Cheryl

Denis,

“I would encourage you to look into the paltalk option that Matt suggested. As someone who is interested in hearing both sides of this debate, I don’t think your style meshes well with the talk-radio format.”

My inexperience may not mesh well with anything live, but I am willing to learn. I would rather, though have a bigger audience than PalTalk. I was on a PalTalk site once because I was invited and I was quite uncomfortable with the whole thing. And that is not even listening to an audio debate. No, live radio is more than scary enough for me!

“Without getting into the content of the discussion, I too had problems following you answers to some of the questions posed (it did indeed seem that many questions were left unanswered).”

Part of the problem was that Matt wouldn’t let me finish. The other part of the problem could have been me not understanding where Matt was going and the third part was that I answered the questions but Matt didn’t accept my answer and kept saying that I didn’t answer. A case in point was when Matt asked me why Paul used the word didasko? (teach) instead of the word heterodidaskaleo which means a different doctrine. The question was asking me to understand Paul’s mindset instead of really dealing with the issue. The issue is whether didasko can be used properly to mean false doctrine. The answer is “of course”.

In Revelation 2:14 didasko is used twice and the meaning is clear that it is false teaching:

Rev 2:14 ‘But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam, who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit acts of immorality

However the question posed to me was not whether didasko was a wrong word to use when false teaching was meant but why Paul used it. My explanation was that Paul was stopping all of her teaching not just the false teaching and that false teaching was understood in the passage not because of the Greek word used for “teach” but because of the context “deceived” showing the teaching was attached to deception. I don’t know how clearer I could have been. If you could tell me what you didn’t understand about my answer, then I will be able to expound further. It sure didn’t make sense to me that Matt kept on asking me the same question when I had already answered him. If he had said that he didn’t like my answer or if he would have told me what was wrong with my answer, then I could have gone on, but for him to say that I didn’t answer was just plain frustrating to me.

“A more structured format may be exactly what is needed here.”

Well that may be better for me too. Since Matt wants to keep me to 1.5 minutes per question, I will need to have a list of his questions and his follow-up questions or I won’t have the time to work on them in order to be concise. Yes, yes, I know I can be verbose too! That is one of my human faults and I freely admit it. I just have so much passion and love for the Bible that when I get going…..well…..I think that says it all!