How To Test The Spirits

[ChristRose]

1 John provides profound insights into
discerning the spirits and recognizing
who belongs to God and who is aligned
with the devil. This discernment is
critical for maintaining the integrity
and purity of our faith, especially in a
world where false teachings and
deceptive spirits abound.

1. Confession of Christ's Incarnation (1
John 4:2-3)

This is a fundamental test. The passage
says, "Every spirit that acknowledges
that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh
is from God, but every spirit that does
not acknowledge Jesus is not from God."
The Greek term "homologei" (confess)
implies a deep, personal conviction, not
merely a superficial acknowledgment.
Therefore, any spirit or teaching that
denies the full humanity and deity of
Jesus Christ is not of God.

2. Obedience to God's Commands (1 John
2:3-6; 5:2-3)

Obedience to God's commands is a clear
marker of those who know God. "By this
we know that we have come to know Him,
if we keep His commandments." The Greek
word for "know" (ginosko) suggests an
intimate, relational knowledge.
Obedience flows naturally from a loving
relationship with God.

3. Love for Fellow Believers (1 John
3:10, 14; 4:7-8, 20-21)

John repeatedly emphasizes love as a
distinctive mark of believers. "By this
it is evident who are the children of
God, and who are the children of the
devil: whoever does not practice
righteousness is not of God, nor is the
one who does not love his brother." The
Greek word "agape" denotes a selfless,
sacrificial love that reflects God's
nature.

4. Righteous Living (1 John 2:29;
3:7-10)

Those born of God practice
righteousness. The term "poieo" in
Greek, which means 'to do' or 'to
practice', indicates a habitual,
consistent pattern of life. A life
transformed by Christ naturally
gravitates towards righteousness.

5. Belief in Jesus as the Christ (1 John
5:1)

Faith in Jesus as the Messiah and Son of
God is central to being a child of God.
The Greek word "pisteuo" (believe) here
involves trusting and relying on Jesus,
not just intellectual assent.

6. Overcoming Worldly Influences (1 John
5:4-5)

Those born of God overcome the world.
The term "nikao" in Greek means 'to
conquer' or 'overcome'. This implies
that a true believer, through faith, is
not enslaved by the world's values or
systems.

7. Confession of Sin and Pursuit of
Purity (1 John 1:8-10; 3:3)

Acknowledging and confessing our sins is
vital. Those who claim to be without sin
deceive themselves, according to John.
The pursuit of purity, modeled after
Christ's own purity, is a mark of a
believer.

8. Worldly Ideology (1 John 4:5a)

Teachings that align with "kosmos" (the
world), indicating a system of values,
priorities, and practices opposed to
God, suggest a source not from God. This
refers to ideologies and teachings that
cater to worldly desires, often
contradicting the core truths of the
Christian faith.

9. Acceptance by the world (1 John 4:5b)

When a teaching is readily accepted and
unchallenged by the world, it often
indicates a compromise or alignment with
worldly thinking. 1 John 4:5 notes that
those who are from the world speak from
a worldly perspective, and therefore,
the world listens to them. This
listening, implied in the Greek term
"akouo," goes beyond mere hearing; it
involves a level of agreement or
acceptance.

10. Listening to Apostolic Teaching (1
John 4:6)

A key indicator of being from God is a
positive response to apostolic teaching,
as laid out in the New Testament. This
involves not just hearing but obeying
("akouo") the teachings of the apostles.
Those who know God show a willingness to
align their beliefs and practices with
these teachings. Conversely, a rejection
of or indifference to apostolic teaching
signifies alignment with the spirit of
error.

In exploring the criteria set forth in 1
John for discerning spirits, it's
equally important to note what is not
mentioned as a test.

The epistle makes no reference to
supernatural manifestations such as
healing, speaking in tongues, performing
miracles, drinking poison, or being
unharmed by serpent bites as definitive
markers for discerning the spirits.

These miraculous signs, while they have
their place in the narrative of the
early church, are not the benchmarks 1
John sets for identifying those who are
of God.

Instead, the focus is profoundly
centered on the confession of Christ,
obedience to God’s commandments, love
for fellow believers, righteous living,
belief in Jesus as the Christ,
overcoming worldly influences, and the
response to apostolic teaching.

This emphasis suggests a deeper, more
foundational approach to discernment—one
that hinges on the transformation of
character and alignment with the core
truths of the Christian faith, rather
than external or sensational
manifestations.

_________________
Bibliography

ChatGPT. "Discerning the Divine: A Study
on Spiritual Discernment in 1 John."
OpenAI Conversations, 2023.


--
Have you heard the good news that Christ
died for our sins (†), and God raised
Him from the dead?

[Robert]

On Nov 18, 2023, ChristRose wrote
(in article<fsrhli5r4iatvsseg...@4ax.com>):

> 1 John provides profound insights into
> discerning the spirits and recognizing
> who belongs to God and who is aligned
> with the devil. This discernment is
> critical for maintaining the integrity
> and purity of our faith, especially in a
> world where false teachings and
> deceptive spirits abound.
>
> 1. Confession of Christ's Incarnation (1
> John 4:2-3)

He was not incarnated. That word was never used in scripture.

Incarnation comes from the Latin incarnatus, which means “to make flesh.”
The word incarnation came to life in religious contexts and is used when
talking about gods and deities that take on human or animal forms. More
generally, the word can be used to refer to anything or anyone taking on a
"new life" — the new season of a sitcom could promise a new incarnation for
one of its characters, or a former fashion trend could come back as a new
incarnation.

>
> This is a fundamental test. The passage
> says, "Every spirit that acknowledges
> that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh
> is from God, but every spirit that does
> not acknowledge Jesus is not from God."
> The Greek term "homologei" (confess)
> implies a deep, personal conviction, not
> merely a superficial acknowledgment.
> Therefore, any spirit or teaching that
> denies the full humanity and deity of
> Jesus Christ is not of God.

Jesus was conceived. That he dwelt here on earth in the form of a Human does
not mean he was “implanted in flesh”, if you think about it, and claim
that he was then who is the believer?

Does not God dwell in the hearts of the Born Again believers? Are not the
bodies of the believers counted as the Tabernacle of God? Are not the
Believers told to treat the Body as such? If so, then is not the Born Again
Believers the incarnation of God per your chosen definition of the word.

How can you say that if applies to Jesus but not his followers? Meaning
“incarnation”.
Did not the Greek gods choose to dwell in animals, and humans?

To make the belief of incarnation as the line of demarcation between those
that are Christians and those that are not is absurd.

By Faith one believes in Jesus, and those who do will bear the fruit of the
tree they were grafted in to. Those that do not bear the fruit of the spirit
are not of God.

That said, the “testing of the spirits” does not mean some sort of a
litmus test for who is and who is not a Born Again Believer, but it was to do
with the spirit world, the spirits of the evil one as opposed to God and His
spirit. For this we have the gift of discernment by the Holy Spirit.

You speak via the traditions of men as there is no such thing in the Bible as
Incarnation. People are possessed of evil spirits not incarnated. The very
definition of incarnation proposes that the being incarnated is not longer
under their control, and are the very being who know occupies the command
center of the being. This is just the tip of the iceberg of that topic.

Jesus was both God and Man, now he is both God and redeemed man. Thus our
high priest forever and eternity. And we will be like Him when he returns and
redeems our bodies.

Jesus was the second Adam.

[ChristRose]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 10:43:45 -0800,
Robert <rob...@no.way> wrote:

<0001HW.2B0BE0610...@news.eternal-september.org>

>He was not incarnated

Hi tool! You're too much of an imbecile
to carry on a conversation with.

[ChristRose]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 10:43:45 -0800,
Robert <rob...@no.way> wrote:

<0001HW.2B0BE0610...@news.eternal-september.org>

>On Nov 18, 2023, ChristRose wrote
>(in article<fsrhli5r4iatvsseg...@4ax.com>):
>
>> 1 John provides profound insights into
>> discerning the spirits and recognizing
>> who belongs to God and who is aligned
>> with the devil. This discernment is
>> critical for maintaining the integrity
>> and purity of our faith, especially in a
>> world where false teachings and
>> deceptive spirits abound.
>>
>> 1. Confession of Christ's Incarnation (1
>> John 4:2-3)
>
>He was not incarnated. That word was never used in scripture.

I'm sorry but the phrase, "He was not
incarnated" was never used in Scripture.
Therefore, your view is invalid. See
what an imbecile you are?

[Robert]

On Nov 20, 2023, ChristRose wrote
(in article<r9anli50eq6qkd7fv...@4ax.com>):

> On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 10:43:45 -0800,
> Robert <rob...@no.way> wrote:
>
> <0001HW.2B0BE0610...@news.eternal-september.org>
>
> > He was not incarnated
>
> Hi tool! You're too much of an imbecile
> to carry on a conversation with.

God knows the thoughts and intents of your heart.
I leave you in His hands.

[Robert]

On Nov 20, 2023, ChristRose wrote
(in article<abanli5iicu5o10ps...@4ax.com>):

> On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 10:43:45 -0800,
> Robert <rob...@no.way> wrote:
>
> <0001HW.2B0BE0610...@news.eternal-september.org>
>
> > On Nov 18, 2023, ChristRose wrote
> > (in article<fsrhli5r4iatvsseg...@4ax.com>):
> >
> > > 1 John provides profound insights into
> > > discerning the spirits and recognizing
> > > who belongs to God and who is aligned
> > > with the devil. This discernment is
> > > critical for maintaining the integrity
> > > and purity of our faith, especially in a
> > > world where false teachings and
> > > deceptive spirits abound.
> > >
> > > 1. Confession of Christ's Incarnation (1
> > > John 4:2-3)
> >
> > He was not incarnated. That word was never used in scripture.
>
> I'm sorry but the phrase, "He was not
> incarnated" was never used in Scripture.
> Therefore, your view is invalid. See
> what an imbecile you are?

ROTFLOL!

Another one of your neener, neener, neener statements.

[ChristRose]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 10:43:45 -0800,
Robert <rob...@no.way> wrote:

<0001HW.2B0BE0610...@news.eternal-september.org>

>On Nov 18, 2023, ChristRose wrote
>(in article<fsrhli5r4iatvsseg...@4ax.com>):
>
>> 1 John provides profound insights into
>> discerning the spirits and recognizing
>> who belongs to God and who is aligned
>> with the devil. This discernment is
>> critical for maintaining the integrity
>> and purity of our faith, especially in a
>> world where false teachings and
>> deceptive spirits abound.
>>
>> 1. Confession of Christ's Incarnation (1
>> John 4:2-3)
>
>He was not incarnated. That word was never used in scripture.

So hey, Robert, I was noticing here that
you're speaking in English. In fact,
nearly every explanation you've ever
given about what the Bible means, is
written in English.

Did you know, Robert, that the Bible was
not originally written in English, but
in languages like Hebrew, Aramaic, and
Greek? So what that means, Robert, is
that NONE of the words you've used to
convey your understanding of the Bible,
and NONE of the words in your English
Bible are actually "in scripture". Your
English translation, and everything
you've ever said about what the Bible
means (except when you cited the
original languages), uses words that are
"never used in Scripture".

See, what happened is, they used English
words that have the same meaning as the
original languages, to translate copies
of Scripture into terms that you,
Robert, could understand.

So the question is not whether some
English or Latin or German word is "in
Scripture" (none of them are), but
rather whether the word we use carries
the same meaning as the words and
teachings in Scripture.

>Incarnation comes from the Latin incarnatus, which means “to make flesh.”

“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt
among us, (and we beheld his glory, the
glory as of the only begotten of the
Father,) full of grace and truth.” (John
1:14, KJV 1900)

Robert endorses the KJV as a reliable
translation of the Bible. Robert claims
"incarnation" means the same thing
("make flesh") as the KJV translates it
("made flesh").

Thanks Robert, for confirming that
"incarnation" is an accurate term to
refer to the fact that Christ "was made
flesh" (John 1:14, KJV).

>The word incarnation came to life in religious contexts and is used when
>talking about gods and deities that take on human or animal forms. More
>generally, the word can be used to refer to anything or anyone taking on a
>"new life" — the new season of a sitcom could promise a new incarnation for
>one of its characters, or a former fashion trend could come back as a new
>incarnation.

Since Robert has already confirmed that
"incarnation" accurately conveys the
meaning that Christ was "made flesh"
(KJV), his argument is actually that
it's wrong to use the word "incarnation"
because it can also be used to mean
other things (such as to refer to a
pagan god or a fashion trend).

However, there are many instances in the
New Testament where the Greek word
"theos" (?e??), meaning "God," is used
to refer to a pagan deity. In Acts
12:21-22, during an event involving King
Herod, the crowd acclaimed him as a god.
The passage reads, "So on a set day
Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat on
his throne and gave an oration to them.
And the people kept shouting, 'The voice
of a god and not of a man!'". In this
context, Herod was acknowledged as "a
god" (theos) by the crowd, but clearly,
this was not in reference to the God of
the Bible

Acts 14:11: In this passage, after Paul
heals a crippled man in Lystra, the
crowds begin to call Paul and Barnabas
gods in human form, referring to them as
"the gods [theoi] have come down to us
in human form!" This is a clear instance
of the use of "theos" in a plural form
to refer to perceived pagan deities.

Acts 19:26: Here, Demetrius, a
silversmith in Ephesus, acknowledges
that Paul's ministry is turning people
away from the worship of the goddess
Artemis. He says, "you see and hear how
this fellow Paul has convinced and led
astray large numbers of people here in
Ephesus and in practically the whole
province of Asia. He says that gods made
by human hands are no gods at all." The
term "gods" here (again "theoi" in
Greek) refers to the pagan gods, in this
case, Artemis, who was worshiped in
Ephesus.

In 1 Corinthians 8:5: Paul writes, "For
even if there are so-called gods,
whether in heaven or on earth (as there
are many 'gods' [theoi] and many
'lords')," acknowledging the existence
of many gods and lords in the pagan
worldview. Here "theos" is used to refer
to these so-called gods of the pagans.

The Bible itself uses the same word for
God (theos), which pagans used to refer
to their deities and gods. So is Robert
going to stop using the word "God",
simply because it's also possible for
someone to use it to refer to a mere
man, or some other deity than the one
true God? Of course not.

Conclusion

1. The problem here, is not that the
word "incarnation" is not used in
Scripture. None of Roberts English words
he uses to explain the Bible, or the
words used in the English translations
Robert approves of (e.g. the KJV) are
actually "in Scripture". They are all
alternate words which carry the same
meaning as the original words of
Scripture.

2. The problem here is not that to "make
flesh" is an inaccurate meaning to
express the teaching of Scripture.
Robert agrees incarnation means to "make
flesh", and he supports the use of the
KJV bible, which translates John 1:14 as
that the Word was "made flesh".

3. The problem here is not that
"incarnation" can possibly be used by
pagans and others to refer to things
other than what the Bible teaches is
good and right. The Bible itself
regularly uses words that pagans and
others use to convey meanings other than
what the Bible endorses as being good
and right. For example, it uses the same
word "theos" to refer to the one true
God, that the pagans use to refer to
their "god" or "gods" which they
worship.

What then is the real problem here? The
problem is that at best, Robert is an
imbecile who doesn't know what he's
talking about, and an hypocrite who
doesn't practice what he preaches.

Worse, it's possible Robert is actually
a tool. He may be manipulated by
spiritual forces and his own bitter envy
and ego (James 3:15) to routinely
oppose, seek to undermine, and to turn
people away from an accurate
understanding of the Bible.

>> This is a fundamental test. The passage
>> says, "Every spirit that acknowledges
>> that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh
>> is from God, but every spirit that does
>> not acknowledge Jesus is not from God."
>> The Greek term "homologei" (confess)
>> implies a deep, personal conviction, not
>> merely a superficial acknowledgment.
>> Therefore, any spirit or teaching that
>> denies the full humanity and deity of
>> Jesus Christ is not of God.
>
>Jesus was conceived. That he dwelt here on earth in the form of a Human does
>not mean he was “implanted in flesh”, if you think about it, and claim
>that he was then who is the believer?

Who said Christ was "implanted in the
flesh"? I didn't say that. You did. You
claimed above that "incarnation" means
to "make flesh".The KJV translates it
that the Word was "made flesh" (John
1:14). Why are you now introducing a new
definition of the word?

>Does not God dwell in the hearts of the Born Again believers? Are not the
>bodies of the believers counted as the Tabernacle of God? Are not the
>Believers told to treat the Body as such? If so, then is not the Born Again
>Believers the incarnation of God per your chosen definition of the word.
>
>How can you say that if applies to Jesus but not his followers? Meaning
>“incarnation”. Did not the Greek gods choose to dwell in animals, and humans?

Do you not believe the Holy Spirit
indwells believers (Ephesians 1:13)? If
so, why are you then trying to
contaminate that, by associating what
the Holy Spirit does with that which is
evil?

>To make the belief of incarnation as the line of demarcation between those
>that are Christians and those that are not is absurd.

As you observed above, "incarnation"
means to "make flesh". John 1:14 says
the Word was "made flesh" (same meaning
as "incarnation"). 1 John 4:2-3 says
that to deny Jesus has come in the flesh
is an indication that one is not of God,
but of the Antichrist. God could not
come to earth in the flesh, without
being "made flesh" (incarnation).

>By Faith one believes in Jesus, and those who do will bear the fruit of the
>tree they were grafted in to. Those that do not bear the fruit of the spirit
>are not of God.

Which is why 1 John 4:2-3 says those who
deny Jesus is come in the flesh are not
of God but of the Antichrist.

>That said, the “testing of the spirits” does not mean some sort of a
>litmus test for who is and who is not a Born Again Believer,

Not. There. Just refuted your claim.
Sorry. Now you have to go back to the
drawing board and come up with another
idea, since I said "not".

>but it was to do
>with the spirit world, the spirits of the evil one as opposed to God and His
>spirit. For this we have the gift of discernment by the Holy Spirit.

By using the phrase "pure idiocy", I am
giving you the benefit of the doubt. I
am assuming you may only be ignorant of
what the Bible teaches.

What you claim here ignores and denies
the immediate context and application of
such statements in 1 John. For example,
right after referring to the spirit
which is not of God and which is of
Antichrist, John states:

“You are of God, little children, and
have overcome them, because He who is in
you is greater than he who is in the
world. They are of the world. Therefore
they speak as of the world, and the
world hears them. We are of God. He who
knows God hears us; he who is not of God
does not hear us. By this we know the
spirit of truth and the spirit of
error.” (1 John 4:4–6, NKJV)

Who is the "they" who "are of the
world", and who "speak as of the world",
and whom "the world hears"? Those who
deny Christ has come in the flesh. Who
are those who are "of God"? The "We"
whom John is addressing are of God.

This is clearly contrasting the
born-again believer who is of God, with
those people who are of the world and
the Antichrist. That is what it means to
test the spirits. It is a litmus test
for who is from God, and who is from the
Antichrist. You are badly mistaken at
best.

>You speak via the traditions of men as there is no such thing in the Bible as
>Incarnation.

How do you fail realize that none of the
English words you now speak, or that you
have ever spoken to convey your
understanding of what the Bible means,
or that are in any of the English
versions of the Bible which you
recommend (e.g. KJV), are actually "in
the Bible". The Bible was not written in
English. Copies of the Bible were
translated into English, using words
that carry the same meaning as the
original languages (or as close as we
could get in English).

I'm sorry, but you are truly an
imbecile, Robert. And that's giving you
the benefit of the doubt. It assumes you
just don't know any better and are
ignorant. Based on the way you routinely
offer such idiotic arguments to contend
against solid Bible truth, it seems
likely that it's something brought about
through demonic wisdom that stirs you up
to envy and selfish ambition (James
3:15).

>People are possessed of evil spirits not incarnated. The very
>definition of incarnation proposes that the being incarnated is not longer
>under their control, and are the very being who know occupies the command
>center of the being. This is just the tip of the iceberg of that topic.

1. Again, you've evidently changed your
definition of "incarnation" from to
"make flesh" to "to indwell flesh" (see
above).

2. The Holy Spirit indwells believers
(e.g. Ephesians 1:13). To try and make
the Holy Spirit evil by association,
simply because pagans teach that their
gods indwell humans, shows the danger of
your fabricated teaching.

3. I never claimed people were
incarnated by evil spirits. That would
mean that people are made human flesh by
evil spirits. People are made flesh by
God, not evil spirits.

>Jesus was both God and Man, now he is both God and redeemed man.

What do you mean Jesus _is_ both God and
redeemed man? Jesus did not sin, or
therefore need to be redeemed Himself.

Jesus is now both God and a glorified
man, but not a redeemed man.

Or did you mean to say something like
that "Jesus is both God and He has
redeemed men who trust in Him"?

>Thus our high priest forever and eternity. And we will be like Him when
>he returns and redeems our bodies.
>
>Jesus was the second Adam.

This was never disputed, and does not
distinguish you as someone who just
refuted error. At best you're a
contentious imbecile. More likely,
you're operating on demonic wisdom that
compels you with envy and selfish
ambition to oppose and try to undermine
that which is sound Bible teaching.

[ChristRose]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 16:24:53 -0800,
Robert <rob...@no.way> wrote:

<0001HW.2B0C30550...@news.eternal-september.org>

Glad you recognize the true nature of
what you're doing. You constantly pick
some random word someone uses to express
their understanding of the Bible, slap
quote marks on it, then pretend like if
it isn't a verbatim quote of Scripture,
then someone's understanding of the
Bible is thereby invalidated.

Meanwhile, the Bible was not written in

English, but in languages like Hebrew,

Aramaic, and Greek. Translators used
words that have the same meaning (or as
close as they could get) to put the
original languages in terms you, Robert
could understand.

This means that _all_ of the words you
use to express your understanding of the
Bible (except the original languages),
or that you find in your English
translations of the Bible (such as the
KJV), are "never used in Scripture".

This means that every time you employ
your idiotic tactic of slapping quote
marks on some word or phrase someone
uses, then try to invalidate their
understanding of the Bible because some
word or phrase they use isn't in the
English translation of the Bible, you're
playing the role of an imbecile and
hypocrite.

And that's giving you the benefit of the

doubt. It implies you're just doing
these things out of ignorance. Given
your long-term pattern and determination
to oppose sound teaching on such foolish
grounds, and of trying to invalidate
what others say while you do the same
thing you accuse them of, it seems more
likely you're operating from a spirit of
envy and selfish ambition, which James
says comes from demonic influence.

[Robert]

On Nov 20, 2023, ChristRose wrote
(in article<15vnlilrlpi39ioo5...@4ax.com>):

Sorry, not necessarily, it depends on the translators and their walk with
God, However, in any event I am also led by the Holy Spirit and more than
once he has shown me an error or two in their understanding, not only the but
He provides a depth of understanding that is otherwise not available to
carnal walkers.

Of course I am not more special than any other Born Again believer who walks
by Faith as God is no respecter of person and what he does for one he is more
than willing to do for all who seek Him directly. He never hands anyone off
to Uncle AI. .)

[Robert]

On Nov 20, 2023, ChristRose wrote

(in article<iraolipnfbggu42sb...@4ax.com>):

Sorry, try your trolling antics elsewhere I am not buying into them.

[ChristRose]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 21:46:36 -0800,
Robert <rob...@no.way> wrote:

<0001HW.2B0C7BBC0...@news.eternal-september.org>

No, it does not depend on the
translators. No English word occurred in
the original Scriptures or the copies of
the original Scriptures. Period. Every
single English translation you use, and
every single explanation you've ever
given about what you think the Bible
means (even when you were just quoting
English translations of the Bible),
consists entirely of words that were
"never used in Scripture", unless you're
using the original language words.

Therefore, your tactic of slapping quote
marks on people's English words, or
Latin words, or theological terminology,
then pretending that because those exact
words are not found in your English
translation of the Scriptures, they are
therefore words that are "never used in
Scripture" (as if the words of your
English translation were in Scripture),
collapses under the weight of it's own
hypocrisy.

>However, in any event I am also led by the Holy Spirit and more than
>once he has shown me an error or two in their understanding, not only the but
>He provides a depth of understanding that is otherwise not available to
>carnal walkers.

Even if this were true, it wouldn't
change the fact you're still citing and
explaining your understanding of the
Bible in English, not the words of the
original languages which make up
Scripture. Therefore, every word you
use, even when you're just citing your
English translation, is a word which was

"never used in Scripture".

Every English word you use when you
explain or cite Scripture, was a word
some translator chose because it had the
same or close to the same meaning as the
actual original words which were used in
Scripture. The test then, is whether or
not the word accurately conveys the
meaning of the original languages, not
if it was a word that was used in the
Scriptures (none of our English or
Latin, or German words were).

How then can you pretend that your
English words were used in Scripture,
but a Latin word that carries the same
meaning as the original languages, is
invalidated because it was "never used
in Scripture"? Answer: Only by being
stupid and hypocritical.

>Of course I am not more special than any other Born Again believer who walks
>by Faith as God is no respecter of person and what he does for one he is more
>than willing to do for all who seek Him directly. He never hands anyone off
>to Uncle AI. .)

1. Every source has to be scrutinized.
The Bible constantly warns believers to
watch out for people. It says things
like "beware of the leaven of the
Scribes and Pharisees", to "beware of
the circumcision", to watch out for
"dogs", to "discern the spirits", etc.

The Bible warns that in latter days,
evil men will grow worse and worse, that
people will depart from sound doctrine
and gather around them teachers who tell
them what their itching ears want to
hear. So the bottom line is you have to
beware of any content, even if it comes
from the mouth of people, not just
content which comes from AI.

2. 1 Corinthians 2 shows that the Spirit
revealed Scripture to the apostles using
spiritual words.

“Now we have received, not the spirit of
the world, but the Spirit who is from
God, that we might know the things that
have been freely given to us by God.
These things we also speak, not in words
which man’s wisdom teaches but which the
Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual
things with spiritual.” (1 Corinthians
2:12–13, NKJV)

You don't receive an understanding about
the deep things of God by osmosis. You
have to actually read and meditate on
the very words of Scripture. It is the
inspired words of Scripture which are
the vehicle that the Holy Spirit uses to
enlighten the believer to understand the
truth about God, not some kind of
mystical osmosis.

The standard, therefore, is whether or
not any and every source accurately
conveys the meaning of the words of
Scripture. If it does, then it is a
vehicle by which the Holy Spirit can
impart an understanding of the mind of
God to the believer. If it does not,
then it cannot, whether man or AI.

Your standard, without discretion,
idiotically tries to taint content by
mere association. For example, you try
to claim that because the word
"incarnation" can be used by pagans and
others to convey unbiblical meanings,
that the word itself must therefore be
erroneous and invalid. However, as shown
in detail in another post, the Bible
itself uses words like "theos" to refer
to God, while pagans use the same word
to refer to false gods.

In the same way, the Holy Spirit
indwells believers (Ephesians 1:13), yet
you tried to confuse and taint the very
concept of indwelling a believer, with
paganism, simply because they use
similar terminology in an evil way.

Paul addressed this kind of weak and
polluted conscience in 1 Corinthians 8
and Titus 1:15:

“Therefore concerning the eating of
things offered to idols, we know that an
idol is nothing in the world, and that
there is no other God but one. For even

if there are so-called gods, whether in
heaven or on earth (as there are many

gods and many lords), yet for us there
is one God, the Father, of whom are all
things, and we for Him; and one Lord
Jesus Christ, through whom are all
things, and through whom we live.” (1
Corinthians 8:4–6, NKJV)

“To the pure all things are pure, but to
those who are defiled and unbelieving
nothing is pure; but even their mind and
conscience are defiled.” (Titus 1:15,
NKJV)

You try to contaminate that which is not
evil, by mere association, even though
the Bible shows that a strong believer
can distinguish between that which is
actually evil, and that which is good,
and though it uses the same terminology
that pagans use, but with discernment
between good and evil.

So while you delude yourself with the
notion that you're walking around under
the influence of the Holy Spirit, you're
actually demonstrating your own
carnality and spiritual immaturity,
failing to distinguish good from evil,
and trying to pollute things that are
good by mere association.

[ChristRose]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 21:48:21 -0800,
Robert <rob...@no.way> wrote:

<0001HW.2B0C7C250...@news.eternal-september.org>

Sorry you suffer from the delusion that
your English words were "in Scripture"
that was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and
Greek.

[Robert]

On Nov 21, 2023, ChristRose wrote
(in article<7gfplipmahnpv7ssp...@4ax.com>):

ROTFLOL

[Robert]

On Nov 21, 2023, ChristRose wrote
(in article<qccpli17fb12shvbf...@4ax.com>):

> On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 21:46:36 -0800,
> Robert <rob...@no.way> wrote:
>
> <0001HW.2B0C7BBC0...@news.eternal-september.org>

Interesting, according to you, you have never used scripture and everything
you post is baseless, and without substance since it was all in English.

On top of all that your info is based on AI. It might be advisable for you to
go to school for some education and training on critical thinking. Trolling
is not your best forte’.

[ChristRose]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 10:30:13 -0800,
Robert <rob...@no.way> wrote:

<0001HW.2B0D2EB50...@news.eternal-september.org>

>On Nov 21, 2023, ChristRose wrote
>(in article<qccpli17fb12shvbf...@4ax.com>):
>
>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 21:46:36 -0800,
>> Robert <rob...@no.way> wrote:
>>
>> <0001HW.2B0C7BBC0...@news.eternal-september.org>
>
>Interesting, according to you, you have never used scripture and everything
>you post is baseless, and without substance since it was all in English.

I'm not the idiot who thinks that if it
isn't an exact quote of my English
translation, then it's invalid.

>On top of all that your info is based on AI. It might be advisable for you to
>go to school for some education and training on critical thinking. Trolling
>is not your best forte’.

If the information is not based solidly
on Scripture, you haven't demonstrated
that from a correct understanding of the
Bible.

[Robert]

On Nov 21, 2023, ChristRose wrote

(in article<no6qliheut000nkkq...@4ax.com>):

> On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 10:30:13 -0800,
> Robert <rob...@no.way> wrote:
>
> <0001HW.2B0D2EB50...@news.eternal-september.org>
>
> > On Nov 21, 2023, ChristRose wrote
> > (in article<qccpli17fb12shvbf...@4ax.com>):
> >
> > > On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 21:46:36 -0800,
> > > Robert <rob...@no.way> wrote:
> > >
> > > <0001HW.2B0C7BBC0...@news.eternal-september.org>
> >
> > Interesting, according to you, you have never used scripture and everything
> > you post is baseless, and without substance since it was all in English.
>
> I'm not the idiot who thinks that if it
> isn't an exact quote of my English
> translation, then it's invalid.

Really? You are the one who is saying that, not me. I never have.

>
>
> > On top of all that your info is based on AI. It might be advisable for you
> > to go to school for some education and training on critical thinking. Trolling
> > is not your best forte’.
>
> If the information is not based solidly
> on Scripture, you haven't demonstrated
> that from a correct understanding of the
> Bible.

OH? Now you are saying that only AI can determine the “correct
understanding”?

[Ollie Smth]

What's this about AI lately?

Who's been using it for this thread?

[Robert]

On Nov 21, 2023, Ollie Smth wrote
(in article<b55058d4-ebf1-4f2b...@googlegroups.com>):

The entity I have been resonding to who started this thread and many others,
They establish doctrines with the use of AI. They or it. I refuse to use
their nym which takes the name of God in Vain.

[Ollie Smth]

> They establish doctrines with the use of AI. They or it. ...

What evidence that AI was used?

> ... I refuse to use

[ChristRose]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 18:16:00 -0800,
Robert <rob...@no.way> wrote:

<0001HW.2B0D9BE00...@news.eternal-september.org>

>On Nov 21, 2023, Ollie Smth wrote
>(in article<b55058d4-ebf1-4f2b...@googlegroups.com>):
>

Without being able to convincingly
demonstrate that the content of the
posts is inconsistent with the meaning
of Scripture, Robert instead tries to
poison people's minds against sound
Bible teaching, by mere association.

[ChristRose]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 16:10:22 -0800,
Robert <rob...@no.way> wrote:

<0001HW.2B0D7E6E0...@news.eternal-september.org>

>On Nov 21, 2023, ChristRose wrote
>(in article<no6qliheut000nkkq...@4ax.com>):
>
>> On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 10:30:13 -0800,
>> Robert <rob...@no.way> wrote:
>>
>> <0001HW.2B0D2EB50...@news.eternal-september.org>
>>
>> > On Nov 21, 2023, ChristRose wrote
>> > (in article<qccpli17fb12shvbf...@4ax.com>):
>> >
>> > > On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 21:46:36 -0800,
>> > > Robert <rob...@no.way> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > <0001HW.2B0C7BBC0...@news.eternal-september.org>
>> >
>> > Interesting, according to you, you have never used scripture and everything
>> > you post is baseless, and without substance since it was all in English.
>>
>> I'm not the idiot who thinks that if it
>> isn't an exact quote of my English
>> translation, then it's invalid.
>
>Really? You are the one who is saying that, not me. I never have.

You do almost nothing but that. Every
time someone uses some word like
"incarnation", or "theology", you slap
quote marks on it, claim it's nowhere
used in Scripture, and pretend like that
categorically invalidates what others
are saying.

Problem is, you're comparing the word or
phrase someone else uses to your English
translation of the Bible. The Bible
wasn't originally written in English,
but in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. This
means there are NO english words in the
original Scriptures, or in the copies we
have of them. So if Robert were to
consistently operate according to the
standard by which he seeks to disqualify
what others say, everything he says
would be disqualified, because he
expresses it with English words which
are found nowhere in the texts or copies
of the original language sources.

>> > On top of all that your info is based on AI. It might be advisable for you
>> > to go to school for some education and training on critical thinking. Trolling
>> > is not your best forte’.
>>
>> If the information is not based solidly
>> on Scripture, you haven't demonstrated
>> that from a correct understanding of the
>> Bible.
>
>OH? Now you are saying that only AI can determine the “correct
>understanding”?

You now seek to twist the fact that you
personally have not convincingly
demonstrated that any of the imformation
you rail against from day to day, is not
based on a correct understanding of
Scripture, into this distorted claim.

[ChristRose]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 18:25:13 -0800
(PST),
Ollie Smth <ollies...@gmail.com>
wrote:

<3a2a9922-e23c-4aed...@googlegroups.com>

>On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 1:16:04?PM UTC+11, Robert wrote:
>> On Nov 21, 2023, Ollie Smth wrote
>> (in article<b55058d4-ebf1-4f2b...@googlegroups.com>):

I used it, and stated I used it with an
MLA formatted citation at the end of
every article in which it was used.

>> ... I refuse to use
>> their nym which takes the name of God in Vain.

[Robert]

On Nov 21, 2023, ChristRose wrote

(in article<05tqlihgqcfo2e93f...@4ax.com>):

As was said the first time the subject was brought up.

2Co 6:15-17

15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that
believeth with an infidel?

16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the
temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in
them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord,
and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

[Robert]

On Nov 21, 2023, ChristRose wrote

(in article<uatqlih7e0ceeqgin...@4ax.com>):

I did not say that “theology/philosophy” was not addressed and in fact
pointed out that it was, By Jesus and Paul specifically.

I uses quotes so as to provide clarity on the subject where you usually shout
in caps and or state something about it being your point. So what’s the
difference? Style? As I have said many times, you are not my God, nor are you
my master. Be humble and deal with it. K?

And as to why my reply ends here?

Rom 2:8But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but
obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

1Co 11:16But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom,
neither the churches of God.

You might want to think about this when you have "conversations” with your
wife.

[ChristRose]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 21:14:57 -0800,
Robert <rob...@no.way> wrote:

<0001HW.2B0DC5D10...@news.eternal-september.org>

You can turn on a computer and spend all
day in edifying study of the Bible. You
can turn on a computer and spend all day
filling your mind with worldly garbage
that leads you away from God. Am I going
to stop using my computer to study the
Bible, because someone else uses it to
fill their mind with garbage?

What you're doing is like blaming a gun
for shooting people, or a fork for
making people fat. It does what you tell
it to do. If you tell it to exposit the
Bible, it exposits the Bible.

When it stops doing what I tell it to
do, and starts persistently delivering
false teaching to me, despite my efforts
to get it to do otherwise, that will be
the fruit that indicates I should stop
associating with it.

[Robert]

On Nov 21, 2023, ChristRose wrote

(in article<469rlil08jdh78tpc...@4ax.com>):

No matter what the theological background when a person studies the Bible
according to their personal theology, they call it good. Whether a Mormon,
using there computer on Mormon sites, JW’s likewise, RC’s and the
Orthodox, theirs, baptists according to their approved sources, etc.

Ai according to the parameters one sets up, and so on.

This is why man made traditions are ill spoken of by Jesus, Paul and others.
This is also why one is to walk in the spirit and gain knowledge and wisdom
from the LORD!

Demons and the spirit of the anti-christ has lulled many into their
philosophical and theological differences over the centuries and some
doctrines became embedded in the respective churches as “truths”. Ti be
freed from all that is difficult, much like possessed people in getting freed
from devils.

One of the most notable persons who started the reformation was Luther. While
it is a long story, he did toss of some shackles via his thesls’. Get he
still had some if not many things he needed to learn in order to be freed of
the false doctrines in the RCC.

You have fallen prey to your own devices, some of which have been fed to you
via your religious box. Most notable here is your preoccupation in waring
against the Gifts of the Holy Spirit handed out severally as He wills.

[Ollie Smth]

On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 5:43:48 AM UTC+11, Robert wrote:
> On Nov 18, 2023, ChristRose wrote
> (in article<fsrhli5r4iatvsseg...@4ax.com>):
> > 1 John provides profound insights into
> > discerning the spirits and recognizing
> > who belongs to God and who is aligned
> > with the devil. This discernment is
> > critical for maintaining the integrity
> > and purity of our faith, especially in a
> > world where false teachings and
> > deceptive spirits abound.
> >
> > 1. Confession of Christ's Incarnation (1
> > John 4:2-3)
> He was not incarnated. That word was never used in scripture.
>
> Incarnation comes from the Latin incarnatus, which means “to make flesh.”

Neither "to make flesh" nor "come in the flesh" have the meaning of adopting the body of another person.

Incarnation is not the same as reincarnation.
Do not confuse the two.

[ChristRose]

On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 15:01:40 -0800,
Robert <rob...@no.way> wrote:

<0001HW.2B0EBFD40...@news.eternal-september.org>

Rather than demonstrating the doctrine
to be wrong, you consistently seek to
vilify by mere association. Since others
do things bad, and since others think
they're doing good when they're doing
bad, therefore, if you think you're
doing good, you must also be doing bad.

That's on par with claiming that since
Satan quotes Scripture, you're doing
evil when you quote Scripture, or since
pagans use the same word ("theos") to
refer to their God, then it's evil to
use the word God to worship the one true
God.

>Ai according to the parameters one sets up, and so on.
>
>This is why man made traditions are ill spoken of by Jesus, Paul and others.
>This is also why one is to walk in the spirit and gain knowledge and wisdom
>from the LORD!

Go buy a point. I'd bet $100 you're
operating on pure jealousy and selfish
ambition, because you recognize that the
content it produces is better than
anything you're able to come up with.
And it wouldn't be gambling, either. It
would be a wise investment.

So sick of listening to you flap your
mouth in a self-evidently stupid effort,
devoid of any substance, to subvert,
poison people's minds against, and turn
them away from that which is good. You
sicken me.

>Demons and the spirit of the anti-christ has lulled many into their
>philosophical and theological differences over the centuries and some
>doctrines became embedded in the respective churches as “truths”. Ti be
>freed from all that is difficult, much like possessed people in getting freed
>from devils.

Yeah, the Devil quotes Scripture, so
you're evil if you quote Scripture.
Pagans call their gods "god" (theos), so
it's evil to call God by the name God.
Your conscience is what's defiled. To
the pure all things are pure, but to the
defiled, nothing is pure.

>One of the most notable persons who started the reformation was Luther. While
>it is a long story, he did toss of some shackles via his thesls’. Get he
>still had some if not many things he needed to learn in order to be freed of
>the false doctrines in the RCC.

Yeah, great.

>You have fallen prey to your own devices, some of which have been fed to you
>via your religious box. Most notable here is your preoccupation in waring
>against the Gifts of the Holy Spirit handed out severally as He wills.

Ultimately, your entire ministry here,
is to try and undermine anyone who
doesn't suffer from your sign gift
delusions. This is the ongoing,
long-term pattern. Even the articles you
post where you don't come right out and
say it, are designed to lay the
ground-work for your one-track delusion.

Here's what I believe an actual
Spirit-filled ministry would have to say
to you:

“Then Saul, who also is called Paul,
filled with the Holy Spirit, looked
intently at him and said, “O full of all
deceit and all fraud, you son of the
devil, you enemy of all righteousness,
will you not cease perverting the
straight ways of the Lord?” (Acts
13:9–10, NKJV)

[ChristRose]

On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 16:25:00 -0800

(PST),
Ollie Smth <ollies...@gmail.com>
wrote:

<517231c7-cafd-4c0c...@googlegroups.com>

>> Incarnation comes from the Latin incarnatus, which means “to make flesh.”
>
>Neither "to make flesh" nor "come in the flesh" have the meaning of adopting the body of another person.
>
>Incarnation is not the same as reincarnation.
>Do not confuse the two.

Yeah, Robert initially bragged that he
had studied this and others had not, and
promoted the definition that incarnation

means to "make flesh".

When he realized this definition carries
the same meaning as the KJV translates
John 1:14 ("made flesh"), he started
promoting a new definition, to the
effect that incarnation means implanting
a soul in a human body, or some such.

He's trying to contaminate the word by
association now. He finds some ancient
usage where some group of pagans used it
to mean something evil, then pretends
like you're therefore doing something
evil if you use the same word they did.

Problem is, there are many words used by
pagans (such as "theos", for God), which
the Bible also uses to refer to the one
true God. So according to a consistent
application of Robert's standard, people
should not be calling God by the name
God (theos), because pagans used the
words thousands of years ago to refer to
false gods.

I'm really getting sick and tired of
trying to pretend like Robert actually
has a point, and is not a stupid troll.
He seeks to vilify by association, in
ways that if it were applied
consistently, would make just about
everything evil.

Oh, the Devil quotes Scripture? Well
then, it's evil for you to quote
Scripture, because that's what the Devil
does. Oh, pagans call their gods "god"
(theos), well then, you're acting like a
pagan if you use the same word they do.
Sick of his dumb, twisted,
defiled-conscience lies.

[Ollie Smth]

On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 1:20:02 PM UTC+11, ChristRose wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 16:25:00 -0800
> (PST),
> Ollie Smth <ollies...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> <517231c7-cafd-4c0c...@googlegroups.com>
> >> Incarnation comes from the Latin incarnatus, which means “to make flesh.”
> >
> >Neither "to make flesh" nor "come in the flesh" have the meaning of adopting the body of another person.
> >
> >Incarnation is not the same as reincarnation.
> >Do not confuse the two.
> Yeah, Robert initially bragged that he
> had studied this and others had not, and
> promoted the definition that incarnation
> means to "make flesh".
> When he realized this definition carries
> the same meaning as the KJV translates

> John 1:14 ("made flesh"), ...

Aye.

In his Word Studies on 1Joh4:2 Wuest says -
"The words "is come" are in the perfect tense in the Greek text. From the foregoing it follows that the statement speaks of the God of the Old Testament who in the Person of His Son became INCARNATE in human flesh without its sin..."; and so he translates that verse as "... Jesus Christ has come in the sphere of the flesh and still remains INCARNATE is of God...". [caps mine].

> ... he started

> promoting a new definition, to the
> effect that incarnation means implanting
> a soul in a human body, or some such.

I've never come across that definition before.

> He's trying to contaminate the word by
> association now. He finds some ancient
> usage where some group of pagans used it
> to mean something evil, then pretends
> like you're therefore doing something
> evil if you use the same word they did.

I sorta feel that incarnation is a compound word in-carnate as from the Latin "in carne" [in the flesh].

However, more etymology notes here https://www.etymonline.com/word/Incarnation traces our English spelling from the French.

> Problem is, there are many words used by
> pagans (such as "theos", for God), which
> the Bible also uses to refer to the one
> true God. So according to a consistent
> application of Robert's standard, people
> should not be calling God by the name
> God (theos), because pagans used the
> words thousands of years ago to refer to
> false gods.

Well we have adopted the spelling God in our English translations rather than transliterate the Gk theos or even the Heb tetragramaton.

> I'm really getting sick and tired of
> trying to pretend like Robert actually
> has a point, and is not a stupid troll.
> He seeks to vilify by association, in
> ways that if it were applied
> consistently, would make just about
> everything evil.

In my pentecostal background, we were taught that the institutional church we see today is an aberration that does not resemble the church of the NT. It's an appeal to orthodoxy and fidelity to the early church.

[ChristRose]

On 11/23/2023 12:02 AM, Ollie Smth wrote:
> In his Word Studies on 1Joh4:2 Wuest says -
> "The words "is come" are in the perfect tense in the Greek text. From
> the foregoing it follows that the statement speaks of the God of the Old
> Testament who in the Person of His Son became INCARNATE in human flesh
> without its sin..."; and so he translates that verse as "... Jesus
> Christ has come in the sphere of the flesh and still remains INCARNATE
> is of God...". [caps mine].

Yes

[Robert]

On Nov 22, 2023, ChristRose wrote
(in article<ctctli50ls3d2oauu...@4ax.com>):

> On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 16:25:00 -0800
> (PST),
> Ollie Smth <ollies...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> <517231c7-cafd-4c0c...@googlegroups.com>
>
> > > Incarnation comes from the Latin incarnatus, which means “to make
> > > flesh.”
> >
> > Neither "to make flesh" nor "come in the flesh" have the meaning of
> > adopting the body of another person.
> >
> > Incarnation is not the same as reincarnation.
> > Do not confuse the two.
>
> Yeah, Robert initially bragged that he
> had studied this and others had not, and
> promoted the definition that incarnation
> means to "make flesh".

That statement is a false witness or to make it very clear, an outright lie.
It is gossip as well,

>
>
> When he realized this definition carries
> the same meaning as the KJV translates
> John 1:14 ("made flesh"), he started
> promoting a new definition, to the
> effect that incarnation means implanting
> a soul in a human body, or some such.

It doesn’t at all, which is also born out by the definition of
re-incarnation as it means re-incarnating the the spirit of one being into
the body of another. It is now also used as slang for what some people
consider the strong similarities between two separate persons.

>
>
> He's trying to contaminate the word by
> association now. He finds some ancient
> usage where some group of pagans used it
> to mean something evil, then pretends
> like you're therefore doing something
> evil if you use the same word they did.

LOL, so now you admit that the word and idea of which has been there all
along, yet never used in the Bible, and only started being used within
certain religious groups, and then carried down by the tradition of men, thus
contaminating the Greek and Roman church.

>
>
> Problem is, there are many words used by
> pagans (such as "theos", for God), which
> the Bible also uses to refer to the one
> true God. So according to a consistent
> application of Robert's standard, people
> should not be calling God by the name
> God (theos), because pagans used the
> words thousands of years ago to refer to
> false gods.

Better get your facts and scenarios straight. Plus, stop your false
witnessing about me, who you do not know. You cannot think for me for you are
not possessed by me. Nor have I set any standard, I did bear witness of
history and the historical meanings of words.

It is for sure here, that you have no understanding of the words used for God
nor the historical usage of the word as handed down via the ages, In fact for
those reasons He gave Moses a new name for Himself, which is now called YHWH,
Yehovah, etc.

In fact all the English Bibles you use, speak of God in a generic term which
applies equally to all the gods of men. The on;y distinction of which is an
upper case “G” as opposed to a lower case “g” and heaven help you if
you started a sentence with the word “god” since then it too would have
to be capitalized, And all of this is only the tip of the iceberg regarding
the words used for god from the earliest descendants of Adam.

>
> I'm really getting sick and tired of
> trying to pretend like Robert actually
> has a point, and is not a stupid troll.
> He seeks to vilify by association, in
> ways that if it were applied
> consistently, would make just about
> everything evil.

That is your thoughts, and you show us your thinking are assumptions, your
prejudices which are totally unfounded except by what is between your ears,
In fact, out of your ignorance, and because of it, you are attempting to
defame me as the source of all evil. Words, sounds, all have meaning. Which
is why authors creatively use various similar words to get their points or
understandings and motivations across to others, A practice that is also
taught to those who major in wordsmithing.

>
> Oh, the Devil quotes Scripture? Well
> then, it's evil for you to quote
> Scripture, because that's what the Devil
> does. Oh, pagans call their gods "god"
> (theos), well then, you're acting like a
> pagan if you use the same word they do.
> Sick of his dumb, twisted,
> defiled-conscience lies.

That you cannot fathom why one should never trust anything that Satan says,
is to show lack of understanding, especially after Jesus mentions it.

Jhn 8:42-47

42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I
proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

43 Why do ye not understand my speech? evenbecause ye cannot hear my word.

44 Ye are ofyourfather the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He
was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there
is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is
a liar, and the father of it.

45 And because I tellyouthe truth, ye believe me not.

46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not
believe me?

47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear themnot, because
ye are not of God.

Think about it, why do lying politicians invoke scripture into their
speeches?

Why do cultists invoke a particular scripture, out of context, to make a
doctrine?

Why do “religious people” due the same things?

[Robert]

On Nov 22, 2023, ChristRose wrote
(in article<-LmdnU6GUdY3ccP4...@giganews.com>):

That is pure evidence of the traditions of men handed down. So people without
thinking or consideration of words use them for some generic meaning that
defies definition. Others then hold those things as “Gospel truths” so
much so that they utilize it as a defining understanding of who is and who is
not a “Christian”. Which is also not to be found in scripture.

Use that word in eastern religions who believe in re-incarnation, and they
will tell you a far different understanding to the process.

What part of "in the flesh" do you not understand?

Many have used that term, expecially in shows, where when they bring someone
of note on to the stage they will say, “And here he is, live, in the
flesh........” As opposed to having seen them on TV or in the movies, or
having read about them.

Roy Meeks was born, Roy Meeks, not Ollie. His spirit being was evident from
his conception. It was not implanted in him as he exited the womb. So it was
with Jesus.

What you and many others do not get is that Jesus was a product of
conception, not implantation. To ignore that is to ignore the truth of the
scripture. Therefore He lived in the flesh, “en sarx” not as the latin
transcribed it 300+ years after the event.

[Robert]

On Nov 22, 2023, ChristRose wrote
(in article<8vbtlitpvvnmnbv19...@4ax.com>):

No matter how many times you restate your ignorance it does not become truth,
it only serves to harden your heart against the truth.

Satan is the Father of lies. Jesus stated that, yet here stand you opposing
His truth and understanding.

>
>
> > Ai according to the parameters one sets up, and so on.
> >
> > This is why man made traditions are ill spoken of by Jesus, Paul and others.
> > This is also why one is to walk in the spirit and gain knowledge and wisdom
> > from the LORD!
>
> Go buy a point. I'd bet $100 you're
> operating on pure jealousy and selfish
> ambition, because you recognize that the
> content it produces is better than
> anything you're able to come up with.
> And it wouldn't be gambling, either. It
> would be a wise investment.

Mat 16:23But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou
art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but
those that be of men.

1Co 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man
which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of
God.

>
> So sick of listening to you flap your
> mouth in a self-evidently stupid effort,
> devoid of any substance, to subvert,
> poison people's minds against, and turn
> them away from that which is good. You
> sicken me.

You were the one who proudly proclaimed that AI responds to you faster than
does God.
When you need Godly info....Who you gonna call.....Call GHOSTBUSTER!

>
>
> > Demons and the spirit of the anti-christ has lulled many into their
> > philosophical and theological differences over the centuries and some
> > doctrines became embedded in the respective churches as “truths”. Ti be
> > freed from all that is difficult, much like possessed people in getting
> > freed
> > from devils.
>
> Yeah, the Devil quotes Scripture, so
> you're evil if you quote Scripture.
> Pagans call their gods "god" (theos), so
> it's evil to call God by the name God.
> Your conscience is what's defiled. To
> the pure all things are pure, but to the
> defiled, nothing is pure.

CALL GHOSTBUSTER!

>
>
> > One of the most notable persons who started the reformation was Luther.
> > While
> > it is a long story, he did toss of some shackles via his thesls’. Get he
> > still had some if not many things he needed to learn in order to be freed of
> > the false doctrines in the RCC.
>
> Yeah, great.
>
> > You have fallen prey to your own devices, some of which have been fed to you
> > via your religious box. Most notable here is your preoccupation in waring
> > against the Gifts of the Holy Spirit handed out severally as He wills.
>
> Ultimately, your entire ministry here,
> is to try and undermine anyone who
> doesn't suffer from your sign gift
> delusions. This is the ongoing,
> long-term pattern. Even the articles you
> post where you don't come right out and
> say it, are designed to lay the
> ground-work for your one-track delusion.

You are and were the one who when you first arrived here struck out against
your doctrine of “Sign Gifts” and officially called them over and done
with, which I pointed out your error as well as pointed out to you from
scripture that you are not to deny the operations of the Gofts of the Spirit,

It has been your sore spot and center of focus ever since, What was that
verse you quoted about the pure, and truth?

>
>
> Here's what I believe an actual
> Spirit-filled ministry would have to say
> to you:

Really? Are you inferring that there is no such thing in operation today?

Why does the thought keep popping up to me about not casting your pearls
before swine?

[ChristRose]

On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 11:48:47 -0800,
Robert <rob...@no.way> wrote:

<0001HW.2B0FE41F0...@news.eternal-september.org>

>On Nov 22, 2023, ChristRose wrote
>(in article<ctctli50ls3d2oauu...@4ax.com>):
>
>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 16:25:00 -0800
>> (PST),
>> Ollie Smth <ollies...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> <517231c7-cafd-4c0c...@googlegroups.com>
>>
>> > > Incarnation comes from the Latin incarnatus, which means “to make
>> > > flesh.”
>> >
>> > Neither "to make flesh" nor "come in the flesh" have the meaning of
>> > adopting the body of another person.
>> >
>> > Incarnation is not the same as reincarnation.
>> > Do not confuse the two.
>>
>> Yeah, Robert initially bragged that he
>> had studied this and others had not, and
>> promoted the definition that incarnation
>> means to "make flesh".
>
>That statement is a false witness or to make it very clear, an outright lie.
>It is gossip as well,

Tisk tisk. Let's see if that's the case:

Me: "Robert initially bragged that he

had studied this and others had not"

========================
On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 00:45:35 -0800,
Robert <rob...@no.way> wrote:

<0001HW.2B0B542F0...@news.eternal-september.org>

>You have never studied it, I have.
========================

Yep. Robert did in fact initially brag

that he had studied this and others had

not.

Me: "and promoted the definition that

incarnation means to "make flesh"

Robert:
========================

On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 10:43:45 -0800,
Robert <rob...@no.way> wrote:

<0001HW.2B0BE0610...@news.eternal-september.org>

>Incarnation comes from the Latin incarnatus, which means “to make flesh.”

========================

Yep. That was exactly correct. Robert
did, in fact, claim "Incarnation" comes
from roots which mean to "make flesh".

Robert said this was an "outright lie".
Yet Robert said exactly what I claimed
he said.

Conclusion: Robert is the one telling

[ChristRose]

On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 11:48:47 -0800,
Robert <rob...@no.way> wrote:

<0001HW.2B0FE41F0...@news.eternal-september.org>

>> Problem is, there are many words used by
>> pagans (such as "theos", for God), which
>> the Bible also uses to refer to the one
>> true God. So according to a consistent
>> application of Robert's standard, people
>> should not be calling God by the name
>> God (theos), because pagans used the
>> words thousands of years ago to refer to
>> false gods.
>
>Better get your facts and scenarios straight.

That statement is itself deceitful. You
have demonstrated no such thing. Pagans
have been using the word "theos" and
"theoi" to describe their false gods for
thousands of years. Yet the Bible still
uses the word "theos" (God) to describe
the one true God.

Robert idiotically contends that since
some pagans used the word incarnation
thousands of years ago, it's therefore
wrong to use it today to refer to
Christ. Yet if we follow Robert's
standard consistently, it would be evil
to refer to God as God, because that's
what the pagans call their false gods.

Thus, if it's evil to use words that
pagans used then Robert is an hypocrite
for calling God by the name God, because
that's what pagans called their false
gods thousands of years ago.

Conclusion: Robert is an idiot and an
hypocrite for trying to poison the
meaning of words by mere association.

>Plus, stop your false
>witnessing about me, who you do not know. You cannot think for me for you are
>not possessed by me.

Underline the false witnessing. You lied
when you said I bore false witness. I
cited your words, and they were exactly
as I claimed they were.

>Nor have I set any standard, I did bear witness of
>history and the historical meanings of words.

Flapping your mouth in denial means
nothing, when you were accurately cited
claiming exactly what I stated you
claimed. You did in fact initially claim
"Incarnation" came from Latin roots
meaning to "make flesh". This is exactly
how the KJV translates Christ's
incarnation in John 1:14, when it says
he was "made flesh".

>It is for sure here, that you have no understanding of the words used for God

The New Testament shows (and I posted)
numerous places where pagans used the
word "theos" and "theoi" to refer to
their false god(s), contemporaneously
with the writing of the New Testament.
Yet the New Testament still uses the
exact same word (theos) to describe the
one true God.

Therefore, your effort to sabotage the
legitimate and Biblically accurate
meaning of words like "incarnation",
just show what a defiled-conscience
idiot you are. You try to vilify and
disqualify others for using words that
are good and Biblically sound, while you
hypocritically do the same thing you
condemn them for, when you use the word
"God" ("theos"--the same word pagans
used) to describe their false gods.

>nor the historical usage of the word as handed down via the ages,

It's right in the Bible, tool. Here it
is again:

In the New Testament, there are several
instances where the Greek word "theos"
(?e??), which is typically translated as
"God," is used to refer to pagan gods or
deities. These instances demonstrate the
broader application of the term beyond
the Christian God:

Acts 14:11: In this passage, after Paul
heals a crippled man in Lystra, the
crowds begin to call Paul and Barnabas
gods in human form, referring to them as
"the gods [theoi] have come down to us
in human form!" This is a clear instance
of the use of "theos" in a plural form
to refer to perceived pagan deities.

Acts 19:26: Here, Demetrius, a
silversmith in Ephesus, acknowledges
that Paul's ministry is turning people
away from the worship of the goddess
Artemis. He says, "you see and hear how
this fellow Paul has convinced and led
astray large numbers of people here in
Ephesus and in practically the whole
province of Asia. He says that gods made
by human hands are no gods at all." The
term "gods" here (again "theoi" in
Greek) refers to the pagan gods, in this
case, Artemis, who was worshiped in
Ephesus.

1 Corinthians 8:5: Paul writes, "For
even if there are so-called gods,
whether in heaven or on earth (as there
are many 'gods' [theoi] and many
'lords')," acknowledging the existence
of many gods and lords in the pagan
worldview. Here "theos" is used to refer
to these so-called gods of the pagans.

These references indicate that the term
"theos" was not exclusively used for the
Christian God in the New Testament but
also referred to pagan gods, reflecting
the broader religious and cultural
context of the time?

>In fact for those reasons He gave Moses a new name for Himself, which is now called YHWH,
>Yehovah, etc.

Pagans used "theos" to describe their
false gods at the same time the New
Testament was being written. Yet the New
Testament still uses "theos" to describe
the one true God.

So when are you going to start
practicing what you preach, and stop
referring to God as "God", since that's
what pagan Greek called their false gods
thousands of years ago? How are you not
an hypocrite and an idiot, Robert?

>In fact all the English Bibles you use, speak of God in a generic term which
>applies equally to all the gods of men. The on;y distinction of which is an
>upper case “G” as opposed to a lower case “g” and heaven help you if
>you started a sentence with the word “god” since then it too would have
>to be capitalized, And all of this is only the tip of the iceberg regarding
>the words used for god from the earliest descendants of Adam.

You tried to condemn the use of
"incarnation", on the grounds that
pagans had used it in association with
pagan things thousands of years ago.
This was the case while the Bible was
written, that pagans used "theos" to
refer to their false gods, yet the Bible
still used the same word they used to
identify the one true God. Your standard
of vilification is therefore stupid and
hypocritical. You act like you're on
some moral high ground condemning words
that are completely legitimate and
Biblically accurate, just because you
find some pagan using it. You're such a
stupid hypocrite.

[ChristRose]

On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 12:06:11 -0800,
Robert <rob...@no.way> wrote:

<0001HW.2B0FE8330...@news.eternal-september.org>

You're an idiot Robert. I'm tired of
pretending like you're not a stupid
hypocrite, just so you can feel like
you're important. Oh, by the way, here's
your man McGee:

I. Prologue: INCARNATION_, Chapter
Joh_1:1-18 (McGee John 1, emphasis mine)

They denied the _INCARNATION_, reasoning
that God could not have taken a human
body because all flesh is evil.
Therefore John distinctly declared, And
the Word was made [born] flesh, and

dwelt among us, (and we beheld his
glory, the glory as of the only begotten

of the Father,, emphasis mine) full of
grace and truth (Joh_1:14, emphasis
mine)(McGee 1 John 4:2-3, emphasis
mine).

Docetic Gnosticism, considering the
_INCARNATION_ impossible since God could
not unite Himself with anything evil
such as a body, taught that Jesus only
seemed to have a body, but actually He
did not. For example, when He walked He
left no footprints (McGee 1 John 4:2-3,
emphasis mine).

As we have already seen, love and truth
are inseparable. Christ is the epitome
of both; He is the _INCARNATION_ of both
(McGee 2 John 1, emphasis mine).

The difference is that in the New
Testament the love of God has been
translated into history by the
_INCARNATION_ and death of Christ (McGee
Deuteronomy 6:1-5, emphasis mine)

Obviously, he is not the man, but it
reveals the great need for the
_INCARNATION_ of our Lord. He must be a
Mediator so He must be God, but He must
also be of the same clay as we are
(McGee Job 33:1-33, emphasis mine).

When God sent the Lord Jesus into this
world, He came as the only begotten Son,
and by His _INCARNATION_ yonder at
Bethlehem He became the Son of God
(McGee Psalm 89:1-52, emphasis mine).

Before His _INCARNATION_ Christ said,
Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume
of the book it is written of me,,
emphasis mine) to do thy will, O God
(Heb_10:7, emphasis mine) (McGee Psalms
101:1-8, emphasis mine).

He is the perfect human in His
_INCARNATION_. He is lovely. He is the
bundle of camphor. He is the One of whom
John could say with enthusiasm and deep
expression, "Behold the Lamb of God,
which taketh away the sin of the world"
(Joh_1:29, emphasis mine) (McGee Song of
Solomon 1:14, emphasis mine).

his live coal has come from the burnt
altar where sin had been dealt with. In
the next chapter we will see the
prediction of the birth of Christ, but
it is not the _INCARNATION_ of Christ
that saves us, it is His death upon the
Cross (McGee Isaiah 6:1-13, emphasis
mine).

It was the revelation of the mystery of
the _INCARNATION_ of God, for which all
this was to prepare the way (McGee
Isaiah 34:1-4, emphasis mine).

This verse and also verse Eze_1:26 (the
appearance of a man) speak of the
_INCARNATION_ of Christ, the fact that
God became a man (McGee Ezekiel 1:1-28,
emphasis mine).

Whose goings forth have been from of
old, from everlasting. His birth, the
_INCARNATION_, has to do with His
humanity. He clothed Himself in humanity
when He came to Bethlehem. But His
existence was before His birth (McGee
Micah 5:2-15, emphasis mine).

A man riding upon a red horse." Who is
this man? He is the Lord Jesus Christ
before His _INCARNATION_ (McGee
Zechariah 1:7-17, emphasis mine).

Standing before the angel of the LORD."
This angel is the Lord Jesus Christ
before His _INCARNATION_, as we have
seen in the previous chapters (McGee
Zechariah 3:1-7, emphasis mine).

There is a striking contrast between the
first and second comings of Christ.
Redemption is the high word of His first
coming; revelation is the high word of
His second coming. It was reconciliation
at His first coming and recognition at
His second coming. It was the
_INCARNATION_ at His first coming and
identification at His second coming
(McGee Zechariah 13:1-6, emphasis mine).
THEME: Prologue”_INCARNATION_; Word is
God, Word became flesh, Word revealed
God; witness of John the Baptist;
witness of Andrew; witness of Philip;
witness of Nathanael (John 1:1-18,
emphasis mine).

The prologue presents the _INCARNATION_
of the Word He is God, He became flesh,
He reveals the Father (McGee John
1:47-51, emphasis mine).

Christ was made a curse for us. The
question is: When did Christ become a
curse? Did He become a curse in His
_INCARNATION_ (McGee Galatians 3:6-29,
emphasis mine)?

The logical explanation of these verses
is that since Christ ascended, He must
have of necessity descended at some
previous period. Some see only the
_INCARNATION_ in this. The early church
fathers saw in it the work of Christ in
bringing the Old Testament saints out of
paradise up to the throne of God. We are
told that He descended into hell. It is
not necessary, however, to assume that
He entered into some form of suffering
after His death. His _INCARNATION_ and
death were His humiliation and descent,
and they were adequate to bring the
redeemed of the Old Testament into the
presence of God (McGee Ephesians 4:7-16,
emphasis mine).

The theory promoted was the kenosis
theory, which is that at Christ's
_INCARNATION_ He emptied Himself of His
deity (McGee Philippians 2:1-4, emphasis
mine).

Let me give you a very homely
illustration that I trust might be as
helpful to you as it is to me. I confess
it is rather ridiculous, but it will
illustrate the humiliation of Christ in
His _INCARNATION_ (McGee Philippians
2:5-8, emphasis mine).

By the _INCARNATION_ God came down to
man; by the blood of Jesus man is
brought up to God (McGee Colossians
1:20-23, emphasis mine).

He bore the suffering that is common to
humanity when He was born in Bethlehem
at His _INCARNATION_ over nineteen
hundred years ago (McGee Colossians
1:24-29, emphasis mine).

God was manifest in the flesh."
Certainly Paul is teaching the virgin
birth of Christ, but he is also speaking
of Christ's existence before His
_INCARNATION_ (McGee 1 Timothy 3:14-16,
emphasis mine).

This statement emphasizes the Lord's
_INCARNATION_ (McGee Hebrews 2:5-18,
emphasis mine).

John didn't say that it was a new and
living way open to God, because the
_INCARNATION_, the life of Christ saves
no one. We enter into the holiest by the
blood of Jesus. Our right of entrance is
not through His _INCARNATION_ but
through the rending of the veil; that
is, through His death (McGee Hebrews
10:19-25, emphasis mine).

John, of course, is speaking of the
_INCARNATION_ of Jesus and of his own
association with Him when He was here
upon this earth (McGee 1 John 1:1-2,
emphasis mine).

An old commandment which ye had from the
beginning. From what beginning? Well,
the beginning in 1 John is the
_INCARNATION_ of Christ (1 John 2:3-14,
emphasis mine).

The beginning: in 1 John goes back to
the _INCARNATION_ of Christ. That which
ye have heard from the beginning,? that
which you heard concerning His
_INCARNATION_, that which you heard
concerning His life, that which you
heard concerning His death and
resurrection”in other words, that which
they had heard from the beginning when
the apostles began to preach the gospel
(McGee 1 John 2:15-29, emphasis mine).

John often speaks in this epistle about
the beginning. The beginning he is
talking about is the _INCARNATION_ of
Christ (McGee 1 John 3:4-24, emphasis
mine).

Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem, and
it begins there with his _INCARNATION_
(McGee 1 John 4:1-6, emphasis mine).

The beginning? refers to the beginning
of the ministry of Christ in His
_INCARNATION_ (McGee 2 John 1:1-6,
emphasis mine).

________________
Works Cited

McGee, J. Thru the Bible Commentary
Series. Thomas Nelson, 1991.

[ChristRose]

On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 12:47:11 -0800,
Robert <rob...@no.way> wrote:

<0001HW.2B0FF1CF0...@news.eternal-september.org>

I'm tired of pretending like you're not

a complete idiot and hypocrite, Robert.
Go look up "Dunning-Krueger" effect.
That's what you suffer from. You don't
have the sense to understand that you're
an idiot.

[Robert]

On Nov 23, 2023, ChristRose wrote
(in article<fe70mi10dqdeti2fg...@4ax.com>):

My Faith is in God, not man. You can bring up every man who I admires for a
variety of reasons, but I live not for them, nor myself, but I do live for
God the Father, more and more each day.

Yes, the Dr, uses the term as do many others, but their faith is not
contingent on that word.

In fact, in what way does his commentary differ from what I last wrote above?
Or anything else I have written on the subject?

Most people of your caliber try to say that God is One, in the understanding
that where Jesus is the fullness of the Godhead is standing in His sandals.
Meaning that were he stands so to is the Heavenly Father standing in the same
sandals.

Yet, after his water baptism unto repentance, the Holy Ghost descended on him
like a Dove while the Heavenly Father from the heavens spoke above and said,
This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased.

Therefore it can be concluded that Jesus from birth was not inhabited by the
Holy Ghost. And that the Heavenly Father also, whom men did not see, spoke
from Heaven in regards to his Beloved son, witnessing Jesus before all men.

Hundreds of times I have brought that up, not one person agreed with the
scripture and the understanding of it.

Dr. McGee was a friend of my Dad, and I still Love his teachings, he is a man
of God, one of compassion as well. I have no rancor with him, nor is he on
some High Pedestal in my life.

To bring up such a man to flaunt in my face shows your state of being, and
where your emphasis is, on man. Dwelling in carnality. I say that without
rancor or bitterness.

>
>
> I. Prologue: INCARNATION_, Chapter
> Joh_1:1-18 (McGee John 1, emphasis mine)
>
> They denied the _INCARNATION_, reasoning
> that God could not have taken a human
> body because all flesh is evil.
> Therefore John distinctly declared, And
> the Word was made [born] flesh, and
> dwelt among us, (and we beheld his
> glory, the glory as of the only begotten
> of the Father,, emphasis mine) full of
> grace and truth (Joh_1:14, emphasis
> mine)(McGee 1 John 4:2-3, emphasis
> mine).

Let’s see Dr. McGee’s emphasis, K?

Let's move on down to verse Jhn 1:14 and notice the three statements there.

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory,
the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth
[Jhn 1:14].

“And the Word was made flesh,”

“And the Word dwelt among us,”

“He was full of grace and truth.”

The Greek philosopher probably would have stayed with us through verse one,
but he leaves us here. He would never agree that the Word was made flesh. The
Greek language allows us to put it more specifically and, I think, more
accurately: “The Word was born flesh.” Turn this over in your mind for a
moment. Here comes God out of eternity, already the Ancient of Days; but He
also came to Bethlehem, a little baby thing that made a woman cry. And notice
that John's Gospel does not even mention His birth in Bethlehem. Do you know
why? He is talking about One who is too big for Bethlehem. Out of eternity,
the Word became flesh.

“And [the Word] dwelt among us” is the second statement in verse Jhn
1:14. “Dwelt” is fromskenoo; it means “He pitched His tent among us.”
Our human bodies are merely little tents in which we live. The apostle Paul
used the same imagery: “… we know that if … this tabernacle were
dissolved …” (2Co 5:1). This house in which we live is a tabernacle, a
tent, that can be blown over in a night; it can be snuffed out in an instant.
Because you and I live in these little tents, the God of eternity took upon
Himself a human body and thus pitched His tent down here among us. Such is
the second tremendous statement.

Notice the third, “(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only
begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” Now John is saying
something else. The question I would naturally ask at this point is, “If He
was made flesh, He certainly limited himself.” John says, “Wait a
minute—He was full of grace and truth.” The word “full” means that
you just could not have any more. He brought all the deity with Him, and He
was full of grace and full of truth when He came down here.

>
>
> Docetic Gnosticism,

There you go again, off on the theologies of men.

> considering the
> _INCARNATION_ impossible since God could
> not unite Himself with anything evil
> such as a body, taught that Jesus only
> seemed to have a body, but actually He
> did not. For example, when He walked He
> left no footprints (McGee 1 John 4:2-3,
> emphasis mine).

McGee,

In the first six verses of this chapter, John gives a warning against false
teachers, false prophets. He gives us this warning, having just established
the fact that we have been given the Spirit of God and that we have been
given an anointing to understand the things of God.

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of
God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world [1Jn 4:1].

Did he say we have been given AI to understand the things of God, if Not then
who did Dr. McGee give us as our source. Did he not mention the usage of
Scripture? The Doctrines of Christ?

Get a grip lest you go down in flames.

[Robert]

On Nov 23, 2023, ChristRose wrote
(in article<4380midhigj5h92mv...@4ax.com>):

May God have mercy on your soul.

I doubt that if anyone reads these threads they would not see any lack of
name calling. ;)

[Robert]

On Nov 23, 2023, ChristRose wrote
(in article<a350mipup5ditotfi...@4ax.com>):

That was not bragging at all, You never did study it. That was not the first
time I have mentioned it over the last 2+ decades.

>
>
> Yep. Robert did in fact initially brag
> that he had studied this and others had
> not.

You alone are not “others”. I also have recently mentioned that I came
across other who had also focused on the same arena, and drawn the same
understandings and conclusions.

>
>
> Me: "and promoted the definition that
> incarnation means to "make flesh"

Nope. Not in the sense that you misunderstand it.

>
>
> Robert:
> ========================
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 10:43:45 -0800,
> Robert <rob...@no.way> wrote:
>
> <0001HW.2B0BE0610...@news.eternal-september.org>
>
> > Incarnation comes from the Latin incarnatus, which means “to make
> > flesh.”
> ========================
>
> Yep. That was exactly correct. Robert
> did, in fact, claim "Incarnation" comes
> from roots which mean to "make flesh".
>
> Robert said this was an "outright lie".
> Yet Robert said exactly what I claimed
> he said.
>
> Conclusion: Robert is the one telling
> lies.

Look at the context always. Not the little voices in your head.

:to make flesh” had no bearing on creating flesh in the day and age of Jesus.

Incarnation was brought up by Roy from the Latin and not translated properly
from the Greek. However, that word and the usage or misusage of it has
plagued Christianity ever since.

Not one time have you ever mentioned having the slightest grip on what the
scriptures said regarding the conceiving of Jesus Christ.

What a shame that is.

[Robert]

On Nov 23, 2023, ChristRose wrote
(in article<aj50mipq3ckntpuo9...@4ax.com>):

> On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 11:48:47 -0800,
> Robert <rob...@no.way> wrote:
>
> <0001HW.2B0FE41F0...@news.eternal-september.org>
>
> > > Problem is, there are many words used by
> > > pagans (such as "theos", for God), which
> > > the Bible also uses to refer to the one
> > > true God. So according to a consistent
> > > application of Robert's standard, people
> > > should not be calling God by the name
> > > God (theos), because pagans used the
> > > words thousands of years ago to refer to
> > > false gods.
> >
> > Better get your facts and scenarios straight.
>
> That statement is itself deceitful. You
> have demonstrated no such thing. Pagans
> have been using the word "theos" and
> "theoi" to describe their false gods for
> thousands of years. Yet the Bible still
> uses the word "theos" (God) to describe
> the one true God.

It is a crying shame that you are so ignorant about the words used for God,
and the history thereof. This directly below is the KJV along with the
Strongs number system. For which BDB should be utilized before Strong, and
before them all The ancient Hebrew Pictographic language.

Here below is a sampling of the words you know not of, yet they are here so
that anyone can verify on their own the verbiage from the various time
periods.

There was a name for God well before the Flood, one that the heathens also
used for calling their gods, same word. Applied as they saw fit, thus
corrupting the name, for that reason a new name commonly identified now as
YHWH, was given the the children of Isaac.

OT
********************************************
Deu 10:17 For H3588  the LORD H3068  your God H430  is
God H430  of gods, H430  and Lord H113  of lords, H113  a
great H1419  God, H410  a mighty, H1368  and a
terrible, H3372  which H834  regardeth H5375  not H3808 
persons, H6440  nor H3808  taketh H3947  reward: H7810 

This below is from the Septuagint along with the Greek in the original
format. Which basically is the translation of the Hebrew to the Greek as
written by 70 Israeli priest due to Greek having taken over the world, and
for the purposes of teaching Jewish people who knew not the language of their
home.

17 For the Lord your God, he [is] God of gods, and the Lord of lords, the
great, and strong, and terrible God, who does not accept persons, nor will he
by any means accept a bribe:

17 ὁ γὰρ Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ὑμῶν οὗτος Θεὸς
τῶν θεῶν καὶ Κύριος τῶν κυρίων, ὁ Θεὸς
ὁ μέγας· καὶ ἰσχυρὸς καὶ φοβερός,
ὅστις οὐ θαυμάζει πρόσωπον, οὐδ᾿ οὐ μὴ
λάβῃ δῶρον,
****************************************************

Here below are some NT verses using the same words in English that are
translated from Greek and very little has changed from the time of the
Septuagint to the days of Jesus and the Apostles.

**************************************************

Jhn 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the
scripture cannot be broken;

Jhn 10:35 If G1487  he called G2036  them G1565 gods, G2316 
unto G4314  whom G3739  the G3588  word G3056 of
God G2316  came, G1096  and G2532  the G3588 
scripture G1124  cannot G1410 G3756  be broken; G3089 

1Ti 6:15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only
Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;

1Ti 6:15 Which G3739  in his G2398  times G2540  he shall
shew, G1166  who is the G3588  blessed G3107  and G2532 
only G3441  Potentate, G1413  the G3588  King G935  of
kings, G936  and G2532  Lord G2962  of lords; G2961 

***************************************
I am not interested in the slightest, regarding partaking of your petty
trolling and name calling, which most people recognize as the language of
losers, bearing the fruit thereof.

[ChristRose]

WHOOOOOOOOSH!!!

That's the sound of you missing the
point. You claim to the effect that if
you find some pagan usage of a word like
"incarnation", that this somehow
disqualifies the word and makes it evil
and wrong for believers to use it. Yet
at the very same time as Pagans were
using "theos" and "theoi" to describe
their false gods, the Holy Spirit
inspired the apostles to use the word
"theos" to describe the one, true God.

Conclusion: Finding pagan usage of a
word doesn't make that word evil, or
disqualify it as a legitimate way to
describe God. How do you not comprehend
that?

[ChristRose]

On Sat, 25 Nov 2023 12:39:27 -0800,
Robert <rob...@no.way> wrote:

<0001HW.2B1292FF0...@news.eternal-september.org>

>Deu 10:17 For?H3588? the LORD?H3068? your God?H430? is
>God?H430? of gods,?H430? and Lord?H113? of lords,?H113? a
>great?H1419? God,?H410? a mighty,?H1368? and a
>terrible,?H3372? which?H834? regardeth?H5375? not?H3808?
>persons,?H6440? nor?H3808? taketh?H3947? reward:?H7810?

>
>This below is from the Septuagint along with the Greek in the original
>format. Which basically is the translation of the Hebrew to the Greek as
>written by 70 Israeli priest due to Greek having taken over the world, and
>for the purposes of teaching Jewish people who knew not the language of their
>home.
>
>17 For the Lord your God, he [is] God of gods, and the Lord of lords, the
>great, and strong, and terrible God, who does not accept persons, nor will he
>by any means accept a bribe:
>

>17 ? ??? ?????? ? ???? ???? ????? ????
>??? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ??????, ? ????
>? ?????· ??? ??????? ??? ???????,
>????? ?? ???????? ????????, ???? ?? ??
>???? ?????,

>****************************************************
>
>Here below are some NT verses using the same words in English that are
>translated from Greek and very little has changed from the time of the
>Septuagint to the days of Jesus and the Apostles.
>
>**************************************************
>
>Jhn 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the
>scripture cannot be broken;
>

>Jhn 10:35 If?G1487? he called?G2036? them?G1565?gods,?G2316?
>unto?G4314? whom?G3739? the?G3588? word?G3056?of
>God?G2316? came,?G1096? and?G2532? the?G3588?
>scripture?G1124? cannot?G1410 G3756? be broken;?G3089?

>
>1Ti 6:15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only
>Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
>

>1Ti 6:15 Which?G3739? in his?G2398? times?G2540? he shall
>shew,?G1166? who is the?G3588? blessed?G3107? and?G2532?
>only?G3441? Potentate,?G1413? the?G3588? King?G935? of
>kings,?G936? and?G2532? Lord?G2962? of lords;?G2961?

>
>***************************************
>I am not interested in the slightest, regarding partaking of your petty
>trolling and name calling, which most people recognize as the language of
>losers, bearing the fruit thereof.

Translation: I, Robert, am not
interested in the slightest in
responding to arguments that expose my
stupidity and hypocrisy. Instead, I'll
shoot this irrelevant ink-cloud of
information out, and pretend like I've
just refuted some claim.

[Robert]

On Nov 25, 2023, ChristRose wrote
(in article<GB2dncyJc9k9Ff_4...@giganews.com>):

I just destroyed your straw man argument and this is all you have to offer?

The Septuagint used early greek words in its original form, and for heathen
gods they used the word translated as Theos for the heathen gods, which is
why I posted it in the greek version so you could see for yourself.

You must me stumbling around the internet for modern thoughts on ancient
religions by those that prefer that thinking over the God of the Bible, and
got conned. For your information, although I told you before,
“incarnation” is latin, not greek. So to backed it into greek is more
than ridiculous, as there were already existing words for that process which
the greeks had and used, well before the time of Christ.

So here you are, having setup a straw man which you called Robert and then
twisted what I said and meant into meaningless gibberish. And called it good.

I have no clue why you cannot properly understand American English, as well
as lack any reading comprehension, other than you listen to those voices in
your head, and you named them Robert. Even after having been told by the real
Robert, me, that you do not know what goes on in my mind and understanding,
and as far as I can remember you have not gotten one thing correct about me.

Now here you are making up things about the greek language, and the words
used by the heathens of both the OT and NT times. Elohim is also used to name
false gods, and “El” etc. From before the days of Israel. It was misused
as I said above, and corrupted by sinful men. None of which, evidently, you
have knowledge of.

>
>
> Conclusion: Finding pagan usage of a
> word doesn't make that word evil, or
> disqualify it as a legitimate way to
> describe God. How do you not comprehend
> that?

That shows nothing but your lack of understanding, and wisdom. Since I said
nothing of the sort.

[Robert]

On Nov 25, 2023, ChristRose wrote
(in article<dg25midnurjspjtt0...@4ax.com>):

Well, LOL, it is for sure that your newsreader cannot comprehend greek any
better than yourself. Even thought it did not change the greek to all ??????
on your last reply/

[ChristRose]

--Your ignorant presumption, as will be
shown below.

>>> There was a name for God well before the Flood, one that the heathens also
>>> used for calling their gods, same word. Applied as they saw fit, thus
>>> corrupting the name, for that reason a new name commonly identified now as
>>> YHWH, was given the the children of Isaac.

Here's how you persist in your ignorance:

1. The New Testament writers and Jesus
primarily cited the LXX over the
Masoratic text (Archer-Chirichigno
25-32). As you will show below, the LXX
uses the same Greek word for God as the
pagans did (theos). Thus, when referring
to the Old Testament, the inspired NT
writers more often chose the Greek
translation than the Hebrew version.
This shows they did not have a problem
using the same words pagans used for
God, even though they no-doubt
understood the different Hebrew terms in
the Masoratic text.

2. The New Testament writers used the
same Greek word for God (theos) as the
pagans used for their false god(s), when
they wrote the inspired words of the New
Testament. Even if they had used the
Masoratic text in the majority of their
citations of the Old Testament (they did
not, but used the LXX), they still went
ahead and used the same Greek words that
pagans used to describe their false
god(s) when they wrote about the one
true God. This clearly shows that they
didn't consider the term "theos" to be
contaminated and unworthy of being used
to write the inspired words of Scripture.

3. The Holy Spirit carried the writers
of Scripture along, to use the words God
wanted to use. The Holy Spirit chose the
word "theos" to refer to the one true
God in the New Testament. This was the
same word the pagans of that time used
to refer to their false gods. So when
you rail against the use of words that
pagans used, as if they must be evil by
association, you are directly implying
that the Holy Spirit is evil for using
such words.

4. Therefore, you, Robert, are (at best)
an ignorant tool for persisting in the
idiotic claim that words like
"incarnation" are contaminated, and
should not be used, simply because
ancient pagans may have used similar
terms to refer to things that were bad.

>>> OT
>>> ********************************************
>>> Deu 10:17 For H3588  the LORD H3068  your God H430  is
>>> God H430  of gods, H430  and Lord H113  of lords, H113  a
>>> great H1419  God, H410  a mighty, H1368  and a
>>> terrible, H3372  which H834  regardeth H5375  not H3808 
>>> persons, H6440  nor H3808  taketh H3947  reward: H7810 
>>>
>>> This below is from the Septuagint along with the Greek in the original
>>> format. Which basically is the translation of the Hebrew to the Greek as
>>> written by 70 Israeli priest due to Greek having taken over the world, and
>>> for the purposes of teaching Jewish people who knew not the language of
>>> their
>>> home.
>>>
>>> 17 For the Lord your God, he [is] God of gods, and the Lord of lords, the
>>> great, and strong, and terrible God, who does not accept persons, nor will
>>> he
>>> by any means accept a bribe:
>>>
>>> 17 ὁ γὰρ Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ὑμῶν οὗτος Θεὸς
>>> τῶν θεῶν καὶ Κύριος τῶν κυρίων, ὁ Θεὸς
>>> ὁ μέγας· καὶ ἰσχυρὸς καὶ φοβερός,
>>> ὅστις οὐ θαυμάζει πρόσωπον, οὐδ᾿ οὐ μὴ
>>> λάβῃ δῶρον,
>>> ****************************************************

(Using TB here, so I can see the Greek
words Robert is citing). And here, the
tool cites the proof that illustrates my
point. The LXX uses the Greek word
"theos" to refer to the one true God of
Israel. The New Testament writers (and
Jesus Himself) mostly used the LXX (not
the Masoratic text of Hebrew) when they
cited Old Testament passages. This
irrefutably proves they did not have a
problem using the same Greek words as
Pagans used, to both to cite the Old
Testament, AND to write the inspired New
Testament.

What you are destroying, is my ability
to view you as anything other than (at
best) an ignorant tool.

> The Septuagint used early greek words in its original form, and for heathen
> gods they used the word translated as Theos for the heathen gods, which is
> why I posted it in the greek version so you could see for yourself.
>
> You must me stumbling around the internet for modern thoughts on ancient
> religions by those that prefer that thinking over the God of the Bible, and
> got conned. For your information, although I told you before,
> “incarnation” is latin, not greek. So to backed it into greek is more
> than ridiculous, as there were already existing words for that process which
> the greeks had and used, well before the time of Christ.
>
> So here you are, having setup a straw man which you called Robert and then
> twisted what I said and meant into meaningless gibberish. And called it good.
>
> I have no clue why you cannot properly understand American English, as well
> as lack any reading comprehension, other than you listen to those voices in
> your head, and you named them Robert. Even after having been told by the real
> Robert, me, that you do not know what goes on in my mind and understanding,
> and as far as I can remember you have not gotten one thing correct about me.
>
> Now here you are making up things about the greek language, and the words
> used by the heathens of both the OT and NT times.

I made up nothing. You cited yourself
the fact that the LXX uses the same word
for God (theos) as the pagans used. You
also must be aware that the New
Testament writers used the same Greek
word (theos) as pagans used when they
wrote the inspired New Testament and
referred to God as "theos".

Even though you are evidently ignorant
of the fact that the NT writers and
Jesus mostly cited from the LXX (not the
Hebrew Masoratic text), you should be
able to understand that they also used
the same word (theos) for the one true
God as the pagans used for their false
god(s), when they wrote the inspired New
Testament.

Do you not believe the Holy Spirit
inspired the New Testament, when He
carried along the writers to use the
word "theos" to refer to the one true
God? Are you attributing evil and
carnality to the Holy Spirit for using
the same word pagans used to refer to
the one true God in the New Testament?

Elohim is also used to name
> false gods, and “El” etc. From before the days of Israel. It was misused
> as I said above, and corrupted by sinful men. None of which, evidently, you
> have knowledge of.
>
>>
>>
>> Conclusion: Finding pagan usage of a
>> word doesn't make that word evil, or
>> disqualify it as a legitimate way to
>> describe God. How do you not comprehend
>> that?
>
> That shows nothing but your lack of understanding, and wisdom. Since I said
> nothing of the sort.

Here we go again with the shameless
denials...Here's Robert on the word
"incarnation".
===========================
On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 18:17:13 -0800,
Robert <rob...@no.way> wrote:
>
<0001HW.2B0AF9290...@news.eternal-september.org>
>
>It is a pagan term with a pagan background.
===========================

_______________
Works Cited

Archer, Gleason L., and Gregory
Chirichigno. Old Testament Quotations in
the New Testament: A Complete Survey.
Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2005.

[Robert]

On Nov 25, 2023, ChristRose wrote

(in article<ma-dnaXjW_DVXP_4...@giganews.com>):

> Here we go again with the shameless
> denials...Here's Robert on the word
> "incarnation".
> ===========================
> On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 18:17:13 -0800,
> Robert <rob...@no.way> wrote:
> <0001HW.2B0AF9290...@news.eternal-september.org>
> >
> > It is a pagan term with a pagan background.
> ===========================

You have long since forgotten what the pagan term was.

You remind me of a story told long ago.

When God was passing out Brains
You thought they said TRAINS and didn’t order any,
But when they were passing out noses,
You thought they said roses, and ordered a BIG RED one.

Dude you are so spitting made that you made no sense,

I showed you via the Hebrew, as well as the greek that the same words where
used in each case for God as well as for false gods. I also showed you the
usages of the word theos, which was not related to the supreme being in any
way, as well as pointed out a Hebrew name YHWH which was later co-opted for
heathen gods.

You came up with a phony greek name based on some modern ideologies because
it was posted on the Net so it must be true.

Now, after three attempts to show you these truths, you now see them as true,
but have added your false narratives based on your straw man. Straw man? Yes.
Because your self constructed fallacies that you accuse be of doing because
you lack understanding you try to say they were my ideas. All based on the
rocks in your head which I repeated a part of at the top of this reply.

If the mindset you are utilizing today is indicative of what you did 20 plus
years ago when you grew fearful and dropped the posting here back then, I can
understand why you got the reactions you did.One would have thought you would
have matured, or are you now an enhanced version of what you used to be?

I would sincerely recommend that you focus on Jesus, and turn your cares over
to him, and seek his peace that passes all human understanding. Commit your
life to him that you might have joy, real joy.

[ChristRose]

On Sat, 25 Nov 2023 22:39:59 -0800,
Robert <rob...@no.way> wrote:

<0001HW.2B131FBF0...@news.eternal-september.org>

>On Nov 25, 2023, ChristRose wrote
>(in article<ma-dnaXjW_DVXP_4...@giganews.com>):
>
>> Here we go again with the shameless
>> denials...Here's Robert on the word
>> "incarnation".
>> ===========================
>> On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 18:17:13 -0800,
>> Robert <rob...@no.way> wrote:
>> <0001HW.2B0AF9290...@news.eternal-september.org>
>> >
>> > It is a pagan term with a pagan background.
>> ===========================
>
>You have long since forgotten what the pagan term was.

Is that your desire or your observation?
Any moron can see from the link, you
were talking about incarnation and
trying to disqualify it on the grounds
it had a "pagan background". Then you
shamelessly denied it. Why would you
deny what you claimed, unless you
finally realized how stupid it was? You
have no credibility. Your lack of
integrity makes it almost impossible to
have an edifying conversation with.

[Robert]

On Nov 26, 2023, ChristRose wrote
(in article<vnj6mih0lj69u93af...@4ax.com>):

I was also talking about Trinity. So which one was it?

AYUP! You don’t remember.

Either way I have never denied it, it is in some of my posts for at least the
last two decades. As well as the reasons for it.

Interesting that you classified yourself as “any moron”. ;) but my guess
is that you did not look it up.

So there, do you see the bald faced lie about my supposed denial of what the
words historically meant, and that neither word is included in scripture?

You can do the two step shuffle all you want but the historical evidence does
no support you. Also the acceptance or rejection of those two terms, while
being and error if accepted, is not a biblical basis on who is a Born Again
Believer. It might disqualify you from being a member of some “church” or
religious institution, but not from God if a person is Born Again.

You should get serious about following the Doctrines of Christ. Make Him your
God,

[ChristRose]

On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 07:40:59 -0800,
Robert <rob...@no.way> wrote:

<0001HW.2B139E8B0...@news.eternal-september.org>

...Which means you admit talking about
incarnation, and I specified
"incarnation".

>AYUP! You don’t remember.

You're either too stupid or too
dishonest to carry on a conversation

[Robert]

On Nov 26, 2023, ChristRose wrote

(in article<i6t6mil53vj7ol0lh...@4ax.com>):

It doesn’t really matter a whole lot what you say and you did not prove
what word it was.
As I said, I have written about both, which means I openly admitted it and
have for over 2 decades. Which means I have never denied speaking about it as
you claim.

>
>
> > AYUP! You don’t remember.
>
> You're either too stupid or too
> dishonest to carry on a conversation
> with.

You are ever the baseless accuser.

Bye.