GHClark_List1 at Yahoo! Groups

Re: Why should we need to define the term?

ghclist1 — Sun, 19 May 2013 03:29:00 GMT

David, you confuse Clark with me. You dislike and attack CLARK's view! Note Well, confirmed by Robbins of all people, it is Clark who proposed the Jesus Christ

Re: Persons of the Trinity (Q1 - Q3 responses of ghclist1)

ghclist1 — Sun, 19 May 2013 02:34:27 GMT

David, I'm sorry you feel I ignored your request, so I'm glad to hear my reply to SJ also met your request. Also, I'm sorry you feel attacked; I don't know how

Re: Why should we need to define the term?

David M. Hodges — Sat, 18 May 2013 17:33:56 GMT

... ....What _I am_ trying to test is whether by good and necessary consequence (GNC) ALL of this about One Person in Three Persons, and One

Re: [SJ Cossack re:] Definition of "Person"

David M. Hodges — Sat, 18 May 2013 16:37:33 GMT

... .... Though I offered a working definition because I was asked to provide one, I'm not necessarily trying to win converts to the definition I've set forth.

Re: Persons of the Trinity (Q1 - Q3 responses of ghclist1)

David M. Hodges — Sat, 18 May 2013 15:15:47 GMT

Hmm. You seem to have ignored my request for a quotation from Clark justifying your claim that something he said somewhere can fairly be construed as defining

Re: Definition of "Person"

ghclist1 — Sat, 18 May 2013 06:57:29 GMT

Rhett > IMU, one does not need a rigorous ... to begin using the term intelligently (even if the definition is wrong).< The definition as such is not right or

An impossible ideal?

ghclist1 — Sat, 18 May 2013 04:45:53 GMT

Updated. No final answers are offered or claimed in the following, but simply to provoke further thought?. criticism, discussions ? Clarkian, Van Tilian,

Re: Definition of "Person"

ghclist1 — Sat, 18 May 2013 03:04:29 GMT

Hi Rhett. Forrest's reply makes his view even more unclear. FS posted '000s of words over the years telling us he won't define, why he won't define, why he

Re: Persons of the Trinity (Q1 - Q3 responses of ghclist1)

James — Sat, 18 May 2013 00:55:52 GMT

... ........ Me either. No "refutation" intended. Just demonstrating the futility of using a mathematical equation to explain the Trinity. One's as good as

Re: Persons of the Trinity (Q1 - Q3 responses of ghclist1)

Forrest Schultz — Fri, 17 May 2013 22:04:17 GMT

Well, hey, James!! How have you been doing -- have not heard from you in a LONG time!! I do not see how the equations you just presented refute what I

Re: Definition of "Person"

deovolente_777 — Fri, 17 May 2013 17:15:41 GMT

Hi Karel, Would like to get your thoughts on the following from Forrest: "This one from one of Augustine's best known statements -- he said he knows what time

Re: Definition of "Person"

deovolente_777 — Fri, 17 May 2013 16:19:36 GMT

Hi Forrest, Here is how I understand your reply to my first question: "Whereas a person has the capacity to "act," a nature is merely a description of

To substantiate ...

ghclist1 — Wed, 15 May 2013 00:39:32 GMT

my claim re: Forrest misrepresenting Clark, his admission and apology, Forrest wrote: "... I have decided not to make any more claims about what Clark said ...

Point of order ad Forrest.

ghclist1 — Wed, 15 May 2013 00:05:54 GMT

All, take great care with Forrest's claims re:Clark. Forrest often misrepresents Clark, e.g. by putting into Clark's mouth errors and confusion that are

Re: Persons of the Trinity (Q1 - Q3 responses of ghclist1)

James — Tue, 14 May 2013 23:28:49 GMT

Hi Forrest; . ... ............. Yeah I know but why? What's the difference what equation one uses because another one might use another one to disprove the one