7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Ah, no wonder!! I'll be darned! I wasn't aware (until you showed me) that they have marijuana cigars!
No thanks, though! I don't smoke. As far as I'm aware, smoking's not good for people.
2 Cor 4.4 (Jesus, The God of this age!)
- Thread starter Apple7
- Start date
Ah, no wonder!! I'll be darned! I wasn't aware (until you showed me) that they have marijuana cigars!
No thanks, though! I don't smoke. As far as I'm aware, smoking's not good for people.
Apple7
New member
Still waiting for you to present the exegetical reasoning for these peeps.
Not that you can, however.
Keep 'barking' lil' chihuahua..:dog::dog::dog:.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Ah, trying to remove the goalpost, and set up a non-goalpost in place of it, eh?
Originally, after I mentioned those men as just a few examples of theologians who contradicted the falsehood that you err in proclaiming, you said to me:
And, as it was an easy thing to do, I kicked the ball right through the goalpost, saying:
You then saw that you had no hope of somehow turning what I wrote, there, toward favoring you in your hopeless attempts to defend your cherished error, so you have now, again (being the theology poser you are), brought forward yet another phrase that you like to meaninglessly parrot: "exegetical reasoning".
If you actually were to mean something by your phrase, "exegetical reasoning", then you will have just admitted that the theologians I mentioned, above, do have, indeed, what you call "exegetical reasoning" for their exegesis that Paul referred to Satan, and not to Jesus, as "the god of this world". So, what (if anything) do you mean by your phrase, "exegetical reasoning"? What (if anything) do you think you are asking?
Now, of course, you will not find me saying, to you, "Show me your eisegesis of Paul's phrase, "the god of this world." Why? Because I already know what your eisegesis of Paul's phrase, "the god of this world": it is that Paul was referring in that phrase to Jesus, rather than to Satan. That's your eisegesis of Paul's phrase. It's no mystery that that is your eisegesis of Paul's phrase. And, you will also not find me saying, to you, "Show me your eisegetical reasoning," because eisegesis is not reasonable.
The one and only exegesis of Paul's phrase, "the god of this world" (in terms of the referent of the phrase) is that Paul was referring to Satan, rather than to Jesus, or to anybody or anything else.
Your eisegesis of Paul's phrase is that, on the contrary, Paul was referring to Jesus as "the god of this world". Now, there could be a great many eisegeses of that one phrase, beside your own eisegesis of it. As your peculiar eisegesis of it is that Paul was referring to Jesus, another person's eisegesis of it, for aught I know, may be that Paul was referring to God the Spirit by it; and an other person's eisegesis, that Paul was referring to God the Father; and an other person's eisegesis, that Paul was referring to the emperor of Rome; and an other person's eisegesis, that Paul was referring to who knows who/what else?. There's no reason, nor reasoning, for your eisegesis, just as there is no reason, nor reasoning, for the eisegesis of anybody else. Eisegesis is always false, so your eisegesis is false, too.
By means of your eisegesis, you blaspheme Christ, asserting that He, rather than Satan, is the power of darkness that He, Himself, sent Paul to turn men away from. You are asserting that Christ sent Paul to turn men away from God the Son to God the Father. You are asserting that Christ is divided against Christ. See, you arrive at your error, your eisegesis, not by reasoning from Scripture, but by opposing Scripture and reason.
way 2 go
Well-known member
no substance just ad hominem
1Th 2:18 says Paul was hindered from returning by satan
& still all you have is conjecture
and you admit link " informs the reader that Satan hindered Paul"
1Th 2:18 Wherefore we would have come unto you, even I Paul, once and again; but Satan hindered us.
Apple7
New member
Let's try this for a THIRD time, since you can't seem to actually defend these peeps...and, instead, you blather endlessly, paragraph after lame paragraph, of which, no one reads.
Stop debasing yourself, and defend these peeps that you supposedly stand behind...
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
What (if anything) are you trying "for a THIRD time"? Are you, in your post (which (perhaps by accident?) was addressed to my post), trying to have a conversation with yourself, or what? Why would you do that in a post addressed to someone other than yourself?
Is "blather" what you call everything you've never read?
Since you admit, here, that you've not read anything that I've written in reply to your posts, then, obviously, you can't possibly be addressing anything that I have written in reply to your posts. Obviously, since (as you admit) you've not read anything I've written in reply to your posts, it follows that you can't possibly have any cause for complaint against, nor commendation of, anything I've written in reply to your posts. Feel free, then, to go read all my posts addressed to you, all the paragraphs and sentences I wrote in them, and then, if you agree with anything I wrote, therein, express your agreement with it, and if you have a quarrel with something I wrote, therein, express your disagreement with it.
See, I know that you've, numerous times, used the QUOTE feature on this forum to display excerpts from, and link to, my posts. Now, you are admitting that you did not actually read any of what you QUOTED. That reminds me of how you copy/pastes blocks of Greek text into posts--you do not actually read the blocks of Greek text you copy/past--you just pretend to know things about them. That, of course, is you being a poser; you're begging for attention.
Now, since (as you admit) you've not read anything that I've written, why's you hate my guts so much?
Last edited:
Apple7
New member
Let's try this for a FOURTH time, since you can't seem to actually defend these peeps...and, instead, you blather endlessly, paragraph after lame paragraph, of which, no one reads.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
It's no wonder you're so desperately begging for attention!
You've evidently tried to have a conversation with yourself THREE times, now, and you've even been unsuccessful at that! Good luck on your FOURTH try, but I really don't know what to tell you, man, other than that, like I have, everybody else who's actually read those posts of yours in which you promulgate your peculiar error has easily come to understand that you've long since exhausted everything you imagined you had (which turned out to be nothing but paste), everything you thought was an argument in favor of your peculiar error. I guess you've even become a bore to yourself, and I can see how you would; meaninglessly and irrelevantly copy/pasting snippets of text in a forum could never be the least bit satisfying to anybody. If, somehow, you can get yourself out of that rut, then, perhaps you'll become less of a bore. You remind me a lot of the guy on these forums who, whenever he realized he had no hope of defending his ridiculous, anti-Scripture errors against my Scriptural, rational criticism of them, he (repeatedly) resorted to, in his posts, doing nothing other than to copy/pastie a picture of pretzels he found on the internet. No light ever came through in his posts, but at least, when he started copy/pasting the pretzels, he sent some salt my way. I like pretzels.
Apple7
New member
Let's try this for a FIFTH time, since you can't seem to actually defend these peeps...and, instead, you blather endlessly, paragraph after lame paragraph, of which, no one reads.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
1. If you actually read what you wrote, here (in yet another of your customary butchery jobs against the English language), you would know that you are not even requesting anything from me. What you wrote is purely emotive. It's just some incoherent grumbling; that's all you are left with (and that, as a matter of course) since you war against truth.
2. You need not try to act like a fool; you obviously need to try NOT to act like a fool. So far you have not tried to not act like a fool (or (sadder yet), if you have tried, you have dismally failed the trial), since, so far, you've consistently acted like a fool.
3. Your post (#469), is not merely the FIFTH time you've acted like a fool on TOL. On the contrary, you've acted like a fool (and, for all to see!) way more times than just FIVE. In fact, in your post, #469, alone, you've acted like a fool at least FIVE times. Multiply that by the number of times you've already copy/pasted your own words which you have, for a fourth or fifth time, just now copy/pasted once again to create your latest post, #469! So, you've acted like a fool 20 or 25 times, at the very least. But, even then, that doesn't even take into account the fact that, in every post of yours that was a Submitted Reply to one of my posts (which is quite a lot (and I, for one, am not going to even try to count them!)) you have done nothing but act like a fool, and embarrass yourself in your failure to defend your peculiar error, your eisegesis against what Paul wrote. So, stop lying; stop fudging the numbers; it's loud and clear that you've made yourself look like a fool many, many more times than just FIVE.
Now, you wrote:
Here, you are asserting that the 3rd century is MODERN. So, why are you so addicted to acting like a fool by claiming that the 3rd century is MODERN?
Since you, yourself, have already admitted that Origen's recognition that Paul referred to Satan, rather than to Jesus, as "the god of this world" is EXEGESIS, rather than eisegesis, what, exactly, do you mean when you tell someone to DEFEND it?
Only a fool will say that one needs to DEFEND EXEGESIS. Since EXEGESIS is TRUTH, against what, exactly, does EXEGESIS need to be defended? Against fools who contradict the EXEGESIS/TRUTH? What can fools do against EXEGESIS/TRUTH other than to contradict it?
And, why do you call your peculiar error--your eisegesis of Paul's phrase, "the god of this world"--"exegesis", since you have already acknowledged, repeatedly, that the EXEGESIS of Paul's phrase is that Paul was referring to Satan, rather than to Jesus? There is, and can only be, ONE EXEGESIS of the phrase, whereas, there are (or, at least, could be) MANY EISEGESES of it. You obviously don't even know what EXEGESIS is.
You should have spent your time learning how to think systematically, rationally (which you obviously never did learn), rather than trying to learn how to make people think that you know Greek, when you obviously don't know a lick of Greek. I guarantee you that nobody reading your posts has ever come away mistaking you for a Greek scholar of any level. At the very least, you should first learn how to write meaningfully and coherently in English, before you try to tackle anything else. Perhaps you could enroll yourself in a remedial English course? It's no wonder that you abhor the English Bible (and those who believe it) as much as you do, while pretending to love the Greek (of which you can't read a lick).