What Kills the Thrills of Shills [Archive] - Bibles, Wheels, and Brains Forum

View Full Version : What Kills the Thrills of Shills

Timmy

10-22-2013, 06:37 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2o0V6VPX_E0

What rilly irked Timmy after his hiatus from the manipulation and use of Boolean based techical contrapolational thingys in Cyberia from 1986 to 1995, were not the new developments in cyber-linguistic. Neither did the progressive approach my Hebrew Brothers (and friends) were doing taking pinging to a whole new level with ICQ. No! Not at all. All the new software, DOS, and OS developments did not upset the Timmy in the least. Cyberian life was becoming civilized in ways even us buccaneers, explorers, pioneers, and pirates appreciated.

No, it was altogether something else.

THRILLS AND SHILLS

My amber screened 3 processor DEC with it's wonderous capacity availing Timmy with options to go Assembler or Machine was still just as viable as when we left off from the teamwork at Vandy setting final touches integrating the WWW--(for those of you youngsters who don't know what "www" actually means, it stands for:"Watermelon World War III"(<--the 3 Roman Numerals representing the 3 W's)

In the year 1983, my bestest friend Perry (whom with myself and a team of six unnamed others, had already developed a pro-genetic program from which--or so it seems--all future viruses would be born called "Cookie Monster", where if the students at the colleges where the cookie monster suddenly appeared on the screen could not type "cookie monster" in the five second grace period, their student account was "eaten". It was used to both determine reaction times for people who were not sluggards...and figure out methods of covering traces of damage done.(Little was it known in those early days, that many of us would come together one day to fulfill a patriotic duty, to hack into the militant Islaam networks and banking systems--yeah guys, the governments know what is intended to happen--in the manner of Alanis Moriset singing--waaaaayyy befooore it happenssssssssss).

What we had done through extremely simple logarithmic sequencing with very basic PIP and FIP codes (olde Assembler basics) was obtained the gigi count/configuration for the password (which used to remain running (invisibly) while one was in their student account), then impliment that to transfer that account to the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) ruby disked mainframe computer--(which had so much free memory space and not so swift techies (who consulted us for glitches) manning their machine,)--so that nobody was any the wiser where their schoolwork had suddenly dissappeared to...yeah, that Perry,--that's the Perry were talking about (not Mason)--who took the fall for our whole team (because this sixth clandestine venture after "Cookie Monster" was actually his idea, and only two others voted to pursue it...but employed and integrated our assistance without realizing wbat he was up to until he (and they had) convinced us all to team login to give it a run and test it: to heist the whole data base of not only one of the community colleges linked into the Mid-State intranet, but also a certain local bank) which in turn initiated the assigned funny buddy interrogation team nipping our heels.

Perry was expelled, and the admin made it seem as though Perry was to be an example for all to learn, went to prison...but the Timmy located him through no small assistance of Mirabilis and came to understand what was written in on certain private university journal pages was hogwash, propaganda the funny buddys wrote up (and actually enforced to be printed) toward misinformation intending to keep such things from happening again...but dissonant news travels quickly, ya' know?
(They never lied to us outright. They just made things sound different than what actually happened. Kind of like what "David M." is doing here at our beloved B.W.F.™ Acropolis...and we'll get to that...but it seems like a lie to me, even if somebody tries to paint it white.

:eek:WHOA:eek:
Are we off track
or
what?

Just initiating this thread (though little time to write for a few weeks is available) the Timmy has done it again...and thought drift to something about the idee' from one of Pink Floyd's dandys...don't rilly recall the exact words, but anyway, they sing something to the tune of, "...the tales you hear from an old man are deeds he did in his prime..." yeah yeah somethin' like 'at.

See how time flies when memories drift theraputic though it is, either looking at the past before us or to the future behind us.

Am i rilly that old... 51 and wilder than 17, but have learned to become quite a bit more wiley through the school of hard knocks. What you see is not what you get, every year that muchmore avowed against being taken in by anything corrupting autonomy as Yah shall have it...and adept with "corrosives" too.

It's awready nearing time to prep and head out the door and greet the weird cold snap for this time of year in the lower 48 states, temp. being 10 (deg. F, what is that? 'bout 4 C?) above freezing.

Here we were content with intent to write about internet agendas and marketing schemes (mostly by religious organizations, such as the Chrystaldelphians, with their trolling shills feigning chumplike innocence or stupidity acting like they are all friendly and such, yet always with that blasted alterior motive that rilly has nothing to do with you...even though they want to make it that way.

...an "Oscar Wilde said" just popped into my head:
Most people are other people.
Their thoughts are someone elses opinions,
Their lives a mimicry,
Their passion a quotation.

The Truth Hertz Donut

For those of you none the wiser, the so-called "David M.", that name is actually (usually) a gender-bender at the other end of cyberspace straight from, you guessed it, the U.K: BECAUSE HE (usually) IS (actually) A SHE. Timmy just wearied of toying around with the dingbat and decided to investigate
(...and there are more than two IP's and varied HDs used by this/¿these? scoundrel/¿s? online).

It is not known what the legal ramifications are for exposing hir cyber activities...yet...but some way some how, this deceiving shill of a pseudononymous trolling chump needs all the exposure (s)he can get. Whoever here is familiar with any of the various modes of employing the all informing route trace (via IP eddress, serial numbers, running apps, HDID, and so on), just wait til' you see hir online here, then check this out and see these things for oneself
--...among other things which shall remain unstated …FTTB that is--because...

! ! ! THAT'S THE FACT JACK ! ! !

This public service announcement is brought to you by the makers of
A paisley tutu that never really caught on in the ballet world,
The New GI Joe Couch Potatoe Nonaction figure,
An improved version of the old Iron Maiden,
Thee Obsidian Chamber of Darkness,
Flex-Guardian Chastity Belts,
other ingenious restrictive
or alternative specialities,
flagrant distractions
and weirdo gear
4 U 2 save U
from U
That very same one who brought you
:woohoo:
The Ineffibly Malicious Captain Underpants
(Who is actually the polar opposite supervillian twin
brother of the superhero Captain Underpants)
and
Death Walker, Chaos Ranger.
:woohoo:

:sBo_reflection2::sBo_reflection2::yo::sBo_reflect ion2::sBo_reflection2:
Þ. Œ.
Inquiring minds want to know.
???Doesn't somebody possibly owe somebody???
???Some sort of an explanation???
???Or an apology???
...but would we see
or could it be
just another "little" white lie...

Timmy

10-22-2013, 06:25 PM

[b]...and tomorrow we begin with pointers profiling the strange case of "David M." (with pointers)...and you too can tell a troll or shill when you see one, just by identifying them with tjese pointers..so they can simply be avoided without falling pry to their deceptive and dissonance in practice simply by noting these pointers, just like if it walks and talks like a troll or shill, it probably is a troll or shill...but these pointers, well there really are not that many pointers, but they are pointers none the less. There's probably about twelve or so pointers you can use to point and see that these pointers point oit who is poimted at with more than 90% accuracy these indeed ard trolls or shills or both, just by going down the list of pointers pointing the facts out.

...and now for your information and listening pleasure,
the graves of several cultic entities, to the tune of ACDCs
HELLS BELLS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwOvhdBIOc4

Þ.Œ.:sBo_reflection2:

Timmy

10-23-2013, 03:38 AM

They will take your soul if you let them.

You cannot afford to even talk with them once realized who they really are.

Your own time, way of thinking, your activities, your words, your posessions, and ultimately your finances is what they are out to steal from you, so that if they can manage it, what was one your own will not be your own in the end. They will prostitute you like a dirty little whore, selling your soul to family, friends, and even acquaintances in hopes of gaining numbers of minions doing their bidding to build their own little empire.

They know a little persuasion making you think they are there to help you goes miles. Do you?

We wish to let you the reader know that we have your own best interest at heart in revealing these clandestine methods of infiltration, mind manipulation, and brainwashing techniques of all these soul merchants.

Whether it is some seemingly benign individual, huckster, a shifty salesman, a business, religious affiliation, cult, or authority figure matters not. Neither does it matter how little is said or even if ever extremely enforced, how the measure their programming implimentation is done.

These all have one thing in common.

They are all manipulative bastards who by whatever means possible, are out to take advantage of you. They may through congeniality and/or inducing a sense of potential loss, induce your complicity into their hidden agenda...but that is only the how of it's usual beginnings in an attempt to find even the slightest trace your support. From that point, onward, they will numb the area, just like every insidious parasite, then bite down digging their teeth in and drink your blood. They will arrest your freedom and take yoir soul if you let them. These are the psychic vampires of the 21st Century who are better off with a stake in their heart and a silver bullet in their brain.

Should you find yourself reading anything from this thread, we wish you will pass this information along to at least one friend or more
--via hyperlink, cut and paste, copy, fold, spindle, mutilate...but just get the word out about what is happening here at B.W.F.A.™--
anything at all from this thread, send it out to everyone you care enough about to save from these corrupted decadent mind bending perverts.

People such as this are Biblically referred to as "men stealers" who once having hooked you into their grasp, will make merchandise of your very soul, pimping you as prostitutes to promote their cause. In this instance of the entities behind "David M.", we see all the properties in this fine art of manipulating others at it's worst, or should we say best?

Get the news out there.

Given the chance, these manipulators will pilfer away, stealing the truth from you little by little, never admitting they are wrong always turning your attention to anything else that could keep the conversation floating. In those areas of disagreement, they will continually ignore such things, and through a sleight of mind distraction with any other issue they find you interested in, will chew away with subliminal suggestions to gain your confidence, support, and service.

I have one alterior motive: for you to remain free from even having to deal with these lying cheating deceivers who will ultimately have you whoring out your own soul for them.

The best way to keep them away? GARLIC, SUNLIGHT, AND A CRUCIFIX. No, seriously, there is appropriate analogy in these three items, we'll tell you right off the bat...or is that vamp? if you absolutely must talk with them, contradict everything they say, even if it seems completely unreasonable. Always keep in mind that these living dead monsters have no qualms about lying, tripping you up, or taking advantage of any weak point they think they might use as an inroad to your feelings, imagination, attitudes, and ultimately usurping your own ability to make decisions for yourself.
(...and there is more to the pentameter of their text than meet the eye as well. Given the right frame of mind developed through their unsavoury chatting can serve as a platform for suggestions to be accepted and attached in the framework of your consciousness. All it takes to induce a hypnotic state is a shift in emotions folks, so if you are not SOLID minded, do not give in to even reading what they write.)

It is always best to plan and practice a reasonable response, such as, "You !±£]%&¿ worthless piece of trash. Do not think for one minute I am going to waste my thoughts or time on what you and your ¤|&^@*±&^%¡$#!!! kind want from me. Go away you €&%]£=(#@!¥¡¿. You're gathering flys."

They may not leave you alone even after several instances of this, so schedule a meeting and keep one of those 70,000 volt stun guns or tasers hidden. Cut to meeting short after you get done saying everything you want to say, and should they persist, you have the very tool which works wonders in such situations.

They are adept at making mental invalids because they practice at this constantly. Do not toy or play around with anything they say because it is only meant to break up your thought patterns. Unless you are well versed in dealing with anyone that is lookimg to you to get something for nothing, beware and steer completely clear. Through your own rationale being stunned, their intent is on slipping in suggestive thoughts in tiny increments until these creatures can eat you alive.

Þ.Œ.:sBo_reflection2:

p.s. Even should those behind the "David M." mask
--which is usually the case for these types misrepresenting themselves (representing others than themselves) to steal your soul--
go silent only to be shillingly tra-la-la Tweedle D. Dumbing down others and trolling for more fertile ground elsewhere, this thread shall continue gradually picking up speed.

Hopefully until we have a quantum leapfrog type situation going on, where this information begins popping up everywhere these perps are found and more until they are realized for what they are whenever wherever they appear, we can continue adding/editing these texts until we have our first pdf article for B.W.F.™

Timmy

10-23-2013, 04:16 AM

In dedication
to all the
"David M.s"
the Whole Wide World over

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UKTg0rlvYU
Should you wish to go straight to the music with a message, this classic American rock band's song begins after the extremely long orchestral introduction...around the 2:45 minute mark.

Njoy,

Þ.Œ.:sBo_reflection2:

Timmy

10-23-2013, 10:50 AM

David M

10-23-2013, 10:35 PM

David M

10-24-2013, 01:27 AM

This concise video explains history and differences of ChristInfidelphian and our atypical Evangelical Christian. Whatever the particular genre of Christianity is your cup o' tea, near end of this video, this Brother makes soundly astute Biblical conclusions as to why one should never be found in their midst...even if we may not find ourselves so Evangelical.

He seems right about being nice to them though...

...but the Timmy know public proclamation equals public rebuke when they come insistently introducing, arguing, preaching, dropping and spraying their bat shite all over the place. This appears to be the best place to draw the line: when these types begin insisting. They earn a public campaign against those more devoted to false doctrines of their leaders than what the Bible scriptures state plain enough for a child to understand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyVmXHq-drQ[/video]

Þ.Œ.:sBo_reflection2:

Regarding this last video, I am not defending the Christadelphians, although this appears to be a criticism of them. First of all, no organization should be judged on the personal response of one or two individuals, especially as we all should be free-thinkers to study God's word and make up our own mind and express our own opinions.

The comments seem contradictory coming from what appears to be a cult i.e. 'Excatholics For Christ'. Perhaps someone will supply the facts concerning this cult and tell us what their numbers are. Are they more or less than the number of Christadelphians world-wide? I had not heard of them before watching this video, so that goes to show they might not have been around for long.

Here is a quote from their website landing page (http://www.excatholicsforchrist.com/).

Welcome To Ex-Catholics For Christ

We are a father and son ministry reaching out to Roman Catholics and others the world over.

G. Patrick Battell was a devout and practicing Catholic for 50 years until he realised the theology of Roman Catholicism was not found in the Bible. After hearing a New Zealand preacher speak about end times and an American pastor clearly articulate the Biblical plan of salvation; he repented and received Jesus as his own Saviour and Lord. God soon began using Patrick as an open-air street preacher on the streets of the UK and writing numerous articles and distributing Gospel tracts.

James was also raised and educated in Catholic schools, regularly went to mass, and was a semi-professional singer at the time of Patrick's conversion. For three years, Patrick prayed for his son and shared the Biblical message of salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone. Finally, one day James repented and received Christ as his own Lord and Saviour. James left the Catholic church as his father did, gave up his world of music; and began reaching out to other Catholics with his father Patrick.

God is graciously blessing this father and son ministry with people regularly coming to know Jesus.

This is the pot calling the kettle black. This is coming from a cult. I do not know everything they claim to believe, but I am against what they criticise the Christadelphians of. Hell is simply the grave and that is were those who are annihilated remain. The process of death and going to the grave will be done away with once everyone leads a sinless life and so when hell is cast into the lake of fire, this is simply telling us that no-one will in future go to the grave. This is because there is no more sin. The last enemy of Christ to be defeated, we are told, is death. No more death means no-one goes to the grave (hell). Hell is symbolically destroyed in the lake of fire never to exist again. That does not change what has gone before and those not resurrected remain as dust in the grave. It is as simple as that.

G. Patrick seems to have done exactly the same as Dr John Thomas or Michael Rood have done and gone against the teaching of mainstream Christendom and researched the Bible for themselves and come to very different conclusions. By independent research, it is not remarkable how that Rood's ministry and the Christadelphian's belief are almost the same. Yes, there are minor differences, but none so great as to affect salvation. I would not be so keen to follow the 'Excatholics For Christ' and accept what the gentleman in the video is telling you. I do not agree with every Christadelphian I talk with or with what has been posted on Youtube. I do not agree with every word spoken/written by Michael Rood, yet I agree with him and the Christadelphians far more than I do other ministries. Timmy has yet to be agreed with and I doubt that will happen until he comes up with sound reasoning.

It behoves us all to do our own study and listen to everyone and in the end make up our own minds. Just do not accept what anyone tells you, and do not accept those who appear to be an authority. No-one is an authority on the word of God except God himself. Jesus is the Son of God and has more understanding than anyone else, yet on one occasion, Jesus could not tell his disciples that which only God, his Heavenly Father knew. Jesus did not know, and therefore Jesus is not God. (Acts 1:7) And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

Don't believe Timmy just because he is arguing against Christadelphians, or anyone else. Timmy cannot win the argument by reasoning from the Scriptures, so he sinks to attacking the person or what he thinks is their cult and so he attacks their credibility. That says lots about him and less about the person he is attacking.

David

Timmy

10-24-2013, 11:01 AM

Hello Timmy

Your personal attack on me does you no credit. You are unable to win the argument by reasoning from the Bible, so instead, you aim to somehow discredit me. I continue to reason from the Bible and I suggest you do the same and stay on topic. I have no intention of lying to anyone and if you cannot accept my explanations and reasons, then that is your bad. I do not try to discredit you, no matter what I think of some of your posts; good or bad.

We shall both stand before the righteous judge in the day of judgement and so you will have to account for your personal attack on me, as I shall have to account for myself and how I speak of others.

Shalom

David
This post will tear apart the six sentences from above, posted by these
--hash tag: #Twig D'vdiaM.s--
who operate by corrupt, self aggrandising ridicule.

Iif the two thread posts before this by the unthink tank advising and directing hir to write "David M.s" words doesn't clarify enough, we should provide you with running commentary as this unfolds

Their problem is not that they have not been given enough light. Their problem is that they cannot see because they are blind. Satan has blinded the minds of these who decide not to believe in God (or FTM, the powers that be) as He reveals Himself in the Bible.

It is just that simple.

Do not think for one split second these slaves of satan do not know they are corrupt. Even saved sisteren and bruthahs know they are corrupt; but these false religions thrive on their pride over their own human achievements instead of honoring God in Jesus Christ and what He has done to save us.

Your personal attack on me does you no credit.See there, these Twig D'vdiaM.s are already convoluting the issue. Right off the bat, first sentence and they are posing with a lie that this is supposed to be a certain "David M."

This is not a personal attack as they assume. Even what they are saying though, get this: the truth of what we are relating actually is doing none of them any good.

Watch how they try to mask and cover up what this thread is all about by:
--insinuation
--lying about their identity
--distracting attention from the very issues exposing them
--reiterate lies already told
--attempt to shame you
--act like they are some judge and jury authority figure
--use their misunderstanding of scripture to invoke compliance
--and more, but these are main issues revealed out from a six sentence response.

You are unable to win the argument by reasoning from the Bible, so instead, you aim to somehow discredit me.Hir methods here are exposed in the fact as previously stated above in this thread. When they cannot accept the truth from the Bible, they resort to accusations of the very things they are far more guilty of themselves. We do not have to win any argument because using correct grammar in context with what is written, the Bible does not say what these kult pimped scripture twisters make-believe and misunderstand about God, angels, and prophecy as revealed.

Is it needless to say their damnation of being cast into the pitch black pit burning sulfur in their screwed up unreasoning cannot happen to them?

More than anything else, seeing what i had written under a thread title denying Jesus is God is the why there was no more interaction by the Timmy on that thread. From the onset of that thread attempting to reason from the scripture with hir was met with:
--avoidance,
--misinformation
--disinformation

Blindly they cannot see and deaf they cannot hear. Being blind, deaf,and dumb really puts a hamper on any type of reasonable conversation. Is it any wonder attempts to communicate were realized as an exercise in futility?

First, in dealing with these folks in that thread designed to call God a liar, when the truth of proper interpretation was shown, they employed distraction in as many ways possible. Usually by sleight of mind, "David M."s were pointing to other things rather than any contrary premise proposed. Then deviantly were thinking to slip something under the radar. Seeing this does not work (with the Timmy) and many here who are much smarter, they employed different means to quell the truth. They never once directly answered or faced up to anything said, and rather sought ways to divert attention avoiding issues put directly in front of their faces.

With swiftly dying interest, one last attempt to show how Jesus as God, only as God deserves receives worship (and does miraculous things for those who need it when worshipping Him); but, those apes have only said something to the tune of “i/WE disagree, but you know that i/WE would”.

Between skirting the issues placed before them, never answering what was shown, as well as twisting word meanings wrenching words out of context, you eventually just throw up your hands and pray because these folks are without God and have no hope for any future, except as kindling for eternal flames.

I continue to reason from the Bible and I suggest you do the same and stay on topic.Who in the name of Y'shua do you think you are?

How can you say you reason from the Bible? Show every one of us here on forum where all this Biblical reasoning is. You are a bald faced no good two bit lying whore for the CrystalInfidelphians who are pimping you out like yesterdays laundry. You have no mind of your own only listening and doing what they tell you.

You are so out of touch with reality, you do not even understand the basis enabling rational decision, corrupting even this Law of Non-Contradiction.

You are a chimp and a moronic simp...WHERE's MY TASER???

You people claim that what was written for your benefit was refuted and we are not able to reason from the scriptures? Here is your first challenge. Provide a straightforward answer to this post proving anything other than Jesus is God! (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2803-Jesus-is-not-God&p=58577#post58577)

I have no intention of lying to anyone and if you cannot accept my explanations and reasons, then that is your bad.None of you people have given any reasonable answers in light of the facts, and i challenge you one-on-how ever many of you there are to go head to head each of us responding to everything said from each other and just show how deaf, dumb, and blind you really are.

This curiosity would just love to see you people placed on display.

You do not have to intend on lying when you do not understand what a contradiction is. It comes naturally. Whether actual or fake, sincerity is no sign of truth.

The above tells why you cannot even distinguish truth from a lie

So, to reiterate:
Let's see here???

Y'all don't understand the very foundation of logic from which all reasoning is made possible, so what of anything you write can be considered reasons?

For the above reason, no explation you foist is trustworthy. So, why should anyone accept a lie believed by a simp chimping what others tell them to say?

Mary, you are a mindless trollop of a moron: a programmable cyberwhore who is a slave to your CrystalInfidelphian pimps.

I do not try to discredit you, no matter what I think of some of your posts; good or bad. Maybe you should. Maybe you as well should trace the routing of my internet protocol, get my HDID info and see that i am as real as the day is long.

I couldn't care less what you think or say about anything posted from this quarter. You have chosen a fate far worse than the results coming to Sodom and Gomorrah on judgment day. Don't let me stand in your way. Rush headlong that way. This is what you want. Don't let Timmy stop you. Just stay far enough away from me, because neither of us realize when that curtain shall fall for you. I would hate to be anywhere nearby when the results from what you are doing to yourself and others finally slaps you down to the ground.
We shall both stand before the righteous judge in the day of judgement and so you will have to account for your personal attack on me, as I shall have to account for myself and how I speak of others.You will have to account and find the reasons you think you are justified.

I shall not be accounting for anything beyond how El Elyon in His mercy reanimated this body three times...probably just to deal with all the falsehood everywhere and perpetually contend for The Truth, The Way, and The Life: Y'shua Ha'Mashiach being God: my righteous judge is both my barrister and jury. We are on a first name basis communicating together often. He is my Big Brother, my Friend and has yet to lead me wrong. So, i choose to remain His slave.

BTW, do not even consider that any of this is any way different than how Y'shua my righteous God, King, Master, Judge, Advocate, Jury, Brother, and Friend did while on earth, because it is not...unless along with your blindness, you read the records accounting how He dealt with any religious obstructionist through rose colored glasses.

May you come to admit you never really understood God is all about you having a personal relationship with Him, and nothing you attempt to do of moral goodness is anything but less than worthless until you accept and declare Y'shua is Kurios/Lord/God of you.

If you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Kurios[/Lord/God],” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. One believes with the heart, resulting in righteousness, and one confesses with the mouth, resulting in salvation. Now the Scripture says, Everyone who believes on Him will not be put to shame, for there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, since the same Lord of all is rich to all who call on Him. For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
Romans 10.9-13

Þ.Œ.:sBo_reflection2:

Timmy

10-24-2013, 03:09 PM

David M

10-25-2013, 10:14 AM

Timmy

10-25-2013, 10:49 AM

Hello Timmy

How you have changed. I can only put this down to your medication. Carry on like this and I would hope Richard bans you until you start speaking in a sane manner again. Sadly, you are going the way of kathryn.

I will overlook your insults this time.

David

Should we feel special or something for your benevolence oh, oivey Twig D'vdiaM.s?

Quit acting like a baby and man up.

Just answer what, for the third time was placed before you, or continue being recognized for what you do here...as you keep on playing the fool. You are so out of touch with reality, you do not even understand the basis enabling rational decision, corrupting even the Law of Non-Contradiction.

You people claim that what was written by me for your benefit was refuted and we are not able to reason from the scriptures? Here is your first challenge.Provide a straightforward answer to this post proving anything other than Jesus is God! (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2803-Jesus-is-not-God&p=58577#post58577)

If you are too stupid to understand?
That different colored sentence is something you take a mouse and click on, and then answer that post.

Is it that all you distraction artists are so easy to distract, like that is your nature or something or is it something else???

Oh, that's right, now we remember...

We completely understand your confusion.

That tourniquet of a noose you made for yourself and pulled tight around your own neck not only cut off the oxygen supply to that feeble mind, but your neural pathway was severed when your spinal chord became completely detached from your skull.

Doesn't your skull feel numb at all?

As far as what you hope? Put that in one hand and pinch a loaf in the other. Then come back and report to us which one fills up faster.

Þ.Œ.:sBo_reflection2:

David M

10-25-2013, 10:51 AM

Here is a response to the quote from Romans 10:9 which Timmy has used.

If you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Kurios[/Lord/God],” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. One believes with the heart, resulting in righteousness, and one confesses with the mouth, resulting in salvation. Now the Scripture says, Everyone who believes on Him will not be put to shame, for there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, since the same Lord of all is rich to all who call on Him. For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

Note that it is God who raised Jesus from the dead. Timmy has added the word God which is not necessarily correct.

The word kurios is defined by Strong as:
2962. kurios, koo'-ree-os; from kuros (supremacy); supreme in authority, i.e. (as noun) controller; by impl. Mr. (as a respectful title):--God, Lord, master, Sir. We have several alternatives besides the title of God.

Hence kurios is a title not the person. Jesus (Yahshua) is lord. He is the one we should follow and hear and obey. Psalm 110 is a case where the meaning of Lord and who is being spoken about needs to be understood, for in this case, we have two lords.
(Psalm 110:1)The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Go figure!

For a clue; (1 Cor 15:24)Then cometh the end, when he (Jesus) shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he (Jesus) shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he (Jesus) must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
This is why God give Jesus (his Son) all power and all authority to do this. Without God's power Jesus could do nothing. (John 5:19)Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. (John 14:28) my Father is greater than I.

David

Charisma

10-25-2013, 12:09 PM

Hi David,

There is no difference between this comment

Timmy has added the word God which is not necessarily correct.

and 'Hath God said...' in Genesis 3, straight out of the mouth of the serpent.

Ephesians 1
17 '... the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory ... 20 ... raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places ...'

If you're not familiar with this piece of scripture - which seems likely since you don't seem to know about it - it will still be there when you look for it. :yo:

Timmy

10-25-2013, 12:30 PM

Here is a response to the quote from Romans 10:9 which Timmy has used.

Note that it is God who raised Jesus from the dead. Timmy has added the word God which is not necessarily correct...

WHAT FOLLOWS SHOWS PLAINLY IT IS NECESSARILY CORRECT...
...with a colorful commentary to boot.

”David M.", the Twig D'vdiaM.s cyber-whore.
They lie about who they really are.
They deny Jesus equals God.
They are lying to you.
Deceiving Bastards
They are all liars.
They are liars.
These lying
Liars
Lie.

John 10:
17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
Since Jesus lays down His life having both the power to lay it down and possess it again Himself, and it is God who raises Jesus from the dead Himself, then the only possible conclusion is that Jesus Himself is God Himself (in physical form).

Name any human from Adam's seed that can truthfully declare these same words Jesus does.

It is of necessity correct that Jesus is the very flesh of God.

Tweedle Dum is lying to you saying the exact opposite is true. This zombified cyber-whore from hell lives for the purpose of becoming your favorite parasite. These written responses from this poppet are blatantly obvious example of the zombified Hot Vessel Cadaver caught in the act of whoring themselves out for their CrystalInfidelphian pimp.

The 21st Century psychic mosquitoes:
These pesky parasites keep returning
to fill themselves on your life blood.
Unless you smack them...squish them
They will suck out your vital fluids.

THEY ARE ALL HYPOCRITICAL LYING DECEPTIVE VANDALS FROM HELL:
TRYING TO FIND OUT HOW TO GET YOU TO GIVE THEM YOUR MONEY;
TRYING TO SCREW UP YOUR REASONING TO STEAL EVEN MORE;
PROMOTING LIES THAT CAN DAMN YOU TO BURN IN HELL.

There is not one righteous human on earth worthy to be raised from the dead.

Never has there ever been any human who is the seed of Adam that could be a perfect sacrifice for sin and it's devastating consequences of: confusion, corruptions, sickness, disease, poverty, lack, death, destruction and so on.

All of Adam's seed comes from the Earth.

Y'shua, the seed of the woman, came from heaven, where no seed from Adam's sin natured flesh dwells, nor can any.

John 11:
25 Jesus said unto her, I Am the resurrection, and the life:he that believeth in Me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: 26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in Me shall never die. Believest thou this?
Who but God alone can lay down and pick up their life just because they decide to do this?
Except for God, who is the resurrection and the life=ZOE-->(not the biological BIOS life of mortal dying humans).

<=> <=> <=> <=> <=> <=> <=> <=> <=> <=>

John 3:
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
John 6:
33 For the bread of God is He which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 51 I Am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever:and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

The issue of names is being twisted by Mz. Monkeyshine, just like (s)he does when denigrating Biblical titles.

In the Greek Sept., the name of God is transliterally "ego ami" instead of our Hebrew way of writing "I Am". These claims Y'shua makes , preceeded with "Ego Ami" all through the book of John are claims only God is, does, or possesses; yet the Twig D'vdiaM.s insist he is only saying "I am he". This is a failure to account for the fact that Aramaic was the naturally spoken language of all Hebrews throughout Y'israel and Palestine, and this is the reason the religious leaders back then called Y'shua a blasphemer being very clear He was claiming to be God...and not because as these people who speculate come along assuming these events that happened with Greek speaking Hebrews, which is virtually an impossible anomaly, if not a contradiction of values for any Roman hating Jew.

You might think since David is all so much for that expatriot Rood, he might have at least heard something concerning the above fact from Rabbi Gordon--(who has revealed to us he received a substantial CHA~CHING chunk of change whenever he was hired by Rood to speak).

Kurios is also used to replace Adonai in the Greek Old Testament. Adonai is a Title of God used in preference to the tetragrammaton of Ha'Shem: Yaweh.

David need to get a whole lot more realistic and actually think through these issues instead of staking claims upon assumptions based upon misunderstandings or a lack of knowledge about our people and traditionally virtually unchanging culture with the use of proper Biblical linguistics in relation to these two extremely relevant factors.

Þ.Œ.:sBo_reflection2:

Thank you one and all who have sent your kind comments via PM and email to the Timmy here on the "What Kills the Thrills of Shills" show.

In the following post, sent in by thr cyber-whoring spawn of Hell hirself, you can clearly observe how when they cannot stand up to some of the most basic truths about Jesus, and rather than admitting they are proclaiming lies (and in this very process lying even more), make an appeal to your emotions.

If any have questions about how this thread is doing them thar' zombified cyber-whores a favor helping expose their lies to themselves and others in efforts to prevent their sudden destruction and then consumately burn in hell.

Note how they do not even respond to anything disproving their deceptions, but instead make an appeal to the emotions as though that is going to alter any facts concerning their lies.

if you do not turn up the heat yourself, it seems as if you might just be fencing :fencing: with a cloud.

David M

10-25-2013, 10:30 PM

Hi David,

There is no difference between this comment

and 'Hath God said...' in Genesis 3, straight out of the mouth of the serpent.

Ephesians 1
17 '... the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory ... 20 ... raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places ...'

If you're not familiar with this piece of scripture - which seems likely since you don't seem to know about it - it will still be there when you look for it. :yo:

Hello Charisma

Thank you for making your point and I shall answer you. Before I do, I must ask you; do you agree with Timmy’s tone of language directed at me? If you do not, why do you not stand up and denounce his language and speak out to persuade him to moderate his language? This goes for anyone who does not agree with his name calling and calling me “CrystalInfidelphian Twig D'vdiaM.s are lying theiving whores THROUGH AND THROUGH” and those goes for other brethren in Christ who would not use this type of language against a fellow-believer ought to speak out and condemn Timmy.

If we believe in the promise of God and believe John 3:16 and that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, we should be brethren and sisters in Christ. We should not be as those in the world calling each other names and using corrupt language. While we are in Ephesians consider the words of Paul in Eph 4:31 Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: 32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.

Now to answer you. I do not know what you expect me to understand from the one verse you have quoted (Eph 1:17, 20). You make out that I have not read these verses before. I would point out that Paul opens the chapter by addressing both God and Jesus the Christ as two separate beings. Paul never says Jesus is God. For every verse that might suggest otherwise, there are scores of verses to the contrary and Paul does not speak of Jesus as equal to God the Creator. The verse you quote is making the distinction between God and Jesus. Which he (God) wrought in Christ, when he (God) raised him (Jesus) from the dead, and set him (Jesus) at his (God’s) own right hand in the heavenly places, You have here God referred to three times and Jesus or Christ referred to three times. Three times we have both referred to as separate beings.

Paul always makes the distinction between God the Father and Jesus (the Christ) as the Son of God. Any time that distinction is not clear, then we should examine the words to see how they have been translated and we should see the context in which the words are used. The majority makes the distinction between God the Father and Jesus the only begotten Son and that is what I believe; the same I understand Paul believed. It is for you to argue against every verse where Paul makes the distinction.

I have quoted many verses in my replies and no-one comes back and explains the verses to me in a way that I should understand them differently from what I do. For example, (1 Cor 15:24) Then cometh the end, when he (Jesus) shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; In future please explain verses like this, if you think I am understanding them incorrectly. This verse is not speaking of Jesus and God as the same person.

This conversation needs to go back to the thread where it belongs where we are discussing the nature of Jesus and reasons for saying Jesus is, or is not God. I will not elaborate any more in this thread.

I am now bowing out of this thread and shall possibly bow out of any further communication with Timmy until he moderates his language. I am prepared to be insulted for my faith in Jesus and God (his Heavenly Father) by those in the world who know no better, but not by brethren-in-Christ who should know better. It is up to other brethren and sisters in Christ to admonish Timmy for his tone of language towards another brother.

All the best
David

Timmy

10-26-2013, 04:38 AM

:ranger:

:blah::blah::blah:

:blah::blah:

:blah::blah::blah::blah: The living dead gurl just can't stop

Timmy's going to keep calling a spade: "spade". Unminced words showing how you shilling trolls would steal anything your grubby fingers can grip.

"David M.", who claims not to be defending the CrystalInfidelphians, in hir post above is all about defending the CrystalInfidelphians.

It is copied to a word .doc for posterity.

There is an appeal there for an answer concerning how Jesus is God seperate yet the same in being with the Father yet denies the meaning of the She'ma as explained. From past experience, with the immediately aforementioned information to consider, why should anyone think of those appeals as anything other than another ploy from this trolloping tart??

Þ.Œ.:sBo_reflection2:

duxrow

10-26-2013, 06:05 AM

"But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth". Colossians 3:8
David, I agree about the smut, even though not very interested in the God vs Jesus debate. Better subjects to zero in on, IMO.

"Let brotherly love continue", Heb 13, reminds me how Philadelphia actually means 'brotherly love'... hah :yo:

Timmy

10-26-2013, 06:33 AM

:yo:Dux,:icon_hello:

Since that Tweedle brought this up a few days ago, a text has been undergoing preperation in answer to those false accusations. Just curious though, how do you come off considering someone denying what God clearly reveals declaring their lying deceptions as any sort of bretheren?????

They are not for God or HiS Son or you. They deny our great God and Savour who bought us setting us free from the kingdom of darkness.

As darkness is, so darkness is exposed.

That CrystalInfidelphian is lying to lie about the lying (s)he lies about. Just one thing out from the many lies of "David M." in hir post to Charisma to point this out.

Hir position and claim is that Paul never pointed to the fact that Jesus is God, so all shall be shown that this too just another bald faced lie by this truth twisting thief, who even couches their deception amidst appeals for sympathy:

I speak the truth in Christ —I am not lying; my conscience is testifying to me with the Holy Spirit— that I have intense sorrow and continual anguish in my heart. For I could almost wish to be cursed and cut off from the Messiah for the benefit of my brothers, my own flesh and blood. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the temple service, and the promises. The ancestors are theirs, and from them, by physical descent came the Messiah who is God over all, praised forever. Amen.
Romans 9.1-5

Þ.Œ.:sBo_reflection2:

duxrow

10-26-2013, 06:48 AM

Haven't paid much attention to your dispute with David, but the 'ugly' got my attention --
not the kind of language I expect from anyone who confesses Jesus Christ. :thumb:

Timmy

10-26-2013, 07:05 AM

Dear Bob,

What you are saying is completely understood.

One thing you may not realize though. From the Bible itself, Jesus Himself, as did Paul and Peter profane the false ways and religious leaders of their day with words that were not even to be spoken...worse than swearing in those times, and physically punishable ,too. If you read Hebrew or Greek,you will not see all the flowery language that the english Bibles seem to imply.

Why did Paul say, I could everything less than "excrement" compared to his relationship with Y'shua...but he uses a Greek word that was disgusting to even mention back then.

Why did Elijah holler to the prophets of Ba'al, "Maybe the reason Ba'al can't hear you is because he is "taking a dump".

Throughout Scripture, in contrast to what is right and true, what is false is graphically defamed.

In the footsteps of my Master, His prophets, and His servants,

Þ.Œ.:sBo_reflection2:

Charisma

10-26-2013, 07:11 AM

Hi David,

To answer your first paragraph to me, again your approach looks like the diversionary tactics of which Timmy accuses you.

If you had accepted the open, plain meaning of scripture in the first few weeks after appearing in the forum and starting the questionable thread in question, you would have shown yourself tender and sensitive to truth.

Instead, you have shown yourself wedded to a fleshly interpretation of the Bible, some of which you have never read, or, have never read with any real understanding, which, at the heart of this interpretation, denies the gospel in its entirety. That FACT that you believe a fiction doesn't even seem to trouble you, even though it is clearly troubling to Timmy, who has spent hours replying to your faulty and deadly (to those who accept/believe it) doctrine.

Here is the sacrednamebible's rendering of the verses Timmy posted from Romans 9. The truth could not be clearer.

1 I say the truth in MASHIYACH, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,

2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.

3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from MASHIYACH for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service, and the promises;

5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh MASHIYACH came, who is over all, ELOHIYM blessed for ever. Amen.

6 Not as though the word of ELOHIYM hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

If you cannot 'see' Elohiym in v 5, and if you don't understand it even if you do, then you need to start asking questions about what you've been taught.

That verse is saying that Messiah is Elohiym. NOthing could be clearer.

Either you believe the scripture, or you are believing a made-up form of religion which has plucked a lot of ideas from the Bible, but has no power to save your soul and bring you through into the next world, no matter how much you want it to be true. Because IT IS NOT TRUE.

For any 'gospel of Jesus Christ' to be true, in its exposition, the flesh-life of the believer has to be crucified. That includes what goes on in the intellect and mind. If you are dead in Christ, buried in His grave with Him where He took your sin forever, then you don't have a mind of your own, and you don't have fleshly desires you cannot overcome, and you don't believe garbage about Jesus being 'not God'. Because by then, you are convinced HE IS GOD.

I haven't read the rest of your post, but when I do, I may not answer if I think it is a waste of time.

Btw, I don't answer to God for Timmy's choice of words; he does.

And that is the same principle by which you will be judged.

How entertained do you think God is, that you are doing despite to the Spirit of His grace, which seeks to draw you out of the jaws of hell through His death and resurrection which you are required to believe in the terms He Himself proclaimed it: not in the terms made up by some mere mortal to excuse their own sins?

Let me tell you. He is sorrowful at the prospect of having to close the door of the bridechamber in your face. Unless you repent, you WILL be outside.

duxrow

10-26-2013, 07:36 AM

Duly noted, Tim, but don't see it that way..

Elijah -- Elisha - (1Kings17 to 2Kings13)

Elijah and then Elisha were two prophets chosen by God,
They followed one after the other, but not like two peas in a pod.
The differences between them were substantial; they weren’t alike at all,
Except in their duty to God, and in the way they obeyed his call.

ELIJAH would call down fire! — Be careful what you say or do,
‘Cause he would prove that God is real, and make it hot for you.
ELIJAH takes it on himself to see that things get done,
He does it in the Name of God — they didn’t yet know of the Son.

But he’s always very hungry and gets fed miraculously,
by the ravens and the widow, and the angels by the Juniper tree.
The Word of God hadn’t yet been born when ELIJAH walked the earth,
and his hunger would not be abated until the spiritual bread came forth.
So when his job was over and his replacment was on board,
He threw his mantle to Elisha and into the heavens he soared.

‘If you see me taken up’, ELIJAH told Elisha,
then the double-portion, that you’ve asked, is granted...
Sure enough he got his wish, ‘cause he saw ELIJAH go,
and he received the thing for which his heart had panted.

Now ELISHA was completely different — he didn’t use fire at all,
It was WATER that he specialized in, and he had a servant at his beck and call.
He had no trouble with food; he healed it and caused it to grow,
His double-portion of the Holy Spirit cured all manner of woe.
The power of the Spirit in ELISHA went deep into his bones,
When a dead man accidentally touched them, he raised right up and ran home!:eek:

Elijah was like John the Baptist, whose ministry introduced Christ,
and Elisha was a type of Jesus, who brings us the Living Water of Life.
Together they’re yoked to the chariot of God: they’re two birds of a feather,
It’s the Old Testament and the New Testament, spiritually harnessed together.
There’s more to this story than can be told in verse, and more than meets the eye,
If you ever expect to contend with the horses, don’t look for pie in the sky.
The Chariot of Fire that came for Elijah, is the spiritual vessel of GOD,
To bring us the secrets of Scripture, and show how our feet should be shod. :yo:

duxrow

10-26-2013, 08:06 AM

1K18:27 And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked. [siyach, siyg, derek, yashen]

Likewise; I've also taken liberty with scripture and added "or bathroom break", usually to try and wake some sleepers... hah! :sEm_oops:

Richard Amiel McGough

10-26-2013, 08:15 AM

The disaster of having your life cluttered and controlled by false religion of any type, particularily a cult:
It's leaders pick your pockets, deceive your mind, and damn your soul to hell, all the while hypocritically acting like they are righteous, holy, devout, with all the garbalia to appear as though their outward appearance hides what's in their heart.

Timmy,

I've been getting some complaints about your posts. They are becoming needlessly rude and some (who don't even agree with David M) see them as abusive. It is a wonderful thing to be passionate about your beliefs, but it I think you have gone a bit over the line. Please reign yourself in.

Thanks,

Richard

Timmy

10-26-2013, 10:38 AM

Timmy,

I've been getting some complaints about your posts. They are becoming needlessly rude and some (who don't even agree with David M) see them as abusive. It is a wonderful thing to be passionate about your beliefs, but it I think you have gone a bit over the line. Please reign yourself in.

Thanks,

RichardWe saw this coming when the Timmy was first nominated, before ever being voted in as the new spokesperson to represent the Seducing Spirits Defamation League, and this years Dunderhead Sweepstakes Anathema Awards Ceremony. We shall PM you from corporate headquarters and negotiate this whole issue concerning biased cognitive dissonance and the thin skinned who are for these liars and not against them.
:peep:
Until this is completely resolved and parameters are clear, all:

--scathing rebuke against those promoting dark demonic deceptions;
--descriptions of their characteristically vile nature or their viciious modus operendi
--and, details how to avoid them until the stench of their sizzling flesh rises as smoke from eternal flames;
can abate right here right now FTTB, no matter how ludicrous or factual any mocking alegory be.

Well, at least the posts got the points across, among other things...or nothing would have been said.
Thank you for the warning,:hide: Richard.

If the Big Kahuna is not happily hosting,
The Timmy will not be happily posting.

In the meantime, Timmy shall several times over repeatedly head on out to a wide open space under the big sky and laugh myself numb enough to reconstitute this spite against these slaves of satan.

:thumb:Shalom with you and yours,:hippie:

Aside from the recipe due Rose--(a fave packed away somewhere amongst those boxes),--and contacting you as stated, we may return on forum in about six weeks.

Timmy

11-01-2013, 08:11 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9mJ82x_l-E

Timmy

11-03-2013, 07:09 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUvVdTlA23w

David M

12-20-2013, 03:42 AM

Hir position and claim is that Paul never pointed to the fact that Jesus is God, so all shall be shown that this too just another bald faced lie by this truth twisting thief, who even couches their deception amidst appeals for sympathy:

I speak the truth in Christ —I am not lying; my conscience is testifying to me with the Holy Spirit— that I have intense sorrow and continual anguish in my heart. For I could almost wish to be cursed and cut off from the Messiah for the benefit of my brothers, my own flesh and blood. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the temple service, and the promises. The ancestors are theirs, and from them, by physical descent came the Messiah who is God over all, praised forever. Amen.
Romans 9.1-5

Þ.Œ.:sBo_reflection2:

I have some catching up to do having been absent for some weeks. I note from a note to Rose by Timmy, it looks like Timmy might be gone for 6 weeks (from the time of his posting). What is not amazing by the likes of Timmy and those supporting him, is his use of erroneous translations. It is all the mis-translations, including those in the KJV, that I wish we can correct and know what is the true meaning that we are meant to understand. I am for comparing different translations if it helps get to the truth.

I have read the verses cited by Timmy (Romans 9; 1-5). I have gone to my PC Bible which has the KJV and this is what is written; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Look how Timmy is saying; "Messiah who is God over all". That is not what the KJV is saying. The KJV is saying; Christ is over all and is God blessed. Christ is over all, because God has given him that position and authority. It has been given Jesus the Christ by the higher authority that Jesus recognized was the higher authority. Now answer for yourself the question; when was Jesus the Christ given that authority? Likewise answer the converse question; when did Jesus not have the authority?

That is why I cannot accept what Timmy says. Let Timmy start reasoning correctly. We have to wait for his whole argument to be presented as to why Jesus is God to outweigh my argument that Jesus is not God. In saying that, I do not take away from God; the only ONE God and Creator to whom all praise, honor and glory is due.

David

David M

12-20-2013, 04:34 AM

Hello Charisma

Hi David,

To answer your first paragraph to me, again your approach looks like the diversionary tactics of which Timmy accuses you. Now you are repeating what others have wrongly assumed. There has not been a diversion on my part and that will never be my intention. I have given you my reasoning at length. I have yet to get the same from you.

If you had accepted the open, plain meaning of scripture in the first few weeks after appearing in the forum and starting the questionable thread in question, you would have shown yourself tender and sensitive to truth.I am not going to be sensitive towards people's feelings who I see as perverting the word of God. If I am treading on your sensitive toes, I make no apology. Do you consider you might be treading on my toes?

Instead, you have shown yourself wedded to a fleshly interpretation of the Bible, some of which you have never read, or, have never read with any real understanding, which, at the heart of this interpretation, denies the gospel in its entirety. That FACT that you believe a fiction doesn't even seem to trouble you, even though it is clearly troubling to Timmy, who has spent hours replying to your faulty and deadly (to those who accept/believe it) doctrine.Obviously, you have similar beliefs to Timmy, which is why you are supporting him. I have countered the false logic in Timmy's argument. I am willing to reason with anyone, and up to now, I cannot agree with Timmy's reasoning. If you want to get down to serious study of God's word, then I am with you. Always look at yourself in the mirror when writing. I do not think I am the one holding on to fictions. Let us reason this out.

Here is the sacrednamebible's rendering of the verses Timmy posted from Romans 9. The truth could not be clearer.

1 I say the truth in MASHIYACH, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,

2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.

3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from MASHIYACH for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service, and the promises;

5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh MASHIYACH came, who is over all, ELOHIYM blessed for ever. Amen.

6 Not as though the word of ELOHIYM hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:I see this is your favorite translation and which in another reply to you, I had to point out the way it did not agree with the KJV. However, in this case, the words in question in verse 5 I agree are the same as the KJV. It is Timmy's words that have distorted the meaning and he has not quoted the words you are citing. I have responded to Timmy's reply in my post before this reply, so I expect you to see what I am saying. Timmy has distorted the words written to fit in with his own idea.

If you cannot 'see' Elohiym in v 5, and if you don't understand it even if you do, then you need to start asking questions about what you've been taught.

That verse is saying that Messiah is Elohiym. NOthing could be clearer. You are clearly showing that even you cannot read the words on the page without superimposing your false notion. The words in verse 5 are saying that Christ is over all and is God blessed. Why do you not understand that in the way I do?

Either you believe the scripture, or you are believing a made-up form of religion which has plucked a lot of ideas from the Bible, but has no power to save your soul and bring you through into the next world, no matter how much you want it to be true. Because IT IS NOT TRUE.You are saying silly things about what you think I believe. My understanding has not been plucked out of the air. I have considered what all other religions have to say and the many different Christian religions included. I am reasoning these things out according to everything I have read or listened to. If you want me to believe what you believe, then you have to explain your belief to me and give me the answers found in scripture. You have your opportunity to show me the way to salvation, so please begin; I am listening.

For any 'gospel of Jesus Christ' to be true, in its exposition, the flesh-life of the believer has to be crucified. That includes what goes on in the intellect and mind. If you are dead in Christ, buried in His grave with Him where He took your sin forever, then you don't have a mind of your own, and you don't have fleshly desires you cannot overcome, and you don't believe garbage about Jesus being 'not God'. Because by then, you are convinced HE IS GOD.You want me to be a cabbage and accept your teaching; how ludicrous is that. Even Rose in he signature quotes from Isaiah (1:18) Come now, let us reason together. Reason involves intellect. I am being taught by the word of God. I will debate with you all day long from the word of God. Are you up to the challenge? We can begin by agreeing this (John 17:3) And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

I haven't read the rest of your post, but when I do, I may not answer if I think it is a waste of time.In that case, I am wasting my time giving you at length my reasons based on the word of God if you do not read my reply. I would hope you take time to read my replies, because they are not intended to deceive, but to get you to reason for yourself. Please don't do what you are accusing me of doing.

Btw, I don't answer to God for Timmy's choice of words; he does.I am glad you are not using the same expletives as Timmy. However, in your citing Romans 9:5 and regardless of the words in the Sacrednamebible, you have ignored the words written in the Sacrednamebible in favor of Timmy's words.

And that is the same principle by which you will be judged. and YOU!!

How entertained do you think God is, that you are doing despite to the Spirit of His grace, which seeks to draw you out of the jaws of hell through His death and resurrection which you are required to believe in the terms He Himself proclaimed it: not in the terms made up by some mere mortal to excuse their own sins?I am not looking to excuse my sins in any way. You are full of presumption about me. I accept Jesus as my God-given Saviour and I believe in the resurrection and the Kingdom of God. Do you want to give an answer to what is the criteria by which people are saved and was is the criteria by which only the "few will be saved"?

Let me tell you. He is sorrowful at the prospect of having to close the door of the bridechamber in your face. Unless you repent, you WILL be outside.Charisma; how can you be so judgemental? Can you speak for God? I repented when I was baptized. That does not mean I have remained perfect. It is only through Jesus I can be presented before his Heavenly Father as faultless. The same goes for you. Whether we can agree the nature of Jesus (God or man) or not, does not change that fact. The means of salvation has been set by God and him alone.

I suggest you think about the term humility and how that was demonstrated by Jesus and how that should apply to everyone including you and me.

How can we both please God, given we have our different understanding at this point in our lives? Here is what is written in Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Can you say of me that I am not diligently seeking Him? How do you make your judgement?

I wish you well.

David

Richard Amiel McGough

12-20-2013, 10:44 AM

I have some catching up to do having been absent for some weeks. I note from a note to Rose by Timmy, it looks like Timmy might be gone for 6 weeks (from the time of his posting). What is not amazing by the likes of Timmy and those supporting him, is his use of erroneous translations. It is all the mis-translations, including those in the KJV, that I wish we can correct and know what is the true meaning that we are meant to understand. I am for comparing different translations if it helps get to the truth.

I have read the verses cited by Timmy (Romans 9; 1-5). I have gone to my PC Bible which has the KJV and this is what is written; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Look how Timmy is saying; "Messiah who is God over all". That is not what the KJV is saying. The KJV is saying; Christ is over all and is God blessed. Christ is over all, because God has given him that position and authority. It has been given Jesus the Christ by the higher authority that Jesus recognized was the higher authority. Now answer for yourself the question; when was Jesus the Christ given that authority? Likewise answer the converse question; when did Jesus not have the authority?

That is why I cannot accept what Timmy says. Let Timmy start reasoning correctly. We have to wait for his whole argument to be presented as to why Jesus is God to outweigh my argument that Jesus is not God. In saying that, I do not take away from God; the only ONE God and Creator to whom all praise, honor and glory is due.

David

Welcome back, David!

:welcome:

We both know that it doesn't matter what any particular translation says. What matters is what the Greek or Hebrew says, and most importantly, means. Here is a literal word for word translation:

ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.

who - is over all - God - blessed - unto the ages - amen

The meaning of this sentence is ambiguous. It can be read either as saying that Christ is "God over all" or that Christ is "God blessed over all". The NIV gives an example of the first possibility:
NIV Romans 9:5: Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
But there is nothing that proves it either way, it can't be used as a "proof text" of anything.

The fact that the words "over all" refer to Christ coheres well with the doctrine that Christ is God because Ephesians 4:6 uses exactly the same words, saying that God is "over all". But you counter that Christ did not always have the authority "over all" but was given it after his resurrection. That's a pretty good point, but it can be explained away by anyone who wants to believe that Christ is God, so there is no way anyone could ever know if their beliefs are correct since they could just as well believe the opposite and "explain away" all the verses that contradict what they want to believe.

I found this helpful post (http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2004/11/christs_divinit.html) that lists the interpretations of the most prominent scholars, which gives about 2 to 1 in favor of the interpretation that says Christ is God:

Scholars concluding that Rom 9:5 does not ascribe deity to Christ (not that Paul doesn't but that this verse doesn't):
Meyer (1872), Abbott (1881), Burkitt (1903-1904), Lietzmann (1933), Gaugler (1952), Luz (1968), Reicke (197?), Kuss (1976), Schweizer (1976?), Robinson (1979), Kaesemann (1980), Wilckens (1980), Zeller (1985), Luebinkg (1986), Dunn (1988), Schmithals (1988), Ziesler (1989), Stuhlmacher (1994), Byrne (1996)

Scholars concluding that Rom 9:5 does intend to call Christ God:
Calvin (1540), Haldane (1958), Stuart (1862), Dwight (1881), Hodge (1886), Liddon (1893), Shedd (1879), Gifford (1886), Moule (1887), Sanday and Headlam (1902), Denney (1904), Zahn (1910), Sickenberger (1923), Dodd? (1932), Lenski (1936), Nygren (1944), Lagrange (1950), Huby (1957), Leenhardt (1957), Schlatter (1959), Schmidt (1963), Fahy (1965), Murray (1965), Michel (1966), Best (1967), Schlier (1977), Althaus (1978), Cranfield (1979), Metzger (1980), De Villiers (1981), Bruce (1985), Morris (1988), Harris (1992), Fitzmyer (1993), Stott (1994), Mounce (1995), Moo (1996), Schreiner (1998)

All the best,

Richard

David M

12-20-2013, 01:01 PM

Welcome back, David! Thank you Richard. I will finish off our other discussion soon. I have not forgotten that I need to rebut some of your statements.

We both know that it doesn't matter what any particular translation says. Yes. I agree. However, since I am not a Greek or Hebrew scholar, anything you put forward to me from the Greek or Hebrew text has to be supported by other scholars and according to the text they are using. However, I will be inclined to go with what I consider is the more consistent with all of God's word.

What matters is what the Greek or Hebrew says, and most importantly, means. Here is a literal word for word translation:

ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.

who - is over all - God - blessed - unto the ages - amen

The meaning of this sentence is ambiguous. It can be read either as saying that Christ is "God over all" or that Christ is "God blessed over all". The NIV gives an example of the first possibility:
NIV Romans 9:5: Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
But there is nothing that proves it either way, it can't be used as a "proof text" of anything.The words are not ambiguous to me. With the order of words as they are written and translated, the "who" is obviously referring to Christ. It is he (Christ), who "is over all". This is with the understanding that God has delegated his authority to his only begotten son. I do not accept there is an ambiguity in the words of Romans 9:5.

The Greek text you use is the same as found on; http://www.greekbible.com/index.php When consulting the text, the following pop-up comes up.
* Please Note: Because of limitations in our source data (our lexical database does not have accents) the information on this page may be inaccurate. At this time there is no way for us to improve this precision. In many/most cases this data is correct, but always consult another lexicon before relying on this data.

I use the diaglott only for convenience and not for any other reason. The dialglott has the same wording in Greek and an almost identical translation. Here is an image taken from the diaglott.
1021
Again, I see no ambiguity. If Timmy has objections to me using the Diaglott, and if he can give me a more authoritative source text which can be accessed by computer, then I do not mind switching to that text.

The fact that the words "over all" refer to Christ coheres well with the doctrine that Christ is God because Ephesians 4:6 uses exactly the same words, saying that God is "over all". Yes, God is overall; even over Christ. This is confirmed by 1 Cor 15:27 For he (God) hath put all things under his (Jesus) feet. But when he (God or Jesus) saith all things are put under him (Jesus), it is manifest that he (God) is excepted, which did put all things under him (Jesus).
The passage you cite from Ephesians goes on to speak of Christ and does not infer that Christ is God.

But you counter that Christ did not always have the authority "over all" but was given it after his resurrection. That's a pretty good point, but it can be explained away by anyone who wants to believe that Christ is God, so there is no way anyone could ever know if their beliefs are correct since they could just as well believe the opposite and "explain away" all the verses that contradict what they want to believe. Christ has certainly been given all authority which will be demonstrated when he returns to set up the Kingdom. Before this, we do not see Jesus having any power until he was baptized and given access to the Holy Spirit. Jesus was given access. God gives, Jesus receives. We are told that God performed the miracles (by God's power through Jesus. (Acts 2:22) Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

I found this helpful post (http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2004/11/christs_divinit.html) that lists the interpretations of the most prominent scholars, which gives about 2 to 1 in favor of the interpretation that says Christ is God:

Scholars concluding that Rom 9:5 does not ascribe deity to Christ (not that Paul doesn't but that this verse doesn't):
Meyer (1872), Abbott (1881), Burkitt (1903-1904), Lietzmann (1933), Gaugler (1952), Luz (1968), Reicke (197?), Kuss (1976), Schweizer (1976?), Robinson (1979), Kaesemann (1980), Wilckens (1980), Zeller (1985), Luebinkg (1986), Dunn (1988), Schmithals (1988), Ziesler (1989), Stuhlmacher (1994), Byrne (1996)

Scholars concluding that Rom 9:5 does intend to call Christ God:
Calvin (1540), Haldane (1958), Stuart (1862), Dwight (1881), Hodge (1886), Liddon (1893), Shedd (1879), Gifford (1886), Moule (1887), Sanday and Headlam (1902), Denney (1904), Zahn (1910), Sickenberger (1923), Dodd? (1932), Lenski (1936), Nygren (1944), Lagrange (1950), Huby (1957), Leenhardt (1957), Schlatter (1959), Schmidt (1963), Fahy (1965), Murray (1965), Michel (1966), Best (1967), Schlier (1977), Althaus (1978), Cranfield (1979), Metzger (1980), De Villiers (1981), Bruce (1985), Morris (1988), Harris (1992), Fitzmyer (1993), Stott (1994), Mounce (1995), Moo (1996), Schreiner (1998)This might help your case in support of what you once believed, but I am happy to to go along with the minority in this case. Call Romans 9:5 moot if you want to by claiming it ambiguous, but I am confident we can find more evidence to support the claim that Jesus is not God. Once this is done, it means we have to come back and accept Romans 9:5 is also saying the same thing.

I appreciate this method of discussing the Bible to get to the truth.

All the best,

David

Richard Amiel McGough

12-20-2013, 01:56 PM

Thank you Richard. I will finish off our other discussion soon. I have not forgotten that I need to rebut some of your statements.

Good afternoon David,

Maybe we should let that other conversation rest for a while since it seems we can't find agreement about things that seem to me to be extremely basic, such as how to state a logical contradiction. The choice is up to you.

I will be inclined to go with what I consider is the more consistent with all of God's word.

And that tangles you up in the problem of the hermeneutic circle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutic_circle):
The hermeneutic circle describes the process of understanding a text hermeneutically. It refers to the idea that one's understanding of the text as a whole is established by reference to the individual parts and one's understanding of each individual part by reference to the whole. Neither the whole text nor any individual part can be understood without reference to one another, and hence, it is a circle. However, this circular character of interpretation does not make it impossible to interpret a text; rather, it stresses that the meaning of a text must be found within its cultural, historical, and literary context.
This is a real problem for folks who seriously want to believe what the Bible really teaches rather than some "man-made doctrines" they may have learned from some fallible human teacher. I find it fascinating because of its self-referential nature: we can't understand the parts without understanding the whole, and we can't understand the whole without understanding the parts. And more to the point:

Folks who begin by believing that Christ is God will explain away all the verses that say he is not.
Folks who begin by believing that Christ is not God will explain away all the verses that say he is.

So the question is this: How is a person supposed to know which belief to start with? This is the problem of the hermeneutic circle. It's a "chicken and egg" kind of problem.

The words are not ambiguous to me. With the order of words as they are written and translated, the "who" is obviously referring to Christ and it is he (Christ), who "is over all" who is referred to. I do not accept there is an ambiguity in these words.

You don't understand the Greek language so there is no way for you to judge if they are ambiguous or not. The fact that they are ambiguous seems pretty obvious from the divided opinions of the experts. If they were not ambiguous, the scholars would be forced to agree with one interpretation or the other. As it stands, the scholars are against your interpretation two to one. I think it is significant that most scholars disagree with most of your opinions about the Bible. This seems to suggest that you are basing your opinions on something other than the facts of what the Bible actually says. I would think this would concern you very much, since you want to believe what the Bible really says, right?

Yes, God is overall; even over Christ. This is confirmed by 1 Cor 15:27 For he (God) hath put all things under his (Jesus) feet. But when he (God or Jesus) saith all things are put under him (Jesus), it is manifest that he (God) is excepted, which did put all things under him (Jesus).
The passage you cite from Ephesians goes on to speak of Christ and does not infer that Christ is God.

I quoted the passage from Ephesians to show that Christ and God are both "over all". But if there is only one who is "over all" then this would imply that Christ is God. You counter that God the Father is over God the Son. That's fine. It consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity.

This might help your case in support of what you once believed, but I am happy to to go along with the minority in this case. Call Rom 9:5 moot if you want to claiming ambiguity, I am confident we can find other evidence that once supoorted, means we can come to accept Romans 9:5 as supporting evidence that Jesus is not God.

It doesn't prove things either way. The only thing it proves is that the passage is sufficiently ambiguous to divide many scholars.

I appreciate this method of discussing the Bible to get to the truth.

Me too. That's why I'm more interested in having these kinds of conversations rather than rehashing old conversations that we couldn't resolve.

Great chatting,

Richard

David M

12-20-2013, 05:24 PM

Hello Richard

Good afternoon David,

Maybe we should let that other conversation rest for a while since it seems we can't find agreement about things that seem to me to be extremely basic, such as how to state a logical contradiction. The choice is up to you. The thread needs to be closed along the lines that we cannot agree on the basis of the difference between English-English and and American-English. A couple of points came out of a recent programme I watched dealing with the search for the original language(s).

And that tangles you up in the problem of the hermeneutic circle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutic_circle):
The hermeneutic circle describes the process of understanding a text hermeneutically. It refers to the idea that one's understanding of the text as a whole is established by reference to the individual parts and one's understanding of each individual part by reference to the whole. Neither the whole text nor any individual part can be understood without reference to one another, and hence, it is a circle. However, this circular character of interpretation does not make it impossible to interpret a text; rather, it stresses that the meaning of a text must be found within its cultural, historical, and literary context.Do you not think that God inspired his word to be written down in a way that all cultures would be able to understand it. What if God wrote in on the basis of the culture God wanted people to follow and not the culture they have developed for themselves? The Ten Commandments can apply to all cultures, hence it is your Golden Rule for mankind.

This is a real problem for folks who seriously want to believe what the Bible really teaches rather than some "man-made doctrines" they may have learned from some fallible human teacher. I find it fascinating because of its self-referential nature: we can't understand the parts without understanding the whole, and we can't understand the whole without understanding the parts. And more to the point:

Folks who begin by believing that Christ is God will explain away all the verses that say he is not.
Folks who begin by believing that Christ is not God will explain away all the verses that say he is.

So the question is this: How is a person supposed to know which belief to start with? This is the problem of the hermeneutic circle. It's a "chicken and egg" kind of problem.There has to be a beginning and not a repeating cycle. That used to be the theory about the universe; that it would stop expanding and would contract again to a singularity and then expand again. There is no proof or evidence of that.
I would rephrase your sentence and say that we could know the big picture without seeing all the smaller pictures making up the big picture. It is like a collage in which from a distance you see the image, but as you get close, you cannot see the big picture, but instead can only see smaller pictures. We can only see as much as God has revealed. God knows things that have not entered the mind of man. God is outside the bubble looking in and can see the big picture, whereas man is on the inside of the bubble looking out and can never see himself from the perspective God has.

You don't understand the Greek language so there is no way for you to judge if they are ambiguous or not. Does not your understanding of the Greek language depend on what you have learnt or been taught and that might vary according to where you got your learning. Are you adept at keeping up with the changes in the Greek language as it changed over the years?

The fact that they are ambiguous seems pretty obvious from the divided opinions of the experts. If they were not ambiguous, the scholars would be forced to agree with one interpretation or the other. As it stands, the scholars are against your interpretation two to one. I think it is significant that most scholars disagree with most of your opinions about the Bible. This seems to suggest that you are basing your opinions on something other than the facts of what the Bible actually says. I would think this would concern you very much, since you want to believe what the Bible really says, right?I would probably be agreeing with the majority if the ratio had been say 1000:1 for Jesus being God. The fact is the case for saying Jesus is God is not overwhelming. Whatever we think is the nature of Jesus, it does not alter God's plan of salvation and what God has in store for those who love and fear him.
It would be good to see all the different renderings of the Greek text that the different scholars are using and the different words used in the translation of each text.
As it the case of the exposition of Job, I highly recommend you watch the six-part series and see the Biblical exposition used by the speaker's to come to his conclusions. The speaker has studied over 40 expositions on the Book of Job and still can come up with an explanation and conclusion that all of those studies seem to have missed. 40:1 still makes the possibility of the one being right.

I quoted the passage from Ephesians to show that Christ and God are both "over all". But if there is only one who is "over all" then this would imply that Christ is God. You counter that God the Father is over God the Son. That's fine. It consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity. From what you are saying, please now explain to me 1 Corinthians 15:27, which I have quoted showing Jesus is subordinate to God and not equal. While on the subject, do you disagree with Timmy who thinks Jesus and God are one of the same and God morphs between the two?

It doesn't prove things either way. The only thing it proves is that the passage is sufficiently ambiguous to divide many scholars. The passage in Romans 9:5 is quite clear unless you bring forth another Greek text with different Greek words. The Greek words as presented in the Greek text you presented and confirmed with the two Greek texts I have seen elsewhere are highly similar in the English words used in translation. That verse by itself if not ambiguous. Unless you deliberately slant the translation that you have presented as Timmy has done by quoting from a translation that significantly changes the sense to fit in with the idea that Jesus is God, then that is adding confusion that is otherwise not there. This is all part of the perverting of God's word by the same people who pervert the word of Paul which they fail to understand. Anyone who thinks Paul is a false prophet clearly does not understand Paul's writings and his in depth knowledge of the ancient Jewish scriptures. If Paul was seeing the signs then of the corruption creeping in, then we are witnessing far more corruption nowadays. I think we can weed out the corruption by those who no way can be considered to be scholarly by rightly dividing the word of scripture. God has told us that there will be those blind to God's word. God has told us that the Jews will remain blind until the spiritual veil is lifted and they can see clearly. The Jews are blind now the same as when they were blind to who Jesus was 2,000 years ago. God knows why and God tells us as it is. God also tells us that the veil causing their spiritual blindness will be taken away. God tells us what will happen to cause the veil to be lifted. You want proof, maybe you might be alive to see the Jews brought to the point where they have to call on God to deliver them. That is when God will respond and they will recognize Jesus as the Messiah, the one who they killed and failed to recognize as The Prophet spoken of by Moses. The veil will be lifted, God has said it will and his promise is sure. How do you explain how the lifting of the veil will come about? If you think that all prophecy has been fulfilled, when was the veil lifted and why do the Jews today still wait for the Messiah to come?

Me too. That's why I'm more interested in having these kinds of conversations rather than rehashing old conversations that we couldn't resolve.Are we likely to resolve any problem in the Bible if you conclude everything is ambiguous? You replied to my saying; "God is ONE" by saying that is ambiguous. I disagree. One is one and not three. Isaiah 45 could not state this any more clearly. There is none else beside God. There is nothing cyclic about minus infinity to plus infinity. There is nothing cyclic about a beginning and an end. God's plan is not cyclic, so any cyclic interpretation cannot be. It is the failing of man, if we do not understand what God has written and made know to us. If you think everything is ambiguous, then you have given yourself an excuse for never coming to understand.

If you start from Genesis 1 and study the Old Testament only, where does it talk of God being three in one?

Great chatting,

David

Richard Amiel McGough

12-20-2013, 06:51 PM

Hello Richard

The thread needs to be closed along the lines that we cannot agree on the basis of the difference between English-English and and American-English. A couple of points came out of a recent programme I watched dealing with the search for the original language(s).

Hey there David, :tea:

I don't see how I could close the thread on that basis because I don't recall any of our differences being based on British English vs. American English. On the contrary, my use of the words "and yet" and my definition of a contradiction conform perfectly with the definitions given in the Oxford Dictionary (produced by authorities on British English). As far as I can tell, the points which I have been pressing for well over a year are entirely valid and have been proven beyond question. I suggested we take a break from discussing it because it seems you are simply unwilling to admit the truth and I don't see any value in haranguing you about such basic errors.

Do you not think that God inspired his word to be written down in a way that all cultures would be able to understand it. What if God wrote in on the basis of the culture God wanted people to follow and not the culture they have developed for themselves? The Ten Commandments can apply to all cultures, hence it is your Golden Rule for mankind.

I can't see how we could think that God inspired his word to be "understood" by anyone in any culture, given the outrageous controversy and division it creates among those who most fervently claim to believe it.

The Ten Commandments are highly specific to the Hebrew culture. They command obedience to the Hebrew God Yahweh and the Hebrew custom of the Sabbath. They are nothing like the Golden Rule which is the true basis of universal morality. And worse, the Ten Commandments are literally immoral in as much as they teach teach that women are property owned by men.

There has to be a beginning and not a repeating cycle. That used to be the theory about the universe; that it would stop expanding and would contract again to a singularity and then expand again. There is no proof or evidence of that.
I would rephrase your sentence and say that we could know the big picture without seeing all the smaller pictures making up the big picture. It is like a collage in which from a distance you see the image, but as you get close, you cannot see the big picture, but instead can only see smaller pictures. We can only see as much as God has revealed. God knows things that have not entered the mind of man. God is outside the bubble looking in and can see the big picture, whereas man is on the inside of the bubble looking out and can never see himself from the perspective God has.

Well, you don't really know if there is a God, let alone what he "knows". We should probably begin with things we both know we know. I get the impression you didn't really "get' the problem of the hermeneutical circle. We were discussing one verse - Romans 9:5 (a small picture) - and whether or not it implied that Christ was God. You said you preferred the interpretation which would be "more consistent with all of God's word". That's what made me think of the hermeneutic circle. You based your rejection of the small picture because of the big picture you assume is true. And why do you think the big picture is true? Because of the way you have interpreted many of the small pictures. I tried to make this clear for you by comparing the two different beliefs:

Folks who begin by believing that Christ is God will explain away all the verses that say he is not.
Folks who begin by believing that Christ is not God will explain away all the verses that say he is.

As I said, the question is this: How is a person supposed to know which belief to start with? This is the problem of the hermeneutic circle. It's a "chicken and egg" kind of problem. It would be interesting if you could explain why you think a person should start with one belief over the other.

You don't understand the Greek language so there is no way for you to judge if they are ambiguous or not.
Does not your understanding of the Greek language depend on what you have learnt or been taught and that might vary according to where you got your learning.

Are you suggesting that my understanding of this particular Greek passage could have been influenced by biased scholarship? Why would you suggest that? I haven't even begun to explain the meaning of the verse. I only demonstrated that it is sufficiently ambiguous to cause a HUGE division among the scholars. Where's the bias in that?

You, on the other hand, declared quite adamantly (and with no foundation in the Greek text) that there was no ambiguity. That seems odd since the ambiguity can be seen even in the English translation. It's ambiguous because its meaning can be totally changed by the mere placement of a comma which doesn't exist in the Greek text. I get the impression you don't understand what "ambiguous" means. In this context, it refers to a single sentence that could legitimately have two or more interpretations. For example, "I saw a girl with a telescope." Does that mean used a telescope to see the girl, or that I saw a girl who possessed a telescope?

I would probably be agreeing with the majority if the ratio had been say 1000:1 for Jesus being God. The fact is the case for saying Jesus is God is not overwhelming. Whatever we think is the nature of Jesus, it does not alter God's plan of salvation and what God has in store for those who love and fear him.

If the ratio were a 1000:1 then the verse would certainly not be ambiguous. The fact that the ration is not so clear indicates that the verse is ambiguous. That was my point.

It would be good to see all the different renderings of the Greek text that the different scholars are using and the different words used in the translation of each text.
As it the case of the exposition of Job, I highly recommend you watch the six-part series and see the Biblical exposition used by the speaker's to come to his conclusions. The speaker has studied over 40 expositions on the Book of Job and still can come up with an explanation and conclusion that all of those studies seem to have missed. 40:1 still makes the possibility of the one being right.

Here's a good explanation about the various interpretations I found in Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the NT. He was a Harvard professor of Greek.

====== BRUCE METZGER ON ROMANS 9:5 =======================
Since the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament are without systematic punctuation, editors and translators of the text must insert such marks of punctuation as seem to be appropriate to the syntax and meaning. The present passage has been the object of much discussion as to whether or not Paul intended to refer qeo,j to o` Cristo,j. The chief interpretations are the following:

Placing a comma after sa,rka and referring the following words to o` Cristo,j (“… who is God over all, blessed for ever”).
Placing a point (either a colon or a full stop) after sa,rka and taking the following words as a clause independent of o` Cristo,j. (Several translations are possible: “God who is over all be blessed for ever!”; or “He who is God over all be blessed for ever!”; or “He who is over all is God blessed for ever.”)
Placing a comma after sa,rka and a point (a colon or a full stop) after pa,ntwn. (This, which is a modification of (b), is to be translated, “… who is over all. God be [or, is] blessed for ever!”)

In deciding which punctuation should be used, the Committee was agreed that evidence from the Church Fathers, who were almost unanimous in understanding the passage as referring to o` Cristo,j, is of relatively minor significance, as is also the opposing fact that four uncial manuscripts (A B C L) and at least twenty-six minuscule manuscripts have a point after sa,rka, either by the first hand or by subsequent correctors. In both cases the tradition, whether patristic or palaeographical, originated at a time subsequent to Paul’s writing (i.e. dictating; cf. 16.22) the passage, and is therefore of questionable authority.

On the one hand, some members of the Committee preferred punctuation (a) for the following reasons:

The interpretation that refers the passage to Christ suits the structure of the sentence, whereas the interpretation that takes the words as an asyndetic doxology to God the Father is awkward and unnatural. As Westcott observes, “The juxtaposition of o` Cristo.j kata. sa,rka and o` w'n k)t)l) seems to make a change of subject improbable.”3

If the clause o` w'n k)t)l) is an asyndetic doxology to God the Father, the word w;n is superfluous, for “he who is God over all” is most simply represented by o` evpi. pa,ntwn qeo,j. The presence of the participle suggests that the clause functions as a relative clause (not “he who is …” but “who is …”), and thus describes o` Cristo,j as being “God over all.”
Pauline doxologies, as Zahn points out, are never asyndetic but always attach themselves to that which precedes: with o[j evstin (Ro 1.25); with o` w;n (2 Cor 11.31); with w|- (Ga 1.5; Tm 4.18; cf. He 13.21; Pe 4.11); with auvtw|/ (Ro 11.36; Eph 3.21; cf. 1 Pe 5.11; 2 Pe 3.18); with tw|/ de. qew|/ (Php 4.20; 1 Tm 1.17).
Asyndetic doxologies, not only in the Bible but also in Semitic inscriptions, are differently constructed; the verb or verbal adjective (euvloghto,j, Heb. %WrB', Aram. %yrIB.) always precedes the name of God, and never follows it, as here.
In the light of the context, in which Paul speaks of his sorrow over Israel’s unbelief, there seems to be no psychological explanation to account for the introduction of a doxology at this point.

On the other hand, in the opinion of others of the Committee, none of these considerations seemed to be decisive, particularly since nowhere else in his genuine epistles does Paul ever designate o` Cristo,j as qeo,j. In fact, on the basis of the general tenor of his theology it was considered tantamount to impossible that Paul would have expressed Christ’s greatness by calling him God blessed for ever. As between the punctuation in (b) and (c), the former was preferred.
The Committee also considered the possibility that by accident in transcription o` w;n had replaced an original w-n o` (cf. the preceding ver. 4 w-n h` ui`oqesi,a … , ver. 5 w-n oi` pate,rej), but was unwilling to introduce a conjectural emendation into the text.
========== END OF BRUCE METZGERS COMMENTARY ======================

I think it would be great if you would try to explain what you think of Bruce Metzger's review of this topic. If nothing else, I would hope you now will admit that there is plenty of ambiguity in the Greek.

From what you are saying, please now explain to me 1 Corinthians 15:27, which I have quoted showing Jesus is subordinate to God and not equal. While on the subject, do you disagree with Timmy who thinks Jesus and God are one of the same and God morphs between the two?

It appears you don't understand the doctrine of the Trinity. It does not say that the Father is "equal" to the Son. That wouldn't make any sense at all. I will answer your other questions after you indicate that you understand and have corrected your error, or explain why it's not really an error. Obviously, it would be pointless to dispute the Trinity if you don't understand what the doctrine teaches.

The passage in Romans 9:5 is quite clear unless you bring forth another Greek text with different Greek words. The Greek words as presented in the Greek text you presented and confirmed with the two Greek texts I have seen elsewhere are highly similar in the English words used in translation. That verse by itself if not ambiguous. Unless you deliberately slant the translation that you have presented as Timmy has done by quoting from a translation that significantly changes the sense to fit in with the idea that Jesus is God, then that is adding confusion that is otherwise not there.

Your assertions are simply false. Anyone who knows anything about the Greek text knows that it is very ambiguous. I quoted an extended discussion of this by scholar Bruce Metzger. You need to address the ambiguity of the text. It is meaningless to merely assert that your interpretation is the only possible interpretation when scholars are divided two to one against your position.

Anyone who thinks Paul is a false prophet clearly does not understand Paul's writings and his in depth knowledge of the ancient Jewish scriptures. If Paul was seeing the signs then of the corruption creeping in, then we are witnessing far more corruption nowadays. I think we can weed out the corruption by those who no way can be considered to be scholarly by rightly dividing the word of scripture. God has told us that there will be those blind to God's word. God has told us that the Jews will remain blind until the spiritual veil is lifted and they can see clearly. The Jews are blind now the same as when they were blind to who Jesus was 2,000 years ago. God knows why and God tells us as it is. God also tells us that the veil causing their spiritual blindness will be taken away. God tells us what will happen to cause the veil to be lifted. You want proof, maybe you might be alive to see the Jews brought to the point where they have to call on God to deliver them. That is when God will respond and they will recognize Jesus as the Messiah, the one who they killed and failed to recognize as The Prophet spoken of by Moses. The veil will be lifted, God has said it will and his promise is sure. How do you explain how the lifting of the veil will come about? If you think that all prophecy has been fulfilled, when was the veil lifted and why do the Jews today still wait for the Messiah to come?

Maybe I am the one who is blind. Maybe you are. The only way to tell is to see who is dealing with what the Bible actually says and who is supporting their position with evidence. I have presented much evidence that the text is ambiguous and all you have done is assert your personal belief without any evidence at all. By an objective standard, you appear to be the one who is blindly, that is, without evidence, following a preconceived belief.

Are we likely to resolve any problem in the Bible if you conclude everything is ambiguous? You replied to my saying; "God is ONE" by saying that is ambiguous. I disagree. One is one and not three. Isaiah 45 could not state this any more clearly. There is none else beside God. There is nothing cyclic about minus infinity to plus infinity. There is nothing cyclic about a beginning and an end. God's plan is not cyclic, so any cyclic interpretation cannot be. It is the failing of man, if we do not understand what God has written and made know to us. If you think everything is ambiguous, then you have given yourself an excuse for never coming to understand.

David, YOU are the one who said that the word "one" can be "used in different ways" which means it is ambiguous. You have been confused on this point for a long time. Here is the summation of our conversation that I presented in post #592 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2803-Jesus-is-not-God&p=59882#post59882) in the thread Jesus is not God (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2803-Jesus-is-not-God&p=59882#post59882):

You are the one who says the Bible is "ambiguous"! You constantly say words don't mean what they obviously mean because that is how you force your dogmas upon the Bible. You twist words so that Satan is not a personal being and "angels" doesn't mean angels, etc., etc., etc. We've covered a hundred topics where you twist words. Here is one of my favorite examples (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2803-Jesus-is-not-God&p=58338#post58338):

David: Either God is ONE or he is not.

Richard: Not true! The word "ONE" is ambiguous.

David: "One" in the sense of united, I agree with.

Richard: Thanks for proving my point. When the Bible says that "God is one" you take it one way, and when Jesus says he and the father are "one" you take it in another way. Your doctrine requires that the meaning of the word "one" be quite ambiguous, so you can not insist that the Trinity contradicts the fact that God is one. It all depends upon how you interpret the meaning of the word "one". All Trinitarians believe God is One. It is a fundamental aspect of the Doctrine of the Trinity. So if you want to prove that the Doctrine of the Trinity contradicts the Bible you will have to prove which definition of "one" is intended and show that the Trinity contradicts that definition. Good luck with that!

You are also playing with words which is what you like to do as a wordsmith. What if we look up the word "one" in the dictionary, how many uses of the word will we find? I shall now go off and look up the word in an online dictionary.... I am back here is the definition from Websters;

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...0&t=1382953561 (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/one?show=0&t=1382953561)
Full Definition of ONE
1: being a single unit or thing <one day at a time>
2a: being one in particular <early one morning>
b: being preeminently what is indicated <one fine person>
3a: being the same in kind or quality <both of one species>
b (1): constituting a unified entity of two or more components <the combined elements form one substance> (2) : being in agreement or union <am one with you on this>
4a: some 1 <will see you again one day>
b: being a certain individual specified by name <one John Doe made a speech>
5: only 2a <the one person she wanted to marry>
See one defined for English-language learners »

See one defined for kids »

So there you have it. Proof that the word "one" can be used in different ways. When God says be is ONE. That means a singularity of 1. When Jesus uses the word "one" he is not referring to a singularity because he says; "I AND my Father..", which is referring to two people and not a singularity of one person as God is saying.

Wow. That's really, really weird David. You proved MY point, and when I thanked you for proving my point, you went and proved it again as if you didn't understand a word I wrote. So let me spell it out for you: Look again at our interaction. YOU are the one who implied that there is only one possible meaning of "one" when you said that "Either God is ONE or he is not." That statement implies that there is only one meaning of "one" in that context. The word "either" would not apply if there were more than one possible meaning. This struck me as ridiculous because I knew that you base most of your doctrines on the ambiguity of words, so I brought your inconsistency to your attention, saying "Not true! The word 'one' is ambiguous." And how did you answer? By choosing one of the many different meanings of "one" and so you CONFIRMED the truth of my comment without even realizing it. And then when I thanked you for confirming my point, you ignored what I wrote and confirmed it yet again! Dude, don't you see what you did?

It would be good if you could write something that indicates you understand what we have been talking about.

If you start from Genesis 1 and study the Old Testament only, where does it talk of God being three in one?

If you start from Genesis 1 and study the Old Testament only, where does it talk about the messiah being killed for our sins and resurrected on the third day?

Many NT teachings are not found in the OT. That's why the Jews are not Christians.

Great chatting, my friend!

Richard

David M

12-21-2013, 05:24 AM

Hello Richard

I will answer your other questions after you indicate that you understand and have corrected your error, or explain why it's not really an error. Obviously, it would be pointless to dispute the Trinity if you don't understand what the doctrine teaches.

I am stopping right here. I am prepared to respond as you have requested before reaching this point. I have complied against my will in the past in other threads and I am not doing so again. I expect you to answer my question first and I will respond to your reply. I am not letting you dictate when you will answer my questions. Unless you answer the question now, we stop this conversation here.

This is why we need a rule book to guide our conversations. The rule is; we answer each others questions at the time asked and not answered only if we ask a question to be answered first.

I shall wait for your answer before continuing to read on.

David

Richard Amiel McGough

12-21-2013, 08:44 AM

Hello Richard

From what you are saying, please now explain to me 1 Corinthians 15:27, which I have quoted showing Jesus is subordinate to God and not equal. While on the subject, do you disagree with Timmy who thinks Jesus and God are one of the same and God morphs between the two?

It appears you don't understand the doctrine of the Trinity. It does not say that the Father is "equal" to the Son. That wouldn't make any sense at all. I will answer your other questions after you indicate that you understand and have corrected your error, or explain why it's not really an error. Obviously, it would be pointless to dispute the Trinity if you don't understand what the doctrine teaches.

I am stopping right here. I am prepared to respond as you have requested before reaching this point. I have complied against my will in the past in other threads and I am not doing so again. I expect you to answer my question first and I will respond to your reply. I am not letting you dictate when you will answer my questions. Unless you answer the question now, we stop this conversation here.

This is why we need a rule book to guide our conversations. The rule is; we answer each others questions at the time asked and not answered only if we ask a question to be answered first.

I shall wait for your answer before continuing to read on.

David
Good morning David,

I did answer your question. I explained that it was based on the false assertion that the doctrine of the Trinity teaches that the Father is "equal" to the Son. The only correct answer to a question based on a false assumption is to expose the false assumption.

It seems to me that my response conforms to your rule. I asked a question that had to be answered before I could respond further.

As for your refusal to respond to all my other long and detailed answers, that's your choice. It looks like a dodge to me, but if you are happy behaving this way then who am I to tell you what to do? I dictate nothing. You are free to reply as you please.

All the best to you my friend,

Richard