|
servant
Mérida, Mexico
|
servant wrote: <quoted text> . It's called being stumped when you err in scripture. I find it funny that you (Dalia Lama) and IBT are waiting for someone else to answer to the simple question. It's okay. . . . Here it is again teachers: . . Does our Lord Jesus have a God and Father or is He (Jesus) God the Father? . . and a tool to help you------http://biblos.com/ . .
|
|
“Wear white at night.”
Since: Jun 09
Albuquerque
|
Please wait...
servant wrote: <quoted text> . What are you talking about? It's a simple question. IBT and you know the answer. All I'm saying is just answer the question. . There is no answer. Jesus didn't say he was God. John the Evangelist did. Given the number of outlandish claims found in John's Gospel, it is a highly suspect document. As a Bible worshipper, you can not and will not accept this.
|
|
servant
Mérida, Mexico
|
15th Dalai Lama wrote: <quoted text> There is no answer. Jesus didn't say he was God. John the Evangelist did. Given the number of outlandish claims found in John's Gospel, it is a highly suspect document. As a Bible worshipper, you can not and will not accept this. . Oh theres an answer "teacher" but we have to continue in the doctrine of Christ (2 John 1:9)to get a full understanding. We can't just isolate verses as you're doing now. .
|
|
servant
Mérida, Mexico
|
15th Dalai Lama wrote: <quoted text> There is no answer. Jesus didn't say he was God. John the Evangelist did. Given the number of outlandish claims found in John's Gospel, it is a highly suspect document. As a Bible worshipper, you can not and will not accept this. so again: . Does our Lord Jesus have a God and Father or is He (Jesus) God the Father? .
|
|
“Wear white at night.”
Since: Jun 09
Albuquerque
|
Please wait...
servant wrote: <quoted text> . Oh theres an answer "teacher" but we have to continue in the doctrine of Christ (2 John 1:9)to get a full understanding. We can't just isolate verses as you're doing now. . Doctrine is a codification of beliefs, not facts.
|
|
“Wear white at night.”
Since: Jun 09
Albuquerque
|
Please wait...
servant wrote: <quoted text> so again: . Does our Lord Jesus have a God and Father or is He (Jesus) God the Father? . I think it is best that we ignore you until you go ballistic. At least we can be enertained. Pikkiwok's promise of eternal salvation for everyone, a fat little pig and all the coconuts you can carry is a far better deal than your God's offer of eternal salvation to Bible Worshippers only.
|
|
“Wear white at night.”
Since: Jun 09
Albuquerque
|
Please wait...
servant wrote: <quoted text> so again: . Does our Lord Jesus have a God and Father or is He (Jesus) God the Father? . Not enough choices. Please add some more.
|
|
hick
Welch, WV
|
15th Dalai Lama wrote: <quoted text> I think it is best that we ignore you until you go ballistic. At least we can be enertained. Pikkiwok's promise of eternal salvation for everyone, a fat little pig and all the coconuts you can carry is a far better deal than your God's offer of eternal salvation to Bible Worshippers only. Did someone say balls yummmy
|
|
|
|
Tango Bravo
Winfield, KS
|
Converted wrote: <quoted text> On the night before He was betrayed, Jesus took the bread, blessed it, and said, "take all of you and eat of it, this is my body which will be given up for you..." Similarly, He took the cup and said "..this is the cup of my blood..." Prefaced by what is recorded in John 6...what do you think Jesus meant by this? Do you think He meant sip grape juice and munch crackers which merely SYMBOLIZE His death, burial, and resurrection, or did He actually mean what He said? If He meant it symbolically, then what would be a better way of remembering His ultimate sacrifice, contemplating the cross or sipping grape juice and munching crackers? He sure chose an obtuse way of remembering His sacrifice if He only meant it figuratively. A more applicable symbolism might be found in contemplating the cross, than taking a rather barren snack, don't you think? Converted, My view of this argument is that the un-Catholics seem to be assuming that the contents of the New Testament includes passages that just aren't important. As though its author had to do a 1000 word composition so he threw in whatever he could think of to increase the word count. Perhaps they think they can discern useless parts of the Bible with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit working within them?
|
|
Tango Bravo
Winfield, KS
|
Old GT wrote: <quoted text>"Scripture" now means the New Testament. The New Testament was compiled, copied and existing in congregations by the close of the first century. And each of those congregations were the church. Actually, Scripture now means the combined Old and New Testament. It is not only the New Testament as you seem to imply. Also, please provide justification for your claim that the New Testament was complete by the end of the first century. Do you really mean to say that the Canon had been established by 100 AD, or are you trying to say something different? What you mean to say isn't clear to me.
|
|
Tango Bravo
Winfield, KS
|
Oxbow wrote: Clearly....you do not believe your own pope approved Bible!!! From the NABRE.....It does not teach that "my church" means the Roman Catholic Church.... Mt 16:18 "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,* and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. Church: this word (Greek ekklēsia) occurs in the gospels only here and in Mt 18:17 (twice). There are several possibilities for an Aramaic original. Jesus’ church means the community that he will gather and that, like a building, will have Peter as its solid foundation. NOTE: Jesus’ church means the community that he will gather and that, like a building, will have Peter as its solid foundation..... Christianity: n. 1. The Christian religion, founded on the life and teachings of Jesus. 2. Christians as a group; Christendom. <quoted text> You are calling your pope a liar... He approved the following in the NABRE: Quote: Church: this word (Greek ekklēsia) occurs in the gospels only here and in Mt 18:17 (twice). There are several possibilities for an Aramaic original. Jesus’ church means the community that he will gather and that, like a building, will have Peter as its solid foundation. Hilarious response! Thanks for furthering the cause of Catholicism.
|
|
“Wear white at night.”
Since: Jun 09
Albuquerque
|
Please wait...
servant wrote: <quoted text> . Oh theres an answer "teacher" but we have to continue in the doctrine of Christ (2 John 1:9)to get a full understanding. We can't just isolate verses as you're doing now. . What are you? Cross eyed? The entire Gospel of John is not an 'isolated verse'.
|
|
Tango Bravo
Winfield, KS
|
Tickedoffchick wrote: <quoted text> I'm talking about this: Old GT wrote: <quoted text> 2 Timothy 3:16,17 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God might be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. Part of the problem lies in the fact that OldGT doesn't think that the entire Bible is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God might be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." It's only the parts he agrees with that he finds worthwhile.
|
|
Tango Bravo
Winfield, KS
|
ITB wrote: <quoted text> I'm beginning to believe that a prerequisite for them is to have poor reading comprehension. Yet they believe they can read and correctly interpret all Scripture on their own (with the Holy Spirit of course). It's frustrating and amusing (I find the thought HUH? pops in my head a lot reading their posts) at the same time, and not just a little bit frightening that there are so many of them out there. Sometimes I think their greatest skill in misinterpreting Scripture is their ability to be selective when it comes to deciding what to read or what parts of Scripture to identify as unprofitable.
|
|
Tango Bravo
Winfield, KS
|
ITB wrote: <quoted text> What "concerns" Catholics about the other Christian churches is how they can ignore three-quarters of Scripture, pick out a few words and say that the Catholic church is all wrong and has added something to those few words. It is you and your ilk who have taken away from (ignoring) Scripture to come up with your non-belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Jesus said much more than "do this in remembrance of me". They seem to think Jesus was just killing time and the authors of the NT added some unprofitable words to Scripture for padding. It was important enough to for Jesus to say, it was important enough to include in the written history of Christ's life on earth; but it isn't important enough for them to take seriously, or even to participate in on a regular basis.
|
|
Tango Bravo
Winfield, KS
|
ITB wrote: <quoted text> Another prerequisite...only re post previous posts to respond to a responding post, therefore no need to actually answer what the response said...got it. ITB, You found a new, less impressive, version of Ox and Justa and Nijoni. No answers of their own. Just wasting everybody's time with phony claims and endless repetition of phony claims.
|
|
Tango Bravo
Winfield, KS
|
15th Dalai Lama wrote: <quoted text> I think it is best that we ignore you until you go ballistic. At least we can be enertained. Pikkiwok's promise of eternal salvation for everyone, a fat little pig and all the coconuts you can carry is a far better deal than your God's offer of eternal salvation to Bible Worshippers only. Dalai, Just for the record, and accepting that you obviously have some very strong doubts, I must say that Salvation is worth everything. Keep searching. When you find Him, He'll be looking for you.
|
|
Jaimie
Madison, WI
|
hick wrote: <quoted text>Did someone say balls yummmy Real mature. Now some native tribes in Africa still use that genital regine as a desert delcacy of their neighboring tribe eemies. Not to be jested about. I would not admire either, Noones gentials should be face level and if they are by head games brain washing BITE
|
Since: Jun 10
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
ITB wrote: <quoted text> Seems you're confused. I wrote... "Jews don't believe that Jesus was divine, the Son of God, or the Messiah prophesied in Jewish scriptures." Now slowly read that sentence...it says "JEWS DON'T BELIEVE". Obviously, Christians believe Jesus was divine, the Son of God, and the Messiah prophesied in the Jesus Scriptures. So now, what was your question? The mission statement of Jews for Jesus is: "We exist to make the messiahship of Jesus an unavoidable issue to our Jewish people worldwide." While they are strongly devoted to Jesus, the most important belief of Jews for Jesus is the evangelizing of the Jewish people and the conversion of Jews to Christianity. You are wrong when you say "Jews don't believe that Jesus was divine, the Son of God, or the Messiah prophesied in Jewish scriptures." Any time...glad to get you "get up to speed"...
|
Since: Jun 10
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
ITB wrote: <quoted text> Another prerequisite...only re post previous posts to respond to a responding post, therefore no need to actually answer what the response said...got it. Good dodge....you are improving!!!!
|
|
Tell me when this thread is updated:
(Registration is not required)
Add to my Tracker
Send me an email
|