- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 22 2011,11:02) Quote (942767 @ July 21 2011,10:12) Paladin may have not answered Mike with the simple yes or no, but he answered his questions.
But the question only required a simple YES or NO, didn't it Marty? In fact, YOU answered it with a simple “NO”, which made me so proud of you for being truthful in a matter that ended up hurting your doctrine. Remember me making a very gracious post to you and asking God to bless you for finally answering the simple question Paladin refused to answer for so long?Also, if Paladin had actually answered my question, then why did YOU make a post to him asking him to please answer it?
Finally, if you think he has answered SINCE you asked him to do so, then kindly tell me what his answer was. Because I sure couldn't see an answer to my question. And Ed J even tried his best to find the answer for me – only to be told by Paladin that his understanding of Paladin's words was wrong.
So why don't YOU tell me, since you seem to think he's answered it? Does Paladin think the imperfect tense of echo in John 17:5 prohibits Jesus from asking for the return of a glory he had in the past or not?
(Oh, and if you DO have the answer, then please show me the page/post that you derived that answer from – so I can see how I overlooked it and apologize to Paladin.)
peace,
mike
Hi Mike:No, it did not because you were comparing the word “Echo” in two differenent set of circumstances.
And you misconstrued what I stated to make it appear that I was agreeing with you.
In the case of the word used in the scripture relative to Barabbas, I said that he was released from that continuing action when he was released from prison. That was the situation in this set of circumstances.
In the case of Jesus, I stated that there was no scripture that stated that he was released from the continuous action.
Of course, if there were a scripture that had shown that this continuous action had been interupted in the scriptures relative to Jesus as was the case in the scriptures relative to Barabbas, then the circumstances would be the same, but they were not.
That is what I stated.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (terraricca @ July 22 2011,09:21) Quote (942767 @ July 22 2011,15:21) Quote (terraricca @ July 22 2011,08:15) Quote (942767 @ July 22 2011,14:49) Quote (terraricca @ July 22 2011,05:15) Marty is this the question you are answering?Marty
a question is answered when there is a clear respond to it ,right ?
Pierre
Hi Pierre:A question is answered when I give you a response to your question based on my understanding whether or not you understand it or agree with my response.
We have discussed the pre-existence of scriptures, and I have given you my understanding of the scriptures, and my understanding based on those scriptures is that Jesus did not pre-exist his birth into this world as a sentient person.
Obviously, you do not agree, but I have answered your questions pertaining to this subject.
Love in Christ,
Marty
Martythere are many who have different views of what the scriptures are teaching to them ,
but it is not at an other believer to try to change those views ,but only to make them aware of what it is,that is thought in the scriptures ,because it is on our heads to make sure that what we believe is the truth the way that the word of God teaches ,our own personal believe is not important,but the will of God is, ,so if you feel that you have and know is what you need and so is at your satisfaction so be it ,it is your head,not mine.
i only can bring you to the waters of truth but I can not make you to accept them.
Pierre
Hi Pierre:There is a problem here in that both you and I believe that we are correct in what we are teaching, but one of us is obviously not correct.
And so, what I have suggested to you is that we pray and ask God to correct whomever is wrong, either me or you, so that we can teach the Word of God in unity and in truth.
I do not want to teach anything that is not God's Word.
Love in Christ,
Marty
Martythe truth has already been defined it is written in the scriptures any one who comes to God as to do it with all his heart and mind ,this does not mean ,comes with preconceived ideas and believes and conditions ,but with a full trust in God,and so believing in the word given to us ,
I have nothing to do with this ,it is you and God within Christ spirit ,
the truth is in there can you grasp it? I do not know.
Pierre
Hi Pierre:Ultimately, it is God who will confirm either what you or I have taught, and it is to Him that we will both be accountable.
Love in Christ,
MartyMarty
Quote Hi Pierre: Ultimately, it is God who will confirm either what you or I have taught, and it is to Him that we will both be accountable.
Love in Christ,
MartyJn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Jn 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
Pierre
Irene,
Sorry I must not of been clear. I was commenting on your statement about “bailing out” explaining that scripture dictates that there are times a discussion should come to an end. I referenced my issue with Mike (the cause of the long post) as an example of having to post over and over, and as of yet, to no avail.I hope I did not upset you – Wm
Quote (942767 @ July 21 2011,18:19) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 22 2011,11:02) Quote (942767 @ July 21 2011,10:12) Paladin may have not answered Mike with the simple yes or no, but he answered his questions.
But the question only required a simple YES or NO, didn't it Marty? In fact, YOU answered it with a simple “NO”, which made me so proud of you for being truthful in a matter that ended up hurting your doctrine. Remember me making a very gracious post to you and asking God to bless you for finally answering the simple question Paladin refused to answer for so long?Also, if Paladin had actually answered my question, then why did YOU make a post to him asking him to please answer it?
Finally, if you think he has answered SINCE you asked him to do so, then kindly tell me what his answer was. Because I sure couldn't see an answer to my question. And Ed J even tried his best to find the answer for me – only to be told by Paladin that his understanding of Paladin's words was wrong.
So why don't YOU tell me, since you seem to think he's answered it? Does Paladin think the imperfect tense of echo in John 17:5 prohibits Jesus from asking for the return of a glory he had in the past or not?
(Oh, and if you DO have the answer, then please show me the page/post that you derived that answer from – so I can see how I overlooked it and apologize to Paladin.)
peace,
mike
Hi Mike:No, it did not because you were comparing the word “Echo” in two differenent set of circumstances.
And you misconstrued what I stated to make it appear that I was agreeing with you.
In the case of the word used in the scripture relative to Barabbas, I said that he was released from that continuing action when he was released from prison. That was the situation in this set of circumstances.
In the case of Jesus, I stated that there was no scripture that stated that he was released from the continuous action.
Of course, if there were a scripture that had shown that this continuous action had been interupted in the scriptures relative to Jesus as was the case in the scriptures relative to Barabbas, then the circumstances would be the same, but they were not.
That is what I stated.
Love in Christ,
Marty
No Marty,What you agreed to was that the imperfect tense of “echo” IN AND OF ITSELF did NOT prohibit Jesus from asking for the return of a past glory.
You went on to say that in the case of Barabbas, there was a qualifier, and therefore the imperfect tense of echo in that verse DID convey an action that had since ended. That right there is the answer in itself, Marty. If the imperfect tense of echo did not PROHIBIT Barabbas from being released from Roman custody, then the imperfect tense of echo ANYWHERE IN THE ENTIRE SCRIPTURES would not prevent the past action from having ended. There might be CONTEXT that prohibits it, but the imperfect tense of the word in and of itself would do no such thing.
So you were correct that the answer was “NO”, just like you said it was.
Now, you tried to say there was no qualifier in John 17:5. I easily refuted that post with one of my own, but you never responded to it.
Anyway, the “qualifier” part is a whole different discussion. So while I await your answer to my response about the qualifier in 17:5, I will revel in the fact that you DID answer my question, and answered it HONESTLY with a “NO”.
Marty, don't pull a Gene here. Don't try to undo the good thing you did – especially after I asked God to bless you for it and everything.
Now, if you don't mind, I'm waiting for you to show me Paladin's answer to my question. Oh, and explain why you asked him to answer it if in fact he already had.
Thanks,
mikeQuote (seekingtruth @ July 21 2011,18:47) I referenced my issue with Mike (the cause of the long post) as an example of having to post over and over, and as of yet, to no avail.
Hi Wm,I'm still waiting to see this “example” of me making you post “over and over”. If and when you show me this “example”, then I assure you that it will be to some avail.
peace,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ July 22 2011,07:46) Quote (seekingtruth @ July 21 2011,09:31) Quote Well Keith, I've just shown Wm's accusation to be inaccurate, didn't I?
Mike,
Let's look at this one question at a time. Do not add to it, move forward or change topic, let's resolve this question first.From your first post to me, this was your question:
Quote Let me try this one: Welcomed me as if I were a football player, as if I were Terry Bradshaw himself.
Is Terry Bradshaw in this exercise of a “higer status” than a football player? What if the player I named was someone much lessor known?
mike
My response:Quote Well I'm not a Steelers fan, now if I said Welcomed me as if I were a football player, as if I were Walter Payton himself. and if I was addressing Bears fans most would see my reference to Payton as to one who is the very epitome of a great football player. Now if you inserted a lessor player you would be insulting me.
Wm
Does it, or does it not, answer your question?
Hi Wm,If it does, I don't see it. My point is that Bradshaw was STILL a member of the GROUP that was mentioned, albeit one who is high among that group.
You offered that Payton is the “very epitome of a great football player”, which is great – I liked him very much too and was sorry to see such a class act go so soon.
But do you see that your words don't say that Payton is “of a higher status” than “football player”, but that he is, in your opinion, of very high status WITHIN the group called “football players”?
In order to be of a “higher status THAN” the group mentioned, Payton would have to be something OTHER THAN a football player.
Both Payton and Bradshaw are part of a “higher status”, they are part of a group identified as “great football players”.Quote
So even if you DID make it clear whether or not you were saying that Payton was of a higher status than football player, (which you didn't), by saying something like, “Mike, if we changed Bradshaw to Payton, then YES, I would consider Payton to be of a higer status THAN the group mentioned”, I would have come back with a comment that reminded you Payton was STILL a member OF the group mentioned. Because my whole point was that if the group mentioned was “angels”, then whatever individual was mentioned later would have to belong TO the group that was mentioned. In other words, it would make no sense at all if the individual mentioned was not a well known and respected member OF the group. The individual HAS TO BE a part of the group for the sentence to work.
I agree there must be a common theme within the subjects to establish increasing prominence. But one more point, for the statement to mean anything, the person the statement is made to, also must be part of the same theme. So… was Paul an angel, or a messenger? So this means that the Jesus was a higher order of “messenger” NOT an angel.Quote
So Wm, “NO, this did NOT answer my question at all”. Because not only did you not tell me if you thought Bradshaw was “of a higher status than football player”, but after switching Bradshaw for Payton, you still didn't tell me whether or not PAYTON was “of a higher status than football player”.Can you see that?
peace,
mike
No Mike I honestly don't see it, I think your splitting hairs and ignoring what is obvious in order to control the course of the discussion and to frustrate your opponent.It is my hope that “winning” is not more important to you then finding truth.
Wm
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 22 2011,10:51) Quote (seekingtruth @ July 21 2011,18:47) I referenced my issue with Mike (the cause of the long post) as an example of having to post over and over, and as of yet, to no avail.
Hi Wm,I'm still waiting to see this “example” of me making you post “over and over”. If and when you show me this “example”, then I assure you that it will be to some avail.
peace,
mike
Just read the long postQuote (seekingtruth @ July 21 2011,21:25)
I agree there must be a common theme within the subjects to establish increasing prominence.
Good, because that IS the case.Quote (seekingtruth @ July 21 2011,21:25)
But one more point, for the statement to mean anything, the person the statement is made to, also must be part of the same theme.
Not true. Suppose that Dr. Phil was giving a speech to a group of Nascar drivers, and they gave him a resounding welcome. Dr. Phil, who is NOT a Nascar driver, could say, “Wow! You guys welcomed me as if I was a Nascar driver…………..as if I was Richard Petty himself!”See? Richard Petty MUST BE a part of the group designated as “Nascar drivers” for the sentence to work. But Dr. Phil doesn't necessarily have to have anything at all to do with that group.
Besides, if Paul WAS a part of the group he was mentioning, then why mention it? If the group was “messenger of God”, then why would he make a point of them welcoming him as what he obviously was? It would be like Dr. Phil saying, “Wow! You guys welcomed me as if I were a psychologist!” Well duh! You ARE a psychologist!
But this thread is not for furthering our discussion of Galatians 4:14, Wm.
This thread is about me defending myself against a false accusation you made about me. And now that you've posted all the “evidence”, and it shows that you DIDN'T actually answer the question I asked again, what will YOU do?
Will you continue to make this my fault by claiming I'm “splitting hairs and ignoring what is obvious in order to control the course of the discussion and to frustrate your opponent”?
Is that your answer to the fact that you falsely accused me?
Wm, towards the end of your big post, we can see that you finally did answer my question with a big, bold “YES”. And although I figured that the only reason you would say that Gabriel was “of a higher status” than an angel of God was to save face and retain your original claim, (regardless of what it meant you had to say), I didn't ask you the question again, did I?
So, once you DID answer my question, I didn't ask it again, right? So the fact that you made the claim that I was asking things that had already been answered BEFORE you even answered it is a little weird, don't you think?
Quote (seekingtruth @ July 21 2011,21:25)
It is my hope that “winning” is not more important to you then finding truth.
It is my hope that truth is also important to you. You have made a false accusation against me. You have even put me on trial and produced your evidence against me. I have had to suffer (once again) through all the “bandwagon” people coming to this thread and slamming my good name because of what you've done.And in the end, just like every other time someone accuses me of something I didn't do, the truth prevails. There was NOTHING in your answer to tell me whether or not Payton was of a “higher status” than “football player”. You only implied that he was of a high status WITHIN the group “football players” – which by the way is the claim I was trying to make. And even if you HAD said that Payton was of a higher status than football player, the question about Gabriel was a completely different question. And your “maybe so and maybe not” post didn't tell me if you thought Gabriel was of a “higher status” than “angel of God”.
Only towards the end of our discussion did you actually answer my question. And for you to say you DID answer it but I kept asking anyway was a false accusation about me on your part.
Will you fix this? Will you let all those who came to this thread to kick a man when he was down know that you were mistaken?
peace,
mikeMike,
All can review our discussions on page 3 section 7 (the long post), and determine for themselves who has made false accusations.I however will post no further on this topic with you, we are warned by scripture against quarreling over words and the evolution of this discussion has demonstrated why that is good advice. I suppose now you can justify giving me a tile, but you be the judge, should I obey the site rules or God's word.
Apologies to all – Wm
Quote (seekingtruth @ July 21 2011,22:25)
No Mike I honestly don't see it, I think your splitting hairs and ignoring what is obvious in order to control the course of the discussion and to frustrate your opponent.It is my hope that “winning” is not more important to you then finding truth.
Hi WilliamAmen!
As you know Mikes claim that Jesus is an “angel” of God is straight out of the heretical playbook of the JW’s.
If Paul believed Jesus was an “angel” he would have not said…
But though we, ”OR AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN”, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Gal 1:8
Paul had just said that the Gospel he preached was the Gospel of Jesus Christ yet he tells them to reject any Gospel from an angel.
Then Paul says…
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, ”but by the revelation of Jesus Christ”. Gal 1:12
Again why would he warn against receiving a Gospel from an angel and then say he got the revelation from Jesus if Jesus was an angel.
You are correct also in that if Jesus is an angel in Gal 4:14 then Paul would also have to be an angel.
”Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they”. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, THOU ART MY SON, THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE?” And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? Heb 1:4, 5
”But to which of the angels said he at any time”, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? Heb 1:13
Paul clearly makes the distinction between Jesus and the angels.
Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have”preached the gospel unto you WITH THE HOLY GHOST SENT DOWN FROM HEAVEN; which things the angels desire to look into”. 1 Peter 1:12
If the Gospel that Peter claims came down from heaven was from an “angel” i.e. Jesus Christ then why does Peter say the “angels” desire to look into those things?
Keep up the good work in standing up for the truth of the Gospel that came from Jesus Christ and not an “angel”.
Blessings!
Keith
Quote (seekingtruth @ July 22 2011,01:02) Mike,
All can review our discussions on page 3 section 7 (the long post), and determine for themselves who has made false accusations.I however will post no further on this topic with you, we are warned by scripture against quarreling over words and the evolution of this discussion has demonstrated why that is good advice. I suppose now you can justify giving me a tile, but you be the judge, should I obey the site rules or God's word.
Apologies to all – Wm
Hi WilliamNo appology needed. You have done nothing wrong IMO!
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 22 2011,11:50) Quote (942767 @ July 21 2011,18:19) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 22 2011,11:02) Quote (942767 @ July 21 2011,10:12) Paladin may have not answered Mike with the simple yes or no, but he answered his questions.
But the question only required a simple YES or NO, didn't it Marty? In fact, YOU answered it with a simple “NO”, which made me so proud of you for being truthful in a matter that ended up hurting your doctrine. Remember me making a very gracious post to you and asking God to bless you for finally answering the simple question Paladin refused to answer for so long?Also, if Paladin had actually answered my question, then why did YOU make a post to him asking him to please answer it?
Finally, if you think he has answered SINCE you asked him to do so, then kindly tell me what his answer was. Because I sure couldn't see an answer to my question. And Ed J even tried his best to find the answer for me – only to be told by Paladin that his understanding of Paladin's words was wrong.
So why don't YOU tell me, since you seem to think he's answered it? Does Paladin think the imperfect tense of echo in John 17:5 prohibits Jesus from asking for the return of a glory he had in the past or not?
(Oh, and if you DO have the answer, then please show me the page/post that you derived that answer from – so I can see how I overlooked it and apologize to Paladin.)
peace,
mike
Hi Mike:No, it did not because you were comparing the word “Echo” in two differenent set of circumstances.
And you misconstrued what I stated to make it appear that I was agreeing with you.
In the case of the word used in the scripture relative to Barabbas, I said that he was released from that continuing action when he was released from prison. That was the situation in this set of circumstances.
In the case of Jesus, I stated that there was no scripture that stated that he was released from the continuous action.
Of course, if there were a scripture that had shown that this continuous action had been interupted in the scriptures relative to Jesus as was the case in the scriptures relative to Barabbas, then the circumstances would be the same, but they were not.
That is what I stated.
Love in Christ,
Marty
No Marty,What you agreed to was that the imperfect tense of “echo” IN AND OF ITSELF did NOT prohibit Jesus from asking for the return of a past glory.
You went on to say that in the case of Barabbas, there was a qualifier, and therefore the imperfect tense of echo in that verse DID convey an action that had since ended. That right there is the answer in itself, Marty. If the imperfect tense of echo did not PROHIBIT Barabbas from being released from Roman custody, then the imperfect tense of echo ANYWHERE IN THE ENTIRE SCRIPTURES would not prevent the past action from having ended. There might be CONTEXT that prohibits it, but the imperfect tense of the word in and of itself would do no such thing.
So you were correct that the answer was “NO”, just like you said it was.
Now, you tried to say there was no qualifier in John 17:5. I easily refuted that post with one of my own, but you never responded to it.
Anyway, the “qualifier” part is a whole different discussion. So while I await your answer to my response about the qualifier in 17:5, I will revel in the fact that you DID answer my question, and answered it HONESTLY with a “NO”.
Marty, don't pull a Gene here. Don't try to undo the good thing you did – especially after I asked God to bless you for it and everything.
Now, if you don't mind, I'm waiting for you to show me Paladin's answer to my question. Oh, and explain why you asked him to answer it if in fact he already had.
Thanks,
mike
Hi Mike:I told you what I stated, and I am not a Greek scholar, but anyway, this is not about me, but about Paladin answering your questions.
He told you to be patient that he was going through some problems with his radiation treatments if I remember correctly.
In my opinion the way you are treating him is not right, and then you want to know if someone should receive tiles for not anwering your questions. Like, answer my questions or else.
This kind of reminds me of the following situtation:
Quote Mat 18:26 The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. Mat 18:27 Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.
Mat 18:28 But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took [him] by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.
Mat 18:29 And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
Mat 18:30 And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.
Mat 18:31 So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done.
Mat 18:32 Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:
Mat 18:33 Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?
Mat 18:34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.
Mat 18:35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (seekingtruth @ July 22 2011,09:50) Quote Pierre! Good post…..When one does not know how to answer a question, He or She bails out. That is what I have seen more then once happening here. To me it is simple not right. It is ignorance, and ignorance should never be excepted, in my view. But with some here it is…..
Peace and Love Irene
Irene,
I understand but sometimes you answer over and over to no avail.At which point does this verse kick in?
2 Tim. 2:14 Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.
Why is it considered doing something wrong if I'm obeying scripture? I've been warned not to “quarrel over words” and whether aggelos should be translated messenger or angel to me is quarreling over words. I should note that I do not mind discussing it further but when it reaches a point where it is no longer a friendly exchange it's time to quite).
My opinion – Wm
Wm but you meant me by this post, not anyone else. Not your own…..So your apology is in order, thank you……
Peace and Love IreneQuote (Pastry @ July 23 2011,07:32) Quote (seekingtruth @ July 22 2011,09:50) Quote Pierre! Good post…..When one does not know how to answer a question, He or She bails out. That is what I have seen more then once happening here. To me it is simple not right. It is ignorance, and ignorance should never be excepted, in my view. But with some here it is…..
Peace and Love Irene
Irene,
I understand but sometimes you answer over and over to no avail.At which point does this verse kick in?
2 Tim. 2:14 Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.
Why is it considered doing something wrong if I'm obeying scripture? I've been warned not to “quarrel over words” and whether aggelos should be translated messenger or angel to me is quarreling over words. I should note that I do not mind discussing it further but when it reaches a point where it is no longer a friendly exchange it's time to quite).
My opinion – Wm
Wm but you meant me by this post, not anyone else. Not your own…..So your apology is in order, thank you……
Peace and Love Irene
No Irene, I meant me having to post over and over to Mike. Sorry for the misunderstanding.Wm
Quote (seekingtruth @ July 23 2011,11:16) Quote (Pastry @ July 23 2011,07:32) Quote (seekingtruth @ July 22 2011,09:50) Quote Pierre! Good post…..When one does not know how to answer a question, He or She bails out. That is what I have seen more then once happening here. To me it is simple not right. It is ignorance, and ignorance should never be excepted, in my view. But with some here it is…..
Peace and Love Irene
Irene,
I understand but sometimes you answer over and over to no avail.At which point does this verse kick in?
2 Tim. 2:14 Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.
Why is it considered doing something wrong if I'm obeying scripture? I've been warned not to “quarrel over words” and whether aggelos should be translated messenger or angel to me is quarreling over words. I should note that I do not mind discussing it further but when it reaches a point where it is no longer a friendly exchange it's time to quite).
My opinion – Wm
Wm but you meant me by this post, not anyone else. Not your own…..So your apology is in order, thank you……
Peace and Love Irene
No Irene, I meant me having to post over and over to Mike. Sorry for the misunderstanding.Wm
Quote (seekingtruth @ July 22 2011,18:16) No Irene, I meant me having to post over and over to Mike.
Wm,You didn't HAVE TO post over and over. You could have just answered the question directly the first time I asked it.
What your evidence showed is how, just like with Paladin, I had to jump through many hoops to get a direct answer out of you. You finally DID give a direct answer, which tells me and everyone who's looking at this with an HONEST HEART that even YOU knew you didn't answer my question previously.
So remember that, Wm, the next time you want to go around spouting off lies about me.
And Keith, who I've offered a challenge to produce evidence of his claim that I've done the same thing to him. Has he? Nope. But he'll be the first supporter on any thread where someone is badmouthing me.
And Marty, who came on this thread saying Paladin DID answer my question, but can't seem to produce any EVIDENCE of this “answer” when confronted.
Wm, if you had just answered my question directly the FIRST TIME I asked it, none of this would have happened. Instead, it was YOU who decided to have ME jumping through hoops “over and over” just to FINALLY receive the answer of “YES” that you SHOULD HAVE given the first time I asked the question.
I will accept the lion's share of the apology you gave “to all”, for it was MY name you drug through the mud here and MY back that you painted a bulls-eye on. You are forgiven.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (942767 @ July 22 2011,13:48) He told you to be patient that he was going through some problems with his radiation treatments if I remember correctly.
And which time were you LYING, Marty? The time when you said Paladin HAD already answered my question? Or now, when you're making excuses for the fact he HASN'T yet answered the question?Paladin has posted a million words since I first asked him that simple YES or NO question, Marty. Why couldn't just ONE of those words have been a YES or a NO to my question?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 22 2011,09:17)
As you know Mikes claim that Jesus is an “angel” of God is straight out of the heretical playbook of the JW’s.
Usually, if I end up with the same understanding the JW's have, it's a GOOD THING. Because those guys are sharp and follow the scriptures as closely as is humanly possible – (although there are a couple of issues where I've come up with a different understanding than they have.) So THANK YOU, Keith.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 22 2011,09:17)
If Paul believed Jesus was an “angel” he would have not said…But though we, ”OR AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN”, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Gal 1:8
Paul had just said that the Gospel he preached was the Gospel of Jesus Christ yet he tells them to reject any Gospel from an angel.
Keith, Keith, Keith……………….. Read it more closely. Paul doesn't say to reject ANY gospel from an angel. He says to reject ANYONE that is teaching a gospel other than the gospel “we” taught.What gospel did “we” teach, Keith? That Jesus was God Almighty? Or that Jesus was the SON OF God and the SERVANT OF God and the ANOINTED ONE OF God and the LAMB OF God?
Perhaps you should heed Paul's warning, for it seems that your gospel comes from an “angel” who is teaching you a different gospel than the one “we” taught.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 22 2011,09:17)
Then Paul says…For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, ”but by the revelation of Jesus Christ”. Gal 1:12
Again why would he warn against receiving a Gospel from an angel and then say he got the revelation from Jesus if Jesus was an angel.
Once again, Paul never said to reject the teachings of any angel. Wasn't it an angel who taught John in Revelation?
But since you brought up Gal 1:12, could you tell me how Jesus is still a man in heaven in light of Paul's words here? I DID NOT RECEIVE IT FROM MAN, BUT FROM JESUS CHRIST. Seems pretty clear to me that Jesus is NOT a man.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 22 2011,09:17)
You are correct also in that if Jesus is an angel in Gal 4:14 then Paul would also have to be an angel.
Please DEFEND that statement against my “Dr. Phil” analogy, Keith. Would Dr. Phil have had to be a Nascar driver in order to say what he said in my analogy?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
