User Tag List

View Poll Results: Who Won Battle Royale III?

Voters
46. You may not vote on this poll
  • Jerry Shugart

    28 60.87%
  • Dee Dee Warren

    18 39.13%
Page 7 of 20 FirstFirst ... 4567891017 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 293

Thread: POST GAME SHOW - Battle Royale III

  1. #91
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    13,820
    Thanks
    1,282
    Thanked 8,742 Times in 5,737 Posts

    Mentioned
    100 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147840

    Gather out ALL THINGS THAT OFFEND

    JackS,

    I am willing to cease from labeling Dee Dee as an idiot if Dee Dee and her followers will cease from branding me as being "dishonest".

    And I am not "pursing Dee Dee".I will no longer address her but I will examine her answers to the questions I have previously raised.She can do whatever she likes.

    The following is Dee Dee´s answer to the parable of the "tares and wheat":

    "Now back to the Kingdom parables. Jerry gets really excited because Jesus says that the field is “world” (Greek – cosmos). The entire context of the Book of Matthew is impending and rapidly approaching judgment upon the apostate Jews, and the kingdom parables cannot be wrested out of that context. It is speaking of the wresting of the kingdom away from the apostates and giving it to a nation bearing the fruits thereof (Matthew 21:43). This specific parable speaks of the “son of the wicked one,” whom Jesus had already specifically identified as the Jewish apostates (John 8:44) who thought they were the “sons of the kingdom.” The fact that the word “world” there does not absolutely HAVE to mean the entire globe. For example, Paul told the Romans that their faith was spoken of throughout the whole world (Greek- cosmos) (Romans 1:8). I doubt that the Aborigines had any clue about the faith of the Romans. And the obvious parallel here is Jesus’ comments in Matthew 24:14, “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world (different Greek word - oikoumene) as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.” Jesus thus tells us what He means by cosmos, by using a different word for the scope of the message prior to the end of the age, a word that simply means “the inhabited earth” or more specifically in common NT usage, “the Roman Empire.” Now was this accomplished before 70AD? Absolutely.

    Colossians 1:5-6 – …because of the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, of which you heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel, which has come to you, as it has also in all the world, and is bringing forth fruit, as it is also among you since the day you heard and knew the grace of God in truth.

    Colossians 1:23 – …if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.

    Romans 16:25-26 – Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began but now made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith.

    Now Jerry is claiming that once Jesus does the purge of all evil people, the righteous that remain will eventually spawn children that will be deceived by satan near the end of the Millennium. Harrumph. Isaiah does not speak of accursed people merely living near “the end” of the Millennium, he speaks of them simply as a matter of course being mixed with the righteous. But Jerry missed the most fatal flaw, and that is that natural people still die, but Paul teaches that death is the LAST enemy which is DESTROYED when He returns to resurrect His saints (i.e. the rapture). It is impossible for any righteous people to die AFTER that point, and for there to be any enemies of Christ remaining (such as satan).

    Notice at the end I demonstrated something fatal to Jerry’s position, but he ignored it thoroughly. Instead he asks if I believe all of the evil people were purged out the Roman Empire at 70AD. No I do not, and the passage, in harmony with the rest of Scripture (an idea that appeared to be foreign to Jerry during the debate), the context is the spreading of the gospel throughout the Roman empire and the purging of the apostate Old Covenant people of God (the purging of God’s “kingdom”) so that it may be given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. The Jews were purged and chastened throughout the whole Roman Empire."

    So we can see that Dee Dee is saying that the kingdom parable of the "tares and the wheat" are in reference to "the purging of the apostate Old Covenant´people of God..."

    However,there is absolutely no doubt that the Lord is speaking of ALL the "unrighteous" people in the whole inhabitated world:

    "The field is the WORLD;the good seed are the children of the Kingdom,but the tares are the children of the wicked one...As,therefore,the tares are gathered and burned in the fire,so shall it be at the end of the age.The Son of Man shall send forth His angels,and they shall GATHER OUT OF HIS KINGDOM ALL THINGS THAT OFFEND"(Mt.13:38-41).

    Words could not be plainer.All the "unrighteous" in the inhabited world will be gathered out of His kingdom at the end of the age.But since this does not match Dee Dee´s theories,she will not believe it.Instead,she continues to insist that only the apostae Jews are taken out of the kingdom.

    She also insists that her response answers the Lord´s words that teach that ALL the "unrighteous" will be gathered out at the end of the age.Nothing could be further from the truth.

    In His grace,--Jerry

  2. #92
    Dee Dee Warren
    Guest
    Dear Knight:

    Oh, I absolutely agree with you that I was the first to start talking "smack" that is beyond a doubt.. but I was also the first to post. There is a difference (at least as I see it) between talking "smack" and "name calling." And with that diffrence in mind, I made a concerted effort not to call Jerry any names. Please correct me if I did in fact call him a "name" for I would really like to know for I did call him a "name" in the Debate, I will apologize.

    Adn Knight, you keep saying that I can't take the same medicine, and the fact is that that I took it, and took it well. I only took personal offense at one thing Jerry said (and it was not the idiot comment - I find that one amusing) it was when he changed a Psalm to say that I hated God.

    Now I know you don't agree with my views, and I can see now that you don't care for the way some of my friends have posted, but I know that you have enough fairness in you to see that such a comment did in fact cross the line.

    Be it known... I am not whining or crying or complaining. Except for that one comment I got exactly what I bargained for as far as the "smack" aspect. In fact that is exactly the tone that you, Knight, said you wanted in these debates. No problem there.

  3. #93
    cirisme
    Guest

  4. #94
    Dee Dee Warren
    Guest
    And Jerry then I will respond where I indicated that I would and I already answered in much fuller form on that other thread where I provided the link before.

  5. #95
    ...then I woke up. Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    26,925
    Thanks
    389
    Thanked 2,335 Times in 1,100 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    128 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1097775
    Dee Dee how come ever time I respond to someone other than you... you respond back to me as if I were talking to you?

    Strange.....

    But true.
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

  6. #96
    Dee Dee Warren
    Guest
    Dear Knight:


    Dee Dee, I never said you called Jerry a name on this thread...

    What I was saying was that Jerry was responding to the following post made by Hitch...
    Well sorry about that Knight, it wasn't clear... since this thread is for comments on the Battle, it seemed like you were saying in response to criticisms made about comments in the Battle that Jerry may have called me names because I called him names first. I did not call him any names in the Battle, and in fact, made a concerted effort not to.

  7. #97
    Dee Dee Warren
    Guest
    Dee Dee how come ever time I respond to someone other than you... you respond back to me as if I were talking to you?

    Strange.....

    But true.
    I did not respond as if you were talking to me... I asked a question about your comment. Isn't that allowed?? And really Knight EVERY time... exaggerating a bit aren't we?? I am sure that there have been times when you have said something to someone else and I ignored you.

  8. #98
    cirisme
    Guest

    Dee Dee,

    I guess that's as big of an exaggeration as saying you won the battle.

  9. #99
    Dee Dee Warren
    Guest
    Now AJ, that's just the truth

  10. #100
    cirisme
    Guest
    Is the truth blind?

    It better be if it thinks anybody won!


  11. #101
    Dee Dee Warren
    Guest
    Well AJ you are entitled to be wrong I won't beat you today... maybe tomorrow.... if you're lucky.

  12. #102
    cirisme
    Guest
    Well AJ you are entitled to be wrong
    And you have only a slight bias.

    I won't beat you today... maybe tomorrow.... if you're lucky
    Don't press your luck. No one gets by me unscathed.

    Besides, with all the insults and lack of content that would be flying around, I'd hate to see you on the wrong side of Mr. Ignore List.


  13. #103
    Dee Dee Warren
    Guest
    Calm down AJ, I was joking with you. Again you can be wrong.... if you thought there was lack of content, then you weren't reading carefully... as to insults... as for out and out insults, considering the tone of the Battles as indicated by Knight himself, I don't think there were really all that many. I was only offended at one thing which is pretty good for ten rounds. The rest was par for course in such an endeavor. You are being a tad bit melodramatic.

  14. #104
    cirisme
    Guest
    Again you can be wrong....
    Yes, and so can you.

    considering the tone of the Battles as indicated by Knight himself
    ...it seemed to exceed what even Knight himself did in BR II, but he is in charge and it is up to him. And even if he has no problem with it(which seems to be the case), I do!

    I was only offended at one thing which is pretty good for ten rounds.
    Ah, but I'm not talking about you being offended. I'm not even talking about being offended at all!

    You are being a tad bit melodramatic.
    Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle, and I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Ignore as well; I have a feeling you'll be in contact with him quite a bit.

  15. #105
    Dee Dee Warren
    Guest
    Well AJ suit yourself. If that is all it takes to get on your ignore list considering the very genial relationship we have had, then so be it, for a girl, I am not quite so fickle with my friendships.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us