam_FaithfulM And “many of the arguments end with faith”…. is kind of the point. Ignore metaphysics at your own peril but you’re missing out on a whole palette of beautiful pigment
No, it’s more like you chirped “look at me”, got swatted away like a gnat, and then still executed part two of the let me insult you and then eat off of your status grift. It’s pathetic, and there are no sides to the cesspit that you continue to enable with the local radio “fame” you’ve confused for influence.
@KyleGrimm366261@mark_petereit@Adam_FaithfulM Written in Greek 100 years later dawg. If someone recounted this exchange 100 years from now, they’d do it in the language of the time and place they’re writing it. This is basic.