- This topic has 3,215 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Mike……….The LOGOS (intellect of GOD) or Spirit of GOD came to be (IN) Flesh , it was (IN) Jesus and in this way it came to be (IN) flesh, and it is also comes to Be (IN) all who have recieved it. (it is the POWER from ON HIGH, that Jesus told the disciples to remain in Jerusalem until they recieved this POWER from on High. It is the I in you and YOU In me and GOD in all and through all. The Holy Spirit (intellect of GOD) now dwells in Flesh and Jesus was the First to Have it (IN) Him. It is the very Presents of GOD the Father himself dwelling in HUMAN beings. You trinitarians and Preexistences change all of that and circumvent the solid and sound truth, because of your preconceived false teachings you have acquired in you pasts.
Marty , Paladin, Ed j, Istari, I and others have told you the truth, but your refuse to even consider it, because your afraid your house of cards will come crashing down, so you set out to distort what we have written you as you clearly do to Paladin and others also. Truth is not the issue with you Mike, but winning your position so you just completely shutoff any thing put before you . Your preventing Growth here . SAD MIKE, IMO
peace and love………………………………………….gene
Quote (Paladin @ July 07 2011,05:52) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 07 2011,14:08) Quote (Paladin @ July 06 2011,04:17) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 06 2011,12:43) Quote (Paladin @ July 05 2011,05:37) Quote (mike @ 64) Paladin, You are confusing an action that WAS continuous IN THE PAST with an action that is STILL ongoing and has NEVER ended.
Not me. I never claimed any such thing. I have never said
“Still ongoing” nor have I said “Never ending.” That is simply another example of your continual approach to my posts, Mike; i.e., you have to “translate” everything I say into
“what you think I meant.” And you are never right when you do that.
Oh, then I misunderstood you and you DON'T claim that Jesus could not have been referring to a glory he used to have, but had no longer?Because it sure seemed to me that you were claiming the imperfect tense of “echo” prohibited Jesus from asking for a glory that he had in the past.
But you now admit that Jesus COULD HAVE BEEN asking to have a past glory returned to him?
GREAT! We agree then – because that's EXACTLY what Jesus was doing.
mike, you and I will never agree, because you always change what is said, for what was not said, and claim, “If you don't mean this, then it must mean that,” when it is not true.Post your own conclusions under your own name and quit trying to put my name to your silly ways of saying things that are not so.
But the world loved darkness, and so would never agree with the light.Why do you play so many games, Paladin? Why not just address what's really happening here?
YOU claimed that the imperfect tense of “echo” in John 17:5 prohibited Jesus from asking God to return a glory he had in the past.
Was that claim correct? YES or NO?
If “YES”, then why doesn't the imperfect tense of the same word mean that Barabbas was STILL in Roman custody when Matthew wrote his gospel?
If “NO”, then just plainly admit you made a mistake so we can all move on.
This is really not that hard. Were I dealing with an honest adult here, the whole thing would have been resolved with one or two posts.
This whole thing would have been resolved with one post Mike, if you would have actually read what I said. Instead of that, you changed what I said, made your own interpretation of what your translation means, then insisted for forty posts, that I say it like you mean it.I told you a long time ago, I do not respond to bullying tactice, and bootcamp philosophy; and I certainly will not answer all the lies you post while calling attention to them by addressing your buddies.
Paladin,Why can't you answer the simple YES or NO question? There are only TWO choices:
1. You DID claim what I said you claimed. (The correct choice, for it is right there in your posts in black and white for all to see.)
2. You DIDN'T claim what I said you claimed, in which case there is NOTHING that prohibits Jesus from speaking about a glory he had in the past alongside his God. Nor is there ANYTHING prohibiting YOU from clearing up any misunderstanding you claim I have concerning the words you posted.
The bottom line is that #2 is the truth of the matter, for Jesus is most definitely and most obviously speaking of a past glory he had with his God before the creation of the world.
The only question remaining is whether you will ever admit you were wrong when you tried to pull the wool over our eyes and say the Greek grammar prohibited this from being the case.
Quote (942767 @ July 07 2011,06:43)
Hi Mike:The Logos was made flesh. That means there was a change from Logos to flesh. And so, no it was not the Logos who dwelt among us, but the human being to whom the Logos pertained.
The Logos was made flesh and dwelt among us, but it was NOT the Logos who dwelt among us?
Marty, are you unable to even see that you're saying the Logos WAS the flesh thing that dwelt among us at the exact same time you're saying the Logos WASN'T the flesh thing that dwelt among us? The “WORD” from the first sentence is the referent of the “HIM” in the second sentence, Marty. In other words, the HIM who dwelt among us IS the Word who was made flesh. It is this one who had the glory of an only begotten from the Father.
Quote (942767 @ July 07 2011,06:43)
Paladin's greater knowledge of the Greek language than me, for sure, not probably you as well, and so, if someone has greater knowledge on some issue than me, I will at least listen to what he has to say.
Marty, the Greek language is not rocket science. I have shown you in layman's terms the issue with the imperfect “echo”. Surely you are smart enough to see that Paladin is WRONG on this one? It's really quite simple: If Jesus couldn't have been referring to a past glory he had, then Barabbas was STILL in prison when Matthew wrote his gospel.So……………..WAS Barabbas STILL in Roman custody when Matthew wrote his gospel, Marty? YES or NO?
If he was not, then Jesus surely COULD HAVE BEEN speaking of a past glory that had since ended.
So since I am the one showing you that I have more knowledge than you in this area, why not listen to ME?
It baffles me that you and Gene have witnessed me proving Paladin wrong more than once on this thread, yet because he supports YOUR doctrine, he is the “expert”.
You can see right now how I've been trying and trying to put this whole thing into layman's term so you can all see that Paladin made a false claim to support his doctrine. And at the same time, what exactly has Paladin been doing? Has he been trying to have an intelligent discussion about it? Or has he been avoiding the issue, playing word games about how I didn't quote him right, and making flippant remarks instead of addressing the Barabbas verse that he KNOWS proves him wrong?You've witnessed it as it happened Marty. Gene too. Yet you pretend you're Switzerland while Gene keeps shouting “Hooray for Paladin” and talking nonsense about how HE is showing ME things and I just won't believe.
Is that fair, Marty? You can surely see with you own eyes that he is wrong on this one. Why won't you be an honest and truthful man and say exactly what you know to be the truth? Are you looking for praise from MEN or from God, Marty?
And please, if you don't understand the “echo” issue, ask questions about it until you do understand. Then, you can make an informed decision.
peace,
mikeQuote (Gene Balthrop @ July 07 2011,09:07)
Mike……….The LOGOS (intellect of GOD) or Spirit of GOD came to be (IN) Flesh
Gene, but the scripture doesn't say “came to be IN flesh”, does it? Don't even talk to me until you're ready to discuss the scriptures AS THEY'RE WRITTEN, not AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM BE WRITTEN.Quote (Gene Balthrop @ July 07 2011,09:07)
Marty , Paladin, Ed j, Istari, I and others have told you the truth, but your refuse to even consider it, because your afraid your house of cards will come crashing down,
Yet Paladin has told you that Jesus was NEVER “exactly like us” – was he telling you the truth but you refused to even consider it?Ed has told you that we DO have free will – was he telling you the truth but you refused to even consider it?
Istari has told you that angels DON'T have bodies – was he telling you the truth but you refused to even consider it?
Any time you point a finger at me, remember that three other fingers are pointing back at yourself.
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ July 07 2011,09:07)
so you set out to distort what we have written you as you clearly do to Paladin and others also.
Really? Then in your OWN words, why don't YOU tell me what Paladin was really claiming about the imperfect tense of “echo”, and how what I said he was claiming differs from what he was really claiming?I'll await your overview of the situation.
Mike………..MY overview of the situation is, that while i may not (as Yet) agree with every detail of (ANYONE HERE) I do agree in much of what these people say though. Going back and trying to split Hairs is what i would see you trying to Do because you think by doing that your can separated us form our overall contextual agreements . It won't work Mike not with me or any other here who is guided by GOD spirit of Truth. While we might not agree in every exact point because we may not be coming from the exact view points of each other. But we do agree in the overall concepts of many post we are posting to each other. Trying to divide Brother is an Evil work Mike , I could say the same thing about you and Terricca, and IRENE and T8 also. That is my view of the situation Mike hope that answers you question. No one here is calming to have (ALL) the Knowledge Mike , except YOU, “we see in part ” , But we are growing into a more excellent way i do believe. While your stuck in the Past Dogmas of Christendom. The Trinity and Preexistences doctrines is not allowing you to percieve what we are saying . IMO
peace and love……………………………………gene
Gene! To put us in the same boat then the trinatarians is really uncalled for. You know darn well that we don't believe in the trinity. Your attitude of only having the truth is as false as your understanding of the Scriptures. Many of them, not only one….. Talking about evil work. Who is saying what? It is YOU who are saying we are inline with the trinitarian, even though you know, we don't believe in it. How many times have I showed you, what they don't believe as far as the preexisting goes. Yet you have over and over again accuse us of it. Oh, that is not evil its the truth YOU might say, I can hear you already…. You accuse Mike of having all the truths, yet don't see that is exactly what YOU are claiming….
Once up on a time Mr. Armstrong said that Jesus is the Spokesman of God, yet that too now you deny. He was right…… There are two Beings in John 1:1-14 the begotten of the Father and His Father.
Your pride has blinded you so much you don't see the Tree's for the Forest. And who is dividing? We have shown plain written Scriptures, while you add to them, for your doctrine…..
I am also done with you no need to reply…… I will not answer your posts again….. Hopefully God will give me the strength this time to do so. While I have said this before. It takes a lot for me not to respond to nonsense….
Peace IreneQuote (mikeboll64 @ July 08 2011,12:48) Quote (942767 @ July 07 2011,06:43)
Hi Mike:The Logos was made flesh. That means there was a change from Logos to flesh. And so, no it was not the Logos who dwelt among us, but the human being to whom the Logos pertained.
The Logos was made flesh and dwelt among us, but it was NOT the Logos who dwelt among us? Marty, are you unable to even see that you're saying the Logos WAS the flesh thing that dwelt among us at the exact same time you're saying the Logos WASN'T the flesh thing that dwelt among us? The “WORD” from the first sentence is the referent of the “HIM” in the second sentence, Marty. In other words, the HIM who dwelt among us IS the Word who was made flesh. It is this one who had the glory of an only begotten from the Father.
Quote (942767 @ July 07 2011,06:43)
Paladin's greater knowledge of the Greek language than me, for sure, not probably you as well, and so, if someone has greater knowledge on some issue than me, I will at least listen to what he has to say.
Marty, the Greek language is not rocket science. I have shown you in layman's terms the issue with the imperfect “echo”. Surely you are smart enough to see that Paladin is WRONG on this one? It's really quite simple: If Jesus couldn't have been referring to a past glory he had, then Barabbas was STILL in prison when Matthew wrote his gospel.So……………..WAS Barabbas STILL in Roman custody when Matthew wrote his gospel, Marty? YES or NO?
If he was not, then Jesus surely COULD HAVE BEEN speaking of a past glory that had since ended.
So since I am the one showing you that I have more knowledge than you in this area, why not listen to ME?
It baffles me that you and Gene have witnessed me proving Paladin wrong more than once on this thread, yet because he supports YOUR doctrine, he is the “expert”.
You can see right now how I've been trying and trying to put this whole thing into layman's term so you can all see that Paladin made a false claim to support his doctrine. And at the same time, what exactly has Paladin been doing? Has he been trying to have an intelligent discussion about it? Or has he been avoiding the issue, playing word games about how I didn't quote him right, and making flippant remarks instead of addressing the Barabbas verse that he KNOWS proves him wrong?You've witnessed it as it happened Marty. Gene too. Yet you pretend you're Switzerland while Gene keeps shouting “Hooray for Paladin” and talking nonsense about how HE is showing ME things and I just won't believe.
Is that fair, Marty? You can surely see with you own eyes that he is wrong on this one. Why won't you be an honest and truthful man and say exactly what you know to be the truth? Are you looking for praise from MEN or from God, Marty?
And please, if you don't understand the “echo” issue, ask questions about it until you do understand. Then, you can make an informed decision.
peace,
mike
Hi Mike:The Logos is the “Word of God” what God has said, and it pertains to Jesus, but no, he is not the Logos (what God has said), but what God has said pertains to him and the Word of God(what God has said) was made flesh or a human being.
And this is the Logos: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life”.
And in parenthesis we have: “And we beheld his as of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth”.
And as to the imperfect “Echo” as it pertains to Barabbas in Matthew 27:16 the imperfect shows continual action, but he was released from that imprisonment or continual action, and so, I do not see that this is an equivalent situation to Jesus saying:
Jhn 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
“Echo” here was a continual action from which he was not released. It was a done deal
Love in Christ,
MartyMarty……….You are right Jesus was having that Glory with the Father (Before), or (in front of the word) while he was on this earth, the Father was truely With (IN) Him Just as He said He was, it had nothing to do with any past preexistence at all. Paladin and you both are right in this brother. IMO
peace and love to you and yours………………………………………gene
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 08 2011,12:18) Quote (Paladin @ July 07 2011,05:52) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 07 2011,14:08) Quote (Paladin @ July 06 2011,04:17) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 06 2011,12:43) Quote (Paladin @ July 05 2011,05:37) Quote (mike @ 64) Paladin, You are confusing an action that WAS continuous IN THE PAST with an action that is STILL ongoing and has NEVER ended.
Not me. I never claimed any such thing. I have never said
“Still ongoing” nor have I said “Never ending.” That is simply another example of your continual approach to my posts, Mike; i.e., you have to “translate” everything I say into
“what you think I meant.” And you are never right when you do that.
Oh, then I misunderstood you and you DON'T claim that Jesus could not have been referring to a glory he used to have, but had no longer?Because it sure seemed to me that you were claiming the imperfect tense of “echo” prohibited Jesus from asking for a glory that he had in the past.
But you now admit that Jesus COULD HAVE BEEN asking to have a past glory returned to him?
GREAT! We agree then – because that's EXACTLY what Jesus was doing.
mike, you and I will never agree, because you always change what is said, for what was not said, and claim, “If you don't mean this, then it must mean that,” when it is not true.Post your own conclusions under your own name and quit trying to put my name to your silly ways of saying things that are not so.
But the world loved darkness, and so would never agree with the light.Why do you play so many games, Paladin? Why not just address what's really happening here?
YOU claimed that the imperfect tense of “echo” in John 17:5 prohibited Jesus from asking God to return a glory he had in the past.
Was that claim correct? YES or NO?
If “YES”, then why doesn't the imperfect tense of the same word mean that Barabbas was STILL in Roman custody when Matthew wrote his gospel?
If “NO”, then just plainly admit you made a mistake so we can all move on.
This is really not that hard. Were I dealing with an honest adult here, the whole thing would have been resolved with one or two posts.
This whole thing would have been resolved with one post Mike, if you would have actually read what I said. Instead of that, you changed what I said, made your own interpretation of what your translation means, then insisted for forty posts, that I say it like you mean it.I told you a long time ago, I do not respond to bullying tactice, and bootcamp philosophy; and I certainly will not answer all the lies you post while calling attention to them by addressing your buddies.
Paladin,Why can't you answer the simple YES or NO question? There are only TWO choices:
1. You DID claim what I said you claimed. (The correct choice, for it is right there in your posts in black and white for all to see.)
2. You DIDN'T claim what I said you claimed, in which case there is NOTHING that prohibits Jesus from speaking about a glory he had in the past alongside his God. Nor is there ANYTHING prohibiting YOU from clearing up any misunderstanding you claim I have concerning the words you posted.
The bottom line is that #2 is the truth of the matter, for Jesus is most definitely and most obviously speaking of a past glory he had with his God before the creation of the world.
The only question remaining is whether you will ever admit you were wrong when you tried to pull the wool over our eyes and say the Greek grammar prohibited this from being the case.
Mike, I'm still looking for the post where I said what you claim I said.If you know where it is, you really should include it with the first time you make the accusation, so I won't have to spend so much valuable time researching for something that may not be there.
What is the post page or the url, either one?
Quote (Pastry @ July 07 2011,22:13) [/quote] Quote (Paladin @ July 07 2011,20:00) Pastry,July wrote:Paladin! You tell me where you said YOU were wrong?
As far as when I said I was wrong to Nick, is some time ago, and I am not about to go through all treads to find it….If you don't believe me, God knows, and in God I trust and depend….
Right! I am supposed to trust you but you require me to show you.
Bye Irene!
Paladin………..Seems Mike plays by a double standard. What is good for the goose in his case is not good fro the gander. He win his battles by discrediting his challengers and forces his opinions with over exaggerating Letters sizes and Making stupid Icon Jesters and ridiculing people, who disagree with his DOGMAS. What i have noticed is there is definitely a dividing line here between People who are accruing truth and those who are stuck in there past preconceived dogmas and are void of the cognizance of the truth , but some are putting things together more and more clearly Here and it would be better to considerate on those who are true seekers of the truth , IMO
Your explanation of the LOGOS was excellent and fits the Scriptures and the words of Jesus also. Keep p the good work Paladin, just ignore the ignorance of the ignorant it just has not been given to them yet, but i believe a time will come when they will see the ignorance that was (IN) them. IMO
peace and love to you Paladin and Yours Brother…………………………………gene
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 25 2011,08:36) Quote (942767 @ April 24 2011,15:12) He was in his ministry on earth and yet he was saying that he was in heaven at the same time.
No he wasn't Marty. Many mss don't even have the last line: “Who is in heaven”. And others have “who WAS in heaven” or “who is FROM heaven”.Remember that the Greek language has an historical present tense, which many English translators render as a simple English past tense.
So your “who IS in heaven” could just as faithfully be “who WAS in heaven”. And “who WAS in heaven” is the translation that fits in with what Jesus had just said.
mike
O.K. Mike, I have spent a lot of time researching your phony “Greek historical present” which I find in ATR to bb a made up standard, just as I told you in [102-6].ATR gives several examples of the Greek historical presence, made up of indicative present actives; indicative aorist actives; indicative pluperfect actives; indicative imperfect actives; indicative active participles; indicative present middle or passive deponents; and ATR says there is no rule governing it.
He agrees with my conclusion, i.e., it is all made up to accomodate trinitarian developement of doctrine.
This falls into the category of Collwell's rule, and Sharpe's rule; neither of which are Greek rules. They were made up for the express purpose of justifying trinity doctrine.
so, please, stop with your false Greek and focus.
Quote (Paladin @ July 09 2011,08:28) Quote (Pastry @ July 07 2011,22:13) Quote (Paladin @ July 07 2011,20:00) Quote (Pastry @ July 07 2011,00:54) Paladin! You tell me where you said YOU were wrong? As far as when I said I was wrong to Nick, is some time ago, and I am not about to go through all treads to find it….If you don't believe me, God knows, and in God I trust and depend….
Right! I am supposed to trust you but you require me to show you.
Bye Irene!
Paladin! If I find my apology to Nick, I will show you….IreneQuote (Pastry @ July 09 2011,23:34) Quote (Paladin @ July 09 2011,08:28) Quote (Pastry @ July 07 2011,22:13) Quote (Paladin @ July 07 2011,20:00) Quote (Pastry @ July 07 2011,00:54) Paladin! You tell me where you said YOU were wrong? As far as when I said I was wrong to Nick, is some time ago, and I am not about to go through all treads to find it….If you don't believe me, God knows, and in God I trust and depend….
Right! I am supposed to trust you but you require me to show you.
Bye Irene!
Paladin! If I find my apology to Nick, I will show you….Irene
No, Irene, it is not necessary, because if you say it, I believe you. Don't waste your time in fruitless searches that have no meaning.I have no problem with believing everything you say, as long as it is not a matter of doctrine.
I never called you anything but “friend” and still do not.
But it was you who required the proof of me, and I provided it.
I just don't want a double standard beetween friends.
Quote (942767 @ July 08 2011,13:08) And as to the imperfect “Echo” as it pertains to Barabbas in Matthew 27:16 the imperfect shows continual action, but he was released from that imprisonment or continual action, and so, I do not see that this is an equivalent situation to Jesus saying: Jhn 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
“Echo” here was a continual action from which he was not released. It was a done deal
Hi Marty,Is the Word of God also the Son of God? Did God BEGET his own spoken words?
About “echo”: You are welcome to make your unfounded claim about the glory of Jesus. But that is not the point. The point of the disagreement has ALWAYS been: DOES THE IMPERFECT TENSE OF “ECHO” PROHIBIT JESUS FROM SPEAKING OF A PAST GLORY?
Does it Marty?
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ July 08 2011,15:17) Marty……….You are right Jesus was having that Glory with the Father (Before), or (in front of the word) while he was on this earth, the Father was truely With (IN) Him Just as He said He was, it had nothing to do with any past preexistence at all. Paladin and you both are right in this brother. IMO peace and love to you and yours………………………………………gene
Gene,Was Jesus saying, “Glorify me now with the glory I ALREADY HAVE in front of the whole world”? YES or NO?
Quote (Paladin @ July 08 2011,15:21) Mike, I'm still looking for the post where I said what you claim I said. If you know where it is, you really should include it with the first time you make the accusation, so I won't have to spend so much valuable time researching for something that may not be there.
Paladin,At least TWO of the times you said this were in the last 10 pages of this thread. And I will be happy to show you where those posts are. But before I do that, thereby allowing you to play games about how you didn't cap the “T” or underline the “O” or whatever, enabling you to say you didn't really say what I claimed you did, how about answering one simple question that will end this thing once and for all?
Paladin, does the imperfect tense of “echo” in John 17:5 PROHIBIT Jesus from speaking about a glory he had in the past with his God? YES or NO?
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ July 08 2011,21:55) What i have noticed is there is definitely a dividing line here between People who are accruing truth and those who are stuck in there past preconceived dogmas and are void of the cognizance of the truth , but some are putting things together more and more clearly Here and it would be better to considerate on those who are true seekers of the truth , IMO
You are right about me, Gene. I didn't come to HN to bring peace, but a sword that divides so-called “brothers in truth”.You want to claim that Paladin is so great only because his bottom line agrees with your pre-conceived notions. But you don't even fathom that the way he comes to that bottom line is a far cry from the way you do.
You say I am dividing people? Great, because that's what truth will do any time one is on the side of truth and the other isn't.
I have asked Paladin a very simple, straighforward question in my post above this one. Let's see if he answers it DIRECTLY, or opts to play more diversion games to avoid the inevitable truth that what he originally said on the matter was WRONG.
And if he DOES choose to just simply ANSWER the freakin' question for once, you will be able to see just how well my sword of truth has worked.
Quote (Paladin @ July 09 2011,03:44) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 25 2011,08:36) Quote (942767 @ April 24 2011,15:12) He was in his ministry on earth and yet he was saying that he was in heaven at the same time.
No he wasn't Marty. Many mss don't even have the last line: “Who is in heaven”. And others have “who WAS in heaven” or “who is FROM heaven”.Remember that the Greek language has an historical present tense, which many English translators render as a simple English past tense.
So your “who IS in heaven” could just as faithfully be “who WAS in heaven”. And “who WAS in heaven” is the translation that fits in with what Jesus had just said.
mike
O.K. Mike, I have spent a lot of time researching your phony “Greek historical present” which I find in ATR to bb a made up standard, just as I told you in [102-6].ATR gives several examples of the Greek historical presence, made up of indicative present actives; indicative aorist actives; indicative pluperfect actives; indicative imperfect actives; indicative active participles; indicative present middle or passive deponents; and ATR says there is no rule governing it.
He agrees with my conclusion, i.e., it is all made up to accomodate trinitarian developement of doctrine.
This falls into the category of Collwell's rule, and Sharpe's rule; neither of which are Greek rules. They were made up for the express purpose of justifying trinity doctrine.
so, please, stop with your false Greek and focus.
I will discuss this issue as soon as the “echo” one is resolved.Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 10 2011,05:29) Quote (Paladin @ July 08 2011,15:21) Mike, I'm still looking for the post where I said what you claim I said. If you know where it is, you really should include it with the first time you make the accusation, so I won't have to spend so much valuable time researching for something that may not be there.
Paladin,At least TWO of the times you said this were in the last 10 pages of this thread. And I will be happy to show you where those posts are. But before I do that, thereby allowing you to play games about how you didn't cap the “T” or underline the “O” or whatever, enabling you to say you didn't really say what I claimed you did, how about answering one simple question that will end this thing once and for all?
Paladin, does the imperfect tense of “echo” in John 17:5 PROHIBIT Jesus from speaking about a glory he had in the past with his God? YES or NO?
I don't make deals with boot camp bullies,. Either show me where I made the statement, or don't. I will not bargain with you by committing to something I do not understand, only to find I never said what you claim, to begin with.so, show me where I said what you claimed.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
