Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The real definition of a sinner.
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Michael Christ
May 3, 2013, 9:26:05 PM5/3/13
to
The real definition of a sinner is a whore.
And believe me, man-made christians, a part-time whore is every bit
the same as a full-time whore.
Michael Christ
And believe me, man-made christians, a part-time whore is every bit
the same as a full-time whore.
Michael Christ
Barry OGrady
May 3, 2013, 9:36:51 PM5/3/13
to
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Michael Christ
========================
Glady says
>there is change within a species to another species as the individuals age.
dolf
May 3, 2013, 10:55:56 PM5/3/13
to
On 4/05/13 11:36 AM, Barry OGrady wrote:
> On Fri, 3 May 2013 18:26:05 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
> <jesusisth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The real definition of a sinner is a whore.
>>
>> And believe me, man-made christians, a part-time whore is every bit
>> the same as a full-time whore.
>
> Nobody believes you.
>
Barry O'Grady's atheism as pestilence in a Christian discussion forum
> On Fri, 3 May 2013 18:26:05 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
> <jesusisth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The real definition of a sinner is a whore.
>>
>> And believe me, man-made christians, a part-time whore is every bit
>> the same as a full-time whore.
>
> Nobody believes you.
>
for a decade due to compulsive and repetitive behaviour might be
considered sin.
"The next thing is that only G-d can comprehend His true Being; we
simply cannot. But to fully understand that we’d need to point out that
there are two perspectives from which to approach G-d: first, as He is
Himself, within His own Essential Being, where He’s said to be
“transcendent” (beyond us); and second, as He is when He relates to His
created phenomena and is said to be “imminent” (close to us).
Let’s quickly make ourselves clear, though. Make no mistake about it --
there's only one G-d, and He is who He is wherever He is and from
whichever perspective we’re referring to. We’re merely referring to when
we can experience Him or when we can’t.
When G-d is alone in His own Essential Being, He is utterly, utterly
unfathomable and out of our experience. That’s to say that it's as
impossible to grasp Him when He's in His own Being as it is to fully and
truly grasp what's on someone's mind at any one moment." [(c) 2013 Rabbi
Jaakov Feldman, The Way of G-d, Section 1 - “The Fundamental Principles
of Reality” www.torah.org]
- http://www.torah.org/learning/ramchal/classes/class2.html
dolf
May 3, 2013, 10:59:43 PM5/3/13
to
The Apostle Paul's view of Celibacy and The Way appears equivalent to
the Dead Sea Scroll Community's abstinence in the Damascus Document.
Apostle Paul on wives and virgins: "There is difference also between a
wife and a virgin. The unmarried {agamos-unmarried [G22]: #1, #3, #1,
#40, #70, #10, #200 = #325} woman careth for the things of the Lord,
that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married
careth for the things of the world, *how she may please her husband*."
[1Corinthians 7:34]
That's right folks he's talking about sex and that marriage is concerned
with things of the world and not Christ: "For do I now persuade men, or
God? or do I seek to *please men*? for if I yet pleased men, I should
not be the servant of Christ." [Galatians 1:10]
- dolf
- http://www.dolfboek.com/grapple.html
the Dead Sea Scroll Community's abstinence in the Damascus Document.
wife and a virgin. The unmarried {agamos-unmarried [G22]: #1, #3, #1,
#40, #70, #10, #200 = #325} woman careth for the things of the Lord,
that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married
careth for the things of the world, *how she may please her husband*."
[1Corinthians 7:34]
That's right folks he's talking about sex and that marriage is concerned
with things of the world and not Christ: "For do I now persuade men, or
God? or do I seek to *please men*? for if I yet pleased men, I should
not be the servant of Christ." [Galatians 1:10]
- dolf
- http://www.dolfboek.com/grapple.html
Barry OGrady
May 3, 2013, 11:37:16 PM5/3/13
to
On Sat, 04 May 2013 12:55:56 +1000, dolf <dolf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 4/05/13 11:36 AM, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 May 2013 18:26:05 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>> <jesusisth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The real definition of a sinner is a whore.
>>>
>>> And believe me, man-made christians, a part-time whore is every bit
>>> the same as a full-time whore.
>>
>> Nobody believes you.
>>
>
>Barry O'Grady's atheism as pestilence in a Christian discussion forum
>for a decade due to compulsive and repetitive behaviour might be
>considered sin.
It might not and who cares anyway?
>On 4/05/13 11:36 AM, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 May 2013 18:26:05 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>> <jesusisth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The real definition of a sinner is a whore.
>>>
>>> And believe me, man-made christians, a part-time whore is every bit
>>> the same as a full-time whore.
>>
>> Nobody believes you.
>>
>
>Barry O'Grady's atheism as pestilence in a Christian discussion forum
>for a decade due to compulsive and repetitive behaviour might be
>considered sin.
>"The next thing is that only G-d can comprehend His true Being; we
>simply cannot.
because you are stoopid!
>But to fully understand that we’d need to point out that
>there are two perspectives from which to approach G-d: first, as He is
>Himself, within His own Essential Being, where He’s said to be
>“transcendent” (beyond us); and second, as He is when He relates to His
>created phenomena and is said to be “imminent” (close to us).
is near.
>Let’s quickly make ourselves clear, though. Make no mistake about it --
>there's only one G-d, and He is who He is wherever He is and from
>whichever perspective we’re referring to. We’re merely referring to when
>we can experience Him or when we can’t.
>When G-d is alone in His own Essential Being, He is utterly, utterly
>unfathomable and out of our experience. That’s to say that it's as
>impossible to grasp Him when He's in His own Being as it is to fully and
>truly grasp what's on someone's mind at any one moment."
>[(c) 2013 Rabbi
>Jaakov Feldman, The Way of G-d, Section 1 - “The Fundamental Principles
>of Reality” www.torah.org]
Thought so!
Please no mention of the torah. Try to keep this clean.
Barry OGrady
May 3, 2013, 11:37:49 PM5/3/13
to
On Sat, 04 May 2013 12:59:43 +1000, dolf <dolf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The Apostle Paul's view of Celibacy and The Way appears equivalent to
>the Dead Sea Scroll Community's abstinence in the Damascus Document.
Its nothing like it stoopid!
>The Apostle Paul's view of Celibacy and The Way appears equivalent to
>the Dead Sea Scroll Community's abstinence in the Damascus Document.
iqn...@noemail.com
May 4, 2013, 2:43:25 AM5/4/13
to
On Sat, 04 May 2013 12:59:43 +1000
Message-ID: <ef-dnS8NX9I95BnM...@westnet.com.au>
dolf <dolf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> The Apostle Paul's view of Celibacy and The Way appears equivalent to
> the Dead Sea Scroll Community's abstinence in the Damascus Document.
>
<snip>
>
> The Apostle Paul's view of Celibacy and The Way appears equivalent to
> the Dead Sea Scroll Community's abstinence in the Damascus Document.
>
>
> Apostle Paul on wives and virgins: "There is difference also between a
> wife and a virgin. The unmarried {agamos-unmarried [G22]: #1, #3, #1,
> #40, #70, #10, #200 = #325} woman careth for the things of the Lord,
> that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married
> careth for the things of the world, *how she may please her husband*."
> [1Corinthians 7:34]
>
> That's right folks he's talking about sex and that marriage is concerned
> with things of the world and not Christ: "For do I now persuade men, or
> God? or do I seek to *please men*? for if I yet pleased men, I should
> not be the servant of Christ." [Galatians 1:10]
How does... *how she may please her husband* equate to sex?
> Apostle Paul on wives and virgins: "There is difference also between a
> wife and a virgin. The unmarried {agamos-unmarried [G22]: #1, #3, #1,
> #40, #70, #10, #200 = #325} woman careth for the things of the Lord,
> that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married
> careth for the things of the world, *how she may please her husband*."
> [1Corinthians 7:34]
>
> That's right folks he's talking about sex and that marriage is concerned
> with things of the world and not Christ: "For do I now persuade men, or
> God? or do I seek to *please men*? for if I yet pleased men, I should
> not be the servant of Christ." [Galatians 1:10]
Is there possibly another explaination?
You evidently don't have any idea of what the Christian mindset
was at that time.
Let me help you understand -- and then you'll see how far from
the mark we have drifted away...
QUOTE:
=====================
Athenagoras (ca. 133-190) Christian apologist
CHAPTER XXXIII
Therefore, having the hope of eternal life,
we despise the things of this life, even
to the pleasures of the soul, each of us
reckoning her his wife whom he has married
according to the laws laid down by us, and
that only for the purpose of having children.
For as the husbandman throwing the seed into
the ground awaits the harvest, not sowing
more upon it, so to us the procreation of
children is the measure of our indulgence
in appetite. Nay, you would find many among
us, both men and women, growing old unmarried,
in hope of living in closer communion with
God. But if the remaining in virginity and
in the state of an eunuch brings nearer to
God, while the indulgence of carnal thought
and desire leads away from Him, in those
cases in which we shun the thoughts, much
more do we reject the deeds.
For we bestow our attention; not on the study of words,
but on the exhibition and teaching of actions,--that
a person should either remain as he was born,
or be content with one marriage; for a second
marriage is only a specious adultery. "For
whosoever puts away his wife," says He, "and
marries another, commits adultery;" not permitting
a man to send her away whose virginity he
has brought to an end, nor to marry again.
For he who deprives himself of his first
wife, even though she be dead, is a cloaked
adulterer, resisting the hand of God, because
in the beginning God made one man and one
woman, and dissolving the strictest union
of flesh with flesh, formed for the intercourse
of the race.
=====================
dolf
May 4, 2013, 4:03:07 AM5/4/13
to
On 4/05/13 4:43 PM, iqn...@noemail.com wrote:
> On Sat, 04 May 2013 12:59:43 +1000
> Message-ID: <ef-dnS8NX9I95BnM...@westnet.com.au>
> dolf <dolf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The Apostle Paul's view of Celibacy and The Way appears equivalent to
>> the Dead Sea Scroll Community's abstinence in the Damascus Document.
>>
> <snip>
>>
>> Apostle Paul on wives and virgins: "There is difference also between a
>> wife and a virgin. The unmarried {agamos-unmarried [G22]: #1, #3, #1,
>> #40, #70, #10, #200 = #325} woman careth for the things of the Lord,
>> that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married
>> careth for the things of the world, *how she may please her husband*."
>> [1Corinthians 7:34]
>>
>> That's right folks he's talking about sex and that marriage is concerned
>> with things of the world and not Christ: "For do I now persuade men, or
>> God? or do I seek to *please men*? for if I yet pleased men, I should
>> not be the servant of Christ." [Galatians 1:10]
>
>
> How does... *how she may please her husband* equate to sex?
> Is there possibly another explaination?
>
Certainly there are other possible explanations to sexual orgasm but the
> On Sat, 04 May 2013 12:59:43 +1000
> Message-ID: <ef-dnS8NX9I95BnM...@westnet.com.au>
> dolf <dolf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The Apostle Paul's view of Celibacy and The Way appears equivalent to
>> the Dead Sea Scroll Community's abstinence in the Damascus Document.
>>
> <snip>
>>
>> Apostle Paul on wives and virgins: "There is difference also between a
>> wife and a virgin. The unmarried {agamos-unmarried [G22]: #1, #3, #1,
>> #40, #70, #10, #200 = #325} woman careth for the things of the Lord,
>> that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married
>> careth for the things of the world, *how she may please her husband*."
>> [1Corinthians 7:34]
>>
>> That's right folks he's talking about sex and that marriage is concerned
>> with things of the world and not Christ: "For do I now persuade men, or
>> God? or do I seek to *please men*? for if I yet pleased men, I should
>> not be the servant of Christ." [Galatians 1:10]
>
>
> How does... *how she may please her husband* equate to sex?
> Is there possibly another explaination?
>
word areskō means (through the idea of exciting emotion); to be
agreeable (or by implication to seek to be so):—please.
iqn...@noemail.com
May 4, 2013, 4:53:10 AM5/4/13
to
On Sat, 04 May 2013 18:03:07 +1000
Message-ID: <-YKdnXBtk_UgXRnM...@westnet.com.au>
Now that you have expanded your original assumption to the
carnal - it is incorrect, as my point has been clearly made.
Paul would had never alluded to anything of that nature.
Your mind is elsewhere, evidently.
Message-ID: <-YKdnXBtk_UgXRnM...@westnet.com.au>
carnal - it is incorrect, as my point has been clearly made.
Paul would had never alluded to anything of that nature.
Your mind is elsewhere, evidently.
Barry OGrady
May 4, 2013, 6:00:10 AM5/4/13
to
On Sat, 4 May 2013 08:53:10 +0000 (UTC), iqn...@noemail.com wrote:
>On Sat, 04 May 2013 18:03:07 +1000
>Message-ID: <-YKdnXBtk_UgXRnM...@westnet.com.au>
>dolf <dolf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 4/05/13 4:43 PM, iqn...@noemail.com wrote:
>> > On Sat, 04 May 2013 12:59:43 +1000
>> > Message-ID: <ef-dnS8NX9I95BnM...@westnet.com.au>
>> > dolf <dolf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The Apostle Paul's view of Celibacy and The Way appears equivalent to
>> >> the Dead Sea Scroll Community's abstinence in the Damascus Document.
>> >>
>> > <snip>
>> >>
>> >> Apostle Paul on wives and virgins: "There is difference also between a
>> >> wife and a virgin. The unmarried {agamos-unmarried [G22]: #1, #3, #1,
>> >> #40, #70, #10, #200 = #325} woman careth for the things of the Lord,
>> >> that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married
>> >> careth for the things of the world, *how she may please her husband*."
>> >> [1Corinthians 7:34]
>> >>
>> >> That's right folks he's talking about sex and that marriage is concerned
>> >> with things of the world and not Christ: "For do I now persuade men, or
>> >> God? or do I seek to *please men*? for if I yet pleased men, I should
>> >> not be the servant of Christ." [Galatians 1:10]
>> >
>> >
>> > How does... *how she may please her husband* equate to sex?
>> > Is there possibly another explaination?
>> >
>>
>> Certainly there are other possible explanations to sexual orgasm but the
>> word aresk�? means (through the idea of exciting emotion); to be
>On Sat, 04 May 2013 18:03:07 +1000
>Message-ID: <-YKdnXBtk_UgXRnM...@westnet.com.au>
>dolf <dolf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 4/05/13 4:43 PM, iqn...@noemail.com wrote:
>> > On Sat, 04 May 2013 12:59:43 +1000
>> > Message-ID: <ef-dnS8NX9I95BnM...@westnet.com.au>
>> > dolf <dolf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The Apostle Paul's view of Celibacy and The Way appears equivalent to
>> >> the Dead Sea Scroll Community's abstinence in the Damascus Document.
>> >>
>> > <snip>
>> >>
>> >> Apostle Paul on wives and virgins: "There is difference also between a
>> >> wife and a virgin. The unmarried {agamos-unmarried [G22]: #1, #3, #1,
>> >> #40, #70, #10, #200 = #325} woman careth for the things of the Lord,
>> >> that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married
>> >> careth for the things of the world, *how she may please her husband*."
>> >> [1Corinthians 7:34]
>> >>
>> >> That's right folks he's talking about sex and that marriage is concerned
>> >> with things of the world and not Christ: "For do I now persuade men, or
>> >> God? or do I seek to *please men*? for if I yet pleased men, I should
>> >> not be the servant of Christ." [Galatians 1:10]
>> >
>> >
>> > How does... *how she may please her husband* equate to sex?
>> > Is there possibly another explaination?
>> >
>>
>> Certainly there are other possible explanations to sexual orgasm but the
duke
May 4, 2013, 3:25:07 PM5/4/13
to
>The real definition of a sinner is a whore.
Then you are a whore because Heb 4:15 said that only Jesus never sinned.
The dukester, American - American
********************************************
Repeal Obama
You simply can't fix stupid.
********************************************
Michael Christ
May 4, 2013, 4:02:14 PM5/4/13
to
On May 5, 3:25 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 May 2013 18:26:05 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>
> On Fri, 3 May 2013 18:26:05 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>
Dukester wrote:
> Then you are a whore because Heb 4:15 said that only Jesus never sinned.
Stubborn ignorant 'head and heart in the tiny box of the catholic
> Then you are a whore because Heb 4:15 said that only Jesus never sinned.
club' fellow.
Then there is repentance...real repentance (Job repentance, Peter
repentance, Isaiah repentance, Paul repentance), not man-made
christian repentance.
If you have not thrown yourself on the altar of real repentance,
surrendered your life, you are still a whore, bible quoting boy.
Michael Christ
GSI
May 4, 2013, 4:10:48 PM5/4/13
to
dolf
May 4, 2013, 5:26:56 PM5/4/13
to
On 4/05/13 6:53 PM, iqn...@noemail.com wrote:
> On Sat, 04 May 2013 18:03:07 +1000
> Message-ID: <-YKdnXBtk_UgXRnM...@westnet.com.au>
> dolf <dolf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 4/05/13 4:43 PM, iqn...@noemail.com wrote:
>>> On Sat, 04 May 2013 12:59:43 +1000
>>> Message-ID: <ef-dnS8NX9I95BnM...@westnet.com.au>
>>> dolf <dolf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The Apostle Paul's view of Celibacy and The Way appears equivalent to
>>>> the Dead Sea Scroll Community's abstinence in the Damascus Document.
>>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> Apostle Paul on wives and virgins: "There is difference also between a
>>>> wife and a virgin. The unmarried {agamos-unmarried [G22]: #1, #3, #1,
>>>> #40, #70, #10, #200 = #325} woman careth for the things of the Lord,
>>>> that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married
>>>> careth for the things of the world, *how she may please her husband*."
>>>> [1Corinthians 7:34]
>>>>
>>>> That's right folks he's talking about sex and that marriage is concerned
>>>> with things of the world and not Christ: "For do I now persuade men, or
>>>> God? or do I seek to *please men*? for if I yet pleased men, I should
>>>> not be the servant of Christ." [Galatians 1:10]
>>>
>>>
>>> How does... *how she may please her husband* equate to sex?
>>> Is there possibly another explaination?
>>>
>>
>> Certainly there are other possible explanations to sexual orgasm but the
>> word aresko means (through the idea of exciting emotion); to be
> On Sat, 04 May 2013 18:03:07 +1000
> Message-ID: <-YKdnXBtk_UgXRnM...@westnet.com.au>
> dolf <dolf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 4/05/13 4:43 PM, iqn...@noemail.com wrote:
>>> On Sat, 04 May 2013 12:59:43 +1000
>>> Message-ID: <ef-dnS8NX9I95BnM...@westnet.com.au>
>>> dolf <dolf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The Apostle Paul's view of Celibacy and The Way appears equivalent to
>>>> the Dead Sea Scroll Community's abstinence in the Damascus Document.
>>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> Apostle Paul on wives and virgins: "There is difference also between a
>>>> wife and a virgin. The unmarried {agamos-unmarried [G22]: #1, #3, #1,
>>>> #40, #70, #10, #200 = #325} woman careth for the things of the Lord,
>>>> that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married
>>>> careth for the things of the world, *how she may please her husband*."
>>>> [1Corinthians 7:34]
>>>>
>>>> That's right folks he's talking about sex and that marriage is concerned
>>>> with things of the world and not Christ: "For do I now persuade men, or
>>>> God? or do I seek to *please men*? for if I yet pleased men, I should
>>>> not be the servant of Christ." [Galatians 1:10]
>>>
>>>
>>> How does... *how she may please her husband* equate to sex?
>>> Is there possibly another explaination?
>>>
>>
>> Certainly there are other possible explanations to sexual orgasm but the
>> agreeable (or by implication to seek to be so):--please.
>>
>>> You evidently don't have any idea of what the Christian mindset
>>> was at that time.
>>>
>>> Let me help you understand -- and then you'll see how far from
>>> the mark we have drifted away...
>>>
>>> QUOTE:
>>>
>>> =====================
>>> Athenagoras (ca. 133-190) Christian apologist
>>>
>>> CHAPTER XXXIII
[snippied}
>>> You evidently don't have any idea of what the Christian mindset
>>> was at that time.
>>>
>>> Let me help you understand -- and then you'll see how far from
>>> the mark we have drifted away...
>>>
>>> QUOTE:
>>>
>>> =====================
>>> Athenagoras (ca. 133-190) Christian apologist
>>>
>>> CHAPTER XXXIII
>
>
> Now that you have expanded your original assumption to the
> carnal - it is incorrect, as my point has been clearly made.
>
> Paul would had never alluded to anything of that nature.
>
> Your mind is elsewhere, evidently.
>
Paul alludes to the carnal is Romans 1: "For even their woman exchanged
>
> Now that you have expanded your original assumption to the
> carnal - it is incorrect, as my point has been clearly made.
>
> Paul would had never alluded to anything of that nature.
>
> Your mind is elsewhere, evidently.
>
the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men,
leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one
another, men with men committing what is shameful..." [Romans 1:26-27]
Paul evidently spoke of that nature and "burned in their lust" is
certainly "exciting emotion".
So your mind is with the false accusers and liars.
iqn...@noemail.com
May 5, 2013, 12:05:21 AM5/5/13
to
On Sun, 05 May 2013 07:26:56 +1000
Message-ID: <rfednQfVv8q_4BjM...@westnet.com.au>
dolf <dolf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> On Sat, 04 May 2013 12:59:43 +1000
> Message-ID: <ef-dnS8NX9I95BnM...@westnet.com.au>
> dolf <dolf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> The Apostle Paul's view of Celibacy and The Way appears equivalent to
> the Dead Sea Scroll Community's abstinence in the Damascus Document.
<snip>
presented in [1 Corinthians 7:34].
Is this the best you can offer to defend your position?
By the way, I'm not attacking nor accusing you of anything.
But, I will defend the Scriptures against obvious errors.
All I'm asking, is that you be more careful with them
in the future.
No need to reply.
Message-ID: <rfednQfVv8q_4BjM...@westnet.com.au>
dolf <dolf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> On Sat, 04 May 2013 12:59:43 +1000
> Message-ID: <ef-dnS8NX9I95BnM...@westnet.com.au>
> dolf <dolf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> The Apostle Paul's view of Celibacy and The Way appears equivalent to
> the Dead Sea Scroll Community's abstinence in the Damascus Document.
<snip>
dolf wrote:
> Apostle Paul on wives and virgins: "There is difference also between a
> wife and a virgin. The unmarried {agamos-unmarried [G22]: #1, #3, #1,
> #40, #70, #10, #200 = #325} woman careth for the things of the Lord,
> that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married
> careth for the things of the world, *how she may please her husband*."
> [1Corinthians 7:34]
>
> That's right folks he's talking about sex and that marriage is concerned
> with things of the world and not Christ: "For do I now persuade men, or
> God? or do I seek to *please men*? for if I yet pleased men, I should
> not be the servant of Christ." [Galatians 1:10]
> Apostle Paul on wives and virgins: "There is difference also between a
> wife and a virgin. The unmarried {agamos-unmarried [G22]: #1, #3, #1,
> #40, #70, #10, #200 = #325} woman careth for the things of the Lord,
> that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married
> careth for the things of the world, *how she may please her husband*."
> [1Corinthians 7:34]
>
> That's right folks he's talking about sex and that marriage is concerned
> with things of the world and not Christ: "For do I now persuade men, or
> God? or do I seek to *please men*? for if I yet pleased men, I should
> not be the servant of Christ." [Galatians 1:10]
iqnews wrote:
> How does... *how she may please her husband* equate to sex?
> Is there possibly another explaination?
> How does... *how she may please her husband* equate to sex?
> Is there possibly another explaination?
dolf wrote:
> Certainly there are other possible explanations to sexual orgasm but the
> word aresko� means (through the idea of exciting emotion); to be
> agreeable (or by implication to seek to be so):--please.
> Certainly there are other possible explanations to sexual orgasm but the
> word aresko� means (through the idea of exciting emotion); to be
> agreeable (or by implication to seek to be so):--please.
iqnews wrote:
> Now that you have expanded your original assumption to the
> carnal - it is incorrect, as my point has been clearly made.
>
> Paul would had never alluded to anything of that nature.
>
> Your mind is elsewhere, evidently.
> Now that you have expanded your original assumption to the
> carnal - it is incorrect, as my point has been clearly made.
>
> Paul would had never alluded to anything of that nature.
>
> Your mind is elsewhere, evidently.
dolf wrote:
> Paul alludes to the carnal is Romans 1: "For even their woman exchanged
> the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men,
> leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one
> another, men with men committing what is shameful..." [Romans 1:26-27]
>
> Paul evidently spoke of that nature and "burned in their lust" is
> certainly "exciting emotion".
>
> So your mind is with the false accusers and liars.
[Romans 1:26-27] is waaaay out of context with what you
> Paul alludes to the carnal is Romans 1: "For even their woman exchanged
> the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men,
> leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one
> another, men with men committing what is shameful..." [Romans 1:26-27]
>
> Paul evidently spoke of that nature and "burned in their lust" is
> certainly "exciting emotion".
>
> So your mind is with the false accusers and liars.
presented in [1 Corinthians 7:34].
Is this the best you can offer to defend your position?
By the way, I'm not attacking nor accusing you of anything.
But, I will defend the Scriptures against obvious errors.
All I'm asking, is that you be more careful with them
in the future.
No need to reply.
Message has been deleted
dolf
May 5, 2013, 1:20:28 AM5/5/13
to
>> the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men,
>> leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one
>> another, men with men committing what is shameful..." [Romans 1:26-27]
>>
>> Paul evidently spoke of that nature and "burned in their lust" is
>> certainly "exciting emotion".
>>
>> So your mind is with the false accusers and liars.
>
>
> [Romans 1:26-27] is waaaay out of context with what you
> presented in [1 Corinthians 7:34].
Not at all, you said "Paul would had never alluded to anything of that
>> leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one
>> another, men with men committing what is shameful..." [Romans 1:26-27]
>>
>> Paul evidently spoke of that nature and "burned in their lust" is
>> certainly "exciting emotion".
>>
>> So your mind is with the false accusers and liars.
>
>
> [Romans 1:26-27] is waaaay out of context with what you
> presented in [1 Corinthians 7:34].
[carnal] nature" and I demonstrated that the Apostle Paul being a
Sabbatarian was well versed in discourse on things of a carnal nature
such as divorcing non-believers or staying married to them to the point
of saying marriage is associated to the things of this world and not of
Christ.
iqn...@noemail.com
May 5, 2013, 1:54:17 AM5/5/13
to
On Sun, 05 May 2013 14:57:46 +1000
Message-ID: <o9-dnXGsfrZRexjM...@westnet.com.au>
THIS statement...
iqnews wrote:
> Paul would had never alluded to anything of that nature.
PERTAINS ONLY to your cite: [1 Corinthians 7:34]
NOT: [Romans 1:26-27]
Message-ID: <o9-dnXGsfrZRexjM...@westnet.com.au>
> nature" and I demonstrated that the Apostle Paul being a Sabbatarian was
> well versed in discourse in things of a carnal nature such as divorcing
> non-believers or staying married to them to the point of saying marriage
> is associated to the things of this world and not of Christ.
>
No -- you're twisting and evading the issue.
> is associated to the things of this world and not of Christ.
>
THIS statement...
iqnews wrote:
> Paul would had never alluded to anything of that nature.
NOT: [Romans 1:26-27]
Ike
May 5, 2013, 5:30:16 AM5/5/13
to
On 5/3/2013 9:26 PM, Michael Christ wrote:
> The real definition of a sinner is a whore.
No, the real definition of a sinner is this, blasphemer.
> The real definition of a sinner is a whore.
You...
1Jn 1:
8 � If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth
is not in us.
A Christian...
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our
sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Ike
Ike
May 5, 2013, 5:35:59 AM5/5/13
to
On 5/4/2013 4:02 PM, Michael Christ wrote:
> On May 5, 3:25 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 May 2013 18:26:05 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>>
>> <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> The real definition of a sinner is a whore.
>
> Dukester wrote:
>> Then you are a whore because Heb 4:15 said that only Jesus never sinned.
>
> Stubborn ignorant 'head and heart in the tiny box of the catholic
> club' fellow.
>
> Then there is repentance...real repentance (Job repentance, Peter
> repentance, Isaiah repentance, Paul repentance), not man-made
> christian repentance.
STOP right there, liar.
> On May 5, 3:25 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 May 2013 18:26:05 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>>
>> <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> The real definition of a sinner is a whore.
>
> Dukester wrote:
>> Then you are a whore because Heb 4:15 said that only Jesus never sinned.
>
> Stubborn ignorant 'head and heart in the tiny box of the catholic
> club' fellow.
>
> Then there is repentance...real repentance (Job repentance, Peter
> repentance, Isaiah repentance, Paul repentance), not man-made
> christian repentance.
The "repentance" referred to by the Old Testament prophets is NOT the
"repentance" referred to by the New Testament prophets.
THIS story contrasts the two...
10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the
other a publican.
11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee,
that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or
even as this publican.
12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as
his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful
to me a sinner.
14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than
the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he
that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
YOU = PHARISEE
This passage contrasts the two...
1Jn 1:
8 � If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth
is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our
sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
YOU = SELF DECEIVED
sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
What you keep calling "man-made Christianity" IS GOD-MADE GOSPEL, moron;
and what you call "Gospel" is just PHARISAICAL LEGALISM REVIVED.
Yeesh, are you ever stupid: You have no idea what the Gospel is.
Ike
Michael Christ
May 5, 2013, 9:06:42 AM5/5/13
to
On May 5, 5:35 pm, Ike <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/4/2013 4:02 PM, Michael Christ wrote:
>
> > On May 5, 3:25 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 3 May 2013 18:26:05 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>
> >> <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> The real definition of a sinner is a whore.
>
> > Dukester wrote:
> >> Then you are a whore because Heb 4:15 said that only Jesus never sinned.
> On 5/4/2013 4:02 PM, Michael Christ wrote:
>
> > On May 5, 3:25 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 3 May 2013 18:26:05 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>
> >> <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> The real definition of a sinner is a whore.
>
> > Dukester wrote:
> >> Then you are a whore because Heb 4:15 said that only Jesus never sinned.
Michael Christ wrote:
> > Stubborn ignorant 'head and heart in the tiny box of the catholic
> > club' fellow.
>
> > Then there is repentance...real repentance (Job repentance, Peter
> > repentance, Isaiah repentance, Paul repentance), not man-made
> > christian repentance.
Ike upset by the idea of giving your whole life to God, pricked of
> > Stubborn ignorant 'head and heart in the tiny box of the catholic
> > club' fellow.
>
> > Then there is repentance...real repentance (Job repentance, Peter
> > repentance, Isaiah repentance, Paul repentance), not man-made
> > christian repentance.
"The real definition of a sinner is a whore".
and context all you like.
You are a whore, Ike, plain and simple. That is what you get for not
laying down/surrendering your life to the Lord as you should. Trying
to hide your sin in theology is a fool's pursuit.
It is your own dumb fault you don't get cleansed of ALL
unrighteousness by the Lord. Your theology hasn't got a hope in hell
because it is 'Ike' sinner theology.'
Always trying to scam it in your fallen nature. Give it up, boy.
Michael Christ
Michael Christ
May 5, 2013, 9:19:27 AM5/5/13
to
On May 5, 5:30 pm, Ike <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/3/2013 9:26 PM, Michael Christ wrote:
>
> > The real definition of a sinner is a whore.
(snip a bit of Ike bullshit)
> On 5/3/2013 9:26 PM, Michael Christ wrote:
>
> > The real definition of a sinner is a whore.
Ike wrote:
> 1Jn 1:
> 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth
> is not in us.
>
> A Christian...
>
> 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our
> sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
>
> Ike
of our UTTER and TOTAL depravity in our sin can cleanse a man of not
just this or that, but all unrighteousness.
So there is no excuse.
1Jn 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in
darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
So a sinner (a walker in darkness) is a whore, what else can he be?
1Jn 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath
not seen him, neither known him.
You are a whore, Ike, because you sin against God. Never been
cleansed of all unrighteousness because you are not prepared to offer
up to Him yourself as a living sacrifice, as you should, you heathen.
I know it ain't part of the Lutheran sinner program.
"The real definition of a sinner is a whore."
duke
May 5, 2013, 5:29:44 PM5/5/13
to
On Sat, 4 May 2013 13:02:14 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
<jesusisth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On May 5, 3:25�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 May 2013 18:26:05 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>>
>> <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >The real definition of a sinner is a whore.
>
>Dukester wrote:
>> Then you are a whore because Heb 4:15 said that only Jesus never sinned.
>
>Stubborn ignorant 'head and heart in the tiny box of the catholic
>club' fellow.
Wouldn't trade with you no how. I follow the Jesus of the bible. I'm not sure
<jesusisth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On May 5, 3:25�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 May 2013 18:26:05 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>>
>> <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >The real definition of a sinner is a whore.
>
>Dukester wrote:
>> Then you are a whore because Heb 4:15 said that only Jesus never sinned.
>
>Stubborn ignorant 'head and heart in the tiny box of the catholic
>club' fellow.
what you follow but it isn't Christian.
Message has been deleted
GSI
May 5, 2013, 6:24:33 PM5/5/13
to
On 2013-05-05 09:30:16 +0000, Ike said:
> 1Jn 1:
> 8 � If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth
> is not in us.
Why?
> 1Jn 1:
> 8 � If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth
> is not in us.
Can anyone explain what this means, why "the truth is
not in us" - if we say we have no sin?
(In order to answer correctly, one needs to understand
what "sin" is.)
dolf
May 5, 2013, 7:08:12 PM5/5/13
to
On May 5, 3:54 pm, iqn...@noemail.com wrote:
> On Sun, 05 May 2013 14:57:46 +1000 Message-ID:
> <o9-dnXGsfrZRexjM...@westnet.com.au>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> dolf <dolfb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/05/13 2:05 PM, iqn...@noemail.com wrote:
>>> On Sun, 05 May 2013 07:26:56 +1000 Message-ID:
>>> <rfednQfVv8q_4BjMnZ2dnUVZ_oKdn...@westnet.com.au> dolf
> On Sun, 05 May 2013 14:57:46 +1000 Message-ID:
> <o9-dnXGsfrZRexjM...@westnet.com.au>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> dolf <dolfb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/05/13 2:05 PM, iqn...@noemail.com wrote:
>>> On Sun, 05 May 2013 07:26:56 +1000 Message-ID:
>>> <dolfb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> <snip>
>
>>>> On Sat, 04 May 2013 12:59:43 +1000 Message-ID:
>>>> <ef-dnS8NX9I95BnMnZ2dnUVZ_jqdn...@westnet.com.au> dolf
>
>>> <snip>
>
>>>> On Sat, 04 May 2013 12:59:43 +1000 Message-ID:
#40, #3, #10, #300, #10, #40
מגישימ nagash (H5066): 1) to draw near, approach; 1a) (Qal) to draw
or come near; 1a1) of humans; 1a1a) of sexual intercourse; 1a2) of
inanimate subject; 1a2a) to approach one another; 1b) (Niphal) to draw
near; 1c) (Hiphil) to cause to approach, bring near, bring; 1d)
(Hophal) to be brought near; 1e) (Hithpael) to draw near;
"And Abraham drew near {nagash-come [H5066]: #40, #3, #10, #300, #10,
#40 = #403}, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the
wicked?" [Genesis 18:23]
Sexual intercourse doesn't limit what is implied by pleasing.
Certainly there are other possible explanations to sexual orgasm but
the word aresko means (through the idea of exciting emotion); to be
agreeable (or by implication to seek to be so):--please.
The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament has an entry that
the word aresko means (through the idea of exciting emotion); to be
agreeable (or by implication to seek to be so):--please.
discusses the opposite is not displeasing but denial of pleasure. And
this would accord with the apostles view concerning agreeable
abstinence of sexual intercourse within Marriage.
cite: "In Paul, however, it mostly signifies to "please oneself" and in
[Romans 15:1-3 where the opposite in not "to detest oneself" but to
"deny oneself" Similarly in 1Corinthians 10:33 suggests that the
reference is to an attitude [TDNT I:455]
Michael Christ
May 5, 2013, 7:56:36 PM5/5/13
to
On May 6, 5:29 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 4 May 2013 13:02:14 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>
> On Sat, 4 May 2013 13:02:14 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>
> <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 5, 3:25 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 3 May 2013 18:26:05 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>
> >> <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >The real definition of a sinner is a whore.
>
> >Dukester wrote:
> >> Then you are a whore because Heb 4:15 said that only Jesus never sinned.
>
> >Stubborn ignorant 'head and heart in the tiny box of the catholic
> >club' fellow.
>
> Wouldn't trade with you no how. I follow the Jesus of the bible. I'm not sure
> what you follow but it isn't Christian.
It isn't Catholic. :-). Thank God for that 'indulgence'.
> >On May 5, 3:25 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 3 May 2013 18:26:05 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>
> >> <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >The real definition of a sinner is a whore.
>
> >Dukester wrote:
> >> Then you are a whore because Heb 4:15 said that only Jesus never sinned.
>
> >Stubborn ignorant 'head and heart in the tiny box of the catholic
> >club' fellow.
>
> Wouldn't trade with you no how. I follow the Jesus of the bible. I'm not sure
> what you follow but it isn't Christian.
This isn't Catholic also...
"The real definition of a sinner is a whore".
"Then there is repentance...real repentance (Job repentance, Peter
repentance, Isaiah repentance, Paul repentance), not man-made
christian repentance."
Michael Christ
iqn...@noemail.com
May 6, 2013, 12:17:48 AM5/6/13
to
On Mon, 06 May 2013 09:08:12 +1000
Message-ID: <AY-dnUxp94TDexvM...@westnet.com.au>
dolf wrote:
> Sexual intercourse doesn't limit what is implied by pleasing.
True -- but THAT only last 5 minutes.
What else could be Implied by *how she may please her husband* ?
-And-
[1 Cor 7:33]
But he that is married careth for the things that are of
the world, *how he may please his wife*.
Is this all about about sex?
dolf wrote:
> *That's right folks he's talking about sex* and that marriage is
> concerned with things of the world *and not Christ*.
Is *and not Christ* your additonal comment on the matter?
True, their attention is divided amonst children, daily life, etc.
But, does that exclude them from be mindful or praying?
Message-ID: <AY-dnUxp94TDexvM...@westnet.com.au>
dolf <dolf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Apostle Paul on wives and virgins: "There is difference also
> between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried {agamos-unmarried
> [G22]: #1, #3, #1, #40, #70, #10, #200 = #325} woman careth for
> the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and
> in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the
> world, *how she may please her husband*." [1Corinthians 7:34]
>
>
> *That's right folks he's talking about sex* and that marriage is
> Apostle Paul on wives and virgins: "There is difference also
> between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried {agamos-unmarried
> [G22]: #1, #3, #1, #40, #70, #10, #200 = #325} woman careth for
> the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and
> in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the
> world, *how she may please her husband*." [1Corinthians 7:34]
>
>
>
> concerned with things of the world and not Christ: "For do I
> now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to *please men*? for if
> I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ."
> [Galatians 1:10]
iqnews wrote:
> How does... *how she may please her husband* equate to sex?
> Is there possibly another explanation?
> concerned with things of the world and not Christ: "For do I
> now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to *please men*? for if
> I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ."
> [Galatians 1:10]
iqnews wrote:
> How does... *how she may please her husband* equate to sex?
dolf wrote:
> Sexual intercourse doesn't limit what is implied by pleasing.
What else could be Implied by *how she may please her husband* ?
-And-
[1 Cor 7:33]
But he that is married careth for the things that are of
the world, *how he may please his wife*.
Is this all about about sex?
dolf wrote:
> *That's right folks he's talking about sex* and that marriage is
> concerned with things of the world *and not Christ*.
Is *and not Christ* your additonal comment on the matter?
True, their attention is divided amonst children, daily life, etc.
But, does that exclude them from be mindful or praying?
Ike
May 6, 2013, 7:19:43 AM5/6/13
to
On 5/5/2013 9:19 AM, Michael Christ wrote:
> On May 5, 5:30 pm, Ike <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/3/2013 9:26 PM, Michael Christ wrote:
>>
>>> The real definition of a sinner is a whore.
>
> (snip a bit of Ike bullshit)
>
> Ike wrote:
>> 1Jn 1:
>> 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth
>> is not in us.
>>
>> A Christian...
>>
>> 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our
>> sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
>>
>> Ike
>
> Amen. Imagine that, the Lord who created the universe after we repent...
> On May 5, 5:30 pm, Ike <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/3/2013 9:26 PM, Michael Christ wrote:
>>
>>> The real definition of a sinner is a whore.
>
> (snip a bit of Ike bullshit)
>
> Ike wrote:
>> 1Jn 1:
>> 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth
>> is not in us.
>>
>> A Christian...
>>
>> 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our
>> sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
>>
>> Ike
>
And then the Antichristian went into his "bring back the law" tap dance.
Bad Antichristian.
Ike
Ike
May 6, 2013, 7:21:24 AM5/6/13
to
On 5/5/2013 9:06 AM, Michael Antichrist wrote...
...nothing of any consequence to anyone, especially a Christian.
Meanwhile, Ike wrote of the truth, quoting...
[snip Satan's usual outcry against the Word]
Ike
...nothing of any consequence to anyone, especially a Christian.
Meanwhile, Ike wrote of the truth, quoting...
Ike
Ike
May 6, 2013, 7:24:19 AM5/6/13
to
On 5/5/2013 7:56 PM, Michael Antichrist wrote
figures to New Testament figures, and the old concept of "repentance" to
the new concept of "repentance."
He just can't fathom "old bottles for old wine and new bottles for new
wine," and that the New Testament is COMPLETELY THE OPPOSITE of the Old.
Poor God-damned (literally) ignorant sot.
Ike
> "Then there is repentance...real repentance (Job repentance, Peter
> repentance, Isaiah repentance, Paul repentance), not man-made
> christian repentance."
Notice how the Antichristian keeps trying to relate Old Testament
> repentance, Isaiah repentance, Paul repentance), not man-made
> christian repentance."
figures to New Testament figures, and the old concept of "repentance" to
the new concept of "repentance."
He just can't fathom "old bottles for old wine and new bottles for new
wine," and that the New Testament is COMPLETELY THE OPPOSITE of the Old.
Poor God-damned (literally) ignorant sot.
Ike
Michael Christ
May 6, 2013, 10:06:52 AM5/6/13
to
(snip Ike sin preservation theology)
God created man.
Water is wet.
Ike is fighting God.
And...
The real definition of a sinner is a whore.
Michael Christ
God created man.
Water is wet.
Ike is fighting God.
And...
The real definition of a sinner is a whore.
duke
May 6, 2013, 3:51:25 PM5/6/13
to
On Sun, 5 May 2013 16:56:36 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
<jesusisth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On May 6, 5:29�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 May 2013 13:02:14 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>>
>> <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On May 5, 3:25 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 3 May 2013 18:26:05 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>>
>> >> <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >The real definition of a sinner is a whore.
>>
>> >Dukester wrote:
>> >> Then you are a whore because Heb 4:15 said that only Jesus never sinned.
>>
>> >Stubborn ignorant 'head and heart in the tiny box of the catholic
>> >club' fellow.
>>
>> Wouldn't trade with you no how. �I follow the Jesus of the bible. �I'm not sure
>> what you follow but it isn't Christian.
>
>It isn't Catholic. :-). Thank God for that 'indulgence'.
If it isn't Catholic, you're not following the Jesus of the bible.
<jesusisth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On May 6, 5:29�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 May 2013 13:02:14 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>>
>> <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On May 5, 3:25 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 3 May 2013 18:26:05 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>>
>> >> <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >The real definition of a sinner is a whore.
>>
>> >Dukester wrote:
>> >> Then you are a whore because Heb 4:15 said that only Jesus never sinned.
>>
>> >Stubborn ignorant 'head and heart in the tiny box of the catholic
>> >club' fellow.
>>
>> Wouldn't trade with you no how. �I follow the Jesus of the bible. �I'm not sure
>> what you follow but it isn't Christian.
>
>It isn't Catholic. :-). Thank God for that 'indulgence'.
Michael Christ
May 6, 2013, 4:53:22 PM5/6/13
to
But...only because it 'suits' you.
Michael Christ
dolf
May 6, 2013, 5:42:44 PM5/6/13
to
Time: 03:05 hrs
Date: 2013.5.7
Torah:
Dao: Ambiguous Reversals, Virtue of Gravity
Tetra: #3 - Mired
I-Ching: H3 - Initial Difficulties
DNA: vBlack: #36 vYellow: #17 vCyan: #59 vCoral: #79
- http://www.dolfboek.com/grapple.html?zen:2,row:2,col:4
Male Idea #303
#70, #50, #70, #40, #1, #7, #5, #10, #50
ονομαζειν onomazo (G3687): 1) to name; 1a) to name, to utter, to make
mention of the name; 1b) to name; 1b1) give name to, one; 1b2) be named;
1b2a) to bear the name of a person or thing; 1c) to utter the name of a
person or thing;
"Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call
{onomazo-name [G3687]: #70, #50, #70, #40, #1, #7, #5, #10, #50 = #303}
over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We
adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth." [Acts 19:13]
"It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such
fornication as is not so much as named {onomazo-name [G3687]: #70, #50,
#70, #40, #1, #7, #5, #10, #50 = #303} among the Gentiles, that one
should have his father's wife." [1Corinthians 5:1]
Female Idea #382
#2, #80, #300
בפש pash (H6580): 1) folly, weakness, stupidity;
"But now, because it is not so, he hath visited in his anger; yet he
knoweth it not in great extremity {pash-extremity [H6580]: #2, #80, #300
= #382}:" [Job 35:15]
iqn...@noemail.com
May 6, 2013, 6:38:25 PM5/6/13
to
On Tue, 07 May 2013 07:42:44 +1000
Message-ID: <3-udneBkF_hLvhXM...@westnet.com.au>
(corrected some typos)
> > True, their attention is divided amongst children, daily life, etc.
> > But, does that exclude them from being mindful or praying?
Whatever it is that you are presenting below here -- it's not helping.
In any case... I'm finished with this topic. Take care, dolf.
---
> dolf wrote:
>
> Nous: #26
> Time: 03:05 hrs
> Date: 2013.5.7
> Torah:
> Dao: Ambiguous Reversals, Virtue of Gravity
> Tetra: #3 - Mired
> I-Ching: H3 - Initial Difficulties
> DNA: vBlack: #36 vYellow: #17 vCyan: #59 vCoral: #79
>
> - http://www.dolfboek.com/grapple.html?zen:2,row:2,col:4
>
> Male Idea #303
>
> #70, #50, #70, #40, #1, #7, #5, #10, #50
> 慰谓慰渭伪味蔚喂谓 onomazo (G3687): 1) to name; 1a) to name, to utter, to make
Message-ID: <3-udneBkF_hLvhXM...@westnet.com.au>
> > True, their attention is divided amongst children, daily life, etc.
> > But, does that exclude them from being mindful or praying?
Whatever it is that you are presenting below here -- it's not helping.
In any case... I'm finished with this topic. Take care, dolf.
---
> dolf wrote:
>
> Nous: #26
> Time: 03:05 hrs
> Date: 2013.5.7
> Torah:
> Dao: Ambiguous Reversals, Virtue of Gravity
> Tetra: #3 - Mired
> I-Ching: H3 - Initial Difficulties
> DNA: vBlack: #36 vYellow: #17 vCyan: #59 vCoral: #79
>
> - http://www.dolfboek.com/grapple.html?zen:2,row:2,col:4
>
> Male Idea #303
>
> #70, #50, #70, #40, #1, #7, #5, #10, #50
> mention of the name; 1b) to name; 1b1) give name to, one; 1b2) be named;
> 1b2a) to bear the name of a person or thing; 1c) to utter the name of a
> person or thing;
>
> "Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call
> {onomazo-name [G3687]: #70, #50, #70, #40, #1, #7, #5, #10, #50 = #303}
> over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We
> adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth." [Acts 19:13]
>
> "It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such
> fornication as is not so much as named {onomazo-name [G3687]: #70, #50,
> #70, #40, #1, #7, #5, #10, #50 = #303} among the Gentiles, that one
> should have his father's wife." [1Corinthians 5:1]
>
> Female Idea #382
>
> #2, #80, #300
> 讘驻砖 pash (H6580): 1) folly, weakness, stupidity;
> 1b2a) to bear the name of a person or thing; 1c) to utter the name of a
> person or thing;
>
> "Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call
> {onomazo-name [G3687]: #70, #50, #70, #40, #1, #7, #5, #10, #50 = #303}
> over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We
> adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth." [Acts 19:13]
>
> "It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such
> fornication as is not so much as named {onomazo-name [G3687]: #70, #50,
> #70, #40, #1, #7, #5, #10, #50 = #303} among the Gentiles, that one
> should have his father's wife." [1Corinthians 5:1]
>
> Female Idea #382
>
> #2, #80, #300
dolf
May 6, 2013, 6:47:36 PM5/6/13
to
> ---
>
>> dolf wrote:
>>
>> Nous: #26
>> Time: 03:05 hrs
>> Date: 2013.5.7
>> Torah:
>> Dao: Ambiguous Reversals, Virtue of Gravity
>> Tetra: #3 - Mired
>> I-Ching: H3 - Initial Difficulties
>> DNA: vBlack: #36 vYellow: #17 vCyan: #59 vCoral: #79
>>
>> - http://www.dolfboek.com/grapple.html?zen:2,row:2,col:4
>>
>> Male Idea #303
>>
>> #70, #50, #70, #40, #1, #7, #5, #10, #50
>> mention of the name; 1b) to name; 1b1) give name to, one; 1b2) be named;
>> 1b2a) to bear the name of a person or thing; 1c) to utter the name of a
>> person or thing;
>>
>> "Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call
>> {onomazo-name [G3687]: #70, #50, #70, #40, #1, #7, #5, #10, #50 = #303}
>> over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We
>> adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth." [Acts 19:13]
>>
>> "It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such
>> fornication as is not so much as named {onomazo-name [G3687]: #70, #50,
>> #70, #40, #1, #7, #5, #10, #50 = #303} among the Gentiles, that one
>> should have his father's wife." [1Corinthians 5:1]
>>
>> Female Idea #382
>>
>> #2, #80, #300
>> בפש pash (H6580): 1) folly, weakness, stupidity;
>> 1b2a) to bear the name of a person or thing; 1c) to utter the name of a
>> person or thing;
>>
>> "Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call
>> {onomazo-name [G3687]: #70, #50, #70, #40, #1, #7, #5, #10, #50 = #303}
>> over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We
>> adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth." [Acts 19:13]
>>
>> "It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such
>> fornication as is not so much as named {onomazo-name [G3687]: #70, #50,
>> #70, #40, #1, #7, #5, #10, #50 = #303} among the Gentiles, that one
>> should have his father's wife." [1Corinthians 5:1]
>>
>> Female Idea #382
>>
>> #2, #80, #300
Barry OGrady
May 6, 2013, 6:48:30 PM5/6/13
to
A sinner is someone on whom God forced sin.
dolf
May 6, 2013, 9:38:13 PM5/6/13
to
On 6/05/13 2:17 PM, iqn...@noemail.com wrote:
Nous: #26
Time: 03:05 hrs
Date: 2013.5.7
Torah:
Dao: Ambiguous Reversals, Virtue of Gravity
Tetra: #3 - Mired
I-Ching: H3 - Initial Difficulties
DNA: vBlack: #36 vYellow: #17 vCyan: #59 vCoral: #79
- http://www.dolfboek.com/grapple.html?zen:2,row:2,col:4
Male Idea #303
#70, #50, #70, #40, #1, #7, #5, #10, #50
ονομαζειν onomazo (G3687): 1) to name; 1a) to name, to utter, to make
Time: 03:05 hrs
Date: 2013.5.7
Torah:
Dao: Ambiguous Reversals, Virtue of Gravity
Tetra: #3 - Mired
I-Ching: H3 - Initial Difficulties
DNA: vBlack: #36 vYellow: #17 vCyan: #59 vCoral: #79
- http://www.dolfboek.com/grapple.html?zen:2,row:2,col:4
Male Idea #303
#70, #50, #70, #40, #1, #7, #5, #10, #50
mention of the name; 1b) to name; 1b1) give name to, one; 1b2) be named;
1b2a) to bear the name of a person or thing; 1c) to utter the name of a
person or thing;
"Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call
{onomazo-name [G3687]: #70, #50, #70, #40, #1, #7, #5, #10, #50 = #303}
over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We
adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth." [Acts 19:13]
"It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such
fornication as is not so much as named {onomazo-name [G3687]: #70, #50,
#70, #40, #1, #7, #5, #10, #50 = #303} among the Gentiles, that one
should have his father's wife." [1Corinthians 5:1]
Female Idea #382
#2, #80, #300
בפש pash (H6580): 1) folly, weakness, stupidity;
1b2a) to bear the name of a person or thing; 1c) to utter the name of a
person or thing;
"Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call
{onomazo-name [G3687]: #70, #50, #70, #40, #1, #7, #5, #10, #50 = #303}
over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We
adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth." [Acts 19:13]
"It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such
fornication as is not so much as named {onomazo-name [G3687]: #70, #50,
#70, #40, #1, #7, #5, #10, #50 = #303} among the Gentiles, that one
should have his father's wife." [1Corinthians 5:1]
Female Idea #382
#2, #80, #300
35:11 "Who teacheth us more than the beasts of the earth, and maketh us
wiser than the fowls of heaven?" [Job 35:11]
35:12 "There they cry, but none giveth answer, because of the pride of
evil men." [Job 35:12]
35:13 "Surely God will not hear vanity, neither will the Almighty regard
it." [Job 35:13]
35:14 "Although thou sayest thou shalt not see him, yet judgment is
before him; therefore trust thou in him." [Job 35:14]
35:15 "But now, because it is not so, he hath visited in his anger; yet
he knoweth it not in great extremity {pash-extremity [H6580]: #2, #80,
#300 = #382}:" [Job 35:15]
35:16 "Therefore doth Job open his mouth in vain; he multiplieth words
#300 = #382}:" [Job 35:15]
without knowledge." [Job 35:16]
Ike
May 7, 2013, 6:36:09 AM5/7/13
to
On 5/6/2013 10:06 AM, Michael Antichrist wrote:
> (snip Ike sin preservation theology)
>
> God created man.
>
> Water is wet.
>
> Ike is fighting God.
...said the antichristian cultist.
> (snip Ike sin preservation theology)
>
> God created man.
>
> Water is wet.
>
> Ike is fighting God.
Ike
Ike
May 7, 2013, 6:36:49 AM5/7/13
to
Ike
duke
May 7, 2013, 11:25:37 AM5/7/13
to
On Mon, 6 May 2013 13:53:22 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
<jesusisth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> If it isn't Catholic, you're not following the Jesus of the bible.
<jesusisth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> If it isn't Catholic, you're not following the Jesus of the bible.
>You have been duped by man-made religion.
I refuse to follow your screwed up religion.
Ike
May 7, 2013, 12:43:13 PM5/7/13
to
On 5/7/2013 11:25 AM, duke wrote:
> On Mon, 6 May 2013 13:53:22 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
> <jesusisth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> If it isn't Catholic, you're not following the Jesus of the bible.
>> You have been duped by man-made religion.
>
> I refuse to follow your screwed up religion.
Even his "screwed up religion" is a lot closer to the truth than your
> On Mon, 6 May 2013 13:53:22 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
> <jesusisth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> If it isn't Catholic, you're not following the Jesus of the bible.
>> You have been duped by man-made religion.
>
> I refuse to follow your screwed up religion.
legalistic cult lies, Antichristian.
(Not that Dupe is actually a Catholic.)
Ike
duke
May 7, 2013, 4:38:25 PM5/7/13
to
you're isn't, you get a new version with every individual. So which ONE of you
individuals is right?
Ike
May 7, 2013, 5:44:42 PM5/7/13
to
On 5/7/2013 4:38 PM, duke wrote:
> On Tue, 07 May 2013 12:43:13 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/7/2013 11:25 AM, duke wrote:
>>> On Mon, 6 May 2013 13:53:22 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>>> <jesusisth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> If it isn't Catholic, you're not following the Jesus of the bible.
>>>> You have been duped by man-made religion.
>>>
>>> I refuse to follow your screwed up religion.
>>
>> Even his "screwed up religion" is a lot closer to the truth than your
>> legalistic cult lies, Antichristian.
>>
>> (Not that Dupe is actually a Catholic.)
>
> I'f mine is legalistic...
> On Tue, 07 May 2013 12:43:13 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/7/2013 11:25 AM, duke wrote:
>>> On Mon, 6 May 2013 13:53:22 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>>> <jesusisth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> If it isn't Catholic, you're not following the Jesus of the bible.
>>>> You have been duped by man-made religion.
>>>
>>> I refuse to follow your screwed up religion.
>>
>> Even his "screwed up religion" is a lot closer to the truth than your
>> legalistic cult lies, Antichristian.
>>
>> (Not that Dupe is actually a Catholic.)
>
???
I said HIS was legalistic, moron.
Yours is just ritualistic, which is just about as bad, as it adds all
matter of non-biblical overhead to the Gospel, and injects a lot of
heathen theology into the mix, like the Babylonian "Queen of heaven"
blasphemies.
Ike
duke
May 9, 2013, 12:10:13 PM5/9/13
to
On Tue, 07 May 2013 17:44:42 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 5/7/2013 4:38 PM, duke wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 May 2013 12:43:13 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/7/2013 11:25 AM, duke wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 6 May 2013 13:53:22 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>>>> <jesusisth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> If it isn't Catholic, you're not following the Jesus of the bible.
>>>>> You have been duped by man-made religion.
>>>>
>>>> I refuse to follow your screwed up religion.
>>>
>>> Even his "screwed up religion" is a lot closer to the truth than your
>>> legalistic cult lies, Antichristian.
>>>
>>> (Not that Dupe is actually a Catholic.)
>>
>> I'f mine is legalistic...
>
>???
>
>I said HIS was legalistic, moron.
You said "your legalistic cult lies" and I'm RCC, so it's mine also. Would you
>On 5/7/2013 4:38 PM, duke wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 May 2013 12:43:13 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/7/2013 11:25 AM, duke wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 6 May 2013 13:53:22 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>>>> <jesusisth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> If it isn't Catholic, you're not following the Jesus of the bible.
>>>>> You have been duped by man-made religion.
>>>>
>>>> I refuse to follow your screwed up religion.
>>>
>>> Even his "screwed up religion" is a lot closer to the truth than your
>>> legalistic cult lies, Antichristian.
>>>
>>> (Not that Dupe is actually a Catholic.)
>>
>> I'f mine is legalistic...
>
>???
>
>I said HIS was legalistic, moron.
like to try another lie?
>Yours is just ritualistic, which is just about as bad,
> as it adds all
>matter of non-biblical overhead to the Gospel, and injects a lot of
>heathen theology into the mix, like the Babylonian "Queen of heaven"
>blasphemies.
that is queen of heaven. Heeheehee.
Ike
May 10, 2013, 2:43:11 AM5/10/13
to
Ike
duke
May 10, 2013, 12:41:33 PM5/10/13
to
crown of stars, who's son will rule the world with an iron rod. Guess who those
country folk are, ike.
Heeheehee. You're too easy, ike. All you can do is catch typos.
Ike
May 10, 2013, 3:08:28 PM5/10/13
to
as if the "woman" in Revelation 5 is the same woman in Revelation 12.
It's not.
Second, the fool doesn't know one woman from the other.
In Rev 5, the "woman" is Israel, as represented by Mary.
In Rev 12, the "woman" is the Church, as a unified whole, and NOT MARY.
So that's 12 stars (rulers) from the Israelites, and 12 from the
Christians, to make 24, as in the "twenty and four elders, who represent
both halves of the whole formed by what "was" and what "is" (with "what
is to be" yet to come).
This is also represented in the New Jerusalem figure, in which the
twelve gates are named for the tribes of Israel, and the twelve
foundation stones being named for the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
Again, 24.
Let me know when you get a clue that you don't have a clue, oh, clueless
one.
Ike
duke
May 10, 2013, 4:43:23 PM5/10/13
to
12:5 but typed Rev 5. Your tiny mind is easily challenged, ike.
>It's not.
>Second, the fool doesn't know one woman from the other.
>In Rev 5, the "woman" is Israel, as represented by Mary.
>In Rev 12, the "woman" is the Church, as a unified whole, and NOT MARY.
And sorry, Mary as Queen of Heaven had a son that rules the world with an iron
rod. So it's very, very easy to say "I'm right and YOU'RE wrong.
>So that's 12 stars (rulers) from the Israelites, and 12 from the
>Christians, to make 24, as in the "twenty and four elders, who represent
>both halves of the whole formed by what "was" and what "is" (with "what
>is to be" yet to come).
>This is also represented in the New Jerusalem figure, in which the
>twelve gates are named for the tribes of Israel, and the twelve
>foundation stones being named for the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
>Again, 24.
12 - (Twelve) - THERE WERE Twelve Tribes of Israel who were the sons of Jacob.
When Jacob gave his blessing to his twelve sons, he was referring not only to
twelve individuals, but also to the development of twelve attributes to be
awakened in the human soul. These paralleled the twelve characteristics of the
twelve signs of the zodiac (Genesis 49:1-28). The work of these twelve sons
dominated most of the Old Testament. Each tribe expressed the qualities of one
sign of the zodiac and responded to a certain number. No tribe was wholly good
or bad. These twelve signs and their corresponding numbers are operative in the
lives of every individual, for each person indeed is a miniature universe.
Jesus chose to have twelve apostles. These also relate in character to the
twelve signs of the zodiac to make a complete gathering of types of people in
the inner circle of followers of Jesus. Thus the vibration al force under the
number 12 belongs to the developed soul who has accumulated unusual inner
strength through many and varied experiences.
>Let me know when you get a clue that you don't have a clue, oh, clueless
>one.
>
>Ike
Ike
May 23, 2013, 5:58:50 AM5/23/13
to
THE CHURCH IS.
YOURS is the projection of the Assyro-Babylonian "whore" in a revived
form, the "anti-Mary."
>> So that's 12 stars (rulers) from the Israelites, and 12 from the
>> Christians, to make 24, as in the "twenty and four elders, who represent
>> both halves of the whole formed by what "was" and what "is" (with "what
>> is to be" yet to come).
>
>> This is also represented in the New Jerusalem figure, in which the
>> twelve gates are named for the tribes of Israel, and the twelve
>> foundation stones being named for the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
>> Again, 24.
>
> 12 gates, 12 tribes, 12 apostles. It could go on and on and on.
The gates are named for the 12 tribes of Israel, NOT the 12 Apostles.
The foundation stones are named for the 12 Apostles, NOT the 12 tribes
of Israel.
Together, the 12 Patriarchs of Israel and the 12 Apostles make up THE 24
ELDERS.
[snip the rest of the pointless drivel]
>> Let me know when you get a clue that you don't have a clue, oh, clueless
>> one.
>
> I already made my case, non-Christian.
Ike
duke
May 23, 2013, 3:50:57 PM5/23/13
to
On Thu, 23 May 2013 05:58:50 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>You're hanging YOURSELF, Babylonian: "Mary" isn't the "Queen of Heaven;"
>THE CHURCH IS.
Sorry, in those days, the King's mother is the Queen.
>You're hanging YOURSELF, Babylonian: "Mary" isn't the "Queen of Heaven;"
>THE CHURCH IS.
0 new messages