20 Dec 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasand this erroneous double triple hyper mutton head assertion of a slaphead burger with extra cheese and salami is based on what? nothingness! we agree on nothing. Except that Likki Li is divine and that your assertion is baseless!
So we agree that Luke was not the deciple of Jesus. He eyewitnessed nothing. He only wrote down what he heard from others.
And therefore I say that the gosples was hear-say, nothing more. We actually don't know anything what Jesus really said.
20 Dec 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo you really think that Luke the deciple wrote the gospel by himself?
and this erroneous double triple hyper mutton head assertion of a slaphead burger with extra cheese and salami is based on what? nothingness! we agree on nothing. Except that Likki Li is divine and that your assertion is baseless!
Oh yes, whatever I say you cannot agree on.
So if I say you're rather clever, that must be false? Oh yes, that we can agree upon. 🙂
You have to stop believe things, just because you belivie in it. You have to make some effort to learn something new, from time to time.
20 Dec 09
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasi provided evidence of why i think Luke, a physician wrote the gospel, you have provided no reason whatsoever, why he did not, that means that my assertion is substantiated, while yours is floundering under the banner of unsubstantiated! therefore make with the readies! my beliefs are substantiated, yours a simply taken upon trust as even those blind guides, the born again christians who express faith in an incomprehensible doctrine are doing. you are one step away from becoming one yourself!
So you really think that Luke the deciple wrote the gospel by himself?
Oh yes, whatever I say you cannot agree on.
So if I say you're rather clever, that must be false? Oh yes, that we can agree upon. 🙂
You have to stop believe things, just because you belivie in it. You have to make some effort to learn something new, from time to time.
20 Dec 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieLuke the physician, assistant to StPaul - yes I said so. So you do agree with me?
i provided [b]evidence of why i think Luke, a physician wrote the gospel, you have provided no reason whatsoever, why he did not, that means that my assertion is substantiated, while yours is floundering under the banner of unsubstantiated! therefore make with the readies! my beliefs are substantiated, yours a simply taken upon trust as even th ...[text shortened]... th in an incomprehensible doctrine are doing. you are one step away from becoming one yourself![/b]
20 Dec 09
The bottom line is this; After 2000 years of debate and wrangling, the worlds smartest and best, centuries closer to the point of reference than we are, with what may well be considered a better understanding of the Greek and Hebrew than we have today, have come to the conclusions already arrived at concerning all this that we here today are debating about.
The best we have is the best as it is going to get. The Bible as it is in it's present form cannot be improved on any more than it is.
It is what it is. Accept it. It is the Word of God. Bottom line. All that's left for us to do is to figure out what it all means without contradicting God.
20 Dec 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasin order for me to agree with you, naturally you must provide, some evidence to support your assertions. when i see the evidence, then i can make an informed decision, as it stands, its scant.
Luke the physician, assistant to StPaul - yes I said so. So you do agree with me?
20 Dec 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo you have the same data as me, but you don't admit you agree with me, so you want some evidence from me so you can be sure that we agree? 😀
in order for me to agree with you, naturally you must provide, some evidence to support your assertions. when i see the evidence, then i can make an informed decision, as it stands, its scant.
20 Dec 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasyes, that is correct, for unlike you born again christians, we are not content to blindly accept every wind of teaching and tradition, it must have a basis and be reasonably explained.
Ah, I see! You're a JW culter. Then it makes perct sense.
20 Dec 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou may find this interesting. I'm not born again. I'm saved.
yes, that is correct, for unlike you born again christians, we are not content to blindly accept every wind of teaching and tradition, it must have a basis and be reasonably explained.
Do you know the difference?
21 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIs there a difference between being "born again" and "being saved"?
no actually i do not know the difference, are you willing to enlighten me?
The end result is the same, that is, eternal life, but, was what Jesus said to Nicodemus about being born again and what Paul said in his Epistles about being saved the same thing?
Not exactly. Are you sure you want to go forward? It won't be any fun.
21 Dec 09
Originally posted by josephwok, explain to me the concept of being born again.
Is there a difference between being "born again" and "being saved"?
The end result is the same, that is, eternal life, but, was what Jesus said to Nicodemus about being born again and what Paul said in his Epistles about being saved the same thing?
Not exactly. Are you sure you want to go forward? It won't be any fun.
21 Dec 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou mean you don't know? I'm not trying to be evasive. It's just that we have to consider the context from which "born again" is used.
ok, explain to me the concept of being born again.
John 3
1There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
9Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
10Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
Being "born again" is something that happens to you when you believe.
But here's the thing that causes so much confusion. Jesus was referring to the experience that was exclusive to the Jew. To be born again meant entrance into the Kingdom of God. Remember what Jesus said? "I am not come except unto the lost house of Israel". And how He told His disciples not to go to any of the cities of the gentiles? The events recorded in the 4 Gospels is a Jewish experience in fulfilment of prophecy.
What happened after Jesus ascended is a whole different story.
I'm sure you have no idea what I'm talking about.