LIARS
::: good news :::
"You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor." (Exodus
20:16 WEB)
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and
whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have
their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is
the second death. (Revelation 21:8 KJV)
"And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth,
neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which
are written in the Lamb's book of life." (Revelation 21:27 KJV)
"Outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the
murderers, the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices
falsehood." (Revelation 22:15 WEB)
::: vera :::
--
___________________________________________________
::::::: http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de :::::::
::::::: http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de/Israel.htm :::::::
::::::: http://www.e-sword.net :::::::
::::::: http://alpha.org/default.asp :::::::
TBC/Soggy ` `
" ::: good news :::" <vera...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:5llu9dF...@mid.individual.net...
> That is what we are foretold: No liar will ever enter Heaven...
>
> "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor." (Exodus
> 20:16 WEB)
>
>
> But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and
> whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have
> their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the
> second death. (Revelation 21:8 KJV)
>
>
> "And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither
> whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are
> written in the Lamb's book of life." (Revelation 21:27 KJV)
>
>
> "Outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the
> murderers, the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices
> falsehood." (Revelation 22:15 WEB)
>
>
> ::: vera :::
I'd be worried if I were you.
[tbc]
::: good news :::
TBC/Soggy ` ` <Pr...@PrayerTime.com> typed:
Interesting that you felt the need to respond... It says more about you
than you would want to hear.
> [tbc]
L.T. David
>
> "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor." (Exodus
> 20:16 WEB)
>
>
> But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and
> whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have
> their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the
> second death. (Revelation 21:8 KJV)
>
>
> "And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither
> whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are
> written in the Lamb's book of life." (Revelation 21:27 KJV)
>
>
> "Outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the
> murderers, the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices
> falsehood." (Revelation 22:15 WEB)
>
that you, Vera, are bound to Hell. You fit all of the above qualifications.
No joke.
>
L.T. David
"TBC/Soggy ` `" <Pr...@PrayerTime.com> wrote in message
news:2aa35$46f5c53c$d066ef45$72...@FUSE.NET...
>
Thurisaz, warrior of Thor
> That is what we are foretold: No liar will ever enter Heaven...
Bad news for all babblical cretinists, literalists et cetera.
--
Thurisaz, warrior of Thor, natural enemy of morontheism
The judgment of morontheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Chuck Stamford
"TBC/Soggy ` `" <Pr...@PrayerTime.com> wrote in message
news:2aa35$46f5c53c$d066ef45$72...@FUSE.NET...
>
Well you're not her, and she's not you, so it's all good.
Chuck Stamford
TBC/Soggy ` `
"Chuck Stamford" <shell__...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:90oJi.101688$Vk6....@newsfe07.phx...
She called me a liar yesterday, same old Vera, but tell me Chuck, what do
you think about Frank assersions that most of the church is lost?
[tbc]
>
>
>
Chuck Stamford
"TBC/Soggy ` `" <Pr...@PrayerTime.com> wrote in message
I didn't see that, and it's been my experience that Vera doesn't normally go
around indiscriminantly accusing people of lying, and that she is aware of
the difference between being incorrect in what someone says and lying about
it. Of course, she's human and a sinner just like you and me, and if you
push her enough she's going to act against her own better judgment and
beliefs....just like we do.
> but tell me Chuck, what do you think about Frank assersions that most of
> the church is lost?
I think the idea of a "lost" Church, in whole or in part, is a biblical
oxymoron. Knowing Frank as I do, I'm having a difficult time imagining that
he expressed himself in just that way. I guessing he meant he thought the
majority of those who call themselves Christians are, in fact, not
Christians, and thus have no claim to eternal life in Jesus Christ. I
haven't given it much thought, but if we're only considering what we might
call Western Christianity (European and North American Christianity), he's
probably correct. However, if we include in our consideration all that is
presently going on in the world in South America, Africa, and Asia (the new
outpouring of the Holy Spirit that we almost never hear anything about, and
that liberal "Christians" like Mark T. never cease denying is happening as
they continue to tout the death of orthodox Christianity being just around
the next corner), then he's probably wrong...thank God.
Chuck Stamford
::: good news :::
Oh, I forgot to ask...
Where exactly do you think did I lie?
You will surely be able to give proof of your accusation - no? Of course
not.
Liar!
> [tbc]
::: good news :::
Chuck Stamford <shell__...@cox.net> typed:
Hi Chuck,
TBC called Frank a liar, because Frank pointed out that many churches
today do not tell the people the truth about the Gospel, and that one is
only saved by faith in Christ. TBC asked me if I agreed with Frank - and
then called me a liar for agreeing with Frank that we are only saved by
our faith in Jesus.
It is all there in this thread - please read it:
http://tinyurl.com/2n8dhv
God bless you,
::: vera :::
TBC/Soggy ` `
> of the difference between being incorrect in what someone says and lying
> about it.
Your's seems to be a clouded view at best, (Vera is FAMOUS for jumping the
gun and calling people liars.)
> Of course, she's human and a sinner just like you and me, and if you push
> her enough she's going to act against her own better judgment and
> beliefs....just like we do.
If that's correct then pushing Vera is simply speaking against her friends
or there view. Correct Randy, Frank, or any of the gang and whammy, your a
LIAR!
But I guess you don't really follow much of this stuff so how could you
know?
>
>> but tell me Chuck, what do you think about Frank assertions that most of
>> the church is lost?
>
> I think the idea of a "lost" Church, in whole or in part, is a biblical
> oxymoron. Knowing Frank as I do, I'm having a difficult time imagining
> that he expressed himself in just that way.
Frank's new gospel say's that the church is deceived and lost. (He been
saying such for a very long time now.) I really question why nobody has
spoken out against this heresy.
(Way too busy with Glenn and Dave, I guess)
> I guessing he meant he thought the majority of those who call themselves
> Christians are, in fact, not Christians, and thus have no claim to eternal
> life in Jesus Christ.
He claims most of our denominational churches preach a false gospel and are
lost.
> I haven't given it much thought, but if we're only considering what we
> might call Western Christianity (European and North American
> Christianity), he's probably correct.
I do not believe that God is sloppy or careless, on the contrary I believe
he
is involved in watching over his church in a very real and personal way.
Frank's assertions that a massive conspiracy and deception has been befallen
the church for hundred of years is ridiculous, equal to Dave's seventy AD
return or Glenn non-Trinity beliefs. I have spoken against Frank's false
teaching but each time the Vera squad comes back calling me names. I think
this is pathetic behavior on Vera and Randy's part but go figure.
TBC/Soggy ` `
> In news:2aa35$46f5c53c$d066ef45$72...@FUSE.NET,
> TBC/Soggy ` ` <Pr...@PrayerTime.com> typed:
>> " ::: good news :::" <vera...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>> news:5llu9dF...@mid.individual.net...
>>> That is what we are foretold: No liar will ever enter Heaven...
>>>
>>> "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor." (Exodus
>>> 20:16 WEB)
>>>
>>>
>>> But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers,
>>> and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall
>>> have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone:
>>> which is the second death. (Revelation 21:8 KJV)
>>>
>>>
>>> "And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth,
>>> neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they
>>> which are written in the Lamb's book of life." (Revelation 21:27 KJV)
>>>
>>>
>>> "Outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the
>>> murderers, the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices
>>> falsehood." (Revelation 22:15 WEB)
>>>
>>>
>>> ::: vera :::
>>
>>
>> I'd be worried if I were you.
>
> Oh, I forgot to ask...
>
> Where exactly do you think did I lie?
>
> You will surely be able to give proof of your accusation - no? Of course
> not.
>
> Liar!
At a girl!
<ROFLOL>
<:^)
TBC/Soggy ` `
> In news:2aa35$46f5c53c$d066ef45$72...@FUSE.NET,
> TBC/Soggy ` ` <Pr...@PrayerTime.com> typed:
>> " ::: good news :::" <vera...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>> news:5llu9dF...@mid.individual.net...
>>> That is what we are foretold: No liar will ever enter Heaven...
>>>
>>> "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor." (Exodus
>>> 20:16 WEB)
>>>
>>>
>>> But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers,
>>> and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall
>>> have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone:
>>> which is the second death. (Revelation 21:8 KJV)
>>>
>>>
>>> "And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth,
>>> neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they
>>> which are written in the Lamb's book of life." (Revelation 21:27 KJV)
>>>
>>>
>>> "Outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the
>>> murderers, the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices
>>> falsehood." (Revelation 22:15 WEB)
>>>
>>>
>>> ::: vera :::
>>
>>
>> I'd be worried if I were you.
>
> Oh, I forgot to ask...
>
> Where exactly do you think did I lie?
>
> You will surely be able to give proof of your accusation - no? Of course
> not.
>
> Liar!
I don't usually give proof but here you Go ...
> " ::: good news :::" <veral...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:5lkn16F...@mid.individual.net... Now you are calling Frank a
> liar, but Frank is surely no liar - but you are, and should watch out whom
> you are helping into the saddle.
Short term memory lose could be a warning sign of some serious health
problem, please seek the advise of your personal physician.
Chuck Stamford
No, I think tbc said you called him a liar (at least that was his claim to
me here), and you apparently did:
"Now you are calling Frank a liar, but Frank is surely no liar - but you
are, and should watch out whom you are helping into the saddle."
>
> It is all there in this thread - please read it:
> http://tinyurl.com/2n8dhv
I've read enough of it to get the gist, and you're correct to dispute what
tbc is arguing. For example:
"Frank has traded his Mormon cult in for a new cult, he boldly declare the
central truth of the gospel but then turns and maligns the body of Christ as
not believing it.
This makes him a heretic."
This is just tbc's personal confusion over what constitutes "heresy", which
consists in unorthodox doctrine, not incorrect opinion about the spiritual
state of others, either individually or as groups. Frank could reasonably
be accused of acting in an unwise or un-Christian like fashion in doing what
he is doing (not in my book, but perhaps in someone else's), but not all
actions or statements that call into question one's personal relationship
with Jesus Christ rise to the level of "heresy". Tbc is failing to make or
address this distinction in his remarks.
And since tbc has given most of us reasonable evidence that he's not a
moron, and that he has at least a casual knowledge of what the New Testament
teaches as doctrine (and probably much more than that), such a failure to
make that distinction smacks of some actual agenda in doing it, rather than
an uneducated confusion about the concept "heresy", or a sufficient lack of
mental acuity for making the less than subtle distinction. It hints at a
desire to legitimize Dave's heretic beliefs to at least the level of Frank's
beliefs; to get people thinking along the lines that the one is no worse and
no better than than the other, and in fact, that seems to be tbc's whole
argument here and his conclusion; a conclusion he sees as so obvious and
important that if you don't agree with it there is something wrong with you.
It is therefore more like a shot gun attack than a sniper attack in that it
is designed to hurt not only the target it has in the cross-hairs, but
anything in the neighborhood of the specified and obvious target. It's the
silly and immature "Frank's a person and Dave's a person, which means that
if Dave is a heretic then so is Frank, because all heretics are people"
argument, which is obviously not a valid approach to the issue.
It's typical of his approach to many issues he finds himself on the wrong
side of, and I wouldn't let it get under your skin, Vera. You just speak
the truth and defend it when it is attacked, and you do it without worrying
about what anyone thinks of you, and you'll be doing God's work. If you
don't care what anyone thinks of you, you will be less vulnerable to the
temptation to go beyond what you KNOW to be true in your remarks in defense
of the truth. You will also not get bogged down in the swamp of trying to
vindicate your character every time some idiot attacks it. This too is an
obstacle to being an apologist for biblical truth, and one of the more
subtle one's at that.
We just preach the TRUTH, Vera, and we attack the falsehoods of darkened
minds with sound argumentation and doctrine when they challenge that Truth.
We don't attack the owners of those minds, but restrict ourselves to the
beliefs they bring and warning others that these minds are wells without
water. We do this whether exalted by friends or slandered by enemies,
whether we make lifelong friends or are betrayed, whether it saves our lives
or causes our deaths. For this is NOT about us, but about the Truth. The
unfortunate truth is that the world generally hates the truth, not
withstanding its protestations to the contrary.
And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and
men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 "For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the
light, lest his deeds should be exposed.
21 "But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be
clearly seen, that they have been done in God."
John 3:19-21 (NKJV)
>
> God bless you,
>
> ::: vera :::
>
Chuck Stamford
"TBC/Soggy ` `" <Pr...@PrayerTime.com> wrote in message
I seem to recall that Vera is "famous" for any number of things she doesn't
actually do more than anyone else does.
>
>
>> Of course, she's human and a sinner just like you and me, and if you push
>> her enough she's going to act against her own better judgment and
>> beliefs....just like we do.
>
> If that's correct then pushing Vera is simply speaking against her friends
> or there view. Correct Randy, Frank, or any of the gang and whammy, your a
> LIAR!
She called you a liar AFTER you called her one, so get of your sanctimonious
high horse and start dealing with reality.
I saw the exchange, you know. I'm familiar enough with human nature to be
able to recognize when someone has been goaded into saying something they
wouldn't have said otherwise, and it's OBVIOUS that you're spinning this
whole conversation in "War and Peace" in a pathetically self-serving
fashion. When are you going to start growing up? You have so much
potential inside of you that you're just WASTING by refusing to become an
adult and start taking personal responsibility for what you do. About the
only time you seem to want to do that is when God does something miraculous
in your life, and that's about the only time in your life you SHOULDN'T be
taking personal responsibility!
>
> But I guess you don't really follow much of this stuff so how could you
> know?
Because I've known Vera for a number of years now, and I know her for what
she is a LOT better than you do, or than anyone who hates her does. Why?
Because I'm not blinded by my prejudices toward her.
>>
>>> but tell me Chuck, what do you think about Frank assertions that most of
>>> the church is lost?
>>
>> I think the idea of a "lost" Church, in whole or in part, is a biblical
>> oxymoron. Knowing Frank as I do, I'm having a difficult time imagining
>> that he expressed himself in just that way.
>
> Frank's new gospel say's that the church is deceived and lost. (He been
> saying such for a very long time now.) I really question why nobody has
> spoken out against this heresy.
> (Way too busy with Glenn and Dave, I guess)
I hear you talking, but I don't see any evidence backing it up, and you
can't seriously expect me to credit your characterization of another's
beliefs just on your unsupported word! You're the guy who thinks of Dave as
a "brother"!! I'd say that has destroyed any credibility your naked
assertions have with me.
Go find me an honest quote of Frank saying that the Church (capital "C", my
friend) is lost and decieved, and paste it here, along with the citation for
it so I can go look at the context. If he's actually said that, then he's
flat wrong, and depending on what he actually means in saying it, it's
possible it could rise to the level of heresy. However, nothing is nothing,
and without that quote and citation we're talking about nothing.
>
>> I guessing he meant he thought the majority of those who call themselves
>> Christians are, in fact, not Christians, and thus have no claim to
>> eternal
>> life in Jesus Christ.
>
> He claims most of our denominational churches preach a false gospel and
> are
> lost.
Again, get me the actual quote, and then we'll talk about it.
>
>> I haven't given it much thought, but if we're only considering what we
>> might call Western Christianity (European and North American
>> Christianity), he's probably correct.
>
>
> I do not believe that God is sloppy or careless, on the contrary I believe
> he
> is involved in watching over his church in a very real and personal way.
Are you suggesting that God's watching over his Church entails that his
Church will always be vibrant and healthy? If so, how do you account for
the history of Israel, the nation God has called the "apple of [his] eye"?
> Frank's assertions that a massive conspiracy and deception has been
> befallen the church for hundred of years is ridiculous, equal to Dave's
> seventy AD return or Glenn non-Trinity beliefs. I have spoken against
> Frank's false teaching but each time the Vera squad comes back calling me
> names. I think this is pathetic behavior on Vera and Randy's part but go
> figure.
This is what I'm "figuring": there is no valid biblical support for Dave's
heretical belief that Christ returned to earth in 70 AD, and his implied
denial of a bodily resurrection of the saints, nor for Glenn's much more
serious (to my mind at least) denial of God's revealed nature. There is,
however, some actual biblical authority for saying that there has been a
general falling away from the faith once delivered to the saints in the last
couple of centuries and that this was prophesied in Scripture to occur
sometime before the Great Day of the Lord (See Luke 18:8; 2 Thess. 2:3,
etc.). All one need do is educate themselves in what has been the trend in
philosophy, epistemology, and biblical criticism over that period of time to
see this "falling away" from orthodoxy in long standing denominations of
Christianity.
So if you're arguing that Frank is in the same boat as Dave and Glenn,
you're making that arugment by ignoring more than you're taking note of,
which prompts the question in me, "Why?". Why would a reasonably
intelligent guy like you make such an obviously flawed argument as this?
And the only answer I can come up with is it's because you want to get to
the conclusion you do so much, it's causing you to go outside of the
rational processes you'd normally bring to any critical examination of a
subject. In short, I think you're riding the crest of your desire here
instead of plodding along with reasoning unaffected by emotion.
And not for the first time in my experience. This dependence you have on
the beliefs your emotions deliver to you, and it's concurrent and necessary
diminution of the beliefs reasoning delivers to you, is what galls me the
most about you. I sense a very good mind in you that for some reason you
simply set aside most of the time, as if you're guilty for having it, or as
if you see it as a threat of some kind to your faith in Christ...all of
which is complete and utter nonsense - a lie of Satan. God GAVE YOU that
mind, and it's high time you started exercising it to it's full potential.
Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
"TBC/Soggy ` `" <Pr...@PrayerTime.com> wrote in message
Such a pathetic example of pure hatred from someone who thinks of themselves
as a vessel of God's love. Does YOUR short term memory lose extend to the
fact you GOADED her into saying this by calling her a liar first in the
relevant conversation?
Sometimes your hypocrisy can be especially nauseating...probably because you
are so disappointing to me when you do it. I EXPECT it from the Daves and
Glenns of this sad, dark world. It constantly catches me by surprise when I
see you eye-ball deep in it, as you are right now.
Chuck Stamford>
>
Pastor Dave
<shell__...@cox.net> wrote:
>> She called me a liar yesterday, same old Vera,
>
>I didn't see that, and it's been my experience that Vera doesn't normally go
>around indiscriminantly accusing people of lying
Translation: She only usually calls people that
disagree with me liars and I like that.
--
To email me, just remove the underscores.
A liberal is someone who will give away everything
except his/her own possessions.
::: good news :::
Pardon me? At what "girl"? Do you think it is funny when people lie
about others like you do? Do you believe God would not see what you are
doing?
Do the lies come naturally out of you, or do you still try to think
before lave your mouth?
You should apologise to Frank for calling him a liar for pointing out
what can save people. He has never attacked you in all the years - you
just do not like him, you prefer heretics as we all know, but that does
not give you the right to tell lies about him.
::: good news :::
Pardon me? :-DDDDD
That makes me a liar? YOU called Frank a liar for saying we are to put
all our faith in Jesus alone, and I rejected that. And that is why you
call me a liar? Bwaaaaaahahahaha!
I can repeat it: You are the liar when you call Frank a liar! I have
never seen Frank lie, but I know how dishonest you are, and not only
since you lied about Frank.
You are giving a false witness against me now, DELIBERATELY and AWARE of
what you are doing, just to discredit and to hurt me - okay, I have
noted that. What, would you say, might God say to that? Do you really
believe you have a special voucher for lies?
I have stopped taking you seriously since you started to actively
support the heretics in this newsgroup, giving up all of your liability
for what you claimed to believe in.
> Short term memory lose could be a warning sign of some serious health
> problem, please seek the advise of your personal physician.
Oh, let all your hate out - it really shows who you are and whom you
serve. This was not always so.
Sad.
Pastor Dave
<shell__...@cox.net> wrote:
>I seem to recall that Vera is "famous" for any number of things she doesn't
>actually do more than anyone else does.
Which means that most people here lie. And you want to
protect her, because she tells the same lies that you do,
you punk.
>She called you a liar AFTER you called her one
And now, all of the sudden, Chucky decides that it's okay
to call someone a liar, if they insult you first. Funny,
but you told me that isn't okay.
>> But I guess you don't really follow much of this stuff so how could you
>> know?
>
>Because I've known Vera for a number of years now, and I know her for what
>she is a LOT better than you do, or than anyone who hates her does. Why?
>Because I'm not blinded by my prejudices toward her.
Bullshit! You're saying that what she did is okay,
because she usually agrees with your lies!
>Go find me an honest quote of Frank
How about we try to find an honest quote of you?
Never mind, can't be done, you punk!
Pastor Dave
You're punk! You try to libel me at every turn and you
flat out lie about me and what has happened and yet,
you wish to claim that someone else is hateful, you
piece of crap?!
Why don't you come down my neck of the woods and
let's talk face to face, Chuck! Let's see how well you
do then, with your blatant lies!
The truth is, you know damn well you're just a wannabe
that no one listens to in real life and you find it easy to
run away when bagged here and try to convince yourself
that no one notices when you're caught in your bullshit!
I don't even like "Soggy"! He's all wet! But I know you're
full of shit when you say he lied about Vera lying! She
does it all the time and you know that, you ass!
>Sometimes your hypocrisy can be especially nauseating
Why? because he's not as good at as you, punk?!
Pastor Dave
<shell__...@cox.net> wrote:
>Sometimes your hypocrisy can be especially nauseating...probably because you
>are so disappointing to me when you do it.
In other words, it makes you sad, because he isn't as good
at it as you.
>I EXPECT it from the Daves
And there it is! While you claim that it's me who does
all of the attacking, here you are, ass wipe, attacking me
and I'm not even involved!
You're an idiot, who needs to be bitch slapped, because
a lame punk bitch is what you are!
::: good news :::
Chuck Stamford <shell__...@cox.net> typed:
And where have I denied that I have called him a liar?
Of course I did - and I repeat it: TBC called Frank a liar for his faith
in Jesus alone, and for warning the people to see that, and Frank is NO
liar - but this makes TBC the liar when he calls him a liar. Sure. TBC
was the first to call others liars, while Frank has never attacked
anyone personally here on ACC. The first post by which he started this
other thread makes clear that he could not stand me encouraging Frank -
and that was what he was obviously aiming at.
>> It is all there in this thread - please read it:
>> http://tinyurl.com/2n8dhv
>
> I've read enough of it to get the gist, and you're correct to dispute
> what tbc is arguing. For example:
>
> "Frank has traded his Mormon cult in for a new cult, he boldly
> declare the central truth of the gospel but then turns and maligns
> the body of Christ as not believing it.
>
> This makes him a heretic."
>
> This is just tbc's personal confusion over what constitutes "heresy",
> which consists in unorthodox doctrine, not incorrect opinion about
> the spiritual state of others, either individually or as groups. Frank
> could reasonably be accused of acting in an unwise or
> un-Christian like fashion in doing what he is doing (not in my book,
> but perhaps in someone else's), but not all actions or statements
> that call into question one's personal relationship with Jesus Christ
> rise to the level of "heresy". Tbc is failing to make or address
> this distinction in his remarks.
Correct. It was also not about Frank at all - but about me encouraging
Frank, but rejecting Dave.
> And since tbc has given most of us reasonable evidence that he's not a
> moron, and that he has at least a casual knowledge of what the New
> Testament teaches as doctrine (and probably much more than that),
> such a failure to make that distinction smacks of some actual agenda
> in doing it, rather than an uneducated confusion about the concept
> "heresy", or a sufficient lack of mental acuity for making the less
> than subtle distinction. It hints at a desire to legitimize Dave's
> heretic beliefs to at least the level of Frank's beliefs; to get
> people thinking along the lines that the one is no worse and no
> better than than the other, and in fact, that seems to be tbc's whole
> argument here and his conclusion; a conclusion he sees as so obvious
> and important that if you don't agree with it there is something
> wrong with you.
Ummm... I think he aimed that at me right from the beginning.
> It is therefore more like a shot gun attack than a
> sniper attack in that it is designed to hurt not only the target it
> has in the cross-hairs, but anything in the neighborhood of the
> specified and obvious target. It's the silly and immature "Frank's a
> person and Dave's a person, which means that if Dave is a heretic
> then so is Frank, because all heretics are people" argument, which is
> obviously not a valid approach to the issue.
:-D Correct.
> It's typical of his approach to many issues he finds himself on the
> wrong side of, and I wouldn't let it get under your skin, Vera. You
> just speak the truth and defend it when it is attacked, and you do it
> without worrying about what anyone thinks of you, and you'll be doing
> God's work.
That is what I did. I cannot see a brother like Frank attacked for
spreading the Gospel, being called a liar. If Frank was a liar, the
Gospel would be a lie.
> If you don't care what anyone thinks of you, you will be
> less vulnerable to the temptation to go beyond what you KNOW to be
> true in your remarks in defense of the truth. You will also not get
> bogged down in the swamp of trying to vindicate your character every
> time some idiot attacks it. This too is an obstacle to being an
> apologist for biblical truth, and one of the more subtle one's at
> that.
I know, and thanks for the reminder.
> We just preach the TRUTH, Vera, and we attack the falsehoods of
> darkened minds with sound argumentation and doctrine when they
> challenge that Truth. We don't attack the owners of those minds, but
> restrict ourselves to the beliefs they bring and warning others that
> these minds are wells without water. We do this whether exalted by
> friends or slandered by enemies, whether we make lifelong friends or
> are betrayed, whether it saves our lives or causes our deaths. For
> this is NOT about us, but about the Truth. The unfortunate truth is
> that the world generally hates the truth, not withstanding its
> protestations to the contrary.
That is so true.
> And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world,
> and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were
> evil. 20 "For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not
> come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.
> 21 "But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may
> be clearly seen, that they have been done in God."
>
> John 3:19-21 (NKJV)
Amen.
::: vera :::
Fred A Stover
He's sent from Satan to harass you because you're interfering with the
deception of his other lackies.
His,
ho echon ota akoueto Preparing the way of the Lord
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a
little child, he shall not enter therein. (Matt 10:15)
<)))))))><
Fred A Stover
news:r4ndf3583svao52cq...@4ax.com...
> You're an idiot, who needs to be bitch slapped, because
> a lame punk bitch is what you are!
More spittle from the punk who calls himself a pastor and has downright
nasty things to say about churches who offer to pray for him (which reveals
what the punk really believes) and condemn them for sending money to help
people who are starving instead of giving it to him.
And, now in another message he has suggested the church fathers for the
first 19 centuries were preterists, ie antichrists:
2 John 1:7
For many deceivers are gone forth into the world, even they that confess
not that Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the
antichrist.
Fred A Stover
I see what she says and I see what you say. She has credibility, and you
don't.
Have you told the truth? When? Where? What did you say?
Fred A Stover
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 13:29:25 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
> <shell__...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I seem to recall that Vera is "famous" for any number of things she
>>doesn't
>>actually do more than anyone else does.
>
> Which means that most people here lie. And you want to
> protect her, because she tells the same lies that you do,
> you punk.
>
No you lie, she calls you on it.
I call you on it.
You are the punk.
snowpheonix
> " ::: good news :::" <veral...@lycos.com> wrote in messagenews:5llu9dF...@mid.individual.net...
Considering she's quoting Exodus, I bet she knows the words of the
Messiah that teaches repentance and is saved but you on the other hand
with your stern judgment should be feeling the heat.
Mat 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with
what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Luk 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye
shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
Luk 19:22 And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge
thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man,
taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:
Luk 19:23 Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that
at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?
Luk 19:24 And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the
pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds.
Luk 19:25 (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)
Luk 19:26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be
given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken
away from him.
Luk 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign
over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
TBC/Soggy ` `
>>> that she is aware of the difference between being incorrect in what
>>> someone says and lying about it. Of course, she's human and a sinner
>>> just like you and me, and if you push her enough she's going to act
>>> against her own better judgment and beliefs....just like we do.
>>>
Heretic my have been the wrong word but I can surly smell a cult from here.
But you seem to want to drink the cool-aid !?!!?!!!
>
> This is just tbc's personal confusion over what constitutes "heresy",
> which consists in unorthodox doctrine, not incorrect opinion about the
> spiritual state of others, either individually or as groups. Frank could
> reasonably be accused of acting in an unwise or un-Christian like fashion
> in doing what he is doing (not in my book, but perhaps in someone else's),
Drink up Chuck!
(Remember, Billy Graham and all those crusades were fake conversions
according to your new guru Frank!)
> but not all actions or statements that call into question one's personal
> relationship with Jesus Christ rise to the level of "heresy". Tbc is
> failing to make or address this distinction in his remarks.
>
> And since tbc has given most of us reasonable evidence that he's not a
> moron, and that he has at least a casual knowledge of what the New
> Testament teaches as doctrine (and probably much more than that), such a
> failure to make that distinction smacks of some actual agenda in doing it,
> rather than an uneducated confusion about the concept "heresy", or a
> sufficient lack of mental acuity for making the less than subtle
> distinction. It hints at a desire to legitimize Dave's heretic beliefs to
> at least the level of Frank's beliefs; to get people thinking along the
> lines that the one is no worse and no better than the other,
I thought my point was clear, I've been saying this for along time, that the
pursuit of some heretics while openly embracing other false teachers is
evidence that the underling motivation for most of what Vera and Randy does
is vengeance, not serving God. Any fair minded, reasonable observer could
readily see this. Daily chasing Dave and Glenn round and round while
praising Frank as he teaches the Church is going to Hell in a hand basket is
the proof something is wrong.
I'll just skip the rest, you've used these same tactics before, twisting
things around and trying to heap condemnation on me. Did you ever consider
that you come across as a pompous jackass?
Something to consider.
[tbc]
::: good news :::
TBC/Soggy ` ` <Pr...@PrayerTime.com> typed:
Do your lies come out naturally or do you have to think before you write
them?
TBC/Soggy ` `
> Do your lies come out naturally or do you have to think before you write
> them?
Easy, calm down, here, drink your cool-aid, at a girl.
::: good news :::
Fred A Stover <freds...@sbcglobal.net> typed:
> "Pastor Knave" < SATAN_@_gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:r4ndf3583svao52cq...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 13:34:33 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
>> <shell__...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> You're an idiot, who needs to be bitch slapped, because
>> a lame punk bitch is what you are!
>
>
>
> More spittle from the punk who calls himself a pastor and has
> downright nasty things to say about churches who offer to pray for
> him (which reveals what the punk really believes) and condemn them
> for sending money to help people who are starving instead of giving
> it to him.
>
> And, now in another message he has suggested the church fathers for
> the first 19 centuries were preterists, ie antichrists:
>
> 2 John 1:7
> For many deceivers are gone forth into the world, even they that
> confess not that Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh. This is the
> deceiver and the antichrist.
Amen.
::: good news :::
> news:6imdf3d8oggpt38ot...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 13:29:25 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
>> <shell__...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I seem to recall that Vera is "famous" for any number of things she
>>> doesn't
>>> actually do more than anyone else does.
>>
>> Which means that most people here lie. And you want to
>> protect her, because she tells the same lies that you do,
>> you punk.
>>
>
> No you lie, she calls you on it.
>
> I call you on it.
>
> You are the punk.
That is true.
::: good news :::
L.T. David <LT...@newsnet.ca> typed:
>> That is what we are foretold: No liar will ever enter Heaven...
>>
>> "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor." (Exodus
>> 20:16 WEB)
>>
>>
>> But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers,
>> and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall
>> have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone:
>> which is the second death. (Revelation 21:8 KJV)
>>
>>
>> "And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth,
>> neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they
>> which are written in the Lamb's book of life." (Revelation 21:27 KJV)
>>
>>
>> "Outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the
>> murderers, the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices
>> falsehood." (Revelation 22:15 WEB)
>>
> conclusion that you, Vera, are bound to Hell. You fit all of the
> above qualifications. No joke.
*yawn*
::: good news :::
Fred A Stover <freds...@sbcglobal.net> typed:
Sad but true, and it took me years to understand that.
> His,
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://tinyurl.com/2hf6ak
>
> ho echon ota akoueto Preparing the way of the Lord
> Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God
> as a little child, he shall not enter therein. (Matt 10:15)
> <)))))))><
God bless you, Fred!
::: vera :::
TBC/Soggy ` `
Fred needs to wake up and smell the coffee, he's not on Franks list either.
Don't drink the cool-aid dude!
L.T. David
>
::: good news :::
Chuck Stamford
"TBC/Soggy ` `" <Pr...@PrayerTime.com> wrote in message
I'm sure it's a comfort to you to think about me in those terms. And
you're right; heretic was the wrong word, and so is cult.
What is it with you? Can't anyone just be wrong? I think you're wrong a
great deal of the time, but you don't see me trying to pigeon hole you.
When you're wrong, and I can show that you're wrong, then you're just
wrong...end of story. We don't have to drag in some melodramatic category
to drop you in.
>>
>> This is just tbc's personal confusion over what constitutes "heresy",
>> which consists in unorthodox doctrine, not incorrect opinion about the
>> spiritual state of others, either individually or as groups. Frank could
>> reasonably be accused of acting in an unwise or un-Christian like fashion
>> in doing what he is doing (not in my book, but perhaps in someone
>> else's),
>
> Drink up Chuck!
>
> (Remember, Billy Graham and all those crusades were fake conversions
> according to your new guru Frank!)
You see what you're doing here? You're acting like a petulant child who
wanted something and didn't get it.
I have one simple prayer for you, and I pray it constantly: GROW UP! If you
can't do it as a part and participant in this newsgroup, then do it wherever
you can, but grow up.
>> but not all actions or statements that call into question one's personal
>> relationship with Jesus Christ rise to the level of "heresy". Tbc is
>> failing to make or address this distinction in his remarks.
>>
>> And since tbc has given most of us reasonable evidence that he's not a
>> moron, and that he has at least a casual knowledge of what the New
>> Testament teaches as doctrine (and probably much more than that), such a
>> failure to make that distinction smacks of some actual agenda in doing
>> it,
>> rather than an uneducated confusion about the concept "heresy", or a
>> sufficient lack of mental acuity for making the less than subtle
>> distinction. It hints at a desire to legitimize Dave's heretic beliefs
>> to
>> at least the level of Frank's beliefs; to get people thinking along the
>> lines that the one is no worse and no better than the other,
>
> I thought my point was clear, I've been saying this for along time, that
> the pursuit of some heretics while openly embracing other false teachers
> is evidence that the underling motivation for most of what Vera and Randy
> does is vengeance, not serving God. Any fair minded, reasonable observer
> could readily see this. Daily chasing Dave and Glenn round and round while
> praising Frank as he teaches the Church is going to Hell in a hand basket
> is the proof something is wrong.
It would be proof that something was wrong if you could provide any evidence
that Frank is doing what you say he's doing, but I've seen no such evidence.
Granted, I don't read Frank's posts very often, and the one's I do read are
generally not his, but him posting someone else's material, but the little I
have seen gives me no reason to suspect that Frank holds to some doctrine
that is at odds with traditional Christian orthodoxy, at least orthodoxy
since the Reformation.
I sitting right here waiting for the evidence you've got to support this
accusation you've made against Frank. Surely you must realize you have an
obligation to present it if you want me to give your accusation any
credibility.
>
> I'll just skip the rest, you've used these same tactics before, twisting
> things around and trying to heap condemnation on me.
Again the failure to make obvious distinctions so that you can frame things
in a way that tends to cast you in the best of lights.
Do you know the difference between condemning and admonishing and/or
exhorting?
> Did you ever consider that you come across as a pompous jackass?
I don't have to "consider" whether I do or not, because I know that I do
sometimes. Funny coincidence about that though: it's always the people who
can't see that they are doing what I"m admonishing them to stop doing that
see me as a pompous jackass. Those who look at what I've said, and can find
themselves there have never, to my knowledge, thought of me that way.
Have you ever considered what it says about you that you seem to have so
much trouble loving those you think don't love you; don't admire you?
>
> Something to consider.
It certainly is.
Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
> In news:5XJJi.55096$YL5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net,
> Fred A Stover <freds...@sbcglobal.net> typed:
>> "Pastor Knave" < SATAN_@_gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:6imdf3d8oggpt38ot...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 13:29:25 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
>>> <shell__...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I seem to recall that Vera is "famous" for any number of things she
>>>> doesn't
>>>> actually do more than anyone else does.
>>>
>>> Which means that most people here lie. And you want to
>>> protect her, because she tells the same lies that you do,
>>> you punk.
>>>
>>
>> No you lie, she calls you on it.
>>
>> I call you on it.
>>
>> You are the punk.
>
> That is true.
No one here is a punk. There are no punks. There are just people, many of
whom are laboring with faculties severely damaged by sin; all of whom have
sustained some significant amount of damage from sin.
Dave soils himself with his vulgar name calling. No one else. Should we
all slip into a disposable diaper because Dave can't get through an hour
without changing his?
Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
I would have let it go at the first response, but otherwise perfect, my
dear. We must meet the intellectual acumen of our adversaries with equal
or greater intellection. ;-)
Chuck Stamford
Pastor Dave
<shell__...@cox.net> wrote:
>Dave soils himself with his vulgar name calling.
Lies politely stated, are still lies Chuck, even though
you think it means they aren't. And you are a proven
liar with zero integrity, Chuck. You're a man who is
quick to lie and doesn't keep his word.
--
If you wouldn't say it in person, why say it online?
::: good news :::
Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> typed:
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 22:09:36 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
> <shell__...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Dave soils himself with his vulgar name calling.
>
> Lies politely stated, are still lies Chuck, even though
> you think it means they aren't. And you are a proven
> liar with zero integrity, Chuck. You're a man who is
> quick to lie and doesn't keep his word.
Do your lies come out naturally, or do you still think before you write
something?
Fred A Stover
Take a bath. I smell it too.
The folks with different views on everything but your beloved Satanic punk
are attacking Satan, which you admit. You question their motives, thinking
thry are like you.
His,
ho echon ota akoueto Preparing the way of the Lord
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a
little child, he shall not enter therein. (Matt 10:15)
<)))))))><
>
>
>
>
>>
Carl
" ::: good news :::" <vera...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:5llu9dF...@mid.individual.net...
> That is what we are foretold: No liar will ever enter Heaven...
>
So, that pretty much prevents politicians, used-car salemen and Joe Isuzu.
:-)
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
Carl
>
> Well you're not her, and she's not you, so it's all good.
And you're not me and I'm not he and we're not we....wait a second...that's
starting to sound like an old Beatles tunes, ain't it?
So who's the walrus?
Fred A Stover
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 22:09:36 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
> <shell__...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Dave soils himself
His,.
Fred A Stover
List? When did I express an interest in lists?
When someone is criticized for challenging blasphemous lies, there is one
source of the criticism.
SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim
"Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote in message
news:fdct34$9sr$1...@news.utelfla.com...
>
> " ::: good news :::" <vera...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:5llu9dF...@mid.individual.net...
>> That is what we are foretold: No liar will ever enter Heaven...
>>
>
> So, that pretty much prevents politicians, used-car salemen and Joe Isuzu.
and that includes chrstians too, since they LIE about the existence of their
god
there is no god, it's all one big crock of shit
::: good news :::
TBC/Soggy/OldSock is trying to create a new lie of a cult in ACC. He
does not have any new ideas, so he picks up those of Mark and Glenn from
ancient times, but too bad, everybody has found out that these were all
lies meanwhile.
> When someone is criticized for challenging blasphemous lies, there is
> one source of the criticism.
Amen.
> His,
God bless you,
::: vera :::
rogue
> " ::: good news :::" <veral...@lycos.com> wrote in messagenews:5llu9dF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> > That is what we are foretold: No liar will ever enter Heaven...
>
> So, that pretty much prevents politicians, used-car salemen and Joe Isuzu.
> :-)
>
> May God bless,
> Carl
> my website --http://www.nettally.com/saints/
> my blog --http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
JERRY
How about people who tell other Christians that they can't get into
Heaven without believing in the Trinity even though there is not a
single verse in the bible that agrees with them?
Pastor Dave
<rogu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>JERRY
>How about people who tell other Christians that they can't get into
>Heaven without believing in the Trinity even though there is not a
>single verse in the bible that agrees with them?
You have been educated before and deliberately ignored
the post.
Fred A Stover
news:1191075738.1...@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Look again!
His,
Bible Bob
<freds...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>"rogue" <rogu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1191075738.1...@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Sep 26, 10:09 am, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
>>> " ::: good news :::" <veral...@lycos.com> wrote in
>>> messagenews:5llu9dF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> > That is what we are foretold: No liar will ever enter Heaven...
>>>
>>> So, that pretty much prevents politicians, used-car salemen and Joe
>>> Isuzu.
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> May God bless,
>>> Carl
>>> my website --http://www.nettally.com/saints/
>>> my blog --http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
>>
>> JERRY
>> How about people who tell other Christians that they can't get into
>> Heaven without believing in the Trinity even though there is not a
>> single verse in the bible that agrees with them?
>
>
>Look again!
>
>His,
Fred,
I've been looking for 30 plus years; and it still isn't there. There
is nothing in the word of God that says a person must believe in a
trinity to be saved. I think that it is terrible that those who say
they are saved who require a trinity to be saved deny what Jesus
Christ did for them. To them, Jesus was a piker, a third of a Savior;
not man enough to save them, a false redeemer, etc, etc. Us real
Christians, on the other hand, believe that his redemptive works were
sufficient and we don't need to believe in fifth century doctrines of
men to be saved.
Us real Christians are blessed knowing that our Heavenly Father and
His Beloved Son are sufficient for every anything we might need. We
don't need a third mythical god to fill an imaginary gap in salvation.
The whole docttrine of the trinity is dependent on one thing and that
is that there be a "the Holy Ghost" that resides in the heavens with
the Father and with the Son. Only one verse of Scripture says there
is a "the Holy Ghost" in heaven and that is 1 John 5:7,8 which was
corrupted with the addition of words in the 15th century.
1Jn 5:7-8 KJV
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the
Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the
water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
It should read
1Jn 5:8 RV
8 For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water,
and the blood: and the three agree in one.
1Jn 5:7-8 NASB
7 For there are three that testify:
8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in
agreement.
Without that falsified verse from the KJV there is no verse that says
there is a Holy Ghost in heaven. In every one of the about 380 usages
of spirit in the NT, the spirit is always on the earth - the same in
the OT. So, much for a trinity. Without the third part; it doesn't
exist except in the imaginations of men who deny the power of the Lord
Jesus Christ.
Nothing so completely baffles one who is full of trick and duplicity
himself, than straightforward and simple integrity in another.
Charles Caleb Colton, author and clergyman (1780-1832)
::: good news :::
> news:1191075738.1...@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Sep 26, 10:09 am, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
>>> " ::: good news :::" <veral...@lycos.com> wrote in
>>> messagenews:5llu9dF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>> That is what we are foretold: No liar will ever enter Heaven...
>>>
>>> So, that pretty much prevents politicians, used-car salemen and Joe
>>> Isuzu.
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> May God bless,
>>> Carl
>>> my website --http://www.nettally.com/saints/
>>> my blog --http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
>>
>> JERRY
>> How about people who tell other Christians that they can't get into
>> Heaven without believing in the Trinity even though there is not a
>> single verse in the bible that agrees with them?
>
>
> Look again!
Good idea!
Chuck Stamford
"Bible Bob" <bibl...@saintly.com> wrote in message
news:g5ltf3dctefck0km9...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 16:22:09 -0500, "Fred A Stover"
> <freds...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>"rogue" <rogu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1191075738.1...@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Sep 26, 10:09 am, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
>>>> " ::: good news :::" <veral...@lycos.com> wrote in
>>>> messagenews:5llu9dF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>> > That is what we are foretold: No liar will ever enter Heaven...
>>>>
>>>> So, that pretty much prevents politicians, used-car salemen and Joe
>>>> Isuzu.
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>> May God bless,
>>>> Carl
>>>> my website --http://www.nettally.com/saints/
>>>> my blog --http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
>>>
>>> JERRY
>>> How about people who tell other Christians that they can't get into
>>> Heaven without believing in the Trinity even though there is not a
>>> single verse in the bible that agrees with them?
>>
>>
>>Look again!
>>
>>His,
>
> Fred,
>
> I've been looking for 30 plus years; and it still isn't there.
Thirty years! And you STILL can't see it?! How does that work for you? It
can't be there, so it isn't there, no matter what's there? That about sum
up your hermeneutics?
"God is love" That simple three word proposition, to be true as stated,
REQUIRES that God consist in more than one person. If you can't see that
much, you can't see anything.
Chuck Stamford
rogue
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 07:22:18 -0700, rogue
>
> >JERRY
> >How about people who tell other Christians that they can't get into
> >Heaven without believing in the Trinity even though there is not a
> >single verse in the bible that agrees with them?
>
> You have been educated before and deliberately ignored
> the post.
JERRY
No, Dave, I have been offered rationalizations. Show me where in the
bible Jesus says that you must believe in the Trinity in order to be
saved.
Bible Bob
Chuck,
Actually, God is love (noun) indicates that there are objects that
require love (verb) and to give love back. It has nothing to do with
a Trinity. Besides, Jesus Christ would take care of your other
"person" requirement and a third person still would not be needed.
With regard to herman being nuts. Not my bag. I prefer to learn from
the word of God rightly divided ratehr than the traditions of men.
rogue
> "rogue" <rogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1191075738.1...@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sep 26, 10:09 am, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
> >> " ::: good news :::" <veral...@lycos.com> wrote in
> >> messagenews:5llu9dF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> >> > That is what we are foretold: No liar will ever enter Heaven...
>
> >> So, that pretty much prevents politicians, used-car salemen and Joe
> >> Isuzu.
> >> :-)
>
> >> May God bless,
> >> Carl
> >> my website --http://www.nettally.com/saints/
> >> my blog --http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
>
> > JERRY
> > How about people who tell other Christians that they can't get into
> > Heaven without believing in the Trinity even though there is not a
> > single verse in the bible that agrees with them?
>
> Look again!
>
> His,
>
>
> ho echon ota akoueto Preparing the way of the Lord
> Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a
> little child, he shall not enter therein. (Matt 10:15)
> <)))))))><
JERRY
I've looked, and frequently demonstrate in this and other forums that
I know the bible better than the Christians posting.
So, Fred, please show me where the verse is in the NT where Jesus says
you can't enter the kingdom of Heaven unless you believe in the
Trinity.
rogue
> "Bible Bob" <bible...@saintly.com> wrote in message
>
> news:g5ltf3dctefck0km9...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 16:22:09 -0500, "Fred A Stover"
>
> >>"rogue" <rogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
JERRY
Hi Chuck,
I'm not a Christian, I'm a skeptic. I'm also a former fundie who
found the bible wasn't true when he actually read the damned thing.
For years I have watched the Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians argue
and all the Trinitarians have to support their arguments are
rationalizations, trying to read into the text to say something is
there.
Personally, I don't care about such arguments. I consider them
"invisible friend arguments." You know, "My invisible friend is
better than your invisible friend." Since I can show the bible isn't
the word of any Deity, the point is moot.
However, in the interest of just trying to find a meeting point for
all parties, I have pointed out that even if there WAS/IS a Trinity,
if Jesus doesn't say that you have to believe in the Trinity to be
saved, it doesn't matter for salvation. People who want to argue such
things can continue to. I just get tired of watching know-nothing
Christians attacking other know-nothing Christians and telling them
that they aren't really saved.
It's childish, and I personally believe that if there really is a
deity (and this deity is obviously not the one of the bible, since the
bible isn't true) then that deity has no use for those hateful people
who try to hurt other Christians.
rogue
>
> >JERRY
> >How about people who tell other Christians that they can't get into
> >Heaven without believing in the Trinity even though there is not a
> >single verse in the bible that agrees with them?
>
> You have been educated before and deliberately ignored
> the post.
JERRY
You are so funny, Dave. You are the guy who lost to me on Tyre and
ran away, and then lost to me on the contradictions on the
Resurrection Morning and ran away.
The only thing you seem to be good at is running away.
By the way, what church are you pastor of again? Oh, that's right!
You aren't a real pastor, you just take the title, kind of like Gasbag
claiming to be a "Dr."
Rod of Aaron/Tbc
<Wow>
[Heavy]
Rod of Aaron/Tbc
You must believe in the resurection of Christ, but hey, what do I know?
[tbc]
>
>
Rod of Aaron/Tbc
<They got one, but you really don't want to hear it.>
[Weak at best]
"Unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins"
(Repent and believe the Gospel)
[tbc]
>
Pastor Dave
I showed you where the Trinity is real.
Now if you think you can deny who Christ
really is and still go to Heaven, that's your
choice. But don't pretend that it's okay to
try to start at first base again, just so you
can pull the same crap again and think
I will keep going in circles with you.
Pastor Dave
<rogu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sep 29, 7:49 pm, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 07:22:18 -0700, rogue
>>
>> <rogue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >JERRY
>> >How about people who tell other Christians that they can't get into
>> >Heaven without believing in the Trinity even though there is not a
>> >single verse in the bible that agrees with them?
>>
>> You have been educated before and deliberately ignored
>> the post.
>
>JERRY
>You are so funny, Dave. You are the guy who lost to me on Tyre and
>ran away, and then lost to me on the contradictions on the
>Resurrection Morning and ran away.
And Tyre was mentioned in regard to a discussion about
the Trinity, where? Oh yea, that's right, you just
mentioned it, to try to throw up a red herring, to avoid
the fact that you ran away last time!
This was where you realize that you ran away from debating
about the Trinity, thinking that insults would do and now
wish to claim that when you insulted me in regard to Tyre,
it means you won there too, instead of the truth, which is
that I tired of your antics and denials. Your red herring
is more proof of your foolishness and attempts to avoid
dealing with the facts at all costs.
rogue
Please give chapter and verse.
>
> (Repent and believe the Gospel)
JERRY
Oh, but I can't. You see, the bible is obviously a 2000 year old book
of goatherder mythology. It fails to be historically accurate; it
fails on prophecy and the books contradict each other on the same
identical events. If the god of the bible inspired this book, loves
his creation and uses this creation in order to get them to come to
him, don't you think he would have done a better job of writing it and
protecting the text?
I mean, this collection of myths is ridiculous. How can any thinking
person believe them to be true?
>
rogue
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 20:07:36 -0700, rogue
>
>
>
> <rogue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 29, 7:49 pm, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 07:22:18 -0700, rogue
>
> >> <rogue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >JERRY
> >> >How about people who tell other Christians that they can't get into
> >> >Heaven without believing in the Trinity even though there is not a
> >> >single verse in the bible that agrees with them?
>
> >> You have been educated before and deliberately ignored
> >> the post.
>
> >JERRY
> >You are so funny, Dave. You are the guy who lost to me on Tyre and
> >ran away, and then lost to me on the contradictions on the
> >Resurrection Morning and ran away.
> DAVE
> And Tyre was mentioned in regard to a discussion about
> the Trinity, where? Oh yea, that's right, you just
> mentioned it, to try to throw up a red herring, to avoid
> the fact that you ran away last time!
JERRY
No, I brought it up to respond to your claim that an answer was
given. You give lots of answers, Dave, and they are always wrong.
You told me that Tyre was a fulfilled prophecy and then you pitched in
with Gasbag when he tried to debate me on Tyre. I trashed you and he
both equally and you both ran off and hid. I also showed that you
hadn't read the differing gospel accounts of the Resurrection Morning
and couldn't answer the many and various contradictions in the text
there. You ran away again.
Now, you think someone should take your opinion on the Trinity
seriously? Please!
> DAVE
> This was where you realize that you ran away from debating
> about the Trinity,
JERRY
There is no debate on the Trinity, Dave. I asked simply, show me the
verse in the NT where Jesus says you must believe in the Trinity to be
saved. No such verse exists. What Trinitarians give me are
rationalizations about other verses that they want to claim means the
Trinity is a requirement for salvation. Silly, silly. My point, and
it still stands unanswered, is that if Jesus didn't say that you MUST
believe he was a triune god in order for your soul to be saved, then
it's not important. It's just another "invisible friend" argument
that has no weight.
If the bible-god exists (and the bible is certainly no proof of it)
and he/she/it wanted everyone to know it was a Triune god, it wouldn't
be hinted at, but spelled out in big letters. Jesus would say "I am
three god, three gods, three gods in one" like a gum commercial and he
would also say "Only if you believe in me as three do you see the lee
of the Pearly Gates." Got it? He spells it out with lines like "No
one comes to the Father but through me." He doesn't say "Me and God
and the Holy Ghost are like this, man, and only if you go through US
do you get to heaven."
> DAVE
> thinking that insults would do and now
> wish to claim that when you insulted me in regard to Tyre,
> it means you won there too, instead of the truth, which is
> that I tired of your antics and denials.
JERRY
No, you posited responses along the same lines as Gasbag, were more
insulting than he was and pretty much piggybacked on his arguments
until I shot them all down, one by one, and then you ran away, just
like you did when I shattered your claims about the gospel accounts of
Resurrection Morning. If you want to rationalize your response then
as you rationalize your Trinity, I'm used to that, but anyone reading
can clearly see you have no logic and you don't know your bible very
well at all.
> DAVE
> Your red herring
> is more proof of your foolishness and attempts to avoid
> dealing with the facts at all costs.
JERRY
Do you remember your "red herring" claim when you debated me before
too? You used to always claim that I threw out red herrings and I
didn't understand what you thought was a red herring. Until finally
you pointed to a particular statement and demonstrated that my
arguments weren't red herrings, you simply didn't understand what was
being said, and assumed that I was changing the subject and throwing
out red herrings when instead I was offering you analogies to
demonstrate my points.
Like BB, you don't grasp abstract concepts well, Dave. You never
have. You want everything laid out for you in a linear, concrete
line, but your rationalizations don't hold up and when you are shown
to be a fraud, you aren't even smart enough to understand why you are
shown as a fraud. Instead, you attack the person who proves you
wrong.
rogue
> "rogue" <rogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
JERRY
Which doesn't include the Trinity. But then, you know, that presents
other problems, since the four gospel accounts of the Resurrection all
contradict each other. They were obviously made up for the sake of a
good story.
Besides, the idea of rising from the dead isn't new. Myths far older
than Christianity all made the same claim.
rogue
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 19:49:15 -0700, rogue
>
>
>
> <rogue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 29, 7:49 pm, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 07:22:18 -0700, rogue
>
> >> <rogue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >JERRY
> >> >How about people who tell other Christians that they can't get into
> >> >Heaven without believing in the Trinity even though there is not a
> >> >single verse in the bible that agrees with them?
>
> >> You have been educated before and deliberately ignored
> >> the post.
>
> >JERRY
> >No, Dave, I have been offered rationalizations. Show me where in the
> >bible Jesus says that you must believe in the Trinity in order to be
> >saved.
> I showed you where the Trinity is real.
JERRY
Missed the point and is thus irrelevant. I've seen the verses that
Trinitarians use to justify the belief in a Trinity.
And, as I've pointed out then and now, its' an interpretation of the
text. The text does not SAY what you want to claim, it's simply
interpreted that way. So, you and the non-Trinitarians have an
opinion, nothing more.
> DAVE
> Now if you think you can deny who Christ
> really is and still go to Heaven, that's your
> choice.
JERRY
And here's where you keep getting into trouble. Because you make up
an interpretation of a Trinity, you also rationalize an argument that
is not in the text that says who may or may not be saved. YOU don't
get to say. You have no say in the debate. If the bible god exists,
only he/she/it decides if you are right or wrong.
And, the bible god's TEXT doesn't say that. Only *Trinitarians* say
that.
You see, I have no stake in the Trinity argument. To me, it's a red
herring. Why? Because if the bible isn't true, then the entire
argument is moot.
And, the bible has been shown (by me and others and directly to you)
to fail to be historically accurate, it's been shown to fail on
prophecy, and the books of the bible have been shown to contradict
each other when describing the same event. One could write a short
book on the discrepancies between the gospel of John and the synoptic
gospels alone. (Quick, was Jesus' ministry one year or three? John
says three but the synoptics all say one.)
Given that the bible isn't true, then how can it matter if the
fictional god of the fictional book is one god in three or three gods
in one?
> DAVE
> But don't pretend that it's okay to try to start at first base again, just so you
> can pull the same crap again and think I will keep going in circles with you.
JERRY
I didn't ask you to respond to me! LOL! I asked a question, which no
Trinitarian can answer and so they keep giving me rationalizations
because the text doesn't support them directly.
I keep asking this question to make the point over and over and over
when the Trinity argument comes up: it's not important. First, Jesus
doesn't say you have to believe in him as three to be saved. Never
says it. Doesn't hint at it. No parables explaining it. Nothing.
Nada. Zilch. Zero.
Jesus says to be saved you need to keep the commandments and if you
want to be truly good, you will sell all you have, and follow "him."
Doesn't say to follow "us."
Sold all your earthly possessions yet, Dave? Are you absolutely sure
you are keeping all those commandments, including the one not to
covet?
Or, perhaps you are just one more smorgasbord Christian, taking what
you want from the bible and ignoring the rest because it's not
convenient?
Fred A Stover
"The verse"?
John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
His,
--
Fred A Stover
We either believe in Him or we don't. He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If
that's in whom we believe, we will be saved.
I think it's one of those things that is so obvious, that we often overlook
it.
His,
ho echon ota akoueto Preparing the way of the Lord
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a
little child, he shall not enter therein. (Matt 10:15)
<)))))))><
>
Bible Bob
<freds...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Fred,
In Him who? There is God the Father of Jesus Christ and there is
Jesus Christ the Son of God; but no third person named the Holy Ghost
(1+1=2). God says we must confess Jesus as Lord and believe that God
raised Jesus from the dead (1+1=2). It does not say that we need to
believe in a Trinity to be saved.
Acording to the word of God those who believe in a trinity are
overcome by the world and call God a liar and is antichrist.
1Jn 5:1 KJV Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of
God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is
begotten of him.
1Jn 5:5 KJV Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that
believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
1Jn 5:10 KJV He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in
himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he
believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
1Jn 2:21 KJV I have not written unto you because ye know not the
truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
1Jn 2:22 KJV Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the
Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
1Jn 2:23 KJV Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father:
Bible Bob
Fred,
No trinity mentioned 1+1=2.
Ralph
Gee Chuckie, care to support that with anything at all? Just another
rationalization by you would be a help. Right now you have shown nothing!
Chuck Stamford
Well, Jerry, you've got way too much in here to deal with in one post in any
sort of adequate fashion, so I'm just going to pick out the part of it that
I understand to be your main point, which is why is belief in the Trinity an
essential Christian belief. However, for you to understand what's going on
here, you're going to have to do something that most people on the Internet
find impossible: you're going to have to suspend your skepticism long enough
to use the Bible as a true source of Divine revelation, because that's what
Christians do; that's how Christians view the Bible. They may have varying
positions on exactly how it is God's revelation of himself to man, and/or
how much of it is that revelation, but there isn't a Christian alive that
doesn't have some special epistemic relationship with the Bible; that
doesn't see it as authoritative to at least some degree in their lives. And
in looking at this issue critically, you are going to have to look through
"Christian" eyes, at least on this point about the Bible being God's special
revelation, for there is nothing I can point you to in God's general
revelation (nature) that is going to settle this question one way or the
other.
Of course, the short answer would be that if God is triune in nature, he
would obviously not be a any god who isn't. We're talking about an
ESSENTIAL property of being here, so it can't logically be the case that God
can be both triune and not triune in nature. It therefore follows that
SOMEONE in this controversy (actually, at LEAST one...logically both could
be wrong) is wrong about God, and not just wrong about something God has
done, or some relationship God has with us or we with him, but wrong about
who and what God essentially IS. So between the Trinitarian and the
non-Trinitarian views of "God", it is NOT the case that both are worshipping
the same basic God, but simply have different beliefs about him. It is
instead much more than that. It is no less than that one of them is an
idolator; is worshipping a God who is nothing in reality (I know, to you
both are nothing in reality, but here is where you get to exercise some
mental discipline to follow the argument so that you can make a vaild
judgment as to its internal consistency). Thus what that Bible has to say
about idolators would necessarily apply to the one who is wrong here.
The second thing to note here goes directly to my remark to Bible Bob, that
for God to be eternal and be love, God must exist as a mulitplicity of
persons; at least two persons, and as a matter of revelation, three persons.
We have to make some assumptions to see this, and so that you will see it,
I'm going to ask that you make those assumptions along with me for the sake
of argument.
The first is that God created the universe. No "Christian" will dispute
this, so we're not talking about my personal assumptions in dividing between
who is and who isn't a Christian. Second is the assumption that God is
eternal and that the universe isn't, from which it follows logically that
there was some part of God's existence when God existed and the universe
didn't, nor did the angels, nor did any other being but God.
If those two assumptions are held to be true, and I know of NO Christian
denomination (Mormons are polytheists, and therefore just another religion
calling itself "Christian" when that's not the case) that denies the
eternality of God (with all that this logically includes) and the
temporality of the universe (and all that this logically implies about the
universe), then if FOLLOWS that IF God IS love, there are more than one
person in God. To see this, first realize that the word "love", whatever
else it means to us, describes some sort of relationship. Now if we keep
conceptualizing of God existing alone, we then have two possibilities for
what this relationship is. It could be that God loves himself, if God is a
single person, or it could be that God loves others, if God is a
multiplicity of persons.
Now you can probably see how the difference in these two relationships could
be philosophically developed so as to require that any God who is both
"love" and the Creator of a temporal universe must logically consist in more
than one person, but the real issue here is how different these two possible
Gods, the one that perfectly loves himself, and the one that perfectly loves
others, are. It boils down to the difference between selfless love and
selfish love, and it is my belief from my own study of the Bible that this
selfless loving is what is called "eternal life", and that selfish loving is
what is called "sin", from which "death" derives. And the whole story that
we find unfolding in the Bible is the conflict between selfishness and
selflessness, and which is the true eternal life.
Thus the God who is one eternal person and love and the Creator of the
universe, not only doesn't make any real sense (why would God create
anything, ever, if he is perfectly in love with himself and eternal?), but
is the God who is selfishness; the God who acts for his own well-being (and
perhaps even amusement?); who sees his creation as for his own benefit,
while the God who is selfless loving is the kind of God one can truely trust
with their hopes, dreams, desires, in short, their lives.
So it's NOT the case that the God of those who say that God is only one
eternal person is just short two persons from those who say God is three
eternal persons. It is the difference between worshipping selfishness and
selflessness; between serving one or the other; between becoming LIKE one or
the other. And no one need be a Christian, or even a theist, to be able to
see that the former is the logical denial of the latter. It may take a
faith you no longer possess to realize that one of them HAS to be true, but
surely you can see that if either of them are true, only one of them can be,
and which one it is will make a BIG difference in the person's life who
believes. Even in the secular world it is a truth that we are shaped by our
champions; by those figures in our experience that we come to idealize, to
make our standard in life. It may be a baseball player, a writer, a
philosopher, a politician, or even an abstract concept. In the issue before
us we are talking about no less than logical opposites, and making those
opposites our "God"; the idealization that can't possibly be improved upon,
and that we willingly allow to control and shape our lives. It makes little
difference to any of this what name we call this concept, or that different
people may get them both out of the same book. The truth is that there are
two completely different and opposing God's here that can NEVER be
reconciled, and thus while I believe in the one true and living God who
created the temporal universe and IS love, and while I maintain that belief
in a coherent fashion, I can NEVER see those who reject that God as my
brothers and sisters in Christ, or as anything but the idolators they are.
If that's being a fundamentalist, then logicians who hold that a proposition
and its denial can't both be true are fundamentalists as well.
Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
No it doesn't. But like I said, if you can study the Bible for thirty years
and not see that God consists in more than one person, and can look at a
three word sentence in your native language and not understand what it is
saying, and what the implications are of what it is saying, nothing I say is
going to cause you to see, for you are truly blind.
Chuck Stamford
rogue
JERRY
Doesn't look to me like it says that you have to believe in a Trinity
in order to be saved. Sounds like one more christian rationalization.
rogue
> CHUCK
> Well, Jerry, you've got way too much in here to deal with in one post in any
> sort of adequate fashion, so I'm just going to pick out the part of it that
> I understand to be your main point, which is why is belief in the Trinity an
> essential Christian belief.
JERRY
No, no, no, no, no. Not asking why belief in the Trinity is an
essential belief. To me that is one of those "invisible friend"
arguments I mention.
What I want is the verse in the bible where Jesus says that you must
believe in the Trinity in order to be saved.
Let me give you the short version.
1. The NT is about Jesus.
2. Jesus tells what is required to be saved.
3. People who do it are saved and those who don't are not.
Now, we have a number of would be Christians telling other would-be
Christians that they aren't really saved because they don't believe
the same way the first group does.
My question: Where does JESUS say that you have to believe in the
Trinity to be saved. The verse. Not someone else's rationalization,
not someone else's interpretation, I want you to quote me THE VERSE
where Jesus tells his followers that unless they believe in God as a
triune god, they aren't saved.
Because, all the rest is just hateful bullshit. It's one group trying
to feel superior to another group.
I've said all along that Christianity is about people wanting to feel
superior to others. Christians not only do it to non-Christians but
they also do it to other Christians.
As for your silly claim that I must see the bible as the Divine
anything, it's impossible to do once you have read the book. It's
historically inaccurate and untrue, it fails on prophecy and the books
of the bible contradict each other on the same events, such as the
Resurrection morning accounts.
<snipped for brevity>
Fred A Stover
Hello Bob,
The problem is that there is the third person of the Holy Spirit, the
Comforter (John 14:26) which the Father sent when the Son returned to His
Father. The third person is in this scripture: "But now I go my way to him
that sent me; and none of you asketh me, Whither goest thou? But because I
have said these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your heart. Nevertheless
I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go
not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send
him unto you" (John 16:5-7).
And that He is equal to the Father and the Son is seen here: "Go ye
therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name [onoma: name,
singular] of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Mat
28:19).
As He says, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting
life" (John 3:16).
When the Lord of scripture is the one in which we believe we will be saved.
His,
ho echon ota akoueto Preparing the way of the Lord
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a
little child, he shall not enter therein. (Matt 10:15)
<)))))))><
>
Chuck Stamford
First, what would be the point in supplying you with propositional
statements from a source you find to be "historically inaccurate and
untrue"? If that is indeed your conclusion about the Bible, then given you
hold this belief about it, your request, it seems to me, is the very
definition of irrational!
Second, and again this has to do with a statement of yours being incoherent.
To say it is "impossible" to read the entire Bible and still hold it to be
"historically accurate and true", faced with a world in which hundreds of
PhD's in biblical studies, not to mention hundreds of thousands of people of
lesser education like me, do EXACTLY that, is simply to deny an obvious
reality in the world external to yourself. It's akin to a state of affairs
in which you would tell me it was "impossible" that the earth revolves
around the sun.
Now given that you've simply snipped my earnest attempt to answer what I
understood to be your question in a way that didn't depend much upon you
believing the Bible to be reliable, in deference to your stated skepticism
and currently held agnosticism, and given that you've now made what I can
only regard as an irrational request, and given that this is pretty much all
I know about you, I have some serious questions about why you're doing what
you're doing, and whether or not you're worth spending any time on. You're
going to have to answer some of those questions for me if you want to
continue here.
Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
"Ralph" <mmma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:PmULi.60982$7e6....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
Read my post to "rogue". I'm not about to re-create it for you just so you
don't have to. If you have any questions or objections, feel free to
interject them in a reply to that post. Someone may as well get some use
out of it..."rogue" certainly didn't feel like interacting with it.
Grinder
Chuck Stamford wrote:
> First, what would be the point in supplying you with propositional
> statements from a source you find to be "historically inaccurate and
> untrue"? If that is indeed your conclusion about the Bible, then given you
> hold this belief about it, your request, it seems to me, is the very
> definition of irrational!
Without entering the actual fray, I think I can help you out with this
one. Even if the Bible is held to be historically unreliable, you can
still demonstrate what *it says* about Jesus' requirements for salvation.
Granted, this is not the same as evidence that there was a Jesus, or
that he said what the Bible says he said, but I don't think Jerry will
quibble on that point--He simple wants you to cite the part of the Bible
that indicates a belief in the trinity is required for salvation.
My apologies if I've misstated Jerry's intention, or have misinterpreted
your confusion as unintentional.
Bible Bob
<shell__...@cox.net> wrote:
Chuck,
Or; you could be wrong. If you don't understand what love is and you
don't understand Who and what God is or who CHrist is and you don't
have any Scriptures to back up your assertions or any supporting
statements to back up your assertions; then the odds of your being
right are none.
With regard to seeing, I see what the word of God says and I see and
hear what the spirit of God confirms. There is no "the Holy Ghost" as
a separate person from God in the heavens. There is a holy spirit on
the earth that is the agent and gift of God to the creation. Without
a third god; there is no trinity except in the imaginations of men. No
passage of Scripture requires that people confess three gods; a
trinity, to be saved.
Rom 10:8-13 KJV
8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in
thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt
believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou
shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the
mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be
ashamed.
12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the
same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Adding a third god, inventing a trinity and then requiring it as an
additional step of salvation is not of God.
On my web site is a blue button labeled trinity which I put up for
you. It links to a file that lists every usage of the word spirit in
the NT and proves there is no "the Holy Ghost". I'd append it here,
but Greek characters cannot be posted to text groups. Feel free to
show me any error you think you see in it.
Bible Bob
<freds...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Fred,
The Comforter verses prove there is no "the Holy Ghost" as a third
person, co-equal and co-eternal with God. I put up a page on my
website for Chuck which you can view and download if you like for
study. Every verse in the NT where spirit is used is covered. In
every case the spirit is on the earth (not in heaven) and lesser to
God. Press the blue trinity button in the left frame.
With regard to Matthew 28:19; it says "name" singular. What is the
name of "the Holy Ghost"? God has a name and Jesus has a name but
there is no name for "the Holy Ghost." Besides, there is much
evidence Matthew 28:18 should not contain the words following "name"
or that the statement applies to a future dispensation. No disciple
ever carried out the command. They baptized in the name of Jesus.
Joh 14:16 KJV And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you
another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Abides on the earth.
Joh 14:26 KJV But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the
Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring
all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
The pronoun "he" from ekeinos refers to the Comforter; not holy
spirit. Ekeinos is singular masculine and requires a singular
masculine noun. Spirit is neuter and does not qualify. Comforter is
singular masculine and the noun that ekeinos refers to. The Greek
reads "to pneuma to hagion" (the spirit the holy (spirit)); not "the
Holy Ghost"
Joh 15:26 KJV But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto
you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from
the Father, he shall testify of me:
It is a subordiante spirit on the earth.
Joh 16:7 KJV Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for
you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come
unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
Again, on the earth; not in heaven.
Rod of Aaron/Tbc
Well you seem to have things all figured out but that leaves only one
question.
When you first started seeing these errs in the bible had you falling back
into sin around that same time frame?
You don't have to answer me, it' a question for you to answer. You see you
have broken fellowship with the Church of Jesus Christ thus seperating your
self for your sourse of help.
[tbc]
rogue
> CHUCK
> First, what would be the point in supplying you with propositional
> statements from a source you find to be "historically inaccurate and
> untrue"? If that is indeed your conclusion about the Bible, then given you
> hold this belief about it, your request, it seems to me, is the very
> definition of irrational!
JERRY
I think you misunderstand my position. My position is that the bible
is intrinsically not divine in any manner, just a book of myths.
However, I find the hatefulness of the Trinitarians troubling.
To me, the entire argument of whether or not there is a Trinity to
hold the same value as asking the question of how many angels can
dance on the head of a pin. But I find that Trinitarians up the ante
of their arguments by proclaiming that you are not really "saved"
unless you believe in the Trinity.
Now, I couldn't care less if one believes in the Trinity or not, but
the point that I was attempting to make to both sides is that if Jesus
(who tells the bible reader how to be saved) does not say that belief
in the Trinity is required to be saved, then the Trinitarians have no
real argument. What they instead have is a rationalization.
Rationalizations are very popular with Christians, I know. They make
up the bulk of the invisible friend arguments I have read over the
years.
I will gladly discuss with anyone why the bible fails to be the word
of an omnipotent, omniscient deity, and I won't get angry and I will
do my best not to be hateful about it. Snide, yes. Snarky, I'm
afraid so. and I will admit that sometimes I have become hateful in
my debates and often I have had so-called Christians behave less than
Christ-like toward me. However, I don't take it personally. In fact,
I get along very well with Bob. We don't agree on much other than we
both enjoy good science fiction, but sometimes that's enough.
But I am trying to make a point. Not that the Trinity is essential,
not that those who want to believe in it need it or not. Only that
there is NO verse in the NT where Jesus tells his followers that they
must believe in the Trinity in order to be saved. It's a made-up
requirement by some to try to make themselves feel big at the expense
of making others feel small.
> CHUCK
> Second, and again this has to do with a statement of yours being incoherent.
JERRY
I'm sorry you found it "incoherent." Are you sure the problem is my
text rather than your ability to understand? Perhaps you are trying
to read into it more than is intended. I understand that most of the
people in these forums who read my posts tend to think pretty pretty
literally, very linear. When I get to metaphor and analogy, I lose
many of them who then accuse me of positing "red herrings" simply
because they don't understand what I am saying. (I'm talking to you
here, Bob, and also you, Dave)
> CHUCK
> To say it is "impossible" to read the entire Bible and still hold it to be
> "historically accurate and true", faced with a world in which hundreds of
> PhD's in biblical studies, not to mention hundreds of thousands of people of
> lesser education like me, do EXACTLY that, is simply to deny an obvious
> reality in the world external to yourself. It's akin to a state of affairs
> in which you would tell me it was "impossible" that the earth revolves
> around the sun.
JERRY
Not at all. I find that people like yourself START from an assumption
that the bible is true. You never question it, and therefore you
never research the items that make no sense or go against historical
fact. When you find something where the bible is apparently wrong, it
never enters your head that the bible might not be true. Instead, you
start looking for a way to rationalize a solution. Every Christian I
know tends to do this, and the more they believe in a literal
interpretation of the bible, the more they rationalize. The more
liberal they are, the more they understand that the bible may not be
the word of a deity, but that it contains some basic rules for living
in society that are helpful, such as to "love they neighbor as
theyself."
I don't grant that assumption, Chuck. When I read of talking snakes,
I understand that what I am probably reading is metaphor. When I read
myths of a worldwide flood and find that geology shows it never
happened, and then read of two Babylonian flood myths that predate the
bible (the Jews were actually held captive in Babylon, not Egypt.
According to Egyptologists, at the time of the Exodus story, Egypt
didn't have slavery as depicted in the bible) I understand that the
Babylonian flood myths were taken by the Israelites and added to their
own mythologies.
When I read of a prophecy such as Ezekiel chapter 26 for the
destruction of the island city of Tyre by the Babylonian King of
Kings, Nebuchadnezzar, and then check my history and find that Nebs
failed to conquer Tyre, I understand that I am seeing a failed
prophecy. Then I watch Christians squirm to try to rationalize how
Alexander conquering the city 300 years later fulfilled the prophecy
(even though it didn't, as the prophecy was described clearly in
Ezekiel, and three chapters later even Ezekiel admits that it didn't
come true.)
When I read that archaeology indicates that the walls of Jericho were
already long down before Joshua and his army arrived, I know that I am
seeing hyperbole in the bible, and that hyperbole comes from a simple
people proclaiming the mightiness of their alleged god. I know that
the Genesis story is a simple myth from a simple people trying to find
a story for how the world was created.
Then I read the contradictory accounts of the Resurrection morning in
the four gospels and get entirely confused and can see that there is
no way they can be harmonized. Who first saw the risen Jesus? In
three of the gospels, it was Mary Magdalene, but in the fourth it was
someone else. As I mentioned to "Pastor" Dave Raymond, you could
write a small book on the discrepancies between the book of John and
the synoptic gospels alone. Was Jesus' ministry one year or three?
According to the synoptics, it was one year, but John tells that it
was three.
There is a difference between reading critically, checking the book
for accuracy and not assuming it's true from the outset. *You* make
an assumption that the facts don't support but you choose to believe
it. I don't make that assumption. All those other "scholars," most
of them Christians who hold the same assumptions and beliefs as
yourself, are really just laypeople with strong belief systems like
your own.
> CHUCK
> Now given that you've simply snipped my earnest attempt to answer what I
> understood to be your question in a way that didn't depend much upon you
> believing the Bible to be reliable, in deference to your stated skepticism
> and currently held agnosticism, and given that you've now made what I can
> only regard as an irrational request, and given that this is pretty much all
> I know about you, I have some serious questions about why you're doing what
> you're doing, and whether or not you're worth spending any time on. You're
> going to have to answer some of those questions for me if you want to
> continue here.
JERRY
Not at all. Your post was not the answer to the question I asked, but
a straw man argument. Rather than deal with an "invisible friend
argument" that has no value to me or the question I posed, I went
straight to the point, for brevity's sake. I don't care why *you*
feel that belief in the Trinity is essential. It's not relevant to
the discussion. The discussion is, and the point made is, *Jesus*
never says that you must believe in the Trinity to be saved. You are
not Jesus. Your opinion why belief in the Trinity is essential isn't
necessary or helpful to the question. Sorry to hurt your feelings.
All your explanation is simply another rationalization. There is not
even a verse that specifically says that Jesus, God and the Holy Ghost
are all three gods in one entity. That is another rationalization
made by people who want to assume it to be true, and they push their
interpretation of the text on others like it's a fact.
Interpretations aren't facts, they are hypotheses. You won't really
know until you die, if then. Worst case, you find that you have
wandered into the million-year dirt nap. You simply cease to exist
and there is no afterlife. Otherwise, you won't know if you are
correct until you get to Heaven (assuming it exists, which I don't
believe it does, at least not as the bible posits.)
Then you can find out for sure if God is really three god, three gods,
three gods in one.
rogue
JERRY
Nope, you got it. I'm tired of the Trinitarians smiting the non-
Trinitarians with an opinion that is not stated in the bible. I want
them to put up or shut up.
Where does Jesus actually say that you MUST believe in the Trinity to
be saved? Not where you can interpret the text to mean that, but
where it says it.
If it don't state, it don't equate.
rogue
> "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:PmULi.60982$7e6....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Chuck Stamford" <shell__stamf...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >news:AGDLi.138066$Mu5.1...@newsfe15.phx...
>
> >> "Bible Bob" <bible...@saintly.com> wrote in message
> >>news:g5ltf3dctefck0km9...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 16:22:09 -0500, "Fred A Stover"
>
> >>>>"rogue" <rogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
JERRY
I've responded and explained my position and why I didn't address your
argument. Please feel free to read and respond.
Ralph
"Rod of Aaron/Tbc" <Wor...@PrayerTime.com> wrote in message
news:97ff$47010c08$d066ef45$22...@FUSE.NET...
Oh my, another ignorant Christian who thinks that morality is solely
dependant on "god". The scariest part of that is the morons who ask such
things are the ones who would "fall back into sin". Be afraid of
them....very afraid.
Fred A Stover
My job is to show you. Your seeing it is His job.
His,
--
Fred A Stover
The name which is singular is God's and some say Jehovah, some say Jesus,
some say Holy Spirit. The point being that they are one, and the washing is
in the Lord.
But not in all flesh.
His,
ho echon ota akoueto Preparing the way of the Lord
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a
little child, he shall not enter therein. (Matt 10:15)
<)))))))><
Bible Bob
<freds...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Jehovah is God in covenant relationship to the creation. That's His
name. The Son's name at the time the verse was spoken by the Son was
Jesus. There is no name for a "the Holy Ghost." Here is the problem
with the "one" being three part.
Mat 28:19 KJV
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
There are three prepositional phrases each beginning with of and the
figure Polysyndeton (Many Ands) is used to list and enumerate three
separate things. Like this:
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name
(1) of the Father,
(2) and of the Son,
(3) and of the Holy Ghost:
So, you can see how "name" singular is carried forward to all three in
the list which are distinctly independent of each other and not
co-equal as proven by the arrangement of the three where (in Greek)
the former has preeminence and the latters are lessers; the Father
being greater than the two, the Son being greater than the third.
Also note that each noun is preceded by the definite article.
According to Sharps rule:
Of special interest is the fact that each of the nouns—Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit—is preceded by the definite article (rendered “the” in
the English Bible). In Greek grammar when a series of nouns is joined
by the conjunction kai (“and”), if an article commences the series,
but is missing from the subsequent nouns, then the nouns stand as a
further descriptive of the initial subject. This is known as Sharp’s
Rule (Dana & Mantey, p. 147).
Since the definite article occurs before each, Sharp's rule says that
the three are three and therefore not a further descriptive of the
original subject.
The problem is further complicated because the words usually used for
"the holy spirit" which are "to pneuma hagion" (article, noun,
adjective) are not used. This is one of only three verses where
hagion comes before pneuma. Hagion follows the definite article which
means that hagion is a noun (adjective become nouns when preceded by
the definite article). When nouns are used in regimen, as here, some
would say that the Appolonius Canon would apply
According to tha Appolonius Canon in the phrase "tou hagiou pneumatos"
hagiou is the governing noun and pneumatos (which is genitive) is the
governed noun. Hagiou is a noun because it is preceded by the
definite article (tou) making what is normally an adjective a noun.
Hence, the holy spirit where spirt is governed by holy.
I would offer that the figure Antimeria of the Noun (Exchange of Parts
of Speech) is more accurate because what we have is an adjective used
for a noun (p. 491-, Figures of Speech USed in the Bible by E W
Bullinger:
http://www.biblebob.net/Biblebob\MyBooks\FingerOfGod\Antimereia.htm
It's a difficult passage that has been argued about for centuries. I
lean towards the view that the verse ends at the word "name" because
there is no record of anyone being baptized in the three names. People
were baptized in the name of Jesus in Acts.
That's true, just the saved kind.
>
>
>His,
rogue
> ROD
> Well you seem to have things all figured out but that leaves only one
> question.
>
> When you first started seeing these errs in the bible had you falling back
> into sin around that same time frame?
JERRY
Pfft! What nonsense! Let's discuss "sin."
I tend to agree with writer Robert Heinlein who wrote "the only sin
lies in hurting someone unnecessarily. All other sins are invented
nonsense." What you consider sin, I don't.
Second, reading the bible is no guarantee that someone won't fall
"back into sin." Look at closet cases like Ted Haggard and other
notable Christian liars and fools like Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, et
al.
> ROD
> You don't have to answer me, it' a question for you to answer. You see you
> have broken fellowship with the Church of Jesus Christ thus seperating your
> self for your sourse of help.
JERRY
What source of help? Superstition? Boy, that's a big help! Rod,
haven't you figured out yet that the bible is not the word of any
deity? It fails on prophecy, it fails to be historically accurate and
it contradicts itself. Now, let's look at your premise.
You say that there is a god, and that this god created everything and
that this god gave us free will and wants us to use that free will to
come to him/her/it willingly and devote our eternities to worshipping
it. (Personally, sounds kinda stupid to me, but if that's what you
want to do for all eternity, then so be it).
Further, if people DON'T come to this god willingly, they are to be
tortured for all eternity. (So, where does the phrase "willingly"
apply?)
Then, you have the nerve to say that "God is love." Sounds to me like
your God is jealous and fool, but we will let you have your
hallucination.
So, then you say that this god "inspired" his Word in a collection of
books that were put together to tell his Creation about them and uses
that word to get his creation to come to him willingly.
Oh yeah, you also say that this god is omniscient, can see the falling
of a sparrow and is also omnipotent and can do anything, even create a
rock so heavy that he can't lift it, etc, etc.
Now, here's the kicker: If this god is all-knowing, all-seeing and
all-powerful and wants his word to be used to bring his creation to
him, wouldn't it reflect his own perfection? Wouldn't he protect it
against men who make errors, and wouldn't he ensure that the
translations are correct so that people can know his wonder and love?
If tha'ts the case, why does the bible contain errors? Why does the
bible fail to be historically accurate? Why does the bible fail on
prophecy? How come the book of John contradicts the synoptic gospels
so badly?
What it means is that the bible is simply a 2000 year old book of
goatherder mythology. Too bad, so sad.
rogue
Well then, show me. Point me to the verse where Jesus says that you
MUST believe in the Trinity to be saved. Just one verse. Show it to
me, please.
I'm pretty sure you are just another flake for Jesus, Fred. Please
show me that I'm wrong.
Chuck Stamford
About a three word proposition? Hardly.
theos agape estin
> If you don't understand what love is and you
> don't understand Who and what God is or who CHrist is and you don't
> have any Scriptures to back up your assertions or any supporting
> statements to back up your assertions; then the odds of your being
> right are none.
True, but I obviously have "theos agape estin", which is, as we both know,
"Scripture". It is a proposition, and like all propositions, it is either
true as stated, or false as stated. It EQUATES the terms "theos" and
"agape". It is thus an EXISTENTIAL proposition about God; which means it's
giving us a state of affairs that exists, and that state of affairs is one
in which "theos" and "agape" are one and the same. We can make this strong
a claim, because the proposition, being completely unqualified by any
adjectives, makes that strong an existential claim about "theos" and
"agape".
The truth here Bob, is there's nothing here to misunderstand. The truth is
it's very HARD to misunderstand existential propositions, but it's not
nearly as hard to reject their truth, or fail to see their logical
implications. If you don't want to believe that God is love; if the other
propositions that are included in that little three word existential claim
don't fit within your current theological beliefs, then that's the way
things shake out. But don't come whining to me all mush mouth about how we
have to ignore this statement, or add to it what John didn't see fit to add
to it, or go look over here or over there in the Bible to find out what it
really means, because that's just insulting both to me and to yourself and
most of all to John. It's bad enough you're a heretic seeking to destroy
the faith of others; don't acting stupid when you're not to the list of sins
you'll one day have to answer to God for.
Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
"Grinder" <gri...@no.spam.maam.com> wrote in message
news:3_%Li.129752$Fc.108409@attbi_s21...
What you've done is miss, it seems to me, my initial response to Jerry,
where I went to some length to demonstrate why the doctrine of the Trinity
is so important to a person's salvation, and which he snipped completely as
he shifted gears to then asking me for the passages in Scripture that
support this truth (Now it appears he's again shifted gears and wants to
argue biblical reliability with me!). He has yet to respond in any
meaningful way to the one Scripture passage I started this with, i.e., "God
is love", and the fact that this simple little proposition makes absolutely
no sense unless we see what is so obvious, that it equates "God" with a
RELATIONSHIP called "love". What would be the point in moving on to any
additional passages?
Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
I haven't misunderstood anything you've said, Jerry. I KNOW a "myth" is an
untrue story, so I KNOW you haven't altered your "position" by just
switching from "historically inaccurate and untrue" to "a book of myths".
All you've done is repeat yourself using different words.
>
> However, I find the hatefulness of the Trinitarians troubling.
I went over that with you, and all you did was snip it. It's not
hatefulness; it's the natural conflict between logical opposites.
Now, if all this about the conflict between Christians and those who would
like to be known as Christians while they reject the God Christians worship
and desire to become like is simply a convoluted and irrelevant prolegomena
to arguing over the Divine inspiration of the Scriptures, then you're
working WAY too hard at it. Just say you want to demonstrate that the Bible
can't be God's word, do it, and I'll be very attentitive I promise.
>
> To me, the entire argument of whether or not there is a Trinity to
> hold the same value as asking the question of how many angels can
> dance on the head of a pin. But I find that Trinitarians up the ante
> of their arguments by proclaiming that you are not really "saved"
> unless you believe in the Trinity.
Again, I demonstrated for you why the doctrine is so important to salvation,
and you ignored the whole thing. I don't think you really want to discuss
this at all. I think you just want to vent...so vent away, but I've got
better things to do than watch.
Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
You didn't address my argument because it was much easier to label it and
ignore it, than it was to examine it for any actual fallacies. I understand
completely. You're one of those Internet blowfish who believe everything
they have to say should be regarded with the utmost respect, while anything
to the contrary anyone else writes can be dismissed out of hand. You're a
dime a dozen, Jerry, and experience has taught me your sort are a complete
waste of everyone's time. I enjoy a good debate with someone who knows how,
but you obviously aren't a viable candidate.
Chuck Stamford