Total Posts:117|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Common ground

MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 12:28:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What common ground do we all have?

Well we are all alive for one.

We are presumably all human, for another.

We can all see what is happening in the world around us, on the News and in the Papers.

However our reactions to it all are very different, even though the evidence is all exactly the same.

Scripture remarks on that sort of things numerous times.

Take Cain and Abel as one example. The only two of Adam and Eve's many offspring the bible bothers to name.

They both saw the same things.

It is same to say they both saw the Cherubs at the entrance to the Garden from which their parents had been ejected, and the continually rotating sword.

No doubt they were both told the same stories.

And yet they turned out very differently.

Despite the fact that both offered God in sacrifice, the best products of their work, Abel's was accepted, and Cain's rejected.

Why?

Later event's revealed the reason.

Cain's sacrifice was good but apparently his attitude was all wrong hence out of jealousy he murdered his own brother.

Other examples are littered throughout scripture.

Noah's families and their contemporaries. All of whom knew about God, all of whom saw Noah building the Ark and doubtless many asked why, and Noah, called in scripture "a preacher of righteousness" was only too happy to tell them.

Noah and his family listened to God's warnings.

Their contemporaries did not, no doubt laughing at the sons and their wives especially for missing out on the fun whilst working on the Ark.

Esau and Jacob were also very different despite having the same upbringing.

Esau thought so little of his birthright, despite all it promised for his descendants, that he was happy to sell it for a bowl of soup (probably lentil soup).

Jacob was not only happy enough to "buy" it, but later to fool his father into giving it to him instead of Esau who was his favourite, though obviously not God's.

Today we all see the same suffering al around us.

Millions starving despite the greedy West throwing away millions of tons of food.

Man's inhumanity to man, regardless of the actual gender of either perpetrator or victim.

Warfare, which invariably proves as harmful for the aggressor as the ones attacked and especially now, costs millions of innocent lives.

But how differently we react to these things.

Some of us care enough to want to kow why.

Some do not.

Because, as Jesus said of people in his day, many have had their hearts hardened and the eyes and ears stopped up to what is going on around them. As long as their little lives are unaffected, they couldn't care less about anyone else.outside their circle, their ethnic group or their nation..

Some of us have a world view, not a parochial view.

Some of us see no logical reason why people should be divided into racial, national, or local groups.

Some like things as they are.

Some see us as mere animals, seeing only the similarities.

Some see the differences as being much more significant than the similarities, after all we share 50% of our DNA with bananas!.

Even worse, do you not really care at all, hoarding what you can to yourself and your family and to hell with anyone else?

Yes we all share common ground. We are all human. All have the same human weaknesses, though not al to the same levels admittedly,

All breathe the same continually recycled air. What we breathe out today will eventually be scrubbed clean and breathed by someone else, eventually returning to us, mixed in with air that everybody else in the world has breathed.

All drink the same recycled water. Next tie you pass urine, stop and think that one day you will be drinking it again, all filtered, whether naturally or artificially, and purified and recycled, and put back in circulation.

Wicked Cain asked "Am I my brothers keeper", and in reality the answer is a resounding yes! because each of us will be judged on how we treat others. ON if we truly love our fellow man as ourselves

But few see far enough past the ends of their noses enough to recognise it.

Which type are you?

Do you really "love your fellow man as yourself"?

Or do you just give that lip service?
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 12:40:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/14/2015 12:28:58 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
What common ground do we all have?

Well we are all alive for one.

We are presumably all human, for another.

We can all see what is happening in the world around us, on the News and in the Papers.

However our reactions to it all are very different, even though the evidence is all exactly the same.

Scripture remarks on that sort of things numerous times.

Take Cain and Abel as one example. The only two of Adam and Eve's many offspring the bible bothers to name.

Who was Seth?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 12:48:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I asked, "Who was Seth?" simply because I know that you (1) have intensely studied these matters in the OT (unlike me, of course) and (2) "holy spirit" helps you recall things that the rest of us would forget. You, of course, understand the "deep things of God" so little factual tidbits are far beneath you.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 1:08:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/14/2015 12:40:20 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 12:28:58 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
What common ground do we all have?

Well we are all alive for one.

We are presumably all human, for another.

We can all see what is happening in the world around us, on the News and in the Papers.

However our reactions to it all are very different, even though the evidence is all exactly the same.

Scripture remarks on that sort of things numerous times.

Take Cain and Abel as one example. The only two of Adam and Eve's many offspring the bible bothers to name.

Who was Seth?

Good point, I had forgotten about him. My apologies to all who can be bothered to read my words.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 1:13:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/14/2015 12:48:06 PM, annanicole wrote:
I asked, "Who was Seth?" simply because I know that you (1) have intensely studied these matters in the OT (unlike me, of course) and (2) "holy spirit" helps you recall things that the rest of us would forget. You, of course, understand the "deep things of God" so little factual tidbits are far beneath you.

And you were right to do so.

Every error we make is a learning experience and I have no objection to learning from anyone.

Obviously I knew about Seth, but I had I admit forgotten about him, and he was not relevant to the point I was making.

However I am sure you enjoyed being given the opportunity on a plate, lol.

I admit I shouldn't have forgotten him because he is an important part of the genealogy of mankind, since Noah came from his line.

However that is the extent of the reason for his mention, apart from Eve's declaration that he was a replacement for murderous Cain.

Possibly not their third child but apparently their third son.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 1:14:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/14/2015 12:28:58 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
What common ground do we all have?

Well we are all alive for one.

We are presumably all human, for another.

We can all see what is happening in the world around us, on the News and in the Papers.

However our reactions to it all are very different, even though the evidence is all exactly the same.

Scripture remarks on that sort of things numerous times.

Take Cain and Abel as one example. The only two of Adam and Eve's many offspring the bible bothers to name.

They both saw the same things.

It is same to say they both saw the Cherubs at the entrance to the Garden from which their parents had been ejected, and the continually rotating sword.

No doubt they were both told the same stories.

And yet they turned out very differently.

Despite the fact that both offered God in sacrifice, the best products of their work, Abel's was accepted, and Cain's rejected.

Why?

Later event's revealed the reason.

Cain's sacrifice was good but apparently his attitude was all wrong hence out of jealousy he murdered his own brother.

Other examples are littered throughout scripture.

Noah's families and their contemporaries. All of whom knew about God, all of whom saw Noah building the Ark and doubtless many asked why, and Noah, called in scripture "a preacher of righteousness" was only too happy to tell them.

Noah and his family listened to God's warnings.

Their contemporaries did not, no doubt laughing at the sons and their wives especially for missing out on the fun whilst working on the Ark.

Esau and Jacob were also very different despite having the same upbringing.

Esau thought so little of his birthright, despite all it promised for his descendants, that he was happy to sell it for a bowl of soup (probably lentil soup).

Jacob was not only happy enough to "buy" it, but later to fool his father into giving it to him instead of Esau who was his favourite, though obviously not God's.

Today we all see the same suffering al around us.

Millions starving despite the greedy West throwing away millions of tons of food.

Man's inhumanity to man, regardless of the actual gender of either perpetrator or victim.

Warfare, which invariably proves as harmful for the aggressor as the ones attacked and especially now, costs millions of innocent lives.

But how differently we react to these things.

Some of us care enough to want to kow why.

Some do not.

Because, as Jesus said of people in his day, many have had their hearts hardened and the eyes and ears stopped up to what is going on around them. As long as their little lives are unaffected, they couldn't care less about anyone else.outside their circle, their ethnic group or their nation..

Some of us have a world view, not a parochial view.

Some of us see no logical reason why people should be divided into racial, national, or local groups.

Some like things as they are.

Some see us as mere animals, seeing only the similarities.

Some see the differences as being much more significant than the similarities, after all we share 50% of our DNA with bananas!.

Even worse, do you not really care at all, hoarding what you can to yourself and your family and to hell with anyone else?

Yes we all share common ground. We are all human. All have the same human weaknesses, though not al to the same levels admittedly,

All breathe the same continually recycled air. What we breathe out today will eventually be scrubbed clean and breathed by someone else, eventually returning to us, mixed in with air that everybody else in the world has breathed.

All drink the same recycled water. Next tie you pass urine, stop and think that one day you will be drinking it again, all filtered, whether naturally or artificially, and purified and recycled, and put back in circulation.

Wicked Cain asked "Am I my brothers keeper", and in reality the answer is a resounding yes! because each of us will be judged on how we treat others. ON if we truly love our fellow man as ourselves

But few see far enough past the ends of their noses enough to recognise it.

Which type are you?

Do you really "love your fellow man as yourself"?

Or do you just give that lip service?

Our common ground is God's thoughts.

Psalm 139
17: How precious to me are thy thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them!

Psalm 94
7: and they say, "The LORD does not see; the God of Jacob does not perceive."
8: Understand, O dullest of the people! Fools, when will you be wise?
9: He who planted the ear, does he not hear? He who formed the eye, does he not see?
10: He who chastens the nations, does he not chastise? He who teaches men knowledge,
11: the LORD, knows the thoughts of man, that they are but a breath.


Genesis 2
7: then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Psalm 92
5: How great are thy works, O LORD! Thy thoughts are very deep!
6: The dull man cannot know, the stupid cannot understand this:

Psalm 33
8: Let all the earth fear the LORD, let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him!
9: For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood forth.
10: The LORD brings the counsel of the nations to nought; he frustrates the plans of the peoples.
11: The counsel of the LORD stands for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.

I Samuel 2
2: There is none holy like the Lord, there is none besides thee; there is no rock like our God.
3: Talk no more so very proudly, let not arrogance come from your mouth; for the Lord is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.

Amos 4
13: For lo, he who forms the mountains, and creates the wind, and declares to man what is his thought;
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 1:25:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/14/2015 1:13:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 12:48:06 PM, annanicole wrote:
I asked, "Who was Seth?" simply because I know that you (1) have intensely studied these matters in the OT (unlike me, of course) and (2) "holy spirit" helps you recall things that the rest of us would forget. You, of course, understand the "deep things of God" so little factual tidbits are far beneath you.

And you were right to do so.

Every error we make is a learning experience and I have no objection to learning from anyone.

Obviously I knew about Seth, but I had I admit forgotten about him, and he was not relevant to the point I was making.

However I am sure you enjoyed being given the opportunity on a plate, lol.

No problem. I am given such opportunities daily by you, despite purported "holy spirit guidance" on your part.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 1:40:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/14/2015 1:25:10 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:13:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 12:48:06 PM, annanicole wrote:
I asked, "Who was Seth?" simply because I know that you (1) have intensely studied these matters in the OT (unlike me, of course) and (2) "holy spirit" helps you recall things that the rest of us would forget. You, of course, understand the "deep things of God" so little factual tidbits are far beneath you.

And you were right to do so.

Every error we make is a learning experience and I have no objection to learning from anyone.

Obviously I knew about Seth, but I had I admit forgotten about him, and he was not relevant to the point I was making.

However I am sure you enjoyed being given the opportunity on a plate, lol.

No problem. I am given such opportunities daily by you, despite purported "holy spirit guidance" on your part.

No Anna you have not. It is usually you who is well and truly in the wrong as I am now convinced you well know, but don't have the courage to admit, and so remain a pharisaic hypocrite.

I am never afraid to admit when I am wrong, even when it is someone like you who points it out. I do not suffer from your level of pride. Nor am I stupid enough to bluff against the evidence as you so frequently do.

Maybe you should try admitting your error now, it is glaring and fatal, and starts with the basics of scripture.

The sooner you start to admit it,the easier it will be to put it right.

Matthew 7:6
ASV(i) 6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before the swine, lest haply they trample them under their feet, and turn and rend you.
There is little that isn't pathetic, not only about your doctrine but with your obsession with words and neglect of scriptural usage, and the limits scripture puts on how things can be used, or the range of meanings that can be applied to words.

Even less do you are about the overall harmony of scripture, so you concentrate on small passages without taking the harmony of all scripture into account.

It doesn't trouble you in the least that scripture declares plainly, even stridently that Jehovah is jealous for his name, and won't allow anything to take away his glory does it. You are happy to cling to the name "Christian" despite the fact that it violates those major principles.

Therefore you are equally happy to believe that you can glorify God by hiding his name behind that label and you interpret Peters comment that the disciples should glorify God in that name as meaning something other than using God's name whilst being called Christian by others.

The trouble, for you, is that God sees you as putting what pleases you before what pleases him, and his son sees you as putting your pleasure, and glorifying him above that of his father.

It never crosses your mind for one second to consider how strongly Christ reacted against being called "good teacher" because he felt that it took away from his father.

You are so utterly selfish n your selection of what you believe that you have no thought of what may or may not please God.

Therefore you cling to what is basically a god dishonouring name, and insist that he inspired it against all the evidence which says that is utterly impossible.

Exactly like the Pharisees before you, you care only about yourself and about seeming clever, and don't care at all about how God sees you.

That is why you can feel so free to insult and slander him and his son.

And you refuse to see what a hypocrite that makes you.

You disgust God and Christ, and therefore me also, because you refuse to learn and put Jehovah first as you always should..
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 1:51:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/14/2015 1:40:57 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:25:10 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:13:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 12:48:06 PM, annanicole wrote:
I asked, "Who was Seth?" simply because I know that you (1) have intensely studied these matters in the OT (unlike me, of course) and (2) "holy spirit" helps you recall things that the rest of us would forget. You, of course, understand the "deep things of God" so little factual tidbits are far beneath you.

And you were right to do so.

Every error we make is a learning experience and I have no objection to learning from anyone.

Obviously I knew about Seth, but I had I admit forgotten about him, and he was not relevant to the point I was making.

However I am sure you enjoyed being given the opportunity on a plate, lol.

No problem. I am given such opportunities daily by you, despite purported "holy spirit guidance" on your part.

No Anna you have not. It is usually you who is well and truly in the wrong as I am now convinced you well know, but don't have the courage to admit, and so remain a pharisaic hypocrite.

I am never afraid to admit when I am wrong,

Really?

Were you wrong when:

(1) You placed a clownish interpretation on Acts 11: 26 knowing full well that chrematizo and theos never, ever refer to something of Satan or having anything to do with Satan?

(2) When you tried to tell us that ego eimi could possibly be translated "I have been" in a declarative sentence - and never found a single lexicographer or grammarian who agreed with you?

(3) When you've repeatedly tried to tell us that a person can correctly be baptized in the name of a FORCE?

(4) When you tried to tell us that the "it" that is placed out yonder in the cemetery is a person's "personality"? LMAO

(5) When you were asked the reason for naming Lazarus in the Luke 16, you had none

(6) When you've repeatedly had to claim that Jesus, Paul, Luke and all the rest fouled up and made inexcusable errors?

(7) When you've repeatedly claimed that applying the name Jehovah's Witnesses to Christians is authorized by God - then you can't find any authorization for it!

(8) When you've repeatedly misrepresented the fact that the BotchTower simply misapplied and misconstrued prophesy for the last 150 years - and have never gotten one solitary thing right before the fact?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 2:47:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/14/2015 1:51:07 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:40:57 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:25:10 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:13:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 12:48:06 PM, annanicole wrote:
I asked, "Who was Seth?" simply because I know that you (1) have intensely studied these matters in the OT (unlike me, of course) and (2) "holy spirit" helps you recall things that the rest of us would forget. You, of course, understand the "deep things of God" so little factual tidbits are far beneath you.

And you were right to do so.

Every error we make is a learning experience and I have no objection to learning from anyone.

Obviously I knew about Seth, but I had I admit forgotten about him, and he was not relevant to the point I was making.

However I am sure you enjoyed being given the opportunity on a plate, lol.

No problem. I am given such opportunities daily by you, despite purported "holy spirit guidance" on your part.

No Anna you have not. It is usually you who is well and truly in the wrong as I am now convinced you well know, but don't have the courage to admit, and so remain a Pharisaic hypocrite.

I am never afraid to admit when I am wrong,

Really?

Were you wrong when:


No Anna I was not, you are, as always scripturally in the wrong in all the points below, and you know full well I have shown you why.

(1) You placed a clownish interpretation on Acts 11: 26 knowing full well that chrematizo and theos never, ever refer to something of Satan or having anything to do with Satan?

No I gave an accurate interpretation which fits in with the principle stated at Isaiah 42:8 and completely precludes God being the source.

As of course do all the other points I gave you to demonstrate that fact.

Just because they may not have been used that way elsewhere does not mean they aren't here since anything else is impossible according to God's own word.


(2) When you tried to tell us that ego eimi could possibly be translated "I have been" in a declarative sentence - and never found a single lexicographer or grammarian who agreed with you?


Actually I did, but of course in your usual arrogant style you called them "tards" simply because they didn't say what you wanted them to say.

It doesn't bother you that any interpretation other than what I use, and the examples I showed you use, simply does not fit into scripture without disturbing scriptural harmony.

But then since you don't believe scripture in any of the many places it opposes your doctrine why would you?

Hypocrite.

(3) When you've repeatedly tried to tell us that a person can correctly be baptized in the name of a FORCE?

Just as for many years people were arrested "in the name of the Law."

Yes, it is a fact whether or not you like it.

Besides which whilst both Father and Son are given names in scripture, holy spirit is not.

Nor is included in those we need to get to know at John 17:3, because holy spirit is nt a person that one can get to know.


(4) When you tried to tell us that the "it" that is placed out yonder in the cemetery is a person's "personality"? LMAO

No I have never said that, that is your twist on it.. The "it", in the which you refer is stored in God's memory pending the resurrection.

It is you who claims that "it" is the physical body, against all scripture, not I.


(5) When you were asked the reason for naming Lazarus in the Luke 16, you had none

There is one particularly other than it's being a fairly common name in Judah at the time.

You want there to be a reason because you want the illustration in Luke 16 to have a meaning other than is scripturally possible.

But of course since you refuse to believe the clear scriptural statements about the state of the dead, you would not admit it.

Hypocrite.


(6) When you've repeatedly had to claim that Jesus, Paul, Luke and all the rest fouled up and made inexcusable errors?

I never said the errors were inexcusable. I said they were made in ignorance,which they were, as I made clear to you. Scripture reveals them as errors because that is precisely what they were, and in the case of both of Jesus errors scripture fully proves that they were.

But of course as usual you refuse to believe any scripture which teaches something you do not wish to believe.


(7) When you've repeatedly claimed that applying the name Jehovah's Witnesses to Christians is authorized by God - then you can't find any authorization for it!

I have shown you the scriptural pedigree of it, nothing more is needed.


(8) When you've repeatedly misrepresented the fact that the BotchTower simply misapplied and misconstrued prophesy for the last 150 years - and have never gotten one solitary thing right before the fact?

Unlike your errors, their errors were, like those of Christ and Paul, unintentional errors through ignorance.

You cannot claim ignorance for your errors because scripture is very clear about how and why you are wrong, but you refuse to admit it and continue to bluff on a bad hand due to lack of evidence.

I have not misrepresented it, you have. and continue to do so for your own and your master, Satan's ends.

No-one denied they made errors, of understanding and identification of the signs Jesus gave, but then their errors in that are nothing compared to yours, which you stubbornly stand by despite all scriptural and historical evidence against your belief.

Absolute hypocrite that you are.

Matthew 7:6
ASV(i) 6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before the swine, lest haply they trample them under their feet, and turn and rend you.
There is little that isn't pathetic, not only about your doctrine but with your obsession with words and neglect of scriptural usage, and the limits scripture puts on how things can be used, or the range of meanings that can be applied to words.

Even less do you are about the overall harmony of scripture, so you concentrate on small passages without taking the harmony of all scripture into account.

It doesn't trouble you in the least that scripture declares plainly, even stridently that Jehovah is jealous for his name, and won't allow anything to take away his glory does it. You are happy to cling to the name "Christian" despite the fact that it violates those major principles.

Therefore you are equally happy to believe that you can glorify God by hiding his name behind that label and you interpret Peters comment that the disciples should glorify God in that name as meaning something other than using God's name whilst being called Christian by others.

The trouble, for you, is that God sees you as putting what pleases you before what pleases him, and his son sees you as putting your pleasure, and glorifying him above that of his father.

It never crosses your mind for one second to consider how strongly Christ reacted against being called "good teacher" because he felt that it took away from his father.

You are so utterly selfish n your selection of what you believe that you have no thought of what may or may not please God.

Therefore you cling to what is basically a god dishonouring name, and insist that he inspired it against all the evidence which says that is utterly impossible.

Exactly like the Pharisees before you, you care only about yourself and about seeming clever, and don't care at all about how God sees you.

That is why you can feel so free to insult and slander him and his son.

And you refuse to see what a hypocrite that makes you.

You disgust God and Christ, and therefore me also, because you refuse to learn and put Jehovah first as you always should..
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 2:54:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/14/2015 2:47:19 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:51:07 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:40:57 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:25:10 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:13:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 12:48:06 PM, annanicole wrote:

Were you wrong when:


No Anna I was not, you are, as always scripturally in the wrong in all the points below, and you know full well I have shown you why.

(1) You placed a clownish interpretation on Acts 11: 26 knowing full well that chrematizo and theos never, ever refer to something of Satan or having anything to do with Satan?

No I gave an accurate interpretation which fits in with the principle stated at Isaiah 42:8 and completely precludes God being the source.

We aren't asking for your ignorant human reasonings. Heck, you have an entire Greek New Testament, and those words are used fairly frequently. You can't find ONE instance in which they have the definition that you assign to them. Not one. You made it up, as usual.


(2) When you tried to tell us that ego eimi could possibly be translated "I have been" in a declarative sentence - and never found a single lexicographer or grammarian who agreed with you?


Actually I did, but of course in your usual arrogant style you called them "tards" simply because they didn't say what you wanted them to say.

LMAO. No, you didn't. You showed instances in which they were speaking of interrogatories. I coulda told you that. You didn't show a single instance in a declarative sentence.

(3) When you've repeatedly tried to tell us that a person can correctly be baptized in the name of a FORCE?

Just as for many years people were arrested "in the name of the Law."

Why, name an instance when - even incorrectly - a person was ever BAPTIZED in the name of a "force".
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 3:06:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/14/2015 1:40:57 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:25:10 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:13:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 12:48:06 PM, annanicole wrote:
I asked, "Who was Seth?" simply because I know that you (1) have intensely studied these matters in the OT (unlike me, of course) and (2) "holy spirit" helps you recall things that the rest of us would forget. You, of course, understand the "deep things of God" so little factual tidbits are far beneath you.

And you were right to do so.

Every error we make is a learning experience and I have no objection to learning from anyone.

Obviously I knew about Seth, but I had I admit forgotten about him, and he was not relevant to the point I was making.

However I am sure you enjoyed being given the opportunity on a plate, lol.

No problem. I am given such opportunities daily by you, despite purported "holy spirit guidance" on your part.

No Anna you have not. It is usually you who is well and truly in the wrong as I am now convinced you well know, but don't have the courage to admit, and so remain a pharisaic hypocrite.

I am never afraid to admit when I am wrong, even when it is someone like you who points it out. I do not suffer from your level of pride. Nor am I stupid enough to bluff against the evidence as you so frequently do.

Maybe you should try admitting your error now, it is glaring and fatal, and starts with the basics of scripture.

The sooner you start to admit it,the easier it will be to put it right.

Matthew 7:6
ASV(i) 6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before the swine, lest haply they trample them under their feet, and turn and rend you.
There is little that isn't pathetic, not only about your doctrine but with your obsession with words and neglect of scriptural usage, and the limits scripture puts on how things can be used, or the range of meanings that can be applied to words.

Even less do you are about the overall harmony of scripture, so you concentrate on small passages without taking the harmony of all scripture into account.

It doesn't trouble you in the least that scripture declares plainly, even stridently that Jehovah is jealous for his name, and won't allow anything to take away his glory does it. You are happy to cling to the name "Christian" despite the fact that it violates those major principles.

Therefore you are equally happy to believe that you can glorify God by hiding his name behind that label and you interpret Peters comment that the disciples should glorify God in that name as meaning something other than using God's name whilst being called Christian by others.

The trouble, for you, is that God sees you as putting what pleases you before what pleases him, and his son sees you as putting your pleasure, and glorifying him above that of his father.

It never crosses your mind for one second to consider how strongly Christ reacted against being called "good teacher" because he felt that it took away from his father.

You are so utterly selfish n your selection of what you believe that you have no thought of what may or may not please God.

Therefore you cling to what is basically a god dishonouring name, and insist that he inspired it against all the evidence which says that is utterly impossible.

Exactly like the Pharisees before you, you care only about yourself and about seeming clever, and don't care at all about how God sees you.

That is why you can feel so free to insult and slander him and his son.

And you refuse to see what a hypocrite that makes you.

You disgust God and Christ, and therefore me also, because you refuse to learn and put Jehovah first as you always should..

Anna doesn't disgust God or Christ. She disgusts you because you reject her and her interpretations like she is disgusted with your interpretations.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 3:11:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Here, you missed these scriptures that show the common ground that we all are about;

Our common ground is God's thoughts.

Psalm 139
17: How precious to me are thy thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them!

Psalm 94
7: and they say, "The LORD does not see; the God of Jacob does not perceive."
8: Understand, O dullest of the people! Fools, when will you be wise?
9: He who planted the ear, does he not hear? He who formed the eye, does he not see?
10: He who chastens the nations, does he not chastise? He who teaches men knowledge,
11: the LORD, knows the thoughts of man, that they are but a breath.


Genesis 2
7: then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Psalm 92
5: How great are thy works, O LORD! Thy thoughts are very deep!
6: The dull man cannot know, the stupid cannot understand this:


Psalm 33
8: Let all the earth fear the LORD, let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him!
9: For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood forth.
10: The LORD brings the counsel of the nations to nought; he frustrates the plans of the peoples.
11: The counsel of the LORD stands for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.

I Samuel 2
2: There is none holy like the Lord, there is none besides thee; there is no rock like our God.
3: Talk no more so very proudly, let not arrogance come from your mouth; for the Lord is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.

Amos 4
13: For lo, he who forms the mountains, and creates the wind, and declares to man what is his thought;
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 3:18:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/14/2015 2:54:48 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 2:47:19 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:51:07 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:40:57 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:25:10 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:13:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 12:48:06 PM, annanicole wrote:

Were you wrong when:


No Anna I was not, you are, as always scripturally in the wrong in all the points below, and you know full well I have shown you why.

(1) You placed a clownish interpretation on Acts 11: 26 knowing full well that chrematizo and theos never, ever refer to something of Satan or having anything to do with Satan?

No I gave an accurate interpretation which fits in with the principle stated at Isaiah 42:8 and completely precludes God being the source.

We aren't asking for your ignorant human reasonings. Heck, you have an entire Greek New Testament, and those words are used fairly frequently. You can't find ONE instance in which they have the definition that you assign to them. Not one. You made it up, as usual.

Anna it is your reasoning that are human, all my reasonings come from scripture, unlike yours which are all human.

It is you who is full of scriptural ignorance as you have proved over and again.



(2) When you tried to tell us that ego eimi could possibly be translated "I have been" in a declarative sentence - and never found a single lexicographer or grammarian who agreed with you?


Actually I did, but of course in your usual arrogant style you called them "tards" simply because they didn't say what you wanted them to say.

LMAO. No, you didn't. You showed instances in which they were speaking of interrogatories. I coulda told you that. You didn't show a single instance in a declarative sentence.

I showed you examples of it translated that way in the scripture we are discussing as you well know, but you just can't help but lie can you.


(3) When you've repeatedly tried to tell us that a person can correctly be baptized in the name of a FORCE?

Just as for many years people were arrested "in the name of the Law."

Why, name an instance when - even incorrectly - a person was ever BAPTIZED in the name of a "force".

Every person ever baptised in the Name of the Father, the name of the son and the name of holy spirit has been baptised completely correctly in the name a of two sentient beings, both of whom actually have names and God's active force which does not.

Holy spirit is referred to as "holy spirit", "God's spirit" or even just "the spirit". It has no individual name n scripture because it has no individual characteristics for it to be give a scriptural name.

As for "in the name of the Law" everyone arrested before the arrest format was changed was arrested "in the name of the law" .

As usual you bluff with an empty hand.

Matthew 7:6
ASV(i) 6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before the swine, lest haply they trample them under their feet, and turn and rend you.
There is little that isn't pathetic, not only about your doctrine but with your obsession with words and neglect of scriptural usage, and the limits scripture puts on how things can be used, or the range of meanings that can be applied to words.

Even less do you are about the overall harmony of scripture, so you concentrate on small passages without taking the harmony of all scripture into account.

It doesn't trouble you in the least that scripture declares plainly, even stridently that Jehovah is jealous for his name, and won't allow anything to take away his glory does it. You are happy to cling to the name "Christian" despite the fact that it violates those major principles.

Therefore you are equally happy to believe that you can glorify God by hiding his name behind that label and you interpret Peters comment that the disciples should glorify God in that name as meaning something other than using God's name whilst being called Christian by others.

The trouble, for you, is that God sees you as putting what pleases you before what pleases him, and his son sees you as putting your pleasure, and glorifying him above that of his father.

It never crosses your mind for one second to consider how strongly Christ reacted against being called "good teacher" because he felt that it took away from his father.

You are so utterly selfish n your selection of what you believe that you have no thought of what may or may not please God.

Therefore you cling to what is basically a god dishonouring name, and insist that he inspired it against all the evidence which says that is utterly impossible.

Exactly like the Pharisees before you, you care only about yourself and about seeming clever, and don't care at all about how God sees you.

That is why you can feel so free to insult and slander him and his son.

And you refuse to see what a hypocrite that makes you.

You disgust God and Christ, and therefore me also, because you refuse to learn and put Jehovah first as you always should..
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 3:23:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/14/2015 3:18:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 2:54:48 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 2:47:19 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:51:07 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:40:57 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:25:10 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:13:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 12:48:06 PM, annanicole wrote:

Were you wrong when:


No Anna I was not, you are, as always scripturally in the wrong in all the points below, and you know full well I have shown you why.

(1) You placed a clownish interpretation on Acts 11: 26 knowing full well that chrematizo and theos never, ever refer to something of Satan or having anything to do with Satan?

No I gave an accurate interpretation which fits in with the principle stated at Isaiah 42:8 and completely precludes God being the source.

We aren't asking for your ignorant human reasonings. Heck, you have an entire Greek New Testament, and those words are used fairly frequently. You can't find ONE instance in which they have the definition that you assign to them. Not one. You made it up, as usual.

Anna it is your reasoning that are human, all my reasonings come from scripture, unlike yours which are all human.

It is you who is full of scriptural ignorance as you have proved over and again.



(2) When you tried to tell us that ego eimi could possibly be translated "I have been" in a declarative sentence - and never found a single lexicographer or grammarian who agreed with you?


Actually I did, but of course in your usual arrogant style you called them "tards" simply because they didn't say what you wanted them to say.

LMAO. No, you didn't. You showed instances in which they were speaking of interrogatories. I coulda told you that. You didn't show a single instance in a declarative sentence.

I showed you examples of it translated that way in the scripture we are discussing as you well know, but you just can't help but lie can you.


(3) When you've repeatedly tried to tell us that a person can correctly be baptized in the name of a FORCE?

Just as for many years people were arrested "in the name of the Law."

Why, name an instance when - even incorrectly - a person was ever BAPTIZED in the name of a "force".

Every person ever baptised in the Name of the Father, the name of the son and the name of holy spirit has been baptised completely correctly in the name a of two sentient beings, both of whom actually have names and God's active force which does not.

Holy spirit is referred to as "holy spirit", "God's spirit" or even just "the spirit". It has no individual name n scripture because it has no individual characteristics for it to be give a scriptural name.

As for "in the name of the Law" everyone arrested before the arrest format was changed was arrested "in the name of the law" .

As usual you bluff with an empty hand.

Matthew 7:6
ASV(i) 6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before the swine, lest haply they trample them under their feet, and turn and rend you.
There is little that isn't pathetic, not only about your doctrine but with your obsession with words and neglect of scriptural usage, and the limits scripture puts on how things can be used, or the range of meanings that can be applied to words.

Even less do you are about the overall harmony of scripture, so you concentrate on small passages without taking the harmony of all scripture into account.

It doesn't trouble you in the least that scripture declares plainly, even stridently that Jehovah is jealous for his name, and won't allow anything to take away his glory does it. You are happy to cling to the name "Christian" despite the fact that it violates those major principles.

Therefore you are equally happy to believe that you can glorify God by hiding his name behind that label and you interpret Peters comment that the disciples should glorify God in that name as meaning something other than using God's name whilst being called Christian by others.

The trouble, for you, is that God sees you as putting what pleases you before what pleases him, and his son sees you as putting your pleasure, and glorifying him above that of his father.

It never crosses your mind for one second to consider how strongly Christ reacted against being called "good teacher" because he felt that it took away from his father.

You are so utterly selfish n your selection of what you believe that you have no thought of what may or may not please God.

Therefore you cling to what is basically a god dishonouring name, and insist that he inspired it against all the evidence which says that is utterly impossible.

Exactly like the Pharisees before you, you care only about yourself and about seeming clever, and don't care at all about how God sees you.

That is why you can feel so free to insult and slander him and his son.

And you refuse to see what a hypocrite that makes you.

You disgust God and Christ, and therefore me also, because you refuse to learn and put Jehovah first as you always should..

You totally missed the scriptures that show our common ground. You think you know something but you miss the most important parts of what us saints know.

If you want to understand the COMMON GROUND that we all stand on, then read those scriptures where is shows that the THOUGHTS of GOD are our common ground.
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 3:26:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/14/2015 3:18:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 2:54:48 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 2:47:19 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:51:07 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:40:57 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:25:10 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:13:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 12:48:06 PM, annanicole wrote:

Were you wrong when:


No Anna I was not, you are, as always scripturally in the wrong in all the points below, and you know full well I have shown you why.

(1) You placed a clownish interpretation on Acts 11: 26 knowing full well that chrematizo and theos never, ever refer to something of Satan or having anything to do with Satan?

No I gave an accurate interpretation which fits in with the principle stated at Isaiah 42:8 and completely precludes God being the source.

We aren't asking for your ignorant human reasonings. Heck, you have an entire Greek New Testament, and those words are used fairly frequently. You can't find ONE instance in which they have the definition that you assign to them. Not one. You made it up, as usual.

Anna it is your reasoning that are human, all my reasonings come from scripture, unlike yours which are all human.

It is you who is full of scriptural ignorance as you have proved over and again.

I think my knowledge that chrematizo and theos never, never, never refer to anything but the God heaven is pretty darn good. I've looked at the instance of their uses. I've consulted lexicon after lexicon. That's a shade better than you.



(2) When you tried to tell us that ego eimi could possibly be translated "I have been" in a declarative sentence - and never found a single lexicographer or grammarian who agreed with you?


Actually I did, but of course in your usual arrogant style you called them "tards" simply because they didn't say what you wanted them to say.

LMAO. No, you didn't. You showed instances in which they were speaking of interrogatories. I coulda told you that. You didn't show a single instance in a declarative sentence.

I showed you examples of it translated that way in the scripture we are discussing as you well know, but you just can't help but lie can you.

No, you didn't do that, either. You showed us instances in which the phrase ego eimi was translated into Syriac into the Syriac equivalent which also means "I am". The trouble is that it can also mean "I have been". That's the best you had to offer.


(3) When you've repeatedly tried to tell us that a person can correctly be baptized in the name of a FORCE?

Just as for many years people were arrested "in the name of the Law."

Why, name an instance when - even incorrectly - a person was ever BAPTIZED in the name of a "force".

Every person ever baptised in the Name of the Father, the name of the son and the name of holy spirit has been baptised completely correctly in the name a of two sentient beings, both of whom actually have names and God's active force which does not.

Holy spirit is referred to as "holy spirit", "God's spirit" or even just "the spirit". It has no individual name n scripture because it has no individual characteristics for it to be give a scriptural name.

As for "in the name of the Law" everyone arrested before the arrest format was changed was arrested "in the name of the law" .

As usual you bluff with an empty hand.

I think the question was, "Why, name an instance when - even incorrectly - a person was ever BAPTIZED in the name of a "force"."
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 3:53:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/14/2015 3:26:43 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 3:18:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 2:54:48 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 2:47:19 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:51:07 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:40:57 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:25:10 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:13:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 12:48:06 PM, annanicole wrote:

Were you wrong when:


No Anna I was not, you are, as always scripturally in the wrong in all the points below, and you know full well I have shown you why.

(1) You placed a clownish interpretation on Acts 11: 26 knowing full well that chrematizo and theos never, ever refer to something of Satan or having anything to do with Satan?

No I gave an accurate interpretation which fits in with the principle stated at Isaiah 42:8 and completely precludes God being the source.

We aren't asking for your ignorant human reasonings. Heck, you have an entire Greek New Testament, and those words are used fairly frequently. You can't find ONE instance in which they have the definition that you assign to them. Not one. You made it up, as usual.

Anna it is your reasoning that are human, all my reasonings come from scripture, unlike yours which are all human.

It is you who is full of scriptural ignorance as you have proved over and again.

I think my knowledge that chrematizo and theos never, never, never refer to anything but the God heaven is pretty darn good. I've looked at the instance of their uses. I've consulted lexicon after lexicon. That's a shade better than you.



(2) When you tried to tell us that ego eimi could possibly be translated "I have been" in a declarative sentence - and never found a single lexicographer or grammarian who agreed with you?


Actually I did, but of course in your usual arrogant style you called them "tards" simply because they didn't say what you wanted them to say.

LMAO. No, you didn't. You showed instances in which they were speaking of interrogatories. I coulda told you that. You didn't show a single instance in a declarative sentence.

I showed you examples of it translated that way in the scripture we are discussing as you well know, but you just can't help but lie can you.

No, you didn't do that, either. You showed us instances in which the phrase ego eimi was translated into Syriac into the Syriac equivalent which also means "I am". The trouble is that it can also mean "I have been". That's the best you had to offer.


(3) When you've repeatedly tried to tell us that a person can correctly be baptized in the name of a FORCE?

Just as for many years people were arrested "in the name of the Law."

Why, name an instance when - even incorrectly - a person was ever BAPTIZED in the name of a "force".

Every person ever baptised in the Name of the Father, the name of the son and the name of holy spirit has been baptised completely correctly in the name a of two sentient beings, both of whom actually have names and God's active force which does not.

Holy spirit is referred to as "holy spirit", "God's spirit" or even just "the spirit". It has no individual name n scripture because it has no individual characteristics for it to be give a scriptural name.

As for "in the name of the Law" everyone arrested before the arrest format was changed was arrested "in the name of the law" .

As usual you bluff with an empty hand.

I think the question was, "Why, name an instance when - even incorrectly - a person was ever BAPTIZED in the name of a "force"."

The Holy Spirit, Spirit, Spirit of God, Kingdom of the Spirit, Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven, Kingdom of Jesus Christ, Kingdom of Christ, Son of God, Zion, Jacob, Breath of Life, Tree of Life, Book of Life, etc. all mean the same exact thing;
GOD'S THOUGHTS.
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 3:55:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/14/2015 3:53:23 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/14/2015 3:26:43 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 3:18:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 2:54:48 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 2:47:19 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:51:07 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:40:57 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:25:10 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:13:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 12:48:06 PM, annanicole wrote:

Were you wrong when:


No Anna I was not, you are, as always scripturally in the wrong in all the points below, and you know full well I have shown you why.

(1) You placed a clownish interpretation on Acts 11: 26 knowing full well that chrematizo and theos never, ever refer to something of Satan or having anything to do with Satan?

No I gave an accurate interpretation which fits in with the principle stated at Isaiah 42:8 and completely precludes God being the source.

We aren't asking for your ignorant human reasonings. Heck, you have an entire Greek New Testament, and those words are used fairly frequently. You can't find ONE instance in which they have the definition that you assign to them. Not one. You made it up, as usual.

Anna it is your reasoning that are human, all my reasonings come from scripture, unlike yours which are all human.

It is you who is full of scriptural ignorance as you have proved over and again.

I think my knowledge that chrematizo and theos never, never, never refer to anything but the God heaven is pretty darn good. I've looked at the instance of their uses. I've consulted lexicon after lexicon. That's a shade better than you.



(2) When you tried to tell us that ego eimi could possibly be translated "I have been" in a declarative sentence - and never found a single lexicographer or grammarian who agreed with you?


Actually I did, but of course in your usual arrogant style you called them "tards" simply because they didn't say what you wanted them to say.

LMAO. No, you didn't. You showed instances in which they were speaking of interrogatories. I coulda told you that. You didn't show a single instance in a declarative sentence.

I showed you examples of it translated that way in the scripture we are discussing as you well know, but you just can't help but lie can you.

No, you didn't do that, either. You showed us instances in which the phrase ego eimi was translated into Syriac into the Syriac equivalent which also means "I am". The trouble is that it can also mean "I have been". That's the best you had to offer.


(3) When you've repeatedly tried to tell us that a person can correctly be baptized in the name of a FORCE?

Just as for many years people were arrested "in the name of the Law."

Why, name an instance when - even incorrectly - a person was ever BAPTIZED in the name of a "force".

Every person ever baptised in the Name of the Father, the name of the son and the name of holy spirit has been baptised completely correctly in the name a of two sentient beings, both of whom actually have names and God's active force which does not.

Holy spirit is referred to as "holy spirit", "God's spirit" or even just "the spirit". It has no individual name n scripture because it has no individual characteristics for it to be give a scriptural name.

As for "in the name of the Law" everyone arrested before the arrest format was changed was arrested "in the name of the law" .

As usual you bluff with an empty hand.

I think the question was, "Why, name an instance when - even incorrectly - a person was ever BAPTIZED in the name of a "force"."

The Holy Spirit, Spirit, Spirit of God, Kingdom of the Spirit, Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven, Kingdom of Jesus Christ, Kingdom of Christ, Son of God, Zion, Jacob, Breath of Life, Tree of Life, Book of Life, etc. all mean the same exact thing;
GOD'S THOUGHTS.

Thanks, Brad. Is this yet another one of your lies? Or are you telling the truth this time around?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 3:57:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/14/2015 3:26:43 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 3:18:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 2:54:48 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 2:47:19 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:51:07 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:40:57 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:25:10 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:13:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 12:48:06 PM, annanicole wrote:

Were you wrong when:


No Anna I was not, you are, as always scripturally in the wrong in all the points below, and you know full well I have shown you why.

(1) You placed a clownish interpretation on Acts 11: 26 knowing full well that chrematizo and theos never, ever refer to something of Satan or having anything to do with Satan?

No I gave an accurate interpretation which fits in with the principle stated at Isaiah 42:8 and completely precludes God being the source.

We aren't asking for your ignorant human reasonings. Heck, you have an entire Greek New Testament, and those words are used fairly frequently. You can't find ONE instance in which they have the definition that you assign to them. Not one. You made it up, as usual.

Anna it is your reasoning that are human, all my reasonings come from scripture, unlike yours which are all human.

It is you who is full of scriptural ignorance as you have proved over and again.

I think my knowledge that chrematizo and theos never, never, never refer to anything but the God heaven is pretty darn good. I've looked at the instance of their uses. I've consulted lexicon after lexicon. That's a shade better than you.



(2) When you tried to tell us that ego eimi could possibly be translated "I have been" in a declarative sentence - and never found a single lexicographer or grammarian who agreed with you?


Actually I did, but of course in your usual arrogant style you called them "tards" simply because they didn't say what you wanted them to say.

LMAO. No, you didn't. You showed instances in which they were speaking of interrogatories. I coulda told you that. You didn't show a single instance in a declarative sentence.

I showed you examples of it translated that way in the scripture we are discussing as you well know, but you just can't help but lie can you.

No, you didn't do that, either. You showed us instances in which the phrase ego eimi was translated into Syriac into the Syriac equivalent which also means "I am". The trouble is that it can also mean "I have been". That's the best you had to offer.


(3) When you've repeatedly tried to tell us that a person can correctly be baptized in the name of a FORCE?

Just as for many years people were arrested "in the name of the Law."

Why, name an instance when - even incorrectly - a person was ever BAPTIZED in the name of a "force".

Every person ever baptised in the Name of the Father, the name of the son and the name of holy spirit has been baptised completely correctly in the name a of two sentient beings, both of whom actually have names and God's active force which does not.

Holy spirit is referred to as "holy spirit", "God's spirit" or even just "the spirit". It has no individual name n scripture because it has no individual characteristics for it to be give a scriptural name.

As for "in the name of the Law" everyone arrested before the arrest format was changed was arrested "in the name of the law" .

As usual you bluff with an empty hand.

I think the question was, "Why, name an instance when - even incorrectly - a person was ever BAPTIZED in the name of a "force"."

I did, every tie anyone was correctly baptised.

You didn't ask for a specific instance, just an instance.

Matthew 28:19
ASV(i) 19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:

That's Jesus commanding his disciples to baptise people in the name of, along with father and son, God's active force, holy spirit.

Acts 2:38
ASV(i) 38 And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

The free gift of a sentient being? No way Josea.

Luke 1:41;
Matthew 3:11;
Acts 10:38
John 14:16, 17, 26;
John15:26;
John 16:13
Luke 7:35 (Is wisdom also a person since it can have children?)
Romans 5:14, 21 (Are sin and death persons since both are spoken of as kings?)
Acts 4:24, 25;
Acts 28:25;
Matt. 10:19, 20;
Acts 20:23
Acts 21:10, 11
1 John 5:6-8, (are water and blood also sentient beings?)
Psalm. 104:30;
2 Peter. 1:21;
Acts 4:31.

No, Anna, personification in scripture does not make holy spirit a sentient being any more than it does sin, death, water or blood.

In fact, many of the uses of holy spirit listed above absolutely preclude holy spirit being anything other than God's active force, which he uses, or allows his son and the Angels to use as a communication medium as well as for all other purposes.

And don;t forget teat Matthew tells us that Mary was found to be made pregnant by holy spirit. So was holy spirit a sentient being and therefore holy spirit not god was the true father of Jesus?

Or was it simply the implement God uses for all he does?

Sorry Anna. I know I have probably wasted all that scripture on you because you have no intention of believing it, but as always, you are completely and utterly scripturally wrong.

Hence

Matthew 7:6
ASV(i) 6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before the swine, lest haply they trample them under their feet, and turn and rend you.
There is little that isn't pathetic, not only about your doctrine but with your obsession with words and neglect of scriptural usage, and the limits scripture puts on how things can be used, or the range of meanings that can be applied to words.

Even less do you are about the overall harmony of scripture, so you concentrate on small passages without taking the harmony of all scripture into account.

It doesn't trouble you in the least that scripture declares plainly, even stridently that Jehovah is jealous for his name, and won't allow anything to take away his glory does it. You are happy to cling to the name "Christian" despite the fact that it violates those major principles.

Therefore you are equally happy to believe that you can glorify God by hiding his name behind that label and you interpret Peters comment that the disciples should glorify God in that name as meaning something other than using God's name whilst being called Christian by others.

The trouble, for you, is that God sees you as putting what pleases you before what pleases him, and his son sees you as putting your pleasure, and glorifying him above that of his father.

It never crosses your mind for one second to consider how strongly Christ reacted against being called "good teacher" because he felt that it took away from his father.

You are so utterly selfish n your selection of what you believe that you have no thought of what may or may not please God.

Therefore you cling to what is basically a god dishonouring name, and insist that he inspired it against all the evidence which says that is utterly impossible.

Exactly like the Pharisees before you, you care only about yourself and about seeming clever, and don't care at all about how God sees you.

That is why you can feel so free to insult and slander him and his son.

And you refuse to see what a hypocrite that makes you.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 4:02:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/14/2015 12:28:58 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
What common ground do we all have?

Well we are all alive for one.

Well, I never knew that. How profound.

We are presumably all human, for another.

You're a genius.

We can all see what is happening in the world around us, on the News and in the Papers.

This is too much for me to take. I have to tell someone. This is changing my entire outlook on life. (takes deep breath) Okay, debate_power. Keep it together.

However our reactions to it all are very different, even though the evidence is all exactly the same.

ohhhhhhh my goooodnessss

Scripture remarks on that sort of things numerous times.

Ah, drat.

Take Cain and Abel as one example. The only two of Adam and Eve's many offspring the bible bothers to name.

Are you sure about that? How about every other person who ever existed?

They both saw the same things.

How do you know...?

It is same to say they both saw the Cherubs at the entrance to the Garden from which their parents had been ejected, and the continually rotating sword.

What the heck does that mean?

No doubt they were both told the same stories.

Why.

Do.

You.

Have.

To.

Talk.

Like.

This?

I.

Can.

Understand.

You.

Fine.

If.

You.

Type.

In.

Paragraphs.

Rather.

Than.

Just.

Sentences.

And yet they turned out very differently.

Despite the fact that both offered God in sacrifice, the best products of their work, Abel's was accepted, and Cain's rejected.

Why?

Because God was a complete jerk up until the New Testament... and even then he was somewhat of a jerk...

Later event's revealed the reason.

Cain's sacrifice was good but apparently his attitude was all wrong hence out of jealousy he murdered his own brother.

As a "perfect" being, Cain suddenly decided to murder his brother and commit sin. I wonder what caused that? Maybe the all-powerful being who created him? No, that logically couldn't have been.

Other examples are littered throughout scripture.

Noah's families and their contemporaries. All of whom knew about God, all of whom saw Noah building the Ark and doubtless many asked why, and Noah, called in scripture "a preacher of righteousness" was only too happy to tell them.

Noah and his family listened to God's warnings.

And everyone else didn't, because God didn't tell them. Obviously.

Their contemporaries did not, no doubt laughing at the sons and their wives especially for missing out on the fun whilst working on the Ark.

To be honest with you, if I heard that someone was building a wooden boat, in the Stone Age, to survive a world-wide flood, and had to make room for two of each of the millions of species on Earth, I would too.

Esau and Jacob were also very different despite having the same upbringing.

Why can't you just save this for Sunday School?

Esau thought so little of his birthright, despite all it promised for his descendants, that he was happy to sell it for a bowl of soup (probably lentil soup).

What an idiot.

Jacob was not only happy enough to "buy" it, but later to fool his father into giving it to him instead of Esau who was his favourite, though obviously not God's.

Well, good for him! He accomplished his goal! Speaking of God, he has it easy. He doesn't have to trick anyone to get stuff, but still complains when humans do it.

Today we all see the same suffering al around us.

Because it pleases God. It's part of his plan. That's why we should just accept it!

Millions starving despite the greedy West throwing away millions of tons of food.

So why doesn't God just magic in some food for them?

Man's inhumanity to man, regardless of the actual gender of either perpetrator or victim.

I agree that that needs to stop. We should just do an armed robbery on God or something, or get rid of him so that we no longer have a bully who threatens us with eternal torture/tortures us on Earth just for fun and plays games with us by giving us the power of logical deduction while telling us we need faith.

Warfare, which invariably proves as harmful for the aggressor as the ones attacked and especially now, costs millions of innocent lives.

Right, and all thanks to you-know-who and his creation of the incarnation of "evil".

But how differently we react to these things.

Some of us care enough to want to kow why.

I know why perfectly well.

Some do not.

Because, as Jesus said of people in his day, many have had their hearts hardened and the eyes and ears stopped up to what is going on around them. As long as their little lives are unaffected, they couldn't care less about anyone else.outside their circle, their ethnic group or their nation..

You're selfish too, get over it.

Some of us have a world view, not a parochial view.

A worldview's all you need because that's all there is.

Some of us see no logical reason why people should be divided into racial, national, or local groups.

Some like things as they are.

You should, because you're going to spend eternity living "life" to the fullest and to hell with the rest of them. When you die, of course.

Some see us as mere animals, seeing only the similarities.

That's because we are animals, duh.

Some see the differences as being much more significant than the similarities, after all we share 50% of our DNA with bananas!.
...
Even worse, do you not really care at all, hoarding what you can to yourself and your family and to hell with anyone else?

That's the way you should think if you're presented with an eternal reward... infinite gratification should be worth much more than finite gratification, like that of the sort that comes from giving money to the poor.

Yes we all share common ground. We are all human. All have the same human weaknesses, though not al to the same levels admittedly,

I agree there. Though that's not very profound.

All breathe the same continually recycled air. What we breathe out today will eventually be scrubbed clean and breathed by someone else, eventually returning to us, mixed in with air that everybody else in the world has breathed.

So? Are there souls in that air or something?

All drink the same recycled water. Next tie you pass urine, stop and think that one day you will be drinking it again, all filtered, whether naturally or artificially, and purified and recycled, and put back in circulation.

That is not the sort of thing that worries me.

Wicked Cain asked "Am I my brothers keeper", and in reality the answer is a resounding yes! because each of us will be judged on how we treat others. ON if we truly love our fellow man as ourselves

I don't see how you can truly love the world if the best thing you can tell people to do is say a few words and wait until they die.

But few see far enough past the ends of their noses enough to recognise it.

Which type are you?

I'm a scientist.

Do you really "love your fellow man as yourself"?

Of course not; that's absurd. I only help others when it gives me gratification in the form of electrical pulses in my brain.

Or do you just give that lip service?

Well, you don't have a hypocrite here.
You can call me Mark if you like.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 4:03:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/14/2015 3:55:38 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 3:53:23 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/14/2015 3:26:43 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 3:18:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 2:54:48 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 2:47:19 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:51:07 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:40:57 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:25:10 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:13:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 12:48:06 PM, annanicole wrote:

Were you wrong when:


No Anna I was not, you are, as always scripturally in the wrong in all the points below, and you know full well I have shown you why.

(1) You placed a clownish interpretation on Acts 11: 26 knowing full well that chrematizo and theos never, ever refer to something of Satan or having anything to do with Satan?

No I gave an accurate interpretation which fits in with the principle stated at Isaiah 42:8 and completely precludes God being the source.

We aren't asking for your ignorant human reasonings. Heck, you have an entire Greek New Testament, and those words are used fairly frequently. You can't find ONE instance in which they have the definition that you assign to them. Not one. You made it up, as usual.

Anna it is your reasoning that are human, all my reasonings come from scripture, unlike yours which are all human.

It is you who is full of scriptural ignorance as you have proved over and again.

I think my knowledge that chrematizo and theos never, never, never refer to anything but the God heaven is pretty darn good. I've looked at the instance of their uses. I've consulted lexicon after lexicon. That's a shade better than you.



(2) When you tried to tell us that ego eimi could possibly be translated "I have been" in a declarative sentence - and never found a single lexicographer or grammarian who agreed with you?


Actually I did, but of course in your usual arrogant style you called them "tards" simply because they didn't say what you wanted them to say.

LMAO. No, you didn't. You showed instances in which they were speaking of interrogatories. I coulda told you that. You didn't show a single instance in a declarative sentence.

I showed you examples of it translated that way in the scripture we are discussing as you well know, but you just can't help but lie can you.

No, you didn't do that, either. You showed us instances in which the phrase ego eimi was translated into Syriac into the Syriac equivalent which also means "I am". The trouble is that it can also mean "I have been". That's the best you had to offer.


(3) When you've repeatedly tried to tell us that a person can correctly be baptized in the name of a FORCE?

Just as for many years people were arrested "in the name of the Law."

Why, name an instance when - even incorrectly - a person was ever BAPTIZED in the name of a "force".

Every person ever baptised in the Name of the Father, the name of the son and the name of holy spirit has been baptised completely correctly in the name a of two sentient beings, both of whom actually have names and God's active force which does not.

Holy spirit is referred to as "holy spirit", "God's spirit" or even just "the spirit". It has no individual name n scripture because it has no individual characteristics for it to be give a scriptural name.

As for "in the name of the Law" everyone arrested before the arrest format was changed was arrested "in the name of the law" .

As usual you bluff with an empty hand.

I think the question was, "Why, name an instance when - even incorrectly - a person was ever BAPTIZED in the name of a "force"."

The Holy Spirit, Spirit, Spirit of God, Kingdom of the Spirit, Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven, Kingdom of Jesus Christ, Kingdom of Christ, Son of God, Zion, Jacob, Breath of Life, Tree of Life, Book of Life, etc. all mean the same exact thing;
GOD'S THOUGHTS.

Thanks, Brad. Is this yet another one of your lies? Or are you telling the truth this time around?

I know everything that God has revealed to me except the day that I will be killed and when the Earth starts to shake violently. None of us saints or prophets know the EXACT DATE of when God planned to end this age but we will know the season. That's because we testify to His knowledge until there's nothing left for us to know in this age. Now we know how we were created and why He needed the modern technology built through His plan called the beast so that He could use this modern technology to show me exactly who we are and how He formed our flesh to make us believe we are real.

The end result of the 1,000 year reign in Christ is that we learn we're not living in a world that contains hard physical objects. They are only illusions because we're living in a virtual reality that He dreamed up and put together.

This is very humbling knowledge but at least now I don't have to worry about anything because we're not even real.

We will all know who we are and who our Creator is in the next age after this part of His dream is over. He only needed the first age to teach us who we really are and that's it.
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 4:17:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/14/2015 12:28:58 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
What common ground do we all have?

Well we are all alive for one.

We are presumably all human, for another.

We can all see what is happening in the world around us, on the News and in the Papers.

However our reactions to it all are very different, even though the evidence is all exactly the same.

Scripture remarks on that sort of things numerous times.

Take Cain and Abel as one example. The only two of Adam and Eve's many offspring the bible bothers to name.

They both saw the same things.

It is same to say they both saw the Cherubs at the entrance to the Garden from which their parents had been ejected, and the continually rotating sword.

No doubt they were both told the same stories.

And yet they turned out very differently.

Despite the fact that both offered God in sacrifice, the best products of their work, Abel's was accepted, and Cain's rejected.

Why?

Later event's revealed the reason.

Cain's sacrifice was good but apparently his attitude was all wrong hence out of jealousy he murdered his own brother.

Other examples are littered throughout scripture.

Noah's families and their contemporaries. All of whom knew about God, all of whom saw Noah building the Ark and doubtless many asked why, and Noah, called in scripture "a preacher of righteousness" was only too happy to tell them.

Noah and his family listened to God's warnings.

Their contemporaries did not, no doubt laughing at the sons and their wives especially for missing out on the fun whilst working on the Ark.

Esau and Jacob were also very different despite having the same upbringing.

Esau thought so little of his birthright, despite all it promised for his descendants, that he was happy to sell it for a bowl of soup (probably lentil soup).

Jacob was not only happy enough to "buy" it, but later to fool his father into giving it to him instead of Esau who was his favourite, though obviously not God's.

Today we all see the same suffering al around us.

Millions starving despite the greedy West throwing away millions of tons of food.

Man's inhumanity to man, regardless of the actual gender of either perpetrator or victim.

Warfare, which invariably proves as harmful for the aggressor as the ones attacked and especially now, costs millions of innocent lives.

But how differently we react to these things.

Some of us care enough to want to kow why.

Some do not.

Because, as Jesus said of people in his day, many have had their hearts hardened and the eyes and ears stopped up to what is going on around them. As long as their little lives are unaffected, they couldn't care less about anyone else.outside their circle, their ethnic group or their nation..

Some of us have a world view, not a parochial view.

Some of us see no logical reason why people should be divided into racial, national, or local groups.

Some like things as they are.

Some see us as mere animals, seeing only the similarities.

Some see the differences as being much more significant than the similarities, after all we share 50% of our DNA with bananas!.

Even worse, do you not really care at all, hoarding what you can to yourself and your family and to hell with anyone else?

Yes we all share common ground. We are all human. All have the same human weaknesses, though not al to the same levels admittedly,

All breathe the same continually recycled air. What we breathe out today will eventually be scrubbed clean and breathed by someone else, eventually returning to us, mixed in with air that everybody else in the world has breathed.

All drink the same recycled water. Next tie you pass urine, stop and think that one day you will be drinking it again, all filtered, whether naturally or artificially, and purified and recycled, and put back in circulation.

Wicked Cain asked "Am I my brothers keeper", and in reality the answer is a resounding yes! because each of us will be judged on how we treat others. ON if we truly love our fellow man as ourselves

But few see far enough past the ends of their noses enough to recognise it.

Which type are you?

Do you really "love your fellow man as yourself"?

Or do you just give that lip service?

You are not different from a muslim or a buddahist trying to convince people to convert only by picking verses from a holy book, dont get hurt you sound stupid man, emotions can deceive you. you have some reason to be a christian? i have plenty reasons why not to be a christian.
Never fart near dog
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 4:22:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/14/2015 12:28:58 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
What common ground do we all have?

Well we are all alive for one.

We are presumably all human, for another.

We can all see what is happening in the world around us, on the News and in the Papers.

However our reactions to it all are very different, even though the evidence is all exactly the same.

Scripture remarks on that sort of things numerous times.

Take Cain and Abel as one example. The only two of Adam and Eve's many offspring the bible bothers to name.

Why didn't Cain and Abel have mates as they were birthed into this world? Were their parents the only man with a male body and a female body?
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 4:22:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/14/2015 4:02:03 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 3/14/2015 12:28:58 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

As a "perfect" being, Cain suddenly decided to murder his brother and commit sin. I wonder what caused that? Maybe the all-powerful being who created him? No, that logically couldn't have been.

Cain wasn't a perfect being, none were between Adam and Christ.


Other examples are littered throughout scripture.

Noah's families and their contemporaries. All of whom knew about God, all of whom saw Noah building the Ark and doubtless many asked why, and Noah, called in scripture "a preacher of righteousness" was only too happy to tell them.

Noah and his family listened to God's warnings.

And everyone else didn't, because God didn't tell them. Obviously.

Except that Noah did.

Their contemporaries did not, no doubt laughing at the sons and their wives especially for missing out on the fun whilst working on the Ark.

To be honest with you, if I heard that someone was building a wooden boat, in the Stone Age, to survive a world-wide flood, and had to make room for two of each of the millions of species on Earth, I would too.

Who said there were millions of species then? we simply don;t know how far creation had developed from the basic kinds God created.


Esau and Jacob were also very different despite having the same upbringing.

Why can't you just save this for Sunday School?


Because for me this is Sunday school every day of the week.

Esau thought so little of his birthright, despite all it promised for his descendants, that he was happy to sell it for a bowl of soup (probably lentil soup).

What an idiot.


No argument there, lol..

Jacob was not only happy enough to "buy" it, but later to fool his father into giving it to him instead of Esau who was his favourite, though obviously not God's.

Well, good for him! He accomplished his goal! Speaking of God, he has it easy. He doesn't have to trick anyone to get stuff, but still complains when humans do it.

Today we all see the same suffering al around us.

Because it pleases God. It's part of his plan. That's why we should just accept it!


No, it is not and never was part of his plan.

Millions starving despite the greedy West throwing away millions of tons of food.

So why doesn't God just magic in some food for them?

God does nothing by magic, he gives humans the means of produce more than enough for everyone, and leaves it to us to distribute it.

That is why only those prepared to care for everyone else will be allowed into the New World when the time for Satan's final judgement has come.


Man's inhumanity to man, regardless of the actual gender of either perpetrator or victim.

I agree that that needs to stop. We should just do an armed robbery on God or something, or get rid of him so that we no longer have a bully who threatens us with eternal torture/tortures us on Earth just for fun and plays games with us by giving us the power of logical deduction while telling us we need faith.

It will, and it should not be long now, Satan's time is almost up. He has failed to prove his case


Warfare, which invariably proves as harmful for the aggressor as the ones attacked and especially now, costs millions of innocent lives.

Right, and all thanks to you-know-who and his creation of the incarnation of "evil".

Jehovah didn't create evil.

It is true that by giving men and angels free will he automatically created the potential for evil, but trusted them and us not to become evil.

He has been let down badly, by Satan, the other unfaithful angels and just about every human since Adam's fall.


But how differently we react to these things.

Some of us care enough to want to know why.

I know why perfectly well.

Some do not.

Because, as Jesus said of people in his day, many have had their hearts hardened and the eyes and ears stopped up to what is going on around them. As long as their little lives are unaffected, they couldn't care less about anyone else.outside their circle, their ethnic group or their nation..

You're selfish too, get over it.

I do my best not to be. My common law wife would not agree with you.


Some of us have a world view, not a parochial view.

A worldview's all you need because that's all there is.

Some of us see no logical reason why people should be divided into racial, national, or local groups.

Some like things as they are.

You should, because you're going to spend eternity living "life" to the fullest and to hell with the rest of them. When you die, of course.


No, not if I stay faithful to God. If that succeed well enough, I will never die.

Anyway it depends what mean mean by living life to it's fullest. As far as I am concerned I do, I just don't do so more than I believe I should.

Some see us as mere animals, seeing only the similarities.

That's because we are animals, duh.

Nope we are not. We are humans Duh.


Some see the differences as being much more significant than the similarities, after all we share 50% of our DNA with bananas!.
...
Even worse, do you not really care at all, hoarding what you can to yourself and your family and to hell with anyone else?

That's the way you should think if you're presented with an eternal reward... infinite gratification should be worth much more than finite gratification, like that of the sort that comes from giving money to the poor.

Yes we all share common ground. We are all human. All have the same human weaknesses, though not al to the same levels admittedly,

I agree there. Though that's not very profound.

All breathe the same continually recycled air. What we breathe out today will eventually be scrubbed clean and breathed by someone else, eventually returning to us, mixed in with air that everybody else in the world has breathed.

So? Are there souls in that air or something?

Nope, but that another subject entirely and a big and important one.


All drink the same recycled water. Next tie you pass urine, stop and think that one day you will be drinking it again, all filtered, whether naturally or artificially, and purified and recycled, and put back in circulation.

That is not the sort of thing that worries me.

Wicked Cain asked "Am I my brothers keeper", and in reality the answer is a resounding yes! because each of us will be judged on how we treat others. ON if we truly love our fellow man as ourselves

I don't see how you can truly love the world if the best thing you can tell people to do is say a few words and wait until they die.

But few see far enough past the ends of their noses enough to recognise it.

Which type are you?

I'm a scientist.

Do you really "love your fellow man as yourself"?

Of course not; that's absurd. I only help others when it gives me gratification in the form of electrical pulses in my brain.

Or do you just give that lip service?

Well, you don't have a hypocrite here.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 4:23:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/14/2015 4:22:13 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/14/2015 12:28:58 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
What common ground do we all have?

Well we are all alive for one.

We are presumably all human, for another.

We can all see what is happening in the world around us, on the News and in the Papers.

However our reactions to it all are very different, even though the evidence is all exactly the same.

Scripture remarks on that sort of things numerous times.

Take Cain and Abel as one example. The only two of Adam and Eve's many offspring the bible bothers to name.

Why didn't Cain and Abel have mates as they were birthed into this world? Were their parents the only man with a male body and a female body?

You should know, lol.
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 4:29:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/14/2015 4:03:14 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/14/2015 3:55:38 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 3:53:23 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/14/2015 3:26:43 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 3:18:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 2:54:48 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 2:47:19 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:51:07 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:40:57 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:25:10 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:13:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 12:48:06 PM, annanicole wrote:

Were you wrong when:


No Anna I was not, you are, as always scripturally in the wrong in all the points below, and you know full well I have shown you why.

(1) You placed a clownish interpretation on Acts 11: 26 knowing full well that chrematizo and theos never, ever refer to something of Satan or having anything to do with Satan?

No I gave an accurate interpretation which fits in with the principle stated at Isaiah 42:8 and completely precludes God being the source.

We aren't asking for your ignorant human reasonings. Heck, you have an entire Greek New Testament, and those words are used fairly frequently. You can't find ONE instance in which they have the definition that you assign to them. Not one. You made it up, as usual.

Anna it is your reasoning that are human, all my reasonings come from scripture, unlike yours which are all human.

It is you who is full of scriptural ignorance as you have proved over and again.

I think my knowledge that chrematizo and theos never, never, never refer to anything but the God heaven is pretty darn good. I've looked at the instance of their uses. I've consulted lexicon after lexicon. That's a shade better than you.



(2) When you tried to tell us that ego eimi could possibly be translated "I have been" in a declarative sentence - and never found a single lexicographer or grammarian who agreed with you?


Actually I did, but of course in your usual arrogant style you called them "tards" simply because they didn't say what you wanted them to say.

LMAO. No, you didn't. You showed instances in which they were speaking of interrogatories. I coulda told you that. You didn't show a single instance in a declarative sentence.

I showed you examples of it translated that way in the scripture we are discussing as you well know, but you just can't help but lie can you.

No, you didn't do that, either. You showed us instances in which the phrase ego eimi was translated into Syriac into the Syriac equivalent which also means "I am". The trouble is that it can also mean "I have been". That's the best you had to offer.


(3) When you've repeatedly tried to tell us that a person can correctly be baptized in the name of a FORCE?

Just as for many years people were arrested "in the name of the Law."

Why, name an instance when - even incorrectly - a person was ever BAPTIZED in the name of a "force".

Every person ever baptised in the Name of the Father, the name of the son and the name of holy spirit has been baptised completely correctly in the name a of two sentient beings, both of whom actually have names and God's active force which does not.

Holy spirit is referred to as "holy spirit", "God's spirit" or even just "the spirit". It has no individual name n scripture because it has no individual characteristics for it to be give a scriptural name.

As for "in the name of the Law" everyone arrested before the arrest format was changed was arrested "in the name of the law" .

As usual you bluff with an empty hand.

I think the question was, "Why, name an instance when - even incorrectly - a person was ever BAPTIZED in the name of a "force"."

The Holy Spirit, Spirit, Spirit of God, Kingdom of the Spirit, Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven, Kingdom of Jesus Christ, Kingdom of Christ, Son of God, Zion, Jacob, Breath of Life, Tree of Life, Book of Life, etc. all mean the same exact thing;
GOD'S THOUGHTS.

Thanks, Brad. Is this yet another one of your lies? Or are you telling the truth this time around?

I know everything that God has revealed to me except the day that I will be killed

Oh, God taught you that, too - at one time. You said He did. Just another lie, I guess.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 4:33:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/14/2015 4:23:25 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 4:22:13 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/14/2015 12:28:58 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
What common ground do we all have?

Well we are all alive for one.

We are presumably all human, for another.

We can all see what is happening in the world around us, on the News and in the Papers.

However our reactions to it all are very different, even though the evidence is all exactly the same.

Scripture remarks on that sort of things numerous times.

Take Cain and Abel as one example. The only two of Adam and Eve's many offspring the bible bothers to name.

Why didn't Cain and Abel have mates as they were birthed into this world? Were their parents the only man with a male body and a female body?

You should know, lol.

I know you don't know why. God created man, then formed a flesh from the dust of the earth. He breathed "the breath of life" into his nostrils and man became a living being.

God made a male flesh out of this created man first. He had Adam name all the animals and other objects of this world so that he would have a language to speak to his eventual partner, the FEMALE part of the created man.

Adam ( male ) and Eve ( female ) were ONE in the flesh but what happened to Cain and Abel's partner's?

Why didn't Cain and Abel have a partner as they were formed in the womb and birthed into this world? Do you suppose maybe the formed flesh called Abel consisted of both male and female information in them as one complete created man?

Do you realize why homosexuality exists in this world? One created man should have ONE MALE body and ONE FEMALE body and be partners for eternity but that won't happen until the next age as they're birthed into the NEW EARTH called PARADISE.

All the flesh of this world, the offspring of the flesh of Adam and Eve have been screwed up since then. Instead of man being birthed with ONE MALE body and ONE FEMALE body, he was only given ONE body during this first age.

This is why everyone who gets married in this world is committing adultery.
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 4:38:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/14/2015 3:57:30 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 3:26:43 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 3:18:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 2:54:48 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 2:47:19 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:51:07 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:40:57 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:25:10 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:13:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 12:48:06 PM, annanicole wrote:

Were you wrong when:


No Anna I was not, you are, as always scripturally in the wrong in all the points below, and you know full well I have shown you why.

(1) You placed a clownish interpretation on Acts 11: 26 knowing full well that chrematizo and theos never, ever refer to something of Satan or having anything to do with Satan?

No I gave an accurate interpretation which fits in with the principle stated at Isaiah 42:8 and completely precludes God being the source.

We aren't asking for your ignorant human reasonings. Heck, you have an entire Greek New Testament, and those words are used fairly frequently. You can't find ONE instance in which they have the definition that you assign to them. Not one. You made it up, as usual.

Anna it is your reasoning that are human, all my reasonings come from scripture, unlike yours which are all human.

It is you who is full of scriptural ignorance as you have proved over and again.

I think my knowledge that chrematizo and theos never, never, never refer to anything but the God heaven is pretty darn good. I've looked at the instance of their uses. I've consulted lexicon after lexicon. That's a shade better than you.



(2) When you tried to tell us that ego eimi could possibly be translated "I have been" in a declarative sentence - and never found a single lexicographer or grammarian who agreed with you?


Actually I did, but of course in your usual arrogant style you called them "tards" simply because they didn't say what you wanted them to say.

LMAO. No, you didn't. You showed instances in which they were speaking of interrogatories. I coulda told you that. You didn't show a single instance in a declarative sentence.

I showed you examples of it translated that way in the scripture we are discussing as you well know, but you just can't help but lie can you.

No, you didn't do that, either. You showed us instances in which the phrase ego eimi was translated into Syriac into the Syriac equivalent which also means "I am". The trouble is that it can also mean "I have been". That's the best you had to offer.


(3) When you've repeatedly tried to tell us that a person can correctly be baptized in the name of a FORCE?

Just as for many years people were arrested "in the name of the Law."

Why, name an instance when - even incorrectly - a person was ever BAPTIZED in the name of a "force".

Every person ever baptised in the Name of the Father, the name of the son and the name of holy spirit has been baptised completely correctly in the name a of two sentient beings, both of whom actually have names and God's active force which does not.

Holy spirit is referred to as "holy spirit", "God's spirit" or even just "the spirit". It has no individual name n scripture because it has no individual characteristics for it to be give a scriptural name.

As for "in the name of the Law" everyone arrested before the arrest format was changed was arrested "in the name of the law" .

As usual you bluff with an empty hand.

I think the question was, "Why, name an instance when - even incorrectly - a person was ever BAPTIZED in the name of a "force"."

I did, every tie anyone was correctly baptised.

You didn't ask for a specific instance, just an instance.

Matthew 28:19
ASV(i) 19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:

That's Jesus commanding his disciples to baptise people in the name of, along with father and son, God's active force, holy spirit.

Acts 2:38
ASV(i) 38 And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

The free gift of a sentient being? No way Josea.

Now the boy is denying that anyone received the Holy Spirit's gift. That just shows how stupid you are.

I guess God doesn't have a gift, either, eh?

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God."

By the same token, and using the same reasoning, you claim that nobody has God's gift either, for no such thing exists. Are you sure "holy spirit" is directly guiding you as you make such foolish comments?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 4:40:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/14/2015 4:17:08 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 3/14/2015 12:28:58 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
What common ground do we all have?

Well we are all alive for one.

We are presumably all human, for another.

We can all see what is happening in the world around us, on the News and in the Papers.

However our reactions to it all are very different, even though the evidence is all exactly the same.

Scripture remarks on that sort of things numerous times.

Take Cain and Abel as one example. The only two of Adam and Eve's many offspring the bible bothers to name.

They both saw the same things.

It is same to say they both saw the Cherubs at the entrance to the Garden from which their parents had been ejected, and the continually rotating sword.

No doubt they were both told the same stories.

And yet they turned out very differently.

Despite the fact that both offered God in sacrifice, the best products of their work, Abel's was accepted, and Cain's rejected.

Why?

Later event's revealed the reason.

Cain's sacrifice was good but apparently his attitude was all wrong hence out of jealousy he murdered his own brother.

Other examples are littered throughout scripture.

Noah's families and their contemporaries. All of whom knew about God, all of whom saw Noah building the Ark and doubtless many asked why, and Noah, called in scripture "a preacher of righteousness" was only too happy to tell them.

Noah and his family listened to God's warnings.

Their contemporaries did not, no doubt laughing at the sons and their wives especially for missing out on the fun whilst working on the Ark.

Esau and Jacob were also very different despite having the same upbringing.

Esau thought so little of his birthright, despite all it promised for his descendants, that he was happy to sell it for a bowl of soup (probably lentil soup).

Jacob was not only happy enough to "buy" it, but later to fool his father into giving it to him instead of Esau who was his favourite, though obviously not God's.

Today we all see the same suffering al around us.

Millions starving despite the greedy West throwing away millions of tons of food.

Man's inhumanity to man, regardless of the actual gender of either perpetrator or victim.

Warfare, which invariably proves as harmful for the aggressor as the ones attacked and especially now, costs millions of innocent lives.

But how differently we react to these things.

Some of us care enough to want to kow why.

Some do not.

Because, as Jesus said of people in his day, many have had their hearts hardened and the eyes and ears stopped up to what is going on around them. As long as their little lives are unaffected, they couldn't care less about anyone else.outside their circle, their ethnic group or their nation..

Some of us have a world view, not a parochial view.

Some of us see no logical reason why people should be divided into racial, national, or local groups.

Some like things as they are.

Some see us as mere animals, seeing only the similarities.

Some see the differences as being much more significant than the similarities, after all we share 50% of our DNA with bananas!.

Even worse, do you not really care at all, hoarding what you can to yourself and your family and to hell with anyone else?

Yes we all share common ground. We are all human. All have the same human weaknesses, though not al to the same levels admittedly,

All breathe the same continually recycled air. What we breathe out today will eventually be scrubbed clean and breathed by someone else, eventually returning to us, mixed in with air that everybody else in the world has breathed.

All drink the same recycled water. Next tie you pass urine, stop and think that one day you will be drinking it again, all filtered, whether naturally or artificially, and purified and recycled, and put back in circulation.

Wicked Cain asked "Am I my brothers keeper", and in reality the answer is a resounding yes! because each of us will be judged on how we treat others. ON if we truly love our fellow man as ourselves

But few see far enough past the ends of their noses enough to recognise it.

Which type are you?

Do you really "love your fellow man as yourself"?

Or do you just give that lip service?

You are not different from a muslim or a buddahist trying to convince people to convert only by picking verses from a holy book, dont get hurt you sound stupid man, emotions can deceive you. you have some reason to be a christian? i have plenty reasons why not to be a christian.

I too have many reasons not to become what most people are fooled into thinking being a "Christian" is.

However I have many, and extremely valid reasons to worship and serve the true God and creator of this whole shebang, as did his son, who came to earth to become the Christ, and his Apostles after him.

The most important reason being that he is the true God and creator of this whole shebang, including the unfaithful Angels such as Satan who become the false Gods, such as Allah, of this world, as well as becoming the power behind the throne of every nation on this earth.

The next important reason is that all he wants is the best for all his creation.

This is backed up by the fact that he is the only one who actually knows what is best for al of it, including humanity.

He has shown great love for us and patience with us during all this time when Satan has been trying to prove that he can pull people away from serving God, doing all he can within the rules imposed by his own sense of justice, to reduce our suffering to a minimum.

He has also shown beyond doubt that he has the power to protect his people from all opposition, even if determined to destroy them physically or spiritually. Even if that opposition came from inside his own people.

He gives humans the immense privilege of serving him, especially in this time of the end, to help others to find the path to life.

What's even better is that all those who have died in the past, and who have not proven irredeemably evil will get a second chance under immeasurably better circumstances, and he sent his son to earth to suffer and die to guarantee that.

I could go on, but that will do for now.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 4:42:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/14/2015 4:29:39 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 4:03:14 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/14/2015 3:55:38 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 3:53:23 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/14/2015 3:26:43 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 3:18:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 2:54:48 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 2:47:19 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:51:07 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:40:57 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:25:10 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/14/2015 1:13:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/14/2015 12:48:06 PM, annanicole wrote:

Were you wrong when:


No Anna I was not, you are, as always scripturally in the wrong in all the points below, and you know full well I have shown you why.

(1) You placed a clownish interpretation on Acts 11: 26 knowing full well that chrematizo and theos never, ever refer to something of Satan or having anything to do with Satan?

No I gave an accurate interpretation which fits in with the principle stated at Isaiah 42:8 and completely precludes God being the source.

We aren't asking for your ignorant human reasonings. Heck, you have an entire Greek New Testament, and those words are used fairly frequently. You can't find ONE instance in which they have the definition that you assign to them. Not one. You made it up, as usual.

Anna it is your reasoning that are human, all my reasonings come from scripture, unlike yours which are all human.

It is you who is full of scriptural ignorance as you have proved over and again.

I think my knowledge that chrematizo and theos never, never, never refer to anything but the God heaven is pretty darn good. I've looked at the instance of their uses. I've consulted lexicon after lexicon. That's a shade better than you.



(2) When you tried to tell us that ego eimi could possibly be translated "I have been" in a declarative sentence - and never found a single lexicographer or grammarian who agreed with you?


Actually I did, but of course in your usual arrogant style you called them "tards" simply because they didn't say what you wanted them to say.

LMAO. No, you didn't. You showed instances in which they were speaking of interrogatories. I coulda told you that. You didn't show a single instance in a declarative sentence.

I showed you examples of it translated that way in the scripture we are discussing as you well know, but you just can't help but lie can you.

No, you didn't do that, either. You showed us instances in which the phrase ego eimi was translated into Syriac into the Syriac equivalent which also means "I am". The trouble is that it can also mean "I have been". That's the best you had to offer.


(3) When you've repeatedly tried to tell us that a person can correctly be baptized in the name of a FORCE?

Just as for many years people were arrested "in the name of the Law."

Why, name an instance when - even incorrectly - a person was ever BAPTIZED in the name of a "force".

Every person ever baptised in the Name of the Father, the name of the son and the name of holy spirit has been baptised completely correctly in the name a of two sentient beings, both of whom actually have names and God's active force which does not.

Holy spirit is referred to as "holy spirit", "God's spirit" or even just "the spirit". It has no individual name n scripture because it has no individual characteristics for it to be give a scriptural name.

As for "in the name of the Law" everyone arrested before the arrest format was changed was arrested "in the name of the law" .

As usual you bluff with an empty hand.

I think the question was, "Why, name an instance when - even incorrectly - a person was ever BAPTIZED in the name of a "force"."

The Holy Spirit, Spirit, Spirit of God, Kingdom of the Spirit, Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven, Kingdom of Jesus Christ, Kingdom of Christ, Son of God, Zion, Jacob, Breath of Life, Tree of Life, Book of Life, etc. all mean the same exact thing;
GOD'S THOUGHTS.

Thanks, Brad. Is this yet another one of your lies? Or are you telling the truth this time around?

I know everything that God has revealed to me except the day that I will be killed

Oh, God taught you that, too - at one time. You said He did. Just another lie, I guess.

God NEVER taught me the EXACT DATE that I would be killed, Anna.