Discussion:
10's of 1,000's, perhaps 100's of 1,000,s Saw God!
(too old to reply)
Robert
2017-01-08 23:24:33 UTC
Permalink
Many have read this, yet not seen it.

Joh 1:18  No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. 

Here is how the Greek to English is clarified;
Joh 1:18  No man has ever seen God at any time; the only unique Son,
or the only begotten God, Who is in the bosom [in the intimate
presence] of the Father, He has declared Him [He has revealed Him and
brought Him out where He can be seen; He has interpreted Him and He
has made Him known]. (AMP)

Jesus, "He" has declared Him, made him known. This was a major part of
the work of Christ on earth, he who was sacrificed for the sins of the
whole earth.

Of course I expect many arguments on this and this was near the
beginning of Christ's ministry on the earth. During the course of
Christ's first ministry on earth he said this,...

Joh 14:6  Jesus said to him, I am the Way and the Truth and the Life;
no one comes to the Father except by (through) Me. 
Joh 14:7  If you had known Me [had learned to recognize Me], you would
also have known My Father. From now on, you know Him and have seen
Him. 
Joh 14:8  Philip said to Him, Lord, show us the Father [cause us to
see the Father--that is all we ask]; then we shall be satisfied. 
Joh 14:9  Jesus replied, Have I been with all of you for so long a
time, and do you not recognize and know Me yet, Philip? Anyone who has
seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say then, Show us the
Father? 

Now there is much more to this in Chapter 14 for those that care to
see, yet here Jesus clearly states, Anyone who has seen me has seen
the Father.

Jesus was authorized to speak this, He was God's representative on
earth and spoke only on the authorization of His Father. He
represented God well, and He also showed the anger of God regarding
the money changers in the temple, tossing over their tables and
running them out of the temple.

Still need convincing, like a JW will? Very near the end of his
ministry on earth with the messages of Good News, Christ said this,...

Joh 20:26  Eight days later His disciples were again in the house, and
Thomas was with them. Jesus came, though they were behind closed
doors, and stood among them and said, Peace to you! 
Joh 20:27  Then He said to Thomas, Reach out your finger here, and see
My hands; and put out your hand and place [it] in My side. Do not be
faithless and incredulous, but [stop your unbelief and] believe! 
Joh 20:28  Thomas answered Him, My Lord and my God! 
Joh 20:29  Jesus said to him, Because you have seen Me, Thomas, do you
now believe (trust, have faith)? Blessed and happy and to be envied
are those who have never seen Me and yet have believed and adhered to
and trusted and relied on Me.

Yes, ALL the disciples, not just the twelve know fully knew who they
had been living with and following. The rest of the world around
Jerusalem saw God the Father, via Jesus, whether they fully understood
or not.

So we can see now that mankind has seen God since it was an objective
of Jesus to make Him known to all that would listen. God showed
through Jesus Christ many signs, wonders, miracles and healing's.
Raising people from the dead and freeing all who were oppressed of the
enemy.

Jesus here in this last passage also left a message directly to you
and me, when He said, "Blessed and happy and to be envied are those
who have never seen Me and yet have believed and adhered to and
trusted and relied on Me."

Notice, he did not say washed with water, but have believed, etc.

JW's and others are following idols, false images, as part of their
doctrines, their Jesus is not the Jesus that is spoken of in the words
of John. A fact hardly disputed by James when he says he follows a
"Jesus" that the Christians do not. And He is right, he follows a
false image, one he calls Jesus, but knows not. Same with some others
here.
Patrick
2017-01-09 01:10:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Many have read this, yet not seen it.
Now there is much more to this in Chapter 14 for those that care to
see, yet here Jesus clearly states, Anyone who has seen me has seen
the Father.
Simple.
Jesus is God.
God the Father is God.
Any questions?
astarte
2017-01-09 01:10:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Many have read this, yet not seen it.
Joh 1:18  No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. 
Except, Moses, the elders of israel with moses, enoch, & elijah. & that
may not be all.

snip continuation of ignorance by Robert.

Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
duke
2017-01-09 13:19:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Many have read this, yet not seen it.
Joh 1:18  No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. 
Here is how the Greek to English is clarified;
Joh 1:18  No man has ever seen God at any time; the only unique Son,
or the only begotten God, Who is in the bosom [in the intimate
presence] of the Father, He has declared Him [He has revealed Him and
brought Him out where He can be seen; He has interpreted Him and He
has made Him known]. (AMP)
Jesus, "He" has declared Him, made him known. This was a major part of
the work of Christ on earth, he who was sacrificed for the sins of the
whole earth.
Of course I expect many arguments on this and this was near the
beginning of Christ's ministry on the earth. During the course of
Christ's first ministry on earth he said this,...
Joh 14:6  Jesus said to him, I am the Way and the Truth and the Life;
no one comes to the Father except by (through) Me. 
Joh 14:7  If you had known Me [had learned to recognize Me], you would
also have known My Father. From now on, you know Him and have seen
Him. 
Joh 14:8  Philip said to Him, Lord, show us the Father [cause us to
see the Father--that is all we ask]; then we shall be satisfied. 
Joh 14:9  Jesus replied, Have I been with all of you for so long a
time, and do you not recognize and know Me yet, Philip? Anyone who has
seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say then, Show us the
Father? 
Now there is much more to this in Chapter 14 for those that care to
see, yet here Jesus clearly states, Anyone who has seen me has seen
the Father.
Jesus was authorized to speak this, He was God's representative on
earth and spoke only on the authorization of His Father. He
represented God well, and He also showed the anger of God regarding
the money changers in the temple, tossing over their tables and
running them out of the temple.
Still need convincing, like a JW will? Very near the end of his
ministry on earth with the messages of Good News, Christ said this,...
Joh 20:26  Eight days later His disciples were again in the house, and
Thomas was with them. Jesus came, though they were behind closed
doors, and stood among them and said, Peace to you! 
Joh 20:27  Then He said to Thomas, Reach out your finger here, and see
My hands; and put out your hand and place [it] in My side. Do not be
faithless and incredulous, but [stop your unbelief and] believe! 
Joh 20:28  Thomas answered Him, My Lord and my God! 
Joh 20:29  Jesus said to him, Because you have seen Me, Thomas, do you
now believe (trust, have faith)? Blessed and happy and to be envied
are those who have never seen Me and yet have believed and adhered to
and trusted and relied on Me.
Yes, ALL the disciples, not just the twelve know fully knew who they
had been living with and following. The rest of the world around
Jerusalem saw God the Father, via Jesus, whether they fully understood
or not.
So we can see now that mankind has seen God since it was an objective
of Jesus to make Him known to all that would listen. God showed
through Jesus Christ many signs, wonders, miracles and healing's.
Raising people from the dead and freeing all who were oppressed of the
enemy.
Jesus here in this last passage also left a message directly to you
and me, when He said, "Blessed and happy and to be envied are those
who have never seen Me and yet have believed and adhered to and
trusted and relied on Me."
Notice, he did not say washed with water, but have believed, etc.
JW's and others are following idols, false images, as part of their
doctrines, their Jesus is not the Jesus that is spoken of in the words
of John. A fact hardly disputed by James when he says he follows a
"Jesus" that the Christians do not. And He is right, he follows a
false image, one he calls Jesus, but knows not. Same with some others
here.
They saw flesh only. The never saw divinity, nor knew of his divinity until
after he ascended to the Father..

Philippians 2:6-8New International Version (NIV)

Who, being in very nature[a] God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own
advantage;

rather, he made himself nothing
    by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
    being made in human likeness.

And being found in appearance as a man,
    he humbled himself
    by becoming obedient to death—
        even death on a cross!

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Robert
2017-01-09 19:48:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Many have read this, yet not seen it.
Joh 1:18  No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. 
Here is how the Greek to English is clarified;
Joh 1:18  No man has ever seen God at any time; the only unique Son,
or the only begotten God, Who is in the bosom [in the intimate
presence] of the Father, He has declared Him [He has revealed Him and
brought Him out where He can be seen; He has interpreted Him and He
has made Him known]. (AMP)
Jesus, "He" has declared Him, made him known. This was a major part of
the work of Christ on earth, he who was sacrificed for the sins of the
whole earth.
Of course I expect many arguments on this and this was near the
beginning of Christ's ministry on the earth. During the course of
Christ's first ministry on earth he said this,...
Joh 14:6  Jesus said to him, I am the Way and the Truth and the Life;
no one comes to the Father except by (through) Me. 
Joh 14:7  If you had known Me [had learned to recognize Me], you would
also have known My Father. From now on, you know Him and have seen
Him. 
Joh 14:8  Philip said to Him, Lord, show us the Father [cause us to
see the Father--that is all we ask]; then we shall be satisfied. 
Joh 14:9  Jesus replied, Have I been with all of you for so long a
time, and do you not recognize and know Me yet, Philip? Anyone who has
seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say then, Show us the
Father? 
Now there is much more to this in Chapter 14 for those that care to
see, yet here Jesus clearly states, Anyone who has seen me has seen
the Father.
Jesus was authorized to speak this, He was God's representative on
earth and spoke only on the authorization of His Father. He
represented God well, and He also showed the anger of God regarding
the money changers in the temple, tossing over their tables and
running them out of the temple.
Still need convincing, like a JW will? Very near the end of his
ministry on earth with the messages of Good News, Christ said this,...
Joh 20:26  Eight days later His disciples were again in the house, and
Thomas was with them. Jesus came, though they were behind closed
doors, and stood among them and said, Peace to you! 
Joh 20:27  Then He said to Thomas, Reach out your finger here, and see
My hands; and put out your hand and place [it] in My side. Do not be
faithless and incredulous, but [stop your unbelief and] believe! 
Joh 20:28  Thomas answered Him, My Lord and my God! 
Joh 20:29  Jesus said to him, Because you have seen Me, Thomas, do you
now believe (trust, have faith)? Blessed and happy and to be envied
are those who have never seen Me and yet have believed and adhered to
and trusted and relied on Me.
Yes, ALL the disciples, not just the twelve know fully knew who they
had been living with and following. The rest of the world around
Jerusalem saw God the Father, via Jesus, whether they fully understood
or not.
So we can see now that mankind has seen God since it was an objective
of Jesus to make Him known to all that would listen. God showed
through Jesus Christ many signs, wonders, miracles and healing's.
Raising people from the dead and freeing all who were oppressed of the
enemy.
Jesus here in this last passage also left a message directly to you
and me, when He said, "Blessed and happy and to be envied are those
who have never seen Me and yet have believed and adhered to and
trusted and relied on Me."
Notice, he did not say washed with water, but have believed, etc.
JW's and others are following idols, false images, as part of their
doctrines, their Jesus is not the Jesus that is spoken of in the words
of John. A fact hardly disputed by James when he says he follows a
"Jesus" that the Christians do not. And He is right, he follows a
false image, one he calls Jesus, but knows not. Same with some others
here.
They saw flesh only. The never saw divinity, nor knew of his divinity until
after he ascended to the Father..
Philippians 2:6-8New International Version (NIV)

Who, being in very nature[a] God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own
advantage;

rather, he made himself nothing
    by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
    being made in human likeness.

And being found in appearance as a man,
    he humbled himself
    by becoming obedient to death—
        even death on a cross!
the dukester, American-American
Earl, while the verses you quote from Philippians are very true, they
are not on topic, and they also do not dispute what Jesus said, when
he said you have seen me, you see the Father.

In fact, to use one of your arguments regarding God being one, Jesus
was born as God/man. His name meaning God with us.

You dispute with God and his word with your words and actions. Any
particular reason for it?
astarte
2017-01-09 20:52:17 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 09 Jan 2017 11:48:30 -0800, Robert snip, 115 lines
--
Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
Patrick
2017-01-09 22:51:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Earl, while the verses you quote from Philippians are very true, they
are not on topic, and they also do not dispute what Jesus said, when
he said you have seen me, you see the Father.
In fact, to use one of your arguments regarding God being one, Jesus
was born as God/man. His name meaning God with us.
You dispute with God and his word with your words and actions. Any
particular reason for it?
Duke is 100 percent correct.
Since you do not understand or believe in the Trinity, you will never
accept what real Christians believe.
You need to get over it.
Real Christians believe in the Trinity.
You obviously do not.
Robert
2017-01-10 16:55:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Earl, while the verses you quote from Philippians are very true, they
are not on topic, and they also do not dispute what Jesus said, when
he said you have seen me, you see the Father.
In fact, to use one of your arguments regarding God being one, Jesus
was born as God/man. His name meaning God with us.
You dispute with God and his word with your words and actions. Any
particular reason for it?
Duke is 100 percent correct.
Since you do not understand or believe in the Trinity, you will never
accept what real Christians believe.
You need to get over it.
Real Christians believe in the Trinity.
You obviously do not.
The bible does not teach it, nor do you even know what it means. You
only say it because you were taught it, you were even told that if you
did not accept that teaching you would go to hell. They forced you,
out of fear, to accept it.
Patrick
2017-01-10 19:22:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Earl, while the verses you quote from Philippians are very true, they
are not on topic, and they also do not dispute what Jesus said, when
he said you have seen me, you see the Father.
In fact, to use one of your arguments regarding God being one, Jesus
was born as God/man. His name meaning God with us.
You dispute with God and his word with your words and actions. Any
particular reason for it?
Duke is 100 percent correct.
Since you do not understand or believe in the Trinity, you will never
accept what real Christians believe.
You need to get over it.
Real Christians believe in the Trinity.
You obviously do not.
The bible does not teach it,
Yup.
The Bible also doesn't teach the Bible exists.
Post by Robert
nor do you even know what it means. You
only say it because you were taught it, you were even told that if you
did not accept that teaching you would go to hell. They forced you,
out of fear, to accept it.
I accept it because I understand it enough to know it exists.
You see, I read the Bible, and especially the words of Jesus.
Robert
2017-01-10 20:14:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Earl, while the verses you quote from Philippians are very true, they
are not on topic, and they also do not dispute what Jesus said, when
he said you have seen me, you see the Father.
In fact, to use one of your arguments regarding God being one, Jesus
was born as God/man. His name meaning God with us.
You dispute with God and his word with your words and actions. Any
particular reason for it?
Duke is 100 percent correct.
Since you do not understand or believe in the Trinity, you will never
accept what real Christians believe.
You need to get over it.
Real Christians believe in the Trinity.
You obviously do not.
The bible does not teach it,
Yup.
The Bible also doesn't teach the Bible exists.
Yes, it does.
2Ti 3:16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
nor do you even know what it means. You
only say it because you were taught it, you were even told that if you
did not accept that teaching you would go to hell. They forced you,
out of fear, to accept it.
I accept it because I understand it enough to know it exists.
You see, I read the Bible, and especially the words of Jesus.
Patrick
2017-01-10 22:24:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Earl, while the verses you quote from Philippians are very true, they
are not on topic, and they also do not dispute what Jesus said, when
he said you have seen me, you see the Father.
In fact, to use one of your arguments regarding God being one, Jesus
was born as God/man. His name meaning God with us.
You dispute with God and his word with your words and actions. Any
particular reason for it?
Duke is 100 percent correct.
Since you do not understand or believe in the Trinity, you will never
accept what real Christians believe.
You need to get over it.
Real Christians believe in the Trinity.
You obviously do not.
The bible does not teach it,
Yup.
The Bible also doesn't teach the Bible exists.
Yes, it does.
2Ti 3:16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction
Good guess.
I am impressed.
Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy

Since the Bible had not been assembled yet, what do you think Paul was
speaking about when he referred to "Scripture." The gospels had not
yet been written, and the Old testament wasn't totally accepted by
anyone. So, what do you believe the "scriptures" were? Could they
have been some of the letters Paul had written to the various groups?
Robert
2017-01-10 23:33:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Earl, while the verses you quote from Philippians are very true, they
are not on topic, and they also do not dispute what Jesus said, when
he said you have seen me, you see the Father.
In fact, to use one of your arguments regarding God being one, Jesus
was born as God/man. His name meaning God with us.
You dispute with God and his word with your words and actions. Any
particular reason for it?
Duke is 100 percent correct.
Since you do not understand or believe in the Trinity, you will never
accept what real Christians believe.
You need to get over it.
Real Christians believe in the Trinity.
You obviously do not.
The bible does not teach it,
Yup.
The Bible also doesn't teach the Bible exists.
Yes, it does.
2Ti 3:16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction
Good guess.
I am impressed.
Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy
Since the Bible had not been assembled yet, what do you think Paul was
speaking about when he referred to "Scripture." The gospels had not
yet been written, and the Old testament wasn't totally accepted by
anyone. So, what do you believe the "scriptures" were? Could they
have been some of the letters Paul had written to the various groups?
All the Old Testament had been assembled for centuries and canonized,
it was also all translated into Greek 300+ years before Christ came.

As to the NT letters had already been written, non canonized at that
point. Paul was also very familiar with writing under the inspiration
of the Holy Spirit, even making reference to that fact a couple times.

1Co 7:5  Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a
time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come
together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. 
1Co 7:6  But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. 

The OT was accepted by all Jews. Gentiles also knew it was supposed to
be the word of God and was accepted as truth by believers. The NT
canonized a hundred plus years later had to conform to the OT and to
each other in the NT or be tossed out. The Holy Spirit have a lot to
do in showing the conformity of the messages of God and of prophetic
scripture.

Even Peter spoke of the "Oracles of God". 1 Peter 4:11 IOW's man can
have full understanding from God as to what is Godly and what is not.
Patrick
2017-01-11 01:27:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Earl, while the verses you quote from Philippians are very true, they
are not on topic, and they also do not dispute what Jesus said, when
he said you have seen me, you see the Father.
In fact, to use one of your arguments regarding God being one, Jesus
was born as God/man. His name meaning God with us.
You dispute with God and his word with your words and actions. Any
particular reason for it?
Duke is 100 percent correct.
Since you do not understand or believe in the Trinity, you will never
accept what real Christians believe.
You need to get over it.
Real Christians believe in the Trinity.
You obviously do not.
The bible does not teach it,
Yup.
The Bible also doesn't teach the Bible exists.
Yes, it does.
2Ti 3:16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction
Good guess.
I am impressed.
Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy
Since the Bible had not been assembled yet, what do you think Paul was
speaking about when he referred to "Scripture." The gospels had not
yet been written, and the Old testament wasn't totally accepted by
anyone. So, what do you believe the "scriptures" were? Could they
have been some of the letters Paul had written to the various groups?
All the Old Testament had been assembled for centuries and canonized,
it was also all translated into Greek 300+ years before Christ came.
If you are going to lie, at least TRY to make your words believable.
Rabbinic Judaism recognizes the twenty-four books of the Masoretic
Text, commonly called the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible. There is no
scholarly consensus as to when the Hebrew Bible canon was fixed: some
scholars argue that it was fixed by the Hasmonean dynasty (140-40 BCE)
while others argue it was not fixed until the second century CE or
even later. According to Marc Zvi Brettler, the Jewish scriptures
outside the Torah and the Prophets were fluid, different groups seeing
authority in different books.

The differences between the Hebrew Bible and other versions of the Old
Testament such as the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Peshitta, the
Latin Vulgate, the Greek Septuagint, the Ethiopian Bible and other
canons, are more substantial. Many of these canons include books and
sections of books that the others do not.

Different religious groups include different books in their Biblical
canons, in varying orders, and sometimes divide or combine books.
Christian Bibles range from the 66 books of the Protestant canon to
the 81 books of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church canon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible

The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Christian
churches may have minor differences in their lists of accepted books
Post by Robert
As to the NT letters had already been written, non canonized at that
point. Paul was also very familiar with writing under the inspiration
of the Holy Spirit, even making reference to that fact a couple times.
Did St Paul consider his letters to be "Scripture?"
Post by Robert
1Co 7:5  Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a
time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come
together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. 
1Co 7:6  But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. 
Nice quote.
Has nothing to do with this discussion.
Post by Robert
The OT was accepted by all Jews.
There was no Old testament until there was a "New" Testament.

The 39 books of the Old Testament form the Bible of Judaism, while the
Christian Bible includes those books and also the 27 books of the New
Testament. This list of books included in the Bible is known as the
canon. It was actually not until 367 AD that the church father
Athanasius first provided the complete listing of the 66 books
belonging to the canon.

Obviously the first five books (sometimes called the Torah or the
Pentateuch) were the first to be accepted as canonical.

The prophets’ writings were also not brought together in a single form
until about 200 BC. The remaining Old Testament books were adopted as
canonical even later. The Old Testament list was not finally fixed
much before the birth of Christ. The Jewish people were widely
scattered by this time and they really needed to know which books were
the authoritative Word of God because so many other writings claiming
divine authority were floating around.
Post by Robert
Gentiles also knew it was supposed to
be the word of God and was accepted as truth by believers. ..
Which version?
Just the first 5 books?
Or the 5 plus Prophets and kings?
Post by Robert
The NT
canonized a hundred plus years later
Long after St Paul was dead.
Therefore, his letters were not considered Scripture.
Post by Robert
had to conform to the OT and to
each other in the NT or be tossed out. The Holy Spirit have a lot to
do in showing the conformity of the messages of God and of prophetic
scripture.
OK
Post by Robert
Even Peter spoke of the "Oracles of God". 1 Peter 4:11 IOW's man can
have full understanding from God as to what is Godly and what is not.
This has nothing to do with the discussion.
Robert
2017-01-11 07:52:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Earl, while the verses you quote from Philippians are very true, they
are not on topic, and they also do not dispute what Jesus said, when
he said you have seen me, you see the Father.
In fact, to use one of your arguments regarding God being one, Jesus
was born as God/man. His name meaning God with us.
You dispute with God and his word with your words and actions. Any
particular reason for it?
Duke is 100 percent correct.
Since you do not understand or believe in the Trinity, you will never
accept what real Christians believe.
You need to get over it.
Real Christians believe in the Trinity.
You obviously do not.
The bible does not teach it,
Yup.
The Bible also doesn't teach the Bible exists.
Yes, it does.
2Ti 3:16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction
Good guess.
I am impressed.
Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy
Since the Bible had not been assembled yet, what do you think Paul was
speaking about when he referred to "Scripture." The gospels had not
yet been written, and the Old testament wasn't totally accepted by
anyone. So, what do you believe the "scriptures" were? Could they
have been some of the letters Paul had written to the various groups?
All the Old Testament had been assembled for centuries and canonized,
it was also all translated into Greek 300+ years before Christ came.
If you are going to lie, at least TRY to make your words believable.
Rabbinic Judaism recognizes the twenty-four books of the Masoretic
Text, commonly called the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible. There is no
scholarly consensus as to when the Hebrew Bible canon was fixed: some
scholars argue that it was fixed by the Hasmonean dynasty (140-40 BCE)
while others argue it was not fixed until the second century CE or
even later. According to Marc Zvi Brettler, the Jewish scriptures
outside the Torah and the Prophets were fluid, different groups seeing
authority in different books.
The differences between the Hebrew Bible and other versions of the Old
Testament such as the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Peshitta, the
Latin Vulgate, the Greek Septuagint, the Ethiopian Bible and other
canons, are more substantial. Many of these canons include books and
sections of books that the others do not.
Different religious groups include different books in their Biblical
canons, in varying orders, and sometimes divide or combine books.
Christian Bibles range from the 66 books of the Protestant canon to
the 81 books of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church canon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible
The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Christian
churches may have minor differences in their lists of accepted books
What a hodge podge of information, some truth, some false, some
misleading, all for various reasons and none of it from your
educational background or knowledge.

At this point it is rather hard to communicate with you one this
subject since you have no footing, nothing to base your belief or
understanding on, and to call someone else a liar from the weak
position you stand in is utter nonsense.

To quote modern day so-called Hebrew Jews is ridiculous. They are
outside of God, like their forefathers, and to think of them as
someone to learn from is ridiculous, try reading the Old testament,
especially the minor prophets to find out why.

Same thing with other pseudo-religious groups.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
As to the NT letters had already been written, non canonized at that
point. Paul was also very familiar with writing under the inspiration
of the Holy Spirit, even making reference to that fact a couple times.
Did St Paul consider his letters to be "Scripture?"
As to his personal knowledge, I can only say based on scripture like
the one below that I gave you as an example, but even that seems to
have passed by your understanding.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
1Co 7:5  Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a
time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come
together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. 
1Co 7:6  But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. 
Nice quote.
Has nothing to do with this discussion.
It has everything to do with the discussion because of v6.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
The OT was accepted by all Jews.
There was no Old testament until there was a "New" Testament.
True, but a mundane point nonetheless. The scrolls, scripture, or
whatever you would like to call them were in existence since the time
Judaism began.
Post by Patrick
The 39 books of the Old Testament form the Bible of Judaism, while the
Christian Bible includes those books and also the 27 books of the New
Testament. This list of books included in the Bible is known as the
canon. It was actually not until 367 AD that the church father
Athanasius first provided the complete listing of the 66 books
belonging to the canon.
Incorrect.
Post by Patrick
Obviously the first five books (sometimes called the Torah or the
Pentateuch) were the first to be accepted as canonical.
By whom? and when?
Post by Patrick
The prophets’ writings were also not brought together in a single form
until about 200 BC. The remaining Old Testament books were adopted as
canonical even later. The Old Testament list was not finally fixed
much before the birth of Christ. The Jewish people were widely
scattered by this time and they really needed to know which books were
the authoritative Word of God because so many other writings claiming
divine authority were floating around.
Here you go, speaking in vague generalities, mixing apples and
oranges.

What we call the OT was fixed before the very first Greek translation
done by the 70.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Gentiles also knew it was supposed to
be the word of God and was accepted as truth by believers. ..
Which version?
Just the first 5 books?
Or the 5 plus Prophets and kings?
Gentile through out history, as they recognized the God of the Jews as
superior to all of their Gods. It was only important to those who
wanted to convert, plus a few Gentile kings who truly understood that
the God of the Jews was the supreme God.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
The NT
canonized a hundred plus years later
Long after St Paul was dead.
Therefore, his letters were not considered Scripture.
By whom? Why were so many copies of his letters made, and why were
they spread around the world? Same with the other books of the NT
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
had to conform to the OT and to
each other in the NT or be tossed out. The Holy Spirit have a lot to
do in showing the conformity of the messages of God and of prophetic
scripture.
OK
Post by Robert
Even Peter spoke of the "Oracles of God". 1 Peter 4:11 IOW's man can
have full understanding from God as to what is Godly and what is not.
This has nothing to do with the discussion.
God speaking to the individual, by the Holy Spirit will lead that one
into truth, as well as distinguish truths from lies, as well as show
the individual where the bible was mistranslated and by confirming
scripture from other parts of God's word what was the original
content of the verses in question.

God's spirit is an important part of the discussion for without him
there would be NO Bible, old, new or whatever.
astarte
2017-01-11 12:10:39 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 23:52:02 -0800, Robert wow, 222 lines to pose for the
world to laugh at.
snip
--
Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
Patrick
2017-01-11 14:32:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Earl, while the verses you quote from Philippians are very true, they
are not on topic, and they also do not dispute what Jesus said, when
he said you have seen me, you see the Father.
In fact, to use one of your arguments regarding God being one, Jesus
was born as God/man. His name meaning God with us.
You dispute with God and his word with your words and actions. Any
particular reason for it?
Duke is 100 percent correct.
Since you do not understand or believe in the Trinity, you will never
accept what real Christians believe.
You need to get over it.
Real Christians believe in the Trinity.
You obviously do not.
The bible does not teach it,
Yup.
The Bible also doesn't teach the Bible exists.
Yes, it does.
2Ti 3:16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction
Good guess.
I am impressed.
Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy
Since the Bible had not been assembled yet, what do you think Paul was
speaking about when he referred to "Scripture." The gospels had not
yet been written, and the Old testament wasn't totally accepted by
anyone. So, what do you believe the "scriptures" were? Could they
have been some of the letters Paul had written to the various groups?
All the Old Testament had been assembled for centuries and canonized,
it was also all translated into Greek 300+ years before Christ came.
If you are going to lie, at least TRY to make your words believable.
Rabbinic Judaism recognizes the twenty-four books of the Masoretic
Text, commonly called the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible. There is no
scholarly consensus as to when the Hebrew Bible canon was fixed: some
scholars argue that it was fixed by the Hasmonean dynasty (140-40 BCE)
while others argue it was not fixed until the second century CE or
even later. According to Marc Zvi Brettler, the Jewish scriptures
outside the Torah and the Prophets were fluid, different groups seeing
authority in different books.
The differences between the Hebrew Bible and other versions of the Old
Testament such as the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Peshitta, the
Latin Vulgate, the Greek Septuagint, the Ethiopian Bible and other
canons, are more substantial. Many of these canons include books and
sections of books that the others do not.
Different religious groups include different books in their Biblical
canons, in varying orders, and sometimes divide or combine books.
Christian Bibles range from the 66 books of the Protestant canon to
the 81 books of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church canon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible
The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Christian
churches may have minor differences in their lists of accepted books
What a hodge podge of information, some truth, some false, some
misleading, all for various reasons and none of it from your
educational background or knowledge.
What was false?
Oh yes, that's right.... you don't provide proof for your allegations.
Whereas I supported my statement with references.
Post by Robert
At this point it is rather hard to communicate with you one this
subject since you have no footing, nothing to base your belief or
understanding on, and to call someone else a liar from the weak
position you stand in is utter nonsense.
IOW, I have kicked your ass.
And you don't wish to continue the conversation.
And you have no evidence to your stupid lies.
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Did St Paul consider his letters to be "Scripture?"
As to his personal knowledge, I can only say based on scripture like
the one below that I gave you as an example, but even that seems to
have passed by your understanding.
You did not answer my question.
Because then I would kick your ass some more.
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
1Co 7:5  Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a
time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come
together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. 
1Co 7:6  But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. 
Nice quote.
Has nothing to do with this discussion.
It has everything to do with the discussion because of v6.
And who gave Paul permission to speak this?
Please TRY to be specific.
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
The OT was accepted by all Jews.
There was no Old testament until there was a "New" Testament.
True, but a mundane point nonetheless. The scrolls, scripture, or
whatever you would like to call them were in existence since the time
Judaism began.
They were not compiled, categorized or even checked for accuracy
between different churches. Each had their own texts. (Torah)
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
The 39 books of the Old Testament form the Bible of Judaism, while the
Christian Bible includes those books and also the 27 books of the New
Testament. This list of books included in the Bible is known as the
canon. It was actually not until 367 AD that the church father
Athanasius first provided the complete listing of the 66 books
belonging to the canon.
Incorrect.
Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Would you care to provide what you consider to be the correct version
of this?
Of course not. You have no idea.
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Obviously the first five books (sometimes called the Torah or the
Pentateuch) were the first to be accepted as canonical.
By whom? and when?
By everyone. By every Jewish Temple.
At various times.
And when the entire Bible was being compiled, in 300+ AD.
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
The prophets’ writings were also not brought together in a single form
until about 200 BC. The remaining Old Testament books were adopted as
canonical even later. The Old Testament list was not finally fixed
much before the birth of Christ. The Jewish people were widely
scattered by this time and they really needed to know which books were
the authoritative Word of God because so many other writings claiming
divine authority were floating around.
Here you go, speaking in vague generalities, mixing apples and
oranges.
I am speaking about the books of the Bible.
Where have you wandered off to?
Post by Robert
What we call the OT was fixed before the very first Greek translation
done by the 70.
by the 70 what?
donkeys, oranges?
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Gentiles also knew it was supposed to
be the word of God and was accepted as truth by believers. ..
Which version?
Just the first 5 books?
Or the 5 plus Prophets and kings?
Gentile through out history, as they recognized the God of the Jews as
superior to all of their Gods. It was only important to those who
wanted to convert, plus a few Gentile kings who truly understood that
the God of the Jews was the supreme God.
That was smooth.
I am also a gentile, I think.
And I accept it as the Word of God.
OK then.
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
The NT
canonized a hundred plus years later
Long after St Paul was dead.
Therefore, his letters were not considered Scripture.
By whom? Why were so many copies of his letters made, and why were
they spread around the world? Same with the other books of the NT
They were LETTERS.
They were not Gospels.
If you feel they were considered "scripture," then go for it.
Post by Robert
God speaking to the individual, by the Holy Spirit will lead that one
into truth, as well as distinguish truths from lies, as well as show
the individual where the bible was mistranslated and by confirming
scripture from other parts of God's word what was the original
content of the verses in question.
God's spirit is an important part of the discussion for without him
there would be NO Bible, old, new or whatever.
If you feel they were considered "scripture," then go for it.
Robert
2017-01-11 19:03:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Earl, while the verses you quote from Philippians are very true, they
are not on topic, and they also do not dispute what Jesus said, when
he said you have seen me, you see the Father.
In fact, to use one of your arguments regarding God being one, Jesus
was born as God/man. His name meaning God with us.
You dispute with God and his word with your words and actions. Any
particular reason for it?
Duke is 100 percent correct.
Since you do not understand or believe in the Trinity, you will never
accept what real Christians believe.
You need to get over it.
Real Christians believe in the Trinity.
You obviously do not.
The bible does not teach it,
Yup.
The Bible also doesn't teach the Bible exists.
Yes, it does.
2Ti 3:16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction
Good guess.
I am impressed.
Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy
Since the Bible had not been assembled yet, what do you think Paul was
speaking about when he referred to "Scripture." The gospels had not
yet been written, and the Old testament wasn't totally accepted by
anyone. So, what do you believe the "scriptures" were? Could they
have been some of the letters Paul had written to the various groups?
All the Old Testament had been assembled for centuries and canonized,
it was also all translated into Greek 300+ years before Christ came.
If you are going to lie, at least TRY to make your words believable.
Rabbinic Judaism recognizes the twenty-four books of the Masoretic
Text, commonly called the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible. There is no
scholarly consensus as to when the Hebrew Bible canon was fixed: some
scholars argue that it was fixed by the Hasmonean dynasty (140-40 BCE)
while others argue it was not fixed until the second century CE or
even later. According to Marc Zvi Brettler, the Jewish scriptures
outside the Torah and the Prophets were fluid, different groups seeing
authority in different books.
The differences between the Hebrew Bible and other versions of the Old
Testament such as the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Peshitta, the
Latin Vulgate, the Greek Septuagint, the Ethiopian Bible and other
canons, are more substantial. Many of these canons include books and
sections of books that the others do not.
Different religious groups include different books in their Biblical
canons, in varying orders, and sometimes divide or combine books.
Christian Bibles range from the 66 books of the Protestant canon to
the 81 books of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church canon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible
The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Christian
churches may have minor differences in their lists of accepted books
What a hodge podge of information, some truth, some false, some
misleading, all for various reasons and none of it from your
educational background or knowledge.
What was false?
It would take a book to address all the issues there, a good deal of
which is not even supported by the RCC, and your purported education
did not even make you aware of the differences.
Post by Patrick
Oh yes, that's right.... you don't provide proof for your allegations.
Whereas I supported my statement with references.
Fail, your threw out a bundle of information compiled from many
sources, with very little of it from God. They, like you hope that
something sticks to a wall, and don't care what it is.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
At this point it is rather hard to communicate with you one this
subject since you have no footing, nothing to base your belief or
understanding on, and to call someone else a liar from the weak
position you stand in is utter nonsense.
IOW, I have kicked your ass.
The vanity of your mind and false pride rears its ugly head. You
cannot even tell on your own what is a RC bible and what isn't and
why.
Post by Patrick
And you don't wish to continue the conversation.
And you have no evidence to your stupid lies.
You do not have the aptitude to read it or discuss it if it is over
three lines worth.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Did St Paul consider his letters to be "Scripture?"
As to his personal knowledge, I can only say based on scripture like
the one below that I gave you as an example, but even that seems to
have passed by your understanding.
You did not answer my question.
Because then I would kick your ass some more.
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
1Co 7:5  Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a
time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come
together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. 
1Co 7:6  But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. 
Nice quote.
Has nothing to do with this discussion.
It has everything to do with the discussion because of v6.
And who gave Paul permission to speak this?
Please TRY to be specific.
God.
Shame you do not even understand it, or why.
One tries to feed you pabulum since that is all you can stomach, but
even then you do nothing but smear it all over your face and bald
head.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
The OT was accepted by all Jews.
There was no Old testament until there was a "New" Testament.
True, but a mundane point nonetheless. The scrolls, scripture, or
whatever you would like to call them were in existence since the time
Judaism began.
They were not compiled, categorized or even checked for accuracy
between different churches. Each had their own texts. (Torah)
ROTFLOL, Stupidity the rule of the day is it?

The Torah was very scrupulously copied and each character counted, and
gone over several times to be sure it was an exact copy of the
original, just because of loose minded bubba's as yourself.

The torah was taught in every synagogue. Everyone's copies were the
same. again, you fail.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
The 39 books of the Old Testament form the Bible of Judaism, while the
Christian Bible includes those books and also the 27 books of the New
Testament. This list of books included in the Bible is known as the
canon. It was actually not until 367 AD that the church father
Athanasius first provided the complete listing of the 66 books
belonging to the canon.
Incorrect.
Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Would you care to provide what you consider to be the correct version
of this?
Of course not. You have no idea.
Athanasius gave his recommendations for the NT, not the Old. They were
his suggestions and were pretty much ignored by everyone, and when
they did decide to canonize the NT the looked and saw, gee whiz this
is like the list of old Athanasius.

All you did was throw out some ideas and hope they would stick on a
wall somewhere.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Obviously the first five books (sometimes called the Torah or the
Pentateuch) were the first to be accepted as canonical.
By whom? and when?
By everyone. By every Jewish Temple.
At various times.
And when the entire Bible was being compiled, in 300+ AD.
That is only your propaganda.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
The prophets’ writings were also not brought together in a single form
until about 200 BC. The remaining Old Testament books were adopted as
canonical even later. The Old Testament list was not finally fixed
much before the birth of Christ. The Jewish people were widely
scattered by this time and they really needed to know which books were
the authoritative Word of God because so many other writings claiming
divine authority were floating around.
Here you go, speaking in vague generalities, mixing apples and
oranges.
I am speaking about the books of the Bible.
Where have you wandered off to?
Incredibly stupid are you, do you actually think everyone is as
ignorant as you are about the facts?

Septuagint - What is It?
Septuagint (sometimes abbreviated LXX) is the name given to the Greek
translation of the Jewish Scriptures. The Septuagint has its origin in
Alexandria, Egypt and was translated between 300-200 BC. Widely used
among Hellenistic Jews, this Greek translation was produced because
many Jews spread throughout the empire were beginning to lose their
Hebrew language. The process of translating the Hebrew to Greek also
gave many non-Jews a glimpse into Judaism. According to an ancient
document called the Letter of Aristeas, it is believed that 70 to 72
Jewish scholars were commissioned during the reign of Ptolemy
Philadelphus to carry out the task of translation. The term
“Septuagint” means seventy in Latin, and the text is so named to the
credit of these 70 scholars.

Which would mean that all the books of the prophets were in use well
before the LXX was considered.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
What we call the OT was fixed before the very first Greek translation
done by the 70.
by the 70 what?
donkeys, oranges?
<snicker> Bozo the bible scholar knows nothing of the "70".
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Gentiles also knew it was supposed to
be the word of God and was accepted as truth by believers. ..
Which version?
Just the first 5 books?
Or the 5 plus Prophets and kings?
Gentile through out history, as they recognized the God of the Jews as
superior to all of their Gods. It was only important to those who
wanted to convert, plus a few Gentile kings who truly understood that
the God of the Jews was the supreme God.
That was smooth.
I am also a gentile, I think.
And I accept it as the Word of God.
OK then.
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
The NT
canonized a hundred plus years later
Long after St Paul was dead.
Therefore, his letters were not considered Scripture.
By whom? Why were so many copies of his letters made, and why were
they spread around the world? Same with the other books of the NT
They were LETTERS.
They were not Gospels.
If you feel they were considered "scripture," then go for it.
That you do not says much about you.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
God speaking to the individual, by the Holy Spirit will lead that one
into truth, as well as distinguish truths from lies, as well as show
the individual where the bible was mistranslated and by confirming
scripture from other parts of God's word what was the original
content of the verses in question.
God's spirit is an important part of the discussion for without him
there would be NO Bible, old, new or whatever.
If you feel they were considered "scripture," then go for it.
Feelings? You base your "christianity" on feelings?
Patrick
2017-01-11 21:58:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Christian
churches may have minor differences in their lists of accepted books
What a hodge podge of information, some truth, some false, some
misleading, all for various reasons and none of it from your
educational background or knowledge.
What was false?
It would take a book to address all the issues there,
If you are going to make a false statement, then you should be
prepared to defend it some how.
Post by Robert
a good deal of
which is not even supported by the RCC, and your purported education
did not even make you aware of the differences.
In other words, you are unable to defend your false position.
Nothing new here,,,,, Move along.
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Oh yes, that's right.... you don't provide proof for your allegations.
Whereas I supported my statement with references.
Fail, your threw out a bundle of information compiled from many
sources, with very little of it from God. They, like you hope that
something sticks to a wall, and don't care what it is.
Prove it.
I am waiting.
Try to be specific!
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
At this point it is rather hard to communicate with you one this
subject since you have no footing, nothing to base your belief or
understanding on, and to call someone else a liar from the weak
position you stand in is utter nonsense.
IOW, I have kicked your ass.
The vanity of your mind and false pride rears its ugly head. You
cannot even tell on your own what is a RC bible and what isn't and
why.
Why don't you tell me.
This is your silly argument.
And you cannot even defend it.
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
And you don't wish to continue the conversation.
And you have no evidence to your stupid lies.
You do not have the aptitude to read it or discuss it if it is over
three lines worth.
That is because you have never been able to defend your position
without going out on several tangents.
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Did St Paul consider his letters to be "Scripture?"
As to his personal knowledge, I can only say based on scripture like
the one below that I gave you as an example, but even that seems to
have passed by your understanding.
You did not answer my question.
Because then I would kick your ass some more.
IBID.
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
1Co 7:5  Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a
time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come
together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. 
1Co 7:6  But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. 
Nice quote.
Has nothing to do with this discussion.
It has everything to do with the discussion because of v6.
And who gave Paul permission to speak this?
Please TRY to be specific.
God.
Shame you do not even understand it, or why.
One tries to feed you pabulum since that is all you can stomach, but
even then you do nothing but smear it all over your face and bald
head.
Are you proud of this argument?
You make a silly statement.
I question you.
And you insult me.
Is that about all of your argument?
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
The OT was accepted by all Jews.
There was no Old testament until there was a "New" Testament.
True, but a mundane point nonetheless. The scrolls, scripture, or
whatever you would like to call them were in existence since the time
Judaism began.
They were not compiled, categorized or even checked for accuracy
between different churches. Each had their own texts. (Torah)
ROTFLOL, Stupidity the rule of the day is it?
What is wrong with what I said?
Perhaps you are unaware of what a Torah is, where it comes from, and
what they do with it. Would you like a lesson?

The word "Torah" is a tricky one, because it can mean different things
in different contexts. In its most limited sense, "Torah" refers to
the Five Books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and
Deuteronomy. But the word "torah" can also be used to refer to the
entire Jewish bible (the body of scripture known to non-Jews as the
Old Testament and to Jews as the Tanakh or Written Torah), or in its
broadest sense, to the whole body of Jewish law and teachings.

The scriptures that we use in services are written on parchment
scrolls. They are always hand-written, in attractive Hebrew
calligraphy with "crowns" (crows-foot-like marks coming up from the
upper points) on many of the letters. This style of writing is known
as STA"M (an abbreviation for "Sifrei Torah, Tefillin and Mezuzot,"
which is where you will see that style of writing). For more
information about the STA"M alphabet, including illustrations and
relevant rules, see Hebrew Alphabet used in writing STA"M.

Torahs have slight differences in the numbering of verses and there
are some significant differences in the translations.

There is also a vast body of responsa, answers to specific questions
of Jewish law. Beginning in the middle ages, when local rabbis were
faced with difficult issues of Jewish law, they often wrote to the
most respected rabbis in the world to get answers to these questions.
The local rabbi would present the situation, often including detailed
references to the Talmudic passages he had reviewed and his own
interpretations of these authorities, and the world-renowned rabbi
would provide a reasoned argument in favor of his answer.
Post by Robert
The Torah was very scrupulously copied and each character counted, and
gone over several times to be sure it was an exact copy of the
original, just because of loose minded bubba's as yourself.
The torah was taught in every synagogue. Everyone's copies were the
same. again, you fail.p
Torahs have slight differences in the numbering of verses and there
are some significant differences in the translations.
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
The 39 books of the Old Testament form the Bible of Judaism, while the
Post by Patrick
Christian Bible includes those books and also the 27 books of the New
Testament. This list of books included in the Bible is known as the
canon. It was actually not until 367 AD that the church father
Athanasius first provided the complete listing of the 66 books
belonging to the canon.
Incorrect.
Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Would you care to provide what you consider to be the correct version
of this?
Of course not. You have no idea.
Athanasius gave his recommendations for the NT, not the Old.
And this is when the ENTIRE BIBLE was compiled.
The Old Testament and the NEW Testament.
Post by Robert
All you did was throw out some ideas and hope they would stick on a
wall somewhere.
They are true.
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Obviously the first five books (sometimes called the Torah or the
Pentateuch) were the first to be accepted as canonical.
By whom? and when?
By everyone. By every Jewish Temple.
At various times.
And when the entire Bible was being compiled, in 300+ AD.
That is only your propaganda.
Prove me wrong.
Post by Robert
Incredibly stupid are you, do you actually think everyone is as
ignorant as you are about the facts?
<yawn>
And you wonder why it is always punishment for others to try to teach
you new things.
Mattb.
2017-01-11 21:24:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Christian
churches may have minor differences in their lists of accepted books
What a hodge podge of information, some truth, some false, some
misleading, all for various reasons and none of it from your
educational background or knowledge.
What was false?
It would take a book to address all the issues there,
If you are going to make a false statement, then you should be
prepared to defend it some how.
Unless you name is Patrick Barker or Earl Weber.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
a good deal of
which is not even supported by the RCC, and your purported education
did not even make you aware of the differences.
In other words, you are unable to defend your false position.
Nothing new here,,,,, Move along.
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Oh yes, that's right.... you don't provide proof for your allegations.
Whereas I supported my statement with references.
Fail, your threw out a bundle of information compiled from many
sources, with very little of it from God. They, like you hope that
something sticks to a wall, and don't care what it is.
Prove it.
I am waiting.
Try to be specific!
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
At this point it is rather hard to communicate with you one this
subject since you have no footing, nothing to base your belief or
understanding on, and to call someone else a liar from the weak
position you stand in is utter nonsense.
IOW, I have kicked your ass.
The vanity of your mind and false pride rears its ugly head. You
cannot even tell on your own what is a RC bible and what isn't and
why.
Why don't you tell me.
This is your silly argument.
And you cannot even defend it.
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
And you don't wish to continue the conversation.
And you have no evidence to your stupid lies.
You do not have the aptitude to read it or discuss it if it is over
three lines worth.
That is because you have never been able to defend your position
without going out on several tangents.
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Did St Paul consider his letters to be "Scripture?"
As to his personal knowledge, I can only say based on scripture like
the one below that I gave you as an example, but even that seems to
have passed by your understanding.
You did not answer my question.
Because then I would kick your ass some more.
IBID.
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
1Co 7:5  Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a
time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come
together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. 
1Co 7:6  But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. 
Nice quote.
Has nothing to do with this discussion.
It has everything to do with the discussion because of v6.
And who gave Paul permission to speak this?
Please TRY to be specific.
God.
Shame you do not even understand it, or why.
One tries to feed you pabulum since that is all you can stomach, but
even then you do nothing but smear it all over your face and bald
head.
Are you proud of this argument?
You make a silly statement.
I question you.
And you insult me.
Is that about all of your argument?
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
The OT was accepted by all Jews.
There was no Old testament until there was a "New" Testament.
True, but a mundane point nonetheless. The scrolls, scripture, or
whatever you would like to call them were in existence since the time
Judaism began.
They were not compiled, categorized or even checked for accuracy
between different churches. Each had their own texts. (Torah)
ROTFLOL, Stupidity the rule of the day is it?
What is wrong with what I said?
Perhaps you are unaware of what a Torah is, where it comes from, and
what they do with it. Would you like a lesson?
The word "Torah" is a tricky one, because it can mean different things
in different contexts. In its most limited sense, "Torah" refers to
the Five Books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and
Deuteronomy. But the word "torah" can also be used to refer to the
entire Jewish bible (the body of scripture known to non-Jews as the
Old Testament and to Jews as the Tanakh or Written Torah), or in its
broadest sense, to the whole body of Jewish law and teachings.
The scriptures that we use in services are written on parchment
scrolls. They are always hand-written, in attractive Hebrew
calligraphy with "crowns" (crows-foot-like marks coming up from the
upper points) on many of the letters. This style of writing is known
as STA"M (an abbreviation for "Sifrei Torah, Tefillin and Mezuzot,"
which is where you will see that style of writing). For more
information about the STA"M alphabet, including illustrations and
relevant rules, see Hebrew Alphabet used in writing STA"M.
Torahs have slight differences in the numbering of verses and there
are some significant differences in the translations.
There is also a vast body of responsa, answers to specific questions
of Jewish law. Beginning in the middle ages, when local rabbis were
faced with difficult issues of Jewish law, they often wrote to the
most respected rabbis in the world to get answers to these questions.
The local rabbi would present the situation, often including detailed
references to the Talmudic passages he had reviewed and his own
interpretations of these authorities, and the world-renowned rabbi
would provide a reasoned argument in favor of his answer.
Post by Robert
The Torah was very scrupulously copied and each character counted, and
gone over several times to be sure it was an exact copy of the
original, just because of loose minded bubba's as yourself.
The torah was taught in every synagogue. Everyone's copies were the
same. again, you fail.p
Torahs have slight differences in the numbering of verses and there
are some significant differences in the translations.
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
The 39 books of the Old Testament form the Bible of Judaism, while the
Post by Patrick
Christian Bible includes those books and also the 27 books of the New
Testament. This list of books included in the Bible is known as the
canon. It was actually not until 367 AD that the church father
Athanasius first provided the complete listing of the 66 books
belonging to the canon.
Incorrect.
Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Would you care to provide what you consider to be the correct version
of this?
Of course not. You have no idea.
Athanasius gave his recommendations for the NT, not the Old.
And this is when the ENTIRE BIBLE was compiled.
The Old Testament and the NEW Testament.
Post by Robert
All you did was throw out some ideas and hope they would stick on a
wall somewhere.
They are true.
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Obviously the first five books (sometimes called the Torah or the
Pentateuch) were the first to be accepted as canonical.
By whom? and when?
By everyone. By every Jewish Temple.
At various times.
And when the entire Bible was being compiled, in 300+ AD.
That is only your propaganda.
Prove me wrong.
Post by Robert
Incredibly stupid are you, do you actually think everyone is as
ignorant as you are about the facts?
<yawn>
And you wonder why it is always punishment for others to try to teach
you new things.
Robert
2017-01-12 01:17:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Christian
churches may have minor differences in their lists of accepted books
What a hodge podge of information, some truth, some false, some
misleading, all for various reasons and none of it from your
educational background or knowledge.
What was false?
It would take a book to address all the issues there,
If you are going to make a false statement, then you should be
prepared to defend it some how.
You never do. When others do you ignore it.

This is as far as I got, saw that it was going nowhere, which was
obvious when you could not defend your position in the first place,
and you were and are so very ignorant that you weren't knowledgeable
about the 70 or LXX.

Totally ignorant.
asherah
2017-01-12 17:36:55 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 17:17:22 -0800, Robert snip


Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
Patrick
2017-01-12 17:41:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Christian
churches may have minor differences in their lists of accepted books
What a hodge podge of information, some truth, some false, some
misleading, all for various reasons and none of it from your
educational background or knowledge.
What was false?
It would take a book to address all the issues there,
If you are going to make a false statement, then you should be
prepared to defend it some how.
You never do. When others do you ignore it.
This is as far as I got, saw that it was going nowhere, which was
obvious when you could not defend your position in the first place,
and you were and are so very ignorant that you weren't knowledgeable
about the 70 or LXX.
Totally ignorant.
If you are going to make a false statement, then you should be
prepared to defend it some how.
Robert
2017-01-12 21:13:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Christian
churches may have minor differences in their lists of accepted books
What a hodge podge of information, some truth, some false, some
misleading, all for various reasons and none of it from your
educational background or knowledge.
What was false?
It would take a book to address all the issues there,
If you are going to make a false statement, then you should be
prepared to defend it some how.
You never do. When others do you ignore it.
This is as far as I got, saw that it was going nowhere, which was
obvious when you could not defend your position in the first place,
and you were and are so very ignorant that you weren't knowledgeable
about the 70 or LXX.
Totally ignorant.
If you are going to make a false statement, then you should be
prepared to defend it some how.
I just did, you are as ignorant as they come in things related to the
Bible.
Patrick
2017-01-12 22:54:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Christian
churches may have minor differences in their lists of accepted books
What a hodge podge of information, some truth, some false, some
misleading, all for various reasons and none of it from your
educational background or knowledge.
What was false?
It would take a book to address all the issues there,
If you are going to make a false statement, then you should be
prepared to defend it some how.
You never do. When others do you ignore it.
This is as far as I got, saw that it was going nowhere, which was
obvious when you could not defend your position in the first place,
and you were and are so very ignorant that you weren't knowledgeable
about the 70 or LXX.
Totally ignorant.
If you are going to make a false statement, then you should be
prepared to defend it some how.
I just did, you are as ignorant as they come in things related to the
Bible.
If you are going to make a false statement, then you should be
prepared to defend it somehow.
Robert
2017-01-12 23:45:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
This is as far as I got, saw that it was going nowhere, which was
obvious when you could not defend your position in the first place,
and you were and are so very ignorant that you weren't knowledgeable
about the 70 or LXX.
Totally ignorant.
If you are going to make a false statement, then you should be
prepared to defend it some how.
I just did, you are as ignorant as they come in things related to the
Bible.
If you are going to make a false statement, then you should be
prepared to defend it somehow.
Quote
by the 70 what?
donkeys, oranges?

End Quote.

Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>

asherah
2017-01-12 17:53:29 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 11:03:36 -0800, Robert snip


Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
asherah
2017-01-12 23:31:07 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 11:03:36 -0800, Robert stood up & failed to flush the
following. Flush.
--
Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
asherah
2017-01-11 12:15:27 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 15:33:18 -0800, Robert snip, & gag.



Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
unknown
2017-01-10 22:11:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Real Christians believe in the Trinity.
You obviously do not.
The bible does not teach it,
Yup.
The Bible also doesn't teach the Bible exists.
Yes, it does.
2Ti 3:16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction
The OT is the reference. The bible as commonly understood was in the
future. Its final accepted form was hundreds of years in the making after
Paul.

So the observation the bible does not mention itself is 100 percent
correct. This remains so even when in time the NT is assembled in its
current form.

The only mention in it is Peter making a passing reference to some of the
letters of Paul, nothing else.

Many dearly held doctrines and rituals in some circles are not found in
scripture. More important, no possible foundation for them is there.

"Slain in the spirit" comes to mind as one among many.
Robert
2017-01-11 00:49:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Real Christians believe in the Trinity.
You obviously do not.
The bible does not teach it,
Yup.
The Bible also doesn't teach the Bible exists.
Yes, it does.
2Ti 3:16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction
The OT is the reference. The bible as commonly understood was in the
future. Its final accepted form was hundreds of years in the making after
Paul.
So the observation the bible does not mention itself is 100 percent
correct. This remains so even when in time the NT is assembled in its
current form.
A whole lot of fairy dancing you've done there.

First of all, we are living in the 21st century. The Bible as it
currently exists has existed that way en total for 1900 years. All the
mudslinging you've done changes nothing. You can discount all the
various canonizers of the Bible that you want, including all your
various "church fathers" that you adhere to, except for this point,
but the end result is the bible we use now. In that Bible are the
references by Paul, Jesus, Peter to the word of God. Scriptures. You
can even pretend that the word bible did not exist and therefore there
was no bible. So what.

I gave scripture confirming what was asked, and it is also by that
basis that the bible is even canonized. So go to the hollows and do
your two steppin dance, you'll get no traction here, or from the bible
to support your heresy.
Post by unknown
The only mention in it is Peter making a passing reference to some of the
letters of Paul, nothing else.
Many dearly held doctrines and rituals in some circles are not found in
scripture. More important, no possible foundation for them is there.
AYUP
Post by unknown
"Slain in the spirit" comes to mind as one among many.
That isn't a doctrine, but a description of an event.

Veneration of Mary, and Saints, another.
unknown
2017-01-11 02:36:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Real Christians believe in the Trinity.
You obviously do not.
The bible does not teach it,
Yup.
The Bible also doesn't teach the Bible exists.
Yes, it does.
2Ti 3:16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction
The OT is the reference. The bible as commonly understood was in the
future. Its final accepted form was hundreds of years in the making after
Paul.
So the observation the bible does not mention itself is 100 percent
correct. This remains so even when in time the NT is assembled in its
current form.
A whole lot of fairy dancing you've done there.
First of all, we are living in the 21st century. The Bible as it
currently exists has existed that way en total for 1900 years. All the
mudslinging you've done changes nothing. You can discount all the
various canonizers of the Bible that you want, including all your
various "church fathers" that you adhere to, except for this point,
but the end result is the bible we use now. In that Bible are the
references by Paul, Jesus, Peter to the word of God. Scriptures. You
can even pretend that the word bible did not exist and therefore there
was no bible. So what.
At 100 D the individual books of it had been written. For centuries to
come those individual books were in contention to be included in a canon
with other books.>

The final content as we have it was not there by 100 because no collection
of those books alone existed for centuries to come. .
Post by Robert
I gave scripture confirming what was asked, and it is also by that
basis that the bible is even canonized. So go to the hollows and do
your two steppin dance, you'll get no traction here, or from the bible
to support your heresy.
It was never "canonized", it was gradually adopted by local churches by
consenses over centuries. No single individual made it possible.>
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
The only mention in it is Peter making a passing reference to some of the
letters of Paul, nothing else.
Many dearly held doctrines and rituals in some circles are not found in
scripture. More important, no possible foundation for them is there.
AYUP
Post by unknown
"Slain in the spirit" comes to mind as one among many.
That isn't a doctrine, but a description of an event.
Those who do it will tell why it is valid and proper and should be sought,
that is the doctrine underlaying it. But none of it found in scripture,
all of it of modern invention.
Post by Robert
Veneration of Mary, and Saints, another.
Veneration, ie. a display of respect was being done during the lives of
mary and the apostles, all saints. They are alive and with Christ and the
reason for respect does not cease at death.
Robert
2017-01-11 08:04:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Real Christians believe in the Trinity.
You obviously do not.
The bible does not teach it,
Yup.
The Bible also doesn't teach the Bible exists.
Yes, it does.
2Ti 3:16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction
The OT is the reference. The bible as commonly understood was in the
future. Its final accepted form was hundreds of years in the making after
Paul.
So the observation the bible does not mention itself is 100 percent
correct. This remains so even when in time the NT is assembled in its
current form.
A whole lot of fairy dancing you've done there.
First of all, we are living in the 21st century. The Bible as it
currently exists has existed that way en total for 1900 years. All the
mudslinging you've done changes nothing. You can discount all the
various canonizers of the Bible that you want, including all your
various "church fathers" that you adhere to, except for this point,
but the end result is the bible we use now. In that Bible are the
references by Paul, Jesus, Peter to the word of God. Scriptures. You
can even pretend that the word bible did not exist and therefore there
was no bible. So what.
At 100 D the individual books of it had been written. For centuries to
come those individual books were in contention to be included in a canon
with other books.>
Whatever that is supposed to mean. Take note of your use of the word
Canon here. ***
Post by unknown
The final content as we have it was not there by 100 because no collection
of those books alone existed for centuries to come. .
Still makes no sense
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
I gave scripture confirming what was asked, and it is also by that
basis that the bible is even canonized. So go to the hollows and do
your two steppin dance, you'll get no traction here, or from the bible
to support your heresy.
It was never "canonized", it was gradually adopted by local churches by
consenses over centuries. No single individual made it possible.>
It was never "canonized"? Yet you used the word canon above see ***

Even your church would disagree with you.
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
The only mention in it is Peter making a passing reference to some of the
letters of Paul, nothing else.
Many dearly held doctrines and rituals in some circles are not found in
scripture. More important, no possible foundation for them is there.
AYUP
Post by unknown
"Slain in the spirit" comes to mind as one among many.
That isn't a doctrine, but a description of an event.
Those who do it will tell why it is valid and proper and should be sought,
that is the doctrine underlaying it. But none of it found in scripture,
all of it of modern invention.
Then show evidence of it, all we have is your word, your authority and
none of it very meaningful at this point.
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Veneration of Mary, and Saints, another.
Veneration, ie. a display of respect was being done during the lives of
mary and the apostles, all saints. They are alive and with Christ and the
reason for respect does not cease at death.
Wrong, and any pagan would laugh at your usage of "veneration", they
recognize it as worship, just like when they venerate their gods.

You venerate false images.
astarte
2017-01-11 12:09:44 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 00:04:42 -0800, Robert displayrd his ignorance fgor all
to admire.
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Veneration, ie. a display of respect was being done during the lives of
mary and the apostles, all saints. They are alive and with Christ and the
reason for respect does not cease at death.
Wrong, and any pagan would laugh at your usage of "veneration", they
recognize it as worship, just like when they venerate their gods.
venerate (v.) Look up venerate at Dictionary.com
1620s, back-formation from veneration, or else from Latin veneratus, past
participle of venerari "to reverence, worship." Related: Venerated;
venerating.
reverence (v.) Look up reverence at Dictionary.com
late 14c., "treat with respect, honor; venerate, pay pious homage to;
esteem, value; bow to (someone); do honor to," from reverence (n.).
Related: Reverenced; reverencing.
Post by Robert
You venerate false images.
You may want to go to your room to hide.


Veneration could be for the street beggar that tried to find work. It is a
mark of respect. Not to worry though, you are not likely to have it
applied to you.


Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
Patrick
2017-01-11 14:17:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
any pagan would laugh at your usage of "veneration", they
recognize it as worship, just like when they venerate their gods.
You really need to stop hanging with your pagan friends.
They obviously are as stupid as you are.
Robert
2017-01-11 18:29:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
any pagan would laugh at your usage of "veneration", they
recognize it as worship, just like when they venerate their gods.
You really need to stop hanging with your pagan friends.
They obviously are as stupid as you are.
You have 100 million Pagan Indians mocking you and your religious
"venerations".
unknown
2017-01-11 19:32:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
any pagan would laugh at your usage of "veneration", they
recognize it as worship, just like when they venerate their gods.
You really need to stop hanging with your pagan friends.
They obviously are as stupid as you are.
You have 100 million Pagan Indians mocking you and your religious
"venerations".
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
any pagan would laugh at your usage of "veneration", they
recognize it as worship, just like when they venerate their gods.
You really need to stop hanging with your pagan friends.
They obviously are as stupid as you are.
You have 100 million Pagan Indians mocking you and your religious
"venerations".
That is more like 9000000 pagan indians.

Good golly miss molly, they pray and sing and have places of worship and
scriptures and scores of other things too. Quick, toss those practices and
other items at once as the pagan things they obviously are.
Robert
2017-01-12 01:06:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
any pagan would laugh at your usage of "veneration", they
recognize it as worship, just like when they venerate their gods.
You really need to stop hanging with your pagan friends.
They obviously are as stupid as you are.
You have 100 million Pagan Indians mocking you and your religious
"venerations".
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
any pagan would laugh at your usage of "veneration", they
recognize it as worship, just like when they venerate their gods.
You really need to stop hanging with your pagan friends.
They obviously are as stupid as you are.
You have 100 million Pagan Indians mocking you and your religious
"venerations".
That is more like 9000000 pagan indians.
Good golly miss molly, they pray and sing and have places of worship and
scriptures and scores of other things too. Quick, toss those practices and
other items at once as the pagan things they obviously are.
Of course, missy, but they call them temples, not churches, they sing,
dance, have feasts, chant, pray, whatever, just like you do, Idols and
all.

Population: 1.31 billion (2015)
unknown
2017-01-12 15:45:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
any pagan would laugh at your usage of "veneration", they
recognize it as worship, just like when they venerate their gods.
You really need to stop hanging with your pagan friends.
They obviously are as stupid as you are.
You have 100 million Pagan Indians mocking you and your religious
"venerations".
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
any pagan would laugh at your usage of "veneration", they
recognize it as worship, just like when they venerate their gods.
You really need to stop hanging with your pagan friends.
They obviously are as stupid as you are.
You have 100 million Pagan Indians mocking you and your religious
"venerations".
That is more like 9000000 pagan indians.
Good golly miss molly, they pray and sing and have places of worship and
scriptures and scores of other things too. Quick, toss those practices and
other items at once as the pagan things they obviously are.
Of course, missy, but they call them temples, not churches, they sing,
dance, have feasts, chant, pray, whatever, just like you do, Idols and
all.
Hmm, something like these?

'Serious Dancing in the Spirit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1mXsnr0P4k

'Pentecostal Temple COGIC - Holy Ghost Fire'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkfrR5lsxUY
Post by Robert
Population: 1.31 billion (2015)'
Ain't google/bing wonderful?

Hindus are about 80 - 85 percent of the population.
Robert
2017-01-12 17:42:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
any pagan would laugh at your usage of "veneration", they
recognize it as worship, just like when they venerate their gods.
You really need to stop hanging with your pagan friends.
They obviously are as stupid as you are.
You have 100 million Pagan Indians mocking you and your religious
"venerations".
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
any pagan would laugh at your usage of "veneration", they
recognize it as worship, just like when they venerate their gods.
You really need to stop hanging with your pagan friends.
They obviously are as stupid as you are.
You have 100 million Pagan Indians mocking you and your religious
"venerations".
That is more like 9000000 pagan indians.
Good golly miss molly, they pray and sing and have places of worship and
scriptures and scores of other things too. Quick, toss those practices and
other items at once as the pagan things they obviously are.
Of course, missy, but they call them temples, not churches, they sing,
dance, have feasts, chant, pray, whatever, just like you do, Idols and
all.
Hmm, something like these?
Nope, the people you are pointing to are worshiping God. And you are
mocking them and the God they serve.

Psa 149:3  Let them praise his name in the dance: let them sing
praises unto him with the timbrel and harp.
Psa 150:4  Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise him with
stringed instruments and organs.

I know nothing of those people, do you?
Post by unknown
'Serious Dancing in the Spirit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1mXsnr0P4k
'Pentecostal Temple COGIC - Holy Ghost Fire'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkfrR5lsxUY
Post by Robert
Population: 1.31 billion (2015)'
Ain't google/bing wonderful?
Hindus are about 80 - 85 percent of the population.
Which means 1.048 Billion and I was going easy on you with 9 million.
<splorf>

King David danced before the Lord, naked, in the streets.

http://www.tampagreekfestival.com/

one of thousands drinking, dancing, feasting, all over the U.S.A. but
where is God in all of that?
unknown
2017-01-12 18:19:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
any pagan would laugh at your usage of "veneration", they
recognize it as worship, just like when they venerate their gods.
You really need to stop hanging with your pagan friends.
They obviously are as stupid as you are.
You have 100 million Pagan Indians mocking you and your religious
"venerations".
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
any pagan would laugh at your usage of "veneration", they
recognize it as worship, just like when they venerate their gods.
You really need to stop hanging with your pagan friends.
They obviously are as stupid as you are.
You have 100 million Pagan Indians mocking you and your religious
"venerations".
That is more like 9000000 pagan indians.
Good golly miss molly, they pray and sing and have places of worship and
scriptures and scores of other things too. Quick, toss those practices and
other items at once as the pagan things they obviously are.
Of course, missy, but they call them temples, not churches, they sing,
dance, have feasts, chant, pray, whatever, just like you do, Idols and
all.
Hmm, something like these?
Nope, the people you are pointing to are worshiping God. And you are
mocking them and the God they serve.
Hmmm, they were dancing in a self named temple, some of the above list
said to be tossed if paganism is to be avoided.>

So if God is being worshipped any items in the list can be kept and not in
danger of being tossed because pagans do it too?
Post by Robert
Psa 149:3  Let them praise his name in the dance: let them sing
praises unto him with the timbrel and harp.
Psa 150:4  Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise him with
stringed instruments and organs.
Sorry bub, pagans have this too, out they go. The new pharisee legalism
must be observed, if pagans do it it must be tossed.
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
I know nothing of those people, do you?
Nope, just asking if they are an example of the to be avoided dance in
temples as listed.
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
'Serious Dancing in the Spirit

'Pentecostal Temple COGIC - Holy Ghost Fire'

http://www.tampagreekfestival.com/
one of thousands drinking, dancing, feasting, all over the U.S.A. but
where is God in all of that?
,

Sorry bub, typical fund raising events for the local churches often done in
social halls, none of what was seen and described as "worship with dance in
temples" above in the videos.
Robert
2017-01-12 19:55:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
any pagan would laugh at your usage of "veneration", they
recognize it as worship, just like when they venerate their gods.
You really need to stop hanging with your pagan friends.
They obviously are as stupid as you are.
You have 100 million Pagan Indians mocking you and your religious
"venerations".
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
any pagan would laugh at your usage of "veneration", they
recognize it as worship, just like when they venerate their gods.
You really need to stop hanging with your pagan friends.
They obviously are as stupid as you are.
You have 100 million Pagan Indians mocking you and your religious
"venerations".
That is more like 9000000 pagan indians.
Good golly miss molly, they pray and sing and have places of worship and
scriptures and scores of other things too. Quick, toss those practices and
other items at once as the pagan things they obviously are.
Of course, missy, but they call them temples, not churches, they sing,
dance, have feasts, chant, pray, whatever, just like you do, Idols and
all.
Hmm, something like these?
Nope, the people you are pointing to are worshiping God. And you are
mocking them and the God they serve.
Hmmm, they were dancing in a self named temple, some of the above list
said to be tossed if paganism is to be avoided.>
So if God is being worshipped any items in the list can be kept and not in
danger of being tossed because pagans do it too?
Post by Robert
Psa 149:3  Let them praise his name in the dance: let them sing
praises unto him with the timbrel and harp.
Psa 150:4  Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise him with
stringed instruments and organs.
Sorry bub, pagans have this too, out they go. The new pharisee legalism
must be observed, if pagans do it it must be tossed.
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
I know nothing of those people, do you?
Nope, just asking if they are an example of the to be avoided dance in
temples as listed.
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
'Serious Dancing in the Spirit
http://youtu.be/h1mXsnr0P4k
'Pentecostal Temple COGIC - Holy Ghost Fire'
http://youtu.be/SkfrR5lsxUY
http://www.tampagreekfestival.com/
one of thousands drinking, dancing, feasting, all over the U.S.A. but
where is God in all of that?
,
Sorry bub, typical fund raising events for the local churches often done in
social halls, none of what was seen and described as "worship with dance in
temples" above in the videos.
You get more and more ludicrous with each post.

Where, just where, does Jesus fit into your life?
asherah
2017-01-12 17:39:11 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 17:06:50 -0800, Robert snip


Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
Patrick
2017-01-11 21:38:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
any pagan would laugh at your usage of "veneration", they
recognize it as worship, just like when they venerate their gods.
You really need to stop hanging with your pagan friends.
They obviously are as stupid as you are.
You have 100 million Pagan Indians mocking you and your religious
"venerations".
Prove it, idiot.
Robert
2017-01-12 01:11:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
any pagan would laugh at your usage of "veneration", they
recognize it as worship, just like when they venerate their gods.
You really need to stop hanging with your pagan friends.
They obviously are as stupid as you are.
You have 100 million Pagan Indians mocking you and your religious
"venerations".
Prove it, idiot.
I already did, a year or so ago.
Patrick
2017-01-12 17:39:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
any pagan would laugh at your usage of "veneration", they
recognize it as worship, just like when they venerate their gods.
You really need to stop hanging with your pagan friends.
They obviously are as stupid as you are.
You have 100 million Pagan Indians mocking you and your religious
"venerations".
Prove it, idiot.
I already did, a year or so ago.
Do it again.
Especially if you claim to make the same stupid claim from a year ago.
Robert
2017-01-12 20:53:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
any pagan would laugh at your usage of "veneration", they
recognize it as worship, just like when they venerate their gods.
You really need to stop hanging with your pagan friends.
They obviously are as stupid as you are.
You have 100 million Pagan Indians mocking you and your religious
"venerations".
Prove it, idiot.
I already did, a year or so ago.
Do it again.
Especially if you claim to make the same stupid claim from a year ago.
You can't keep up with what is said today.
Patrick
2017-01-12 22:53:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
any pagan would laugh at your usage of "veneration", they
recognize it as worship, just like when they venerate their gods.
You really need to stop hanging with your pagan friends.
They obviously are as stupid as you are.
You have 100 million Pagan Indians mocking you and your religious
"venerations".
Prove it, idiot.
I already did, a year or so ago.
Do it again.
Especially if you claim to make the same stupid claim from a year ago.
You can't keep up with what is said today.
Absolutely.
I live in the minute.
I don't look back at your silly claims.
You must post them again if you want me to comment on them.
asherah
2017-01-12 17:43:35 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 17:11:36 -0800, Robert snip

Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
asherah
2017-01-12 17:54:10 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 10:29:10 -0800, Robert snip

Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
unknown
2017-01-11 16:55:34 UTC
Permalink
Robert wanting to dismiss certain standard christian teachings says the
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Many dearly held doctrines and rituals in some circles are not found in
scripture. More important, no possible foundation for them is there.
AYUP
Post by unknown
"Slain in the spirit" comes to mind as one among many.
That isn't a doctrine, but a description of an event.
Those who do it will tell why it is valid and proper and should be sought,
that is the doctrine underlaying it. But none of it found in scripture,
all of it of modern invention.
Then show evidence of it, all we have is your word, your authority and
none of it very meaningful at this point.
Hmmm, it is a proof of a negative being requested?

'What does "slain in the Spirit" mean?'

Billy Graham Evangelistic Association

https://billygraham.org/answer/is-the-experience-of-what-some-call-being/

Terms such as "slain in the Spirit" and "falling under the power" are not
found in the Bible. We are not aware of any Scriptures that
specifically describe this experience which occurs in some church
services, where believers are prayed for and in the process fall to the
floor and remain unconscious for a time.

As in current useage, the doctrine/ritual is of some 100 years only.

A proper response would be to show in scripture even a minimal support for
the doctrine/ritual instead. It ain't there, nuff said.
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Veneration of Mary, and Saints, another.
Veneration, ie. a display of respect was being done during the lives of
mary and the apostles, all saints. They are alive and with Christ and the
reason for respect does not cease at death.
Wrong, and any pagan would laugh at your usage of "veneration", they
recognize it as worship, just like when they venerate their gods.
You venerate false images.
Sigh:

Oxford dictionary
Venerate v. (-ting) respect deeply. DT veneration n. Venerator n. [latin
veneror revere]

The bible and cross can be easily said to be described there, are they
idols too?
Robert
2017-01-11 18:26:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Robert wanting to dismiss certain standard christian teachings says the
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Many dearly held doctrines and rituals in some circles are not found in
scripture. More important, no possible foundation for them is there.
AYUP
Missy
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
"Slain in the spirit" comes to mind as one among many.
Bob
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
That isn't a doctrine, but a description of an event.
Missy
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Those who do it will tell why it is valid and proper and should be sought,
that is the doctrine underlaying it. But none of it found in scripture,
all of it of modern invention.
Bob
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Then show evidence of it, all we have is your word, your authority and
none of it very meaningful at this point.
Missy
Post by unknown
Hmmm, it is a proof of a negative being requested?
'What does "slain in the Spirit" mean?'
Billy Graham Evangelistic Association
https://billygraham.org/answer/is-the-experience-of-what-some-call-being/
Terms such as "slain in the Spirit" and "falling under the power" are not
found in the Bible. We are not aware of any Scriptures that
specifically describe this experience which occurs in some church
services, where believers are prayed for and in the process fall to the
floor and remain unconscious for a time.
As in current useage, the doctrine/ritual is of some 100 years only.
A proper response would be to show in scripture even a minimal support for
the doctrine/ritual instead. It ain't there, nuff said.
Well that certainly was not proof. Did Billy Graham do this? Nope, so
where is the proof that this existed? Your argument state things from
a standpoint of silence. Where is your 100 year old Doctrine? I see no
evidence of it. What other usage of it was there since you specify "in
current usage"? And why is all this of such import to you in the first
place? Seems you are the only one beating the drum for it.
FAIL
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Veneration of Mary, and Saints, another.
Missy
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Veneration, ie. a display of respect was being done during the lives of
mary and the apostles, all saints. They are alive and with Christ and the
reason for respect does not cease at death.
No one prayed to them while they were alive, no one put flowers at
their feet, or carried them about town in a chair for all to see. No
one kissed their images or image, no one kissed their feet. And the
bible specifically states that men were to bow to no one, especially
one like us in heaven, then it stands to reason that other men should
not be bowing to false images of Mary, the Saints, or Christ.
Bob
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Wrong, and any pagan would laugh at your usage of "veneration", they
recognize it as worship, just like when they venerate their gods.
You venerate false images.
Missy
Post by unknown
Oxford dictionary
Venerate v. (-ting) respect deeply. DT veneration n. Venerator n. [latin
veneror revere]
The bible and cross can be easily said to be described there, are they
idols too?
To many people, yes. To everyone that bows or bends the knee to them
or kisses them. They are all then false images.

You will find no Cross in heaven. No Icons in heaven, no statue's. No
Queen of Heaven.
unknown
2017-01-11 19:21:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Robert wanting to dismiss certain standard christian teachings says the
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Many dearly held doctrines and rituals in some circles are not found in
scripture. More important, no possible foundation for them is there.
AYUP
Missy
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
"Slain in the spirit" comes to mind as one among many.
Bob
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
That isn't a doctrine, but a description of an event.
Missy
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Those who do it will tell why it is valid and proper and should be sought,
that is the doctrine underlaying it. But none of it found in scripture,
all of it of modern invention.
Bob
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Then show evidence of it, all we have is your word, your authority and
none of it very meaningful at this point.
Missy
Post by unknown
Hmmm, it is a proof of a negative being requested?
'What does "slain in the Spirit" mean?'
Billy Graham Evangelistic Association
https://billygraham.org/answer/is-the-experience-of-what-some-call-being/
Terms such as "slain in the Spirit" and "falling under the power" are not
found in the Bible. We are not aware of any Scriptures that
specifically describe this experience which occurs in some church
services, where believers are prayed for and in the process fall to the
floor and remain unconscious for a time.
As in current useage, the doctrine/ritual is of some 100 years only.
A proper response would be to show in scripture even a minimal support for
the doctrine/ritual instead. It ain't there, nuff said.
Well that certainly was not proof. Did Billy Graham do this? Nope, so
where is the proof that this existed? Your argument state things from
a standpoint of silence. Where is your 100 year old Doctrine? I see no
evidence of it. What other usage of it was there since you specify "in
current usage"? And why is all this of such import to you in the first
place? Seems you are the only one beating the drum for it.
FAIL
The above evangelical fundimentalist protestant source confirms it, ain't
in bible.

"currrent" context was made to make sure of which we speak;ie.
pentecostal benny hinn wave your arm and mow down scors in one sweep.

Paul when scolding the 1 Cor. church for their behavioral excesses taught
tthem to "let all things be done decently and in good order".

An 1 minute plus example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EojfUU3mc1E
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Veneration of Mary, and Saints, another.
Missy
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Veneration, ie. a display of respect was being done during the lives of
mary and the apostles, all saints. They are alive and with Christ and the
reason for respect does not cease at death.
No one prayed to them while they were alive, no one put flowers at
their feet, or carried them about town in a chair for all to see. No
one kissed their images or image, no one kissed their feet. And the
bible specifically states that men were to bow to no one, especially
one like us in heaven, then it stands to reason that other men should
not be bowing to false images of Mary, the Saints, or Christ.
In many cultures kissing is a form of social greeting and mutual respect.

In many cultures bowing is a sign of respect not worship, reserved for God
alone. >

We don't know how those mentioned were shown respect ex ept for the
reaction people had for them in scripture.

Kissing and bowing are a strong possibility, recalling hems being kissed
and falling to knees mentioned in the NT as cultural practices.
Post by Robert
Bob
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Wrong, and any pagan would laugh at your usage of "veneration", they
recognize it as worship, just like when they venerate their gods.
You venerate false images.
Missy
Post by unknown
Oxford dictionary
Venerate v. (-ting) respect deeply. DT veneration n. Venerator n. [latin
veneror revere]
The bible and cross can be easily said to be described there, are they
idols too?
To many people, yes. To everyone that bows or bends the knee to them
or kisses them. They are all then false images.
The question was not answered relative to "venerate,ie respect; "them,
which was the context.

Are bibles and crosses put in place of honor in homes and churches? Would
people destroy them with a smile upon request? Would they pray with hands
clasped on the bible with head bowed?
Recalling the cultural use of kiss and bow above, they fall right in line
as signs of respect with the above, no?

When the question actually askd is answered it looks quite different, no?
Post by Robert
You will find no Cross in heaven. No Icons in heaven, no statue's. No
Queen of Heaven.
Who knows; it is quite irrelevant, scripture is silent on such things. But
those people mentioned are their and death does not eliminate respect for
them. They are alive in Christ.
Robert
2017-01-12 01:09:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
The above evangelical fundimentalist protestant source confirms it, ain't
in bible.
No one said it was, sheesh what an idiot.
unknown
2017-01-12 15:51:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
The above evangelical fundimentalist protestant source confirms it, ain't
in bible.
No one said it was, sheesh what an idiot.
Let's rview the origin of the source,ie. "slain not in scripture" and why
an evengelical fundimentalist protestant source was used:

Missy
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by unknown
Those who do it will tell why it is valid and proper and should be
sought,
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by unknown
that is the doctrine underlaying it. But none of it found in scripture,
all of it of modern invention.
Bob
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Then show evidence of it, all we have is your word, your authority and
none of it very meaningful at this point.
Missy
Post by Robert
Hmmm, it is a proof of a negative being requested?
'What does "slain in the Spirit" mean?'
Billy Graham Evangelistic Association
https://billygraham.org/answer/is-the-experience-of-what-some-call-being/
Terms such as "slain in the Spirit" and "falling under the power" are not
found in the Bible. We are not aware of any Scriptures that
specifically describe this experience which occurs in some church
services, where believers are prayed for and in the process fall to the
floor and remain unconscious for a time.
Robert
2017-01-12 18:46:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
The above evangelical fundimentalist protestant source confirms it, ain't
in bible.
No one said it was, sheesh what an idiot.
Let's rview the origin of the source,ie. "slain not in scripture" and why
It only matters to you, you brought it up and off topic. Sorry, but
this is as far as I got it your troll post.
unknown
2017-01-12 19:49:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
The above evangelical fundimentalist protestant source confirms it, ain't
in bible.
No one said it was, sheesh what an idiot.
Let's rview the origin of the source,ie. "slain not in scripture" and why
It only matters to you, you brought it up and off topic. Sorry, but
this is as far as I got it your troll post.
Let's review the patern.

Deny, attack, attempt to divert the point; then when dug in so deeply all
is lost - flee.
Robert
2017-01-12 23:39:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
The above evangelical fundimentalist protestant source confirms it, ain't
in bible.
No one said it was, sheesh what an idiot.
Let's rview the origin of the source,ie. "slain not in scripture" and why
It only matters to you, you brought it up and off topic. Sorry, but
this is as far as I got it your troll post.
Let's review the patern.
Deny, attack, attempt to divert the point; then when dug in so deeply all
is lost - flee.
LOL, clown, you diverted the point, screwed up, I can care less.
asherah
2017-01-12 17:38:07 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 17:09:50 -0800, Robert snip


Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
asherah
2017-01-12 17:38:37 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 10:26:47 -0800, Robert snip


Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
pyotr filipivich
2017-01-11 17:34:16 UTC
Permalink
Servant on 11 Jan 2017 02:36:29 GMT typed in
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Real Christians believe in the Trinity.
You obviously do not.
The bible does not teach it,
Yup.
The Bible also doesn't teach the Bible exists.
Yes, it does.
2Ti 3:16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction
The OT is the reference. The bible as commonly understood was in the
future. Its final accepted form was hundreds of years in the making after
Paul.
So the observation the bible does not mention itself is 100 percent
correct. This remains so even when in time the NT is assembled in its
current form.
A whole lot of fairy dancing you've done there.
First of all, we are living in the 21st century. The Bible as it
currently exists has existed that way en total for 1900 years. All the
mudslinging you've done changes nothing. You can discount all the
various canonizers of the Bible that you want, including all your
various "church fathers" that you adhere to, except for this point,
but the end result is the bible we use now. In that Bible are the
references by Paul, Jesus, Peter to the word of God. Scriptures. You
can even pretend that the word bible did not exist and therefore there
was no bible. So what.
At 100 D the individual books of it had been written. For centuries to
come those individual books were in contention to be included in a canon
with other books.>
The final content as we have it was not there by 100 because no collection
of those books alone existed for centuries to come. .
Post by Robert
I gave scripture confirming what was asked, and it is also by that
basis that the bible is even canonized. So go to the hollows and do
your two steppin dance, you'll get no traction here, or from the bible
to support your heresy.
It was never "canonized", it was gradually adopted by local churches by
consenses over centuries. No single individual made it possible.>
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
The only mention in it is Peter making a passing reference to some of the
letters of Paul, nothing else.
Many dearly held doctrines and rituals in some circles are not found in
scripture. More important, no possible foundation for them is there.
AYUP
Post by unknown
"Slain in the spirit" comes to mind as one among many.
That isn't a doctrine, but a description of an event.
Those who do it will tell why it is valid and proper and should be sought,
that is the doctrine underlaying it. But none of it found in scripture,
all of it of modern invention.
Post by Robert
Veneration of Mary, and Saints, another.
Veneration, ie. a display of respect was being done during the lives of
mary and the apostles, all saints. They are alive and with Christ and the
reason for respect does not cease at death.
But "Robert" like his predecessors, seems unable to grasp that
distinction.
The sad part of it is, that in order for him to avoid the
appearance of what they consider "worship" - they have to be
disrespectful to everyone, if they were consistent. Which I doubt
they are.


--
pyotr
After the war two Army Chaplains were mustering out. The one said to
the other "Chaplain, it has been a real pleasure serving God with you.
You in your way, and I in His."
asherah
2017-01-11 12:14:47 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 16:49:27 -0800, Robert shared his confusion with, well
himself I suppose.
--
Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
asherah
2017-01-11 12:24:59 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 12:14:21 -0800, Robert flushed


Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
astarte
2017-01-10 20:03:55 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 08:55:02 -0800, Robert played professional loser,
still. snip

Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
duke
2017-01-10 12:38:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Many have read this, yet not seen it.
Joh 1:18  No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. 
Here is how the Greek to English is clarified;
Joh 1:18  No man has ever seen God at any time; the only unique Son,
or the only begotten God, Who is in the bosom [in the intimate
presence] of the Father, He has declared Him [He has revealed Him and
brought Him out where He can be seen; He has interpreted Him and He
has made Him known]. (AMP)
Jesus, "He" has declared Him, made him known. This was a major part of
the work of Christ on earth, he who was sacrificed for the sins of the
whole earth.
Of course I expect many arguments on this and this was near the
beginning of Christ's ministry on the earth. During the course of
Christ's first ministry on earth he said this,...
Joh 14:6  Jesus said to him, I am the Way and the Truth and the Life;
no one comes to the Father except by (through) Me. 
Joh 14:7  If you had known Me [had learned to recognize Me], you would
also have known My Father. From now on, you know Him and have seen
Him. 
Joh 14:8  Philip said to Him, Lord, show us the Father [cause us to
see the Father--that is all we ask]; then we shall be satisfied. 
Joh 14:9  Jesus replied, Have I been with all of you for so long a
time, and do you not recognize and know Me yet, Philip? Anyone who has
seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say then, Show us the
Father? 
Now there is much more to this in Chapter 14 for those that care to
see, yet here Jesus clearly states, Anyone who has seen me has seen
the Father.
Jesus was authorized to speak this, He was God's representative on
earth and spoke only on the authorization of His Father. He
represented God well, and He also showed the anger of God regarding
the money changers in the temple, tossing over their tables and
running them out of the temple.
Still need convincing, like a JW will? Very near the end of his
ministry on earth with the messages of Good News, Christ said this,...
Joh 20:26  Eight days later His disciples were again in the house, and
Thomas was with them. Jesus came, though they were behind closed
doors, and stood among them and said, Peace to you! 
Joh 20:27  Then He said to Thomas, Reach out your finger here, and see
My hands; and put out your hand and place [it] in My side. Do not be
faithless and incredulous, but [stop your unbelief and] believe! 
Joh 20:28  Thomas answered Him, My Lord and my God! 
Joh 20:29  Jesus said to him, Because you have seen Me, Thomas, do you
now believe (trust, have faith)? Blessed and happy and to be envied
are those who have never seen Me and yet have believed and adhered to
and trusted and relied on Me.
Yes, ALL the disciples, not just the twelve know fully knew who they
had been living with and following. The rest of the world around
Jerusalem saw God the Father, via Jesus, whether they fully understood
or not.
So we can see now that mankind has seen God since it was an objective
of Jesus to make Him known to all that would listen. God showed
through Jesus Christ many signs, wonders, miracles and healing's.
Raising people from the dead and freeing all who were oppressed of the
enemy.
Jesus here in this last passage also left a message directly to you
and me, when He said, "Blessed and happy and to be envied are those
who have never seen Me and yet have believed and adhered to and
trusted and relied on Me."
Notice, he did not say washed with water, but have believed, etc.
JW's and others are following idols, false images, as part of their
doctrines, their Jesus is not the Jesus that is spoken of in the words
of John. A fact hardly disputed by James when he says he follows a
"Jesus" that the Christians do not. And He is right, he follows a
false image, one he calls Jesus, but knows not. Same with some others
here.
They saw flesh only. The never saw divinity, nor knew of his divinity until
after he ascended to the Father..
Philippians 2:6-8New International Version (NIV)

Who, being in very nature[a] God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own
advantage;

rather, he made himself nothing
    by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
    being made in human likeness.

And being found in appearance as a man,
    he humbled himself
    by becoming obedient to death—
        even death on a cross!
the dukester, American-American
Earl, while the verses you quote from Philippians are very true, they
are not on topic, and they also do not dispute what Jesus said, when
he said you have seen me, you see the Father.
Give it a break, repete. Scripture says NO man has seen God. Scripture says
"he made himself nothing". End of story. Jesus said "follow me", and no man
would even try is the thought for a second that he was trying to follow
divinity.
Post by Robert
In fact, to use one of your arguments regarding God being one, Jesus
was born as God/man. His name meaning God with us.
You dispute with God and his word with your words and actions. Any
particular reason for it?
Yes, Jesus is fully man and fully God. But no man saw anything but man.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Robert
2017-01-10 17:15:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Many have read this, yet not seen it.
Joh 1:18  No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. 
Here is how the Greek to English is clarified;
Joh 1:18  No man has ever seen God at any time; the only unique Son,
or the only begotten God, Who is in the bosom [in the intimate
presence] of the Father, He has declared Him [He has revealed Him and
brought Him out where He can be seen; He has interpreted Him and He
has made Him known]. (AMP)
Jesus, "He" has declared Him, made him known. This was a major part of
the work of Christ on earth, he who was sacrificed for the sins of the
whole earth.
Of course I expect many arguments on this and this was near the
beginning of Christ's ministry on the earth. During the course of
Christ's first ministry on earth he said this,...
Joh 14:6  Jesus said to him, I am the Way and the Truth and the Life;
no one comes to the Father except by (through) Me. 
Joh 14:7  If you had known Me [had learned to recognize Me], you would
also have known My Father. From now on, you know Him and have seen
Him. 
Joh 14:8  Philip said to Him, Lord, show us the Father [cause us to
see the Father--that is all we ask]; then we shall be satisfied. 
Joh 14:9  Jesus replied, Have I been with all of you for so long a
time, and do you not recognize and know Me yet, Philip? Anyone who has
seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say then, Show us the
Father? 
Now there is much more to this in Chapter 14 for those that care to
see, yet here Jesus clearly states, Anyone who has seen me has seen
the Father.
Jesus was authorized to speak this, He was God's representative on
earth and spoke only on the authorization of His Father. He
represented God well, and He also showed the anger of God regarding
the money changers in the temple, tossing over their tables and
running them out of the temple.
Still need convincing, like a JW will? Very near the end of his
ministry on earth with the messages of Good News, Christ said this,...
Joh 20:26  Eight days later His disciples were again in the house, and
Thomas was with them. Jesus came, though they were behind closed
doors, and stood among them and said, Peace to you! 
Joh 20:27  Then He said to Thomas, Reach out your finger here, and see
My hands; and put out your hand and place [it] in My side. Do not be
faithless and incredulous, but [stop your unbelief and] believe! 
Joh 20:28  Thomas answered Him, My Lord and my God! 
Joh 20:29  Jesus said to him, Because you have seen Me, Thomas, do you
now believe (trust, have faith)? Blessed and happy and to be envied
are those who have never seen Me and yet have believed and adhered to
and trusted and relied on Me.
Yes, ALL the disciples, not just the twelve know fully knew who they
had been living with and following. The rest of the world around
Jerusalem saw God the Father, via Jesus, whether they fully understood
or not.
So we can see now that mankind has seen God since it was an objective
of Jesus to make Him known to all that would listen. God showed
through Jesus Christ many signs, wonders, miracles and healing's.
Raising people from the dead and freeing all who were oppressed of the
enemy.
Jesus here in this last passage also left a message directly to you
and me, when He said, "Blessed and happy and to be envied are those
who have never seen Me and yet have believed and adhered to and
trusted and relied on Me."
Notice, he did not say washed with water, but have believed, etc.
JW's and others are following idols, false images, as part of their
doctrines, their Jesus is not the Jesus that is spoken of in the words
of John. A fact hardly disputed by James when he says he follows a
"Jesus" that the Christians do not. And He is right, he follows a
false image, one he calls Jesus, but knows not. Same with some others
here.
They saw flesh only. The never saw divinity, nor knew of his divinity until
after he ascended to the Father..
Philippians 2:6-8New International Version (NIV)

Who, being in very nature[a] God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own
advantage;

rather, he made himself nothing
    by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
    being made in human likeness.

And being found in appearance as a man,
    he humbled himself
    by becoming obedient to death—
        even death on a cross!
the dukester, American-American
Earl, while the verses you quote from Philippians are very true, they
are not on topic, and they also do not dispute what Jesus said, when
he said you have seen me, you see the Father.
Give it a break, repete. Scripture says NO man has seen God. Scripture says
"he made himself nothing". End of story. Jesus said "follow me", and no man
would even try is the thought for a second that he was trying to follow
divinity.
Well, Earl, the plain and simple fact is that Jesus said, if you have
seen me you have seen God. Are you calling Jesus a liar? All I did was
quote HIS words.

Jesus is God, he was divinity and is. And now you have just a peak at
the truth, you are absolutely right in that no man can follow
divinity, that is why mankind by faith must be born again, become a
new creature in Christ Jesus, it is also why the Holy Spirit takes up
residence within our spirit, and seals the spirit unto salvation. It
is why mankind, once born again is empowered with the power of God via
the Holy Spirit, plus via our spirits our minds now become renewed in
the things of God. and the sum total of this gives us the reality of
being just like Him. Scripture says, as Jesus Christ is, so are we IN
THIS WORLD.

Yes, you cannot do it by yourself, and that is what God has been
trying to teach and show you. Not by works lest any man boast.
Post by duke
Post by Robert
In fact, to use one of your arguments regarding God being one, Jesus
was born as God/man. His name meaning God with us.
You dispute with God and his word with your words and actions. Any
particular reason for it?
Yes, Jesus is fully man and fully God. But no man saw anything but man.
Then why did Thomas say with amazement, My Lord and my God?

Why did Jesus make a clear distinction between those that saw him
then, and believed, meaning throughout his ministry, and us in this
day who believe by faith? They saw, and we didn't with our physical
eyes.

Plus, according to your doctrine of Trinity, if you saw one, you saw
them all.
Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Patrick
2017-01-10 19:29:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
Earl, while the verses you quote from Philippians are very true, they
are not on topic, and they also do not dispute what Jesus said, when
he said you have seen me, you see the Father.
Give it a break, repete. Scripture says NO man has seen God. Scripture says
"he made himself nothing". End of story. Jesus said "follow me", and no man
would even try is the thought for a second that he was trying to follow
divinity.
Well, Earl, the plain and simple fact is that Jesus said, if you have
seen me you have seen God. Are you calling Jesus a liar? All I did was
quote HIS words.
In the Old testament, Jesus had not yet been born.
Jesus was not active yet.
Post by Robert
Jesus is God,
Excellent.
Perhaps you are trying to get on the same page as all Christians.
Post by Robert
he was divinity and is. And now you have just a peak at
the truth, you are absolutely right in that no man can follow
divinity, that is why mankind by faith must be born again,
That is not the reason why.
But then, you may go ahead and make up more stuff if you like.
Post by Robert
become a
new creature in Christ Jesus, it is also why the Holy Spirit takes up
residence within our spirit, and seals the spirit unto salvation.
Yet, you do not consider the Holy Spirit to be Divinity.
Post by Robert
It
is why mankind, once born again is empowered with the power of God via
the Holy Spirit, plus via our spirits our minds now become renewed in
the things of God. and the sum total of this gives us the reality of
being just like Him.
Do you feel you are just like Jesus now?
Post by Robert
Scripture says, as Jesus Christ is, so are we IN
THIS WORLD.
Perhaps you could share this reference with us.
Post by Robert
Yes, you cannot do it by yourself, and that is what God has been
trying to teach and show you. Not by works lest any man boast.
God is trying to teach me?
Like he teaches you?
Robert
2017-01-10 20:25:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
Earl, while the verses you quote from Philippians are very true, they
are not on topic, and they also do not dispute what Jesus said, when
he said you have seen me, you see the Father.
Give it a break, repete. Scripture says NO man has seen God. Scripture says
"he made himself nothing". End of story. Jesus said "follow me", and no man
would even try is the thought for a second that he was trying to follow
divinity.
Well, Earl, the plain and simple fact is that Jesus said, if you have
seen me you have seen God. Are you calling Jesus a liar? All I did was
quote HIS words.
In the Old testament, Jesus had not yet been born.
Jesus was not active yet.
Joh_8:58  Jesus replied, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you,
before Abraham was born, I AM.

Do you dispute the scripture given?
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Jesus is God,
Excellent.
Perhaps you are trying to get on the same page as all Christians.
Not at all, many Christians of today are not believers.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
he was divinity and is. And now you have just a peak at
the truth, you are absolutely right in that no man can follow
divinity, that is why mankind by faith must be born again,
That is not the reason why.
But then, you may go ahead and make up more stuff if you like.
You argue, but have no other answer.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
become a
new creature in Christ Jesus, it is also why the Holy Spirit takes up
residence within our spirit, and seals the spirit unto salvation.
Yet, you do not consider the Holy Spirit to be Divinity.
That is a false accusation, and stupid as well.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
It
is why mankind, once born again is empowered with the power of God via
the Holy Spirit, plus via our spirits our minds now become renewed in
the things of God. and the sum total of this gives us the reality of
being just like Him.
Do you feel you are just like Jesus now?
I know only what the Bible says. Do you feel like a human?
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Scripture says, as Jesus Christ is, so are we IN
THIS WORLD.
Perhaps you could share this reference with us.
1Jn 4:17  Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness
in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Yes, you cannot do it by yourself, and that is what God has been
trying to teach and show you. Not by works lest any man boast.
God is trying to teach me?
Like he teaches you?
Joh 16:13  Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will
guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but
whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you
things to come.
Patrick
2017-01-10 22:37:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
Earl, while the verses you quote from Philippians are very true, they
are not on topic, and they also do not dispute what Jesus said, when
he said you have seen me, you see the Father.
Give it a break, repete. Scripture says NO man has seen God. Scripture says
"he made himself nothing". End of story. Jesus said "follow me", and no man
would even try is the thought for a second that he was trying to follow
divinity.
Well, Earl, the plain and simple fact is that Jesus said, if you have
seen me you have seen God. Are you calling Jesus a liar? All I did was
quote HIS words.
In the Old testament, Jesus had not yet been born.
Jesus was not active yet.
Joh_8:58  Jesus replied, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you,
before Abraham was born, I AM.
Yes.
Did you read my words?
Jesus was not active yet.
There is no mention of Jesus in the old testament except that a
messiah was to be born of the house of David. Jesus was not active
yet.
Post by Robert
Do you dispute the scripture given?
Nope.
Did you read my words?
Jesus was not active yet.
There is no mention of Jesus in the old testament except that a
messiah was to be born of the house of David. Jesus was not active
yet.
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Jesus is God,
Excellent.
Perhaps you are trying to get on the same page as all Christians.
Not at all, many Christians of today are not believers.
Then they are not true Christians.
Do you consider yourself a Christian?
Do you believe that Jesus is the second Person of God, the Son of God,
the Messiah? Were you ever baptised? When?
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
he was divinity and is. And now you have just a peak at
the truth, you are absolutely right in that no man can follow
divinity, that is why mankind by faith must be born again,
That is not the reason why.
But then, you may go ahead and make up more stuff if you like.
You argue, but have no other answer.
That is because I don't understand the question.
Do you have a question?
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
become a
new creature in Christ Jesus, it is also why the Holy Spirit takes up
residence within our spirit, and seals the spirit unto salvation.
Yet, you do not consider the Holy Spirit to be Divinity.
That is a false accusation, and stupid as well.
Are you saying that you believe in the Trinity?
Please be specific.
And yes, I do believe in the Trinity.
I am a Christian.
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
It
is why mankind, once born again is empowered with the power of God via
the Holy Spirit, plus via our spirits our minds now become renewed in
the things of God. and the sum total of this gives us the reality of
being just like Him.
Do you feel you are just like Jesus now?
I know only what the Bible says. Do you feel like a human?
I am a human.
Do you feel you are just like Jesus now?
Would you care to explain your answer?
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Scripture says, as Jesus Christ is, so are we IN
THIS WORLD.
Perhaps you could share this reference with us.
1Jn 4:17  Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness
in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God
is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
.17 ¶ Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in
the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.

+ The entire reference is pertaining to God's love for us.
I have no idea what you are reading into this.
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Yes, you cannot do it by yourself, and that is what God has been
trying to teach and show you. Not by works lest any man boast.
God is trying to teach me?
Like he teaches you?
Joh 16:13  Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will
guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but
whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you
things to come.
13 - Not speak of Himself .... Some are tempted to believe what they
think the "spirit" is telling them, holding that impression above the
Scriptures. This is evidence that the communication is not from the
Holy Spirit. This temptation includes having no desire to consult the
Bible or in believing that it's not for us today. The true Holy Spirit
is only a communicator of the truth of Christ and the Scriptures. He
does not speak on His own authority.

+ This does not bolster your point.
God is trying to teach me?
Like he teaches you?
Robert
2017-01-11 01:54:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
Earl, while the verses you quote from Philippians are very true, they
are not on topic, and they also do not dispute what Jesus said, when
he said you have seen me, you see the Father.
Give it a break, repete. Scripture says NO man has seen God. Scripture says
"he made himself nothing". End of story. Jesus said "follow me", and no man
would even try is the thought for a second that he was trying to follow
divinity.
Well, Earl, the plain and simple fact is that Jesus said, if you have
seen me you have seen God. Are you calling Jesus a liar? All I did was
quote HIS words.
In the Old testament, Jesus had not yet been born.
Jesus was not active yet.
Joh_8:58  Jesus replied, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you,
before Abraham was born, I AM.
Yes.
Did you read my words?
Jesus was not active yet.
There is no mention of Jesus in the old testament except that a
messiah was to be born of the house of David. Jesus was not active
yet.
He was active,
Joh 1:2  The same was in the beginning with God. 
Joh 1:3  All things were made by him; and without him was not any
thing made that was made.

He was also noted as the "Lamb of God"

But you are correct in that he was not born as man yet.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Do you dispute the scripture given?
Nope.
Did you read my words?
Jesus was not active yet.
There is no mention of Jesus in the old testament except that a
messiah was to be born of the house of David. Jesus was not active
yet.
Jesus was mentioned in Isaiah.
Isa 7:14  Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: Behold,
the young woman who is unmarried and a virgin shall conceive and bear
a son, and shall call his name Immanuel [God with us]

In the book of the Psalms the death of Jesus was described.
Jesus was active alright but not by that name, or his human body.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Jesus is God,
Excellent.
Perhaps you are trying to get on the same page as all Christians.
Not at all, many Christians of today are not believers.
Then they are not true Christians.
Oh they consider themselves Christian, they belong to the RCC and "do
all the right things accord to the RCC, but if they are not born again
they are not Christian.
Post by Patrick
Do you consider yourself a Christian?
I call myself a born again believer.
Post by Patrick
Do you believe that Jesus is the second Person of God, the Son of God,
the Messiah? Were you ever baptised? When?
I have already answered those questions to you numerous times, nothing
has changed.

There is no second person of God, if as you believe in the trinity
they are all equal and the same.

Is Jesus a separate person? If God the Father sits on one throne, and
Jesus on another, then what do you think?
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
he was divinity and is. And now you have just a peak at
the truth, you are absolutely right in that no man can follow
divinity, that is why mankind by faith must be born again,
That is not the reason why.
But then, you may go ahead and make up more stuff if you like.
You argue, but have no other answer.
That is because I don't understand the question.
Do you have a question?
You asked the question, I gave the answer and you had no other answer,
just argument.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
become a
new creature in Christ Jesus, it is also why the Holy Spirit takes up
residence within our spirit, and seals the spirit unto salvation.
Yet, you do not consider the Holy Spirit to be Divinity.
That is a false accusation, and stupid as well.
Are you saying that you believe in the Trinity?
Please be specific.
And yes, I do believe in the Trinity.
I am a Christian.
I believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I put the faith that God
gave me, into his son. Not into a terminology of man, nor a doctrine
of man.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
It
is why mankind, once born again is empowered with the power of God via
the Holy Spirit, plus via our spirits our minds now become renewed in
the things of God. and the sum total of this gives us the reality of
being just like Him.
Do you feel you are just like Jesus now?
I know only what the Bible says. Do you feel like a human?
I am a human.
But do you "feel" like one?
Post by Patrick
Do you feel you are just like Jesus now?
Would you care to explain your answer?
Per the scripture I gave you I am what I am. Has nothing to do with
feelings. I accept it by faith.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Scripture says, as Jesus Christ is, so are we IN
THIS WORLD.
Perhaps you could share this reference with us.
1Jn 4:17  Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness
in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God
is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
.17 ¶ Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in
the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
+ The entire reference is pertaining to God's love for us.
I have no idea what you are reading into this.
That is for sure. You cannot understand at this point what I and many
others do, since the spirit of God does not dwell in you. (as you have
admitted. I am not knocking you on it, but you do need him.)
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Yes, you cannot do it by yourself, and that is what God has been
trying to teach and show you. Not by works lest any man boast.
God is trying to teach me?
Like he teaches you?
Joh 16:13  Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will
guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but
whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you
things to come.
13 - Not speak of Himself .... Some are tempted to believe what they
think the "spirit" is telling them, holding that impression above the
Scriptures. This is evidence that the communication is not from the
Holy Spirit. This temptation includes having no desire to consult the
Bible or in believing that it's not for us today. The true Holy Spirit
is only a communicator of the truth of Christ and the Scriptures. He
does not speak on His own authority.
Absolutely correct, he does not speak of himself.
1Jn 4:1  BELOVED, DO not put faith in every spirit, but prove (test)
the spirits to discover whether they proceed from God; for many false
prophets have gone forth into the world.

You may not have given it much thought, but there is the world that is
real to our five senses, and there is a world that is spiritually
real. The spiritual world is forever, and the true reality, our normal
reality is temporal, everything in it dies.

When our spirit is born again, it is made alive unto God, and also is
our eternal spirit that will dwell with him. If we, via the renewing
of our mind, learn to listen and speak to God, then we will become
spiritually aware, able to cast out spirits and so on. We would also
act out of love, and not some pretense of love, but actual love.

If we draw near to God we will begin to also hear his voice, just like
Jesus said, My sheep here my voice. Through experience we will also
know His voice, and so on. there is so much more than this but most
are fearful of anything spiritual and Satan loves it that way.
Post by Patrick
+ This does not bolster your point.
God is trying to teach me?
Like he teaches you?
He is trying to teach you, reach you by many means. He reaches to you,
were you are at, not where I am at.
astarte
2017-01-11 12:13:46 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 17:54:30 -0800, Robert trying for a record on ignorance
of how to use usenet, got 229 lines removed for saying nothing worth
reading. I'm sure he thinks it is an epic admired by all. Someone want to
tell him.

Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
Patrick
2017-01-11 14:44:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
Earl, while the verses you quote from Philippians are very true, they
are not on topic, and they also do not dispute what Jesus said, when
he said you have seen me, you see the Father.
Give it a break, repete. Scripture says NO man has seen God. Scripture says
"he made himself nothing". End of story. Jesus said "follow me", and no man
would even try is the thought for a second that he was trying to follow
divinity.
Well, Earl, the plain and simple fact is that Jesus said, if you have
seen me you have seen God. Are you calling Jesus a liar? All I did was
quote HIS words.
In the Old testament, Jesus had not yet been born.
Jesus was not active yet.
Joh_8:58  Jesus replied, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you,
before Abraham was born, I AM.
Yes.
Did you read my words?
Jesus was not active yet.
There is no mention of Jesus in the old testament except that a
messiah was to be born of the house of David. Jesus was not active
yet.
He was active,
Joh 1:2  The same was in the beginning with God. 
Joh 1:3  All things were made by him; and without him was not any
thing made that was made.
He was also noted as the "Lamb of God"
But you are correct in that he was not born as man yet.
Thank you.
He was known as the Carpenter's son for his first 30 years on earth.
THEN.... He started his ministry.
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Do you dispute the scripture given?
Nope.
Did you read my words?
Jesus was not active yet.
There is no mention of Jesus in the old testament except that a
messiah was to be born of the house of David. Jesus was not active
yet.
Jesus was mentioned in Isaiah.
Isa 7:14  Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: Behold,
the young woman who is unmarried and a virgin shall conceive and bear
a son, and shall call his name Immanuel [God with us]
a prophecy of something to come.
Jesus was not born yet, nor was he active.
Post by Robert
In the book of the Psalms the death of Jesus was described.
Jesus was active alright but not by that name, or his human body.
And I had a dream last night.
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Jesus is God,
Excellent.
Perhaps you are trying to get on the same page as all Christians.
Not at all, many Christians of today are not believers.
Then they are not true Christians.
Oh they consider themselves Christian,
So watt!
Read my words.
If a person is not a believer, he is not a Christian.
Is that too difficult to comprehend?
Post by Robert
they belong to the RCC and "do
all the right things accord to the RCC, but if they are not born again
they are not Christian.
according to the false gospel of repete.
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Do you consider yourself a Christian?
I call myself a born again believer.
So, Christian is not something you consider yourself.
Alrighty then.
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Do you believe that Jesus is the second Person of God, the Son of God,
the Messiah? Were you ever baptised? When?
I have already answered those questions to you numerous times, nothing
has changed.
Does it hurt to repete your answer?
I ask because I want to know.
Post by Robert
Is Jesus a separate person? If God the Father sits on one throne, and
Jesus on another, then what do you think?
I think we are discussing the Trinity, a mystery to you and me.
It seems obvious that you demand to know as much about God as He
knows. You are trying to put yourself on the same level as God.
It seems then that you are not subservient to our God Almighty.

OK then.
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
he was divinity and is. And now you have just a peak at
the truth, you are absolutely right in that no man can follow
divinity, that is why mankind by faith must be born again,
That is not the reason why.
But then, you may go ahead and make up more stuff if you like.
You argue, but have no other answer.
That is because I don't understand the question.
Do you have a question?
You asked the question, I gave the answer and you had no other answer,
just argument.
How about if you restate the question and the answer.
Unless you feel that would show you are a liar.
Post by Robert
I believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I put the faith that God
gave me, into his son. Not into a terminology of man, nor a doctrine
of man.
And your forgot to mention that he are a religion of one person.
That way you can make up your own doctrine, and you can claim you are
saved. How special....
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
It
is why mankind, once born again is empowered with the power of God via
the Holy Spirit, plus via our spirits our minds now become renewed in
the things of God. and the sum total of this gives us the reality of
being just like Him.
Do you feel you are just like Jesus now?
I know only what the Bible says. Do you feel like a human?
I am a human.
But do you "feel" like one?
Yup.
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Do you feel you are just like Jesus now?
Would you care to explain your answer?
Per the scripture I gave you I am what I am. Has nothing to do with
feelings. I accept it by faith.
And your forgot to mention that he are a religion of one person.
That way you can make up your own doctrine, and you can claim you are
saved. How special....
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Scripture says, as Jesus Christ is, so are we IN
THIS WORLD.
Perhaps you could share this reference with us.
1Jn 4:17  Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness
in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God
is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
.17 ¶ Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in
the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
+ The entire reference is pertaining to God's love for us.
I have no idea what you are reading into this.
That is for sure. You cannot understand at this point what I and many
others do, since the spirit of God does not dwell in you. (as you have
admitted. I am not knocking you on it, but you do need him.)
And your forgot to mention that he are a religion of one person.
That way you can make up your own doctrine, and you can claim you are
saved. How special....
Robert
2017-01-11 19:31:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
Earl, while the verses you quote from Philippians are very true, they
are not on topic, and they also do not dispute what Jesus said, when
he said you have seen me, you see the Father.
Give it a break, repete. Scripture says NO man has seen God. Scripture says
"he made himself nothing". End of story. Jesus said "follow me", and no man
would even try is the thought for a second that he was trying to follow
divinity.
Well, Earl, the plain and simple fact is that Jesus said, if you have
seen me you have seen God. Are you calling Jesus a liar? All I did was
quote HIS words.
In the Old testament, Jesus had not yet been born.
Jesus was not active yet.
Joh_8:58  Jesus replied, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you,
before Abraham was born, I AM.
Yes.
Did you read my words?
Jesus was not active yet.
There is no mention of Jesus in the old testament except that a
messiah was to be born of the house of David. Jesus was not active
yet.
He was active,
Joh 1:2  The same was in the beginning with God. 
Joh 1:3  All things were made by him; and without him was not any
thing made that was made.
He was also noted as the "Lamb of God"
But you are correct in that he was not born as man yet.
Thank you.
He was known as the Carpenter's son for his first 30 years on earth.
THEN.... He started his ministry.
When he received the Holy Ghost.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Do you dispute the scripture given?
Nope.
Did you read my words?
Jesus was not active yet.
There is no mention of Jesus in the old testament except that a
messiah was to be born of the house of David. Jesus was not active
yet.
Jesus was mentioned in Isaiah.
Isa 7:14  Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: Behold,
the young woman who is unmarried and a virgin shall conceive and bear
a son, and shall call his name Immanuel [God with us]
a prophecy of something to come.
Jesus was not born yet, nor was he active.
He was active as the Word.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
In the book of the Psalms the death of Jesus was described.
Jesus was active alright but not by that name, or his human body.
And I had a dream last night.
and it was about?
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Jesus is God,
Excellent.
Perhaps you are trying to get on the same page as all Christians.
Not at all, many Christians of today are not believers.
Then they are not true Christians.
Oh they consider themselves Christian,
So watt!
Read my words.
If a person is not a believer, he is not a Christian.
Is that too difficult to comprehend?
Nope, most RC's are not born again believers, but they call themselves
Christians nonetheless.

A typical RC calls themselves "Christians", same with many other
religions. Most are Sunday going to meeting "Christians".
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
they belong to the RCC and "do
all the right things accord to the RCC, but if they are not born again
they are not Christian.
according to the false gospel of repete.
And according to the bible also. "repete" must be an awful
knowledgeable character. I see references made to him all the time.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Do you consider yourself a Christian?
I call myself a born again believer.
So, Christian is not something you consider yourself.
Alrighty then.
Try not to forget it.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Do you believe that Jesus is the second Person of God, the Son of God,
the Messiah? Were you ever baptised? When?
I have already answered those questions to you numerous times, nothing
has changed.
Does it hurt to repete your answer?
I ask because I want to know.
The last five times you asked, I answered, and then said no more.
You purposely lie about it right after I answer, it is like spreading
pearls before swine. Why would I answer such a person?
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Is Jesus a separate person? If God the Father sits on one throne, and
Jesus on another, then what do you think?
I think we are discussing the Trinity, a mystery to you and me.
It seems obvious that you demand to know as much about God as He
knows. You are trying to put yourself on the same level as God.
It seems then that you are not subservient to our God Almighty.
OK then.
Pompous ass. You have no answer, it flew up and hit you square in the
nose, and this is the best you can do? I know what a trinity is and
there is an idol to it as well.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
he was divinity and is. And now you have just a peak at
the truth, you are absolutely right in that no man can follow
divinity, that is why mankind by faith must be born again,
That is not the reason why.
But then, you may go ahead and make up more stuff if you like.
You argue, but have no other answer.
That is because I don't understand the question.
Do you have a question?
You asked the question, I gave the answer and you had no other answer,
just argument.
How about if you restate the question and the answer.
Unless you feel that would show you are a liar.
You asked the question, so look it up. I can restate my answer you can
restate your question.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
I believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I put the faith that God
gave me, into his son. Not into a terminology of man, nor a doctrine
of man.
And your forgot to mention that he are a religion of one person.
Because I am not, and I do not follow a religion. I follow the word of
God.
Post by Patrick
That way you can make up your own doctrine, and you can claim you are
saved. How special....
Mock all you want, it will not spare your soul.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
It
is why mankind, once born again is empowered with the power of God via
the Holy Spirit, plus via our spirits our minds now become renewed in
the things of God. and the sum total of this gives us the reality of
being just like Him.
Do you feel you are just like Jesus now?
I know only what the Bible says. Do you feel like a human?
I am a human.
But do you "feel" like one?
Yup.
And what is that like?
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Do you feel you are just like Jesus now?
Would you care to explain your answer?
Per the scripture I gave you I am what I am. Has nothing to do with
feelings. I accept it by faith.
And your forgot to mention that he are a religion of one person.
That way you can make up your own doctrine, and you can claim you are
saved. How special....
You have morphed into a parrot, once again.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Scripture says, as Jesus Christ is, so are we IN
THIS WORLD.
Perhaps you could share this reference with us.
1Jn 4:17  Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness
in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God
is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
.17 ¶ Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in
the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
+ The entire reference is pertaining to God's love for us.
I have no idea what you are reading into this.
That is for sure. You cannot understand at this point what I and many
others do, since the spirit of God does not dwell in you. (as you have
admitted. I am not knocking you on it, but you do need him.)
And your forgot to mention that he are a religion of one person.
That way you can make up your own doctrine, and you can claim you are
saved. How special....
Now you are drooling, reduced to idiot speak, nothing left but
nonsense.
Patrick
2017-01-11 22:05:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
Earl, while the verses you quote from Philippians are very true, they
are not on topic, and they also do not dispute what Jesus said, when
he said you have seen me, you see the Father.
Give it a break, repete. Scripture says NO man has seen God. Scripture says
"he made himself nothing". End of story. Jesus said "follow me", and no man
would even try is the thought for a second that he was trying to follow
divinity.
Well, Earl, the plain and simple fact is that Jesus said, if you have
seen me you have seen God. Are you calling Jesus a liar? All I did was
quote HIS words.
In the Old testament, Jesus had not yet been born.
Jesus was not active yet.
Joh_8:58  Jesus replied, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you,
before Abraham was born, I AM.
Yes.
Did you read my words?
Jesus was not active yet.
There is no mention of Jesus in the old testament except that a
messiah was to be born of the house of David. Jesus was not active
yet.
He was active,
Joh 1:2  The same was in the beginning with God. 
Joh 1:3  All things were made by him; and without him was not any
thing made that was made.
He was also noted as the "Lamb of God"
But you are correct in that he was not born as man yet.
Thank you.
He was known as the Carpenter's son for his first 30 years on earth.
THEN.... He started his ministry.
When he received the Holy Ghost.
Prove it.
Was the Holy Ghost a guest at the wedding in Cana?
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Do you dispute the scripture given?
Nope.
Did you read my words?
Jesus was not active yet.
There is no mention of Jesus in the old testament except that a
messiah was to be born of the house of David. Jesus was not active
yet.
Jesus was mentioned in Isaiah.
Isa 7:14  Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: Behold,
the young woman who is unmarried and a virgin shall conceive and bear
a son, and shall call his name Immanuel [God with us]
a prophecy of something to come.
Jesus was not born yet, nor was he active.
He was active as the Word.
Prove it.
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
In the book of the Psalms the death of Jesus was described.
Jesus was active alright but not by that name, or his human body.
And I had a dream last night.
and it was about?
About a psalm that is not part of the discussion.
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
So watt!
Read my words.
If a person is not a believer, he is not a Christian.
Is that too difficult to comprehend?
Nope, most RC's are not born again believers, but they call themselves
Christians nonetheless.
Of course we are born again through Baptism and Confirmation.
We just don't think that claiming "born again" describes us as
Christians. After all, you claim to be born again, you once said you
were not baptised, and you still claim to be a Christian.
Post by Robert
A typical RC calls themselves "Christians", same with many other
religions. Most are Sunday going to meeting "Christians".
So?
And there are a lot of monday morning quarterbacks also.
Stop changing the subject.
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Do you consider yourself a Christian?
I call myself a born again believer.
So, Christian is not something you consider yourself.
Alrighty then.
Try not to forget it.
Why are you here on this newsgroup?
Besides to insult and bash Christians.......
Robert
2017-01-12 01:40:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
Earl, while the verses you quote from Philippians are very true, they
are not on topic, and they also do not dispute what Jesus said, when
he said you have seen me, you see the Father.
Give it a break, repete. Scripture says NO man has seen God. Scripture says
"he made himself nothing". End of story. Jesus said "follow me", and no man
would even try is the thought for a second that he was trying to follow
divinity.
Well, Earl, the plain and simple fact is that Jesus said, if you have
seen me you have seen God. Are you calling Jesus a liar? All I did was
quote HIS words.
In the Old testament, Jesus had not yet been born.
Jesus was not active yet.
Joh_8:58  Jesus replied, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you,
before Abraham was born, I AM.
Yes.
Did you read my words?
Jesus was not active yet.
There is no mention of Jesus in the old testament except that a
messiah was to be born of the house of David. Jesus was not active
yet.
He was active,
Joh 1:2  The same was in the beginning with God. 
Joh 1:3  All things were made by him; and without him was not any
thing made that was made.
He was also noted as the "Lamb of God"
But you are correct in that he was not born as man yet.
Thank you.
He was known as the Carpenter's son for his first 30 years on earth.
THEN.... He started his ministry.
When he received the Holy Ghost.
Prove it.
Was the Holy Ghost a guest at the wedding in Cana?
This was after Christ received his anointing, after being baptized by
JtB.

Joh 2:11  This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and
manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him. 
The Holy Ghost was in Jesus.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Do you dispute the scripture given?
Nope.
Did you read my words?
Jesus was not active yet.
There is no mention of Jesus in the old testament except that a
messiah was to be born of the house of David. Jesus was not active
yet.
Jesus was mentioned in Isaiah.
Isa 7:14  Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: Behold,
the young woman who is unmarried and a virgin shall conceive and bear
a son, and shall call his name Immanuel [God with us]
a prophecy of something to come.
Jesus was not born yet, nor was he active.
He was active as the Word.
Prove it.
Joh 1:1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God. 
Joh 1:2  The same was in the beginning with God. 
Joh 1:3  All things were made by him; and without him was not any
thing made that was made. 
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
In the book of the Psalms the death of Jesus was described.
Jesus was active alright but not by that name, or his human body.
And I had a dream last night.
and it was about?
About a psalm that is not part of the discussion.
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
So watt!
Read my words.
If a person is not a believer, he is not a Christian.
Is that too difficult to comprehend?
Nope, most RC's are not born again believers, but they call themselves
Christians nonetheless.
Of course we are born again through Baptism and Confirmation.
We just don't think that claiming "born again" describes us as
Christians. After all, you claim to be born again, you once said you
were not baptised, and you still claim to be a Christian.
Problem is, Born Again means Born of God. I only said I was not
baptized by the RCC. Still, baptism has nothing to do with it.

Jesus said, you MUST be born again, Peter said,

1Pe 1:23  Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of
incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

and as you can plainly see, he said how that was to happen, and not by
water.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
A typical RC calls themselves "Christians", same with many other
religions. Most are Sunday going to meeting "Christians".
So?
And there are a lot of monday morning quarterbacks also.
Stop changing the subject.
It wasn't changed.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Do you consider yourself a Christian?
I call myself a born again believer.
So, Christian is not something you consider yourself.
Alrighty then.
Try not to forget it.
Why are you here on this newsgroup?
Besides to insult and bash Christians.......
I'm not on your group, you are on mine. If you don't like it, change
the headers.

I am not bashing anything other than false doctrine, if you are false
doctrine, then yes I am bashing you as well.

But you don't even know your religion very well and have to go to wiki
to support it, you certainly do not know the bible or much about it.
asherah
2017-01-12 17:35:58 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 17:40:58 -0800, Robert snip


Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
asherah
2017-01-12 17:52:57 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 11:31:02 -0800, Robert snip

Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
asherah
2017-01-12 23:32:32 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 11:31:02 -0800, Robert wanted to share his better trait
with others, & so, left the following. & only 292 lines.
Snip
Post by Robert
Now you are drooling, reduced to idiot speak, nothing left but
nonsense.
Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
duke
2017-01-11 16:49:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
Earl, while the verses you quote from Philippians are very true, they
are not on topic, and they also do not dispute what Jesus said, when
he said you have seen me, you see the Father.
Give it a break, repete. Scripture says NO man has seen God. Scripture says
"he made himself nothing". End of story. Jesus said "follow me", and no man
would even try is the thought for a second that he was trying to follow
divinity.
Well, Earl, the plain and simple fact is that Jesus said, if you have
seen me you have seen God. Are you calling Jesus a liar? All I did was
quote HIS words.
In the Old testament, Jesus had not yet been born.
Jesus was not active yet.
Joh_8:58  Jesus replied, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you,
before Abraham was born, I AM.
Yes.
Did you read my words?
Jesus was not active yet.
There is no mention of Jesus in the old testament except that a
messiah was to be born of the house of David. Jesus was not active
yet.
He was active,
Joh 1:2  The same was in the beginning with God. 
Joh 1:3  All things were made by him; and without him was not any
thing made that was made.
He was also noted as the "Lamb of God"
Why? Can you answer?
Post by Robert
But you are correct in that he was not born as man yet.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Do you dispute the scripture given?
Nope.
Did you read my words?
Jesus was not active yet.
There is no mention of Jesus in the old testament except that a
messiah was to be born of the house of David. Jesus was not active
yet.
Jesus was mentioned in Isaiah.
Isa 7:14  Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: Behold,
the young woman who is unmarried and a virgin shall conceive and bear
a son, and shall call his name Immanuel [God with us]
An OT prophecy.
Post by Robert
In the book of the Psalms the death of Jesus was described.
Jesus was active alright but not by that name, or his human body.
An OT prophecy.
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Jesus is God,
Excellent.
Perhaps you are trying to get on the same page as all Christians.
Not at all, many Christians of today are not believers.
Then they are not true Christians.
Oh they consider themselves Christian,
Doesn't matter what "THEY" think.
Post by Robert
they belong to the RCC and "do
all the right things accord to the RCC, but if they are not born again
they are not Christian.
Sorry, according to the teachings of Jesus, one becomes a Christian, a member of
the Body of Christ, in baptism.

When are you going to learn that. Note: before baptism, people see only God.
In baptism, we learn that God is one in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Do you consider yourself a Christian?
I call myself a born again believer.
Then you are not a Christian. Right?
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Do you believe that Jesus is the second Person of God, the Son of God,
the Messiah? Were you ever baptised? When?
I have already answered those questions to you numerous times, nothing
has changed.
Yes, you have. You deny the triune nature of God. You are thus no Christian.
Post by Robert
There is no second person of God, if as you believe in the trinity
they are all equal and the same.
Yes there are - Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
Post by Robert
Is Jesus a separate person? If God the Father sits on one throne, and
Jesus on another, then what do you think?
It's a metaphor, but yes, separate seats as the Father is not the Son is not the
Holy Spirit is not the Father.


You massive mistake is still revealed in your choice of word "God the Father"
line there is no God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

And in rejecting this, you announce you are no Christian.


the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Robert
2017-01-11 20:15:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
Earl, while the verses you quote from Philippians are very true, they
are not on topic, and they also do not dispute what Jesus said, when
he said you have seen me, you see the Father.
Give it a break, repete. Scripture says NO man has seen God. Scripture says
"he made himself nothing". End of story. Jesus said "follow me", and no man
would even try is the thought for a second that he was trying to follow
divinity.
Well, Earl, the plain and simple fact is that Jesus said, if you have
seen me you have seen God. Are you calling Jesus a liar? All I did was
quote HIS words.
In the Old testament, Jesus had not yet been born.
Jesus was not active yet.
Joh_8:58  Jesus replied, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you,
before Abraham was born, I AM.
Yes.
Did you read my words?
Jesus was not active yet.
There is no mention of Jesus in the old testament except that a
messiah was to be born of the house of David. Jesus was not active
yet.
He was active,
Joh 1:2  The same was in the beginning with God. 
Joh 1:3  All things were made by him; and without him was not any
thing made that was made.
He was also noted as the "Lamb of God"
Why? Can you answer?
to be slain for the sins of the world. Was His purpose, and what the
sacrifices in Israel were a fore type of.
Post by duke
Post by Robert
But you are correct in that he was not born as man yet.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Do you dispute the scripture given?
Nope.
Did you read my words?
Jesus was not active yet.
There is no mention of Jesus in the old testament except that a
messiah was to be born of the house of David. Jesus was not active
yet.
Jesus was mentioned in Isaiah.
Isa 7:14  Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: Behold,
the young woman who is unmarried and a virgin shall conceive and bear
a son, and shall call his name Immanuel [God with us]
An OT prophecy.
So? He was mentioned and not as Messiah, here. That was his name in
both the old and new testaments, something you and patsy both missed.
Post by duke
Post by Robert
In the book of the Psalms the death of Jesus was described.
Jesus was active alright but not by that name, or his human body.
An OT prophecy.
Changes nothing of what I said.
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Jesus is God,
Excellent.
Perhaps you are trying to get on the same page as all Christians.
Not at all, many Christians of today are not believers.
Then they are not true Christians.
Oh they consider themselves Christian,
Doesn't matter what "THEY" think.
Post by Robert
they belong to the RCC and "do
all the right things accord to the RCC, but if they are not born again
they are not Christian.
Sorry, according to the teachings of Jesus, one becomes a Christian, a member of
the Body of Christ, in baptism.
Nope, that is a false teaching.
Post by duke
When are you going to learn that. Note: before baptism, people see only God.
In baptism, we learn that God is one in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
When are you going to learn and understand, You MUST be born again.
and it is by faith that one believes, not by water.
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Do you consider yourself a Christian?
I call myself a born again believer.
Then you are not a Christian. Right?
Not in the RC sense, or the orthodoxy sense.
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Do you believe that Jesus is the second Person of God, the Son of God,
the Messiah? Were you ever baptised? When?
I have already answered those questions to you numerous times, nothing
has changed.
Yes, you have. You deny the triune nature of God. You are thus no Christian.
You will find nothing in the bible to support that statement.
Post by duke
Post by Robert
There is no second person of God, if as you believe in the trinity
they are all equal and the same.
Yes there are - Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
There are the father, son and holy spirit, that is a given, but a
trinity is not. That there is a Godhead is a given but a trinity it
does not make.

You have nothing for an answer. No scripture, no bible doctrine,
nothing that supports your statement other than some man made dogma
that you cannot understand nor they, so you call it a mystery, but one
without reason.
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Is Jesus a separate person? If God the Father sits on one throne, and
Jesus on another, then what do you think?
It's a metaphor, but yes, separate seats as the Father is not the Son is not the
Holy Spirit is not the Father.
Metaphors do not require a throne, let alone two thrones. Metaphors
are not schizoid. They do not talk to themselves, do not consider
themselves greater than the other.
Post by duke
You massive mistake is still revealed in your choice of word "God the Father"
line there is no God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.
And in rejecting this, you announce you are no Christian.
And you duke and idiot. Why?
Gal_1:3  Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our
Lord Jesus Christ,
Eph_6:23  Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the
Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

2Ti_1:2  To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace,
from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
Tit_1:4  To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy,
and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.

God the Father mentioned here and in other places, but not God the Son
or God the Holy Spirit.

So I am in conformity of the word of God and you are not. According to
you that makes you a pagan.
Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
aka Earl James Weber
duke
2017-01-12 17:43:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
Earl, while the verses you quote from Philippians are very true, they
are not on topic, and they also do not dispute what Jesus said, when
he said you have seen me, you see the Father.
Give it a break, repete. Scripture says NO man has seen God. Scripture says
"he made himself nothing". End of story. Jesus said "follow me", and no man
would even try is the thought for a second that he was trying to follow
divinity.
Well, Earl, the plain and simple fact is that Jesus said, if you have
seen me you have seen God. Are you calling Jesus a liar? All I did was
quote HIS words.
In the Old testament, Jesus had not yet been born.
Jesus was not active yet.
Joh_8:58  Jesus replied, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you,
before Abraham was born, I AM.
Yes.
Did you read my words?
Jesus was not active yet.
There is no mention of Jesus in the old testament except that a
messiah was to be born of the house of David. Jesus was not active
yet.
He was active,
Joh 1:2  The same was in the beginning with God. 
Joh 1:3  All things were made by him; and without him was not any
thing made that was made.
He was also noted as the "Lamb of God"
Why? Can you answer?
to be slain for the sins of the world. Was His purpose, and what the
sacrifices in Israel were a fore type of.
Well, you're generally hinting at it but you still don't know.
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
But you are correct in that he was not born as man yet.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Do you dispute the scripture given?
Nope.
Did you read my words?
Jesus was not active yet.
There is no mention of Jesus in the old testament except that a
messiah was to be born of the house of David. Jesus was not active
yet.
Jesus was mentioned in Isaiah.
Isa 7:14  Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: Behold,
the young woman who is unmarried and a virgin shall conceive and bear
a son, and shall call his name Immanuel [God with us]
An OT prophecy.
So? He was mentioned and not as Messiah, here. That was his name in
both the old and new testaments, something you and patsy both missed.
OT scripture says a Messiah is coming. Jesus certified the Messiah's arrival in
himself.

Isa 7:14 clearly prophesied God's coming, and the NT certified his arrival in
Jesus.


the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Robert
2017-01-12 21:17:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
Earl, while the verses you quote from Philippians are very true, they
are not on topic, and they also do not dispute what Jesus said, when
he said you have seen me, you see the Father.
Give it a break, repete. Scripture says NO man has seen God. Scripture says
"he made himself nothing". End of story. Jesus said "follow me", and no man
would even try is the thought for a second that he was trying to follow
divinity.
Well, Earl, the plain and simple fact is that Jesus said, if you have
seen me you have seen God. Are you calling Jesus a liar? All I did was
quote HIS words.
In the Old testament, Jesus had not yet been born.
Jesus was not active yet.
Joh_8:58  Jesus replied, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you,
before Abraham was born, I AM.
Yes.
Did you read my words?
Jesus was not active yet.
There is no mention of Jesus in the old testament except that a
messiah was to be born of the house of David. Jesus was not active
yet.
He was active,
Joh 1:2  The same was in the beginning with God. 
Joh 1:3  All things were made by him; and without him was not any
thing made that was made.
He was also noted as the "Lamb of God"
Why? Can you answer?
to be slain for the sins of the world. Was His purpose, and what the
sacrifices in Israel were a fore type of.
Well, you're generally hinting at it but you still don't know.
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
But you are correct in that he was not born as man yet.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Do you dispute the scripture given?
Nope.
Did you read my words?
Jesus was not active yet.
There is no mention of Jesus in the old testament except that a
messiah was to be born of the house of David. Jesus was not active
yet.
Jesus was mentioned in Isaiah.
Isa 7:14  Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: Behold,
the young woman who is unmarried and a virgin shall conceive and bear
a son, and shall call his name Immanuel [God with us]
An OT prophecy.
So? He was mentioned and not as Messiah, here. That was his name in
both the old and new testaments, something you and patsy both missed.
OT scripture says a Messiah is coming. Jesus certified the Messiah's arrival in
himself.
No, God the Father and the angels did.
Post by duke
Isa 7:14 clearly prophesied God's coming, and the NT certified his arrival in
Jesus.
The NT bore record of it. God the Father certified him.
Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
asherah
2017-01-12 17:52:25 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 12:15:28 -0800, Robert snip

Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
asherah
2017-01-11 12:17:36 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 12:25:11 -0800, Robert snip, more of his interpolation.

Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
astarte
2017-01-10 20:05:12 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 09:15:15 -0800, Robert is running another name change
to say noting of interest, snip

Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
d***@gmail.com
2017-01-10 23:41:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Many have read this, yet not seen it.
Joh 1:18  No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. 
Here is how the Greek to English is clarified;
Joh 1:18  No man has ever seen God at any time; the only unique Son,
or the only begotten God, Who is in the bosom [in the intimate
presence] of the Father, He has declared Him [He has revealed Him and
brought Him out where He can be seen; He has interpreted Him and He
has made Him known]. (AMP)
Jesus, "He" has declared Him, made him known. This was a major part of
the work of Christ on earth, he who was sacrificed for the sins of the
whole earth.
Of course I expect many arguments on this and this was near the
beginning of Christ's ministry on the earth. During the course of
Christ's first ministry on earth he said this,...
Joh 14:6  Jesus said to him, I am the Way and the Truth and the Life;
no one comes to the Father except by (through) Me. 
Joh 14:7  If you had known Me [had learned to recognize Me], you would
also have known My Father. From now on, you know Him and have seen
Him. 
Joh 14:8  Philip said to Him, Lord, show us the Father [cause us to
see the Father--that is all we ask]; then we shall be satisfied. 
Joh 14:9  Jesus replied, Have I been with all of you for so long a
time, and do you not recognize and know Me yet, Philip? Anyone who has
seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say then, Show us the
Father? 
Now there is much more to this in Chapter 14 for those that care to
see, yet here Jesus clearly states, Anyone who has seen me has seen
the Father.
Jesus was authorized to speak this, He was God's representative on
earth and spoke only on the authorization of His Father. He
represented God well, and He also showed the anger of God regarding
the money changers in the temple, tossing over their tables and
running them out of the temple.
Still need convincing, like a JW will? Very near the end of his
ministry on earth with the messages of Good News, Christ said this,...
Joh 20:26  Eight days later His disciples were again in the house, and
Thomas was with them. Jesus came, though they were behind closed
doors, and stood among them and said, Peace to you! 
Joh 20:27  Then He said to Thomas, Reach out your finger here, and see
My hands; and put out your hand and place [it] in My side. Do not be
faithless and incredulous, but [stop your unbelief and] believe! 
Joh 20:28  Thomas answered Him, My Lord and my God! 
Joh 20:29  Jesus said to him, Because you have seen Me, Thomas, do you
now believe (trust, have faith)? Blessed and happy and to be envied
are those who have never seen Me and yet have believed and adhered to
and trusted and relied on Me.
Yes, ALL the disciples, not just the twelve know fully knew who they
had been living with and following. The rest of the world around
Jerusalem saw God the Father, via Jesus, whether they fully understood
or not.
So we can see now that mankind has seen God since it was an objective
of Jesus to make Him known to all that would listen. God showed
through Jesus Christ many signs, wonders, miracles and healing's.
Raising people from the dead and freeing all who were oppressed of the
enemy.
Jesus here in this last passage also left a message directly to you
and me, when He said, "Blessed and happy and to be envied are those
who have never seen Me and yet have believed and adhered to and
trusted and relied on Me."
Notice, he did not say washed with water, but have believed, etc.
JW's and others are following idols, false images, as part of their
doctrines, their Jesus is not the Jesus that is spoken of in the words
of John. A fact hardly disputed by James when he says he follows a
"Jesus" that the Christians do not. And He is right, he follows a
false image, one he calls Jesus, but knows not. Same with some others
here.
They saw flesh only. The never saw divinity, nor knew of his divinity until
after he ascended to the Father..
Philippians 2:6-8New International Version (NIV)

Who, being in very nature[a] God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own
advantage;

rather, he made himself nothing
    by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
    being made in human likeness.

And being found in appearance as a man,
    he humbled himself
    by becoming obedient to death—
        even death on a cross!
the dukester, American-American
Earl, while the verses you quote from Philippians are very true, they
are not on topic, and they also do not dispute what Jesus said, when
he said you have seen me, you see the Father.
Give it a break, repete. Scripture says NO man has seen God. Scripture says
"he made himself nothing". End of story. Jesus said "follow me", and no man
would even try is the thought for a second that he was trying to follow
divinity.
Well, Earl, the plain and simple fact is that Jesus said, if you have
seen me you have seen God. Are you calling Jesus a liar? All I did was
quote HIS words.
I think that Duke was referring to God in His true form, not His earthly form.

But yet a problem with this still exists BECAUSE of the transformation of Christ on the mountain with two disciples present.
Post by Robert
Jesus is God, he was divinity and is. And now you have just a peak at
the truth, you are absolutely right in that no man can follow
divinity, that is why mankind by faith must be born again, become a
new creature in Christ Jesus, it is also why the Holy Spirit takes up
residence within our spirit, and seals the spirit unto salvation. It
is why mankind, once born again is empowered with the power of God via
the Holy Spirit, plus via our spirits our minds now become renewed in
the things of God. and the sum total of this gives us the reality of
being just like Him. Scripture says, as Jesus Christ is, so are we IN
THIS WORLD.
Yes, you cannot do it by yourself, and that is what God has been
trying to teach and show you. Not by works lest any man boast.
Post by duke
Post by Robert
In fact, to use one of your arguments regarding God being one, Jesus
was born as God/man. His name meaning God with us.
You dispute with God and his word with your words and actions. Any
particular reason for it?
Yes, Jesus is fully man and fully God. But no man saw anything but man.
Then why did Thomas say with amazement, My Lord and my God?
Why did Jesus make a clear distinction between those that saw him
then, and believed, meaning throughout his ministry, and us in this
day who believe by faith? They saw, and we didn't with our physical
eyes.
Plus, according to your doctrine of Trinity, if you saw one, you saw
them all.
Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
2017-01-11 12:47:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Many have read this, yet not seen it.
Joh 1:18  No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. 
Here is how the Greek to English is clarified;
Joh 1:18  No man has ever seen God at any time; the only unique Son,
or the only begotten God, Who is in the bosom [in the intimate
presence] of the Father, He has declared Him [He has revealed Him and
brought Him out where He can be seen; He has interpreted Him and He
has made Him known]. (AMP)
Jesus, "He" has declared Him, made him known. This was a major part of
the work of Christ on earth, he who was sacrificed for the sins of the
whole earth.
Of course I expect many arguments on this and this was near the
beginning of Christ's ministry on the earth. During the course of
Christ's first ministry on earth he said this,...
Joh 14:6  Jesus said to him, I am the Way and the Truth and the Life;
no one comes to the Father except by (through) Me. 
Joh 14:7  If you had known Me [had learned to recognize Me], you would
also have known My Father. From now on, you know Him and have seen
Him. 
Joh 14:8  Philip said to Him, Lord, show us the Father [cause us to
see the Father--that is all we ask]; then we shall be satisfied. 
Joh 14:9  Jesus replied, Have I been with all of you for so long a
time, and do you not recognize and know Me yet, Philip? Anyone who has
seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say then, Show us the
Father? 
Now there is much more to this in Chapter 14 for those that care to
see, yet here Jesus clearly states, Anyone who has seen me has seen
the Father.
Jesus was authorized to speak this, He was God's representative on
earth and spoke only on the authorization of His Father. He
represented God well, and He also showed the anger of God regarding
the money changers in the temple, tossing over their tables and
running them out of the temple.
Still need convincing, like a JW will? Very near the end of his
ministry on earth with the messages of Good News, Christ said this,...
Joh 20:26  Eight days later His disciples were again in the house, and
Thomas was with them. Jesus came, though they were behind closed
doors, and stood among them and said, Peace to you! 
Joh 20:27  Then He said to Thomas, Reach out your finger here, and see
My hands; and put out your hand and place [it] in My side. Do not be
faithless and incredulous, but [stop your unbelief and] believe! 
Joh 20:28  Thomas answered Him, My Lord and my God! 
Joh 20:29  Jesus said to him, Because you have seen Me, Thomas, do you
now believe (trust, have faith)? Blessed and happy and to be envied
are those who have never seen Me and yet have believed and adhered to
and trusted and relied on Me.
Yes, ALL the disciples, not just the twelve know fully knew who they
had been living with and following. The rest of the world around
Jerusalem saw God the Father, via Jesus, whether they fully understood
or not.
So we can see now that mankind has seen God since it was an objective
of Jesus to make Him known to all that would listen. God showed
through Jesus Christ many signs, wonders, miracles and healing's.
Raising people from the dead and freeing all who were oppressed of the
enemy.
Jesus here in this last passage also left a message directly to you
and me, when He said, "Blessed and happy and to be envied are those
who have never seen Me and yet have believed and adhered to and
trusted and relied on Me."
Notice, he did not say washed with water, but have believed, etc.
JW's and others are following idols, false images, as part of their
doctrines, their Jesus is not the Jesus that is spoken of in the words
of John. A fact hardly disputed by James when he says he follows a
"Jesus" that the Christians do not. And He is right, he follows a
false image, one he calls Jesus, but knows not. Same with some others
here.
They saw flesh only. The never saw divinity, nor knew of his divinity until
after he ascended to the Father..
Philippians 2:6-8New International Version (NIV)

Who, being in very nature[a] God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own
advantage;

rather, he made himself nothing
    by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
    being made in human likeness.

And being found in appearance as a man,
    he humbled himself
    by becoming obedient to death—
        even death on a cross!
the dukester, American-American
Earl, while the verses you quote from Philippians are very true, they
are not on topic, and they also do not dispute what Jesus said, when
he said you have seen me, you see the Father.
Give it a break, repete. Scripture says NO man has seen God. Scripture says
"he made himself nothing". End of story. Jesus said "follow me", and no man
would even try is the thought for a second that he was trying to follow
divinity.
Well, Earl, the plain and simple fact is that Jesus said, if you have
seen me you have seen God. Are you calling Jesus a liar? All I did was
quote HIS words.
I think that Duke was referring to God in His true form, not His earthly form.
But yet a problem with this still exists BECAUSE of the transformation of Christ on the mountain with two disciples present.
The Transfiguration
It is in this context of confusion among the disciples that we read the
transfiguration story. Six days went by after Peter's confrontation with Jesus,
apparently uneventful but no doubt filled with confusion on the part of the
disciples. Then Jesus took Peter, James, and John up "to a high mountain" where
they witnessed a most wonderful sight. Jesus was glorified before their eyes.
His body took on a different appearance (Matt. 17:2). Then there appeared Moses
and Elijah. When we think about it, these two characters fit perfectly in this
scene. Moses was the great lawgiver in Israelite history, but he was also the
first of God's great prophets (cf. Deut 18:14ff). Elijah was a great prophet
too. Furthermore, both of them saw an appearance of God in their lifetimes
(Moses: Exod 33:17ff; Elijah: 1 Kings 19:9ff), and both of these occurred on a
mountain (Mt. Sinai). Both of them, like Jesus, had performed mighty works in
the name of the Lord God of Israel, and both had experienced, to some degree,
the rejection of their own people. These two characters have symbolic
significance as well. Together they represent the Law and the Prophets, both of
which pointed to Jesus (cf. Rom. 3:21).

Then there was the heavenly voice speaking the same words that were heard at
Jesus' baptism (Matt. 3:17). It is important to note that the heavenly voice
sounded while Peter was suggesting the building of three tents (no doubt as
"shrines") for Jesus and the other two figures. It seems that Peter thought the
kingdom could be established right there and then. Just a few days earlier he
had heard Jesus say that some of them would live to see it (Matt.16:28), and no
doubt he assumed this was it. But whereas Peter wanted to give Jesus, Moses, and
Elijah equal treatment, the divine voice corrects him. The voice from heaven
singled out Jesus as the new and sole source of authority. Again, Peter stood
corrected. Then, just about as quickly as it had happened, it was over (Matt.
17:7f).


the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
2017-01-11 12:41:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Jesus here in this last passage also left a message directly to you
and me, when He said, "Blessed and happy and to be envied are those
who have never seen Me and yet have believed and adhered to and
trusted and relied on Me."
Notice, he did not say washed with water, but have believed, etc.
Remember, there was no Christian water baptism until after the cross. That's
how we join with Jess in his death. You're quoting an event within hours of his
resurrection.
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
They saw flesh only. The never saw divinity, nor knew of his divinity until
after he ascended to the Father..
Philippians 2:6-8New International Version (NIV)

Who, being in very nature[a] God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own
advantage;

rather, he made himself nothing
    by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
    being made in human likeness.

And being found in appearance as a man,
    he humbled himself
    by becoming obedient to death—
        even death on a cross!
the dukester, American-American
Earl, while the verses you quote from Philippians are very true, they
are not on topic, and they also do not dispute what Jesus said, when
he said you have seen me, you see the Father.
Give it a break, repete. Scripture says NO man has seen God. Scripture says
"he made himself nothing". End of story. Jesus said "follow me", and no man
would even try is the thought for a second that he was trying to follow
divinity.
Well, Earl, the plain and simple fact is that Jesus said, if you have
seen me you have seen God. Are you calling Jesus a liar? All I did was
quote HIS words.
No, you are thinking physical ONLY. I'm speaking spiritual where Jesus is truly
God but never seen (physical) by man as God.
Post by Robert
Jesus is God, he was divinity and is. And now you have just a peak at
the truth, you are absolutely right in that no man can follow
divinity, that is why mankind by faith must be born again,
You openly reject most of the teachings of Jesus. You are not born again
because you have never been baptized. You reject the huge majority of the
teachings of Jeuss leaving you in high doubt of being born agian.
Post by Robert
become a
new creature in Christ Jesus, it is also why the Holy Spirit takes up
residence within our spirit, and seals the spirit unto salvation.
In baptism.
Post by Robert
is why mankind, once born again is empowered with the power of God via
the Holy Spirit, plus via our spirits our minds now become renewed in
the things of God. and the sum total of this gives us the reality of
being just like Him. Scripture says, as Jesus Christ is, so are we IN
THIS WORLD.
Yes, you cannot do it by yourself, and that is what God has been
trying to teach and show you. Not by works lest any man boast.
And Jesus taught us that the OT works of the law are no more. But we MUST live
with deeds of love or our faith is dead.
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
In fact, to use one of your arguments regarding God being one, Jesus
was born as God/man. His name meaning God with us.
You dispute with God and his word with your words and actions. Any
particular reason for it?
Yes, Jesus is fully man and fully God. But no man saw anything but man.
Then why did Thomas say with amazement, My Lord and my God?
He had just risen form the dead and he needed to be assured by placing his hands
on the wounds of Jesus. In life, there are many lords but only one God. Don't
read your own agenda into scripture.
Post by Robert
Why did Jesus make a clear distinction between those that saw him
then, and believed, meaning throughout his ministry, and us in this
day who believe by faith? They saw, and we didn't with our physical
eyes.
Believed what. He had just died a miserable death on the cross?
Post by Robert
Plus, according to your doctrine of Trinity, if you saw one, you saw
them all.
The ONLY thing any man has ever seen is God become flesh. Never the Father, the
divine Son or the Holy Spirit. Don't you get it yet that Jesus was born of
flesh in his human mother and the "overshadowing of the Holy Spirit" in his
divinity?

God is one in three equal but separate persons.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Robert
2017-01-11 21:12:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Jesus here in this last passage also left a message directly to you
and me, when He said, "Blessed and happy and to be envied are those
who have never seen Me and yet have believed and adhered to and
trusted and relied on Me."
Notice, he did not say washed with water, but have believed, etc.
Remember, there was no Christian water baptism until after the cross. That's
how we join with Jess in his death. You're quoting an event within hours of his
resurrection.
This was after the cross, and more than hours after the resurrection
which would make no difference.

Seems you are changing your tune since you always revert to the
baptism of John, way before the cross. At least that is an
improvement.
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
They saw flesh only. The never saw divinity, nor knew of his divinity until
after he ascended to the Father..
Philippians 2:6-8New International Version (NIV)

Who, being in very nature[a] God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own
advantage;

rather, he made himself nothing
    by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
    being made in human likeness.

And being found in appearance as a man,
    he humbled himself
    by becoming obedient to death—
        even death on a cross!
the dukester, American-American
Earl, while the verses you quote from Philippians are very true, they
are not on topic, and they also do not dispute what Jesus said, when
he said you have seen me, you see the Father.
Give it a break, repete. Scripture says NO man has seen God. Scripture says
"he made himself nothing". End of story. Jesus said "follow me", and no man
would even try is the thought for a second that he was trying to follow
divinity.
Well, Earl, the plain and simple fact is that Jesus said, if you have
seen me you have seen God. Are you calling Jesus a liar? All I did was
quote HIS words.
No, you are thinking physical ONLY. I'm speaking spiritual where Jesus is truly
God but never seen (physical) by man as God.
I'm sorry, but no, I am not. I do not think like you, as a believer I
also see things spiritually. Jesus also clearly spoke as to who he was
and is, and why one should see the father when they saw him, reread
the verses if you have to. He asked have I been with you this long and
you still do not see? Or words to that affect. Yet here you are making
excuses for what you do not see or understand. Jesus made the specific
and clear statement, he who has seen me has seen the Father.
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Jesus is God, he was divinity and is. And now you have just a peak at
the truth, you are absolutely right in that no man can follow
divinity, that is why mankind by faith must be born again,
You openly reject most of the teachings of Jesus. You are not born again
because you have never been baptized. You reject the huge majority of the
teachings of Jeuss leaving you in high doubt of being born agian.
And you are a bald faced liar.
Post by duke
Post by Robert
become a
new creature in Christ Jesus, it is also why the Holy Spirit takes up
residence within our spirit, and seals the spirit unto salvation.
In baptism.
It does not say that at all. You keep repeating lies, and that does
not eventually make it truth.
Post by duke
Post by Robert
is why mankind, once born again is empowered with the power of God via
the Holy Spirit, plus via our spirits our minds now become renewed in
the things of God. and the sum total of this gives us the reality of
being just like Him. Scripture says, as Jesus Christ is, so are we IN
THIS WORLD.
Yes, you cannot do it by yourself, and that is what God has been
trying to teach and show you. Not by works lest any man boast.
And Jesus taught us that the OT works of the law are no more. But we MUST live
with deeds of love or our faith is dead.
You are misconstruing truths again. Deeds are works. Deeds are owed
doings, acts of love are not deeds.
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
In fact, to use one of your arguments regarding God being one, Jesus
was born as God/man. His name meaning God with us.
You dispute with God and his word with your words and actions. Any
particular reason for it?
Yes, Jesus is fully man and fully God. But no man saw anything but man.
Then why did Thomas say with amazement, My Lord and my God?
He had just risen form the dead and he needed to be assured by placing his hands
on the wounds of Jesus. In life, there are many lords but only one God. Don't
read your own agenda into scripture.
Which is what you just did, Earl. Thomas wanted to put his hands IN
the holes in Jesus' body. And he wasn't "Just" resurrected.

So now you are calling it all a lie, your agenda. That is just plain
sick.
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Why did Jesus make a clear distinction between those that saw him
then, and believed, meaning throughout his ministry, and us in this
day who believe by faith? They saw, and we didn't with our physical
eyes.
Believed what. He had just died a miserable death on the cross?
Can't you read? His death, non-related was three days earlier, he
spent three days in hell, and he was released by God the Father whole.
Jesus was speaking quite plainly and your agenda created blindness in
part. "Blesses are those who have not seen me and believe". Have you
"seen" Jesus?
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Plus, according to your doctrine of Trinity, if you saw one, you saw
them all.
The ONLY thing any man has ever seen is God become flesh. Never the Father, the
divine Son or the Holy Spirit. Don't you get it yet that Jesus was born of
flesh in his human mother and the "overshadowing of the Holy Spirit" in his
divinity?
No, dimwit, he was conceived that way, not born that way. Conceived,
not incarnated. Incarnation requires a body. Conception requires and
egg and the means to impregnate the egg where the cell starts
splitting until a human form is made up. IOW's far beyond the stage of
a fetus.
Post by duke
God is one in three equal but separate persons.
You say that, yet you question the need for a throne of God, and one
to his right for his son Jesus. You still do not get it.
Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
Does it ever bother you when all you can do is parrot a phrase but
have no clear understanding of what it means?
duke
2017-01-12 16:00:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Jesus here in this last passage also left a message directly to you
and me, when He said, "Blessed and happy and to be envied are those
who have never seen Me and yet have believed and adhered to and
trusted and relied on Me."
Notice, he did not say washed with water, but have believed, etc.
Remember, there was no Christian water baptism until after the cross. That's
how we join with Jess in his death. You're quoting an event within hours of his
resurrection.
This was after the cross, and more than hours after the resurrection
which would make no difference.
Seems you are changing your tune since you always revert to the
baptism of John, way before the cross. At least that is an
improvement.
Which is why it's a demonstration only as I've also told you many times. He was
sinless and didn't need rebirth in water. The thief on the cross, who had not
idea who Jesus really was except some expected king, was saved under the old
covenant.
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
They saw flesh only. The never saw divinity, nor knew of his divinity until
after he ascended to the Father..
Philippians 2:6-8New International Version (NIV)

Who, being in very nature[a] God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own
advantage;

rather, he made himself nothing
    by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
    being made in human likeness.

And being found in appearance as a man,
    he humbled himself
    by becoming obedient to death—
        even death on a cross!
the dukester, American-American
Earl, while the verses you quote from Philippians are very true, they
are not on topic, and they also do not dispute what Jesus said, when
he said you have seen me, you see the Father.
Give it a break, repete. Scripture says NO man has seen God. Scripture says
"he made himself nothing". End of story. Jesus said "follow me", and no man
would even try is the thought for a second that he was trying to follow
divinity.
Well, Earl, the plain and simple fact is that Jesus said, if you have
seen me you have seen God. Are you calling Jesus a liar? All I did was
quote HIS words.
No, you are thinking physical ONLY. I'm speaking spiritual where Jesus is truly
God but never seen (physical) by man as God.
I'm sorry, but no, I am not.
Oh, I'm sure you are. Phil 2 makes it clear that he took the nature of a
servant.
Post by Robert
I do not think like you, as a believer I
also see things spiritually. Jesus also clearly spoke as to who he was
and is, and why one should see the father when they saw him, reread
the verses if you have to.\
Because the big picture says he was flesh only as seen by flesh. So everything
that Jesus was seen as is flesh only. No man has ever seen God.
Post by Robert
He asked have I been with you this long and
you still do not see? Or words to that affect. Yet here you are making
excuses for what you do not see or understand. Jesus made the specific
and clear statement, he who has seen me has seen the Father.
Spiritually, not in a physical nature. Remember, he made himself as a servant.
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Jesus is God, he was divinity and is. And now you have just a peak at
the truth, you are absolutely right in that no man can follow
divinity, that is why mankind by faith must be born again,
You openly reject most of the teachings of Jesus. You are not born again
because you have never been baptized. You reject the huge majority of the
teachings of Jeuss leaving you in high doubt of being born agian.
And you are a bald faced liar.
Your expressed beliefs are totally opposed to Christianity. He made himself as
a servant, one who never sinned as flesh, saved because he never disobeyed his
Father and then told us to follow him as he lived his human life.
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
become a
new creature in Christ Jesus, it is also why the Holy Spirit takes up
residence within our spirit, and seals the spirit unto salvation.
In baptism.
It does not say that at all. You keep repeating lies, and that does
not eventually make it truth.
But it does. It says we join Jesus as sinless in baptism. He was sin original
sin free as he existed before A&E, and we join him by a baptismal cleansing of
original sin and any actual sin we committed up to that point.

Titus 3:5-7New International Version (NIV)
5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his
mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy
Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior,
7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the
hope of eternal life.

You have made it perfectly clear that you have never received the washing in
rebirth demonstrated by Jesus.
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Yes, you cannot do it by yourself, and that is what God has been
trying to teach and show you. Not by works lest any man boast.
And Jesus taught us that the OT works of the law are no more. But we MUST live
with deeds of love or our faith is dead.
You are misconstruing truths again. Deeds are works. Deeds are owed
doings, acts of love are not deeds.
No, you are the one walking on hot glowing coals. And acts/deeds of love are to
feed the hungry, clothe the naked, giving drink to the thirsty and treat your
neighbor as you would want to be treated yourself.
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Then why did Thomas say with amazement, My Lord and my God?
He had just risen form the dead and he needed to be assured by placing his hands
on the wounds of Jesus. In life, there are many lords but only one God. Don't
read your own agenda into scripture.
Which is what you just did, Earl. Thomas wanted to put his hands IN
the holes in Jesus' body. And he wasn't "Just" resurrected.
Oh, but he was, exactly one week after the resurrection. Thomas was missing the
weekend of the resurrection.
Post by Robert
So now you are calling it all a lie, your agenda. That is just plain
sick.
You don't have a clue as to what scripture says.
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Why did Jesus make a clear distinction between those that saw him
then, and believed, meaning throughout his ministry, and us in this
day who believe by faith? They saw, and we didn't with our physical
eyes.
Believed what. He had just died a miserable death on the cross?
Can't you read? His death, non-related was three days earlier, he
spent three days in hell, and he was released by God the Father whole.
Jesus was speaking quite plainly and your agenda created blindness in
part. "Blesses are those who have not seen me and believe". Have you
"seen" Jesus?
Have you?
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Plus, according to your doctrine of Trinity, if you saw one, you saw
them all.
The ONLY thing any man has ever seen is God become flesh. Never the Father, the
divine Son or the Holy Spirit. Don't you get it yet that Jesus was born of
flesh in his human mother and the "overshadowing of the Holy Spirit" in his
divinity?
No, dimwit, he was conceived that way, not born that way. Conceived,
not incarnated. Incarnation requires a body. Conception requires and
egg and the means to impregnate the egg where the cell starts
splitting until a human form is made up. IOW's far beyond the stage of
a fetus.
Let me get this straight. You didn't know that Jesus spend 9 months in the womb
before he was born. And, even more embarrassing, you didn't know that no sperm
was involved and no female egg form Mary. Just as Jesus rose form the dead in a
instantaneous flash of light, so to was God become flesh to grow for 9 months in
the womb of Mary.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Robert
2017-01-12 22:08:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Jesus here in this last passage also left a message directly to you
and me, when He said, "Blessed and happy and to be envied are those
who have never seen Me and yet have believed and adhered to and
trusted and relied on Me."
Notice, he did not say washed with water, but have believed, etc.
Remember, there was no Christian water baptism until after the cross. That's
how we join with Jess in his death. You're quoting an event within hours of his
resurrection.
This was after the cross, and more than hours after the resurrection
which would make no difference.
Seems you are changing your tune since you always revert to the
baptism of John, way before the cross. At least that is an
improvement.
Which is why it's a demonstration only as I've also told you many times. He was
sinless and didn't need rebirth in water. The thief on the cross, who had not
idea who Jesus really was except some expected king, was saved under the old
covenant.
The baptism of JtB was for repentance only. The thief at first mocked
like the others, then recognized him and said so, and Jesus granted
the thief his request. Jesus died for him, like all of us.
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
They saw flesh only. The never saw divinity, nor knew of his divinity until
after he ascended to the Father..
Philippians 2:6-8New International Version (NIV)

Who, being in very nature[a] God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own
advantage;

rather, he made himself nothing
    by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
    being made in human likeness.

And being found in appearance as a man,
    he humbled himself
    by becoming obedient to death—
        even death on a cross!
the dukester, American-American
Earl, while the verses you quote from Philippians are very true, they
are not on topic, and they also do not dispute what Jesus said, when
he said you have seen me, you see the Father.
Give it a break, repete. Scripture says NO man has seen God. Scripture says
"he made himself nothing". End of story. Jesus said "follow me", and no man
would even try is the thought for a second that he was trying to follow
divinity.
Well, Earl, the plain and simple fact is that Jesus said, if you have
seen me you have seen God. Are you calling Jesus a liar? All I did was
quote HIS words.
No, you are thinking physical ONLY. I'm speaking spiritual where Jesus is truly
God but never seen (physical) by man as God.
I'm sorry, but no, I am not.
Oh, I'm sure you are. Phil 2 makes it clear that he took the nature of a
servant.
No, you are wrong, and cannot understand, which is why you waffle all
over the place on this. I don't.
Post by duke
Post by Robert
I do not think like you, as a believer I
also see things spiritually. Jesus also clearly spoke as to who he was
and is, and why one should see the father when they saw him, reread
the verses if you have to.\
Because the big picture says he was flesh only as seen by flesh. So everything
that Jesus was seen as is flesh only. No man has ever seen God.
Joh 6:46  Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of
God, he hath seen the Father. 

Jesus, a man, saw the Father.


Joh 14:7  If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and
from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. 

Joh 14:8  Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it
sufficeth us. 
Joh 14:9  Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and
yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the
Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? 

So again, how can you say the opposite of what Jesus Spoke?
Post by duke
Post by Robert
He asked have I been with you this long and
you still do not see? Or words to that affect. Yet here you are making
excuses for what you do not see or understand. Jesus made the specific
and clear statement, he who has seen me has seen the Father.
Spiritually, not in a physical nature. Remember, he made himself as a servant.
See the verses above.
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Jesus is God, he was divinity and is. And now you have just a peak at
the truth, you are absolutely right in that no man can follow
divinity, that is why mankind by faith must be born again,
You openly reject most of the teachings of Jesus. You are not born again
because you have never been baptized. You reject the huge majority of the
teachings of Jeuss leaving you in high doubt of being born agian.
And you are a bald faced liar.
Your expressed beliefs are totally opposed to Christianity. He made himself as
a servant, one who never sinned as flesh, saved because he never disobeyed his
Father and then told us to follow him as he lived his human life.
Christ became sin for us. How could he not know it?

He did not tell us to follow his "human life" as you put it, that is
pure heresy. He said to follow all of him, and to do what God the
Father wants us to do, just like he did. Part of what he did was to
walk in the spirit. and you?
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
become a
new creature in Christ Jesus, it is also why the Holy Spirit takes up
residence within our spirit, and seals the spirit unto salvation.
In baptism.
It does not say that at all. You keep repeating lies, and that does
not eventually make it truth.
But it does. It says we join Jesus as sinless in baptism. He was sin original
sin free as he existed before A&E, and we join him by a baptismal cleansing of
original sin and any actual sin we committed up to that point.
You will not find that in scripture since that thinking opposes all of
scripture, and that thinking came into place in the 3rd century. It
was never taught before that.
Post by duke
Titus 3:5-7New International Version (NIV)
5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his
mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy
Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior,
7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the
hope of eternal life.
Not one drop of water was in either of those three verses.
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his
mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the
Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our
Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs
according to the hope of eternal life. (Tit 3:5-7 KJV)

Rev 1:5  And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the
first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth.
Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

Rev 7:14  And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me,
These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed
their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

Heb 9:22  And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and
without shedding of blood is no remission.

Read them for once.
Post by duke
You have made it perfectly clear that you have never received the washing in
rebirth demonstrated by Jesus.
No, you are the one who makes that claim. By the Faith of God, I have
been born of God the Father, because my sins have been washed away by
the blood of Christ.

That I have said many, many, times. No one comes to the Father by
water. Not one. Jesus makes that clear.
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Yes, you cannot do it by yourself, and that is what God has been
trying to teach and show you. Not by works lest any man boast.
And Jesus taught us that the OT works of the law are no more. But we MUST live
with deeds of love or our faith is dead.
You are misconstruing truths again. Deeds are works. Deeds are owed
doings, acts of love are not deeds.
No, you are the one walking on hot glowing coals. And acts/deeds of love are to
feed the hungry, clothe the naked, giving drink to the thirsty and treat your
neighbor as you would want to be treated yourself.
The Rockefeller family does this all the time.
Drop the pretense.
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Then why did Thomas say with amazement, My Lord and my God?
He had just risen form the dead and he needed to be assured by placing his hands
on the wounds of Jesus. In life, there are many lords but only one God. Don't
read your own agenda into scripture.
Which is what you just did, Earl. Thomas wanted to put his hands IN
the holes in Jesus' body. And he wasn't "Just" resurrected.
Oh, but he was, exactly one week after the resurrection. Thomas was missing the
weekend of the resurrection.
So you are admitting now that it was not immediately after?
Post by duke
Post by Robert
So now you are calling it all a lie, your agenda. That is just plain
sick.
You don't have a clue as to what scripture says.
I've heard that from you before. Your words are just parrot talk.
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Why did Jesus make a clear distinction between those that saw him
then, and believed, meaning throughout his ministry, and us in this
day who believe by faith? They saw, and we didn't with our physical
eyes.
Believed what. He had just died a miserable death on the cross?
Can't you read? His death, non-related was three days earlier, he
spent three days in hell, and he was released by God the Father whole.
Jesus was speaking quite plainly and your agenda created blindness in
part. "Blesses are those who have not seen me and believe". Have you
"seen" Jesus?
Have you?
Was I there with the disciples and others? What did Jesus say, and why
am I blessed?
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Plus, according to your doctrine of Trinity, if you saw one, you saw
them all.
The ONLY thing any man has ever seen is God become flesh. Never the Father, the
divine Son or the Holy Spirit. Don't you get it yet that Jesus was born of
flesh in his human mother and the "overshadowing of the Holy Spirit" in his
divinity?
No, dimwit, he was conceived that way, not born that way. Conceived,
not incarnated. Incarnation requires a body. Conception requires and
egg and the means to impregnate the egg where the cell starts
splitting until a human form is made up. IOW's far beyond the stage of
a fetus.
Let me get this straight. You didn't know that Jesus spend 9 months in the womb
before he was born. And, even more embarrassing, you didn't know that no sperm
was involved and no female egg form Mary. Just as Jesus rose form the dead in a
instantaneous flash of light, so to was God become flesh to grow for 9 months in
the womb of Mary.
What a pagan. Everything you just said is contrary to scripture. For
these reasons of yours I say you are following an idol. A false image.
Your image is as made up as was Buddha, or any other false image, like
Baal, like Jupiter renamed to Peter in the basilica of Peter, Like
Madonna. All false images, false gods, all venerated images.
Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
asherah
2017-01-12 17:51:54 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 13:12:05 -0800, Robert snip

Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
asherah
2017-01-12 23:33:54 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 13:12:05 -0800, Robert addressed to following to duke
insrted of himself.
Post by Robert
Does it ever bother you when all you can do is parrot a phrase but
have no clear understanding of what it means?
Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
duke
2017-01-11 17:28:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Earl, while the verses you quote from Philippians are very true, they
are not on topic, and they also do not dispute what Jesus said, when
he said you have seen me, you see the Father.
Give it a break, repete. Scripture says NO man has seen God. Scripture says
"he made himself nothing". End of story. Jesus said "follow me", and no man
would even try is the thought for a second that he was trying to follow
divinity.
Well, Earl, the plain and simple fact is that Jesus said, if you have
seen me you have seen God. Are you calling Jesus a liar? All I did was
quote HIS words.
Guess what. He was not referring to his physical body.
Post by Robert
Jesus is God, he was divinity and is. And now you have just a peak at
the truth, you are absolutely right in that no man can follow
divinity, that is why mankind by faith must be born again, become a
new creature in Christ Jesus, it is also why the Holy Spirit takes up
residence within our spirit, and seals the spirit unto salvation. It
is why mankind, once born again is empowered with the power of God via
the Holy Spirit, plus via our spirits our minds now become renewed in
the things of God. and the sum total of this gives us the reality of
being just like Him. Scripture says, as Jesus Christ is, so are we IN
THIS WORLD.
Yes, you cannot do it by yourself, and that is what God has been
trying to teach and show you. Not by works lest any man boast.
If Jesus was present as divine at the cross, how did he die?
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Yes, Jesus is fully man and fully God. But no man saw anything but man.
Then why did Thomas say with amazement, My Lord and my God?
Maybe by the time the Gospel of John was written 40-80 years later, man had come
to realize that Jesus was truly Lord.
Post by Robert
Why did Jesus make a clear distinction between those that saw him
then, and believed, meaning throughout his ministry, and us in this
day who believe by faith? They saw, and we didn't with our physical
eyes.
Plus, according to your doctrine of Trinity, if you saw one, you saw
them all.
Only God. And no man has ever seen God.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Robert
2017-01-11 21:18:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Earl, while the verses you quote from Philippians are very true, they
are not on topic, and they also do not dispute what Jesus said, when
he said you have seen me, you see the Father.
Give it a break, repete. Scripture says NO man has seen God. Scripture says
"he made himself nothing". End of story. Jesus said "follow me", and no man
would even try is the thought for a second that he was trying to follow
divinity.
Well, Earl, the plain and simple fact is that Jesus said, if you have
seen me you have seen God. Are you calling Jesus a liar? All I did was
quote HIS words.
Guess what. He was not referring to his physical body.
Are you stupid? His body was part of the total picture. Re read the
verses.
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Jesus is God, he was divinity and is. And now you have just a peak at
the truth, you are absolutely right in that no man can follow
divinity, that is why mankind by faith must be born again, become a
new creature in Christ Jesus, it is also why the Holy Spirit takes up
residence within our spirit, and seals the spirit unto salvation. It
is why mankind, once born again is empowered with the power of God via
the Holy Spirit, plus via our spirits our minds now become renewed in
the things of God. and the sum total of this gives us the reality of
being just like Him. Scripture says, as Jesus Christ is, so are we IN
THIS WORLD.
Yes, you cannot do it by yourself, and that is what God has been
trying to teach and show you. Not by works lest any man boast.
If Jesus was present as divine at the cross, how did he die?
God gave him permission to lay his life down, or can't you remember
that?
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Yes, Jesus is fully man and fully God. But no man saw anything but man.
Then why did Thomas say with amazement, My Lord and my God?
Maybe by the time the Gospel of John was written 40-80 years later, man had come
to realize that Jesus was truly Lord.
So now you say that the bible was not written under the inspiration of
the Holy Spirit, and was all subject to the whims of men? Then what
good is the bible to any of us if that be the case?
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Why did Jesus make a clear distinction between those that saw him
then, and believed, meaning throughout his ministry, and us in this
day who believe by faith? They saw, and we didn't with our physical
eyes.
Plus, according to your doctrine of Trinity, if you saw one, you saw
them all.
Only God. And no man has ever seen God.
Then shoot John for reporting that Thomas said, My Lord and MY GOD!

You have a two faced religion that isn't worth the paper it was
written on.
Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
2017-01-12 16:12:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Earl, while the verses you quote from Philippians are very true, they
are not on topic, and they also do not dispute what Jesus said, when
he said you have seen me, you see the Father.
Give it a break, repete. Scripture says NO man has seen God. Scripture says
"he made himself nothing". End of story. Jesus said "follow me", and no man
would even try is the thought for a second that he was trying to follow
divinity.
Well, Earl, the plain and simple fact is that Jesus said, if you have
seen me you have seen God. Are you calling Jesus a liar? All I did was
quote HIS words.
Guess what. He was not referring to his physical body.
Are you stupid? His body was part of the total picture. Re read the
verses.
Yes, as man only to be followed without sin. No man has ever seen God.
Post by Robert
Post by duke
If Jesus was present as divine at the cross, how did he die?
God gave him permission to lay his life down, or can't you remember
that?
He was God. Permission, not that funny for a cartoon character.
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Yes, Jesus is fully man and fully God. But no man saw anything but man.
Then why did Thomas say with amazement, My Lord and my God?
Maybe by the time the Gospel of John was written 40-80 years later, man had come
to realize that Jesus was truly Lord.
So now you say that the bible was not written under the inspiration of
the Holy Spirit, and was all subject to the whims of men? Then what
good is the bible to any of us if that be the case?
Inspiration spiritually. Physical is man's words.
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Why did Jesus make a clear distinction between those that saw him
then, and believed, meaning throughout his ministry, and us in this
day who believe by faith? They saw, and we didn't with our physical
eyes.
Plus, according to your doctrine of Trinity, if you saw one, you saw
them all.
Only God. And no man has ever seen God.
Then shoot John for reporting that Thomas said, My Lord and MY GOD!
Thomas Said to Christ, “My Lord and My God.” He Meant “God in Christ,” to which
We Should Nod.

There is so, SOOOO much you have yet to learn. If you were RC, you would not
derive your faith in your own mind like you do, and are usually so wrong.


the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Robert
2017-01-12 22:26:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Earl, while the verses you quote from Philippians are very true, they
are not on topic, and they also do not dispute what Jesus said, when
he said you have seen me, you see the Father.
Give it a break, repete. Scripture says NO man has seen God. Scripture says
"he made himself nothing". End of story. Jesus said "follow me", and no man
would even try is the thought for a second that he was trying to follow
divinity.
Well, Earl, the plain and simple fact is that Jesus said, if you have
seen me you have seen God. Are you calling Jesus a liar? All I did was
quote HIS words.
Guess what. He was not referring to his physical body.
Are you stupid? His body was part of the total picture. Re read the
verses.
Yes, as man only to be followed without sin. No man has ever seen God.
Joh 6:46  Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of
God, he hath seen the Father.
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
If Jesus was present as divine at the cross, how did he die?
God gave him permission to lay his life down, or can't you remember
that?
He was God. Permission, not that funny for a cartoon character.
Joh 10:18  No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I
have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This
commandment have I received of my Father. 
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Yes, Jesus is fully man and fully God. But no man saw anything but man.
Then why did Thomas say with amazement, My Lord and my God?
Maybe by the time the Gospel of John was written 40-80 years later, man had come
to realize that Jesus was truly Lord.
So now you say that the bible was not written under the inspiration of
the Holy Spirit, and was all subject to the whims of men? Then what
good is the bible to any of us if that be the case?
Inspiration spiritually. Physical is man's words.
IOW's worthless to you a physical man.
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Why did Jesus make a clear distinction between those that saw him
then, and believed, meaning throughout his ministry, and us in this
day who believe by faith? They saw, and we didn't with our physical
eyes.
Plus, according to your doctrine of Trinity, if you saw one, you saw
them all.
Only God. And no man has ever seen God.
Then shoot John for reporting that Thomas said, My Lord and MY GOD!
Thomas Said to Christ, “My Lord and My God.” He Meant “God in Christ,” to which
We Should Nod.
Now you are correcting the Holy Spirit, telling us all that he was
wrong and you are correct?

Hardly.
Post by duke
There is so, SOOOO much you have yet to learn. If you were RC, you would not
derive your faith in your own mind like you do, and are usually so wrong.
I have said many many times my faith comes from God and given the
scripture that says so, and it is the same for every other born again
believer. It doesn't matter what church they go to if this is true in
their lives.
Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
asherah
2017-01-12 17:51:15 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 13:18:23 -0800, Robert snip
--
Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
unknown
2017-01-09 17:27:01 UTC
Permalink
With trusty digital divination meter in hand, robert holds forth:

Snip
Post by Robert
Jesus was authorized to speak this, He was God's representative on
earth and spoke only on the authorization of His Father. He
represented God well, and He also showed the anger of God regarding
the money changers in the temple, tossing over their tables and
running them out of the temple.
Still need convincing, like a JW will? Very near the end of his
ministry on earth with the messages of Good News, Christ said this,...
What a hoot, the above blurb about the nature of Christ would be embraced
by a jw. They too distort the person of Christ as not fully God and fully
man, He was just a "representative" of God.
snip
Post by Robert
Joh 20:28  Thomas answered Him, My Lord and my God! 
Oops, there goes the jw and robert word dance in one stroke, sorry bub.

Thomas addressed He who was fully God and fully man in the confirmation
of His wombs.

snip

Of course being fully God and fully man in one undivided nature what of she
who bore Him in her womb? Could she be properly said to be the "God
bearer" to add support to His "fully both undivided" nature?

Unlike the father as God who is spirit, being also fulll man in Christ's
physicl presence, would a graphical representation of the son evoke the "no
graven image" of God?

These were questions that came up in the early years of the church. Like
in Actts, they met in council to decide such matters of faith and
practice.
Robert
2017-01-09 20:13:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Joh 20:28  Thomas answered Him, My Lord and my God! 
Oops, there goes the jw and robert word dance in one stroke, sorry bub.
Thomas addressed He who was fully God and fully man in the confirmation
of His wombs.
His "Wombs"?

Fool, you should have read the scriptures provided. What Thomas
finally recognized is what Jesus was all along, and his words
testified of that.
astarte
2017-01-09 20:52:56 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 09 Jan 2017 12:13:46 -0800, Robert snip


Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
unknown
2017-01-09 21:24:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Joh 20:28  Thomas answered Him, My Lord and my God! 
Oops, there goes the jw and robert word dance in one stroke, sorry bub.
Thomas addressed He who was fully God and fully man in the confirmation
of His wombs.
His "Wombs"?
Fool, you should have read the scriptures provided. What Thomas
finally recognized is what Jesus was all along, and his words
testified of that.
Thomas doubted a risen Christ. When invited to see the marks and place his
hand in His side he believedd.

The next declaration from him "my lord and God".

Christ had already revealed His divinity to the apostles. His death caused
grave doubts among them, the physical evidence changed the mind of a
doubting Thomas.

Any theory making of Christ less then fully God and fully man undivided has
Thomas to deal with. One small bit and all such theories go "poof".

So, who was Christ? Was He fully God and fully man undivided or is there
another theory afoot? One might consult the beginning of John.
Robert
2017-01-09 22:54:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Joh 20:28  Thomas answered Him, My Lord and my God! 
Oops, there goes the jw and robert word dance in one stroke, sorry bub.
Thomas addressed He who was fully God and fully man in the confirmation
of His wombs.
His "Wombs"?
Fool, you should have read the scriptures provided. What Thomas
finally recognized is what Jesus was all along, and his words
testified of that.
Thomas doubted a risen Christ. When invited to see the marks and place his
hand in His side he believedd.
The next declaration from him "my lord and God".
Christ had already revealed His divinity to the apostles. His death caused
grave doubts among them, the physical evidence changed the mind of a
doubting Thomas.
Thomas was also a disciple, His divinity was already understood by
some as revealed by the Holy Spirit. The other disciples had already
seen Jesus and what he doubted is what they told him. It was not until
8 days later that He saw Jesus who came right through the walls Where
they were. Why you want to keep reiterating this point is beyond me,
are you having problems with belief.
Post by unknown
Any theory making of Christ less then fully God and fully man undivided has
Thomas to deal with. One small bit and all such theories go "poof".
So, who was Christ? Was He fully God and fully man undivided or is there
another theory afoot? One might consult the beginning of John.
Had you read the scripture I posted in the first place you would have
had an answer to all of this. I do not go by religion or traditions of
men.
unknown
2017-01-09 23:12:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Joh 20:28  Thomas answered Him, My Lord and my God! 
Oops, there goes the jw and robert word dance in one stroke, sorry bub.
Thomas addressed He who was fully God and fully man in the confirmation
of His wombs.
His "Wombs"?
Fool, you should have read the scriptures provided. What Thomas
finally recognized is what Jesus was all along, and his words
testified of that.
Thomas doubted a risen Christ. When invited to see the marks and place his
hand in His side he believedd.
The next declaration from him "my lord and God".
Christ had already revealed His divinity to the apostles. His
death caused
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
grave doubts among them, the physical evidence changed the mind of a
doubting Thomas.
Thomas was also a disciple, His divinity was already understood by
some as revealed by the Holy Spirit.
Pentecost and the promised SH was then a future event. He believed because
of the empty tomb and the physical evidence of His body as risen Christ.
Post by Robert
..The other disciples had already
seen Jesus and what he doubted is what they told him. It was not until
8 days later that He saw Jesus who came right through the walls Where
they were. Why you want to keep reiterating this point is beyond me,
ar
All that quite irrelevant to the point of Thomases renewed faith in His
divinity, "my lord and my God". God and man undivided..
you having problems with belief.


No.
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Any theory making of Christ less then fully God and fully man undivided has
Thomas to deal with. One small bit and all such theories go "poof".
So, who was Christ? Was He fully God and fully man undivided or is there
another theory afoot? One might consult the beginning of John.
Had you read the scripture I posted in the first place you would have
had an answer to all of this. I do not go by religion or traditions of
men.
I did read it, Christ as fully God and fully man undivided confirmed in the
example of Thomas; "my lord and my God".

So the question stands, who was Christ ; was He fully God and fully man
undivided or is there another theory afoot?

Every theory now proposed these 2000 years later is of rligion, even if
only the lone ranger flavor; and exactly invented of man.

The unbroken 2000 year witness; beginning in scripture benchmark, not the
confused mumblings of a lone ranger bible reader with a digital divination
meter with its heavenly wifi connnection.
Robert
2017-01-10 01:39:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Joh 20:28  Thomas answered Him, My Lord and my God! 
Oops, there goes the jw and robert word dance in one stroke, sorry bub.
Thomas addressed He who was fully God and fully man in the confirmation
of His wombs.
His "Wombs"?
Fool, you should have read the scriptures provided. What Thomas
finally recognized is what Jesus was all along, and his words
testified of that.
Thomas doubted a risen Christ. When invited to see the marks and place his
hand in His side he believedd.
The next declaration from him "my lord and God".
Christ had already revealed His divinity to the apostles. His
death caused
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
grave doubts among them, the physical evidence changed the mind of a
doubting Thomas.
Thomas was also a disciple, His divinity was already understood by
some as revealed by the Holy Spirit.
Pentecost and the promised SH was then a future event. He believed because
of the empty tomb and the physical evidence of His body as risen Christ.
Whatever SH is. You sure do a poor job of hacking up posts, it also
shows your lack of understanding.

Mat 16:16  And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the
Son of the living God. 
Mat 16:17  And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou,
Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but
my Father which is in heaven.

Well before the death of Christ.

And before the birth of Christ, the promise, then the realization of
the promise spoken of here.

Luk 2:26  And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he
should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ. 
Luk 2:27  And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the
parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of
the law, 
Luk 2:28  Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said, 
Luk 2:29  Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace,
according to thy word: 
Luk 2:30  For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, 
Luk 2:31  Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; 

Now Thomas believed per the scriptures posted, then deleted by you,...

Joh 20:25  The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen
the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the
print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and
thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. 
...............
Joh 20:29  Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me,
thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have
believed. 

See what you miss by not reading?
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
..The other disciples had already
seen Jesus and what he doubted is what they told him. It was not until
8 days later that He saw Jesus who came right through the walls Where
they were. Why you want to keep reiterating this point is beyond me,
ar
All that quite irrelevant to the point of Thomases renewed faith in His
divinity, "my lord and my God". God and man undivided..
you having problems with belief.
No.
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Any theory making of Christ less then fully God and fully man undivided has
Thomas to deal with. One small bit and all such theories go "poof".
So, who was Christ? Was He fully God and fully man undivided or is there
another theory afoot? One might consult the beginning of John.
Had you read the scripture I posted in the first place you would have
had an answer to all of this. I do not go by religion or traditions of
men.
I did read it, Christ as fully God and fully man undivided confirmed in the
example of Thomas; "my lord and my God".
So the question stands, who was Christ ; was He fully God and fully man
undivided or is there another theory afoot?
I was speaking of the original post I made, made up mostly of
scripture, and you snipped virtually all of it. Read that, I made it
clear that is what I believed.
Post by unknown
Every theory now proposed these 2000 years later is of rligion, even if
only the lone ranger flavor; and exactly invented of man.
The unbroken 2000 year witness; beginning in scripture benchmark, not the
confused mumblings of a lone ranger bible reader with a digital divination
meter with its heavenly wifi connnection.
Go to my original post, my answer is there, unchanged.

Obviously you are clueless as to what constitutes religion, and what
the difference is between religion and the Good News.

Sadly your mocking ways will come back to haunt you.

Now go back to the original post, scripture there will show you what I
believe.
unknown
2017-01-10 01:56:54 UTC
Permalink
Re: 10's of 1,000's, perhaps 100's of 1,000,s Saw God!
Reply to: Robert
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2017 17:39:00 -0800
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
alt.bible,
alt.christnet.christianlife,
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
Followup to: newsgroups
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Joh 20:28  Thomas answered Him, My Lord and my God! 
Oops, there goes the jw and robert word dance in one stroke, sorry bub.
Thomas addressed He who was fully God and fully man in the confirmation
of His wombs.
His "Wombs"?
Fool, you should have read the scriptures provided. What Thomas
finally recognized is what Jesus was all along, and his words
testified of that.
Thomas doubted a risen Christ. When invited to see the marks and place his
hand in His side he believedd.
The next declaration from him "my lord and God".
Christ had already revealed His divinity to the apostles. His
death caused
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
grave doubts among them, the physical evidence changed the mind of a
doubting Thomas.
Thomas was also a disciple, His divinity was already understood by
some as revealed by the Holy Spirit.
Pentecost and the promised SH was then a future event. He believed because
of the empty tomb and the physical evidence of His body as risen Christ.
Whatever SH is. You sure do a poor job of hacking up posts, it also
shows your lack of understanding.
Mat 16:16  And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the
Son of the living God. 
Mat 16:17  And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou,
Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but
my Father which is in heaven.
Well before the death of Christ.
And before the birth of Christ, the promise, then the realization of
the promise spoken of here.
Luk 2:26  And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he
should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ. 
Luk 2:27  And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the
parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of
the law, 
Luk 2:28  Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said, 
Luk 2:29  Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace,
according to thy word: 
Luk 2:30  For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, 
Luk 2:31  Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; 
Now Thomas believed per the scriptures posted, then deleted by you,...
Joh 20:25  The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen
the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the
print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and
thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. 
...............
Joh 20:29  Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me,
thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have
believed. 
See what you miss by not reading?
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
..The other disciples had already
seen Jesus and what he doubted is what they told him. It was not until
8 days later that He saw Jesus who came right through the walls Where
they were. Why you want to keep reiterating this point is beyond me,
ar
All that quite irrelevant to the point of Thomases renewed faith in His
divinity, "my lord and my God". God and man undivided..
you having problems with belief.
No.
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Any theory making of Christ less then fully God and fully man undivided has
Thomas to deal with. One small bit and all such theories go "poof".
So, who was Christ? Was He fully God and fully man undivided or is there
another theory afoot? One might consult the beginning of John.
Had you read the scripture I posted in the first place you would have
had an answer to all of this. I do not go by religion or traditions of
men.
I did read it, Christ as fully God and fully man undivided confirmed in the
example of Thomas; "my lord and my God".
So the question stands, who was Christ ; was He fully God and fully man
undivided or is there another theory afoot?
I was speaking of the original post I made, made up mostly of
scripture, and you snipped virtually all of it. Read that, I made it
clear that is what I believed.
Went back, nothing there to answer the above question but the Thomas "my
lord and my God" confirmmation of the fully God and fully man undivided
nature of Christ.

So the question stands unanswered. What might be "believed" about some
subsidiary question is not on the table.

A politician often answers some other question when the one before him is
too touching and revealing.
Robert
2017-01-10 03:24:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Re: 10's of 1,000's, perhaps 100's of 1,000,s Saw God!
Reply to: Robert
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2017 17:39:00 -0800
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
alt.bible,
alt.christnet.christianlife,
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
Followup to: newsgroups
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Joh 20:28  Thomas answered Him, My Lord and my God! 
Oops, there goes the jw and robert word dance in one stroke, sorry bub.
Thomas addressed He who was fully God and fully man in the confirmation
of His wombs.
His "Wombs"?
Fool, you should have read the scriptures provided. What Thomas
finally recognized is what Jesus was all along, and his words
testified of that.
Thomas doubted a risen Christ. When invited to see the marks and place his
hand in His side he believedd.
The next declaration from him "my lord and God".
Christ had already revealed His divinity to the apostles. His
death caused
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
grave doubts among them, the physical evidence changed the mind of a
doubting Thomas.
Thomas was also a disciple, His divinity was already understood by
some as revealed by the Holy Spirit.
Pentecost and the promised SH was then a future event. He believed because
of the empty tomb and the physical evidence of His body as risen Christ.
Whatever SH is. You sure do a poor job of hacking up posts, it also
shows your lack of understanding.
Mat 16:16  And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the
Son of the living God. 
Mat 16:17  And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou,
Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but
my Father which is in heaven.
Well before the death of Christ.
And before the birth of Christ, the promise, then the realization of
the promise spoken of here.
Luk 2:26  And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he
should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ. 
Luk 2:27  And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the
parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of
the law, 
Luk 2:28  Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said, 
Luk 2:29  Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace,
according to thy word: 
Luk 2:30  For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, 
Luk 2:31  Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; 
Now Thomas believed per the scriptures posted, then deleted by you,...
Joh 20:25  The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen
the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the
print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and
thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. 
...............
Joh 20:29  Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me,
thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have
believed. 
See what you miss by not reading?
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
..The other disciples had already
seen Jesus and what he doubted is what they told him. It was not until
8 days later that He saw Jesus who came right through the walls Where
they were. Why you want to keep reiterating this point is beyond me,
ar
All that quite irrelevant to the point of Thomases renewed faith in His
divinity, "my lord and my God". God and man undivided..
you having problems with belief.
No.
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Any theory making of Christ less then fully God and fully man undivided has
Thomas to deal with. One small bit and all such theories go "poof".
So, who was Christ? Was He fully God and fully man undivided or is there
another theory afoot? One might consult the beginning of John.
Had you read the scripture I posted in the first place you would have
had an answer to all of this. I do not go by religion or traditions of
men.
I did read it, Christ as fully God and fully man undivided confirmed in the
example of Thomas; "my lord and my God".
So the question stands, who was Christ ; was He fully God and fully man
undivided or is there another theory afoot?
I was speaking of the original post I made, made up mostly of
scripture, and you snipped virtually all of it. Read that, I made it
clear that is what I believed.
Went back, nothing there to answer the above question but the Thomas "my
lord and my God" confirmmation of the fully God and fully man undivided
nature of Christ.
Well, first off, the resurrected Christ was not man, he was a
bloodless being with holes in his body. His resurrected body was a
redeemed body.
Post by unknown
So the question stands unanswered. What might be "believed" about some
subsidiary question is not on the table.
Jesus said, you see me, you see the Father.
John 14:9; Matt 16:16
Post by unknown
A politician often answers some other question when the one before him is
too touching and revealing.
A politician often asks a question for obfuscation, or as a setup to
something not related.
astarte
2017-01-10 14:29:21 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 09 Jan 2017 19:24:49 -0800, Robert snip
Post by Robert
A politician often asks a question for obfuscation, or as a setup to
something not related.
So, that's where you learned how to do your dance.

Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
unknown
2017-01-10 16:57:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
So the question stands, who was Christ ; was He fully God and fully man
undivided or is there another theory afoot?
We can addd, if another theory what is it?
Robert
2017-01-10 17:55:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by unknown
So the question stands, who was Christ ; was He fully God and fully man
undivided or is there another theory afoot?
We can addd, if another theory what is it?
I gave you the answer, with a pointer so that you could not miss it.

All you are showing me is that you purposely ignore it.
unknown
2017-01-10 17:59:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by unknown
So the question stands, who was Christ ; was He fully God and fully man
undivided or is there another theory afoot?
We can addd, if another theory what is it?
I gave you the answer, with a pointer so that you could not miss it.
All you are showing me is that you purposely ignore it.
The "the father and I are one" is part of the scripture support for
trinity,ie. one God 3 persons.

It is support for Christ being fully God and fully man undivided.

It does not support the jw like statement about Christ offered previously
in this thread as "repsentative" etc. from the divine or any such notion.

Noting that the reference is "Jesus" not "christ" almost always when such
jw like theory is suggested. This leaves us as before:

Who was Christ? Was He fully God and fully man undivided?
astarte
2017-01-10 20:12:52 UTC
Permalink
On 10 Jan 2017 17:59:38 GMT, Servant wrote:
snip
Post by unknown
Who was Christ? Was He fully God and fully man undivided?
Technically, using the term as understood by the jews, neither.
Ref: Pg 192-199. Might not be interesting to others, for it is not in
total agreement with the xian use of the title.
Robert
2017-01-10 22:49:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by unknown
So the question stands, who was Christ ; was He fully God and fully man
undivided or is there another theory afoot?
We can addd, if another theory what is it?
I gave you the answer, with a pointer so that you could not miss it.
All you are showing me is that you purposely ignore it.
The "the father and I are one" is part of the scripture support for
trinity,ie. one God 3 persons.
There are two persons mentioned there, not three, and no use of the
word trinity any place in the Bible.
Post by unknown
It is support for Christ being fully God and fully man undivided.
Joh 14:28  Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come
again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go
unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Divided in space and position. Yet Jesus is God and always was.
Post by unknown
It does not support the jw like statement about Christ offered previously
in this thread as "repsentative" etc. from the divine or any such notion.
Jesus Represented his Father. Are you going to deny that? Jesus only
did as His father wanted him to do? Do you deny that?
Jesus asked his Father, Mar 14:36  And he said, Abba, Father, all
things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me:
nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt."

He fully knew what he was about to go through, and the grievous pain
and suffering he desired not.
Post by unknown
Noting that the reference is "Jesus" not "christ" almost always when such
Ridiculous. You have an unsupported agenda, spit it out Fool. Say what
it is you really mean.
Post by unknown
Who was Christ? Was He fully God and fully man undivided?
Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?

that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
How did his Father forsake him? Why?

Luk 9:20  He said unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Peter
answering said, The Christ of God.

Luk 2:26  And it had been divinely revealed (communicated) to him by
the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the
Lord's Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One)

Lord's Christ? God's Messiah?

Luk 23:35  And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with
them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he
be Christ, the chosen of God. 

Christ, the chosen of God?

I can go on and on with this, from scripture.

John 1:1-14 The Word, the begotten of the Father, the Light of the
world. Only those that receive him have to the power to become the
sons of God.
unknown
2017-01-10 23:20:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by unknown
So the question stands, who was Christ ; was He fully God and fully man
undivided or is there another theory afoot?
We can addd, if another theory what is it?
I gave you the answer, with a pointer so that you could not miss it.
All you are showing me is that you purposely ignore it.
The "the father and I are one" is part of the scripture support for
trinity,ie. one God 3 persons.
There are two persons mentioned there, not three, and no use of the
word trinity any place in the Bible.
That llogic shoots itself in the foot. Bible not in bible either. Bible
alone not anywhere in bible for sure.

Any number of doctrines/practices not in bible, whre please "slain in
spirit" or even some reason to support the doctrine/practice?

Smile, that line of interpretation would earn a failing mark in bible
school 101. It is an argument from silence.

Scripture does speak of the relationship of father/son to HS elsewhere.

Scripture has the three persons appearing at the same event. Poof goes any
oneness pentecostalist "manistations" of the same divine person.
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
It
is support for Christ
being fully God and fully man undivided.
Post by Robert
Joh 14:28  Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come
again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go
unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
Divided in space and position. Yet Jesus is God and always was.
Post by unknown
It does not support the jw like statement about Christ offered previously
in this thread as "repsentative" etc. from the divine or any such notion.
Jesus Represented his Father. Are you going to deny that? Jesus only
did as His father wanted him to do? Do you deny that?
Jesus asked his Father, Mar 14:36  And he said, Abba, Father, all
nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt."
He fully knew what he was about to go through, and the grievous pain
and suffering he desired not.
Post by unknown
Noting that the reference is "Jesus" not "christ" almost always when such
Ridiculous. You have an unsupported agenda, spit it out Fool. Say what
it is you really mean.
Post by unknown
Who was Christ? Was He fully God and fully man undivided?
Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?
that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
How did his Father forsake him? Why?
Luk 9:20  He said unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Peter
answering said, The Christ of God.
Luk 2:26  And it had been divinely revealed (communicated) to him by
the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the
Lord's Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One)
Lord's Christ? God's Messiah?
Luk 23:35  And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with
them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he
be Christ, the chosen of God. 
Christ, the chosen of God?
I can go on and on with this, from scripture.
John 1:1-14 The Word, the begotten of the Father, the Light of the
world. Only those that receive him have to the power to become the
sons of God.
Yup, father and son, two seperate persons of one divine being; the HS the
3rd.

Twice Christ as a physical man said He was also God. The jews present
sought to stone Him for this claim.

Now tell us about the first section of John and the "word becoming flesh
and the flesh was God".

Then when Christ as that word/flesh prayed to the father, two persons, He
must have been praying to himself?

And none of the above scripture bits distract from Christ being fully God
and fully man undivided, they butress it in fact.

So we have our answer, Christ was fully God and fully man undivided.
Robert
2017-01-11 17:32:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by unknown
So the question stands, who was Christ ; was He fully God and fully man
undivided or is there another theory afoot?
We can addd, if another theory what is it?
I gave you the answer, with a pointer so that you could not miss it.
All you are showing me is that you purposely ignore it.
The "the father and I are one" is part of the scripture support for
trinity,ie. one God 3 persons.
There are two persons mentioned there, not three, and no use of the
word trinity any place in the Bible.
That llogic shoots itself in the foot. Bible not in bible either. Bible
alone not anywhere in bible for sure.
Then based on your logic one can believe in any god not mentioned in
the bible, commit any sexual act not mentioned in the bible and call
it love. How ridiculous can you get?
Post by unknown
Any number of doctrines/practices not in bible, whre please "slain in
spirit" or even some reason to support the doctrine/practice?
LOL, you sure are hung up on that, are you one that is fearful of
things spiritual? Seems like things spiritual have a bad connotation
in your mind.
Post by unknown
Smile, that line of interpretation would earn a failing mark in bible
school 101. It is an argument from silence.
Another one of your absurd phrases, according to you if it isn't in
the bible then do as you wish. Fact of the matter, be so absurd as to
say if one does not call the Word, "Holy" as in Holy Bible, then it
just does not exist. Most everyone know what the word bible means, and
they also know the difference between a bible on a persons life and
the Bible used in worship. FOTM, I seem to remember you and someone
else making a sticking point of if you don't call it the Holy Bible
then no one has a clue of the subject matter.

Also, regarding the argument from silence, it is considered that if
God did not mention stuff that it was just not important to us for our
daily walk. You use the phrase in various ways, none of it meaningful.
You also allow pagan concepts to enter in to your understanding and
base whole beliefs on them when nothing that you believe related to
those concepts is mentioned or inferred in the Bible. You use the
position of silence to justify your beliefs.
Post by unknown
Scripture does speak of the relationship of father/son to HS elsewhere.
It also mentions the seven spirits of God. You never mention them and
they have been sent throughout the earth.

Of course the Bible speaks of God's Holy Spirit, it also mentions the
relationship of God's spirit to me and to God the Father. It also
mentions the relationship of God the Father to me, a son of his, and
the relationship of Jesus to me as well as to His Father.

In Fact Jesus Prayed that we might all be one. That is not an argument
based on silence, it is likewise not numerically defined in any way.
It is fully open ended. It also fully disrupts your pagan influenced
doctrine.
Post by unknown
Scripture has the three persons appearing at the same event. Poof goes any
oneness pentecostalist "manistations" of the same divine person.
Yeah, Peter, James, and John. What in the world is a "manistations"?
And why do you bother bringing up another red herring of "oneness
pentecolstalist"? Another poor attempt at obfuscation? What is it
between you and those people? I don't even know if they exist other
than through your infatuation with them.
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
It
is support for Christ
being fully God and fully man undivided.
Post by Robert
Joh 14:28  Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come
again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go
unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
Divided in space and position. Yet Jesus is God and always was.
Post by unknown
It does not support the jw like statement about Christ offered previously
in this thread as "repsentative" etc. from the divine or any such notion.
Jesus Represented his Father. Are you going to deny that? Jesus only
did as His father wanted him to do? Do you deny that?
Jesus asked his Father, Mar 14:36  And he said, Abba, Father, all
nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt."
He fully knew what he was about to go through, and the grievous pain
and suffering he desired not.
Post by unknown
Noting that the reference is "Jesus" not "christ" almost always when such
Ridiculous. You have an unsupported agenda, spit it out Fool. Say what
it is you really mean.
Post by unknown
Who was Christ? Was He fully God and fully man undivided?
Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?
that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
How did his Father forsake him? Why?
Luk 9:20  He said unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Peter
answering said, The Christ of God.
Luk 2:26  And it had been divinely revealed (communicated) to him by
the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the
Lord's Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One)
Lord's Christ? God's Messiah?
Luk 23:35  And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with
them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he
be Christ, the chosen of God. 
Christ, the chosen of God?
I can go on and on with this, from scripture.
John 1:1-14 The Word, the begotten of the Father, the Light of the
world. Only those that receive him have to the power to become the
sons of God.
Yup, father and son, two seperate persons of one divine being; the HS the
3rd.
You will not find "one divine being" written about in the word of God.
Is this one of your uses of "silence", so you can run your mouth off
on things you do not know or understand?
Post by unknown
Twice Christ as a physical man said He was also God. The jews present
sought to stone Him for this claim.
Now tell us about the first section of John and the "word becoming flesh
and the flesh was God".
Then when Christ as that word/flesh prayed to the father, two persons, He
must have been praying to himself?
And none of the above scripture bits distract from Christ being fully God
and fully man undivided, they butress it in fact.
So we have our answer, Christ was fully God and fully man undivided.
Then you have a God who has a split personality, since Jesus said that
his father was greater than he. You also have Jesus, after all is said
and done, and the new earth created and so on, returning the gifts
that God the father gave to him to use so that the Father might be all
in all. You also have the fact that God the Father abandoned Jesus on
the Cross. Is your god schizoid? Do you, as a matter of fact, worship
a False God? IOW's an idol? An idol of your making and support based
on the standpoint of "silence"?
asherah
2017-01-12 17:55:01 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 09:32:33 -0800, Robert snip

Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
asherah
2017-01-12 23:29:18 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 09:32:33 -0800, Robert gagged & left 169 lines. Snip
--
Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
Patrick
2017-01-11 01:34:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by unknown
So the question stands, who was Christ ; was He fully God and fully man
undivided or is there another theory afoot?
We can addd, if another theory what is it?
I gave you the answer, with a pointer so that you could not miss it.
All you are showing me is that you purposely ignore it.
The "the father and I are one" is part of the scripture support for
trinity,ie. one God 3 persons.
There are two persons mentioned there, not three, and no use of the
word trinity any place in the Bible.
No one is arguing with you here.
And we have agreed with this dozens of times.....
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
It is support for Christ being fully God and fully man undivided.
Joh 14:28  Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come
again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go
unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
This was Jesus (the man) speaking of God, the father.
Post by Robert
Divided in space and position. Yet Jesus is God and always was.
Good to hear you say that.
Robert
2017-01-11 08:21:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by unknown
So the question stands, who was Christ ; was He fully God and fully man
undivided or is there another theory afoot?
We can addd, if another theory what is it?
I gave you the answer, with a pointer so that you could not miss it.
All you are showing me is that you purposely ignore it.
The "the father and I are one" is part of the scripture support for
trinity,ie. one God 3 persons.
There are two persons mentioned there, not three, and no use of the
word trinity any place in the Bible.
No one is arguing with you here.
And we have agreed with this dozens of times.....
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
It is support for Christ being fully God and fully man undivided.
Joh 14:28  Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come
again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go
unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
This was Jesus (the man) speaking of God, the father. **
No, Jesus, "God with us", was speaking to men about his relationship
with his father.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Divided in space and position. Yet Jesus is God and always was.
Good to hear you say that.
Yet you denied it in the circumstances above. **
astarte
2017-01-11 12:05:04 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 00:21:19 -0800, Robert snip


Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
Patrick
2017-01-11 18:46:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by unknown
So the question stands, who was Christ ; was He fully God and fully man
undivided or is there another theory afoot?
We can addd, if another theory what is it?
I gave you the answer, with a pointer so that you could not miss it.
All you are showing me is that you purposely ignore it.
The "the father and I are one" is part of the scripture support for
trinity,ie. one God 3 persons.
There are two persons mentioned there, not three, and no use of the
word trinity any place in the Bible.
No one is arguing with you here.
And we have agreed with this dozens of times.....
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
It is support for Christ being fully God and fully man undivided.
Joh 14:28  Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come
again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go
unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
This was Jesus (the man) speaking of God, the father. **
No, Jesus, "God with us", was speaking to men about his relationship
with his father.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Divided in space and position. Yet Jesus is God and always was.
Good to hear you say that.
Yet you denied it in the circumstances above. **
Read up on the "Trinity."
Robert
2017-01-12 02:10:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by unknown
So the question stands, who was Christ ; was He fully God and fully man
undivided or is there another theory afoot?
We can addd, if another theory what is it?
I gave you the answer, with a pointer so that you could not miss it.
All you are showing me is that you purposely ignore it.
The "the father and I are one" is part of the scripture support for
trinity,ie. one God 3 persons.
There are two persons mentioned there, not three, and no use of the
word trinity any place in the Bible.
No one is arguing with you here.
And we have agreed with this dozens of times.....
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
It is support for Christ being fully God and fully man undivided.
Joh 14:28  Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come
again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go
unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
This was Jesus (the man) speaking of God, the father. **
No, Jesus, "God with us", was speaking to men about his relationship
with his father.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Divided in space and position. Yet Jesus is God and always was.
Good to hear you say that.
Yet you denied it in the circumstances above. **
Read up on the "Trinity."
Already have and its a pagan God and teaching.
asherah
2017-01-12 17:35:30 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 18:10:38 -0800, Robert snip

Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
astarte
2017-01-10 20:06:06 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 09:55:08 -0800, Robert accused others of his better
habits. snip

Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
astarte
2017-01-10 14:28:10 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 09 Jan 2017 17:39:00 -0800, Robert snip,
Post by Robert
Now go back to the original post, scripture there will show you what I
believe.
Which of course according to you, is binding on everyone else. Except it
isn't.


Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
astarte
2017-01-10 00:28:26 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 09 Jan 2017 14:54:17 -0800, Robert pouted because someone didn't
follow his mistake. Snip
--
Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
astarte
2017-01-10 00:32:00 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 09 Jan 2017 14:54:17 -0800, Robert snip, just more conceit.

Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
pyotr filipivich
2017-01-10 17:02:04 UTC
Permalink
Servant on 09 Jan 2017 21:24:47 GMT typed in
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Joh 20:28  Thomas answered Him, My Lord and my God! 
Oops, there goes the jw and robert word dance in one stroke, sorry bub.
Thomas addressed He who was fully God and fully man in the confirmation
of His wombs.
His "Wombs"?
Fool, you should have read the scriptures provided. What Thomas
finally recognized is what Jesus was all along, and his words
testified of that.
Thomas doubted a risen Christ. When invited to see the marks and place his
hand in His side he believedd.
The next declaration from him "my lord and God".
Christ had already revealed His divinity to the apostles. His death caused
grave doubts among them, the physical evidence changed the mind of a
doubting Thomas.
Any theory making of Christ less then fully God and fully man undivided has
Thomas to deal with. One small bit and all such theories go "poof".
So, who was Christ? Was He fully God and fully man undivided or is there
another theory afoot? One might consult the beginning of John.
It is interesting, that in the first centuries, the Church had to
"prove" that Jesus was human. The idea that he could be a god was
easily acceptable in the culture around them.
Now, the problem is proving that he's God. Because such a notion
doesn't fit the paradigm of the culture around us.
--
pyotr
After the war two Army Chaplains were mustering out. The one said to
the other "Chaplain, it has been a real pleasure serving God with you.
You in your way, and I in His."
Patrick
2017-01-09 22:52:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Joh 20:28  Thomas answered Him, My Lord and my God! 
Oops, there goes the jw and robert word dance in one stroke, sorry bub.
Thomas addressed He who was fully God and fully man in the confirmation
of His wombs.
His "Wombs"?
Fool, you should have read the scriptures provided. What Thomas
finally recognized is what Jesus was all along, and his words
testified of that.
What was He then?
Robert
2017-01-10 03:27:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Joh 20:28  Thomas answered Him, My Lord and my God! 
Oops, there goes the jw and robert word dance in one stroke, sorry bub.
Thomas addressed He who was fully God and fully man in the confirmation
of His wombs.
His "Wombs"?
Fool, you should have read the scriptures provided. What Thomas
finally recognized is what Jesus was all along, and his words
testified of that.
What was He then?
Ask him not me, wombs"?
duke
2017-01-10 12:41:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Joh 20:28  Thomas answered Him, My Lord and my God! 
Oops, there goes the jw and robert word dance in one stroke, sorry bub.
Thomas addressed He who was fully God and fully man in the confirmation
of His wombs.
His "Wombs"?
Fool, you should have read the scriptures provided. What Thomas
finally recognized is what Jesus was all along, and his words
testified of that.
What was He then?
Ask him not me, wombs"?
Silly boy. You know, I know, the world knows that he mistyped a word. Quit
playing like a child.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Robert
2017-01-10 16:39:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Joh 20:28  Thomas answered Him, My Lord and my God! 
Oops, there goes the jw and robert word dance in one stroke, sorry bub.
Thomas addressed He who was fully God and fully man in the confirmation
of His wombs.
His "Wombs"?
Fool, you should have read the scriptures provided. What Thomas
finally recognized is what Jesus was all along, and his words
testified of that.
What was He then?
Ask him not me, wombs"?
Silly boy. You know, I know, the world knows that he mistyped a word. Quit
playing like a child.
the dukester, American-American
Since when does a man have a womb, let alone two?

and you call me a child? And support the ignorance of Patsy at the
same time? Don't they have sex education in RC schools? Or do the
priests do that one on one? <smirk>

Seriously Duke, you should think before you react.
astarte
2017-01-10 16:46:35 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 08:39:59 -0800, Robert nothing new, snip


Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
duke
2017-01-11 16:51:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Joh 20:28  Thomas answered Him, My Lord and my God! 
Oops, there goes the jw and robert word dance in one stroke, sorry bub.
Thomas addressed He who was fully God and fully man in the confirmation
of His wombs.
His "Wombs"?
Fool, you should have read the scriptures provided. What Thomas
finally recognized is what Jesus was all along, and his words
testified of that.
What was He then?
Ask him not me, wombs"?
Silly boy. You know, I know, the world knows that he mistyped a word. Quit
playing like a child.
the dukester, American-American
Since when does a man have a womb, let alone two?
STupid boy. You're still playing with words.
Post by Robert
and you call me a child? And support the ignorance of Patsy at the
same time? Don't they have sex education in RC schools? Or do the
priests do that one on one? <smirk>
You are a child.
Post by Robert
Seriously Duke, you should think before you react.
the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
astarte
2017-01-10 14:29:54 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 09 Jan 2017 19:27:02 -0800, Robert wrote:snip



Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
duke
2017-01-10 12:40:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Joh 20:28  Thomas answered Him, My Lord and my God! 
Oops, there goes the jw and robert word dance in one stroke, sorry bub.
Thomas addressed He who was fully God and fully man in the confirmation
of His wombs.
His "Wombs"?
Fool, you should have read the scriptures provided. What Thomas
finally recognized is what Jesus was all along, and his words
testified of that.
But not until after the ascension of Jesus to the Father that the new Christians
came to understand what they had participated in.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Robert
2017-01-10 16:50:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Joh 20:28  Thomas answered Him, My Lord and my God! 
Oops, there goes the jw and robert word dance in one stroke, sorry bub.
Thomas addressed He who was fully God and fully man in the confirmation
of His wombs.
His "Wombs"?
Fool, you should have read the scriptures provided. What Thomas
finally recognized is what Jesus was all along, and his words
testified of that.
But not until after the ascension of Jesus to the Father that the new Christians
came to understand what they had participated in.
the dukester, American-American
I can understand why you would think that, and to an extent it is
true, but the simple fact is that the disciples were performing
miracles, casting out demons, and so on, solely based on the words and
authorization of Jesus Christ. They were amazed and shocked at the
power they had from the very beginning of His ministry, plus some
understood because of what the holy spirit revealed to them, as Jesus
said. Yes, they had much to learn, even so.
Patrick
2017-01-10 19:32:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
I can understand why you would think that, and to an extent it is
true, but the simple fact is that the disciples were performing
miracles, casting out demons, and so on, solely based on the words and
authorization of Jesus Christ. They were amazed and shocked at the
power they had from the very beginning of His ministry,
+ Did the disciples have the power of miracles from the beginning of
Jesus' ministry?
Post by Robert
plus some
understood because of what the holy spirit revealed to them, as Jesus
said. Yes, they had much to learn, even so.
Robert
2017-01-10 20:11:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
I can understand why you would think that, and to an extent it is
true, but the simple fact is that the disciples were performing
miracles, casting out demons, and so on, solely based on the words and
authorization of Jesus Christ. They were amazed and shocked at the
power they had from the very beginning of His ministry,
+ Did the disciples have the power of miracles from the beginning of
Jesus' ministry?
Very soon after.

Luk 9:1  THEN JESUS called together the Twelve [apostles] and gave
them power and authority over all demons, and to cure diseases, 
Luk 9:2  And He sent them out to announce and preach the kingdom of
God and to bring healing.

[....

Luk 10:1  NOW AFTER this the Lord chose and appointed seventy others
and sent them out ahead of Him, two by two, into every town and place
where He Himself was about to come (visit). 

Luk 10:17  The seventy returned with joy, saying, Lord, even the
demons are subject to us in Your name! 
Luk 10:18  And He said to them, I saw Satan falling like a lightning
[flash] from heaven. 
Luk 10:19  Behold! I have given you authority and power to trample
upon serpents and scorpions, and [physical and mental strength and
ability] over all the power that the enemy [possesses]; and nothing
shall in any way harm you. 
Luk 10:20  Nevertheless, do not rejoice at this, that the spirits are
subject to you, but rejoice that your names are enrolled in heaven.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
plus some
understood because of what the holy spirit revealed to them, as Jesus
said. Yes, they had much to learn, even so.
astarte
2017-01-10 20:17:28 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 12:11:58 -0800, Robert had an orgasm? Oh well, snip
--
Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
Patrick
2017-01-10 22:40:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
I can understand why you would think that, and to an extent it is
true, but the simple fact is that the disciples were performing
miracles, casting out demons, and so on, solely based on the words and
authorization of Jesus Christ. They were amazed and shocked at the
power they had from the very beginning of His ministry,
+ Did the disciples have the power of miracles from the beginning of
Jesus' ministry?
Very soon after.
But not at the beginning....
Post by Robert
Luk 9:1  THEN JESUS called together the Twelve [apostles] and gave
them power and authority over all demons, and to cure diseases, 
Luk 9:2  And He sent them out to announce and preach the kingdom of
God and to bring healing.
This was on the trip to Galilee.
Jesus was preparing his disciple to spread the Good News after His
death.
Robert
2017-01-11 02:02:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
I can understand why you would think that, and to an extent it is
true, but the simple fact is that the disciples were performing
miracles, casting out demons, and so on, solely based on the words and
authorization of Jesus Christ. They were amazed and shocked at the
power they had from the very beginning of His ministry,
+ Did the disciples have the power of miracles from the beginning of
Jesus' ministry?
Very soon after.
But not at the beginning....
Correct.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Luk 9:1  THEN JESUS called together the Twelve [apostles] and gave
them power and authority over all demons, and to cure diseases, 
Luk 9:2  And He sent them out to announce and preach the kingdom of
God and to bring healing.
This was on the trip to Galilee.
Jesus was preparing his disciple to spread the Good News after His
death.
Actually he was preparing them to spread the Good News, then, and they
were. But the power to operate in the spirit was via an anointing, not
via the baptism of the holy spirit as on the day of Pentecost.

The Good News included healing's and deliverance's and miracles
without having to earn anything. Given Freely, by Grace and Mercy.
Jesus as God forgiving sins. No one had to earn even a thin dime for
any of it.
Given freely out of Love.
astarte
2017-01-11 12:11:25 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 18:02:47 -0800, Robert snip posturing

Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
asherah
2017-01-11 12:27:08 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 18:02:47 -0800, Robert flush gag material

Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
Patrick
2017-01-11 14:48:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
I can understand why you would think that, and to an extent it is
true, but the simple fact is that the disciples were performing
miracles, casting out demons, and so on, solely based on the words and
authorization of Jesus Christ. They were amazed and shocked at the
power they had from the very beginning of His ministry,
+ Did the disciples have the power of miracles from the beginning of
Jesus' ministry?
Very soon after.
But not at the beginning....
Correct.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Luk 9:1  THEN JESUS called together the Twelve [apostles] and gave
them power and authority over all demons, and to cure diseases, 
Luk 9:2  And He sent them out to announce and preach the kingdom of
God and to bring healing.
This was on the trip to Galilee.
Jesus was preparing his disciple to spread the Good News after His
death.
Actually he was preparing them to spread the Good News, then, and they
were. But the power to operate in the spirit was via an anointing, not
via the baptism of the holy spirit as on the day of Pentecost.
Which was after the death of Jesus.
Post by Robert
The Good News included healing's and deliverance's and miracles
without having to earn anything. Given Freely, by Grace and Mercy.
Jesus as God forgiving sins. No one had to earn even a thin dime for
any of it.
Given freely out of Love.
Try to remember what I am discussing. You claimed the disciples
"They were amazed and shocked at the power they had from the very
beginning of His ministry"
Robert
2017-01-11 21:39:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
I can understand why you would think that, and to an extent it is
true, but the simple fact is that the disciples were performing
miracles, casting out demons, and so on, solely based on the words and
authorization of Jesus Christ. They were amazed and shocked at the
power they had from the very beginning of His ministry,
+ Did the disciples have the power of miracles from the beginning of
Jesus' ministry?
Very soon after.
But not at the beginning....
Correct.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Luk 9:1  THEN JESUS called together the Twelve [apostles] and gave
them power and authority over all demons, and to cure diseases, 
Luk 9:2  And He sent them out to announce and preach the kingdom of
God and to bring healing.
This was on the trip to Galilee.
Jesus was preparing his disciple to spread the Good News after His
death.
Actually he was preparing them to spread the Good News, then, and they
were. But the power to operate in the spirit was via an anointing, not
via the baptism of the holy spirit as on the day of Pentecost.
Which was after the death of Jesus.
Post by Robert
The Good News included healing's and deliverance's and miracles
without having to earn anything. Given Freely, by Grace and Mercy.
Jesus as God forgiving sins. No one had to earn even a thin dime for
any of it.
Given freely out of Love.
Try to remember what I am discussing. You claimed the disciples
"They were amazed and shocked at the power they had from the very
beginning of His ministry"
And I said, "very soon after" and gave you scripture for it, above.

He gave them the power, the anointing almost three years before his
death. Are you really having a problem with the truth here?
Patrick
2017-01-12 00:24:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Try to remember what I am discussing. You claimed the disciples
"They were amazed and shocked at the power they had from the very
beginning of His ministry"
And I said, "very soon after" and gave you scripture for it, above.
Prove it.
The disciples were NOT given the power at the beginning of Jesus'
ministry. This happened much later.
Post by Robert
He gave them the power, the anointing almost three years before his
death. Are you really having a problem with the truth here?
Yeah.
Prove it.
Robert
2017-01-12 02:14:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Try to remember what I am discussing. You claimed the disciples
"They were amazed and shocked at the power they had from the very
beginning of His ministry"
And I said, "very soon after" and gave you scripture for it, above.
Prove it.
The disciples were NOT given the power at the beginning of Jesus'
ministry. This happened much later.
Post by Robert
He gave them the power, the anointing almost three years before his
death. Are you really having a problem with the truth here?
Yeah.
Prove it.
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>
asherah
2017-01-12 17:35:01 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 18:14:38 -0800, Robert snip
Patrick
2017-01-12 17:39:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Try to remember what I am discussing. You claimed the disciples
"They were amazed and shocked at the power they had from the very
beginning of His ministry"
And I said, "very soon after" and gave you scripture for it, above.
Prove it.
The disciples were NOT given the power at the beginning of Jesus'
ministry. This happened much later.
Post by Robert
He gave them the power, the anointing almost three years before his
death. Are you really having a problem with the truth here?
Yeah.
Prove it.
Yeah.
Prove it.
asherah
2017-01-12 17:44:35 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 13:39:17 -0800, Robert snip

Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
duke
2017-01-11 16:56:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
I can understand why you would think that, and to an extent it is
true, but the simple fact is that the disciples were performing
miracles, casting out demons, and so on, solely based on the words and
authorization of Jesus Christ. They were amazed and shocked at the
power they had from the very beginning of His ministry,
+ Did the disciples have the power of miracles from the beginning of
Jesus' ministry?
Very soon after.
Luk 9:1  THEN JESUS called together the Twelve [apostles] and gave
them power and authority over all demons, and to cure diseases, 
Luk 9:2  And He sent them out to announce and preach the kingdom of
God and to bring healing.
You're a great believer in black magic, aren't you.

If Peter stood over a dead man and said "rise" and he did, was it Peter doing it
or God. Never mind, I know good and well you're going to say 'Peter'.
Post by Robert
Luk 10:1  NOW AFTER this the Lord chose and appointed seventy others
and sent them out ahead of Him, two by two, into every town and place
where He Himself was about to come (visit). 
Luk 10:17  The seventy returned with joy, saying, Lord, even the
demons are subject to us in Your name! 
Luk 10:18  And He said to them, I saw Satan falling like a lightning
[flash] from heaven. 
Luk 10:19  Behold! I have given you authority and power to trample
upon serpents and scorpions, and [physical and mental strength and
ability] over all the power that the enemy [possesses]; and nothing
shall in any way harm you. 
Luk 10:20  Nevertheless, do not rejoice at this, that the spirits are
subject to you, but rejoice that your names are enrolled in heaven.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
plus some
understood because of what the holy spirit revealed to them, as Jesus
said. Yes, they had much to learn, even so.
the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Robert
2017-01-11 21:34:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
I can understand why you would think that, and to an extent it is
true, but the simple fact is that the disciples were performing
miracles, casting out demons, and so on, solely based on the words and
authorization of Jesus Christ. They were amazed and shocked at the
power they had from the very beginning of His ministry,
+ Did the disciples have the power of miracles from the beginning of
Jesus' ministry?
Very soon after.
Luk 9:1  THEN JESUS called together the Twelve [apostles] and gave
them power and authority over all demons, and to cure diseases, 
Luk 9:2  And He sent them out to announce and preach the kingdom of
God and to bring healing.
You're a great believer in black magic, aren't you.
If Peter stood over a dead man and said "rise" and he did, was it Peter doing it
or God. Never mind, I know good and well you're going to say 'Peter'.
What is the relationship between God and Belial? None. In the old days
you would have been struck dead for something like that.
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Luk 10:1  NOW AFTER this the Lord chose and appointed seventy others
and sent them out ahead of Him, two by two, into every town and place
where He Himself was about to come (visit). 
Luk 10:17  The seventy returned with joy, saying, Lord, even the
demons are subject to us in Your name! 
Luk 10:18  And He said to them, I saw Satan falling like a lightning
[flash] from heaven. 
Luk 10:19  Behold! I have given you authority and power to trample
upon serpents and scorpions, and [physical and mental strength and
ability] over all the power that the enemy [possesses]; and nothing
shall in any way harm you. 
Luk 10:20  Nevertheless, do not rejoice at this, that the spirits are
subject to you, but rejoice that your names are enrolled in heaven.
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
plus some
understood because of what the holy spirit revealed to them, as Jesus
said. Yes, they had much to learn, even so.
the dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
asherah
2017-01-12 23:41:49 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 13:34:09 -0800, Robert snip
Post by Robert
What is the relationship between God and Belial? None. In the old days
you would have been struck dead for something like that.
According to the Hreberew bible, a creatioon of your god.

According to others, maybe not.

No spell check, Robert can't read it. It does not agree with his
assumptions,

BELIAL בליעל 'wickedness'
I. In the manner of other ancient peoples, the Hebrews regularly
personified physical forces and abstract concepts: some-times describing
them mythically as divin-ities. This holds for some OT depictions of בליעל.
In 2 Sam 22:5 nahale biliyya'al 'tor-rents of Belial' in the sense of
'treacherous waters', are parallel to misbire mawet 'Breakers of Death':
i.e., 'deadly waves'. The personification of death (with mot cf. Ugaritic
־·Mot, god of death) indicates here a similar personification of
wickedness, treachery, or the like, as Belial. In the Psalms recension of
the same text (Ps 18:5), heble mawet 'bonds of Death', stands in
parallelism with nahale beliyya'al 'torrents of Belial'. These same
torrents are referred to later in the poem (2 Sam 22:17 = Ps 18:17) as
'mighty waters' (mayyim rabbim): a term with mythic associations (MAY
1955). The Hebrew tradition of personi-fication is widened in the Vulgate,
which transliterates, rather than translates. Belial in eight Hebrew
passages (Deut 13:13; Judg 19:22; 1 Sam 1:16; 2:12; 10:27; 25:17; 2 Sam
16:7; Nah 1:15 (2:1). In 1 Kgs 21:13 Vulgate reads diabolus (GASTER
1962:377).
II. In most of its OT attestations, beliyya'al functions as an emotive term
to describe individuals or groups who commit the most heinous crimes
against the Israelite religious or social order, as well as their acts
(MAAG 1965; ROSENBERG 1982:35-40). Such crimes include: inciting one's
fellows to worship foreign gods (Deut 13:14); per-jury (I Kgs 21:10, 13;
Prov 19:28); breach of hospitality (Judg 19:22; 1 Sam 25:17); lcsc-majesty
(1 Sam 10:27); usurpation (2 Sam 16:7-8; 20:1); abuse of -Yahweh's
sanctuary by female drunkenness (1 Sam 1:13-17); and the cultic
misappropriation and sexual harassment of women by priests (1 Sam 2:12-22).
Refusal to lend money on the eve of the Sabbatical year (Deut 15:9) falls
into the category of heinous deeds because it indicates lack of faith in
the di-vine ability to provide.
Grammatically, the term reveals some though not all features of
personification. On the one hand, in its twenty-seven occur-rcnees, (none
in the tetrateuch) btliyya'al, like the proper names of individuals, is
never attested in the plural. On the other hand, unlike true proper names
of persons, the vocable takes the definite article in the construct chains
Ή habbiliyya'al 'scoun-drcl, worthless individual', (1 Sam 25:25; 2 Sam
16:7) and its plural 'anSe habbiliyya'al 'scoundrels'(l Kgs 21:13).
Recent studies on Belial (HALAT 128; LEWIS 1992:654-656) show that there is
no unanimity with regard to its etymology. The rabbis of late antiquity
explained binS beliyya'al punningly as bine belt 'ol 'child-ren without the
yoke'; that is: those who had thrown off the yoke of heaven (b. Sank 111b).
The medieval Jewish poet and phil-osopher Judah Halevi explained the term
etymologically as a compound of the nega-tion bili and the third-person
imperfect jus-sive of CLH 'ascend'; and semantically as a wish or prayer
that malevolence should not prosper (WEISER 1976:258). Modem scholar-ship
has added several other suggestions. One suggestion is a modification of
Halevi's thesis: i.e. the wicked arc those who do not ascend from the
underworld (CROSS & FREEDMAN 1953:22) This explanation is effectively
refuted by EMERTON (1987: 214-217) who cautions that in OT conceptions even
the righteous do not ascend from the underworld. (Ps 30:4 docs not refer to
actual death, but to recovery from illness. The same holds for Ps 107:18,
cf. v 21). Another interpretation connects the term with the verb BL'
'swallow', followed by afformative lamed (MANDELKERN 1896:202). Although
this suggestion has the merit of calling attention to the fact that the
wicked arc
sometimes depicted as 'swallowers' of the righteous (Isa 49:19; Hab 1:13;
Prov 1:12; Lam 2:16; Cf. Ps 124:3), it must be recalled that God is
likewise depicted as a 'swal-lower' (Ps 55:10; Job 2:3).
It has also been claimed that the term actually consists of two homonyms
with dif-fercnt etymologies: biliyya'al I 'under-
world', composed (as above) of hi and '111, that is, the place from which
none ascend; beliyya'al II 'wickedness': composed of the negation followed
by a cognate of Arabic wa'ala 'honour', 'lineage' (TUR-SINAI 1954: 134.)
This ingenious solution does not carry conviction because there is no need
to iso-late 'death' semantically from 'malevo-Icncc'. Note the pairing of
hammawet and hard', death and evil, in Deut 30:15. Also, the fact that none
of the Arabic speaking medieval Jewish commentators such as Qiinhi, ibn
Ezra or Saadia suggested a con-ncction with wa'ala (which is not the
com-mon Arabic word for 'honour') counsels caution. Alternatively the word
has been linked with Arabic balaga 'denounce', followed by afformauve lamed
(DRIVER 1934:52-53). This last suggestion is most unlikely (LEWIS
1992:655).
The most likely explanation of the term derives it from the negation belt
followed by a noun *ya'al, related to the root ΥΊ. 'to be worthy, to be of
value' (see e.g. PEDERSEN 1926:413; GASTER 1973). It will be recalled that
Biblical Hebrew and Ugaritic provide structural parallels in words in which
the first element is a negation and the second a noun. Note for example.
Ugaridc blmt 'immortality', literally, 'without death', or bilima
'nothingness' (GASTER 1973; cf. analogously, 'al-mdwet 'dcathlessncss'.
[Prov 12:28]). The objection sometimes raised (TUR-SINAI 1954; ROSENBERG
198:235) that 'useless, worthless', is not a strong enough term to
characterize bine beliyya'al is con-tradicted by internal biblical
evidence. Thus bal-vo'ilfl, 'they arc ineffectual*, is applied to idols
(Isa 44:9; cf. Itbilti ho'il in 44:10 ibid). In addition, forms of the verb
YU pre-ceded by the negation 16' synonymous with bal, are used regularly to
characterize
foreign gods (1 Sam 12:21; Isa 44:9; Jer 2:8.11; 16:19) as well as idol
manufacturers (Isa 44:10. cf. Hab 2:18) and false prophets (Jer 23:32). The
same construction is applied to -·'lies' (Jer 7:8); and to ineffec-tual
military allies (Isa 30:5-6). Thus bene biliyya'al arc 'worthless men' and
a bat biliyya'al (1 Sam 1:16) is a 'worthless woman'. These worthless
characters are apparently not different from bine-'awla 'the wicked' (2 Sam
7:10; 3:34; 1 Chr 17:9). In fact, the Peshitta often translates biliyya-'al
by 'wl' 'wickedness' (Judg 19:22; 20:13; 1 Sam 30:22: 2 Sam 16:7; 22:5;
23:6; Pss 18:5; 30:22:41:9; 101:3).
Further confirmation of this philological analysis may be adduced from
Palestinian Jewish Aramaic in which worthy individuals arc termed bnwy
dhnyyh, that is 'bcncficicnt ones', 'useful people', while their opposite
numbers are קיקופדנמרניא, an Aramaic loan-word from Greek κακοπράγμονες
'evil doers' (LIEBERMANN & ROSENTHAL 1983: xxxiv).
III. In pseudepigraphic literature, Belial is especially well-attested
(LEWIS 1992:655) as the proper name of the -·Devil, the powerful opponent
of God, who accuses people and causes them to sin. This dualism is rooted
in Zoroastrianism, the religion of the succcsive Iranian empires within
whose borders vast numbers of Jews lived for a millennium, in which Drug
'falsehood', 'wickedness', (personified already in the inscriptions of
Darius the Great [522-486 BCE]) is opposed to ASa 'righteousness',
'justice', likewise personified, one of the bounteous immortals (GASTER
1973:429; BOYCE 1982:120). The regular form in the Pseudcpigrapha, Beliar,
and once, (Testa-ment of Levi 18:4) Belior. may be a punning explanation of
the Devil's name as 'light-ness' (belt ,dr) because, in opposition to God's
way, Belial's is the way of darkness (T Levi 19:1). It may be observed
that, according the Zoroastrian creation account, the Bundahishn, Ohrmezd
(Ahura Mazda) dwells in endless light (asar rosnih) while Ahreman (Angra
Mainyu) dwells in endless darkness (asar tarigih).
Belial is very well attested in Hebrew texts from Qumran: especially in the
War Scroll (1QM) and the Thankgiving Scroll (1QH). They describe an ongoing
struggle between good and evil. On the human plane, the Teacher of
Righteousness represents the forces of ־»light and the good; while his
opponent, the wicked priest, represents the forces of darkness and evil.
This same struggle is depicted mythically as a battle on high between the
angel ־»Michael and Belial (SCmFFMAN 1989:50). The present age is the time
of Belial's rule (mmi/t bly'l). He is the leader of 'people of the lot of
Belial' 'niy gwrl bly'l who arc opposed to 'nSy gwrl 7 'the people of the
lot of God' (IQS 1:16-2:8). In this literature too, Belial leads the forces
of darkness and malevolence (LEWIS 1992:655). .According to one Qum-ran
text (CD 4:12-15), the coming of Belial would not be permanent. After a
momentous struggle, God would eventually bring about the permanent
annihilation (kit 'wltnytn) of Belial and all of the forces of evil, both
human and angelic (1QM 1:4-5, 13-16).
The association of Belial with darkness is found in Belial's single
attestation in the New Testament (2 Cor 6:14-15): "What partnership can
righteousness have with wickedness? Can light associate with dark-ness?
What harmony (symphonesis) has -·Christ with Beliar or a believer with an
unbeliever?"
In Sybillinc Oracles 3:63-64, a text roughly comtcmporary with 2
Corinthians, it is prophesied that Beliar will come ek Sebastendn. Inasmuch
as Latin 'Augustus' was rendered in Greek by 'Scbastos', the verse has been
construed as reference to the diabolical character of Nero, descendent of
Augustus (COLLINS 1983:360, 363).
IV. Bibliography
M. BOYCE, A History of Zoroastricinistn 1-2 (Leiden 1975, 1982); J. J.
COLLINS in J. H. Charlesworth (ed.). T he Old Testament Pseudepigrapliy I
(Garden City 1983); F. M. CROSS & D. N. FREEDMAN, A Royal Psalm of
Thanksgiving: II Samuel 22 = Psalm 18, JBL 72 (1953) 15-34; G. R.
DRIVER, Hebrew Notes, ZAW 52 (1934) 51-
66; J. A. EMERTON, Shcol and the Sons of Belial, EncJud 4 (Jerusalem 1973)
428-429;
H. KOSMALA. The Three Nets of Belial, AST/ 4 (1965) 91-1 13; T. LEWIS,
Belial, A8D 1 (1992) 654-656; S. LIEBERMAN & E. S. ROSENTHAL, Yerushalmi
Neziqin (Jerusa-lem 1983); V. MAAG, Belija'al im Altcn Testament, 7Z 21
(1965) 287-299; S.
MANDELKERN, Hekal Haqqodesh (Leipzig 1896); H. MAY, Some Cosmic
Connotations of Mayitn Rabbim, 'Many Waters', JBL 74 (1955) 9-21; J.
PEDERSEN, Israel, its Ufe and Culture (London 1926); R. ROSEN-BERG, The
Concept of Biblical 'Belial', Pro-ceedings of the Eight World Congress of
Jewish Studies 1 (Jerusalem 1982) 35-40; L. SCHUTMAN. The Eschatological
Community of Qumran (Atlanta 1989): N. H. TUR-
SINAI, בליעל. EncMiqr 2 (Jerusalem 1954) 132-133: A. WEISER, IbN Ezra
Perushe
Hattorah le-Rabbenu Avraham ibn Ezra 3 (Jerusalem 1976).
S. D. SPERLING
--
Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
astarte
2017-01-10 20:02:57 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 08:50:49 -0800, Robert wrote from la la land. snip


Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
duke
2017-01-11 16:54:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Joh 20:28  Thomas answered Him, My Lord and my God! 
Oops, there goes the jw and robert word dance in one stroke, sorry bub.
Thomas addressed He who was fully God and fully man in the confirmation
of His wombs.
His "Wombs"?
Fool, you should have read the scriptures provided. What Thomas
finally recognized is what Jesus was all along, and his words
testified of that.
But not until after the ascension of Jesus to the Father that the new Christians
came to understand what they had participated in.
I can understand why you would think that, and to an extent it is
true, but the simple fact is that the disciples were performing
miracles, casting out demons, and so on, solely based on the words and
authorization of Jesus Christ.
They were? Haahaahaa. If "they" were, God was the one actually doing it. If
"Jesus" did it, God was the one actually doing it.

You're a dunce.
Post by Robert
They were amazed and shocked at the
power they had from the very beginning of His ministry, plus some
understood because of what the holy spirit revealed to them, as Jesus
said. Yes, they had much to learn, even so.
Haahaahaa.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Robert
2017-01-11 21:52:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by duke
Post by Robert
Post by unknown
Post by Robert
Joh 20:28  Thomas answered Him, My Lord and my God! 
Oops, there goes the jw and robert word dance in one stroke, sorry bub.
Thomas addressed He who was fully God and fully man in the confirmation
of His wombs.
His "Wombs"?
Fool, you should have read the scriptures provided. What Thomas
finally recognized is what Jesus was all along, and his words
testified of that.
But not until after the ascension of Jesus to the Father that the new Christians
came to understand what they had participated in.
I can understand why you would think that, and to an extent it is
true, but the simple fact is that the disciples were performing
miracles, casting out demons, and so on, solely based on the words and
authorization of Jesus Christ.
They were? Haahaahaa. If "they" were, God was the one actually doing it. If
"Jesus" did it, God was the one actually doing it.
You're a dunce.
Yes, Christ gave them the authority. Over all the power of the enemy.
Post by duke
Post by Robert
They were amazed and shocked at the
power they had from the very beginning of His ministry, plus some
understood because of what the holy spirit revealed to them, as Jesus
said. Yes, they had much to learn, even so.
Haahaahaa.
the dukester, American-American
You can't even believe the word of God and yet you call yourself a
Christian?
asherah
2017-01-12 17:44:05 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 13:52:44 -0800, Robert snip


Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
Jan Tagmier
2017-01-09 21:34:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Many have read this, yet not seen it.
Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Here is how the Greek to English is clarified;
Joh 1:18 No man has ever seen God at any time; the only unique Son,
or the only begotten God, Who is in the bosom [in the intimate
presence] of the Father, He has declared Him [He has revealed Him and
brought Him out where He can be seen; He has interpreted Him and He
has made Him known]. (AMP)
Jesus, "He" has declared Him, made him known. This was a major part of
the work of Christ on earth, he who was sacrificed for the sins of the
whole earth.
Of course I expect many arguments on this and this was near the
beginning of Christ's ministry on the earth. During the course of
Christ's first ministry on earth he said this,...
Joh 14:6 Jesus said to him, I am the Way and the Truth and the Life;
no one comes to the Father except by (through) Me.
Joh 14:7 If you had known Me [had learned to recognize Me], you would
also have known My Father. From now on, you know Him and have seen
Him.
Joh 14:8 Philip said to Him, Lord, show us the Father [cause us to
see the Father--that is all we ask]; then we shall be satisfied.
Joh 14:9 Jesus replied, Have I been with all of you for so long a
time, and do you not recognize and know Me yet, Philip? Anyone who has
seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say then, Show us the
Father?
Now there is much more to this in Chapter 14 for those that care to
see, yet here Jesus clearly states, Anyone who has seen me has seen
the Father.
Jesus was authorized to speak this, He was God's representative on
earth and spoke only on the authorization of His Father. He
represented God well, and He also showed the anger of God regarding
the money changers in the temple, tossing over their tables and
running them out of the temple.
Still need convincing, like a JW will? Very near the end of his
ministry on earth with the messages of Good News, Christ said this,...
Joh 20:26 Eight days later His disciples were again in the house, and
Thomas was with them. Jesus came, though they were behind closed
doors, and stood among them and said, Peace to you!
Joh 20:27 Then He said to Thomas, Reach out your finger here, and see
My hands; and put out your hand and place [it] in My side. Do not be
faithless and incredulous, but [stop your unbelief and] believe!
Joh 20:28 Thomas answered Him, My Lord and my God!
Joh 20:29 Jesus said to him, Because you have seen Me, Thomas, do you
now believe (trust, have faith)? Blessed and happy and to be envied
are those who have never seen Me and yet have believed and adhered to
and trusted and relied on Me.
Yes, ALL the disciples, not just the twelve know fully knew who they
had been living with and following. The rest of the world around
Jerusalem saw God the Father, via Jesus, whether they fully understood
or not.
So we can see now that mankind has seen God since it was an objective
of Jesus to make Him known to all that would listen. God showed
through Jesus Christ many signs, wonders, miracles and healing's.
Raising people from the dead and freeing all who were oppressed of the
enemy.
Jesus here in this last passage also left a message directly to you
and me, when He said, "Blessed and happy and to be envied are those
who have never seen Me and yet have believed and adhered to and
trusted and relied on Me."
Notice, he did not say washed with water, but have believed, etc.
So you believe that Matthew 3:11 make water baptism unecessary..I
would agree with you that in some cases it would not be required
like that of the thief on the cross, or new believers that are as
yet not a member of a church some where, but in the end don't you
also believe that this would be solely up to the discretion of God ?
Patrick
2017-01-09 22:53:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jan Tagmier
Post by Robert
Many have read this, yet not seen it.
Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Here is how the Greek to English is clarified;
Joh 1:18 No man has ever seen God at any time; the only unique Son,
or the only begotten God, Who is in the bosom [in the intimate
presence] of the Father, He has declared Him [He has revealed Him and
brought Him out where He can be seen; He has interpreted Him and He
has made Him known]. (AMP)
Jesus, "He" has declared Him, made him known. This was a major part of
the work of Christ on earth, he who was sacrificed for the sins of the
whole earth.
Of course I expect many arguments on this and this was near the
beginning of Christ's ministry on the earth. During the course of
Christ's first ministry on earth he said this,...
Joh 14:6 Jesus said to him, I am the Way and the Truth and the Life;
no one comes to the Father except by (through) Me.
Joh 14:7 If you had known Me [had learned to recognize Me], you would
also have known My Father. From now on, you know Him and have seen
Him.
Joh 14:8 Philip said to Him, Lord, show us the Father [cause us to
see the Father--that is all we ask]; then we shall be satisfied.
Joh 14:9 Jesus replied, Have I been with all of you for so long a
time, and do you not recognize and know Me yet, Philip? Anyone who has
seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say then, Show us the
Father?
Now there is much more to this in Chapter 14 for those that care to
see, yet here Jesus clearly states, Anyone who has seen me has seen
the Father.
Jesus was authorized to speak this, He was God's representative on
earth and spoke only on the authorization of His Father. He
represented God well, and He also showed the anger of God regarding
the money changers in the temple, tossing over their tables and
running them out of the temple.
Still need convincing, like a JW will? Very near the end of his
ministry on earth with the messages of Good News, Christ said this,...
Joh 20:26 Eight days later His disciples were again in the house, and
Thomas was with them. Jesus came, though they were behind closed
doors, and stood among them and said, Peace to you!
Joh 20:27 Then He said to Thomas, Reach out your finger here, and see
My hands; and put out your hand and place [it] in My side. Do not be
faithless and incredulous, but [stop your unbelief and] believe!
Joh 20:28 Thomas answered Him, My Lord and my God!
Joh 20:29 Jesus said to him, Because you have seen Me, Thomas, do you
now believe (trust, have faith)? Blessed and happy and to be envied
are those who have never seen Me and yet have believed and adhered to
and trusted and relied on Me.
Yes, ALL the disciples, not just the twelve know fully knew who they
had been living with and following. The rest of the world around
Jerusalem saw God the Father, via Jesus, whether they fully understood
or not.
So we can see now that mankind has seen God since it was an objective
of Jesus to make Him known to all that would listen. God showed
through Jesus Christ many signs, wonders, miracles and healing's.
Raising people from the dead and freeing all who were oppressed of the
enemy.
Jesus here in this last passage also left a message directly to you
and me, when He said, "Blessed and happy and to be envied are those
who have never seen Me and yet have believed and adhered to and
trusted and relied on Me."
Notice, he did not say washed with water, but have believed, etc.
So you believe that Matthew 3:11 make water baptism unecessary..I
would agree with you that in some cases it would not be required
like that of the thief on the cross, or new believers that are as
yet not a member of a church some where, but in the end don't you
also believe that this would be solely up to the discretion of God ?
Good answer.
Jan Tagmier
2017-01-10 13:48:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Jan Tagmier
Post by Robert
Many have read this, yet not seen it.
Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Here is how the Greek to English is clarified;
Joh 1:18 No man has ever seen God at any time; the only unique Son,
or the only begotten God, Who is in the bosom [in the intimate
presence] of the Father, He has declared Him [He has revealed Him and
brought Him out where He can be seen; He has interpreted Him and He
has made Him known]. (AMP)
Jesus, "He" has declared Him, made him known. This was a major part of
the work of Christ on earth, he who was sacrificed for the sins of the
whole earth.
Of course I expect many arguments on this and this was near the
beginning of Christ's ministry on the earth. During the course of
Christ's first ministry on earth he said this,...
Joh 14:6 Jesus said to him, I am the Way and the Truth and the Life;
no one comes to the Father except by (through) Me.
Joh 14:7 If you had known Me [had learned to recognize Me], you would
also have known My Father. From now on, you know Him and have seen
Him.
Joh 14:8 Philip said to Him, Lord, show us the Father [cause us to
see the Father--that is all we ask]; then we shall be satisfied.
Joh 14:9 Jesus replied, Have I been with all of you for so long a
time, and do you not recognize and know Me yet, Philip? Anyone who has
seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say then, Show us the
Father?
Now there is much more to this in Chapter 14 for those that care to
see, yet here Jesus clearly states, Anyone who has seen me has seen
the Father.
Jesus was authorized to speak this, He was God's representative on
earth and spoke only on the authorization of His Father. He
represented God well, and He also showed the anger of God regarding
the money changers in the temple, tossing over their tables and
running them out of the temple.
Still need convincing, like a JW will? Very near the end of his
ministry on earth with the messages of Good News, Christ said this,...
Joh 20:26 Eight days later His disciples were again in the house, and
Thomas was with them. Jesus came, though they were behind closed
doors, and stood among them and said, Peace to you!
Joh 20:27 Then He said to Thomas, Reach out your finger here, and see
My hands; and put out your hand and place [it] in My side. Do not be
faithless and incredulous, but [stop your unbelief and] believe!
Joh 20:28 Thomas answered Him, My Lord and my God!
Joh 20:29 Jesus said to him, Because you have seen Me, Thomas, do you
now believe (trust, have faith)? Blessed and happy and to be envied
are those who have never seen Me and yet have believed and adhered to
and trusted and relied on Me.
Yes, ALL the disciples, not just the twelve know fully knew who they
had been living with and following. The rest of the world around
Jerusalem saw God the Father, via Jesus, whether they fully understood
or not.
So we can see now that mankind has seen God since it was an objective
of Jesus to make Him known to all that would listen. God showed
through Jesus Christ many signs, wonders, miracles and healing's.
Raising people from the dead and freeing all who were oppressed of the
enemy.
Jesus here in this last passage also left a message directly to you
and me, when He said, "Blessed and happy and to be envied are those
who have never seen Me and yet have believed and adhered to and
trusted and relied on Me."
Notice, he did not say washed with water, but have believed, etc.
So you believe that Matthew 3:11 make water baptism unecessary..I
would agree with you that in some cases it would not be required
like that of the thief on the cross, or new believers that are as
yet not a member of a church some where, but in the end don't you
also believe that this would be solely up to the discretion of God ?
Good answer.
? Do you have a fever ?(jokingly) Thank you Patrick.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...