Spirituality
22 Nov 18
22 Jan 19
@ghost-of-a-duke saidRight on cue, the trolling continues. Just as I said about GoaD:
Actually, trolls harass others and accuse them of dodging questions while doing exactly that themselves.
If you are not such an individual how about posting like a grown up and explaining how you understand John 17:25. It's not a trick question. it's a very simple question about a book of the Bible you have just been referencing.
<<Just as you often intentionally mischaracterize what's actually been posted. >>
22 Jan 19
@thinkofone saidA variation of a question that has been put to you from several different people and you still refuse to answer. You claim a special belief system about Jesus walking the earth, yet you have never been able to talk about who the Jesus you’re referring to is. In stead of sharing about the hope with in you, you pretend those types of questions never came up.
You pretending to be a broken record that keeps skipping and repeating yourself?
That's really rich coming from you KJ.
You made the following assertion:
<<Jesus I have no issue with...>>
I pointed out the facts about our discussion thus far:
[quote]When I asserted that the words Jesus spoke when preaching His gospel while He walked the Earth have "meanin ...[text shortened]... onths? When it's you who avoided address the facts put before you?
You're a real piece of work KJ
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
22 Jan 19
@thinkofone saidSo John 17:25 is beyond your understanding.
Right on cue, the trolling continues. Just as I said about GoaD:
<<Just as you often intentionally mischaracterize what's actually been posted. >>
Why didn't you just say so?
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
22 Jan 19
@kellyjay saidWhat's particularly amusing is that's he's been posting extensively from John and yet won't touch John 17:25 with a barge pole.
A variation of a question that has been put to you from several different people and you still refuse to answer. You claim a special belief system about Jesus walking the earth, yet you have never been able to talk about who the Jesus you’re referring to is. In stead of sharing about the hope with in you, you pretend those types of questions never came up.
22 Jan 19
@kellyjay saidA variation of a question that was asked by DG as a red herring to avoid addressing the points I made in a post. No matter how many times DG asks it, it will remain a red herring. No matter how many trolls DG gets to join in asking it, it will remain a red herring. No matter how many threads DG starts about it, it will remain a red herring. Is this concept really so difficult for you to wrap your mind around?
A variation of a question that has been put to you from several different people and you still refuse to answer. You claim a special belief system about Jesus walking the earth, yet you have never been able to talk about who the Jesus you’re referring to is. In stead of sharing about the hope with in you, you pretend those types of questions never came up.
Any chance that you'll actually address the list of facts about our discussion that you had dodged?
Any chance that you'll admit that your "broken record" assertion was really rich coming from you?
22 Jan 19
@ghost-of-a-duke saidRight on cue, the trolling continues. Just as I said about GoaD:
So John 17:25 is beyond your understanding.
Why didn't you just say so?
<<Just as you often intentionally mischaracterize what's actually been posted. >>
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
22 Jan 19
@thinkofone saidNot a red herring. A fair question.
A variation of a question that was asked by DG as a red herring to avoid addressing the points I made in a post. No matter how many times DG asks it, it will remain a red herring. No matter how many trolls DG gets to join in asking it, it will remain a red herring. No matter how many threads DG starts about it, it will remain a red herring. Is this concept really so diffic ...[text shortened]...
Any chance that you'll admit that your "broken record" assertion was really rich coming from you?
Your unwillingness to answer it (even once) betrays your intention of being deceitful.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
22 Jan 19
2 edits
How is referencing something you have stated considered a lie?!
The casual and flippant manner in which he refers - "business as usual" - to something that I have explained I never insisted on is misrepresentative of the situation.
And it has been shown many times that "other worlds" as I used in that sentence, does not insist other planets.
It was made perfectly clear to anyone who wants to understand me, that "deter other worlds" did not have to be understood as referring to planets besides the earth.
Casually acting as "business as usual" is his lying. And that regardless of how cute he makes it sound.
Actually, the tone of his repeated innuendo is this - "Oh sonship, I can still get on your nerves. I can STILL annoy you. ha, ha, ha."
As if that deserves some great prize.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
22 Jan 19
@sonship saidSorry sonship but that is not clear at all in the context you used it. 'Other worlds' meant just that, 'other worlds.' (Not different ages or countries or civilizations etc).
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
How is referencing something you have stated considered a lie?!
The casual and flippant manner in which he refers - "business as usual" - to something that I have explained I never insisted on is misrepresentative of the situation.
And it has been shown many times that "other worlds" as I used in that sentence, does not i ...[text shortened]... ually acting as "business as usual" is his lying. And that regardless of how cute he makes it sound.
Was that particular wording your own? Did you perhaps copy it from someone else without understanding the intent?!
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
22 Jan 19
2 edits
Sorry sonship but that is not clear at all in the context you used it. 'Other worlds' meant just that, 'other worlds.' (Not different ages or countries or civilizations etc).
When Paul said Christ has a name which is above every name that is mentioned, not only in THIS world but also in that which is to come, was he referring other planets ?
" ... seating Him [Christ] at His right hand in the heavenlies,
Far above all rule and authority and power and lordship, and every name that is named, not only in this age [or world], but also that which is coming." (Eph. 1:21)
Does his sentence there insist on other planets ?
Was that particular wording your own? Did you perhaps copy it from someone else without understanding the intent?!
The book which influenced the writing of that expression had no particular discussion whatsoever about other planets.
You're joining Divegeester in beating a dead horse. And if THAT is all you guys ever have to argue over about my teaching here, I sure am not too concerned.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
22 Jan 19
Other renderings of Ephesians 1:21
King James Bible
Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
Christian Standard Bible
far above every ruler and authority, power and dominion, and every title given, not only in this age but also in the one to come.
Contemporary English Version
There Christ rules over all forces, authorities, powers, and rulers. He rules over all beings in this world and will rule in the future world as well.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Higher than all Principalities, Rulers, Powers, and Dominions, and higher than every name that is named, not only in this universe, but also in the one that is coming.
Good News Translation
Christ rules there above all heavenly rulers, authorities, powers, and lords; he has a title superior to all titles of authority in this world and in the next.
GOD'S WORD® Translation
He is far above all rulers, authorities, powers, lords, and all other names that can be named, not only in this present world but also in the world to come.
@sonship saidYou've explained it many a time before. No matter how many times you explain it, the trolls like GoaD won't stop.
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
Sorry sonship but that is not clear at all in the context you used it. 'Other worlds' meant just that, 'other worlds.' (Not different ages or countries or civilizations etc).
When Paul said Christ has a name which is above every name that is mentioned, not only in THIS world but also in that which is to come, was he referring other plan ...[text shortened]... HAT[/i] is all you guys ever have to argue over about my teaching here, I sure am not too concerned.
Of course GoaD is something of a lesser troll. He resorts to mimicking other trolls like DG and FMF. Unfortunately KJ has also joined in.
BTW, if you missed it in all the flotsam, I defended you near the bottom of page 37. Not that it'll help.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
22 Jan 19
Note that it's the words Jesus "spoke" that "will judge". Note that "spoke" is past tense. Not the words that the NT writers would have one believe Jesus "spoke" after the resurrection. Not the words that Paul and the other NT writers later "spoke".
So then YOU here in 2019 AD, are a more trusted delegated authority on the words and teaching of Jesus then any of the original twelve apostles ?
Those delegated by Him to be the initial group of disciples to be sent into the world to teach what He taught, are far less in the know then you are some 2000 years latter?
They are in fact to be suspicioned as opportunists pushing their own agendas for private gain of some kind, dishonest, conniving, twisting, tricky, swindling, lying, misrepresentative, charlatans hell bent on contriving a hoax around their Lord and Master.
But for the REAL inside story of what Jesus was and what He taught we need to consult with YOU 20 some centuries latter having not been crucified for Him, thrust through with sword for Him, beheaded on His behalf, persecuted for Him unto DEATH, and sacrificed all comfort on His behalf to be faithful to Him.
You, have the REAL inside story to be trusted on what Jesus Christ was and taught ?
Your qualifications for the apostleship of the Gospel of Jesus EXCEEDS that of the twelve original disciples ?
John, Peter, Matthew, are NOT TO BE TRUSTED. But YOU are the pure motived faithful conveyor of the teaching of Jesus Christ ?
The Apostle Paul and his companions including Luke, were all out to push their self interest hoax generating corrupted version of Christ's teaching. BUT YOU ... are the authoritative source of truly interpreting for us what Jesus really meant ?
I'm sorry ThinkOfOne. But I doubt it just a little bit.
22 Jan 19
@sonship saidActually the point was that you should trust what JESUS said.
@ThinkOfOne
Note that it's the words Jesus "spoke" that "will judge". Note that "spoke" is past tense. Not the words that the NT writers would have one believe Jesus "spoke" after the resurrection. Not the words that Paul and the other NT writers later "spoke".
So then YOU here in 2019 AD, are a more trusted delegated authority on the words and teachi ...[text shortened]... ting for us what Jesus really meant ?
I'm sorry ThinkOfOne. But I doubt it just a little bit.
The problem is that you don't believe the gospel that Jesus preached while He walked the Earth. Even when it's pointed out to you in painstaking detail, you don't believe it.