[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't remember saying anything about infallability.



We don't really have much context for these statements, but assuming they were delivered in a setting similar to the JF.S quote, I think the point was supposed to emphasize the literal paternity of the Father. IOW, to combat the idea that he is a partless, passionless, bodyless, nebulous entity. I think all the terms "conceived" "natural" "begotten" etc. are an emphasis to that end.

Pratt's quote is a little bit problematic, but his frequent use of the term "must have" suggests he wasn't exactly sure himself. Even then, it appears he's not talking about sex as much as he is about Mary's marital status.

As I said yesterday, we're beating a dead cliche here. If you want you can post the exact same quote 6 more times, beat your chest once or twice, and congratulate yourself on how brilliant an ass-kicker you are. But frankly, I'm ready to argue about something else.

Regards.

Actually, it's kind of fun to see you twist in the wind, and try to come up with more and more illogical arguments for why you're right and the rest of us are wrong.

I also find it interesting how you keep arguing by saying what the prophets seem to have had in mind then they made the statements - as if you're the spokesman for what the meant, as opposed to what they said.

Think about it - their remarks are usually intended for ordinary people with ordinary understanding - therefore, shouldn't they be subject to ordinary interpretation? You shouldn't need an interpreter for the prophets. Yet, that's exactly what you are presuming to do.