The 'comfortable' sinner.

[Michael Christ]

A sinner has a devastated landscape.

Only to him he thinks it is flourishing panorama with a few areas he
needs to attend to in order to bring it up to scratch.

Oh those man-made christians!!!






Michael Christ

[Barry OGrady]

All have sinned.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>Michael Christ

[Michael Christ]

On May 2, 9:47 am, Barry OGrady <athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 May 2013 18:40:29 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>

> <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >A sinner has a devastated landscape.
>
> >Only to him he thinks it is flourishing panorama with a few areas he
> >needs to attend to in order to bring it up to scratch.
>
> >Oh those man-made christians!!!

BOG wrote:
> All have sinned.

But not all have [truly] repented.





Michael Christ

[Barry OGrady]

God is not willing that any shall perish AND God is almighty.

>
>
>
>
>
>Michael Christ

[James]

Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au>

That is true, and just shows that God gives everyone a moral CHOICE.
He could force everyone to not perish, but there goes that golden
'free choice' system. Notice God's plan at De 30:19,

"This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have
set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life,
so that you and your children may live" (NIV)


James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org





>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Michael Christ

[Ike]

God knows you haven't, Pharisee.

Ike

[Ike]

On 5/2/2013 9:08 AM, James wrote:
> Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au>
>> On Wed, 1 May 2013 22:00:44 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>> <jesusisth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On May 2, 9:47 am, Barry OGrady <athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 1 May 2013 18:40:29 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>>>>
>>>> <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> A sinner has a devastated landscape.
>>>>
>>>>> Only to him he thinks it is flourishing panorama with a few areas he
>>>>> needs to attend to in order to bring it up to scratch.
>>>>
>>>>> Oh those man-made christians!!!
>>>
>>>
>>> BOG wrote:
>>>> All have sinned.
>>>
>>> But not all have [truly] repented.
>>
>> God is not willing that any shall perish AND God is almighty.
>

> That is true, and just shows that God gives everyone a moral CHOICE...

Moral choice?

What do "morals" have to do with the Gospel, beyond the fact that no man
(save Jesus) can be "moral," which is why folks need the Gospel?

Ike

[James]

Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com>

Notice a definition of morality:

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper
behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and
actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are
"bad" (or wrong). (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Thus God gives us a choice of what is RIGHT and what is WRONG. Notice
what Paul says our behavior should be: Php 4:8,

"Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is
right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if
anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things." (NIV)

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org



>

>Ike

[Ike]

On 5/4/2013 12:40 PM, James wrote:
> Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com>
>> On 5/2/2013 9:08 AM, James wrote:
>>> Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au>
>>>> On Wed, 1 May 2013 22:00:44 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>>>> <jesusisth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On May 2, 9:47 am, Barry OGrady <athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 1 May 2013 18:40:29 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> A sinner has a devastated landscape.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only to him he thinks it is flourishing panorama with a few areas he
>>>>>>> needs to attend to in order to bring it up to scratch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh those man-made christians!!!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> BOG wrote:
>>>>>> All have sinned.
>>>>>
>>>>> But not all have [truly] repented.
>>>>
>>>> God is not willing that any shall perish AND God is almighty.
>>>
>>> That is true, and just shows that God gives everyone a moral CHOICE...
>>
>> Moral choice?
>>
>> What do "morals" have to do with the Gospel, beyond the fact that no man
>> (save Jesus) can be "moral," which is why folks need the Gospel?
>
> Notice a definition of morality:

Once again for the cultist: MORALITY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GOSPEL.

[snip the pointless citation]

> Thus God gives us a choice of what is RIGHT and what is WRONG. Notice
> what Paul says our behavior should be: Php 4:8,

No, notice what Paul said our behavior IS, and WILL BE until the
resurrection, when the believers are raised up in spiritual bodies
capable of being "moral," and until then we're NOT--we rely on THE
GOSPEL (which trips up your cult, and makes it fall flat on its face)...

Romans 7:
14 � For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under
sin.
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not;
but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it
is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good
thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is
good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not,
that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin
that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my
mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my
members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this
death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I
myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Ike

[Michael Christ]

On May 5, 5:28 pm, Ike <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/4/2013 12:40 PM, James wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > Ike <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>

> >> On 5/2/2013 9:08 AM, James wrote:

> >>> Barry OGrady <athe...@hotmail.com.au>

Ike the 'comfortable' sinner.

Learn something, Moron.

"A sinner has a devastated landscape.
Only to him he thinks it is flourishing panorama with a few areas he
needs to attend to in order to bring it up to scratch.

Oh those man-made christians!!!"

Michael Christ

[James]

Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com>

>On 5/4/2013 12:40 PM, James wrote:
>> Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com>
>>> On 5/2/2013 9:08 AM, James wrote:
>>>> Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au>
>>>>> On Wed, 1 May 2013 22:00:44 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>>>>> <jesusisth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 2, 9:47 am, Barry OGrady <athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 1 May 2013 18:40:29 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> A sinner has a devastated landscape.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Only to him he thinks it is flourishing panorama with a few areas he
>>>>>>>> needs to attend to in order to bring it up to scratch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh those man-made christians!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BOG wrote:
>>>>>>> All have sinned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But not all have [truly] repented.
>>>>>
>>>>> God is not willing that any shall perish AND God is almighty.
>>>>
>>>> That is true, and just shows that God gives everyone a moral CHOICE...
>>>
>>> Moral choice?
>>>
>>> What do "morals" have to do with the Gospel, beyond the fact that no man
>>> (save Jesus) can be "moral," which is why folks need the Gospel?
>>
>> Notice a definition of morality:
>
>Once again for the cultist: MORALITY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GOSPEL.

If right and wrong have nothing to do with the gospel, then you must
have a completely different Bible than the popular Bibles out there
such as the RSV, NIV, NAB etc.


>
>[snip the pointless citation]

snipping a reference work is the easy way out of a discussion.

>
>> Thus God gives us a choice of what is RIGHT and what is WRONG. Notice
>> what Paul says our behavior should be: Php 4:8,
>
>No, notice what Paul said our behavior IS, and WILL BE until the
>resurrection, when the believers are raised up in spiritual bodies
>capable of being "moral," and until then we're NOT--we rely on THE
>GOSPEL (which trips up your cult, and makes it fall flat on its face)...

Again, your opinion is noted. But I prefer to go by the Biblical
facts. Although we all sin, Paul at Php 4:8 encourages us to think
about good thoughts, not bad. Do you disagree with Paul's statement?

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org


>

>Romans 7:
>14 ś For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under

[Ike]

Notice how the blasphemer absolutely ignores what the Word says, and
even attacks it when he has no other choice, knowing that it proves he's
a liar and a fraud.

Ike

[Ike]

It doesn't, and the legitimate translations say exactly that.

Jesus, on the relation of morality to the Gospel.

Mt 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least
commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in
the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same
shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Notice "least" and "great," not "IN" OR "OUT."

Why is that?

Because THE GOSPEL ISN'T DETERMINED BY MORALITY; ONLY POSITION WITHIN
THE KINGDOM.

Unfortunately, Satan like to muddle the facts so as to trick would-be
Christians into thinking that their morals have anything to do with the
Gospel.

>> [snip the pointless citation]
>
> snipping a reference work is the easy way out of a discussion.

No, it's a way to get past pointless discussions of verses that have
nothing to do with the subject.

>>> Thus God gives us a choice of what is RIGHT and what is WRONG. Notice
>>> what Paul says our behavior should be: Php 4:8,
>>
>> No, notice what Paul said our behavior IS, and WILL BE until the
>> resurrection, when the believers are raised up in spiritual bodies
>> capable of being "moral," and until then we're NOT--we rely on THE
>> GOSPEL (which trips up your cult, and makes it fall flat on its face)...
>
> Again, your opinion is noted.

There's no "opinion" involved, cultist. That's why I cited Paul's
statement, i.e. to END OPINION.

> But I prefer to go by the Biblical
> facts.

No, you prefer to ignore them, otherwise you would have acknowledged
what Jesus, and Paul, and John said.

> Although we all sin, Paul at Php 4:8 encourages us to think
> about good thoughts, not bad. Do you disagree with Paul's statement?

Paul was speaking optimistically, i.e. about the way things should be,
NOT the way things ARE.

That's the difference between AFTER the resurrection, and BEFORE the
resurrection.

Until then, we all "groan with the creation, awaiting the redemption."

That's also the difference between Christianity, which puts the cart
after the horse, and cults like yours, which put the cart before the horse.

>> Romans 7:
>> 14 � For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under

>> sin.
>> 15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not;
>> but what I hate, that do I.
>> 16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it
>> is good.
>> 17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
>> 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good
>> thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is
>> good I find not.
>> 19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not,
>> that I do.
>> 20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin
>> that dwelleth in me.
>> 21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
>> 22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
>> 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my
>> mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my
>> members.
>> 24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this
>> death?
>> 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I
>> myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Notice no comment on Paul's statement of utter frustration with his
present state (when he wrote this), and his optimistic outlook on his
ultimate state, AFTER the resurrection to come, when Jesus delivers the
believers from "the body of this death."

Ike

[James]

Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com>

Gospel: "A gospel is an account that describes the life of Jesus of
Nazareth. The most widely known examples are the four canonical
gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and ..." (Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia)

If Jesus didn't teach right from wrong, then you are not going by the
standard popular Bibles out there. For example, Mt 4:17,

"From that time began Jesus to preach, and to say, Repent ye; for the
kingdom of heaven is at hand."

Repent means to acknowledge what you did wrong, and ask God's
forgiveness for it. Yes, the gospels talk about right and wrong.

>>
>> If right and wrong have nothing to do with the gospel, then you must
>> have a completely different Bible than the popular Bibles out there
>> such as the RSV, NIV, NAB etc.
>
>It doesn't, and the legitimate translations say exactly that.

So then, what does Mt 4:17 mean to you?

>
>Jesus, on the relation of morality to the Gospel.
>
>Mt 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least
>commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in
>the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same
>shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
>
>Notice "least" and "great," not "IN" OR "OUT."

"IN" OR "OUT." ???

>
>Why is that?
>
>Because THE GOSPEL ISN'T DETERMINED BY MORALITY; ONLY POSITION WITHIN
>THE KINGDOM.

The Gospel is the WHOLE ACCOUNT about the life of Jesus. The kingdom
of God is the theme of Jesus' teaching.

Most people believe we are in the last days. If you believe that, then
you must find this happening on a worldwide basis. Mt 24:14,

"And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as
a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." (NIV)

Notice it has to be preached to all the nations. That is quite an
undertaking. Some religion MUST be organizing and doing that on a
global scale. The end won't even come until that preaching assignment
has satisfied God. Do you know what God's KINGDOM is? Who is doing it
today? Only one group that I know of. Just pick up any Watchtower
magazine in any language, and read the cover.

>
>Unfortunately, Satan like to muddle the facts so as to trick would-be
>Christians into thinking that their morals have anything to do with the
>Gospel.
>
>>> [snip the pointless citation]
>>
>> snipping a reference work is the easy way out of a discussion.
>
>No, it's a way to get past pointless discussions of verses that have
>nothing to do with the subject.
>
>>>> Thus God gives us a choice of what is RIGHT and what is WRONG. Notice
>>>> what Paul says our behavior should be: Php 4:8,
>>>
>>> No, notice what Paul said our behavior IS, and WILL BE until the
>>> resurrection, when the believers are raised up in spiritual bodies
>>> capable of being "moral," and until then we're NOT--we rely on THE
>>> GOSPEL (which trips up your cult, and makes it fall flat on its face)...
>>
>> Again, your opinion is noted.
>
>There's no "opinion" involved, cultist. That's why I cited Paul's
>statement, i.e. to END OPINION.
>
>> But I prefer to go by the Biblical
>> facts.
>
>No, you prefer to ignore them, otherwise you would have acknowledged
>what Jesus, and Paul, and John said.
>
>> Although we all sin, Paul at Php 4:8 encourages us to think
>> about good thoughts, not bad. Do you disagree with Paul's statement?
>
>Paul was speaking optimistically, i.e. about the way things should be,
>NOT the way things ARE.

You make things the way they are. If you choose to think only of good
things, then that is right choice to make. If you choose to think of
bad things, that is also your bad choice. You make it happen by your
choices.
Of course no one is perfect, but God only expects you to do the best
you can.

>
>That's the difference between AFTER the resurrection, and BEFORE the
>resurrection.
>
>Until then, we all "groan with the creation, awaiting the redemption."
>
>That's also the difference between Christianity, which puts the cart
>after the horse, and cults like yours, which put the cart before the horse.

Define what you mean by "cart" and "horse"?

Of course the Bible teaches things get much better after the
resurrection. But in order to get to the resurrection and passed it,
people need to live their lives in accord with God's will. 1 Jo 2:17,

"The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of
God lives forever." (NIV)

Thus we don't just stop living now because the resurrection is the
better life. We still have endure this old wicked world to the end. Mt
24:13,

"But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved." (NASB)

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org



>

>Ike

[Ike]

Said in reference to the books that contain the Gospel, moron; not the
Gospel itself.

(And it will be a cold day in hell when Wikipedia becomes the record of
truth.)

> If Jesus didn't teach right from wrong, then you are not going by the
> standard popular Bibles out there. For example, Mt 4:17,
>
> "From that time began Jesus to preach, and to say, Repent ye; for the
> kingdom of heaven is at hand."

What Jesus meant by "repent" is the opposite of what the Old Testament
prophets meant by "repent," cultist.

Jn 1:
17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus
Christ.

> Repent...

What Jesus meant by "repent" in the New Testament vein was the opposite
of what the Old Testament prophets meant by it, cultist.

Ro 3:21 But now the righteousness of God WITHOUT THE LAW is manifested,
being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

>>> If right and wrong have nothing to do with the gospel, then you must
>>> have a completely different Bible than the popular Bibles out there
>>> such as the RSV, NIV, NAB etc.
>>
>> It doesn't, and the legitimate translations say exactly that.
>
> So then, what does Mt 4:17 mean to you?

It means this, cultist:

Lk 18:
10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the
other a publican.
11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee,
that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or
even as this publican.
12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as
his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful
to me a sinner.
14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than
the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he
that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

>> Jesus, on the relation of morality to the Gospel.
>>
>> Mt 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least
>> commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in
>> the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same
>> shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
>>
>> Notice "least" and "great," not "IN" OR "OUT."
>
> "IN" OR "OUT." ???

Yes, as in He didn't say "In" or "Out" of the Kingdom, but "great" and
"least."

In other words, they get into the Kingdom by a method OTHER than the
law, and that's THE GOSPEL.

>> Why is that?
>>
>> Because THE GOSPEL ISN'T DETERMINED BY MORALITY; ONLY POSITION WITHIN
>> THE KINGDOM.
>
> The Gospel is the WHOLE ACCOUNT about the life of Jesus.

Ah, no, it isn't.

Joh 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the
which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the
world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

> The kingdom
> of God is the theme of Jesus' teaching.

There are THREE concepts of "the Kingdom of God" at work in the Word,
cultist.

1) The Kingdom in the hearts of the believers.
2) The Kingdom as it will be manifested in the next Age.
3) The Kingdom in eternity, which comes into existence at the end of all
things, but has been with God since before the beginning of all things,
which is the collective spirits of the believers, as One.

Now, what any of this has to do with the difference between the law and
the Gospel is anyone's guess, cultist.

[snip the diatribe that is totally irrelevant to the subject and the point]

WRONG, cultist.

GOD "makes things the way they are," and, right now, the flesh remains
sinful, EVEN IN THE BELIEVERS, and will remain so until the redemption,
which is EXACTLY what John and Paul said.

> If you choose to think only of good
> things, then that is right choice to make. If you choose to think of
> bad things, that is also your bad choice.

Childish Satanic lies.

> You make it happen by your
> choices.

READ IT AGAIN, cultist.

Rom 7:

14 � For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under
sin.
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not;
but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it
is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good
thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is
good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not,
that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin
that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my
mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my
members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this
death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I
myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

> Of course no one is perfect, but God only expects you to do the best
> you can.

No, God expects one to believe the Gospel, and rely ON HIM, not on
themselves.

>> That's the difference between AFTER the resurrection, and BEFORE the
>> resurrection.
>>
>> Until then, we all "groan with the creation, awaiting the redemption."
>>
>> That's also the difference between Christianity, which puts the cart
>> after the horse, and cults like yours, which put the cart before the horse.
>
> Define what you mean by "cart" and "horse"?

The horse = the resurrection via the Gospel
The cart = the ability to be "lawful."

WRONG.

PEOPLE NEED TO LIVE IN CONFESSION OF THEIR SORRY STATES, AND AWAIT THE
REDEMPTION, AND NOT PLAY YOU PHARISAICAL GAME, cultist.

> "The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of
> God lives forever." (NIV)

There is no such passage in the bible (which is why you didn't cite the
verse number).

> Thus we don't just stop living now because the resurrection is the
> better life. We still have endure this old wicked world to the end. Mt
> 24:13,
>
> "But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved." (NASB)

And that has NOTHING to do with "law keeping," cultist.

Ike

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

On May 6, 9:58 am, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:

"Gospel:"

What is the Gospel?
http://www.presenttruthmag.com/archive/XXIV/24-2.htm

Some questions appear almost rude. To ask, "What is the gospel?" is
like asking, "Who is Jesus Christ?" or, "What is the Bible really
about?" Just about everyone in the church takes it for granted that he
knows what the gospel is, and therefore to raise such a fundamental
question may be as irritating as asking people if they can still
repeat the alphabet. Yet if we are unclear on the meaning of the
gospel, we have to call into question all that we are doing.

There is a great risk involved in posing this question afresh. We may
discover we have been wrong! That is a great risk. The human heart has
never found it easy to admit error, and today is no exception. To
raise our question and to seek to answer it is to expose ourselves to
the possibility that we have been mistaken on the most fundamental
point of Christianity.

Let us humble ourselves before God and take the risk.

The Essential Elements of the Gospel

There are characteristics which belong to one thing, but which also
belong to other things. For example, a horse has four legs, but so
does a cow. Such characteristics will not help us to discover the
essential nature of a thing. To discover the essential nature of a
thing is to define that thing; and to define that thing, we must
discover the characteristics which belong to that thing and not to any
other thing.

It is the same with defining the gospel. We have to arrive at those
characteristics which are peculiar to it and to nothing else. To give
characteristics which belong to the gospel and to other things will be
to describe the gospel but not to define it. For this reason we have
used the term "essential elements" in the preceding heading. Let us
now see what these essential elements of the gospel are.

1. The Gospel Concerns Jesus Christ

The sum and substance of the gospel is Jesus Christ. Not only is Jesus
Christ involved in the gospel. He is the gospel. This is important,
for it distinguishes Jesus Christ from the other Members of the
Trinity and from the believer.

We say that we distinguish Jesus Christ from other Members of the
Trinity. There is a very real sense in which we may say, "The gospel
is Jesus Christ," but in which we cannot say, "The gospel is the
Father," or, "The gospel is the Spirit." While the Father and the
Spirit are obviously involved in the gospel, the Father is not the
gospel and the Holy Spirit is not the gospel. The gospel is about the
doing (life) and dying (death) of Jesus Christ. It is not about the
life and death of the Father or the Spirit. While the Father is
glorified in the gospel of Jesus Christ, the gospel itself is not
Father-centered. Nor is it Spirit-centered.

Hence, to expound the gospel, we may proclaim who Jesus Christ is and
what He has done, what the Father has done in and through Jesus
Christ, or what Jesus Christ has done in and by the power of the
Spirit. Always, Jesus Christ is central when we are preaching the
gospel. What is said of the Father and the Spirit in the gospel is
said from the disclosure of such in Jesus Christ.
We say that we distinguish Jesus Christ from the believer. Just as the
gospel is not about the Father or the Spirit (in the way we have
explained), so the gospel is not about the believer. The gospel is
about Jesus Christ.

Though some do not wish to speak of the believer as being involved in
the gospel, it may be possible to speak of the believer as being
involved in that he is represented in the gospel. He is represented in
the gospel by his Substitute, Jesus Christ. The believer lives and
dies in Jesus Christ.

Thus, to expound the gospel, we may proclaim who Jesus Christ is and
what He has done. We may even proclaim who the believer is (son of
God) and what he has done (rendered perfect obedience to God) so long
as we proclaim that this was done in and through Jesus Christ. Just as
what is said about the Father and the Spirit in the gospel is said
from the central standpoint of Jesus Christ, so what is said about the
believer in the gospel must always be spoken of from the central
standpoint of Jesus Christ. The believer must be spoken of in the
gospel in terms of what Jesus Christ has done.

Heresy (at this point) is to make the Father central, the Spirit
central, or the believer central. Let us put this another way. Heresy
is to attribute to the Father what was done by the Son (crucified and
risen again), to attribute to the Spirit what was done by the Son, or
to attribute to the believer what was done by the Son.

We may become heretical and preach a false gospel in another way.
Though we speak of the believer's living and dying in Jesus, we must
always be careful to note that he in no way helps the Son do His
saving work. How could he? The believer was not present except by
representation. What was done in the gospel was done for him by his
Substitute. He was present only in his Substitute.

Let us look at this in another way. The Father was present in the Son,
and all believers were present in the Son. But the Father was actually
present. Jesus Christ was not a Substitute for the Father (i.e., on
earth instead of the Father), but He was the Substitute for believers
(living and dying in the stead of believers). Though the gospel is
what Jesus Christ has done (lived and died), the Father aided the Son
by His Spirit, whereas no believer aided the Son in the work of the
gospel.

The gospel is about Jesus Christ — not about the Father as such, or
the Spirit as such, or the believer.

2. The Gospel Concerns a Past, Historical Event

Each of the three words past, historical and event are of vital
significance for understanding what the gospel is. The gospel of the
apostles was something that had happened. They all looked back upon
it. They did not point to anything in the present as gospel, and they
did not point to anything in the future as gospel. Notice, we are not
saying that they did not point to anything in either present or
future. We are simply saying that they did not point to anything in
present or future as gospel. Unless we are looking back and pointing
to something that happened in the past, we are not preaching the
gospel. The "past-ness" of the gospel is one of its essential aspects.

The gospel was not a vision. It was not a dream. The gospel was a
historical happening. It happened in history. Within a certain degree
of accuracy, it may be dated.

The historical nature of the gospel — its past, historical nature —
has certain important consequences:

First, you cannot exhort the gospel. You cannot exhort a past,
historical work. You can only declare it, proclaim it, and publish it
abroad. Exhortation is good (because it is biblical) and needed, but
it is not the gospel and is not included in the gospel. Notice, we are
not saying that it is not included in a sermon wherein the gospel is
preached. We are simply saying that if it is included in a "gospel
sermon," it must not be a part of the gospel.

Second, not only can you not exhort the gospel, but also the gospel
cannot be experienced. Yes, you have read correctly! The gospel cannot
be experienced. We have several reasons for saying this:

a. The gospel is about a unique experience. A unique experience is
that which cannot (by virtue of definition) be repeated. If the
believer could experience the gospel, then he would repeat the
experience; and if he could repeat the experience, then the gospel
would not be about a unique experience.

b. The gospel is perfect. Since the Fall, there is no perfection on
earth either before or after the gospel. If the believer could
experience the gospel, he would experience the perfect; and if he
could experience the perfect, he would not need the gospel.

c. All historians know that you cannot experience a past, historical
event. You may identify with it as much as you are able, but you
cannot experience it.

d. The gospel concerns the substitutionary work of Christ. If the
believer could experience the gospel, it would cease to be
substitutionary. The gospel is what God has done in Christ in my
stead. If I could experience this, it would not be in my stead.

Third, we believe the gospel. Believing the gospel is hoping in
something that is not seen. Faith is the substance of things hoped for
(Heb. 11:1); but who hopes for that which he already has (Rom. 8:24)?

We repeat, The gospel cannot be experienced. We certainly do
experience its benefits, or the Holy Spirit. But as we have seen, the
Holy Spirit is not the gospel. The Holy Spirit given to the believer
is the fruit of the gospel. So also are faith, hope, joy, peace as a
subjective state, and holiness as a state of the believer. They are
all fruits of the gospel. We must not confuse the root (the gospel)
and the fruit (see Col. 1:5, 6).

The gospel is a past, historical event. This has stupendous
consequences for the church and the world. The gospel is the past,
historical Christ event.

3. The Gospel Concerns the Perfect Work of God in Jesus Christ for Us

As we have stated, there is no imperfection in the gospel. It is the
perfect work of God in Jesus Christ for us. There are two important
aspects of this:

First, the gospel concerns the perfect work of God in Jesus Christ.
Unless we are preaching a work of perfection in Jesus Christ, we are
not preaching the gospel. The gospel admits of no development.
Anything that does admit of development (the Christian life of
sanctification, etc.) cannot, by virtue of definition, be the gospel.
For instance, faith is good, but it is not perfect. Repentance is good
and necessary, but none of us repents as he ought to. Holy living is
good, and no man will see the Lord without it; but our holy living is
far from perfect. None of these things can qualify, therefore, as the
gospel.

The second important aspect to notice is that the gospel is the
perfect work of God in Jesus Christ. Even if the believer were
perfect, the gospel would not be about him. It concerns Jesus Christ
as the place of God's perfect work. Nothing that is happening in the
believer can be called the gospel. It may be called the fruit of the
gospel, but not the gospel itself. If this is so (and it is so), then
the medium and the message (of the gospel) are quite distinct. Only
concerning Jesus Christ can it be said that the Medium is the message.

4. The Gospel Is the Power of God for Salvation (Rom. 1:16)

We must be clear about what is being said here. We are not saying that
the gospel leads to power. Paul tells us that the gospel is the power
of God for salvation. The power of God is the gospel. The gospel and
the power of God are identical. This is why we include this point
under "essential elements" — i.e., elements essential to the nature of
the gospel.

There are many aspects of this point that we could develop, but we
shall focus on an area which needs clarification, judging by much
literature in the Christian world. Paul says that the gospel is the
power of God for the salvation of all who believe. Usually we take
such a statement to mean only that if the gospel is believed
initially, then salvation will follow. In other words, we think that
such a statement (i.e., that the gospel is the power of God) refers
almost exclusively, if not exclusively, to the salvation of the
unbeliever.

But it must be highlighted that Paul's statement is also greatly
applicable to the believer. The gospel saves the unbeliever when he
believes, but it also saves the believer as he believes. It is the
power of God for the salvation of the believer. Let us isolate certain
consequences of this truth.

First, the gospel is that by which the believer is saved by God at the
beginning, middle and end of the Christian walk. There is never a
point in the Christian's life when the gospel is not saving him. He
must therefore look to the gospel at every point in his walk with God.

Second, we trust that we have made it clear that the gospel and
sanctification are quite distinct realities. The gospel does not
equal, nor does it include, sanctification. If it did, we could not
assert our previous three points. Sanctification is the chief work of
the Spirit which takes place in the experience of the believer. This
work is not yet perfect. Since the gospel and sanctification are not
identical, we cannot say that sanctification is that by which God
saves us. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation.

Now let us make ourselves quite clear. We are not suggesting for one
moment that sanctification is unimportant. We are ever prepared to say
that no man will be found pleasing in God's sight without it. But what
we are saying is that true sanctification will always be the product
of the gospel (Col. 1:5, 6). Only what is produced in our lives as a
direct result of the gospel is true sanctification. Sanctification
needs the gospel for its source and power. The satanic error is to
turn sanctification into the gospel. When this happens, the power of
Christian witness is seen to reside in a holy life. But we must
realize that sanctification is itself the result and effect of the
power of God in the gospel.

Not only does sanctification need the gospel as its powerful source,
but sanctification needs the gospel as its constant protection. A
sanctification which is cut loose from the gospel is as dangerous as a
gospel that does not produce any sanctification. Perhaps it is more
dangerous. We say "more dangerous" because a gospel without any
sanctification is easy enough to spot. However, a gospel-less
sanctification may be more difficult to detect, especially in an age
which thinks that the gospel and sanctification are identical.

If sanctification is allowed, in whole or in part, to become the
gospel, then we have a sanctification apart from the gospel. To make
sanctification to equal the gospel, or to make the gospel to include
sanctification, is to posit a sanctification without the gospel.

Third, sanctification needs the gospel as its final protection. All
who are saved at the end will be saved by the same means as at the
beginning. Our sanctification will be no more capable of saving us at
the end than it was at the beginning. As far as saving us is
concerned, the only thing our sanctification adds to the gospel is our
imperfection! So much for those who see final salvation to be based on
our sanctification.

"What the church needs today is more sanctification!" This is a common
cry heard today. It is unfortunate, however, that the cry so often
signifies an elevating of sanctification to the status and role of the
gospel.

If the gospel is that which produces real sanctification (and who
wants any other sort?) and the church needs more real sanctification,
then the church needs more gospel. The gospel is the power of God for
(the producing of) sanctification.

Let us summarize what we have said thus far. We have attempted to
state what the gospel essentially is. That is to say, we have
attempted to state what makes it the gospel and nothing else.

1. The gospel is about Jesus Christ and no other Person. In a real
sense it is not even about any other Person in the Godhead, and
certainly not about any other human person such as the believer.

2. The gospel is a past, historical event. It is past and not present
or future. It is a historical event and not existential experience.
Unless we are preaching a past, historical event, we are not preaching
the gospel.

3.The gospel is the perfect work of God in Jesus Christ. All that is
perfect is not the gospel, and all that is imperfect is not the
gospel. The gospel is the perfect work of God in Jesus Christ.

4. The gospel is the power of God for salvation — for the salvation
even of the believer. Our sanctification is dependent upon the gospel
as its source, protection, and final covering before the great
judgment throne of God. We must always resist the isolation of
sanctification from the gospel at any point in the Christian walk.
Also, those who identify the gospel and sanctification and those who
wish to include sanctification as a part of the gospel end up
divorcing sanctification from the gospel. It is indeed tragic that so
often the cry, "Sanctification! More sanctification!" means, "Away
with the gospel! Away with the gospel!"

This Gospel and Other Gospels

We now want to simply make explicit what is implicit in our previous
section. We have positively stated four essential, definite features
of the gospel. In the light of what we have already laid down, we must
now say what cannot be the gospel.

1. Election, Divorced From Jesus Christ, Cannot Be the Gospel

Not long ago, following an address on the four preceding points of
this article, a woman confessed to me that she had been talking to her
aged aunt about her need of salvation and that she was speaking to her
aunt about whether or not she believed in election. The substance of
the woman's evangelistic message was a philosophical concept of the
predestinating activity of God. But election which is not grounded in
the Christ event cannot qualify as gospel! A doctrine of election
which takes as its starting point a philosophical concept instead of
the gospel makes the Father the center and not Christ. A doctrine of
election apart from Christ is inimical to sanctification and not its
powerful source.

2. "TULIP" Cannot Qualify as the Gospel

"TULIP" stands for total depravity, unconditional election, limited
atonement, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints.
Leaving aside the correctness or otherwise of "TULIP," what we are
concerned about is the way in which many Reformed folk use "TULIP."
Some give the impression that "TULIP" equals the gospel. Some speak of
"TULIP" as though it were the thing that we have to offer to the
world. But "TULIP" contains things which cannot qualify as gospel. As
an example, the letter "P" at the end of "TULIP" stands for the
perseverance of the saints. The perseverance of the saints cannot
qualify as gospel. The four elements that we have stated make it
impossible for perseverance to qualify as the gospel. We need to
beware lest we offer a system of doctrine — as good as it might be —
as the gospel. We need to be careful that we do not derive our
security from an intellectually watertight system rather than from the
great work of God in Jesus Christ on our behalf.

3. "New Birth-ism" Cannot Qualify as the Gospel

Those who preach "Ye must be born again" as the gospel are preaching a
false gospel. To begin with, the new birth (which is biblical) is the
work of the Holy Spirit. It is a reality which takes place now and, by
the grace of God, will take place in the future. The new birth is not
the perfect work of God in Jesus Christ and is not said to be the
power of God unto salvation. Yet much preaching puts the new birth in
the place of Jesus Christ. It is a great fallacy to present the new
birth as the gospel.

It was the error of Rome to treat regeneration as the gospel. All too
many evangelicals have fallen into the same trap. How many times do we
hear the gospel presented as, "Jesus will come into your heart," or a
sermon climaxing with, "Ask Jesus into your heart"? It is not the
coming of Jesus into the heart that is the gospel, but the coming of
Jesus into the world on behalf of sinful men.

Focusing on the human heart is not focusing on Jesus Christ. It is not
preaching a past, historical event. It is not preaching the perfect
work of God in Jesus Christ. And it is not preaching the power of God
for salvation. Those who focus on the heart are not preaching that
which is the powerful source of sanctification, but that which is
inimical to true salvation.

4. The Second Coming Cannot Qualify as the Gospel

Just as the new birth is biblical, so the second coming of Jesus
Christ is biblical. However, just as the new birth is not the gospel,
so the second coming of the Master is not the gospel. The gospel is a
past, historical event, whereas the second coming is the future event
of the Son. Just as there are many who are heart-centered, here-and-
now-centered, so there are those whose gospel is the message of the
eschaton (last things).

There are many who believe that what the church needs is a new heart
experience if revival is to come. There are also those who believe
that the secret of revival is to preach eschatology. Hence, the heart
and the future become centers of preaching. What God has done in
Christ is subordinated to what God will do in the believer's heart,
and what God has done in the past is subordinated to what God will do
in the future. When this is done, a false gospel is preached, and
sanctification and eschatology are robbed of their biblical nature.

5. The Baptism of the Spirit Cannot Qualify as the Gospel

The preoccupation of neo-Pentecostalism cannot qualify as the gospel,
let alone as the "full gospel." The preoccupation of neo-
Pentecostalism is with the Spirit and not with Jesus Christ, with a
present experience or a possible future experience and not with a
past, historical event. The preoccupation of neo-Pentecostalism is not
with the perfect work of God in Jesus Christ, but with the exciting
work of God in the heart of the believer. Further, what Pentecostals
regard as the demonstration of the power of God is a poor substitute
for what Paul calls the power of God — namely, the gospel. For all who
wish to see, it is clear that neo-Pentecostals are excited about that
which is far inferior to that which excited Paul and the other New
Testament writers.

6. Anything Which We Exhort or Experience Cannot Qualify as the Gospel

We have seen in the first section of this article that the gospel is a
past, historical event. As such, it cannot be exhorted or experienced.
Anything which we exhort or experience cannot qualify as the gospel.
Now, we are not saying that we should not exhort or that we should not
experience. All we are saying is that when we do exhort and when we do
experience, it is not the gospel.

There are many, as we have seen, who believe that the revival of the
church is to be found in more sanctification, a deeper experience of
God. Such people forget that the greatest motivating power of God is
the gospel (Rom. 1:16). The way to get the people of God sanctified is
to motivate them to good works; and the way to motivate them to good
works is to preach the gospel as the alpha and the omega of right
conduct. When we do exhort (and so we should), we must keep our
sanctification from ever becoming our justification. Justification
must always stand guard over sanctification. The perfect work of God
must always stand guard over the good works of His children. The past,
historical event of God must always stand guard over the present and
future activity of men. The doorposts of human works must always be
touched with the blood of Christ for the angels to pass over us — yea,
even on the last day.

Geoffrey J. Paxton is an Anglican clergyman and president of the
Queensland Bible Institute, Brisbane, Australia.

[Up from the Abyss]

jwsheffield wrote:
>
> What is the Gospel?

<snip>

Hebrews 4:2 For we also have had the *Gospel*
proclaimed to us, just as *they* did; but the message
they heard was of no value to them, because they
did not share the faith of those who obeyed.

Who were "they"?

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

2 For unto us was the gospel preached,
as well as unto them:
but the word preached did not profit them,
not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

Don't worry about "they",
the point is "we" should have 'faith" in the finished
work of Christ.


Hebrews 10:12
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever,
sat down on the right hand of God;

[Up from the Abyss]

jwsheffield wrote:

> Up from the Abyss wrote:
> > jwsheffield wrote:
> >>
> >> What is the Gospel?
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Hebrews 4:2 For we also have had the *Gospel*
> > proclaimed to us, just as *they* did; but the message
> > they heard was of no value to them, because they
> > did not share the faith of those who obeyed.
> >
> > Who were "they"?
>
> 2 For unto us was the gospel preached,
> as well as unto them:
> but the word preached did not profit them,
> not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
>
> Don't worry about "they",

Yet, the author of Hebrews, which you consider
as sacred Scripture, say fit to make the point and
draw the comparison.

> the point is "we" should have 'faith" in the
> finished work of Christ.

Indeed, and walk as he walked.

But the word preached unto to them, did not
profit them.

Why, because they did not combine it with
faith unto obedience. Thus, as a result of the
good news which has been received, it *must*
be combined with faith unto obedience.

Lest it profit you not.

> Hebrews 10:12
> But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for
> sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

Rom 3:25 whom God set forth to be a propitiation,
through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness
because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime,
in the forbearance of God;


Romans 3:31 Do we then nullify the law by this faith?
Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

[James]

>"Up from the Abyss" <U...@Abyss.net>
>

>jwsheffield wrote:
>> Up from the Abyss wrote:
>> > jwsheffield wrote:
>> >>
>> >> What is the Gospel?
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> > Hebrews 4:2 For we also have had the *Gospel*
>> > proclaimed to us, just as *they* did; but the message
>> > they heard was of no value to them, because they
>> > did not share the faith of those who obeyed.
>> >
>> > Who were "they"?
>>
>> 2 For unto us was the gospel preached,
>> as well as unto them:
>> but the word preached did not profit them,
>> not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

From what I can tell, "they" were the Jews who were still under
Judaism. Notice who the gospel was preached to first: Mt 10:5,6,

" 5. These twelve Jesus sent forth, and charged them, saying, Go not
into any way of the Gentiles, and enter not into any city of the
Samaritans:
6. but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. " (ASV)

And Acts 10:36,37,

"36. The word which he sent unto the children of Israel, preaching
good tidings of peace by Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all.) --
37. that saying ye yourselves know, which was published throughout
all Judaea, beginning from Galilee, after the baptism which John
preached; "

Notice the preaching was aimed at "lost sheep of the house of
Israel.", "the children of Israel". So that would mean the Jews, not
the Gentiles.

But just as Paul mentioned, the Jews for the most part, did not accept
Jesus.

So the "they" would be those Jews.

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org



>>

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

http://www.towerwatch.com/Witnesses/New_World_Translation/john_11.htm
John 1:1

john 1:1 and the new world translation:
what do the greek scholars really say?



A. T. Robertson: "So in Jo. 1:1 theos en ho logos the meaning has to
be the Logos was God, not God was the Logos." A New Short Grammar of
the Greek Testament, by A. T. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis (Baker
Book House, 1977), p. 279.

E. M. Sidebottom: "...the tendency to write 'the Word was divine' for
theos en ho logos springs from a reticence to attribute the full
Christian position to John." The Christ of the Fourth Gospel (S. P. C.
K., 1961), p. 461.

E. C. Colwell: "...predicate nouns preceding the verb cannot be
regarded as indefinite or qualitative simply because they lack the
article; it could be regarded as indefinite or qualitative only if
this is demanded by the context and in the case of John 1:1c this is
not so." "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New
Testament," Journal of Biblical Literature, 52 (1933), p. 20.

C. K. Barrett: "The absence of the article indicates that the Word is
God, but is not the only being of whom this is true; if ho theos had
been written it would have implied that no divine being existed
outside the second person of the Trinity." The Gospel According to St.
John (S.P.C.K., 1955), p.76.

C. H. Dodd: "On this analogy, the meaning of theos en ho logos will be
that the ousia of ho logos, that which it truly is, is rightly
denominated theos...That this is the ousia of ho theos (the personal
God of Abraham, the Father) goes without saying. In fact, the Nicene
homoousios to patri is a perfect paraphrase. "New Testament
Translation Problems II," The Bible Translator, 28, 1 (Jan. 1977), p.
104.

Randolph O. Yeager: "Only sophomores in Greek grammar are going to
translate '...and the Word was a God.' The article with logos, shows
that logos is the subject of the verb en and the fact that theos is
without the article designates it as the predicate nominative. The
emphatic position of theos demands that we translate '...and the Word
was God.' John is not saying as Jehovah's Witnesses are fond of
teaching that Jesus was only one of many Gods. He is saying precisely
the opposite." The Renaissance New Testament, Vol. 4 (Renaissance
Press, 1980), p.4.

James Moffatt: "'The Word was God...And the Word became flesh,' simply
means "The word was divine...And the Word became human.' The Nicene
faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both of
these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly
God and truly man..." Jesus Christ the Same (Abingdon-Cokesbury,
1945), p.61.

Philip B. Harner: "Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word
had the same nature as God." This would be one way of representing
John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less
than ho theos, had the nature of theos." "Qualitative Anarthrous
Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," Journal of Biblical
Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973, p. 87.

Henry Alford: "Theos must then be taken as implying God, in substance
and essence,--not ho theos, 'the Father,' in person. It does not =
theios, nor is it to be rendered a God--but, as in sarx egeneto, sarx
expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a definite
act, so in theos en, theos expresses that essence which was His en
arche:--that He was very God. So that this first verse might be
connected thus: the Logos was from eternity,--was with God (the
Father),--and was Himself God." Alford's Greek Testament: An
Exegetical and Critical Commentary, Vol. I, Part II (Guardian Press,
1975; originally published 1871), p. 681.

Donald Guthrie: "The absence of the article with Theos has misled some
into thinking that the correct understanding of the statement would be
that 'the word was a God' (or divine), but this is grammatically
indefensible since Theos is a predicate." New Testament Theology
(InterVarsity Press, 1981), p. 327.

Bruce Metzger: "It must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah's
Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists... As
a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful
mistranslation." "The Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ," Theology
Today (April 1953), p. 75.

Julius R. Mantey: "Since Colwell's and Harner's article in JBL,
especially that of Harner, it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to
translate John 1:1 "The Word was a god." Word-order has made obsolete
and incorrect such a rendering... In view of the preceding facts,
especially because you have been quoting me out of context, I herewith
request you not to quote the Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament
again, which you have been doing for 24 years." Letter from Mantey to
the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. "A Grossly Misleading
Translation... John 1:1, which reads 'In the beginning was the Word
and the Word was with God and the Word was God.' is shockingly
mistranslated, "Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was a god,' in a New World Translation of the Christian
Greek Scriptures, published under the auspices of Jehovah's
Witnesses." Statement by J. R. Mantey, published in various sources.

B. F. Westcott: "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in
v.24. It is necessarily without the article (theos not ho theos)
inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify
His Person... No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the
form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word."
The Gospel According to St. John (Eerdmans, 1958 reprint), p. 3.

Who are these scholars? Many of them are world-renowned Greek scholars
whose works the Jehovah's Witnesses themselves have quoted in their
publications, notably Robertson, Harner, and Mantey, in defense of
their "a god" translation of John 1:1! Westcott is the Greek scholar
who with Hort edited the Greek text of the New Testament used by the
Jehovah's Witnesses. Yeager is a professor of Greek and the star pupil
of Julius Mantey. Metzger is the world's leading scholar on the
textual criticism of the Greek New Testament. It is scholars of this
caliber who insist that the words of John 1:1 cannot be taken to mean
anything less than that the Word is the one true Almighty God.



CRI, P.O. Box 7000, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
Phone (949) 858-6100 and Fax (949) 858-6111

[GSI]

And even those who have, are still arrogant assholes.
They are LIARS. Their so-called "God" is a LIE.
Their "Messiah" and "salvation" is a fantasy.
Their "Christianity" is a self-made and a LIE.


> Michael Christ

[Michael Christ]

On May 14, 7:41 am, GSI <g...@itchynet.com> wrote:
> On 2013-05-02 05:00:44 +0000, Michael Christ said:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 2, 9:47 am, Barry OGrady <athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 1 May 2013 18:40:29 -0700 (PDT), Michael Christ
>
> >> <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> A sinner has a devastated landscape.
>
> >>> Only to him he thinks it is flourishing panorama with a few areas he
> >>> needs to attend to in order to bring it up to scratch.
>
> >>> Oh those man-made christians!!!
>
> > BOG wrote:
> >> All have sinned.

Michael Christ wrote:
> > But not all have [truly] repented.

GSI wrote:
> And even those who have, are still arrogant assholes.

You have spoken of things you know not of.

You would not know them or recognise them because you are of the
world.



Michael Christ

[Ike]

On 5/12/2013 9:56 PM, Up from the Abyss wrote:
> jwsheffield wrote:
>>
>> What is the Gospel?
>
> <snip>
>
> Hebrews 4:2

Hebrews is spurious.

Ike

[Ike]

On 5/12/2013 11:33 PM, jwshe...@satx.rr.com wrote:

> Hebrews 10:12

Hebrews is spurious.

Ike

[Up from the Abyss]

"James" wrote:
> > Up from the Abyss wrote:
> >> jwsheffield wrote:
> >>> Up from the Abyss wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hebrews 4:2 For we also have had the *Gospel*
> >>>> proclaimed to us, just as *they* did; but the message
> >>>> they heard was of no value to them, because they
> >>>> did not share the faith of those who obeyed.
> >>>>
> >>>> Who were "they"?
> >>>
> >>> 2 For unto us was the gospel preached,
> >>> as well as unto them:
> >>> but the word preached did not profit them,
> >>> not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
>
> From what I can tell, "they" were the Jews who were
> still under Judaism.

Well said. So they also had the good news preached
to them.

Now the question is: According to the context of
Hebrews chapters 3 and 4, when was this good
news preached to them?

> Notice who the gospel was preached to first: Mt 10:5,6,
>
> " 5. These twelve Jesus sent forth, and charged them, saying,
> Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and enter not into any
> city of the Samaritans:
> 6. but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. " (ASV)
>
> And Acts 10:36,37,
>
> "36. The word which he sent unto the children of Israel, preaching
> good tidings of peace by Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all.) --
> 37. that saying ye yourselves know, which was published throughout
> all Judaea, beginning from Galilee, after the baptism which John
> preached; "
>
> Notice the preaching was aimed at "lost sheep of the house of
> Israel.", "the children of Israel". So that would mean the Jews, not
> the Gentiles.

Indeed. Yet, based upon the context of Hebrews 3 and 4, when
did this first occur?

> But just as Paul mentioned, the Jews for the most part, did not
> accept Jesus.
>
> So the "they" would be those Jews.

Well said. But again, what was the timing of that "good news"
first being preached to them?

[Up from the Abyss]

"Ike" wrote:
> Up from the Abyss wrote:
> > jwsheffield wrote:
> >>
> >> What is the Gospel?
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Hebrews 4:2
>
> Hebrews is spurious.

Perhaps it is to you. But it is not to them.

And, Hebrews proves something that they do
not wish to hear. OTOH: That may also prove
true with regard to you, thus why IYO you
consider it as spurious.

[Ike]

On 5/20/2013 1:00 AM, Up from the Abyss wrote:
> "Ike" wrote:
>> Up from the Abyss wrote:
>>> jwsheffield wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What is the Gospel?
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Hebrews 4:2
>>
>> Hebrews is spurious.
>
> Perhaps it is to you. But it is not to them.

Ah, no it was to the ante-Nicene Church Fathers for three hundred years
before the so-called Great Councils included it for political reasons.

It was to the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent.

It was to Luther.

> And, Hebrews proves something that they do
> not wish to hear.

LOL

Hebrews was written as a direct assault on John's Revelation by an
Essene-influenced Ebionite heretic some time in the Second Century, at
the earliest.

Oh, and I don't deal in opinions, moron--I go and find the pertinent facts.

Ike

[Ike]

On 5/20/2013 12:59 AM, Up from the Abyss wrote:
> "James" wrote:
>>> Up from the Abyss wrote:
>>>> jwsheffield wrote:
>>>>> Up from the Abyss wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hebrews 4:2 For we also have had the *Gospel*
>>>>>> proclaimed to us, just as *they* did; but the message
>>>>>> they heard was of no value to them, because they
>>>>>> did not share the faith of those who obeyed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who were "they"?
>>>>>
>>>>> 2 For unto us was the gospel preached,
>>>>> as well as unto them:
>>>>> but the word preached did not profit them,
>>>>> not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
>>
>> From what I can tell, "they" were the Jews who were
>> still under Judaism.
>
> Well said. So they also had the good news preached
> to them.
>
> Now the question is: According to the context of
> Hebrews chapters 3 and 4, when was this good
> news preached to them?

That's irrelevant, since 1) Hebrews is spurious, and 2) there were few
Jews left in the days of Jesus and the boys. Now there are none left.

>> Notice who the gospel was preached to first: Mt 10:5,6,
>>
>> " 5. These twelve Jesus sent forth, and charged them, saying,
>> Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and enter not into any
>> city of the Samaritans:
>> 6. but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. " (ASV)
>>
>> And Acts 10:36,37,
>>
>> "36. The word which he sent unto the children of Israel, preaching
>> good tidings of peace by Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all.) --
>> 37. that saying ye yourselves know, which was published throughout
>> all Judaea, beginning from Galilee, after the baptism which John
>> preached; "
>>
>> Notice the preaching was aimed at "lost sheep of the house of
>> Israel.", "the children of Israel". So that would mean the Jews, not
>> the Gentiles.
>
> Indeed. Yet, based upon the context of Hebrews 3 and 4, when
> did this first occur?

Hebrews is irrelevant.

Acts isn't, and Acts stated that the Gospel came to the Gentiles when
Peter received His vision from God telling him to do so; but the boys
should have figured it out earlier, given the nature of the second
Pentecost.

>> But just as Paul mentioned, the Jews for the most part, did not
>> accept Jesus.
>>
>> So the "they" would be those Jews.
>
> Well said. But again, what was the timing of that "good news"
> first being preached to them?

Yo. Asshole. Quit playing games and answer your own question (so I can
yet again prove you're wrong, and you can run and hide once more).

Ike

[Up from the Abyss]

"Ike" wrote:
> Up from the Abyss wrote:

> > "James" wrote:
> >>
> >> From what I can tell, "they" were the Jews who were
> >> still under Judaism.
> >
> > Well said. So they also had the good news preached
> > to them.
> >
> > Now the question is: According to the context of
> > Hebrews chapters 3 and 4, when was this good
> > news preached to them?
>
> That's irrelevant, since 1) Hebrews is spurious, and 2) there
> were few Jews left in the days of Jesus and the boys.

IOW: You can't or won't answer the question.

> Now there are none left.

Have you personally interviewed everyone in so that you
can make that claim of a surety?

<snip>

> >> So the "they" would be those Jews.
> >
> > Well said. But again, what was the timing of that
> > "good news" first being preached to them?
>
> Yo. Asshole. Quit playing games and answer your own
> question (so I can yet again prove you're wrong, and you
> can run and hide once more).

Why should I answer it, can not you answer it?

[Ike]

On 5/30/2013 6:47 PM, Up from the Abyss wrote:
>
> "Ike" wrote:
>> Up from the Abyss wrote:
>>> "James" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> From what I can tell, "they" were the Jews who were
>>>> still under Judaism.
>>>
>>> Well said. So they also had the good news preached
>>> to them.
>>>
>>> Now the question is: According to the context of
>>> Hebrews chapters 3 and 4, when was this good
>>> news preached to them?
>>
>> That's irrelevant, since 1) Hebrews is spurious, and 2) there
>> were few Jews left in the days of Jesus and the boys.
>
> IOW: You can't or won't answer the question.

The question itself is invalid, moron, as HEBREWS IS SPURIOUS.

(Yeesh, are you ever dumb.)

>> Now there are none left.
>
> Have you personally interviewed everyone in so that you
> can make that claim of a surety?

Don't need to. God has already declared it in the Word, and He started
declaring it back with Jesus, Paul, and John, et al.

>>>> So the "they" would be those Jews.
>>>
>>> Well said. But again, what was the timing of that
>>> "good news" first being preached to them?
>>
>> Yo. Asshole. Quit playing games and answer your own
>> question (so I can yet again prove you're wrong, and you
>> can run and hide once more).
>
> Why should I answer it, can not you answer it?

LOL

What a moron: The question itself is INVALID.

<chuckle>

Ike

[duke]

On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 07:37:14 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/30/2013 6:47 PM, Up from the Abyss wrote:
>>
>> "Ike" wrote:
>>> Up from the Abyss wrote:
>>>> "James" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> From what I can tell, "they" were the Jews who were
>>>>> still under Judaism.
>>>>
>>>> Well said. So they also had the good news preached
>>>> to them.
>>>>
>>>> Now the question is: According to the context of
>>>> Hebrews chapters 3 and 4, when was this good
>>>> news preached to them?
>>>
>>> That's irrelevant, since 1) Hebrews is spurious, and 2) there
>>> were few Jews left in the days of Jesus and the boys.
>>
>> IOW: You can't or won't answer the question.
>
>The question itself is invalid, moron, as HEBREWS IS SPURIOUS.

And still now declared inspired scripture and included in the canonized bible.

You can't hide from facts and truth, ike.

>(Yeesh, are you ever dumb.)

Lookie here who's talking.

>>> Now there are none left.
>> Have you personally interviewed everyone in so that you
>> can make that claim of a surety?

>Don't need to. God has already declared it in the Word, and He started
>declaring it back with Jesus, Paul, and John, et al.

Including Hebrews.

The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama - most impotent president ever.
Five major US scandals and still going strong:
a)Fast/Furious,b)IRS,c)NSA d)News Phone Records,
e)Selective enforcement of environmental laws
********************************************

[Ike]

On 7/6/2013 8:35 AM, duke wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 07:37:14 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/30/2013 6:47 PM, Up from the Abyss wrote:
>>>
>>> "Ike" wrote:
>>>> Up from the Abyss wrote:
>>>>> "James" wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From what I can tell, "they" were the Jews who were
>>>>>> still under Judaism.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well said. So they also had the good news preached
>>>>> to them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now the question is: According to the context of
>>>>> Hebrews chapters 3 and 4, when was this good
>>>>> news preached to them?
>>>>
>>>> That's irrelevant, since 1) Hebrews is spurious, and 2) there
>>>> were few Jews left in the days of Jesus and the boys.
>>>
>>> IOW: You can't or won't answer the question.
>>
>> The question itself is invalid, moron, as HEBREWS IS SPURIOUS.
>
> And still now declared inspired scripture and included in the canonized bible.

Go read your own churches' history, moron.

Ike

[duke]

All valid bibles include Hebrews as canonized scripture.

[Ike]

On 7/8/2013 4:33 PM, duke wrote:

I repeat, go read your own chuches' history, moron.

Ike

[duke]

The inquisition and crusades were good civil moves.

[Up from the Abyss]

"Ike" wrote:
> Up from the Abyss wrote:
> > "Ike" wrote:
> >> Up from the Abyss wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Now the question is: According to the context of
> >>> Hebrews chapters 3 and 4, when was this good
> >>> news preached to them?
> >>
> >> That's irrelevant, since 1) Hebrews is spurious, and
> >> 2) there were few Jews left in the days of Jesus and
> >> the boys.
> >
> > IOW: You can't or won't answer the question.
>
> The question itself is invalid, moron, as HEBREWS IS
> SPURIOUS.
>
> (Yeesh, are you ever dumb.)

Yet, the question can still be answered, from the text of
Hebrews, spurious or not.

Just as the question of who was the master of Rivendell
can be answered from the text of Tolkien's works.

> >> Now there are none left.
> >
> > Have you personally interviewed everyone in so that you
> > can make that claim of a surety?
>
> Don't need to. God has already declared it in the Word,
> and He started declaring it back with Jesus, Paul, and
> John, et al.

So, even in the time of Eliyah, there were not 7k reserved?

Which, even your Paul speaks of?

<snip>

[duke]

On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 18:12:29 -0700, "Up from the Abyss" <U...@Abyss.net> wrote:

>
>"Ike" wrote:
>> Up from the Abyss wrote:
>> > "Ike" wrote:
>> >> Up from the Abyss wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Now the question is: According to the context of
>> >>> Hebrews chapters 3 and 4, when was this good
>> >>> news preached to them?
>> >>
>> >> That's irrelevant, since 1) Hebrews is spurious, and
>> >> 2) there were few Jews left in the days of Jesus and
>> >> the boys.
>> >
>> > IOW: You can't or won't answer the question.
>>
>> The question itself is invalid, moron, as HEBREWS IS
>> SPURIOUS.
>>
>> (Yeesh, are you ever dumb.)
>
>Yet, the question can still be answered, from the text of
>Hebrews, spurious or not.

Any way you cut it, Hebrews has been declared by the Chruch Fathers to be fully
in accordance with the teachings of Jesus.

Ike's a fool going mad because others know more than he does.

[Ike]

On 7/9/2013 12:03 PM, duke wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 05:12:31 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/8/2013 4:33 PM, duke wrote:
>>
>> I repeat, go read your own chuches' history, moron.
>> Ike

[snip the dodge]

Now, go read your own church's history ON THE SUBJECT OF CANON, which
was the point of discussion, dickhead.

(But, of course, the dickhead won't, because THE FACTS prove me right,
and him wrong.)

Ike

[Ike]

On 7/10/2013 9:12 PM, Up from the Abyss wrote:
> "Ike" wrote:
>> Up from the Abyss wrote:
>>> "Ike" wrote:
>>>> Up from the Abyss wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Now the question is: According to the context of
>>>>> Hebrews chapters 3 and 4, when was this good
>>>>> news preached to them?
>>>>
>>>> That's irrelevant, since 1) Hebrews is spurious, and
>>>> 2) there were few Jews left in the days of Jesus and
>>>> the boys.
>>>
>>> IOW: You can't or won't answer the question.
>>
>> The question itself is invalid, moron, as HEBREWS IS
>> SPURIOUS.
>>
>> (Yeesh, are you ever dumb.)
>
> Yet, the question can still be answered, from the text of
> Hebrews, spurious or not.

LOL

What a moron: Hebrews was written as an attack on John's "Revelation"
through the use of FALSE answers to the PROPER answers that John gave,
and the moron wants to use lies to substantiate lives.

>>>> Now there are none left.
>>>
>>> Have you personally interviewed everyone in so that you
>>> can make that claim of a surety?
>>
>> Don't need to. God has already declared it in the Word,
>> and He started declaring it back with Jesus, Paul, and
>> John, et al.
>
> So, even in the time of Eliyah, there were not 7k reserved?

And the fool babbles on, not knowing that he just CITED the example that
Paul used to PROVE THE POINT I ALREADY STATED.

<chuckle>

Ike

[Ike]

On 7/11/2013 3:14 PM, duke wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 18:12:29 -0700, "Up from the Abyss" <U...@Abyss.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Ike" wrote:
>>> Up from the Abyss wrote:
>>>> "Ike" wrote:
>>>>> Up from the Abyss wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now the question is: According to the context of
>>>>>> Hebrews chapters 3 and 4, when was this good
>>>>>> news preached to them?
>>>>>
>>>>> That's irrelevant, since 1) Hebrews is spurious, and
>>>>> 2) there were few Jews left in the days of Jesus and
>>>>> the boys.
>>>>
>>>> IOW: You can't or won't answer the question.
>>>
>>> The question itself is invalid, moron, as HEBREWS IS
>>> SPURIOUS.
>>>
>>> (Yeesh, are you ever dumb.)
>>
>> Yet, the question can still be answered, from the text of
>> Hebrews, spurious or not.
>
> Any way you cut it, Hebrews has been declared by the Chruch Fathers to be fully
> in accordance with the teachings of Jesus.

That's a flat out lie.

Ike

[duke]

On Sat, 13 Jul 2013 05:32:06 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 7/9/2013 12:03 PM, duke wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 05:12:31 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/8/2013 4:33 PM, duke wrote:
>>>
>>> I repeat, go read your own chuches' history, moron.
>>> Ike
>
>[snip the dodge]
>
>Now, go read your own church's history ON THE SUBJECT OF CANON, which
>was the point of discussion, dickhead.

Bailout, bailout, bailout. Actually, it wasn't, but none the less, the
canonized bible is the selected version.

can·on·ize (kn-nz)
tr.v. can·on·ized, can·on·iz·ing, can·on·iz·es
1. To declare (a deceased person) to be a saint and entitled to be fully
honored as such.
2. To include in the biblical canon.
3. To include in a literary canon.
4. To approve as being within canon law.
5. To treat as sacred; glorify.

Which one do you prefer, ike fool?

>(But, of course, the dickhead won't, because THE FACTS prove me right,
>and him wrong.)
>Ike

Bailout, bailout, bailout.

[duke]

It's in the bible, ike, YOUR........bible.

[Ike]

On 7/13/2013 12:58 PM, duke wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jul 2013 05:34:38 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/11/2013 3:14 PM, duke wrote:
>>> On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 18:12:29 -0700, "Up from the Abyss" <U...@Abyss.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Ike" wrote:
>>>>> Up from the Abyss wrote:
>>>>>> "Ike" wrote:
>>>>>>> Up from the Abyss wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now the question is: According to the context of
>>>>>>>> Hebrews chapters 3 and 4, when was this good
>>>>>>>> news preached to them?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's irrelevant, since 1) Hebrews is spurious, and
>>>>>>> 2) there were few Jews left in the days of Jesus and
>>>>>>> the boys.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IOW: You can't or won't answer the question.
>>>>>
>>>>> The question itself is invalid, moron, as HEBREWS IS
>>>>> SPURIOUS.
>>>>>
>>>>> (Yeesh, are you ever dumb.)
>>>>
>>>> Yet, the question can still be answered, from the text of
>>>> Hebrews, spurious or not.
>>>
>>> Any way you cut it, Hebrews has been declared by the Chruch Fathers to be fully
>>> in accordance with the teachings of Jesus.
>>
>> That's a flat out lie.
>

> It's in the bible, ike...

Notice how the heretic and liar failed to address the point.

The "Church Fathers" DENIED that Hebrews was authentic. Even the
Catholic Church denied it until THE COUNTER-REFORMATION, when STUPIDITY
became the modus operandi of Catholicism.

Ike

[Ike]

On 7/13/2013 12:57 PM, duke wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jul 2013 05:32:06 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/9/2013 12:03 PM, duke wrote:
>>> On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 05:12:31 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/8/2013 4:33 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I repeat, go read your own chuches' history, moron.
>>>> Ike
>>
>> [snip the dodge]
>>
>> Now, go read your own church's history ON THE SUBJECT OF CANON, which
>> was the point of discussion, dickhead.
>

> Bailout...

No, that's what YOU'RE doing, asshole, and you know it.

The RCC DENIED that Hebrews was authentic until the Council of Trent,
when assholes completely took over Catholicism.

Ike

[duke]

Lut tried to change the Catholic Chruch into something he wanted. He failed,
but he got your kind hook, line and sinker.

The Council issued condemnations on what it defined as Protestant heresies at
the time of the Reformation and defined Church teachings in the areas of
Scripture and Tradition, Original Sin, Justification, Sacraments, the Eucharist
in Holy Mass and the veneration of saints. It issued numerous reform decrees.[3]
By specifying Catholic doctrine on salvation, the sacraments, and the Biblical
canon, the Council was answering Protestant disputes.

Now you run along and see how much more trouble you can get into by following
lut.

[duke]

It's canonized scripture, ike.

[Ike]

And again, the blasphemer and heretic fails to address the point.

Ike

[Ike]

On 7/16/2013 12:56 PM, duke wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 06:57:11 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/13/2013 12:57 PM, duke wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Jul 2013 05:32:06 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/9/2013 12:03 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 05:12:31 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/8/2013 4:33 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I repeat, go read your own chuches' history, moron.
>>>>>> Ike
>>>>
>>>> [snip the dodge]
>>>>
>>>> Now, go read your own church's history ON THE SUBJECT OF CANON, which
>>>> was the point of discussion, dickhead.
>>>
>>> Bailout...
>
>> No, that's what YOU'RE doing, asshole, and you know it.
>> The RCC DENIED that Hebrews was authentic until the Council of Trent,
>> when assholes completely took over Catholicism.

[snip the no-rebuttal rebuttal]

Ike

[duke]

Ike nailed again. Unable to refute.

[duke]

And again ike runs away being unable to discuss the issues.

[Ike]

Classic self-projection: The chicken shit runs away from the facts when
they prove him wrong, as usual.

Ike

[Ike]

On 7/18/2013 1:33 PM, duke wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 15:09:44 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/16/2013 12:56 PM, duke wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 06:57:11 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/13/2013 12:57 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 13 Jul 2013 05:32:06 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/9/2013 12:03 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 05:12:31 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 7/8/2013 4:33 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I repeat, go read your own chuches' history, moron.
>>>>>>>> Ike
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [snip the dodge]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, go read your own church's history ON THE SUBJECT OF CANON, which
>>>>>> was the point of discussion, dickhead.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bailout...
>>>
>>>> No, that's what YOU'RE doing, asshole, and you know it.
>>>> The RCC DENIED that Hebrews was authentic until the Council of Trent,
>>>> when assholes completely took over Catholicism.
>>
>> [snip the no-rebuttal rebuttal]
>>
>> Ike
>
> Ike nailed again. Unable to refute.

It's already refuted by 2,000 years of history.

Ike

[duke]

On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 14:00:34 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 7/18/2013 1:33 PM, duke wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 15:09:44 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/16/2013 12:56 PM, duke wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 06:57:11 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/13/2013 12:57 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Jul 2013 05:32:06 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7/9/2013 12:03 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 05:12:31 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 7/8/2013 4:33 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I repeat, go read your own chuches' history, moron.
>>>>>>>>> Ike
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [snip the dodge]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now, go read your own church's history ON THE SUBJECT OF CANON, which
>>>>>>> was the point of discussion, dickhead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bailout...
>>>>
>>>>> No, that's what YOU'RE doing, asshole, and you know it.
>>>>> The RCC DENIED that Hebrews was authentic until the Council of Trent,
>>>>> when assholes completely took over Catholicism.

>> Ike nailed again. Unable to refute.
>It's already refuted by 2,000 years of history.

It's canonized scripture.

[duke]

Why do you always run away without ever trying to substantiate your points?

[Ike]

On 7/19/2013 3:24 PM, duke wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 14:00:34 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/18/2013 1:33 PM, duke wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 15:09:44 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/16/2013 12:56 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 06:57:11 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/13/2013 12:57 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Jul 2013 05:32:06 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 7/9/2013 12:03 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 05:12:31 -0400, Ike <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/8/2013 4:33 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I repeat, go read your own chuches' history, moron.
>>>>>>>>>> Ike
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [snip the dodge]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now, go read your own church's history ON THE SUBJECT OF CANON, which
>>>>>>>> was the point of discussion, dickhead.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bailout...
>>>>>
>>>>>> No, that's what YOU'RE doing, asshole, and you know it.
>>>>>> The RCC DENIED that Hebrews was authentic until the Council of Trent,
>>>>>> when assholes completely took over Catholicism.
>
>>> Ike nailed again. Unable to refute.
>> It's already refuted by 2,000 years of history.
>
> It's canonized scripture.

And the dog continues to chase his own tail.

Go read your own church's history, moron.

Ike

[Ike]

And the fool persists in his foolishness.

Ike

[duke]

God's Word is like that. There is no end.

>Go read your own church's history, moron.
>Ike

Gotcha.

[duke]

Another meaningless statement from ike.

[Ike]

No, it's your dishonestly and lack of Christian integrity that makes all
of your "religious" blather meaningless, fool.

Ike

[Ike]

Only to you and your ilk, antichristian.

>> Go read your own church's history, moron.
>> Ike
>
> Gotcha.

No, your own foolishness has got you...by the throat, numbnuts.

Ike

[duke]

Old ike, now demonstratively totally ignorant on scripture.

>>> Go read your own church's history, moron.
>>> Ike
>>
>> Gotcha.
>
>No, your own foolishness has got you...by the throat, numbnuts.
>
>Ike

[duke]

You don't know anything about scripture to discuss.

[Ike]

Moron, you haven't even begun to perceive what's in scripture.

>>>> Go read your own church's history, moron.
>>>> Ike
>>>
>>> Gotcha.
>>
>> No, your own foolishness has got you...by the throat, numbnuts.

And still does.

Ike

[Ike]

On 8/1/2013 8:20 AM, duke wrote:

...said the moron who doesn't know the first thing about it.

Ike

[duke]

I know, and you're day dreaming about it.

>>>>> Go read your own church's history, moron.
>>>>> Ike
>>>>
>>>> Gotcha.
>>>
>>> No, your own foolishness has got you...by the throat, numbnuts.
>
>And still does.
>
>Ike

[duke]

I rest my case.

>
>Ike