- This topic has 1,826 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
SF said:
Quote But ALL THIS TIME, WJ, Jack, Francis and I have all made claims in reference to Context, and by the fact that not all who were called elohim didnt nessarily make them a God, just like the Molten Calf that Israel worshipped was never a GOD to begin with. These are the ORGINAL claims and arguements that we have been lead astray from.
Mike has completely lost his ability to distinguish how the word “elohim” is used in a given context. He fails to grasp in Isaiah 43:10 God was saying that no other deities were “formed” besides God or that “came to be” after Him.Mike thinks that the APPOINTMENT of others as “leaders” or “judges” (elohim) solves his dilemna.
KJ
Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 20 2011,19:39) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 21 2011,04:29) Quote When WJ is confronted with the truth of a Scripture, he moves off in a different direction to avoid a response or just accuses the one of some other distracting and often unfounded point.
A bold faced lie!KJ Jr.
Hi Jack and Francis,I have seen WJ do this many times.
Because you believe this is 'a lie', do you consider Mike to be 'a liar'.
Francis has trouble understanding this difference: let me explain to you both…If someone is propagating 'the rapture' doctrine. What they are saying is 'a lie'.
But they themselves are not 'a liar'. because they believe what they say.I hope you can understand the difference now Francis.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
EDWhy don't you present your evidence?
You are being a trouble maker here and to agree with a spirit like JA is telling.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 22 2011,03:59) Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 20 2011,19:39) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 21 2011,04:29) Quote When WJ is confronted with the truth of a Scripture, he moves off in a different direction to avoid a response or just accuses the one of some other distracting and often unfounded point.
A bold faced lie!KJ Jr.
Hi Jack and Francis,I have seen WJ do this many times.
Because you believe this is 'a lie', do you consider Mike to be 'a liar'.
Francis has trouble understanding this difference: let me explain to you both…If someone is propagating 'the rapture' doctrine. What they are saying is 'a lie'.
But they themselves are not 'a liar'. because they believe what they say.I hope you can understand the difference now Francis.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
EDWhy don't you present your evidence?
You are being a trouble maker here and to agree with a spirit like JA is telling.
WJ
Keith,ED illustrated how the rapture doctrine is a lie. But he did not show how the trinity doctrine is a lie. The scripture says that christ is the SUBSTANCE. How can Christ be the SUBSTANCE without being God?
Jack
Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 21 2011,14:51) Quote Hi Mike, Francis uses the English language different than most,
as he has admitted to me that he uses it differently than I.<!–QuoteBegin–Francis[/color]+Jan. 18 2011,05:45–>
Quote (Francis @ Jan. 18 2011,05:45)
we are not using the English language in the same way. Let me site some examples for all the readers here what Francis has said to Mike:
<!–QuoteBegin–Francis[/color]+Jan. 21 2011,05:01–>
Quote (Francis @ Jan. 21 2011,05:01)
As for twisting things? No way. I never do that. To twist something to me is like lying
<!–QuoteBegin–Francis[/color]+Jan. 21 2011,05:01–>Quote (Francis @ Jan. 21 2011,05:01)
More likely what is happening is that I am UNTWISTING what you are saying… not twisting what you are sayingNow according to Francis' logic is that not saying: Mike is like lying?
Now Francis has also told me if you say someone is lying, you are calling them 'a liar'. Here is the reference…<!–QuoteBegin–Francis[/color]+Jan. 15 2011,06:52–>
Quote (Francis @ Jan. 15 2011,06:52)
if you call a person's words they have spoken as being a lie, this does not mean you are calling the person a liar?
<!–QuoteBegin–Francis[/color]+,Jan. 15 2011,06:52–>Quote (Francis @ ,Jan. 15 2011,06:52)
Only a liar would write words that are a lie. Why would a person who is not a liar, spout words that are a lie?
So you see: Francis does not use the English language in the same way we do.
I can see how the “twisting” thing can be construed in the way you have because of how I wrote it.
That's my bad because I was not being clear enough, although if you had gone back and looked at what the “twisting” was orginally referring to, it would have been more plain I think.
Mike had said…
“You are getting very good at avoiding points and twisting things around”
Here it appears to me that Mike is saying that i'm deliberately twisting things around… and that I'm getting very good at it.
So to me, Mike is implying an intentional act on my part of twisting things around. And it is that intent… that intentional action.. that I viewed as a type of lying.
But look at what I wrote: “More likely what is happening is that I am UNTWISTING what you are saying… not twisting what you are saying.”
Please note that I did not say to Mike what he said to me. Mike said that I was getting very good at avoiding points and twisting things around. To do what Mike says, this requires an intentional act on my part I believe.
But I didn't say to Mike that he was getting good at twisting things around like he said to me. Look again at what I actually wrote to Mike:
” More likely what is happening is that I am UNTWISTING what you are saying… not twisting what you are saying.”
I didn't say that Mike was getting good at twisting things around AND SO THEREFORE I am untwisting what he was saying.
What was I implying or infering then? Well, if you read the last couple of posts I written to Mike, the recurring theme was that Mike keeps making confusing and contradictory statements.. and it was to that I was referring. I was untwisting his confusing statements, if you will.
Will we all make confusing statements at times? Yes of course, because none of us are perfect. But Mike (and you I might add) was consistently making a lot of confusing and contradictory statements. And it was to that I was speaking of when I said to Mike that it was more likely that I was untwisting what he was saying.
I never said that Mike was intentionally going about twisting things and getting good at it. So I wasn't in any way implying that he was lying or even on the border of being a liar. And that is why I never called him a liar.
That is the difference I was referring to, between what Mike said to me, and what I said to Mike.
I don't think Mike is intentionally trying to twist things and trying to be confusing. He just is confusing because of how he speaks and articulates himself. And so I'm not implying that he was lying… and that is why I didn't say he was a liar.
And it's not just me who is having to try and untwist what Mike is saying. Look at the recent Post by Dennison submitted in here on Jan. 21 2011 at 20:51. Dennison had to spend 4 hours late at night trying to untwist the confusion that Mike caused.
Dennison said: “You just turned this whole thing backwards as if We were claiming that These elohims are false gods or God almighty just because they are called Elohim.”
So let me repeat it again… being confused which results in the twisting of of things (which I think applies to Mike)… THIS DOES NOT MEAN THE SAME THING as deliberately twisting things… which to me is a type of lying… and that is what I wrote.
If I was correct in my understanding of what Mike said… which was that Mike was saying that I was deliberately twisting things around… then I would view that as a type of lying and I wouldn't do that.
But even then, notice that I still did not call him a liar. Did you notice that? That's because I'm begining to recognize that Mike can be confusing.
As for you… you actually refered to what I wrote to you as a lie. And in another post, Mike said I was being dishonest. Not once did I use those words in referring to either one of you.
But anyway… you did make a g
ood point, and I could see that on the surface, if you don't go back and try and put things within the context of my posts, it could very well read as you did.And so this would be a case where I… like everyone in here… will at times make statements that can be confusing. But when you brought my attention to it… I went and untwisted it so that you could understand it.
So I do apologize for this example of where I was not being as clear as I could have if I had taken a few more seconds and connected the dots for you like I am doing now.
Thanks for calling my attention to this… and I promise I will try and do better in the future.
Afterall… it is impossible to have a meaningful conversation if it is rife with and full of confusion.
Respectfully
FrancisQuote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 21 2011,03:33) I mean if you can do that, than i ALSO can do the same, and we are just stuck in the same line of reasoning.
This is what i see as UNFAIR.
You are asking us to accept your claims becasue “in the words of the scholars who have tirelessly studied those scriptures and have defined the Hebrew and Greek words for us.” and “this info is from Biblical scholars.” Yet in the same breath you deny the Secondary and Eqaul a,b,c,d,e definitons to the primary definitions of Elohim.Thats unfair. I can also say, why cannt you accept “God” as a definitinon for “Elohim” if this info is form Biblical Scholars who tirelessly studied those scriptures and have defined Hebrew and Greek for us?
Do you see the problem we are having here?
DennisonExactly! The problem Mike is having is he has no “reliable” source to support his claims. It is the same with ED, he has no reliable source to support his claim that he knows the exact pronunciation of YHVH. Just because he says so is not proof. These guys set themselves above everyone else for they have no support for there claims.
Mike has chosen to reject the Scholarship of litterally thousands of Biblical Hebrew and Greek experts as well as the majority of the Forefathers and modern Orthodox Christianity. The claim to only believe in the scriptures but then reject the information of those who translated them.
He might as well join the Mormons or the JWs because they believe in many gods.
Blessings Keith
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 22 2011,03:59) Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 20 2011,19:39) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 21 2011,04:29) Quote When WJ is confronted with the truth of a Scripture, he moves off in a different direction to avoid a response or just accuses the one of some other distracting and often unfounded point.
A bold faced lie!KJ Jr.
Hi Jack and Francis,I have seen WJ do this many times.
Because you believe this is 'a lie', do you consider Mike to be 'a liar'.
Francis has trouble understanding this difference: let me explain to you both…If someone is propagating 'the rapture' doctrine. What they are saying is 'a lie'.
But they themselves are not 'a liar'. because they believe what they say.I hope you can understand the difference now Francis.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
EDWhy don't you present your evidence?
You are being a trouble maker here and to agree with a spirit like JA is telling.
WJ
Hi WJ,we are talking about this…
Quote: 'When WJ is confronted with the truth of a Scripture,
he moves off in a different direction to avoid a response'Here are the last two time you've done this with me
(as this is common pattern with you)…Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 20 2011,11:24) Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 19 2011,19:14) Hi WJ, 1) Maybe you should reread 2Peter3:16?
BYE EDI am not going to play your numbers games. My eyes hurt when I have to jump from one response to the next, and I am tired of this dialogue with you. You are creating distractions again and starting to accuse again by throwing scriptures at me like mud, just more your ole tactics of belittleing when you don't agree.
You have the last word if you want.
BTW I meant the AKJV for that is where the word came from.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 02 2011,10:08) Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 31 2010,02:27) Hi WJ, Is Jesus' father “Spirit”?
EdGive it a rest! I am not going around in circles with you.
I hope you had a Merry Christmas and a Happy New year also!
WJ
Right when we get to a point you have no more wiggle room, you stop the dialog.
And then start your usual rederick all over again with someone else.
Sorry to be so blunt with you, but these are the facts.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgFrancis wrote:
Quote Afterall… it is impossible to have a meaningful conversation if it is rife with and full of confusion.
Francis,Mike does not desire meaningful conversation. All he wants is the last word and he will wear you out until you yield it. After you yield it he will accuse you of hiding and beat his chest that he won.
You don't see it now but you will.
KJ
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 21 2011,22:59) Francis wrote: Quote Afterall… it is impossible to have a meaningful conversation if it is rife with and full of confusion.
Francis,Mike does not desire meaningful conversation. All he wants is the last word and he will wear you out until you yield it. After you yield it he will accuse you of hiding and beat his chest that he won.
You don't see it now but you will.
KJ
Actually Mike waved a White flag in regards to “Elohim” lol.Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 22 2011,04:59) Francis wrote: Quote Afterall… it is impossible to have a meaningful conversation if it is rife with and full of confusion.
Francis,Mike does not desire meaningful conversation. All he wants is the last word and he will wear you out until you yield it. After you yield it he will accuse you of hiding and beat his chest that he won.
You don't see it now but you will.
KJ
Francis said to Mike:Quote I fear that it appears that it is you who is playing word games in here Mike.
Francis,I take it back. You are starting to catch on to Mike.
Jack
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Jan. 22 2011,05:03) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 21 2011,22:59) Francis wrote: Quote Afterall… it is impossible to have a meaningful conversation if it is rife with and full of confusion.
Francis,Mike does not desire meaningful conversation. All he wants is the last word and he will wear you out until you yield it. After you yield it he will accuse you of hiding and beat his chest that he won.
You don't see it now but you will.
KJ
Actually Mike waved a White flag in regards to “Elohim” lol.
But when you don't wave the white flag when Mike thinks you should he wears you out until you yield him the last word. Then after you yield him the last word he will claim victory.If you don't yield Mike the last word he will turn up the confusion ad infinitum and ad nauseum.
KJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 20 2011,18:52) And you have yet to answer about Deborah, elohim of Israel. Was she a “false god”? Was she God Almighty?
No because she is a mortal human being and not ” a god” at all. Context says she is “elohim” (little e) and if elohim can also mean Judge (which it does) then it should be translated as Judge. Now if the context said they were bowing down to her and offiering sacrifices and worshipping her then she would be an “idol” or “false god”.Context dictates why the translators translated it a certain way. You can't seem to get that.
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 20 2011,19:31) Are there elohim mentioned in scripture who are neither “God Almighty” nor “false gods”?
MikeYes, they are either false gods, or so-called gods, or judges, leaders, rulers or it can can be God Almighty depending on the context.
Where are the scriptures where anyone calls “Deborah” their God or my God, or Moses for that matter?
Context tells us what she is. Now when you can prove Jesus is not God and that he is not Almighty then you may have a point.
But context of scriptures tells us Jesus is God (with a big G).
In what sense is Jesus not God Mike? Prove it using scriptures without leaving any out.
WJ
Quote (francis @ Jan. 22 2011,04:09) Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 21 2011,14:51) Quote Hi Mike, Francis uses the English language different than most,
as he has admitted to me that he uses it differently than I.<!–QuoteBegin–Francis[/color]+Jan. 18 2011,05:45–>
Quote (Francis @ Jan. 18 2011,05:45)
we are not using the English language in the same way. Let me site some examples for all the readers here what Francis has said to Mike:
<!–QuoteBegin–Francis[/color]+Jan. 21 2011,05:01–>
Quote (Francis @ Jan. 21 2011,05:01)
As for twisting things? No way. I never do that. To twist something to me is like lying
<!–QuoteBegin–Francis[/color]+Jan. 21 2011,05:01–>Quote (Francis @ Jan. 21 2011,05:01)
More likely what is happening is that I am UNTWISTING what you are saying… not twisting what you are sayingNow according to Francis' logic is that not saying: Mike is like lying?
Now Francis has also told me if you say someone is lying, you are calling them 'a liar'. Here is the reference…<!–QuoteBegin–Francis[/color]+Jan. 15 2011,06:52–>
Quote (Francis @ Jan. 15 2011,06:52)
if you call a person's words they have spoken as being a lie, this does not mean you are calling the person a liar?
<!–QuoteBegin–Francis[/color]+,Jan. 15 2011,06:52–>Quote (Francis @ ,Jan. 15 2011,06:52)
Only a liar would write words that are a lie. Why would a person who is not a liar, spout words that are a lie?
So you see: Francis does not use the English language in the same way we do.
I can see how the “twisting” thing can be construed in the way you have because of how I wrote it.
That's my bad because I was not being clear enough, although if you had gone back and looked at what the “twisting” was orginally referring to, it would have been more plain I think.
Mike had said…
“You are getting very good at avoiding points and twisting things around”
Here it appears to me that Mike is saying that i'm deliberately twisting things around… and that I'm getting very good at it.
So to me, Mike is implying an intentional act on my part of twisting things around. And it is that intent… that intentional action.. that I viewed as a type of lying.
But look at what I wrote: “More likely what is happening is that I am UNTWISTING what you are saying… not twisting what you are saying.”
Please note that I did not say to Mike what he said to me. Mike said that I was getting very good at avoiding points and twisting things around. To do what Mike says, this requires an intentional act on my part I believe.
But I didn't say to Mike that he was getting good at twisting things around like he said to me. Look again at what I actually wrote to Mike:
” More likely what is happening is that I am UNTWISTING what you are saying… not twisting what you are saying.”
I didn't say that Mike was getting good at twisting things around AND SO THEREFORE I am untwisting what he was saying.
What was I implying or infering then? Well, if you read the last couple of posts I written to Mike, the recurring theme was that Mike keeps making confusing and contradictory statements.. and it was to that I was referring. I was untwisting his confusing statements, if you will.
Will we all make confusing statements at times? Yes of course, because none of us are perfect. But Mike (and you I might add) was consistently making a lot of confusing and contradictory statements. And it was to that I was speaking of when I said to Mike that it was more likely that I was untwisting what he was saying.
I never said that Mike was intentionally going about twisting things and getting good at it. So I wasn't in any way implying that he was lying or even on the border of being a liar. And that is why I never called him a liar.
That is the difference I was referring to, between what Mike said to me, and what I said to Mike.
I don't think Mike is intentionally trying to twist things and trying to be confusing. He just is confusing because of how he speaks and articulates himself. And so I'm not implying that he was lying… and that is why I didn't say he was a liar.
And it's not just me who is having to try and untwist what Mike is saying. Look at the recent Post by Dennison submitted in here on Jan. 21 2011 at 20:51. Dennison had to spend 4 hours late at night trying to untwist the confusion that Mike caused.
Dennison said: “You just turned this whole thing backwards as if We were claiming that These elohims are false gods or God almighty just because they are called Elohim.”
So let me repeat it again… being confused which results in the twisting of of things (which I think applies to Mike)… THIS DOES NOT MEAN THE SAME THING as deliberately twisting things… which to me is a type of lying… and that is what I wrote.
If I was correct in my understanding of what Mike said… which was that Mike was saying that I was deliberately twisting things around… then I would view that as a type of lying and I wouldn't do that.
But even then, notice that I still did not call him a liar. Did you notice that? That's because I'm begining to recognize that Mike can be confusing.
As for you… you
actually refered to what I wrote to you as a lie. And in another post, Mike said I was being dishonest. Not once did I use those words in referring to either one of you.But anyway… you did make a good point, and I could see that on the surface, if you don't go back and try and put things within the context of my posts, it could very well read as you did.
And so this would be a case where I… like everyone in here… will at times make statements that can be confusing. But when you brought my attention to it… I went and untwisted it so that you could understand it.
So I do apologize for this example of where I was not being as clear as I could have if I had taken a few more seconds and connected the dots for you like I am doing now.
Thanks for calling my attention to this… and I promise I will try and do better in the future.
Afterall… it is impossible to have a meaningful conversation if it is rife with and full of confusion.
Respectfully
Francis
Hi Francis,Thanks for the clarification! …I would also like to clarify something:
Do you now understand my explanation how: what someone says
can be 'a lie', but they themselves are NOT 'a liar'?A classic example is: those who spread 'the rapture' doctrine, which is 'a lie';
but those who spread this lie are not LIARS!; but merely mistaken in believing 'a lie'.Such was the case when I mistakenly said: “what you said was 'a lie' “, because I believed
you were merely mistaken; but as it turned out that I was the one who was mistaken, not you.So I apologized for calling your words 'a lie', because I was mistaken.
But in no way did I believe you were intentionally lying; so I did not call you 'a liar'.I pointed out this FACT to you: that I did not call you 'a liar'; which you apparently did not understand.
I hope now you can see the difference, so we can move forward with no animosity on your part; OK?Your brother
in Christ, Jesus!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 22 2011,04:08) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 22 2011,03:59) Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 20 2011,19:39) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 21 2011,04:29) Quote When WJ is confronted with the truth of a Scripture, he moves off in a different direction to avoid a response or just accuses the one of some other distracting and often unfounded point.
A bold faced lie!KJ Jr.
Hi Jack and Francis,I have seen WJ do this many times.
Because you believe this is 'a lie', do you consider Mike to be 'a liar'.
Francis has trouble understanding this difference: let me explain to you both…If someone is propagating 'the rapture' doctrine. What they are saying is 'a lie'.
But they themselves are not 'a liar'. because they believe what they say.I hope you can understand the difference now Francis.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
EDWhy don't you present your evidence?
You are being a trouble maker here and to agree with a spirit like JA is telling.
WJ
Keith,ED illustrated how the rapture doctrine is a lie. But he did not show how the trinity doctrine is a lie. The scripture says that christ is the SUBSTANCE. How can Christ be the SUBSTANCE without being God?
Jack
Hi Jack,If you really want to discuss this with me, I would be willing.
But it seems to me you are much happier just making 'pot shot' comments,
with no intention of really discussing this with me to the bitter end; isn't this the case?
Let me know if you do want to discuss this all the way through, because I would be willing to do so.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 22 2011,05:22) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 20 2011,18:52) And you have yet to answer about Deborah, elohim of Israel. Was she a “false god”? Was she God Almighty?
No because she is a mortal human being and not ” a god” at all. Context says she is “elohim” (little e) and if elohim can also mean Judge (which it does) then it should be translated as Judge. Now if the context said they were bowing down to her and offiering sacrifices and worshipping her then she would be an “idol” or “false god”.Context dictates why the translators translated it a certain way. You can't seem to get that.
WJ
Keith,The context means “judge” as you say for 2:16 says that the Lord “raised up judges.” In 5:7 Deborah said, “I arose.”
Deborah acknowledged that God raised her up as a judge and did not “form” her as a deity.
Jack
ED Jwrote:
Quote Hi Jack, If you really want to discuss this with me, I would be willing.
But it seems to me you are much happier just making 'pot shot' comments,
with no intention of really discussing this with me to the bitter end; isn't this the case?
Let me know if you do want to discuss this all the way through, because I would be willing to do so.God bless
Not interested. You should know by now that I am not forbearing with your nonsense as WJ.Jack
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 22 2011,05:53) ED Jwrote: Quote Hi Jack, If you really want to discuss this with me, I would be willing.
But it seems to me you are much happier just making 'pot shot' comments,
with no intention of really discussing this with me to the bitter end; isn't this the case?
Let me know if you do want to discuss this all the way through, because I would be willing to do so.God bless
Not interested. You should know by now that I am not forbearing with your nonsense as WJ.Jack
Hi Jack,OK, carry on with the 'pot shot' comments then.
And I will respond to them when I deem it necessary.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Jan. 22 2011,05:59) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 22 2011,05:53) ED Jwrote: Quote Hi Jack, If you really want to discuss this with me, I would be willing.
But it seems to me you are much happier just making 'pot shot' comments,
with no intention of really discussing this with me to the bitter end; isn't this the case?
Let me know if you do want to discuss this all the way through, because I would be willing to do so.God bless
Not interested. You should know by now that I am not forbearing with your nonsense as WJ.Jack
Hi Jack,OK, carry on with the 'pot shot' comments then.
And I will respond to them when I deem it necessary.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Ed,Read my statement to Keith again. It is not a 'pot shot.' It is an observation.
Quote Keith, ED illustrated how the rapture doctrine is a lie. But he did not show how the trinity doctrine is a lie.
Jack
Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 21 2011,12:57) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 22 2011,03:59) Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 20 2011,19:39) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 21 2011,04:29) Quote When WJ is confronted with the truth of a Scripture, he moves off in a different direction to avoid a response or just accuses the one of some other distracting and often unfounded point.
A bold faced lie!KJ Jr.
Hi Jack and Francis,I have seen WJ do this many times.
Because you believe this is 'a lie', do you consider Mike to be 'a liar'.
Francis has trouble understanding this difference: let me explain to you both…If someone is propagating 'the rapture' doctrine. What they are saying is 'a lie'.
But they themselves are not 'a liar'. because they believe what they say.I hope you can understand the difference now Francis.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
EDWhy don't you present your evidence?
You are being a trouble maker here and to agree with a spirit like JA is telling.
WJ
Hi WJ,we are talking about this…
Quote: 'When WJ is confronted with the truth of a Scripture,
he moves off in a different direction to avoid a response'Here are the last two time you've done this with me
(as this is common pattern with you)…Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 20 2011,11:24) Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 19 2011,19:14) Hi WJ, 1) Maybe you should reread 2Peter3:16?
BYE EDI am not going to play your numbers games. My eyes hurt when I have to jump from one response to the next, and I am tired of this dialogue with you. You are creating distractions again and starting to accuse again by throwing scriptures at me like mud, just more your ole tactics of belittleing when you don't agree.
You have the last word if you want.
BTW I meant the AKJV for that is where the word came from.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 02 2011,10:08) Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 31 2010,02:27) Hi WJ, Is Jesus' father “Spirit”?
EdGive it a rest! I am not going around in circles with you.
I hope you had a Merry Christmas and a Happy New year also!
WJ
Right when we get to a point you have no more wiggle room, you stop the dialog.
And then start your usual rederick all over again with someone else.
Sorry to be so blunt with you, but these are the facts.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
EdOh I see. I have to come to a place where I “agree” with your proposed truth or I am running away? Ha Ha. Some of us are smart enough to not waste our time going in circles with someone who is already convinced.
Each case that you mentioned Ed we had been in a complete circle where we were only repeating ourselves. Then you start throwing scrptures at me in a rebuking fashion or JA starts accusing me of being dishonest and lying. So yea at that point it is useless and it is goodbye. I don't care what you or JA think ED, but to assume that I am a coward who runs away is a lie and me being here in this forum for as long as I have with as many post as I have is proof of that.
When you start your numbers thing ED I am gone, just to let you know I don't believe you and am not gonna strain my eyes by jumping forth from one post to another to follow you. To me that is a distraction when you number the points and then reply to them like that. I believe most people don't read them. So I let you have the last word. That is not a sign of weakness just so you know and in fact I believe is a sign of strength. We will not always agree and when we cannot agree then it is goodbye I am moving on.
So tell me ED do I have to agree with what you believe to be the truth before I move on?
WJ
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 22 2011,06:03) Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 22 2011,05:59) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 22 2011,05:53) ED Jwrote: Quote Hi Jack, If you really want to discuss this with me, I would be willing.
But it seems to me you are much happier just making 'pot shot' comments,
with no intention of really discussing this with me to the bitter end; isn't this the case?
Let me know if you do want to discuss this all the way through, because I would be willing to do so.God bless
Not interested. You should know by now that I am not forbearing with your nonsense as WJ.Jack
Hi Jack,OK, carry on with the 'pot shot' comments then.
And I will respond to them when I deem it necessary.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Ed,Read my statement to Keith again. It is not a 'pot shot.' It is an observation.
Quote Keith, ED illustrated how the rapture doctrine is a lie. But he did not show how the trinity doctrine is a lie.
Jack
Hi Jack,I would be willing to discuss this as well.
There is something to “The Trinity” doctrine,
but not what the systems of religion have taught.
WJ knows (as I have told him this before) there's a
bridge between the Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian views.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
