12 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeestershall we post the text, i seem to remember it having ended, kind regards Robbie, quite strange for a rude text, don't you think, as for your opinion this thread was intended to determine if you could engage your very own powers of reason, perhaps you are correct, i was hoping for too much!
Funny; after your three unsolicited and rude PMs to me, the final one stating you "wanted nothing to do with me" - I'm surprised you are so keen to engage my opinion now, especially as you so obviously avoiding the pertinent question in my original thread.
Lightweight arrogance indeed.
12 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by dueceryou have offered not one comment, no not one comment with regard to Christs very own words, now having been asked for the third time. Are you being evasive, do you not know, perhaps you are being intellectually dishonest, who can say? here they are again and seeing you are so fond of black and white answers, lets ask you one,
there has been little or no response because we have already won that argument, and care little for your childish refusal to admit your error
(John 3:13) . . .Moreover, no man has ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man. . .
who are we to believe, Deucer who stated that others went to heaven prior to Jesus or Jesus Christ himself, a simple comment shall suffice, if you don't mind,
RHP user interested. . . .
12 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnd you sir have failed to address one of my rarely lucid comments.
you have offered not one comment, no not one comment with regard to Christs very own words, now having been asked for the third time. Are you being evasive, do you not know, perhaps you are being intellectually dishonest, who can say? here they are again and seeing you are so fond of black and white answers, lets ask you one,
(John 3:13) . . .M ...[text shortened]... rist himself, a simple comment shall suffice, if you don't mind,
RHP user interested. . . .
seeing you are so fond of black and white answers, lets ask you one,
Let's keep race out of this shall we?
12 Sep 10
Originally posted by Hand of Hecateperhaps your question was beyond me, perhaps i did not perceive it the way it was intended? who can say? what race has to do with this i do not know, unless of course you are attempting to construe the idea of a black and white question, as some kind of racial issue. What about my wife, who happens to be from the Punjab and is a beautiful brown colour, would you prefer it termed coffee and cream to suit your rather , well imaginative assertion? We in the Uk have been through all the racist jive, its the Americans that have yet to come to terms with it, see them.
And you sir have failed to address one of my rarely lucid comments.
seeing you are so fond of black and white answers, lets ask you one,
Let's keep race out of this shall we?
13 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobiefrom page 2:
you have offered not one comment, no not one comment with regard to Christs very own words, now having been asked for the third time. Are you being evasive, do you not know, perhaps you are being intellectually dishonest, who can say? here they are again and seeing you are so fond of black and white answers, lets ask you one,
(John 3:13) . . .M ...[text shortened]... rist himself, a simple comment shall suffice, if you don't mind,
RHP user interested. . . .
Elijah did not ascend, he was carried into heaven, the point is subtle, but important. No person on their own merit goes to heaven (hence Grace based salvation vs. works)
seriously dudes yer grasping at straws...and getting rather boring
edit: also please explain Luke 9:28 About eight days after Jesus said this, he took Peter, John and James with him and went up onto a mountain to pray. 29As he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became as bright as a flash of lightning. 30Two men, Moses and Elijah, 31appeared in glorious splendor, talking with Jesus. They spoke about his departure, which he was about to bring to fulfillment at Jerusalem. 32Peter and his companions were very sleepy, but when they became fully awake, they saw his glory and the two men standing with him. 33As the men were leaving Jesus, Peter said to him, "Master, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah."
from the other thread where this argument started:
From Mark 3
Jesus and Beelzebub
20Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind."
22And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, "He is possessed by Beelzebub[c]! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons."
23So Jesus called them and spoke to them in parables: "How can Satan drive out Satan? 24If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. 27In fact, no one can enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house. 28I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. 29But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."
30He said this because they were saying, "He has an evil spirit."
Jesus is very specific about what they did to commit “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.”
This blasphemy has to do with someone accusing Jesus Christ of being demon-possessed instead of Spirit-filled. As a result, this particular incidence of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be duplicated today. Jesus Christ is not on earth. No one can witness Jesus Christ performing a miracle and then attribute that power to Satan instead of the Spirit. The closest example today would be attributing the miracle of a redeemed person’s changed life to Satan’s power rather than to the effects of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
now that I have AGAIN more than ably answered your question, you can stop lying about my failure to do so
Oh and for Galvo: strange how I love to quote scripture in my answers, so you can stop lying about how I never do that as well.
its amazing how you both attack others (falsely) for not answering questions, yet here sits a quote where neither of you bothered to address my question, stop ducking and answer: please explain Luke 9:28-33
13 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by duecerduecer, duecer, , not one word of in reference to Christ's very own words at John 3:13, no not one, its not so hard you bad ol purtty cat, here they are again, if you would like to comment, please feel free, other wise continue to be slippery and evasive, continue to ignore the fact that you have made the word of Christ invalid because of your tradition, you have been exposed for the entire RHP spiritual community to see, let if be a lesson for you! we are answering none of your smoke screen like questions until you come clean, who are we to believe, you or Jesus?
from page 2:
Elijah did not ascend, he was carried into heaven, the point is subtle, but important. No person on their own merit goes to heaven (hence Grace based salvation vs. works)
seriously dudes yer grasping at straws...and getting rather boring
edit: also please explain Luke 9:28 About eight days after Jesus said this, he took Peter, bothered to address my question, stop ducking and answer: please explain Luke 9:28-33
(John 3:13) . . .Moreover, no man has ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man. . .
PS i am truly sorry that you find discussing spirituality boring, why dont you do what other Christian denominations have done, open a super church with spa for the moms, bingo for the grannies and lure young people in with playstations 3's -
13 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobiehad you bothered to read my post, you would have read my comments. so one last time on this (and in better depth).
duecer, duecer, , not one word of in reference to Christ's very own words at John 3:13, no not one, its not so hard you bad ol purtty cat, here they are again, if you would like to comment, please feel free, other wise continue to be slippery and evasive, continue to ignore the fact that you have made the word of Christ invalid because of your tradit ...[text shortened]... with spa for the moms, bingo for the grannies and lure young people in with playstations 3's -
Let us compare the text from John 3:13No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man
compare that with John1:51He then added, "I tell you the truth, you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man."
When we see Elijah for the last time he was taken up to heaven by angels, clearly in your mind a contradiction. Yet when we read with some understanding that the Angels were the conveyance by which he ascended, the tension of the passage is released, and once again harmony exists.
the point made: we are unable by our own merit to ascend into heaven
13 Sep 10
Originally posted by duecerWhere does it say in that verse that "they went to heaven"? I think it says they would "see heaven open up" but not actually be there.
had you bothered to read my post, you would have read my comments. so one last time on this (and in better depth).
Let us compare the text from John 3:13No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man
compare that with John1:51He then added, "I tell you the truth, you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascen ...[text shortened]... again harmony exists.
the point made: we are unable by our own merit to ascend into heaven
Go look at other Bible translations and the word "you men" or "all of you" is quoted, not just "you."
So Jesus was talking to all that were there. But in no way does the say or even slightly indicate any of them went to heaven.
I know you probaly will not respnd to this as usual but I hope you do.
13 Sep 10
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHere you go then, as you have asked for me to post this twice now here it is - your last PM to me in entirety; no mention of kind, regards, nor your signature:
shall we post the text, i seem to remember it having ended, kind regards Robbie, quite strange for a rude text, don't you think, as for your opinion this thread was intended to determine if you could engage your very own powers of reason, perhaps you are correct, i was hoping for too much!
no, i dont want to have anything to do with you, either in private nor in public. you have construed what was a plain and simple text into something that was termed rude, simply because it pointed out the absurdity of your question. when i state that i shall not bother you , i mean, that i shall not bother you and i would be very much obliged if you would do the same.
You were as I understand it, on some kind of self imposed forum fast and yet you took the time and broke the fast to berate me in three PMs. Get your facts right sir and try to refrain from displaying the arrogance of refusing to answer a legitimate question in public, which you refer to in private as being "absurd".
Outside of this comment I remain, as requested, disengaged with you.
13 Sep 10
Originally posted by divegeesterwhy didn't you post the first message, the one that you privately lambasted me over after i signed it, kind regards robbie simply because it exposed what is in my opinion a silly question? is it any wonder that i wanted nothing to do with you after sending a simple text that was construed as being rude, after having signed it, kind regards robbie? but you are correct and i thank you for it, for it brought to my mind some biblical wisdom,
Here you go then, as you have asked for me to post this twice now here it is - your last PM to me in entirety; no mention of kind, regards, nor your signature:
[quote]no, i dont want to have anything to do with you, either in private nor in public. you have construed what was a plain and simple text into something that was termed rude, simply because ...[text shortened]... ate as being "absurd".
Outside of this comment I remain, as requested, disengaged with you.
(2 Timothy 2:20-21) . . .Now in a large house there are vessels not only of gold and silver but also of wood and earthenware, and some for an honourable purpose but others for a purpose lacking honour. If, therefore, anyone keeps clear of the latter ones, he will be a vessel for an honourable purpose, sanctified, useful to his owner, prepared for every good work.
thank you for pointing out what is truly the the course of wisdom.