By the way -- if you claim to be a Christian...

[2ndpillar]

That's a hell of a run on sentence. So Catholicism that lasted exclusively for about 1200 years wasn't valid? And came along Martin Luther (who you totally ignore) who opened the door to tens of thousands of different sects of Chritianity. You're OK with that? And what difference does Marx make after about 2000 years of Christianity that is supposed to be God's word. And what about Muslims?

Well, actually Catholicism had different opponents, but with it being the church of Rome per decree of 380 A.D., with the power of Rome, the other churches were subjugated by the power of Rome. The Arians were shoved out by the Roman emperor Theodosius in 380 A.D., but the different Eastern churches remained but under the same dogma as that of the churches of Luther, minus the pope of Rome. The Churches are the church of Babylonia and her daughters, whose home is Babel, as in the home of confusion. Do you think that confusion means "order"? The church sits on the beast of Rome (Rev 17:3), and Rome gets it authority from the "dragon"/"devil" (Rev 13:3). How much order do you expect. As for Muslim's, give me a break. Mohammed is a composite of characters put together over 200 years after his death around the modern area of central Iraq. Their Koran is a composite of stories from the Jews, the Persians and the Christians. The earliest complete Koran is put together from scraps 100 years after the supposed guys supposed death, being poisoned by a woman. There was no gardens and fruit trees and Mecca in the 7th century, and it was not a caravan route. And Solomon, Abraham, and Eve did not live there. The whole thing is a cover up between the northern tribes and the southern tribes because of a power struggle. The actual name written in the Koran is Isa son of Mariam, which is Yeshua, and the term Mohammad, which means praised one. The writing on the outer wall of the dome of the rock is about the false Trinity doctrine. Mohammad is an elaborate myth. The prayer walls of the early mosques faced toward Petra, not Mecca. The godless religion of Marx started with the "serpent", in as much as he said, don't listen to God, listen to me, and eat the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, and you "surely shall not die" "Genesis 3:3-4), the same message of Paul, who said listen to me, and you "shall not all sleep/die", which of course was also a lie, for everyone dies for their own iniquities" (Jer 31:30). As for Luther, he was a Catholic priest who dissented about indulgences (paying for your sins in cash), and with the inquisitors after him, he hid behind the German princes and wound up seeding the reformation. He sold out the German peasants to the princes of Germany and is no better than the Catholics he argued with. Don't fret though, it is all coming to an end (Daniel 2:35 & 45)

 

[F1fan]

Well, actually Catholicism had different opponents, but with it being the church of Rome per decree of 380 A.D., with the power of Rome, the other churches were subjugated by the power of Rome. The Arians were shoved out by the Roman emperor Theodosius in 380 A.D., but the different Eastern churches remained but under the same dogma as that of the churches of Luther, minus the pope of Rome. The Churches are the church of Babylonia and her daughters, whose home is Babel, as in the home of confusion. Do you think that confusion means "order"? The church sits on the beast of Rome (Rev 17:3), and Rome gets it authority from the "dragon"/"devil" (Rev 13:3). How much order do you expect. As for Muslim's, give me a break. Mohammed is a composite of characters put together over 200 years after his death around the modern area of central Iraq. Their Koran is a composite of stories from the Jews, the Persians and the Christians. The earliest complete Koran is put together from scraps 100 years after the supposed guys supposed death, being poisoned by a woman. There was no gardens and fruit trees and Mecca in the 7th century, and it was not a caravan route. And Solomon, Abraham, and Eve did not live there. The whole thing is a cover up between the northern tribes and the southern tribes because of a power struggle. The actual name written in the Koran is Isa son of Mariam, which is Yeshua, and the term Mohammad, which means praised one. The writing on the outer wall of the dome of the rock is about the false Trinity doctrine. Mohammad is an elaborate myth. The prayer walls of the early mosques faced toward Petra, not Mecca. The godless religion of Marx started with the "serpent", in as much as he said, don't listen to God, listen to me, and eat the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, and you "surely shall not die" "Genesis 3:3-4), the same message of Paul, who said listen to me, and you "shall not all sleep/die", which of course was also a lie, for everyone dies for their own iniquities" (Jer 31:30). As for Luther, he was a Catholic priest who dissented about indulgences (paying for your sins in cash), and with the inquisitors after him, he hid behind the German princes and wound up seeding the reformation. He sold out the German peasants to the princes of Germany and is no better than the Catholics he argued with. Don't fret though, it is all coming to an end (Daniel 2:35 & 45)

That describes a huge mess that God caused. Don't you think it's odd that a God would imgregnate a woman so she could have a boy that will be executed by the Romans to atone for the sins of mankind, but then can't manage the events afterwards, especially how the Bible was written and interpreted? That's a huge screw up. Don't you think God could have fixed any of the problems as they arose? It's almost as if no God exists and humans are behaving in the chaotic and emotional ways they do.

 

[2ndpillar]

He is not "my Paul", he is Christianity's Paul. What is your personal religion? It does not appear to be Christian. You appear to have your own odd religion when you pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe. How do you justify such beliefs?

Well, if you actually heed the message of Yeshua (Mt 7:24), and believe what the prophets say, and you believe what Yeshua says, and he says the "enemy" (Paul)/"devil", will sow his message (seed) right next to his, in the same "field"/book, and the tare and the wheat will grow next to each other until the "end of the age", when the "tares" will be the "first" to be "gathered" and thrown into the fire" (Har-Magedon), and then the wheat will be put into the barn (kingdom). (Mt 13:24-51). If you can see this, then the bible parables are a downhill battle. If not the "stone" cut out of the mountain without hands, is coming and it will crush the iron through to the gold (kingdoms) (Daniel 2:44-45), and at that time you will have an inkling on what is going on.

 

[2ndpillar]

That describes a huge mess that God caused. Don't you think it's odd that a God would imgregnate a woman so she could have a boy that will be executed by the Romans to atone for the sins of mankind, but then can't manage the events afterwards, especially how the Bible was written and interpreted? That's a huge screw up. Don't you think God could have fixed any of the problems as they arose? It's almost as if no God exists and humans are behaving in the chaotic and emotional ways they do.

Well as with today's culture, the Jews sacrificed their children to the god Moloch by fire. At that time they were judged through the use of Nebuchadezzar, and they have progressively sinned and been judged by the use of Persia, Greece, and Rome. The Scripture were about the Jews. The Gentiles were generally used as modes of judgment upon Judah/Jews, for the tribe of Israel had already gone into bondage 70 years previously for their idolatry. Your NT is the bible of the Gentiles, and its serviceability is that it also contains the message of the son of man, but it is contains the "message of the "enemy"/"devil" (Mt 13:24-51). The premise of the Gentile church is that "Jesus" died for their sins. Well, the Word of God says that "everybody dies for their own iniquities" (Jeremiah 31:30), which is exactly opposite of the message of the church of Paul. Did Abraham actually sacrifice Isaac, or did he provide a substitute? Don't believe everything you read. One is required to separate the chaff from the wheat before the angels come and do it for them.

 

[F1fan]

Well, if you actually heed the message of Yeshua (Mt 7:24), and believe what the prophets say, and you believe what Yeshua says, and he says the "enemy" (Paul)/"devil", will sow his message (seed) right next to his, in the same "field"/book, and the tare and the wheat will grow next to each other until the "end of the age", when the "tares" will be the "first" to be "gathered" and thrown into the fire" (Har-Magedon), and then the wheat will be put into the barn (kingdom). (Mt 13:24-51). If you can see this, then the bible parables are a downhill battle. If not the "stone" cut out of the mountain without hands, is coming and it will crush the iron through to the gold (kingdoms) (Daniel 2:44-45), and at that time you will have an inkling on what is going on.

What a mess your God has caused itself, and you believers. It's so nice to be an atheist and not be involved with this drama.

 

[F1fan]

Well as with today's culture, the Jews sacrificed their children to the god Moloch by fire. At that time they were judged through the use of Nebuchadezzar, and they have progressively sinned and been judged by the use of Persia, Greece, and Rome. The Scripture were about the Jews. The Gentiles were generally used as modes of judgment upon Judah/Jews, for the tribe of Israel had already gone into bondage 70 years previously for their idolatry. Your NT is the bible of the Gentiles, and its serviceability is that it also contains the message of the son of man, but it is contains the "message of the "enemy"/"devil" (Mt 13:24-51). The premise of the Gentile church is that "Jesus" died for their sins. Well, the Word of God says that "everybody dies for their own iniquities" (Jeremiah 31:30), which is exactly opposite of the message of the church of Paul. Did Abraham actually sacrifice Isaac, or did he provide a substitute? Don't believe everything you read. One is required to separate the chaff from the wheat before the angels come and do it for them.

Sounds like no one's a winner in your view. Are you a winner?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, if you actually heed the message of Yeshua (Mt 7:24), and believe what the prophets say, and you believe what Yeshua says, and he says the "enemy" (Paul)/"devil", will sow his message (seed) right next to his, in the same "field"/book, and the tare and the wheat will grow next to each other until the "end of the age", when the "tares" will be the "first" to be "gathered" and thrown into the fire" (Har-Magedon), and then the wheat will be put into the barn (kingdom). (Mt 13:24-51). If you can see this, then the bible parables are a downhill battle. If not the "stone" cut out of the mountain without hands, is coming and it will crush the iron through to the gold (kingdoms) (Daniel 2:44-45), and at that time you will have an inkling on what is going on.

Sorry ,but you are merely using your own very very biased interpretation of the Bible. Now I am not fond of Paul either, but he does not meet any of the prophecies of the enemy in the Bible. Here is a rule about prophecies. When dealing with them you do not get to take verses out of context. If one can do that one can "prove" almost anything.

 

[3rdAngel]

Where did I name call?

You appear to be extremely delusional (post # 154 linked)

I don't think you used that accusation properly. You lost the debate.

Not really dear friend. When you are no longer able to address post content and the scriptures and questions asked of you that are in disagreement with you, and all you have in return is name calling and accusations you are unable to prove when challenged, it is you that has lost the debate because you have already left the discussion. Think it through. You lose.

Now you are inventing charges out of thin air.

Lets be honest and test that claim. What things have a said to you that are not based on fact and invented out of thin air? Common now lets test if what you say here is true. If you cannot why are you continuing to make make things up that are not true?

You make me laugh, you do not make me angry.

The way your posting I do not believe you but I am happy if you are...

How could I be angry when you post such weak weak arguments and do not even realize it.

Hmm...you mean the ones that left you no wiggle being unable to respond intelligently to a discussion?

You may have thought that the term "delusional" was name calling.

Oh you think?

That is not name calling that was an assessment of your mental state.

I see so according to you it is ok for me to call you a psycho because I am judging your mental state? Seems like name calling to me. I am not interested in that.

If I made claims such as calling you a liar, something that you have done, that would be "name calling'. You just make gross errors and refuse to see them.

Where did I call you a liar? I have said you are not telling the truth. Do you know the difference between someone unknowingly not telling the truth and someone who is lying?

In fact when I use your tactics you immediately can see that what I am doing is wrong, but when you use the same tactics that seems to be fine to you.

Well that is not true. I have only told you the truth. You are running away from it.

That, my friend, is called hypocrisy.

Then do not do it. You will not get so upset when you are challenged and are unable to prove what you say.

It did the same thing to the 2 Samuel verse that you did to the 3 Romans verse.

I see none of this is working for you.

Why was it okay when you ignored the context and cut off part of the verse but it was not okay when Ignored the context and cut off part of the verse? If what I did was wrong then you have to admit that what you did was wrong.

Sorry dear friend I am not leaving you with any wiggle room for your false claims here. Lets get back to discussing the scriptures and test and see if what you say here is true or not true. You will need to prove what you say instead of making things up that are not true. As posted to you earlier, according to the scriptures Romans 14:23 says word for word that "whatsoever is not of faith is sin." That is what the scripture says. This is in agreement with Hebrews 11:6 that says "without faith it is impossible to please God" and again in the very words of Jesus in John 3:36 that says "He that believes on the Son has everlasting life: and he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God stays on him. There is no salvation in unbelief and sin (see Hebrews 10:26-31). Only the judgements of God are provided to all those who choose to walk down that road. I also asked you if you believe that context and any scriptures show that Romans 14:23 is not saying "whatsoever is not of faith is sin" then prove it. You have not responded to this invitation and all you provide is silence because once again you are unable to prove what you say. I will therefore leave you with your unbelief that the bible calls sin in Romans 14:23 and leave it between you and God to work through and once again we will agree to disagree.

I like you even if I do not believe you. You do make me smile when I read your responses.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You appear to be extremely delusional (post # 154 linked)

[/QUOTE]

That was not name calling. That was an assessment of your resonses.

Not really dear friend. When you are no longer able to address post content and the scriptures and questions asked of you that are in disagreement with you, and all you have in return is name calling and accusations you are unable to prove when challenged, it is you that has lost the debate because you have already left the discussion. Think it through. You lose.

Lets be hpnesy and test that claim. What things have a said to you that are not based on fact and invented out of thin air? Common now lets test if what you say here is true. If you cannot why are you continuing to make make things up that are not true?

The way your posting I do not believe you but I am happy if you are...

Hmm...you mean the ones that left you no wiggle and being unable to respond intelligently to a discussion?

Oh you think?

I see so it is ok for me to call you a psycho because I am judging your mental state? Seems like name calling to me.

Where did I call you a liar? I have said you are not telling the truth. Do you know the difference between someone not telling the truth and someone who is lying?

Well that is not true. I have only told you the truth. You are running away from it.

Then do not do it. You will not get so upset when you are challenged and are unable to prove what you say.

I see none of this is working for you.

Sorry dear friend I am not leaving you with any wiggle room for your false claims here. You will need to prove what you say instead of making things up that are not true. As posted to you earlier, according to the scriptures Romans 14:23 says word for word that "whatsoever is not of faith is sin." That is what the scripture says. This is in agreement with Hebrews 11:6 that says "without faith it is impossible to please God" and again in the very words of Jesus in John 3:36 that says "He that believes on the Son has everlasting life: and he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God stays on him. There is no salvation in unbelief and sin (see Hebrews 10:26-31). Only the judgements of God are provided to all those who choose to walk down that road. I also asked you if you believe that context and any scriptures show that Romans 14:23 is not saying "whatsoever is not of faith is sin" then prove it. You have not responded to this invitation and all you provide is silence because once again you are unable to prove what you say. I will therefore leave you with your unbelief that the bible calls sin in Romans 14:23 and leave it between you and God to work through and once again we will agree to disagree.

I like you even if I do not believe you. You do make me smile.

I addressed all of your posts. I used your techniques.

I see that you still cannot focus on one point at a time. There is no need to write a book. When you write a book when none is needed you are displaying guilt.

Tell me, was it wrong for me to quote mine 2 Samuel? Or does the Bible really claim that there is no God?

 

[3rdAngel]

That was not name calling. That was an assessment of your resonses.
I addressed all of your posts. I used your techniques.

I see that you still cannot focus on one point at a time. There is no need to write a book. When you write a book when none is needed you are displaying guilt.

Tell me, was it wrong for me to quote mine 2 Samuel? Or does the Bible really claim that there is no God?

Did you notice you simply ignored the post content, the scriptures and the questions being asked of you again in the post you are responding to again. I did. I guess it was because you were left with no wiggle room. You do make me smile though.

Take Care

P.S. I see you have re-edited your post and added to it after you posted it (your original above) Let me add you have not addressed the content of my posts, neither have you addressed the questions asked of you and neither have you addressed the scriptures shared with you that are in disagreement with you. You neither use my technique of supporting scripture for your claims and you are unable to prove what you say when asked. So no, we are very different dear friend.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your post is messed up. You simply ignored the post you are responding to again.

It is fixed now. And you have no grounds for complaint. You failed the challenge. You keep forgetting that you cannot deal with several points at once, all you can do is to repeat failed arguments. That is why right now we are only dealing with your abuse of Romans 3 4. Once you own up to that error we can discuss the rest of your arguments.

 

[3rdAngel]

You failed the challenge.

How can I fail a challenge I have never received and how have you won a challenge you have never addressed? You certainly have a unique way of seeing things. I am still waiting for you to prove everything you have said in a number of posts now.

You keep forgetting that you cannot deal with several points at once, all you can do is to repeat failed arguments. That is why right now we are only dealing with your abuse of Romans 3 4. Once you own up to that error we can discuss the rest of your arguments.

Its Romans 14:23 for your correction. All you have said here is that it is a failed argument when all I have provided is what scripture says word for word. You claim it is out of context and other scripture say that whatsoever is not of faith is not sin. I then asked you to prove your claims and show me how context or other scriptures, change the meaning of Romans 14:23 yet in return all I hear is silence. Most recently in an earlier post do you as asked you to prove your claims saying;

"Sorry dear friend I am not leaving you with any wiggle room for your false claims here. Lets get back to discussing the scriptures and test and see if what you say here is true or not true. You will need to prove what you say instead of making things up that are not true. As posted to you earlier, according to the scriptures Romans 14:23 says word for word that "whatsoever is not of faith is sin." That is what the scripture says. This is in agreement with Hebrews 11:6 that says "without faith it is impossible to please God" and again in the very words of Jesus in John 3:36 that says "He that believes on the Son has everlasting life: and he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God stays on him. There is no salvation in unbelief and sin (see Hebrews 10:26-31). Only the judgements of God are provided to all those who choose to walk down that road. I also asked you if you believe that context and any scriptures show that Romans 14:23 is not saying "whatsoever is not of faith is sin" then prove it. You have not responded to this invitation and all you provide is silence because once again you are unable to prove what you say. I will therefore leave you with your unbelief that the bible calls sin in Romans 14:23 and leave it between you and God to work through and once again we will agree to disagree." (post # 168 linked)

I am still waiting as response from you. I am sorry dear friend I am not leaving you with any wiggle room. If you make claims and accusations here then prove them. If you cannot than why not believe the scriptures shared with you that are in disagreement with you? If you want a discussion lets discuss the scriptures if not I have no time for your ranting and raving so we will agree to disagree. Up to you.

Take Care.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How can I fail a challenge I have never received and how have you won a challenge you have never addressed? You certainly have a unique way of seeing things. I am still waiting for you to prove everything you have said in a number of posts now.

Its Romans 14:23 for your correction. All you have said here is that it is a failed argument when all I have provided is what scripture says word for word. You claim it is out of context and other scripture say that whatsoever is not of faith is not sin. I then asked you to prove your claims and show me how context or other scriptures, change the meaning of Romans 14:23 yet in return all I hear is silence. Most recently in an earlier post do you as asked you to prove your claims saying;

"Sorry dear friend I am not leaving you with any wiggle room for your false claims here. Lets get back to discussing the scriptures and test and see if what you say here is true or not true. You will need to prove what you say instead of making things up that are not true. As posted to you earlier, according to the scriptures Romans 14:23 says word for word that "whatsoever is not of faith is sin." That is what the scripture says. This is in agreement with Hebrews 11:6 that says "without faith it is impossible to please God" and again in the very words of Jesus in John 3:36 that says "He that believes on the Son has everlasting life: and he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God stays on him. There is no salvation in unbelief and sin (see Hebrews 10:26-31). Only the judgements of God are provided to all those who choose to walk down that road. I also asked you if you believe that context and any scriptures show that Romans 14:23 is not saying "whatsoever is not of faith is sin" then prove it. You have not responded to this invitation and all you provide is silence because once again you are unable to prove what you say. I will therefore leave you with your unbelief that the bible calls sin in Romans 14:23 and leave it between you and God to work through and once again we will agree to disagree." (post # 168 linked)

I am still waiting as response from you. I am sorry dear friend I am not leaving you with any wiggle room. If you make claims and accusations here then prove them. If you cannot than why not believe the scriptures shared with you that are in disagreement with you? If you want a discussion lets discuss the scriptures if not I have no time for your ranting and raving so we will agree to disagree. Up to you.

Take Care.

No, we can deal with that later. You quote mined Romans 3 4. Do you need me to go back to your posts to show you that?

I ignored the rest of the nonsense that you posted since we are not discussing that now.

 

[YoursTrue]

I consider the "message" of Paul, the message of lawlessness, the gospel of grace, the message of the "enemy", as the "tare" seed, which was planted alongside the "message" of the "son of man", the wheat seed, in the same "field"/NT (Matthew 13;24-51). The "tares", the product of the tare seeds will be protected alongside of the wheat until the "end of the age", when the "angels" will "gather" the "tares" and throw them into the "furnace of fire" (Mt 13:30).

So again, which books of the Bible do you consider from God? Just wondering, I like to get to know people sometimes.

 

[3rdAngel]

No, we can deal with that later. You quote mined Romans 3 4. Do you need me to go back to your posts to show you that?

I ignored the rest of the nonsense that you posted since we are not discussing that now.

I see you ignored the post content and the scriptures and questions in the post you are responding from again that are in disagreement with you. Then again you were not left any wiggle room. This only tells me you are unable to prove what you say and that your claims are not true. Now what is it in Romans 3:4 that says 4, "God forbid: yes, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That you might be justified in your sayings, and might overcome when you are judged." That you disagree with?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see you ignored the post content and the scriptures and questions in the post you are responding from again that are in disagreement with you. Then again you were not left any wiggle room. This only tells me you are unable to prove what you say and that your claims are not true. Now what is it in Romans 3:4 that says 4, "God forbid: yes, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That you might be justified in your sayings, and might overcome when you are judged." That you disagree with?

I disagree with your interpretation of it. The verse does not apply.

And why complain about me ignoring the parts of your post that are not what we were discussing?

It is an improper and impious technique to just grab a bunch of quotes out of context and hope that they will stick. It is an abuse of the Bible.

 

[3rdAngel]

I disagree with your interpretation of it. The verse does not apply.

And why complain about me ignoring the parts of your post that are not what we were discussing?

It is an improper and impious technique to just grab a bunch of quotes out of context and hope that they will stick. It is an abuse of the Bible.

Lets test what you say then. What is it that you disagree with in my interpretation of Romans 3:4 that says 4, "God forbid: yes, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That you might be justified in your sayings, and might overcome when you are judged." (silence....)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lets test what you say then. What is it that you disagree with in my interpretation of Romans 3:4 that says 4, "God forbid: yes, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That you might be justified in your sayings, and might overcome when you are judged." (silence....)

Can't you listen? it had noting to do with the topic that we were discussing That is a quote about circumcision. I showed that when I quoted the prior verses. It says nothing about the Bible.

 

[3rdAngel]

Can't you listen? it had noting to do with the topic that we were discussing That is a quote about circumcision. I showed that when I quoted the prior verses. It says nothing about the Bible.

What are you even talking about? Romans 3:4 is what you quoted and wanted to discuss. Let me ask you again. I said, Lets test what you say then. What is it that you disagree with in my interpretation of Romans 3:4 that says 4, "God forbid: yes, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That you might be justified in your sayings, and might overcome when you are judged." Lets discuss it. If you cannot tell me what it is you disagree with then it only shows that you are simply making things up and cannot support what you say with any evidence. We both know this to be true. Lets be honest. You cannot prove what you say. We have had these same kind of conversations now in many thread. Every time I challenge you to prove what you say because I know what you say is not the truth, you run away from the discussion. - from you only silence when challenged.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What are you even talking about? Romans 3:4 is what you quoted and wanted to discuss. Let me ask you again. I said, Lets test what you say then. What is it that you disagree with in my interpretation of Romans 3:4 that says 4, "God forbid: yes, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That you might be justified in your sayings, and might overcome when you are judged." Lets discuss it. If you cannot tell me what it is you disagree with then it only shows that you are simply making things up and cannot support what you say with any evidence. We both know this to be true. Lets be honest. You cannot prove what you say. We have had these same kind of conversations now in many thread. Every time I challenge you to prove what you say because I know what you say is not the truth, you run away from the discussion. - from you only silence when challenged.

That verse does not apply to those situations. Why can't you listen? That verse is about circumcision. The people that were "not true" were those that skipped the procedure. God still kept his word towards the Jews. Even if every Jew was a liar God would still have kept his word. You misunderstood that. You misapplied the quote. It has nothing to do with the Bible being accurate or not.