The Trinity

[popsthebuilder]

The only one that has that particular spirit, gt, is you.

I told you what comes out of your own words.

Danged ole'parrots

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[patrick jane]

Danged ole'parrots

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

We will pray you and keypurr, pops

 

[popsthebuilder]

You are at most a single stone in a temple made up of billions of other stones.

And you are not a teacher; nobody should ever take your word for it, unless you happen to be teaching exactly what the Church's actual teachers also teach.

Wow

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

You are so good in twisting what a conversation is all about it is amazing.



Obviously, I was not talking about YOUR success, but your preaching your doctrine to an UNbeliever that they MUST OBEY Jesus’ commandments even before God saves them. Yes, that is what you preach.



Because they BELIEVED Jesus Christ and His finished/completed work on the Cross of Calvary.

No UNbeliever can receive the Holy Spirit.



The Holy Spirit is the Comforter because of the OBEDIENCE of Jesus.

No amount of gt’s OBEDIENCE is going to send the Comforter. Get a grip, gt.



Absolutely. They are for those who BELIEVE Jesus Christ and His finished/completed work on the Cross of Calvary.



None of the verses you provided is addressed to an UNbeliever.



I am not a Calvinist. I am Pentecostal, thank you very much.



A UNbeliever couldn’t OBEY TO BE SAVED if their life depended on it.

It is impossible for a UNbeliever to follow God.

BELIEVERS are led by the Holy Spirit. And God says that the only way to be led by the Holy Spirit is to be filled by the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 5:18), which is a separate work after being saved.



They have to BELIEVE Jesus Christ and His finished/completed work on the Cross of Calvary.

====

You are a dangerous preacher for you have a mixture of The Truth with your UNtruth.

What is impossible is following a thing without actually pursuing it.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[Nihilo]

Ofttimes I will say Jesus the Christ of GOD. Because Jesus was the anointed of GOD. Christ means anointed with oil.

Jesus anointed just doesn't sound right; it isn't a last name; it is a title.


Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

What a boor. :chuckle: You do know, that there are people out there today, right now, who don't believe in the RESURRECTION, right? Who cares, that you think "Jesus anointed just doesn't sound right," do you know that Japan today, right now, is not Christian, because of censored like this? Literally, the emperor heard the Catholic emissary, and thought it sounded good, and then the Protestant emissary, "Oh, don't trust the Catholic," so the emperor said, "Censored Christianity!" and kicked all the Church out of Japan?

Censored.

 

[Nihilo]

Wow

talk

Wow what.

 

[Nihilo]

What is impossible is following a thing without actually pursuing it.

S n r m m 9 3 u i g T p t l

I agree with that.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Cool.



But you couldn't provide a verse where Paul says: ‘I couldn't care any less what you think of me.’ Got it.

Matthew: 22. 16. And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.

Mark: 12. 14. And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?

Cool.



But you couldn't provide a verse where Paul says: ‘I couldn't care any less what you think of me.’ Got it.

Cool.



But you couldn't provide a verse where Paul says: ‘I couldn't care any less what you think of me.’ Got it.

Cool.



But you couldn't provide a verse where Paul says: ‘I couldn't care any less what you think of me.’ Got it.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[Nihilo]

I don't expect anyone be sincere just because I am

I'm sincere.

; just don't think I'll be taking you seriously any time soon.

All you seem to wish to do is accuse and or misrepresent others who's belief you don't agree with.

I don't do that.

That may venture for you, but as I've stated; my goal is for profitable conversation.

Perhaps you are right about something; how would any catch it through the negativity generally emanated from you?
You think I'm wrong; that much is certain. So what do you do to help the lost? Be a general prick.... Check this out.... Really.... Consider what I'm about to write, really consider it.

Have you ever learned a positive thing from a person who actively hurt you or angered you? Have you ever left upon the conclusion of an interaction with someone being mean spirited or hateful or bitter thinking "hey, they were right. It's a good thing that went down like that or I might not have gained that valuable insight from that intellectual person?

I'll give you a hint; the answer is no, you haven't.

lain: I have. "Tough but fair." You just described tough but fair.

So; if you, being the true christian you so obviously are, are actively being hateful or hurtful while attempting to convey some message; well, frankly, then, you're urinating into the wind (synonymous too, with peeing on one's own self.)

Thanks though; my poor memory keeps allowing for my attempts at actual profitable communication; you keep reminding me I'm barking up the wrong tree.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[Rosenritter]

Not in the slightest bit. For centuries the whole ("catholic!") Church received Matthew 16:18 (KJV) as plain and clear scriptural evidence of the primacy of the successor of Peter; first among equals, where the equals are all the bishops of the One Church.
:AMR:

Matthew 16:18 (KJV) : " thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. "

Let the reader decide? :idunno:

By the comments thus far, I think the readers here have already spoken. The Rock is Christ, the church is built on Christ, and the gates of hell did not prevail against Christ, and he returns for us with the keys of hell and death.

Is the Rock Peter? No, the gates of hell have prevailed against Peter, he died, and was buried. Is the Rock the church? No, the gates of hell have prevailed against the church, but many of its martyrs were slain by the the Roman church. I'll take my chances trusting in Christ, rather than a power system that says hell was built for people who ask too many questions.

 

[Nihilo]

By the comments thus far

"By the comments thus far?" What are you trying to set out here? An election, of user accounts participating in the thread? Really?

, I think the readers here have already spoken. The Rock is Christ, the church is built on Christ, and the gates of hell did not prevail against Christ, and he returns for us with the keys of hell and death.

Is the Rock Peter? No

EVEN THOUGH THAT'S HIS NAME, THAT JESUS GAVE HIM. :freak:

, the gates of hell have prevailed against Peter, he died, and was buried. Is the Rock the church? No, the gates of hell have prevailed against the church, but many of its martyrs were slain by the the Roman church.[/QUOTE]

 

[Rosenritter]

"By the comments thus far?" What are you trying to set out here? An election, of user accounts participating in the thread? Really?

YOU are the one that invoked the audience, "Let the reader decide?"

EVEN THOUGH THAT'S HIS NAME, THAT JESUS GAVE HIM. :freak:

Yes, he gave him the name PETROS, not PETRA. Is your theory that there was a grand anti-Catholic conspiracy that corrupted all of the Greek texts?

 

[Nihilo]

YOU are the one that invoked the audience, "Let the reader decide?"

:AMR: How far back?

Yes, he gave him the name PETROS, not PETRA. Is your theory that there was a grand anti-Catholic conspiracy that corrupted all of the Greek texts?

What is your complaint, that the Church had no complaint, for centuries, that Peter's successor in the Roman diocese was supreme among the Church's elders? That was uncontested for centuries. Why, when the Church was her youngest, did everybody all agree that Matthew 16:18 (KJV) says what I've been saying it says? What's your answer for that? They were all wrong, for centuries and centuries and centuries? Right from the start?

 

[NWL]

You are already contradicting yourself, for just earlier you were saying that Job had seen God, with his eyes, in the flesh. So when you use your argument above to say that the LORD did not visibly appear to Abraham, you are being rather inconsistent.

Please show me where I said such a thing, I've made no such comment. What I did say s that Job "saw" God, in a figurative sense, God spoke to him out of the windstorm, again, these are not my words but the Bibles (Job 42:5). The account that I cite makes no mention of Job literally seeing God, it simply has God speaking, after God is done speaking to Job, with Job now understanding Gods ways and power he proclaims "My ears have heard about you, But now I do see you with my eyes", this wasn't a proclamation of Job saying he literally saw God, but rather is comparative to the phrase "I was blind but now I see", somebody could make such a statement due to an intake of knowledge but not meaning a literal gaining of sight. Likewise, Job saw God in the sense of understanding and intake of knowledge of him.

Genesis 32:28-30 KJV....
(30) And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

Let's not forget that Moses saw God in at least two different senses. God talked with Moses face to face, as one would a friend, and then accepted Moses's request to see him even further. Your argument is suspiciously avoiding all of these places that we have already discussed. The answer is that when Jesus says that "no man has seen God" he is speaking in a different sense of the word see, or in a different application.

Why do you insist on ignoring point I've already refuted and shown to be false!?

I just showed you how the people in the NT state that God spoke to Moses by and angel even though it mentions repeatably in the OT God spoke to Moses directly! Acts 7:37,38, Acts 7:53

I just showed you how the nation of Israel saw God face-to-face even though they didn't see God literally. Compare Exo 19:9, Deuteronomy 5:4, 5.

I just showed you that when it states Moses saw God face-to-face that not ten verses later Moses asks to see God and God states that he will NOT allow Moses to see his face as no man can see hos face and live! Why do you ignore this!? See the below verse.

Let's not forget that Moses saw God in at least two different senses. God talked with Moses face to face, as one would a friend, and then accepted Moses's request to see him even further.

When it states Moses spoke to God face to face in Exo 33:11 did Moses see God literal face? If your answer is no, then why does it say face-to-face, if your answer is yes, then why does God say in v20 that he will not allow Moses to see his face?

Job 19:25-27 KJV
(25) For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
(26) And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
(27) Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.

You thought it preferable to avoid the meaning of this passage before, by claiming that these were two separate unrelated prophesies, breaking apart the Hebrew into a disjointed broken set. I thought I'd share something that came up in an unrelated conversation on Joshua's Long Day posted by Wick Stick.

I did not such thing, I simply didn't assume the redeemer in v25 was the God spoken of in v26. You are the one who assumed this thus the burden of proof is on you, not me.

Translating into this problem, when your interpretation has to bend to make the parallel sentences have different meaning, then you've done something wrong. That isn't how the bible is written. Job knew that his Redeemer liveth, and that He shall stand in the latter day upon the earth, and that he would see this with his own eyes, and though the worms consume his body from within, yet in the flesh would he see GOD.

Job's Redeemer shall stand in the latter day upon the earth, and thus he shall see God, literally, with his own fleshly eyes.

Again, it is your assumption that the redeemer in v25 is the God in v26, demonstrate where in the text its state the redeemer is God. Your believe structure is riddled in assumptions. Again my understanding is that the redeemer is NOT the God in v26 since the passage makes no mention of him being God in the context, you've merely assumed it has.

Rosenritter, according to 1 Timothy 6:16 has man seen God?

 

[NWL]

He didn't make a statement as to why they were stoning him. You'd have to add to the text to come up with something different than what the Jews specified, "because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

You can't be serious? I'm adding to the text!???? I'm using Jesus very own words!

From the KJV itself, as it was before: "..Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?" (John 10:32-36)

Please answer the question, did Jesus say that they were stoning him and I quote, "because [he] said, I am the Son of God?", did Jesus say that or did he not?

Actually, you have asked a slightly different question before. Yes, those Pharisees are the little "gods" of the Psalm.

Thank you answering the question.

The Jews accusation: You Jesus make yourself God.
Jesus answer: Are you not corrupt judges/gods?

Yes, that is the convenient introduction that he uses.

Remember the context directly before and after Jesus comment of "are you not gods" was regarding the accusation of blasphemy, your explanation separates Jesus words from the context with you making Jesus comments a separate statement unrelated to the accusation the Jews were imposing, the context shows Jesus answer was in relation to what they were accusing him of. You need to explain how what Jesus said "are you not gods" makes sense in relation to what the Jews said "you make yourself God"

Here it is again, the Jews accused Jesus "You Jesus make yourself God", Jesus answered "are you not [corrupt] gods". Jesus was answering them, how would Jesus answer be answering them if he was simply calling them corrupt gods?

The only reason this makes no sense to you is because you insisting that scripture must bend to JW doctrine.

No I'm simply taking scripture for how it reads, you're the one assuming things and bedning scripture as usual, as I will demostrate.

1. Who is it that judges among those gods? Jesus said it was he.
2. Who is it that arises, or has risen? Jesus said it was he.
3. Who is it that shall inherit all nations? Jesus said it was he.

1. Where did Jesus state in John 10 that he was the God that judges among the gods? This is an assumption.
2. What does this have to do with anything?
3. What does this have to do with anything?

... and the Psalm says GOD. If Jesus meant to deny that "he made himself God" this would be a bizarre Psalm to reference!

To the contrary. If for arguments sake Jesus was a little god or secondary god to Almighty God Jehovah, if the Jews said to Jesus "we are stoning for blasphemy because you make yourself a god" and Jesus said "are you not gods" would Jesus comparing himself to them as being "little gods" just like them be a good defence for an accusation of blasphemy if Jesus was NOT God but a god?

For example, thief "A" steals $100 from an old lady on the street, theif "B" then steals the $100 from the same old lady and thief A see's this. Thief A then accuses thief B of being a thief and states he will call the police on him because he has committed a crime. Thief B then says to Thief A "Why are you snitching, are you not a thief?". Does thief "B" make a valid point in his own defence regarding thief's "A" accusation?

See above. Plus, you know that Jesus was indirect in the approach to these things. Did he tell his disciples "I am the Son of God" or did he ask them, "what do men say that I am?" Sometimes the scripture does come straight out and tell us that Jesus is indeed our God, and you argue up and down that this can't possibly be what it means. If you deny the explicit statements, how can you expect to understand the iceberg of implicit statements beneath?

To quote a man, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, to claim Jesus is God or any person is God for that matter is quite a claim to make. Jesus stating that he is the Son of God is nowhere near as serious as claiming to be God, the two simply are not comparable. The funny thing is, when Jesus asked the disciples who they thought he was their response was NOT that he was God, but rather, that he was the Son of God, so I fail to see how this supports your understanding when in fact, it support mine, that Jesus is the Son of God and NOT God himself.

(Matthew 16:13) "..Jesus asked his disciples: “Who are men saying the Son of man is?”..Simon Peter answered: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God..”

 

[popsthebuilder]

Only for those plucking their own eyes so they cannot comprehend for their rejection of God's written word.

Scripture please

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

We will pray you and keypurr, pops

Mr. Patrick, did you understand the point of the post you quouted?

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

I'm sincere.
I don't do that.
lain: I have. "Tough but fair." You just described tough but fair.

So your motive is to be tough but fair, not to lead the lost sheep to Jesus the Christ? Noted

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[NWL]

It matters not what amount of information you receive you will reject all of it.

My prayer to you is that God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) breaks through your indoctrination as only God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) can break through the darkness of your indoctrination.

Unless you show me such information such assertions are empty.

My prayer to you is that God breaks through your indoctrination as only God can break through the darkness of your indoctrination.

 

[God's Truth]

And you chose to have this conversation in a public forum. If you don't want to be observed, use the private means.

Do you really want to resemble GT?

Why do you constantly want to attack me personally instead of debate the scriptures? Why do what Satan wants you to do? You attack me just like Satan wants. That should bother you but it doesn't, why not?